Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-06-099_Report 10. J. Harper Harper Engineering Co. 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-0414 (owner/ applicant) Walt Cook Harper Engineering Co. 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-0414 (party of record) Updated: 03/07/07 PARTIES OF RECORD Harper Engineering Site LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue ste: #408 Seattle, WA 98101 (contact) Robert Hazel Harper Engineering Co. 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-0414 eml: rhazel@harperengineering.com (party of record) David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices 1019 Regents Boulevard ste: #202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 tel: (206) 443-4684 (party of record) Andy J. Rykels, P.E. Rykels Engineering Group, Inc. 28301 183rd Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042-5374 tel: (253) 631-6598 eml: arykels@comcast.net (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) -~ NET BUILD!NG AREA 3,660 NSF 1ST FLOOR OFFICE 2,153 NSF 2ND FLOOR OFFICE 6,242 NSF PACKAGING/SHIPPING < RECEIVING 1,345 NSF MANUFACTURING 20,000 NSF TOTAL ~ ~..,. z,·.q !M'-e' !M'-e· 5,4·-e· l ""'I! ;>l[<;J (!~ " ';Tjrf\~' IOI f j '= I I <l ~,.;; & ~ i!'li ~ ?,-._ + + ~ 'iii il~:I ~: 3,660 NSr OFFICE - -j';-._ + ;~ '" J-. " i >=" ~~ c l,d'~, I r ; 1 ~ - ll~l "\~ l ," """"'Ill r!'-0' 6,242 NSF PCK'G/SHIP'G I P,ECV'G l,345INSF MANUFACTURING ----1 CD :,)R~T FLOOR PLAN 11 - I I i HARPER ENGteRNG Crv'\f'f , r , ~ , r ~ , , , ~ a: Q ~ lfl Ii! ~~I W > 3 ffi ~ i 8= s'i <( N I """""' - ~~---- Sl!Hlrn~: ~Jl.DIJ!-.. lJll/1]1 -~--u ""'JO<I"• 1'1.0I) -~ ~--~ ,::--Au J/ltJIJl ,,,_ ,, " ,, -0 -I Lm m ,, Or ·<> _z z· .. 0 ... r-m Gl )> r- 0 m (fJ 0 :D "tl ::! 0 z ' ~ ~ I' I ! . ; ! '·-~ Ii """""' I I. ----' .~·-.~,:"-'-' I I -, -r -------~·t-:.~---:( ' ~ \ I I I E:<!T I ~' ,1-~ I ;(o.C: 61' IO'f>l_,,mtl<. >.,, .,, "' .,,0 "'.,, oo Xa> ·m .,o Pm Or 00 op a> .,, HARPER ENGINEERING 2994 EAST VALLEY ROAD PARCEL NUMBER 302305 9085 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEPA/SITE PLAN APPROVAL ' ,, ' • ! E ' , ~· ,-I s i I~ I I O I ' I I i 1. I I ~ 11 F ,• ,;<I· ; ~ 'r ~ ' ' \ \ I I I I i ,/ --_/ ---- r I ' ' I ' ' ' I i ' ' ~I ' ' zil ' ' \~. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ~ -i :! ~ >~ lt !} I ~1~ [I] U1 ! I C ii t j. ,1 ~-" >•w i; . i ~- I • !"§ • pi~ i" n !i ~r "~ ·M i ~ ~ n> ,! occz cog: ~ i ,, .. ~r:nt; i~ I;~~ ' ~ ~ .. i~~ ~ .:!; ~ V, ' ~~s ! i'I"' "!i.l ,_ -~,,, ~ i ~n~ ii z ,, n"' Oz ; ~,:,:z: ' 0 . ; - r---------;--f =--------============-;;.-:::--__ =====---=---------, qn ~,, ! ' -.... ~e~~-~ r:o ;p Om ! ~ oc: :0"' 'l n ~ ~ ,,;;; I! ' ' r:,. :,. :0 '- >! ;;; -< '. ~; l .... .... ,, "'O > z "'O ,, m !: ;c z > ,, -< ~ a, .... ,, r 0 ,, "'O r > z HARPER ENGINEERING 2994 EAST VALLEY ROAD PARCEL NUMBER 302305 9085 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEPA/SITE PLAN APPROVAL ~ § § (ii-J'~ @ ~I. ,, ill . 1!! ! ! . ·~ ~! ' "'. ?; L[:__ "~ ~ ' } § ~ ' r m < > :::l 0 z , ri ~H ' ! ' ' -;;: I ' ~ ~ q 5} ' ' ,, m >! r m < ,SI,. ' )--, ... 0 z "' l ' .1' ip tit'-·1 }~ --' ' ---: ' . . _::: \ - I_ _-;._;, .. _,_ " __ ,_. -.!.'1 I ! ' -~ " ~ ~-~~~~ ! i ' i .:z ,:o ,, ,~-t I - m r m < > :::l 0 z HARPER ENGINEERING 2994 EAST VALLEY ROAD PARCEL NUMBER 302305 9085 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEPA/SITE PLAN APPROVAL m > "' ... m Fn < > :::l z ~::e ,,,ffl -"' .... q!! m < > :::l 0 z i 1 A I !i;· \ ~~ !!l i '!' ~! ~ I "- )_~ ~~ _, ,, ~~ t~ ' • I ! 8 § ' ' 8 ~,. ~; ' ! I ' ! 11 · • ! ! ~~~8 )g~;~ ;;~~ <>':::JZ~ ~ ~~g1. I ""'"'-I" ~ ii~~ ~ ~ n~-o} z ,., 0 ;il\<"I"'~ ~ :;,iii~~ X ~ !~ [;; ~;ii ' '.L'f..:i:l!! FILECODE z,;i;,-.,--.,,. ;il'"~r'" 1-1' ,, .J ~"~l" p~r-~-,, §· ~~31p ~ !!1111 · " ·,i-1 ~ '"! I I 0 ,, :;~ ~ ,, I ; ' ' ' i l ' ' ' I ' 11·1 • I '"1" 1· ------, _,· • ' I ' ~ ' ' ll ! ' ,, !I,. ' i ' i i ~ ci. :t :22 )O :16 14 12 HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING, RENTON, WA A PORTION OF THE SW/4 OF NE/4 SEC. 30, TWP 23N, RGE 5E, W.M. /~:_:wl¥1K' S(lll>l~~rr:i 22 r·,,.-=c·"'-/,,;a \ ~ 18 1 ' / J 16 14 :><'Sll{IJ"l'l,ll. SU si<r0-1 SEeTION A-A THROJGH SITE LI ING EAST 22 ~~~~-\I """'"""\ 2'1 ·, SC11.E 1".JOn,...10<1,i._ so,u,·,.tn..;,_ 12 PQS!Ml;i:,.111[ ' I ' ...Sl"1IOfUTIIK Ar,;miot!ll/t"\ , I fNrilll>W( , . •. "''"olt'\ : fOIIESCfV/1\ Laj\~ON<itcoLdo•&.oa< --·-'.-===e~----·\· '. ==,------"""<!£1:.Tcn.ll..r.f.W..fd-'\:".. -----· ~-----' --. ~ 0~ --\ -----: I -... c./L'-'Sl'IJ.J.EYR(l,ll)'\ \\ 18...., \ __ ,,_/ \\~auru,r, ..... ,o .>01 CLMT!Ct<2.;, ·, f-------1--------+ ll'~~tl .// I 16 14 12 1, I I [ ~~·~ -·-IOTll'.O'lil-OCl•NJ. SECTION B-$ ~~-~~~°"'~1~ LOOKING: NORifrl SCAI.C ,·;2 n ""'"!"- ·1,\ ·J \. I / ~~·~ 22 20 18 _1_6 14 12 •• ~";;".:::.~:,;,.";! I< ··-· ~ --n I DU'l I .,.,~ r----l[F1=,I ..-.11\L I flB:I Cl TY OF il"Oi l!!!t?i I """ RENTON ~ p......._... ... <liA&/l'aW•hrb TYPICAL SECTIONS THROUGH SITE HARPER ENGINEERING BLD(k_ RENTON~ WA ~ XXX EAST VAU.EY lrn'to!EN11JN~ 911055 ":ioo Wf:!~1~ola. Slilll', ••• IW6 ~i-, w ,. Ui~ iU. Cc' 11 ,,·i 1 .. 1 '1! ai'z "i~ ' ;ij~ J;q •i ! i ' ~ ~j i<F;'; !' I ;;111i'f :,,z" ! ~! • •:"lit ~s~i i jj ! ·i·i ~F a< ~:i'! i Ii:::, ' ~~~~ ~i:.i ' ' ;;i.a ~'k" h !! .,.,.., c;'iti:! "I ,,,, > ;(ill 'li:~<;! ' ,, ,11 •j;' !' ! ,; ! ;;i.P ! ~Ill ~ai :~~~ i i~ ' F5;J ;o11~9 ,, ! o!; ';l.!:;(i Ii ' I If ~~ , . ··r h ' ~~ t.! 9 ! ~~ "'i" a ,· l"'i"'l;ir a:.:n 1-e ;~h :t 111'<:-;Ii !i':"'' m t ;;i::, ;;; ~F~ ii! jJi111! if E'.j!;a! r1 !<·!• 2111 ,c lii!l ~E ;;! !ii~'!' ;i lfil!ft~.: ~u ~a;..,;i ~~; b;oi ii ~r~ i,1-~" ~§~~: .. I,, ,. ., ~~p~ a~ !la ilia 111• ,· '•i Ji;:1 d ••s ,:,,, ii ~i; ,ri, ~;:; ''I ~~ 1,• i~~ ~ ~ i' ~:u: ~ ·m,; :;;~~· ;s' :~:! !P: t: [,~ i j~ ,. n ' ' m n 0 r 0 " -< "' r 0 n A PPP-SS-TTTT CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI'IY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: December 3, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: City Of Renton Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Harper Engineering Site LUA (file) Number: LUA-06-099, ECF, SA-A Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins Acceptance Date: August 16, 2006 Applicant: 0. J, Harper Owner: Same as applicant Contact: TorJan Ronhovde, The Ronhovde Architects LLC PID Number: 3023059085 ERC Decision Date: March 5, 2007 ERC Appeal Date: March 26, 2007 Administrative Approval: March 19, 2007 Appeal Period Ends: April 2, 2007 Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project 'Description: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1. 76 acre lot. Location: 2994 East Valley Road Comments: 3/26/07 Appeal of ERC decision received from AnMarCo. 4/2/07 Appeal of Site Plan approval received from AnMarCo. 5/18/07 Site Plan approval rescinded. 5/21/07 ERC Decision rescinded. Public Hearing cancelled. 8/3/07 Project placed on hold. No further action taken by applicant. 11/25/08 Letter sent to applicant requesting written Instructions to continue the project. 12/5/08 Received letter from Kathy Crafth-Reich (Craft Architects) requesting file remain open. 12/15/08 Received letter from applicant (O.J. Harper) requesting file remain open. 12/19/08 Planning Director sent letter to applicant and contact requesting revised project plans or submit a new delineation and impact analysis addressing all wetland- related requirements. As of 5/1/09 have not received response from applicant or contact. File is therefore, closed out as Inactive. DATE: TO: FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM May 1, 2009 LUA06-099 Laureen Nicolay SUBJECT: Close out of file LUA06-099 No response to Planning Director Chip Vincent's letter of December 18, 2008 has been received by the City, so this file is now closed out as inactive. No further action will be taken on this proposal. document7 · ,~Y rJ CITY 4 ? RENTON (;~4~" c,,¢, Department of Community and +.., ~ . ,• 0 . Economic Development 'I'"'"~ '<. enis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator ~N~O))''-----;.... _____________ ..;.;;.;;;.;;..;......;.. ____ _ December 19, 2008 Kathy Craft-Reich Craft Architects 1932 l" Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 9810 I Subject: Request for Continued Processing of Land Use Application No. LUA06-099, Harper Engineering Dear Ms. Craft-Reich: We have received your letter of December 4lh requesting that the above-referenced project file be kept open for continued processing. This week we also received a letter from property owner O.J. Harper requesting that this file be kept active. As you know, an appeal of the City's initial SEPA and site plan determinations regarding this project was filed and the City's determinations were rescinded. The appeal also contained two delineations of wetlands prepared by two different biologists as well as a biologist's analysis of current site conditions. All three delineations contradict the analysis submitted by the Harper project biologist. In brief, the report prepared by the appellant's biologist, Environ Corp., asserts that the Raedeke wetland study is in conflict with two previous delineations/studies which indicate the on-site wetland is much larger than indicated on the delineation submitted with the Harper application: Specifically, a 1996 study prepared by Talasea wetland consultants and a 2006 WSDOT delineation which was confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also, Environ Corps visited the site in 2007 and concurs with the Talasea and WSDOT delineations. These studies are now available for review in your land use file. Further, the Environ Corps'. report states that Raedeke used an incorrect methodology for the site-specific circumstances. The report asserts that Section F of Part IV or the 1997 DOE Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual requires use of the "atypical situation method" in this case rather than the "routine on-site determination method" used by Raedeke. Environ Corps'. analysis also concludes that the Watershed Company's wetland impact mitigation plan submitted for this project is, therefore, not adequate due to ,ts reliance on an incorrect delineation by Raedeke resulting in a net loss ofregulated wetlands and a mitigation plan inconsistent with best available science. Due to receipt of three additional delineations by wetland biologists that conflict with the delineation submitted with your initial application, in order to keep this application in active status, we will need you to revise your project plans consistent with the larger wetland delineated by the other three biologists or, -------l-05_5_S_o_ut_h_G_ra_d_y_W __ ay ___ R_en_to-n,-W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_80_5_7 _______ ~ t'iii2) This oaoercorit;,;n~ :ifl% rnrvrlP/1 ,,,;:itAri,al ::in% nn«t """"'' om.pc AHEA,D OF THE CURVE Ms. Kathy Craft-Reich December 19, 2008 Page2 alternatively, submit a new delineation and impact analysis addressing all wetland-related requirements of the Renton Municipal Code as well as the issues raised in the other reports/delineation. In either case, we will likely need revised plans to further process your application. At this time, your project status is "on hold" pending receipt of the necessary additional wetland-related information and any other revised plan sheets. In order to take the project off hold and to keep your project file in active status, we will need the following additional information submitted to us by April 30, 2009: I. Updated Wetland Delineation/Impact and Mitigation Analysis addressing the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code and the wetland issues raised in the Environ Corps' report (attached). Pursuant to Section 4- 3-050F7a of the Renton Municipal Code, this analysis will be sent out for secondary review by the City's contract biologist at the applicant's expense. This updated delineation and analysis will likely result in the need for changes to the majority of your other plan sheets. Your updated analysis should also address the project's compliance with relevant Renton Municipal Code requirements, including: Wetland Mitigation Analysis of Alternatives as Required by RMC 4-3-0SOMS: the final mitigation and monitoring report must include a wetland consultant's evaluation of your project's compliance with the criteria under RMC Section 4-3-050-M2 and M8 (General Standards for Permit Approval and Wetland Changes-Alternative Methods of Development) which states that "If wetland changes are proposed for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible." In determining whether to grant permit approval per subsection M2 of this Section, General Standards for Permit Approval, the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility ofless intrusive methods of development has been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible. Please address how the proposed project relates to the potential alternatives listed below: (a) "Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; (b) Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; ( c) Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and ( d) Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: 1. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and iii. In addition to restoring or creating a wetland, enhancing an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values." Ms. Kathy Craft-Reich December 19, 2008 Page 3 OR 2. Revised plan sheets as required by the City's Site Plan Review submittal requirements (attached) reflecting the larger wetland as delineated in the other studies. Please be aware that because of the identification of a larger on- site wetland than was previously presumed, all your plan sheets except the neighborhood detail map will need to be revised for consistency. If we do not receive this additional wetland information and/or the associated revised plan sheets by April 30, 2009, we must close out this application as incomplete. Should you have any questions regarding this letter. please feel free to contact me or Laureen Nicolay at 425-430- 7200. Sincerely, C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Department of Community and Economic Development cc: O.J Harper Parties of record: Walt Cook, Harper Eng. attachments Robert Hazel, Harper Eng. David L. Halinen, Halincn Law Offices Andy J. Rykels, P.E. To; City of Renton Subject:. Inactive Land Use Application {i f1I fr/t JI L ((SA'fol,BS-e>1';001, e f v 1/ n /1 (-'A.l-t-i IF 3oe..3tJ o 1 ,..7 ,r TA~ .. rCII// F.d', Reference; Your letter dated November 23, 2008 Attention: Laureen Niq,lay Dear Laureen: This is in reply to the referenced letter in which your office requests permission toclose the file regarding our application. We are currently working toward se!Hng the property or possibly develop it for a different use in the future . . Please keep the application open and we will keep yoo informed of any further develo_pments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. ~f''~ Harper Engineering C architects December 4, 2008 Ms. Laureen Nicolay Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Harper Engineering Site -2994 East Valley Road Land Use Application City File No. LUA06=0999 Parcel No. 3023059085 Dear Ms. Nicolay: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 25, 2008 regarding the status of the above referenced project. The owner, Mr. O J. Harper, would like to keep the project open. He would also appreciate a written update from the City listing any outstanding issues regarding site plan approval and SEPA approval. If the City needs any additional information or has any questions regarding the site please contact me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408, Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone 206.720.7001 Fax 206.720.2949 Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: Jason Cadle Oasoncadle@tristatecon.com] Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:58 AM To: Henning, Jennifer; Kittrick, Kayren; Woolley, Keith; Stensland', 'Gary; Fry', 'Brian; Vancamp', 'Dan; greg@tristatecon.com; Gleig', 'Jim; HodgsoL@wsdot.wa.gov; millest@wsdot.wa.gov; sm itlau@wsdot. wa. gov Cc: Subject: Attachments: Keith, Arai, Ion; Nicolay, Laureen RE: 2994 E Valley Rd (0 J Harper) Wetland001.pdf BTJV did contact this property owner in regards to potential use of the property as a construction staging yard. Nobody told this property owner that his property could not be used. No formal correspondence to the property owner, WSDOT or City of Renton was ever administered. Rather we informed the property owner, that after investigating the wetland boundary and buffers that our permit conditions would restrict the use of the property to something that was unmanageable for 2!!!: use. For your information I have attached the following documentation we used to make this determination. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Jason Cadle Bilfinger/Tri-State Joint Venture Office-(425) 282-6200 ext. 102 Fax-(425) 227-6365 Cell-(206) 730-5209 jasoncadle@tristatecon.com -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Henning [mailto:Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:20 PM To: Kayren Kittrick; Keith Woolley; Brian Fry; jasoncadle@tristatecon.com; HodgsoL@wsdot.wa.gov; millest@wsdot.wa.gov; smitlau@wsdot.wa.gov Cc: Ion Arai; Laureen Nicolay Subject: Re: 2994 E Valley Rd (0 J Harper) Keith, Mr. Harper was told that the zoning. However, he a Temporary Use Permit. one year extension. outdoor storage and a contractor's office was not permitted under could accomplish the construction staging subject to the approval of This could be granted for up to one year with the possibility of a The issue is that they would need to stay clear of zones. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us I the creek and wetland, including buffer >>> Keith Woolley 05/23/08 10: >>> All, This inquiry is regarding this property - 2994 E Valley Rd (owned by OJ Harper), parcel 3023059085 This is the property just north of the BTJV E Valley staging yard. Mr Harper has contacted the City under the impression the City or State has told him that his property can not be used for construction staging. I believe his property was being leased/rented by another construction company or project in the last year, but it is now vacant. Also, I believe a Merlino attorney filed a challenge regarding a wetland finding on Mr. Harper's property during a recent land use action. Has the BTJV or WSDOT recently contacted Mr Harper about using this property? Has any correspondance occured between him and BJTV, WSDOT or the City regarding any restrictions of use on his property. Any information anyone can provide would assist me in providing Mr. Harper a complete and accurate response. Thanks, Keith Woolley Transportation Systems Renton City Hall -5th Floor Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7318 kwoolley@ci.renton.wa.us 2 :~ I -. ' I 8 20 Proposed Stonnwater Pond I . . sr #MP 25.2 : I' . I I l I ' WeUand 25.0l ~ ·" :r : (. : 'i : •' J ··41i> """""' WETLAND IMPACTS (Ao i I j I -T-PtMn. -T-PtMn. : I• I· --: 1t I s:: ~p ... : 0.99 o 0.06 2.71 i /i\ ; i Sbafm T-Aom htlHr1t:I T6fllp. ,<ta,m : I•.• \ ··-· ·-··-··-··-··-··-·· \ . l . \ : : : :~ '. 1. : :: .: ,; . :: . :: ;L I I Abandoned Cross-culvert (no flow) per .iJ.L HPAi/00-03606-05 Wehnd24.7R East Fork Panther Creek (stream 09.SC-25.7) Panther Creek Wetlands Abandoned Cross-culvert (no flow) per HPA#OO-D3606.Q5 ~ Bulll1r -! I I ,'I fi 09.SC-25.7 0 0 0 404 1843 : u V I f Proposed Ecology -: I / ! Embankment . / f / } : . ! //· ,.;.LL § ' . !i! ··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··-··-·-'J. _; ___ •. .;.. ·..: ·-··-··-··-··-··-··-·· 2 MATCH LINE SHEET 24 - j j PURPOSE: Roadway impmvements '------------ J.405, 1-5 to SR169 & SR167, l-405 to SW 41ST ST REFERENCE#: 200600097 APPLICANT: WSDOT PERMIT DRAWINGS PROPOSED/RETAIN: 1.7 acm of lmpacls ta wetland!!: and other waters of the U.S. IN: Streams and Wetlands NEAR/AT: Renton COUNTY: King DATE: 4126/06 STATE: WA Legend ~ ~WltiaMI @ :::::""'- ... ,-~.,-Pl'Optlltd storm or.in -PropoNdRll)NoJ~ -----------I c-8 =-t Ellisling Dralnlge Cuhlelt ... ""''° C1 Plp.t SIMlm CulWrt wlh -ID and di'ec:lon llftow ---EccltJgy E.rtieldci1111,t /1) {1) Croa. SIClon Localon $ ...!!, IMllln on D Sheet Crou 8ediDn dil1IClon .._ _ _.,.."""_ -~ Dlldl · _,. TIMlll Dlb:h ~o,enCl>aMol-............ ---(. EldllnQ storm ManhclN -------Undlra'aln ___ .. ---lmporw:,La &lrfaca Pmp!IHd Edge llf ..,......._ ~t,,,-U!-CUlUne ., .. ,__, ... _ Fil line """"""""""' E,ZTL222] =:-..... ~ Ttmp. W&lllnd Impact -·-SlfNm Impact ~ Temp. Slrflal'l'l ltnpact •••••••• •. St,i,an and Volatland •••••••••• Buffiflr KEYPlAH +: 100 .... ' HOR20NTAL DATUM: NAO 83/e1 VERTICAL DATUM: NA.VO 88 SHEET 21 OF 27 Exr~TJNG CONDITIONS r • ----··• __ ,., .. • •.• ""•.a,• .J • •.e.•,(•,,T•.•,, ,• '" .• .. ' ~.• • .•,".".'<•~--,•,,-:_-~.•• DRAFT ·Slreams i CTJPem1enent lmpacl I ,7ZTempo<ary lmpocl •Welland& Natronel Wetland h'IVEu'tlory I ClProposed FOOlprITTI · -Proposed Retaining Wans ! Krml Exhibit 12-E. Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands 34 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland Discipline Report '\~y O -. (J~;..t, . .ti.,....+ -1,~2': DenisLaw,Mayor ~N'fO November 25, 2008 O.J. Harper Harper Engineering Co. 200 S. Tobin Street Renton, WA 98057 CIT~ )F RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: Inactive Land Use Application: Harper Engineering Site on East Valley City File No. LUA06-099; Location: Parcel No. 3023059085, 2994 East Valley Rd. Dear Mr. Harper: I am sending this letter to request a written update on the status of the above-referenced land use project. Our records indicate there has been no correspondence or activity relative to this project site in over a year. Because our storage space for active files is limited, we will need to close your application as "inactive" ifwe do not receive written instructions to the contrary by January 26, 2009. We assume that you are no longer interested in pursuing development of this East Valley Road site, having recently constructed your new SW 7th Street facility. Please let us know if this is not the case. Please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7294 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, .--,.. __ . 1-1 ;;/ u..---._ I lt-o-C.e, -Fr- Laureen Nicolay Senior Planner cc: Parties ofrecord Walt Cook, Harper Engineering Kathy Craft, Craft Architects Robert Hazel, Harper Engineering David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices Andy Rykels, Rykels Engineering 1055 South Grady Way· Renton. Was-hin-gt-on-9-80_5_7 _______ ~ ~ ,\fJEAD OF THE CURVE \::ti This paperc(y;1_a:r1s 50''.'., recycled matenal. 30% post consumer Chronology of Appeal-Related Actions 03-05-2007: City issues MDNS, Determination of Non-significance, Mitigated. 03-20-2007: City issues a Site Plan Approval decision subject to mitigating conditions. 03-26-2007: Anmarco files an appeal of the City's MDNS. 04-16-2007: Anmarco files an appeal of the site plan approval decision. 05-18-2007: Elizabeth Higgins's letter to applicant and parties of record states that the City has rescinded both its Site Plan Approval and MDNS and that the public hearing has been cancelled. 05-21-2007: City rescinds its threshold determination thus "rendering the environmental appeal moot". 08-03-2007: Status of project is "on-hold". DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM May 21, 2007 Environmental Review Committee Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, P/B/PW -Development Services Division, x7382 Harper Engineering Site Development; LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF On March 5, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the Harper Engineering Site Development project. This Determination was based on a staff recommendation, material submitted by the project applicant, and subsequent environmental study of the site requested by the City in the course of the project review. During the appeal period following the issuance of the Determination, an appeal was filed. The appellant provided additional information regarding the extent of the wetland area located on or abutting the property. At the present time, staff requests that the ERC issue a rescission of its March 5, 2007 Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the Harper Engineering Site Development project. Thank you. cc: Yellow file h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\projects\06.Q99.elizabeth\memorandum to ere 5. l l .07 .doc CITY OF RENTON RECISSION OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Kathy Craft, Craft Architects, PLLC Harper Engineering Site Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requested Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A portion of a wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. Staff requests that the ERC issue a rescission of its March 5, 2007 Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the Harper Engineering Site Development project. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: DATE OF RECISSION: SIGNATURES: 'J-~.L---- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services 2994 East Valley Road The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MAY 21, 2007 . David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Depart t '.j/;)..j I IS/ Date s/21/o;z Date s-/z·( 4 Date May 18, 2007 Ms. Kathy Craft, Architect Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 9810 I Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF -Project Appeal Dear Ms. Craft CITY ~F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator As you are aware, both the environmental determination of non-significance, mitigated for and the site plan approval of the Harper Engineering Site Plan have been appealed. Following initial review of additional material submitted to the City of Renton by the appellant, the decision has been made to rescind the threshold determination and site plan approval of the project pending further analysis of potential impacts to the wetland area of the site. Therefore, the date of the public hearing before the Renton Hearing Examiner has been cancelled. We will inform you of the next steps in the project review process as soon as they have been determined. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to co.ntact me at 425-430-7382. Sincerely Elizabeth River Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Copies to: Neil Watts Jern1ifer He!llling Parties of Record File • -------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_c_nt-on-,-W-a-s-hi-ng_t_on-'-98_0_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE . . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CITYOF~ 'APR Oi 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S Ol'fllCil Lf-• 'SC' 1 , 1 N 15 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In Re: The appeal by AnMarCo, a Washington general partnership, and Strada da Valle, a Washington general partnership, of the March 19, 2007 Administrative Decision by the Renton Development Services Director Approving a Site Plan for the Proposed Harper Engineering Site Development Subject to Conditions City of Renton File #LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF ) ) ANMARCO'S AND STRADA DA ) VALLE'S NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ) SITE PLAN APPROVAL ) ) ) ) AnMarCo, a Washington general partnership, and Strada da Valle, a Washington general partnership, hereby give notice of their appeal of the above-referenced March 19, 2007 administrative decision by the Renton Development Services Director approving a site plan for the proposed Harper Engineering Site Development subject to conditions (the "Decision"). (In this Notice of Appeal, the Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report in which the Decision is embedded is referred to as the "Staff Report".) I. FILING FEE A $75.00 check payable to the City of Renton is submitted herewith. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page I HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation IO 19 Regents Blvd .• Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX C Ii; (If'. fr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II. APPELLANTS' ADDRESS AND PHONE AND FAX NUMBERS The Appellants' address and phone and fax numbers are: AnMarCo and Strada da Valle 9125 -10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Attn: Gary M. Merlino Phone No.: (206) 762-9125 Fax No.: (206) 763-4178 III.APPELLANTS' REPRESENTATIVE The Appellants are represented by the undersigned. All pleadings and papers concerning this matter should be addressed to the undersigned at the following address (as 10 well as to the Appellants at the above-stated address): l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A. David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. IO 19 Regents Blvd, Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 Phone No.: (206) 443-4684 Fax No.: (253) 272-9876 IV.SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS IN FACT AND LAW WHICH EXIST IN THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS Substantial Errors of Fact. I. On page 7 of 11 of the Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report (the "Staff Report"), the first sentence of the second paragraph under subsection (3) (Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses) states that "[t]he proposed project should not impact surrounding properties, to the north, west, or south in negative ways, unless current 22 uses of these properties change significantly." That statement is false. Because, if constructed as proposed, the Harper project would grade and place developed surfaces over 23 24 various portions of the site that are in fact wetlands (but which the Harper project applicant's wetlands delineation report fails to identify as wetlands), properties to the north, NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 RegenlS Blvd,. Suite 202 Fircrest. WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX . , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 west and south and persons who travel to and from those properties along East Valley Road will be deprived of the view and enjoyment of the natural beauty of the trees and other vegetation that would and should exist in those wetland areas and their respective buffers. 2. On page 7 of 1 1 of the Staff Report, the first sentence of the first paragraph under the first subsection (4) (Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site) states that "[ d]evelopment of the property with the proposed project would require filling a drainage ditch, to create a paved parking area that has not been maintained and, therefore, has collected garbage and other debris." This statement is also false and misleading for at least two reasons. First, the reference to a "ditch" is inaccurate. Rather than a ditch, a ditch-like drainage course wetland extends along the site's entire north edge. Second, the phrase "to create a paved parking area that has not been maintained" makes no sense. (A paved parking area can neither collect garbage and debris nor be maintained before it is created and no paved parking area currently exists on the Harper property.) 3. On page 7 of 11 of the Staff Report, the first sentence of the third paragraph under the first subsection (4) states that "[t]he applicant has proposed re-establishing wetlands where filling took place in the past and revegetating the wetland buffer area." That statement is misleading because it suggests that all of the site's wetlands where filling took place in the past are proposed to be re-established and revegetated. However, wetlands in at least the east-central portion of the site were (a) cleared and graded during the early months of 2006 without first obtaining any approval to do so from the City and (b) are in an area of the site that the Harper proposal specifies as a parking lot and driveway. That statement and the two sentences that follow it on page 7 of the Staff Report are also misleading because they fail to disclose that other portions of the Harper site where NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professiona./ Service Corpora/ion IO 19 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 3 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 jurisdictional wetlands exist (but were not identified in the Harper property's wetland delineation report) are proposed to be filled and developed over. 4. On page 8 of 11 of the Staff Report, the only sentence under the second subsection (4) (Conservation of area-wide property values) states that "[d]evelopment of a large, vacant lot that has not been maintained with the Harper Engineering building should improve area-wide property values." That statement, for which there is no support in the record, is misleading because it suggests that the Harper site was in need of maintenance. However, that was not the case. Aerial photos prior to the clearing and grading of much of the site during the early months of 2006 disclose basically nothing but trees and other vegetation on the site, including trees and other vegetation in the portions of the site that are wetlands that the Harper proposal would eliminate. Replacement of the trees and other vegetation on the Harper site (one of the few remaining naturally vegetated open space areas left along East Valley Road) with the proposed Harper Engineering building should not be expected to improve area-wide property values but, rather, decrease them. 5. On page 8 of 11 of the Staff Report, the last sentence under subsection (9) (Preservation of neighborhood deterioration and blight) states that "[t]he overall impact of the proposed development would be positive to the neighborhood environment and business community." That statement, for which there is no support in the record, is based upon the false premises that (a) the Harper site's wetlands were as described in the Harper property wetlands delineation report submitted with the application (see section 6, below) rather than much more extensive as they in fact are (b) the Harper site was in need of maintenance. 6. The July 12, 2006 wetland delineation report prepared by Raedeke Associates concerning the Harper site (the "Raedeke Report") [a report upon which (a) the NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 City's Environmental Review Committee premised the SEPA threshold determination of environmental nonsignificance-mitigatcd for the Harper proposal and (b) the Development Services Director premised his approval of the Harper project's Site Plan approval] erroneously failed to disclose the existing Category 3 Wetlands located (i) along roughly the westerly two-thirds of the site's north boundary, (ii) within a long, narrow strip near the site's south boundary, and (iii) in the east-central portion of the site, wetlands that were delineated by the State of Washington Department of Transportation during 2005 and, during January 2006, were confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as jurisdictional wetlands. (For a detailed explanation of this, see the March 26, 2006 Harper Property environmental review letter report and attachments prepared by Environ, copy attached- the "Environ Report".) 7. Statements of other details of errors set forth in the Raedeke Report are described in the Environ Report and are hereby incorporated by reference. B. Substantial Errors of Law. I. The Staff Report impliedly and wrongfully presupposes that the Harper 17 proposal would conform to the Renton Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Element as 18 required by RMC 4-9-200E.l.a. However, the Harper proposal would violate the 19 20 21 22 23 24 Comprehensive Plan's Objective EN-D and Policy's EN-8, EN-9, EN-10 and EN-13. Objective EN-D ("[p]reserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning") would be violated because the Harper proposal would eliminate all of the jurisdictional wetlands existing on the Harper site that the Raedeke Report failed to disclose. Policy EN-8 ("[a]chieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base") would be violated for the same reason. Policy EN-9 ("[i]n no case should development activities decrease net NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL--Page 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 RegenlS Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JI 12 13 14 15 acreage of existing wetlands") would also be violated for the same reason. Policy EN-10 ("[ejstablish and protect buffers along wetlands ... ") would be violated because the buffers along the jurisdictional wetlands that the Raedeke Report failed to delineate (and that the Harper proposal would eliminate) would neither be established nor protected. Policy EN-13 would be violated by the Harper proposal because (a) the hierarchy set forth therein (which begins with the injunction to "avoid impacts to the wetland') is not adhered to in the Harper project's wetland mitigation proposal and (b) the wetland mitigation proposal fails to even recognize (let alone mitigate the Harper project's planned impact to) the jurisdictional wetlands on the Harper property that the Raedeke Report fails to delineate. 1 2. The Staff Report impliedly and wrongfully presupposes that the Harper proposal would conform to RMC 4-3-0SOM (Wetlands), which is a subset of the City's existing land use regulations. Because of that lack of conformity with the City's existing land use regulations, the Decision violates RMC 4-9-200E. l.b. In actuality, the Harper 16 1 As explained on the lower half of the Environ Report: The first listed criterion is to avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer. 17 TWC's proposed plan for the Harper development proposal fails to meet that criterion by not providing reasons why impacts to the wetland (i.e., fill for parking) 18 are not unavoidable. Ordinarily, a compelling reason to fill a wetland (like where the only possibility for a road or utility access corridor to a property would involve 19 wetland filling) is necessary before disturbance to a wetland can be found to justify wetland impacts. Here, nothing more than overall facility size is at stake. It 20 appears that Harper purchased a property that simply was not large enough for the desired facility and its corresponding parking needs. An ecology-block retaining 21 wall is proposed that would reduce impacts to the eastern part of the wetland near the eastern property boundary. However, it appears that the fill impacts could be 22 avoided entirely by reducing the scope of the project or by developing the project on a larger site and leaving the Harper site for a development that would fit within 23 the site's constraints. No special circumstances exist here (such as the need for a road crossing of a wetland where no other roadway route exists) that necessitate 24 any of the proposed wetland fill or any wetland buffer encroachment. That being the case, the City's Reviewing Official should have rejected the Harper proposal. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service. Corporation !019 RegenlS Blvd., Suite 202 Fircres~ WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 proposal violates several portions of RMC 4-3-0SOM. First, the Raedeke Report fails to delineate several areas of Category 3 wetlands located on the Harper property in violation of subsections 3, 4 and 5 of RMC 4-3-050M. Second, the Decision fails to require "wetland buffer zones . . . of all proposed regulated activities abutting [ all of the Harper site 's J regulated wetlands" in violation of RMC 4-3-050-M.6.a.i. Third, the Decision fails to require the Harper proposal to retain all required wetland buffer zones in their natural condition and fails to require "the buffers [to] be folly vegetated with native species or restored', all in violation of RMC 4-3-050-M.6.a.iii. Fourth, because the Raedeke Report failed to delineate several areas of Category 3 wetlands located on the Harper property (and thus failed to explain that those wetlands and their buffers had recently been disturbed), the Development Services Director did not have critical information necessary to determine whether to require wetland and buffer revegetation with native vegetation pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.a.iv. Fifth, the Decision wrongfully fails to (a) require standard buffer zone widths of 25 feet from the Category 3 wetlands on the Harper site that the Raedeke Report failed to identify (in violation of RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c.i), (b) condition the Harper site plan approval so as to protect the buffer functions of the buffers along the edges of the wetlands that the Raedeke Report failed to identify (in violation of RMC 4-3-050M.6.c.ii), and (c) condition the Harper site plan approval so as to require avoidance of buffer disturbance and retention of the buffers in a natural condition consistent with RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.a (in violation of RMC 4-3-050-M.6.c.ii(d)). Sixth, the Decision wrongfully fails to require the property owner to create a separate native growth protection area around all of the actual wetlands and buffers on the Harper site. Seventh, with respect to the Harper project's proposed wetlands filling of portions of the site's wetlands that the Raedeke Report does NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest. WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO recognize as wetlands, the Decision impliedly and wrongfully presupposes that, under the circumstances of the site, RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 would permit wetlands filling of the Harper site.2 V. APPELLANT'S STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUBJECT APPEAL I. According to the first sentence of RMC 4-9-200N, "[a]ny decision on an administrative site development plan approval shall be appealed as an administrative decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110, Appeals." RMC 4-9-200N's second sentence states that "[ a ]ny appellant must be seeking to protect an interest that is arguably with the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by this Section, must allege an injury in fact, and that injury must be real and present rather than speculative." II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. Appellant AnMarCo is the owner of the parcel of real property (Assessor's Parcel No. 3023059094), which is located south of and directly abutting the Harper site, a site which AnMarCo leases to trucking companies for parking of trucks and trailers. Appellant Strada de Valle is the owner of the parcel of real property (Assessor's Parcel No. 2 RMC 4-3-050M.8 specifies that if an applicant proposes wetland changes "for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods for developing the property [using a specified four-part list of criteria in the order presented] and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible." RMC 4-3-050M.8 then goes on to state that "in determining whether to grant permit approval ... , the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible." The first listed criterion is to avoid !!!ll' disturbances to the wetland or buffer. The Watershed Company's proposed plan for the Harper development proposal fails to meet that criterion by not providing reasons why impacts to the wetland (i.e., fill for parking) are not unavoidable. Ordinarily, a compelling reason to fill a wetland (like where the only possibility for a road or utility access corridor to a property would involve wetland filling) is necessary before disturbance to a wetland can be found to justify wetland impacts. Here, nothing more than overall facility size is at stake. It appears that Harper purchased a property that simply was not large enough for the desired facility and its corresponding parking needs. An ecology-block retaining wall is proposed that would reduce impacts to the eastern part of the wetland near the eastern property boundary. However, it appears that the fill impacts could be avoided entirely by reducing the scope of the project or by developing the project on a larger site and leaving the Harper site for a development that would fit within the site's constraints. No special circumstances exist here (such as the need for a road crossing ofa wetland where no other roadway route exists) that necessitate any of the proposed wetland fill or any wetland buffer encroachment. That being the case, the City's Reviewing Official (the Development Services Director) should have rejected the Harper proposal. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 8 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation IO 19 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3023059103), which is located five parcels north of the Harper site. That parcel has three commercial office buildings on it. 3. The first sentence of RMC 4-9-200A (Purpose and Intent) states that "[t]the purpose of site development review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan." The second sentence of RMC 4-9-200A.2 (Site Plan Review) states that "[a]n additional purpose of Site Plan [review] is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies." The paragraph following RMC 4-9-200A.2 (Site Plan Review) states in relevant part: Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. I. To improve the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; * * * 10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent ojthose codes. The Goal of the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan is to "(c]ontinue protection ofRenton's natural systems, natural beauty, and environmental quality." 4. The Appellants, as owners of abutting and nearby properties, would in fact by injured by the Harper project because the project would eliminate substantial areas of regulated Category 3 wetlands and their respective buffers, depriving Appellants and their NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page 9 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporatim1 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 current and future tenants of the view and enjoyment of the natural beauty and environmental features (including the trees and other vegetation) in those wetlands and buffers that would and should exist and that are and should be visible both from (a) Appellant AnMarCo's parcel to the south or (b) from East Valley Road by the Appellants' respective partners and the Appellants' current and future tenants as they travel to and from the Appellants' above-referenced respective properties past the Harper property. In view of the immediately preceding section 3, such interests are clearly within the scope of interests to be considered by the City when rendering a Site Plan approval decision. VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF In view of the above, Appellants AnMarCo and Strada da Valley respectfully request that the Examiner either: (a) reverse the Decision; or (b) remand the Decision to the Development Services Director for modification to comply with the above-cited matters of the City code consistent with the facts in this case. DATED this 2nd day of April, 2007. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. By~ David L. Halin WSBA#l5923 Attorney for Appellants AnMarCo and Strada da Valle r C:\CF\2293\034\Harper\Site Plan Approval Appeal\NOTICE OF APPEAL.DI.doc NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROV AL--Page I 0 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX March 26, 2007 David L. Halinen, Esq. Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 ENVIRON Re: Harper Property environmental review Dear Mr. Halinen: At your request, I have completed a site reconnaissance and review of various environmental documents pertaining to a proposed development at the Harper Engineering site (King County Assessor's Parcel No. 3023059085 -referred to hereinafter as the Harper site) located at 2994 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. In addition, I have reviewed environmental documents prepared by or on behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSOOT) and by others that pertain to that site. Specifically, I have reviewed the following documents prepared in support of proposed development at the Harper site: (a) A wetland delineation report prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (Raedeke) dated July 12, 2006; (b) A geotechnical engineering study prepared by Geothech Consultants, Inc dated July 3, 2006; and (c) A Preliminary Wetland Creation and Buffer Enhancement Plan prepared by The Watershed Company (TWC) for the Harper Engineering Building dated January 16. 2007. Those three documents were all prepared in support ofan engineering and manufacturing facility proposed by Harper Engineering. Other documentary information that I have reviewed pertaining to the Harper site includes: (I) A Younker Property' Wetland delineation and Study Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants (Talasaea) dated May 2. 1996: 1 I understand that a Camilla Younker and Rhonda Younker owned what is now the Harper property during the 1990s and until February 15. 2006. when they deeded the property to O.J. Harper by deed recorded under King County ReCQrding No. 20060215001507. 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite 100. Olympia, WA 98512 www.environcorp.com Harper Property Environmen Review March 26, 2007 (2) Site, landscaping, grading and TESC plans (11 inches by 17 inches in size) for the proposed "Renton Automotive Center" dated May 1996 (a development proposal concerning what is now the Harper site); (3) A City of Renton Environmental Detennination & Administrative Land Use Action LUA-96-066,SA,ECF Report and Decision of July 3, 1996 (copy from microfiche records); (4) A Draft 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report prepared by WSDOT dated May 2006; and (5) A Draft Wetlands Discipline Report and a Soils, Geology, and Grozmdwater Discipline Report (both prepared by or on behalf of WSDOT for the 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project, 1-5 to SR 169 dated October 2005). Page2 My review has focused on whether the wetland detennination methods used by the authors of the above- mentioned wetland studies were appropriate and the conclusions logical and accurate in relation to the supporting documentation and Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-0SOM (Wetlands). My findings and conclusions are presented below. FINDINGS WSDOT (and/or its consultants), Talasaea, and Raedeke have all identified wetlands on the Harper site. As 1 explain below, the findings and conclusions set forth in the documentation of their investigations are not consistent among all of these investigators. WSDOT's and ENVIRON's lnveatfgat/01111 A relatively large wetland associated with Panther Creek exists on the valley floor on the east side of SR 167 to the east of the Harper site. That wetland, which is called the Panther Creek wetland complex by WSDOT, is hydraulically connected to wetlands that have a ditch-like drainage course configuration on SR 167's west side. The WSOOT Soils, Geology, and Groundwater Discipline Report indicates that much of this area is identified as containing peat deposits. Peat is a hydric organic soil type. The ditch- like drainage course wetlands on the west side of what is now SR 167 were undoubtedly part of those originally associated with the Panther Creek wetland complex and likely contain peat soils. Wetlands within the west margin of the SR 167 right-of-way adjacent to the Harper site are now composed of a mixture of non-native, invasive, and native trees, shrubs, and emergent plants. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus rubra) are common on the fill slopes adjacent to the wetland. Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. lasiandra), red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) are among the dominant native trees and shrubs within the wetland. Reed canarygrass (Pha/arls arundinacea) also is common within the wetland. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite I 00, Olympia, WA 98512 www.environcorp.com . Harper Property Environment:., •• eview March 26, 2007 Page 3 The photograph below, which I took during my February 6, 2007 reconnaissance, shows the scrub-shrub vegetation association and adjacent buffer within SR 167's west right-of-way margin looking northeast from a point about 150 feet south of the Harper site's southeast comer. Note the standing water and iron bacteria (orange coloration) in the wetland at the time of this reconnaissance. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) in the foreground is on the fill slope and within the wetland's buffer. On the day of my reconnaissance, the shallow surface water in the wetland was turbid, apparently due to recent stonnwater runoff from SR 167. Surface water movement in the wetland was imperceptible at that time and it was unclear which direction the water was flowing in this vicinity. WSDOT's study identifies this wetland as Wetland 25.0L and shows this wetland extending (a) along the Harper site's entire east edge, (b) to the north and south of the Harper site along the SR 167 right-of-way's west edge and (c) well into the Harper site. (See the delineated, surveyed, and Corps-confumed boundaries of Wetland 25.0L on the copy of the WSDOT wetlands map, Attachment A hereto.) Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) ofWSDOT's report indicates that this wetland encompasses a total area of 5.88 acres (Attachment B). According to WSDOT's Draft Wetlands/Biology Discipline Report (Section 2.3.1 on p. 2-2),1 the delineated boundaries of this and other wetlands within the 1- 405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project corridor were confirmed in January 2006 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Talasaea's Investigation The portion of Wetland 25.0L's boundaries on the Harper site was also delineated by Talasaea Consultants in 1996. Talasaea delineated a wetland ( which it identified as Wetland A) that included the ditch-like drainage course wetland along the Harper site's north side as well as a relatively thin (::o 25-foot wide) band along the toe of the then existing fill along the 2 Section 2.3.1 on p. 2·2 of WSDOT's Draft Wetlands/Biology Discipline Report states: 2.3.1 Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a jurisdictional detennination of wetlands delineated in the project area on January 31, 2006. During this review process the Corps determined that nine (9) areas described as "wetlands" following the initial field investigation did not meet Corps' jurisdictional standards because the 9 areas are located on elevated fill that is substantially higher than the surrounding wetlands. These 9 areas were then removed from the wetland delineation maps and are not discussed herein. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \\WW.?llV!]'(lllCOI'p.com Harper Property Environme March 26, 2007 leview Page4 Harper site's east edge. Talasaea noted that the wetland along the Harper site's east edge extended offsite to the north and south along SR 167. The wetland boundaries delineated by Talasaea were also surveyed and mapped (Attachment C). Talasaea's study was completed in 1996 (which was before the current version ofRenton's Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted). Talasaea concluded that, under then-applicable City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (Attachment D), the wetland was unregulated because, in Talasaea's view, it was intentionally created for stormwater management purposes. However, Talasaea did not provide any convincing evidence for its conclusion, a conclusion that does not appear to be supportable. Talasaea established a single sample plot in the wetland and one in the adjacent upland and (reasonably) assumed hydric soils in the wetland based on the presence of more than 2 feet of water in the wetland sample plot. (See Attachment C for the sample plot locations), Because Talasaea did not sample the soils, Talasaea could not determine whether native soils or fill material was present. It appears that Talasaea made an assumption that the wetland was constructed for stormwater management based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map designation (PFOCx). A PFOCx designation indicates a palustrine forested, seasonally flooded, excavated wetland. However, it is important to note that there is limited ground trothing or field verification ofNWI map wetlands and Talasaea failed to provide any in regard to the soils in the subject wetland. Because the soils in the wetland were not examined, one cannot reasonably conclude that native soils were not/are not present and that the wetland was a wetland constructed for stormwater management as Talasaea had concluded. Talasaea's report was submitted to the City of Renton in support of a proposal to develop a Renton Automotive Center on the site (City of Renton microfiche file SA-96-066). The Renton Automotive Center was approved by the City but never built. However, a preload fill was apparently placed on the site as part of that proposed project. Sheet C-1, the grading and temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan (Attachment E, which was part of the 1996 application submittal) shows proposed silt fencing at or landward of the delineated wetland boundaries. During my February 6, 2006 site reconnaissance, I observed from my vantage point on the northeast comer of the adjacent AnMarCo site old silt fencing at or near the east edge of the Harper site. The silt fencing was obviously intended to protect the wetland, especially in view of the following statement on the project's Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 (Attachment F), which sets for the following note with an arrow pointing to the north edge wetland (which it labels as a "ditch" and refers to as a "natural area''): Natural area will remain undisturbed where possible. Existing plant material includes cqt(,Os, cottonwoqdand willow. (Emphasis added.) Along that same line of protecting the wetland, Condition 2 on page 12 of 14 of the City's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center required that "[t]he applicant shall attempt to eliminate the culverting and minimize the extent of the rockery necessary along the existing north drainage ditch, subject to the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to issuance of building permits." (See Attachment G.) 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite I 00, Olympia, WA 98512 www.environcorp.com Harper Property Environrnen _~ __ .eview March 26, 2007 Raedeke's Investigation Page 5 Raedeke also delineated a wetland on the Harper site (and, like Talasaea, called it Wetland A) but reached a different conclusion as to the extent of the wetland than did either WSDOT or Talasaea. Raedeke's investigation was conducted on May 17, 2006, which was after the wetland boundaries delineated on the site by WSDOT's consultants had been confinned by the Corps. (Neither the WSDOT delineation of Wetland 25.0L nor the Corps confinnation thereof was noted in the Raedeke report.) In contrast to both WSDOT's and Talasaea's wetland delineations, Raedeke called approximately the westem two-thirds of the ditch-like drainage course along the site's north edge a stream (see the copy of Figure 3 of Raedeke's report, Attachment H). This detennination was reportedly based on a lack of any rooted vegetation within the inundated areas (Raedeke, Section 3.3.3 p. 10) and because this portion of the site was mapped as urban land in the Soil Survey of King County. In Raedeke's lone sample plot within this area (SP8, the location of which is depicted on Figure 3 of Raedeke' s report), soils were not sampled and hydric soils were assumed based on the presence of 12 inches of inundation. Absence of wetland vegetation in this area was the result of clearing and site modifications that you advised me took place in the early part of 2006, apparently immediately following O.J. Harper's February 15, 2006 acquisition of the property. That such clearing took place is evident from contrasting (a) the relatively extensive and taller vegetation (including various trees and shrubs along the site's north edge) that can be clearly seen on the two June 13, 2002 aerial photos (Attachment I, sheets I of2 and 2 of 2, one being an oblique aerial photo and the other being a directly overhead aerial photo) with (b) the vegetation ranging from very limited to none that can be seen on the set of ground photos of various portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, a date that was only a few months after the clearing took place. (Attachments J-1 through J-3 are her photos of broad areas of the Harper site, Attachments K-1 and K-2 are her photos of the north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east with standing water clearly visible in it and Attachments L-1 through L-6 are her photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them including within the area that Raedeke called Area B-see discussion of Area B, below.) Raedeke's conclusion that the western part of the ditch-like drainage course is not part of the wetland is an error and is not supported by the data provided in Raedeke's report or by the statements in Raedeke's report about recent site modifications. Because, at the time of Raedeke's investigation, much of the site's vegetation had recently been removed, a detennination should have been made using the atypical situation method of wetland delineation rather than the routine onsite determination method. 3 3 The atypical situation method is described in Section F (Atypical Situations) of Part IV (Methods) of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94, Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997. In Section F (Routine Determinations) orPart IV, the Manual specifies the situations under which the routine onsite determination method should be used. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olylllf)ia, WA 98512 www .t:n vi roncorp.com Harper Property Environme March 26, 2007 Review A culvert exists near the Harper site's northwest comer. That culvert extends into East Valley Road, which abuts the Harper site's west edge. On February 6, 2007, from my vantage point near the East Valley Road, I took the photograph shown to the right from a point near the culvert inlet ( which is not shown in the photo but would be off of the lower left-hand comer of the photo) looking east down the ditch-like drainage course wetland along the Harper site's north edge. As that photograph shows, (a) at least a 30 Page6 percent vegetative cover exists over the western portion of tho ditch-like drainage course wetland and (b) the vegetative cover of this wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass, red-osier dogwood, and red alder (A/nus rubra). All of these species arc at least partially rooted within the inundated ditch-like drainage course wetland. These species have F ACW, FACW, and FAC wetland indicator statuses, respectively, and this plant association meets the hydrophytic ve3etation criterion. Therefore, the western portion of the ditch-like drainage course actually is a wetland, which is what Talasaea and WSDOT both concluded. Under Renton' s current wetland resulations, this wetland is a Category 3 wetland because it fits the definition set forth in RMC 4-3-050M. l.a.iii4, meeting all three of the criteria in subsection (a). Further, ' RMC 4-3--0SOM. l .a.iii states: iiL Category J: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fl II. soi I removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: ( 1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent veptation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are pnerally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. S232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 www.environcorp.com Harper Property Environmenta1 Review March 26, 2007 Page 7 because it is impossible for the applicant to demonstrate that the ditch-like drainage course wetland meets all of the "Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands" criteria of RMC 4-3-050M. I .e.ii,5 this wetland cannot be considered nonregulated by the City of Renton. Raedeke also identified a second area (which it called Area B) that had wetland characteristics but concluded that it was not a regulated wetland but had evolved in the preload fill that was permitted in relation to the approved but never built 1996 Renton Automotive Center proposal. The Raedeke report indicates that, according to a Gary Gaston, Gaston Brothers Excavating, this area had been cleared of vegetation early in 2006. The report also indicates that it was understood that this was an artificially created wetland that had been excavated out of the previously placed fill for stormwater management (Section 3.3.2 'ff I). However, WSDOT's delineated wetland boundaries (Attachment A), which the Corps confirmed in January 2006 (before Raedeke' s investigation), included this area. The Attachment I 2002 aerial photographs of Area B show taller vegetation, including some trees and shrubs, than the virtually bare ground that existed when Heidi Kludt took her ground photos of that area a few months after the clearing and grading (Attachments K-1 through K-6). The fact that the Corps confirmed this area to be a wetland and the area was thereafter immediately cleared and apparently partially graded (see Attachments L-1 through L-6) strongly suggests that the work violated the City of Renton wetland protection regulations as well as the federal and state Clean Water Acts. Proposed Harper Site Wetland Mitigation Plan I have also reviewed the Preliminary Wetland Creation and Buffer Enhancement Plan prepared by TWC. This plan indicates that the western portion of the ditch-like drainage course wetland would be filled and a culvert installed in this portion of the wetland as well as in a part of the north edge wetland further to the east that Raedeke acknowledged as such. The total estimated wetland impact area into Raedeke's Wetland A is 2,158 square feet. That impact area estimate fails to include either (I) the area of the western two-thirds of the ditch-like drainage course wetland, which would be entirely filled under the {c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. 5 RMC 4-3-050M. l .e.ii states: ii. Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands: Based upon an applicant request, the Depaltment Administrator may determine that Category 3 wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands, if the applicant demonstrates the following criteria are met: (a) The wetland formed on top offill legally placed on a property; and (b) The wetland hydrology is solely provided by the compaction of the soil and fill material; and (c) The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers has determined thatthey will not take jurisdiction over the wetland. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98Sl2 \\'W \\'.en v Lwncorp. com Harper Property Environme , ,. Review March 26, 2007 Harper proposal, or (2) the entire area identified by Raedeke as Area B (which is part of the Corps- confirmed WSOOT Wetland 25.0L), which also would be filled under the proposal. Page 8 There are two false premises upon which TWC's mitigation plan is based. The first of those premises is that the Raedeke wetland delineated wetland boundaries are accurate. Because of this false premise, TWC fails to accurately identify the impacts to the existing wetlands confirmed by the Corps (see Attachment A). As noted above, both Talasaea and WSDOT delineations concluded that the entire ditch- like drainage course area along the Harper site's northern boundary is a wetland. Environ likewise believes that the entire ditch-like drainage course is a wetland. The second false premise is that piping the ditch-like drainage course wetland would not result in the loss of wetland function. Best available science (BAS) clearly indicates that piping the ditch-like drainage course wetland would result in the loss of function, which is contrary to the intent of the Growth Management Act and of the City's Critical Areas code provisions that are intended to protect wetland functions. Bearing in mind those two false premises, I have evaluated the preliminary mitigation plan relative to the portions ofRMC 4-3-0SOM pertaining to wetland mitigation. RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 specifies that if an applicant proposes wetland changes "for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods for developing the property [using a specified four-part list of criteria in the order presented] and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible." RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 then goes on to state that "in determining whether to grant permit approval ... , the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible." The first listed criterion is to avoid ga]! disturbances to the wetland or buffer. TWC's proposed plan for the Harper development proposal fails to meet that criterion by not providing reasons why impacts to the wetland (i.e., fill for parking) are not unavoidable. Ordinarily, a compelling reason to fill a wetland (like where the only possibility for a road or utility access corridor to a property would involve wetland filling) is necessary before disturbance to a wetland can be found to justify wetland impacts. Here, nothing more than overall facility size is at stake. It appears that Harper purchased a property that simply was not large enough for the desired facility and its corresponding parking needs. An ecology-block retaining wall is proposed that would reduce impacts to the eastern part of the wetland near the eastern property boundary. However, it appears that the fill impacts could be avoided entirely by reducing the scope of the project or by developing the project on a larger site and leaving the Harper site for a development that would fit within the site's constraints. No special circumstances exist here (such as the need for a road crossing of a wetland where no other roadway route exists) that necessitate any of the proposed wetland fill or any wetland buffer encroachment. That being the case, the City's Reviewing Official should have rejected the Harper proposal. I have evaluated the rest of the mitigation proposal relative to the goal ofno net loss of wetland area or function (RMC 4-3-0SOM.9.a) and specified replacement ratios (RMC 4-3-0SOM. I I .e). The proposal would impact emergent vegetation within the Category 3 wetland. The code-specified replacement ratio for wetland creation/restoration is 1.5 times the amount of the proposed impact. The proposed impact, which is identified as 2,158 sq. ft., is incorrect because it fails to include the western two-thirds of the 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98S 12 www .environcorp.com • Harper Property Environmental Review March 26, 2007 Page9 north edge ditch-like drainage course wetland or Raedeke's Area B. Therefore, the proposed mitigation (4,597 sq. ft. of wetland "re-establishment") does not meet the required replacement ratio criterion. As it stands now, the proposed mitigation plan would result in both a loss of wetland area and function based on the Corps-confirmed WSDOT Wetland 25.0L boundaries. CONCLUSIONS All investigators (WSDOT, Talasaea, and Raedeke) have identified the wetland abutting the east side of the Harper site. This wetland has been identified as part of Wetland 25.0L by WSDOT. It extends north and south of the site adjacent to SR 167 as well as along the north boundary of the site to East Valley Road. Both Talasaea and WSDOT correctly identify the entire ditch-like drainage course feature along the Harper site's north edge as wetland. The wetland boundaries delineated by WSDOT have been confirmed by the Corps. Therefore, Raedeke' s conclusions that Area B and the western two thirds of the ditch-like drainage course along the north boundary are not a wetland is in error. Clearing and alterations to the wetland that were conducted immediately after the wetland boundaries were confirmed by the Corps in January 2006 appear to have been unauthorized and thus a violation of both RMC and the federal and state Clean Water Acts. The subject wetland appears to be accurately classified as a City of Renton Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c.i, Renton's standard buffer for a Category 3 wetland is 25 feet. The Harper Engineering proposal does not provide justification for why the impacts to the wetland cannot be avoided as required by the RMC. The previous proposal for the Renton Automotive Center, which was approved by the City, required that impacts to virtually the entire wetland (which the City called a "ditch") be avoided. A similar conclusion is now warranted given the more stringent code now in place and to be consistent with BAS and the Growth Management Act mandate and the purpose of the RMC to protect the existing functions of wetlands. Furthennore, the proposed mitigation plan inaccurately identifies the extent of wetland impacts and thereby proposes an insufficient area of compensatory mitigation and does not meet the replacement ratio requirements specified in the RMC. Lastly, the proposed filling in of portions of Wetland 25.0L would destroy those portions of the wetland, causing a probable significant adverse environmental impact to them. Such proposed wetland filling would permanently deprive the abutting AnMarCo property of the environmental amenities that those portions of Wetland 25.0L and its buffers provide, such as open space and habitat for song birds and other small animal species. If I may provide any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 285- 3015. Sincerely, ENVIRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION SCOTT LUCHESSA Cettified Ecologist, M.S. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 www.environcorp.com Harper Property Environmen leview March 26, 2007 Page 10 Attachments: Attachment A-Corps Confirmed WSDOT Wetland Boundaries (Wetland/Biology Report Figure 3-E) Attachment B -Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) of WSDOT's 1-405, Renton Nickel !111prove111ent Project Wetland/Biology Report Attachment C -Talasaea's (1996) Delineated & Suiveyed Wetland Boundaries (Talasaea's Figure 4) Attachment D-Page from City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (taken from Talasaea Report Appendix B) Attachment E -Renton Automotive Center Grading and TESC Plan, Sheet C-1 ( 1996) Attachment F -Renton Automotive Center Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 Attachment G-Pages I, 12 and 14 of 14 of the City ofRenton's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center Attachment H -Raedeke's Delineated and Suiveyed Wetland Boundaries (Raedeke's Figure 3) Attachment I -Two June 13, 2002 aerial photos encompassing the Harper site (one oblique and one overhead) Attachments J-1 through J-3-Set of three ground photos of various broad portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, which was only a few months after Harper property site work took place and had not yet had much time to reestablish Attachments K-1 and K-2-Set of two ground photos of the Harper site north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east (with standing water clearly visible in it) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 Attachment L-1 through L-6 -Set of six ground photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them (including within the area that Raedeke called Area B) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 S232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 91512 www.environcorp.com • ~; •. •NSOOT 2005. K,ng Counly GIS, _2002, Z004 J f '.'J::c.·,~fi .. ,. .. ;~@ti'. ' ' SR 167 r>; i ~ Southern Project ;,!. ·J·.''' •==""'1 Limits at SW 41 ST Street 03-22-06 ATTACHMENT A ----·------~ Streams t:21Permanent Impact tZ!lTamporary Impact •WeUands i>C Notional Wetland Inventory c:::J Proposed Footprint -Proposed Retaining Walls N + 0 150 300 600 - Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 3-E Washington Stale Department ofTransportalion I Renton Nickel Improvement Projed Wetland/Biology Report Attachment A Corps Confirmed WSDOT Wetland Boundaries (Wetland/Biology Report Figure 3-E) ATTACHMENT B Table 4-1: FIiied or Disturbed Wetrands, 1-4115 Rll'lton Nickel Improvement Protect Pennanent Temponuy FIiied ~ FIiied or . Olllelwlee Otharwlae 1-•• ";. Tempara,y . . Dlllurbad Dlalurbed ~rect IILllfel . Buffet . Wn'*'8ion .· Local WtUirnd . Wlillud Welland lmplletA-......... Bllda Rating Jurladlcllan ldanlfllar . ..... AiN". Area 1acres1 . ._ . . -, ; ___ _.._ .. -...illllli .... , 0.16R 0.62 . . . . Ill Tukwlla-2 0.1R o.os . . . . IV Tukwlla-3 0.25M 0.07 . . . . IV Tlllwlla·3 0.3R 1.29 . . . . HI Tukwila-2 0.4L 0.11 o.~ 0.01 0.21 0.05' IV Tukwila-3 0.5L 0.05 0.06 . . -IV Tukwila-3 0.6L 0.17 0.01 O.Q1 0.51 0.07 IV Tukwlla-3 0.9R 1.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.04 Ill Tukwlla-2 1.7R 0.46 0.46 . . IU Renton-3 2.2R 0.10 . . 0.01 0.01 HI Ranlon-3 2.31R 0.03 . . -. IV Renlon-NR 2.61. 0.02 0.(12 . . IV Aenlon-NR 2.81L 0.03 . . . . Ill Renmn-NR 2.9L 1.07 . . . . Ill Ranlon-3 24.7R 6.98 -. . . II Renton-1 25.Cll. 5.88 0.99 0.56 2.71 0.06 Ill Renton-3 25.71.. 0.30 . . 0.01 0.03 Ill Renton-3 TOTAL 18.14 1.62 0.59 3.64 0.26 Attachment B Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) of WSDOT's 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report :J~., i: ! : ••• ,; ~ .. ..,_ • . • -"""'!'-----..--------·-----·------·--···----.,..-----. ·" ll,• ... / ·" .. ... • . • ' ' ... ... .~ ~= ;.···· 'l / .•' ·TEST PLc:ff#l 1"" :rEST PLOT #Z .• / -:!,.,~ ---WETL.-'\.ND A-···_, . .,,--------../ ... ••• 11, .•' / ,,· ,,· / .•' / . . • .•' ... !f.i.'F.g :: r:"'...;.., ,, ... ___ ...,.. .......... ,,,_ ....... ,,. •R15,~ff:OC:O:. LIIM. """''"'°" o, RCCOIID1 lrJ:"1'...:.r .::...-= :r .:,:.r=.~I ti' HOii .. 11, .,......,, 11 """'• .... I IUT, w,•,. IM 11111111 CMlltff,-,..INIIM, S.HN tlOI' II' ,:r:c=.NtotMtiY .... At ~rta-TO M ITATI I" =·=•.r_. nil IIHIIIW~-=:r,;:.;1r.1.r-~::.O*::.'' C11CM TIii 'Ctr H ,en ._ 11WiO ..-. At llflD AY&, t,, ' ... . SOURCE: ... NORTH CALE: 1 "=50' ,•' ... Group Four, Inc., April 1996. 0 1,15 es, ltt, (ij})~;~AEA FIGURE 4. Wetlands Map DESION Xwoiirn I, ._.,.lrot1n'l•ni.l l'l11nnlna IMH .. 0111,lll""N""-I ..........,........,.,..n. NPNJ NlolJM,l111(N"INMkt '--------...a..-·- _,. _______________________ ,,,.., _________ """"'':it SIU!1IM1.IIIIStU I.Ml A~~ DA11 4-30-...,.,., .......... -·..---..:-•.:.-• -··. ~-··· """ ~) It~ ~er. "' '"ff· t~ \ . .'\~1 1:<~·J~ ~1"!"[ .'J$'! f(f~ i s,, ·/~ ,~,i ,,.;.~,;. l>'.:); ::b; ,!it z·, ;:::; :~, Attachment C Talasaea's (1996} Delineated & Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Talasaea's Figure 4) Attachment D Page from City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (taken from Talasaea Report Appendix B) ( - APPENDIXB SECTION 4-32·3C CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (Approved March 9; 19€12) ATTACHMENT D •• l •. ' ' 1. ~ .. ' ~, J s ( ~ ORDINANCE NO, 4346 • • utility. and other. use permit, or any subsequently· adopted permit or required approval not expressly· exempted by this chapter. ........ B, Maps and Inventory. c. The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the City of Renton is displayed on the Renton Wetland Inventory M~p. The Map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of wetlands. For the purpose of regulation, the wetland f,dge should be determined pursuant to Section 4-32-3,C. Wetlands, which are defined in section 4-32-J.C but not shown on the Renton Wetlands Inventory, are presumed to exist in the City of Renton and are also protected under al\ the provisinns of this chapter. Wetlands Definition and Determination of Regulatory Edge. l, Wetlands are those lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems that are inundated or saturated by ground or ~urface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typicall.y adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For thP purpose ct regulation, the exact location of the w&tlane edge uhall be determined by the wetlands specialist hired at tho expense of the applicant -throi1gh the performano• ot • field investigation using the procedures provide& 111 tha following manual: 2, Federal Interagency committee Delineation. 1989. Identifying and Delineating Wetlands. u.s Army corps of Wildlife Service, service. Publication. Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland edge, the City shall review and may rdnder adjustmen\:s to the edge delineation. In the event the adjusted edge delineation is contested by the applicant, the City shall, at the applicant I s expense, obtain tho ser.vices of an ~dditional qualified wetlands specialist to review the original study and render a final delineation •. : J . A final wetlands delineation is valid for two years, ·· 6 • i i i I Attachi'hent E Renton Automotive Center Grading and TESC Plan, Sheet C-1 (1996) .. • ~' y ~~··· . :. . . "'· \ I I I. 11 ~ . . . I . ill ~ ii · :, 1--11. I , _:· Ii ·1 -, ~ ... -~~~·-~ .. ··._ .. :··.·. ·. . . . .· .... . . . . . . . . ... • ~-+--i; o• II ' ~- I •• t . . fh ... I s IL .·o ~ <Id . I ~ i I ~ C, ... - B ~ .• f . ' • w <II u !z ·z w L,.. ·--- Attachment F Renton Automotive Center Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 [[1' J •c.W l ' l1ttJ;,/;,;\ · . . .. I !, .·.. :- -· ,r:·,,.l!f, ·~ > ' ' ~ 1"' '3' i at ' ·. I . I. . ' ' . . I)-.-~,.._,_ .. , ,. :-..-. - ' !:: ' :- toti : . . . .. ~ I .• ., I• ,' I • . . . ' ' . . . < ' / .; . ::' ' -~'..~,sv, .•• t ... . : . : .... .' ... '.. . . __ ... . ' ... : . ';,. . ~. . ' t . I ~11 . ~.· ' · ,, :Ill . . 1 • 1 . . I I : : I ' .. I ' '' 1 i. ' .1-+++H-/--++tfal·. : • f . I ' , ...... ·.-.-~;::i .. ,,.. ...... ~ . "." . . . -. ,, Attachment G Pages 1, 12 and 14 of 14 of the City of Renton's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center • • Attachment I Two June 13, 2002 aerial photos encompassing the Harper site (one oblique and one overhead) Send To Printer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines United States,,,, Change to Portrait O'--..__-L----'2G m Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement Attachments J-1 through J-3 Set of three ground photos of various broad portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, which was only a few months after Harper property site work took place and had not yet had much time to reestablish ATTACHMENT J-1 ATIACHMENT J-2 ATTACHMENT J-3 Attachments K-1 and K-2 Set of two ground photos of the Harper site north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east (with standing water clearly visible in it) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT K-1 ATIACHMENT K-2 Attachment L-1 through L-6 Set of six ground photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them (including within the area that Raedeke called Area B) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT L-1 ATTACHMENT L-2 ATTACHMENT L-3 ! ATIACHMENT L-4 ATIACHMENT L-5 ATIACHMENT L-6 ' \ . f "' ~ "' 0 0. m "' C _Q l,l C ~ " C J'! ~ I 0 ~ ~ I .; C ,g 'o C 0 u 0, C ~ ·;;, w -0 ~ 'i' ;g 0 ~ 'i' C) .~ ., IJ; ~ "' 0, C r m m C g, w ~ • e-m I i m 13 m ·e % 1"' E il 8 >-;; /j ;,; E m z ~ u. SANtU.lf'f S[W(R 1,1;.HH•JL( :!,Mp~a~ a_Y.; IE :r PVC: 1,,1 al6 If f( PVC 5 a25 IE .. North quoder corner Section 30, Townshlf. 23 north," Range 5 eos . W.M. found punch m J/B-brnss plug, lncosed ot the 1nlersedion of Sou1h 23rd ~\{)'and £05\ Volley Higl'lll'oy. ~ it eosl of monument case 19 w h panel mork. "Jo 30 j l'-- • l l I ATTACHMENT H FIGURE 3 THE RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS LLC HARPER ENGINEERING RENlON, WASHINGTON I l l. l I EXISTING CONDITIONS I \ \ t~·~ STORM Of.AAA.GE uAHHOC.E "' "i :S No<th rm, o< th, , ~ South 1/2 of·th, -, Soulhwosl 1 /4 o/ .. • "" th, No<lheosl 1/4 '6 ,,J, ---~~.:~rd., .. STREAM ·.~---of Seel.ion 30, . . • . , "I,:>,, ,· P • Town,h,p 23 no<th : .::_-•• ~# ; ... '\ 13-W1Cr«1t CUl.'OT [Range 5 ~st. w.M : , · R,.·· ( \ll 1 0 IE l A e 3'N ):'' ,hob with >ock on/mo 1 \ \ \ RW.l"Hl.'4." ~- ~---=\ N "'· ·;; ~ '. "'""' ' ~··· M • ·-·-.. . . ." ..• ·•-·· "" .. , , , . . ..:.... . .:...l.~: ~ ~~ 2.-,; H.7 f~I -' ___:!<£-~0 • ---·=·.::;--;--·--~~~,=-----~-----' c>'1~' ,~co ._, ~~ --.,•' ( . . . """"' -··-· . ~ --~ -· '--. -· . ,----------, .. ~ C,C ,··1 , , "'"""" ·""'~"" ,J.C """"•=•·• ...,,,,.,.-CC~-"'£_~• .. -a'· ... C'=• · . ~.-,-' ~-~ ---..;~·-. ,;J( 1 ffa 0 / WUter ·J' ·,• ... ,.,.;.~~--,,er .y..,.-, ........ , . _.,,., ,-.. ~··-~---~..--~ ..... , .. c,c,, · " ,q .••• •·" .. ' • , .. ,._ ~ "'-"' •-" .. ~--=""' ·~·-: ••.. -. . -~~· ---- ·• Q() 1 , :, ... _. q--"' , --~· ----pr'2"''sps _._..y_;:";,"·---:;_;--....... ~--__ --.:c---.;J,n,,. -----1.:.,.~· r~ i; \:;: J;; ... i l •:> ,::~::~::;:._""':~:.~;~;_-:;.i?~;:·· ---.::;-~ ~,:..-:.: :-=--=--~:._~-;-=---:..:::-------. ~ ... ;~ i--.._ ::> ·-:... -.c;'.JCI • l"-2 leet _,~ .. 2Q-..;-·-·--,·········· .. ·--··--··--_,/ --_ -------. --) _ 20---...,.__ ..._ -... -,:'!_Q...!l_ ~ o ·. -· • " • / "" ··•. ,/ , .. ,·· Top , op • • . , • ~ ---\If .. r.-_ _,., · ·········=--- QJ o : ~ ~~:: J f Trcns-fO<"rne: ........... ~,_~:, ...... -· .. -,r,> <(<· S p-3·-• -~ ---------f.::: .. '?· .... ~ .. ··~···;--•-·'f,i·-,-• ... ' . ~ / ~ .. ·• --.,· .---· ~ ---< ,· -~ ••• -Ir ~ --------./ ... _______ ... ----····· T ... M ~' I' .,,. ;;_;--;.-:.~-, ...... , '. \ ~,, oi . ,~,. ' / -•. .-,,ir, • \\ '. ~:--\ \ \ \ WETLAND A SHe Benchmark Elevotion 18.76 feet ST:)fU,I MAINA'~ 1,1.1\NHOLE UNABLE TO DIP 13.84 IC CATOI e ... sm RN 18.29 12· 0,1? £ 15.43 I( 12· CUP W 15.23 I( ~lol.R'I' S['ll(ll' MAl'IJ-IU.( ff1l,I 15.78 a• P\K: W 6.SJ IE i:~;t:~ -SAHITAIIY S[Wf/'l' MANJ-la.E ~ .... 19.12 s· pv•:; w 12.09 JE e· PVC N 6.01 IE :1· PVC N S.92 E > ' ., . / .... I ,,, ' "' ~. --~--~J 1·' / / • •. ' , -,,,,: ·--I!.! . ' . _,,,,._._-g •• -,j -•' ,,,, ', ,,• 0 -" :/ .,, \' ~. ~ ,--, ~ •" I "/ . l 00 .,,. .. , • ' • .. ' • • ' o Jt; '"" ' : •, AREA B ,:;,,." 1: '" .•. . .• , . ·" \ ' .. ,! "" ,'i ! ~ \ · / ' Aeom• S SSS s, I• • '' \• . ~i::.',°1../ "/ ---t-.------------ .•., ••• ,o • • . '" .,, ' · ..• ,, .--: · I~ I , , r' _Jiu , 1 , •W.tfo:P.6 ., •. ,. .· ' ,,....w•. ,, ' . . . . . ,-, . _, • , I, ' -:· ~.-I I ' , ' I ... ,/ , •• .., '· ,, ~·~ ,.· . . . . . . ' •.· < o •• 0 ' ,' •' , • ·-• , ' Y, \, ·~ Top of W<>lo,r -. . ... . ' . . -. ,. "" •. .. '" .. ,., •, '-" I ~'I',<'" / • • ,-r . .-' . -' '· T-; ' · . .·, . ..,. _ """ , _. / . .. ,,-. sn , l' .,, :-:~.a·-~ .... Jo I \ , , "''//' _, ', ,, , 1 ,. ~ -. ,.. ' • • ' / •'.. ' ' •. ,, , ;> " • V ,, ' '- , 1' .: ·. ..~· ~·-~· \.:,e; ,.,,=,---.. ,,._ •' ---~~~-=-~----------~-~-.J<:i:S ... "' --=-=--rs. J ,,., -~ ' ~' ' •.... , .-• ..,~ "'·'°"''"" •-·-="' -~=~-~--" ==~--.,,.=~ .. -.. =" •. .. . .. ,. ' , ,,; • ··: '·' .. -• ( o' op ,;;·-----"'1;,;;-, .,_,,_,.-:;_"""<f8•'.;.--;;-.::_,,....;;;jjiji--;;;..;---. ·. -;-_-::_""-::_ 0 '----~~-~ r.:-":~_..:.=--:...--'7'1-----.~41!:'P-~ ..... ,.., · "' ~ ----{ ••. _-. Po•~ Found .. ,o, wfth ~ lop ~· ;;> .. -.. ,~·-··-··-··;;;i'u-r-··-~--!r-~,;..; .. ; .. 1 .!;-7' -.,."~ _.,. ~-, ,..._8· ('A •• 9 .,_ -~--O "°" , !"'low cop ,torno"'1 ( '--./ / \ .~-· .. -·•""'!!".!.!!"'!... ... 4!,~i•..;.~ ' . ' • • ",,,,, .. ,,. ---•.. -.11···-.. ''" " 8 (PSS1) Approx. 6,299 SF on-site (wetland continues off stte to east, north, and south) 121.08' \ (1) \ 'c;; \ -,1 \ ~ ~ .. ~·. --;:o~f' ~I. ., .,-:,!.,.-• ...._,.;:, ~ ,-;c_.cc-,.-"' ,. =;c-. ;;c _ c ·.~Y, ;,; ;;. ~~i'·"C:S'· ;.,,, a.-,. .. , . ,. , •-"• ... _.. s, ~ , . . .. ~- , ', 0 • .. ----, • , -, --~--.. ·'' • , , ·1 ~,r,. ~ .~...... SSoulh QUO"" '"'"" nO...--• ------------£20 <c . nO...--I , .. ', .... ~~---2:-;: ~4.8\ ,:' I • ~ -~. ,.,.." 0 0 O ~ .. <, ,0 ••• '" ·' , < ,"''"· Rong, 5 oosl. w" 5 )'",~ hn, of ';he No,th 1/2 • ---------s,, hub ••lh toe> _=!::!~~ .. \ :lji ,· I I ~ ound ch1sled "'.Xw In . --O e NO<th 1 2 ol the -o,i~e 31 5• w I ":J.}' • l ~,1 I 30 conmfr, ;nco,od s,1~th 1/2 of \ho Sou\hwosl ol '°';"' es --j \ \ ,, 1 .. . ..... --.,. . .. -, ' . >< 0 ~·-~. ··-· " ·~ • o > \ill I ~ nodh. Rong< 5 ,ast -w " • -a' 1 1 ' .M. •! ~ I V , north +~ l l I 10 J I j ~ ~ ~\ RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. I " I WA. NORTHEAST 63RD ST. 98115 KEY SEATILE, 5711 _ .. _ .. _ -• --t---·-- • SP7 SITE BOUNDARY WETLAND DELINEATED BY RAEDEKE ASSOJCATES, INC. 5/17/06 STREAM SAMPLE PLOT TYP. (Approx. location) (206) 525-8122 FAX: (206) 526-2BBO RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2006--047-001 DATE: 7-12--06 ---------------------=..-=--'-"---= ----------~------------------DRAWN BY: CJM i B~ee information provided by The Ronhovde Architects. LLC; fil~s W,c,.fl,:,nrl C:vhiha n~ f'\A ')(V\,:;: ...i. .. ~ ..,..,,l u ....... ~~ r:.-.~ ...i,~~"-7r,.or,, "":I ~"':I'>= • • Attachment H Raedeke's Delineated and Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Raedeke's Figure 3) CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 D Cash }Zf Check No, / Ok·ft f.e D Copy Fee )fAppeal Fee Receipt N, 0818 D Notary Service D _________ _ Description: -~ff7C ( fc ,I r !l/,;? ;,'!1-y t: ,YC,/-ft ,,,,,,._,,, -)c7<; ~---. --. , 1/fftq/ p{ "':.>1 fe Pia;, /1(f ... '" .... of/__...q...._ ______ ..., Funds Received From: ;-/ 1 l 11.er1 ~ ,.,/ offt'ct2; f s I. Di 9 r2e,e n Is, bivd, sle. b2 · I ,....-J / ' 4 ~, I, ' /_ Ctt~Zip nv(,(Sf, W4 1f:f(J?tP Name Address • Amount$ Ci --<::: .. o· o / ._,' D Cash ~Check No. Description: CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Funds Received From: D Copy Fee .i:ti· Appeal Fee _;"· ,-. - l i .• , C •> / i i f ' ' N f I ,-1 r / ,/--1:: .r ame 1a /; ;/ e M Vj I{ v!' f .· ,·' C Address JC! ') (j ( !',: /.S 1;/, ?j ·;:/(, Z{)2 --·· (j.,) -, ,·c,-·· . ,.-/ City/Zip .1-, v ( / / "j f ,•1.· rf ', .':; . : V'Y' • ,, Receipt i\ 08 ns'. .... '·""" 2/1<' /., 1?o ~ -'7 I)ate -~.::.);.., .::<-:..·"'(J.:.,f'---·-=.iC~,,_· ,1,1~ f ! ' ' I Amount I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 fi 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE /cl{'/ 'I 5 S-rrn BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER In Re: AnMarCo' s Appeal of the Renton ) Environmental Review Committee's Issuance ) ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL of a Threshold Determination of Environmental ) N onsignificance-Mitigated with Mitigation ) Measures for the Proposed Harper Engineering ) Site Development ) ) City of Renton File #LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF ) AnMarCo, a Washington general partnership, hereby gives notice of its appeal of the above-referenced Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance- Mitigated with Mitigation Measures issued by the Renton Environmental Review Committee for the proposed Harper Engineering Site Development. I. FILING FEE A $75.00 check payable to the City of Renton is submitted herewith. II. APPELLANT'S ADDRESS AND PHONE AND FAX NUMBERS The Appellant's address and phone and fax numbers are: AnMarCo 9125 -JO'h Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Attn: Gary M. Merlino Phone No.: (206) 762-9125 Fax No.: (206) 763-4178 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL-Page I 1019Regents Blvd.,Suit,202 CC t.,-. · f ' ~ • C ./.. /f I/ J. g # (,, Fircrest, WA 98466 . . ,. ,y /''' 01 , ''V }( (206)443-4684/(253)627-6680 /1.l,! N r,ff"::> i::>t·i/ .)./( , p,,o kn' (253)272-9876FAX Si-O{y' 71.0r~--; //(< _s., l-13,AH/t. 1,jJI,:; . .,..,. c,lvek,1< 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 III.APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE The Appellant is represented by the undersigned. All pleadings and papers concerning this matter should be addressed to the undersigned at the following address ( as well as to the Appellant at the above-stated address): David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 1019 Regents Blvd, Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 Phone No.: (206) 443-4684 Fax No.: (253) 272-9876 IV. SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS IN FACT AND LAW WHICH EXIST IN THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS l I A. 12 Substantial Errors of Fact. I. The first sentence of the third paragraph of Part Two of the March 5, 2007 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Environmental Review Committee Report for the Harper Engineering Site Development (the "ERC Report") erroneously only refers to "[ a] jurisdictional wetland [being] present at the east end of the property (Exhibit 3)." In fact, a jurisdictional wetland is also present along the site's entire north boundary, along a long portion of the site near the site's south boundary, and in the east-central portion of the site. (See the March 26, 2006 Harper Property environmental review letter report and attachments prepared by Environ, copy attached-the "Environ Report".) 2. The third sentence of the third paragraph of Part Two of the ERC Report erroneously asserts that "[t]he project would require filling approximately 2,158 sf of wetland, re-establishing 4,420 sf or wetlands previously filled, and re-vegetating 5,843 sf of wetland buffer area." In view of the ERC' s lack of awareness of the jurisdictional wetlands ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL -Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6c80 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 within portions of the site in addition to the east end of the property, that sentence (a) radically understates the square footage of wetlands that the currently proposed project would require filling of and (b) renders incongruous the assertions regarding "re- establishing 4,420 sf or wetlands previously filled, and re-vegetating 5,843 sf of wetland buffer area." (See the Environ Report.) 3. The ERC Report's fourth paragraph, which asserts that "[ a] drainageway located abutting and parallel to the north property line would be filled and covered with a portion of the paved parking area,·· is erroneously misleading because (a) it fails to note that the entirety of that drainageway constitutes a City of Renton Category 3 Wetland and (b) it fails to note that the project, as proposed, would also fill and cover jurisdictional (Category 3) wetlands that are present near a long portion of the site's south boundary and in the east- central portion of the site. 4. The July 12, 2006 wetland delineation report prepared by Raedeke Associates concerning the Harper site (the "Raedeke Report") erroneously failed to disclose the existing Category 3 Wetlands along roughly the westerly two-thirds of the site's entire north boundary, along a long portion near the site's south boundary, and in the east-central portion of the site, wetlands that were delineated by the State of Washington Department of Transportation and, during January 2006, were confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as jurisdictional wetlands. (See the Environ Report.) 5. The first sentence of the first paragraph of Subsection 3 (Surface Water Impacts) under Section B (Mitigation Measures) of the ERC Report erroneously only refers to "a jurisdictional wetland [being] located at the northeast comer and along the east side of the property, abutting the right-of-way for State Route 167." In fact, a jurisdictional ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL -Page 3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 wetland is also present along the site's entire north boundary, along a long portion of the site near the site's south boundary, and in the east-central portion of the site. (See the Environ Report.) 6. The second sentence of the first paragraph of Subsection 3 under Section B of the ERC Report erroneously states that the wetland referred to in the fust sentence of Subsection 3 as delineated by Raedeke was 16.250 sf. In contrast, the area that the Raedeke Report calls a wetland ("Wetland A") is stated as being approximately 6,299 sf on the Harper site. (See Attachment H to the Environ Report, which is a copy of Figure 3 to the Raedeke Report.) 7. The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of Subsection 3 under Section B of the ERC Report is the statement of an unsupportable and unsupported assumption or opinion and is thus misleading and erroneous. To the Appellant's knowledge, no wetland consultants have made field determinations to demonstrate whether the bottom of the drainageway along the site's north boundary consists of native soils or fill soils. 8. The fifth paragraph of Subsection 3 under Section B of the ERC Report is a statement of an unsupportable and unsupported assumption or opinion and is thus misleading and erroneous. To the Appellant's knowledge, nothing in the record fairly supports that statement and, to the contrary, a portion of the west side of SR 167 drains into the north edge drainageway within the Harper site. 9. In view of the actual, regulated Category 3 Wetlands that exist on the Harper site, and the extent of the Harper proposal to fill them, the Harper project would have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact upon the Harper site wetlands. ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL -Page 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX • 2 3 4 5 10. In view of the actual, regulated Category 3 Wetlands that exist on the Harper site, the wetland mitigation and monitoring plan proposed by The Watershed Company as part of the Harper proposal for development of the Harper site is woefully inadequate to mitigate the impacts of wetland fill contemplated by the Harper development proposal. 11. Statements of other details of errors set forth in the Raedeke Report are 6 described in the Environ Report and are hereby incorporated by reference. 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 B. Substantial Errors of Law. I. With respect to Harper's proposed wetlands filling (even of just the portion of the site's wetland that the Raedeke Report recognized), the ERC Report impliedly and wrongfully presupposes that, under the circumstances of the site, RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 would permit wetlands filling of the Harper site. Thus, Mitigation Measure 6 set forth on page 3 of 9 of the ERC Report erroneously calls for a "wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer," presumably to accommodate The Watershed Company's wetland mitigation proposal. 2. In view of the actual, regulated Category 3 Wetlands that exist on the Harper site and even taking into account the City's existing development standards and environmental regulations, (a) the Harper proposal as currently designed would create a probable, significant adverse environmental impact upon the Harper site's wetlands and (b) the ERC's issuance of the DNS-M was clearly erroneous in view of the entire record and/or was made upon unlawful procedure or was affected by other error of law. REQUEST FOR RELIEF In view of the above, Appellant AnMarCo respectfully requests that the Examiner either: ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL -Page 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (a) reverse the DNS-M issued by the ERC and (i) require that an environmental impact statement be prepared for the Harper proposal or (ii) impose additional SEPA mitigating measures to prohibit the filling of the Harper site's Category 3 Wetlands; or (b) remand the matter to the ERC with direction to impose additional SEP A mitigating measures to prohibit the filling of the Harper site's Category 3 Wetlands. DA TED this 26th day of March, 2006. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. C:ICF\22931034\HarperlSEPA Appeal\NOTICE OF APPEAL.DI.doc ANMARCO'S NOTICE OF APPEAL -Page 6 Attorney for Appellant AnMarCo HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fireres~ WA 98466 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX • •. - CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 D Cash ~Check No. I C,(c s· /p D Copy Fee iri· Appeal Fee Description: ,,,, 'J .. , -· •, / 1/fn/(·ti' ·.' ) ·v Funds Received From: Name flaful f VI lt1 IC [/ ( > ~ / .· Receipt i\/ 0889 Date --~-"2-1-f---"-;;---"['--i, /c..c_·'.()_· ,.__{,,_·z-! I D Notary Service D __________ _ I Amount$ /!;.CU 1 .' j" I Address !C;, / 'l (·r,..,,,, i .".c f' i, ,,: . ,..I "'-7 .... l( •\ .. '! ;., ,i ;.;~(, ttJL-·7 , , City/Zip ---u, ) ' I f.-i ,-C ( /' d f :,1 .· f I ';• ·,. . · ~cv ' • ,. March 26, 2007 David L. Halinen, Esq. Halinen Law Offices, P .S. IO 19 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 ENVIRON Re: Harper Property environmental review Dear Mr. Halinen: At your request, I have completed a site reconnaissance and review of various environmental documents pertaining to a proposed development at the Harper Engineering site (King County Assessor's Parcel No. 3023059085 -referred to hereinafter as the Harper site) located at 2994 East Valley Road in Renton, Washington. In addition, I have reviewed environmental documents prepared by or on behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and by others that pertain to that site. Specifically, I have reviewed the following documents prepared in support of proposed development at the Harper site: (a) A wetland delineation report prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (Raedeke) dated July 12, 2006; (b) A geotechnical engineering study prepared by Geothech Consultants, Inc dated July 3, 2006; and (c) A Preliminary Wetland Creation and Buffer Enhancement Plan prepared by The Watershed Company (TWC) for the Harper Engineering Building dated January 16, 2007. Those three documents were all prepared in supp011 of an engineering and manufacturing facility proposed by Harper Engineering. Other documentaiy information that I have reviewed pertaining to the Harper site includes: (I) A Younker Property' Wetland delineation and Study Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants (Talasaea) dated May 2. 1996: 1 I understand that a Camilla Younker and Rhonda Younker owned what is now the Harper property during the 1990s and until February 15, 2006. when they deeded the property to 0.J. Harper by deed recorded under King County Recording No.20060215001507. 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite 100. Olympia, WA 98512 ,, \\"\\" ...:·11\ iw11;:orp.com Harper Property Environments, 1'.eview March 26, 2007 (2) Site, landscaping, grading and TESC plans (11 inches by 17 inches in size) for the proposed "Renton Automotive Center" dated May 1996 (a development proposal concerning what is now the Harper site); (3) A City of Renton Environmental Detennination & Administrative Land Use Action LUA-96-066,SA,ECF Report and Decision of July 3, 1996 (copy from microfiche records); (4) A Draft 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report prepared by WSDOT dated May 2006; and (5) A Draft Wetlands Discipline Report and a Soils. Geology, and Groundwater Discipline Report (both prepared by or on behalf of WSDOT for the 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project, 1-5 to SR 169 dated October 2005). Page2 My review has focused on whether the wetland determination methods used by the authors of the above- mentioned wetland studies were appropriate and the conclusions logical and accurate in relation to the supporting documentation and Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-0SOM (Wetlands). My findings and conclusions are presented below. FINDINGS WSDOT (and/or its consultants), Talasaea, and Raedeke have all identified wetlands on the Harper site. As I explain below, the findings and conclusions set fmth in the documentation of their investigations are not consistent among all of these investigators. WSDOT's and ENVIRON's Investigations A relatively large wetland associated with Panther Creek exists on the valley floor on the east side of SR 167 to the east of the Harper site. TI1at wetland, which is called the Panther Creek wetland complex by r WSDOT, is hydraulically connected to wetlands that have a ditch-like drainage course configuration on SR l67's west side. The WSDOT Soils, Geology, and Groundwater Discipline Report indicates that much of this area is identified as containing peat deposits. Peat is a hydric organic soil type. The ditch- like drainage course wetlands on the west side of what is now SR l 67 were undoubtedly part of those originally associated with the Panther Creek wetland complex and likely contain peat soils. Wetlands within the west margin of the SR 167 right-of-way adjacent to the Harper site are now composed of a mixture of non-native, invasive, and native trees, shrubs, and emergent plants. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and red alder (A/nus rubra) are common on the fill slopes adjacent to the wetland. Pacific willow (Salix lucida var. lasimulra), red-osier dogwood (Comus sericea), and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) are among the dominant native trees and shrubs within the wetland. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) also is common within the wetland. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \,.-,,. w .1..'n,·1roncorp.com Harper Property Environmenta, ,-eview March 26, 2007 Page 3 The photograph below, which I took during my February 6, 2007 reconnaissance, shows the scrub-shrub vegetation association and adjacent buffer within SR 167's west right-of-way margin looking northeast from a point about 150 feet south of the Harper site's southeast comer. Note the standing water and iron bacteria (orange coloration) in the wetland at the time of this reconnaissance. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) in the foreground is on the fill slope and within the wetland's buffer. On the day of my reconnaissance, the shallow surface water in the wetland was turbid, apparently due to recent stormwater runoff from SR 167. Surface water movement in the wetland was imperceptible at that time and it was unclear which direction the water was flowing in this vicinity. WSDOT's study identifies this wetland as Wetland 25.0L and shows this wetland extending (a) along the Harper site's entire east edge, (b) to the north and south of the Harper site along the SR 167 right-of-way's west edge and (c) well into the Harper site. (See the delineated, surveyed, and Corps-confirmed boundaries of Wetland 25.0L on the copy of the WSOOT wetlands map, Attachment A hereto.) Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) ofWSDOT's report indicates that this wetland encompasses a total area of 5.88 acres (Attachment B). According to WSDOT's Draft Wetlands/Biology Discipline Report (Section 2.3.1 on p. 2-2); the delineated boundaries of this and other wetlands within the I-' \. :'.. 405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project corridor were confirmed in January 2006 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Talasaea's Investigation The portion of Wetland 25.0L's boundaries on the Harper site was also delineated by Talasaea Consultants in 1996, Talasaea delineated a wetland (which it identified as Wetland A) that included the ditch-like drainage course wetland along the Harper site's north side as well as a relatively thin ('.S 25-foot wide) band along the toe of the then existing fill along the 2 Section 2.3.1 on p. 2-2 of WSDOT's Draft Wetlands/Biology Discipline Report states: 2.3.1 Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a jurisdictional determination of wetlands delineated in the project area on January 31, 2006. During this review process the Corps detennined that nine (9) areas described as "wetlands" following the initial field investigation did not meet Corps' jurisdictional standards because the 9 areas are located on elevated fill that is substantially higher than the surrounding wetlands. These 9 areas were then removed from the wetland delineation maps and are not discussed herein. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 ,,, \\ w.l'J!\ ir(1111.:orp.com Harper Property Environmenta, n.eview March 26, 2007 Page4 Harper site's east edge. Talasaea noted that the wetland along the Harper site's east edge extended offsite to the north and south along SR 167. The wetland boundaries delineated by Talasaea were also surveyed and mapped (Attachment C). Talasaea's study was completed in 1996 (which was before the current version ofRenton's Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted). Talasaea concluded that, under then-applicable City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (Attachment D), the wetland was unregulated because, in Talasaea's view, it was intentionally created for stormwater management purposes. However, Talasaea did not provide any convincing evidence for its conclusion, a conclusion that does not appear to be supportable. Talasaea established a single sample plot in the wetland and one in the adjacent upland and (reasonably) assumed hydric soils in the wetland based on the presence of more than 2 feet of water in the wetland sample plot. (See Attachment C for the sample plot locations). Because Talasaea did not sample the soils, Talasaea could not determine whether native soils or fill material was present. It appears that Talasaea made an assumption that the wetland was constructed for stonnwater management based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map designation (PFOCx). A PFOCx designation indicates a palustrine forested, seasonally flooded, excavated wetland. However, it is important to note that there is limited ground truthing or field verification of NWI map wetlands and Talasaea failed to provide any in regard to the soils in the subject wetland. Because the soils in the wetland were not examined, one cannot reasonably conclude that native soils were not/are not present and that the wetland was a wetland constructed for stormwater management as Talasaea had concluded. Talasaea's report was submitted to the City of Renton in support of a proposal to develop a Renton Automotive Center on the site (City of Renton microfiche file SA-96-066). The Renton Automotive Center was approved by the City but never built. However, a preload fill was apparently placed on the site as part of that proposed project. Sheet C-1, the grading and temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan (Attachment E, which was part of the 1996 application submittal) shows proposed silt fencing at or landward of the delineated wetland boundaries. During my February 6, 2006 site reconnaissance, I observed from my vantage point on the northeast comer of the adjacent AnMarCo site old silt fencing at or near the east edge of the Harper site. The silt fencing was obviously intended to protect the wetland, especially in view of the following statement on the project's Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 (Attachment F), which sets for the following note with an arrow pointing to the north edge wetland (which it labels as a "ditch" and refers to as a "natural area"): Natural area will remain undisturbed where possible. Existing plant material includes cattails, cotto11wood a11d willow. (Emphasis added.) Along that same line of protecting the wetland, Condition 2 on page 12 of 14 of the City's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center required that "[t]he applicant shall attempt to eliminate the culverting and minimize the extent of the rockery necessary along the existing north drainage ditch, subject to the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to issuance ofbuilding permits." (See Attachment G.) 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \\ \'> \\. L"l1\ 1n1ncorp.com Harper Property Environmenta, "-eview March 26, 2007 Raedeke's Investigation Page 5 Raedeke also delineated a wetland on the Harper site (and, like Talasaea, called it Wetland A) but reached a different conclusion as to the extent of the wetland than did either WSDOT or Talasaea. Raedeke's investigation was conducted on May 17, 2006, which was after the wetland boundaries delineated on the site by WSDOT's consultants had been confirmed by the Corps. (Neither the WSDOT delineation of Wetland 25.0L nor the Corps confinnation thereof was noted in the Raedeke report.) In contrast to both WSDOT's and Talasaea's wetland delineations, Raedeke called approximately the western two-thirds of the ditch-like drainage course along the site's nrnth edge a stream (see the copy of Figure 3 ofRaedeke's report, Attachment H). This determination was reprntedly based on a lack of any rooted vegetation within the inundated areas (Raedeke, Section 3.3.3 p. I 0) and because this portion of the site was mapped as urban land in the Soil Survey of King County. In Raedeke's lone sample plot within this area (SP8, the location of which is depicted on Figure 3 ofRaedeke's report), soils were not sampled and hydric soils were assumed based on the presence of 12 inches of inundation. Absence of wetland vegetation in this area was the result of clearing and site modifications that you advised me took place in the early part of 2006, apparently immediately following OJ. Harper's February 15, 2006 acquisition of the property. That such clearing took place is evident from contrasting (a) the relatively extensive and taller vegetation (including various trees and shrubs along the site's no1th edge) that can be clearly seen on the two June 13, 2002 aerial photos (Attachment I, sheets 1 of2 and 2 of 2, one being an oblique aerial photo and the other being a directly overhead aerial photo) with (b) the vegetation ranging from very limited to none that can be seen on the set of ground photos of various portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, a date that was only a few months after the clearing took place. (Attachments J-1 through J-3 are her photos of broad areas of the Harper site, Attachments K-1 and K-2 are her photos of the north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east with standing water clearly visible in it and Attachments L-1 through L-6 are her photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them including within the area that Raedeke called Area B-see discussion of Area B, below.) Raedeke's conclusion that the western part of the ditch-like drainage course is not part of the wetland is an error and is not supported by the data provided in Raedeke's report or by the statements in Raedeke's report about recent site modifications. Because, at the time ofRaedeke's investigation. much of the site's vegetation had recently been removed, a determination should have been made using the atypical situation method of wetland delineation rather than the routine onsite determination method.' 'The atypical situation method is described in Section F (Atypical Situations) of Part IV (Methods) of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94, Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997. In Section F (Routine Determinations) of Part IV, the Manual specifies the situations under which the routine onsite determination method should be used. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \\W\\ .. c n \ · 1 l"l'!l corp.com Harper Property Environmenta, "eview March 26, 2007 A culvert exists near the Harper site's northwest corner. That culvert extends into East Valley Road, which abuts the Harper site's west edge. On February 6, 2007, from my vantage point near the East Valley Road, I took the photograph shown to the right from a point near the culvert inlet (which is not shown in the photo but would be off of the lower left-hand corner of the photo) looking east down the ditch-like drainage course wetland along the Harper site's north edge. As that photograph shows, (a) at least a 30 Page 6 percent vegetative cover exists over the western portion of the ditch-like drainage course wetland and (b) the vegetative cover of this wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass, red-osier dogwood, and red alder (A/nus rubra). All of these species are at least partially rooted within the inundated ditch-like drainage course wetland. These species have FACW, FACW, and FAC wetland indicator statuses, respectively, and this plant association meets the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. Therefore, the western portion of the ditch-like drainage course actually is a wetland, which is what Talasaea and WSOOT both concluded. Under Renton's current wetland regulations, this wetland is a Category 3 wetland because it fits the definition set forth in RMC 4-3-0SOM. l .a.iii'. meeting all three of the criteria in subsection (a). Further, 4 RMC 4-3-0SOM. l .a.iii states: iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: ( I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill. soil removal and/or compaction of soils: and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (I) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite l 00, Olympia, WA 98S 12 \\"\\W.~ll\ truncor-p.com Harper Property Environmenta, "eview March 26, 2007 Page 7 because it is impossible for the applicant to demonstrate that the ditch-like drainage course wetland meets all of the "Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands" criteria ofRMC 4-3-0SOM.l.e.ii,S this wetland cannot be considered nonregulated by the City of Renton. Raedeke also identified a second area (which it called Area B) that had wetland characteristics but concluded that it was not a regulated wetland but had evolved in the preload fill that was permitted in relation to the approved but never built I 996 Renton Automotive Center proposal. The Raedeke report indicates that, according to a Gary Gaston, Gaston Brothers Excavating, this area had been cleared of vegetation early in 2006. The report also indicates that it was understood that this was an artificially created wetland that had been excavated out of the previously placed fill for stormwater management (Section 3.3.21 I). However, WSDOT's delineated wetland boundaries (Attachment A), which the Corps confirmed in January 2006 (before Raedeke's investigation), included this area. The Attachment I 2002 aerial photographs of Area B show taller vegetation, including some trees and shrubs, than the virtually bare ground that existed when Heidi Kludt took her ground photos of that area a few months after the clearing and grading (Attachments K-1 through K-6). The fact that the Corps confirmed this area to be a wetland and the area was thereafter immediately cleared and apparently partially graded (see Attachments L-1 through L-6) strongly suggests that the work violated the City of Renton wetland protection regulations as well as the federal and state Clean Water Acts. Proposed Harper Site Wetland Mitigation Plan I have also reviewed the Preliminary Wetland Creation and Buffer Enhancement Plan prepared by TWC. This plan indicates that the western portion of the ditch-like drainage course wetland would be filled and a culvert installed in this portion of the wetland as well as in a part of the north edge wetland further to the east that Raedeke acknowledged as such. The total estimated wetland impact area into Raedeke's Wetland A is 2,158 square feet. That impact area estimate fails to include either (I) the area of the western two-thirds of the ditch-like drainage course wetland, which would be entirely filled under the (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. > RMC 4-3-0SOM. l.e.ii states: ii. Nonregulated Category 3 Wetlands: Based upon an applicant request, the Department Administrator may determine that Category 3 wetlands are not considered regulated wetlands, if the applicant demonstrates the following criteria are met: (a) The wetland formed on top offill legally placed on a property; and (b) The wetland hydrology is solely provided by the compaction of the soil and fill material; and (c) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that they will not take jurisdiction over the wetland. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \\ \\ \\·.c11Yin111t.:Of1).COll1 Harper Property Environmenta, .-eview March 26, 2007 Harper proposal, or (2) the entire area identified by Raedeke as Area B (which is part of the Corps- confirmed WSDOT Wetland 25.0L), which also would be filled under the proposal. Page 8 There are two false premises upon which TWCs mitigation plan is based. The first of those premises is that the Raedeke wetland delineated wetland boundaries are accurate. Because of this false premise, TWC fails to accurately identify the impacts to the existing wetlands confirmed by the Corps (see Attachment A). As noted above, both Talasaea and WSDOT delineations concluded that the entire ditch- like drainage course area along the Harper site· s northern boundary is a wetland. Environ likewise believes that the entire ditch-like drainage course is a wetland. The second false premise is that piping the ditch-like drainage course wetland would not result in the loss of wetland function. Best available science (BAS) clearly indicates that piping the ditch-like drainage course wetland would result in the loss of function, which is contrary to the intent of the Gro"1h Management Act and of the City's Critical Areas code provisions that are intended to protect wetland functions. Bearing in mind those two false premises, I have evaluated the preliminary mitigation plan relative to the portions ofRMC 4-3-0SOM pertaining to wetland mitigation. RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 specifies that ifan applicant proposes wetland changes "for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods for developing the property [ using a specified four-part list of criteria in the order presented] and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible." RMC 4-3-0SOM.8 then goes on to state that "in determining whether to grant permit approval ... , the Revie-,ving Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible." The first listed criterion is to avoid ill1J! disturbances to the wetland or buffer. TWC's proposed plan for the Harper development proposal fails to meet that criterion by not providing reasons why impacts to the wetland (i.e., fill for parking) are not unavoidable. Ordinarily, a compelling reason to fill a wetland (like where the only possibility for a road or utility access corridor to a property would involve wetland filling) is necessary before disturbance to a wetland can be found to justify wetland impacts. Here, nothing more than overall facility size is at stake. It appears that Harper purchased a property that simply was not large enough for the desired facility and its corresponding parking needs. An ecology-block retaining wall is proposed that would reduce impacts to the eastern part of the wetland near the eastern property boundary. However, it appears that the fill impacts could be avoided entirely by reducing the scope of the project or by developing the project on a larger site and leaving the Harper site for a development that would fit within the site's constraints. No special circumstances exist here (such as the need for a road crossing of a wetland where no other roadway route exists) that necessitate any of the proposed wetland fill or any wetland buffer encroachment. That being the case, the City's Reviewing Official should have rejected the Harper proposal. I have evaluated the rest of the mitigation proposal relative to the goal ofno net loss of wetland area or function (RMC 4-3-0SOM.9.a) and specified replacement ratios (RMC 4-3-0SOM. l l .e). The proposal would impact emergent vegetation within the Category 3 wetland. The code-specified replacement ratio for wetland creation/restoration is 1.5 times the amount of the proposed impact. The proposed impact, which is identified as 2,158 sq. ft., is incorrect because it fails to include the western two-thirds of the 5232 Kinney Rd SW. Suite I 00, Olympia, WA 98512 \\ \\ w.cm iro11corp.com Harper Property Envirorunenta1 Keview March 26, 2007 Page9 north edge ditch-like drainage course wetland or Raedeke's Area B. Therefore, the proposed mitigation (4,597 sq. ft. of wetland "re-establishment") does not meet the required replacement ratio criterion. As it stands now, the proposed mitigation plan would result in both a loss of wetland area and function based on the Corps-confinned WSDOT Wetland 25.0L boundaries. CONCLUSIONS All investigators (WSDOT, Talasaea, and Raedeke) have identified the wetland abutting the east side of the Harper site. This wetland has been identified as part of Wetland 25.0L by WSDOT. It extends north and south of the site adjacent to SR 167 as well as along the north boundary of the site to East Valley Road. Both Talasaea and WSDOT correctly identify the entire ditch-like drainage course feature along the Harper site's north edge as wetland. The wetland boundaries delineated by WSDOT have been confirmed by the Corps. Therefore, Raedeke' s conclusions that Area B and the western two thirds of the ditch-like drainage course along the north boundary are not a wetland is in error. Clearing and alterations to the wetland that were conducted immediately after the wetland boundaries were confmned by the Corps in Janu81)' 2006 appear to have been unauthorized and thus a violation of both RMC and the federal and state Clean Water Acts. The subject wetland appears to be accurately classified as a City of Renton Category 3 wetland. According to RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c.i, Renton' s standard buffer for a Category 3 wetland is 25 feet. The Harper Engineering proposal does not provide justification for why the impacts to the wetland carmot be avoided as required by the RMC. The previous proposal for the Renton Automotive Center, which was approved by the City, required that impacts to virtually the entire wetland (which the City called a "ditch'') be avoided. A similar conclusion is now warranted given the more stringent code now in place and to be consistent with BAS and the Growth Management Act mandate and the purpose of the RMC to protect the existing functions of wetlands. Furthermore, the proposed mitigation plan inaccurately identifies the extent of wetland impacts and thereby proposes an insufficient area of compensatory mitigation and does not meet the replacement ratio requirements specified in the RMC. Lastly, the proposed filling in of portions of Wetland 25.0L would destroy those portions of the wetland, causing a probable significant adverse environmental impact to them. Such proposed wetland filling would permanently deprive the abutting AnMarCo property of the envirorunental amenities that those portions of Wetland 25.0L and its buffers provide, such as open space and habitat for song birds and other small animal species. If I may provide any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 285- 3015. Sincerely, ENVIRON INTERNATIONAL CORPOR<\ TION SCOTT LUCHESSA Certified Ecologist, M.S. 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite l 00. Olympia, WA 98512 www .u1vironcorp.com Harper Property Environmenta, ,~eview March 26, 2007 Attachments: Page 10 Attachment A-Corps Confirmed WSDOT Wetland Boundaries (Wetland/Biology Report Figure 3-E) Attachment B -Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) of WSDOT's 1-405, Renton Nickel lmprave111e11t Project Wetland/Biology Report Attachment C-Talasaea's (1996) Delineated & Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Talasaea's Figure 4) Attachment D -Page from City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (taken from Talasaea Report Appendix B) Attachment E-Renton Automotive Center Grading and TESC Plan, Sheet C-1 (1996) Attachment F -Renton Automotive Center Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 Attachment G-Pages I, 12 and 14 of 14 of the City ofRenton's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center Attachment H-Raedeke's Delineated and Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Raedeke's Figure 3) Attachment I-Two June 13, 2002 aerial photos encompassing the Harper site (one oblique and one overhead) Attachments J-1 through J-3 -Set of three ground photos of various broad portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, which was only a few months after Harper property site work took place and had not yet had much time to reestablish Attachments K-1 and K-2-Set of two ground photos of the Harper site north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east (with standing water clearly visible in it) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 Attachment L-1 through L-6 -Set of six ground photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them (including within the area that Raedeke called Area 8) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 5232 Kinney Rd SW, Suite 100, Olympia, WA 98512 \\'\\'\\".Cll\ ironcorp.com .... Attachment A Corps Confirmed WSDOT Wetland Boundaries (Wetland/Biology Report Figure 3-E) • 22-06 ATTACHMENT A Streams CiZl Permanent Impact ,11V•,.A';1.~,,.,.' ~ Temporary Impact •Wetlands "' National Wetland Inventory ~ D Proposed Footprint ,.,.-,= .. ·"---Proposed Retaining Walls N + 0 150 300 ---Fe el 600 / Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetlands FIGURE 3-E Washington S1ate Department of Transportation I Renton Nickel Improvement Project Welland/Biology Report Attachment B Table 4-1 (on page 4-2) of WSDOT's 1-4051 Renton Nickel Improvement Project Wetland/Biology Report ATTACHMENT B Table 4-1: FIiied or Dl8tl.U'bed Wetlands, l-406 Renton Nlckel Improvement ProJect PetlUlienl Temporary FIiied or FIiied or OtherwlM 00..WIM TtfflPOl'll'Y Dlawbed Disturbed Direct Buffa Buffs W .... IIIIOR . Locll Wetland Wetland Wellend lmf:-~ lmpaotAne S:-co1o~· Jul1lldlcllan and Rllllna1 ldantlfla,. Alu(aernl ANa(acrN1 Ana{acresl ,.....,,l 0.15A 0.1A 0.25M 0.3A 0.4l 0.51. 0.81.. 0.9R 1.7R 2.2R 2.31R 2.6l 2.81L 2.9L 24.7A 25.0l 25.7l TOTAL 0.52 . . . . Ill Tukwlla-2 0.05 . . . . IV Tukwila·3 0.07 . . . . IV Tukwlla·3 1.29 . . . . 111 Tukwila-2 0.11 0.08 O.Ql 0.21 0.05 IV Tukwi1a·3 0.05 0.05 . . . IV Tukwila-3 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.07 IV Tukwi1a·3 1.01 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.04 Ill Tukwi1a·2 0.46 0.46 . . Ill Renton-3 0.10 . . 0.0, 0.01 Ill Renton-3 0.03 . . . . IV Renton-NA 0.02 0.02 ' . IV Renton-NA 0.03 . . . . Ill Renton-NA 1.07 --. . Ill Renton-3 6.98 . . . . II Renton·! 5.88 0.99 0.56 2.71 0.06 Ill Renton-3 0.30 . . 0.01 0.03 Ill Renton-3 18.14 1.62 0.59 3.14 0.21 'NR -Non-n,gulatecl. City of Renton catego,y 3 w9/!ands Ins tl!an 2,200 square fetll al'I.I exwnpt from ,egu/ation under Renton Munlcipa/ Code Crlt/ca/ Alllff Regulations (RMC 4- 3-50 Bm). City of Tukwila· Wetlands 1,0CO square feel and /e$S that dr, not meet any we/land rating crlttHfa ar& exempt from requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code Chepler 18.45 (TMC 18.45. IBOA). Renton lll/ck91 /""'°l'i9/ll<IIII Pm/81!1 Welland/Biology Repott May2008 4-2 Attachment C Talasaea's {1996) Delineated & Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Talasaea's Figure 4) ,t:; }~ i.\ ~;' '·'"1ffi ' ' i~ '"-i;, ·'!!:• J~ .:/ ~' ~. ~ \. I! .. '. -· .. ... ..--. ... ... ·" . .. ... ,I ... .·· " -=-. ·-/.···· 5f •• ,,,co;ll9..:.,9r,;.,, .. -T.r .. -:..F •• • IL.• ... • .. ... •' ,"• .. --------·-----~----,-- •---.,_ / ---~~ .. ......... . ... WETLANDA-.1 -- , . ..... ' ·" ,,• ... / ,ri .•' ,,• .•' • ,• ... .•' .•· ... _______ ,,,.r e..:f iUF'•".!rn::r..aT.:a t.CIM. DIIC:Rl,.TION or 111c•o, 1g) NORTH M lllllfflt ...,.,, W nc llllffll -., or ttC 10Whll -., Ill 1fll HU'*llt IIIMIDI 91 M MllllC.U, ...nt ti' ttUIC. .. , ,,.....,, 11 Nlfflil, ..... I bl1, •.11 •• I• ••Ill COUltT'l',wt.lMI•,•• ~==.-: .. "=:.:=l·"=".::i:..,£t,"~'=· 'LI:l,f~-=-~, .cu ,u.u ... tte t11111nM, ..a •1•·• ,n,c 1111. 1S4HN .o CIICll'T nli CIT H ,rn ... IIWe -Al Nm AWC, I. ' ... . ... CALE: I "=SO' ... ... SOURCE: Group Four, Inc., Apl'il 1996. 0 1,6 tr) TALASAEA e CONSVLT ANTS JlllOUttt,.. &n.,.,anmenlAI l'l•nnl"I lffHl•OIII. .... """-' ~ .......... ,,. lt,,li QNJ Nl•ll)\,-<*)Nl•1~• ,.;mm rc,'flUIII.,..,_ FIGURE 4. Wetlands Map DIS1CM IUMSED Ill~ ,. . ._._ . .,._,.,....,., •. _____ .... • ~ XS, w1 r~ i;; I 1?(1,.~ (.,~~ tVl!f ~'t:1 ii, lr,.~1: l>~ -f" -t~~; )>\ n'· i~ z· -..: n .. ' Attachment D Page from City of Renton Ordinance No. 4346 Section 4-32-3C (taken from Talasaea Report Appendix B) APPENDIXB SECTION 4-32•3C CITY OF RENTON - WETLAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (Approved March 9, 1992) ATTACHMENT D ... ... •• B. c. ··,E.C:. i-10,-l '-I • '\ 2. • )C. ORDINANCE NO, 4346 • • utility adopted exempted . and other. use permit, or 11ny subsequently • permit or required approval not expressly" by this chapter. Maps and Inventory. The approximate location and extent of w~tlands in the City of Renton is displayed on the Renton Wetland Inventory M~p. The Map is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of wetlands. For the purpose of regulation, the wetland £,dge should be determined pur.suant to Section 4-J2-J .c. Wetla11ds, which are defined in section 4-32-3.C but not shown on the Renton Wetlands Inventory, are presumed to exist in the City of Renton and are also protected under al\ the pLovisions of tnis chapter. Wetlands Definition and Determination of Regulatory Edge. l, Wetlands are those lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems that are inundated or saturated by ground or ~urface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typical.lY adapted tor life in saturated soil conditions. For thP purpose ot regulation, the exact location of the wetland odge 11hall be determined by the wetlands specialist hired 111: tho expense of the applicant .thro\,gh the performanc.a ot • field investigation using the procedures provid11d 111 th• following manual: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989, l-'ederal Manual foi;- Identifying and Delineating Jui;-isdictional wetlands. u.s Army corps of Engineers, u.s. Environmental . Protection Agency, U, s. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D,A. Soil conservation Service. Washinc;iton D,C, cooperative Technical Publication. 76 P,ages plus appendices. wetlands created or restored as ~~J;.l'l',9~'!'•·a •. ,,ll\;~.i,;\\1;t9n 12ro-lect a~!3..,.regulated wetlands. , etlands:i.,iriten.t:l..2D.!~1·' ¥:'"'''~ ..... ~ ·1,,;,. ...... ~ . ,, .... · .. ~ .... '1'• -"li" -~--,~~.1~~-,.,.. .. ~--· ... ' ,:. ' t ,. .,cizea,.e ·. ,,. q~w ~r:evses,_\i:41 '-e · · a ., ;, a · ,tp...,;,.4 ga , incX'wi' nf.#,I»,µ_ij~J[c;i~1~iim.i. e .. ~o·~ · .!s ' •. . ' Q.lll!!li!DI ·i, ;~~--1£!:l~\'~:K9.~~~I\ lint ·es~taaro·:..;.rl.o.t 2. Where the applicant has provided a delineation or tha wetland edge, the city shall review and may rdnder adjustmen'l:,s to the edge delineation. In the event the adjusted edge delineation is contested by the applicant, the City shall, at the applicant's expense, obtain tto services of an additional qualified wetlands specialist to review the original study and render a final delineation •. : J. A final wetlands delineation is valid for two years. ·· 6 l i i i I Attachment E Renton Automotive Center Grading and TESC Plan, Sheet C-1 (1996) ..... :i . :·i·:;, .. ~· ' UU' \ l M···· ............... ~ GRADING & TEsc· PLAN ?--,, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ... ~ ..... ~ '"' .. ' ,,.. ··~· . ., SI 2:0,S.W 1 •O,NE 1 40,PIH ,a Dl JUD f~ 98111 I: E Of ltt1D_ 8 VICINITY MAP: W--.:. •I!\ ~ ·-: •. • ! ,. t ·----,tl'Q'tlfNW$, ....---..... T~ ,..u .. ""''°"'"'' ..,..,,, f""'' ,..,,,u •'h.l~IHit ~~t·,!~ C~~!:~,~ .. I; !:~~r:~ .. ~l'l''I·' e\"'"'9 Pd ~ l'lf ,,,,. tQn1111J~q. ~~t Pn~tk::t ~J .... ~ON .... ~ PROPOSED BLDG fFoo2,.o• / CNII -.._. ~ ~e.o.:ix •-./•~J· ltlllo ""'~ CIPOr IW.~0 If ~tl!~'c""~<••!!...:...l),.-------------i_,.5!t:;-;;.Jl,:;,~'4J. :; .:.rN .... ".... . \ ~t :,.o·~on"I.' l'fllLMt ' llffll ID" ... u"""'t w, ,.._ . ~~· ,4·~'Vr.t4m,. \ f1il9" QoH,.l'll,lb..Clhc:.I.,,., ,,.~.,.. .... ~~~ ... } ,.,<t. v .......• ;.-rr. a ,n "' .,, ikoH, . ,._.,.,.,,... --~1:1," L ,-n~ . • ~'" .. •tn,;~ •11<1 .... ffl "-::i"' , ... :ru:t ~:·~t, 't.:''M~:~.:r •~r ~,. w ~ ...... 1.,., . .• , :r1m1t r"'~!"TOUil. 60' w1ac 'ltu. ~~~~'t 'J!'!' IQNGl'Ttl AH' qi.' I' l'I' ,a• 14 CIA. '-'IRt rllllRII:: ~ CIIUIV, rr ":i·---· t-" -· '"' ~ '. LL=" ::·~···-· .. -··-······"~ ... Bll'rl w1i-OM or r•artie. Ml'ITtlU,\l. IN It' D"I" le' 1-NCM ,t"--" IWl___ll • u l'l1,.T(I tM~lf;" l,ATt~l,I\. t:.::"\;;~~~if .. -:'"'f~:.r.·: ~.:!.: -: ::· .. ~ SILT .FENCE NT$, e ~ ~ . . . ·., ~·~,-t! . i" .. . ;t ·~·"-~ 1 •• , ...... .,.-3 !l'i~"m....~nirr · ", -. . R • l$'""" . .113"'" =.. I ~·-.. -~ ~ .. AD11:D tit _tilt "~ei.ss k. ·-· 111-•~t. ·~ "'1V• 1'. Un 4• to e• t:1111!'1'1 1HIII ~r ~d· ,·,:rdt tor _.FW'11I ~i d'i111rr.. 110t•rirr.1 '*'"' .,. .... II-nnl •c«Dh\ilii~-· ,i!;. llw 100: --L•aa•h,,holl lo'°J:""~1-111 .,, .,.r••-~~~-·"'~1,,,. '11~\n-r..l If M1 'h'ICHtlll'~ 0 tlw P lit r111111....,r•ft7' -ll/i7'i~-~~~~~;. . L 4 : 11.V.~:• 11'11....m --= \~ -1 .\\ \ ·\ . -~-.\ .... ?l . f . __.. ... • 01 . . -.l. \ \ 'l I\ \ ' I\ " 4 Gt.. '::.,... ' ---=-,....; ,:JJ k~ll~~ . RI' o, ' 'Alt i,4'HA)( 't--e,,._i:.....,. I\ I~~~· ••14111 : . ·1' ·3H1IV• ... v ... ,v ... 1 ·: .. f ~l?~!ALE © Cot1fbruot1on 6!'1\UCJl1Qo: I, ·""°""£!0 •ir1r!l pt:t:<inA ~ol1dt:ru11t1011 ti"!°"'dt\e W1t.h 1:h11 ~If.Vol' ~nr.eitt IM~ 2, P/&e 01Mt1ft0 Umlt.~ ' "3. lhlf4IU flitdrhHoci. · 4, ltf,kA)( (;OI\Cl~l'i!Qtloii ~Jlt100, 6. .. 111,b.itll Mni~Uit.b,i -t;rap•, El, G!'Me &Ito·, .. . · 7, "lndt.1111 i:1wrtr1 llfraln D)'Dto,trt an.::I utlll'lllae, 6, rn,.,Jdo aa111c!h tul!l/11 ptJt.!ic:tltxt, 118 roqutn,,s!. 9, ~ Or 01.1dAOC1 dhrt:ut!1ad .IIN!.110, 10, C:l~n Out ;iufl t«.o~ ll~ltn dr.Alll ~om: 11, ~ o0Jl "1noou 11111'1/' 111•11 h.111 ffln i:1-tatlll:rad lll!d thtl C:11.y'e In~ h•11 ~thon,mwid, · I.JoT~,l,l,LL 1"~5.t.~AD"\.:/aJll\ . .&.MAL°t. .:oM"'L'(.". ;; , ~·:':':':.":./WJTH HO r"liC:h'JflQIJ.-AUQl'tT, __ . ATTACHMENT E L·DG .... ch1t-.t• ................. ~ 111'1• ... ,.._. ava. n -... aaa .. -.wA. ... CIIC4Jl .. CIW4 ~:;;:•.: ~·' -~, t:,·:1:~i;l ,•· ., . r~"'I r-i r.:' )!.i! ·e·i-r:-4"-1) ~~J't';" (-~-~--7 • ~;1\; ,.;I ,1 ' \'S'\==I \-~,l ~·- ,, ~tHle<. ' . PIIOl'OIID; R!U®N""'1'C'llllm!ICIIIRII NVID.CNDIIIYl. IIIIICIIUlltHVll.41l&fl'CDIII. -~-=4$1/t'IE&.E. WA eaaao 7~7f M liffl!lit, WA eheet tllleo -·-- no,\r.wlin i:'i:1"1:rue-~tel I lol> .... I"""""• ~,. <l'D' ,~~~.,,.,..,,., 1v ..... w i;:rlYPl'llf~1 ... 1, ©~ ~ -"° duti ~-ll•H Attachment F Renton Automotive Center Landscape plan, Sheet L-1 [[1'1 't:Jj\ : ·_. -_::··. ··• ·:_--:::·~:.'.,~-:::_-~·-.:-:'·:: .. ·.,·: .: . ··. -. -_-.. -I . . . ·. . . -· . ·.. . ·. .... . .. . ·~, A3TIVA .J.SV3 !a• .-r · .. -· · .. :~-.-.--.-~·.: __ · :. ·.-• .: -.·~-_: -. ·· ·. II ' . . ,-. -. --~. . ... . ' ... . . · ... ; . . '.. -. . ,_. :,'. ...• ,i:·, · .. i:;~··(>·;::· :.-_'::. :·_ .. ·. -. • ":···.· ·-:,--::"_:-,··_: ··-:'' :·_·r:· -~ ....... _ .' :. ·, .·:·· .· "..-.~ ·. ..~ . . . . ;-.. . . \ .-· _;.~· .... : : ~ . :· -~:\::~.i:~. :._:: .... : .. . ·:· . ' .•• -.• -.-_.-. :: •. . • • • • ·.': • • < . I . ' . ---. . ·.: . . - ~-. . i : t 1 · H-+++-+++t-i--r.11 l I f l ~ I ~--· > . Attachment G Pages 1, 12 and 14 of 14 of the City of Renton's July 2, 1996 Site Plan Approval for the Renton Automotive Center " -' Attachment H Raedeke's Delineated and Surveyed Wetland Boundaries (Raedeke's Figure 3) "' ~ .,, g_ m "' C 0 ~ m .£ ~ "O C ~ :11 I 0 0 N ~ I • C 0 "' 'ii C 0 " "' C ~ ~ -o ~ <;> )g § <D ~ _;;.; ~ ~ m ~ U) "' C r m m C a, C "' ~ m e-m I ~ 0 0 \;l u m .,. a: 'io E m E il 8 >- ~ " m E m z -" U: • • ATIACHMENTH FIGURE 3 North quarter corner. THE RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS LLC Section 30. Township 23 norlh. Range 5 eost. W.M. found punch in 3/8" brass plug, incased at the 1n\er:seclio11 of Sou\h 23rd S\., and Eosl Volley Higt\woy. HARPER ENGINEERING SAt-llUP.'r S(rl[R MAle!HOL! RU.I 16.01 S" P\IC W a.JG IE s· PvC N S.:Y.i I[ fl" PYC S S.25 IE C---6.0 eosl of monument case 19 ~ wilti panel mark. -nl~o . i l -North llne or the _ ::: South 1/2 of lhi: (, ui Sou\hwest 1/4 of tee~~ ! i-,.. the Nodh~os\ 1/4 STORIJ. OP.AIN,l,G[ liAANHOI..E '"' .,_.> ~ of Section :30 I l l l I I. l \ ., ,o -. :.• \ •'· e.· eyclone ,~ce .a .~ 6 cyclone ,~1>ce ..,.., ~ J n RENTON, WASHINGTON EXISTING CONDITIONS \ \ \ \ \ \ R!I.I 194" ~--;.'-\ ,-t,;,· ,,., l"QJ\\ ,t,:md,;ird STREAM · ~---lown!lh~ 23 florth, \ ~ ·.. . , ',°"I~ rUnd•m;iround P"'"" ~Range east, W.M Set ,hub with tock onhne \ • .·.:-· IS"COIICR[T[ CI.Jl.',(RT A 21.3 west of corner 10'1/11 ~·· l ~ ·.:.11 · 13.7ol[ I B.J'N ~ , ~ ',.•,l' -. "',~-..._ , ) 1DP: c.f flo1Cl' ~ Top of ~l , :.J,.;,.------·-·---=~:..-::-·----·--·----·--·--·----------·-·-, .,;/{ Top o~ote.r ?') , .. ·":".,, ·~ "~::..... '\.: ... , ,i14..7 feet i~_~2B'S 1-4.7 feet -~_2~......,.-~-.5~-'M'-.!o!..ti:,-_ • ..~-___ ':~':' :---.:!2£:.;--.-, -~~--M~~.;:.4-4--,-~~;~ "i:r"--t-lo·--~,.,.. f \ 1U f : ,'•E ,. "frj· --ti ,._}..f'U'·;;:'~-"""-=.,=--";:_ -~ .. .,.,,;;.,... .. -.. ~---~ ,...._.-._--.,~--.,,.. .. _..,..;;;~..,,;,..,... -;;;....,,r..,,.-... .,$:.,.._---------- (1j' -:• , '"'JO. • ~-~---~l~ ---{n, II ,~· "'~--=-.:._.. -=---~"'8'!--~) N891&56~f 457:2:'L--::-::..-.~-~~~--~· -~..//.../.LL/ A,1.,....,-,..;.,::;:,.:;Q:£"-d,".)'b TopDf'ffolel' 12161' ~ 0 .-J I ,,,_ "'" l'-,...,.-" "¥,;,·;3-... " / 't" ---,. • D -• -" ' i> ~.;: .. ::·;•. w,,~ .\4 .~-~~<-,!==-..,.-.L--r.:-:~.::----~ .... ~~_;,-=-::~~":...:-= --wr-R.r ..... -· • · rl · .•, 30 0 • ,-·" ---,.c,,, ---r.:;;;-.....------hb.·---~!!_+:·---··-,.,_. • -: ,: pal~ Op.... -;-,·-i::~-i::i"-:. :.SPB ~ j o" .. , Wf 4 ·o· --------v-'.!.-----...IVL;:-.._;:...... --\ \ \ \ S!te Benchmork Elevotion 1B.76 feei SKIP.1,1 OP.AINA(;E l,l.,HHOI..E i°! }\J{;,}fl \i~~:~;,:~.~~::i~~;~t~~:_-;~_-t~::~;:]l~~:;=~-.;===~===-=-~;:==~~~~~~~1~[.~]~};;i;i\0, ::>-i, 6 '• i:b' ';-.:,!!. ~ •, {Tronsfon= / -........._ /'•·' ··~······· Wf -:.c .t/ r-,~ '"' n ·,, ! '' Q) Cl tllj ,•/~ LI p,:,d / ---/ ,.,. \ [LJ'l , \~ \ • .----1·~ . .-~ •• ·-,.,_<F / -,.!1/.J.-~,P~ \1i .--I·· '"'01•: ·ob' f ,..--~~ -II· 11 \II ,!O,fonHoring ..,~a; ~, -~· •.• / , -, •' I , 'I. ''" \'. CI.J,;• :·• -: •. :;' /'' -... " 0 : 1 \f \ >·. ·.?.••;" ~ / /,.:> '-... ~,-C"( :IP. • { "· ·::;1;;-1.,. '.;; / •' <' / .' -', AREA B ·,·'1' ~,J SP4 ,,, \'. +J .. 'BJ , ... ..,. lO : . ::·..y.-l:l1.~ I ,p~ i ' ·'',r' '\' • . [/) .. -:~-~.-w ~ / ' ,, ... ,, ... \ \ \' -i~',,~~ '·/ -- .F . --------.• -------- ('lj • •.• .. ', D I O / ' A 3 565 F \ ' ., \ I µ1 ·· .. >,.:·:,j ... _;; \ , , pprox. , S .!;'1 ,., i, · ,, ••• -•• co / ' ' .. J.•JJ. 0 1 \ l 8 ·. -~-~-:f ':"' \ ; , ""' ""'-::::.,<4~~bL" 2 RI. \ • -··.-,li;'..,, g /; \ ' 1/J ' ,.~ ~\ --.~}~~ ""'~ . ,. . I .,. \ .. , / /, ... , '-~l • i: I• ."\l{'q rH z .,,.,,. I .~ / / J •,. Ji\' 'j ~~T"P: of fjcler • • y .,,. ,..i:' ., ; wr "'ti' 3 M .., o~ 1-4,5 feet WETLAND A (PSS1) Approx. 6,299 SF on-site (wetland continues off site to east, north, and south) \ (U \ 'ii LINi',OlE TO DIP __JJ-13.84 JE . Cr.TOI BASIN · .. ~--u I 't-.,_ ,...,,, ""' I -...r:R-.,,-'+ .,,"' {,..• • ·,~ "tl·_,, I "./:: ·.··-",·· <..,..-..· , ,,. 1 .P~;Y .,, "'" SP7 '• ;\\ £ ~-1\ .,. •.J ··,.-!'; "\ / .,,"' / .,,~.-,Y'\0 '"' '., ~I --%\ ~~.i.i_'":,,J,·. CATCHBASIH J' .,,.,, -P'~.; /' _ _. ', •..._/!1; I " "• ' ' fi'lld 13.3~ I f ,.,. / ',, '\ . ,,,:E · t 12~ C~1P E 15.97 tE ; I 'I"~ f\,"t:> ; , ', '.~' I ' --.:i \ \ ~~ ~t~\ 15.43 1[ 12· CIJP W 15.'.i!J IE SANJl,\Jl'I' 5Ell'(ij MANHOLE RIJ.! 1S.78 s· PV.:: W ii.83 J( e· P>y<; N 0.89 i[ fl" F\'C S 6 50 It. SANITARY 5£\Yi:R MANJ-l!XE RII.I 19.12 a· py,:; W 12.il9 IE a· f'VC H 15.01 IE l'f PVC N 3.92 IE ·--;·;,,,30 I \ ; ~,,,.!le ~,. ,~· ,{I-... T~11'" .p,' .,,.... .~--l!!E,.J .. ,a. ...... -J>-, ., ,.,,,.,,1 1 ~ -;r~·.,.~i;,· .~j~ ::0--~:~·:a~-:~ .. -;;-_~1:~-::;:~-;.,:~:~i;t:t~~~;.iii~;':~;.=:;;;·=,;.~-.::)~~-:~i{-.-:;~-~:-,i·-~-::::~~~i11~<~- _.l !}. ~·'.: '• ~•• ••....;;.,,...._-.:rc~.fw~~fi~ r.M OJll!r!!!r~J~j}~-~~-'"'i--;.;:;.:;..ra,.;.;,oolfili;.;_; •• .;;,-~-. io..;.;;,o • ..;,..-•• .;;l;-;-;;;r-••-••-•;r;;;_~,;._-•• ..,,,;;i'V_.._f--•,-•!.~L1'.t...i,1J-,o...-I~ <LI .:~;,.t.z ,.• Op,.., 'top·,,..., 'top.,..• ,..:, ,p' / / \ ,-J)},._.., .... a"reak_~-=-~-\.\ \ ..-:i .! • .,>··:· .! P:nrstr Found rebor with ( ...._ _ _... / </> ·r:o.o .... .:-,•• ,,---=::-,r,..,R-, l 1 \ f'§l<..;··:,;..l'l!pt>I<= ~llowc:ops1orn~ed .. -........ .,,_ .. /' .,._• \ \~\"C=="'-----'='~,;,:;\\1 ' g . .-,'• ·. ~ -1t-b LS 22333/6434" ,---"' <. . 0 .....--+, ','-... top-;.,,J G"\ 1 Q.,1 I ;, :-· .•. u .,.,, ..,,-~ -~• D '};. ..,._ -• ._ ' -. ) l I\ cl I ··:.'; ~.,.. South quor1er corner 'l.Q • 2D South line of \he North l/2 -...... Si:t hub wi\h tack -,.. l \ ,-~l \ .. ~ ~ :• •.,. Section 30, lo,mship 23 of the North 1 /2 of \he --onllne ,3l 5 wesi ..._ .._ 1 \ \ ,, I t < north, Range 5 east. W.~. South 1/2 of 1he Soutliwest or come!:._ -... --\ 11 \ ·1 Found chi9led ·x~ in 1/4 of the Nodheosl 1/4 ....._2Q .._-... 1 \ 11 1 30 ( concrete, incosed. of Section 30, lownship 23 .... _ .11 ..,.., I -u o..~ north. Ronge 5 east; W.M. ~,,-I 31 "",.R: l l l 121.0B' \ \ ~ north 10 i ~ , JAA'===== "\ ~ KEY RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, ING. \ .. ' _,,_,,_ SITE BOUNDARY-,. ~ 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. {206) 525-B122 SEATILE, '/IA 98115 FAX: (206} 526-2880 --+··- • SP7 WETLAND DELINEATED BY RAEDEKE ASSOICATES, INC. 5117/06 STREAM SAMPLE PLOT TYP. (Approx. location) • I RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2006-047-001 DATE: 7-12-06 \ ~ l -------------------------------==-~-__ ---\ UKAVVN BY: CJM B21ee information provided by The Ronhovde Architects, LLC: files W»>tl<an.-1 Cvh;hii ni:: n!.l ,;,nni:: .-ti.,.-, .-.~...i u.-. ..... ~r r::~~ .,-1;1,~1... Tr.on -::i -i-::i '11"'1~ Attachment I Two June 13, 2002 aerial photos encompassing the Harper site (one oblique and one overhead) ATTACHMENT I 1 of 2 ... Send To Printer Cl1ange to Portrait 0 25 m 0 25yd Image co urtesy of the U.S. Geolog ical Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement Attachments J-1 through J-3 Set of three ground photos of various broad portions of the Harper property taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006, which was only a few months after Harper property site work took place and had not yet had much time to reestablish ATTACHMENT J-1 ,' ·--~ .._~. ' - ATTACHMENT J-2 ATTACHMENT J-3 Attachments K-1 and K-2 Set of two ground photos of the Harper site north ditch-like drainage corridor wetland looking east (with stand i ng water clearly visible in it) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT K-1 ATTACHMENT K-2 Attachment L-1 through L-6 Set of six ground photos of the easterly part of the Harper property with standing water being clearly visible in portions of them (including within the area that Raedeke called Area B) taken by landscape architect Heidi Kludt on or about June 12, 2006 ATTACHMENT L-1 ATTACHMENT L-2 ATTACHMENT L-3 ATTACHMENT L-4 ATTACHMENT L-5 ATTACHMENT L-6 REPORT & DECISION Date: Project Name: Applicant: Owner: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Sile Area: Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW March 20, 2007 Harper Engineering Site Development Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle WA 98101 O.J. Harper; Harper Engineering 200 S. Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of South Renton. The 1.76 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 19,295 gsf building would be used as an office I laboratory and manufacturing facility. 2994 East Valley Road NIA Proposed New Building Area: 19,295 gsf 77,537 sf/ 1.78 A Total Impervious Area on site: 1.265 A (71.9%) Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE' REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 IPMENT JI PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND A · ,istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF Page2of11 The proposal is for a new office and manufacturing facility for Harper Engineering Co., a Renton business in operation since the late 1960's. Harper Engineering designs, develops, and tests technologies for the production of mechanical hardware for the aviation industry. Harper is a supplier of aircraft custom interior hardware. Harper intends to relocate to the project site, which would double the size of their current facility. The project site is located on the east side of East Valley Road abutting the west right-of-way of State Route 167 (Exhibit 2). It has been within the Renton city limits since 1959. The property has the Employment Area -Valley (EA-V) land use designation on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) (Exhibit 3). The property is vacant, but nearby properties (west) are either developed for industrial-type use, such as warehouses, or vacant and being used for large vehicle parking (north and south). A Puget Sound Energy utility facility is located to the southwest, across the East Valley Road (Exhibit 4). The building would be sited on the southwest portion of the rectangular (167 foot by 452 foot), 1. 76 acre property, with parking for 57 vehicles on the west, north and east of the building (Exhibit 5). The paved area to the rear of the building ( east) would be fenced and gated on the north and south sides of the building. A 25 foot fire lane would be located between the south side of the building and the property line. Landscaping areas 5 feet wide have been proposed at the north and south property lines and a 10 foot wide planter is proposed at the west property boundary where the site would be entered and exited (Exhibit 6). Access is only available from East Valley Road, but sufficient turning area for emergency equipment would be provided at the rear of the building. The proposed building would be approximately 19,295 gross square feet, with 16,150 sf on the ground floor and a mezzanine of 3,145 sf (Exhibit 7). The roof would be flat except where a 28 foot by 46 foot by 2.5 foot high roof projection is located above the building main entry (Exhibit 8). This feature raises the interior ceiling height above the office area. The exterior of this roof feature would have painted coping around the top perimeter. The building exterior would be painted, tilt-up concrete panels (color unknown). Windows on the north, west, and south fa,;:ades would have aluminum frames and would be over corrugated formliner (color, material unknown). The top of each fa,;:ade would have a painted pre-formed decorative panel crown molding (color unknown). A painted steel canopy would be over the main entry to the building. The east end of the building, facing SR 167 would be relatively plain with doors, but no windows on the fa,;:ade. The building would have materials of 4 colors, but color palette was provided. The proposed building would be 2 stories. The majority of the building interior, consisting of manufacturing and assembly space, would be open the full height of the building. The front of the building on the ground floor (west end) and the mezzanine would have offices, conference, meeting, and waiting rooms, lunchroom, and restrooms. The height to the top of the roof would be 20 feet and 28 feet to the top of the roof projection. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton P/8/PW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DEi REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 IPMENT IIPART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A · istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report LUA-06-099 , SA-A, ECF Page3of11 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 5, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Harper Engineering project. The DNS-M included 10 mitigation measures. A 14- day appeal period commenced on March 12, 2007, and will end on March 26, 2007. As of the date of this report, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. If construction within the 25-foot buffer of Wetland 'A' is necessary for the purpose of site construction, the wetland buffer shall be restored with appropriate wetland plants. Such restoration shall occur and be approved by the Development Services Department prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide a fence at the outer perimeter of the 25-foot wetland buffer. 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates use of light cutoff devices to ensure that parking lot or security lighting does not escape the parking area into the wetland and wetland buffer. The lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to obtaining building permits. 5. Untreated surface water runoff shall not enter the wetland or wetland buffer from paved areas of the site. 6. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer shall be submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The civil engineer has verified that the vault shown site plan reflects sizing to 2005. 8. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $8,636.25. The fee would be required prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 10. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $10,400.00, prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. ~PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION -REPORT & DECISION A. Type of Land Use Action xx Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE1 REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 8. Exhibits >PMENT The following exhibits were entered into the record: A · · istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report LUA-06-099 , SA-A, ECF Page 4 of 11 Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Vicinity Map Zoning Map Surrounding Uses (aerial photograph) Site Plan Landscape Plan Floor Plans Building Elevations Environmental Determination C. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues regarding the proposed development. All of these comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Decision at the end of the report. D. Consistency with Site Plan Approval Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31- 33(0) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: (1) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Employment Area -Valley (EA- V). The Community Design section of the plan offers guidance for new structures. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to the proposal: Objective LU-8888: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office, and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. The project would provide employment to approximately 40 people in a range of positions including engineering design, office staff, and manufacturing and assembly. It is estimated that employment would increase 40 to 60 percent by 2009. Relocation to an expanded facility could facilitate this growth. Policy LU-451: Uses such as research, design, and development facilities should be allowed in office designations and industrial designations when potential adverse impacts to surrounding uses can be mitigated. Harper Engineering is a research and development firm. The proposed office and manufacturing/assembly facility, with its lack of adverse impacts, is the type of facility anticipated by this policy. Policy LU-452: ... Allow new industrial uses in the Valley, while promoting the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial and office use. The proposed use would be both a new industrial use and an office use, furthering the transition of the area from heavy industrial uses to "clean industrial use." Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department HARPER ENGINEER/NG SITE DE ) · 1istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report )PMENT LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 Page 5of 11 Objective LU-DDDD: Ensure quality development in the Employment Area -Valley. Although the proposed structure is a metal, tilt-up building, attention has been paid to details so that it would present an attractive fa<;ade to neighboring properties north, west, south, and pass-by traffic along East Valley Road. Policy LU-458: Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. The project would be required to landscape all pervious areas of the property, excluding the restoration, enhancement, and creation of additional wetland and wetland buffer area. Policy LU-462: New development, or site redevelopment, should conform to development standards that include scale of building, building fa<;ade treatment to reduce perception of bulk, relationship between buildings, and landscaping. The proposed project would conform to the Development Standards of the Commercial Arterial zone. Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. The proposed project is in an industrial area, although the zoning is commercial. The use is light industrial in nature, therefore the building is designed primarily for functionality. Policy LU-40: Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, materials, color and bulk) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors. The building, as proposed, would not have an adverse impact, in terms of building size or scale, on surrounding properties. Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses ... should include landscape plans. The proposed project includes landscaping of all pervious areas of the site. Policy CD:53: Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. The proposed project includes landscaping of all pervious areas of the site. The public right-of-way along East Valley Highway should a/so be landscaped. Policy CD-55: Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater retention/detention ponds, and common areas. Landscape maintenance programs are required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-4-0lOJ). Policy CD-67: Street trees should be used to reinforce visual corridors along major boulevards and streets. The proposed landscape plan includes street trees along the East Valley Highway. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE ; ' istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report )PMENT LUA-06-099 , SA-A. ECF REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 Page 6of11 Policy CD-69: Appearance of parking lots should be improved by screening through appropriate combinations of landscaping, fencing, and berms. The proposed landscape plan indicated the parking areas of the site would be landscaped with a combination of evergreen hedges, fencing, and deciduous street trees. Policy CD-71: All utility lines [to the site] should be placed underground. All utility lines from East Valley Highway onto the site would be underground. Policy CD-75: Sign placement should be limited to on-site locations. The business identification and address sign would be located within the property lines. Policy CD-80: All exterior lighting should be focused and directed away from adjacent properties and wildlife habitat to prevent spill-over or glare. Lighting would have shielded light source luminaries for building and parking lot lighting. Policy CD-82: Lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the architecture of a development, the site, and adjacent buildings. Lighting would be appropriate for the design of the project. (2) Conformance with existing land use regulations The subject site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The purpose of the CA zone is to facilitate the evolution of "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high-volume traffic corridors (RMC 4-2-020L). The new structure must meet the development standards of the CA zone. The development standards for the Commercial Arterial Zone (RMC 4-2-120A) do not regulate minimum lot size, minimum lot width or depth, maximum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, maximum gross floor area, or building orientation in the Employment Area -Valley. Lot Coverage by Buildings -The CA zone restricts lot coverage by buildings to 65 percent of the total site area. The new 16,150 sf structure (building footprint) I would result in a lot coverage of approximately 20.83 percent, which is well under the lot coverage limits in the zone. Setbacks-The minimum 10 foot building setbacks required in the CA zone may be reduced through site plan review. The building would be setback from the property lines, with drive lanes, parking spaces, emergency access, and landscaping between the building and the property lines. Building Height -Building height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet. The proposed building height, at the highest point, would be 28 feet, which is below the height limit in the zone. Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements -The parking regulations (RMC 4-4-080) require a specific number of off-street parking stalls to be provided based on the amount of net square footage dedicated to certain uses. The parking ratios for the proposed uses are minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 per 1000 net sf floor area of office space and minimum 0.1 and maximum 0.15 per 100 net sf floor area of manufacturing, fabrication, laboratories, and assembly and/or packaging operations. The Harper building would have 6,413 nsf office space (20 to 29 spaces) and 13,587 nsf laboratory I Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton P!BIPW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DEi A · istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report >PMENT LUA-06--099 , SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 Page lo/11 manufacturing I assembly space (14 to 21 spaces). The proposed office/manufacturing facility would require 34 to 50 spaces. There are 57 parking stalls and 2 accessible parking stalls proposed. The applicant will need a modification of parking regulations for more spaces (59) than the maximum allowed (50). Harper Engineering has approximately 40 employees, with a potential increase to 60 by 2009. There is no transit route along East Valley Road, although Route 153, connecting Renton and Kent is to the east, in Lind Avenue SW. The parking regulation modification to allow 59 spaces is approved, based on the lack of convenient bus service and the number of current and anticipated employees. Landscaping -Renton Municipal Code requires that all pervious areas of a development site be landscaped (RMC 4-4-070). There area also specific requirements for landscaping parking areas (RMC 4-4-080). Although a conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application, staff recommends that as a condition of site plan approval, the applicant provide a detailed landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-070, RMC 4-4-080, and RMC 4-8-120D12, illustrating how the applicant will meet the landscaping requirements. The detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. (3) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There is a potential negative impact on views from State Route 167. The east end of the building is proposed to be two colors, with a painted, preformed panel crown as the only architectural design feature or detailing proposed. Staff recommends that a color palette be provided for approval by the Development Services project manager prior to issuance of the building penmit. The proposed project should not impact surrounding properties to the north, west, or south in negative ways, unless current uses of these properties change significantly. At the present time, neighboring uses are not traffic generating and do not attract consumers or high numbers of visitors. Due to the long-standing lack of development and vegetative cover, there are small rodents or other mammals on the property which can be expected to relocate nearby. No mitigation of this situation by the applicant is required however. (4) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site Development of the property with the proposed project would require filling a drainage ditch, to create a paved parking area that has not been maintained and, therefore, has collected garbage and other debris. Renton Municipal Code requires protection of existing jurisdictional wetlands. The project proponent has requested approval of a plan that would fill a portion of the wetland to allow pavement for parking. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) approved the proposed action, with mitigation measures. Compliance with ERC mitigation measures is a condition of Site Plan Approval. The applicant has proposed re-establishing wetlands where filling took place in the past and revegetating the wetland buffer area. The proposed plan is to re-establish approximately 4,420 sf of wetland, protect approximately 4,597 sf of existing wetland, and revegetate approximately 5,843 sf of wetland buffer. A plan for this work has been submitted by the applicant. Due to the proximity of wetlands to the parking area and the potential negative impact of lighting on wildlife habitat, outdoor light fixtures must be equipped with cut off devices to prevent "spill over" into the wetland area. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HARPER ENGINEER/NG SITE DE REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 A · istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report PMENT LUA-06-099 SA-A, ECF Page Bo/11 (4) Conservation of area-wide property values Development of a large, vacant lot that has not been maintained with the Harper Engineering building should improve area-wide property values. (5) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation East Valley Road does not have traffic volumes that classify it above a "collector'' street (Lind Ave SW, which runs parallel to the west, is a minor arterial). Primary traffic-generating uses in the vicinity are the East Valley Cinemas, casinos, and restaurants, all of which have peak traffic generation during evening hours, following the work day commute hours. The proposed site plan has 2 curb cuts, which would increase turning opportunities off East Valley Road and thereby improve safety for vehicles. The project would be required to construct a paved sidewalk along East Valley Road, which would improve pedestrian safety in the area. Most traffic to and from the new building would be from employees at the peak am and pm times of the day, but not throughout the day. The project will not likely affect the safety of drivers and pedestrians in the area. (6) Provision of adequate light and air Security lighting would be provided on the site. The 28 ft building height would not result in shadows being cast onto nearby uses or properties. Circulation of air would not be negatively impacted by the proposed building. (7) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions Noise and odor impacts would occur only during site and building construction. (8) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use City of Renton public utility systems and emergency service capability are sufficient to accommodate the proposed structure and use of the property, if required improvements and impact fees are paid. (see Mitigation Measures, above) (9) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight The proposed project would result in development of a vacant property to accommodate an existing Renton business that requires additional space. Relocation of Harper Engineering to this site would provide potential consumers for businesses in the Valley area. The overall impact of the proposed development would be positive to the neighborhood environment and business community. xx Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 E. Findings PMENT J · 1istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report LUA-06-099 SA-A ECF Page 9of11 Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1. Request: The applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for development of an office / research, manufacturing/assembly laboratory at 2994 East Valley Road. 2. Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. A Determination of Non-Significance was made by the Environmental Review Committee on March 5, 2007 (Exhibit 9). 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 -8. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley (EA-V). 5. Zoning: The subject proposal complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Commercial Arterial (CA) Zoning designation. 6. Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site are commercial or industrial on all sides except the east, which is wetland and State Route 167. The zoning to the north and south is Commercial Arterial, and Heavy or Medium Industrial to the west. 7. Modification of Parking Regulations: The proposed plan has parking for 59 vehicles, which is more than the maximum allowed (50 spaces), based on use and net floor area. A modification of parking regulations (RMC 4-4-0SOF) to allow 9 spaces above the maximum allowed has been approved. 8. Architectural and site plans: Due to numerous revisions throughout the review process, plan sets may not reflect the current approved conditions. Staff recommends that a complete set of current plans (including, but not limited to architectural plans and elevations, site plan, engineering plans, landscape plan, and wetland plans) and the corresponding 8-1/2 inch by 11 inch contact prints of each plan be submitted to the Development Services project manager as a condition of site plan approval. Such plans shall be approved prior to issuance of construction and/or building permits. F. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton provided that the applicant complies with the conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area -Valley (EA-V), and the zoning designation of Commercial Arterial (CA) provided that the applicant complies with the conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc City of Renton P/8/PW Deparlment HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 G. Decision )PMENT , · iistrative Site Plan Review Staff Reporl LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF Page 10 of 11 The Site Plan for Harper Engineering, File No. LUA-06-099, is approved as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with Environmental Review Committee mitigation measures. 2. A detailed landscape plan shall be approved by the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. A color palette shall be provided for approval by the Development Services project manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. A complete set of current plans (including, but not limited to architectural plans and elevations, site plan, engineering plans, landscape plan, and wetland plans) and the corresponding 8-1/2 inch by 11 inch contact prints of each plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager and approved prior to issuance of the building permit. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: Neil Watts, Development Services Director TRANSMITTED this 2d" day of March, 2007 to the owner/applicant: Mr. 0.J. Harper 200 S. Tobin St Renton WA 98055 TRANSMITTED this 2d" day of March, 2007 to the contact: Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue ste: #408 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED this 2d" day of March, 2007 to the parties of record: Walt Cook Harper Engineering Co. 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 David L. Halinen, PE Halinen Law Offices 1019 Regents Blvd, Suite 202 Fircrest WA 98466-6037 Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc Robert Hazel Harper Engineering Co. 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Hugh Mortensen The Watershed Co. 750 Sixth St S Kirkland WA 98033 date Andy J. Rykels, P.E. Rykels Engineering Group, Inc. 28301 183rd Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042-5374 City of Renton PIBIPW Department HARPER ENGINEER/NG SITE DE' REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2007 IPMENT TRANSMITTED this 2d" day of March, 2007 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Larry Rude, Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Renton Reporter ) · ·istrative Site Plan Review Staff Report LUA-06-099 , SA-A, ECF Page 11of11 Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007 (14 days from the date appeal period begins). If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Site Plan Review (without ERC).doc ··· ...... -,, i\\ I_..··.'...__::"~/: ~1 ; """:..;;:~ ! i ' 1,· ~-, 1~r ' 4..1:i.w • SW 1~ ST (~,~ FS ., :l 3 '" ~ ,,+ ;,,; SIi 2311D ST ! ; ii l! _, I ' > ' < :F", SW ii 271'1 c .9 """ i RD/TDII •, .. ,, {§ i'l: ii I )1511' s • " &' ll<l ,, Slti33RP ST ii !? r >' ! < Sll Tl! :! • /I ~ ; ' -/ ' C, ~ / ' :"; I I ' ~ ST .. ~ 41ST ST ;:_· ::!· SE lffiJ 11aiii." ~. ST ; "' i -' s!.£_2NO ST ;. v w;i/' ~~ -. SE 17ml 176TH sr Figure 2. Vicinity map for the project area. "Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof; whether for personal use or resale, without pennission." EXHIBIT 2 ' GJ • 19 T23N R.5E W 1/2 . ' IL' CD .... . . .... -, .. IH ls:: lfl (1.) > «: IHi 'D' -i"1 ~: . ~th St ! . SW 27th St.. . , RC S 30th St. 14 ii J)34th St I SW 34th St. IL ' fl t-----.//, ',/- / ,/ / / IL .J ' SW 23rd 8t'. - - /'• .. .. IL , ' ' : ' SW 27th St. ,\ IM SW 2~th St ' 1; : :! ~ 34th sJ ' ' IH , I ~ r--IM----·-·· -- , R:--1 -d 0:: >. Cl) --a:l :> raa:i CA \- 1--... I-----·"-) "'"' S\'V39th St. J \ ' , ! R-8 ~ / I ) ' / ---------- <[ u bl':~;;;:···~~t.;:_:;:;_ ::,,::=I=L=IM=; -=:--;:··~··· ;=;;;-';;J~:~·~4~~~~~,_t.::::f:::. A=/~..cD:_-A __ -I ~7( 13 • 31 rnN R.5E w 112 • ... ..... EXHIBIT ~ ZONING ~=---_____ ..,._ ·-30 T23N R5E 3 Live Search -Custom Print Options http://local.live.com/PrintableMap.aspx?mkt=en-us Page 2 of2 HAF-FE-~ E:N&INEE.f--lN C,- 0ll~OUND1..J &-U"='E.-? r---0 w A-F-e,i-lcu.:.. e;. it, "::>To R-e..A~ ~ <> t101l.7~ FIQ...E-f i.,,+lj ( W .b.~1-\.olJS ~) --o f-\Af2.. f'~ SI TE- t -o f"C., e.. pAC,\ l..-1 •r --,, At4M~CO t N C u:,t-l ,.. A I o.l e:..iL ~ To P-A wrE-") EXHIBIT 4 03/15/2007 I HARPER ENGINEERING BUILDING, RENTON, WA A PORTION OF THE SW/4 OF NE/4 SEC. 30, TWP 23N, RGE 5E, W.M. rn'ilu t:.T.:."trfl !wt .r:r~rH;'~ ..... ~ ...... --· ~·.-:.•...-.. _ ~lill ==-- Cil, ,,_...;_---,,.niO, w ,.,--,-; --~--..... - ~)'"'!"""""""' SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN r.:n..=::':" :t '°"'' ,. -30' ca,ff1Ul'.,1!'1VAC 1F(U ~--.. -,-...... - VERTICAL DATUM: ----11-(MIDII) BENCHMARKS· ---~J/1'-..... -..... -.,tlol ____ zw_.,.._ •lolHM• .. -.. -.._ ... ., .... __ _..., .... il:!ll_f/1_ ...... _, __ ...... ---"""'-__ ..:.. ·------·---·---G:.:sJ---............. .......... ·--" ·--·-·- rl()-~,-IN:<X,-li>TAT ___ ....., L ,--, WIU,N,:l~,I ~-- tl.hMPR "'tiU. ~- m~ --" "" ··-"""'--........ -....... "khll.tllLtll>t\lllD,0-... ISJ ... ~-~ ECOLOGY BLOCK WALL TYPICAL DETAIL ~ ~1 ..... - ---~ --________::__::, -'"'~18<~•\CAAU..,CT WEILAND SUMMARY AR[A OIS~MG ll(TlAND AREA WETlANO TO BE f1U£0 OR R[QO f.755 Sf TO BE IDENTIF{O AS BUITTR· (2,158 Sf) I.REA Of NEW CREA'IEO \1[Jl..AMO: 4.-tal Sf" (207X RE:PLACEMOIT) /IRE.I. Of EXIST 'lltlV.Nll TO Bf: B[f11H.t,Ng1l• ~ TOl.iJ.. NEW WE'il.ANO (N£W + EXIST) 9.078 sr ..,I ... TSl.llft 'li I I I ' ' I I \ • I --~ I SR ~IJY OF "cj,/ ~NTON ~·- PROJECT VICINITY MAP tr~;~ESCRIPTION • ""'"""""'"'·-....... _ ........ __ :,e-.. -,,.,::"'...:!.::"'...:~~~~1 :.-:=.':.. .. ,:=.. ..... ~==--~-=-=r\.-,,..,,,,_..,. __ ... _ SIJE DATA ,.,.,....,. CA-·--LOT ""fk ,.;rs -aia ~lfl).';'"''~°""'/\D!'~ •rn:-2tl<'ICUS1.-Alil1Hn !IOJII.DINQP'001PftoT1 ,>,OOO!!f ...... _ _.., , ....... "'"""'"'•er P_,._ "IT"ll!IAS-t,,/1•/CfT'"1.II H[W _ _.., ,,,.,,, .. _,,,,,.,.,e h1'(r,CONSIIIIJC1'0l<-.:.a-~ OCOOP>HC'l': I <Fr1CC SHEET INDEX COV!'.1;' !HEEi ANO CI\IIL S1l[ PLA~ C-1 STORM DIIAN PLAN .o.HD DETAJLS G2 T'l'PIC/,L SECllONS TI-ROUOH SITE 6J. r;ROSIOH SCOIMENT,1,TIOH CONTROL D£T~L.S G4 • ~~NG!~N~O!~ COVER Slim CJVll SITE PIAN HARPER ENGINEERING BLDG, RJ:~0~ 81 _~, XXX EAST VALLEY HWY RENTON nrNU~·:-·--·· - tJEf.;Eo EXHIBIT 5 • § [I] d d! ·:; ~ioo ] < ~ ' ' I ' ' 1<D i'.:!! --; ! I ( ;' I \ ,..- • i . i : ~ • I ~ I ' I 0 t / ~ . Ii • • I 1, 11 1 ,l . , ,. r :I e 1 I \ ~ \ \ ---- I; ~ ~. '"~ ~~6 ! ' .. )l~"' I j;; U;i:-I ,~ ,w I l, ![ll~ i "'•~" :1 ~ !1:!1 j i:i"' .., 00 i I 11 ill i ~: E-< ,. ;, -,!6 ~: P'.:l 0 t; -I.O ~~ ~ i~ .. o ;, u 00" ~ "0 o~ ---;1·.' ~15 z -I / /ii 3i ~ -..J PH i ' . ' I o ! >! .... .... trJ ~ ::i::: -to -,-J 5~111:1········· ! ii '1 ~ ?ii i z-< I .. ! ' r a:--- - l -1 KfPI M'I K!PjKfPIWP 1 B ffi ~ I 'I • ii If o tB r i~ I i L'._, LJ bl !_, ' -' l~, 1 ~L I! /1,li,1 h 4'-J, ! • '[ ~ 0 i ~j'·, -1111 --.::ii ~ ' I :;; i~ ' . __ ! I I '" ~--- J -, ----'/ I u~~ J ~--r:_:_-~ [ ... ,--" ~ l~ I IL i _N<J L _____ --, ' ji§ ~;J 1-:-J El I !ii trn I ~ I fJil [l] -~-l _IJ_ ! i ~ : LJw· 1_1 u!J -l!lt~ i ~ 11 i!J --~111· L!.J· ei ·I ~'j 0 ~_ l"d ' ! mo I .. ~G-!,-.,11 @t ~ L~-~ J i IJ JJ I i I -~-1 I • !~ -£' , I a i , • 1/· ~1~~i: 1-~-iH '_ Blli1 -·--~"~._ l;J ' i I [ ____ _ -i-! ! ~ I e --~ ' ---. -c;;; ! I I • _ ___ •--_ _ --i r1r E~ I ___m_ __ J ~ HARPER ENGINEERING 2994 EAST VALLEY ROAD PARCEL NUMBER 302305 9085 RENTON, WASHINGTON SEPA/SITE PLAN APPROVAL ~ . pl ~ -f,' ?i.~f ,. \,I l•i )II illu I : l~f ~ ~-, i, :1 ~ ,,I 11 ,, :[__ ©f--i·· I: NOJ.OffflVM 'NOllal <JVOII J.3TIVA !SV3- 0NIIJ33Nl0N3 l:l3dl:l'vH e-, ' i i I -'I I' e-,, i ·. I '' I . ' '' @4- ' I 11 ' ,, I' ' I 11& I i i i' I I ,' " I' ,I ' ' -~,~-·-,-,11 11 , '' ii, 11 .il\s+~ I 1 -1 I I J_L CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Kathy Craft, Craft Architects, PLLC Harper Engineering Site Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 2994 East Valley Road The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. If construction within the 25-foot buffer of Wetland 'A' is necessary for the purpose of site construction, the wetland buffer shall be restored with appropriate wetland plants. Such restoration shall occur and be approved by the Development Services Department prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide a fence at the outer perimeter of the 25-foot wetland buffer. 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates use of light cutoff devices to ensure that parking lot or security lighting does not escape the parking area into the wetland and wetland buffer. The lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to obtaining building permits. 5. Untreated surface water runoff shall not enter the wetland or wetland buffer from paved areas of the site. 6. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer shall be submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The civil engineer has verified that the vault shown site plan reflects sizing to 2005. 8. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $8,636.25. The fee would be required prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 10. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $10,400.00, prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. ERC Mitigation Measures EXHIBIT 9 Mr. TorJan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Ronhovde CIT~ ::>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Worlcs Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Thank you for submitting the requested Supplemental Stream Study for Harper Engineering, prepared by the Watershed Company (dated October 23, 2006). We have reviewed the study including the conclusion that supports a previous study prepared by Raedeke Associates (dated July 12, 2006). The City concurs with the conclusions of the Watershed Company report, which determines that the drainage located along the north side of the Harper Engineering site at 3000 East Valley Road is a Class 5 water per City of Renton regulations. According to Renton Municipal Code, a Class 5 water is not a regulated stream. As of the date of this letter, the project is not longer on-hold. Staff will resume its review of the· project for purposes of environmental (SEP A) review and site plan review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425)430-7286 or Elizabeth Higgins at (425) 430-7383. Sincerely J: ~ • Lf O • /A, ~lO~yrv='/ Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager Copies to: Neil Watts •11 I . Sil ilo .\ Parties of Record -------10_5_5_S_ou_th_Gr-ad_y_W~a-y---R-en_t_on-,-W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ (i} This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% oost consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE THE WATERSHED COtv\PANY October 23, 2006 Walt Cook Harper Engineering 200 South Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Fax: 425-228-0889 SCIENCE & DESIGN ocr ? < 2nofi Re: Supplemental Stream Study for Harper Engineering site at 3000 East Valley Road, Renton, Parcel #3023059085. Dear Walt: As you know, the wetland delineation report prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc. dated July 12, 2006 for the Harper Engineering site at 3000 East Valley Road identified a City of Renton Class 5 stream along the northern site boundary. Such Class 5 streams (or more correctly, Class 5 waters) are not regulatory features as defined by the 2006 City of Renton Municipal Code and, as such, do not command regulatory buffers or materially constrain site development. According to City of Renton Municipal Code (Section 4-3-050, L. l.a.v.), Class 5 waters must be non- salmonid-bearing and either a) flow "within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously existed" and/or b) be ··a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre ( e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland" as defined in the code. Both criteria need not be met, and it is adequately spelled out in the code that the "surficially isolated" water bodies referred to are pond-like features, as opposed to streams. As pertaining to the site, then, City of Renton Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously existed." In her letter dated September 15, 2006 (attached for reference), City of Renton Senior Planner Elizabeth River Higgins indicated that sufficient evidence had not been presented within the Raedeke wetland delineation report alone to unequivocally support the asserted Class 5 stream classification. Specifically, Ms. Higgins' letter notes that clear evidence had not been provided that the subject watercourse is located "within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined watercourse had previously existed." In addition, Ms. Higgins noted the possibility of this ditch being connected to Panther Creek or one of its tributaries via a culvert under SR 167, flowing to the wetland at the northeast site comer. She also noted that the ditch along the north property boundary appeared to drain, in tum, to a culvert at the northwest comer of the site and that it may then '·flow through a pipe system to Springbrook Creek." She stated that, if this were the case, the drainage would not be "surficially isolated," which is a second possible criterion of Class 5 waters. However, as alluded to above, it is our opinion that the issue of whether or not a water is surficially isolated is more relevant to ponded features than drainages, and that it is not necessary to conclude that the on-site drainage is surficially isolated to validly identify it as a Class 5 water under City code. 750 Sixth Street South i Kirkland, WA 98033 p 425.822.52-12 ' f 425.827.8136 , watershedco.com Cook, W. 23 October 2006 Page2 o~ t To verify or otherwise establish the subject stream's classification, a Supplemental Stream Study is required. It is the intent of this letter to detail the findings of such a stream study pertaining to the drainage on-site, which you commissioned us to undertake. Hugh Mortensen, Senior Ecologist at The Watershed Company, and I visited the site and vicinity on October 3, 2006 to evaluate the stream/drainage in question. We also met with Ms. Higgins at the City offices on that date and have also since received supplemental information via e-mail from Andy Levesque, who has undertaken some investigative work for you. We have concluded, based on our investigation and in concurrence with the Raedeke wetland report, that the stream (or ditch or drainage) along the northern site boundary qualifies as a Class 5 water according to the criteria for such waters as provided in the Renton Municipal Code for the following reasons: l. Salmonid Fish Use: It is highly unlikely that the drainage along the northern site boundary is used by salmonid fish or that it provides salmonid fish habitat, as indicated in the Raedeke wetland report. Stream or drainage system sections associated with the site and nearby along the west side of SR 167, including the drainage along the north site boundary, do not likely meet certain essential habitat criteria necessary to support salmonid fish including adequate dissolved oxygen and reliably low enough temperatures. These two conditions, in particular, are associated with stagnant water conditions, which are present at least seasonally on and in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, these stream or drainage system sections appear to lack any direct, fish-passable connections to salmonid-bearing waters in the vicinity, namely Panther and/or Springbrook Creeks, which would preclude seasonal salmonid fish use (see items #4 and #6, below). 2. Specific Location: The channel appears to have been "artificially constructed," consistent with the City's definition of Class 5 waters, by controlled and directed filling of the valley floor, rather than by excavating. As such, the location, alignment, and form of the ditch along the northern property boundary remain by virtue of not having been filled, as were the adjoining areas to both the north and south. A portion of the flat valley bottom, rather than any sort of defined stream channel, likely existed at that location prior to development in the area. 3. General Vicinity, Location. or Situation: It is likely that Panther Creek itself historically had no defined channel once it emerged from its hillside ravine and reached the valley floor. Field investigation of the Panther Creek wetlands to the east ofSR167 performed by Andy Levesque on October 8, 2006 on behalf of Harper Engineering confirm this likelihood, as there is presently no clearly-defined channel present even today within this valley-floor reach of Panther Creek. Instead, flows are widely-dispersed through a mosaic of wetland habitats. This would generally satisfy the condition of the on-site channel being "where no naturally defined channel previously existed" in its general vicinity as well as at its specific location. This is, again, consistent with the City's Class 5 waters definition. 4. Culvert Plugging: The upstream, east end of the culvert under SR l 67 near the site (#26, F4-l l, City of Renton Storm System Map H3, W Y,) was plugged by the Washington Department of Transportation in 1999, and cannot now carry flow from Panther Creek or any of its tributary or distributary streams. Cook, W. 23 October 2006 Page 3 of)' f- The City of Renton has provided Harper Engineering with a copy of the Washington Department of Transportation's Culvert Plugging Plan for SR 167 from 841 h Avenue S. to S Grady Way, Sheet JOA of 38 dated 7/1/98 (attached). The plan sheet shows the locations and means of plugging 6 culverts along SR 167 in the vicinity of the Harper Engineering site including the 48- inch culvert at the northeast corner of the wetlands adjoining the site. The subject culvert near the northeast site corner is identified as culvert #5 near Station 1101+80 on those plans. The plans detail plugging the existing pipes using sack riprap with gravel placed in the crevices between sacks. We concluded this plugging to have been effective at eliminating flow, as no detectible flow was noted at the culvert outlet despite the culvert inlet being partially submerged at its upstream end. Nor does the culvert appear to be fish-passable. The following photograph, taken by Mr. Levesque on October 8, 2006, shows that the inlet of the culvert along the east side of SR 167 has indeed been plugged according to plan: 5. Stream Mapping. King County's GTS database, available online at its !map website, shows a former distributary channel of Panther Creek passing under SR 167 through an existing 48-inch culvert (now plugged, see above), but then flowing northward along the toe of the west SR 167 embankment rather than along the north property boundary of the Harper site. This point and point #6, below, support the conclusion that although some portion of Panther Creek flow may have once passed under SR 167 through the culvert near the site before the culvert was plugged, this flow then proceeded northward along the west side of SR 167 rather than westward along the channel in question at the north site boundary. 6. Historic Conveyance Limitations: The culvert under SR 167 near the site is much larger in diameter than the East Valley Road culvert connection at the northwest corner of the site (#26, Cook, W. 23 October 2006 Page4 of4 F4-9 and I 0, City of Renton Storm System Map H3, W Yi); 48-inch vs. 15-inch. This means that the drainage ditch outlet conveying flows to the East Valley Road storm drain is less than 10% of the cross sectional area of the culvert previously draining beneath SR 167, then flowing to the north. Therefore, the ditch couldn't have ever been a former channel for conveyance of these same flows prior to culvert plugging in 1999 (see Point #4, above). It is apparent from this size discrepancy between these two culverts that both the ditch and the culvert were originally designed and constructed to convey local site runoff "where no naturally-defined watercourse had previously existed." 7. Finally, in the unlikely event that individual salmon or trout would ever find their way into the wetlands adjoining SR 167 near the site, even as a result of flooding events, the possibility that they could stray into the northerly ditch itself should, in fact, be actively discouraged in order to prevent any potential for their stranding or entrapment, via the existing 15-inch outlet culvert, in the City of Renton's East Valley Road storm drainage system. In other words, any presence of salmonid fish within the drainage along the northern site boundary would not constitute a beneficial use of the drainage as habitat, but would rather pose hazards to their survival. It is our opinion that the mere presence of salmonid fish in a given water body does not necessarily constitute "use." Use connotes some benefit to an individual fish in terms of increasing its probability of successfully completing its life cycle through reproduction. To the case in point, stranding in either public or private, open-channel or piped storm drainage systems, leading to death due to stagnant water conditions prior to successful reproduction, would not meet this criterion of (beneficial) use. On the basis if the information and evidence provided above, it is, again, our conclusion in concurrence with that provided in the Raedeke wetland report that the drainage along the north side of the Harper Engineering site at 3000 East Valley Road is a City of Renton Class 5 water. As such, it would be non- regulated according to applicable City Code sections and impose minimal constraints on site development. If you have any questions regarding the subject of this letter report, or if we can otherwise be of any further assistance, please call either Hugh Mortensen or myself. Sinc0rely, ~ ffUt ,/ Greg Johnston Certified Fisheries Professional cc: Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Planning Lisa Danielski, Raedeke Associates, Inc. Andy Levesque Enclosures E , 0 > C "' u C u "' "' 00 N 0 / • .. • 0. / "' "' 00 N 0 / • ~ 0 • 0 C 0. / "' "' "' N ~ / 00 "' 2 ~ , ~ N "' r D _, Q. T.23N., R.5E. --... --------------_,, it--'1---------I\ -- II l --11--·---------n-- "-:"'..;-~~·~'."~'."~'.""~'.""if".":"."'.".":~".":\~:".~"'..:°'..~"'..:°'..~"'..:".~°".-_"".'_=_:-_°".~=_:-_=_:'_=_::=_:j,,-_=_:"_:-:=~=~=~~·~~·~~::"'..':"::"'..\:":~"'._:-: ::::::J::::::::-------f----------i-------~~--SR 167 'I,\\ 1085 I\ -==--------~1 ___ ::_iie_:~~:~C~~::::::::_::~~~~:::::_::::::J __ ::~:~~~~:::~:~~~:::::~- --------------"'ll \\ll~ ~\\ ----:------==::.::::.::::.::.::::.:::.::t=::.:::.:::.:::.:---------------------n~----------------------------------j------------------:L -------~--ii\-----------,,- -----... ---......... PLUGGING . ---------1111-----------~ 1!!• --~ II ----.---'i: ,2:to -- ___ ., __ _ 2 3 EXISTING PIPE W.M. rr " .:;: .. ~ ... "':':. -----:::::::::~:::::::-----~=-;·-.. _____ :: " 1090 SB SR 167 :: --------------H---.---------------.1:,. _____ _ ff -Ns--sR--161-----~t--------------· =1==~~==~===~==i===~~= _11 H ~ ,, IE !').,~ -• ... _ ...:;_ -- 4 -o--o-- -EIP--BP-- -BT--Bl-- -OP--oP-- -OT--01-- -•--•-- -s--s-- -o--~-- . ----;,---. ------------ ~ LEGEND EXST. DI. LNE ... WETLAt() 801.JNOARY = ""' WETUNO AREA EXST.8URED POWER c--c-EXST.GAS EXST. BURIED TEL, ---------EXS1. 4' CONDUIT EXST. 0VERt£A0 PO\ER !.l EXST.lOOP DETECTOR EXST. OVERHEAD TEL. :-~ EXST. JUNCTION EXST, WATEfl BOX TYPE I EXST. SEWER -0-EXST. UTILITY POLE EXST. DRAINAGE C EXST.POLE ANCHOR EXST. DlTOI -EXST. MAit-iOi..£ ,, EXST. FIRE HYO. EXST.CULVERT EXST.CATCH BASIN NEW CULVERT [) EXST. GRATE H...ET WORK AREA CRAV[L ---~--- DESIGNED BY ENTERED BY -CHECKED B_Y PROJ, ENGR. REGIONAL ,.OM. NOTE: _DIAMETER 30' J_Q -4Q" TYP. CROSS SECTION N. T.S. PLACE GRAVEL IN CREVICES BETWEEN SACKS IN 1/~· MAX. LAYERS, AND BETWEEN SACKS AND INSIDE PIPE WALL. Ji1 _!_ OU n,IJ_.E_ 1Ri M,SALEE _R. SUAFOAI .-J~ -1..!_ mAMOTO Q!-TE_ 7.ll/98 DATE ~OOEO NEW PLANSN fil:_VISION ]! ~y ""~· TATI 10 JWASH --9BWOJ8 .._ ... FED.AID PROJ.NO. -----,,.,· " 11 ll II II " ~ " " u lNVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINHRlNG SERVICE ClNTH -- ....... w Washington Slate Depar1men1 of Transportation ocr 2 6 0 50 100 SULE IN fEEl SR 167 84th Ave s to S Grady Woy CUivert Construction CUL VERT PLUGGING PLAN ·\ 2t:DB D2 SHUT IOA ~ 38 llolUfS STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on March I 0, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$113.40. ~arton Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 12'' day of March, 2007. ''\'""'''''}' ,,, e,ANTf: ,, ,,' ~ ········ ·<o \. P,ZJ {}y]ltz /t!71 f '-O_,-;~,S,s10N i_;;,~.':Z, ~ b,./ / . ~ !8 ~\ ~ B D Cantelon ' = : NOTARY : : Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in ;e.!i\,\Wasli'l,lijt.lG j 5 § P. 0. Number: -:, 7~\ ,... l J..::.. .... , r. • o~ ,..., .. 0 ~ ', <$' ·-.~101120 ••• • s , ... ,,, o,;·w·-·-:s0-'',,' ,,, ,..... ,,, '''''""''' NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI'ITEE RENTON WASHINGTON The 1 Envi.ronmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of N on-Significancn- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Location, 2994 East Valley Road. The applil'ant is · reque~.ting f!:nvironmcnt.nl (SEPA1 Review and Administrative Site Plan npproval of a proposed new Rt:ructmfl with a1-snciated w1rking. Th,:., propo~•~d .site 1s locat~,d in the GnX:'11 River Valley are.:1 of Henton The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrmmded by industrial- type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office / laboratory and manufacturing facility. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 26·, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Henton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. Published in the Renton Reporter March 10, 2007. #863031 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Harper Engineering Sil(! Oevalopmtnt PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06..099, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: 2994 East Valley Road DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is niquestlng EnY1ronm1nt1l (SEPA) Revl1w and Admlnlstrallv• Sit• Plan approval of a propond mtw structure wilh associated parking. The proposed alt. Is locawd In the Green Rlnr Valley arae of Renton. The 1.7& ac.-. property, which 18 culffntly vacant, la sum,undtd by lndintrill-type UHII, A Cat&gory 3 weuand Is on the property. The 17,850 ,f bulldlng would be uatd Han office/ laboratory and manufacturing fatUlty. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. App,nl11 of th1 •nvlronmc,ntal determination must U nt1d In writing on o,r bllfon 5:00 PM on March 28, 2007. Appnl1 mu•t be, Jll9d In writing together with ihe r.qul!Wd $75.00 appllcatlon fff with: HHrtng E.-.mlner, City of Raftlon, 10!5!5 South Grady Way, Renion, WA 980!57. Appeal• to tht EKamln111r 1111t gov1m,d by City of R1nton Munk:lpal Coda Section 4-8-110.8. Addl!lonal infonnallon Ntgardlng the appnl procn• may be obtatn1d from~ Ranton City Clet11'1 Office, (425) 430-6510 IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING Will BE SET ANO ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED CERTIFICATION I CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 71" day of March, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies See Attached Kathy Craft Contact O.J. Harper Owner David J. Halinen POR Walt Cook POR Robert Hazel POR Andy Rykels POR (S;goat,~ of Sood")',~ 4,c",/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Notary (Print): 8,VJ,2"-'C J, yn o My appointment expires: .;)-I '1-10 Project Name: Harper Engineering Site Development Project Number: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Representina t Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 33031 0 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor • Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.• c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 1601h Ave SE 39015 -172"• Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office• Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"• Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160th Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERG Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Harper Engineering Site Development PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOS-099, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: 2994 East Valley Road DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site fs located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, Is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office f laboratory and manufacturing facility. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION i ~ ,<SY 0 o~& ~~; Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~Nifo March 7, 2007 Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue ste: #408 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: Dear Ms. Craft: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF CIT~ ::>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERG Report and Decision, Part 3 Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, /31;~~-d;:_ JJ~. ~--_;,. ~ Elizabeth Higgins, AICP ...-7J ;J"·--- Senior Planner cc: O.J. Harper/ Owner(s) David Halinen, Walt Cook, Robert Hazel, Andy J. Rykels / Party(ies) of Record Enclosure -------10_5_5_S_ou_t_h_G_ra-dy_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, -W-a-sh_in_g_to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ ll\T'-.·--·-_,_J--•---''"'~'---•----··---AHEAD OF THE CURVE CIT' OF RENTON o~~ ~~;, Kathy Keolker, Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~'N'fO March 7, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 5, 2007: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Harper Engineering Site Development LUAOG-099, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 2994 East Valley Road The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA} Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, Is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at ( 425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, P-t~~~ Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe {Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Enclosure -------10_5_5_S_ou-th-G-ra-dy_W_a_y---Re-n-to_n_. W-as-h-in_g_to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ a... AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Kathy Craft, Craft Architects, PLLC Harper Engineering Site Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 2994 East Valley Road The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. If construction within the 25-foot buffer of Wetland 'A' is necessary for the purpose of site construction, the wetland buffer shall be restored with appropriate wetland plants. Such restoration shall occur and be approved by the Development Services Department prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide a fence at the outer perimeter of the 25-foot wetland buffer. 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates use of light cutoff devices to ensure that parking lot or security lighting does not escape the parking area into the wetland and wetland buffer. The lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to obtaining building permits. 5. Untreated surface waler runoff shall not enter the wetland or wetland buffer from paved areas of the site. 6. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer shall be submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The civil engineer has verified that the vault shown site plan reflects sizing to 2005. 8. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $8,636.25. The fee would be required prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 10. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $10,400.00, prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Kathy Craft, Craft Architects, PLLC Harper Engineering Site Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 2994 East Valley Road The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are nqt Sflbject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. · Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Service$ Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any lime if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and-where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. TheDevelopment Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit: 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,250 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Plan Review -Surface Waler 1. The proposed plan must meet state and federal requirements of for treatment of surface water bodies, such as wetlands and streams. 2. There is an existing storm system in East Valley Road. 3. A Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) of $17,644.76 is owed on this site. This is based on 66,584 sf of new impervious area times the rate of $0.265. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 4. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for the proposed vault. Special inspection from the Building Dept is required. ERG Advisory Notes Page 1 of3 Plan Review -Water 1. There is an existing 12-inch water main in East Valley Road. Available derated fire flow in East Valley Road is approximately 5,500 GPM (see City of Renton water drawing WTR270304). The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Pressure available is approximately 77 psi. 2. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $21,167.60 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.273. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. Preliminary fire flow calculated by the Fire Department is 3,250 gpm. One hydrant is required for every 1,000 gpm required by the Fire Department. A primary hydrant must be within 150 feet from the structure and three additional hydrants will be required within 300 feet of the structures. 4. Extension of a 10-inch water main looped around the building will be required. New hydrants will be required to be installed along the new 10-inch main on site. 5. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. 6. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. 7. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 8. Fire hydrants, stub for fire sprinkler system, water services, and irrigation system will be required to be installed. 9. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 1 O. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. 11. Watermain improvement plans shall be designed to City of Renton standards. Plan Review -Sewer 1. There is an existing 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road. 2. A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $11.010.25 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.142. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor may be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 4. A sewer main extension will be required on site. 5. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed on the sanitary sewer . . Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. There is sidewalk, curb, and gutter to the north and south of the property in East Valley Road. 2. Half street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, paving, and street lighting fronting the property along East Valley Road are required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 General 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All projects are required to be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. 4. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, domestic water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow devices will be required. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 6. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height (from top of wall to bottom of footing) will be require a separate building permit and special inspection. Proper drainage measures are required, 7. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. ERC Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Kathy Craft, Craft Architects, PLLC Harper Engineering Site Development DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1.78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office/ laboratory and manufacturing facility. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 2994 East Valley Road The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services March 10, 2007 March 5, 2007 Date ?k~r ~ -s/~/crt- Date To: From: Meeting Date: Time: Location: ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW COMMllTEE MEETING NOTICE March 5, 2007 Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Monday, March 5, 2001 .3(00PM Sixth Fl<>or Conference Room#620 Agenda listed below. Harper Engineering (Higgins/ LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1. 78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland Is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office I laboratory and manufacturing facility. Brookefield North Preliminary Plat (Higgins/ LUA07-012, PP, ECF The proponent of the Brookefield Preliminary Plat is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of 2 parcels of land consisting of 1.99 acres and 0.18 acre. The subdivision would result in 15 lots suitable for development Into single-family residential structures. The property is currently used for 2 single- famlly residences. It is zoned Residential 8 (R-8), which allows up to 8 dwelling units per net acre (du/a). The lots would be developed at a density of 7.3 du/a. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington. Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey. EDNSP Director® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® REPORT & DECISION Date: Project Name: Applicant: Owner: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: City of Renton Deparlment of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT March 5, 2007 Harper Engineering Site Development Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle WA 98101 O.J. Harper; Harper Engineering 200 S. Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed new structure with associated parking. The proposed site is located in the Green River Valley area of Renton. The 1. 78 acre property, which is currently vacant, is surrounded by industrial-type uses. A Category 3 wetland is on the property. The 17,850 sf building would be used as an office I laboratory and manufacturing facility. 2994 East Valley Road NIA Proposed New Building Area: 17,850 sf 77,537 sf/ 1. 78 A Total Impervious Area on site: 1.265 A (90%) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen En mental Review Committee Staff Report HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE .. ,-OPMENT LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF =;;;;,,,;;;;;~====-====="·'=================~==============="====="'===== REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Page 2 of 9 II PART ONE: EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Vicinity Map Zoning Map Overall Site Plan, Sheet 1 of 5 Ii PART TWO: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The project site is located on the east side of East Valley Road abutting the west right-of-way of State Route 167 (Exhibit 1 ). It has been within the Renton city limits since 1959. The property has the Employment Area -Valley land use designation on the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Arterial (Exhibit 2). The property is vacant, but nearby properties (west and north) are either developed for industrial-type use, such as warehouses, or vacant and being used for large vehicle parking (north and south). A Puget Sound Energy utility facility is located adjacent to the southwest across the East Valley Road. A land use application for the site was previously approved, but the project was not constructed. Following plan approval, but at an unknown date, soil was placed on the property for the purposes of pre-loading. This material remains on a portion of the site. A jurisdictional wetland is present at the east end of the property (Exhibit 3). Approximately 4,597 sf of existing wetland would remain. The project would require filling approximately 2,158 sf of wetland, re-establishing 4,420 sf of wetlands previously filled, and re-vegetating 5,843 sf of wetland buffer area. A drainageway located abutting and parallel to the north property line would be filled and covered with a portion of the paved parking area. The building would be sited on the southwest portion of the rectangular (165 feet by 481 feet), 1.78 acre property, with parking for 59 vehicles on the west, north and east sides of the building. The paved area to the rear of the building ( east) would be fenced and gated on the north and south sides of the building. A 23 foot fire lane would be located on the south side of the building. Landscaping areas 5 feet wide have been proposed along the north and south property lines and a 10 foot wide planting area is proposed at the west property boundary where the site would be entered and exited. Access is only available from East Valley Road, but sufficient turning area for emergency equipment would be provided at the rear of the building. The proposed building would be approximately 22,100 gross square feet, with 17,850 sf on the ground floor and a mezzanine of 4,250 sf. The proposed building would be 2 stories. The majority of the building interior, consisting of manufacturing and assembly space, would be open the full height of the building. The front of the building on the ground floor (west end) and the mezzanine would have offices, conference, meeting, and waiting rooms, lunchroom, and restrooms. The height would be 24 feet to the top of the building flashing. ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc II City of Renton P/B/PW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE. ~-OPMENT En mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Page 3of9 II PART THREE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MIT/GA TED. Issue DNS with 14-da A eal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 14-da A eal Period. B. Mitigation Measures Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance: 1. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. If construction within the 25-foot buffer of Welland 'A' is necessary for the purpose of site construction, the wetland buffer shall be restored with appropriate wetland plants. Such restoration shall occur and be approved by the Development Services Department prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide a fence at the outer perimeter of the 25-foot wetland buffer. 4. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates use of light cutoff devices to ensure that parking lot or security lighting does not escape the parking area into the wetland and wetland buffer. The lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to obtaining building permits. 5. Untreated surface water runoff shall not enter the wetland or wetland buffer from paved areas of the site. 6. A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer shall be submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The civil engineer has verified that the vault shown site plan reflects sizing to 2005. 8. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual, shall be submitted prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $8,636.25. The fee would be required prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 10. The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $10,400.00, prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen En mental Review Committee Staff Report HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE_ -OPMENT LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Page 4 of 9 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. The ERG review identified the following probable impacts from the proposed project: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006. The study of the site conditions was based on 2 borings (to 40 and 51.5 feet) and 5 test pit excavations. Analysis of findings indicate that fill soils at a depth of 8 to 12 feet thick are present on the property, probably as a result of pre- loading operations that took place following a previous development approval. Beneath these fill soils, a layer of peat approximately 3 to 4 feet thick was encountered. Beneath the peat, alternating layers of highly compressible silt, silty sand, and peat were found. Groundwater was found at an approximate depth of 13 feet, but this may have been the result of transient water seepage and may not be the static groundwater level. The presence of peat and organic layers may not be mitigated by additional preloading activities and could result in noticeable movement of doorways, windows, floor slabs, and interior and exterior finishes. Such settlement is, apparently, typical of structures in the vicinity of the development proposed by this application. It is the understanding of staff that the applicant has taken this assessment into account and redesigned the structure accordingly. The Geotechnical Study makes recommendations for over-excavation for building footings, depth of structural fill beneath floors, foundations, isolation joints at column and wall intersects, and potential for long-term settlement on utilities. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring that the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, be followed prior to and during construction. Mitigation Measures: The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study, by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated July 3, 2006, shall be followed prior to and during construction. Policy Nexus: SEPA 2. Air Impacts: There would be temporary negative impacts to air quality caused by dust and equipment exhaust during site and building construction. Following construction, exhaust from automobiles and trucks would be expected. Such emissions are controlled by state and federal regulations. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen HARPER ENGINEERING SITED-_ OPMENT REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 3. Surface Water Er mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-099 1 SA-A, ECF Page 5of9 Impacts: There is a jurisdictional wetland located at the northeast corner and along the east side of the property, abutting the right-of-way for State Route 167. This approximately 16,250 sf wetland was delineated by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and reported upon in their study, "Wetland Delineation, Harper Engineering Site, Renton, Washington," dated July 12, 2006. Raedeke Associates classified this as a Category 3 wetland, due to its "severely disturbed" nature. The required buffer for Category 3 wetlands is a minimum of 25 feet from the wetland edge. The 25-foot buffer must be fully vegetated with native species or restored. Conditions of approval when wetlands are present may include fencing of the wetland, directing lighting away from the wetland, implementing water quality treatment measures, and avoidance of buffer disturbance. A Class 5 water body has also been identified on the property, along the north property boundary. First identified by Raedeke Associates, its non-regulated status was confirmed by The Watershed Company in their supplemental stream study of October 23, 2006. The Watershed Company report confirmed that a culvert located between the Class 5 water body and a distributary channel of Panther Creek has been plugged by the Washington Department of Transportation in accordance with WSDOT's 1998 "Culvert Plugging Plan" for SR167, thereby limiting flow of water into the channel (ditch) located on the property. Furthermore, The Watershed Company report states that the water body does not meet certain essential habitat criteria necessary to support salmonid fish. The ditch appears to be artificially constructed and not part of a naturally and clearly-defined channel. Judging from both the size of the ditch and the culvert located at the northwest property comer, the intent when the system was constructed was to convey local site runoff only. Staff recommends submittal of a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer, prior to issuance of a building permit. Due to the sensitive nature of the soils and the proximity to a jurisdictional wetland, staff recommends that the project be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The civil engineer has verified that the vault shown site plan reflects sizing to 2005. Due to the potential for erosion from the site, staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: If construction within the 25-foot buffer of Wetland 'A' is necessary for the purpose of site construction, the wetland buffer shall be restored with appropriate wetland plants. Such restoration shall occur and be approved by the Development Services Department prior to building occupancy. The applicant shall provide a fence at the outer perimeter of the 25-foot wetland buffer. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrated use of light cutoff devices to ensure that parking lot or security lighting does not escape the parking area into the wetland and wetland buffer. Untreated surface water runoff shall not enter the wetland or wetland buffer from paved areas of the site. ERG Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen En mental Review Committee Staff Report HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE. -'-OPMENT LUA-06-099 , SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Page 6of9 A wetland mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland and wetland buffer shall be submitled and approved by the Development Services Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: RMC 4-4-050M, "Wetlands" 4. Vegetation Impacts: The property has been essentially cleared of vegetation, with the exception of mixed grasses covering the site and alder trees and wetland vegetation at the easterly portion of the property. Restoration of any portions of the wetland buffer disturbed by construction would be required. All pervious areas of the site must, by Renton Municipal Code, be landscaped appropriately. Parking area landscaping is also required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Noise Impacts: Although elevated noise levels during construction can be anticipated, they would be temporary. It does not appear that the industrial uses surrounding the property would be noise-sensitive. No long-term or permanent noise is expected from the future use of the site. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 6. Light and Glare Impacts: The project would require parking lot and building lighting. A lighting plan will be required to ensure light does not impact the wetland (see above) or abutting or adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A ERG Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE. ~-OPMENT REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 7. Transportation En nental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-099 SA-A, ECF Page 7of9 Impacts: The project would be accessed from an existing road, East Valley Highway. There is a complete interchange with SR 167 at SW 43"' Street, approximately 0.85 mile to the south. Street improvements would be required for this project (see "Advisory Notes to Applicant" below). Transportation impact fees would be assessed for the project at the rate of 11.57 trips per average weekday for a single tenant office building (5,000 sf) and 3.82 trips per average weekday for the manufacturing/lab facility (15,000 sf). The total assessed impact fees would be $8,636.25. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a transportation impact fee of $8,636.25. The fee would be required prior to building permits. Policy Nexus: SEPA 8. Public Services Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and Police Department have indicated they have the ability to provide service to the project. A fire impact fee would be required based on $0.52 feet per square foot for the proposed building. The fee would be $10,400.00. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a fire impact fee of $10,400.00. The fee would be required prior to building permits. Policy Nexus: SEPA D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ---1£.. Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 26, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERG Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DL. __ OPMENT Er mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-099 , SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Page 8of9 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,250 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Plan Review -Surface Water 1. The proposed plan must meet state and federal requirements of for treatment of surface water bodies, such as wetlands and streams. 2. There is an existing storm system in East Valley Road. 3. A Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) of $17,644.76 is owed on this site. This is based on 66,584 sf of new impervious area times the rate of $0.265. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 4. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for the proposed vault. Special inspection from the Building Dept is required. Plan Review -Water 1. There is an existing 12-inch water main in East Valley Road. Available derated fire flow in East Valley Road is approximately 5,500 GPM (see City of Renton water drawing WTR270304). The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Pressure available is approximately 77 psi. 2. A Water System Development Charge (SOC) of $21,167.60 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.273. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. Preliminary fire flow calculated by the Fire Department is 3,250 gpm. One hydrant is required for every 1,000 gpm required by the Fire Department. A primary hydrant must be within 150 feet from the structure and three additional hydrants will be required within 300 feet of the structures. 4. Extension of a 10-inch water main looped around the building will be required. New hydrants will be required to be installed along the new 10-inch main on site. 5. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. 6. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. 7. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 8. Fire hydrants, stub for fire sprinkler system, water services, and irrigation system will be required to be installed. 9. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 10. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. 11. Watermain improvement plans shall be designed to City of Renton standards. ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen HARPER ENGINEERING SITE DE. ~-OPMENT REPORT OF MARCH 5, 2007 Plan Review -Sewer 1. There is an existing 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road. En mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-099, SA-A, ECF Page 9of9 2. A Sewer System Development Charge (SOC) of $11.010.25 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.142. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor may be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 4. A sewer main extension will be required on site. 5. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed on the sanitary sewer. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. There is sidewalk, curb, and gutter to the north and south of the property in East Valley Road. 2. Half street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, paving, and street lighting fronting the property along East Valley Road are required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. General 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All projects are required to be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. 4. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, domestic water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow devices will be required. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 6. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height (from top of wall to bottom of footing) will be require a separate building permit and special inspection. Proper drainage measures are required. 7. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. ERC Report 06-099 (rev).doc ' _, SIi Figure 2. !f., ~ !1 27TH ;1 iiJi£TI.ANDS a. SW 19TH ST F5 ST ~ ' ~ .. ,'II'"' ~· 29wl-.!'----'--'C:...l'S~~~- ~ ~. F -' SE [72ND ST;_ SE 175TH 176TH 51 • w> ~li • ~ ;I: V) ~ • ..:.ll/l;;: .... ~~J ~ ~ ; Ii Vicinity map for the project area. "Reproduced with permission granted EXHIBIT by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof; whether for 1 personal use or resale, without permission." ,, " , IL IH th St 'i34th St / / IL ·,. ,/ / / SlV39th St. G3 • 19 T23N RSE W 1/2 CD IH ~ (/) <ti > <>: 'O ~ :-3 SW 27th St.. RC IL. SW 3~th SL IL IL IL I SW 23rd St IL SW 27th St. IM SW 2~th St ' . . 'Pl'~SL· ~'2.et>S' ... ! IH 'lo$?/ Jw 34~h Stj IH / ·IM ~~="-~ !='''"'-'''" =··=········==~'-I IM .··tM 1st St. IM SW 41st (CA: t. ;1 I 13 · 31 T23N RSE W 1/2 ~ ZONING -----Ill,- <[ u -d 0:: >, ll.) --ro :> r,q C A CA 0 ,, #° ...... ~ = lBC&hlCAL IDVDI 30 T23N RSE R-1 R-8 CO(lp \ ( ~) C. C EXHIBIT 2 I I l I "! i ' • lV AOllddV NVld 3.116/V d3S NOHlNIHSVM 'NO.LN31l 9808 90£1::0£ 1::138NON 1301::!Vd avou A311v /1. .1sv3 tee;:: E>NU::133Nl~N3 1:::13dt:IVH oc l .~ \ IL ., cio 00 .Jo 0 m • • 0 I "' w·, "'><\ l> ( Oo - "-CC \ On. \ CC"-11.< \ '<;. i T" ;O 1< ! ! ,! ,1 Uli February 12, 2007 Ms. Kathy Craft Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms. Craft CIT1-DF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Thank you for submitting the revised plans for the Harper Engineering Site Plan Review. As of the date of this letter, the project is no longer on hold. Staff has resumed review of the project for purposes of environmental (SEPA) review and site plan review. The tentative date of the Environmental Review Committee consideration of this project is February 26'h. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 425) 430-7383. Sincerely ~~µ.· Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Y}41f':~•••--.. • Senior Planner Copies to: Parties of Record _______ 10_5_5-So_u_th_Gr_ad_y_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, -W-as-h-in-gt-on-9-80_5_5 ______ ~ (i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE January 17, 2007 Mr. Jim Holtz, Project Manager Craft Architects, PLLC 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF -On Hold Dear Mr. Holtz CIT1 :>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator As you are aware, the above-referenced project was accepted as a complete application on August 16, 2006. On September 15, 2006, a "hold" was placed on the project due to insufficient information available for project review. That hold was subsequently removed. The project proponent, however, initiated changes to the site plan and building design. City of Renton has now been waiting several months for new information about these changes to be submitted so that the environmental review and site plan review can proceed. As of the date of this letter, the project is "on hold" and will remain so until the required information is provided. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7382. Sincerely P~~A~o~-~. "tiiz{beth River Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Copies to: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Parties of Record ------l-05_5_S_o-ut_h_G_ra_dy-W-ay ___ R_e_n-to-n.-W-a-,h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled matelial. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE PRf lTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW #2006 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ENVIRONMENT CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET D PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP D APPLICANT: ~,:'.;>.J.._._ _ _.:,;i,~~W--------------- JOB ADDRESS:_..:;tQUQ.....__..I,,...,._~,u,.l:a.4----k--o\.L:__~~~----- O'=EIVED FROM J~tf/1~ WO# (date) NATURE OF WORK: _Jl!li'.l,Sl::(]U..n:;LJ1L_llll.W_J2'!Lt.J~J\.!;L __ _ GREEN#_-="----- D SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: D Cl!J, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMA 1ED D SQUARE FOOTAGE D D NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES D FRONTFOOTAGE D D VESTED D NOT VESTED D 1bis fee review supersedes and cancels fee review # dated ----~== LEGAL DESCRIPTION VICINITY MAP OTIIER ~ ~ ,,/,-Q ol CV---D PARENT PID# (subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# yi---;)LO -*~ D King Co. Tax Awl/ (new) -------- Triggering mecbaniqns for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewe.r permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Latecomer A Latecomer vt WATER vt WASTEWATER vt)OTIIER DISTRICT PARCEL NO. NO. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION tl Never Pd #OF UNITS/ SQ. FTG. SDCFEE bject property is within an LID, it is developer's responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. ** If an additional water meter (or hydrant) is being installed for fire protection or an additional water meter is being installed for private landscape irrigation, please advise as above fees may change. EFFECTIVE: January 8, 2006 .. ' .~·, _..., _______ _ PROJECT LUA 06-099, SA-A, ECF Harper Engineering Site City of Renton Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 10 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction trailer or storage area should be completely fenced-in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter-resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs will aid police in making contacts with unwanted individuals on the property if they are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. COMPLETED FACILITY All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry-resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing, as these areas could be vulnerable to crime due to the lack of natural surveillance by passing vehicles/pedestrians. It is recommended this business be monitored by recorded security systems. It's not uncommon for businesses to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of darkness. An auxiliary security service could be used to patrol the property during those times. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the building. Any alternative employee entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. If there are payphones outside the businesses, it is recommended they be outgoing use only. Public payphones tend to attract drug traffic and having only the ability to call out on payphones severely hinders this type of activity. Security Survey Page 1 of 2 06-099 .i ,IC. .. 1. All areas of this business need to have adequate lighting. This will deter incidents of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for customers utilizing the business. The structure should have a building number clearly posted with numbers at least 6" in height and of a color contrasting with the building. This will assist emergency personnel in locating the correct location for response. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility -not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make customers and employees feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary and malicious mischief (property destruction). It is key for safety and security reasons to have appropriate lighting and signage. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted in conspicuous locations throughout the property, including entrances to the property and parking areas. I highly recommend the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the business once construction is complete. Security Survey Page 2 of2 06-099 • : City r., enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq·:n LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1.76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of rhe Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary Jmn;,cfs lmDacts Information lmnacts lm .. "'cts Information Earth Houslnn Air Aesthetics Water Lin ht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Uti/itles Animals Transnorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historic! Cultural Resources Prese,vation Airporl Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~ .. - DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM August 30, 2006 Elizabeth Higgins Jan Illian x 7216 HARPER ENGINEERING SITE 3000 -East Valley Road LUA 06-099 I have reviewed the application for the Harper Engineering Site located at 3000 E. Valley Road and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SEWER STORM STREETS There is an existing 12-inch water main in East Valley Rd. Available derated fire flow in East Valley Rd is approximately 5,500 gpm. See City water drawing WTR270304. The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Pressure available is approximately 77 psi. There is an existing 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road. There is an existing storm system in East Valley Road. There is sidewalk, curb, and gutter to the north and south of the property in East Valley Road. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER I. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $21,167.60 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.273. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. Preliminary fire flow calculated by the Fire Department is 3,250 gpm. One hydrant is required for every 1,000 gpm required by the Fire Department. A primary hydrant must be within 150 feet from the structure and three additional hydrants will be required within 300 feet of the structures. 3. Extension of a JO-inch water main looped around the building will be required. New hydrants will be required to be installed along the new 10-inch main on site. 4. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCV A iustallatiou for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. Ha11;'e, Engineering ,. August 30, 2006 Page 2 of3 DDCV A shall be installed immediately a tier the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 5. Fire hydrants, stub for fire sprinkler system, water service, and irrigation system will be required to be installed. 6. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 7. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. SANITARY SEWER 1 A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $11.010.25 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 77,537 square feet times the rate of $0.142. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor may be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 3. A sewer main extension will be required on site. 4. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed on the sanitary sewer. SURFACE WATER I. A Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $17,644.76 is owed on this site. The rate is based on 66,584 square feet of new impervious area times the rate of $0.265. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. A conceptual drainage plan and drainage report (1990 KCSWM) has been submitted with the site plan application. The report and plans do not address water quality or detention, which will be required for this project. 3. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for proposed vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Half street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, paving, and streetlighting fronting the property along East Valley Road are required. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS I. All construction utility permits for utilities, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2 • Harper Engineering · August 30, 2006 Page 3 of3 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report; permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $ 200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, domestic water meters, landscape irrigation meters, and any backflow devices will be required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height (from top of wall to bottom of footing) will be require a separate building permit. Proper drainage measures are required. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. 5. No utility plan was provided with the site plan application. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The traffic mitigation fees are assessed at $8,636.25. See attached Transportation Mitigation Fee Report 2. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to design and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 3. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. CC: Kayren Kittrick 3 HARPER ENGINEERING CO., 200 SOL'.\ TOBIN STREET. RENTON, WA 98055 ··"" . 7/14/2006 071406APP L;:: ·.,:: PL.~.NNING y;-c_;N AUG O 4 2006 qi::GEIVEu 7/1412006 28391 SITE PLAN REVIEW/SETA 28391 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 City _, , .enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu-.. ~ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: "y;,.,.-\.:: '$ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 ~-.,., APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 ~=3 ;e m APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins ~Q en ~ PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian ~ 22 .. ' PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site ""' -.::: SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft gj~ ....., rri = LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 oz a, 0 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for constnSBtion of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1. 76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary /m"'"'Cts lm .. "Cts tnfonnatlon lmnacts /mnacts Information Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water L/aht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ..... '4ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historic/ Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS G:':=-:\_;':-·Y·'.I'"'.:·· . . :i .. ::-:r.: City-• •• en ton Department of Planning I Building I Puu,,~ Works EN VI R O NM EN TA L & DE VE L OP MEN T A PPL I CA TI ON RE VI AOO SHltJi T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PlGI>'\ !Gc.v,e.w COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 !la':·•. ( \ . "·1 APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 CITY OF RENTON APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins R E C E I V"FO PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian A I II' ? 1 ~nni, -SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1.76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment lm'""'Cts lmnacts Information Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Lia ht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnorlation Environmental Health Publlc Services Eneryy I Natural Historic/ Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS fa c~'<../~c2~~ y,,pJ~ ,y/:}c/b;? Probable Probable More Minor Major Necessary lm-.. cts lm""'Cts Information l .. J --------... ' ~ \ ' - -----~ -. --------- Project Name: µP;\2.fll"XL G !VG:il µC'§Q.,)l,){,i Project Address: 3oQp 6 AS\ V ~-Y R.D. Contact Person: D,.), B,C,."-0'"0 Permit Number: () lo ·-O c\ cj ....1.~i.....=.::..__-.!..!...------------------ Project Description: 'lo, <JoO ct, '?(<_cf"GS.S.\or,.,AL , fil,l(j I IJtE14~ ef:f:tU< LAi:,IMfr110~ (;.;/ 5(M) ¢ QffilG Sf'?ra;, -1-15 1.nrp J Land Use Type: D Residential D Retail ;;:0" Non-retail . . '' ·~ .· , :O,rlculatfon:. -... .,. ;-:,,,.• _._:~:"':'~~--:--·-- ·,:-...~-- 5000 '.~ ll,57 = c.':>l,BS {'i.t), ·1.uUt) .··~~..,----· -- ... ·. ·•· . l~,l%Q, ~oirO· . , ~.B;} =-·$,. ~ ~1 'f: · ·,. J 15 1 IS A{)°( 1'1'c!nsportatlon , Method of Calculation: ~E Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition O Traffic study O Other. c._-7 ~~ TG11JA~, <)-,;AC(;' . • . I\ .s'~ / 1= ¢, . ·· ( 1q 0 ') t-,\11.1-->uf1kl1l~lu(i /~ -?:, 'b~ I I <Ym)_,i/> ' ' ,., ... ., " · Mli:lgatlon_Fee: $ B ,Vi3le, ·;;tp ·(': ... -~l~ulate.dby: .... _-K......_.k-!-: ... ~"'"-...,._<Ju----------'-.... Diite: ____ f:>1J-'/1.3 .... +-/~--.-. _ ... ·..__' . ..._· -- :1 .. · Da,te of. Pa.yment: -----------------~-----~~ l. •• •.;. City-· .. enton Department of Planning I Building I Puv.,v Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian A E 1.; E IVElJ SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft A I If'.! 1 7 'lnn<' LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 . . . . . tl_l,JILD/NG DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction o a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1.76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary /mnacts Jm--cts Information Jmnacts lm"""CtS Information Earth Houslna Air Aesthetics ' Water Lin ht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historlcl Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 8. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS City<>, .. enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu-.. c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'y ('0 ,,;,v-j,.,,,. -:;v(. >. APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft WORK ORDER NO: 77633 ~ .,_ .... _,,. . ,-· · ~c r.:,~i\JTON \ji,1 \T{ ~,yf;.'; ;~~,AS SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1. 76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary /mnacts lmnacts Information lm---cts /mn"'cfs Information Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Linht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historic! Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS . enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu_.,. Works City ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~.::-D'-.V· COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099. SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1.76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Nec;essary Environment Minor Major Necessary lm"''"Cts lmnacts Information lm-~cts lm .. "C1S Information Earlh Hous/nn Air Aesthetics Water Linht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Un utilities Animals Transnortatlon Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Hlstorlcl Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14 ODO Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS AUG I 7 1 • DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 1 7, 2006 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner ~1 // James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsha ~ Harper Engineering, 3000 East Vall y Rd. '. ft.·:..:\, 1. A fire mitigation fee of $10,400.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: I. The preliminary fire flow is 3250 GPM, one hydrant is required with 150 feet of the structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i:\harperengerc.doc . , City ENVIRONMENTAL & enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu .•. Works DE VE L OP MEN T A PPL I CA TI ON RE VIE NJ~ J..,7EiCf3 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ ..... -e_ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 Vi ,;: .. :·Ti , , ~ 'e ,, DATE CIRCULATED: AUGWST.16, 2006 ' . -' ' APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF ;,, -' APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Eliz~/;>eth. HO ' '' I PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian '. ,\ >' I . • . -. : ,: '' SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 1i' ,QPc\..kiq. ftl\Ul:I I V ~uuu i '-·' LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 I I -.-q, 1 l T v• "' ,1' - SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and a prov al for corui!ruction: of a1 new 20,000 ross square foot building to be located on a currentl vacant 1.76 acre lot. The site is loc, ,vu vn u ,e east side of the East Valle g y y Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary /mmu!ts lmnacts Information lmnacts lm'"''cts Information Earth Houslna Air Aesthetics Water Lin ht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Ut/lltles Animals Transnorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historic/ Cultural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS \ i City o, .. enton Department of Planning I Building I Pub, forks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: G,,,..is~.,__.'\,; .. "' ",,vc.,;.. COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 30, 2006 APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 16, 2006 n c v ~ 1 v ~-i;;., APPLICANT: 0. J. Harper PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins AUG 17 2 JS PROJECT TITLE: Harper Engineering Site PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 78,375 sq. ft BUILDING AREA (gross): 19,000 sq. ft UV LOCATION: 3000 East Valley RD WORK ORDER NO: 77633 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1. 76 acre lot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associated laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Necessary Environment Minor Major Necessary 1m-m /mn:1cts Information lm-"cts lmnacts Information Eanh Housl Air Aesthetics Water LJnht I Glare Plants Recreation Land I Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy I Natural Historic/ Cultural Resources Preservation Alrporl Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ( lS Mr. TorJan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Ronhovde CIT~F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator Thank you for submitting the requested Supplemental Stream Study for Harper Engineering, prepared by the Watershed Company (dated October 23, 2006). We have reviewed the study including the conclusion that supports a previous study prepared by Raedeke Associates ( dated July 12, 2006). The City concurs with the conclusions of the Watershed Company report, which determines that the drainage located along the north side of the Harper Engineering site at 3000 East Valley Road is a Class 5 water per City of Renton regulations. According to Renton Municipal Code, a Class 5 water is not a regulated stream. As of the date of this letter, the project is not longer on-hold. Staff will resume its review of the.project for purposes of environmental (SEPA) review and site plan review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 425)430-7286 or Elizabeth Higgins at (42,5) 430-7383. Sincerely ~foi~ Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager Copies to: Neil Watts Elizabeth Higgins · Parties of Record _______ 10_5_5_S_ou_th_Gr_ad_y_W_a_y_--R-en_t_on-,-W-as_hingt ___ o_n_9-80_5_5 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% POSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE September 15, 2006 Mr. TorJan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Re: Harper Engineering Site Development LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF -On Hold Dear Mr. Ronhovde CIT"\'. )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator The above-referenced project was accepted as a complete application on August 16, 2006. Since that time however, the City of Renton has determined that submittal of additional information will be required before the environmental review and site plan review can proceed. The Wetland Delineation, by Raedeke Associates, Inc. dated July 12, 2006, identified the water course along the north property boundary as a "Class 5" stream. Renton Development Services staff, however, has determined that this stream appears to not meet the standards for a non-regulated, Class 5 stream. There is no clear evidence that the watercourse is located "within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." This stream may originate at Panther Creek, or a tributary of Panther Creek, on the east side of State Route 167. It appears to flow within a culvert under SR 167 (City of Renton Storm System culvert #26, F4-l l map H3, east Yi) into a wetland in the northeast comer of the Harper property, across the property from east to west entering a culvert on the east side of East Valley Road ( culvert #26, F 4-10). From that point it may flow through a pipe system to Springbrook Creek If this is the case, the stream is not "surficially isolated," which is a second criterion of Class 5 streams. Since the development proposal would relocate this waterway into a pipe, it is necessary to verify its classification. As per Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050L, "Streams and Lakes," a Supplemental Stream Study is required (4-3-050L3 "Studies Required"). This report is required "if a site contains a water body or buffer area and changes to buffer requirements or alterations of the water body or its associated buffer area proposed." -------,o-S_S_S_ou_th_Grad __ y_W_a_y---R-cn-t-on-.-W-as_hin_·_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ (i} This paper contains 50% recvcled material 30% DOSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Mr. TorJan Ronhovde September 15, 2006 Page2 of2 You may con1ract with your wetland consultant, Raedeke Associates, to perform the Supplemental Stream Study although a peer review of their work would be required, at your client's expense. Alternatively, you may contract with a consultant approved by the City of Renton or with The Watershed Company (contact: Hugh Mortensen at 425-822- 5242). The latter firm performed stream and lake consultation work for the City. As of the date of this letter, the project is "on hold" and will remain so until the Supplemental Stream Study is provided. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7382. Sincerely ' ~~~---~~- Elizabeth River Higgi~, Af.C~ 0----.. Senior Planner · Copies to: Neil Watts Jennifer Hennjj}g Parties of Record NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT MAME: Augus1 16, 2006 LUA06.Q99, SA-A, ECF Hal'p6r Engineering S,11:1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An application has been iubmltted req'-"'Sling $1lt1 plan rn,iew and appro,al !nr comstructlon Df e riew 20,000 gross square foot tlulldlng to be located on a currently YIICllnt 1.76 acre lot The s,:e 15 located~ U'le east ~Kie of the East Valley Highway el eppro>eime!eJy SW 29th S\r!Hj1. The proposed u•e ,s p,ole~s,onal englne,enng office w,th eeaoc;iated laboratory and manufacturing fecMies. There are weUands on Iha site ltlal w,11 t,0 preserved with a proposlild lwer,ty-fi',e loot bulflj(. PROJECT LOCATION: 2994 East Valley Rd OPTIONAL.DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANC!, MITIGATED (DNS-M): k; the Lead AGency, the City o' Ren Ion has determined that signlficsnt environmenUII impacll are unllkal)I to result from the prO!)os&d proJed. Therefore. as permitted under the RCW 43.21C. 110,.the City of Renlon is usi'lg the Optional ONS-M process to give not,ce that a ONS- M is likely 1o be Issued. Comment periods for 1tu.1. P,OJ8CI and the proposed DNS-M ere Integrated into a single comm,;nt P8riod There will be no oomment penod following the Issuance of Iha Tl'reshold o.termina1Jon of Non-S1gn,r1eance- M1tigaled (ONS-M). A 14-day 8ppeal period wNI rolow the issuance of the DNS-M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Au11ust 4, 2006 August 16, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: TorJan Ronhovde, Tel: 206-SS9-5500 PermlWRwiew Requnled: Enylronmental (SEPA) lwYlew, Admlnl1tret1y, Site Plan Review 01her Perm lb which ffilY be required: COf'lstructlon Penni!, Building Permtt Requn~d Studies: Welland Dellnesllon, Geote<:hnlcel Sludy Location wt>er, appllcallon msy be reviewfll: Pl.annlng/Bulldlng/Publlc Wor1cs Department, D11Yelopmeni Services DIYlelon, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 105$ South Grady Way, Renton, WA 980,, CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zonlnwt.and U1e: EnYlronment,,I Document, that Evaluate th Proposed Project: ~pm,nt Regul,tlon, UMCI For Project Mitigation: The subj act site Is design a led Employment Are.a. Valley (EA-V) on the City of Renton Comprehmsive Land Use Map and Commercial Arier+al ori the City's Zcning Map Er,v~oomtin1al (SEPA) Chacklist Tha projec! wii be subject to the City's SEPA or(lonanco, Renton Murnc,pa' CMe (RMC) 4-4, RMC 4-6, and RMC 4-7 and olhtir applicable COC'es anrl regu.al,ons es appropriattl. Propo1ed Mitigation Meuuni,: Tile lollowlng Mitigel,on Measures will liktily be mposed on the proposed proJect ThoH;e recornmtinded Mitigation Mtiesures address project impecta not oovered by e~151jng codes end regulations es cited above. Tbe epplkant w/1( be requlrod to pay the tippropriate Tr,msportation Mitigation Ftie: The app(lesnt_ wiN ho:> requir&d to pay the appropriate Fire Mi/J(Jellon Ftl'i!; and 11ltl epp/k8nt will be required to pey ~ spproprie/8 Perks Mitigl1IJon Fee. Comments_ O°. !he abov& application must be submitted in wrlling to Ellzabtith Hlgglna, Senior F'l.anner, Development SeNIC& 01v1SIO/l, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96055, by 5:00 PM on Augusl 30, 2006. If yw h811t1 question~ abou1 this propose!, or w!llh to be madt1 a party of record and r8C8ive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written commtinls wm eutomatlca~y becomt1 a party of record and w!~ be notified or any decisio<l on this proj8Ct. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Tel: 42S-430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like lo be made e party of record lo receive further inlormatlOn on this proposed pro1ect. complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Name/File No.: Harper Enginetiring Si1eJLUA06·099, SA-A, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TEI..EPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION I, 5'E7H Gcl5£f2---. , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in _d__ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on ~,,,,';_~~t\111 111 ~ :::-Y,'1-., ... ,,, .. ~0,r;.1,, DATE: Y::,-/6-ob SIGNED: ~-;,' ,,f: f!:+;.::~'1. ..> _ =" );' tA'? ,..t, :: :Icf "; .J_ ~~ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residmg m ~ ~ • -en§ f ~ {I.I~ 4 ~ = - ~ '"'\ U(3L\c, ff~: .d=wh '\'v'V\I , .;,,19.,0,,~~o~ NOTARY r ucs1ai''""""',\l>",.,,..:- I INASl"I ,..,"" '"'\\'"'''" . 1"' /I .. L , on the _l,_t_,__day of Ll.W')d-c~ ~y o">~~~ ·~ + ~~~ ?§1\T'fo NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August16,2006 LUAD6-099, SA-A. ECF Harper Engineering Site PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An application has been submitted requesting site plan review and approval for construction of a new 20,000 gross square foot building to be located on a currently vacant 1.76 acre Jot. The site is located on the east side of the East Valley Highway at approximately SW 29th Street. The proposed use is professional engineering office with associaled laboratory and manufacturing facilities. There are wetlands on the site that will be preserved with a proposed twenty-five foot buffer. PROJECT LOCATION: 2994 East Valley Rd OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 o, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August4,2006 August 16, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: TorJan Ronhovde, Tel: 206-859-5500 Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan Review Construction Permit, Building Permit Wetland Dellneatlon, Geotechnical Study Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 The subject site is designated Employment Area -Valley (EA-V) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4, RMC 4-6, and RMC 4-7 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 30, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Tel: 425-430-7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Harper Engineering Slte/LUAOS-099, SA-A, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: August 16, 2006 TorJan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects, LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S Ste 138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Subject: Harper Engineering Site LUA06-099, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Ronhovde: CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on September 11, 2006. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, u~JI_. , Elizabeth Higgins ~ Senior Planner cc: 0. J. Harper/ Owner ------l-05_5_S_ou_th_Grad_y_W_a_y_--R-en-to_n_, W-as-hin_gt_o_n_9_8-05_5 ______ ~ ~ This D808r contains 50% recvc:led material. 30% oost consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE .. City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT AUG G t, 2Q06 MASTER APPLICATION LWAoG-o'tq , .. "'.,'-'•,';I ~~"''I .... ,.,.,1~u ' : ,. "'!;.... PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: o. ADDRESS: 2oa s.. TELEPHONE NUMBER: ZIP: Cf803t;' 'ZS~ z.t;;s-04l4 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (ff applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON ZIP: ~ZJ/b.8 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 1,do -BsCi -G G'Oo PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: -t+o.voev fu01 ivieevi~c, ' -.::::J " PROJECT4°RESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP co~ 2ctC\ e--~ \JA-UJa'-( ·. [2.euhri I Vs) ~ KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ~ '&:,-Z~S · 9ob5 EXISTING LAND USE(S): IJ-1:./ r,..., 1"\ PROPOSED /0 USE(S): r' .,-,.r tc-G ~ I 1')Gl:;'17 .vt(')G-lAft:;, L EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ~ f't.....O'tW\@.sl " "' .--1' --\} ~ PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (ff applicable): ~G' EXISTING ZONING: CA- PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): GA SITE AREA (in square feet): 1 "iJ, 3 7S- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE - DEDICATED: .., SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: e PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL /,NSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): IJ ,Pr- NUMBi, OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): "-1 A- NUM~M~EW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 07129105 PhvJECT INFORMATION (continued) r--~----:-~-----------, PROJECT VALUE: 4' ,Z1 OW > ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): e SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): -&- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): .@... SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): ± 20 'CC> 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (ii applicable): -e- NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (ii applfcable): :!. \Gt, 000 · · NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (ii applicable): i. fo IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. D HABITAT CONSERVATIO~...,, JAiz:fk--sq. ft. ~ SHORELIN~NDlAKES -sq. ft. l( WETLANDS :JIIC,. 0~ :II ~ sq. ft. ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet w.ith the following Information Included}. SITUATE IN THE 1'-,/(AJ QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP23, RANGE 5, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being arlied for: .. 1. ~fl.A0 B:G\J \~ ( SA /fXXJ qsi.. 3. !;UJ~ 2. 6~ 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ I, 57JO, c.t:J . 7 . AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) O < J 1-b V-D e Y' . . declare 1hat I am (please check one) _ the current owner °' the property Involved In this application or __ the auftiorizedre~sentatlve to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and 1hat the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the infom,atlon herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my kncwledge and belief. I certify thatlknow or have satisfactory evidence that 0, J. d.41sf!..£ /: signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/their free and volta,y act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument (Signa1ure of Owner/Representative) Notary (Print) Q:web/pw/devserv/fom1s/plaonin<Jlmas1erapp.doc 2 07/29/05 I ' ) \ Surveyor's Notes: 1) The monument control shown for this site was accomplished by field traverse utilizing a one (1) second theodolite with integral electronic distance measuring meter (Geo di meter 600) and Real Time Kinematic (RTK) / Static Global Positioning System (GPS). Linear and angular closure of the traverses meet the standards of WAC 332-130-090. 21 Utilities other than those shown may exist on this site. Only those which are visible or having visible evidence of their installation are shown hereon. 3) This survey represents physical improvement cpnditions as they existed March 07, 2006, the date of this field survey. 4) Legal description provided by client. No additional research has been attempted: 5) Offset dimensions shown hereon are measured perpendicular to property lines. 6) It is not thi intent of this survey to show easements or reservations which may effect this site. Description: The north half of the north half of the south half of the soµthwest quarter of the northerast quarter of Section 30, Township 23 north, Range 5 east. W.M .. in King County, Washington. lying west of Primary State Highway No.5. as conveyed to the State of Washington. by deed recorded under Recording No.5346371. and by deed filed with the registrar, under Recording No.5349880: EXCEPT the west 30 feet for road known as 92nd Avenue South. HAr£t)E.R S~e1.lc&f2IAJG LEGM-t':)6 ¥'2 \ ~ T1 o,J v C[V[J_CPt..-lFNT rlJi,1(i 1~y: :,,,-r 'I,, 'r !lr:,\r: ·.,, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AUG O 11 200S WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations , Colored Maps for Display 4 Construction Mitigation Description 2 ANO 4 Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication , r Density Worksheet 4 :~ Drainage Control Plan , Drainage Report , Elevations, ArchitecturahANo, Environmental Checklist, Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy), Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) , Flood Hazard Data , Floor Plans 3 AND 4 Geotechnical Report,ANO, Grading Plan, Conceptual , Grading Plan, Detailed 2 Habitat Data Report 4 ,j(.{. Improvement Deferral , Irrigation Plan 4 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site, Landscape Plan, Conceptual, Landscape Plan, Detailed, Legal Description, List of Surrounding Property Owners, Mailing Labels for Property Owners , Map of Existing Site Conditions , Master Application Form , Monument Cards (one per monument) , Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: 1-/arp« q;~D DATE: _--i_+-/ 2-=--z_+-/-(),=tj:, __ _ r1 Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 1110412005 / v' v' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DMSION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis • Plan Reductions (PMTs), •- Plat Name Reservation , • -Postage, Preapplication Meeting Summary, Public Works Approval Letter 2 Rehabilitation Plan , Screening Detail , -- Site Plan 2 ANO 4 Stream or Lake study, Standard 4 - -- Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 - Street Profiles 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate , ifi{,, Rh . "4 e-11-&tl- Topography Map, I , • I _J ~ ,. .,/ __ ·i) J/ "frafftc Study 2 yg ~ /:>'fY!_..n-..-.C:.--/_ -.£ ' •• I , Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan , 1/U. /t/tJ_k in , ·,., N? Urban Center Design Ove~ay Distrlct Report 4 yf/\/ ' --11,, A' _J.-J.-t, ,,,,;, arc, r,_., ,-,/;, C - Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 V . . .. -• Wetlands MitiaationPlan. Final 4 ---.. Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary , WetlandsReporl/D<llineation , . --... --. -- -. ---------- Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 ANO 3 Inventory of Existing Sites , ANO 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 ANO 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 ANO 3 Map of View Area 2 AND, Photosimulations 2 AND, This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\Planning\waiver.xls 11/04/2005 DEVELOPt/~m PLANNING ~ITY or ne,n or--.1 AUG O 4 2006 f1ECEIVELI July2006 Harper Engineering Project Narrative Project Name: Harper Engineering Permits Required: Site Plan Review, Building Grade and Fill Current Zoning: CA Commercial Arterial Current Use: Vacant Adjoining Uses: North Vehicle Storage, South Trailer Storage, East HWY 167, West: Substation Special Features: Wetland at east property line Soils/Drainage: Loose alluvial sand, silt and peat. General drainage direction is to the west Proposed Use: Construct new office/lab, manufacturing facility of approx. 20,000 sf along with site improvements including drainage, landscaping and utility extensions. Off Site Improvements: Construct new sidewalk along East Valley Road. Curb and gutter are existing. Estimated Project Cost: $2,000,000 Fill Estimates: 1500 cu. Yds. Anticipated Tree Removal: There are no significant trees existing on the property. Dedications: None anticipated Temporary Structures: Construction job shack. No others anticipated. Land Use Modifications: None anticipated. Trip Generation: Current employee level is approx. 30. Anticipated employee level is approx. 40. The AM and PM peak hour trip generation is based on 1 am and 1 pm trip per employee. The starting and quitting times are staggered over approx. a 2 hour period in the mornings and afternoons. Current AM and PM peak hour trip generation is approx. 15 per hour. Projected AM and PM peak hour trip generation is expected to be 15 to 20 at full employment. It is unknown if the full projected employment will occur. 14900 lntenJ'ban Ave S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168 PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 July2006 Harper Engineering Construction Mitigation Description Proposed Construction Dates: Construction to be completed with 1 year. Start date anticipated to be fall of 2006. Hours of Construction Work: 7 AM to 6 PM Proposed Hauling Routes: Primarily East Valley Road Mitigation Measures: Dust and debris control as required by City of Renton including watering of site and rip rap at construction site entrance Special Hours of Operation: None anticipated. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: No special traffic control plan anticipated. Cranes: None anticipated with this project. ,, .. : ,..,, ;:~ r :T P!..M·.1~J:~-lG . . ,:: :-. -:,: '· ·,1,1 AUG O 4 2006 . -· ·, ~ ' '' ~ ··.1·-u .,.~~bi, 14900 Interurban Ave S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168 PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 •. [;: .:Y:'i!NG .., 2006 ENVl'R~ENTAL CHECKLIST A) BACKGROUND: 1) Name of Property Owner: Harper Engineering 2) Name of Applicant: OJ Harper 3) Address and Phone Number of Applicant and Contact Person: 200 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 425-255-0414 425-228-0889 (fax) Name of Agent Preparing Checklist (Project Contact Person): Tor-Jan Ronhovde, Architect The Ronhovde Architects, LLC 14900 Interurban Ave. South, #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Ph. 206-859-5500 Fax 206-859-5501 4) Date Checklist Prepared: June2006 5) Agency Requesting Checklist: City of Renton 6) Proposed Timing or Schedule(Include phasing if applicable): Construction to begin upon obtaining the necessary permits with completion within I year. 7) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8) List any environmental information that has been prepared, or will be prepared directly related to this proposal. Soils Report, Phase 1 Envirorunental Review, Wetland Delineation 9) Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by yonr proposal? If yes, explain. No current pending applications. 10) List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building permit, grade and fill, utility extensions. 11) Give a brief description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This SEP A checklist is being prepared in conjunction with a grade and fill application. This checklist will address the completed project. This proposal is to construct an approx. 20,000 SF engineering/manufacturing facility on a parcel of approx. 1.75 Acres. This proposal will include utility extensions, site work, paving and grading, landscaping. There will be parlcing provided for approx. 50 vehicles. 12) Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of yonr proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section township, and range, if known. If the proposal occurs over a range of area, provide the range or bonndaries of the site(s). Pr,;,yj4e. aJegal description, site plan, v,ieie!qr mep; eed tapeg;:rephie map,,if reawnahlyca¥Bilahle. WJiile 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. This project had a pre-application meeting on Sept. 15, 2005. The pre-application file number is PRE05- 118. The parcel number is 302305-9085 The address is 2994 East Valley Road. The site is located on the east side of east valley highway between east valley highway and SR 176 and between SW 27~ and SW 34th. B) ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1) Earth: A) General description of the site (circle one):~ rolling, billy, steep slopes, mountainous, other: B) What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Generally flat except for some slopes adjoining the water collection area on the east serving SR 176 and a drainage ditch along the north property line. 2 C) What are the types of soils 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. According to a preliminary soils report prepared by Geotec Consultants the predominant soil is loose alluvial sand silt and peat. No farmland. D) Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No E) Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling and grading proposed. Indicate source of ftll. The site has been previously filled and rough graded. Import of approx. 1500 Cu Yd fill material is anticipated. F) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. An engineered soils erosion and sedimentation plan will be submitted with the construction plans. G) About what portion of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approx. 70 -80%. H) Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth. See item "F' above. 2) Air: A) What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie: dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe. Dust and equipment exhaust during construction and auto and truck exhaust after completion. Quantities are unknown. B) Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3 None. 3) Water: A) Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands): If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate state what stream or river it flows into. There is a seasonal drainage ditch along the north end of the property. The drainage ditch along the east line collects water runoff from SRI 67 and has been previously identified as a wetland. The ditch along the north line transports the drainage to the City of Renton Storm Drainage System. A portion of the drainage ditch along the north line is proposed to be filled and contained in a pipe. The extent of the wetland is shown on the site plan and buffers per Raedeke are noted on the plan as well. A Wetland Delineation has been prepared by Raedeke Associates and is submitted along with this application. 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. This proposal includes installing a storm drain outfall pipe along the north property line and the existing ditch will be filled. The existing ditch along the east line will remain open and will be buffered. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Preliminary indications are that approx. 750 Cy. Y ds. of fill will be needed to fill the pipe area. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. No. 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. No. Storm water will be detained and treated per an engineered storm system that will discharge into an approved storm water collection system. Quantities are unknown at this time. 8) Ground: 4 No. 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, such as the number of such systems, 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. Not applicable. C) Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces (roofs and paving areas) will be collected, detained and treated in an engineered storm system existing on site and distributed into the City of Renton Storm Drainage System. · No. 2) Could waste materials enter the ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. D) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None in addition to those previously described. 4) Plants: A) Check or cir~es of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous tree: ~ maple, aspen, other. ~en tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. ~'. Pasture: Crop or grain: Wet soils plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other: Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. Other types of vegetation. See wetland report for a listing of wet soil plants found on site. 5 B) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site has been previously filled and graded. There are only minor amounts of existing grasses that will remain in the drainage area on the east line. All will be removed as part of this proposal. A wetland buffer planting plan will be submitted along with the building permit application at a future date. C) List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None known. D) Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site, if any. Any new landscaping will make extensive use of native plant materials. 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, fioi,gbird~ other: Mammals: deer, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: B) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. C) Is the site part of a migration route? Not known. D) Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 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. Natural gas or electric for heating and cooling, electric lighting . B) Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 6 The completed project will exceed the requirements of the current Washington State Energy Code. 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 conld occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. B) Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from adjacent roads will be noticeable but will not affect the operation ofthis proposal. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site? Short-term construction noise, long-term vehicle noise generated by the users of the project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: None, the adjacent roadways generate more noise than is anticipated to be generated by the completed project. 8) Land and Shoreline Use: A) What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. The west property is a power substation, the east property is SR 176, the north property is commercial vehicle repair, the south property is commercial development storing trucking equipment. B) Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: No. C) Describe any structures on the site: 7 •. Not applicable. D) Will any structures be demolished? Not applicable. E) What is the current zoning of the site? CA Commercial Arterial. F) What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site. Employment Area-Valley. G) If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. H) Has any part of the site been classifies as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: Yes per the attached wetland delineation. I) Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No residents. Approx. 30 to 40 workers. J) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. K) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. L) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will comply with all current zoning requirements, no variances or special conditions approvals are anticipated. 9) Housing: A) Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? None. 8 B) Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10) Aesthetics: A) What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building is not anticipated to exceed 30 feet (two story). The exterior building material is anticipated to be painted concrete masonry, metal siding and stucco or painted concrete. B) What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 1bis project will enhance the existing aesthetics. 11) Light and Glare: A) What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project will require parking lot and building lighting during normal business hours. B) Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere views? No. C) What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. D) Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The project will use shielded light source luminaires for parking lot lighting and building lighting. 12) Recreation: A) What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 9 None. B) Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation, opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation: A) Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or near the site? If so, generally describe: No. B) Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: i Not applicable. 14) Transportation: A) Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans if any. Access is from East Valley Highway. B) Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is served by public transit, the nearest transit stop is within I 00 yards of the site. C) How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How any would the project eliminate? 30 to 50 parking spaces are anticipated. There are no parking spaces to be eliminated. D) Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private): 10 No improvements are required. E) Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe: No. F) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when the peak volumes would occur. Approx. 2 trips per employee is anticipated which would result in approx. 80 trips per day. The trips would coincide with typical commute hours. G) Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15) Public Services: A) Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: No. B) Proposed measures to reduce or control impact on public services, if any: None anticipated. 16) Utilities: A) Circle utilities currently available at the site: ~lectricil)j, pu,tural gaiJ, ~ ~ f,ervice!, ~lephone!, ~anitary seweil, septic system, other: B) Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed: Natural Gas: PSE Sanitary Sewer: City of Renton Water: City of Renton Electricity: PSE Telephone: Qwest Refuse: City of Renton C. Signature: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- 11 significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful W-tloofilM~MlrlofMllli~~:-:q Proponent (Agent for Owner) Signature: .. ~ ~ / / Name Printed: Pr _pv1 Z.~c) /J hovde , I 12 ' ,.: AUG O 4 2006 RECEJVELJ Harper Engineering 200 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Walter Cook Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Harper Engineering Building 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Cook: 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 July 3, 2006 JN 05396 via email We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the new Harper Engineering building to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor slabs. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-6863, dated September 23, 2005. We were provided with an Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan prepared by Rykels Engineering Group, dated May 1, 2006. Drawings showing the floor plans for the building were also provided. Additionally, we have met with you and your architect, Torjan Ronhovde, to discuss the planned construction. Based on this information, we anticipate that a wood-frame building will be built on the western two-thirds of the property. The lower level of the building will have a slab-on-grade floor and will be used primarily for manufacturing, assembly and storage. The front, western, portion of the lower floor will be used for a lobby area, conference room and office space. Above this will be a mezzanine containing office and design space. The lower floor's elevation is indicated to be 22.5 feet, which is generally less than 2 feet above the current grade remaining after recent removal of the previously-placed preload fill. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The subject property is a trapezoidal-shaped lot extending between East Valley Highway (west property line) and State Route 167 (east property line). To the south of the site is a graveled lot apparently used for temporary truck parking. A small commercial building is located on the property to the north. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 2 At the time of our field explorations in October and November 2005, the site topography was dominated by a large fill pile that covered the entire footprint of the proposed building. We understand that this fill was placed as a preload, and it extended 7 to 8 feet above the pre-existing site grade. It is also our understanding that this preload had been in place for several years in anticipation of a previous planned development of the site. The remainder of the property had been filled to several feet above the level of East Valley Highway. At the time of this report, the preload fill has generally been removed from the property. The current ground elevations in the building footprint vary from 21 to 23 feet. The average site grade shown on the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan is approximately 20 feet. However, around the perimeter of the property, the ground slopes downward a short distance to the adjacent rights-of-way and the neighboring lots. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two borings and excavating five test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The borings were drilled on October 26, 2005 using a track-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill. Samples were taken at 5-foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split-spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 through 6. The test pits were excavated on October 26 and November 1, 2005 with a rubber-tired backhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 7 through 9. Soil Conditions Boring 2 and Test Pits 1, 4 and 5 were conducted on top of the previous preload fill, before it was recently removed from the site. The other explorations were away from the base of the preload fill's slopes. The fill soils that were encountered within the extent of the preload were 8 to 12 feet thick. Around the preload footprint, 4 to 5 feet of fill had been placed above the original ground surface. The fill's composition varied quite a bit, but generally consisted of silty sand or silt that contained cobbles and rubble (concrete, rebar and bricks). This fill was loose and did not appear to have been compacted with any substantial effort when it was originally placed. Beneath the fill soils, the explorations typically revealed a layer of peat that appears to have been the original topsoil layer that was not stripped off. This peat layer was generally 3 to 4 feet in thickness. Underlying the old ground surface, and upper layer of peat soils, the borings and test pits exposed alluvial soils consisting of alternating layers of silt, silty sand and peat. Thesw soils have been deposited by meandering rivers and episodes of flooding following recession of GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 3 the last glaciers. The peat and organic soils are highly compressible, and have been found on other nearby sites that have been successfully developed with commercial and industrial buildings. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in both of the borings, but the test pits could not be extended deep enough to reach the water table. Based on these explorations, the groundwater was at a depth of approximately 13 feet below the current site grade when the borings were conducted. The test pits and borings were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. Groundwater levels encountered during drilling can be deceptive, because seepage into the boring can be blocked or slowed by the auger itself. It is typical for the groundwater levels in the Kent/Renton valley to fluctuate seasonally, and we would expect that the water table would be closer to the ground surface in spring-early summer, following the winter and spring rainfall. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the. transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation and drilling. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REL YING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. We expect that the ground surface resulting from the recent preload removal is underlain by several feet of uncontrolled fill soils that were placed over the original topsoil layer. Beneath this are alluvial soils containing occasional layers of highly-compressible organic soils. The planned building area has been preloaded for an extended period of time with a reasonably thick surcharge. Most lightly-loaded commercial and retail buildings in the immediate vicinity have been constructed using conventional foundations following a preload to induce the faster primary consolidation in the underlying alluvial soils. Even with a preload, the presence of peat and organic layers within the alluvium will result in long-term foundation settlement that will likely cause noticeable movement of doorways, windows, floor slabs, and interior and exterior finishes. This is an aesthetic and maintenance issue, and should not present a structural concern for buildings with foundations designed to the current codes and the recommendations of this report. The commercial owners that we have previously worked with in the vicinity have accepted the potential risk of greater-than- typical differential settlement, and the possibility of increased maintenance. Following our discussions and meetings with you, we anticipate that your expectations for this building are such GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 4 that conventional foundations and the potential post-construction settlement would be tolerable. Preventing noticeable long-tenm settlement would require the use of deep foundations extending to dense, native soils. These foundations, such as augercast piers or driven piles, would have to extend past the SO-foot maximum depth of our borings. All footings for the new building should be placed on at least 2 feet of imported structural fill consisting of gravelly pit-run, or a crushed material. This structural fill must be placed over the alluvial soils that underlie the original topsoil. As a result, we expect that excavation of several feet below the planned slab grade will be necessary to remove the remaining existing fill, and the organic topsoil layer. These footing overexcavations will have to be several feet wider than the footings themselves. We recommend that the bottom of the overexcavations be observed by the geotechnical engineer of record before structural fill is placed. The continuous perimeter footings should be fairly rigid, to reduce the potential for downsets due to differential settlement. We recommend that these footings be sufficiently reinforced that they could span a minimum distance of 1 O feet without soil support. As we have discussed, settlement-tolerant finishes should be used for both the interior and exterior of the building. If the risk of noticeable slab settlement is acceptable, the slab-on-grade floors could be constructed on a minimum 12-inch layer of imported structural fill placed over the remaining existing fill soils. The existing fill should be recompacted as much as possible before placing the additional 12 inches of structural fill. The slabs should be heavily-reinforced with rebar to reduce the risk of downsets when settlement occurs, It would be prudent to isolate the slab from the foundations, as they may settle independently of each other. Machinery that could cause strong vibrations should be placed on isolated pads or mat foundations that rest on new structural fill following removal of the original upper topsoil layer. Any machinery that is settlement-sensitive, or which must remain perfectly level over time, should include measures for releveling as warranted. As with any development in the area, the long-tenm ground settlement should be considered in the design of site utilities, pavements and other on-grade elements. Utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers that depend on gravity should be installed with as much grade as possible, in order to reduce the chance that settlement will cause low points or reverse flow in the pipes over time. Pavements should be underlain by imported structural fill to improve subgrade support over the remaining loose fill and the compressible soils. Rigid on-grade elements, such as sidewalks, should be reinforced with rebar to reduce the potential for cracking and downsets that could result from long-term settlement. Based on the results of our explorations, none of the soil excavated for this project will be acceptable for reuse as structural fill. The high silt and moisture contents make the on-site soils essentially impossible to adequately compact. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type E (Soft Soil Profile). While the soils that underlie the water table are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake, the upper soils are not. We have recommended that all foundations be supported on GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 5 at least 2 feet of structural fill and that perimeter foundations be continuous. This will allow the exterior footings to span across any areas of concentrated liquefaction (sand boils). Considering the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report, it is our professional opinion that the differential foundation settlement that could be experienced by the structure during a large earthquake should be on the order of 3 to 4 inches in a distance of 100 feet. It is our opinion that no additional liquefaction mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the structure beyond what are recommended in this geotechnical report. The intent of our recommendations is not to prevent damage or ensure continued function of the structure after the design seismic event, but to avoid catastrophic foundation settlement, thereby protecting the safety of the building occupants. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The General section presents general guidelines for design and construction of conventional foundations. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Overexcavations beneath footings must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings will be about 2 to 3 inches, with differential settlements on the order of one inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. This amount of settlement has been tolerable for other commercial buildings in the area. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 200 pcf Where: (I) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (II) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 6 If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. SLABS-ON-GRADE Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. The General section discusses other considerations for design of on-grade floor slabs for the building. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs-on-grade must be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. Deletion, improper installation or excessive damage of the vapor barrier/retarder has been the cause of several flooring-and water vapor0 related problems on past projects we have been associated with. In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well-graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter'' to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL JN 05396 Page 7 Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: I ; ();-:-\-1~~;;:-(~ - \IINl~ll ~I RI L \II\ r Pl \( F:~lr!\ I (0\II'\( IIO's Beneath footings, slabs 95% orwalkwavs Filled slopes and behind 90% retainina walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as detennined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on-site soils. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits and borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits or borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Harper Engineering July 3, 2006 JN 05396 Page 8 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Harper Engineering, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 -6 Plates 7-9 Plate 10 Vicinity Map Site Exploration Plan Test Boring Logs Test Pit Logs Typical Footing Drain Detail We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. MRM: jyb [EXPIRES 10/25/P7 Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. t (Source: Thomas Brothers Street Guide and Directory} GEOTECH CONSULT ANTS, INC. Job No: 05396 VICINITY MAP 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington ate: June 2006 Not To Scale 7\/0BTff _b_ v ' • j • '\,'\ •q. .. _, I ,_ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ I I ' I~' I , I ' . I I ., I " NORTH-+ \ Not To Scale (Source: Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan, Harper Engineering Buildinq; Rykels Engineering Group, May 1, 2006) .._ .. "" GEOTECH . ., CONSULTANTS, INC. ~""-4J!l_..,.r~· !!!!!!!!"""'.,,....,._., SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington I Job No: 05396 I bate: June 2006 I Plate: 2 20 53.3 35 40 BORING 1 Description 17 8 21 (FILL Brown SAND, coarse grained, and dark gray SILT, moist, loose 3 3 4 3 4 1 5 8 2 ·-~ .. Green/gray very silty SAND, fine grained, very moist, loose Gray SILT, low plasticity, very moist, very loose lnterbedded dark gray SILT and SAND, wet, very loose GEOTECH BORING LOG 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. IJob 05396 I Date· ILoggedbk I Plate: Oct 26, 2005 ZJK • _ 40 4 31.4 1 4 55 80 BORING 1 (Continued from Plate 3) lnterbedded dark gray SILT and SAND, wet, very loose *Test boring was terminated at 51.5 feet during drilling on October 26, 2005. *Groundwater was observed at approximatedly 13ft during drilling. GEOTECH BORING LOG 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington CONSULTANTS, INC. ;: 'Job 05396 I Date: 'Logged by: I Plate: Oct 27, 2005 ZJK 4 114.9 30 37.1 35 40 7 6 ~ 3 BORING 2 Description 0-8' excavated with track hoe. ILL) Light brown silty SAND w/cobbles 3-6" in diameter, broken concrete 3-18'' in diameter, rebar and other debris over entire depth, fine- grained, moist, loose (Preload Fill). Green/Gray sandy SILT interbedded with black sandy SILT, very moist, very loose Brown Peat, fibrous, wet, very soft lnterbedded gray SILT and black SAND, wet, very loose 2 4 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. .:P BORING LOG 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington I Date: !Logged by: I ~late: Oct 26, 2005 ZJK • 5 60 80 BORING 2 Description lnterbedded gray SILT and SAND, wet, loose *Test boring was terminated at 40 feet during drilling on October 26, 2005. *Groundwater was observed at 20ft during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING LOG 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington I Job I Date: I logged by: I Plate:. 05396 Oct 26, 2005 ZJK _ 6 . ;\ ,i ~-;,., TEST PIT 1 t· ~><$1' « 1l i$'-+o .,,i <f< o, :,.i r:J, <;>i~ CP~ '\.;p <:,'? Description --Brown, silty SAND, with cobbles and broken concrete, fine-to medium-grained, -very moist, loose (FILL) I., FILL 5 -.... .... .... .... • Test Pit was tenminated at 8 feet on October 26, 2005. 10 -• No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. I., * No caving was observed during excavation. .... I., I., 15'-- ;\ .,!Q, {\"i,,, TEST PIT 2 t· -~ « .,,i' iS'" +o !<.e, 4 o, -;S, (}' 'Oe,°Q cP~ o,,cP .::;<s Description ... Dark brown, very silty SAND, with cobbles and concrete rubble, fine-to -FILL medium-grained, moist, loose (FILL) -- 5 --§] Dark brown PEAT, wet, soft -Lill -SM lnterbedded gray, silty SAND and sandy SILT, fine-to medium-grained, wet, loose -ML 10 -... • Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on November 1, 2005 . ... ... • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation . .... • No caving was observed feet during excavation . 15-- ' TEST PIT LOGS ~ii GEOTECH 2994 East Valley Highway CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton, Washington ~ .... I Job No: I Dale, I Logged by, I Plate, I ~ y--, Nov 2005 ' ZK 7 05396 ;, ,e-~o\ TEST PIT 3 ~· ,~<l ~"' "'qj, ~,/f:" ~o ,ii ,$ O' o?-,s, er:> Description <l cP I\ .::;;'? -Dark brown, very silty SAND, with gravel, cobbles and concrete rubble, -moist, loose (FILL) -FILL - 5 ..... §] ... Dark brown, fibrous PEAT, wet, soft ... ... W1 lnterbedded gray, silty SAND and sandy SILT, fine-to medium-grained, wet, loose SM ... ML 10 ..... - I., ... • Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on November 1, 2005 . I-• No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. I-• No caving was observed feet during excavation. 15 ..... ;, ,e-~\o\ TEST PIT 4 ~· ~<l ~ ,i ~ ~o ~e, ,$0' :,.,e-(7 <:f~ cP "'o9 .::;;'? Description I- I-Dark brown, silty SAND and well-graded gravel, cobbles, concrete bricks, FILL moist, loose (FILL) I- I., 5 -Gray, silty SANO, some organics, fine-to medium-grained. moist. loose (FILL} ... I., ... I., FILL 10 -I- I- I., El I., , Dark brown PEAT, wet, soft 15 ..... • Test Pit was terminated at 14 feet on November 1, 2005. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving was observed feet during excavation. ' TEST PIT LOGS ~ii GEOTECH 2994 East Valley Highway CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton, Washington 1 .. I Job No, ' Date: ' L.oa,,,t t,y: I Plate, I $ .?'" ' Nov 2005 ' ZK 8 05396 .. I- I-FILL .... 5 ..... I- I- I-FILL .... 10 ---IPT I -- 15- TEST PIT 5 Description Brown, silty SAND and gravel with cobbles, moist, loose (FILL) Gray, silty SAND and sandy SILT, fine-to medium-grained, very moist, loose (FILL) . Dark brown PEAT, wet, soft '--------------------------- • Test Pit was terminated at 13 feet on November 1, 2005. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving was observed feet during excavation. ~· A GEOTECH ., CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington )-~· ~=~----\, ~ I Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric ~ C: . 0 ;·· .g C: :s 0 LI. ,. Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) -,i:;l." •• o · .i::i; ·• D .·i:=l ,(:}·· o· .. 1'.J,()", D ·.-~.o·, o ·,,i:!,,<)", D · •• ~-<:)". D · •• i:'.J • " • ". C> 0 o. 0 • 0. 0 () o. 0. ". C> 0 o, (). 0 . 0 0 o, 0 • 0. 0 " o. 0. " "!'°a<O C>'o ?~ o·o 9 ?~ o·o p f>O,:,:::i o·o "f>Ocfl o·o "~ ./}~ ~ -<~.o 0.~t} .<:}}~;; .<:?}~ ~: .·:~/f~ ~ .·:~ /f~ .:.~ I . ..___ 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe Vapor Retarder/Barrier and Capillary Break/Drainage Layer (Refer to Report text) NOTES: (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations . .._ Jl. ... GEOTECH ., CONSULTANTS, INC. ~'-~t!!!l-"'p~~ ...... --- FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 2994 East Valley Highway Renton, Washington AUG ; ;1 2CDS ./ WETLAND DELINEATION Harper Engineering Site Renton, Washington July 12, 2006 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ~- ="=·" ·=· ====AA================================ Report To: Title: · Project Number: Prepared By: Date: 5711 Northeast 63rd St. Mr. Tor-Jan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects, LLC 14900 Interurban Ave S., Suite 138 Tukwila, Washington 98168 Wetland Delineation for the Harper Engineering Site, Renton, Washington 2006-047-001 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 July 12, 2006 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, \.M1 98115 ( 206) 525-8122 =·=-_=,=· ===AA==================== Project Manager: Lisa Danielski, B.A. Wetland Biologist I Botanist Current Project Personnel: Claude McKenzie, B.S.L.A. Landscape Architect 5711 Northeast 63rd St. Kimberley Huber, B.S.L.A., L.E.E.D. A.P. Landscape Architect Gail Livingstone, B.S.L.A. Natural Resource Planner Danette Emberlin Fuhrer Administrative Editor RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, v1o'1 98115 ( 206) 525-8122 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES·············································································································· V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ I 1.1 Statement of Purpose . . . . . .. .. . . ... .. ......... ... .. . .. .. . ....... ... . ..... .. ... . ..... ........ ..... ... .. .. .. . . . . .. . I 1.2 Study Area .........................................................................................•.................. 1 2.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Definitions and Delineation Methodology ............................................................ 2 2.2 Background Research ........................................................................................... 3 2.3 Field Sampling Procedures ................................................................................... 3 3.0 EXISTING CONDffiONS .......................................................................................... 6 3,1 Results of Background Investigation .................................................................... 6 3.2 General Project Area Description ......................................................................... 6 3.3 Wetland Descriptions ............................................................................................ 7 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 12 4.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 12 5.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14 6.0 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................. 15 FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX A: Wetland Delineation Methodology ...................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: Field Survey Data ................................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C: City of Renton Building Permit #B960512 .......................................... C-1 IV LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Map . . ....... ..... ...... .. .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... ... . . . ......... ........ .. ... . ...... ..... ..... ....... ..... ...... .. .. . 19 2. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 20 3. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 21 LIST OFT ABLES Table Page I. Key to aerial photos .................................................................................................. , .. 22 V 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1,1 STATEMENTOFPuRPOSE At the request of Mr. Tor-Jan Ronhovde ofRonhovde Architects, LLC, Raedeke Associates, Inc. investigated the 1. 78-acre Harper Engineering site located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). This report documents the results of our May 17, 2006 site investigation to identify and delineate any areas that could be classified as wetlands or streams on the project site, and provides technical baseline data for use in future site planning. 1.2 STUDY AREA 1 The project site consists of one parcel totaling 1.78 acres in Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, Washington. Specifically, the project site is located at 3000 East Valley Highway,just west of the Valley Freeway (State Route [SR]-167, Figure 2). The site is identified as King County tax parcel #3023059085, as depicted on a drawing received in our office from Mr. Tor-Jan Ronhovde on May 2, 2006 and the King County (2006) iMAP. Harper Engineering Rem on Wetland Delineation Raedelce Associates, Inc. July I 2, 2006 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DEFINITIONS AND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251). 2 We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1997). The WDOE wetlands manual is required by state law for all local jurisdictions (including the City of Renton), is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications providedbytheCOE(1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1994). As outlined in the 1987 and 1997 wetland delineation manuals, under normal circumstances wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation (wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wetland hydrology. Hydrophytic vegetation is defmed as "macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) ratings are used to define whether hydrophytic vegetation is present (Reed 1988, 1993). The WIS ratings define plant species based on their ability to withstand saturated soil conditions. Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL), respectively. In general, under the 1987 federal and 1997 state methodologies, more than 50% of the predominant plant species in an area must be rated facultative or wetter for the area under consideration to be regarded as having hydrophytic vegetation. A hydric soil is defined as "a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (Federal Register 1994: 35681). The morphological characteristics of the soils in the study area were examined to determine whether any could be classified as hydric. Harper Engineering Renlon Wetland Delineation Raedelce Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 Wetland hydrology could be present if the soils were saturated (sufficient to produce anaerobic conditions) within the majority of the rooting zone for at least 5% of the growing season (COE 1992). It should be noted, however, that areas having saturation to the surface between 5% and 12% of the growing season may or may not be wetland (COE 1992; see also Table A.4, Appendix A). Depending on soil type and drainage characteristics, saturation to the surface would occur if water tables were shallower than about 12 inches below the soil surface during this time period. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology include direct observation of inundation or soil saturation, as well as indirect evidence such as driftlines, watermarks, surface encrustations, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987, WDOE 1997). For further discussion of wetland delineation methodologies used on this project, see Appendix A. 2.1.2 Streams The City of Renton (2006) municipal code does not provide a specific definition for streams, only regulatory classifications of streams. The City of Renton measures buffers for regulated streams from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a stream, which is defined as: " ... the mark found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter." 2,2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH 2.2.1 Wetlands and Streams 3 In preparation for our site investigation, we collected maps and information from the USFWS (1988) National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey (Snyder et al. 1973), the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2006) Forest Practices Base Map, and the wetlands and streams inventory maps found in the City of Renton (2006) Municipal Code. In order to determine previous land use on the project site, we also reviewed a set of aerial photographs (Table!), and Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (1996) Wetland Delineation and Study Report prepared for the project site. 2.3 FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES 2.3.1 Wetlands Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff visited the Harper Engineering property on May 17, 2006. During our field investigation, we used information from the background review to assist Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedelce Associates, Inc. July I 2, 2006 us in the examination of the study area. We investigated representative areas of plant communities, soil, and hydrologic conditions in both the wetlands and adjacent uplands. We searched specifically for areas with positive indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. Where feasible, we visually investigated off-site areas adjacent to the property. 4 Plant communities were inventoried, classified, and described during our field investigations. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale and plotless sampling methodology to describe homogenous plant "cover types" in both the wetlands and uplands (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenburg 1974; see table A.I in Appendix A of this report). Plant nomenclature (Table B.1, Appendix B) follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Guard (1995), and Cooke (1997). Wetland classification follows the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). Two quantitative indices were used to analyze vegetation data in order to determine if the plant community meets the definition of "hydrophytic vegetation." The first index represents the percentage of dominant species with a WIS rating of facultative or wetter. We used the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance method (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974) as a way to objectively describe homogenous vegetation "cover types." A species with a cover class value of2 (5% to 25% canopy cover) or greater on the Braun- Blanquet scale is considered a dominant. The second vegetation index used was a weighted mean of the WIS ratings, after Wentworth and Johnson (1986). This weighted mean index (WMI) calculates the average WIS rating of all species in the plot by weighting each species based upon its relative cover. The WMI is a measure of the plant community's adaptation to saturated soil conditions (Wentworth and Johnson 1986). The WMI provides an objective parameter for determining whether a plant community is indicative of wetland or upland conditions. Ideally, the "breakpoint" between wetland and upland vegetation is a weighted mean index of3.0, with wetland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WMI less than 3.0 and upland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WMI greater than 3.0. When the weighted mean index is near 3.0 however, vegetation may not clearly indicate whether an area is wetland or upland. In such cases, soil and hydrologic conditions must be carefully considered. As the weighted mean index of a plant community or plot approaches either extreme on the scale (i.e., approaching 1.0 or 5.0), however, the probability of the vegetation indicating wetland or upland, respectively, increases. Wentworth and Johnson (1986) confirmed the effectiveness of this methodology for a wide variety of plant communities in different regions of the United States. Where possible, we excavated pits to at least 18 inches below the soil surface in order to describe the soil and hydrologic conditions throughout the study area. We sampled soil at locations that corresponded with vegetation sampling areas and potential wetland Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 5 areas. Soil colors were determined using the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell Color 2000). Topographic changes within the context of the landscape were used to aid in the placement of the wetland boundaries. We used fluorescent pin flags and/or pink and black diagonally-striped plastic flagging tape to represent the outer edge of the wetlands. The wetland boundaries were then surveyed and plotted on maps by professional land surveyors at Centre Pointe Surveying and depicted on a map received in our office from The Ronhovde Architects on June 8, 2006. 2.3.2 Streams We searched the property for watercourses that may be regulated by the City of Renton (2006). Where feasible, we determined the OHWM of on-site stream segments using indicators outlined in the WDOE (1994) Shoreline Administrators Manual, which include: (l) a clear vegetation mark; (2) wetland/upland edge; (3) elevation; (4) a combination of changes in vegetation, elevation, and landward limit of drift deposition; (5) soil surface changes from algae or sediment deposition to areas where soils show no sign of depositional processes; and/or ( 6) soil profile changes from wetter conditions (low chroma, high soil organic matter, and lack of mottling) to drier conditions (higher chroma, less organic matter, or brighter mottles). We placed pin flags and/or pink-and-black striped flagging along the boundary of water bodies that may be regulated as streams. A sketch map depicting the wetland and stream delineation was provided to The Ronhovde Architects, LLC on May 17, 2006. Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 REsULTS OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 3.1.1 Wetlands and Streams 6 The USFWS (1988) NWI, Renton Quadrangle map depicts a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded, excavated (PFOCx) linear wetland feature adjacent to the east property line of the Harper Engineering site, running north-south along the west side of SR-167. Coward.in et al. (1992) uses the "excavated" modifier when a wetland feature lies within a basin or channel that has been artificially excavated. No other wetlands are depicted on the project site. The NWI map also depicts various other palustrine wetlands that are either associated with the Panther Creek Wetland east ofSR-167 or with the Renton Wetlands to the north and west of the project site .. The soils of the study area were mapped at a scale of l :24,000 by the SCS (Snyder et al. 1973). A majority of the Harper Engineering Renton site is mapped as Urban Land (Map Code Ur), which is characterized as soil that has been modified, mainly by the placement . of fill material, to accommodate large industrial and residential installations. The eastern third of the site is mapped as Tukwila muck (Map Code Tu), which is a poorly drained hydric soil (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service 1991, Federal Register 1995). Soil series boundaries or mapping units are mapped from aerial photographs with limited field verification. Thus, the location and extent of the boundaries between mapping units may be approximate for a given parcel of land within the survey area. The Washington Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR 2006) Forest Practices Activity Map for the project area shows no streams or other state waters on the project site. The WDNR (2006) map shows a straightened, untyped stream feature to the south of the project site, along the west side of East Valley Highway. The City of Renton (2006) wetlands and streams inventory maps do not depict any wetlands or streams on or adjacent to the project site. The Panther Creek Wetland is depicted to the east ofSR-167. A Class 2 stream is depicted within the Panther Creek Wetland to the east ofSR-167; the stream forks off into two straightened stream features to the north and south of the project site on the west side ofSR-167. 3.2 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The property is located in the Green River Valley as part of the Green River-Duwamisb Watershed (King County 2006). The Harper Engineering site consists predominantly of a fill pad. The City of Renton issued Building Permit No. 8960512 for preload on the site in August 1996 (Appendix C). The project site is bounded on the west by East Valley Highway, on the north by an auto towing facility, on the east by SR-167 and its associated drainageway, and on the south by a truck container storage area. Several excavated Harper Engineering R-on Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. .IIIJy 12, 2006 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 features are located on the site, which are described in Section 3 .3. A majority of the site is on level land; the project site elevation ranges from 14.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) within the excavated areas of the site to approximately 20 feet above MSL on the top of the fill pad. From aerial photographs (Table 1) taken between 1985 and 2001, it appears that in 1985 most of the ground on the site had been manipulated, as evidenced by a rectangle of bare ground that comprises a majority of the site, and a line of trees and/or shrubs along the north, south and east property lines. Parcels adjacent to the south of the Harper Engineering site have a similar signature of heavily modified land. The 1995 and 2001 aerial photos showed some low-growing vegetation on a majority of the site, with the lines of woody vegetation still present on the north, south,. and east property lines. . Talasaea Consultants, Inc.' s ( 1996) Wetland Delineation and Study indicates that the fill pad had been in place at the time of their site investigation on March 29, 1996. The topography depicted on the site indicates that the fill pad comprised a majority of the site, with a relatively uniform elevation of 20 feet above MSL. They identified one wetland · that runs along the north and east property lines. However, Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (1996) determined that the wetland likely would not be regulated under the then-current City of Renton (1992) Wetland Management Ordinance since the wetland was "considered a stormwater conveyance ditch by the City of Renton." Under the City of Renton (1992) Wetland ~ement Ordinance, unregulated wetlands included wetlands that were "intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including ... stormwater management, wastewater treatment, or landscape amenities." 3.3 WETLAND AND STREAM DESCRIPTIONS Based on our May 17, 2006 investigation, we identified and delineated two areas on the Harper Engineering property that appeared to meet the WDOE (1997) criteria to be considered wetlands and one area that would be classified as a stream (Figure 3). Because the SCS (Snyder et al. 1973) soil survey and aerial photos indicated that the site had been heavily manipulated since the early 1970's and because a preload permit was issued for the project site in 1996 by the City of Renton, we applied routine wetland determination procedures for sites under normal circumstances, as detailed in WDOE (1997), to identify wetlands on the project site. Following is a detailed description of the wetlands and streams. 3.3.1 Wetland A The on-site portion of Wetland A is 0.15 acres (6,299 square feet) in size and is located along the east and northeast boundary of the Harper Engineering property. The extent and location of Wetland A generally corresponds to the wetland described in Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (1996). Most of the wetland follows the toe of the fill slope on-site, and Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associales. Inc. .hJy I 2, 2006 is also bounded by fill slopes on developments off-site to the north and south, and by the SR-167 fill slope to the east. The wetland primarily receives hydrology from surface water runoff from the developments and SR-167. Surface water is conveyed off-site to the west through Stream A, which is described in detail in Section 3.3.2. Vegetation 8 A majority of the on-site portion of Wetland A was dominated by dense Pacific and Sitka willows as well as black cottonwood saplings, with an understory mainly comprised of common cattail, smartweed, soft rush, and American water plantain (Sample Plots I and 6, Tables B.2 and B.3). A small portion of the wetland adjacent to the fill pad contains some Pacific willow and black cottonwood seedlings, as well as annual bluegrass, reed canarygrass, and buttercup, among other emergents (Sample Plot 2, Table B.4). Hydrology and Soils At the time of our May 17, 2006 site visit, a majority of Wetland A had inundation ranging in depth from 1 to 17 inches (Tables B.2 and B.3). Hydric soils were assumed due to an aquic moisture regime. The west edge of Wetland A was not inundated; it had a disturbed soil profile with a mixed matrix of very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) and black (IOYR 2/1) sandy loam with redoximorphic features throughout (Table B.4). Free water was present at 13 inches below the ground surface, and soils were saturated at the surface. Determination Positive indicators for hydric soil, wetland hydrology, and dominance by hydrophytic vegetation were present within Wetland A during our May 17, 2006 field investigation. Therefore, the delineated areas met necessary criteria to be considered wetland under guidelines of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE 1997). Since the total shrub cover in Wetland A is greater than 30%, the wetland would be classified as a palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous (PSS 1) wetland according to the USFWS wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1992). Adjacent Uplands Uplands to the south and west of the on-site portion of Wetland A consisted of the fill pad, most of which had been cleared of vegetation earlier in 2006 (Mr. Gary Gaston, Gaston Bros. Excavating Inc., pers. comm. May 17, 2006). The dominant vegetation was wild carrot with some scattered Scouler' s willow and black cottonwood seedlings as well as some other herbaceous species (Sample Plot 3, Table B.5). The highly disturbed soil profile on the fill pad consisted of 17 inches very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 3/2) sandy loam with redoximorphic features throughout. At the time of our May 17, 2006 Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July I 2, 2006 9 investigation, soils were dry to at least 17 inches below the soil surface and no secondary indicators of hydrology were present. The berm adjacent to the west side of Wetland A, along the east property boundary, had not been cleared of vegetation and consisted mainly of black cottonwood saplings over I 0 feet tall, with scattered Himalayan blackberry, butterfly bush, and various herbs and grasses (Sample Plot 5, Table B.6). Soils consisted of9 inches of very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) cobbly sand. Soils were too compacted below 9 inches to dig or auger. No saturation or free water was present within 9 inches of the ground surface, and no other secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were observed on May 17, 2006. Wetland A was differentiated from adjacent uplands by the presence of hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and low-chroma mineral soils. Areas were considered upland if there were not indicators for all three wetland criteria. Off-site portion of Wedand A Based on our visual observations of Wetland A from the project site boundary, the wetland mainly extends along the west side ofSR-167 to the north and south of the property. Most of the off-site portion of Wetland A is also PSS!, dominated by willows and black cottonwood. Hydrophytic vegetation continues to the north and south of the on-site portion of Wetland A, and, based on our off-site reconnaissance, Wetland A is connected to the Panther Creek wetland via a culvert, of at least five feet in diameter, that is located under SR-167 to the northeast of the site. Aerial photos from 2001 (Table 1) indicate that the Panther Creek wetland is a mosaic of PSS 1 and palustrine, emergent, persistent (PEMI) wetland vegetation classes, as defined by Cowardin et al. (1992). The 200 I aerial photos do not indicate open water components within the Panther Creek wetland. 3.3.2 AreaB Area Bis 0.08 acres (3,565 square feet) in size and is located in the east portion of the Harper Engineering property (Figure 3). Talasaea Consultants, Inc. (1996) does not describe or map any wetland features that correspond to Area B. Therefore, Area B appears to be an artificially created wetland that has been excavated out of the existing fill pad within the past ten years. It is our understanding that the area was excavated in order to detain stormwater (Mr. Gary Gaston, GBE Construction pers. comm. May 17, 2006). Vegetation Vegetation within Area B had been cleared in early 2006 (Mr. Gary Gaston, Gaston Bros. Excavating Inc., pers. comm. May 17, 2006). Some black cottonwood and Pacific willow seedlings were resprouting, and scattered reed canarygrass and field horsetail were also present (Sample Plot 4, Table B. 7). Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 10 Soils and Hydrology A majority of the soils in Area B were extremely compacted and could not be sampled below 5 inches. Soils within the upper 5 inches of the profile at Sample Plot 4 consisted of very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) loamy sand (Table B.7). While soils were saturated to the surface during our May 17, 2006 site visit, no free water was observed (Table B. 7). Determination Positive indicators ofhydric soil, wetland hydrology, and dominance by hydrophytic vegetation were present within Area B during our May I 7, 2006 field investigation. Therefore, the delineated area exhibited necessary characteristics to be considered wetland under guidelines of the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE 1997). However, the area appears to be an isolated, human- induced wetland with no surface connection to Wetland A or other wetlands or streams. Adjacent Uplands Uplands to the north, south, and east of Area B are primarily fill slope, as represented by Sample Plots 3 and 5 (Tables B.5 and B.6). The southwest portion of the excavated area outside of Area B was sparsely vegetated on the day of our site visit, with scattered black cottonwood seedlings, rushes, and reed canarygrass (Sample Plot 7, Table B.8). The soil profile in this area consisted of 10 inches of very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) sandy loam with redoximorphic features; the soils were too compacted below 10 inches to sample. No saturation or free water was present on May 17, 2006. Some cracked soils were observed, but no sediment deposits or other strong secondary indicators of inundation were present. Area B was differentiated from adjacent uplands primarily by presence of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation, as well as by low chroma mineral soils that were found within the wetland, but not in the upland. We did not find indicators for all three wetland criteria within any of the remaining portions of the Harper Engineering site during our May 17, 2006 field investigation. 3.3.3 Stream A According to WDOE (1997), an area must have indicators of all three wetland criteria (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) to be identified as a wetland under normal circumstances. Stream A did not have any vegetation rooted within areas of inundation or saturation, and thus was differentiated from Wetland A based on the break between the vegetated and non-vegetated portion of the drainageway along the north property line (Figure 3). We marked the edge of Stream A based on OHWM indicators, as described in Section 2.1.2. A majority of the north side of Stream A was armored with rip-rap, and Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Roedeke As•ociates, Inc. July I 2, 2006 I I I I I I I I I ~ J I f I the on-site fill pad abuts the south side of the stream. Vegetation rooted upslope of the OHWM of Stream A includes Pacific willow, red alder and black cottonwood uees. Himalayan blackberry dominated most of the south bank of the stream (Sample Plot 8, Table B.9). The west end of Stream.A was inundated to approximately 12 inches on May 17, 2006. 11 A 15-inch diameter concrete pipe near the northwest corner of the pro~ conveys water through an underground storm drainage pipe off-site to the northw...,.-alasaea Consultants, Inc. ( 1996) indicated that water from this culvert eventually discharges into Springbrook Creek, which is 11. mile west of the project site. We did not see any surface. watercnnnectjcm between.the cubrert..in ~~.!!flllsl~- "Spring~~ {:.mk..d\AP.18 O!!t M1w 17, 2006 ~L ,-. ._ ,,_ ·,s•·'"' • Harp, .E/wfllN mg R•nton 'Wllllmid Dt!lbwiatlon 12 4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 WETLANDS Wetlands are protected by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Chapters 90.48 and 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), and other state and local policies and ordinances, including the City of the Renton (2006) Municipal Code. A review of the federal, state, and City of Renton regulations applicable to wetlands and other water bodies on the Harper Engineering site are presented below; however, this discussion should not be considered comprehensive. Additional information may be obtained from agencies with jurisdictional responsibility for, or interest in, the site. 4.1.1 Federal Clean Water Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) discourages the discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including most wetlands, without a permit from the COE. Based on our observations and background review of the Harper Engineering Renton site, Wetland and Stream A may be regulated by the COE because of its connectivity to Springbrook Creek. We did not see any surface water connection between Area Band waters of the U.S., and.Area B appears to have been excavated from non-wetland fill material that has been in place for over 20 years. Therefore, Area B likely would not be regulated by the COE. We should caution that the COE makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland as defined by the federal government (Federal Register 1986:41251), and ifit is under their jurisdiction. 4.1.2 City of Renton Wetlands The City of Renton (2006) regulates wetlands and streams under Chapter 3 of their Municipal Code. Regulated wetlands do not include "those wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites ... including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities." The City of Renton categorizes regulated wetlands as Category 1, 2, and 3, as outlined in Section 4-3-0SO(M) of the City of Renton (2006) Municipal Code. On-site portions of Wetland A may be considered unregulated ifit can be demonstrated that the wetland was excavated out of non-wetland areas as a drainage ditch. It is likely that most of the north arm of Wetland A that is contiguous with Stream A was excavated out of upland fill, as this area was mapped as Urban land by Snyder et al. (1973). Portions of Wetland A may have existed prior to construction ofSR-167. As indicated on the USFWS (1988) NWI map, Wetland A is an excavated wetland feature on the west Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 13 side ofSR-167, which indicates that the wetland was ditched and soils and vegetation were modified. Wetlands that undergo these types of modifications fall under the City of Renton's (2006) definition of a Category 3 ("severely disturbed") wetland. Category 3 wetlands receive a standard 25-foot-wide buffer. Area B, which was excavated out of a pre-existing fill pad within the last decade, likely would not be regulated by the City of Renton (2006) Municipal Code since it was an artificially excavated feature created for the purpose of detaining stormwater. Streams Streams are classified under Section 4-3-0SO(L) of the City of Renton (2006) municipal code. Classification ranges from Class I streams, which are the highest-quality salmonid- bearing streams, to Class 5 streams, which are low-quality non-salmonid-bearing waters. Streams that are not mapped on the Water Class Map included in the City ofRenton's (2006) Municipal Code must be evaluated according to the criteria in Section 40-SOL I ( c) to determine their likely classification. Stream A has not been mapped on the Water Class Map included in the City ofRenton's (2006) Municipal Code. Other local and state stream inventories reviewed for this study do not indicate that Stream A provides salmonid habitat or is connected to a salmon- bearing stream. Stream A runs through a portion of land that was mapped as Urban land by Snyder et al. (1973). Therefore, it is likely that Stream A is a non-salmonid bearing, artificially constructed channel. Under the City of Renton (2006) Municipal Code, Stream A would be rated as a Class 5 stream, which is not a regulatory feature of the City of Renton (2006). Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, inc. July 12, 2006 5.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of The Ronhovde Architects, LLC and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from The Ronhovde Architects, LLC. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. With regard to wetlands and streams, the final determination of their boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that regulate development activities in wetlands and streams. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this letter represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 14 Harper Engineering Renlon Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates. Inc. July 12, 2006 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, J., E. Hardy, J. Roach, and R. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp. Buol, S., D. Hole, and R. McCracken. 1980. Soil genesis and classification. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. 406 pp. Cooke, S. 1997. A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L., F. Golet, V. Carter, and E. LaRoe. 1992. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service Puhl. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Anny Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. 15 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; final rule. Vol. 51. No. 219. pp. 41206-41260, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Register. 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Volume 59, No 133, July 13, 1994. Federal Register. 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Hydric Soils of Washington. Revised December 15, 1995. Guard, BJ. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. 239 pp. Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 King County. 2006. iMAP, Sensitive Areas map. http://www.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esri.map. Accessed May 15, 2006. 16 Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 54 7 pp. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. Gretag Macbeth, New Windsor, NY. Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest Service; Research Program. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. Reed, P., Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Supplement to Biological Report 88 (26.9) May 1988. Renton, City of. 2006. Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 5136, passed February 13, 2006. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil survey of King County Area, Washington. 100 pp. Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1996. Younker Property: Wetland Delineation and Study. May 2, 1996 report prepared for Benchmark Development. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987 wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. August 30, 1991. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C. October 7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification and interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., March 26, 1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General, U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works. Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 17 U.S. Anny Corps ofEngineers. 1994. Public Notice. Subject: Washington regional guidance on the 1987 wetland delineation manual. May 23, 1994, Seattle District. 8 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. 1988. Renton, Washington, 7.5-minute quadrangle. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of the United States: In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491. Washington Department of Ecology. 1994. Shoreline Administrators Manual Vol. 1: Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2ru1 Ed. Publication No. 93-104a. January 1994. Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetlands identification and delineation manual. March 1997. Publication No. 96-94. 88 pp. plus appendices. Washington Department ofNatural Resources. 2006. Forest Practice Activity Map for Section 30 Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/servlet/com.esri.esrimap. Accessed May 15, 2006. Wentworth, T. and G. Johnson. 1986. Use of vegetation in the designation of wetlands. Final report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. North Carolina Agricultural Service and N.C. State University, Raleigh. 107 pp. Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Raedeke Associates, Inc. July 12, 2006 FIGURES AND TABLES l ~ ] "·'"'~· ~ " .9 ~ t I ·li, ,li i r,..;.,:J,<c,(?: :l'! ~ I F<•~~··i;/;4,l~i:.,§ ~ Figure 1. Regional map showing general location of the project. SW S1r1i33RD ST ' >' < SW Figure 2. i ,r·, i1 27Ti, I ilWETLANDS TH )I 30TH ST ., SW 19TH ST rs SW 23RD ST 1100 SE 165 ~.: b/0 < ~,,----~ S[ 175TH ST 176TH ST :!J.- ~<: I 41ST ST Vicinity map for the project area. "Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof; whether for personal use or resale, without permission." Si1e Benchmark El~\IO\ion 1 B. 76 feet B r,v-\r auoner corner. Seclio~, 30. Township 23 north. R::mge 5 east. W.M. Fou,,d pu,ch in 3/8~ brass plug. inccsed at the in1ersec\icn of South 23rd ?-.and East Volley Highway. C-v O east of monument case 19 with pcnel mark. -- \ WETLAND A (PSS1) T Approx. 6,299 SF on-site (wetland continues off site to east, north, and south) \ (I) \~ S10RIJ ~;r.lN.A·X 1,1",NHOLE LINA8LE TO DIP 13 S~ I( . --J ) :i -~:. \ CATCH B'°'S1N ---1 'I' ,• ·;; ,:·l-'°''!"; 11 / \ RIµ -;a.1'3 + .. ;;; Cfa.T,;;-; 12· 1'J,IP £ 15.43 IE :·: >.::_.; ·, "::,i.· R1"1 13; 12" (:~PW 1523 1( -°'11.!_K ·----..-:2·· ,.::1,,1"'-•'~ : • • •• :§: ' 30' ' • -' ;..NrTAR'f S[W(R ~0,NHOL( m1.1 1S 73 s· Pv;: w aa> 10: ~-P\/': ti 6.89 iO: 8~ FVC S f.50 I:'. ~~ !f i' .J S.UIIT.o.R·, SEWER t.lAtJ!-101.E Rll.1 \9. 12 f ~~ '(: ~\~"1l ,-',,,'J', ,,1· ••• ! '•.§' :'./} 121 08' \ . ,g. ' • ,.... ~··-·· .... ·~--~--------------------~---------. . i', . ···~';:.._ \ \ \ .a.-<1. '3fJ0'1r:;i ,~...,0.-~·1 I ~· .. c•-;rn·= ,_,,_~\\I \ , ;;; ' • , , I,\ I 1 I \ \ tO .... ~·-!! vov::'i • 1 1\ §'JI \ i:i-(:" ·:,..~ 2 da ,~• \ ,...II I ' .' SI _I ,11 1 , ~ -,.· South quor1 1 11 \ ,.,..., #,,..:• ..,...,, Section 3Q,-. __ 1\:1I <... north. Ronq, ·11 .... ~ I , _Found ~t-,islf ],1 30 r-concrete. 1r1 .p.'I.~ \J.C..~ 31 \ \ I north 10 \ I ... I 50 ' :3' PVC N 5.92 IE I O a,\ ~=====>=\= KEY -.. -.. -SITE BOU ~ WETLAN[ ·~ RAEDEKI --+-. STREAM • SP7 SAMPLE RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. \ 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. (206} 525-61 22 SEATILE. WA 98115 FAX: (206} 526-2680 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2006-047-001 DATE: 7-12-06 -------------------------- DRAWN BY: CJM Base information provided by The Ronhovde Architects, LLC: files Wetland Exhibit 06-08-2006.dwg and Harper Eng. ditch TOPO 3-13-2006 Table I. List of aerial photographs used in the ~~ Agency Wash. Dept. Natural Resources (SP 85) Wash. Dept. Natural Resources (NW-95 series) Wash. Dept. Natural Resources (NW-C-01 series) 1 B&W = Black and white photograph Harper Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation Date 1985 1995 2001 22 Type 1 Scale B&W 1" = 1,000' B&W 1" = 1,000' Color 1"= 1,000' Roede/re Associates, Inc. July I 2, 2006 APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Methodology A-2 A.I Plant Community Description and Classification Methods Qualitative and quantitative indicators are used to determine whether hydrophytic vegetation is present on a particular site. Each of the plant communities on the Harper Engineering site is classified according to the predominant vegetative growth form, and in some cases, substrate material, flooding regime, and/or land use. Wetland communities are classified according to Cowardin et al. (1992), while upland communities are classified according to Anderson et al. (1976). The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) defines hydrophytic vegetation as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present" (Environmental Laboratory 1987: 16). Specifically, "hydrophytic vegetation is prevalent in an area when the dominant species comprising the plant community or communities are typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987:17). In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when ''more than 50% of the dominant species are OBL, FACW, or FAC [as defined below] on lists of plants species that occur in wetlands" (Environmental Laboratory 1987:19). Other indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation include visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation and/or soil saturation, morphological adaptations of vegetation, technical literature, physiological and reproductive vegetation adaptations. In order to determine the dominant vegetation in an area, vegetation communities are . described and classified using the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance ''plotless" sampling methodology as outlined in Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974; Table A.I). According to this methodology, a vegetated area is divided into one or more homogeneous cover types. For each cover type, plant species composition and cover are recorded based on ''plotless" sampling. Table A. I contains a key to the Braun-Blanquet cover scale. Scientific and common nomenclature of vegetation follows Hitchcock and Cronquist(1976), as updated by Pojar and MacKinnon (1994) and Cooke (1997). Each species within the cover type is assigned a wetland indicator status (WIS) rating as established by Reed (1988, 1993). Wetland indicator status ratings were developed in order to segregate species into "ecological groups." Each group contains species with similar probabilities of occurrence in wetlands or similar abilities to withstand saturated soil conditions. Plants are rated, from highest to lowest probability of occurrence in wetlands, as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (F ACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (F ACU), and upland (UPL). Table A.2 contains a detailed key to the wetland indicator status categories. Plant species not listed in Reed (1988, 1993) are rated upland by default. A-3 Two quantitative indices are used to analyze vegetation data in order to detennine if the plant community meets the definition of "hydrophytic vegetation." The first index represents the percentage of dominant species with a WIS rating of facultative or wetter. A species with a cover class value of 2 (5% -25% canopy cover) or greater on the Braun- Blanquet scale is considered a dominant. The second vegetation index is a weighted mean of the WIS ratings. This weighted mean index (WMI) calculates the average WIS rating of all species in the plot by weighting each species based upon its relative cover. The WMI is a measure of the plant community's adaptation to saturated soil conditions (Wentworth and Johnson 1986). The WMI provides an objective parameter for determining whether a plant community is indicative of wetland or upland conditions. Ideally, the "breakpoint" between wetland and upland vegetation is a weighted mean index of3.0, with wetland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WM! less than 3.0 and upland vegetation characteristics indicated by a WMI greater than 3.0. When the weighted mean index is near 3.0, however, vegetation may not clearly indicate whether an area is wetland or upland. In such cases, soil and hydrologic conditions must be carefully considered. As the weighted mean index of a plant community or plot approaches either extreme on the scale (i.e. approaching 1.0 or 5.0), however, the probability of the vegetation indicating either wetland or upland increases (see Figure A.I). Wentworth and Johnson (1986) confirmed the effectiveness of this methodology for a wide variety of plant communities in different regions of the United States. The following example illustrates the calculation of the two indices. Table A.3 contains an example of a calculation in the format contained within the text of Appendix B of our report. I. Calculation of the percent of the dominant species that are rated facultative (F AC) or wetter: % FAC or wetter species= y/x * 100 Where, x = the total number of dominant species. Dominant species are defined as species with a cover class of 2 or greater according to the Braun- Blanquet methodology. y = the number of dominant species that have WIS ratings of F AC or wetter. 2. Calculation of the weighted mean index (WMI): For the calculation of the WM!, each Braun-Blanquet cover value is converted to the mid-point of the cover class, and the WIS ratings are converted to numerical values. The calculation is done according to the following formula: where, WMI = sum of(CCM * WIS} sumof(CCM) CCM = percent cover class midpoint for each species, WIS = wetland indicator status rating for each species. A-4 The 1987 manual requires only an analysis of vegetation dominance. If the proportion of dominant plant species rated F AC or wetter is greater than 50%, the vegetation community is considered hydrophytic. Although a WMI is calculated for each vegetation community in this report, the determination of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation according to the 1987 methodology is based solely on vegetation dominance values. A.2 Soil Description and Classification Methods Hydric soils are classified by examining soil morphology. Soils are described by using exposed profiles within pits or by examining soils obtained from boreholes. Other observations such as topography and degree of disturbance (i.e. filling and/or grading) are also recorded. In order to determine the variation and distribution of soils, boreholes are dug throughout the study area. In addition to the field investigation, U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey reports and maps are examined to determine the soil mapping unit( s) for the study area. Soil color is based on three spectral variables: hue (the dominant spectral color), value (the relative brightness of color) and chroma (the purity of color) (Buol et al. 1980). Alphanumeric values are assigned to these spectral variables using the notation of the Munsell Color System (Munsell Color 2000). Soils are examined for hydric soil characteristics generally within the upper 18 inches of the profile. According to the 1987 and 1997 manuals, soils are specifically examined for hydric indicators immediately below the A horizon or 10 inches, whichever is shallower. Hydric soil indicators include, but are not limited to, 1) gley conditions, 2) mottling in a low chroma matrix, 3) histic soils, and 4) saturated or inundated conditions. Oley conditions are the presence of gray, greenish gray, or bluish colors in the soil. Gley conditions indicate that iron in the soil has been leached or occurs only in reduced form because soil conditions have been anaerobic for a considerable amount of time. Mottling in a low chroma matrix is the occurrence of "spots" of contrasting soil colors within the soil matrix. Low chroma is defined as having a chroma less than or equal to 2, according to standard Munsell notation, and indicates colors of low purity (i.e. gray colors). The presence of mottles in a low chroma matrix indicates alternating oxidized and reduced conditions as occurs with fluctuating saturated and unsaturated soil conditions. A-5 A histic soil is a soil primarily composed of organic material. In most cases, organic soils are indicators of very poorly to poorly drained conditions. Histic soils typically develop on sites with nearly constant saturation because under such anaerobic conditions plant materials decay slowly. Saturated or inundated soil conditions are often indicators ofhydric soils; however, recent weather conditions must be taken into account. Intense rates of precipitation or constant precipitation over a period of time can produce saturated or inundated conditions in an otherwise non-hydric soil. While hydric soil morphology can be an indicator of wetland soil, it may not define an area as wetland. Artificially drained hydric soils may exhibit hydric morphology, but no longer be flooded or saturated for sufficient time to favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Therefore, these areas would no longer be classified as wetland (Cowardin et al. 1992; Environmental Laboratory 1987). Conversely, a soil may be subjected to saturated or flooded conditions for a sufficient period of time to favor the growth ofhydrophytic vegetation, yet lack "typical" hydric soil morphology. This phenomena occurs commonly in young or poorly developed soils. Examples of soils lacking hydric morphology, yet meeting the hydric soil definition, include poorly drained recent deposits such as sand bars, poorly drained mine soils, or other recently disturbed soils. Certain soil materials can also "mask" the usual morphological indicators of poorly drained conditions. Soil morphology is an indicator of environmental conditions under which the soil developed; however, its morphology may not reflect present environmental conditions. Careful observation of soil morphology in association with vegetation, topography, and hydrology is needed especially when soils are young or disturbed. A.3 Characterization of Hydrology The importance of water to the existence of wetlands is clearly stated in the Corps of Engineers (COE) definition of wetlands as: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Federal Register 1986:41251). Wetland hydrology, the primary determinant for the development ofhydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation, is the most critical factor for wetland formation. Without wetland hydrology an area cannot be classified as a wetland. "Wetland hydrology" A-6 describes the hydrological characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated, or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Topography and soil properties are the primary factors controlling local hydrology. Wetland hydrology exists because I) topography directs water towards or impedes water flow out of an area, 2) soil conditions restrict drainage, or 3) both topographic and soil conditions favor wetland hydrology. Therefore, observations of topography and soil properties are a necessary part of any wetland determination. Indicators of wetland hydrology include both recorded and field data. Recorded data typically include stream, lake, and tidal gage records of the COE, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state, county, and/or local governments. Field data typically include visual observations of inundation, soil saturation, watermarks, driftlines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In order for an area to have wetland hydrology according to the 1987 manual, soils must be saturated within a major portion of the vegetation rooting zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface) for at least 5% of the growing season (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991 b, 1992; see Table A.4). The growing season is defined as "the portion of the year when soil temperatures are above biological zero ( 41 degrees F). In the absence of soil temperature data, growing season length is estimated from climatological data provided by most U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service county soil surveys. Growing season starting and ending dates are determined based on the "28 degree F or lower" temperature threshold at a 50% annual (i.e. "5 years in 1 O") frequency (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1992). For example, based on the criteria stated above, the growing season as recorded at Seattle-Tacoma Airport, King County, Washington begins on March 9 and ends on November 17 (Snyder et al. 1973). Thus, the growing season is 253 days long. Five percent of the growing season (253 days) is 12.5 days. Therefore, soils at locations near Seattle-Tacoma Airport must be saturated in the major portion of the vegetation rooting zone for 12.5 consecutive days between March 9 and November 17 in order to exhibit wetland hydrology according to the 1987 manual. Since the climate in this region is generally cool and wet in the winter and warm and dry in the summer, soils are generally wettest (and therefore most likely to meet the wetland hydrology criteria) during the 13- day period between March 13 and March 26. Inundation or soil saturation are the most direct evidence of wetland hydrology; however, these observations must be considered in context with prevailing weather conditions. Saturation does not necessarily indicate wetland hydrology because even a well drained soil may have ponded or saturated conditions when the rate of precipitation exceeds the infiltration rate of water in the soil. 1n most cases, however, saturated soil conditions associated with hydric soil morphology form a reasonable indicator of wetland hydrology. A-7 Because of the seasonal nature of precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, positive indicators of wetland hydrology (i.e. saturation) may not be present during all seasons of the year. In addition, the hydrology of many wetland systems has been altered through agricultural and construction practices such as ditching, diking, groundwater withdrawal, surface water diversion, excavation, placement of fill material, soil compaction, and removal of vegetation. These activities can make the evaluation of wetland hydrology difficult, and may require the use of more intensive field evaluation techniques. A.3.1 Field Techniques for Evaluating Wetland Hydrology Appropriate field techniques for wetland hydrology investigation may include detailed soil investigation and mapping to establish the presence ofhydric soil morphology, and implementation of groundwater monitoring to determine the extent and duration of soil saturation. In order to establish whether or not an area meets the federal wetland hydrology criteria, direct observation of wetland hydrology must be made in the field. These direct observations must be performed during the growing season with sufficient frequency to verify the duration of the hydrologic condition. Further, observations of wetland hydrology must be spatially distributed to adequately represent the area in question. Because soil saturation is a critical factor in wetland determination, it may be necessary to establish a series of monitoring points over a given area to measure the degree and duration of soil saturation. One method for performing this task is the implementation of detailed groundwater monitoring using a combination of groundwater observation wells, boreholes, and soil pits in conjunction with additional site-specific geologic, climatic, and hydrologic information. Measurement of a shallow water table may be done by excavating a soil pit or borehole in the soil profile and observing the depth at which the soil is saturated. Water table elevation data may also be obtained through the use of observation wells. When placed at variable elevations on the site, shallow groundwater monitoring wells allow measurement of water table levels over time. Observation wells have an advantage over soil pits or boreholes in that the wells are sealed from direct contact with precipitation and allow measurement of water table elevations during periods of heavy precipitation. A.3.1.1 Soil Pit Methodology Soil pits are used to examine the morphology of the soil profile at a given location to establish the depth of the water table below the ground surface. Soil pits are excavated with a 6-inch wide trenching spade to a depth of at least 18 inches below the ground surface. After excavation, one side of the soil pit is scraped so that fine soil is not smeared across pore openings. Observations of soil morphology, color and texture are made. Observations of water table depth below the ground surface and seepage from the soil pit wall are recorded after a period of time depending on soil texture. A-8 A.4 Overview of 1987 Manual The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) was originally developed as a set of guidelines for wetland determination rather than as explicit criteria Nonetheless, all three parameters (i.e. hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) must exist for an area to be classified as wetland. The manual "stresses the need to use sound professional judgment, providing latitude to demonstrate whether an area is a wetland or not based on a holistic and careful consideration of evidence for all three parameters" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1991b:l). According to the 1987 manual, hydrophytic vegetation cannot be inferred from hydric soils or wetland hydrology, except as detailed in the Atypical Situations and Problem Areas sections of the manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydric soils, however, can be inferred from hydrophytic vegetation given that the vegetation is dominated by obligate wetland plants, or the vegetation is dominated by facultative or wetter wetland plants and the wetland boundary (i.e. the wetland/upland interface) is abrupt. Figure A.I. Weighted Mean Index (WMI) Scale (Wentworth and Johnson 1986). Range of Weighted Average Scores A extreme wetland Wetland <-------"---->Upland extieme upland (100% obligate hydrophytes) A ( 100% obligate upland species) A A 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1---1--1---,J---------1----1---1---11----I .<--J---> I High probability site is wetland .<->. Good probability that site is wetland; additional data regarding soils and/or hydrology are desirable. A A A A A A A A A A .<--1---' I High probability site is upland .<-->. Good probability that site is an upland; additional data regarding soils and/or hydrology are desirable. Vegetation data alone are inadequate for designation of site; additional data regarding soils and/or hydrology are required. A-9 A-10 Table A. I. Key to Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale. Braun- Blanquet Cover Class Cover Class Code Definition Range(%) Mid-Point(%) 5 Any number, with cover 75-100 87.5 more than 3/4 of the reference area 4 Any number, with cover 50-75 62.5 between 1/2 and 3/4 of the reference area 3 Any number, with cover 25-50 37.5 between 1/4 and 1/2 of the reference area 2 Any number, with cover 5-25 15.0 between 1/20 and 1/4 of the reference area 1 Numerous, but less than <5 2.5 1/20 cover, or scattered, with cover up to 1/20 + Few, with little cover <5 2.5 r Solitary, with little cover <5 2.5 A-11 Table A.2. Key to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) categories and equivalent numeric values. Indicator Indicator Numeric Category Symbol Value Definition Obligate OBL 1.00 Plants that occur almost always Wetland ( estimated probability >99%) Plants in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also occur rarely ( est. probability <I%) in non-wetlands. FACW+ 1.67 See footnote I F acultative FACW 2.00 Plants that occur usually Wetland ( est. probability >67% -99%) Plants in wetlands, but also occur (est. probability I% -33%) in non-wetlands. FACW-2.33 See footnote I FAC+ 2.67 See footnote I Facultative FAC 3.00 Plants with a similar like- Plants lihood ( est. probability 33% - 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands. FAC-3.33 See footnote I FACU+ 3.67 See footnote I Facultative FACU 4.00 Plants that occur sometimes Upland (est. probability l % -<33%) in Plants wetlands, but occur more often (est. probability >67% -99%) in non-wetlands. FACU-4.33 See footnote I A-12 Table A.2. (Continued.) Obligate UPL 5.00 Plants that occur rarely ( est. Upland probability <1 % ) in wetlands, Plants but occur almost always (est. probability >99"/o) in non-wetlands under natural conditions. Obligate UPL* 5.00 Not listed by Reed (1988, 1993), and Upland therefore presumed to be an Plants by obligate upland plant. Default 1 Species with a "+" after the rating are considered wetter (i.e., have a greater estimated probability of occurring in wetlands) than respective species without a plus rating, while species with a"-" are considered drier (i.e., have a lower estimated probability of occurring in wetlands) than respective species without a minus rating (Environmental Laboratory 1987:18-19). A-13 Table A.3. Example calculation of vegetation indices. B-B Cover Product of Scientific WIS WIS Cover Class Midpoint and Name Symbol Value Value Midpoint WIS Value Juncus effesus FACW 2.00 4 62.5 125.0 Ranunculus repens FACW 2.00 2 15.0 30.0 Phalaris arundinacea FACW 2.00 1 2.5 5.0 Holcus lanatus FAC 3.00 1 2.5 7.5 Dactylis glomerata FACU 4.00 1 2.5 10.0 Lolium perenne FACU 4.00 + 2.5 10.0 Juncus spp. FAC-OBL 2.00 + 2.5 5.0 TOTALS 90.0 192.5 WMl = 192.5/90.0 = 2.14 Percent of the dominant species rated F AC or wetter= 2/2* 100 = 100% A-14 Table A.4. Hydrologic zones in nontidal areas (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Zone! Name Duration2 I Permanently inundated 100% II Semipermanently to >75%-<100% nearly permanently inundated or saturated Ill Regularly inundated or >25%-75% saturated IV Seasonally inundated or >12.5%-25% saturated V Irregularly inundated or 5%-12.5% hydrologic saturated VI Intermittently or never <5% saturated 1 This defines an aquatic habitat zone. Comments Inundation >6.6 feet mean water depth Inundation defined as µ6.6 feet mean water depth Many areas having these characteristics are not wetlands Areas with these hydrologic characteristics are not wetlands 2 Refers to duration of inundation and/or soil saturation during the growing season. ' ' APPENDIXB Field Survey Data B-2 Table B.l. Scientific and common names of plants with assigned Wetland Indicator Status (WIS) (Reed 1988, 1993). Scientific names from Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), Guard (1995) and Cooke (1997). Scientific Name SHRUBS Alnus rubra (s) Buddleja davidii A@ Populus balsamifera (s) Rubus discolorA Salix lucida (s) Salix scouleriana (s) Salix sitchensis (s) HERBS/GRASSES Achillea millefolium Alisma plantago-aquatica Capsella bursa-pastoris Cardamine oligosperma Carex stipata Daucus carota Equisetum arvense Gramineae# Holcus lanatus Hypericum spp. Juncus effesus Juncusspp. Phalaris arundinacea Poaannua Polygonum spp. # Ranunculus spp. # Typha latifolia Verbascum thapsus Common Name Red alder Butterfly bush Black cottonwood Himalayan blackberry Pacific willow Scouler' s willow Sitka willow Common yarrow American water-plantain Shepherd's purse Little western bittercress Sawbeak sedge Wild carrot Field horsetail Undifferentiated grasses Common velvet-grass St. John's-wort Soft rush Rush Reed canarygrass Annual bluegrass Smartweed Buttercup Common cattail Common mullein FAC UPL® FAC FACU FACW+ FAC FACW FACU OBL FACU FAC OBL UPL® FAC FAC FAC/OBL FACW FAcwi FACW FAC OBL UPL® Table B.1. Continued. 1 = The following codes are used: ( s) = Sapling B-3 EB= Genera with species having a narrow range of WIS ratings that were averaged and were then included in our vegetation plot calculations #=Genera with species having a wide range of WIS ratings, not included in our vegetation plot calculations. @=Those species not listed by Reed (1988, 1993) are rated UPL by default (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989). These species were included in our vegetation plot calculations. 2 = WIS ratings with a minus symbol are considered "drier," while the plus symbol indicates ''wetter" species. Plants not identified to species are shown with the WIS range for the species common to this region ·Table B.2 Harpers Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 1, located in PSS portion of Wetland A. VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Shrubs and Saplings Salix lucid a Is) Salix sitchensis (s) Herbs Cover Index Value --·---- 4 2 Cover Class Midpoint 62.5 15.0 WIS Index Value 1.7 2.0 Product of Midpoint and WIS Value 104.4 30.0 I Typha latifolia 2 15.0 1.0 15.0 1~~---------~ : Potygonum spp. 3 -----=-o.-co-----co~.o----~o~.o~ I ! SUMS Weighted Mean Index: 1.6.1... ....................... .. % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ......................................... -.. . 92.5 Hydrophytic vegetation: Yes 149.4 Veg Notes WiJJ.ow.i; rQQl&m.Qo. ~~.sif.wetl,md, ................................................................................................................ . WIidiife & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Fleld Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RA1 Project#: 2006-047-001 ' ' I Table 8.2 Continued. SOIL Soil pij number .L ......... ·-············-··············· Field observations confirm mapped type? D Yes 181 No Map Unit (Series/Phase) I.\ti!:Yti!.!!.M.Y.9.~ ....................................... -........... On hydric list? 181 Yes D No Map Symbol Tu···························-··-································································· Hydric inclusion? D Yes D No Profile: Depth Horizon Matrix Color (moist) Mottle Quantity, Size, Contrast Mottle Color (moist) Texture Soll Profile Notes: Soils.not.sampled due to inundation····-··················-·-·······-·····-························-········································· ...................................... -........ _ ................................................................. _ ............................................. _ .......................... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): OHistosol [':;] Aquic Moisture Regime L! Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions : High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor 2 Gley/Low Chroma u Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? [':;] Yes D No Rationale Hydric soils .assumed. due. to aquic. moisture regime ........... -.................................................................... . .............................................................................................................................................................. ,_ ................................. . HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17 /06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit N/A ............................................................ . Depth to saturation !?.!:!CT~!L ............................... . Depth to free water/water table !?.Mm!-9~ ..... . Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth 17"······························-················· Other indicators: ............................................................................................................. -··········-··········-···················· .......................... . Wetland Hydrology? ~ Yes D No Rationale: Inundation. during. mid-growing .season ........................................................................................................... . ...... , .. -....... -... , .................................................................................................................................................. -, .................. . CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? ~ Yes D No Classification Palustrine •. scrub-shrub •. broad-leaved deciduous wetland.{PSS1) ·-····························· ........ -.. -................................................................... -.... -............................. _._, ............................ -...................... . Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project #: 2006-047-001 ·Table B.3 Harpers Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 6, located in east portion of Wetland A, between flags A-16 and A-17 VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Cover Index Value Cover Class Midpoint WIS Index Value Product of Midpoint and WIS Value ~----------~---------------------~! i Shrubs and Saplings I Salix /ucida ( s) Popu/us balsamifera { s) I I ' Herbs I A/isma plantago-aquatica i Typha tatifolia I Juncus effusus I I I SUMS ---- - ~- Weighted Mean Index: :1.6.!L. ....................... . % of dominant species with a WIS 4 2 -- 1 1 + index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ·······-········································ 625 15.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 85.0 Hydrophytlc vegetation: 1 7 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Yes 1044 45.0 2.5 2.5 5.0 159.4 Veg Notes ........................................... -....... -......................................................................................................................................... . .......................................... _., ................................................................................................................................................ . Wildlife & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Fleld Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 'fable 8.3 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number !?............................................ Field observations confirm mapped type? D Yes 181 No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Tukwila .. muck................................................... On hydric list? 181 Yes D No Map Symbol Tu................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? D Yes D No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color ,~ "=-0-e=., 9 ~:..:th::..:....,Hc::o::.:riz=o"-'n'----_(,:cm..co:..:.ist::..2_) ___ Size, Co~n_tra_st ___ ~(m_o_is_t~)--~:~:=:==,:=--m---~ Soll Profile Soils sampled.with.aug_er .... Due to.inundation,. could.not.get accurate.soil colors ... Soils .. . Notes: appear~ye,Ur.om.9.-16+'' ................................................................................................................................... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): _J Histosol u Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions L Histic Epipedon _J Reducing Conditions O High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor 181 Gley/Low Chroma !::::J Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? 181 Yes [J No Rationale Soils. immediate!}'.. below .1 O". have. a.gley matrix .chroma ....................................................................... .. ................................................................................................................................................................................................... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 16+" ........................................................... . Depth to saturation surface Depth to free water/water table surface Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth <1" Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? 181 Yes D No Rationale: Inundation in May indicates wetland hydrology during growing season CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? 181 Yes D No Classification Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetland (PSS1) Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 , ·Table B.4 Harpers Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 2, located in southwest portion of Wetland A, less than 5 ft. north of flag 8-A. VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Shrubs and Saplings Salix lucid a ( s l Cover Index Value ··-- + Cover Class Midpoint 2.5 WIS Index Value 1.7 Product of Midpoint and WIS Value 4.2 i I I i I I .. Pooulus balsamifera Isl + 2.5 3.0 7.5 ------ .. ·----· Herbs Poa annua 2 Pha/aris arundinacea 1 -------· Carex stipata + ---~- Equisetum arvense + Ranuncu/us spp. 2 ---· ' --·------,---- -------- SUMS Weighted Mean Index: 2.§1 .......................... .. % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 .............................................. . 15.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 27.5 Hydrophytic vegetation: 3.0 45.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 71.7 Yes Veg Notes P..oa..an1111.<1..lli .. tl:le . .o.a.lY..dt1.minaa.tr;ils10.t.~i~!i.iOJl:le .. §.llJJllll.tJ1J.o!..:w.i11:1.2Q'.'& .. \Qtal..@.11~c •... WlldlHe & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Field Date: 5/17/06 .6:0il.11.i.m.m~.IY. . .b!:.IP.WJQ'.'..h<11t~ . .<1 • .miltri.ll.&lltolll.il..llf.2 .. llC.l~S.li.:.VjlJJ ........................... . redoximorphic. features .......................................................................................................................... .. RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 I I 'fable B.4 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number ?........................................... Field observations confirm mapped type? IHI Yes O No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Urban.Land....................................................... On hydric list? O Yes IHI No Map Symbol Ur .......•.......................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? O Yes IHI No Profile: Depth Horizon Matrix Color (moist) Mottle Quantity, Size, Contrast Mottle Color (moist) Texture 0-17" A very dark grayish brown common, medium, {10YR 3/2) prominent strong brown (7 .SYR sandy loam 4/6) Soll Profile Soil . .Profile.is.disturbed,. mixed.matrix.with.black(10YR 2/1) chroma.soils .... Clay and ....... . Notes: b.m:k..fcuo.d.tllr.a111ib.o1.1l_prcfl.le •.................•....•...........................................................................................•....... Hydric Soil Indicators (check): OHistosol D Aquic Moisture Regime C Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor [2J Gley/Low Chroma D Organic Streaking ( sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? [2J Yes D No Rationale Soils. immediately below .1 O" .have. a. matrix chroma of.2. or_less.with. redoximorphic .............. . fealuras. ..•..•....•...................................................................•..............................................•...•.......•....................•......... HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of p~ 17+11 ........................................................... . Depth to saturation !!.\!~~····-····························· 13" Depth to free water/water table ...................... . Notes (inlet/outiet, etc.): Inundation depth NIA ............................................ . Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? [2J Yes D No Rationale· Surface. saturation durin.9..May indicates.wetland _hydrology during. the9.rowing. season .... CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? [2J Yes D No Classification Palustrine •. emer.9.ent •. persistent .wetland(PEM 1) ····················-···················-··············· Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAl Project#: 2006-047-001 ( ,Table B.5 Harpers Engi .. ~ering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sau.pie Plot 3, upland plot south of Wetland A, on top of fill slope, -7ft. horizontally south of flag 8-A VEGETATION Scientific name Treas 0 Shrubs and Saplings Salix scou/erana s Herbs \ Daucus carota Cardamine oligosperma Capsella bursa-pastoris Achillea mil/efolium SUMS Cover Index Value 1 + 3 + + + Weighted Mean Index: 4.60···············-·········· % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: Q,.QQ ...•.•...••...•.••.................................... Cover Class Midpoint 2.5 2.5 37.5 25 2.5 2.5 50.0 Hydrophytlc vegetation: WIS Index Value 3.0 3.0 5.0 30 4.0 4.0 No Product of Midpoint and WIS Value 7.5 7.5 187.5 75 10.0 10.0 230.0 Veg Area is mostly bare ground that appears to have been cleared in past few months; this Notes y_eget.ation..camlIIJ.Uli!YJa.r.e~r.e.se11taliY.e .. of.DJ&ijoril;\!.Qf . .fill.P.ad •..... _ ....... _ ............ _ .............. -........... . Wildlife & Habitat Features (snags, logs, ate.) Field Data: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAJ Project #: 2006-047-001 'Table 8.5 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number l.......................................... Field observations confirm mapped type? ~ Yes O No Map Unit (Series/Phase) .\J.!P..1i!f.l .. ~sl.O.<;!........................................................ On hydric list? O Yes ~ No Map Symbol Ur................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? O Yes ~ No Profile: Matrix Color Depth Horizon (moist) Mottle Quantity, Size, Contrast Mottle Color (moist) Texturs 0-1T' A very dark grayish brown few, medium, distinct dark yellowish brown sandy loam (10YR 3/2) (10YR 4/6) l Soil Profile Notes: On top.of fill pad .......................................................................................................................................................... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): D Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions cJ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor IS] Gley/Low Chroma • i Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? ISJ Yes D No Rationale Soils_immediately below 10".have.a.matrix chroma of.2 or less.with. redoximorphic .............. . features .............................................................................................................................................................................. . HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 17+" ........................................................... . Depth to saturation >17" Depth to free water/water table > 17" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth N/A Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? D Yes [SJ No Rationale: No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? D Yes [SJ No Classification Urban land Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 • •Table B.6 Harpers Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 5, upland sample plot on top of eastern portion of fill pad, between Wetland A and Area B VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Cover Index Value Cover Class Midpoint WIS Index Value Product of Midpoint and WIS Value f-------------------------------------------1 Shrubs and Saplings ----- i Pooulus ba/samifera Is\ 3 Rubus discolor + Buddleia davidii + ___ ,_ Herbs 1 Hypericum spp. 1 . Holcus /anatus + i Achillea millefolium + -··------ Verbascum lhapsus + Gramineae + i I I I -- i SUMS Weighted Mean Index: J.2.li .......................... . % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 ................................................ . Veg Notes Wildlife & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Field Date: 5/17 /06 RAI Observers: LCD - 37.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 52.5 Hydrophytlc vegetation: 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.3 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 Yes 112.5 10.0 12.5 5.81 7.5 10.0 12.5 I 0.0 170.8 RAI Project #: 2006-047-001 i I •Table B.6 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number .i:L.·-···-································ Field observations confinm mapped type? D Yes 181 No Map Unit (Series/Phase} Tukwila muck................................................... On hydric list? 181 Yes D No Map Symbol Tu................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? D Yes D No Profile: Matrix Color (moist) Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color Depth Horizon Size, Contrast (moist) Texture -----------'-------'-==--="'-----~ 0-9" A very dark gray (10YR 3/1) cobbly sand Soil Profile Notes: On top.of fill benm; soils.too compacted.and.rocky below 9".to.get.soil.sam_ple .. _ ................ . ......................... -................................................................................................................................................................... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): u Histosol D Aquic Moisture Regime = Concretions D Histic Epipedon [J Reducing Conditions D Sulfidic Odor D Glay/Low Chroma Hydric Soil Criteria Met? 0 Yes C No = High Organic Surface (sandy soils) . 'Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Rationale Inconclusive.-.could. not sam pie. below 1 O" ......................................... ·-·················-····························-· ....... . ......................... _ ...................................................................................................................................................................... .. HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 9" ................................................................ . ........................................................................................................................ Depth to saturation >9" •••••••••OOOOHOOoOOOooOoOOOoOoooHHHOOHHO-HHHOOUOOOOooooooooHO .. OooooooooOOOHOHHHHOHOHHOOOooooooMOH Depth to free water/water table >9" Notes (inlet/outlet. etc.): Inundation depth n/a ...................................................................................................................... Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? C Yes [2J No Rationale: No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Topographic location s1.1gg,e.am.nQ.R®i:lir:u..Qf .. water.cc.c1.m; .......................................................................... _ .................................. . CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? D Yes [2J No Clanlflcatlon Urban land ................................................................................................................................................................................. Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 • ,Table B.7 Harpers Engmeering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 4, sample plot in center of Area B. Part of excavated fill pad VEGETATION Scientific name Cover Index Value Cover Class Midpoint WIS Index Value Product of Midpoint and WIS Value Trees Shrubs and Saplings ---- Poou/us balsamifera ( s) 2 15.0 3.0 45.0 Salix /ucida (s) 1 2.5 1.7 4.2 -~- --- Herbs Phalaris arundinacea 2 Equisetum arvense 2 --------- -- SUMS Weighted Mean Index: 2JH. ....... -···-············· % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: 100.00 .. _ ...... -.................................... . 15.0 15.0 47.5 Hydrophytic vegetation: 2.0 3.0 Yes 30.0 45.0 124.2 Veg P..tJ..ilarili .. iln.m.dinai;.ea.a11!1.E.QMi~iYrn..a1Y.e.o.se..are .. tb.e •. 120J:,:.!JQrnimrnl.L11.t.Jila§!.:?.O.% ........... . Notes cover.J.p)ant spp .. in. sampJe .Plot. ... Vegetation. had .b$n. cleared. in. wetland within past ..... . six.mlllltb.$ ·····-·····················································-···-···-··-···-···-···-·········-··········-···················································· Wildlife& Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Field Date: 5/17/06 ............. _ .................................................. " ........................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................................ -...................................... -.................................................... -............... -..... ,-.. , ................ . RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 ' I I ! I ·Table 8_7 Continued_ SOIL Soil pit number ~--------------·-·--------·------·-----···· Field observations confirm mapped type? D Yes l!!l No Map Unit (Series/Phase) Tukwila.muck ....................... -........................... On hydric list? l!!l Yes D No Map Symbol Tu................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? D Yes D No Profile: Depth Horizon 0-5" A Matrix Color (moist) very dark gray (1 OYR 3/1) Mottle Quantity, Size, Contrast Mottle Color (moist) Texture loamy sand Soil Profile Notes: Wihtin. excavated. fill _pad~. soils were too. compacted .below .five. inches .to dig. or auger a . samiile.iiit ............................................................. _ ................................... _ ....................... _ ............. -............................... . Hydrlc Soil Indicators (check): D Histosol C;;;:J Aquic Moisture Regime = Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma Hydric Soil Criteria Met? C;;;:J Yes U No = High Organic Surface (sandy soils) = Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Rationale Evidence .ofaquic .moisture. regime ..................................................................................................................... . ......................... -....................... -....................................................................................................................... -.................... .. HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 5" ................................................................ . Depth to saturation surface Depth to free water/water table No data Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth NIA Other indicators: Sediment stains on shrub saplings indicate inundation. Wetland Hydrology? C;;;:J Yes D No Rationale: Surface saturation and evidence of ponding. CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? C;;;:J Yes D No Classification Palustrine, emergent, persistent wetland (PEM1) Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 • ·Table B.8 Harpers Engmeering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 7, upland sample plot southeast of Area B, between flags B-2 and B-3. Part of excavated fill pad. VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Cover Index Value ---------------~ Shrubs and Saplings Pooulus balsamifera < s l + ------ Herbs Juncus spp. + Phalaris arundinacea + Cover Class Midpoint 2.5 2.5 2.5 WIS Index Value 3.0 2.0 2.0 Product of Midpoint and WIS Value 7.5 5.0 5.0 J i--------------------------------1 SUMS Weighted Mean Index: 2..~.3 ........................... . % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3.0 or less: No.dominant.species.found .... 7.5 Hydrophytic vegetation: 17.S No Veg Notes Y.!ISl1iliilti.on.rli!.§llltlY..1,le.;m1.d .. io .. !.1:li:1 .. ar:ea; .. o.o .. d.omio.1111t~Ji111i.li'1P., .................................................... . Wlldllfe & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Fleld Date: 5/17 /06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 I ' • :rable B.8 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number z. ................. ·-····················· Field observations confirm mapped type? D Yes 181 No Map Unit (Series/Phase) I.Y!sw.)!?. .. !!.l.\!.9..~.................................................... On hydric list? 181 Yes D No Map Symbol Tu................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? D Yes D No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color (moist) Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast --'-"-'--'=="-'-----'------'---~ Texture I 0-10· I very dark grayish brown few, medium, (10YR 3/2) prominent strong brown (7.5YR sandy loam 4/6) 1------·--------------j ~·~~~~1 Soil Profile Wihtin.excavated.fill_pad;.soils too.compacted.and.rocky below.10.inches to.dig.or .......... . Notes: ~er 8'lil.11it... ............................................................................................................................................................... . Hydric Soil Indicators (check): OHistosol D Aquic Moisture Regime D Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions [J High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor [J Gley/Low Chroma CJ Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soll Criteria Met? D Yes D No Rationale lnconclusive.-.soils. could. not.be .sampled.below.10" ................................................................................ . ···········-·-.............. -.................. -................................................................. _ .......................................................................... . HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit 1 O" .............................................................. . ···············-······ .. ·········-··· ................................. -........................ -................... . Depth to saturation > 1 O" ........................................................................................................................ Depth to free water/water table > 1 O" Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth NIA ...................................................................................................................... Other indicators: Some cracked soils, but no sediment deposits Wetland Hydrology? D Yes [21 No Rationale: No primary and insufficient secondary indicators of wetland hydrology . ....................................... -..................................................................................................................................................... .. CLASSIFICATION WeUand Criteria Met? D Yes [21 No Classification Urban land ................................................................................................................... -.......................................................... .. Field Date: 5/17 /06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project #: 2006-047-001 •Table B.9 Harpers Engineering Renton Wetland Delineation. Sample Plot 8, east end of Stream A, near flag 3-A VEGETATION Scientific name Trees Shrubs and Sapllngs Herbs Cover Index Value Cover Class Midpoint WIS Index Value Product of Midpoint and WIS Value , ______________ ----------------------1 f--------------------------------- 1 SUMS Weighted Mean Index: % of dominant species with a WIS index of 3. O or less: Hydrophytic vegetation: Veg No .. ll.es1atatig11.JJ201e.d .. in.l1iti::_b ...... e.a(;if.ic.:NiJJ.<IYr'.li •. rlid .. lll.dar •. .w.1l1.l2l11&K~.ttgJ1WgQd .. lT.tae11 ..•.••. Notes and .saplin_m; are .srowin.9. out. of steep berm. on .north side. of ditch .• South side. of ditch ... is.maial~ l:llmala)!aa.~k.bar.cy •......•.......•......................................•..•.....•...........•.........•............•................ Wlldllfe & Habitat Features (snags, logs, etc.) Field Date: 5/17/06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 ! ,. " ~able 8.9 Continued. SOIL Soil pit number .!!·-······-···············-··············· Field observations confirm mapped type? Iii Yes D No Map Unit (Series/Phase) .\.!.r.!!~R.41.0.9........................................................ On hydric list? O Yes Iii No Map Symbol Ur··················-··············································································· Hydric inclusion? D Yes Iii No Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast ~---..........:=-===----'---'----~ Mottle Color (moist) Texture Soil Profile Notes: Ditch. too _inundated .to get accurate. soil sample ............................................................•.......................... .......................................................................................................................... _ ................................................................. .. Hydric Soil Indicators (check): OHistosol [2l Aquic Moisture Regime ,= Concretions D Histic Epipedon D Reducing Conditions ,~ High Organic Surface (sandy soils) D Sulfidic Odor D Gley/Low Chroma c:::J Organic Streaking (sandy soils) Hydric Soil Criteria Met? :SJ Yes LJ No Rationale Assumed.due.to aquic.moisture regime···-··········-·························································································· ......................................................................................................................................... -................................. _ .................... . HYDROLOGY Field Date: 5/17/06 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well): Depth of pit NIA ............................................................ . ........................................................................................................................ Depth to saturation surface .................................. _ ............................................................ -..................... . Depth to free water/water table surface Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.): Inundation depth 12" ..................................................................... -.............................................. . Other indicators: Wetland Hydrology? [2l Yes C No Rationale: Inundation during the growing season ................................................................................................................................................... -......................................... .. CLASSIFICATION Wetland Criteria Met? D Yes [2l No Classification No vegetation present, not a wetland under criteria for "normal circumstances" in. W.C!QE. l1ll97l.mam.1al.. .................................................... -.. ······-···········································-··········· Field Date: 5/17 /06 RAI Observers: LCD RAI Project#: 2006-047-001 ' ) .... '' "' APPENDIXC: City of Renton Building Permit #B960SI2 ,. A.UG J 4 21106 STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT • . "co·.· ..• . HARPER ENGINEERING BUIJ,.DING GRADING PERMIT XXX EAST VALLEY HWY . RENTON, WASHINGTON for: O.J. Harper Harper Engineering Company 200 South Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 July, 2006 by Rykels Engineering Group, Inc 28301 183'd Ave SE Kent, WA 98042 ph 253-631-6598 fax 253-638-1982 ·. • Harper Engineering Building, Renton, ~ I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Predeveloped Conditions -The approximate 1.76 acre site is located along the east side of East Valley Road and west of SR 167 in the City of Renton, WA. There are no existing structures on the site. The existing condition of the site is a vacant filled lot, there is little to no grass cover on the site. The site is currently vacant and unused, it was filled under a previous grading permit approximately 10 years ago. The site is predominately level. There is an existing drainage ditch configuration located both along the north and east sides of the property. This ditch carries runoff from the State right of way and adjacent properties to the north and south to the east to west ditch located along the north property line. This ditch flows westerly to an existing 15-inch storm drain located in East Valley Road. A visual inspection of this ditch notes that it appears to be man made, and has very little slope to the west. A wetland biologist has inspected the site and evaluated the ditches, a copy of this report has been provided to the City. Developed Conditions -This phase of the project is for approval of a site grading plan and culvert installation only. Immediately following approval of the grading plan, a full building permit application will be submitted for the site developments. This work is described as follows. The proposed project, known as Harper Engineering includes the development of the site with an approximate 15,900 sf slab on grade office and manufacturing building. There is a portion of the easterly and northeasterly part of the property that is part of a designated wetland. A 25ft wide buffer setback is required from this wetland area. All site improvements will be located outside of this buffer area. The remainder of the site will be paved and landscaped as required by the City Codes. The required improvements will include the connection to existing water and sanitary sewer mains, construction of a storm drainage collection, detention and water quality system, and paving improvements. The storm drainage system will discharge to the existing drainage system located within the access road to the east. II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY There are no special drainage requirements that apply to the development of this property. The preapplication requirements specify that the storm drainage design requirements applicable to this project are found in the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as modified by the City of Renton Ill. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. Upstream Tributary Areas -State Route 167 is located to the east of the property, there is an established drainage system associated with this roadway. It appears that there may be a culvert crossing under SR 167 from the Panther Creek Wetlands to the east. In addition, part of the shoulders of the State roadway drain westerly to the existing ditch and wetland areas along the 3 Harper Engineering Building, Renton, \ easterly boundary of the property. There is also indications that runoff enters this existing ditch and wetland system from small areas to the north and south. As the adjacent properties to the north and south develop, the developed runoff will flow westerly to the East Valley Hwy drainage system and runoff to this . existing ditch and wetlands will be limited to that generated from the wetland and buffer areas and from the right of way to the east. This existing ditch as it flows east to west along the north property line is contained within a manmade channel. There is little slope to this ditch and standing water was observed, there is no signs of flooding or erosion associated with this ditch. B. Downstream Analysis -The property will discharge to an existing 15-inch storm drain system that flows from east to northwest across East Valley Road to a City drainage ;;.vstem flowing south to north in EVR. This drainage system flows northerly to SW 23 Street then westerly in an open ditch to Springbrook Creek. There are no specific problems related to this system. C. Existing Soils -The King County Soils Survey Maps identify the soil types for the subject site as Renton Silt Loam Series, Hydrologic Soil Group, "D"., these soils have been covered by 3-4 feet of imported fill. IV. RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology -The project drainage basin is shown in on the exhibits. There is one subbasin identified for the existing site and tributary area. Existing predeveloped conditions for the site is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Site Hvdroloaic Characteristics for Grade and Fill Pervious Area CN Pervious Impervious CN Impervious Area 0.08 82 1.68 88 The following are the Computer generated peak flow rates for the subbasin hydrographs for existing conditions. Table 2 Existina Site Runoff 24 hr design storm 2-yr peak runoff rate 0.39 cfs Volume of Runoff 6,070 cf The calculations for the ESC facility are attached to this report. Detailed calculations and hydrograph analysis for this system are attached to the rear of the report. V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Detailed calculations for pipe sizing are attached as an appendix to this report. 4 Harper Engineering Building, Renton, ~ VJ. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A wetland delineation and report has been prepared for this project, a copy has been provided to the City. 5 : I I . oL -I fiOOffl ,,, ~800ft PROJECT VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE) ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION --.- The North Half of the North Half of the south half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Rage 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying west of Primary State Highway No.5, as conveyed to the State of Washington, by deed recorded under Recording No. 5346371, and by deed filed with the registrar under Recording No. 5349880; EXCEPT the west 30 feet for Road know as 92nd Ave South. ·~-.. .... Ul r 'n ~ P> II -( ro = ,_ Cu 0 • 19 ';' h:::'+.. "' i,'•~" ~ i ..... ,~~ I ~ '. --8.:: ' , I '01 ' Q ~ ! ... = i VJ §, :r !>J! ' e•· ~ _,, rt i'• " I! [ " "' z l 1 'f " z "' " .i ~ :,: 0 "' C l .is "' ;l .., I ! al ~ .. , :z 0 !,; .., '" "' ~ z " "' cl .. ~! e;; ""i ;~1 •n~! ~, n:~ =1 ;>~,Ocf : I I h w ' East Valley ighway ......... ,, .. -- C]l 0 0 1: ' n» ;::"ti '< 0 0" -~ wg oo to r-,,_ 0 . ,,. • e "' " z .::. t:J .. ;J:> !a. ::0 ;;: -< • z P:' " .::. >---3 .. "'o 0 o->--c:J "'"' • 0 no o-0 c: o· "-" ::0 " "' ;J:> ? .., >--c:J 0 ~ • " -• 0 ,,. 'O. N 1/2 "' e z ::0 il' < " t:"l " • -< il'"' e'.?1 " " " bi;c; " . \1' E. ~-4,, ~ ... ! •:! ~ Ii! [\\ 1\ ,, -,., 1/.~~e~sor~ Map H urf»' h7. .EYHWY COUNTY MAINTAINED) ~0,5 - " -~ O,' -' --170 -- N 1-S0-02 £ EAST 164 .B 5 ·• t Jo ""c :c', '1 c'.5¥0.5 ' -%: J. .J I ~ -;;; > -n ~ - :ALLEi,·1-: JOB ~!.~ ... J, ;: -Po?.1 -;p_.. o.f ; ! ~ 1DB i; - ~ - 671.51 ; .•. ,.: __ ----·--:,- ~.:,.._ WY. ·; .I· . 121. 42 .. ;y.~ .• • .,-. ' < ,·. / . .-· ~L ;1,,,1; . ,;--~~) :: -~.;,-: !· -. ·.~ .. ;· <. .,. .'· . ,, + ' J1,-, ;..,,./, .9.9 ~.f ·, -. ; ,, ' n' --- L91 SW 27th St I ~ SW 34th St ! ~ <lJ ~ en .; < "Cl j Qm, 27th St. 30th St. 00 Q ·~ "-4 0... ~ 34th_SL SW 19th St. ""'JI •• IS 19l 21st . St. SW 23rd St. • ..; ~ ~ "'< SW 27lh SL SW 29th St SW 34th St. ,_; A ~ "' ~ 0 ~ S 34th St. fa {Vl "J::: ~ 0 :- FIGURE 3 THE RONHO'JiDE ARCHITECTS LLC HARPER ENGINEERING RENTON, WASHINGTON %' sr~vc.l B~f--~ w1~TING CONDITIONS --::: We.k\~\ A 1 /;onh 1,n! of tne I \ South ,;-;:_ QI the \ \ So.Jlhwest 1/4 of , tne Nortne::isl 1 /4 \ , of Sec\iof'I 30. \ lo11,rnshio 23 ncrth \ Ronge 5 Ms!, W IJ S<at :,;;r:i ,,..;1n to;:~ c:,r.J,ne 1 21 3· w.est ,:if corn,,;r 1::r?t1 --... ,1,• I \ HN ~ =t . ----------.... ~~·•j/' I ,.•. f;.' c:,clor,e le~ce ,._t ,• 6 q-cione lt-<'Ct-,t.' -=:::,_ \ "' I lcip ol '/,'Dier \ -· · ,1t"ID9_.,. -~~ \IIS""".e_ -~~----10p---,,• .lkf--~-'-4------.-:-~1""·-c-·-,!t __ .,__ •. .,,1 1 f~t To, ot 11rot""-~ --·---·----=---=--~ ----------·------'-,a ,,;// 1<1a -~ --;.. i:i. .. '.;. ;. ::. . '~~.N.in'f~.i!;..:g;..-....... -YII!!!!-· ..._ --.. ~~~--.--""._.....;::-:: -,1,' -,p~ ~ ........ ;;"~ -----------------------------------------------------------~ __::;:..=....:-·3-=·:_~--~-:1:-"'fff18. 5tn:: •<.?:;2j --::--~-~--" • . ----. fop OI 'l,"oler 121 t \ I ;;:;;.& .-<· ,,. Toe· .,. 0 r m 14.8t"t 1 ~..., --... --_,. _,_ ---wr: 5 -.,..... • • • ' ----~------·-·--··114--··-·-:;-··-··-·· ...... '~!:.J.,..E--:t··-Tc:>p ot .,,oter -~~;~~-;~;'~)-~~-:_~~-=--:.-=·~-.-~~-----=-~~··--~;~J-,------~-.:_f.'5~>~:-.:;/".: ,.:;-:_-·-.. : •. ""'" ® •• /~-~~.. ,..~ Tep " °' "t, ~-:--:--\ ,•:,,. ·~c--:;/~.;-?::-::~\ :'•. I__J:~1~~el"1"' -....._ r• ..... -.·' ' I ,.'f .;;;,, _,,. ,--' ---/ ....., ----Ji. . ~; -,,•· \ \~1 . ·~ !~~7 ~~.~o\er .,.,. _. I / a,,,c'lo,1,9 l \'' ~ -: • j I f well I • /" o O , \ I ; ., / ..,,~ 1' c-. I r• • ii n ,,, /. ', AREA 8 11"·,·) il SP 4 •. I\\;, , -~ 'i WETLAND A (PSS1) Approx. 6,299 SF on-site I ~,1\, \~,.i:)1 / Approx.3,565SF y;~ . (wetlandcontinuesoffsiteto ,' \ ,., ,•.,J.j~:lt .,.'ll. '· r east, north, and south) , .... ;~ I / ., , ' I •., ' J,)'J'\, ~ , • / '"'1 -.. ,, . h_ I ro \ 'l' / / I ~...._, _.\1 .,. -lop c,f l¥D1er , L /' .. • M I I . H.5 1HI "' ... l• J ..._,J,,,?'' ,,. ~~, wr r, ~ ',.<~, \&•1 _. 1 ~-\ _., /;/ ""I'·/ / /" 5p7• ·. \i ,.g ..<\ 0) .,,. / /" ~' • ,,..~ w"' , '-. I ~l . ;% I . · · --J. .,,..,,. ti',. / . .. ..., ' .\\ . I • I ~/.l't ' ·,/\\ \ I ,... '\; ..,., ' ;'-I I . ' -~:.T.~ .... --·~'°--":':.'_:~.'-' .. _ _!o.£_~' +• . .,i;i:_--To\~-'ot. ' .,~ ~.,.\'•\\ •\ \ :::.:;:-:;='Jo;,~= ==::r~t~_:~ ::;.:;;;.1;:;':~;=;;~ :;:, ;,:.~ -:~\:~~.: ;;., , ;_ -~-'._-,:;·~ ~'~:~: ~:~· < ~8 ,. ,2, o, 1· I _ _.,,.-'r:.i «""l' ,•----. f~~ \ I \ ................ ["11--....i.'1,;;;.,-"'i.-·•-1•-··~··-··-!~-··-··-··-··-r-··-··-·r-··-··-··-··-··-·!.~_\.--,.-.... ;<;\ .. _____________________________________________ r ___ _ Top .,..~ .,.. (+ ........._ _.,. / / I .;:,• ..-1'~ --~-e,e¥~ _s!;:::::: :,.._. \ I \ \ . ' -· ___,,.. .~ I \ \ ::: -, --~ -,,: ' , --,• -....., '"'" ,..-' -1,' " -l<>;--;-I I, ,I I ' ' --,t,-" <O 'lu ~ -... , ...... -""..__ 1< 1·' t 1 8-1\ l -20 S::,utn 1,ne of i!'"ll: t~c,rtri 1/2 , .. -....__ Set nub .,._.,th toc,i, -~ I,\ ,.._II I \ of tne l\'orth 1/2 of the -onl,ne ,315 ...-es, -.. .._ 1 i\ 11 , ... -:--i South 1 /2 of \he Southwest of .:orne!;__ -, --I 1 1/4 of Lne tJortheost 1/4 --20 .... -. , \ :! of Section 30. Township 23 .... -,1 north, Range 5 eost. W.M. \;,. e'o ~ north " liiiiiii1 " \ " ii THE RYKELS ENGINEERINC :OUP, INC 28301 183rd Avenue SE · SHEET NO. KENT, WASHINGTON 98042 E6C B Regt:1 _5v,,k,~~ v:: 2./2.,. v~ ~ 5A ; -------OF----,---- CALCULATEO 9y ______ _ DATE CHECKED BY -----------DATE ____ _ SCALE HcJ7e-.En11nee'_1 ..,1 Re....-i 1-o --' w 14 /J ~ 76) 8 6 o s + -1 ::, -/, TC, .sic hJ~ E6 C SlSI 7 "j:r1 .,.., I.$ j!l r-">· •o / t:<:: A.)-= t!/8 ) .5.~t:/3c..s r,,pv-, A,~ • 1,6B If,~ ~ cAJ ~ 68 Ai--o.ot,ac.@ CAJ ez • ..f.C : /o n'/ I '"1 62/2.u ~ 0, 3 ;c:J; V / <" Se.tt. ,,,.,.,,,./ou-/ 2/2-, -;. u,,.O ~O ) /1~,;2 A<-:+-?> -&. ... {, 0 ;1t, CJ, 0001&. ~· :'.fe'- Fs (Qz.);{ V5 2 (0,39) ::: 0,0009, - I-!> IC 5 0 s(:. su..-<sC'.~ Awe.a w / I ~ ''o vl-!@t - THE RYKELS ENGINEERING OUP, INC. 28301 183rd Avenue SE SHEETNO. ______ OF_----c--- KENT, WASHINGTON 98042 CALCULATEOBY ______ DATE ____ _ CHECKEDBV ______ DATE ____ _ SCALE .5.' C S :r"' ;ai.1.f- . . . ' Ei< I~ f I~ (o "' e/., I,. D 1-1 S CN=-f12... L : J/2,0' -.:-, ' m, .. \ Ex De.v ~ "'.:> 2'1.,. 2'1/.i .. 0 .l"l.. o,i* c(s -~ IQ 1"' c:;o I . 'l..l.o 2-~ 'f -D • "17.. l.51> ,l)o r-o.65 l:tl I, ? :- ,t- Fe- 7-ISO c~ PROOI/Cl 204-11Si'1QII SIIOl!~I ro!i·I lf'iixitd) /l'tl8DI/'ll>1m; Ql(IIQn, Mm 01411 fQ01d11 PHONE IOlLlfUl I 81l!l-2?5 6l80 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division HYDROGRAPHPROGRAMS Version 4.21B 1 -INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2-SBUHYD 3 -MODIFIED SBUHYD 4-ROUTE 5-ROUTE2 6-ADDHYD 7cBASEFLOW 8-PLOTHYD 9-DATA 10-RDFAC 11 -RETURN TO DOS ENTER OPTION: 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS: 1 -S.C.S. TYPE-IA 2 -7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 -STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION:! S.C.S. TYPE-IA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 2,24,2 ******************** S.C.S. TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION******************** ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2.00" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 .08,82, 1.68,88, 10 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) ACNACN 1.8 .1 82.0 1.7 88.0 10.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .39 7.83 6070 ENTER [d:][path]filename[.ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 0 , · £ f> c.. r'1'i"t " H{l,r:,e---br · G:,/ZtJOi. m::NT TREE SUBDIVISION, PACIFIC, WA SCS Travel Time Worksheet Harper Engineering Building RENTON, WA Rykels Engineering Group, Inc. loate: 6/30/2006 Time of Concentration Existing Conditions A. SHEET FLOW Ns 0.15 L(FI) 150.00 P2 (IN) 2.00 SL ('/Fl) 0.500% Tt(MIN) 29.85 B. SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Ks 11.00 L(FI) 400.00 SL CIFI) 0.250% V(FPS) 0.55 Tt(MIN) 12.12 (Existing Conditions) Tc= 42.0 Time of Concentration Developed Conditions A. SHEET FLOW Ns 0.011 L(FI) 100.00 P2 (IN) 2.00 SL CIFI) 0.500"/o Tt(MIN) 2.67 B. SHAUOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Ks 42.00 L(FI) 350.00 SL CIFI) 0.250% V (FPS) 2.10 Tt(MIN) 2.78 (Developed Conditions) Tc= 5.4 THE RYKELS ENGINEERINr OUP, INC. 28301 183rd Avenue ,,E SHEET NO. __ _ ----o•--~--- KENT, WASHINGTON 98042 CALCULATEOBY ______ DATE ____ _ CHECKEDBY _______ DATE ____ _ SCALE Hor pe..,.... Fnyo,, eLY,, .. -i i Ve,.,, (, c ;a_./-,.;,....., e; t '2.. '-I 1 1 ~<.J Ive. ..... + c::/.<2.S,-7 d: 2~11 6/:: (i,/L/o /') ; e,. 0/2. Q~4 " ::-@, 'i'Jc/;, V max = 2. ,1 2.c: .f's. Tl,c. C .)~_c ;./.7 IP.( 1 ~ 2. JI 11 .S ~ l..$ S, "l9 C 4 .rn~/0'4.> lo il,e.. ,-d,:./<!._h 1 i.s cl, ff,«:_...U 7o es n ;,_,d/:1-4 J 6 v./-I~" EX d k_ h. ", .. r/·k ./.s Tl) d ./.5 -1"1t:.h ..sd I-•• +l,e -<2-.'l~l;,c'-, CLJ/vt-+ h"ZI.S W"Jo,,,.e rh,,~ &>.:,/,ju ,p,L.~ er~:'). lll<OOUCT 20H ISlnoill Sil0tl1) 2QS-1 (hdcled) /Nrlnf/,a In<. G,~run M,m 014;1 Tc ll/d1r PH(JljE TOlLIAE 1 !KIO 12, 6380 0 m ~ < l> :",m C: :j; = ---u '· , . /;,:-;: '•"!;"':"1 ~,~~ :·:-:;:~~ , ... ,.::, :··""Q ~:J '/"~ t t..;:) I ~;: ~n _.,,, G) ! J l' \ I \ 1 j ~ 1 ' l I ' 't 11mm111mm1 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURAHC£ PR8GRAM 1 I""' ,,,,_"" ... KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS 111111/11111111111 PANEL 979 DF 1725 ISEE MAP INOO: FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED! ~MNH -Olli ll30071 Ol>11 -.. MAP NUMBER I 53033C0979 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 Federal Emergency Management A.geJicy .'\.~ l<..1-,-,-··-·"'·"""·~,.., . ..,,.- A d.;J, .. • • D ·.~ Identified 1983 LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100--YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations detennined. ZONE AE. Base flood ~ations determined. ZONE . AH flood depths of 1 to 3 feet fusuaiy areas of ponding); ~ 1\ood elevatioo~ determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet-(usually sheet llow on "°1>"8 ......,,, -d.pth, determined. for areas of aRuvial fan ffoodi ng, wkicities also detcnnined. ZOHE AH To be ptt:tected from 100--year flood hy FedeRI flood protection system uOO('( c:onstruwon: no base ~ determined. ZONE V Coa!tal ffood with vekdy hazard (waV<' action): no base flood eAevations detennined. ZONE VE Coastal Rood wittl yejocj(y hazard (wave ~); base Rood devations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X /vNs of 500--year flood; area!> of 100-year flood with averaee depths al le55 than 1 foot or with drainage areas lesi. than 1 -mile, ,nd """ p,-,.a by Jew-es from 1~r llood. 1 / OTHER AREAS ZONE X ZONED Are:as determined to be outside 500--year iloodpjain. ~ In which flood lw.ard!. are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS f:<' ~ ~ kl,oofied 1990 1stal OBfriar areas fd Haiard Areas. are oorrrutlly located within or adjacent to Special Flood Boundary Flooctvvay Boundary Zone D Boundary 1---- I ;-513--- '.D)-------<ii\ Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary Dividing Areas of Ditt8fent Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base flood Elevation Line: Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. - ._ __ c_lTY_ OF RENTON KING COUNTY \ \ \ STREH NOTE: MN AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL rs LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 23 NOITH, RANGE 5 EAST. I -71~~- \\ KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 0 5 / ·, Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 1 AUG G 4 2006 RECEl\';:;U First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services May 04, 2006 OJ. Harper 200 s. Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Title Officer: Phone: Order Number: Escrow Officer: Phone: Buyer: Property: 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98121 Jean Couch (206)615-3118 191760 Jean Couch (206)615-3118 O.J. Harper 2994 E Valley Rd., Renton, WA Attached please find the following item(s): A Policy of Title Insurance Thank You for your confidence and support. We at First American Title Insurance Company maintain the fundamental principle: Customer First! First American Title Insurance Company ·, Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions r Number: NCS-191760-WA! _e Number: 2 Policy of Title Insurance ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE BAND THE CONDillONS AND STIPULATIONS, FIRST AMERICAN IDLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a CA corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketabili.ty of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. First American Title Insurance Compauy ~-4 ~' .;~, ATirn 1/4', /'__ ~ =- First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions SCHEDULE A r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 3 Amount of Insurance: $930,000.00 Policy Number: 191760 Date of Policy: February 15, 2006 at 1:27 P.M, L Name of insured: OJ, Harper, a married man, as his separate estate 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: Fee Simple 3, Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: O.J. Harper, a married man, as his separate estate 4, The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Real property in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5, AS CONVEYED TO STATE OF WASHINGTON, BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5346371, AND BY DEED FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR, UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5349880; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET FOR ROAD KNOWN AS 92ND AVENUE SOUTH. First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 4 This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: PART ONE SECTION ONE 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions SECTION TWO r Number: NCS-191760-WAl , Number: 5 1. Relinquishment of all existing and future rights to light, view and air, together with the rights of access to and from the State Highway constructed on lands conveyed by document in favor of the State of Washington: Recorded: Recording No.: 5349880 Said instrument is a re-record of recording no(s). 5346371, dated October 27, 1961. (A) Record of Survey November 8, 1991 under Recording No. 9111089007 2. General Taxes for the year 2006, in an amount not yet available, which cannot be paid until February 15, 2006. Tax Account No.: 302305-9085-01 Note: Taxes and charges for 2005 were paid in full in the amount of $5,593.67. 3. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in O.J. Harper, a married man, as his separate estate. If said party is married and we are to insure title as such, free of any interest of the spouse, we will require a deed of conveyance from the non-participating spouse. First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE r Number: NCS-191760-WAl _ e Number: 6 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1.(a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not exduding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by tnis policy. 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or Interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. CONDmONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINmON OF TERMS. The following terms when used in this policy mean: (a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and, subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured, those who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as distinguished from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, distributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors. (b) "insured claimant": an insured claiming loss or damage. (c) "knowledge 11 or "known": actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of any public records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart constructive notice of matters affecting the land. (d) "land": the land described or referred to in Schedule (A), and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "land" does not indude any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule (A), nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or watervvays, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access to and from the land is insured by this policy. (e) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. (f) "public records": records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. With respect to Section l(a)(iv) of the Exclusions from Coverage, "public records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district court for the district in which the land is located. (g) "unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage, which would entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title. 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an insured only so Jong as the insured retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by a purchaser from the insured, or only so long as the insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or conveyance of the estate or interest. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either (i) an estate or interest in the land, or (ii) an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given to an insured. 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT. The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) below, First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard Owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 7 (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which Is adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as insured, and which might cause Joss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if title to the estate or interest, an insured, is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE. (a) Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable delay1 shall provide for the defense of an insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title or interest as insured but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the insured as to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an insured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not insured against by this policy. (b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to an insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as required or pern,itted by the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order. (d)In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, the insured shall . secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (ii) in any other lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate1 including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such cooperation. 5. PROOF OFLOSS OR DAMAGE. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed and sworn to by the Insured claimant shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. In addition, the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records1 books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary inforn,ation from third parties as required in this paragraph shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. 6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION OF UABILITY. In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which were authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations to insured under this policy, other than to make the payment required, shall terminate, Including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any liti9ation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant. (i) to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an insured claimant anY claim insured against under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay; or (ii) to pay or othetwise settle with the insured claimant the !ass or damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in paragraphs (b) (i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall tern,inate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute or continue any litigation. 7. DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE. This policy Is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent herein described. (a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least of: (i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or, (ii) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. First American Title Insurance Company ·• Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 8 (b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or the full consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this Policy is subject to the following: (i) where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or (ii) where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. (c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 8, APPORTIONMENT, If the land described in Schedule (A)(C) consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the parcels but not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rat:a basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. 9, UMITATION OF LIABIUTY. (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land, or cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully petformed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (b) In the event of any litigation, induding litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title as insured. (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF LIABIUTY, All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. 11, LIABIUTY NONCUMULATIVE. It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter executed by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12, PAYMENT OF LOSS. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. 13, SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT. (a) The Company's Right of Subrogation. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the insured daimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If requested by the Company, the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and remedies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole amount of the loss. If loss should result from any fld of the insured claimant, as stated above, that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, tn that event, shall be required to pay only that part bf any losses insured against by this policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. (b) The company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. The Company's right of subroQation against non-insured obligors shall exist and shall include, without limitation, the rights of the insured to indemnities1 guaranties, other. policies of insurance or bonds, notw'ithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy. 14, ARBITRATION. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the demand for arbitration is made or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. 15. LIABILITY UMITED TO THIS POUCY; POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT, First American Title Insurance Company .. Form No. 1402.92 (10/17/92) ALTA Standard owner's Policy Western Regional Exceptions r Number: NCS-191760-WAl e Number: 9 (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or by any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 16. SEVERABILITY. In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision and all other proVlSions shall remain in full force and effect. 17. NOTICES, WHERE SENT. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall be addressed to the Company at First American Title Insurance Company, 1 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707, or to the office which issued this policy. First American Title Insurance Company AUG r. ';. -' "'~"'Z~ L,)·J,J Contact information Pre-application meeting for Harper Engineering Lab City of Renton Development Services Division September 15, 2005 I Planner: Valerie Kinast, (425) 430-~ Public Works Plan Reviewer: )an Illian, ( 425) 430-7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Jim Gray I Corey Thomas, ( 425) 430-7023 / 7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, ( 425) 430-7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, contractors etc. who work on the project. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 30, 2005 Valerie Kinas!, Associate Planner I/ James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshall\ / 4-- Harper Engineering, 2994 East Vall~ Rd. Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2250 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$6,912.36 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 5. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on site. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i: \harperengineering.doc C !TY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Pre-Application File No, PREOS-118 FROM: Valerie K.inast, Associate Planner, (425) 430-7289 SUBJECT: Harper Engineering Lab 425 430 7231 ,,--' f'\tlil-IMf'W 1p/}J~ New 14,000 square foot facility for a laboratory and light ruanufacturing at 3000 East Valley Road General: We have complete(! a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submlttals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers ( e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject property is located on the east side of East Valley Road at 3000 East Valley Road. The proposal is to build a 14,000 square foot, one-story building to serve as the primary business location ofHarper Engineering for the development, testing and manufacture of small products used in the manufacture ofaiiplanes. The applicant is proposing 39 parking stalls. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development is located within the Employment Area-Valley (EA V) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The following policies are applicable to the proposal: Community Design Element Policy CD-20. Development should be visually and acoustically buffered from adjacent freeways. Policy CD-44. Development should provide appropriate landscaping and fa91de treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. Policy LU-435. Site planning review should ensure that light industrial uses are neither intrusive nor adversely affected by other uses nearby. Land Use Element Polley LU-431. The City should endeavor to expand its present economic base, emphasizing new teclmologies, research and development facilities, science parks, and high-technology centers, and supporting commercial and office land uses. Objective LU-YYY: Promote the development of low impact, light industrial w;cs, particularly those within the high-technology category, in Employment Area-Valley and Employment Area-Industrial designations where potentially adverse impacts can be mitigated. P.01 JUL -.f 4-2006 09 : 12 C !TY OF RENTON Harper Engineering Lab P~Applic Septe<llher IS, 2005 Page 2of 4 Meeting 425 430 7231 Policy LU-455. Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition ofland uses (Refer to the Community Design Element). Zoning designation and consistency of land 11se: The subject property is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation in the Employment Area Valley. In the CA zone, the proposed use as a lab for product development and associated manufacturing would be a permitted use because it falls under the definition of Laboratories, Light Manufacturing: "A facility in which scientific research, investigation, testing, or experimentation occur. Manufacturing of and sale of products may also occur." (RMC 4-11-120) Because of the light manufacturing component of the project, the use would need to be completely contained within the building, and materials or equipment used in production would not be allowed to be stored outdoors. The prOperties to the north and south of the site are also zoned CA. The land across the street to the west is zoned Industrial Medium and lndu stria! Heavy. At the back of the property, to the east, is State Route 167. Critical Areas: The site is located in an area of high seismic hazard. The seismic hazard is related to potential liquefaction of soils during an eanhquake event. Before the applicant pursues detailed design and engineering for the development of the site, it is recommended that a geotecbnical analysis for the site be prepared. The analysis i;hould assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. Although further critical areas are not indicated on the City of Renton critical areas maps, it is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether critical areas, such as wetlands, are present on their site. If so, the site design would need to be revised accordingly. Development Standards: The subject site is currently undeveloped. The following standards apply to new development on the site. Lot coverage -The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65% of the lot area or 75% of the lot area if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking garage. The proposed building would result in approximately 17% lot coverage, which complies with city lot coverage regulations. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line or any private access easement. The required setbacks of the subject lot in the CA zone are 10 feet in front, 0 in the rear and O to both sides, because the site does not abut residential wning. The propOsal submitted would meet the setback requirements. Building height -Building height is restricted to 50 feet, unless additional height is granted through the conditional use permit process. The proposed one-story, 24 foot high building would meet height restrictions. Landscaping: A 10-foot wide landscape strip is the minimum amount of landscaping necessary along the street frontage. The proposed 19.5-foot wide landscape strip along East Valley Road would meet this size requirement. Please refer to the attached landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for general and specific landscape requirements. All landscape areas are to include an underground sprinkling system. Some of the other aspects of landscaping that must be addressed include: the type and location of trees and other plants; soils to be used; drainage; henning. O~~J 18. H.iu'pcf 'Enginc;ertng Lab (CA, Lab, Llght-Manufactur1Tlg).doc\ P.02 · JUL-1'4-2006 09: 12 C !TY OF RENTON 425 430 7231 Hari,er Engineering Lab Pre-Applica Meeting September 15, 2005 Page~of4 In addition to the landscaping required along the site's East Valley Road street frontage, s'Uiface parking lots with between 15 and 50 parking spaces are required to install a minimum of 15 square feet oflandscapillg per parking space. Specifications for the landscaping of parking lots can be found in the copy of the Parking Loading and Driveway Regulations I have attached to thia memo under F.7 .. A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meetillg the requirements in RMC 4-8- 120D, enclosed, shall be submitted at the time of application for Site Piao Review. Access: Access to the lot by motorized vehicle is proposed from East Valley Road via two driveways, 24.5 feet and 28.5 feet in width. RMC4-4-080I limits driveway width to 40% of the lot frontage. The proposed driveways would span only 32% of the frontage of the lot and thus be in conformance with the regulations. The proposed driveways also meet the requirement to be located at least five feet from abutting lot.s and comply with the code requirement to have a minimum of 40 feet of spacing between the two. The city development regulations require a "pedestrian connection be provided from a public enttance to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and intemally from buildings to abutting retail properties." At the time of submittal, the site plan should show pedestrian access from the building to East Valley Road. Parking: The submitted materials indicate 6 parking stalls in the front and 33 stalls in the rear of the building for a total of 39 parking stalls. Parking regulatiOll5 require a minimum of 20 off-street parking stalls and a maximum of29 stalls for the site based on 10,337 square feet of manufacturing use and 2,863 square feet of office use. One to two of these stalls must meet ADA requirements, depending on the total number of stalls. The design indicates tea more stalls than the maximum allowed by city regulations. The applicant is advised to reduce the number of parking stalls or request a parking modification from the Development Services Director before formal submittal for Site Plan Review. A modification request would likely be approved. I have attached a copy of the modification procedures for reference. The parking regulations require most stalls to be 20 feet by 9 feet. 40% of employee designated stalls may be 8.5 foot by 16 foot compact stalls, and 30% of the remaining stalls may be compact sized. The stalls shown in the proposal are 19 feet by 9 feet and would need to be revised before formal submittal to meet these requirements. Screening: Screening must be provided for all surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. These areas should be shown on the site plan submitted for review. The drawings submitted for building perntit review will need to include elevations and details on the proposed methods of screening, if applicable. Refuse and Recyclables: Recyclables and refuse deposit areas must be screened pursuant to RMC section 4-4-090C7. The areas must be of a minimum size based on the size of the buildings they will serve. Tile proposed project w1.mld require 40 square feet c,f recycling deposit area and 133 square feet of refuse deposit area. These areas must be shown on the site plan submitted for review. When applying for building permits, elevations and details of these areas must be included in the OS·l 18 Huper fln8ineerins Loi> (CA, uab, Ligh1-Mon•f><turing).doc\ P.03 JUL~14-2006 09:13 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7231 lbq,er Engineering Lab Pre-Applie ______ Meeting SepteJnber1S,200S Page 4 of 4 submittal. Approval of the proposed locations of dumpster areas by Rainier Waste Management is recommended prior to the submittal for building pennits. Signage: The sire would be permitted one freestanding business sign (pole, monument/ground, projecting or roo:!). The sign shall not exceed an area greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage that is occupied by the business. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of 300 square feet (150 square feet per face), In addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a copy area not exceeding 20% of the fayade to which it is applied are also pennitted. The sign permit(s) will need to clearly identify square footages of the wall face llI!d the sign to which it is applied, in order to determine compliance. Permit Requirements: The construction of a commercial building with over 4,000 squate feet of gross floor area, and parking facilities for over 20 cars requires Environmental (SEPA) Review. Administrative Site Plan Review will also be required. These land use permits would be reviewed in an estimated timefrarne of 8 to 10 weeks. The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive permit (Site Plan Review a~Oo,tand half off any subsequent permits; !4 of the full fee for SEP A Review which is dependent 1"= value: less than $100,000 is $200 (1/2 of $400 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is ee (l/2 ofSl,000 full fee). - In addition to the required land use permits, separate building, construction and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior t.o the completion of any required land use appeal periods. Fees: Tn addition to the applicable land use, building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to building pennit issuance: • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. • A fire mitigation fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new commercial space. • A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.213 per square foot of gross site area. • A Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SOC) of $0.126 per square foot of gross site area. • A Surface Water Development Charge (SDC) of $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. In adwtnce t,f submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter ta help ensure that the application is complete prior ta making all copies. oc: Jennifer Henning OS·l 18 llarper Engineering Lab (CA Lab, Llsh1-Manula<t11ring).docl P.04 'JUL~i4-2006 09:13 CITY OF RENTON TO: FROM: DATE: Valarie Kinast Jan Illian September 14, 2005 CITY OF RENTON MEMO UTILITY PLAN REVIEW SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS HARPER ENGINEERING LAB 425 430 7231 P.05 PREAPP NO. 05-118 3000 • E. Valley Rd NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The followlng comments on development a11d permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittal& made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that il'lfonnation contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment. Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is an existing 12-inch water main in East Valley Rd. Available derated fire flow in East Valley Rd is approximately 5,500 gpm. See City water drawing WTR27034. 2. Preliminary fire flow requirement is 2,250 gpm. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Three hydrants will be required to serve this site. One hydrant is required within 150 feet from the building and two additional hydrants are required to be within 300 feet of 1he nearest comers of the building. 3. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project. but are subject to verification for being within the required distance. An additional hydrant may be required. 4. Existing hydrants counted, as fire protection are required to be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting If not already in place. 5. The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Pressure available is approximately 77 psi. 6. If applicant proposes a building, which exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow devioe will be required on the domestic water meter. 7. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.213 per square foot of gross site area will apply. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 8. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department, a separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assembly for fire sprinkler line. ,• · JUL~l4-2006 09:13 Harper Engineering September 14, 2005 C !TY OF RENTON ' 425 430 7231 P.06 All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton·s requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is a 12-inch sewer main in East Valley Road 2. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed on the side sewer. 3. A Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SOC) of $0.126 per square foot of gross site area will be apply. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. SURFACE WATER 1. There are existing storm drainage facilities in East Valley Road. 2. A storm drainage plan and drainage report is required. The drainage plan shall include provision for detention and water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surface subject to vehicular access per the KCSWM 1990 Edition. 3. The Surface Water SOC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage by $0.249. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 4. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for proposed vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalks, paving and streetlights fronting the property along East Valley Road are required if not already in place. 2. A limited traffic study may be required for the SEPA review. The study should include trip generation and trip distribution for the project for both AM and PM peak hours. New traffic counts will be required for the traffic report. 3. A traffic mitigation fee of $76 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed as determined by the ITE trip generation manual. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground . -~u~~14-2006 09,14 Harper Engineering sept,arnber14,2005 GENERAL COMMENTS· CITY OF RENTON ' , 425 430 7231 P.07 1. All construction utility permits for utilities, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards, which are attached for reference. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. Storm drainage design and requirements shall comply with the KCSWM, 1990 edition. 2-When the utility plans are complete. please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425--430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the pem,lt system. 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 4. Any proposed rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit and will require special inspection. 5. Separate permits for water meter, side sewer, landscape irrigation meter and backflow devices are required. CC: Kayren Klttrick TOTAL P.07 Printed: AUG O 1 • 2006 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06-099 Receipt Number: R0603915 Total Payment: 08/04/2006 08:45 AM 1,500.00 Payee: Harper Engineering Co. Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------------ Payment Check 28391 1,500.00 Account Balances 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.l 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00