Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Black River Riparian Forest (Permanent Site Record) Appraisals - Lot 3-10 1991 File 1 of 2
I " I I , " I I', , I I:' , I' , \ ' ", . , , ,I, : I " '. . . . . ."' 'I,', " , ' ': '. 'I .- : I, " ,I ' , ' I' ',' ',I"" ' , ' , ' , " ." . ". . . -. I '" ' " ,II" ,:, ' , , ~ ... " , ' ... .. ~ .' " ", . ' . . . , , " " ' , , J", • .. ... ". ' , ., ' . , ,'," Black River Corpol;'ate Park ' ' ' , ' Renton, Washington ' , . , ',' " Lot3 ' . ... . " , . ," . . . " .' . . " , . .'. .' , , , • • !' , . .' . .' , . . ' " ... ' , , , , , . . '" , " . , " , " ' , . ' " . .. ~ . . " . . ' . " " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , AN APPRAISAL OF THE OFFICE PARK LAND LOCATED ON BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHlNGTON FOR CITY OF RENTON (Parks and Recreation) AS AT March 15, 1991 BY CLIFFORD H. PARRISH, F.R.I., R.I. (D.C) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Parks & Recreation 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Leslie A. Betlach Re: Lot 3, Black River Renton, Washington Project Number 302-807 Dear Sirs: April 8, 1991 In accordance with your instructions, I have made an inspection and analysis of the office park land which is more particularly described within this report. The purpose of this report is to express an opinion of the Fair Market Value of the property as a fee simple estate as if free and clear of all encumbrances. In my opinion of Fair Market Value, consideration was given to all known pertinent data including market trends and economic and general conditions affecting current market value. Iri the final analysis, the subject property has an estimated Fair Market Value as of 15 March, 1991, as follows: ONE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS [$195,000.00] The appraisals include both the land and any improvements at the date of inspection. It does not include any equipment, stock, inventory, tools, furniture, fixtures or any other items, movable or unmovable of a personal nature. Fair Market Value, as used in this report, is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. This appraisal has been prepared in conformance with Federal Home Loan Bank guidelines and CEBA Mandated Appraisal Standards, Regulation 563.17-Ja. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A personal inspection was made of the property and consideration was given to: Location, size, topography, zoning and utility of the land and its value as if vacant and available for sale and use. Sales and asking prices of vacant and available land in the area of the subject. Interviews and conferences with property owners, property managers, realtors, appraisers and developers. Population growth trends; industrial, commercial and residential development trends in the subject area. This report consists of: This letter which identifies the property, summarizes the results of the appraisal and certifies the conclusions contained herein; Assumptions and limited conditions; A narrative section which contains local background and economic data, a description of the subject property, a discussion of valuation procedures and a conclusion of value; and An exhibit section which contains: Vicinity Maps, Site Plan, Comparable Sales Data and other miscellaneous exhibits. I have not investigated the title to or any liabilities against the property appraised. Respectfull Clifford H. Parrish, F.R.I., R.I. (B.C.) CHP/pjm Enclosures 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 8. That I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report nor to the parties involved. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of our assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Canadian and American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, my analyses and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. In arriving at the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate contained in this appraisal report, I consulted with other appraisers, and I hereby acknowledge their professional contribution to the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate set forth in the appraisal report. LIMITATIONS AS TO DISCLOSURE AND USE Possession of this report, a copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By- Laws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, the National Association of Realtors, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, the Real Estate Institute of Canada and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the finn with which he is COMected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the MAl, or RM designations, or to the Society of Real Estate and the SRA or SRPA designations; or to the Real Estate Institute of Canada or the F.R.I. designation or the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia or the R.I. (B.C.) designation) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. 10. On all appraisals subject to satisfactory completion, repairs or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. Clifford H. Parrish, F.R.I., R.I.(B.C.), C.R.A. Appraiser and Consultant s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNDERLYING ASSUMPIJONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. That the legal description furnished to the appraiser is true and correct. 2. That no survey was furnished to the appraiser. 3. That the title of the property appraised in this report is good. 4. That no title evidence pertaining to easements, leases, reservations, or other parties-in-intei-est was furnished to the appraiser. 5. The property is appraised as a fee simple estate. 6. The appraisal assumes good title, responsible ownership and competent management. 7. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor is any opinion of the title rendered herewith. 8. No guarantee is made for the accuracy of estimates or opinions furnished by others and obtained in this report. 9. No liability is assumed in matters of legal character affecting the property, such as title defects, encroachments, liens, overlapping lines, etc. 10. Any liens or encumbrances which may now exist have been disregarded, and the property has been appraised as though free of indebtedness and as though no delinquency in payment of general taxes and special assessments exists. 11. The values assigned to improvements, shown in this report, are in proportion to the contribution said improvements make to the value of the property as a whole. 12. No right is given to publish or reproduce any portion of this report without the consent of the appraiser. 13. No earthquake compliance report, hazardous waste or asbestos analysis was made or ordered in conjunction with this appraisal report. 14. No engineering survey was made or ordered in conjunction with this report. IS. Appraisal reports that contain a valuation relating to an estimate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such estates relates to a fractional interest only in the real estate involved and the value of the fractional interest plus the value of all other fractional interests mayor may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole. " 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. Appraised values that relate to geographical portions of a large parcel or tract of real estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such geographical portion relates to such portion only and should not be construed as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value reported for such geographical portion plus the value of all other geographical portions mayor may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity .• 17. The appraiser assumes that a purchaser is aware that (1) this appraisal on the subject property does not serve as a warranty on the condition of the property, (2) it is the responsibility of the purchaser to examine the property carefully and to take all necessary precautions before signing a purchase contract, and (3) any estimate for repairs is a non-warranted opinion of the appraiser unless otherwise stated. 18. This appraisal is prepared in conformance with the plans and specifications provided to your appraisers and assumes completion in a workmanlike manner. The appraiser cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable events that alter market conditions prior to the effective date of the opinion: 19. The liability of Clifford H. Parrish is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner, or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements, or cost, regardless of outcome; the client will hold Olympic Appraisals and Clifford H. Parrish completely harmless. 20. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which mayor may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos,. urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property. The value 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I .,' , SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS: LOCATION: Between Burlington Northern Railroad and Black River Channel, Renton, Washington LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attachment at rear of report TAX ACCOUNT NO.: DATE OF VALUATION: SIZE OF LAND: SIZE OF BUILDING: TYPE OF PROPERTY: ASSESSMENTS: TAXES: ZONING: 132304.9088 March 28, 1991 233,901 square feet Not applicable Vacant Land: $375,000 $5,088.15 OP -Office Park mGHEST AND BEST Comprehensive Development USE: OWNER: First City Development Corporation I ESTIMATED VALUE: $195,000.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OSTENSmLE OWNER Ownership of the subject land described within this report and shown under Property Tax No. 132304.9088 is in the name of First City Developments Corp. Suite 6600,700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington PROPERTY LOCATION The subject is located at the east end of the prposed Black River Business Park, in the City of Renton, Washington. PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the present and proposed Fair Market Value of the subject property, in fee simple estate, for mortgage loan purposes. Fair Market Value is defined as: "Market Value" means: (1) the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market; d. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (2) Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative ftnancing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment. This definition of "Market Value" complies with the mandate of CEBA Regulation S63.17-1a. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights being appraised are those of the fee simple estate, free and clear of all encumbrances and liens. Real Estate APJlraisal Terminology defines fee simple as "an absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class or heirs or restrictions, but subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation. " LEGAL PESCRImONj See rear of this report. DELINEATION OF TITLE There are no previous sales of the subject site. It is believed that the area has been re-platted. DATE OF VALUE The subject property was inspected several times in the last two weeks of March, 1991. 11 I I I I I I I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REGIONAL ANALYSIS The subject is located in the "Pacific Northwest" which is mainly thought to be comprised of the contiguous states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, although Montana is also often included. British Columbia, a Canadian province, is also a part of this region; however it is subject to the laws and policies of a foreign nation. Alaska has strong economic ties to the State of Washington, but of course, is geographically separated from the region. The four contiguous states have a total population of approximately 7,700,000 persons; British Columbia has 2,500,000 persons; and Alaska has 425,000. The four contiguous states comprise over 10% of the land mass of the United States, yet only 2 % of the national population. The following chart shows the region's past and projected growth: PACIFIC NORTHWEST POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) Washington 2,855 2,967 3,413 4,276 4,587 Oregon 1,172 1,937 2,101 2,668 2,797 Idaho 671 686 719 977 1,088 Montana 679 706 698 805 Alaska 229 281 304 444 BC,Canada 1,602 1,797 2,128 2,744 NWTOTAL 7,808 8,364 9,362 11,914 Source: 1985 Almanac Within the Pacific Northwest, there are varied extremes of temperature, terrain, vegetation, and precipitation. The area is noted for its mountains, rivers, and forests, with a major characteristic being its open, unpopulated areas. The period from 1977 to 1980 was one of unprecedented prosperity in the Northwest. Rather lean years were 1981 and 1982, reflecting the fate and fortunes of the national economy. However, 1983 to the present has been a strong growth period locally, with continuing stabilized growth projected by most economic forecasting agencies. There are three major population centers in the four contiguous states of the Pacific Northwest -the Puget Sound area, the Lower Columbia, and the Inland Empire. The Lower Columbia is the Vancouver-Portland area with a combined population of 1,130,000. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Inland Empire is the Spokane area with an area-wide population of 340,000. By far the largest is the Puget Sound Metropolitan area, with Seattle as its major city, which had an estimated population of 2,412,100 as of 1985, according to the Puget Sound Council of Governments. This region as a whole has experienced relatively high growth over the past three decades exceeding the U.S. average. It is now mature in its own right as a consuming market, and with its population it is competitive with other large regional markets. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATE OF WASHINGTON The main difference between the State of Washington and other Pacific Northwest states is its degree of urbanization, comprising the most urbanized and heavily populated state. Washington is the seventh fastest growing state in the nation. From 1970 to 1980, population in the State increased by 27%. In 1984, State population was 4,328,100 with an expected growth increase of 18.5% by 1995 according to the Office of Financial Management. Geographically and meteorologically, the State is divided into two distinct regions by the Casa!de Mountain Range. The area easterly of the mountains is generally arid, while westerly of the mountains it is moist. The moisture is brought in by ocean winds and storms and is trapped by the Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges. The Olympic Mountains westerly of Seattle partially protect the Puget Sound area from precipitation extremes. The Cascade Range acts as a barrier to the cold air masses which drift down from Canada into central and eastern Washington, and as a result, the climate is relatively mild. The western portion of Washington has one of the largest coastlines of any state -it is very irregular with numerous bays, tidal flats and deep water harbors. As a result, it has become a major boating center. The area east of the Cascades is subject to substantially less rainfall, but has temperature extremes from well below zero in the winter to slightly above 100 degrees in the summer. The northern one-third of the area east of the mountains is forested and has a higher rainfall than the lower two-thirds, with this lower portion basically an agricultural area. Principle agricultural crops are wheat, apples and alfalfa. The Federal Government and its creation, the Bonneville Power Administration, have dammed many of the region's principle rivers, particularly the Columbia, and the result has been ample water for irrigation as well as a plentiful supply of cheap electricity available to all of the Northwest. The State is economically intertwined with not only the national economy of the United States, but also with many other countries of the world. The Port of Seattle and the Seattle Customs District have an important impact on the area's economy. A large percentage of the State's manufacturing, agricultural and mining production is exported and basic consumer goods imported. Washington State is one of the few in the nation which does not levy a personal or corporate income tax. Its revenues are primarily generated by an excise tax on real estate sales, on the gross sales of businesses and occupations, and through property taxes. An analysis of the State of Washington would not be complete without mentioning its spectacular public lands. A very large portion of the State is held in national parks, forests and wilderness areas, as well as state parks and other public lands. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUGET SOUND AREA The dominant center in Washington both politically and economically is the Puget Sound area. This area stretches from Olympia on the south to the Canadian border on the north. The dominant geographical feature of this area is Puget Sound, a salt water body which is fed by the Pacific Ocean through the Strait of 1uan de Fuca, which is between Vancouver Island and the north end of the Olympic Peninsula. Puget Sound is approximately 120 miles long and varies in width from 12 to 40 miles, being broken up by various large and small islands. Together with the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Sound to the north, Puget Sound provides an inland waterway from Seattle to Alaska with a few stretches of open water. Puget Sound, besides providing an active water freight and transportation market, is also the playground of the local population. This area is frequently referred to as the "boating capital of the world" with clean waters, beautiful vistas and good fishing. State operated ferries ply its waters and provide a major transportation link. With mountain ranges on each side snow covered much of the year, numerous fresh water lakes and rivers and rich agricultural valleys, the area's natural setting is quite unique. The majority of the population is situated on the easterly side of Puget Sound along with Interstate 5, the major north-south route through the area. The heaviest population concentration is from Everett on the north to Olympia on the south. The Puget Sound four-county area contains over 50% of the State's population and this figure is on the increase. In summary, it can be said that Puget Sound is a diversifying and promising area. The economy has followed the general flow of the national economy, with no extreme highs or lows in recent years. The outlook is bright, with technical advances and innovations fueling an improving scenario. IS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEAmE MElROPOLU'AN AREA What is generally referred to as "the Seattle Metropolitan area" includes four counties -Kitsap County, which is located on the west side of Puget Sound; Snohomish County, with Everett as the county seat; King County with Seattle as the county seat; and Pierce County, with Tacoma as its county seat. Following is a list of the current . population trends and projections for these counties from the Puget Sound Council of Governments: County Kitsap Snohomish King Pierce TOTAL 1970 101,732 265,236 1,159,375 412,344 1,938,687 1980 147,152 337,720 1,269,749 485,667 2,240,288 1985 167,800 373,000 1,346,400 524,900 2,412,100 2000 223,990 533,390 I, 692 ,000 671,040 3,120,420 A 39% increase is projected from 1980 to 2000. From 1960 to 1980, total population increased by 76%. According to the State's population reports and projection publications, much, if not most, of the past and projected increase has been the result of in- migration rather than by the birth rate and decreasing mortality. The birth rate has actually dropped somewhat over the past 25 years. The Seattle Metropolitan area is one of the twelve standard consolidated statistical areas of "super cities" in the United States and is the 24th largest in the U.S. These super cities are major concentrations of population as defmed by the U.S. Government's Office of Management and Budget. It is one of only three on the West Coast along with San Francisco and Los Angeles. It is the sixteenth largest metropolitan economy in the United States out of 40 standard metropolitan statistical areas. Kitsap County, a long peninsula jutting into Puget Sound on its westerly side, has the least amount of population of the four countries. Its location on the west side of Puget Sound makes it fairly isolated from Seattle. Snohomish County has the second smallest population, but it is experiencing the most rapid growth. The corridor abutting Highway 405 is rapidly developing into high- technology industries from Redmond-Woodinville to Lynnwood-Mill Creek. The Boeing 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Company remains the major industry, manufacturing 747's and 767's at Paine Field near Everett. The southwest portion of the county has experienced most of the growth with Harbour Pointe and Mill Creek the focal points. Pierce County has a high percentage of military related jobs since both an Army and an Air Force base are located close to Tacoma. The South Hill area of Puyallup is projected for primary new development including high technology industry and Rainier Terrace, a planned community. Further south of Pierce County and Tacoma is Thurston County and the City of Olympia. Olympia is the State Capital for the State of Washington and is known primarily for its governmental activities. Olympia has benefited from the generally buoyant economy of the last twelve months or so. The reported influx of people into Washington State has impacted all communities in the Puget Sound area. King County is the largest of the four counties with its county seat, Seattle, being the focal point of the metropolitan area. It provides many services, fmancing and government jobs, with less manufacturing jobs per capita than most major cities. Seattle contains 91.6 square miles and has recently passed 500,000 inhabitants and includes 32% of the area's population. Bellevue, with 80,250 population, is the second largest city in King County and the third largest in the metropolitan area. It is across Lake Washington from Seattle and can be reached by two bridges. This former bedroom community of Seattle is also becoming increasingly a creator of its own employment. The progress of the Seattle Metropolitan Area is frequently thought of as the history of The Boeing Company, the world's largest manufacturer of aircraft, which to a large extent, has been true. Due to Boeing's employment fluctuations, there has been extensive planning and cooperation between Boeing and local government to provide diversification of industry. Boeing now contracts out more of its work to avoid the peaks and valleys which have been illustrative of its operating history. Boeing announced record sales for 1986 and future income is assured by the orders placed in 1986. Despite earlier predictions, Boeing is still adding jobs locally at the rate of nearly 7,000 per year. As of the third quarter of 1987, over 92,000 workers were employed in aerospace in the· Metropolitan Area. Historically, lumbering, fishing and agriculture, along with commercial shipping, have helped to make up the economic base of this area. In the past 25 years, manufacturing activities, chiefly the aircraft industry led by The Boeing Company, have become a more important part of the economy. The past twelve months have seen record orders received by Boeing which should bode for a continued good economy throughout the foreseeable future. High-tech industries are locating and expanding in the region and there has been an increase in services and wholesale trade. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As a result of the mild weather and other features, the Seattle area has been classified in several national publications as offering the highest quality of living (including both environmental and social conditions) of the major metropolitan areas in the country. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF BENTON Renton, located in Central King County, is on the south shores of Lake Washington and is situated approximately eleven miles south of downtown Seattle. Access into and through Renton is via Interstate 405 and State Highways 167, 169,515 and 900. The population of Renton has steadily increased from 18,453 in 1960 to 36,760 in 1989, with estimates of 100,000 in the greater Renton area by 1990. Continued increase of multi-family housing and anticipated annexation of residential lands have contributed to this increase in population. In order to understand the economic conditions and projected economic trends in Renton, we shall examine these topics: manufacturing and industrial patterns, commercial concentrations, transportation facilities, utility services, city government, community facilities, and educational opportunities. MANUFACTIJRING AND INDUSTRIAL PA11'ERNS There are 200 manufacturing firms in the service area. The principal products are: aircraft, railroad cars, machine construction and maintenance, telephone poles, corrugated cardboard containers, pipe and ceramics, meat packing, poultry equipment, coil springs, engineering, rendering, scaffolding, stagings, cement castings, sealing compounds, plastics, lumber and light metal products. A number of national firms have distribution centers in the area with a current estimate of 290 distributorships. The largest manufacturing firms are as follows: NAME OF COMPANY PRODUCTS 1989 EMPLOYMENT 1. The Boeing Company Airplanes 37,600 2. Pacific Car & Fndry RR cars, winches, machine shop 220 3. Tally Corp. Electrical hardware 325 4. HeathTecna Plastics, electronics 811 5. Austin Compo Design and construction of 50 commercial bldgs. and air conditioning systems 6. Container Corp. Folding carton division 131 7. Hormel Corp. Meat Processing 80 8. Stoneway Concrete Sand, gravel and concrete 96 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Pacific Propellers 10. Continental Arctic 11. Mutual Materials 12. M. Segale 1. Renton School Dist. 2. Valley General Hosp. 3. City of Renton 4. Pacific NW Bell 5. PACCAR Propellers Food processing Brick and drain tile Asphalt and concrete NON-MANUFACTURING Education Medicine City services Telephone services Computers 6. Puget Sound Power & Light Electric power PROXIMITY OF FACIIJTIFli Utilities can be accessible to the undeveloped sites. COMMERCIAL PATI'ERNS 79 180 69 202 1,710 1,400 610 320 610 325 Renton is served by three levels of commercial activity: (1) neighborhoodl community shopping centers, (2) the central downtown shopping district, and (3) regional shopping centers. Neighborhood centers are typically small and keyed primarily to grocery stores, drug stores, variety stores and small service establishments. Downtown Renton provides the loc.alired needs of banking, grocery and services, as well as clothing stores, restaurants, hardware stores, offices, entertainment, etc. Southcenter, a regional shopping city located 2 112 miles west of Renton, consists of four major department stores, 112 additional stores and shops on 1,250,000 square feet of retail floor area. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Excellent and efficient transportation facilities are available. Rail service is provided by Burlington Northern. Truck service is available by all of the major truck lines operating in the Seattle-Tacoma complex. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is six miles southwest of Renton and the Port of Seattle, located eleven miles to the northwest. Bus service is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Company. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UTJLm SERVICE Water service is provided by the City of Renton Water Department. Sewage is handled by the City of Renton. Natural gas is provided by Washington Natural Gas Company, and electric power is provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company. cm GOVERNMENT Renton has a Mayor/Council form of government with zoning and building codes. The Police Department partially consists of 59 commissioned officers, 23 civilian employees, and 19 patrol vehicles. The Fire Department persoMel includes 67 paid uniforms. Fire Insurance classification is City 4. COMMUNITY FACILlTIE$ Medical facilities within the City include the 303 bed Valley General Hospital with a staff of 270 physicians and surgeons, and 64 dentists. Recreational facilities include 25 parks, 20 tennis courts, 22 baseball diamonds, one municipal and two public swimming pools, two golf courses, etc. Good hunting and fishing is in close proximity to Renton. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Renton is part of the Renton School District #403. The following schools are in the Renton area: NUMBER TYPE ENROLLMENT # TEACHERS 13 Elementary 5,755 245 3 Middle School 2,009 90 3 High School 4,029 175 1 Special Education 65 13 (Thompson) 1 Alternative 165 9 The parochial school in Renton is St. Anthony's Catholic School, grades K through 8, with a current enrollment of 462 students and taught by 17 teachers. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Higher educational opportunities include: The University of Washington, Seattle University and Seattle Pacific College, which are all accredited four-year colleges located in Seattle. There are also two-year colleges located within 12 miles of Renton. Vocational training opportunities are provided by the Renton Vocational Technical Institute, a State supported but locally controlled institution that provides training, retraining, upgrading and apprenticeship related instruction. During 1982-1983, 20,919 students registered for classes at R. V. T.I. The Institute is fully accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, and is governed by the Board of Directors of Renton School District #403. In summary, Renton has a solid economic base with attractive amenities, a mild climate, good transportation facilities, ample schools, educational facilities and community facilities that make it a pleasant community in which to live. 22 I I I I I I I I SITE AND I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject site is on the extreme west side of the City of Renton, having the City of Tukwila to the west and the City of Seattle to the North. The land to the north of the railroad tracks rises quite steeply and provides a natural geographical barrier. Running through the immediate area are the Green River and Black River, although the latter is now used as a retention pond for flood waters. This is the extreme north end of the Kent-Auburn Valley which extends several miles to the south. The road system in the area is very good with Interstate 5, which runs from the Canadian border to Mexico, passing through downtown Seattle, being approximately one mile to the west. Highway 405 loops from Interstate 5 through Renton along the east side of Lake Washington, linking back with Interstate 5 north of Lynnwood. Highway 405 passes within half a mile of the subject to the south and can be accessed at State Route 181 or State Route 167. The access to the north is difficult, because of both the railroad tracks and the topography. However, it is of minor significance in that Interurban Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue to the east are easily reached via Grady Way or S.W. 7th Street. The zoning from the railroad tracks on the north boundary of the subject, between Highways 181 and 167, permit office and manufacturing development. The subject therefore is zoned in conformity with the general neighborhood. One of the few variations to the zoning is the land immediately to the south of the subject where there is the Metro Disposal Station. This does not appear to impact the subject. To the north is a gravel quarry with access to Monster Road. This may have some impact on the subject, but is difficult to either support or refute. Much of the area, being in a valley floor, is in the 100 year flood plain, which has been the topic of considerable recent discussion. The future of development is one of uncertainty, mainly because there is no precedent to refer to. A plan of the area is attached. 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SITE DATA The subject site comprises a single legal lot at the east end of the proposed Black River Business Park. Black River was a subsidiary of the Green River but with the controlling of Lake Washington and flood control within the Kent Valley, there has been little or no water flow in recent years. There is currently no access to the site. To the north are railroad tracks beyond which the land slopes quite steeply upwards. To the south is the Black River basin. It is, however, understood that a road is proposed to access the site from the southeast corner. The site is very irregular and offers 233,901 square feet or 5.37 acres. It is flat with the topographical map showing that the land is about 15 feet above sea level. Services. The land is currently unserviced but there is every reason to assume that when the road is extended, so will the sewer and water and any other services that are considered necessary for office park development. The sewer and water lines currently dead-end on Naches Avenue, approximately 500 feet to the south. Soil. No soil analysis has been provided, but a study of the Metro Disposal site has been reviewed and this report shows the subject soils as Woodinville Series. This classification has soils that range from fine sandy loam to silt loam usually found on level or near level ground. These are Relic River Meander Deposits and are organic silts, clayey silts and interbeds of peat and wood detritus with variable thickness of two to eight feet. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZONJNGDATA The subject is located in an area zoned OP-Office Park. The purpose and intent of this classification is to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and supportive services in a campus-like setting. . Other than the subject area, there are only two other OP areas, the largest of which is south of Highway 405 and west of Highway 167. The surrounding areas of both the subject and this area are zoned MP-Manufacturing Park. This classification is less restrictive than OP zones, but the market appears to be developing both zones with similar type buildings. There are height and setback restrictions that are dependent on surrounding uses and site dimensions. Details of both these classifications are attached to the rear of this report. Full details can be found in the Zoning Code being part of the Municipal Code of the City of Renton contained in Ordinance #4263 dated March 19, 1990. In addition, this area is designated on the community plan as MP-MO which is Manufacturing Park-Multiple Option. This in essence is the same as the current zoning. The extreme west portion appears to be in the greenbelt district. 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H1GlIFSTANPBFSTUSE In appraisal practice, the concept of Highest and Best Use represents the premise upon which value is based. In the context of market value, highest and best use is defined as: The reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Alternatively it is that use, from among reasonable, probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically feasible, and which results in the highest land value. It should be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements, the Highest and Best Use may be determined to be different from the existing use. Our investigation leading to a conclusion of Highest and Best Use was designed to simulate the actions and thinking of prudent and knowledgeable purchasers and pursued the following logical sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. s. Possible use: To what use it is physically possible to put on the site in question? Permissible Use (Legal): What uses are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions? Feasible Use: What possible and permissible uses will produce any net return to the owner of the site? Probable Use: The use must be probable, not speculative or conjectural. There must be profitable demand for such use and it must return to the land the highest net return for the longest period of time. Highest and best use: Among reasonable uses, those uses which will produce the highest net return or the highest present worth. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to analyze alternative uses of the subject site and to ascertain which single or possible combination of complementing uses would prove most profitable to the owner, based on present market behavior. The subject use is clearly defined by the zoning, i.e. office building. However, the site is not available for development immediately and it would be unreasonable to assume that this site would be developed before those to the east. Highest and best use is a time related concept. It is equally unrealistic to assume that all land can be developed together. The most likely concept is a progressive 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I development westward from Naches Avenue along the north side of the Black River Channel. This suggests that the subject site would be one of the last sites in the process. Discussions with planning and zoning departments reveal that a dead-end street cannot exceed 500 feet and the fire department requires two separate approaches to the site. It has been mentioned that a bridge had been proposed over the retention pond to form.a loop from Naches Avenue westward alongside the railroad tracks to join Oakesdale Avenue close to Monster Avenue. This proposal would seem unlikely to be accepted. The cost may not be prohibitive, but coupled with the definite possibility that approval for a bridge may never be obtained , it would appear to be an economical venture. It would therefore appear that the site cannot be developed without access and to all intent and purposes has no viable use. This is unrealistic, so it is a question of how the land can be used. Further discussions have revealed that the land between the Black River . channel and the railroad tracks could be amalgamated into one parcel and developed as such. The zoning ordinance does not preclude development of one site with several buildings, SO long as all parking density and set back requirements, etc. are met. In theory, zoning would permit this kind of development. The ingress and egress from the end of Naches Avenue may present the biggest problem. I have spoken to the Renton Fire Chief, Gary Gotti, who indicates that two different approaches would be necessary for a multi building development. The subject land has 48 feet of frontage to Monster Avenue. This strip of land narrows to about 25 feet before widening to the full acreage. The fire department may accept a 20 foot wide paved emergency access from this direction as a second access. This is not wide enough for road access, but would suffice for emergency use. Such an access would cross designated wetland, but there is a provision that 0.99 acre can be filled, so long as restitution is made. It would be most natural to create such an access abutting the railroad right-of-way. This would appear to be the only possible means of developing and conforming with all the requirements. It is by no means an assumed thing, but appears to be possibility. This indicates that the highest and best use of the site is to amalgamate with the remainder of the land northwest of the end of Naches Avenue and have a Planned Use Development. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I METHOD OF APPRAISAL There are three basic approaches to value, namely the cost approach, the income approach and direct market comparison. The Cost Am>roach entails adding the depreciated value of any improvements to the current value of the land. This approach is based on the premise that no one will pay more than its cost of reproduction. The Income APl1roach entails calculating the current economic rental income of the property and capitalizing the net income as a return demanded by the market. This approach measures the present worth of the future benefits. Direct Market Comparison. This approach entails comparing sales of properties offering similar utility. This approach is based on the principle of substitution. The appraisal of unimproved land uses the market comparison approach. The cost approach and income approach do not lend themselves in the appraisal of land. Land sales will be reviewed and a value of the subject, if readily available for development, will be concluded. From these figures, the cost required to make the site developable will be deducted. It is acknowledged, however, that these costs would be spread over the total parcel of land and not just the subject lots. It would be unreasonable to place this cost on any specific lot, but in practice, a developer would try to eradicate these 'up front' costs in the first development. 28 I I I I I -. I I VALUATIONS • I • I I • • I • • • VALUATION The value of the subject is considered to be indicated by other sales in the market. On the following pages are sales and listings of comparative land. This information is available to a prospective purchaser who presumably would base any value for the subject on this information. The principal of substitution applies in that a purchaser will not pay more for a property than a similar property offering similar utility. 29 I ME'rRO RENTON BORSE South I Center SW 23 ST ;; '" 153 U ~ ~ 5 28 ~ _ -L. _ .. _ -..._... .. I SW29 rJl 0 a: I .. l I SW 31 I " ~ , '-,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #1 Location East side Monster Road, S.W. Tax Acct. No. 242304.9122 Access From Monster Road Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Irregular Sale Date 10/90 Price $582,084 Area 5.00 acres Grantor B & G. Renton Partnership Grantee Seattle Area Plumbing Confirmation: I have spoken to Greg Herrell who was the listing and selling broker. A portion of this land is designated as wetland. It was written in the sales contract that the useable area would not exceed 130,000 square feet and that approximately 90,000 square feet was wetlands. Both parties acknowledged a value of $4.75 per square foot or thereabouts was a realistic value for the useable land. Some fill has been brought in and services were almost at the property line. 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #l Location Tax Acct. No. Access Land Use Zoning Sale Date Price Area Seller Buyer Northeast comer Powell and 7th Street, S.W. 918800.0010; .0030; .0050; .0060 From Powell or 7th Street S.W. Unimproved OP-Office Park 05/31190 $2,000,000 2.9 acres; 2.2 acres; 1. 7 acres; 1.5 acres Equity Management L.O. Renton n, Inc. Comments: These lots have been relisted and Lowe Enterprises indicate Lot 1 is listed at $5.80 per square foot. Lots 3 and 4 are at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6 are at $6.50 per square foot. There are earnest money agreements on some of these lots, but details would not be released until after closing. 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #3 Location South Center Boulevard Tax Acet. No. 295490.0460; 295490.0465 Access Off Southcenter Boulevard Land Use Unimproved Zoning C2 Sale Date 3/90 Price $948,000 Size 1. 33 acres and 1. 78 acres Seller J.D. Fiorito; 789-6110 Buyer Horizon Hotels Confirmation Mr. Fiorito Remarks: Level site abuts the Green River which adds a restriction on the building development, but can be used for parking. Analysis: Price $948,000 Lot Size 135,544 square feet 32 Price p.s.f. $7.00 I I I I :. f I il f :. ; ~ 'i :,'. !'I I:. ~ ~I ? ;1 I II I II I II I il 'I I Sale #4 Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton Tax Acet. No. 125380.0100 Access From S.W. 29th Street Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Rectangular Sale Date ,3/90 Price 5820,000 Area 185,092 square feet -4.2 acres Grantor Burlington Northern; 467-5500 Grantee Corr Pro Assoc. Confirmation: Burlington Northern confmned that this was an arm's-length transaction. This site is at the end of a dead-end street and is level and cleared. This area south of Highway 405 is a large Business Park, although the site is removed from the main roads. 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANALYSIS Sale #1 is geographically close to the subject on the south side of Monster Road. This site is a different zone (MP) but the proposed use could be equally as well sited in the OP zone. This is a particularly interesting sale in that there were wetlands on the site and the earnest money agreement stipulated the useable land area to be no more than 130,000 square feet. Mr. Herrell of Kidder, Mathews also indicated the parties had used $4.75 per square foot as the basis for the agreed price. It also infers very strongly that no value was attributed to the wetland. Due to the parking requirements, there is no easy way to construct a larger building on the useable land because of the wetland area. The building area potential of the wetlands cannot be readily transferred to the useable land. When wetlands are sold with useable land, the highest and best use ignores the wetland and any value is negligible. This is unlike a separate legal entity that is 100% wetlands where the highest and best use is retention as wetlands. The value of $4.75 per square foot needs some upwards adjustment for the fill and bringing of services. No figures are available but Mr. Herrell indicated that they were not big undertakings. The services were about 200 feet away and only a "small amount" of fill was needed. I believe an adjustment of $0.75 per square foot is not unreasonable giving an adjusted rate of $5.50 per square foot. Sale #2 was a sale of several lots at an overall rate of $5.56 per square foot. Lowe Enterprises has these lots listed and it is understood most are currently under contract to sell. I asked what was the difference between Lots 3 and 4, offered at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6, listed at $6.50 per square foot. The selling broker indicated there is no difference other than shape and size. Lots 5 and 6 are the smallest, being 1. 67 acres and 1.46 acres, whereas the other lots are 2.34 acres and 4.27 acres. Lot 1 is 2.88 acres but has a large frontage on 7th Avenue which is presumably the reason why it is listed at $5.80 per square foot. I am of the opinion that the size factor changes the price. The small lots are quicker to develop and are more manageable to the developer. In essence, it takes longer to complete the proposed building, longer to leave the completed space, and therefore is discounted. It is not unreasonable to assume that the subject would be discounted even more, being larger than all these comparables. This however is refuted by Sale #1 which is larger than all of these sites. Sale #3 is geographically close but is in Tukwila and is in a C2 zone. This zone is more permissible than the OP or MP zones in Renton, although most of the buildings are office and business park style. This sale is to a hotel chain based in Louisiana and being different use is difficult to adjust. The more permissive zone leads me to conclude this is a superior site. 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #4 is in an MP zone but much of the development in the area is similar to that of the OP zone. This site is outside the 100 year flood plan but the area generally is in the valley bottom and some additional site preparation is usually necessary. The range of values found extend from $4.43 per square foot to $6.50 per square foot. The extremes appear to be unrealistic. The high end of the range applies to smaller parcels and those with superior exposure. The lower end sales require additional site preparation. I therefore consider the useable land has a current value of $5.50 per square foot. This however applies to sites ready and available for development. As stated earlier in this report, it is unreasonable to assume that the subject site will be developed immediately. It is therefore necessary to discount the value. It has been suggested that it will take at least one year to reach the subject site. This is the considered period it will take to reach the subject, rather than the completion of the building. This is done because of the position of the comparable sales and it is necessary to be consistent. The value can therefore be discounted for one year. The rate at which the discount is made reflects the risk. This poses definite problems, not knowing whether the hypothetical development would be approved. Having researched the problems with the City Attorney, City Planner, the Fire Chief, etc., I have every reason to believe the development, in one form or another could be achieved. I consider a discount rate of 13% reasonable, due to the definite risk of obtaining a development permit. This is equivalent to mortgage rates and therefore is a cost of holding. $5.50 deferred 1 year at 13% $5.50 x P.V. of 1 year at 13% $5.50 x 0.8849558 = $4.87 It is now a question of what land area this rate should apply to. I have been provided with Wetland maps from Jones and Stokes who carried out a study on behalf of the City of Renton. The impact of this study poses a problem in that the Jones and Stokes study differs from the Department of Ecology study. The Jones and Stokes study has not been adopted and would have to be approved by DOE. The Army Corps of Engineers have given me access to these files which contain considerable correspondence between DOE, First City Equities and the City of Renton I am of the opinion that it is impossible for me to make an accurate judgment as to how much land is available for development. It is, however, reasonable to assume that a prospective purchaser would take the worst scenario, i.e. the DOE study, and it would necessitate application through the City of Renton to determine something to the contrary. I do not have the benefit of such an application. The Army Corps of Engineers indicate that 0.999 acre can be' filled and utilized within wetlands. It would therefore appear that in theory, if not in practice, each of the subject sites could accommodate a development. If in fact wetlands are filled, the State requires 1.25 times the area filled as restitution. There appears to be little or no precedent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to explain this process. This mayor may not be an expensive proposition. It has been suggested that wetlands have little or no value when acquired with useable land. However, when purchased for other use, ,be it parks, bird sanctuary, etc., there is normally some value attributed to it. This is a totally unknown figure. I am therefore of the opinion that a value would be based on 0.999 acre (say one acre) at the discounted value of $4.87 per square foot, i.e., One acre x $4.87 p.s.f. = 43,560 s.f. x $4.87 , $212.137.20 From this an arbitrary amount is deducted. An arbitrary amount is considered reasonable because it is not known whether such a cost would ever be incurred and if it is, it is unknown. I therefore conclude each lot has a value of $195,000 (deducting an arbitrary 8% per lot). Other factors considered are as follows: The cost of the emergency land. This has to be installed first, prior to any development. Although it would seem to be applicable to the total site, it is an "up front" cost and would be taken into the cost calculation of the first building. This cost therefore has been excluded from the subject. I have also considered the fact that to complete any development of the land to the east, the subject is a necessary adjunct in that it offers the essential second access. I have not allotted a premium for this fact because it is under one ownership and it would be an arbitrary allocation. UIIy .... Ulm!D STATfS MIUTAA., ",(""" •• Ully ......... . Umerick ••••••.••••. UndsaV •••••••••••••••• _ Center EXIT 153 -R. ,. 56' 46- ,a-2.46 tJl.11 R ~ ;.J-J ;.J' VV l __ 11 65.09 1097.05 ~--'S 37°35' 03~ E 308.70 LOT ;;; ------{\ l----2' , ,e CO s.c;.. '''1 ------I OR ~.oooo ""::A[ ~ ~-,---' ~~~~~~~-------l 100 X 36 5TO F?M OR~,''''AGE 0. .. 62°2' R: 442. l .481. ::' ." -..... ( :. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZONING DATA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I· 1 1 1 I 4-31-16 CSb) ,. .' (2) Commercial, Industrial and Other U ... : A muimum at eight feet (8') anywhere on the lot Jll'Dvided the fence doe. not ltand In or in front of any required landecaplng or pose a treIllc vision hazard. (3) Fence Types: (A) Electric Fences: L Electric fences are permitted by opecial review In all residential lanes in casas where large domes· tic animals are being kept Jll'Dvided additionel fencing or other banier Is erected along the property lines. ii. All electric fences shall be posted with permanent signs a minimum of thirty six (3S) square inches in area at intervals of fifteen feet (15, stating that the fence is electrified. iii. Electric fences and any rela ted equipment and appliances must be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with ths National Electrical Code. (B) Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire may only be used on top of fences at least six feet (S') high for commercial, industrial, utility and public uses. (C) Other: i. Bulk Storage Fenc .. : See Section 4-31·29. Ii. Fences for mobile home parks, subdivisions or planned unit development and for sites which are mined, graded or excavated may vary from th .. e regulations as provided in the respecti ve code sections. •• Special Review Process: a. Persons wishing to have one of the fallowing types of fenc .. may submit a letter of justification, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Building and Zoning Department: 4-31-16 (1) Fences exceeding forty eight Inches (48") within front yard IOthacka but not within a clear vialon area. (2) Solid fences along lide property lines abutting arterial streete. (3) Electric fences. b. The Building and Zoning Department .hall approve the i.suance of apecial fence permite provided that: (1) Fences, waDs and hedges above forty eight inches (48") when all IOthack from the street property line four inches (4") from every one inch of increeaed height .ought (over 48", up to a maximum of 72"). (2) Fences along property lines abutting a side street which is an arterial may be a maximum of seventy two inches (72") in height. This fence must be located to the rear of the required front yard. In addition, driveways will not be allowed to access through this fence. The location of the fence exceeding forty two inches (42") in height along property lines, particularly the front and side lot lines along flanking arterial streete, does not obstruct views of on..,.,ming treIllc at intersections or driveways. 5. Compliance: Fences which do not comply with these regulation. must be brought into compliance within .Ix (6) months from the date of notice of fence violation from the City. (Ord. 4056, 4·13-87) 4-31·16: OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (O-P): A. Purpose and Intent: The Office Park Zone (O-P) is established to provide areas appropriate for profes.ional, administrative, and business offices, certain manufacturing activitie., and supportive IOrvices in a campus·like .etting. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88) B. U ... : In the Office Park Zone (O·P), the following and similar uses are permitted. The Building and Zoning Department may detar- mine that any other use is .imilar in general character to the following .peciftc uses and is in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon .uch administrative determination, the subject r' ~: :" ( c ( • ~. I I • I •• I I I • I I I • I -I I +-8.1·18 B) uae.hall become a principal, acceaaory or conditional uae, wlUchever ia appropriate. UDl ... indicated by the ted, definitiona of the uaea Ilated in this Zone ~ conaiatent with the deacriptiona In the Standard Industrial CJaaaiftcation Manual. 1. Principal Usea: In tha O·P Zone the following principal uaes are permitted: a. Administrative and professional 01Ji ...... b. Medical and dental offices and clinics. c. Financial offices such as banks, savings and loan institutions. d. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, dance and music. e. Busineas and professional servicea. f. Reaeareh and development. g. Educational, cultural, and sociel activities. (Ord. 3937, 9·1&-85) h. Product servicing, wholesaling, warehousing and storage of articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials, or ferrous or aJloyed metels. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) i. nay care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9·16- 85) j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight (8) adult dogs or cats may be permitted after satisfaction of the requirements in Section 4-31·37C1a. (Ord. 3955, 11+85) It. Motion picture theaters and similar recreational and entertainment facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 4-31·25C2. (Ord. 3980, 3·24-86) 2. Accessory Uses: In the O·P Zone the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted use: a. Parking garages. b. Rscreational facilities. c. RoitaU sales of products or merchan· dise produced as a permitted use. +-81·16 d. Repair act!vitie. ordinarily aaaociated with a permitted uae. e. Storage of petroleum or naturaJ gas or any of their by·products, provided that the total storage capacity is leaa than ten thousand (10,000) gallons or other applicable unit of measure, and thet storage of such products is placed underground.. 3. Conditional Usee: In the o-p Zone the following uses and their acceeaory uses may be allowed by conditional uae permit as provided in Section 4-31·36 of the City Code: a. Churcbes. b. Heliports. c. Personal, recreational and repair services and retail uses, subject to the standarda of Section 4-31·16C2. d. Additional uses as identifted in Section 4-31·3601. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) . e. On·site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilitiea. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) 4. Prohibited Uaea: In the o-p Zone the following uaes are prohibitad: a. Residential uses. b. Automobile, motorcycle, Il'uck, boat, mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle sales, rental, repair, service and storage activities, except repair and maintenance may be permitted if incidental to a permitted use. c. Any outdoor storage or display of materials or product&. d. All other uses not Included in Section 4-31·16B1 througb 4-31·1683. (Ord. 3937, 9·16-85) e. Off·site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. (Ord .. 4186, 11·14-88) C. Development Standards: In the o-p Zone the following development standards shall apply, except as otberwiae provided by this Section. 1. Site Plan Approval: Site plan approval shall be required for all developments within I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31·16 <:1) the o-p Zone. A buDding lite plan aball be med aDd approved in accordance with the City Code prior te iuUllDl:8 of any buDding permits. Each building or other development permit IaauecI .ball be in eonformance with the approved alte plan. 2. Standards for Ratail and Selected Service U_: For thoee service and retail uses identifted in Section 4-31·16B3c, the foUowing atandarde lball apply: L The deeign of structures, including ligna, abaU be generally consistent in character with IIln'OWlding usea. No drive-up windeWI or outside automobUe service sball be permitted. b. No exterior display of merchandise shall be permitted. c. In order to avoid tbe negative impacts of strip eommercial development: (1) Ratail or eelected service uses shall be developed as part of larger, planned commercial, office or industrial complexes having common architectural or landscaping themea. Such reteU or service uses shall not stand alone and shall not occupy more than fiRy pen:ent (50'1» of a jointly developed building compleL (2) Direct arterial access to individual uses shall occur only when alternative access to local or coUector streets or consolidated aceeas with adjacent uses is nat feasible. (3) Roof signs shall be prohibited. Free-standing signs shall nat exceed ten feet (10') in height and shall be located at least twenty feet (20') from any property line, except for entrance and ezit algns. .'I. Setbacks: a. Streets: AU buildings and structuras aball be located a minimum of sixty feet (60') or twenty percent (20'1» of the' lot depth, whichever is 1888, from any public street or highway property line. In any c:ase, if the al\lacent public street is a mllior or aeeondary arterial, the setback shall be at least thirty feet (SO'). +31·16 b. Other Yarde: AU bllildinlll' and atN:ture. abaU be located a minimum at twenty feet (20') or fift:eeD percent (15'1» of the lot width, whichever ill I-. tram any property line whicb cIoea DOt abot a public .treet or highwa:y. c. Acijacent to' Large StN:ture.: The required yard eetbacka acijacent to any build· ing or structure with a building footprint greater than twenty five thouaand (25,000) square feet shall be increased one foot {I') mr eacb additional two thousand (2,000) squam feet of buDding footprint, up to a mazimum of one hWldred feet (100') abutting public streets, and sixty feet (60') in otbar yarde. d. Adjacent to Rasidential lAts: Whenever a propoaecl use in the o-p Zone shares a cammon property line with & lot that is designated any residential use an both the City of Ranton comprehensive plan and zoning map, the minimum setback contiguous to the common property line shall be fifty feet (50'). Whenever an adja<:ent lot contains A residential use and eitbar the comprehensive plan or zoning deaignation or both is something otber than residential, then the appropriate setback and landecaping acijacent to the residential lot shall be determined by site plan approval. A site plan decision to require more than the minimum setback and landscaping shall consider the long term viability of the residential use, the preasnce of ather residential uses in the lurraWlding area, and such ather indications of stahility as owner-occupancy and housing condition. e. Use of Setback Areas: AU required setback areas shall be unoccupied and unobstructed except far off·street parking and loading, driveways, entrance roads, Jawn sprinklers, walkways, landecaping, aniinll11' and necessary utility service facilities, utility poles, lighting fixtures, identifying ana direction signs And undergroWld inataUationa accessory to any permitted use . f. Flexible Setbacks: With su.. plan approval and subject to applicable hli1'Jaing and fire codes, one of the side setbacks ,(not adjacent to a public street or residential use, as defined in Section 4-31·16C3d may be reduced or eliminated if the total widtb of both side setbacks is at least twice the width of the minimum setback speci1led in 'Section ( (, I Ie I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31-16 C3f) 4-31-16C3b above; and the rear setback not atij&eeDt to a pubUc .treet may be reduced or eliminated It the front IGtback Is iDcreaaed accorcIiogIy. The lita plan declaion ahall be buecI on a ftodiog thet, with reduced aet- backa, the architectural design, building orien- tation, circulation, DOi.. and glare of the proposed project will be compatible with adJa- cent WI8tI and with the purpose and intant of the o-p Zone. •• Height: Building helgbta in the o-p Zone shall be eatabllahed with consideration to atijacent land WI8tI and shall be detarmined as follows: a. Adjacent to Single FamilylLow Density Multi-Family Uses: No height limit shall be required provided that for each one foot (1? of building height there shall be provided one foot (1') of yard setback on the periphery of the sita where the omce park use Is acljacent to a single family or low deoaity multiple family use located on a lot designated single family or low density multi-family on the City of Renton comprehensive plan and zoning map. b. Adjacent to All ,Other Uses: No height limit shall be required provided that all re- quired yard aetbacka acljacent to such other uses shall be increased one foot (1') for each additional one foot (1') of height above forty five feet (45'). c. These setbacklheight requirements cannot be modified by application under the PUD process. 5. Landacaping: a.There shall be a minimum landscaped setback of twenty feet (20') from all public street or highway righta of way. b. There shall be a minimum landscaped setback of tan feet (10') or one-balf (1/2) the required aetback, whichever is les.. from all other property line .. c. A minimum of twenty percent (2~) of the alta shall be retained in landscaped open space. A maximum of one-halt (112) of thIa requirement may be on the room of Itructurea, provided employeea and the public have accesa to the area. A maximum of seventy live percent (75%) of thia requirement mey be within the required perimetar 4-31-16 landaceping. The twenty percent (2~) minimum landacepiog requirement may not be reduced It a sita Is developed 8.1 a PUD. d. All are8.1 not covered' by buiJdloga, structures or paved surfacee .ha11 be land- scaped. Areas set asida for fUture develop- men t on a lot may be hydroaeeded. e. Where parking Iota are acljacent to one another, perimetar landaceping ahall not be required. f. Any wall surface greatar than thirty feet (30') in width lacking windowa or doors shall be softened by landaceping or archi- tectural features, such as change of tarture or wall modulation. Such landscaping omoJa include trees over siz feet (6') in height placed no more than thirty feet (30') on centar or in clusters. g. With aita plan approval, tbe perimetar landscaping setbacks required by Section 4-31- 16C5a and b above may be reduced in width up to fifty percent (50%) It the equivalent square footage of landscaping is provided elsewhere within the aita. Sita plan approval shall be baaed on a finding that the altamative landacaping arrangement provides buffering and sita amenities squsl to or bettar than that which would be achieved by strict application of the Code. The relocatad land- scaping shall not be locatad within the rear setback of the site. 6. R.fuse: No refuse, trash, rubbish or other waste material shall be dumped, placed or allowed to remain outside a permanent build· ing, except in nonflammable, covered contain- ers or dumpsters, whicb shall be screened by fences or landscaping. No refuse shall be stacked higher than the screening fence or landscaping. 7. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation standards required shall be as follows: a. Access: The principal acceaa ahall be from an arterial or collector street and shall be oriented to tbe least traveled street when- ever two (2) or more such arterials or colleco tors abut the site. b. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation areas along a common lot line with a residential use locetad on a lot designatad as a residential use on both the City of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +-31-18 C1b) Renton compreherudve plan and zoning lDap .ha11 be allowed only If a ten foot (10') wide aighkbecming lanc1.acaping stzip and a SU: foot (8') high lO!!d fonee are pnlvlded along tho common boundary line. c. Parking and Laaeling: (1) See Chapter 1', Title IV of the City Code. (2) All loaellng docks and ron-up doora • ball be located at the rear of bullellngo or screened so that they are nat visible from any paint along the abutting public right of way. (3) At no time shall any part of a vehicle be allowed to extend into a public right of way while tho vehicle I. being loaded or unloaded. All loading and unloaellng maneuven shaD be conducted on private property. 8. Environmental Performance Standards: The following minimum standards shall be met by all activities within the O·p Zone. For ail actIviti .. which may produce objectionable or otherwiae prohibited conelltions. the property owner or lessee shail furnish design specifica· tions or other scientific evidence of compliance with th .. e standards. a. Noi ... : See Title VlI!, Chapter 7, Noise Level ReguJations. b. Smoke: (1) Visible grey smoke shall not be emit- tad from any source in a greater density of grey than that described as No. 1 on Ringelmann Chart. (2) The provisions applicable to visible grey . smoke shail also apply to visible smoka of a different color but with an equivalent apparent opacity. c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne Solids: No obaervable dust, dirt, fly ash or airborne solids shaD be emitted. d. OdoroWl Gases and Matter: No odoroWl gases or matter in a quantity suf- ficient to evoke a reepon... from the average person beyond the exterior property linea ahall be emitted. e. Toxic G880a and Matter: No emia.ions ,,"Sl-17 of toxic gases or matter .haD be permitted. r. Vibrallon: No vibration shall be permitted to exceed 0.003 or one inch dis- placement or 0.03 (g). peak ..... eratlon, whichever Ie ,",ater, as m88SUl'ecl at any paint outside tho pnlperty IInee of tho lot or site. Thia sbali apply In the &equeney range of zero to five thol18and (0 -5,000) eyel .. per IOCOnd. Shock absorbera or .imUar mounting ohall be allowed to permit compliance with thle opacification • g. Glare and Heat: (1) No glare and heat from any source sbail be permitted to be unrealOnably objectionable beyond the eJ:terlor p1"C>' perty lin .. of a lot or site. (2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting fixtures .hall be directsd away from public streets or rights of way. Exterior lighting IIxtures .baD be equipped with boods or reflecton such that direct light rays extend no more than ten feet (10') beyond the nearest property line. 9. Signs: See Chapter 20. Title IV of the City Code. (Ord. 3937, 9-1S-85) 4·31·17: AIRPORT ZONING: A. Zones: In order to regulate the u... of property in the vicinity of the airport, all of the land within two (2) miles south and one mile east and west of, or that part of the area that is within the City limits of Renton, Washington, whichever is nearest the boundarleo of the airport, is hereby divided into airport approach, tranoition and turning zones. The boundaries thereof are ohown on the Renton Airport Approach Plan numbered No. I, dated March 1, 1956, which plan is made a part hereof. B. Height Umits: Except as othe"viae provided. in this Code, no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow or be main- tained in any airport appnlach zone or airport turning zone to a height in excesa of the height limit heroin establi.hed for .uch zone. For the purpo.... of this regulation, the following height limits are hereby established for eacb of the zones in question: (Ord. 1542, 4-17·56) r .. ·.·' "'. ( ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. AmeDded Landscaping Plan: The approved laudacaping requiremenlB may be moclllled upon request to the: Building and Zoning Department. The plana may be approved, denied or l'IIturned to the applicant with lugestioOS for changes that would make . them acceptable. F. Laoclacape Rsquiremente -Specific: 1. Exieting Plant Material: Existing trees and other vegetation on the site of a proposed development may be used wh8l'8 practical if the quality Is equal to or better than available nlmlery stock. 2. Gl'88n River Valley: Any development in the Ol'88n River Valley shall provide a minimum of two percent (2%) of the total sita for landscaping suiteble for wildlife hebitat. Tbla landscaping is in addition to sny other landscaping requirementa by this SectioD or any other ordinance. 3. Shorelines Mastar Program: Any ;.development within the protected shorelines ·al'lla .hell be required to meet ths standards snd requirements of the City of Renton Shol'lllines Master Plan. 4. Slopes: a.. General: The faces of cut and flU slopes shall be developed and mainteined to control agaiost erosion. This control may coosist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be installed within thirty (30) deys of grading completion and prior to Ii request for final project approval. Where slopes 8l'8 not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistent character of the materials such protection may be omitted with the permiaaion of the Public Works Department, provided that this protection is Dot required by the rehebilitation plan. b. Other Devices: Where necessary, "check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methoda aball be employed to control eroaion and sediment, provide safety and control the rata of water nlIl-off. 6. General Rsquil'llments: a.. Existing desirable vegetation should be preserved whel'll applicable. 4-31-36 b. Stripping or vegetative slopel . where harmtU1 eroeion and lUIl-oi1' will occur sbell be avrided. c. Areaa of fragile natural envirmunenta should be protected &om development and encroachment. . d. If practicable, unique features within the site should be preserved and incorporated into the site development design (such as springs, streams, marshes, significant vegetetion, rock oukroppings and aignUIcant ravines). O. Maintenance: 1. Landscaping required by this Section shell be maintained by the owner andlor occupant and shall be aubject to periodic iospection by the Building and Zoning Department. Plantings 8l'8 to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replaced within aiI (6) months. Property owners shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and litter. 2. The Building Director or hia designated representative, is authorized to notiiY the owner or his agent thst any iostalled ( landscaping aa required by the Building and Zoning Department, Is not being adequately maintained and the speciftc nature of the failure to maintain. The Building and Zoning Department shall send the property owner or hia agent two (2) written notices, each with a fifteen (15) day response period. The notices shall specify the date by which asid maintenance muat be accomplished and shell be addressed to the property owner or agent'a laat known address. H. Violation: Violation of this Section shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided in thia Code. Each and every day or portion thereof during which violation of any of the provisions of this Section Is committed, continued or permitted, shall constitute . a separate offense. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-83) 4-31-36: GREENHELT REGULATIONS: A. Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt areaa are charecterized by severe topographic, ground water, slope iostability, soil or other phyaical ( I I I I :. il , ····1 , f, -I 1,1 ::1 i l t /11 ;1 :1 :1 il il il 4-31-85 A) Umitations that make the areas IUUlUitable for intansive development. Proviaiona for public enjoyment of sreenbelt areaa are encouraged; however, sreenbelt daaignations do not imply public oWDership or the right of publio acceaa. The purpo.. of thaaa regulations is to supplement the policies contained in the comprehensive plan regarding sreenbelts by the control of development, by minimizing damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion, by protecting wetlands and fish-bearing watsrs, and providing physical relief between expanses of similar land uses. Implementation of the.. regulations will protect the public against avoidable losses due to maintsnanoe and replacement of public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts, and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations. These regulations supplement but do not replace the underlying zoning regulations for specific properties. These regulations will provide responsible City officillis with information to condition or deny public or private projects to protect potentially hazardous areaa and to avoid the necessity of preparing environmental impact statements in ca .. s where there will not be significant adverse environmental effects, thus expediting governmental approval procesees. B. General Provisions: Greenbelt regulations apply to areas that are tiret designated a. greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land use map and also identified as containing one or more of the following physical criteris: 1. Steep Slope Areas: Areas with slopes that exceed twenty five percent (26%). 2. Physical Hazards; Ara3.0 identifiable as a severe landslide hazard or arsaa wham other severe hazards are anticipated including erosion, seismic, fl6od, and coal mine subsidence. 3. Utility Eaaements and Rights of Way: Major electricity, water and gaa transmission line easements and rights of way. 4. Other Criteria: Wetlands, stream corrido:'9, and flood control works. • The actual presence or absence of the criteria illustrated abcve in greenbelt areas, as determined by qualified professional and I 4SO I 4-31-85 technical persons, shall govern the treatment of an individual building altAI or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. C. Vegetation Removal: There shall be no removal of vegetation within a sreenbelt until a permit is issued pursuant to Section 4-31-350 below except for normal maintenance with written approval by the Building and ZOning Department for sucb activities as trimming of vegetation or removal of dangerous or diseased plant materials. D. Development Standards: Whenever a proposed development requires a building permit, grading permit, shoreline substantial development permit, conditional u.. permit, . variance, rezone, planned unit development, subdivision or sbort subdivision, and one or more of the greenbelt critAlria as defined in Section 4-31·35B abcve is present on the sita of the proposed developmsnt, studiss by qualified professionals may be required. The City shall send written notification to the applicant whenever such studies are required. The City may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any such proposal to cIIIT)' out tbe purposes of this Section. Whenever a proposed development involves only one single family dwelling, which is not part of a larger development proposal, the City shall not require special studies or reports by the applicant. 1. Steep Slope Areas: These regulations apply to land form featurea of a sita between signiflcant and identifiable chang.s in slope. a. Deflnitions (see Exhibit "A" for an illustration of these definitionsl: (l) Slope shall be defined aa the average slope of the lot or portion thereof in percent between significant changes in slope, detarmined by observation· on simple slopes, or more precisely by the formula: s = 100 I L A (2) Where "1" is the contour intarval in feet but not greatar than ten feet (10,); "L" is the combined length of the I I I I I I 4-31-3& 01&2) contour linea in scale feet; and "A" is the net area between signiftcant changea in slope of the lot in square feet. (3) A signiftcant change in slope shall be defined as a bench or plateau at least fifteen feet (151 in width. b. Development la prohibited on slopes greater than forty percent (40%). Co In greenbelt areas with between twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent (40%) slope the maximum residential density .shall be: (1) One unit per 1U:1'8, and for each one percent (1%) of slope in exce.s of twenty five percent (25%), an additional nine hundred (900) equare feet In lot area per dwelling unit shall be reqlllred. (2) When the current zoning designation exceede one dwelling unit per acre the allowable development density In the steep slope area shall be reduced to one-fourth ('/J, and for ·each ·one percent (1%) of slope in excess of twenty five percent (25%), the remaining allowable dwelling unit density shall be reduced by an additional five percent (5%). d. The muimum nonresidential buildable area ,hall be reduced to one-fourth ('/J, and for each one percent (1%) of slope in e:leee. of twenty five percent (25%), the re- maining buildable area shall be reduced by an additional five percent (5%). e. Greenbelt areas between twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent (40%) slope shall be subject to special review to assure ltable building conditions, sare and convenient accee. and minimum disruption of the natural phyaical features of the land. The City may reqlllre the applicant to fIlmieh a report by a lIcelll8d engineer to evaluate the site. However, the City may waive the reqlllrement for special studlea where sufficient Int'ormatlon Is otherwise avallable to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development permit. 2. Phyalcal Hazards: Greenbelts . established upoll thaae criteria should be developed only 4-31-35 with great caution and development should be baaed on BOund engineering and technical knoWledge. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio dated March, 1980, is hereby adopted by reference to as.ist in the determination of and evaluation of physical hazard areas as prescribed by thia Section. a. As a general rule, development should not Increase the risk of hazard either on or olf·lite. Where detailed technical information is provided lliuatrating that development can be larely accommodated, development that is compatible with the degree of hazard and with surrounding uses may be allowed. Provided, any such development retains at least .. venty five percent (75%) of the site in open spe.. or is landscaped competibly with the phyaical hazards. b. The City may require site specific studie., completed by a quellfied soila engineer or engineering geologist or other qualified professionals, which shall include specific recommendations for mitigating measures which shollld be reqlllred as a condition of any approval for .ucn development. The recommendations may include, but are not limited to, construction techniques, design, drainage, or density specifications, or seasonal constraints on development. Upon review of the.. studies, the development permit shall be conditioned to mitigate adve.... environmental Impacts and to assure that the development can be safely accommodated on the site and is consistent with the purpo .. s of this Section. The City may waive the requirement for special studies where sufficient information is otherwise available to approve, epprove with conditions, or deny the development permit. 3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way: A limited number of low Intensity uses consistent with the ezisting zoning and utility u.. may be permitted within utility greenbelt. such that the proposed development meets the intent of providing a definitive geographic relief between adjoining existing or anticipated land uae. Allowable uses include: a. Any strI1ct1.Irea or activity directly associated with tha supply or servi.. of utilltlel; I If"" I I I I :1 llC , , II :'t tli , " t·~ \;. ~ :1 " ~ '. " il 'If, , • • 4-31-35 D3) i r F. b. Agriculture; Co ReaideDtial OpeD 1p8C88; cL Rec:reatiooal activities IUId facUities; e. Parldog auoc:iated with adjoining land usee -provided that DO more than the following JI8l'I'8Dtage of the greenbelt area is coverecl with impemous .urf_ and the remainder Ia compatibly Iandscapecl or retaiDecl in a natural atete: TweDty five perceDt (25%), if the moat restrictive adjaceDt 10ning is R-1 or G-1; FIfty perceDt (50'i», if the moat restrictive adjaoaut zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, T, or P-1; Sixty five percent (65..,), if the moat restrictive adjacent zoning is S-l, C-P, 1,.1, H-1, or M-P; f. Production of raaources -provided that the area is rehabiliteted consistent with the greenbelt definition; g. Roadways and streets -provided that any street aligned parallel with the greenbelt should involve the minimum intrusion upon the greenbelt while providing for enhancemsnt through compatible landscaping. 4. Other Greenbelts: WetJlUlde, stream corridors aDd flood control facilities designated greeDbelt shall be subject to the developmeDt stlUldards of the City's shoreline master program ut"ban environment where those shoreline regulations would not otherwise apply. Other Allowable Usea: 1. Nothing in these regulations shall limit the coastruction of one single family home on a pro-existing platted lot, subject to meeting any engineering requirements necessary to lafely construct ouch a residence. 2. Where the provisions of these regulations limit coastruction of public or private utilities or appurtenant structures, approval for such coastruction may be granted by approval of a coDditionai use permit subject to a ahowing of necessity and compatibility of the use with these regulations. (Ord. 3849, 1G-8-84) (See following page for Exhibit A, Steep Slope lIIustration) 4-31-36 4-31-36: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: A.. Purpose: The purpose of a coDditionai use permit is to allow certain uses in districts fTom which they are normally prohibited by this Chapter when the propoaecl uaaa are deemed consistent with other existing and poteDtiai uses withiD the general area of the proposed use. Ezeept as provided in this Section, a conditional use permit may Dot reduce the requiremeDte of the lone iD which the use is to be located. B. Conditiooal Use Permit: The Hearing Examiner may grant, with, or without conditioDs, or deny the requested conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV of the City Code. The Hearing Examiner may limit the term and duration of the conditional use permit. CODditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall reasonably aaaure that nuisance or hazard to life or property will not develop. C. Criteria for Conditional Use: The Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The propoaecl use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and stlUldarde of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Ranum. 2. Community Need: There shall be a com m uni ty need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. b. Thet the propoaecl location is suited for the propoaecl use. 3. Effect OD Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the propoaed location shall not result in substlUltiai or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not exceed fifty percent (50'i» of the lot coverage , _ .. _' IiiiiiI ... "-IIIIIIi-~-_-"'-_·-~_-' ciiI.;r:_ - - - - -r-70'------1 25' 30' " .. :"4 :~ .~ .. twa.r~ u •• !ttl %5': I " ;: .. ; itS' ~Id s· ....... ".- .' . : ~; -: -; .. ~c:u.I',,; .... GH ... ~ ." P' ... : ~~ _ . ... :" -: "!t-. ' -: -: -: -: -: -. ... ; 6 f ....,.IC •• ' e ..... _ ..... • , .. • ... r '0 STEEP SLOPE AREA '6 20· CO."OUIII..U 25 i 1 •• fIe., ••• ,.... " , •• , .. we ... ~---STEEP SLOPE AREA 0 0 15' so' 15' 100' .... ue.,." "".KI :,--., ~ = ... .' :'--:. .-: .. : ..... ,..,,.'c •• r c •••••• eta.. ... :.. ., .... ~~ .-: ... : ... '-:-: .. : ... :-:4. :. :-:-.-'- au •• ".c ... ,. e ....... ,. 81..." .L •• " Slope In percent • • • 30'--------' '00' t A f 15' 1 .00 (62 (772(4J (76'J f70') 28.3 , ............ _ ........ " ... ...., I%'.i ' ISO' 17S' -- lit -" -3 lit m -.g ~ ::r " CT = ---& » -~ --, 0 ::I "1' .. : ... )::J - t ... '" '" t & '" -. l if ' .. ' .i .i I • I ~ t M-P [ [ I i r 1\ " -'-'-'-' -1-, I .' "~' .-' ; <.\ . . . '. ~\ _> .. is··· .. \~-----~~~ ", I - ---t---~ I MET .R ? P-II . '. o-p \ \ -' ... \\ -----,-+---.-~ PO' 5 A I L \f- I \ [ --I- I 1 I ." ,J :.'1 .' .~ I I I I I I I I ADDENDA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 1808 -136TH PLACE, NE / BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Ms. Mary Burg, Manager Wetlands Section Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-ll Olympia, WA 98504 August 10, 1989 SUBJECf: Wetland Delineation, Black River Corporate Park: Renton Dear Mary, 206/641-3982 FAX 206/641-3147 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc_ (JSA) is currently in the process of preparing a SEPA EIS for the City of Renton on the proposed Black River Corporate Park_ Enclosed is a vicinity map which indicates the location of the project. As part of the assessment of the SEPA environmental elements, a wetland delineation study was conducted on the wetlands located on the proposed project. The wetlands are associated with the former Black River and Springbrook Creek. The purpose of this letter is to describe the delineation methodology used and to present the results of the wetland study. The City of Renton has requested that JSA contact the Wetlands Section of Ecology (ECOLOGY) and ascertain whether DOE will utilize the "old" wetland boundary as determined by Mary Burg in the letter dated April, 1987 (enclosed), or whether the new delineation utilizing the Joint Federal Methodology will be acceptable. The historical dialogue regarding these wetlands and ECOLOGY's jurisdiction is extensive. We are attempting to get clarification from ECOLOGY as to the appropriate method to use to identify the wetlands so that the wetland discussion in the DEIS will be accurately reflect the limits of wetlands subject to ECOLOGY jurisdiction. Enclosed are two maps which indicate the differences between the two different wetland boundaries. Please note that the map for the recently completed delineation which uses the three parameter approach is a rough approximation only based on our field work sketches. The flagged wetland edge has not yet been surveyed. The southeast corner of the wetland is particularly complex, and the edge we show on these sketches is a simplified delineation. -- -- - - . -,'1,', .' BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST rl'tEFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl LOF WETLANC' TYPES 1 c:;J VBgSCB1::od VVetJond ISawratod or Soasonally Floodod I. ~ Opon V\Ioter ~ IPctmanently Of $cml·PerllUlnonUy Flooded I _ Wetland TVpe Boundary ____ Approximate Wetland Boundary __ 1..1near Wetland Feature ......... lncluded Wecland °Feacure ~l::Jpen. Water Channel £/' ... _ ..... Pipe . or ~L.Jlve.rt: " " .. " " , ' " " " , ' , ' , ' "\ \' MO"'STE II. ~O'D - ------• We.tland Ed~e.ldentifi~~ by EC.OLO~Y·· (Burg, 4/87) .. :::-:::::::: --0:.0:: _ ""::::_00,,,::::: :-"-:: :: __ : __ ... ..J: I , ,~ , ,. , , Edge of Project: Wetland Ec;lge Scol e 1" = lIPPI-OX-400' WL F7/BI&l(41 '",',.rc,. .. , ',~ " :-!'."... .. '... -..... qo,~ .......... ,,{<If" Figure 3 ' ............ ~..,I?J) ---...... --------"'-.. ------------- ,Fi.'. _____ ••• -0'· .,/ - ."::.~:. _. _. _.-.-.-.°:.-: ::_~.-_:. _ ..... :: .............. .. " , , ", , ' ............ :::::.-:::::: f:: ~:',:':.:.:~:~ :S:'!!! ~. _ .. " ". " .' " .' " " " " " " " " " .' .' " " " .". METRO Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981 '. , ' j " " " " " " '. " :. , ' " " " . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , ' ! ; ; r r I I , , , , . ' ------ ··'1·1,;° ...•• SLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST fREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl LOF WETLANO TYPES, 1 G Vegec:aced Wecland ISaturated Of SOISSON II)' Floodod I. ~opcn Water IPermanontly or Semi-Permanently Flooded f _ Wetland Type Boundary ...:. ___ ApprOKfmatB Wetland Boundary __ 1.1near Wetland Feature ••••• _ •• Included Wetland °Feacure ~'Open Water Channel u,-.· Pip~ : or ,?i.dve,rt: +2> -Wetland Edge, Identified, by Jones & Stokes {6/B9) using the '. ' Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology , :: c-:"",,:: o~"'''-;;;;;::::-~--::::::: :'-cc : ___ _ Scnl c __ Edge of ProJect 1" = approx. 400' --Wetland Edge · .... "3 ........ ;..(... , " , , ;'1-"' .. ',.rc.. .... '\ ....... .... "'ff'",;-.. , ' ............ d'o ..... , ..... ~.(Cy ............ 1/(D ...... -.. Figure ~ - --.. :------:--:.~~---........ '. :~~ 0:" ••• t:'.?~~~~.~: .~~~I!... •... : ......... , " . , ". " " " " .' " " ", , . . ' " " " " .. .. " " .. " " ,- METRO, Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981 . .......... ~::..::..---_ ...... .. --...... ,.-----... ~ ..... :.'.-:~;.-Sil\.'= =-:-----------......... ' .. ____ eo"~ . · ; i • . · . t , . , , , ! , , , , t .. " , , , , , , , , · , r , , J , , 1 ' , , ' , I I I I I I I I I • I • '. 'I :. i :. t m SEA-TAC AIRPORT 4 MILES o SOUTH CENTER S lBOTH O LONGACRES ~ ~ m A C/) m -i C/) ~ ~ r-0-r-m m -< :t: ~ C/) :0 RENTON VAllEY GENERAL HOSPITAL o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-2- Methodology The wetland study was conducted using the new Joint Federal Methodology, which requires examination of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded sufficiently during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Areas possessing wetland hydrology are inundated either permanently or periodically, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. In order for an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all three of these parameters must be present Because it is often difficult to assess hydrology during the summer, wetland hydrology was assumed to be present in all areas that support wetland vegetation and contain hydric soils. The majority of the wetland edge was identified by visually approximating the edge, and then taking soil samples to determine the presence/absence of hydric soils associated with hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland edge was clearly discernable throughout a majority of the site, even in areas that have been recently disturbed. In the southeast portion of the site, the vegetation and soils were not obviously upland or wetland, and fourteen sampling plots were established to determine the edge of the wetland. Vegetation, soils, and any obvious hydrologic indicators were examined at each plot. Information was recorded on a separate data sheet for each plot. Copies of these data sheets are enclosed. Results Two wetlands are present on the subject property; each is described separately below. A third wetland that is off of the property is also described because it is near enough to the proposed development area that it would likely be adversely affected by development. #1: Central Disturbed Area, A large wetland is present in the central portion of the site; the area is surround by fill on the north, west, and east sides, and Greenbelt forest to the south. This wetland was cleared in late 1986 or early 1987, under the authority of a grading permit (SP-024-86) granted by the City of Renton. vegetation. This area currently is a palustrine deciduous shrub wetland with small emergent areas interspersed throughout. Based on Corps of Engineers (COE) aerial photographs, the City of Renton Wetland Study (Canning, 1981), and ECOLOGY correspondence, this area supported a forested and shrub swamp prior to clearing. The existing shrub community has become established since the wetland forest was cleared; over time, if left undisturbed, the shrub community would mature into a forested wetland. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-3- Black cottonwood (populus trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnm D!lm!) saplings dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (SIDix spp.) and red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera). Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos ~), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus djscolor), and Nootka rose (&!sa nootkana) occur occasionally throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus re.pens), marsh speedwell (Yeronica scuttellata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedge (Qiru sp.), horsetail (Pqpjsetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtjca djojca.), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundjnaceae), burreed (Xantbium strumarium), and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera). Disturbance has affected the species composition, allowing intrusion by species such as Himalayan blackberry and Canada thistle. The community being reestablished is probably similar in species composition to the wetland that was present prior to clearing. Small pockets of emergent wetland occur within this disturbed area. They are characterized by the presence of common cattail (Tmha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and fireweed (EpUobjum angustjfolia) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus mjcroca.rpus) are scattered throughout the system. ~. The southeast portion of this large wetland is somewhat transitional in nature. Most of the vegetation in this area is listed as facultative, and soils are light to medium brown (2.5Y 2/3 to 25Y 2/2) sandy sUts and sandy loarns with some mottling. Data was collected at fourteen data points throughout this area to help clarify the wetland boundary; results are presented in Table 1. The methodology used to select data points is described in the joint federal wetland delineation manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et.a1., 1989). Summary of Data Collected in the Southeast Portion of Wetland #1 Plot # 'Vegetatjon Soil Hydrology Result I, + 1 wetland upland upland upland I, -I wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, +1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +3 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -I wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -3 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, + 1 wetland upland upland upland 5, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -I wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -2 wetland upland upland upland I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-4- Three of the plots were determined to be upland based on soils, and the remaining eleven plots were wetland. Although only 80% of plots in this area are wetland, we flagged the entire area as wetland. This was done for the following reasons: 1) based on aerial photographs and other sources, this area was wetland prior to disturbance; 2) the upland pockets represent scattered, isolated, microtopographic high spots, probably created during clearing and grading activity; and 3) it would be extremely difficult and not necessarily useful to identify and flag each isolated patch of upland within the wetland system. HydrolollY. Portions of the wetland showed clear evidence of saturation, especially those areas where emergent species were present. The majority of the shrub system did not have any direct evidence of seasonal saturation, however there were reoccuring small depressions scattered throughout the area which indicated seasonal ponding. These areas were characterized by the presence of flattened vegetation and water stained leaf litter. #2: Northeast Shrub Swamp A palustrine deciduous shrub swamp is present in the northeast portion of the site. The wetland is bounded by the railroad to the northeast, an old roadway to the west, and fill from an active construction site to the south. vegetation. The canopy is dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. Oregon ash is also common throughout. Shrubs present include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry (Rubus spectabj!j&), and willow. Soft rush and stinging nettles are common in the ground layer. The wetland is a shrub/forested swamp characterized by dense woody vegetation, standing water, and the presence of emergent species such as cattail and panicled bulrush. The area was apparently logged at some time as downed material is present in the wetland. SIDl£. Soils in the area are a very dense silt with some pockets of organic soil in the central portion of the wetland. The soils are clearly hydric, displaying gleyed colors of bluish grey (SYS/1). Darker organic soils are located near the open water areas at the western edge of this portion of the site. HydrolQIlY. The area contains a small open water area which appears to hold water throughout the year. The remainder of the area possesses high groundwater in the winter and spring. This high groundwater results from regionally high groundwater levels and seeps from the hillslope to the north. Although no obvious surface water connection was found, the region is also connected via subsurface flow to the open water ponds on the north side of the railroad tracks. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-5- #3: Historic Meander Channel A remnant meander of the Black River is present to the west of the property. It is not included in the proposed development, but was briefly evaluated due to the potential for it to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Vegetation. The horseshoe-shaped relic channel surrounds an "island" of upland forest. The island is approximately 15 feet above the elevation of the wetland, and is dominated by black cottonwood with an understory of Himalayan blackberry and snowberry. The relic meander itself supports both shrub swamp and emergent marsh habitat. The northern portion of the meander contains a shrub swamp community dominated by willow. Red alder and black cottonwood are present in minor amounts. Soft rush and creeping buttercup dominate the ground layer. The western portion of the channel is approximately five feet wide and well-defined; this area contains an emergent marsh community dominated by common cattail. Along the edge of the Black River, a second type of emergent marsh community is present. The area contains a muddy substrate sparsely vegetated with spikerush (Eleocharis paiustds) and marsh cinquefoil. This area is probably subject to a changing water regime as a result of flood management activities in the river. SQih. Soils are primarily an organic silt with lenses of sand. Soil color varies from a dark gray (10YR3/1) to nearly black. Mottling was noted in some areas. Hydrology. The hydrology of the area is controlled primarily by the forebay pond associated with the Black River pump plant. Soils in the meander are saturated to the surface throughout most of the year, and water ponds during winter storm events. Greenbelt Forest In addition to these three wetlands, the forested riparian area located between the identified wetlands and the remains of the former Black River was also field checked for the presence of wetlands. Based on the three parameter methodology, JSA determined the majority of the area to be upland. The northern fringe of the forested zone is wetland and was flagged as such during the field delineation. The determination conflicts with previous determinations; Canning in 1981 and Burg in 1987 identified this as wetland forest. It is dominated by large black cottonwood and red alder; larger cottonwood trees in this area are five feet in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Oregon ash are also common here. The shrub layer contains salmonberry, red-osier dogwood, red elderberry, snowberry, and Indian plum. Groundcover species include horsetail, creeping buttercup, stinging nettles, lady fern, and wood fern. Soft rush occurs in wetter pockets around the margins of the forest. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-6- The soils in the majority of the forested area are clearly upland; a silty sand with a color of SY4/4 and no mottling. Along the northern edge of the forest, soils are hydric, possessing a color of 2.SY 4/2 and distinct mottles. The soils are well drained and show no evidence of active hydrology or seasonal saturation. In addition, the elevation of the forested zone is more than five feet higher than " the high water mark within the forebay ponds. This forested zone has the characteristics of a classic floodplain forest: large cottonwood trees with an open understory and a not well developed groundflora. This portion of the property has been designated as Permanent Greenbelt by the City of Renton through the rezone process, that is why the area was not cleared along with the remainder of the site. The Greenbelt designation implies that the area cannot be developed and must be left undisturbed. Summary Given the historical and ongoing sensitivity of this site and its wetlands, we need direction from you and your staff as to whether ECOLOGY will require the wetland delineation from 1987 or the 1989 delineation using the three parameter method to be used to assess impacts of the proposal on wetlands. In order to produce an environmental assessment document which includes accurate information and impact assessment we are requesting your direction on this issue as soon as possible. If we can provide any further clarification, or if you or your staff wish to meet out on the site, please do not hesitate to call. Thank-you for your time on this issue. DS/RD/je cc: City of Renton Sincerely, 4~~ Dyanne Sheldon Wetland Ecologist 1J1;e1./-.Jt-1~ Robert Denman Hydrologist I I I I I I I ,I I !I II , [I I I II , I II i \'1' , H-I' ,- Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) client: Ktt6l'1 ~~~~~ct~t9j ~~ R. of: Ii STR: vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~____ % Cover ~,' , 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ :s~h~ru~b~s:-___ % Cover 1."'toyuksk,C):/Xl·"F· 2 '~lJlws d,~o 3'~<if' di..·':· ... I,.··""l Percent of 'lSpecl.es that Indicator status ~Hse~r~b~s~ ___ _ Indicator status File... f11c..u - File.. (~"o,"" r~C. or wo.l1o.') % Cover are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ~ ----- Indicator status (Ilc.w fAc.- :-(as -rorf'4. 1F) f1\c..u _ fPc-t Yes / No_ Basis: ? SO"1o of daulAf':O¢ ¥(?P aJIIl, Flic other indicators: Hydrophytic vegetation? Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No_ A-Horizon depth: • Texture A: 5c;nd~ loom Texture B: ....... 54rd!!:l<LlJ..._::-...,.., Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: o,s·',;.5V ~ Gleyed? Yes_ No Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ __________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches:_. _____ __ Depth to Till:~--~-,__=-~~~~ Hydric soils? Yes __ N02 Basis: rc.loc; 00 O1Qtlk~, 'icfl\~' Hydrology / . . Inundated? Yes __ NoL Deptp of stand~ng water:._--:--:-_______ _ saturated soils? Yes Nov' Depth to saturated soil: _____ _ Otherindicators: ---- wetland hydrology--=?'-:-:Y:-e-s-=-~-_---'N-:-O-..L....----::B::-a-s-~""· s....,..:;!..>N:-c:../,...):::.;Q;j;;.ro.;."Tl::, . ..,·-'L·~-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~~-_-_-___ - Atypical situation? Yes No corrunent: ___ t_'t_. ___________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No ./ wetland determination: Wetland ___________ Non-wetland_-''--__ General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) of: ,4 STR: ----- ATAr~e~e~s~___ % Cover 1- 2. 3. saplings/ ~sh~ru~b~s~___ % Cover 1-l\lou', (ub, •. 2. 'fovullJ~ H ,c)-,o, ........ 3. RuIO~ d'~<-D\if 10 \0 aD Indicator status UH;eAr~b~s~ __ _ % Cover jr 1 . ..lLlr.'.:.r..r, e.f.rU5cJS ~'5 d" ..... ~ { 2. f'",-,-,,",""<vi,,-; (",,/,.1()<, ;;{O ( 3. C,r"l\~M O.(v.w..... 15 ---;r: )(",,'111\, uP',o':rl, 1.>(1)<1.' •• "0, ~ 5. Rv Il\U. (ci", ::'plJ:; 5 6. Indicator st'atus fk F Ilc.. r 110)- Indicator status fllc.w ftlc.w f1\c..u- ffle.. Fflc..vJ Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66q. Other indicators:~~~~~_-r~ __ ~~~ __ ~ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes=z. No __ Basis: ,,'P"lQ f8e or fiybJ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: Q-X' Texture A: S':Ll'l~ la,," Texture B: Sllli.Y' -- Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: P!.5¥ 31;) Gleyed? Yes_ No..L Depth to Mottle or Gley: I Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _ Depth to Till :,7"""--r-:-:----::---:-------,-H Hydric soils? Yes ,/ No__ Basis:~n1~,~)ff~,,~%~~~ ___________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:_~~------ Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil: _____ _ Otherindicators: --.--, wetland hydrology? Yes ::::2' N 0__ Ba s is : ",.",""::"X1~' "-:<r'~.)l!/'I'~;;L::;.(:;:t:...:.. _______ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ____________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No wetland determination: Wetland --./ Non-wetland. _____ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t' n.n Project: PC Q. 0Af·~.7M'r.. Da te: --Ji""'''''/r-'.:J..L_ ....... _'-'_-'-____ -><!L___ Plot No. : of: 1'1 Vegetation Indicator STR: ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover -2S~t~a~t~u~s~_ ilHEe~r~b~s~_____ % Cover " l."t<t""''-'l'lrJ)\V:'.> ("f'U'" 1-1.) ---------- Indicator Status l. 2. 3. 2 • K\J(1\OJI. CfI"JfUS 1 0 3 • .5 o\tl..f',c·"'" dulc.<>.r'<1<_ iO fAC-w .r f\CUJ f'AC. Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover .. .,..,. . . Indicator St:atus 4. C",,-,,",x ~. S S:funLL1S Q-RL''SO$ r: 6. __ l.~"P"'''''' -\rd:c<AI\fb- I 2. S~n "'P' 3. Corr.vs Sidoo~.", (;,0 10 10 I I I I I I I I I I (10'"" ,r.oJ1\. Percent of'lspecl.es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /OQ7. other indicators:~~~.~~ __ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~~ Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No __ Basis: {ern •. } -:;z.dc;r.tY't1(..f!hq:p. fflC. -f('1:..0 soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ A-Horizon depth: Q-'i' Texture A: S I ~ Texture B: Mottled? Yes....L No __ Mottle cOlor:'(C: Matrix color::J '1 :t:J Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottte 0 Gley:~~ ______________ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till: ___ ~~(~----=_~~~--~ • • ,-0-,/ • J1' • r I'I . HydrJ.c sOJ.ls? Yes-v-No__ BasJ.s: beed \~ ",cljlrd ~. I L (iii!; S1 Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No ___ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated·-s-o--=i-::l-:------------ otherindicators: mel7&"" f;rij7C-['_ILII: ,2fjdl.~{,b .:Y: «i"q}"," ',e..b .. Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No___ Basis: \.i ' (. Atypical situation? Yes No cornrnent: _______________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---j Non-wetland ________ _ General Site comments: I I I I I I I il i ] [ II I II I 11 ! i' :1 ~ Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12it (l!l Project: B!~ ~. 011"<;' ""PM\:, Date:-li0z,/r-'1...J...j~l:_lI..:l_I-__ ....!!.\J=-_ Plot No.: ::Z,; {,? of: 1'( STR: ____ _ vegetation Indicator Indicator Trees % Cover status Herbs % Cover Status 1. ~ 1 • June." 1Z;~.,c.;5 !:J (I;c u.' 2. I-2 '-~v."'f1(.1J\L:. '""fIlm \ flic..cu 3. !: b-",~ 3,( d / f"''',1tW ku..1.I:l.S-("60~ 1. s. ' 6. Saplings/ Indicator shrubs % Cover status .t ckl>W\\(""i '"-4,( . 1 :?op...lcS \rlc.hoCMf-'iO -rAe 2. Ai(,.l; film"", 5 Flie.. 3. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: [DO Other indicators: \@ilA. sf~"\' I.uwc..s Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes:iC:No ___ Basis: _____________ __ Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ A-Horizon depth: o-j( Texture A: Tex~ure B: r.la<l.'W4 uti ... /. Mottled? Yes a/ No __ Mottle color: Matr~x color:'i=·, <i,x' d",.11" Gleyed? Yes ___ No___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _______ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _______ _ Depth to Till:.~-~/~--~~~-----Hydric soils? Yes V7 No___ Basis: __________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes No /Dep, of standing water: _______ ------- saturated soils? Yes= No I Depth to saturated soil : ________ __ Otherindicators: Wetland hydrology~?~Y~e-s--,/~N~o-_-_-_-~B~a-s-~~'s-:-q-~-.~-r-/-~-,-;~)------------ Atypical situation? Yes ___ No ___ Comrnent: ________________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland --l/ Non-wetland, _______ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) client: ~ !"t. Project: ftl 0 ~'·c:.7M'):., Date: 0t ~ ___ Plot No.: 'i ~ I • of: i'i vegetation Indicator STR: ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover _S ... t~a""tu ..... s ___ !..!H""e .... r"'b..,s'--___ % Cover 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover Indicator status 5. C ... :.;... 6. rr A c--t \"~l. f"c ----- Indicator Status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 'GOct. Other indicators: . , HYdroPhyticveqeta-t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s--'o~i~N~O~~~~B~a-s~i-s-:~~~~~~ ________ __ soil. series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No A-Horizon depth: Texture A: c/1 '1"¥ rAli Texture B:_-:;--:---:-__ _ Mottled? Yes~ N0-r Mottle color: Matrix color: ,; '; '/ 51.;. Gleyed? Yes_ No-JL. Depth to Mottle or Gley: I Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e-S-~--~~N~O:~~-~B~a-s~i~s-:-_~~(~'~ .. -d~,~l'~,~'f(~'eJ~'u~ztu'~~,~i--------------- 7 Hydrology Inundated? Yes No ~DePth of standing water: saturated soils? Yes---No / Depth to saturated'--s-o~i~l-:--------- otherindicators: ------ Wetland hydrology-=?~Y-e-s-:::?N--,~~o-_-_-_-~B~a-s~i~s-:---~-~·-"-,.,-r.~-)-:~~'!----------------- Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _______________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --/'. Non-wetland, _____ _ Ge~eral site comments: I I I I :1 I il \1 , II ,I 1,1 I I. ~ il t ;. , ijl i 'I il II II :1 Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~ ("t ~~~~~c0.A 02f~·7M\; J Plot No.: q, +:2, of: .... I.:;j.Lf_ STR: ____ _ vegetation Trees 1- 2. 3. % Cover saplings/ ~sllh~ruyb~s______ % Cover bo '30 10 Indicator status DHEe~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover Indicator status j:'A e- fAe. fAe-w * 1. ;:('tic.u; eqUiLJ':; {)O ,r, 2 . Y-w.ml(.i:'. ~...;\k.~ ~() 3. '5 0 1M,,", (h dul C C'J!'\\:!'<~ i 0> ~: 1?,w>, Ul1wi.j -.(¥)~ (;, 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ,Odlo Indicator Status fACW Oe.c flk.. fAc.....u Other indicators:~~~~ ____ ~ ________ ~ ____ ___ Hydrophytic vegetation? yes:.1 No ___ Basis: _____________________ __ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _ A-Horizon depth: 0 -\~ Texture A:l!1l ,·1,,,,, 101m Texture B: _________ _ Mottled? yes./ No Mottle color: I Matrix color: 'd" 'h, 'ita Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: j Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ___________ _ Depth to Till: I Hydric soils? Y--e-s--J+--N-O-_~-_--~B-a-s~is--:======-_________________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes No ~ Depth of standing water:. __ ~~ ________ __ Saturated soils? Yes==: No~ Depth to sa~urated Otherindicators: 'dl' I • 1~~1:(Jfl1Qt " ,-'" i (J ',. \.0, Wetland hydrology? es· No___ Basis: ...; Atypical situation? Yes No Cornroent: _______________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---L/ Non-wetland, _______ _ General site Comments: I I " I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t u.n project:!?,> fl. o~'c' ?o.o\s. Date:-l:02.jtl.'1.l~.j.._~~I-__ ..l!Jl.:..-_ Plot No.: t-l t 3 of: /4 STR: ____ _ Vegetation Indicator ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover ...i2S..!.t~a..!.t.lluL>!s,--_ !lH.5.e ... r.=!bii!s __ ~ __ % Cover Indicator status 1. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover Indicator status FIl c,.. It 1. '3"'f\(_V~ e.\t",.,s ,,'d6 'I. k2. Jol'Vf'.urt'l cl"l~ < 10'10 -r. 3 . '"Ru~ c..r'isfo ", ..c:: 5'10 4 • 5. 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ICO fflCJN f"Ac.. FtlCJN Other indicators:~~~~ ___ ~ ________ ~~ ____ __ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes....JL No __ Basis: ______________________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No ___ A-Horizon depth: Q-/r Texture A: Texture B:_-=-......,,...,.... __ Mottled? Yes.,L No __ Mottle color: Matrix color: SJ' 't/I Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ________________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till: ____ -----__ -----Hydric soils? YesV' No__ Basis: ________________________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Ye's No,/ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes:=== No~ Depth to saturated·-s-o~i~l~:------------- otherindicators:~------__ ~--------~--------~--------------------We tland hydrology? Yes:2 N 0__ Ba sis: .,.=G.;:."';:"':"<, J:L!rr-'l>R:l,!J __________________ ___ Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ________________________ ___ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --.; Non-wetland, ______ _ General Site Comments: I I I I '1 " il II I \1 I II ! ; \1 I " Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Project: e, $!, 0 -¥,c, 7Mf. STR: Client: ~~t Q..Q Da te :--"04/,-'j.L._4-IJ. __ ~,-__ -,,J,--_ Plot No,: 'i, -I of: '=/ ---- vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover 1- 2. 3. saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s ______ % Cover 80 s..o 5 Indicator Status ~H=eAr~b~s~ _____ % Cover Indicator Status Indicator status ffic..u- fRC-\).) Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66y{. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta~t-'i-o-n~?~Y~e-S--!-/~N70-_-_-_~B~a~s-1~'s~:~~~~~ __________________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: a -Ie?' Texture A: 5q.n~ leM Texture B: ----- Mottled? Yes v No Mottle color: . Matrix color: K "V '"1/3 Gleyed? Yes No if' Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -.i-n-c':"h-e-s-:----------- Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y·~e-s--j-r-...,N~o::::::::::::---,B=-a-s....,..is--: ----;c:ur,rl-~ 1Qt:j.m wi malJk<' () i Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Depth of standing water:~....,..~--__ -------- Saturated soils? Yes No.,L Dept;h, to s turated Otherindicators: 7 ,<' 1: I '~L -, L Wetland hydrology? J 'NO___ Basis: Atypical situation? Yes No commen~t-:---------------------- Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---/ Non-wetland ________ _ General Site comments: I I I I I ] 'I i II II , \1 '. ,\1 '·.'.1 { , Jones « stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) STR: Client: 'R~t (lO Proj ect: by .e -0 At:,.. 70. 0 'r:. Date:~0'-1-!-J'1I-4~:.J_l..:~-I--__ .!I..!L~_ Plot No.: I-j. =t of: t9 ------ vegetation Trees l. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover % Cover Indicator _S""""ts.a..,t""u,,-s ___ llH"'e .... r..,b"'s'--___ % Cover Indicator status * 1."FhJaM tvl'-'M.rr..w.:. aO'7,. .;, 2. ~ ... nUlh)) r~~ 10 3 • CAfll~ (MV~ < S 4 • v'<lIlorhu~ ~c<I. "-' < 5 5. Snkuwm <1" Ie_,--<. :, 6. Indicator Status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: lbe Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta~t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s-~~~N~O~-_-_~B~a~s~i~s~:-_-_-_-_~~ ________ __ soil series Happed: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: Q-'(" Texture A:~.~f Texture B: ---- Mottled? Yes..L No Mottle color: 41'1.iii Matrix color: 2.?u Ug Y:t \ Gleyed? Yes __ No II Depth to Mottle or G1ey: i Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e--s-Cl-;~N~o~-_-_-~B~a-s~i~s~:-_-~c-~p-~IT~ot=~-~j:~n1~a~tY~~~'--_________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No ___ Depth of standing water:._~~ _____ __ saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soi1: ______ _ Otherindicators: ----- Wetland hydrology-~?-Y~e-s-~-'~~N~O===~B~a-s-l~'S-:-~-c-~~~~m-,g-cP~--------- Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: __________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --,/ Non-wetland. ____ _ General Site Comments: I' I I I I I I I il il I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t' n.n project: e, e, aY,·corM \:. Date:.--l:0'-J1:...'j.!._a_.::;_ ....... __ ..l.~!.:....._ Plot No.: I.e -3 of: 74 Vegetation Indicator STR: Trees % Cover status !!HE.e.!..rb~s",-___ % Cover 1- 2. 3. saplings/ shrubs % Cover of 1-rofX-'iLf, 1( I(..hcr-<~ yo .".., 2. A If oU~ ~UilrtCL l{ 0 3" ("""l(!',poro~pos Wk Indicator St'atus File.. fAc.. f1\w Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 90 ---- Indicator Status ~ At.. (c«>!.<' .. ,~ FFlc.D . rAe. LJ f"A<..W Other indicators:~~~, ______ ~/ __________ ~ ____ __ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-L-No ___ Basis: ______________________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No A-Horizon depth: O-pol Texture A: cJ4d( 1«+" Texture B: 5Md~ '''''*' Mottled? Yes 0/ No Mottle color: Matrix color: ______ _ Gleyed? Yes ___ No 0/ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~-------- Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: __________ _ Depth to Till: ___ ~L/----~--~~ Hydric soils? Yes 17 No Basis: Mil{ lU/rIlDttlur A·I{-,ro,:?; 1.5y Y/J -~ ~B·hd,,,,, J.5<f "l~ wi 17Id11.u Hydrology Lv/ ;·".'ti ks ,_ ;J Inundated? Yes No V Depth of standing water:._--,.,,-_________ _ Saturated soils? Yes--No ./ Depth to saturated soil: ________ _ Otherindicators: -- -- Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s~~~~N~o--C7~-=Ba-s~is-:---------------------- Atypical situation? Yes No comment: _________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---.../ Non-wetland '----- General site Comments: I I I I I I I ~I 1 , , 'I t " Iii i ] iI Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION , (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~tt2D Proj ect: P, e, 011.;., rao\;. Date:~0!..{.1_'~1..,_~_i\..~4-__ -,JI!..:-_ Plot No. :----'So!....:. .. -j\1--of: tY STR: ____ _ Vegetation Trees 1. 2. 3. '.; Cover Saplings/ ~sllh~r~ub~s____ % Cover -( 1 Tor-,loS 1(; C hCYJ.J\fb-"n) 2. S<> •. ;:.\;clC-'"' ~ .... c<Un'lClJ>--'< 1.5 3. R..;i~·J:; ~Ja.b,l;5 < 15 Indicator -2S~t~a~t~u~s~_ DHEe~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover Indicator St:atus ~ 1. od,cc,d,o;c.o.. g 01, 2 • ..tHI. \lr.ort) .(~,~!«f/\'r.o:. 3. 101", .. 1"" """'~"" 4. 5. 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 160 Indicator status fllG-l < S··l~ File fAe.. other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~_ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes...L No __ Basis: drltluJ(lwtrl'ifP rAe.. .>(' weJjO/v Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: O-'i( Texture A: Texture B: ;s"R;-I~ - Mottled? Yes_ No v Mottle color: Matrix color: «,OS" Ski Gleyed? Yes_ No_ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ __________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: __________ _ Depth to Till: _______ ~----~------- Hydric soils? Yes __ NoL Basis: ____________________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No ~ Dep~ of standing water:_--~~------- Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil: ______ _ Otherindicators: -- Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s-_-_-_~N~o-7~'-B=a-s~i-s-:-/~~7~--e-v-I'~&~:'O-(Q-;-~~~S-mJS~~'---- Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ___________________ --:-__ Nornal circumstances? Yes No / Wetland determination: Wetland,_=== _______ Non-wetland.~"__ ___ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I 'II :1 ).1 , ,:1 ~ ;. , ~I 1.1 '1 ~I • Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) STR: Client: ~~t Q.D ~~~t~C\./p, to. 0ifc ,7M f---"'l:2-1-. .3...J._~_,-,-_~ __ .!!.J__ Plot No.: '2." PI-' of: N ---- Vegetation Trees 1. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Covel;: % Cover ~ lYOfvi .... klu,<>Cwf1<>-. YO 2. c.o."", '110101\ ,fiw<.. j 0 3 ~1?\)~~ ~ I.Wd 1.5 5 Indicator Status Indicator st'atus File. f /I c. ""' ffKW Herbs i Cover l\ 1. 'RCJ>'\Uf\u.,(c:.~rn .1S Y2. Vo..rO(\,Cr.... 'ic..,t~1ak S ""3 . ;Ju I',(..IJ$ ejf<f><.>s 5 \-4 • urj!l.e.. d\ c i <-r .... 5 5. 6. . d b1'''(\''''~~ Percent of~spec1es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Indicator Status tAu....> 08<- F~(..vJ I;Kw Other indicators: . HYdroPhyticvegeta-t~i-o-n~?~Y-e-S~--~N~o-_-_-_~B~a-s~i~s-:::::~ ________________ __ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ NO __ _ A-Horizon depth: 0-10 Texture A: SIlt (0Q.m Texture B:_-::--::-~ __ _ Mottled? Yes"L NO_. _ Mottle color: Matrix color: 1i.'5V ~ I;; Gleyed? Yes_ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley: . I Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ___________ _ Depth to Till:.~--~~----~--~----___ Hydric soils? Yes~ No ___ Basis: _____________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ NO~ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes ___ NO~ Depth to saturated·--s-o~i~l-:-------- Otherindicators: , Wetland hydrology? Yes~ No ___ Basis:~a~f~0~~~~~~.~~~~---------Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: __________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---./ Non-wetland ------- General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t n.n project:p,T $!. 0 .21.i;. -eM\; Date:-"04t'-'1 .... _.f-_"'-"_I--__ -"()'-~_ Plot No.: 5, -I of: {,I STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~____ % Cover l. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover ;I( 1.'Po{.oI .. h tr"hu;..uf/:i- 2 • A~ r"ur ofh'illll(rl. 3 :R .... bV~ .. ~Chh5 75 IS 5 Indicator status ~H~e~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover Indicator S~atus ..t l.l.)ri,,·c.. cf<d",o-:;'0 2 . .B.t't~,d;(,,-10 3. K""ui·.(,,-,iL.s rt~~ \0 4. vc..'1 c.'''~\ i( LI.. ~'-.u~~ii("I_ c ... S 5. 6. ~io,,·,I\0~ Percent of,spec~es that are OBL,FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Indicator Status F'Ao",-, ':11 c..'.J FA c-w O&- other indicators:~~~~~--~~----~--~----Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: ____________________ _ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ _ A-Horizon depth: 0 -1<1 II Texture A: <di I""I!'. Texture B: __ "'"7"-:---;""-_ Mottled? Yes...JL No __ Mottle color: Matrix color: ~ ~'Y Sf&:. Gleyed? Yes ___ No____ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ___________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: _____ ~ __ Depth to Till: ( Hydric soils? Y~e-s-:J2:--~N~o-_-_--_-~B~a-s-1~·S-:-_~-_-_-_~ ____________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ NO~ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes ____ NO~ Depth to saturated'--s-o~i~l-:--------- Otherindicators: Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-S-~--~N~o----~B~a-s-1"S--:~A'(-,S-~-;:~'lo~~-,7i'----------------- Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ______________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --\./ Non-wetland ------- General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Project:.e;J~ ~. QU.j..7a o\:' Client: r.?~t (J.n Date:....:J/.0~!-'1-4_~_O"':_.l--__ .l!.JU __ Plot No.: 5 -rl of: 1'1 vegetation Indicator STR: ~T~r~ee~s~_____ % Cover status ""H""er"'b"'s'"--_____ % Cover ---- Indicator Status 1. 2. 3. )\-1-Ju(JUfi ~[..>~):; £{O~· rliC.W i'2.ud,u-rJ,O\u-a6~ fAct Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover -'If 1. t'opJlL.IS tClCrcc!""F-'1l}'b 2. i(\ll:u; ~obd", ~ 3 • ~""~W5 'll.C.JL~ Indicator St:atus ff\c... fl\c..W f/'lc.V 3. ~("Ul(uS (~~ 61, fllC,.W 4 • c.~ «f '5 "'1,. 5. c..,r~M (tA"«-", S Jf. F~.UJ-t 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IOOOJc. Other indicators: I HYdrophyticvegeta-t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s~J~N~o-_-_-_~B~a-s~i-s-:~:::= ________________ __ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ NO __ _ A-Horizon depth: 0-... • Texture A: Texture B: sC1lYY1~ {OGiI!'fl. Mottled? Yes-L NO __ Mottle color: (t.Jt41 ,,:{,;/' Matrix color: 'Dig ~S Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 "':'i-n-c.,-h-e-s-:----------- Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e-s-____ ---N~o-·V7-r--B~a~s~is~:~:::~ _________________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No ~ Depth of standing water:~~.,...-__________ __ Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated soil: __________ _ otherindicators:-=~ ______ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ______________ _ Wetland hydrology? Yes ___ No-L,. Bas is: '"'If) ;.(\'!'(',',T,rT!';} Atypical situation? Yes No comment: ________________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ -4',Ic--__ _ General Site Comments: r·~. I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Regulatory Branch Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor Shorelanda Management Shorelands and Coastal Zone Managament Program State of Washington Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-l1 Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 Dear Mr. Williams I We are in receipt of your letter of June 9, 1987, regarding First City Equities near the Black River in the City of Renton. You asked for information concerning our regulatory process under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Personnel from the Seattle District first visited the site on November 14, 1985, at the request of the Alterra Corporation. We concluded that, although there were wetlands present on the site, they were not considered adjacent wetlands and, therefore, were not under our jurisdiction. We informed the Alterra Corporation of this determination by letter of December 16, 1985. On November 13, 1986, the Corps of Engineers published new regulations which became effective January 12, 1987. These regu- lations provide a clarification of the definition of waters of the United States. The new regulations state that waters which are or would be used as habitat by migratory birds are considered waters of the United Ststes. By letter of February 18, 1987, we informerl Ms. Barbara Moss of First City Equitie. of the clarification in our new regula- tions. We requested her to contact our office regarding permit procedures which may be required to fill wetlands on the Black River Technological Park site. As a result of our February 18, 1987 letter, First City Equi- ties met with us and later sent'us considerable documentation that convinced us that a substantial amount of work had been done on I I I I I I I I I I I :1 , II i A :1 1 I , - , -2- the site under our December 16, 1985, directive which said the wetlands were not under Department of the Army jurisdiction. Accordingly, we concluded that the work may be completed under our December 16, 1985, directive and no further coordination with our office is required. We informed Ms. Barbara }\oss of this determi- nation by letter of Merch 4, 1987. If you have questions concerning our involvement in the First City Equities site at Black River, Renton, Washington, call Mr. Sam Casne, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Warren E. Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch 24 June 1987 Wang #7289s Disc iJ714 .~/OP-RF BA~~P91 3_'; .... Reg Dr Fi e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEPARTMENT or ECOLOGY Warren Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98134 Dear Mr. Baxter: June 9,1987 On March II, 1987 Ecology issued a stop work order on a site owned by First City Equities adjacent to the Black River in the City of Renton. A field inspection on April 6, 1987 by Ecology staff confirmed that the extent of wetlands as mapped in the City of Renton Wetlands Study, 1981, is accurate and indicated the extent of associated wetlands under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Our examination found the following indicators present: I) .a predominance of vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions (e.g. Oregon ash, black cottonwood, willow, red-osier dogwood, etc.); 2) the presence of hydric soils (Woodinville series); and 3) hydrology consisting of inundation and saturation by surface and ground waters, permanently and/or periodically during the growing season. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed descriptions of the physical and biological conditions on site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p. Mr. Warren Baxter June 9, 1987 Page 2 • We would appreciate any information you can provide us concerning this area that you might have developed under your authority granted by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, we may ·request technical assistance in the development of appropriate mitigation alternatives for the loss of this valuable wetland habitat. Thank you for your consideration. JRW:la Enclosure cc: Don Erickson, City of Renton Terra Prodan Mary Burg Don Beery Sincerely, (1~~/!f#'? .. Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor ./ Shorelands Management Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. STATE OF W-ISHINGT()N DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY April 27, 1987 Mr. Ronald G. Nelson . Director, Building & zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Re: Determination of Extent of Associated Wetlands, Proposed Site of Black River Corporate Park, Renton, WA Dear Mr. Nelson: In response to your request for assistance, I visited the proposed site of the Black River corporate Park development in order to determine the extent of associated wetlands under jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. On April 6, 1987, Terra Prodan and I met on site with Don Erickson of your department, Barbara Moss, and other representatives of First City Equities and their contractors. I spent a total of seven hours on the site examining the vegetation, soils, surface waters, and topography. The following comments as to the extent of associated wetlands on the subject property are based on my observations during that visit and on my review of a number of historical documents including the City of Renton Wetlands study (Williams and canning, 1981) and the Draft Enyironmental Impact Statement for Black Riyer Office Park Rezone (R.W. Thorpe and Assoc. for city of Renton, 1981). Based on the foregoing, I have concluded that the extent of associated wetlands on the site includes all of the areas shown as "vegetated wetland" in the City of Renton Wetlands Study (Fig. 3). As you are aware, a significant portion of the site has been cleared, graded, and partially filled. As a result, much of the vegetation which was present on the site in 1981 has been removed and the topography and soils greatly altered or disturbed. The vegetation and soils which remain, however, indicate that the area was correctly mapped and identified as wetland by the City of Renton in 1981. At present, both vegetated and cleared areas are characterized by saturated hydric soils, and the vegetated areas are dominated by species adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 1987 page 2 Due to the recent clearing and grading activities, little remains of the emergent wetland which occupied the old railroad grade bisecting the forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. I found only a few scattered patches of reed canarygrass, softrush, and smartweed amid the downed timber and churned mud on the eastern end of the site. The forested wetland which remains is characteristic of an increasingly rare habitat in the state of Washington: mature riparian forested wetland. The overstory is dominated by black cottonwood and Oregon ash with lesser amounts of willow and alder. Many of these trees are well over 100 ft tall and up to 5 ft· in diameter. The dense shrub layer is composed of deciduous broadleaved species including red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and elderberry. Herbaceous species include nettle, creeping buttercup, lady fern, sedges, and rushes. The forest floor is undulating, as is typical of floodplains of the larger rivers in the Puget Lowland, and the distribution of understory species reflects this microtopographic variation. The majority of the understory species occupy the slopes and crests in wet and saturated soils. In the lowest areas, where the soils are saturated or covered by standing water, sedges and rushes are the predominant understory species, with skunk.cabbage at the easternmost end of the property. As time was limited, we did not walk beyond the eastern property line, but it appeared that the wetland may extend beyond it. Water ponds in the cleared areas where the undulations have been graded flat. In virtually every area that I visited that had been cleared and not yet filled, soils were saturated, soupy, or covered with standing waterl one of our party sank knee-deep in muck and nearly lost his boot crossing the center of the site. Soil test pit logs made in 1979 verify that the site is underlain by saturated hydric soils of the Woodinville series (Thorpe and Associates, 1981) • It is my conclusion that the entire wetland is "associated" because it is in proximity to, and both influences and is influenced by the Black River and Springbrook Creek, which are both shorelines of the state. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 1987 Page 3 As identified in the citv of Renton Wetland study, the Black River riparian forest is the most valuable wetland within the city. The destruction of a large portion of this wetland represents a significant loss to the natural her~tage of the state of Washington as well. Efforts to mitigate, restore, and prevent further degradation to this site should be undertaken without delay. We are anxious to assist you in these efforts to ensure that the functions and values of this system are not diminished. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 206/459- 6790. cc: D. Rodney Mack Joseph R. Williams Donald Beery Terra Prodan sincerely, ~f.&; Mary E. Burg Wetlands Ecologist Shorelands and CZM program Jay Manning, Attorney General Washington state Department of Game Washington state Department of Fisheries u.s. Army Corps of Engineers u.s. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and wildlife Service Barbara E. Moss, First city Equities I , I I I ,I ,I I :I I I I I I I I I I I I Regulatory Branch Ms. Barbara Moss Director of Planning First City Equities r 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Ms. Moss: , " MtR .4 1987 w\:>l'It./CW/.)"~:> 2 March 1987 Disc: a:sam Reference: Black River Technological Park ' This is in response to your February 27, 1987 letter concerning Black River Technological Park. We have reviewed the information that you provided in your Fe~ruary 27, 1987 letter. Based upon the information provided, it appears that a Significant amount of work has already been conducted on the site. This work took place under the direction of our December 16, 1985 letter which said the work WAS not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction and Department of the Army authorization was not required to place filIon the site. Accordingly, we have determined that the work may be completed under the December l~ 1985 authorization and no fUrther coordination is required with this office. ' If you have any questions, you may contact,myself or Mr., Sam Casne at 764-3495. Sincerely, C~~P-RF ", 3~ " ~P-RF SGI- • co9)1.IO Is/ Vernon E. Cook Chief, Operations Division Reg Dr file ," , :1 , , :I I I I I I -· ' 3 March 1987 NPSOP-RF MEHORANDUM FOn RECORD SUBJECTI Black River Technologies 1 Park Wang #5423s Disc #715 2 tlarch 1987 1. Background I In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a proposed development in wetlands near tha Dlack River, Duwamish River, King County in 'Renton, Washington. Tbe Seattle Di.trict determined wetlands were present on the site but tbe wetlands were not adjacent to the Dlack River end the use, degredation or destruction of tbese wetlands would not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, tbe Seattle District determined the wetlands on the site'were not subject to Department of the Army pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Weter Act. The applicant was notified,of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (encloaed). No permit. vere.required from this office. On 18 February 1987, tbe Seattle District notified the developer that our interpretation of interatate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory bird., and that work on the eite would raquire prior authorization by this office. 2. Meeting. ,On 12 March, repreaentativu fren the developer and the Seattle District met to discuis jurisdiction over the aite. Those preaent were Barbara Moas, Pirst City EquitYI Robert Roed, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld, Attorney for the developer, end 8alll Casne, Hike Bowlus, Raren Northup, and Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle Dbtrict Regulatory Brancb.' Barbara Moas outlined a chronology of events that led up to the development II it exhtstoday. We esked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which .he did. (See enclosed letter and photos.) Baled on the information required, we concluded that 70 to 75 percent of the aite had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 Pebruary 1987 letter. 3. CcncluliOll. The site has been lubltantially modified. The applicant has cleered, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of tbe aite. Thi. work vas done under the Seattle Di.trict'a letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara MOBS said the vork would be CClllp1eted by the end of tbe IUIIlIIIer of 1987. Based on theae considerations, tbe work may be cOlllpleted under the 18 December 1985 directive end no further authorilation frCIII this office i. required. Encla Samue 1 R. Caine Chief, Environmental and Processing Section .- I I I .1 il tl , i. :1 I II , , II I!!, i"> -- NPSOP-RF 2 Harch 1987 MEKOllANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Black River Technological Park 1. Background: In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a proposed development in wetlands near the Black River, Duwamish River, King County in Renton, Washington. The Seattle District determined wetlands were present on the site but the wetlands were not adjacent to, the Black River and the use, degredation or destruction of these wetlands would not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands on the site were not subject to Department of the Army pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applica~~ was notified of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (enclos~1:) No permits were required from this office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle District notified the developer that our interpretation of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior authorization by this office(t..cl.\u",,l.) 2. Keeting. On 12 Karcb, repreeentatives from the developer,and tbe Seattle District met to discuss jurisdiction over tbe site. Those present were Barbara Moss, First City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineer; Charles Blumenfeld, Attorney for the developer; and Sam Casne, Mike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a chronology of events tbat led up to the' development as it exists today. We asked her to repeat the chronology in'writing, which sbe did. (See enclosed letter and pbotos.) Based on tbe information required, we concluded that 70 to 75 percent of the site had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February 1987 letter. 3. Conclusion. The site bas been substantially modified. The applicant has cleared, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the site. This work was done under the Seattle District's letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara Moss said the work would be completed by the end of tbe summer of 1987. Based on tbese considerations, tbe work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive and no further eutborization from this office is required. Encla ~Fa~!~ Chief, Environmental and Processing Section I· 'If)' ', .. : .. ,. I <'. DEC J 6 1985 -. ., " . '. . '. ~ .. . . . :'~::fiJ;:;:~'iTat:er Act,s require4lor 4ischarp'ol any dredse4 .or . ~-,~,;:":;;;;,~;;;~t~~1i~ ~~o waura of Cllll'Oa1ted 8tatQs~"iaclwlfaz . . . ...,~"'.,.,;"t;.,;·:.~F.\ .•. " 1":":-'-·" ,';.' I8turat:::/::f::~:::U:~::t:o:~:~~!::~ ~:d duration or· ... I) . '1Uff1c:1ent to IUppott, and tb8t undar Ilormal cirCUlllltaDces do .. '.:;,; .... --:. ,.: ':.' • • ' . auppert , .a prevaleltce of "eptaCion tl'P,ically adaptecl for Ufe in o' , ...... ':.:;.: • .: .• .. . saturated loil conditions •.. The Corps of· £Il;1aeers has the l'tIllpon---:: ........ ::~-.. - 'a1bllity .for detenlin1ag.·vbetl1er a .pacific vetland area is vithin. .' '. :'-..... . '. Section 404 jurisd1cCiou. ..~.~ :.' : _.. . -_ . I · .... ~-.. : .. -... ::~-.::-. -=.~::~ ..... '.' ',-:" -'.~ .. ~. ~ .. ~-:~~::.~;:::;..;.~€#.:~~: ::-;:?'';' -'" ;:.:'.-::'i .:.:....-.~-:..:.:. .. ;:::.::..~~: . ..;.;.~~:: ~.;....: .... :-, -. '-t ':.-.::~~~: We have rav1ewed the 1nfol'1ll8doD lOu furnlshed as vell all data ..... ::'.'." sathered duriD8 our OI1a1te iDsp!ction on lfovember l4, 1985. Va . ~, 'f"":' .' determined that vetlaucla lire present 011 the project site. BovevBr. __ ... ';j._ .. I I I I I I I -. these vetlands are uot cOl1liderecl adjacent vetlau4s wder our -:; _ ". . ...... reaul.toryauthority. 'A Department of·the Army penlir vill uot bit .' . :.:;" required to place fll1 iDto this area. "'. .,' . . If you have any questions regar4'tns this lllatter, please contact Hr. Rudolf Pojt1nger, telephone (206) 764-3495. ,. Cc:: E~s EPA- Sincerely, , Warren E. Ba~ter Chief, Regulatory Branch ., .• __ .w·, •• '_ ._-_ .••• I. -2- I .... I I I .. I "" " 'n I '. ~ I '~':i'::;~~ .. I : ~. • . ... : .. :-. ... , .. , , •.. ".~ : ..... ', .' .' I I I • I .' I I I ·1 I I I I I I I II I :1 I II 1,1 ~! :t February 27, 1987 Mr. Vernon E. Cook FIRST CITY EQUITIES Chief, Operations Division Department of the Army SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134-2385 RE: Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit BLACK RIVER TECHNOLOGY. PARK Dear Mr. Cook: I. , .In response to your letter to me dated Febrl,lary 18,1987, my . attorney, Mr. Charles Blumenfeld, my engineer, Mr. Robert Roed, .' and I met with Sam Casne, Rudy Pojtinger, Karen Northup, and .:." Mick Bowlus of your staff to discuss the Corps' position that as of January 17, 1987, the Black River Technology Park property falls within the corps' jurisdiction.· It is our position that'the regulations which becanieeffective: ... ' ...• ',. on January 12, 1987 are not applicable to this project because (1) the new regulations do not change the definition of "waters of the United States", and (2) the property at issue has already been substantially graded and filled • . . The. following is a history of land use actions, contractural ., ',.' agreements, funding commitments, and documentation of '. . construction affecting the Black River Technology Park to date; ,,' . ..... • April. 1982 -The City of Renton issued a final . ,';'i/':"';;;::";'>!": Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the' pre\,"i,oui:i');'\;X;'):<.:':,'-, ' owners of the property, Alterra Corporation,' in connection "''''','''''.':'''';'':.' with a rezone of the property from General Classification' to" . ,'. Manufacturing Park in order to construct an office park.: .:.' '., Although, a . final determination a's to a requirement for a. . •. :.:iiii.:(,':' 404 Permit on this property was not made at the time. theEIS, , .... , , . was prepared, the corps in its comment letter to, the Drafi:.:.::,;C:;;U<::;:,.;j;i(' EIS, indicated that a previous decision regarding waterways,"::'::i;!,i:':': upstream from the P-l pump plant could possibly,exempt the~;':';\.r.'~'.: ',' site from the requirements of the 404 Permit. '-' ':'!';"':':"', .. 800 Fifth Avenue· Suite 4170 . Seattle. Washington 98104 . (206) 624·9223 Reol Estate Development and Investments . ', ,:, .. :;.': I I I I I 1 I I I I' I I I I 1 ,I 1 I 1 \ Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Two • • • December, 27.1982 -City of Renton granted the requested rezone to Manufacturing Park. December 16. 1985 -Mr. Warren E.Baxter, Chief of the Regulatory Branch of the Department of Army, Seattle District Corps of Engineers, wrote a letter.to Mr. Delton J. Bonds, President of Alterra Corporation, in which he stated after an on-site inspection on November 14, 1985 that "a Department of the Army permit will not be required to place fill into this area." December 18. 1985 -I wrote a letter to Rudolph Pojtinger confIrmIng that a Corps permit was not required on the property. • December 31. 1985 -First City Equities purchased the Black RIver Technology Park property from Alterra corporation. • • • • May 20, 1986 -First City Equities received the special permIt for grade and fill of the entire Black River Technology Park property. On July 9, 1986 First City , , Equities received an annual license from the City'of Renton to accomplish the work. Prior to issuance of the special permit, ,a full environmental review under SEPA was conducted by the Environmental ,Review Committee, who issued a; mitigated D.N.S. A public hearing followed, and the Hearing Examiner approved the special permit.' . August. 1986 -Clearing, grading and filling operations commenced under the grading permit and have continued to date. As the attached drawing indicates, 38.2 acres of the total 52.2 acres have been cleared graded and/or filled. , " • 0_. ; " ... :., ; August 13. 1986 -First City Equities received site plan approval for the ADMAC portion of the Black River Technology Park property. Prior to site plan approval.a full . ,:: .. ~ environmental review under SEPA was conducted by' the:·".:: .. "", Environmental Review Conunittee which issued a mitigated!.,·!, ",., Declaration of Non-Significance. A public hearing followed,' and the Hearing Examiner approved the Site Plan. ' October 13, 1986 -By direction of the City council, the ': property was rezoned .from Manufacturing Park to Office Park .' under the area-wide Valley rezone action':,;'i., .. ::/, ; .. ;' ,.; ~ .'. . .. , ,;. :. :. . ~ , .. •• •• . ... j ••.•••. I I I I I I I " I 1 :1' I, I I I l 1 " , , j" ! .r I I I " , Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Three • December 18, 1986 -First City Equities was advised that the ADMAC buIlding permit was ready for issuance by the City of Renton. It is clear that the Corps of Engineers had more than one review of the project in the past and had clearly indicated no Corps approval was received. All development plans for the property proceeded on that basis. The City of Renton has been working cooperatively with First City Equities addressing land use issue including cooperative regional traffic analyses and construction of arterials to alleviate traffic concerns in the Valley. First City Equities has made a significant commitment of resources to ,this project. We have a $10 million loan covering acquisition and development of the entire Blackriver Corporate' Park and a $4 million loan to cover infrastructure costs. First City Equities has formed a Local Improvement District which has committed to construct a new 5 lane arterial abutting the development at a cost of $3.7 million. First City Equities will, bear 69% of this cost. ' ", ", " ' ... ···.1·· " , , ': " ; ~::,,::-;: i' ;": ' In addition, First City Equities as a condition for developing tis property has deeded 37 acres of property to the City of Renton for preservation and storm water retention. The approximate value of this property is $8 million. ,', i. ' . , .. > ': ..... '.;; ,.,' All of these ojections and costs were incurred in contemplation': of development of the entire site. A major element of First " City Equities' decision to go forward on this property was the, Corps' December 16, 1985 letter denying jurisdiction. Enclosed are photographs showing the existing state of the , ' property and the extent of the grading and filling operations to date. ;. .. :' . We are requesting that the Corps of Engineers authorize us to " ,,', T complete our activities under the December 16, 1985 letter'., ~::'::":,,:< '",~:'. . " .• '") 1/ ":'. ;1'..,. ;.::,; "!i,,':',. .' '.' , !,' " ....... , . :' ,j,.;,,:, ,',',':.' :" .····1: ", ; :,'" ; , I .' I I I I I I I tf,'~1' "1",-" " . . ~ ~. . ... ' ~ ... I Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Four \ ',,< . .' .:. :: .. ~ . As time is of the essence, we would appreciate your immediate. review of our request. With regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES ~};.~ Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning .BEM/bc , , : Enclosures '.,,' ':;' , eel Charles Blumenfeld,' Esq. w/encl,' Robert Roed w/encl , ., , ' .',' :.-.; :.;; ~,; : .. j-: ::"" , . . ,' ) , "'0' Royce Berg w/encl . David Schuman w/encl Greg Byler w/encl ,:' ' . , ' .. :)'. {.,' HAND DELIVERED 2/27/87 "; " :-: " "1 .. ' ... ,; .... ;. .. , ':.) .:! " ',' .. i -':' .~ ':~, .. -.; -,\' .. . ,: -T-'--' .... '," ., ~. .,. " ',.; :-; .' . ";" .:"~:'.' :.-~ .. ,,:. " I' :, I:. "" .". '" ~. ' :, ' , , ' ... ; !;" , , . :" ,'.' " ,,' ' .. : ", . ~. ~., ~ " ' ,,-.. ";. " ..', " ." ,-,I .. ,\ , ' . ', .. ' :, . . ;~,""" .; ,i' .. ,; .. , ":,'," .•... ., ;J, . , L " ; ,'j 'i"I" ';" ! j , ~ • , :..' i' .. ..!.,. . ",' ", ' I, I I I I I I '. I I I I I I I I I I I I " < ' ...... 'FEBllJ987 .. ' .,.. ., .... . , . " >;~~r'~Y;:,~·\ . " (. ".'.:'! :" . .:-" .... ' " .. ", ',' . -.' '".-" .... ." ..... .' .. ' ,,~~ .' ... I."a,. I. HoI. Ilr"tor, .f .1teaba rint CiC)' ".,tl •• 100 ,UtIl Aft .. , hit. 4170 ... ttla, ... UqC..·'t81M . '. ;; .:'f •. , ", ,'" . ,," -:: '0 . . " . ........ ,. -'." ,', . , :.,- ,.".: . -., . ,'." . ',' " . . ;", ''''.. . ;:', ."f.~. ;,lack Uftr tecbaol..;.ark " " ...... . ~ , , :. ,"',:,',"" . .. ' , ." .. ' leu ......... . ~:," -:' . ~",' :,' .:. <.' :' ' •. -, OIl ....... 14, U85, ,.,_1 f1'OII tIiIe ... tU. Hltrla'·;'·'·· lu,IIUII c_ nfenaeed ,lOpftC)' to .. hIIIl.· U a ,npoa" .... 10.- .... t _14 n.un • te,utMlat .f tINt Antt ,.nl.t .... 1' leetl .. 404 .. of tile Cl .. V.tu Alt. !'Iall i .. ,..tloa n .... l .. cllac .. tl .... , •• . "UaeclllJ Ilputlla1lt .f t!M.'u."p.nlt ..... 1ad ..... dlt III c_ pn,.I't)'. ,.ia, pentt n~.tIODl aff.cdft .c tut cWe. _ •• t.,... .lad ellac tilt. _nail w. BOt • _cal' .f tile 1Ja1ta4 'tlCII, ... thul, tile C.,I·.f Iqie •• n. W 110 JvWlllti_ ..... c!le n'a",acall deftlOJMlle. Oar lfal'lIb·U', 198', letter to JC* nllece. til" lI.c.~ .. eloa. . ta late'1916, &be eerpl of IDa, .... " .... ll .... .." ,.nit n .... ledoee "'iclt 'a_ .fflld ... J..." 12. 1917. !be .. nplltlou ,TCI'd" a cl.lUcatl.oa 1If the lIrriroa.utal rntecdoa Apac,. .f che .afialtioa of .. c.n .f tbe VAited .tat •• aM ... iaolllde .. CUll •• ¥bieb ne 01' _1 ... aM .... llabltlt 117 bbdl procect" ., JU,l'ltOl")' Ibel !natla., 01' ... ' b. Whlch are or wealel .. alld •• habitac ., otb.1' _,ntlft)' bbdl vbicla lint. .hC. U ... . 'rbi. c1arlflcatiOll Ie .iplflcaae ....... it allp&1ldl the Cor,. Saccioa 4~ Jadldictloa. n. wtl.ada oa C .. nf.nac" ,npeR,. .• u .ow C01lddere. Co be .. t .... of the Valt •• 'tatal ad lubject to Dlpal'bl.nt of tbe A'CfIl'/ ,..naic nqalraueCl n.al' SaeciOll 404 of the Clean Water let. Undar Seetlo. 404, lathol'l.acloa 1. required tor C1le d l.charse of dreda04 01' flll ucarLeI lato .. cal" of tbe thllted 'tlca., tac1a4l111 .. el.aIa. . . v. requa.t you coat.ct cble office 1'1,ll'lilas penatc·yrocedure. if 100 !ti~l ~~o?o.e to ftll the .lte. #. copy of tbe Dep.Ttaent of l " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. I .j ·1 \ r • ( \ . --...,...==- ~ '~. '. . ..., .-' - .. Gt = I I I I I I I I I I I I I , .- I • LeGEND " VICINITY MAP !! , ~..;".:.... 5Il~_ -- ?TO 17--= "M cLfAPI;;C 1~lJl':>e~t> I ~£Al>e.t> ~1t. T=ILLeI:> (~8.t Ac:. ") h"'1!l~ ~1 p.clt.r.. prz.t.~~~VE. (IJOIt-n+ '2.a II"-'PDC'lOU ~HCWt.l.) U"'t>~1'\.J~i) (14A.(') H t :1 . "" ! I III J I ·,' " I" .. .. " I I I I I ~. • 0 I ~. ";"';'0 I I I I I I I I I I I I .' :-: I.' BLACKRIVER Corporate Park RENTON. WASHINGTON IInQGL I6.SON COfICU' ..c. _ .. _-------.----- LrLrT ._-D I : . \~ ".0</'., -Jfc . O/L1J.6 UIII.a ~ 1 ~/ ...... .;~:---- ............ I. ~v ) ..... :. "1,6 . I , ." .... ... ~.}) ... ' _ ...... -.. .. -.- . .' -_ .. -. .. --... -.-----~--. ..-. :' '. .:: ..... , ....... ::,.~.:>...... ",_ ... :.... ." .. ' ,.<", '. ~ ~ I .. · .. '··· . '.-." \ ... I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I ~ \ \ . \ . , , ' , t ~ , . , , . , " ~.. , " , , '1' .'.' . '. . . . . , " ~. , . . .' '. . . .. , , . .. , . . . .. . I ···.' . . '. '. . . , . . . ', : " " -. , , . ' .: '. . ". . .. , . '.- . " . . " . ..' .. ' ... . ,. . , .' . '. " , . ~ '. 1 . '. '.' -.. :', , ," ." . '. " ". " .. .. ., , " .. ", '. . ... ", . . " , " '. "'" . " , . , ' . , J .............•. '. '. ...• ••.••• ". . •.. ' ..... '.. .......... .•.. ....;, .• ',I ' . " . ' '. ",", ., . ", ' : < •• :. , " ' . . , " ... , . • • I. • ,I'· ';'.. . , , , , I" ,. .' .. -'." , , 'I '" "',' ,,',' ,,~,,' , . . .. "'. . . '. '.' . . 1 .' .... " . .' ~.'. ' " . : . . . ..' . . . . -. . ., '. , . ". . . . . , , . .. " , ':. , , , , , . . . , ' . ( ',,', . , "'. ", . '. '. . . '. . 't. , , ' . . , ;. '. '. ,. ." ".' 1< '. . .. ' ,.' " ....•.. ' . ...•.. 'i i> ...... ... .. '. •.• . '>i, > I. . . . . . . . '. . .' ". . • . . ,,' " " 1 . • I,., • . . . . , , , . . "' , . , . 1 • .. '.' . '. . " . . .. . . . 'I·~· , ' .' . .'. .'. " ' ... ' '. ",' '. , , ' , , , , , . . " 1 " . . . .. , . , . , ,'.' . , '". . . . . . . , , " .', .. - .' ' . . , .'. . I , .' . . , . , .. , . . .' .' . ~'. . . ' . · . ",,'" ",:' . , :1:'" . ' ",' ' .. , . . .'. . ", ' I· '". ' '" .' ' . : . . . . , ' ,I' : ',,", , ' ':, "', ,,' ,. \,., " . .' ',' . , , " " , " . 'I"" ',' , , '\' . \ · ," .' " .' '. '. . , , I,' . '. ," .: . I " " :' , ' . '. . " ., : Black River Corporate Park ," Renton, Washington , , ' " , . ... " . I , " , . ~ ;' .'..... ; .' . . - . ',. ". ." ~ , , " , " , , 'I " ' . '.. ',' , " , . ' I. , ' , I, ," " · .. . , . ' .. , .' . I ', '" · " . , ' 'I ' ". '-.' 'I' ',,' , ' , , 1 1 · -,' . I' 1 ' I 'I· , .J. • , , . . " .": . . - , , ,,' , . '. ' '.' . , " , , . ,.' . " ' . '. . , " '", . ', .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AN APPRAISAL OF THE OFFICE PARK LAND LOCATED ON BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHlNGTON FOR CITY OF RENTON (Parks and Recreation) AS AT March 15, 1991 BY CLIFFORD H. PARRISH, F.R.I., R.I. (B.C) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Parks & Recreation 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Attn: Leslie A. Betlach Re: Lot 4, Black River Renton, Washington Project Number 302-807 Dear Sirs: April 8, 1991 In accordance with your instructions, I have made an inspection and analysis of the office park land which is more particularly described within this report. The purpose of this report is to express an opinion of the Fair Market Value of the property as a fee simple estate as if free and clear of all encumbrances. In my opinion of Fair Market Value, consideration was given to all known pertinent data including market trends and economic and general conditions affecting current market value. In the final analysis, the subject property has an estimated Fair Market Value as of 15 March, 1991, as follows: ONE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS [$195,000.00] The appraisals include both the land and any improvements at the date of inspection. It does not include any equipment, stock, inventory, tools, furniture, fixtures or any other items, movable or unmovable of a personal nature. Fair Market Value, as used in this report, is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. This appraisal has been prepared in conformance with Federal Home Loan Bank guidelines and CEBA Mandated Appraisal Standards, Regulation 563.17-1a. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A personal inspection was made of the property and consideration was given to: Location, size, topography, zoning and utility of the land and its value as if vacant and available for sale and use. Sales and asking prices of vacant and available land in the area of the subject. Interviews and conferences with property owners, property managers, realtors, appraisers and developers. Population growth trends; industrial, commercial and residential development trends in the subject area. This report consists of: This letter which identifies the property, summarizes the results of the appraisal and certifies the conclusions contained herein; Assumptions and limited conditions; A narrative section which contains local background and economic data, a description of the subject property, a discussion of valuation procedures and a conclusion of value; and , An exhibit section which contains: Vicinity Maps, Site Plan, Comparable Sales Data and other miscellaneous exhibits. I have not investigated the title to or any liabilities against the property appraised. 1'---',.... • .--.--L ---' . Parrish, F.R.I., R.I. (B.C.) CHP/pjm Enclosures 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. 2. 3. 4. .5. 6. 7. 8. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. That I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report nor to the parties involved. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of our assignment or by the undersigned). affecting the analySes, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Canadian and American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, my analyses and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. In arriving at the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate contained in this appraisal report, I consulted with other appraisers, and I hereby acknowledge their professional contribution to the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate set forth in the appraisal report. LIMITATIONS AS TO DISCLOSURE AND USE Possession of this report, a copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By- Laws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, the National Association of Realtors, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, the Real Estate Institute of Canada and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the MAl, or RM designations, or to the Society of Real Estate and the SRA or SRP A designations, or to the Real Estate Institute of Canada or the F.R.!. designation or the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia or the R.I. (B.C.) designation) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal . fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. 10. On all appraisals subject to satisfactory completion, repairs or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner. ~ ., _____ -:... L £L_ ;;= .,..C.,,-lif:":"fo-rd-H--,:::a-:am......,...· sh-,""'F:::;.R;;;".-I. -, R-.-I.-(B-.C-.), C.R.A. Appraiser and Consultant s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNDERLYING ASSUMPIlONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. That the legal description furnished to the appraiser is true and correct. 2. That no survey was furnished to the appraiser. 3. That the title of the property appraised in this report is good. 4. That no title evidence pertaining to easements, leases, reservations, or other parties-in-interest was furnished to the appraiser. 5. The property is appraised as a fee simple estate. 6. The appraisal assumes good title, responsible ownership and competent management. 7. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor is any opinion of the title rendered herewith. 8. No guarantee is made for the accuracy of estimates or opinions furnished by others and obtained in this report. 9. No liability is assumed in matters of legal character affecting the property, such as title defects, encroachments, liens, overlapping lines, etc. 10. Any liens or encumbrances which may now exist have been disregarded, and the property has been appraised as though free of indebtedness and as though no delinquency in payment of general taxes and special assessments exists. 11. The values assigned to improvements, shown in this report, are in proportion to the contribution said improvements make to the value of the property as a whole. 12. No right is given to publish or reproduce any portion of this report without the consent of the appraiser. 13. No earthquake compliance report, hazardous waste or asbestos analysis was made or ordered in conjunction with this appraisal report. 14. No engineering survey was made or ordered in conjunction with this report. 15. Appraisal reports that contain a valuation relating to an estimate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such estates relates to a fractional interest only in the real estate involved and the value of the fractional interest plus the value of all other fractional interests mayor may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole. " 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. Appraised values that relate to geographical portions of a large parcel or tract of real estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such geographical portion relates to such portion only and should not be construed as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value reported for such geographical portion plus the value of all other geographical portions mayor may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity. " 17. The appraiser assumes that a purchaser is aware that (1) this appraisal on the subject property does not serve as a warranty on the condition of the property, (2) it is the responsibility of the purchaser to examine the property carefully and to take all necessary precautions before signing a purchase contract, and (3) any estimate for repairs is a non-warranted opinion of the appraiser unless otherwise stated. 18. This appraisal is prepared in conformance with the plans and specifications provided to your appraisers and assumes completion in a workmanlike manner. The appraiser cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable events that alter market conditions prior to the effective date of the opinion. 19. The liability of Clifford H. Parrish is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner, or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements, or cost, regardless of outcome; the client will hold Olympic Appraisals and Clifford H. Parrish completely harmless. 20. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which mayor may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos,. urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property. The value 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS: WCATION: Between Burlington Northern Railroad and Black River Channel, Renton, Washington LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attachment at rear of report TAX ACCOUNT NO.: DATE OF VALUATION: SIZE OF LAND: 132304.9089 March 28, 1991 254,036 square feet SIZE OF BUILDING: Not applicable TYPE OF PROPERTY: Vacant ASSESSMENTS: Land: $381,000 TAXES: $5,169.56 ZONING: OP -Office Park HIGHEST AND BEST Comprehensive Development USE: OWNER: First City Development Corporation ESTIMATED VALUE: $195,000.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OSTENSIBLE OWNER Ownership of the subject land described within this report and shown under Property Tax No. 132304.9089 is in the name of First City Developments Corp. Suite 6600, 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington PROPERTY LOCATION The subject is located at the east end of the prposed Black River Business Park, in the City of Renton, Washington. PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the present and proposed Fair Market Value of the subject property, in fee simple estate, for mortgage loan purposes. Fair Market Value is defined as: "Market Value" means: (1) the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market; d. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (2) Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment. This definition of "Market Value" complies with the mandate of CEBA Regulation 563. 17-1a. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights being appraised are those of the fee simple estate, free and clear of all encumbrances and liens. Real Estate AWrajsal TerminolQgy defines fee simple as "an absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class or heirs or restrictions, but subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation.· LEGAL PESCRIPIJON: See rear of this report. DELINEATION OF TITLE There are no previous sales of the subject site. It is believed that the area has been re-platted. DATE OF VALVE The subject property was inspected several times in the last two weeks of March, 1991. 11 I I I ~ I I I I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I ----------- I I ,. :1 ;I ! • '. I I • REGIONAL ANALYSIS The subject is located in the "Pacific Northwest" which is mainly thought to be comprised of the contiguous states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, although Montana is also often included. British Columbia, a Canadian province, is also a part of this region; however it is subject to the laws and policies of a foreign nation. Alaska has strong . economic ties to the State of Washington, but of course, is geographically separated from the region. The four contiguous states have a total population of approximately 7,700,000 persons; British Columbia has 2,500,000 persons; and Alaska has 425,000. The four contiguous states comprise over 10% of the land mass of the United States, yet only 2 % of the national population. The following chart shows the region's past and projected growth: PACIFIC NORTHWEST POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) Washington 2,855 2,967 3,413 4,276 4,587 Oregon 1,172 1,937 2,101 2,668 2,797 Idaho 671 686 719 977 1,088 Montana 679 706 698 805 Alaska 229 281 304 444 BC, Canada 1,602 1,797 2,128 2,744 NWTOTAL 7,808 8,364 9,362 11,914 Source: 1985 Almanac Within the Pacific Northwest, there are varied extremes of temperature, terrain, vegetation, and precipitation. The area is noted for its mountains, rivers, and forests, with a major characteristic being its open, unpopulated areas. The period from 1977 to 1980 was one of unprecedented prosperity in the Northwest. Rather lean years were 1981 and 1982, reflecting the fate and fortunes of the national economy. However, 1983 to the present has been a strong growth period locally, with continuing stabilized growth projected by most economic forecasting agencies. There are three mlijor population centers in the four contiguous states of the Pacific Northwest -the Puget Sound area, the Lower Columbia, and the Inland Empire. The Lower Columbia is the Vancouver-Portland area with a combined population of 1,130,000. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Inland Empire is the Spokane area with an area-wide population of 340,000. By far the largest is the Puget Sound Metropolitan area, with Seattle as its major city, which had an estimated population of 2,412,100 as of 1985, according to the Puget Sound Council of Governments. This region as a whole has experienced relatively high growth over the past three decades exceeding the U.S. average. It is now mature in its own right as a consuming market, and with its population it is competitive with other large regional markets. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATE OF WASHINGTON The main difference between the State of Washington and other Pacific Northwest states is its degree of urbanization, comprising the most urbanized and heavily populated state. Washington is the seventh fastest growing state in the nation. From 1970 to 1980, population in the State increased by 27%. In 1984, State population was 4,328,100 with an expected growth increase of 18.5% by 1995 according to the Office of Financial Management. Geographically and meteorologically, the State is divided into two distinct regions by the Cascade Mountain Range. The area easterly of the mountains is generally arid, while westerly of the mountains it is moist. The moisture is brought in by ocean winds and storms and is trapped by the Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges. The Olympic Mountains westedy of Seattle partially protect the Puget Sound area from precipitation . extremes. The Cascade Range acts as a barrier to the cold air masses which drift down from Canada into central and eastern Washington, and as a result, the climate is relatively mild. The western portion of Washington has one of the largest coastlines of any state -it is very irregular with numerous bays, tidal flats and deep water harbors. As a result, it has become a major boating center. The area east of the Cascades is subject to substantially less rainfall, but has temperature extremes from well below iero in the winter to slightly above 100 degrees in the summer. The northern one-third of the area east of the mountains is forested and has a higher rainfall than the lower two-thirds, with this lower portion basically an agricultural area. Principle agriCUltural crops are wheat, apples and alfalfa. The Federal Government and its creation, the Bonneville Power Administration, have dammed many of the region's principle rivers, particularly the Columbia, and the result has been ample water for irrigation as well as a plentiful supply of cheap electricity available to all of the Northwest. The State is economically intertwined with not only the national economy of the United States, but also with many other countries of the world. The Port of Seattle and the Seattle Customs District have an important impact on the area's economy. A large percentage of the State's manufacturing, agricultural and mining production is exported and basic consumer goods imported. Washington State is one of the few in the nation which does not levy a personal or corporate income tax. Its revenues are primarily generated by an excise tax on real estate sales, on the gross sales of businesses and occupations, and through property taxes. An analysis of the State of Washington would not be complete without mentioning its spectacular public lands. A very large portion of the State is held in national parks, forests and wilderness areas, as well as state parks and other public lands. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUGET SOUND AREA The dominant center in Washington both politically and economically is the Puget Sound area. This area stretches from Olympia on the south to the Canadian border on the north. The dominant geographical feature of this area is Puget Sound, a salt water bO<lY which is fed by the Pacific Ocean through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is between Vancouver Island and the north end of the Olympic Peninsula. Puget Sound is approximately 120 miles long and varies in width from 12 to 40 miles, being broken up by various large and small islands. Together with the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Sound to the north, Puget Sound provides an inland waterway from Seattle to Alaska with a few stretches of open water. Puget Sound, besides providing an active water freight and transportation market, is also the playground of the local population. This area is frequently referred to as the "boating capital of the world" with clean waters, beautiful vistas and good fishing. State operated ferries ply its waters and provide a major transportation link. With mountain ranges on each side snow covered much of the year, numerous fresh water lakes and rivers and rich agricultural valleys, the area's natural setting is quite unique. The majority of the population is situated on the easterly side of Puget Sound along with Interstate 5, the major north-south route through the area. The heaviest population concentration is from Everett on the north to Olympia on the south. The Puget Sound four-county area contains over 50% of the State's population and this figure is on the increase. In summary, it can be said that Puget Sound is a diversifying and promising area. The economy has followed the general flow of the national economy, with no extreme highs or lows in recent years. The outlook is bright, with technical advances and innovations fueling an improving scenario. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEAlTLE METROPOLITAN AREA What is generally referred to as "the Seattle Metropolitan area" includes four counties -Kitsap County, which is located on the west side of Puget Sound; Snohomish County, with Everett as the county seat; King County with Seattle as the county seat; and Pierce County, with Tacoma as its county seat. Following is a list of the current population trends and projections for these counties from the Puget Sound Council of Governments: County Kitsap Snohomish King Pierce TOTAL 1970 101,732 265,236 1,159,375 412,344 1,938,687 1980 147,152 337,720 1,269,749 485,667 2,240,288 1985 167,800 373,000 1,346,400 524,900 2,412,100 2000 223,990 533,390 1,692,000 671,040 3,120,420 A 39% increase is projected from 1980 to 2000. From 1960 to 1980, total population increased by 76%. According to the State's population reports and projection publications, much, if not most, of the past and projected increase has been the result of in- migration rather than by the birth rate and decreasing mortality. The birth rate has actually dropped somewhat over the past 25 years. The Seattle Metropolitan area is one of the twelve standard consolidated statistical areas of "super cities" in the United States and is the 24th largest in the U.S. These super cities are major concentrations of population as defined by the U.S. Government's Office of Management and Budget. It is one of only three on the West Coast along with San Francisco and Los Angeles. It is the sixteenth largest metropolitan economy in the United States out of 40 standard metropolitan statistical areas. Kitsap County, a long peninsula jutting into Puget Sound on its westerly side, has the least amount of population of the four countries. Its location on the west side of Puget Sound makes it fairly isolated from Seattle. Snohomish County has the second smallest population, but it is experiencing the most rapid growth. The corridor abutting Highway 405 is rapidly developing into high- technology in~ustries from Redmond-Woodinville to Lynnwood-Mill Creek. The Boeing 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Company remains the major industry, manufacturing 747's and 767's at Paine Field near Everett. The southwest portion of the county has experienced most of the growth with Harbour Pointe and Mill Creek the focal points. Pierce County has a high percentage of military related jobs since both an Army and an Air Force base are located close to Tacoma. The South Hill area of Puyallup is projected for primary new development including high technology industry and Rainier Terrace, a planned community. Further south of Pierce County and Tacoma is Thurston County and the City of Olympia. Olympia is the State Capital for the State of Washington and is known primarily for its governmental activities. Olympia has benefited from the generally buoyant . economy of the last twelve months or so. The reported influx of people into Washington State has impacted all communities in the Puget Sound area. King County is the largest of the four counties with its county seat, Seattle, being the focal point of the metropolitan area. It provides many services, (mancing and government jobs, with less manufacturing jobs per capita than most major cities. SeaUie contains 91.6 square miles and has recently passed 500,000 inhabitants and includes 32 % of the area's population. Bellevue, with 80,250 population, is the second largest city in King County and the third largest in the metropolitan area. It is across Lake Washington from SeaUie and can be reached by two bridges. This former bedroom community of SeaUie is also becoming increasingly a creator of its own employment. The progress of the SeaUie Metropolitan Area is frequently thought of as the history of The Boeing Company, the world's largest manufacturer of aircraft, which to a large extent, has been true. Due to Boeing's employment fluctuations, there has been extensive planning and cooperation between Boeing and local government to provide diversification of industry. Boeing now contracts out more of its work to avoid the peaks and valleys which have been illustrative of its operating history. Boeing announced record sales for 1986 and future income is assured by the orders placed in 1986. Despite earlier predictions, Boeing is still adding jobs locally at the rate of nearly 7,000 per year. As of the third quarter of 1987, over 92,000 workers were employed in aerospace in the Metropolitan Area. Historically, lumbering, fishing and agriCUlture, along with commercial shipping, have helped to make up the economic base of this area. In the past 25 years, manufacturing activities, chiefly the aircraft industry led by The Boeing Company, have become a more important part of the economy. The past twelve months have seen record orders received by Boeing which should bode for a continued good economy throughout the foreseeable future. High-tech industries are locating and expanding in the region and there has been an increase in services and wholesale trade. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As a result of the mild weather and other features, the Seattle area has been classified in several national publications as offering the highest quality of living (including both environmental and social conditions) of the major metropolitan areas in the country. 18 I I I :1 , , ':1 i.:1 : , , i ~ f i/I [1 ill ~I ( 11 \1 I :1 il il II I ;1 I CmOFRENTQN Renton, located in Central King County, is on the south shores of Lake Washington and is situated approximately eleven miles south of downtown Seattle. Access into and through Renton is via Interstate 40S and State Highways 167, 169, SIS and 900. The population of Renton has steadily increased from 18,4S3 in 1960 to 36,760 in 1989, with estimates of 100,000 in the greater Renton area by 1990. Continued increase of multi-family housing and anticipated annexation of residential lands have contributed to this increase in population. In order to understand the economic conditions and projected economic trends in Renton, we shall examine these topics: manufacturing and industrial patterns, commercial concentrations, transportation facilities, utility services, city government, community facilities, and educational opportunities. MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL PAUERNS There are 200 manufacturing firms in the service area. The principal products are: aircraft, railroad cars, machine construction and maintenance, telephone poles, corrugated cardboard containers, pipe and ceramics, meat packing, poultry equipment, coil springs, engineering, rendering, scaffolding, stagings, cement castings, sealing compounds, plastics, lumber and light metal products. A number of national firms have distribution centers in the area with a current estimate of 290 distributorships. The largest manufacturing firms are as follows: NAME OF COMPANY PRODUCTS 1989 EMPLOYMENT 1. The Boeing Company Airplanes 37,600 2. Pacific Car & Fndry RR cars, winches, machine shop 220 3. Tally Corp. Electrical hardware 32S 4. Heath Teena Plastics, electronics 811 S. Austin Compo Design and construction of SO commercial bldgs. and air conditioning systems 6. Container Corp. Folding carton division 131 7. Hormel Corp. Meat Processing 80 8. Stoneway Concrete Sand, gravel and concrete 96 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Pacific Propellers 10. Continental Arctic 11. Mutual Materials 12. M. Segale 1. Renton School Dist. 2. Valley General Hosp. 3. City of Renton 4. Pacific NW Bell 5. PACCAR Propellers Food processing Brick and drain tile Asphalt and concrete NON·MANUFACTURING Education Medicine City services Telephone services Computers 6. Puget Sound Power & Light Electric power PROXIMITY OF FACILITIES Utilities can be accessible to the undeveloped sites. COMMERCIAL PATIERNS 79 180 69 202 1,710 1,400 610 320 610 325 Renton is served by three levels of commercial activity: (1) neighborhood! community shopping centers, (2) the central downtown shopping district, and (3) regional shopping centers. Neighborhood centers are typically small and keyed primarily to grocery stores, drug stores, variety stores and small service establishments. Downtown Renton provides the localized needs of banking, grocery and services, as well as clothing stores, restaurants, hardware stores, offices, entertainment, etc. Southcenter, a regional shopping city located 2 112 miles west of Renton, consists of four ~or department stores, 112 additional stores and shops on 1,250,000 square feet of retail floor area. TRANSPORTATION FACJTJTJES Excellent and efficient transportation facilities are available. Rail service is provided by Burlington Northern. Truck service is available by all of the major truck lines operating in the Seattle-Tacoma complex. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is six miles southwest of Renton and the Port of Seattle, located eleven miles to the northwest. Bus service is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Company. 20 I I I :1 'I I , 'I "\ 'r ! '~I ,il ii ':1 ~ 1 ;1 I II ! , 11 i !I II il I I I UTll.1TY SERVICE Water service is provided by the City of Renton Water Department. Sewage is handled by the City of Renton. Natural gas is provided by Washington Natural Gas Company, and electric power is provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company. CITY GOVERNMENT Renton has a Mayor/Council form of government with zoning and building codes. The Police Department partially consists of 59 commissioned officers, 23 civilian employees, and 19 patrol vehicles. The Fire Department personnel includes 67 paid uniforms. Fire Insurance classification is City 4. COMMUNITY FACTlJTIES Medical facilities within the City include the 303 bed Valley General Hospital with a staff of 270 physicians and surgeons, and 64 dentists. Recreational facilities include 25 parks, 20 tennis courts, 22 baseball diamonds, one municipal and two public swimming pools, two golf courses, etc. Good hunting and fishing is in close proximity to Renton. EDUCATIONAL FACITJTJRC:'j Renton is part of the Renton School District #403. The following schools are in the Renton area: NUMBER TYPE ENROLLMENT # TEACHERS 13 Elementary 5,755 245 3 Middle School 2,009 90 3 High School 4,029 175 1 Special Education 65 13 (Thompson) 1 Alternative 165 9 The parochial school in Renton is St. Anthony's Catholic School, grades K through 8, with a current enrollment of 462 students and taught by 17 teachers. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Higher educational opportunities include: The University of Washington, Seattle University and Seattle Pacific College, which are all accredited four-year colleges located in Seattle. There are also two-year colleges located within 12 miles of Renton. Vocational training opportunities are provided by the Renton Vocational Technical Institute, a Slate supported but locally controlled institution that provides training, retraining, upgrading and apprenticeship related instruction. During 1982-1983, 20,919 students registered for classes at R. V. T.I. The Institute is fully accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, and is governed by the Board of Directors of Renton School District #403. In summary, Renton has a solid economic base with attractive amenities, a mild climate, good transportation facilities, ample schools, educational facilities and community facilities that make it a pleasant community in which to live. 22 I I I I I I I I SITE AND I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject site is on the extreme west side of the City of Renton, having the City of Tukwila to the west and the City of Seattle to the North. The land to the north of the railroad tracks rises quite steeply and provides a natural geographical barrier. Running through the immediate area are the Green River and Black River, although the latter is now used as a retention pond for flood waters. This is the extreme north end of the Kent-Auburn Valley which extends several miles to the south. The road system in the area is very good with Interstate 5, which runs from the Canadian border to Mexico, passing through downtown Seattle, being approximately one mile to the west. Highway 405 loops from Interstate 5 through Renton along the east side of Lake Washington, linking back with Interstate 5 north of Lynnwood. Highway 405 passes within half a mile of the subject to the south and can be accessed at State Route 181 or State Route 167. The access to the north is difficult, because of both the railroad tracks and the topography. However, it is of minor significance in that Interurban Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue to the east are easily reached via Grady Way or S.W. 7th Street. The zoning from the railroad tracks on the north boundary of the subject, between Highways 181 and 167, permit office and manufacturing development. The subject therefore is zoned in conformity with the general neighborhood. One of the few variations to the zoning is the land immediately to the south of the subject where there is the Metro Disposal Station. This does not appear to impact the subject. To the north is a gravel quarry with access to Monster Road. This may have some impact on the subject, but is difficult to either support or refute. Much of the area, being in a valley floor, is in the 100 year flood plain, which has been the topic of considerable recent discussion. The future of development is one of uncertainty, mainly because there is no precedent to refer to. A plan of the area is attached. 23 I I I ] , ; il , I •• , • I I SITE DATA The subject site comprises a single legal lot at the east end of the proposed Black River Business Park. Black River was a subsidiary of the Green River but with the controlling of Lake Washington and flood control within the Kent Valley, there has been little or no water flow in recent years. There is currently no access to the site. To the north are railroad tracks beyond which the land slopes quite steeply upwards. To the south is the Black River basin. It is, however, understood that a road is proposed to access the site from the southeast comer . The site is very irregular and offers 254,036 square feet or 5.83 acres. It is flat with the topographical map showing that the land is about IS feet above sea level. Services. The land is currently unserviced but there is every reason to assume that when the road is extended, so will the sewer and water and any other services that are considered necessary for office park development. The sewer and water lines currently dead-end on Naches Avenue, approximately 500 feet to the east. Soil. No soil analysis has been provided, but a study of the Metro Disposal site has been reviewed and this report shows the subject soils as Woodinville Series. This classification has soils that range from fine sandy loam to silt loam usually found on level or near level ground. These are Relic River Meander Deposits and are organic silts, clayey silts and interbeds of peat and wood detritus with variable thickness of two to eight feet. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZONJNGDAIA The subject is located in an area zoned OP-Office Park. The purpose and intent of this c1assification is to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and supportive services in a campus-like setting. Other than the subject area, there are only two other OP areas, the largest of which is south of Highway 405 and west of Highway 167. The surrounding areas of both the subject and this area are zoned MP-Manufacturing Park. This classification is less restrictive than OP zones, but the market appears to be developing both zones with similar type buildings. There are height and setback restrictions that are dependent on surrounding uses and site dimensions. Details of both these classifications are attached to the rear of this report. Full details can be found in the Zoning Code being part of the Municipal Code of the City of Renton contained in Ordinance #4263 dated March 19, 1990. In addition, this area is designated on the community plan as MP-MO which is Manufacturing Park-Multiple Option. This in essence is the same as the current zoning. The extreme west portion appears to be in the greenbelt district. 25 • I I I I :. I -, ~I ~ ,I l il i I. ! :. 1 WGlIFST AND BEST USE In appraisal practice, the concept of Highest and Best Use represents the premise upon which value is based. In the context of market value, highest and best use is defmed as: The reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Alternatively it is that use, from among reasonable, probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically feasible, and which results in the highest land value. It should be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements, the Highest and Best Use may be determined to be different from the existing use. Our investigation leading to a conclusion of Highest and Best Use was designed to simulate the actions and thinking of prudent and knowledgeable purchasers and pursued the following logical sequence: 1. Possible use: To what use it is physically possible to put on the site in question? 2. Permissible Use (Legal): What uses are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions? . 3. Feasible Use: What possible and permissible uses will produce any net return to the owner of the site? 4. Probable Use: The use must be probable, not speculative or conjectural. There must be profitable demand for such use and it must return to the land the highest net return for the longest period of time. S. Highest and best use: Among reasonable uses, those uses which will produce the highest net return or the highest present worth. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to analyze alternative uses of the subject site and to ascertain which single or possible combination of complementing uses would prove most profitable to the owner, based on present market behavior. The subject use is clearly defined by the zoning, i.e. office building. However, the site is not available for development immediately and it would be unreasonable to assume that this site would be developed before those to the east. Highest and best use is a time related concept. It is equally unrealistic to assume that all land can be developed together. The most likely concept is a progressive 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I development westward from Naches Avenue along the north side of the Black River Channel. This suggests that the subject site would be one of the last sites in the process. Discussions with planning and zoning departments reveal that a dead-end street cannot exceed SOO feet and the fire department requires two separate approaches to the site. It has been mentioned that a bridge had been proposed over the retention pond to form a loop from Naches Avenue westward alongside the railroad tracks to join Oakesdale Avenue close to Monster Avenue. This proposal would seem unlikely to be accepted. The cost may not be prohibitive, but coupled with the defmite possibility that approval for a bridge may never be obtained , it would appear to be an economical venture. It would therefore appear that the site cannot be developed without access and to all intent and purposes has no viable use. This is unrealistic, so it is a question of how the land can be used. Further discussions have revealed that the land between the Black River . channel and the railroad tracks could be amalgamated into one parcel and developed as . such. The zoning ordinance does not preclude development of one site with several buildings, so long as all parking density and set back requirements, etc. are met. In theory, zoning would permit this kind of development. The ingr~s and egress from the end of Naches Avenue may present the biggest problem. I have spoken to the Renton Fire Chief, Gary Gotti, who indicates that two different approaches would be necessary for a multi building development. The subject land has 48 feet of frontage to Monster Avenue. This strip of land narrows to about 2S feet before widening to the full acreage. The fire department may accept a 20 foot wide paved emergency access from this direction as a second access. This is not wide enough for road access, but would suffice for emergency use. Such an access would cross designated wetland, but there is a provision that 0.99 acre can be filled, so long as restitution is made. It would be most natural to create such an access abutting the railroad right-of-way. This would appear to be the only possible means of developing and conforming with all the requirements. It is by no means an assumed thing, but appears to be possibility. This indicates that the highest and best use of the site is to amalgamate with the remainder of the land northwest of the end of Naches Avenue and have a Planned Use Development. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I METHOD OF APPRAISAL There are three basic approaches to value, namely the cost approach, the income approach and direct market comparison. The Cost AWroach entails adding the depreciated value of any improvements to the current value of the land. This approach is based on the premise that no one will pay more than its cost of reproduction. The Income Aggroach entails calculating the current economic rental income of the property and capitalizing the net income as a return demanded by the market. This approach measures the present worth of the future benefits. Direct Market Comgarison. This approach entails comparing sales of properties offering similar utility. This approach is based on the principle of substitution. The appraisal of unimproved land uses the market comparison approach. The cost approach and income approach do not lend themselves in the appraisal of land. Land sales will be reviewed and a value of the subject, if readily available for development, will be concluded. From these figures, the cost required to make the site developable will be deducted. It is acknowledged, however, that these costs would be spread over the total parcel of land and not just the subject lots. It would be unreasonable to place this cost on any specific lot, but in practice, a developer would try to eradicate these ·up front· costs in the first development. 28 I I I I I I I I VALUATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VALUATION The value of the subject is considered to be indicated by other sales in the market. On the following pages are sales and listings of comparative land. This information is available to a prospective purchaser who presumably would base any value for the subject on this information. The principal of substitution applies in that a purchaser will not pay more for a property than a similar property offering similar utility. 29 - 54 South I Center 153 1~.!2.:.... I I , METRO REN'l'ON _ L_ .. _ '-'- SW 31 t '-t 'A g E i .. ~ " ~ ~ 1 SW 23 ST SW29 ~ V) .. ~ " c :J '" o a: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #1 Location East side Monster Road, S.W. Tax Acct. No. 242304.9122 Access From Monster Road Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Irregular Sale Date 10/90 Price $582,084 Area 5.00 acres Grantor B & G. Renton Partnership Grantee Seattle Area Plumbing Conflrmation: I have spoken to Greg Herrell who was the listing and selling broker. A portion of this land is designated as wetland. It was written in the sales contract that the useable area would not exceed 130,000 square feet and that approximately 90,000 square feet was wetlands. Both parties acknowledged a value of $4.75 per square foot or thereabouts was a realistic value for the useable land. Some flll has been brought in and services were almost at the property line. 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #l Location Tax Acet. No. Access Land Use Zoning Sale Date Price Area Seller Buyer Northeast corner Powell and 7th Street, S.W. 918800.0010; .0030; .0050; .0060 From Powell or 7th Street S.W. Unimproved OP-Office Park 05/31190 $2,000,000 2.9 acres; 2.2 acres; 1.7 acres; 1.5 acres Equity Management L.O. Renton n, Inc. Comments: These lots have been relisted and Lowe Enterprises indicate Lot 1 is listed at $5.80 per square foot. Lots 3 and 4 are at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6 are at $6.50 per square foot. There are earnest money agreements on some of these lots, but details would not be released until after closing. 31 I I I I I I 'I I I I' I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I -"" --. I I I I I I I I 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I ] \ I II [I ! ~ II , , t II i. i!··1 I' II Sale #3 Location South Center Boulevard Tax Acct. No. 295490.0460; 295490.0465 Access Off Southcenter Boulevard Land Use Unimproved Zoning C2 Sale Date 3/90 Price $948,000 Size I. 33 acres and I. 78 acres Seller 1.0. Fiorito; 789-6110 Buyer Horizon Hotels Confirmation Mr. Fiorito Remarks: Level site abuts the Green River which adds a restriction on the building development, but can be used for parking. Analysis: Price Lot Size Price p.s.f. 5948,000 135,544 square feet 57.00 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---l ------~ I ! i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #4 Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton Tax Ace!. No. 125380.0100 Access From S.W. 29th Street Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Rectangular Sale Date 3/90 Price $820,000 Area 185,092 square feet -4.2 acres Grantor Burlington Northern; 467-5500 Grantee Corr Pro Assoc. Confirmation: Burlington Northern confirmed that this was an arm's-length transaction. This site is at the end of a dead-end street and is level and cleared. This area south of Highway 405 is a large Business Park, although the site is removed from the main roads. 33 : I I I I I I I I --------~---------------~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANALYSIS Sale #1 is geographically close to the subject on the south side of Monster Road. This site is a different zone (MP) but the proposed use could be equally as well sited in the OP zone. This is a particularly interesting sale in that there were wetlands on the site and the earnest money agreement stipulated the useable land area to be no more than 130,000 square feet. Mr. Herrell of Kidder, Mathews also indicated the parties had used $4.75 per square foot as the basis for the agreed price. It also infers very strongly that no value was attributed to the wetland. Due to the parking requirements, there is no easy way to construct a larger building on the useable land because of the wetland area. The building area potential of the wetlands cannot be readily transferred to the useable land. When wetlands are sold with useable land, the highest and best use ignores the wetland and any value is negligible. This is unlike a separate legal entity that is 100% wetlands where the highest and best use is retention as wetlands. The value of $4.75 per square foot needs some upwards adjustment for the fill and bringing of services. No figures are available but Mr. Herrell indicated that they were not big undertakings. The services were about 200 feet away and only a "small amount" of fill was needed. I believe an adjustment of $0.75 per square foot is not unreasonable giving an adjusted rate of $5.50 per square foot. Sale #2 was a sale of several lots at an overall rate of $5.56 per square foot. Lowe Enterprises has these lots listed and it is understood most are currently under contract to sell. I asked what was the difference between Lots 3 and 4, offered at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6, listed at $6.50 per square foot. The selling broker indicated there is no difference other than shape and size. Lots 5 and 6 are the smallest, being 1. 67 acres and 1.46 acres, whereas the other lots are 2.34 acres and 4.27 acres. Lot 1 is 2.88 acres but has a large frontage on 7th Avenue which is presumably the reason why it is listed at $5.80 per square foot. I am of the opinion that the size factor changes the price. The small lots are quicker to develop and are more manageable to the developer. In essence, it takes longer to complete the proposed building, longer to leave the completed space, and therefore is discounted. It is not unreasonable to assume that the subject would be discounted even more, being larger than all these comparables. This however is refuted by Sale #1 which is larger than all of these sites. Sale #3 is geographically close but is in Tukwila and is in a C2 zone. This zone is more permissible than the OP or MP zones in Renton, although most of the buildings are office and business park style. This sale is to a hotel chain based in Louisiana and being different use is difficult to adjust. The more permissive zone leads me to conclude this is a superior site. 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #4 is in an MP zone but much of the development in the area is similar to that of the OP zone. This site is outside the 100 year flood plan but the area generally is in the valley bottom and some additional site preparation is usually necessary. The range ofvRIues found extend from $4.43 per square foot to $6.50 per square foot. The extremes appear to be unrealistic. The high end of the range applies to smaller parcels and those with superior exposure. The lower end sales require additional site preparation. I therefore consider the useable land has a current value of $5.50 per square foot. This however applies to sites ready and available for development. As stated earlier in this report, it is unreasonable to assume that the subject site will be developed immediately. It is therefore necessary to discount the value. It has been suggested that it will take at least one year to reach the subject site. This is the considered period it will take to reach the subject, rather than the completion of the building. This is done because of the position of the comparable sales and it is necessary to be consistent. The value can therefore be discounted for one year. The rate at which the discount is made reflects the risk. This poses defmite problems, not knowing whether the hypothetical development would be approved. Having researched the problems with the City Attorney, City Planner, the Fire Chief, etc., I have every reason to believe the development, in one form or another could be achieved. I consider a discount rate of 13 % reasonable, due to the definite risk of obtaining a development permit. This is equivalent to mortgage rates and therefore is a cost of holding. $5.50 deferred 1 year at 13% $5.50 x P.V. of 1 year at 13% $5.50 x 0.8849558 = $4.87 It is now a question of what land area this rate should apply to. I have been provided with Wetland maps from Jones and Stokes who carried out a study on behalf of the City of Renton. The impact of this study poses a problem in that the Jones and Stokes study differs from the Department of Ecology study. The Jones and Stokes study has not been adopted and would have to be approved by DOE. The Army Corps of Engineers have given me access to these files which contain considerable correspondence between DOE, First City Equities and the City of Renton I am of the opinion that it is impossible for me to make an accurate judgment as to how much land is available for development. It is, however, reasonable to assume that a prospective purchaser would take the worst scenario, i.e. the DOE study, and it would necessitate application through the City of Renton to determine something to the contrary. I do not have the benefit of such an application. The Army Corps of Engineers indicate that 0.999 acre can be filled and utilized within wetlandS. It would therefore appear that in theory, if not in practice, each of the subject sites could accommodate a development. If in fact wetlands are filled, the State requires 1.25 times the area filled as restitution. There appears to be little or no precedent t I I I I I I I • !. '. • • • • • • I I I to explain this process. This mayor may not be an expensive proposition. It has been suggested that wetlands have little or no value when acquired with useable land. However, when purchased for other use, be it parks, bird sanctuary, etc., there is normally some value attributed to it. This is a totally unknown figure. I am therefore of the opinion that a value would be based on 0.999 acre (say one acre) at the discounted value of $4.87 per square foot, i.e., One acre x $4.87 p.s.f. = 43,560 s.f. x $4.87 = $212.137.20 From this an arbitrary amount is deducted. An arbitrary amount is considered reasonable because it is not known whether such a cost would ever be incurred and if it is, it is unknown. I therefore conclude each lot has a value of $195,000 (deducting an arbitrary 8% per lot). Other factors considered are as follows: The cost of the emergency land. This has to be installed first, prior to any development. Although it would seem to be applicable to the total site, it is an "up front" cost and would be taken into the cost calculation of the first building. This cost therefore has been excluded from the subject. I have also considered the fact that to complete any development of the land to the east, the subject is a necessary adjunct in that it offers the essential second access. I have not allotted a premium for this fact because it is under one ownership and it would be an arbitrary allocation. lilly Ully'" U."tIT[O Umeric'k...... ITATES M'UTAltf Undsay •••••• :..... ..~"",'''" ........... ..... -. Center EXIT 153 sw 19 ST Sw 23 ST .'~ '. i .-, LO T 6 I I i I ".: \ ~ ..... -262,16:> ~O. FT. ( t.-OR 6.02. A.CRES I ~ :,:' 14- f ' . ~I~ I " 19 I-41 0 56' 46- R = 1102.46 , L = 807.1' 1----2' OF N ~ _I I I I I I I I I ZONING DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..al·lI CSb) (2) Commerdal, Industrial and Other U_: A muUnum or eight feet (8') anywbere on the lot proviclecl the fence doe. not .tand in or in tront of any required lanclacaping or poee a tramc viainn hazard. (3) Fence Typea: (A) Electric Fencel: L Electric fenc... are permitted by .peclal review in aU residential zones in C888l where largo dom ... • tic animals are baing kept provided additional fencing or other bamer is erected along the property lines. ii. All electric fences shall be posted with permanent signs a minimum of thirty six (36) square incbes In area at intervals of fifteen feet (15') stating that the fence is electrified. Iii. Electric fences and sny related equipment and appliance. must be installed in accordance with th. manufacturer's specifications and in compliance with the National Electrical Code. (B) Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire may only be usad on top of fences at least six feet (6') high for commercial, industrial, utility and public uses. (C) Other: i. Bulk Storage Fsnces: s... Section 4-31·29. Ii. Fences for mabile home parks, subdivisions or planned unit development and for sites which are minee!, graded or exca va ted may vary trom th ... regulations as provided in the respective code aections. 4. Special Review Proc.ss: a. Persons wishing to ha v. one of the following types of fenc .. may submit a letter or juatiftcation, site plan and typical elevation together with the permit fee to the Building and Zoning Department: (1) Fen<:ea ezceeding forty eight Inches (48") within front yard latbacka but not within a clear vialon area. (2) Solid fence. along .ida property linea abutting arterial streets. (3) Electric fences. b. The Building and Zoning Department shall approve the iasuance of special fence permits provided that: (1) Fen<:ea, walls and hedgee above forty eight inchea (48") when all setback trom the street property line four inches (4") trom every one inch of increaaecl height sought (over 48", up to a maximum of 72"). (2) Fences along property lines abutting a side street which is an arterial may ba a maximum of seventy two inchea (72") in height. This fence must be located to the rear of the required tront yard. In addition, driveways will not ba allowed to acc .. s through this fence. The location of the fence exceeding farty two inches (42") in heigh t along property lines, particularly the front and side lot lines along nanking arterial streets, doea not obstruct views of on ... ming tramc at intersections or driveways. 5. Compliance: Fences which do not comply with these regulations must be brought into compliance within six (6) months trom the date of notice of fence violation from the City. (Ord. 4056, 4-13-87) 4-31·16: OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (O·P): A. Purpose and lntent: The Office Park Zone (O·P) is .. tablished to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and supportive larvic.s in a campus·liks setting. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) B. Us .. : In the Office Park Zone (O·P), the following and similar uaes are permitted. The Building and Zoning Department may deter- mine that any other usa is similar in general character to the follawing specific U808 and is in keeping with the intant of this Zone. Upon such administrative determination, the subject r \. ( c I 1:. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I 4-3.1-16 B) .....halI become a principal, accessary or conelltlonal use, whichever is appropriala. UnJasa inellcatecl by the lad, definitions of the usee lIslad in this Zone al"> consislant with the description. In the Standard Industrial Claaaification Manual. 1. Principal U ... : In the o-p Zone the following principal uaea are permittad: a. Admini.trative and professional offices. b. Madical and dental offices and clinics. c. Financial offices such as banks, savingu and loan institutions. d. Schools and stuellos for art, crafts, photography, dance and music. e. Business and professional services. f. Research and development. g. Educational, cultural, and social activities. (Ord. 3937, 9·16-85) h. Product serviCing, wholesaling, warehousing and storage of article., products or merchanellse from previously prepared natural or synthetic malarials, or ferrcus or alloyed metals. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88) i. Day care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9·16- 85) j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight (8) adult dogs or cats may be permitlad after satisfaction of the requirements in Section 4-31·37Cla. (Ord. 3955, 11-4-85) It. Motion pictura thealars and similar recreational and enlartainment facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 4-31·25C2. (Ord. 3980, 3·24-86) 2. Accessary Uses: In the O·P Zone the following uses are allowad where incidental to a permittad use: a. Parking garages. b. Recreational facilities. Co RoitaU aal.. of products or merchan- cIlae produced as a permittad use. 4-31·16 d. Repair activitie. orcIinariIy aaaoc:iatad with a permittad use. e. StorBge of petroleum or natural gas or any of their by.products, providad thet the total .torage capacity is lea. than Ian thousand (10,000) gallons or other applicable unit of measure, and thet storage of such producta is placed undergroud. 3. Conelltional U ... : In the o-p Zone the following uses and their accasaory u... may be aUowad by conelltional use permit as provided in Section 4-31·36 of the City Code: a. Churches. b. Heliports. c. Personal, recreational and repair .ervices and retail uses, subject to the standards of Section 4-31·16C2. d. Adelltional uses as identified in Section 4-31·36Dl. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) . e. On·sila hazardous wasla treatment and storage facilities. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) 4. Prohibilad U ... : In the o-p Zone the following usee are prohibilad: a. Residential uses. b. Automobile, motorcycle, ll'uck, boat, mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle sales, rental, repair, service and storage activities, except repair and mainlanance may be permittad if incidental to a permittad use. c. Any outdoor storage or display of malarials or products. d. All other uses not Includad in Section 4-31·1681 through 4-31·1683. (Ord. 3937, 9·16-85) e. OtT·sila huardous wasla treatment and storage facilities. (Ord .. 4186, 11·14-88) C. Development Standards: In the o-p Zone the following development standards shall apply, ezcept as otherwise providad by this Section. 1. Sila Plan Approval: Sila plan approval .hall be required for all developments within I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +31-16 <:1) the o-p ZoIl8. A building sito plao obalI be lIlecI and approved in acconIaoce with the City Code prior to iuU8Dce of any building permita. Each bui1diDg or other development permit is8ued .hall be in conformance with the approved alta plan. 2. Standarda for Ratail and Selected Service Uaea: For those NrVice aod retail UII88 identifted in SectIon 4-31-16B3c, the following atandarda shall apply: L The design of atructures, including aigna, ehall be generally conoJetantin character with surrounding 0lI ... No drive-up windows or outaide automobile aervi.. shall be permitted. b. No extarior display of merchandise shall be permitted. Co In order to avoid tbe negetive impecta of strip commercial development: (1) Ratail or eelectad service uses shall be developed as part of larger, planned commercial, office or industrial comple,..s having common architactural or landscaping themes. Such retail or servi.. uses shall not stand alone and shall not occupy more than fifty percent (50'1» of a jointly developed building complex. (2) Direct artorial access to individual UII88 shall occur only when a1tamative access to local or coUector streeta or conaoUdatad access with adjacent 01 ... i. not feasible. (3) Roof signs shall be prohibitad. Free-stan<ting signs shall not exceed ten feet (10') in height and shall be locatad at least twenty feet (20') from any property Uoe, ex .. pt for entrance and exit algns. ~. Setbacks: a. Streeta: All bui1dinga and structuras ehall be located a minimum of sixty feet (60') or twenty percent (20'1» of tho· lot depth, whichever is less, from any public street or highway property Uoe. In any case, if the acijacent puhUc street is a meJor or secondary uteriaJ, the oetback shall be at least thirty feet (SO'). +31-16 b. Other Yarda: All buil<Unge and atnlctures ehall be located a minimum af twenty feet (20') or ftfteen percent (16'1» of the lot width, whichaver is leu, &om any property Une which doea not abat a public atreet or highway. c. Adja .. nt to· Large SI:nIctures: The required yard setbacka adjacent to aoy bui1d- ing or structure with a building footprint greatar thao twenty five thouaand (26,000) square feet shall be increased one foot {I') for each ad<titional two thouaand (2,000) squam feet of building footprint, up to a maximum of one hundred feet (100') Abutting pubUc streets, and sixty feet (60') in other yarda. d. Adjacent to Rasidential lAts: Whenever a proposed use in the O-P Zone shares a common property Une with « lot that is designated any reaidential use on both the City of Ranton comprehensive plan and zoning map, the minimum setback contiguoua to the common property Uoe shall be fifty feet (50'). Whenever an adjacent lot contains A residential use and either the comprehazurive plan or zoning designation or both is oomething other than residen tial, then tho appropriate setback and landacaping adjacent r \.. to the reaidential lot shall be determined by ( sito plan approval. A sito plan decision to require more than the minimum setback and landscaping shall consider the long tarm viability of tho residential use, the p ...... n .. of other residential UII88 in the surrounding area, and such other indications of stability as owner-occupancy and haOlling con<tition. e. Use of Setback Areas: All required setback areas shall be unoccupied and unobstructed .xcept for off-street parking and loeding, driveways, entrance roada, lawn sprinklers, walkways, landsCAping, ordinaJ:y and necessary utility oervice faeilitiea, utility pol.... lighting fixtures, identifying .and direction signs and underground ineteJJetions aocesoory to any permitted use. f. Flexible Setbacks: With aita plan approval and subject to applicable bliilding and fire codes, one of the side sethac"ks .(not adjacent to a pubUc street or zesidential 0lIe, as defined in Section 4-31-16C3d may be reduced or elimin.atad jf the total width of both side setbacks is at leaet twice the width of the minimum setback specified in ·Section I Ie I I I I I \ I I I( I I I I I I I I I '<: 4-31-16 031) 4-31-16C3b above; and tba rear setback nat acUaaent to a public .treet may be reduced or eliminated It tba &ant aethack Is increaoed a=rcIinsIy. The lite plan deciaian Ihall be baaed an a llDdlng that, with reduced set- backa, tbe architectural clealgn, building arien- tatian, circulation, noise and glare of the proposed project will be compatible with adja- cent WI8tI and with tbe purpose and intent of tba o-p Zone. . •• Height: Bullding heighte in the o-p Zone sball be estebllahed with consideration to acij ..... nt land WI8tI and shall be determined ao fallows: a. Adj ..... nt to Single Family/Law Density Multi-Family Uses: No hsight limit shall be required provided tbat for each one foot (11 of building height there shall be provided one foot (1') of yard setback an the peripbary of tba site where the office park use Is a<ijacent to a single family or low density multiple family use located an a lot cleaignated single family or low density multi·family an the City of Renton comprehensive plan and zoning map. b. Adjacent to All .Other Uses: No height limit shall be required provided that all r .... quired yard setbacks adjacent to such other uses shall be increaoed one foot (1') for each additional one foot (I') of height above forty live feet (45,). c. These setbacklheight requirements cannot be modified by application under the PUD process. 5. Landscaping: a. There shall be a minimum landscaped setback of twenty feet (20') from all public street or highway rights of way. b. There shall be a minimum landscaped setback of ten feet (10') or on .... half (112) the required setback, whichever is less, tram all ather property lines. c. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of tbe site sball be retained in landscaped open sp ...... A maximum of one-half (112) of this requirement mey be an tba roofs of .tructures, provided emplayeeo and the public have access to tba area. A maximum a' seventy five percent (75%) of this requirement may be within the required perimeter 4-31-16 lanclsceping. The twenty percent (20%) minimum lanclscepiDg requiremellt may nat be reduced if a ai te is developed aa a PUD. d. All areas nat covered by buildinga, structures or paved s~ ,ball be land- leaped. Areao set aoide for future develop- ment on a lot may be hydroaeeded. e. Where parking lots are edjecent to one another, perimeter lanclsceping shall not be required. f. Any wall surface greater than thirty feet (30') in width lacking windows or doors shall be softened by landscaping or archi- tectural features, such aa change of tezture or wall modulation. Such lanclsceping shall include trees over siz feet (61 in baight placed no more than tlUrty feet (30') an center or in clusters. g. With site plan approval, the perimeter landscaping setbacks requlred by Section 4-31- 1aC5a and b above may be reduced in width up to flfty percent (50%) if the equlvalent square footsga of landscaping is provided elsewhere within the site. Site plan approval shell be based an a finding that the alternative landscaping arrangement provides buffering and site amenities equal to or better than that which would be achieved by emct application of the Code. The relocated land- leaping shall not be located within the rear setback of the site. a. Refuse: No refuse, trash, rubbish or ather waste material shall be dumped, placed or allowed to remain outside a permanent build- ing, except in nonflammable, covered contain- ers or dumpsters, which ehall be screened by fences or landscaping. No refuse shall be stscked higher than the screening fence or landscaping. 7. ParltinglCirculation: Parking and cImllation standards required shall be ao fallows: a. Access: .The principal access shall be from an arterial or collector street and shall be oriented to the leaot traveled street when- ever twa (2) or more such arterials or collec- tors abut the site. b. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation areao along a common lot line with a residential use located an a lot designated as a residential use an both tba City of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C7b) Renton compreherurive plan and leming map IhaII be allowed ollly II a ten foot (10') wide ,ight-obecurlng landscaping Itrip and a lix foot (6') high 1O!ld fenee are provided along the commOll boundary line. c. Parking and Loading: (1) See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City Code. (2) All loadi ng docks and ron.up doo" ,hall be located at the rear of buildinga or acreelled 10 that they are IIOt visible from any poiut along the abutting public right of way. (3) At no time ohall any part of a vehicle be allowed to extend into a public right of way while the vehicle Is being loaded or unloaded. All loading and unloading maneuvero ohaD be couducted au private property. 8. Environmental Performance Stendardo: The . foUowing minimum ltandarda ohall be met by all activitie. within the o·p Zone. For all activities which may produce objectionable or otherwise prohibited conditions, the property owner or lessee shall furnish deoign opacifica. tiona or other scientific evideuce of compliance with these standarda. a. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7, Nolae Level ReguJations. b. Smoke: (1) V18ible grey smoke ohall not be emit- ted from any source in a greater density of grey than that deacribed as No.1 on Ringelmann Chart. (2) The provisions applicable to visible grey . smoke shall also apply to visible omoke of a different color but with an equivalent apparent opacity. c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne Solido: No observable dust, dirt, fly ash or airborne solido shaD be emitted. cI. Odoro\l8 Gases and Matter: No odoro\l8 gases or matter in a quantity our· ficient to evoke a responae from the average person beyond the exterior property lines .ball be emitted. e. Toxic Gases and Matter: No emissions .. 31·17 or toxic gases or matter ahall be permitted. t. Vibration: No vibration ahall be permitted to exceed 0.003 of one Inch ella- placement or 0.03 (g). peak acceleration, whichever Ie lJl'8ater, aa meaeurecl at any point outeide the property linea of the lot or site. ThIa sball apply In the frequency range of llro to five tholJaand (0 • 6,000) cycles per IICOnd. Shock absorhere or .imilar mounting shall be allowed to permit compll8J1C8 with this spaclfication. g. Glare and Heat: (1) No glare and beat from any IOUrce sball be permitted to be unreasonably objectionable beyond the estarlor pr0- perty lines of a lot or lite. (2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting fixtures .hall be directed away from public atreeta or righte of way. Exterior lighting fixtures sbaD be equipped with hoods or reflectoro sucb that direct light rays extend no more than ten feet (10') beyond the nearest property line. 9. Signs: See Chapter 20, Title IV of the City Code. (Ord. 3937, 9·16-85) 4·31·17: AIRPORT ZONING: A. Zones: [n order to regulate the use of property in the vicinity of the airport, all of the land within two (2) miles south and one mile east and west of, or that part of the area that is within the City limits of Renton, Washington, whichever is nearest the boundaries of the airport, is hereby divided into airport approach, transition and turning zones. The boundaries thereof are shown on the Renton Airport Approach Plan numbered No.1, dated March I, 1956, which plan is made a part hereof. B. Height Limits: Except as othe"vise provided. in this Code, no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow or be. main· tained in any airport approach zone or airport tuming zone to a height in excess of the height limit herein established for such zone. For the purposes of this regulation, the following height lim! ts are herebY established for each of the lanes in question: (Ord. 1542, 4·17·56) ( .... : ' .. : ".; ( c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Amellded I .. ndseapiDg Piau: The approved landscaping requirements may be modified upeJI request to the: Buildlug IUId ZoI1iDg Department. The p1aua may be approved, deuled or returned to the applicant with l"IIB'aetions for changae that would make . them acceptable. F. Landscape Requirements· Spaci1ic: 1. Exiatiug plant Material: Emling traee and other vegetation on the site of a proposed development may be lIIed where practical if the quality is equal to or better than available nUl'llery stock. 2. Green Ri ver Vailey: Any development in the Green River Valley shall provide a minimum of two percent (29&) of the totsl site for landscaping suitable for wildllfe hebitat. Tbla landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping requirements by this Section or any other ordinance. 3. Shorelines Master Program: Any tlevelopment within the protected shorelines 'area shall be required to meet the standards and requirements of the City of Renton Shontlines Mastar Plan. 4. Slopes: a. General: The faces of cut and nll slopes shall be developed and maintained to control against erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the a10pH shall be installed within thirty (30) dsys of grading completion and prior to .. request for final project approval. Where slopH are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials such protection may be omitted with the permission of the Public Works Department, provided that this protection is not required by the rehabilitation plan. b. Other Devices: Where necessary, 1heck dams, cribbing, riprop or other devices or methode aball be employed to control erosion and sediment, provide safety and control the rate of water ruD-<lfT. 6. Geueral Requirements: a. Eziating desirable vegetation should be preserved where applicable. b. Stripping of vegetative 1101* where harmllU eroeiOJl and l"UIl-<lff will occur .haII be avrided. c. Are... of fragile natural environments should be protected &om developmeut and encroachment. d. If practicable, unique feature. within the site should be preserved and incorporated into the site development design (ouch as springs, streams, marshes, significant vegetation, rock out-croppings IUId significant ravines). G. Maintenance: 1. Landscaping required by this Section shall be maintained by the owner and/or occupant and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the Building and Zoning Department. Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replaced within su (6) months. Property owne .. shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and litter. 2. The Building Director or his designated representative, is authorized to notifY the owner or his agent that any installed landscaping ... required by the Buildlug and Zoning Department, is not being adequately maintained and the specific nature of the failure to maintain. The Building and ZoI1iDg Department shall send the property owner or his agent two (2) written notices, each with a fifteen (15) day raeponse period. The notices shall speci/Y the date by which aaid maintenance must be accomplished and shall be addressed to the property owner or agent's last known address. H. Violation: Violation of this Section shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided in this Code. Each and every day or portion thereof during which violation of any of the proVisions of this Section is committed, continued or permitted, shall constitute . a separate offense. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-83) 4-31·36: GREENlJELT REGULATIONS: A. Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt are... are characterized by severe topographic, ground water, slope instability, soil or other physical ( ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A) limitations that make the areas Wl8IIitable for intansive development. ProviaiOl18 for public eDjoymont of greeDbalt areas are ellCOuraged; however, greenbelt daaigDations do DOt imply public ownership or the right of public acceaa. The purpose of thaae rsgulations is to supplement the policies contaiDed in the comprehensive plan regarding greenbelts by the control of development, by minimizing damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion, by protscting wetlands and fish·bearing watsrs, and providing physical relief between ezpal1888 of similar land uses. Implementation of these regulations will protect the public agaiDat avoidable lossaa due to maintananoe and replacement of public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts, and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations. These regulations supplement but do not replace the underlying zoning regulations for specific properties. These regulations will provide responsible City officials with information to condition or deny public or privata projects to protsct potantially hazardous areas and to avoid the necessity of preparing environmental impact stataments in cases where there will not be significant adverse environmental effects, thus expediting governmental approval processes. B. General Provisions: Greenbelt regulations apply to areas that are tiret designated B. greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land use map and also identified as containing one or more of the following physical criteria: 1. Staep Slope Areas: Areas with slopes thet exceed twenty five percent l25%). 2. Physical Hazards: Araru identifiable as a severe landslide hazard or areas where other severe hazards are anticipatad including erosion, seismic, flood, and coal mine subsidence. 3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way: Major electricity, water and gas transmission line easements and rights of way. 4. Other Critaria: Wetlands, stream corrido:"9, and flood control works. The actual presence or absence of the critaria illustratad above in greenbelt areas, as determined by qualitied professional and I 400 4-31·38 tachnical persons, shall govern the treatment of an individual building sita or parcel of land requiring compliance with theee regulations. C. Vegetation Removal: Then shall be no removal of vegetation within a greenbelt until a permit is issued pursuant to Section 4·31·35D below except for normal maintenance with written approval by the Building and ZOning Department for such activities as trimming of vegetation or removal of dangerous or diseased plant matarials. D. Development Standards: Whenever a proposed development requires a building permit, grading permit, shorsline substantial developm .. nt permit, conditional use permit, variancs, rezone, planned unit development, subdivision or short subdivision, and one or more of the greenbelt criteria as defmed in Section 4-31·3SB above is present on the site of the proposed development, studies by qualified profe .. ionals may be required. The City shall send written notification t<> the applicsnt whenever such studies are required. The City may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any such proposal to carry out the purposes of this Section. Whenever a proposed development involvee only one single family dwelling, which is not part of a larger development proposal, the City shall not require special studies or reports by the applicant. 1. Steep Slope Areas: These regulations apply to land form foatures of a .ita between significant and identifiable changos in .!ope. a. Definitions (see Exhibit " A" for an illustration of these definitions): (1) Slope shall be defined as the average slope of the lot or portion thereof in percent between significant changes in slope, detarmined by observation· on simple slopes, or more precisely by the formula: Sa 100 I L A (2) Where "1" is the contour intarval in feet but not greatar than ten feet (10,; "L" is the combined length of the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31-35 Dlall) contour lines in .cale feet; and "A" ia the net area between .ignificant changea in .lope of the lot in square feet. (3) A .ignificant change in .lope .hall be defined as a bench or plateau at least Meen feet U51 in width. b. Development ill prohibited on .lopes greater than forty percant (40%). c. In greenbelt areas with between twenty flve percent (25'l11) and forty percent (40'lII) slope the muimum residential density ,shall be: (1) One unit per 8l:I'fI, and for each one percent (1 'lII) of .lope in ex .... of twenty flve percant (25'l11), an additional nine hundred (900) .quare feet in lot area per dwelling unit .hall be raquired. (2) When tha currant zoning de.lgnatlon exceede one dwelling unit per acre the allowable development density in the ateep .lope area ahall be reduced to one-fourth (II J, and for each one percent (1'l11) of alope in excess of twenty five percent (25'l11), the remaining allowable dwelling unit density shall be reduced by an additional flve percent (5'l11). d. The maximum nonre.idential buildable area .hall b. reduced to one-fourth (I/J, and for each one percent (1%) of slope in 8ltees. of twenty flve percent (25%), the re-, malnlng buildable area shall be reduced by an additional five percent (5%). e. Greenbelt areas between twenty five percent (25'l11) and forty percent (40'lll) slope shall be subject to special review to assure ltable building conditions, safe and convenient 1ICC8tI' and minimum disruption of the natural physical features of the land. The City may require the appUcant to fUrnilh a report by a lieensed engineer to evaluate the site. However, the City may waive the requirement for spacial studi.. where sufficient information is otherwise available to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development permit. 2. Pbysical Haxarda: Greenbelte estabUshed upon these criteria should be developed only 4-31-35 with great caution and development should be baaed on BOund engineering and technical knowledge. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio dated March, 1980, ill hereby adopted by reference to assist in the determination of and evaluation of physical hazard areas aa prescribed by tbIa Section. a. All a general rule, development should not increase the risk of hazard either 0':' or off-lite. Where detailed technical information ill provided illustrating that development can be lafely accommodated, development that il compatible with the dagree of hazard and with surrounding usea may be allowed. Provided, any such development retains at leaat seventy flve percent (75'l11) of the site in open spa .. or il landscaped compatibly with the physical hazards. b. The City may require site speciflc studies, completed by a qualifled soils engineer or engineering gaclogist or other qualified profeuionals, which shall include specific recommendations for mitigating measurel which should be required as a condition of any approval for such development. The recommendations may include, but are not Umited to, conatruction techniques, design, drainage, or density specifications, or seasonal constrainte on development. Upon review of these studies, the development permit shall be conditioned to mitigate adverse environmental impact. and to assure that the development can be .afely accommodated on the .ite and is consistent with the purposes of this Section. The City may waive the requirsment for special studies where sufficient information is otherwise available to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development permit. 3. Utility Easemente and Right. of Way: A limited number of low intensity us .. consistent with the existing zoning and utiUty use may be permitted within utiUty greenbelts .uch that the propo.ed development meet. the intent of providing a definitive geographic relief between adjoining azistlng or anticipated land use. Allowable uses include: a. Any structures or activity directly associated with the supply or service of utiUti .. ; / I 1/,;,:" .. r····'~; I I I I I I I I( I I I I I I I ". I I 4-31-35 D3) F. b. Aariculture; Co Residential open epacetI; d. Raereational activities and faciliti",,; e. Parking aaaociated with adjoining land WIllS -provided that no more than the foliowins' percentage of the greenbelt area is covered with impervious .unaces and the remainder ia compatibly landacaped or retained in a natural alete: Twenty five percent (25%), if the most restrictive adjacent zoning ia R·l or 0-1; Fifty percent (50%), if the moat restrictive adjacent zoning is R-2, R-S, R-I, T, or pol; Sixty five percent (6S~), if the moat restrictive adjacent zoning is B-1, O-P, L-l, H-l, or M·P; f. Production of resource. -provided that the area is rehabiliteted consistent with the greenbelt definition; g. Roadways and streets -provided that any street aligned parallel with the greenbelt should involve the minimum intrusion upon the greenbelt while providing for enhancement through compatible landscaping. 4. Other Greenbelts: Wetlands, stream corridors and flood control faciliti"" designated greenbelt Bhall be subject to the development standards of the City's Bhoreline maater program urban environment where those shoreline regulations would not otherwise apply. Other Allowable U ... : 1. Nothing in these regulations shaU limit the construction of one single family bome on a pre-e:dstlng platted lot, subject to meeting any engineering requirements neceaaary to aarely construct sucb a reBidence. 2. Where the provisions of tbeae regulations limit construction of public or private utilities or appurtenant structures, approval for such construction may be granted by approval of a conditional use permit subject to a ahowing of necessity and compatibility of the use with theee regulations. (Ord. 3849, l()'~) (See following page for Exhibit A, Steep Slope illustration) 4-31·36 4-31-36: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: A. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional uae permit ia to allow certain uaea in diatricte from whicb they are normally prohibited by this Chapter when the proposed uaea are deemed consistent with other existing and potential U888 within the general area of the proposed use. E'''pt aa provided in this Section, a conditional use permit may not reduce the requirements of the zone in which the use ia to be located. B. Conditional Use Permit: The Heering E,aminer may grant, with· or without conditions, or deny the requested conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV of the City Code. The Hearing Examiner may Iimi t the term and duration of the conditional use permiL Conditions imposed by the Hesring Ezaminer shall reasonably aSBure that nuiBance or hazard to life or property will not develop. C. Criteria for Conditional Use: The Hearing Examiner Bhall conaider the following Cactors, among all other relevant information: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed U88 shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objective. and standards of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. 2. Community Need: There shall be a community need for tha proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration oC a particular U88 within the City or within the immediata area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location ia suitad for the proposed use. 3. Effect on Adjacent Propertiea: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following sita requirements shall be required! a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential districts (R-l and R-2) shall not exceed df\y percent (50~) oC the lot coverage -- 30'1 II I: : .. ;: ;15' ! i/O' , - - - - -- - -- -- -1'---70' -------"1 ' .. ~: ': ~: "'j -. -: -. ~ ......... : .alON' ... ~ ..... n'_ IS .t. po ... : ~~ •. .. :. ., .. ~. ~, --: ~. ..: •. -. ~. ... : ,. •. ... ; I ...... IC •• ' c ......... ... .... ,. , '0 25' STEEP SLOPE AREA '6 20 " 1 CO.'ODlt I.'" 25 i 1 ...c., ••• "' .. " , .. ,. . ...,,.. :'-.... HO# •• rr, .. : ... .:... ... ~:- .~ .~ :~ .-:-..... 'ICA.,. c ........ ... ... :~ .t .• ,' ~~ .-'.-'-'-'-: .. : ... :-:"-:. :-:-.-:- .,,,"fell.' c .... OC, ,. .t.".. 'L •• ' Slope In percent • • • -- r 15' 1 30~ • 100 I L A 100 (If? (rrJ(4) (71S") (70? 28.3 s· .. , , ••• __ .a ._._ ..... " .... , ...., '-----STEEP SLOPE AREA ----' 0 0 l.5' so· 75' 100' IZ!i' ISO' 173' .... 16011'''' •• 'o1laCl :".-, ~ -- fit -II II "a !!! 0 "a II ---C III -.. .. -0' :I o ',: .. )) m )C :!: !:!: -~ - t ... l. en t ~ I ~ j ..... ' t~ 1'1.; I . 1(;1.; . L. -"V4y I I r--~":;/Y~:X)) I L.... ___ .-J---- I i ,:==r=, ==*=~~~ • ! • 0 • I -1-. I I . M-P • I I I , i r _._- , ",. ---- ---t---~ I MET.R f P-II \ ~ ---+-----~-- po' 5 A I L' . \~ I \ I . #.- ~-... , .' . ......... -.. -.. o-p I I I I I I I I ADDENDA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 1808· 136TH PLACE, NE / BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Ms. Mary Burg, Manager . Wetlands Section Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-U Olympia, WA 98504 August 10, 1989 SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation, Black River Corporate Park: Renton Dear Mary, 206/641-3982 FAX 206/641-3147 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA) is currently in the process of preparing a SEPA EIS for the City of Renton on the proposed Black River Corporate Park. Enclosed is a vicinity map which indicates the location of the project. As part of the assessment of the SEPA environmental elements, a wetland delineation study was conducted on the wetlands located on the proposed project. The wetlands are associated with the former Black River and Springbrook Creek. The purpose of this letter is to describe the delineation methodology used and to present the results of the wetland study. The City of Renton has requested that JSA contact the Wetlands Section of Ecology (ECOLOGY) and ascertain whether DOE will utilize the "old" wetland boundary as determined by Mary Burg in the letter dated April, 1987 (enclosed), or whether the new delineation utilizing the Joint Federal Methodology will be acceptable. The historical dialogue regarding these wetlands and ECOLOGY's jurisdiction is extensive. We are attempting to get clarification from ECOLOGY as to the appropriate method to use to identify the wetlands so that the wetland discussion in the DEIS will be accurately reflect the limits of wetlands subject to ECOLOGY jurisdiction. Enclosed are two maps which indicate the differences between the two different wetland boundaries. Please note that the map for the recently completed delineation which uses the three parameter approach is a rough approximation only based on our field work sketches. The flagged wetland edge has not yet been surveyed. The southeast corner of the wetland is particularly complex, and the edge we show on these sketches is a simplified delineation. -- -- - - • ·17.-~ •• BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST rREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPL.ANATIONl lOF WETI-ANO' TYPES' j G Veg&t&tDd WeelDnd ISaturated or SOASonally Floodod I. I§l OpO" \NaCor I PClmanently or Scml.Pcririancnur Flooded I _ Weeland Type Bounds", ____ Appraxl",st8 Wet:lond Boundary __ 'L1nesr Wetland Feature ....••.•• lncluded WeeJend ·Feature ~~pen.Water Channel u.. •• . C' I -Pipe . Dr I U vB.rt .. .. .. . ' .' " .' .' •• •• . . • • "\ .. • • . , •• . . , . , .' .' • -----... -• We.t1and Edge·ldentifi~d by EC.OLOGY· . '. (Burg, 4/87) • Scale Edge of Project: 1":; upprDX .• ,00' :::-:""0:::00000: -,,;,,:::---~--oo, '::, '_-_-,' :", · .......... 3 ...... ', .(... Wetland Edge . \. \ \ \ \,so ...... " ... (..~ .\, .... ,J"~ ......... ~ .. '... ~ ..... qO'i ......... "'< ...... ~"''''D ........ : ...... ~!! Figure 3 - -.. ----------... ------.. -------- WL F7/11611" 'F=i::~ . ...• -. 1101'151£/1. ~o •• .. :::.:. .... "'--... -----: :--: --:: .-.. -.. -...... : ..... -.......... /" .- ................. ~.~~.-----.. i-.~·.'::·.::· . . . .. \. . ' .' .' .' " " " . ' . ' " " . ' " . ' " .' .' .' .' .' " ." METRO Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981 ': · ' · , " ., · , ' . " · . " '. .' SiF,E'; ~ .-----..... . j , . . ' . · . i ' . .. , . j · . , . r .' , . , , , I · . I ' . -------- """0" .. _ •• Wetland Edge. Identified. by Jones & Stokes (6/89) using the" . Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology SLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST JREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl lOF WETLANO TYPES J GJ Vogocacod Wetland 'Saturated or $aO$OMlir Flooded I. ~ Opon Water JPcrmananUy or Scml.PcrinanenUy Flooded J :::-c::::,,:, '0'"" :;;=~:::_~,,:, ""<:: __ _ ......... : ... .is: I , ,~ , ,. , , __ Edge of Project scale 1" = approx. aDD' -:--Wetland Type Boundary ____ Approx'nlBCB Wetland Boundary _ t..1near Wetland Feature ..... _. Jncluded WetJand -FeatUre ~l::Jp~n. Wacer Channel u ... _ .• . -Pipe. or c;::ulve,rt f3 --Wetland Edge F7/.IIIl4.1 V- tto.!'!.n~~ _ ~!'~D _":.--.. -. __ ..................... : ....... .. " -, " , , ", " " ,. " " ". ': " " .' .' .' " " " " " " " .' " " . - METRO Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981 ". ;'1-, 'or ..... ~ .. (,,. , ,~ ...... '1'.(">-, , Figure J ............. d"o ........ ~~c ......... : ....... ~:JJ?D -----------------.. ---------- "':::::~~.-. /------,"C /"'--1 ----'~.:~ i::::: (: ,;-,--,_::/ '!":' -- t I ... I ~ " . , I .. ' ' • I I ' • ; I I 1 ' • T " "j I I I , ! .. . • I ~ i • J • I I • • T · .' , r " • : r J ! , . , . " .. .' " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m SEA-TAC AIRPORT 4 MILES o SOUTH CENTER S 180TH O LONGACRES :E ~ m '" (I) m --I (I) ~ ~ r-r-r-m !:!;! :c ~ RENTON VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-2- Methodology The wetland study was conducted using the new Joint Federal Methodology, which requires examination of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded sufficiently during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Areas possessing wetland hydrology are inundated either permanently or periodically, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. In order for an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all three of these parameters must be present Because it is often difficult to assess hydrology during the summer, wetland hydrology was assumed to be present in all areas that support wetland vegetation and contain hydric soils. . , The majority of the wetland edge was identified by visually approximating the edge, and then taking soil samples to determine the presence/absence of hydric soils associated with hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland edge was clearly discernable throughout a majority of the site, even in areas that have been recently disturbed. In the southeast portion of the site, the vegetation and soils were not obviously upland or wetland, and fourteen sampling plots were established to determine the edge of the wetland. Vegetation, soils, and any obvious hydrologic indicators were examined at each plot. Information was recorded on a separate data sheet for each plot. Copies of these data sheets are enclosed. Results Two wetlands are present on the subject property; each is described separately below, A third wetland that is off of the property is also described because it is near enough to the proposed development area that it would likely be adversely affected by development. #1: Central Disturbed Area. A large wetland is present in the central portion of the site; the area is surround by fill on the north, west, and east sides, and Greenbelt forest to the south. This wetland was cleared in late 1986 or early 1987, under the authority of a grading permit (SP-024-86) granted by the City of Renton. Vegetation. This area currently is a palustrine deciduous shrub wetland with small emergent areas interspersed throughout. Based on Corps of Engineers (COE) aerial photographs, the City of Renton Wetland Study (Canning, 1981), and ECOLOGY correspondence, this area supported a forested and shrub swamp prior to clearing. The existing shrub community has become established since the wetland forest was cleared; over time, if left undisturbed, the shrub community would mature into a forested wetland. I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-3- Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and red alder (~ D.!lml) saplings dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (Slilix spp.) and red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifern). Common snowberry (Syrophoricarpos BI.blls), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus djscolor), and Nootka rose (Rosa nootkana) occur occasionally throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), marsh speedwell (Yeronica scuttellata), soft rush auncus effusus), sedge (~ sp.), horsetail (Eqyjsetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtjca djojca), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), burreed (Xanthium strumariym), and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamern). Disturbance has affected the species composition, allowing intrusion by species such as Himalayan blackberry and Canada thistle. The community being reestablished is probably similar in species composition to the wetland that was present prior to clearing. Small pockets of emergent wetland occur within this disturbed area. They are characterized by the presence of common cattail (T}llha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and fireweed (fuIilobjym angustjfo!ia) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush (Scirpys mjcrocarpus) are scattered throughout the system. Snils. The southeast portion of this large wetland is somewhat transitional in nature. Most of the vegetation in this area is listed as facultative, and soils are light to medium brown (25Y 2/3 to 25Y 2/2) sandy silts and sandy loarns with some mottling. Data was collected at fourteen data points throughout this area to help clarify the wetland boundary; results are presented in Table 1. The methodology used to select data points is described in the joint federal wetland delineation manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et.al., 1989). Summary of Data Collected in the Southeast Portion of Wetland #1 Plot # Vegetation SQil Hydrology Result I, +1 wetland upland upland upland I, -1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, + 1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, + 1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +3 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -3 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, + 1 wetland upland upland upland 5, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -2 wetland upland upland upland I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-4- Three of the plots were determined to be upland based on soils, and the remaining eleven plots were wetland Although only 80% of plots in this area are wetland, we flagged the entire area as wetland. This was done for the following reasons: 1) based on aerial photographs and other sources, this area was wetland prior to disturbance; 2) the upland pockets represent scattered, isolated, micro topographic high spots, probably created during clearing and grading activity; and 3) it would be extremely difficult and not necessarily useful to identify and flag each isolated patch of upland within the wetland system. Hydrology. Portions of the wetland showed clear evidence of saturation, especially those areas where emergent species were present. The majority of the shrub system did not have any direct evidence of seasonal saturation, however there were reoccuring small depressions scattered throughout the area which indicated seasonal ponding. These areas were characterized by the presence of flattened vegetation and water stained leaf litter. #2: Northeast Shrub Swamp A palustrine deciduous shrub swamp is present in the northeast portion of the site. The wetland is bounded by the railroad to the northeast, an old roadway to the west, and fill from an active construction site to the south. Vegetation. The canopy is dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. Oregon ash is also common throughout. Shrubs present include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and willow. Soft rush and stinging nettles are common in the ground layer. The wetland is a shrub/forested swamp characterized by dense woody vegetation, standing water, and the presence of emergent species such as cattail and panicled bulrush. The area was apparently logged at some time as downed material is present in the wetland. SQils. Soils in the area are a very dense silt with some pockets of organic soil in the central portion of the wetland. The soils are clearly hydric, displaying gleyed colors of bluish grey (5Y5/1). Darker organic soils are located near the open water areas at the western edge of this portion of the site. Hydrology. The area contains a small open water area which appears to hold water throughout the year. The remainder of the area possesses high groundwater in the winter and spring. This high groundwater results from regionally high groundwater levels and seeps from the hillslope to the north. Although no obvious surface water connection was found, the region is also connected via subsurface flow to the open water ponds on the north side of the railroad tracks. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-5- #3: Historic Meander Channel A remnant meander of the Black River is present to the west of the property. It is not included in the proposed development, but was briefly evaluated due to the potential for it to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Vegetation. The horseshoe-shaped relic channel surrounds an "island" of upland forest The island is approximately 15 feet above the elevation of the wetland, and is dominated by black cottonwood with an understory of Himalayan blackberry and snowberry. The relic meander itself supports both shrub swamp and emergent marsh habitat. The northern portion of the meander contains a shrub swamp community dominated by willow. Red alder and black cottonwood are present in minor amounts. Soft rush and creeping buttercup dominate the ground layer. The western portion of the channel is approximately five feet wide and well-defined; this area contains an emergent marsh community dominated by common cattail. Along the edge of the Black River, a second type of emergent marsh community is present. The area contains a muddy substrate sparsely vegetated with spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) and marsh cinquefoil. This area is probably subject to a changing water regime as a result of flood management activities in the river. SQils. Soils are primarily an organic silt with lenses of sand. Soil color varies from a dark gray (10YR3/1) to nearly black. Mottling was noted in some areas. Hydrology. The hydrology of the area is controlled primarily by the forebay pond associated with the Black River pump plant. Soils in the meander are saturated to the surface throughout most of the year, and water ponds during winter storm events. Greenbelt Forest In addition to these three wetlands, the forested riparian area located between the identified wetlands and the remains of the former Black River was also field checked for the presence of wetlands. Based on the three parameter methodology, JSA determined the majority of the area to be upland. The northern fringe of the forested zone is wetland and was flagged as such during the field delineation. The determination conflicts with previous determinations; Canning in 1981 and Burg in 1987 identified this as wetland forest It is dominated by large black cottonwood and red alder; larger cottonwood trees in this area are five feet in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Oregon ash are also common here. The shrub layer contains salmonberry, red-osier dogwood, red elderberry, snowberry, and Indian plum. Groundcover species include horsetail, creeping buttercup, stinging nettles, lady fern, and wood fern. Soft rush occurs in wetter pockets around the margins of the forest. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-6- The soils in the majority of the forested area are clearly upland; a silty sand with a color of 5Y4/4 and no mottling. Along the northern edge of the forest, soils are hydric, possessing a color of 2.SY 4/2 and distinct mottles. The soils are well drained and show no evidence of active hydrology or seasonal saturation. In addition, the elevation of the forested zone is more than five feet higher than _ the high water mark within the forebay ponds. This forested zone has the characteristics of a classic floodplain forest: large cottonwood trees with an open understory and a not well developed groundflora This portion of the property has been designated as Permanent Greenbelt by the City of Renton through the rezone process, that is why the area was not cleared along with the remainder ofthe site. The Greenbelt designation implies that the area cannot be developed and must be left undisturbed. Summary Given the historical and ongoing sensitivity of this site and its wetlands, we need direction from you and your staff as to whether ECOLOGY will require the wetland delineation from 1987 or the 1989 delineation using the three parameter method to be used to assess impacts of the proposal on wetlands. In order to produce an environmental assessment document which includes accurate information and impact assessment we are requesting your direction on this issue as soon as possible. If we can provide any further clarification, or if you or your staff wish to meet out on the site, please do not hesitate to call. Thank-you for your time on this issue. DS/RD/je cc: City of Renton Sincerely, 4~~ Dyanne Sheldon . Wetland Ecologist /1i;ei/-~-1~ Robert Denman Hydrologist I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) client: Ke.1\1 t5fl project:~o/JCR. O#t, fa..S" Date:~~I2jE1w.,.pp:.e,l.:q.L... ___ "":"":"_ plot No.: \ 1 ~ I of: 1"1 vegetation Indicator STR: ~T£re~e~s~~__ % Cover status !!H=-er",b""s~ ___ % Cover 1- 2 • 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover 1 .1;'oyulu'Ok I (\~ /Xl.rf- 2.1?U~5 d,~d 3.~ <if' Indicator status o.:..·,:·, .. ··vo{ Percent of 'lSpec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ---- Indicator status (Ilc.w .fAc.. --(05'«>_ v) fllc..u _ fPc...f Other indicators:~~~ ______ ~ ________ ~ __ ~~ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes / No_ Basis: ? $0"7.. of daw.lC:a¢ ¥(?p 0/I1l-rAe Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No_ A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 5"nd~ IIlgm Texture B: ..... 5aayt~"-____ _ Mottled? Yes __ No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0-5" ;,5V S(:J Gleyed? Yes_ No Depth to Mottle or Gley:~ ________________ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: __ . ________ __ Depth to Till: ______ --~~--~--~--- Hydric soils? Yes __ NO:::Z: Basis: rc.IO( 00 n1c~lr~,S'fl\~, Hydrology / Inundated? Yes __ No...:L.. Dept~ of standing water:.----.,...,------------- saturated soils? Yes No./ Depth to saturated soil : _________ __ otherindicators: ____ ==: ____ ~~-_______ ~--~----~~--------------- Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No..L.-Ba sis :.,.!-lII\i~~ lL.....;·.l..lnfl.tI .... , <:.,..o..Ll(~; ':.:,' ______________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ________________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No / Wetland determination: Wetland --Non-wetland v General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) O;'f-. rMf, l] Plot No.: 1 J -I of:--"-"q,--STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover l. 2. 3. Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s___ % Cover 1.1IInu'. (vb, •. 2. 1'",,"lu~ H IU,",,,,,,,, 3. R"k\'.r.> d,~(-O\cr Indicator S ta tus ..,H""e~r-=b",s,-__ _ % Cover VI. Ju(.';,..r" ef .(~JS ~'5 d,'"'''' '~ 2 -~""""''''''tUiL)o;; '-<!f~ ;;(0 ( 3. C,r",,~r1 r).(v~wx... 15 ---,:r: 'Xw,ril\, UP' .. S-t,uflld','l.n-'=> 5. Rvl1\U, C:f1bPv5 5 6. Indicator status 'f t,c.. F'lc. r 110 .. )- Indicator status fllcW fAc.w f1lc..U- fAe.. FAc.vJ Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66q. Other indicators:~~~~~_-r~ __ ~~~ __ ~ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes:..z No __ Basis: ? c"o"lo fAG or £fl(bJ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: O-Y' Texture A: :x:,~ 1m .. Texture B: SIRJ;;;."" - Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: s.5y 3111 Gleyed? Yes_ No.L Depth to Mottle or Gley: i Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _ Depth to Till: ' Hydric soils? Yes ./ No__ Basis:~r~~.w)~§~h~H~< ___________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'-s-o-;-i~l-:------- Otherindicators: --,-~ Wetland hydrology? Yes =z N 0__ Ba sis: .,--"""'"-,ii=1r:r..' "" :::./£!./'I~';l.::c:X:.....;.. _______ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ____________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland --,/ Non-wetland, ____ _ I Ge~eral site comments: I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t' n.n Project: Be. a ,We: ,'2M\; Date:....s;04/~'j.L._~_~ __ '__ __ .!I\I~_ Plot No.: d) -i \ of: .....u./'i_ STR : ____ _ Vegetation Trees % Cover l. 2. J. Saplings/ shrubs ;It L' . . % Cover Indicator status uH~e~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover Indicator status ~ 1.!?,t;.N\"Or..u\v:;' (o!.f"'" ff.) 2.IG .. Hr.u Cfl~r\)S 10 3. S olar,..-.." du\(.AA"'.''l<_ iO 4. C.(~:.<. sy. S S.J(,.lnu.1S ,,_t{'u';(J$ r: 6. Indicator status fAC-10 -r liCVJ rAe. _l.Iop,)I"", irICr.CWJ\(b.. I 2. S0.9..\ ~ '"'f. 3. Corf1'JS Sidoot' .... ~o 10 10 I I I I I I I' I I I (tC'f\\ \1"'.0.0\. Percent ofl\spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /OO? other indicators:~,-~'~'~ __ ~~~ __ ~~~~~~_ Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No __ Basis: Irrn. 1,,/ ¥,dcrr.tfY/4I'hq:p. ffle. -(f't:.'V soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: Q-'i' Texture A: Sl~ Texture B: ---- Mottled? Yes~ No __ Mottle color:.6L!C Matrix color:,,!, '¥.;) Gleyed? Yes __ No~ Depth to Mottie 0 Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 .... i-n-c"':"h-e-s-:------------- Depth to Till: ( H d ' '1 ::---~.......,"'=---=--.,--:--"'7 .jj" r till i Y r~c so~ s? Yes-\.£-No __ Basl.s: het," I~ tl'~C!l!rc11·1. (i/rJ/S Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No __ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'-s-o'i""l-:------------ Otherindicators: (}!,;;-)(f fso&. ['_ILI~: l7Yic?).;eb .:Y; ii(ll.~d,/~, '1aJ.;'\. Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No__ Basis: I; , (. Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ______________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --/ Non-wetland ____ _ General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t Q.,n project:i=G ~. 0 .Pf' "Pno\; Date:-J(?..,.I-n ...... _1-_"-_I-__ -><M ___ Plot No.: :<-/" of: {If STR: Vegetation Indicator Trees % Cover status ~H~e~r~b~s~ __ _ % Cover ~ 1. :Lr.w: 02.J~.,(;S b ". 2 '-~ ..... "(l(-,,k.~ '¥1'1S \ -------- Indicator Status fiiCv.' ffic.c v 1. 2. 3. !: b-.V\M (ci/ f',,-,tlW (u..IAV- 5. .., saplings/ 2s~h~ru~b~s~_____ % Cover . ~ 1.70",,1.<, \rl~ 90 2. F,j(,J'; ,",)btu.-5 3. Indicator St"atus f"IIc File... 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: iDO Other indicators: (J..lX!"JlA. '5f~ \.u:wa..s Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL NO ___ Basis: ________ ~ __ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ NO __ A-Horizon depth: O-'l" Texture A: Texture B: r.lo"U4 "If /' Mottled? Yes V No Mottle color: Matrix color:'?i:· ~;.~ .. ~>1Io Gleyed? Yes ---No ---Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -=-i-n-c"!'"h-e-s-:------- Depth to Till: ( Hydric soils? Y~e-s-V7-7~N~0--~B~a-s-1~·S-::::::~ ________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No ~De~~ of standing water:._~~ ______ _ Saturated soils? Yes ___ No Depth to saturated·soil: __________ __ otherindicators: Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s--,/~N~0-_-_-_-~B~a-s-1'·s--:-e-c-.~-~-/-~-4-i~)------------- Atypical situation? Yes No cornment: _____________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No wetland determination: Wetland ---II Non-wetland _______ _ General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t DO project:e;>=.£ aife.-eno\:. Date:--'''''-j/,-!1..1_~_L..:_~ __ --'!.\J __ Plot No.: 'i "" of: i'i vegetation Indicator STR: ~T~r~e~e~s~___ t Cover ~S~t~a~t~u~s __ H~e~rb~s_______ % Cover 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs ~l ~~l ?\< 2 :'P~ '-.cJv, 3. ~ Cover 50 I-W Indicator st·atus Sf A c 7-l'I~(. F"c_ ---- Indicator Status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IQQC/.. Other indicators: . . HydroPhyticvegeta~t'i-o-n~?~Y~e-s--I~,:~N~O~~--~B~a-s~i~s~:-_-_~~-_~ ________________ _ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No A-Horizon depth: Texture A: c/aty ~fi Texture B:_-::-__ _ Mottled? Yes~ NO~ Mottle color: Matrix color:'; :: 1/ ?/.;> Gleyed? Yes ___ NO-lL Depth to Mottle or Gley: I Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: _______ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y·-:e--s:Z--""T':":N""O-=-~ __ ---::B""a-s""i~s-:---I-, .. -rf,r-'l· ., / (!/;ui/lrs / Hydrology Inundated? Yes No ~DePtP of standing water: saturated soils? Yes---No / Depth to saturated--s-o~i~l-:----------- otherindicators: ------ wetlandhydrology-=?~Y~e-s-.-:;N~-O===~B~a-s-i~s-:--~.-,:-,.-,,-.~)-:-)r.--~------ Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland --/'. Non-wetland ____ _ I General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~' t lUI Proj ect: e. f', 0 if', -eM \; Date :--J;04!'-.j.L._.f-:4._..:.i_,-__ ..!!J..:...-_ Plot No. : LJ, +::2 of:.J(~41--_STR: ____ _ Vegetation Trees l. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover % Cover 60 '3'eJ 10 Indicator Status llH£eAr~b~s~ ____ % Cover Indicator St'atus F'fI c. ffle.. .fAc.,w ~ 1 ~ ,Jt.>tiur; dfu;o:, '60 ~ 2 • V-WlYlIC..r .. ~...,fu.b.Ia. ~O 3. '5 0 1M", (h du\c CII"'I'!'<.. i t:D !: '"i?,,,,,; uflwl.;, <¥)~ ~, 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW I and/or FAC: IOO°1e Indicator Status Other indicators: ' Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y-e-S-~-~N~O~-_-_-B-a-s~i-s-::~~~~ ______________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: 0 -'4 Texture A:~11 .-k."IOI/,!I\Texture B: ______ _ Mottled? Yes J No Mottle color: i Matrix color: ;)" rll! '1ta Gleyed? Yes No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~ _______ I ___ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _ Depth to Till: I' Hydric soils? Y~e--s--J~-N-o~~-_---B-a-s-~~·s--::~~~~~ _____________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes No./ Deptl1 of standing water:._---,--:--_____ _ Saturated soils? Yes ___ No_~_ Depth to sa~urated soil:,~----------- Otherindicators: H.t,jdrr:z.h:t..,,., ~-r: (J 1I1fli/ ,17/ 5-;-d ali i, it. 'lQ:!~ '1= :iJj. \0./ Wetland hydrology? Yles:JZ!No__ Basis: ... ; Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: __________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --~/ Non-wetland, ____ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 'Q~t QO Project: Bye. :0 .Pt,;., 7an):.. Da te: --,,0,",!,-:1.J._-I...l_,-,~~ __ ......... J__ Plot No. : of: /'1 STR: ____ _ Vegetation ATAr~e~e~s~_____ % Cover Indicator ~S~t~a~t~u~s~_ cH~e~r~b:s_______ % Cover Indicator status l. 2. 3. 1/ 1. 0...,t"\(_V~ clt~s »-a5". k2. 501'\1('.';"" clul~ ~ 10'10 "/. 3 • '"Ru """" c.r l"lsft}" ~ 5 'Ie 4. 5. 6. Saplings/ 2s~h~ru~b~s___ % Cover Indicator St:atus Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Other indicators: ~~-=~-~~~-~-~----Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: _____________________ _ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ A-Horizon depth: O-K Texture A: Texture B: __ ....",..-:-:-;-__ Mottled? Yes..L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: Sy '1/1 Gleyed? Yes_ No___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ________ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e--s--V7~~N~O~~-_-~B~a-s-i~s-:~-_-_-_-_~ ___________ ~ ____________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water:, __ ~~------------- Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated soil: _______ _ Otherindicators: Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s--=:?--.~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-l~·S-·-.-~-'-;v-.-)~-~-J~----------------- Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland'; Non-wetland _____ _ General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ;t I~ ~~~~~c~.A o 1ft;". 70.0 'f, J Plot No.: I-J, -I of: {~ STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T£r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover l. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover 80 6\.0 .5 Indicator status ..,H!.Ee",r""b",s~ ___ _ Indicator status % Cover Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 661. Indicator status ffic.u- tAC.v~ Other indicators:~~~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ _ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-iL-No ___ Basis: ____________________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___ A-Horizon depth: 0-(2' Texture A: Sc!.n~ (Po/> Texture B: __ -: __ ,..,..._ Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: -Matrix color: K "V 'il3 Gleyed? Yes ___ No y( Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ___________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ________ _ Depth to Till:_----~---------~ ____ ___ Hydric soils? Yes II No__ Basis: :i<>Mr4I/QtJ.ro wI mo1i4,s . u i Hydrology Inundated? Yes No./ Depth of standing water:._--:,.,,-____________ _ Saturated soil~Yes--NO~ Depth to saturated soil: __ ~ ______ _ Otherindicators: H!J~" 5,<PiGocJ 1;C'L§f«;/ em WL v\?Q '$ :)0 if<· Wetland hydrology? v: es -.:!J'No___ Ba sis : ..,... ________ ~1J _____________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _____________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --/ Non-wetland. _______ _ General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 'Q~t n.n project:B}, fl. O.PfC.?M'j:,. Date:...l<C2'..f.!_'1 ..... _(..;_i!.: __ :l-__ ...l\!L..._ Plot No.: I:f -g, of:-,/~'I_ STR: ____ _ Vegetation Trees 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs '.; Cover '.; Cover Indicator -,!Sc,!,t,£!ac!.t.J;u!,2s,--_ !.!H.5e£.r.!<b~s,--___ :f; Cover Indicator St:atus t 1. "A-tJ~ (./Jl<.:(l<\..rr..w.. a 0'7,. ;It 2. R.-unCJIlu> c~ 10 3. c.f'ilUo"'> (JJ\"~ < 5 4 • v'eJ\Gl>'lIc.r ... ~o!"-' <:. 5. Snia",,,,,, <I" 1«_.. <. 5 6. Indicator status fA6.u r fl<.J.;:) f fk:.,v~ 0&_ tAc...· Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IDO other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-S-~~~N~0-_-_-_~B~a-s-1~·S-:::::~ ___________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No A-Horizon depth: Q-I(,' Texture A:~.~ Texture B: Mottled? Yes~ No Mottle color: ..4./2'9# Matrix color: .2.5u Ui!@ \ Gleyed? Yes_ No ..; Depth to Mottle or Gley: i Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ________ _ Depth to Till: ___ ~------~--r-- Hydric soils? Yes 17 No __ Basis:....c.;C;..Q!L/!.:i02Z.o..::I+~m~a~I/~k.s:!:oo!.. __________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:._~~ _______ _ saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil: ________ _ otherindicators: ---- Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s-~-'~~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-l~'S-:--~-,-tA-~~~tn-e~cPri------------- Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: _______________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --,/ Non-wetland. ____ _ General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) o If: . 70.0 E-II Plot No.: t-/, -3 of: 74 STR: Trees % Cover 1- 2_ 3. Saplings/ ss~h~ru~bss____ % Cover 04' 1-ropvll.'" j( oLhc'-I"'f'>. L{0 *= 2. II If 'u~ ..... Ur.rtCL I.{ 0 3. '61I)fI"por.as=pos £&ba.. Indicator status .... He,..r..,b""s ........ ___ % Cover Indicator st=atus file. flk:... .f1\w 'n. ~"": '-\0 .. 2 • C.10,~M o.rv,u.';c... a.. S k3 -JOt')W5 Qjf'-'1tJ~ ~'j 4 -~JI"<4< C<"1\>f"-'S S 5. 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 9Q ---- Indicator Status -I AC-«='''''~ FACJ.J - f"AC.L0 fA ,-,,,,;' Other indicators: / Hydrophytic vegeta-~t7i-o-n~?~Y~e-s~/r-N~0===~B~a-s~i~s-:~~~~~ ________________ __ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No_ A-Horizon depth: O-pll Texture A: c.lNf /cy.!l Texture B: ;So.c,d~ loa... Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: Matrix color: _______ _ Gleyed? Yes_ No v' Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 7i -n-c :-"h-e-s-:--------- Depth to Till:~-~~(~---~--~---~ Hydric soils? Yes L7 No Basis: (>011{ ltJ/tlJdikl.- A -HM '=21 ~ 1.:;~ Y /J 0"1> tB -hel I~. J.5</ '1/-1 wi mdl/.u Hydrology C"'; ;=,,~rl "'-so Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Depth of standing water: saturated soils? Yes No v' Depth to saturated'--s-o'i~l-:----------- otherindicators: ---- Wetland hydrology-~?~Y-e-s===~N~o--V7~~B~a-s-l"S~:----------------------- Atypical situation? Yes No cornment: _____________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --;::/ Non-wetland '----I General Site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION , (Three Parameter Methodology) client: R~t' (til project:~> .e 011,"", -roo'f. Date: -,,"41-_'1"-, ~4-_.D--J~,-__ -"J,-_ Plot No. : !2 ~ \ of: H STR: ____ _ vegetation ~T~re~e~s~___ % Cover 1. 2. 3 • Saplings/ shrubs % Cover -( 1 Tc.r.'l'~ 11i (hC\' ... ·~ % 2. S".,::c,:c..v ~ '(r.LUIl10lj>.--< l5 3. R.;i~J~ '5'f~t-jc.l:n I;" < IS Indicator status uH.:=.er""b,..s"-___ % Cover Indicator st'atus rAe... FIk..U File., :t 1. Or!,u,d,;,CA. '601. 2 . ..tl1h~r'()rro .(~'llf..rl\'()I.. 3. 101", .. 10.. ""'""~.~ 4 • 5. 6. Indicator Status fAG-! < 5,..1" F 1)<.- fAG Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: !Do Other indicators:~~_,~,~~ __ ~~ __ ~~~--~ ___ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-L No __ Basis: drMl!dJOIat *p tAe...>f UJJli1.f~ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: Q-X-Texture A: Texture B: :511r.:1/~-- Mottled? Yes_ NoL Mottle color: Matrix color: 0!.'5 l~ 31;; Gleyed? Yes No Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ___________ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e-s-_-_-_~N~o-,~~--~B~a-s-1"S~'-'::::~ _________________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No / De p / of standing water:,_-:--:-_________ _ saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil: ________ _ Otherindicators: -- Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e--s===~N~O-/~'--B~a-s-1~·S-·-.~/~Vor-e-u-,,-6r"a-(Q--:-V-~~s-;JS~-'------- Atypical situation? Yes No comment: _________ • _________ -, __ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No / Wetland determination: wetland ______________ Non-wetland--l:..-____ _ General Site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t· (La project:e,y; ti!. 0 if;;. 70.0'f,. Date:...J:04t:...'1.L_.{.._.JL:~I-__ ....Illc..._ Plot No.: c; of jil... of:....j/::z./I_ STR: ____ _ Vegetation Trees 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover % Cover ~ l?Of'vi..s iflLhc~ <i'D 2 • CCnnv':. '1101 ot\ 0{'Qi14.. j 0 3 :1("'\>'0':> '¥'poL w.d 0.5 .5 Indicator status Indicator St"atus File. f II c. ""' f1K.W Herbs t Cover >\ 1. "RCJI'lul\wlu.~~ ~S ).'2. VQ.fOf\oCA. 'ic..,t~1a:l S .ot-3 • ;JLlI',c..1.JS eSt\f>os 5 " 4 • urj "..c.. cl\ ~ i (J~ 5 5. 6. " d b1"'I'CV,,~~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Indicator Status tllLW 08<. F~(..v.l J;M....w other indicators: " Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y-e-S-~~~N~O-_-_-_~B~a-s~i~s-:~:::: ____________ __ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No A-Horizon depth: 0-10 Texture A: $oW (ea.", Texture B: ____ -::-____ _ Mottled? Yes..L No_" _ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;; 'Y 'II"' Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ____ ~. ________ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 inches: ___________ _ Depth to Till:"~-~~---~--~--___ Hydric soils? Yes~ No___ Basis: __________________________ ~ __ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ NO~ Depth of standing water:" __ ~~----------- Saturated soils? Yes __ NO~ Depth to saturated soil: __________ _ otherindicators: . Wetland hydrology? Yes~ No __ Basis:~d~E~~~~~~~"~~~'~ ________________ __ Atypical situation? Yes No comment: ________________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland ---./ Non-wetland. _______ _ General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t Cln Project: e, ~, 0 =i'~' ?M'£; Date:---,,04!_'j.L.._f...J).._-'-l~'-__ -"~'--_ Plot No.: 5, -\ of:-1.{ ...... "_ STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover 1- 2. 3. Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s~_____ % Cover ;II 1."Po\.okf> jr"t<.IJUjG.. 75 2. Ac:.u-o1o...Uoph,\Hl:{I\ 3 ;KvbUl 'i~ClzAll5 Indicator status uH~e~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover Indicator S~atus ~ 1.Od,,'''-.. cf~,,,,'-::<.> 2 '.B.f.t~1/. i:cu... 10 3 .1~"""(,,,...,IL's rtf'r.~ iO 4 -VQ~ <,'1,\ I( LI. ~~~.iil.;;~;t·,_ <, S 5. 6. ,ior.',,,,,,~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /00 Other indicators: Indicator Status FA 0->-' ~ 1/ c.!.>J FAC-W 08- ~~-=~----~~--~~~-----Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No ___ Basis: ______________________ __ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ A-Horizon depth: O-IE! .\ Texture A: <,1\1 lo«C', Texture B: ____ --:~- Mottled? Yes-L No __ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;; '::'r r;,I;;;;. Gleyed? Yes ___ No ____ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 'i-::n-:c";"h-e-:s:-:-------------- Depth to Till: . Hydric soils? Y~e--s:J2:--~~N~o----~B~a-s:-1~·S:--::~~~~~ __________________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes NO~ Depth of standing water: Saturated soil~es~ NO~ Depth to saturated--s-o~i7l-:------------ Other indicators: Wetland hydrology~?~Y~e-S-~--~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-1~·S:--:~A'(-,S-:-j;:-r:-~-,7;'------------------ Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ________________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --\/ Non-wetland ----- General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 12~t 1l.,Q Project:e;J;,€. O,Pf':,?aof.. Date:--l;04!~'1L_I-_:D._.:l-__ ....:J!L-_ Plot No.: Ij -:J. of: 1'1 STR' ____ _ Vegetation Trees % Cover Indicator Status ~H~eAr~b~s~ __ _ % Cover Indicator status 1- 2. 3. l\> 1. JufMl> oL\\..,~(J:; 4. OZ)· rPtC.W '1:2. o ... ·hu-d\o\<.<~ a.6 ~ fllc;t Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s~ _____ % Cover -'It l..?opJlus t(lCh~F-'1&" 2. i<1lb.:5 ~,*,d~ ::( 3 • ~'r:blXV$ f"ru:..o..mc61.. Indicator Status File.- fl\'-W f/-lc..U 3. Rru..;(K.J.Jl v > (~.pU"l'; lOt'. tR'-W 4 • c.'J.N4-<Cf S "/,. 5 • e..,rf<W'" ('"'w~".... S j/. F~.<..U" 6 • Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: tOO""" Other indicators: . / Hydrophyticvegeta~t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s--J~~N~o-_-_-_~B~a-s~i~s-,-_-_~-_-_-_________________ _ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: 0 -K • Texture A: Texture B :sc::;y~ ioC:;;;:. Mottled? Yes-L No __ Mottle color: (I rwi/4 V: (J' Matrix color:/D-jr; ~6 Gleyed? Yes __ No____ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 '"i'::n-=c';"h-e-s-:-------------- Depth to Till::~--~-~~~~------Hydric soils? Yes ____ No:? Basis: ________________________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No ~ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated--s-o~i'l-:------------ otherindicators:-=~~----~----~~~--~~--_r--~----------------Wetland hydrology? Yes N0...L.. Basis: :7,) .. a!I(·,.,r,;rr.5 Atypical situation? YeS--No Comment: Normal circumstances? Yes No ------------------------- Wetland determination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ -4'.lC-. __ _ General site Comments: r·-. I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Regulatory Branch Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor Shore lands Management Shore lands and Coastal Zone Management Program State of Washington Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-ll Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 Dear Mr. Williams: .. ' .... ~.' We ere in receipt of your letter of June 9, 1987, regarding First City Equities near the Black River in the City of Renton. You asked for information concerning our regulatory process Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Personnel from the Seattle District first visited the site on November 14, 1985, at the request of the Alterra Corporation. We concluded that, although there were wetlands present on the site, they were not considered adjacent wetlands and, therefore, were not under our jurisdiction. We informed the Alterra Corporation of this determination by letter of December 16, 1985. On November 13, 1986, the Corps of Engineers published new regulations which became effective January 12, 1987. These regu- lations provide a clarification of the definition of waters of the United States. The new regulations state that waters which are or would be used as habitat by migratory birds are considered waters of the United States. By letter of February 18, 1987, we informe~ Ms. Barbara Moss of First City Equities of the clarification in our new regula- tions. We requested her to contact our office regarding permit procedures which may be required to fill wetlands on the Black River Technological Psrk site. As a result of our February 18, 1987 letter, First City Equi- ties met with us and later sent-us considerable documentation that convinced uS that a substantial amount of work had been done on I I I I I I I I I • I :. , il I ~ il t ~ I I , I • -2- the site under our December 16, 1985, directive which said the wetlands were not under Department of the Army jurisdiction. Accordingly, we concluded that the work may be completed under our December 16, 1985, directive and no further coordination with our office is required. We informed MIl. Barbara }!oss of this determi- nation by letter of March 4, 1987. If you have questions concerning our involvement in the First City Equities site at Black River, Renton, Washington, call Mr. Sam Casne, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Warren E. Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch 24 June 1987 Wang #7289s Disc 4714 .~/OP-RF BA~r#:91 1~ ]1.. . Reg Br Fi e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , DEPARTMENT Or ECOLOGY Warren Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O.· Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98134 Dear Hr. Baxter: June 9,1987 On Harch II, 1987 Ecology issued a stop work order on a site owned by First City Equities adjacent to the Black River in the City of Renton. A field inspection on April 6, 1987 by Ecology staff confirmed that the extent of wetlands as mapped in the City of Renton Wetlands Study, 1981, is accurate and indicated the extent of associated wetlands under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Our examination found the following indicators present: I)a predominance of vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions (e.g. Oregon ash, black cottonwood, willow, red-osier dogwood, etc.); 2) the presence of hydric soils (Woodinville series); and 3) hydrology consisting of inundation and saturation by surface and ground waters, permanently and/or periodically during the growing season. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed descriptions of the physical and biological conditions on site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p. Mr. Warren Baxter June 9, 1987 Page 2 • We would appreciate any information you can provide us concerning this area that you might have developed under your authority granted by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, we may ~equest technical assistance in the development of appropriate mitigation alternatives for the loss of this valuable wetland habitat. Thank you for your consideration. JRW: la Enclosure cc: Don Erickson, City of Renton Terra Prodan Mary Burg Don Beery Sincerely, /?;{(~/I;.¢'I? .. Joseph R. Will iams, Supervisor ./ Shorelands Management Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- STATE OF WASIIINCWN DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY .IIJ" .'1,.'" PI'-II • O/l'mp; •. WJ,h,ngtu" <lliSOHrll • (!fJU) ';;'J-6(XI() April 27, 1987 Mr. Ronald G. Neleon . Director, Building & zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Re.: Determination of Extent of Associated Wetlands, Proposed Site of Black River Corporate Park, Ren~on, WA Dear Mr. Nelson: In response to your request for assistance, I visited the proposed site of the Black River corporate Park development in order.to determine the extent of associated wetlands under jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. On April 6, 1987, Terra Prod an and I met on site with Don Erickson of your department, Barbara Moss, and other representatives of First City Equities and their contractors. I spent a total of seven hours on the site examining the vegetation, soils, surface waters, and topography. The following comments as to the extent of associated wetlands on the subject property are based on my observations during that visit and on my review of a number of historical documents including the city of Renton Wetlands Study (Williams and Canning, 1981) and the Draft Enyironmental Impact Statement for Black River Office Park Rezone (R.W. Thorpe and Assoc. for city of Renton, 1981). Based on the foregoing, I have concluded that the extent of associated wetlands on the site includes all of the areas shown as "vegetated wetland" in the city of Renton Wetlands Study (Fig. 3). As you are aware, a significant portion of the site has been cleared, graded, and partially filled. As a result, much of the vegetation which was present on the site in 1981 has been removed and the topography and soils greatly altered or disturbed. The vegetation and soils which remain, however, indicate that the area was correctly mapped and identified as wetland by the City of Renton in 1981. At present, both vegetated and cleared areas are characterized by saturated hydric soils, and the vegetated areas are dominated by species adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 1987 Page 2 Due to the recent clearing and grading activities, little ' remains of the emergent wetland which occupied the old railroad grade bisecting the forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. I found only a few scattered patches of reed canarygrass, softrush, and smartweed amid the downed timber and churned mud on the eastern end of the site. The forested wetland which remains is characteristic of an increasingly rare habitat in the state of Washington: mature riparian forested wetland. The overstory is dominated by black cottonwood and Oregon ash with lesser amounts of willow and alder. Many of these trees are well over 100 ft tall and up to 5 ft' in diameter. The dense shrub layer is composed of deciduous broadleaved species including red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and elderberry. Herbaceous species include nettle, creeping buttercup, lady fern, sedges, and rushes. The forest floor is undulating, as is typical of floodplains of the larger rivers in the Puget Lowland, and the distribution of understory species reflects this microtopographic variation. The majority of the understory species occupy the slopes and crests in wet and saturated soils. In the lowest areas, where the soils are saturated or covered by standing water, sedges and rushes are the predominant understory species, with skunk cabbage at the easternmost end of the property. As time was limited, we did not walk beyond the eastern property line, but it appeared that the wetland may extend beyond it. Water ponds in the cleared areas where the undulations have been graded flat. In virtually every area that I visited that had been cleared and not yet filled, soils were saturated, soupy, or covered with standing water1 one of our party sank knee-deep in muck and nearly lost his boot crossing the center of the site. Soil test pit logs made in 1979 verify that the site is underlain by saturated hydric soils of the Woodinville series (Thorpe and Associates, 1981). It is my conclusion that the entire wetland is "associated" because it is in proximity to, and both influences and is influenced by the Black River and springbrook Creek, which are both shorelines of the state. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 1987 Page 3 As identified in the City of Renton wetland study, the Black River riparian forest is the most valuable wetland within the city. The destruction of a large portion of this wetland represents a significant loss to the natural heritage of the state of Washington as well. Efforts to mitigate, restore, and prevent further degradation to this ·site should be undertaken without delay. We are anxious to assist you in these efforts to ensure that the functions and values of this system are not diminished. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 206/459- 6790. cc: D. Rodney Mack Joseph R. Williams Donald Beery Terra Prodan Sincerely, ~(,~ Mary E. Burg Wetlands Ecologist Shorelands and CZM Program Jay Manning, Attorney General Washington State Department of Game Washington State Department of Fisheries U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlifs Service Barbara E. Moss, First City Equities • • • • • :. • :. i , 1. , • '. • :. • • :. i . • '. • Regulatory Branch Ms. Barbara Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 1 BOO Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear MS. Moss: ! .. *R 4 19fI7 (;J\l)I'H:./ CW/ ,j"~:> 2 March 1987 Disc: a:sam Reference: Black River Technological Park . This' is in response to your February 27, 1987 letter concerning Black , River Technological Park. We have reviewed the information that you provided in your Fe~ruary 27, 1987 letter. Based upon the information provided, it appears that a Significant amount of work has already been conducted on the site. This work took place under the direction of our December 16, 1985 letter which said the work was not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction and Department of the Army authorization was not required to place filIon the site. Accordingly, wa have determined that the work may be completed under the December l~ 1985 authorization and no fUrther coordination is required with this office. ' If you have any questions I you may contact mysel f or Mr. 5ar.1 Casne at 764-3495. Sincerely, C~P-RF '," . J"u... '. ~P-RF , SEt- . COfi!.IO lsI Vernon E. Cook Chief, operations Division Reg Br file ," I , il II I ;1 ) il II I. , 'I I il II II I :1 il I II i i I I -3 March 1987 NPSOP-RF HEHORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECTr Black River Technological Park Wang #5423s - Disc #715 2 Uarch 1987 1. Background, In Novlllllber of 1985-the Seattle District inspected a proposed development in wetland. near the Black River, Duwamish River, King County in -Renton, Washington. The Seattle Di.trict determined wetlanda were present on the site but the wetland. were nat sdjacent to the Black River and the use, degredation or de.truction of these wetlanda would nat sffect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands on the site were not aubject to Department of the Amy pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applicant was notified.of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (encloeed). No permits were required fram this office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle Diatrict notified the developer that our interpretetion of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory bird., and that work an the site would require prior authorization by thia office. 2. Meetins. _On 12 Karch, representatives {ren' the developer and the Seattle District met to disculs jurildiction over the site. Those preaent were Barbara Moss, First City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineer; Cbar1ea Blumenfeld, Attorney for the developer, and 8alll CAIne, Hilte Bowlus, Karen Northup, and Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle Diatrict Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a chronology of eventl that led up to the development a. it exists today. We asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which .he did. (See enclosed letter and photos.) Based on the information required, we concluded that 70 to 75 percent of the .ite bad been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February 1987 letter. 3. Conclusion. The Bite haa baen eubetantially modified. The applicant I~s cleared, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the eite. Thie vork vas done under the Seattle Diatrict'. letter of 16 Decembar 1985. Barbara MOBS said the warkwauld be campleted by the end of the summer of 1987. Based on these consideratione, the work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive and no further authorization fraD this office i. required. Encla 8amue 1 !I.. Casne Chief, Environmental and Procea.ing Section I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- NPSOP-RF 2 March 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Black River TechnolQgical Park 1. Background: In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a proposed development in wetlands near the Black River, Duwamish River, King County in Renton, Washington. The Seattle District determined wetlands were present on the site but the wetlands were not adjacent to. the Black River and the use, degredation or destruction of these wetlands would not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands' on the site were not subject to Department of the Army pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applica~~ W8S notified of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (enclos~)~) No permits were required from this office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle District notified the developer that our interpretation of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior authorization by this office(l"".lu",,l.) 2. Heeting. On 12 Marcb, representatives from the developer and the Seattle District met to discuss jurisdiction over tbe site. Those present were Barbara Hoss, First City EquitYI Robert Road, Engineer; Charles Blumenfeld, Attorney for the developer I and 8am Casne, Hike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. Barbara Hoss outlined a cbronology of events that led up to the development as it exilts today. We asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which she did. (See enclosed letter and photos.) Based on the information required, we concluded that 70 to 75 percent of the site had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February 1987 lattar. 3. Conclusion. The site has been substantially modified. The applicant has cleared, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the site. This work was done under the Seattle District's letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara Moss said the work would be completed by the end of tbe summer of 1987. Based on these considerations, the work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive and no further authorization from this office is required. Encls ~~£~ Chief, Environmental and Processing Section :; ..... DEC 1 6 1985 .... _, "..... , .~~ '., " . '. -.. , .. " .. .'~ .. ' ~. ;S~::±~~71~;~~~~;r:iAl:~t is reqllueellor the cU.scbup·ol eay cJreelBed or .AU . ~ iz!~ ;,acers of theUaltild Statoll~~iaclwUn: .:cijawt .. .... """' .. ,,~;-:.:Er..';o~ 1:-:-',: c!a.' tem ·wetlaDds· Jiuns those areas that ere :LauDdetad or .. . ·.aaturated b)' surface or sround.water at a frequency aad d1.lratloa '. : ... aufflc1ent to IUpport, and tut UIldar'Dormal. c:f.rcwutancel do '. :'->'. ..':----:.,.' :~:.'. 1 ) .. . ·.upport.a prevaleltCe of veptat10a t1P.ically adapted for Ufe In .. : .. :::"~':.~::::.:"~ . .. . aaturated Boil condltioas •. !he Corps cif· Eu;1aeers ball the respon-, 'dbUltyfor determ1aias.'vbether a .pacific vetland eres ia v1thia . . ..... '. I· .. ~ :~~:,~" '1"';: . . ... . " . . I 1 I I I 1 1 Sect10a 404 juriadictioa.. .. ~~,.~ :.' : _:.. .' ' . . . .... ':~R=:-"~.~::" _ ..... '." .: ... _.~ ': .". :.: .. _ .. ~~,:~~.,:.~'::.:;';~€-~';:'~~~'f.-:='-="-:" ;_'.:h-::.:.::::..._::....._ .... O';-Z..:.::..~~: . .;.:..-~:= ;~ .. ",_. _. "O!':._ .:.~~~: tie have reviewed the iaformadoa 70u f1.lrnished IS vell as data ., ... gathered during our onaite inSplctioa on tlovember 14. 1985. Va . ~, . : ~ . . determ1l1ed that vetlande lire prelent CD the pnject lite. Bowever,. '_.' ... .,,,", .. these wetlands are not coall1dCl1'ed adjacent _tlaada UDder our ~'" .. ,.. . ...... . . '. haulatory authority. 'A Deplrt=eat of-the Army perz;it will aot h .: ::'., required to place fll1 into this erea. ..'. '.' , . It you have any questions regard'ing this matter. please COli tact Hr. Rudolf Pojt1l1ger, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sillcerel)" , Warren E. Baxter Otie!. Regulatory Bral1ch ., ......... -._----. I. I I I I I .... I' '. ~ I I I I I I I I I ·1 I I , .', .' .. ' •....•... , ...• : .• :.:' ;,." -~'.~~': .:,",.,: ,.t'::':·;' :"'; ;.' :',. .•.. : ..~.' ·.:.cel . City of BeD.tcni' 'lniD LlIlJ'l" KmrlroJlll8atalPn1teetln ApDcy . ' .' ..... ',," .;. • .-'; '," :'.' , -;-:. .. '" ,,,. ::;. :::-.. ;~ ;f:; :,' . .', I.;.:, . ... ;, , ..... I I I I I I I I I l I,i. I I: . ,1. ., .:1'; . . :·'1 .. .t.. • . . . ·"'·1" <I I February 27, 1987 Mr. Vernon E. Cook FIRST CITY EQUITIES Chief, Operations Division Department of the Army SEATTLE' DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134-2385 RE: Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit BLACK RIVER TECHNOLOGY. PARK Dear Mr. Cook: .In response to your letter to me dated Febr~ary 18,1987, my attorney, Mr. Charles Blumenfeld, my engineer, Mr. Robert Roed, and I met with Sam Casne, Rudy Pojtinger, Karen Northup, and , Mick Bowlus of your staff to discuss the Corps' position that as of January 17, 1987, the Black River Technology Park property falls within the Corps' jurisdiction •. It is our position that' the regulations which bec~e"effective on January 12, 1987 are not applicable to this 'project because (1) the new regulations do not change the definition of "waters' of the United States", and (2) the property at issue has already' been substantially graded and filled. . The. following is a history of land use actions, contractural :. :: . . agreements, funding commitments, and documentation of . . . construction affecting the Black River Technology Park to date. " .: ," :i ... ",. . • April, 1982 -The City of Renton issued a final " .. ,: ,.'., )'.: .i"~';;i :.~\ :" ::', EnvIronmental Impact Statement, prepared by the previous.' .. ::,;·t";'f~!::::,:, ",' owners of the property, Alterra Corporation,' in connection";""":::';"""':":':"'."::. with a rezone of the property from General Classification' to .:. ...: Manufacturing Park in order to construct an office park.:' "'.: ... :;".' Although, a ,final determination a's to a requirement for a ,. ',.: .. '.:,e::, . ., .' "" ",,1,.,;".1 _,,' 404 Permit 'on this property was not made at the time. the· EIS,'h:'.';';::;:!.': ' was prepared, the Corps in its comment letter to.·the Drafti.~f;~+i\:~Ji,:~r: EIS, indicated. that a previous decision regarding' waterwaY!lY·:;:'/,'.:·!:.i::':,,' upstream from the P-l pump plant could possibly exempt . the,;:;::;'\17r':,-'!'·;'. site from the requirements of the 404 Permit •. , ""'!'''''::''':, "!",' , , .. ' " ,;< .. ~~,:\::; : ". ~ 800 Fifth Avenue' SuHe 4170 . Sea!IIe, Washington 98104 . (206) 624-9223 Reol Estate Development end Irwesfmenls , " >:.:/{~(;, ': ,; ~ 1 1 • • 1 1 • • I 1 l • • I. · .',. • •• • 'I I Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Two • • • • • • • • December. 27.1982 -City of Renton granted the requested rezone to Manufacturing Park. December 16. 1985 -Mr. Warren E.Baxter, Chief of the Regulatory Branch of the Department of Army, Seattle District Corps of Engineers, wrote a letter.to Mr. Delton J. Bonds, President of Alterra Corporation, in which he stated after an on-site inspection on November 14, 1985 that "a Department of the Army permit will not be required to place fill into this area." December 18. 1985 -I wrote a letter to Rudolph Pojtinger confIrmIng that a Corps permit was not required on the property. December 31. 1985 -First City Equities purchased the Black RIver Technology Park property from Alterra 'Corporation. May 20. 1986 -First City Equities received the special permit for grade and fill of the entire Black River Technology Park property. On July 9, 1986 First City Equities received an annual license from the City of Renton··" :;': to accomplish the work. Prior to issuance of the special permit,.a full environmental review under SEPA was conducted by the Environmental.Review Committee, who issued a: ' mitigated D.N.S. A public hearing followed, and the Hearing Examiner approved the special permit. . August. 1986 -Clearing, grading and filling operations' commenced under the grading permit and have continued to date. As the attached drawing indicates, 38.2 acres of the total 52.2 acres have been cleared graded and/or filled. August 13. 1986 -First City Equities received site plan approval for the ADMAC portion of the Black River Technology . . .: ' Park property. Prior to site plan approval a full .' environmental review under SEPA was conducted by the :;"';:-,," i .• 'i'i. ' ... Environmental Review Committee which issued a mitigated . i;~ " Declaration of Non-Significance. A public' hearing followed,'·: ,,,'. and the Hearing Examiner approved the Site Plan. . ," , , October 13. 1986 -By direction of the City Council, the .... ,':,,::: ".; property was rezoned from Manufacturing Park to Office Park ';;,:.,: ,i under the area-wide Valley rezone action.,;",.-::,: '; :':: ~~:'--, .. ." " . , I I I I I I I I I , , ·'1' ;:;, , , , , I,', I I ,;1 '[I :1':" . ;.:! . ! .i . I :1 I Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Three • December 18 1986 -First City Equities was advised that the ADMAC buIlding permit was ready for issuance by the City of Renton. It is clear that the Corps of Engineers had more than one review of the project in the past and had clearly indicated no Corps approval was received. All development plans for the property proceeded on that basis. The City of Renton has been working cooperatively with First City Equities addressing land use issue including cooperative regional traffic analyses and construction of arterials to alleviate traffic concerns in the Valley. First City Equities has made a significant commitment of , resources to ,this project. We have a $10 million loan covering acquisition and development of the entire Blackriver Corporate Park and a $4 million loan to cover infrastructure costs. First City Equities has formed a'Local Improvement District which has committed to construct a new 5 lane arterial abutting the development at a cost of $3.7 million. First City Equities will bear 69\ of this cost. ; :::,: ;, '.. ,", ...... In addition, First City Equities as a condition 'for 'developing tis property has deeded 37 acres of property to the City of Renton for preservation and storm water retention. The approximate value of this property is $8 million. .""" .. " All of these ojections and costs were incurred in contemplation'';, of development of the entire site. A major element of First City Equities' decision to go forward on this property was the Corps' December 16, 1985 letter denying jurisdiction. Enclosed are photographs showing the existing state of the "" property and the extent of the grading and filling operations to,. date. We are requesting that the Corps of Engineers authorize us to" ",.: complete our activities under the December 16, 1985 letter. ::' ;~' . ,-:."! ~ :. ':.; ~-::':. \ , ~ • ., -.. " 1 " ' " " , ... ' .:" . ~ .. . ,; . " :,i " ~. -:. ~: " I ; , I I I 1 1 1 I I, I····" :'," "',"" " Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Four \ .j '." .. , "'.' ," , . As time is of the essence, we would appreciate your immediate review of our request. With regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES ~,/;.~ Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM/bc Enclosures : ce: Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. w/encl··· Robert Roed w/encl Royce Berg w/encl David Schuman w/encl GregBylerw/encl,> . HAND DELIVERED 2127/87 ........ -i' ;,' . :0" ., " ·1 " . , '". r ( -' , • ' . ~.; :, ,/' . . ", ;', ' ,\1 . :, .·!.· .... :,·:.i,· • -': "", . ...... , " .\ . \' ." .... :., .. ' " . :":<': . , '.i :, .. , " , . ;T " i::' " .:.' i',;:;'::: ;;i,;} .J:Lj::;:::,':.:~;·i;:;H/':,&~i';21~;:f.1~}:,::": :::,' ':' I: .......... ""j', "~""1' " .... ,.~.-·· .. ·:;":~:'i::" .. ··~·-··)·,'~.;:;:~:·i·:· ;".~' ,'R __ •• • -.. ,,-, , . 'j " . ~; (~':':!.' . l. i· , , .' : . , ,,_ .. ,.. -,' ", ,-'0' ", ," .', .... ,:'::::~.:.'~.o' '-' ;, .' l: ":'. ,"'" .. . .. , ,.;::, . ~. " !., ; , . ; . . : . .':;. I! . ,,' .. 1' .: .. I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ','". -. " :"' .. ' . ",v1at~~ , .. _eb '. '-, . , .. ''',' " , ~~/:' '~"" . . ':.'~ . , ,',; "., "' .. ",". '", . ::. ~ ~ .... ,. '.,: . . .";~" ". : ' ... .,' .. ~.:". '. ", : ..... "I,.S.""I Ib'ntor, of 'lad", 'lnt catJ .. _ltl •• .... !.< .. ~.:~:: " 100 'lftll AftDIII. hlte 4170 ••• te1 •• Vu1llq&oa. ·.,1104 " ' ..... , :. ~ ;-: , .;;;, ; -' . ," .~ .. ,' . '.' ....... '." ,,:-: ";'(" , , .. ,..~. ·'1ack Ilft .. tnbllolO11'uk . ;. , .. '. ,", , " .. U' ......... . " ... , , '. ' ~.' .' ' . .': .. . . CID Ie .... 14. 1985 .......... 1 ,... tile ... tU. Dbedle' , ' i.,eeted e1lo nfonaeed ,1'OpeftJ to dehllll.' If a ,npoeed ..... 10,. ,." , ... t _14 n..,at .... IopU'bMlat 0' CIao ADII .. nt.t ..... hetl .. 404 . ' of ebe ctoa VoC ... Act. ftl. l.,..el_ ....... 1 .. tMt .. U..... •• '40flaecl" laputllnt of tJie'u.",enlt n ... tad ...... bt .. tbe ,tv,.rtJ. 'Aq penlC "Platt .... ffntt ... Ie cue tIM ..... e.,... .1ae4 dule thu _tla .... .oC I _te .. of tIaa valted 'Cle .. , ... thu.. tlla c.,.· of Iqba •• rI. W _ JarWloel_ O'fft' t!le nf ......... devd.,...e. Oar Harob,12', 191'. l.teft to JOII nfleeta thla •• t.~ .. tl... ' III late U86. tho eo..,. of lalla ..... paIIlh ... MY pentt np- lati_ wIIlell II ...... ffeett.,. JavaI'J 12. 1917. ne •• rlpllel ... ,~lda I clarification " tbe 1Br1rvazlae.1 .rot.etl .. AltDc1 0' tbe • .,iDlel_ 0' wten 0' tlla Vdtad .t.te ....... lui_ .. e8 .. 1f e. ¥blab fte or _1. be ......... habitat '" 111 ..... ,RCacted " Hlll'leOl')' .1 .... Trud •• , or b. Vblch '11'8 or _14 " .... I. habitat II)' othn 1I111'1tft1 111 ..... vblela cn. •• tac. 11 .... . nt. clarlflcaclOD b eiplflcaDC kc .... it • .,.a. tile Cor,. Seedon 404 Jariadlcdon. 'l'1Io .. d .... _ tba nf.naced ,tvpert,. , are IIR _delereel to be vato ... of tile Vait •• IClC •• IIId nbjeet Co ne1lartaant of the AI'fII'/ lHIrmit ftq1l1naeetl _.eI' SectlOQ 4114 ot tlle Claan W.tor Act. Ondar Seccioll 404, .atholl'icltioa i. required rer the clf.echlll'p of clrecl&od 01' fl11 .. t.dal IDto .. tu. of the thllted ,'Cltel, lelalltlll .. cla ••• ' ' Va reque.t you coatact thil office I' ...... illl permic'proceda1re' if yon sti!l ~~O'OBe to ft11 tho .lta. & copy of the Depar~ent of :. :', , .. ~. .: '.' . , . I· 1 1 1\ ) 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I j .\ ·1 '. - , • ( , ~~. ~-. ;p,- - • \. ~ l 1!t1.C"""·"'· .~ ... _ ..... '.--!--=--~---..!~=------r ."!"; -," c· I I I I : I I I :1 , ,I I I , • .. l~S I I I VICINITY MAP ,"- 7" 1 7 T -= cLEArE;O 1~lJP:oeE.'D, <62A'I>e.t::» ~. T=IL,{ eI:> (~8.z Ac:. J ~1 ~i.r_ prz.t;.~~~VE (IJOJt,.N UlII.(. 'PDa'lOU ~HCI.UI:.I.) U"'D~-ruf.P.;l:.t) (14~) il t :1 . ... ! I : II 1 I 1:<:: ::.' " 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 BLACKRIVER Corporate Park RENTON, WASHINGTON RIS1' Oft' ECU.-s -_ .. _---- ~:..~ MQRntWlsr INC. -- MfO«U. tre.SON ~ ..c:. ----------.----- I I I I I ----~:\u!\-\i -- .. ,-LJ DO ; . ~[J 0 1 D 11 OJ;· DC] I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 , • i , , ;, -: 5 ! l ! ! . ,. c =' ;, !. ~ ; . , \ \ . , \ . I , , : \ ' ~ -. , . ' . . 1 .', . . .... ; .' .. ' . . . , '. . · '1 .' ".' ... ' 1 ....... . , . . . . " . . . . . . :....' .' . . , .' · .' . . . . . · . . . .' . .' . .', , ' 1 '. ". . ' ' . .' ' ,,' . , .. . 't ',' 1 .. . ' , . . .' ' .' . . I, " . ..: ". . ' . . , . . . ,: . . " .' . " . . . . . . ." I··· . " . . ',' . . . ',' . , . . . . ' I' : , '. -, . ' .' . ' .' .', '. .', -. .' . . . .' , -,' , . . , . . . )" . . . · ; . ' ..' . ' .. . . " . . .' " . ..' .. . '... . .. . . . . '.' . . .. .' . " . ',"., ,.' . .. . . . , . . '. " ' . . . . ~ · .. •... ' . . . ' . . . -' . . , .,' ' .,'.. . . ~ . , . ,. . .' " ' , . . , ' . " . . . . .'.' . " . . ' " , . . ' - ·1 . : ' .. , .'. . . " .,' I , .' . .-. , . ...:' .' . ', .. · . '. . . .. . . . ~ . ·1 , ':1. " ' I, I ,I' ,'. ' ' , I I I ,I,: , " ' '1 1 I, 'I' " ,- , , 'I ", 'I , . , I' " I .' , ' I. ' .1 . " . . , , ' , ' '" '.' -', . , \" " , 'Black River Corporate.Park " Rentol1l Washington . .' . .. ", , , ,',' LotS ., . . ' ," '. . . , .' ... < -: " . '. ',' , , , , . . ". .' . 't. , " " . , . . ;-;, .' t· . , " . ,'. . ~. . . " '. ' · '.' .. ', , · , . · . , , . " . . -'. '. ' • > '-,' " '. 'I . '. ' , ,', ., • h I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AN APPRAISAL OF THE OFFICE PARK LAND LOCATBDON BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON FOR CITY OF RENTON (Parks and Recreation) AS AT March 15, 1991 BY CLIFFORD H. PARRISH, F.R.I., R.I. (D.C) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Parks & Recreation 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Leslie A. Betlach Re: Lot 5, Black River Renton, Washington Project Number 302-807 Dear Sirs: April 8, 1991 In accordance with your instructions, I have made an inspection and analysis of the office park land which is more particularly described within this report. The purpose of this report is to express an opinion of the Fair Market Value of the property as a fee simple estate as if free and clear of all encumbrances. In my opinion of Fair Market Value, consideration was given to all known pertinent data including market trends and economic and general conditions affecting current market value. In the final analysis, the subject property has an estimated Fair Market Value as of 15 March, 1991, as follows: ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY -TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$172,500.00] The appraisals include both the land and any improvements at the date of inspection. It does not include any equipment, stock, inventory, tools, furniture, fixtures or any other items, movable or unmovable of a personal nature. Fair Market Value, as used in this report, is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. This appraisal has been prepared in conformance with Federal Home Loan Bank guidelines and CEBA Mandated Appraisal Standards, Regulation 563.17-1a. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A personal inspection was made of the property and consideration was given to: Location, size, topography, zoning and utility of the land and its value as if vacant and available for sale and use. Sales and asking prices of vacant and available land in the area of the subject. Interviews and conferences with property owners, property managers, realtors, appraisers and developers. Population growth trends; industrial, commercial and residential development trends in the subject area. This report consists of: This letter which identifies the property, summarizes the results of the appraisal and certifies the conclusions contained herein; Assumptions and limited conditions; A narrative section which contains local background and economic data, a description of the subject property, a discussion of valuation procedures and a conclusion of value; and An exhibit section which contains: Vicinity Maps, Site Plan, Comparable Sales Data and other miscellaneous exhibits. I have not investigated the title to or any liabilities against the property appraised. . Parrish, F.R.I., R.I. (B.C.) CHP/pjm Enclosures 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I I I I I I CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted in this appraisal report: 1. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 8. That I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report nor to the parties involved. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of our assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions and conclusions contained in this report. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Canadian and American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, my analyses and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. In arriving at the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate contained in this appraisal report, I consulted with other appraisers, and I hereby acknowledge their professional contribution to the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate set forth in the appraisal report. LIMITATIONS AS TO DISCLOSURE AND USE Possession of this report, a copy, or any part thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the By- Laws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, ,the National Association of Realtors, the Society of Real Estate Appraisers, the Real Estate Institute of Canada and the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the MAl, or RM designations, or to the Society of Real Estate and the SRA or SRP A designations, or to the Real Estate Institute of Canada or the F.R.I. designation or the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia or the R.I. (B. C.) designation) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report, the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same, the mortgagee or its successors and assigns, mortgage insurers, consultants, professional appraisal organizations, any state or federally approved financial institution, any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia, without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the express written consent and approval of the undersigned. 10. On all appraisals subject to satisfactory completion, repairs or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the '-in .... knwllil« m""",. ~ _ L Clifford H. Parrish, F.R.I., R.I.(B.C.), C.R.A. Appraiser and Consultant 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. That the legal description furnished to the appraiser is true and correct. 2. That no survey was furnished to the appraiser. 3. That the title of the property appraised in this report is good. 4. That no title evidence pertaining to easements, leases, reservations, or other parties-in-interest was furnished to the appraiser. 5. The property is appraised as a fee simple estate. 6. The appraisal assumes good title, responsible ownership and competent management. 7. No responsibility is assumed for matters which are legal in nature, nor is any opinion of the title rendered herewith. 8. No guarantee is made for the accuracy of estimates or opinions furnished by others and obtained in this report. 9. No liability is assumed in matters of legal character affecting the property, such as title defects, encroachments, liens, overlapping lines, etc. 10. Any liens or encumbrances which may now exist have been disregarded, and the property has been appraised as though free of indebtedness and as though no delinquency in payment of general taxes and special assessments exists. 11. The values assigned to improvements, shown in this report, are in proportion to the contribution said improvements make to the value of the property as a whole. 12. No right is given to publish or reproduce any portion of this report without the consent of the appraiser. 13. No earthquake compliance report, hazardous waste or asbestos analysis was made or ordered in conjunction with this appraisal report. 14. No engineering survey was made or ordered in conjunction with this report. 15. Appraisal reports that contain a valuation relating to an estimate in land that is less than the whole fee simple estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such estates relates to a fractional interest only in the real estate involved and the value of the fractional interest plus the value of all other fractional interests mayor may not equal the value of the entire fee simple estate considered as a whole .• 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. Appraised values that relate to geographical portions of a large parcel or tract of real estate are subject to the following: "the value reported for such geographical portion relates to such portion only and should not be construed as applying with equal validity to other portions of the larger parcel or tract. The value reported for such geographical portion plus the value of all other geographical portions mayor may not equal the value of the entire parcel or tract considered as an entity .• 17. The appraiser assumes that a purchaser is aware that (1) this appraisal on the subject property does not serve as a warranty on the condition of the property, (2) it is the responsibility of the purchaser to examine the property carefully and to take all necessary precautions before signing a purchase contract, and (3) any estimate for repairs is a non-warranted opinion of the appraiser unless otherwise stated. 18. This appraisal is prepared in conformance with the plans and specifications provided to your appraisers and assumes completion in a workmanlike manner. The appraiser cannot be held responsible for unforeseeable events that alter market conditions prior to the effective date of the opinion. 19. The liability of Clifford H. Parrish is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner, or part owner in any form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements, or cost, regardless of outcome; the client will hold Olympic Appraisals and Clifford H. Parrish completely harmless. 20. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which mayor may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos,. urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property. The value 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS: LOCATION: Between Burlington Northern Railroad and Black River Channel, Renton, Washington LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attachment at rear of report TAX ACCOUNT NO.: DATE OF VALUATION: SIZE OF LAND: 132304.9090 March 28, 1991 278,075 square feet SIZE OF BUILDING: Not applicable TYPE OF PROPERTY: Vacant ASSESSMENTS: Land: $417,000 TAXES: $5,658.02 ZONING: OP -Office Park HIGHEST AND BEST Comprehensive Development USE: OWNER: First City Development Corporation ESTIMATED VALUE: $172,500.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OSIENSmLE OWNER Ownership of the subject land described within this report and shown under Property Tax No. 132304.9090 is in the name of First City Developments Corp. Suite 6600,700 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington PROPERTY LOCATION The subject is located at the east end of the proposed Black River Business Park, in the City of Renton, Washington. PURPOSE OF APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the present and proposed Fair Market Value of the subject property, in fee simple estate, for mortgage loan purposes. Fair Market Value is defmed as: "Market Value" means: (1) the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. b. c. d. e. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market; Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (2) Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar amount of any adjustment should approximate the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraiser's judgment. This definition of "Market Value" complies with the mandate of CEBA Regulation 563. 17-1a. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED: The property rights being appraised are those of the fee simple estate, free and clear of all encumbrances and liens. Rea! Estate Ap,praisa! TermjnolQgy defines fee simple as "an absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class or heirs or restrictions, but subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation." LEGAL DESCRIPTION; See rear of this report. DELINEATION OF TITLE There are no previous sales of the subject site. It is believed that the area has been re-platted. DATE OF VALVE The subject property was inspected several times in the last two weeks of March, 1991. 11 I I I I I I I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REGIONAL ANALYSIS The subject is located in the "Pacific Northwest" which is mainly thought to be comprised of the contiguous states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, although Montana is also often included. British Columbia, a Canadian province, is also a part of this region; however it is subject to the laws and policies of a foreign nation. Alaska has strong economic ties to the State of Washington, but of course, is geographically separated from the region. The four contiguous states have a total population of approximately 7,700,000 persons; British Columbia has 2,500,000 persons; and Alaska has 425,000. The four contiguous states comprise over 10% of the land mass of the United States, yet only 2 % of the national population. The following chart shows the region's past and projected growth: PACIFIC NORTHWEST POPULATION (IN THOUSANDS) Washington 2,855 2,967 3,413 4,276 4,587 Oregon 1,172 1,937 2,101 2,668 2,797 Idaho 671 686 719 977 1,088 Montana 679 706 698 805 Alaska 229 281 304 444 BC,Canada 1,602 1,797 2,128 2,744 NWTOTAL 7,808 8,364 9,362 11,914 Source: 1985 Almanac Within the Pacific Northwest, there are varied extremes of temperature, terrain, vegetation, and precipitation. The area is noted for its mountains, rivers, and forests, with a major characteristic being its open, unpopulated areas. The period from 1977 to 1980 was one of unprecedented prosperity in the Northwest. Rather lean years were 1981 and 1982, reflecting the fate and fortunes of the national economy. However, 1983 to the present has been a strong growth period locally, with continuing stabilized growth projected by most economic forecasting agencies. There are three major population centers in the four contiguous states of the Pacific Northwest -the Puget Sound area, the Lower Columbia, and the Inland Empire. The Lower Columbia is the Vancouver-Portland area with a combined population of 1,130,000. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Inland Empire is the Spokane area with an area-wide population of 340,000. By far the largest is the Puget 'Sound Metropolitan area, with Seattle as its major city, which had an estimated population of 2,412,100 as of 1985, according to the Puget Sound Council of Governments. This region as a whole has experienced relatively high growth over the past three decades exceeding the U.S. average. It is now mature in its own right as a consuming market, and with its population it is competitive with other large regional markets. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATE OF WASHINGTON The main difference between the State of Washington and other Pacific Northwest states is its degree of urbanization, comprising the most urbanized and heavily populated state. Washington is the seventh fastest growing state in the nation. From 1970 to 1980, population in the State increased by 27%. In 1984, State population was 4,328,100 with an expected growth increase of 18.5% by 1995 according to the Office of Financial Management. Geographically and meteorologically, the State is divided into two distinct regions by the Cascade Mountain Range. The area easterly of the mountains is generally arid, while westerly of the mountains it is moist. The moisture is brought in by ocean winds and storms and is trapped by the Olympic and Cascade Mountain ranges. The Olympic Mountains westerly of Seattle partially protect the Puget Sound area from precipitation . extremes. The Cascade Range acts as a barrier to the cold air masses which drift down from Canada into central and eastern Washington, and as a result, the climate is relatively mild. The western portion of Washington has one of the largest coastlines of any state -it is very irregular with numerous bays, tidal flats and deep water harbors. As a result, it has become a major boating center. The area east of the Cascades is subject to substantially less rainfall, but has temperature extremes from well below zero in the winter to slightly above 100 degrees in the summer. The northern one-third of the area east of the mountains is forested and has a higher rainfall than the lower two-thirds, with this lower portion basically an agricultural area. Principle agricultura1 crops are wheat, apples and alfalfa. The Federal Government and its creation, the BoMeville Power Administration, have dammed many of the region's principle rivers, particularly the Columbia, and the result has been ample water for irrigation as well as a plentiful supply of cheap electricity available to all of the Northwest. The State is economically intertwined with not only the national economy of the United States, but also with many other countries of the world. The Port of Seattle and the Seattle Customs District have an important impact on the area's economy. A large percentage of the State's manufacturing, agricultural and mining production is exported and basic consumer goods imported. Washington State is one of the few in the nation which does not levy a personal or corporate income tax. Its revenues are primarily generated by an excise tax on real estate sales, on the gross sales of businesses and occupations, and through property taxes. An analysis of the State of Washington would not be complete without mentioning its spectacular public lands. A very large portion of the State is held in national parks, forests and wilderness areas, as well as state parks and other public lands. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUGEI SOUND AREA The dominant center in Washington both politically and economically is the Puget Sound area. This area stretches from Olympia on the south to the Canadian border on the north. The dominant geographical feature of this area is Puget Sound, a salt water b04y which is fed by the Pacific Ocean through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is between Vancouver Island and the north end of the Olympic Peninsula. Puget Sound is approximately 120 miles long and varies in width from 12 to 40 miles, being broken up by various large and small islands. Together with the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Sound to the north, Puget Sound provides an inland waterway from Seattle to Alaska with a few stretches of open water. Puget Sound, besides providing an active water freight and transportation market, is also the playground of the local population. This area is frequently referred to as the "boating capital of the world· with clean waters, beautiful vistas and good fishing. State operated ferries ply its waters and provide a major transportation link. With mountain ranges on each side snow covered much of the year, numerous fresh water lakes and rivers and rich agriCUltural valleys, the area's natural setting is quite unique. The majority of the population is situated on the easterly side of Puget Sound along with Interstate 5, the major north-south route through the area. The heaviest population concentration is from Everett on the north to Olympia on the south. The Puget Sound four-county area contains over 50% of the State's population and this figure is on the increase. In summary, it can be said that Puget Sound is a diversifying and promising area. The economy has followed the general flow of the national economy, with no extreme highs or lows in recent years. The outlook is bright, with technical advances and innovations fueling an improving scenario. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEATI'LE METROPOLITAN AREA What is generally referred to as ·the Seattle Metropolitan area· includes four counties -Kitsap County, which is located on the west side of Puget Sound; Snohomish County, with Everett as the county seat; King County with Seattle as the county seat; and Pierce County, with Tacoma as its county seat. Following is a list of the current population trends and projections for these counties from the Puget Sound Council of Governments: County Kitsap Snohomish King Pierce TOTAL 1970 101,732 265,236 1,159,375 412,344 1,938,687 1980 147,152 337,720 1,269,749 485,667 2,240,288 1985 167,800 373,000 1,346,400 524,900 2,412,100 2000 223,990 533,390 I, 692 ,000 671,040 3,120,420 A 39% increase is projected from 1980 to 2000. From 1960 to 1980, total population increased by 76%. According to the State's population reports and projection publications, much, if not most, of the past and projected increase has been the result of in- migration rather than by the birth rate and decreasing mortality. The birth rate has actually dropped somewhat over the past 25 years. The Seattle Metropolitan area is one of the twelve standard consolidated statistical areas of ·super cities· in the United States and is the 24th largest in the U.S. These super cities are major concentrations of population as defined by the U.S. Government's Office of Management and Budget. It is one of only three on the West Coast along with San Francisco and Los Angeles. It is the sixteenth largest metropolitan economy in the United States out of 40 standard metropolitan statistical areas. Kitsap County, a long peninsula jutting into Puget Sound on its westerly side, has the least amount of population of the four countries. Its location on the west side of Puget Sound makes it fairly isolated from Seattle. Snohomish County has the second smallest population, but it is experiencing the most rapid growth. The corridor abutting Highway 405 is rapidly developing into high- technology industries from Redmond-Woodinville to Lynnwood-Mill Creek. The Boeing 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Company remains the ~or industry, manufacturing 747's and 767's at Paine Field near Everett. The southwest portion of the county has experienced most of the growth with Harbour Pointe and Mill Creek the focal points. Pierce County has a high percentage of military related jobs since both an Army and an Air Force base are located close to Tacoma. The South Hill area of Puyallup is projected for primary new development including high technology industry and Rainier Terrace, a planned community. . Further south of Pierce County and Tacoma is Thurston County and the City of Olympia. Olympia is the State Capital for the State of Washington and is known primarily for its governmental activities. Olympia has benefited from the generally buoyant· economy of the last twelve months or so. The reported influx of people into Washington State has impacted all communities in the Puget Sound area. King County is the largest of the four counties with its county seat, Seattle, being the focal point of the metropolitan area. It provides many services, financing and government jobs, with less manufacturing jobs per capita than most major cities. Seattle contains 91.6 square miles and has recently passed 500,000 inhabitants and includes 32 % of the area's population. Bellevue, with 80,250 population, is the second largest city in King County and the third largest in the metropolitan area. It is across Lake Washington from Seattle and can be reached by two bridges. This former bedroom community of Seattle is also becoming increasingly a creator of its own employment. The progress of the Seattle Metropolitan Area is frequently thought of as the history of The Boeing Company, the world's largest manufacturer of aircraft, which to a large extent, has been true. Due to Boeing's employment fluctuations, there has been extensive planning and cooperation between Boeing and local government to provide diversification of industry. Boeing now contracts out more of its work to avoid the peaks and valleys which have been illustrative of its operating history. Boeing announced record sales for 1986 and future income is assured by the orders placed in 1986. Despite earlier predictions, Boeing is still adding jobs locally at the rate of nearly 7,000 per year. As of the third quarter of 1987, over 92,000 workers were employed in aerospace in the Metropolitan Area. Historically, lumbering, fishing and agriculture, along with commercial shipping, have helped to make up the economic base of this area. In the past 25 years, manufacturing activities, chiefly the aircraft industry led by The Boeing Company, have become a more important part of the economy. The past twelve months have seen record orders received by Boeing which should bode for a continued good economy throughout the foreseeable future. High-tech industries are locating and expanding in the region and there has been an increase in services and wholesale trade. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I As a result of the mild weather and other features, the Seattle area has been classified in several national publications as offering the highest quality of living (including both environmental and social conditions) of the major metropolitan areas in the country. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF BENTON Renton, located in Central King County, is on the south shores of Lake Washington and is situated approximately eleven miles south of downtown Seattle. Access into and through Renton is via Interstate 405 and State Highways 167, 169, SIS and 900. The population of Renton has steadily increased from 18,453 in 1960 to 36,760 in 1989, with estimates of 100,000 in the greater Renton area by 1990. Continued increase of multi-family housing and anticipated annexation of residential lands have contributed to this increase in population. In order to understand the economic conditions and projected economic trends in Renton, we shall examine these topics: manufacturing and industrial patterns, commercial concentrations, transportation facilities, utility services, city government, community facilities, and educational opportunities. MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL PATIERNS There are 200 manufacturing firms in the service area. The principal products are: aircraft, railroad cars, machine construction and maintenance, telephone poles, corrugated cardboard containers, pipe and ceramics, meat packing, poUltry equipment, coil springs, engineering, rendering, scaffolding, stagings, cement castings, sealing compounds, plastics, lumber and light metal products. A number of national firms have distribution centers in the area with a current estimate of 290 distributorships. The largest manufacturing firms are as follows: NAME OF COMPANY PRODUCTS 1989 EMPLOYMENT 1. The Boeing Company Airplanes 37,600 2. Pacific Car & Fndry RR cars, winches, machine shop 220 3. Tally Corp. Electrical hardware 325 4. Heath Teena Plastics, electronics 811 S. Austin Compo Design and construction of SO commercial bldgs. and air conditioning systems 6. Container Corp. Folding carton division 131 7. Hormel Corp. Meat Processing 80 8. Stoneway Concrete Sand, gravel and concrete 96 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Pacific Propellers 10. Continental Arctic 11. Mutual Materials 12. M. Segale 1. Renton School Dist. 2. Valley General Hosp. 3. City of Renton 4. Pacific NW Bell 5. PACCAR Propellers Food processing Brick and drain tile Asphalt and concrete NON-MANUFACTURING Education Medicine City services Telephone services Computers 6. Puget Sound Power & Light Electric power PROXIMITY OF FACILITIES Utilities can be accessible to the undeveloped sites. COMMERCIAL PATIERNS 79 180 69 202 1,710 1,400 6lO 320 6lO 325 Renton is served by three levels of commercial activity: (I) neighborhood! community shopping centers, (2) the central downtown shopping district, and (3) regional shopping centers. Neighborhood centers are typically small and keyed primarily to grocery stores, drug stores, variety stores and small service establishments. Downtown Renton provides the localized needs of banking, grocery and services, as well as clothing stores, restaurants, hardware stores, offices, entertainment, etc. Southcenter, a regional shopping city located 2 112 miles west of Renton, consists of four major department stores, 112 additional stores and shops on 1,250,000 square feet of retail floor area. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Excellent and efficient transportation facilities are available. Rail service is provided by Burlington Northern. Truck service is available by all of the major truck lines operating in the Seattle-Tacoma complex. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is six miles southwest of Renton and the Port of Seattle, located eleven miles to the northwest. Bus service is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Company. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UTILITY SERVICE Water service is provided by the City of Renton Water Department. Sewage is handled by the City of Renton. Natural gas is provided by Washington Natural Gas Company, and electric power is provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company. CITY GO}1ERNMENT Renton has a Mayor/Council form of government with zoning and building codes. The Police Department partially consists of 59 commissioned officers, 23 civilian employees, and 19 patrol vehicles. The Fire Department personnel includes 67 paid uniforms. Fire Insurance classification is City 4. COMMUNITY FACILJTJES Medical facilities within the City include the 303 bed Valley General Hospital with a staff of 270 physicians and surgeons, and 64 dentists. Recreational facilities include 25 parks, 20 tennis courts, 22 baseball diamonds, one municipal and two public swimming pools, two golf courses, etc. Good hunting and fishing is in close proximity to Renton. EQUCATIONAL FACn.JTIES Renton is part of the Renton School District #403. The following schools are in the Renton area: NUMBER TYPE ENROLLMENT # TEACHERS 13 Elementary 5,755 245 3 Middle School 2,009 90 3 High School 4,029 175 1 Special Education 65 13 (Thompson) 1 Alternative 165 9 The parochial school in Renton is St. Anthony's Catholic School, grades K through 8, with a current enrollment of 462 students and taught by 17 teachers. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Higher educational opportunities include: The University of Washington, Seattle University and Seattle Pacific College, which are all accredited four-year colleges located in Seattle. There are also two-year colleges located within 12 miles of Renton. Vocational training opportunities are provided by the Renton Vocational Technical Institute, a State supported but locally controlled institution that provides training, retraining, upgrading and apprenticeship related instruction. During 1982-1983, 20,919 students registered for classes at R. V. T.1. The Institute is fully accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, and is governed by the Board of Directors of Renton School District #403. In summary, Renton has a solid economic base with attractive amenities, a mild climate, good transportation facilities, ample schools, educational facilities and community facilities that make it a pleasant community in which to live. 22 I I I I I I I I SITE AND I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject site is on the extreme west side of the City of Renton, having the City of Tukwila to the west and the City of Seattle to the North. The land to the north of the railroad tracks rises quite steeply and provides a natural geographical barrier. Running through the immediate area are the Green River and Black River, although the latter is now used as a retention pond for flood waters. This is the extreme north end of the Kent-Auburn Valley which extends several miles to the south. The road system in the area is very good with Interstate 5, which runs from the Canadian border to Mexico, passing through downtown Seattle, being approximately one mile to the west. Highway 405 loops from Interstate 5 through Renton along the east side of Lake Washington, linking back with Interstate 5 north of Lynnwood. Highway 405 passes within half a mile of the subject to the south and can be accessed at State Route 181 or State Route 167. The access to the north is difficult, because of both the railroad tracks and the topography. However, it is of minor significance in that Interurban Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue to the east are easily reached via Grady Way or S.W. 7th Street. The zoning from the railroad tracks on the north boundary of the subject, between Highways 181 and 167, permit office and manufacturing development. The subject therefore is zoned in conformity with the general neighborhood. One of the few variations to the zoning is the land immediately to the south of the subject where there is the Metro Disposal Station. This does not appear toimpact the subject. To the north is a gravel quarry with access to Monster Road. This may have some impact on the subject, but is difficult to either support or refute. Much of the area, being in a valley floor, is in the 100 year flood plain, which has been the topic of considerable recent discussion. The future of development is one of uncertainty, mainly because there is no precedent to refer to. A plan of the area is attached. 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SITE DATA The subject site comprises a single legal lot at the central area of the proposed Black River Business Park. Black River was a subsidiary of the Green River but with the controlling of Lake Washington and flood control within the Kent Valley, there has been little or no water flow in recent years. There is currently no access to the site. To the north are railroad tracks beyond which the land slopes quite steeply upwards. To the south is the Black River basin. It is, however, understood that a road is proposed to access the site from the southeast corner. The site is very irregular and offers 278,075 square feet or 6.38 acres. It is flat with the topographical map showing that the land is about 15 feet above sea level. Services. The land is currently unserviced but there is every reason to assume that when the road is extended, so will the sewer and water and any other services that are considered necessary for office park development. The sewer and water lines currently dead-end on Naches Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet to the south. Soil. No soil analysis has been provided, but a study of the Metro Disposal site has been reviewed and this report shows the subject soils as Woodinville Series. This classification has soils that range from fine sandy loam to silt loam usually found on level or near level ground. These are Relic River Meander Deposits and are organic silts, clayey silts and interbeds of peat and wood detritus with variable thickness of two to eight feet. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZONINGDAIA The subject is located in an area zoned OP-Office Park. The purpose and intent of this c1assification is to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and supportive services in a campus-like setting. Other than the subject area, there are only two other OP areas, the largest of which is south of Highway 405 and west of Highway 167. The surrounding areas of both the subject and this area are zoned MP-Manufacturing Park. This classification is less restrictive than OP zones, but the market appears to be developing both zones with similar type buildings. There are height and setback restrictions that are dependent on surrounding uses and site dimensions. Details of both these classifications are attached to the rear of this report. Full details can be found in the Zoning Code being part of the Municipal Code of the City of Renton contained in Ordinance #4263 dated March 19, 1990. In addition, this area is designated on the community plan as MP-MO which is Manufacturing Park-Multiple Option. This in essence is the same as the current zoning. The extreme west portion appears to be in the greenbelt district. 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WGHFST AND BEST USE In appraisal practice, the concept of Highest and Best Use represents the premise upon which value is based. In the context of market value, highest and best use is defined as: The reasonable and probable use that will support the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal. Alternatively it is that use, from among reasonable, probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically feasible, and which results in the highest land value. It should be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements, the Highest and Best Use may be determined to be different from the existing use. Our investigation leading to a conclusion of Highest and Best Use was designed to simulate the actions and thinking of prudent and knowledgeable purchasers and pursued the following logical sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. Possible use: To what use it is physically possible to put on the site in question? Permissible Use (Legal): What uses are permitted by zoning and deed restrictions? . Feasible Use: What possible and permissible uses will produce any net return to the owner of the site? Probable Use: The use must be probable, not speculative or conjectural. There must be profitable demand for such use and it must return to the land the highest net return for the longest period of time. S. Highest and best use: Among reasonable uses, those uses which will produce the highest net return or the highest present worth. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to analyze alternative uses of the subject site and to ascertain which single or possible combination of complementing uses would prove most profitable to the owner, based on present market behavior. The subject use is clearly defined by the zoning, i.e. office building. However, the site is not available for development immediately and it would be unreasonable to assume that this site would be developed before those to the east. Highest and best use is a time related concept. It is equally unrealistic to assume that all land can be developed together. The most likely concept is a progressive 26 • I • I I I I I I I I ,. I • I I I I I development westward from Naches Avenue along the north side of the Black River Channel. This suggests that the subject site would be one of the last sites in the process. Discussions with planning and zoning departments reveal that a dead-end street cannot exceed 500 feet and the fire department requires two separate approaches to the site. It has been mentioned that a bridge had been proposed over the retention pond to form a loop from Naches Avenue westward alongside the railroad tracks to join Oakesdale Avenue close to Monster Avenue. This proposal would seem unlikely to be accepted. The cost may not be prohibitive, but coupled with the definite possibility that approval for a bridge may never be obtained , it would appear to be an economical venture. It would therefore appear that the site cannot be developed without access and to all intent and purposes has no viable use. This is unrealistic, so it is a question of how the land can be used. Further discussions have revealed that the land between the Black River . channel and the railroad tracks could be amalgamated into one parcel and developed as . such. The zoning ordinance does not preclude development of one site with several buildings, so long as all parking density and set back requirements, etc. are met. In theory, zoning would permit this kind of development. The ingre~s and egress from the end of Naches Avenue may present the biggest problem. I have spoken to the Renton Fire Chief, Gary Gotti, who indicates that two different approaches would be necessary for a multi building development. The subject land has 48 feet of frontage to Monster Avenue. This strip of land narrows to about 25 feet before widening to the full acreage. The fire department may accept a 20 foot wide paved emergency access from this direction as a second access. This is not wide enough for road access, but would suffice for emergency use. Such an access would cross designated wetland, but there is a provision that 0.99 acre can be filled, so long as restitution is made. It would be most natural to create such an access abutting the railroad right-of-way. This would appear to be the only possible means of developing and conforming with all the requirements. It is by no means an assumed thing, but appears to be possibility. This indicates that the highest and best use of the site is to amalgamate with the remainder of the land northwest of the end of Naches Avenue and have a Planned Use Development. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I METHOD OF APPRAISAL There are three basic approaches to value, namely the cost approach, the income approach and direct market comparison. The Cost Approach entails adding the depreciated value of any improvements to the current value of the land. This approach is based on the premise that no one will pay more than its cost of reproduction. The Income Aooroach entails calculating the current economic rental income of the property and capitalizing the net income as a return demanded by the market. This approach measures the present worth of the future benefits. Direct Market Comparison. This approach entails comparing sales of properties offering similar utility. This approach is based on the principle of substitution. The appraisal o(unimproved land uses the market comparison approach. The cost approach and income approach do not lend themselves in the appraisal of land. Land sales will be reviewed and a value of the subject, if readily available for development, will be concluded. From these figures, the cost required to make the site developable will be deducted. It is acknowledged, however, that these costs would be spread over the total parcel of land and not just the subject lots. It would be unreasonable to place this cost on any SPecific lot, but in practice, a developer would try to eradicate these "up front" costs in the first development. 28 I I I I I I I I VALUATIONS . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I YALUATION The value of the subject is considered to be indicated by other sales in the market. On the following pages are sales and listings of comparative land. This information is available to a prospective purchaser who presumably would base any value for the subject on this information. The principal of substitution applies in that a purchaser will not pay more for a property than a similar property offering similar utility. 29 -KING COUNTY HOUSING AU'l'BORITY Tukwila South I Center I 53 I I I .~ E .... ans t g E i SW 23 ST _L_ .. _~ .. SW29 tn Cl a: u; CD W SW 31 ST '- '" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #1 Location East side Monster Road, S.W. Tax Acet. No. 242304.9122 Access From Monster Road Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Irregular Sale Date 10/90 Price $582,084 Area 5.00 acres Grantor B & G. Renton Partnership Grantee Seattle Area Plumbing Confirmation: I have spoken to Greg Herrell who was the listing and selling broker. A portion of this land is designated as wetland. It was written in the sales contract that the useable area would not exceed 130,000 square feet and that approximately 90,000 square feet was wetlands. Both parties acknowledged a value of $4.75 per square foot or thereabouts was a realistic value for the useable land. Some fill has been brought in and services were almost at the property line. 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale III Location Tax Acct. No. Access Land Use Zoning Sale Date Price Area Seller Buyer Northeast corner Powell and 7th Street, S.W. 918800.0010; .0030; .0050; .0060 From Powell or 7th Street S.W. Unimproved OP-Office Park 05/31190 $2,000,000 2.9 acres; 2.2 acres; 1. 7 acres; 1.5 acres Equity Management L.O. Renton n, Inc. Comments: These lots have been relisted and Lowe Enterprises indicate Lot 1 is listed at $5.80 per square foot. Lots 3 and 4 are at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6 are at $6.50 per square foot. There are earnest money agreements on some of these lots, but details would not be released until after closing. 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #3 Location South Center Boulevard Tax Acet. No. 295490.0460; 295490.0465 Access Off Southcenter Boulevard Land Use Unimproved Zoning C2 Sale Date 3/90 Price $948,000 Size 1.33 acres and 1.78 acres Seller J.D. Fiorito; 789-6110 Buyer Horizon Hotels Confirmation Mr. Fiorito Remarks: Level site abuts the Green River which adds a restriction on the building development, but can be used for parking. Analysis: Price Lot Size Price p.s.f. $948,000 135,544 square feet $7.00 32 I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #4 Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton Tax Acet. No. 125380.0100 Access From S.W. 29th Street Land Use Vacant Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park Shape Rectangular Sale Date 3/90 Price $820,000 Area 185,092 square feet -4.2 acres Grantor Burlington Northern; 467-5500 Grantee Corr Pro Assoc. Confirmation: Burlington Northern confirmed that this was an arm's-length transaction. This site is at the end of a dead-end street and is level and cleared. This area south of Highway 405 is a large Business Park, although the site is removed from the main roads. 33 I I I I I I -----, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANALYSIS Sale #1 is geographically close to the subject on the south side of Monster Road. This site is a different zone (MP) but the proposed use could be equally as well sited in the OP zone. This is a particularly interesting sale in that there were wetlands on the site and the earnest money agreement stipulated the useable land area to be no more than 130,000 square feet. Mr. Herrell of Kidder, Mathews also indicated the parties had used $4.75 per square foot as the basis for the agreed price. It also infers very strongly that no value was attributed to the wetland. Due to the parking requirements, there is no easy way to construct a larger building on the useable land because of the wetland area. The building area potential of the wetlands cannot be readily transferred to the useable land. When wetlands are sold with useable land, the highest and best use ignores the wetland and any value is negligible. This is unlike a separate legal entity that is 100% wetlands where the highest and best use is retention as wetlands. The value of $4.75 per square foot needs some upwards adjustment for the fill and bringing of services. No figures are available but Mr. Herrell indicated that they were not big undertakings. The services were about 200 feet away and only a "small amount" of fill was needed. I believe an adjustment of $0.75 per square foot is not unreasonable giving an adjusted rate of $5.50 per square foot. Sale #2 was a sale of several lots at an overall rate of $5.56 per square foot. Lowe Enterprises has these lots listed and it is understood most are currently under contract to sell. I asked what was the difference between Lots 3 and 4, offered at $4.60 per square foot, and Lots 5 and 6, listed at $6.50 per square foot. The selling broker indicated there is no difference other than shape and size. Lots 5 and 6 are the smallest, being 1.67 acres and 1.46 acres, whereas the other lots are 2.34 acres and 4.27 acres. Lot 1 is 2.88 acres but has a large frontage on 7th Avenue which is presumably the reason why it is listed at $5.80 per square foot. I am of the opinion that the size factor changes the price. The small lots are quicker to develop and are more manageable to the developer. In essence, it takes longer to complete the proposed building, longer to leave the completed space, and therefore is discounted. It is not unreasonable to assume that the subject would be discounted even more, being larger than all these comparables. This however is refuted by Sale #1 which is larger than all of these sites. Sale #3 is geographically close but is in Tukwila and is in a C2 zone. This zone is more permissible than the OP or MP zones in Renton, although most of the buildings are office and business park style. This sale is to a hotel chain based in Louisiana and being different use is difficult to adjust. The more permissive zone leads me to conclude this is a superior site. 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sale #4 is in an MP zone but much of the development in the area is similar to that of the OP zone. This site is outside the 100 year flood plan but the area generally is in the valley bottom and some additional site preparation is usually necessary. The range of values found extend from $4.43 per square foot to $6.50 per square foot. The extremes appear to be unrealistic. The high end of the range applies to smaller parcels and those with superior exposure. The lower end sales require additional site preparation. I therefore consider the useable land has a current value of $5.50 per square foot. This however applies to sites ready and available for development. As stated earlier in this report, it is unreasonable to assume that the subject site will be developed immediately. It is therefore necessary to discount the value. It has been suggested that it will take at least two years to reach the subject site. This is the considered period it will take to reach the subject, rather than the completion of the building. This is done because of the position of the comparable sales and it is necessary to be consistent. The value can therefore be discounted for two years. The rate at which the discount is made reflects the risk. This poses definite problems, not knowing whether the hypothetical development would be approved. Having researched the problems with the City Attorney, City Planner, the Fire Chief, etc., I have every reason to believe the development, in one form or another could be achieved. I consider a discount rate of 13% reasonable, due to the definite risk of obtaining a development permit. This is equivalent to mortgage rates and therefore is a cost of holding. $5.50 deferred 2 years at 13 % $5.50 x P.V. of 2 years at 13% $5.50 x 0.7831467 = $4.31 It is now a question of what land area this rate should apply to. I have been provided with Wetland maps from Jones and Stokes who carried out a study on behalf of the City of Renton. The impact of this study poses a problem in that the Jones and Stokes study differs from the Department of Ecology study. The Jones and Stokes study has not been adopted and would have to be approved by DOE. The Army Corps of Engineers have given me access to these files which contain considerable correspondence between DOE, First City Equities and the City of Renton I am of the opinion that it is impossible for me to make an accurate judgment as to how much land is available for development. It is, however, reasonable to assume that a prospective purchaser would take the worst scenario, i.e. the DOE study, and it would necessitate application through the City of Renton to determine something to the contrary. I do not have the benefit of such an application. The Army Corps of Engineers indicate that 0.999 acre can be filled and utilized within wetlands. It would therefore appear that in theory, if not in practice, each of the subject sites could accommodate a development. If in fact wetlands are filled, the State requires 1.25 times the area filled as restitution. There appears to be little or no precedent 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I' 1 1 1 I 1 to explain this process. This mayor may not be an expensive proposition. It has been suggested that wetlands have little or no value when acquired with useable land. However, when purchased for other use, be it parks, bird sanctuary, etc., there is normally some value attributed to it. This is a totally unknown figure. I am therefore of the opinion that a value would be based on 0.999 acre (say one acre) at the discounted value of $4.31 per square foot, i.e., One acre x $4.31 p.s.f. = 43,560 s.f. x $4.31 = $187,744 From this an arbitrary amount is deducted. An arbitrary amount is considered reasonable because it is not known whether such a cost would ever be incurred and if it is, it is unknown. I therefore conclude each lot has a value of $172,500 (deducting an arbitrary 8% per lot). Other factors considered are as follows: The cost of the emergency land. This has to be installed first, prior to any development. Although it would seem to be applicable to the total site, it is an "up front" cost and would be taken into the cost calculation of the first building. This cost therefore has been excluded from the subject. I have also considered the fact that to complete any development of the land to the east, the subject is a necessary adjunct in that it offers the essential second access. I have not allotted a premium for this fact because it is under one ownership and it would be an arbitrary allocation. 811y1v .... U,.ITrO U .: . • • •• STATES 1II1UT" ,menck ... f .. "",,. •• -- ~ndsay.:::::::::: .. ..... ~ ""5 h out Center -,t-;;I EX"T "3 SW 23 51 SW29 R~ Vl (" y. I -... ~ 'W.~ ... __ • .::...:-'~--= .. -- f~ ~d m, ;,; ;., '~~;J 177.t; .'~ / \, -0.'_" -"OT , . "'" .----£\ a _____ R. L a 130 32'14- 2790.19 659.24 s-1 4 l'lri S.E. COR. TI RENTO . . -J< -2ND SUPPLEMEN1 ...... t1APS. 1958. ~ ---EMENT .. FLOOD CON,ROL )VER ,RACTS 25.26.29 AND 3 ~D 2&355 'SEMENT TO )ISTRICT NO '. 25422 AND ,FR &PPIIC6'TlnN I ~I o~ q.. : .{ ~«; ~ Ik .~ r"\~ I "-'" ~O. FT. ACRE5 £\1-: t1 0 R:1102.46 L : B07. - -- -- 1 2 o ,-,- 100·X 3& ~. ESMT PER , POWER EAS NO. 870914C A().OC I I I I I . I I I ZONING DATA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +-31-15 CSb) (2) Commercial, Industrial and Other U_: A mazimwn ot eight feet (8') UlTNhere on the lot provided the fence cIoe. not otend in or In front of any required lanclacaping or pooe a tram. vision hazard. (8) Fence Types: (A) Electri. FellC8S: L Ele.tri. fencea are permitted by opeelal review In all residential 10D88 in .8888 wbere large domea- tic animals are being kept provided additional fencing or other barrier Is erected along tho property lines. ii. All electri. fen.es shall be posted with permanent signs a minimum of thirty six (36) square in.hes in area at intervals of fifteen feet (15' stating that the fen.e Is electrified. iii. Electri. fen .. s and any related equipment and applian.e. must be in.talled in accordance with the manufa.turer •• pecification. and in compliance with the National Electrical Code. (B) Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed wire may only be used on top of fence. at least .ix feet (6') high for .ommercial, Industrial, utility and public uses. (C) Other: i. Bulk Storage Fences: See Section 4-31·29. ii. Fence. for mobile home parks, subdivi.ion. or planned unit development and for .ite. which are mined, graded or excavated may vary from these regulations as provided in the reapective code sections. 4. Special Review Process: a. Persons wishing to have one of the following types of fences may submit a letter of justification, site plan and typical elevation topther with the permit fee to the Building and ZonIng Department: 4-31-18 . (l) Fencn exceeding forty eight inch .... (48j within hnt yard oetbacka but not F.,"'·.' within a clear viaion area. \: . (2) Solid fencel along side property linea abutting arterial streets. (3) Electri. fences. b. The Building and Zoning Department shall approve the is.uance of special fence permits provided that: (l) Fencn, walla and hedgea above forty eight inches (48") when all .etback from the .treet property line four inches (4' from every one inch of increased height sought (over 48", up to a maximum of 72"). (2) Fence. along property linea abutting a side street which i. an arterial may be a maximum of .eventy two inches (72") in height. Thi. fen.e mu.t be located to the rear of the required front yard. In addition, driveways will not be allowed ta a..... through this fence. The location of the fence exceeding forty two inches (42") in height along property line., particularly the front and .ide lot ( lines along flanking arterial streets, does . not obstruct views of on-coming tramc at intersections or driveways. 5. Compliance: Fence. which do not comply with these regulations must be brought into compliance within six (6) months from the date of notice of fence violation from the City. (Ord. 4056, 4-13-87) 4-31-16: OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (D-P): A. Purpose and lntent: The Office Park Zone (O·P) is eatablished to provide areas appropriate for profe •• ional, admini.trative, and business offices, certain manufacturing activities, and .upportive .ervice. in a .ampus·like setting. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88) B. U.ea: In the Omce Park Zone (O·P), the following and .imilar use. are permitted. The Building and Zoning Department may deter- mine that any other use i. similar in general .haracter to the following .pecift. use. and i. in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon auch adminiatrative determination, the aubject c I ~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I 4-3.1·16 B) ... ,hall became a principal, accessory· Dr conditional use, wlUchever is appropriate. Unl ... indicated by the text, detlnitions of the 11881 listed in this Zone 81"1 consistent with the descriptions in the Standard industrial C1aaaification Manual. 1. Principal Uses: In the O·P Zone the following principal U888 are permitted: a. Administrative and professional officee. b. Medical and dental offices and clinics. c. Financial offices such as banks, aavings and loan institutions. d. Schools and atudios for art, craib, photography, dance and music. e. Business and professional services. f. Research and development. g. Educational, cultural, and social activities. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) h. Product servICing, wholesaling, warehousing and storage of articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared naturel or synthetic materials, or ferrous or alloyed metals. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) i. Day care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9-16- 85) j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight (8) adult dogs or cats may be permitted after satisfaction of the requirements in Section 4-31·S7C1a. (Ord. 3955, 11-4-85) k. Motion picture theaters and similar recreational and entertainment facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 4-31-25C2. (Ord. 3980, 3·24-86) 2. Accessory Uses: In the O·P Zone the following uses are allowed where incidental to a permitted use: a. Parking garages. b. Recreational facillties. c. &taU sales of products or merch ..... diee produced as a permitted use. 4-31·16 d. Repair activitiea ordinarily aaaociated with a permitted use. e. Sto""e of petroleum or natural gaa or any of their by-producte, provided that the total storage capacity is. Jes. than ten thousand (10,000) gallons or other applicable unit of measure, and that storage of such products is placed underground. 3. Conditional Uaea: in the o-p Zone the following uses and their accessory uaes may be allowed by conditional use permit as provided in Section 4-31·36 of the City Code: a. Churches. b. Heliports. c. Personal, recreational and repair services and retail uses, subject to the standarda of Section 4-31·16C2. d. Additional uses as identified in Section 4-31-3601. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) . e. On·site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88) 4. Prohibited Uaea: In the O·P Zone the following U888 are prohibited: a. Residential uses. b. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, boat, mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle sales, rental, repair, service and storage activities, except repair and maintenance may be permitted if incidental to a permitted use. c. Any outdoor storage or display of materials or products. d. All other uses not included in Section 4-31·16B1 through 4-31· 16BS. (Ord. 3937, 9·16-85) e. Off-site huardous waste treatment and storags facilities. (Ord .. 4186, 11·14-88) C. Development Standards: In the o-p Zone the following development standarda shall apply, except as otherwise provided by this Section. 1. Site Plan Approval: Site plan approval shall be required for all developments within I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +31-16 <=1) the o-p Zcme. A builcling site plan sbaJI be ftled and approved in -=ordance with the City Code prior to IuUaDce of any builcling permit&. Each builcling or other development permit IuuecI ,hall be in conformaDce with the approved .Ite plan. 2. Standards for Retail and Selected Service Uaea: For tboae aervice and retail uaea Identl11ed in Section 4-S1-16B3c, the fonowing etandarda .ha11 apply: .. The daeip of atructures, incIucling IiguI, ahaII be generally conaiatent in chazacter with aun'Ounding uaea. No drive-up window. or outoide automobile service shall be permitted. b. No exterior diuplay of merchandise shall be permitted. Co In order to avoid the negative impaCts of strip commercial development: (1) Retail or selected service Utes uhall be developed aa part of larger, planned ~' commercial, office or industrial complexeu bavlng common architectural or landucaping themeu. Such retBii or aervice uaea uhaJI not stand alone and shall not occupy more than aay percent (60'1» of a jointly developed building comp!eL (2) Direct arterial access to individuel uaea shall occur only when alternative access to local or coUector streets or consolidated acee .. with adjacent uses is not feasible. (S) Roof signs shall be prohibited. Free-standing signa shall not exceed ten feet (10') in height and shall be locatsd at least twenty feet (20') from any property line, except for entrance end exit signa. '3. Setbecka: a. SQoeete: AU buildings and st:ructurus ahaII be located a minimum of sixty feet (60') or twenty percent (20'1» of the' lot depth, whichever is I88S, &om any public street or highway property line. In any case, if the adjacent public street is a mllior or secondary arterial, the setback shall be at leaet thirty f'eet (SO'). +S1-16 b. Other Yerda: AU buildinp and .tN:turas ahaIl be located a minimum at twenty feet (20') or ftfteen percent (16'1» of the lot width, ,whlchaver is .... &am any property line which doea not ab'lli a public .treet or highway. c. Adjacent to' Large Stnx:ture.: The required yard aetbadul adjacent to any build- ing or structure with a builcling footprint greater than twenty five tbouaand (25,000) square feet sbaJI be increased one foot (1') for eech additional two thoueand (2,000) squam feet of building footprint, up to a maximum of ODe hundred feet (100') abutting public streets, and sixty feet (GO, in other yards. ,1. Adjacent to Residential Lota: Whenever a proposed use in tba O-P Zone shares a common property line with e lot that is designated any residential uae on both tbe City of Renton comprehensive plan and zoning map, the minimum setback contiguous to the common property line shall be fiay feet (60'). Whenever an adjacent lot contains .a residential use and eitber the comprehensive plan or zoning designation or both is something other than residential, then the appropriate eetback and landacaping adjacent to the residential lot sbaJI be determined by site plan approval. A site plan dec:iaion to require more than the minimum setback and landscaping shaJI consider the long term viability of the residential u.ae, the presence of other residential uaea in the s\llTOunding area, and such other indications of stability as owner·occupancy and housing condition. e. Use of Setback Areas: AU required setback areas shall be unoccupied and unobstructed except for off·street parking and loading, driveways, entrance roada, lawn sprinklers, walkways, \anducaping. ordinar.v and necessary utility aervice facilities, utility poles, lighting fixtures, identifying ana direction signa and underground install a tiona accessory to any permitted use. f. Flexible Setbacks: Witb site plan approval and subject to applicable :bli1laing and ftre codes, one of the side setbaclts ,(not adjacent to a public street or l'BIIidential use, as defIDed in Section 4-31-16C3cI may be reduced or eliminated if the total width of both side setbacks is at least twice the width of the minimum setback specified in Section ( I Ie I I I I I \ I I I( I I I I I I I I I ,.;: C3l) +-31-16C3b above; anel tha rear setback not &I\I_t to a public .treet may be reclucecl or eI!m!nateci II tha &ont setback Is Incresaecl aa:ardiDaly. The lite plan eleciaion Ihall be baaecI aD a finding that, with recluceci set- backs, the architectural clealgn, building orien- tetlon, cirwlatlon, naise anel glare of the propoeecl project will be compatible with aclja- CIIIIt usee anel with the purpose anel intent of tha o-p Zone. •• Height: Building heights in the O·P Zone shall be eatabllahecl with consideration to acijacent land uses anel shall be determinecl sa foUows: a. Adjacent to Single FamilylLow Density Multi-Family Uses: No height limit shall be requlrecl provieled that for each one foot (1') of building height thers shall be provielecl one foot (1,) of yard setback on the periphery of tha site where the office park use Is acijacent to a single family or low cleneity multiple famUy use locateel on a lot cleaignated single family or low density multi-family on the City of Renton comprehensivs plan and zoning map. b. Adjacent to All .other Uses: No height Umit shaU be requlrecl provided that all re- '1u1rec1 yard setbacks adjacent to such other uses shall be increased one foot (1') for each additional one foot (1') of height above forty five feet (45'). c. These setbacklheight requirements cannot be moclified by application under the PUD process. 5. Landscaping: a. There shall be a minimum landscaped setback of twenty feet (20') from aU public street or highway rights of way. b. There shaU be a minimum landscaped setback of ten feet (10') or one-half (112) the requlrecl setback, whichever Is les.. from all other property line&. Co A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be retained in landscaped open space. A maximum of one-half (112) of thia requirement may be on the roolS of stZ'w:tures, providecl employees and the public have access to tha area. A maximum of seventy five percent (75"') of this requirement may be within tha required perimeter +-31-16 landscaping. The twenty percent (20%) minimum landscaping requirement may not be reducecl II a site Is developecl aa a PUD. d. All areaa not coverecl by buildings, structures or pavecl eurfaces shaU be land- seaped. Areas set aside for future develop- ment on a lot may be hydroaeedecl. e. Where parking lote are adjacent to one another, perimeter landecaping shall not be required. f. Any wall surface greater than thirty feet (30') In width lacking windows or eloors shall be IOftaneci by landecaping or archi- tectural features, such as change of texture or wau modulation. Such landscaping shall include trees over six feet (6') in height placed . no more than thirty feet (30') on center or in clusters. g. With site plan approval, the perimeter landscaping setbacks required by Section 4-31· 16C5a and b above may be reclucecl in width up to fifty percent (50%) if the equivalent square footege of laneiscaping is provided elsewhere within the site. Site plan approval shall be based on a finding that the alternative landseaping arrangement provides buffering and site amenities equal to or better than that which would be achievecl by strict application of the CocIe. The mlocatecl land- seaping shall not be locatecl within the mar setback of the site. 6. Refuse: No refuse, trash, rubbish or other waste material shall be dumpecl, placed or allowed to remain outside a permanent build· ing, except in nonflammable, covemd contain· ers or dumpsters, which shall be screened by fences or landscaping. No refuse shall be stacked higher than the 8C1"8ening fence or landscaping. . 7. Parking/Circulation: Parking ancI circulation standards required shall be as follows: a. Access: The principal access shall be from an artarial or collector street and shall be oriented to the leaat traveled street when- ever two (2) or more such artarials or collec· tors abut the site. b. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation areas along a common lot line with a residential use locatecl on a lot designatecl as a residential use on both tha City of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31-16 C7b) Ranten comprehenalve plan and zoning map IhalJ be allowed only iC a tan foot (10') wide aight-obecuring lanwaplng strip and a six foot (6') high 1O!ld fence IIl'II provided along the common boundary line. c. Parking and Loading: (1) See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City Code. (2) All loading doclea and roD-up doo" • ball be located at the rear of buildings or screened 10 that they IIl'II not vlaible from any point along the abutting public right of way. (S) At no time sball any part of a vehicle be allowed to extend into a public right of way while the vehicle la being loaded or unloaded. All loading and unloading maneuvera shall be conducted an private property. 8. Environmental Performance Stendards: The foDowing minimum standards shall be met by all activities within the O·P Zane. For all activitiee which may produce objectionable or otherwise prohibited conditions, the property owner or lessee shall furnish design specifica. tions or other scientific evidence of compliance with these standarda. a. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7, Noise Lavel ReguJations. b. Smoke: (1) Visible grey smolea shall not be emit- ted from any source in a greater density of grey than that described as No. 1 on Ringelmann Chart. (2) The provisions applicable to visible gray -smolea shall also apply to visible smoke of a ditTerent color but with an equivalent applll'llnt opacity. c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne Solids: No observable dust, dirt, fly ash or airborne solids shall be emitted. cI. Odorous Oases and Matter: No odorous gases or matter in a quantity suf- ficient to evoke a response from the average peraon beyond the exterior property lines .haII be emitted. .. Toxic Oases and Matter: No emissions 4-S1-17 or tezic g_ or matter IhalJ be pmnIt:tecI. C. Vibrat:lon: No vlbrat:lon Ihall be permitted to esceed 0.003 of one Inch dis- placement or 0.03 (g) _ peak acceleration, whichever Is p-eater, aa meaaured at any point outside the property 1Inea of the lot or site. This shall apply In the &equency range or lero to five tbo ... and (0 -6,000) cycles per second. Shock absorbers or .imilar mounting shall be allowed to permit compliance with this specification • g. Ollll'll and Heat: (1) No glare and heat from any source shall be permitted to be unreasonably objectionable beyond the uterior pr0- perty lines of a lot or aite. (2) All sxterior or wall mounted lighting fixtures .hall be directed away from public otreets or righte of way. Exterior lighting ftxturaa shall be equipped with boods or reflectora such that direct light rays extend no more then ten feet (10') beyond the nearest property line. 9_ Signs: Sea Chapter 20, Tltls IV of the City Code. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) 4·31·17: AIRPORT ZONING: A. Zones: In order to regulate ths use of property in the vicinity of the airport, all of the land within two (2) mile. south and one mils east and west of, or that part of the area that i. within the City limits of Ranton, Washington, whichever is nearest the boundaries of the airport, is heraby divided into airport approach, transition and turning zones. The boundaries thereof are shown on the Renton Airport Approach Plan numbered No.1, dated March 1, 1956, which plan is made a part hereof. B. Height Umits: Except as otherlYise provided- in this Code, no structure or tree shall be erected, altered, allowed to grow or be main· wned in any airport approach zone or airport turning zane te a height in excass of the height limit herein established for such zone. For the purposes of this regulation, the following height IImi ta are hereby established for each of the zones in question: (0reI. 1542, 4-17-56) C-·-' -- ".:. ( \ c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31-34 E_ Amended Landscaping Plan: The approved land_ping reqalrementa may be moclll!ed upon request to the: Building and ZoDing Department. The plana may be approved, denied or returned to the applicant with IU8If8IItiona for cbB11ge8 that would make , them aooeptable. F. Landscape Reqalrements -Specific: 1. Existing plant Material: E1iating trees and other vegetation on the site of a proposed development may be uaed wbare practical if the quality is equal to or better than available nursery stock. 2. Green River Valley: Any development in the Green River Valley shall provide a minimum of two percent (29&) of the totsl site for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitet. Tbla landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping requirements by this Section or any other ordinanca. , 3. Shorelines Master Program: Any ~evelopment within the protected shorelines 'airea shall be reqalred to meet the standards and requirements of the City of Renton Sborelines Master Plan. 4. Slopes: a. General: The f8A:es of cut and fill slopes shall be developed and maintained to control againat erosion. This control may cona!at of effective planting. The protection for the slopes sball be installed within thirty (30) deys of grading completion and prior to Ii request for final project approval. Where slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials such protection may be omitted with the permission of the Public Works Department, provided that this protection is not required by the rehabilitation plan. b. Other Devices: Where necessary, 1heck dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods aball be employed to control erosion and sediment, provide safety and Control the rate of water run-off. 6. General Reqalrements: a. Existing desirable vegetation sbould be preserved where applicable. b. Stripping or vegetative slopel where harmIIJI erosion and ran-oJf will occur .baIl be avoided. c. Areas of frasjle natural enviranments .hould be protected &om development ond encroaA:bment. . d. If practicable, unique featurea within the eite should be preserved and Incorporated into the site development design (such as springs, streams, marshes, significant vegetation, rock out-croppings ond significant ravines). G. Maintenance: 1. Landscaping reqalred by this Section shall be maintained by the owner anellor occupant and shall be subjeCt to periodic inspection by the Building and Zoning Department. Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replacad within six (6) months. Property owners shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and litter. 2. The Building Director or his designated representetive, is authorized to notify the owner or his agent that any installed ( landscaping as required by the Building and Zoning Department, is not being adequately maintained and the specific nature of the failure to maintain. The Building and ZoDing Department shall send the property owner or his agent two (2) written notices, eaA:b with a fifteen (15) day response period. The notices shall speciIY the date by which aaid maintenanca must be accomplisbad and shall be addrassed to the property owner or agent's last known address. H. Violation: Violation of this Section shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided in this Code. E8A:h and every day or portion thereof during which violation of any of the provisions of this Section is committed, continued or permitted, shall constitute 'a separate offense. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-83) 4-31-35: GREENHELT REGULATIONS: A-Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt areas are char8A:terized by severe topographic, ground water, slope instability, soil or other physical c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31-35 A) Umitations that make the araaa IUUlUitable for Intanslve development. Provisions for public el\loyment of greenbelt lIl'IIas IIl'II encouraged; however, greenbelt designations do not imply public ownership or the right of public access. The purpose of these reauJations Is to supplement the policies contained In the comprehensive plan rsgarding greenbelts by the control of development, by minimizing damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion, by protecting wetlands and fish-bearing watars, and providing physical relief between ezpanses of similar land uses. Implementation of these regulations will protect the public against avoidable losses due to maintenance and replacement of public facilities, property damage, subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts. and costs for public emergency rescue and relief operations. These regulations supplement but do not replace the underlying zoning regulations for specific properties. These regulations will provide responsible City officials with information to condition or deny public or private projects to protect potentially hazardous areas and to avoid the necessity of preparing environmental impact statements in cases where there will not be significant adverse environmental effects, thus ezpediting governmental approval proceeses. B. General Provisions: Greenbelt regulations apply to areas that are firet designatad bS greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land use map and also identified .. containing one or more of the following physical criteria: 1. Steep Slope Areas: Are .. with slopes that ezceed twenty five percent (25%). 2. Physical Hazard.: Araaa identifiable as a severe landslide hazard or areas where other severe hazards are anticipated Including erosion, seismic, flood, and coal mine subsidence. 3. Utility Easemente and Rights of Way: Major electricity, water and g .. transmission Une easements and ri~hta of way. 4. Other Criteria: Wetlands, stream corrido:'O, and flood con trol works. The actual presence or absence of the criteria illustrated above In greenbelt are .. , .. determined by qualiliEd professional and I 490 4-31-35 technical persons, shall govern the treatment of an Individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. C. Vegetation Removal: There shall be no removal of vegetation within a greenbelt until a permit is issued pursuant, to Section 4-31-35D below ezcept for normal maintsnBnCe with writtan approval by the Building and ZOning Department for such ectivitles as trimming of vegetation or removel of dangerous or cliseasad plant materiale. D. Development Standards: Whenever a proposed development requires a building permit, grading permit, shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, rezone, planned unit development, subdivision or short subdivision, and one or more of the greenbelt criteria .. defmed in Section 4-31-35B above is present on the sita of the proposed development, studies by qualified professionals may be required. The City shall send writtan notification to the applicant whenever such studies are required. The City may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any such proposal to carry out the purposes of this Section. Whenever a proposed development Involves only one single family dwelling, which is not part of a larger development proposal, the City shall not require special studies or reports by the applicant. 1. Steep Slope Are .. : These regulations apply to land form f.atures of a aite between significant and identifiable changos in .lope. a. Definitions (see Exhibit "A" for an illustration· of th.s. d.finitions): (1) Slope shall be defined as the average slope of the lot or portion thereof In percent between significant changes in slope, detarmined by observation on. simple slopes, or more precisely by the formula: s = 100 I L A (2) Where "I" is the contour Intarval In feet but not greater than ten feet (10'); "L" is the combined length of tho I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4-31·311 01&2) contour Iinel in scale feet; and "A" is the net area between significant changes in slope of the lot in square feet. (3) A significant change in slope shall be defined as a bench or plateau at least fifteen feet (111') in width. b. Development ia prohibited on slopee /Il'IIater than forty percent (40%). Co In /I1'II8nbelt areas with between twenty Bve percent (25%) and forty percent (40%) slope the maximum residential density .haIl be: (1) One unit per acre. and for each one percent (1%) of slope in exce •• of twenty Bve percent (25%). an additional nine hundred (900) square feet in lot area per dwelling unit shaU be required. (2) When the current zoning designation exceede one dwelling unit per acre the allowable development density in the steep alope area shall be reduced to one-fourth (I/J. and for each one percent (1%) of slope in excess of twenty flve percent (25%). the remaining allowable dweUing unit density shall be rsduced by an additional Bve percent (5%). d. The maximum nonresidential buUdable area .ball be reduced to one-fourth ('I J. and for each one percent (1%) of slope in exce.. of twenty Bve percent (25%). the re- maining buildeble area shall be reduced by an additional Bve percent (5%). e. Greenbelt areas between twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent (40'1&) slope shall be subject to special review to assure .tabla buUding conditions •• are and convenient accaa. and minimum disruption of the natural physical feature. of the land. The City may require the appUcant to fUrni.h a report by a Ucensed engineer to evaluate the site. However. tha City may waive tha requirement for special studiel where sufficient Information is otherwise available to approve. approve with conditions. or deny the development permit. 2. Physical Haxarde: Greenbelta estabUshed upon these criteria should be developed only 4-31·35 with /Il'IIat caution and development should be baaed on oound engineering and tecbnlcal knowledge. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio dated March, 1980. is hereby adopted by reference to assist in the determination of and evaluation of physical hazard areas aa prescribed by this Section. a. As a general rule. development should not increase the risk of hazard either on or olf-lite. Where detailad tecbnlcal information is provided Wuatrating that developmant can he .arely accommodated, development that i. compatible with the de/l1'll8 of hazard and with surrounding U888 may be allowed. Provided. any .uch development retaina at least seventy Bve percent (75%) of the site in open .pace or is landscaped compatibly with the physical hazards. b. The City may require sita specific studiea. completed by a quaUJied soila engineer or engineering geclogi.t or other qualified profe88ional.. which shaU include specific recommendations for mitigating mea.ure. which should be required as a condition of any approval for luch development. The recommendations may include. but are not limited to. construction techniques. design. drainage. or density specifications. or seasonal constraints on devslopment. Upon review of these studie •• the development permit shall be conditioned to mitigate adverse environmental impacte and to assure that the development can be safely accommodated on the .ite and i. consistent with the purposes of this Section. The City may waive the requirement for special studies where sufficient information is otherwi.e available to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development permit. 3. Utility" Easements and Rights of Way: A Umitsd number of low intensity uses consistent with the existing zoning and utility use may be permitted within utility greenbelts such that the proposed development meets the intent of providing a" deBnitive geographic reUef between adjoining existing or anticipated land use. Allowable uses include: a. Any structures or activity direc:t1y 8880Ciated with the supply or service of utUltiel; I I (,;.:.", r"'·'· . I I I I I I I I I. I I 4-31-35 D3) F. b. Agriculture; Co Residential open spacee; d. Recreational activities aDd f&Cilitiaa; e. ParkiDg aaooc:iatsd with adjoining laDd lISe. -provided that no more thao the following percentage of the greenbelt area is covered with Impervious .urfBCel aDd the remainder Is compatibly laDclacaped or retaiDed In a natural stats: Twenty five percent (25%), if the most restrictive adjacent 10ning is R-l or 0-1; Fifty percent (50'1», if the moat restrictive adjacent zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, T, or P-l; Sizty flva percent (65%), it the moat restrictive acljacent zoning is B-1, O-P, 1,1. H-l, or M-P; f. Production of reaourcaa -provided that the area is rehabilitstad consistsnt with the greenbelt definition; g. Roadways and atreets -provided that aDy atreet aligned parallel with the greenbelt should Involve the minimum Intrusion upon tbe greenbelt while providing for enbancement through compatible landacaplng. 4. Other Greenbelts: WetiaDda. stream corridors and flood control faciJitiaa designatad greenbelt .ball be subject to the development stBDdards of the City's shoreline mastsr program urban environment where those shoreline regulations would not otherwise apply. Other Allowable U sea: 1. Nothing In these regulations shall limit the construction of one single family home on a pre-existing platted lot, subject to meeting any engineering requirements IIOceaaary to laC ely construct IUcb a residence. 2. Where the provisions of these regulations limit construction of public or privats utllitiaa or appurtenant structures, approval for such construction may be grantad by approval of a conditional use permit subject to a showing of necaaaity and compatibility of the use with these regulations. (Ord. 3849, 10.8-84) (See following page for Eltblblt A, Steep Slope illustration) 4-31-36 4-31-36: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT: I\. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional 1188 permit is to allow certain uses in districts floom which they are normally probibitad by this Chaptsr when the proposed uses are deemed consistsnt with other existing aDd potsntial uses within the general area of the proposed lISe. Except as provided In tbio Section, a conditional use permit may not reduco the requirements of the zone in wbich the use is to be loca ted. B. Conditional Use Permit: The Hearing Examiner may grant, with· or without conditions, or deny the requestad conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV of the City Code. The Hearing Examiner may limit the tsrm aDd duration of tbe conditional use permit. Conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner shall reasonably aaaure that nuisaDce or hazard to life or property will not develop. C. Criteria for Conditional Use: The Hearing Examiner'shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: 1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use shell be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the comprehensive plaD, the zoning ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. 2. Community Need: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a. The proposed location shall not resuit in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediats area of the proposed use. b. That the proposed location is ;,uitsd for the proposed use. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location sball not result In 8ubstBDtial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements sball be required: a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in residential cliatricta (R-l aDd R-2) shall not excsed fifty percent (50'1» of the lot coverage 1 4-31-35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 I • c ... I -• • • r : Exhibit A Steep Slope lIIustr.tion 1 ~-----Io _ .. --------~ ... I ;I • -f ; u • i ;I • " : • • • u • 5 :~ / J ~ .: ... (I,J ! .Hl~ .. I.+.!.~.! .H.~.~ ... \.+ .+.l " ......... u. i. U. • • • J r • i • ~ ! II: • ...:. I u ~ __ ----JLjo -------0 ~ iil :; -----~~---------;~ 1/1 ... :! £=" ~ . e "" • ="' ~~ 8"" .. • • i i .IE • ~ ~ ___ ----~S! --------.. _. -----c ; • L i ;I ! ! J J • • • ... i iii III ! I • • • i ! • • ~ 10 - - - - - --. -" -. _.t ..... ! ~ - ( ( I --. . f,s Iv;' . -E:-r i J __ , IJ,~~:J~' .. $~~1 --. -.:. l if' I . • 0 , r .... " I '\ /. -1-, I M-P ) t I I I I I r I _._-" "', I - ---i-- . "F:l . . . .-' ! <. ... \ ~\ ... -<\'. -' '-" \-". .-:,-'''_.-- .. . " .' ........ ..... I MET.R ? o-p P-II \ ~ ---+--~ PO'S AIL --.-\·C I \ " I I --i- I 1 .,; ., , I I I I I I I I ADDENDA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JONES & STOKES ASSOCIA res, INC. / 1808· 136TH PLACE, NE / BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Ms. Mary Burg, Manager Wetlands Section Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-ll Olympia, WA 98504 August 10, 1989 SUBJECf: Wetland Delineation, Black River Corporate Park: Renton Dear Mary, 206/641-3982 FAX 206/641-3147 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA) is currently in the process of preparing a SEPA EIS for the City of Renton on the proposed Black River Corporate Park. Enclosed is a vicinity map which indicates the location of the project. As part of the assessment of the SEP A environmental elements, a wetland delineation study was conducted on the wetlands located on the proposed project. The wetlands are associated with the former Black River and Springbrook Creek. The purpose of this letter is to describe the delineation methodology used and to present the results of the wetland study. The City of Renton has requested that JSA contact the Wetlands Section of Ecology (ECOLOGY) and ascertain whether DOE will utilize the "old" wetland boundary as determined by Mary Burg in the letter dated April, 1987 (enclosed), or whether the new delineation utilizing the Joint Federal Methodology will be acceptable. The historical dialogue regarding these wetlands and ECOLOGY's jurisdiction is extensive. We are attempting to get clarification from ECOLOGY as to the appropriate method to use to identify the wetlands so that the wetland discussion in the DEIS will be accurately reflect the limits of wetlands subject to ECOLOGY jurisdiction. Enclosed are two maps which indicate the differences between the two different wetland boundaries. Please note that the map for the recently completed delineation which uses the three parameter approach is a rough approximation only based on our field work sketches. The flagged wetland edge has not yet been surveyed. The southeast corner of the wetland is particularly complex, and the edge we show on these sketches is a simplified delineation. - - -- - - "I'h" •• ' SLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST rREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl lOF WETLANO' TYPES j G vegetBcod Wetland IS~tUlDlod or Soasonally Floodod I. ~ Opon Vt/at:or IPcrmanenUt or Seml-pcrmanenur Flooded I _ Wecland Type Boundary ____ Approximate Wetland Boundary __ 1...1"081'"' Watland Feature •••.••.•• Jncluded Wetland "FeBture -...)"'bpcn, Water Channel u-. •• .' ...... Pipe .. Dr ,?u1vart: .. .. .. " .' •• . ' .' •• .' .. • • . ~\ . , . , •• \ . . ' " Y.~lE,p,,~e~~ ----, We.tland Edge.ldentifi~d by EC,OLOGY .. . . ' .. -, .. - (Burg, 4/87) • '. ' .......... :.-.::. :;; ::.::.-.--------:::::: :---.----.. '. .......... . "':-, , " .. ":.. '" . ,. , , Scale 1-Edge of Project: '"' = LIPP'-OK. ,'00' Wetland Edge ".r '\:,~~ ' ..... ~+"'~ Figure 3 WL F7/al6l(41 , ' ........ .. ... CTO V "', ...... (~ ............... !''''II?D ---.... ....--------....... _------ 'Fi::~ ....... . // - ..... -..... ---.... ~ .. --...... : ................ "-, , . , \' . ........... _:: .. .::.. ______ "' .. (. _~._\:.:._ ?:-oo ~ .S",I!-!:~ ...... . . ' ,. " " " ,'.' " " ". " " .' .' " " " .' " " " -- METRO Source: City of Renton Wetland Study. Canning. 1981 " .. -_ ............... , ... --;-----.. . :' ," : . . j , . ~ " '. '. ' • • ' I ! , ',' , : t , ! " "i '. " , ' " " .. , ' '. ! " I • , r " J '. I ' . , ' " , , , ' . ' -------- ·-I".·~· .. BLACK ~IVE~ ~IPA~IAN FO~EST • fREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPL.ANAT.ONl LOF WETL.ANO TYPES j G vegetated Weeland IS.turaled Of SOASONlly Floodocll., ~Open Water IPermanonU)' 01 Semi-Permanently Flooded I _ Wetland Type Boundary .:. ___ Approximate WeclDnd Boundary _ t.1neur Wetland Feature .nU_U JncJudad Wacland "FeatUre ~1:Jpen Water Channel ",-.-Ptp~ : or C;:ulve,r: f2> ~ '~~ .... ~ ... ,.A1C Wetland Edge-Identified. by Jones & Stokes '(6/89) using the'·' Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology . '. . '. -:::::::::~~~::::;;~:~:::-~~:--, ......... ::,...... scale _.1 Edge of Project •• ::: ..... __ ," = appro". 400' -. . - --Wetland Edge ',::,s F7/I.6K4J -V- ,';.-t.. J" ' ,. ~,..-"".r ',~~ F' ',':s 19ure ::> .... 'r~ , , ' ........ 4'0 .. " .. f(, ......... If" ......... y~ ...... ··<J~D ---------------... --------_ ... - :;.::::~~: .. ....---'. /' . , :"'-~-:'''''-~'~~~~~'~:'~~~' ... ,-......... / . .--.--1 V::J-...........•.. :.::::: ...... /. 5 ,.J. ~'. (s. . . . "' '. . , '.' . ' " " " " .' " " . •• . ' .' . ' .' . , .. .. " . ' .. .' .. . ' .~ METRO Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981 ., ;; ..... (: . ;{:···T:·::":f!..,: . ;, . , .' .' , . · , · . , , · . · . · . · . , . · . · . · . ; ! ? ; I r I .. . . , . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m SEA-TAC AIRPORT 4 MILES o SOUTH CENTER S 180TH (I) :0 -en ...... RENTON VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL 0 __ I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-2- Methodology The wetland study was conducted using the new Joint Federal Methodology, which requires examination of soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded sufficiently during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Areas possessing wetland hydrology are inundated either permanently or periodically, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. In order for an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all three of these parameters· must be present. Because it is often difficult to assess hydrology during the summer, wetland hydrology was assumed to be present in all areas that support wetland vegetation and contain hydric soils. The majority of the wetland edge was identified by visually approximating the edge, and then taking soil samples to determine the presence/absence of hydric soils associated with hydrophytic vegetation. The wetland edge was clearly discernable throughout a majority of the site, even in areas that have been recently disturbed. In the southeast portion of the site, the vegetation and soils were not obviously upland or wetland, and fourteen sampling plots were established to determine the edge of the wetland. Vegetation, soils, and any obvious hydrologic indicators were examined at each plot. Information was recorded on a separate data sheet for each plot. Copies of these data sheets are enclosed. Results Two wetlands are present on the subject property; each is described separately below. A third wetland that is off of the property is also described because it is near enough to the proposed development area that it would likely be adversely affected by development. #1: Central Disturbed Area. A large wetland is present in the central portion of the site; the area is surround by fill on the north, west, and east sides, and Greenbelt forest to the south. This wetland was cleared in late 1986 or early 1987, under the authority of a grading permit (SP-024-86) granted by the City of Renton. Vegetation. This area currently is a palustrine deciduous shrub wetland with small emergent areas interspersed throughout. Based on Corps of Engineers (COE) aerial photographs, the City of Renton Wetland Study (Canning, 1981), and ECOLOGY correspondence, this area supported a forested and shrub swamp prior to clearing. The existing shrub community has become established since the wetland forest was cleared; over time, if left undisturbed, the shrub community would mature into a forested wetland. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-3- Black cottonwood (PQPulus trichQcarpa) and red alder (Alnm IlIl2m) saplings dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include wil!ow (SlWx spp.) and red-osier dogwood (Comus stQIQnjfern). Common snowberry (SymphQricarpQs llllms), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus djscQlor), and Nootka rose (~ nootkana) occur occasionally throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), marsh speedwell (Yeronjca scuUellata), soft rush (Juncus effuSus), sedge (~ sp.), horsetail (Eqpisetum aryense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtjca djojca), velvetgrass (HQlcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (phalaris arundjnaceae), burreed (Xanthjum strumarium), and bittersweet nightshade (SQlanum dulcamera). Disturbance has affected the species composition, al!owing intrusion by species such as Himalayan blackberry and Canada thistle. The community being reestablished is probably similar in species composition to the wetland that was present prior to clearing. Small pockets of emergent wetland occur within this disturbed area. They are characterized by the presence of common cattail (T}l!ha latifolia), with marsh speedwel! and fireweed (EpUQbium angustjfQlia) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) are scattered throughout the system. SQih. The southeast portion of this large wetland is somewhat transitional in nature. Most of the vegetation in this area is listed as facultative, and soils are light to medium brown (2.5Y 2/3 to 2.5Y 2/2) sandy sUts and sandy loarns with some mottling. Data was collected at fourteen data points throughout this area to help clarify the wetland boundary; results are presented in Table 1. The methodology used to select data points is described in the joint federal wetland delineation manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et.a1., 1989). Summary of Data Collected in the Southeast Portion of Wetland #1 PlQt # YegetatiQn SQil Hydrology Result 1, +1 wetland upland upland upland 1, -I wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, + 1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 2, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, + 1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, +3 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 4, -3 wetland hydric . assumed wetland 5, + 1 wetland upland upland upland 5, +2 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -1 wetland hydric assumed wetland 5, -2 wetland upland upland upland I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-4- Three of the plots were determined to be upland based on soils, and the remaining eleven plots were wetland. Although only 80% of plots in this area are wetland, we flagged the entire area as wetland. This was done for the following reasons: 1) based on aerial photographs and other sources, this area was wetland prior to disturbance; 2) the upland pockets represent scattered, isolated, microtopographic high spots, probably created during clearing and grading activity; and 3) it would be extremely difficult and not necessarily useful to identify and flag each isolated patch of upland within the wetland system. Hydrology. Portions of the wetland showed clear evidence of saturation, especially those areas where emergent species were present. The majority of the shrub system did not have any direct evidence of seasonal saturation, however there were reoccuring small depressions scattered throughout the area which indicated seaSonal ponding. These areas were characterized by the presence of flattened vegetation and water stained leaf litter. #2: Northeast Shrub Swamp . A palustrine deciduous shrub swamp is present in the northeast portion of the site. The wetland is bounded by the railroad to the northeast, an old roadway to the west, and fill from an active construction site to the south. Vegetation. The canopy is dominated by black cottonwood and red alder. Oregon ash is also cornmon throughout. Shrubs present include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry (Rubus SpectabiliS), and willow. Soft rush and stinging nettles are common in the ground layer. The wetland is a shrub/forested swamp characterized by dense woody vegetation, standing water, and the presence of emergent species such as cattail and panicled bulrush. The area was apparently logged at some time as downed material is present in the wetland. SQils. Soils in the area are a very dense silt with some pockets of organic soil in the central portion of the wetland. The soils are clearly hydric, displaying gleyed colors of bluish grey (5Y5/1). Darker organic soils are located near the open water areas at the western edge of this portion of the site. Hydrology. The area contains a small open water area which appears to hold water throughout the year. The remainder of the area possesses high groundwater in the winter and spring. This high groundwater results from regionally high groundwater levels and seeps from the hillslope to the north. Although no obvious surface water connection was found, the region is also connected via subsurface flow to the open water ponds on the north side of the railroad tracks. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-5- #3: Historic Meander Channel A remnant meander of the Black River is present to the west of the property,. It is not included in the proposed development, but was briefly evaluated due to the potential for it to be adversely affected by the proposed action. Vegetation. The horseshoe-shaped relic channel surrounds an "island" of upland forest. The island is approximately 15 feet above the elevation of the wetland, and is dominated by black cottonwood with an understory of Himalayan blackberry and srtowberry. The relic meander itself supports both shrub swamp and emergent marsh habitat. The northern portion of the meander contains a shrub swamp community dominated by willow. Red alder and black cottonwood are present in minor amounts. Soft rush and creeping buttercup dominate the ground layer. The western portion of the channel is approximately five feet wide and well-defined; this area contains an emergent marsh community dominated by common cattail. Along the edge of the Black River, a second type of emergent marsh community is present. The area contains a muddy substrate sparsely vegetated with spike rush (Eleocharis palustds) and marsh cinquefoil. This area is probably subject to a changing water regime as a result of flood management activities in the river; Slills. Soils are primarily an organic silt with lenses of sand. Soil color varies from a dark gray (10YR3/1) to nearly black. Mottling was noted in some areas. Hydrology. The hydrology of the area is control!ed primarily by the forebay pond associated with the Black River pump plant. Soils in the meander are saturated to the surface throughout most of the year, and water ponds during winter storm events. Greenbelt Forest In addition to these three wetlands, the forested riparian area located between the identified wetlands and the remains of the former Black River was also field checked for the presence of wetlands. Based on the three parameter methodology, JSA determined the majority of the area to be upland. The northern fringe of the forested zone is wetland and was flagged as such during the field delineation. The determination conflicts with previous determinations; Canning in 1981 and Burg in 1987 identified this as wetland forest. It is dominated by large black cottonwood and red alder; larger cottonwood trees in this area are five feet in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Oregon ash are also common here. The shrub layer contains salmonberry, red-osier dogwood, red elderberry, snowberry, and Indian plum. Groundcover species include horsetail, creeping buttercup, stinging nettles, lady fern, and wood fern. Soft rush occurs in wetter pockets around the margins of the forest. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ms. Mary Burg August 10, 1989 Page-6- The soils in the majority of the forested area are clearly upland; a silty sand with a color of 5Y4/4 and no mottling. Along the northern edge of the forest, soils are hydric, possessing a color of 2.5Y 4/2 and distinct mottles. The soils are well drained and show no evidence of active hydrology or seasonal saturation. In addition, the elevation of the forested zone is more than five feet higher than _ the high water mark within the forebay ponds. This forested zone has the characteristics of a classic floodplain forest: large cottonwood trees with an open understory and a not well developed groundflora. This portion of the property has been designated as Permanent Greenbelt by the City of Renton through the rezone process, that is why the area was not cleared along with the remainder of the site. The Greenbelt designation implies that the area cannot be developed and must be left undisturbed. Summary Given the historical and ongoing sensitivity of this site and its wetlands, we need direction from you and your staff as to whether ECOLOGY will require the wetland delineation from 1987 or the 1989 delineation using the three parameter method to be used to assess impacts of the proposal on wetlands. In order to produce an environmental assessment document which includes accurate information and impact assessment we are requesting your direction on this issue as soon as possible. If we can provide any further clarification, or if you or your staff wish to meet out on the site, please do not hesitate to call. Thank-you for your time on this issue. DS/RD/je cc: City of Renton Sincerely, 4~~ Dyanne Sheldon Wetland Ecologist I2h1./-Jt/[~ Robert Denman Hydrologist I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Client: Ktt6l'l ~~~~~ct~7©jC*~R" Vegetation Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) of: 1'1 ' STR: Indicator Trees % Cover status !!Hs;e£.r,!,!b~s,-___ % Cover 1. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover 1 :1~oylJk'\)j( I c\~ OCMf" 2. (o!ws d.~t:.DIo' 3.~ '1' Indicator St"atus F/ic.. f1ic.v- ffle.. (~""'''' (he.. <' """""') d.:.,·':·''''··''1 Percent of 'lSpecl.es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ---- Indicator status (fk.v:> .file.. -(aS~ff'Q. V) fJlc.u _ ftc"' Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta-:-t..,.i-o-n-=?,....,.Y~e-s-,..,/---:cN""O-_-_-_--:B:-a-s-i:-s-:--:?~2-0.J7" of dltr~lIcaMf ~f (l~ FAc soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ _ A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 5c.rod,/@j!1TextureB:->!5cyryI!:l/LItl-_,...-_ Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: o-S' d.5 y $p Gleyed? Yes -No Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -:i-n-c""h-e-s-:-=.-=.-, ----- Depth to Till: _________ ~-----;--~ __ - Hydric soils? Yes ___ No2 Basis: COIrX; 00 n1Qftlf~, S'fX\~. Hydrology / Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Dept~ of standing water: ___ ~~ __________ _ Saturated soils? Yes No./ Depth to saturated soil : _____ __ otherindicators: ____ ~_-_-__ === ____ _:_---~---~------------ Wetland hydrology? Yes ___ No-L... Basis:.,.uNI.;.~.L)..;..:·q-lt(l_r1 ~D1L:,;.J".:..·---------- Atypical situation? Yes No comment: _____ "_· ____________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No / Wetland determination: Wetland --Non-wetland v' General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) project: B (l. OJfc.7Q!)\s. STR: client: ~~t' Q . .n Date:--""'-f.l~'j.l..._I-_JL.:J_'--__ ..l/~~_ Plot No.: I) -, of: ,4 ---- vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover 1- 2. 3. saplings/ 3s~h .... ru~b~s______ % Cover 1. "Inu', (vb, •. 2. fovvh .. ~ HIU""""'" 3. Rul6'J~ dl ~(..o\t1" 10 iO aD Indicator Stat us !.!H"'e .... r..,b:.=s~ ___ _ % Cover )J 1. -lLlr..:...r:, e.f.ftJ)U,:) ~'S d,'"'' 2 • f'""",.""<.vl,-", (""f.1fl'. ;;).0 3 • C,r'l'.';M 0.( Vt..,-...... I 5 .. ~ )«\);111\, up· .. S-l'C·/JIc1"'""' S 5. 1'''0\4 C:(Il>PV':; 5 6. Indicator st'atus ff.,c... F f,c.. r 1iC!.-'- Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66~D Indicator Status fI~c.w FAc.w F1Ic..u- file.. ffl<: .. uJ Other indicators:~~~~~ __ -r~ ___ ~~~ ___ ~ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes=Z No ___ Basis: '1 £;,0"10 fAG CJI" f/ybJ Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: 0-9' Texture A: S':t.1I~ I.x". Texture B: SI\fTc;:."", -- Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: iil.5¥ 31il Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: i Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till:~ __ ~~----~~~----~~ Hydric soils? Yes .7 No ___ Basis:~r~~,~.)~§~%~H~c ________________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes No Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes--No Depth to saturated'--s-oTi~l-:------------ otherindicators: ---,--r Wetland hydrology? Yes =z N 0___ Bas is : .,.''''·''-''''c..icf..::.. ;.:;:.J"'/'I"'.;2."'r'_.:x _______________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Cornrnent: ____________________ _ Normal circumstances? ~ No Wetland determination: wetland --./ Non-wetland. ______ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I Client: ~I~ ~~~~~c0A Vegetation Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) a lfc. ?MI-J Plot No.: d, ~ I of: 14 Indicator STR: AT~r=e=e~s~_____ % Cover .....8Sc!.t:Eac!.t.!Ou~s~_ L!H=e~r..,b~s,--_____ % Cover ~ l.~c'n,..l.l\v:' (~ Ii.) ---- Indicator status l. 2. 3. 2. iGJlT.;J. e,rl.,P;S 10 3. .5 o(nr •• ·"" dLJ\(~ .... , iO fA2w ..;:-flCV') rAe.. Saplings/ ~sh~r~u~b~s~_____ % Cover Indicator Status 4 • C'-<~)'. Sf. S 5 ·JLI nu .... 'S Q_Ru'S<.J$ r: 6. ~ 1 :fop"i..,., 1r-,cr.c<Lu\{b.. I 2. Sat, ~ '<'f. 3. c..or~ '5~~.,,- CoO 10 10 I I I I I I I I I I c.1C'N\ ,('.40\. Percent of ... spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IOQ'? Other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~ Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No __ Basis: {(rnA .}¥.d:rr.tt?1e.f'1 !flR. /l:e.. -rf'~~ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___ A-Horizon depth: Q-'l Texture A: S'~ Texture B: Mottled? Yes-L-No __ Mottle color:.@ F Matrix color:.7 " ?f.q Gleyed? Yes __ No~ Depth to Mottie 0 Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 ":i-n-c":'h-e-s-:-------------- Depth to Till: , H d · '1 ::---~--::~---::--..--:---;, .Il" '" tl" i Y r~c so~ s? Yes...\.L-No __ Bas~s: her'" I~ (\",cJ.)i('ri ~·I. (iilJlS Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No ___ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated·-s-o'i-:;l-:------------- otherindicators: ()]()& flciiEC-['-II.I~: ,Uid";Cb ~ ii<ll.~d".~, "@,,, Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No ___ Basis: " . :::: Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _______________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland ---,/ Non-wetland ___ -..,.. __ General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t Q.!\ PDraOtJe' :.C?;./B f' 0 i1';,. ?M"--l~'4-.!~ ......... _r-_:iL.:._I-__ ....l!J ___ Plot No.: 2,* fjl of: l'i STR: Vegetation Indicator AT~r~e~e:s~___ % Cover status ~H=e~r~b~s ___ _ % Cover ~ 1. :Lnc...r, e.,i(,.,u5 !j I-2 '-~"I'v(\( .... \L:. ~nS \ ----- Indicator Status (liCu..' flic.cu l. 2. 3. !: 1Y.v\~ '3(dj ("'o<,\tW (<?.D.IAV- 5. - Saplings/ shrubs % Cover Indicator St'atus 6. . -I l.70t"'k~ h',choCMf-90 2. Ajr,J') rllb-t", 5 3. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: iOO other indicators: IJ.lX!"Jlh· $t~ \.U:~ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes:i::No __ Basis: ____________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ A-Horizon depth: 0-( Texture A: Tex~ure B: r.lo'J"..J.j 'Ott Lvi:' Mottled? Yes .,/ No __ Mottle color: Matr~x color:'i:, :<i,,;' ;1;"'1/,, Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -:i-n-c-:'h-e-s-:------- Depth to Till: ( Hydric soils? Y~e~s-V7~~N~o-___ --~B~a~s~i~s~:~_-_-_-_-_-_-________________ ___ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No ~De~~ of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated-s-o-:'i'l-:------- Otherindicators: --- Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s--./~N~o-_-_-_-~B~a-s-~~·s-:-q-e-~-r-/-e-.-;/~,'------------ Atypical situation? Yes No comment: __________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --,I Non-wetland _______ _ General site comments: I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) client: 12~t !11l Project: B\~ ii!. Q,Pfc.?n.o'I- Date:--"0 ... 1.'-'1 .... _-+-'_L._"'-__ --Jt.M __ Plot No.: t.j ., I of: ;'-i STR:~ ___ _ vegetation =T~r~e~e~s~ ____ % Cover 1- 2. 3. Indicator Indicator status H~e~rb~s _____ _ % Cover status I saplings/ shrubs % Cover Indicator st·atus tAc ·h'~(. "'-.n. f)VO f.-1. ~""1. J:j I ?\< 2 .'P~ k ,cJ,o 3. F ,,<:_ I I I I I I I Percent of species that are OBL, FACW I and/or FAC: IQO<1· Other indicators:~~~~~--~~----~~~------Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No ___ Basis: ______________________ __ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes A-Horizon depth:. Texture A: c/a'tfV ~ft Texture B: __ -::-___ _ Mottled? Yes-L N0---7-Mottle color: Matrix color:-",;:........r;'-\!)I-... ~I""_, __ Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _________ ' ____ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _________ _ No Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y:;-e-s--:Z--7'":-:N:-:O~~~---::B:-:a-s-:;i'"=s:-:---{:-, .. -:it',.1.· ., / MAI!k.; I Hydrology Inundated? Yes No ~DePth of standing water: saturated soils? Yes---No / Depth to saturated--s-o~i~l-:------------ otherindicators:-=~;~----~~~=--~~~----------;_--------------- wetland hydrology? Yes~o __ Basis:~~~~~.:~,.,~t.~~J~:)~' .. ~-----~~---Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ________________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No wetland determination: wetland --,/.. Non-wetland _____ _ I General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~(t Project: ~ 0 ~,;..7M\; Date: 01 Plot No.: I " q I +;2. of:.J1.;:41--_ STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover l. 2. 3. Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s_____ % Cover 60 ';fO 10 Indicator ....... s.",t""a""t"'u"'s'--_ ..,H"'e"'r-=b"'s'--___ _ % Cover Indicator status File. fflc.. fAc.,w l(. 1 . .JUfiub eqUiL>:; 00 iI 2. V-fk.1YlIC.c .. st~~ ~O 3. SO\ol.KIL>1h dulce""","<,-it» ~: 1?'''-'''vnwl,,:. <¥)~ ';, 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100·10 Indicator Status Other indicators: . Hydrophytic vegeta-~t-'i-o-n~?~Y~e-S-~-~N~O-_-_-_~B~a-s~~"'s~::~~~~ ___________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: 0 -I? Texture A:~11 "\'+lIlo(M'lTexture B: ______ _ Mottled? Yes J No Mottle color: I Matrix color: il, '1'1 '1 fa Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ________ i __ _ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _______ _ Depth to Till: ( Hydric soils? Y~e-s-~J~~N~o~~~-~B~a-s~i~s-:-_-_-_~-_-_-_________________ ___ Hydrology Inundated? Yes NO./ Depth of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes---No J Depth to saturated'-s-o~i'l-:-------- otherindicators: fhl~"-;:;"(' {)1k/ in :.-:-i ali /,g. ';o:L~ It :/J; 1.0.1 Wetland hydrology? YJes2!No ___ Basis: ..; Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: ________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: wetland --~/ Non-wetland "------- General Site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 'R~t tUl Proj ect: e,y (l. 0 y i: 1 1'0. 0 'f. Date:--,,04(~'1J..._-I-_~~I--__ ..ll~~_ Plot No.: of:-t/J4_ STR: ___ _ Vegetation Indicator ~T~r~e~e~s~~___ % Cover status uH~e~rb~s ______ _ % Cover Indicator Status l. 2. 3. II 1. JlJf\C_V~ e.\t".".,s '7<3.5"1" k2. Joh",'.ur" d" 1ur....wJ < 10'10 "t 3 ."R;~ c.r'~t)~ .( 5'10 4 • 5. 6. Saplings/ ~sllh~ru~b~s____ % Cover Indicator Status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ __ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes..L No ___ Basis: _____________________ _ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ NO __ A-Horizon depth: 0-8' Texture A: Texture B:_...",..-...,-__ Mottled? Yes--L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: 5y't/1 Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ______________ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: __________ _ Depth to Till: ___ ~-----~---Hydric soils? Yes VI No__ Basis: _____________________________ _ Hydrology Inundated? Yes No,/ Depth of standing water: __ -,. _________ __ Saturated soils? Yes==: No~ Depth to saturated soil: ______ __ otherindicators:~--------r_--------~--------~------------------- Wetland hydrology? Yes =02 No__ Ba 5 is: ~G.""';.;,:c.:J.)l!.rr'" .. gJ __________________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ___________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --.; Non-wetland, ____ _ General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) STR: Client: 12~t tU,l project:B!~ e· 0-Pi.~.7ao);, Date:--","'./-t..J1~~~_'-'~~ __ ..lLJ __ Plot No.: L:J, -( of: {~ ---- Vegetation Trees % Cover 1. 2. 3. Saplings/ ~sh~ru~b~s______ % Cover 80 0-.0 5 Indicator status UHEe~r~b~s~_____ % Coyer Indicator status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 661. Indicator Status fllc..u- tRc..vj Other indicators:~~~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ ____ __ Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-iL. No ___ Basis: ___________________ __ Soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ A-Horizon depth: a-LX' Texture A: Sg.n~!MO Texture B:~--:::-:---:-1'7'_ Mottled? Yes V No Mottle color: . Matrix color: i2,,,¥ 'i/3 Gleyed? Yes No y( Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ______________ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? YC:e-s--j-r''''N=-=O-_-_--_-",B=-a-s-1-:-· s-:-----sw..d-:&I /Oq,m wI rrnli4s . u i Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water:._~~ __________ _ Saturated soils? Yes NO-L, Dept;h, to s turated Otherindicators: . 7 . <;, r. "~L . , L Wetland hydrology? es J 'No ___ Basis:-:-____________________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ___________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --/ Non-wetland _______ _ General site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Project:A> e. 0 if.;.. Lao):.. STR: Client: R~t Q.O Date:-x<0~/-"~L4_w_L.:~'\"-__ .l!.IT:......._ Plot No.: !:f -g, of: J9 ---- Vegetation Indicator Indicator Trees % Cover status Herbs % cove!;: status l. * 1. ~wi~ CIJI""d..rr..w.. 30'1,. fnew 2. .. 2. R..w...,r.UJlu) ("~ 10 rfl~ 3. 3 • Ctt'"';llJil""l (."IVen<..., <5 f fl::..v~ 4 • ~oYlIU~ ~c<I. ...... <5 0&-5. SnIu..._ <I.., Ie._ <5 fAe... 6. Saplings/ Indicator shrubs % Cover St"atus ~ 1 . ?opUk.>s t n~:.ho:l<.'{l<. «0 FAc.- 2 • Rub;~ :i~I,! rfjc.,uJ 3. fllnu~ (-v~c... f"lic.. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: I~ Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y-e-S-~~~N~0-_-_-_~Ba~S-1~'S--:::::~ __________________ _ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: Q-'t" Texture A:c.kt.~ Texture B: - - Mottled? Yes--lL. No Mottle color: ..4.!l'8# Matrix color: 2,5u ~B @ I Gleyed? Yes_ NOL"' Depth to Mottle or G1ey: i Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _________ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e-s--Zl,--N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-1~·s--::~c-~-QJ1~.-n~~,:~n1~au6l~ks~ ________ ~ ______ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes_ No __ Depth of standing water:._~ __ --------- Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soi1: _______ _ otherindicators: ----. Wetland hydrology? Y es ~ No___ Bas is : .,..:..~ .... , ..lSJ50uz,,","m~RI{.J.J,,-_____________ __ Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ________________________ ___ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --,/ Non-wet1and, ______ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: 5t~ ~~~~~c0A= 031"':' '"PM):. lJ Plot No.: '-1 1 -3 of: IY STR: Vegetation ~T~re~e~s~_____ % Cover l. 2. 3. Saplings/ ~s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover -t LropeIL<;{C I(..hcr .... ~ yo .'/r. 2. A Jf IU~ ""uil:1c.L I.( 0 3. C"4(f.f"""' a=pos c& t.:.... Indicator status uH£e~rb~s2-_____ % Cover Indicator St:atus F /le.. FAc... f'1\w ''1 . Poo..-'If>. ., 0 .2 . CM~ I~m a.rl/~'G. a.. IS II' 3. :rOtlW5 oJr(j1tt~ ~ 'j 4 • ~J~ c.r,~('lUS 5 s. 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: tQ ---- Indicator status .f fiC-(r=, ""~ FAW - f"AC.LJ f"At..w Other indicators: . / Hydrophyticvegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y-e-s--/~N~o----~B~a-s~i~s-:~~~~~ ________________ __ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _ A-Horizon depth: O-pll Texture A: c.J1Mj 1m!! Texture B: .sMd~ 1M., Mottled? Yes ,/ No Mottle color: Matrix color: _______ _ Gleyed? Yes_ No,/ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 'i"::n":c":"h":e":s-:----------- Depth to Till: / Hydr ic soils? Y:"7e-s--i7-+N~o---...,B=-a--s.,.is--: -e-o..."r'{-ltJ I rI/{)t/1ur A-~~n.); ;1.5'{ Y/;)'~ VB-helli>. J51 '-l/-l \N/l7ltill-u Hydrology Lt'/ ,'J,," ks._ ;:J Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Depth of standing water: saturated soils? Yes No vi Depth to saturated~s-o'i~l-:----------- Otherindicators: ------ Wetland hydrology-~?~y""e-s----~N""o--,7~""B=-a-s-l~'S--:---------------------- Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ______________________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ----;:/ Non-wetland ---- General Site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION . (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: ~~t' Q1l Project: B .e 0 '1';" Xo.o'f.. Da te: -,,04t_5.L._~_.l1--.l_,--__ -,,\J,--_ Plot No. : ~S"--~~\c--of: .LtY:J--_ STR: ____ _ Vegetation ~T~r=e=e~s_____ ~ Cover 1. 2, 3. Saplingsj shrubs ~ Cover -( 1 TcF .. l'~ 1M hcx .. ·..>fk'-<:(D 2. S,,-·.'·~'c'c..u ~ .... C.U01t·l/>--"< l5 3. R..;i~·J5 'IIf~jcJ:nI;5 < 15 Indicator status H~e~r~b~s _______ % Cover Indicator St:atus rAe F!k.V File... '" 1. ud,cc,dlO·'c:.., go"], 2 .,.tl1h'lr'off'l .(~'~~..rII'(»", 3. 101", .. 1", '""'""~C_ 4. 5. 6. Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, andjor FAC: 100 Indicator status fRG-1 <.5"/,· File fAc.. Other indicators: Hydrophytic vegeta-:-t":'i-o-n-=?:-:"y""e-s---,/,-·-=N"'o-_~-_--:B=-a-s-1-:-' s--: --:d'""tltl-YJQOm ~p F He.. ,) (' weJjilt~ soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: () -...... Texture A: Texture B: sjR~I~ - Mottled? Yes_ Noll' Mottle color: Matrix color: Cl~'Slf 3k Gleyed? Yes __ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 'i-n-=c";'h-e-=s=-:---------- Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y~e--S-_--~N=-O-.~~---:B::-a-s~i-s-:======_ _______________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes __ No / Dep / of standing water: Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'-s-o""i""l-:------------- otherindicators:-=~==-~--__:~~--_:::_--~--77----~------~~~------ Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No 7 Basis: No eJl"l'OCQ i V-s;;;]S Atypical situation? Yes No COl1ll1lent: ____________________ -;-__ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No / Wetland determination: wetland __ ::: _____ Non-wetland--''--__ _ General site Comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) Client: R~t (Ul Project: e,!~ ~, Difi;. I'Qo);, Date:-",0+/...J1-4_...J_L..;_.l-__ .l!.~ __ Plot No.: '2, i ~' of:-JI.;;z.IJ_ STR: ___ _ Vegetation Trees 1. 2. 3. saplings/ shrubs % Cover % Cover ~ l:?opvi~ i(Ic.h,~ 'rD 2.Ccn"-,, '1lolO1l,\QN... ID 3 ~1?v~\r) ~ w..d • .5 .5 Indicator status Indicator st'atys Herbs t Cover ... 1.1< c.NI u,"""..! v:, ~1'6 ~5 )/' 2 • V lJfon,ec... sc...,ft.k¢. S Jt-3 • :Ju nc...-.>S QJtUSo.; 5 ~ 4. vd ".c.. 0, <:> i '..r ... 5 5. 6. , dl>P""c",'\~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: !OO Indicator status tllLW 08<- t~c.v..l +KW Other indicators: ' HYdrOPhyticvegeta-t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-S-~--~N~o-~~B~a-s~i~s-:::::= __________ _ soil series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ A-Horizon depth: 0-10 Texture A: s,k lOAM Texture B: ___ ..,.--___ _ Mottled? Yes' V No--:.-Mottle color: Matrix color: ;; "IV 4,'"' Gleyed? Yes ___ No ___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _____ . _____ __ Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ________ _ Depth to Till:~-~~---_=--~--__ -Hydric soils? Yes~ No___ Basis: _________________ __ Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ NO~ Depth of standing water: satur~te~ soils? Yes ___ No~ Depth to saturated'--s~o'i~l~:--------- other~nd~cators:_=~---~--~-~~~~--~------------Wetland hydrology? Yes~ No ___ Basis:7d~f~~~~·~~.~~~,i __________ _ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ______________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland --./ Non-wetland ------- General Site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) client: 12~t Illl Project: p.!7 ~" 0 =i';" 7 no \; Date: ....... C?4!_'1J...._I-_.jI....;..l_'-__ .",!1c--_ Plot No.: 5, -\ of: ... 'w·'<--_ STR: ____ _ vegetation AT~rEeEe~s'--___ % Cover 1. 2. 3. Saplings/ ~sh~ru~b~s~___ % Cover ;II 1. Vo\..oIU'j tr"ha:., ... p;.. 2 • ACL<" r •• ur rJph'iHCI\\ 3 ~ubU~ ~ChllS 75 t; 5 Indicator sta tus !JHEe~r-"b"'s~ __ _ % Cover Indicator status ~ 1.()Ii,c",,-cf'::1{":· :;() 2 . .Bl\':~11. k... I 0 3. KII1'-v(".JL'S rt~5 iO 4 • V~'1 ('~'. i( LI. ·~uik~tl(,. ~,~ 5. 6. d""',IIu.ro Percent of,species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Indicator status FA (.u...> rflc.l.J (f,c-t....> O&- other indicators:~~~~~--~~--~-~---Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: ___________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ A-Horizon depth: 0 -1$2 II Texture A: ',IB Ic?<!m Texture B:_-.,.._--=,..,-_ Mottled? Yes-L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: ::: &'V (">./O!. Gleyed? Yes No Depth to Mottle or Gley: Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 ":'i-n-c.,-h-e-s-:---'------- Depth to Till: . Hydric soils? Y~e-s-:J2:--~~N~o---~B~a-s-.irs-:-_~-_-_-_-_-______________ ___ Hydrology Inundated? Yes NO~ Depth of standing water: saturated soil~Yes No~ Depth to saturated-s-07i~I-:------ otherindicators: - wetland hydrology~?~Y~e~s-.~--~N~o-._-_--_-~B~a-.s-.,is~:--A'.-.,S~,-,(~·1·~~-._,7i------------ Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _______________ _ Normal circumstances? Yes No lI'etland determination: wetland --,/ Non-wetland ------- General Site comments: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Jones & Stokes Associates WETLAND DETERMINATION (Three Parameter Methodology) o ,Pfc. roo \:.. J Plot No.: Ii -2 of: /4 STR: Vegetation Trees '1. 2. 3. Saplings/ shrubs % Cover % Cover -'It 1..?opJiLS tflCTc="F '1lfb 2 • i(1lb..s ~,*,d '" ~ 3 • ~""\'IJCVS rae.:>.""'*'- Indicator status uH~e~r~b~s~ __ _ Indicator St'atus fAG fl\c-W fllc...U % Cover ----- Indicator Status Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: !()Oo:lJc, Other indicators: . / HYdroPhyticvegeta~t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s-J~~N~O-_-_-_~B~a-s~i~s-:-_-_-_~-_-_________ _ Soil Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No A-Horizon depth: O-K .• Texture A: Texture B:5g;;r~ (oc;;n. Mottled? Yes-L.. No __ Mottle color: (t rAt;, f: IJ' Matrix color: '<Ai R ~5 Gleyed? Yes ___ No __ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~----------------- Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _ Depth to Till: Hydric soils? Y·~e-s==~~N~o--Cl--~B~a-s-~'·s--::::::: __________________________ __ 'Hydrology Inundated? Yes ___ No ~ Depth of standing water: __ ~~------------ Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated soil: __________ __ otherindicators:~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ ____ ~ __ -r __ ~ ______________ __ Wetland hydrology? Yes __ N0..L.. Basis: -rJ') ·.yr)ll'nI,az;.s Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: ________________________ __ Normal circumstances? Yes No Wetland determination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ ........ .1:..-__ _ General Site Comments: r·~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Regulatory Branch Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor Shore lands Management Shore lands and Coastal Zone Management Program State of Washington Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washingt~n 98504-8711 Dear Mr. Williams: We are in receipt of your letter of June 9, 1987, regarding First City Equities near the Black River in the City of Renton. You asked for information concerning our regulatory process Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Personnel from the Seattle District first visited ·the site on November 14, 1985, at the request of the Alterra Corporation. We concluded that, although there were wetlands present on the site, they were not considered adjacent wetlands and, therefore, were not under our jurisdiction. We informed the A1terra Corporation of this determination by letter of December 16, 1985. On November 13, 1986, the Corps of Engineers published new regulations which became effective January 12, 1987. These regu- lations provide a clarification of the definition of waters of the United States. The new regulations state that waters which are or would be used as habitat by migratory birds are considered waters of the United States. By letter of February 18, 1987, we informerl Ms. Barbara Moss of First City Equities of the clarification in our new regula- tions. We requested her to contact our office regarding permit procedures which may be required to fill wetlands on the Black River Technological Park site. As a result of our February 18, 1987 letter, First City Equi- ties met with us and later sent"us considerable documentation thst convinced us that a substantial amount of work had been done on I I I I I I I I I I I il , II i :1 il I I • I 24 June 1987 • Wang ~7289s Disc ~714 -2- the site under our December 16, 1985, directive which said the wetlands were not under Department of the Army jurisdiction. Accordingly, we concluded that the work may be completed under our December 16, 1985, directive and no further coordination with our office is required. We informed Me. Barbara Moss of this determi- nation by letter of March 4, 1987. If you have questions concerning our involvement in the First City Equities site at Black River, Renton, Washington, call Mr. Sam Casne,. telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Warren E. Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch ~,~~ I' -rc';) -.#",.,~ .'11 r" .("1''''' .;,. .... 1,. .~/OP-RF BA~~;@I 3.:..~. ~ Reg Br Fi e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ./ DEPARTMENT 01' ECOLOGY Warren Baxter Chief, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98134 Dear Mr. Baxter: June 9,1987 On March II, 1987 Ecology issued a stop work order on a site owned by First City Equities adjacent to the Black River in the City of Renton. A field inspection on April 6, 1987 by Ecology staff confirmed that the extent of wetlands as mapped in the City of Renton Wetlands Study, 1981, is accurate and indicated the extent of associated wetlands under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. Our examination found the following indicators present: I)a predominance of vegetation adapted to saturated soil conditions (e.g. Oregon ash, black cottonwood, willow, red-osier dogwood, etc.); 2) the presence of hydric soils (Woodinville series); and 3) hydrology consisting of inundation and saturation by surface and ground waters, permanently and/or periodically during the growing season. Please refer to the attached report for more detailed descriptions of the physical and biological conditions on site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p Mr. Warren Baxter June 9. 1987 Page 2 • We would appreciate any information you can provide us concerning this area that you might have developed under your authority granted by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition. we may request technical assistance in the development of appropriate mitigation alternatives for the loss of this valuable wetland habitat. Thank you for your consideration. JRW: la Enclosure cc: Don Erickson. City of Renton Terra Prodan Mary Burg Don Beery Sincerely. /-J/!ll/l'~/? . Joseph R. Williams. Supervisor / Shorelands Management Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. ,. :t: .1.77) i\;',-':i< ~) -"j :. J: STATE OF WASIIiNGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY .\ld" .'top PI--II • O/rmpid. Wd,hm/l/<J1l 'i/i5(}~-H~ 1/ • (!/}lJ1 ~;'J-6(XI() April 27, 1987 Mr. Ronald G. Nelson . Director, Building & Zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Re: Determination of Extent of Associated Wetlands, Proposed Site of Black River Corporate Park, Renton, WA Dear Mr. Nelson: In response to your request for assistance, I visited the proposed site of the Black River corporate Park development in order to determine the extent of associated wetlands under jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. On April 6,' 1987, Terra Prodan and I met on site with Don Erickson of your department, Barbara Moss, and other representatives of First city Equities and their contractors. I spent a total of seven hours on the site examining the vegetation, soils, surface waters, and topography. The following comments as to the extent of associated wetlands on the subject property are based on my observations during that visit and on my review of a number of historical documents including the citv of Renton Wetlands study (Williams and Canning, 1981) and the Draft Environmental Impact statement for Black Riyer Office· Park Rezone (R.W. Thorpe and Assoc. for city of Renton, 1981). Based on the foregoing, I have concluded that the extent of associated wetlands on the site includes all of the areas shown as "vegetated wetland" in the city of Renton Wetlands study (Fig. 3). As you are aware, a significant portion of the site has been cleared, graded, and partially filled. As a result, much of the vegetation which was present on the site in 1981 has been removed and the topography and soils greatly altered or disturbed. The vegetation and soils which remain, however, indicate that the area was correctly mapped and identified as wetland by the City of Renton in 1981. At present, both vegetated and cleared areas are characterized by saturated hydric soils, and the vegetated areas are dominated by species adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I • Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 19B7 page 2 Due to the recent clearing and grading activities, little remai~s of the emergent wetland which occupied the old railroad grade bisecting the forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. I found only a few scattered patches of reed canarygrass, softrush, and,smartweed amid the downed timber and churned mud on the eastern end of the site. Tne forested wetland which remains is characteristic of an increasingly rare habitat in the state of Washington: mature riparian forested wetland. The overstory'is dominated by black cottonwood and Oregon ash with lesser amounts of willow and alder. Many of these trees are well over 100 ft tall and up to 5 ft in diameter. The dense shrub layer is composed of deciduous broadleaved species including red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and elderberry. Herbaceous species include nettle, creeping buttercup, lady fern, sedges, and rushes. The forest floor is undulating, as is typical of floodplains of the larger rivers in the Puget Lowland, and the distribution of understory species reflects this microtopographic variation. The majority of the understory species occupy the slopes and crests in wet and saturated s~ils. In the lowest areas, where the soils are saturated or covered by standing water, sedges and rushes are the predominant understory species, with skunk cabbage at the easternmost end of the property. As time was limited, we did not walk beyond the eastern property line, but it appeared that the wetland may extend beyond it. Water ponds in the cleared areas where the undulations have been graded flat. In virtually every area that I visited ,that had been cleared and not yet filled, soils were saturated, soupy, or covered with standing water; one of our party sank knee-deep in muck and nearly lost his boot crossing the center of the site. Soil test pit logs made in 1979 verify that the site is underlain by saturated hydric soils of the Woodinville series (Thorpe and Associates, 19B1). It is my conclusion that the entire wetland is "associated" because it is in proximity to, and both influences and is influenced by the Black River and springbrook Creek, which are both shorelines of ,the state. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , Ronald G. Nelson April 27, 1987 Page 3 As identified in the citv of Renton Wetland Studv, the Black River riparian forest is the most valuable wetland within the city. The destruction of a large portion of this wetland represents a significant loss to the natural heritage of the state of Washington as well. Efforts to mitigate, restore, and prevent further degradation to this site should be undertaken without delay. We are anxious to assist you in these efforts to ensure that the functions and values of this system are not diminished. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at 206/459- 6790. cc: D. Rodney Mack Joseph R. Williams Donald Beery Terra Prod an Sincerely, ~(.~ Mary E. Burg Wetlands Ecologist Shore1ands and CZM Program Jay Manning, Attorney General Washington state Department of Game Washington State Department of Fisheries U.s. Army Corps of Engineers U.s. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Barbara E. Moss, First city Equities I I I I ,I :1 I ;1 i 11 , I II I :1 I il II :1 , :1 :1 I Regulatory Branch Ms. Barbara Moss Director of Planninq First City Equities r BOO Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Ms. Moss: , " MAR 4 Ism Li\:)Nt./CW/.l"~;) 2 March 1987 Disc: a:sam Reference: Black River Technological Park This is in response to your February 27, 1987 letter concerning Black ,River Technological Park. We have reviewed the information that you provided in your Fe~ruary 27, 1987 letter. Based upon the information provided, it appears that a significant amount of work has already been conducted on the site. This work took place under the direction of our December 16, 1985 letter which said the work was not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction and Department of the Army authorization was not required to place filIon the site. Accordingly, we have determined that the work may be completed under the December 1~ 1985 authorization and no fUrther coordination is required with this office. ' If you have any questions, you may contact myse1 f or Mr., Sam casne at 164-3495. Sincerely, C~~P-RF '", 3~ " ~P-RF SGt- • Coe,./O lsI Vernon E. Cook Chief, Operations Division Reg Br file .\"-" I 'II ,I :1 \1 I il I ; II I !I -3 March 1987 NPSOP-RF MElmRANDllM FOIt RECORD SUBJECTI Black River Technological Park Wang #5423s Disc #7l5 2 ~Iarch 1987 1. Backsroundl In November of 1985 the Seattle Di.trict inspected a proposed development in wetlands near thB Black River, Duwamish River, King County in ·Renton, Washington. The Seattle Di.trict determined wetlands were present on the site but the wetland. were not adjacent to the Dlack Rivsr and the use, degredation or destruction of these wetlands would not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands on the aite were Dot subject to Department of the Arwy pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applicant waa notified.of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (encloled). No permita were required fram this office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle Di.trict notified the developer that our interpretation of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the .it. would rsquire prior authorization by this office. 2. Meeting •. On 12 Karch, representatives hem the developer and the Seattle District met to diseuls jurildiction over the site. Those present were Barbara Moss, Firlt City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld, Attorney for the developer I and Salll Casne, Hike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and Rudy PojtiDger, Seattle Di.trict Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a cbronology of events that led up to the development aa it exlstetoday. We asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which ahe did. (See enclosed letter and photoa.) Based on the information required, we concluded tbat 70 to 75 percent of tbe .ite had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February 1987 letter. 3. Conclusion. The eite baa been subatantially lIIodified. The applicant l~s cleared, grubbed, aad filled over 70 percent of the aite. Thie work was done under the Seattle Dtltrict'. letter of 16 December 1985. Barbare Moss said the work would be completed by the end of the summer of 1987. Based on these considerations, tbe work may be cOlllpleted under the 18 Decelllber 1985 directive and no further authoriaation from this office ia required. Encll 8amue 1 R. Casne Chief, Environmental and Proce.aing Section I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- NPSOP-RF 2 March 1987 MEMOllANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECTI Black River Technological Park 1. Background: In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a proposed . development in wetlands near the Black River, Duwamish River, King County in Renton, Washington. The Seattle District determined wetlands were present on the site but the wetlands were not adjacent to. the Black River and the use, degredation or destruction of these wetlands would not affect interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands on the site were not subject to Department of the Army pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applica~~ was notified of this determination by letter of 16 December 1985 (enclos~1~) No permits were required from this office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle District notified the developer that our interpretation of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior authorization by this office(INI.," ... ~) 2. Meeting. On 12 Marcb, representatives from tbe developer andtbe Seattle District met to discuss jurisdiction over tbe site. Those present were Barbara Moss, First City EquitYl Robert Roed, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld, Attorney for tbe developerl and Sam Casne, Mike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regula.tory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a cbronology of events that led up to tbe development as it exists today. We asked ber to repeat the chronology in writing, which sbe did. (See enclosed letter and pbotos.) Based on tbe information required, we concluded tbat 70 to 75 percent of the site bad been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February 1987 letter. 3. Conclusion. The site bas been substantially modified. Tbe applicant has cleered, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the site. This work was done under the Seattle District's letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara Moss said tbe work would be completed by the end of tbe summer of 1987. Based on tbese considerations, tbe work may be completed under tbe 18 December 1985 directive and no furtber eutborization from tbis office is required. Bncls -sdFa~;g~ Cbief, Environmental and Processing Section I . :1)' ,,' I ~ .. ', DEC I 6 1985 "-. ..... , '':'~ :. " ,. " . , , '. ~ .. , •• '< .:,;~. , • ~ "';. " ~~~~';;2~::~~~~;:~:t!IJ:~t 18 required'lor the d1Bcharp ''ol 8111 clredged or ,All ::i ' , iz!~o vaters of t!uIUa1ted 8tatoa~'~iDclwUna adjacui: '. '~~;;:''';:;:;;::~F.'i::: , ,,:lallda.' ''1'be term ·wetlands· jeans those areas that are :lJumdated or ',' , .. " .:.';, '".aturated b:rlurface or arolllld.water ae a lrequellcr aod duratioll',' :' I )" ," '.ulflc:t8llt to IUpport, aad that under 'Ilormal c:trCllllllltaDcel do '," . .';" .. ,': "~':,' " : ~.: '. ,', ·'.upport, • prevalertCB of vesetatioD t7P,1call, adapted fot: Uta 111 . ., ... ;,.-. .... ~._ , , , saturated 8011 cOIIdit1011s •. The Corps of, Ea;lIIeers hal the rupoll-.. ::: ...• "-'" - 'a1billt1for deten:dlllllg,'vbether a apec1f1c wtland area is with1D, '. , .... ". I , Sect100 404 jur1Bc!1ct1oll., ".,~"~ :,: .' _:.., •. .•..• _ •.•.. :=. .. =: • ...::-_ .. -.-__ ., ..... -=-. '~'~":'::: . .: .. :";'~;:~':.:";.::-.:'='.:..-:.:. ·····--__ ·:..·:~ __ ... ..:__=.·_·:r:.:.;..~..;.;.-'O:'_=_7~: .... ·-......... :-~~~ ........ '"r; . " . . '" I I I I I I I • . "We hiaver~1Iiwed thii'in!o~tioll"'~ 'furushed as well a8 data" ''':. :.: gathered clurill8 our OIIsite iDspBct1011 011 kCl'lelllber 14, 1985. We ' ~, ': :. , cletena1l1ad that wedallels kre prel8llt 011 the project dte. However., ,_." " '''"..-, these wetlands are Ilot COllll1derecl adjacaot vetlaucls UDder our -:" .. ' haulator1 authority. A Departmellt of-the Arl:J.1 pendt will not blS required to place fUl iDto this area. ..", .,' . ' , " It you have allY ques tions regard'ing this matter. please coo tact Hr. Rudolf Pojt1Dger, telephoae (206) 764-3495. ,. Sincerely. , , .' Warren E. Baxter Chief. Regulatory Branch . '-"-' .-'-.-~ -_ .. I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 I -2- ..•. ~;;;;;~yt(?;.· :f;;:;'.~:i~$l~¥~·]icj~f:~;,· }~,I~ .... '7~~~""''''-'''''''':'"'''''''''- ".' ~.': the 1'-7 ,·,.nlt ~\l.t· laO _1;'.( to· ••• ·t.t ~':b" -';0",' .,,11--: ;~,: ;:'_:}'., : ... " u,l_, .. " ~pnpnat •• ~':'.~I' '~t:t;~~" :)!t',~ ~~,c~,~ ,.~~";~:"-~~ r~.~;;'-" ~~~~tl.: '~:';i,::~:~"j?,': ',.;,::,.', .... :;: .. :',', ,',-: ",: : ,·c {l;': .:f.~ J' ~·t~;. ~': .. :t.;;~,~.l· ~.: ';',;~~'7't~~~ i'i~~~;1::~:~:~ ~.~(: ':-lY::," ~:': '~t:'-J"_~. ~~;,~~~~/~.~.;:,:,~ :}j~:/l::r·, '{ ~~:;'~:,~:~ .. ~" :~ _ ~~,:-. ,;:;",;,,;:-":'" Ita"· n1 .., •• 1_' COueratqthbiiauu,',;ttea .. ' .. t.ct';:~:i~;:;:~:.:·'. '. .....c... tel bOIII "(10"'64-3495" .,.....,'.,:e.,"r.> '''>Y/'.·;''·H ." .. , .... '.'.'~~ .. ',:./ c'::····"\S:%~~~;t'~;~~:i·::;·····:· 'City of IeIltn ';; ... :' ""lm" L107'l" ·c.> ;. ..:0.; . ,', .-._':: : ZmriroDlUiRtll ProteCtiCID ApaC)' '1. -;. . , .' .' " ~ ., ;', . .•. : .-' '., .. -.~._ .i.- " -;.~ .. : .:' • .' .. , I I I I I I I I I I I: : I I' -" 'I: " ""I "I' , . I I " February 27, 1987 Mr. Vernon E. Cook FIRST CITY EQUITIES Chief, operations Division Department of the Army SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134-2385 RE: Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit BLACK RIVER TECHNOLOGY,PARK Dear Mr. Cook: ,In response to your letter to me dated Febr~ary 18,1987, my attorney, Mr. Charles Blumenfeld, my engineer, Mr. Robert Roed, and I met with Sam Casne, Rudy Poj tinger, Karen Northup, and 'c, Mick Bowlus of your staff to discuss the Corps' position that' as of January 17, 1987, the Black River Technology Park property falls within the corps' jurisdiction., , " , ' ' .,e,; ,. ':' It is our position that'the regulations which becallleeffective""'" on January 12, 1987 are not applicable to this project because (1) the new regulations do not change the definition of "waters of the United States", and (2) the property at 'issue has already' been substantially graded and filled. , , The, following is a history of land use actions, contractural :,', agreements, funding conani tments, and documentation of ' " construction affecting the Black River Technology Park to date. " • April« 1982 -The City of Renton issued a fina1';: .. l".i,.\",L,;2;,{.:t;j),;:' Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the previous:~::.':r.t;~'::~\,; owners of the property, A1terra Corporation, in connection;""',::,;"".'",:" with a rezone of the property from General Classification'to'; Manufacturing Park in order to construct an office park., ,,' ':"'::'" . Although, a .final determination a's to a requirement for a, ':: .:, ';":;"" . ~·, .. v .... ,'. , 404 Permit on this property was not made at the time, the EIS,''!,:''i' ',,\":i'" was prepared, the corps in its conanent letter to the Draft~;;;:H~,;j~::'::~;:;,:'::;' EIS, indicated, that a previous decision regarding waterways,: ',:::T','",,"j:';::,· upstream from the P-1 pump plant could possibly exempt the,;;i";::;~:,':";:>; site from the requirements of the 404 Permit; " "',C.:;',:.'. "': 800 Fifth Avenue' Sutte 4170 ' SeofIte. Washington 98104 ' (206) 624-9223 Ileal Estate Development and Investments • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1"· ... 1 1 1 >1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Two • • • • • • • • December, 27,1982 -City of Renton granted the requested rezone to Manufacturing Park. December 16. 1985 -Mr. Warren E. Baxter, Chief of the Regulatory Branch of the Department of Army, Seattle District Corps of Engineers, wrote a letter.to Mr. Delton J. Bonds, President of Alterra Corporation, in which he stated after an on-site inspection on Novembe~ 14, 1985 that "a Department of the Army permit will not be required to place fill into this area." December 18, 1985 -I wrote a letter to Rudolph Pojtinger confIrmIng that a Corps permit was not required on the property. December 31. 1985 -First City Equities purchased the Black RIver Technology Park property from Alterra Corporation. May 20, 1986 -First City Equities received the special permIt for grade and fill of the entire Black River Technology Park property. On July 9, 1986 First City Equities received an annual license from the City of Renton to accomplish the work. Prior to issuance of the special' permit, a full environmental review under SEPA was condUcted by the Environmental Review Cormnittee, who issued a . mitigated D.N.S. A public hearing followed, and the Hearing Examiner approved the special permit. AUgust, 1986 -Clearing, grading and filling operations. cormnenced under the grading permit and have continued to date. As the attached drawing indicates, 38.2 acres of the total 52.2 acres have been cleared graded and/or filled. AUgust 13, 1986 -First City Equities received site plan approval for the ADMAC portion of the Black River Technology . , . . . ~ ~ : .. .. ,"', . Park property. Prior to site plan approval a full., . ," ... ,1 .• , environmental review under SEPA was conducted by' the i,ii·',:;',' .• ;, i'C,;. Environmental Review Cormnittee which issued a mitigated ::",i, ,. Declaration of Non-Significance. A public hearing followed, and the Hearing Examiner approved the Site Plan. '" ; . ,".." October 13, 1986 -By direction of the City Council, the' . ",';, ""~ property was rezoned from Manufacturing Park to Office Park .::.".; under the area-wide Valley rezone action. i ';:;>!',:i . ,', , .. ; .. : ' . .. .. . c.r~ .. ~_ . --, .: .... ~1 • ..:.-:~ • . :! I I I I I I • ". I :1'" • I • •• l ' , • l. • . r . " ;1, '. : " ;,I".! ,i I 1 I Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Three • December 18, 1986 -First City Equities was advised that the ADMAC buIlding permit was ready for issuance by the City of Renton. It is clear that the Corps of Engineers had more than one review of the project in the past and had clearly indicated no Corps approval was received. All development plans for the property proceeded on that basis. The City of Renton has been working cooperatively with First City Equities addressing land use issue including cooperative regional traffic analyses and construction of arterials to alleviate traffic concerns in the Valley. First City Equities has made a significant commitment of resources to ,this project. We have a $10 million loan covering ," acquisition and development of the entire Blackriver Corporate Park and a $4 million loan to cover infrastructure costs. First City Equities has formed a Local Improvement District which has ' committed to construct a new 5 lane arterial abutting the development at a cost of $3.7 million. First City Equities will,: bear 69\ of this cost. ". ,,', '"" • , , • J ,i:; ~ "';;"';':.:" .. . In addition, First City Equities as a condition for developing tis property has deeded 37 acres of property to the City of ' Renton for preservation and storm water retention. The approximate value of this property ,is $8 million. .... '" ~ , , . ~ ,. '.~. '-::)", :.:. All of these ojections and costs were incurred in contemplation":::,:" of development of the entire site. A major element of First ' ' Ci ty Equities' decision to go forward on this property was the '," Corps' December 16, 1985 letter denying jurisdiction. Enclosed are photographs showing the existing state of the' ,J,:" property and the extent of the grading and filling operations to ,,; , '." , ' date • . I . We are requesting that the Corps of Engineers authorize us to,:, ,::/,,:'i:':),::, complete our activities under the December 16,1985 letter.,:,'~::;::::'.c, ," :","1 ~ ·.:·~,.::::;~~:::;':;;~f.,"]: '. . :: ,;,-:,,;., , , '., . I I I Mr. Vernon E. Cook February 27, 1987 Page Four \ ~ ..•.. , . ~ J, ' '" . .. '-:,' I As time is of the essence, we would appreciate your immediate review of our request. .. '; I I I ,I, With regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES '~};.~ Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning ,,' ,BEM/be 'Enclosures 1 ;." : CCI 1 't:i:';'-"; ., Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. w/encl Robert Roed w/encl Royce Berg w/encl David Schuman w/encl Greg Byler w/encl;< ' ; '.-r ...• . " ',' ~;. ,", J',~' . '" '~", '; " '-.~: "\'1' ,:' " " . ", HAND DELIVERED 2/27/87 ) .. " ." ,"; .;', . ,-, . . ~. :," , I " . i '.: " , " J:';;:i," -.;. ':'-:.~ ~ . l' :' .. "'." , .. ;. ,', ' . ," , " '" .: , ,".1 i: ", ", ".' ,',.: :,,; . ,-; t: ~" " '., : '. ,~,' . "'. " . ~.: .... : \" . :', '! I' .,'. .... . . ,-~ :: . . " 1<;'i .. ".::, ':)' .: .' , ... ' .. ""- • L. ',,' .. , .. ; , , , ." -,-: I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ' ..: ..... :.?<r>.'···i;" ,:" .. . -::. '" ': .,' ",.: .. "<;·,MI:~' -,',. '. 1-., '. ", . . , . .. ." ... '-,:", . . . 1:' ","": . -.', III. 1.II.n I. ""I Director .• f 'lealill rlnt CICJ ... ltl •• ", '-~".';., .. :-:: .. :1 100 rUlIa Aft... hlce 4170 I.,ttl.. V .. lllqcoa. ·11104 .',:": " . ";;'., . . . '.'~' .. ;., . .'. '., ", "i;..; . . . " '.-., . . . ~ .. : ' ," ...... -'. ;,~ ... ~' .. ,"f"~lllaclc Uftl' t .. 1IIIo1oa1'.1I ....... HoI .. ' . ,". . :;' . . ". ~ . -. ODic .... 14. 1985. PlI'Ma...l In. tile 'ucU. DbCdet .. ,';":.' , lu, .. ted tbe nfmaced ,npeftJ to .. hIIIl .. , 1f • ,npoee4 ..... 1.,. " ... t _1. n .... n • »e,utuat •• die I.ntt Plnai,t ...... hctf._ 404 ' ' .f tbe eta. V.tu Act. 'ftb i .. ,..ti_ 1'1",1" tllat .. U..... •. , 4dlad .,. IIepartllnt .f t!ie' u.,.tentlt n .. lad .... eal .. 00 ebe pro,.rCJ. I" .. penalt rePlad ... ,ff.ech, .t tbat ''-..... t ... _lae4 tllat thy _tle' ... BOt a ."1' of tile Val .... ta,", ... tina., ,be Ccwp.· o' !lIIi •• n. W 110 JvWletia 0ftT tlle n'er._' 4Iftl."....c. Oar 1III'ell'1%, 1916. 1.tter to JOG 1'11.1 .. &8 thll 'ec.nl_d_. . . la late -Itli. tlut eeq,. of 1Da!"'I" pUll .... ..." .. nalt np- lad ... _lell II ...... ff .. tift J..-,. 12, 1917. '!'be •• npletlou proy!" • c1.!fiCllclOll .,. the IaYll'Ollllllltal trot.ctloa AIuc1 o. tlte 4efl_hl00 of .Cen of tbe V_lted .t .... ad ... lacl_ .. c,,, .. •• VIIlcb ft. 01' _1. '" ...... 4 -II "bl .. t '" .1 .... ,roc .. ted ., H1II'ICOI')' 11 ... ~th., It' -, .. 11. 1rblcb ar. 01' _14 lie a ..... babltaC '" OCb.r II1lntft1111 .... _lela " ....... " 11 ... 'nil. c1.dfi .. tioa b lipll' .. ac • __ it ....... ella Cor,. lect!.oa 404 Jad.elietloa. n. .. elaall ... t .. nf.nace4 ,l'Dperty . are IIOW _d4ereel Co be .. ten of tile Valted .tatel ad I1Ibjecc Co Departa.nt of ehe A'lfII'/ permit ftqll{ naeatl .del' S.eciOft 4114 of the Cl.an Water let. Onde., Sectioll 404, .atherisaci .. I. I'Iquirad tor Cbe elbcharp of 4redad 01' fUl .. Cerial lato .... 1'1 of tbe th!.lced 'taCe., lacla111111 .. claD"'. . . Ve requelt JOU COlltect tbb offi .. 1' ••• 1'410& ,.mt proceclUl'l' if 10'l sti!l i"'!'O?Ollf! to ftU tho .tte. A copy ot tbe l)epublent of , . \ " I end 2.- -. .. I -• I I I .r---------.- I I ~. ,. ~- I I .. I , -I I .\ I \ I I ---- I I .;:, I I I I I I I I • I I I ' .• I ,I I I , , .- = 11'111. ...... -=-_._ .. !!: . ~..I::..-, .a:'--_ -- -- Y'~ : -...= • (J:GEN 1:> : ·b&f5¥!l I CL£AI"F;l) J ~LJP.,eE.l), ~2A,\)~ DR. 'FI'-L.eb (~8.t A(.) f!l1 p.crt.r.. PI2.f.~t.~Ve. (/JOlL.n+ 'ZO "'" 'PDalOI.J ~HC\OJ.I.) UJ..LD~'i\J~l) (14~) H ! ! 1 ! I : II J I . ,,,, , ~. . " " I"" .... • _ •• _ •• 0., • • '. _, -0 0 " 1 1 I 1 I ~ . 1 ~. . ·:.-·..;~O I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i~ \, 0 : i ( , " 1\ BLACKRIVER Corporate Park RENTON, WASHINGTON n:sr an (CUTES _ ..... _----- l£UON PO/IIIIl.fIOtI NQIIIMWI:SI N:. :::.:.: .::.--- lUSH 1IOfD. ..,~ .c. -_ .. _--- I • • ----';:I{W4-\i E~~~I • I I .~ . . . . : . -J/C . UIII.a~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 II: W-: :a'" _a. II:G.I Den; Uc; CI, Cc; ..lIu • z 0 ~ '" z 'f II> " ~ , z . 0 f ~ z W a: 5 ~ , , \ . . \ '1 , I ' \ ~ f , f i : , • ; i , ; I , , , I ., " • , " • !. ~ ~ i • , . , 1 ',', , , 1 , .': ' '. . . , " 1 '.: , . I '.. . ..... ' .. 1 , , ' , " '. ,'. .... , >1 .' , " " . . . -. I ..... ... ..' . '. , • . ," f , . . . , . . '. ~ , . '. '. '. , . , . , . . .' , " , ',' .'.,'.,", , ' , . \ '. . '. , "" " . , , , '" ,,' '" , " " , '. . 'I. '. ':, " , " . , , . :, .. 1 . ' . ' , , ". , , I .' .•...... '. ' ... . .. " 'I' . .' .' . .. ......... .. ' . , '. , ' , , '. " . .' '" , ' . " .. '. , , . '. . .' " . . . , , , , .. " . ' .. . , ' , . . 'I "'.0> ", '. . , , . t,' , . .' . . ,I. ......., . , , .' , :. " , , , . . .' . , . " " , " . '. ., . 1 . " . " '. . . '."'. ,. . , , , . '. . '. .' "1' .';", ..... ,. ;', .' . . . ',.' ' . . I, :':".' .,"" '. . '. . '. ". . : '. , . , 1 . . " . , . -, . . . 1 ' '. ' " , ' .' " , . ,