Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-18-2019 Hearing Examiner Agenda Packet
HEARING EXAMINER December 18, 2019 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 25 West Main Street I. Case No: PLT16-0006 Robbins Preliminary Plat Applicant(s): Mark and Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 Agent: Adam E. Paul, PE, Principal Civil Engineer AP Consulting Engineers PLLC PO Box 162 Auburn, WA 98071 Request: Preliminary Plat application to subdivide approximately 6.2 acres consisting of three parcels into 31 single-family residential lots in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. Project Location: Addresses associated with the existing houses on the site include 32225 & 32235 56th Ave. S. The project site is located west of the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl. It is within NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 21, Range 4, W.M. Parcel Number(s): King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166. II. Case No: PLT19-0004 Aston Park Preliminary Plat Applicant(s): Ed Mecum Senior Engineer Encompass Engineering 165 NE Juniper St Issaquah, WA 98027 Property Owner(s): Randy Goodwin Aston Park LLC 15215 SE 272nd St Ste 201 Kent, WA 98042 1 of 404 Request: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.43 acres into 20 single-family residential lots, two critical area tracts, and one stormwater management tract in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. Project Location: The project site is located on the north side of SE 304th St., between 116th Ave. SE and 118th Ave. SE, within SW ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 N, Range 5 E. W.M. Parcel Number(s): King County Assessor Parcel No. 786700-0005. 2 of 404 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM HEARING EXAMINER Agenda Subject/Title: PLT16-0006, Robbins Preliminary Plat Date: December 2, 2019 Department: Community Development DESCRIPTION: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 6.2 acres consisting of three parcels into 31 single-family residential lots in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve Robbins Preliminary Plat with 14 conditions and to approve the Engineering Deviation request regarding intersection spacing. PROJECT SUMMARY: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 6.2 acres into 31 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows between 4 and 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre. The proposed lots will range from 4,568 square feet (SF) to 23,331 SF in area. The plat will extend a new public road (S 323rd St.) approximately 363 feet west of 56th Ave. S and terminate in a cul-de-sac, and three (3) new private combined access and utility tracts (Tracts B, C, and D) will extend from the new public road. One lot with an existing house will continue to take access off of 56th Ave. S. Lakehaven Water and Sewer District (“Lakehaven”) utility lines will be extended to and through the site to serve each lot. Stormwater will be managed on site via a public stormwater pond (located within Tract A). LOCATION: Addresses associated with the existing houses on the site include 32225 & 32235 56th Ave. S. The project site is located west of the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl. It is within NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 21, Range 4, W.M. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166. APPLICANT(S)/PROPERTY OWNER(S): Mark and Kyla Robbins, 32235 56th Ave. S, Auburn, WA 98001 APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Adam E. Paul, PE, Principal Civil Engineer, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, PO Box 162, Auburn, WA 98071 3 of 404 Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Classification and Current Land Use: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Project Site Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-family Residences and associated accessory structures North Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences South Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences East Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences West Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences Excerpted Zoning Map: 4 of 404 Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Map: 2017 Aerial Vicinity Map: 5 of 404 Street Layout Map: SEPA STATUS: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP16-0020 on July 18, 2019, see Exhibit 4. The comment period ended August 2, 2019 and the appeal period ended August 16, 2019. The City received three written comments. The comment(s) received along with the City responses are included as Exhibit 6. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received. 6 of 404 FINDINGS OF FACT: Preliminary Plat Findings 1. Adam E. Paul, Principal Civil Engineer, with AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, on behalf of Mark and Kyla Robbins, Property Owners, submitted a Preliminary Plat application to subdivide approximately 6.2 acres into 31 single-family residential lots, one new public road (S 323rd St.) terminating in a cul-de-sac, three new private access and utility tracts (Tracts B, C, and D), and one stormwater pond (Tract A), referred to in this Staff Report as the “Project”. 2. The Site consists of three parcels and is located in the West Hill portion of the City, between 151st Ave. S to the west and 56th Ave. S to the east, and north of S 324th St. and south of S 321st St. The Site is located within the City of Auburn’s corporate limits, and referenced by King County Tax Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166. 3. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” and is currently zoned “R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre”, which has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 6.2 acres, which in accordance with the density standards would require the site yield between 24.8 (rounded to 25 per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) and 31 lots. 4. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in effect at the time the Project application was considered “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC 18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include: • Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet • Minimum lot width: 50 feet • Lot cot coverage: 40% • Impervious surface: 65% • Maximum building height: 35 feet • Minimum yard setbacks: o Front: 10 feet o Side, interior: 5 feet o Side, street: 10 feet o Rear: 20 feet 5. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces per single family residence is required with future house construction. 6. The Site currently has two single-family homes, one vacant home on Parcel No. 9262800140 (west) and one occupied home on Parcel No. 926800136 (east), and a three accessory structures (barn, garage, and a shed). The accessory structures will be demolished. The homes will remain and become proposed Lots 1 and 31 of the preliminary plat. The home on proposed Lot 31 (east) will continue to have vehicle access via 56th Ave S. 7. The Site is roughly rectangular in shape, as shown and dimensioned here: 7 of 404 8. The Site abuts an existing “Residential Collector” classified street to the east (56th Ave. S). In accordance with City standards (Chapter12.64A ACC (“Required Public Improvements”)) Half-street improvements will be required along the Site’s frontage on 56th Ave. S. 9. A new “Local Residential” classified public road, S 323rd St., extending approximately 363 ft. west from 56th Ave. S, will be constructed with improvements meeting “local residential” standards, and terminate in a cul-de-sac at the west end. Three new private access/utility tracts (Tracts B, C, and D) will stem off the new roadway of S 323rd St. The preliminary plat identifies which lots are proposed to take vehicle access via these private tracts. For full size plans, see Exhibit 7. 10. The Site is located within the utility service area of, and will be served by, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District (Lakehaven) for public sewer and water. The preliminary plat application was accompanied by water and sewer certificates of availability from Lakehaven. 11. The plat will be required to extend water and sewer lines to serve the plat. Per the Lakehaven Water Availability Certificate, a Lakehaven water line will be extended approximately 61 feet from the existing water main in 56th Ave. S in the new public road (S 323rd St.) and private tracts. The Lakehaven Sewer Availability Certificate states, that a Lakehaven sewer line will be extended approximately 965 feet north from S 324th St. through a public utility easement, to S 323rd St., and will terminate just west of 56th Ave. S and within the private tracts. 12. The slope across the site is not uniform. The site ranges in elevation from 450 feet near the northwest and southeast corners to 420 feet at the southwest corner. The change in topography is best described as sloping downward gradually from the north, and from east to the southwest corner of the Site. The Applicant has provided the City with adequate information to show that the project will be in conformance with the City’s Critical Areas 369.78 ft. 614.56 ft. 506.95 ft. 340.34 ft. 251.78 ft. 8 of 404 Code (Chapter 16.10 ACC) and Engineering Design Standards. For additional information, see the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9). 13. The Site is located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) as prescribed by the critical area regulations. As recommended in the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan (Exhibit 11), stormwater runoff from the Project will be treated and detained in a stormwater detention facility (‘stormwater pond’) located in Tract A, in accordance with the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements. The Tract A is proposed to be publically dedicated at the time of final plat. 14. The Site is not located within the area of jurisdiction of the city’s Shoreline Management Plan. 15. The Site is not located in the regulatory floodplain per the City’s critical area inventory mapping system 16. Per the City’s and King County iMap’s critical area inventory mapping system no wetlands, streams, priority habitat areas, or state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant or animal species identified on the Site. 17. Per the “Existing Features Map” (Sheet C2) of the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7), AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated October 22, 2019 the Site features 428 significant trees, providing a density of 69 trees per acre, including coniferous trees (pine, cedar, Douglas fir), and deciduous trees (alders and maples). City Code defines a significant tree as “a healthy evergreen tree, six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade, or a healthy deciduous tree four inches or more in diameter measured four feet above grade” (reference ACC 18.50.045(A)). 18. There are features of occupation (apparent property line encroachments) along the northeast boundary of the Site affecting the subject site and adjoining parcels, which are shown and appropriately dimensioned on Sheet C2 of the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7). Any potential adverse claims and/or unwritten rights associated with the depicted occupation features is a civil matter between private parties. During the civil plan review process, any encroaching item will need to be relocated or an easement granted to the owner of the encroaching item. 19. To reduce or avoid temporary noise impacts associated with the Project, all construction shall occur between the city standard hours of 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays, and between 9 AM and 6 PM on Saturday and Sunday as required per ACC 8.28.010(B)(8) unless alternate hours are applied for and approved. 20. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the future residents of the Project, the current park impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.08 ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’. 9 of 404 21. To mitigate increased demand for schools created by the future residents of the Project, the current school impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’. 22. To mitigate increased demand for fire/emergency services generated by the Project, the fire impact fee in effect shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’. 23. To mitigate increased PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule shall be assessed at building permit issuance in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact Fees’. 24. A combined ‘Notice of Application’ and ‘Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)’, was issued on July 18, 2019 (Exhibit 4). To meet city requirements for public notice, the notice was posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle Times newspaper. 25. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing was issued on November 21, 2019 (Exhibit 5). The notice was posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle Times newspaper. 26. In response to the public notices the City received a comment letter from three individual as of December 2, 2019 (the date this Staff Report was finalized) on the project. The following list is Staff’s abbreviated summary of the comment(s) along with a short summary of the City’s response, if one was necessitated. The comment and response is included as Exhibit 6. a. Joel Byram, resident: commented that no sewer exists on the Site, the area is flood prone, the project would result in the loss of tree canopy and an increase in traffic. City Response: Staff’s response included that sewer (and water) will be provided by Lakehaven and that the project is required to connect to sewer; the preliminary civil plans depict the extension of sewer lines. Surface water runoff will be conveyed to a stormwater detention pond to be constructed and located in the southwest corner of the site. Water from the stormwater tract will be discharged to a public convey system located in S 324th St. Staff is proposing a condition of approval of the preliminary plat to require the applicant to provide a tree planting plan to provide a partial replacement of tree canopy. 56th Ave. S, a “Residential Collector” street will be improved with sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and that the road sufficiently accommodates the vehicle trips of the 31 lots. b. Tracy and Darlene McFarland, residents: commented about the increase in residents on West Hill, and the loss of tree canopy. City Response: Staff forwarded their comment and concerns onto the applicant. c. Jennifer Russo, resident: commented about the increase in residents on West Hill, the removal of tree canopy, connectivity to other adjacent subdivisions, and the potential increase in more elementary school-aged children. City Response: Staff’s response included that the proposed number of lots meets density per the City’s Zoning Code. Whenever possible the City requires or recommends 10 of 404 connectivity between adjacent subdivisions. Since there are no subdivisions (foreseeable subdivisions) adjacent to the proposed project, at this time staff is not requiring a connection between the Project and an adjacent subdivision. Staff is proposing a condition of approval of the preliminary plat to require the applicant to provide a tree planting plan to provide a partial replacement of tree canopy. Engineering Deviation Findings 1. On July 10, 2017 the applicant submitted a request for a “deviation” from the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS) to reduce the intersection spacing between the new intersection of S 323rd St. and 56th Ave. S and the existing the intersection of S 322nd Pl. and 56th Ave. S from 250 ft. to 194 ft. A minimum intersection spacing is required by Section 10.04.1.1 of the Engineering Design Standards (City File No. DEV17-0015, Exhibit 12). 2. Deviations from the COADS are subject to approval of the Hearing Examiner per ACC 17.18.010(A) and COADS 1.04 which state (emphasis added): “ACC 17.18.010(A). The hearing examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC or established or referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards, upon making the findings of fact in ACC 17.18.030; provided, that the hearing examiner shall obtain the concurrence of the city engineer for any requests to modify any city of Auburn design or construction standard.” “COADS 1.04. For deviation applications that are associated with a preliminary plat application submitted in compliance with Chapter 17.10 ACC, the deviation application and a recommendation from the City Engineer must accompany the preliminary plat to the hearing examiner.” 3. In support of the deviation, on June 20, 2019, the Engineer of Record and applicant’s representative (Adam E. Paul) provided a stamped and signed justification letter showing that adequate sight distance will be provided and that no safety or operational concerns are triggered by the reduction in intersection spacing. The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation request and justification and recommends approval (Exhibit 12), see Condition No. 1 under ‘Recommended Conditions of Approval’, below. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat Conclusions Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to this subdivision approval criteria (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis are given, below: 11 of 404 A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and schools; Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety, and general welfare are anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of subcategory listed in this criterion: Open Spaces: The Project is not subject to any park dedication, open space, or clustering requirements under Title 18 ‘Zoning’ or Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’. Drainage Ways: No existing drainage ways appear to be located on the Site. Through the civil plan review process, the stormwater runoff from the construction of the Project will be treated, and detained in a stormwater pond located in Tract A. The design and construction of the stormwater facilities will be required to meet the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and the City of Auburn Supplements. Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The Project will be required to construct streets per Chapter 12.64A ACC ‘Required Public Improvements’, the City’s Engineering Design Standards, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The City’s Transportation division has evaluated the plat and with the construction of S 323rd St. and the half-street improvements to 56th Ave. S, the Transportation Division finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. Additionally, as provided in ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 23, each new residence will be required to pay the traffic impact fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. More specifically, roadways will be constructed concurrent with the plat as follows: 1. Half-street improvements in accordance with Chapter 12.64A ACC to the Site’s frontage on 56th Ave. S. 2. Based on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification Map, the new public road, S 323rd St., will be a “Local Residential” street. S 323rd St. will extend westerly off of 56th Ave. S, will be constructed. This construction will consist of full street improvements meeting “local residential” standards, and terminating in a cul-de-sac. The full street improvements include a full- width paved roadway (28 ft.), curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls, and landscape strips. Parking will be allowed on the south side of the road. Lots No. 12-27 and 30 will take access from this road. 3. Tract B is a private access and utility tract featuring a paved roadway with a width of 20 ft. and a 5-ft. sidewalk on one side (minimum tract width is 25.5 feet). Two lots (Lots 28 and 29) will take access from this private access tract. The tract will be marked “No Parking” on both sides. Tract B will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 4. Tract C is a private access and utility tract featuring a paved roadway with a width of 20 ft. and a 5-ft. sidewalk on one side (minimum tract width is 25.5 feet). Six lots (Lots 1-5 and 8) will take access from this private access tract. Tract C features an 12 of 404 emergency vehicle turnaround. The tract will be marked “No Parking” on both sides. Tract C will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 5. Tract D is a private access and utility tract featuring a paved roadway with a width of 20 ft. and a 5-ft. sidewalk on one side (minimum tract width is. 25.5 f eet). Five lots (Lots 6-7, 9-10, and 11) will take access from Tract D. Tract D features an emergency vehicle turnaround. The tract will be marked “No Parking” on both sides. Tract D will be owned and maintained by the HOA. 6. Pedestrian access will be provided throughout the plat. Each access tract will feature a 5-ft. sidewalk on one side. Both sides of the new road, S 323rd St., will feature a 5 ft. sidewalk. Sidewalk on 56th Ave. S will be provided along the project frontage. One Deviation has been requested to allow the spacing of the intersection created by the new public road (S 323rd St.) and 56th Ave. S to be less than 250 ft. away from the existing intersection of S 322nd Pl. and 56th Ave. S. Per Section 10.04.1.1 of the Engineering Design Standards the minimum intersection spacing is 250 feet. The City Engineer has evaluated the reduction in intersection spacing and has recommended approval; please reference the “Engineering Deviation Conclusions” below. Public Water: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s water service area. Adequate water service will be provided for the Project. Lakehaven water will be extended into the Site from 56th Ave. S within the new public road (S 323rd St.). Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located in the Lakehaven’s sewer service area. Adequate sanitary sewer service will be provided for the Project. Lakehaven sewer will be extended north from S 324th St. through a public utility easement from the south, to S 323rd St., throughout the plat, then terminate just west of 56th Ave. S. Parks, Playgrounds: No parks or playgrounds are proposed for the Project and none are required under city code authority. Per ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 20, Park Impact Fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance (currently $3,500.00 per unit). The closest City park is “West Auburn Lake” (located north of the intersection of S 322nd Pl. and 58th Ave. S). West Auburn Lake is approximately 9.25 acres in size, features a walking trail, and is less than half a mile away from the Site (reference image below). West Auburn Lake is one of only two naturally occurring lakes or ponds in the City. The property was acquired by the City as a natural area and provides passive recreational opportunities. 13 of 404 Schools: The Site is located within the Auburn School District (ASD). Per the Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Evergreen Heights Elementary School; 2) Cascade Middle School, and 3) Auburn High School. Students will be bussed from a bus stop located near the intersection of 322nd Pl. and 56th Ave. S to their respective schools. Students will travel through the Site to 56th Ave. S, via the new public road (S 323rd St.), where they will walk to north to S 322nd St. and cross the street to the bus pickup spot. A safe walking route to the bus stop will be provided via the installation of sidewalk along the frontage of the Project as part of required half-street improvements. This information was provided from the Auburn School District (Exhibit 14). Per ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 21, School Impact Fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 14 of 404 Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family Residential’. The Project will subdivide approx. 6.2 acres into 31 lots for single family dwellings. Therefore this Project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single family dwellings. Additionally, adequate services and facilities can be provided to serve the plat. Lakehaven utilities, such as sewer and water will be extended to serve the proposed Project. The Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; all stormwater will be directed to the proposed on-site stormwater detention facility (‘stormwater pond’) pond located in the southwestern portion of the Site (Tract A). The stormwater pond will be required to meet applicable code and engineering design standards, as conditioned below. S 323rd St., a “Local Residential” public street will be constructed to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of the new road. Pedestrian access will be enhanced along 56th Ave. S by the dedication of approx. 3.5’ of right-of-way and construction of half-street improvements, which will include sidewalks. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department, Valley Regional Fire Authority, and the Auburn School District will also serve the 15 of 404 proposed Project. The Project will use an existing bus stop, located just north of the proposed Project, at the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl. Finally, impact fees including traffic, fire, parks, and school impact fees will mitigate increased service generated by the Project. The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Policies: “LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.” Capital Facilities “Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they require.” Policies: “CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with development.” “CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner.” “CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in order to develop.” “CF-7 The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or use.” “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” Policies: 16 of 404 “CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate share of related system needs.” “Objective 1.3. To ensure safe and adequate water service, for both domestic and fire protection purposes, to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.4. To ensure the efficient transmission of sanitary sewage to the appropriate treatment and disposal facilities in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” Policies: “CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements.” Transportation Plan “Connect-01: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.” “Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.” “Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments.” “Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.” “ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of- way include: • Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development; • Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and • Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.” 17 of 404 “Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.” Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan “PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an increasing population.” C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council; Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plans adopted by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030; Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purposes of Title 17 ACC ‘Land Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Robbins Preliminary Plat is a 31-lot subdivision that is consistent with the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations for the Auburn City Code, city plans and policies, and Engineering Design Standards. Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each item. “The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the city, and to: A. Prevent the overcrowding of land; Staff Analysis: The Project meets the minimum and base density of the R-5 zoning district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 3, the R-5 zoning district has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. As the site is approximately 6.2 acres, which based on the density calculation requires between 24.8 (rounded to 25 per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065(A)(1)(a)) and 31. As proposed, the Project will contain 31 lots, the base density for the R-5 zoning district. Therefore, the Project is consistent with city density standards and will not create an overcrowding of the land. B. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; 18 of 404 Staff Analysis: The new public road, S 323rd St., will provide vehicle access to the proposed lots and will include sidewalks on both sides of the road. Each of the private access tracts, Tracts B, C, and D, will feature sidewalks on one side of the tract. Therefore, the project will provide a means of safe and convenient travel via public routes. C. Promote the effective use of land; Staff Analysis: The Project is effectively developing the Site by maximizing the number of residential units that are allowed for the R-5 zoning district. D. Provide for adequate light and air; Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable setback and lot coverage development standards that will be implemented at the time of subsequent home construction. E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety, parks, and schools. F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing the use of storm water low impact development techniques; Staff Analysis: The Site slopes downward gradually from the north, and from the east to the southwest corner of the Site. As typical of site development for a preliminary plat without critical areas (e.g. wetlands, steep slopes, etc.), the Site will be cleared of vegetation and graded in preparation for the placement of site improvements such as the construction of S 323rd St., creation of a stormwater pond, home sites, and the installation of utilities. Per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 9), generally, the proposed development can be supported on the Site’s dense glacial till deposits or with compacted structural fill. As proposed in the Preliminary Civil Plans (Exhibit 7), landscape strips along S 323rd St. will contain sod lawn and street trees. Per the Preliminary Landscape Plans (Exhibit 8), the stormwater pond tract (Tract A) will feature a combination of hydroseed (grass), trees, and shrubs – the area inside the pond’s retaining walls is proposed to be hydroseeded and the area outside the pond walls is proposed to be vegetated with trees and shrubs, a. The stormwater pond tract landscaping will be finalized during review of the Public Facilities Extension Agreement (FAC). Per the “Existing Features Map” (Sheet C2 of Exhibit 7) of the Preliminary Civil Plans, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated October 22, 2019 the Site features 428 significant trees (defined in ‘Finding of Fact No. 17’), providing a density of 69 trees per acre, including coniferous trees (pine, cedar, Douglas fir) deciduous trees (alders and 19 of 404 maples). Using the aforementioned existing features map and the City’s aerial mapping system, the tree canopy covers approximately 2.2 acres (or 35%) of the Site. As typical of site development for a preliminary plat without critical areas (e.g. wetlands steep slopes, etc.), and a site with existing conditions/constraints (e.g. connection point of the plat to 56th Ave. S, retention of the existing homes, and storm drainage requirements), the Site will be cleared of vegetation and graded in preparation for the placement of required site improvements. Therefore, as conditioned below, it is appropriate to mitigate for the loss of trees by requiring trees to be planted within each lot along with home construction. G. Provide for proper ingress and egress; Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide proper ingress and egress for each individual future home, and a pedestrian connection to 56th Ave. S. H. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW; Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and comprehensive review of the Project. I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state and city; Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 31 new single-family residences to serve future residents. J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description; Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be evaluated for and required to meet all applicable survey requirements. K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.” Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’, above, the Project is able to meet applicable zoning and engineering standards, with the exception of the requested 20 of 404 engineering deviation (intersection spacing), which is discussed under ‘Engineering Deviation Conclusions’ provided below. The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested (reference ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 4). Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned herein. F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; Staff Analysis: Per Finding of Fact Nos. 13-16 there are no wetlands, streams, priority habitat areas, or state or federal candidate threatened or endangered plant or animal species identified on the Site, nor is the site within any shoreline designation or regulatory floodplain. The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that potential impacts to groundwater can be mitigated. A DNS was issued on July 18, 2019 for this Project. Compliance with the recommended conditions of approval, city code, and engineering design standards will ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances; Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As the Site is mainly undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site and no known public nuisances. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm water management manual. Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed such that it will be consistent with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and City of Auburn Supplements. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. Engineering Deviation Conclusions 21 of 404 Per Chapter 17.18 ACC ‘Modifications of Standards and Specifications’, the Hearing Examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’, or referenced in the city’s design standards or construction standards. Further, the City Engineer shall make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on any modifications requested from the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (COADS). This process is referred to as a “Deviation” per Section 1.04 of the COADS. One Deviation was requested: 1. To reduce the intersection spacing between the new intersection of S 323rd St. and 56th Ave. S and the existing the intersection of S 322nd Pl. and 56th Ave. S from 250 ft. to 194 ft. (Exhibit 13). The Engineer of Record and applicant’s representative (Adam E. Paul) provided a stamped and signed justification letter showing that adequate sight distance will be provided and that no additional concerns are triggered by reduction in intersection spacing. The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation request and recommends approval to the Hearing Examiner; see Condition No.1 under ‘Recommended Conditions of Approval’, below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Robbins Preliminary Plat and the Engineering Deviation request, subject to the information contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, and the 14 recommended conditions of approval below. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant has requested a deviation for reduced intersection spacing (City of Auburn Engineering and Design Standards 10.04.1.1) from 250 ft. to 194 ft. for the proposed intersection of S 323rd St. and 56th Ave. S and the existing the intersection of S 322nd Pl. and 56th Ave. S. The City Engineer supports and recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the request. 2. The pond retaining walls shown on the “Preliminary Civil Plans”, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated October 22, 2019, shall be constructed of minimum 3,000 psi structural reinforced concrete. The walls shall be designed and stamped by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington. 3. There is a trapezoidal pond element in the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM2012). This element must be used for sizing of the detention pond with the Public Facilities Extension Agreement submittal. 4. The maximum distance allowed from any part of a single-family residential structure to the closest fire hydrant is 450 feet. With the Public Facilities Extension Agreement submittal, the applicant must provide a Water Availability Certificate and approved water utility plans from Lakehaven Water and Sewer District to the Valley Regional Fire Authority meeting the above standard for any proposed hydrant coverage. An NFPA 22 of 404 13D fire prevention system must be installed in all residences that are located with any portion of the home more than 450 ft. from a hydrant, regardless of the size of the home. The City of Auburn minimum fire flow requirement for residential occupancies less than 3,600 square feet is 1,000 GPM for 1 hour outside the City of Auburn’s water service area. For homes over 3,600 square feet the flow specified in the 2015 International Fire Code Appendix B is required. The 13D residential sprinkler system can be used to mitigate either fire-flow requirements or hydrant spacing as stipulated above (not both). 5. It is unclear how vehicles will leave proposed Lots 5 and 6 without potentially using the future (private) driveways of Lots 4, 7, and 9. With the Public Facilities Extension Agreement submittal the private access tracts must be updated to clearly show this is avoided from occurring or provide turning templates showing how the condition above is addressed. 6. The applicant requested that the review of several engineering design elements be deferred until the FAC submittal. Therefore, prior to approval of the Public Facilities Extension Agreement the Project must conform to all City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Code, and Standard Details, and the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and the City of Auburn Supplements. 7. The Site is in the City’s identified Groundwater Protection Zone 4. All approvals and permits related to the Project and issued by the City shall be consistent with best management practices (BMPs). 8. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Public Facilities Extension Agreement, the plans shall show that appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted no parking on the appropriate portions of the streets due to its road width or presence of medians. Also, the cul-de-sacs shall be posted “No Parking” around their entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with Auburn City Code and City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards. 9. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the Public Facilities Extension Agreement, the applicant shall provide documentation of application to the Washington State Department of Ecology for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size. 10. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the approval Public Facilities Extension Agreement, the applicant must obtain and provide approved construction drawings from Lakehaven Water and Sewer District for the construction of water and sewer lines. 11. With the Public Facilities Extension Agreement submittal, the Applicant shall submit a tree replacement plan prepared by a qualified landscape professional (ACC 18.50.060(A)). The purpose of the plan is to provide partial replacement for the significant number of trees removed for the land clearing, grading, and construction of the plat and shall generally provide for one tree to be planted in the front yard of each lot; the species shall be appropriate for the location/setting and include a coordinated 23 of 404 species theme throughout the Plat. The tree size and species shall be shown on the FAC plans. The tree replacement plan shall address the method and timing of installation at a minimum prior to final inspection of the house, appropriate maintenance pruning consistent with maintenance standards of ACC 18.50.070(C) and must also show that root control barriers consistent with manufacturer’s specifications will be installed where the tree is located within 10 feet of a hard surface (i.e. foundation / retaining wall, driveway / walkway, and public sidewalk) or utility facility (i.e. water, sewer, or power). Additionally, prior to approval of the Final Plat Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions are to be reviewed by the City and shall also address this maintenance responsibility for the front yard trees by the future lot owner or the HOA. Additionally, prior to approval of the Final Plat, a note, acceptable to the City, shall be included on the Final Plat referencing the approved tree replacement plan, its method and timing of installation, appropriate pruning consistent with maintenance standards of ACC 18.50.070(C), requirements for installation of root control barriers and criteria for future tree removal and replacement. 12. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the Robbins Plat Homeowner’s Association and its heirs and successors shall maintain those portions of the tracts containing stormwater ponds and specifically the portions located outside the fenced pond boundaries, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be reviewed by the City shall also address this maintenance responsibility. 13. Tracts B, C, and D are proposed to be private access and utility tracts and will be owned and maintained by the Robbins Plat Homeowner’s Association (HOA). A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the Robbins Plat HOA and its heirs and successors shall maintain Tracts B, C, and D. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be reviewed by the City shall also address this maintenance responsibility. 14. At FINAL PLAT application, if the nature and location of the depicted occupation features remain unchanged and/or unresolved, then the following “encroachment note” shall be placed on the face of the Final Plat: “ENCROACHMENT NOTE: EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.255 AND SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN THE TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TITLE INSURER AND ISSUED AFTER THE FILING OF THIS PLAT” 24 of 404 Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1. Staff Report Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application, prepared by Mark Robbins, dated November 29, 2016 Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application and DNS, completed SEPA Checklist application, and Final Staff Evaluation Exhibit 5. Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 6. Written Comment(s) Received and City Response(s) Exhibit 7. Preliminary Civil Plans, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated October 22, 2019 Exhibit 8. Preliminary Landscape Plan, Nature By Design Landscape Architecture, dated October 21, 2019 Exhibit 9. Topographic Survey, Centre Pointe, dated May 10, 2016 Exhibit 10. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc., dated November 29, 2016 Exhibit 11. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated October 18, 2019 Exhibit 12. School Walkway Analysis, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated September 4, 2017 Exhibit 13. Revised Engineering Deviation Request & COA Recommended Approval Letter, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, revision dated June 20, 2019 Exhibit 14. Lakehaven Water and Sewer Availability Certificates, Lakehaven Water and Sewer District, dated November 30, 2016 Prepared by Alexandria Teague, AICP, Planner II 25 of 404 26 of 404 EXHIBIT 3EXHIBIT 3 27 of 404 EXHIBIT 3 28 of 404 NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat SEP16-0020/PLT16-0006 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The project application materials and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 and by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide 6.2 acres into 31 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows between 4 and 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre. The lots will be 4,568 square feet (SF) to 23,331 SF in area. Water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. A new public road, terminating in a cul-de-sac off of 56th Ave. S, will provide access to 30 lots. Except for one lot that will continue to take access off of 56th Ave. S, three private access tracts, stemming off of the new public road, will provide access to the remaining lots. Location: The project site is located near 32235 56th Ave. S, across the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl., within NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166. Notice of Application: July 18, 2019 Application Complete: December 19, 2016 Permit Application: November 30, 2016 File Nos. SEP16-0020 PLT16-0006 Applicant: Mark & Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant’s Representative: Adam E. Paul, PE AP Consulting Engineers PLLC PO Box 162 Auburn, WA 98071 Property Owner: Mark & Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn WA, 98001 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: Preliminary Civil Plans, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 9, 2016, received November 30, 2016, revisions received July 20, 2017, December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018, and June 21, 2019 Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 30, 2016, received November 30, 2016, revisions received December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018, and June 21, 2019 EXHIBIT 4EXHIBIT 4 29 of 404 Geotechnical Engineering Report, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc., dated November 29, 2016, received November 30, 2016 SEPA Environmental Checklist, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 30, 2016, received November 30, 2016, revisions received July 20, 2017, December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018, and June 21, 2019 Topographic Survey, Centre Pointe, May 10, 2016, received October 29, 2018 School Walkway/Access Analysis, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, revisions received December 1, 2017 and October 29, 2018 Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: Public Facility Extension (FAC)/Grading Permit(s) Department of Ecology’s Construction Stormwater Permit Lakehaven Water Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-355; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 PM on August 2, 2019 to the mailing address of 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001, or to the email below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Appeal Period: Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001- 4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 PM on August 16, 2019. For questions regarding this project, please contact Alexandria Teague, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3088. Public Hearing: A Public Hearing time and date is to be determined. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Tate POSITION/TITLE: Director, Department of Community Development ADDRESS: 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 253-931-3090 DATE ISSUED: July 18, 2019 SIGNATURE: EXHIBIT 4 30 of 404 Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 4 31 of 404 Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout Auburn Adventist Academy EXHIBIT 4 32 of 404 CITY OF AUBURN SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Planning & Development Department Auburn City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor 1 East Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Tel: 253.931.3090 Fax: 253.804.3114 permitcenter@auburnwa.gov www.auburnwa.gov SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of Applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: A. Applicant: Agent (if applicable): 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 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. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give a 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 need not repeat those answers on this page. Robbins Plat Mr. & Mrs. Mark Robbins AP Consulting Engineers PLLC Adam E. Paul, PE PO Box 162, Auburn, WA 98071 (253) 737-4173 32235 56th Avenue S Auburn, WA 98001 (206) 331-6602 November 30, 2016 City of Auburn Construction to begin in 2017 None known A geotechnical report has been prepared by Otto Rosenau & Associates, a Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared by AP Consulting Enigneers PLLC None known A Developer's Extension Agreement will be required by Lakehaven Utility District, an FAC permit will be required from the City of Auburn, and a General Construction Permit will be required from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Additionally, the determination for this SEPA, preliminary plat, final plat approval, and approval of an intersection spacing deviation. The completed project will consist of 31 residential lots, a new public road and cul-de-sac, a private access driveway, and a stormwater pond near the southwest corner of the property. Additionally, a stormwater main, sewer main, and water main will be extended into the project to serve the new residences. EXHIBIT 4 33 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. 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 know. This project will be located on parcel numbers 9262800140, 9262800136, & 9262800166 at 32235 56th Avenue South in Auburn, WA in a portion of the NW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 21 N, Range 4 E. The steepest on-site slopes are roughly 30%. The County soils maps indicate that on-site soils are Alderwood gravelly sandy loams. None known Grading will be performed in order to support level lots for the new residential lots. Preliminary calculations show 17,700 cubic yards of cut and 18,900 cubic yards of fill. Some erosion is possible. Approximately 55% Erosion and sedimentation control measures that comply with the City of Auburn's standards and other applicable standards will be applied such as construction entrances, silt fence, dust control measures, and sediment traps, where necessary. Standard construction equipment emissions are anticipated during construction. Air emissions will be minimal when the project is completed. EXHIBIT 4 34 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3 B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. Water A. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. B. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. None proposed None known Slightly farther than 1/4 of a mile downstream from the project site, a wetland exists. No other water bodies are known to exist in the vicinity. None proposed None proposed None proposed None known None proposed None proposed None proposed EXHIBIT 4 35 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4 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. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any 4. Plants A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous Tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, Other Evergreen Tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, Other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or Grain Wet Soil Plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bullrush, Skunk Cabbage, Other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, Other Other Types of Vegetation B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. Animals A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese, ducks, crows, etc. Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Stormwater runoff will be collected from the proposed improvements in a closed conveyance system in the proposed public road and will be directed to a combination wetpond and detention pond facility at the southwest corner of the property before it is released from the site into a closed public conveyance system to the west of the property that will then be released in to a ditch in the 324th Street right-of-way. This is unlikely and would only include small quantities of oils or sediments generated by residential use. A detention and a water quality facility will be constructed, in accordance with the City of Auburn's adopted stormwater manual and all other applicable regulations, in order to control the quantity and quality of the runoff from the site. X X X X X All vegetation within the project boundaries will be removed. None known Street trees and landscaping will be planted in the right-of-way along the new public road and as otherwise required by the City of Auburn's codes. None known Not known to be EXHIBIT 4 36 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5 D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 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. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 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: 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: 8. Noise A. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? B. 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. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: 9. Land and Shoreline Use A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? None proposed Electricity will be used and natural gas may be used, if available. No The new residences will comply with the WSEC None known None known None proposed Vehiclular traffic noises may affect the project. Short-term construction noises will occur from standard construction equipment. Only noises from standard residential use will occur over the long-term None proposed Residential EXHIBIT 4 37 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6 B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: C. Describe any structures on the site: D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? H. Has any part of the site been classified as an “environmentally sensitive” area? If so, specify: I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: HOUSING A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No direct knowledge of agricultural uses. There are two existing residences, a detached garage, and a barn. The barn has only been used to accommodate chickens and pet sheep. The barn and the detached garage will be demolished. The zoning classification is R5. The comprehensive plan designation is Single Family. N/A No Approximately 80. None None proposed The project will comply with all of the City's codes. 28 new residential middle-income housing units are proposed. 2 existing residences will remain. EXHIBIT 4 38 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 7 B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: AESTHETICS A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: LIGHT AND GLARE 1. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 2. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 3. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: RECREATION 1. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 2. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None None proposed 35 feet; structures will have standard residential exterior materials. None known The project will comply with all of the City of Auburn's landscaping and building code requirements. Light from standard outdoor residential fixtures will be produced by the project after dark. No None known None proposed There are parks, the Interurban trail and many other recreational opportunities near this project. No EXHIBIT 4 39 of 404 Environmental Checklist (Continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 8 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 1. 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: 2. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: TRANSPORTATION 1. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 2. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 3. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 4. 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): 5. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: 6. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 7. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. None known None known None proposed The project has frontage on 56th Avenue South and is very near to Highway 18, SR 167 and I-5. The nearest transit stop is roughly 1.4 miles from the property, at the northwest corner of South 320th Street & Military Road South. Each residence would have off-street parking in their driveway, garages and on street parking on one side of S 323rd Street. No parking spaces will be eliminated. A public street and a private street will serve the project. None known 258 vehicular trips are estimated by the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Peak volumes would be expected in the morning and in the evening. Traffic impact fees will be paid to the city as part of the project. These will be used to build transportation projects throughout the city which add capacity needed to accommodate growth associated with new development. EXHIBIT 4 40 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 41 of 404 FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (SEP16-0020) Date: July 18, 2019 Project: Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat Applicant: Mark & Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 Representative: Adam E. Paul, PE AP Consulting Engineers PLLC PO Box 162 Auburn, WA 98071 Property Owner: Mark & Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn WA, 98001 Location: The project site is located near 32235 56th Ave. S, across the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl, within NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 21 North, Range 4 East. Parcel No. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166 Parcel Size: 6.2 Acres Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide 6.2 acres into 31 single- family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows between 4 and 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre. The lots will be 4,568 square feet (SF) to 23,331 SF in area. Water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. A new public road, terminating in a cul-de-sac off of 56th Ave. S, will provide access to 30 lots. Except for one lot that will continue to take access off of 56th Ave. S, three private access tracts, stemming off of the new public road, will provide access to the remaining lots. Existing Zoning: R-5 – Residential Zone - Five Dwelling Units per Acre Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family EXHIBIT 4 42 of 404 A. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-355, the City of Auburn is required to send any Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) which may result from this environmental review, along with the checklist, to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), or other agencies with jurisdiction, affected tribes, and interested parties. Therefore, the City will not act on this proposal for fifteen days after the issuance of the DNS. Other Environmental Information: Other environmental information prepared or will be prepared directly related to this proposal includes: • Preliminary Civil Plans, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 9, 2016 received November 30, 2016, revisions received July 20, 2017, December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018 and June 21, 2019 • Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 30, 2016, received November 30, 2016, revisions received December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018 and June 21, 2019 • Geotechnical Engineering Report, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc., dated November 29, 2016, received November 30, 2016 • SEPA Environmental Checklist, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, dated November 30, 2016, received November 30, 2016, revisions received July 20, 2017, December 1, 2017, October 29, 2018 and June 21, 2019 • Topographic Survey, Centre Pointe, May 10, 2016, received October 29, 2018 • School Walkway/Access Analysis, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, revisions received December 1, 2017, and October 29, 2018 Other Approvals/Permits Needed: • Public Facility Extension (FAC)/Grading Permit(s) • Department of Ecology’s Construction Stormwater Permit • Lakehaven Water B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: Concur with checklist. The northeastern and southwestern portions of the project site feature the steepest slopes. The northeastern portion of the project site slopes from east to west with approximately 30% slope in some areas. The southwestern portion of the project site slopes from the west to the east with approximately 30% slope in some areas. As preliminarily designed, the project will include approximately 17,700 cubic yards of net cut and 18,900 cubic yards of fill. Grading and earthwork will occur for the construction of the lots, public roads, access driveways, frontage improvements, utilities, and the stormwater pond. It is anticipated that some soil erosion will occur during construction activity associated with the project. An erosion and sedimentation control plan and erosion control measures consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) per the 2017 City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM) are to be implemented in conjunction with FAC, Grading, Storm, and Building Permit approvals from the City. 2. Air: Concur with checklist. EXHIBIT 4 43 of 404 Short term impacts on air quality, such as an increase in local suspended particulate levels, would occur during construction activity associated with the project. To minimize short term impacts to air quality, contract specifications will require the development and implementation of dust and emission control measures such as watering and sweeping and turning off equipment and vehicles when not in use, as consistent with the City’s Construction Standards. 3. Water: A. Surface: Concur with checklist. Per the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, AP Consulting Engineers PLLC, surface water runoff will be conveyed to a stormwater detention wet -pond to be located in the southwestern portion of the project site within the “Stormwater Tract”. The water will then be discharged into a public conveyance system in the S 324th St right-of-way (ROW), located south of the project. A public stormwater easement has been provided for the portion of the system that will carry the surface water to the open public conveyance system located in S 324th St. From S 324th St the runoff will be carried through a conveyance system consisting of a series of culverts and ditches. A quantitative downstream analysis was conducted of the existing stormwater conveyance system which carries runoff from the project site. As proposed, the existing downstream conveyance system was determined to have sufficient capacity such that it is not anticipated that the proposed development will create impacts to the downstream drainage system. B. Ground: Concur with checklist. Stormwater will be managed on-site, consistent with applicable state and local standards. C. Runoff/Storm water: Concur with checklist. Stormwater will be managed on-site, consistent with applicable state and local standards. The project is located within Ground Water Protection Zone 4 and will be subject to Auburn City Code16.10.120(E)(2). D. Proposed Measures to Reduce or Control Surface, Ground, and Runoff Water Impacts: Concur with checklist. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed during and after construction to control any impacts to ground/surface/storm water. 3. Plants: Concur with checklist. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. There are several trees on the site that the developer will attempt to retain. However, some trees may need to be removed depending on final grading plans. On-site landscaping is required within Tract A the stormwater detention wet-pond and along the plat streetscape. 6. Animals: Concur with checklist. EXHIBIT 4 44 of 404 7. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist. Impacts to energy and natural resources will be consistent with what is expected for a typical residential subdivision. The homes will comply with applicable building and energy codes. 8. Environmental Health: Concur with checklist. No environmental health hazards above normal construction activities are expected and risk reduction measures consistent with the City’s Construction Standards will be implemented and followed. 9. Noise: Concur with checklist. 10. Land and Shoreline Use: Concur with checklist. 11. Housing: Concur with checklist. 12. Aesthetics: Concur with checklist. 13. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist. Lighting typical of a typical single-family neighborhood is expected. 14. Recreation: Concur with checklist. The dedication of park land is not triggered with the proposed development; park impact fees will be paid for each residential unit upon building permit issuance. The closest formal (City owned) park in proximity includes West Auburn Lake (9.25 acres in size), a naturally occurring lake and open space area, which provides passive recreation opportunities. West Auburn Lake is approximately 0.2 miles away. Informal (non-City owned) park site exists at the site of Evergreen Heights Elementary School which is approximately 0.5 miles away. 15. Historic and Cultural Preservation: Concur with checklist. No historic or culturally sensitive places or objects are present on the site, nor would any be affected by this project. 16. Transportation: Concur with checklist. A new local residential street will be constructed to extend through the site from 56th Ave. S and will terminate in a cul-de-sac. Transit is available within 1.4 miles. of the site. Traffic impact fees will be paid for each residential unit upon building permit issuance. 17. Public Services: Concur with checklist. 18. Utilities: Concur with checklist. All necessary utilities will be provided to the project site. EXHIBIT 4 45 of 404 C. CONCLUSIONS: The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The City reserves the right to review any future revision or alterations to the site or to the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non-significance of the project at that point in time. Prepared by: Alexandria Teague, Planner II, Department of Community Development, City of Auburn EXHIBIT 4 46 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 47 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 48 of 404 From:Alexandria Teague To:"separegister@ecy.wa.gov" Subject:SEP16-0020 - Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat (PLT16-0006) Date:Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:14:22 AM Attachments:SEP16-0020 Final Staff Evaluation.pdf SEP16-0020 NOA_DNS Signed.pdf SEP16-0020 SEPA Environmental Checklist.pdf Good afternoon, Please see the combined Notice of Application and SEPA DNS, the final staff evaluation, and the SEPA Checklist for a proposed 31-Lot preliminary plat. Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm EXHIBIT 4 49 of 404 From:Alexandria Teague To:"cblansfield@auburn.wednet.edu"; "brian.davis@cityoffederalway.com"; "paan461@ecy.wa.gov"; "sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov"; "MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV"; "sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov"; "tosborne@lakehaven.org"; "kbush@mbaks.com"; "Karen.walter@muckleshoot.nsn.us"; "shirlee.tan@kingcounty.gov"; "tanya- nascimento@fwps.org"; "tim@futurewise.org"; "Valerie.Garza@kingcounty.gov"; "Planning@KentWA.gov"; "lisa.tylor@kent.k12.wa.us"; "josh.baldi@kingcounty.gov"; "Steve.Bleifuhs@kingcounty.gov"; "beth.humphreys@kingcounty.gov"; "laila.mcclinton@kingcounty.gov"; "pazookr@wsdot.wa.gov"; "maint.roads@kingcounty.gov"; "jgreene@kingcounty.gov"; "Jeffrey.Watson@muckleshoot.nsn.us"; "Grant.Timentwa@muckleshoot.nsn.us"; "Rob@muckleshoot.nsn.us"; "laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us"; "sepa@dahp.wa.gov"; "gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov"; "jeff.payne@pse.com"; "James.H.Carsner@usace.army.mil"; "SEPA@pscleanair.org"; "perry.weinberg@soundtransit.org"; "rob.ryan@wa.usda.gov"; "karen.stewart@vrfa.org"; "reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov"; "Larry.Fisher@dfw.wa.gov"; "mindy@wecprotects.org"; "SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov" Cc:Steven Sturza Subject:SEP16-0020 - Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat (PLT16-0006) Date:Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:11:39 AM Attachments:SEP16-0020 Final Staff Evaluation.pdf SEP16-0020 NOA_DNS Signed.pdf Good morning, Please see the combined Notice of Application and SEPA DNS for a proposed 31-Lot preliminary plat. Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D. Teague, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm EXHIBIT 4 50 of 404 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat PLT16-0006 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing for the following described project. The project application may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at 1 E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 and by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Proposal: Preliminary plat application to subdivide 6.2 acres into 31 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential, which allows between 4 and 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre. The lots will be 4,568 square feet (SF) to 23,331 SF in area. Water and sewer will be extended through the site to service each lot. A new public road, terminating in a cul-de-sac off of 56th Ave. S, will provide access to 30 lots. Except for one lot that will continue to take access off of 56th Ave. S, three private access tracts, stemming off of the new public road, will provide access to the remaining lots. Location: The project site is located near 32235 56th Ave. S, across the intersection of 56th Ave. S and S 322nd Pl., within NW ¼ of Section 14, Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166. Notice of Public Hearing: November 21, 2019 Notice of Application: July 18, 2019 Application Complete: December 19, 2016 Permit Application: November 30, 2016 File Nos. PLT16-0006 Applicant/Property Owner: Mark & Kyla Robbins 32235 56th Ave. S Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant’s Representative: Adam E. Paul, PE AP Consulting Engineers PLLC PO Box 162 Auburn, WA 98071 Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: Public Facility Extension (FAC)/Grading Permit(s), Lakehaven Water and Sewer Public Hearing: The Hearing Examiner will conduct a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat in the City Council Chambers, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001, on December 18, 2019 at 5:30 PM. Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. For citizens with speech, sight, or hearing disabilities wishing to review documents pertaining to this hearing should contact the person below within 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. Each request EXHIBIT 5EXHIBIT 5 51 of 404 will be considered individually according to the type of request, the availability of resources, and the financial ability of the City to provide the requested services or equipment. For questions regarding this project, please contact Alexandria Teague, AICP, Planner II, at planning@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3088. Vicinity Map EXHIBIT 5 52 of 404 Proposed Preliminary Plat Layout Auburn Adventist Academy EXHIBIT 5 53 of 404 EXHIBIT 5 54 of 404 EXHIBIT 5 55 of 404 1 Alexandria Teague From:Alexandria Teague Sent:Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:24 AM To:'jbyram1@juno.com' Subject:RE: application#sept16-0020 Good morning Mr. Byram, Thank you for your comment regarding SEP16-0020 – Robbins Preliminary Plat. Staff has the following responses for your comments: 1) The future subdivision (the preliminary plat/project site) will not be on septic system. Sewer and water will be provided by Lakehaven Utility District. Sewer will be extended from S 324 th St., up to and through the project site, and tie into 56th Ave. S from S 323rd St. (which is a new road that will be constructed as part of the future subdivision). The preliminary civil plans depict the extension of sewer service. The preliminary civil plans may be accessed from the public land use notice page for the project. 2) Surface water runoff will be conveyed to a stormwater detention pond to be located in the southwestern portion of the project site within the “Stormwater Tract” (located in the southwest portion of the future subdivision. Water from the stormwater tract will then be discharged into a public conveyance system in the S 324th St., located south of the project. A public stormwater easement has been provided for the portion of the system that will carry the surface water to the open public conveyance system located in S 324th St. From S 324th St. the runoff will be carried through a conveyance system consisting of a series of culverts and ditches. A quantitative downstream analysis was conducted of the existing stormwater conveyance system which carries runoff from the project site. As proposed, the existing downstream conveyance system was determined to have sufficient capacity such that it is not anticipated that the proposed development will create impacts to the downstream drainage system. The preliminary civil plans, the preliminary stormwater site plan, and the SEPA Checklist contain more information about stormwater runoff and conveyance – all are provided on the public land use notice page for the project. 3) - Regarding 56th Ave. S - 56th Ave. S is considered a “Residential Collector” and per the City of Auburn Transportation Plan residential collectors “are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Urban Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two travel lanes with medians and turn pockets at intersections or two travel lanes with bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design year ADT [average daily traffic] is 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day.” The frontage of the project site along 56 th Ave. S will be improved with sidewalk, curb, and gutter (reference the preliminary civil plan). - Regarding tree and canopy – Staff is proposing to condition approval of the preliminary plat to require the applicant to provide a tree planting plan prepared by a qualified landscape professional. The purpose of the plan is to provide partial replacement for the loss of tree canopy removed for the land clearing, grading, and construction of the plat. The tree planting plan will generally provide for one tree to be planted in the front yard of each lot. - Regarding the number of lots - The project site (outlined in purple below) is zoned R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre. The R-5 zone is shown below in yellow. The properties in the general vicinity are also zoned R-5. This zone allows for a density range 4 to 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre; 4 dwelling units per acre is the minimum density and 5 dwelling units per acre is the base or maximum density (reference Auburn City Code Joel Byram - City Response & Public CommentEXHIBIT 6EXHIBIT 6 56 of 404 2 (ACC) 18.07.030 “Development Standards”). Density is calculated by multiplying the minimum density (4) and the maximum density (5) by the number of gross acres (the project site is approximately 6.2 acres). This yields the minimum and maximum number of dwelling units. A preliminary subdivision must meet the minimum density and cannot exceed the maximum density. Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm EXHIBIT 6 57 of 404 3 From: jbyram1@juno.com <jbyram1@juno.com> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 12:41 PM To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Subject: application#sept16-0020 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Jeff, I live 3 houses up from the proposed project. It is a HORRIBLE idea that should be nixed. Completely unacceptable. Here is why: 1. The land will not perk. It has been tested before and failed. There is no sewer and NO way that low land will take all of that sewage from 31 houses. It will be a disaster! That alone is enough. 2. The area is already flood prone. It is at the bottom of 2 hills and the water pools at the bottom - sometimes even going across 56th ave S. When you remove all of that grass and rip up those trees, the 2 nearest houses will sustain serious damage, plus water will go across the street to several houses on 322nd street. That is the 2nd disaster. This alone is reason enough to not do it. 3. Auburn said when they incorporated our area that they would leave West Hill alone and not change the character of the area. We need the trees. We need some green left in Auburn. We do not need to add a bunch of traffic. Maybe split the property into 4 lots - that keeps it green, and the road can handle it...but 31 houses? No way. I know you may not have known that the lot tried this before and failed the perk, or may not know it is already a flood zone. PLEASE DO NOT RUIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Thanks, Joel Byram 32205 56th ave S Auburn. WA EXHIBIT 6 58 of 404 From:Alexandria Teague To:"tukwila@storagecourt.com" Cc:"tmcfarland58@hotmail.com" Subject:RE: Public Comment to City of Auburn.docx Date:Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:43:34 AM Attachments:City of Auburn.docx Good morning, Thank you for your comment regarding SEP16-0020. Staff has forwarded your comment regarding the cedar trees onto the property owner. For more information regarding the proposed preliminary plat, you can visit the public land use notice page for the project. Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm From: Tukwila Storage Court <tukwila@storagecourt.com> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:38 AM To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Cc: tmcfarland58@hotmail.com Subject: Public Comment to City of Auburn.docx CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Attached is my Public Comment on Application # SEP16-0020 Parcel # 9262800140 Tracy & Darlene McFarland - City Response & Public CommentEXHIBIT 6 59 of 404 Resident at 5415 S 321st St Auburn, WA 98001 This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. EXHIBIT 6 60 of 404 City of Auburn - Planning 25 W. Main St Auburn, WA 98001 Application # SEP16-0020 Location & Parcel # 9262800140 To whom it may concern. Our worst fears have come true. Our neighbor has decided to develop and change the peaceful & quiet surroundings that we have all moved here for. It seems that there is nothing we can do to stop this kind of idea with the City & Developers choosing to destroy our neighborhood serenity. But to make a comment. If we had a vote which we don’t. It would be No to this type of crowded housing development and more cars through the streets. I guess the only hope I could have is that there would be some kind of consideration for the destruction of some of our cedar trees at the back of my property, that were destroyed by the neighbors goats which he chose to allow on my property and chewed the bark off of some of them and killed a few. In which we might have been ok with if he would not have decided to destroy the peacefulness by leaving the trees standing and by cramming homes in this area. Will neighbor be replacing the cedars that were destroyed by his goats? Concerned Neighbor Tracy & Darlene McFarland 5415 S 321st St Auburn, WA 98001 EXHIBIT 6 61 of 404 1 Alexandria Teague From:Alexandria Teague Sent:Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:58 PM To:'teamrusso2013@gmail.com' Subject:RE: public comment on NOA and DNA for SEP16-0020/PLT16-0006 Good afternoon Ms. Russo, Thank you for your comment regarding SEP16-0020 – Robbins Preliminary Plat. Staff has the following responses for your comments: 1) While the applicant date for the project is November 30, 2016, the Notice of Application (NOA) was issued July 18, 2019. The purpose of the Notice of Application is to notify properties within the vicinity that a project has been proposed nearby. The notice is provided in several ways: mailing notice to property owners, posting the notice on the property, publishing a notice in a newspaper of general circulation (The Seattle Times). The notice is also posted at City Hall, the City Annex, and on a public land use notice page for the project. However, not all permits or projects require a notice of application. A prel iminary plat requires a notice of application. Under City code a preliminary plat typically also requires an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The environmental review also triggers a public notice – the project number for this project’s environmental review is SEP16-0020. City code allows for the combing (or the integration of) environmental review public notice with the NOA. The notice that you received was a combined NOA and the environmental review. Essentially the NOA is not issued until the City believes the project is ready to move forward and can meet all local and state regulations which is why the property was noticed on July 18, 2019 and not November 30, 2016. 2) Staff is proposing to condition approval of the preliminary plat to require the applicant to provide a tree re- planting plan prepared by a qualified landscape professional. The purpose of the plan is to provide partial replacement for the loss of tree canopy removed for the land clearing, grading, and construction of the proposed plat (subdivision). The tree planting plan will generally provide for one tree to be planted in the front yard of each lot. 3) The project site (outlined in red below) is zoned R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre. The R-5 zone is shown below in yellow. The properties in the general vicinity are also zoned R-5. This zone allows for a density range 4 to 5 residential lots (dwelling units) per acre; 4 dwelling units per acre is the minimum density and 5 dwelling units per acre is the maximum density (reference Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.07.030 “Development Standards”). Density is calculated by multiplying the minimum density (4) and the maximum density (5) by the number of gross acres (the project site is approximately 6.2 acres). This yields the minimum and maximum number of dwelling units. A preliminary subdivision typically must meet the minimum density and cannot exceed the maximum density. 4) The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map (an excerpt of the Comprehensive Plan map is below) depicts the Site as ‘Single Family Residential’. The R-5 zone implements the Single Family Residential designation. Therefore this Project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single family dwellings. Additionally, adequate City services and facilities can be provided to serve the plat. Sewer and water will be provided by Lakehaven Utility District. The frontage of the project site along 56th Ave. S will be improved with sidewalk, curb, and gutter (reference the preliminary civil plans) consistent with the improvement requirements for a “Residential Collector”. Per the City of Auburn Transportation Plan Jennifer Russo - City Response & Public CommentEXHIBIT 6 62 of 404 2 residential collectors “are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Urban Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two travel lanes with medians and turn pockets at intersections or two travel lanes with bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design year ADT [average daily traffic] is 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. To mitigate increased PM peak hour trips generated by the Project, a traffic impact fee in accordance with the City of Auburn Traffic Impact Fee Schedule will be assessed upon the issuance of building permits. Traffic impact fees compensate the City for the capacity improvements needed to accommodate the new trips generated by new development”. “Connectivity by multiple means” is still achieved through construction of the new road(s) by providing sidewalks for pedestrians as well as the paved roadway for vehicles and bicycles. 5) The dedication of park land is not triggered with the proposed plat. To mitigate increased demand for parks created by the Project, a park impact fee will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance. The closest City owned park in proximity includes West Auburn Lake (9.25 acres in size), a naturally occurring lake and open space area, which provides passive recreation opportunities. Plans for additional improvements at West Auburn Lake are also under development to provide additional trails and viewpoints. This park is located approximately 0.2 miles away. 6) Whenever possible the City requires and/or recommends connectivity between adjacent subdivision, commercial hubs, recreation facilities, and even other public roads. However, at this time there are no adjacent subdivision being developed with which to create a connection. The project site is also not near a commercial hub with which to create a connection. As mentioned above the closest recreational opportunity is West Auburn Lake (which is a less than 15 minute walk away from the project site). Frontage improvements, including public sidewalk, will be required along the frontage of the proposed plat. 7) To mitigate temporary noise impacts associated with the Project, construction activities are required to occur between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays, and between 9 AM and 6 PM on Saturday and Sunday as required per Chapter 8.28 “Noise”. 8) A school bus & walkway analysis was prepared and submitted with the application in coordination with the Auburn School District. It is provided on the public land use notice page for the project. The ASD has confirmed that schools to serve the project include: Evergreen Heights, Cascade Middle School, and Auburn High School. For more information about future school projects please visit the Auburn School District website. Excerpt Zoning Map EXHIBIT 6 63 of 404 3 Excerpt Comprehensive Plan Map EXHIBIT 6 64 of 404 4 Excerpt GIS “Streets” Map EXHIBIT 6 65 of 404 5 Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Planner II Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3088 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J EXHIBIT 6 66 of 404 6 Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm From: Jennifer Russo <teamrusso2013@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 11:30 AM To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Cc: Nancy Backus <nbackus@auburnwa.gov>; Jeff Tate <jtate@auburnwa.gov> Subject: public comment on NOA and DNA for SEP16-0020/PLT16-0006 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Greetings; I would like to comment on another proposed development in our neighborhood of Auburn's West Hill. According to the information available at the land use sign, the file numbers are SEP16-0020 and PLT16- 0006. While the information sheet states that the permit application date was 11/30/16, I had no notice of this proposal until I saw the land use posting at the side of the road. I implore you to deny this application for development. In the past several years, three new housing projects have been built her in an area of less than a square mile. One of these, the "Canyon Creek by Polygon" development, appears to be of over 100 new homes. None of these projects saved any of the existing tree canopy, but instead clear-cut the area. We bought our home in 2001. Later, when annexed to the City of Auburn, we were told that it was to "control development on the West Hill". What appears to be happening is not control, but increase and acceleration of development. During these projects, the roads have been gutted, patched, torn up again, and again resurfaced. The noise and dirt of construction have been considerable. The workers often litter the roadsides, and traffic delays are common. The Comprehensive Plan for the City states seven values that guide land use, including: " Environment: The built environment will fit into the natural landscape in a way that protects and respects ecosystem function and that preserves native vegetation and soils."* Clear cutting these old Douglas Firs and the other deciduous species does not respect our ecosystem, and does not preserve native vegetation. The General Policies section of the Plan also states: " LU-1 Regulations for new developments and infill should address the following elements: a. Connectivity by multiple means to adjacent subdivisions, nearby commercial hubs, and parks and recreation facilities. d. Environmental protection and preservation of natural features."* EXHIBIT 6 67 of 404 7 The notice states that there will be one new public road off of 56th Avenue South, and all other access within this new project will be on private land, devolving onto that public road to 56th. This is not connectivity by multiple means, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. I also fear the loss of the trees at the site. I ask you to note that our local elementary, Evergreen Heights, currently has four portable classrooms. Where will you educate even more children? In more portables? I am not aware of plans to expand the school at this time. This proposed project is to build 31 new homes. I cannot believe that you have thought this through. Again, I plead with you to halt development on the West Hill, and consider the value of the existing vegetation before approving any more projects. I would like to be notified of any decisions made regarding this proposal. Best regards, Jennifer H Russo 5605 South 324 Place Auburn, WA 98001 * Comprehensive Plan: https://www.auburnwa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_11470554/File/City%20Hall/Community%20Developm ent/Zoning%20and%20Land%20Use/Comprehensive%20Plan/02_Vol%201_Land%20Use_ORD%206698.pdf EXHIBIT 6 68 of 404 EXHIBIT 7EXHIBIT 7 69 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 70 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 71 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 72 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 73 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 74 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 75 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 76 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 77 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 78 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 79 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 80 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 81 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 82 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 83 of 404 EXHIBIT 7 84 of 404 Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ=Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ= Δ=ΔΔ Δ=ΔΔΔ=ΔΔAeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100)AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbSurfaceElevLabel (AeccLand100) AeccDbSurfaceElevLabel (AeccLand100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) AeccDbStructure (AeccNetwork100) T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T1 T2T2 T2T2 T5T5 T5 T5T5 T5 T5 T2 T2T2 T2 T2 PROPOSED STREET TREES & LAWN ADJUST FOR STREET LIGHTS AND OTHER UTILITIES SITE DISTANCE TRIANGLE NO TREES WITHIN T2 T2T2 T5 T2 PISCONCONCON CON CON CON CON BEP BEP BEP PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PIS PISPISPISPIS PIS 1698 1698LSD CIVIL KLO KLO 1:1 1:30 LANDSCAPE PLAN & LEGEND L1 1 2 AGENCY REVIEW OCTOBER 21, 2019 C. REVISED PER NEW SITE LAYOUT D. REVISED PER NEW SITE LAYOUT www.naturebydesigninc.com 1320 Alameda Avenue, Suite B, Fircrest, WA 98466 253.460.6067 LANDSCAPE PLAN 030 30 6015 NTREES LANDSCAPE LEGEND SYMBOL SIZEQTY DESCRIPTION T1 6 Carpinus betula Fastigiata Columnar Hornbeam 1 1/2" Caliper Well Formed T2 13 Styrax japonica Japanese Snowdrop Tree 1 1/2" CAL. Well Formed shall use the following mix: Hydroseeding for Typical Lawn Areas 16% One Chewings Fescue by weight 16% One Creeping Red Fescue 68% Three Rye Grasses T5 8 Acer platanoides 'Crimson Sentry' Crimson Sentry Maple 1 1/2" CAL. Well Formed LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: ZONE: R-5 PERIMETER: N/A ABUTTING STREET: N/A ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL: N/A EXISTING TREES IN REQUIRED PERIMETER SHALL BE RETAINED. NO REQUIRED PERIMETER - THEREFORE NO RETENTION REQUIREMENT. Rosa nutkana Nootka rose Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry 54 59 @ 5' O.C.Vine Maple Oregon Grape Berberis nervosa Corylus cornuta Hazelnut Cornus stolonifera Red Osier Dogwood Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark Ribes sanguineum Flowering Currant 20 13 25 25 26 Western Paper Birch Betula papyifera DESCRIPTION Acer circinatum QTY 52 SYMBOL STORM POND SHRUBS 3 SIZE 1 GAL. DESCRIPTION Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis16 QTYSYMBOL STORM POND TREES SIZE 58 Berberis aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape 2 GAL. MIN. 2 GAL. MIN. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. @ 5' O.C. 1 GAL. 12' O.C. 12' O.C. BEP CON PIS 7 Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood 2 GAL. MIN. 12' O.C. EXHIBIT 8EXHIBIT 8 85 of 404 1698 1698LSD CIVIL KLO KLO 1:1 N.T.S. LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS L2 2 2 www.naturebydesigninc.com 1320 Alameda Avenue, Suite B, Fircrest, WA 98466 253.460.6067 GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. Contractor is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from the appropriate agency prior to commencing work. Contractor shall contact Line Locators (811) a min. of 48 hours prior to any digging or trenching. If there are any discrepancies with existing lines and landscaping, it is the contractor's responsibility to contact the landscape architect and request a site visit to address the conflicts. Contractor shall comply and conform to any and all local and state codes for work, schedules and any other project related requirements. 2. Contractor shall coordinate directly with the landscape architect for all landscape related issues, concerns, inspections and approvals. Contractor shall provide the landscape architect with a written request for a site visit to address any related items. 3. Scope of work shall include any and all specified and unspecified but related incidental work to achieve the design indicated on the landscape plans. All labor, materials, subcontractors, equipment, and related incidental items shall be supplied and installed to achieve a complete project, unless directed otherwise by the general contractor or landscape architect. 4. Contractor to verify all sub grades are set below required amendments to insure the finished grade will match what is intended by civil or drainage design. All sub grades and finished or final grades shall be graded to drain to the designed drainage system with positive drainage away from all structures. 5. Grade Preparation: All planting areas shall be cleaned of all construction and native debris, rocks 1" and larger, and any other objects considered harmful to plant life. The debris shall be hauled off site. All planting bed areas shall have the soil rototilled to a depth of 6 inches prior to topsoil installation. Lawn Areas to receive a min. 4" layer of sandy loam topsoil (3 -way mix or equivalent) free of weeds, sticks, rocks, and other debris. Planting bed Areas to receive a min. 6" layer of sandy loam topsoil (3-way mix or equivalent) free of weeds, sticks, rocks, and other debris. Contractor responsible for ensuring appropriate sub grade exists in all parking area planters. If sub grade is inadequate, it is contractor's responsibility to coordinate costs and work required to prep beds for planting. Trees: to be Pit Planted per detail. 6. Mulching: All planting pits to receive a minimum of 3" of Medium grind black bark mulch. Top of all Mulching shall be ½" below - flush to the top of all paving surfaces. Provide for a min. 6" clearance of all mulches and lawns that are immediately adjacent to any building faces measured from the bottom of siding to the top of landscape surface. 7. Contractor shall field layout all plant material and contact the landscape architect for a site visit to approve the layout. Any field modifications shall be done by the landscape architect prior to planting. 8. Contractor shall immediately notify the landscape architect of any poor drainage condition in landscape areas. No standing water shall be permitted in any landscape areas - either on the surface or below the topsoil. The landscape architect shall coordinate the drainage solution with the general contractor and civil engineer. Once the concerns have been remedied planting shall commence. 9. All groundcover to be planted in a triangular spacing formation, equal in all directions to the centers of the groundcovers in distances indicated in the legend. Contractor shall verify all quantities of groundcovers by area calculations and spacing requirements. 10. Landscaping is to be per plan. Plant substitutions due to availability or otherwise will be allowed only with landscape architect, owner and agency approval. Any substitutions will be with material of similar size, growth characteristics, and quality. 11. All trees must be staked as necessary so as to maintain material in a healthy, vigorous growing condition. 12. Landscaping shall be installed in a professional workmanlike manner that is consistent and accepted throughout the industry. All landscape and irrigation work shall be performed by experienced persons familiar with scope of project. 13. All landscape material and labor is to be guaranteed for a period of one full year from the time of completion. 14. When planting 'Balled and Burlapped' product, gently place root ball in prepared hole with burlap still on the root ball. Remove all wire from any B&B plant material, cut jute strings and roll burlap off top of root ball. If burlap is green in color, carefully remove the entire burlap bag and all binding from the root ball. 15. Street trees shall have caliper size of at least 1 1/2" for Deciduouse 4' Ht. for Evergreen - measured per American Association of Nurserymen Standards. 16. Street trees shall be high branching with canopy that starts at least 6' above finish grade. 17. All plant I.D. tags are to remain on the plant material until final inspection has been completed. Once approved all plant I.D. tags shall be removed and discarded appropriately. 18. Trees shall be cared for in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard practices for trees, shrubs and other woody plant maintenance (ANSI 300) in order to allow them to reach there mature height and form. 19. Pruning of street trees shall be performed per the ANSI 300 standards so as to maintain the natural form of the tree, encourage vigorous growth to a mature spread and height, and avoid weakening the tree to create a hazard. Street trees shall not be topped pollarded, or otherwise pruned in a manner contrary to these goals, unless there is no practicable alternative that would preserve essential utility services. 20. Plant material selected is drought tolerant or native species. The project proponent shall be responsible for maintaining and watering all plant material throughout the first growing season and in times of drought. Temporary irrigation shall be provided via a hose bib located on the building. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The project proponent shall ensure that a minimum of one (1) inch of water is supplied each week to the restoration area between May 1 and October 15 for a least the first two years following initial planting. The calculated amount of required water shall include both natural rainfall and temporary irrigation. 3" MULCH 3 4" 6" FROM BASE OF BRANCHING 1.5" 12" 2 X BALL DIA. DECIDUOUS TREE SCARIFY SIDES OF PIT, BACKFILL WITH SOIL MIXTURE INDICATED IN THE NOTES IN 9" LAYERS. WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS (2) 2X2 OR 2" DIA. WOOD STAKES DRIVEN INTO SUBGRADE OR SIM. METHOD FORM SAUCER WITH CONTINUOUS RIM INTERLOCKING PLASTIC TREE TIES OR AGENCY APPROVED EQUAL ENSURE PROPER SUBBASE EXISTS; CLEAR ALL CONCRETE AND OTHER DEBRIS FROM PLANTERS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING AND PLANTING TOPSOIL OR AMENDED BASE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR DEPTH WHEN B&B: REMOVE ALL WIRE AND ROLL BURLAP OFF OF TOP OF ROOTBALL NOTES: 1. PLANTING BACKFILL: 50% EXISTING SOIL, 50% 1/4 MINUS COMPOST, MIXED THOROUGHLY 2. FOR MULCH TYPE SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES. 3. IF B&B AND BURLAP IS GREEN IN COLOR. REMOVE COMPLETELY BEFORE INSTALLING PLANT. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING & STAKING DETAIL No Scale WHEN PLANTING ON A STEEP SLOPE, MAINTAIN PLANT IN VERTICAL POSITION WITHIN PLANTING PIT. MAKE A RIM ON DOWNSLOPE SIDE OF PLANT PIT TO RETAIN WATER. MULCH TO DEPTH SPECIFIED INTERLOCKING PLASTIC TIES CONIFER TREE CONTINUOUS RIM FORM SAUCER WITH 2x2 STAKE DRIVEN INTO SUBGRADE SECURE STAKE TO TREE W/ EXCAVATE PIT TO DEPTH OF ROOTBALL OR POT. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PIT, BACKFILL W/ SOIL MIXTURE INDICATED IN NOTES, FILL IN 9" LAYERS, WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS MULCH & TOPSOIL OR AMENDED BASE, REFER TO LS NOTES FOR DEPTH WHEN B&B: REMOVE ALL WIRE AND ROLL BURLAP OFF OF TOP OF ROOTBALL NOTES: 1. PLANTING BACKFILL: 50% EXISTING SOIL, 50% 1/4 MINUS COMPOST, MIXED THOROUGHLY 2. FOR MULCH TYPE SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES. 3. IF B&B AND BURLAP IS GREEN IN COLOR. REMOVE COMPLETELY BEFORE INSTALLING PLANT. IN LANSCAPE NOTES EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING & STAKING DETAIL N.T.S. AGENCY REVIEW OCTOBER 21, 2019 C. REVISED PER NEW SITE LAYOUT D. REVISED PER NEW SITE LAYOUT EXHIBIT 8 86 of 404 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ROBBINS PLAT 32235 56TH AVENUE SOUTH AUBURN, WASHINGTON KING COUNTY PARCEL # 9262800140 PREPARED FOR: MR. MARK ROBBINS BY: OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. ORA JOB NO. 16-0877, REPORT NO. 1 OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing EXHIBIT 9EXHIBIT 9 87 of 404 EXHIBIT 988 of 404 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 2 4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................... 2 5. SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 3 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 3 7. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 4 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 4 8.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 4 8.2 Seismic Considerations .................................................................................................... 4 8.3 Conventional Foundation System .................................................................................... 6 8.4 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ............................................................................................... 6 8.5 Below-Grade Walls and Retaining Walls ......................................................................... 7 8.6 Onsite Infiltration .............................................................................................................. 7 8.7 Earthwork ......................................................................................................................... 8 8.7.1 Site Clearing ............................................................................................................ 8 8.7.2 Structural Fill – Material, Placement and Compaction ............................................ 8 8.7.3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ...................................................................... 10 8.8 Drainage......................................................................................................................... 10 8.8.1 Dewatering ............................................................................................................ 10 8.8.2 Below-Grade Wall Drainage .................................................................................. 10 9. REPORT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 11 10. REFERENCE ....................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................................. A-1 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................... A-2 Geologic Map ........................................................................................................................... A-3 Previous Soil Exploration Logs ................................................................................................ A-4 EXHIBIT 9 89 of 404 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ROBBINS PLAT 32235 56TH AVENUE SOUTH AUBURN, WASHINGTON KING COUNTY PARCEL #’S: 9262800140, 9262800136, AND 9262800166 PREPARED FOR MR. MARK ROBBINS BY OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. NOVEMBER 29, 2016 1. INTRODUCTION This preliminary report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed residential development located at 32235 56th Avenue South in Auburn, Washington (King County Parcel #’s: 9262800140, 9262800136, and 9262800166). See the figure entitled “Vicinity Map” located on page A-1 of the appendix. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the proposed residential development will consist of twenty-five, new, single family residences and new detention pond is proposed for the site. The site is to be divided into twenty- five (25) parcels with each parcel ranging in size of approximately 6,000 to 18,253 square feet with the average parcel size of 8,027 square feet. Also, it is our understanding that the existing residential structures that are located in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the site will remain during the construction of the proposed residential development. The barn structure located near the center of the site and garage structure located near the eastern portion of the site will be demolished during the construction of the proposed residential development. See the figure entitled ‘Site Plan” located on page A-2 of the appendix. EXHIBIT 9 90 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 2 of 11 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services included a reconnaissance of the site by a geotechnical engineer, a review of geologic literature, and the review of the soil explorations that were previously conducted by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. on January 26, 1995, and February 21 and 22, 1995. Only nine (9) locations (SL7-1, SL7-2, SL7-3, SL8-1, SL8-2, SL8-3, SL9-1, SL9-2, and SL9-3) of these previously conducted soil explorations are shown on the figure entitled “Site Plan” on page A-2 of the appendix. The geotechnical engineering services were performed by Otto Rosenau and Associates, Inc. (ORA) to provide the following information: • A summary of the observed soil and groundwater conditions, • An evaluation of the existing site conditions, • A review of available geologic information, • Seismic design considerations including liquefaction potential at the site, • Suitable foundation systems with estimated settlements, • Allowable bearing capacity for conventional foundation systems, • Lateral earth pressures and friction coefficients, • Influence of groundwater on the proposed development, and • Limited site preparation and earthwork. 4. SITE CHARACTERIZATION We reviewed the State of Washington Department of Natural Resource’s online “Washington Interactive Geologic Map” at https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/geology/?Theme=wigm. The soils at and near the site are mapped as “Pleistocene age, recessional outwash deposits” (Qvr) and “Pleistocene age, glacial till deposits (Qvt). The recessional outwash deposits (Qvr) generally consist of stratified sands and gravels, moderately sorted to well sorted, and with little to no silty sands and silts. The recessional outwash deposits were deposited in outwash channels that carried south-draining glacial meltwater during the glacial ice retreating away from the ice margin and accumulated in or adjacent to recessional lakes. Recessional outwash deposits that are less than approximately 3 feet in thickness are not generally shown on the geological map. The glacial till deposits (Qvt) generally consist of compact diamict of silts, sands, and gravels. These deposits were transported by the glaciers and deposited under the glacial ice. Please see the figure titled “Geologic Map” on page A-3 of the appendix for the mapped site soils. EXHIBIT 9 91 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 3 of 11 5. SURFACE CONDITIONS The site consists of three rectangular-shaped parcels that have a total area of approximately 254,227 square feet (5.84 acres). The site is bounded by 56th Avenue South to the east and residential developments to the north, south, and west. Two existing single family residences are present on the property. One of the existing residential structures is located near the northwest portion of the site and the other residential structure is located near the northeast corner of the site (near 56th Avenue South). Also, a barn is located near the western residential structure and a garage structure is located near 56th Avenue South. It is our understanding that the barn and garage structures will be demolished during the construction of the proposed residential development. A gravel roadway (private) existing along the northern side of the southern parcel (King County Parcel # 9262800166) to the residential structure that is located in the northwestern portion of the site. The topography of the site is slopes gently downward from the north with an approximate elevation of 450 feet (NAVD 88), located along the northern property line, and from the east with an approximate elevation of 445 to 450 feet (NAVD 88), located along 56th Avenue South, to an approximate elevation of 420 feet (NAVD 88), located in the southwest corner of the site. The site is contains varying sizes of cedar, alder, maple and pine trees and grass cover. 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by Anderson Design Consultants by completing shallow excavations. The excavations were completed using a backhoe to a maximum depth of approximately 4⅓ feet below the existing ground surface on January 26, 1995, and February 21 and 22, 1995. The approximate locations of the excavations are shown on the Site Plan. The logs of the excavations are presented on pages A-4 to A-7 of the appendix. In general, the soils encountered at the site can be divided into two soil units – Weathered till and glacial till deposits. The following is a description of the characteristics of each soil units encountered. Weathered Till Deposits: Approximately 3 to 4⅓ feet of weathered till deposits were encountered in the excavations conducted by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. The weathered till deposits generally consist of tan, brown, red, and gray, sandy loam, loamy sand, and coarse to fine sand with varying amounts of gravel. The condition of the weathered till deposits was not noted in the excavation logs conducted by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. Glacial Till Deposits: The glacial till deposits were encountered underlying the weathered till deposits. These deposits were generally described as being “till” in the excavation logs of Anderson Design EXHIBIT 9 92 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 4 of 11 Consultants, Inc. The glacial till deposits were observed to be in a “consolidated” condition, which is similar to a dense to very dense condition. Groundwater was encountered in the excavation logs of Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. in the excavations that conducted on February 21 and 22, 1995 at the depths where glacial till deposits were encountered in the excavations. We do not anticipate it affecting the proposed residential development as long as the recommendations presented in this preliminary report are followed. 7. DISCUSSION The engineering recommendations and advice presented in this report have been made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area and are based on our understanding of the geology of the area and on our experience with similar projects. Project conditions, regarding type and location of structures and foundation loads, can change and subsurface conditions are not always similar to those encountered during the subsurface exploration. Therefore, if discrepancies are noticed, the geotechnical engineer must be contacted for review and for possible revision of the recommendations. 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 GENERAL It is our opinion that the proposed residential development can be satisfactorily supported on conventional footings that are bearing directly on the dense to very dense, glacial till deposits or compacted structural fill material. Please refer to the following sections of the report for specific site recommendations. 8.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The seismic design of structures in the City of Auburn is governed by the requirements of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). We recommend that the site soils be categorized as Site Class D for design purposes. Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations for this are based on the maps in the IBC (Figures 1613.3.1(1) and 1613.3.1(2)) for 0.2-second and 1-second spectral response accelerations on a bedrock site. The values for SS and S1 are spectral accelerations (SRA) for a maximum considered earthquake event with a 2,475 year return period, or a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. EXHIBIT 9 93 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 5 of 11 The values recommended for use in this report were obtained from the USGS website at (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php) using the “USGS Seismic Design Maps” application (Version 3.1.0 last updated on June 23, 2014). The input parameters used with this utility were the latitude and longitude for the project site (47.3124° N, 122.2672° W). The following table presents recommended values from the 2012 SBC and ASCE 7-10 “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures” for seismic design: RECOMMENDED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Site Soil Class Definition (Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10) D Risk-Targeted Max. Considered EQ (MCER) 0.2 s. SRA, Site Class B, SS, g 1.278 Risk-Targeted Max. Considered EQ (MCER) 1.0 s. SRA, Site Class B, S1, g 0.489 Site Coefficient Fa (Table 1613.3.3(1) of the SBC 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv (Table 1613.3.3(2)) of the SBC 1.511 Max. Considered EQ Adjusted for Site Class Effects for Short Periods, SMS, g 1.278 Max. Considered EQ Adjusted for Site Class Effects for Long Periods, SM1, g 0.739 5% Damped Design SRA at Short Periods, SDS, g 0.852 5% Damped Design SRA at Long Periods, SD1, g 0.492 Liquefaction may be defined as the sudden loss of strength of soil as the soil is subjected to a rapid cyclic loading, such as during an earthquake. The mechanism that allows this to occur is that excess pore water pressures are generated between the soil particles. This excess pore water pressure reduces the frictional contact between the soil particles and reduces the shear strength of the soil. If the earthquake is of large magnitude and duration the soil can begin to behave more like a liquid than solid and “liquefy”. In order for liquefaction to occur several conditions must typically be present, these include the following: • Saturated soil. • Fine to medium sand matrix containing less than about 10 percent fines (soil that can pass a No. 200 sieve. • Very loose to medium dense soil conditions. This is usually defined as soils that have N- values of 15 or less. Based on the observed subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered at the site and our understanding of geologic conditions present at the site, it is our opinion that the potential for the occurrence of liquefaction at the project site is low. EXHIBIT 9 94 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 6 of 11 The site is located within the Tacoma Fault Zone and the project site is underlain with glacially- consolidated soils, as a result, it is our opinion that the risk of surface rupture from faulting, or due to lateral spread is low. 8.3 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION SYSTEM It is our opinion that the foundation elements to be built for the new residential development can be satisfactorily supported on the conventional footings that bear directly onto the native, dense to very dense, glacial till deposits or properly compacted structural fill material. We recommend that an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) to be used for the design of conventional spread footings. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one- third for wind and seismic loads. If the recommendations in this report are followed, we estimate that maximum post-construction settlements will be less than three-quarters (3/4) of an inch and differential settlements will be less than one-half (1/2) of an inch between comparably loaded column footings. Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 270 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where foundation elements are cast on dense to very dense, native soils or properly compacted structural fill materials. This value of passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and bearing soils of 0.4 may be used to resist lateral foundation loads. This value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. 8.4 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE Structural fill can be placed at future slab-on-grade areas only after the complete removal of any unsuitable soils. All fill placed below future slabs on grade must be placed as structural fill. The slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 4-inch-thick, free-draining, clean, crushed, gravel base (Type 22 material). A robust vapor retarder such as 10-mil polyethylene sheeting shall be included beneath the slab to minimize transmission of moisture through the concrete floor. A minimum, two-inch thick layer of clean sand with less than 3 percent fines may be placed on top of the polyethylene sheeting to protect the sheeting and to enhance the curing of the concrete slabs. The sand must not be saturated at the time of concrete placement in order to enhance concrete curing. If slabs–on-grade are being planned at heated areas, a more robust vapor barrier should be utilized, since the conditioned air in the heated areas will tend to draw moisture from the near-surface groundwater that is present beneath the site. ORA can provide recommendations for vapor barriers upon request. EXHIBIT 9 95 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 7 of 11 8.5 BELOW-GRADE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS The below-grade foundation walls for this project must be designed as retaining walls. Lateral earth pressures for design of permanent retaining walls with no hydrostatic pressures or other surcharge loads, may be calculated using the following equivalent fluid densities in pounds per cubic foot (pcf): Level Back Slope Condition Active (unrestrained): Compacted granular soils, or dense to very dense native soils against wall 40 pcf. Level Back Slope Condition Active (restrained): Compacted granular soils, or dense to very dense native soils against wall 60 pcf. Passive: Embedded Portions of Foundation Elements 270 pcf. No factor of safety has been applied to the active pressure values listed above. A factor of safety of about 1.5 has been applied to the passive pressure value listed above. The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to determine appropriate lateral earth pressures for situations not described above. Seismic earth pressures were estimated using the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo-static method. We recommend that seismic earth pressures be estimated using a rectangular pressure distribution equal to 12H, where H is the height of the retained soil behind the wall. A total soil unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot should be used in design of any permanent below- grade wall or retaining structures. Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 270 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where foundation elements are cast on structural fill or dense to very dense, native soils and backfilled on both sides with structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (MDD). This value of passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and bearing soils of 0.4 may be used to resist lateral foundation loads. This value includes a factor of safety of about 1.5. 8.6 ONSITE INFILTRATION The upper loose, sandy loam, loamy sands and coarse to fine sands with varying amounts of gravel (weathered till soils) have limited capacity for infiltration of stormwater, and a relatively impermeable layer of glacial till deposits underlies the site at depths ranging from 3 to 4⅓ feet below the current site grades. EXHIBIT 9 96 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 8 of 11 8.7 EARTHWORK The preliminary recommendations presented in this report are predicated on fulfillment of the following earthwork recommendations. 8.7.1 Site Clearing: Any near-surface, existing vegetation, and deleterious materials including asphalt pavements, old foundation elements, landscaping debris, construction debris shall be removed from all future building and pavement areas prior to construction. All existing fill should be fully removed and replaced with structural fill at the location of the new foundation elements and new slab-on-grade. After site clearing and stripping, the exposed surfaces should be graded to allow good surface drainage during construction. An ORA representative must witness the stripping operation to verify that an adequate stripping has been performed. The exposed ground surface at all future pavement and slab-on-grade locations must be thoroughly compacted with a vibratory roller and proof rolled with a fully-loaded, single unit, dump truck to identify locations of soft subgrade conditions prior to the placement of structural fill. The proof roll must be witnessed by the project geotechnical engineer, or his representative. Areas of soft or otherwise unsuitable subgrade soils will need to removed and backfilled with structural fill to the extent and depth as determined by the project geotechnical engineer, or his representative. We recommend that all utilities be buried as shallow as permissible to maximize the separation between the utility and underlying compressible. If compressible soils are encountered at the base of the excavations for roadway pavements, additional overexcavations may be necessary as determined by the project geotechnical engineer. The near-surface soils at the site are extremely moisture-sensitive, and easily disturbed during periods of wet weather. Mass grading activities during extended periods of wet weather and the wet season (October 31st through March 31st) may not be possible without incurring significant expenses related to overexcavation and replacement of loose, wet soils, and re-working of previously grading areas. A gravel or quarry spall work surface may be built to protect the underlying native soils and to reduce the amount of soil disturbance during periods of wet weather. During the course of site grading, the earthwork contractor must exercise care to shape areas being worked on in a manner to shed water and to prevent creating low areas that would permit standing water to accumulate that would degrade underlying and/or previously prepared soils. 8.7.2 Structural Fill – Material, Placement and Compaction: A granular import should be used as structural fill. All fill and backfill materials should be placed in relatively horizontal loose lifts, not exceeding 10 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density EXHIBIT 9 97 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 9 of 11 (MDD) as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). If manually-operated equipment such as a jumping jack compactor is used, the thickness of each loose lift should be no greater than 6 inches. Light vibratory plate compactors are not suitable for the compaction of structural fill. Soils consisting of clay, silt, peat or containing deleterious matter are generally not suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill material should be approved by ORA prior to use. The following table summarizes our recommendations of fill material and compaction requirements for various types of aggregates. Intended Use Specification Compaction Requirements Structural fill below foundation elements Gravel backfill for Foundations (WSDOT 9-03.9) Each lift must be compacted to 95 percent of MDD per ASTM D1557 test procedure. Fill behind below- grade walls (outside of zone of wall drainage material) Gravel Backfill for Walls (WSDOT 9- 03.12(2)) Fill placed within 5 feet of below- grade walls or retaining walls shall be compacted with manually-operated compaction equipment. Fill placed at depths greater than 2 feet below finish subgrade elevation compacted to 90 percent of MDD. Fill placed at depths within 2 feet of finish subgrade elevation must be compacted to 95 percent of MDD, if the area will be supporting pavements or roadway. Fill behind below- grade walls at zone of wall drainage material Gravel Backfill for Drains (WSDOT 9- 03.12(4)) No compaction until at least 18 inches of cover is present above perforated drain pipe. Each subsequent 12-inch lift lightly compacted using manual compaction equipment. Capillary break material below slabs- on-grade Clean, crushed 5/8-inch rock Each lift must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition over the firm subgrade soils. Structural fill to be compacted to 95 percent of MDD should be moisture-conditioned to within three (3) percent of optimum moisture. Structural fill to be compacted to 90 percent of MDD should be moisture- conditioned to within six (6) percent of optimum moisture content. Placement of frozen soils or placement of soils on frozen ground should not be attempted. EXHIBIT 9 98 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 10 of 11 8.7.3 Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The migration of sediments from the site must be installed and controlled in accordance with City of Auburn requirements. We recommend that the following minimum erosion control measures be employed at the site: • Provide silt fencing around the construction area to delineate the construction limits. No construction or soil disturbance should take place outside of the construction limits. • Stockpiled soil at the site should be kept to a minimum. Any stockpiled soils should be covered with carefully secured plastic sheeting. • Catch basin socks should be installed in nearby catch basins located downhill of the work area that could be impacted by construction activities. • All sediment and soil should be removed from adjacent pavements at the end of each day of construction activities. • Periodic inspection of the adequacy and condition of the installed erosion control measures by a geotechnical engineer or an experienced representative assigned by the geotechnical engineer. Additional erosion control measures may be required as construction progresses. 8.8 DRAINAGE 8.8.1 Dewatering: Groundwater could be encountered during construction. We anticipate that dewatering could be satisfactorily completed by routing water through ditches to a low spot or sump in the excavation. Water collected in the excavation should be removed as soon as possible and should be discharged to a location approved by the City of Auburn and in accordance with City of Auburn requirements. 8.8.2 Below-Grade Wall Drainage: Good drainage is an integral part of the performance of earth- supported structures such as foundations, and retaining walls. New drainage will need to be provided between the exposed soil at the excavations along the perimeter basement walls and the new foundation walls. We anticipate that this may be most easily accomplished using a composite drainage panel such as CCW MiraDrain 6000, or an approved equivalent. The composite drainage panel is installed with the filter fabric side against the soil and the plastic, dimpled board facing the basement interior. Water collected by composite drainage panel will need to be routed to the interior of the basement using a PVC pipe fitting made by the drainage panel manufacturer that is designed for the system being used and passes through the foundation wall or footing into an interior tight line collection system below the future basement floor. The collected water then may be routed to the outfall of the existing foundation drain system, which may require the use of a sump and sump pump, if gravity flow is not feasible. EXHIBIT 9 99 of 404 Otto Rosenau & Associates, Incorporated Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Inspection & Materials Testing Robbins Plat ORA Project No.: 16-0877 November 29, 2016 Page 11 of 11 9. REPORT LIMITATIONS The preliminary recommendations presented in this report are for the exclusive use by Mr. Mark Robbins for the proposed residential development that is located at 32235 56th Avenue South in Auburn, Washington. The preliminary recommendations are based on readily-available geologic literature and the review of soil explorations that were conducted by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. conducted in January and February of 1995. The preliminary recommendations of this report are not transferable to any other site. If there are any revisions to the plans, or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. (ORA) should be notified immediately to determine whether changes to the design recommendations are required. 10. REFERENCE “324xx (approximate) 56th Ave. S. – Tax Parcel #926280-0166&0140 – King County, WA,” prepared by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc., dated March 26, 1998. “Washington Interactive Geologic Map” provided by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resource’s at https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/geology/?Theme=wigm. EXHIBIT 9 100 of 404 APPENDIX EXHIBIT 9 101 of 404 ROBBINS PLAT 32235 56TH AVE S VICINITY MAP OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. REFERENCE : The data shown is available under the Open Database License shown on https://openstreetmap.org Project Name: Robbins Plat For: Mark Robbins Location: 32235 56th Ave, Auburn, Washington Date: November 23, 2016 ORA Project Number: 16-0877 A-1 EXHIBIT 9 102 of 404 SL7-2SL7-1SL7-3SL9-3SITE PLANOTTO ROSENAU &ASSOCIATES, INC.Project Name: Robbins PlatFor: Mark RobbinsLocation: 32235 56th Ave, Auburn,WashingtonDate: November 23, 2016ORA Project Number: 16-0877LEGENDSL7-1 - Test Pit Excavation completed by Anderson Design Consultants, Inc. February ,1995Reference: Topographic map prepared by Centre Pointe Consultants, Inc. for Mark Robbins datedMy 10, 2016 and PDF overlay of proposed lot configuration titled "Lot 5A.pdf" provided by MarkRobbins, and partial report figure showing test pit locations form report prepared by AndersonDesign Consultants, Inc. dated March 26, 1998 also provided by Mark RobbinsAPPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 70'17.5 35087.570A-2EXHIBIT 9103 of 404 Qvt Qva Qvr ROBBINS PLAT 32235 56TH AVE S GEOLOGIC MAP OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Note: The location of all features shown is approximate. Reference: Washington Interactive Geologic Map online mapping service by Washington State Department of Natural Resources LEGEND Qvt - Vashon Till - Fraser Age Qvr - Glacial Recessional Outwash, Fraser Age Qva - Glacial Advance Outwash, Fraser Age Project Name: Robbins Plat For: Mark Robbins Location: 32235 56th Ave, Auburn, Washington Date: November 23, 2016 ORA Project Number: 16-0877 A-3 EXHIBIT 9 104 of 404 A-4 EXHIBIT 9 105 of 404 A-5 EXHIBIT 9 106 of 404 EXHIBIT 9107 of 404 EXHIBIT 9108 of 404 EXHIBIT 9109 of 404 EXHIBIT 9110 of 404 EXHIBIT 9111 of 404 EXHIBIT 10EXHIBIT 10 112 of 404 EXHIBIT 10 113 of 404 EXHIBIT 10 114 of 404 EXHIBIT 10 115 of 404 EXHIBIT 11EXHIBIT 11 116 of 404 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY 2 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 2 PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN 5 DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 6 TABLE OF APPENDICES APPENDIX MAPS &EXHIBITS A CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN B SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST C HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS WORKSHEET D WWHM REPORT E OTHER SPECIAL REPORTS F WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS G SOURCE CONTROL BMP H OPERATION &MAINTENANCE MANUAL I DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS J EXHIBIT 11 117 of 404 1 ROBBINS PLAT PRELIMINARY STORMWATER SITE PLAN CHAPTER 1 -PROJECT OVERVIEW This project will be located on parcel numbers 9262800140, 9262800136, & 9262800166 at 32235 56th Avenue South. This project area will cover approximately 6.2 acres and is located in the Mill Creek drainage basin.It is in review under City permit PLT16- 0006. In addition to the FAC permit that will be required by the City of Auburn,a Developer’s Extension Agreement will be applied for from Lakehaven Utility District for the new water and sewer systems that will serve the project . The pre-developed site consists of three parcels and contains two existing residences, which will remain. One is near the northwest corner of the property and the other is on 56th Avenue near the north end of the frontage. Additionally, the site contains a graveled access that serves the house near the northwest corner of the property, a barn, a detached garage, and miscellaneous fences, retaining walls, and utilities. All of these will be removed to accommodate the proposed project. There are two stormwater conveyance systems that affect the property. The first is on the western portion of the property and conveys on-site stormwater runoff from the west of the existing barn to the southwest in the natural direction of runoff for the property. The other conveyance system comes from 56th Avenue South and discharges to the property just to the west of the existing right-of-way. The existing on-site conveyance system will be removed and the off-site conveyance system will be extended through the property to an existing public conveyance system in the 324th Street right-of-way, south of the project. The completed project will consist of 31 residential lots, a new public road and cul- de-sac,three private access driveways, and a stormwater pond near the southwest corner of the property. Additionally, a stormwater main, sewer main, and water main will be extended into the project to serve the new residences.Runoff from the project will be conveyed to the new combination stormwater detention & infiltration pond and wetpond on Tract A, and then will be discharged into the public conveyance system in the 324th Street right-of-way, south of the project.A geotechnical report prepared by Pacific Testing & Inspection Inc states that the infiltration rate of 1.04 inches per hour is feasible at the location of the proposed detention pond.A public easement will be provided for the portion of the system that will carry the Robbins Plat properties’stormwater to the open public conveyance system in South 324th Street. From there, the stormwater runoff flows west in the existing ditches and then south, in a culvert, under South 324th, into a ditch that flows to the southwest and then west to a point where it crosses 51st Avenue South in a EXHIBIT 11 118 of 404 2 culvert and then continues in an open conveyance system to the southwest to a point that is ¼ mile from the property.No significant impacts are anticipated to the downstream system because developed flows will be restricted to match historic durations. No significant impacts are anticipated to the Robbins Plat properties from the runoff that is expected from the upstream properties. CHAPTER 2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY The existing site conditions are typical for a property that is being converted from a single-family residential use. Slopes vary across the site but ultimately discharge from the property at the southwest corner of the property.Existing stormwater runoff from this site leaves the property by sheet flowing across the existing vegetation and is eventually collected in the roadside ditches on the north side of the South 324th Street right-of-way. On-site soils are identified in the King County Soil Survey as Alderwood gravelly sandy loams (AgC & AgB;type C). For additional soils information, a copy of the geotechnical report is included in Appendix F. The existing conditions for the on-site and off-site basins are summarized in the table in Chapter 4 of this report. The on-site basin is assumed, for the purposes of the stormwater analysis, to have consisted entirely of forest.The existing off-site basin’s land covers were evaluated by reviewing the existing conditions shown in aerial photographs of the areas that will drain to the project site. This project is surrounded by residential uses on the north, west,and south sides of the property and by 56th Avenue South to the east. There are no known surface waters or critical areas on these properties that would be affected by the proposed stormwater management on this site. The existing septic system that serves the residence on the western edge of the properties is located to the northeast of the existing barn and will be decommissioned as part of this project.There are no known fuel tanks on the project site. CHAPTER 3 -OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Stormwater runoff from this site will be released from the detention pond into the existing public stormwater conveyance system in South 324th Street which carries the runoff to the west in an open conveyance system before runoff crosses the right-of- way to the south in a culvert and then flows to the south and west in a ditch.Runoff then is carried west under 51st Avenue South in a culvert and continues to flow to the southwest to a point ¼ of a mile from the project site.No significant problems with the existing system have been identified and no impacts are anticipated as a result of EXHIBIT 11 119 of 404 3 this project due to the proposed restriction of runoff from the site to match historic conditions as required by the City of Auburn’s stormwater manual.The site was visited in November, 2016,while weather conditions were wet and cloudy. A downstream map is included in Appendix A. In response to City requests for a quantitative downstream analysis ,the areas that are upstream of the nearest one-quarter-mile section of the existing stormwater conveyance system which carries runoff from the project site were reviewed and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared.Based on our review of County topography and as-built records for plats in the area, basin that slopes towards the downstream system for this project consists of 140.9 acres. These areas fall into two subbasins consisting of the properties that are part of a subdivision that was designed with flow control facilities and those areas that were not designed with flow control.The subdivisions in the basin are Peasley Ridge, KC Short Plat, Canterberry Crossing, Hasting Short Plat, and NickAndyTy. Their locations are shown below. Of those subdivisions, the as-built drawings that were gathered show flow control facilities for all but the NickAndyTy subdivision which was subdivided in the late 1960’s. FIGURE 1:UPSTREAM BASIN SUBDIVISIONS EXHIBIT 11 120 of 404 4 A WWHM analysis was prepared for the upstream basins.For the subdivisions where stormwater flow control systems were designed and installed, a forested condition was assumed for the contributing areas that are a part of that subdivision. The impervious surface used for roads in the basin were estimated at 87,290 square feet of impervious surface, based on review of aerial photographs of the basin.For the remaining areas, which included 88 residential lots, 4,000 square feet of impervious surface was assumed for each lot as well as 4,000 square feet of non - native pervious surfaces while the remainder was assumed to be in a forested condition. The existing conveyance system that is downstream of the Robbins Plat, within one quarter of a mile of the property, consists of four ditch segments and four culverts. Their characteristics are summarized in the table below. Additionally, the basin areas that are discharging runoff to any part of the ditch segments in the downstream system were, conservatively, assumed to discharge all of their stormwater runoff at the beginning of that segment of ditch. DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM SUMMARY DOWNSTREAM ELEMENT SLOPE (MIN)SIZE MATERIAL IMPERVIOUS GRASS FOREST FLOW RATE Ditch 4 9.87%See App.grassed 4.657 ac 3.471 ac 39.329 ac 8.47 cfsCulvert 4 8.97%12 inch concrete Ditch 3 4.83%See App.rock-lined 7.375 ac 5.649 ac 81.870 ac 15.43 cfsCulvert 3 3.65%24 inch concrete Ditch 2 1.20%See App.grassed 8.141 ac 6.262 ac 89.103 ac 16.89 cfsCulvert 2 3.84%18 inch CMP Ditch 1 1.50%See App.grassed 11.462 ac 8.923 ac 120.481 ac 23.24 cfsCulvert 1 3.48%18 inch CMP Section 3.4.2 of Volume 3 of the City of Auburn’s manual requires that culverts operate with a ratio of headwater to culvert depth of less than 2 for culverts that are 18-inch and smaller and a ratio of headwater to culvert depth of no more than 1.5 for culverts that are greater than 18 inches in diameter. The ditches were evaluated to determine whether they had capacity to carry the 100-year peak flow rate without overtopping. Hydraflow Express was used to solve Manning’s equation for the depth of flow in the ditches. The analysis shows that each of the ditches have capacity to carry the 100-year peak flow rate without overtopping. A HY8 backwater analysis was performed for each of the culverts and culverts 1 and 3 met City of Auburn requirements, while culvert 2 exceeded the maximum headwater to culvert diameter ratio with a ratio of 2.03.Culvert 4 meets the requirements for headwater, but the EXHIBIT 11 121 of 404 5 calculations indicate that it would be expected to cause water to overtop the ditch at its inlet.Detailed calculations are included in Appendix J. While the calculations indicate that flows at culvert 4 would overtop the ditch at the 100-year peak flow rate, neighbors that live along the path of the downstream system did not report having seen any overtopping of the culvert. At this time, a more time- intensive analysis of the stormwater system has not been completed to determine how to more-finely calibrate the model. CHAPTER 4 -PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN Threshold Discharge Areas and Applicable Requirements for Treatment, Flow Control, and Wetlands Protection There is one threshold discharge area for this project, which encompasses 6.02 acres on-site and 6.68 acres off-site to the north and south. The developed site will contain 29 new residences with a total impervious area of 2.46 acres (65% impervious per lot),two existing residences with a total impervious area of 0.078 acres,1.29 acres of public or shared access impervious surfaces,0.388 acres of pond surface and pond access,and 1.78 acres of landscaping. Predeveloped Site Hydrology As mentioned previously, on-site soils are identified in the geotechnical report as consisting of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (type C). Cover characteristics for the existing and historic conditions are as summarized in the table below. PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS SUB-BASIN FOREST LAWN IMPERVIOUS On-site 5.91 acres 0.00 acres 0.00 acres BypassOn-site 0.00 acres 0.36 acres 0.15 acres Off-site -North 0.00 acres 4.20 acres 1.30 acres Off-site -South 0.00 acres 1.31 acres 0.24 acres Developed Site Hydrology Site cover characteristics for the proposed improvements to this basin are summarized in the table below. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS SUB-BASIN FOREST LAWN IMPERVIOUS On-site 0.00 acres 1.78 acres 4.14 acres EXHIBIT 11 122 of 404 6 Detailed calculations will be included in Appendix D along with the Hydraulic Analysis Worksheet when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. Performance Standards and Goals This project will provide flow control per Minimum Requirement #7.The detention pond will be designed to match the 2 and 10-year peak flow rates and durations for the range of historic flow rates from 50% of the 2-year to the 50-year peak flow rate. The project will provide runoff treatment in compliance with Minimum Requirement #6 since there will be more than 5,000 square feet of effective pollution-generating impervious surface.A wetpond will be constructed in combination with the new detention pond on Tract A to meet the water quality requirements for this project. Flow Control System Copies of the detailed calculations and computer documentation related to the design of the detention pond will be included in Appendix E when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. Water Quality System Stormwater runoff from this project site will be treated in a wet pond. The system has been sized to treat 91% of the volume of runoff from the basin.The water quality volume as determined by the current version of WWHM is 0.7555 acre-feet. Detailed calculations will be included in Appendix G when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Detailed conveyance calculations will be included in the appendices when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. CHAPTER 5 -DISCUSSION OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of a Stormwater Site Plan The site will add 3.99 acres of new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surfaces and, therefore, is required to comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through 10 of the City’s Surface Water Management Manual. This document has been prepared in order to comply with the requirement to provide a Stormwater Site Plan. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Construction SWPPP will be prepared and included in Appendix B of this report when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. This project adds or EXHIBIT 11 123 of 404 7 replaces more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface or clears more than 1-acre of land and, therefore, requires a full-length Construction SWPPP. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution The project will incorporate some BMP’s recommendations from the City’s Surface Water Management Manual that apply to the activities that will occur at the completed project. The applied BMPs will be included in Appendix H when the final engineering plans are submitted for permitting. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff leaves the site near the southwest corner of the property across the surface of the ground and is eventually collected into the public conveyance system in South 324th Street. Under the proposed conditions, the runoff will be collected, detained, and released into the South 324th Street’s public conveyance system, which is south of the project site. In addition to stormwater runoff from the property, stormwater from an existing conveyance system in 56th Avenue is discharged to the property at the east edge of the property. It will be collected and discharged to the public conveyance system in South 324th Street. Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management On-site stormwater management is not proposed for the individual lots due to the limited areas available and the high groundwater conditions that preclude the feasibility of infiltration BMPs. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment This project will provide a stormwater treatment facility because it will have an effective pollution-generating surface of more than 5,000 square feet. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control This project will provide a flow control facility near the southwest corner of the project site. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection This project does not discharge stormwater runoff directly to any known wetlands. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance All stormwater facilities will be dedicated to the City of Auburn for operation and maintenance responsibility. Minimum Requirement #10: Off-site Analysis and Mitigation A qualitative off-site map has been included as part of this report in Appendix A. EXHIBIT 11 124 of 404 APPENDIX A: MAPS & EXHIBITS Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 125 of 404 APPENDIX B: CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 126 of 404 APPENDIX C: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 127 of 404 APPENDIX D: HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 128 of 404 APPENDIX E: WWHM REPORT Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 129 of 404 APPENDIX F: OTHER SPECIAL REPORTS Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 130 of 404 APPENDIX G: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 131 of 404 APPENDIX H: SOURCE CONTROL BMP’S Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 132 of 404 APPENDIX I: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 133 of 404 APPENDIX J: DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Not included in Hearing Examiner packet. EXHIBIT 11 134 of 404 June 20, 2019 Ms. Ingrid Gaub, P.E. City of Auburn 1 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 RE: ROBBINS PLAT (PLT16-0006) DEVIATION REQUEST (APCE Project #2015051) Ms. Gaub: We are requesting a deviation from City Standards for the Robbins Plat on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Mark Robbins, the owners of parcels 9262800140, 9262800136, & 9262800166, over which they are currently pursuing permits for a subdivision of 31 lots. The deviation being requested is to allow the spacing of the intersection of the new public local residential road to be less than the 250 feet from South 322nd Place that is required by Section 10.04.1.1 of the Auburn Design Standards. The proposed location for the new public road would locate the centerline of the road at 194 feet from the centerline of South 322nd Place, to the north, and 300 feet from the centerline of South 324th, to the south. The proposed location continues to meet the functional intent of the City’s intersection spacing requirements; increases the separation from 324th, which is expected to contribute a higher amount of traffic than 322nd Place (access for a gated community with a smaller number of residential properties that feed traffic onto it) and, thereby, increases the safety and function in the area; and increases the possible density of the subdivision which helps to meet the City’s comprehensive plan goals. The following is a list of the City’s criteria for granting deviations followed by a discussion of the impacts of approving this deviation with the intent of demonstrating that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for each of the criteria: 1. Functional Intent The understood primary functional intent of the intersection spacing for 56th Street is safety, rather than managing efficient traffic flow, on what is a relatively low traffic residential collector. The required stopping sight distances, which are typically a basis for intersection spacing requirements will be met at the proposed location for the subdivision’s new road. 56th Street has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour and a design speed of 40 miles per hour. Additionally, the greatest slope from the north on 56th Street is 7.6% and EXHIBIT 12EXHIBIT 12 135 of 404 is 8.6% from the south. Based on these design parameters and Chapter 1310 of the WSDOT Design Manual (M 22-01.12) the sight distances required for passenger vehicles for left and right turns, respectively are 506 feet and 436 feet. Calculations and an exhibit that show that this sight distance is available is attached to this letter. Additionally, the turning paths from each of the nearest intersections (194 feet of separation) are not anticipated to overlap with those of the proposed road. Therefore, the functional intent of the City’s design standards is expected to be met when the deviation is approved and will, in fact, be greater than anticipated for the future South 324th Street. 2. Safety Factors Given that stopping sight distance requirements for 56th Street will be met and that there will not be an overlap of turning paths from South 322nd Place and the new public road, it is not anticipated that there will be any decrease in safety factors as a result of approval of this deviation. In fact, the safety factors for the traffic that enters from the future South 324th will be increased because the distance between the two roads will exceed the 250 feet required by the City standards. 3. Operational Concerns No negative operational concerns are anticipated as a result of approving the deviation. 4. Maintenance Concerns No additional maintenance concerns are anticipated as a result of approving the deviation. 5. Liability Concerns Because the stopping sight distance criteria will be met for this location, an increase in liability is not expected to be a concern as a result of approving the deviation. 6. Capacities and/or efficiencies of the design element No impacts to the capacity or efficiencies of the intersections are expected as a result of approving the deviation. 7. The design life, historical performance, and durability No decrease in the design life, historical performance, and durability are expected as a result of approving the deviation. 8. The aesthetic and visual impacts No aesthetic or visual impacts are expected as a result of approving the deviation. 9. The cost effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials No difference is expected for the cost-effectiveness and availability of any replacement components or materials as a result of approving the deviation. 10. Consistency with the spirit and purpose of the corresponding City design standard The same justifications as are listed above for functional intent apply to this criterion. 11. Demonstration that the environment will not be adversely affected The environmental impacts are not anticipated to differ as a result of approving the deviation. EXHIBIT 12 136 of 404 EXHIBIT 12 137 of 404 From:Steven Sturza To:"Mark Robbins"; Adam Paul Cc:Development Subject:DEV17-0015 Robbins Plat; Intersection Spacing Deviation Determination Date:Friday, July 5, 2019 1:40:02 PM Attachments:DEV17-0015 Justification Letter 6.26.2019.pdf Good afternoon Adam and Mark, The City Engineer has reviewed the Deviation Request (DEV17-0015) submitted for the Robbins Preliminary Plat (PLT18-0006) project. The results of that review are provided below. Deviation Request (DEV17-0015) received June 21, 2019, is associated with the Robbins Preliminary Plat project. Applicant requests approval of a proposed intersection spacing of 194-feet between a proposed local residential street off of 56th Ave S and S 322nd Pl. Chapter 10.01.1 of the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards (EDS) requires that the minimum intersection spacing from centerline to centerline between Local Streets on a Collector Street be 250-feet. The City Engineer may grant a deviation from the EDS if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed deviation will meet or exceed the corresponding City standard for the criteria listed in Section 1.04.1 of the EDS. In this case, the City Engineer has determined that the proposal meets or exceeds the corresponding City standards for the Deviation Request. DEV17-0015 is approvable with a condition. The City will recommend approval of the Deviation Request to the Hearing Examiner for the Robbins Preliminary Plat project. The condition of approval is that: 1. The deviation request letter written and stamped by Adam Paul shall be updated to reference the correct streets. The letter currently calls out S 232nd Pl and S 234th in the attached letter and it should be S 324th St and S 322nd Pl. Per Chapter 3, Appendix C of the EDS, approved Deviation Requests must include the appropriate plan sheet callouts and descriptions on the future civil site improvement (FAC) plans. Please refer to that section when including the required plan sheet elements for the Deviation Request when submitting for final engineering review of the project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Steve Sturza, P.E., CFM Development Engineer Manager | City of Auburn Community Development 253.876.1969 | ssturza@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps EXHIBIT 12 138 of 404 This message is private and privileged. If you are not the person meant to receive this message, please let the sender know, then delete it. Please do not copy or send it to anyone else. EXHIBIT 12 139 of 404 EXHIBIT 13EXHIBIT 13 140 of 404 EXHIBIT 13 141 of 404 EXHIBIT 13 142 of 404 EXHIBIT 13 143 of 404 September 4, 2017 Alexandria Teague City of Kent 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 RE: Robbins Plat – Parcel Nos 926280014/9262800136/9262800166 (File No. PLT16-0006 & SEP16-0020) School Bus & Walkway Analysis (APCE Project #2015051) SCHOOL BUS & WALKWAY ANAYSIS This report was prepared at the request of the City of Auburn and coordinated with the Auburn School District. The proposed plat subdivides 6.21 acres into 27 lots within a portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 21, and Range 4, in King County. The site address is 32235 56th Ave S, but the project includes parcels 926280014, 9262800136, and 9262800166. The schools listed below will be serving the proposed plat: Elementary School: Evergreen Heights (0.5 mile from project location) Middle School: Cascade Middle School (3.9 miles from project location) High School: Auburn High (2.9 miles from project location) None of the schools listed above are within walking distance of the proposed plat. The bus stop for Evergreen Heights, Cascade, and Auburn High school is located at the intersection of 322nd Place and 56th Ave S. Specifically, children are picked up or dropped off on the east side of 56th Ave S when the bus is heading north, and the west side when the bus is heading south. In accordance with information provided by Dennis Grad of the Auburn School District, children cross 56th Ave S using the bus when being dropped off. Currently, no improvements are proposed as part of the project. Figure 1 below shows 56th Ave S looking North towards 322nd. A bus shelter can be seen on the east side of 56th, marking the bus stop location for drop off and pick up for the proposed plat. Figure 1. Looking North along 56th Ave S towards 322nd Place. EXHIBIT 14EXHIBIT 14 144 of 404 EXHIBIT 14 145 of 404 EXHIBIT 14 146 of 404 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM HEARING EXAMINER Agenda Subject/Title: PLT19-0004, Aston Park Preliminary Plat Date: December 2, 2019 DESCRIPTION: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.43 acres into 20 single-family residential lots, two critical area tracts, and one stormwater management tract in the R-5, Residential Zoning District. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Aston Park Preliminary Plat application with 18 conditions including the Plat Modification request. PROJECT SUMMARY: Preliminary plat application to subdivide approximately 4.43 acres into 20 single-family residential lots. The site is zoned R-5, Residential Zone, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre, which allows 5-7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed lots range in size from approximately 4,557 sq. ft. to 9,858 sq. ft. Roadways to be constructed include the new on-site roadway extending northerly from SE 304th St. for a distance of approximately 465 ft. and ending in a cul-de-sac. Utility lines will be extended within the on-site public street and private access/utility tracts to serve the lots. Two critical areas tracts are proposed to contain the on-site wetlands and buffers and one stormwater management tract. LOCATION: The project site is located on the north side of SE 304th St., between 116th Ave. SE and 118th Ave. SE, within SW ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 N, Range 5 E. W.M. King County Assessor Parcel No. 786700-0005. APPLICANT / APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Ed Mecum, Senior Engineer, Encompass Engineering, 165 NE Juniper St., Issaquah, WA PROPERTY OWNER: Randy Goodwin, Aston Park LLC, 15215 SE 272nd St., Ste. 201, Kent, WA Subject Property and Adjacent Property Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Classification and Current Land Use: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Current Land Use Project Site Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-family residences and associated accessory structures North Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences South Institutional P-1, Public Use Hazelwood Elementary East Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences West Single Family R-5 Residential Zone Single-Family Residences 147 of 404 Excerpted Zoning Map: Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Map: 148 of 404 2017 Aerial Photo Vicinity Map: Vicinity Street Network Map: 149 of 404 SEPA STATUS: A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP19-0008 on November 12, 2019, see Exhibit 4. The comment period ended November 27, 2019 and the appeal period ended December 11, 2019. No written comments were received. As of the date this Staff Report was prepared, no appeal of the SEPA decision was received. FINDINGS OF FACT: Preliminary Plat Findings 1. Ed Mecum, Senior Engineer, with Encompass Engineering & Surveying, on behalf of the Property Owner Randy Goodwin with Aston Park LLC, submitted a Preliminary Plat and associated SEPA application on February 28, 2019. The applications are to subdivide approximately 4.43 acres (referred to as the “Site” in this Staff Report) into 20 single-family residential lots. Also included in the proposal is construction of a new cul-de-sac (referred to as “Road A” in this Staff Report) northerly from the existing SE 304th St., two new private access/utility tracts stemming from the new road (Tracts D and E), two private critical areas tracts (Tracts B and C), and one publicly-dedicated stormwater pond tract (Tract A), referred to as the “Project” in this Staff Report. 2. The Site consists of one parcel that is located in the Leah Hill portion of the City, on the north side of SE 304th St., east of 116th Ave. SE and west of 118th Ave. SE of 59th Ave. S. The Site is located within the City of Auburn’s corporate limits, and identified by King County Tax Assessor Parcel No. 786700-0005. 3. The Site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of “Single Family Residential” and is zoned R-5, Residential, Five Dwelling Units Per Acre, which has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.43 acres, which in accordance with the density calculation would require between 17.7 (rounded to 18) and 22.2 (rounded to 22) lots respectively per Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.02.065(A)(1)(a). 4. The Project is subject to the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district in effect at the time the Project application was considered “Complete” (i.e. vested). Per ACC 18.07.030 the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district include: Minimum lot area: 4,500 square feet Minimum lot width: 50 feet Lot coverage: 40% Impervious surface: 65% Maximum building height: 35 feet Minimum yard setbacks: o Front: 10 feet o Side, interior: 5 feet o Side, street: 10 feet o Rear: 20 feet 5. Per ACC 18.52.020 two off-street parking spaces per single family residence are required. 150 of 404 6. The Site currently contains a single-family residence with accessory structures. The home and associated accessory structures will be demolished. The site is currently served with water and sewer service from the City of Auburn. 7. The Site is rectangular in shape, as shown and dimensioned here: 8. The Site is bordered by an existing “Minor Arterial” classified street on the south (SE 304th St.) and a private road (SE 302nd St.) to the north. To serve the future lots, Road A will be constructed on-site with full public street improvements meeting “Local Residential” standards from SE 304th ST and terminate in a cul-de-sac at the north end. Two new private access tracts (Tracts A and D) will radiate from Road A. For full size civil plans, see Exhibit 6. 9. The Site is located within the utility service areas of, and will be served by, the City of Auburn for public water and sewer. 10. The Site slopes gradually up from south to north with an elevation change of approximately 10 ft. across the Site. 11. The Site is located within the critical area of Groundwater Protection Zone 4, the least stringent classification. Therefore no impacts are anticipated that cannot be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs). As recommended in the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report (Exhibit 9), stormwater runoff from the Project will be treated and detained 318 ft. 316 ft. 609 ft. 609 ft. 151 of 404 in a stormwater pond located in Tract A, per the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements. 12. The Site is not located within any shoreline designation. 13. The Site is not located in the regulatory floodplain per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. 14. Three wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and C) have been identified on the Site (reference the Critical Areas Report, Exhibit 7). The wetlands have been rated as Category IV wetlands which have a minimum buffer of 25 ft. per the City’s critical areas regulations, Chapter 16.10 ACC. Wetlands A (approx. 8,266 sq. ft.) and B (approx. 1,212 sq. ft.) and their buffers will be placed within critical areas tracts for permanent preservation (Tracts B and C). A portion of Wetland A (approx. 1,425 sq. ft.) will be filled in order to construct the required improvements to SE 304th St. Wetland C (approx. 158 sq. ft.) is proposed to be filled and compensated for on-site by expanding Wetlands A and B. Under City critical area regulations, a mitigation plan is required to be prepared and reviewed, and is required to be approved by the City prior to authorization of any disturbance of critical areas. Access to the Tracts for inspections and monitoring is provided by the proposed Road A. The Applicant has received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed wetland fills (Exhibit 12). 15. There are occupation features (apparent property line encroachments) along the perimeter of the Site (including fences, stormwater features, and a private road (SE 302nd St.)) affecting the boundary between the Site and adjoining parcels, which are shown and appropriately dimensioned on Exhibit 6. Any potential adverse claims and/or unwritten rights associated with the depicted occupation features is a private matter between property owners . During the civil plan review process, any encroachments should be relocated or an easement granted to the occupation feature owner. The City’s review of this preliminary plat application is for its conformity to Auburn City Code and State platting law, and as such does not address nor adjudicate any potential unwritten rights that may be acquired by the Applicant or the adjoiners. The project is conditioned such that a note will be required on the Final Plat if these remain unchanged and/or unresolved at the time of final plat application. 16. Half-street improvements will be required along the Site’s frontage on SE 304th St. including the dedication of approx. 2.5 ft. of right-of-way (ROW), pavement widening, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, and stormwater controls to meet the City’s “Minor Residential” standard. Full street improvements are required for the proposed Road A to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, stormwater controls and landscape strip to meet the City’s “Minor Residential” standard. 17. By City regulations, construction shall occur between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM on weekdays, and between 9 AM and 6 PM on Saturday and Sunday (ACC 8.28.010(B)(8)). 18. The current park impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance, unless a different timing is requested and granted in accordance with Chapter 19.08 ACC ‘Parks Impact Fees’. 152 of 404 19. The current school impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance, unless a different timing is requested and granted in accordance with Chapter 19.02 ACC ‘School Impact Fees’. 20. The current fire impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance, unless a different timing is requested and granted in accordance with Chapter 19.06 ACC ‘Fire Impact Fees’. 21. The current traffic impact fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance, unless a different timing is requested and granted in accordance with Chapter 19.04 ACC ‘Transportation Impact Fees’. 22. A combined Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing, and Determination of Non- Significance (DNS), was issued on November 12, 2019 (Exhibit 4). The notices were posted at the Site, mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the Site, and published in The Seattle Times newspaper. No written comments were received. Plat Modification Findings 1. In accordance with the subdivision code section ACC 17.14.090(D), ‘Lot Requirements’ corner lots must be platted five feet wider than required by the zoning ordinance. The minimum lot width for an internal lot in the R-5 zone is 50 feet. Therefore, all corners lots must be platted a minimum of 55 feet in width. 2. A corner lot is defined as “…a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets” (ACC 18.04.590). A street is defined as “…a public or private street…” (ACC 17.04.340). Therefore, Lots 13, 16, and 19 are considered corner lots as they abut both a public and a private street. 3. On November 25, 2019, the Applicant requested a plat modification for relief from the minimum lot width applicable to corner lots (Exhibit 11). Lots 13, 16, and 19 do not meet the minimum lot width requirement for corner lots. These three lots, however, are proposed to meet the street side setback of ten feet as routinely required for corner lots. 4. Per Chapter 17.18 ACC ‘Modifications for Formal Subdivisions’, the Hearing Examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’. See ‘Plat Modifications Conclusions’, below. The request letter interchangeably refers to the request for relief from the corner lot width standard as both a “variance” and “modification”, since the standard originates from the subdivision code, it is more appropriately a “modification of subdivision standard”. 153 of 404 CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat Conclusions Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, with conditions. Per ACC 14.03.030, a preliminary plat is a Type III Decision which are quasi-judicial final decisions made by the Hearing Examiner. ACC 17.10.070 ‘Findings of Fact’ lists the approval criteria for a preliminary plat. A comparison of the project’s relationship to subdivision approval criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis: A. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds and schools; Staff Analysis: No adverse impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare are anticipated from the proposed subdivision. Staff offers the following analysis of each of subcategory listed in this criterion: Open Spaces: The Project is not subject to any park dedication, open space, or clustering requirements under Title 18 ‘Zoning’ or Title 17 ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’. Two open space tracts for critical areas purposes will, however, be provided within the Project. Drainage Ways: There is an existing drainage way along the western property line that was installed by King County prior to annexation into the City. This drainage way is for stormwater conveyance and is not a regulated critical area. This drainage way is proposed to be removed and hard-lined into the stormwater system for the Project. Stormwater management will be evaluated and finalized through the civil plan review process. Stormwater runoff from the Project will be treated and detained in a stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of the site located in Tract A and dispersed into the wetland buffers, consistent with the SWMMWW and Auburn Supplements. Streets, Alleys, other Public Ways: The Project will be required to construct streets per ACC, Chapter 12.64A ACC ‘Required Public Improvements’, the City’s Engineering Design Standards, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. With the construction of Road A into the site and the completion of the half street improvements along the Site’s frontage of SE. 304th St. the City’s Transportation Division finds that there will be no decrease in the road network level of service (LOS) standard. Additionally, as provided in ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 21, each new residence will be required to pay the Traffic Impact Fee in place at time of building permit issuance. Two private access roads (within Tracts D & E) will be constructed off of the west side of the cul-de-sac. Tract D will provide access for Lots 9-12 and 17-18. Details of the road improvements, which are consistent with the City of Auburn (Engineering) Design Standards COADS, are shown on the preliminary civil drawings (Exhibit 6). Based on the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Functional Roadway Classification Map, Road A will be classified as a “Local Residential” street. Public Water: The Site is located within the City’s water service area. Adequate water 154 of 404 service will be provided for the Project. Water will be extended from the existing 20-in. water main in SE 304th St. within Road A and Tract D to serve each lot (a total of 680 LF of water main). Public Sanitary Sewer: The Site is located within the City’s sewer service area. Adequate sewer service will be provided for the Project. Sewer will be extended from the existing 8-in. sewer main in SE 304th St. within Road A and Tract D to serve each lot (a total of 692 LF of sewer main). Parks, Playgrounds: No parks or playgrounds are proposed for the Project and none are required under City Code authority. Per ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 18, Park Impact Fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance (currently $3,500.00 per unit). There are no formal parks within ½ mile of the site, however, informal recreational opportunities are available in the area including the combined Hazelwood Elementary / Rainier Middle school site across SE 304th St. and the critical areas tracts within the Project. Schools: The Site is located within the Auburn School District boundary. Per the Applicant, students within the Project will attend: 1) Hazelwood Elementary School; 2) Rainier Middle School, and 3) Auburn Mountainview High School. Students will walk to both Hazelwood and Rainier. High school students will walk to Rainier where they will ride a shuttle to Auburn Mountainview. To get to the schools, students will walk east along SE 304th St. to the existing crosswalk at 118th Ave. SE. Sidewalk along SE 304th St. will also be extended off-site to the crosswalk. The Auburn School District was provided with the public notice but did not provide a response. For additional school transportation details, see Exhibit 10. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. B. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan; Staff Analysis: The Project is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Map establishes the future land use designations for the City of Auburn. The designation of ‘Single Family Residential’ establishes areas intended for single family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan Map depicts the Site as ‘Single Family Residential’. The Project will subdivide approximately 4.43 acres into 20 lots for single family dwellings. Therefore this Project meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan by developing single-family dwellings. Additionally, adequate City services, facilities, and utilities can be provided to serve the plat. The Project will also provide adequate facilities for stormwater; stormwater will be directed to the stormwater pond and to dispersion trenches/areas. The stormwater facilities will be required to meet applicable code and engineering design standards, as conditioned below. The Project proposes a one-way-in/one-way-out access for the stormwater pond; additional requirements will need to be implemented to ensure safe access for City Maintenance & Operations (see Condition No. 7). The proposed Road A will be a “Local Residential” public street and extended on-site to serve the proposed Project. Sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of Road A as well as along the project frontage on SE 304th St. as well as an off-site extension of approx. 103 ft. on SE 304th St. The Project will connect pedestrians to SE 304th St. via Tract D and Road A. Public services such as the Auburn Police Department, Valley Regional Fire Authority, and the Auburn School District 155 of 404 will also serve the proposed Project. Finally, impact fees for traffic, fire, parks, and schools will mitigate respective impacts generated by the Project. The Project is also consistent with or implements the specific following goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Policies: “LU-5 New residential development should contribute to the creation, enhancement and improvement of the transportation system, health and human services, emergency services, school system, and park system. This may be accomplished through the development of level of service standards, mitigation fees, impact fees, or construction contributions.” Capital Facilities “Objective 1.1. To ensure that new development does not out-pace the City's ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations which can support the public services they require.” Policies: “CF-1 Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of public facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with development.” “CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner.” “CF-4 If adequate facilities are currently unavailable and public funds are not committed to provide such facilities, developers must provide such facilities at their own expense in order to develop.” “CF-7 The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or use.” “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” Policies: 156 of 404 “CF-10 Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this comprehensive plan.” “CF-12 No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate share of related system needs.” “Objective 1.3. To ensure safe and adequate water service, for both domestic and fire protection purposes, to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “CF-16 The City shall continue its policy of requiring that water system extensions needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneously with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Water Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City shall continue to participate to the extent permitted by law, through direct participation, LIDs, and payback agreements, to assist in the financing of such oversized improvements. Wherever any form of City finance is involved in a waterline extension, lines that promote a compact development pattern will be favored over lines traversing large undeveloped areas with uncertain future development plans.” “Objective 1.4. To ensure the efficient transmission of sanitary sewage to the appropriate treatment and disposal facilities in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” “CF-23 The City shall continue its policy of requiring that sewer system extensions needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneously with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City shall continue to use, to the extent permitted by law, direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the financing of such oversized improvements. Wherever any form of City finance is involved in a sewer line extension, lines that promote a compact development pattern will be favored over lines traversing large undeveloped areas where future development plans are uncertain.” “Objective 1.6. To ensure that collection, conveyance, storage and discharge of storm drainage is provided in a sufficient and environmentally responsible manner, in order to meet the needs of the existing community and provide for its planned growth.” Policies: “CF-37 The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements.” 157 of 404 Transportation Plan “Connect-01: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community.” “Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure systems needed to serve new developments.” “Funding-03: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments.” “Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.” “ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of- way include: Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development; Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.” “Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.” Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan “PR-8 Park impact fees should be established that help fund the future development of new parks, park facilities, trails, and acquisition of open space that meet the needs of an increasing population.” Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. C. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council; Staff Analysis: The preceding analysis for Criterion B demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the applicable policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City. The project is generally consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan including the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. 158 of 404 Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. D. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this title, as enumerated in ACC 17.02.030; Staff Analysis: The proposed subdivision meets the general purpose of Title 17 ACC ‘Land Adjustments and Subdivisions’. The Project is a 20-lot subdivision that is consistent with the R-5 zoning district. Adequate provisions for water, sewer, storm drainage, roads, and safe walking conditions will be provided with this Project. The plat has been processed and reviewed for conformity with the regulations of the Auburn City Code, City plans, policies, and engineering design standards. Below is a comparison of the Project’s consistency with ACC 17.02.030 and the specific purpose statements of the subdivision code (in italics) followed by a Staff analysis for each item. “The purpose of this title is to regulate the division of land lying within the corporate limits of the city, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and prevent or abate public nuisances in accordance with standards established by the state and the city, and to: A. Prevent the overcrowding of land; Staff Analysis: The Project meets the minimum and base density of the R-5 zoning district. As provided under ‘Finding of Fact’ No. 3, the R-5 zoning district has a density range of between 4 and 5 dwelling units per acre. As the site is approximately 4.43 acres, which based on the density calculation requires between 18 and 22 lots. As proposed, the Project will contain 20 lots, the minimum density for the R-5 zoning district. Therefore, the Project will not create an overcrowding of the land. B. Promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; Staff Analysis: The Project is extending a new roadway (Road A) into the Site and constructing half street improvements to complete the roadway section on SE 304th St. and therefore will provide a means of safe and convenient travel via public routes. C. Promote the effective use of land; Staff Analysis: The Project is effectively developing the Site by providing single family residential lots that are within the density ranges required for the R-5 zoning district. D. Provide for adequate light and air; Staff Analysis: The Project will provide adequate light and air through the applicable setback and lot coverage development standards. E. Facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreational areas, sites for schools and school grounds, and other public requirements; 159 of 404 Staff Analysis: The Finding of Facts, and preceding analysis for Criteria A and B demonstrates the Project is providing adequate provisions for water supplies, sanitary wastes, drainage, roads, and other public requirements such as public health, safety, parks, and schools. F. Identify, preserve, and utilize native soils and/or vegetation for the purposes of reducing storm water discharges, promoting groundwater infiltration, and implementing the use of storm water low impact development techniques; Staff Analysis: As is typical with single family residential subdivisions, the Site will be graded throughout to create building pads for the future homes, to construct the public and private roadways to meet the COADS, and to construct the stormwater facility. The two areas that will be set aside as critical areas tracts that contain the wetlands and their buffers will not be disturbed with the exception of the wetland creation and wetland buffer enhancement. The small wetland in the middle of the site (Wetland C) will, however, be filled and compensated for on-site. Stormwater LID facilities will be utilized for Lots 1-9 with dispersion trenches located within / adjacent to the wetlands/buffers to maintain hydrology to the Category IV wetlands. Lots 1-2 will disperse to Wetland A (Tract B) and Lots 3-9 will disperse to Wetland B (Tract C). G. Provide for proper ingress and egress; Staff Analysis: As demonstrated in the analysis for Criterion A, the Project will provide proper ingress and egress for each individual future home and pedestrian connections to the public way. H. Provide for the expeditious review and approval of proposed land divisions which comply with this title, the Auburn zoning ordinance, other city plans, policies and land use controls, and Chapter 58.17 RCW; Staff Analysis: Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure a timely and comprehensive review of the Project. I. Adequately provide for the housing and commercial needs of the citizens of the state and city; Staff Analysis: The Project will eventually provide for 20 new single-family residences to serve future residents. J. Require uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description; Staff Analysis: Upon final plat map review, the Project will be required to meet all applicable survey requirements. K. Implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.” Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criterion B, the Project successfully implements the 160 of 404 Comprehensive Plan. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. E. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the city, or as modified and approved as part of a previously approved PUD; Staff Analysis: As analyzed in the ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’, above, the Project is able to meet applicable zoning and engineering standards, with the exception of the requested plat modification which is discussed under the Plat Modification Findings and Conclusions, provided above and below, respectively. The placement of homes will be required to meet the zoning development standards for the R-5 zoning district to which the Project is vested (reference ‘Preliminary Plat Findings’ No. 4). Staff therefore finds that the Project is able to meet this criterion, as conditioned herein. F. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment; Staff Analysis: There are three wetlands that are located on the Site. The two larger wetlands (A and B) will be set aside and permanently protected within separate tracts upon recordation of the Final Plat. Wetland C is proposed to be filled and compensated for on-site by the creation of new wetland area adjacent to Wetland B, consistent with local, state, and federal regulations. The Project has been reviewed for conformance with applicable environmental regulations and is not expected to have any adverse environmental impacts. The wetlands will be protected during site development with temporary construction fencing and silt fences. Reference Exhibits 6 and 7. The grading plans proposed have been reviewed for conformance with City codes and regulations and per the Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 8). Such plans have been deemed suitable for development and erosion impacts can be adequately minimized or avoided. The Site is also located within Groundwater Protection Zone 4, which is the least stringent classification. With the utilization of Best Management Practices, it is anticipated that potential impacts to groundwater can be avoided. A DNS was issued on November 12, 2019 for this Project. Compliance with the recommended conditions of approval, City Code, and engineering design standards will ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. G. Adequate provisions are made so the preliminary plat will prevent or abate public nuisances; 161 of 404 Staff Analysis: Adequate provisions are made, and will be made through the subsequent civil plan review process, so the proposed Project will prevent or abate public nuisances. As the Site is mainly undeveloped, there are no active code violation cases for the site, and no known public nuisances. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. H. Lot configuration, street and utility layouts, and building envelopes shall be designed in a manner that identifies, preserves, and utilizes native soils and/or vegetation that are integrated into a low impact development facility, consistent with the city’s adopted storm water management manual. Staff Analysis: As analyzed in Criteria A, B, and D above, the Project has been designed such that it will be consistent with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Auburn Supplements, as conditioned. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion, as conditioned herein. Plat Modification Conclusions Per Chapter 17.18 ACC ‘Modifications of Standards and Specifications’, the Hearing Examiner may approve a modification of any standard or specification established or referenced by Chapter 17.14 ACC ‘Improvement Requirements – Subdivisions’. Per ACC 17.14.090(D), ‘Lot Requirements’ corner lots must be platted five feet wider than required by the zoning ordinance. As proposed, one side of Lot Nos. 13, 16, and 19 abut an access tract and therefore meets the definition of a corner lot (streets are public or private streets per ACC 18.04.590(A)/ACC 17.04.340). The minimum lot width for the R-5 zoning district is 50 feet, which given ACC 17.14.090(D), each corner lot must be 55 feet in width. The applicant has requested a plat modification for each of the aforementioned lots to be 50 feet in width; the applicable 10-ft. street-side setbacks would still be met. ACC 17.18.030 lists the findings that the Hearing Examiner must make for approval of a plat modification; the criteria are as follows (in italics) followed by Staff analysis: A. Such modification is necessary because of special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide the owner with development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the subject property is located; Staff Analysis: Approving this plat modification request would provide the Applicant with similar privileges as other properties in the surrounding area. Many of the lots in the surrounding area (within approx. ¼ mile) were either platted (or vested to King Co. standards) prior to the 2009 annexation or remain un/underdeveloped. There are few instances where the same situation applies and the implementation of whether an additional 5 ft. in lot width was required or a 10-ft. street-side setback was met. In the instance of the three lots within this Project where the Plat Modification has been requested, the 10-ft. 162 of 404 setback will still be met and the 5-ft. reduction would have no impact on other properties in vicinity to this Site. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. B. That, because of such special circumstances, the development of the property in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the property; Staff Analysis: The special circumstances that apply are: 1. There are three wetlands located on the site (two of which will be retained); 2. There is only one option for public access into the site (via SE 304th St.); 3. Due to the slope of the site (the north portion of the Site is higher and the south is lower), the stormwater pond needs to be placed where it would be the most efficient in terms of grading to help meet local and state standards for stormwater control (e.g. native soil retention). The three lots are located internally to the Site and by reducing the required lot width by 5 ft. would have no impact on surrounding properties. The City’s wider corner lot standards assures uniformity in the building development envelope between all lots including corner and internal lots for consistent aesthetics and open space. Also, in the circumstances of this plat, the corner lots (Lot Nos. 13, 16, and 19) are located at the intersection of a public street and a private access tract/street, and not two public streets. If the corner lots were located on two public streets, there is always the future possibility that the City might need additional right-of-way to widen of the streets. In this instance this scenario would not apply as the City would not widen a private access and thereby reducing lot area. Each corner lot is proposed to meet the minimum lot width for the R-5 zoning district which is 50 ft. Future placement of homes and accessory residential structures will be required to meet the 10-ft. street-side setback applicable to corner lots in the R-5 zone (see Condition No. 1). The alternative of denial of the plat modification may result in the loss of lots and reduction in density. Further, modifying the plat layout such that the corner lots are platted 5 ft. wider while other lots fall below the 50-ft. lot width may result in the need for an administrative variance. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. C. That the modification, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the property is located; Staff Analysis: The requested modification will have imperceptible effect on the character 163 of 404 of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. D. Such modification will not be materially detrimental to the implementation of the policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use, transportation and utility comprehensive plans of the city; Staff Analysis: Approval of the plat modification request will not have any detrimental effects on any of the City’s comprehensive plans, as analyzed under ‘Preliminary Plat Conclusions’, above. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. E. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district; Staff Analysis: As discussed above, development of properties in the vicinity were mostly developed under prior King Co. standards and have an array of lot sizes and widths. In addition, future subdivisions in the R-5 zoning district could also potentially request a plat modification for lot width if similar circumstances apply. Therefore, granting the modification will provide the owner with development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. F. The approval of the modification will be consistent with the purpose of this title; Staff Analysis: The purpose of Title 17 ACC ‘Land Adjustments and Divisions’ is shown and analyzed in Criterion D, above, under ‘Preliminary Plat Conclusions’. The overall Project layout and approval of this plat modification request is found to be consistent with the purposes of this title. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. G. The modification cannot lessen the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any such modification must be processed as a variance pursuant to ACC 18.70.010. Staff Analysis: The plat modification request is not modifying any requirements of Title 18 ACC, ‘Zoning’. Staff therefore finds the Project meets this criterion. 164 of 404 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Aston Park Preliminary Plat and one Plat Modification request, subject to the information contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, and the 18 recommended conditions of approval below. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Plat Modification request to reduce the minimum lot width for the three corner lots (Lots 13, 16, and 19) from 55 ft. to 50 ft. is approved. 2. A final wetland buffer enhancement (mitigation) plan for Tracts B and C and the on-site wetlands and buffers shall be prepared and submitted with the civil (FAC) plans and consistent with Chapter 16.10 ACC. The wetlands and their associated 25-ft. buffers shall be placed in separate tracts in which development is prohibited and protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the City. The easement shall grant the City access to on-site mitigation areas for the purposes of monitoring, maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the on-site wetlands and associated buffer areas, but not the obligation to do so. The location and limitations associated with the wetlands and their buffers shall be shown on the face the final plat. The plan shall also ensure that areas within the critical areas tracts that are disturbed during the civil construction process will need to be restored; a planting / restoration plan shall be included with the FAC submittal. 3. A means of access for inspections and monitoring of the critical areas and their buffers within Tracts C and E (critical areas tracts) shall be designed and included with the FAC drawings, as reviewed and approved by the City. A note shall be included on the Final Plat indicating as such. 4. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat that the Homeowner’s Association, and it’s heirs and successors (HOA), shall be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the critical areas Tracts B and C and that there shall not be removal of any vegetation without prior City approvals. 5. Fencing shall be placed around the perimeter of the critical area buffers consistent with Chapter 16.10 ACC. Maintenance of the fencing shall be the responsibility of the HOA. 6. Prior to City approval of the civil plans under the FAC, the Applicant must provide documentation of submittal of an application to the Washington State Department of Ecology for a General Storm Permit, as required for all projects over 1 acre in size. 7. Fencing shall be provided around the perimeter of the stormwater pond, the location of which to be reviewed and determined during the FAC review and consistent with current City standards. 8. To ensure safe access for maintenance of the stormwater pond (Tract A), the access road 165 of 404 shall include the following elements, to be included with the FAC submittal: a. The road will be one-way with the “in” access from Road A. b. A gate will be required at the entrance and exit. The gate at the entrance needs to be setback a sufficient amount for the service vehicle to not impede traffic. The exit gate on SE 304th St. needs to be set at the back of the sidewalk and open into the site. c. A sight distance analysis is needed for the exit onto SE 304th St. d. The first 20 ft. behind the sidewalk at the exit needs to be paved to prevent track-out e. A turning template needs to be included which shows the service vehicle able to exit the site and not cross the centerline of SE 304th St. 9. As part of the civil plans, a landscaping plan for the publicly dedicated stormwater pond (Tract A) shall be provided for City review and approval. The type and location of landscaping shall be coordinated with the location and type of fencing installed in the stormwater tract. The stormwater tract landscaping design must meet all applicable vehicle sight distance requirements. 10. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat indicating that the HOA shall be responsible to regularly maintain those portions of the stormwater pond (Tract A) outside of the fenced perimeter of the stormwater pond, as determined by the City Engineer. Additionally, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are reviewed and approved by the City at Final Plat application, and as recorded thereafter, shall establish the HOA’s responsibility for regular landscape maintenance. 11. The Final Plat shall indicate if the property owner(s) or the HOA is responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage system dispersion areas. Access to these areas for maintenance shall be shown / indicated on the FAC plans and contained on the Final Plat. 12. Low impact development (LID) stormwater facilities are proposed within portions of the Tracts B and C (critical areas tracts) including but not limited to dispersion trenches and associated flow areas. An Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be prepared by the Design Engineer, reviewed by the Wetland consultant, and utilized by the HOA. A Stormwater Maintenance and Easement / Agreement will be on the Final Plat to ensure maintenance of the LID facilities 13. Prior to City approval of the construction plans under the FAC, the plans shall show that appropriate portions of public streets shall be posted “No Parking” due to its road width or presence of medians. Also, the cul-de-sac shall be posted “No Parking” around the entire perimeter. Posting shall be in accordance with ACC and City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards. 14. Any significant trees within the critical areas tracts should be retained to the fullest extent possible. In the event significant trees are removed a replanting plan, that provides for replacement at a ratio commensurate with the tree(s) diameter at breast height (DBH), 166 of 404 should be developed as part of the civil plan review and approval. 15. If at the time of Final Plat application, the nature and location of the depicted occupation features remain unchanged and / or unresolved, then per RCW 58.17.255, a “survey discrepancy note” shall be placed on the face of the FINAL SHORT PLAT similar to the following example: SURVEY DISCREPANCY NOTE: EXISTING FENCES, RETAINING WALL AND ROCKERY HAVE BEEN SHOWN PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.255 AND SHALL BE DISCLOSED IN THE TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TITLE INSURER AND ISSUED AFTER THE FILING OF THIS PLAT 16. Tracts D and E are private access and utility tracts and will be owned and maintained by the HOA. A note shall be placed on the Final Plat that the HOA is responsible for maintenance including associated retaining walls, walkways, signage, and other associated features. 17. Lot driveways shall be constructed using permeable pavement per the storm drainage system proposed in the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report (Exhibit 8). 18. If groundwater is encountered during construction in the proposed detention pond that appears that it will impact the live storage capacity of the detention pond, the City of Auburn will stop construction and require redesign of the facility as necessary to account for observed groundwater. Depending on the groundwater seepage rates encountered, elevation observed, the time of year or other possible factors involved, construction may not commence again until updated civil plans showing a revised pond design is prepared, submitted, and approved by the City of Auburn. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1. Staff Report Exhibit 2. Vicinity Map Exhibit 3. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Forms, prepared by Encompass Engineering & Surveying, received February 28, 2019 Exhibit 4. Combined Notice of Application, DNS, and Notice of Public Hearing, and completed SEPA Checklist application Exhibit 5. Preliminary Plat Map, Encompass, November 26, 2019 Exhibit 6. Preliminary Civil Plans, Encompass, September 9, 2019 Exhibit 7. Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, Soundview Consultants, LLC, December 2018, June 14, 2019, October 18, 2019 Exhibit 8. Geotechnical Report, Earth Solutions NW, LLC, October 11, 2018, November 26, 2019 Exhibit 9. Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, Encompass, February 25, 2019, July 19, 2019, October 7, 2019, November 22, 2019 Exhibit 10. School Walkway Analysis, CORE Design, July 16, 2018 167 of 404 Exhibit 11. Plat Modification Request, Encompass, November 22, 2019 Exhibit 12. Army Corps NWP 29 Approval, ACOE, October 24, 2019 Prepared by Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, Reviewed by Dustin Lawrence, AICP, Senior Planner 168 of 404 Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA Date: 12/3/2019 Notes: ±The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and issubject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied,as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intendedfor use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, orconsequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuseof the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except bywritten permission of King County. Vicinity Map Project Site EXHIBIT 2 169 of 404 EXHIBIT 3EXHIBIT 3 170 of 404 EXHIBIT 3 171 of 404 EXHIBIT 3172 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 173 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 174 of 404 EXHIBIT 4 175 of 404 *Revisions 7-23-19EXHIBIT 4176 of 404 EXHIBIT 4177 of 404 Wetland A will be impacted due to required frontage improvements and Wetland A&C willwill be filled/partially filled, as such during construction water will be diverted to existing storm system.Wetland A Existing-7371 SF, proposed impacts-1424 SFWetland B Existing-1212 SF, proposed creation-860 SFWetland C Existing- 158 SF, proposed fill-158 SFEXHIBIT 4178 of 404 The existing wetland hydrology will be maintained with downspout dispersion from homes, thus drainage will follow existing drainage patterns.EXHIBIT 4179 of 404 Additionally, the wetland and wetland buffer will be enhanced and preserved with the plantingof native species, thus creating and enhancing habitat for native animals.EXHIBIT 4180 of 404 EXHIBIT 4181 of 404 EXHIBIT 4182 of 404 The number of parking spaces is calculated based on the number of dwelling units proposed (20) having 2 parking spaces per DU.^and extending to the intersection with 118th Ave SE to the east to provide a safe walking route for students.Approximately 3540EXHIBIT 4183 of 404 The construction activities involved with the extension ofthe utilities will require trenching, installation, & back filling of approximately 2,000 linear feet.EXHIBIT 4184 of 404 EXHIBIT 4185 of 404 EXHIBIT 4186 of 404 EXHIBIT 4187 of 404 EXHIBIT 4188 of 404 EXHIBIT 5189 of 404 EXHIBIT 5190 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 191 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 192 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 193 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 194 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 195 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 196 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 197 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 198 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 199 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 200 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 201 of 404 EXHIBIT 6 202 of 404 WETLAND DELINEATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND FINAL MITIGATION PLAN ASTON PARK REVISED JUNE 2019 DECEMBER 2018 EXHIBIT 7 203 of 404 WETLAND DELINEATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT REPORT AND FINAL MITIGATION PLAN ASTON PARK REVISED JUNE 14, 2019 DECEMBER 6, 2018 PROJECT LOCATION 11624 SE 304TH STREET AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98092 PREPARED FOR EAGLE CREEK LAND AND DEVELOPMENT 15215 SOUTHEAST 272ND STREET, SUITE 201 KENT, WASHINGTON 98042 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE D GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 (253) 514-8952 EXHIBIT 7 204 of 404 Executive Summary Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Eagle Creek Land and Development (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and final mitigation plan for a proposed residential development of a 4.43-acre site located at 11624 Southeast 304th Street in the City of Auburn, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel that is situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W.M (King County Tax Parcel Number 7867000005). SVC investigated the subject property for the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in the summer of 2018. Using current methodology, the site investigation identified three potentially-regulated wetlands on the subject property (Wetlands A-C). Wetlands A-C are classified as Category IV wetlands subject to standard 25-foot buffers per Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) 16.10.080.C. A storm drainage conveyance pipe was also identified along the western edge of the subject property that was installed by King County around year 2005 and does not meet wetland or stream definition criteria. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, or priority species were observed within 200 feet of the subject property. The Applicant proposes a 20-lot single family residential development that will include clearing and grading, an internal access road system, a stormwater and drainage facility, utilities, landscaping, and recreational open space. The proposed project was carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critically sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible; however, complete avoidance of wetland impacts is not possible. In order to maintain reasonable site development and accommodate the frontage improvements required by the City, the project proposes the necessary and unavoidable fill of a portion of Wetland A (530 square feet) and the small, low-functioning Wetland C (158 square feet). An additional 1,424 square feet of Wetland A’s buffer area will be impacted due to the required frontage improvements along Southeast 304th Street. Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of Category IV wetland area will be provided by onsite, in-kind though wetland creation actions at a 1.25 to 1 ratio adjacent to Wetland B, to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. Further, buffer enhancement for Wetland A will be provided to mitigate the indirect impacts associated with the required frontage improvements, and voluntary wetland enhancement will be provided to add additional protection from the adjacent roadway. The buffer associated with Wetland B will also be enhanced to further protect the proposed wetland mitigation area. This report has been revised per the City’s comments outlined in their first review completion letter (City of Auburn, 2019). The table below identifies the onsite wetlands and summarizes the potential regulatory status by local, state, and federal agencies. Wetland Name Size Onsite Category1 Regulated Under AMC Chapter 16.10 Regulated Under RCW 90.48 Regulated Under Clean Water Act Wetland A 7,371 SF IV Yes Yes Potentially Wetland B 1,212 SF IV Yes Yes Potentially Wetland C 158 SF IV Yes Yes Potentially 1. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland rating system (Hruby, 2004) per AMC 16.10.080.C. EXHIBIT 7 205 of 404 Site Map EXHIBIT 7 206 of 404 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Landscape Setting ................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Stream and Wetland Inventories .......................................................................................................... 6 4.5 Priority Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................. 6 4.6 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 5. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 7 5.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Storm Drainage ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations ......................................................................................................... 13 6.1 Local Considerations ............................................................................................................................ 13 6.2 State and Federal Considerations ....................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 7. Conceptual Mitigation Plan ......................................................................................................... 18 7.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................. 18 7.2 Description of Impacts and Mitigation Strategy .............................................................................. 18 7.3 Mitigation Implementation .................................................................................................................. 20 7.4 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ............................................................ 20 7.5 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 23 7.6 Reporting ................................................................................................................................................ 24 7.7 Contingency Plan .................................................................................................................................. 24 7.8 Sensitive Area Tract .............................................................................................................................. 25 7.9 Financial Assurances............................................................................................................................. 25 7.10 Long-Term Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 8. Closure ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 9. References .................................................................................................................................... 28 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Aerial View of the Subject Property .............................................................................. 5 Tables Table 1. Precipitation Summary1. .................................................................................................. 6 Table 2. Wetlands on the Subject Property ................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Wetland A Summary ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 4. Wetland B Summary .................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. Wetland C Summary .................................................................................................... 11 EXHIBIT 7 207 of 404 Appendices Appendix A — Methods and Tools Appendix B — Background Information Appendix C — Site Plans Appendix D — Data Forms Appendix E — Wetland Rating Forms Appendix F — Wetland Rating Maps Appendix G — Site Photographs Appendix H — Qualifications EXHIBIT 7 208 of 404 Chapter 1. Introduction Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Eagle Creek Land and Development (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and final mitigation plan for a proposed residential development of a 4.43-acre site located at 11624 Southeast 304th Street in the City of Auburn, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel that is situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W.M (King County Tax Parcel Number 7867000005). The purpose of the wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment report and final mitigation plan is to identify the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species that may be found on or near the subject property, assess potential impacts to any such critical areas from the proposed project, and provide mitigation to offset those impacts. This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description, brief project description, and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potential critical areas within the vicinity of the proposed project; • Identification and assessment of potentially-regulated wetlands; • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers; • Site plan with the proposed residential development; • Documentation of mitigation sequencing, wetland avoidance and minimization measures, • Final compensatory and non-compensatory wetland mitigation actions; and • Supplemental information necessary for local, state, and federal regulatory review. EXHIBIT 7 209 of 404 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Location The subject property is located at 11624 Southeast 304th Street in the City of Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property consists of one parcel that is situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W.M (King County Tax Parcel Number 7867000005). To access the subject property from northbound Interstate-5, take Exit 142A to merge onto WA-18 East towards Auburn. Continue for 4.3 miles and then take the exit for WA-164 East/Auburn Way towards Enumclaw. Keep right at the fork and merge onto WA-164 West/Auburn Way South. Proceed for 0.1 mile and turn right on 4th Street Southeast. Continue for 0.6 mile and turn left onto M Street Southeast. Turn right onto 8th Street Northeast and continue onto Southeast 320th Street. Turn left onto 104th Avenue Southeast and proceed for 0.8 mile. Continue onto Southeast 304th Way, and the subject property will be on the left after approximately 1.0 mile. Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 210 of 404 2.2 Proposed Project The Applicant proposes a 20-lot single family residential development that will include clearing and grading, an internal access road system, a stormwater and drainage facility, utilities, landscaping, and recreational open space. The proposed project was carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critically sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible; however, complete avoidance of wetland impacts is not possible. In order to maintain reasonable site development and accommodate the frontage improvements required by the City, the project proposes the necessary and unavoidable fill of a portion of Wetland A (530 square feet) and the small, low-functioning Wetland C (158 square feet). An additional 1,424 square feet of Wetland A’s buffer area will be impacted due to the required frontage improvements along Southeast 304th Street. Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of Category IV wetland area will be provided by onsite, in-kind though wetland creation actions at a 1.25 to 1 ratio adjacent to Wetland B, to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. Further, buffer enhancement for Wetland A will be provided to mitigate the indirect impacts associated with the required frontage improvements, and voluntary wetland enhancement will be provided to add additional protection from the adjacent roadway. The buffer associated with Wetland B will also be enhanced to further protect the proposed wetland mitigation area. This report has been revised per the City’s comments outlined in their first review completion letter (City of Auburn, 2019). Refer to Chapter 7 of this report for more details regarding the final mitigation plan elements. EXHIBIT 7 211 of 404 Chapter 3. Methods SVC investigated, assessed, and delineated any potentially-regulated wetlands, drainages, and other fish and wildlife habitat on and within 200 feet of the subject property in the summer of 2018. All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water typing system, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape mapping tools, King County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, city of Auburn GIS data, and various orthophotographic resources (Appendix B). Appendix A contains further details for the methods and tools used to prepare this report. Wetland boundaries were determined using the routine approach described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). Qualified wetland scientists marked boundaries of onsite wetlands with orange surveyor’s flagging labeled alpha- numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation along the wetland boundary. Pink surveyor’s flagging was labeled alpha-numerically and tied to 3-foot lath or vegetation at formal sampling locations to mark the points where detailed data was collected (DP-1 to DP-8). Additional tests pits were excavated at regular intervals inside and outside of the wetland boundaries to further confirm the delineation. Wetlands were classified using both the hydrogeomorphic (Brinson, 1993) and Cowardin (Cowardin, 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) classification systems. Following classification and assessment, all wetlands were rated and categorized using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington—Washington Department of Ecology, 2004, Publication No. 04-06-025 (Hruby, 2004), the amended Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington – Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, published October 2014 (Hruby, 2014), and definitions established in AMC 16.10.080.C. The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visit by a qualified fish and wildlife biologist. The experienced biologist made visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity. EXHIBIT 7 212 of 404 Chapter 4. Existing Conditions 4.1 Landscape Setting The subject property is located in an urban residential setting in the City of Auburn and is currently developed with one single family residence, an outbuilding, and associated infrastructure (Figure 2). The site is bounded by Southeast 302nd Street and single-family residences to the north; single-family residences and undeveloped forested areas to the east and west; and Southeast 304th Street to the south with Hazelwood Elementary beyond. Topography on the site is gently sloping to the southeast, with elevations ranging from approximately 440 feet to 430 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A topographic map is provided in Appendix B1. The subject property is located within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 – Duwamish-Green. Figure 2. Aerial View of the Subject Property 4.2 Soils The NRCS Soil Survey of King County, Washington identifies one soil series on the subject property: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes. A soil map is provided in Appendix B2. Below is a detailed description of the soil profile. Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB) The Alderwood series consists of moderately deep, moderately well drained soils formed in glacial drift and outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits. This soil is nearly level and undulating and Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 213 of 404 moderately well drained, with a seasonal depth to water table of 18 to 37 inches. This soil is listed as non-hydric on the King County Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2001). 4.3 Vegetation Vegetation on the northern, undeveloped portion of the subject property consists of a forested canopy dominated by western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and red alder (Alnus rubra) with an understory of non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). The southern portion of the subject property surrounding the existing single-family residence and outbuilding is dominated by maintained lawn areas that consists primarily of colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris) and common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), with a few scattered western red cedars and big leaf maples. 4.4 Stream and Wetland Inventories The USFWS NWI map (Appendix B3), King County sensitive areas map (Appendix B4), City of Auburn stream inventory (Appendix B5), City of Auburn wetland inventory (Appendix B6), and DNR stream typing map (Appendix B7) do not identify any potential streams or wetlands on or within 200 feet of the subject property. 4.5 Priority Habitats and Species The WDFW Salmonscape map (Appendix B8) and WDFW PHS map (Appendix B9) do not identify any priority habitats or species on or within 200 feet of the subject property. 4.6 Precipitation Precipitation data was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station at Seattle-Tacoma Airport in order to obtain percent of normal precipitation during and preceding the investigation. A summary of data collected is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Precipitation Summary1. Date Day Of Day Before 1 Week Prior 2 Weeks Prior Last 30 days (Observed/Normal) Year to Date (Observed/Normal)2 Percent of Normal3 06/29/2018 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.63/1.53 19.16/18.97 41/101 1. Precipitation volume provided in inches. Data obtained from NOAA (http://w2.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=sew) for Sea-Tac airport. 2. Year-to-Date precipitation is for the water year from January 1 to the onsite date. 3. Percent of normal is for the last 30 days and year to date. Precipitation levels during the site assessment on June 29, 2018 were below the statistical normal for the last 30 days (41 percent of normal) and approximately at the statistical normal for the 2018 calendar year (101 percent of normal). This is typical for summer wetland delineation conditions and such conditions were considered in making professional wetland boundary determinations. EXHIBIT 7 214 of 404 Chapter 5. Results The site investigation in June 2018 identified and delineated three potentially-regulated wetland (Wetlands A-C) on the subject property. A storm drainage ditch was also identified offsite to the west of the subject property, extending southeast onto the site for approximately 5 to 6 feet. No other wetlands, waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, or priority species were identified within 200 feet of the subject property during the site investigation. 5.1 Wetlands 5.1.1 Overview Three wetlands (Wetlands A-C) were identified on the subject property. The identified onsite wetlands contained indicators of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation according to current wetland delineation methodology. Wetland data forms are provided in Appendix D; wetland rating forms are provided in Appendix E; and wetland rating maps are provided in Appendix F. Table 2 summarizes the wetlands identified onsite during the site investigations. Table 2. Wetlands on the Subject Property Wetland Predominant Wetland Classification / Rating Wetland Size Onsite (SF) Buffer Width (feet)5 Cowardin1 HGM2 WSDOE3 City of Auburn4 A PSS/EMBF Depressional IV IV 7,371 25 B PFOBF Depressional IV IV 1,212 25 C PSSC Depressional IV IV 158 25 Notes: 1. Cowardin et al. (1979); Federal Geographic Data Committee (2013); class based on vegetation: PFO = Palustrine Forested, PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, PEM = Palustrine Emergent. Modifiers for Water Regime and special situations: B = Seasonally Saturated, C = Seasonally Flooded; F = Semi-permanently Flooded. 2. Brinson, M. M. (1993). 3. Current WSDOE rating (Hruby, 2014). 4. Prior WSDOE rating system (Hruby, 2004) per AMC 16.10.080.C. 5. AMC 16.10.090.E buffer width standards. Wetland A Wetland A is approximately 7,371 square feet (0.17 acre) in size and located on the southeastern portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by Hooker’s willow (Salix hookeriana), Scouler’s willow (Salix scouleriana), and non-native invasive reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Wetland A is a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Emergent, Seasonally Saturated and Semi-permanently Flooded wetland (PSS/EMBF). Per AMC 16.10.080.C, Wetland A is a Category IV depressional wetland. Table 3 summarizes Wetland A. Wetland B Wetland B is 1,212 square feet (0.03 acre) in size onsite and is located on the eastern portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the east. Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by a canopy of red alder with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), non-native invasive reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Wetland B is a Palustrine Forested, Seasonally EXHIBIT 7 215 of 404 Saturated and Semi-permanently Flooded wetland (PFOBF). Per AMC 16.10.080.C, Wetland B is a Category IV depressional wetland. Table 4 summarizes Wetland B. Wetland C Wetland C is approximately 158 square feet (0.004 acre) in size and is located on the north-central portion of the subject property. Hydrology for Wetland C is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetland vegetation is dominated by redosier dogwood (Cornus alba), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), and salmonberry. Wetland C is a Palustrine Scrub- Shrub, Seasonally Flooded wetland (PSSC). Per AMC 16.10.080.C, Wetland C is a Category IV depressional wetland. Table 5 summarizes Wetland C. EXHIBIT 7 216 of 404 Table 3. Wetland A Summary WETLAND A – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located on the southeastern portion of the subject property. Local Jurisdiction City of Auburn WRIA 9 – Duwamish Green WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Auburn Rating IV Auburn Buffer Width 25 feet Wetland Size 7,371 SF Cowardin Classification PSS/EMBF HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-2 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland vegetation is dominated by Hooker’s willow, Scouler’s willow, and non-native invasive reed canarygrass. Soils Hydric soil indicator A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface) was observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland A is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon Hruby (2004) rating system per AMC 16.10.080.C. Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland A has some potential to improve water quality due to the presence of persistent, ungrazed vegetation in greater than half the area and proximity to residential areas that are a greater source of pollutants. However, this function is limited by the lack of seasonal ponding that would contribute to sediment, nutrient, and toxicant removal. This function is further limited by the presence of a permanently flowing surface outlet. Hydrologic Wetland A has a low potential to provide hydrologic function due to the lack of seasonal ponding and the presence of a permanently flowing outlet. Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small mammal and bird forage and cover. Wetland A also exhibits special habitat features and interspersion of habitats with the presence of two Cowardin classes. Buffer Condition The majority of the onsite buffer surrounding Wetland A is degraded due to Southeast 304th Street abutting the unit in addition to the proximity to residential areas and maintained lawn. EXHIBIT 7 217 of 404 Table 4. Wetland B Summary WETLAND B – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located on the eastern portion of the subject property, extending offsite to the east. Local Jurisdiction City of Auburn WRIA 9 – Duwamish Green WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Auburn Rating IV Auburn Buffer Width 25 feet Wetland Size 1,212 SF (onsite) Cowardin Classification PFOBF HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-3 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-4 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland vegetation is dominated by a canopy of red alder with an understory of salmonberry, non-native invasive reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup. Soils Hydric soil indicator F3 (Depleted Matrix) was observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland B is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon Hruby (2004) rating system per AMC 16.10.080.C. Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland B has some potential to improve water quality due to the presence of persistent, ungrazed vegetation in greater than 95 percent of the area and proximity to residential areas that are a greater source of pollutants. However, this function is limited by the lack of seasonal ponding that would contribute to sediment, nutrient, and toxicant removal. This function is further limited by the presence of a permanently flowing surface outlet. Hydrologic Wetland B has a low potential to provide hydrologic function due to the lack of seasonal ponding and the presence of a permanently flowing outlet. Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small mammal and bird forage and cover. Wetland B also exhibits special habitat features that provide greater habitat suitability and complexity. Buffer Condition The majority of the onsite buffer surrounding Wetland B is degraded due to the proximity to residential areas and maintained lawn. EXHIBIT 7 218 of 404 Table 5. Wetland C Summary WETLAND C – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Located on the north-central portion of the subject property. Local Jurisdiction City of Auburn WRIA 9 – Duwamish Green WSDOE Rating (Hruby, 2014) IV Auburn Rating IV Auburn Buffer Width 25 feet Wetland Size 158 SF Cowardin Classification PSSC HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP-5 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP-6, DP-8 Boundary Flag color Orange Dominant Vegetation Wetland vegetation is dominated by redosier dogwood, hardhack, and salmonberry. Soils Hydric soil indicator A12 (Thick Dark Surface) was observed. Hydrology Hydrology for Wetland C is provided by surface sheet flow, direct precipitation, and a seasonally-high groundwater table. Rationale for Delineation Wetland boundaries were determined by topographic drop and a transition to a hydrophytic plant community. Rationale for Local Rating Local rating is based upon Hruby (2004) rating system per AMC 16.10.080.C. Wetland Functions Summary Water Quality Wetland C has some potential to improve water quality due to some area of seasonal ponding which contribute to sediment, nutrient, and toxicant removal. However, this function is limited by the lack of persistent, ungrazed vegetation and the presence of a permanently flowing outlet. Hydrologic Wetland C has a low potential to provide hydrologic function due to the small size of the unit and insignificant storage capacity as well as the position of the wetland in the landscape. Habitat Wildlife habitat functions provided by the wetland may include small mammal and bird forage and cover. Wetland C also exhibits special habitat features that provide greater habitat suitability and complexity, and the unit has 170 feet of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas for greater than 50 percent of the circumference. Buffer Condition The buffer surrounding Wetland C consists of relatively undisturbed forested areas which consist of in-tact vegetation communities to the north; however, to the south the buffer consist of maintained lawn area. EXHIBIT 7 219 of 404 5.1.2 Wetland Buffers Wetlands A, B, and C are Category IV wetlands under AMC 16.10.080.C. Category IV wetlands provide the lowest level of functions, scoring less than 30 out of 100 points on the 2004 wetland rating system. Per AMC 16.10.090.E, Category IV wetlands are subject to 25-foot buffers. No building setbacks from the edge of critical area buffers are specified in AMC. 5.2 Storm Drainage A non-wetland drainage feature was identified offsite to the west of the subject property, extending southeast onsite for approximately 5 to 6 feet. This linear feature was observed in an artificially- excavated ditch with a rip-rap bottom transitioning into an 18-inch corrugated black plastic pipe/culvert (see the corresponding photographs in Appendix G). This intentionally created storm drainage ditch was clearly excavated both onsite and offsite with steep linear slopes, no defined bed or bank, no gravel or sorting observed, and also lacks any suitable fish habitat. Through historic aerial research it can be observed that this storm drainage feature was installed by King County around year 2005 and connects to the City of Auburn’s stormwater conveyance system. As such, this area does not meet stream definition criteria and is likely not regulated as a stream per AMC 16.10.080.D.5, which states that intentionally created streams may include irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales and canals. Intentionally created streams are excluded from regulation under this section, except manmade streams that provide “critical habitat,” as designated by federal or state agencies, for salmonids. EXHIBIT 7 220 of 404 Chapter 6. Regulatory Considerations The results of the summer 2018 site investigation identified three potentially-regulated onsite wetlands (Wetlands A-C) on the subject property. No other potentially-regulated wetlands, waterbodies, or fish and wildlife habitat were identified on or within 200 feet of the subject property. 6.1 Local Considerations 6.1.1 Wetland Buffers AMC 16.10.080.C uses the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Department of Ecology, 2004, Publication No. 04-06-025). Category IV wetlands generally provide low levels of function; they are typically more disturbed, smaller, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category I, II, or III wetlands. Category IV wetlands provide low levels of functions and score less than 30 points on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby, 2004). Wetlands A-C are classified as Category IV wetlands with associated 25-foot buffers per AMC 16.10.090.E.1. Since wetland buffer impacts are proposed to Wetland A and the buffer for Wetland B is degraded by a presence of non-native invasive species, buffer enhancement actions will occur as part of the mitigation plan as described in Chapter 7 of this report. 6.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing Impacts to wetlands and buffers are allowed provided that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetlands and that mitigation is performed which complies with AMC 16.10.110. As direct and indirect wetland impacts are unavoidable, mitigation sequencing as described per AMC 16.10.020 is outlined below. 1. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. The project was carefully designed in order to avoid impacts to critical areas to the greatest extent feasible; however, complete avoidance of wetland and buffer areas is not possible due to the encumbrance of the three identified onsite wetlands and associated buffers. In order to maintain reasonable site development and accommodate the frontage improvements along Southeast 304th Street required by the City, the project proposes the necessary and unavoidable fill of 530 square feet of Wetland A and the total fill of small, low-functioning Wetland C (158 square feet). An additional 1,424 square feet of indirect impacts to Wetland A are required for the frontage improvements. 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. The proposed project has undergone variations in design in order to attain the option that results in the least impacts to onsite critical areas. The applicant proposed alternative designs to avoid the impacts due to the frontage improvements (changing location of sidewalk, reducing road width). However, due to the frontage improvements along Southeast 304th Street required by the City, complete avoidance of Wetland A is not possible. Further, the project will require the necessary and unavoidable fill of the small, low functioning Wetland C due to its central location on the subject property. All direct impacts to Wetland B are avoided. All appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will EXHIBIT 7 221 of 404 also be implemented throughout the duration of the project to minimize any potential impacts to the remaining onsite critical areas from the construction and mitigation actions. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. The necessary and unavoidable total fill of low-functioning Wetland C (158 square feet) and partial fill of Wetland A (530 square feet) will be compensated by onsite, in-kind wetland creation adjacent to Wetland B at a 1.25 to 1 ratio. In addition, the 1,424 square feet of indirect impacts to Wetland A will be mitigated through 6,082 square feet of buffer enhancement actions in the onsite buffer area of Wetland A, exceeding the 1 to 1 ratio. Additionally, 2,286 square feet of Wetland A will be voluntarily enhanced to provide greater protection from the adjacent roadway, and 6,310 square feet of buffer associated with Wetland B will also be enhanced to further protect the proposed wetland mitigation area. The mitigation actions will result in an overall ecological lift over the existing degraded conditions of the wetland units, which currently provide minimal function or value to the watershed. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. The proposed wetland creation area will be maintained and monitored for a period of 10 years per USACE requirements, and the wetland and buffer enhancement areas for a period of five years, to ensure success of the mitigation and enhancement actions over time. Additionally, the wetland mitigation and enhancement areas and/or associated buffers will be placed in a separate sensitive area tract on which development is prohibited in perpetuity. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The necessary and unavoidable total fill of low-functioning Wetland C and partial fill of Wetland A will be compensated by onsite, in-kind wetland creation around Wetland B at a 1.25 to 1 ratio. In addition, the 1,424 square feet of indirect impacts to Wetland A will be mitigated through 6,082 square feet of buffer enhancement actions in the onsite buffer area of Wetland A, exceeding the 1 to 1 ratio. Additionally, 2,286 square feet of Wetland A will be voluntarily enhanced to provide greater protection from the adjacent roadway, and 6,310-square feet of buffer associated with Wetland B will also be enhanced to further protect the proposed wetland mitigation area. The mitigation actions will result in an overall ecological lift over the existing degraded conditions of the wetland units, which currently provide minimal function or value to the watershed. 6.1.3 Mitigation Standards The subject property is currently encumbered with the three identified onsite wetlands and associated protective buffers. Per AMC 16.10.100, alteration of specific critical areas may be allowed provided that mitigation standards, performance standards, and monitoring requirements are implemented. To meet the project goals and necessary frontage improvements, the total fill of the 158-square-foot Wetland C and 530 square feet of Wetland A is proposed. Mitigation standards described in AMC 16.10.110.A are discussed below. 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations; EXHIBIT 7 222 of 404 The subject property is encumbered by three Category IV wetlands (Wetlands A-C) and associated protective buffers. The proposed project has been situated to avoid impacts to Wetland B and its associated buffer. However, to achieve the project goals of providing residential development and complete the required frontage improvements, direct impacts to Wetlands A and C are unavoidable given their problematic locations. 1. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and To compensate for the unavoidable impacts to Wetlands A and C, the Applicant proposes onsite, in-kind wetland creation around Wetland B in addition to buffer enhancement to account for indirect impacts and voluntary wetland enhancement within Wetland A to provide greater protection from the roadway. The wetland creation actions have a high likelihood of success given the existing hydrologic regimes at that location. Additionally, the loss of scrub-shrub and/or emergent wetland will be replaced with a suite a native tree species that will eventually add to the existing forested wetland area present in Wetland B. The wetland creation and wetland and buffer enhancement areas will likely endure with the continued maintenance and monitoring actions that will be in place. 2. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions. Compared to the existing, low-functioning wetland and buffer areas proposed to be filled/impacted, the onsite wetland creation and wetland and buffer enhancements will add on to existing wetland functions provided by Wetlands A and B which are capable of providing greater water quality, hydrology, and habitat functions according to the needs of the greater Duwamish- Green watershed. The implementation of the mitigation actions and appropriate BMPs and TESC measures will ensure no net loss of wetland functions. 6.1.4 Mitigation Preferences AMC 16.10.110.B describes preferred options of mitigation for adverse impacts to critical areas: 1. The preferred location of mitigation is on site when ecologically preferable to other identified alternatives. Mitigation may be allowed off site when it is determined by the department that on-site mitigation is not ecologically preferable to other identified alternatives, or, in the case of wetlands, where the affected site is identified as appropriate for off- site mitigation in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), April 2000. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on site or is consistent with the SAMP. If it is determined that on-site mitigation is not ecologically preferable to other identified alternatives, mitigation shall be provided in the same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured, or controlled by the applicant, or provided by the applicant using alternative mitigation options such as mitigation banking or in-lieu fee programs. The mitigation should result in no net loss to the critical area functions impacted and associated watershed. Where mitigation is authorized to be located outside the city limits, the applicant shall assure to the satisfaction of the department that other requirements of this chapter will be met, including but not limited to, monitoring and maintenance. The proposed mitigation actions will consist of onsite, in-kind wetland creation and buffer enhancements as they are ecologically feasible and will likely increase overall wetland functions EXHIBIT 7 223 of 404 onsite and within the greater watershed. The additional voluntary wetland enhancement within Wetland A will result in a net gain in onsite ecological functions over the degraded baseline conditions. 2. In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates, and the department concurs, that greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out-of-kind mitigation. Onsite, in-kind wetland creation and buffer enhancement are proposed to sufficiently compensate for adverse impacts to Wetlands A and C. 3. When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these regulations, the mitigation project shall occur near an adequate water supply (river, stream, ground water) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to ensure a successful mitigation or restoration. A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies upon manmade or constructed features requiring routine maintenance. To compensate for the unavoidable impacts to Wetlands A and C, the Applicant proposes onsite, in-kind wetland creation around Wetland B in addition to buffer enhancement for all onsite wetland buffer areas. The wetland creation actions have a high likelihood of success given the existing hydrologic regimes at that location. 4. Any mitigation plan shall be completed before initiation of other permitted activities, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the department. The mitigation actions will take place concurrently with the other permitted activities onsite and prior to occupancy. Please refer to the Conceptual Mitigation Plan in Chapter 7 of this report for more details regarding the mitigation actions for this project. 6.2 State and Federal Considerations The Federal Register published a final revised Clean Water Rule: “Definition of Waters of the United States” on 29 June 2015 (FR Vol 30, No. 124; pages 37054 – 37127) that defines the scope of waters protected under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The effective date of this rule was to be 28 August 2015. This rule provided a definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that differed from that in the 2 December 2008 joint memorandum from EPA and USACE following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (USACE, 2008). On 28 February 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13778 ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE to review and or rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule. This was followed by the Suspension Rule (6 February 2018), which delayed implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule to 6 February 2020 and provided time for a two-part rulemaking process to revise the definition of WOTUS. But in August 2018, Judge David C. Norton of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina issued an injunction claiming that the Suspension Rule was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. This injunction effectively reinstated the 2015 Clean Water Rule in 26 states, including Washington. Therefore, at the time of writing this report, the 2015 Clean Water Rule is currently in use within the State of Washington to describe waters that are to be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. EXHIBIT 7 224 of 404 The 2015 Clean Water Rule generally describes waters that are WOTUS directly, that are waters of the U.S. because they are impoundments or tributaries to WOTUS, and that are waters of the U.S. because they are adjacent to or because they have a significant nexus to WOTUS. The Rule also describes waters that are not WOTUS. These general descriptions are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. The 2015 Clean Water Rule describes the following waters where Section 404 jurisdiction would be asserted and considered waters of the United States (WOTUS): (1) traditional navigable waters: all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, included all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) interstate waters (including interstate wetlands), and (3) the territorial seas. The following additional waters may be considered WOTUS in Washington State: (4) all impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas, (5) all “tributaries” to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea, (6) all waters “adjacent” to waters within categories 1 through 5 above, (7) all waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea, and (8) all waters within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water of a WOTUS that are determined on a case-specific basis to have a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or territorial sea. Wetlands A-C are expected to potentially be regulated by the USACE through a significant nexus with any Waters of the U.S. (category 8 above). The WSDOE also regulates wetlands through the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.48. EXHIBIT 7 225 of 404 Chapter 7. Conceptual Mitigation Plan The proposed compensatory mitigation actions for the project attempt to strike a balance between achieving project goals as well as a positive result for the watershed and the wetland and habitat functions within the confines of the site. In general, compensatory wetland mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the impact site and should be located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and values that best benefit the impacted watershed. Potential compensatory wetland mitigation actions were examined in the context of both onsite and watershed processes to determine the most suitable wetland mitigation strategy. This chapter presents the mitigation details for the proposed Aston Park residential development. The proposed wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation actions attempt to closely adhere to local critical areas regulations specified in AMC Chapter 16.10 while also utilizing the best available science (Granger et al., 2005; Hruby et al., 2009; Sheldon et al., 2005; and WSDOE, USACE, & EPA, 2006). This Conceptual Mitigation Plan meets the general mitigation requirements set forth under AMC 16.10.110. 7.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to provide additional housing units within the City of Auburn and help alleviate the shortage of residences by providing 20-lot single-family residences within the greater Seattle area. 7.2 Description of Impacts and Mitigation Strategy The proposed project was carefully designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critically sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible; however, complete avoidance of wetland areas is not possible. In order to maintain reasonable site development and accommodate the required frontage improvements, the project proposes the necessary and unavoidable fill of 530 square feet of Wetland A and the total fill of the small, low-functioning Wetland C (158 square feet). This action will result in the loss of 688 square feet (0.016 acre) of Category IV wetland area. The proposed project is able to completely avoid direct impacts to Wetland B. Impacts to functions associated with Wetlands A and C are described below. • Water Quality: Wetland C has a very low potential to retain sediments and pollutants from surface runoff due to the lack of opportunity and minimal retention capability. Wetland A does have a moderate opportunity to improve water quality due to proximity to residential areas and a roadway (Southeast 304th Street). However, only partial fill of Wetland A is proposed, and little to no water quality functions will be lost due to wetland fill as onsite stormwater infrastructure along with new depressional wetland area is proposed. In addition, the onsite buffer enhancement actions will provide greater protection of the wetland areas compared to the existing, degraded conditions. • Hydrologic: Hydrology for Wetlands A and C is provided by direct precipitation, surface sheet flow, and a seasonally high groundwater table. Wetlands A and C are depressional wetlands; however, storage capacity is low because of the relative size (Wetland C) and presence of a permanently flowing outlet (Wetland A), and hydrologic function is limited to onsite storage and EXHIBIT 7 226 of 404 infiltration. As such, the wetland fill will not significantly limit hydrologic functions onsite, especially since Wetland B will remain, and additional depressional wetland area will be created to provide an equal or greater opportunity for potential retention. • Habitat: Wetlands A and C provide minimal habitat functions due to low species richness and urbanized location, and additionally for Wetland C due to the small size of the unit and lack of habitat interspersion. Little onsite habitat function will be lost by the partial fill of Wetland A and total fill of Wetland C; the onsite, in-kind wetland creation actions will be able to provide greater/more diverse habitat functions than what currently exists onsite. Further, the replacement of non-native invasive species with a dense screen of native plants in the remaining buffers will provide an increase in species richness and diversity as well as enhanced wetland screening. The proposed compensatory mitigation actions are intended to compensate for lost wetland functions and values by providing an overall improvement in the quality of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions according to the needs of the site, local sub-basin, and overall Green-Duwamish watershed. To achieve this, compensatory mitigation for the fill of 688 square feet of Category IV wetland area will be provided by 860 square feet of onsite, in-kind wetland creation (1.25 to 1 ratio) around Wetland B per AMC 16.10.110.C.3 to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Further, 1,424 square feet of indirect impacts to Wetland A will be compensated through 6,082 square feet of buffer enhancement which is in exceedance of the required 1 to 1 ratio. A total of 6,310 square feet of buffer enhancement will also be provided for Wetland B to further protect the wetland mitigation area (AMC 16.10.090.A), and voluntary wetland enhancement (approximately 2,286 square feet) will be provided for Wetland A to provide additional protection adjacent to the roadway. The wetland creation area will meet local and state mitigation ratio requirements and the required performance standards outlined in Section 7.4 of this report. The mitigation plan proposes an increase in vertical and horizontal canopy structure by planting a variety of native shrub and tree species appropriately located to match existing species wetland indicator statuses and local topography. The wetland creation area is anticipated to be as persistent as the wetlands that the compensatory mitigation area replaces. The proposed wetland area will be created in a forested area that provides suitable conditions for the existing Wetland B, which is a depressional wetland that receives hydrology from precipitation, surface sheet flow, and a seasonally high groundwater table. To create the compensatory wetland area around Wetland B, the mitigation area will be excavated to provide necessary depressions to hold sufficient hydrology to generate wetland conditions. The mitigation area will be excavated to the existing groundwater table if possible. Organic topsoil, likely from an offsite supplier but potentially sourced onsite, will then be placed to provide a suitable substrate for the proposed native plantings. Through careful design and utilization of best available science, the proposed mitigation plan has a high probability of success and persistence. The newly created wetland area will be installed in the same environment that provides adequate conditions for the existing wetland. By following the site preparation specifications outlined herein (e.g., excavation, topsoil installation, and plantings) the wetland creation area will be able to maintain wetland hydrology during the growing season in most years to match the existing, functional, seasonally-flooded/saturated wetland. The proposed native species have been carefully selected to ensure the plants take root and thrive in the newly created wetland environment: selection criteria included indicator status and those species that are currently thriving onsite such as salmonberry which is a dominant facultative (FAC) species in many areas across EXHIBIT 7 227 of 404 the site, in both wetland and non-wetland areas. As the existing Wetland B has low species richness and is degraded by the presence of invasive species, the mitigation actions will include a selection of native trees and shrubs suitable for the site conditions that will result in increased habitat functions by providing greater habitat suitability for a wide range of fauna. With construction of the mitigation site, establishment of the protective buffer, installation of permanent fencing and signage around the entire sensitive areas tract, and implementation of the required monitoring and maintenance actions, the mitigation area is projected to be a highly functional, persistent, and successful mitigation site that connects to the existing undeveloped forested area to the east. In addition to the indirect impact area to Wetland A due to the frontage improvements along Southeast 204th Street, the project may require additional grading within Wetlands A and B and buffers with the implementation of the mitigation actions, which will result in temporary impacts to the wetlands and buffers. Temporary impacts from the grading and planting will be required to facilitate creation of the mitigation site and the frontage improvements. Temporary impacts will be minimized by implementing BMPs and TESC measures to reduce the potential for unintended impacts to the existing wetlands. Any disturbed areas will be restored through revegetation using the species listed in the site plan in Appendix C. 7.3 Mitigation Implementation The onsite mitigation/enhancement actions will occur concurrently with the development of the project. A pre-construction meeting will be held between the Applicant, general contractor, and the consulting Scientist to discuss the project and limitations specifically related to protection of critical areas and implementation of mitigation actions. Equipment used will be typical for land clearing, grading, and excavation activities and will be kept in good working conditions and free of leaks. Equipment to be used will likely include excavators, backhoes, bulldozers, dump trucks, graders, et cetera. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles will be kept out of wetlands and regulated buffers, and the area will be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. All clean fill material will be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers and will be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. All appropriate BMPs and TESC measures, including dedicated construction entrance(s), silt fencing, and brush barriers, will be installed prior to and maintained throughout construction in order to minimize potential temporary impacts to Wetlands A and B. As no work windows are expected to limit the construction schedule, this schedule is flexible, and site work will likely commence as soon as permits are issued and the site is able to support heavy equipment. 7.4 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards The goals and objectives for the onsite compensatory mitigation actions are based on replacing wetland functions lost by the proposed impacts to Wetlands A and C. In addition, buffer enhancement will increase habitat functions and provide greater screening and protection for the remaining onsite wetlands. These actions are capable of increasing existing water quality and hydrologic functions and providing a moderate level of habitat function for wetland-associated wildlife. The goals and objectives of the proposed mitigation and enhancement actions are as follows: EXHIBIT 7 228 of 404 Goal 1 – Compensate for the direct impacts to 688 square feet (0.016 acre) of Category IV wetland area. Objective 1 – Establish wetland hydrology in the wetland creation area by excavating depressional areas (approximately 12 to 18 inches of material) to tie into the existing groundwater elevation. Performance Standard 1.1.1 – Wetland hydrology will be maintained throughout at least 50 percent of the wetland creation area for at least 30 consecutive days during the growing season for Years 1-10. Objective 2 – Establish wetland habitat with diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and species richness to provide habitat for wetland-associated wildlife over the compensatory wetland creation area. Performance Standard 1.2.1 – Minimum plant survivorship will be at 100 percent of installed plants at the end of Year 1 (replacement of lost plants allowed). Native recruits may be counted. Performance Standard 1.2.2 – The wetland creation area will contain at least 20 percent total cover by native shrub species by Year 2, at least 30 percent total cover by native shrub species by Year 3, and at least 50 percent total cover by native shrub species for Years 5-10. Performance Standard 1.2.3 – The wetland creation area will contain at least 20 percent total cover by native tree species by Year 10. Performance Standard 1.2.4 – In all monitoring years, the wetland creation area will have at least 1 species of native trees and 5 species of native shrubs; native volunteer species will be included in the count. To be considered, the native species must make up at least 5 percent of the vegetation class. Performance Standard 1.2.5 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 20 percent total cover in any growing season during the monitoring period following Year 2. Goal 2 – Improve and protect wetland buffer functions to offset 1,424 square feet of indirect impacts to Wetland A associated with the project, enhance the remaining degraded wetland buffer areas, and provide 2,286 of voluntary wetland enhancement for Wetland A to provide greater protection from the adjacent roadway. Objective 1 – Enhance a total of 12,392 square feet of buffer area and 2,286 square of Wetland A area with a suite of native trees, shrubs, and emergent plants to create diverse horizontal and vertical vegetation structure and additional wildlife habitat. Performance Standard 2.1.1 – By the end of Year 5, the wetland and buffer enhancement areas will have at least 2 species of native trees, 3 species of native shrubs; native volunteer species will be included in the count. To be considered, the native species must make up at least 5 percent of the vegetation class. EXHIBIT 7 229 of 404 Performance Standard 2.1.2 – Minimum plant survivorship will be at 100 percent of installed plants at the end of Year 1 (replacement of lost plants allowed), 85 percent at the end of Year 2, and 75 percent at the end of Year 3. Performance Standard 2.1.3 – Non-native invasive plants will not make up more than 15 percent total cover in any growing season during the monitoring period following Year 1. 7.4.1 Plant Materials All plant materials to be used for mitigation and enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable, local source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided will be typical of their species or variety; if not cuttings they will exhibit normal, densely-developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, vigorous plants free from defects and all forms of disease and infestation. Container stock shall have been grown in its delivery container for not less than six months but not more than two years. Plants shall not exhibit rootbound conditions. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. Bare root plants may be substituted for container stock at the discretion of the consulting Scientist. Seed mixture used for hand or hydroseeding shall contain fresh, clean, and new crop seed mixed by an approved method. All plant material shall be inspected by the consulting Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications below will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. 7.4.2 Plant Scheduling, Species, Density, and Location Plant installation should occur as close to conclusion of clearing and grading activities as possible to limit erosion and limit the temporal loss of function provided by the wetlands and buffers. All planting should occur between September 1 and May 1 to ensure plants do not dry out after installation, or temporary irrigation measures may be necessary. All planting will be installed according to the procedures detailed in the site plans in Appendix C. 7.4.3 Quality Control for Planting Plan All plant material shall be inspected by the consulting Scientist upon delivery. Plant material not conforming to the specifications above will be rejected and replaced by the planting contractor. Rejected plant materials shall be immediately removed from the site. Under no circumstances shall container stock be handled by their trunks, stems, or tops. The landscape contractor shall provide the consulting Scientist with documentation of plant material that includes the supplying nursery contact information, plant species, plant quantities, and plant sizes. 7.4.4 Product Handling, Delivery, and Storage All seed and fertilizer should be delivered in original, unopened, and undamaged containers showing weight, analysis, and name of manufacturer. This material should be stored in a manner to prevent wetting and deterioration. All precautions customary in good trade practice shall be taken in preparing plants for moving. Workmanship that fails to meet industry standards will be rejected. Plants will be packed, transported, and handled with care to ensure protection against injury and from drying out. If plants cannot be planted immediately upon delivery they should be protected with soil, wet peat moss, or in a manner acceptable to the project biologist. Plants and mulch not installed immediately EXHIBIT 7 230 of 404 upon delivery shall be secured on the site to prevent theft or tampering. No plant shall be bound with rope or wire in a manner that could damage or break the branches. Plants transported on open vehicles should be secured with a protective covering to prevent windburn. 7.4.5 Preparation and Installation of Plant Materials The planting contractor shall verify the location of all elements of the mitigation and enhancement plan with the consulting Scientist prior to installation. The responsible consulting Scientist reserves the right to adjust the locations of landscape elements during the installation period as appropriate to the mitigation and enhancement actions outlined above. If obstructions are encountered that are not shown on the drawings, planting operations will cease until alternate plant locations have been selected by and/or approved by the consulting Scientist. Circular plant pits with vertical sides will be excavated for all container stock. The pits should be at least 12 inches in diameter, and the depth of the pit should accommodate the entire root system. The bottom of each pit will be scarified to a depth of 4 inches. Broken roots should be pruned with a sharp instrument and rootballs should be thoroughly soaked prior to installation. Set plant material upright in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment. Water the plants thoroughly midway through backfilling and add Agroform tablets. Water the pits again upon completion of backfilling. No filling should occur around trunks or stems. Do not use frozen or muddy mixtures for backfilling. 7.4.6 Temporary Irrigation Specifications While the native species selected for mitigation and enhancement are hardy and typically thrive in northwest conditions, and the mitigation actions are planned in areas with sufficient hydroperiods for the species selected, some individual plants might perish due to dry conditions. Therefore, irrigation or regular watering will be provided if necessary during the first two growing seasons while the native plantings become established. 7.5 Maintenance & Monitoring Plan This section outlines a maintenance and monitoring plan in accordance with AMC 16.10.130. The Applicant is committed to compliance with the mitigation and enhancement plan and overall success of the project. As such, the Applicant will continue to maintain the project, keeping the site free from of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and other waste. Depending on the success of the mitigation site, maintenance frequency may be decreased or increased at the discretion of the responsible consulting Scientist. The wetland mitigation and enhancement actions will require continued monitoring and maintenance to ensure the mitigation actions are successful. Therefore, the wetland creation area will be monitored for a period of 10 years, and the buffer enhancement areas for a period of five years, with formal inspections by a qualified consulting Scientist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction, 30 days after planting, and minimally on an annual basis during Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Closeout assessment will also be conducted in Year 10 for the wetland creation area and Year 5 for the buffer enhancement area to ensure the success of the compensatory actions. Monitoring will consist of percent cover measurements at permanent monitoring stations, walk- through surveys to identify invasive species presence and dead or dying restoration plantings, EXHIBIT 7 231 of 404 photographs taken at fixed photo points, wildlife observations, and general qualitative habitat and wetland function observations. To determine percent cover, observed vegetation will be identified and recorded by species and an estimate of areal cover of dominant species within each sampling plots. Circular sample plots, approximately 30 feet in diameter (706 square feet), are centered at each monitoring station. The sample plots encompass the specified wetland and buffer areas and terminate at the observed wetland or buffer boundary. Trees and shrubs within each 30-foot diameter monitoring plot are then recorded to species and areal cover. Herbaceous vegetation is sampled from a 10-foot diameter (78.5 square feet) within each monitoring plot, established at the same location as the center of each tree and shrub sample plot. Herbaceous vegetation within each monitoring plot is then recorded to species and includes an estimate of percent areal cover. A list of observed tree, shrub, and herbaceous species including percent areal cover of each species and wetland status will be included within the monitoring report. 7.6 Reporting Following the wetland creation actions, the responsible consulting Scientist and/or Project Engineer will prepare an As-Built (Year 0) Report and will be submitted to the City of Auburn’s project manager and USACE by December 1 following the post-construction monitoring event. Following each monitoring event, a brief monitoring report detailing the current ecological status of the mitigation actions, measurement of performance standards, and management recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the City of Auburn and USACE by December 1 each year to ensure full compliance with the mitigation plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. 7.7 Contingency Plan If monitoring results indicate that performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any portion of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with City approval. Such plans are adaptive and should be prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency plans can include additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. The contingency measures outlined below can also be utilized in perpetuity to maintain the wetland and buffers associated with the proposed mitigation site. This project proposes 10 years of monitoring for the wetland creation area and five years of monitoring for the wetland and buffer enhancement areas in compliance with the goals and performance standards outlined in Section 7.4 of the report. The contingency plan is presented below in accordance with AMC 16.10.130: Contingency/maintenance activities may include, but are not limited to: 1. Using plugs instead of seed for emergent vegetation coverage where seeded material does not become well-established; 2. Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary; 3. Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate after two growing seasons with the same species or native species of similar form and function; EXHIBIT 7 232 of 404 4. Irrigating the mitigation areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water; 5. Reseeding and/or repair of wetland and buffer areas as necessary if erosion or sedimentation occurs; 6. Spot treat non-native invasive plant species; and 7. Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. 7.8 Sensitive Area Tract According to AMC 16.10.090.E.1.f, long-term protection of the mitigation site may be required by placing the wetland mitigation and enhancement area and/or associated buffers in a separate sensitive area tract on which development is prohibited in perpetuity. Following obtainment of appropriate wetland approvals, the Applicant will protect the sensitive area tract by establishing and recording a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on the property title, or by execution of an easement dedicated to the City of Auburn, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City of Auburn. Following permit issuance and prior to construction, temporary markers will be installed along the approved clearing limits to prevent unintentional impacts to the mitigation and enhancement areas. The temporary markers will be replaced by permanent wetland signs which will be spaced approximately 50 feet apart, will be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another non-treated material of equal durability as required per AMC 16.10.120.A.14. 7.9 Financial Assurances Per AMC 16.10.130.7, performance security is required to assure that all actions approved under this mitigation plan are satisfactorily completed in accordance with the mitigation plan, performance standards, and regulatory conditions of approval. The Applicant will provide a performance bond (prior to the issuance of any building permits) and monitoring and maintenance bond in an amount equal to 125 percent of the total estimated fair market cost of labor, materials, and irrigation, as applicable. The actual bond quantity amount will be determined once initial critical area approvals have been obtained. 7.10 Long-Term Management Plan Informal, post-compliance maintenance and monitoring of the wetland mitigation area will continue permanently in compliance with 33 CFR 332.7(d)(2). This project proposes 10 years of monitoring in compliance with the general standards outlined in Chapter of the report. To ensure long-term success of the mitigation site, the landowner will also be responsible for implementing the maintenance items outlined in Section 7.7 of the report. 1) Maintenance actions may include, but are not limited to, treatment of invasive plant species and removal of trash and undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas. Please see the contingency/maintenance activities list for additional details. 2) Annual cost estimates for these actions: Mitigation area maintenance is anticipated to cost up to $2,000 annually and primarily will be used for potential invasive plant species treatment and any potential reoccurring debris removal. By Year 10, with the support of the contingency plan (if necessary), the plants will be well established; therefore, no budget will be necessary for watering and/or plant replacement. 3) How the long-term management will be funded: Revenue generated from homeowners association dues will be utilized for funding long-term management. 4) Frequency EXHIBIT 7 233 of 404 of monitoring, maintenance and reporting. In compliance with 33 CFR 332.7(d)(2), the mitigation areas on the project site will be maintained in perpetuity by the landowner. No additional formal wetland monitoring and reporting by a professional biologist beyond the Year 10 As-Built is proposed at this time; however, the USACE may request informal monitoring and reporting of the general condition and maintenance actions performed regarding upkeep of the mitigation site in perpetuity. In compliance with 33 CFR 332.7(d)(2) and to ensure long-term success of the mitigation site, the landowner will be responsible for implementing long-term maintenance. In addition, the mitigation areas on the project site will be maintained in perpetuity by the landowner. A notice on title will be added to the property to ensure recognition of the wetland mitigation areas into the future. EXHIBIT 7 234 of 404 Chapter 8. Closure The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due to such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this project may need to be revised wholly or in part. All wetland boundaries identified by SVC are based on conditions present at the time of the site inspection and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. As wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected; therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. Local agencies typically recognize the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after completion of a wetland delineation report. Development activities on a site five years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Due of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. EXHIBIT 7 235 of 404 Chapter 9. References Auburn Municipal Code. 2018. Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. Website: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Auburn/. Current through March 19, 2018. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. City of Auburn. 2019. Application Nos. PLT19-0004 & SEP19-0008, Aston Park Preliminary Plat Notice of Incomplete Application and Request for Additional Information. Prepared March 22, 2019. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y- 87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, Washington. April 2005. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2006 Update. (Publication #14-06-025). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #09-06-032. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Munsell Color, 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Washington. March 2005. Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. EXHIBIT 7 236 of 404 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. USACE. 2008. Revised Mem. from Envtl. Prot. Agency & Dep’t of the Army on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (December 2, 2008). United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 2010. Field Indictors of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. WSDOE, USACE Seattle District, and EPA Region 10. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, Washington. EXHIBIT 7 237 of 404 Appendix A — Methods and Tools Table A1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report. Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Wetland Delineation USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi l/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Regional Supplement http://www.usace.army.mil /Portals/2/docs/civilworks /regulatory/reg_supp/west _mt_finalsupp.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR- 10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Wetland Classification USFWS / Cowardin Classification System http://www.fws.gov/wetlan ds/Documents/Classificatio n-of-Wetlands-and- Deepwater-Habitats-of-the- United-States.pdf https://www.fgdc.gov/stan dards/projects/wetlands/nv cs-2013 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004- 2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Hydrogeomorphic Classification (HGM) System http://el.erdc.usace.army.mi l/wetlands/pdfs/wrpde4.pd f Brinson, M. M. (1993). “A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands,” Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Wetland Rating Prior Washington State Wetland Rating System http://www.ecy.wa.gov/bib lio/0406025.html Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington –Revised. Publication # 04-06-025. Wetland Indicator Status 2016 National Wetland Plant List https://www.fws.gov/wetla nds/documents/National- Wetland-Plant-List-2016- Wetland-Ratings.pdf Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Plant Names USDA Plant Database http://plants.usda.gov/ Website. Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.u sda.gov/app/ Website GIS data based upon: Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. King County Hydric Soils List http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.g ov/technical/soils/hydric_li sts/hydsoil-wa-653.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001. Hydric Soils List: King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C. EXHIBIT 7 238 of 404 Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference Threatened and Endangered Species Washington Natural Heritage Program http://data- wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/ datasets/wnhp-current- element-occurrences Washington Natural Heritage Program (Data published 07/19/17). Endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants of Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA Washington Priority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/p hspage.htm Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program Map of priority habitats and species in project vicinity. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Species of Local Importance WDFW GIS Data http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappi ng/salmonscape/ Website Report Preparation Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) https://www.codepublishin g.com/WA/Auburn/ AMC Chapter 16.10 – Critical Areas. EXHIBIT 7 239 of 404 Appendix B — Background Information This appendix includes a USGS Topographic map (B1); NRCS Soil Survey map (B2); USFWS NWI map (B3); King County Sensitive Areas map (B4); City of Auburn Stream Inventory (B5); City of Auburn Wetland Inventory (B6); DNR Stream Typing map (B7); WDFW SalmonScape map (B8); and WDFW PHS map (B9). EXHIBIT 7 240 of 404 Appendix B1. USGS Topographic Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 241 of 404 Appendix B2. NRCS Soil Survey Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 242 of 404 Appendix B3. USFWS NWI Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 243 of 404 Appendix B4. King County Sensitive Areas Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 244 of 404 Appendix B5. City of Auburn Stream Inventory Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 245 of 404 Appendix B6. City of Auburn Wetland Inventory Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 246 of 404 Appendix B7. DNR Stream Typing Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 247 of 404 Appendix B8. WDFW SalmonScape Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 248 of 404 Appendix B9. WDFW PHS Map Subject Property Location EXHIBIT 7 249 of 404 Appendix C — Site Plans EXHIBIT 7 250 of 404 WETLAND BCATEGORY IV~1,212 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYDP1WDP2UDP3WDP4UDP5WDP6UDP7USE 304TH STREET WETLAND CCATEGORY IV~158 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERDP8UWETLAND ACATEGORY IV~7,371 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BCATEGORY IV~1,212 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERPROPOSEDENTRY ROADPROPOSEDLOT LINESPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYSE 304TH STREET WETLAND CCATEGORY IV~158 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERROAD PRISMFILL ~1,424 SF(INDIRECTIMPACTS)LOT 11 LOT 20LOT 12 TRACT CCRITICAL AREALOT 3 TRACT B CRITICAL AREA LOT 2LOT 1TRACT ASTORMWATER LOT 21LOT 19LOT 13 TRACT FACCESS LOT 17 LOT 4 LOT 7LOT 5R.O.W.DEDICATIONLOT 15 2.5' R.O.W.DEDICATIONLOT 8LOT 16LOT 14 LOT 10TRACT DACCESS LOT 9 LOT 6LOT 18 WETLAND CFILL ~158 SFWETLAND ACATEGORY IV~7,371 SF 25' STANDARDWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND A FILL ~530 SF(DIRECT IMPACTS)PROPOSEDSTORM PONDSTORMWATERSYSTEM25.00ASTON PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS, PROPOSED PROJECT, MITIGATION PLAN 1BY: DSSCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:PROPOSED PROJECTEXISTING CONDITIONSEAGLE CREEK LAND & DEVELOPMENT, LLCRANDY GOODWIN15215 SE 272ND STREET, SUITE 201KENT, WA 98042206-730-9145APPLICANT/OWNER11624 SE 304TH STREETAUBURN, WA 98092TAX PARCEL: 7867000005SITE ADDRESS/PARCEL #SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC2907 HABORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE DGIG HARBOR, WA 98335253-514-8952ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTCITY OF AUBURN # PLT19-0004 & SEP 19-0008REFERENCE NUMBERSPREPARED BY:SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC2907 HABORVIEW DRIVE, SUITE DGIG HARBOR, WA 98335253-514-8952PREPARED: SEPTEMBER, 2018REVISED: DECEMBER, 2018WETLAND DELINEATIONWETLAND MONITORING: SOUNDVIEWCONSULTANTS LLCRESPONSIBLE PARTIESSHEET INDEX1 COVER - EXISTING CONDITIONS, PROPOSED PROJECT,AND MITIGATION PLAN2 SAMPLE PLANTING PLAN, NATIVE PLANT SCHEDULEAND SITE DETAILSPROPOSED MITIGATIONLOCATION:THE SW 14 OF SECTION 4,TOWNSHIP 21 N, RANGE 05 E, W.M.KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 7867000005LAT 47°19'50.85" N LONG X-122°11'8.03" WVICINITY MAPSOURCE: ESRI, OSM, USGSSITEVICINITYSITEEXISTING CONDITIONSPROPERTYBOUNDARYWETLAND A BUFFERENHANCEMENTPLANTING AREA~6,082 SFWETLAND BBUFFERENHANCEMENTPLANTING AREA~6,310 SFWETLANDCREATIONAREA B-1~277 SFWETLANDCREATIONAREA B-2~583 SFNOTES:SEE NATIVE PLANT SCHEDULE ON SHEET 5SEE SITE DETAILS ON SHEETS 6 AND 7WETLAND AFILL ~530 SF(DIRECTIMPACTS)WETLAND CREATION AREA CALCULATIONSWETLAND A FILL 530 SFWETLAND C FILL158 SFTOTAL WETLAND FILL688 SFCREATION FACTOR x 1.25COMPENSATORY WETLAND CREATION 860 SFWETLANDCREATIONAREA TOTAL~860 SFWETLAND AENHANCEMENTAREA ~2,286 SFASTON PARK 11624 SE 304TH STREET AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98092 THE SW 1 4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2019JOB: 1515.0008SHEET OF 2▪▪ ▪EXHIBIT 7251 of 404 999HHHSSS9999TREESMALUS FUSCA PACIFIC CRABAPPLEPICEA SITCHENSIS / SITKA SPRUCETHUJA PLICATA / WESTERN RED CEDARSHRUBSCORNUS SERICEA / RED-OSIER DOGWOODLONICERA INVOLUCRATA / BLACK TWINBERRYPHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS / PACIFIC NINEBARKRIBES LACUSTRE / SWAMP GOOSEBERRYROSA PISOCARPA / CLUSTERED WILD ROSERUBUS SPECTABILIS SALMONBERRYSALIX HOOKERIANA / HOOKER'S WILLOWSALIX SITCHENSIS / SITKA WILLOWSPIRAEA DOUGLASII DOUGLAS SPIREASEED MIXESWETLAND / WET SOIL SEED MIXTHROUGHOUT WETLAND CREATIONAREASBUFFER / DRY SOIL SEED MIXTHROUGHOUT BUFFER AT ALLDISTURBED AREASNOTE: PLANTING DENSITY ANDLOCATIONS MAY REQUIREADJUSTMENT IN THE FIELD TOACCOMMODATE EXISTING NATIVEVEGETATION TO REMAIN.NATIVE PLANT SYMBOL LEGEND9HSASTON PARK - SAMPLE PLANTING PLAN, NATIVE PLANT SCHEDULE AND SITE DETAILS 2BY: DSSCALE: SEE GRAPHICSOURCES:NOTES:1. PLANT SHRUBS OF THE SAMESPECIES INGROUPS OF 3 to 9 ASAPPROPRIATE, OR AS SHOWN ONPLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTSIN STRAIGHT LINES TO ACHIEVEA NATURAL-LOOKING LAYOUT.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTHOF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER.SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTHOF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OFPIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTINGADD AGROFORM TABLET ANDWATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTEDUSING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION.LOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)2 to 3 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF SHRUBNOT TO SCALESHRUB PLANTING DETAILSET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVEUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADELOCATOR LATH (IF SPECIFIED)2 to 3 INCH LAYER OF MULCH - KEEP MULCHMIN. 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREENOT TO SCALESET TOP OF ROOT MASS / ROOT BALL FLUSHWITH FINISH GRADE OR SLIGHTLY ABOVENOTES:1. PLANT TREES AS INDICATED ONPLAN. AVOID INSTALLING PLANTSIN STRAIGHT LINES.2. EXCAVATE PIT TO FULL DEPTHOF ROOT MASSAND 2 X ROOT MASS DIAMETER.SPREAD ROOTS TO FULL WIDTHOF CANOPY. SCARIFY SIDES OFPIT.3. MIDWAY THROUGH PLANTINGADD AGROFORM TABLET ANDWATER THOROUGHLY.4. BACKFILL TO BE COMPACTEDUSING WATER ONLY.5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTERINSTALLATION.TREE PLANTING DETAILUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SUBGRADE70-80 % OF STAKE STORAGE OF LIVE STAKESALL WOODY PLANT CUTTINGS COLLECTEDMORE THAN 12 HR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION,MUST BE CAREFULLY BOUND, SECURED,AND STORED OUT OF DIRECT SUNLIGHTAND SUBMERGED IN CLEAN FRESH WATERFOR A PERIOD OF UP TO TWO WEEKS.OUTDOOR TEMPERATURES MUST BE LESSTHAN 50 DEGREES F AND TEMPERATUREINDOORS AND IN STORAGE CONTAINERSMUST BE BETWEEN 34 AND 50 DEGREES F.IF THE LIVE STAKES CANNOT BE INSTALLEDDURING THE DORMANT SEASON, CUTDURING THE DORMANT SEASON AND HOLDIN COLD STORAGE AT TEMPERATURESBETWEEN 33 AND 39 DEGREES F FOR UP TO2 MONTHS.INSTALLED BELOW GRADE 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE 1 TO 2 INCH DIAMETER 24 TO 32 INCHES LENGTH.2. USE 1/2 INCH DIAMETER REBAR OR ROCK BAR TO MAKE PILOT HOLE.3. INSTALL LIVE STAKES TAPER END DOWN WITH BUDS POINTED UP.4. MINUMUM TWO BUDS ABOVE GRADE.5. SET LIVE STAKES WITH DEAD-BLOW HAMMER.6. WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION.NOTES:NOT TO SCALELIVE STAKE PLANTING DETAILNATIVE PLANT SCHEDULEASTON PARK 11624 SE 304TH STREET AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98092 THE SW 1 4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 21N, RANGE 05E, W.M.DATE: 6/20/2019JOB: 1515.0008SHEET OF 2▪▪ ▪SAMPLE PLANTING PLAN (SHOWING PORTION OF WETLAND B)EMERGENT SPECIES:CAREX OBNUPTA / SLOUGH SEDGE 20JUNCUS TENUIS / SLENDER RUSH 20SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS / 20 SMALL-FRUITED BULRUSHEXHIBIT 7252 of 404 Appendix D — Data Forms EXHIBIT 7 253 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-1W Erin Harker, Emily Swaim 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Concave 2 A2 47.330044 -122.18514124 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Wetland A plot. All three wetland criteria observed. Fill and slash in and around Wetland A. Salix hookeriana 30 Yes FACW 3 3 30 100% Alnus rubra 5 Yes FAC 5 Unidentified low growing grass*70 Yes FAC Phalaris arundinacea 10 No FACW Juncus ensifolius 10 No FACW Juncus effusus 10 No FACW 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through dominance test. *Listed as facultative for scoring purposes only. EXHIBIT 7 254 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1W 0 - 11 7.5YR 2.5/1 100 ----GrSiLo Gravelly Silt Loam 11 - 18 2.5YR 4/1 98 10YR 3/6 2 C,CS M GrSaLo Gravelly Silt Loam None Hydric soil criteria observed through indicator A11. None None None Hydrologic criteria observed through secondary indicators D2 and D5. EXHIBIT 7 255 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-2U Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Concave 2 A2 47.330224 -122.18527192 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Upland of Wetland A. Not all three wetland criteria observed; only hydrophytic vegetation present. 4 6 0 67% Cytisus scoparius 5 Yes UPL Populus balsamifera 5 Yes FAC 10 Phalaris arundinacea 45 Yes FACW Lolium perenne 10 Yes FAC Holcus lanatus 10 Yes FAC Galium aparine 10 Yes FACU Unknown rye species*5 No FAC Brassica rapa 5 No FACU Ranunculus repens 5 No FAC Urtica dioica 5 No FAC Alopecurus pratensis 5 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through dominance test. *Listed as facultative for scoring purposes only. EXHIBIT 7 256 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2U 0 - 14 10YR 3/3 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Sandy Loam None No hydric soil indicators observed. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 7 257 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-3W Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Concave 2 A2 47.330793 -122.18508537 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Wetland B plot. All three wetland criteria observed. Alnus rubra 75 Yes FAC 4 4 75 100% Rubus spectabilis 30 Yes FAC 30 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Yes FACW Juncus effusus 25 Yes FACW Ranunculus repens 15 No FAC Holcus lanatus 10 No FAC Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU 85 0 15 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through the dominance test. EXHIBIT 7 258 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3W 0 - 8 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSiLo Gravelly Silt Loam 8 - 16 10YR 5/2 97 10YR 5/6 3 C,CS M SaLo Fine Sandy Loam None Hydric soil criteria observed through indicator F3. None None None Hydrologic criteria observed through secondary indicators D2 and D5. EXHIBIT 7 259 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-4U Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Convex 5 A2 47.330922 -122.18523712 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Upland of Wetland B. Not all three wetland criteria observed; only hydrophytic vegetation present. Alnus rubra 100 Yes FAC 3 4 100 75% Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 5 Yes FAC 25 Galium aparine 70 Yes FACU Unidentified low growing grass*10 No FAC Aster species*10 No FAC Holcus lanatus 10 No FAC 100 0 0 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through the dominance test. *Listed as facultative for scoring purposes only. EXHIBIT 7 260 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4U 0 - 8 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo Gravelly Silt Loam with roots 8 - 12 7.5YR 3/1 100 ----SiLo Silt Loam None No hydric soil indicators observed. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 7 261 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-5W Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Valley Floor Concave 1 A2 47.331215 -122.18562145 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Wetland C plot. All three wetland criteria observed. Populus balsamifera 50 Yes FAC 6 Prunus emarginata 25 Yes FACU Alnus rubra 25 Yes FAC 7 100 86% Cornus alba 30 Yes FACW Spiraea douglasii 25 Yes FACW Rubus spectabilis 20 Yes FAC Rubus armeniacus 5 No FAC Acer macrophyllum 5 No FACU 85 Scirpus microcarpus 50 Yes OBL Rubus ursinus 5 No FACU Athyrium cyclosorum 5 No FAC 60 0 40 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through the dominance test. Polystichum munitum upland of plot. EXHIBIT 7 262 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-5W 0 - 13 10YR 2/1 100 ----GrSiLo Gravelly Silt Loam 13 - 16+10YR 5/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C,CS M SaLo Fine Sandy Loam Roots, Compacted gravel 16 Hydric soil indicator A12 observed. None None None Hydrologic criteria observed through primary indicators B4 and B6, and secondary indicators B9, D2, and D5. EXHIBIT 7 263 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-6U Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Concave 7 A2 47.331085 -122.18559790 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A 4 4 4 Not all three wetland criteria observed; only hydrology present. Fill area with compacted gravel layer at 6 inches in mowed field. Acer macrophyllum 15 Yes FACU 1 2 15 50% 0 0 1 2 17 51 0 15 60 0 0 Common yard grass*15 Yes FAC 33 113 Holcus lanatus 1 No FAC Unknown smartweed species*1 No FAC 3.42 Epilobium ciliatum 1 No FACW 18 0 82 No hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed. *Listed as facultative for scoring purposes only. EXHIBIT 7 264 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-6U 0 - 6 10YR 3/3 100 ----GrSaLo Very gravelly sandy loam Compacted gravel 6 No hydric soil indicators observed. Compacted gravel observed at 6 inches below ground surface. None None None Hydrologic criteria observed through secondary indicators B9 and D2. EXHIBIT 7 265 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-7U Emily Swaim, Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope Convex 1 A2 47.331006 -122.18576249 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A 4 4 4 Not all three wetland criteria observed; only hydrophytic vegetation present. Data collected in a mowed residential yard with previous fill activities. Thuja plicata 15 Yes FAC 2 2 15 100% 0 Unidentified mowed grasses*95 Yes FAC 95 0 5 Hydrophytic vegetation criteria observed through dominance test; however, vegetation observed consists of facultative species typical of upland areas. *Listed as facultative for scoring purposes only. EXHIBIT 7 266 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-7U 0 - 4 10YR 3/4 100 ---LoSa Loamy Sand 4 - 14 10YR 3/3 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam None No hydric soil indicators observed. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 7 267 of 404 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 1515.0008 - Aston Park Auburn / King 06/29/2018 Eagle Creek Land & Development LLC WA DP-8U Emily Swaim,Erin Harker 4, 21N, 5E Hillslope None 1 A2 47.331334 -122.18556709 WGS 84 Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam N/A Upland of Wetland C. No wetland criteria observed. Thuja plicata 35 Yes FAC 2 Prunus emarginata 25 Yes FACU Acer macrophyllum 5 No FACU 6 65 33% Acer circinatum 25 Yes FAC Corylus cornuta 25 Yes FACU Gaultheria shallon 10 No FACU 0 0 0 0 60 180 60 135 540 0 0 Polystichum munitum 50 Yes FACU 195 720 Rubus ursinus 15 Yes FACU Dicentra formosa 5 No FACU 3.69 70 0 30 No hydrophytic vegetation indicators observed. EXHIBIT 7 268 of 404 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:________________________________ Depth (inches):________________________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-8U 0 - 2 10YR 2/2 100 ----GrSaLo very gravelly sandy loam 2 - 12 7.5YR 3/4 100 ----SaLo Sandy Loam Roots, Compacted gravel 12 No hydric soil indicators observed. Restrictive root/compacted gravel layer encountered at 12 inches below ground surface. None None None No hydrologic indicators observed. EXHIBIT 7 269 of 404 Appendix E — Wetland Rating Forms EXHIBIT 7 270 of 404 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Date of site visit: Rated by: Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training: SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No _____ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarin e Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands t hat Need Additiona l Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purp oses of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rati ng system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individ uals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. A A 6/29/18 Emily Swaim 3/31/16 4 21N 5E 7,300 sf IV 8 0 10 18 EXHIBIT 7 271 of 404 Clas sification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annu al low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ______ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classi fied as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ______ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; ______ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ______ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ______ The water leaves the wetland without be ing impounded ? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland cla ss is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ______ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE un der wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. A EXHIBIT 7 272 of 404 D Depres sional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricte d, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) ....... points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowi ng treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure ___ D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetat ion (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total a rea of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure ___ Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditi ons provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression w ith no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom o f the outlet ....................... points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland .................................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ................................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit .......................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above A 8 1 0 3 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT 7 273 of 404 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might o therwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: A 1 0 EXHIBIT 7 274 of 404 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species ? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground - cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Figure ___ H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently floode d or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 Permanently flowing strea m or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure ___ H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure ___ H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, do wned, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover l ess than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above A 1 1 1 1 1 5 EXHIBIT 7 275 of 404 H 2 Does the wetland ha ve the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................................................... points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................ points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .............................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure ___ H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively un disturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: •Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR •Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point •Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres?NO = 0 points Comments: A 1 1 EXHIBIT 7 276 of 404 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 8 2): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ____ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). ____ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ____ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ____ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of sna gs, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ____ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ____ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ____ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 ). ____ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and condition s that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ____ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ____ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ____ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. ____ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ____ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not inc luded in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connect ions between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake w ith little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 Comments: A 0 3 5 5 10 EXHIBIT 7 277 of 404 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.8 6 ) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at leas t two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II ___ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ___ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland ___ The wetland has at least 2 of the f ollowing features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7 ) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wet land as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1.Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2.Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that ar e less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3.Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at g round level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of ra ting NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” p lant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I A EXHIBIT 7 278 of 404 YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its func tion. Old -growth forests : (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter a t breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 9 1 ) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20 % cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square f t.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 9 3 ) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rati ng If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: •Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 •Grayland -Westport -- lands west of SR 105 •Ocean Shores -Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: A EXHIBIT 7 279 of 404 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Date of site visit: Rated by: Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training: SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No _____ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarin e Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands t hat Need Additiona l Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purp oses of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rati ng system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individ uals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. B B 6/29/18 Emily Swaim 3/31/16 4 21N 5E 1,200 sf IV 12 0 10 22 EXHIBIT 7 280 of 404 Clas sification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annu al low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ______ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classi fied as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ______ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; ______ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ______ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ______ The water leaves the wetland without be ing impounded ? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland cla ss is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ______ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE un der wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. B EXHIBIT 7 281 of 404 D Depres sional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricte d, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) ....... points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowi ng treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure ___ D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetat ion (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total a rea of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure ___ Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditi ons provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression w ith no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom o f the outlet ....................... points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland .................................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ................................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit .......................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above B 12 1 0 5 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT 7 282 of 404 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might o therwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: B 1 0 EXHIBIT 7 283 of 404 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species ? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground - cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Figure ___ H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently floode d or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 Permanently flowing strea m or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure ___ H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure ___ H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, do wned, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover l ess than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above B 1 1 1 0 2 5 EXHIBIT 7 284 of 404 H 2 Does the wetland ha ve the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................................................... points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................ points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .............................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure ___ H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively un disturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: •Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR •Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point •Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres?NO = 0 points Comments: B 1 1 EXHIBIT 7 285 of 404 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 8 2): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ____ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). ____ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ____ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ____ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of sna gs, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ____ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ____ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ____ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 ). ____ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and condition s that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ____ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ____ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ____ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. ____ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ____ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not inc luded in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connect ions between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake w ith little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 Comments: B 0 3 5 5 10 EXHIBIT 7 286 of 404 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.8 6 ) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at leas t two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II ___ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ___ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland ___ The wetland has at least 2 of the f ollowing features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7 ) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wet land as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1.Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2.Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that ar e less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3.Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at g round level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of ra ting NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” p lant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I B EXHIBIT 7 287 of 404 YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its func tion. Old -growth forests : (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter a t breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 9 1 ) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20 % cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square f t.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 9 3 ) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rati ng If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: •Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 •Grayland -Westport -- lands west of SR 105 •Ocean Shores -Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: B EXHIBIT 7 288 of 404 WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 – Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct. 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): Date of site visit: Rated by: Trained by Ecology? Yes No Date of training: SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes No _____ Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland : I II III IV Category I = Score > 70 Score for Water Quality Functions Category II = Score 51 - 69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30 – 50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL Score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTCS of Wetland I II Does not apply Final Category (choose the “highest” category from above”) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit. Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarin e Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake-fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands t hat Need Additiona l Protection (in addition to the protection recommended for its category) YES NO SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T/E species)? For the purp oses of this rating system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rati ng system, “documented” means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category 1 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individ uals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands in to those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. C C 6/29/18 Emily Swaim 3/31/16 4 21N 5E 125 sf IV 3 0 10 13 EXHIBIT 7 289 of 404 Clas sification of Vegetated Wetlands for Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1 -7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annu al low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is a Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were call estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term “Estuarine” wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ______ ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface wate r runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classi fied as a “Flats” wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland meet both of the following criteria? ______ The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8ha) in size ; ______ At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 (2 m)? NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual). ______ The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. ______ The water leaves the wetland without be ing impounded ? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these types of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland cla ss is Slope 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? ______ The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ______ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding.. NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year. This means that any outlet, if present is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. No – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to Use in Rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE un der wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. C EXHIBIT 7 290 of 404 D Depres sional and Flat Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality. (only 1 score per box) D 1 Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: • Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 3 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted, permanently flowing outlet ........ points = 2 • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricte d, surface outlet (permanently flowing ) ....... points = 1 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowi ng treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) Provide photo or drawin g Figure ___ D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetat ion (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 95% of area ............................................... points = 5 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/2 of area ................................................. points = 3 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area ............................................... points = 1 • Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area .................................................. points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Figure ___ D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 years. • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/2 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 4 • Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total a rea of wetland .......................................................... points = 2 • Area seasonally ponded is < 1/4 total area of wetland .......................................................... points = 0 Map of Hydroperiods Figure ___ Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2 Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditi ons provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft. of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear -cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft. of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2; then add score to table on p. 1 HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation. D 3 Does the wetland have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p.46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit • Unit is a depression w ith no surface water leaving it (no outlet) ........................................... points = 4 • Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet ......... points = 2 • Unit is a “flat” depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man -made ditch ........................... points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as “intermittently flowing”) • Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) ....... points = 0 D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods. Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). • Marks of ponding are 3 ft. or more above the surface or bottom o f the outlet ....................... points = 7 • The wetland is a “headwater” wetland .................................................................................. points = 5 • Marks of ponding between 2 ft. to < 3 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ........................... points = 5 • Marks are at least 0.5 ft. to < 2 ft. from surface or bottom of outlet ...................................... points = 3 • Wetland is flat (yes to Q.2 or Q.7 on key)but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 • Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft ......................................................................................... points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. • The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit ................................................... points = 5 • The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit ................................................. points = 3 • The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit .......................................... points = 0 • Entire unit is in the FLATS class ......................................................................................... points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above C 3 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT 7 291 of 404 D 4 Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems. Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might o therwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 Multiplier TOTAL – Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D3 by D4; then add score to table on p. 1 Comments: C 1 0 EXHIBIT 7 292 of 404 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points HABITAT FUNCTIONS – Indicators that wetland functions to provide important habitat. (only 1 score per box) H 1 Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species ? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (see P. 72): Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin) – Size threshold for each class is 1/4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic Bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground - cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon. Add the number of vegetation types that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more ....... points = 4 3 structures ................... points = 2 2 structures .................... points = 1 1 structure .................... points = 0 Figure ___ H 1.2 Hydroperiods (see p.73): Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 1/4 acre to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). Permanently floode d or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 or more types present ...... points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present ................... points = 1 Saturated only 1 type present .................... points = 0 Permanently flowing strea m or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake-fringe wetland ................. = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland ......... = 2 points Map of hydroperiods Figure ___ H 1.3 Richness of Plant Species (see p. 75): Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2 (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species ...................... points = 2 5 – 19 species .................... points = 1 List species below if you want to: < 5 species ........................ points = 0 H 1.4 Interspersion of Habitats (see p. 76): Decided from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation (described in H1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Note: If you have 4 or more classes or 3 vegetation classes and open water, the rating is always “high”. Use map of Cowardin classes. Figure ___ H 1.5 Special Habitat Features (see p. 77): Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, do wned, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in. diameter and 6 ft. long) Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft. (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft. (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft. (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover l ess than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1 TOTAL Score – potential for providing habitat Add the points in the column above C 0 0 1 0 2 3 EXHIBIT 7 293 of 404 H 2 Does the wetland ha ve the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? (only 1 score per box) H 2.1 Buffers (see P. 80): Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of “undisturbed”. 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer (relatively undisturbed also means no grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use).. ........... points = 5 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 95% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 4 100m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference .................................................................................................... points = 3 50m (170 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference .............................................................................................. points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25m (80 ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK .................................. points = 2 No paved areas of buildings within 50m of wetland for > 50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing or lawns are OK ................................................................... points = 2 Heavy grazing in buffer ................................................................................................ points = 1 Vegetated buffers are < 2m wide (6.6 ft) for more than 95% circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) ............................. points = 0 Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above .............................................................. points = 1 Arial photo showing buffers Figure ___ H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively un disturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft. wide, has at least a 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (Dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H. 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegeta ted corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50 ft. wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake- fringe wetland, if it does no t have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.3 H. 2.2.3 Is the wetland: •Within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR •Within 3 miles of a large field or pasture (> 40 acres) OR YES = 1 point •Within 1 mile of a lake greater than 20 acres?NO = 0 points Comments: C 2 1 EXHIBIT 7 294 of 404 H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see p. 8 2): (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft. (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. ____ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). ____ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). ____ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ____ Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of sna gs, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ____ Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). ____ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ____ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 ). ____ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and condition s that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ____ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). ____ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ____ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. ____ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ____ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not inc luded in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) H 2.4 Wetland Landscape : Choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits (see p. 84) • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, and the connect ions between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development .......... points = 5 • The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake w ith little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile ..................................................................................................... points = 5 • There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed. ............................................................................................................................ points = 3 • The wetland fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................................................... points = 3 • There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile ........................................................................... points = 2 • There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile .................................................................................. points = 0 H 2 TOTAL Score – opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 8 Total Score for Habitat Functions Add the points for H 1 and H 2; then record the result on p. 1 Comments: C 1 3 3 7 10 EXHIBIT 7 295 of 404 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type – Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC1 Estuarine wetlands? (see p.8 6 ) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, Vegetated, and With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category I NO = go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at leas t two of the following conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II ___ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non -native plant species. If the non -native Spartina spp,. are only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. ___ At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland ___ The wetland has at least 2 of the f ollowing features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. SC2 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 8 7 ) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a natural heritage wetland? (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR.) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site YES Contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wet land as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category 1 NO not a Heritage Wetland SC3 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its function. 1.Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? YES = go to question 3 NO = go to question 2 2.Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that ar e less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? YES = go to question 3 NO = is not a bog for purpose of rating 3.Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at g round level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the “bog” species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? YES = Is a bog for purpose of ra ting NO = go to question 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hol e dug at least 16” deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the “bog” p lant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4.Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann’s spruce, or western white pine. WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cove r)? YES = Category I NO = Is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. I C EXHIBIT 7 296 of 404 YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? SC4 Forested Wetlands (see p. 9 0) Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its func tion. Old -growth forests : (west of Cascade Crest) Stands of at least two three species forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter a t breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm or more). NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and “OR” so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have an average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53 cm); crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. YES = Category I NO = not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC5 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (see p. 9 1 ) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks , gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks . The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom.) The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing) and has less than 20 % cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least 3/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft. buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square f t.) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC6 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 9 3 ) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES = Go to SC 6.1 NO not an interdunal wetland for rati ng If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: •Long Beach Peninsula -- lands west of SR 103 •Grayland -Westport -- lands west of SR 105 •Ocean Shores -Copalis – lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is one acre or larger? YES = Category II NO = go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. II Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the “highest” rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter “Not Applicable” on p. 1 Comments: C EXHIBIT 7 297 of 404 Appendix F — Wetland Rating Maps EXHIBIT 7 298 of 404 àààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààààààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà àààààààààààààààà àà àà àààààààààààààààààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà ààààà Pictometry, King County ASTON PARK - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ ASTON PARK 11624 SE 304TH STREETAUBURN, WA 98092 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 7867000005www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 12/7/2018 1515.0008 DLS 11 " = 150 ' Wetland A Wetland BWetland C 330' Boundary Site Boundary àààààààààààà ààà ààà Wetland 0 180 36090 Feet EXHIBIT 7 299 of 404 Pictometry, King County ASTON PARK - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ ASTON PARK 11624 SE 304TH STREETAUBURN, WA 98092 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 7867000005www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 1515.0008 DLS 21 " = 2 mi 1 Miles 3 Miles 5 Miles 40 Acre Field orPasture 0 2 41 Miles Within 5 Miles of Brackish or Salt Water Estuary No Within 3 Miles of Large Field or Pasture (>40 Acres)Yes Within 1 Mile of Lake (>20 Acres)No H.2.2 Corridors and Connections H.2.2.3 12/7/2018 EXHIBIT 7 300 of 404 Pictometry, King County, King County ASTON PARK - WETLAND RATING MAP ¢ ASTON PARK 11624 SE 304TH STREETAUBURN, WA 98092 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS: 7867000005www.soundviewconsultants.com 2907 Harborview Dr., Suite D, Gig Harbor, WA 98335Phone: (253) 514-8952 Fax: (253) 514-8954 Soundview ConsultantsEnvironmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions LLC DATE: JOB: BY: SCALE: FIGURE NO. of 3 12/7/2018 1515.0008 DLS 31 " = 300 ' àààààààààààà ààà ààà Wetland Contributing Basin 0 300 600150 Feet Area of Contributing Basin (SF)2,140,427 Area of Wetland A (SF)7,371 Percent of Wetland A within Contributing Basin 0.344% Area of Contributing Basin (SF)2,140,427 Area of Wetland B (SF)1,212 Percent of Wetland B within Contributing Basin 0.057% Area of Contributing Basin (SF)2,140,427 Area of Wetland C (SF)158 Percent of Wetland C within Contributing Basin 0.007% D.3 D.3.3 12/7/2018 EXHIBIT 7 301 of 404 Appendix G — Site Photographs Offsite Ditch Onsite Stormwater Intake EXHIBIT 7 302 of 404 Appendix H — Qualifications All field inspections, wetland and habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan prepared for the Aston Park property were prepared by, or under the direction of, Jon Pickett of SVC. In addition, the site investigation was performed by Emily Swaim and Erin Harker, and report preparation was completed by Kyla Caddey. Jon Pickett Senior Environmental Planner Professional Experience: 10 years Jon Pickett is a Senior Scientist/Environmental Planner with diverse professional experience in habitat development as a Regional Biologist and Environmental Project Manager, with an emphasis in wetland restoration and enhancement. Jon has extensive experience successfully planning, developing, securing funding, managing and implementing numerous large-scale wetland habitat projects aimed at restoring the biological and physical functions of wetlands throughout California’s Central Valley and Southern California. During this time he managed a 2,200 acre private wetland and upland habitat complex as a public trust resource for conservation and consumptive use. He worked to ensure projects were designed and implemented to achieve habitat restoration goals, including reclamation of wetland and floodplain habitats, reintroduction of aquatic complexity and habitat, and reestablishment of riparian corridor. Jon has worked with Federal and State agencies and private entities on land acquisitions for conservational habitat and public use, including prioritizing acquisitions relative to value and opportunity and funding. In addition, Jon has experience in regulatory coordination to ensure projects operated in compliance with Federal, State and local environmental regulations, preparing permit documentation, coordinating with all pertinent agencies and stakeholders, and developing and maintaining appropriate permitting timelines to ensure timely approvals. He also oversaw earthwork construction components and revegetation efforts, as well as post-project monitoring, with an emphasis in native vegetation establishment and natural channel morphology. Jon earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Natural Resource Sciences from Washington State University and Bachelor of Science Minor in Forestry from Washington State University. He has been formally trained in Advanced Wetland Delineation Methods Using the USACE Regional Supplements, in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Using Field Indicators for Hydric Soils, and the Using the Credit-Debit Method for Estimating Mitigation Needs. Emily Swaim Wetland Scientist/Field Geologist Professional Experience: 5 years Emily Swaim is a Wetland Scientist and Field Geologist with a background in conducting Phase I, II and III Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), underground natural gas pipeline and overhead electrical transmission line project assessment and environmental inspections, construction oversight, stormwater compliance inspections, soil sampling, delineating and assessing wetland and aquatic EXHIBIT 7 303 of 404 systems, and stormwater, floodplain, and wetland permitting. Ms. Swaim’s expertise focuses on projects involving sensitive wetland and stream habitats where extensive team coordination and various regulatory challenges must be carefully and intelligently managed from project inception to completion. Emily earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from Illinois State University and Wetland Science and Management Professional Certification from the University of Washington, Seattle. She is also educated in Environmental Science from Iowa State University. Her education and experience has provided her with extensive knowledge on soils, wetland science, hydrogeology, sedimentology, environmental law, environmental geology, landscape ecology, and structural geology. Ms. Swaim has been formally trained in Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) and is Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 30-hour Construction and 10-hour Construction certified. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wetland Professional In-Training (WPIT) through the Society of Wetland Scientists. Erin Harker Staff Wetland Scientist Professional Experience: 4 years Erin Harker is a Staff Wetland Scientist with diverse ecological experience in both field and laboratory settings in the Pacific Northwest. She has gained hands-on experience involving research on water quality, salmon runs, amphibian surveys, restoration project performance, and marine mammal hydro- acoustics. Erin is proficient in collecting and analyzing environmental data; riparian restoration and wetland mitigation monitoring principles and techniques; analyzing local, state, and federal environmental code and regulations; and technical writing. Erin has additional experience engaging students and volunteers in a suite of environmental curriculums. She currently performs wetland, ordinary high water, and forensic delineations, in addition to assisting clients through the various stages of land use planning by conducting environmental code analysis; preparing environmental assessments, mitigation reports, and biological evaluations; and completing permit applications. Erin graduated from Western Washington University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science with a Marine Ecology focus. She has received and Coastal Training Program in conducting forage fish surveys; using the credit-debit system for estimating wetland mitigation needs, determining the ordinary high water mark; Puget Sound coastal processes; conducting eelgrass delineations; using the 2014 wetland rating system; using field indicators for hydric soils; and administering permits in the shoreline jurisdiction. Kyla Caddey Staff Scientist Professional Experience: 4 years Kyla Caddey is a Staff Scientist and Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist and Wildlife Biologist with a diverse background in riparian habitat restoration, stream and wetland ecology, wildlife ecology and conservation, and wildlife and natural resource assessments and monitoring. Kyla has advanced expertise in report preparation, grant writing, environmental education, data compilation and statistical analysis. Kyla has field experience performing in-depth studies in both the Pacific Northwest and Central American ecosystems. She currently performs wetland, stream, and shoreline delineations and fish and wildlife habitat assessments; conducts environmental code analysis; and prepares EXHIBIT 7 304 of 404 environmental assessment and mitigation reports, biological evaluations, and permit applications to support clients through the regulatory and planning process for various land use projects. Kyla earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management from the University of Washington, Seattle with a focus in Wildlife Conservation and a minor in Quantitative Science. She has received 40-hour USACE Wetland Delineation Training and additional formal training through the Washington State Department of Ecology and Coastal Training Program in Using the Credit-Debit Method in Estimating Wetland Mitigation Needs, How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, Using Field Indicators for Hydric Soils, How to Administer Development Permits in Washington Shorelines, Puget Sound Coastal Processes, and Forage Fish Survey Techniques. EXHIBIT 7 305 of 404 Technical Memorandum To: Thaniel Gouk, City of Auburn File Number: 1515.0008 From: Jon Pickett, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: June 14, 2019 Re: Response to City of Auburn Comments – Aston Park (Application Nos. PLT19- 0004 & SEP19-0008) Dear Thaniel, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Eagle Creek Land and Development (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and mitigation plan for a proposed residential development of a 4.43-acre site located at 11624 Southeast 304th Street in the City of Auburn, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel that is situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W.M (King County Tax Parcel Number 7867000005). This Technical Memorandum has been prepared in response to the City of Auburn’s (City) first review completion letter dated March 22, 2019 (City of Auburn, 2019) regarding the Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan prepared by SVC dated December 6, 2018 (SVC, 2018). Requested portions of the report have been updated to address the comments. This response letter supersedes any inconsistencies that may remain between the response letter and the revised report. The following are the City’s review comments for critical areas (italicized) followed by SVC’s responses: 1. Comment 10: please update the Critical Areas Report based on the comments provided in other documents (e.g. civil plans). Noted. SVC has revised the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan to address the comments provided in the civil plans. 2. Comment 11: Page 21 of 108, second line under No. 5: the ratio should be “1.25” not “1.5”. Noted. The ratio has been updated from 1.5 to 1.25 in SVC’s revised Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan. EXHIBIT 7 306 of 404 3. Comment 12: Page 52 of 108: please see the redlined comments on “CAO Mitigation Sheet 1st Rev.PDF.” SVC reviewed the comments provided for the proposed mitigation plan set and have made the necessary changes regarding the wall placement, increasing the compensatory wetland creation area to 860-square feet total, provide 6,310 square feet total buffer enhancement around Wetland B, and provide 2,286 square feet of enhancement within Wetland A and 6,082 square feet of buffer area around wetland. SVC revised the mitigation plan set as well as the Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan to include these changes. 4. Comment 13: On the wetland rating form(s), H1.1, from aerial photos and the civil plans it appears the wetland(s) might meet the definition of “Forested”? SVC carefully reviewed the data and photographs collected during the site investigation in June 2018 as well as aerial photographs and the civil plans to determine the appropriate Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al., 1979; Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013) of the identified onsite wetlands. Wetland A was classified as a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Emergent, Seasonally Saturated and Semi-permanently Flooded wetland (PSS/EMBF); Wetland B was classified as a Palustrine Forested, Seasonally Saturated and Semi-permanently Flooded wetland (PFOBF); and Wetland C was classified as a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub, Seasonally Flooded wetland (PSSC). SVC’s analysis determined that the original Cowardin classifications provided are accurate. Only Wetland B is a true forested wetland; although there are trees present along the edges of Wetlands A and C, the trees are not rooted in the wetlands to be considered as a separate Cowardin classification in addition to the scrub-shrub component. As such, the original Cowardin classifications provided are accurate and no revisions to SVC’s report are warranted. Hopefully these responses address the City’s comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any question or concerns you may have. Sincerely, _____________________________________ Jon Pickett Senior Environmental Planner/Scientist Office 253.514.8952x017 Fax: 253.514.8954 jon@soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 7 307 of 404 References City of Auburn. 2019. Application Nos. PLT19-0004 & SEP19-0008, Aston Park Preliminary Plat Notice of Incomplete Application and Request for Additional Information. Prepared March 22, 2019. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Soundview Consultants. 2018. Wetland and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan – Aston Park. Prepared December 6, 2018. EXHIBIT 7 308 of 404 To: Thaniel Gouk, City of Auburn File Number: 1515.0008 From: Jon Pickett, Soundview Consultants LLC Date: October 18, 2019 Re: Aston Park Preliminary Plat (Application Nos. PLT19-0004) Dear Thaniel, Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been assisting Eagle Creek Land and Development (Applicant) with a wetland and fish and wildlife habitat assessment and mitigation plan for a proposed residential development of a 4.43-acre site located at 11624 Southeast 304th Street in the City of Auburn, Washington. The subject property consists of one parcel that is situated in the Southwest ¼ of Section 4, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W.M (King County Tax Parcel Number 7867000005). This letter has been prepared in response to the City of Auburn’s (City) second review completion letter dated March 22, 2019 (City of Auburn, 2019). This is in consideration of the existing wetlands and the Minimum Requirement #8 Wetlands Protection, and how the wetland hydrology will be maintained. SVC has coordinated with the Project Engineer in consideration of the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report dated October 7, 2019. According the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, maintaining hydrology of the onsite wetlands from the developed conditions will closely mimic those of the pre-developed conditions. The modeling for daily data points generally fell within the 20-percent guideline for the majority of the data points per the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW). The model produced several individual data points in the fall months that fell beyond the required 20-pecent of the predeveloped conditions. The highest discrepancies are found in the month of October for both Wetlands A and B. A review of the existing flows into the wetlands during October show that the monthly total is very similar to the month of August even though there is consistently more rainfall in October. This would be attributed to the drier condition of the soils absorbing a higher quantity of runoff in the existing condition, where the developed conditions reflect a higher runoff rate from rooftops. The difference in quantities for these months is less than 0.1 acre- foot, which is relatively insignificant in relation to the projected flows into the wetland. As indicated in the Preliminary Storm Drainage Report and through discussion with the Project Engineer, it appears that hydrology for the onsite wetlands will be appropriately maintained under developed conditions in comparison through predeveloped conditions, through the diversion of roof runoff and other pervious areas. Pollutant generating impervious surfaces will be routed to the stormwater detention and water quality treatment facility and will not negatively impact the onsite EXHIBIT 7 309 of 404 wetland areas. In addition, a bypass has been incorporated into project design to allow higher peak flows to bypass the wetlands to not overly hydrated the area. Hopefully these responses address the City’s comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any question or concerns you may have. Sincerely, _____________________________________ Jon Pickett Senior Environmental Planner/Scientist Office 253.514.8952x017 Fax: 253.514.8954 jon@soundviewconsultants.com EXHIBIT 7 310 of 404 References City of Auburn. 2019. Application Nos. PLT19-0004, 2nd Rev. Prepared March 22, 2019. Encompass Engineering. 2019. Preliminary Storm Drainage Report. Revised October 7, 2019 EXHIBIT 7 311 of 404 EarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA98005 (425) 449-4704 Fax (425) 449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com Geotechnical Engineering Construction Observation/Testing Environmental Services GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SOUTHEAST 304 STREET PLAT 11624 SOUTHEAST 304 STREET AUBURN, WASHINGTON ES-6321 TH TH EXHIBIT 8 312 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 313 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 314 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 315 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 316 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 317 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 318 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 319 of 404 There is no indication from the project plans that the existing home will remain. Please correct this statement. EXHIBIT 8 320 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 321 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 322 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 323 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 324 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 325 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 326 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 327 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 328 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 329 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 330 of 404 Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Drwn. CAM Checked BST Date Sept. 2018 Date 09/28/2018 Proj. No. 6321 Plate 1 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Vicinity Map S.E. 304th Street Plat Auburn, Washington Reference: King County, Washington Map 746 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NORTH NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. SITE EXHIBIT 8 331 of 404 Plate Proj. No. Date Checked By Drwn. ByEarth Solutions NWLLCGeotechnical Engineering,ConstructionObservation/Testing and Environmental ServicesEarthSolutionsNWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLCLot 1 Tract B Critical Area Lot 2 Tract C Critical Area Lot 3Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Tract E Access Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Tract D Access Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Tract A Stormwater s.e. 304th street 440 440 430 430 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. LEGEND Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-6321, Sept. 2018 Subject Site Proposed Lot Number Wetland (Delineated by Others) TP-1 NORTH0 30 60 120 Scale in Feet1"=60' Lot 16 CAM BST 10/12/2018 6321 2Test Pit Location PlanS.E. 304th Street PlatAuburn, Washington EXHIBIT 8 332 of 404 Drwn. CAM Checked BST Date Sept. 2018 Date 09/28/2018 Proj. No. 6321 Plate 3 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Retaining Wall Drainage Detail S.E. 304th Street Plat Auburn, Washington NOTES: Free-draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing No. 4 sieve should be 25 to 75 percent. Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free-draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch Drain Rock. LEGEND: Free-draining Structural Backfill 1-inch Drain Rock 18" Min. Structural Fill Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING EXHIBIT 8 333 of 404 Drwn. CAM Checked BST Date Sept. 2018 Date 09/28/2018 Proj. No. 6321 Plate 4 Earth Solutions NWLLCEarthSolutionsNWLLC EarthSolutions NW LLC Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services Footing Drain Detail S.E. 304th Street Plat Auburn, Washington Slope Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround in Drain Rock) 18" Min. NOTES: Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal: native soil or other low-permeability material. 1-inch Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING EXHIBIT 8 334 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 335 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 336 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 337 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 338 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 339 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 340 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 341 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 342 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 343 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 344 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 345 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 346 of 404 EXHIBIT 8 347 of 404 EXHIBIT 9348 of 404 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 3: Off-Site Analysis (Minimum Requirement #10) .......................................................................... 5 Chapter 4: Permanent Stormwater Control Plan .......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 5: Discussion of Minimum Requirements: .................................................................................... 10 List of Appendices A. Model outputs and reports B. Wetland Recharge Review Letter Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan by Soundview Consultants dated December 2018 Biological Evaluation by Soundview Consultants dated December 2018 C. Geotechnical/Hydrogeologic Report by Earth Solutions NW, LLC; dated October 11, 2018 Geotechnical Review Letter by Earth Solutions NW, LLC; dated November 22, 2019 D. Relevant sheets from the design drawing set (e.g., existing conditions, grading, paving, tree protection, drainage plans and profiles, etc.) E. Operation and Maintenance Manual (O & M Manual) for Stormwater Management Facilities per Section D2-08 EXHIBIT 9 349 of 404 Chapter 1: Project Overview The project site is located at 11624 SE 304th Street in Auburn, Washington. The tax parcel number for the site is 786700-0005. The 4.43 Acre Site is located on the north side of SE 304th Street in Auburn, WA. Single family residences have been constructed to the east, west and north. Hazelwood Elementary is located on the south side of SE 304th Street. The proposed project will divide the existing parcel into 20 new single-family residential parcels and several tracts. The existing residence, all existing outbuildings and all appurtenances will be removed from the site. The homes will be accessed via a new residential street connecting to SE 304th Street. The majority of the runoff from the developed site will be collected into an onsite stormwater management system that will utilize a combination detention pond and wetpond for basic water quality treatment. The proposed off-site frontage improvements along SE 304th Street include half street improvements per City of Auburn Standards, including additional asphalt width, curb, gutter, sidewalk and safe walk to school improvements. Drainage from these improvements will generally be conveyed into the onsite stormwater treatment and detention facilities. The project site contains three Class IV wetlands; A, B and C. Wetland C is quite small and will be filled in as part of this project. Mitigation for filling in Wetland C includes additional wetland area being added to Wetland B. Wetland A is being impacted to make room for necessary frontage improvements. This impact will be mitigated by enhancing approximately 2,286 square feet of the wetland. Please refer to the Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Final Mitigation Plan Dated December, 2018 by Soundview Consultants, provided in Appendix B of this report and sheets 1 and 2 of 2 at the end of the civil engineering plan set for additional information regarding the wetland mitigation for these impacts. The existing wetlands currently receive runoff from an estimated 2.886 acres of pervious area. (See existing conditions map that follows.) The tributary area is comprised of forest and pasture ground cover. To maintain the function of the wetlands, a portion of the runoff from the developed project will need to be routed into the wetlands. This runoff will be taken from non- pollutant generating surfaces such as roofs and pervious lawns in the adjacent, developed parcels. Detailed discussion regarding the preservation of the wetlands is provided in Chapter 4, minimum requirement #8. EXHIBIT 9 350 of 404 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions The project site presently consists of one single-family residence, a gravel driveway and several outbuildings. Except for the structures and driveway, the site is vegetated with grass, pasture and mature trees. The topography varies from moderate to flat with no areas that qualify as steep. There are three existing wetlands that have been identified on the subject property. The total project area is 193,218 square feet with an additional 790 square feet of right of way dedication and 8,516 square feet of frontage improvements for a total of 4.6 acres under consideration. Soils: Per the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NCRS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) information, the entire project site is underlain with Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0-8% slope, (Map Unit AgB). Soil Survey Map The subject site was investigated by Earth Solutions NW. The report was dated October 12, 2018 and site investigations were performed on September 7, 2018. Their excavations found rather shallow layers of unweathered glacial till throughout much of the site. A perched groundwater table was found at about 8’ below grade in one test pit, which is common for areas of unweathered glacial till. SITE EXHIBIT 9 351 of 404 ESN also performed an infiltration test, which resulted in a measured infiltration rate of 1.7 inches per hour. Applying the required correction factors produced a potential design infiltration rate of 0.38 inches per hour. However, infiltration facilities are required to be 5’ above such glacial till, which does not provide adequate space for infiltration facilities. They recommend that infiltration facilities be considered infeasible at this site. See Geotechnical Engineering Study in the Appendix C for additional information. EXHIBIT 9 352 of 404 Existing Conditions THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. TO BE REPLACED WITH EXHIBIT ONCE READY EXHIBIT 9 353 of 404 Chapter 3: Off-Site Analysis (Minimum Requirement #10) A qualitative downstream analysis was performed by Encompass Engineering and Surveying on Friday December 15, 2018. The analysis was performed at approximately 8:00 AM with a temperature of about 45°. The proposed project site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a large outbuilding. These buildings will be removed as part of this project. The site slopes to the south at approximately 0-6%. Runoff from the project site generally sheet flows to an existing roadside ditch along SE 304th Street with approximately 2.8 acres of the site flowing through Wetlands A and B, located on the southeast corner and east edge of the site. Overflow from the wetland enters a ditch along 304th Street which flows to the west. It then passes under SE 304th St via an 18” corrugated plastic culvert. It then enters a drainage channel built as part of the Hazelwood Elementary and Rainier JR High School developments. This channel runs to the west along SE 304th Street and turns south at the intersection with 116th Ave SE. The channel runs south for approximately 400’ before turning east and flowing between the two schools. The runoff then passes through a 10” ductile iron culvert beneath the walkway between the schools. This culvert is located approximately 1,400 ft downstream of the project site. At the eastern property line of the scho ol the channel turns south and runs to the southeast corner of the school grounds. This is where the analysis was completed approximately 2,700 ft downstream of the project site. The entirety of this constructed channel ranges from approximately 5’-8’ wide with depths of approximately 3’-4’ deep. It does not appear that there are any flooding or erosion issues downstream of the project site, and none are anticipated with the proposed construction. Upstream Tributary Area The uphill area from the subject site has been developed with single family residences. Runoff from these parcels is directed into a stormwater pond / wetland in that development (north of the subject property). The Emergency overflow from this pond is contained in an overland channel that is lined with timbers. (See photo below.) The flow is conveyed through the existing site via an 18” pipe that was installed by the Department of Natural Resources. This pipe will be relocated into a new 18” pipe during construction of the proposed project and conveyed downstream of the detention pond / water quality wetland. The capacity of the overland channel is far smaller than the capacity of an 18” pipe and it is unclear why the Department of Natural Resources installed the pipe. A records review produced as-built drawings, but nothing in the form of background. To maintain the functionality of the pipe, an 18” bypass pipe has been provided through the project site. The capacity of the pipe is far greater than the capacity of the overland channel and will adequately convey the received stormwater. In general, the runoff from this development is routed into the City of Auburn storm drainage system. Under normal conditions the site is not tributary to the subject property as the access road is located along the property line and directs runoff into the onsite system. A small portion of the property to the east is tributary to Wetland B. This condition will remain unchanged as a result of the proposed project and has been excluded from analysis. EXHIBIT 9 354 of 404 EXHIBIT 9 355 of 404 Project Site Culvert under SE 304th St EXHIBIT 9 356 of 404 Chapter 4: Permanent Stormwater Control Plan The proposed project consists of the construction of on-site and off-site infrastructure to support the construction of 20 new single-family detached residences. All existing onsite structures, utilities and appurtenances will be demolished. The new homes will be accessed via a new private road with a connection to SE 304th Street. The site is contained within a single drainage basin that discharges to the south. A large portion of the non-pollutant generating stormwater generating surfaces will be routed into one of two onsite wetlands to maintain wetland function. Please see Minimum Requirement 8 of this report for detailed information regarding that portion of the project. Runoff generated by the remaining improvements will be managed by onsite facilities and a combination detention pond with a water quality wetpond. The proposed off-site frontage improvements along SE 304th Street include half street improvements to minor arterial standards, adding up to 13’ of asphalt travel lane, curb, gutter and a 10’ sidewalk. A portion of these improvements are topographically disconnected from the detention pond and will drain into the existing stormwater system without being detained or treated. Drainage from an equivalent area along S 304th St will be collected as an area swap. Please refer to the developed conditions map in this report for additional information. Infiltration Feasibility Assessment and Infiltration BMP Design Native soils encountered by the Earth Solutions NW LLC were characterized primarily as medium dense to dense, silty sand with gravel and / or sandy silt with gravelly till. Based on USDA textural analyses results, native soils may also be classified as gravelly sandy loam. The infiltration capacity of the soils was determined to be 0.38 inches per hour. Given the underlying unweathered glacial till, infiltration is not recommended by Earth Solutions NW for this project and will not be considered. EXHIBIT 9 357 of 404 Proposed Conditions THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. TO BE REPLACED WITH EXHIBIT ONCE READY EXHIBIT 9 358 of 404 Chapter 5: Discussion of Minimum Requirements: The City of Auburn manages stormwater generated by development through adoption of the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW). The City also has developed their own Supplement to the SMMWW which provides additional or modified requirements to the SMMWW. Both manuals have been utilized in the design of this project. For simplicity, both manuals in conjunction will be referred to as “the drainage manual” unless one or the other is specified. The existing site contains less than 35% of impervious area and the proposed project will result in approximately 74,560 square feet of new impervious area. In accordance with the flow chart provided below, the project will be required to comply with all of the minimum requirements within the drainage manual. See the Existing and Proposed Conditions Map for additional detail. Discussion of each minimum requirement is contained in this chapter. Flow Chart for Determining Minimum Requirements for New Developments EXHIBIT 9 359 of 404 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared in accordance with the 2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the City of Auburn Supplemental Manual to the Ecology Stormwater management Manual for Western Washington, published 2017. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) A SWPPP, which will serve to minimize soil erosion/sedimentation during the proposed site construction, will be prepared for approval by the City of Auburn during preparation of construction plans. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution The development project is not commercial or industrial in nature, which greatly reduces the need for source control of pollution. The remaining sources of pollution are related to the construction phase of the development. The SWPPP and TESC plan prepared for construction will address specific pollution control BMP’s relevant to the project in accordance with the DOE Manual for Western Washington and the Supplemental Manual to the Ecology Stormwater management Manual for Western Washington, published 2017. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls The proposed on-site and off-site drainage patterns emulate those of the existing site conditions. A qualitative downstream analysis was conducted for this project. See Minimum Requirement #10 for this content. There is an existing drainage channel that discharges onto the subject site from an adjacent development. The channel is intended to convey flows from the emergency overflow from the detention pond associated with that development. Under normal conditions, there are no flows in the channel, which is constructed of wooden timbers (12” logs) laid end to end. An existing 18” stormwater pipe was installed by the Department of Natural Resources which conveys any flows from this channel across the site and into the stormwater system within SE 304th St. The drainage system has been designed with a replacement bypass pipe through the project that discharges into the same system within SE 304th St. Minimum Requirement #5: On-Site Stormwater Management This project is considered to be a redevelopment, located inside of the Urban Growth Area, and triggers Minimum Requirements #1 - #9. To meet the applicable requirements per Table I-2.5.1 of the SWMMWW, this project proposes to apply On-site Stormwater Management List #2. The applicable BMPs have been considered below in the order listed for each type of surface. The managed areas have been incorporated into the model by adjusting the impervious areas according to the table below. Lawn and Landscaped Areas: • Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth (BMP T5.13) This BMP will be implemented throughout the pervious areas of the site. Approximately 61,718 SF of pervious surface areas will utilize this BMP. Outside of the project clearing limits, topsoil will remain undisturbed. Topsoil that is disturbed by construction will be stockpiled in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas, to be reapplied to other portions of the site where feasible. Areas within the clearing limits designated to be pervious EXHIBIT 9 360 of 404 surfaces, will re-establish soil quality per the requirements detailed in Volume V BMP T5.13. While not shown on the civil plans, a note to this effect will be added for construction drawings. Per the SWMMWW, areas meeting the guidelines have been modeled as “Pasture” rather than “Lawn”. Roofs: 1. Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (BMP T5.10A) • Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) This BMP is not feasible for the project. The site design does not allow for the minimum 100-feet native vegetated flowpath segments required to utilize full dispersion BMPs. • Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (BMP T5.10A) This BMP is not feasible for the project. The geotechnical engineer has advised against use of infiltration BMP’s due to the existence of hardpan soils at a relatively shallow depth. As stated on page 10 of the geotechnical engineering report, “Per Site Suitability Criteria 5 (SSC5) of the 2014 ASWMM, cemented glacial till is considered ‘hardpan’, which is not suitable for infiltration systems. We interpret depths approaching three to four feet bgs across the majority of the site as ‘hardpan’, unsuitable for infiltration. Per SSC5, a minimum five-feet separation above hardpan is required for infiltration systems. As such, infiltration should be considered infeasible at the subject site.” 2. Bioretention (BMP T7.30) This BMP is not feasible for the project. Per the BMP T7.30, “Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or down gradient flooding. 3. Downspout Dispersion Systems (BMP T5.10B) This BMP is feasible for the project as Basic Dispersion. Downspout dispersion systems in the form of Downspout Splashblock Dispersion per Figure III-3.1.7. The splashblocks have been implemented in several of the lots and will be located an additional 5’ back from the building setback line. The splashblocks will have to be modified to fit in these locations as there is only a 25’ maximum flow path. 4. Perforated Stub-out Connections (BMP T5.10C) This BMP is feasible for the project. Other BMP’s are not feasible on lots 12 and 17, so a perforated stub-out connection has been designed for those two lots. Other Hard Surfaces: 1. Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) This BMP is not feasible for the project. The site design does not allow for the minimum 100-feet native vegetated flowpath segments required to utilize full dispersion BMPs. 2. Permeable Pavement (BMP T5.15) While infiltration facilities are not supported by the Geotechnical Report due to higher hardpan levels, this BMP is feasible on a limited basis as it will be installed higher in the stratus than a traditional infiltration bmp. This limited use is supported by the Geotechnical Engineer. Please see the review letter in Appendix C. All of the driveways in the development will be constructed of permeable pavement, designed per BMP T5.15. The driveways will not be equipped with an EXHIBIT 9 361 of 404 Aston Park Preliminary Storm Drainage Report 13 | P a g e underdrain pipe connection and have been modeled as grass in accordance with the Department of Ecology 2014 SWMMWW and the City of Auburn Addendum. Bioretention (BMP T7.30) and Raingardens (BMP T5.14A) These BMP’s are not feasible for this project. Per the infeasibility criteria for BMP T7.30, “Where the a minimum vertical separation of 3 feet to the seasonal high water table, bedrock or other impervious layer would not be achieved below bioretention that: 1) would serve a drainage area that meets or exceeds: a) 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface, or b) 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or c) three-quarter (3/4) acres of pervious surfaces; and 2) cannot reasonably be broken down into amounts smaller than indicated in (1)” 3. Sheet Flow Dispersion (BMP T5.12) This BMP is feasible for the project, but is not proposed to be utilized. All “Other Hard” target surfaces have flow control BMPs applied. Therefore, no further BMPs are required for the project. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment The proposed project will result in approximately 37,966 square feet of pollutant generating impervious surfaces (streets plus driveways), which is greater than the threshold of 5,000 square feet. Therefore, water quality treatment is necessary. A portion of the runoff will be generated in the expanded Right of Way for SE 304th Street, which is an arterial and would typically require enhanced basic water quality treatment. For developments with a mix of land use types, the Enhanced Treatment requirement shall apply when the runoff from the areas subject to the Enhanced Treatment requirement comprises 50% or more of the total runoff within a threshold discharge area. The additional PGIS in the arterial roadway is 3,482 square feet while the new PGIS onsite is approximately 25,000 square feet, making the PGIS from the arterial approximately 12.2% of the project, well below the 50% threshold for enhanced treatment. Therefore, the project will provide Basic Water Quality by constructing a wetpond below the live storage elevation of the detention pond. The required volume of the designed wetpond is 0.2647 acre-feet (11,530 cft). This volume was determined by using the Water Quality function of WWHM using the inflow to the pond. The volume for an on-line BMP is provided in the capture from WWHM below. This volume is provided in the pond geometry with 33% of the volume in cell 1 and 67% in cell 2 in accordance with BMP T10.40 of the 2014 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. EXHIBIT 9 362 of 404 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control Site information and Modelling: The proposed project will result in roughly 100,000 square feet of new impervious area and is subject to meeting the flow control standard (a large portion of the new impervious area has been excluded from the flow control design and directed into the onsite wetlands as discussed in Minimum Requirement #8). The existing and developed conditions of the site have been modeled using the WWHM software provided by the Department of Ecology. As required by the 2014 SMMWW, the existing conditions have been modeled as forested, while the developed conditions have been modelled according to their developed condition as adjusted for flow control BMP’s and the wetland recharge effort. The model input is represented by the table below. Model Input Slope (ft) (AC) Wetland Recharge excluded N/A 75,866 1.7416 Onsite BMP Grass Flat 12,818 0.2943 Lot Impervious Roof Flat 23,816 0.5467 Pervious Area Pasture Flat 27,704 0.6360 Pond pond Flat 17,684 0.4060 Sidewalk sidewalk Flat 12,778 0.2933 Street street Flat 30,748 0.7059 Total 201,414 4.6238 total included 125,548 2.8822 EXHIBIT 9 363 of 404 Detention: A detention pond will be provided on the site. WWHM modeling resulted in a pond geometry of 80 x 80 at the bottom of the pond at 5.0’ deep (WWHM output includes 1’ of freeboard and shows 6’ depth). The volume of the pond has been verified to be consistent with the WWHM model. Refer to Appendix E for the pertinent WWHM output. The storm durations are represented in the graph below from WWHM. Please see Appendix A for the full WWHM output. Storm Duration Graph by WWHM Overflow Capacity: In the event that the control structure becomes plugged, causing the pond to fill rapidly to the overflow structure, the overflow system was analyzed to verify it has adequate capacity. To verify the capacity of the system to convey the 100-year flow in the overflow condition, the inflow into the pond was used and was determined to be 1.6198 CFS by WWHM. See WWHM clip below: EXHIBIT 9 364 of 404 The overflow weir was analyzed using the Rectangular Sharp Crested Weir flow equation provided by Ecology’s SMMWW 2012 in Section III-3.2.4 Control Structures as follows: Q=C(L - 0.2H)H3/2 where Q = flow (cfs) C = 3.27 + 0.40 H/P (ft) H = 0.5’ P = 5-.0’ L = length (ft) of the portion of the riser circumference as necessary not to exceed 50 percent of the circumference D = inside riser diameter (ft) Inserting values, for all known quantities results in C = 3.27 + .4*.5*5 or 3.31 Inserting C into the flow equation results in: 1.698 = 3.31(L – 2*5)(5^3/2) Which when solved for L results in L = 1.48’ minimum length to convey the 100 year flow rate. A factor of safety brings the designed length to 1.75’, which is less than half of the circumference of the 48” control structure. The emergency overflow capacity of the riser to convey the 100-year inflow into the pond was calculated using Figure II-4.2.21 of the 2014 SMMWW (see below). The figure revealed that to convey 1.62 cfs through a 12” riser, 0.29’ of head would be required. The pond has been designed with 1’ of freeboard above the top of the riser, therefore, the riser has the capacity to convey the flow to the outlet pipe without allowing stormwater to flow over the side of the pond. EXHIBIT 9 365 of 404 EXHIBIT 9 366 of 404 Aston Park Preliminary Storm Drainage Report 18 | P a g e The capacity of the outlet pipe was calculated using manning’s equation to be 3.0005 cfs when full using Hawsedc.com pipeflow calculator. This pipe also has capacity to convey 100-year peak inflow from the pond to the downstream system. Access Bench: A three-foot-wide bench is required for all detention ponds by City of Auburn Supplement to the Ecology SMMWW Volume 3, Section 3.2.1; at the 10 year storm stage elevation. The elevation was provided by WWHM by setting the bottom elevation of the pond and retrieving the stage frequency report. This is not included in the output report by WWHM, but is provided below. The bench is set to elevation 429.86 on the plans in accordance with this information. Stage Elevations in the Detention Pond EXHIBIT 9 367 of 404 Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection There are three Class IV wetlands on the subject parcel. The wetlands have been delineated and assessed by Soundview Consultants. One small wetland (Wetland C) will be filled in to construct the internal roadway. Wetland A will also be impacted through construction of the frontage improvements. Wetland B will be increased in size as mitigation for these impacts. Please refer to Chapter 7 of the Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants in Appendix B for additional information regarding impact mitigation. To ensure wetland function is maintained, a portion of the roof runoff generated by the future residences will be dispersed toward the remaining wetlands (A and B). Guide Sheet 1: Criteria that excludes wetlands from serving as a treatment or flow control BMP / Facility. Criteria 1 and 2: Wetlands A, B and C are Category IV wetlands as rated by Soundview Consultants in the Ecology and City of Auburn Rating system, satisfying criteria 1 and 2. Criteria 3: The assessment found only birds and small mammal habitat associated with the wetland, satisfying criteria 3. See the Wetland Mitigation Sheets one and two at the end of the civil engineering plan set and pages 9 and 10 of the Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan in Appendix B for a detailed summary of the wetland assessments. While the criteria for modifying the wetland to serve as a detention / Water Quality facility or BMP have been met, modification of the wetland for this purpose is not proposed. Modification of the wetland and buffer are related to improving the buffer and mitigating for necessary impacts to the wetland by construction of frontage improvements. All stormwater directed to the wetland is intended to maintain the current function of the wetland. See Guide Sheet 3 below for additional information on this effort. Guide Sheet 2: Criteria for including wetlands as a treatment or flow control BMP / Facility A wetland can be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of a treatment or flow control BMP / facility if ALL of the following criteria are met. The proposed stormwater system does not propose physical modification of the wetlands to serve as a flow control or treatment BMP / facility. EXHIBIT 9 368 of 404 Guide Sheet 3: Wetland Protection Guidelines Guide Sheet 3A: General guidelines for protecting functions and values of wetlands 1) Consult regulations issued under federal and state laws that govern the discharge of pollutants. Wetlands are classified as "Waters of the United States" and "Waters of the State" in Washington. (a) Regulatory review has been performed by Soundview Consultants. All federal permits will be coordinated by them. See Section 6.2 of the Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan in Appendix B. 2) Maintain the wetland buffer required by local regulations. (a) Buffers have been maintained except where this is not possible. Intrusions into the buffers and wetlands are the subject of the mitigation plan developed by Soundview consultants. See Sheets one and two of the wetland mitigation plans at the end of the civil engineering plan set and Chapter 7 of the Soundview Consultants report in Appendix B. 3) Retain areas of native vegetation connecting the wetland and its buffer with nearby wetlands and other contiguous areas of native vegetation. (a) The existing vegetation between wetlands A and B is mostly pasture and grass. Rather than maintain this vegetation, the area between the wetlands will be developed, however the lots in this area will be much larger than the minimum allowed per zoning, allowing increased pervious area to exist in this area. By providing post construction soil depth and quality, the developed conditions should closely mimic those of the existing conditions. 4) Avoid compaction of soil and introduction of exotic plant species during any work in a wetland. (a) Per the mitigation plan by Soundview Consultants (Section 7.3) the wetlands and buffers will be off limits to all heavy equipment during construction. A note will also be added to the TESC Plan at final engineering notifying the contractor of this limitation. EXHIBIT 9 369 of 404 5) Take measures to avoid general urban impacts (e.g., littering and vegetation destruction). Examples are protecting existing buffer zones; discouraging access, especially by vehicles, by plantings outside the wetland; and encouragement of stewardship by a homeowners' association. (a) The wetlands and buffers will receive extensive plantings through the mitigation process. Sample plantings plans are provided in Appendix C of the report by Soundview Consultants. 6) Fences can be useful to restrict dogs and pedestrian access, but they also interfere with wildlife movements. Their use should be very carefully evaluated on the basis of the relative importance of intrusive impacts versus wildlife presence. Fences should generally not be installed when wildlife would be restricted and intrusion is relatively minor. They generally should be used when wildlife passage is not a major issue and the potential for intrusive impacts is high. When wildlife movements and intrusion are both issues, the circumstances will have to be weighed to make a decision about fencing. (a) Fencing may be installed. This will be shown in the final engineering / landscape design of the project prior to applying for construction permits. 7) If the wetland inlet will be modified for the stormwater management project, use a diffuse flow method, (eg. BMP C206: Level Spreader, and BMP T5.10B: Downspout Dispersion Systems) to discharge water into the wetland in order to prevent flow channelization. (a) The stormwater routed from Lots 1-9 will be discharged into the wetlands by way of a 50’ long level spreader, providing a 25’ flow path prior to entering into the wetland boundary. Please refer to Sheet 5 of the Preliminary Civil Engineering plans. Guide Sheet 3B: Protecting wetlands from impacts of changes in water flows WETLAND A: The existing condition was modelled using the WWHM software to determine the existing flow into the wetland area. The tributary area topographically draining toward wetland A has been determined to be 41,117 square feet, of which 10,303 square feet is currently forested and the remainder is classified as pasture. While the area primarily tributary to wetland B could also be considered tributary to wetland A in an overflow event, this area was excluded from the Area A calculations in order to design the system based on normal circumstances. EXHIBIT 9 370 of 404 The proposed conditions were modelled in WWHM to assess the potential reduction of tributary area and the total volume of runoff directed into Wetland A. In order to maintain the volume, the runoff from the roofs and pervious areas of Lots 1 and 2 were directed into Wetland A via a 50’ dispersion trench with a notched board. The dispersion trench is proposed for dispersion of the flows only and not as an onsite BMP so the flows were modelled as pasture to accommodate for the soil amendment proposed in the pervious areas. The driveways are proposed to be pervious pavement that will infiltrate with the overflow directed toward the right of way so these areas were excluded from the wetland calculations. The area breakdown is provided in the table below. WETLAND B: The existing condition was modelled using the WWHM software to determine the existing flow into the wetland area. The tributary area topographically draining toward the wetland on the subject site has been determined to be 68,729 square feet, of which 58,320 square feet is currently forested and the remainder is classified as pasture. The proposed conditions were modelled in WWHM to assess the potential reduction of tributary area and the total volume of runoff directed into Wetland B. In order to maintain the volume to the maximum extent possible, the runoff from the roofs and pervious areas of Lots 3-9 were directed into Wetland B via a 50’ dispersion trench with a notched board. The dispersion trench is proposed for dispersion of the flows only and not as an onsite BMP so the flows were modelled as pasture to accommodate for the soil amendment proposed in the pervious areas. The driveways are proposed to be pervious pavement that will infiltrate with the overflow directed toward the right of way so these areas were excluded from the wetland calculations. The area breakdown is provided in the table below. WETLAND I NTERACTION : During higher flow events in the existing condition, Wetland B overflows toward Wetland A. As such, an overflow drain is proposed to restrict the depth of wetland B to within the wetland buffer area. The overflow drain will route runoff into wetland A when water levels reach the edge of the wetland buffer. Additionally, in the existing condition, Wetland A overflows into the city owned stormwater ditch along 304th Street. Therefore, an overflow for weland A is also proposed at the edge of the wetland buffer. This will direct overflow drainage into a proposed bypass system that connects directly to the public storm drainage system. EXHIBIT 9 371 of 404 Developed Conditions Area Detail Lot (1) Total Lot Area Maximum Impervious Area (2) Pervious Pavement (3) Remaining Impervious Area (4) Remaining Pervious Area (5) SF AC SF AC SF AC SF AC SF AC Wetland A 1 9858 0.2263 6408 0.1471 320 0.0073 6088 0.1398 3450 0.0792 2 6525 0.1498 4241 0.0974 320 0.0073 3921 0.0900 2284 0.0524 Tract B 14400 0.3306 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 14400 0.3306 Total 30783 0.7067 10649 0.2445 640 0.0147 10009 0.2298 20134 0.4622 Wetland B 3 5362 0.1231 3485 0.0800 320 0.0073 3165 0.0727 1877 0.0431 4 4557 0.1046 2962 0.0680 320 0.0073 2642 0.0607 1595 0.0366 5 4606 0.1057 2994 0.0687 1138 0.0261 1856 0.0426 1612 0.0370 6 6412 0.1472 4168 0.0957 320 0.0073 3848 0.0883 2244 0.0515 7 5000 0.11478 3250 0.07461 320 0.0073 2930 0.0673 1750 0.0402 8 5269 0.12096 3425 0.07862 320 0.0073 3105 0.0713 1844 0.0423 9 4828 0.11084 3138 0.07204 320 0.0073 2818 0.0647 1690 0.0388 Tract C 12396 0.2846 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 12396 0.2846 Total 48430 1.1118 23422 0.5377 3058 0.0702 20364 0.4675 25008 0.5741 1. Lots 1-9 have been removed from the area calculation for stormwater design to dedicate runoff to recharging the wetlands. 2. Impervious area is calculated as the maximum allowed per zoning, which is 65%. 3. Pervious pavement for driveways assumes a 16' width and 20' length of the driveway. The driveways are excluded from the Wetland Recharge Calculations. (Lot 5 is larger due to a panhandle access.) 4. Remaining impervious area includes all walkways and rooftops. This area has been modelled as rooftops in WWHM as the size of walkway could not be determined at this time. 5. Remaining Pervious Area is the lot area minus the remaining impervious area. EXHIBIT 9 372 of 404 Criterion 1: total volume of water into a wetland during a single precipitation event should not be more than 20% higher or lower than the pre-project volumes. WETLANDS A AND B In general, the flows from the developed conditions closely mimic those of the pre-developed conditions. The full output file from WWHM can be found in Appendix A. The daily data points generally fell within the 20% guideline for the majority of the data points. The model produced several individual data points in the fall months that fell beyond the required 20% of the predeveloped conditions. The highest discrepancies are found in the month of October. A review of the existing flows into the wetlands during October show that the monthly total is very similar to the month of August even though there is consistently more rainfall in October. This would be attributed to the drier condition of the soils absorbing a higher quantity of runoff in the existing condition, where the developed conditions reflect a higher runoff rate from rooftops. The difference in quantities for these months is less than 0.1 acft, which is relatively insignificant in relation to the projected flows into the wetland. An overflow drain has been incorporated into the design to allow higher peak flows to bypass the wetlands if adequate capacity does not exist. This has been discussed with the City of Auburn and Soundview Consultants and has been deemed by both to be an acceptable solution to protecting the function of the wetland. The single event pre and post development volume comparison is represented in the chart below. A review letter from Soundview Consultants is included in Appendix B. Daily Single Event Stormwater Volume into Wetland A EXHIBIT 9 373 of 404 Daily Single Event Stormwater Volume into Wetland B Criterion 2: Total volume of water into a wetland on a monthly basis should not be more than 15% higher or lower than the pre-project volumes. In general, the runoff volume from the developed conditions also mimic those of the pre- developed conditions on a monthly basis with over half (13 of 24) of the data points from both wetlands falling within the 15% guideline. Another 4 data points are within a few percentage points of passing. As seen with the daily data points, the fall months are above the threshold for the same reasons. Through discussion with the City of Auburn, the level of wetland protection for these wetlands has been agreed upon as being acceptable. A review letter from Soundview Consultants is included in Appendix B. Monthly Stormwater Volume into Wetland A EXHIBIT 9 374 of 404 Monthly Stormwater Volume into Wetland B Guide Sheet 3C: Guidelines for protecting wetlands from pollutants Protecting a wetland from pollutants generated by a development should include the following measures: 8) Use effective erosion control at construction sites in the wetland's drainage catchment. Refer to Volume II this manual and local jurisdiction requirements. (a) A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be developed during final engineering. This plan will clearly outline the precautions and BMP’s the contractor should take to protect the wetland. 9) Institute a program of source control BMPs and minimize the pollutants that will enter storm runoff that drains to the wetland. (a) Only roof and pervious areas will direct runoff into the wetlands. Pollutants associated with road runoff will be routed to the stormwater detention / water quality facility for treatment. 10) For wetlands that meet the criteria in Guide Sheet 1, provide a water quality control facility consisting of one or more treatment BMPs to treat runoff entering the wetland. (a) The wetlands on this site are Category IV and do not meet the criteria of Guide Sheet 1. EXHIBIT 9 375 of 404 11) If the wetland is a Category I wetland because of special conditions (forested, bog, estuarine, Natural Heritage, costal lagoon), the facility should include a BMP with the most advanced ability to control nutrients (a) The wetlands on this site are Category IV, this requirement is not applicable. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation & Maintenance The on-site storm water system will be owned and maintained by the homeowners. An operations and Maintenance Manual will be provided with the TIR for final engineering. Minimum Requirement #10: Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation A qualitative downstream analysis was performed by Encompass Engineering and Surveying on Friday December 15, 2018. The information, photos and tables associated with the off-site analysis can be found in Chapter 3. EXHIBIT 9 376 of 404 Appendix A Model outputs and reports Outputs and report pages omitted. EXHIBIT 9 377 of 404 Appendix B Wetland Recharge Review Letter Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan by Soundview Consultants dated December 2018 Referenced documents omitted as they are included as other attachments. EXHIBIT 9 378 of 404 Appendix C Geotechnical/Hydrogeologic Report by Earth Solutions NW, LLC; dated October 11, 2018 Geotechnical Review Letter by Earth Solutions NW, LLC; dated November 22, 2019 Referenced documents omitted as they are included Exhibit 8. EXHIBIT 9 379 of 404 Appendix E Operation and Maintenance Manual for Stormwater Management Facilities O&M Manual will be included with future FAC submittal. EXHIBIT 9 380 of 404 STUDENT WALKWAY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASTON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: ASTON PARK, LLC 15215 SE 272ND ST., SUITE 201 KENT, WA 98042 PREPARED BY: ENCOMPASS ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 165 NE JUNIPER ST., SUITE 201 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 (425) 392-0250 DATE: February 26, 2019 REVISED: July 24, 2019 CITY OF AUBURN FILE NO. ENCOMPASS FILE #17522 EXHIBIT 10 381 of 404 Site Address: 11624 SE 304th St., 98092 King County Tax Parcel No.: 786700-0005 Project Narrative This project involves developing a 4.3-acre parcel into 20 single family residential lots. Access from SE 304th St. onto a new dedicated road ending in a cul-de-sac and two access tracts. The dedicated road will be developed with 5 ft sidewalks and 5.5 ft landscape tracts on both sides of the road to the cul-de-sac, then discontinue the landscape tracts and continue with 7 ft sidewalks within the cul-de-sac. Access Tract D will include a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of the tract. Proposed frontage improvements along SE 304th will include a 10’ sidewalk to the southeast corner of the site and extend the sidewalk from the southeast corner to the existing sidewalk at 118th Ave SE. SCHOOL INFORMATION: The school age children from the proposal will attend the following: Hazelwood Elementary 11815 SE 304th Street Auburn, WA 98075 253-931-4740 Rainier Middle School 30620 116th Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-931-4843 Auburn Mountainview 28900 124th Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-804-4539 CURRENT BUS STOP/WALKING INFORMATION (See attached Pictures and route maps) Hazelwood Elementary: is located within walking distance. Hazelwood Elementary is across the street from the development. Students will walk east from the proposed dedicated road/development entrance on SE 304th St. onto the new proposed sidewalk to an existing school crossing at 118th Ave SE onto school grounds. Rainier Middle School: is located within walking distance. Rainier Middle is located behind Hazelwood elementary and fronts 116th Ave SE. Students will walk east to the crosswalk in front of Hazelwood Elementary, cross, then head west towards 116th Ave SE, approximately 325 feet, then south on 116th Ave SE. approximately 540 feet to an existing crosswalk onto the middle school grounds. There is a sidewalk approximately 6 feet in width along SE 304th St. west and continues down 116th Ave SE. Auburn Mountainview High School. Rainier Middle School provides a shuttle bus to Auburn Mountainview high school. The high school students would follow the same route to the middle school and catch the shuttle bus to the high school. EXHIBIT 10 382 of 404 HAZELWOOD ELEMENTARY ROUTE: (1) SE 304th St. looking east from site. (2) Intersection of SE 304th St. and 118th Ave SE SITE EXHIBIT 10 383 of 404 RAINIER MIDDLE SCHOOL ROUTE (Also High School Option for Shuttle Bus): (1) Looking west on SE 304th St. from crosswalk in front of Hazelwood Elementary. (2) Looking west on SE 304th St. from Site SITE EXHIBIT 10 384 of 404 (3) Facing west at the Intersection of SE 304th and 116th Ave SE (4) Looking south on 116th Ave SE towards Rainier Middle School EXHIBIT 10 385 of 404 (5) Looking south on 116th Ave SE towards the entrance of Rainier Middle School (6) Further south on 116th Ave SE nearing the entrance to Rainier Middle School EXHIBIT 10 386 of 404 (7) Looking south on 116th Ave SE at Rainier Middle School EXHIBIT 10 387 of 404 MOUNTAINVIEW HIGH SCHOOL ROUTE: (1) Looking east on SE 304th St. from Hazelwood Elementary (2) Further east on SE 304th St. EXHIBIT 10 388 of 404 (3) Further east on SE 304th St. at 120th (4) Further east on SE 304th St. EXHIBIT 10 389 of 404 (5) Looking east on SE 304th St. at 121st Ave SE (6) Looking east on SE 304th St. at 122st Ave SE EXHIBIT 10 390 of 404 (7) Looking east on SE 304th St. facing 124th Ave SE Roundabout (8) Looking east on SE 304th St. at 124th Ave SE Roundabout EXHIBIT 10 391 of 404 (9) Looking north on 124th Ave SE (10) Looking north on 124th Ave SE EXHIBIT 10 392 of 404 (11) Looking north on 124th Ave SE (12) Looking north on 124th Ave SE at SE 300th Way EXHIBIT 10 393 of 404 (13) Looking north on 124th Ave SE at SE 298th Pl (14) Looking north on 124th Ave SE at SE 296th Way EXHIBIT 10 394 of 404 (15) Looking north on 124th Ave SE (16) Looking north on 124th Ave SE EXHIBIT 10 395 of 404 (17) Looking north on 124th Ave SE (18) Looking north on 124th Ave SE @ SE 290th Pl / Entrance to Auburn Mountainview High School EXHIBIT 10 396 of 404 EXHIBIT 10 397 of 404 EXHIBIT 10 398 of 404 November 22, 2019 City of Auburn Thaniel Gouk 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Subject: Aston Park Preliminary Plat, Plat Modification Request Dear Thaniel, This letter is provided to request and support a variance for the above referenced project. The variance meets the threshold for Administrative approval as outlined below. Description of Plat Modification: Section 17.14.090(D) of the Auburn City Code states: “Corner lots designated for residential uses shall be platted at least five feet wider than required by the zoning ordinance. The Plat of Aston Park proposes the creation of 20 new residential lots. Lots numbered 13, 16 and 19 will border small, private access roads along their side boundary. In lieu of meeting the minimum lot width requirement, the lots will be assigned an additional 5’ of building setback, providing a total building setback distance of 10 feet from the property line located along the access tract. ACC 17.18.030 Findings of Fact A. Such modification is necessary because of special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide the owner with development rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the subject property is located; The special circumstances related to this project include the onsite wetlands and stormwater facilities combined with the need to provide emergency vehicle access to each lot. B. That, because of such special circumstances, the development of the property in strict conformity with the provisions of this title will not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the property; Adhering to the additional 5’ in width would reduce the number of proposed lots below the base density for the base parcel. EXHIBIT 11 399 of 404 C. That the modification, if granted, will not alter the character of the neighborhood, or be detrimental to surrounding properties in which the property is located; The additional width is relatively small in relation to the base width required by zoning codes. The lots in question will be the same width as the remaining lots in this area, but will have a 10 foot setback from the side street. Therefore, there should be no adverse impact to the character of the neighborhood or surrounding properties. D. Such modification will not be materially detrimental to the implementation of the policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use, transportation and utility comprehensive plans of the city; The proposed modification meets the intent of the code to create additional space between proposed residences and side streets. Therefore, the modification will not be materially detrimental to the implementation of city policies. E. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district; Literal interpretation of the provisions of ACC 17.14.090 (D) would reduce the number of proposed lots below base density for the parcel area. F. The approval of the modification will be consistent with the purpose of this title; Approval of the increased setback in lieu of increased lot size would be consistent with the purpose specified in ACC 17.18.005. G. The modification cannot lessen the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Any such modification must be processed as a variance pursuant to ACC 18.70.010. (Ord. 6239 § 1, 2009; Ord. 4296 § 2, 1988.) The modification does not lessen the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Encompass Engineering and Surveying, Inc. Edward Mecum, PE Senior Engineer EXHIBIT 11 400 of 404 Regulatory Branch October 24, 2019 Mr. Randy Goodwin Eagle Creek Land and Development 15215 South East 272nd Street, Suite 201 Kent, Washington 98402 Reference: NWS-2018-1172 Eagle Creek Land and Development (Aston Park Residential Development) Dear Mr. Goodwin: We have reviewed your application to discharge up to 500 cubic yards of fill to construct a residential development in “Wetland A” and “Wetland C” near Auburn, King County, Washington. Based on the information you provided to us, Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29, Residential Development (Federal Register January 6, 2017, Vol. 82, No. 4), authorizes your proposal as depicted on the enclosed drawings dated October 15, 2019, provided you implement the mitigation plan dated December 2018, revised September 2019. In order for this authorization to be valid, you must ensure the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed NWP 29, Terms and Conditions and the following special conditions: a. You must implement and abide by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation Aston Park, dated December 2018, in its entirety. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made a determination of No Effect for all species based on this document. Failure to comply with the commitments made in this document constitutes non-compliance with the ESA and your Corps permit. b. You shall implement and abide by the mitigation plan, Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan Aston Park, dated December 2018, revised September 2019, and the Technical Memorandum, Response to USACE Comments - Aston Park, dated July 24, 2019, and as modified by the permit special conditions. Mitigation shall be constructed before or concurrent with the work authorized by the permit. EXHIBIT 12 401 of 404 c. The list of performance standards in the mitigation plan, Wetland Delineation and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan Aston Park, dated December 2018, revised September 2019, is hereby amended to include: 1. In Year 5, the mitigation wetland must be delineated using the most current version of the applicable Regional Supplement. A complete delineation report and map showing the acreage of the mitigation wetland must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the end of the calendar year for Year 5 of the monitoring period. 2. In Year 10, the mitigation wetland must be delineated using the most current version of the applicable Regional Supplement. A complete delineation report and map showing the acreage of the mitigation wetland must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the end of the calendar year for Year 10 of the monitoring period. d. A status report on the implementation of the authorized work and on the construction of the mitigation shall be submitted annually to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch (Corps) by December 1st each year until mitigation construction is complete as determined by the Corps. This report must prominently display the reference number NWS-2018-1172. e. An as-built mitigation construction report and as-built drawings of the mitigation area shall be submitted upon completion of mitigation construction, in lieu of the status report described in Special Condition “d” This report must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch for review and approval and must prominently display the reference number NWS-2018-1172. The year mitigation construction is completed, as determined by the Corps, represents Year 0 for mitigation monitoring. f. Mitigation monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch by December 1 of each monitoring year. Year 1 monitoring will occur at least one year after completion of the mitigation site as determined by the Corps. All reports must prominently display the reference number NWS-2018-1172. g. Your responsibility to complete the required compensatory mitigation as set forth in Special Conditions “b” through “f” will not be considered fulfilled until you have demonstrated mitigation success and have received written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch. h. To ensure the long-term protection of the mitigation site, you shall record on the mitigation site property deed a copy of this Department of the Army permit and a description of EXHIBIT 12 402 of 404 the mitigation area identified in the final mitigation plan. These documents shall be recorded with the Registrar of Deeds or other appropriate official charged with maintaining records on real property. Proof of this recorded documentation must be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch, within 60 days from the date of permit issuance. We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. We have determined this project complies with the requirements of these laws provided you comply with all of the permit general and special conditions. As part of our permit application review process, we notified Native American tribes that have an interest in this area. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe requested a copy of the wetland mitigation “as-built” drawings and all mitigation monitoring reports sent to the Corps. Based on our coordination, you agreed to provide a copy of the reports to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please send copies of the “as-built” drawings and mitigation monitoring reports to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, Habitat Program at 39015-1 172nd Avenue Southeast, Auburn, Washington 98092. The authorized work complies with the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Water Quality Certification (WQC) requirements and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency determination response for this NWP. No further coordination with Ecology for WQC and CZM is required. You have not requested a jurisdictional determination for this proposed project. If you believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have jurisdiction over all or portions of your project you may request a preliminary or approved jurisdictional determination (JD). If one is requested, please be aware that we may require the submittal of additional information to complete the JD and work authorized in this letter may not occur until the JD has been completed. Our verification of this NWP authorization is valid until March 18, 2022, unless the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked prior to that date. If the authorized work has not been completed by that date and you have commenced or are under contract to commence this activity before March 18, 2022, you will have until March 18, 2023, to complete the activity under the enclosed terms and conditions of this NWP. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of this NWP verification invalidates this authorization and could result in a violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. You must also obtain all local, State, and other Federal permits that apply to this project. Upon completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit. Thank you for your cooperation during the EXHIBIT 12 403 of 404 permitting process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program and encourage you to complete a customer service survey. These documents and information about our program are available on our website at www.nws.usace.army.mil, select “Regulatory Branch, Permit Information” and then “Contact Us.” A copy of this letter with enclosures will be furnished to Mr. Pickett at jon@soundviewconsultants.com. If you have any questions, please contact me at kristin.l.mcdermott@usace.army.mil or (206) 316-3975. Sincerely, Kristin McDermott, Project Manager Regulatory Branch Enclosures EXHIBIT 12 404 of 404 EXHIBIT 16 From: Alexandria Teaaue HE 12 18.19 To: "Artistic One" Subject: RE:Alexandria Teague planner on notice Pgs 1 Date: Wednesday,December 4,2019 7:50:48 AM Submitted by Alex Teague PLT16-0006 Good morning, Yes another notice-with the time and date-was mailed out on Monday(12/2/19)so you should be receiving it shortly.The public hearing information is also located at the web address listed on the bottom of the email: www.aubumwa.gov/landuse-select the link titled"NOH Robbins 31-Lot Preliminary Plat". Sincerely, Alexandria Alexandria D.Teague,AICP,Planner II Community Development City of Auburn I www.aubumwa.gov 253.931.3088 I ateague@aubumwa.gov Mailing Address:25 W Main Street,Auburn,WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street,Auburn,WA 98002(Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey I https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms I http://www•aubumwa gov/services/resourceJibrary/forms.htm Zoning Maps I http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm Original Message From:Artistic One<powerfullart@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday,December 3,2019 9:40 PM To:Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Subject:Alexandria Teague planner on notice CAUTION:The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn.Be careful opening links and attachments I wanted to point out you never but a time for this hearing with the mailed notice for application number#PLT16- 0006.Under rcw 34.05.434 you have to put the time of the meeting on the notice.My neighbors did not get the time on their notice as well.I think this illegal under the law! You need to resend the notice with ALL the proper documentation.Please let me know how you are going to resolve this. Thank you, Jasmine Sent from my iPhone HE 12.18.19 From: Kelly MacHale Pgs 6 To: planning-1 Submitted by Alex Teague Subject: Application#PLT16-0006 Mark Robbins 32235 56th Ave S,Au PLT16-0006 Date: Wednesday,December 18,2019 8:58:23 AM { F jj F i I a �. The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Alexandria Teague, I am not sure if there is anything I can do about the above subdivision. I live directly to the South at 32257 56th Ave S,Auburn. I do know it will negatively impact my property with having 8 houses looming over my house and yard. Is the developer/builder required to plant trees around the perimeter? Is there any recourse as to the negative impact? Please let me know if there is anything I can do to limit this impact besides me spending an enormous amount of money of planting trees to block those 8 houses. Sincerely, Crystal and Kelly MacHale 253-640-0078 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 EXHIBIT 17 From: Don Williamson To: Planning-1 Subject: #PLT16-0006 Date: Tuesday,December 17,2019 8:38:26 PM CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Hello my name is Donald Williamson, I own Parcel 9262800172 address 5138 s 324th st Auburn wa 98001. I would like to be on record that I'm opposed to the application to subdivide Parcel 9262800140 into 31 single—family residential lots. I would like a critical environmental study done on the area and how it would affect erosion, water runoff, and the animal life. Also that would mean more vehicles on the streets in the area is that in the traffic plan. I live down the hill from this area what will wash down into my garden while they build homes. I currently see nice trees in that area I moved out here not to be surrounded by houses and people right on top of me that will change that. There are plenty of other areas that already have the same type of development they don't need to remove what secluded places are left in the area. Please do not let this go through Thank you Donald Williamson EXHIBIT 17 From: Artistic OnQ To: planning-1 Subject: Comment on#PLT16-0006 Date: Tuesday,December 17,2019 8:47:28 PM -y \, The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Date of comment 12-17-19 First I would like to comment that I don't think it's appropriate to have the comment date so close to the holidays. I don't like this area being developed for houses because we already have a very large area that is developed down the street. It has hardly any trees or natural critical area left. I live near this area and this will impact our home and living area. 1. There will be too much asphalt which will cause run off to the area and to my house. 2. There is climate change! There will be less trees in the area causing a strain on the natural habitat of birds and other creatures.in the area. 3. There are a lot of native plants the city of Auburn thinks are weeds and continues to cut or spray these native plants will not exist in a HOA housing development. 4. A VERY LARGE IMPACT ARE THE ROADS! On 44th street it is very dangerous to get across because of all the housing developments that continue to be put in Auburn with no consideration of the new roads and stop lights we need. More people causing more traffic jams and accidents. 5. The city of Auburn should not seek to be like Seattle or Federal way! People come to live here for the natural beauty that is left. You need to set an example with building that keeps more critical areas and respecting nature not destroy it and build some water man made run off areas. That frankly are ugly. 6. Once these areas are gone. The wild life has no where to go. There are a lot of streams in the area. We are loosing our salmon because of development. 7. You can't just build a few parks in the area and think developers don't need to be responsible because there are parks! The valley of auburn is almost completely covered in and it floods. You need to require more critical areas saved! And no asphalt for the homes. There are other ways to build with the environment. Not against it! 8. Auburn needs to start setting an example for the environment. Money can't buy you happiness if everyone thinks that. There will be no beauty left! 9. I'm requesting a environmental review be made and the neighbors have a say in it for this project. 10. This causes my property value to drop. We bought our house because of the natural beauty and the surroundings. Many people from the HOA down the street walk to my house to see nature. PEOPLE NEED NATURE to live. Planning doesn't have to be thrown together and not thought out with out nature. Please let me know you got this and keep me up to date on what is going n with this property. EXHIBIT 17 By mail or email. Thanks , Jasmine Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT 17 From: penni cocking To: Planning-1 Subject: Comment on#:PLT16-0006,2019-10-25&2019-12-02 Date: Tuesday,December 17,2019 8:54:42 PM C;1.[ Ti0y The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Dear Alexandria Teague, Planner 2, One of the big reasons we like this area is the natural environment of trees and native plants which is still in evidence in undisturbed land. Although this property has a residential zone of single family the more of dense building that takes place erodes what we find desireable for the rest of existing single family homes with livabilty, security experiences in this area. I oppose this development and request a full environmental review to assess the loss of habitat on natural wildlife that this building project would impact. Study of runoff(from rain) from loss of green areas with the increased asphalt of driveways and connected roads as well as diminished yard spaces are also a major concern of neighbors with homes located below this project....with direct and nearby property taking the brunt from the runoff hazard. I require that an EIS for protected areas impact from this project be done as below this property there is a protected stream and critical environmental area. This undeveloped Auburn environment is needed to mitigate the lack of tree canopy at the very large cemetary nearby down the hill. Please email me to tell me information about what studies have been done or that will be done at this property and in the vicinity. Loss of bird habitat and small animals impacts the other folks living close to this property. The trees protect from harsh climate changes and provide needed habitat for the nesting birds that are less likely to leave this area due to warmer temperatures. This area has reached a tipping point where less development is required to keep the remaining harmony of healthy, safe land use. Right now the coyotes are running through yards because the houses are too many and the trees getting too less. Deforestation is a huge Washington State concern for many reasons. In order to keep landslides at bay projects such as this destabilize the land where other homes are built...adding serious safety concerns for us, the neighbors of this property and others down the hillside. There is a very large 'stepford wives' all the same development near this property on the western side which is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. This property being developed is too much, too close to the larger development. Space between such developments is essential. The idea of single family homes is that they are to be developed at a slower pace not all at once as in a 'development'. Such land use of an 'all the same' at the same time is an adverse environmental disaster. EXHIBIT 17 . Traffic patterns are horrific in this particular area right now. The roads do not provide the needed ease or safety of travel in and out. Military Road, 44th Ave and 320th are nightmares for commuters. And... Do you really want Auburn to look like Lake Tapps? Yuck. Thank you, Penni Cocking December 17, 2019 206 853 0124 HE 12.18.19 Pgs 1 Submitted by Alex Teague P LT16-0006 EXHIBIT 18 MODIFIED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 3. There is a trapezoidal pond element in the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM2012). This element must be used for sizing of the detention pond with the Public Facilities Extension Agreement submittal, unless the City Engineer or designee approves of an alternative method of modeling, that clearly demonstrates that the control structure meets the City's applicable stormwater standards. • HE 12.18.19 • Pgs 8 Submitted by Alex Teague PLT16-0006 PLTI6-0006 DEVI9-0025 AUBURN ROBBINS PRELIMINARY PLAT VALUES ALEXANDRIADITEAGUE SERVICE ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC HEARING ECONOMY DEC . 18 , 2019 , 5 : 30 PM CHARACTER EXHIBIT 15 SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION Department of Community Development Planning • Building • Development Engineering • Permit Center Sustainability . Community Services • Code Enforcement —_ FINDINGS OF FACT ra �r'v �j Y , t. w 1 .: .,...„ , .... Ir ......... A+ ' ' ' :V .. .., dv p 1 * ' it... . ` j i r, Y. Project, . * Site {. �.• __ J • ' r rlit • . - .g _ 4 �� * ,Fktatige. ....le., . . .L. . , 0 . /_A_ t t „,.. . 7 `• ,friifilgi - sikillil , 'A • A A ,. • 41,,1 v.'. rilks �- ' � `,#•.d'-. �. s $ ..,S�Y. ' 3�Re.#y: .rt:. ` 701. •° Y ,40- it:, ?. .. x ¢' {i�.i *' '' tea ' .,i , 4 $ lig` •.- k=; p • • . , j___ I-4/; I: rt run I 1,111 VI 1111-10V. 1 ........, /n,•nI moll In, I v",•v,;Li s-I II,I v-A.,......,-,,..so_,••••...I•§..ot... .. ......,...•,,I•II• Sr• a•••••••••••••s,••••••••••••...•••• ,„*„.„.„,,,,,,,,,,..._.,,...,.., I .........- \• ,.CIICIar ras, 1 , 1 -. :0T3 . ...,r 4 , 1005 i„. LOT 4 ,t,.....621-03T 7 .4564....:•.F- 2 IQ FT I„nt.45562 50,;,,...-,5&12 SO FT, .4.56.11.,SO FT..1 ,,, SO FT I I(RIttEretz ,,,, 9„,,,,x,,,, I ' - LOT 1 IL o , , I .,,,,,Es u 10 AMES;'I 0.10.4nES I ;":1,CRE1:, : " W,9t5000111 • I 'Atli 940F' 1,,,,,,,,,c,,,,,,,,1,..,..,0,,,....., (N*010Arg3040 MACY CA1300111 , ; 0 34 AOF4ES _II ..; 1 puma coccilul ' .-.' I riming . : ', I-;, I FINDINGS .,-.--. .., -., " . •,,,,,„. ...,, - -34,-.. . . *00.na •• I 1::, ti I ..-..----•••- ,.. M ' '.I c.,„,,,, ;:.., PARCEL ARL20001,7 al •I -Fa, 1 irram ALA.N..AE q OF FACT 1•114 atIV• 1 "I'l - .0 I ' _ ,OT 0 .:1 101AROAccuM -1 '•!•,-.,z911,--....1' : ...- ., r R.O•Mr i*WS! . Is, S 322PID PL •ir cen•A IC i.... . '1.--2geCEP..1Pgae82L11"- f- ' - - P -; 1 .1 i 1 744 so rti , , _.... .1. ,,, , ,...„., - ,i„..,„.--i . , _ .„s ii _- V. Rt.EEO. 'LLOct. , ,.;lUsLI--} .Cs,_ A"-1". .. I ;,1 ; 4,-1:--1.--' c ILEUMS LOT Li , 1 LOT 10 "../ , r •:.;..-,, ;DT 31 W 3 sciFT. ,‘,I0 44713000R f• I r 1:: ,/,( POROIOICATOR CONTINUED it r MLR IL ROILS r•FF'F la FT 1 I '",,.....- ..----• ‘i aui ACASH I .- '0 17 ACRES g —,...----1 —,„. ., . ,.. ... )(MACT040114111, 4.Ns. IiI , im v..,n..CCe., ...7' 1 ' ' . I ......1 ' il•A" i —— _ El•n,,ir W. —r- ,w-,,,it ‘.01 LOT 30 . ', , ' IL — : -;---1 - •-•- MOM -PARR AMES.,UR PEE t , ..., .., piumili.5.5.-.. %.62.,,, ,son , --... LOT 12 1 I;570f,72•-•:e;'';'' --1:**.;"11".* II 114'';l'all. --1 Li 101,7 1 i IIu. L.03 10 3 I 1 P, , • ow.. • „, LOT 14 I I LOT 15 pi 1 101 14 ,- o le ACRE5 it,1 ,,, , 505 0 50 FT ;5371.2 SOFT ;5211/SOFT '50212 SOFT ' 61711180Ft , ' 4,13 ACRES 0 12 ACRES ! ,0 12 ACRE0 ; ;0.12 ACRES r_ attsArS 1 . . i . 4.11'.45t3f1 r'Ill I I I I I: I I • ArRry _ ,- . V , - -..” ._ I. I ....... ," • . ror _ 1 , ', ill . . Jii.._ . .... .. ' fettkt AIMPLAWIsi 10 , w.,2,, , ....- .. *."—LE"'''''''"0".."11 ram 0•30 5"1 I \,.,......... •..4,44.•••••...„„: --446"- -.;.--:' '"-' &—"--'W.,— .;••••• . I x o la ACRES 1 'I k .... -"• -. . ___42104__ _____ , .-.scar.---- 1; ' I —4;4114:-: . 1 aftiallftlfr'''00111CM11,1 IR WILCO W... •*:IL LditATAtretA=1"4MititLettP=110.% , '"-- .-.- 'X ' ...,.. ,... I. '-. -if- ii_ _,,i r • -- ir -- i r -- _ i _. Ilk ,PLAOL LAIKI000 AL, N , II li a Il i i I I I F I 11.10•302•63 MO p 1 is i It LAAVA5 WALL ,..;... I , 11 •RIBRIEGAL ALL \‘; .., I 038.280FT q 1 Lots ; tOT 24 I LOTT) : L0722 3 ' LOT 21 :I 1 LOT 20 i: 1-01 iv -: ... . LLRCADI Or At I,RIA-C.--7‘... ."PS/ 030 A03031 I 6171)2 SO rr WOW ILECOtEtt I‘ 1 1 / L •, r 1 0460,3 AS grs , 1 Sgao.utamsga Fir' it da000,3 Acite0 UO 1. ,0002.2 SOF!1.. ,5603 4 SOFT_ ! 661176 3O F1 1 , 1 1 'I I ARA A IA..A I 0 14 ACRES 1 i ' --- ---4,, , i III .. i k ....., ,-ACT A.STORSFRATER t I I I , ; I I LIEVICERINI MLA ,.. ti-'..----N, I 22014.1 30 FT " I,/ s:‘, t,...- I. I now Amin, ' il—/ 0112NZNES 1 I i 1: I I i. _irrIl .L....!...,,T ,. 0 nig. ii 1--,----1 1 - •• i -_ imam i.....,L ----„.....1' ,1_ ....._,.l..=.e • .... ..,-3 1 .. _ .....,....... 11 i''..H . 1, , N ,, - -, ,..,...... , \ —— 3- i• - - T. 1-311V::' 0,PARCEI 9162000164 I 11/.1111JC I ' I I I VIIIIIVEASSIIENT RR I A>P.1-El.82021X,0162 I -77.. 1 _ .4 FECOREN010111.7001611IOU 1,WV W 2 SITE PLAN r - - . -- NNwo 1 1 ,,..1 N t . , ' 7,...,..., I I I 1 s -me-- . a •. - • Lar or Nuas.sun+WWI I ...: :I j . H ........ 1—*....A.forteL..... ' OA L..1 _iL... A-.42/1132-1 3 .. • —0.0.-1314P---OHP-104P NL .01416.•, • !LIMP OWN UM MIT py ye,1 • .-..... ..,, I n rain 11v,.v1 11 II.1.0. 1/7•vt..v l lv,. 11, 1 vIl,.,n n1 a. I.•......,64. ,L.••amu.•. • •..••••-•....a•, .• • •+. •••-••-••-•••. •.••� �-•••• .... lic .Ar I, I. 02F780%.,2. Rh � ♦ y. •.PAW'''. 9 .... op,.,.<. vc...�,,.,.Kz 4,..."!.'!:. .yr �.. karl^:-APvrT...,. "MrJE'o'n.r i -- --r" I I • � i ta....� r— �� b • 7' wr7 •tAT7 !! I�OT,II fors t 1 .ore I p wt r. .I ��la .see BOR I 1 .B12]soR R M•t . sy.cseR 40222 WET 461e290A I.i PAP 70OR I i 1,n Off AMEe °4A•oARCE,. .2Rnx,n•+h , r .441 „°V.� OmA�� a.mAgEB 010ArAFs I 'tom�; i , �iBBBCIBA� . I 31—LOT LoncresteRlis Iv Aran= i .,rte I ..I t1:e,e..� I ..AaAd I I _• PRELIMINARY PRIVATE MOOS • m.s 1,; • • - *M..c i•. 7-... r .� '' ® .A,0AR(Y; aJr26010•, 1110 i 4 PLAT ! R* �:anA :.K ^ . ems .-_ %i I .�A.,,I.—.. . 01 7 fit . .. ..ACREE t ,f,..-..m...--, t v 11.1•,ORm +� �I - w..,A•OtaiI ii .14ABOA I S a ___ 322NDg Il0Te IIa1.A001• 7i:;', '� f 1 Pt FINDINGS AND s vam FA. ,5 or rmul j >V �1 I. m+n0Aem1 I Its LOT tt lAr 7f •e X11.' -.--.1pmlptlpll 1�.a .�.. . fm,a :� _ R `w �",t°ACI f a �� I CONCLUSIONS t} r .,•.w,. s4uaR ! .. 1 \ au ACt6e _ on_ACMf O17 ACRES._ �r (_ Li /t1el01se0EA �� I 10T 29 �,I LOT a - - , , .. i I(_�twue6ir l a......_._ I i I I (I .4'.. 1 � I A,Re,,,m,`: s sassoR 2u30 0 I 'm...41. I�l s .1 1 I. _ .: I �• I miss �.F 11 .. LOT O 1 1 yyy •n•• �' 2y.� �� Ofe AC1ES �i ot]ACAEB WTO I IATA II Of to 111• lot tt �'ACRES a17 S • • -�' � '-- •• 1 d�� 1se66s , G'T „ I '� g11 (6TI/315 sT 7s0A rl l sT711 BOR s/7OTis 1 -vow-- 1 r �,]ACIEB .0/2 ACIE6 I .12 is 0 0 3 r{` )$BR ., Q I1 I . +aA rac ACRES a POO 1041 It, ,,, ' ' I'1 '''.. i I L _I I....- - I L.._ 11 L__ ,.._ it I ti �maIli . L.,, . L • • pry A/ .sM�r wwoww+�s•r�w :nv.r,wa.ats...1/,.�/� A 1'! .Wc"•�Iwa�f �wra n /1arA1 ..••v:.1 M. . f.11 R 013 ACRES 1 LOT 2> ---44441.1___;______ . v {A ... tl.aasMaR I.. souosoA '� Rip 4.1144..--......... t,a ACRES;, �• - � I I t II ,. • L. t ( s (' 1 I 'r Ti 01 / II -.� \ \\ , -.. Ili..w"a<J l rl ,1 1 f –. _1 11- 1 w..+w. - -11 1 t .. I'1 .. '4.11 i 1 ra '. I IIr' I ...r.za-.— I \\\\ 7 u,r 7e 1 ..0 , '' i1 i_ 4-'r" Ms • I I/ . 1 I >.�v i 66862SOR LOT 26 I11. ism. 11I torn LOT 22 aor:, �I I IAT 20 I fs11 1 1.�•.y„n.gurg b O.,6Ai'AEB IenszeolT,1�J:1 6s1e6 BOR MOS SO ET 61000ffi 61022 SOFT Sso LsoA 66ae BOR a 1Or..u, I k 1 I i I • Iq 1292SO6 1I 0.11ACRES 10.17ApEs I O.t]ALIEB 10,]AG1E6�!0.1]AcaEs I 0.1s ACiEB j i 1 ewIOeTA — 1'RATTA6Td•IWATEIt/ ( I 1 1 1 if I I I y eAt141A•Atll \ 7014 /// 1I 1 I I __I L _. _ IL 1 _ _ 1 Ir � � L__I 11 1, _.--- P•1 a A..x,. , fill'gral >uM21 1 ♦Aa 1•AhUt i2o20001b2 <I L --___ I w E SITE PLAN L ;;rola I l N T I Mill I I I I s 1�1•MAlll••RMIMI 1 1 yp�y��� I I _ ,i.:, ,mal a,rigt 1 1 1 -1 1( •onw. eMMR - - _ ENGINEERING DEVIATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AR ' , '1I Required intersection spacing is p�E ,AX PARCEL 9262800137 FOUND S/r REBAR 250 f t. — WIWI CAP STAMPED R POLE W/LUM,I'.R= '23604' 1.0.EAST r ;.� Rr k 17.3•NORTH -f• .�. --ROW LINE of VERDC L C CEDAR z1Y-m2a-` -' " 10" `1, 3 322ND PL _ -( I ( -.4I I FLOW LNE OF VERTICAL •- ',v Request f o r intersection spacing D'ACfxFS L UTIRES ` �. --.�� o TT.. SOFT ,--lam:. B,' �2E9 LOT 11 LOT 31 b0 !� ROW DEDICATION \ 6997.,so FT 1 17479.0 SOFT § 11 1 '� Iir o f 19 4 f t. \ 1 0.16 ACRES 0.17 ACRES L, `1! 3 I .1 4i Mr__r„ . _ I iroi, .. --r 1 c„ 2121 City Engineer shall make a VEHICLE n _ ! I recommendation to the Hearing LOT 15 LOT 16 1 LOT 17 1 LOT 18 `' Examiner 5271.2 SO FT 15T712 SQ FT 52712 SQ FT� 6178.1 SO FT l':• 3012 ACRES 0.12 ACRES 0.12 ACRES 0.14 S / �. , 1 1 1 1 I r-I---- ` b11fd ' � I ' .. POLE tn sa....a":'i I H S 323RD SY/i. / .'7 4I� I --�f j;, TES , y •,• ///.A rir .7 , 04 i 3 „yJ 1 • 4,0 1 ax TIQEh � h . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Engineering Deviation for intersection 4. Hydrant coverage spacing 5. Vehicle turning templates Pond retaining wall construction 6. Final engineering design elements There is a trapezoidal pond element in the 7. Best mgmt. practices for groundwater Western Washington Hydrology Model 8. Posting of no parking signs (WWHM2012). This element must be used for sizing of the detention pond with the Public 9 Ecology storm permit Facilities Extension Agreement submittal, 10 Final construction drawings from Lakehaven unless the City Engineer or designee 11 Tree replacement plan approves of an alternative method of 12 HOA maintenance of stormwater ponds modeling, that clearly demonstrates that the 13 HOA maintenance of private access and control structure meets the City's applicable utility tracts stormwater standards. Final plat encroachment note EXHIBITS Staff report 1 Geotechnical engineering report Vicinity map 11.Preliminary stormwater site plan Completed preliminary plat application 12.School walkway analysis Combined Notice of Application and 13.Revised engineering deviation request SEPA Determination of Non-significance, and Auburn recommended approval and Final Staff Evaluation letter Notice of Public Hearing 4 Lakehaven Water and Sewer Availability Written comments and city responses Certificates Preliminary civil plans PowerPoint presentation Preliminary landscape plan Written comments and city responses Topographic survey Written comments Modified condition of approval h n r.Jn 11V1\VI II IL IAIT I/1.J1.V,1V1. 1 , Vn I.V.N1 c. IT,I........_ .-,...I_......I •9..v.uu..u'I ,v... . . An . ...•.. ........ rn.GAN(;(1 A26T000.]. I sA.ve U" 29.J '.•I.I r, ,_ ✓Ak0.1 9(t121W;: II ; ,,RS 1 I .....ay...w.. .. rl... .. ..: nY- . 1M•kl,. ....6 Al _i,_ , / 1 a97waL 1r=--1 I.-....+ rl LOT2 I LOT) 1j' TAT• LATS LOTS _� LOT t Iasy Amu 2 10 if Acres I-1 MKT 80 of I l 1r7 0.10 ACRell) 4917ep�1 I 0 .' ,rc'4n.GMC, ,..,..N M / 2K1t]AO" t.ay.�1 II• = ROBBINS 31— • IlrRem9 �__ .__..� 1. -iream., e...a !-__ _� f _ "-�I t. - It1wr.Aiaa, B •• so;'II' �,<.� i LSI LOT 1 .G Trow �.-,, � Or COW • - .. •.l9 \ "'9�� a I'MCT.1 AM28001.37 t nv II_ Tar S. •''' ' LAT 9 { •... 4'7r"5... As PRELIMINARY !9eD2990" i ..r L5 ,� & ' �T. t..CT.t9�9 a322NDPLAT 1 i 1r an.. MI It.uec'.r- t t - 1TrxT0 'aiiNrt[a - T- �► ar MIMIC 1 Ott Ar ` - - 'I rr Mos* 1 r - .. �lw,+ } - } (AM.TOAO19q �- . 1 ...I a...- LAT It , . , LAT 1101111 Srll - - .40000d } IL 11: I . Lm10- Iwn7ta PmO '-+.— i - % 012AMES J t. a mrc+.mll �l�- - iC ! I aNAa1s .JIL IIIIaOT•.Oilll ... A i I r -, -- . • 1.9.--T'..- �� "--1f-r ' a 1 earn II LOT le + u ,.... _ 1 erile'nw_-' +(-_. 1I I NNW I 7MCrt .07sst9rtREa seNesO" ssu280" ,I - for 7 ^_.�---�- wa]0 -0']AC105._ 013 Mf3tE5 • `\'/ +A L07 5202710 FT 1. 1 1 - L I WT.s I,sr.A�9 J �_ 1 ti 79S1a SOFT 1 0'3A s I • i LOt/s I 10311 LAfn LOT 19 1 II aul I u ,GOTT ,�,O.n ACRES ,0.12ApIF6211.2 9 a17 APES ON 1 ir .. - JAaR .. �1 .a r+r I1I I I I1I r - I r : S!7.. iii x 1 1 I 1 f . 1 ���10 LOT 20 .r _ I; •�'• I vm0aon I molar • il. ti . a - .. ;. -I; I� I O t3 AOFB 1 50119 80 FT i9 . i IMCT.II�1 .1 N MISS _aglilS.I � _ �" ,� -�'�-^11 6 F st r nb��= - :- - asp- ?. 4 1 ..a r sTo9as°.a M ! I APAMIO Tea _ I I r -A- 19919.2.4J III in,29 111 LAT 23 'A LOT 221 I LOTIt III LOT 20 I� LOT19 - I rtior .ou �_ I I 0.,6 M,pF3 "11,..,„„u7.0., I . I1090a 110" I 191.9en Fr I ! I r_-A... 1, f 0NAa7� I11sso" i ea99.6so" I z3m.so ,em.2.o" 1 ..m"�'r°^T' ltl A�R(S 0.13ApE8 , O.I7 ACill3 011 A(23E8 01]ApES 015 AUE6 , moa e• .....,6 -- . I - TRACTA STORMWATFA 1 I I I 1 I1 mare I I no',"50" //// I 1' I(�._- I I _ 1 II II a ..I 11 - 062 MILES 1 00 NUM. ,t!•J.'!1 n...LAI 9151/OW1t.'.;. I y Ir' . , 6UST T I I I 1e toes I I TAI GAROAL 9211.00162 I L=9=.._1U91_ M SW ` ` SITE PLAN 1 -�.•� i INT•••••••••••••7 '. i : - 1 -- r � _____. _____._____________ 0 1 X i. w -- 1,6KM . ....11.1.9 _ - I - - - _. • - --� • - -