HomeMy WebLinkAboutBlack River Riparian Forest (Permanent Site Record) Appraisals - Lot 3-10 1991 File 2 of 2, ',", .'
I • , ." " ···1·'··· >. " ,
. , .
. -.
, ' ."
" '.
, . " .' ...
, ,
1 " .' . .
. .
.' . . '~,
1'\,
. .
.' .
Bla<;:k River Corporate Park '.
. '.' . . Renton/Washington .
. "
. ' I : .', "
· . ,. Lot 6 .
" , '1, ... : ". , ,
1
1 .'
1
1
1 .' · . , ,"
.,' , .
'I' '; . :'" "" "
'. " '-. . .
I':" .. ,.: .' ........... . " .
I · ".
. :' ,', :', ','
· ,', "
" " , ' .
, '.:
" ." " ,I ..... . .
. .
".
. , , "
, '" ...
' .. , " .' . .
"', :::' ~;,/;J,~""'~
'C . :r
r ~ • " --~
" 'r, '
.r. '-'.'
" '",
...
'. ~,
... r "
,"
" , "
"
.... '.'
. ~. ' F
, c,
.. '
. ,."
-', <,'
'"
"
','
"
-.,'-'j','
,,'
, ,
"
< "
"
....
.. ,
"
.... ,'
" Ij.'
, , '.-, .'. ~.
"
" ... , i '.. ;', i
" -, ',.
':.
, '
;~ .
•...
" <
',' "
of;, , ,
'" " ,
.... ,
",
,,'
, .
" " ,
'.'
"
, ,
"
. ,> ,,"
"
: '
, "
,"
'). .
. \. • l " ....
,: . ~.
, ,
. '.~ " . ....
• ,'j
". " ." ."
"
~ .. } ." "r
'" ~ " ,
'< -•
" (
"
~ i 'oj './. -:." ~ . " ",
", "-
"',-
.. ,r
. ",
, "
'fJ'
\ :
".' I
,; .. ".
. ~ :, . ~
', ..... , .
~.,..: , . ,','
,\, .. :f ....
" " , " ',1. .. ....
': 1, ;
'. > ,' •. ,",.-
,j,., -::'
"
,',
".'
, ,
:.---\ ' ' " ,~.' .;
,'" .~ ':
. .', "
"
'w' " -,
'~ \.'
,r _ •• _,. .~: ~'~ .'
, ,
.,' ",j
" ,."
. : ....
!'"
"', ,.'/ ,
{. ", .:j,;~';.
-" ..... J, ,,',
:' ' ,,'
" .~'. ' :~ .' I;'
. ;~ .....
-,'"
" ','
. ,',
.. ~ ..
'",J;
',j,-
.'.,'
," ,.' ~ ',1:, ..... ',
",
"
'.' 'j
.. ,
,~ "
;, .
'"
,'~
:.' ,
~. "
','
.'j"
.'.,.-
,;
"
\ ...
,',
,'. '
, "
"
'"
'"
"
, "
'"." j
,\, '-.
',J .' 0' .. ,
... : " "';' ,
:.'
'"
.'
:, I, ' ..
~,
"
, "
" ';'
"
"
I' , "
, ,"
.. '
.... ,','
'! ~ . .'
.,t,
','
"
" ,
'.
"
"
c'
,i •
, ,.'
."" '. .. '
"
",
"
""
, ,
, ,
, ,
.'
" , ,
" !
"
,"
,,:'
" . i.
,..~
",-,'
, ,
" '
" .,
" "
.... ~
'."
, ,
,"
"
,
, ' " . ", '(
, ;
'" : .....
, '
".1
" >'
"
"
. I'::
'"
"
; ,
" , I
"'I' .' "
!.' ". '\ .. ., '
",'
" /
, . .~
." '01 , .~ .. 'I, '" ... ' ,
.', , ~.'
'"
", '
,.'1.;
..... ;
',' .
~ -: ..
\-. .;
",
:' . "
.;, ';'
, , . .",~ ~" .' "
':, !
"
"
.... ,
."f' • .. '
~, .'
,-'r'
, " :'.'
-: :.) ' ...
,':. ~I
,'.'
"
" '
, ,
"
",
','
.. I.
"
"
",
"I ',-
, ',',
'.' > '." ....
1
I:
.1 •• ',
.. ' ... ,
, '
, -
.'
" ,
',',
, "
" '"
'.:. ''.
.';'
,I
I
I,
", '
" ,
,I:'
I'
I,
"I \~,. t
"I'
1
. '"
C'
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, WASHINGTON
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, WA 98055
Attn: Leslie A. Betlach
Re: Lot 6, 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 mOUSAND 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.
Respectfull~SUb ted, , L
.. ~ ...... .
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.
5.
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 m 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 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
hnpro .. ""," " • _ilre """"". fit. :.-::_' _ L
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 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
jll
! :.
"
'"~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 actua1ly 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
il
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 6, 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.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TAX ACCOUNT NO.:
DATE OF
VALUATION:
SIZE OF LAND:
SIZE OF BUILDING:
TYPE OF PROPERTY:
ASSESSMENTS:
TAXES:
ZONING:
Between Burlington Northern Railroad and Black River
Channel, Renton, Washington
See attachment at rear of report
132304.9012
March 28, 1991
262,183 square feet
Not applicable
Vacant
Land: $251,500
$3,412.45
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
OSTENsmLE OWNER
Ownership of the subject land described within this report and shown under
Property Tax No. 132304.9012 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.
b.
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;
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 Appraisal Termjnology 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 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
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
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 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 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
SEA'ITLE 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
Xing
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 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, flOancing 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 .;
:1
;1
rJI
'~I r
\ ftl
I
I
I
il
I
1
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 m~or 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 RENTON
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.
MANllFACTIJRlNG AND INDUSTRIAL PATIERNS
There are 200 manufacturing fmns 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
EMPWYMENT
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 Tecna 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 FACILJTJF.S
Utilities can be accessible to the undeveloped sites.
COMMERCIAL PATTERNS
79
180
69
202
1,710
1,400
610
320
610
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 lIIl\ior department stores, 112
additional stores and shops on 1,250,000 square feet of retail floor area.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIFS
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\'EBNMENT
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 FACIIJTIF.S
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.
EpUCATIONAL FACll.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 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
1
1
I
1
1
]
,
:1
'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
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 wning 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 wned in conformity with the general neighborhood.
One of the few variations to the wning 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 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 262,183 square feet or 6.02 acres. It is flat
with the topographical map showing that the land is about 15 feet above sea level.
Services. The land is currently un serviced 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 700 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
ZONING DATA
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
HIGIIFST 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 dermed
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 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 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 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
MEmon OF APPRAISAL
There are three basic approaches to value, namely the cost approach, the income
approach and direct market comparison.
The Cost APlIroach 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 APlIroach 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
" il
f;
,I , ,
:1
;1
'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
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
I
BORSE $CINiIl
I Center SW 23 ST ~I I 53
.81
~
S 28:
_ .L. _ '"" '--'-..
I SW29 en
0
0:
I 1:: ... ;;;
~ ;;; l 'C
.5 '" w
SW 31 ST
,
I S #(
s
~ "-
<II -VALL!
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
'"
Sale #2
Location Northeast corner Powell and 7th Street, S.W.
Tax Acct. No. 918800.(X)lO; .0030; .0050; .0060
Access From Powell or 7th Street S.W.
Land Use Unimproved
Zoning OP-Office Park
Sale Date 05/31190
Price $2,000,000
Area 2.9 acres; 2.2 acres; 1.7 acres; 1.5 acres
Seller Equity Management
Buyer L.O. Renton n, Inc.
Comments: These lots have been re1isted 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 Acct. 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
Sale #4
Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton
Tax Acct. 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
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 year at 13%
$5.50 x P.V. of 2 year 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
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 $4.31 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 .. '. UNITED ST.
U
•.•• TlS .. . merick : . . . .. IUTA"., ."',, ..... , ..
~lIdsay,,::::::: :::' · ... ~
Center
EXIT 153
5w 195T
SW 23 ST
v
J. .~. \\'\ .. 1\ . , . . ! i
......... ~
j ';,'-'-'~r-r-t-t-~~
ii/" I ___ -.
o 6
!)Q. FT. ~
~. 6 02. ACRES
~/ ,,90/ / .-,
/
/
/
AI~ ~'O
R " , 102.46
L : 807.
6: 53 0 57'00.
R: 1165.09
L = 1097,05
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
CSb) (2) Commercial, Induatrial and Other
u ... : A maximum of eight feet (8')
anywhere an the lot provided the fence
doe. not .tand In or in &ont of any
required ·Iandacaping or pooe a traffic
viaian haurd.
(3) Fence Types:
(A) Electric Fences:
L Electric fences are permitted by
lpecial review in aU residential
lanes in cases where large domes·
tic animals are being kept provided
additional fencing or other barrier
is erected along the property lines.
ii. All electric fences shall be
posted with permanent signs a
minimum of thirty six (36) square
inches in area at intervals of
f!ftaen feet (15') steting that the
fence is electrified.
iii. Electric fences and any rela ted
equipment and appliances must be
instaUed in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications and in
compliance with the National
Electrical Code.
(B) Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed
wire may only be used on top of fences
at least six feet (6') high for commercial,
induatrial, utility and public uses.
(C) Other:
i. Bulk Storage Fences: See Section
4-31·29.
ii. Fences for mobile home parks,
eubdivisions or planned unit
development and for sites which
are mined, graded or exca va ted
may vary &om these regulations 88
provided in the respective code
sections.
4. Special Review Process:
a. Persons wishing to have one of the
following types of fences may submi t a letter
of juatiftcation, site plan and typical elevation
together with the permit fee to the Building
and Zoning Department:
4-31·16
(1) Fencetl exceeding forty eight Inches
(46") within &ont yard I8tbacka but not r:-.. ,.,.
within a clear vi.ion area. \:
(2) SoUd fences along side property lines
abutting arterial streets.
(3) Electric fence ..
b. The Building and Zoning Department
sha11 approve the issuance of special fence
permits provided that:
(1) Fencetl, walls and hedges above forty
eight inches (46") when all setbaek &om
the street property line four inmes (.")
from every one inch of increased height
BOught (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 &ont yard. In
addition, driveways will not be a110wed
to acce.s 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 streets, does .
not obstruct views of on..:oming traffic at
intersections or driveways.·
5. Compliance: Fences which do not comply
with these regulations must be brought into
compliance within six (6) months &om 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 established to provide ereas
appropriate for professional, administrative,
and business offices, certain manufaeturing
activities, and supportive services in a
campus· like setting. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88)
B. Uses: In the Office Park Zone (O·P), the
fo11owing and similar uses are permitted. The
Building and Zoning Department may deter-
mine that any other use is similar in general
character to the fo11owing speciflc uses and is
in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon
such administrative determination, the subject c
1
~.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
,I
1
1
1
1 ,
1
I
~1-16
B) ..... haIl become a principal, _essory or
conditional use, whichever is appropriate.
UnlGlI indicated by the text, defini tiona of the
uaes Uated In this Zone ~ conaistent with
the deaeriptione· in the Standard Industrial
C1aasilicatlon Manual.
1. Principal Usea: In the o-p Zone the
following principal uaea are permitted:
a. Administrative and professional
ollices.
b. Medical and den tal offices and clinics.
c. Financial ollices such as banks,
savings and loan institutions.
d. Schools and studios for art, crafts,
photography, dance and music.
e. Business and professional services.
f. Research and development.
g. Educational, cultural, and social
activities. (Ord. 3937, 9-1&-85)
h. Product serYlClng, wholesaling,
warehousing and storage of articles, products
or merchandise from previously prepared
natural or synthetic materials, or ferrous or
alloyed metals. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
i. Day care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9-1&-
85)
j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight
(8) adult doge or cate may be permitted after
satisfaction of the requirements in Section
4-31-37Cla. (Ord. 3955, 11-4-85)
Ie. 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 tacilities.
Co &taU sales of producte or merchan-
dise produced ea a permitted use.
4-31-16
d. Repair activitiel ordinarily IUIIIOCiated
with a permitted use.
e. Storage of petroleum or natural gas
or any of their by-producte, provided that the
total storage capacity is. less than ten
thousand (10,000) gallona or other applicable
unit of measure, and that storage of such
producte is placed undersround.
3. Conditional Uses: In the o-p Zone the
following uses and their accessory uses 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
standards of Section 4-31-16C2.
d. Additional uses as identified in
Section 4-31-36Dl. (Ord. 3937, 9-1&-85) .
e. On-site hazardous waste treatment
and storage facilities. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
4. Prohibited Uses: In the o-p Zone the
following uaea are prohibi ted:
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 4-31-1683. (Ord. 3937,
9-1&-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 standerda 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
4-31·16
<:1) the ().P Zo"". A builcIiDg .ite pl&ll oball be
ftIecI ad approved Iu accorcIaIIce with the
City Code prior to iaaU8ollC8 of &II)' builcIiDg
permlta. Each builcIiDg or other development
permit laaued .ha11 be In conformance with
the approved alte plan.
2. Standard.e !'or Retail &lid Selected Service
U_: For tho.. eervice &lid retail uses
idaDtifted Iu Section 4-31·16B3c, the !'oUowing
etandards .ha11 apply:
a. '!'be deelsn of at:ructureo, lncIucIiDg
aigna, ohall be ,.,neraIl), consiatentln
charecter with aurroundlng uaaa. No cIrIve-up
window. or outaide automobile oervice shall
be permitted.
b. No exterior displa)' of merchandioe
shall be perntitted.
c. In order to avoid the negallve impacts
of strip commercial development:
.. (1) Retail or .. Iected service uaes shall
be developed a. part of larger, planned
commercial, office or industrial
complexes having common archJtactural
or landscaping themes. Such retsil or
lervice U88a ahall not atand alone and
ahall not occupy more than fifty percent
(50'h) of a jointly developed building
comp)eL
(2) Direct arterial acceaa to individual
uses ahall occur only when alternative
access to local or coUector streets or
coneolidated acceaa with adjacent uses is
not feasible.
(3) Roof signs shall be prohibited.
Free-standing signs shaU not exceed ten
feet (10') in height and shall be located
at least twenty feet (20') from any
property line, BIcept for entrance and
ezit algna.
3. Setbacks:
a. Streete: All buildings and structures
ohall be located a minimum of sixty feet (60')
or twenty percent (20'10) of the· lot depth,
whichever is leas, &om &II)' public street or
hishwa)' property line. In any case, if the
adJacent public street is a mlllor or secondary
arterial, the eetback ahall be at least thJrty
feet (SO').
+31·16
b. Other Yards: All builcUnp &lid
ItnIcturaI ohall be located a minimum at
twenty feet (20') or fifteen percent (16'h) of
the lot width, whichever is 1-. &om any
property line whJch doea not abat • public
.treet or highway.
c. Adjacent to· Large Structures: The
required yard .. thacks adjacent to &II)' build·
lug or atructure with a builcIiDg footprint
greater than twenty five thouaand (26,000)
square feet oball be Increased ana f'oot {I') for
each additional two thouaand (2,000) squam
feet of building footprint, up to a muimwn of
one hundred feet (100') abutting public
streets, and sizty feet (SO') In other yards.
d. Adjacent to Residential Lote:
Whenever a propooed uae in tbe o-P Zone
ahares a common property line with a lot that
ia designated any reoidential uoe on both the
City of Renton comprehensive plan and zoning
map, the minimum oethack contiguoua to the
common property line ahall be fifty feet (50').
Whenever an adjacent lot contains a
reoidential uae and either the comprehensive
plan or zoning designation or both ie
80mething other than realdenllal, then the
appropriate sethack and l&IIdscaping adjacent
to the raaidential lot oball be determined by
aite plan approval. A site pl&ll decision to
require more than the minimum oethack and
landacaplng shall consider the long term
viability of the residential uae, the presence of
other residential uses in the surrounding
area, and such other Indicallons of stability as
owner-occupancy and housing condition.
e. Use of Setback Areas: All required
setback areas .hall be unoccupied and
unobstructed except for off-street parking &lid
loading, driveways, entrance roads, lawn
sprinklers, walkways, landscaping, ordinary
and necessary utility oervice facilities, utility
poles, lighting !inures, id&nt:if.ying and
ciirecllon signs and underground InataIlallons
acces80ry to any permitted uae.
f. Flezible Sethacks: With site plan
approval and subject to applicable blil1d!ng
and rlre codes, OIUI of the side oetbac'ks .(not
adjacent to a public street or l'8Sidentiai use,
as denned in Section 4-31·16C3d ma), be
reduced or eJi.minated if the total width of
both side .. tbacks is at least twice the width
of the minimum setback specified in Section
(
c
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-18
C3I) 4-31-16C3b above; and the rear setback not
adjacent to a public .treet may be reduced or
eliminated it tba InInt I8tback Is Increased
~y. The lite plan deciaion ahaII be
bued on a finding thet, with reduced set-
becb, tbe an:hltectural design, buUdlng orien·
tetion, circulation, noise and glare of the
proposed project will be compatible with adja-
oent WI88 and with the purpose and intent of
the o-p Zone.
•• Height: Building heights in the O·P Zone
shall be eatebUahed with consideration to
adjacent land WI8B and shall be determined aa
follows:
a. Adjacent to Single FamilylLow
Denllty 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 site where the omce park
WIG is acijacant to a single family or low
density 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 setbacks adjacent to such other
\lBeS shall be increased one foot (1') ror each
additional one foot (1') of height above forty
five feet (45,).
c. These setbacklheigh t requirements
cannot be modified by application under the
PUD procesa.
6. 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 one-half (112) the
required setback, whichever is less, from all
otbar property lines.
e. A minimum of twenty percent (2~)
of the site shall be retained in landscaped
open space. A maximum of one-half (112) of
this requirement may be on the roofs of
strvcturea, provided amployeea and the public
have access to the area. A maximum of
seventy five percent (75"') of this requirement
may be within the required perimeter
4-31-16
landscaping. The twenty percent (2~)
minimum landacaping requirement may not
be reduced it a site Is developed aa a Pun.
d. All areaa not covered by buildings,
structures or paved surfaces .hall be land-
scaped. Areaa set aaide for fUtw-e develop-
ment on a lot may be hydroaeeded.
e. Where parking Iota are adjacent to
one another, perimetor landscaping shall not
be required.
f. Any wall aurt'sce greater then thirty
feet (30') in width lacking wlndowa or doors
ahall be aotlened by landscaping or archi-
tectural features, such aa change of tenure or
wall modulation. Such landacaping &hall
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, tbe perimeter
landscaping setbacks required by Section 4-31·
16C5a and b above may be reduced in width
up to fifty percent (50"') if the equiValent
aquare footage of landscaping is provided
elsewhere within tbe aite. Site plan approval
shall be based on a finding that the
alternative landscaping arrangement provides
buffering and site amenities equal to or better
than that which would be achieved by strict
application of the Code. The relocated land-
acaping shall not be located within the rear
aetback of the site.
6. Refuse: No refuse, trash, rubbish or other
waste material shall be dumped, placed or
allowed to remain outaide a permanent build-
ing, except in nonflammable, covered contain·
ers or dumpsters, which shall be screened by
fences or landscaping. No retuse shall be
stacked higher than the screening fence or
landscaping.
7. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation
standards required shall be aa follows:
a. Access: The principal access shall be
from an artorial or collector street and shall
be oriented to the least traveled street when-
ever two (2) or more such artorials or collec-
tors abut the site.
b. ParkinglCirculation: Parking and
circulation areaa along a common lot line with
a residential use located on a lot designated
as a residential \lBe on both the City of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+S1·16
C7b) Renton compreherurive plan and zoning map
ahall be allowed only it a tan foot (10') wide
alght-obacurlng landacaping .trlp and a six
foot (6') high 1O!!d fenee are provided along
the common beWldary line.
c. Parking and Loading:
(1) See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City
Coda.
(2) All loading docks and roU·up doon
• hall be located at the rear of buildings
or screened so that they are not visible
from any point 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 the vehicle is
being loaded or unloaded. All loading
and unloading maneuven shall be
conducted on private property.
8. Environmental Performance Standards: The
foUowing minimum standards shall be met by
all activities within the O-P Zone. 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 standards.
a. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7,
Noise Level Regulations.
b. Smoke:
(1) Visible grey smoke shsll not be emit·
ted from any souree in a greater density
of grey than that described as No. 1 on
Ringelmann Chart.
(2) The provisions applicable to visible
grey . smoke shall also apply to visible
smoke of a different color but with an
equivalent apparent opacity.
c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne
Sollda: No observable dust, dirt, fly ash or
airborne solids shall be emitted.
d. Odorous Gases and Matter: No
odorous gases or matter in a quantity suf·
ficient to evoke a response from the average
person beyond the exterior property linea
.hall be emitted.
e. Toxic Gases and Matter: No emissions
4-31·17
of toldc g .... ar matter .hall be permitted.
r. Vibration: No vibration ahall be
permitted to eueecl 0.003 of one Inch die-
placement or 0.03 (g). peak acceleration,
whlchaver Is sreater, as meaaurecl at any
point outeide the property l!naa of the lot or
site. ThIs shall apply In the liequency range
of zero to five thol18and (0 • 6,000) cyclee per
aecond. Shock absorbers or .imUar mounting
shall be allowed to permit compliance with
this specification •
g. Glare and Heat:
(1) No glare and heat from any source
shall be permitted to be unreasonably
objectionable beyond tha exterior pr0-
perty linea of a lot or alte.
(2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting
fixtures .hall be directed away from
public street. or righte of way. Exterior
lighting flxturee .hall be equipped with
hoods or reflectors 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, 9·16-85)
4-31-17: AlRPORT ZONING:
A. Zon.s: In 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 limite of Renton,
Waahlngton, 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 Alrport Approach Plan numbered
No.1, dated March 1, 1956, which plan is
made a part hereof.
B. Height Limite: Except as otherwise 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
turning zone to a height in excess of the
height limit herein established for such zone.
For the purposes of this regulation, the
following height limite are hereby established
for each of the zones in question: (Ord. 1642,
4·17·56)
(
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E. Amended Landscaping P1an: The approved
land ..... ping requlremenla may be mocW1ed
upon requeot to the: BuIldlng and Zoning
Department. The pl&IUI may be approved,
denied or returned to the eppUcant with
.uggeotiona for changea that would make
-them acceptable.
F. Landscape Requlrements • Speei1lc:
1. Ezisting Ellant Material: Existing trees and
other vegetation on the site of a proposed
development may be used where practieal 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 (2"') of the total site
for landscaping suitable for wildlife habitet.
This landscaping Is in addition to any other
landscaping requlrements by this Section or
any other ordinance.
3. Shorelines Master Program: Any
;development within the protected shorelines
~area shall be required to meet the standards
and requirements of the City of Renton
Shorelines Master Plan.
4. Slopes:
L General: The faces of cut and fill
slopes shall be developed and maintained to
control againat erosion. Thi. control may
conaiat of atrective planting. The protection for
the slopes shall be inatailed within thirty (30)
deye 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 material.
such protection may be omitted with the
permieaion of the Public Works Department.
provided that this protection is not required
by the rehabilitation plan.
b. Other Devices: Where neceasary.
-'Cheek dams. cribbing. riprap or other devices
or methods aball be employed to control
erosion and sediment, provide safety and
control the rate of water rwloQtr.
6. General Requirements:
L Existing desirable vegetation should
be preserved where applicable.
4-31-36
b. Stripping of vegetetive slopes where
harmt'ul erosion and run-oft' will occ:ar Iball
be avoided.
c. Are.. of fragile natural environmenta
should be protected &om development and
encroaebment. .
d. Ie practicable. unique feature. within
the site should be preserved and incorporated
into the site development design (auch eo
springs. streams. marshes. signif!cant
vegetation. rock out-croppinga and significant
ravines).
G. Maintenance:
1. Landscaping requlred by this Seetien shall
be maintained by the owner and/or oeeupant
and shall be subject to periodic inapaetion by
the Building and Zoning Departmant.
Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy.
growing condition and those dead or dying
shall be replaced within six (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 inatalled
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 Zoning
Department shall send the property owner or
his egent two (2) written noti .... each with a
fifteen (15) day response period. The noti ...
shaH specifY the date by which said
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 olfense. (Ord. 3718. 3-28-83)
4-31-35:GREENHELT REGULATIONS:
A. Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt areea are
characterized by severe topograpbic, ground
water. slope Instability. soil or other phyeical
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-86
A) Umitations that make the areas unsuitable for
intansive development. Provisions for public
ellloyment of greenbelt areas are encouraged;
however, greenbelt designations do not Imply
public ownership or the right of public accesa.
The purpose of theae regulations Is to
supplement the policies contained in the
comprehensive plan regarding greenbelta by
the control oC development, by minimizing
damage due to landslide, subsidence or
erosion, by protecting wetlands and
fish-bearing watars, and providing physical
relief between .zpaness of similar land us.s.
Implem.ntation of th.se regulations will
protact the public against avoidable losses due
to maintananoe and replac.m.nt of public
faciliti.s, property damag., subsidy -cost of
public mitigation of avoidabl. Impacts, and
costs for public .mergency rescue and relief
operations. Th.s. regulations supplement but
do not replac. the underlying zoning
regulations for speciJlc properti.s. Thes.
regulations will provids responsible City
officillls with information to condition or deny
public or private projects to protect potentially
hazardous ar.as and to avoid the nec.ssity of
preparing .nvironm.ntal Impact statem.nts in
caseS wh.re th.re will not be significant
adv.rs •• nvironm.ntal .trects, thus ezpediting
gov.rnm.ntal approval proc.s •••.
B. Gen.ral Provisions: Greenbelt regulations
apply to areas that are first d.signated ••
greenbelt on the City's compreh.nsiv. land
use map and al.o identifi.d as containing one
or more of the following physical criteria:
1. Steep Slope Areas: Areas -with slopes that
•• ceed twenty five perc.nt l25%).
2. Physical Hazards: Ar .... identifiable as a
s.vere landslid. hazard or areas wh.re other
s.v.re hazards are anticipated including
.rosion, seismic, flood, and coal min.
subsid.nce.
3. Utility Easem.nts and Rights of Way:
Major .Iectricity, water and gas transmission
lin ..... m.nts and rights of way.
4. Oth.r Criteria: W.tlands, stream conido:'9,
and flood control worka.
The actual pre •• nc. or absence of the criteria
illustrated above in greenbelt areas, as
d.termined by qualified professional and
I <90
technical persons, shall gov.rn the treatm.nt
of an individual building site or parcel of land
requiring compliance with th.se regulations.
C. V.g.tation Removal: There shall be no
removal of v.getation within a greenbelt until
a permit is iasued pursuant to Section
4-31-35D below ncept for normal
maintenance with written approval by the
Building and ZOning Department for such
activiti.s as trimming of veg.tation or
removal of dangerous or diseased plant
materials.
D. D.velopment Standards: Whenever a propos.d
d.v.lopm.nt require. a building permit,
grading permit, shoreline substantial
d.v.lopment permit, conditional use permit,
varianc., rezon., plann.d unit dev.lopm.nt,
subdivision or .hort subdivision, and on. or
mar. of the greenbelt criteria as defined in
Section 4-31-35B above is present on the site
of the propos.d d.v.lopm.nt, studi.s by
qualified professionals may be required. The
City shall send written notificstion to the
applicant when.v.r such studies are required.
Th. City may approv., approve with
conditions, or deny any such propoaal to carry
out the purposes of this Section.
Wh.n.v.r a proposed developm.nt involv.s
only one singl. family dwelling, which is not
part of a larger d.velopm.nt proposal, the
City shall not require special studie. or
reports by the applicant.
1. Steep Slope Areas: These regulations apply
to land form features of a site between
significant and identifiabl. changos in .!ope.
a. Definitions (see Exhibit "A" for an
illustration of these d.finitions):
(l) -Slope shall be defined as the average
.Iope of the lot or portion thereof in
percent between significant changes in
.Iope, d.termined by observation on
.lmpl. .Iope., 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 the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31·35
D1&2) contour lin .. in scale feet; and "A" is
the net 111'84 between significant changes
in slape of the lot in square feet.
(3) A significant change in slape shall be
defined as a bench or plateau at least
Meen feet (15,) in width.
b. Development III prohibited an elopes
greater than forty percent (40%).
Co In greenbelt areas with between
twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent
(40%) slape the maximum residential density
.hall be:
(1) One unit per acre, and for each one
percent (1%) of slope in excee. of twenty
five percent (25%), an additional nine
hundred (900) square feet In lot area per
dwelling unit shall be required.
(2) When the current zoning designation
exceede one dwelling unit per acre the
allowable development density In the
eteep slope area shall be reduced to
one-fourth (II 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 mazimum nonrealdential
buildable area ahall be reduced to on ... fourth
(II J, and for each one percent (1%) of slope in
Gleell of twenty five percent (25%), the r...
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
.table building conditioJlll, sate and convenient
_I and minimum disruption of the natural
phYlical features of the land. The City may
require the appllcant to !Umish a report by a
Iieenaed engineer to evaluate the site.
However, the City may waive the requirement
for special atudl.. where sumcient
information Is otherwise available to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the
development permit.
2. PhYlical Hazarde: Greenbelte established
upon theae criteria should be developed only
4-31·35
with great caution and development should be
baaed on sound engineering and technical
knowledge. The King County Sensitive Areas
Map Folio dated March, 1980, III hereby
adopted by reference to assist in the
determination of and evaluation of physical
hazard areas as praacrlbed by this Section.
a. As a general rule, development should
not increase the risk of hazard either oD or
oft'-eite. Where detailed technical information
III provided illustrating that development Can
he .ately accommodated, development that i.
compatible with the degree of hazard and
with surrounding uses may be allowed.
Provided, any such development retaiDa at
least seventy five percent (75%) of the site in
open apace or III landscaped compatibly with
the phYlicai hazards.
b. The City may require site specific
studie.. completed by a qualified BOils
engineer or engineering geologist or other
qualified profeasionals, which shall include
specific racammendations for mitigating
measuree which should be required as a
condition of any approval for auch
development. The recommendations may
include, but are not limited to, construction
techniques, deaign, drainage, or density
apacifications, or seasonal constraint. on
development. Upon review of these studies,
the development permit shall be conditioned
to mitigate adverse environmental impacte
and to ossura that the development can be
aately accommodated on the site and is
conaiatent with the purpaaea of thIJI Section.
The City may waive the requirement for
special studies where sufficient information i.
otherwiae available to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the development permit.
3. Utility Easemente and Rights of Way: A
limited number of low intensity usee
consistent with the existing zoning and utility
use may be permitted within utility
greenbelt. auch that the propoaed
development meet. the intent of providing a
definitive geographic relief between adjoining
existing or anticipated land use. Allowable
uses include:
a. Any structures or activity diractly
aBBOClated with the supply or service of
utilitlea;
I
I (;:''''
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-35
03)
~. ,
F.
b_ Aariculture;
.. ~iclential open apaee8;
cL Recreational activities and facilities;
e. Parking uaoeiated with adjoining land
uses -provided that no more than the
following percentage of the greenbelt area is
covered with impervious Iud...... and the
remainder Is compatibly landscaped or
reteiDed in a natural lltate:
Twenty dve percent (25%), if the moat
I"88trictive adjacent zoning is B-1 or 0-1;
Fifty percent (50'1», if the moat reatrictive
adjacent zoning is B·2, B-S, B-4. T. or P-1;
SUty dve percent (65%), if the moat
reatrictive adjacent zoning Is 8-1, o-P. 1,1.
H-1, or M-P;
f. Production of reaources -provided
that the area i. 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 landacaping.
4. Other Greenbelts: Wetlanda, stream
corridore and flood control facilities designated
greenbelt shall be subject to the developmeDt
standards of the City's shoreline master
program urban environment where those
shoreline regulations would not otherwise
apply.
Other Allowable U ... :
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 ne ..... ary to
.afely construct such a residence.
2. Where the provisions of these regulations
limit COnstructiOD of public or private utilities
or appurtenant stnlcturea, approval for such
constructioD may be granted by approval of a
coDditional use permit subject to a showing of
necessity aDd compatibility of the use with
these regulations. (Ord. 3849, 1~8-84)
(See following page for Exhibit A,
Steep Slope illustration)
4-31-S6
4-31-36: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
A. Purpose: Tba purpose of a conditiODal use
permit Is to allow certain uses in districts
from which they are normally prohibited by
this Chapter wheD the proposed uses are
deemed consistent with other exiating and
potential uses within the general area of the
proposed use. Ezeept as provided in this
Section, a conditional use permit may not
reduce the requirements of the zone in which
the use Is to be located.
B. Conditional Use Permit: The Hearing
Examiner 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
limit the term and duration of the conditional
use permit. Conditions imposed by the
Hearing Examiner shall reasonably assure
that nuisance or hazard to life or property
will not develop.
C. Critsria for Conditional Use: The Hearing
Examiner shall conaider the following factors,
among all other relevant information:
1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use
shall be compatible with the general purpose,
goals, objectives and standarda 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 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. That the proposed location is Buited
for the proposed use.
S. Effect on Adj acent Properties: The proposed
Use at the proposed location shall not result
in substantial or undue adverse effects on
adjacent property. The following site
requirements shall be required:
a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in
l"88idential diatricta (B-1 and R-2) shall not
exceed 61\y percent (50'1» of the lot coverage
--
!If,
Z5"
I
I:
II .. ;:
ifS'
110'
S'
0
• - - ------ -- --- -1'----70' --·----"1
,..,.-"1.-
" . ~
~. -:
~:
:.~
-: -. ..-.c.., .......... : .... ~ ... ~
IS
.t. ,. ...;
~~
~. ... :"
~. .. ~.
~~
-:,-•.
:! .: _. •. .: .:
-: .. ;
• .....,c •• r c • .a ... _ at ....
I
'L.r
,
'0
STEEP SLOPE AREA
'6 20· ~D."G1M ,.:. 25
i 1 .'IIe_ t ..... ",Aa
I. F •• r .. ..,.,nt
: ... . ... .. OIJ •• 'r .... .-... .=--: .. . -.• .• : . .-:-.",,'IC •• ,. e ..... _ ata.e .. :... '1 .••.
::~
.~ .....
: ..
-..
: ...
:--:f-.-: .. : ..
:-:-
'r :-
.... "'e ••• c •••• 11t ,. 8'01"1' 'L •• -
S'op. 'It p8rc."t •
•
30'
r
75'
30' •
100 I t
A
1
100 (52 (771(4]
(TIS') (TO')
• 28.3
" ---.~ I t STEEP StOPE AREA ___ ..J
, ...... _ ••• _._ .... ,r ,.., ....,
0 z,s' so· 75' IDO' IZ!; • ISO' 175'
aoItu_r.u ... ,..:.
1""'" ~
--
fit --ft
It
"D
fit m -)C .g :r
ft !:!: ---Ii: :t> .. -.. .. -0-
::I
'])
-
of'
CD ...
I.,.
en
t
I;;
co
I :
..... '
"
~
. "vS~'
'-7-
I I
L.
i J _-!
i -
, Jy/GJy
1114'>' ... :"~ , r--.' .... "" SiX)) '-,-r-----
I' -....... -I
, ==f, :=:zr::!====r==rd=~ •
~ 'j 4 , > t
I
,
, ' ;1"
I 'f ...
M-P
I '--/\ ,
-1-. \
I
I
I
I
i r , _._-
FPUD-III-87
¥Puo-08t-!
, '<.', .
. ~\
, ~. --_ ... -.;' ..... --'
,,~ I - ---t---~
. ~-... -.--
, . ...... -... -.. -
." . ......... -.
I
MET ,R t o-p
P-II \ ~
-----+--~ __ I-
i
FPUD O~
.. ,
c' .' ,
;) 15 PO' 5 AI L ' --,-\i-
~ I \
I
• 1
I
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 PY-U
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.
-- ----
'-:'/,', ,-
SLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
rREFER TO ATTACHED EXPLANATIONl
lOF WETLANC' TYPES 1
[:iJ Vegeeaeed Wetland
ISaturated or Soasonally Floodod I.
l§J opon Water
IPelmanently Dr Semi-Permanently Flooded J
_ Weeland TVpe Boundary
____ APprDxlmatB Wetland Boundary
__ t.1near Wetland Feature
......... lncluded Wetland 'Feacure
-...J"''Open. Water Channel
u, ... .' I .... Pipe . Dr 9U VB.rt ., ., .. . , .' •• . ' •• . ' . , . ' •• . ~\
\ .
• • " ..
" "
---- -.. --• We.tland Edge,ldentlfi~d' by EC.OLOGY .. . , '.
(Burg, 4/87) ...
Scale
Edge of Project:
1" = upprc"c. • .,00'
.. ---~:::-~~:~:~~--... --....... ... :::-"" "" :::"''' ------"-C:C-"
Wetland Edge ..... 's
" ... ":.. .(...
WL
F7/8161!.J
, " , ,
"'" "',.s-,,
'\~: ~:--.s Figure 3
','f~
.............. 4'0
..... , .... ~<~y
"-:::!!~------------:-'-. -... _-------
'Fj~
.::: ~ ~._ -_ .r:'-~1~~~·~: .~~~~. -.'.: ........ .
i ,-" s-~==-
/'
. ..... .
.. , . ".
" " "
"
"
" ",
" "
" " " " "
" " " " "
" ..
.....
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981
. .......... '"::...;"... ______ -~ .. _~'_\:':.: .... __ I.::':' ... _. -_ ...... -.... -_ .... -' .. -_.-.'
"
"
"
" " " " :'
"
, , ,
, ,
j
,
j
,
i
I ,
J
I
, ,
, '
--------
···17.-.· .'
Wetland Edge. Identified. by Jones & Stokes (6/89) using the'· .
Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology
BLACK RIVER
RU:JARIAN FOREST
rREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl
LOF WETLANO TYPES 1
G Vegetaced Wecland
ISaturated or S04$OMily Aoodod I-
~Open Waco'"
IPcrmanently 01 Seml·PormanonUy Floodod I
:::-,,,::::,, 000--" :"':0"-"'00::::: :'-e::-, ,
... · ............ s
......... :.. <t.-
__ Edge of Project
Scale
," = appro,,-400'
~ WecJand Type Boundary
____ Approximate Wetlond Bounda ... y
_ 'Linea ... Wecland Fea.cure
..••• _ •• lncluded Wecland ·Feature
~1:lpen WaCer Channel
u~_ Pip~ :or ,?ulve.rc .. .. •• .. . ' . ' .' , . . ' .' .. . '
f2>
--Wetland Edge
F7/."lltl
-V-
.. ~.,.~~
~_!'tO~~~~ , .... : .. __ . -.---~-~~~~~~.--~~~~.:.-..
'. -.... -...... . .
' . . . " . . . ,.
". .. . ' .' . ' .' .' " " .' .'
" .'
" .' . ' .' " .' ,.
.-
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study. Canning, 1981
;'1-. ,. , , , '",
"',"',""
' ... \ ..... .s-"" ..... ~ .. .,..
Figure ;)
............ .4'0
......... ~.{.f'
................. ¥:J /(D
.......... _--------.. -... _---------
'" .::::.:..:.::., ....
~c .
/ .. _----1
l0-}_ ••••••••.••••• _. ; { ::.:::; r::::: f :: ~:~~>.:·:~:f :s:;!! !.c
: : ~ : I l
• , .. • j
• • I • , •
• I j • , i '. . !
" " '. '. " ;,
.' · . · . .' .'
;
• 1
• . r • • r · I 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
VAU£Y
GENERAL
.l:IoSPITAl o
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Mary Burg
August to, 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 visuaJly 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 tbe 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 (A!nm Dl.1ml) saplings
dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (Slilix spp.) and red-osier
dogwood (Comus stolonjfera). Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos il!.lnI.5), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor), and Nootka rose (Rilla nootkana) occur occasionally
throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
r\lllens), marsh speedwell (veronjca scuttellata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedge (~
sp.), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex cdspus), stinging nettle (Urtjca
djoica), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundjnaceae), burreed
(Xanthium 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 (T>l!ha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and·
fireweed (Epilobium angustifolia) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush
(Scirpus mjcrocarpuS) 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 2.5Y 2/2) sandy silts and sandy loams 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 Soil Hydrology Result
1, +1 wetland upland upland upland
1, -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, 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 common throughout. Shrubs present include red-osier dogwood, salmonberry
(Rubus spectabj!js), 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 panic1ed bulrush.
The area was apparently logged at some time as downed material is present in the wetland.
~. 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 Cbannel
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 spike rush (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 welJ 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 welJ 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
I2hv Jt-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: 'i(~d6(\ project:fu£I~K. O#r. fQ,,1<;
Date:--:"""B ........ ,p+< ___ C\-'-___ -'-_ Plot No.: \)~
Vegetation
Indicator
of: Ii STR:
AT~re~e~sa-___ % Cover status .... H""er .. b"'s"--___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
saplings/
shrubs % Cover
1 :~oyLJIL'~I(, d: {;<top-f-
2. (U/ws d.o=lcr
3.~ "1'
Indicator
status
file...
f1\CV -
ffle.. ( .. »","" rAe. or .....IIv.')
d.:..·':·'\~·~~ Percent of "oSpecl.es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:
----
Indicator
Status
(Ilc.w
fA::..
--(as 90rf<4.. "IF)
f1\UJ -
fA::::.-i
Other indicators: '
Hydrophytic vegeta-tL"'Ti-o-n-i:;?:'"'Y!':"e-s---:/r-:N:;-O-_---::B:-:a-s"1i-=s-:-':;:z:O2'--0"10 of dtTO<uco¢ ¥Fe ()/W.. FAe
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 5"C04~ 100 Texture B: -",54nI:::uJ~_:--_
Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: (>=5' ,f,5y ~/:J
Gleyed? Yes_ No Depth to Mottle or Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 ---i-n-c:""he-s-:-------
Depth to Till:,~--~-~-=-~~~-
Hydric soils? Yes __ NO::Z Basis: Coio, 00 n1otilf\ 'i'fl\~'
Hydrology
r Inundated? Yes __ No~ Deptp of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes No./ Depth to saturated-so~il~:-------
Otherindicators: -, ---
Wetland hydrology~?~Y!':"e-s===-N;-;-o~--~B~a-s-i~s-:-· -:N'~-1-.-q-tl-ie-c~.l-~-\.---------
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)
Client: ;t (~ ~~~~~c0A : o if'" Lao\:., J Plot No.: 1 J -, of: 1'1 STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Trees % Cover
1.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s___ % Cover
1.l!fnu', (.:ie, ••
2. 'I'""vl"~ H ,cJ,,,rJ.ojb.
3. I'{ukltr.. d,~(,dc-r
!O
,0
ao
Indicator
status uH~e~r~b~s~ __ _ % Cover
)~ 1. :-ldr'{:...r:, d.f~ ~'5
d,·,," 2 • I'-w-• ...,"c.vl\...., C"'eflll<o ~O
3. c'r"""" MV'''''...... 15
.. ~ )(wtrlh, \J p·,:.fr ~·fII .. ','cn' S
5. R"",,-,-(:I'b\;(>5 5
6.
Indicator
status
f~c...
F 1',<:. r 110.,'-
Indicator
status
fp,c.w
fAc.w
F1Ic..u-
file..
ffl<:.v->
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66q.
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegeta--;:t'i-o""n':;?:-:';Y-e-s 2-· "T"'.N:";o-_-_-_--::B:-a-s-:i-s-:--,---"'iD % fAe... or Qv tU
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No __
A-Horizon depth: 0 "1' Texture A: S':,~ l.:q.. Texture B: S,IflQ:"Vl
Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0I.5y 3/fJ
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:-Lr~~.~)~§~~~H~r __ ~--------------
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Depth of standing water: __ ~~---------
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil: _______ _
otherindicators: --,.---r
Wetland hydrology? Yes=Z No__ Basis: -;-,,,,"':....' /(:':",' "':r.·.::.·.lL!.IY'-":2:,GX __________ __
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' Q.n Project: PL ~. 0 if;" ?an'& Date:--,,041:.-'::J.L_~_';:'~I.-__ ....!.J!.:-_ Plot No.: it,-1 I of: 14
Vegetation
Indicator
STR:
~T~rsese~s_______ % Cover status Herbs % Cover
" 1.l<,,,,,-.;nr.J..)\.;:' r~ Ii.:>
------
Indicator
status
l.
2.
3.
2. \(01NJ1. CfI'JF\).S 10
3. 3 o{n.r .... "" du\,,,,,,,,.'l<_ iO
nc.l,J
-T'flCUJ
file..
Saplings/
=s~h~r~u~b~s____ % Cover
Indicator
S~atus
4. C'(W1:" W. S
5 ·JL ) ('\u ..... ::. C'J{usus r:
6.
l< 1/ . .
I --;:'rof~ ;,(r.c~
3. Corrv.. Sidc.nt' ....
~o
10
,0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,\.:'1"1\ \f".o.n\. Percent of"spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IDQ7.
Other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~~
Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No_ Basis: ((n~M '1 rdcrr.tf!14r:I'Kfl!. fl::c--rr~....;
Soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: Q-'iI' Texture A: 51 ~ Texture B:
Mottled? Yes...:£. No __ Mottle color:/h i Matrix color:".') :r:J
Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Hott~e 0 Gley:~~ ____________ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: __ ~ ____ _
Depth to Till: (
d · . 1 :=---~--,~---=---:-. -----:-.Il"'" ti" i Hy r~c so~ s? Yes-I,L.. No __ Bas~s: heH I~ (\,ClJ&"r1 1-/ _ (ij(I/S
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:. __ ~~ ____________ _
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil:~ __ ~ __
otherindicators: r11rl& fiOlFC-['_11.11: l;Yicl"~Cb ~ ;:·i((l.~d,.~, '14,,-
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No __ Basis: ~ . ("
Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _______________________ _
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
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 12it (l!l Project: &i7 ~. alfi-17M\;
Date:---'0"'1'-'..,..L_+-"_ ... _:.J-__ --"~:.....__ Plot No.: ;:;-/ i2 of: 1'(
Vegetation
Indicator
STR:
Trees % Cover status ~H~e~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover
~ 1. "JU1\e.." 12.>i{r·M !j
(. 2 '-~v."'fl' .... \L:. <~nS \
----
Indicator
Status
(/;(.v)
flic.·.; l.
2.
3. ~: IY..,..~ arc! / f""".JI2Jl ku-I.Q.S-
5. ..\
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
of 1. .70l"-'lcs k,chou."f-~O
2. Air.,) I\lb-!.... 5
3.
6.
Indicator
St:atus
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: iCC)
Other indicators: 1u:cij)A· st~A, \.UWf?,s
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes:i::No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0-( Texture A: Texture B: r.l", U/-"rt i.
Mottled? Yes ,/ No __ Mottle color: Matrix color: riJ£=. <I,;" ;~~"'fI,,
Gleyed? Yes No Depth to Mottle or Gley:
Percent organic. content A Horb: Top 32 ""i-n-c":"h-e-s-:--------------
Depth to Till: /
Hydric soils? Y~e--s-C7-T~N~O-____ ----~B~a-s-i~s-:-_-_-_-_-_-_-_________________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ____ No ~De~~ of standing water:~~~ _____ _
Saturated soils? Yes __ No Depth to saturated soil: ______ _
Otherindicators:
Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s---./~N~o-_~-_--~B~a-s-l~·s--:-e--c-.~-r-,-~-,-;/~'------------------
Atypical situation? Yes ___ No __ Comment: ____ ~--------------------
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: wetland --II Non-wetland ______ _
General site Comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 12~t Q..O project:e,!~ J',!. a lj:Ch?o.o\:..
Date : ....lI(.,2.,!f-!1.l_-f.,:<_L:~l-__ -l!I1...:...._ P lot No.: '-f "t I of: ;'i STR: __ ~ __
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Indicator Indicator
status llH~e~r~b~s~_~_ % Cover status
I Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
tAC -tN!,(. ~ 1-~'o¥' 4g I ?Ie 2 .'P~ k ,cJ,o
3.
F"c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: looet.
Other indicators:~~~~~_~~ __ ~_~ __ _
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: _____________ __
Soil
No Series Happed: On hydric soils list? Yes
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 'Iarty ~fi Texture B:_-:-____ __
Mottled? Yes-L N0--7 Hottle color: Matrix color: ; '; ,j '?Ip
Gleyed? Yes No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~-------'---
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y·~e-s-:z--r.,.,N,..O_=__=_-:..--=B,..a-s..,i:-s-:--t-, .. -ih-r-· . 1 / tntyij/r,;
7
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No v'Deptll of standing water:.----:~--------_
saturated soili?"Yes---No / Depth to saturated soil: ______ _
Otherindicators: ------
Wetland hydrology--?-Y-e-s-:::?N-.~-o~~~-B-a-s-l~·S-:-~-~-:'-.'.-'~J--.-.)~ .. ----------
Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: _________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
wetland determination: Wetland --,/.. Non-wetland, ______ _
I Ge~eral 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' Il.n project:e, ~. 0 '1,;..7",,'1:;,
Date:.....l:0~!:....'jl._I-_:/l..:l_'--__ ..!IJ::.....-_ Plot No.: q, +;] of:..L.14:z.-_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
AT~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
(,0
~o
10
Indicator
~s~t~a~t~u~s~_ uH~e~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover
Indicator
St"atus
J:"Ac.
fAe.
fAGW
~ 1. J"u(i<:.J.!> e\(<.JiV':; bO * 2. V«c.1rlICA. ~...>fu~ ~O
3. So \"""-' (h auk C"""'"''-j tD ~: 1?,,,,, unwl.;, <¥)~ ~,
6.
are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IOO·1e
Indicator
Status
Percent of species that
Other indicators:
Hydrophyticvegetation? YeS~NO ___ Basis: ____________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: 0 -IQ. Texture A:l!1l ,.\'+11 IOI.\!\Texture B: ________ _
Mottled? Yes./ No Mottle color: I Matrix color: ;)" 'II! '1/a
Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _
Depth to Till: ____ ~/~----~-----Hydric soils? Yes JF No__ Basis: ____________________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No ~ Deptp of standing water:. __ ~~----------
Saturated soils? Yes_ No_/_ Deptl) to sa~urated soil :' __ -----
Otherindicators: fiw:lraitu.·' . ..,~'f:('tl1JJ.tI in""''' all {IX. ';("):L~ 'I-:ui. \0"
Wetland hydrology? ¥es::z!NO__ Basis: ____________ ~v~_
Atypical situation? Yes No cornment: ______________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --\/ Non-wetland. _____ _
General Site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~(~ project:!l
Date: 01 . , of: -1/-14-STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3 .
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
-2S~t~a~t~u~s~_ llH~e~r~b~s ____ ~_ % Cover
Indicator
Status
II 1. Juf"_V~ e.~~s ;>-a5 '1.
k-2. 501'\)('.<.>"" du l~ < 1O'l0
"'t 3 • "Ru """ c:.r1isJ''''~ "" S'I 0
. 4.
5.
6.
Indicator
status
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Other indicators:~~-=~ ____ ~~ __ ~~~ ____ __
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~ No ___ Sasis: ______________________ __
Soil
Series Happed: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Horizon depth: O-I? Texture A: Texture B: __ ...",..---,,.,-__ _
Hottled? Yes~ No __ Hottle color: Matrix color: 5y't,l!
Gleyed? Yes No Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ________________ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 inches: __________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y~-=-e-s--7-r-."N:-O __ -_-_--:B:-a-s-l,..· s-: ~~~~~ __________________________ _
llydrology
Inundated? Yes No,/ Depth of standing water:.---,..,..--------------
saturated soil~Yes--No~ Depth to saturated soil: __________ _
otherindicators:.~~_----____ -r ______ ~ __ ~ ________ ~ __________________ _
Wetland hydrology? Yes =:2' No___ Sa sis: .,.:::G.!o:.<:';:<-:J. J~rr",,":l,!J _______________ _
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: e, __ e..,. 0 1i'~ 1 Lo.o\:.
STR:
Cli~nt: ~~t!:n
Date :.....I:"'/..I/:...'1Lf-~~ __ ..l<J!.:......_ Plot No.: 'i / -I of: I~ -----
Vegetation
Trees % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
8D
0-..0
5
Indicator
status !:!H.!:e.J,.r~b.;;,s,--___ % Cover
Indicator
status
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66"11.
Indicator
Status
frk-u-
f PlC-lI.)
Other indicators:~~~~ ______ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____ __
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-lL No __ Basis: ____________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Horizon depth: 0-1«' Texture A: Sg.nw1csn Texture B: __ -::: __ ,..".-_
Mottled? Yes 0/ No Mottle color: -:J Matrix color: K r.; II .. I/s
Gleyed? Yes ___ No v( Depth to Mottle or Gley: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ______ _
Depth to Till: ____ -----_-----
Hydric soils? Yes II No__ Basis: Sc!N,rln 1CXj.rQ wi mofi/;s
() i
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No v' Depth of standing water:_---:--:--------satur~te~ soils? Yes~ NO~ Depth/to saturated soil: __ ~_~---OtherJ.nd~cators: Hi,/Clrt1/C'Qi.j _, s-,<rur:orJ 17!:L<>J?d em uiL v\?q '$ ~jQ d<"
Wetland hydrology? Yes~>No __ Basis: ___________ v _____________ _
Atypical situation? Yes No COMent : _______________________ _
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 Illl
DPraOtJe·:.C\./p, e. Olf.;.. ?M):.
....s;!!2'-+. __ 'jL..,_~_r..;_~ __ ....!ITL:..-_ Plot No.: H ~ g, of: L9 STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees '.; Cover status Herbs % Cover status
1-* 1. ~~ a.n-;ncI.n:..w.:. aO'1,. fACW
2. .it 2. R.-... (,,0111,)) (~.l 10 n~w
3. 3 . C.flI um r.uweno..., <5 fft:,v~
4. ~<lI'IIc.r~ ~ttt""" <5 0&_
S. 5t>1aMwm <:I" Ie._ <'5 rAe... 6.
Saplings/ Indicator
shrubs % Cover St:atus
~ 1 .'PopUlus tn::h:J:h..p.. <to .f"Ac_
2 • Ruru~ 5f1do..\>.I.) rfj(~uJ
3. AI,,~~ I-v~"-F'tlc...
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IDO
Other indicators: __ ~---__ -----~---Hydrophytic vegetation? yes£ No __ Basis: ___________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric. soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: Q-'l" Texture A:~'~11t Texture B:
Mottled? Yes-L No Mottle color: 4)j,ifI Matrix colo-r-:-2.".....,,5:-u-~-.:l;;-· Yt""""\
Gleyed? Yes_ NOL' Depth to Mottle or Gley: . i
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y'-e-s-(7--r-N-o-_-_-_--B-a-s-i:-s-:-_-:c.:Q:l""!:J2Z.-=-.:I+,-"m~" ........ II-=4s~ ________ _
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-1~·S-:-~-,--&1(d~~tn--R-o?~----------
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: _______________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --,/ Non-wetland. _____ _
General site Comments:
',{. 5y !J/;;. (Is)
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· un Proj ect :p, e. 0 if: . 70.0):,
Date:--"04!_'~..I.._I-_.jI...;.l~,--__ -,,J,--_ Plot No.: '-I, -3 of:-I-I .... y_ STR: ___ _
Vegetation
~T~r=e~es~___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s___ % Cover
-t l..?op0lu"i(.c .. hcr ... ~ yo
.t. 2. A I( 'U~ -n>WtCL I.( 0
3. C"""\fI".pot",a=pos wb".,
Indicator
status ~HEe~rb~s2-__ _ % Cover
Indicator
status
File..
fAc...
f1)W
'H . ~ '14" ., 0
.. 2 • G\l'~'~f)"I arl/~~· a.. S
it" 3. :rO()W5 oJfti~~ ;;i.')
4 • ~J~ cr,~("'=6 5 s.
6.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Sa
Indicator
status
{At... (,=, "o~
FFlc)') :
f"Ac.L0
.fA<..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: O-p'\ Texture A: cJ'4( 'm" Texture B: .so..cd~ 100M
Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: Matrix color: _____ _
Gleyed? Yes ___ No v' Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~-------------_
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _________ _
Depth to Till: I
Hydr ic soils? Y~e-s--I7T.N:=:o----:B;:-a-s~~;-· s~:--e-o-,d\--{l..J I tIIc.t/~
A-H.-,r:.> 1.5'( Lj/;;)-~ VB·helt . ;;1.5v i1j.4 wi Pldil<.S
Hydrology L"'11,.i.ri k.s... '?:;,
Inundated? Yes __ NoL Depth of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes No ~ Depth to saturated~s-o~i~l-:----------
Otherindicators: ----
Wetland hydrology-?~.~Y:=:e--s--N~o-Vl~~B;:-a-s'irs-:----------------
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 tln Proj ect: eL f 0 ii:", Lao 'f..
Date: -,"0,+1-_'jJ..._4-_.<L.-l~,--__ -,,\I~_ Plot No. : ~!2,--4-1\f--0 f: -,,(1/,,-_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r=e~e~s~_____ t Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs t Cover
-( 1 :SF-,l') -joe LO-J.Ap:.. <ft)
2. 5".';:.1:,"..0 ~ '((',urn"2/>-"< 15
3. K"i-:JS "f~jck1I;~ < 15
Indicator
status uH~eAr~b~s~ __ _ % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
~ 1. (j(4,cc,d,c;,CA g 0'1,
2 .,.tl1h\l('O)rt'\ .(~'~1..r11'()l.
3. 101"'<.\'" """"tI""""
4 •
5.
6.
Indicator
Status
fAG4
<S·'/,· File
file..
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IDa
Other indicators:~~~~~_~~ __ ~_~_~_
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes...L,. No __ Basis: dMUdlwat ~ tAe. M weJiQ.l'~
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: c> -'X' Texture A: Texture B: ;;111.1'/""",,--
Mottled? Yes No ~ Mottle color: Matrix color: «:'5 '4 3Jil
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-l~·S-:=====~ _____________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ NO~ Dep~of standing water:~~~ _____ _
Saturated soils? Yes __ No Depth to saturated soil: ________ _
Otherindicators:
We t land hydrology-=?--:C:Y-e-s=~-_""""N"'o-/-r-' ---=B=-a-s-l':""' s-: -/"'(6r--eJt-,-CZ'7:-, a-(-Q-j -tr"'7':,-s-<T;4 ........ -· ----
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: &1: ~. 0 J;". ?o.o\:.
STR:
Client: 12~t n.n
Date :-""...,.!_'1"'_(-_~_'--__ ..lI!L,--_ Plot No.: '2" PL of: /1.{ ----
vegetation
Trees
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs
% Cover
% Cover
t l?Of'vi~ i(ILh~>CwI(la.. "{o
2 • Ccnnv~ -rloI01l.fQAA.. I D
3 ~1(v~\l-:' 'ipIL w.d I,S .5
Indicator
status
Indicator
St'atus
file..
f II c,1>l
fAc..W
Herbs t Cover
'" 1.1< 0J>'l uf\wl u:. r~p.,~ ~'j
').' 2. V D.rO"ICA. -;c.I1f~ S
.01'-3 • ;Ju f'.c..vs cltU">o.; 5 "4. Ur(IC..c... d\();c..r .... 5 5.
6.
. dbf'\\(\£V.~'" Percent of~species t'hat are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Indicator
Status
fl1U;J
08<.
FAc..v..l
I;~ cvl
Other indicators: .
Hydrophytic vegeta-7t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-S-~~~N70-_-_-_~B~a-s-~"s--:::::: __________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Horizon depth: 0-10 Texture A: SIIi (orun Texture B: __ ",-__ _
Mottled? yes-L NO_. _ Mottle color: Matrix color: !i,V ~p
Gleyed? Yes_ No __ Depth to Mottle or Gley: '
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 "":'i-n-c':"'h-e-s-:----------
Depth to Till: '
Hydric soils? y7e-s--~~N~0--~B~a-s~~"s~:-_~-_-_-_~ _____________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ NO~ Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated--so-,il~:--------
Otherindicators: .
Wetland hydrology? Yes-L. No __ Basis:";"dLWt;".;:"""y::..:rr..:..:.~Qi",·')! _____________ __
Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ____ ~-------------------
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: wetland ---/ Non-wetland '---------
General site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~~t tl.O Project: p, e, 0 if;" 7(0);
Date:-"'0'-1-/....J'j~_'-l_>..;_~ __ .!!.\J ___ Plot No.: 5, -I of: /'1 STR: _____ _
. Vegetation
~TAr~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
j( 1.'Po\..ok1. tr"l-<.r:.<Up.. 75
2 • ACt-<' nokL1" oph'illl;/l\
3 :Rut)\)) <;~"b.li$
Indicator
status Huse~r~b~s~ ___ _ % Cover
Indicator
status
..t l.LYi,,'''-.cliO.c<'-:;-0
2 .Jll'l~'" 1.'(<<. I 0
3. K""vr-.(DIL,s .-t'\"r.:. 10
4: -V~'l (."tf" i( U •• ~ uik ~ji(... "-S
5.
6.
d.,r..;IIoJ'!! Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /00
Indicator
Status
j:" A CW
~1Ic..I.JJ
rp, c..lu
O&-
Other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ __ ~~~ ____ ___
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
Soil
series Happed: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: O-Is .1 Texture A: .,.Ii '''''tTl Texture B: __ ~ __ --;:,..,..._
Mottled? Yes-L No_ Hottle color: Matrix color: ;;0 t,y r:fr:J.
Gleyed? Yes ___ No_ Depth to Hottle 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 NoL Depth of standing water:
Saturated soil~Yes_ No~ Depth to saturated--s-07i~1-:-----------
Other indicators:
Wetland hydrology~?-Y~e-s-~--~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s~1'·S~:~A~c-,S-~-(j~·),~~-,J7'------------------
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)
of: l'/ STR: ----
vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees % Cover -"-"-= ....... -----Status Herbs % Cover Status
1.
2.
3.
saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover
-'1f 1. -:Po p->Ics tr l( r(~ pa-.~~
2 • i("b.!; ~,*,d I.>
3 • ~'/\\?tJws ,a.=.~
Indicator
St:atus
fAc...
fl\C-W
f/ieU
)\> 1. JU(M/'i .. ,J\'~):;;, 40'1· rl1C.W
'Ii' 2. 0d,u-d,,),u-f).6 ~ fflc..-t
3. ~('.<..U{l>S (4'lf''; 5r. fllc-I..)
4 • C~ <!\' 5"'1&
5. c...t"twM """~".... S J/. F~.'-U"
6 •
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: \()o%
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-[" Texture A: Texture B:5;;;:;;r'{ (OGlI"1\,
Mottled? Yes..L.. No __ Mottle color: (t..t/4jv:li Matrix color: lCAjR 5/.;
Gleyed? Yes ___ No__ Depth to Mottle or Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -;i~n-c7"h-e-s-:------------
Oepth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y~e-s-_-_--~N~o-V7-r~B~a~s~~T's~:::::~ ________________________ ___
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No J Depth of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes:==: No~ Depth to saturated--s-07i~l-:------------
otherindicators:~~ ______ ~ ____ ~~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ______________ _
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ N0-lL.. Basis: ;{!' ·.a-lVnT';17'.5
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ -4',/'--__ _
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
Shorelands Management
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
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 informstion 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 ther'e were wetlands present on the site,
they were not considered sdjacent 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 informerl Ms.' Barbara Moss
of Firat City Equities of the clarification in ollr new regula-
tions. We requested her to contact our office regarding permit
procedures which IDBY 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 t ,
'i
:1
I
-
-
..
-2-
the site under our December 16, 198.S, 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 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,
Wsrren E. Baxter
Chief, Regulatory Branch
24 June 1987
Wang 117289s
Disc iJ714
~tOP-RF
_Li..1.~/J BAJOE¥~ {it 2,
J'" .
Reg Br Fi e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT Of' 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
~
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 Prod an
Mary Burg
Don Beery
Sincerely,
()/{(~1I~/7
.. 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
' .
. .; i': .I..77"~ j\l',i.. ~h:
rl"'" :'J:
STATE Of WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT Of ECOLOGY
.\ fJIi ."top PV-II • OJrmpia, ,,1,IJ\hmgluH 48S0-l·a,-" • (~Ob) .H'J-b(X I()
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 praft 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
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 overs tory 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 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,
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 wildlife Service
Barbara E. Moss, First city Equities
-----------------_.
I ,
I
I
I
'I
,I
I
'I
,j
11 ,
II
I
,I
:1
;1
il
)1
I
:1
:1
I
Regulatory Branch
Ms. Barbara Moss
Director of Planning
First City Equities
r
600 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear ,MS. Moss:
, "
t4tR A 1987
(;i\:)I~t./CW/.j"~;)
2 March 1987
Disc: a:sam
Reference:' Black River Technological
Park '
This is in response to your rebruary 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 author1zation was not requ1red to place fill on 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,myself or Mr., Sam casne at
764-34515.
Sincerely,
Vernon E. Cook
Chief, Operations Division
,,'
.:' ..
. '/.
I
I ,
I :1 ,
I
11
I
'II
I il
il I !I ! , ,
11 I
! 'I
.
3 March 1987
Wang #5423s
Disc #715
NPSOP-RF 2 tlarch 1987
MEMORANDUM FOn RECORD
SUBJECTI Black River Technological Park
1. Backs round I 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 aite but the wetland. 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 wetland.
on the site were not subject 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 (enclo.ed). No permits were TBquired fram tbis
office. On 18 February 1987, tbe Seattle Diatrict notified the developer that
our interpretation of interstate commerce now included wetlands that provide
habitat for migratory birdl, and that work on the .ite would require prior
autborization by thil office.
2. Meetin8 •. On 12 March, representatives fren the developer and the Seattle
District met to di,cu.s juri.diction over tbe lite. Those pre.ent were
Barbara MOIS, Firet City Equity; Robert Road,Engineer; Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer; and 8am Calna, Mike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle Di.trict Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a
chronology of event. 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 pbotos.) Based on the information TBquired, VB concluded that 70
to 75 percent of the aite had been eltered prior to receipt of our 18 February
1987 letter.
3. Conclusion. The Bite has been subltantially modified. The applicant has
cleared, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the lite. Thie work was done
\IIIder the Seattle Diatriet's letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara Moas aaid
the work ·would be campleted by the end of the BummeT of 1987. Based 011 theae
considerations, the work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further authorisation fram this office ia required.
Ench 8amue 1 R. Casne
Chief, Enviroaaental and
Proce.eing Section
I
I
I
I
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(' .... t.\u .. ~)
2. Meeting. On 12 March, representatives from the developer and the Seattle
District met to discuss jurisdiction over the site. Those present were
Barbara Moss, First City EquitYI Robert Road, Engineer I Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer I and Sam Casne, Mike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy pojtinger, Seattle District Regula.tory Branch. Berbera Moss outlined a
chronology of eventl that led up to the development as it ezists today. We
asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which she did. (See enclosed
letter and photos.) Baled 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 letter.
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 Moas said
the work would be completed by the end of the summer of 1987. Based on these
considerations, the work may be complated under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further authorisation from this office is required.
Eoeb ~~£~
Chief, Environmental and
Processing Section
I·
I)'
I)
< .. '. OEC 1 6 1985
.. -:..... , ';"'-';;~
"
. '.
~ .. .
• '. • I
. ... \'.: .: -:.
. '. '.
. '
~.il:~;s·:t~;:;:~,waiter Act La nquirilll for the cU.scharp·Of aay clredsedoi: .AU
~~':i;,::·~lt~:r1J~ ~~ vaters of cheUnlted 8tatQI~·~1Dc1ud.fna adja&ii.i:· . ·'~f':-';;;~!i::':;r.~:\,o~
'. "The term ·wetlaiads· Jieanethoseareas·thit are iDuadsted or":
:" eaturated by Budaes or srollnd.vater at a frequl!IICY aad duration' .. '
'. . aufflc1GDt to support. and thAt under'Domel ciZ'CWlltaDc •• do '. ;'.~;;'.:. . ... ~:--:: ... ,: }.: ' .
', ... upport •. ,a prevalertC8 of veptatioD tl'P,1call), adapted for Ufa in .... .. ;, _ ........ ~ ...
. I8turated 1011 conditions •. na Corps of· £I1;1Aeers baa the rll8poa-~ .. ::: ..•... :.~ .. ~ ~
·a.ibllityfor determ1n1aS'vbetl1er a apecific wedaud area is within -........ .
I··· Sectioa 404 jur1ad1ction.. .... ,~:'~:.' . _:. '., •.
.... ·:;:'-':::'·-=.~-:7":.· '.' .:." -.~.'. ~',--:~?-;::_': .~?--~~~~~~: ~.:;S'7.'-.,. ;:;':"~~_':"'_~_"_'';_:'::'::'.':''-:':._:-~~~=--.~ . .1'-, --. -.' ::.~~~.
We have rlN1eved the inf01'1llllcioa JOIl furnished 18 weU as data .•...
:~: ...
. ,-; .
. : ."
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
gathered cluriD3 our onaite 1aSpllctioa oa tflNember 14, 1985. Va .. ~ ,
cleterm1ned that wetlands lire present on the project aite. However, .. _ ..
these wetlands are not considered adjacent wetlands uader our -:" ....
h8lllstory authority. A Depart=ent of-the Army permt will aot bll
required to place flll into this area. .... .' . .
If you have any questions regard'ins thia matter, please contact
Mr. Rudolf Pojtinger, telephone (206) 764-3495,
Sincerely, I'
Warren E. Baxter
Chief. Regulatory Branch
. .. .n~ ...
. -'.~
...
'-'--_.' -
I.
-1-
1
I
1
I
1
"".
1
I
......
'.:':
;.
1
I
I
•
1
1
1
I
·1
1 "
I
.. r'
:'. : ',;.,
",'1" ",.,."
.:;·:::<~ .. t·;'-)" ~
~:. ".': . • ,1,', .
.,' . ' ... ~
. .. ~: .. ',
"!.",' ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I: ,
I
I
,1.
:.'.
··'1
'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 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" becU;Ei '~ff~ctive ....
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' .. !.'.\,:L;.:i::~~!<:;
Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the pr~~'i~us'::::y\~::,;::',
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':·. ,; " •. ,;; ;;.
404 Permit on this property was not made at the tillM!. theEIS/{:;,',':}::}r
was prepared, the Corps in its comment letterto·the Draft:~~~:·;F·i;:·::'Fi.':
EIS, indicated that a previous decision regardingwaterways:":"';-:';, ;~.i;:·-;
upstream from the P-1 pump plant could possibly exempt the';:i:,\i:;~. ::~':':'::
site from the requirements of the 404 Permit; .:-;-, .• ,..:,~:.-.", :'
·'i:.!';'>":'::;:': ...
800 Fifth Avenue' Sune 4170· Seattle. Washington 98104 . (206) 624·9223
Reel Estate Development end Investmenls
. '-~-. :}\(4(;::::}
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
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. DeltonJ.
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 Corrunittee, 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'
corrunenced 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 ;"":,-;":" ;,!,;< .. ,,~ .
Environmental Review Corrunittee 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l '. '.
I· . . .
I
I
I ,
l
l . !. :
;; . ! J'
'1"
I
I
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
February 27, 1987
Page Three
• Deoember 18, 1986 ~ First City Equities was advised that the
ADMAC buIlding permit was ready for issuanoe by the City of
Renton.
It is olear that the Corps of Engineers had more than one review
of' the projeot in the past and had olearly indioated no Corps
approval was reoeived. All development plans for the property
prooeeded on that basis. The City of Renton has been working
cooperatively with First City Equities addressing land use issue
inoluding oooperative regional traffic analyses and oonstruction
of arterials to alleviate traffio ooncerns in the Valley. '.
First City Equities has made a signifioant oommitmentof
resouroes to.this projeot. We have a $10 million loan covering
aoquisition and development of the entire Blackriver Corporate
Park and a $4 million loan to oover infrastruoture oosts. First
City Equities ·has formed a Local Improvement Distriot whioh 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'fordevelOplng .;:'
tis property has deeded 37 aores 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' deoision to go forward on this property was the .
Corps' December 16, 1985 letter denying jurisdiction.
..
Enolosed 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 Deoember 16, 1985 letter •. ~.,~: <.:::: -'.
. " '~', ~ ~ :. "J :.: ;L'~ ,>!;. ;: y"
" ;
' ..
. ,
_,1 (. ,'" • :;: l ~ j
' .... :-:;,;m";I"~(: T .
.-·--·;:1":.:<~.·:·
, .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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
·B8M/bc
Enclosures ;,r,:
: CCI Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. w/encl
Robert Roed w/encl
-,.,. ,.! "
,:'
' ..
I . :;",;'1; ! .
"; .
: ;
" ,'.
t¥,';·······
Royce Berg w/encl
David Schuman' w/encl
Greg Byler'w/encl, .: .
t. "
.: I
":. ',"
"'.': : ~.-' ,..' ,,' .-' .. ' ", ':')(~.'i'.'\' ", ._. ";.: ..... ,
. , .'
; :."
,':' '"
~ I r : '.,
.::;
HAND DELIVERED 2/27/87
. -, -.. ,,'
'" . ;-~.;
I · .
.'. . ;',
i, ' .;: .
. ".:'
:\.£':
, .' . -.
I':
"'," '"
. ~ .
"1' , .
: 'i
I
"
.-
;. :,,: .. ~ ::.'
"1 "
.. ;..
" '._[ !:l::.::
," . ','-'
" i !
.' .. '
'I.:
.. ,:.: ,J':::
.: .. "
'",:
': '
''','' .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
',""
leadat • .., l~aacII
. '.
··.·l', ":; .. ,/
.... lar"a~. I. IloI.
Dll'''tor, .f 'laallll
rll'lc CltJ ".ltl ••
., '., ···FES·18;19S7 .. '
'. " ..... : ... ',.;:;.,." . ". '.'
,., r,
• ,If' .' • .. ~:.
, ~ r. ",,'
. -.
. . " '
";..'" .
'. ",
". ,,,-,' . -.. . .' .~ ... '
100 rlftJa A..... hhe 4170
'.Ittl ..... la1qeoe. ,,8100\
• f :" '~ •••••• •
... ~ .,~,~" .
.:: .• ,. ...... 'ilack 11 .. 1' T .. 1aaol.,uk ... :"' . ~ ", .... :. .< : 1oU' ......... , . .'
: " . ~.,' .. if .
CIa ...... 14, 19S5. ,.~~l "-Po ... ttl. Dbtdet ":'. . ,
luptetad tbe nfanaeod prope'" CO cI.tftId.· if • '"POIeeI ..... 10.-
. IIIIIC ... 1. n.un a hpll'bMDt ., tile I.ntt ,.nl,t .... 1' lectlea 404 ..
of cbe ct .. ".I:or AcC. nl. l .. ,..tl. n'IU1" tllat .. tl..... Ii.
.• fiaed '" Deputllnt .1 tJIo' 4aIJ, ,.l'IIit ..... 1&d.... Id..t _ tt.
,TOPOI't7. ,.ia, pol'llit repl.attou dl .. d .... at tue tIM. _ •• ter-
.1_ tllat tJal.o _claa. w. IIOt a "hI' of I:Jao talhcl 'ht •• , ...
tha.. tbe Coorp.· of IlIIia.en. W 110 JvWllltloa ..... t!le nfll"Dlllci
dl .. lo,...t. Ov Hanb·l%, 191'. llUI1' to ,. nfllllh !:hil
det.nd. .. tl ••
lD late -Itll, tbo eor, •• f 1III1PIII" .... U.1ae • ..."peftIlt 1'1..-
lotiOlll wille 'I ... lifted,. Jamaart 12, 1917. no.1 nplatlna ,roY'" a c1ariflllldoa bt the ... lro.aatal tTOt.ctloa &,oac, .,
tbe elofiDldoa 01 .. Cen .f tbe talted 'tatel all .. laclacle .. t.~ ..
a. Which l1'e or _1 ... wei ... ubltet tit 1I1n.
,rotected ., Hll1'at0f7 lin fnatl •• , _ ..
b. Which al'l or woalel be all. a. habitat bt otbl~
llilntft't blnl ""lcla 111'01' ltah U_.
'l1Il. c1arlflllleloa b .lp1l1l11at ___ it Ispud. the Cor,.
lectiOll 404 jarlldlctlOll. n. .. t1 ..... ilia tbe nflH1lCeeI pTOpert,.
. are IIOW coaeUerecl to be _tere of tile Valtl. ltato. ad nbject to
Departlilent of tbe Ant'/ penalt ftqllinae'lltl a,"lar SectiOl! 4«14 ot tlle
Cloan Water Act. Under 'acttOI! 404, eatho~I'lt'OD Ie required tor
the clbcharp of elreel,n 01' flll uterial lato .. hn of the t7ftlted
'tlCe., tacla.silll .. tlucl.. . .
Ve requel' 10U eolltact thi. offica r ••• rella, Plrale·procedure.
if 70Q !ti~l ~~o?o,e to fill tho .tte. A copy ot tbe Departaent of
"~ .
.0'
-• I
I
I .'
I • r-"' ----..:....--. I •. -
I ..
i
I
I
I ..
. .
I
I
.j
·1
I
I
I
I .~
~ . ..., .. '
I.
t I
I
I
I
I ............. -----------------
I
I
I
I
I
I •
•
'PI
1~3
I I
V1C1N11YMAP ."-
1:"l'T -=
CL£.6.f'l:.O I ~lJP.,eE.t), <61Z.A1)~ ~. l=1'-l eD (~8,t N:. ')
~1 /),Gir_ PI2.f.~~~ve. (lJoJt.:n+ 'ZD """ ?DI!:T1OU "';.HOI.Ot..i.)
Uf.Lt)~"T\l~tl (\4"<.)
il
I : 1 ! I
ill
\
I ': """',,, __ . ___ 'e_··
.-.. -. -.
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
"
BLACKRIVER
Corporate Park
RENTON, WASHINGTON
MT04EIJ,. IG.SON CIIOl.P M:. _ .. -------------
lUSH NXD' .. ,QMGs .co -_ .. _----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
i
,
! : .0;
i ! ! ' . . , , , ,
-f ,
~ ;
~ . •••
• •
I •
j t
\ .
, \ ., ~
~ .'
. " .
I
I
:1
I
:1
I,
I
I
I'
, I:'
'I ",
,I' .
I
I
I
I
,I' ; ". .
I
,I:
, .
", , ,
" '
, '
. " '
: "
. I.,
, ,. ~,
, , '
" .'
, '., ",
, ,
, , ,
:.; . .'.
} , .. "
, , " ,
" '
'. ','
'.1 '
I. "':'
" , " '
, ,
, '., .
, "
, ,
, ,
, -,; .' .
.' "
. -" -.
, , ,
','
.
, ,
.: . \ ,
, ,
',' .
•. . I
-'
'.r .
, : ' • I
• r ' " • , \
' .. ' . .. .-'
.. ;
.'\.' .
. . . .
",J; -'. ,-
, ,
" '
, -
. ',",
, ,
".' .
" '
,',
, '
" ' '
~ ., .' ..
',' :
, ,
, ' .
, :.-
"
' ..... .
, '
, ,
. ,'.
, .'
. ; "
• e "
" ,
,I.
,;
, "
~ " .
"
"
'"
,.
"
"
.. ,: .
.. ',~
'\
"
"
"
' .. '
,
, ,
, "
"
'"
",
, ,
,,'
' ..
" "
!,
... .. i·
. ", ~ ~ .
, ..
j ,;
, ;'" , ,
,,'
.. ,.
, '
",'
'. : '
'"
,',
.. '
"
"
, ,
"
" '.
"
" .......
"
~ .. ' ,
..... ,1.
"
. , ,~ ",
. .'~
',.'
:~. "
.. :
',.'
.......
" .•..
" ,
"
.~' .
!;.'
'"
" ,
" ,
"
"
"1-:
"
•• J ~
""",
, t
, ..
"
"
, '
"
',:.
,:~, '
,'"
" : .. ,'
" '
"'.
-,;
~' .;
. ~,
"
:' .
.:
"
.' "
' .. '
"
"
" '
"
," ~ ~' "",
" ,
.;~ ,
.'
." , '
.. ': ' -: "
"
"
"
'"
" ,
'. "
,',
. ".' ,",
i
,y"
"
"
', . ..,
,.;
,,'
f
",
',.
.;. "
", , "
'" / '
:. ~'
"
, "
"
,. (
, ,
. "
, t,
,>' ,
, '
",
"
"
~ "
'" P, " ",',
,t" •
"
'. ~ .
"
,.,,-
i
, '
.. ',
,.
" , ,
.'
. ./.; , ,
," "
'j
,,'
'.'r·' "
"
. ... .. ,
" ,
:' ;.
, 1"~
,;
'"
.,. \ ~
:. -
, "
'I
'I
:"'1
,
I
,I
l
"
"
....
.. "I'
"
,', ,I"
'I:, , '
, , I
.'
','
.1"
f "
..'
,"
" I
1
j
I ::,
•
I: ,','
1"
I ' , ':
" I :
'I
I .
'I ' ,
I, "
,I
,I
I
I
, , . . " .
, "
I,: "
.-I', ":
I" ' '
I ',', ,
'I
'I.' "
\ . , .
Ii"
" '
, ,
'. '.,"
" ,
, ' , '
" '
"" ' Black River Corporate Park ,'", :,
, '
, ' , Renton~ Washington' "
, '
"
, Lot7
" .. . -.. , ,
, , . .' .
, , , , , . . . . , ,
, , '
.. " . . . . " ,
. " . ". '. " , '
'. \ .
, , ,
. '.. .
'. . . .
, .
• " I " . ,
'. . .
, , .. . -,"' .. ' .
, '
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, 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 7, 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 FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
[$152,500.00]
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.l7-1a.
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.
-9JZ~'j
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.
5.
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 wiih 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 SRPA 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 instrumeritality 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 . Parrish, F.R.I., R.!.(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 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. I 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
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS:
WCATION: Between Burlington Northern Railroad and Black River
Channel, Renton, Washington
LEGAL DFSCRIPTION: See attachment at rear of report
TAX ACCOUNT NO.:
DATE OF
VALUATION:
SIZE OF LAND:
132404.9024
March 28, 1991
233,901 square feet
SIZE OF BUILDING: Not applicable
TYPE OF PROPERTY: Vacant
ASSFSSMENTS: Land: $381,500
TAXFS: $5,176.34
ZONING: OP -Office Park
I HIGHFST AND BEST Comprehensive Development
USE:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OWNER: First City Development Corporation
ESTIMATED VALUE: $152,500.00
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. 132404.9024 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.
b.
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;
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market;
d.
e.
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 identiflllble 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 conces~ions
based on the appraiser's judgment.
This defmition 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 AWraisai 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 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. A1aska 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
Iii
i
II f:..
\
:.-i
II :.
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
;1
~
/1 :.
1.
:1,
II
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 agricultural crops are wheat, apples and alfalfa. The Federal Government
and its creation, the BoMevilie 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
:1
II
II I
,11
j'
i'l
"
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 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
:1
i
1-
1,"1 l ;'
,
~I
I
I
I
SEAl]'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
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 industries from Redmond-Woodinville to Lynnwood-Mill Creek. The Boeing
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
fl
i
. ,
Company remains the l11l\ior 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 Slate Capital for the Slate 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
Slate 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 capila 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
1,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF RENTON
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 36,7fIJ 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.
MANUFACDJRING AND INJ)JJSIRIAL PATIERNS
There are 200 manufacturing ftrms 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 ftrms have distribution
centers in the area with a current estimate of 290 distributorships. The largest
manufacturing ftnns are as follows:
NAME OF COMPANY PRODUCTS 1989
EMPLOYMENT
1. The Boeing Company Airplanes 37,600
2. Paciftc Car & Fndry RR cars, winches, machine shop 220
3. Tally Corp. Electrical hardware 325
4. Heath Teena 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 ,
il ,
: :1
\
II
i
:1
II ,
il
i" i: II Ii
'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) 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 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 FACILJTJFJii
Excellent and efficient transportation facilities are available. Rail service is
provided by Burlington Northern. Truck service is available by all of the m~or 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
II
;1
i
:1
II ii I:
II
: I ,
I ,
I
i r,
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 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 FACILl1JF.5
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
13
3
3
1
1
TYPE
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Special Education
(fhompson)
Alternative
ENROLLMENT
5,755
2,009
4,029
6S
165
#
TEACHERS
245
90
175
13
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.!. 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 comer.
The site is very irregular and offers 223,314 square feet or 5.13 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 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
• • :. ,
:1
]
it
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.
tl
J'
HIGBFSTANPBFSTUSE
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 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 unrea1istic, 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 ruled, 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
·1
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 APl'roach 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
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
I Center
I 53
S·Access
HORSE ~I;I~IIII
_ -L _._ '-'-
S;,.:W...:3;.;'..:S:.;,T-I
11)-
SW 23 ST
-
SW29
~
en
Cl a:
.8
;iii
S 28!
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 #2
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 II, 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 Lot Size Price p. s. f.
$948,000 135,544 square feet $7.00
32
I
I
I
I
I
'I
>1
;1
11
t
::1
.1
f
:1
•
I
••
I
• •
I
Sale #4
Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton
Tax Acct. 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 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
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 smal1lots 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
v
il
il
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 usual1 y 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 three 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 three 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 3 years at 13%
$5.50 x P.V. of3 years at 13%
$5.50 x 0.6930502 = $3.81
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
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 $3.81 per square foot, i.e.,
One acre x $3.81 p.s.f.
= 43,560 s.f. x $3.81 = $165,963
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 $152,500 (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.
Ully .... Ur.ITr:O STATE! MIUT.&R1' •• " .. ,"'" •• Ully ........ ..
Umeri:k •••••••••••.
Undsay •..••.••••.••••• _
-
EXIT 164
South
Center SW 23 5T
_.L __ ___
sw ..
v;
I
l
----!l t 130 32"4----4
___ R -2790"9 __ ~
L -659.24
223,314 SO Fi
1==-, .... _-OR ~, 13 AC.RE$-··....,--=;o=~_~+~-J-..I
EEN
~EL B' 1 j
~'~"C I n~l---.,b'
S.E. COR. TRACT 26, --I--foL-.-"/1",""
RENTON SHORELANOS
_ ' 2 N 0 SUPPL EM:.EN:.:,T;,;;;A;,:L ____ ~===::;""*'1' 1 A P S, 1 9 S 8 .
~~~~~:z~~~ ______ ~~!T~R~J~ ---GAS PIPE LI N E EASEM EN T & F'LCOO CONTROL
DAM EASEMENT OVER iRACTS 2S 26,29 ANO 3
REC NO. S 24396 ANO 26355 ' i:-
10' ORAINAGE DITCH EASEMENT TO a /,«-
KING COUNTY DRAINAGE OISTRICT NO I, •. ~.:t.:-..I. 'V ~Q
UNOER APPLICATION NO. 25422 AND G : '" "' ~
TO CITY OF' RENTON UNOER '-'PPLICAT10N . .. io..:' ~ ,,0
NO, 27583 !l:580 46'25"G I'~'", .-"'I:::::s:;:"~I:--.' ....... '-R : 29 3,00: II) I d<! ~ ~
L : 300.5(5 ,.~ ~)
""'" " ~o~"
(;' c.; ~'"
~<>1 ,
I
'",-
, s(
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
i
] ,
I
t l
II
ZONING DATA
I
I
I
I
,I
:I I
II
+31-16
cab)
. ' ,"
(2) Commercial, Industrial and Other
U_: A muimum of eight feet (8')
anywhere on the lot provided the fenee
doe. not .tand in or in front of any
required land.acaping or pose a traffic
viaion huard.
(8) Fence Types:
(A) Electric Fences:
L Electric fences are permitted by
Ipscial review in all residential
lanes in c.... where large domes·
tic animals are being kept provided
additional fencing or other bamer
is erscted along the property lines.
ii. All electric fences shall be
posted with permanent signs a
minimum of thirty six (36) square
inches In area at intervals of
fifteen feet (16') stating that the
fence is electriJled.
iii. Electric fences and any related
equipment and appliances must be
installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications and in
compliance with the National
Electrical Code.
(B) Barbad Wire Fences: Barbed
wire may only be used on top of fences
at least six feet (6') high for commercial,
industrial, utility and public uses.
(C) Other:
i. Bulk Storage Fences: Sea Section
+31·29.
ii. Fences for mobile home parks,
subdivisions or planned unit
development and for sites which
are mined, graded or excavated
may vary &om these regulations as
provided in the respective code
sections.
•• Special Review Process:
a. Persons wishing to have one of the
tollowing types of fences may submit a Istter
of justiftcation, site plan and typical elevation
topther with the permit fee to the Building
and ZonIng Department:
+31-16
(1) Fencee ezceeding forty eight inches
(48") within &ont yard I8tbacka but not
within a clear vision area.
(2) Solid fences along .ide property lines
abutting arterial streets.
(3) Electric fences.
b. The Building and Zoning Department
shall approve the issuance of special fence
permits provided that:
(1) Fences, walls and hedge. above forty
eight inches (48") when all setback &om
the street property line four inches (4")
from every one inch of increased heigh t
sought (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 I8venty two inches (72")
in height. This fence must be located to
the rear of the required &ont yard. 10
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 streets, does
not obstruct views of on-coming traffic at
intersections or driveways.
6. Compliance: Fences which do not comply
with these regulations must be brought into
compliance within six (6) months &om 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 lotent: The Omce Park Zone
(O·P) is established to provide areas
appropriate for professional, administrative,
and business omces, certain manufacturing
activities. and supportive services in a.
campus-like setting. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
B. Uses: In the Omce Park Zone (O·P), the
following and similar uses are permitted. The
Building and Zoning Department may deter-
mine that any other use is similar in general
character to the following specific uses and is
in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon
such administrative determination, the subject
(
c
I
~.
I
I
~1-16
B) uae.hall become a principal, aa:esaory or
conditional use, whichever is appropriate.
Unleu indicated by the text, definitions of the
uae. Ilated in this Zone at"'! consistent with
the descriptions in the Standard Industrial
Claaeiftcation Manual.
1. Principal Uses: In the O-P Zone the
following principal uaea are permitted:
a. Administrative and professional
offices.
b. Medical and dental offices and clinics.
c. Financial offices such as banks,
aavinp and loan institutions.
d. Schools and studios 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 articles, products
or merchandise from previously prepared
natural or synthetic materials, or ferrous or
alloyed metels. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
i. Day care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-
85)
j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight
(8) adult doll" or cats may be permitted afbr
satisfaction of the requirements in Section
4-31-37C1a. (Ord. 3955, 11-4-85)
It. Motion picture theaters and similar
recreational and entertainment facilities,
subject to the provisions of Section 4-31-25C2.
(Ord. 3980, 3-24-88)
2. Accessory Uses: In the O-P Zone the
following uses are allowed where incidental to
a permitted use:
a. Parking garages.
b. Recreational facilities.
.. &teU sales of products or merchan-
diaa produced as a permitted use.
4-31-16
d. Repair activitie. ordinarily aaaociated
with a permitted use.
e. Storage of petroleum or natural gas
or any of their by-products, provided thet the
total .torage capacity is Ieea than ten
thousand (lO,OOO) gallons oi-other applicable
unit of measure, and thet storage of such
products i. placed underground.
3. Conditional U888: In the o-p Zone the
follo"!'ing use. and their accessory U888 may
be allowed by conditional uae permit as
provided in Section 4-31-36 of the City Code:
a. Churches.
b. Heliports.
c. Personal, recreational and repair
.ervices and retail use., subject to the
standards of Section 4-31-16C2.
d. Additional use. as identified in
Section 4-31·3601. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) .
e. On-sita hazardous waste treatment
and storage facilities. (Ord. 4188, 11-14-88)
4. Prohibited Uaea: In the o-p Zone the
fonowing U888 are prohibi ted:
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 producta.
d. All other uses not included in Section
4-31-16B1 through 4-31-16B3. (Ord. 3937,
9-16-85)
e. OfT-site hazardous waste treatment
and storagB facilities. (Ord .. 4188, 11-14-88)
C. Development Standards: In the O-P Zone the
following development standards 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
+31-16
<l1) the o-p Zone. A. builcIiDg site plan ahall be
ftJecI azul approved In accardance with the
City Code prior to iaaU8llce of any builcIiDg
permits. Each buildiDg or other development
permit lasued _hall be In colll'Ol'IIUIIIC8 with
the approved site plan.
2. StaDdarda for Retail BAd Selected Service
UII08: For those IOrvice and retail uses
idBAtified In Section 4-31-1683c. the foUowing
et8Ildards .hall apply:
a. The deaip of stnlcturea. including
aIgna, ahaU be paerally consiatantln
charactar with surrounding us .... No driv .... up
window. or outside automobile service shall
be permitted.
b. No exterior display of merchandise
shall be permitted.
c. In order to avoid the negative impacts
of strip commercial development:
.'
(1) Retail or .. Iected service uses shall
be developed a. part of larger.' planned
commercial. office or industrial
complexes having common architectural
or landscaping themes. Such retsil or
service usea shall not stand alan. and
shall not occupy more than fifl:y perc.nt
(50") of a jointly dev.loped building
comp)eL
(2) Direct arterial aceess to individual
usea shall occur only when a1ternativ.
access to local or coUector streets or
conaolldated ...., ... with adjac.nt uses is
not f.asibl •.
(3) Roof signs shall be prohibited.
Free-standing signs shall not exceed ten
reet (10') in height and shall be located
at I .. st twenty feet (20') from any
property line. .xcept for entrance and
ezit signa.
'~. Setbecka:
a. Streets: .All buildinga and structures
ahaU be located a minimum of sixty feet (60')
or twenty percent (2a..) of th., lot d.pth,
whichever is I.... 1i'om any public street or
highway property line. In any case. if the
acijacent public street is a UU\lor or secondary
arterial, the setback sball be at leaat thirty
Caet (30').
+31-16
b. Other Yards: .All buildlnp and
atnlcturea ahaU be located e minimum at
twenty feet (20') or ftft:een percent (15") of
the lot width, whichever is I.... hID any
property line which d08I not abut a publJc
.treet or hishway.
c. Adjacent to' Large St:nx:t:ures: The
required yard sethacks adjacent to any build-
Ing or structure with a building footprint
greater than twenty five thousand (25.000)
square feet shall be increased one foot {1') for
each additional two thousand (2,000) square
feet of building footprint, up to a muimwn of
one hundred feet (100' abutting public
streets. and sixty reet (SO, in other yards.
d. Adjacent to Residential Lots:
Whenever a proposed use in tha O-P Zone
shares a common property line with a lot that
is d.signated any reaidential use on both the
City of Renton comprehenaive plan and zoning
map. the minimum setback contiguous to the
common property line shall be tifl:y reet (50').
Whenever an adjacent lot contains a
reaid.ntial use and either the comprehensive
plan or zoning designation or both is
som.thing other than residential. then the
appropriate setback and landscaping adjac.nt
to th. residential lot shall be determined by
site plan approval. A site plan decision to
require more tban the minimum setback and
landscaping sball conaider the long term
viability of the reaidential use. the presence of
other residential uses in the surrounding
area. and such other indica tiona of stehility as
owner·occupancy and housing condition.
e. Use of Setback Areas: .All required
setback areas shall be unoccupied and
unobstructed except for off-street ]larking and
loading. driveways. entrance roads, lawn
sprinklers. Walkways. landscaping. ardin.u:y
and necessary utility service Cacililiea, utility
poles, lighting fixtures. identifying ana
direction signs 4nd underground insteUations
accessory to any permitted use.
f. Flezible Setbacka: With sUe plan
approval and subject to applicable hw1dlng
and fire codes. one of the side setbaclcs ,(not
adjacent to a public street or residential use,
as defined in Section 4-31-16C3d may be
reduced or eliminated if the total width of
both side setbacka is at least twice the width
of the minimum setback specified in Section
r
\.
(
c
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... ;:
4-31-16
cat) 4-31-16C3b above; and the rear setback not
8I\I_t to a public .treet may be reclueeci or
eliminated if the Iront .. !back is lnereaaecl
a=rdiDgly. Tbe lite plan decision ahall be
baaecI on a ftncIing that, with reclueeci .. t-
badca, the architectural clealgn, building orien·
taaon, circulation, noise and glare of the
proposed project wlll be compatible with aclja-
cent usee and with the purpo.e and intent of
the o-p Zone.
•• Height: Building heighte in the O·P Zone
ahall be estabUahed with conaideration to
acljacent land uaea and .hall be determined ..
foUowa: .
a. Adjacent to Single FamilylLow
Density Multi-Family U.e.: No height limit
.haIl be requirecl provided that for each one
foot (l ~ of building height there .hall be
provided one foot (1') of yard setback on the
periphery of the aite where the office park
use is adjacent to a .ingle family or low
density multiple family u.e located on a lot
designs ted .ingle family or low density
multi-family on the City of Renton
comprehensive plan and zoning map.
b. Adjacent to All .other U.es: No height
limit .hall be required provided that all re-
quired yard .. tbacks adjacent to such other
use. ahall be increased one foot (1') for each
additional one foot (1') of height above forty
five feet (45,).
c. The.e .etbacklheight requirements
cannot be modified by application under the
PUD proces ••
5. Landacaping:
a. There .hall be a minimum landscaped
.etback of twenty feet (20') from all public
• treet or highway righte of way.
b. There .hall be a minimum landscaped
setback of ten feet (10') or one-half (112) the
required setback, whichev.r is I.... from all
other property line ••
c. A minJmum of twenty percent (20%)
of the .ite .halI be retained in landscaped
open .pace. A maximum of one-half (112) of
this requirement may be on the roofs of
structures, provided employees and the public
have accesa to the area. A maximum of
seventy live percent (75%) of this requirement
may be within the required perimeter
4-31-16
landscaping. The tw.nty percent (20%)
minimum landscaping requirement may not
be recluced if a site is developed 88 a PUD.
d. All are88 not covereci by buUdinllB,
.tructure. or paved aurfacae ahall be land-
scaped. Are.. set .. ida for future develop-
ment on a lot may be hyclroaeedec1.
e. Where parking lots are adjacent to
one another, perimeter landscaping ahall not
be required.
f. Any wall aurface greater than thirty
feet (30') in width lacking wlnclow. or doo",
shall be aoftened by landscaping or archi-
tectural features, such .. change of texture or
wall modulation. Such landscaping snail
include tree. over aix feet (6') in beight placed
no more than thirty feet (30') on center or in
clu.ters.
g. With aite plan approval, the perimeter
landscaping .etbacks required by Section 4-31·
16C5a and b above may be reduced in width
up to ·l1tly percent (50%) if the equivalent
square footellB of landacaping ia provided
el.ewhere within the site. Site plan approval
shall be baaed on a finding that the
alternative landscaping arrangement provide.
buffering and site amenities equal to or better
than that which would be achieved by .trict
application of the Code. The relocated land-
scaping shall not be located within the rear
.etback of the .ite.
6. ·Refuse: No refuse, tra.h, rubbish or other
wa.te material .hall be dumped, placed or
allowed to remain outside a permanent build-
ing, except in nonflammable, covered contain-
ers or dump.ters, which 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 .. follows:
a. Access: The principal access .hall be
from an arterial or collector street and shall
be oriented to the least traveled street when·
ever two (2) or more such arterials or collec-
tors abut the site.
b. Parking/Circulation: Parking and
circulation are .. along a common lot line with
a re.idential use I.ocated on a lot de.ignated
.. a re.idential 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) Renton c:omprahenalve piau and zoning map
Ihall be allowed only if a ten foot (10') wide
,Ight-obacuring Iancllcaping strip and a sill:
foot (6') high so!ld fence are provided along
the oommon boundary line.
c. Parking and Laaellng:
(1) See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City
Code.
(2) All loading docks and ron-up doon
,hall be located at the rear of buildinga
or acreeaed so that they are not visible
from any point 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 the vehicle Is
being loaded or unloaded. All loading
and unloading maneuvers shall be
oondw:ted on private property.
8. Environmental Performance Standards: The
fonowing minimum standards shall be met by
all activities within the O-P Zone. For all
activities which may prodw:e objectionabls or
otherwise prohlbi ted conditions, the property
owner or lessee shall furnish design specifica-
tions or other scientific evidence of compliance
with these standards.
a. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7,
Noise Level Regulation •.
b. Smoke:
(1) VISible grey smoke shall not be emit-
ted from any source in a greater density
of grey than that described as No. 1 on
Ringelmana Chart.
(2) The provisions applicable to visible
grey 'smoke shell also apply to visible
smoke of a different color but with an
equivalent apparent opacity.
c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne
Solids: No observable duat, dirt, fly a.h or
airborne solids shall be emitted.
cl. Odoroua Oases and Matter. No
odorous gases or matter in a quantity suf-
ficient to evoke a response from the average
person beyond the exterior property linea
,hall be emitted.
e. Toxic Oases and Matter: No emissions
4-31-17
of toxic gBlWlll or matter .hall be permitted.
r. Vibration: No vibration Ihall be
permitted to exceed 0.003 of one inch eIla-
placement or 0.03 (g), peak acceleration,
whichever Is l1'8ater, as measured at any
point outside the property IiJI8I of the lot or
alte. ThIs .haIl apply In the fioaquency range
of zero to five tboll8and (0 -fi,OOO) cycles per
IGCOnd. Shock abaorbere or .imilar mounting
ahall be allowed to permit compliance with
this apecification.
g. Olare and Heat:
(1) No glare and heat from any source
ahall be permitted to be unreasonably
objectionable beyond the exterior pro-
perty linea of a lot or alte.
(2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting
fixtures .hall be directed away from
public streets or righte of way. Exterior
lighting ftxtures shall be equipped with
hoods or reflectors auch 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: In order to regulate the use of
property in the vicinity of the airport, all of
the land within two (2) miles south and one
milo east and weat of, or that part of the
area that is within the City limite of Renton,
Washington, whichever is nearest the
boundariea 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. I, dated March I, 1956, which plan ia
made a part hereof.
B. Height Limits: Except as othel"\vise provided,
in this Code, no atructure or tree shall be
erected, altered, allowed to grow or be main-
tained in any airport approach zone or airport
turning zone to a height in excass of the
height limit herein established for sw:h zone.
For the purposes of thia regulation, the
following height limite are hereby established
for each of the zones in question: (Orel. 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. Amended Landscaping Plan: The approved
landscaping requirements may be moclUled
upon request to the: Building and Zoning
Department. The plllJUl may be approved,
clenied or returned to the applicant with
IngestiOns for chlUllfaa that would make
. them acceptable.
F. Lanclscape Requirements· Specllic:
1. Ezistlng I'lant Material: Eziatlng trees and
other vegetation on the site of a proposed
clevelopment may be uaed where prectical if
the quality is equal to or better than
available nursery stock.
2. Green River Vailey: Any development in
the Green River Valley shaJJ provide a
minimum of two percent (29&) of the totsl site
for landscaping suitable for wilc1life habitat.
Tbla landscaping is In addition to any other
lanclscaplng requirements by this Section or
any other ordinance.
. S. Shorelines Master Program: Any
Aevelopment within the protected shorelines
~area shall be required to meet the standards
and requirements of the City of Renton
Shorelines Maater Plan.
4. Slopes:
a. General: The faces of cut and ftIl
slopes shaJJ be developed and maintained to
control against erosion. This control may
consist of effective planting. The protection for
the slopes shaJJ be Installed within thirty (SO)
days of grading completion and prior to ..
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 omitt.ecl with the
permission of the Public Works Department,
provided that this protection is not required
by the rehabilitation plan.
b. Other Devices: Where neceaaary,
"check dams, cribbing, riprep or other devices
or methoda shall be employed to control
erosion and sediment, provide safety and
contral the rate of water run..,tr.
5. General Requirements:
a. Existing desirable vegetation should
be preserved where applicable.
b. Stripping of vegetative elopes where
harml\lJ eroeion and ruD-<lft' will occur ahaJJ
be avrided.
c. Areaa of fragile natural enviranmente
should be protected from development and
encroachment. .
d. If practicable, unique features within
the site should be preserved and Incorporated
Into the site development design (auch as
springs, streams, marshaa, significant
vegetation, rock out-croppings and significant
ravines).
G. Maintenance:
1. Landacaping required by this Section shaJJ
be maintained by the owner and/or occupant
and shaJJ 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 ownen shaJJ keep the planting areas
reasonably f'ree of weeda and litter.
2. The Building Director or his designated
representative, is authorized to notilY the
owner or his agent that any installed (
landacaping aa required by the Building and
Zoning Department, is not being adequately
maintained and the specific nature of the
failure to maintain. The Building and Zoning
Department shaJJ send the property owner or
bis agent two (2) written notices, eacb with a
fifteen (15) day raaponse period. The notices
shall specifY tbe date by whicb said
maintenance must be accomplisbed and shall
be addressed to tbe property owner or agent's
laat known address.
H. Violation: Violation of this Section shaJJ 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, shaJJ constitute a
separate oft'ense. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-83)
4-31·35: GREENHELT REGULATIONS:
A. Purpose and lutent: Greenbelt areaa are
cbaracterized by severe topographic, ground
water, slope instability, soil or other pbysical
c
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,I
I· ,
II
\
'I
I
1
I
I
I
4-31·85
A) Umitationa that make the areas IU18Uitable for
intanaive cievelopment. Proviaiona for public
el\loyment of greenbelt areas are encouraged;
however, greenbelt designationa do not imply
pubUc owneruhip or the right of pubUc access.
The purpose of these regu\ationa Is to
supplement the poUcies contained in the
compruhenaive plan regarding greenbelts by
the control of development, by minimizill8
damage due to landsUde, subsidence or
erosion, by protactill8 wetlands and
fish·bearing wateru, and providilll!' physical
relier between ezpal1ll8l of similar land uses.
Implementation of these regulationa will
protect the public against avoidable losses due
to maintanance 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
regulationa for specific properties. These
regulationa will provide responsible City
officials with information to condition or deny
public or private projects to protact potentially
hazardous areas and to avoid the necessity of
preparing environmental impact statements in
cases where there will not be significant
adverue environmental effects, thus expediting
governmental approval processes.
B. General Provisiona: Greenbelt regulations
apply to areas that are first designated ••
greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land
use map and also identified as containing one
or more of the following physical criteria:
1. Steep Slope Areas: Areas with slopes that
exceed twenty five percent \259&).
2. Physical Hazards: Ar ... identifiable as a
severe landslide hazard or areas where other
severe hazards are anticipated including
erosion, seismic, fiood, and coal mine
subsidence.
3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way:
Major electric! ty, water and gas transmission
Une easements and rights of way.
4. Other Criteria: Wetlands, stream corrldo:'ll,
and flood control works.
The actual presence or absence of the criteria
illustrated above in greenbelt areas, as
determined by qualified professional and
I 4SO
tachnical perDons, shall govern the treatment
of an individual buildilll!' site or parcal of land
requiring compUance with these regulationa.
C. Vegetation Removal: There shall be no
removal of vegetation within a greenbelt until
a permit ie issued pursuant to Section
4·31·35D below ezcept for normal
maintenance with written approval by the
Building and ZOning Department for sucb
activities as trimming of vegetation or
removal of dall8erous or diseased plant
materiala.
D. Development Standards: Wbenever a proposed
development requiree a building permit,
grading permit, shoreline substantial
development permit, conditional use permit,
variance, rezone, planned unit dsvelopment,
subdivision or short subdivision, and one or
more of the greenbelt criteria as defined in
Section 4-31·35B above is present on the site
of the proposed development, studies 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 carry
out the purposes of this Section.
Wbenever 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 features of a site between
significant and identifiable changos in .lope.
a. Definitions (see Exhibit .. A" for an
illustration of th.se definitions):
(1) Slope shall be defined as the average
slope of the lot or portion thereof in
percent between significant changes in
slope, determined by observation on
simple slopes, or more precisely by the
formula:
S ~ 100 1 L
A
(2) Wbere "I" is the contour interval in
feet but not greater than ten feet (10';
"L" i. the combined length of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D1&2) contour Un ... 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
deftned as a bench or plateau at least
fifteen feet (15,) in width.
b. Development Ia prohibited on slopel
sreater than forty percent (40%).
c. In greenbelt areas with between
twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent
(4O'lII) slope the maximum residential density
.shall be:
(1) One unit per acre, and for each one
percent (1%) of Ilope in exceSI of twenty
five percent (25%), an additional nine
hundred (900) square feet in lot area per
dwelling unit shall be required.
(2) When the current zoning designation
exceede one dwelling unit per acre the
allowable development density in the
steep slape area shall be reduced to
one-fourth ('I.), and for each one percent
. (1 'lII) of slope in excese of twenty five
percent (25'l11), the remaining allowable
dwelling unit density shall be reduced
by an additional five percent (5%).
d. The mazimum nonresidential
buildable area shall be reduced to on ... fourth
('/J, and for each one percent (1%) of slape in
ex..... 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%) slape
shall be subject to special review to assure
stable building conditione, safe and convenient
_. and minimum disruption of the natural
physical features of the land. The City may
require the applicant to fUrnish a report by a
licensed engineer to evaluate the site.
However, the City may waive the requirement
for epacial studi.. where sumcient
information is otherwise avallable to approve,
approve with conditione, or deny the
development permit.
2. Physical Huarda: Greenbelts eetablished
upon thaee critarie should be developed only
4-31·35
with great caution and development sbould be
baaed On lOund engineering and technical
knowledge. The King County Sensitive Areas
Map Folio dated March, 1980, Ia hereby
adopted by reference to assist in the
determination of and evaluation of physical
hazard areas as prescribed by this Section.
a. Aa a general rule, development should
not increase tha risk of hazard either on or
off· lite. Where detailed technical information
Ia provided Uluatreting that development can
be lafely accommodated, development that is
compatible with the degree of hazard and
with surrounding U88S may be allowed.
Provided, any such development retains at
least seventy five percent (75%) of the site in
open apace or ill landscaped compatibly with
the physical hazards.
b. The City may require site specific
studies, completed by a qualified soils
engineer or engineering geologi.t or other
qualified profeaeionals, which shall include
specific recommendatione for mitigating
measurea which should be rsquired as a
condition of any approval for .uch
development. The recommendations may
include, but are nat limited to, construction
techniques, design, drainage, or density
specifications, or seasonal constrainte an
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
safely accommodated an the .ite and Ia
consistent with the purpo.... of this Section.
The City may waive the requirement for
special .tudi .. where sumcient information is
otherwise available to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the development permit.
3. Utility Easement. and Rights of Way: A
limited number of law intensity \l88I
consistent with the existing zoning and utility
use may be permitted within utility
greenbelt. such that the proposed
development meet. the intent of providing a·
definitive geographic relief between adjoining
existing or anticipated land U88. Allowshle
uses include:
a. Any structures or activity directly
asaociated with the supply or .ervice of
utiliti8l;
1
1 ,(:.:.,,< \: ...... .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I,:
1
I
4-31-35
03)
F.
b. Ajpieultu.re;
.. Residential open lpacee;
II. Recreational activiti .. and facilitiea;
e. Parking aaaociated with adjoining land
uses -provided that no more than the
followiq percentage of the greenbelt area is
covered with imperviOWI .urf...... and the
remainder is compatibly landscaped or
retained in a natural atate:
Twenty ftve percent (25%), If the mOlt
restrictive adjacent IOning is R·l or 0.1;
FIfty percent (S<l'I», If the mOlt reatrictive
adjacent zoning is R·2, R·S, R-4, T, or P·l;
Sixty ftve percent (65"), If the most
restrictive adjacent zoning is 5-1, O·P, 1".1,
H·l, or M·P;
f. Production of reaourcea -provided
that the area is rehabiliteted consistent with
the greenbelt definition;
g. &adways and streats -provided that
any street aligned parallel with the greenbelt
should involve the minimum intrusion upon
the greenbelt while providing for enhancement
through compatible lanciseaping.
4. Other Clnenbelte: Wetlands, stream
corridora and flood control facilities designated
greenbelt shall be subject to the development
standards of the City's shoraline master
program urban environment where those
shoraiine regulations would not otherwiae
apply.
Other A1lowabie Uaea:
1. Nothing in these regulations shall limit the
construction of one single family home on a
pre-e:dsting platted lot, subject to meeting
any engineering requiremente neceaaary to
.Bfely construct such a residence,
2. Where the provisions of these regulations
limit construction of public or private utilities
or appurtenant structurea, approval for such
construction may be granted by approval ,of a
conditional Wle permit subject to a showing of
necesaity and compatibility of the use with
theae regulations. (Ord. 3849, 1()'8-84)
(See following page for Exhibit A,
Steep Slope lliWitration)
4-31·36
4-31·36: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
A. Purpoae: The purpoae of a conditional Wle
permit is to allow certain WI88 in districts
from which they are normally prohibited by
this Chapter when the propoaed WI88 are
deemed consistent with other e:dsting and
potential WI88 within the general area of the
propoaed use. Ezeept as provided in tbia
Section, a conditional use permit may not
reduce the requirements of the zone in which
the uae is to be located.
B. Conditional Use Permit: The Hearing
Examiner may grant, with or without
conditions, or deny the requested conditional .
uae permit pursuant to Chapter 8, Title IV of
the City Code. The Hearing Examiner may
limit the term and duration of the conditional
uae permit. Conditions imposed by the
Hearing Examiner shall reasonably assure
that nuisance or hazard to life or property
will not develop.
C. Criteria for Conditional Uae: The Hearing
Examiner shall consider the following factors,
among all other relevant information:
1. Comprehensive Pian: The proposed use
shall be compatible with the general purpose,
goals, objectives 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 the proposed uae at the
propoaed 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 uae within the City or within the
immediata area of the proposed uae.
b, That the proposed location is suited
for the propoaed use.
3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed
uae at the proposed location shall not reault
in substantial or undue adverae effects on
adjacent property. The following sita
requirements shall be required:
a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in
reaidential districts (R·l and R·2) shall not
exceed fifty percent (50'Jb) of the lot coverage
• • •
I
•
I
•
I
• -.
•
I
I
• •
4-31-35
•
I
~ • • i :
(
~ It
~.
Exhibit A
Steep Slope illustration
I
0---..,
r ; • ..
0 • • • • • • • • · ~ ~ .
I
~--------
• i •
I
0 • • 0 •
~~_----lj4 -___ 0 ~-----
iij
II.
'; ... t:-... e ... ... ... ! :-
c"l: :e c 8 ... .. ..
• •
i
I! t .e
• ~ ~
____ ~ .~_-----f~'---------------
1/1
--------I~ r , · .. • I ;;I ; •
= ~
" aI
til
•
J
J • • • I
I
! • • I
i • • ~
.,_______ I -_._----_ ........ ..
!
t
i
4-31-35
~ -
-~
-'" .., -
(
(
I
-1--
1
L
; j __ I
M-P
1
1
I
: r _._-
--
",-.
---- - ---t ----=-
j
MET.R f
P-II \ ~ ---+-----~
po-sAIL. ,\'C
-j \
I
""":.-." -~--
. . .' ....
...... 0" •
0···· "
..............
;
O-p
\ __ 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
1,1
fl ,
\1 , ,.
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
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.
-----
BLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
-
• '1'1.", ••
rREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPLANATIONl
LOF WETLANO· TYPES j
c::::zJ Vogstat:ad Vtletlond
ISaturated or SOAsonaily Aoodod I.
~ Opon VVotor
lPc.tmanentty or Seml.PermanenUY Flooded I
-Wet:land Tvpe Boundary
____ ApproxlmatB Wetland Boundary
--1-1"oar Wetland Feat:ure
..•••.••• Jncluded Weeland "FeatUre
~"Cpen.Wacer Channel
u... ... .' _.. Pipe. or c;::ulve.rc .. .. ..
" " , ,
" , '
" " " , ' ., '
"" ·"""~"?4~~~·~ :.!:.~~~ ".'_. ............ ,
- ---, -We.tland Edge,ldentifi~d by EC.OLOGY· -.,.-
-. '.
(B urg, 4/87)
::::-::0:,,: :::0"::: :;=:=:---:~: :::::::: ___ :: __ _
.........
Edge of Project:
Wetland Edge .......... ~ I , ' .... , ,. , ,
.......
Scale'
111 = opprox .• -:)00'
".J" ''''~'C:-"1--Figure 3
WL
F7/8161l41
" .. ~-ct' ....
.......... i!'.
......... o,~(
.. ... "'l. ,/[
' ........... ..!"~~D
......... ------------"-.. ------------
. .....
... //'
-
, . . . . . ". " " "
. ........... -::.:.: ... ________ f .. _~·_\:·:·_7~·_ ~ _S_i!!_=~_ .. _.
"
"
"
" .'
" "
" "
" " .'
" .' .' .' .' "
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981
..
-__ 0.· .• -----, .. ________ ..
,:
" , ,
.. ..
"
i
,
i
i r r
I
I
, , , ,
--------
,. .-,';; ... " :.'
SLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
rREFER TO ATTACHED EXPLANATIONl
lOP WETLANO TYPES 1
G V8gecBcDd Vtlet:lond
IS_turatod or SoosonaUy Flooded I.
~open Wacsr
IPermanently 01 Scml·PcrinanenUy Flooded I
_ We1:land Type Boundary
.:. ___ APPr"Qxlnlste Wetland Boundary
_1-1near Wee land Feacure
••••• -.1ncluded Wecland °Feacul""e
~"Cpen Wacer Channel
£.1',-_ PiP~ : or c;:ulve,rt::
t2>
Wetland Edge. Identified, by Jones & Stokes ~6/89) uSing the" '
Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology .'
__ Edge of Project
---==~:--:-~~:~:::--, --.. ' ... " ... :: :-:" --::co ::o~o,,' __ --c:-___ _
........ J' ........ ;. -t.. --Wetland Edge , ,. , ,
SCllie
1" = appro)(. 400'
tl1-"', ',..re-.... ',-....
...... ff"."..
Figure 3
F7/IIilleJ
-V-
........
.......... !'0t.t,
", :-..... t'"~
........... "'i'I?D ..........
... ~ -------------------
.. :::~,:.:.::.: ...
. :~: ~:,'. --~.~~~~~~ :.!:.~~. -. ........ -. /,. __ i C
. ...... _.,-,",:., i --:::: r:: !,,/d :'_'Hi'
.. , , . ,
'.' . ,
" .'
. ' .' .' . ' . ' .' ..
" . ' .' " .'
" .'
" " , '
" " ..
.-
METRO.
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study. Canning. 1981
:: ' : ,j . ,
• I .. • '; : ' ! ' ,: ' .
I ' ' , T
• I • i ' ,
:: .! ..
• , . • .! ' •
: • f ' . " I I I • · • ; • , f
: , ' : I f
· . · . , .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
SEA-TAC
AIRPORf
4 MILES o
SOUTH CENTER
S 180TH
O LONGACRES
:?:: ~ m ;><;: en m
-I en
~ ~ r-r-r-m m -<
:x:
~
en
:0 -m ......
RENTON
VAllEY
GENERAL
HOSPITAL
D
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
presen~. 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
il
t
11
I
(I
')1
I
:.
I
).
~ ,.
t '. 1.
1
I. ,
Ms. Mary Burg
August 10, 1989
Page-3-
Black cottonwood (PQpulus trichocarpa) and red alder (~ rulml) saplings
dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (SWix spp.) and red-osier
dogwood (Comus stQlgnjfera). Common snowberry (SymphoricarpQs iIlhYs), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus djscolQr), and Nootka rose (RQsa nQotkana) occur occasionally
throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens), marsh speedwell (veronica scuttellata), soft rush (Juncus eftusus), sedge (~
sp.), horsetail (Eqyjsetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispys), stinging nettle (Urtica
djQjca), velvetgrass (HQlcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundjnaceae), burreed
(Xanthium strumariurn), and bittersweet nightshade (SQlanurn dulcarnera).
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 (TX\2ha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and
fireweed (Jlpi1objyrn angustjfoUa) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush
(Scirpys micrQcarpus) 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 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 S2il HydrolQg.}' 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 J
,:1
)
(
tl
,
:1 a ,
:1
[,
I
:1
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.
SIDls. 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 hil1slope 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 (Eleocbaris 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 2.5Y 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 d~veloped 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
12/;£1.1-Jt~~
Robert Denman
Hydrologist
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client: i(~d60 ~~~~~ct~19jC~ K,
Vegetation
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Q#c. PQ,,'\;;;
plot No.: \)-1 of: Ii
Indicator
STR:
Trees % Cover status .!.!H",e",r""b",s:...... ___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
saplings/
shrubs % Cover
1.100>k>:;lrt d: /Xl·r.F'
2.~vWs d"do'
3.~"'f'
Indicator
status
Flje...
f11CV-
ffle.. ( .. "",,,, r~c.. .r ~")
d.:..·':·'·~'·wt. Percent of 'Spec~es that are OBL, FACIO, and/or FAC:
----
Indicator
Status
(lIc.w
.fA:...
:-(as 'i'Or1'lL V-)
fllc.J..) -
ffJe..-i
Other indicators: '
Hydrophytic vegeta-t;-;-io-ni:::?...,Y:':'e-s-,....,/r-:N':"O~-_-_--=B:-a-s-.i-s-:-::?....,S~O· "70 of dllr~l/C;auf ¥ff OIW-File
soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 54r.d~ liJwn Texture B: ....... 54zyI"""'''-_=--_
Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0-5" ;.5y V:J
Gleyed? Yes_ No Depth to Mottle or Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 ";'i-n-c-:-h-e-s-:-=-_=_-, ------
Depth to T ill :;; _____ -:-::-__ ~-=-__;--_:__;~_
Hydric soils? Yes_ NO:::Z Basis: ('(,iO( 00 m oil I:,\, 'i'l1\~'
Hydrology
/ Inundated? Yes ___ No~ Deptp 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-l~·S~:-N:-",)-'-n£-I-o~l-~-,,---------
Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: 1<:
Normal circumstances? Yes No ------------/--
Wetland determination: Wetland --Non-wetland v
General site Comments:
I
I
I
I
I
il
II ,
\1
I'
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
of: ,4 STR: ____ _
vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees % CoveI:' status DH~e~r~b~s~ __ _ % Cover status
l.
2.
J.
saplings/
shrubs % Cover
1. 1\1 nu', (dc, r,
2. 1'o~>vI"~ H,cJ,c, ......
3. iUoz d,<;r.dcr
10
ie>
ao
/ 1 . .JLlr.::...r.; e.f.f<J1(JS ~'5
d,·"'''-.~ 2. f'""-,"."""<vi,,,.-. (',,/,.IQ, ;2.0
( 3. C'('''j'.~r, 0.( v.w.x.-I 5
.-~ 'Xw;Tlh, uP'.s-i, o.:"Ie,!.I"'-::,
5. Rv"'"->. <:fI ;,pv5 5
6.
Indicator
st'atus
f~,-
F I\e.
j:"llo)-
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW I and/or FAC: 66q.
f~c_w
fAc.w
fJlc..u-
file..
fllc.uJ
Other indicators: __ ~~~ __ ~ _____ ~ __ ~
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes=Z No __ Basis: ".£pfp fAG or WbJ
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes NO __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0 -X' Texture A: s:,~ 1m" Texture B: s,fI"Tc;;.""
Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0,5\1 3/IJ
Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: _________ _
Depth to Till: .
Hydric soils? Yes .l No ___ Basis:....Lff.~I,J)i.J.f!.lJ,Io"".sL_ ____________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ NO ___ Depth of standing water:. __ ~~------------_
saturated soils? Yes ___ No ___ Depth to saturated soil: ______ _
otherindicators:, '
Wetland hydrology? Yes=z. No__ Basis :~:.~'~X1i:l::' 'l~~:.l~/'I:.i:';2.!::::('.:.:::t.:.... _________ _
Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: ______________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
wetland determination: Wetland --./ Non-wetland. _____ _
Ge~eral site Comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three 'Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~~t' Iln Proj ect: PL "', :0 Afc. 7ao 'f. Date:-,0""'!'-:~""_..f-l_L __ ->-___ .....l<!L ___ Plot No.: it,'" \ of:....w14_ STR: _____ _
Vegetation
ATArSeSe~s~~___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
:s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover
Indicator
-",S."t""a",t""u""s___ .. H"'e"'r..,b"'s'--___ _ % Cover
Indicator
status
~ 1."Kti.N\l.in,J)\v> r~ 11.)
2. 1G.Jf1\V. c.r \,;FIJS 10
3. 301"-",,,,,,,, dU\<.a...-<L'>' iO
4. C-<W1). ~.y, S
5 -JL1nc\.."IS ",-r(U'S0<:. :..
6. -
Indicator
status
fA2w
; flCU)
,f'k
I -~; :-Ps1~ ~'d~C~
3. c.,,-{l\..I'; S;~r'"
(\<'''', ..... 0\.
(;,0
10
,0
I Percent of"spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /007.
other indicators:~~~,~~ __ ~~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~
Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No __ Basis: (('t)~I. 1,,/ if' d(,;I!~t'>1e.f'1 'Kf/'. IlJ c.. -rrt:.. IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: Q-~ Texture A: S'~ Texture B:
Mottled? Yes-L No __ Mottle color:/£; , Matrix color':;) 'J ?f/J
Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ Depth to Mottie 0 Gley:~~ ______________ __
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till:~--~~(~----~~~~--~
Hydric soils? YesO:;:Z No __ Basis: het," '1 ('Icmrd 1_/L I'\ (iir lisi
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:._~~ _________ _
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil:~ ___ ~ __ __
Otherindicators: nil);,"&" soT-['_ "-I~: \?{id'.;Cb .;y( -{i(ll.":d",,, 1,4,,-
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No ___ Basis: lj • (.
Atypical situation? Yes No Cornrnent: _______________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
wetland determination: Wetland. __ === __ ......\1/'--_____ 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 0 (} project:p,}~ e: 0 'i,;,. rno\;
Date :--"0 ... !~..'1""_...f-'_ ... _~ __ --,,Il,-_ Plot No.: ::Jl" of: {If
Vegetation
Indicator
Trees % Cover status Herbs %
1-~ 1 • :Lr\c..r: 02.>Jt,.-.lJS
STR:
Cover
[j
2. f. 2 .-~..""(,, .... k.: .• ~f1$ \
----
Indicator
Status
(lic u)
ffic..c u
3. !: IY"",~ '?I,d /I"',,-,\k.d 1o..u.1.IV-("6D~ 1.
5. '
6.
Saplings/ Indicator
shrubs % Cover St"atus
'" d C]\""~ <Uld '"q'f'
l.70l"'ks \ (,c.hou-'f-~O 111C:
2. Air.d) 1\)\;)1 .... 5 Flte...
3.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: jfX)
Other indicators: u.n1llA· 'Sf6~ \.ulf\}D.5
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes:L:No __ Basis: _______________ __
Soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0-( Texture A: Texture B: r .la.J • ...J.f. "tI c.,/· ..
Mottled? Yes / No Mottle color: Matrix color:' 'ji:. ~/,;,. ".'"'11,,
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-C7~~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-1'·s-:-e-~-,~-r-/-~-,-;/~·'-----------
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)
project:.A a ~;..7!),!\\;,
of: i'i STR:
Client: ~~
. Date: 0t _ ___ _ Plot No.: 'i ~ I • ----------
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubS % Cover
~ 1 ~'oJD. 4g
?\< 2 :-p~ k.cJv,
3.
Indicator
-2S~t~a~t~u~s___ ilH~e~r~b~s ______ _
Indicator
status
!if A Co -t l'I~(.
. Flic
% Cover
Indicator
Status
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: '004>
Other indicators:~~~~~--~~----~~~------Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
No series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: c/aty f?lf1 Texture B: __ -:-____ __
Mottled? Yes~ NO~Mottle color: Matrix color:~;~~~.!~~?I~y~
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-:z---r""N:-O_=__=_-=---"'B:-a-s"'i"'s-:---I-'(-1tr-,.,,· . 1 / 64/lr.i
/
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No ~DePtP of standing water:. __ ~~ __________ ___
saturated soil~Yes---No / Depth to saturated soil: __________ __
Otherindicators: ------
Wetland hydrology~?~Y~e-s---.:;N~~o~~~~B~a-s-l~·S-:---"-~<-_:-.. ,-:~-.. ~.J.~,,------------------
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ ___
Normal circumstances? Yes No
wetland determination: Wetland ---,/ . Non-wetland. ________ _
I Ge~eral 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: 'Q~t un project:.p.!~ f'. a Y·c:' 7",,\:.. Date:-.l<0~t_'1J..._I-_~ ____ .lL;I...:.-_ Plot No.: LL +:2, of:.Lf4:z....._ STR: ____ _
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
bo
'10
ID
Indicator
S ta tus !lH~e~r.=,b~s~ ____ _ % Cover
Indicator
Status
F"Ac.
fAC.
fAc.,w
If 1. SUfiuJ> eJlUi1..J:' 00
" 2. Y-ucm,c.c .. st~Na. ~D
3. '5 0 \".,.", (h clulc C'JM:!'~.. i tl> ~: "i?,..,." unUJlo:. <'1tQm ~,
6.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 'OO·1e
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 -IQ. Texture A:l!1l ,·1",,, \Q/I>!\Texture B: _____ _
Mottled? Yes./ No Mottle color: I Matrix color: ?', '1\, '1 ta
Gleyed? Yes No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _
Depth to Till : ___ ...j./~ ____ ..,_---
Hydric soils? Yes JF No__ Basis: _______________________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No ~ Depth of standing water:_-~ __ -------
Saturated soils? Yes __ No_J_ Depth to saturated soil :.r------
otherindicators: Hw:kczkr.t.·) ~~1:(lt11fJ.d "l7!!i~tf ~fi (,it. ';Q:l~ 'j: :6/i-W,l
Wetland hydrology? 'ies2!No __ Basis:.,.... ______________________ -' .... .:..·_
Atypical situation? Yes No . Cornment: _________________ _
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
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETIAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: Rit PO
Project: p;j: €: 0 ifj.. I'no\:..
Date:....l:04(:....'.,.L_.f.._.)I..::;~~ __ ~Jc:.-_ Plot No.: of: 14 STR:
Vegetation
Indicator
~T~r~e~ess~_____ % Cover Status llHEe~r~b~s ______ _ % Cover
----
Indicator
status
1.
2.
3.
1/ 1. ~v"(_v:' eK.JjJJs :;.-a5 '1.
k2. Jol'Vf'.urn d"l~ ~ 10'/0
"'/. 3. '"Ru~ c.rlisy'''"' ..: 5'1.
4 •
5.
6.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
status
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-Ir Texture A: Texture B:~-.,....,.,,..,.... __ _
Mottled? Yes v No Mottle color: Matrix color: SV'111
Gleyed? Yes ---No ---Depth to Mottle or Gley: 1 4
Percent organic c'Oritent A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y-e--s--V7~~N~0~-_-_--~B~a-s-1~·S--::::::_ __________________________ _
'Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No,/ Depth of standing water:._~ __ -------------
Saturated soil~es=== No~ Depth to saturated soil: _____ __
otherindicators:~~ ______ r-________ ~ ________ ~ _______________ _
We tland hydrology? Yes 2 N 0___ Bas is: .,.:::G.f.:.<"'::;"':.:. JC!lrc-'l~:l,!J _________________ _
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
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
o 21"<:' 70.0 'f.. STR:
Client: ~~ ~~~~~c0.A IT Plot No.: I-J, -\ of: l~ ----
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
:2s~h .... ru~b:2s______ % Cover
8D
0:...0
5
Indicator
status ... H"'e .... r!<b""s'--____ % Cover
Indicator
status
Indicator
Status
fflc..u-
fRC.v.)
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 661.
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegeta~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: 0-!P1' Texture A: Sp.nclJ !co,,) Texture B:_-: ___ ,...,-_
Mottled? Yes .!' No Mottle color: <J Matrix color: K t;¥ ://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-Jr-":"N=-o-:.,-:.,-_---=B=-a-s-1,...' s--: ----.;'jgNl--rlM IQgro wi moY45· u i
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water:. __ -..,~ ____________ _
Saturated soils? Yes No-L. Depth, to s turated
Otherindicators: 7 . <Of 1: ··C'L -" L
wetland hydrology? J 'NO __ Basis:~--------------------------
Atypical situation? Yes No COllll1\ent: ____________________ ___
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: wetland / Non-wetland _____ _
General Site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
i
~I
I
II
I
I
I
:1 ,
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
STR:
Client: ~~t n.n
DPraOtJe· :.c~.IP, e· 0 =i:c .7no\:.
-l:<!2'.(..:..J_"1I...J_:..:l_L:_l--__ .!!.~:.....__ Plot No.: 1-/. g, of: 19 ----
vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees '.; Cover status Herbs t Cover Status
1-~ 1. "fhJaA~ (.IJl..;"d.m.w..:. 13O",. fncw
2. '" 2. R.-uflUllu) (~ 10 ;:-fl~
3. 3 • CA('j( u.m ( ..... venw.. <5 f fl::.,v~
4 • \li!IIc)rltc.r~ ~cd ..... <S O&..
5. Snla..wm <1" Ie __ "<'5 fAe...· 6.
Saplings/ Indicator
shrubs t Cover St:atus
~ 1 . ?opui--Is f (t:h:l:4.f<. <to FAr_
2 • Rul;;t;~ ~flO:::\c.J,..I.) rfj(.I.U
3. AlnL·~ "u~c.... f"Ac...
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IDO
other indicators:~~~.------~----------~------Hydrophytic vegetation? YesJ2:No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric. soils list? Yes ___ NO __ _
A-Horizon depth: Q-'f" Texture A:~.4.iH Texture B:
Mottled? Yes-iL.. No Mottle color: 4}),'9# Matrix color: 2.51( UR ~ I
Gleyed? Yes ___ Novr--Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ______________ __
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y-e-s--Zl~-N--O ___ -----B-a-s-1~·s-·-.:~,-~Q-~7T.~n~~+~n1~~~tY~~~ ________________ _
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~i-s-:--~-(-~-~--tn--g--cP~---------------
Atypical situation? Yes No cornrnent: ________________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland ---(/ Non-we tl a nd, ________ _
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: ~~t (l.O Project.: B €. 011';" -eM\:.
Da te : -l:l1l..;t,-'j..L_.t-:l_..::_~ __ --.!I.~-=--_ Plot No. : 1-/, -3 of: 14 STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Trees % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s____ % Cover
of l.ropul.;; 11 ,J'cr.<"'fo.. 40
",. 2. Ali .u!. "\"'ub'io.. I.{ 0
J. '01I'trt.por·<2P»POS t&ba...
Indicator
status llH~er~b~s~ ___ % Cover
Indicator
St'atus
rile..
file...
.f71W
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: SO
Indicator
status
.f AC-. (""-ol' .. ,~
Ff,W -
f'AC.W
tA<...w
other indicators: __ ~ _____ ~/ _______ ~ ____ __
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-1-No ___ Basis: _____________________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No
A-Horizon depth: O-p" Texture A: c.I~ fcr.n 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 inches: _________ _
Depth to Till: _____ ~(~·-----~----__ ~
Hydric soils? Yes \7 No Basis: eat\( lU/rlldllur
A-\-t-,r"2;; J.5y Y/;)-~--\·--E-hd,,, f ·J.5~ i.jf4 wi fTltiI(u
Hydrology LV/t",," ks.-;J
Inundated? Yes No V Depth of standing water:. __ --, __ -------
Saturated soils? Yes--No ,/ Depth to saturated soil: ______ _
otherindicators: ----,
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No C? Basis:~ __________________ _
Atypical situation? Yes No Cornment: ______________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --;:/ Non-wetland '-----I General Site C01UJUents:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~it' (l.Q Project: e, f'. 011,;., ?o.o'>
Date :-"04t_'j ..... _4-"-_-'~'--__ -"J~_ Plot No. : ~S"--~-\\_ of: -L,y,,-_ STR : ____ _
Vegetation
Trees
1-
2.
3 .
Saplings/
shrubs
% Cover
% Cover
of l:Gy..l'S 1(i(j,Cl:"Njk< %
2. 'S" ... ,·.!:c"..u ~ .... r.,uO'1e·l7>--'< 15
3. R..;i.,-JS 1>f~jcJi, I,s <: 15
Indicator
status !JH~e",r",b",s,--___ % Cover
Indicator
status
rAe..
F/k..\J
File...
ll. l.lr1,u,d,C:,c..--. g 01,
2 • ..tli h \If I \)I!'\ .(~'~-!...rII'''''-
3. 101", .. 10... tyU.I)~.~
4.
5.
6.
Indicator
Status
fA G-!
<.S··l~ File
fAe..
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Other indicators:~~~~~_~~ __ ~_~_~ __
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes.-L No __ Basis: drMuJ()om'if*i rAe.>( ()JJli1J'~
soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: () -'ij' Texture A: Texture B: :51Jr..1 """",--
Mottled? Yes_ NoL., Mottle color: Matrix color: ii/·'s'f 3"
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-_-_-_-7.N~o-~~-~B~a-s~i's~·-.:::::: ________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ No ~ Dep~of standing water:. __ ~~ _________ _
saturated soils? Yes ___ No Depth to saturated soil: __________ _
otherindicators:~~ _____ ~_~. ~~~ __ ~~ __ -, ____ ~~ ______ __
wetland hydrology? Yes __ No J Basis: M; €Jlld"O(Q : V-s<TJS
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 !l.ll Project: p.!7 .e. 0 .Pf~. 7q.o\;,
Date:-",0+/...J1-4~-'_L,.;,_.l--__ ~L __ Plot No.: 5. i a.' of:-+1 .... 4_STR: ___ _
Vegetation
~T~r:ee~s~_____ % Cover
1-
2.
J.
Saplings/
~s~h~r=u=b=s______ % Cover
t 1 Jopviw i(ILh'~ <[0
2 • Co. "-'~ '3'l0l 01\ ,{'QAA.. j D
J ~1?v~v':> ~ f,U,t/,,S 5
Indicator
....,S",t""a",t""u""s,--_ .. H"'e .... rb""s'"-____ _ t Cover
Indicator
St'atus
File.
f II'-\»
ffK,iU
... 1.I<c.#\uI\wlul.('I!f\!m
~2. VUOI'I,Cu... Sc..,{ ... k4:;.
JtJ . ;J<.) I'lc...-.>S ~~
"4. uri II.c.. cl\~i(..r ...
5.
6.
. d b""()£v..'\~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
5
5
Inc:I iea tor
Status
tllLW
08<-
F~c..w
+KvI
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-ID Texture A: '5,~ (PAm Texture B: __ --:--:--.,-__ _
Mottled? Yes.,L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;;"i¥ 4p
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 soil: __________ __
Otherindicators:
Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s--,/~~N~o:::~B~a-s-l~·S-:--d~fi--,~~.-~-.~-~~J-----------------
Atypical situation? Yes No comment: ________________________ _
Normal circumstances? YeS No
Wetland deternination: Wetland ---.I 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 n.n Project: B ~. 0 if.;;. 70.0\;
Date:--Ioc,4/'-'j .... _~_~_'--__ -"~'--_ Plot No.: 5, -\ of:..J./..J."_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
J.
Saplings/
",suh ... ru~b~s2-___ % Cover
;I( 1.1/0(..011.1'; kl(hr.<Up.. 75
2. A~ n,uroph,\Hl)/I\
J ~vlM ~Cb.li5
Indicator
status Hu=.e ... r-"'b"'s~ ____ % Cover
Indicator
status
~ l.LXi,,·,,-cf.o,,;,:~ ::0
2 • .B.t~~"-I;(.... 10
J·1(",\v(.,...)L'S rtfir.:, iO
4:. V~"l(."1'''''i( .. ~ ·~.u"it..!~(tt... <' .. S
5.
6.
d.,.-;,r...J;\ Percent of,spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Indicator
Status
!= A C\>..'
F l/oJJ
r f\c..tv
O&-
other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~_~ ____ _ Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: ______________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __
A-Horizon depth: 0-1« .\ Texture A: <"Ii !Q<s", Texture B: ___ --;:,.,.-_
Mottled? Yes-L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;; t,y r;,fr:;.
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-~r·s--:====== ______________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes NoL Depth of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes __ NO~ Depth to saturated-s-07i~1-:-----
Otherindicators:
Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-S-~-~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-~'·s~:--A'c-;S-:-,,-~,~~-,7/---------------
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)
o .Pf':. 7n 0):..
J Plot No.: ? -d. of:-u/4 _ STR: ____ _
vegetation
Indicator
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover status DHEe~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover
Indicator
Status
1-
2.
3.
saplings/
~sBh~ru~b~s______ % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
file.-
fl\c-w
fl1c..U
it 1. JU(,w> ~\\l.t&(JS I.{ O~: r"ON
't'2.ud\u-d\o,u~ ;;t6~ FflC--t
3. Rn...nvr'K.uI .... , (~,:; 6'7;. .r1jc..~J
4 : c..~ «f S?fo
5: C-,rt'\VM "A~~,'<, S Jf. F~UJ"
6 •
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Other indicators:~~~.~ ____ ~/~ ______ ~~ ____ __
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes J No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: O-E'· . Texture A: TextUre B:sc.yyyl~ /og.1\.
Mottled? Yes-L.. No __ Mottle color: (tr41k V:/J.' Matrix color: '<Ai R 4'5
Gleyed? Yes ___ No ___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~-----------------
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till:~----~--~~--~----_ Hydric soils? Yes ____ No VI Basis: ________________________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No../ Depth of standing water:. ___ -,--------------
Saturated soils? Yes ____ No~ Depth to saturated soil: __________ __
Otherindicators:-= __________________ ~--------~--~----------------
Wetland hydrology? Yes ___ N0-iL. Basis: -rJ!) ,.,rr!,/",.,T'Q1;.s
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ -I',/'--__ _
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
Management Program
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
Olympia, Washington 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 Alterra Corporation
of this determination by letter of December 16, 1985.
o~ 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 birda are considered waters
of the United States.
By letter of February 18, 1987, we informed Ms. Barbara Moss
of Firat City Equities of the clarification in our new regula-
tions. We requested her to contact our office regsrding 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
l
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
il
II
II
--
*
24 June 1987
• Wang 17289s
Disc 1714
-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 uo further coordination with our
office is required. We informed Me. Barbars ~Ioss 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
.~/OP-RF
BA~~JI 3" ~
Reg Br Fi e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" /
/
iJ" ..... !:.:
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 hydri~ 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,
(7t~~I!~?
"Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor
./ Shore lands 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.~Sllh"GT()N
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
,\ IJiI ,';top "\.'·11 •
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 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 praft 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
•
•
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 doqwood, 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 wildlife service
Barbara E. MOSS, First City Equities
I J
I
I
I
'I
' ..
,I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Regulatory Branch
f~s. Barbara Moss
Director of Planning
First City Equities
r
600 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Ms. Moss:
, ,.
M\q 4 1987
(;1\l>C;t./CW/""~)
2 March 1987
Disc: a:8am
Rp.ference: 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 lIfIIount 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 fill on 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,
Vernon E. Cook
Chief, Operations Division
.. '
, , I
I 'I
I ,
il
"
I
,I
I
. .. 3 Karch 1987
Wang #5423s
Disc #715
NPSOP-RF 2 llarch 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECTI Black River Technological Park
1. Background I In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a proposed
development in wetland. near thB Black River, Duwamish River, King County in
Renton, Washington. The Seattle Di.trict determined wetlands wera present on
the site but the wetland. 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 Array pursu8llt to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The applicant wss notified.of this determination by .
letter of 16 December 1985 (encloled). No permits vere required fram this
office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle Diltrict notified the developer that
our interpretation of inter. tate commerce now included wetlands that provide
habitet for migratory bird., end that work on the .ite would require prior
authorization by thi. office.
2. Keeting •. On 12 Karch, representatives fram the developer and the Seattle
District met to di.culs jurildiction over the site. Those present were
Barbara Moss, Firlt City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developerl and 8am Casne, Hike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle Di.trict Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a
chronology of events that led up to the development as it exists today. We
asked her to repest the chronology in writing, which Ihe did. (See enclosed
letter and photos.) Based on the information required, we concluded that 70
to 75 percent of tbe lite had been alterad prior to receipt of our 18 February
1987 letter.
3. Conclusion. The site bas been substantially modified. The applicant Ims
~leered, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the site. ThiB worlt was done
under the Seattle District's letter of 16 December 1985. Barbare Moas said
the workvould be completed by the end of the summer of 1987. Besed on these
.considerations, the work may be completsd under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further autborilation fram this office is required.
Ene Is 8amue IR. Casne
Chief, Environmental snd
Procelsing 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 I 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~1:1 No permits were required from this
office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle District notified the developer that
our interpretation of inters tete commerce now included wetlands that provide
habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior
authorization by this office£' ' .... 1.\ ...... )
2. Meeting. On 12 March, representatives from the developer and ·the Seattle
District met to discuss jurisdiction over the site. Those present were
Barbara Moss, First City EquitYI Robert Roed, Engineer; Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developerl and Sam Casne, Mike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regula.tory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a
chronology of events that led up to the development as it eziats today. We
asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which she did. (See enclosed
letter and photos.) Baaed 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 letter.
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 the 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 il required.
Enels -siFa1t~
Chief, Environmental and
Procelsing Section
:;:. '. OEC I 6 /985
" ....... ', -. .:..~ :.
" "
"
• ~: :~.:-.-: ........... ..., •.. >:
. ,
, ' . . . . .
' ..
;:11:·;:t;~?;'''lter Act 111 nquh"edlor dlschup'ol aay dredged or .l1U~1k~~!~~~ .~~i~~(.;:;'~~;:·fI'Ilt~r1J~ iII~o vacers of Cha"United 8tatQe~'~1aclwUll8 adjaceAt.. .... "'~."
.: .. ;., "The tem ·wet1ailda· Jieaaathoaearaaathat are f.Duadated or' '.
I···· :".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
aaturated by .urface or ground.water at a frequllllcy aad duration' .
. 8Ulf1c1l11lt to .upport, aac! tluit under 'IlOrmal cirCllllllltaace. do ....... :.:: ":",';.' .' : ::."
. 'aupport, a prevaleltCa of vegetation t1P,ically adapted for Ufe 111 • "., ...... _ .. _._
aaturated 1011 coaditiolla •. '1'h4 COrpl of Ea;1Deers hall the rupoll-: .. ::: .... -:.:-.-: ~
. e1b Uity for deten:a1n1Dg.·wbether a 'pacific wetlaad area :la with1D .' . . ..... ".
8ectioa 404 jurucU.ction.. .,.':: :.' :_:.., , . . .
..... :~ •• =: .. -=~._-:. ..... ' .... :. _ =-. ~'_""'!".::.-: . .: .• ::-.;.~;~~'~:;,:r:-:~'~ -';'.: . ..;.:: .. :_:.. .. ~~_~._ . .:. ... ;:: .. !'!..',;,,~._~.-.::.~ -....-..... -. -"':.' ~_~~:.
"We haveriwt8wed the"1Dfo~tioa J'O~ 'fura1sheel la well as data" " . ':. :.:
gathered eluriag our onsLte iaspectloa on kovelllber 14, 1985. We . ~.
" "
determined that wetlands hre preaeat on the project lite. IIDwever,. '_.' '.' .. :i'.,.-.
theae wetlands are Dot conl1e1ered adjacllllt wetlallda uneler our -;.' .' :. .. ..... . . '. resulatory authority. A Depert=eDt of· the Army permt will Dot be .: ::' .•
required to place flll into th1s area. ..... .', .
. . , . '. ..
If you have any quest:!.ons regard·:!.ng this 1Il8tter, please contact
Hr. Rudolf Pojtinger, telephone (206) 764-3495. "
Sincerely,
,
.. '
Warren E. Baxter
Chief, Regulatory Branch ....... _. -._--_ ..
I.
1
1 0' .. ';:
1
1
1
1 . ,'.,..
',.,,'
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
-a-
.... , ~ J" • ;:':~~'.~:~ <:.~.~:~; : ~ -r:~::,. L~~~ :t~i ~;~~'~"""::' ·::\i);
",' . ,
,. ~~:::' <.':':~~:~~':;.~-t/~; ;~:·:':'ft~:'·~ ~{: ", ...
"',;,., ( ..
'»'::::'~'" un .., ••• t.1 .. coaclnlillthb .... til',·;;tee .. ~tlC'.::(?;;~i::;:. .:~~: .~ ,.~~'" ~l.p __ .(20').~J~J4~~, :<. "'...".' ,.Y~:?,;~~\';;;': :t }':'~~::,..: ·.~:"r·:: .",
.... :("".l.i ... ~-: ~.b>O~J.,;-_~ .. , •• ~M' .... ', "'~'<"-#·;;;'T!,p""-.I'~'~f~"-:"~''''~ , I'::":";"'~"'''~''.'''' .1 • .,j;"';.,1~-."-;~.,/._:,
.;.
•
.~' .. '.'
.;,"
:.:':
",':,'
'. \',
..'
.,' . y
,,"
"','
, :',
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I··
I
I
·1 ._,'
:1 '
'0' '.
,I
:'; :1 ..
I,
I
February 27, 1987
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
FIRST CITY
EQUITIES
Chief, Operations Division
Department of the Army
SEA'l'TLE 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' ,,'
Hick 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 requlations which became' 'effective
on January 12, 1987 are not applicable to this project because
(1) the new requlations 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 ' ";"!";'·\,ui~L;;ii;\,:;,,':',
EnvIronmental Impact Statement" prepared by the previous, 'Xi",";':,.',.,
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. " . ',: 'j'",
Although, a ,final determination a's to a requirement for a '"";\;,,:.,,
404 Permit on this property was not made at the time. theEIS."!:::',""'.::') ."
was prepared, the corps in its comment letterto.the Draft\'\~:',;~>::,,~!.i,:'
EIS, indicated. that a previous decision regarding waterways;':::;:;" . ,! ':{,'
upstream from the P-l pump plant could possibly ,exempt the,;'i:,';r/t.~-,"·:
site from the requirements of the 404 Permit; ." .. , ;'<"""',,'" "
. ,i,e;:;"';:':;';" ~
800 Fifth Avenue' SuHe 4170 ' Seaffie, Washington 98104 ' (206) 624-9223
!leol Estate Development end Investmenls
-:-,-~ ;:1: ,'./:'1";" . ::. . ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
'1'"
l
I
I
.1
I
1
I
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 rec~ivedsite 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 Committee which issued a mitigated .. 1: .
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 .' t."·J· ",". i
under the area-wide Valley rezone action. ····.l •. ! ' .. ; : '-'." ,', ", -. "i,": -;', i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l ,.
I ...
I
I
. :.1
",
r . .il:
,I:
.: I
.J" : :. :il'; ,.
I
I
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
February 27, 1987
Page Three
• December 18 1 19B6 -First City Equities was advised that the
ADMAC buIld ng 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.: .. .:, .. . -.. -.... ~.
" ,'-:·~·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. '!'he
approximate value of this property is $B 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, 19B5 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, 19B5 letter' • .'''. ,i: : ',,'
, I' -, --t,: ,': ,I, _, _
. '.", .... ', , .... -. .:-" . ,
" ! .. :,:.
1
1
1
I
1
1
I',
:1;'
, ,
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 .. ,.:
.. ,',' , ....
, .. : :
cc: Charles Blumenfeld,; ESq.w/encl •
Robert Roed w/encl
", !
.' '
" ,'"
. ,
Royce Berg w/encl
David Schuman'.,w/encl .
Greg Byler'w/encl,
.. (:. 'Hi:'
.' .:; . _, i
"."
.. ,'
, 'i
::-.: .. ,
.. '-! ..
. i '\'."
, ~ -. --.. ; .:
", .,
.,'; .,-
" '.I , 1:
, .. :; .... ,.
; ' .. ,:'
'-. ; ... :
; .
" :
..... , ' .. '-',. <',:: ... "" .-;",
, " . "
...... " .~. ,';
_4.: ",. . ' ... ~! .. ; . ,', '
, =-. ... ' .....
'" !'
:,'
. '"
. . ~ "
,", ,.:.,: " : ,i .,' . ", ',.J'"
" ...
. . , .
,
:., , ,
:. '
,'.:
-""
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.:.;: ",
"'1I1at • .,. I .. uch
.. " .
··FES> 18'1987
. ' .
•
.'.-.'.-.
. ,
. ,
"" ".,' .. ". .... , .. lIan I.""'
Il .. utol', of .leDl ...
'lnt CICJ ... itl ••
. / .. "
100 rlftll A_ .. , hit. 4170
I.attl., v .. 1dqtoa~ "8104
..
.. ". '. -... -'1;' .
• :'__ '.J
.',
" '. ; .. ;:. .
... for ..... ·,lack It_ .. TuluaolO11 .... k
hu ......... .. "
". ," . ".' . 'Ii.-' .. -.
OD ...... 14, 1t8', po ....... l ,... tIiIo ... ttl. abed.c .' ,.
lu,lCIteiI Cbt nfa ...... ,1Opatf to .. toIIIl .. , If 0 P"PM" ..... 1... .,
8fte .... 1. n.un a h,ubleat of eM Antt ponl.t ..... heel_ 404 . "
.f clio Cl ... VOCH Ace. ftb , .. ,..d_ n .... t .. cllac .. tt .... , ••
, idlDell "" h.-ClInt of tJio' AIIIJ.,mdt nptad_, •• bc at cbt
,ftIP1l't)'. I.l", pontt nplatl_ .fflClci" ac tut cble, _ •• c ....
• 1Dell tlleC tilt. _ctai ft. aoC a _to .. of ciao 1Il1," .tate., ...
tha., Cbt Ccwp.· of IIII!He .... hall ., Jada4llldOD OWl' che nf .......
d.". 1 ..... ,. Oar HaI'llIl'l%, ItI', lotcer to JOII nfllllta til ...
. • oe.niudca.
la late -1916, tIM CoqI. of IDa''''''' ... tt ....... ponlt np-
lati ... wbleh II .... afflCltl ... JIDUI7 12, 1917. !tao •• npl.tl ...
plOd .. a lIlarUlcatLoa "" tho l_hOiiMllco1 .roeoctloa Aaeac1 of
the d.flDld_ of .. Con of tbe VDtted Itate ....... lactado .. t ... 11
a. Whlob 11" 01' _1. '" ..... d ..... bltae '" 1Iln.
pntlllhl! "" IIl,"lcOl')" Ill'll !natl •• , CII'
II. Whlch al" or would '" II... a. ..1Iltac '" otbor
lII.,ntft)' 'hd. vIIlda 111'01' .tae. UDU.
'nale cladficatloa te eiplflcaDC 1Ioca ... it ...... tbe eor ..
leeciOD 40. JlldldlcciOD. n. .. elaa41 .. ellA nf.nac .. ,ftIpeR,.
, Ire aIN cotlsi4e .. ecI to be veten of tile Vut ••• taCe, IIId I1IbJeet co
Department of Cbe AI'fIl1 l'enait nquintll'lltl l1'li .... SeetlOll 404 of the
eloan Water let. Ond.r SeceLoa 404, •• thol'll.eioa i, requirad til'
tile dhcbarp of dradaK CII' flll .. carlll lato .. tori of the tIft't"
,Itot .. , tacllJl!tlll .. cla .... '
v ... equett JOG contact thi. office r',lrellas per.ltprocedure,
if 70n 8ti~1 ~~O?08C to ftll tho .ice. A copy ot tbe Depare.ent of
I Cntl2-
:',: '
. .
\
"
, -I
I
I
I ,r--------.,--
I ...... -
I -~ '" . ~-
-
I
I , ,
I
I
I
·1
• ;
·1
I \
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .......... ---------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
..
•
..
HH§3
I I
I
VICINITY MAP ."-
E
"''' .. ::r.A..~-'-.
!!
--
H'~ __ ...=
CL£Ar~!) I ~lJP:,eE.p, <d1ZA'\)~ Dt:. 'FI'-L eI:> (~8,t Ac. ')
t!l1 /),C2.r.. PIZ.g.~t.~VE (/JOIt-N 'UI "'" 'PDIC"'lOU ~HOWI.I.)
UI-L!)~'i\.)~i) (14A.c:.)
II
f
! 1 i I
: I' J I
.. ::·'f:;t .. _ ., ~'~
I~-'·:··, .. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BLACKRIVER
Corporate Park
RENTON, WASHINGTON
~.::.~ MQR1MW£Sr -=. --
MTOG.L .. SOH ~ M:. _ .. _------------
IUSM NIfD. ..,a-ecis .c. --------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
.
i , , ,
-I ,
r !
~ .
'. c -~.
~. ~
i •
I t
\ . . \ • • • :
~
" I •
I,'
'"I, " '. ' " .. , . ".
, .'
1 ...
·1
1 : , A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I·
·1 .
1 '.' '
'I,' '" . '
" , -
1 .. ' .
1 .
.1
'. ,
".' .'
. .'
... .", .
:' ,
Black River Corporate Park' ,
ReI'\ton, Washington .:. ,"
,.Lot8,
, ", . " .. .
" '~ . ' , ' .
.' ",
. " '.'
. .
" 'j
. ..
, . ' -. ' ..
. ,
, "I,.
',' ,
, "" .
.. " , . .
. .
". , .. '
. ; -
:', , .. " .
. . '
. '
" . ~' .' .' , " '.
,: .. ' .. .
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, WASHINGTON
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, WA 98055
Attn: Leslie A. Betlach
Re: Lot 8, 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 fmal analysis, the subject property has an estimated Fair Market Value as of 15
March, 1991, as follows:
ONE HUNDRED FIFfY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
[$152,500.00]
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-la.
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; industria1, 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.
RespectfUllY~' 'tted,
. 'L
,~
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.
2.
3.
4.
s.
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 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 . Parrish, F.R.!., 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
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:
SIZE OF BUILDING:
TYPE OF PROPERTY:
ASSESSMENTS:
TAXES:
ZONING:
377920.0117
March 28, 1991
334,567 square feet
Not applicable
Vacant
Land: $361,600
$4,906.33
OP -Office Park
HIGHEST AND BEST Comprehensive Development
USE:
OWNER: First City Development Corporation
ESTIMATED VALUE: $152,500.00
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. 377920.0117 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.
b.
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;
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market;
d.
e.
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
S63.17-1a.
DEFINITION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISEDj
The property rights being appraised are those of the fee simple estate, free and clear
of all encumbrances and liens. Real Estate AWmisa! 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 DFSCRIPI'IONj
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
personsj British Columbia has 2,500,000 personSj 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 POPULA TlON
(IN THOUSANDS)
Washington 2,855 2,967 3,413 4,276 4,587
Oregon 1,172 1,937 2,10l 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.
t
I
I
I
I
I
il
\1
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
1
1
. 1
:1
tl
.
II
.1
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 Casalde 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 Casa\de 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 Casa\des 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 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
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 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 ml\ior 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
SEATILE 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 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 LYMWood-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, 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 ~or metropolitan areas in the country.
18
I
I
• • ,.
II
II
i ,
11
II f
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 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.
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL PATI'EBNS
There are 200 manufacturing ftrms 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 ftrms 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. Paciftc Car & Fndry RR cars, winches, machine shop 220
3. Tally Corp. Eectrical 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. Harmel Corp. Meat Processing 80
8. Stoneway Concrete Sand, gravel and concrete 96
19
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
6. Puget Sound Power & Light
City services
Telephone services
Computers
Electric power
PROXIMITY OF FAClIJTIES
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 major department stores, 112
additional stores and shops on 1,250,000 square feet of retail floor area.
TRANSPORTATION FACITJTIRS
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 ..
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 FACILITIES
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
13
3
3
1
1
TYPE
Elementary
Middle School
High School
Special Education
(Thompson)
Alternative
ENROLLMENT
5,755
2,009
4,029
6S
165
#
TEACHERS
245
90
175
13
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 tranSIX?rtation facilities, ample schools, educational facilities and community
facilities that make it a pleasant community in which to live.
22
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
:1
_I
1
•
1
1
•
1
•
1
• • •
1
1
1
:.
1
,I
SITE DATA
The subject site comprises a single legal lot at the west center 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 334,567 square feet or 7.68 acres. It is flat·
with the topographical map showing that the land is about 15 feet above sea level.
Services. The land is currently un serviced 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 A venue, approximately 1,500 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
• • • • • • • • • • • •
:.
• •
ZONlNGDATA
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-ManufacturingPark. 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
:1
.1
·1
I
I
I
I
:I
I
:1 I
II i
I il I
I
WGRFST 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 dermed
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.
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?
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
J
_I
'I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
.1
:1
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
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
.1
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 Approach 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
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I , ,
~I
f
VALUATIONS
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
-KING COUNTY
HOUSING
AU'l'BORITY
Tukwila
54
South I Center
53
I
I
.1
.~
Evans
_L_ .. _~ ..
5W 31
~
'-w
~
'"
" "" ..
..J
5W 23 5T
01
OJ
" II
E
~
528 !
SW29 If)
'" a:
;;
OIl w
..
~
" c ::;
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 almosi 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 III
Location
Tax Acct. No.
Access
Land Use
Zoning
Sale Date
Price
Area
Seller
Buyer
Northeast comer Powell and 7th Street, S.W.
918800.0010j .0030j .0050j .0060
From Powell or 7th Street S.W.
Unimproved
OP-Office Park
05/31190
$2,000,000
2.9 acreSj 2.2 acreSj 1.7 acreSj 1.5 acres
Equity Management
L.O. Renton II, Inc.
Comments: These lots have been rellsted 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
II
:1
!
'I , ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 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
f I
,
.1
I}
I" :1 ,
'I
~~
I
I
I
:1
I
Sale #4
Location S.W. 29th Street, Renton
Tax Acct. No. 125380.0100
Access From S.W. 29th Street
Land Use Vacant
Zoning MP-Manufacturing Park
Shape Rectangular
Sale Date 3/90 ~~~'0 Price $820,000
Area 185,092 square feet -4.2 acres
Grantor Burlington Northern; 467-5500
Grantee Corr Pro Assoc.
Confmnation: 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
.1
:1
II
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 ina 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
1
I
1
I
I
J ;
:1
II i
f
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 three 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 three 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 3 years at 13%
$5.50 x P.V. of 3 yearsat 13%
$5.50 x 0.6930502 = $3.81
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
,,1
;1
f~ ;1 ,
·1 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 $3.81 per square foot, i.e.,
One acre x $3.81 p.s.f.
= 43,560 s.f. x $3.81 = $165,964
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 $152,500 (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.
(mv .... UltlTED SlUES MIUTAIIY
Wily ......... .
Umerick ••••••.••••.
Uncl .. v ••••.•• : ........ _
CI'ntl'r
EXIT Hi3
_.L __ '-'-
sw 23 ST
sw ..
--
Vi
I
I
j'20"
)7.00 3r 3
~ : 060 18' 06 "
R = 1 768.00
L=194.45
fj, ~01°40' 54-
R =6738.00
L : 197.76
...J
w • z
~ ~ o If
III
~
o
~_l._t_J_:;...Jt -1 l~
N III
~
..J
:;:;::->
..
" :r u
.--:::-.::
.. ---.. ';' ,;:.
.. ' ".~ ..:.c::::::_
~ = 87·37·0~
R = 260. 10
L:397.76
t
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
• • ,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
1
C3b) (2) Commercial, IndWitriai and Other
u ... : A mulmum at eight feet (8')
anywhere on the lot provided the fence
doe, not stand In or in &ant of any
required lanciacapinB or poee a traffic
vleion huard.
(3) Fence Types:
(A) Electric Fences:
L Electric fenc.. are pennitted by
.pecial review in all residential
lonas in caaea where large dom .. •
tic animals are being kept provided
additional fencing or other barrier
Is erected along the property lines.
ii. AU electric fence. shall be
poated with pennanent signs a
minimum of thirty six (36) square
inches in area at intervals of
fifteen feet (15' steting thet the
fence is electrified.
iii. Electric fences and any related
equipment and appliances mWit be
instelled in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications and in
compliance with the National
Electrical Code.
(B) Barbed Wire Fences: Barbed
wire may only be uaed on top of fences
at least six feet (6') high for commercial,
indWitriel, 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 exca va ted
may vary from th .. e regulations as
provided in the respective code
sections.
4. Special Review Process:
a. Persons wishing to have one of the
foUowil\g types of fences may submit a letter
at jWltillcation, site plan and typical elevation
together with the pennit fee to the Building
and Zoning Department:
4-31·16
(1) FellC88 exceeding forty eight Inch ..
(48") within front yard .. thaclea but not pc.
within a clear vision area. \:
(2) Solid fellC88 along side proPerty Iinee
abutting arterial streete.
(3) Electric fencos.
b. The Building and Zoning Department
shall approve the iBluance of special fence
pennite provided that: .
(1) Fencoa, walls and hedge. above forty
eight incheD (48") when all .ethack from
the street property line four inches (4")
from every one inch of increased heigh t
BOught (over 48", up to a maJ[imum of
72").
(2) Fences along property lin.. abutting
a side street which is an arterial may be
a maximwn 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 (
line. along flanking arterial streete, does
not obstruct views of on-coming traffic at
intersections or driveways.
5. Complience: Fence. which do not comply
with these regulation. 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 (O·P):
A. Purpose and Intent: The Office Park Zone
(O·P) is established to provide areas
appropriate for prof .. sional, administrative,
and business offices, certain manufacturing
activities, and supportive services in a
campus· like setting. (Ord. 4186, 11·14-88)
B. Uses: In the Office Park Zone (O·P), the
following and similar uses are pennitted. The
Building and Zoning Department may deter-
mine that any other uae is similar in general
character to the following specific uses and is
in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon
such administrative determination, the subject c
I
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-3.1-16
B) .... ahall become a principal, occaasory or
conditional use, whichever is appropriate.
Unlaas indicated by the tezt, definitions of the
use. Uated in thla Zone 8l"9 consistent with
the daaeriptlona in the Standard Industrial
Claaaiftcation Manual.
1. Principal Uses: In the o-p Zone the
fallowing principal uses are permitted:
a. Administrative and professional
offices.
b. Medical and dental ofllces and clinics.
c. Financial offices such es banks,
savinp and loan Institutions.
d. Schools and studios for art, crafts,
photography, dance and music.
e. Business and professional servlcea.
f. &search and development.
g. Educational, cultural, and social
activities. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85)
h. Product servlcmg, wholesaling,
warehousing and storage of artlcles, products
or merchandise from previously prepared
natural or synthetic materials, or ferrous or
alloyed metala. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
i. Day care facilities. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-
85)
j. Hobby Kennels: A maximum of eight
(8) adult dOIlB or cats may be permitted after
satisfaction of the requirements in Section
4-31-S7C1a. (Ord. 3955, 11-4-85)
k. Motion picture thaaters 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 incidentsl to
a permitted use:
a. Parking garages.
b. Recreational facilities.
c. &taU waa of products or merchan-
diae produced as a permitted uae.
4-31-16
d. Repair actIvitiel ordinarily aaaaciated
with a permitted use.
e. Storage of petroleum or natural ga
or any of their by-producte, provided that the
total storage capacity is. ..... than ten
thousand (10,000) gallons or other applicable
unit of meaure, and that storage of such
products is placed underground.
3. Conditional Uses: In the o-p Zone the
following uaes and their occeesory uaes may
be aUowed by conditional use permit a
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
standards of Section 4-S1-16C2.
d. Additional uses as identified in
Section 4-31-3601. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) .
e. On-site hazardous waste treatment
and storsge facilitiea. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
4. Prohibited U ... : In the o-p Zone tbe
following usea are prohibited:
a. Residential usea.
b. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, boat,
mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle
sales, rental, repair, aerviea 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 usee not included in Section
4-31-16B1 through 4-31-1683. (Ord. 3937,
9-16-85)
e. Off-site hazardous wate treatment
and storage facilitiee. (Ord.4186, 11-14-88)
C. Development Standards: In the o-p Zone the
following development standards 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
:1 ,
[I
i ,
;1
il ! ,
'II
"
I
i'l
l
+31-16
Cl) the o-p ZeDe. A building site plan shall be
8JecI and approvecl In accordanCe with the
City Code prior te WU8DC8 of any building
permite. Each building or other development
permit iIauecI .ball be In COnf0rm8DC8 with
the approved .Ite plan.
2.. Standards for Retail and Selected Service
u .. : Far those aervice and retail UII8tI
ldentllleci In SectIon +31-16B3c, the following
standards sball apply:
&. Tba daeign of structures, iDcIucling
alsna, abaU be gell8l'a!ly coDBiatentln
character with surrounding us ... No clrive-up
windows or outaide automobile service shall
be permitted.
b. No exterior display of merchandise
shall be permitted.
c. In ordar to avoid the n.gativ. impacts
of strip commercial development:
•. (1) Retail or selected servio. uses shall
be developed a. part of larg.r, planned
commercial, office or industrial
complexes having common architectural
or landsoaping themes. Suoh retail or
.ervice us.s shall not stand alone and
shall not oc:cupy more than fifty percent
(50") of a jointly developed building
compl.L
(2) Direct arterial aooe.s to individual
use •• hall occur only when alternative
access to looal or collector streets or
consolidated """ ... with adjaosnt us .. is
not feasible.
(3) Roof signs shall be prohibited.
Free-standing signa shall not exoeed ten
Ceet (10') in height and shall be located
at I .. st twenty feet (20') from any
property line, except for entranoe and
exit signa.
3. Setbacks:
•• Streets: All buildings and .tructure.
abaU be located a minimum oC sixty Ceet (60')
ar twenty percent (2~) of the' lot depth,
whichever is 1888, from any public street or
highway property liDe. In any case, If the
acijacent public .treet is a mlllor or secondary
uterial, the setback .hall be at least thirty
feet (SO').
4-31-16
b. Other Yarda: All buildiDga and
structure. abaU be located a minimum of
twenty reet (20') or ftfteen percent (16") of
the lot width, whichever is l-. hID any
property liDe which cIoea not abut a public
.treet or highway.
o. Adjacent to· Large S~ The
required yard sethacks adjacent to any build-
Ing or structure with a building footprint
greater than twenty five thousand (25,000)
square feet shall be increased one foot {l') for
each additional two thousand (2,000) squam
Ceet of building footprint, up to a muimum of
one hundred feet (100' abutling public
streets, and sixty Ceet (60' In other yarda.
d. Aojaoent to Residential lAta:
Whenev.r a proposed use in the o-p Zone
sheres a oommon property line with a lot that
is designated any residential use on both the
City of Renton comprehensive plan and zoning
map, the minimum setback contiguous to the
common property line shall be fifty feet (50').
Whenever an adjacent lot oonteina A
residential use and either the comprehensive
plan or zoning designation or both is
something oth.r than residential, then the
appropriate s.tback and landscaping adjacent
to the residential lot shall be determined by
.ite plan approval. A site plan cleciaion to
require more than the minimum setback and
landaoaping shall consid.r the long term
viability of the residential use, 'the presence of
oth.r resid.ntial UII8tI in the sU1TOunding
area, and suoh oth.r Indioa tions of stehllity as
owner-oc:oupanoy and housing condition.
e. Use of Setbaok Areas: All required
•• tbaok er.as shall be unoc:cupied and.
unobetruoted exoept Cor oft'-etz'eet parking and
loading, driv.ways, entrance roads, lawn
sprinklers, walkwaye, landscaping, ordinal)'
and necessary utility service facilities, utility
poles, lighting fixtures, identiJYiDg ana
direotion signs And underground inst·n s tions
accessory to any permitted use.
f. Flexible Setbaoks: With site plan
approval and subject to applicable bliilding
and tire codes, one of the side eetbac'ks .(not
adjacent to a public stz'eet or residential .....
as deflruld in Section 4-31-16C3d may be
reduoed or .liminated if the total width of
hoth side setbacks is at least twioe the width
of the minimum setback specified in ·Sectlon
r ,
(
c
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-16
C3I) 4-31-16C3b above; and the rear setback not
adjacent to a publlc street may be reducecl or
eliminated it the &ont aelback is Increaaed
~y. The aite plan decision ohaU be
basecI on a llDdlng thet, with reducecl set-
becka, the architectural design, buUding orien-
tation, cimllation, noiee and glare at the
proposed project will be compatible with adja-
cent WI8S and with the purpose and intent of
the o-p Zone.
•• Height: Bullding heights In the O-P Zone
sball be establiahed with consideration to
adjacent land uses and shall be detsrmined aa
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 sits where the office park
uae is adjacent to a single family or low
density multiple family uae locatsd 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 Use.: No height
llmit shall be required provided that all re-
quired 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 modified by application under the
PUD process.
6. 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 landacaped
setback of ten feet (10') or one-half (112) the
required setheck, whichever is less, !rom all
othar property lines.
Co A minimum of twenty percent (20%)
at the site sball be retained In landscaped
open space. A muimum of one-half (112) of
this requirement may be on the roofa of
at:ructures, provided employees and the public
have aa:ess to the area. A muimum of
seventy five percent (76%) of this requirement
may be within the required perimetar
4-31-16
landscaping. The twenty percent (20%)
minimum landscaping reqUirement may not
be reducecl if a site is developed aa a Pun.
d. All areas not covered by buildings,
structures or paved surfaces .hall be land-
acaped. Areas set aside for future develop-
ment on a lot may be bydroaeedec!.
e. Where parking lots are adjacent to
one another, perimeter landscaping shall not
be required.
f. Any wall surface greater than thirty
feet (30') In width lacking windows or doors
shall be ao/l.ened by landscaping or archi-
tectural features, such as change of texture or
wall 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-
16C6a and b above may be reduced in width
up to fifty percent (50%) if the equivalent
square footags of landscaping is provided
elsewhere within the site. Site plan approval
shell be baaed on a finding that the
alternative landscaping arrangement provides
buffering and aite amenities equal to or better
than that which would be achieved by strict
application of the Code. The relocated land-
acaping ahall not be located within the rear
setback of the site.
6. Refuse: No refuae, trash, rubbish or other
waste material ahall be dumped, placed or
allowed to remain outside a permanent build-
ing, except in nonflammable, covered contain-
ers or dumpsters, which sball be acreened by
fences or landscaping. No refuse shall be
stacked higher than the acraening fence or
landscaping.
7. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation
standards required shall be as follows:
a. Access: Tha principal access shall be
from an arterial or collector street and shall
be oriented to the least traveled street when-
ever two (2) or more such arterials or collec-
tors abut the site.
b. ParkinglCimllation: Parking and
cin:ulatlon areas along a common lot llne with
a residential use located on a lot designated
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
4-31-1S
C7b) Renton comprehensive plan and zoning map
.ba11 be allowed only If a ten foot (10') wide
Ilght-obecuring lancileaplng strip and a Biz
foot (S1 higb so!id fence are provided along
the common boundary line.
c. Parking and Loading:
(1) See Cbapter a, Title IV of the City
Code;
(2) All loading docks and roU.up doors
• hall be located at the rear of buildings
or acraeoed so that they are not vlelble
&om any paint along the abutting public
right of way.
(3) At no time sball any part of a
vehicle be allowed to extend into a
public right of way while tho vehicle is
being loaded or unloaded. All loading
and unloading maneuvera shall be
conducted on private property.
8. Environmental Performance Stendards: The
foUowing minimum standards shall be met by
all activities within the O·P Zone. For all
activities whicb may produce objectionable or
otherwise prohibited conditions, the property
owner 'or less .. shall furnish design spacifica·
, tions or other scientific evidence of compliance
with these standards.
8. Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7,
Noiae Level ReguJations.
b., Smoke:
(1) V18ible grey smoks 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
grey , smoke shall also apply to visible
smoke of a dilTerent color but with an
equivalent apparent opacity.
c. Dus~ Dirt. Fly Ash or Airborne
Solido: No observable du.t, dirt. fly ash or
airborne solido shall be emitted.
cI. , Odorous Gases and Matter: No
odorous gases or matter In a quantity suf·
ficient to evoke a response from the average
parson beyond the exterior property Iinee
.ba11 be emitted.
e. Toxic Gases and Matter: No emiaaions
4-31-17
or toxic g .... or matter Ihall be permitted.
r. Vibration: No vibration Ihall be
permitted to exceed 0.003 of one Inch die·
placement or 0.03 (g), peak acceleration,
whichever Is sreater, as measured at any
paint outside the property linea of the lot or
site. This .ha11 apply In the ftequency range
of zero to five tholJ.land (0 • 6,000) eyel .. per
IOCOnd. Shock ablOrbera or .lmUar mounting
shall be allowed to permit compliance with
this spacification •
g. Glare and Heat:
(1) No glare and heat &om any sou...,.
shall be permitted to be unreasonably
objectionable beyond the edarior pro-
perty lines of a lot or site.
(2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting
rlXturea .hall be directed away &om
public street. or right. of way. Exterior
lighting fixt1lrea .hall be equipped with
hoods or reflectora such that direct light
rays extend no more than ten f .. t (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: In 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
bounderies 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. I, dated March I, 1956, which plan ia
made a part hereo~
B. Height Limits: Except aa otherwise provided,
in this Code, no atructure or tree shall be
erected, altered, allowed to grow or be main·
tained in any airport approach zone or airport
turning zone to a height in exc .. a of the
height limit herein esteblished for such zone.
For the purposes of this regulation, the
following height limits are bereby eoteblished
for each of the zon .. In queotion: (0reI. 1542,
4-17·56)
,.."
\;C,,'
(
, "
c
\,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I ,
I
:.
I
1
·1
1
'I
I
I
E. AmeDdacI Landscaping P1an: The approved
I.nd .... ping requirements may be macWied
upon request to the, BuUdlog and Zoning
Department. The plana may be approved,
daoiad or returned to the applicant with
_ ...... tiona for changes that wowd make
. them ac:ceptable.
F. Landscape Requirement. • Spacillc:
1. EzistiDs I'lant Material: Existing trees and
other vegetation on the site of a proposed
development may be used where practioal if
the quality is equal to or better than
available nursery stook.
2. Green River Valley: Any development in
the Green River Valley shall provide a
minimum of two percent (29&) of the totel site
far landscaping suitable for wildlife babitet.
This landscaping is in addition to any other
landscaping requirement. by this Section or
any other ordinance.
3. Shoreline. Master Program: Any
.;:development within the protected sharslines
'lirsa sball be required to meet tho standards
and requirements of the City of Renton
Shorelines Master Plan.
4. Slopes:
a. Gsneral: The faces of cut and fill
slopes shall be developed and mainteined to
control against erosion. This control may
conaist of etrective planting. The protection for
the alapes shall be installed within thirty (30)
days of grading completion and prior to Ii
request for final project approval. Whore
slopes are DCt subject to erosion duo to tho
erosian-rssistant character of tho materials
such protection may be omitted with the
permission of the Public Works Departmont,
provided that this protection is not requirsd
by the rehabilitation plan.
b. Other Devices: Where necessary.
1heck dams. cribbing. riprep or ath~r dovices
or methods aball be employed to control
erosion and sediment, provide safety and
control tho rate of water run-<ltr.
6. Gsneral Requirement.:
a. Existing d ... irable vegetetian should
be preserved where applicable.
b. Stripping of vegetative ,Iopel where
hlll'llllUl erosion and l'WHIff' wlU 00CIIl' abaIl
be av~ided.
c. Areas of fragile natural environment.
showd be protected ftocm davelopment and
encroachment. .
d. If practicable, unique feature. within
the site abowd be preserved and in=rporated
into the site development design (lIUCh as
springs. streams. marshes. significant
vegetation. roc:k aukrcppings and significant
ravines).
G. Maintenance:
1. Landscaping required by tbio SectIon shall
be maintained by the owner andlar oc:c:upant
and shall be subject to periodic inspection by
the Building and Zoning Department.
Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy.
growing ccnditian and those dead or dying
sball be replaced within six (6) months.
Property owners shall keep the planting areas
rsaaonably free of weeds and litter •
2. The Building Director or his designated
rsprssentative. is authorized to notifY the
owner or his agent thst any inatalled (
landscaping as required by the Buildlog and
Zoning Department, is nat being adequately
maintained and the specific nature of the
failure to maintain. The Buildlog and Zoning
Department shall send the property owner or
bis agent twa (2) written noti .... each with a
fifteen (15) day response period. The notice.
.hall speciJY tbe date by whicb aaid
maintenance must be aoccmplished and sball
be addrsssed to the property owner or agent's
last known address.
H. Violation: Violation of this Section sball 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 ccnatitute . a
separate offen .... (<>rd. 3718. 3-2a.sS)
4-31·35: GREENHELT REGULATIONS:
A. Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt areas are
characterized by severe topographiC; ground
water. slape instability. soil or other pbYSical
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-81-36
A) Umitations that make the areas UD8Ultable for
intensive development. Provisiona for public
el\loyment of greenbelt areas 8l'8 ellCOuraged;
however, greenbelt designations do not imply
public ownership or the right of pubUc access.
The purpose of theee regulations Is to
8upplement the policies contained in the
comprehensive plan regarding greenbelts by
the control of development, by minimizing
demage due to landslide, subsidence or
erosion, by protecting wetlands and
flsh·bearlng waters, and providing physical
relief between espanaee oC similar land uses.
Implementation oC theee regulations will
protect the public against avoidable losses due
to maintenance and replacament of public
facilities, property damage, subsidy cost oC
public mitigation of avoidable impacts. and
costs for public emergsncy rescue and relief
operations. These regulations supplement but
do not replace the underlying zoning
regulations for speciflc 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
caees where there will not be significant
adverse environmental effects, thus espediting
governmental approval processes.
B. General Provisions: Greenbelt regulations
apply to areas that are flret designated bS
greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land
use map and also identified as containing one
or more of the following physical criteria:
1. Steep Slope Areas: Areas with slopes that
osceed twenty five percent \25%).
2. Pbysical Hazards: Ara:u identifiable .. a
severe landslide bazard or arsas where ather
severe bazards are anticipated including
erosion, seismic, flood, and coal mine
subsidence.
3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way:
Major electricity, water and gas transmission
line e .. ements and ri~hts of way.
4. Other Criteria: Wetlands, stream cortido:'B,
and flood control works.
The actual presence or absence of the criteria
illustrated above in greenbelt are .. , as
determined by qualiJ\.d professional and
I 490
4-81-36
technical persons, shall govem the treatment
of an individual building site or pan:el of land
requiring compliance with these regulations.
C. Vegetation Ramoval: There shall be no
removal of vegetation within a greenbelt until
a permit is issued pursuant to Section
4-31-35D below escept Cor normal
maintenance with written approval by the
Building and ZOning Department for such
ectivities 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 use permit,
variance, rezone, planned unit development,
subdivision or sbort subdivision, and one or
more of the greenbelt critsria as defined in
Section 4-31-35B above is present on the site
of the proposed development, studies by
qualified professionals may be required. The
City shall send written notification 10 the
applicsnt whenever such studies are required.
The City may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny any such proposal to carry
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 foatures of a sits between
significant and identifiable chang.s in .!ope.
a. Definitions (.ee Ezhibit "A" for an
illustration of tbese definitions):
(1) 'Slope shall be defined as the average
slope of the lot or portion thereof in
percent between significant cbanges in
slope, determined by obeervation on
simple slopes, or more precisely by the
formula:
S = 100 I L
A
(2) Where "1" is the contour interval in
feet but not greater than tan feet (10');
"L" is the combined length of tbe
I
I
I
I
I
I
:. ,
;1
1~
I
1
• '.
,I
I
4-31·35
Old) contour linel in scale feet; and "A" ie
the net area between signiftcant changes
in slope of the lot in square feet.
(3) A signiftcant change in slope shall be
deflned as a bench or plateau at least
fifteen feet (151 in width.
b. Development la prohibited on slope.
greater than forty percent (40%).
c. In greenbelt areas with between
twenty five percent (25%) and forty percent
(40%) slope the maximum residential density
.shall be:
(l) One unit per acre, and for each one
percent (1%) of slope in excess of twenty
five percent (259&), an additional nine
hundred (900) square feet In lot area per
dwelling unit shall be required.
(2) When the cUlTllnt zoning design atlon
exceeda one dwelling unit per acre the
allowable development density in the
steep slope area shall be reduced to
one-fourth ("J, and for eacb one percent
(1%) of slope In excess of twenty five
percent (25%), tbe remaining allowable
dwelling unit density sball be reduced
by an additional five percent (5%).
d. The maximum nonresidential
buildable area sball be reduced to one-fourth
('/J, and for each one percent (1%) of slope in
exCel. of twenty five percent (25%), the re-
maining buildable area sball 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
.table building conditions, safe and convenient
accet. and minimum disruption of tbe natural
physical features of the land. The City may
require the applicant to furni.b a report by a
llcenaeci engineer to evaluate the site.
Howev8l', the City may waive tbe requirement
for special studies where sufficient
information Is otherwise available to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the
development permit.
2. Physical Haaarda: Greenbelta estebUsb~
upon these criteria shouid 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 assist in the
determination of and evaluation of physical
hazard areas as prescribed by thia Section.
a. As a general rule, development sbould
not increase the risk of hazard either oD or
off-site. Where detailed technical information
is provided lliustratlng that development can
be .afely accommodated, development that i,
com patlble with the degree of hazard and
with surtounding uses may be allowed.
Provided, any such development retains at
least seventy five percent (75')1,) of the site in
open .pace or is landscaped compatibly with
the physical hazards.
b. The City may require site specific
studies, completed by a qualified soils
engineer or engineering goologiet or other
qualified profe .. ionals, which shall include
specific recommendations for mitigating
measure. which shouid be required as a
condition of any approval for eucb
development. The recommendations may
Include, but are not limited to, construction
techniques, design, drainage, or density
specifications, or ... &BOnai constrainta 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
safely accommodated on the site and. is
consistent with the purpoaeo of this Section.
The City may waive the requirement for
special studies where sufficient information is
otherwise available to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the development permit.
3. Utility Easement. and Right. of Way: A
limited number of low Intensity uses
consistent with the existing zoning and utility
use may be permitted within utility
greenbelt. such that the proposed
development meete the intent of providing a
definitive geographic relief between adjoining
existing or anticipated land usa. Allowable
uses include:
a. Any structures or activity direetly
a~ated with tha supply or IIIIlvice of
utilities;
I
I r,;:.,.,.,
,>""" '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-35
D3)
F.
b. AgticuIture;
.. Residential open 1JI8C'III;
cI. Recreational activitiea and fBeilitiea;
e. Parking aaaociated with adjoining land
WlGI -provided that no more than the
foUowlng percentage of the greenbelt area is
covered with impervious .urf...... and the
remainder is compatibly lanclacaped or
retained in a natural ltate:
Twenty five percent (25~), if the most
restrictive adjacent zoning is R·l or 0-1;
Fifty percent (50'1», if the moat l'II8trictive
adjacent zoning is R-2, R-3, R-4, T, or pol;
Sixty five percent (65~), if the moat
l'II8trictive acijacent zoning is S-l, O-P, 1.-1,
H-l, or M-P;
r. Production of reaources -provided
that the area' i. rehabilitated 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: Wetlanda, stream
comdal'll and flood control facilities deaignated
greenbelt shall be subject to the development
standarda of the Citya ahoreline master
program urban environment where thoae
shorelina regulations would not otherwise
apply.
Other Allowable U 888:
1. Nothing in these regulationa shall limit the
construction of one aingle family home on a
pre-ezisting platted lot, aubject to meeting
any engineering requirements neceasary to
lafely construct such a residence.
2. Where the provisions of theae regulations
limit construction of public or private utilities
or appurtenant structul'll8, approval for such
construction may be granted by approval of a
conditional use permit subject to a ahowing of
necesaity and compatihility of the use with
these regulations. (Ord. 3849, lo.S-84)
(See following page for Ezhibit A,
Steep Slope lIIustration)
4-31-38
4-31-36: CONDrrIONAL USE PERlIUT:
A.. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use
permit is to allow certain usea in diatricts
from which they are normally prohibited by
this Chapter when the proposed uses are
deemed consistent with other ezisting and
potential uaes within the general area of the
proposed use. Ezcept as provided in this
Section, a conditional use permit may not
reduce the requirements of the zone in which
the use is to be located.
B. Conditional Use Permit: The Hearing
Examiner may grant, with· or without
conditions, or deny the requested conditional
use permit PUl'lluant to Chapter 8, Title IV of
the City Code. The Hearing Examiner may
limit the tsrm and duration of the conditional
use permit. Conditions impoaed by the
Hearing Examiner ahall reasonably assure
that nuiaance Dr hazard to life or property
will not develop.
C. Criteria for Conditional Use: The Hearing
Examiner ahall consider the following factoi'll,
among all other relevant information:
1. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed use
ahall be compatible. with the general purpose,
goals, objectives and standarda 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 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. That the proposed location is suited ....
for the proposed use.
3. Effect on Adjacent Propertiea: The proposed
use at the propoaed location shall not result
in substantial or undue adverse effects on
acijacent property. The following site
requirements shall he required:
a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in
residential districts (R-l and R-2) shall not
excsed fifty percent (50'1» of the lot coverage
I
I
I
I
J
r
J
J
:1 I
'I
4-31-35
Exhibit A
. Steep Slope lIIustrltion
(
~-----IQ ----------~ ~ I
~ .
•
t •
i r ;; • I
i
I .s •
•
I.;" II P\ HI . ' .. (u.~ j j ~ I j 1 ~ +.~.~.+ ....... ~.U.i.U.
~ ~
•••• " 0 ••• 0" 0"
~ It
~.
~------.l", ....
• i •
! o • a u
III --_____ a---------~~-----
. iii
~ ~ __ ~~-----l~ ----------
III
____ ------lS! -----------
• ... ;::-... e ......
:-:-l2~ . ..,
8'" ~ ..
• •
r
~
• L i ;I ; •
I
J • • • i
I • • z
i • • ~
~ -
.~
.
It>
N -
'$\t-l~t-"1rI~:--:;~!:--=iII..:..J 0
Hur •• u n;,ul&l 0
(
(
I , I • • -., ,
f~ • '
I
•
L I ' r--'~":;"" SX! I '---.-r----
i i l~, ~=p=F~~
1
! J __ I
, 'i IJ.-,·J-~"fF' ~W
"
, ,
,
. ' ;1"
I 'J ...
""'.:.... I - ----t---~-
I • '\
/"
MET ,R t
P-II \ \
.. _0-...... ...
.......... .. -.
1
O-p
\ -1-,
•
---+-\ ~ , ---~
PO' 5 A I L' ,-\'e
I \
_I , -'-
I
I
1
I
I:· ,'~ 'F
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
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.
------
BLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
. "f7,· ••. :.
rREFER TO ATTACHEC EXPLANATIONl
LOF WETLANC' TYPES' J
G VegeCDl:ed VtletJDnd
ISatura'od Dr SOASOMUy FloodDd I.
~opan Water
(Permanently or Semi-Permanently Flooded I
-Wetland Type Boundary
____ Approximate Wet:Jand Boundary
__ 'L1near Wetland Feature
......... Jncluded Wa'Clend 'Feature
~'Cpen. Water Channel
u" '0 .' -' Pipe. or c;::ulve.l"'t:
-. --We,tland Edge,ldentifi~d' by EC.OLOGY" . . , '.
--,.-
(Burg, 4/87) ......
---:::--:-~~:::~,~, .---:: -------:--. --::::::::::::.----.-.-..:-.
Edge of Project:
Scule
.," = lIPP'-OJ(.. 400'
Wetland Edge
WL
F7!81il(tl
"""':"" oS ........ ;..(...
, " , ,
.... ',J'(,..
','."10-
"\, ".f~.1'o , , .-
Figure 3
.......... .!'o(,(
........... <.c-y .......... -i.fD
............. _----------""-'" -------------
_ t'p.!'!nE~ _ ~~~~
-:~:.:. _ ..... "-----'. --.... :-:. ......... . .....
// -, , , , ,
\' , '
"
" " " .':
" " . '
"
"
" .' .' ..
" .' ..
.-
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning, 1981
\..')-""" "" "":::':: ,~ :: : : : : t : : ~:':':':.::: ~ :s:'!!! ~
:' ;'
"
; .
.' "
" '. '. '. "
" . '
"
i
I
t ,
: '
i .
i ,
I
I ,
I
I
, ,
"
, '
-
--------
···'7.·.··· :.
Wetland Edge-Identified. by Jones & Stokes (6/89) using the" .
Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology -'
SLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
!REFER TO ATTACHEO EXPL.ANATIONl
lOF WETL.ANO TYPES j
G vegetated Wetland
lsaturated or SOOSOMUy Flooded I.
~ opon Water
": --::::::::: :.:'--:::: ;;.::.:::---:. :::::::: --:-----.
...... ' ..
Scale
__ Edge of Project
1": approx. 400'
~ IPermanently or Scml·PcrinanenUr Floodod I
_ Wed and Type Boundary
..:. ___ APprDxlmate We'Clond Boundary
_ 'L1near Wetland Feature
••••• -.lncluded Wetland -Feature
~~pen Water Channel
u ... _ .... Pip~ : or ,?uJvert::
f3
--Wetland Edge
-F7/IIIK«l
-V-
.0 ~:.'.'. Z'·?1~~~~ :.~~~ ..... ::._ .. .. ----,,-.' " ".
"
"
" " " " ..
" " ..
" " " " " " " ..
.-
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study, Canning. 1981
· ..... ' .. s
"',",.(,..
IJ -,'~
; I-.. "~~~:-... _
...... :!~~
Figure :J
-, . ' .
... .. 4'0 ......... v,{ ,. ... e Y-i
..... ': ...... ~D -----------------------
;~c
/.----1 ~_...... .. i . ....... :::::~;::::: f:: ~·'t-·~:~:f :s-'!-~!.~
"
" . , , '
~ • I l
, , , , , ,
, , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
,
;
;
1
;
t
t r
1
I
, , ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
SEA-lAC 0 AIRPORT
4 MILES
SOUTH CENTER
S lBOlH
RENTUN
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 10int 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 discern able 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 trichocama) and red alder (Almls mhm) saplings
dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (sruix spp.) and red-osier
dogwood (Comus stolonifera). Common snowberry (Syrnphoricarpos alhlls), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus djscolor), and Nootka rose (Rosa nootkana) occur occasionally
throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
repens), marsh speedwell (Yeronjca scuttellata), soft rush (Juncus effusus), sedge (~
sp.), horsetail QW1jsetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtjca
djoica), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), burreed
(Xanthium 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 (Txpha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and
fireweed ffipilobjum angustjfolia) also present. Sma)) amounts of small-fruited bulrush
(Scirpus mjcrocarpus) are scattered throughout the system.
Sci.Is. 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 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 Scil Hydrology Result
1, +1 wetland upland upland upland
1, -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
:1
:1
I
I
I
'I
'.
Ms. Mary Burg
August 10, 1989
Page-4-
Three of the plots were detennined 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 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.
~. 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.
HydrolQgy. 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
wil1ow. 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 wel1-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 (E1eocharis 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 control1ed 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
12cM.1-.M-1~
Robert Denman
Hydrologist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Client: Ke~
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
~~~~~ct~~P3~ t{. of: Ii STR:
Vegetation
Trees
l.
2.
3.
Saplingsj
shrubs
% Cover
% Cover
l·1oyullJb1 r1c hlXl·"F-
2 '~<I~5 d,~<f"
3.~ «e'
Indicator
status nH~e£rBb~s~ ____ _
Indicator
status
FIlC-
fACV-
ffle... (~"o, .. rlte..~~)
% Cover
d.:..·':" .. ··~ Percent of "'Specl.es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:
-----
Indicator
status
(fic.\}.)
file...
~ (oS';Ort'IL V J
fl1c.o _
f Pc.-i
Other indicators: __ ~~. _____ ~ __________ ~ ____ ~
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes / No __ Basis: ? $0"10 of dMwca¢ YfP OfW., FAc
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No_
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: 5c.M"'!Jgm Texture B: ->lSgm1~[J...._,.-_
Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: I Matrix color: 0'5" ct .5y sP
Gleyed? Yes -No Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _______ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches:_. ____ _
Depth to Till:.~----~--,_~--~~~ ___
Hydric soils? Yes __ No2 Basis: Cc.lat:: 00 Qir.tllt\ 'iCfl\~'
Hydrology
r
Inundated? Yes __ No~ Deptp of standing water:. __ ~~------------
Saturated soils? Yes No./ Depth to saturated soil: _____ _
otherindicators: ____ ~_-_-____ ==~ _____ ~--~----~-----------------
We tl and hydrology? Yes ___ No.L... Bas i s :.,!lrvl.:.~.L) ~. Q.lf(hl,..,t;r,.r.l~,;.:: '.:... ______________ _
Atypical situation? Yes No cOl1\lTlent: _____________________ _
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)
of:--..J.(..:.q_ STR: _____ __
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
1-
2.
J.
saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Percent of species that
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegetation?
soil.
Indicator
status llH~e~r~b~s ______ _ % Cover
)f 1 . .jc>r..:o-:, ef.ftJ)U,:5 .;25
d.,"'" .~ 2. f'""",";I'\<.ui".., r-"f.~ ::1.0
( J. C'r";\"" 0.( v.w...... I 5
., -;r: 'Xw,'Tih, uP', S1( "mo.'., en-~
5. R ........... c:r'::,p"5 S
6.
Indicator
st'atus
ft.,c..
F 1lC. r 110.,'-
are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66q.
Indicator
Status
Filew
FAc.w
f1Jc..u-
file..
fAc.1>-l
Yes ;I No __ Basis: -l c/;J{o fAG or QvIJJ
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: Q-X' Texture A: ~,~ 1m" Texture B: S,[];;;,.'" -
Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0!,5~ "l.1i!
Gleyed? Yes_ NO...z-Depth to Mottle or Gley:'
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top· 32 inches: ________ _
Depth to Till:,~--~~----_=--._----~ Hydric soils? Yes ,/ No___ Basis:~~~,.~)~d~%~~~ ______________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ No ___ Depth of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'--s-o~i~l-:-------------
Other indicators: ---.---.
Wetland hydrology? YesJ'No __ Basis: "'_/(1(//1':)_:-:7.
Atypical situation? Yes No commen~t~:~~~=-------------------
Normal circumstances? Yes No
wetland determination: Wetland ---. / Non-wetland _____ _
I General site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~(~ ~~~~~c0A o .?i:~ .Xaof.. J Plot No.: it) -4 \ of:....u.I'i_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r=e=e~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~sh~ru~b~s~_____ % Cover
Indicator
-"'.S",t .. a",t""u""s__ ..,H"'e"'r..,b""s'--____ _ % Cover
Indicator
status
'" l.~ • .;n(.dv:> (~ 1:0
2. IWrru C.l'1')FUS 10
3. So(".n"M dul(.",.. ..... _ iO
4. CVI!!:" W. S
5 ·J:"",U .... 1S Q_tfLISO$ ~.
6.
Indicator
status
fA2w
; p, CUJ
FAc..
~ 1 Top,)iu<> klCt.c<.i.o.J\fb.-
I 2. 50.9..,)~.
3. (."rnvs '5idNJ~ ....
(;,0
10
,0
{\C'rfrI \1""",0\. I Percent of"spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /OO?
Other indicators:~~~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~
Hydrophytic vegetation? YesL No __ Basis: ((l)~7A 01 ..,-.dC"t.tt'YI(J'hq:p. 1l1c.. -rr~,,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil.
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: Q-'i' Texture A: S!~ Texture B:
Mottled? Yes...:L. No __ Mottle color:L£; i Matrix color: J.e, "f.;)
Gleyed? Yes No ~ Depth to Mottie 0 Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -::i-n-c""h-e-s-:--------------
Depth to Till: ____ ~~(~--=-_.--~-~ • • .-0-J.I' '. I II . Hydn.c s01.ls? Yesd No_ Basis: bu." I~ tl"Ic!dC'c1 q./< (i"'lI~i
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:~~~ __________ __
saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil:
Otherindicators: ()1()& soLFC-['_ILI~: PYid,.'eh ,y( 'l:·i{ll.·:d:-,,-·~-·'--I-,g.\;--:--"-'----
wetland hydrology? Yes __ No___ Basis: \j , ("
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 Q.,n Project: P,!~ e· 0 if' 70.0l; Date:·--"0,,,!,-..'1..L_-+-"_'-_~ __ ---"u ___ Plot No.: d-/ a. of: ('f STR:
Vegetation
Indicator
~T~r~e~e~s_____ % Cover -2s~t~a~t~u~s~_ uH~e~r~b~s~____ % Cover
~ 1 • :1.)/1c.;: <2J~S [:;
(. 2 '-~v~vfl(.>J\c..:. '¥1'1S \
-----
Indicator
Status
0, . I T·,e v•
ffic..u l.
2.
3. !: rr.>J\l,. 3,,1/ f"",,-,th.t:I 1e..u.1.I05-
5. -
Saplings/
2sh~ru~b~s~___ % Cover
-# 1.701"'1.0:; \ rl~ ~6
2. Air,do, I"»btu.-5
3.
6.
Indicator
St"atus
Percent of species that are OBL, PACW, and/or FAC: iDO
Other indicators: wxtllA' sf~ 1.u:1fI)D.S
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes:L:No __ Basis: _________________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ NO __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0-( Texture A: Texture B: r.lo'J'U{. "rt ,.,,'
Mottled? Yes V No Mottle color: Matrix color:J 3f:, ~/.~' ":,,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~C7-7~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-:-------
Other indicators: ---
Wetland hydrology~?~Y~e-s---,/~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a~s~l~·S~:-e--c-.~-~-/-~-,-;/~,'----------------
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: _________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: wetland ---LI Non-wetland _____ _
General site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
client: ~ r:t
Project: A 0 ji'C' 'PM\;. Date: 0t _ ___ _ Plot No.: 'i ~ I ; of: i'i
vegetation
Indicator
STR:
Trees % Cover status uH~e~r~b~s _______ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
----
Indicator
Status
I saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s~_____ % Cover
Indicator
St'atus
f.. 1 ~<o¥. I ?\< 2:'P~ koch<>
3.
50 I·W
tAc 7l"11!.t.
Flic
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IQ()'I.
Other indicators:~~~~~ __ ~~ ____ ~~,-____ __ Hydrophyticveqetation? Yes~No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes NO __ _
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: dart¥ ~Ii Texture B: __ -::-:--~ __
Mottled? Yes~ NO~ Mottle color: Matrix color:~;:.......;;'-',f_I "'~""("'-
Gleyed? Yes ___ No~ . Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~-----------'-----
Percent orqanic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y::'e-s--:::z---r':':N:-o:.:.:.---:B:-a-s"'i.-:s--::---,7, .. -:it'/l.' " ;' tvitYij/rci
I
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No ~DePtP of standing water:
saturated soils? Yes---No / Depth to saturated'--s-o~i~l-:------------
otherindicators:~~::~ __ ~~:'~ __ ~~~ __________ ;-________________ __
Wetland hydrology? Yes .:;No ___ Basis:~~~~~':~:"~"~.J~:)~'''~ ________ ~:--__ __
Atypical situation? Yes No comment: ________________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland ---/', Non-wetland ________ _
Ge~eral 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: ~!~
proj:ct: !~ Date. 0/. •
Ll,. -t;z. of:..J.{::l.4_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
"'s ... h .... ru .... b=s ____ % Cover
100
'irO
10
Indicator
status uH~e~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover
Indicator
St"atus
rRe.
fAe..
fA(.,lJ..)
~ 1 . .Jt.\"CJ.L eQUiO.> 00
" 2. V.u.r.JY1IC.c .. ~.o.>fub.la. ;;:'0
3. 'So\""IL/(h du1cc\IM:)"'L il) !: 1(',,,,,, Ullwlo:. <¥1~ ~,
6.
Indicator
Status
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IOcfk
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegeta~t'i-o-n~?~Y~e~S~~~~N~O~_-_-_~B~a~s~1"s~:~~~~~ ____________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: () -\?, Texture A:)II ,'\.-.,\1 IOI.\!lTexture B: -----
Mottled? Yes J No Mottle color: i Matrix color: ;)" 'hi '1 ta
Gleyed? Yes No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 ":"i-n-c';"'h-e-s-:-----------
Depth to Till: I
Hydric soils? Y~e-s--J~-N~O==~--~B~a-s~i~s-:-_~~~~~~ ________________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No ~ Depth of standing water: __ ~~ __________ ___
Saturated soil~Yes=== No_vi_ Depth to sa~urated soil:i ___________ _
Other indicators : 'd,-,..~ ~~ (I mOL ' , i (') • 10.
Wetland hydrology? No__ Basis: v
Atypical situation? Yes No commen";"t-:----------------------"'--
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
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 'Q~t Q.fl Proj ect:. f« .f;!. 0 1.1'"' .. 70.0 I;
Oa te: --.!l:"I.4(:....'='jJ._.f.._.L:~I-__ ~~~_ Plot No. : of: FI STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Indicator
AT~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover sta tus !lH.5e.!,.r.!;bCli!s'--__ _ % Cover
Indicator
Status
l.
2.
3.
II 1. -;)lJ'1(_V~ e.\t~s ,,-a!:> '1.
k2. :;'01'\1('.<">"'" clul~ < 10'1.
-j 3.""Ru~ c:..r'isf"" "" 5'10
4 •
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
status
5 •
6.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Other indicators:~~~~ __ ~ _____ ~~~ __ _
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes~ No __ Basis: ___________ _
soil.
series Happed: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: Q-Ir Texture A: Texture B:_...."......,.,...,... __ _
Mottled? Yes..L.. No_ Hottle color: Hatrix 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-L Depth to saturated·-s-o...,i'"'l,.-:--------
otherindicators:
Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s-:=L?-.-rN~o-_-_-·=~B~a-s~is-:-~--,;v-.-J~-~-J~.-----------
Atypical situation? Yes No Cornrnent: ______________ _
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)
Clit;!nt: ~~t Q,.o Project: e, f, 0 ~,;., -eMf. Date:....x;0+l..J=1-/._-l_c.:_~ __ .l!.J:-_ Plot No.: '1, - \
of: (~ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover
1.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~sh~ru~b~s~___ % Cover
8D
6;..0
5
Indicator
~s~tsa~t~u~s~_ ~H~e~r~b~s~_____ % Cover
Indicator
St'atus
Indicator
Status
ffic..u-
fRC-v':)
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66'tl.
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: 0-1,;1' Texture A: S4ndJ Ie"", Texture B: __ -;:::_--,.,..,..._
Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: .'J Matrix color: i2 r.; \1 'i/3
Gleyed? Yes NoL.. Depth to Mottle or Gley: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: _______ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y~e-s--J"'7"'-:':N:-o-----:B:-a-s-i,..s-:-_ _:..-_-... -S9M:;:>!IrI ... a;t-lI .... OOmQOL:..:...IW .. ,,/-'-"./Th:14Jfi!.>4,,,,s>--' ______ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water:, __ ~~ _____ __
saturated soils? Yes No-L. Dept;h , to s turated
Other indicators : . 7 . <:. 'Ii -, ·~L 'L
Wetland hydrology? 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)
Client: k?it PO Proj ect: P,y e; 0 Jf~ 1 'Pao \;,
Date:......l:<0!.f.(--"jL..j_~_L.:_l--__ .!!.lr~_ Plot No.: '1 -g, of: 19 STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees % Cover status Herbs % Cover status
1->f 1. fhjaJilS CLIl"r.dfltt.l.tc. 30'1,. f!lCw
2. .>It 2. R.-... nUlllJ~ r~.1 10 rh~
3. 3 • CA~ Ut"'> (JJ\ lIet1'io. <5 f fl::,u~
4 • Ve/lOl'lIU~ ~ai"",, <5 0&-
5 • S~""" <.1" Ie.......,. ... <.s [Ae..· 6.
Saplings/ Indicator
shrubs % Cover Status
..>\ l..1b{'VtIS tn::h:~.~ <to FAc,
2 • R._)\:v~ '3f'c:I,u".I.) rfjc.uJ
3. fll.-,,-.~ ,-ul:n .... File:..
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: I~
Other indicators: __ ~~ ___ r-______ ~ ____ ___
Hydrophytic vegetation? YesZ No __ Basis: _____________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: Q-'(" Texture A:~.$H Texture B: ----
Mottled? Yes-L No Mottle color: -4./2'9# Matrix color: 2.5u Us (/t)
Gleyed? Yes_ No..L Depth to Mottle or Gley: i
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y-~e-s--~~~N~0-_-_~--~B~a-s-1~·s--:~~c-~-o;I~,-n~~;_~n1~autY~ks~ ________________ __
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~is-:-~-,-~-~--a1-e-a?~-------
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: 'R~t 11,,0
Proj ect: B!, e, 0 ife :Pno \;,
Date:-...I::I?'-/.I-:...''il..~I-_:lL:l_I--__ ..!!lJc-_ Plot No.: I-I J -3 of: ;q
Vegetation
Indicator
STR:
~T~r~ee~s~___ % Cover status !.!.H""er""b..,s"-___ % Cover
l.
2"
3"
Saplings/
~sllh~ru~b~s___ % Cover
of l.rOpuIL'S i! lC"hcr ... ~ t{()
J/r, 2. A Jf 'U~ "'U~CL l( 0
3. C'~rr.porl~pos c&t.:..,
Indicator
st'atus
file-
f Ik:.-
f1\W
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 9el
-----
Indicator
Status
~ Ae.. (c=-.' ""~
FAW"
rAe. w
f"At..w
Other indicators:~~~,~ __ ~/ ______ ~ __ __
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-L-No __ Basis: ____________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __
A-Horizon depth: 0=(," Texture A: c.I'Mj I't+n Texture B: .:5M4~ /oa",
Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: Matrix color: ____ _
Gleyed? Yes ___ No v' Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _______ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _______ _
Depth to Till: <'
Hydric soils? Y'~e-s--L7~N"'o---.,B,..a-s-~';"''' s-·-. -e-l2---'ll~( tv I ft10 t!k;,-
A"I'h r ,,); :1.5~ '-I/J-~ ~lS"hd(" 0 J.5~ '11-1 wI m«tl-u Hydrology co.'; 1" .. M k.5_ ;:;
Inundated? Yes No v 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~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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: ~~t' PO Project: B £ 0'i,;','?o.o\;
Date: ........ 04t_'jJ..._/-_.ll.'-I_'--__ ..!!\l~_ Plot No. : ~!2~~--1\I-_ of: ...s.;{Ij,-,--_ STR : ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s_______ % Cover
l.
2,
3,
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
status ~H~e~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
rAe..
Ff}c.U
File...
~ 1. orl,cc,d,,:;,CA g 01,
2. A1"\l(101\'\ (~,~-f..rll\()l.
3 .10,,,, .. 10.. mu>:rM~"
4.
S.
6.
Indicator
status
fflG-I
<.5"/0 F IlC
file.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW I and/or FAC: 100
Other indicators:~_._~~~--~~----~~;_--~--
Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes.....L. No __ Basis: diMLVrloJtTl'if'*' rAe .>(" ~Q)'-
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: () -'i( Texture A: Texture B: SIIr.I/~ -
Mottled? Yes_ NoL Mottle color: Matrix color: ~~'S '4 3&
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-i~s-·-.~~~~~~ __________________________ _
Hydrology
Xnundated? Yes __ No ~ Dep~of standing water:. __ ~-.--------------
Saturated soils? Yes __ No Depth to saturated soil: ____________ _
otherindicators:-=~ ______ ~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~ __ ~ ______ ~~~ ______ __
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No J Basis: /llb ew6>OIQ : if s;t:;4
Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: _________ ' __________ o;-__ _
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 CUl Project:, p, ". 0 if;;. 7M):,
Date:-'!0'.1-!--J_'" '-I_~~L.:l.. __ ....!!.~:"-_ Plot No.: 'i i;;l...· of:-/./.;l.I./_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Trees
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs
% Cover
% Cover
~ ly'~vO k\c.h(~ '6'0
2. CCn",-,~ ~o\ 011 I('QAt... j 0
3 ~1?lI~V-:' ~ /"btl IS 5
Indicator
status
Indicator
status
Herbs % Cover
" 1 :RMlul\wlc:,~1'6 ~S
)/' 2 • Vo..rOf\ICA. 'ic..,f .. 1ak S
.ot3. ;J<.J nC.1JS ~U'ios 5
'" 4. uri or.c.. d'l () i CJ ... 5 5.
6.
, d b"""''"\~~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: lCO
Indicator
status
tllc...w
08(,
F"AcW
;;~ C.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-ID Texture A: SIIi loom Texture B: ___ ~ __ _
Mottled? yes-L No_, _ Mottle color: Matrix color: "' '5V 412
Gleyed? Yes ___ No___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ___ , ____ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: _______ _
Depth to Till:.~-~~----~--~--__ _ Hydric soils? Yes---iL No ___ Basis: ________________ _
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--:-d~r.~~~~.~-.-~-,,~!------------------
Atypical situation? Yes No Cornrnent: ________________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --.I 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: B7 e· 0 'i,e. 7n.o'& Date:--,,0/.1.!_'11..~(':'_lI-_=l-__ -:\T!!.:-_ Plot No.: 5, -I of:..J/u",--_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s,--___ % Cover
1.
2.
3.
Saplingsj
shrubs % Cover
r;
5
II 1 YU\..0kh lrld"""",,,,p<-75
2. Ac.u n ... ..u-oph'1Ht;fII.
3 :RvbU~ ~Qh1i5
Indicator
status !JH~e~r..!.b!.;;s,--__ _ % Cover
Indicator
St:a"tus
~ l.LX1,,".,.,cfld,,;,,-::::-0
2 . .dt,£~,,';c,,-10
3 .1~v(',v(".,.ull'S rt &.~ i 0
4. V~r:(,,"nl( .. 1. '~~~it .. ,. "-S
5.
6.
~i",; .(\c,~ Percent of,spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Indicator
Status
rR"CJo-'
t /10.0
rAC-tv
OE:i-
Other indicators:~~~ _____ ~ __________ ~ ____ _
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? yes __ No
A-Horizon depth: 0-1« ·1 Texture A: '"Ii IQCst!) Texture B: ____ --.,,...,-_
Mottled? Yes~ No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: :; t,y f;>(r2.
Gleyed? Yes ___ No_ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ __ ~ ____ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: _______ _
Depth to Till: ____ -¥(~ _______ ~---___
Hydric soils? Yes:J2: No__ Basis: ________________________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ NO~ Depth of standing water:_--~~------
Saturated soils? Yes __ NO~ Depth to saturated 50il: ______ _
otherindicators: ________ ~----------~----~----~------------------
Wetland hydrology? yes:iZ No___ Ba5is:~A~s~S,~·(~jl~~S-,~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)
o Jlj.;.. ? no \;. Sa-Plot No.: 5 -rl of :_'w4_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Trees '.; Cover "'-'"'="-----
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s___ % Cover
-'It l.?"p.liu; trlCtoc.:v,i""-'1(}-"
2 • ~\lbJ; ~O\;d ~ ~
3. ~"'.\1Uws .a.=.~
Indicator
status "H"-e ... r"'b""s ____ % Cover
Indicator
status
fl\c....
fl\C,.W
f/'lc..U
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: !()O:lJ"
Indicator
Status
Other indicators: . / Hydrophyticvegeta-7t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s-J~~N70-_-_-_~B~a-s-i~s-:::::~ _____________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: 0 -r • Texture A: Texture B: v;;;;T~ loC;;;:.
Mottled? Yes..L" No __ Mottle color: It mdt' V: 1;( Matrix color: '<Air;. ~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? Yes ____ No VI Basis: __________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes No J Depth of standing water:
saturated soils? yes ____ No~ Depth to saturated·--s-o~i~l-:-------
otherindicators:~~~---~--~~~~~~--_r-~-----------Wetland hydrology? Yes __ N0....!L.. Basis: --tJ,) ;.ahl"",..i'~5
Atypical situation? Yes No cornment: __________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --Non-wetland_-4<.I __ _
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
Management Program
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-li
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 proceaa Under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Personnel from the Seattle District firat 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 informed Ms. Barbara Moss
of First City Equities of the clsrification in Ollr 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 Bent'uB 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 .
II I
II
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 Ms. 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,
Wsrren E. Baxter
Chief, Regulatory Branch
24 June 1987
Wang #7289s
Disc il714
~'I-. I' -re';)
-'1,1>' "\I
t-'i) i'\. ~,"".
i.J...1J1
.~/OP-RF
BA~r#;@1 3' Reg Br '-Fi e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT Of' 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 exsmination 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
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,
(}/1f~1!'t¢t'7
,'Joseph R. Williams, Supervisor
,/ Shore lands Management
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
=': ~ 7~' ;\i'\"::;":
~ ), ... , :'}~
STATE Of WASHL'iGH IN
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
;\ lJlf _'!tl!> "~'. II •
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, 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 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 praft Environmental
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
StudV (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
pa'1e 2
Due to the recent clearing and grading aotivities, little
remains of the emer'1ent wetland whioh oooupied the old
railroad '1rade biseoting the forested wetland on the
northern portion of the site. I found only a few soattered
patohes of reed oanarY'1rass, softrush, and smartweed amid
the downed timber and ohurned mud on the eastern end of the
site.
Tbe forested wetland whioh remains is characteristic of an
increasin'11y rare habitat in the state of Washington: mature
riparian forested wetland. The overstory is dominated by
black cottonwood and Ore'1on 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 oomposed of deoiduous broad1eaved
species inc1udin'1 red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and
elderberry. Herbaceous species include nettle, creepin'1
butteroup, lady fern, sed'1es, and rushes.
The forest floor is undulatin'1, as is typical of floodplains
of the 1ar'1er rivers in the Pu'1et Lowland, and the
distribution of understory species reflects this
microtopo'1raphic 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, sed'1es and rushes are the
predominant understory speoies, 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 '1raded 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
orossin'1 the center of the site. Soil test pit 10'1s 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 sprin'1brook 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
. ,
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
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
~arbara E. Moss, First city Equities
I ,
I
I
I
·1
I
I
;1
i II
,
i II
I
.1
I
:1
I
:1
.1
'I
I
Regulatory Branch
Ms. Barbara Moss
Director of Planning
First City Equities
1
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170
Seattle, Washington 98104
Dear Ms. Moss:
, .'
*R "'987
(;1\l)1'It./CW/","~;)
2 March 1987
Disc: a:sam
Rp.ference: Black River Technological
Park .
This is in response to your rebruary 21, 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 plac~ 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
164-3495.
Sincerely, C.J'~P-RF .... 3~
'; ~P-RF . . 5efl-
• coe,./o (8/ Vernon E. Cook
Chief, Operations Division
Reg Br file
.' :';'
.. '
I
II
I
II
I
;1
II
II
I.
'I
I
.
3 March 1987
Wang #5423s
Disc #715
NPSOP-RF 2 }larch 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECTI Black River Technologies 1 Park
1. Background I In November of 1985 the Seattle District inspected a·proposed
devalopment in wetlands near the Black River, Duwamiah River, King County in
Renton, Washington. The Seattle District determined wetlands were present on
the aite but the wetland. were not adjacent to the Dieck River and the use,
degredation or destruction of these wetlands would not affect interstate or
foreign commarce. Accordingly, the Seattle District determined the wetlands
on the site vere lIot aubject to Department of the Amy pursuallt to Section 404
of the Cleall Water Act. The applicant wes lIotified.of this determination by
letter of 16 December 1985 (ellclo.ed). No permits were required from this
office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle Di.trict lIotified the developer that
our illterpretation of interstate commerce now illc1uded wetlallds that provide
habitat for aigratory bird., and that work on the aite would require prior
authorization by thie office.
2. Meetiaa. .On 12 March, representatives from the developer and the Seattle
District aet to disculs jurisdiction over the site. Those preaent were
Barbara MOBS, First City Equity; Robert Road, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer I elld Salll Caene, Hike Bowlus, Rerell Northup, alld
Budy Pojtillger, Seattle ni.trict Regulatory Branch. Barbara MOBS outlined a
cbrono10gy of evente that led up to the development as it exists today. We
asked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which .he did. (See enclosed
letter and photos.) Based 011 the information required, va concluded that 70
to 7S percent of the lite bad been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February
1987 letter.
3. Conclusion. The aite haa been substalltially modified. The applicant I~a
cleared, grubbed, aDd filled over 70 percent of the site. This vorlt was done
under the Seattle District'. letter of 16 Dacember 1985. Barbars Moss said
the work ·would be completed by the and of the summer of 1987. Baaed on these
considerations, the work may be completed under tbe 18 Deceaber 1985 directive
aDd no further authorisation from tbis office i. required.
Bllcte Samue 1 R. Casne
Chief, Environmental end
Proce •• illg Section
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
NPSOP-RF 2 March 1987
KEMOllANDUM 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~)~) No permits were required fram 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",/d,u"" J.)
2. Heeting. On 12 Karch, representatives fram the developer and the Seattle
District met to discuss jurisdiction over the site. Those present were
Barbara Moas, First City Equity, Robert Roed, Engineer, Cherles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer, and Sam Casne, Hike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regu1a.tory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a
chronology of events that led up to the development es it exists today. We
aaked 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 aite had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February
1987 letter.
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 campleted by the end of the summer of 1987. Based on these
considerations, the work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further authorization fram this office is required.
Ench
\
~~!~
Chief, Environmental and
Processing Section
I·
,i)'
.",'
.~ .
.•.. ',"
<. " OEC I 6 1985 .... : ' . ". "
. ..
, '. -.. :.,,' i ..... :,;~.".~,
~~~:f'S;;;:~~,~r~;val~er Act ill requirecl for the cl1acharge'of aay clreclgeclor ,Aul:,i ~i~
,..., . .-.• """;;c.,.,.;,>;,,,:~tedal ~~o vaters of the'United 8tatQI~~1Dc1w1tll8 adjawi: " .• ~;;:~~;::~:"'o~
: ,:laac!a; "'l'be tem ·vetlads· J8una 'choaeareas that are izwndated or':
',eaturatecl b,. aurface or ground,water at e frequency aad duratIon',
)
", ' IUfflc1ent to IUppert, end tluit under'aormal circwutallcel do ".,.':',,'''-':'', .,:':.'.
I " ,.', 'support, a prevaleztce of vegetatIon t1P,ically adapted for 11ta in .• ' ..... ',~, •
. I8turated Boil conditions •. 'rh4 Corps ot Ea;iDeers hal che r88pon-~ .. ::,:··:':·:'~"~' ~
'a1bUlty tor detewniDg,'wbether a .pacific wetland area 1& vithiD . '.".
8ectioa 404 jur1sd.1ction. ,", .,~"', :' ,_:.. • ' I · ," ....... ':~.:::-.'-=.;""-:-:-~",,. , •. ,,. .. -.=7'",' •. , :.: .. -'---:..r~:::..;::.;;";";:f~~£: ~~~~;'-: .. ~~':"-:~~:...-:~-~ ... ~'-::'" .~.~~.-:..~z:~:.~ .. ~. J._. --, -.' .:-.~~~.
• Va have reviewed the informadon lOu fur111shed IS veU al data ., .. ,
:;:,-pchered during our onu1te iDsp8ctioa CID kovember 14, 1985. Va ' ~.
:1" ;:, ' deter=1ned that wetlanele llre prelleDt on the project lite. Bawever, '_.',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
chese wetlands are aot cona1d81'ed adjacent "tlands under our ':" . .'.
regulatory authority. A Department of-the Ar='1 perzUt will not bOl " ,
required to place flll iDto th1a area. ,,', " , '
If you have auy questIons regard'lng thia matter, please contact
Hr. Rudolf Pojt1nger, telephone (206) 764-3495.
Sincerely,
,
...
Warren E. Baxter
"'if~ "
. " '. ',-',:
Chief, Regulatory Branch ... -.• --. -._--" .
I.
1
1
1
1
1
1 -,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
·1
1
1
....
, "
, . r·
" ,';'·~~,~,~;~:·::){i1J.h};je::·"·;·.
:',~CI ',' "
·Cit,. of IeDtOD"'"
,"lrriD Llo,.!':'>'::!;·;\;:'
,Ellvirouaamtal ProtectlOll ApacJ
"';"
..
"c"'
".',' .. '" . ,
• .,' , ...
•
-,
.>.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I::
I
I, .
,I.
,I'
;,1
:'.~" . ·"·1 .. ·· ..
,I,
I
. , .
FIRST CITY
EQUITIES
; ,.
FeDruary 27, 1987
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
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 FeDr~ary 18, 1987, my
attorney, Mr. Charles Blumenfeld, my engineer, Mr. RODert 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 I:l4!canleeff~c:itiv~',,·
on January 12, 1987 are not applicaDle to this project Decause
(1) the new regulations do not change the definition of "waters
of the united States", and (2) the property at issue has already'
Deen suDstantially 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,L;;\i:j\:;:;,:,; ..
EnvIronmental Impact Statement,' prepared by the previous~::::,:;:';,":':'::::"
owners of the property, Alterra Corporation, inconnection""'''''''-' ., .'.'"
with a rezone of the property from General Classification't6~
Manufacturing Park in order to construct an office park. :,::
Although, a .final determination a's to a requirement for' a, '. """:",:.: . . . . ._,.,1 ...•. _,' 404 Permit on this property was not made at the time. the EIS,' ,,!\;,:."):'j,', ..
was prepared, the Corps in its comment letter· to· the Draft>~:),;ihJ;JLr··
EIS, indicated. that a previous decision regardingwaterwaYll/::C;;:,.i:k"·,'·
upstream from the P-l pump plant could possiDlyexempt the.;;·",':::'~·.~~'~'''''''
site from the requirements of the 404 Permit. ' . ':: ... :ri;:'~ "',"
800 Fifth Avenue' Suite 4170 ' Seott1e, Washington 98104 ' (206) 624-9223
!leol Estate Developmenl end Inveslmenls
~
, ,
~ ~
.1
• • • • • • • •
I '.,,:
1
•
I
• • •
I
I
I
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
February 27, 1987
Page '!'Wo
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 SUA was conducted by'the;· .":":.:'(":',: .,.'::~' .. '.
•
Environmental Review Committee 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 , ), i
property was rezoned from Manufacturing Park to Office' Park" ,,:'
under the area-wide Valley rezone action. ' ': ,,;;', 'i ., : .... :: . '. :.
~. :' ... :': \ •.. ;:.:
. '
, ,
I
I
I
,I
~I
I
I
'I
I
1
l-
I
I,
:1
';" :
11'
"
:,'1'" ':
: ' .!. ::.
:!. , ,
"1":! .1
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.
.'.> -".,o," ..
In addition, First City Equities as a condition 'fotdevelOping "'>:':::;' '
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.
. ','
'. :
~. ;
; ,
1
. '
1
1
1
1
1
I
I,
Mr. Vernon E. Cook
February 27, 1987
Page Four
\ ....
',.',
'C.: .
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 '-, ',,' .,', :
. "": ';"
. ,-~
CCI Charles Blumenfeld,' Esq. w/encl·.
Robert Roed w/encl
'. , .. ' , ~ :~!
Royce Berg w/encl
David Schumanw/encl
Greg Byler' w/encl .. : .. :' ;I~h:·.,:···
HAND DELIVERED 2127/87
. .
i ~"".'
. -
. '.'
. ',' .. ,'".' ...... ,.-.. ' ,-:' "",; ~"':;."~~' ~-. -..,.
• I"~
( '.'
"',', . I' : . .. ' • ..1 '.: -'. \
::j:
:" ',.:':
;;1'" i.
:'. '
1
" .~-, . -, .":
;-~ . ;;~-'
':. ,"r
'.' . ,', .
. '. ~:'-!
• 'j
. :,
'1-"--' .. , ...
. ,
',':.
.. l' l.' :
", . . ",
"",
. ",
., ~. . , '-,
"" .. ,, ,;;
: : :.-,.
-' .
" .'
" !'
,\,,'
. ,;' ; ;: ~ " .,;,
';'
'., '-
. -"",
." '.,"'1 .. :
i!' ';'
....
" . . : ....
. ,: .
.. :.~ ... ,.
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
", <
. FEB IS'19ST
",alato&7 .raada
Ma. 1 .. 11 ... ·s. Woe,
IIbutor .• f .Wal.q
,I.nt Cl.cr ""tll'
100 rUtI! AwDIII. hlte 4170
'I.ttl.. • .. 1alqc.. ·.,81 M
," .. . ' .,' -, , .. ~. . . '., .
........ ".
e"'<":':'.'l;, .. .
. -
"' ',.
' ..
.......
' .. "
.. .. , . .'.
" -..
.' :.: 'j ,
.. "", .. ~~~.,
... ,....;A,ileck II.w .. tec1laol.., 'uk
llear ......... ' ...
'.
. ~. .... ..'.' '.' -,
OIl ........ 14. lt85. ""~1 ,... &lie ... tel. Dbcdot ., ....
lu,ected ,tat nf.1'UCII! plOPlrtJ to .. &mil .. If a P"poI" ..... 10.-
.. _t _14 ".u" • hpUblaC 0' tile Ant!t ,. .. l,c ...... Iee,l_ 404 .
of tbe ct .. V,cU' uc. ftla IUpetltt_ "'lUI'" cuc .. tl..... .1
... UaecI '" lleputllftt of tIie'lIIIJ.pmdt np1lc'-' •• allt .. cbe
pro,,",. Iii ...... It naul.otlOlll .Uucl.,. .t tut , .... _ •• cer-
.lad tbat tht. _cleD .... IIOt I .te .. of tile 1alte4 ,tet .. , ...
tna. tbe C.,.'.f laatHen ..... 110 JvWlodOll 0ftI' ,!Ie nfl .. ftC ••
dewl.,..c. Oar "rob·1%. 1916. let'er to JIll nflecta thia
elet.ntaacl_.
III late -1916, tile eor,l .f IIIIl_ .. a ,.U .... IIIW ,.ni' "'P-
lati_ -.bleb II .... Iffutl ... J&fIIUI"/ 12, 1917. """ nplael_
,roYl" a c1 .. 1UcadOll '" tile lalro_tal 'roclCti .. AaeDc1 of
che .dbitlOll of .. cln of the Val ... "atea ad ... lulade _cera I
a. Whlch ... e or _1. be .... eI ... Ubleac b7 1tlrel.
,roClllted '" Hl.l'lc~ Ilrel Treatl •• , 01'
b. Which an or _1. be .... eI .. Ubltat '" otbl ..
lI1,ntft)' II1yd. _lell o .... a ltaC' 11 ...
ftle clU'Uicatloa la alplliall' .aut it Ispuel. t .. Cor,.
lactioa 404 Jadl4ictloa. n. fttl.a.s. _ c .. nflreac .. ,roperc,.
. eTe IIIN COIIcUel'eel to be .. ter. of tile Vlllt" ltat .. ad I1Ibjeet to
Department of the AI'fII'1 penllt ftqllil'lMllta UIlelel' SeetlOil 4M of tlle
Clean Water Act. Undar Section 404, aathorl&acioa L. required tor
tbe ditchlll'p of .nda" or flll utaI'1I1 lato .. te .. a of tbe Uaited
ltat.a. illl: 1a4lq .. tlaacla •.
v. requa.t JOU contact thlc office .... arelleS permit· procedure.
if 70Q sti!l ~~O?OBe to ftll tha elte. A copy ot tbe Depal'taent of
.' ~
". ': ..
.; ..
. .
' ...
\
"
( i -1
I
I .'
1 ,,--------_ .. _-
I
I
i
,,;1
, ,
i' 1
l '. •
.\ ( ,
(
11 .\
1-\
I
I
I
I ,"'
I
I
1 :.
I
I
'.
I ' --~.
iI
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
•
I
. ::'.1:::-.. a:':...._ . .. -
:1 CL£Af"~!) I ~lJP.>eE.t), <&-~t>e.t:» ~. 1=1L,( eD (~8.2. f<.. ')
I h51 ~i j),C~r.. P/2.~~t.RVE (IJO!t.nt '2a ~ 'PDC"lO/.J ~~IJJIo.I.)
,I U"'C~T\J~l) (14 .. ,)
1
1
il
I
! I . ...
! I
: I' J I
.. j ~ .. ~: 1--~ . : or
... _. -,-..
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I BLACKRIVER
1 Corporate Park
RENTON, WASHINGTON
1
nt51' OT" ((UTES _ .. ------
UASON f'OIIIPIIOf lIIQR'IWWlsr ..c. ==:.=.-
1
..,oe.a. NELSON r.N:Ul INC:. ----------.-----
1
I /
I
--~J!t~~~,-
[J DO 1
DLJ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
II:
w~
=-~ _CI.
II:G.I
:':ii U;
C~ ..:II~
III
~
~
" z
j'
'" " ~
Z
, . g ~ z
'" c: 5
!
j \
\ .
, \ , ~
~ c'
I
, i
~ ,
< i ! ! f
I , ,
) ,
f .. c ,
i • . ' ~ ! i •
I
l
,I: .
I
'~·I .. :
'1.
,I
I.
I '
'1. ,.
'I
·1
'.I
I
••
, ,
I
·1",
'I·
. ·'1 :'
" .. '.,
. " . ,
. . \
' ...
, . ,
-'" .
..
" . ' .
. "
, ,
.'.
, :
' .. ,
. , , '
.. ,
, <
. ,',
, .
. ,
.', "', .
, .
, '., . ~ .. ' . .-
. .
' ...
',;
.r, .
' .. "
,"' ... '
'1 .
I
I .'.
.1·' .
I'
,I .
,I;
'I····
I' .:
'1 .'
I
I, "
I . '
If:
I'
.. I',
'I'
I·"
.'1 ..
" .
,.'
. -,
•
'.
,
, :-, .
'. ' .. '
\ . . '
... \
'.' ' , . ' ,
.. :. Black River Corporate Park.. .' .
" Renton, Washington
.
," ."
. ,
. .
. '
',' '., ' ..
, .
, ,
, .
. . ""
Lots 9 & 10 .. '
", .'
. ,
, "
, , , , '
, ;.
,
. .'
, .
,.
, " > ,."
. '.
.'. ". "
, '
, '
"
,
" ,'"
.' .... " ."
, ,'"
, "
. ',' ,'"
, '" . : " '
. , .
, .
. " . "
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, 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. BetIach
Re: Lots 9 and 10, 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:
TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
[$270,000.00]
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-la.
2
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.
Clifford.H. .
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. That I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this
appraisal report nor to the parties involved.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
8.
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 coooected, 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 conti ent 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
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 oflegal 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.: 377920.0118 (Lot 9)
377920.0119 (Lot 10)
DATE OF March 28, 1991
VALUATION:
SIZE OF LAND: Lot 9 -232,316 square feet
Lot 10 -218,000 square feet
SIZE OF BUILDING: Not applicable
TYPE OF PROPERTY: Vacant
ASSESSMENTS: Lot 9
Land $348,400
Improvements
Total $348,400
LotIO
$119,840
$119,840
TAXES: Lot 9 -$4,727.23; Lot 10 -$1,625.49
ZONING: OP -Office Park
HIGHEST AND BEST Comprehensive Development
USE:
OWNER: First City Development Corporation
ESTIMATED VALUE: $270,000.00
9
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 Nos. 377920.0118 (Lot 9) and 377920.0119 (Lot 10) is in the name of
First City Developments Corp.
Suite 6600, 700 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
PROPERTY WCATION
The subject is located between the Burlington Northern railroad tracks and the
Black River channel and detention pond. There is approximately 48 feet of frontage to
Monster Road, 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.
d.
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
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
10
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 APllraisal Termjnology 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 mOUSANDS)
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
II
:1
)1
·1 ~
"
I
~I
!il
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
Mouniains 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 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
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 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 l1U\ior transportation link. With mountain ranges on each side snow covered much of the
year, numerous fresh water Jakes and rivers and rich agriCUltural valleys, the area I s natural
setting is quite unique.
The mlijority of the population is situated on the easterly side of Puget Sound along
with Interstate S, 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
SEAD'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 1970 1980 1985 2000
Kitsap 101,732 147,152 167,800 223,990
Snohomish 265,236 337,720 373,000 533,390
King 1,159,375 1,269,749 1,346,400 1,692,000
Pierce 412,344 , 485,667 524,900 671,040
TOTAL 1,938,687 2,240,288 2,412,100 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 Pilget 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 l1ll\ior 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 mlijor 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 RENTON
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.
MANlJFACTURJNG 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 32S
4. Heath Tecna 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
6. Puget Sound Power & Light
Computers
Electric power
. PROXIMITY OF FACILITIFS
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 localiud 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 FACll.JTIF!I
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 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 FACITJTIRS
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
t
j. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ffigher 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 wning 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 wned in conformity with the general neighborhood.
One of the few variations to the wning 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 west 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 218,000 square feet or 5 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 2,000 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.
24
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 40S 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.
2S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WGHFST AND BE5T 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.
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 wiJI 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 defmed 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 seveial
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
ME'IlIOD OF APPRAISAL
There are three basic approaches to value, namely the cost approach, the income
approach and direct market comparison.
The Cost Arulroach 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 A~~roach 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 Com~arison. 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 th~ 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
-
54
South
I Center
53
I
I
I
I
~
_ .3-_ ,_ '-'-
..
l
SW 31 ST
"-
'" ~
SW 23 ST
..
SW29 <J)
0
0:
II
J ..,
c:
::l
..
.,f
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 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
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 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 II, 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 ~-_:c=-~~~-~.~~~
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 Acct. 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
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 four 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 four 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 4 years at 13%
$5.50 x P.V. of 1-4 years at 13%
$5.50 x 0.6133187 = $3.37
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
to explain this process. This mayor may not be an expensive proposition. It has been
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
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 $3.37 per square foot, i.e.,
One acre x $3.37 p.s.f.
= 43,560 s.f. x $3.37 = $146,797
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 $135,000 (deducting an arbitrary 8%
per lot), giving a total value of $270,000.
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.
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSORPTION OF OFFICE SPACE
It is obvious that all land cannot be developed at the same time and that any large
parcel of land that cannot be subdivided has to be discounted. In its present form, there
are ten lots, although no allowance for wetlands has been made. I am of the opinion that
the total site could accommodate six or seven buildings of a size compatible to the existing
surrounding buildings.
The site development would therefore have to be phased over a period of time. In
an endeavor to estimate the rate of absorption of office buildings, I have reviewed all
permits for office buildings in Renton over the last five years. There have been 21 permits
for office buildings over the last five years. There were two or three buildings I could not
define as to location or size. It is considered therefore that five office buildings per year
are being erected. The total dollar value of the permits is just under $100,000,000, or an
average of about $4,700,000. It is noted that the existing buildings in the area tend to be
in the $2,500,000 to $3,000,000 range. I am therefore of the opinion that the market
could absorb one building per year.
In addition to this list, the City of Renton has calculated a total office lllli!
commercial dollar value of the permits. These are as follows:
1985 $38,531,827
1986 $43,309,731
1987 $13,175,941
1988 $39,741,858
1989 $15,144,303
1990 $19,701,051
The subject site is the furthest west and any phased development would almost
certainly start at the east end because the sewer and water are at Naches Avenue. On the
assumption that the site will accommodate four or five buildings, it will be four years
before the subject is ready for development and therefore has to be discounted for this time
frame.
37
Oily
U4UY :::. UNITED STATU "'UTAA.,. ,,, ... ,",, ....
. merick ...... H!!!isay.:::::······· ........ ::::::
Center
r.-n El(lll 153
5w 23 5T
sw ..
v,
I
I
." ..
i
'it
"/:. :06°42'20"
~ =, 6~7.00
~='93.93 I ..
\)
LII: 01°00~9'\ 1-
FII: 1 0",54}. 00 ~~.
L : 180.51 ·~o.
t:. =01°40'54'
R =6738.00
L = 197.76
I ~ l V ... ~ ~ :,...,-. '~r. 18· "..>.!,' '\ I ~.~.
I
-
" ~
c ,
l
•
~~--=---~~~~UU~~~---====t> ,
/
/
A =34°52'41'
R "165.04
•
GAS PIPELINE EJ
DAM EASEMENT
REC NO. S 24396
10' DRAINAGE DITCH I
KING COUNTY QAAINAGE
UNDER APPLICATION N
TO CITY OF REN TON U~
NO.27!>63
L .. 100.47 ~;"'~=::;":""lTif:7::-:;c:;;~
03°44' 25M
696.00
'45.43
., 9'-34
- ---_0_"1l1li
R = 1853.00
L = 194,75
~ YJ
II : 020 4 8' 32· ~.,
R =4030.00
L : 197. ":;)7
~"'G" ~-
t::. .07" 32' 0 2'
R·'571,OO
L • 206.57
',,,
" Ycs Yo.
l:J.. 16" ":;)5' 35-
R: 727.00
L=214.77
/"
~~.
-.(~
""-P,-
~
~
----30' EASEMENT TO KING
TR.29-\ COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION
---&. MAINTENANCE OF A
-WING WALL. _ ----'J
TR 30 '. REC. NO. 6&2§3"6~ ~-
-'}'}/
/'
!'-
~~R. 31 \
\,\--MON~TE~ROJl-~-
GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT & FLOOD CONTROL ~
'---
~~~-
~~!!.EME;NT OVER TRAQS.J?,2&,29 AND 33,
I A:39°4" 39-I R = 62?..46 --
\
L &\434.70 ,/' ,/'
./ Y ./-
"1~7,02' /:V~ST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ZONING DATA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I "
. --------
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I"
1
I
I
1
..a 1-16
CSb) (2) Commercial, Induatrial and Other
V_: A mulmUIII of eisht feet (8')
anywhere on the lot provided the fence
doea DOt .tend In or in &ont of any
raquired lanclacapina or pole a traffic
vision bazard.
(3) Fence Types:
(A) Electric Fencea:
L Electric fencea are permitted by
lpeclal review in all residential
cones in caaea where large domes-
tic animals are being kept provided
additional fencina or other bamer
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') steting that the
fence is electrified.
ill. Electric fences and any related
equipment and appliances must be
instelled in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications and in
compliance with the 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 Fences: 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 these regulations as
provided in the respective code
sections.
4. Special Review Process:
a. Persons wishing to have one of the
Ilillowing types of fences mey submit a letter
of juatlftcatlon. site plan end typical elevation
together with the permit fee to the Building
and Zoning Department:
..a 1-16
(1) Fe...... ezceedJng forty eisht Inches
(48") within &ont yarcl I8tbacka but not
within a clear vilion area.
(2) Solid fe...... along .ide proPerty tines
abutting arterial streets.
(3) Electric fences.
b. The Building and Zoning Department
shall approve the issuance of special fence
permits provided that:
(1) Fe....... walls and hedge. above forty
eight inches (48") when all setback from
the street property line four inchea (4")
from every one inch of increased heisht
sought (over 48", up to a maximum of
72").
(2) Fences along property lines abutting
a sida street which is an artsrial may be
a maximum of seventy two inches (72")
in height. This fence must be loeatsd to
the rear of the required front yard. In
addition, driveways will not be allowed
to access through this fence. The
loeation of the fence exceeding forty two
inches (42") in height along property
lines, particularly the fron t and side lot
lines along flanking arterial streeta, does
not obstruct views of on-coming traffic at
interaections or driveways.
5. Compliance: Fences which do not comply
with these regulations must be brought into
compliance within six (S) months from the
date of notice of fence violation from the City.
(Ord. 405S, 4-13-87)
4-31-1S: OFFICE PARK DISTRICT (o-P):
A. Purpose and Intent: The Office Park Zone
(O-P) is established to provide areas
appropriate for professional. administrative.
and business offices, certain manufacturing
activities, and supportive services in a
campus·like setting. (Ord. 418S. 11·14-88)
B. Uses: In the Office Park Zone (O·P), the
following and similar uses are permitted. The
Building and Zoning Department may deter-
mine that any other use is similar in general
character to the following specific \IB88 and is
in keeping with the intent of this Zone. Upon
such aclministntive determination, the subject
r7.
\
(
c
I
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
4-31-16
B) .....ball become a principal, . accessory or
conditional woe, whichever ia appropriate.
UnI ... indicated by the text, delinitiona of the
uses Ilated in this Zone &l'9 conaistent with
the descriptions in the Standard Industrial
Classification Manual.
1. Principal Usee: In the o-p Zone the
following principal uaea are permltted:
a. Administrative and professional
offices.
b. Medical and dental offices and clinics.
c. Financial offices such ee banks,
oavings and loan institutions.
d. Schools and studios for art, crafts,
photography, dance and music.
e. Business and professional services.
C. 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
natural 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
satiefaction 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 proviaions of Section 4-31·25C2.
(Ord. 3980, 3-24-86)
2. Accessory Uses: In the O-P Zone the
following uaes are allowed where incidentsl to
a permitted uae:
a. Parking garages.
b. Recreational facilities.
c. RBtaii sal .. of products or merchan-
elise produced ee a permltted use.
4-31-16
d. Repair activitie. ordinarily IUIIIOCiated
with a permltted uae.
e. Storage of petroleum or natural gae
or any of their by-products, provided that the
totel atorage capacity is leas than ten
thousand (10,000) gallons or other applicable
unit of measure, and that storage of such
products ia placed underground.
3. Conditional Usea: In the o-p Zone the
following uses and their acce&sory usea may
be allowed by conditional uae permit as
provided in Section 4-31-36 of the City Code:
a. Churches.
b. Heliporta.
c. Peraonal, recreational and repair
services and retail uaes, aubject to the
standards of Section 4-31-16C2.
d. Additional uses as identified in
Section 4-31-36D1. (Ord. 3937, 9-16-85) .
e. On·aite hazardous waste traatment
and atorage facilities. (Ord. 4186, 11-14-88)
4. Prohibited Uses: In the o-p Zone the
following uaes are prohibited:
a. Reaidential uaea.
b. Automobile, motorcycle, truck, boat,
mobile home, trailer, and recreational vehicle
aalea, rental, repair, service and atorage
activitiea, except repair and maintenance may
be permitted if incidental to a permitted use.
c. Any outdoor atorage or display of
materials or products.
d. All other us .. not included in Section
4-31-16B1 through 4-31-1683. (Ord. 3937,
9-16-85)
e. Off·site hazardous waste treatment
and storags faciliti ... (Ord..4186, 11-14-88)
C. Development Standards: In the o-p Zone the
following development atandarda shall apply,
except as otherwise provided by this Section.
1. Site Plan Approval: Site plan approval
ahall 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 ().P Zane. A building site plan shall be
IIIed and approved iD a=orcIance with the
City Code prior to Iuuance oC any building
permits. Eadl builciIJIg or other development
permit IaauecI .hall be In conformance with
tIIAI approved aite plan.
2. Stlllldarde I'or &tai1 and Selected Service u .. : For thoee I8rvice and retail uaes
idlllltifted iD Section 4-31-16B3c, the I'ollowing
etIIIIdards .hall apply:
&. The deeign oC It:rw:turee, including
ligna, ohall be generally aansistentln
character with surrounding uaes. No drive-up
window. or outside automobile s.rvice shall
be permitted.
b. No .xterior display oC m.rchandise
shall be permitted.
c. In order to avoid the n.gative impacts
or strip commercial development:
(1) &tai1 or eelected service uses shall
be developed as part oC larger, planned
commercial. office or industrial
complexs. having aammon architectural
or Iand.caping theme.. Such retail or
oervice use. .hall not stand alone and
.hall not occupy more than fifty percent
(50~) of a jointly developed building
aampleL
(2) Direct arterial acce.. to Individual
uaea shall occur only when alternative
accesa to local or collector streets or
consolidated w:ceaa with adjacent us .. is
not feasible.
(3) Roof .igna ahall be prohibitad.
FrM-standing .igna .hall not exceed ten
feet (10') in height and .hall be located
at least twenty feet (20') from any
property lloe, except for entrance and
exit signa.
'3. Setbacks:
•• Streets: All buildinga and structuras
ohalI be located a minimum of sixty feet (60')
or twenty percent (2~) or the' lot depth,
whichever is leas, from any public street or
hiahway property lloe. In any case, if the
acija.cent public street is a major or secondary
arterial, the setback shall be at least thirty
feet (30').
"'31-16
b. Other Yards: All builclinp and
.t:rw:turee ohalI be located a minimum of
twenty feet (20') or ftftaen peraont (1&~) of
the tot width, ,whichever is .... &am any
property line which .u-not abnt a public
.treet or highWay.
c. Acijacent to' Large St:ructure.: The
required yard setbacks acijacent ID any build-
Ing or structure with a building footprint
greater than twenty five thousand (25,000)
square feet ahall be Increased one !'oat {I') (or
each additional two thousand (2,000) sqUAIB
feet of building footprint. up ID a mu:imum of
one hundred feet (100? abutting pubUc
atreets, and sixty feet (GO? In other yards.
d. Adjacent to &aidential lAta:
Whenever a proposed use in the ().P Zane
aharas a common property line with .. tot that
ia designated any reeidential use on both tbe
City of &nton comprehensive plan and zoning
map, the minimum' setback aantiguous to the
common property lloe .hall be fifty feet (50').
Whenever an adjacent lot contains a
reaidential usa and either the comprehensive
plan or zoning designation or both is
something other than residential, then the
appropriate aetback and landacaping acijacent
to tbe residential lot shall be determiDed by
aite plan approval. A aita plan decision to
require more than the minimum setback and
landacaping shall consider the long term
viability of the reeidential usa, the presence or
other residential UB88 in the lurrounding
area, and .uch other Indications of stability as
owner-occupancy and housing condition.
•. Use of Setback Areas: All required
setback areas .hall be unoccupied and
unobstructed except for off-street parking and
loading, driveways, entrance roads, lawn
sprinklers, walkways, landscaping, onIlnlllj'
and n ..... ary utility service facilities, utility
poles, lighting fixtures, idantiJYing ana
direction .igns and underground installations
accessory to any permitted use_
f. Flexihle Setbacks: With site plan
approval and .ubject to applicable Dlii1d!ng
and f\l'8 codas, one of the sid. setbaclu ,(not
adjacent to a public street or residenual use,
as d.fmed in Section 4-31-16C3d may be
reduced or eliminatad if the total width of
both .ide setbacks is at least twice the widtb
of the minimum .etback .pecified in 'Section
r
\.
(
c
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-31-16
C3t) +:I1-1&C3babove; and the rear setback not
.oijacant to a publlc atreet may be reducacl or
eliminated It the &ont setback is lDcreaaed
..-nIinsIy. The alte plan declaion ohaII be
basad on a ftndlng thet, witb reducacl aet-
bacb, tbe architectural daaign, builellng orien-
tation, cin:ulation, noise and glare of the
proposed project will be compatible with adja-
cent WI8fI and with the purpose and intent of
the o-p Zone.
•• Height: Builellng heights in the O·P Zone
ahell be eatabllahed with conaideration to
aoijacent land WI88 and ahall be determined as
followa:
a. Adjacent to Single FamilylLow
Density Multi-Family Uaea: No height limit
ahell be required provided that for each one
foot (1 ~ of builcllng height there ahall be
provided one foot (1') of yard setback on the
periphery of the aite where the office park
use is aoijacent to a single family or low
density multiple family use located on a lot
daaignated single family or low dsusity
multi-family on the City of Renton
comprehenaive plan and zoning map.
b. Adjacent to All ,Other Uaea: No height
limit ahall be required provided that all re-
quired yard aetbacks adjacent to such other
ueea shall be increased one foot (1') for each
adelltional one foot (1') of height above forty
five feet (401.
c. Theae setback/beight requirements
cannot be modified by application under the
PUD process.
5. Landscaping:
a. There ahall be a minimum landscaped
setback of twenty feet (20') from all public
atreet or highway rights of way.
b. There ahall be a minimum landscaped
setback of ten feet (10') or one-half (lI2) the
required setback, whichever is lea.. from all
other property linea.
Co A minimum of twenty percent (20%)
of the aite ahell be retained in landscaped
open apace. A maximum of one-half (112) of
thla requirement may be on the roofs of
atructurea, provided amployees and the public
have accesa to the area. A maximum of
seventy five percent (75'l1i) of thia requirement
may be within the required perimeter
+:11-16
landscaping. The twenty percent (20%)
minimum landscaping requirement may not
be reduced it a site is developed ae a PUD.
d. All areaa not covered' by builellnga,
atructurea or paved aurfacaa .hell be land-
acaped. Areaa set aaide for future develop-
ment on a lot may be hydro_dad.
e. Where parking lots are adjacent to
one another, perimeter landscaping ahall not
be req uired.
f. Any wall IUrface greater then thirty
feet (30') in width lacking windowa or doors
ahall be aoftened by landscaping or archi-
tectural features, such aa change of texture or
wall modulation. Such landscaping aha II
include treea over liz feet (&1 in height placed
no more than thirty feet (30') on center or in
clusters.
g. With aite plan approval, the perimeter
landscaping setbacks required by Section 4-31-
16C5a and b above may be reduced in width
up to fifty percent (50'lli) It the equivalent
square footsga of landscaping is provided
elaewhere within the site. Site plan approval
shall be baaed on a finellng that the
altemativa landscaping arrangement provides
buffering and lite amenitiea equal to or better
than that which would be achieved by strict
application of the Code. The relocated land-
scaping ahall not be located within the rear
setback of the site.
6. Refuse: 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, which ahall be screened by
fences or landscaping. No refuse shall be
stscked higher than the screening fence or
landscaping.
7. Parking/Circulation: Parking and circulation
standards required shall be aa follows:
a. Accesa: The principal accesa ahall be
from an arterial or collector atreet and shall
be oriented to the leaat traveled street when·
ever two (2) or more auch arteriela or collec·
tors abut the aite.
b. Parking/Circulation: Parking and
circulation areaa along a common lot line with
a residential use located on a lot deaignated
aa 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
+S1·16
C1b) Renton compreheMve plan and zoning map
,hall be a1lowacl only if a ten foot (10') wide
afght-obecuring lanclacaping strip and a silt
foot (6') high 1O!ld fence are providacl along
the common boundary line.
c. Parking and Loaeling:
(1) See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City
Code.
(2) All loacllng doclea and roU.ap doora
• haIl be located at the rear of buildings
or screened 10 that they are not visible
from any poiat along the abutting public
right of way.
(S) At ao time shall any part of a·
vehicle be allowed to extend into a
public right of way while the vehicle Is
being loadacl or unloaded. All loading
and unloacling maneuvers shaD be
conducted on private property.
8. Environmental Performance Stendards: The
foUowing minimum standards shall be met by
all activities within the O·P Zone. For all
activities which may produce objectionable or
otherwise prohibited conditions, the property
owner or lessee shall furnish design specifica·
tions or other ecientific evidence of compliance
with these standards.
•• Noise: See Title VIII, Chapter 7,
Noise Level Regulations.
b. Smoke:
(1) Visible grey smolea shall not be emit·
ted from any source in a greater density
of gray 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 different color but with an
equivalent apparent opacity.
c. Dust, Dirt, Fly Ash or Airborne
Solido: No observable dust, dirt, fly ash or
airborne IOlida shall be emitted.
d. Odorous Gasea and Matter: No
odorous gases or matter in a quantity suf·
IIclent to evolea a rasponse from the average
peraon beyond the exterior property lines
.hall be emitted.
e. Toxic Gases and Matter: No emissions
4-S1·17
or toxic gaaea or matter ahaU be permitted.
r. Vibration: No vibration IhaU be
permitted to exceacl 0.003 of one Inch ella-
placement or 0.03 (g). peak acceleration,
whichever Is ,",atar, as meaauracI at any
point outeide the property linea of the lot or
site. This shaD apply In the &equency range
of zero to lIve tho .... and (0 • 6,000) cycles per
lecond. Shock abaorbera or limUar mounting
shall be allowed to permit compliance with
this specification •
g. Glare and Heat:
(1) No glare and heat from any source
shall be permitted to be unreasonably
objectionable beyond the exterior pro-
perty lines of a lot or .1 teo
(2) All exterior or wall mounted lighting
fixtures .hall be directed away from
public street. or rights of way. Exterior
lighting fixtures sbaD be equipped with
hoods or reflectors 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, 9·16-85)
4-31·17: AlRPORT ZONING:
A. Zones: In order to regulate the usa of
property in the vicinity of the airport, all of
the land within two (2) miles south and one
mile sast and west of, or that part of the
erea that is within the City limits of Renton,
Washington, whichever is nearast the
boundaries of the airport, i. 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 1, 1956, which plan is
made a part hereof.
B. Height Limits: Except as otherwiae provided.
in this Code, no structure or tree shall be
erected, altered, allowed to grow or be main-
talnacl in any airport approach zone or airport
turning zone to a height in excess of the
height limit herein established for such zone.
For the purposes of this regulation, the
following height limits are hereby established
for each of the zones in queation: (On!. 1542,
(·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 P\an: The approved
larulscaping reqWremenID may be mocW!ed
uJlOll request to the: Building and Zoning
Department. The plana may be approved,
deDied or returned to the applicant with
11IIIIr8fltiOns for chang8fl that would make
, them acceptable.
F. Landscape Requirementa -Specific:
1. Exieting illant Material: Existing t:reea and
other vegetation on the site of a proposed
davelopment may be uaed where practical if
the quality is equal to or better than
available nursery stock.
2. Green River Valley: Any davelopment in
the Green River Valley shall provide a
minimum of two pen:ent (2%) of the total site
for landscaping suiteble for wildlife babitet.
This landscaping is in addition to any ather
landscaping requirements by this Section or
any other ordinanc:e.
. 3. Shorelines Master Program: Any
;,development within the protected shoreline.
'lirea sball be required to meet the standard.
and requirements of the City of Renton
Shorelin8fl Master Plan.
4. Slopes:
a. General: The faces of cut and fill
slopes shall be developed and maintained to
control against erosion. Thi. control msy
consist of effective planting. The protection for
the slopes shall be installed within thirty (30)
days of grading completion and prior to ..
request for final project approval. Where
slopes are not subject to erosion due to the
erosion-resistent character of the materials
.uch protection may be omitted with the
permission of the Public Works Department,
provided that this protection Is not required
by the rebabilitation plan.
b. Other Devices: Where necessary,
"'check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices
or methods shall be employed to control
erosion and sediment, provide safety and
control the rate of water run-off.
6. General Requirementa:
a. Exlating desirable vegetetion .hould
be preserved where applicable.
b. Stripping of vegetative slopes where
hlll'll1lUl erosion and run-oft' will oocur shall
be avrided.
c. Are.. of fragile natural environments
should be protected lrom development and
encroachment. '
d. If practicable, unique feature. within
the eite should be preserved and incorporated
into the .its development d8flign (auch as
'prings, .treams, marsh e., .ignificant
vegetetion, rock out-croppinga and .ignificant
ravine.).
G. Maintenance:
1. Landscaping required by thi. Section shall
be maintained by the owner ancllor occupant
and .hall be .ubject to periodic inspection by
the Building and Zoning Department.
Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy,
growing condition and those dead or dying
.hall be replaced within six (6) montha.
Property owners shall keep the planting areas
reasonably tree of weeds and litter.
2. The Building Director or his dasignated
representetive, i. authorized to notify the
owner or hie 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 Zoning
Department shall send the property owner or
his egent two (2) written notices, each with a
fifteen (15) day response period. The notices
shall specUY the date by which aaid
maintenance mu.t be accompli.hed and sball
be addr81lBed to the property owner or agent's
l .. t 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 oft'ense. (Ord. 3718, 3-28-83)
4-31-35: GREENHELT REGULATIONS:
A. Purpose and Intent: Greenbelt areas are
characterized by severe topographic, ground
water, slope instebility, soU or other physical c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A) limitations that make the 8l'e88 UDSUitable for
intansive development. Provisions for public
enjoyment of sreenbelt areas are encouraged;
however, sreenbelt designations do not imply
public owuersblp or the right of public acce ••.
The purpose of these regulations is to
supplement the policies contained in the
comprehensive plan regarding sreenbelts by
the control of development, by minimizing
damage due to landslide, .ub.idence or
ero.ion, by protscting wetlands and
fi.h-bearing watsrs, and providing physical
reUef between expanaea of similar land use ••
Implementation of theaa regulation. will
protsctthe public against avoidable lo •• es due
to maintanance and replacement of public
facilitie., property damage, subsidy co.t of
public mitigation of avoidable impacts,· and
costs for publi<: .mergency rescue and relief
operations. The.e regulation. .upplement but
do not replace the underlying zoning
regulations for specific propertie.. The.e
regulations will provide re.ponsible City
offici .... with information to condition or deny
public or private projects to protect potsntially
hazardous areas and to avoid the nece •• ity of
preparing environmental impact statements in
caaa. where there will not be significan t
adverse environmental etrects, thus expediting
governmental approval proce •• es.
B. General Provisions: Greenbelt regulations
apply to areas that are first designated ~.
greenbelt on the City's comprehensive land
use map and al.o identified as containing one
or more of the following physical criteria:
1. Stecp Slope Areas: Areas with slopes that
Oltceed twenty five percent (25%).
2. Physical Hazard.: Ara"'l identifiable as a
severe landslide hazard or areas whe,... other
severe hazards are anticipated including
erosion, sei.mic, flood, and coal mine
subsidence.
3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way:
Major electricity, water and gas transmission
line easemen!a and rights of way.
4. Other Criteria: Wetlands, stream corrido:'9,
and flood control works.
The actual presence or absence of the criteria
ilIu.trated above in sreenbelt areas, as
determined by qualiJiad profes.ional and
I 480
4-31-35
tschnical 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 ncept for normal
maintenance with writtan approval by the
Building and ZOning Department for .uch
activities as trimming of vegetation or
removal of dangerous or diaeaaed plant
material._
D. Development Standards: Whenever a proposed
development requires a building permit,
grading permit, shoreline substantial
development permit, conditional uaa permit,
variance, rezone, planned unit development,
subdivision or .hort .ubdivision, and one or
more of the greenbelt criteria as defined in
Section 4-31-35B above i. present on the site
of the propo.ed development, .tudie. by
qualified professional. may be required. The
City shall .end written notification to the
applicant whenever .uch .tudie. are required.
The City may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny any .uch propo.a1 to CSIT)'
out the purpo.e. of this Section.
Whenever a propo.ed development involve.
only one single family dwelling, which i. not
part of a larger development propo.a1, the
City shall not require .pecial .tudie. or
. reports by the applicant.
1. Steep Slope Areas: These regulations apply
to land form features of a .ite between
significant and identifiable chango. in .lope.
•. Definitions (.ee Exhibit "A" for an
illustration of th ••• definitions):
(1) Slope .hall be defined as the average
.Iope of the lot or portion thereof in
percent between significant changes in
.Iope, determined by observation· on
.imple .Iopes, or more preci.ely by the
formula:
Sa 100 I L
A
(2) Where "I" is the contour interval in
feet but not greater than tan feet (10');
"L" i. 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
DId) contour lill8ll 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
Meen feet (151 in width.
b. Development Ia prohibited on slope8
greater than forty percent (40%).
c. In greenbelt areas with between
twenty five percent (25'.4» and forty percent
(40'.4» slope the maximum residential density
.shall be:
,
(1) One unit per acre, and for each one
percent (1'.4» of slope in excese of twenty
five percent (25'.4», an additional nine
hunclrad (900) square feet in lot area per
dwelling unit shall be required.
(2) When the current zoning designation
exceeds one dwelling IlIlit per acre the
allowable development density in the
steep slope area shall be reduced to
one-fourth ('I,>, and for each one percent
(1'.4» of elope in excess of twenty five
percent (25'.4», the remaining ailowable
dwelling unit density shall· be reduced
by an additional five percent (5'.4».
d. The maximum nonresidential
buildable area shall be reduced to one-fourth
('I'>, and for each one percent (1'.4» of slope in
ex.... of twenty five percent (25'.4», the re-
maining buildable area shall be reduced by an
additional five percent (5'.4».
e. Greenbelt areas between twenty five
percent (25'.4» and forty percent (40%) slope
shall be subject to special review to assure
stable building conditions, sare and convenient
aocea. and minimum disruption of the natural
physical featuree of the land. The City may
requira the applicant to IUrnlsh a report by a
licell88C!. engineer to evaluate the site.
However, the City may waive the requirament
for special studies where sufficient
inCormation Is otherwise available to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the
development permit.
2. Physical Huarda: Greenbelts eetablished
upon these criteria should be developed only
4-31-35
with great caution and development sbonld be
baaed on eound engineering and technical
knowledge. The King County Sensitive Areas
Map Folio dated March, 1980, ia bereby
adopted by reference to asslat in the
determination of and evaluation of physical
hazard areas as preacribed by tbIa SectIon.
a. As a general rule, development should
not increase the risk of hazard either on or
oft'-site. Where detailed technical information
Ia provided illustrating that development can
be sarely accommodated, development that i.
compatible with the degree of hazard and
with surrounding usas may be allowed..
Provided, any such development retains at
least seventy five percent (759&) of the site in
open space or Ia landscaped compatibly with
the physical hazards.
b. The City may require site specific
studiee, completed by a qualilled soile
engineer or engineering geologist or other
qualified profeaeionals, which shall include
specific recommendations for mitigating
measure. which ehould be rsqulred as a
condition of any approval for such
development. The recommendations may
include, but are not limited to, construction
techniques, design, drainage, or density
specifications, or seasonal conetraints on
development. Upon review of these studies,
the development permit shan be conditioned
to mitigste adverse environmental impacts
and to assure that the deveiopment can be
sarely accommodated on the sits end Ia
consistent with the purposes of thia Section.
The City may waive the requirement for
special studies where sufficient information is
otherwise available to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the development permit.
3. Utility Easements and Rights of Way: A
limited number of low intensity usas
consistent with the existing zoning and utility
use may be permitted within utility
greenbelte such that the proposed
development meete the intent of providing a
definitive geographic relief between adjoining
existing or anticipated land usa. Allowable
uses include:
a. Any structures or activity directly
aaaoclated with the supply or service of
utilitlel;
I
I f,;.,.,,,,
r""'!:
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I(
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
4-31·35
D3) b. A&rlculture;
Co Residential open 1IJI8C88;
d. Recreational &ctlvitlee and facilitlee;
e. Parking ueociated with adjoining land
WI8S -provided that no more than the
following perc8Iltage of the sraenbelt area is
covered with impervious lunacee and the
remainder Is compatibly lanclacaped or
retalDed in a Datural &tete:
Twenty five percent (25%), if the most
reatrletive adjacent loning is R·l or 0-1;
Fifty percent (50'1», if the moat reetrictlve
adjacent loDing Is R·2, R·3, R-4, T, or P·I;
BUty five percent (65%), if the moat
reetrictlve adjacent zoning is 8-1, ()'P, 1,.1,
H·I, or M-P;
r. Production of reeourcee -provided
that the area is rehabiliteted consistent with
the sraenbelt 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 landacaping.
4. Other Greenbelts: Wetlands, stream
corridors and flood conQ-a1 faci1itles designated
sraenbelt shall be subject to the development
standards of the City's shoreline muter
program urban environment where those
shoreline regulations would not otherwise
apply.
F. Other Allowable Usee:
1. Nothing in these regulations shall limit the
construction of one single family bome on a
pre-existing platted lot, subject to meeting
any engineering requirements neceaaary to
.ately constrw:t such a residence.
2. Where the provisions of these regulations
limit construction of public or private utilities
or appurtenant structuree, approval for such
conatrw:tlon may be granted by approval of a
conditional use permit subject to a showing of
necesaity and compatibility of the use with
these regulations. (Ord. 3849, I()'~)
(See following page for Exblbit A,
Steep Slope Illustretlon)
4-31-36
4-31-36: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
A. Purpose: Tha purpoee of a conditional use
permit is to allow certain uses In diatricts
from which they are normally prohibited by
this Chapter when the propoaed usee are
deemed consistent with other existing and
potential U888 within the general area of the
proposed use. Except u provided In thia
SectIon, • conditional use permit may not
reduce the requirements of the lone in which
the use is to be located.
B. Conditional Use Permit: The Hearing
Examiner 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
limit the term and duration of the conditional
use permit. Conditions imposed by the
Hearing Examiner shall reasonably assure
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 proposed use
shall be compatible with the general purpose,
goals, objectives 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 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. That the proposed location is suited
for the proposed use.
3. Etrect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed
use at the proposed location shall not result
in substantial or Wldue adverse etrecta on
adjacent property. Tha following site
requirements shall be required:
a. Lot Coverage: Lot coverage in
reeidential districts (R-1 and R-2) shall not
exceed I!fty percent (50'1» of the lot coverage
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
4-31·36
I • • • i :
ExhlbJt ;..
Steep Slope Illustration
~ ____ -.lo ---
-------" ~
I ;; • i ; •
r ;; • " 5 3 • -. 5 ;,~ J •. . " I ;; ..... i,J • ..H~ .. (u.~ J H H I +.+.I ........... u,!.U
• • · .. ~ -
.............. ,. . .
_----J'" ....
• i • ~ !
It ~ ~. ! •
I
----~ ------~~.-
;j
.. '"
~. £~ ...1::
C" C"
~ I:!
8 ... ..
• • .. :
i
.Ii • t ~
u _er
5-•• <4----= v-=:
Ib _____ I!!..;....-----f~ ---------------
11\
. ., • ...
•
I 1" ______ -------10 - - - - - -.. ------_._--
.,
f' . ",'" ... I
' , .... ., ................ .
I I r;<ffiJi,;-rr,\ ttl' , t t t j'j'
5=~
r ;
• I.
i ;; s
!
J
J • • • I
J
I • • i
I • • :
I Ii. r-
I
I
•
10 - ----- - - -• -----I. . -. --
I
I
!
i
II>
'" ,
I
~
(
(
i j I 1 I ..... .
..s ~ ··I'vS ';" . , 7-
I --I'
IJ.,.J::=-::· .. ~I ~~~L..
I
L.
Ac"" ... ' :......... ..
J--=--------
M-P
I
I
I
I
: r
I
-1-.
-,-.-~.
I
, ,
"""--- -i ---.... ""-
,-
i <.' \ ~,
.... is''' _. '. " .-;_ ..... _M __
... '
, ' .' .... ........ ....
0"" .. .......... .
I o-p
\ __ I-
I
I
1
MET.R ~ \
P-II \ \
------:-+---.-~
PO' 5 A I L . \i-
I \
I
'\
,"HI Jllnt.
. ;
"
L-
"Ii j, .. ", r--
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 TES. 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
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 pan 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 ascenain 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 panicularly complex, and the edge we show on these sketches is a simplified
delineation.
-- -- -
-- ---- ---
":'h'~ .-
,
We.t1and Edge·ldentifi~d· by EC.OLOGY·
. . '.
SLACK RIVER
RIPARIAN FOREST
(Burg, 4/87)
• rREFER TO ATTACHEO EXPL.ANATIONl
lOF WETL.ANO· TYPES j
c;:J Vegetaeed Weeland
ISalurolcd 0( $ouon;IIlIy Floodod I.
~opon WaCor
IPetmanonll1 or Seml.PermanenUY Floodod I
:::-: --__ "":: :0'-"''' -0;":"-00,,:: :::: :_-_< __ -_: __ ,
......... ;,. "" . ,. , ,
Edge of Project:
Wetland Edge
Scol e
1"1 = lIpproK •• :100'
_ We1:land Type Boundary
____ Approxlmace Waclend Boundary
__ 'Llnesr Watland Feature
......... Jncluded Wetland ·Feature
~"Open Water Channel
u,_ ... · Pipe : Dr c;:i.llverc .. •• . , ., .' .' •• • • . ' •• , . , ' .~\
\.
=,n,)? ~
. "~!"p~~tE)~ .~P~~ -.---.---.-.... -.... : ........... ~ .. . . .. ". " .,
.'
,:
"
"
" " .'
" "
"
" . ' .' .' . '
" "
WL
F7!al6ll.J
.....
,
METRO
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study. Canning. 1981
, '".
"', \"(."1-
''''\..r.,. ... :' .. ".. ............
..... QO'6
.... , ...... ~(4fy
........... :J.f(D ........ --
..Fi:~
-.
,/
/
Figure 3
---------_ .... _--------------
i S. h'" ~' • S'Tr:.=E~ . ............ ::.:.::.~::-------_ .. ---
" .' .'
"
"
"
"
"
:'
.' ..
, .
, ,
,
i r ,
I
I
.. -_ .. ---.
, ,
_.-- - ----
·~17.·.· .•
Wetland Edge-Identified, by Jones & Stokes (6/89) using the·' .
Three Parameter Joint Federal Methodology
SLACK J:lIVEJ:I
J:lIPAJ:lIAN FOJ:lEST
rREFER TO ATTACHED EXPLANATION1
lOF WETLANC TYPES j
GJ Vogccacad Wetland
ISatyr.tad or Sa.o$QRaUy Floodod I.
~cpcn Wacer
:::-:::::::::: :.:::,::: ;;;:;::_-... ::::::: :::: ::: ........... Scale
__ Edge of Project
1" = appro)( . .qoo·
I Permanenttr or Soml .. Porinanontir Floodod J
_ Wecland Type Boundary
...:. ___ ApproxlnlBCB Wecland Boundary
_ 1.1near Wetland Feature
..... _. Jncluded Wetland "Feecure
~"Cpen Wacer Channel
4:',-_ Pip~ : Dr C;::uJvert
f~
--Wetland Edge
F7/IIIIt41
'1T
.~:/~ ~_~ .. !tO.!!~:
I ":'."_~ __ ~-~~~~~~:'!:.~~~ __ "'''''''_''' .. '. . , ", . '
" .'
.' ,I
,I .'
"
" .. ..
" " .. ,. ..
. -
..
" . ' .' . ' .' ,.
METRO.
Source: City of Renton Wetland Study. Canning, 1981
................ •• s ....... ~ -l.-" ','~ tI ,..., ..... ~ ~~~~_
....... ~("~ , . . ' ":"~o,<
Figure .)
......... .(.e
.. , ...... ..!~I?D
' ..
•••••••••••• .0::.. • .::..---------_ ..... , .... _--
" " .' " " " ..
' .
"
" " '. '. '. ;. . ' ., , .
" , .
-------------~---. ------_.-
-.~._\.:.-:~ .. -S7F:.Z E:-.-------_ . ......... -._-----_ ... : ; i ; : '. : ", .' , , I · , · , · . , . · , , , , , · , · . , .
j " ! 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
lD
SEA-TAC
AIRPORT
4 MILES o
SOUTH CENTER
S 180TH
O LONGACRES
:E §;
m '" en m
-i en
~ ~ .-r-.-m m -<
~
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 loint 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 (Allnls mlml) saplings
dominate the wetland. Common shrub species include willow (SMx spp.) and red-osier
dogwood (Comus stolonifera). Common snowberry (Symphoricarpos iIllms), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor)" and Nootka rose (RQsa nootkana) occur occasionally
throughout the wetland. Groundcover species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus
£epens), marsh speedwell (veronjca scuttellata), soft rush (Juncus effuSus), sedge (QIrex
sp.), horsetail (EQ.uisetum arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), stinging nettle (Urtjca
djojca), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), reed canarygrass (phalaris arundjnaceae), burreed
(Xanthium 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 (Twha latifolia), with marsh speedwell and
fireweed (Epilobium angustjfoHa) also present. Small amounts of small-fruited bulrush
(ScirpuS mjcrocarpus) are scattered throughout the system.
fuill&. 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.SY 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).
Sumrhary of Data Collected in the
Southeast Portion of Wetland #1
Plot # vegetation SQil Hydrology Result
I, + 1 wetland upland upland upland
1, -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.
Slills. 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 spike rush (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 2.5Y 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
Ilchif .t4"l~
Robert Denman
Hydrologist
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
client: Ktf6Y1 ~~~!~ct~79jC4~ K.
vegetation
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
of: l'i
Indicator
STR:
~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover status !JH~e~r-"b",s~ ___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~r~u~b~s______ % Cover
1 .~oyuk'5j( I d~ CY"'-f-
2.(o!ws d.~c('
3.~ "f'
Indicator
St'atus
d~.·,:·, .. ··'"'1 Percent of 'lSpecl.es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:
-----
Indicator
Status
(fic.w
.fAc...
:-(as"" ..... V)
O\UJ -
fk:,-i
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegeta--:-t-:'i-o-n-:i:?:-:":Y-e-s--';7-:N""o-_-_-_--:B:-a-s-:i""s-:---::7'"'2~O· "70 of dMII.tCa.rt '4lP aJW-FAc
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: • Texture A: 54r.d~ IIlgm Texture B: ~54nI""":l---::--:~
Mottled? Yes No Mottle color: Matrix color: 0-5' .t.Sy $j:J
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 ___ NoL Basis: 0ol0C 00 oI otllf\ 'icr<\~.
Hydrology
r Inundated? Yes ____ No~ Dept~ of standing water:. __ ~~ ______ _
Saturated soils? Yes No./ Depth to saturated soil: __________ __
Otherindicators: ------
Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s~-_~~N70-~--~B:-a-s-l~·S~:-N:-".1-.-n£-I-o~l.-~-y---------
Atypical situation? Yes No conunent: ___ 'c _________ _
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)
o if" I -PM '):., J Plot No I: I J -I of: ,4 STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s~_____ % Cover
1. fI f nu'. (vbr r.
2. 'I',,\,vl"~ H ,u,c,;...jO-.
3. R"k\1r.> d'~( .. C.\lf ao
Indicator
status ~H~e~r~b~s~ __ _ % Cover
}~ 1, -lLJr.c.u-:, c.f.fU1US .R'5
d,'"'''' 2 • ~"",".";"<.ui,",, C""f~ ::l.0
3. C,C",{".;r1 o.(v.w...... 15
"--;j'"'; )(w;nh, u(l'.Sf, C'mo.,-, .. ", 5
5. R"r.'J...I. CII::'!',,:; 5
6.
Indicator
st'atus
f ~.'-
F f,c. r IID)-
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66q.
Other indicators:
Indicator
status
fAC.W
FAc.w
Fllc..u-
ffle..
fllc.1J..l
Hydrophytic vegeta--:-t-:-i-o-n-=?""""Y-e-s :..2.--, "1""':N""o-_-_-_--::B:-a-s-:i-s-:---?~cP "lo fAe. or uy. tJJ
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No __
A-Horizon depth: 0 -i' Texture A: s-:..m; I,x." Texture B: S I f!'"k;,,,,,
Mottled? YesL No Mottle color: Matrix color: B.5y 3/01
Gleyed? Yes_ No.L Depth to Mottle or Gle'y: I
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till: '
Hydric soils? Yes ./ No__ Basis:~r~~.u,)~d~%~H~( ____________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'--s-07i~1-:------------
Otherindicators: -.--.
Wetland hydrology? Yes ;/'NO__ Basis :7.~·.~/::...1Gf:s::.' "":.::....Jl!./'I~.;2.::.;c:::t:....:... ____________ _
Atypical situation? Yes No Comment: _______________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --./ Non-wetland _______ _
Ge~eral site comments:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & Stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 12it Q.n
Proj ect: P-}: "'. 0 .?fc ,'eM \:.
Date:-'''<.j!'-:1 .... _..,...._'-~ ...... __ -'''J __ Plot No.: d, '" I of:--wI't_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~rsese~s~_____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs
~ "'i":' • •
% Cover
Indicator
Status LJHse~r~b~s~ ____ _ % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
• 1.~.;nr.I.J\v:' (~ 1:1.:)
2. \G.>1l'<J( UISF\.}5 10
3. S o!nr ... ,." du\(.£i.I"<.I."', 10
4. CV\Q:>'~. S
5 .. Jlq·', LLlS QJ4·l.i'~US r. 6 • . \ -
Indicator
Status
nc..W
-T"flCU)
fAe..
_~l.~op"'''''' 1r",t.c~
I 2. &O.JL,) "'f.
3. Cornvs Sk~OO t' ....
{;,o
10
10
(\ '", \~ ... t1\.
I Percent of"spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: /007.
other indicators:~~~~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~
Hydrophytic vegetation? yesL No __ Basis: (Ct)~7.. '''I-:r-dcrf!trYw.f'j{fP. [f,c...-rr~'V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __
A-Horizon depth: Q-'i" Texture A: S'~ Texture B:
Mottled? Yes-L No __ Mottle color:l" I Matrix color:;} c) ~,J
Gleyed? Yes No'; Depth to Mottie 0 Gley:
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 .,.i-n-c":"h-e-s-:--------------
Depth to Till: __ ~~(~ __ ~~~~_~
-:--.Il" I" . Hydric soils? Yes~No __ Basis: bUt-I~ li,cLllrri -:;:'/" (rhllSi
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water:. __ ~~------------
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soil:~ __ ~ __
Otherindicators: r11r1& fir;ZFC·-['_1,-,1.' k'fjd,,~Ch .:r; il"l,~d,,~, "a,.!.;",
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No __ Basis: ~ \::
Atypical situation? Yes No Comrnent: ________________________ __
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: wetland. __ === __ -II.!c-_____ 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: {If STR:
Client: "R~t Q.!l Project: B}~ .e. :0 'f;'. 7M\; Date:--"0,,,!,-:1.J._-f-'_I-~+-__ -!j~'-__ Plot No.: ;(-/12 ----
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s______ % Cover
1.
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
l.70""kS \('~ 'io
2. Air" .. " r"'mll..-5
3.
Indicator
Status .... H ... e~r-"'b"'s'--___ _ % Cover
Indicator
Status
{""AC
File..
~l.JU~r,~~~~ 6
'" 2 '-~"".v(l(""'\L:' ,",¥-f1S ,
!: b-.>I\~ '3rd I r-"-,t6\ ko.'-'O.S-
5.
6.
Indicator
Status
(lic u.'
ffic..u
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: iDa
other indicators: Iw:iJlA" sf,.,~ l.u:wc.s
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes:z:No ___ Basis: ___________________ __
soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ NO __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0-( Texture A: Texture B: c)ou • ...J.j "rt i'
Mottled? Yes V No_ Mottle color: Matrix color:'i:·, ;,;;;i y,,.1J,,
Gleyed? Yes_ No___ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ ____________ __
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ___________ _
Depth to Till: / Hydric soils? Y~e--s-V'-7~N~O~-_-_--~B~a-s-1~'S--::::::: _________________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ No /Dep" of standing water:
Saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated'--s-o-=i'l-:-----------
Otherindicators: ---
Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s---./~N7o-_-_-_---:B~a-s-1~ .. s--:-e--c-.. ~-r-/-~-.-;~)-------------
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 'Q~t no project:e,f-= e: a lfc.?M\;, Date:--l:0~!L!1.L_.f.,:l_L..:_:l-__ -II.!L:....._ Plot No.: t.j .. I of: i'i STR: ____ _
vegetation
Indicator Indicator
~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover status !lH;e.!.r-",b~s,--___ % Cover Status
1-
2.
3.
saplings/
shtybs
~ l.~~:t
?\< 2 .'P~ (' ,cJv,
3.
% Cover
50
'iD
Indicator
status
tAe -tl\I~(.
F"c
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IQae/.
Other indicators: " '
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: ____________ _
soil
No series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes
A-Horizon depth: Texture A: C/a'l"¥ ~Ii Texture B: _____ _
Mottled? Yes~ NO~Mottle color: Matrix color:~)~~~'~(~~~0~
Gleyed? Yes No~ Depth to Mottle or Gley: i 4
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 -:i-n-c-=-h-e-s-:-------
Depth to Till: ____ ~---------~----~
Hydric soils? Yes2 No___ Basis: t'..if", ,1 / t(i!ri//r,;
/
Hydrology
'Inundated? Yes ___ No ~DePtn of standing water: __ --------
saturated soils? Yes No / Depth to saturated soil: _____ _
otherindicators: ----
wetlandhydrology~?~Y~e-s---,:;N~~O~-__ ---B-a-s-l~'S-:--'-"-<:-:'-"-~)-:)~' .. -----------------
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION
(Three Parameter Methodology)
Client: 12it U.!l
Proj ect: B!: e· 0 '1"1" ,'2M \;
Date:-'0'-1!'-"1 .... ~~_'-'_.l--__ --"-J __ plot No.: q, -t;L of:..J1..;.41--_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~___ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
Indicator
~s~t~a~t~u~s~_ uH~e~r~b~s~___ % Cover
Indicator
status
FAc.
fAe..
fAc-w
~ 1. JufiCJ.l> e.QLfi0.> 00
fr 2. YfJ!L.1Y'IIC'(", ~.vik!.bk ;;:'0
3. So IMIU (h duk C""""<L i 6
~: 1<'< ...... U(1wl., <¥1; ';,
6.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: IOd!t,
Indicator
Status
other indicators: .
Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~Y~e-s~'~-~N~O-_-_-_~B~a-s~is-:====: _____________ _
soil
series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes __ No __
A-Horizon depth: 0 -1:1 Texture A:~11 ,.\",1' IO/),!l\Texture B: _____ _
Mottled? Yes J No Mottle color: f Matrix color: jl.. 'h, '1/a
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-i~s-:~~~~~~ ______________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes ___ No ~ Depth of standing water:
Saturated soils? Yes ___ NO~ Depth to saturated-s-07i~I-:--------
Other indicators : 'cA-I • n~"!: (I tl1l1.t . -" i ("J" I '.0,
Wetland hydrology? No ___ Basis: ...;
Atypical situation? Yes No comment: _______________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland ---t/ 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: ~it !La Proj ect: e, .e. 0 if;' . 70.0 'f..
Date: ........ 04!'-'j .... _~_~~>-__ -"IT'-__ Plot No.: '-I t 3 of: l'i STR: ____ _
vegetation
Indicator
~T~r~e~e~s~_____ % Cover ~S~t~a~t~u~s~_ Herbs % Cover
Indicator
Status
l.
2.
3 •
. Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s_____ % Cover
.If 1.. ~b 1r,c.hr.c<l'F-90
2. '&r~ 'bY. i 0
3.
Indicator
Status
II 1. "Jl.ltV_v~ ~.".,s "7d6 '1.
k2. ::;ol'\)('.u"" clul~ < 10'1.
-"t 3. 'R..lnu.. c.r'"'isft)~ -<. 5'1.
4.
5.
6 .
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: '00
Other indicators:
fflW
-rAe.
ftlCJN
~~~~~--~~--~~~------Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~ No ___ Basis: ______________________ __
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Horizon depth: 0-8' Texture A: Texture B: __ -:=-...,..,..,.... __
Mottled? Yes~ No __ Mottle color: Matrix color: Sv '-I/r
Gleyed? Yes No Depth to Mottle or Gley: 1 9
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOp 32 inches: ________ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y~e--s--V'~~N~O~-_-_--~B~a-s~i's~'-'~~~~~ __________________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water:, __ ~~-------------
Saturated soils? Yes No---.L Depth to saturated soil: _______ _
Otherindicators: ---
Wetland hydrology-~?~Y~e-s-~--, ~N~o-_-_-_--~B~a-s-l'·S-·-.-~-,-v-.-J«-$-J~-------------------
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 Para~eter Methodology)
project:e:, e: 0 if,. 1 -eQ.()');,
STR:
Client: ~~t 0 C
Date:-"0'-+l_'j .... _I-l'-_-'~'--__ -"J ___ Plot No.: l-J, -\ of: I~ --------
vegetation
~T~r~e~e~s~____ % Cover
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h=ru~b~s_____ % Cover
Indicator
-",S.."tsa.."t""u..,s___ !.!H""e~r.!<b""s~ ____ _
Indicator
St'atus
'FAe
fAGLl-
F~ c..t.0
% Cover
Indicator
status
r' TAc.u-
fMc..\).)
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 661.
Other indicators:
Hydrophytic vegeta-~t~i-o-n~?~y~e-s-,-/~N70-_-_-_~B~a-s-~~·s--:~~~~~ __________________ _
Soil
Serie~ Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Hor~zon depth: o-Ier Texture A: meL Ie"" Texture B: __ -:::-____ .,..._
Mottled? Yes ,/ No Mottle color: ,\OJ Matrix color: 2, '5 ¥ 'i(:;;
Gleyed? Yes ___ No v( 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-Jr-":'N~o-=--_-_---:B;:-a-s-~;-· s---: ---;:;c:.a---rtu IQt:lro Ii.)1 rrnfj45 '
() i
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No~ Depth of standing water: __ ~~ __________ __
satur~te~ soils? Yes~ No~ Depth/to saturated soil: __ ~,,-______ _ Othennd~cators: fI'4rlf"VCQC-4 'I 'j,<j "noel r:C'w.Qd em uJL!.!\?l;/"$ 0'0 d<'
Wetland hydrology? Yes~'No ___ Basis: (J
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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jones & stokes Associates
WETLAND DETERMINATION .
(Three Parameter Methodology)
STR:
Client: 122it' !La project: B1~ ~. 0 lj-i:. Lao');,
Date:--l:0?.J/:....'1.L_.f.._:ci_I--__ ..!!~~_ Plot No.: H -g, of: 19 -----
vegetation
Indicator Indicator
Trees '.: Cover status Herbs % Cover Status
1->\' 1. ~~ CJJl""dIlT..ut.:. 30'1,:. fACw
2. ... 2. R.-.... f\OIlu) ("~ 10 r flc.J.;)
3. 3. (A()Ill>"'1 r ..... v~ <5 fftv~
4 • \leJlonIU~ ~d,,-, <5 0&_
5 . Snku..;m <I" 1«_", <:, fAe.... 6.
Saplings/ Indicator
shrubs '.: Cover Status
~ 1. ?opUi~ls trr.h:J:h.'jlo.. «0 FAG..
2. Rub;~ '3~.I,) rfjc_uJ
3. AI(,u'i> ("vl:fl ... File...
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 160
other indicators:~~~.~--~ __ --~-~---Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes~No __ Basis: _______________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: Q-'{" Texture A:~.~;lf Texture B: ---
Mottled? Yes...L No Mottle color: 4}),'8# Matrix color: 2.21( ;'Ix Yt)
Gleyed? Yes_ NoV;--Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~ _______ _
Percent organic content A Horiz: Top 32 inches: ______ _
Depth to Till:
Hydric soils? Y~e-s-Zl~~N~o~~-_--~B~a-s-l~'S-:-_-~C-~Q-~T7~C£-~~,r~n1~autV~4s~ ________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No __ Depth of standing water: __ ~_------
saturated soils? Yes No Depth to saturated soi1: ______ _
Otherindicators: ----.
Wetland hydrology? Yes2NO __ Basis:....:.r. .... , .. l(!Cw1oO". ... m......,RUdcP'--______ _
Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: ___________________ _
Normal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland determination: Wetland --,/ Non-wetland, _____ _
General site Comments:
'J •• 5y :;/.;;. (l:s)
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 n.o proj ect:0 € 0 if·. Lao\:.
Date:-I00!4!_'jL_I-_L:.I _______ ..!!\J~_ Plot No.: 1.-1, -3 of: 8 STR: ______ _
Vegetation
~T£re~e~s~____ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
oi" 1-ropub h ".hcr.("'f". '-to
J/r-2. AI(.u~ ~{)~"-40
J. ''''1rr.por·a=pos t&1;"..
Indicator
-£S~t~a~t~u~s~_ llHEe~rb~s ____ __
Indicator
St"atus
file..
F Ik:.-
f'liW
% Cover
Indicator
status
~ fie.. (,"""''''''':)
FAW'
f'AGw
fA<..w
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: ,cp
Other indicators:~~~ __ ----~/ __ ----~--~------Hydrophytic vegetation? Yes-L-No ___ Basis: ______________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No ___
A-Horizon depth: 0-(," Texture A: cJ'wf /g;." Texture B: 5o..c4~ loq",
Mottled? Yes ./ No Mottle color: Matrix color: _______ _
Gleyed? Yes ___ No ~ Depth to Mottle or Gley:~~----------------
Percent organic content A Horiz: TOP 32 inches: ____________ _
Depth to Till:_----~L(·-··----~ __ ~----_r_
Hydric soils? Yes 17 No Basis: C'al)( lU/rIldl/L.Fr
A-H.orl.); 1.5y '-1/;)_'> ~B-hdIP. J.5'1 '1/-l VoJ/ flltil/~
Hydrology Lei ",.otl 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--'/'~-B~a-s~is--:---------------------------
Atypical situation? Yes No comment: _______________________ _
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)
Trees % Cover "'-"-="----
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s______ % Cover
.of 1 ?c.r .. k.'S 1(i (j,D-..... "'iX'-«Q
2. 5& •. ;;.(,,1<-'-' $ .... r.,UNlt·li'>---< 15
3. R"i-:"JS q.~)c.bI ~5 < 15
Indicator
status Huse~r~b~s _______ % Cover
Indicator
st'atus
rAe...
Fflc.1J
File...
~ 1. od,cc,d,o;U\. g 0"/.
2. flih\l(,Off\ ,(~,~..fqJ'l\'(»..
3 .101", .. 10.. """"~~"
4.
5.
6.
are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 160
Indicator
status
ffiGo!
< 5.°1,. Fill ....
fPoe...
Percent of species that
Other indicators:
Hydrophyticvegetation? Yes....£. No ___ Basis: dMlIlfloJOI 'i.f'P File.. "f' iJJJiQ/v
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes No
A-Horizon depth: c>-Z Texture A: Texture B: Sil1.i"/---.---
Mottled? Yes ___ NoL Mottle color: Matrix color: D/.'S,{ 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 soiis? 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 hyd rology-=?-:':Y'""e-s-=--=--_---ON-=-o--7-r----OB=-a-s-:-i s--: -/:;k17~--e.v-I-,"7&-.O-(-Q--; --c.r--:-:~s-<TX""""7-· -------
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 tl.O
D
praOt Je':.c7.,P. ~. 0!fi-.7 0.0f. l2 . .3_ ___ l! Plot No.: '7 i PL' of:~/.:z..I/_ STR: ____ _
Vegetation
Trees
1.
2,
3.
Saplings/
shrubs
% Cover
% Cover
~ J.YOfvi~ i(Iu,,~ '10
2 • CCn I\V~ ':tl 01 ot\ I{'QM.. I D
3 ~1?\J~1.6 'i'pu:. w.d 15 5
Indicator
status
Indicator
St:atus
File.
f II c. \I.l
fl'lGbJ
Herbs t Cover
l\ 1.1< c.NI uflwl c:, I'!f\!~ ~S
).'2, VQfOf\,CA. Sc.I1f .. 1ak S
.ot3 , ;Ju f'.<..wS e1lJ'X.>s 5 "4. url II..c.. c!'1<:>ic ........ 5 5,
6.
. d ""'.n.: ..... ~~ Percent of~spec~es that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Indicator
Status
fllLW
08<.
f~CVj
+Kw
Other indicators: HydroPhyticvegeta-7t~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: O-ID Texture A: s,1l 100M Texture B: __ """""" __ _
Mottled? yes-L No_" _ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;; '5V ~p
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·--s-o~i~l-:-------------
otherindicators:~~------__ ----~~~--__.------~----------------
Wetland hydrology? Yes~ No __ Basis:~d~E~~~~~"~~.~~~";f---------------
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: fl.!: .e. :011';" ?oo'!;
Date: ........ 0'-1-!....J'1'-1_:...l_I..:_.\-__ .l!.~ __ Plot No.: 5, -\ of: .... 1-'-'1_ STR: ____ _
vegetation
~T~r=e=e~s______ % Cover
1-
2.
3.
Saplings/
shrubs % Cover
:Jt 1--Po(.d~ jr"ra..-.... fll.. 75
2 • Ac.u n,ur opl\'iHI;(r\
3 :Rl.lbU~ ~Qlmlis
Indicator
status ~H~e~r~b~s~ _____ % Cover
Indicator
St:atus
~ 1-LXi,,·'"-cf.ol<;':'-::0
2 .il.t-..:~~k..... 10
3 • '~"".v(".,.JL'S ..-t~.5 i ()
4 • V;;:''l t."t~'o.( ~1.. ·.rP;"'lil'-:~li(,. ~ ... '"
5.
6.
lict' ,11<1.1"11 Percent of,species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100
Indicator
status
FAC\)..!
(lie..!...!
F p,c..lu
OeJ-
other indicators: HYdroPhyticvegeta~t~i-o~n~?~Y~e-s--v~'~N~o----~B~a~s~~~'s~:~~~~~ __________________ _
Soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __ _
A-Horizon depth: 0-1« .\ Texture A: '"B la«ln Texture B: ____ --::-:-_
Mottled? Yes-!L No_ Mottle color: Matrix color: ;: t,y r?,lo.:.
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-l~·S--::::::_ _______________________ _
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes NO~ Depth of standing water:
satur~te~ soil~es ____ NO~ Depth to saturated'--s-0~i7l-:-----------
Other~nd~cators:
Wetland hydrology-=?~Y~e-s-:J2:--~N~o~~-_--~B~a-s-l~'s~:~A'r-,S-~-(j~),~~-,~l------------------
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;!', .e. :0 )J,c. 7no'f.. Client: 12it Q.O
Da te :-"0'-1!,-'1.L_~_",,-,-_1--__ -,,i1,-'iJ"_ Plot No.: Ij -d. of: -.L/4J......_ STR: ______ _
Vegetation
Indicator
~T~r~e~e~s~____ % Cover Status uHse~rb~s _____ _ % Cover
Indicator
Status
l.
2.
3.
Saplings/
~s~h~ru~b~s~____ % Cover
-'It 1. ?Op-lks tfJ(h~F '1&10
2 • i(1lb.:s ~,*d '" ~
3 • ~·r.buws Ia.=.~
Indicator
status
fi\c...
fl\C-W
f/-lW
~ 1. JU(/Ufi ~\t.rj{):; 40"· r~
'*'2. od,u-d,o,u-J..6 ~ filet
3. Rtun,..,(',(jJ(VS ro1.~.n~ e'?l +1jC-~J
4 • G:tNq. <{f 5"'10
5. c.,,/"twM '''''......... S J/. F'i.<.iJ-t
6.
Percent of species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: !OOOlo
Other indicators: ' --L Hydrophyticvegeta~~t~i-o~n~?~Y~e~s~~-7~N~O~_-_-_~B~a~s~i~s~'~'~~~~~ ________________ _
soil
Series Mapped: On hydric soils list? Yes ___ No __
A-Horizon depth: a-sr· Texture A: Texture B:S9aXl~ (0",41,
Mottled? Yes-L No_ Mottle color: (t...tlll!;>:!.;!' Matrix color: '<AiR ~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? Yes __ No;r Basis: _______________________________ __
Hydrology
Inundated? Yes __ No -../ Depth of standing water:,_-.~-------------
Saturated soils? Yes __ No~ Depth to saturated soil: _________ _
otherindicators:-=~~ ____ ~ ____ ~~~ __ ~~ __ -r __ ~ ______________ __
Wetland hydrology? Yes __ No...L... Basis: --r(t' ;.a!,(',',T,;V;5
Atypical situation? Yes No comrnent: ________________________ _
Nonnal circumstances? Yes No
Wetland detennination: Wetland ---Non-wetland __ -4<.I ____ _
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
Shorelanda and Coastal Zone
Management Program
State of Weshington
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-ll
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 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 informed Ms. Barbara Moss
of First City Equities of the clarification in ollr 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 snd later sent'us considerable documentation that
convinced us that a substsntial amount of work had been done on
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
il
i
il . ,
II
il
-i
--
•
-2-
the site under our December 16, 198.~, 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 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
24 June 1987
Wang ~7289s
Disc ~714
.~/OP-RF
BAnkM~~ 1 . .,
7" .
Reg Br Fi e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT Of' 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 w.ould appreciate any informat ion you can provide uS concerning th is 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,
/}/!jl/l~/
i Joseph R. Will iams, Supervisor
./ Shorelands Management
Shore lands 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
O/l'mpiJ. W.,hmllt<J1l 4Hj(}~·8.-/ I • (2tJU) ~;'J'6(XJ()
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 praft Environmental
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
II
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
s.oils. 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,
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
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 wildlife Service
Barbara E. Moss, First City Equities
, " " .
"~.
• ,
• • •
•• • • :.
• • • • • • • • • •
I
Regulatory Branch
Ms. Barbara Moss
Director of Planning
First City Equities
1
BOO Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170
Seattle, Washington 9B104
Dear Ms. Moss:
~. .'
MeR A 1987
Li\l)Nt./CW/')"~'
2 March 1987
Disc: a:8am
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 fill on the site.
Accordingly, we have determined that the work may be completed under the
December l~ 1985 authorization and no furthar coordination is required with
this office. .
If you have any questions, you may contact .. myse1f or Mr., Sam Cesne at
764-3495.
Sincerely,
Vernon E. Cook
Chief, Operations Division
Reg Br file
.. ; ."
,,'
I
,
II
I
I
II
I
I
II I
!
11 I
!I
. .. 3 March 1987
Wang 15423.
DiBc/7l5
IIPSOP-RF 2 ~larch 1987
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECTI Black River Technologic.l Park
1. Background I In November of 1985 the Seattle Di.trict inspected a proposed
development in wetland. near the Black River, Duwamish River, King County in
·aenton, Washington. Tbe Seattle Di.trict determined wetlands were present on
the site but the wetlands were not adjacent to the Dieck River and the use,
degredation or deatruction of tbese wetlande would not affect interstate or
foreign commerce. Accordingly, the Seattle Di.trict determined the wetlands
on the site were not subject to Department of the Army pur.uant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The applicant was notified.of this determination by
letter of 16 December 1985 (encloled). 110 permits.vere.required from this
office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle Diltrict notified the developer that
our interpretation of interatate commerce now included wetland. that provide
habitst for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior
authorization by this office.
2. Meetina. .On 12 March, representatives from the developer and the Seattle
District met to di.cu.s juri.diction over the site. Those preaent vere
Barbara Moss, Firat City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineerl Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer I and Sam Casne, Uike Bowlus, Raren Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle Di.trict Regulatory Branch. Barbara Moss outlined a
chronology of evene. that led up to the develop!llent a. it e:a:istatoday. We
aaked her to repeat the chronology in writing, which .he did. (See encloeed
letter and photos.) Based 011 the information required, we concluded that 70
to 7S percent of the .ite had been altered prior to receipt of our 18 February
1987 letter.
3. CCllcluaiOll. The lite has been eubstantially modified. The applicant has
clesred, grubbed, and filled over 70 percent of the site. Thi. work vas done
under the Seattle Di.trict'. letter of 16 December 1985. Barbara Moos said
the work ·would be campleted by the end of tha summer of 19S7. Based on theae
considerations, the work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further authori.ation fram thil office i. required.
Encl. SlIIIIlIe 1 R. Caine
Chief, Environmental and
Procealing Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
NPSOP-RF 2 March 1987
MEMOIWIDUM POR 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, Duwamiah 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~~ vas notified of this determination by
letter of 16 December 1985 (enclos~l~) No permits were required fram this
office. On 18 February 1987, the Seattle District notified the developer that
our interpretation of interstate commerce nov iDcluded wetlands that provide
habitat for migratory birds, and that work on the site would require prior
authorization by this office(''''''\U'''~)
2. Keeting. On 12 Karch, representatives fram the developer and the Seattle
District met to discuss jurisdiction over the site. Those present were
Barbara Koss, First City Equity; Robert Roed, Engineer; Charles Blumenfeld,
Attorney for the developer; aDd Sam Casne, Kike Bowlus, Karen Northup, and
Rudy Pojtinger, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. Barbara Koss 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 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 letter.
3. Conclusion. The site bas been substantially modified. The epplicant has
cleared, grubbed, aDd filled over 70 perceDt of the site. This work was done
under the Seattle District's letter of 16 December 1985. Berbara Koss said
the work would be campleted by the end of the summer of 1987. Based on these
considerations, tbe work may be completed under the 18 December 1985 directive
and no further authorization fram this office is required.
Ene Is ~~!~
Chief, Environmental and
Processing Section
I· ~: .... DEC I 6 1985 " '. "
, " -. ' .... ; .. \::~ .. ~.
I) . . ;r.~ " /:"-"''''''''
.• -.•...••. ',I .
..•. .' ... ~ . -
".' ' .... ,.:~,> .. ':.:,f .'
.','
. SectloD'
Act is nquirad for the cl1acherp'of aay c!redse4 Dr .fJ.u~i~~
,,,,,"'''';;c~'~;'''fIIlt~r~~ iz!~ vatera of tbs'United 8tatQI~'~1cclwUaa adjacent' ,
'. "'Tha term ·wetlaada-,&eans thoeearua that are !Dundated or' '.'
.... turetel! by surface or Brollnd,vater at a frequlIIlcy and duratlon' .
)
.. ... auffldllllt to IUpport. azul tbat underaormal ClrCWllltaDCal do '. ,',:';\:. "--'" ..•. :'-
I '.,' ·lllpport •. a prevaleIfCe of veptatloa tnla11y adapted for Ute 111 .' ........ _ .. .: ..
. . .. curated soil cOl1ditiol1s. ,,!he Corps of. Eu;iaeers bel the reapoa-~.-::.: ... :.;.:.:---~ ~
's1bUityfor determil1ias.'vbethfll' a lpacific vetlaad area 1a with1.D . " ", ",
I' . "" ... :~-=~~~~~ .. ~~J~~~.:c;.0~.~~~:.~?~~~;£:;~~~~~.:~~.-:---.... .;--"-... ~.'.:.~:.-;,~,,,,::;. ..... , ......... :.::.~~.
Va have rav1awed the 1.Dfor1ll8dol1 ,ou furl11ahal! as weU as data ., ...
::':". gathered durlll3 our OI1site iaspu:t1oa oa "ovamber 14. 1985. Va . ~,
.,.' :; ." detBl'1U.lled that vetlal1da hre preaellt 011 the project site. Bowevfll' •. _., :".,;.-.
these wetlallds are IlOt cOI1l11deHc! adjacent wetlands wder our -::, ....... . .....
regulatory allthor1ty. 'A Departmel1t of·the Army permt wID Ilot blS : :::, '1 required to place fUl hlto th1a area. ".. .' , '
It you have allY queedons regard'lns thb IIIItter, pleaee contact I Mr. Rudolf POjtiaser, telephone (206) 764-3495.
Sincerely.
,
I
1
1
I
I
Cc::
t:~s
EPA-
~arren E. Baxter
Cl1e!, Regulatory Braech ----_.--.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
''':'.\ ,.:.,
",'.; ~ '.'
··IDC~OIIlft .'
. ':.:}:·~/;"··r:~( :>?,\'~-~ ,'.C,<
)~I -... .... '
..Cit,.· of .atoa ..., "'-:."
.... \':.
.: .. ~"
'''lrrill Llo,d '" 'C> . :':",,; >
,Bu\firo-atal hotectiOll ApIlCJ
.. -...... .
-I-
:.
. .•.
'.,',
-'~' .....
',;-
.;. • :::'
-.~." ., ,
• .'
,","
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I ·, ,
.'
I
I
·1
"I'
" ,.: .
:1' :~ ;:. .
··'·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 Poj tinger, 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' became"effeetiVe',: ';
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 ,,/,".!;,,;:·;,;;);k;(;,j,,;,
EnviroMiental Impact Statement,' prepared by the previouii~<:~'t,t;::,,<;,,'
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 aOs to a requirement for a':·, :.:.;, ..
i .' .,' :' ~.1 • , '"j _,' 404 Permit on this property· was not made at the time. the EIS,',,<:,::.rj.":,", ..
was prepared, the Corps in its comment letter to· the .Draft::;~;,'H~;:~;,;,]:j/(·
EIS, indicated that a previous decision regardingwaterways,,'?ih';: :,i::ii:;
. upstream from the P-l pump plant' could possibly exempt the:;::'::,1i~'.~-'.':·.
site from the requirements of the 404 Permit~ , '" ., '.!."';", '-" .....
800 Fifth Avenue . Su~e 4170 ' SeotIIe, Washington 98104 . (206) 624-9223
Ileol Estate Development ond Investments
. ", '.:!' :.,:: .. ;',~".: . .•
-',c:' :·;f;!e,:.·'·;, ': .: ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
l-
I
I
I
I'
,I
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 speci~l 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 , . ," , 1
environmental review under SEPA was conducted by the', , .. ,' , " ' .. ',,:
Environmental Review committee 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. '-, ,:::".,:;,:;-" ';'
., .,: : .. ~.~L~.;~~':~: .. ~,.--' I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
:1"
1
I
1
:1
'I'
l
l
" ,
" ,
1
1
1
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'
In addition, First City Equities as a condition for 'developing " i "
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 photoqraphs 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 lett~~i.:;>:;r;'",:,l,::
. .:
' .. \'
., ',' ,
"
1
.'
1
1
I
1
I
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/be
Enclosures
'.' . '" ~. , ' .. ' .
eCI
",:.: .-Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. w/encl
Robert Roed w/enc1
:t:~i~!·.···
Royce Berg w/encl
David Schuman w/enel
Greg Byler w/ene~ ':
HAND DELIVERED 2/27/87
:,-
, ; . -j , ' •• -'
, I·.". , ,.
~ .. ,-,
' .. ..
l .. ~
". '. -:'." .. . -. i _ &'d_',._ 1:
', . .'" . .. ,.
.','
. . ' .. :
",: :1
.... ;. ,
I' .... .... -~--_ ... -. ' , .
····1· . . ' . :".:" , :.
I ·
, .
. .'.
, .
. ...
.'-'.;: .'.",
. ~ .' . )
," .. ,
' ..
J. ,. ,
. ,
. :","
, .
"\, .; .'1 .
';'. !
!", . . ' .
.,
,., .
'i
, j
:. '
; .. :, .. ;"
'i.-j":;
; :.'
.. ' ...
. ,
-"
, .
.•..
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
',",
FEs'ia'l981 '. '.'
'... . ...... :});:...':: .• ~, '.:1,'
.....
"'alatftJ Iraacb
" . ~ . ~.: . " ..
,.
.... Ill'IIar.I~·""'
Dirutor. of .leDlq
rint CltJ .. witle.
, "(:[i;;A('~"~;'
. .' ~ .'
.• ' "!,,,.~ ;>,-:~ .,Y: : ..
. . . .?' •. -. . ;:' .,' .. ;
. . ;,: ..
,: .;. (., ... ';' .
.,,', .... : .
. ' .',
100 rlftll A.-_, hlce 4170
'.atel., ... 1l1qc.oa •. 'fila.
' ..
..
'. " '
. "~""
· ',.,'
· :',. : .
..:,
.'.
';';.' . -., ... ' .~ .. ,', · .. ' ....
. . . '. ..
.< :.: ','
;', . '. -.. ":.-':. ", . . . :~,.. "
.• d.......i1ack Il.-r teebaol.." .uk .";<:::.:.~>,-:
. ;. ", . . :,.-, ,'t'.
.! :,'
leu ........ . ',' ~.'
~. : . '. ," . ' . . ,
. 011 ........ 14, U8', .... ~1 fro. t"-... tU •• btrlet ..~;:
ha,eeUd tM nl.nace4 ,1'Op1ftJ tID deCftlll_ If a ,,.,..e4 ... 10,.. ."
. MIlt _I. nlPln a ieJutuDt 01 CIIa Antt panl,t aacler IeetlOD 404 ..
01 the ct .... aCu Act.. 'I'IIla , .. ,..tl .. n.,..l114 tllat .. tl .... , a.
.• dlad '" Itpartllat 01 tJie'l.aIJ,pmdt n .. 1&c'-, .. lit eo tM
proPlrtJ. "1l1II penlt n~atl ... .rlud" at tut tIM, _ 'atn-
.1De4 tllat tilt. _na' w, BOt a .. tar 01 tilt hlte4 .tate., ...
tha., tM Corp.' of Iqt.en, W 110 J=Wlctl __ t!le nl.n .....
4e'ftl.,...c.Oar Hlrch'1%, 1,." l.tter to 70D nflecte chit
'It.~ .. tl... .
ID lata -1916, the eor,. of IDaIDH" paIIll."; .... ptnlt nia-
lat10111 wIIlcll ...... dfeed ... J...,., 12, 1917. !'tie .. np1ltl_
proYtde a c1arlflClUoa '" Cha Inlna.eatal .rot.ctlOll Aauc, 01
tbe •• flDltloa 01 .. tert of tbe vatted .tata .... eo. lacla4e Wtl~"
I. Whlob ft, OT _1 ......... .at habitat ., \1,..
,rotected ., Hi,Tatorr 11,. rnat! .. , or
,. Vblch U. 01' _14 .. a.' .. habltat ., otber
-'lratft7 'iN' .lcla crot. ltate 111181.
Tbl. ,1.rlI1 .. tlO11 1. .1~ifl"Dt ....... it ....... tbe eor,.
Iec:tloa 4.,. Jlld •• lcdoa. ne .. tlallll. 011 the nf_" propert,.
' .• u IIOW C01l.ic1al'ld to be .. tera of tile Vlllt •• ltat .. ad nbJect to
Deparcalftt of tbe AI'Iff'/ ",rwit raqai ftN'IIt •• lIer SlctlOll 4C14 of the
Clasa W.tor let. Under 'acttOI! 404, latherla.tlOD il reqaired tor
the dLeebarBe of 41'141," or flll .. tulll iDto .. tart of the thlhe4
.tatl', iacladiq .. clab. . .
Ve nqllut you COllcoet thh offiCi "11n11iS pemt· procedan.
if yon ati!l ~rD?O,e to ftll tho .1te. A eopy ot the Deparblent of
.' .
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
·1
'.
-
:a;;;:
.. !"...!~~.:-.:..-=
" ~i7r~':'\\.:P··" ___ • __ -=~-u
" &'-.::.A'=-I'--_ •• .-.-._-&l3nnl~':..-':-=! :a.~ .;
55:t .
.. ~~':i-===lol ._._ ••• _ i
_'0 =11=: "-.Jl:n=._., _. ....... _._-_ .. __ =r..:::-"----
. " 1!'.!..~:.r.:vA'a -..:...-:.~ .
II E.;on.:-.: ....... ~=--a·~ -:.:==--=-~ . "=--=."t.&t.=:i&._--
..
• :
,
•
-..
:
~. ,.
. jf'ft-
-
. _ ....... ___ :.' __________ .:.. ___ .... __ .!~~~~~:N:::=.:,.,="'::.. ___ ~ ... ~~=~~:.:.-jl.. 1!1!-""""""
:;:,
i
i:
I
I ........ --------------------
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I ,
•
VICINITY MAP ,".
--
i!"~ 7 T ...=
:1 itM CL.EAr£O/~\JII:,eE.t>, ~12Al)e.b ~1t. 'FIL.leD (~.tAc:.)
I hS ~1 ~~r... Prz.f.~f.R.VE. (IJOJl,..n+ 'Ul "" i'aC"1o/.J ~~Wt..l.)
,I U'" O~"T\lf.P.::et) ( 14"')
I
I
~ I
jl'
ill il.
1'1
il
! 1 ! , : II 1 I
I~ ~ : : . " .. _. ~
I
I
I
I
I ~ .
• 0
I ~.
··:··-'<0
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
.: r·
!\
BLACKRIVER
Corporate Park
RENTON, WASHINGTON
~_KWfIIItOt _THW£ST arC. =-::.-:::..-
I
.~ .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
II:
14-:
::a~
-g"
11:",
:acii U;
Ce-~~
lID
z
0 ..
" z ;:
'" ..
~
Z
O ..
~
I t \ . . \ I , ,
~
:
, , ,
i , f ; , , , I • ,
I ,
5
I
, . .:.
, .' ! !
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUSH. ROED 8: HITCHINGS. INC,
NEW PARCEL 9
THAT pORtIoN OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION rJ; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE
4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION
TO CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75,
RECORDS OF SAID KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH
WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND OF C.E. BROWNELL'S
DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH
00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884.84 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1955;'
THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 1s2.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 73.51 FEET TO
THE EAST LINE OF SAID C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41;, THENCE NORTH
1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 49S.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH SI°11'35" WEST
26.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82 ° 15' 00" WEST 92.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35 °29' 30"
WEST 143.1S FEET; THENCE NORTH 74°44'00 WEST 84.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
60°16'00" WEST 67.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°16'00" EAST 97.35 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 6s006'46" WEST 110.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH
6s006 '46" WEST 265.00' FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIOS OF 195.01
FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE 267.83; THENCE NORTH 7s041'24 WEST 117.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1"24'04"
EAST 200.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF
10,543.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOurH 36°50'42" EAST; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 93.53 FEET TO A COMPOUND
CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 193.93
FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CORVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,73S.00 FEET A
DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIOS
OF 1,76S.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26°45'10" EAST 154.31
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°41 '4S" WEST 240.00 FltET; THENCE SOUTH 19·41 '48" WEST
80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°16'00" EAST 140.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.3332 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT
FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF THE SbUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST,
W.K., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: '
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE
NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS,
PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88·15' 00" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TROE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81
FEET; THENCE ON A CORVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE
OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS
OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1,916.19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID
CENTERLINE.
tl'r!·it· .... ~ "':'_ 4'" , .' .... . /,~.~ }~.'-. :::, /~:: ~.". :.
,!' ""~/ r.' ", '" '~fIRST CITY DEVELOPHENTS
.. ,,'} ','I ~EV. MAY 4, 1988 'r' r, ';\ ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS . : , :' ! ,.RH JOB NO. 86114.04
I'~'" I .' ,.' ,A.I ';' ,iSURV. 20A
• " •• of' .. ;
" ...... ' 0', ~l' ,'. ," ,I
.. "':"'0 '-__ --' f',\,O' ••
'f ... ", t ",:~ .. J:i'
..... ""'":':... •• 4,·.".:11
CORP.
1
"I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
-. • ?
NEW PARCEL 10
BUSH. ROED Be HITCHINGS. INC .
•
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE
4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION
TO CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75,
RECORDS OF SAID KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH
WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND OF C.E. BROWNELL'S
DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH
00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884.84 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1958;
THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 382.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST 354.53 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 73°56'01" WEST 130.08 FEET TO AN
ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 41 ° 16' 07" WEST
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 316.18 FEET TO A POINT ON
'r..E NORTH BOUNDARY OF A TRACT OF LAND DEEDED TO KING COUNTY AND DESCRIBED
UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 6607786, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING
A RADIUS OF 627.46 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF walCH BEARS SOUTH 39°41'39" WEST;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND NORTH BOUNDARY 373.ll FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1"24'04" EAST 582.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT
BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH
BEARS SOUTH 36°50'42" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID
SOUTHERLY LINE 92.98 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,853.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 194.75 FEET TO A POINT OF
COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOOTH 43 ° 22 ' 19" EAST 4,030.00
FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE LEFT,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°48'32", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET TO A POINT
OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 43°49''()9'' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN 271.00 FEET
TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
MARGIN, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,571.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7°32'02",
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 206.57 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER WHICH
BEARS NORTH 38°38'49" WEST 727.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°55'35", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 214.77 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER WHICH BEARS
NORTH 21 °43' 14" WEST 1,055.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 ° 24' 08", AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 209.95 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS
NORTH 10°19'06" WEST 696.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN
AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°44'25", AN ARC DISTANCE OF
45.43 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE CHARLES MONSTER COUNTY ROAD; THENCE
SOUTH 34°19'34" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 43.56 FEET TO THE NORTH
BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT DEEDED TO KING COUNTY AND DESCRIBED UNDER KING COUNTY
RECORDING NUMBER 6607786 THENCE NORTH 74°13'19" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY
443.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59°53'47" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 377.52
FEET; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 280.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH ALONG
SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 627.46
FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
AND NORTH BOUNDARY 61.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
5.0046 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND
UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
I
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
BUSH. ROED 8: HITCHINGS. INC.
NEW PARCEL 10 -PAGE 2
THAT PORTION OF tHE SOUtH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORtH, RANGE 4 EAST,
W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGtON, LYING WItHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF tHE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13,' WITH THE
NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO 'tHE
NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS,
PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNtY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE tRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEEt; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEEt; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81
FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIOS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE
OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS
OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1,916.19 FEET TO THE TERMINOS OF SAID
CENTERLINE •
.""",.,-.• ' FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP.
'.&Pl"llJl'"/. REV. KAY 4, 1988
j ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS
86114.04
20A
. ,. ., . , ," ,
~ .... .
I , , "
'.' . ""', . . ,
(. .,'.. '
. '. :,':. , ". ' ".' . '. . ". ,'.. , " .' , . , <'I·' . . '. , .', '.
' . '. . '.' .
'. , ~. .
,,' .: .'
, ,
" '. ,
, , ,
", '
, " ','
, '.
"
'. " , , "
.' ~ , "
.. ,
. .: I', ' 1 '" ',:' , . , .
" "-
, . ,
. , '" ",. ,
" .
I' .' " , , ,
, .
, ,
. . .... . . . . • . . '. . . '. . "," ; .' ... ". ' •.•..............•..... '. ..'.., ';', , , .
, , ,
I " ;, '" ,
',t '
".', . '. '. :
" . . .. ,', .
, . . .
.. ',. ~. . , • . •.... '. ....• .. . ........• . .'
I · ..... . ",. ;. " "c , .
'. . '" " . . . " . . .. . .. 'I ", .': ',' : "", "" ' . " , , '" . .' '. ",
' ", , ",
' " ',' C' " :. .' , '. "" <, 'I" . "
"'. " ' . , -", "', " . " . . "..
• . f"· ", '"
I' , : ",' , . ,
", " " , , , ,', I .;; , ., .' ", .. "" " , ' "
..'. . ~..': .,' , .
", .
" ", , 1 "' .. . . . .' . ':, ''''', .:, , . '. , ' ' . "'". ,
' , " , , . .1 '."", .... ' .
, ,
. , ,
'. " . .' ,
" .
\ . . . , ,
· . , .' . ". , ...
. .', .. :;.
,
. , '. I
. . '. '~.
, ,
. .' .
. ,! . • • . " , · ."
. ".
,-',.
, " . " .
'. . '.-
" . -' ,
, '. '. '. , '
· . -".
. . .' . , ,
" .
, ,
, ,
..,. ....• ;..,. "
, , ". ' , :. ,", .," , 1 . . '. '" . " . . " . " . . , " '. , " " , . "".,
'I' . .... .,.. ' •.
, , .
~ '., . , . . ,
' ".
" . , '. "
' , '., ." , . : 1 ,,' ',':, "" .,".,;, .', ' "
' . . .
' , , , 'I " . .' ,'" ", ' " , '. '~; . " : . . ."'." , . '. ',.
. " -
, " . , " . . . .... .
" "