Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272171(37)
• /nd0)/� 70 LJSj /A,) P i,sTOU At~ RA�kI� rrrvn SE'�iow CITY OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator 1993 AWC MUNICIPAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS City of Renton Valley Wetland Mitigation Bank Pt-ourain Nomination tm The City of Renton is pleased to nominate our Valley Wetland Mitigation Bank for an AWC Municipal Achievement Award for 1993. Through a unique melding of history, biology, the good staff work, a forward-thinking Cite Council, and the help and cooperation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the \'alley Weiland \Mitigation Bank was conceived and is now being inlplernented. INTRODUCTION The Grownh Management Act (GNIA) required the adoption of critical areas ordinances by March 1, 1992. The City of'Renton had adopted ordinances for each critical area except wetlands. It was imperative for the City to rnee: the GMA deadlines and mandates, so we began inventorying our wetlands and lookin_ for appropriate conservation strategies that would maintain environmental functions, and preserve the economic potential of the city, two primary goals of the GMA. During the inventory of our City's wetlands, we found that a number of high value wetlands were still located within the city limits. In fact; sonle of the nlost Illlportant wetlands renlarmng in Renton, and not yet in public ownership, were located in the Green River- Valley. We also had a unique situation with low quality X\etlands located in the Green River Valley area as well. These r IOW quality wetlands on individual properties were a problem to cievelop and reduced owners' potential property values The presence of very high quality and lo\v quality wetlands in the same area, were the result of historical actions in the \'alley. Originally, the Green River Vallee .was a flood plain with only high value wetlands. However, during the late 1960's and 1970's, draining and filling program were initiated. The land reclaimed from the wetlands was then used for urban purposes such as Industrial, commercial, and sonletinles residential uses In Renton. during that period, more than 800 acres of the 1.500 acres in the Green River Valle% were filled Many of these filled areas developed with industrial, office and \�arehousing uses. However, some filled parcels were not developed. In these areas, small pockets of fill settled, leaving depressions which collected rainwater. These pockets or "perched" wetlands were generally less than one acre in size. During the years, plant communities established themselves in these small wetland areas, to be followecl bN animals which \%ere :rttracted b\ the habitat, and soil condition: chan(_,ed. By 1992, wetlands had gained importance in national and local auendas, and criteria were Formulated for the definition of wetlands: presence of hydric soils, presence of water; presence of 200 Nfill Avenue South - Renton, Washington -98055 - ;206) 235-2569 w wetland or "hydric" plants. Wetlands are now recognized for their value as habitat, for water quality purification and flood storage, and to prevent sedimentation and erosion. High quality wetlands in the Valley performed all of these functions. In fact, our Storm Water Utility estimated that the wetlands performed functions estimated to cost three to five (S3-5) million dollars if they were duplicated through engineered structures. Lower quality wetlands also performed some of these functions and were part of the emerging altered ecosystem in the Valley. Of equal importance to the City was the retention of its economic base and of its industrial lands. Regionally, the industrial land base was shrinking, creating land scarcity for those local businesses who need to relocate for expansion or for new businesses. The perched wetlands were located on much of the remaining available lands designated for industry. Many of these parcels were in the single ownership of the Glacier Park Company, the development arm of the Burlington Northern Railroad. Several events occurred which resulted in a mutually beneficial idea For both the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. Burlington Northern decided to divest themselves of properties held by the company all over ;he counlr%, and they wanted to improve the salability of their properties III the Valley. The City Council had just passed the Wetlands Ordinance which set the franYework for a mitigation bank concept Im- properties meetim, certain criteria wlthlll the Green River Valley, as long as there v.as "no net loss" in the subdrainage basin. Two of the larger parcels held by Glacier Part: were dominated by very high quality contiguous wetlands. These sites, which had been partially filled, were ideal for establishment as "receiving properties" for the mitigation bank. Because the Valley was historically a wetland and underlying hydric soils and historic seedbeds likely remain, removal of fill and replanting to establish historic wetlands has a high chance for success I he "sending" properties were those where the perched wetlands occurred, each wetland tinder one acre in size, with lower habitat value, and water sitting in depressions on rile fill. After meeting with the City and discussing the Innitigation banking concept, Glacier Park donated the larger, high quality parcels to the City oh Renton. The City became the 'wetland banker", responsible for removing IIII and maintaining ning the wetlands. The City will grant a wetland permit to the sending properties, stating that a specified amount of wetlands can be filled, and that their mitigation has been achieved through the establishment of the mitigation bank This allows these properties to become more salable, and ultimately more usable for economic development CO1M NJ UNITY 13ENEFIT Glacier Park and BuI-hr)Lton Northern were benefited by increased sales Value on their sending parcels. The Army Corps of Engineers and the stale members of the State Department of Ecology supported the concept as an innovative, "win-win" solution to wetlands protection. The Audubon Society and Trust for Public Land supported tine trade because large blocks of existing habitat and high quality wetlands \vere saved and more contiguous habitat and wetlands would be created to H replace lower quality wetlands. The City benefited through an increased tax base, environmental 'a protection, improved flood storage capacities, and establishment of passive trails and viewing areas. Industrial land users benefited as properties were made available to meet market demands. The State of Washington benefited. as the Growth Management Act's goals of both environmental protection and economic development were met. Sorne City Departments (such as Transportation Systems) and other industrial land owners in the same subdrainage basin will also be able to use the mitigation bank for their own projects, as sufficient land is available to compensate for the development of Glacier Park Properties. The community-at-large benefited for all of the above reasons COST The City of Renton expects that setting up a mitigation bank structure, with systems for "deposits and withdrawals", a staffing and implementation plan and schedule, wetland rehabilitation plan, and SEPA compliance, will initially cost approximately S50,000. Wetlands re-establishment may cost another S50,000 per acre. The City's Storm Water Utility allocated funds to finance a wetland restoration plan for the site, based on estimated savings from beneficial flood storage Functions performed by potential future wetlands. Funds \�ill also be made available throu��h the City's "Transportation Systems Dig ision and Parks Department, and through developer's y contributions PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 1-he City Council approved the n rogation bank concept and site acquisitions, and executed a wetland mitigation banking agreei i nt with Glacier Part: on N/lay IS, 1992. The City COUnCIPS dCCISIOn to acyrsirc the SlIC V,il.s thic most critical step in the implementation of this progressive approach to wetland mitigation. Since inception of the mitigation banking concept in April 1991, the City has acquired property for the bank, assembled an interdepartmental team to manage the creation of a mitigation plan, and hired a consultant to draft the wetland restoration plan and banking system (debits, credits and management of accounts). The estimated date.ofcompiction for thr \\etland restoration plan, which includes a site analysis, conceptual master plan, and a monitoring and maintenance plan, is August, 1993, with start-up of the mitigation program to follo\v The City intends to operate, maintain and monitor the mitigation site in perpetuity. 114 Wetland Mitigation Bank - Action Plan ,/1 . RFP. Description, schedule, rough budget, tentative scope. i/2. Create and finalize City design team. Memo to heads of City depts. Parks, Surface Water, Transportation, Development Services, Long Range Planning. 3/yy/y3 i/3. Design Team approval of RFP. V 4. Advertise RFP. 312,-U53 X 3/-U/g3 1-15. Design Team review of proposals. V/C/13 6. Design Team short-lists consultant for interviews. y//C153 ✓7. Interview finalists and select consultant. ^t Ao rrf tk s&c Cc7vo 6A/93 8. Prepare and finalize consultant scope of work, budget, and schedule with Design Team 61203 approval. P/w Apnir 9. Prepare agenda bill, issue paper, scope schedule, and budget to CQ-,Qsil for approval. C/28/93 10. CQu.Aeil approval ( ►. (o/z 4/q3 1 1 . Execute contract. After Council approval, Mayor signs. -71171 j 12. Consultant and Design Team coordination meeting. Proceed with schedule for plan. 13. Monitor consultant's work. • Review products (Design Team) • Monitor scope and budget • Process invoices 14. Completion of plan. 15. SEPA Review 16. Construction Permits • City - Grade and Fill, Construction • State - HPA, TWQMP, NOI • Federal - NWP?, COE 404? 17. Bid construction (grading and planting). • Finalize Bid Documents (plans, specs, & contract) • Advertise for bid • Bid opening/review bids • Bid award/Council approval • Execute final construction contract • Hold pre-construction conference • Start construction 18. Monitor construction. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 24, 1992 TO: File FROM: u ann SUBJECT: Wetlan Purchase from Glacier Park by the City of Renton The City of Renton purchased the Green River Valley Wetlands Parcels 1, 3, 4 and 13 as shown on the attached chart. During the negotiations for this purchase, the City agreed to pay $200,000 for all the acreage and Glacier Park agreed to either credit the City or pay $27,215 for the outstanding obligations related to a Board of Public Works bond for sidewalk and landscaping improvements on these particular parcels. The payment of the $27,215 was not specifically called out in the agreement between Glacier Park Company and the City of Renton, nor was the $27,215 credited against the $200,000. That transaction was omitted in the official paper work. When this oversight was noted on June 23, 1992, Karen Lane, Vice President of Glacier Park, reiterated their commitment to make that payment and subsequently submitted a check in the amount of$27,215 to cover the debt. After receipt of the check, the City released an agreement between the Trillium Corporation and the City of Renton, which in turn releases the total Board of Public Works bond in the amount of $578,000. This security had been posted for a series of street, sidewalk and landscaping improvements, part of which was the $27,215. The agreement also reiterated Trillium's obligation to install along the street frontage all sidewalks, curbs, and landscaping as part of any subsequent development. In conclusion, the following summarizes the transactions related to the $578,000 Board of Public Works bond: 1. Some portions of the improvement of the deferral bond were already completed. 2. The portion of the bond related to the properties donated by Glacier Park to the City of Renton as a Wetlands Mitigation were "forgiven" during the donation transaction. June 24, 1992 Page 2 3. The value of the sidewalk and landscaping improvements for the properties purchased by the City of Renton, Parcels 1, 3, 4 and 13 were relieved by Glacier Park's payment of$27,215. 4. The obligation to complete the physical improvements in association with privately owned property, that is the property purchased by Trillium Corporation from Glacier Park, remains an obligation which is no longer secured by a deferral bond. Instead it is contained in the agreement signed by Trillium Corporation as part of Glacier Park/Trillium Corporation sales agreement, a copy of which is attached to this memo. cc Mary Lynn Myer Mike Dotson Larry Warren Marilyn Petersen Pat Porter Board of Public Works Files 92-419.DOC/LAG/bh AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this o3�'—t day of c,C_ , 1992 by and between TRILLIUM CORPORATION, a Washingtc63L,— corporation ( "Trillium" ) , and the CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City" ) . Trillium is the owner of certain parcels of real property located in the City of Renton and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the parcels are hereinafter referred to individually as the "Parcel" or collectively as the "Parcels" ) . The parcels were acquired from Glacier Park Company, a Delaware corporation ( "GPC" ) . GPC has posted a bond with the City in order to assure the construction of certain sidewalk and landscaping improvements in conjunction with the development of the Parcels . GPC is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving as a corporation. In order to provide for the release of GPC from the obligations of the bond posted by it, and in order to assure the City that the landscaping and sidewalks are constructed in conjunction with the development of the Parcels, the parties agree: 1 . As owner of the Parcels, Trillium covenants that prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a development on any of the Parcels, the then owner of the Parcel shall install along the street frontage of the Parcel sidewalks and landscaping between the sidewalks and the curb in accordance with City standards . The City may withhold the certificate of occupancy until the sidewalks and landscaping are installed. 2 . Upon execution of this Agreement, the City shall release GPC from any obligations under Contract Bond No. 40OHN 7554 in the amount of $578, 000 . 00, dated February 13, 1987 and issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. 3 . This agreement and the covenants contained herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of Trillium. 4 . This agreement may not be amended by the parties except in writing. 5 . This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington . DATED as of the date first set forth above. TRILLIUM CORPORATION, a Washington corporation By: Its riot ` - 1 - CITY OF RENTON V By: (�-& :�,A�L L&- Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: (7m";/�w)(-,,,Z,, awrence J. ar n, City Attorney r 156515.M24 06/16/92 2 - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) �,fCC m ) s s . COUNTY OF K-I-N� ) On this day personally appeared before e j _avid SUri° to me known to be the r-60- denf of TRILLIUM CORPORATION, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 17 day of �LUU� 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and" for the State o=ash�n, on, residing at liq _ My commission 66cpires 90- 5w STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Eq eL C to me known to be the m gYO'e, of the City of Renton, the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrument . GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of J4 1992 . �L �� � /17 NOT BLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My ission expires 4/1s- T-' 3 - Transamenea Transamerica Title Insurance Company True insurance Services Date MAY 14, 1992 Please direct correspondence to: 1200 SIXTH AVE r CITY OF RENTON A t t,,,, SEATTLE WA. 98101 CITY STATE 21/Coor Telephone 628 2821 t.. J Escrow Number 92170275 Your Number dEBITS CREDITS F4/14/92 PRICE TT T FEE T TAXTE TAXES (COMMITMENT 861563) 14,212.49 P/Y o 7/1/92 @ 39.48 P/D 48 days (1992) E TABS (COMMITMENT 861564) 5,991.52 P/Y 7/1/92 @ 16.65 P/D 38 days (1992) 799.20 LID 31468/31422/31421/ 57,817.55 P/Y 160.61 P/D 274 days -- 44,007A4 LID 30234/30235/30243/36,801.82 Ply 102.23 P/D 36 days 3_,680,28 LEASE ENBRALD RACING 2400.00 P/X PAID .IN FULL 6.67 P/D � ' 332 days 2,214.44 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS AND EOM By CITY OF RENTON BY: ITS: i FUNDS DUE TO CLOSE 153,225. 18 203,127.0 $ 203,127.04 A.SA TnTPI P.n? ATTACI-1ME�li T A v COSLS Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Sources of #of Prior Obligations Pe Ultimate Funding acres (Lot#) Performance Bond TBZ&SUCC fees Purchase(asking) LID Assessment Totai Grou A 25 Owed: waived,if parcel Original (1) Flood control, Surface water funds $244,720 SCS funds $16,327 not developed $100,000 $530,094-75 244,720 wetland functions, Property owner is $344,720 water quality, Metro mitigation funds Owed valley park land TCIP funds responsible for this cost. $244,716.78 possible SW 27th HOV LID funds arterial improvement park mitigation fees TCIP fun 0 $0 funds 14.4 Owed: waived, if parcel included in 3,4 park land traffic mitigation funds parcel 1 $3,111 not developed purchase price for flood control ark mitigation fees Property owner is wetland functions P responsible for this water quality cost. possible Oakesdate extension �_ Grou B 346y Owed: waived, if parcel $100,000 Original $100,000 13 P-1 channel alignment Surface water utility $7 e7 not developed $19,147.80 ImWfsi:5� ' Wetland mitigation bank rates or revenue bonds pro owner is commuter rail corridor park mitigation fees property Owed $0 LID 285 SCS funds(?) Valley park land responsible for this cost. $0 waived, if parcel $0 owed Site 1 Mitigation bank If donated,no $ needed '31 Owed: not developed $0 [14] $6,216 Paid in full flood control property owner is Valley parks&recreation responsible for this cost. $0 waived, if parcel $0 No LID assessment Site 2 Mitigation bank If donated,no $ needed. -14 Owed: not developed $0 $9,722 part of flood control property owner is parcel# Parks&recreation resonsible for this cost. Total Total Owed oa 444,720 g5 $43,153 q 92.250.DOC/MLWbh _ GREEN RIVER VALLEY WETLANDS/OPEN SPACE PURCHASE PROPOSAL (revised as of 4/28/92) CONFIDENTIAL LID Property Acres Asking # Amount Performance Total Source of Funding Consequences (Lot#) Purchase Outstanding Bond Price d Ckb6eA- � Parcel 1 This is an "opportunity cost"purchase. Thirty Seq. 120 24.28 $50,000 Total $259,795 $16,327 $326,122 Transportation CIP percent of the Business License Fee support of the "missing Links" for 10 years KC# 125381-0090 #314-021 $81,335.58 (or$50,000 purchase (and/or the"Arterial Circulation Project") #302-034 $58,960.43 covered by Surface would probably be used;surplanting and KC# 125381-0100 #302-035 $36,038.33 Water with future concerns of the Citizens Advisory KC#125381-0150 none $0 reimbursements) Committee will need to be addressed. KC#125381-0160 #314-022 $83,460.90 Parcel 3 Seq. 120 3.75 $25,000 none $0 $3,111 $28,111 Park Mitigation Fees KC# 125381-0230 Parcel 4 Seq. 120 10.59 $25,000 $25,000 Park Mitigation Fees KC# 125381-0170 none $0 KC# 125381-0220 none $0 $2,538/Acre without LID Subtotal Group A 39.4 $100 000 $259 795 $19 438 $379 233 Park&Transportation $9 131/Acre with LID Parcel 13 Seq. 968 $100 000 $7 777 $7 777 Surface Water CIP A KC#000580-0019 4.31 none $0 KC#252304-9001 6.43 none $0 B KC#252304-9082 6.96 #314-068 $108 896 C KC#252304-9004 1q,0( 23:44- none $0 D KC#362304-9002 9.4 #285-0 #323-15 $0 KC#302305-9007 3.24 #302-043 $16,291 KC#252304-9019 3•Sa -3-W Subtotal Parcel 13 q8.2 $100 000 $125 187 $27 215 $232 964 Surface Water CIP $3 692/Acre Total All Properties $200,000 $384,982 $27,215 $612,197 $5,827/Acre 92-250A.A0X/II0II/0q / -f�' ' UI 11l.Illi•illlllllllll I !�� IIIIIIIiII• i �,J:, IIIIII'E�� ��IIIIIIII `�, � �®�11�!�;� ,IIIIIIIIIIIh►1 II IIII! °��i1191111�'1�=--_-_.'.. ;,�F:n��' -`-`=-' a m� �� � / •►.111111111��' i_I�tlG3�?or- ��� � i ® III 111/•1!��ow. w�i �,m�se•� �����`, 11111111 Iilllllll��lll���."' o�r♦ 1 E , AM ME PM jl = pau�IGs �'N M �♦��` � .' WIM �, k °J Pi>+ts C"��WYYY / �.a t IfYY01 j : fit•P•� �� I lrsEva t•�7 1,9J ' f:r91;' 6 fi "•J�1� fP� h sry+, ''�M�y41M������j'..(��,f'�'S�' .....'+v�i..7G...�,`t�tl�`.,.tijYi�� / � � / ' "• fi� � ' I / 1 ( '/1 I f '.', u�v. �,y," ' �, I I • 1. hy1'!':^a ,r=,T; I1`I�' +�t� � �yr ` �f A ri "fti,.aS` �•� � ��, ' ..., '� f�hl ✓' P , v� !!l p+,n �ye,a;w�!3t�F �i OIAP!!,a is;G✓�'�tw v�ra}v`{Fw�p• �: tt ��.. �, K�'?�i,..c r., ..r"• :�K. ,�C ri•1rS.�d'i '.h1 I • / P 1 '1 f! Larry, On the phone yesterday I told you about Renton's wetland mitigation bank. I promised to FAX you an article we have written about it. Unfortunately, I spoke too soon. The article isn't finished. However, here is a letter from our Mayor to the Auburn Mayor explaining the bank. I hope this will be sufficient. If you need more information, please call me at 235-2719 or David Saxon at 235 2475. Thanks, Mary Lynne Myer City of Renton Long Range Planning Manager MEMO.DOT/bh - CITY OF RENTON +.lip ;_ Mayor v Earl Clymer July 15, 1993 The Honorable Robert Roegner City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Request for information on Renton's Wetlands Mitigation Bank Dear Mayor Roegner: You requested a summary of the growth management action which the City of Renton took relative to our Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The bank was an outgrowth of our Wetlands Ordinance, passed in March of 1991, meeting the Growth Management Act deadlines for sensitive areas. The City had adopted ordinances for each critical area except wetlands.. It was imperative for us to meet GMA deadlines, so we began inventorying our wetlands and looking for appropriate conservation strategies which would maintain environmental functions and preserve the economic potential of the city, two primary goals of the GMA. The wetlands inventory showed our wetlands to be roughly three classes: Class I, valuable large wetlands, Class II smaller, but equally valuable wetlands, and Class III, smaller wetlands perched on fill in the Green River Valley floor. The presence of very high quality and low quality wetlands in the same area was the result of historical actions in the Valley. Originally, our portion of the Green River Valley was flood plain with only high value wetlands. However, during the late 1960's and 1970's, during the "swamp-buster" era in federal thinking, draining and filling programs were initiated. The land reclaimed from the wetlands was then used for urban purposes such as industrial, commercial, and sometimes residential uses. In Renton during that period, more than 800 acres of 1,500 acres in the Valley were filled. Many of these filled areas developed with industrial, office, and warehousing uses. However, some filled parcels were not developed. In these areas, small pockets of fill oen<- - (ont�loiS_,)SRn July 15, 1993 Page 2 settled, leaving depressions which collected rainwater. These pockets or "perched" wetlands were generally less than one acre in size. During the years, plant communities established themselves in these small areas, to be followed by animals which were attracted by the habitat. Soil conditions also changed. These perched wetlands became full-fledged wetlands, under federal regulations. We recognized these wetlands as well as other wetlands in our ordinance, and included ordinance language for "no net loss," wetland replacement, and banking options for landowners. The ordinance was sent to DOE and DCD and met requirements for the Growth Management sensitive areas protection. While our ordinance requires a "no net loss" policy for wetlands, it does allow for an in- kind replacement, especially for Class III wetlands which might be filled. In order to achieve no net loss the City conceived of a bank idea where historically filled, high- value wetlands in the same drainage basin could be re-established by removal of fill and re-establishment of hydrology and_vegetation. These re-established areas could then be used as replacement for lower grade wetlands which, if filled, would allow development of industrial parcels. Our inventory identified a number of sites in the Green River Valley area where prime wetlands existed prior to 1960 and which had a scientific possibility of being restored. Several of these sites were targeted as possible bank sites. By a fluke of fortune, Glacier Park Company, owner of several of the potential bank sites as well as developable acreage in the Valley, wished to sell their properties. Glacier Park donated two prime bank sites to the City and, in return, the City granted Glacier Park a wetland permit to fill under an acre of Class III wetlands on each of six parcels. The City's responsibility now is to remove fill on the bank sites, and establish 5.33 acres of wetlands. This will meet our ordinance requirement of "no net loss" of wetlands. While the new owners of the Glacier Park land possess valid wetlands permits for fill, they have not exercised the permits to date. The bank sites have over 15 acres of filled area which could be re-established as wetlands. Since we will be using only 5.33 acres to meet Glacier Park's needs, the City has approximately 10 acres of area left. We believe this area could be used by other developers who wish to fill small, lower-value wetlands. We believe these developers would likely pay a fee to the City, and the City would then be responsible for the excavation and re-establishment of the new wetlands. We have a number of developers who have expressed great interest. Because the Glacier Park fill would be under one acre per site, the Army Corps of Engineers did not oppose the transaction, however; they did request that the City keep them informed as to our bank plans. Although we consulted with the Washington State Department of Ecology, they did not oppose or support our agreement with Glacier Park. We have since worked with WSDOE on mitigation banking policy for the department. It is our understanding that they will not officially sanction wetland banks at this time. However, individual scientists from each of these organizations have told us they consider our idea to be scientifically and pragmatically workable. DCD planners have individually expressed interest in our bank. July 15, 1993 Page 3 Last month we hired a consultant and work on the bank program has begun. By fall, we hope to have a grading and planting plan for the 5.33 acres of replacement on the bank sites, and an operation manual for the bank for other developers who wish to use it for developing sites in the Green River area. We expect the City itself will use parts of the bank for road projects, as may Metro, Boeing, and other large land users. I have included a copy of our submittal application for the Growth Management Award through the Association of Washington Cities for your information, and a copy of our wetland ordinance. I hope these documents answer your questions. If you have need of further information, please do not hesitate to call either my staff member, Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2719, or me. 7rely, Ear Clymer Mayor enclosures wtbnkrr.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4346 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) , OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON" BY ADDING CHAPTER 32 RELATING TO WETLANDS MANAGEMENT. (Interim Ordinance) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No . 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding Chapter 32 which reads as follows : CHAPTER 32 WETLANDS MANAGEMENT SECTION : 4-32-1 : Findings of Fact and Purpose 4-32-2 : General Provisions 4-32-3 : Lands to Which this Chapter Applies 4-32-4 : Allowed and Regulated Activities 4-32-5 : Review Procedures for Projects with Wetlands 4-32-6 : Standards for Permit Approvals 4-32-7 : Densities and Separate Tracts 4-32-8 : Non-Conforming Activities 4-32-9 : Temporary Emergency Permit Procedure 4-32-10 : Judicial Review 4-32-11 : Amendments 4-32-12 : Severability 4-32-13 : Assessment Relief 4-32-14 : Violations Declared Nuisance 4-32-15 : Definitions 4-32-16 : Effective Date 4-32-17 : Relationship to SEPA. 4-32-1 : Findings of Fact and Purpose : A. Findings of Fact. The City Council of the City of Renton, Washington hereby finds that: 1 . Wetlands are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due City of Renton `'_ALLEY WLTLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM- Creation Restoration Preservation TIMELINE REGARDING THE GLACIER PARK PROPERTY AND THE EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER VALLEY WATERSHED April, 1959 A large portion of Green River Valley area is annexed into the city of Renton. (ORD 1743) 1965 The East Side Green River Watershed Plan is completed recommending measures to solve flooding within the valley. The P-1 channel is proposed as a part of this work-plan. February, 1969 Glacier Park applies for rezone of roughly 300 acres from G to M-P and H-l. (R-560-69) September, October, 1969 Glacier Park asks city the to suspend processing of rezone application until it clarifies its intent for those properties. December, 1969 Glacier Park verbally gives the go ahead for rezone of part of application. The City Council approves rezone for a portion of the area from G to M-P. (ORD 2533) 1972 Construction of elements of the East Side Green River Watershed Workplan are postponed until an Environmental Impact Statement has been completed. June, 1974 The City Council passes a resolution in support of the Green River Flood Control Zone. In this resolution, the city agrees to acquire 110 acres within the flood control zone for wetland habitat. The city also agrees to require that at least 27o of each new development within the flood control zone be set aside for wildlife habitat. In addition, the city agreed that all areas not needed or used within the flood control zone should be planned and managed for wildlife open space until they are needed for development. RES 1923 April, 1975 Glacier Park applies for a fill and grade permit for 594 acres of land in the Green River Valley. (SP 822-75) July, 1975 Glacier Park requests reactivation of the remaining portion of the original rezone application. October, 1975 Burlington Northern agrees to exclude 20 acre wetland and P-1 channel from rezone application. November, 1975 Planning staff notes that, although 20 acres of the site with greenbelt designation have been excluded from the rezone and will be left in G zoning, a remaining portion of the proposed fill area is also designated for greenbelt by the comprehensive plan. The staff recommends to the Planning Commission that the remaining 80 acres of the proposed fill area which are in the greenbelt designation should be excluded from the rezone until the location of the P-1 channel and the amount of wetlands which will be purchased by the city to comply with ORD 1924 have been determined. November, 1975 The city receives a petition with 38 signatures protesting the proposed fill of 80 acres of marshland. December, 1975 The first phase of fill permits are issued. December 1975 Planning Commission recommends approval of rezone requests as proposed by applicant. December, 1975 Burlington Northern sends letter to City Council expressing intent to donate 20 acres of land to the city and reserve land for the P-1 channel help the city satisfy the requirements of ORD 1924 and finish the Valley Drainage Plan. They express that the 20 acre donation can be sold and used to purchase other wetland areas if the city so desires. December, 1975 Audubon Society objects to rezone and fill of 80 acres of potential wetland and wildlife habitat area on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. December, 1975 City Council removes 80 acres from pending rezone and fill requests pending further information and study. February, 1976 Buriington Northern notes that it does not wish to give up additional acreage but would be willing to allow the city a one year option to purchase the remaining 37 acres at $10,000/acre. February, 1976 Glacier Park donates 20 acres of land to the City of Renton to be set aside for wetland, wildlife habitat and open space purposes pursuant to the 2% wetland habitat requirement of RES 1924. March 1976 Rezone of 271 acres from G to M-P and H-1 is approved by the City Council. The 20 acre donation lot is excluded from the rezone. The 39 acres are held in abeyance of the rezone for two years for potential acquisition by the city. (ORD 3012) October 1976 Second phase of fill and grade permits are issued under the condition that 39 acres of the site are excluded from the fill permit. The Commission also added a condition that the 39 acres be held for potential acquisition by the city on a year to year basis until the applicant has use for the property. w October, 1978 The Basin Executive Committee and Soil Conservation Service agree to explore detention and alignment alternatives. January, 1978 Preliminary Plat for 464 acres is approved under the condition that Springbrook Creek and the P-1 drainage channel be reserved for drainage, wildlife habitat and public access in perpetuity. The 39 acre wetland is reserved for potential acquisition by the city until Feb., 1978. (PP-086- 77) May, 1978 Glacier Park submits Division I final plat application. July, 1978 Division I of the final plat is approved by the City Council. These parcels become available for subsequent development. (FP-176-78) January, 1979 Glacier Park applies for approval of Division II of the final plat. February, 1979 King County requests that approval of Division II final plat be delayed until completion of the feasibility study on the detention alternative for the East Side Green River Watershed Project. February, 1979 Division II Final Plat is approved by the Hearing Examiner. Questions remain about alignment of drainage system, however, the Hearing Examiner concludes that these issues are not sufficient to delay approval of the plat. The Hearing Examiner noted that the plat may need to be modified if Springbrook Creek were expanded, however, the other alternatives were adequately accommodated in the plat. (FP 278-79) March, 1979 Division II Final Plat is approved by the Renton City Council. These parcels become available for subsequent development. June, 1979 EIS for East Side Green River Watershed Project is issued. August, 1979 Glacier Park requests permission to fill remaining 39 acre site. August, 1979 Renton City Council goes on record as not being in the position to acquire the additional 39 acres of the site for wetland because of lack of funding. September, 1979 Planning Department responds that, upon review of the previous application for fill, it was determined that this site was not included in the fill permit in order to provide for flood storage until permanent flood control measures were implemented. The Department concluded that a new application for fill of this site was required. w November, 1979 Glacier Park submits application to fill 25 acres of the site along with environmental checklist. (SP-451-79) February, 1980 A declaration of environmental significance is issued for the fill application. February, 1981 Burlington Northern request that the city pay for the cost of conducting an environmental impact statement in compensation to B.N. for withdrawing the site from the original fill permit application. February, 1981 City responds that pre-established rights to fill the site do not exist and that the proposed fill application must undergo full environmental review. February, 1980 The Revised Watershed Plan for the East Side Green River Valley Watershed is approved. May, 1981 Amplification of 1979 East Side Green River Watershed Plan EIS is issued to reflect revised plan. 1982 Locat sponsors withdraw from East Side Green River Watershed Plan due to cost and funding problems. 1983 City of Renton assumes lead-agency responsibilities for East Side Green River Watershed Plan from King County. March, 1984 Glacier Park's application for 25 acre fill and grade permit is closed due to inaction on the application. 1984-1990 City of Renton undertakes construction of some elements of the ESGR Watershed Plan. 1990 City begins environmental review of additional revised elements of the ESGR Watershed Plan. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G SUBJECT: Funding for the Wetlands Mitigation Bank I would like to clarify my position on funding of the wetlands mitigation bank in light of Kay's attached memo. I did not indicate my willingness to shift the necessary $45,000 from the Surface Water Utility budget into this program during my discussion with Mary Lynne. Rather, I expressed to her our inability to shift this money during 1992. 1 told her that I would be willing to look into the possible transfer of moneys during the 1993-1994 budget year, but I do not feel I made a commitment to transfer the funds. The signal I was trying to send was not one of encouragement. Later, in discussing this issue with you, I came away with the impression that you support this transfer of funds, but it would be with the understanding that the utility would be reimbursed for fronting these moneys. This approach would be more palatable, as long as we can work out the mechanism for the reimbursement (i.e. where the reimbursement would come from, how it would be tracked, and the time frame). I think that we should also be sure that the $45,000 can legitimately come from the 421 funds. Obviously, the 401 account cannot fund this type of expenditure. My main concern regarding this issue, however, is not one of funding. I am more concerned about the prospect of the Surface Water Utility being asked to become involved in the administration of the wetland bank. Unless extra staffing would be provided, I would be very concerned about taking on this responsibility. As you know, in the wake of the increased Surface Water rates, the Surface Water Utility will have a significantly enhanced CIP budget during the 1993-1994 budget year. We have put together an extremely optimistic and challenging CIP plan for next year. It is my expectation that the City Council will want to see product as a result of the doubled rates. Our manpower is not being increased substantially: the supervisor will be full time instead of part time in surface water (which was Randall's inclination anyway, so this won't change much), and Dan Carey's position will become a full time surface water engineer instead of a half-time responsibility. This, in real terms, translates to 1/2 FTE added staff. I feel that to make the available manpower match the immense task at hand, I must be extremely protective regarding time commitments. Therefore, I am requesting that the Storm Water Utility not be tapped to administer this program. cc Kay Shoudy Ron Straka WETLANDS/GZ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, Director - Planning/Building/Public Works Department FROM: Kay Shoudy, Manager- Planning and Technical Services STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner - Long Range Planning SMAt � SUBJECT: Funding for the Wetlands Mitigation Bank Funding for consultant studies and special projects needed to implement the Wetlands Mitigation Bank program for the 1993 - 1994 budget year will amount to approximately $45,000: The funds would be used to conduct field work, develop the Mitigation Bank Master Plan, vegetation and maintenance plans, and public information programs. We have approac ed Greg Zimmerman and he has indicated that he is willing to shift the necessary $45,000 in funds from the Stormwater I utility budget over to a special budget line item for this project. Since the 1993 budget is being drafted at this time, we request that the $45,000 be set aside for implementation of the Wetlands Mitigation Bank project. We are planning to schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss the Mitigation Bank during the week of August 6th. If you have any questions or concerns I'd be happy to discuss them with you. cc: Greg Zimmerman Priscilla Pierce Jennifer Toth Henning mitbank.doc " '` " '••"` "," iceep me new medical Unice on a�f�i►i'`VYtn o. vevew n �n�►�eu iiui a•u 15,000 square feet each while the p gs N •��•••� /aJ- campus to increase physician/medi- fitness center would occupy14 000 levels to the East Wing; 8. New Providence Inri�fitness centerl I" r all too well the dark days of cal center ties and efficiencies. A arkin /sk brid e•9.Develop daycare/playarea. L s square feet. Abelow-level parking P g Y g � P Anderson added. This action relocation of ambulatorycare ser- q P g agricultural industry of the Pa- garage would provide 30 stalls. A f i „ vices is being considered for the skybridge or tunnel across 18th is ing would total 3,500 square feet A public hearing regarding the Timber Fair Trade and Forest Providence Professional Building. also planned for convenience and and would stand 28 feet tall. An ex- master plan and draft environmen- ')an to be lifted if Northwest log OFront entrance/laboratory safety. isting building would be renovated tal impact statement is scheduled Ho renovations. Above-and below- ❑Daycare/play area. A daycare for the required space or it would for 7 p.m. on July 15 at the Provi- lar( grade redevelopment near the front with play area is slated at the comer be demolished for new construe- dence Medical Center Auditorium am completed entrance would include: laboratory of 18th and East Cherry.The build- tion. (500 17th Ave.,Seattle). We have finished the final 11h-mile ng bicyclists and pedestrians an to Falls,Idaho. r. Wetlands banking may help developers and wetlands re D completed Tuesday. Disputes re ient onhow to build along the BY KATHRYN SMITH of wetland he fills rather.than creat- buys from the city's stock of wet- in advance of any development, tali as ed thea section's completion for Journal staff reporter ing new ones on his property. lands,said Mary Lynne Meyer,city many agree. Go Recreation Department solved `It could possibly be cheaper planner. And second, the program would rec idowner $68,825 for easements Wetlands mitigation banking and definitely more convenient," "We were lucky because we had remove hassles faced by develop- the ;s to be used for trail parking. may become an effective tool for said Ronald D. Kranz, vice presi- some of the old wetlands there," ers. Often, trying to create or r ie to Post Falls cost about $14 developers wishing to build on wet- dent and director of natural resour- said Mazy Lynne Meyer. About 20 protect wetlands can be a headache. we .ually extending the path east to lands-laden property, according to ces at David Evans&Associates. years ago, wetlands on the city's "While they (regulations) are ing the Nine Mile Falls area north- two wetlands experts. The bank can be created and property had been filled so it is just designed to protect the resources, mu Alison Moss, an attorney with operated by agencies,non-profit or- a matter of digging down 8 to 10 they are costing the property Ho Bogle & Gates, and Karen Lane, ganizations or private entities. feet to create a wetland. owners enormously with ques- cal vice president of development at Glacier Park Co.,a large property It can cost up to$300,000 an acre tionable results," Lane said. Ba. Glacier Park Co.,were among other owner, will be doing its wetlands to create a valid wetland in some Welland mitigation for the Koll Cei speakers at a series of land use banking with the city of Renton, areas,she said. Cordata Retail Centre in Whatcom 1 ling u p workshops held recently throughout Lane said. The wetland mitigation bank County ended up costing the devel- sta the state. The workshops were The city recently concluded a should be nearby the property being oper about $2 million and 18 so] ction spending rose 0.2 percent sponsored by Bogle&Gates. deal with Glacier Park to establish developed — whether sharing the months of construction time, said pla vance,boosting spending to the Wetlands delineation can be a a wetland mitigation banking same drainage basin or within the Moss, a specialist in critical area de( '�nment said yesterday. confusing and costly process for program — the first in the area. same jurisdiction. and wetland regulation. not pending on residential,non-resi- many developers. But some say The company owned an 83-acre "There are no hard and fast rules The wetlands consisted of 5.3 pre riled $423.2 billion at a season- that a fairly new method of protect- parcel in the Green River Valley to follow here but there are gener- acres of a 31-acre parcel. Following Sw 22.4 billion in April. ing wetlands could prove to be the which had numerous wetlands, ally political and biological param- mitigation,about 14 acres had been highest since it reached $425.6 best compromise between develop- making it unattractive to develop- eters to follow," Kranz said. reserved for protection of wetlands abc ment and the environment. ers. There are two main advantages on the site in the form of buffers, bee )ril than initially estimated. The Mitigation banking involves A program was set up whereby with the banking program, sup- additional wetlands and enhance- 75( ling 0.3 percent as it originally creating a large supply of wetlands the company gave 45 acres of the porters say. ments. near a future development site in land to the city for a wetlands bank. First, the wetlands are bigger and ❑crease of about 0.3 percent in order to compensate for negative The remaining 38 acres is more of a higher quality than the smaller, it above the same month a year impacts to wetlands on site. usable now because a developer s rC: O Y p P poradic wetlands developers createA developer can buy credits from does not have to worry about work- on site. It is also advantageous to �vas off 0.3 percent, to a $177.0 the "wetland bank" for every acre ing around wetlands — he merely have successful wetlands in place i April. onstruction rose 1.5 percent,W i advance. But spending on mul- Luxuryto$13.2 billion. housingdevelopment:tor to continue growing slowly ngle family homes. --- - -- - - -- - - - -� i 0 T 7 TO: C7 �PLEASE CALL. FROM: X 'FOR YOUPF�)J FORMAT ION FOR ACTION DATE: ` TIME:10*M ❑ FOR APPROVAL c�lAM4►lO ❑ FOR SIGNATURE RE: ❑ YOUR RECOMMENDATION C�dE1�/I+oNn I7 1� PER OUR CONVERSATION PHONE # : ❑� PER YOUR REQUEST i � ihtr� ❑ READ AND RETURN ❑ READ AND ROUTE TO FILES COMMENTS : For t�Qi�N �w•• Ci ATTACH MATERIAL & RETURN O%A, � �❑ FOR TO Wrt t 3 �• +vAA�o�'"y`1wa••.le. -.�., a� Zdllm`�� Golder Asaoclates Inc. ( GoWff4104-148thAvenue.NE DPedmond, WA USA 3 077 E sociale3 ieiephono(206)883 0777 iLs Fax(206)882-5d98 June 5, 1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill.Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer RE: Level II Environmental Assessment, South Part of Parcel 13 Glacier Park Company Dear Ms. Myer: This letter report presents our findings for the Level II environmental assessment conducted at the referenced parcel. The scope of this work included a brief review of docurnents supplied by the City of Renton, and a sampling and analysis program to collect sediments and surface water adjacent to the Stemoff Metals site. During the preparation of the scope of work for this investigation, a preliminary walk-through was also made of Parcel 14 in order to examine the fill materials used at the site. Although this was not part of the scope of work for this investigation, we will also include our observations from the walk-through in this report. This report presents a description of the site, a brief review of previous work at the site, a discussion of our sampling and analysis methods, and the results of the sampling and analysis program. A discussion of our findings and our recommendations are provided at the conclusion of the report. 1. Introduction The project site is depicted on Figure 1. The property comprises the most southerly part of Parcel 13,currently owned by Glacier Park Company. Parcel 13 consists of a series of discontinuous strips of land that form a mosaic trending generally northeasterly from the project site. The area investigated is bounded on the north by a spur of the Burlington Northern railroad, on the east by the Sternoff Metals site, on the south by South 180th Street, and on the west by the Burlington Northern main line. The topography of the site is low-lying, with little vertical relief. The surrounding railroad embankments, as well as the fill material underlying the western portion of the Sternoff site, are approximately 8-15 feet higher in elevation than the project site. Much of the project area is inundated by water, with depths ranging from a few inches to a few feet. An irregularly-shaped pond is situated along the eastern boundary of the property. The remainder of the property is vegetated, with standing water covering large areas. Figure I shows the relative distribution of marshy areas supporting the growth of grass or low shrubs, and forested areas with cottonwood and other trees. Drainage at the site is not well-developed, due in part to extensive land reclamation and fill operations that have occurred in the area. A tributary to Springbrook Creek passes near the site to the east, flowing north to the Black River. This portion of Parcel 13 also appears to C'r F RENTON j ice of the City Attorney �'`� j' Lawrence J. Warren Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF PECF1VEW////9� r�N j DN F , MKS DEPT. May 6, 1992 ring Dept. NTON ^��` . , itt� TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator + Department of Planning/Building/Public Works John Webley, Community Services Administrator FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Funding of Glacier Park Purchases Dear Lynn and John: This memo is a follow-up to the conversation we had during the mayor' s staff meeting of May 5, 1992 . During that meeting we discussed the possible funding sources for the Glacier Park purchases . We discussed four concepts . 1 . A wildlife corridor bank. We would operate this bank much like the wetlands mitigation bank. As I understand it we are J►m'S� presently requiring certain developers to dedicate two � + percent of their property to wildlife habitat. We could , pd create an exception to that policy where the developer could A' krV pay the city for use of an equivalent amount of the city' s S'C en develop this extra two percent. This wildlife bank and then p 5. would probably eliminate certain maintenance requirements on the developer, while at the same time allowing the city to accumulate contiguous parcels that would serve as a meaningful wildlife area and wildlife corridor. Lynn was going to {heck with her staff to see if this idea could be implemented. If it works we might want to give consideration = to ow , is concept might work city-wide . 2 . Take over' Draina e District No. 1 within the city limits . I am exp ooing this alternative with Ron Straka and reviewing our statutory authorization to take over the drainage district. Apparently we have been approached by the city of Kent about doing exactly that. However, we have to be cautious as the sediments in Springbrook Creek may be polluted. The city is presently having a consultant look at the sediment quality so we will have an answer in the near future. 3 . Loans or grants from wildlife groups . Apparently several groups are very interested in the wetlands mitigation bank and have indicated a willingness to make loans and/or grants Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 i CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 1992 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Ly ann SUBJECT: GLAC PARK PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENT Our consultant, Golder and Associates, recommends a Level II Environmental Assessment of any site associated with the former Springbrook Creek tributary because of the potential contamination from the Sternoff site and the unknown origin of any material used in filling the tributary. Attached is a map of the former tributary which traverses the Sternoff site, Parcel 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13 (see attached map). i Parcel 14 is potentially affected, it is a part of the Mitigation Bank and therefore appears to be .a significant obstacle to proceeding with the transfer agreement with Glacier Park. We are notifying Golder and Associates to proceed with the Level H Environmental Assessment. i A small segment of Parcel 13 also may be potentially affected; however, it is not needed by the city for the mitigation bank, and although it is one of the alternative alignments for the P-1 Channel, it is one of the more costly alternatives and may not be needed for several years. i Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. 1 feel we should proceed with the sale on the understanding that the Level II analysis be done on both the potentially affected portion of Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 with costs for the analysis being paid out of closing costs. In addition, Mike Dotson will arrange for a 50 year title i search for all of the parcels. 3 If you concur with this approach, please countersign this memo and fax it back to me. I will then attach it to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and take the entire packet to the Mayor for his signature. Also, please send the original back to me so that it can be copied to Dan Clements and the file. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. Thank you. Lawrence J. W n City Attorney attachment: map of area cc: Dan Clements Mary Lynne Myer CITY OF RENTON =� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator May 14, 1992 Tony Burgess, Principal Golder Associates, Inc. 4104 - 148th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 Subject: Level II Environmental Assessment of the Glacier Park Properties (Portions of #14 and #13) Dear Mr. Burgess: Per our phone conversation on May 13, 1992, the City requests your assistance in conducting a Level II Environmental Assessment of the highlighted portions of the Glacier Park Properties #14 and #13. (See attached map.) The City is considering acquisition of these properties. Please prepare a scope, budget, and schedule for the work to conduct the Level II Environmental Assessment in the areas indicated on parcels #13 and #14. This letter authorizes your firm to initiate work. Enclosed are some preliminary sediment sampling results and an associated monitoring plan for work the City is performing as part of the Black River Water Quality. Management Plan. Our consultant conducting the water quality and sediment sampling for the Water Quality Management Plan is Walter Trial of Herrera Environmental Consultants. The preliminary information collected by Herrera Environmental Consultants may be useful in your Level 11 Environmental Assessment. Again, we authorize you to start work on the Level II Environmental Assessment for the indicated portions of Parcels #13 and #14. We would like to limit the total budget for the work to $10,000 or less if possible. The work must be completed by June 8, 1992. It is for this purpose that we request the preparation of the scope, budget, and schedule for the Level II Environmental Assessment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 277-5547. Very truly yours, 4 <�� Ron Straka Acting Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor cc: Lynn Guttmann MaryLynn Myer c:docs:92-356:RJS:adk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 1970 Aerial Photograph f3 ,i II1 151 b' ' lMw f � h11.13�i.. 1►IN 'r '.^• 1 `ut; ; r�r 4H..a - i �hsr ea t� t� ����,�.�/�/J!j!*"" '.r •I� %sl �s r�S , tJ P�r r 4r+ 1 n A �>. .)' {,r4.t, t _ !.M .•_'7rw. >rr 111 dr� � '�'�` � ` Itr v r( I �z x ��Fj } ' Olymc PI alinpie P Station , �r r 4 � 7,, t. t ...: .. 'jQ cyiV��5� 1 +' �..•.. j� r Xt - l� ?}" •.��,,^�.,,}}�� f t C +I { -<h� ' '' ( e1 - fi,�, '� ttld�" r `� r•r I" rf.:. i ii ¢taa wi�tc rt'. d Ff B.P.Bulk Storage': Facility a.�r �R' '�'<},L� � �,` a�r'��a i' 4. 4 �' - `�' � '���.�t" ��>�+°, �8.s ,Z��is{�,1 F �i '_•t _� r f v � t },. r=' x v = �, k,,✓.i�y�'{ + ° �°1 f v, f -� "Yt'".. �� ) i(� t t r�tT i,v Ilkrf t1 trek ii t � ,r f!i}. } E1RY � l r kf a 'YI xi � i Jslla r ffi��r � �� ht 'ti v " � �� < Fp�r rd� 1r s• r r•.. •• 11 ,... r 7� .,M>� � �i f, r,¢•�3,.s .� L �1- 'I it a- ,.,1 I t$ 1 ✓+`—'"WW` R :�'�,N''>j'�aa. r(r��+R4 ..., •,�� ' 44k.. 3 }'�,� a a.'�,pl y ,S'qt�•' ... fir , { Y �''• �AI �r.�xr�+�f'"�"�'" «"3 r��r`�,<�f`'�a •� tVr� �t��� �� �:�L "�{t � 1 t v i y� , 7i�lA iyJ { •r z I �� �li T � I �y9 �� � ~`} �) 1��7 1 �r,� � I'4. ` n d 7 ¢'�7•�� ), i' ( ffik, ��`F y i �1ii` i �st lhg� Filter , k dt #, ??�4`�"ii n�A tCaa�� I y s Y' jiij �. .(' i 1 �� ak r• � Ili }I.i ,t, 4� r�•, ext�nyjn8 r�. r �Ll' �< •'Z.` �• r � ' �� It�l't ,v. \ �« J <-�. ��'f �; � > � rl tlA ta- v 1 ( I• "� , »Y Sell +, "f '4 g '� •S y �1 '� Ti4T/y(yE , r , ' r ILir �' tfft' i �, �' � '..•x C� �1• F 11 1. It li�tl m, . �• �wJ r !'! f R ,� y•t �d,... al jig �i ,�•i ��Y4's�i ,� t y�i,,li�iy�'k' �If f SII,�rid}� � } 4 � T i 1 � ��} ���{ ('ti f`u i,��� F�• 1 t,l�R3S:u~. � J s��� �, !� S &r� '.� ��'µ � t�� rd ��f }��' �i � , ��� •.t,,.'���� '11�'r c� '�i�r.+ r� ����gF'd{"' '�q+ `la �..(•� +� � � � t {�:c'! �1`(3�j'�.. ,err I ��� rrt` yl •� �i" ��<af} 1 ,s I: � t�F I I�A'��ry���f {• +5 .� y f) A Z.•.; t r.{ � ��' 4�vr A .•� l'ry rY, �• , ' .`�� > �� � "'� t•° �,'f d �IJ.,�•' SSW' r r � � %�`�� h�11f ��i. �"R, .t+d. r MN l� 1 ��„ •,�,�fl' � ,�„,,�� �f ii •; �' � �` Y: �� �.r� N gip„ .� ' } s, '1"s� i� .1 l e r•^{N7SCr8Jx �r � r t rf s 1 '�I •f �1,, �i�At 1 •t 0 10000 20,00( �Sl ernofi'Mitel # t 641 Approximate Scale in Feet Arw HARTCRowsER Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by 13 Parcel Number J-3405R 10191 Walkor ASROCIaIe$dated 1985. BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT QUALITY: PRELIMINARY RESULTS With respect to aquatic resource impacts, sediment samples from Springbrook Creek exhibited high concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); moderately high concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc; and low or undetected concentrations of the remaining tested parameters. Preliminary evaluation of the data indicates the sediment would not be classified as a dangerous waste, but would have to be disposed in a permitted, lined landfill. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations typically exceeded King County Health Department limit of 200 ppm for material that can be disposed in an unlined landfill. Samples that exceeded the TPH limit were collected from Station 3 (600 mg/kg), Station 4 (280 mg/kg), Station 7 (630 mg/kg), Station 8 (2,700 mg/kg), Station 12 (820 mg/kg), and Station 13 (330 mg/kg). However, these samples did not exceed the Health Department's TPH limit of 3,000 mg/kg for material that has to be disposed in a permitted hazardous waste landfill. Comparison of contaminant concentrations to Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) indicate none of the sediment would not be classified as dangerous waste. Comparison of contaminant concentrations to the Model Toxics Control Act (WAC 173-340) soil cleanup standards indicate disposal of dredged sediment would only be allowed at a permitted landfill. 178A\PRERESLT Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared by Rob Zisette Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1414 Dexter Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 Prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 and City of Renton Department of Public Works 20G Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 A I October 10, 1991 nT� NTON. WASHINGTON KING COUNTY '61 R,E n 5 E •59 7370' '60 t ''^"�'••�' w 70' '67 12Y+5' •57--E i! �. -� a - .., l�„4\',is A: f_,i,,/'l'1 l i•_ �'1\ \ 'i . .YJO• .', � � � \�aY t,,�. +A.m—. S +I ;R;.:. r1 rcF lt� • 't'�i i !� :�l\ \ \ a.a s - — � ,`i"r o' �1 n. Iwr y ! Ij' .. L 1 �s P ����- �.� !` � 1 r ` s \ '` • 11'/\ �\ i � /�l� r•1� . � j7?* I.test�ff.'; 18 ,,1�'\\ \ ;�� r \ 17 l IPA( I �� °�M 'AH r I I ■ I Legend: f n qa�r • •� �,.� `.` ` �: :l sue• j. Y �� s_Study Area `% fir- -.� • �v��a + ��- ;__ 4� _Streams •/.)�: �.�, ��.-�_ • ' 777. •r / 1 Water Monitoring Stations l� A l3 � _ 'S - rr y i' ` edtment Monitoring Stations t Ve \` ._� . �c� ' to 1.�;;f IiMn.• .I �S SCALE 1:25 000 i.. `\h,�e� �•�-••••• _ �k'- _ _'C r 'S� ISs\ } %'l.` s Pra` CENTIMETER ON TIME~REPRESENTS SSB METERS ON THE GOT CONTOUR INTERVAL S METERS '•` • _ ram• ar;. r. ;•.$y,I^..-•:.� •' I:S�' ������ i°. I � 1•'/x „:•._• ( -- /� i -E'er,-==: `'��`ia� s-;o{ �-� '� - ''7 �! 1�/ �� ._� �'� i :/. `:•• _ S- j' II.r�•• ,/(/ '•�1..+ /i'4 �� i �-! K 16i1 I 7,7S .1 ..� I \ •• c\�, ' / �• '1° BB•P!-•ter i> I• ) i �,� _ p lac, • `� I� � .•_ �. ' f '-�` � _��ti �',•: 'i r r!R r 1 �f�dawc�e �y�;. °�- \1,�S Hsu , ' ^� .� 1R'�1 '� t_`�'-S�ti'lit •,l. e.�, tX-�� S ice. �. :„ - � �: - , \ •' �•.,.: .r-'j I 's ll - F 't 'ii If .W,w ♦ a1. %.,'.,. -�• 15 u P / '• �] I �t r v Jlr _ P r�aa i`1` _:y : �__ # i ��, ?• 1•'111 ti� IT 13 ° ' ukwila +►� ��,: l - _S •9 i �:7 r'a 1 :J �: ;l airs :• JLk ! BOY J BM Idl OMIL •AIrMO:q /COM I .a l _ ��/ •� ' "'�_Y Pt3r 35 i.Bs%rt• ■ _ _1. 7' >,-\� .! � j;i• 3 , -Sa ' r• , I 3��, .y —-�-I - •A t . l : 2 \`•t :;L 7 fC f; - 1 IY.•. ....ems:: xJ M sA. C 7 _ it ,'a9z . •' �h :/ •d a ♦, NSA\ \\'., i ;• 1 'cN m ;.\• 1 — } :a � +'_� sEiii, D Ih�t"�"11 •�•, :3E� � •1' � S "St �.•'-! '. _W UBr{e -q!— •.o• �'� I' r`'•'C.:.:.l: :\...I. 'r fig,\ `1C..J ! ` f`,\ •� •O� BG H J � 'a Esx t 1 e� '1:�� 1. .tl�• '•t: \�'\Y- � .wt \ _i � 1, o t2 i .I L �! \��`�l'�;t��t''.il:..E• "��� . .. '�, ::11. :i n ,I 1 _ 3 1 7- 't�� Table 2. (ctd) Sediment sample analytical methods and quality control objectives. Method Matrix Maximum Detection. Spike % Holding Analyze Method (1) Limit Difference Recovery Time Total Petroleum IR (sonication) 5 mg/kg <25 NA 28 days Hydrocarbons EPA 418.1 mod. Total Organic Combustion IR 0.2 mg/kg <25 NA 28 days Carbon SW-846-9071 Total Volatile Gravimetric 5 mg/kg <25 NA 7 days Solids EPA 160.4 Particle Size Sieve/Pipet NA <25 NA 6 months PSEP Notes; (1) EPA method numbers from EPA 1979, SW-846 method numbers from EPA 1986, PSEP from Tetra Tech 1986.. (2) Control limits from the EPA Contract Lab Program (EPA 1985). (3) Detection limit for toxaphene is 1200 ug/kg. (4) Detection limit for dalapon is 200 ug/kg. Table 2. Sediment sample analytical methods and quality control objectives. Method Duplicate Matrix Maximum Detection Relative % Spike % Holding Analyte Method (1) Limit Difference Recovery Time Arsenic GFAA 0.1 mg/kg EPA-CLP (2) EPA-CLP 6 months SW-846-7060 Cadmium ICP SW-846-6010 0,2 mg/kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 6 months Copper ICP 0.2 mg/kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 6 months SW-846-6010 Lead GFAA 0.1 mg/kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 6 months SW-846-7420 Mercury Cold Vapor 0.05 mg/kg EPA-CLIP EPA-CLP 28 days SW-846-7420 zinc ICP 0.4 mg/kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 6 months SW-846-6010 Volatile GC/MS full 0.5-10 ug/Kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 14 days Organics SW-846-8240 Semivolatlle GC/MS full 70-700 ug/Kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 10 days extract Organics SW-846-8270 30 days analyze PCBs GC/ECD 160 ug/kg EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 10 days extract SW-846-8080 30 days analyze Chlorinated GC/ECD 10-35 ug/kg (3) EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 10 days extract Pesticides SW-846-8080 30 days analyze Chlorinated GC/ECD 2-20 ug/kg (4) EPA-CLP EPA-CLP 10 days extract Herbicides SW-846-8150 30 days analyze Table 1. (ctd) Water sample analytical methods and quality control objectives. Method Duplicate Matrix Control Maximum Detection Relative Spike % Standard % Holding Analyte Method (1) Limit Difference Recovery Recovery Time Nitrate + Nitrite Auto Cad Red (filter) 10 ug/L .<25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 28 days Nitrogen EPA 353.2/SM 418F <50 (<5 x DL) Cadmium GFAA (digest) 0.2 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 6 months EPA 213.2 <50 (<5 x DL) Copper GFAA (digest) 1 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 6 months EPA 2-20.2 <50 (<5 x DL) Lead. GFAA (digest) 0.5 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 6 months EPA 239.2 <50 (<5 x DL) Zinc ICP (digest) 3 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 6 months EPA 200.7 <50 (<5 x DL) Fecal Coliforms Membrane Filter 2/100 mL <50 NA NA 30 hours SM 909C Notes: (1) EPA method numbers from EPA 1979, SM method numbers from APHA 1985. Table 1. Water sample analytical methods and quality control objectives. Method Duplicate Matrix Control Maximum Detection Relative% Spike % Standard % Holding Analyte Method (1) Limit Difference Recovery Recovery Time Temperature Field Meter -5 to 45 oC <5 NA NA Zero YSI Model 54A Dissolved Field Meter 0.2 mg/L <5 NA NA Zero Oxygen, YSI Model 54A pH Field Meter 1.14 <5 NA NA Zero Orion Model SA230 Conductivity Field Meter 0 umhos/cm <5 NA NA 28 days Amber Science 604 Hardness EDTA Titrimetric 1 mg/L <25 75-125 90-110 6 months SM 3146 Turbidity Nephelometric 0.1 NTU <25 NA NA 2 Days EPA 180.1/SM 214A Total Suspended Gravimetric 0.5 mg/L <25 (>5 x DL) NA NA 7 days Solids EPA 160.1/SM 209C <50 (<5 x DL) Total Phosphorus Auto Ascorbic (digest) 2 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 26 days SM 424 G <50 (<5 x DL) . Soluble Phosphorus Auto Ascorbic i ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 2 days SM 424G <50 (<5 x DL) j Total Persulfate Modified Koroleff 100 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 28 days Nitrogen <50 (<5 x DL) Ammonia Nitrogen Auto Phenate (filter) 10 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 28 days SM 417G <50 (<5 x DL) SEACOR Lc•c Uc,ri�cr„ ,i: a n<sru.�ria i i i i0 /I'Ib.-I VC)IIW A.E Y104 !�elleo„c, Wl'A, 98004 i 206.646.0280 f y - ; ,♦�;.,tip _ J titi �1 vv. a �A: RAFT TABLE Analytical Results Springbrook Creek Sampling (Task 9) (all results in ppm unless noted) 1st Sampling Round SC-1 nstreaml SC-2 (Downstream MTCA (rU Comrnou_nd Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water V O Cs 82401 112 ND Xylenes (ppb) 112 ND PCBs 8080 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 10 0.0001 Total Metals < 2.25 0.06 32' Antimony < 2.25 0.09 200 0.0480 Arsenic 6.89 < 0.05 < 1.88 < 0.05 l < 0.19 < 0.005 10 0.0011 3.99 < 0.005 Cadmium 42.4 < 0.01 500 0.210 15.7 0.011 a Chromium 500 0.0120 Copper 12.8 < 0.025 18.0 < ,0.025 4.31 < 0.05 1,000 0.0032 3.92 < 0.05 1,, 001 Lead 14.6 < 0.04 Nickel 5.68 < 0.04 500 0.0470 Zinc 27.6 0.14 87.6 0.12 ND - Not Detected 1 Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCF2 X HQ from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC rL*J*R"A A F T TABLE Analytical Results Dirt Road Sampling (Task 8) (all results in ppm unless noted) Road #1 Road #2 COMPOUNDS Soil Soil 39,549 36,417 TPH (418.1) < 0.1 < 0.1 PCBs (8080) J �.. R A F T TABLE Analytical Results Debris Pile Sampling (Task 7) (all results in ppm unless noted) D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 MTCA Compound Soil soil Soil Soil Soil Soil -; Metals: 1 321 Antimony 73.2 30.9 < 1.15 1.74 .15 66.2 20.5 21.6 19.6 < 1.15 20 Arsenic < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0. 4001 12 Beryllium 0.71 0.51 10 Cadmium 20.7 10.7 1.54 3.25 0.69 500 Chromium 298 123 210 836 70.0 9,406 5,504 142 207 90.0 500 Copper 1,0 49.4 21.4 00 Lead 1,275 988 585 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.24 0.35 1.0 Mercury 837 1,6001 Nickel 462 14.8 476 1,491 < 1.15 2401 Selenium 22.4 < 1.15 < 1.15 65.9 Silver 25.2 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 01 5 Zinc 20,595 24,689 161 1,590 64.1 500 TPH (418.1 23.3 386 67.6 25.1 34.4 200 PCBs 8080 NA NA NA NA 0.2 10 NA - Not Analyzed ' Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCF2 X HQ from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC j TABLE DRAFT SULT RE��FF PILCAL E (Ta ks6) \ (all results in ppm unless noted) W-1 W-2 W-4 W-5 W-6 MCTA DWR Compound Fluff Soil FluffFluff Soil Fluff Soil Fluff Soil Max VOCs (824) ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Semi VOCs (8270) Di-n-butyphthalate 54.120 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Butyl benzyl phthalate 18.165 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Di-n-octyl phthalate 112.333 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Phenols 90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Pc s 8080 ND ND NA ND NA 13 86 16 10 Total Metals Antimony 59.8 <1.2 NA NA 2.90„ NA 1.44 NA 321 Cadmium 0.95 <0.11 NA NA <0.11 NA 4.18 NA 10 Chromium 21.6 30.6 NA NA 45.7 NA 40.0 NA 500- Copper 25,721 194 NA NA 23.3 NA 208 NA 500 Lead 598 2.79 NA NA 3.61 NA 486 NA 1000 Nickel 9.62 45.5 NA NA 45.5 NA 48.8 NA 1,600 Silver 12.8 5.0 NA NA 3.20 NA 5.45 NA 240 Zinc 1,113 27.3 NA NA 28.3 NA 651 NA 500 EPTOX Metals Barium 7.5 NA 1.8 1.8 NA 0.7 NA 1.2 100 Lead 0.8 NA 2.1 <0.1 NA 0.4 NA <0.1 5 Copper 6.2 NA 3.1 0.2 NA 6.8 NA 0.2 Nickel <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 NA 0.2 Zinc 16.3 NA 3.2 4.4 NA •11.7 NA 0.8 Fish Toxicity 100 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1000 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - Not Analyzed ND - Not Detected MTCA - Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Levels for soil at lndustrial sites DWR - Dangerous Waste Regulation maximum concentration in extract (mg/L) 'Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCF2 X HO from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC DRAFT TABLE _ Analytical Results Wetlands Sampling (Task 4) (all results in ppm unless noted) WL-1 WLr2 WL-3 MTCA Compound Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water Total Metals Antimony 2.83 < 0.06 < 2.25 < 0.06 7.10 < 0.06 321 Arsenic 12.1 < 0.05 13.7 < 0.05 22.9 < 0.05 200 0.0480 Beryllium 0.38 < 0.005 0.32 < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 4001 Cadmium 1.09 < 0.005 1.00 < 0.005 4.86 < 0.005 10 0.0011 Chromium 30.2 0.02 29.0 < 0.01 32.4 0.01 500 0.210 Copper 36.2 0.085 26.7 < 0.025 89.1 < 0.025 500 _ 0.0120 Lead 22.3 0:65• 10.7 0.06 197 < 0.05 1,000 -0.0032 Mercury 0.19 0.0007 0.16 0.0005 0.17 0.0003 1.0 0.000012 Nickel 16.8 0.05 17.4 0.04 24.4 0.05 1,6001 Zinc 61.2 0.159 53.7 0.14 317 0.131 500 0.0470 PCBs (8080) 0.3 < 0.001 0.4 < 0.001 0.5 < 0.001 10 0.0001 1254/1260 1 Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCF2 X HO from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC DRAFTw TABLE Analytical Results i Toxicity Characteric Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Auto Fluff Pile (Task 3) (all results in ppm unless noted) F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 TCLP Compound Fluff Fluff Fluff Fluff Fluff Fluff Fluff Limits VOCs (82401 ND NA NA NA NA NA ND Semi VOCs 8720 ND NA NA NA NA NA ND Tyr Metals Barium 3.3 NA NA NA NA NA 2.9 100 Cadmium 0.3 NA NA NA NA NA 0.3 1 Lead 3.5 7.3 5.8 8.7 30.2 26.9 8.5 5 Chlorinated Herbicides 8150 ND NA NA NA NA NA ND Pesticides 8080 ND NA NA NA NA NA ND TCLP limits in mg/L, (extract) NA - Not Analyzed ND - Not Detected TABLE DRAFT ANALYTICAL RESULTS AUTO FLUFF PILE(Task 3) E_. (all results in ppm unless noted) F-2 F-3 F4 F-5 F6 F-7 A-9 A-12 A-13 A-15 MTCA DW CompoundFluffSoil Flu Fluff Soil Fluff Soi Water Fluff Fluff Soil - Flu Sol Water Fluff Fluff Flu Fluff Soil Water Max VOCs 8240 4-methyl-2-pentlnone? ;t 1373 NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.500 NA. NA NA NA NA NA 4,000' [oluene }3 f' 2.019 NA NA NA NA NA NA: NA NA NA NA _ 1366 NA NA NA NA NA NA 40 0.020 Ethylbewnn 0386- NA ' NA NA NA NA NA' NA NA NA NA OS20 NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 0.020 0928 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.808 NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 0.020 Xylenes I} y sY Semi-VOCs(82701 ; 4-methyphend .5.000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.688 NA NA NA NA NA NA Diethylphthalate; --- 147.000, NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2464 NA NA NA NA s NA NA 64,000' Di-n buylphthalate 13.000" NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 22.670 NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,000' Elouranthene_ --- \ 12000i NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA NA 2566 , NA NA NA NA NA NA Butyl benzyl phthalate s 36.000' NA NA- NA, NA NA NA NA NA- NA NA 30516 NA;` NA NA NA NA NA Benzo(a)anthracene <5.000 _ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 'NA" 2-967 .=NA', NA NA NA NA NA bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 297.000 _ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 489280 NA' NA NA NA NA NA Di-n-octyl phthalate 26.000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2464 NA NA NA NA NA NA Total Phenols 17-0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA PcBs(8080) 29 <01 NA 29 NA 28 <0-1 NA NA 28 NA 43 NA NA 46 17 12 30 10 0.0001 Total Metals Antimony 492 <12 NA NA <13 NA <13 <0.06 NA NA <13 <12 <13 1.4 NA NA NA NA 32' Arsenic 032 <020 NA NA 0.45 NA <020 <0.05 NA NA <1-1 34.9 <1.1 4.7 NA NA NA NA 200 0.005 Beryllium <0-1 <0-1 NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.005 NA NA <0.11 0.27 <0.11 <0.05 NA NA NA NA 400' Cadmium 44.0 0.40 NA NA <0.10 NA <0.10<0.005 NA NA 1.52 473 056 <0.05 NA NA NA NA 10 0.005 Chromium 154 19.9 NA NA 15.6 NA 22.9 <0.04 NA NA 24.6 149 18.8 9.6 NA NA NA NA 500 0.100 Copper 17,315 56.9 NA NA 37.9 NA 30-9<0.025 NA NA 47.4 17,031 35.0 1.1 NA NA NA NA 3.0 1.000 Lead 10,781 373 NA NA 19.7 NA 43 <0.005 NA NA 88.8 2,871 35.5 1.9 NA NA NA NA 1000 0.005 Mercury 2-12 <0.1 NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.001 NA NA <0.1 1.43 <0.1 0.07 NA NA NA NA 1.0 0.002 Nickel 313 14.9 NA NA 93 NA 13.7 0.07 NA NA 15.1 347 12-9 142 NA NA NA NA 1600' Selenium 3.11 <0-2 NA NA <0.2 NA <02<0.005 NA NA <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <0S NA NA NA NA 240' Thallium 1.14 0-73 NA NA 0.51 NA 1.00 <0.01 NA NA <0.22 <022 <022 <0.1 NA NA NA NA 7.2' Zinc 7,991 66.7 NA NA 673 NA 33.1 0.02 NA NA 263 10,471 124 3.67 NA NA NA NA 500 5.000 EPTOX Metals 1.1 NA 0.7 13 100 Barium 1.0 NA 0.6 12 NA 1.0 NA NA 0.4 O.S NA OS NA NA <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 5 Barium 0.1 NA <0.t <0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 NA NA 5 <0.1 NA 0.1 0.1 NA <0.1 NA NA 03 0.2 NA 0.1 NA NA 0.6 NA <0.1 OS Lead <0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA <0.1 NA OS <0.1 Nickel <0.1 NA <0.1 0.1 NA 0.4 NA NA <0.1 0.5 NA 0.6 0.5 Zinc 03 NA 0.1 0.4 NA 0.5 NA NA 0.2 0.2 NA 0.4 NA NA 0-2 NA <0.1 0.1 Copper 0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 NA NA 0.1 <0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA Fah Toxicity NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA 0 NA 100 mglkg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1000 mgfkg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA-Not Analyccd 'Calculated using formula RFD X AHW X UCF2 X fiQ from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC .77 BURLW(71ON NORTHERN RABROAD - - -Tl s•� TRANSFORMERS I-I.3L DR RAGEPAD J-45 � WELL HOUSE/COOLING TOWER MW- .IC 8 _� MW T - e _. AREHOCISE L I PAD - `\\ MW -- A EIMW-12- I ' FORMER MW 2 SCALE I I 13se HOUSE I- i r s MW-5 //1 s AS x _ ::.-FORMER R s n _ "s MW-I RAMP SHRIDD BLDG: r, I .. } n MWA -3 i - � a I50• _Xl x / -/ //, /DEfIRLS SCALE `1�� p,/. - I (APPROXIMATE) LEGEND -p' APPROXIMATE MONITORING WELL LACATIONS DIRT ROAD I FORMER��•� —�. PROPERTY BOUNDARY / ! I �7REES&SHRUBS ( RABROADTRACK IPLANT—' � %. I I —® DRAINAGE DTI•CF1 LARGE AUTO FLUFF PRES i THIN AUTO FLUFF PR-ES I ` ' TBM . SEACORTEMFORARYBENCHMARK.ON . SEWER MANHOIECOVER.ASSUREDELEVATION I5-00 FT.ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVFI:(MSL}. S.W.43RD STREET SEACOR Nip r�JrS -r a . ._ TRANSFORMERS BURLWGION NORTHERN RAILROAD/ DRUM STORAGE PAD Io.S-7 WELL HOUSE/COOLAIGTOWER CONC PAD �l -6 I � a• FFn ER t 1 4il Sc� o I. �"'.��'a `A SHRED l l l , 11 MW 1 I)3 Y7. 1 TRAN FORIMP 1 1 1 l/ SCALE i i \ 3. 1 3 I `� I HOU -5 _ /TBM lo. / x X / -- ASP - 1 '7.04$ ; x FORMER WIRE.'r' MW-L �� -RAMP ..... R BLDO' Ro�j / MW-3 a R• t5Q x�x_x / DEBRIS / I W SCALE / PIl.ES � I � (APPROXIMATE) I � PASTU LAND . LEGEND APPROXIMATE MONITORING WELL / 1 I LOCATIONS FORMER / /// I =.-�F} DIRT ROAD PPACKING I �TREES&SHRUBS I — PRA�O TRACKBOUNDARY ANTDRAINAGE DITCH I1 I ® LARGE AUTO FLUFF PILES ED THIN AUTO FLUFF PILES I ' ElI I 1 I ® WIRE FLUFF PILES 1 TBM• SFACOR TIMPORARYBINCFiMARKON SEWER MANHOLE COVER.ASSURED ELEVATION 1 1 1 1�i_ I+• � ----- 15.00 FT.ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL(MSL). S.W.43RD STREET „vN `.:: , i aN �o 07 d7( Colo •p moo• � --- _- -- y So-p fio o� �� > �C'o So.off I {• U soo p _ too SSao seo o y .. -. Soapy Soo�oy So'O vn,c.•i�� Fr 0 > i py fi o oy i o> -Co>. .-: � oao8 rg�c - b'N �N {�rV so•o7 Vvy #N Pli - K 8-7 st ' I'.�`tdlc`-w- vry VIVy N 1 u-J �I-r 7--.--- N �1 e II�W �l-`'141b "IIiJ $�rfC-J L-�1L�j --�_- ( t o�PJ s•70/��� i' ',� (�+� m���d "` sJlns-�� �t`'� '�S•' � ,�x: sus �`; ,� ,�� #t. -3 i THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF j PLAN NINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 - 2189 PHONE: 235-2631 '� ^ FAX: 235-2541 FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: � f /qz, TO: laves I _� �c.Q� Ssca i, . FAX #: Z-e6 FROM: Z'q Z-77 7_S�7 SUBJECT: �l Z 24 Ors Number of pages excluding cover sheet: I3 I G (� j3"44 Al. Sires ,�- 0"(d (1 j i, I _ i I / - f I I; I; i f, i - fi �I I; I II Ij Ij I CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, FROM: Mary Lynne Myer SUBJECT: Glacier Park Update The memo is to update you on the staff work being done on Glacier Park. It has two sections: details to be finalized for your information, with no management decisions needed; and Management Decisions needed before closing. Kay has been briefed and she and Mike Kattermann will be available while I am gone. I will be back on May 14, 1992. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS SUNIA4ARY: 1. Shall we authorize a level II study of the potentially contaminated site, Parcel 14? Cost: $8000-15,000*-- 2. Shall we authorize a 50 year title search for all properties? Cost: $1000-1200 IMMEDIATE DETAILS TO BE RESEARCHED: Task who date 1. small portion of P-9 channel is M Dotson 5-10 -5 i under ownership of BN. Needs checking to 'C make sure it was included in the sale. 2. unrecorded lease for manure storage M Dotson 5-10 from Longacres on portion of P-9 is it still valid? 3. Small splinter of land on P-9 going M Dotson 5-10 �d C, c N U north by Longacres: Longacres has been paying taxes on it. Who possesses Y-e501 it? 4. Quit claim deed or other conveyance L. Warren ? 5. letter of agreement on mit bank L. Warren MLM 5-14 6. Internal contract L. Warren ? 7. Initial financing Warren/ Clements 5-14 8. Submit Lot line adjustment for both mit parcels Mark Stiefel 5-15 9. Review lot line adjustments Don Erickson ? MANAGEMENT DECISIONS I sent the due diligence reports from Golder and Associates to Larry Warren and asked for his opinion. He believes we should take several steps based on his understanding of the hazardous waste laws. First, it is necessary to outline the Hazardous Waste reports as defined by the Department of Ecology so our dilemma will be clear to the reader. Level I Report: Is there a potential for contamination? These reports have been done by Glacier Park and were delivered to Larry Warren in March. Staff did not see these reports at all, as they were delivered under" attorney/client priviledge." Later, we forwarded the reports to Mike Kuprick, Golder and Associates, for his review. His report came back Monday, May 4th. See below for further discussion of his recommendations. Level II Report: Verify that contamination is present. The earlier Level I reports we received from Glacier Park apparently suggested several Level II actions should be taken. Golder coorborated several of these actions. Staff is investigating whether Glacier Park ever took the Level II actions. Level III• Determine the extent and severity of the contamination. These reports have not been done. Larry read the due diligence reports from Golder and Associates, analyzing the Glacier Park Level I reports. Golder suggests a Level II action on Parcel 14, the mitigation bank. (Mike Kattermann is verifying that this the parcel under discussion. Golder and I discussed parcel on the phone. It is important to verify location of the parcel on the map.) On this parcel an unnamed tributary to Springbrook Creek draining the Sternoff Metals site was filled over. It is possible that this stream could have carved contaminants from Sternoff to the mitigation bank site. A level II report would show what contamination might still be present in the stream sediments under the fill. It is Larry's opinion that we should get a Level II report. If we do, I believe Glacier Park should participate in the costs of that work. COSTS: $8,000-15,000 estimated. TIME: Two weeks for report If the site is contaminated, we have several choices: negate the mit bank agreement; get another site donated; do a joint clean-up; keep the contaminants capped, and find other areas to achieve no net loss. There are other choices as well. One other site evidently had some Puget Power equipment stored on it. Some phone calls to the Power company might also be in order to determine if any spills occurred. Same choices are available if this is the other mit bank site Finally, Larry suggests that we authorize a 50 year title search on the properties. This would show if any previous owners with histories of contamination owned the properties. We have 25 year title searches now. They show ownership only by Glacier Park. COSTS: $200 per parcel. Approximately 5-6 parcels. TIME: Two weeks RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Need management decision on Level II analysis, based on the amount of risk the City is willing to take with this property. 2. Authorize the title search for 50 years. cc Larry Warren Kay Shoudy ✓Mike Kattermann J attachments: C�Golder contract l lGolder Environmental Review Fax cover Memo to Lynn Guttmann �✓ i�.� J � ��j file: alert � Q/ oyq ct1( 5 �J 9&1Z�/ M 40 CITY*F RENTON 9R Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren April 30, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator �\yj Department of Planning/Building/Public WO?V -,1- FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 1,1% 11 RE : Purchase of Glacier Park Property OF ��N-TC' C1iY . Dear Lynn: �nOneering Dept By memo dated April 28, 1992 received by my office the afternoon of the following day, you ask certain questions about the financing for the Glacier Park property and how title should be taken since utility money may be used for the purchase. The purchases, if all of them are consummated, will involve about $200, 000 . 00 in cash and approximately $400, 000 . 00 in assumption of LID payments and other obligations . It would appear that the prime beneficiaries of the acquisition would be Surface Water Drainage, Transportation and Parks Departments . None of those entities presently have money available to consummate the purchase. Therefore, the city' s General Fund would have to extend monies on behalf of the benefitting public services with later repayment. That being the case, I would suggest that the city take title in the city' s name without any indication on the city' s books that any particular department is benefit . Thereafter, the city can author a policy document indicating the internal ownership interests of the properties . Payment could then be arranged from the effected department back to the General Fund or, alternatively, the benefitting department or utility could assume its portion of the LID payments . This procedure should satisfy the auditor' s office and should allow us to proceed to acquire these parcels with the minimum of additional complications . After the parcels have been acquired we can implement the funding as suggested in your memo . One additional complicatic : has to be discussed. If we form the wetlands mitigation bank, are we going to include any of Parcels 13, 1 , 3 and 4 into that bank? If so, how are the payments to the bank to be handled? For example, if some third party wishes to utilize the mitigation bank they would pay the city a sum of money that would represent the price of the property originally purchased by the city, as well as agreeing to create additional wetlands or pay the city the cost of creating the additional Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 s Lynn Guttmann, AdminArator • April 30, 1992 Page 2 wetlands . The repayment of land purchase price would then have to be accounted for . It could be credited to a particular department, for example a stormwater utility and, I presume, used to pay off LID payments . We need to work this process through before finalizing a policy. Lawrence J. Warren LJW: as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington John Webley Lee Wheeler Dan Clements �Mel Wilson /Ron Straka Priscilla Pierce Lee Haro A8 . 82 : 36 . e% �= CITY OF RENTON 'E Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator April 24, 1992 David Cotton, P.E., Principal Golder Associates, Inc. n 0?7 4104- 148th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA. 98052 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR GLACIER PARK PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE AND/OR ACQUISITION BY THE CITY OF RENTON Dear Mr. Cotton, Per our phone conversation today, the City requests your assistance in reviewing the environmental assessment reports for the properties it proposes to purchase/acquire from the Glacier Park Company. A member of your staff would review these reports at Glacier Park's office. This work will be performed under a new Task Order to your existing Annual Contract with the City. This review and a subsequent letter indicating any findings, conclusions and/or recommendations needs to be completed and delivered to the City by Monday, May 4, 1992. Your proposed scope, schedule and budget, the letter report, and subsequent invoicing and correspondence should be directed to Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Long Range Planner with the City at 277 -2719. You should also contact Mary Lynne to find out the specifics on scheduling the visit to Glacier Park's offices. Any questions regarding the processing of the Task Order should be directed to Priscilla Pierce, Administrative Analyst at 277-5591 who will assist Mary Lynne. Enclosed are copies of a portion of the reports we received. These should be returned to Mary Lynne following completion of this work. Please call me at 277-5548 should you have any questions regarding this request. Very truly yours, andall Pars s, P.E. Surface Wa r Utility Engineering Supervisor RP:rp:GOLGLAC.DOC cc Mary Lynne Myer,Principal Long Range Planner Priscilla Pierce,Administrative Analyst Ron Straka,Acting Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor(effective May 1, 1992) Enclosures 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 c • • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM a DATE: April 28, 1992 9 1992 TO: Larry Warr�� _7 CITY OF RENTON FROM: Lynn Gdttm n Engineering Dept. STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer SUBJECT: Purchase of Glacier Park Property from Surface Water and Transportation Funds We are considering expenditure of transportation and surface water utility funds in the amount of$310,000 for the purchase of Parcel 1, wetlands, in the Glacier Park Auction Group. There are two justifications for the purchase of this property: Stormwater flood control and water quality, and transportation benefits. However, we have several questions which need answers before we can proceed with the transaction. SURFACE WATER Surface Water Section will contribute $50,000 towards the purchase price of Parcel 1, 3, and 4. Parks will contribute the remaining $50,000 for a total of$100,000 purchase price. An additional $260,000-270,000 would be needed to remove the LID encumbrances on the property. This money would come from the Transportation Division. TRANSPORTATION Our justification for the $260,000-270,000 expenditure is the possible future benefit to the transportation system of the proposed 27th Street HOV lanes. The benefits to this project are based upon right of way needed for widening 27th, access rights needed for the facilitation of the operation of the HOV lanes and wetland banking costs as required by the City's wetland ordinance and likely by the Corps of Engineers' regulations due to the amount of fill which may be required for widening. Transportation Division estimates the following fill requirements: Parcel 1 1000 ft long by 30 ft. width = 3000 sq ft. (.68 acre) The acknowledged value of the right of way which would be used for the widening is $180,000. (1000 ft long x 30 ft wide x approximately $4-6 a sq ft = $120,000- 180,000) This wetland is likely a Category 1, shrub-scrub wetland which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio, according to our wetlands ordinance. (see attached description of the wetlands from the Black River Water Quality Wetlands Inventory, Jan 1992, Jones and Stokes, for the Stormwater Division.) In addition, mitigation will be needed for the filling of another .68 acre on the adjoining City of Renton wetlands, also necessary for widening of 27th Street. In total, 1.36 acres of wetland would be filled. At a 3:1 ratio, 4.08 acres of mitigation would be needed. Assuming that 4.08 acres of mitigation would cost $22,000425,000 an acre, total costs for mitigation would be $88,000- 90,000. The Transportation Division is willing to contribute $180,000 + $90,000 = $270,000 for this strip of land. The understanding must be that the Transportation Division has right of way easement on this strip on Parcel 1 adjacent to 27th Street while Surface Water Utility would be the owner of the parcel itself. It also must be understood that the Transportation Division has "reserved" 4.08 acres in one of the newly acquired wetland mitigation bank parcel thus meeting the project's obligation to the City's wetland ordinance. QUESTIONS Is the wetland bank "reservation" concept legally feasible? Is it possible for Surface Water Division to issue a right of way easement for this strip of land to Transportation Division? If not, can Transportation Division refund Surface Water Utility for the purchase price of this strip of land and retain ownership? We would appreciate your response as soon as possible as time is short, as you know. cc: John Webley, Community Services Department Mel Wilson, Transportation Ron Straka, Utility Priscilla Pierce, Administration Lee Haro, Transportation Lee Wheeler, Fire Department attachment i • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann Mel Wilson FROM: Mary Lynne Myer SUBJECT: Wetland banking options for wetland parcel 1 Parcel 1 is not a low grade wetland by the definitions in the wetlands ordinance. The Storm Water's Wetland Inventory— Black River Water Quality Management Plan/ESGRW (p. 24) describes it as: Size : one of the largest wetlands in the study area. Covers entire area between 27th Street, Lind Avenue, Springbrook Creek and southern boundary of property. Elevation: the wetland is at original valley floor elevation and has not been filled. Ground water recharge: high values Infiltration and recharge: high values due to its lack of a surface water inlet which allows flood flows to remain in the wetland for exceeded lengths of time. Flood storage capability: very high values. Wetland is at original elevation and is considerably lower than surrounding fill area. Function is enhanced because of large size, dense vegetation, and location to fill. Shoreline anchoring: very high values. Dense vegetation line the banks adjacent to Springbrook reducing turbulence from overland flow during flood event. Water purification: very high values. Large size, dense stands of cattails, and long residence time of water contribute to this value. Food chain support: medium values due to lack of open water. r: Wildlife habitat: medium values due to lack of open water. Active passive recreation: high values. Memo to Lynn Gutt*n and Mel Wilson S April 28, 1992 Page 2 Although it has not been officially classified by a wetlands specialist, I would guess it is a Class 1 wetland, shrub-scrub vegetation class. Replacement ratios under the ordinance are 3:1. If portions of the wetland were filled for any reason, some other area would have to be excavated and established as a wetland for mitigation in order to keep with the ordinance's requirement for no net loss. Because this wetland does not contain any fill at all, another area would be needed for replacement. The ordinance does allow variances for projects which meet several public purpose tests. It appears that this project would meet 2 of 4 variance criteria for public projects. My major concern is how do we address the net loss of wetland area if fill is placed in the wetland. We have adequate area in the wetland mitigation bank but we do not have any money for a plan or for excavation. If a mitigation plan can be funded for the bank area, and if we can pay for excavation it would seem we have met the requirements of our own ordinance and we would also meet DOE and COE requirements. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 1992 TO: Sam Chastain Ron Straka Dan Clements Larry Warren Jay Covington Iwen Wang Mary Lynne Myer John Webley WnGuttmann arsons Mel Wilson FROM: SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK MITIGATION BANK The teamwork put forth by everyone working the mitigation bank issue clearly has been an endeavor of sincere cooperation. Your hard work and creativity was awesome! Thank you!! i • 0 draft WETLAND MITIGATION BANK COUNCIL PRESENTATION for APRIL 13 , 1992 6: 30-7 : 30 pm prepared by ML Myer 1. Relationship to last week: First issue ML Myer Review: asking for council concurrence with ■ the bank concept, ■ the acceptance of the property if donated and ■ the ultimate responsibility for the bank, including the allocation of funds for the bank plan and implementation. 2 . Bank "ifs" (Project will work only if: ) ML Myer if COE gives Glacier Park nationwide permits for each individual property; If they do not, all properties will be up for auction; no donations will be made. if we don't allocate the money for the bank, then we would be requiring of others what we don't require of ourselves. We would also be allowing "net loss of wetlands. " 3 .Second issue: purchase ML Myer, Glacier Park Representatives City staff available to answer questions history of plat including dedication of the p-1/p-9 channel area for public purposes. map of ownerships properties up for purchase rationale for each purchase auction of properties deadline s/ 1 /yZ hi)4u-,a Purchase: asking for approval to purchase properties 1, 3, 4, and 13. BREAK Executive session. All staff: Larry Warren, John Webley, Dan Clements, Lynn Guttmann, Mel Wilson, Randall Parsons, Ron Straka, Mary Lynne Myer Discussion on: attributes of properties cost sheet funding sources options acceptance of bank properties and bank responsibilities purchase of selected parcels CITY OF RENTON MEMi ORAIINDUM DATE: April 9, 1992 TO: City Coun ' FROM: , uttmnn, P/JB/PW Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank and Property Purchase SUMMARY: Glacier Park Company, a subsidiary of Burlington Northern, owns a number of undeveloped parcels in the Renton Green River Valley. Due to decisions made by their patent company, Glacier Park will liquidate their land holdings by May 1992. The City of Renton could benefit by: 1) working with the Corporation to establish a wetland mitigation bank on two parcels dedicated to the City and allowing other parcels to be filled and developed, and 2) purchasing other Glacier Park property. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE GLACIER PARK PLAT In the mid-1970s, Burlington Northern applied for permits to fill almost 60 acres of land in the Green River Valley. They concurrently petitioned the City for a rezone of much of that land from G-1 to M-P and H-1. During review of the fill and grade application and the rezone request, numerous concerns were raised about the impacts of these actions on wetlands, wildlife habitat and flood drainage plans in the Green River Valley. Responding to these concerns, Burlington Northern donated 20 acres of wetland to the City of Renton. The City was also given a one year option to purchase an additional 37 acres of adjacent wetlands. The fill and grade permits and the rezone were granted in 1976 and Burlington Northern subsequently submitted a preliminary plat proposal for the area. During the same time, several flood drainage alternatives were being evaluated for the East Side Green River Valley Watershed Plan. One of the alternative which was being evaluated included construction of the P-1 Channel. Another alternative which was being considered included expansion of Springbrook Creek. Memorandum to Civuncil • April 9, 1992 Page 2 The plat proposal contained portions of the Proposed P-1 Channel and Springbrook Creek. Because the East Side Green River Valley Watershed Plan had not been completed or funded at the time, there was no acquisition or donation of parcels for the P-1 Channel. However, to preserve storm drainage options, several parcels corresponding the proposed P-1 Channel were specifically reserved by the final plat in perpetuity for wildlife habitat, public access and storm drainage purposes. In addition, the final plat extended the original option to purchase the additional 37 acres of wetland was extended until 1978. The final plats were approved with these conditions in the late 1970s. In August, 1979, the City Council decided that there was not enough funding available to purchase the additional acreage and released the option to purchase these wetlands. MITIGATION BANKING BACKGROUND: In April 1991, Renton staff investigated.the concept of mitigation banking for wetlands. During the focus group and other public involvement sessions for the wetlands ordinance, staff found wide spread approval of the bank concept by a number of land owners and agencies. The concept met with wide approval. Regulating agencies and wetlands scientists also believed a mitigation bank would have a great chance of success in the Valley due to the number of remaining natural factors. For example, removal of fill would allow for natural hydrology to reestablish, an historic seedbed is likely still present, the area continues to be a floodplain, a surprising amount of wildlife is still preSbnt in the Valley, and several of the bank parcels are at original elevation. In February of 1992, Glacier Park offered to establish a bank as mitigation for filling some of the Category III wetlands on six properties they would be selling in their May liquidation sale. The to-be-filled properties, under their proposal, would be the "sending" properties. The two parcels constituting the mitigation bank would be donated to the city and would act as "receiving" properties. THE PROPOSAL Of the over 20 properties in the original Glacier Park plat, eight remain undeveloped. Category III wetlands are found on six of these properties. In their present condition, these properties cannot be sold at a price commensurate with the other industrial properties. A wetlands bank would allow the properties to be sold for an increased price. Two undeveloped additional properties, also owned by Glacier Park, are suitable sites for establishment of a wetlands bank. These sites, partially filled, have historically established wetlands on the unfilled portions of the site. Fill can be removed to create new wetlands adjacent to existing ones thus establishing a mitigation bank area. All wetlands on "sending" and "receiving" properties have been delineated using methodologies acceptable to both the City and the Army Corps of Engineers. These delineations show a total of 5.33 acres of wetlands on the six parcels to be filled. A Memorandum to Cita6uncil • April 9, 1992 Page 3 total of 25.55 acres of fill can be removed on the wetland bank area to provide replacement. Clearly, enough area is available in the bank site to allow for replacement of the wetlands at a ratio of 1.5 - 1 as required by the wetlands ordinance. (see Attachment B) CITY RESPONSIBILITY The Corporation proposal would donate the bank properties to the City of Renton in return for a wetlands permit for fill of the six properties to be sold. The City of Renton, as the recipient and owner, would be responsible for the reestablishment of the wetlands on the bank, for all performance bonds associated with these properties and for LID requirements. Any additional activity on the wetland "receiving" properties would be the responsibility of the City. The city would need to prepare a wetlands mitigation plan for the "receiving" properties and to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from agencies with jurisdictions. DISCUSSION: What functions would the wetland bank provide? ■Maximum economic development of the remaining Glacier Park parcels; ■Ecologically, environmentally sound replacement of wetlands, meeting requirements in the City's wetland ordinance; ■Maintenance of flood storage. This area is within the existing flood plain and experiences localized flooding. Additional wetlands could accommodate more flood inundation as the watershed develops. ■Create additional capacity to meet other wetland mitigation needs. Other property owners in the Valley could mitigate their development's adverse impacts on the wetlands through cash contributions, or in-kind replacement construction. City projects could also mitigate adverse wetland impacts through these bank sites; ■Convenient location for workers and citizens for both park and trail usage. ■Consolidation of wetlands, with higher functions and values than those filled. These consolidated areas would provide for greater wildlife habitat conserving some unique areas in the Valley. The mitigation sites would form part of greenbelt extending along Springbrook to the Black River forest. ■A unique, historical chance to provide a partnership between the public and private sectors to deal wisely with wetlands and economic development on a win-win basis. How would the wetland bank operate? Glacier Park would dedicate sites 1 and 2 (parcel #14 and part of 8) to the City as mitigation sites. These sites have Category 1 and 2 wetlands already on site and also have fill which can be removed to establish more wetlands. Sending properties, Memorandum to Cit0ouncil , April 9, 1992 Page 4 Parcels 2,5,6, 8w, 8e and 9, would have under one acre of Category 3 wetlands filled on each site (totaling 4.11 acres of proposed wetland fill). If the property owners wished to exceed the one acre fill, a total of 5.33 acres of wetlands are found on these sites. The replacement of wetlands would be accomplished on the mitigation bank site at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. (See attachment C for acreage totals.) As part of the sale of the sending properties, a notice would accompany the deed of sale stating that a specified amount of wetlands fill and mitigation through replacement has been agreed to by the City of Renton. Other requirements, such as storm drainage, street, utility and parks and recreation obligations would not be waived by this action for the properties anticipating development. The City would then be responsible for preparing and implementing a mitigation plan for wetlands reestablishment. What obligations would come with assumption of the wetland bank properties? The City would be responsible for setting up a mitigation plan for recreating wetlands. This would include an excavation plan, planting plans, timing and scheduling and implementation of the plans. Such a mitigation document could cost $40,000 to complete. Planting and necessary earth work, often costs $40,000 to $50,000 an acre. This involves excavating and disposal of fill, importing of other soils such as topsoil, acquisition and planning of vegetative material. Consultant costs of$30,000 would be incurred for one year to establish the plan, the bank, and its operating rules. A mitigation plan would be provided within one/two years, and planting costs for the entirr. 25 acres could be spaced over a 10-20 year period as needed to meet the demand. Ongoing staffing would be needed to provide continuity for the bank, monitoring for wetland reestablishment, and services for other valley land owners wishing to use the bank. What permitting responsibilities would the City have? The City would need to process a lot line adjustment for Mitigation Site 2 to set up the wetland bank prior to donation and sale of Glacier Park properties. A declaration of non-significance (mitigated) would have to be issued for each property for the filling of wetlands, assuming no other environmental impacts are found for the properties individually. Wetlands, vegetation removal, and fill and grade permits would be necessary to allow the new property owners to fill the wetlands designated on each site. [Fees for these permits could be assessed to Glacier Park, the new owners, or waived. It is recommended that fees be waived, allowing Glacier Park to realize some benefit from the dedication of land.] What costs would the City incur through the establishment of the mitigation bank? Because the land would be donated to the City, no land acquisition costs would be incurred. However, the City may be required to pick up closing costs from the transfer of the deeds. Memorandum to CitAuncil • April 9, 1992 Page 5 In addition, these properties may have LID, performance bond, and SUCC fees assessed against them. (Attachment D shows the assessments which the City may incur.) What possible funding sources could be used to offset the costs of acquiring the wetland bank properties and running the wetland bank? The wetland bank parcels would be donated to the City so no costs would be incurred for acquisition. Approximate costs for a mitigation plan and implementation of it follows: 1. A mitigation plan $40,000 2. Implementing the plan $40,000-50,000/acre 3. Consultant's fee $30,000 TOTAL $110,000 - $120,000 Funding for the plan and the implementation would come from a variety of sources: ■park mitigation fees ■Metro mitigation funds ■TCIP funds ■LID funds ■surface water utility rates ■possible Soil Conservation Services funds ` (if connected with flood control) ■donations of money from other developers in the watershed who wish to use the bank ■possible use of Open Space Bonds funds RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Council concur to proceed with the mitigation bank, including the eventual acceptance of property. Memorandum to Ci0ouncil • April 9, 1992 Page 6 PURCHASE OF WETLAND PROPERTIES Three parcels available for purchase from Glacier Park may be of interest to the City. They are identified as parcels 1, 3, 4, and 13. Property Descriptions: Parcel 1 is large emergent and scrub-shrub wetland of approximately 28 acres. The wetland is likely a remnant of the original valley floor with the elevation being lower than the surrounding roads and development. Water sources to this wetland include regional groundwater, overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek, and sheetflow runoff from roads. The wetland has been rated high for groundwater discharge and recharge, flood storage capability, shoreline anchoring, water purification, and medium for food chain support and wildlife habitat in the recent Draft Report, Wetland Inventory, Black River Water Quality Management Plan/ESGRW. (12/91. Stormwater Division, City of Renton) A number of individuals working in the surrounding industries and offices use the area for passive-recreation. Parcels 3. 4 are located directly south of the wetlands which were dedicated to the City as a part of the final plat. This wetlands is an emergent scrub-shrub wetland with some open water of approximately 15 acres. The wetland is likely a remnant of the original valley floor as its elevation is also lower than the surrounding roads and development. Water sources to this wetland include regional groundwater, overbank flooding from Spripgbrook Creek, and sheetflow runoff from roads. The wetland is rated high for groundwater recharge and discharge, flood storage capacity shoreline anchoring, water purification and medium for flood chain support and wildlife habitat. It is functionally and visually connected with the Renton wetlands, and has the same functions as the large wetland to the east. A right of way in the form of a dirt road runs through the wetland and is used for passive recreation. This wetland has an easement on it for drainage purposes for the Seattle Times site. although its ownership remains with Glacier Park. Parcel 1, and 3 & 4 are integral for the flood control and water quality of the Valley. It is estimated that structural replacement of the functions of these wetlands for flood control alone would cost the City approximately $1-3 million dollars. These two wetlands are essential for any future flood control and/or storm water programs within the Valley. City interests would be best served by ownership control. Parcel 13 includes the proposed alignment for the P-1 Channel west of Oakesdale and south along the Burlington Northern tracks. This alignment is interspersed with wetlands and uplands. It also may be at original grade. However, it does not have the diverse habitat that is present in the other Glacier Parcel mitigation bank sites and the two wetland sites to the east. This area has not been assessed for wetland categories or functions and values through either the stormwater inventory or the Glacier Park inventory. However, it is clear that a number of wetland and upland sites are present. It is likely this area could have a number of uses if purchased: ■P-1 Channel alignment ■additional mitigation bank sites Memorandum to City•uncil April 9, 1992 Page 7 ■location for future light rail stations and land uses if this rail alignment is chosen for regional use ■additional industrial land PURCHASE ISSUES What responsibilities would the city incur from purchase of Parcels 1, 3 & 4, and 13? The City would become responsible for the maintenance and liability issues of wetlands on these parcels. Parcel 1 wetlands could be enhanced for flood storage and wildlife habitat by removal of invasive plant species which are choking out native plants. However, this is a lower priority task and could be accomplished over a number of years. Parcels 3 & 4 and 13 would necessitate the same responsibility and liabilities as found with ownership of any open space area. What costs would the City incur from purchase of these parcels? The amount of purchase price is ostensibly reduced because of the presence of wetlands on site, and/or the inaccessibility of Parcel 13. Also, because these are being liquidated by the Company, certain financial benefits are accrued to the seller. Acreage cost§ for these parcels are approximately $2,500/acre. Parcel 1 was offered to the City for purchase price of$10,000 per acre in 1978. Preliminary appraisals confirm the $2,500/acre asking price; but the appraisal values of wetlands would be checked using the same methods as the Panther Creek wetland appraisals. Other City fees such as SUCC fees would not be an issue for these parcels, as no improvements would be put on site. Tax assessments on the parcels have been reduced as of January 1992. Glacier Park a1212ealed the tax assessment based on the preponderance of wetlands on site. Assessments were reduced by 50%. LID assessments for these parcels for the present Valley transportation actual roadway requirements are $244,716.78. TOTAL PURCHASE COSTS: $444,720 (see Attachment D) RECOMMENDATIONS: Authorization to proceed with purchase of parcels 1, 3 & 4, and 13. Funding will be accomplished by borrowing internally for the short term outlay. Pay back will be through park mitigation fees, mitigation bank cast contributions, LID TIP, Metro mitigation, storm utility fees, possible Open Space Bond funding, and CIP. Memorandum to Cityeuncil April9, 1992 Page 8 Attachment A: City Goals Attachment B: Maps Attachment C: Acreage Counts Attachment D: Cost Sheet ATTACHMENT A CITY GOALS MITIGATION BANK FOR THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY A mitigation bank shall meet the following goals: 1. Achieve "no net loss" of wetlands being replaced. 2. Function within the same drainage basin as the wetlands being replaced. 3. Perpetuate the existing functions and values of Valley wetlands and may increase the functions and values of the wetlands. 4. Protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas associated with the sending and receiving properties in a manner consistent with local ordinances. 5. Consolidate in one or two locations a replacement area for many scattered wetlands. 6. Promote joint agreements between the City and property owner for mechanism and running of the bank. 7. Conform to City ordinances and state regulations concerning wetlands. 8. ' Increase the property owner's ability to use the sending properties for the uses specified in City ordinances and plans. 9. Encourage public access to wetlands for use when sensitive habitats are protected. 10. Incorporate monitoring plans and methods for evaluation of its effectiveness which may be used to change the bank to provide remedies for problems and/or deficiencies. w LO 1 01 Qz U.1 U-A ca n=Ay PUrl ----- ------ . .......................... .................. LU .................... .. ................. ............... ............ ................... . ............. . .. .............. .................. . .......... .. . .......... ..... ...... LLI cri .. ....... ... ... `... .............. .......... .. ............. .*::.,::.,.*....:.......... . ............. = � r .............. .......... ................ ............. ............ .... ......................... ............. — -Z to n L6 I- CV se r-,Cq Lt)-,I- C4 � ti o .......... LI LLI -4- cli •LLI "n, .......... 3 2 2 31 ................ Cj to im IL. Va ...................... ............................. ............................. ------- ......................... ATTACHN ENT B 10 GLACIER PARK COMPANY RENTON LANDHOLDINGS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION BANK CONCEPTUAL PLAN PREPARED I3Y: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 11STII STREET SE BELLEVUE, WA 98005 IN CONJUNCTION WITII KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS PREPARED FOR: GLACIER PARK COMPANY 1011 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 700 SEATTLE, WA 98104 FEBRUARY21, 1992 Glacier Park Company Renton Landholdings Existing Conditions and Proposed Wetland Fills on Developable Parcels Parcel # Wetland fill Total on-site wetland (per report) area 2 0.99 1.47 5 0.99 1.07 6 0.22 0.22 8E 0.24 0.24 gay 0.99 1.65 9 0.68 0.68 totals 4.11 5.33 AmIk Renton Parcel #2 N 0 Wetland Area (ac) C c o.11 p 0.02 E 0.14 F 0.05 G 0.77 H 0.02 J 0.23 L 0.09 = M 0.02 N 0.02 D C Tosai Site Area 9.35 aertsl OTcsai Wcslamd Arcs T 4-7 acres 6 E C7, g i Data P!ct O IPa{us-cHmc,emergent marsh F Palustrirtc,scrt:b-shrub � 0 ( i / �( � 11 N H i:F)f 12 G t3 S.W.34th ua.a Eiana ana Aeeoaa'oa scale. 1"=1255' c;Czoaas Renton Parcel A i UO w 19 Wetland Area (ac) A o_1� a o.01 c 0.00 17 p 0.00 E 0.00 F 0.00 G 0.00 H 0.00 16 I 0.00 4 J 0.7a W 0.00 1 5 Y 0.00 p 4 z 0.13 Total Site Area 7.17 acres + Total Wevanai Area 1.07 acres 13 2 E 11 Data Plat Z Palusvine,emeraent marsh H @T Paluszrine,scrub-shrub �® 77-7 F 7 3 ° O 6 B 0 5 0 c W brh-t �S�SI?3 �• �L1�a�1 sad Dz= Mvp— scaie: i"=150, �dMC CVYf!ifW A!lOCYq! C�CJCTYb Renton Parcel#S A i S.W.27th Srcct N M L O 201 2Z t a J K Wertand Area (ac) A 0.03 AA 0.00 0.03 3 G 0.01 0 0.00 E 0.02 F 0.00 G 0.05 H 0.00 H 0.00 K 0.03 1 L 0.02 n� M 0.00 Tarsi Site Area 5.c6 acres Totai Wetland Area 0.22 acres 1 G Data Plot O C� Paiustrinc,emeracnt marsh F y Palustrinc.9G"ui7-5hrui7 gC a jF�A O 0 B 0 E �� � 11, S.W.29th Street Wytl- z=d and Drim Zaza11CM M.SIP (� - I—antvia: Mac' 19 Lzl 1� _ L Scale:t',-1CC' rC%.•70Gi Renton Parcel#8E t N S.W.its,St. B A C F-G 4 Weiland Area (ac) A 0.05 5 0.'9 . F-G Tarsi Site Area 925 acres Torat Wedana Area 2.63 acres Dasa Flo. O Faiustrinc,cmcraerm marsh march line Faiusuine.�resud match tine scale:i° C =200' Renton Parcel #SW A Kt i rE 2 G D 0 Wetland Area (ac) p 0.07' E 0.12 F-G t—C-7 H 326 05 Tccaf Sate Area 15.15 aa'as LoL 2 T=.,al Wetiarui Area 6.4Saa es Lot 'unsurvcyeci 6 Data Pfau C ?afu5trine,emergerm marsh) H Palu5trtrte,rOreS`�ed •i �7, lC L� rcalc V-200' Caw e�an•ano aa.00u.. _.fps AWL Renton Parcel#9 -5.W.3 th St. J C 10 • -- Wetland Area (ac) ® F B 0.07 c 0.15 D 0.00 B F 0.04- H 0.02 3 C rota+site Area 4.78 acres Totat Wetiana Area 0.6a acres C © �a - � Data Plot u Pafustrine,=e-raerm marsh Palustrinc.sa�v-shruv ii 3lmd Data PIzt .:J. S D• 1 scale. T=100' y� • Renton Parcel#14 • i 3 2 / 4 19 10 V 16 24 13 14 r Ci // ' J ,2✓ f Le end Wetland Area Glaeeification 1 0.14 acres Scrub-shrub L 0.73 acres Scrub-shrub tit 17.91 acres emergent, Scrub-shrub, forested Totai Werdara Araa 18.78 acres Total Upiand Area 1219 acres Tatai 5itc Area 30.97 acres Data Plot O 4> c ( a i�a P sad 14 c�a E�.,.,�,a�s:--- 5caie: 1" �s GLACIER PARK COMPANY RENTON LANDHOLDINGS MITIGATION BANK CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN , e Total 51te Area 30.97 acres ®cnhanceaHe,wetlands 4.03 acres Total Wetland Area 18.78 acres preserved wetlands M11u1ti<�lnl 163gunllk BIRO J"=200' Total Upland Area 12.19 acres 14.75 acres ILunafitln g (CumdlftfiuIn g — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Parcet 8W Parcel 8E Lacl I l.ac 4 1 I areas to be deveicped � I I I I I I � I Lac 2 / .00 acres f I , Lac 3 I 0 51 acres ZZ acres l 1.00 acres / / / Mitigation Bank Site 2 / Total Site Area 13.93 acres / Total Wetlands 6.77 acres / Total Upland 7.16 acres i / I / I / enhanceaMC wet:anais 4-CC acres preserved weLtands 277 acres 3k SItIn 27, sad ' 112 2 Caro Evan ao o.S3=3ua („'Ct90C; i • Glacier Park Company Renton Landholdings Mitigation Bank Sites 1 and-2 Calculations Available Mitigation Bank Lands Mitigation Bank Sites Upland Enhanceable Wetland Site 1 (Parcel 14) 12.19 € 4.03 7.16 4.00 Site 2 (Parcel 8E Lots 1,2 & south half Parcel 8W) Total 19.35 8.03 Mitigation Credits at 1 : 1 ratios Mitigation Credits 19.35 8.03 Total Mitigation Credits 27.38 r1( / Parcei 8W I Paru!8E I areas t•?be I dCJC.Qi7ed =_ Mitigation Bank Site 2 Total Site Area 13.95 acres T——— Total Wetlands 6.77 acres Total Upland 7.16 acres — enhanced wetlands 4.Cc acres �U Preserved wetlands 27 acres scrub-shrub wetlands _— created open wa-,,er =T c emeraent ptarrttrras ~ shrub buffer 1 Mitigation Sam" zltz C;.ems-;Tmal r C C� ! ? .��T���� � aT�i I� ^ f 'law Eva ara A�[es t e e e • r •j•j.11•t t••t•t 1•t+l•j•1•t• • r ' _ - —• —_— ti•1•ti•ti•ti• �• ; t•ti t•t•t•ti•ti•ti►t•'S•ti•ti•t►1►ti• i • �S •�v/�-�•t ••tr.�j��• tip•_• • S�L1• •1+ S�• — ————-- _.—— — j _ _ t •,L.1•y.�•,Ai'J•�•-•.ti J V�—.e '•..•:. ,1•'_-•/ :f�}•�/ / • '�-1 •'r 't• — — ————— ---- ----- -•�:` �;�� •1•l�fr•jr�1+t+ r�• -�ftf'f"tit• } } !1-.��1•�;l�r•+ t+ �l'L_- /� r •1 Total 6U, Area 30.97 acres open water Total Wetland Area 18.78 acres Total Upland Area 12.19 acres 0 emergent mar6h `l�[a>ra��t>ra�tal la�tlntl� �fl�� Il prerervedforcotedwetland6 1•,ti, ehrubbuffer (�c�lnl�u�tlW�ill w1hiss1a9GIDt Plain enhanced wetlands 0 created 6crub-shrub wetland l�'�lt'�V 11 Il�r � n ®(formerly reed canarygrass and weeds) n,,_gar,/•.,.,.,,,i.•..,Yi.i• _ _ --------- ATTACHMENT C MTITGATION BANK PROPOSAL 1. Developable Parcels Total Acreage Wetlands Acreage Uplands Acreage 2 9.35 1.47 7.88 5 7.17 1.07 6.10 6 5.86 0.22 5.64 8W* 5.05 1.65 3.40 8E** 5.45 0.24 5.21 9 4.79 0.68 4.11 TOTALS 37.67 5.33 32.34 2. Mitigation Bank Total Acreage Wetlands Acreage Uplands Acreage Area Parcels 14 30.97 18.78 12.19 8W 13.93 6.77 7.16 (Lots 1 & 2) and 8E (Southern 1/2) TOTALS 44.90 25.55 19.35 ATTACHMENT D . Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Sources of # of Prior Obligations Costs (Lot #) Ultimate Funding acres Performance Bond TBZ & SUCC fees Purchase (asking) LID Assessment Total Group A Original (1) Flood control, Surface water funds 25 Owed: waived, if parcel g wetland functions, SCS funds $16,327 not developed $100,000 $530,094.75 $244,720 244. 0 water quality, Metro mitigation funds Property owner is Owed $344,720 valley park land TCIP funds responsible for this possible SW 27th HOV LID funds cost. $244,716.78 arterial improvement park mitigation fees 3,4 park land TCIP funds 14.4 Owed: waived, if parcel included in 0 $0 flood control traffic mitigation funds $3,111 not developed purchase price for wetland functions park mitigation fees Property owner is parcel 1 water quality responsible for this possible Oakesdale cost. extension Grou B . waived, if parcel $100,000 Original 100,00 13 P-1 channel alignment Surface water utility 46.5 f$7,777 ed: $19,147.80 Wetland mitigation bank rates or revenue bonds - not developed commuter rail corridor park mitigation fees Property owner is Owed $0 LID 285 Valley park land SCS funds(?) responsible for this cost. Site 1 Mitigation bank If donated, no $ needed 31 Owed: waived, if parcel $0 Owed $0 [14] flood control $6,216 not developed Valley parks & recreation Property owner is Paid in full responsible for this cost. Site 2 Mitigation bank If donated, no $ needed. 14 Owed: waived, if parcel $0 $0 LID LID assessment $0 part of flood control $9,722 not developed parcel# Parks & recreation Property owner is resonsible for this cost. Total Total Owed 444,720 $43,153 92-250.DOC/MLM/bh ! • INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING FOR RENTON CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE April 6, 1992 6 : 30 p.m. Council Chambers WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK I. Opening Jay Covington II . Bank concept and goals Mary Lynne III . Glacier Park Offer Mary Lynne IV. Analysis of Offer by City Staff Overall Larry Warren Parks and Recreation John Webley Roads Mel Wilson Storm Water Ron Straka Pros and Cons Mary Lynne V. Next Steps Jay Covington CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 1992 TO: Mary Lynn Myer VIA: Dick Anderson FROM: andall Parsons STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank and Purchase Plan Per Lynn's memo of March 10, 1992, item 6, please find enclosed the description of the Eastside Green River Watershed Plan Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Channel/Spring brook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel and the draft Financing . . . Alternative Strategies paper for your use. Please contact Ron at 5547 or myself at 5548 should you have any questions regarding these materials in preparing your issue paper. RP:rp:MLWBIP.DOC cc. Lynn Guttmann Priscilla Pierce Ron Straka enclosures B. I rove the capacity of the existing storm drainage system along SW 43rd Street between Lin venue and the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oaksdale. Alternative include pipe re acement or constructing a new parallel system. i r C. If it is det ined through further analysis that additional capacit.. is needed in rSpringbrook eek, approximately 300 ft. of Springbrook Creek be/ween the existing railroad tracks a SW 41st Street could be widened and deepene to improve capacity. D. Include measures to nhance Valley area wetlands. This ay be accomplished by modifying the existing ydraulic connections to selected alley area wetlands and/or construction of a fish pass e control gate on Springbroo Creek north of SW 23rd Street in order to improve wetlands ydration during the dry summer months. E. Make enhancements to the Panthe Creek Wed and re-establish Panther Creek (P-9 Channel). The purpose of these im ovemen would be to provide fish passage and re-establish a natural stream channel be ee Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek and rto eliminate flooding problems along East ley Highway where dispersed Panther Creek flows enter the existing under-sized dr i age stem. The Panther Creek Wetland and Creek re-establishment improvements include the ollowing: 1. Install a new culvert cr ssing under SR-167 the proposed Panther Creek (re-established) (P-9 annel). The purpose of thi culvert crossing is to carry outflows from the P tither Creek Wetland to the resto d stream channel, which would convey fl west and discharge into Springbrook reek. 2. With the exce tion of the existing 3-ft. x 4-ft. box culvert, hick carries runoff from the R ling Hills Basin underneath SR-167, plug all oth SR-167 culvert crossing . 3. Deep and widen (size as required) the existing ditch along the -9 Channel al' nment to allow construction of the re-established Panther Creek be ween the roposed new Panther Creek Wetland outlet and Springbrook Creek. Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Channel/Springbrook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel This alternative reflects the original SCS P-1 Channel and Panther Creek Wedands/P-9 Channel project with some modifications. The modifications were chosen based on the preliminary results of the hydrologic/hydraulic modeling and were designed to be compatible with 1159WW0.268 29 present City drainage planning. For example, the City plans to maintain the existing Springbrook Creek as a fisheries flow (up to 2 year frequency flow) channel. Maintaining Springbrook Creek as a fisheries flow channel would also be necessary to assure adequate hydration of wetlands, to i minimize fisheries/water quality/wildlife impacts, and because current federal, state and city wetland regulatory standards would not allow its elimination. This alternative also includes specific improvements in compliance with the terms of the EMA. The improvements for this alternative are descried below and are illustrated in Figure 5. A. Divert high flows from Springbrook Creek immediately upstream of the SW 43rd St. Culvert Crossing into a new P-1 flood flow diversion channel. The P-1 flood flow diversion channel would then reconnect to Springbrook Creek immediately upstream of the confluence of Springbrook Creek and the proposed re-established Panther Creek (P-9 Channel) alignment. The Seattle Water Department's 54-in. diameter Cedar River Pipeline crosses under Springbrook Creek at this location. Reconnecting the diversion to Springbrook Creek at this location was selected because locating the reconnection further downstream would not provide additional flood control benefits and would require the lrelocation of the Cedar River Pipeline. The Cedar River Pipeline was installed at relatively shallow depths, except for where it crosses underneath Springbrook Creek, so ( a crossing at any other location would require relocation of the Pipeline and would be t prohibitively expensive. The P-1 flood flow diversion channel bottom width would be 70 ft. with 3 to 1 side slopes. The diversion structure to divert high flows into the P-1 Channel would consist of a long weir. The weir length and elevation would be established using two design criteria: 1) to maintain a fisheries flow in Springbrook Creek of not less than rapproximately the 2-year frequency flow; and 2) to lower the water surface profile at the Springbrook Creek crossing of SW 43rd Street to approximately 16 ft. for the 100-year ' flood event. B. Comply with EMA by enhancing the Panther Creek Wetland. The enhancements to the Panther Creek Wetland would include establishing an open water marsh habitat to enhance wildlife habitat, increase the diversity of plant species, and provide fish passage between Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek. These improvements would also eliminate the existing frequent flooding along East Valley Highway where the dispersed flows from Panther Creek Wetlands enter the existing under-sized drainage system in East 1 159WWO.268 30 Valley Highway by eliminating flow from this and other numerous culvert crossings under SR-167. The Panther Creek Wetland Project improvements include the following: 1. Installing a new outlet control structure, a dike crossing the Panther Creek Wetland, and a new culvert under SR-167. The purpose of the outlet control I structure and dike is to create an open water marsh in the southerly portion of the wetland. This structure would permit fish passage. The new culvert crossing under SR-167 is required to carry the outflow from the control structure to the i proposed re-established Panther Creek (P-9 Channel). 1 2. With the exception of the existing 3-ft. x 4-ft. box culvert which carries runoff from the Rolling Hills Basin underneath SR-167, plug all other SR-167 culvert crossings. This existing box culvert would be modified so as to provide enhanced fisheries flows to the re-established Panther Creek. 3. Deepening and widening the existing ditch along the re-established Panther Creek (P-9 Channel) alignment between the proposed new Panther Creek Wetland outlet and Springbrook Creek. C. Improve the capacity of the existing drainage system in SW 43rd Street between Lind Avenue and the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oaksdale. Alternatives to pipe replacement would be constructing a new parallel system. D. Make channel improvements between SW 16th Street and SW Grady Way. These 1 improvements include a flood flow diversion off of Springbrook Creek through the existing I-405 Box Culvert. High Springbrook Creek flows would be diverted to a new channel section immediately downstream of SW 16th Street. The diversion would then pass through the existing 1-405 Box Culvert and reconnect to Springbrook Creek upstream of SW Grady Way. This would maintain fisheries flows through the existing Springbrook Creek riparian corridor under I-405 and would allow for maintaining maximum biofiltration and habitat values. The diversion of flood flows through the 1-405 box culvert would promote protection of the riparian corridor from erosive flood flows. i 1159wwo.268 31 .... ....... ............ 11 � .7 • S A V S ram i .......... ......... L ........... DIVERT PANTHERj, CREEK INTO—.�,,t :lIf A T 7 K ,,NEW CO' N4,-, -,ALBO-CP-t�j r:Q pMTtIER CRUK *EnAo WETLAND WATER mws" STRUCTUR OPE 87 M L. -� DIKE - " - Z 60 Si 67 36 —---------- E 1 jjI VALL g 48 60" AV $ sw K 4, 21" SCALE AAEWW /6 1 L 1 i 1i9l lb 54- 50* HIGH FLOW DIVERSION IF AV 36' THROUGH 1-405 LEGEND c S-) v! P-I HIGH FLOW DIVER90N 36r_ 36" DIAMETER STORM DRAIN m STREAM/DRAINAGE CHANNEL t 25CULVERT(S) PLUG EXIST;NG CULVERT(S) CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT I DIVERSION v, NEW STORM JCTURE *—RENTON CITY LIMITS STRI DRAIN CRED( FPUMP STATION KWILA FQREBAY.. .......... EAST SIDE G RIVER WATER ................. PROJECTREEN SUMMARY DOCUMESNTHED PLAN RIVER FIGURE 5 ALTERNATIVE 3 LIMP ------ STATION P 11 TO GREEN DUWAMISH F.W. BECK I RIVER AND ASSOCIATES CITY TY ANTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES COST/FUNDING COMPARISION COST/FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES SOURCES Aternative #2 Alternative#3 Alternative #4 Engineering/Construction Cost $2,768,013 $12,820,445 $680,000 Right-Of-Way Cost $16,500 $200,000 $0 Total Cost $2,784,513 $13,020,445 $680,000 Fu nding 9 Source e ......................... v::.::;:.:::.... .....:.�.�::.•:•r.�:....:is i::i.. i:;::is City Funds $2,106,350 $841,022 $680,000 SCS Funds $678,163 $12,179,423 $0 Alternative #2 Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek system including the installation of bridges at SW 27th St, SW 34th St, a culvert at SW 41 st St and channel widening of Springbrook Creek from SW 41 st St to the rail road crossing bridge. SCS share is based upon the SW 16th St Bridge construction share of only 35%. Alternative #3 A flood flow channel from SW 43rd St. to Re-established Panther Creek(P-9 Channel)following the original SCS alignment. The alternative includes a flood bypass structure,flood flow channel and a bypass structure with channel at the 1-405 Box Culvert. The SCS share of this alternative is based upon previous project cost sharing agreements with an average share of 95%. Alternative #4 Pumping of flood flows from the Kent Mill Creek sub-basin from the Kent Lagoons regional facility into the Green River. This alternative includes the installation of a pump. SCS funding of this has not been addressed. Engineering and Construction costs include a 30% contingency for construction and a 30% contingency for engineering, tax and administration. Other projects which are associated with each of these alternatives include the Re-established Panther Creek Project (P-9 Channel Project) and the SW 43rd ST. storm system improvement. Page 1 FINANCING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND INTER-JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES 1. OVERVIEW This section presents alternative financing strategies for the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. Surface water management improvements in the planning area involve capital projects designed to mediate flooding, rehabilitating wetlands and fish corridors, and improving drainage. As a general rule, it is recommended that water quality and flood control projects required to mitigate the impacts of new development be financed and constructed by developers. Projects intended to remedy existing problems are financed by the City, or by residents and businesses within the planning area. 2. FINANCING STRATEGIES AVAILABLE Six financing alternatives are described below. The appropriate and inappropriate use of each of these alternatives is also described. The six alternatives are: 1. Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharges 3. Developer/property owner financing 4. Regional Sources (Utility Local Improvement District, Flood Control Zone District, Drainage District) 5. Developer Incentives 6. Grants Utility Revenues — This is an existing charge for all developed properties within the City's surface water management utility service area. It is assessed to fund Renton's current SWN1 program. Funded activities include capital improvement projects; maintenance and operations; planning; regulation, enforcement, and inspection; and public education. Charges for a particular property are based on the percentage of impervious area to total parcel size. Kent and Tukwila also rely on surface water utility charges. Revenues from these programs could be used to fund ESGPW projects. Appropriate for: Capital improvement projects. Includes components such as: • City-wide planning; • capital improvement programs for existing programs; • regulation, inspection, and enforcement; • maintenance, and • public education and involvement. Inappropriate for: On-site facilities for future development; small stream enhancement programs localized to the East Side Green River Watershed area. renton.sd\working.pps\finstrat.A I Basin Surcharges — A basin surcharge is a fee, in addition to the City or County base rate, charged to property owners in a specific basin only. Basin surcharges provide flexibility to finance special projects or higher levels of service in a particular basin or service area such as the East Side Green River Watershed. This alternative requires coordination with other jurisdictions within the basin. These charges allow the utility to counter the charge, "All our money is going elsewhere." Appropriate for: Projects required by the basin plan to meet basin-specific quantity and quality objectives (capital and non-structural); projects over and above the City's level of service. Inappropriate for: On-going operations and maintenance; regulation, enforcement and inspection; projects designed to meet City-wide level of service standards. Developer/property owner financing — Developers and property owners finance and construct on-site facilities, or cooperate to finance and construct regional facilities. Appropriate for: New facilities (both on-site and regional) being constructed to handle future growth. Conveyance systems for new facilities. Inappropriate for: Existing problems, on-going operations and maintenance, retrofit projects, highway runoff, fish habitat and sensitive area protection, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. Regional Sources - These include utility local improvement districts (ULIDs), Flood Control Zone Districts (FCZDs), and Drainage Districts (DDs). These sources would be approved and/or administered at the County level. ULIDs are formed to implement regional surface water improvements. A resolution of the County legislative authority or a petition signed by the owners of at least 51 percent of the area of land within the limits of the local district to be created is required. Special assessments can be levied up to the total cost of improvements on all property benefitting from local improvements. Bonds are usually sold to finance improvements, they are retired with special assessments and/or proceeds from regular utility service charges. FCZDs and DDs provide flood control and drainage systems for properties within the districts. The districts collect special fees assessed on property owners within the district boundaries. These fees provide municipalities with a dedicated source of funding to administer flood control and drainage programs including operations, maintenance, and capital improvement projects. Appropriate for: Flood control facilities, new regional facilities and conveyance systems constructed to handle future growth, or existing problems affecting an entire basin. FCZD and DD funds may be used for O&M. Inappropriate for: On-going operations and maintenance under ULID, highway runoff, fish habitat and sensitive areas protection, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. ronton.sd\working.pps\luistrat.aIt 2 Developer Incentive - Developers and property owners can maximize the use of property by participating in stream and wetland enhancement projects, and replanting buffer zones. The City would be involved in setting guidelines for acceptable projects and incentives. Properly used, developer incentives permit the City to complete certain types of projects without having to purchase land or be responsible for on-gong maintenance efforts. Appropriate for: Fish habitat and sensitive area protection. Inappropriate for: Treatment facilities, retrofit projects, highway runoff, conveyance systems, maintenance, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. Grants - Due to the concerns over water quality and nonpoint source pollutants, particularly in the Puget Sound and related marine environments, several grant and loan funding are available in Washington. These include, but are not limited to, the Flood Control Assistance Accounts Programs, the Centennial Clean Water Program, the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, and the State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund. The criteria differ for each of these programs, but in general they can be used for projects that control floods and improve the surface water infrastructure with respect to water quality improvements. Appropriate for: Capital improvement programs, particularly those relating to water quality and environmental issues. Inappropriate for: O&M; regulation, inspection, and enforcement; on-site facilities. 3. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The attached table provides an overview of the funding sources and inter jurisdictional requirements for each of the four alternatives. These options are described briefly below. Alternative I - No Action This alternative is the easiest for Renton to fund and implement, since it requires no inter- jurisdictional coordination and could be funded under Renton's existing surface water utility program. Funding of the program would continue to come from utility revenues charged to property owners in the City. New on-site facilities are financed by developers. There are no inter-jurisdictional requirements under this alternative. Alternative II - Localized Improvements to Spring-brook Creek The alternative results in benefits to Renton, Kent, and Tukwila. Therefore, all jurisdictions should participate in funding the improvements, either through utility revenues, a basin surcharge, or regional sources. In particular, Tukwila could participate in improvements to SW 16th street which results in drainage to an area in Tukwila. Kent could participate in funding improvements along SW 43rd. Regional sources would require King County's involvement for approval and administration, but could be used to fund capital improvements. Renton would retain responsibility for O&M, as well as regulation, enforcement, and inspection. The degree of difficulty in securing funding depends on which funding option is selected. The regional rnnton.sJ\working.pps\Gnstrat.aIt 3 solutions and/or participation by Kent and Tukwila will require inter-jurisdiction agreements prior to implementation, presenting a potential barrier to equitable region-wide funding. Alternative III - Flood Flow Diversion Channel As in alternative Il, Kent and Tukwila benefit from this alternative and could help finance improvements through utility revenues, a basin surcharge, or regional sources. Both Kent and Tukwila receive greater benefits under this alternative than under alternative II. Because there are greater basin-wide benefits, a basin surcharge or regional approach would be easier to require under alternative III than under alternative II. Renton would maintain responsibility for maintenance and regulatory activities. The need for inter-jurisdictional coordination would again pose potential barriers to implementation. Alternative IV - Pumping Stormwater from Kent Lagoons This alternative is the most difficult to fund and implement due to the large number of inter- jurisdictional requirements involved. King County and Tukwila are adverse to pumping into the Green River, and amendments to the GRMA for pumping would be required. Significant coordination with Kent is required, as project benefits would not be felt until Kent implemented plan. Renton could share Kent's capital improvement and pumping costs. Because there are basin-wide benefits, the entire basin could participate in funding the alternative through a basin surcharge or regional sources. Alternative II-IV could potentially receive partial funding from grant soLirces. ronton.sd\working.ppsW-tnstrat At 4 CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE FUNDING INTER-JURISDICTIONAL SOURCES REQUIREMENTS I. No Action a. New on-site treatment and 1. Developer (directly finances & None quantity control facilities constructs) b. Maintenance I. Renton Utility Revenues c. Regulation, inspection & 1. Renton Utility Revenues enforcement • flnstrat all 5 CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE FUNDING INTER-JURISDICTIONAL SOURCES REQUIREMENTS II. Localized Improvements a. New on-site treatment and 1. Developer (directly finances and to Springbrook Creek quantity control facility constructs) b. Acquisition of land 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources • c. Improvement projects 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD. 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of" regional sources d. Creek widening I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources e. Conveyance systems 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources f. Wetland mitigation 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources g. Maintenance 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues h. Regulations, enforcement 1. Renton, Kent & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila and inspection Revenues finstritl.ult 6 CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE FUNDING INTER-JURISDICTIONAL SOURCES REQUIREMENTS I11. Flood Flow Diversion a. New on-site facilities 1. Developer (directly finances and Channel constructs) b. Acquisition of land 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources c. Improvement projects I. City base rate 1. Kent and Tukwila 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources d. Wetland rehabilitation I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources 4. Developer incentive program e. Maintenance 1. Renton Utility Revenues f. Regulation, enforcement & I. Renton Utility Revenues inspection fins rat.a It '� CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE FUNDING INTER-JURISDICTIONAL SOURCES REQUIREMENTS V. Pumping Stormwater a. Regional treatment and I. Renton & Kent Utility Revenues I. Kent builds lagoons; Renton contribute from Kent Lagoons quantity control facilities to construction costs 2. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 2. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources b. Pumping 1. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues 1. Share pumping costs with Kent 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources c. Improvement projects I. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues I. Kent 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources d. Environmental I. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues I. Kent rehabilitation 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers 4. Developer incentive program e. Modifications to 1. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues Operations and Procedures 2. Basin surcharge 2. GRMA amendment for pumping into Plan Green River; Kino County and Tukwila adverse to pumping f. Maintenance I. Renton Utility Revenues I Contribute to O&M for Kent Lagoons g. Regulations, enforcement 1. Renton Utility Revenues & inspection f inslraL all g i i � G I I 70 li l`� N7�5 I �j i% �I AJ / a y. If I� Ij e {--y � — I! 4e i ! l*SZ s; �E !i I 1 �I ij PRE-MEETING ON MITIGATION BANK FINDING TROUBLE: TROUBLE SHOOTING MARCH 4 , 1992 ISSUES--- add to the list 1. Aquitisition vs other methods? 2 . If aquisition, funding to implement the plan 3 . . Any takings questions on property? 4 . . Present day enforcement of use of land? 5 . . Contamination? 6 . How practical is it to create flood storage? What will it cost? How doe it compare with other alternatives? 7 . How would this work, really? Letter of agreement? 8 . Buy-off of other agencies: EPA, DOE and COE MITIGATION BANK CITY OF RENTON FEBRUARY 21, 1992 A mitigation bank is under investigation for the Green River Valley area in the City of Renton. Such a bank would involve the following overall concepts: 1 . establishment of two areas: a sending and a receiving area. The receiving location would be capable of wetland replacement: i. e it would have requisite hydrology, requisite seed bank or soil and water characteristics which would support hydrophytic plant growth, in the same drainage basin as the wetland being replaced. . The sending location would have wetlands on site which are desirable and able to be replaced in the receiving location. 2 . Information on the wetlands to be replaced would contain: a delineation meeting the 1989 criteria a categorization of wetlands using the City of Renton Draft Wetlands Ordinance criteria an acreage count or for category 3 wetlands only, a functions and values evaluation using WET, and corroborated by a peer reviewer, done at the applicants expense but hired by the City. a suggested replacement plan meeting the criteria defined in the draft ordinance including planting plans, time sequencing. 3 . A mechanism for achieving the transfer: letters of agreement between the city and property owners, platting or other legal arrangements for receiving and/or sending properties. 4 . A process or methodology agreed to by both parties for setting up and implementing the bank. kpff AGENDA ORILLIA WETLANDS MITIGATION BANKS February 21, 1992 • Introductions • History of Orillia Development • Wetlands Characteristics • Glacier Park Company Perspective of Mitigation Bank • Legal Framework for City and GPC Agreement • Schedule to Establish Bank • Open Discussion • Action Items FAWNS MI '.AMNU-_ '--.■IRUIL '.-..--_ GLACIER PARK COMPANY Land Management for Increased Opportunities. February 20, 1992 Ms. Mary Lynne Myer City of Renton Renton City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Glacier Park Wetlands Dear Mary Lynne: We have reviewed your letter dated February 3, 1992, wherein the city of Renton expressed an interest in exploring with Glacier Park Company the concept of a mitigation bank for wetlands. Glacier Park Company is very interested in pursuing a wetland mitigation banking concept for certain of its properties located in the city of Renton. We believe that a mitigation bank can more than offset the losses that will occur through the filling of low quality wetlands located on some of our properties. Because of the fact that Glacier Park Company is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving the company, there is a brief opportunity to accomplish a mitigation banking concept. We are planning to sell our Renton properties at an auction in mid-May 1992. Therefore, it is imperative that we proceed rapidly with our discussions and conclude them on or before April 30, 1992. The wetland mitigation bank will hopefully allow both Glacier Park Company and the city of Renton to obtain economic benefit from properties that have been zoned and planned for industrial uses, but to date have been undevelopable due to wetland restrictions. The opportunity for us to sell our properties and the opportunity for the city of Renton to obtain increased tax revenue from the development of the properties should make the successful completion of a mitigation banking concept a desirable goal for both parties. We look forward to working with you in an expeditious manner to accomplish this end. Sincerely, Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc6 6. kel .010 cc: M. L. Sevier The Honorable Earl Clymer, Mayor, City of Renton Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator, City of Renton Lynn Guttmann, Planning/Building/Public Works, City of Renton Larry Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,.Washington 98104•206-467-5500 A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc. OUTLINE OF MITIGATION BANK AGREEMENT A. Parties : Glacier Park Company ( "GPC" ) and City of Renton ( "City" ) B . Recitals 1 . WHEREAS the City desires to encourage economic development in the Orillia area consistent with city zoning, comprehensive plans, and past investments for public infrastructure; 2 . WHEREAS the City desires to establish a more flexible, creative method of regulating development in and around emerging wetlands that can serve as a model program for future development in the city and other jurisdictions; 3 . WHEREAS the City desires to establish and expand a regional wetland system located near Springbrook Creek and other significant wetlands; 4 . WHEREAS the City desires to increase flood storage along the Springbrook Creek corridor; 5 . WHEREAS the City desires to implement a master plan for addressing stormwater control, recreation facilities , open space, and the preservation of critical areas; 6 . WHEREAS the City desires to obtain sites that may be used to mitigate and offset the loss of wetlands that may result from City-sponsored projects; 7 . WHEREAS GPC owns several large tracts of property located within the City; 8 . WHEREAS portions of the GPC property have been filled with City approval in the past; 9 . WHEREAS GPC mitigated the prior fill activity by dedicating a wetland in excess of fifteen acres to the City; 10 . WHEREAS the previously filled portions of the GPC property have some low quality emergent wetlands; 11 . WHEREAS portions of the GPC property that have not been filled contain some high quality wetlands; - 1 - 12 . WHEREAS it is necessary to fill the low quality wetlands in order to obtain a reasonable economic use of the GPC property; 13 . WHEREAS GPC has paid local improvement district assessments for infrastructure in anticipation of being able to develop its property; 14 . WHEREAS the local improvement district assessments paid by GPC affect both previously filled areas and unfilled high quality wetland areas; 15 . WHEREAS GPC desires to eliminate special assessments and property tax liabilities on properties that will never be developed; 16 . WHEREAS the City is willing to allow fill material to be placed in low quality wetlands provided wetland losses are mitigated; 17 . WHEREAS the City believes that wetland mitigation banking can provide a large, consolidated, and high quality wetland rather than the small, scattered, and low quality wetlands presently located on the filled portion of the GPC property; 18 . WHEREAS GPC and the City recognize that a wetland mitigation bank could be used by other property owners and the City to offset the losses of low quality wetlands on their properties; 19 . WHEREAS GPC is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving the company; 20 . WHEREAS GPC is willing to dedicate to the City the property necessary to establish a wetland mitigation bank; 21 . WHEREAS the City can gain an economic benefit by formulating a mitigation bank with GPC; and 22 . WHEREAS GPC and the City are desirous of establishing an agreement to allow the consolidation of wetland mitigation in a central mitigation bank; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree: C. Terms 1 . Mitigation Bank. a. The Mitigation Bank shall consist of two parcels shown on Exhibit A. - 2 - b. GPC shall provide, a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank demonstrating the available mitigation credits . 2 . Use of Mitigation Bank by Other Property Owners . a. The City may allow other property owners within a specified area to use the Mitigation Bank to offset the fill of wetlands . b. The City may require other property owners who use the Mitigation Bank to pay the City a specified amount of money. 3 . Conveyance of Mitigation Bank to City. a. GPC shall deed the Mitigation Bank to the City. b. The City shall approve any lot line adjustments necessary to configure the Mitigation Bank as separate legal lots . The Mitigation Bank shall be conveyed to the City within 20 days after the Mitigation Bank is configured as separate legal lots . C . The deed to the Mitigation Bank shall contain a covenant obligating the City to allow use of the Mitigation Bank pursuant to Section 2 above. d. Unless there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are not related to the fill of the wetlands, the City shall issue determinations of non-significance for the development of each of the Benefitted Properties . e. The City shall not require any wetland mitigation on account of the development of any of the Benefitted Properties regardless of any agency comments received by the City. If any wetland mitigation is required, the City shall pay for and complete any such required mitigation. 4 . Permission to Place Fill Material . a . In exchange for GPC providing the property for a wetland mitigation bank, the City shall permit all the wetlands, as shown in the David Evans and Associates wetland studies, on each of the legal lots (the"Benefitted Properties" ) to be filled. In addition, the City shall approve a vegetation management plan with grading and filling provisions for the upland portions of the Benefitted Properties . - 3 - b. The fill material may be placed at any time after the mitigation bank properties (the "Mitigation Bank" ) have been dedicated to the City of Renton. 5 . Assumption of Indebtedness . The City shall assume the obligation for and shall pay all outstanding and future amounts owed for LID assessments and property taxes for the Mitigation Bank to be conveyed to the City pursuant to this Agreement. 6 . Support of Wetland Mitigation Banks by the City. The City shall intervene on behalf of the owners of the Benefitted Properties if the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Ecology do not cooperate with the formation of the Mitigation Bank or if such agencies seek to require additional mitigation in conjunction with the filling of the wetlands on the Benefitted Properties . 7 . Future Public Improvements . The Benefitted Properties shall not be subject to any LID assessments for the future extension of Oakesdale Avenue or the future construction of the P-1 channel or the P-9 channel . 8 . Effect of Intervening Ordinances . This Agreement, the agreements contained herein, and the development of the Benefitted Properties shall not be subject to, and shall not be controlled by, and shall be exempt from, any regulations that the City may adopt for the protection or regulation of wetlands . 9 . Successors and Assigns . The Agreement shall run with the land and shall benefit the Benefitted Properties and GPC and its successors and assigns . 156421.v124 02/19/92 - 4 - 4�R CITNWOF RENTON 7Planning/Building/Public Works Department Eari Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator February 3, 1992 Mark Stiefel KPFF Consulting Engineers 1201 3rd Ave Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Glacier Park Wetlands Dear Mr. Stiefel: The City of Renton is interested in exploring the concept of a mitigation bank for wetlands with the Glacier Park Company. From our earlier meetings with you, we believe that a mitigation bank could be an advantageous way to address wetlands on Glacier Park property in the Green River Valley, allowing for more development and added economic return. The concept also has advantages for the City of Renton for addressing storm drainage, flood control and wildlife habitat in the valley. A mitigation bank has not been tried before in the City. However, staff has completed our first stage research on the concept, finalizing literature review and technical discussions. We also interviewed previous city staff to obtain information on earlier agreements between Glacier Park and the City, and verified material through our records. We have completed in- depth wetlands work for the Valley, which will augment our earlier wetlands studies. We have discussed the concept with and have interest and support from the Mayor's office, the City Attorney, the Planning Commission, Current and Long Range Planning staff, Storm Drainage staff, private wetland consultants, the King County Building and Land Development staff and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Each party is willing to offer various services if a partnership between us can be accomplished. Although the mitigation bank concept is somewhat controversial, all parties agree that these properties and this Valley have the potential for success both from economic development and environmental standpoints. So, the City is ready to begin discussions which could lead to implementation of a pilot project with your company, if you are interested. To facilitate an efficient first meeting, we would propose you prepare several items: a statement of interest; a proposal and/or wetlands study for sending properties; a study showing receiving properties; a timeline for accomplishing the bank which meets your company's needs; a listing of goals or needs which the company wishes to achieve through the bank; a summary of previously agreed upon easements or dedications between the City and Glacier Park for the sending and receiving properties; and any additional questions, suggestions or information you feel are important. The City will prepare: a proposal for the concept of the bank; a timeline for completing discussions on the bank and implementing the bank; 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 a summary of City records of previously agreed upon easements and dedications for the Glacier Park property; and a listing of goals which the City wishes to achieve through the bank. The City would be available to meet on February 10 at 2:30 p.m. if Glacier Park personnel would be available and interested. I will telephone you this week to discuss the meeting, concepts, and data needed. The City believes this partnership could result in an innovative, practical, and economical way to address a wetland situation which is problematic for both of us. I look forward to hearing from you and Glacier Park. gSiincerely yours, Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner Long Range Planning n-Litbnki CITY 4PF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department E you Lynn..G.uttmaRn,Administrator Fred Wienman United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue - MS WD-128 Seattle, WA. 98101 CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept. Dear Mr. Wienman: Please accept this letter and the enclosed material as the City of Renton's proposal for an EPA Wetland Grant. The City of Renton, in compliance with the Growth Management Act, has performed a city wide inventory of wetlands and mapped them. Based on this inventory and research into other jurisdictions' wetlands ordinances and requirements for the state and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City has drafted a wetlands ordinance. Citizen input has been gathered through workshops, public hearings, and focus groups throughout the process. We have finished the sixth draft of the ordinance and will soon issue a seventh and final draft. It is committed to a holistic approach to wetlands, including no net loss and retention of functions and values. One of the provisions of the ordinance is a mitigation bank concept. The Green River Valley, historically all wetlands, was filled during the period of 1979 to 1991. It is now the industrial and office base for the City, but still retains much vacant land. However, numerous acres of wetlands are still found in this area. Some have emerged through the fill, some are rain and storm water depression areas trapped by aquitards in the fill, some are wetlands that have migrated to adjacent areas after the fill occurred.. Many provide water quality and flood storage functions but may be-degraded in terms'of habitat and other characteristics. Some large wetlands are intact for almost all functions and value. Remnants of a wildlife corridor throughout the valley are still visible and could be restored. The City has also contracted with a wetlands consultant to prepare the Black River Water Quality Management Plan, of which the Green River Valley is a part. The work program for the Plan includes an inventory/characterization of the wetlands in terms of the functions and values as related to water quality and aquatic habitat. Also as part of the Plan, our consultants will develop mitigation strategies and define possible mitigation strategies for dealing with the loss of low functional value wetlands and their water quality benefits. One mitigation strategy they will evaluate is the mitigation banking concept. According to wetland experts, existing fill placed during the 1970's over prime wetland and farm soils could be removed and wetland functions restored in a central area, as a replacement for filling of small, less valuable perched or emerging wetlands in the same subdrainage basin. These less valuable wetlands, on top of the fill, have low plant species richness and few wildlife, according to our inventory. They do provide important 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Fred Wienman MPA Wetland Grant Applicao/Proposal • Page 2 storm water storage functions and water quality functions. Most of them are classed as our lowest value wetlands, Class III. The mitigation bank concept would allow for full development of parcels dotted with these small, disturbed wetlands. It would further allow for restoration of historical wetland areas by removal of fill, restoration of drainage patterns, utilization of existing seed beds. The restored areas would replace the storm storage and water quality functions of the small wetlands and would also provide increased hydrological connections to Springbrook Creek, and enhanced habitat areas for a larger variety of wildlife. We expect to have Class II wetlands characteristics for these enhanced areas. The idea has met with enthusiasm by the Washington State Department of Ecology, wetlands sections, developers and environmentalists alike, public and private sectors. The City is currently entertaining a proposal from a large corporate land owner for land donation for wetlands replacement and restoration in exchange for wetland fill in other areas. In order for a mitigation bank to work, we will need wetland experts to: DEVISE AN ORGANIZATIONAL SCHEME FOR THE BANK: - devise a system of credits and debits for the bank; - investigate organizational aspects, i.e. ownership, liability, platting patterns, ownership patterns maintenance and operation costs; - internal City departmental responsibility; and - monitoring of accounts and of total program. GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: - suggest and evaluate receiving sites; - - review and critique wetlands reports for sending sites; - devise methods for transfer, construction, monitoring and ongoing maintenance of the sites. The grant money would begin the organizational phase of the bank and would allow staff to meet with donors to designate land for the bank, and to set up the mechanisms by which the bank would proceed. Given that the wetlands ordinance must be adopted no later than March 1, 1992, all of the above mentioned tasks would need to be completed and a mitigation bank operating no later than September 1992. We fill that the project fits all three criteria of EPA. It would be an innovative project with planning, research and implementation facets to recapture, restore, and rehabilitate wetlands, while allowing economic development to continue in the City of Renton. It would be a model for other similar projects in the Green River Valley in King county, and the cities of Kent and Auburn. We believe it could provide a win-win situation for all parties and provide for further environmental protection and indeed, enhancement. r-rea vvienman 4 PA Wetland Grant Applica4/Proposal • Page 3 Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Please feel free to contact me at (206) 235-2719 should you have any questions or comments about this proposal. Sincerely, f.. Mary Lynne Myer Principal Planner enclosure cc: Kay Shoudy Dick Anderson Randall Parsons ✓Ron Straka Jones & Stokes, Associates i 1 1 i.i i? ii It - i _ i �I i1 ii - li it II I CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 1991 TO: Ad Hoc Review Team Jay Covington Larry Warren Randalt Parsons& Mel Wilson Ron Olson Jim Hanson John Webley Kay Shoudy � FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner�l�a' Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Glacier Park Wetlands Bank Principals of Glacier Park approached the City of Renton with a proposal for their property in the Green River Valley. They asked for concurrence from the City with the proposal which meets two objectives: 1. preservation of wetlands in the Valley 2. preservation of development potential of their properties. The proposal is explained below. We are requesting your review of the proposal and attendance at a meeting to discuss it. If approved, the proposal could significantly affect your areas of management responsibility THE PROCESS: Please review the proposal. We will discuss the proprosal on Monday, November 4, 2:00 p.m., 6th floor conference room, in a brainstorm/workshop format. The time frame is short for Glacier Park, so we must proceed quickly. Both Lynn Guttmann and Jay Covington have reviewed the concept and are in favor of further consideration of it. HISTORY: Glacier Park is the land development subsidiary of Burlington Northern Railroad Company. While they have been in the land development business for many years, they were recently instructed by the parent company to sell as many of their holdings as possible. Glacier Park now owns approximately 200 acres_in the Green River Valley within the City limits of Renton. A variety of-sizes and types of wetlands are located on many of these acres. In order to sell the lands, Glacier Park is interested in improving their ability to develop. Memorandum to Ad Hoc Review Team October 29, 1991 Page 2 THE PROPOSAL: The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandated that critical area ordinances be developed by jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region. The City of Renton, through the Long Range Planning Section, has worked on a draft wetlands ordinance, one of the critical areas mandated for protection under GMA. Several public workshops have been held on the subject and were attended by Glacier Park personnel. One of the concepts in the draft ordinance is a mitigation bank for the Green River Valley. The ordinance, in its fourth draft, will be sent to City staff for review this week. It incorporates a mitigation bank concept for the Green River Valley. Glacier Park would like to explore the concept prior to the ordinance's adoption, due to their time constraints. They would voluntarily set up a mitigation bank for their collective ,00 properties in the Valley. It would operate in this manner: (� 1. Properties with wetlands would be inventoried and wetlands would be �R categorized based on their size, functions, and values. Sy � 2 2. This inventory would be submitted to the City for review and approval. �VV5"� 3. Higher value wetlands would be designated for preservation and no change. �y5 4. Lower value wetlands meeting minimum size requirements would then be designated for change: i.e. fill or alteration. The changes would be designed to d04 ti increase the developability of the parcels. i ,`Z' 5. A third area would be designated as an area for creation of wetlands to replace wetlands filled or altered (see #4). PC This third area would be called a mitigation bank area. Here previous fill would be removed �y or areas excavated out to provide no net loss of water storage, water quality, wildlife habitat, and plant diversity and other wetland values and functions as determined through an inventory. All wetland acreages proposed to be filled would have to be replaced at a 1.5 to 1 ratio in this area. This area would have to be verified by a wetlands specialist before any exchange could be considered. Possibly the area could be dedicated to the City, or set aside as non-developable tracts under future subdivision, prior to the sale of Glacier Park's holdings, to ensure the future implementation of the bank. A number of details must still be worked out and an inventory of wetlands and mitigation sites must be proposed. However, these are the basic details of the proposal. If you have any questions, please call Mary Lynne at 2719 or Don at 6181. a:glacbank cc: Lynn Guttmann A ; � l c � liz 1 � � ,o 4V co3 AA)D -a57 cr_- po, Adak t 25 t 136 :co.•tn i -sw nw• Co •e Aco..r ;\\, Aeo.u•• �` w ' , , !� •t.•o r aa..,., s-t toa.-..I n• 1 II 1 I I 1 ,\, •CO.s•ar .eO. ........• h 1 II i .�. sw tou, sw,ot r . ..\ `.t. � ���: /. R i'/ •w ..T. »r ._�•���� . am ute, / / x•/• .co..na t,. /•' r.•r.... NL OWNERSHIP-' 41I'».}»t�:"."iv 1 f• .�eo.s•u aw,r,et\ : .� +w / so .,•r. .'/ .eo.a,t: w- /�/�!flgS ` r., ..r..rr•r,.... /aM .,.,...r:...r,.w. \•)>" r.ra1., S�.•>•r 1a.'r' .,-a.,r Z r' •co.no % - � ! :T�'Y•-_ �i�'r%i. {�-,iry:J%. ' '= •::ki�il » 1���11..w�-.y Z lIlt ♦.rr..,r .., 1 sw n•ra t t.or /L.,�!!•�,I. < ✓/, , Aco.•u,./ co.sin 114 ` � I 1i I sw rttet � se,:ua-sw,oa•r ::/' j !�/i�sw '' , ••to.sear •to.•r» ut'/, ..•.rr•✓..r rrr r«�....,�..r. u u.re s ntta' ��/ / zl•/ ''/ .'./ %. /• /� /'. `, i urr«rr-rrrr r.»r•rr r,A. JI Aco..r•o I ✓ItLAaan•.. .co.•ne: .�.ctj:<•. .•,a, / _ % i ..- A«rr.•«•rr.•.rr t Aco.atu -s I %, a°' 7 rrrrrr• .r .»r.-.•r-r. Aeo.a \ aw I /� ' // ., ,, , / ..: ;�-. # .«rr. 4; , �. ICIT� OF REWcf('YN WE'TLA D . i /' ,. %: '' _ o- • '' I .«r _____________1xtJS1'______ -__ t-''�• r►JY3,Jl:w_ Vl IO.Ct� ` / 1 3t?3C .«rr.rr....r ..,.,. ...••.r,wt II— ---_-_..__-_-__-_--Lii JL'--asC>L'!11•�.._ ira (� .eY 1 ��- ' • -MIEN,CLLL - rei w•i` ` wv .«a« .rr.r r wr. 5-2408 „ - xa7--_ _- 1 ..rr.rrr•. • \ I ca.•,t• I AeO.•ne •ea.,•o .1 O f - _ 1 TT»:--1^ 1�.:1 1 . \,•. % ♦''• h' ...rr..r..-.... - I.T . s Ii •+. � tl .. .r 1 . +''j•eo.•,o l AeO.ar•, ,Co.•,•a • .. ! l � •CO.Peal ->. •CO sear • 1 � 31 e_ l-`i.tw.r..�..1..- ^.'r.i;II•!` \ r ♦ � +awro.ce.u\a."r� - . 1t'+.a.. '— _<••`r 1` t_-?��3-�-����'.c.'a ay1 4•tt ._ _ _•i•'fiii' si i a��1II+�t!rI +a su��@:1: a-oi`i4,y\-\>;•' a .cO At _.o•i+t?1)�Fi��o po�R,?�r°�`•�. 'y j1•:f[; ....•«.aw..,.r..«n r,r•.wr..w..�r.,•...r...irw ....«.r.rrrrr..•rrwr r..r•..<r♦r.-.r.aali u.Y. e .«....•.ar-..r.. .«r.....•. r.v .-Sw ttu, , ,• ".. Aca.•,u !•.i Aco.alas '#ll-'I'P At. °•q u3 4° _ _ _ IVKWIIA ; _ I A •,a._,`...° __ -�.� k'r .�` - 11� .-_ . I lncataesstz .�' •°° /a n� r...,.r,.,..•.r» ...rr.•.,......r» e I ( ea «.a. , �. I L iI 1 +ao.•aes:� o\ +'� <'!1 'yF _ @ITOATIC�P�BANKLa- �i1�F�i�1 �� � �« �,r �y�. '; �-- —t.K,, �„I �� �:_•• ^ .� : �:' �:�. "�w,'__ • .+ } 1 � I �' ` ' � 1 '�� rt[ rrr f �_w• • \_V/ �w'•.��.�FI,I.1•A3t-4��+i�/ it.�i.QLA: i rr...r•.•.w Tnwr.r�w•r'.wr PROPOSED P-t CHANNEL o; /a ,%y? �t r.r».►..r..r r«.r. ...r.r. i uw-, i •. t 1 •III Ata sue ! r• r a,o �► I �. I rg Aco.•,n ( .eo.aw• MI t /...///,a '/ti\\ .,r�.r......r ....r__i< .rw _ - h Aco.$1.9 i •co..•ar c' I: t Ili x =, �"/.1/Ltll a �:�/=AeaY\•I /�� r«......•.r.•..r r«rr.-r�.r.rr �tya ...r ca. ne •,. I .: :•l::: :\•: Z,Y. Aw.»u -.� ... a.. 1V:+>r• y.- Aco.•?.a - I I �~ ; i o _ I1+ ' ACO-•so= ±ih:j ia,',i\.\. I rwA.r.r...r... •«rr.r r.0 \ t ,lS..i'.:= •. .•'�y. •�:':.� .ta.. •. Q.; a.•.a• .� -~ .I . r•V I i sfiir�-p w el: swr.•r•-r.,.r r•e•w«r.r r.rr tir • ,ao•.or�_+ �•�•_t•_ •.t' _ .'1'.': _ r....•r.w..r •orr.,.wa ..r .eo.rw�a� ° I �.,r ww" 1� /i%��_��� '/.! �`� ` 15E ..,...-..r ..rr .«rr.r.....rr 4i I •: :At ACQ.w,a T .�. '.r: ';C.::•:: :•:Y:• '!• �� �� `. A<o.••.: II r,awn N co"`s.rr'^\•A"'r I i i K••lr•Ct•• •:y\•.�•:::::.'.'Y'.' S:W-3tat-SiflEfi-2,:db_ —. �.��� s 'I 1: l / s-•wa-1; s-w,s'J�rN,Y ACr4�Ns w.r...•.sr.rr ...r rr+..._ Q1 I r: ••L• •si:::: .\.,�'.•..::.• ... ACO w,t tl .. S/ ! T ..-.�•.w,....r ...«r...•r.••.r I 't\ � '.'�,r:•,,•��: f .�• •.'.� s-•t•a .r�••LiT.•: :'��.�.•.�a•. �•::�': '__:3-_a.._. ::v.:�:,�::e:2r:::_::a::. �.: .. !' /y����j 11�\I � . r r•..r rw .♦r 1 j \ : b. .::: i .•:.• - t= .. « i� L _ •• ..:� +�w• \�\1) 3.sr.- r II S >- L. •:•.a.•:•:•l::.•.'�':a:t:: Aeo.••,e- - ••CO.wu I + O u i 'L. ••• ... ,... •-—\ ACC±-ao }-= I• ( I r-^r. ta•r \\ // \ \al w r.•r«rwr, rr wArr_v x r + it _ ^ i ••co. it jp yl r..r....r►...s «...r'r., w 1 ; '+ 20• .°>e . ` I a ° • �. .«rr....•rrr r..r..r..r•_:w I Ata.w,e # ?I \.t. �. a �. .:_ r«w.r.r..r•...rr .«vs rrrr. W �. O' t0' :m- O- ACO.a•,• y M iJ.:_ \ > ..' ♦ _ = I 1 u. >o �i • tr 1 A...•a'o� .•,A Aco.•,w i 1•r , \\\'y 1 ''i - i --. ti ? ...�. _-_r_— � -a�.Y! % • - r.wr•,rr.r.r,r r.•..>:✓..-.r•.... Iyi11a , it.`a• .=.. - ` I -_sir- n•SiAEET".rs ar•-,cs- = r.wr.•..•r•r..a. r.•»...rr.....» ••'r tx JL= . i .•co..,•e > _ '^w .3 /, i .... _� a` ,... �y ai r» a ...rr•.....»r .w A`— !' Ooo • >' �o!� oo- i y •oo I„ ^aW ° ' .�3k Y s-i,ti' l ,# .`• I s•� r.-r..--...r a...r_ >.. ...• j = i.[ _oo• s �t ♦ Y° Ire a,. - r«r.r. rr 1 _ M' • I .r "� !. R D� / J }Mrrry_( ACO.�YI t= •. •.Irr .sr..-I .w.I t ail i•3_ ,!V .1 . I C �� „•r-7.�-ta r P ax '!'�.. M r` o , .- wr.»r• ,•..r. s. .r ....w r ---------------- 3 «.:.aa — [• ^"r*��v" s w\:n..vc• ;a; i.:a ij z 1 O i� .ca arw -i2.�'co.•,u : rr w.oax::: -t..� / /.,.3• I �. (-�,r r..•rr.w .r.•:rwr•.r. I - I g 1 AAM•an •ea•,r• f x ..- Aeo.i•' a. iiil t t _ ':9[YaJM::•: aPC'R CiG'i,... ..' .co.a•t i I -•- uu .fcP.`J'ie.:•«. J�+i -r �� - «... t •I r.~.r.-� ..,. - - w to I .r :1•�'••.;•:'^'::•: '••••''r• .� tr'x,�- , �•-'r-,.rr III' •j11 _ _ I Aca.suo_- - •. Y`f :::.':.` •'•. � V .-' .y - •••r. �••.�- _ 1 _ _ �� /•�---- «• - 7I 9 .. ��`it•a .1•'1•'L.•. � / .' l+i.w 1 »....r... r.. ....r_,�♦.....• ,. r ✓ I C r .ca.�aa.a .: KKS I O -: .> o.•an �• ..Y`�::: A 3� 1 I A O uj rills. ° "< 1 Aco'�iii ,•1 x .. _,. .•`f}...���a�� ;o.wat f�//+ r t•eo.w,r 2• AeO.ad /' p,at1•� n 1 • • ^1 _ e •.A. A — ACa wtfACa > I •a• _.t+r ;�w.♦ • O'_. .-i_.._. .t___•-.wa' 7r,_..'_ ,S.N►9 _ j/ /� 2 � 7 :; x 6.12 Lsco..33.0 an•>' 11 r•ss ••::SA•.1.- �I^Aco. • » _ Aco is•a.-!: r II :'i•t•1'. �:" " to..•sr / a { .eo. ire t i •� - ` Aeo.1sa:e Aeo.asp• II A as•e ^nays Aeo.a•e✓/. M� IG Oil aa. aaBA�l I . .LET° .- 2OL4 / S =�•" — > - = W /: i �� '! y t» •.i II '9M. ` ♦9sn ST#$ET - �; ~�,� .. _. �• i e t'i: t .I T�►sw i. �I d �;7� s ` �i.�yA�- Co.•.s�1 .w•f �: Aco.w,t -r_ �.i .ca••tr I r •00.i_ii� e__ Ato.•wr 3 ,n. s w.- jr s Aca wsa• P=� I _ » ° a a 25 �tO. ,.a•,yFi -- t �v._��'r't. _ 2 = .30 {+f r'"_� S• .J _ .:r �' [ 1�7 eo..• -. s •+•r r a•t ac .�_ -- •st ra wa -oa'-oa'+ ~, ;- �I '( j y\z s •ta '- \ 38 vl\ $�\\ \\;\ 3-ov \r Aco.arao Iri Aco .too 1 r-i f sw tries. T \ Aco • \� \j Aeo,sa•• \\:. Ly. i s • lr so 113A Aeo wra.l:_'... \_-__. 'a•i o ``\\\...JC a ey o,�s \ I a m E• art �-{ I ` 111 so naa• t ti� �.�• \� \��.,, (j .. r - r J•• 5 •.A t�i<. e'Gt✓' aca :$.a I -� = �`- \ S-•e,0 .._,._.�- •i-ef.� �.'---�.JC, !»n�•M -r J.a.tf rx'i•F.:t j C I ca a ii� 1_ Aeo. ,• I ' •�`� ._ S.W--+H#_STREEi.ca - jw± i� ��• `\ .ca a,.. \� ca.•... �I' •co.s••.. a"tom -f>' _ '' GLAC!ER PARK CO. i 1 '' - . . a ��; w' e ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK . • ;.\\. J:Hr• - ' r¢..,., - \ .� s-r,i - _ _ ,>.1. .O .-�:�, - RENTON - KIN i •I to r yv• a-«,e r.\i- s::e3 \ < ;'.e .-.a, G COUNTY, WA 1� _ t•-200' JULY 22. 1982 a0.:\;` Aw•t•• Acoa.. :e°o.ilia Trz.1+� ri, sw 11.31 }.I or.tcc or ..ou•rwua o[v[.o•r[..r :�\ �„•,.:.; •� •-••t .YI .ro ..o>[•r. .....a[,.[r,. avr C. � � ..b}.Joi.-.�.. t ^ lP[/,nw 3-N„�Sw,^^•a• � `� ...�.•:a`N ✓'" IL usa I __ war -ea:-!t'+. __--laDisl_��^_____ ______ _ _,J:1o.0.:...?'.•.. _ t• y _. .. .. (/'r�wn s-stor ___ r�••.r•-�r w -- --yM.i9rd£.TREET s.w„ _.-_-r w ...o t �... �..•...�•...w. ...y._ _�....•.�.._. :....Y«._...-,...�..••,..........., .................... cOa PUT OF NORPA�C INO. PROP SEE MAP_ Valley Daily News December 16, 1991 R enton seeks..,wetlands� balance Of.e nvi ro n m e ntal';-' economic interests ', p I By DEAN A.RADFORD f mwIN rl t Valley Daily News` RENTON GlacterPark Co.owns 550 acres of industrial land in the Green River-valley. it W � ♦ 4 .x3-. t.Y t says is practically worthless because of w,et- lands. �, ��� �,•. � � '� { ,•��. `{, r.. t � 'Of that�556 acres,.400 have"wetlands,leaving about 150 acres•of usable land, Marty Sevier, the company'•s senior director of development, said Friday. a In 1990,King County said the land was worth $68 million.Glacier Park appealed,and the.val- uc was lowered to$34 million,after the compa-ny showed how wetlands."had:devalued the Valley Daily News photo by DUANE HAMAMURA land,"Sevier said:. Wetlands area west of East Valley Road,north of S.W. 27th Street in Renton. The company,plans"to appeal the,1991 prop erty value,possibly lowering it by$25 million,'. Sevier said. Renton alone; the company owns about New ordinance not eas ao write 220 acres and ''out of those, we have 60 acres easy to we consider to be usable at the moment, Sevier said. By DEAN A.RADFORD' Whether the ordinance achieves that bal- Companies like Glacier Park;a subsidiary of ;Valley Daily News ance won't be known until the ordinance ' Burlington Northern Resources Inc., say Ren ;RE,NTON -The city's planning staff has goes before the City Council, which must ton's proposed wetlands ordinance constitutes a ,[tied six times to write a wetlands ordinance adopt at least interim regulations by March. "taking"of their property value.. that achieves some lofty goals. ' Mary Lynne Myer, the eity's principal "No one,talks about paying the landowner for IXity,policy,the ordinance says;is"to bal long-range planner,has directed work on the taking;his property: If you're going to declare 8nce community desires for economic Bevel ordinance since she joined the ctty`s staff in.` my land unusable; then pay me for it," Sevier •`opment and affordable housing with the . April.She is responsible for the update. the , said. res n responsibility sibility to retain the city's remaining wetlands." See ORDINANCE,A5 > See BALANCE,AS dation to the City Council, which protecting mud puddles and over- not to pay any more money on LIDS BALANCE. has final say on the ordinance. protection is what I object to," he because there is no benefit,absolute- Public hearing "The balance we have tried to said. ly none," said Sevier, whose corn- strike - but we're leaving it up to Mayor Earl Clymer said he thinks pany is paying$1 million for street slated Wednesday public comment - is to allow for the business community's philoso- and utility improvements. Continued from page Al properties to be developed and still phy is being expressed on the com- Glacier Park is trying to sell its ensure the wetland values and func- mission. "This is a change and it's land holdings in South King County. The payments, he said, "would tions can be replaced," said Mary causing consternation among some The Planning Commission, in probably ease the pain." Lynne Myer, the city's long-range and happiness for others," he said. removing wetland buffers from the Sevier said local governments also planner responsible for the wetlands "We're trying to strike a balance. policy-setting Comprehensive Plan lose money. His company will pay ordinance and the Comprehensive Let's keep this within the law and earlier this fall,set off a debate over about$400,000 less in property tax- .Plan update. have a win-win situation for every- the value of buffers and the size of es, "of which a major share was She stressed the ordinance would one involved." wetlands and the relationship of the Renton's," he said. not render land undevelopable. Sin- Whether a wetlands ordinance ordinance to the land-use plan. Since April, Renton has worked gle-family housing is exempt,as are constitutes a "taking" of property Buffers, Myer said, "are an inte- on an ordinance to protect its dwin- wetlands less than 2,200 square feet. was decided by the state Supreme gral part of the functioning of any dling wetlands,which arc crucial to Joan Walker,a planning commis- Court in hearing a 1990 challenge to wetland" that remove pollutants, flood and stormwater control and sioner, said she "needs to listen to King County's sensitive areas ordi- slow runoff and offer a transition provide habitat for many species of the public hearing and have the peo- nance. between man's activities and plants and wildlife. An initial analy- ple who own the property tell me Larry Warren, Renton's city natures. sis shows the city has roughly 32 how that would affect them." She attorney, wrote in a letter to Myer Without buffers, Myer doesn't wetlands covering about 367 acres. wants to hear from people who live the court said such ordinances"sub- think the city can meet its policy goal Opposite property owners such as on the city's hillsides and plateaus stantially advance the public interest of"no net loss of wetlands." Glacier Park are environmental who might have wetlands on their in safety,health,welfare or the envi- Clint Lank, manager of the envi- groups and wetland advocates who property. ronment. As such, they were not ronmental division of King County's warn development is destroying Bill Taylor, a planning commis- challengable as 'takings' but rather Parks, Planning and Resources nature's plumbing system, which sioner and former Longacres execu- had to be challenged on due process Division,agrees. can control floods more efficiently live,said, "1 think there is a balance grounds." "King County believes that pro- and cheaper than any of man's that needs to be achieved between The due-process provision rankles tecting wetlands without protecting attempts. the needs of the environment and the Sevier,who has talked to his compa- adequate buffers will not preserve Somewhere is a middle ground,a rights of the property owners and the ny's attorney's about the issue. the integrity of wetlands,since many balance that will keep business and economic realities of the city of Ren- "They have restrictgd the land by of the functions and values of wet- the economy healthy and protect the ton." the delays in processing the per- lands depend upon the condition of environment, officials say. But Taylor-fears the ordinance mit," Sevier said. adjacent vegetated buffer," Lank The city's Planning Commission "goes far beyond what is required in Sevier also wonders why property wrote in'a letter. will take public testimony on the growth management legislation and owners should pay for local Without buffers,he said the city's ordinance's sixth draft at a public is clearly a major infringement on improvement districts when they Comprehensive Plan may conflict hearing at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday in the rights of property owners. receive no benefits. with King County's.which is incon- the City Council chambers at City "I absolutely believe we need to "I,don't know if my company sistent with the state's goal of coor- Hall. It will then ;end it-:rerommrn- protect our significant wetlands. But would, but my recommendation is dinated land-use plans. They've accepted a lair amount she said. benefits. ORDINANCE: of input,"said Del Rowan,manager Rowan said he doesn't care which Some of the ordinance's key pro- {, of government affairs for the Boeing manual is used,although"the 1987 visions arc: City showing Co.in Renton. "The city is showing rules are less restrictive and less def- ■ Three wetland categories, an excellent openness of mind." inite as to what constitutes a wet- ranging from large wetlands with openness of mind But Sevier and Rowan say the city land." He wants everyone to agree, open water to wetlands that "are still has a ways to go.They want the on one set of standards, severely disturbed" because of fill- Continued from page At city to use wetland definitions con- Everyone agrees the idea ol'a wet- ing, the presence of toxic elements tained in a 1987 U.S.Army Corps of lands bank, a controversial idea to or isolation from other wetlands. city's Comprehensive Plan and oth- Engineers manual. The city is using fill marginal wetlands and then cre- ■ Buffer zones ranging from 25 cr land-use documents. definitions in a 1989 corps manual. ate or enhance similar or more sig- feet to 300 feet, depending on the Myer and the city's planning staff Rowan said the business commu- nificant wetlands elsewhere, and wetland's classification and its have researched environmental nity would have to make two appli- buffer averaging will give the ordi- . shoreline designation. issues, conducted focus groups, cations, one using the 1987 rcgula- nance flexibility. ■ Larger buffers to protect talked with state officials and Lions and one for 1989's,if the city's The ordinance also has provisions unique wetlands. reviewed the grdinance with other wetlands ordinance is enacted. for appeals if a landowner thinks the ■ Minimum wetland size of jurisdictions. "That is a larger burden than we ordinance denies.him "reasonable 2,200 square feet and exemption of Even its critics and other obscrv- should have to bear," Rowan said. use" of his property: single-family properties. crs say the city has done a thorough Myer said "we still have Dan Early in the process, the city 0 Average wetland replacement job. Quayle's mandate to use the 1987 inventoried wetlands in the city and or restoration of 1.5 times,2 times, "The city has tried hard to get a definition."But the city is bound not within its sphere of influence It 3 times or 6 times the area altered, good ordinance," said Marty L. by federal mandate,.but by King found wetlands in the Green River depending on the wetland category Sevier, senior director for develop- County's decision to use the 1989 Valley"were lower quality,proved- and vegetation. meat for Glacier Park Co.,,which corps manual. ing flood storage and storm drain- ■ No net loss of wetlands func- owns hundreds of acres of land in the "At this point the 1989 manual age,"Myer said,but were still wor- tions and acreage and if possible,an Green River Valley. best protects everyone's interests," thy of protecting because of their increase in wetlands. Valley Daily News April 9, 1992 ■ ■ ity ' aims for deal o. n wetlands Glacier ParkuCiotn ��' Jand may be key . By T.M.SELL Set,.fOr 24 3 r Valley Daily News REN'I'ON — The city is racing to :,.. i'i% beat the auctioneer's gavel to com- t:I,arld ';tracts plete an unusual deal that could pre- serve acres of Valle floor wetlands Pliquidation As art of the 1 Valley of its Glacier Park real estate holdings, ByT.M.'SELL S *K Burlington Resources is selling 13 yalley Daily News parcels totaling 174 acres south of Longacres in the Orillia Business Twenty-four Valley-floor,par- ', Park. .eels of land will be part of a$90 t Most of the land has been filled +i million'nationwide!real estate u , , . auction of Glacier ParkCo,land l and one site is paved and is being `,later diis month.' leased by The Boeing Co. as a park- ; i The local parcels,: mostly ing lot. But even the filled sites have developed minor wetlands that zoned for industrial.uses,,.range include vegetation and waterfowl in size from 1:4 to ,115 acres,, habitat. and range in.'price` from The parcels range from 3.75 acres $100,000 to$2.7 million to more than 77 acres. Two of the ;.Those are published reserves , tracts,one east and one west of Oak- the minimum price.Burlington,,j• esdale Avenue Southwest near Resources hopes to get as,it liq- 4" uidates its former real, estate Southwest 34th Street, have not t been completely filled and include development,company.,'.Prices significant wetlands that approxi- could go lower or higher depending on what happens at t mate the Valley's original, pristine the auction. state,city planners say. Local: land for sale includes Glacier Park wants to Swap Ren- ton the major wetlands for the right two commercial,,': sites,' to fill the minor wetlands. Filling Auburn, including a .50-acre::, those properties would make them parcel near. the Fred Meyer.,`. more marketable,and the city would store; two Auburn, industrial .: be able to establish a "wetlands mit- sites; eight Kent industrial sites; igation bank" to help preserve natu- and 14 parcels in`the Orillia ral habitat in the rapidly growing Business Park in Renton. area. Karen Lane, vice president of: Both sides claim credit for the development for Glacier Park in idea. The auction takes place May 2 Seattle, said potential buyers ; in Bellevue. The Renton City Coun- I See AUCTION;AS cil is expected to approve the swap at its Monday meeting. In the meantime, everyone the next few weeks. Depending on involved is waiting to hear if the that decision, tiie permits could be U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will granted quickly or slowly. sign off on the deal. City Planner Mary Lynne Myer A Corps of Engineers spokes- said she hopes approval comes woman in Seattle said a decision on before the land is sold. Glacier Park how to process Glacier Park's many See WETLANDS,A5 similar applications is expected in Valley Daily News Thursday, April 9, 1992 ■ A5 Valley Daily News May 18, 1992 uction couid benefit weti,ands By T.M.SELL S•��`9.2 projects in exchange for creating VaAey Daily News v w-j new wetlands in the city's banked An auction of Glacier Park real lands. estate holdings is likely to result in "If everything works correctly we new public wetlands as well as new should be able to offer banking ser- business developments in South vices to other developers-in the King County. area," Myer said. Renton apparently has succeeded Some of the land in the Orillia in trading the right to fill some mar- tracts already has been filled, ginal wetlands in exchange for pre- though some portions contain wet- serving significant wetlands else- lands that approximate the Valley's where. original 19th century, pre-develop- The "wetlands mitigation bank" ment condition. will help preserve the upper Val- The 30-acre section on the corner ley's delicate balance between wet of Lind Avenue Southwest and and dry, Renton city planner Mary Southwest 27th Street"is very valu- Lynne Myer said. able to us in its present condition," The crux of the deal was getting Myer said. "It provides good flood City Council and U.S. Army Corps storage and does a lot of water quali- of Engineers approval before an ear- ty purification and has some good ly May auction of Glacier Park's stands.of cottonwood." remaining holdings, being sold as The area is a thriving waterfowl parent company Burlington habitat and deer tracks have been Resources gets out of the real estate seen there. business. The auction itself was successful, The council has told city staff to resulting in 77 percent of 94 proper- go ahead. The corps moved surpris- ties being sold at or before the auc- ingly quickly to approve the deal, in tion, said Tim Reinertsen, senior which by trade and purchase the city vice president of Realty Market- acquires about 60 acres of land in ing/Northwest in Bellevue. the Orillia Business Park. In South King County, 24 parcels "It's all been approved and we are were for sale. executing the documents right One site, 115 acres just south of now," said Karen Lane, vice presi- South 180th-Southwest 43rd Street dent of development for Glacier on the Kent-Renton border, was Park Co. in Seattle. purchased by Trammell Crow Co. A buyer for the remaining Orillia along with two partners, Heartland, property has been lined up, though a land advisory company, and Win- Lane said that deal hasn't been mar,a division of Safeco Properties. closed. Trammell Crow principal Kirk Under the wetlands mitigation Johnson said the firm will use the bank program, developers will be site to build Kent North Corporate able to fill minor wetlands on their Park. AUCTION: "If you're the seller, the draw- back- WETLANDS: is that you may not get it sold, 11 lr Most parcels Period," said Kirk Johnson, a prin- Plan would preserve cip al with Trammell Crow in-Scat- include wetlands tic. "Or it'll bring in such a low almost pristine land price that you'll have left a lot of Continued from page Al money on the table. 'Continued from page Al "If you're a buyer, the auction have shown interest in all of Glacier format does not give adequate time officials say there's considerable Park's Valley holdings, and bids to review the property and all of its interest in the flat, industrially already have come in on some of the associated risks," he said. zoned land scattered up and down properties. "To have somebody go in and buy Valley, despite the presence of wet- Some local Realtors say the mar- a piece of property at auction, with lands. ket for industrial property is as flat the wetlands impact on these proper- "If we lose this opportunity then as the Valley floor, however. What ties, is not a real safe thing to do," the parcels go up for auction," the land will bring is anybody's agreed Jim Torina, associate broker Myer said. "I'm not sure we could guess. with Kidder, Mathews and Segner. afford them." Tim Reinertsen, senior vice presi- Glacier Park's Lane said although The Oakesdale Avenue sites, . dent of Realty Marketing/Northwest all the Valley sites have wetlands on together about 50 acres, include in Bellevue, said the auction format them, they also have developable native vegetation and support a vari- has been successful in selling resi- uplands as well. A possible deal ety of waterfowl and wildlife, dential properties. with Renton, subject to U.S. Army including deer,she said. "We have kind of pioneered the Corp of Engineers approval, could Karen Lane, Glacier Park vice process with commercial proper- give buyers the right to fill minor president for development, said the tics," lie said. The firm has been in wetlands on some of the Orillia company would profit on the deal if business six years, with $32 million Business Park property. it can fill wetlands on the other in sales last year. Realtors say non-residential land tracts. values have stayed even or declined "Filling those low spots will sub- Reinertsen said the auction pro-ofin the last 12 months in South King stantially improve the utility of those cols, because l the company's full-t proper- financial Depressed real estate and parcels," and thereby the price, she color booklet lsting all nancial markets elsewhere in the said. tics, exposes the land to thousands nation make it harder to borrow Once the city got the land, it could of potential buyers. He said the firm money to develop projects, and charge developers to fill wetlands on typically sells 60 percent to 65 per- industrial rents haven't followed their sites and use the money to cent of the properties it auctions at their residential cousins in the Seat- expand wetlands on the Oakesdale one time. . tle area. property. Creating a__sizable wet- "We really feel like we do come "I don't know how many people lands reserve would create usable very close to delivering what the are going to be lined up" to buy, park space and also limit flooding in property is worth in today's mar- Torina said. the area, Myer said. ket," Reinertsen said. He,predicted that the auction pric- "It's been a very productive rela- "An auction serves a purpose es will be "significantly lower tionship with Glacier Park and when you're in a liquidation mode," than the published reserves. we've really appreciated it," Myer said Jerry Mathews, co-chairman of "you're not going to get top dollar said. Kidder, Mathews and Segner, Inc., today." in Seattle. It assumes that either a The auction will run April 21 good buy is available or that several through May 2. Sealed bids are Valley Daily News February 16, 1992 Prop osed ordinance on w etlan ds 0 balinces envmnAment, bu s ss By EARL CLYMER Growth Management Act,�e new regu- ot too long ago,I thought wetlands Guest opinion lations will be a critical to I for imple- were "swamps", and not much menting the city's.updated comprehen- good for anything. Filling them to sive plan, acid for bringing more provide land for water. In addition to providing a nutri- certainty to thhevelopment process. businesses and ent-rich environment for plants and ani- Can we have hew houses and busi- homes seemed like a mals, they protect water quality by trap- nesses and still preserve wetlands?.Yes! good idea. In fact, ping sediments and retaining pollutants The Wetlands`Management Ordinance until the 1970's,fed- before they enter streams or groundwa- will allow development, but also main- N eral policy encour- ter. tain wetlands.'My staff at City Hall has aged filling swamps Wetlands are valuable to an urban worked closely with citizens and the and marshes for community for many reasons. They help business community to draft the ordi- -" agricultural and eco prevent flooding and reduce soil erosion nance, and many changes were made as hi are serious problems when areas a result of these meetings and conversa- nomic development: w Fortunately, iri ttie become urbanized. Wetlands also pro- tions. People have told us over and over last few years we vide open space and habitat for birds and again how important it is to have a regu- have learned that wetlands are important animals. As the city grows, wetlands lation that balanced economic and envi- and provide a variety of benefits. Now can provide visual relief from buildings, ronmental objectives. we realize that the loss of swamps and streets and parking lots. Within urban Citizens and property owners will j marshes could have consequences for neighborhoods and business districts, have the opportunity to let us know how many generations to come. Now we wetlands remain as quiet, green spaces they feel about protecting wetlands on know that wetlands occupy an important where people can have daily contact Monday night when the Renton City role in maintaining the health and natu- with the natural environment. Council will be holding a public hearing ral beauty of our local surroundings. My administration, the City Council on the Wetlands Management Ordi Scientists tell us that wetlands are and the Planning Commission have been nance. We believe this is an oppor-mity places that contain three conditions;they working for the past year to prepare a to make a difference for our community. are wet,they have soils that are associat- draft ordinance to to regulate and man- I invite you to come and participate in ed with wet conditions,and they support age the impacts of growth and develop- the hearing. plants that tolerate soils saturated with ment on wetlands. Required by the Earl Clymer is mayor of Renton.