The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272171(42) i � . : : _ _- �� w 1 aJ�'� ��"" h �a� � � ' �" C�✓� i � �' ��- � . � ; , . �, � � � ; , � ; � �� _ � �� . .� �.�'` � �C� ; ; , � l ! , : , . CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 1991 TO: Ad Hoc Review Team Jay Covington Larry Warren Randall Parsons Mel Wilson Ron Olson Jim Hanson John Webley Kay Shoudy �y,,, FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner'1 l v 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 properties in the Valley. It would operate in this manner: 1. Properties with wetlands would be inventoried and wetlands would be categorized based on their size, functions, and values. 2. This inventory would be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. Higher value wetlands would be designated for preservation and no change. 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 increase the developability of the parcels. 5. A third area would be designated as an area for creation of wetlands to replace wetlands filled or altered (see #4). This third area would be called a mitigation bank area. Here previous fill would be removed 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:glacbaA cc: Lynn Guttmann 'lr ' � I r J GO'G� Av D fit"A51 �rJ nrC-* CWVI AWe;, pb F;?F,WVA/N A"D N,=W 3 SKIM lki t4ov- �coPAF,2E r2,4-&M s CITY OF REkT ON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator March 19 , 1992 Marty Sevier Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Wetlands Mitigation Land Bank Dear Marty, Staff of the City of Renton and Glacier Park, as well as Glacier Park's consultants, have been reviewing the possibility of establishing a wetlands mitigation bank with properties presently under the ownership of Glacier Park. The bank would allow Glacier Park to market six of its other remaining properties free of the wetland regulations required by the City of .Renton. In return, Glacier Park would transfer to the City title to two parcels as sites for the wetlands bank. These sites have potential for removal of fill and reestablishment of wetlands historically found in the area. The bank sites would be owned and maintained by the City of Renton, which would also be responsible for establishing the recreated wetlands. All parties involved agree that the concept would be a benefit to the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. Therefore, both entities should enter into formal agreement stating our mutual support of the idea. In several meetings held during the months of January and February, representatives of the City and the Glacier Park Company (GPC) have mutually agreed to the following concepts : 1 . The Wetlands Mitigation Bank a. The Bank shall consist of two parcels shown on Exhibit A. b. GPC will provide a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank demonstrating the available mitigation credits . 2 . Use of Wetlands Mitigation Bank by other property owner a. The City may allow. other property owners within the drainage basin to use the mitigation bank to offset the fill of Category 3 wetlands. b. The City may require other property owners who use the mitigation bank to pay the City a specified amount of money or to perform specified mitigation activities to restore the wetlands with in the mitigation bank area. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 3 . Conveyance of Wetland Mitigation Bank to City a. GPC shall deed the Mitigation Bank properties to the City. b. The City shall approve any lot line adjustments necessary to configure the Mitigation Bank properties 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 deeds to the Mitigation Bank properties shall contain a covenant obligating the City of allow use of the Mitigation Bank as stated in #2 above. d. Unless there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are not related to the fill of wetlands, under the City of Renton's wetlands ordinance but not other agencies, the City shall issue determinations of non- significance for the development of each of the benefitted properties. 4 . Permission of Place Fill Materials a. In exchange for GPC providing the property for this wetland mitigation bank, the City shall permit all the wetlands, as shown in the TEA wetland studies, on each of the legal lots to be filled. (These "Benefitted Properties" are also identified on Exhibit A. ) This permit is subject. to the owner/applicants obtaining all other required government permits. b. The City shall approve a vegetation management plan with grading and filling provisions for the upland portions of the "Benefitted Properties" . 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 and grade and fill permits have been finalized. 5 . Assumption of Indebtedness The City shall assume the obligation for, and shall pay, all future amounts owed for LID assessments for the Mitigation Bank properties to be conveyed to the City pursuant to this agreement, assuming that all assessments and taxes are current at the time of this agreement. 6 . Support of Wetland Mitigation Bank by the City The City shall support the future 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 of the "Benefitted Properties . " 7 . Effect of Intervening Ordinances This Agreement satisfies the current City ordinance regulating wetlands and will currently mitigate for filling of the properties . 8 . Successors and Assigns The Agreement shall run with the land and shall benefit the "Benefitted Properties" and GPC and its successors and assigns . It is understood by both parties that the above agreement is contingent upon approval by the Renton City Council and the Glacier Park senior management. The Mayor and I are in concurrence that this is an. historic opportunity for an innovative concept which would benefit both parties . However, we cannot obligate the City of the above arrangement, as that is the prerogative of the City Council. If Glacier Park approves, in principle, the arrangement outlined above, the Mayor and I will recommend that the City Council approve it. We appreciate all the work and cooperation that has been exhibited by you and your staff . We, in the City of Renton, hope that by May 1, 1992 , the agreement will be finalized allowing full and complete sale of the Glacier Park properties and establishment of the mitigation bank. If you have any questions please call me or my staff, Mary Lynne Myer at 277-6195 . Very truly yours , Lynn Guttmann cc) Mayor Earl Clymer John Webley bcc Kay Shoudy Sam Chastain Randall Parson Mary Lynne Myer CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 9, 1992 TO: Mayor Clymer FROM: Ly l-i ttmann, Department Administrator 1 CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner w SUBJECT: Army Corps of Engineers Permit Decision on Wetlands Bank The wetlands mitigation bank between the City of Renton and Glacier Park can proceed only if the Army Corps of Engineers issues a" nationwide permit" for each parcel. The Corps was contacted in late March and has not been able to decide on the appropriate nF permit for the Glacier Park Mitigation Bank proposal. Internally, they disagree whether the parcels need a "nationwide" or an "individual" permit. " Individual" permits require a 3-5 year processing time. Predictably, Glacier Park's offer for the mitigation bank is off if "individual" permits are required. The City has an opportunity to influence the decision making process but time is running short. All the properties will be auctioned the first weeks in May. Since the decision will be made in Washington D.C. at Corps headquarters either today or tomorrow, the City could take any of the following steps: call the officer in charge and provide clarification, documentation, and education if needed. request our congressional delegation to call the officer in charge emphasize the necessity of making a timely decision but do not lobby. I suggest that the Mayor's office call the officer in charge and provide whatever information should be needed. Lobbying for the proposal should include the following points: the plat was final in 1978, therefore it does not come under their 1984 court decision because fill was placed and then wetlands occurred on top of the fill with no hydrological connection to original elevations, there was no intent to abuse the wetlands regulations because the fill was placed prior to regulations, there was no intent to abuse. a ;w y: d' the lands to be filled contain low quality wetlands. The areas where fill will be removed in the mitigation bank would allow for very high quality wetlands to be established. The resource would benefit greatly from this proposal. there are few other plats if any that would fall into this category and therefore no precedent would be set. The Officer in Charge is John Studt, Chief of Operations, 202-272-1785, Washington D.C. 3 ri 7 i i1 N Y i W f. i YI_ Y' r CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann Kay Shoudy Larry Warren Jay Covington Karen Lane Mark Stiefel FROM: Mary Lynne Myer ��' SUBJECT: Glacier Park Mitigation Bank We understand that the Corps of Engineering, Washington D.C. office, will be giving the decision-making power back to the NW District Office in Portland regarding this project. While we do not anticipate anything happening on this project the remainder of this week, if you wish to track or keep up with the project, the person to contact at the NW District COE Office is Steve Stockton, Chief of Planning and Engineering, P.O. Box 2946, Portland, Oregon, 97208-2946, phone number (503) 326-6916. j:coe . ` . - w7=� m ZblNu Dawn Hom-__ _ es-1 John E (Bud) Tynes, President Floyd G. Hoffman, Vice President July 26, 199� PLANNING DIVISION CITY OFRENTON JUL � � �� ^�� w ^wwo Ms. Mary Lynne Myer Principle Planner �� um��N ,� �� Planing Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Draft Wetland Ordinance (the ordinance) Dear Ms. Myer: After a review of the ordinance in detail , I want to express to yourself, staff, the Planning Commission and Council , some serious concerns with the draft in its present form. Overall it appears to me that, private property owner 's rights and private property values are not nearly adequately protected. Having attended Wetlands Workshops and P. C. meetings for the last 6-8 months, it is my impression that there is a large cross-section of public support for wetlands preservation, which must meet standards of Federal Law, the State G. M. A. and it ' s amendments in RESHB1025. The concept of "no net loss" is admirable. It can and must be achieved fairly. 32700 Pacific Highway South Smite 14 0 Federal Wan Washington 0 (206) 83 8-3453 3 3�� . . INu Dawn Homes] John E. (Bud) Ty*es, President FlndG Hoffman, Vice President Unfortunately the vast majority of land required to achieve the objective for the public good/protection (the benefit of all ) must come from resources, assets, and investments, of private citizens such as myself and family. In the draft ordinance ' s, compensation sections, the wetland itself is excluded from density transfer. That is a big step in confiscation, or governments rendering of private property to a zero economic value, and is blatantly unfair. Compensation in some equitable form for all land "taken" under the ordinance must be provided either through public funding or density transfer. The current draft provides for buffers of up to 300 feet with a possibility that on recommendation (staff I presume) this could be increased. In my research and experience, I have found no hard scientific evidence of benefit which would support a buffer in excess of 75 feet. It is my understanding that Federal guidelines (Corps of Engineers) do not require a buffer. Page 2 32700 Pacific Hikhway South, Suite 14 e Federal Way, VANAWton 0 (206) 838--4&5:5 q3q Nu Dawn Homes] John E. (Bud) Tyxes, President Floyd G. Hoffman, Vice President The current proposal also establishes a 15 ft. set back from the edge of buffers, which in effect creates a " zone". The buffer proposals in the draft are just too excessive and not needed by law. It may be worth consideration to simply adopt the Federal standards which would satisfy G. M. A. and is a complete and fully integrated set of standards. " WHY RE-INVENT THE WHEEL"? Conditions and high costs up front , required to begin the permit and/or oniIL� process as drafte^j, are effectively a strongi � s�i ve o ncenti t work with the City. This may not be by design, but the result is penal to the property owner-tax payer. Finally, as relates to my concerns, the appeal process in each step of the way regardless of section is unfair. In addressing a technica] differ-ence of opinion with the City, the playing field effectively is slanted against the property owners ability to protect his r-ights and property values. Page 3 32700 Pacific Highway South, Suite 24 0 Federal Way, Washington 0 (306) 838-49-51�+ 3939 . INu Dawn Homes ], John E. (Bud) Tynes, President FloydG. Hoffman, Vice President For instance; the draft proposes that when a differing opinion comes forth from the property owner, the City will hire an "expert" indirectly paid for by the property owner, to render their final expert opinion. We know by the nature of the subject a significant degree subjective rather than definitive judgement is required. This requires one to ask who 's position will this hired person defend and support, the City who hired him or the property owner? Additionally, returning an issue under appeal to the Hearing Examiner, who has just rendered and validated their opinion and decision does not seem either fair or logical . An appeal should be heard by separate a body of elected officials with no pre-disposition. While these comments may be viewed as critical of efforts to date, that is not the intent. Please know that I am fully aware of the complexities in the process and the necessities to coordinate every item in the ordinance from text to terminology. Page + 3c?oq - ` ` Nu Dawn HommiesJ1 John E. (Bud) Tymes, President FlondG. Hoffman, Vice President Further, I am confident that as the process draws ko a conclusion under the design you have instituted, all the publics interest and fairness can and will be achieved, plus legal requirements will be met. This must however be accomplished under a doctrine of fairness which guarantees our citizens-property owners rights, and maintenance of economic values. The financial impacts to the City, as relates to the ordinance, over the long term, and the City 's ability to deliver services is not addressed here, but it is the opinion of the business community this should be done. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and please forward copies of this letter to the full Planning Commission and Council for their consideration in a timely manner. Sincerely, Nu Dawn Homes dp Page 5 32700 Pacific H6hmuybu/h Su6teJ4 Federal Way, Washington (306) 638-38-53 ��J� . ` Nu Dawn Homes], John E. (Bud) Tyoes, President Floyd6 Hoffman, Vice President cc Earl Clymer, Mayor Toni Nelson, Council President Richard Wagner, Chairman, Planning Commission ~Kay Shoudy, Planning Manager Todd Woosley, Burnstead Construction Richard Wilson, Attorney - Nu Dawn Homes Waren Diamond Lila Campen Ray Fournier Julian Sayer, Sayers and Associates Martin Seelig David L. Halinen , P. E. Del Rowan Roger Urbaniak Page 6 32700 Pacific Highway South, Suite 1+/ 0 Federal Wan WashingtonNm /206J 63848-53, 3C)30 -ROD CHANDLER DISTRICT OFFICE EIGHTH DISTRICT.WASHINGTON 50 116TH AVENUE SE. SUITE 201 COMMITTEES: BELLEVUE.WA 98004 WAYS AND MEANS Congress of the United. �tate,� 12061 4a2-0118 POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE 223 CANNON BUILDING WASH INGTON.DC 20515 12021 225-7761 tou,se of R gre,sentadue,s ga,shington, BE 20515 November 26 , 1991 Mr. John E. Tynes Nu Dawn Homes 32700 Pacific Hwy. South Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mr. Tynes: Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the protection of America' s wetlands. As you know, wetlands are an important part of our environment. Wetlands can prevent flooding, improve water quality, and contribute to the general health of ecosystems. I firmly believe that some true wetland areas must be protected. However, I am greatly concerned about the current wetland regulatory program. Existing definitions of wetlands often are too broad and encompass land that does not exhibit any wetland characteristics. That is why I have cosponsored H.R. 1330, "The Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1991. " This Act seeks to achieve a balanced approach to wetlands conservation. In particular, it categorizes wetlands into three types based upon their environmental functions and values. The wetlands would then be regulated based upon the importance of those unique characteristics. In addition, Congress must act to protect the rights of private property owners. Too often, innocent people have lost their land without sufficient compensation. Farmers have had to leave land fallow, and homeowners may be restricted from building on their property. Accordingly, I am proud to cosponsor the "Private Property Rights Act of 1991, " which would minimize the taking of private property. In addition, the Act would help compensate property owners for lost use of their land. It seems to me that when Congress addresses the benefits of its environmental policy, it also should address its costs. Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with me. With all of us working together, we can achieve a balanced means of protecting valuable wetlands. Sincerely, �.'-;-''_,. ".." n ^•,• ROD CH LER Member of ss RDC/j d THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS National association of Home Builders iSth and Nf Streets, 1-W_, Washington, D.C. 20005 13 November 199-102? 822-0200 (800) 368-5242 Fax(202) 822-0533 Bud Tynes c/o BIA of Washington P.O. Box 1909 Olympia, WA 98507 Re: Wetlands - Buffer Zones Dear Mr. Tynes: I have been asked to provide you with the federal wetl�nu:'s regulatory progrars's policy on buffer zones. This will largely involve discussing their absence, for buffer zones are not regulated under the federal program. As you may know, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U .S .C. §§:.252-1376) requires permits for the discharge of dredged cr fill material into "waters of the United States. " Waters cf thC. U.S. has been interpreted to include wetlands. The p_ograa is jointly administered by the EnviroltmentLl Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers Each agency has written its own regulations. EPA' re-j,.u� are know-: as the §404 (b) (1) guidelines and may be fount: 4�-; C.F.R. Part 230. The Corps` implementing regulations b= found at 33 G.F.R. Part 320. These regulations share an identical definition of wetlands. Neither mentions buffer zc�r_es. in 1989, the federal agencies together with the Fish and =�i1c3?ifA Service and the Soil Conservation Service issued the t;-dera1 Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wf&2 ands to define a single method for delineating wetlands. That manual has been revised and was publishes in the Federal Register to solicit public co=ents (56 FR 40446, August 14 , 1991) . The comment period is open until December 14, 1991. Neither the 1981; im-inual nor the proposed 1991 version regulates buffer zones error d wetlands. If you have any further questions, please call me. My nuY:ber is 800/368-5242, ext. 484. Sincerely, { Phoebe Schhlanger Environmental Policy AnalystRE--:: -f"',-'- -. "^'1 1 5 f?�t Wetlands Opinion government should be held accountable for their paro- chial decision making efforts to obtain wetlands by by Jan Teague requiring private citizens to give up their land to Housing and Land Use wasted open areas for crows and squirrels,particularly Analyst in urbanizing areas closer to work. Over the last couple of Our State Courts have upheld local governments months I have analyzed at a using very broad implementing authority to regulate N. number of local ordinances land uses. But the United States Courts have taken a ,= claiming to implement the closer look at the wetlands issue and have made several a'1 Growth Management Act. statements of principle worth passing on to you for "'" Some are called environmen- consideration in your discussions with local govern- Jan Teague ` tally sensitive ordinances, ments and with others who may be affected by local some are called filling, grad- wetlands policies and who may wish to explore filing a ing,and drainage ordinances, law suit. and some are plainly called wetlands ordinances. Many of the local ordinances are similar because the Depart- When the Federal Government hears a taking's ment of Ecology has developed a model wetlands case, the fifth amendment is designed not to limit the ordinance it has distributed statewide. Frankly, the governmental interference with property rights per D.O.E. ordinance leaves much of the detail of regulat- se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of ing wetlands to the reviewer. otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking. (In other words, go ahead and take it, but be prepared This lack of common understanding of what a to compensate.) wetland is and how it should be protected leads me to the conclusion that local governments implementing Three factors used to help determine takings are: DOE's policy could be opening themselves up for (1) "the economic' impact of the regulation on the lawsuits based on regulatory takings.The federal gov- claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has ernment will soon be finished with their rules govern- interfered with distinct investment-backed expecta- ing wetlands and the difference between the federal tions; (3) the character of the government action. (In law and the Department of Ecology's unlegislated my opinion, the character of the government action is policies is a good starting point for regulatory takings. highly questionable based on the number of local, state, and federal discrepancies. These differences are In fact, the Department of Ecology's criteria for supposed to be scientific applications and should be awarding grants to local governments shows priority the same! But the policies have become a parochial to those local governments who are "interested in adventure in environmentalist political influence.The using the model wetlands ordinance". In addition to federal courts don't like that kind of behavior.) this tactic, the DOE has tried to pass their wetlands policies through the Washington Administrative Code Could local governments that already have wet- this summer. lands laws on their books and are now revising them to a higher degree of control be legally questioned for With so many different points of view about what making laws because of political pressures of citizen constitutes a wetland and if or how it should be pro- environmental groups or state agency environmental tected, it seems to me that the courts could find that advocates? Could this type of decision making subject the mere fact that differences in the policies exist local elected officials to liability for takings cases?Yes, shows the arbitrary nature of the decisions. Local (contj*nUed on page 7; s f �. r • Building Industry Association of Washington Post Office Box 1909 Olympia, WA 98507 Wetlands continued from page 5 if the ordinance can be shown to be a questionable application of the law. I think-the-United States Courts, in reviewing a local wetlands ordinance in Washington State, would ask for scientific evidence that shows how the new standard improves the condition over the existing standard.The courts might be inclined to question the standard promoted by the state Department of Ecology compared to the Federal standard and consider the difference between the two standards as a taking. • (continued on back page) 7 � '-'r^�t .ry�'1' .,, •+ C K ;, 3.'--.t +s _ r.'^5-3 Y .? � r Wt 7 Wetlands continued from page 7 We all know what a marsh and a swamp look like. ti'4'hat The Courts would also be obliged to grant compen- the press and the environmental community do not sation to the affected property owners from the day the talk about is those small,scattered pieces of land which regulation took effect. If such a ruling was made, local most often are wet because of plugged drainage ditches governments would scurry to repeal their objection- that affect property owners, or roads that create blocl�s able wetlands ordinances. of land that can't drain properly. When local govern- ments call these potholes wetlands they should be The press has been making the whole issue even embarrassed. How can the environmental community more confusing to the public. Recent press efforts excitedly run around pointing at those dips saying, have put pressure on local governments to adopt "Habitat! Habitat! habitat!" ? something so they can be patted on the back by the environmentalists. Who wants to end up on Channel If citizens in a community took their government Five as an insensitive local government or elected to court for its regulatory grandstanding on puddles, official? I have noticed that these press efforts have we would see some positive results. been highly misleading, showing true wild life areas, true marshes, and sensitive areas along streams and Perhaps a simpler approach would be to define a rivers. common standard in the State Legislature or state agency that mirrors what our Federal regulators have But that's not where the debate is really occurring. come up with. April 13, 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 171 Building: Control of Councilman Stredicke noted that many citizens have expressed concern Junk Cars, about his proposal to improve the quality of life in Renton by adopting Recreational Vehicles, an ordinance to control the parking of junk cars, recreational vehicles, Boats, Etc. in boats, etc. in residential yards; and noted that the Planning and Residential Yards Development Committee will hold a meeting regarding this issue on 5/14/92. Mr. Stredicke requested that the City Attorney draft an ordinance addressing control in residential areas of dumping grounds; storage of junk; storage/repair of unlicensed vehicles vs. licensed vehicles; front yard storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles; ban on parking/storage of commercial trucks; and a method for enforcement. He also asked that the Committee consider a ban on front yard storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Mr. Stredicke entered a letter from City Attorney Warren regarding existing City legislation for nuisance and junk abatement, and requested that the letter and copies of ordinances from Bellevue, Seattle, Issaquah, and Kirkland regarding control of some of the uses mentioned above be referred to the Planning and Development Committee. Councilwoman Mathews also entered correspondence to be referred to the Committee from George and Lillian Poff, 1716 Lincoln Court SE, Renton, supporting control of parking and/or storage of unscreened recreational vehicles in single-family residential areas. Committee of the Council President Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee of the Whole Whole report stating that the Committee considered the Wetland Mitigation Plan Planning: Wetlands and property purchase on 4/6 and 4/13/92. After staff presentations and Mitigation Bank an executive session the Committee recommended that Council take the following actions: 1) Authorize the staff to proceed to negotiate the purchase of the properties proposed for purchase. 2) Authorize the staff to proceed with the wetlands mitigation bank and present to the Council final policy and financing proposals when developed. 3) Pass a resolution urging the Army Corps of Engineers to treat the lots of the Burlington Northern plat as individually eligible for nation- wide permits. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See Page 172 for Resolution #2894.) MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE MATTER OF NOTIFYING ORGANIZATIONS INTERESTED IN WETLANDS PRESERVATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE WETLANDS MITIGATION RESOLUTION, AND THAT FUNDS BE SOUGHT FOR THIS PURPOSE. CARRIED. April 13, 1992 Renton City Council Minutes Page 172 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Resolution #2893 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into Parks: Waterfowl an interlocal agreement for waterfowl translocation. MOVED BY Translocation STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #2894 A resolution was read urging the Army Corps of Engineers to treat the Planning: Wetlands lots in the Burlington Northern plat as individual developable parcels for Mitigation Bank purposes for National Permit #26 (NPW 26). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Ordinance #4347 The following ordinance was second and final reading and adoption (1st Zoning: Annual reading on 4/6/92): Zoning Map, 1992 An ordinance was read adopting the 1992 Zoning Map as official designation for zoning classifications. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Cornelus Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton, requested that Citizen Comment: proposed legislation on control of boats, recreational vehicles, and trailers Gevers - Control of consider length of time of the storage and whether vehicles are being Junk Cars, used daily; and also address clean-up of yards of business and commercial Recreational Vehicles, properties to improve Renton's image. Boats, Etc.; & Street Vacation, Sunset Ln. Mr. Gevers supported Councilman Stredicke concerns regarding the (VAC-001-92) vacation of Sunset Lane at Hiland Shopping Center, and questioned the enforceability of requirements set forth in street vacations. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time 8:48 p.m. i � '(i�fitia-tiv✓ MARILYN J "SEN, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Nancy Mills 4/13/92 �Jar CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 1992 TO: Larry Warr�q FROM: Lynn GiAtmann 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 $22,000-$25,000 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 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April28, 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. Wildlife habitat: medium values due to lack of open water. Active passive recreation: high values. . Memo to Lynn Guttmann and Mel Wilson 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: April28, 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. Wildlife habitat: medium values due to lack of open water. Active passive recreation: high values. Memo to Lynn Guttmann and Mel Wilson 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. w Proposed Map Legends April 27,1992 Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Page 3 variety of mixed use classifications are proposed. Each designation has a different emphasis and a slightly different list of allowed uses within it. However, the exact mix of uses and the intensity of development is to be determined as existing uses are assessed and zoning is applied. Several zoning categories would be used to implement the mixed use designations. Mixed Use - City Core The purpose of this designation is to encourage dynamic redevelopment of the City center core with a balanced mix of uses. Commercial, office, multifamily residential, hotel and light industrial uses would be allowed. Residential density could range from 15-50 dwelling units per acre and up to 150 du/ac subject to design review. (This designation replaces the "downtown residential" and "regional commercial-downtown" designations from Alternative 2 of the Preliminary Draft Land Use Policies.) Examples: Traditional City core 2nd and 3rd streets Mixed Use - Commercial The mix of uses would favor retail and service uses. Office, light industrial, and multi-family residential uses would also be allowed. Examples: Rainier Avenue Mixed Use - Light Industrial Light industrial would be favored, while commercial and low intensity office uses would be allowed. Examples: Airport Way to Renton High School Mixed Use - Industrial The mix of uses allowed would favor industrial, but offices and light industrial uses would also be allowed. Examples: North Renton Industrial Area Mixed Use - Office Low and high intensity office would be favored in this designation but commercial and light industrial activities would also be allowed. Examples: South of South 7th to I-405 North part of the Valley Mixed Use - Industrial This designation would allow a mix of industrial uses including light industry, warehousing and manufacturing. Examples: South part of the Valley CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1992 TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Earl Clymer STAFF CONTACT: Lynn Guttmann, Department Administrator SUBJECT: Glacier Park Properties Staff has completed a number of tasks leading to finalization of the mitigation bank and to the ultimate purchase of the Glacier Park Properties. In the process of completing these tasks, several discrepancies were found: the P-9 channel properties did not include all the parcels needed for a complete right of way; and an LID charge was outstanding on the P-9 channel properties. Staff is in the process of resolving the discrepancies. In order to update the Council, we have attached a briefing package to this memo for your consideration before final work on the sale and transfer of these properties. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to proceed. GLACIER PARK UPDATE May 4, 1992 Since we met together last, the following changes have occurred: ■MITIGATION BANK ■agreement is finalized, forming basis for title transference of bank properties. ■title search has been completed. ■due diligence reports (environmental assessment of hazardous wastes) are finalized. ■method of transferring titles is under research (ie. quit claim vs other methods) ■sending parcels will be responsible for any outstanding infrastructure requirements on these parcels. ■PURCHASE PARCELS ■purchase price has been negotiated (asking price: $100,000 (parcel 1) + $100,000 (parcel 13) _ $200,000) ■outstanding performance bonds will be paid by Glacier Park for all purchase parcels. ($27,215) ■parts of Parcel 13 weren't included in legal description/legals found; parcel included in sale. ■new LID costs surfaced for Parcel 13/City/GP negotiation agreed that purchase price will include property value + LID costs. (see Attachment A) ■parcels dropped out of public auction documents. ■initial financing approach devised with an internal financing contract to follow. (see Attachment B) (chart from letter to Karen Lane 4/28/92) ACTION REQUESTED: ■Authorization to proceed. Glacier Park Update Page 2 YET TO BE DONE: ■MITIGATION BANK PARCELS ■adoption of final bank agreement. ■title transfer. ■City/GP understanding for information to new property owners; formal City relationship with new owners. ■PURCHASE PARCELS ■close negotiations. ■purchase parcels, using initial financing approach. ■complete internal financing contract. ■assign internal ownership and responsibility. JlSP Attachment A GLACIER PARK PURCHASES (corrected Financial Sheet) (purchase & (purchase & LI D) Corrected corrected LID) CITY PAYS Old LID Charges Old Total LID charges New Total Parcel $244,716.00 $344,720.00 $258,403.00 $358,403.00 (big wetland) Parcel 13 (P-9 channel) $0.00 $100,000.00 $130,507.00 $230,507.00 $444,720.00 New Total $588,910.00 Old Total ($444,720.00) Difference $144,190.00 Glacier Park Pays Outstanding Performance Bonds New Total Old Total Parcel 1 $19,438.00 $0.00 Parcel 13 $7,777.00 $0.00 $27,215.00 $0.00 Attachment B GREEN RIVER VALLEY WETLANDS/OPEN SPACE PURCHASE PROPOSAL (revised as of 4/28/92) CONFIDENTIAL Asking LID Property(Lot#) Acres Purchase # Amount Total Performance Price Outstanding Bond Parcel 1 Seq. 120 24.28 KC# 125381-0090 #314-021 $88,351 $302-034 $49,275 KC# 1 25381-01 00 #302-035 $30,118 KC # 125381-0150 none $0 KC # 125381-0160 #314-022 $90,659 $50,000 $258,403 $308,403 $16,327 Parcel 3 Seq. 120 3.75 $25,000 none $0 $25,000 $3,111 KC# 125381-0230 Parcel 4 Seq. 120 10.59 $25,000 $25,000 KC# 125381-0170 none $0 $0 KC# 125381-0220 none Subtotal Group A 39.40 $100,000 $258,403 $358,403 $19,438 Parcel 13 Seq. 968 $100,000 $7,777 A KC #000580-0019 4.31 none $0 KC#252304-9001 6.43 none $0 B KC#252304-9082 6.96 #314-068 $118,289 Portion of C KC #252304-9004 14.01 none $0 D KC#362304-9002 9.65 #285-0 #323-15 $0 KC#302305-9007 3.24 #302-043 $12,218 Portion of KC#252304-9019 3.50 Subtotal Parcel 13 1 48.27 1 $100,000 1 1 $130,507 $230,507 $7,777 Total All Properties 1 87.67 ac 1 $200,000 1 $388,910 $588,910 $27,215 92-233 A --- CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren May 11 , 1992 TO: Mayor Earl Clymer FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Purchase and Sales Agreement - Glacier Park Company Dear Mayor Clymer: The Purchase and Sales Agreement is approved as to legal form once the legal descriptions have been proofread for accuracy. Once you have been notified that the legal descriptions are correct please sign both copies of the agreement and return them to my office . C Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . Encs . A8 . 82 : 79 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057- (206) 255-8678 City of Renton MEMORANDUM TO: Earl Clymer, Mayor FROM: 'May u , PB/PW Administrator DATE: 11 1 2 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Do ,Technical Services SUBJECT: PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACCURACY- GLACIER PARK COMPANY Property Management staff has proofread the legal descriptions attached to the Purchase and Sales Agreement and verifies that they are the same descriptions as those contained within title insurance policies (Transamerica No. 861563 and No. 861564) effective April 17, 1992, at 8:00 a.m.. The map attached hereto represents those legally described properties. i The descriptions do not encompass those properties previously designated as wetland mitigation bank sites 1 and 2. I If you require any additional information please advise. Thank you. GlasrPk/MDD:ckd Attachment i i I I i 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). 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 II Environmental Assessment. 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. Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. I 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 search for all of the parcels. 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. War n City Attorney attachment: map of area cc: Dan Clements Mary Lynne Myer t CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1992 TO: Interdepartmental Work Group FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank Update This memo is to update you on the status and remaining tasks for the wetland mitigation bank and the Glacier Park purchases. PURCHASES: On May 15, 1992, the City and Glacier Park consummated the purchase and sale agreement on the following areas: a. Parcel 1 - wetlands lying adjacent to Lind Ave and 27th St. b. Parcel 13 - Portion of the P-1 and P-9 channel C. Parcel 3 and 4 - southern part of the Renton Marsh, adjacent to Oakesdale and the Seattle Times property Parcel Acreage Purchase Price Parcel 1 24.28 acres $100,000 Parcel 3-4 14.34 acres included in Parcel 1 Parcel 13 46.44 acres $100,000 Total $200,000 Glacier Park has agreed to pay the outstanding street improvement, real property taxes and all special assessment and Local Improvement District installments against the property prorated to the date of closing. The City will pay all real property taxes, all special assessments and Local Improvement District installments against the property for the period following the Date of closing. Memo to Interdepartmental Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 2 REMAINING ISSUES: 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Level one analysis, the beginning analysis level under the State's hazardous materials law, CERLA, was performed while the parcels were still under the ownership of Glacier Park. This analysis indicated the possibility of some potential contamination from the Sternoff site and the unknown origin of any material used in filling the tributary on Parcel 14, which extends into Parcel 13. Attached is a map of the former tributary which traverses the Sternoff site, Parcel 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13. A level II analysis, which will verify whether contamination is present, is underway on Parcel 13 and 14. See attached map for areas under investigation. Golder and Associates will be submitting a scope and budget (under $10,000) by May 25, 1992. The analysis will be completed by June 8, 1992. Options: ■If contamination is present, we could: withdraw from the purchase of the affected parcels, do a joint clean-up, require Glacier Park to do a clean-up prior to our receiving title to the land, keep the parcels affected and keep them capped. Suggested Participants Due Date Product Larry Warren, Ron Straka, Greg June 10 Recommendation Zimmerman, Mary Lynn Myer for actions ■If no contamination is present, we should continue to finalize the agreements for purchase and sale. 2. FINAL COSTS AND INTERFUND TRANSFERS The City work group must finalize the actual costs of the transaction and future obligations and complete a financing agreement for internal interfund transfers and other financing mechanisms. Suggestedparticipants Due date Product Larry Warren, Cil Pierce, Ron June 30, 1992 Draft inter- Straka, Mel Wilson, Dan Clements, faced document John Webley, Mary Lynne Myer, and agreement Arlene Haight 3. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT It is suggested that the Parks Department manage Parcel 1 and 3 and 4, since they are adjacent to the Springbrook Trail. Storm Water should manage Parcel 13, since its primary use could be for the P-1, P-9 channel. Memo to Interdepartmental Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 3 Suggested sted participants Due date Product John Webley June 30, 1992 Memo establish- ing city owner- ship & manage- memt responsi- bility MITIGATION BANK The mitigation bank agreement must be finalized by June 15, 1992, with Glacier Park. Even though the Trillium Corporation purchased the parcels which will be the major sending properties to the bank, Glacier Park is still the entity with whom we must finalize the agreements. The mitigation bank agreement document is acceptable, however, several issues must be worked out. If the Level II analysis shows any hazardous wastes on Mitigation Bank Site 1, we have the same options as outlined above under Purchase section. This analysis will be completed June 8, 1992. Glacier Park will be submitting lot line adjustments for Mitigation Site 1 and 2 within one week to the Development Services Division. It is expected that these applications will receive expedited processing. Glacier may also submit applications for vegetation removal permits and for wetlands permits for the parcels Trillium purchased. It is suggested that these applications not be processed until the Mitigation Bank agreement is finalized. There is a discrepancy of 7 acres in the legal description of mitigation bank site 1 and the area shown on the maps. Glacier is researching this discrepancy. Once the mitigation bank agreement is completed, we must be prepared to implement the bank. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1) A schedule and agreed upon methodology for processing the lot line adjustments and the sending properties' permits. Suggested participants Due date Product Don Erickson May 28 Establish procedure and schedule 2) 7 acre discrepancy in Mitigation Bank Site 1. Review Glacier Park's research and decide on approach: Memo to Interdepartmental Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 4 Options: If we are short 7 acres: they donate more land they fill less land they provide cash settlement we negate mitigation bank agreement Suggested participants Due date Product Mary Lynne and Interdepart-May 30 Recommendation al work group 3. How shall the bank be established, funded, managed and implemented? Suggested participants Due date Product Mary Lynne with Interdepart- June 15 A work program for al work group review establishing, fund- ing, managing and implementing the bank. a:follow CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann Larry Warren Jay Covington John Webley Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson Jim Hanson Don Erickson Ron Olson Ron Straka FROM: Mary Lynne Mye41°`o� SUBJECT: STATUS ON WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK Last month, as negotiations were concluding on the wetland mitigation bank parcels that Glacier Park will be donating to the City, the level I analysis for hazardous materials showed a potential for contamination on parcel 14 of the mitigation bank sites. As a result, the city directed Golder and Associates to conduct a level II analysis of the mitigation bank sites. The conclusion of their report is that there is a low potential for contamination to exist on the mitigation bank sites. Based on this information, the city is proceeding with the transfer of mitigation bank parcels 8 and 14. Larry Warren will be handling the closing, which should be completed by the end of June. The remaining developable parcels (5, 6, 8W, 8E, and 9) that will benefit from the transfer of the bank sites are being purchased by the Trillium Corporation. As far as I know, there are no immediate plans to develop any of their parcels. The level II analysis did show a potential for contamination on one part of parcel 13, which the city purchased. Larry Warren will pursue this. I will be on vacation through the end of June. If you have any questions or additional information, please contact Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190). CITY OF RENTON "LL 5 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator May 29, 1992 Karen Lane Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Hazardous Material Investigation Dear Ms. Lane: The City of Renton is conducting hazardous material investigation (Level II) for Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park properties in accordance with your May 13, 1992 letter to Mayor Earl Clymer. The May 13 letter stated that "The City shall conduct such analysis as expeditiously as possible and will try to obtain the results of the analysis by May 30, 1992." We originally set up a work program with our consultant to meet that time schedule. However, it has come to our attention that the investigation will not be completed until June 8th, due to the time needed to perform soil sampling at the consultant's laboratory. On June 8, we will receive a completed report with all sampling results and suggested remedial actions, if any are warranted. We wish to ask for an extension of the May 30 finish date to June 8. If you concur with the extension, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to the undersigned. Sincerely yours, Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner Long Range Planning Glacier Park City Attorney cc: Mayor Clymer Lynn Guttmann Larry Warren Kay Shoudy 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington. 98055 SENT BY:SEATTLE 5-21-92 ; 2:06PM GOLDER ASSOCIATES 206 235 2541 :# 1/ 1 Golder Associates Inc. 4104.148th Avenue.NE sI(] = l�A� Redmond.WA USA 98052 �s� `S Telephone(206)883 077 117 Fox(206)882-549A May 21, 1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages .TO f ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer Al L 1"e Il'X taE 4-11 a " RE: Level 2 Environmental Assessm co_6. '' Co.C2101dr., Glacier Park Company Dspt. V Phone n 43 8 $-07 Z 7 Dear Ms_ Myer: Fax h Z 3 S-2.S 41 Fax M This letter is per your request earlier today, regarding our current observations on Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park Company properties. l visited the site yesterday to obtain more information that we can use in scoping the Level 2 assessment requested by the City of Menton. My observations of Parcel 14, particularly the fill in the south-central portion of the property, indicate that soil sampling and analysis is probably not required. On the basis of my preliminary observations, it currently appears that the Level 2 assessment will focus on the portion of Parcel 1.3 that is adjacent to the Sternoff Metals site. The pond and wetlands area directly west of the Sternoff site should be sampled, and additional samples may be taken elsewhere on this property, particularly if suspect fill is observed within former wetlands areas. The estimated cost for this task has not yet been established, but it appears that the work can be accomplished within the $10K previously allocated. We will provide a more detailed estimate after reviewing the exact number of samples to be collected and the analyses to be performed. The latter will be chosen on the basis of the primary contaminants identified at the Sternoff site, which are believed to be heavy metals and some PAHs. Thank you again for this opportunity. We will be contacting you shortly with a more defined scope of work. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael D. Lubrecht Senior Environmental Geologist Here vs your entry f Complete this entry form and mail it, along with your entry, by May 27, 1992 to: Association of Washington Cities 1076 South Franklin Olympia,WA 98501 Title of Project: Municipality: Address: ZC� /� UJa, 9S oS7,, Population: 3 coo Entry Category (circle one): I. Up to -1,499 population II. 1,500-4,999 population III. 5,000 - 14,999 population IV. 15,000 -39,999 population (V)Over 40,000 population CLV mP2 Name: Ma`s o a.. STAG Title: Ma1j0 R- ST A�F Signature: Date: The 1992 AWC Municipal Achievement Awards WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON POPULATION: 43,000 The Growth Management Act (GMA) required the adoption of critical areas ordinances by March 1, 1992, from all Puget Sound cities. The City of Renton had ordinances for each critical area except wetlands. It was imperative for the City to meet the GMA deadlines and mandates. So we began inventorying our wetlands and looking for appropriate preservation strategies that would: preserve environmental functions, and preserve the economic potential of the city, two almost mutually exclusive goals of the GMA. During the inventorying of our City's wetlands, we found that a number of high value wetlands were still located within the city limits. In fact , some of the most important wetlands remaining in Renton not yet in public ownership were located in the Green River Valley. However, we also had a unique situation with low quality wetlands in the Green River Valley area as well. These "measles" wetlands created a "measles pattern" within individual properties, making them problematic to develop and reducing their property value. These two different value wetlands, very high quality and lower quality wetlands in the same area, were the result of historical actions in the Valley. Originally, the Green River Valley was a flood plain with only high value wetlands. However, during the late 1960's and 1970's, the United States nationwide embarked upon a wetland filling and/or draining policy, i.e. swampbusting. 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, over 800 acres of the over 1500 acres in the Valley were filled. Many of these filled areas developed with industrial, office and warehousing uses. However, some filled parcels did not develop. In these areas, small pockets of fill settled, leaving depressions which collected rainwater. These pockets were generally less than one acre. During the years, plant communities established themselves in these small wetland areas, to be followed by animals which were attracted by the habitat. Soil conditions changed over the thirty years. In 1992, wetlands had gained importance in the national and local agendas, and criteria were formulated for the definition of wetlands: presence of hydric soils, presence of water; presence of wetlands or hydric plants. Now, wetlands are prized for their habitat, water quality purification, and flood storage values, sedimentation and erosion prevention values. High quality wetlands in the Valley performed all these functions. In fact, our Storm Water Utility estimated that the wetlands performed functions estimated to cost $3-5 million dollars if they were duplicated through engineered structures. Lower quality wetlands also performed some functions and were part of an emerging ecosystem in the Valley. -1- Of equal importance to the City was the retention of its economic base and of its industrial lands. Regionally, the industrial land base is shrinking, creating land scarcity for those local businesses who need to relocate in order to expand or for new businesses wishing to establish themselves. The "measles wetlands" were located on much of the remaining available industrially designated land. Many of these parcels were in the single ownership of the Glacier Park Company, the development arm of Burlington Norther Railroad. A conundrum seemed imminent. However, several events occurred which resulted in a mutually beneficial idea for both the City and Glacier Park. Burlington Northern decided to divest themselves of properties held by the company all over the country and wanted to improve the salability of their properties in the Valley. The City had just passed our wetlands ordinance which set the framework for a mitigation bank concept for properties meeting certain criteria within the Green River Valley, as long as a "no net loss" of wetlands policy would prevail for the subdrainage basin. Two of the larger parcels held by Glacier Park were dominated by very high quality contiguous wetlands. These sites, which had been partially filled, were ideal for the establishment of "receiving property" or the mitigation bank. Because the Valley was historically a wetland and underlying hydric soils and historic seedbeds likely remain, removal of fill and replantings to reestablish historic wetlands has a high chance for success. The "sending properties" are those where the "measles" wetlands occur, each wetland under one acre, lower value habitat, perched water on depressions in the fill. After meeting with the City and discussing the concepts, Glacier Park will donate the larger high quality parcels to the City of Renton. The City will then become the wetland banker, responsible for removing fill, establishing wetlands. In fact, the mitigation bank site has additional fill (over 19.3 acres) over what would be needed to replace the sending properties wetlands (5.5 acres x 1.5 replacement ratio = 8.25 acres maximum needed.) Sending Properties (developable parcels. Receiving Properties #2,5,6,8W. 8E, 9) Mitigation Bank Sites 1-2 Total Wetlands Uplands Total High Quality 1-2, Upland Acreage Acreage on Acreage Wetlands fill to be Site Existing removed to re-establish wetlands 37.67 5.33 32.34 44.9 25.5 19.35 acres (See attached map.) -2- 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. COMMUNITY BENEFIT Glacier Park and Burlington Northern were benefitted by increased salable return on their sending parcels. The Army Corps of Engineers and the staff members of the State Department of Ecology supported the concept as an innovative, win-win approach to wetlands protection. The Audubon Society and Trust for Public Land supported the trade because large blocks of existing habitat and high quality wetlands were saved and more contiguous habitat and wetlands would be created to replace lower quality wetlands. The City benefitted through an increased tax base, increased environmental protection, increased wetlands values especially flood storage capacities, increased passive trails and viewing areas. Industrial land users benefitted as properties were made available to meet market demands. The State of Washington benefitted, as the Growth Management Act's goals of both environmental protection and economic development were met. Some City Departments, such as Transportation Section 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 Glacier Park properties (8.5 acres out of a total of 19.35 acres of fill to be removed). The community at large benefitted for all 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 establishment plan, which will address such important points as appropriate plantings, hydrology and soils studies, soil importation sources and costs, soils excavation methods and costs, wildlife inventories; SEPA compliance; will initially cost approximately $50,000. Actual wetlands reestablishment may cost another $50,000 per acre. Funds will be made available through the Storm Water Utility, Transportation System, and Parks Department, and through developer contribution. The City of Renton is proud to present this project as an example of public-private partnership, with a win-win solution for all parties. -3- ....................... W W. - ... o� I City of o 6 P-Channel Easement Renton U� 1 5pringbrook Crcck M ITIGATIO N BAN K 51TE 1 c LEGEND S:w:34th 5trcct "rr cll Total Wctland Upland " 8E 9 o � 2 9.55 1.47 7.56 gw = 7.17 1.07 6.10 O o $ 5.86 0.22 5'64 a > 5.05 1.65 3.40 +' 5.45 0.24 5.21 4.79 0.65 4.11 ota 5 37.67 5.33 32.34 f Cot 3 1 north 112 MltlgaY,lon Total Wctlancl and MITIGATION BANK SITE 2 Arca F�« Parccl14 50.97 18.78 12.19 Parccl 8W (Lot51,2) 13.93 6.77 7.16 & Parccl L (5 v2) _ ___- (�Ilffic�n�iP ��>i IlS IL�1ffi�Iln®Il�n»>1�1� _ Il 7otal5 4-4.90 25.55 19.35 S.W.41st Street (G NeAse. v�o(e. — -K\i� I,;t( w ,vm i It 6-0— rreovcA, (�ffi(�Pi�l �ll�llffilllt�Y ffip 5c21r.:1"- 600'(approx) '41A4 a t R cn" l,t eTt n.,,.,(S t,I(•Pfl RECEIVED AU'j .1 � w3 OEPT. OF ECOLOGY Implementing Agreement between The Washington State Department Of Transportation and The Washington State Department of Ecology Concerning Wetlands Protection & Management July 1, 1993 Table of Contents I. Authority..........................................................................................................1 H. Purpose..............................................................................................................11 III. General Coordination Process..............._......................................................2 IV. Project Coordination......................................................................................4 V. Wetland Mitigation........................................................................ ...............S VI. Mitigation Banking........................................................................................9 VII. Training............................................................................................................9 VIII. Conflict Resolution......................................................................................10 IX. Duration of Implementing Agreement...................................................11 X. Revisions to Implementing Agreement.................................................11 XI. Execution........................................................................................................11 Appendix A List Of WSDOT And Ecology Wetlands-Related Staff Appendix Documents of the Project Development Process Appendix C WSDOT Guidelines for Wetland Reports Appendix D WSDOT Guidelines For Wetland Mitigation Plans Appendix E Guideline For Compensation Mitigation Ratios Appendix F List Of Invasive/Exotic Plant Species Appendix G Definitions References Implementing Agreement between The Washington State Department Of Transportation and The Washington State Department of Ecology Concerning Wetlands Protection & Management I. Authority This implementing agreement is being adopted pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Department of Transportation (WSDOT), dated August 4, 1988. Ecology's responsibilities include statewide wetlands protection and management; the agency's regulatory authority derives from Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act), the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Chapter 90.48 RCW (Water Pollution Control), and Chapter 90.58 RCW (Shoreline Management Act of 1971). RCW 90.58.300 designates Ecology to administer the state responsibilities under the federal CZMA. Ecology is also responsible for overseeing implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - Chapter 43.21C RCW), which interacts with wetlands laws and regulations. Governor's Executive Order 81-18, revised in 1985, directs Ecology to be the state coordinator responsible for issuance of all state Water Quality Certifications under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Under the same Executive Order, Ecology is also responsible for the state's response on other activities under the federal Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and SEPA. WSDOT is responsible for designing, constructing, and maintaining a safe, state multi-modal transportation system in a manner that complies and is consistent with environmental laws and regulations, including those pertaining to wetlands. H. Purpose The 1988 MOU states that the responsibilities of the two agencies require coordination of technical and environmental information to provide for a timely and efficient review of environmental documents and permit applications. Implementing agreements are intended as supplements to the MOU, to describe specific procedures to enhance coordination and cooperation. 1 WSDOT and Ecology recognize that this implementing agreement, which addresses only wetland protection issues, is one of several steps required to attain coordination and cooperation in all areas of environmental protection. Both agencies are committed to integrating stormwater control, habitat protection, fisheries, and other environmental issues into a coordinated procedure, either in subsequent agreements or through the appropriate permitting process(es). The purpose of this implementing agreement is to clarify and promote interagency coordination in wetlands protection and management in the following areas: review of proposed projects, permit compliance, and wetland mitigation guidelines. This agreement includes guidelines for standard information to be submitted with project proposals, which will allow for project review and permit decisions to occur in a timely manner. This agreement also institutes a wetlands training program to benefit staff from both agencies, and establishes a process for conflict resolution. III. General Coordination Process This section contains descriptions of the various meetings and field visits that will be used to effect interagency coordination in wetlands protection and management at the project level. The next section contains detailed procedures for coordination before, during, and after the permit application process. To facilitate contacts between agencies, a list of staff positions involved in wetlands work, with telephone numbers, is included as Appendix A to this agreement. Normal procedure will be for WSDOT district staff to coordinate with Ecology Wetlands Section and Permit Coordination Unit staff assigned to the area where the project is located`. Section VII of this agreement outlines the procedure to be followed should the need arise to elevate contacts. This agreement lists a series of meetings that will provide opportunities for staff from both agencies to review and discuss proposed projects that impact wetlands. In addition to these meetings, other contacts such as telephone calls and sharing of documents is encouraged. The meetings progress from those that are general in nature and cover many The Permit Coordination Unit within Ecology's Environmental Review Section is responsible for administering the water quality certification program pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act. 2 projects, to meetings that are very specific, covering one, or a few, projects. The timing of the meetings provides sufficient time to revise a project if the wetland impact warrants a change, while still keeping the project on schedule. (It is understood that environmental concerns other than wetlands issues, if not addressed simultaneously, may affect the project's schedule.) The meetings are listed below in chronological order: (a) Biennial Project Review Meetings: The purpose of these meetings is to discuss, in general terms, potential environmental impacts (including all wetland impacts) of proposed projects; and to provide an opportunity for resource agencies to supply information on affected resources that may influence a project's schedule or budget. These meetings will be held in even-numbered years when project prospectus and preliminary project budgets are being developed. The meetings are conducted by each WSDOT district, and attended by WSDOT staff from the headquarters Environmental Branch and district Project Development offices, Ecology Wetlands and Permit Coordination staff responsible for that area, and Shoreline Management Section staff. Staff from other resource management agencies may also attend. Ecology Permit Coordination staff will then brief other affected Ecology staff, if applicable. (b) Design Alternatives Meeting: These meetings are held on an as-needed basis to discuss specific projects, and to revisit projects discussed earlier. The need for this meeting is based on the scope of the project and magnitude and type of wetland impacts. The wetland report prepared by WSDOT will be sent to Ecology for review prior to holding a design alternatives meeting. A field review and/or future meeting may be needed to complete the necessary coordination. (c) Pre-Application Meeting: These meetings are held to review preliminary mitigation plan development and submittal of information needed by the Corps of Engineers and other agencies to make permit decisions. These meetings may be called by WSDOT, the Corps of Engineers, or Ecology, depending on project magnitude or type of permit. Other agencies, as appropriate, are invited to participate. (d) Pre-Construction Conference: These meetings are held on an as-needed basis to discuss construction techniques for wetland creation, restoration, or enhancement, for individual projects. The need for such a meeting is based 3 upon the degree of difficulty anticipated in constructing the wetland, the use of unconventional construction techniques, or contractor unfamiliarity with constructing wetlands. It is understood by the parties involved that this meeting is primarily for the benefit of the contractor, and that the contract cannot be changed. This meeting may be held as part of the WSDOT/Contractor Pre-Construction Conference conducted for all WSDOT projects, or it could be a separate meeting if the sub-contractor responsible for wetland construction has not been chosen by the time of the Pre-Construction Conference. If needed, the meeting will involve Ecology Wetlands and Permit Coordination staff responsible for the project area, and WSDOT district construction and biology staff. IV. Project Coordination The 1987 manual prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetland delineation will be used for wetland projects requiring compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Ecology requires use of the 1989 joint federal manual for wetland delineation for wetland projects requiring state approval under Chapters 90.58 RCW (the Shoreline Management Act) and 90.48 RCW (Water Pollution Control), or other applicable state laws. The following procedure pertains only to wetland actions between WSDOT and Ecology. It is not meant to cover the coordination that is required with other Ecology programs, such as stormwater control or shorelands management, or with other state or federal agencies, and it does not pertain to non-wetland issues, even though these non-wetland activities may require a §401 water quality certification. Appendix B is a flow chart entitled Documents of the Project Development Process that shows the engineering and wetland processes in parallel. This flow chart will serve as an aid in understanding the following procedure. WSDOT 1. WSDOT conducts the Biennial Project Review meeting (see above for more explanation). Ecology 2. Ecology attends the Biennial Project Review meeting. WSDOT 3. WSDOT submits the wetland inventory report to Ecology for review and comment. This report will be sent to Ecology when the following permits are required: §404 individual permit, §404 4 nationwide permit that needs an individual water quality certification, or a shoreline permit. The report is submitted to the Ecology Wetlands Section, with a copy to the Ecology Environmental Review Section. WSDOT 4. WSDOT conducts a Highway Design Alternatives meeting, if necessary (see above for more explanation). This meeting could be a conference call, or could be held in the field. Ecology 5. Ecology attends the Design Alternatives meeting and provides written comments and recommendations on the wetlands inventory report and alternatives as soon as possible but within 30 days of the meeting. If a Design Alternatives meeting is not held, Ecology will respond within 30 days of receipt of the wetlands inventory report. This response may be a request for additional information or a request for a joint site visit. If Ecology requests additional information, Ecology will then have 15 additional days to comment after receipt of the information. WSDOT 6. WSDOT submits the preliminary wetland mitigation plan with the wetland report and alternatives analysis to Ecology wetlands staff, with a copy to the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit, if a §404 permit is required, for review and comment. Note: From this point on in the process, a distinction is made between §404 individual permits and nationwide permits requiring an individual water quality certification (WQC). The distinction is made because in the latter case, Ecology issues the public notice and coordinates the response to the project proposal. Also, it is understood that in both cases a project proposal can change between application submittal and issuance of the public notice. Ecology T(a) If a §404 individual permit is required, Ecology Permit Coordination staff will respond within 45 days. During this 45-day review period, Ecology Permit Coordination staff will coordinate with other programs and agencies. 7.(b) If a §404 nationwide permit with an individual WQC is required, Ecology Wetlands staff will review the documents listed in No. 6 above, and respond in writing within 45 days. 5 The Ecology response may: • Provide approval, conditional on the following factors: The preliminary mitigation plan package will not substantially change; the final detailed mitigation plan will adequately demonstrate the likely success of the mitigation project. • Ask for more information. • Ask for a pre-application meeting and/or field visit. Both 8. A pre-application meeting is held as needed. If an individual permit is required, the meeting may be conducted by the Corps of Engineers or WSDOT, depending upon the magnitude of project impacts. If the required permit is a nationwide permit with an individual WQC, the meeting will be conducted by the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit. WSDOT 9.(a) If a §404 individual permit is required, WSDOT submits the application to the Corps of Engineers with the final mitigation plan. A copy is sent to the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit. 9.(b) If a §404 nationwide permit with an individual WQC is required, WSDOT submits the permit application to the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit with the final mitigation plan. Ecology will issue the public notice within 5 working days of determining that the application is complete. Ecology 10.(a) If a §404 individual permit is required, the Permit Coordination Unit responds to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days of the Corps of Engineers Public Notice, either by issuing a Water Quality Certification and/or a CZMA consistency determination, or by requesting an extension. A request for extension may be necessary to: allow for review of additional information; meet requests of other state agencies; complete coordination with all Ecology programs and/or state agencies; and/or make a CZMA consistency determination. If an extension is requested, Ecology will notify WSDOT of the reasons for the request. 10.(b) If a §404 nationwide permit with an individual WQC is required, the Permit Coordination Unit will respond directly to WSDOT 6 within 31 days of issuing the Public Notice. The response will either be issuance of the Water Quality Certification and/or determination of CZMA consistency, or a notification to WSDOT that unresolved issues still exist. WSDOT 11. WSDOT will coordinate with Ecology, and other agencies as necessary, to provide the information needed to address unresolved issues. Ecology 12. Under normal circumstances, the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit will issue the §401 Water Quality Certification to WSDOT as soon as possible after issuance of the Public Notice, but no later than within 120 days (for non-coastal counties) or 180 days (for coastal counties). (Note: The federal Clean Water Act authorizes states to issue §401 WQCs to §404 permits within a year of the Public Notice publication.) In those situations where Ecology is waiting for a local government to take action pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, Ecology will issue the §401 WQC within 31 days of the local action for permitted uses, or within 31 days of the Ecology decision for Conditional Uses and Variances, if no appeals are filed. (The 31 days allow for the regulatory requirement of a 30-day appeal period under the state Shoreline Management Act and the CZMA consistency concurrence review.) If a local shoreline permit is appealed, Ecology will issue the §401 WQC within 10 days of the State Shoreline Hearings Board decision, unless Ecology is a party to the appeal or Ecology appeals to the Superior Court. As applicable, Ecology will issue, instead of or in addition to a §401 WQC, a state concurrence or objection to a consistency certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Information needed by Ecology to make decisions on permit matters is included in guidance documents made part of this agreement as Appendices C and D. WSDOT use of this guidance in preparing materials to be reviewed by Ecology will ensure that adequate information is provided at the appropriate step. This, in turn, will ensure a timely response from Ecology. 7 V. Wetland Mitigation Both agencies agree that wetland mitigation is a series of steps followed in sequence to eliminate, reduce, and/or compensate for wetland impacts. The steps of mitigation, in decreasing order of preference, are as follows: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking: certain action or part of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute wetland resources or environments; (f) Monitoring the mitigation by systematic evaluation of the development of a constructed wetland to determine success. Both agencies agree that standard information on mitigation proposals is needed to fully understand the proposal and make informed decisions. Guidelines developed by Ecology for the contents of wetland reports and mitigation plans are included as Appendices C and D to this agreement. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands will be based on the ratios given in Appendix E. The ratios are intended to be used as a guideline under average conditions and may be altered on a case-by-case basis by joint agreement, if unique conditions are present at the impact site or the mitigation site. The compensation ratios are based on the category of the wetland impacted (using the Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System) and the proposed category of the wetland to be created, restored, or enhanced. The ratios are for IN-KIND compensation only. Compensation for wetlands will be negotiated case-by-case for OUT-OF-KIND compensation, or if the impacted wetland's vegetation is dominated (>_80% cover) by any of the invasive/exotic species listed in Appendix F. The preliminary and final mitigation plans submitted by WSDOT will include a 8 summary table showing how the ratios have been applied. The "category" of the impacted wetland will be listed, as will its Cowardin class and subclass, and the ratio applied from Appendix E. The plan will also include the information necessary to estimate the "category" of the mitigation site, using the Ecology rating system, when all performance standards have been met. Copies of completed data sheets from the rating system will be included, and brief comments justifying each answer are to be provided. PRESERVATION may be used in combination with one or more of the following: restoration, creation, or enhancement, to have the net effect of reducing the ratios given in Appendix E. Preservation can be especially useful when there is not enough property on the project site to meet the replacement ratios, or there are some other difficulties in creating a wetland of sufficient size on site. A detailed explanation of how the preservation approach works is found in Appendix E. Intentionally created wet areas constructed on non-wetland sites for the purpose of treating or conveying irrigation water, roadway drainage, or wastewater, or for surface water detention facilities, shall not be considered jurisdictional wetlands nor shall they be considered as sites for compensatory mitigation. This also includes grass lined ditches, filter strips, and active borrow pits. Documentation for these sites will be on labeled plan sheets on file at WSDOT. VI. Mitigation Banking Any mitigation banking activities will comply with the provisions of the mitigation banking agreement currently being developed by WSDOT, Ecology, and other agencies. VII. Training Ecology and WSDOT will provide training on the following topics to staff in both agencies: • Field methods for wetland identification and delineation • Techniques for assessment of wetland values and functions • Design of mitigation plans; writing mitigation plan reports • WSDOT project development process and procedures 9 • Corps of Engineers and Ecology permit processes In addition, WSDOT will invite Ecology and other resource management agencies to participate in an annual field review and evaluation of WSDOT mitigation sites. VIII. Conflict Resolution In the 1988 MOU, WSDOT and Ecology agreed to 'Resolve conflicts at the field level. In the event that issues cannot be agreed upon by field personnel, both parties agree to elevate the issues to equivalent levels within each organization, for further discussion and, if necessary, to the Director of Ecology and Secretary of DOT." The parties further agree that it is in the interest of both agencies to resolve conflicts in an interagency manner, according to the following procedure. Level One: Conflict resolution is attempted by communication between the WSDOT headquarters and district biologist, or Environmental Manager, and the Ecology regional wetlands biologist, or headquarters wetlands biologist if the region does not have one. The Ecology Permit Coordination Unit will be notified of the situation. Level Two: Conflict resolution is attempted by communication between the WSDOT Project Development Engineer, or equivalent, and the Ecology Wetlands Technical Unit Supervisor. WSDOT headquarters Environmental Branch personnel may be involved at this level. The Ecology Wetlands Section will notify the Ecology Permit Coordination Unit of unresolved conflicts. The Permit Coordination supervisor may assist in resolving the dispute. Level Three: Conflict resolution is attempted by communication between the WSDOT District Administrator/Assistant District Administrator and the Ecology Shorelands & Coastal Zone Management Program Manager. The Ecology Program Manager will notify the Ecology Regional Director of the dispute. Level Four: Conflict resolution is attempted by communication between the WSDOT Assistant Secretary for Program Development and the Ecology Assistant Director for Water and Shorelands. Level Five: The conflict will be resolved by the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of Ecology, or their designees. 10 IX. Duration of Implementing Agreement This Implementing Agreement will remain in effect until terminated. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30-day written notice to the other. Written notice of termination shall include the reasons for the termination. X. Revisions to Implementing Agreement Revisions to this Implementing Agreement may be initiated by either party and will become final after both parties are in agreement and appropriate signatures are attached. M. Execution The undersigned hereby acknowledge and agree that the policies, procedures, and activities identified in this document will guide the parties in an effort of mutual support and cooperation, in order that WSDOT and Ecology may achieve full compliance in their designated activities, and initiate innovative strategies to protect and manage Washington State's wetland resources. Washington State Washingto State Department of Ecology Departm of Transportation by Mary eland, orrison, Director Secretary of Transportation Date 7 / Date Z • 11 Appendix A List Of WSDOT And Ecology Wetlands-Related Staff Department of Ecology Wetlands Technical Unit Unit Supervisor Andy McMillan Senior Ecologist Tom Hruby PO Box 47600 PO Box 47600 Olympia,WA 98504 Olympia,WA 98504 (206)438-7428 SCAN 585 (206)493-9406 SCAN 585 FAX (206)483-7537 FAX(206)483-7537 Regional Contacts Eastern Region Adams,Asotin,Columbia,Ferry,Franklin, Dennis Beich Garfield,Grant Lincoln,Pend Oreille, N.4601 Monroe Spokane,Stevens,Walla Walla,Whitman Spokane,WA 99205-1295 (509)456-5192 SCAN 545 FAX(509)456-6175 Central Region Benton,Chelan,Douglas,Kittitas,Klickitat, Cathy Rajala Okanogan,Yakima 106 South 6th Avenue Yakima,WA 98902-3387 (509)575-2616 SCAN 558 FAX(509)575-2S09 Southwest Region Pacific, Wahkiakum,Skamania,Cowlitz Bill Leonard PO Box 47600 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 (206)438-7161 SCAN 585 FAX(206)438-7537 Clallam,Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Clark Vacant Mason,Pierce, 77zurston,Lewis Katherine March PO Box 47600 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 (206)438-7786 SCAN 585 FAX (206)438-7537 North",est Region Snohomish, Island Erik Stockdale Mail Stop NB-81 3190-160th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98008-5452 (206) 649-7061 SCAN 354 FAX(206)649/7098 Whatcom,San Juan,King County Cities Mark Bentley PO Box 47600 Olympia,WA 98504-7600 (206)493-9262 SCAN 5S5 FAX(206)438-7537 Skagit, Kitsap,King County Ann Remsbero, PO Box 47600 Olvmpia,WA 98504-7600 (266)493-9260 SCAN 5S5 FAX(206)438-7537 Al Department of Transportation Headquarters Contacts Senior Biologist Jim Schafer PO Box 47329 Olympia,WA 98504-7329 (206) 705-7403(SCAN 705) FAX(206)705-6815 Mitigation Specialist Barb Aberle Project Biologist(Impact Paul Wagner PO Box 47329 Assessment) PO Box 47329 Olympia,WA 98504-7329 Olympia,WA 98504-7329 (206)705-7404(SCAN 705) (206) 705-7406(SCAN 705) FAX(206)705-6815 FAX(206)705-6815 Biologist Bill Null Biologist Mary Ossinger PO Box 47329 PO Box 47329 Olympia,WA 98504-7329 Olympia,WA 98504-7329 (206)705-(SCAN 705) (206)705-(SCAN 705) FAX(206)705-6815 FAX(206) 705-6815 District (Regional) Contacts (See attached District Map) District 1 Environmental Coordinators Ralph Nichols PO Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4521 (SCAN 440) FAX(206)440-4805 Ben Brown PO Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4528(SCAN 440) FAX (206)440-4805 Dan Hagglund PO Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4534(SCAN 440) FAX(206)440-4805 Biologist Charlie Plummer PO Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 (206)440-4533(SCAN 440) FAX(206)440-4805 District 2 Environmental Coordinators Bruce Hamilton PO Box 98 Wenatchee,WA 98807-0098 (509)663-9761 (SCAN 565) FAX (509)664-1200 A2 District 2 (cont.) Environmental Coordinators Claton Belmont PO Box 98 Wenatchee,WA 98807-0098 (509) 663-9690(SCAN 565) FAX(509)664-1200 District 3 Environmental Coordinator Jerry Schultz PO Box 47440 Olympia,WA 98504-7440 (206)357-2660(SCAN 357) FAX(206)357-2601 Biologist Carl Ward PO Box 47440 Olympia,WA 98504-7440 (206)357-2674(SCAN 357) FAX(206)357-2601 District 4 Environmental Coordinator Steve Zaske PO Box 1709 Vancouver,WA 98668-1709 (206)696-6338(SCAN 476) FAX(206)696-6638 District 5 Environmental Coordinator Gary Beeman PO Box 12560 Yakima,WA 98909-2560 (509)575-2544(SCAN F 53) FAX(509)575-2561 District 6 Environmental Coordinator Jim Prudente 2714 North Mayfair St. Spokane,WA 99207-2090 (509)456-3015 (SCAN 545) FAX(509)545-3089 Steve Yach 2714 North Mayfair St. Spokane,WA 99207-2090 (509)456-3015 (SCAN 545) FAX (509) 545-3089 A3 r.. n� >Q 5 Pend r<< Okanogan Oreillo �\ Whalcom San Jua'P v _ _r Stevens Skagit Island a '~ Cholan --- 5 Lli; Ezs .. <• Snohomish zi = zg Jefferson Douglas .;.t Bellevue Mason KiIsa1) ::. t ;<? Lincoln >, enatche 90 Grays King ' Spokano Harbor ':s.. 9090 :i _ Pierce >, ;`` 2 Killitas Gran t nd Whitman Tu a er an,s ;< 82 Thurston Yakima Franklin F Lewis Garfield Pacific 5 Denton Yakima Walla (Unim Gap) S �. ••y> Walla f' Columbia Wahkiakum Cowlitz 9 s::: t r Asotin jU ?s t'.......,............... ,. , a02 Klickitat Skamania Clark Vancouver Contract Plans Scoping Specifications Phase Design Phase CL E. & Estimate >: o . (PS&E) Phase °' L : o : C) W 0 Define Gather Develop & Select Preferred ",� � Prepare' �� Obtain R Fihalize Project Data Evaluate Alternative & Prepare Prellmin PS&E' � �"y� F� '" PS&E Scope, Alternatives Design Report yM� � Schedule Prepare Envir. Document fir, r:. � ' oy & Cost X A A Prospectus Wetland Per Design Final Receive P.S.&E. Report Application Report Mitigation Regulatory Plan Agency Permit Wetland Preliminary Final Inventory Mitigation Environmental Plan Document DOCUMENTS OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Appendix C WSDOT Guidelines for Wetland Reports Wetland reports are required by regulatory agencies for projects where wetlands may be adversely affected during project construction. At WSDOT, the wetland report supplied to these agencies is composed of two separate elements: the Wetland Inventory Report and Wetland Biology Report. Used to describe and classify wetlands within the vicinity of a proposed highway project, they are requested from a WSDOT wetlands biologist at the earliest stages of project development. The Wetland Inventory Report provides early identification of wetland resources for the consideration of design changes which might avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. After project alternatives are developed, the Wetland Biology Report is prepared to accurately describe wetlands and other important resources and impacts to these resources for each alternative under consideration. A typical report includes a wetland assessment, an impact assessment, and may include a mitigation proposal. The following sections describe information required in Wetland Inventory Reports and Wetland Biology Reports. A. Wetland Inventory Report This document identifies wetlands in the project vicinity at the earliest stages of project development and classifies and evaluates their functions and values. A WSDOT wetland biologist or qualified consultant prepares this report upon request from the District Environmental Manager. The following information must be provided in a Wetland Inventory Report: 1. Project description a. Location b. Setting c. Geography d. Water resources located within the project area (lakes, streams, ponds) e. Published inventory information f. National Wetland Inventory Map g. Hydric soil map and soils information h. Aerial photo wetland interpretation (if available) i. Local jurisdiction inventory (if available) j. Washington Natural Heritage Program data on rare plants, or high quality wetlands k. Department of Wildlife Nongame and Priority Habitat information I. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rates C1 maps (if applicable). 2. Wetland identification and location Each wetland community on the site should be described by including: a. Species composition of each plant community including a map showing plant community boundaries b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Cowardin) classification c. Connection and proximity to nearby water bodies d. Known or suspected wildlife use e. Evidence of recent or historic disturbances f. Habitat features g. Characterization of wetland soil h. A brief description of adjacent upland plant communities i. A description of the wetland buffer j. Approximate size of the wetland k. A subjective determination of wetland functions and values 1. Its rating, based on Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Rating System (Rating system data sheets should be appended to the report.) in. List of potential impacts to wetlands from project implementation if known 3. Wetlands identified within the project area should be mapped and numbered, with corresponding data sheets appended to the report. Wetland location should be listed with data to milepost, engineers station, toe of slope, or other physical location related to project construction. Note: statements concerning whether the wetland is isolated or associated. are preliminary and are provided to give an indication of the function of the wetland in the landscape. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the final authority to make this determination. 4. The wetlands identified should be presented in a table format that includes the following information: a. Location of wetland by highway stationing or milepost b. A subjective determination of wetland functions and values c. Wetland category (Department of Ecology rating system). The Wetland Inventory Report is submitted to the District Environmental Manager with a copy to the Project Engineer. It is used as part of the data for 02 initial development of project design alternatives. B. Wetland Biology Report After project alternatives are developed, the WSDOT district requests a Wetland Biology Report from the Wetlands Biologist. The Wetland Biology Report details specific impacts associated with each proposed alternative. While it includes some of the information from the Wetland Inventory, it is far more specific regarding plant and animal communities. The Wetland Biology Report should provide detailed information on how wetland functions and values will be adversely affected by the proposed project. The report should discuss the effects of both direct impacts (e.g. filling, dredging, clearing, and alterations to wetland hydrology) as well as indirect impacts (increased intrusion, increased noise, light, and glare, etc.) on each wetland. Water quality impacts (e.g. sedimentation, nutrients, hydrocarbons, and toxics) should also be discussed. The report should estimate the area of each wetland. The Wetland Biology Report should also include specific information on how the boundary of the wetland was determined. The report must include the general information found in the Wetland Inventory Report in addition to the following information: 1. A complete set of the field data forms filled out during the wetland determination and delineation 2. The site map showing wetland boundaries and locations of all data points 3. Topographic map of the area 4. The site designation on a National Wetland Inventory map 5. The site designated on local wetland inventories (if available) 6. The site designated on a Soils Survey Report soils map WSDOT project staff use the Wetland Biology Report to evaluate the location and design alternatives to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands. Wetland acreage and areas of unavoidable impact are determined after the alternatives have been evaluated. This information is used as the basis for determining the size and type of wetland mitigation needed. The Wetland Biology Report should include a discussion on how the project has been designed (and how it could be modified) to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. An estimate of the amount and time of mitigation required to compensate for wetland impacts should be discussed. C3 Appendix D WSDOT Guidelines For Wetland Mitigation Plans The Washington State Department of ---ansportation (WS -)OT) has developed these guidelines to provide format and contents requirements for wetland mitigation plans (WMP) and reports. The guidelines apply in the preparation of mitigation plans associated with regulatory agency permit requirements. Agencies responsible for project review and permit certifications are developing guidelines for wetland mitigation reports, plans, and monitoring. The Department of Ecology, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Environmental Protection Agency mitigation plan guidelines were considered in the preparation of these guidelines. WSDOT Wetland Mitigation Plan Guidelines are intended to meet the requirements of each of these regulatory agencies. If wetlands are encountered in a project, the following activities are normally required: 1) a wetland report is prepared, identifying the location and value of wetlands in the project vicinity; 2) alternatives that would reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands by changes in location or design of the project are analyzed; 3) a mitigation site is selected that will satisfy requirements for acreage needed for unavoidable wetland impacts; a_.d 4) a wetland mitigation plan is written. The Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan is prepared as the first action in the process of developing a WMP, followed by internal review and resource agency review. The Final Wetland Mitigation Plan is provided to agencies as part of the permit process. These guidelines explain the elements of mitigation plans and detail the essential coordination required. I. Develop Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan The Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan is a draft document for use in early coordination with in-house and resource agency staff. In this document, the project is described, the measures that will be taken to avoid wetlands and reduce impacts are discussed, and the measures proposed to compensate for the impacts are described. Following are the elements of the Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan: A. Description of the Project Provide a brief outline of the project proposal, including the following site information: 1. Project name, short description, and location. 2. Wetland information. Include who conducted the delineation (e.g., WSDOT biologist, consultant), which manual was used (1987 or 1989), methodology (routine, intermediate, problem, or disturbed), date(s) field D1 work was performed, data sheets used to establish the wetland boundary and general findings. 3. Vicinity map. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle (1:1200), National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), or other will suffice. Range, Township, and Section should be shown. 4. A large scale site map (not smaller than 1:400) and aerial photo if available. B. Assessment of the Impacted Wetland Description should be provided of the type and quantity of wetlands that would be impacted. Address vegetation (including canopy structure, indicator status, percent cover and wetland classes) hydrology (water depths, average seasonal flows and/or duration of saturation), soil characteristics, and functions and values. Impacted wetlands should also be rated according to the Department of Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Rating System, and include a qualitative description of how the wetland functions in the landscape. This information is available in the Wetland Biology Report prepared for the project. C. Evaluation of Mitigation Alternatives The Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan should document all early project design changes made to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. This information is needed for both Preliminary and Final Wetland Mitigation Plans and demonstrates to reviewing agencies that WSDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to the extent practical. It should follow the mitigation sequence adopted by WSDOT and show how the development of the project design has: 1. Avoided the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action 2. Minimized impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, using appropriate technology, or taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts 3. Rectified the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment 4. Reduced or eliminated the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project 5. Compensated for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation steps should be tracked and recorded throughout the project planning and design process. This information can then be incorporated D2 into the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan. D. Mitigation Project Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Goals are broad statements that define the intent or purpose of the proposal. Objectives are the direct actions necessary to achieve a specific goal. These should be measurable. Wetlands perform numerous important functions. However, if an objective of the mitigation is to create a function it must be one that can be accurately measured in the field, such as percent cover of wetland vegetation. Water quality improvement is an example of wetland function that is difficult to use as a measurable performaa-;. standard. Performance standards are specific criteria used to evaluate whether the goals and objectives have been met. These must be developed on a site-by- site basis. Performance standards should provide target criteria to be met each year, or every other year, based on reasonably paced progress toward measuring final success. Describe the long-term goals of the mitigation project. Specifically, identify objectives in the following terms: 1. Size and classification of wetlands to be created, restored, enhanced, or preserved 2. Functions and values to be created, restored, enhanced, or preserved 3. Number of years it is likely to take for the long-term establishment of the proposed functions and habitats 4. The measurable performance standards that will be used to determine if an objective has been met. E. Description of the Proposed Wetland Mitigation Site I. Describe pre-construction conditions existing at the proposed site, including vegetation, wildlife and wetlands. Provide a description of the plant community, its cover, classes and structure, and make special note of exotic species and other management concerns that may affect site viability. Wetlands present at the mitigation site must be delineated, assessed and their location indicated on the site map using the format described for a Wetland Report. 2. Explain how hydrology will be provided for the proposed wetland mitigation, including expected seasonal water level fluctuations, seasonal depth to groundwater, or surface water source and water quality. - 3. Describe soil classification and series at the site and any soil testing that has been done. Describe amenities that may be needed to improve the soil conditions at the site. 4. Describe how the planned mitigation will fit in the landscape. Discuss D3 the location of the site in relation to its position in the watershed or adjacent upland or wetland habitats or other water resources. F. Proposed Site Plans Prepare a general grading and revegetation plan, including: 1. The shape and contour of the mitigation project. Provide sufficient information so that water depths, open water areas, boundary areas, and other features can be visualized. Seasonal ground water and the sources of hydrology for the site should be evident. 2. A list of plants to be used and general planting plan to illustrate the planting concept for the site. Reviewers need to know what species will be planted, in what proportions, and their general locations. 3. Information on the construction sequence and schedule. 4. Steps to be used to minimize damage to surrounding buffers or wetlands during site construction. 5. Methods for controlling invasive species. 6. A description and map of the plant communities which make up the wetland buffer, if a buffer is included in the mitigation design. H. Maintenance Plan Describe planned maintenance activities including erosion control and protection of plant materials from herbivores, repairing vandalism, and other activities that may be required over time to ensure that the site viability is maintained. I. Contingency Plan A contingency plan is required and must outline the steps that will be taken if performance standards are not met. G. Mitigation Site Monitoring A monitoring plan collects the data necessary to measure the success of the mitigation in meeting goals and performance standards established for the site. In the Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan, state that monitoring will be conducted for a period of 5 years or longer, if necessary, and that an annual report will be issued by WSDOT to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology, and other federal, state and local resource agencies. A monitoring program must include measures of vegetation, hydrology, water quality, soils, and wildlife over time. Headquarters Biology conducts the actual monitoring and issues the WSDOT Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report, which is sent to regulatory agencies each year. D4 IL Coordination The Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan is intended to be reviewed internally by WSDOT Districts, Headquarters Design, Maintenance, and Right of Way staff before circulating to outside agencies. WSDOT District Environmental Managers should coordinate the appropriate review within the District. The outside agency review follows the ,ternal review. Comments and suggestions made to the Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan by outside ,agencies should be considered in the preparation of the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan. III. Final Wetland Mitigation Plan The Final Wetland Mitigation Plan is completed after the Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan has been circulated to agencies. It incorporates comments from agencies and the public (and comments from draft environmental documents, if applicable). The Final Wetland Mitigation Plan is the document of record. IV. As-Built Plans Within a month of construction and planting completion, as-built plans should be sent to the lead agency, including an as-built topographic survey, plant species and c -:antities used, photographs of the site, and notes about any changes to the original approved plan. Also list the contractor's responsibility concerning plant replacement, fertilization and irrigation, protection from wildlife, and contingency plan requirements. D5 Examples of Goals and Standards of Success The following are examples of possible goals, objectives, and performance standards that could be used in a mitigation report. Example 1 Goals The goal of this mitigation is to create 12 acres of wetland by converting existing pasture land to a productive, functional native wetland system. The wetland is intended to have the following functions: wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, water quality improvement, and sediment and nutrient trapping. The goal of the pond and emergent area is to provide food, open water, and nesting habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds, and habitat and food for aquatic-dependent and other species. Objective # 1: Creation of a wetland system that has vegetation structure and species diversity similar to those found in natural wetland systems located in the vicinity.* Performance Standards: After 1 year: Wetland has 35-50% survival of planted species. Recruitment of native species is expected and should increase the overall areal coverage of wetland plants. After 3 years: J Wetland has 75% survival of facultative or wetter species, or is replaced by a native, naturally colonizing plant community at 75% or greater cover. At least 75% of the species are the same as those found at the reference site. After 5 years: a. Wetland has about 35-50% scrub/shrub. b. Wetland has about 25-35% emergent. c. Wetland has about 10-20% riparian. d. Shrub/scrub wetland is 90% native species. *Note: In this example the wetland systems located in the vicinity are being used as reference sites. D6 e. Emergent wetland has about 75% native species. f. Emergent community must have at least 3 species with 20% coverage each. g. Scrub/shrub community must have at least 2 species of 30% cover each. h. Wetland has 90% vegetative coverage by predominantly native species. i. At least 80% of the wetland plant species are the same as those found at the reference site. Objective #2: Provide wildlife support by increasing wildlife cover, forage availability, and vegetative class interspersion. The open water area will provide water/support for aquatic-dependent and other species. Performance Standards: After 3 years: At least 3 wetland classes will be established (emergent, scrub-shrub, open water). After 5 years: Wildlife cover and forage species should be established equal to percentages listed for vegetative structural and species diversity. A quantitative increase in species diversity should be observed, based on visual estimates. Example 2 Goals The goal of the wetland mitigation project is to create a functional self sustaining forested wetland linked with the adjacent ecosystems that provides a continuous forested corridor along a side channel of the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River. In general, the created wetland system is expected to provide the following functions and values: fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage and attenuation, and sediment and nutrient trapping. Contour grading and vegetation establishment will alter the existing site conditions from predominantly vet pasture to a forest/scrub- shrub/emergent wetland system. The resulting change in habitat structure and increased complexity should result in habitat that can be utilized by forest and wetland dependent wildlife species. Reestablishing a forested connection with adjacent habitats will extend a wildlife corridor through this area. The increase in edge habitat created between pasture land and D7 forested wetland will benefit species that utilize the ecozone between habitat types. Objectives/Performance Standards Objective # 1 Upgrade wildlife habitat by the addition of proposed native species plantings. Objective # 2 Increase habitat complexity and diversity as compared to existing agricultural land use by increasing vegetation structure and edge. As the mitigation site vegetation matures, the conditions of the site will. change from a system dominated by pasture grass to a complex.scrub-shrub and forested wetland interspersed with the existing emergent wetland areas. It is expected that this type of habitat would support forest and wetland species. A wildlife corridor will be extended by completion of a forested link with the adjacent wetland systems which are associated with the Stillaguamish River. Performance Standards After 3 years: a. Woody vegetation will cover approximately 30% (±5%) of the site with 1/2 trees and 1/2 scrub-shrub. b. Measurement of the cover of woody vegetation will be used as an indicator of an increase in habitat structure and complexity. It is expected that habitat structure will change from a single laver of vegetation to multiple layers over time, as trees and shrubs mature. After 5 years: a. Cover of trees will be 15%. b. Cover of scrub/shrub will be 50 a. c. There will be at least 250 lineal feet of edge boundary between scrub/shrub and tree species. d. The corridor to the Stillaguamish system will be 100' wide and show no human disturbance. D8 Appendix E Guideline For Compensation Mitigation Ratios Compensation acreage depends on the category of the wetland impacted and the category of wetland to be created. WSDOT agrees to a no net loss policy. The type of mitigation proposed, and past history of creating or restoring these types of wetlands, will be taken into account when determining appropriate ratios for the project. Wetlands dominated by exotic species (>80%), or out of kind mitigation, wil' be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. IMPACT--T TYPE OF MITIGATION* Wetland Category Restoration and Creation CAT II CAT III I 4:1 6:1 II ( 2:1 3:1 III 1 - 1.5:1 1.5 - 2:1 IV .75 - 1.25:1 1 - 1.5:1 Enhancement Enhancement of existing wetlands as compensation for the filling of other wetlands is an available option in some circumstances. Enhancement is the augmentation, or increase, of the functions and values of an existing wetland by direct action. If enhancement of an existing wetland is proposed, the ratios are greater than those used for restoration and creation of wetlands, since the wetland already provides some level of functions and values and a net loss of acreage will occur. Because of this, mitigation ratios for enhancement are generally twice that of ratios for restoration/creation. These ratios are only a guideline, the greater the increase in wetland functions and values provided by the enhancement, the lower the ratio can be. In some circumstances, enhancement of other aquatic resources and functions, such as stream or riparian areas, may be acceptable. In these instances, ratios will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Mitigation type is specified in the wetland mitigation plan. El Preservation Preservation may be used to reduce the ratios above for restoration and creation to a minimum of 1:1, and enhancement to a minimum of 2:1, as follows: • The balance of the area required to meet the ratio in the above table is met by creating or enhancing a buffer around the mitigation site at a ratio of 5:1, or by preserving an existing buffer at a ratio of 10:1. For example, if the balance of the area required to meet the ratio is 1 acre, WSDOT can create a 5 acre buffer around the mitigation site. • The balance of the area required to meet the ratio in the above table can be met by preserving a Category I wetland at a ratio of 5:1 or a Category H wetland at a ratio of 10:1, that is functionally linked (by habitat or hydrology) with the mitigation site in the same watershed. For example, if the balance of the area required to meet the ratio is 1 acre, WSDOT can preserve a 5 acre Category I wetland. The highest priority should be given to creating and preserving buffers around mitigation sites. (Any preservation that is not on, or adjacent to, a mitigation site will be allowed only if adequate buffers are provided at the mitigation site.) E2 Appendix F List Of Invasive/Exotic Plant Species SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Agropyron repens Quackgrass Alopecurus pratensis, A. aequalis Meadow (oxtail Arctium minus Burdock Bromus tectorum, B. rigidus, B. brizaeformis, Bromes B. secalinus, B. japonicus, B. mollis, B. commutatus, B. iriermis, B. erectus Cenchrus longispinus Sandbur Centaurea solstitialis, C. repens, C. cyanus, C. Knapweeds maculosa C. diffusa Cirsium vulgare, C. arvense Thistles Cynosurus cristatus, C. echinatus Dogtail Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass Dipsacus sylvestris Teasel Digitaria sanguinalis Crab Grass Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard grass i Elaeagnus augustifolia Russian Olive Euphorbia peplus, E. esula Spurge Festuca arundinacea, F. pratensis Fescue Holcus lanatus, H. mollis Velvet grass Hordeum jubatum Foxtail Barley Hypericum perforatum St. John's wort Juncus effusus Soft Rush Lolium perenne, L.multiflorum, L. Ryegrass temulentum Lotus corniculatus_ Birdsfoot trefoil Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Matricaria matricarioides Pineapple weed F1 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Medicago sativa Alfalfa Melilotus alba, M. officinalis Sweet clover Phalaris arundinaceae Reed Canary Grass Phleum pratense Timothy Phragmites communis Reed Poa compressa, P. palustris, P. pratensis Bluegrass Polygonum aviculare, P. convolvulus, P. Knotweeds cuspidatum, P. Iapathifolium, P. persicaria Ranunculus repens Buttercup Rubus discolor, R. Iaciniatus, R. vestitus, R. Non-native blackberry macrophyllus Salsola kali Russian Thistle Setaria viridis Green Bristlegrass Sisymbrium altissimum, S. Ioeselii, S. Tumblemustards officinale Tanacetum vulgare Tansy Trifolium dubium, T. pratense, T. repens, T. Clovers arvense, T. subterraneum, T. hybridum Cultivated species: wheat, corn, barley, rye, etc. F2 Appendix G Definitions Buffer: A designated area surrounding a wetland that reduces adverse impacts to wetland functions and values from adjacent development and/or land uses. Preliminary A document that includes the transportation project Wetland description, project alternatives, wetland impacts from Mitigation Plan: the preferred alternative, and discussion of the mitigation concepts. Creation: Actions taken to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where none previously existed (as far as can be determined from historical information). Enhanceinent: Actions taken to intentionally improve wetland functions, processes, and values of existing but degraded wetlands where all three defining criteria are currently met (i.e. hydrology, vegetation, soils). This includes actions taken on "problem" wetlands as identified in the 1989 Delineation Manual. Final Wetland A document that includes description of all wetlands in Mitigation Plan: the project area, wetland site plan, wetland revegetation plan, standards of success, operation and maintenance of the mitigation site, and the monitoring plan. In-Kind Compensation that replaces the same wetland system Compensation: and class as defined by Cowardin. Out-of-Kind Compensation that replaces one wetland system and Compensation: class as defined by Cowardin with another. G1 Preservation: Setting aside of wetlands or buffers in their existing condition to protect them in perpetuity as part of a plan for compensatory mitigation. Reference Site An existing wetland that is used as a model for a mitigation site, and that exhibits the same structure and functions as an impacted wetland (for in-kind replacement) or that has acceptable structure and functions (for other types of replacement). Restoration: Actions taken to reestablish a wetland area, including its functions and values, that has been eliminated by past actions. §404 Permit: A permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), which authorizes an activity, i.e. discharge of fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Wetland or Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or Wetlands: ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the appropriate authority. Wetland Banking: The off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses in advance of a project. A wetland bank is a net gain in wetlands to be drawn upon to offset small wetland losses from several sites or projects. G2 Wetland A report that includes a wetland's description, Inventory Report: classification, and extent, and its category and functional values. G3 References Washington State Department of Ecology. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington. Publication #91-57. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Ecology, October 1991. Washington State Department of Ecology. Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington. Publication #91-58. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Ecology, October 1991. f �t a1A r� 4 4 iN \y f ,ern"• STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6" August 18, 1992 RECEIVED Qu $ 1993 TO: Washington State0d6mRAiPffive Advance Wetland Compensation Team FROM: Tom Hruby, Washington State Department of Ecology SUBJECT: Conceptual Framework for a Method to Value Wetlands Applicable for Mitigation Banking INTRODUCTION In implementing our federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, it is often necessary to determine the "value" of a wetland. Wetland values also need to be assessed to implement the policy that there be "no-net-loss of wetland functions and values." The wetland attributes and functions that often need to be valued can be categorized into three groups: wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, and human/social values. The valuation of wetlands, however, is a difficult process because wetland values are not easily expressed in quantifiable economic terms. There are no commonly accepted methods for establishing values for the different functions a wetland fulfills. Our current scientific knowledge is not yet adequate to quantify, and thus value the many relationships that regulate the structure and functioning of the wetland ecosystem. This also means that it is not yet possible to quantitatively value human impacts to wetlands. A quantitative, and scientific, understanding of these relationships is at least a decade away (E. Clarain, personal communication). The need to value wetlands and their functions, however, is urgent. Rather than waiting for the science to catch up with the regulatory needs, it is possible, using current levels of knowledge, to implement semi- quantitative procedures that combine our qualitative understanding of how wetlands function with some quantitative ranking methods. This memorandum describes the conceptual framework for a semi-quantitative valuation method that can be adapted to wetlands in different regions. It is based on the method developed and used in the Environmental Impact Statement of the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey Special Area Management Plan (SAMP/EIS) . The valuation method in the SAMP/EIS is the first application of the concepts described below. 3 Washington State Comprehensive Advance Wetland Compensation Team August 18, 1992 Page 2 The method described provides only a relative value of a wetland within a region. A dimensionless "value" score for a wetland is estimated that can be used for comparison to other wetlands. Additional applications of the method include tracking impacts, assessing mitigation needs, or developing mitigation banks. Because of its semi-quantitative, however, the method is not suitable for establishing an absolute ecological or economic value. GENERAL CONCEPT The estimate of relative value is based on the assumption that wetlands that have specific and identifiable wetland characteristics are more valuable than those that do not have those characteristics. Characteristics are simple or integrated variables that directly or indirectly describe specific biological, chemical, or physical conditions and process of a wetland and its surroundings. Characteristics are the environmental variables that are the building blocks for the expression of wetland attributes or functions. Specific characteristics can be identified or measured in the field, and currently can provide a more objective basis for establishing a relative value than valuations based on a qualitative and very subjective assessment of complex functions. Examples of characteristics are: 1) the maximum and minimum temperatures of the water, 2) the amount of interspersion between the open water and vegetated areas, 3) the presence of a permanent outlet, or 4) the height of the trees in the wetland. Once identified, wetland characteristics can be assigned a qualitative level of importance based on the known or inferred relationship between the characteristic and a specific wetland function. In implementing this valuation method for the Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey three levels of importance were identified -- related to a function, important for a function, and very important for a function. For example, a permanently flooded hydroperiod is considered to be a very important characteristic if a wetland is functioning effectively as a habitat for aquatic organisms. A dense understory edge at the wetland/upland boundary, on the other hand, can be considered much less important in maintaining (only related to) a suitable habitat for aquatic organisms. Characteristics, however, that may be only "related" to one wetland function might be considered important or very important for another. The dense understory edge mentioned previously can be considered ,important in functioning as bird habitat. t Washington State Comprehensive Advance Wetland Compensation Team August 18, 1992 Page 3 Once the level of importance for a characteristic is determined a numerical rank score can be assigned to that level. Rank scores can be based on arithmetic or geometric progressions. For example, in the Hackensack Meadowlands SAMP/EIS a related characteristic was scored a [1] , an important characteristic was scored a [3] , and a very important characteristic was scored a [9] . (NOTE: The rank scores in this case were chosen so the semi-quantitative values of the functions calculated for different wetlands in the district most closely matched the consensus regarding their qualitative values which had previously been determined. ) An overall value score for a wetland is then determined by summing the rank scores of all characteristics present that are important for a wetland function or attribute. If more than one function or attribute is being assessed, the overall value score is the sum of the scores for the different functions. The calculation of a value score for a wetland can be refined to meet specific local needs by establishing special operators which modify the value score based on specific criteria. Thus, for comparisons of different development alternatives, it may be useful to multiply the basic score by the number of acres impacted. In cases where one wetland function is considered to be more valuable than another, the basic score for the more valuable function can be multiplied by a factor that reflects its higher value. Also, if certain characteristics are present in a wetland that indicate a function is impaired or degraded, an appropriate score reducer can be included. IDENTIFYING WETLAND FUNCTIONS OR ATTRIBUTES Before identifying and ranking wetland characteristics, it is necessary to identify the wetland functions or attributes that will be evaluated. Commonly recognized wetland environmental functions include: • Groundwater recharge • Groundwater discharge • Floodflow alteration • Sediment stabilization • Retention of toxics • Nutrient removal and/or transformation • Export of primary productivity • Habitat for aquatic species including fish • Habitat for birds: breeding; overwintering, and migrating • Habitat for other Wildlife 4 Transition habitat between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems a Washington State Comprehensive Advance Wetland Compensation Team August 18, 1992 Page 4 Other attributes of the wetland ecosystem that are valuable because of their social significance include: • Recreation a Education • Research 0 Floodflow attenuation/desynchronization • Conservation potential, specifically for threatened/endangered species • Uniqueness * Cultural/historical importance The choice of which functions to evaluate will depend on the goals of a project. A valuation for mitigation banking might entail a ' consideration of all environmental functions as well as attributes of social significance, while a valuation to determine conservation potential might focus on habitat functions only. Once the functions and attributes are chosen, a decision needs to be made whether all functions are to be considered equally valuable, or whether some are to be assigned a higher value. Another option is to combine several functions together. For example, in.the SAMP/EIS all the habitat functions were combined (Wildlife Habitat); all the water quality functions were combined (Water Quality Improvement) , and all those related to socially important functions (Social Significance) were combined. Wetlands containing habitats for threatened and endangered species and/or unique or remnant habitats (TE/RU) were scored separately. In the final valuation, the scores for Wildlife Habitat, Water Quality Improvement, and Social Significance were combined and given one-half the weight of the TE/RU score. IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS Once the desired functions have been chosen, the next step is to develop a list of wetland characteristics that can be scored for each function. Given the large regional and local differences in wetlands and their functions, it is not possible, in advance, to provide a comprehensive list. As a starting point, however, one can use the list of questions found in the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) developed by the Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus, et al. 1987) . Of the more than 300 questions in the WET manual, approximately 200 address specific local wetland characteristics that can be ranked relative to their importance for wetland functions. As mentioned previously, a characteristic may appear on the list for more than one function. Furthermore, the "yes/no" nature of the WET questions indicates the presence or absence of different characteristics, and thus the questions can be used directly in the value scoring. By assigning an importance rank to a WET question in advance it is possible to answer the questions in the field and quickly obtain a value score. The original set of WET questions need to be supplemented to reflect local or regional conditions. The characteristics identified in the WET are especially limited regarding those that support the different a Washington State Comprehensive Advance Wetland Compensation Team August 18, 1992 Page S functions of wildlife habitat. One possible list of additional characteristics/questions is found in the Washington State Wetland Ranking System. The ranking system is mostly based on identifying habitat characteristics, and thus provides an appropriate supplement to the list in the WET. ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE FOR CHARACTERISTICS One of the most difficult steps in implementing this valuation method is assigning the level of importance to the wetland characteristics. Our scientific knowledge of the quantitative relationships between specific wetland variables (i.e. characteristics) and the performance or expression of functions is limited. At present most of our knowledge is qualitative and correlative. For this reason, it is important that the levels of importance be assigned by a committee of wetland scientists with personal knowledge of the wetlands in the region, rather than by only one or two scientists. This knowledge should be supplemented, as a reality check, by field testing the scoring system in wetlands that are qualitatively known to be of high value for some functions and some that are known to be of low value. In the Hackensack Meadowlands an extensive WET analysis and qualitative evaluation of the wetlands (AVID) had already been completed before the valuation method was developed. This previously compiled information permitted a detailed statistical analysis of the association between the wetland characteristics found in wetlands that had been ranked high for specific functions relative to those in wetlands ranked low. Furthermore, the qualitative assessments provided a "reality check" for the scoring system developed and, as mentioned previously, the choice of ranks scores of 1,3,9 were a result of this comparison. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1. The method provides a relative value score for a wetland, one that is appropriate for evaluating changes to wetland functions. It is not appropriate for establishing the dollar value of wetland functions or "absolute" environmental values. Establishing absolute values will require a quantitative understanding of direct cause and effect relationships between environmental variables and functions; an understanding which is not currently available for most relationships. In the SAMP/EIS an additional step was taken to reinforce the fact that the values were relative. The value scores were normalized relative to the one wetland in the District which had the highest score. For example, the wetland having the highest score for wildlife habitat was scored 100, and scores for other wetlands were expressed as a percentage of this highest score. J Washington State Comprehensive Advance Wetland Compensation Team August 18, 1992 Page 6 2. Establishing the level of importance for the characteristics is to some degree subjective. Unfortunately, the state of our knowledge regarding wetland functions is mostly qualitative and correlative. For this reason, it is very important that the importance of characteristics be developed by consensus among a group of wetland scientists familiar with wetlands in a region. Furthermore, it is critical that the discussions leading up to the choices are documented and recorded. The records should include all the information used to establish a level of importance. 3. The method, as developed for the SAMP/EIS, has been criticized because it does not address possible synergistic relationships between different characteristics and the expression of a function. These relationships are known to exist, again qualitatively, in some cases. This is a valid criticism but one that cannot be addressed adequately in any general or regional valuation method. Since our knowledge about the relationship between many environmental characteristics and functions is qualitative and correlative, it is not reasonable to add an additional level of abstraction at this stage; one that includes multi-variate, non-linear, algorithms. 4. Another criticism of the method that has been voiced is that the relationship between some environmental characteristics and functions involve thresholds. A wetland function is not expressed below or above a certain measurable value of the characteristic. Where such thresholds are known to exist, it is possible to incorporate them in the valuation method by phrasing an appropriate "yes/no" question. The environmental characteristic will be listed as present in a wetland only if it is above or below the threshold. If the WET questions are used as the basis of a valuation method, some threshold values have already been identified (e.g. question 14.1: Does the wetland contain an island of at least 25 square feet in size and at least 50 feet from the shoreline?). Additional questions may be added to meet specific regional conditions or as new information becomes available. TH:dg CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK GENERAL CONCERNS: ■ Large wetlands are generally thought to have greater habitat values than a collection of smaller areas, although there is also some recognition of the value of small wetlands scattered throughout the landscape, especially when their water quality and flood desynchronization functions are considered. ■ Wetland mitigation is still a relatively new technique, and failures are not uncommon. Wetland creation and restoration is not impossible, but it does require a combination of careful planning with a solid understanding of the physical and biological characteristics of these complex habitats, both from those who design wetlands and from those who review and approve those designs. ■ Development of a wetland mitigation package should consider the functions and values of the existing habitat at the site. Although wetlands are often recognized as high value habitat, they are not the only habitat that should be considered. ■ The success of a mitigation bank proposal is totally dependent on the concurrence of all agencies with regulatory involvement before any action is taken. Every existing mitigation bank has been predicated on some Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps, EPA, USFWS, and state regulatory agencies. The need for a MOA is crucial, since no existing protocol is yet available from federal and state agencies. TECHNICAL/ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS: Criteria for Success The success of habitat creation must first be measured against the stated goals and objectives. Goals might include: the amount of vegetation that survives three years after planting; or establishment of a specific hydrologic regime. Even if the stated goal is not achieved, the project results should be reevaluated against an overall goal for the ecosystem. Maintenance of Success Maintenance of a wetland falls into two broad categories: maintenance of the physical conditions necessary to ensure survival of wetland species and elimination or exclusion of unwanted pests or competitors for wetland resources. Wetland mitigation should be designed to incorporate these concerns in a manner that minimizes the need for human intervention (i.e. controlling flows with valves). Hydrology is generally the most critical physical factor to maintain. Wetlands predicated on some natural hydrologic regime have a much greater chance of survival than those based on a more erratic, and less "natural" regime, such as storm water from an urbanized area. Water quality is another physical factor to be considered. Instances where the quality of water entering the wetland is dependent on some human intervention, such as cleaning a catchbasin, will make maintenance greater to ensure success. Techniques to Determine Credits Several techniques have been developed to evaluate the functions or values of wetland habitats, but no one technique is preferred by all the various agencies. Acceptable methods include: ■Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) ■Wetland Evaluation Techniques (WET 2.0) ■Wetland Values (Reppert, et al. 1979) What is most important is not which technique is used, but that all agencies agree to its use and to the particular parameters employed. Once a technique has been accepted it should be applied to existing site conditions as well as future functional gains. Credits within the bank should be reassessed on a regular basis. Restoration sites will "mature" over time, presumably with a change in function. Offsite Impacts Design of the mitigation project should ensure that no offsite impacts occur, such as flooding and seepage. REGULATORY CONCERNS: Relation of WMB to County-wide Wetland Protection Efforts Wetland mitigation banking is one tool for coordinating mitigation efforts with the goal of maximizing the opportunities for successful creation or restoration. It is not the only nor most important tool and should not be considered as a substitute for preservation. In many cases avoidance of wetland impacts remains the most effective approach for protecting wetland resources. In some cases, however, preservation of small isolated wetlands, even with a suitable buffer will ultimately result in the loss of wetland functions. Wetland mitigation banking should be considered an approach to minimize watershed or regional wetland losses when avoidance or other mitigation on the site is not possible or will not result in adequate protection of the resource. Responsibility for Maintenance, Monitoring, and Ownership Responsibility for initial establishment, maintenance, and monitoring may differ from long-term ownership and maintenance. Once the mitigation effort has proven successful and the bank credits have all been used, most proponents are not interested in continued responsibility. Long-term ownership, operation, and maintenance of wetland mitigation banking sites is a major issue of concern for regulatory agencies. If mitigation is to be established "in perpetuity" a need exists for an institution to accept responsibility for the site in perpetuity. Wetland Impacts That Can Be Mitigated Resource and regulatory agencies frequently have expressed concern that wetland mitigation banking will be used to circumvent the regulatory process. Most agencies agree that the following sequence of actions should be applied to a project before any wetland creation or restoration to compensate for impacts: ■ Avoid the impact ■ Minimize the impact 6 ■ Reduce the impact ■ Restore the site after the impact: or ■ Compensate for the impact through replacement. Any project proposing to use a wetland mitigation bank should be able to show that design options have been investigated to reflect this mitigation sequence. Mitigation Actions Appropriate for Banking Enhancement is not well received as mitigation by natural resource agencies since the result is a net loss in wetland area, even if there is a gain in wetland function. Creation is the most uncertain approach. Restoration is generally perceived as the approach with the greatest opportunity for success, since the previous wetland conditions are probably better understood and some basis exists for assuming those conditions can be re-created by eliminating the original impact. Appropriate Time for Bank to be Accessible The availability of credits from a mitigation bank will vary with the goals of the bank and the memorandum of agreement between the regulating agencies. Generally bank credits should not be used to mitigate wetland impacts until there is some assurance the mitigation action will be successful, although it should not be necessary to wait until the project has achieved 100% of its goals. This may take anywhere between two to five years. Once eventual success of the bank is reasonably ensured, then credits should be made available to the extent they exist. Design Details Necessary for a Mitigation Proiect Plan Any mitigation plan must provide sufficient information and detail to assure regulatory agency staff and concerned citizens that it has a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. The plan should include a description of existing conditions, actions to be implemented, and how the actions will achieve the mitigation goal. Records of Mitigation Bank Credits Along with determining the existing credits within a bank, it is also necessary to maintain a record of the credits used, credits accrued as the bank matures, and net credits available. Details of this accounting procedure should be outlined in the MOA. The bank operator probably would maintain the account record and might also report the account activity to the involved agencies. Cost of Bank Credits The cost of bank credits is based upon the cost of establishing, monitoring, and maintaining the project, in perpetuity, amortized over the total credits available to be sold. It has been assumed that the "economies of scale" in constructing and operating a large bank would ensure the price of credits is competitive with other mitigation approaches available to potential buyers, but limited data are available to confirm this assumption. Should the bank not sell all its credits, or should it not achieve the total credits anticipated, there is a reasonable chance it may not be financially successful. Other Issues Any mitigation effort should be recognized as a risk, whether as a bank or as an individual effort for a single project. Risks can be minimized through careful planning and implementation, but the art of wetland restoration is still in its infancy and much remains to be learned. With small mitigation attempts, risks of net loss in wetland function are reduced through careful planning, extensive review, replacement ratios, long-term monitoring, and performance bonds. All of these measures are intended to ensure that should the project fail the proponent will pay for the failure. With a mitigation bank an additional effort has been made to reduce the potential for failure (i.e. if the mitigation effort is not successful, the bank has no credit.). If a bank is owned and operated by a local agency, several potential disadvantages become apparent. First, if the mitigation effort does not succeed, the local agency has invested public funds with little opportunity to recoup that investment. On the other hand, if the mitigation effort is successful, the agency must now sell credits to return its investment. If that agency also issues permits to potential users of the bank, it is in the potentially uncomfortable position of selling credits to those projects to which it has just issued permits. PRIMARY CONCERNS: Memorandum of Agreement Successful mitigation banking requires a detailed agreement or consensus among the various resource agencies with permitting authority or other responsibildy. The more specific this agreement, the better opportunity for successful use of the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement (or MOA) should include details describing: ■ plans for the restoration or creation being proposed; ■ types of project impacts that will be allowed to use the site; ■ development areas that will be allowed to use the site; ■ mechanisms for calculating credits and maintaining an account; ■ responsibilities for long-term maintenance and operation; and ■ any other factors relevant to the specific project or site. Ownership Ownership should guarantee survival of the site in perpetuity, implying an institutional rather than a individual owner. Many agency staff and environmental organizations have expressed the opinion a wetland mitigation bank should be owned and operated by an agency or non-profit trust, fearing, perhaps, the lack of long-term commitment to maintenance on the part of the private organization. On the other hand, public agency ownership of a wetland mitigation Bank means public liability and public losses should the bank fail, or fail to sell its credits. Furthermore, if the owner is a permitting agency it is in the awkward position of issuing a permit allowing use of the bank and then selling the bank's credits to the permittee. CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK MODELS The following are a few examples of existing or proposed wetland mitigation banking projects. Elements of each model that are applicable to the City's project are mentioned briefly. Important points are in bold type. Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has operated a wetland mitigation program for several years to replace wetlands unavoidably impacted by road construction and improvements. Under this program, ITD develops mitigation sites usually in unused rights-of-way owned by ITD or on adjacent properties available for purchase. Once the wetland is established by ITD, its ownership and maintenance is given over to one of numerous public agencies, such as USFWS, BLM, USFS, IDL, IDFG. Wetlands created in excess of a mitigation project are applied to the next project. The ITD uses a ratio of 1:1, which is questionable since the replaced wetland takes a while to reach the level of functioning as the impacted one, if it reaches it at all. The ITD guidelines for location of a wetland bank include: -The bank site should be as close to the impact site as possible. -The bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impacted site. -The same public affected by an impact site should be compensated by the bank site. -The bank site should be within the same ITD district as the impact site. As one of its objectives, the ITD seeks to utilize wetland biofiltration functions to reduce the amount of pollutants entering water systems from roadways. Design and location of wetlands would therefore be related to highway run-off. One of the objectives for the ITD to make the mitigation site more manageable is to create one large wetland rather than many small wetlands and to locate the site adjacent to an existing management area. The ITD will normally bid contracts for revegetation of a wetland bank site with the provision that plant materials will be replaced by the contractor if they perish within one growing season. Use of a wetland bank to mitigate for project related wetlands impacts will require the ITD to demonstrate the following: -The activity causing a wetland impact is unavoidable. -All other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be impractical. •A functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan, and its usefulness documented by an evaluation program. As a general rule, wetland bank sites will be the same system, subsystem, and class as those impacted by development (i.e. in-kind replacement of palustrine, forested, wetlands will be accomplished by trading for the same). The 1:1 replacement ratio used by ITD is flexible at times. Exceptions to the ratio are justified when the 1 to 1 replacement is not adequate due to differences in the quality of habitat being created. This includes cases where considerable time must pass before the bank site provides the wetland functional values provided by the impacted site. Having a policy like this would seem to make possible much bending of the rules and compromised mitigation measures unless the process was strictly and honestly managed. Also, determining how long it will take a created wetland to reach a target level of functioning (if it reaches that level at all!) seems suspect, since scientific understanding of wetland creation is relatively limited. Mitigation should be done with at least a 1:1.5 ratio, as in the City's policies, to compensate for the time of development and the potential disturbances to wetland succession. The ITD states as a goal that a proper evaluation of an impact site and a wetland bank site may require the use of standardized methods capable of producing repeatable results. The goal shall be to ensure that credits given to different sites are comparable. The ITD suggests using the Corps of Engineers Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to evaluate wetland quality. Selected wetland bank sites and selected sites accepted as mitigation will be monitored to assess creation, restoration, and enhancement techniques and to evaluate the success of the wetland banking program. Astoria Airport The Astoria Airport Mitigation is a completed mitigation project on the Columbia River in Astoria, Oregon. Thirty-three acres of diked estuarine wetland have been reestablished along the Columbia River to be used as a mitigation site for impacted estuarine wetlands associated with development at the airport. An interagency Memorandum of Agreement between Oregon Div. of State Lands, ODFW, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Dev., COE, USFWS, the EPA, and NMFS was signed in 1987 outlining operating procedures and crediting process. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, all projects must be considered necessary and all measures taken to minimize or eliminate impacts prior to consideration of mitigation bank use. The bank will be owned and operated in perpetuity by the Oregon Division of State Lands. Bank credits can be used for water-dependent activities in a predesignated area. An annual monitoring report is required, with a complete evaluation of the bank after 5 years and again after 8 years. The project is similar to the City's in size. It is also similar in that both mitigation sites were previously wetlands that had been filled or diked making their chance for successful re-creation excellent. (The operating procedures and crediting process are outlined in the MOA, which is in the mail) -is this bank used only to offset airport development, or other development nearby as well? -who over saw the process?--Dept. of State Lands. -what was the order of events? did the restoration occur first (all at one time) establishing all credit, then were the credits purchased by the airport? -what was the replacement ratio? -What does the monitoring report examine? City of Everett The City of Everett is considering creating a wetland mitigation bank at their wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Public Works is exploring the concept of mitigation banking as an alternative approach to wetland mitigation. Because public works projects often have small, unavoidable impacts on wetlands associated with road widening, utility crossings, and other projects, this approach appears to be a practical alternative for the department. The Department of Public Works is considering a palustrine emergent open water wetland north of the city's sewage treatment lagoons as a mitigation site. Historically, this area was an intertidal wetland that was part of the lower Snohomish River estuary. However, the diking of Smith Island changed the site from intertidal wetland to nontidal wetland and upland area. In 1991, the Snohomish Estuary Technical Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance regarding wetland resources in the estuary. The committee consists of representatives of Snohomish County, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the City of Marysville, the City of Everett, the Snohomish Wetlands Alliance, and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. This committee has developed an overall management plan for the Snohomish River estuary. The management plan outlines eight goals for the estuary, including wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and education. Although the committee does not have any regulatory authority, it works to coordinate wetland preservation and restoration projects within the estuary. The City of Everett recently approved a wetland ordinance that identifies wetland mitigation banking as a potential mitigation tool. Mitigation banking might be allowed when the proposed project is water-dependent or water-related, when onsite or offsite mitigation is not practical, when no other reasonable use or feasible alternative with less impact is apparent, or when the impacted wetland is of lower value than the banked wetland. The ordinance gives the planning department authority to develop administrative criteria regarding mitigation banking. The city would consider mitigation banks on a case-by-case basis, applying the administrative criteria to proposed mitigation banks. As of yet, these criteria have not been developed. The city has no official position on the use of wastewater in wetlands. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation site. One is that the site would not necessarily be in the same local drainage basin as the impacted wetlands. This would result in a net loss of wetland functions and values within a particular basin. Another is that the mitigation site under consideration would probably be classified as a Category H wetland under the city's rating system meaning it already possesses moderate functional values that could not be sufficiently enhanced to mitigate the loss of impacted wetlands. Also, the use of wastewater as a potential water source for the mitigation site might not increase the functional value of the wetland. Another problem is that there is little to no area available for a sufficient upland buffer, which would be required in the enhancement project. Another potential problem is that the mitigation site was historically a brackish water wetland. This would lower the likelihood for success of freshwater mitigation projects necessary for in-kind replacement of the type of wetlands impacted by the public works department. Lastly, reed canarygrass is already established near the site and would likely out-compete other planted wetland species. Questions/ideas: -To what extent might the Transportation Dept. be able to use the bank or even staff it? -is there a Green River Valley Technical Advisory Committee and if so, should it be involved in the mitigation project? Birineer Farm Biringer Farm is a 363-acre farm located in the lower Snohomish River delta in Snohomish County. The farm is being proposed as a future mitigation site for countywide development. Under the proposal, the farm would be restored to a brackish intertidal marsh. Developers could then buy acreage in the mitigation site to offset losses associated with development in the county. This project would not replace standard mitigation procedures or the normal permitting process, but would be a means to compensate for wetland losses after all standard mitigation procedures were exhausted. Needless to say, the project has not been well received by Snohomish County because the created wetlands would not necessarily be in the same drainage basin as the impacted wetlands or have the same habitat type as the impacted wetland. The current status of this project is unknown, but is sounds suspect. It is important that the City adhere to the requirement that the mitigation site be in the same drainage basin and that the type of wetland habitat created be similar or better than the impacted wetland's. -who is developing the mitigation bank? -what is the current state of the project? -how will it operate? Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program A mitigation bank program is being considered as part of an overall wetland mitigation plan for the Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program (SAMP) in Kent. A SAMP is an interjurisdictiona.l wetland program agreed upon by the appropriate agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties. The outcome of a SAMP is a regional wetland permit that outlines development actions and predetermined mitigation approaches for wetlands within the special area. Wetlands that are to remain undisturbed are also identified. Although the Mill Creek proposal is in the very early conceptual phase, the mitigation bank is proposed to be a public entity established through an interagency agreement. An unknown acreage along the Mill Creek corridor will be enhanced and used to offset losses of specific impacted wetlands smaller than 10 acres that are of the same general habitat type and functional value. This project is still in the early stages of development, but is somewhat similar to what the City will set up. Some questions are: -if the mitigation bank is to be a public entity, who will operate it? •what will the process be? CITY OF RENTON � Mayor 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 nnn N C11 A, c, , I- T? 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. rely, 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 l City of Renton..- VALLLY WETLAND MITIG-ATIDN BANK PRO GRAM Creation Restoration Preservation 4� Jg�I City of Renton,.: VALLEY WETLAND -MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM Creation Restoration Preservation e NOMINATION „---, Here i* s your entry f Complete this entry form and mail it, along with your entry, by June 3, 1992 to: Association of Washington Cities 1076 South Franklin Olympia, WA 98501 City of Renton Valley Wetland Mitigation Bank Program Title of Project: Municipality: City of Renton Address:” '` 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton , WA 98055-2189 43,000 Population: General Entry Category (check one): ❑ 1. Up to 1,499 population ❑ 2. 1,500 - 4,999 population ❑ 3. 5,000 14,999 population ❑ 4. 15,000 - 39,999 population ❑X 5. Over 40,000 population Special Award (open to all populations) EXI Growth Management Name: Earl Clymer 11ayor Title: - -- Signature: -- Date: June 2, 1993 The 1993 AWC Municipal Achievement Awards %` �=- 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 Program Nomination 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 City Council, and the help and cooperation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Valley Wetland Mitigation Bank was conceived and is now being implemented. INTRODUCTION The Growth Management Act (GMA) 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 meet the GMA deadlines and mandates, so we began inventorying our wetlands and looking 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, some of the most important wetlands remaining in Renton, and not yet in public ownership, were located in the Green River Valley. We also had a unique situation with low quality wetlands located in the Green River Valley area as well. These low quality wetlands on individual properties were a :problem to develop and reduced owners' potential property values The presence of very high quality and low quality wetlands in the same area, were the result of historical actions in the Valley. Originally, the Green River- Valley was a flood plain with only high value wetlands. However, during the late 1960's and i970's, draining and filling program were initiated. The land reclaimed from the wetlands Nvas then used for urban purposes such as industrial, commercial, and sometimes residential uses in Renton. during that period, more than 800 acres of the 1,500 acres in the Green River Valiev were filled Many of these filled areas developed with industrial, office and ��irehousing 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 followed by animals which were attracted by the habitat, and soil conditions chanted. By 1992, wetlands had gained importance in national and local agendas, and criteria were formulated for the definition of wetlands: presence of hydric soils, presence of water; presence of L% 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2569 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 ($3-5) 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 the Country, and they wanted to improve the salability of their properties in the Valley. The City Council had just passed the Wetlands Ordinance which set the framework for a mitigation bank concept for properties meeting certain criteria within the Green River Valley, as long as there was "no net ioSs" in the subdrainage basin. Two of the larger parcels held by Glacier Park 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 higll CllanCe for SUCCeSS. The. "Sending" properties were those where the perched wetlands occurred, each wetland under one acre in size, with lower habitat value, and water sitting in depressions on the fill. After- meeting with the City and discussing the mitigation banking concept, Glacier Park donated the larger, high quality parcels to the City of Renton. The City became the "wetland banker", responsible for removing fill and maintaining 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 mitioation bank This allows these properties to become more salable, and ultimately more usable for economic development. COI\/IMUNITY BENEF'JIT Glacier Park and Burlington Northern were benefited by increased sales value on their sending parcels. The Army Corps of Engineers and the stagmembers of the State Department of Ecology supported the concept as an innovative, "win-yvin" solution to wetlands protection. The Audubon Society and Trust for- Public Land supported the trade because large blocks of existing habitat and high quality wetlands v�/ere saved and more contiguous habitat and wetlands would be created to replace lower quality wetlands. The City benefited through an increased tax base, environmental 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. Some 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 staffinia and implementation plan and schedule, wetland rehabilitation plan, and SEPA compliance, will initially cost approximately $50,000. Wetlands re-establishment may cost another $50,000 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 will also be made available through the City's Transportation Systems Division and Parks Department, and through developer's contributions. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION • "Fhe City Council approved the mitigation bank concept and site acgUisitlons, and executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with Glacier Park on May 18, 1992. The City Council's decision to acquire the site was the most critical step in the implementation of this progressive approach to \-vetland 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 ofcompletion for the wetland 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 follow The City intends to operate, maintain and monitor the mitigation site in perpetuity. EXIIIBITS Bellevue .......... .......... Issaquah eattle 16T 1``R�ON �\SA `6 �F Z NORTH r �z C J vO w� i 90 �` kwi I I I Ce dor I R/ver I sle I 169 1 I I - � I I 1 1 s o Lake n Angle Deslre Lake �- `::� Otter v Lake e Parfiher r�:.:•: ----- Coke � �\ _f 1 SPHERE OF JFLUENCE AREA on � �v \ KENT L�, \ � r le z i o z - Scol• 1n MlI— FIGURE 1 GAT o� VICINITY MAP CD o - r'* R " �— _-- ..,_ `-- Y,EST VALLEY 1(--- RR ffQ tf - ----- --- ----.---.-- — O y RR —— -'" JACKSON SW— IONOACRES RACE TRACE( 1 1 I i Ih AV S I I f xJ i -- - C OAKESOALE AV SW (^" - _ L— S P R , .� ✓ rs R a O K y G F G C p.- 1 i�� TIIC1tA N V, �tFl \po - LINO AV _ RD r -1 l VALLEY �� f1Y a A ............-, TAIBOT CREST OR lucx -J -_ uORRIS Av s ,J\`/35..^� v,�9 �� .�..._.._.___1J" 1 �•� ',,(�''(� w i^�U�\ - S9111JERS I I: 'x e i, _ lY a K M L •ti?V , t 7 J }�sil rI. � �i� �'• � ,.�;�`� r« t 1��b .�j � I j -�...� .,.�., 7.�) � 11 4 '�' silo • +yy.�. �° a � ` 777 City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank Bank sites donated to the City 1.• . ; tee a � i:1 ... • +/ '.-r... �� r 'J. �, � .t '. •A.an�,r w•• t ��+! >. _ .tom.+� �,� ^f � 'S�, 1 K a . S � I t Glacier • benefitted properties J�•�i ! 1 Y_ z. t v T all 4 Key to Slides 1. Historic remaining wetlands, probably indicative of early Valley wetlands before filling. 2. Lower quality wetlands which have evolved on depressions on fill (perched wetland) (green areas). 3. Lower quality perched wetlands - tire tracks. 4. Lower quality perched wetlands, delineated by white flag markers, showing their impact on parcel's development potential. 5. Mitigation Bank Site 1 -- existing historic wetland. 6. Mitigation Bank Site 1 -- upland fill adjacent to historic wetland. This fill would be removed to establish a contiguous wetland with the remaining historic wetland. 7. Mitigation Bank Site 2. S. Existing historic wetland on Mitigation Bank Site 2. 9. Upland habitat on Mitigation Bank Site 2. 10. Great blue heron over Springbrook Creek -- adjacent to Mitigation Bank Site 1 . L 3 r 1 1 r } C i; 4 1' P-C Imid Ei5cmcnt City of 6 Batton ;�• •'��: �y ,�, Ic �.�� FJls a r'r..f .kt1� •':-.r,.-.mot-? ..a.'�-1•-'. .�i Q 5pringbrook Creek MITIGATION BANK SITE 1 LEGEND 9 o Developable S.W.34t1r Street Parcel Total Wetland Upland aC r 9 2 9.35 1.47 7.88 8�/ V G c 5 7.17 1.07 6.10 16 6 5.86 0.22 8.64 8W 5.05 1.65 3A0 8E' 5.45 0.24 5.21 9 4.79 0.68 4.11 L " Totals 37.67 5.33 32.34 'lot3 north 1/2 Mltlgatlon Total Wetland Upland :i �+ MITIGATION BANK SITE 2 Area Parcel14 30.97 18.78 12.19 Parcel 8W (Lots 1,2) 13.93 6.77 7.16 6 Parcel BE Totals 44.90 25.55 19.35 S.W.411'et Strcct� �Il�IC IF@Ir S La11I11Qllldloldba (Genc ird vnckfty Map �� scale:i"= 609(appr•ox) (� Parcel 8W� ` Parcel 8E areas to bcI developed J 7 t e o/ 1 r s J v `7, -i.0 - •�'� �5. { .j 1! L t ! 1 ZG� Ilk Y try , ti_` �;tryTAtg sz ," fi� {` Mitigation Bank Site 2 Total Slte Area 13.93 acres Total Wetlands 6.77 acres Total Upland 7.16 acres{ �ti r ;Y +- r ..a cnhanocel wetlands 4.00 acres 3. f �' preserved wetlands 2.77 acres - �`L;••. created Scrub-shrub wetlands . K Y/.fit• created open water Oemergent planting • shrub buffer 1 C� sC1 lFum®lla 9W End 0 M BE David Evans end Associates I N R ✓ { ` � fit,>P •,� "`T.�� .� ,� r �pY, 0.ro,a '.7;P••c ',t •• a�,t-F` ' fk' fits ♦%i." ♦ .� � '• `:,• �yJ � Y,t-�•. r" yS�7 .�, u`t. ,1 r. �' ♦ 1.- .1 - '1r~•k,s;hY'(� yf�i. r w !'s •�:. 4 C ,.t � s r. Aa.f ' 4j, •1, ..� .�• � �- x�, 'r, � 'J -� 'F,.+ i OK 7 .,/ .1!f'r't' � \. r r1Y EAR ^/� �•G6FF 1 ! i, ��`t y •�+ 1'h.�: �' � ;: 74�;., <•�• � � „rl�y'rY, 9.�' * r�.� 3�7 S.-.N +. ",�..' .� ,�ti{' ,�,� 't �e<.L�s"; 11 `�',^�W 'E�j•S `. '� ''. a 1{ Y r -3 ,yy fi ., I 1 ti .t <•v yi .w T r _-�'F..� -, .�M� y i I - R e"�K '4. r � 1 '} 't r h'♦ Y•� � 33 - -'� r . ,.p Xy (fit.,r y } P ! � a ). �S, v � ,,,•�. .. �y 4• �•1 s- -•'i �k1fC.f. -•ur,�}' J.,� � h/(}f} �r` ' F �ii ' �y '!A o-.n"�'� � �`i _� �� 4i ��; -y Y 1 .�� '�%k '7 1 i'� r:� r•l {'� ,< -r. a � -'r.fQ715 rt,,4,��,,,�,`�� - � � � "'S�y � _�� \� �� „ l z __+ r� c �:.. 4x t�� t r'(��.,x�..\,•ti,� �`°.:'k ♦� � lti � ,.�. + ti • -7 kip' a' ; r r �•� h '1 • r i i ;'y !A 'I": ',,., �`•�„� / -C �. 1 Total 5ite Area 30.97 acres O opcn water Total Wetland Area 18.78 acres Total Upland Area 12.19 acres "" O emergent marsh preserved forested wetlands shrub buffer fisEfiam BEMI She a enhanced wetlands P � Y ) fi" created scrub-shrub wetland 14 �'•, formcri reed cans rays and weeds r rx+c Evans x C ASS=W s /- — — Pareel SW Farce)8E I i areas to beldevcloped I I /•.'✓mac.• — }•.1. __ _ � �' � _� ..'..l_ _ •L -- _ _— Mitigation Bank Site 2 ___ Total Site Area 13.93 acres —— Total Wetlands 6.77 acres Total Upland 7.16 acres f = — - l enhanced wetland5 4.00 acres — — — — — -� preservc5i wetland5 2.77 acres - - - - -Z created scrub-shrub wetlands —T created open water I` emergent plantings 5hrub buffer t U PE>rcgla 9'W End 3 197, OF David Evans and A,s .tt // / / f�yi' .j.,7'.r.f..t.j.r.j.j.j.t.j.j.j.j• l �� L��.��f�./1-J / /�' ti•1.5�•5.•ti• 'L•5�•ti•1�•ti•ti•ti•ti•ti•ti.ti•1.•5.•V•ti•ti•1i•ti• � � 1_ �� /1�_.1 � — —•�.-�.,t�,��r.�r.j r.�• •:• �,;{r• .f• tip• '/ — - / - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - �: j •1, / .j:j •j. j.j. j.:. j.j .l. •f• 1• •t• t• r j j• j•j• j •5.•L•'ti•ti•t•ti•5.•1. S,•ti•t• .ti .ti. i // .ti Total Site Area 30.97 acres — open water Total Wetland Area 18.78 acres Total Upland Area 12.19 acres O emergent marsh preserved forested wetlands 'j'� shrub bufferlll>Ilgffitkll®Illl 1�ffiIIll� sift enhanced wetlands� (c®ID1�C�j; tuC m1 ifig&fion Mum(formerl reed Cana rays and weeds created scrub shrub wetland PurceR 14 Dm,,d Evan and A"mlaies 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 Site 2 (Parcel 8E Lots 1,2 7.16 4.00 & 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 GLACIER PARK COMPANY RENTON LANDHOLDINGS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION BANK CONCEPTUAL PLAN PR1;PARI.n 131 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 118-r1r STREI,'r SE BEI.L.EVUI WA 98005 IN CONJUNCTION WITI1 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1PRI;I, \Izt;1) 1:Ok: G ACIGR PARK COAIPANV 101 1 WESTERN AVI;NU1;, SLiITE 700 Sr;n r ri.r , WA 98 104 FL;I3RUAin-21, 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 8W 0.99 1.65 9 0.68 0.68 totals 4.11 5.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................................................................. ._Vt! "Ith.5t_. .................. ..- - Y-_ ............................. ... .... .......... ... ... - - - .............- ...........................................A-k. Qa � City of r0 f-Channel Ea5ement Renton t� . . . :•:�':: 1 da� i ,i' 5pringbrook Creek {� MITIGATION BANK 51TE 1 LEGEND ___. 5.W.34th 5treet Developable Parcel Total Wetland Upland 8E 9 2 9.35 1.47 7.85 8 W U � o 5 7.17 1.07 6.10 p 6 5.86 0.22 5.64 8W' 5.05 1.65 3.40 8E" 5.45 0.24 5.21 J 9 4.79 0.68 4.11 Totals 37.67 5.33 32.34 Lot 3 "north 112 Mitigation Total Wetland Upland `V MITIGATION BANK 51TE 2 A rea Parcel14 30.97 18.78 12.19 Parcel 8W (Lot51,2) 13.93 6.77 7.16 & Parcel BE 1 .. ......................................................................................._................ . ._. ]ll g1 �t6lli Totals 44.90 25.55 19.35 5.W.41,,t 5treet CSIlvIl I1.;mndhoRdhgo _...._ .........__ _......._.................... ��o Gc�>mm>Y1Il nc�n>mn>t�r �II��p Q 6cale:1"= 600'(approx) Renton Parcel #2 i I Wetland Area (ac) c 0.11 I D 0.02 j / E 0.14 F 0.05 3� G G 0.77 H 0.02 j ! J 0.23 i L 0.09 0 J j M 0.02 N 0.02 D ' Total Site Area 9.35 acres Total Wctlanci Arca 1.47 acres C; 9 Data Plot Palu5trine,emergent marsh Palu5trinc,5crub-5hrub �( :5 N 17 H i1� I G � � 18 13 S.W. 34th St. waflaim(1 mmi Dait's 'l©t Mzp, . OJ kbmtcmo Lato 3 A 4 o= _•y t�d arm. scalc: 1"=125' Gacx000s Renton Parcel #5 I I 21 C f w .18 f 1s Wetland Area (ac) A 0.15 B 0.01 17 C 0.00 D 0.00 E 0.00 F 0.00 G 0.00 _ H 0.00 16) I 0.00 J 0.78 15 W 0.00 I U Y 0.00 14. Z 0.13 T al i Arc a 7.17 crc5 at 5 to e a 13 Tcral Wetland Area 1.07 acrc5 2 E 11 Data Plot (i Z UPalu5trine,emergent marsh 0 v G Palustrine,scrub-shrub 8 E 7J O D O -�I C A O ® ' 6a . t. VB-11IM(1 aM(d Data lKst Maio OOO UU ' Scale: 1" -150 �9 Lattz 2 A Ddv+G Evans eno�assxaies — GPCXCCM Renton Parcel A I S.W. 27th Srcct Fj R Wetland Area (ac) K A 0.03 AA 0.00 B 0.05 C 0.0, 0 0.00 E 0.02 F 0.00 G 0.08 H 0.00 H 1 0.00 �� K 0.03 7 L 0.02 > m 0.00 Q Total Site Area 5.86 acres Total Wctland Area 0.22 acres Data Plot rJ � a Palu5trine,emergent marsh F \1 C 0 Palu5trine, Scrub-shrub U 6 A E90 O L3 ' 10 -------------------- S.W. 29th Street WBflaam6 mnd Dmim Plot Location Mal; Scale:1" tOQ' Rl amtom: Block 19 Lot 12 = GPC%OOGS Renton Parcel #8E i S.W.34th 5t. � i i I O e I I � A 3� I 1 I I O I i F-G i I / Wetland Area lac) A 0.05 6 0.19 F-G 2.39 Total 5ita Arca 9.25 acres Total Wctland Area 2.6Z acres I Data Plot Palu5trine,emergent marsh match linc match line Paluotrine,forested WV129ML Cat D&Ttn PIVI M921Do ��1lU scale:1°=200' R amt- CMo Mack 9, Lu¢ ..a�+0 Cvon�ono AeGxwloa GPc)a)OCS Renton Parcel #8W tK � iI 2 n E C 7 D Lot 3 I � I 4 Wetland Area (ac) F_G, C 1.4b I j D 0.07' / E 0.12 F-G 1.57 i H 3.26 j ® ! fl Total 5itc Area 15.15 acres I Lot 2 Total Wetlarvi Area 6.48acrc5 j I i UnSu-cycl j/ Lot 1 I I 6/ / Data Plot i I Palustrine,emergent marsh j I O i/ I Palustrine,fore5ted I I / I i � i I i I � - I I I I i I i i Waflu d smd Datz Flat MmPo :PD C(B*2,u--) ea�oev�ncx,c:.uu_.uas scale 1 _200' GPCXD .S Renton Parcel #9 I S.W. 34th St. 1 I J l l 10 Wetland Area (ac) F 5 0.07 C 0.15 D 0.00 I` B F 0.04 OH 0.02 8 J 0.40 3, C Total Sitc Arca 4.79 acrc5 O7 Total Wctland Arca 0.65 acrc5 D 5' Data Plot (D Palustrinc,emergent marsh Palustrinc,scrub-shrub W5112,1 (d Cmd Data Flat Mateo ��1101� scale 1"=ioo, Asmittam: Block 5 Dentl Evans and Assoc�a�es - C?C)OW' Renton Parcel #14 1 s / z / 7 j•' / 19 � ,o �9 1, • .24 3 / / 14 203 / (12 Le end Wetland Area Classification J 0.14 acres Scrub-shrub L 0.73 acres scrub-shrub M 17.91 acres emergent, Scrub-shrub, forested Total Wetland Area 18.78 acres Total Upland Area 12.13 acres Total Site Area 30.97 acre! Data Plot C Wvslla xid zmd Data Plot Location Map. Je 5cai�- r"=300, Ii�6a��om 'sTC51 Via} Dana Evans ana Assoca1es GFCY.D005 GLACIER PARK COMPANY RENTON LANDHOLDINGS MITIGATION BANK CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN y / Ix Total 51te Area 30.97 acres /�enhanceabie wetlands 4.03 acres Total Wetland Area 18.78 acre! preserved wetlands �llLll ffi�Il®IIIl ��llll� She � 5caic: 1"�200' Total Upland Area 12,19 acres 14.75 acres � I�Rll��ilffil� �®ffi�Il�Il®IlII� c JJ�UIJU Paurcc R 4 Dm,id Uses wed Assoclales I j r I Parcel 8W — — � — — — — — —parcel 8E Lott Lot 4 areas to be developed I I Lot2" 5.00 acres — — — Lot 3 C.51 acres 2.26 acres i 1.00 acres / / Mitigation Bank Site 2 / / Total Site Area 13.93 acres / Total Wetlands 6.77 acres / Total Upland 7.16 acres enhanceable wetlands 4.00 acres preserved wetlards 2.77 acres scale:1"= 200' David Evans and Associates GPCX0005 STUDIES/REPORTS NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IfIY1l!■p.Ol!\ GLACIER PARK COMPANY Law 'ana_gemen;{or Increased Oowi unities — L r . 1992 July 9, 1992 The Honorable Earl Clymer Mayor City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton , WA 98055 Dear Mayor Clymer: Over the last several months Glacier Park Company has been involved in a number of transactions that have heavily involved the city of Renton . As we get ready to close our doors , I can't help thinking back over the extraordi - nary effort that has been required on the part of everyone to achieve what we have accomplished together. The wetland mitigation bank agreement and sale of wetlands to the City will , I believe, be viewed as a landmark transaction , and the Home Base project will have lasting benefits for the community as well . It is quite clear that we could not have accomplished so much without the extraordinary efforts of the city of Renton . I have very deeply appreciated your support and that of the City Council . But I am writing to you today primarily to thank you for the extra efforts of your staff. In particular, I want to recognize Jay Covington, Larry Warren, Lynn Guttmann, Lenora Blauman, Don Erickson, Mary Lynne Myer, Arlene Haight, Bob MacOnie, Marilyn Peterson, Mike Dotson, and other support staff. Without these individuals none of our accomplishments would have been possible. You and the City Council should be very proud of the talented and capable staff you have assembled in the City. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors on behalf of the city of Renton . Sincerely, Karen E . Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc 6. kel .028 cc: M. L. Sevier Mark W. Stiefel 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington 98104.•206-467.650;, A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources lnc. Glacier Part: Property and the East Side Green River Valley Watershed TIMELINE April, 1959 A large portion of the 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 Green River Valley. The P-1 channel for flood control is proposed as a part of this workplan. Februa►y, 1969 Glacier Park applies for rezone of roughly 300 acres from G (General) to M-P (Manufacturing Park) and H-1 (Heavy Industrial). (R-560-69) Septembeil•/Octobe►• 1969 Glacier Park asks the City to suspend processing or their rezone application until it clarifies its intent for those properties December, 1969 Glacier Park verbally gives the "go ahead" to pursue the rezone for part of their application. The Renton City Council approves the rezone for a portion of the area. The zoning designation changes 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 (EIS) can be completed. June, 1974 The Renton 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 ag_=rees to require that at least two percent (2%) of each new development within the flood control zone be set aside for wildlife habitat. In addition, the City agrees that all areas within the flood control zone that are not needed or used shOuld be planned and managed for wildlife open space until such time that they are needed for development. (Res. 1923) April, 1975 Glacier Park applies for a till 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 rees to exclude a 20-acre wetland and the P-t channel from their rezone g application. November, 1975 Planning staff notes that, although 20 acres of the site designated as greenbelt have been excluded from the rezone and will be left in G zoning, a remaining portion of the proposed fill areas is also designated for greenbelt by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that the remaining 80 acres of the proposed fill area in greenbelt designation 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 Ordinance 1924 have been determined. November, 1975 The City receives a petition with 38 signatures protesting the proposed fill of 80 acres of marshland. December, 197-5 The first phase of fill permits are issued December, 1975 The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezone requests as proposed by the applicant. December, 1975 Burlington Northern sends a letter to the City Council expressing their intent to donate 20 acres . of land to the City and reserve land for the P-I channel, to help the City satisfy the requirements of Ordinance 1924 and to finish the Valley Drainage Plan. Burlington Northern expresses that the 20-acre donation can be sold and used to purchase other wetland areas if the City so desires. December 1975 "fhe Audubon Society objects to rezone and fill 80 acres of potential wetland and wildlife habitat area on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. December, 1975 The City Council removes 80 acres from the pending rezone and fill permit requests pending further information and study. February, 1976 Burlington Northern notes that it does not :wish to give up additional acreage, but that it would be willing to allow the City cone-year option to purchase the remaining 37 acres at $10,000 per 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 two percent (2%) wetland habitat requirement of Resolution 1924.. ..._-...-. -___...._•___•" .�_ ...."._ ._..-_....�._. :aE« _.m.�,.��.�^.t�a. "�,..�,.<`5^.w��ss'�`{ __..s`,'� `1m.'h"'ir�i.'t,�S.u�iSu -.Y�.:'"s �"`"-,^.``3' '�-�..�- `"a"d�.',a"'>aka-�.:, .S�i March, 1976 Rezone of 271 acres from General (G ) to Manufacturing Park (M-P) and Heavy Industry (H-1) is approved by the City Council. The 20 acres donation lot is excluded frorn 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 Planning Commission also adds 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. 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-i 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 February 1978. (PP- 086-77) ® May, 1978 Glacier Park submits Division 1 final plat application to the City of Renton. July, 1978 Division I of the final plat is approved by the Renton City Council. These parcels become available for subsequent development. (FP-176-78) January, 1979 Glacier Park applies to Renton for approval of Division 11 of the final plat. February, 1979 King County requests that approval of Division 11 final plat be delayed until completion of the feasibility study on the detention alternative 1or the East Side Green River Watershed Project. February, 1979 Division 11 Final Plat is approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. Questions remain about alignment of drainage system, however, the Hearitia Examiner concluded that these issues are not sufficient to delay approval of the plat. The Hearing Examiner noted that the plan may need to be modified if Springbrool: Creek were expanded, however, the other alternatives were adequately accommodated in the plat. (FP-278-79) 01 March, 1979 Division II Final Plat is approved by the Renton City Council. These parcels become available for subsequent development. June, 1979 Environmental Impact Statement for East Side Green River Watershed Project is issued. August, 1979 Glacier Park requests permission to fill remaining 39 acre site. .-august, 1979 The Renton City Council goes on record as not being in the position to acquire the additional 39 acres of the site for wetlands due to a lack of available funding. September, 1979 The City's 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 stora<ge until permanent flood control measures were implemented The Department concluded that a new application for fill ofthis site was required. November, 1979 Glacier Park submits application environmental checklist to fill 25 acres of the site. (SP-451-79) February, 1980 A declaration of environmental significance (DS) is issued for the fill application triggering the need for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Februa►-)-, 1981 Burlington Northern requests that the City pay for the cost of an Environmental Impact Statement in compensation to.Burlington Northern for withdrawing the site from the original fill permit application. February-v, 1981 City responds that pre-established rights to fill the site do not exist and that the proposed fill application must undergo full environmental revie\% 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 the revised plan. 1982 Local 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 the 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 East Side Green River Watershed ` Plan. 1990 City begins environmental review of additional revised elements of the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. 1992 City of Renton and Glacier Park Company sign Wetland N-Iitigation Bank Agreement for Valley • properties. May, 1993 City selects consultant selected to develop the physical plan for the wetlands mitigation bank. • Valley Daily News December 16, 1991 Re'"in: ton SE'E' S wetlands balance Of.environmental t .i economic Jntere.sts By DEAN A.RADFORD .Valley Deily News': :'•'.`: !• `. t RGNTON-Glacier Pbrk Ca.owns 550 acres of induslrial land in:lhc Green'River•ValicyiP'.: 4 :'•�:� says i1 praciically worthless because of wct ,� .lands: . i-, ' . . _ ii�� t p r t .'Of lhat550 acres,.400 have:wetlands,leaving: nboul 156 acres of usable land, Marty Seyicr,"r the company':s senior director of development,!-, said Friday. ..• .. � s, r � In 1990,King County said the land was svorih Y, $68 million.Glacier Park appealed,and the val- uc was lowered to S34 million,after the conipa ny showed how wetlands."had.devalued the Valley Dnlly News photo by DUANE NAMAMUHA land,':Scvicr said:. Wetlands area west of East Valley Road,north of S.W.27th Street In Renton. The company.plans to appeal ihe.1991 prop arty value,possibly lowering it by S25 million,'. Scvier said. In Renton alone, the company oWns ,eo�� , Ne�nr ordinance not eas r to write 220 acres and "out of those, we have GO acres Y that we consider to be usable at die moment,'' ' ' I T t' ( T fit r' I tr{;. ,°:' " r•c•t., r•.; Scvicr said. (By DF1tN A:RAD�ORD. + i t Whether the brdinance achieves line bat- 1 Corsi anies like Glacier Park,a subsidiary of r Valloy.Dally News, p y I I t ,anc(c Won l be khotiyn dnlil the ordinance Burlington Northern Resources Inc., say Rcn- I Y RL'NTON ''The city;s planning staff has 4�gobs;before the City'Couh6l, which must somas proposed wetlands ordinance constitutes a mad six lilies to waste wetlands(ordinance , 5ad6pt at leasi interim regulations•by March,,.':' "taking"of their properly value. 1,dtaCiiclikv,es sotne.lofiy'goals l''? + r,'r'r, ;Mary 1 ynhc�Mycri°the ciijf's pritfciphl "No and talks about paying the landowner for, AI J'City policy;'the v�diliance salsa is �,tti bat r I,long-range planncri has directed work on the ' taking.his properiy: If you're going to declare ;r ahce coutmtinily deslres.for�cofiomlc evel ordmancc,sincc-is.hc joined Uic cily's staff 'my land unusable; then pay nee for it,". Scvicr r opincnl and affordable hoe<mg wdh'.tlic 1 Apnl Shc is responsible fur the Update of the , said. ; ' resptinsrbility io roam the city s.runalrhng +' i See BALANCE,A5 r wetlands t-li l„ r -1 , ! I t > _See ORDINANCE,A5 dalion to the City Council, which protecting mud puddles and over. not to pay any more money on LIDS BALANCE. has renal say on the ordinance. protection is what I object to," he because there is no benelit,absolule- Public hearing "The balance we have tried to said. ly none," said Scvicr, whose cony strike - but we're leaving it up to (.Mayor Earl Ciymcr said he thinks pang is paying$I million for street slated Wednesday public comment - is to alto«• for the business community's philoso- and utility improvcntcnls. ' Continued from pago At properties to be developed and still phy is being expressed on the corn- Glacier Park is trying to sell its ensure the wctland values and func- mission. "This is a change and his land holdings in South King County. The payments, he said, "would (ions can be replaced," said Mary causing consternation among some The Planning Commission, in probably casd the pain." Lynne Myer, the city's long-range and happiness for others," he said. removing wctland buffers from (he Scvicr said local governments also planner responsible for the wetlands "We're trying to strike a balance, policy-selling Comprehensive Plan lose money. His company will pay ordirrancc and (he 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 :t major share was She stressed the ordinance would one involved." wetlands and the relationship of the Renton's,"he said. not render land undevelopablc. Sin- Whetlicr a wetlands ordinance ordinance to the land-use plan. Since April, Renton has worked glc-family housing is excnipt,as are constitutes a "taking" of property, Buffers, Myer said, "are an intc- on an ordinance to prolcct its dwin- wetlands less than 2,200 square fed. was decided by the state Supreme gral part of the functioning of any dling wetlands, which;ire crucial to Joan Walker,a planning commis- Court in hearing a 1990 chnllenge to wctland" that remove pollutants, flood and slormwnicr control and siuncr, said she "needs to lisicn to King County's sensitive areas ordi- slow runoff and offer n transition provide habitat for many species of the public hearing nod have the peo- nance. between man's activities and plants and wildlife.An initial allaly- ple who own the property tell me Larry Warren, Renton's city natures. sis shows (he 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 acid plateaus stantially advance the public interest of"no net loss of weflands." Glacier Park arc cnvironmcninl who might have wetlands on their in safety,health,wclfarc or(hecnvi- Clint Lank, manager of the cnvi- groups and wctland advoctucs who property. ronment. As,such, they were not ronnicntal division of King County's warn dcvclopnent is destroying Bill Taylor, a planning commis- chnllengable as 'takings' but rather Parks, Planning and Resources nature's plumbing sys(ent, which sioncr and former Longncres cxecu- had to be chaltcngcd on due process Division, agrees. can control floods more efficiently live,said,"I(hink there is a balance grounds." "King County believes that pro- and cheaper than any of man's that needs to be achieved between The duc-process provision rankles tecling wetlands without pro(cciing attempts. 'the needs of the enyironnicnt and the Sevier,who has talked to Ilis conipa- adequate buffers will not preserve SonicMierc is n middle ground,a rights of the property owners and the ny's attorney's about the issue. the in(cgrity of wetlands,since many balance(hat will keep business and economic realities of the city of Rcn- "They have restrictCd the land by of the functions and values of wcl- the economy healthy and prolcct the tort•" - the delays in processing the per- Innds depend upon the condition of environment• officials say, But Taylor-rcars the ordinance init." Sevier said. adjacent vcgclulcd buffer," Lank The city's Planning Commission "goes far beyond Mint is required in Sevier also wonders why property wrote in a letter. will take public testimony on the growth ntanagenicn( legislation and owncrs should pay for local Without butlers• he said the city's ordinance's sixth draft at a public is clearly a major infringenicnt on improventeni districts when they Comprehensive Plan may conflict hearing at 7:30 p.m. Wcdnesduy in the rights of properly owncrs. 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 sis(cnl with the stales goal of coor- Hall.It will then;red it.rrrnmmrn- protect our significant wetlands.But would, but my recommendation is dina(ed land-use plans. ORDINANCE: �'1Cy've uccep'e"a fair amount she said. benefits. of input,"said DO Rowan.manager Rowan said he doesn't care which Some of the ordinance's key pro- of government arf airs for file Boeing manual is used,although"tine 1987 visions arc: City showing Iowing Co.in Renton. "'file city is showing rules ore less restrictive and less der- ■ Three wclland categories, r r :m excellent openness of mind." inite as to what constitutes a wel- ranging from large wetlands with openness of mind Dul Sevier and Rowan say the city land." I Ic wants everyone to agree, open water to wetlands That "are xtill h::s a ways to ItO.They w:aat the on one set of stand;:rds, severely disturbed" hccausc of fill- Conllnuou from pogo At city to use wclland definitions con- Everyone agrees the idea urn wet- ing. the presence of toxic clement, taincd in a 1987 U.S.Army Corps of .hands bank, a controversial idea to or isolation from other wctlunds. city',Comprehensive Ilan and oily Engineers manual.•Ile city is using fill marginal well:tads and Then crc- ■ Uuffcr zones ranging from 25 cr land-use documents. definitions in a 1989 corps manual. ate or enhance similar or more sig- feet to 300 feel, depending on the Myer and the city's planning staff Rowan said the business conmtu- nificant wetlands elsewhere, and wetland's classification and its have researched environmental nity would have to make Iwo appli- buffer averaging will give the ordi- . shoreline designation. issues• conducted focus groups, cations. one using the 1987 regula- wince flexibility. ■ Larger buffers to protect talked with state officials :and lions and one for 1989's•if the city', The ordinance also has provisions unique wetlands. reviewed the ordinance with other wetlands ordinance is enacted. for appeals if n landowner thinks the • Minimum wclland size of jurisdictions. "That is a larger burden than we ordinance denics.him "reasonable 2.200 square feel and exemption of Liven its critics and other obscrv- should have to bear," Rowan said. u,c" 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 ■ Average wclland 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 9c1 a definition."But file city is bound not within its sphere of influcnce. It 3 times or G limes Ile area altered, good ordinance," said Marly L. by federal mandate,.bu( by King found wetlands in the Green River depending on the wclland calegury Sevier.senior director for develop- County's decision to use Ile 1989 Valley"were lower quality,proynd- and vegetation. mcnl for Glacier Park Co.,,which corps manual. in flood storage find storm drain- ■ No net loss of wetlands func- owns hundreds of acres of land in the "AI this point the 1989 manual age,"Myer said,but were still wor- lions and acreage and if possible,an Green River Valley. best protects everyone's interests." Illy of protecting because of their increase in wetlands. I Valley Daily News February 16, 1992 t Ce on Wedan- ' P� ose O i balances en nment stress By EARL CLYMER Growth Management Act, [`ne new regu- ot too long ago,I thought wetlands Guest opinion lations will be a critical tool for imple- were "swamps", and not much menting the city's:updated 6omprehen- good for anything. Filling them to slue plan, ad for bringing more i provide land for Water. In addition to providing a nutri- certainty to therdevelopment process. businesses and ent-rich environment for plants and ani- Can we have new houses and busi- mals, they protect water quality by trap- nesses and still reserve wetlands?.Yes! homes seemed like a p ping sediments and retaining pollutan[s The Wetlands: Management Ordinance good idea. In fact, g 3 before the enter streams or aroundwa- .' ` until the 1970's, fed- y a will allow development, but also main- ;, 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- nd reduce soil erosion Hance, and many changes were made as agricultural and eco- prevent flooding a nomic development: which are serious problems when areas a result-of these meetings and conversa- Fortunately, in the become urbanized. Wetlands also pro- tions. People have told us over and over i AL last few years we vide open space and habitat for birds and again how important it is to have a regu- I have learned that wetlands are important animals. As the city grows, wetlands lation that balanced economic and env[- and provide a variety of benefits. Now can provide visual relief from buildings, Yonmental objectives. we realize that the loss of swamps and streets and parking lots. Within urban Citizens and property owners will 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.[nity 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 i 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. e Valley Daily News April 9, 1992 K City aims for deal on wetlands Glacier Park_ ,. . . ,,,•,..,:,, fi•,•:7 ,,.,;; land may be key By T.M.SELL Valley Daily News !f ',!:::; t,ra„t'r. ^ ^ y`.• RENJ*ON—'tlrc city is racing to i n beat the auctioneer's gavel to corn c 1ti r:11.Aa1.�n i�J•1" 1: plete an unusual(teal that could pre ": ,�r,,,R,• I ,`; serve acres of V.-illcy floor wetlands As part of?hc liquidation of its ;. ).. ' Gaf f eyy,;rl ;t Glacier Park real estate holdings, Y ' =Uy TX SELL. Burlington Resources is selling 13 '.Vallo Dan Nows', parcels totaling 174 ncics south of ti. ; I Lorigacres in the Orillia Business • twenty-four Valley fltior.par Park. ;.ccls of land will bc.pad of ii$90'•�j; Most of (lie land has been filled, ?+iillionntatiotiwidc'.rca� (stale„ and one site is paved and is being ;nuclion.ofClacicrPark:Cci�lartd:� leased by The Bociug Co, as a park- later Uiis month I, ing lot. But even the filled sites have '1'hc .local p trcels; ,n>oslly., - developed minor wetlands that !Toned for.indusirial uscsi:rtuigcI:.' include vegetation and waterfowl in siae:fronr;l:4ao 115,acresi ,� . habitat. and`�'rangc•..nt juice;-,frorn'ti, The parcels range from 3.75 acres $100,000 to$2.7 million+:`..' ;;.''';. to more than 77 acres. 'l'wo of the ,'1'Irosc arc published reserves tracts,one cast and one west of Oak- f—the minimum price Uurlinglon i,. csdale Avenue Southwest near Resources hopes to,gct-as;it liq-j Southwest 34th Street, have not ;.uidatcs its (onncr.reali estate( ' bear completely filled and include dcvelojnnent corirpany ;P,riccss significant wetlands drat approxi_ could -go lower ror highcrfr, male the Valley's original, pristine depending otil M6l. hap cns state,city planners say. die auction:. Glacier Park wants to 4wap Ren- .:'-1•-ocal:land for'salc lnclutics'�, ton the major wetlands for the right two com incrciat sites;i+ln':t I o fill the minor wellands. Fillin Auburn, including 2.:507acre'.;: those properties would make thc. parcel near. the Frcd�Mcycc i.` More marketable,and the city would store; two Auburn industrial' be able to establish a"wetlands rail- sitcs; eight Kcnt industrial siics;••• igation bank" to help preserve natu- aid: 14 paictls iri the Orillia rat ~,rabitat in th Uusioess Park in Rcnton e rapidly growing •,. area. Karen Lane, vice prc'lderr,t of: Both sides claim credit for the development for Glacier Park in idea.'hhc auction takes place May 2 Seattle, said potential buyers::.' in Bellevue. ]"lie Renton Cily Coun- See AUCTION;A5 cil is expected to approve the swap at its Monday meeting. In the rnciotinrc, everyone the next few weeks. Depending on involved is waiting to hear if the that dccision, the permits could be U.S. Army Corps of Enginccrs will granted quickly or slowly. sign offon the deal. City Planner Mary Lynne Myer A Corps of Engineers spokes- said she hopes approval conics woman in Seattle said a decision on before the land is sold.Glacier Park I ow to process Glncicr Park's many — similar applications is expected in See WETLANDS,A5 �' AUCTION. "If you're the seller, t►te draw- WETLANDS. backis that you may not gel it sold, Most parcels period," said Kirk Johnson, a prin- Plan would preserve erp al with Trammell Crow in Seat- tie. "or it'11 bring in such a low almost pristine land include wetlands 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 dots not give adequate time officials say (here'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 properly at auction, with lands. kct for industrial property is as flat the wetlands impact on these proper- "if we lose this opportunity then as (lie Valley floor, however. What tics, 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 Scgner. afford them." Tim Rcinertscn,senior vice presi- Glacier Park's Lane said although The Oakesdale Avenue sites, dens of Rcaky Marketing/Northwesl all the Valley sites have wetlands on together about 50 acres, include in Bellevue, said (lie 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 cly of waterfowl arid wildlife, dendal proper(ies. with Renton, subject to U.S. Army including deer,she said. "We have kind of pioneered rite 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 (ics," he said. The Finn has been in wc(lands 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. Rcinertscn said the auction pro- values have stayed even or declined "Filling those low spots will sub- cess, because said the company's full- in the last 12 months in South King stantially improve the utility of those County. Depressed real estate and parcels," and thereby lice price, she color booklet listing all the proper- (its, exposes the land to thousands financial markets elsewhere in the said. of potential buyers. said the firm nation make it harder to borrow Once the city got(he land, it could Typically sells percent to he per- money to develop projects, and charge developers to fill wetlands on of the properties it auctions at industrial rents haven't followed their sites and use the money to cent (heir residential cousins in (he Seat- expand wetlands on the Oakcsdale one tof the tie area. property. Creating a_sizab[c wcl- "We really feel like we do conic "I don't know how many people lands reserve would creak 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. kct," Rcinertscn said. 13e.predicted Thal the auction pric- "It's been a very productive rela- "An auction serves a, purpose es will be "significantly lower" lionship with Glacier Park and when you're in a liquidation mode," than the published reserves. we've really appreciated it," Myer s;tid Jerry Mathews,co-chairman of "You're not going to get top dollar said. Kidder, Mathews and Scgner. Inc., today," in Seattle. It assumes that either a The auction will run April 21 good buy is available or that several ([trough May 2. Scaled bids are Valley Daily News May 18, 1992 Auction could benefit wetlands By T.M.SELL projects in exchange for creating Valley Daily News 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-deve!op- 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 Corns 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 tc, 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 debt 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. Seattle Times April 27, 1992 Auction : Last sales try for valley land Wetlands bog down Glacier's marketing So far, Trillium rkuparcels has bo g 1 ral of 500 undeveloped industrial acres we sBut tem an pre d ncet r wetlands Wetlands restrictions has made some of the parcels, Were not the only by John H. Stevens The company has developed especially in the Kent Valley, Times South bureau shopping malls, homes, condo- tough to sell. problems Glacier mimums and the Serniahmoo The auction is our last, mas- Glacier Park Co. next month resort in Blaine. It also owns sive marketing effort," said Ka- Park 'had in selling its. will auction some of the last large 95,000 acres of timberlands in ren Lane, vice president of devel- Parcels of undeveloped industrial the state. "We'll sell or develop it opment for Glacier Park. Kent Valley land. The and in the Kent Valley. as industrial land, but we do not The Kent Valley land has been Much of the 500 acres in Kent, have a specific industrial-park appraised at about $30.million. company also Would Auburn and Renton, once owned development in mind," said Jean Gorton said Trillium has paid by the Burlington Northern Rail- Gorton,Trillium vice president of "bargain prices" for Glacier Park not give some road, may be impossible to devel- planning. land,-but neither company would op because of wetlands restric- Wetlands considerations disclose dollar amounts. potential buyers tions, according to a study by could affect the use of the land. A Wetlands restrictions were not enough time to Glacier Park, a subsidiary of Canadian company, ' IntraWest the only problems Glacier Park Burlington Resources. Development Corp., had an op- had in selling its Kent Valley secure building 11 The-land_i: being put up for tion to buy the land last year but land. The company also would g auction sale, along with 7,000 killed the deal after the wetlands not give some potential buyers permits. acres in other states. Trillium study. enough time to secure building Corp., a Bellingham-based devel- Glacier Park was formed two permits. The company wanted oper, has agreed to buy whatever years ago to liquidate land once buyers to make final decisions on is not sold at auction.. owned by the Burlington North- the land within 90 days after for a year to 18 months to set up Trillium officials will not say ern in Washington and other signing an option. But delays in the deal, and the sales fell what they plan to do .with any states. It has sold 80 percent of winning building permits forced through when Glacier balked at Kent Valley land they acquire. the land in its original portfolio. many buyers to ask Glacier Park the extra time. Daily Journal of Commerce July 2, 1992 Wetlands banking may help developers and wetlands BY KATHRYN SMITH of wetland he fills rathcr.than creat- buys from the city's stock of wet- in advance of any development, Journal staff reporter ing new ones on his property. lards,said Mary Lynne Meyer, city many agrcc. "It could possibly be cheaper planner. And second, the program would Wetlands mitigation banking and definitely more .convenient," "We were lucky because we had remove Hassles faced by develop- may become an effective tool for said Ronald D. Kranz, vice presi- some of the old wetlands tliere," ers. Often, trying to create or developers wishing to build on wet- dent and director of natural resour- said Mary Lynne Meyer. About 20 protect wetlands can be a headache. lands-laden property, according to ces at David Evans & Associates. years ago, wetlands on the city's "While they (regulations) are two wetlands experts. The bank can be created and property had been filled so it is just designed to protect the resources, Alison Moss, an attomey with operated by agencies, non-profit or- a matter of digging down 8 to 10 they are costing the ,property Bogle & Gates, and Karen Lane, ganrzations or private entitles. feet to create a wetland. owners enormously with qucs- vice president of development at Glacier Park Co., a large property It can cost up to$300,000 an acre tionable results," Lane said. Glacier Park Co., were among other owner, will be doing its wetlands to create a valid wetland in some Wetland mitigation for the Koll speakers at a series of land use banking with the city of Renton, areas,she said. Cordata Retail Centre in Whatcom workshops held recently throughout Lane said. The wetland mitigation bank County ended up costing the devel- the state. The workshops were The city recently concluded a should be nearby the property being oper about $2 million and 18 sponsored by Bogle&Gates. deal with Glacier Park to establish developed — whether sharing the months of construction time, said Wetlands delineation- can be a a wetland mitigation banking same drainage basin or within the Moss, a specialist in critical area confusing and costly process for program — the first in die area. same jurisdiction. and wetland regulation. many developers. But some say The company owned an 83-acre "There are no hard and fast rules The wetlands consisted of 5.3 that a fairly new method of protect- parcel in the Green River Valley to follow here but there are goner- acres of a 31-acre parcel. Following ing wetlands could prove to be the which had numerous wetlands, ally political and biological param- mitigation, about 14 acres had been best compromise between develop- making it unattractive to develop- eters to follow," Kranz said. reserved for protection of wetlands mcnt and the cnvironmcnt. crs. There arc two main advantages on the site in the form of buffers, Mitigation � banking involves A prograni was set up whereby with the banking program, sup- additional wetlands and enhance- creating a large supply of wetlands the company gave 45 acres of the porters say. menu. near a future development site in land to the city for a wetlands bank. First, the wetlands are bigger and order to compensate for negative. The remaining 38 acres is more of a higher quality than the smaller, impacts to wetlands on site. usable now because a developer sporadic wetlands developers create A developer can buy credits from does not have to worry about work- on site. It is also advantageous to the '`wetland bank" for every acre ing around wetlands — he merely have successful wetlands in place CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK GENERAL CONCERNS: ■ Large wetlands are generally thought to have greater habitat values than a collection of smaller areas, although there is also some recognition of the value of small wetlands scattered throughout the landscape, especially when their water quality and flood desynchronization functions are considered. ■ Wetland mitigation is still a relatively new technique, and failures are not uncommon. Wetland creation and restoration is not impossible, but it does require a combination of careful planning with a solid understanding of the physical and biological characteristics of these complex habitats, both from those who design wetlands and from those who review and approve those designs. ■ Development of a wetland mitigation package should consider the functions and values of the existing habitat at the site. Although wetlands are often recognized as high value habitat, they are not the only habitat that should be considered. ■ The success of a mitigation bank proposal is totally dependent on the concurrence of all agencies with regulatory involvement before any action is taken. Every existing mitigation bank has been predicated on some Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Corps, EPA, USFWS, and state regulatory agencies. The need for a MOA is crucial, since no existing protocol is yet available from federal and state agencies. TECBNICAL/ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS: Criteria for Success The success of habitat creation must first be measured against the stated goals and objectives. Goals might include: the amount of vegetation that survives three years after planting; or establishment of a specific hydrologic regime. Even if the stated goal is not achieved, the project results should be reevaluated against an overall goal for the ecosystem. Maintenance of Success Maintenance of a wetland falls into two broad categories: maintenance of the physical conditions necessary to ensure survival of wetland species and elimination or exclusion of unwanted pests or competitors for wetland resources. Wetland mitigation should be designed to incorporate these concerns in a manner that minimizes the need for human intervention (i.e. controlling flows with valves). Hydrology is generally the most critical physical factor to maintain. Wetlands predicated on some natural hydrologic regime have a much greater chance of survival than those based on a more erratic, and less "natural" regime, such as storm water from an urbanized area. Water quality is another physical factor to be considered. Instances where the quality of water entering the wetland is dependent on some human intervention, such as cleaning a catchbasin, will make maintenance greater to ensure success. h Techniques to Determine Credits Several techniques have been developed to evaluate the functions or values of wetland habitats, but no one technique is preferred by all the various agencies. Acceptable methods include: ■Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) ■Wetland Evaluation Techniques (WET 2.0) ■Wetland Values (Reppert, et al. 1979) What is most important is not which technique is used, but that all agencies agree to its use and to the particular parameters employed. Once a technique has been accepted it should be applied to existing site conditions as well as future functional gains. Credits within the bank should be reassessed on a regular basis. Restoration sites will "mature" over time, presumably with a change in function. Offsite Impacts Design of the mitigation project should ensure that no offsite impacts occur, such as flooding and seepage. REGULATORY CONCERNS: Relation of WMB to County-wide Wetland Protection Efforts Wetland mitigation banking is one tool for coordinating mitigation efforts with the goal of maximizing the opportunities for successful creation or restoration. It is not the only nor most important tool and should not be considered as a substitute for preservation. In many cases avoidance of wetland impacts remains the most effective approach for protecting wetland resources. In some cases, however, preservation of small isolated wetlands, even with a suitable buffer will ultimately result in the loss of wetland functions. Wetland mitigation banking should be considered an approach to minimize watershed or regional wetland losses when avoidance or other mitigation on the site is not possible or will not result in adequate protection of the resource. Responsibility for Maintenance, Monitoring, and Ownership Responsibility for initial establishment, maintenance, and monitoring may differ from long-term ownership and maintenance. Once the mitigation effort has proven successful and the bank credits have all been used, most proponents are not interested in continued responsibility. Long-term ownership, operation, and maintenance of wetland mitigation banking sites is a major issue of concern for regulatory agencies. If mitigation is to be established "in perpetuity" a need exists for an institution to accept responsibility for the site in perpetuity. Wetland Impacts That Can Be Mitigated 'y Resource and regulatory agencies frequently have expressed concern that wetland mitigation banking will be used to circumvent the regulatory process. Most agencies agree that the following sequence of actions should be applied to a project before any wetland creation or restoration to compensate for impacts: ■ Avoid the impact ■ Minimize the impact G ■ Reduce the impact ■ Restore the site after the impact: or ■ Compensate for the impact through replacement. Any project proposing to use a wetland mitigation bank should be able to show that design options have been investigated to reflect this mitigation sequence. Mitigation Actions Appropriate for Banking Enhancement is not well received as mitigation by natural resource agencies since the result is a net loss in wetland area, even if there is a gain in wetland function. Creation is the most uncertain approach. Restoration is generally perceived as the approach with the greatest opportunity for success, since the previous wetland conditions are probably better understood and some basis exists for assuming those conditions can be re-created by eliminating the original impact. Appropriate Time for Bank to be Accessible The availability of credits from a mitigation bank will vary with the goals of the bank and the memorandum of agreement between the regulating agencies. Generally bank credits should not be used to mitigate wetland impacts until there is some assurance the mitigation action will be successful, although it should not be necessary to wait until the project has achieved 100% of its goals. This may take anywhere between two to five years. Once eventual success of the bank is reasonably ensured, then credits should be made available to the extent they exist. Design Details Necessary for a Mitigation Project Plan Any mitigation plan must provide sufficient information and detail to assure regulatory agency staff and concerned citizens that it has a reasonable chance of achieving its goal. The plan should include a description of existing conditions, actions to be implemented, and how the actions will achieve the mitigation goal. Records of Mitigation Bank Credits Along with determining the existing credits within a bank, it is also necessary to maintain a record of the credits used, credits accrued as the bank matures, and net credits available. Details of this accounting procedure should be outlined in the MOA. The bank operator probably would maintain the account record and might also report the account activity to the involved agencies. Cost of Bank Credits The cost of bank credits is based upon the cost of establishing, monitoring, and maintaining the project, in perpetuity, amortized over the total credits available to be sold. It has been assumed that the "economies of scale" in constructing and operating a large bank would ensure the price of credits is competitive with other mitigation approaches available to potential buyers, but limited data are available to confirm this assumption. Should the bank not sell all its credits, or should it not achieve the total credits anticipated, there is a reasonable chance it may not be financially successful. Other Issues Any mitigation effort should be recognized as a risk, whether as a bank or as an individual effort for a single project. Risks can be minimized through careful planning and implementation, but the art of wetland restoration is still in its infancy and much remains to be learned. With small mitigation attempts, risks of net loss in wetland function are reduced through careful planning, extensive review, replacement ratios, long-term monitoring, and performance bonds. All of these measures are intended to ensure that should the project fail the proponent will pay for the failure. With a mitigation bank an additional effort has been made to reduce the potential for failure (i.e. if the mitigation effort is not successful, the bank has no credit.). If a bank is owned and operated by a local agency, several potential disadvantages become apparent. First, if the mitigation effort does not succeed, the local agency has invested public funds with little opportunity to recoup that investment. On the other hand, if the mitigation effort is successful, the agency must now sell credits to return its investment. If that agency also issues permits to potential users of the bank, it is in the potentially uncomfortable position of selling credits to those projects to which it has just issued permits. PRIMARY CONCERNS: Memorandum of Agreement Successful mitigation banking requires a detailed agreement or consensus among the various resource agencies with permitting authority or other responsibildy. The more specific this agreement, the better opportunity for successful use of the wetland mitigation bank. The agreement (or MOA) should include details describing: ■ plans for the restoration or creation being proposed; ■ types of project impacts that will be allowed to use the site; ■ development areas that will be allowed to use the site; ■ mechanisms for calculating credits and maintaining an account; ■ responsibilities for long-term maintenance and operation; and ■ any other factors relevant to the specific project or site. Ownership Ownership should guarantee survival of the site in perpetuity, implying an institutional rather than a individual owner. Many agency staff and environmental organizations have expressed the opinion a wetland mitigation bank should be owned and operated by an agency or non-profit trust, fearing, perhaps, the lack of long-term commitment to maintenance on the part of the private organization. On the other hand, public agency ownership of a wetland mitigation Bank means public liability and public losses should the bank fail, or fail to sell its credits. Furthermore, if the owner is a permitting agency it is in the awkward position of issuing a permit allowing use of the bank and then selling the bank's credits to the permittee. CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK MODELS The following are a few examples of existing or proposed wetland mitigation banking projects. Elements of each model that are applicable to the City's project are mentioned briefly. Important points are in bold type. Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has operated a wetland mitigation program for several years to replace wetlands unavoidably impacted by road construction and improvements. Under this program, ITD develops mitigation sites usually in unused rights-of-way owned by ITD or on adjacent properties available for purchase. Once the wetland is established by ITD, its ownership and maintenance is given over to one of numerous public agencies, such as USFWS, BLM, USFS, IDL, IDFG. Wetlands created in excess of a mitigation project are applied to the next project. The ITD uses a ratio of 1:1, which is questionable since the replaced wetland takes a while to reach the level of functioning as the impacted one, if it reaches it at all. The ITD guidelines for location of a wetland bank include: -The bank site should be as close to the impact site as possible. -The bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impacted site. -The same public affected by an impact site should be compensated by the bank site. -The bank site should be within the same ITD district as the impact site. As one of its objectives, the ITD seeks to utilize wetland biofiltration functions to reduce the amount of pollutants entering water systems from roadways. Design and location of wetlands would therefore be related to highway run-off. One of the objectives for the ITD to make the mitigation site more manageable is to create one large wetland rather than many small wetlands and to locate the site adjacent to an existing management area. The ITD will normally bid contracts for revegetation of a wetland bank site with the provision that plant materials will be replaced by the contractor if they perish within one growing season. Use of a wetland bank to mitigate for project related wetlands impacts will require the ITD to demonstrate the following: -The activity causing a wetland impact is unavoidable. -All other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be impractical. •A functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan, and its usefulness documented by an evaluation program. As a general rule, wetland bank sites will be the same system, subsystem, and class as those impacted by development (i.e. in-kind replacement of palustrine, forested, wetlands will be accomplished by trading for the same). The 1:1 replacement ratio used by ITD is flexible at times. Exceptions to the ratio are justified when the 1 to 1 replacement is not adequate due to differences in the quality of habitat being created. This includes cases where considerable time must pass before the bank site provides the wetland functional values provided by the impacted site. Having a policy like this would seem to make possible much bending of the rules and compromised mitigation measures unless the process was strictly and honestly managed. Also, determining how long it will take a created wetland to reach a target level of functioning (if it reaches that level at all!) seems suspect, since scientific understanding of wetland creation is relatively limited. Mitigation should be done with at least a 1:1.5 ratio, as in the City's policies, to compensate for the time of development and the potential disturbances to wetland succession. The ITD states as a goal that a proper evaluation of an impact site and a wetland bank site may require the use of standardized methods capable of producing repeatable results. The goal shall be to ensure that credits given to different sites are comparable. The ITD suggests using the Corps of Engineers Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to evaluate wetland quality. Selected wetland bank sites and selected sites accepted as mitigation will be monitored to assess creation, restoration, and enhancement techniques and to evaluate the success of the wetland banking program. Astoria Airport The Astoria Airport Mitigation is a completed mitigation project on the Columbia River in Astoria, Oregon. Thirty-three acres of diked estuarine wetland have been reestablished along the Columbia River to be used as a mitigation site for impacted estuarine wetlands associated with development at the airport. An interagency Memorandum of Agreement between Oregon Div. of State Lands, ODFW, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Dev., COE, USFWS, the EPA, and NMFS was signed in 1987 outlining operating procedures and crediting process. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, all projects must be considered necessary and all measures taken to minimize or eliminate impacts prior to consideration of mitigation bank use. The bank will be owned and operated in perpetuity by the Oregon Division of State Lands. Bank credits can be used for water-dependent activities in a predesignated area. An annual monitoring report is required, with a complete evaluation of the bank after 5 years and again after 8 years. The project is similar to the City's in size. It is also similar in that both mitigation sites were previously wetlands that had been filled or diked making their chance for successful re-creation excellent. (The operating procedures and crediting process are outlined in the MOA, which is in the mail) -is this bank used only to offset airport development, or other development nearby as well? -who over saw the process?--Dept. of State Lands. -what was the order of events? did the restoration occur first (all at one time) establishing all credit, then were the credits purchased by the airport? -what was the replacement ratio? -What does the monitoring report examine? City of Everett The City of Everett is considering creating a wetland mitigation bank at their wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Public Works is exploring the concept of mitigation banking as an alternative approach to wetland mitigation. Because public works projects often have small, unavoidable impacts on wetlands associated with road widening, utility crossings, and other projects, this approach appears to be a practical alternative for the department. The Department of Public Works is considering a palustrine emergent open water wetland north of the city's sewage treatment lagoons as a mitigation site. Historically, this area was an intertidal wetland that was part of the lower Snohomish River estuary. However, the diking of Smith Island changed the site from intertidal wetland to nontidal wetland and upland area. In 1991, the Snohomish Estuary Technical Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance regarding wetland resources in the estuary. The committee consists of representatives of Snohomish County, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the City of Marysville, the City of Everett, the Snohomish Wetlands Alliance, and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. This committee has developed an overall management plan for the Snohomish River estuary. The management plan outlines eight goals for the estuary, including wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and education. Although the committee does not have any regulatory authority, it works to coordinate wetland preservation and restoration projects within the estuary. The City of Everett recently approved a wetland ordinance that identifies wetland mitigation banking as a potential mitigation tool. Mitigation banking might be allowed when the proposed project is water-dependent or water-related, when onfite or offsite mitigation is not practical, when no other reasonable use or feasible alternative with less impact is apparent, or when the impacted wetland is of lower value than the banked wetland. The ordinance gives the planning department authority to develop administrative criteria regarding mitigation banking. The city would consider mitigation banks on a case-by-case basis, applying the administrative criteria to proposed mitigation banks. As of yet, these criteria have not been developed. The city has no official position on the use of wastewater in wetlands. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation site. One is that the site would not necessarily be in the same local drainage basin as the impacted wetlands. This would result in a net loss of wetland functions and values within a particular basin. Another is that the mitigation site under consideration would probably be classified as a Category II wetland under the city's rating system meaning it already possesses moderate functional values that could not be sufficiently enhanced to mitigate the loss of impacted wetlands. Also, the use of wastewater as a potential water source for the mitigation site might not increase the functional value of the wetland. Another problem is that there is little to no area available for a sufficient upland buffer, which would be required in the enhancement project. Another potential problem is that the mitigation site was historically a brackish water wetland. This would lower the likelihood for success of freshwater mitigation projects necessary for in-kind replacement of the type of wetlands impacted by the public works department. Lastly, reed canarygrass is already established near the site and would likely out-compete other planted wetland species. Questions/ideas: -To what extent might the Transportation Dept. be able to use the bank or even staff it? -is there a Green River Valley Technical Advisory Committee and if so, should it be involved in the mitigation project? Biringer Farm Biringer Farm is a 363-acre farm located in the lower Snohomish River delta in Snohomish County. The farm is being proposed as a future mitigation site for countywide development. Under the proposal, the farm would be restored to a brackish intertidal marsh. Developers could then buy acreage in the mitigation site to offset losses associated with development in the county. This project would not replace standard mitigation procedures or the normal permitting process, but would be a means to compensate for wetland losses after all standard mitigation procedures were exhausted. Needless to say, the project has not been well received by Snohomish County because the created wetlands would not necessarily be in the same drainage basin as the impacted wetlands or have the same habitat type as the impacted wetland. The current status of this project is unknown, but is sounds suspect. It is important that the City adhere to the requirement that the mitigation site be in the same drainage basin and that the type of wetland habitat created be similar or better than the impacted wetland's. -who is developing the mitigation bank? -what is the current state of the project? •how will it operate? Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program A mitigation bank program is being considered as part of an overall wetland mitigation plan for the Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program (SAMP) in Kent. A SAMP is an inter urisdictional wetland program agreed upon by the appropriate agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties. The outcome of a SAMP is a regional wetland permit that outlines development actions and predetermined mitigation approaches for wetlands within the special area. Wetlands that are to remain undisturbed are also identified. Although the Mill Creek proposal is in the very early conceptual phase, the mitigation bank is proposed to be a public entity established through an interagency agreement. An unknown acreage along the Mill Creek corridor will be enhanced and used to offset losses of specific impacted wetlands smaller than 10 acres that are of the same general habitat type and functional value. This project is still in the early stages of development, but is somewhat similar to what the City will set up. a Some questions are: -if the mitigation bank is to be a public entity, who will operate it? -what will the process be? FROM 3. 27. 1992 16: 33 P. 2 GLACIER PARK COMPANY Laid Mamooirwnr In, n r pascal March 27, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE - 235-2541 Ms. Lynn Guttmann, Administrator City of Renton Renton City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Glacier Park Company Wetlands Mitigation Bank Dear Lynn: We have reviewed your March 19 letter to Glacier Park Company regarding the establishment of a Wetland Mitigation Land Bank in the Orillia area of Renton. It is our understanding that you wish to present the concept to the City Council at the April 6 regular meeting. Mary Lynne Myer has suggested that a letter from us confirming the details of the mitigation bank program would be helpful . As I discussed with Mary Lynne yesterday by phone, we are very concerned about recent communications with the Seattle District of the Co-rps of Engineers which involve granting Nationwide Permit 26 authorizations for several proj- ects in process In the mitigation bank area. While we agree in concept with the Wetland Mitigation Land Bank as outlined in your letter, we are not in a position to commit fully to the dedication of the properties involved until the question with the Corps is resolved. Because the sales of the sites are predicated on the ability to fill certain small wetlands and on the need to provide space to mitigate, the overall program hinges on the decision to be made by the Corps. At Mary Lynne' s invitation, I would be happy to attend the April 6 City Council meeting to discuss our support of the program and answer any questions they may have. We appreciate the strong commitment the City has demonstrated through the efforts of Mary Lynne, Allen, and the rest of your staff. the opportunity to establish a significant resource in the Orillia area remains open for only a short period of time . Glacier Park hopes that a spirit of cooperation and responsible decision making will make the Mitigation Land Bank a reality. Si cerely, Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:Jmc66. kel .010 cc: Mary Lynne Myer, City of Renton (FAX - 235-2541 ) Mark W. Stiefel , Consultant (FAX -854-7472) Donald E. Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann (FAX 587-2308) Marty L . Sevier, Glacier Park Company 1011 Wenern Avonuc,Suto 700•Se,rttic,W>>hing:pr 98104 •206-467-5500 A SubDieiary o/Burlinglon Rc3ouro&9 b�c CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann Larry Warren Jay Covington John Webley Kay Shoudy Mel Wilson '. Jim Hanson Don Erickson Ron Olson Ron Straka FROM: Mary Lynne Myer � 0 SUBJECT: STATUS ON WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK Last month, as negotiations were concluding on the wetland mitigation bank parcels that Glacier Park will be donating to the City, the level I analysis for hazardous materials showed a potential for contamination on parcel 14 of the mitigation bank sites. As a result, the city directed Golder and Associates to conduct a level II analysis of the mitigation bank sites. The conclusion of their report is that there is a low potential for contamination to exist on the mitigation bank sites. Based on this information, the city is proceeding with the transfer of mitigation bank parcels 8 and 14. Larry Warren will be handling the closing, which should be completed by the end of June. The remaining developable parcels (5, 6, 8W, 8E, and 9) that will benefit from the transfer of the bank sites are being purchased by the Trillium Corporation. As far as I know, there are no immediate plans to develop any of their parcels. The level H analysis did show a potential for contamination on one part of parcel 13, which the city purchased. Larry Warren will pursue this. I will be on vacation through the end of June. If you have any questions or additional information, please contact Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190). CITY*F RENTON "LLR Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVIbION CITY OF RENTON MAY 191992 May 19, 1992 RECEIVED TO: Dan Clements, Administrative Services Administrator Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Glacier Park Dear Dan, Lynn and Mary Lynne: I am attaching a copy of a Letter Agreement between Glacier Park and the city, allowing the city to reject parcels of property from the Wetland Mitigation Bank if they contain hazardous substances under CERCLA, SERA, the State Model Toxics Act and nearly any other pollution law you can think of . This permits us adequate time to conduct a Level 2 analysis of the soils in Tract 14, the large western parcel of the mitigation bank. The proposed transfer date is June 15th. The agreement asks that we use our best efforts to finish our Level 2 analysis by the end of May. The original estimate of time to perform the analysis was two weeks . It would appear that we have enough time to complete this analysis and assure ourselves that this parcel is not contaminated. O'f Lawrence Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington John Webley A8 . 83 : 25 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 CC, _NAME.._ GLACIER PARK COMPANY M A`( 1992 Land Management for Increased Opportunities. �tOGG ARgER, WA pEpN&EFON�ES. P S May 13, 1992 The Honorable Earl Clymer City of Renton Renton City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Glacier Park Company Wetlands Mitigation Bank Proposal Dear Mayor Clymer: The city of Renton (the "City") and Glacier Park Company ("Glacier Park") have negotiated and prepared a Wetland Mitigation Land Bank Agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to which Glacier Park will transfer to the City two parcels of real property for the purpose of establishing a wetland mitigation bank. In exchange, the City will allow Glacier Park to fill wetlands located on other properties owned by Glacier Park in the city of Renton. The City and Glacier Park are ready to sign the Agreement, but a Level 1 environmental assessment conducted by the City has revealed the potential for one of the mitigation bank parcels to be contaminated by hazardous or dangerous materials as a result of a drainage ditch that flows onto the mitigation bank property from a contaminated property to the south. In consideration of the following agreements, the City and Glacier Park shall proceed to sign the Agreement. The City shall collect and analyze soil samples on the mitigation bank property to determine whether there is any environmental contamination. The City shall conduct such analysis as expeditiously as possible and will try to obtain the results of the analysis by May 30, 1992. If the analysis of the soils samples reveals that the mitigation bank property contains any hazardous or dangerous substance, material , or waste that is regulated pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D) , the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, any other state or federal law that regulates hazardous or dangerous substances, materials, or wastes, or any amendments to such laws and regulations, and the amount of such substance, material , or waste exceeds the applicable regulatory threshold, then the City shall have the right to termi - nate the Agreement. However, if Glacier Park agrees to undertake, at its sole expense, the neces- sary remediation actions to reduce the contaminant levels on the mitigation bank property below the applicable regulatory thresholds for the particular hazardous or dangerous materials, substances, or wastes, then the City shall not have the right to terminate the Agreement, and the City and Glacier Park shall proceed to consummate the Agreement as set forth in the signed document. 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington 98104•206-467-5500 A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc. The Honorable Earl Clymer May 13, 1992 Page 2 If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to the undersigned. Sincerely, Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc 6. kel .010 cc: Donald E. Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann Enclosure AGREED: C OF RENTON Ea ym r, Mayor r APPROV S TO FORM: awrence J. Warren City Attorney I CITY OF RENTON M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 10, 1992 TO: Attached List FROM: Lyn 6 mann SUBJECT: 1Wetlands Mitigation Bank & Purchase Plan The following is an action plan which was formed as a result of our March 1 lth meeting TO DO SUMMARY WHAT WHEN BY WHOM 1. Obtain LID assessments 3/18 or sooner Arlene (Mary Lynne) to - total outstanding by Mary Lynne parcel - payment schedule 2. List & document Valley 3/18 John W. to Mary Lynne Parks Mitigation fees 3. Meet w/Vicki Reiner 3/20 at 1:00 p.m. LAG, John, Larry (Metro) 4. List & document TCIP 3/18 Lee/Mel to Mary Lynne Funding Sources - Valley TBZ (fees) - VTP - BLFJ(grants - SCS 5. Research on 3/18 Larry/Dan to Mary Lynne Councilmanic bonding parameters; obtain previous appraisal data re wetlands 6. List & document 3/18 Randall/Cil to Mary Lynne possible surface water utility rates or revenue bonds 7a Ask Kathy to introduce At 3/23 Jay Info item on Wetlands mitigation bank to Committee of the Whole 7b Brief Committee of the At 6:30 on 4/6 Mary Lynne, Larry, John, Whole re mitigation bank LAG, Randall (w/an informational handout) 8a Draft an issue paper and - Meeting to preview on Mel, Randall, Jay/Dan, agenda bill for wetland 3/26 at 1:00 p.m. John, Larry, LAG, Mayor purchase - to Jay 3/30 at 9:30 a.m. Mary Lynne (introduce to Council 4/6) 8b Brief Committee of the 4/13 at 6:30 Mary Lynne, Larry, John, Whole on purchase. LAG ADM03/acp1/wet1dacq/92/PMP DRAFT Green River Valley (Multi-Purpose) Wetlands Purchase Proposal Cost Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Source of (Ultimate) # of Purchase Transportation Total (Lot #) Funding Acres (asking) LID Assesment ......................- GROUP A 1 Proposed SW 27th HOV TCIP (Trans MIT Fees &/or for BLF) $50.000 ... .:............... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ Arterial Improvements 2 Open Space City-wide Parks MIT fees and for $5Q000; ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ METRO for Conservation Futures. 3 & 4 Possible P1 Alignment Surface Water Utility Rates or and/or Valley Park Revenue Bonds. Subtotal Group A $y£?OOQ.d..' ......:................. ........................ GROUP B Proposed SW 27th HOV TCIP Arterial Improvements P9 Drainage Channel _ Surface Water Utility Rates or P1 Drainage Channel, Revenue Bonds. and/or Commuter Rail Corridor METRO Water Quality (West Point Improvements, and/or and South Interceptor Mitigation) Valley Park, and/or Park's Valley Mitigation fees and/or Conservation Funds. Welland Mitigation Bank Developer Contributions Subtotal Group B $150{OQO Total 1 1$2.50,000 1 $250,000 1$500,000 Page 1 Wetlands Mitigation Bank Funding Sources 1) Valley Parts Mitigation Funds 2) Conservation Futures 3) METRO West Point 4) Springbrook Trail Funds 5) Other Parks Mitigation Funds -Make this a City-wide amenity. 6) Storm Water Utility Funds 7) Wetlands Bank Monies(Developer) 8) METRO 118" line -Mitigation 9) Valley TBZ Funds 10) Business License Fee set aside In the mid-1970's, Burlington Northern applied for permits to fill almost 600 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 this same time, several flood drainage alternatives were being evaluated for the East Side Green River Valley Watershed Plan. One of the alternatives which was being evaluated included construction of the P-1 channel. Another alternative which was being considered included expansion of Springbrook Creek. 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 aquisition or donation of parcels for the P-1 channel. However, to preserve storm drainage options, several parcels corresponding to 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 1970's. 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. x '-..■,-_ GLACIER PARK COMPANY Land Management for Increased Opportunities. March 27, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE - 235-2541 Ms. Lynn Guttmann, Administrator City of Renton Renton City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Glacier Park Company Wetlands Mitigation Bank Dear Lynn: We have reviewed your March 19 letter to Glacier Park Company regarding the establishment of a Wetland Mitigation Land Bank in the Orillia area of Renton. It is our understanding that you wish to present the concept to the City Council at the April 6 regular meeting. Mary Lynne Myer has suggested that a letter from us confirming the details of the mitigation bank program would be helpful . As I discussed with Mary Lynne yesterday by phone, we are very concerned about recent communications with the Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers which involve granting Nationwide Permit 26 authorizations for several proj- ects in process in the mitigation bank area. While we agree in concept with the Wetland Mitigation Land Bank as outlined in your letter, we are not in a position to commit fully to the dedication of the properties involved until the question with the Corps is resolved. Because the sales of the sites are predicated on the ability to fill certain small wetlands and on the need to provide space to mitigate, the overall program hinges on the decision to be made by the Corps. At Mary Lynne's invitation, I would be happy to attend the April 6 City Council meeting to discuss our support of the program and answer any questions they may have. We appreciate the strong commitment the City has demonstrated through the efforts of Mary Lynne, Allen, and the rest of your staff. The opportunity to establish a significant resource in the Orillia area remains open for only a short period of time. Glacier Park hopes that a spirit of cooperation and responsible decision making will make the Mitigation Land Bank a reality. Sincerely, "_CL_ Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc66. kel .010 cc: Mary Lynne Myer, City of Renton (FAX - 235-2541) Mark W. Stiefel , Consultant (FAX -854-7472) Donald E. Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann (FAX 587-2308) Marty L. Sevier, Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington 98104•206-467-5500 A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc. �= CITY OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator March 27, 1992 Karen E. Lane Vice President Development Glacier Park 1011 Western Ave. Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK IMPROVEMENT DEFERRAL, CITY OF RENTON Dear Ms. Lane A few weeks ago, we received an inquiry as to the disposition of a security that you posted, per ordinance, for off-site improvements in the Orillia Industrial Park site, Divisions I and II. The original bond was in the amount of $2.4 million and was subsequently reduced to $578,000 based on your action plan to install all the improvements, (construction of sidewalks in Division I and construction of roadways, utilities and sidewalks in Division ll). Before we can consider termination of the security, we need to know if the off-site improvements have been installed. Further, in regard to the properties alluded to in the Letter of Agreement of Principle there are outstanding performance bond requirements and the City of Renton wishes to notify you that they expect these requirements to be met prior to any development of the property. Please contact me on 235-2540. Very truly yours, on NelsonFm Yo 1 Acting Chairman ■ BPW03/osimdef/92/PM P cc: Don Erickson To: Clint Morgan Ale a/ 4i Paul Lumbert rio. d - Mary Lynne Myer Fomr�rT� Return Keep o �Ss ❑ Post-It'F.Y.I.pad 7668 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 I tiA V V V 0111--ilLd 1 Date: 5 ��/�,? Log No. v�2/GGlr4- /Zcii �Lo Time: 9'�� Number of Pages: (Including cover sheet) TO: r,f6) Z7 clpms. Of: l mid?'s 41 Of: FAX#: 2. ��/ Address: FAX#: COPY TO: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Confidential Urgent ❑ Please reply ❑ For your information MESSAGE: a - �� L� If not received correctly, please call: Primed in U.S.A.B`®AVFRV 1989 AEOADEA NO.47291 TO 'J ZLVLV98 � �+ a i yr. .M >1-4'0W iJ4. 20. 0- 2 08 Ca i r n c r o s s -tape Irnan P 0 1 MARK w. STtEFEL RECENED LETTZR OF TRANSMITTAL APR 2 1992 April 29, 1992 original to follow by mail Original to follow by overnight delivery Client No. : 6004 .006 To: Mark W. Stiefel, P.E. Facsimile: 854-7472 Telephone: 854-7472 From: Don Marcy Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 7000 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue wattle, Washington 98104-7014 Telephone: (206) 587-0700 Facsimile: (206) 587-2308 Number of pages, including this cover: 8 Please call Cindy Breay dt (206) 587-0700 if you do not receive all pages. Remarks: This facsimile communication iq intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If tho reader of this cover page is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please be advised that any dissemina- tion, distribution, or copying of this communication if3 strictly prohibited. If you receive this facsimile in orror, please notify us immediately by telophone and mail this facsimil4 to na of fha above address. Thank you. Z© 'd ZLVLV98 I a,+a I z8 'M .jA0W 04. `29. 92 08 34 `—API * Ca1rncIoss &:1��fnpelrnan P 0 2 MARK W. STIEFEL RECEIVED LAW OP CIJ APR 2 9 199Z CAIRNCROSS &HEMPELMANN A PIXDMSOC AL$9KY CE Co"'OkAT'CN 7Prx FLOOR,COLUMBIA CENTER,701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE,uVAS1-111OTON"104.7016 OK 567.0700 DONALD E. MARCY Fax;(206)547.21C$ April 29, 1992 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes loo s. second Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Wetland Mitigation Sank -- City of Renton/Glacier Park Company Dear Larry: Here for your review ie a revised draft of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Agreement between the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. The draft is redlined to show changes from the earlier draft provided to you on April 21, 1992 . We look forward to receiving your comments. i cerely,S Donald E. Marcy Ga DEM:clb Enclosure cc (w/encl) : Ms. Mary Lynne Myer, city of Renton Planning Dept. Ms. Karen Lane, Glacier Park Company Mr. Marty Sevier, Glacier Park Company ML,. Mark Stiefel, P.E. 20 'd ZLVLV;a I eya I 'Is "M ;1-4V1.1 04.� 29. 92 08 : 34 ass &1- n) peIman P 0 3 WETLAND MITIGATION BANK AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1992 by and between THE CITY Or RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City" ) , and GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ( "GPC" ) . WHEREAS the City desires to encourage economic development in the orillin area consistent with city zoning, comprehensive plans, and past investments for public infrastructure; WHEREAS the City desires to establish a more flexible creative method of regulating development in and around emerging wetlands that can ecrvc as a model program for future development in the City and other jurisdictions; WHEREAS the City desires to establish and expand a regional wetland system located near Springbrook Creek and other significant wetlands; WHEREAS the City desires to increase flood storage along the Springbrook Creek corridor; WHEREAS the City desires to implement a master plan for addressing storm water control, recreation facilities, open space, and the preservation of critical areas; 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; WHEREAS GPC owns several tracts of real property located in the Orillia area of the City of Renton and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "GPC Property" ) ; WHEREAS portions of the GPC property have been filled with City approval in the past; WHEREAS GFC mitigated the prior fill activity by dedicating a wetland in excess of 15 acres in size to the City; WHEREAS the previously filled portions of the GPC Property have some low quality emergent wetlands; WHEREAS portions of the GPC Property that have not been filled contain some high quality wetlands; WHEREAS it is necessary to fill the low quality wetlands in order to obtain a reasonable.- economic use of the GPC Property; - 1 - t1o ' 1 ?tbtb�S 1 a+a 1 1S -M =1-4VW f34. 29. 92 08 . 34 `--2�M + CR i rn c ross. &H4_•1-npe titian F 0 4 WHEREAS QPG- b-as paid 1A diet"-ek gee 1 .wRv. ..,�.. •lAfi• in ntici mid f b6iAq able to " Ie the cp6c y WHEREAS the local improvement district assessments paid by GPC affect both previously filled areas and unfilled high quality wetland areas; WHEREAS GPC desires to eliminate special assessments, Iti # rr bi performance bond requirements, and property tax T'ialitie"s'""on""properties that will never be developed; WHEREAS the City is willing to allow fill material to be placed in low duality wetlands provided wetland !"oee--e�e here .s nu ziet to a weUAnd aGrea�s a �tr:ctit mod;, n 6hraugh a_eclua a tt ,... i v c.e WHEREAS the City believes that wetland mitigation banking can provide a large, consolidated, and high quality wetland vather than the small, scattered, and low quality wetlands presently located on the filled portion of the GPC Property; 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 other properties; WHEREAS GPC is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving the company; WHEREAS GPC is willing to dedicate to the City the property necessary to establish a wetland mitigation bank; WHEREAS the City can gain an economic benefit by formulating a mitigation bank with GPC; and 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: 1. Mitigation Bank. The City and GPC shall establish a wetland mitigation bank (the "Mitigation Bank" ) on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. GPC has provided to the City and the City acknowledges receipt of a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank together with a description of the available mitigation credits contained in the Mitigation Bank At�yti�tetla buffer �eguirdd, b� a.�y zegultOi ffi : th�'':'wetJ1yd cf . t t�gat�on aBa e#zaI al be contaanet h+ho '�lr on tha:: it chat lint Hank Z . Conveyance of Mitigation sank. GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City by quit claim deed on or before - z - To 'd 'M N.4014 04. " 29. 92 0 8 : 34 ,-AM Ca i rncross &f�,_A-npe lrnan P 0 5 1992 . The City shall approve the fteceaAary lot line adjustments required in order to configure the Mitigation Bank an separate legal parcels. If the lot line adjustments are not completed by , 1992, the Mitigation Bank shall be conveyed to the City by GPC within twenty (20) days after the lot line adjustments have been completed and recorded in the records of King County. 3. Use of Mitigation Bank by Other Property Owners , The quit claim d6ed pursuant to which GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City shall contain a covenant obligating the city -te allew QlbkeE property owner within tile ,.L Fk fA 1 1 y o-€ t1d- on their prepertiee. The eovenant chal-1—a1 o, : a prey few 4he its to _°��=e-athev property w��- ant R75tleli Bank ' he it- ms—tile-ability .ta _`_' __e � ... PAM itigation dank td a use which cir>ae° ro taaa�tai:i ha Miir8tsaas an d llx t4zrtt +t�li � A Rom . ....,.7 ..... ........ . 4. Placement of Fill M ter al. The City shall permit all the wetlands located on the real property more particularly described on Exhiblt C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Benefitted Properties" ) to be filled, The City shall also approve a vegetation management lan and f11� . � eee =222�-��TSV 1V:G �,,., �>~e �,, &xl of the Benefitted Properties t�s tea• a"i�slc m�rxa f a e ,reget�ttasan, zeznau� + � i'law�� #��►i'��4��>r �# r�nl�ratts �naa ` d9ng acie � t� ed� 1�owG n shill zoo peat �zlr fx ''2t '' cX'�tYisti itisi thhQee chtgh" ate >tla � xloT x e �pt $s may cv de l' 2�a l �i . 8 Ord i:# acd+ti ctande wx�h f-b is t s lodr� Cr he fill 5e pl ..., x, ch ma erza may aed 'and 'tli"e 'veg etat on management plan may be implemented at an time of the Mitigation Lion dank has been conveyed to the Cityhe 3s nr311 rrC3' h Benefit all ed QF an be poetec bY.. pCCauei* i+ri '�� CaG�.�aei��5� ,.�a�� h wwr:3:dir h r ... .. ... .. . ... ........... .. . ......... ......... .. ......... n 5. Subsequent Environmental Review. When GPC or its successors or assigns, submit plans and applications for development of any of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall issue determinations of non-significance, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and City of Renton environmental ordinances and regulations, for the development of the 8 nefitted- Propertlea tin-lees--eheLce are prebaiale-oiQ €iseant adoe= t , tti,..• ter_ .,et e1 i a i ti.e-fi =vr-mac...:,::>....<.::.::.:!. .. """ �, 1, "� i11 wetlands Qn the Benefitted Properties a ci a ems t p XMl.i �, 3 r' (4 ell Z0 'd ZZbtb�B 1abe11S 'M >1anW 04.` 29. 92 08 : 34 ''AM Ca i rncross &htimpe. lman F116 :.}.;.,.,..;.:..C...,.,:,;..,.:..,...n•nr.•^• ,.;<..,..... i' .:tS.. •:/. y,, •:d'•Ax: 'ka:q :�� y f117 1IE�l�i $ . T44�i+ 0.0.3 opntezi c?€ fk�stad w :,.,. ' 'QQ � ie d h :: :pr mb ant zw+ee mn X #zexr3� g f�tCr"` i31C } atd2 $Ja � p1121f��2Y tLJAIQO1 � -00 i t5tle ,..1J ?t; d dvevpmasl ...,.:I.n..aaaition, the City .... s...a 1 not require` a"n'y'' wetla`nd `m"i-61' tiion on account of the development of any of the Benefitted Properties regardless of any comments that are received by the City from any local, state, or federal agency. If any wetland mitigation is required for the subsequent development of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall pay for and complete any er required lc mitigation within the Mitigation Banks Gxy �e83id robdekt a #yeuelpptret t"} t � $en�? itta?d *toiA .3 0 .1 'ru . h int--.0 ��nk x�� t tl ft s4 ed ►f�i3 axe for the d> ltp cx ' the 3AA#*f 1*fed rd} k 5 a rcrpot� 1 de z pp e a anti d � aaxWV 'n . Awtietiazo .. .. .:..x y ... .. 6. Support of WetlaDa rlitigation Sank Conce>,t. The City shall iazeF+reee—ee €--s !t ? GPC, or its successors or assigns, if the U. S. Army Corps`o' :Ingineers or the Washington State Department of Ecology do not cooperate with the formation of a wetland mitigation bank as provided in this Agreement or if those agencies, or any other agency, seek to require additional mitigation in conjunction with the filling of the wetlands on the Benefitted Properties. 7 . Assumption of Indebtedness. The City shall assume GPC' s obligation for and shall pay all outstanding and future amounts owed for local improvement district assessments, street improvement performance bonds, and property taxes for the Mitigation Dank. in addLtlen, the-;-enef-itteEi i,roper. ; sh 1 net be H;��A ement -'uz� -- apjoesgment s for teww t��- em r-.,+3An—A�-�}t _ -F,��ur-e e e netr e t i en X h 'ici> u Regulations . This Agreement, the provisions contained""hQz the development of the Benefitted Properties shad-}-not be—eubjeat be, ohall--net be gentrel ih adlt trc�riirrla off:"th° : ; ojn 'J. y t zj r c tz GR .arid" of c"ies...t'hat the City has adort"eii pt � •;;a' e, ae amended that preyide for a vre-t- monde a e�- t h e� �sn--Of ta'` G fl di ye 7 r mere.... .......wry ." 1 fid-d1A , ing¢ ond e d 'sss �... . r ... .. 4 - :0 'd ZtbZbS8 lal�IzS 'M �IaDW 04: 29. 92 0 0 : 34``.AM Ca i me rosy &fir-�/mpe Irian P 0 7 Areli"aRsa Was O"d , 9. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and the provisions contained herein shall run with the land and shall benefit the Benefitted Properties and GPC and ite successors rind assigns. 10. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be signed by the parties hereto or their successors or aeeigns . 11 . Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. CITY OF RENTON By: Earl Clymer, Mayor GLACIER PARK COMPANY By: It..s ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ea�:1-Eve D�12�f�2 5 - t10 'd ZLbLb�8 I a;a I zg rel A apW 04.' 29. 02 U8 : 34`--AM Ca i rncross pe P02 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ad . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me EARL CLYMER, to me known to be the Mayor 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 dAed 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 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington, residing at My commission expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING } On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of GLACIER PARK COMPANY, 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 _ day of 1992 . NOTARY PUBI.7f' in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires 6 - �Q d 7_LbLVS; 1 a#-1 1 z� -rt A_,v[.l Mel, I checked with Mary Lynn Myer and she thinks that Lynn may have a misunderstanding about the Parcel 1 property in the Valley. Mary Lynn said that this parcel is already 100%wetland and cannot be used for either wetland banking or wetland mitigation. The intended purpose of the property is for storm water overflow (I assume that this is part of the new storm water plan whereby the P-1 Channel does not need to be built) Mary Lynn said that Transportation would still have to find some other land on which to replace any part of this wetland that would be impacted by the SW 27th Street project. Therefore, the way I interpret Mary Lynn's comments, there is no way under the Wetlands Ordinance that we can do what you are asking Larry about in regard to using this purchase to relieve us of any future costs for wetlands mitgation for the SW 27th Street project. Lee 6:20 p.m. 4/27/92. ZZ Q �G� y4X r u� I,eet9 r % - CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION ''1 ►'r'�RENTON, JUN 5 '1992 June 3, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastain, Parks & Recreation Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Administrator Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner Priscilla Pierce, Administrative Analyst Iwen Wang, Accounting & Budgeting Director John Webley, Community Services Administrator FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Source of Funds for Black River Purchase and Ownership of Parcels Dear Ladies and Gentlemen : P_ meeting was recently held to assign the ownership interests of the Glacier Park purchase to the appropriate city departments . The source of funds for the purchase was also discussed. The purpose of this memorandum is to memorialize the conclusions from that meeting and to provide a historical record of those conclusions for later reference. PARCEL NO. 1 Parcel No. 1 will be assigned to the stormwater utility. The purchase price was $50, 000 . 00 in cash which will come from the stormwater utility and the balance of over $244, 000 . 00 in LID assessment will come from the transportation CIP. The ownership is given to the stormwater utility subject to right-of-way described later in this paragraph as this parcel will provide flood storage, contains valuable wetlands and will provide water purification and groundwater recharge . The transportation CIP will own right-of-way for the 27th Street HOV lanes, and will obtain wetland mitigation rights within the bank. PARCELS NOS. 3 AND 4 Each parcel was assigned a purchase price of $25, 000 . 00 for a total purchase price of $50, 000 . 00 . The source of the funds will be from Parks mitigation fees . Parks is paying for this purchase Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 June 3, 1992 Page 2 as the parcels are adjacent to existing open space and to Springbrook Creek Trail . PARCEL NO. 13 This parcel will be paid from the stormwater utility. The parcel provides flood storage, water purification, groundwater recharge and contains some valuable wetlands . More importantly, it provides right-of-way for the P-9 Channel and right-of-way for the proposed P-1 Channel . It also presently provides drainage, flood management, and possibly some wetlands bank property. WETLAND MITIGATION PROPERTIES It may be possible that the city or third parties may wish to enhance or recreate wetlands on one or more of these four parcels which the city has purchased. If a third party wishes to use one of these parcels as part of the wetlands mitigation bank, the controlling city department must approve the concept . The controlling city department would then be credited with any cash contribution that would be made to access the parcel . If a city department wished to use another city department' s land to enhance or recreate wetlands , then a separate agreement between those departments will be necessary to trace the funds, unless both of the sources of funds are the city' s General Fund. Once again, approval of the controlling city department would be necessary. Lawrence J. arren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington A8 . 84 : 53 . �r« CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator May 29, 1992 Karen Lane Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Hazardous Material Investigation Dear Ms. Lane: The City of Renton is conducting hazardous material investigation (Level II) for Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park properties in accordance with your May 13, 1992 letter to Mayor Earl Clymer. The May 13 letter stated that "The City shall conduct such analysis as expeditiously as possible and will try to obtain the results of the analysis by May 30, 1992." We originally set up a work program with our consultant to meet that time schedule. However, it has come to our attention that the investigation will not be completed until June 8th, due to the time needed to perform soil sampling at the consultant's laboratory. On June 8, we will receive a completed report with all sampling results and suggested remedial actions, if any are warranted. We wish to ask for an extension of the May 30 finish date to June 8. If you concur with the extension, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to the undersigned. Sincerely yours, Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner Long Range Planning Glacier Park City Attorney cc: Mayor Clymer Lynn Guttmann Larry Warren Kay Shoudy 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington. 98055 L /NMENSI_ Aillik`_ ...SE■-_ GLACIER PARK COMPANY Land Management for Increased Opportunities. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RFNTON JUN 11992 June 1, 1992 4D 79, kt:QEIVED Ms. Mary Lynne Myer JUN 041�.9e' Principal Planner Long Range Planning WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, PLANNING DIVISION City of Renton DEAN & FONTES, P.S. CITY OF TOV, 200 Mill Avenue S. JUN Renton, WA 98055 kEGOVIEU � �� Dear Mary Lynne: Enclosed are the signed original and copy of letter acknowledging Glacier Park's agreement to extend to June 8 the finish date for the city of Renton to conduct its hazardous material invetigation (Level II) for Parcels 13 and 14. Would you please return an executed copy to us for our records. Sincerely, Karen E. Lane U Vice President Development KEL:jmc 6.kel .028 Enclosures 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington 98104•206-467-5500 A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1992 TO: Interdepartmental Work Group FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank Update This memo is to update you on the status and remaining tasks for the wetland mitigation bank and the Glacier Park purchases. PURCHASES: On May 15, 1992, the City and Glacier Park consummated the purchase and sale agreement on the following areas: a. Parcel 1 - wetlands lying adjacent to Lind Ave and 27th St. b. Parcel 13 - Portion of the P-1 and P-9 channel C. Parcel 3 and 4 - southern part of the Renton Marsh, adjacent to Oakesdale and the Seattle Times property Parcel Acreage Purchase Price Parcel 1 24.28 acres $100,000 Parcel 3-4 14.34 acres included in Parcel 1 Parcel 13 46.44 acres $100,000 Total $200,000 Glacier Park has agreed to pay the outstanding street improvement, real property taxes and all special assessment and Local Improvement District installments against the property prorated to the date of closing. The City will pay all real property taxes, all special assessments and Local Improvement District installments against the property for the period following the Date of closing. Memo to Interdepartme'nfal Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 2 REMAINING ISSUES: 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Level one analysis, the beginning analysis level under the State's hazardous materials law, CERLA, was performed while the parcels were still under the ownership of Glacier Park. This analysis indicated the possibility of some potential contamination from the Sternoff site and the unknown origin of any material used in filling the tributary on Parcel 14, which extends into Parcel 13. Attached is a map of the former tributary which traverses the Sternoff site, Parcel 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13. A level II analysis, which will verify whether contamination is present, is underway on Parcel 13 and 14. See attached map for areas under investigation. Golder and Associates will be submitting a scope and budget (under $10,000) by May 25, 1992. The analysis will be completed by June 8, 1992. Options: ■If contamination is present, we could: withdraw from the purchase of the affected parcels, do a joint clean-up, require Glacier Park to do a clean-up prior to our receiving title to the land, keep the parcels affected and keep them capped. Suggested Participants Due Date Product Larry Warren, Ron Straka, Greg June 10 Recommendation Zimmerman, Mary Lynn Myer for actions ■If no contamination is present, we should continue to finalize the agreements for purchase and sale. 2. FINAL COSTS AND INTERFUND TRANSFERS The City work group must finalize the actual costs of the transaction and future obligations and complete a financing agreement for internal interfund transfers and other financing mechanisms. Suggested sted participants Due date Product Larry Warren, Cil Pierce, Ron June 30, 1992 Draft inter- Straka, Mel Wilson, Dan Clements, faced document John Webley, Mary Lynne Myer, and agreement Arlene Haight 3. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT It is suggested that the Parks Department manage Parcel 1 and 3 and 4, since they are adjacent to the Springbrook Trail. Storm Water should manage Parcel 13, since its primary use could be for the P-1, P-9 channel. Memo to Interdepartmen Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 3 Suggested sted participants Due date Product John Webley June 30, 1992 Memo establish- ing city owner- ship & manage- memt responsi- bility MITIGATION BANK The mitigation bank agreement must be finalized by June 15, 1992, with Glacier Park. Even though the Trillium Corporation purchased the parcels which will be the major sending properties to the bank, Glacier Park is still the entity with whom we must finalize the agreements. The mitigation bank agreement document is acceptable, however, several issues must be worked out. 1 If the Level H analysis shows any hazardous wastes on Mitigation Bank Site 1, we have the same options as outlined above under Purchase section. This analysis will be completed June 8, 1992. Glacier Park will be submitting lot line adjustments for Mitigation Site 1 and 2 within one week to the Development Services Division. It is expected that these applications will receive expedited processing. Glacier may also submit applications for vegetation removal permits and for wetlands permits for the parcels Trillium purchased. It is suggested that these applications not be processed until the Mitigation Bank agreement is finalized. There is a discrepancy of 7 acres in the legal description of mitigation bank site 1 and the area shown on the maps. Glacier is researching this discrepancy. Once the mitigation bank agreement is completed, we must be prepared to implement the bank. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1) A schedule and agreed upon methodology for processing the lot line adjustments and the sending properties' permits. Suggested participants Due date Product Don Erickson May 28 Establish procedure and schedule 2) 7 acre discrepancy in Mitigation Bank Site 1. Review Glacier Park's research and decide on approach: Memo to Interdepartmental Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 4 Options: If we are short 7 acres: they donate more land they fill less land they provide cash settlement we negate mitigation bank agreement Suggested participants Due date Product Mary Lynne and Interdepart-May 30 Recommendation al work group 3. How shall the bank be established, funded, managed and implemented? Suggestedparticipants Due date Product Mary Lynne with Interdepart- June 15 A work program for al work group review establishing, fund- ing, managing and implementing the bank. vfollow CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 30, 1991 TO: Lynn Guttm n, Department Administrator FROM: Kay Shou '14 ning Manager VIA: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner 7-n 4t)l SUBJECT: Federal changes to the wetland delineation process ISSUE: On August 12, 1991, President Bush restated his national goal of "no net loss of wetlands" but redirected a program of implementation for this goal. Central to his new program was a mandate to the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to use the 1987 manual for delineation of wetlands for any 404 permits. Previously the 1989 manual, agreed upon by EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the US Agriculture Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been used by virtually all federal, state, and local jurisdictions. In addition, he directed a new 1991 manual to be prepared. (Apparently, regulatory authority remains the same under the new directive; COE regulates dredge and fill activities; states are given authority from EPA to regulate for water quality under the 1972 Clean Water Act; and local jurisdictions regulate for all other activities as they establish.) This action leaves all jurisdictions outside of COE in the position of deciding which manual they will use for delineation. The Federal agencies and state agencies are in apparent disarray. Therefore, the City of Renton must make its own decision as to an appropriate methodology for wetlands delineations until a new manual is adopted. This memo proposes continued use of the 1989 manual and suggests that this methodology will not unnecessarily constrain development potential, especially in the Green River Valley. UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN VALLEY AREA Historically, the Green River Valley area provided many acres of water quality and storage functions. With additional fill and development, the storage capacity of the area is immensely reduced resulting in wetland migration, localized flooding, increased need for management of run-off, erosion and water quality problems. The Valley needs careful management of its water resources so it can continue to provide economic Memorandum to Lynn Guttmann September 30, 1991 Page 2 return to the property owners and City of Renton. Use of the 1989 manual and the draft ordinance as an interim guide will give a consistent approach. REASONS FOR USING THE 1989 MANUAL o The manual is based on accepted scientific research. o It can be administered and interpreted in an objective fashion. o It yields consistent results no matter the delineator. o It accounts for all wetland situations, including disturbed sites. o It provides quantifiable information o It is valid. WIN/WIN SITUATION If the 1989 manual is used for delineation, the mitigation, compensation and replacement ratios are still up to the local jurisdiction to decide. I suggest the City of Renton use the draft wetlands ordinance as guidance for these issues. It provides a system for allowing lower value wetlands to be used and/or replaced in a flexible manner while still protecting the water quality treatment, storage, and habitat functions. The overall goal of no net loss can still be reached. (Higher value wetlands also need mitigation compensation and/or replacement guidance. The draft ordinance could be used for these wetlands as well.) Interim use of the 1989 manual and ordinance would protect the City from: o net loss of wetlands o increased flooding which is sure to result if wetlands are filled without compensatory storage o decreased water quality and aquifer recharge o decreased habitat functions o decreased economic return from Valley properties. HOW IT COULD BE DONE For all properties with wetlands, a delineation (using 1989 methodology) should be made with an analysis of the other functions and values provided by the wetland. If the wetland is found to be a lower category wetland, the City should consider a development and mitigation scenario, if requested by the developer. Then if commensurate storage, wildlife habitat, and other functions and values can be provided as suggested in the draft ordinance, this property owner should be allowed to develop that lower category wetland area. This provides a defensible delineation methodology, a scenario mandating protection for high quality wetlands and allowing development of lower quality wetlands, if impacts can be mitigated. Property owners are provided with a flexible approach. All parties should benefit from this approach. Memorandum to Lynn Guttmann September 30, 1991 Page 3 CITY AUTHORITY The City still has authority to regulate wetlands through SEPA, as we have been doing. The draft ordinance would provide interim guidance in compensation, mitigation, replacement questions through SEPA until the federal manual is decided and until we adopt a wetlands ordinance. This approach is similar to our present operating procedure since we base our SEPA decisions and our ordinance on the latest science and methodology for wetlands. The draft wetlands ordinance is attached for your reference. Please note the sections on variances, flexible buffers, compensation, mitigation, and replacement. We have received favorable comments from WSDOE, Don Erickson, and Glacier Park, to name a few. Additional public involvement meetings will be held in October and November, and a third and final draft ordinance proposed to Council in late December, early January. WHY WE SHOULD NOT USE THE 1987 MANUAL The 1987 manual differs from the 1989 manual in two important respects. o It gives little guidance on the treatment of disturbed sites. U It does not include facultative upland plants as a wetland indicator. For example, on disturbed sites during the dry season, species of grasses either introduced or naturally occurring there will not fit the wetland indicator list in the manual. (They are facultative upland species.) However, native grasses found in early spring or winter on the same sites will likely match the indicator list, but will die out during the dry seasons. If the delineation is done during the dry season, the wetland may therefore appear to shrink in size. However, during the rest of the year, it could be providing important storage and wetland functions. In a recent example, a Green River Valley property owner conducted a delineation under the 1987 manual and the 1989 manual. The 1987 delineation was done during the dry season of the year on a disturbed site. The property owner believes the following illustrates the differences: 1987 manual 1989 manual 2 acres 26 acres Additionally, six wetland consulting firms have called to indicate their displeasure with the 1987 manual. They find it hard to use, scientifically deficient, and difficult to achieve consistent results. WHY WE SHOULD NOT USE THE 1991 DRAFT MANUAL Concurrently, the Administration is formulating a new 1991 manual which will supersede both the 1987 and 1989 manual at the time of its adoption by federal Memorandum to Lynn Guttmann September 30, 1991 Page 4 agencies. Comment period is up on October 15, 1991. No firm deadline has been set for adoption of the new manual. The 1991 draft manual has a number of differences between it and the 1989 manual: U It increases the number of days of saturation which may be valid in other parts of the country, but artificially reduces the size of our migrating and seasonal wetlands. U It defines a growing season by the nearest weather forecasting station. In the Puget Sound region there are many in close proximity to each other and without a standardized base. Results here could only be characterized as random. 0 Disturbed wetlands have a list of criteria to be met. One is monitoring well programs for three years if a site is not clearly "wet". Many developers believe this is an onerous requirement. U It reduces the number of plants identified as indicators of wetlands. o It redefines the soil surface. REACTIONS TO THE CHANGES: I have attached several articles typifying the public's reaction to the changes. The State of Washington DOE is conducting field tests of the 1987, 1989 and 1991 draft manuals and has not yet issued a decision on their preference. Surrounding jurisdictions have made the following decisions: Tukwilla: 1989 manual incorporated in their SAO. King County: 1989 manual incorporated in their SAO. Kent: 1989 manual in draft ordinance. Auburn: no ordinance, regulated under SEPA, allowing developers to use either 1987 or 1989 manual. Our present SEPA process has used the 1989 manual, and the draft wetlands ordinance incorporates the 1989 manual. By carefully working under the SEPA process, I believe we can devise an interim operating procedure based on the draft ordinance which will meet Renton's needs even though federal and state regulations are unclear and uncertain. When the City finally adopts a wetlands ordinance, as it must under the Growth Management Act, we can then drop the interim procedure. I suggest a sunset date of March 1, 1992, since that is the deadline for the State's GMA requirement for adoption of critical areas ordinances. attachments loan. ' �.,► !r: ` ,� I .1`'�� i � `tf-I(11 Jy 1. �.:.� �/ •��•. U �.:�.e�e O Bush pl a pofitks' With our wetlands etlands once were considered stinking bogs, forlorn marshes or mosquito-infest- ed swamps where man dared not tread. They were drained and rendered into "usable" land for farms or cities. E Now, scientists have convinced lawmakers that _ wetlands deserve better treatment. Life begins in - _ wetlands, which support species ranging from - microscopic phytoplankton to deer and bears, and, ultimately, man. They also prevent flooding and purify our water. The Clean Water Act of 1972 required a federal perit for filling a wetland. But it wasn't until m 1989 that government scientists agreed on a defi- nition ; for wetlands, which included certain soil t - and plant types, and saturation for at least seven a "6rt � � � ' u ° consecutive days a year. After intense lobbying by developers, oil com- panies and farmers, the Bush administration t recently decided to change that definition to ~ = allow development of millions of acres of wet- lands. The scientific community is outraged,and EPA Administrator William Reilley opposes it. The new definition, 21 days of saturation, has no scientific basis, experts say. - It's important that politics not be allowed to overshadow scientific knowledge. Scientists know that destroying wetlands is biologically and s == = economically dangerous. Destruction of wetlands is linked to the decline of aquatic life. Destruction of coastal marshes and lagoons on the West Coast is linked to the decline of halibut. On the East Coast,destruction j of eel grass beds by upstream wetland develop- ment has led to the decline of shrimp and crab. t Politics and science always are uncomfortable �- bedfellows. But in this case,political expediency t - has completely undermined a scientific decision. Wetlands are too important to allow that. An unbiased scientific definition of wetlands must be Z made, and the government should stick to it. �`Y�-�.M`+'uxh" .,c.;s�:.---a{+"a-.;:i •3w"t..x+-�Sr-i�"r!'�,;r, - __ - t,.�;is- _ _�x:'� �=�= es le FDIDAY val Dail y ving South King County 71ince 1889. I �-: - =;. I I I(I I:. I 7Z I I m1den"1% Wet1an-mkdS% may opel I tv Dul t4m) � l I By DANNY WESTNEAT Relaxed rules could affect 2,500 acres in Valley shouldn't have uali's as wetlands in the Valley Daily News first place because it'ss s scarcely wet. � As much as a third of the Green River J But biologists say at least some of those ` Valley's'remaining wetlands may be open to The guidelines,in place since 1989,were ly political decision.could open hundreds of definitions have slowed or completely halt- lands are important for flood control and development because the federal govern- replaced for the time being with an older, wetland acres to developers in Kent, ed Valley floor development. filtering pollution from water.regardless of ment has gone back in time on wetlands more lenient standard, according to wet- Auburn,and Renton. Once seen as worthless swamps and bogs, whether water is visible on the surface. protection. lands experts. In Auburn, for example. nearly 90 per- wetlands have become a flash point nation- "This is terrible,"said Anne Watanabe. I In a surprise move two weeks ago. the "Because of this change,about 30 percent cent of the undeveloped land in the industri- wide in the battle between environmental a Kent wetlands planner. "The 1989 stan- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers discarded of our wetlands are now no longer consid- at corridor is currently classified as wet.but protection and economic development. dard wasn't always popular with landown- the current federal standards that define and eyed wetland," said Lois Stark, Auburn's the change could relax protection on as Most of the local land affected by the lat. ers, but everyone agreed it was the most protect an estimated 2.500 acres of wetlands environmental planner. much as 400 acres.Stark said. est rule-change is"wet pasture,"predomi- i in the Valley. The flip-flop,which some labeled a pure- For the past three years, strict wetland nantly scrub land that many critics say See WETLANDS,A18 Abortion The big et smallerwoman 's rights bill -T remains ti approved bySenate � �� - - ��nked W ly ALAN FRAM _ y ,� ` ` ■ I i ssociated Press _+ .. to killer ? 1 WASHINGTON The Senate � � � � "� � ,�it•'Y,. pproved legislation Thursday ' A: �t, � -t :yoking a ban on abortion counsel- �,,�` � �Ali>;1.°` n al federally financedtaxpayer-paid clinics, • By IRENE SVETE nd allowing taxpayer-paid abor- 4_ , �, - {r 3 yY "' x -y�F,, Valley Daily News "Pretending that controversial d.o percent aoove 1991 amounts. behavior does not exist, or lecturing M Older Americans: Provides$400 million for employment of people not to engage in risky behav- senior citizens, about the same as this year. ion, does not work," said Sen. ■ Handicapped education: $5.8 billion, nearly $200 million Brock Adams, D-Wash. above 1991 levels. A second planned survey of teen- ■ Job training:$4.2 billion,$124 million more than this year. age sexual behavior was canceled by Health and Human Services Secre- Bush's position on the counseling to notify their parents before receiv- tary Louis Sullivan in July after con- prohibition is unclear. ing an abortion from a federally servatives objected to it. The Senate measure also allows financed clinic or organization, The bill would also nullify the federal funds to pay for abortions unless a doctor or counselor decides Supreme Court's decision last May for women who have been raped or such a step could be dangerous. . upholding athree-year-old ban on are victims of incest. The president ■ Makes it mandatory that doc- �- federally financed family-planning has flatly promised to veto the legis- tors, dentists and other medical clinics from giving abortion advice lation unless the provision is workers who may be exposed to to clients. The House's version, of removed. body fluids wear masks,gloves,and the legislation also overturns the The bill also: take other precautions against the ban. ■ Requires girls less than age 18 spread of AIDS and other diseases. WETLANDS: an undetermined "interim" period. Renton, and unincorporated King They will use a manual adopted in* County have said they will probably Debate over worth 1987 instead, corps officials said. continue to use the stricter guide- ofuidelines aThis "back to the future" lines,while Auburn will side with the g pproach to wetlands regulation was Cotes of Engineers. demanded by political interests who. But planners worry developers Continued from page Al felt the current rules put development- will now have more ammunition to in too much of a pinch, observers attack local jurisdictions that try to scientific way for determining wet- say. , impose stricter wetlands standards lands." "The changes were made at a very than those used by the Corps of Engi- In fact, the guidelines the Corps of high political level," said Bill Riley, neers. Engineers just threw out were "the wetlands program manager for the "If nothing else, the change will culmination of 40 years of debate Environmental Protection Agency put a lot of(development) pressure about how to technically define wet- office in Seattle. on those areas that aren't visibly wet lands," a biologist for the Environ- In fact,an amendment to the Corps _ which can be very valuable wet- mental Protection Agency said last of Engineers' budget would have lands," said Kent's Watanabe. month. shut down the regulatory branch of But the chief of the Corps of Engi- the agency completely unless it In any event, the change has creat- neers in Washington, D.C., said agreed to discard the stricter wet- ed considerable confusion, planners those guidelines were not working lands guidelines,corps officials said. say. Nobody is sure how to define a after all. The rules were too strict, At the corps' Seattle office, wet- Wetland now, let alone determine its and actually led to dry upland prop- lands scientists were described as functions and value, they say. erty being labeled wetland in error, "brushing the dust off manuals in the In the Valley, planners said devel- > he said Thursday. historical files" in order to comply opers involved in unfinished projects "We had biologists telling us the with the rules change. could be required to perform new guidelines forced them to label some- It is not clear yet which standard wetlands surveys using the 1987 thing a wetland, even when they will take hold in King County. Kent, guidelines. i knew it wasn't," said John Studt, head of the corps'national regulatory branch. The Bush administration had long guage?We have a fourth-year Span- ar gued that wetlands regulations Auburn will g ish class this year because there were j should be relaxed to ensure that get new high enough kids interested," McCallum j "every little mud puddle" was not says. i protected as if it were a wildlife pre- school in 1994 On the flip side,there are the sheer serve. numbers of students. Environmentalists reply by argu- Continued from page Al You really have to work to make ing that the laws have not been tough enough to prevent a steady loss of unavailable at man high schools. sure some kids don't fall through the Ovate resources throughout. the y g cracks,"McCallum said. "The staff D' g Auburn boasts a wide-ranging has to be sure every student knows country, with the recent pace of con- vocational education program, with there's someone here that cares version estimated at 300,000 acres a what McCallum terms a "full-scale about them." I year. automotive center," and advanced Earlier in August, President Bush classes in metals technology, elec- McCallum is familiar with both had proposed revisions to the 1989 tronics and other fields. There's a big and little schools. He graduated wetlands standard. Currently under- diverse honors program with in 1950 from Montesano High going public comment and testing, advanced-placement classes where School in Grays Harbor County in a those changes are expected to students can obtain college credits class of 46 students. • C become law in some form in about a by completing college-level course "At a school like that," McCal- year. work. lum recalls, "you play on the bas- But now, the Corps of Engineers "And how many high schools can ketball team, and then you come out DA' has abandoned that 1989 standard for offer a fOlIrth VP11 :" i.,.,_ it ti if_f; o 4 1 :.. .Lt �..,..a 11 j 1 ►u nted for By JEAN PARIETTI Veiley Daily News reported missing by friends, vela- KIuNT - News of Pay 'N Pak's bankruptcy . lives or employers, he emphasized. filing was greeted with relief and optimism- but "'That gives us some hope," Bai- not much surprise-by employees of the 30-year- ) a ;' f# ley said. old home improvement retailer. ' Some residents may have been out "We kind of view it as the birth of the new of town or els4•where in the city company, Dan Aulwurm, director of merchan- 9 when the fire started, he explained. dising and marketing, said Sunday. "We've had The fire was reported at 9:37 p.m. to go through this agony, but we're going to be a ` a '� "( PDT Saturday and went from one to better company for it." * r live alarms in less than 45 minutes. Aulwurm and other employees of the compa h look more than 100 firefighters n 's headquarters office in Kent had their annual using 20 engines from the city and picnic as scheduled Sundayl.at Lake Wilderness �x + King County until 3:51 a.m. to Park in Maple Valley. Some:of them took time extinguish the flames. away from the festivities to talk about the reorga- Fur the second time in six days, nization move. South King County firefighters were 'I think it'll allow us to refocus," said Mich- l7 called on to assist the Seattle Fire elle Beck of Kent,who has worked in the compa- Department. A week ago, firefigh- ny's personnel department just over a year. Icrs were dispatclfed to stand by really believe in what Pay N Pak s doing. ►° l ,R I hr iw while Seattle firefighters fought a Beck and other personnel employees said they '`. 't+' �' fire on a fish processing ship docked spent Saturday afternoon telephoning managers near Pier 91. of the company s 78 stores";apd telling them the 1 ' sr.Mt'n}*SrVi�:::. '. 1 t Two task force teams of 12 to 15 news. The reaction was geperally favorable. - Photo by GARY See FIRE,A5 See WORKERS,A5 Pay 'N Pak officials Douglas Hoskins, left, and John Markley In tug of war at picnic. ew rules dry upwetlands Wetlands ... By DANNY WESTNEAT "The White House has launched a , r , , f then and nov Valley Daily News 'z,f tzltF�g i` � �' �' 'r' �`F` By DEBBIE CAFAZZO full-out assault on the nation swet- With each passing day, South lands," said David Ortman, head of , ( ' I t', "- ,:Special to Valley Daily News King County's land seems to be get- the environmental group Friends ,In the past century, Ulc G ting drier. the Earth. l "We've 1'"' +{ ��1 � �� I eral Swamplands Act sul, Wetlands - those swamps, bogs, We ve got Vice President(Dan) ) R r. ,� F dized'farmers and others �+ and marshy pastures that dominate Quayle and Chief of Staff (John) ..helped drain marshes ;i most low-lying areas around Puget Sununu cutting deals that have dras- Y g g g bogs. Sound - have started to disappear at tically changed wetlands laws," he At that time, wetlands wl an unprecedented rate during the said, considered worthless swan past six months. "What do those two know about that bred nothing but disea But not because they're being wetlands science?" "carrying mosquitoes. turned into parking lots. In fact, Quayle and Sununu have k ,. `For many years, the U It's because the federal govern- been cutting deals. In late August, :+ ,:Army Corps of Enginc ment has mixed politics and science the Washington Post quoted a gov- 4 x' .• - focused on "reclaiming" a into a witches brew of relaxed ernment insider as saying the White ,, lands - filling them in so tl guidelines that could turn man of House's work on wetlands was ""� "� "" "`� "'; ..►r S Y t �� - could bc.converted to I the Valley's less obvious wetlands "reaching new heights of political. - into the legal equivalent of sand lots,. Valley Daily News photo by DUANE HAMAMURA See WETLANDS, critics say. See RULES,A5 Wetland between Auburn and Kent south of South 277th Street. I � N4• w Valley Daily News (Monday, September 23, 1991 ■A5 plans and had devastating copse- Bush's proposed changes to wet- RULES: critics quences for businesses and schools. lands rules could ease protection on F� fir, "The environment is important, another 10 percent of what are now #erg; say politics is but the economy of the United States considered wet pastures and forests. L -vim should also be of some concern." Incredulous that politics can so -. dominating science Hai The president of the Washington dominate science, some members of. State Farm Bureau went even fur- the local environmental community Continued from page Al ther, saying environmentalists were ues can .�.., y doubt whether these chance intervention." "social engineers" who had gone ever take hold. ' A summertime scientific review much too far in their zeal to protect "It seems to me the government of what constitutes a wetland was eve patch of round with a puddle every p a p . will have to abandon this position,' cs A s essentially commandeered by White on it. Ortman said. "The Vatican tried to E` House officials who had so little "True environmentalists would ignore Galileo and say the earth was direct knowledge of the issue that be more understanding than these standing still, but you don'[get very they had to be given a special wet- people," said Darrell Turner. far when you completely deny sci- q lands glossary, the Post reported. They've got a clear agenda- to ence." From those meetings came Presi- change the way we live." For developers, the wetland issue dent Bush's proposed changes to But. biologists sav the wetlands is more than science. It's all about hoto byaGARY PAYNE wetlands rules, which have been guidelines were the result of years of striking a balance between the envi- oyees at picnic. attacked by environmentalists and research and study by experts from ronment and economic develop- wetlands biologists as having no five federal agencies. Although they ment. changing its mar- relation to science. may not mesh with economic devel- "Everyone's saying this is poli- to become more For beleaguered property owners, opment plans, the rules do reflect a tics winning out over science,". however, the political hijinks may "scientific reality," they say. Flynn said. "It's common sense and 4 Pak unveiled its provide a welcome relief from what "It took a lot of information and a a lot of other values winning out apt in Puyallup-a they describe as "overkill" wet- lot of years to figure out what a wet- over off-the-edge environmental- tat also features a lands laws. land is," said Michael Rylko, an ists." .esign center. . The current guidelines, they say, aquatic biologist with the local But the science-in question, actual irkley said, eight have created wetlands out of moun- office of the Environmental Protec- biological criteria for the changes ie Seattle-Tacoma tainsides, farms, and places so dry tion Agency. that occur to soil and plants in stand- "you have to avoid using the word Now 7 the rules are changing quick- ing water, was so important to sev- deled like the Puy- dust' in every sentence." ly, which may end up relaxing pro- eral federal biologists that they rich is doing phe- Earlier this summer, the Ameri- tection on hundreds of acres of resigned this summer rather than can Farm Bureau Federation and undeveloped land in the Green River have their names on the new, -he beginning of other groups submitted a list of 400 Valley's industrial corridor. relaxed standards. take the compa- such wetland "horror stories" to In one fell swoop in August, for Locally, scientists are now testing aid. "We'll create Congress. They detailed, for exam- example, a temporary rules change Bush's new guidelines in the field to 1e" in the market. pie, an Oregon couple whose farm "dried up"as much as a third of the see whether they will work to identi Ipdating 24 other was classified as a wetland even Valleys remaining wetlands, local fy known wetlands. iterstate 5 corridor though the farmers spent$30,000 to planners say. That studv will be done in early tnd Portland. The irrigate it. Auburn has almost 1,500 acres of October,only days before the end of rural stores, such "Current wetlands rules are wetlands, Kent nearly 1,000 acres, a obey commentperiod on Bush's tern Washington, absurd," said Dan Flynn, director and Renton more than 200 acres, in p updated but won't of the Master Builders, a King the valley floor region near Proposed rule changes. i center, Aulwurm County development group. "They Longacres. Debbie Cafazzo contributed to have played havoc with land-use By 1992, biologists estimate that this story. sites only in Thinking of wetlands only as duck chance, biologists say. Rather, they- urity is anyone's WETLANDS. ponds with cattails is a mistake,said are formed by special oxygen-defi- it, he said. Begin- Erik Stockdale, a King County cient conditions that occur only in ie committee will The kidneys of the resource planner. the presence of standing water. sites to five rec- But it's a common mistake that is "Wetlands are products of histo- )r each facility. A ecosystem currently undermining the nation's rv," said Klaus Richter, a King c meetings are wetland policies, biologists say. County biologist. Some can take :t few weeks to get Continued from page Al Even Vice-President Dan Quayle, le. Q Y thousands of years to form. such as 1n the sites. grasping for a catch-all wetland def- Queen's Bog, north of Issaquah, id that if the objec- land. inition, wants to see water on his which took root some 10,000 years -e comprehensive That was before the public under- wetlands. ago. mittee's final rec- stood the word ecology. During a scientific review of fed- Wetlands are important for their ,could come from Today,ecologists look admiringly era!wetland standards last summer, es. at wetlands, the most productive Quayle reportedly asked, "How ability to filter surface water that mmittee has spent systems in nature. As with most about if we say when it's wet, it's runs across lawns and farm fields, down roofs and across parking lots ,nths reviewing 92 flood plains,the Green River Valley wet?" and highways - soaking up earth. ariety of technical is dominated by the watery resourc- But water is apparently only one oil.bacteria. metals. fertilizers.pes- -iteria approved by es. of three elements used to identify a ticides and other stuff that nobody -ouncil. The crite- Open marshes, bogs, swamps and typical wetland.The others are types wants to drink or swim in. rhether a site has ponds are obvious examples of wet- of soil and plants, both of which can s available to its lands,but wetlands also can occur in indicate a wetland habitat when no This filtering ability often prompts nes and environ- low-lying grassy meadows and in water is present. biologists to call wetlands the "kid- forests, biologists say. Wetlands don"t just happen by new of the ecosv_ stem. miect is the mo-t — CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: December 4, 1991 TO: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner FRO Don Erickson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Phone Conversation with Mark Stieffle, KPFF After talking with Mark this afternoon, I owe you an apology since he did have my copy of the draft SAMP proposal. I had showed him the sketch at an EDC meeting in Seattle in response to a question about the SAMP and apparently he walked off with it. In my conversation with him today, he indicated that he is anxious to meet with us ASAP to see if we can get a workable program off the ground before the end of the year as we had earlier indicated we would try to do. He wondered if we might be able to meet sometime next week. He is concerned about the holidays starting to take their toll later in the month. My calendar looks pretty good, (if we hurry) for either the afternoon of Tuesday, December 10th, or Wednesday, December 11th. I don't know if Lenora discussed the six sites that came in from Lance Mueller, Architects for pre- application? According to Mark, these were submitted so that the COE would go out and do delineation since without an application they will not go out to a site and do a delineation. Glacier Park is clearly trying to get the delineation done as quickly as possible before the Nation #26 Permit of Section 404 expires (they are afraid that the COE may go to a half acre under a new national permit) and while the COE is still using the 1987 Federal Manual. According to Mark, Glacier Park's wetlands consultant, David Evans & Associates, says the delineation does not change whether'87 or'89 is used. Please let me know what is a good time for you. Thanks. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 1991 TO: Ad Hoc Review Team Jay Covington Larry Warren Randall Parsons Mel Wilson Ron Olson Jim Hanson John Webley Kay Shoudy FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner'I f a, cr� 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 fhe 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 properties in the Valley. It would operate in this manner: 1. Properties with wetlands would be inventoried and wetlands would be categorized based on their size, functions, and values. 2. This inventory would be submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. Higher value wetlands would be designated for preservation and no change. 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 increase the developability of the parcels. 5. A third area would be designated as an area for creation of wetlands to replace wetlands filled or altered (see #4). This third area would be called a mitigation bank area. Here previous fill would be removed 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. mglacbank cc: Lynn Guttmann '. r Li I � Ors r077,0 ��J 1 L,073 M D em fir)krr-/ Allo 3 "Pb /&� �40x) - �W PAWL 1-a 1,.� c ,J._.._._. .�-1-_,'. �- -,'o... - - _.._ '� o` P - _...... ......... ___ ____ ......___................. -_----_-__ ___....... __ __ 14 _._ - ---- - - - - . Pu's r c�.z___ . ar. i en Wo_..S` ch ry rvId _.__.._.... ... _. (�Y _.._..� .._._ _.__._..._....ry. .__.... ... 100 N� v s � ` S c_...-...1dlUC ..- ...___....... .__........ ..........._..... _._._._._ _. _Z...._.. _..._ ___ _.-- - ------ 3 ii -_.__._...._...-...__._._...-.._ ...-.._.._._..__._....... __.._.._.._.._.._.._._._._..-._..-...__._..-...__.__.._._..___.._._.___�. �i �i fl i li ii �I it il i, __. .......... ---- i S% 3j9bj r it i ii PVf Vier` ,c( S-5 q_foo.g0 II a0 6�q � � it 3 av Cis w� U Wit_ i li ----- i-----._._-_._ --- i �� i�l�'D �2� � ��__Qa i of i✓t -�[l . f01gc� _.__. ______ ii ii i; i - li ii li Ij �i ii it fi - -!+----_ --------__------------------_ __--- u i ij It fi i it Ij I II I I �y f_ �- �;- X (")Zoe? PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DFVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: &dz:/�� - JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# JPLII / n , � It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT Include inspection fees,side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER - SAD/W —p - SAD/S - JUA —Q - LID TB FUTURE OBLIGATIONS _,2�d b SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) n5'/ lO0 133 �sv SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit $470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) 7��0 ��'� ��-g•3� TOTAL $ L'_If subject property is within an LID, It is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. D N 77 -77 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for"Local Improvement District No.....d].9..:...,"Created by Ordinance EAST VALLEY ROAD iY ............... EDUtled"An Ordinance providing for the ImprDremeat of From S.W. �6th St. to S.W 41st St. and Related Streets s NORMAL N9 T — DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMOUNT Of INTIRIHi NAME OF OWNER I PAYM[NT; l a •,rJ AHHlHHMlNT AMOUNT., AMOUNT SubdlvWo� �1 elk ADDITION Oe PUT :.y.; 5 MORTGAGE CO. of L.1 r' Sec 30-23 05, PorINW 1/4 of NW 1/4 � - 20. Mobil Oil Corporation Be 00- 2_01 W-2 F C r o S bd hS �} 1711 13th Ave. S.W. fl 24 48 of + ubd Th S M a a R A e Seattle WA 98734 r e o aSa c of Curve ear N 6- 2-12 W Th Mobil ito ; WLno S cad -4 -1 Ei, pnint c o Property Tax Division I P. �f 4 S 1W 9 Dallas TX 75221 n C 21. Burl n t n North v' Pro erty Tax De t• Industri Pa k n � ;• 208 Central Buildin L �i Seattle WA 98104 is 22. Burlington Northern Inc. lot 8, Bl 6, urlin ton Northern 156,489 7. I Pro ert Tax De t. Industrial Pak R n n (� 208 Central Building Seattle WA 98104 Lot 1, B1 1, Burlin ton Northern 15 94 I — 23. Burlington Northern _- — an eve opment Eorp. Industrial Pa k R nton —_-- Bu4lding1 w LYJ 1, 810 3rd Avenue IL—� '� I g Seattle WA 98104 �_PrIL �Pcar Ong No t e p 0 yia I d. Pk 24. (Glacier Park Co. SP 3�9 q e f79 92�90 2 �Sd Sp i 208 Central Buildin Seattle WA 98104 ur ing Note 0 1i7tlia I d. Pk;I Iq ` 25. Puget Sound Power & Light C on 90240�J p T s fry P c hy', Pu et Power Buildin f Bellevue WA 98684- D Y 26. Gla i r LriS.iio 208 Central Buildin Orillia I dus rial Park R n o ?I 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104 I 27,Garfield 8 Associates Ltd. Lot 4 8,_lgck li Burlington Northern I 64.432 i 11P.O. Box 800 _—�Orillia I_dus rial-Park Renton.Ml,_ - _ __--- - 1200 S.W. 34th Street ,Renton—WA 98057 —_-- _—_ _ ------ -fis�rn..0rillia—.._ iot_5, Bl l_,.�urlington-Nor-there. P.O. Box 60100_TA ,Orillia..,Ir�dustriaY Park Renton,.Al Los Angeles CA I I I tom; CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for "Local Improvement District No.....3.0.2......." Created by Ordinance No....31.3.$....... Entitled "An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of...LIND AVE SW, SW 41st & SW 34th St. ........................................... DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMtRINT DE NORMAL NEXT NAME OF OWNER _ A1MXT OF ASSESSMENT PAYMENT INTEREST & MORT. CO. BUS. LOT BLK ADDITION OR PLAT ASSESSMENT AS EQUALIZED AMOUNT AMOUNT .' 3 Koll/Intereal Northwes 1 Koll Business 6246 2 /y _ 33 2021 152nd Ave. NE Center/Renton Redmond WA 9805? DD D G Z y G. 44A 'nd 20. / Glacier Park Co. 1 6 Burl N Orillia 2110 .42 i�/ 7 N4,OS .2'7437 Central Bldg, ]Tnrl PL- Rpntnn #2 �r . QQ Seattle WA 98104 l ./ Glacier Park Co. 2 6 url N Orillia 35143.82 06 :s H� 3`s 437 Central Bldg. Ind P Renton 810 3rd Ave l- Q ,Glacier Park Co. ur 3 , 3� 437 Central Bldg. Ind Pk Renton #2 810 3rd Ave. 2 Seattle, WA 98104 23 Glacier Park Co. i' 37 437 Central Blda, Ind Pk Re tnn #2 810 3rd Ave. 2 i Seattle, WA 98104 i ;j Y4. Glacier Park Co. 1 5 Burl N Orillia Ili 11 3� _ 437 Central Bldg. —,Ind Pk Renton #2 810 3rd Ave. d� Seattle, WA 98104 24. Glacier Park Co. 2 5 url N Orillia QS / Sf 37 Central Bldg. Ind Pk Renton #2 - 810 3rd Ave 1 Seattle, A :y PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET �❑ PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET L 6 Q OTHER APPLICANT: �) JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# LI �oct/ ( _ /, � �'� `�� ` i It Is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER �— — SAD/W —�— SAD/S l — JUA LID ` —D -- TBZ -U rI3Z f�I lot kO Wa I3 �a FUTURE OBLIGATIONS u � SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) 3,a0 / �. ..��• S SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $470.00) l�3 �� l�/ �✓� ��' TOTAL $ 'If subject property is within an LID, It is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N CD Signature of Director or Authorized Representative / 1 DATE x v w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET P,,LL�ANREVIEW ROUTING SLIP 171 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS: / WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Ca LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID a! r as ozz It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER l —O — SAD/W —O — SAD/S JUA `7L4/Ji O/Z R � 'r�f A %n �AAIebT LID TBz FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) J SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) lp/ TOTAL $ *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M ca D to M a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative % l DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh v PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET J ) G OTHER APPLICANT: JL— JOB ADDRESS- WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION 171 LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# d SD (91 / �j A' b/ It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site Improvements (i.e. underground utilities,street Improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER — p SAD/W SAD/S JUA 0/ LID TBZ 7 0-t 0 4/ e3 l�G-I-GI FUTURE OBLIGATIONS (� vQ, SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS S CC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x "�, j (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea, unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) / /OC�a(p�(p C10 ql,� TOTAL $ *If subject property is within an LID, it Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M cD D ►� CL Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh v y PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW -DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Ca PLAQN��REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: �awlC ��ll JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION 171 NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# C'& %CD � ✓ / Z f 2? Q z- ?�o-2✓-iw It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit Is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER SAD/W /_.. p SAD/S JUA 7 D/ / A LID }Lo 393 g O8 /5 TBz t;Z/ )AWE_ 4 i7 , 3 FUTURE OBLIGATIONS %cG a A., to SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $940.00) Ze2 SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit $270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $470.00) , TOTAL $ "If subject property is/within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/u/n-paid status. M ca M N a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/19911bh CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for"Local Improvement District No..323..........," Created by Ordinance No.....3548........... Entitled"An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of.....S:W: 43rd St,, West„ValleY„Highway„to,,, .............*hway. East Valley Highway DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE NOR NEXT NAME OF OWNER AMOUNT OF PAYMENT INTEREST' 8 MORTGAGE CO. 0uhd1;W W elk• ADDITION OR BUT ASSESSMENT AMOUNT AMOUNT OI L°I For of the NE /4 f the NW 1/4 In . Glacier P at the NE or f H A,D.C.; Thence E _ — o mer y - 2000 First —_ 999 Third Av n of aforesa d s . aid the TPOB; Thenc n i 77 P R/W to the N I ne f said Sec. 36; -' i margin of P. R/W Thence S1 al Bald E lin to the N line of S. 180t S. I80th S . [ th TPOB. Situated in Sj. o n y or , T6 S e That For o Sec. 36, T23N, R4E, W,M, 6 201 E Marginal W S 1s.114' E nd 0' from the NE Cor f the H.A D.0 No 43; Thence N 644 78'; Seattle, WA 91110A 4°37"0" W 10'; Thence N 84°34'0o' W � en e S to he centerline of aid cente line to a pt E of the POB In the C1t of RenlonL King Co WA LESS R/W f r S W. 3rd.St. a[ or o t o the E 1/4 17 Sternco Land Co. _ 1 Way 6, T23N, 4E, W.M , DAF: Beg at a S c ar an rom Seattle. WA 98108 the — being pacts f Sec. 35-b 36 In T23 , .� enterline of ra a e Ditch No. la - hence alg sal ce terl-ine of ditch, - e-5--48°45 hence S 3 °24 0" W 2 to a t. hich Is d e W of he POB; Thence E ty-Raab-3 o the POB Except ng R/W for Drain- ge D tc o. , S tuated- In King Co ' eg at a p which ch ears E 7 4.19' b II 18 40 S.E. 1 h dams Dona Ion Cla m In Sec. 36, T23 , e ce to the Renton, WA 980S5 i _— alg said dit h c nterline 249.691; i ence a marg n o 28.19' to place o -Beg; Except For ESS R/W fc r 5 W. 3rd St. I — i hat For o the NW�1/4 of the NE 1/41! 19 ISternco Land Co. 6 I :17201 E. MArglnal WaL_5__ bn the N Hine of County road at a_ptAl hich Is 9 3.0 ' E b 30' N of NE cor -17 (S ea t t l e W, A 98108. — €Ren-q -4)is"H-on--Lend-&Fe-I _ 0, 43; Thence N 3°49'00"E a dlstanc --- --- 149 the cente�l n off I j Ire S 66°03'00" W1209.93'; Thence S' -- - Ur4Frto e FTT,_e of serd-County -- I — --- ---;L'oad.;_Thenc Ee_-E — —— J58.85' to�OB,I LESS R/W for S.W. 43rd — -�i !: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP . Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Q _ OTHER APPLICANT: 4Z;� JOB ADDRESS: i WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PI# g(p �� > 577 -�Z It Is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S CA OTHER . d SAD/W SAD/S — JUA LID TBZ i P)7 93 FUTURE OBLIGATIONS` SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x �y I (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial$.063/sq,tL of property x (not less than $470.00) SZ1, �'Y TOTAL $ *If subject property Is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. m co D N 8//�Z CL Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x U w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh �`�6�'�r � 'IIIIlIILII!��`"'�•Illli�I' � (IIIIIIIII: � HIP! If °Upl i Iip�lill EII IIIII�;' �� IIIIIIIII b �I IIIIIIIII � Illi � I�IIIIIIIII�•�v; � , � lillllllll — _ s—� °�°�� ylSdJ��•� � p W� �OtO�.s �� I/ �® "• ® IIIIIIIII ��i'�--•.� �� a P IL iI ��I--- - r. - �..an. a .. r -•-^�r�-s k:a. �,r.a. �;...4 �:,. F �� ,,t,''1`�::.".�*' 37; :th.`Cc 4:�JnV'. li. :7d r,;:f 4".' T. >•axv> �*J�'F•au,_:mmw I I ii�Y r� F ��► A � � �l CITY OF RENTON M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 10, 1992 TO: Attached List PLANNING DIVISION CI?Y OF RFN70N FROM: Ly�l mann 13 ft 192 SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank & Purchase Plan RECEIVED The following is an action plan which was formed as a result of our March I Ith meeting TO DO SUMMARY WHAT WHEN BY WHOM 1. Obtain LID assessments 3/18 or sooner Arlene (Mary Lynne) to - total outstanding by Mary Lynne parcel - payment schedule 2. List & document Valley 3/18 John W. to Mary Lynne Parks Mitigation fees v 3. Meet w/Vicki Reiner 3/20 at 1:00 p.m. LAG, John, Larry (Metro) 4. List & document TCIP 3/18 Lee/Mel to Mary Lynne Funding Sources v - Valley TBZ (fees) - VTP - 131-113egrants - SCS 5. Research on 3/18 Larry/Dan to Mary Lynne Councilmanic bonding parameters; obtain previous appraisal data re wetlands 6. List & document 3/18 Randall/Cil to Mary Lynne possible surface water utility rates or revenue bonds 7a Ask Kathy to introduce At 3/23 Jay Info item on Wetlands mitigation bank to Committee of the Whole 7b Brief Committee of the At 6:30 on 4/6 Mary Lynne, Larry, John, Whole re mitigation bank LAG, Randall Wan informational handout) 8a Draft an issue paper and - Meeting to preview on Mel, Randall, Jay/Dan, agenda bill for wetland 3/26 at 1 :00 p.m. John, Larry, LAG, Mayor purchase - to Jay 3/30 at 9:30 a.m. Mary Lynne (introduce to Council 4/6) 8b Brief Committee of the 4/13 at 6:30 Mary Lynne, Larry, John, Whole on purchase. LAG ADM03/acp1/wet1dacq/92/PMP DRAFT Green River Valley (Multi-Purpose) Wetlands Purchase Proposal Cost Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Source of (Ultimate) # q Purchase Transportation Total (Lot #) Funding Ac es (asking) LID Assesment ........................ GROUP A 1 Proposed SW 27th HOV TCIP (Trans MIT Fees &/or for BLF) :_$50000; Arterial Improvements 2 Open Space City-wide Parks MIT fees and forS,.O.000 ..........:....:........ ........................ ........................ METRO for Conservation Futures. 3 & 4 Possible P1 Alignment Surface Water Utility Rates or and/or Valley Park Revenue Bonds. Subtotal Group A $1.00 000 .................._. GROUP B Proposed SW 27th HOV TCIP Arterial Improvements P9 Drainage Channel _ Surface Water Utility Rates or P1 Drainage Channel, Revenue Bonds. and/or Commuter Rail Corridor METRO Water Quality (West Point Improvements, and/or and South Interceptor Mitigation) Valley Park, and/or Park's Valley Mitigation fees and/or Conservation Funds. Welland Mitigation Bank Developer Contributions Subtotal Group B $1OOOCs Total $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 Page 1 Wetlands Mitigation Bank Funding Sources 1) Valley Parts Mitigation Funds 2) Conservation Futures 3) METRO West Point 4) Springbrook Trail Funds 5) Other Parks Mitigation Funds -Make this a City-wide amenity. 6) Storm Water Utility Funds 7) Wetlands Bank Monies(Developer) 8) METRO 118" line -Mitigation 9) Valley TBZ Funds 10) Business License Fee set aside a Green River Valley (Multi-Purpose) Wetlands Purchase Propos LCost Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Source of (Ultimate) # of Purchase Transportation Total (Lot #) Funding Acresl (asking) I LID Assesment .......................... GROUP A 1 Proposed SW 27th HOV TCIP (Trans MIT Fees Bdef-forttB $5OQ4d;; ........:................ .......................... ......................... ........... ................ Arterial Improvements &/or 4er BLF) 2 Open Space City-wide Parks MIT fees and for 50 ......:....:.............. ......................... .. .. .......... ........... ......... .... ........ I METRO for Conservation Futures. 3 & 4 Possible P1 Alignment Surface Water Utility Rates or and/or Valley Park Revenue Bonds. Subtotal Group A ......................... GROUP B Proposed SW 27th HOV T Arterial Improvements P9 Drainage Channel Surface Water Utility Rates or Revenue Bonds. P1 Drainage Channel, and/or Commuter Rail Corridor METRO Water Quality West PM' Improvements, and/or miti ation for south Interceptor Valley Park, and/or ParW Valley MTfees and/or Conservation Funds. {,� , "'' Wetland Mitigation Bank Developer Contributions Subtotal Group B $150p0( ......................... Total 1 1$250,000 1 $250,000 $500,000 Page 1 CITY OF REk;�ON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator March 19 , 1992 Marty Sevier Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Wetlands Mitigation Land Bank Dear Marty, Staff of the City of Renton and Glacier Park, as well as Glacier Park's consultants, have been reviewing the possibility of establishing a wetlands mitigation bank with properties presently under the ownership of Glacier Park. The bank would allow Glacier Park to market six of its other remaining properties free of the wetland regulations required by the City of Renton. In return, Glacier Park would transfer to the City title to two parcels as sites for the wetlands bank. These sites have potential for removal of fill and reestablishment of wetlands historically found in the area. The bank sites would be owned and maintained by the City of Renton, which would also be responsible for establishing the recreated wetlands. All parties involved agree that the concept would be a benefit to the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. Therefore, both entities should enter into formal agreement stating our mutual support of the idea. In several meetings held during the months of January and February, representatives of the City and the Glacier Park Company (GPC) have mutually agreed to the following concepts: 1 . The Wetlands Mitigation Bank a. The Bank shall consist of two parcels shown on Exhibit A. b. GPC will provide a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank demonstrating the available mitigation credits. 2 . Use of Wetlands Mitigation Bank by other property owner a. The City may allow. other property owners within the drainage basin to use the mitigation bank to offset the fill of Category 3 wetlands. b. The City may require other property owners who use the mitigation bank to pay the City a specified amount of money or to perform specified mitigation activities to restore the wetlands with in the mitigation bank area. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 3 . Conveyance of Wetland Mitigation Bank to City a. GPC shall deed the Mitigation Bank properties to the City. b. The City shall approve any lot line adjustments necessary to configure the Mitigation Bank properties 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 deeds to the Mitigation Bank properties shall contain a covenant obligating the City of allow use of the Mitigation Bank as stated in #2 above. d. Unless there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are not related to the fill of wetlands, under the City of Renton's wetlands ordinance but not other agencies, the City shall issue determinations of non- significance for the development of each of the benefitted properties. 4 . Permission of Place Fill Materials a. In exchange for GPC providing the property for this wetland mitigation bank, the City shall permit all the wetlands, as shown in the TEA wetland studies, on each of the legal lots to be filled. (These "Benefitted Properties" are also identified on Exhibit A. ) This permit is subject to the owner/applicants obtaining all other required government permits. b. The City shall approve a vegetation management plan with grading and filling provisions for the upland portions of the "Benefitted Properties" . 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 and grade and fill permits have been finalized. 5 . Assumption of Indebtedness The City shall assume the obligation for, and shall pay, all future amounts owed for LID assessments for the Mitigation Bank properties to be conveyed to the City pursuant to this agreement, assuming that all assessments and taxes are current at the time of this agreement. 6 . Support of Wetland Mitigation Bank by the City The City shall support the future 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 of the "Benefitted Properties. " 7 . Effect of Intervening Ordinances This Agreement satisfies the current City ordinance regulating wetlands and will currently mitigate for filling of the properties. 8 . Successors and Assigns The Agreement shall run with the land and shall benefit the "Benefitted Properties" and GPC and its successors and assigns. It is understood by both parties that the above agreement is contingent upon approval by the Renton City Council and the Glacier Park senior management. The Mayor and I are in concurrence that this is an historic opportunity for an innovative concept which would benefit both parties . However, we cannot obligate the City of the above arrangement, as that is the prerogative of the City Council. If Glacier Park approves, in principle, the arrangement outlined above, the Mayor and I will recommend that the City Council approve it. We appreciate all the work and cooperation that has been exhibited by you and your staff. We, in the City of Renton, hope that by May 1, 1992 , the agreement will be finalized allowing full and complete sale of the Glacier Park properties and establishment of the mitigation bank. If you have any questions please call me or my staff, Mary Lynne Myer at 277-6195 . Very truly yours, Lynn Guttmann cc ) Mayor Earl Clymer John Webley bcc Kay Shoudy Sam Chastain Randall Parson Mary Lynne Myer CITY OF RENTON "'LLR Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren RECEIVED��7/-5�Y PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CITY OF RENTON May 5, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Glacier Park Wetlands Mitigation Bank Agreement Dear Lynn: I have reviewed the proposed Wetlands Mitigation Agreement for the Glacier Park parcels . Mary Lynne Myer and I had an opportunity to review a prior draft and combine our suggestions . I then called Don Marcy, attorney for Glacier Park, and gave him my suggested changes . On May 4, 1992 I received the redraft of the agreement and find that all of the suggested changes have been made. Therefore, the agreement is approved as to legal form. c7eco-*0-1 Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington John Webley Dan Clements Lee Wheeler Mary Lynne Myer A8 . 82 : 56 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator FROM: Mary Lynne Myer -�1''�� SUBJECT: Glacier Park Due Diligence report 1. I talked with Larry Warren on 5/6/92 at 12:05 about the due diligence reports. He suggested that we should proceed along the purchase path as the reports raised some concerns but they did not seem to be insurmountable. He believes we can do a level 2 analysis for hazardous wastes as part of the mitigation bank work program. I faxed him the reports and asked him to let me known if anything in them caused him to change his mind. 2. I asked him about doing a 25-50 year title search on the properties, which was recommended by Golder and Associates. Glacier Park provided us with a 25 year title search, of course showing that they have owned the property during this time. They will not fund a 50 year search. To do a 50 year title search would cost us about $1000- 1200 . Larry feels we should do one. It will protect us if any hazardous wastes are found later, and will give us a good indication of any possibility of uses which might have polluted. What is your pleasure on this? I will not place an order with the title company until I hear from you. 3. How are closing costs generally handled? We did not budget any money for the actual real estate transaction, nad the attorney's time for this. Do you have any advice for me on this? cc Kay Shoudy % - CITY%F RENTON "LL Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION my nc RENTON MAY 1 1992 May 8, 1992 HtCEIVE® TO: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Golder Associates Inc. Letter on Environmental Assessment Review for Glacier Park Company Dear Mary Lynne: I have reviewed the letter of Golder Associates Inc. dated May 4, 1992 . Given an idealized situation it would be advisable for the city to consider doing the Level 2 investigations as recommended in that letter. However, the time within which we must complete this transaction is very short, since we are supposedly required to have the transaction closed by May 14, 1992 . I do not know the cost of the Level 2 investigation, nor do I know how much time would be required to complete the investigation. There is some risk involved in buying this land without clearing up these last details . For example, I do not know the nature and extent of the pollution on the Sternoff site and so I cannot appropriately comment on the possibility of pollution spreading through surface water runoff or subterranean water transportation of pollutants . I will have to leave that analysis to one with knowledge of the Sternoff property and technical expertise about the pollutants . it would be better for the city to complete the proposed Level 2 investigation. However, the cost of that investigation and the time that it would take to complete the investigation may make it prohibitive in the short time frame that the city has remaining to it. Someone with more detailed knowledge of the Sternoff property would be in a better position to determine whether the risk involved is merited under the circumstanc Lawrence J. aren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer A8 . 82 : 72 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street-Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 Golder Associates Inc. 4104-148th Avenue NE _ = GolderRedmond,WA USA 052 AssocWes Telephone(206)883-3-0777 Fax(206)882-5498 April 28, 1992 Our Ref: 773-1920 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South PLANNING DIVISION Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON' ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer MAY - 11992 RE: Environmental Assessment Review, sQ, Glacier Park Company � CI Y`` ED Dear Ms. Myer: We are pleased to assist the City of Renton in your proposed acquisition of property cur- rently held by the Glacier Park Company. As Mr. Parsons discussed with David Cotton, we are prepared to perform a review of environmental assessments for several parcels of prop- erty prepared by others, evaluate their completeness, and prepare a letter report of our find- ings. The due date for this report is understood to be Monday, May 4. The scope of work for this project includes reviewing and evaluating environmental as- sessments provided by the City of Renton and made available for inspection by the Glacier Park Company at their premises. Michael Lubrecht, a senior geologist, will evaluate the completeness of the reports, on the basis of Golder Associates' understanding of the level of care currently required for a Level 1 environmental assessment. He will provide comments and recommendations in a letter report. Our estimated budget is detailed below: Category Qty. Cost Total Principal 2 hr. 106$ $212.00 Sr. Geologist 16 hr. $68.50 $1096.00 Secretarial 2 hr. $35 $70.00 Computer 3 hr. $10 $30.00 Misc.ODC's $50 $50.00 TOTAL $1,458.00 We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. �� . Michael D. Lubrecht nS * r Aironmerit4,Geologist David M. Cotton Principal OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES • CONCURRENCE DATE s-i->-9.z NAME INITIAL/DATE CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 1992 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Lynn Guttmann SUBJECT: GLACIER 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). 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 II Environmental Assessment. 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. Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. I 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 search for all of the parcels. 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. Warren City Attorney attachment: map of area cc: Dan Clements Mary Lynne Myer G7,/dc� r Qs (Zo6) gg3 6 7 7-7 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 If 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 II 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 $10,000 or less if possible. The work must be completed by June 8, 1992. It is for this purpose that we request the preparation of the scope, budget, and schedule for the Level II Environmental Assessment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 277-5547. Very truly yours, Ron Stra a Acting Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor cc: Lynn Guttmann MaryLynn Myer c:docs:9 2-3 56:RJS:adk 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 1970 Aerial Photograph j `10 R111,,tifl'-, 7a •r. :11j s. yam, ` Fi M� .1� f �yL'pi t.� 1 :!' I9 � /�� -•!''hd•aN',�'/., r$'• Muv� 1- Ir7t� '.� vxt �{ ��( �r r^Y •1� S• 1• �r �) �' I •x�(3y1ryS{Sy($)]! C . rl j', ,...u I ..rN.� /J///� •\L�/ - 4TM<I, rb -`P�� 7rww 7* �•ttkvs:"i Olympic qt i' { i `,xu�5 r'S,��,,� 'l�•1 Static, u �1 �i+.t� �wta� �tV'Mi�t � Stallon 1. - J,t-�'i.f= 7�, 's.:i .w it� ��'� � ��. i � ��}'`"^�k+°d�� l.'!•r''L�tt��g�{�G.¢R; ' I �, ...r•• � r } tf,g1 rR 1 r `{ y7,i � J�. ,�rs k � ;.n,q f•} 1} �'��.'_ .• l�..z�, � ~ s{3.�"'�lr..y ��, `6",�C�' � �� !`� i '` �'ti '�k �G��►q'��S 1 \:�i .tit: /_... ; �. �'i�,:hJit" ��•• f`",,_1 •r - r ��!.[ w.�'+.�ui.�'7~�/irit�`d 5t'#� a ..,�5-r.. .�'' '.�1�+ t�� {•r�j�tt � r4„�� ::t B.P.Bulk .e:rd , !Ie• �' �`�.+''� c X �` rt~ 1 1r 'fit1 rt�� 1 '"eY: T�SY'� Storage: Facility r _ ♦j� I:y � ••i•. JY ur 11. ...'�\ �y ,L r t`, a. fryf.T ,� � ��}, , i '�/KT� � ��L V r j`��L;tT. � •r� , '•1 C ;. j ; '1ii,� •4 'M'yYrrC+ �Is f ri^: f, ' tY :)• t 1{' .r f��/.� .�� .. i 'IA 14 J . .:x`'t*N �Y ;• j .'� u..1 3+Fiig r!t ,air! 1.►� 1' 1. IM ��: ��. � � � Y� t�'�It ,�`7f.J`{ �i .�h"'It tt}^t..15•tJ.�{"•1' :• t ,1.,, jy L9j, +t,�a�r1 f � R w}k4��r � lV�J:• r J .. 1 -G, a qY. � r r �i;. � ��j � `�J �.. , t /:fie•.¢ "'� ••,�`:- •� �lP�f`{ �r�, t ^r � �� .y�57 Jt"..:h i�� i4r,�1.•.2(tUr r ti t , ATjrnj 7A� f Flife tipK f• l� a ' / 5iI�,i e. �Yty ttu�yr�ypV'ti r GI '� '+� �� r;s`� � cA '" 'r 'fir tt� e��•'P,''` 4 'iI 1 l° � � r ♦`. .'* � �� .� k � �!� � t'Ss!�+ I r }� 'Ft I '�•.,1.'f ; � r 'K"� '� , t a•,• t , a 74*' �� ` � j\1.>'� ,'.. +�'' Ravy,�x �* 'fit►!: `.. ... 7 •z 1;a�'I.f: i}f�� r r. u# ? CM ®r." f I I. R. t';•NG+S'y1L:F �(YA.'f '4 r L h i �J.• F4� � .. lwl .,ram IernoffM'elel •y� 0 .10000 20.00( Approximate Scale in Feel Uri AM �.r HARTGtoWSER Note: Base map prepared from dravAng provided by 13 Parcel Number J-340511 10191 Walknr M!,.0 ates datod 19f15. 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 TPgi 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. rti 178A\PRERESLT Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. <'U/Y' WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR THE BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN v Prepared by Rob Zisette Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1414 Dexter Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 � s Y Prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates 2101 Fourth Avenue; Suite 600 Seattle,WA 98121-2375 �w and t:r. City of Renton Department of Public Works 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 October 10, 1991 I r E , PITON %VtiJLIIINV - " n s E 5f5f 12]0 •60 _ J••• '67 ,0 •67 77 (o� - �'/ n,\�\\\ t .ti� 1 1��- , P TS��IE;[']o ` - -�� ' lj �tl-' t\1 9 \ -- - •P r ��!�\.�- _ T t lH.nt•� \ :l N/,i: • 1` � � (�1 •..�1 t,I .t ! l .,. < `�f\ tfit. �� -` -' �f _ 60-" >�1 i t IPAL IL� A T Legend: l L N •7f y V1. .,� � -r`: suave.. j. `j lL'•i s��Study Area �1Q• h. 1- ! -Streams Water Monitoring Stationst /3js. --�"} �Y _ ;% '(\(Ir1Sdtment�tonl ortng�t U 1t 5e \\�;. � �, ��- �11 t8L — 1. !' �':....• �! SCALE 1:25 000 �.\ •.\,� _ L•�-••••• - __ __•.•/. _y 1\' , r �1-` .`5.� •1,�� '1 a,t i P✓l• f:FML.E7EJ1 OR nQ—RVRfSEMS 2W METERS p.THE CA(MM tt �. v\ _` �� -_- '� b�� ,��•�� . �� t:"� _~�17 �S CONTOUR INTERVAL S METERS �� Yam\`^ •`•%`3' ;� -[[.��{ j �•. �J ,• �� '. �- K. 1 bt1 tl S 8S S „orc \ Q\�' ' �«'- rwc \� .: •�..T 1 Stu l _ F-Li At 27*1a J` = _ 'teal —12S 10 _ T �. v7 i�\��a_ ` _ REMa�n �.�s_-T .lI �"� _ , •.,�1•� :1 .' `,!ii 1 � 1 '•,w r♦E 1: zlg Tukwila o,utA �zG e +* �� f FFx rs.� Y® •C� .\J �Y YI.' ..I o (13 W �Ceti � -�� t -R �tvX C n- i - c�-•i'• \�(..• S�.r. •�.\ 1 ca 'u �° € Q � ,- t~ _ems .r-.I•'- ''-.� •` /::'"_ ' _.. `��, mm 'r 1 au � �.� N Table 2. (ctd) Sediment sample analytical methods and quality control objectives. Method Matrix Maximum Detection. Spike % Holding Analyte Method (1) Limit Difference Recovery Time Total Petroleum IR (sonloation) 5 mg/kg <25 NA 28 days Hydrocarbons EPA 416.1 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 Solids 7 days EPA 160.4 Particle Size Sieve/Pipet NA <25 NA 6 months PSEP Notes; r (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. • s. r, 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�= SW 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-CLP 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 Semivolatile 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 Pesticldes SW-846-8080 30 days analyze r' 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 220,2 <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 Titrimetrlc 1 mg/L <25 75-125 90-110 6 months SM 314E Turbidity Nephelometric 0.1 NTU <25 NA NA 2 Days EPA 180.1/SM 214A Total Suspended Gravimetrlc 0.5 mg/L <25 (>5 x DL) NA NA 7 days Solids EPA 160.1/SM 2090 <50 (<5 x DL) • Total Phosphorus Auto Ascorbic (digest) 2 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 28 days SM 424 G <50 (<5 x DL) y Soluble Phosphorus Auto Ascorbic 1 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 2 days SM 424G <50 (<5 x DL) 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 Phonate (filter) 10 ug/L <25 (>5 x DL) 75-125 90-110 28 days SM 417G <50 (<5 x DL) SEACOR I =I04 !3cllcuuc. IC%:1 ), O04 206.646.0280 l . ......... .........i . . a _ .... ...... .4• 4l: - A •,h A�>11 `` h h 4.�`. �t. h ,tih h 4 4 `�a�'�fJr• �'- f4 )' .. i '� } �!1 by .h7 �Y 4+ ``i i��Y� $(' 0o L) DIGC- cam R AFT TABLE Analytical Results Springbrook Creek Sampling (Task 9) (all results in ppm unless noted) 1st Sampling Round (Up MTCA SC-1 streaml SC-2 (Downstream) Soil Water Soil Water Compound Soil Water • VOCs 82401 Xylenes (ppb) 112 ND 112 ND PCBs (8080) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 10 0.0001 Total Metals Antimony < 2.25 0.09 < 2.25 0.06 32' .. 1.88 < 0.05 200 0.0480 < 0.05 < Arsenic 6.89 88 < 0.005 10 0.0011 Cadmium < 0.19 < 0.005 500 0.210 Chromium 15.7 0.011 42.4 < 0.01 Copper 12.8 < 0.025 18.0 < 0.025 500 0.0120 Lead 3.92 < 0.05 4.31 < 0.05 1,000 0.0032 5.68 < 0.04 14.6 < 0.04 1,600' Nickel 87.6 0.12 500 0.0470 • Zinc 27.6 0.14 ND - Not Detected 1 Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCF2 X HO from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC a LJAFT \ TABLE Analytical Results Dirt Road_ Sampling (Task 8) (all results in ppm unless noted) Road #1 Road #2 COMPOUNDS Soil Soil 36,417 TPH (418.1) 39,549 < 0.1 < 0.1 PCBs (8080) DR AFT 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 • ComP ound soil soil Soil soil Soil Soil -�- Metals: Antimony 73.2 30.9 < 1.15 1.74 1.15 321 Arsenic 66.2 20.5 21.6 19.6 < 1.15 200 Beryllium 0.71 0.51 < 0.12 < 0.12 < 0.12 4001 Cadmium 20.7 10.7 1.54 3.25 0.69 10 Chromium 298 123 210 836 70.0 500 Copper 9,406 5,504 142 207 90.0 500 Lead 1,275 988 585 49.4 21.4 1,000 Mercury 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.24 0.35 1.0 Nickel 462 14.8 476 1,491 837 1,6001 Selenium 22.4 < 1.15 < 1.15 65.9 < 1.15 2401 Silver 25.2 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 < 0.23 2401 Zinc 20,595 24,689 161 1,590 64.1 500 TPH (418.11 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 TABLE DRAFT ANALYTICAL RESULTS WIRE FLUFF PILE (Task 6) (all results in,ppm unless noted) W-1 W-2 W-4 W-5 W-6 MCTA DWR Compound ELv-f ,Soil Fluff Fluff Soil Fluff Sod 'Muff Soil Max VOCs (824j 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 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 Toxicitv 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 industrial 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 W1,2 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 i Y DRAFT TABLE Analytical Results 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 8240) ND NA NA NA NA NA ND • Semi VOCs 8720 ND NA NA NA NA NA ND T i 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 XT , DAFT Pam zaulL _:L..',:, 'Mw ANALYTICAL RESULTS AUTO FLUFF PILE(Task 3) f• y f = (all results in ppm unless noted) Com an ` r . A-1Max 2 AIF � l MTCA a teDW F3 A-92 F A-13 L u u II Fluff] Z ..,,,. * � •��.�'--�. i t � t , 1 _' f � �' - , �it�ti ,,_..a..i__ � �. ` 4 methyl-2-pen NA NA j �) NA j NA'f NA NA NA :� NA, <0500 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 000' 2-019 ;NF. 'NA NA; NA; ,NA N NA i/ NA NA N' 1366 NA '., NA NA NA NA NA 40 0:040 Toluen �, / + NA NA 0520 NA`a NA NA NA NA NA 20 "` 0020 f�0386 NA/ NA Ij NA,' NAB NA NA NA-. -NA! „x. Oka NA'! NA NAB 'r NA NA NA ki NA'. NA; y' -NA NA 0.808 NA ? NA NA NA NA NA 20 - 0.020 xyl 0,7577, <5000 SY NA -NA t�� NA NA' NA ?NA NAT f NA NA 7688 NA' NA' ~`NA "''NA NA NA Diethylp t}i`alatei J14�000j;;NA f'N NA !INAf(' TNA f NAB' NA DNA NA NA <2464, NA NA^%) NA NA NA NA 64,000' Di-d S 1 hfhalate �-- \13. NA;' iNA NA f NA, NA. NA, NA ,-6;NA NA NA 22670,, NAB j NA' 1 iA: NA NA NA 8,000' i Elouranthene'-. - - �:�12 000 NA' N NA NA NA NA NA NA / NA _NA _ 2566�N' A C NA:• NA NA NA 4 `f�� A NA NA NA NA1 �NA C 2967_ _ NA NAB NA NA NA Bu 1 be hthalato----- \36000��NA A. , NA NA NA A NA I NA7 A NA 30516 r N NA� t NA tY P .. r�� 1 NA NA NA Be a anthracene <5 000 N \ NA N A NA N , Y� )P ` DNA NANANA NA NA NA EI�f NAn 489280 NA NA; NA NA NA i bis eth hthalate 297o00� NA NA Di-noctyl phthalate' _ - =26 000� �NA� NA NA r NA N^. NA_ NA,"- _NA'. NA: _NA l<2464_ DNA NA; NA; NA NA NA Total Phenols NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 .• NA NA NA NA NA NA s are ?,.. PcBs 80801 29 <01 %' NA 29 NA:'' 28 <0.1! NA' NA 28 NA 43 NA NA 46 17 12 30 10,!N4 0.0001.: Total Metals Antimony 49.2 <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 152 473 056 <0.05 NA NA NA NA 10 0.005 Chromium 154 19.9 NA NA 15.6 NA 22.9 <6.04 NA NA 24.6 149 1&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 2,971 355 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 <02 NA NA <0.2 NA <02<0.005 NA NA <0.11 <0.11 <0.11 <05 NA NA NA NA 240' Thallium 1.14 0.73 NA NA 051 NA 1.00 <0.01 NA NA <0.22 <0.22 <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 1-3 100 Barium 1.0 NA 0.6 1.2 NA 1.0 NA NA 0.4 OS NA OS NA NA 0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 5 Vhromium 0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 NA NA <01 NA <0.1 OS 5 Lead <0.1 NA 0.1 0.1 NA <0.1 NA NA 03 0.2 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 <0.1 NA 0.1 NA NA OS NA 0.6 0.5 Zinc 03 NA 0.1 0.4 NA OS 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 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA 2 NA 1000 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA-N x A-trl d 'Calculated using formula RFD X ABW X UCFZ X HO from 173-340 WAC SIR X ABL X FOC J nrr .�,�� ::.}•_ _ = r • .�a+en' �'�F+sa�rY ,o:iAsa�F'°-:w�*�.�,�:`X•'t I- ;» e � `,s``,'�' .��'� ��c'*" �r`�� 'I .c....... \l -.. .• .{ l i l?� 4 r,«2:. i Y &�, 1 '�'«i ;I t L � x ' '� FbRMER` �, ;*«' ��s ��,1 'NO(fS J i �l _'" � `� MWgS I ,y`' �Y''fcE`k � � � •; a 4°'�fr'� /�.� �. x&+��•v E?DRMFR'. IR& c�.'f, � ',� c';b� �Ay�; v ','� ef« •, d{t /;•� �' } p'^'�i_p r'E RAMP, .:{A,.�'C -zl`J ��f (•� �� .d'.l..�t5. r�- _. -• •. -.f.t /�.n'` ,.,ar,ryG„ �. {..".° ��'.'.�.:.,-� - .��i-fws, X Jc.-�.� �(S d'' y,p� cp.�l� �, _ m �' �.. � �.,. �1—�1[. X�X Pry, �}�"�.�. r+,.•f'�4 _'��..,... �5�/ .1`�� y� ; .. f .1��`7` � ✓.,.�. �.a,� Fi'.`j N {� �' ""y'31 ,�,� .i },,, i RO � y, �: r MW_10 �r.`� w.'�. ,y; t�P :�+" 'MW4 ,t 'S$ i�; � .JS -..tip �".ip•'. v cx>r::'yi a-` �.i ��..�/t'E�.'.K.y:.f '.a..,.. ,_ _ ti>. y apt •+ - �.1.9 '+"` :w'�' :�.� :,rl�• � e{;.;r��:,�' �} _'�`.-y _..Y�' ,� ...�.,•/ s. 3`,' •'`u�j...A.y '#�-w':.J � '?t,✓ 9" �^`n!ti I# -;h��`, .F2 .e e t ;F..' ,r�':.r: �.. p %I .. t..I'r. .:+, _• vy.,�^�..,: :.:..,. .,;:'�S`..^.,. .� .�.�_ .'" f• .. ? Fes' x -��"�� s,��x` .Q xri�3<.y P I - (APPRO)OMATE) ; � t''•�of J+ 1' / / � / \ + g, a�"1 .+t jF � I E LAND LEGENDAPPRO ., LOCATIONS B. MONRi7RfiG WE1.1_ _•- . f II � I ---••—_�- DIRT ROAD FORMER PROPERTY B OUND ARYN SPLANT TREES RAIIAOADTRACK ,_DRAINAGE Dr CH - - LARGE AU7U FLUFF PIES � II I 1 1 I ®` T K N AUTO FLUFF PR.F_S 11 1 _ -"-WIRE FLUFFPILES'� . I �>.••::t Y i t j 1 —� TOM • SEACORTFMPORARYiENCHMARICON SEWER MANHOLE COVER.ASSURED ELEVATION / i J i I i — —• 15.OD Fr.ABOVE MEAN SEA[EVFL(MSL S.W.43RD STREET r SEACOR t Sfj r a:� _ -Y' ��'„ / �"r '"„�•"'�`t !a'r�'ra�.ki 'n'4 6ir I' �F L y ............ a� lo TRANSFORMERS r ' BUR[4JCR�N NORTHERN i _WER r 7 DRUM STORAGEPAD 10,57 WEILHOUSE/CO011NGTO - - '3.SI 11 .MW-8 �'} MW D '? ff ?> 5 ''ta 1 d.. a: Z4w,wk: ark 6•p.�.�..n ))}ppp Jp ..;' t '1 -y 1p F � k 3 MW 2 � ��..'• $ �f 4 �,�*y'�.�'�a +a ..- T'RAN � dl � I a ? r,�, v: f. BLOC.% i 3 1 53 M s4 Jar o� FORMER - �"MW-!!I �,.,s3..��.i I,� /. / i� ' y`•�, �\x ,` >< !�,/ RAMP. ...:'<'F:`:;iS:: ;; 1 I � � X Cr—x—x xMw-Il / O ISV --x jDEBRIS / I W OKLE 9 Pam > a / � I p (APPROXIMATE) G c PASFU LANDD CKn '_ I 0 • LEGEND APPROXIMATE MONrMRING WELL LOCATIONS FORMER I i —--—} DIRT ROAD MEAT PACFCIIdG P PROPERTY BOUNDARY ST-- TREES&SHRUBS _--�^— RAILROAD TRACK I I ® DRAINAGE DFICH LARGEAUTO FLUFF PILES I ' I I II TidN AUTO FLUFF PRES 1 � WIRE FLUFF PM l 3 - I © I TDM • SEWFRMA HO-EcovE NCHMARK.a. ON S5-00 F MANHOLE COVER,ASSURED ELEVATION l__ IS.00FT.ABOVEMEANSEALEVEL(MSL�. S.W.43RD STREET '� '4 .J Ks F M � � yS ° T �f`S'..i._ 2` " d'.S• r and :. }.. - } �, : •ka� .�� -*x" .:,arc ,x�"*y� ��y��5t� r�� 1 r N r ,51 �` ,�� ny. � `� �� Ji � *b I � to �• rd LO ,N Ll o p o c Y"4-4_. tz t Golder Associates Inc.• 4104.148th Avenue.NE &As Golde Redmond,WAUSA980Telephone(206)883.077 7 SodaWs Fox(206)882-5498 May 21, '1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Departmenr 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Post-it-brand fax transmittal memo 7671 of os9es ► ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer To jt? RE: Level 2 Environmental Assessment, cab , `' �' Glacier Park Company Dept. Phone a cr3 8 7 Z. 7 Dear Ms- Myer. Fox R Z 3 S-2 s"41 Fax w This letter is per your request earlier today, regarding our current observations on Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park Company properties. 1 visited the site yesterday to obtain more information that we can use in scoping the Level 2 assessinent requested by the City of Renton. My observations of Parcel 14, particularly the fill in the south-central portion of the property, indicate that soil sampling and analysis is probably not required. On the basis of my preliminary observations, it currently appears that the Level 2 assessment will focus on the portion of Parcel 1.3 that is adjacent to the Sternoff - Metals site. The pond and wetlands area directly west of the Sternoff site should be sampled, and additional samples may be taken elsewhere oil this property, particularly if suspect fill is observed within former wetlands areas. The estimated cost for this task has not yet been established, but it appears that the work can be accomplished within the $101K previously allocated. We will provide a more detailed estimate after reviewing the exact number of samples to be collected and the analyses to be performed. The latter will be chosen on the basis of the primary contaminants identified at the Sternoff site, which are believed to be heavy metals and some PAHs. Thank you again for this opportunity. We will be contacting you shortly with a more defined scope of work. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael D. Lubrecht Senior Environmental Geologist CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, FROM: Mary Lynne Myer 7?-)Z)91 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 SUMMARY: 1. Shall we authorize a level H 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 under ownership of BN. Needs checking to 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 north by Longacres: Longacres has been paying taxes on it. Who possesses 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 H 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 r 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 attachments: Golder contract Golder Environmental Review Fax cover Memo to Lynn Guttmann file: alert Golder Associates Inc. V 4104.1481h Avenue,NE 9.�SsodaWs Golder fledmond,WA )883- 0 7 Telephone(206)883•n777 Fox(206)882-5498 May 21, 1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Post-it"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 +�of pages To Fro ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer M G ce.� .. � ca. f� RE: Level 2 Environmental Assessment, Dept Glacier Park Company Fnun•a c3 8 3_07 Z 7 Dear Ms_ Myer: Fax++ 2 3 S-2-."41 Fax This letter is per your request earlier today, regarding our current observations on Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park Company properties. I visited the site yesterday to obtain more information that we can use in scoping the Level 2 assessment requested by the City of Renton. My observations of Parcel 14, particularly the fill in the south-cential portion of the property, indicate that soil sampling and analysis is probably not required. On the basis of my preliminary observations, it currently appears that the Level 2 assessment will focus on the portion of Parcel 1.3 that is adjacent to the Sternoff - Metals site. The pond and wetlands area directly west of the Sternoff site should be sampled, and additional samples may be taken elsewhere on this property, particularly if suspect fill is observed within former wetlands areas. The estimated cost for this task has not yet been established, but it appears that the work can be accomplished within the 510K previously allocated. We will provide a more detailed estimate after reviewing the exact number of samples to be collected and the analyses to be performed. The latter will be chosen on the basis of the primary contaminants identified at the Sternoff site, which are believed to be heavy metals and some PAHs. Thank you again for this opportunity. We will be contacting you shortly with a more defined scope of work. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael D. Lubrecht Senior Environmental Geologist Golder Associates Inc. 4104-148th Avenue,NE __� EF Golder Redelep on WA USA 3-980527 .Also '�♦pc Telephone(206)883-0777 1.1C110.0 Fax(206)882-5498 April 28, 1992 Our Ref: 773-1920 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 r ;y n'F R—ENTC-r" ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer MAY 1992__ RE: Environmental Assessment Review, Glacier Park Company '' Dear Ms. Myer: We are pleased to assist the City of Renton in your proposed acquisition of property cur- rently held by the Glacier Park Company. As Mr. Parsons discussed with David Cotton, we are prepared to perform a review of environmental assessments for several parcels of prop- erty prepared by others, evaluate their completeness, and prepare a letter report of our find- ings- The due date for this report is understood to be Monday, May 4. The scope of work for this project includes reviewing and evaluating environmental as- sessments provided by the City of Renton and made available for inspection by the Glacier Park Company at their premises. Michael Lubrecht, a senior geologist, will evaluate the completeness of the reports, on the basis of Golder Associates' understanding of the level of care currently required for a Level 1 environmental assessment. He will provide comments and recommendations in a letter report. Our estimated budget is detailed below: Category Qty. Cost Total Principal 2 hr. 106$ $212.00 Sr. Geologist 16 hr. $68.50 $1096.00 Secretarial 2 hr. $35 $70.00 Computer 3 hr. $10 $30.00 Misc. ODC's $50 $50.00 TOTAL $1,458.00 We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. ;�m,Z,�/),, /,- Michael D. Lubrecht Uironme tal Geologist David M. Cotton Principal OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 1992 TO: Lynn Guttmann, AdminiAtrator FROM: Mary Lynne Myer TY4/m SUBJECT: Glacier Park Due Diligence report 1. I talked with Larry Warren on 5/6/92 at 12:05 about the due diligence reports. He suggested that we should proceed along the purchase path as the reports raised some concerns but they did not seem to be insurmountable. He believes we can do a level 2 analysis for hazardous wastes as part of the mitigation bank work program. I faxed him the reports and asked him to let me known if anything in them caused him to change his mind. 2. I asked him about doing a 25-50 year title search on the properties, which was recommended by Golder and Associates. Glacier Park provided us with a 25 year title search, of course showing that they have owned the property during this time. They will not fund a 50 year search. To do a 50 year title search would cost us about $1000- 1200 . Larry feels we should do one. It will protect us if any hazardous wastes are found later, and will give us a good indication of any possibility of uses which might have polluted. What is your pleasure on this? I will not place an order with the title company until I hear from you. 3. How are closing costs generally handled? We did not budget any money for the actual real estate transaction, and the attorney's time for this. Do you have any advice for me on this? cc Kay Shoudy CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM ?k J DATE: May 4, 1992 1, TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Earl Clymer STAFF CONTACT: Lynn Guttmann, Department Administrator SUBJECT: Glacier Park Properties Staff has completed a number of tasks leading to finalization of the mitigation bank and to the ultimate purchase of the Glacier Park Properties. In the process of completing these tasks, several discrepancies were found: the P-9 channel properties did not include all the parcels needed for a complete right of way; and an LID charge was outstanding on the P-9 channel properties. Staff is in the process of resolving the discrepancies. In order to update the Council, we have attached a briefing package to this memo for your consideration before final work on the sale and transfer of these properties. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to proceed. GLACIER PARK UPDATE May 4, 1992 Since we met together last, the following changes have occurred: ■MITIGATION BANK ■agreement is finalized, forming basis for title transference of bank properties. ■title search has been completed. ■due diligence reports (environmental assessment of hazardous wastes) are finalized. ■method of transferring titles is under research (ie. quit claim vs other methods) ■sending parcels will be responsible for any outstanding infrastructure requirements on these parcels. ■PURCHASE PARCELS ■purchase price has been negotiated (asking price: $100,000 (parcel 1) + $100,000 (parcel 13) _ $200,000) ■outstanding performance bonds will be paid by Glacier Park for all purchase parcels. ($27,215) ■parts of Parcel 13 weren't included in legal description/legals found; parcel included in sale. ■new LID costs surfaced for Parcel 13/City/GP negotiation agreed that purchase price will include property value + LID costs. (see Attachment A) ■parcels dropped out of public auction documents. ■initial financing approach devised with an internal financing contract to follow. (see Attachment B) (chart from letter to Karen Lane 4/28/92) ACTION REQUESTED: ■Authorization to proceed. Glacier Park Update Page 2 YET TO BE DONE: ■MITIGATION BANK PARCELS ■adoption of final bank agreement. ■title transfer. ■City/GP understanding for information to new property owners; formal City relationship with new owners. ■PURCHASE PARCELS ■close negotiations. ■purchase parcels, using initial financing approach. ■complete internal financing contract. ■assign internal ownership and responsibility. ii9P 0 0 E-tachment A, GLACIER PARK PURCHASES (corrected Financial Sheet) (purchase & (purchase & LID) Corrected corrected LID) CITY PAYS Old LID Charges Old Total LID charges New Total Parcel $244,716.00 $344,720.00 $258,403.00 $358,403.00 (big wetland) Parcel 13 (P-9 channel) $0.00 $100,000.00 $130,507.00 $230,507.00 $444,720.00 New Total $588,910.00 Old Total ($444,720.00) Difference $144,190.00 Glacier Park Pays Outstanding Performance Bonds New Total Old Total Parcel 1 $19,438.00 $0.00 Parcel 13 $7,777.00 $0.00 $27,215.00 $0.00 • Attachment B GREEN RIVER VALLEY WETLANDS/OPEN SPACE PURCHASE PROPOSAL(revised as of 4/28/92) CONFIDENTIAL Asking LID Property(Lot#) Acres Purchase # Amount Total Performance Price Outstanding Bond Parcel 1 Seq. 120 24.28 KC# 125381-0090 #314-021 $88,351 $302-034 $49,275 KC# 1 25381-01 00 #302-035 $30,118 KC# 1 25381-01 50 none $0 KC# 125381-0160 #314-022 $90,659 $50,000 $258,403 $308,403 $16,327 Parcel 3 Seq. 120 3.75 $25,000 none $0 $25,000 $3,111 KC# 125381-0230 Parcel 4 Seq. 120 10.59 $25,000 $25,000 KC# 1 25381-01 70 none $0 $0 KC# 125381-0220 none Subtotal Group A 39.40 1 $100,000 $258,403 $358,403 $19,438 Parcel 13 Seq. 968 $100,000 $7,777 A KC# 000580-0019 4.31 none $0 KC# 252304-9001 6.43 none $0 B KC#252304-9082 6.96 #314-068 $118,289 Portion of C KC #252304-9004 14.01 none $0 D KC# 362304-9002 9.65 #285-0 #323-15 $0 KC#302305-9007 3.24 #302-043 $12,218 Portion of KC #252304-9019 3.50 Subtotal Parcel 13 1 48.27 1 $100,000 1 $130,507 $230,507 $7,777 Total All Properties 87.67 ac 1 $200,000 $388,910 $588,910 $27,215 92-233 4�R CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrenc�J ar7n 11�ll. 2, fay i?:S May 19 , 1992 TO: Dan Clements, Administrative Services Administrator Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Glacier Park Dear Dan, Lynn and Mary Lynne: I am attaching a copy of a Letter Agreement between Glacier Park and the city, allowing the city to reject parcels of property from the Wetland Mitigation Bank if they contain hazardous substances under CERCLA, SERA, the State Model Toxics Act and nearly any other pollution law you can think of . This permits us adequate time to conduct a Level 2 analysis of the soils in Tract 14 , the large western parcel of the mitigation bank. The proposed transfer date is June 15th . The agreement asks that we use our best efforts to finish our Level 2 analysis by the end of May. The original estimate of time to perform the analysis was two weeks . It would appear that we have enough time to complete this analysis and assure ourselves that this parcel is not contaminated. oe Lawrence Warren LJW: as . cc : ;Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington John Webley A8 . 83 : 25 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 ///MURK_ Z GLACIER PARK COMPANY Land Management for Increased Opportunities. E�, KEL�OGG, QARB WARR��y & FpNC�S, P.S• D May 13 , 1992 The Honorable Earl Clymer City of Renton Renton City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Glacier Park Company Wetlands Mitigation Bank Proposal Dear Mayor Clymer: The city of Renton (the "City") and Glacier Park Company ("Glacier Park") have negotiated and prepared a Wetland Mitigation Land Bank Agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to which Glacier Park will transfer to the City two parcels of real property for the purpose of establishing a wetland mitigation bank. In exchange, the City will allow Glacier Park to fill wetlands located on other properties owned by Glacier Park in the city of Renton. The City and Glacier Park are ready to sign the Agreement, but a Level 1 environmental assessment conducted by the City has revealed the potential for one of the mitigation bank parcels to be contaminated by hazardous or dangerous materials as a result of a drainage ditch that flows onto the mitigation bank property from a contaminated property to the south. In consideration of the following agreements, the City and Glacier Park shall proceed to sign the Agreement. The City shall collect and analyze soil samples on the mitigation bank property to determine whether there is any environmental contamination. The City shall conduct such analysis as expeditiously as possible and will try to obtain the results of the analysis by May 30, 1992. If the analysis of the soils samples reveals that the mitigation bank property contains any hazardous or dangerous substance, material , or waste that is regulated pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70. 105D) , the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, any other state or federal law that regulates hazardous or dangerous substances, materials, or wastes, or any amendments to such laws and regulations, and the amount of such substance, material , or waste exceeds the applicable regulatory threshold, then the City shall have the right to termi - nate the Agreement. However, if Glacier Park agrees to undertake, at its sole expense, the neces- sary remediation actions to reduce the contaminant levels on the mitigation bank property below the applicable regulatory thresholds for the particular hazardous or dangerous materials, substances, or wastes, then the City shall not have the right to terminate the Agreement, and the City and Glacier Park shall proceed to consummate the Agreement as set forth in the signed document. 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington 98104•206-467-5500 A Subsidiary of Burlington Resources Inc. t The Honorable Earl Clymer May 13, 1992 Page 2 If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and return it to the undersigned. Sincerely, Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc 6. kel .010 cc: Donald E. Marcy, Cairncross & Hempelmann Enclosure AGREED: C OF RENTON IEa -(� ym r, Mayor, APPROV S TO FORM: awrence J. Warren City Attorney CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney ` Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON June 2, 1992 JUN 2 1992 3,.. TO: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner HhCEI M E® FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Glacier Park Lot Line Adjustment Dear Mary Lynne: I have been requested by Laureen Nicolay and yourself to research the rules on lot line adjustments, particularly as it applies to the Glacier Park lot line adjustment. State law, specifically RCW 58 . 17 . 040( 6) , exempts lot line adjustments from the platting statutes . City Code section 9-12-2, under Lot Line Adjustments, defines lot line adjustments in language nearly identical to the state exemption. That definition is as follows : "LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS: A division made for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site or division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. " As I understand the facts in the Glacier Park lot line adjustment, the adjustment creates fewer lots rather than more, and so fits within the definition of a lot line adjustment. I understand that there is some mention being made of an opinion of mine from six or seven years ago where I suggest that what is being proposed would be more properly handled under a replat. While I did render such an opinion, it would not appear applicable to the present circumstance for the following reasons : 1 . We have found in certain controlled circumstances that it is advisable to use lot line adjustments rather than short plats . This has led to an increased use of lot line adjustments . Not only have lot line adjustments been used when the city has been a purchaser, but have been used elsewhere in the city. For example, the development that led to the office buildings located next to the Renton Six Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street-Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 ` Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner June 2 , 1992 Page 2 Theaters had a lot line adjustment that would have previously been a replat. 2 . This lot line adjustment is creating a reconfiguration of the lots so that one of the lots can be transferred into city ownership. 3 . The time pressure is such that a short plat or replat could not be accomplished before this deal needs to be consummated. The city has been moving toward liberalized lot line adjustments . There is nothing illegal about the use of lot line adjustments and, in this particular circumstance, it appears advantageous and advisable to use a lot line adjustment. Substantial discussion was held about the entire transaction, both at the policy level, before the city council, and with city staff . While the policy on use of lot line adjustments may need further review, in this particular circumstance it appears warranted. Lawrence J. Warren L.JW:as . cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Lynn Guttmann Dan Clements John Webley Sam Chastain A8 . 84 :46 . /I1 i i 119► ar�a��aa jtsr�e�em GLACIER PARK COMPANY =F�'�'E Lane'.']nagemen!(or In,Creasad C,o.ortun;t-es July 9, 1992 o" The Honorable Earl Clymer Mayor City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mayor Clymer: Over the last several months Glacier Park Company has been involved in a number of transactions that have heavily involved the city of Renton. As we get ready to close our doors, I can't help thinking back over the extraordi - nary effort that has been required on the part of everyone to achieve what we have accomplished together. The wetland mitigation bank agreement and sale of wetlands to the City will , I believe, be viewed as a landmark transaction, and the Home Base project will have lasting benefits for the community as well . It is quite clear that we could not have accomplished so much without the extraordinary efforts of the city of Renton . I have very deeply appreciated your support and that of the City Council . But I am writing to you today primarily to thank you for the extra efforts of your staff. In particular, want to recognize Jay Covington, Larry Warren, Lynn Guttmann, Lenora Blauman, Don Erickson, Mary Lynne Myer, Arlene Haight, Bob MacOnie, Marilyn Peterson, Mike Dotson, and other support staff. Without these individuals none of our accomplishments would have been possible. You and the City Council should be very proud of the talented and capable staff you have assembled in the City. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors on behalf of the city of Renton. Sincerely, Karen E. Lane Vice President Development KEL:jmc 6.kel .028 cc: M. L. Sevier Mark W. Stiefel 1011 Western Avenue,Suite 700•Seattle,Washington C-8104•206-467-5500 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT April 13 , 1992 Wetland Mitigation Plan and Property Purchase The Committee of the Whole considered this topic on April 6 and April 13, 1992 . After staff presentations and an executive session the Committee of the Whole recommends that the council take the following actions : 1 . Authorize the staff to proceed to negotiate the purchase of the properties proposed for purchase . 2 . Authorize the staff to proceed with the wetlands mitigation bank and present to the council final policy and financing proposals when developed. 3 . Pass a resolution urging the Army Corps of Engineers to treat the lots of the Burlington Northern plat as individually eligible for nation-wide permits . Kathy eolker-Wheeler, Council President CITY9:28. Copies : Kay Shoudy Dan Clements Larry Warren CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO . 2894 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, URGING THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO TREAT THE LOTS IN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN PLAT AS INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPABLE PARCELS FOR PURPOSES FOR NATIONAL PERMIT 26 (NPW 26) . WHEREAS, the Burlington Northern Railroad Company or one of its subsidiaries did plat a substantial area within the City of Renton, Washington, in approximately 1978; and WHEREAS, much of that property had been filled in the preceding two years; and WHEREAS, new wetlands have begun to appear on top of the impervious fill deposited many years ago; and WHEREAS, these new wetlands are a low function and low value; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has been approached with a proposal to dedicate remaining high value wetlands to the City in exchange for authorization to fill certain low value, low function wetlands ; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has an ordinance regulating the filling of wetlands including the purpose of having no net loss of wetlands and would apply that ordinance to these properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has multiple uses for the land which has been proposed for dedication, including creation of a wetlands bank, use as passive recreation and open space land, enhancement of wetlands , use as storage of surface water runoff and consolidation with wetlands already owned by the City; and 1 RESOLUTION NO . 2894 WHEREAS, the dedication of this land to the City is conditioned upon a favorable ruling by the Corps of Engineers that the platted lots will be individually eligible for national permits under NPW 26; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton has treated these platted lots as individual lots for development purposes and a number of the lots have been developed; and WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers has previously allowed development of an individual lot of this plat under a national permit . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : 1 . The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . 2 . The City Council of the City of Renton urges the Army Corps of Engineers to determine that the platted lots of the Burlington Northern plat are individually eligible for national permits under NPW 26 . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 13th day of April , 1992 . Marilyn etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 13th day of April , 1992 . 4 'rl Clymer, ayor 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2894 Approv s to r Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES . 204 : 4/14/92 : as . 3 Mel VA CITY OF VNTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren RANNINU DIVISION r'T`,`1;"'RENT0N! June 18 , 1992 JUG 1 91992 Ms . Karen E . Lane rimUENED Vice-President, Development Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re : Potential Pollution Problem on Property Purchased from Glacier Park Company Dear Ms . Lane : Following the city' s recent purchase of property from Glacier Park Company the City of Penton commissioned a Level II toxics analysis on a portion of the property that was purchased, lying .immediately adjacent to the Sternoff Metals Company parcel and just north of southwest 43rd. You will find enclosed a copy of that analysis . The report indicates that there may be unacceptable levels of certain pollutants in the surface water . The city is attempting to determine the source of that pollution and is trying to find methods to eliminate the contaminants from the surface water. . We would like the Glacier Park Company to review its records and determine if it is aware of the source of these materials, as well as participate with us in determining a method to alleviate the pollution concerns pertaining to this site. Uf course, the city is trying to determine the most cost effective way of handling this problem. If it is determined that remediation is necessary, the Glacier Park Company, as a prior owner of the property, is a potentially responsible party under existing federal and state legislation. It may be that the Glacier Park Company would like to retake ownership of this parcel and rebate a portion of the purchase price to the City of Renton. The City of Renton is interested in discussing this matter with you further." Ve.�_ ruly yours, (7 Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Lynn Guttmann Dan Clements Mary Lynne Myer Don Marcy Mark Steifel A8 . 85 : 46 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 /MISER-_ GLACIER PARK COMPANY D CIECt1 Lana Management for Increased Opportun)t es 999 Third Avenue,Suite 4500 /� Seattle,WA 98104-4097 AUG G 1 WARREN, KELLO(I", D August 6, 1992 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Office of the City Attorney. P.O. Box 626 100 S. 2nd Street Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Property Acquired by the City of Renton Dear Mr. Warren: Your letter of June 18, 1992 to Karen Lane, formerly of Glacier Park Company, has been forwarded to me for response. As you may be aware, Glacier Park Company has ceased its day-to-day operations and is in a final winding-up mode. Glacier Park Company does not accept any responsibility for any of the possible surface water contamination on the property acquired by the City of Renton. The analytical data which accompanied your letter did not indicate that there was a source of contamination on this property, and that any possible contamination was migrating across the property from an upgradient source. We believe that we, and probably the City, are not liable for this problem due to an exemption under MTCA for contamination caused solely by the acts of an unaffilitated third party. We suggest that the source of contamination should be the focus of your inquiry. Glacier Park Company is not interested in retaking ownership of this property from the City of Renton. We are in the later stages of a liquidation of all of the company's real estate assets, and retaking the property would only serve to frustrate that effort. Very truly yours, ar n m Corporate Counsel CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren DEFT. May 6, 1992 r, IT ON TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works John Webley, Community Services Administrator 4 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 presently requiring certain developers to dedicate two percent of their property to wildlife habitat. We could create an exception to that policy where the developer could pay the city for use of an equivalent amount of the city's wildlife bank and then develop this extra two percent. This 05. 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 Qheck with her staff to see if this idea could be Limplemented. If it works we might want to give consideration to how is concept might work city-wide. 2 . Take over Draina e District No. 1 within the city limits . I am exploring 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 May 6, 1992 Page 2 to the city. I understand that Sam Chastain and My Lynne Myer are following through on this item. 4 . Metro money from West Point mitigation. John Webley was going to follow-up on the prior meeting that we had with the Metro representative to see how their policy is developing and whether there is any likelihood that the city will receive additional monies . A letter of retroactivity would be very important, and Metro was considering allowing such a letter. I think if we are aggressive with Metro we may be able to get some money from this source. Please keep me informed as I will need to draft an internal city agreement about the possession and title to these various parcels as they are acquired from Glacier Park. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Dan Clements A8 . 82 : 61 . 8 p a l �— t • Here vs your entry Complete this entry form and mail it, along with your entry,by May 27, 1992 to: Association of Washington Cities 1076 South Franklin Olympia,WA 98501 Title of Project: wt r Municipality: Address: Z0-0 Wa, gg oS� Population: f 3 j o o d Entry Category (circle one): I. Up to -1,499 population II. 1,500- 4,999 population III. 5,000 - 14,999 population IV. 15,000 - 39,999 population VY. Over 40,000 population Name: Mai 0 2- STA�� Title: M ark 0 2 STAFF Signature: Date: The 1992 AWC Municipal Achievement Awards WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON POPULATION: 43,000 The Growth Management Act (GMA) required the adoption of critical areas ordinances by March 1, 1992, from all Puget Sound cities. The City of Renton had ordinances for each critical area except wetlands. It was imperative for the City to meet the GMA deadlines and mandates. So we began inventorying our wetlands and looking for appropriate preservation strategies that would: preserve environmental functions, and preserve the economic potential of the city, two almost mutually exclusive goals of the GMA. During the inventorying of our City's wetlands, we found that a number of high value wetlands were still located within the city limits. In fact , some of the most important wetlands remaining in Renton not yet in public ownership were located in the Green River Valley. However, we also had a unique situation with low quality wetlands in the Green River Valley area as well. These "measles" wetlands created a "measles pattern" within individual properties, making them problematic to develop and reducing their property value. These two different value wetlands, very high quality and lower quality wetlands in the same area, were the result of historical actions in the Valley. Originally, the Green River Valley was a flood plain with only high value wetlands. However, during the late 1960's and 1970's, the United States nationwide embarked upon a wetland filling and/or draining policy, i.e. swampbusting. 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, over 800 acres of the over 1500 acres in the Valley were filled. Many of these filled areas developed with industrial, office and warehousing uses. However, some filled parcels did not develop. In these areas, small pockets of fill settled, leaving depressions which collected rainwater. These pockets were generally less than one acre. During the years, plant communities established themselves in these small wetland areas, to be followed by animals which were attracted by the habitat. Soil conditions changed over the thirty years. In 1992, wetlands had gained importance in the national and local agendas, and criteria were formulated for the definition of wetlands: presence of hydric soils, presence of water; presence of wetlands or hydric plants. Now, wetlands are prized for their habitat, water quality purification, and flood storage values, sedimentation and erosion prevention values. High quality wetlands in the Valley performed all these functions. In fact, our Storm Water Utility estimated that the wetlands performed functions estimated to cost $3-5 million dollars if they were duplicated through engineered structures. Lower quality wetlands also performed some functions and were part of an emerging ecosystem in the Valley. -1- Of equal importance to the City was the retention of its economic base and of its industrial lands. Regionally, the industrial land base is shrinking, creating land scarcity for those local businesses who need to relocate in order to expand or for new businesses wishing to establish themselves. The "measles wetlands" were located on much of the remaining available industrially designated land. Many of these parcels were in the single ownership of the Glacier Park Company, the development arm of Burlington Norther Railroad. A conundrum seemed imminent. However, several events occurred which resulted in a mutually beneficial idea for both the City and Glacier Park. Burlington Northern decided to divest themselves of properties held by the company all over the country and wanted to improve the salability of their properties in the Valley. The City had just passed our wetlands ordinance which set the framework for a mitigation bank concept for properties meeting certain criteria within the Green River Valley, as long as a "no net loss" of wetlands policy would prevail for the subdrainage basin. Two of the larger parcels held by Glacier Park were dominated by very high quality contiguous wetlands. These sites, which had been partially filled, were ideal for the establishment of "receiving property" or the mitigation bank. Because the Valley was historically a wetland and underlying hydric soils and historic seedbeds likely remain, removal of fill and replantings to reestablish historic wetlands has a high chance for success. The "sending properties" are those where the "measles" wetlands occur, each wetland under one acre, lower value habitat, perched water on depressions in the fill. After meeting with the City and discussing the concepts, Glacier Park will donate the larger high quality parcels to the City of Renton. The City will then become the wetland banker, responsible for removing fill, establishing wetlands. In fact, the mitigation bank site has additional fill (over 19.3 acres) over what would be needed to replace the sending properties wetlands (5.5 acres x 1.5 replacement ratio = 8.25 acres maximum needed.) Sending Properties (developable parcels Receiving Properties #2,5,6,8W, 8E, 9) Mitigation Bank Sites 1-2 Total Wetlands Uplands Total High Quality 1-2, Upland Acreage Acreage on Acreage Wetlands fill to be Site Existing removed to re-establish wetlands 37.67 5.33 32.34 44.9 25.5 19.35 acres (See attached map.) -2- 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. COMMUNITY BENEFIT Glacier Park and Burlington Northern were benefitted by increased salable return on their sending parcels. The Army Corps of Engineers and the staff members of the State Department of Ecology supported the concept as an innovative, win-win approach to wetlands protection. The Audubon Society and Trust for Public Land supported the trade because large blocks of existing habitat and high quality wetlands were saved and more contiguous habitat and wetlands would be created to replace lower quality wetlands. The City benefitted through an increased tax base, increased environmental protection, increased wetlands values especially flood storage capacities, increased passive trails and viewing areas. Industrial land users benefitted as properties were made available to meet market demands. The State of Washington benefitted, as the Growth Management Act's goals of both environmental protection and economic development were met. Some City Departments, such as Transportation Section 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 Glacier Park properties (8.5 acres out of a total of 19.35 acres of fill to be removed). The community at large benefitted for all 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 establishment plan, which will address such important points as appropriate plantings, hydrology and soils studies, soil importation sources and costs, soils excavation methods and costs, wildlife inventories; SEPA compliance; will initially cost approximately $50,000. Actual wetlands reestablishment may cost another $50,000 per acre. Funds will be made available through the Storm Water Utility, Transportation System, and Parks Department, and through developer contribution. The City of Renton is proud to present this project as an example of public-private partnership, with a win-win solution for all parties. -3- A .. ........................ �.w rth trc�- W.v - _.._ , I City of o 6 .......................................................... P-Channel Eaecment Renton C :.3) 4:: C/ I 5pringbrook Crcck Y M ITIGATIO N 13AN K 51TE 1 •�) ' LEGEND y �. S.W.34th 5trcct P��cI LTotal Wetland Upland o � W• �' ._.............._.._......�._..Y...�...._......... 8E 9 2 9.35 1.47 7.88 8 w 7.17 1.07 6.10 0 5.86 0.22 5.64 5.05 1.65 3.40 ' 5.45 0.24 5.2.1 � 4.79 0.68 4.11 ota s 37.67 5.33 62.34 Lot 3 north 1/2 Mltigatlon Total wetland �1 hand MITIGATION BANK 51TE 2 Arca Parcc114 30.97 18.78 12.19 Parccl 8W (Lots 1.2) 13.93 6.77 7.16 & Parccl BE (S 1!2) Totals -44.90 25.55 19.35 S.W.41st Street____ ' Please Ko(e. wi it 6�,- m-,,ovf-& 4-0 e� k �UC�IDImIP�I� VIlCCDIlflIlty ffip 600' a )rox �<, ((; 11 ( pr ) '11�f A.�n�rvi�-l�•1- (+( `•('1�C(l.S4cn" L�•P �S 'T,I1ArA �� (»-- l.tt£[, 2,5,4�_,AW._ f. Golder Associates Inc. { _ = Golder 4104-148th Avenue NE Redmond,WA USA 98052 Associates sociates Telephone(206)883-0777 1�� Fax(206)882-5498 May 26, 1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department PLANNING ENTODIVISION 200 Mill Avenue South CITY OF RFi�TQ�d Renton, WA 98055 mAy 2 8 1992 ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer L-**;"E I`®C G D RE: Level 2 Environmental Assessment, M Glacier Park Company Dear Ms. Myer: This letter is per your earlier request, regarding our current observations on Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park Company properties. I visited the site Thursday, May 21 to obtain more information that we can use in scoping the Level 2 assessment requested by the City of Renton. My observations of Parcel 14, particularly the fill in the south-central portion of the property, indicate that soil sampling and analysis is probably not required. On the basis of my preliminary observations, it currently appears that the Level 2 assessment will focus on the portion of Parcel 13 that is adjacent to the Sternoff Metals site. The pond and wetlands area directly west of the Sternoff site should be sampled, and additional samples may be taken elsewhere on this property, particularly if suspect fill is observed within former wetlands areas. At this time, we estimate that we will collect up to eight samples, and will analyze them for the following target parameters: total lead, total cadmium, total petroleum hydrocarbons. The estimated cost for this task is $5839. This will include the field work, sampling and analysis, and the preparation of a brief letter report describing our findings. A detailed breakdown of the proposed work is attached. Thank you again for this opportunity. We currently plan to begin the field work Monday, June 1, with delivery of the report planned for Friday, June 5. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael D. Lubrecht Senior Environmental Geologist Anthony . Burgess, P.E. Principal OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA,CANADA,GERMANY,HUNGARY,ITALY,SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM,UNITED STATES Scope of Work - City of Renton City of Renton Cost Proposal for Level II Environmental Assessment Task 1 — Field Sampling Program Labor Principal 1 Hr. $130 $130 Associate 1 Hr. $100 $100 Senior 10 Hr. $85 $850 Project 0 Hr. $65 $0 Staff 18 Hr. $50 $900 Technician 2 Hr. $40 $80 Drafting 0 Hr. $45 $0 Support 1 Hr. $40 $40 Total Labor $2,100 Other Direct Costs Computer 0 Hr. $10 $0 Aerial Photos 3 Ea. $25 $75 Vehicle 1 Day $30 $30 Phone, fax, misc. 1 Lump $15 $15 Copying, printing, etc. 0 Lump $30 $0 OVM 1 Day $50 $50 Sampling Equip. /Decon 1 Lump $50 $50 H&S Equipment 1 Lump $50 $50 TotalODC's $270 Analytical Costs Total Lead 9 Ea $26 $230 Total Cadmium 9 Ea $26 $230 Total Solids 9 Ea $10 $90 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 9 Ea $50 $450 Total Analytical Costs $999 Total Task 1 $3,369 Page 1 Scope of Work - City of Renton Task 2 — Report Preparation Labor Principal 1 Hr. $130 $130 Associate 2 Hr. $100 $200 Senior 16 Hr. $85 $1,360 Project 0 Hr. $65 $0 Staff 8 Hr. $50 $400 Technician 0 Hr. $40 $0 Drafting 4 Hr. $45 $180 Support 3 Hr. $40 $120 Total Labor $2,390 Other Direct Costs Computer 6 Hr. $10 $60 Phone,fax, misc. 1 Lump $20 $20 TotalODC's $80 Total Task 2 $2,470 Total Project $5,839 Page 2 CITY OP RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENT'ON June 10, 1992 JUN 1 91992RECEIVED Mr. Donald E. Marcy Cairncross & Hempelmann, P. S . 7000 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-7016 Re: Agreement Between City of Renton and Glacier Park Company Dear Don: I have reviewed the above-referenced Agreement regarding the release of Glacier Park Company from. its obligations under bonds posted with the City of. Renton and the same is approved as to legal form. Ver truly yours, Lawrence 3. Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Lynn Guttmann Amary an Clements Lynne Myer A8 . 85 : 05 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-867/8 VotuU/HL 10:11 1AS 4U0 Doi Z3ui1 IsJUUL LAu offI 9 CAIRNCROSS &HEMPTLMANN A PROMSK)W11 SFAS=CQRFCK'MN 70rx RAOR,COLUM8IA CF nVE 701 HFM AVENM seATruF vAsHINGrCN 90104-7016 R.06)587-0700 FAx.CM)587.7300 DONALD E. MAMCY June 9, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren/ Re'llogg, Dean & Fontes 100 S. Second Street P.O. Box 6:26 Renton, WA1 98057 Re: Agreement -- City of Renton/Glacier Park Company Dear Larry: Here ,for your raview. is°° an agreement regarding the release of Glacier Park Company fr=m its obligations under bonds posted with the City of Renton. Sincerely, Donald E. Marc DEM:G1b y Enclosure cc (w/encl) : Karen Lane Marty Sevier Mark Stiefel I i 06/09/92 16:18 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS&HEHM �03 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1992 by and between GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ( "GPC" ) , and the CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City" ) . GPC is the owner of certain parcels of real property located in the City of Renton and more par4icularly 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' ) . 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. Xn order to provide for the release of GPC from the obligations of the--bohd"'postard--by it, and -i-it-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, GPC covenants that prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a development on any of the Parcela, the then owner of the Parcel sha11 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 Bond No. dated and, issued by 3. This agreement and the covenants contained herein shall run with the Land and shall�,.be binding upon the successors and assigns of GPC. 4. This agreement may not be amended by the parties except in writing. S. : 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. GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a D& ware ] corporation %> 8y: � Its - 1 - u6/U tit Liz lu:la CAA ZUD 06V ZUU5 uA1tUVuKvbJifcrilnrb kajuu4 CITY OF RESTON BY: o Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clark APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ., 156515.M24 06/09/92 2 06/09/92 16:19 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS&HEMPE 191uu5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF ;KING ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of GLACIER PARR COMPANX, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing .instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the frde and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentiozaed, 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 day of 1992. {.fit` r\i1P�c ,t NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Nay commission expires STATE OF WASHINGTON } ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me , to mei: known to be the of the City of Renton, the municipal.;corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrpment, , and,.acknowledged the said instrument to be the free anal voluutary.:act and deed of said municipal corporation for -the uses, and :.purposes therein mentionedr and on oath stated that:. he:::is authorized to execute said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this __ day of 1992. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires _�•: 3 ,i. 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. x Cp2D94�� Ll Z �GwK all 'i gl 7 11� 17 i PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET C THER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS WO# NATURE OF WORK; GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PIW# 4Jp�r_�/ 0 4 a, Jt f O, � �� It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT I PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. I NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W I LCA/S � LCA/OTHER —D- SAD/W �p- I SAD/S —D — JUA 0 - LID _k TEIZ Z a8' FUTURE OBLIGATIONS U 2U k+ SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) /OS7 (v0 �33 2S8 73 SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) TOTAL $ *If subject property is within an LID, It is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N M Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh j CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for"Local Improvement District No.....3.1.4......, Created by Ordinance No..•3356 EAST VALLEY ROAD .. ....... ... Entitled"An Ordinance proyidina for the Improvement ot. ALL From S.W. 16th St. to S.W. 41st St. and Related Streets __ -- NORMAL __ _—_--- - -- DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMOUNT or pATMLNT" INTLRLiT {�-I ADDITION OR PLAT NAME OF OWNER s.em VI avo� A86999YLNT AMOUNT AMOUNT � - .. & MORTGAGE CO. Of SEC 30-23 05, PorINW 1/4 of NW 1/4 1�_ 2U4 -t 20. Mobil Oil Cor oration Be�a�_S1 2 - F C r o S�ibd h S of 1711 13th Ave. S.W. 8a at h. ubd Th S Seattle WA 98134 M a a A7 pr e o a a a c of Curve ear N 6- 2-12 W Th N f; Mobil 1 r W Ln o S u d -4 -1 E c o Property Tax Division P. x is Dallas TX 75221 1, �0 21. Burl n ton No Pro ert Tax De t• Industri 1 Pa n 208 Central Buildin Seattle WA 98104 A 22. Burlington Northern Inc. Pro ert Tax De t Lot 8, Bl 6, Burlin to Northern 156,489 7 - Industrial Pa k R n n Co 208 Central Building -� 'Seattle WA 98104 ,I 23. Burlington Northern Lot 1, B1 1, Burlin ton Northern 1 9 7 an eve opment C-0rp. Industrial Pa k R nton 1 Butldin9 1 810 3rd Avenue A Yr. Seattle WA 98104 ur ng No t er 0 yis I d. Pk. 24-1�Glacie�rk Co_ SP 7nyq R� 779g9.2`�190 2 �Sd Sp T 208 Central Buildin �id- - Seattle WA 98104 ur in Note 0 i1 yliaafI d. Pk �q is i 25. Puget Sound Power & Light Co P Pec 90Z9002 P, I Y' 79 Pu et Power Buildin 17-1296 Bellevue WA 98984- — _ --- -- - __ 41 ing*on Norther / ,, A , 26. Gla ier .LrA �o— 208 Central Buildin Orillia I dus rial Pa k R n 810 3rd Av nue ' Seattle WA 98104 { 27. TGarfield & Associates Ltd. Lot 4, Bl�ck�, Burlington Northern 1 64,432 1 y 1 IP_ .O. Box_800 —_�Ori Ilia I_Idus rial P,a�rkRe�nt_/o�n, 200 S.W. 34th Street_ _��Jy ��-` -- -- - '-- 04, �Renton WA 98057 _5,_Blkr1 i$ur-1',ington-Nonihern --— P.O. Box 60100 TA_—_ _ Orillia_Industrial' Parkkff Renton,.�l _ - Los Angeles CA 90060 I I , I .,y { CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for "Local Improvement District No....3.0.2.... Created by Ordinance No.-..31.3.$...... Entitled "An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of...LIND AVE SW, SW..41st & SW 34th St. DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMOURT OF NORMAL NUT NAME OF OWNER AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT PAYMENT INTEREST , 6 MORT. CO. ADDITION OR PLAT ASSESSMENT AS EQUALIZED AMOUNT AMOUNT BUS. LOT BLK. Ay I TT Koll/Intereal Northwes 1 1 Koll Business 6246 2 J - 33 2021 152nd Ave. NE Center/Renton Redmond WA 9RO52 39a •o0 0 zy�. 'rrd, ILF AN 3� Glacier Park Co. 1 6 Burl N Orillia 2110 .42 /H 7y�,OS �7 3y 437 Central Bldg, Ld Pk Rpntnn #2 PT DD Seattle WA 98104 L .i Glacier Park Co. 2 6 Burl N 0 1 35143.82 437 Central Bldg. Ind P R 810 3rd Ave l- TJ 3 ,Glacier Park Co, ur 3 I 437 Central Bldg. nd Pk Renton #2 `P 810 3rd Ave. 2 Seattle, WA 98104 I k Glacier Park Co. 37 437 Central Bldg, 810 3rd Ave. 2 / i Seattle, WA 98104 24. Glacier Park Co. 1 5 url N Orillia � 3 437 Central Bldg. nd Pk Renton #2 810 3rd Ave. Q� I Seattle, WA 98104 24. Glacier Park Co. 112 15 url N Orillia 37 Central Bldg. Ind Pk Renton #2 810 3rd Ave - Leattle. WA 98104 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ❑ P REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP OTHER / 44 SUBJECT PROPERTY P1D# 1 7 n It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT Include Inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER _p SAD/W SAD/S — JUA LID • TBz FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single fami!y residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.tL of property x (not less than $470.00) TOTAL $ `If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N M � i 9� Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x V � w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW ❑ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ❑ PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ❑ /�� G. OTHER APPLICANT: &Aeai�2 �� JOB ADDRESS: ) WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE ❑ FEES APPLIED ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP ❑ OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# !„! 0240 T) � 7 It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER SAD/W SAD/S _d — LID ' O TBZ 3 FUTURE OBLIGATIONS 14 A0 / '�L_ SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x p (not less than $470.00) 4L01 �� a! ,�lD 3• o TOTAL $ `If subject property is within an LID, It is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M ca D tV Ca Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE f x w/forms/pm/feeapp/199 1/bh U � PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: YI Lk_ JOB ADDRESS: I WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED Cl NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# O SD F It Is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER SAD /W _a SAD/S —Q JUA 'I - 9/ GC lG LID TBZ FUTURE OBLIGATIONS . SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.fL of property x (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) L� �Y C�Q ��.Si TOTAL $ 'If subject property is within an LID, It Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N M CL Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x zw w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET C3 PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Gil b f /V4411� OTHER APPLICANT: (�//� JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE ❑ FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP 0 OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY P�# e (DO //3 2 Ste"�3'04 tl;'�''�- D'2✓'O� It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL JMETHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W i LCA/S LCA/OTHER D SAD/W SAD/S —Q JUA as' Ld is LID d 3a 3 -O$ �S • TBZ FUTURE OBLIGATION to SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $940.00) ©�� 9aa5 •G SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit $270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x 17 (not less than $470.00) oa a a /a__ 33 TOTAL $ subject property is within an UD,lit Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept for paid un-pa d status. M N 34ZW4--?vo2CL Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE `D x w/forms/pm/feeapp/199 1/bh CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for"Ideal Improvement District No..323........,"Created by Ordinance No.....3548........... Entitled"An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of.....S.W: 43rd St;.,•-•.West•,Val ley,•_H,i•ghway„_to,,, East Valley Highway N NAME OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMOUNT OF NORMAL E%T SO".. A88EB8MENT PAYMENT INTEREST' & MORTGAGE CO. of It Lee us . AoomoN oe rur AMOUNT AMOUNT For of the HE /4 if the NW 1/4 In —I—J$ I P at the NE or f H A.D.C.; Thence E - e y --- . -- - -- 000 First ' tn the N 11,e 999 _ Third Ay nue icif aforesa d s . aid the TPOB; Thence P R/W to the N I ne f said Sec. 36; -- ----•-- me r In of .P. R/W Thence S1 al said E Iin to the N line of S. 180t S. I80th S . to th TPOS. Situated --- -- - 3rd n o n y — 16 That Por o Se . 3 T23N, R4E, W.M. 7.627120 A 201 E Marginal W S is 114' E nd 0' from the HE Cor 1J the H.A D.0 No 43; Thence N 644 8'; 4*37100" W 1 04; Thence N 84*34100 W Then a to he centerline of. aid cente line to a pt E of the P08 In the Clt�_gf Renton. Kina Co. WA ESS R/W f r S W. 3rd St. at or o f o the HE 1/4 17 Sternco Land Co. _ 6, T23N, 4E, W.M , DAF: Beg at a _ ar ani rom Seattle, WA 9B108 he being pa is c IF S c. 35 & 36 In T23 , enterline of Iral acie Ditch hence alg sai ch terline of ditch, 45--W hence S 3 *24 0" W 259.59' to a pt., hich Is d e W of she POB; Thence E iRoad, 3i Ii:o the POB Except ng R/W for Drain- ge Ditch o. , S tuatedTn King Co 1 eg a[ a p which ears E 784.191 6 40 S.E. dams Dona Ion Cis m In Sec. 36, T23 - Renton. WA 98055 I e ce to the --- Rig said dIt h c nterllne 249.69'; ence a marg n o 28.19' to place o Beg; Except For , _— ESS R/W f r S.W. 3rd St. _ i 19 Sternco Land Co. hat Por o the NW I/4 of the HE 1/4 6 Marginal17201 E. Way�.` n the N 1 nV unt road at a t WA 8108 hich is 9 3. & 30' N of NE cor 1 _WA --- Henry fos Dei tiat4on--karwf-G- - — o. 43; Th nce N 3°49'00"E a distant cente—Tr Tne o j Ine S 66°03'0d' W1209.93'; Thence S'! ffe N"TTne of sar�Eounty': ea road-tJa•--- 58.85' tO jPOB.I LESS R/W for S.W. 431'tl - -- ' I PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLJJN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET Q j� .bLL OTHER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE Q FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q NOT APPROVED FOR Q FRONT FOOTAGE Q SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP Q OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY P.D. �� p `-j $ . �j_ 4 �I0O It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER .. D SAD/W _D SAD/S —o — JUA LID TBz 3 FUTURE OBLIGATIONS' eQ LLD . ee,�� t► SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x �y (not less than $940.00) / 3L�� SAP/&!E 177 SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $470.00) TOTAL $ 'If subject property is within an LID, it Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M ea DN a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh l� PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW [71 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Q PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET a/ OTHER APPLICANT: p�l� �f�"�'1�� JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION Q LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES Q VICINITY MAP 0 OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# �02(/ 3 y �. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER —4 i SAD/W SAD/S —D— JUA --D— LID 36,� q-o/ 3w 37 TBZ aZAtA Z `oL FUTURE OBLIGATIONS Q YUD • �i .c eL SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x 3 G (not less than $940.00) .,ZO / �. SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.R of property x (not less than $470.00) Z A-RS TOTAL $ *If subject property is within an LID, it Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE fD x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh `h CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for "Local Improvement District No.....3.0.2......," Created by Ordinance No._31.3.$...... f Entitled "An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of. .LIND AVE SW, h..SW..41s.. & SW 34t St. ................ I' DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATEwNT OF NORMAL NEXT AM NAME OF OWNER _ _ AMOUNT OF �sseSSMENT PAYMENT INTEREST 6 MORT. CO. ADDITION OR PLAT ASSESSMENT As EQUALIZED AMOUNT AMOUNT BUS. i - LOT BLX. Koll/Intereal Northwes 1 1 J1 Koll Business 6246 2 111 33 2021 152nd Ave. NE d Center/Renton arrd,. 2-0-. J Glacier Park Co. 1 11 6 Burl N Orillia Z21101.421 /'/ 7N4.01 - �7 437 Central Bldg, 810 3rd Av `� DO .� Seattle WA 98104 v ,yn �-1 Glacier Park Co. 2 6 Burl N Orilli 35143.8211 p iS 437 Central Bldg. Ind P R 810 3rd Ave ,Glacier Park Co. 6 Bur 3 t" 3 437 Central Bldg. End Pk Renton #2 810 3rd Ave. 2 Seattle, WA 98104 I Glacier Park Co. a�O 37 437 Central Bldg, 810 3rd Ave. 2 Seattle, WA 98104 2J40 Glacier Park Co. 1 5 url N Orillia �u '3? 437 Central Bld End Pk Renton 112 810 3rd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 F1 11 11 S� ice. Glacier Park Co. 2 5 url N Orillia S �/ 37 Central Bldg. Ind Pk Renton #2 - 810 3rd Ave '+ r, eattle L . WA 98104 -.,..._ _. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 0 P N REVIEW ROUTING SLIP I� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: . ai JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE L� FEES APPLIED f3 NEED MORE INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PIDO" L-s- 4Lf3' '&k Z It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is Issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER SAD/W — O SAD/S p— JUA 1Z p;LAP 5ijo — LID a =p TBZ � FUTURE OBLIGATIONS dJ �� •L o� SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft. of property x (not less than $940.00) _9JI, A SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.IL of property x (not less than $470.00) /o� TOTAL $ *If subject property is within an LID, It is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M N �&v Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE f9 x w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh CITY OF RENTON ..... Ass mment Roll For"Local Improvement Dletrict No.,•••11.4......, Created by Ordinance No..• • � EAST VALLEY ROAD.......................................... Entitled"As Ordinance providing for the Improvemes o•"From S.W. 16th St. to S.W, 41st St. and Related Streets NLxT -- DESCRIPTION Of REAL ESTATE NORMAL NAME OF OWNER I AMOUNT OP PATYLNT INTLRLLT sosai.woo ADDITION oe PLAT ALLLLLMLNT AMOUNT 'AMOUNT & MORTGAGE CO. Sec 30-23 05, PorINW 1/4 of NW 1/4 20. Mobil Oil Cor oration B�.��02 - F Ciro o S bd�hS0 1 r• 1711 13th Ave. S.W. - } Megad�--a R A �of1 &ubd Th S Seattle WA 98134 o a 44 ZZ a of Curveear N 6- 2-12 WTh N Mobil it or W Ln o S u d -4 -1 E — c o Pro ert Tax Division � �g P. x Dallas TX 75221 — r 10 21. Burlin t n Nort J. Indu r P n 3 :' Pro ert Tax De t• 208 Central Buildin (� Seattle WA 98104 va. 22. Burlington Northern Inc. Lot 8, B1 6, urlin ton Northern 156 489 7. I Property Tax Dept. Industrial Pa k R n (b 11208 Central Building @J--- 'Seattle WA 98104 , 23. Burlington Northern Lot 1, B1 1, Burlin ton Northern 1 9 an evTenti Corp. Industrial Pa k R nton 1 _ _ Building-'- 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104 - -= t ur tng No t er „0 ii is I d. Pk �' '� •<� 24. Glacier Park Co. IgrtonQ Pg-Ci�y of_� Sp 379-7 Re 79 9 9002 Sd Spr j 208 Central Buildin � � — //•: Seattle WA 98104 2O p z ur in Note „0 liaffI d. Pk i �q : 25. Puget Sound Power & Light Co � Pec 90��i082 p <( , P r' Pu et Power Buildin a Bellevue WA 98604- 17-1296 ' I 26. Gla r Purl �o y_ ington Norther - 208 Central Buildin I rillia I dus rial Park en on - G 810 3rd Avenue i Seattle WA 98104 — i 27. ivarteld & Associates Ltd. Lot 4,—Block j Burlington Northern 1 64,4.32 y IIP.O. Box 800 --�Oril�wAr lia L1dus rial Park Renton.L..— �i 200 S.W. 34th Street__. /l -_---- -- _ Renton WA 98057 Last�..Or'-111 --.—!;Lot 5,-B1kr1,.�ur1'ingtoa-Nor-therh-- --�2., P.O. Box 60100 TA __ _ Orillia Industrial! Park Renton_J1 t - ----— Los Angeles CA 90060— • 3 i 1 ;� CITY OF RENTON Assessment Roll for "Local Improvement District No....302.......," Created by Ordinance No._...3138 Entitled "An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of..LIND AVE. SW, SW 41st St. & SW 34th St. . .. .....-............................................................ i SW 34th St. DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AM .T OF NORMAL NEXT NAME OF OWNER _ _ AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT PAYMENT INTEREST BUS. & MORT. CO. ADDITION OR PLAT ASSESSMENT AS EQUALIZED AMOUNT AMOUNT LOT BLK. 1. John G unnin2 6 1 Burl N Orillia L20321.51 (Service PHDer Co.) Ind Pk Renton 11 111 1100 Andover Park W. /1 Tukwila. WA 98188 Y..... ............................ FI NCE DEPT. S5 13 2. " Stuart D. �Kno Burl N Orillia 33908. 1 Y/ �t Dorothy L. Castro In Pk Renton li D (Superior Fast Freight2 Qifi_ P,O. Box C-34200 111APP 10 Postal Annex Y All �'C, ULf�'i Seattle, WA 98134 Garfield Assoc. Ltd. 4 1 Burl N Orillia 3 08.41 - � 1040 Andover Park W. Ind Pk Renton 1� Tukwila WA 98188 . 3 L7 � ............................. .. FINANCE`DEPT. 4, y Glacier Park Co. 3 1 Burl N Orillia 50962 48 7.5 U �c o 414 Central Bldg. Ind Pk Renton # �- 810 3rd Ave. QL�' Seattle, WA 98104 5. Glacier Park Co. 8 2 Burl N Orillia 1887 .32 1 P' R NTON Z'! 4-�*U&ntral Bldg. Ind Pk Renton 11 �� > CLERK'S fFICE 810 3rd Ave 2✓r D• < lJ^ P+: tr Seattle, WA 98104 13 S 9` 6. 1 Stuart D. Knopp Parcel A 7996.28 ~� 11 d— Doroth L. Castro 9 2 Burl N Orillia fj Y -o E/•'- - (Superior Fast Freight) Ind Pk Renton 111 � PO Box C-34200 2 --- �' PjSeat l Annex - t- FINANGF DE, le, WA 98134 j- er Park Co, Parcel B 2665 .22 entral Bldg. 9 2 Burl N Orilliard Ave. Ind Pk Renton 111 e WA 98104 1, r: t CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2635 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON SEGREGATING ASSESSMENTS RE LID #314 WHEREAS the City of Renton has been requested to segregate certain assessments for Local Improvement District No. 314 as it relates to parcels 24 and 26 ; and WHEREAS the original assessment roll for LID #314 was approved June 11, 1984 ; and WHEREAS Parcels 24 and 26 are legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS the amount of the original assessment for Parcel 24 was $102 , 532 . 78 , and the amount of the original assessment for Parcel 26 was $136 , 645. 76 ; and WHEREAS Parcel 24 has been separated into two parcels with one parcel remaining Parcel 24 and the second parcel becoming a part of Parcel 26 ; and WHEREAS this action would segregate the assessments on the same basis as the original assessments; and WHEREAS segregated parcels 24 and 26 are legally described on Exhibit "A" incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS this segregation will not jeopardize the security of the lien for such assessments or reduce the security for any outstanding RESOLUTION NO. 2635 Local Improvement District obligations payable from such assessment, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The Finance Director of the City of Renton is ordered to segregate the original assessments on Parcels 24 and 26 of LID #314 into amended Parcels 24 and 26 as legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto with the tractsbearing the following amended assessments: Parcel 24 - $43 , 523 . 08 Parcel 26 - $179 , 710 .24 SECTION II: The total of these segregated assessments equal the total unpaid assessment before segregation and if that should not be, then each assessment will be increased proportionately until the sum of the two will total the unpaid assessment before segregation. SECTION III: As part of the segregation, the Finance Director of the City of Renton will collect a fee of $10 .00 for each tract for which segregation was made for a total of $20 .00 . SECTION IV: The City of Renton chooses to charge its reasonable engineering and clerical costs for this segregation in the amount of $75 .00 . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 3rd day of February, 1986. Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 3rd day of February, 1986 . Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor A proved as to form RESOLUTION NO. 2635 L.I .D. #314 EXHIBIT "A" Date of Original Assessment Roll June 11 , 1984 PARCEL #24 Amount of Original Assessment $102,532.78 Original Legal Description: Parcel "B" of the City of Renton Short Plat No. SP 379-79 recorded under King County recording #7909249002; also known as Lot 2, Block 1 , Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton, Division I , as recorded in Volume 108 of Plats, Pages 12 and 13, Records of King County, Washington less the North 170.0 feet. PARCEL #26 Amount of Original Assessment $136,645.76 Original Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1 , Burlington Northern Industrial Park of Renton, Division I as recorded in Volume 108 of Plats, Pages 12 and 13, Records of Kin4 County, Washington. RESOLUTION NO. 2635 L.I .D. #314 EXHIBIT "B" PROPOSED PARCEL #24 Amount of Remaining Assessment $ 43,523.08 New Legal Description: Lot A of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment 013-85 recorded under King County recording #8511069006; also known as the South 240.0 feet of the North 410.0 feet of Lot #2, Block 1 , Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton, Division I , as recorded in Volume 108 of Plats, Pages 12 and 13, Records of King County, Washington. PROPOSED PARCEL #26 Amount of Remaining Assessment $179,710.24 New Legal Description: Lots #2 and #3, Block 1 , Burlington Northern Orillia Industrial Park of Renton Division I , as recorded in Volume 108 of Plats, Pages 12 and 13, Records of King County, Washington. LESS the North 410.0 feet of Lot #2, Block 1 of said plat. W-846 AGREEMENT AND CONVEYANCE g� RE: UTILITIES SYSTEMS i THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 19 opt�omal munic a code clai s by and between the CITY OF RENTON , a municipal corporation o e under t�fic laws and statutues of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and KENCO SALES, INC. hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER" ; W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS "The Developer" is desirous of installing certain waterxxixxmw= lines and appurtenances thereto at, near, or within the hereinbelow described property and to connect same to the City' s Utility System so that such improvements will constitute an integral part thereof; and WHEREAS no other property owners or users are presently available to share in the cost (� and expense of construction of such improvements and the parties hereto having in mind the provisions and terms of Chapter 261 of the 1959 Sessions Laws , generally referred to C as a "Municipal Water and Sewer Facilities Act, (RCW 35.91 . 101 et seq)" ; and WHEREAS "The Developer" is willing to pay all the costs and expenses for the installdtion Oof said improvements ; Gb NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND COVENANTED BY AND BETWEEN THE AFORESAID PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The "Developer" hereby acknowledges and covenants that he is the owner of the following described property, to-wit; The North 240 feet of Parcel "B" of City of Renton Short Plat No. SP 379-79 recorded under King County Recording Number 7909249002: Also known no the South 240 feet of the North 410 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Burlington Northern )='F q 1 it... 0r1ll1a Industrial Park of Renton Division 1, Recorded in REC:e' F 9. flt_t Volume 100, Pages 12 and 13, Records of King County, S�..f`f^_{ J I`I�1{.�L _ Washington. ]. 1 and the "Developer" hereby agrees and covenants to cause to have installed the following described improvements, to-wit: Installation of approximately 1,088 L.F. of 8" and 20 L.F. of 6" D.I. watermain, two (2) fire hydrants and all appurtenances installed under City of Renton approved plan No. W-846 for Kenco Project at 3001 East 'Valley Highway, and such installation to be made in full compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the City of Renton. The "Developer" further covenants and warrants that all expenses and claims in connection with the construction and installation of the aforesaid improvements, whether for labor or materials or both have been or will be paid in full , all the "Developer' s" expense, and the "Developer" covenants and agrees to hold the City of Renton harmless from any liability in connection therewith. 2. The "Developer" further certifies that the total estimated cost of said construction as here inabove specified will be in the sum of $ 48,158.55 See Exhibit "A" attached hereto for the legal description of the lands affected by this latecomer agreement or a ma oiowi grin outline the land affected by such additional charges per the terms of this �agreement. Per RCW 65. 08. 170(3) (RCW 35. 92.025) • NEED FOR PRE Q IR , AT REM SST 0f Fl!Ui 101 P161N1l,+t 1U HUG. ra. 290 WIL AVE. SO REM ON, kid 50055 PAGE 1 OF 5 �-4_- - . - X v c Based on said total amount of cost, the costs per mx VV=x0Wx=9QKxp�2cRc front l i nea l foot �2�}vt�a x l x ersy ¢:s x of said improvement sha l 1 be employed to determine the pro rata reimbursement to the "Developer" by any owner of real estate, who did not contribute to the original cost of such improvement , and who subsequently wishes to tap into or hook unto or use said facilities , which tap or hookup shall 1Q include connections to laterals or branches connecting thereto, all subject to the laws 0 and ordinances of the City of Renton and the provisions of this Agreement. It is hereby further agreed that in the event the total actual cost of the aforedescribed improvement shall be different from that set forth hereinabove, then this Agreement will be duly amended to set forth the total actual cost thereof. The pro rata cost per front lineal foot is $ 30.0054 3• It is hereby found and determined that the construction and installation said aforedescribed improvement is in the public interest and in furtherance of public health and sanitation. 4. The "Developer" hereby agrees and covenants to convey, transfers and assign unto City all right, interest and title in and to said improvements and all appurten- ances and accessories thereto, free from any claim and encumbrance of any party whomsoever; City agrees to accept and maintain said improvement as part of its present Utilities Systems upon approval thereof by the City Engineer and after inspection of said construction. The "Developer" further agrees and covenants to execute and to deliver unto the City any and all documents including Quit Claim Deeds and Bills of Sales that may reasonably be necessary to fully vest title in the City and to effectuate this conveyance and transfer. The "Developer" further agrees and covenants to pay unto the City such service or other charges as may be imposed by the Ordinance of the City of Renton from time to time applicable to like users of the same class . 5• City reserves the right, without affecting the validity or terms of this Agreement to make or cause to be made extensions to or additions of the above improve- ment and to allow service connections to be made to said extensions or additions , without liability on the part of the City. 6. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized to tap into the facility for water or sewer service during the period of ten (10) years from date hereof, without first paying unto the City, in addition to any and all other costs, fees and charges made or assessed for each tap, or for the main facilities constructed in connection therewith, the amount required by the provisions of this contract except suqh charges shall not apply to any extension of the main facility. All amounts so received by the City shall be paid out by it unto the "Developer" under the terms of this agreement within sixty (60) days after receipt thereof. Further- more, in case any tap, hookup or connection is made into any such contracted facility without such payment having been first made, the legislative body of the City may cause to have removed such unauthorized tap, hookup or connection , and all connecting ( title or pipe) or related accessories located in the facility of right-of-way, and dispose of such unauthorized material so removed, without any liability on the part of the City whatever. It is further agreed and covenanted that upon expiration of the term of this Agreement ; towit : ten (10) years from date hereof, City shall be PAGE 2 OF 5 under no further obligation to collect or make any further sums unto the "Developer". The decision of the City Engineer or his authorized representative in determining or computing the amount due from any benefited owner who wishes to hook up to such improvement, shall be final and conclusive in all respects. 7. It is further agreed and understood that the aforedescribed improvements to be undertaken and paid for by Developer have been or are about to be connected with the Utilities Systems of the City, and upon such connection and acceptance by the City through its legislative body, said extension d/ � anor improvement shall be and become a part of the municipal utilities systems. 8. This agreement shall be placed for record with the King County Auditor's Office immediately upon execution thereof and all costs of recording shall be the responsibility of the "Developer". DATED THIS---' 19 — DAY OF 19� CITY �NTON, A MU CIPAL CORPORATION DEVELOP BY: BY. .�f/1'4 �/i�� G YOR BY: BY: CITY CLERK CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPER STATE OF WASHINGTON ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of 198$ On this day personally appeared before me before me personally appeared Q1yl� l�gx`�}-;L F Mnfcy- , to me kno to (Grantor(s) be the ( Mayor, City Clerk 16nocr/4 /Al,cffAt-L 0/�K;4"NG or other authorized officer or agent, as thecase may be) of the municipal corporation that executed the to me known to be the individual.(s),describ( R within and foregoing instrument, and in and who executed the within and fore- acknowledged said instrument to be the free going instrument, and acknowledged that he and voluntary act and deed of said municipal (she or they) signed the same as his (her corporation, for the uses and purposes or their) free and voluntary act and deed, therein mentioned, and on oath stated that for the uses and purposes therein mentione he was authorized to execute said instrument Give under my ha and ficial seal t and that the seal affixed is the corporate tiday of , 19 seal, of said municipal corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the Signature of officer and official seal day and year first above written. Signa ure & Title of 0 ficer Notary Public in an for State of Washington, residing at No ary lic in and for the State of Washing n, residing in PAGE 3 OF 5 EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL WATER OR SEWER FACILITY TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGES REQUIRED BY RCW 65.08.170 (3) (RCW 35.92.025) MUNICIPALITY - CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ADDITIONAL TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGE PER: City of Renton approved water Dlan for KENCO Project - 3001 East Valley Highway PROJECT NO.: W-846 0 RECIPIENT: _ KENCO SALES INC 110 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of approximately 1,088 L D of 8" and 20 L.F. Of 6" D.I. 0 watermain, two (2) fire hydrants and all appurtenances intalled for Kenco at 3001 East Valley 1-Iiallwav M e-4 Lj TOTAL ASSESSMENT COST: $_48,158.55 C) TOTAL ASSESSABLE FOOTAGE: 1,605 L.F, (Front Footage or Square Footage) I TOTAL COST PER FRONT FOOT OR SQUARE FOOT: $_30.0054 per front lineal foot If there is any question regarding the paid or unpaid status of the following assessments, please call the City of Renton, Utility Engineering Department at 235-2631. ASSESSABLE ADDITIONAL OWNERSHIP LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE CHARGE PARCEL NO. 1 PTN LOT 2 BLOCK 1 281.25 L.F. $8,439.01 125380-0021-00 BURL N ORILLA IND PK RENTON #1 PUGET SOUND PWR do LT PARCEL A OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PUGET POWER BLDG PLAT NO 379-79 RECORDING NO 7909249002 BELLEVUE WA 98004 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - LOT 2 BLK 1 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK OF RENTON DIV I PARCEL NO. 2 PTN LOTS 2-3 BLOCK 1 281.25 L.F. $8,439.01 125380-0030-09 BURL N ORILLIA IND PK RENTON #1 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR PARCEL B LESS N 240 FT OF CITY OF 2100 1ST INTERSTATE CTR RENTON SHORT PLAT NO 379-79 999 3RD AVE PROP TAX DEPT RECORDING NO 7909249002 AKA LOT 2 SEATTLE WA 98104 LESS N 410 FT OF BLK 1 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK OF RENTON DIV 1- TG W LOT 3 BLK 1 SD PLAT - AKA LOT B OF CITY OF RENTON LOT LN ADJ NO 13-85 RECORDING NO 8511069006 r PAGt 4 OF 5 .. , EXHIBIT "B" W-846 erid::.rrrgn .• ay •o-aJ u".n � o S W 27TH ST IJ4.JJ I 'z 017.e•UN r M,,. 9�. 10 L .a• II 10 i 1 I I , I PCL. B I I ti l 0' t I \J0V o° . n � N Y �w ``� 0 O 2 Pp I ;,a 6602 r, \\��` ` I PCL.A a ) o i In ��O °yip I ar l•., ll �P u K 2 SW,y 29:LI:,:Strat - . itr;�w a $8,439.01 �i 1 8 PCI.. A -� I'; nmunYl'i'Yr�tirtiilSuu�un ,. r I I I KENCO I, DEVELOPERS I'• SITE 2 PC1. D NORTH I '� ° 4 t t ''" A' STR 30-23-5 I' 7909249002 CENTER STR 30-23-5 $8,439.01 ° 22 PCL. R rooJo u^° REN.SP379-79-7909249002 I� o I �Jl I; I I I x e }' N W � J ry � • �O J N.r n J� O ^ O ,e >•�°ya � ti°Je o°to ` o = e, A 3 rc � SW 34TH ST I— M S3 9 I „ Page 5 Of 5 LATECOMER BOUNDARY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW ❑ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET C3 P N REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 9 i OTHER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE ❑ FEES APPLIED ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE ❑ SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES ❑ VICINITY MAP ❑ OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY Pp�*' # ` It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W LCA/S LCA/OTHER —D - SAD/W SAD/S ._Q JUA LID TBZ o7 FUTURE OBLIGATIONS LY 0 SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x (not less than $940.00) SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit $270/ea, unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.ft. of property x dd (not less than $470.00) TOTAL $ 'If subject property is within an LID, ft is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M cn N M n. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE fD x w/forms/pm/feeapp/199 1/bh All. %wi 1 i Vr Kcm 1 VN Assessment Roll for "Local Improvement District No....302...._ ," Created by Ordinance No._.. U. ..... Entitled "An Ordinance providing for the Improvement of. Lind Ave.v . SW, S.W.. . 41st . .. S.W. 34 , ................e................. ...............StSt....................... DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE AMOUNT OF NORMAL NERT AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT PAYMENT INTEREST NAME OF OWNER ADDITION OR PLAT ASSESSKENT AS eQUALIZED AMOUNT AMOUNT & MORT. CO. BUS. LOT 11 BLK.- i> John WeberTh WE t 160 feet of th 0310 .18 (oNqs Fo g., T1 6 NE 17 of Ronald Allison - - Le s 1 70 ft. and less x Richard Diven Richard Iversen v t C/o 8425 1st Ave. S. d, Seattle WA 98108 �. A 01 m is Pipeline TJ LEI 84. Portion of 41623.77 /S� NW 1/ NW 1/4 Sec Renton, WA 98055 18 f S and 20 ft E of - r5T Or bUDn. En }- O 3/ 89 52' 1" Eu 940.97 ft. 4 TA 40 ft. W of as meas - -- - ^J °35'12" W 577.01 ft h 88 24 48' W 933 1 ;+ of D UBD th N 00°49'1 ' E 4. 2 ft to Beg OS D m U, Mobil Oil Corp. Ta Lo 86. Portion NW 0 1/ N 1/4 Sec 30-23-5 c Y �3 612 S. Flower St. 0 ' �— Los Angeles, CA 90017 73 .33 ft & S 89052'O1" r cor o '- Su t S 88°24'48" E 93 .21 ft TAP 40 ft Wly Sd ub th S 01-35-12 W 0. 5 j mo o less TAP 20 ft l N °4 110" E 520.05 ft I! to PO Olympic Pipeline Co. Th We t 160 ft of the 17056.94 l 37/ ��e y fo 1 83 Sec 30-23- 2 ' NW /4 less St Hwy Subj enton WA 98055 o sm over ' i (1 OQ 5• �g rOjj �1. Glacier Park Co. 12 1 url N Orillia I en on 91487 08 437 Central Bldg. 810 3rd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 t CITY ,OF RENTON Assessment Roll far"Local Improvement District No...314,,,,,,,"Created by Ordinance Na 3395 EAST VALLEY.ROAD................... Entitled"An Ordinance providing for the Improvement ot......... From S.W. 16th St. to and Related Streets i; ___ --------- _-- NORMAL NEXT DESCRIPTION Of REAL ESTATE AMOUNT OF FATYlMT IN NAME OF OWNER II ASSESSMENT AMOUNT : AMOUNT Su6'I-- L nh.I ADDITION Oe rIAT & MORTGAGE CO. olai 7,281,84 N$ F P.O. Box 60100 TA rl *lri, S' Los An eles 0 t i 7C� { 30. Garfield & Associates Ltd, Lot 9 Bl 1 Bur in ton Northern 63 Al . P.O. Box 800 Orillia I dust;ria Park Renton #1 200 S.W. 34th Street Renton WA 98053 y #1- l 4 « t7 $nd DeveI t Corp. Orillia I dus rial Park Renton 1 8 Central fling 810 3rd Avenue O Seattle WA 98104 y O O 32. Burlin ton Northern Lot 11 Blk 1 Bu lin ton Northern 98 087 5 Land Development Corp. Orillia I dus rial Park Renton M1 rn W 8 C-entra"ldd. Q �" j �A10 3rd Avenue _ — 1 �. Seattle WA 98104 073 Al �— Orillia I dus rial Park Renton M1 208 Central.Bldg.. — 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104 x Lot 1. 81 urlingtgn-Nod 10 34. Glacier Park Co. - — g 208 Central Building Orillia Industrial. Park Renton kl }� 1 h I 810 3rd Avenue q. Seattle WA 98104 --- -- I 35. Glacier Park Co. Lot 2, B1 2, Burlington Northern 211,378 27 Central Bui lding in Orillia I dus rial Park Renton N1 . 20$ I Cent 9 i 810 3rd Avenue / I 4 Lot 3, BI 2 urlinaton Northern ,lgp.' I 36. Glacier ark Co. n 1 208 Central Building !Orillia I dus rial Park Rento N — F 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104 — y 37. Glacier Park Co._ Lot 4 B1 2 urlin ton Northern e — 1208 Central Building—_ 1Orillia Indus rial Park Renton.-ql._ I j 1'810 3rd Avenue -- Seattle WA 98104 �� _.—_-- -- --- — 38. I. Prudential Ins. Co. Lot.5_B1 k2 t.grl'in wi.NorShertl. . �.15 ` 2810 ne Union it`, ----- 100 Seattle, are IuS>ri&1 e University ��,/� �L — ----- - Qti lia.- I I' PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FEE REVIEW Q DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ,� `P REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 173 ENVIRO MENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET OTHER APPLICANT: JOB ADDRESS: WO# NATURE OF WORK: GREEN # DATE RECEIVED BY PROPERTY MGMT. RECEIVED FROM COMMENTS DUE FEES APPLIED Q NEED MORE INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOT APPROVED FOR FRONT FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE APPLICATION OF FEES VICINITY MAP OTHER SUBJECT PROPERTY PID/# It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below will apply to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to Install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e. underground utilities,street improvements, etc.) The following quoted fees do NOT include Inspection fees,side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OR DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS FEE LCA/W S Qy'. LCA/S p- LCA/OTHER __ p_ i SAD/W SAD/S JUA _ p.- LID TBZ FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-WATER UNITS SUCC FEE Single family residential dwelling unit$940/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$545/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.126/sq.ft.of property x _ (not less than $940.00) � SPECIAL UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGE-SEWER Single family residential dwelling unit$470/lot x Apartment, Condo, each multiplex unit$270/ea. unit x Commercial/Industrial $.063/sq.tL of property x l (not less than $470.00) TOTAL $ 'If subject property is within an LID, It Is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. M co DN �Zz A—Z FA a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative DATE x 4t w/forms/pm/feeapp/1991/bh �� PROJECT # W-805 FOR IEC,ORD AT MUST UST � i 87/01. 08 Ot�'ILE�f N CItY en GH `CH L 9� i ii_1 RENTON MUNICIPAL UK 200 MILL AVE 50. AGREEMENT AND CONVEYANCE RMON,WA M RE : UTILITIES SYSTEMS 131 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of J/ by and between the CITY OF RENTON , a municipal corporation of the second class under the laws and statutues of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and BERT ANENSBERG - dba Afferri-b g Investments hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER" ; W I T N E S S E T H: �r WHEREAS "The Developer" is desirous. of installing certain water xx *ew mc1ines and Ln appurtenances thereto at, near, or within the hereinbelow described property and to 00 O ' connect same to the City' s Utility System so that such improvements will constitute an O integral part thereof; and O WHEREAS no other property owners or users are presently available to share in the cost CO and expense of construction of such improvements and the parties hereto having in mind the provisions and terms of Chapter 261 of the 1959 Sessions Laws , generally referred to as a "Municipal Water and Sewer Facilities Act, (RCW 35.91 . 101 et seq)"; and WHEREAS "The Developer" is willing to pay all the costs and expenses for the installation of said improvements; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND COVENANTED BY AND BETWEEN THE AFORESAID PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The "Developer" hereby acknowledges and covenants that he is the owner of the following described property, to-wit; Lot 1 , Block 5, Burlington Northern Industrial Park, Division II as recorded in Volumelll of Plats , Page 44 , Records of King County, Washington and the "Developer" hereby agrees and covenants to cause to have installed the following described improvements, to-wit : 900 L.F. of 8" D.I . watermain , two fire hydrants and all appurtenances . and such installation to be made in full compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the City of Renton. The "Developer" further covenants and warrants that all expenses and claims in connection with the construction and installation of the aforesaid improvements, whether for labor or materials or both have been or will be paid in full , all the "Developer's" expense, and the "Developer" covenants and agrees to hold the City of Renton harmless from any liability in connection therewith. 2. The "Developer" further certifies that the total estimated cost of said construction as hereinabove specified will be in the sum of $ 43,132.00 See Exhibit "A" attached hereto for the legal description of the lands affected by this latecomer agreement or a map showing in outline the land affected by such additional charges per the terms of this agreement. Per RCW 65. 08. 170(3) (RCV1 35. 92.025) • SEE EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 5 1 • Based on said total amount of cost per front lineal foot (6.tAike out the .tna.ppUcabte paAt) of said improvement shall be employed to determine the pro rata reimbursement to the "Developer" by any owner of real estate, who did not contribute to the original cost of such improvement, and who subsequently wishes to tap into or hook unto or use said facilities , which tap or hookup shall include connections to laterals or branches connecting thereto, all subject to the laws and ordinances of the City of Renton and the provisions of this Agreement. It is 1 hereby further agreed that in the event the total actual cost of the aforedescribed improvement shall be different from that set forth hereinabove, then this Agreement will be duly amended to set forth the total actual cost thereof. The pro rata cost Ln per Front Lineal Foot is $ 18.28448 0 3. It is hereby found and determined that the construction and. installation 0 said aforedescribed improvement is in the public interest and in furtherance of public 0 health and sanitation. rl— co 4. The "Developer" hereby agrees and covenants to convey, transfers and assign unto City all right, interest and title in and to said improvements and all appurten- ances and accessories thereto, free from any claim and encumbrance of any party whomsoever; City agrees to accept and maintain said improvement as part of its present Utilities Systems upon approval thereof by the City Engineer and after inspection of said construction. The "Developer" further agrees and covenants to execute and to deliver unto the City any and all documents including Quit Claim Deeds and Bills of Sales that may reasonably be necessary to fully vest title in the City and to ' effectuate this conveyance and transfer. The "Developer" further agrees and covenants to pay unto the City such service or other charges as may be imposed by the Ordinance of the City of Renton from time to time applicable to like users of the same class. 5. City reserves the right , without affecting the validity or terms of this Agreement to make or cause to be made extensions to or additions of the above improve- ment and to allow service connections to be made to said extensions or additions, without liability on the part of the City. 6. No person, firm or corporation shall be granted a permit or be authorized to • tap into the facility for water or sewer service during the period of ten years from date hereof, without first paying unto the City, in addition to any and all other costs , fees and charges made or assessed for each tap, or for the main facilities constructed in connection therewith, the amount required. by the provisions of this contract except such charges shall not apply to any extension of the main facility. All amounts so received by the City shall be paid out by it unto the "Developer" under the terms of this agreement within sixty (60) days ,after receipt thereof. Further- more, in case any tap, hookup or connection is made into any such contracted facility without such payment having been first made, the legislative body of the City may cause to have removed such unauthorized tap, hookup or connection, and all connecting (title or pipe) or related accessories located in the facility of right-of-way, and dispose of such unauthorized material so removed, without any liability on the part of the City whatever. It is further agreed and covena'bted that upon expiration of the term of this Agreement; towit: ten years from date hereof, City shall be Page 2 of 5 ct or make any further suns unto the "Developer". uncar no further obligation to colle The decision of the City Engineer or his authorized representative in determining or computing the amount due from any benefited owner who wishes to hook up to such improvement, shall be final and conclusive in all respects. 7. It is further agreed and understood that the aforedescribed improvements to be undertaken and paid for by Developer have been or are about to be connected with the Utilities Systems of the City, and upon such connection and acceptance by the City through its legislative body, said extension and/or improvement shall be and become a part of the municipal utilities systems. 8. This agreement shall be placed for record with the King County Auditor's Office immediately upon execution thereof and all costs of recording shall be the responsibility of the "Developer". DATED THIS ��-t DAY O 19A, co O co CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DEVELOPER: O CD BY OnIQ ca BY: &Al�;A E2/ Al i/!aZ Ftvr--S co BY: ly�t.�--r:�C� �� BY: CITY CLERK CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPER STATE OF WASHINGTON ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of kPnrnt7 , 19&, On this day p�e sonally appeared before me before me personally appeare�t&,om�e- kn oc� E(LT �f /?Ei✓SG3t-/Z� , QY i hP {pr own t (Gra for(s) be the ( Mayor, City Clerk / Al r-72& -5 or other authorized officer or agent, as the case may be) of the municipal corporation that executed the to me known to be the individual(��described within and foregoing instrument, and in and who executed the within and fore- acknowledged said instrument to be the free going instrument, and acknowledged that he and voluntary act and deed of said municipal signed the same as his (her corporation, for the uses and purposes or--th-al-r) free and voluntary act and deed, therein mentioned, and on oath stated that for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. he was authorized to execute said instrument Given under my hand and official seal t is and that the seal affixed is the corporate 1Q day of_ CG 19 seal of said municipal corporation. T• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set Si natur of officer and o 4s,,, ' my hand and affixed my official seal the ' ' day and year first above written. C Public in and f or h& Sig . tur..� & •TE�e of Off cer Washington, residing at No yaP in :�►d for the St te ofWaX;. • " Yejbidn in-� `VIA Page 3 of 5 --------------- EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL WATER OR SEWER FACILITY TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGES REQUIRED BY RCW 65 . 08 . 170 (3) (RCW 35 . 92 . 025) MUNICIPALITY CITY OF RENTON , WASHINGTON ADDITIONAL TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGE PER : LATECOMER AGREEMENT RELIABLE DISTRIBUTORS PROJECT NO . : W-805 Ln co RECIPIENT : ARENSBERG INVESTMENTS co CD BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION : INSTALLATION OF 900 LF OF 8" WATERMAIN AND 2 O .s � FIRE HYDRANTS AND ALL OTHER APPURTENANCES. TOTAL ASSESSMENT COST : $ 43,132.00 TOTAL ASSESSABLE FOOTAGE : 1 ,179.47 LF $36,568.96 _ (Front Footage or Square Footage) 2 TOTAL COST PER FRONT FOOT 60)"NAWMM $ 18.28448 If there is any question regarding the paid or unpaid status of the following assessments , please call the City of Renton , Utility Engineer- ing Department at 235-2631 . ASSESSABLE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL CHARGE o2v V. 00 j Conditional Assessment Lot 8, Block 5 B.N. Ind. Park Div. II Vol . lllof Plats, Pg. 44 597.21 LF $10,919.67 Records of King Co. WA Lot 8, Blk 5, B.N. Ind. Pk. Div II is encumbered by this latecomer agreement only if the developer of said Lot 8 interties His/Her water line with the water line installed under City of Renton Project # W-805 by Reliable Distributors , known as "Developer" under the terms of this agreement. All parties interested in the current status of this conditional lien on said Lot 8, should clear title with the City of Renton, Utility Engineering Department at 235-2631 . 4of5 __..__ ---- --- -------- -- ----------------------------- — ----- r EXHIBIT IIB" 1 . r _ RECEIVLU 11116 DAY CITY OF RENTON LATECOMER AGREEMENT JaN 8 115 c� N '87 BY THL L;, i') v OF RELIABLE DISTRIBUTORS RF.00 IN"1) NS ' KING C1 �!N I Y W,ILrir main (IPntlnd t.o ThP. City of Rnntnn 1, n1 1 , Rlock 5 , Burlington Northern InCIUStrial Park , Rentnn 1 1 , nn wi) i (-:h wo request a late- comer ' s aq rnemon t. . Ln .. .�,��. , WATERLINE O co O O 00 s.w. 27111 St. t „ „ 10 , = s , i • SW 2flth St. t ___.---. _-__-___ 7 7 • / °`°°"° NORTH .._..-- - • �6 S.W.31stSt. ............ BLOCK ) ' • ----- E-•--- -^-•'---•-- --------- -------^ N 3 N AREA OF LATECOMER '� i e / 3 o S.W.3411, St. + I - 11�1 ' LL °Lo•:K a �o � °.' to r1I1t rr Modal 111hint) nuuuuuutr q \� \ ------------- :yv:: BLocK ; e ULO I 27 „ , t) ................ .....• -I'.... e L e p . e ' ►fin �llurrl�nt taro ununir n n i ru urnunruuur a nrunn nrrnrrr nrriuuuirttrariur S.W. 41st St. Q •` (5.10011% St.) S.W. 43rd 51. (Or1Mand.) a 4711I, SEC.30 ,TWP.23N, ,RNG. ,5E. ,W.M. ' 1+ 5 p .•.w_,,,r•�....,y..w�,�..�,�,�u..�.�+w�r.-+n.�i,.�nv�..�.w.r..•ww�M.r..,.;7.�M•Ah/v��1'.MrK• •YIM qtf•1'•�Mri/L'al.r1:P•..4:'.... Y�IiYr�f K �'t�•T��,��py�.,,.��.' AFAVOMMMIM== ArM.■■..� siNMEMILW 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, C�110� 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. City of Renton MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney FROM: Mike Dotson, Technical Service$— z DATE: May 11, 1992 SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK WETLANDS MITIGATION BANK Per your request, I have reviewed the legal description for Glacier Park Mitigation Bank, Parcel 14, (Tract 12). Your concerns as to the acreage contained within the subject bank site being less than 40+ acres are justified. After plotting the legal description on a King County Assessor Map, I have scaled the boundary dimensions and calculated the acreage at 23.4 acres. I have included a copy of the deed filed under Auditor's File No. 8911170955, as referred in Title Policy#0860805. Also, attached is a map that dimensions the boundaries of the subject Parcel 14, (Tract 12)and the exception. If you have any further questions, or you need any clarification of the above, please advise. Thank you. GlsrPk/MDD:ckd Attachments cc: LAG,DRT,MLM J s it r!;, • :.r-: h EX . i --t-- CE t�TION 1 1 This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or Policy to which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this sketch. References should be made to an accurate survey for further information. recur' J. 1y. 17yL 12SU • i �3 tS�7t TAX van Nov 17 NO � +QVrrC1�101:rn E1098363 BURSZNGTON NORT1l3;RN RAILROAD PROPERTIES L`CC.,a Delaware corporation.Grantor,for Tea sad no1100 Dollars 1310.00)and other good and t valuable eonsideratfoa.sad 14 partial fulfillment and coafirmatfon of the obligations I ereatcd by that oertaio EsrhaagL Agnemcnt and Deed dated Dmmber30.1938.by t and bet„eea Clactr Park Company.a Delaware corporation.Lad Burlington NOrthera Railroad Company,a Delaware corporation.conveys and Quit clafmi Vithoutaayeoveeantsofwarrantyrwhatsoever&adwithoutreeourxwtheGrantor, L? its suoLanors cad ass;gtu,to SURLD4GTON NORTSERN RAILROAD HOLDD CS. n INC.,a Delaware corporation. 777 Main Strcot.tort Worth.Texas 79102.Grantee. O al1 its ri6t.title and interest.If any,in real estate described Oct Ethlbit-A"atuchcd 1 hereto and made a pan hereof,situated is Klag Couaty.S4t;of Waab.ingtoa. 1 together with all L1Ler acquired title of Oraator thersib ei r1 RESERVLNG.however,unto sold Omntor.lts successors and ammigas.a n dralaa4Ze►aacment.including the right,privilep and easement to consauct. PJ maintain.repair,renew,Use.*Per%Lt.replace or rove draina;t facilities and appurtecancss tberew in.along.over.upon or satas the west:87.0 feetof the pre-is"herein raavayed Da t+d this; 1 S'L CLAY Of t�CX-4 ` ti sosYBdBt b om Q *Q= • V1.00 tr+s+sz, &- .q.00 BURLC4=04 NORTE[EpN Ss RAL ROAD PROPERTL88 04C. BY K. a. rottti. Wits rr..ld.et ATTEST° r t ' Y ��----- .� s `.. J ✓ D.w.l. L. Ys •.•la out 9.er.1•r7 v a r • SrAM OF W.RSEiLNGTON ) COUNTY OF kIN0 j Sa. Oct this a rf•(� daror - 18 before ma,tha under —p-,eZ 7otaly lic to ina for the SLLtjtgf Washlogwo,duly ao oaed aad swpm persoaalIrappeared ^. I) F� 12 � sd tom•know to be cue Vf, Tr%t e� Lad CKC.(f.,j « mPectivelY.if burilogton Northern RzAroad ' PmpL=*s e_ c corporau a at executed the sad acknowledged the said iaatrumcot to be the fire and valuatiry act aad deed orsaid corporatloo.for the uses and purposes thcrtin inentioneb and oa oath sutad that they LM authorized to execute the sand insi 'umcnt aad that the seal affixed Is the eorparata seal ofsaid lurporstiae_ it*Wttanaa my hand aad oiiicial Seal hertto aiRxed the day and year first above t►r ^ otary tr to ana for theSuLLe of ngtoa • y Residing at.•_ !�c,su�Cc, tt•..a�..-7 C` t77 ' C myappoiatmcatu?irci C 4- fo h ` rt °Chls iastrumaot-as&w%ed by% m Surllagtoa Northam Railroad Company TitleServiacc Deparuncat MTWrdAVenud2108FZC Seattle,WA 28104 ant f 2 1 FROM 5. 19. 1992 12: 59 P. 4 w - - 1 AIt that potsJon of Section 23,=N.R4B,WYx King,County,Washlogun, � Including ail ofvacatcd Bl<wk 9,Burlinpoa Nortbera Lodustriai Park Renton II.1a Per plat recordcd to volume I I I of Plata,Pagca 42 through 44°records of King j i Z'ounq,aad$o..thvestSBth$trcctaad Ioagvicr Arenuc 9auth lying within Bald Block 9,as�acatad by CIry of Lteatoa Ardloance:l0 3772 and recorded under i Beaordiag`lo.S010SN28;all Wag morn particvlarly described as fbllowu, � 1 Baiinaln9 at the lntenectJOa of the South line ofsaid Section 23 and the West In 'Las of proposed P-1 Channel as aho-a on aald plat of 3urUngtoa Northern Industrial CPark P c tan R thence NO2'0711-E along said West Una a dl3t.2ac'e of 2028.44 feet; eheaoc 38B-29-M'E to the Went right of ray line of Loa gacma Pa rt vayy dfdlm tod V`e Ln said Piat of BUZ110g oa Nortaer-a Industrial Park Keaton 1Z tCcace Sout�er(y� � along said Wort right of ray Line to the latermctfoa,rich a Una drawn paraUtt.Jth and dIauat I5.0 fcct Northcrly of,as measured at rJgbt angles w the South line of ' i � said SeCsdaa 2S:tbcace Watcrly aloog.sa' parallel llae a diets ace of 133a Z fetiC tbcnee SOO'ST S"W a distance of 15.0 feet to tha South Une of said Section 25:thence ' Wesocrly along gild Soutd U a e to the P o 1 a t of Bcgiaaiag. I tilt 01 Scquanca/069 tea ta:rizPn so i 3 F R u m 5. 19. 1992 12: 59 P. 5 • s 3. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington and is described as follows: TRACT 12 - SEQ. NO. 968(14) : ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , LYING WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME III OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, ALL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 9 OF SAID PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON NO. II; THENCE NORTH 88°32'51" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PROPOSED P-1 CHANNEL; THENCE NORTH 02*07111" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHANNEL PROJECTED NORTHERLY A' DISTANCE OF 1,560.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE THAT BEARS NORTH 87057139" WEST FROM THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LONGACRES PARKWAY, AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 9 IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 87057'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,624.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID .GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH 01'30'31" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 1,570.12 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF .BLOCK 9 OF SAID PLAT PROJECTED EASTERLY, SAID POINT- ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST- 1/4 OF :THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE NORTH 87°44'27" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,347.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88`32'51" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 9, A DISTANCE OF 275.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT .OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED. TO BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD HOLDINGS, INC. , BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8911170955; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PAGE 2 0860805 .. /yti"AE 'at- �� - CITY4F RENTON "LL Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION May 5, 1992 CITY OF RENTON T0: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator MAY - 7 1992�� Department of Planning/Building/Public Works FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Glacier Park Wetlands Mitigation Bank Agreement Dear Lynn: I have reviewed the proposed Wetlands Mitigation Agreement for the Glacier Park parcels . Mary Lynne Myer and I had an opportunity to review a prior draft and combine our suggestions . I then called Don Marcy, attorney for Glacier Park, and gave him my suggested changes . On May 4, 1992 I received the redraft of the agreement and find that all of the suggested changes have been made. Therefore, the agreement is approved as to legal form. 67ec Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington John Webley Dan Clements ee Wheeler Mary Lynne Myer A8 . 82 : 56 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057- (206) 255-8678 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). 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 II Environmental Assessment. 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. Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. I 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 search for all of the parcels. 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. Warren City Attorney attachment: map of area cc: Dan Clements Mary Lynne Myer 1970 Aerial Photograph ti; Ir+,[�.(\J .;-Long Cr s � � r, ..4, 3•� �E •+t, ,� {• �;��`J//' 4 1',}fir 'S,� i-u�. y �� r. Y-� Y rTJ�Gt•;11.`k�i� ,!4"F""1��y�gn^ dur^•.. „t '.► OI m is Pipeline t' :fGt•";`S Station NA :tr n,utF':� yfk I � T ..ar;{ k, r e f t t1 ;\z•1 E + S t,; .... .. ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,„ ..��„si /u r' r '�.* 1•��•�1+1 r. � � ��5 kt� r rs 1 ' .. ; ••. -.h # i,'j„',r`"aiiU'� •'+ 1'r €� 1t4 g N{ _��dh'k r,at1,1 t ,� t ■.. ��•xf�i�'t a ,� . y ( ,+, ,ty,-f 3{1 n�G•ks. i'� •��r�'jr 1, ,�"*.' . • ui`Y i -F', t'aY•'rirYF.'k5' it"trti` i h i` 1t�,i rlt, JJ.'ti ,t i�t B.P.Bulk dv � A•w �i'� }' :.. i± �. �t�l t `tF r! Sti �.� Storage �iR Facility km ? r;raf' •fr14v�A1 Fp�1 .a� i. ftyfl �\�y _� ,�_.��+'yj=��•�'! t�y�.t.r��.y'A� y.et•- •r °'[7' X r T � (c.� �t. � 4 �,�� '�r>u�'a, �' �• � ,� � ,} + fit.- v kt zt1�+n� {°; lt: + '' 1� 1'r'`��' t•, �Tt a. t x �.t 7 ft S ; I t + , ` � L'14 itFF,ft'�-,•i ,Ef;rY � L"Ff k �J =r �I r.�;�� ,1 "....415')n�►' 4� �:F {{ � �'�� i��" n� i�:'t:_ + -,off re .,r •+�'. .. t it , OM^i ," tt: ,�• 3'r r.� T '3, ( !'1 �'#�, fr3 .r '� � t ,. . y Kb � ...r t1 R ` ( ,�r'}y. � `CMS ` \ 14' .._. ,��,{'t�.'1'. � q� ��y"A�3�+'�:. � �-IX. ^Y+•W�A ! C 11� \; r�,t \ '.'(..S t3'� ,� �. �� N'�� Tt '+i �':' �j•�•,.�{, �..'•f"j {JF. `Y�.''''w �J..�•;4t / t 'I!y ,�t Rye[�t�r � t�•-r=�r r �, ., 07 tl trQi S d 1 t 0 k iF r iL »n rf e a s . Fill �" t�3?�u��'.t � ' ��>.f y(I�t R�'"Q�j(��.,,, ,•.� :�� '�.F.: ,� M t t7' 'x� } � `+� ��}L�•4=[,.[�'r s"��'t�(' ; (�f , vi { ' �.�,�y ? �� '� � �•; a "Iifh ,,+r�•f i,'��r'� 1t 1 t [ I •�t�".F ry � $f`�;�ra�t4 �� ' 't '� ��} yw� :t , •�' b�yt Jig , L},�xa;+ � t�t' �„'?F..�•Jyr� •��* ,f'Aj �[ 1 V F}} ? y�j - ..��.. ��{, JJJJ 1 zm }.vst77ff,' .jy«'7( I t •!YX t i �'r� w t�4 1"i y :Yl�t'j�'t , (yi. c FF .. 7� ' ':w:r t �, '�c.r �� ;2!r •��,}'"�i" r�,"1 i*s'+q�,- p1 �i• .,� •y9i — /Y �, +J.. t'"q!_Fi_ y ty r t t` ` ��a G ♦I �,t'�a� � Ik t t Y/�,.t` A' , � ♦3�tF ! J �,� :� �.y�I:'"1 } 1 t� �7,� 11 b Fr;�s!•} 1.�.. t.Yl�'G fy � �# 7 i�� t; �ti'+Yn��t Y�• �, 19ri 1- .tit'' 1 it J titian^' «A � � `► �'°�+ �• 20.000 - -, S �4t rt�. "'• .�"r Approximate Scale in Feel . ,I MIR �, cQu�•-ut s a ' .,. tin.rrro?o4vsER Note: ease map prepared from draw ng provided by 13 Parcel Number J-3405B 10/91 Walknr AS•nr.lntns dMod 19115 fIL-r Ge.'/ I CITY*KF 7EfqTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON May 18, 1992 MAY 1 91992 RECEIVED TO: Mike Dotson, Planning and Technical Services FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE : Glacier Park Wetlands Mitigation Bank Dear Mike: On the Glacier Park Wetlands Mitigation Bank, Tract 14, I reviewed the legal description and the drawing that was attached. My concern is that the drawing shows a large exception which is pointed out with bold letters and arrows . There is also an exception stated in the legal description. If I recall the dimensions of this lot correctly, approximately two thirds of it seems to be consumed by the exception. For your information the parcel that I am discussing is dealt with in Title Policy No . 0860805 , and the reference in the title is : "except for that portion conveyed to Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, Inc. by Deed filed under Auditor' s File No. 8911170955. " I have attached a copy of the legal description and the map. I need to know whether or not my concerns are justified. Are we really receiving the 40+ acres that we were told we would receive? If after reviewing this you have any problems understanding my point, or need� to discuss this further, please let me know. awrence J. Warren LJW: as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington ynn Guttmann Mary Lynne Myer A8 . 83 : 24 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057- (206) 255-8678 3. T III e land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington and is described as follows : TRACT 12 - SEQ. NO. 968(14) : ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , LYING WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II , AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 111 OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, ALL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 9 OF SAID PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON NO. II ; THENCE NORTH 88032'51" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PROPOSED P-1 CHANNEL; THENCE NORTH 02*07111" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHANNEL PROJECTED NORTHERLY A DISTANCE OF 1,560.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE THAT BEARS NORTH 87°57'39" WEST FROM THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LONGACRES PARKWAY, AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II , SAID POINT BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 9 IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 87057'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,624.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH 01030'31" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, A DISTANCE OF 1 ,570.12 FEET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF BLOCK 9 OF SAID PLAT PROJECTED EASTERLY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST- 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE NORTH 87044 '27" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1 ,347.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88032'51" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 9, A DISTANCE OF 275.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT .OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD HOLDINGS, INC. , BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8911170955; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PAGE 2 0860805 1�26V_-T IZ_ - sC� Yb. C? "a F. �iyl lie i I EX CC PT ION --- •j ti I _ 1 • 07 it This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this sketch. References should be made to an accurate survey for further information. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1992 TO: Interdepartmental Work Group FROM: Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Wetlands Mitigation Bank Update This memo is to update you on the status and remaining tasks for the wetland mitigation bank and the Glacier Park purchases. PURCHASES: On May 15, 1992, the City and Glacier Park consummated the purchase and sale agreement on the following areas: a. Parcel 1 - wetlands lying adjacent to Lind Ave and 27th St. b. Parcel 13 - Portion of the P-1 and P-9 channel C. Parcel 3 and 4 - southern part of the Renton Marsh, adjacent to Oakesdale and the Seattle Times property Parcel Acreaee Purchase Price Parcel 1 24.28 acres $100,000 Parcel 3-4 14.34 acres included in Parcel 1 Parcel 13 46.44 acres $100,000 Total $200,000 Glacier Park has agreed to pay the outstanding street improvement, real property taxes and all special assessment and Local Improvement District installments against the property prorated to the date of closing. The City will pay all real property taxes, all special assessments and Local Improvement District installments against the property for the period following the Date of closing. Memo to InterdepartmenV Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 2 REMAINING ISSUES: 1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Level one analysis, the beginning analysis level under the State's hazardous materials law, CERLA, was performed while the parcels were still under the ownership of Glacier Park. This analysis indicated the possibility of some potential contamination from the Sternoff site and the unknown origin of any material used in filling the tributary on Parcel 14, which extends into Parcel 13. Attached is a map of the former tributary which traverses the Sternoff site, Parcel 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13. A level II analysis, which will verify whether contamination is present, is underway on Parcel 13 and 14. See attached map for areas under investigation. Golder and Associates will be submitting a scope and budget (under $10,000) by May 25, 1992. The analysis will be completed by June 8, 1992. Options: ■If contamination is present, we could: withdraw from the purchase of the affected parcels, do a joint clean-up, require Glacier Park to do a clean-up prior to our receiving title to the land, keep the parcels affected and keep them capped. Suggested Participants Due Date Product Larry Warren, Ron Straka, Greg June 10 Recommendation Zimmerman, Mary Lynn Myer for actions ■If no contamination is present, we should continue to finalize the agreements for purchase and sale. 2. FINAL COSTS AND INTERFUND TRANSFERS The City work group must finalize the actual costs of the transaction and future obligations and complete a financing agreement for internal interfund transfers and other financing mechanisms. Suggested participants Due date Product Larry Warren, Cil Pierce, Ron June 30, 1992 Draft inter- Straka, Mel Wilson, Dan Clements, faced document John Webley, Mary Lynne Myer, and agreement Arlene Haight 3. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT It is suggested that the Parks Department manage Parcel 1 and 3 and 4, since they are adjacent to the Springbrook Trail. Storm Water should manage Parcel 13, since its primary use could be for the P-1, P-9 channel. • Memo to InterdepartmenR Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 3 SuggestedQarticipants Due date Product John Webley June 30, 1992 Memo establish- ing city owner- ship & manage- memt responsi- bility MITIGATION BANK The mitigation bank agreement must be finalized by June 15, 1992, with Glacier Park. Even though the Trillium Corporation purchased the parcels which will be the major sending properties to the bank, Glacier Park is still the entity with whom we must finalize the agreements. The mitigation bank agreement document is acceptable, however, several issues must be worked out. If the Level H analysis shows any hazardous wastes on Mitigation Bank Site 1, we have the same options as outlined above under Purchase section. This analysis will be completed June 8, 1992. Glacier Park will be submitting lot line adjustments for Mitigation Site 1 and 2 within one week to the Development Services Division. It is expected that these applications will receive expedited processing. Glacier may also submit applications for vegetation removal permits and for wetlands permits for the parcels Trillium purchased. It is suggested that these applications not be processed until the Mitigation Bank agreement is finalized. There is a discrepancy of 7 acres in the legal description of mitigation bank site 1 and the area shown on the maps. Glacier is researching this discrepancy. Once the mitigation bank agreement is completed, we must be prepared to implement the bank. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED: 1) A schedule and agreed upon methodology for processing the lot line adjustments and the sending properties' permits. Suggested participants Due date Product Don Erickson May 28 Establish procedure and schedule 2) 7 acre discrepancy in Mitigation Bank Site 1. Review Glacier Park's research and decide on approach: Memo to Interdepartmental Work Group May 21, 1992 Page 4 Options: If we are short 7 acres: they donate more land they fill less land they provide cash settlement we negate mitigation bank agreement Suggested sted participants Due date Product Mary Lynne and Interdepart-May 30 Recommendation al work group 3. How shall the bank be established, funded, managed and implemented? Suggested participants Due date Product Mary Lynne with Interdepart- June 15 A work program for al work group review establishing, fund- ing, managing and implementing the bank. cfollow PLANNING DIVISION LAW OFFICES CITY OF RENTON CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN APR 2 91992 A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 70-rH FLOOR,COLUMBIA CENTER,701 FIFTH AVENUE RECEIVED E SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-7016 (206)587.0700 TELEX:493.8803 DONALD E. MARCY FAx:(206)587-2308 April 29, 1992 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes 100 S . Second Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Wetland Mitigation Bank -- City of Renton/Glacier Park Company Dear Larry: Here for your review is a revised draft of the Wetland Mitigation Bank Agreement between the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. The draft is redlined to show changes from the earlier draft provided to you on April 21, 1992 . We look forward to receiving your comments . S' cerely, Donald E. Marcy " DEM:clb Enclosure cc (w/encl) : Ms . Mary Lynne Myer, City of Renton Planning Dept. Ms . Karen Lane, Glacier Park Company Mr. Marty Sevier, Glacier Park Company Mr. Mark Stiefel, P.E. 1 P `DL: NED .4119/92. WETLAND MITIGATION BANK AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1992 by and between THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City" ) , and GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ( "GPC" ) . WHEREAS the City desires to encourage economic development in the Orillia area consistent with city zoning, comprehensive plans, and past investments for public infrastructure; 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; WHEREAS the City desires to establish and expand a regional wetland system located near Springbrook Creek and other significant wetlands; WHEREAS the City desires to increase flood storage along the Springbrook Creek corridor; WHEREAS the City desires to implement a master plan for addressing storm water control, recreation facilities, open space, and the preservation of critical areas; 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; WHEREAS GPC owns several tracts of real property located in the Orillia area of the City of Renton and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "GPC Property" ) ; WHEREAS portions of the GPC Property have been filled with City approval in the past; WHEREAS GPC mitigated the prior fill activity by dedicating a wetland in excess of 15 acres in size to the City; WHEREAS the previously filled portions of the GPC Property have some low quality emergent wetlands; WHEREAS portions of the GPC Property that have not been filled contain some high quality wetlands; WHEREAS it is necessary to fill the low quality wetlands in order to obtain a reasonable economic use of the GPC Property; - 1 - 1 infrastrue-ture in antle-ipation of able to develep--the -GPG WHEREAS the local improvement district assessments paid by GPC affect both previously filled areas and unfilled high quality wetland areas; WHEREAS GPC desires to eliminate special assessments, m ��at�.o t. ;bank performance bond requirements, and property tax liabilities on `properties that will never be developed; WHEREAS the City is willing to allow fill material to be placed in low quality wetlands provided wetl-andlesses a fRitiga t lass OEM,t�.and acr!eag� and functxo�zs thrcruc h adequate mit .gat.ifln; 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; 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 other properties; WHEREAS GPC is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving the company; WHEREAS GPC is willing to dedicate to the City the property necessary to establish a wetland mitigation bank; WHEREAS the City can gain an economic benefit by formulating a mitigation bank with GPC; and 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: 1 . Mitigation Bank. The City and GPC shall establish a wetland mitigation bank (the "Mitigation Bank" ) on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. GPC has provided to the City and the City acknowledges receipt of a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank together with a description of the available mitigation credits contained in the Mitigation Banknyv�etd buffer required by sty regulatona far the wetlas ;in the M tgat .v�z Bank; shah die ccatax d -hod. y an thtz B. , 2 . Conveyance of Mitigation Bank. GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City by quit claim deed on or before - 2 - 1992 . The City shall approve the necessary lot line adjustments required in order to configure the Mitigation Bank as separate legal parcels . If the lot line adjustments are not completed by , 1992, the Mitigation Bank shall be conveyed to the City by GPC within twenty (20) days after the lot line adjustments have been completed and recorded in the records of King County. 3 . Use of Mitigation Bank by Other Property Owners . The quit claim deed pursuant to which GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City shall contain a covenant obligating the City to allew ether property owners within the drainage basin to use the Mitigation-Bank to mitigate the f '--- " of wetlands on their pr6$erties . The—covenant srall also provide €e r the City o require-other property owners w h e use the Mitigation Bank to City fey' the-ab�i 1 }e =}il--- eafr�ctng:: eit and its sucesor aid assigns from onve a, the Mitigation Bank v use rh Ch.— drI n g :. the ti_ation Bank as aenpse ahrQm ean�trer� .the Hit on Bang :azy �€ r� ern a pubs a� v _._ .......... ..... _...... _. _ _ _... i v ::::;z rya. at o a 1z: on. ... P : ; :__ _::. ..:.;:.. . 4 . Placement of Fill Material . The City shall permit all the wetlands located on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Benefitted Properties" ) to be filled. The City shall also approve a vegetation management plan with grad4-ftg and filling provisions for the upland pertiens to t l l er�at .1, of the Benefitted Properties td a ntaJr.ed '...-paying fe u+ + tatpxa.zgs 1a� g mizicecah acd cti g in©r r he aoti t air ..gravid t r h .very � at ' atIon mangy` am�ht �aa �he��.: nod:: erm i � .... ........... ... . _ .... .... . . ................. _._ .. . ...F. y ........... g:» i es w the h'2.+�i#' e f the ordinax h .. °: f... pra.narv�xk Creedcapt ass dayevndctd a 0'rda-toe wihh. the C .t hrzre e a ter r©dram d ...J.. i egad .�xg.. az do :earI.-� and ��e� eu��... ..The fill matey aT may be placed and the vegetation management plan may be implemented at any time after the Mitigation Bank has been ............ . ..........._... .. ......_ . ... ........._. .._ _ ... conveyed to the City .#ny xret and t:het snit filled;:fln` he 3+ + ed Prc s 6 ..sae..Ordt+tad �y � w�t�.�nx'�; .....b �x i ........................................................................................................ ........................... ......................... ..................................................................................................... 5 . Subsequent Environmental Review. When GPC or its successors or assigns, submit plans and applications for development of any of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall issue determinations of non-significance, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and City of Renton environmental ordinances and regulations, for the development of the Benefitted P-reperties unless there are prem1e-signifie,ant adverse impae s ........ ...... . .............. .. .... that-a -net-related-te the -a the 4by wetlands on the Benefitted Properties and the pla0Ement Qf' sn h 1 _ _ _ ........ . .... . ... . < i'.::.M.:<.i}iiii ' :.:::.i:'.:i' mat :a� snot ;k�e<: ea�l`tv hare � abi a:::;:sa:. ;:.: n:t ....p....... ....:....:.:::::.:.:.:...::.:::::::::::::......::............... adror enter :>::i h ><: However: the<: t:. ><::ma> »::d6 wM. : ;;>;;:.>;:::;;;:.;:;;:;;:;>:.;:.;:.;:.;;:.: :.;:.;;;:.;:;::<.:;:.;:.;;;;:.:;;:.;;;.;;........................................... ........... '......................... .............. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...... .............................................................................................-......................................................................... - 3 - terarng the environmental che0klst, 'tha at. er apct rmrit c� the prc�pasd deue + ent of the O .0tted r©eerie de have a probable sgnsant adverse env;3r�xnrenta tuh + ditzona "evac�r� te�ta reva.e�x cagepssa.t�.aV. t3 qat n aanditions is requi. Ad stir t�iose othef aspeof~s` �r tp t t .:, the proposed de. 16P" t ....` In addition, the City shall not require any wetland mitigation on account of the development of any of the Benefitted Properties regardless of any comments that are received by the City from any local, state, or federal agency. If any wetland mitigation is required for the subsequent development of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall pay for and complete any eueh CIty required v�+ tl- hd ....::::::.:..:.:..:...:. mitigation within the Mitigation Bank e City shaZ1 al�dw xrogcne cad azay deelogmzt the' eeattedirrt10 ' tt efln x t s.n the M t igatit�n San any .Wet .and m t l at z. r q Q by Ott �0de al agencies bx the deve �pzttent .0 tie tinted P 'gverties. The prep�nerit of devel4rtenhf any thee ; ttedgpertxes. � gay- f�as any �vat ., ncltigata tuiedxeess of s: rn�.tgatinata' of <. , and the Cr M. � etlnda.ta gat�vrz zequa rec : a t aid;;:> ilu�� g a.; gaticn rt�a ..... .......:... . 6 . Support of Wetland Mitigation Bank Concept. The City shall inteEvewe—en behalf of support GPC, or its successors or assigns, if the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers or the Washington State Department of Ecology do not cooperate with the formation of a wetland mitigation bank as provided in this Agreement or if those agencies, or any other agency, seek to require additional mitigation in conjunction with the filling of the wetlands on the Benefitted Properties . 7 . Assumption of Indebtedness . The City shall assume GPC ' s obligation for and shall pay all outstanding and future amounts owed for local improvement district assessments, street improvement performance bonds, and property taxes for the Mitigation Bank. in addition,--the-Benefitted-Prepertie-s shall not be subje..+ extensien of Oakesdade—Avenue,—27th Street S .W. , er the eenstruetien of the P 1— —ef the P 9 e h annel . Q Exemption from _moo+=u��d 8 mp ancei t Cit, Regulations . This Agreement, the provisions contained herein, and the development of the Benefitted Properties shall net be subj eet te, shall t b +relied—b and shall be—ememp frem t v in acordace �cxth the prtz�ri©n © :fhiscree �ht + rnpyth o ;;therdte $tr�ms,. and policies tYat the City has adopted ae*t J** the futxre, F; amended z time—te Vie,snd—thee-previ le-r- t-hhe o re ef--wetla��the t.... re lst 'd v$ o tint n a y A�4�zzd prat-ands and tQ re a landclearin and tree cuttin g g 4 - 0 lending but net 11T«ted`—t o the Z Arlin nee ,, es and 9 . Successors and Assigns . This Agreement and the provisions contained herein shall run with the land and shall benefit the Benefitted Properties and GPC and its successors and assigns . 10 . Amendments . Any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be signed by the parties hereto or their successors or assigns . 11 . Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. CITY OF RENTON By: Earl Clymer, Mayor GLACIER PARK COMPANY By: Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 1SG43 �+k .......................... ........................... A4f2 .........3-f�1.............2 Q+........... .. {29J9 _. .................. 5 - STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me EARL CLYMER, to me known to be the Mayor 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 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of GLACIER PARK COMPANY, 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 day of 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires 6 - • PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON LAW OFFICES CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN APR 2 2 1992 A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION CIV '�* 70rH FLOOR,COLUMBIA CENTER,701 FIFTH AVENUE $ SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-7016 (206)587-0700 TELEX:493-8803 DONALD E. MARCY FAx:(206)587-2308 April 21, 1992 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes 100 S . Second Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Wetland Mitigation Bank -- City of Renton/Glacier Park Company Dear Larry: Here for your review and for discussion at our meeting on April 23, 1992 is a draft of a Wetland Mitigation Bank Agreement between the City of Renton and Glacier Park Company. We look forward to reviewing the agreement and your questions and comments on Thursday morning. We appreciate your efforts and the efforts of the planning department in working to effectuate this mitigation bank concept. If you have any questions prior to Thursday, please call . Sincerely, /-�47Donald E . Marcy DEM: clb Enclosure cc (w/encl) : Ms . Mary Lynne Myer, City of Renton Planning Dept. v---,, Ms. Karen Lane, Glacier Park Company Mr. Marty Sevier, Glacier Park Company Mr. Mark Stiefel, P.E . WETLAND MITIGATION BANK AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1992 by and between THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City" ) , and GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ( "GPC" ) . WHEREAS the City desires to encourage economic development in the Orillia area consistent with city zoning, comprehensive plans, and past investments for public infrastructure; 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; WHEREAS the City desires to establish and expand a regional wetland system located near Springbrook Creek and other significant wetlands; WHEREAS the City desires to increase flood storage along the Springbrook Creek corridor; WHEREAS the City desires to implement a master plan for addressing storm water control, recreation facilities, open space, and the preservation of critical areas; 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; WHEREAS GPC owns several tracts of real property located in the Orillia area of the City of Renton and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "GPC Property" ) ; WHEREAS portions of the GPC Property have been filled with City approval in the past; WHEREAS GPC mitigated the prior fill activity by dedicating a wetland in excess of 15 acres in size to the City; WHEREAS the previously filled portions of the GPC Property have some low quality emergent wetlands; WHEREAS portions of the GPC Property that have not been filled contain some high quality wetlands; WHEREAS it is necessary to fill the low quality wetlands in order to obtain a reasonable economic use of the GPC Property; - 1 - �J WHEREAS GPC has paid local improvement district assessments for infrastructure in anticipation of being able to develop the GPC Property; WHEREAS the local improvement district assessments paid by GPC affect both previously filled areas and unfilled high quality wetland areas; WHEREAS GPC desires to eliminate special assessments, performance bond requirements, and property tax liabilities on properties that will never be developed; — WHEREAS the City is willing to allow fill material to be placed in low quality wetlands provided wetland losses are 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; 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 other properties; WHEREAS GPC is in the process of liquidating its assets and dissolving the company; WHEREAS GPC is willing to dedicate to the City the property necessary to establish a wetland mitigation bank; WHEREAS the City can gain an economic benefit by formulating a mitigation bank with GPC; and 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: 1 . Mitigation Bank. The City and GPC shall establish a wetland mitigation bank (the "Mitigation Bank" ) on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. GPC has provided to the City and the City acknowledges receipt of a conceptual design of the completed Mitigation Bank together with a description of the available mitigation credits contained in the Mitigation Bank. 2 . Conveyance of Mitigation Bank. GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City by quit claim deed on or before , 1992 . The City shall approve the necessary lot line adjustments required in order to configure the - 2 - • • Mitigation Bank as separate legal parcels . If the lot line adjustments are not completed by , 1992, the Mitigation Bank shall be conveyed to the City by GPC within twenty (20 ) days after the lot line adjustments have been completed and recorded in the records of King County. 3 . Use of Mitigation Bank by Other Property Owners . The quit claim deed pursuant to which GPC shall convey the Mitigation Bank to the City shall contain a covenant obligating the City to allow other property owners within the drainage basin to use the Mitigation Bank to mitigate the filling of wetlands on their properties. The covenant shall also provide for the City to require other property owners who use the Mitigation Bank to pay the City for the ability to utilize the Mitigation Bank. 4 . Placement of Fill Material . The City shall permit all the wetlands located on the real property more particularly described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Benefitted Properties" ) to be filled. The City shall also approve a vegetation management plan with grading and filling provisions for the upland portions of the Benefitted Properties . The fill material may be placed and the vegetation management plan may be implemented at any time after the Mitigation Bank has been conveyed to the City. 5 . Subsequent Environmental Review. When GPC or its successors or assigns, submit plans and applications for development of any of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall issue determinations of non-significance, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and City of Renton environmental ordinances and regulations, for the development of the Benefitted Properties unless there are probable significant adverse impacts that are not related to the fill of the wetlands on the Benefitted Properties . In addition, the City shall not require any wetland mitigation on account of the development of any of the Benefitted Properties regardless of any comments that are received by the City from any local, state, or federal agency. If any wetland mitigation is required for the subsequent development of the Benefitted Properties, the City shall pay for and complete any such required mitigatidq. ithin the Mitigati n Bank. ` 6 . Support of Wetland Mitigation Bank Concept. The City' shall intervene on behalf of GPC, or its successors or assigns, ' if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Washington State Department of Ecology do not cooperate with the formation of a wetland mitigation bank as provided in this Agreement or if those agencies, or any other agency, seek to require additional mitigation in conjunction with the filling of the wetlands on the Benefitted Properties. 3 - _c �- a 7 . Assumption of Indebtedness . The City shall ssume I dPC ' s obligation for and shall pay all outstanding and future amounts owed for local improvement district assessments street improvement performance bonds, and property taxes for the Mitigation Bank. In addition, the Benefitted Properties shall not be subject to any local improvement district assessments for the future extension of Oakesdale Avenue, 27th Street S .W. , or the future construction of the P-1 channel or the P-9 channel . 8 . Exemption from Wetland Regulations . This Agreement, the provisions contained herein, and the development of the Benefitted Properties shall not ,be subject to, shall not be controlled by, and shall be exempt from the regulations and policies that the City has adopted or may adopt in the future, as amended from time to time, and that provide for the protection or regulation of wetlands and the regulation of landclearing and tree cutting including but not limited to the provisions of City of Renton Ordinance Nos . and 9 . Successors and Assigns . This Agreement and the provisions contained herein shall run with the land and shall benefit the Benefitted Properties and GPC and its successors and assigns . 10 . Amendments . Any amendment to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be signed by the parties hereto or their successors or assigns . 11 . Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. ')" (::�;-,u. `_� CITY OF RENTON By: Earl Clymer, Mayor GLACIER PARK COMPANY By: Its ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk - 4 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 156478.M24 04/21/92 - 5 - a .. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me EARL CLYMER, to me known to be the Mayor 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 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of GLACIER PARK COMPANY, 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 day of 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires - 6 - Golder Associates Inc. 4104.148ihAvenuo.NE irA(Ssodaes older fd:dmond.WA USA 3- 0 7 Telephone(206)883.0777 Fox(206)882-5498 May 21, 1992 Our Ref: 913-1294.400 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Mot pagesTo ► j ATTENTION: Mary Lynne Myer j►? G vie From,/ L� C cc/� co. .. n co./�f �cl✓ RE: Level 2 Environmental Assessment, '' /[�., Glacier Park Company Dept. Phone a �8 3-07 7 7 Dear Ms- Myer. F.xN Z3 .S-2.s-41 fax'r This letter is per your request earlier today, regarding our currant observations on Parcel 13 and Parcel 14 of the Glacier Park Company properties. I visited the site yesterday to obtain more information that we can use in scoping the Level 2 assessment requested by the City of Renton. My observations of Parcel 14, particularly the fill in the south-central portion of the property, indicate that soil sampling and analysis is probably not required. On the basis of my preliminary observations, it currently appears that the Level 2 assessment will focus on the portion of Parcel 13 that is adjacent to the Sternoff - Metals site. The pond and wetlands area directly west of the Sternoff site should be sampled, and additional samples may be taken elsewhere oil this property, particularly if suspect fill is observed within former wetlands areas. The estimated cost for this task has not yet been established, but it appears that the work can be accomplished within the $10K previously allocated. We will provide a more detailed estimate after reviewing the exact number of samples to be collected and the analyses to be performed. The latter will be chosen on the basis of the primary contaminants identified at the Sternoff site, which are believed to be heavy metals and some PAHs. Thank you again for this opportunity. We will be contacting you shortly with a more defined scope of work. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael D. Lubrecht Senior Environmental Geologist CITY OF RENTON 4R Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren PLANNING DIVISION MY OF PFNTONN JUN 2 41,492 June 22, 1992 ter-i V E TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastain, Parks & Recreation Director Jay Covington, Mayor' s Executive Assistant Mary Lynne Myer, Principal Planner John Webley, Community Services Administrator FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Wetlands Mitigation Bank Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We have now taken all the necessary steps to set up the Wetlands Mitigation Bank. It is time to draft the Wetlands Mitigation Bank policies . While the transaction to set up the bank was exciting and stimulating, the drafting of the policies will be the opposite and will be boring and sleep-inducing. I am sure you therefore all want to fully participate in the endeavor. I will try and set up a meeting to discuss those policies on the second week of July so everyone will have sufficient time to plan a vacation. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Earl Clymer A8 . 85 : 40 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington. 98057 - (206) 255-8678 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 Parkjrillium 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 A,�'—tday of , 1992 by and between TRILLIUM CORPORATION, a Washingt 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. 400HN 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. —fl,-L4 Its - 1 - CITY OF RENTON V By. "SA ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 awrence J. arr n, City Attorney 156515.M 24 06/16/92 2 - STATE OF W(A,(S�HINGTON h ) K k m ) SS . COUNTY OF ) 1 On this day personally appeared before rpe (f to me known to be the 'No- Ide41f 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 1992 . NOTARY PUBLIC in and- for the State of ashintc'411 n, residing at _ My commission 65cpires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss . COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me E"A,e4 ('lym�,e to me known to be the MAVoe 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 ,Z,74 day of 1992 . e�� e- �cs ' coo NOT BLIC in and for the St to of Washington, residing at My ommission expires 3 - S JAI E M E N T In Account With Transamenea Transamerica Title Insurance Company Trite Insurance Services Date MAY 14, 1992 Piesse direct correspondence to: 1200 SIXTH AVE r CITY OF RMOR AOOR—CI SEATTLE, WA. 98101 CITY tTokTQ CI•�p OC Telephone 628 2821 !~ J Escrow Number 92170275 Your Number DEBITS CREDITS _ $ S P URCHASEPRICE 200,000.00 T F>gS 400.I T TAX 32.80 TE TAXES (COMITMENT $61563) 147212.49 P/Y to 7/1/92 @ 39.48 P/D 48 days (1992) 1,895.04 TE TAXES (COHMITMERT 861564) 5,991.52 P/Y o 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 =- 44,007.14 LID 30234/30235/30243/36,801.82 P/Y 102.23 P/D 36 days LEASE MERALD R9,CING 2400.00 P/X PAID .IN FULL 6.67 P/D �_ _ 3,680._28 332 days ` 2,214-44 APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS AND Fo M EY CITY of REmN `. BY:-- ITS.- FUNDS DUE TO CLOSE 153,225. 18 $ 203,127.0 $ 203,127.04 �+No.031•A,A-SA TnTnl P I:) 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 p Price d C�b6eA-t k� 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&Trans ortation $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 1`1•bt 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 3.15a —7 9w Subtotal Parcel 13 qg,.2 $100 000 $125 197 $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.A0XM011/0p 1 t S } Al lAl,rimr-iv i H Property Public Purpose(s) Probable Sources of #of Prior Obligations Costs 5 (Lot#) Ultimate Funding acres Performance Bond TBZ&SUCC fees Purchase(asking) LID Assessment Total Group A (1) Flood control, Surface water funds 25 Owed: waived, parcel Original wetland functions, SCS funds $16,327 not developed $100,000 $530,094J5 $100,000 water quality, Metro mitigation funds Property owner is 244.720 valley park land TCIP funds responsible for this Owed $344,720 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 Oakesda!e cost. extension Group B 3°I•`� 13 P-1 channel alignment Surface water utility 46.5 Owed: waived, if parcel $100,000 Original $100,000 Wetland mitigation bank rates or revenue bonds $7,777 not developed $19,147.80 commuter rail corridor park mitigation fees Property owner is Valley park land SCS funds(?) responsible for this Owed $0 LID 285 cost. Site 1 Mitigation bank If donated,no$ needed -31 Owed: waived, if parcel $0 owed $0 [141 flood control $6,216 not developed $0 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 No LID assessment $0 part of flood control $9,722 not developed $0 parcel# Parks&recreation Property owner is resonsible for this cost. Total Owed Totalg 444,720 44,720 L- I IA3 92-250.D0C/MLM/bh - .' �r'�,�r.•�T !II I!. I...IIIIIIIIIIII I i : I i•�� , , `;,��"IIIII! ti I Illi 11 I I I IIIIIIIIII• i's �• ! • III;� ,. I � ' '. p -' li � I qll! �I � Ili•t IIII II IpIIIU�Ifh% I . � II�IIIII � ' � � �®�►r!;'�•" �illiiiiill I�`I I�IIIII :I�ilalll��;'I,�.,.�,.;,•--- - = ___ �. • • .moo. o�—r 'T i o�1°�Oee ��G n Y,J'iM:.Obl46,iN a�t_ Y�'�S09f� � pp i I O k,, • � rtT•'� ttr, a® rem .`. IV 13 iom Iri;^6S ' I • .k+r..a ivy.. 'I .`fir•'• p '-�}ram• ;�� 50, 1 , a �/� ' ��`;y / _' pia ' �tlY�'!f �� 1 �• I , 1 5 Fry iT �°• �'�"�0q�o i�` a t� r. .Y�„��y��,(,,"x��, ,►� (fir'`!� l `�,,°jt �� `j r, I; I:� .fir, ,. / 1• �� la • �� .r� i P' a .' '��_.,(i j '4f• ;�'�, • 1 C�fi�b �1 1 ' �, `� ;1Pp A r~tK•.--.---.�aexy7l!litur��•wt "x�:_+"•!f,.�;t`t�'�cu'rs�*+'�f�IP. J� ,� �' 6,C"•� t� :lec'i`SraF .�'�' `�? �7i!k?..;e;R�.��lM: �41:. I , / s, 1 r,: 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 j 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13 (see attached map). 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 II Environmental Assessment. 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. Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. I 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 search for all of the parcels. 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 � CONCURRENCE DATE CITY OF RE�'TON NAME INITIAL/DljTE MEMO RAND UNI - DATE: May 12, 1992 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Lynn Guttmann SUBJECT: GLACIER PARK PURCHASE & SALE AGREFINMTT 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 Stemoff site and the unknown origin of any material used in filling the tributary. Attached is a map of the former tributary which traverses the Stemoff site, Parcel - 14, and encroaches upon Parcel 13 (see attached map). 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 50 year title search and the Level II Environmental Assessment. 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. Given this information, I believe we can proceed with the Purchase and Sale Agreement. If you concur with this assessment, I feet 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. 1970 Aerial Photograph _M l•,J.L A ,.^Y �� _ �, a. �.° kq�±A VP l��.t3>yl,�j.11 . , �J//� Long Acre 1 r,:•."� x �Ayia XI cXF:1-; .t•,�•'3__. ^�i , sg��•t��"dxR�1�(Lt.rKV{)eS ta=+tF�Ye_.:;t L41i!,#nt 5 t j4 e 1.�at�r OP!pmefpnle Station c 1 ({�j1 '+••Z t"�`si ri� 1` r. 1 `i i ti R '- , TErRill lta45. t a - 'I] st�, ¢ta: I •} a �1� � �..�rti1 '_ i t({� \ 1 •l ;•• ..2k� .1 v kf.:r3 to } Z J .s, 1',rtS } j"; 7.1 '(k S o Bulk y,� t cr,d x:riK�s.1S !. Storage _ 4 �I•�_'.,1C ^I s ',,SI'vt'�.-i'-�"tV•`rxKt��'� Ii ! ,� iS' , / tf}l !•!1 �. ,TI ,�r'.. Facility T �K + ' t?A'��' W .4,,,,. ti ( k•' G�M1'Su'"� '/�Sk xr' ', v ♦vial l �� au.�.�r,.,aa.a+�a•s• a' ify� ", ti i3aSS .s . s,l,t• r.'i L �, sSYf Yc'�X ,. r.�t,r.L 1-,�qyx•l.:� nq{•.•tr;'' �y�. fhr r 47 ti i ,J di,.. .f.•• 1 .,a r. ,•C ',ti`Zv"'�a.i'x s•r � t ,,k�11� j►' „�i s �: .ir' �L) 1 x 1 1 fib, c�M' nn.t`y- n'rfGi,s' yy+[}\ y ;4 '"T 1• ' 1'Vt i �.1 A.L•'�%•! 'vt� TY�5 ,1- - K 11S i 1 yJrl 1 'i•t1 1 r riL/,�,P7Y:�j -`-�i.��: tK 1<';r""!r 'N.-'t Yp��%t�3�(r.��if�if��r '•r j G t 1s,�3�}t�t 1 it f ,ry'lj'•t� � ,�-�#�Nil 7t ��'•/ltp�r,C ) r •>t �yypl .S•1,� �i�gli�i �::i y CT•� /� � yl tit r•.e�� a. �� ,' Yts k'}' Sjy'Sy1F`� .•'r'30'�1�r lir yi..�..�.1,i i +� ♦'t,e, �4- � X`r• 1r I,y� 331 Yk� <+� Isrlvd •r+�w+C�Q ' ' i j ,.'S�*� f •�"` `� 4 - ( 7f•��kt�y�C � n� �� 2 t �frs.rx , ..1''.e �1��`, , 1•% ; �r f •stt, \t _ \ 1 t I r 'r} i` .� r 1 Aadti,r,A cr t � n 111`��i!. �,.t•t I. x\,��' v7 .� ,�r;;• '�,'i rtlt'�' r s�''� � r' kC �Y "YF'�rk�tya4,'3•�'f>L ��'^1�t to 1�,` �y, r•7^Y `3'xi 1y yet •�lW Fll!ef( 4 0 k '4"f7 ,1 t. {4# , tits i rA r r 1 j. TF i� - t;•x� �Crtfr� i tf t`st�Lr �� rr 1+' �.�, 'M t e. i 3 3'. 4 •i14n�. �� f�t :t:":t's ��•�yx , .j„{.•,.�4 ��ttt,,,�i }' iy r� a ' l.:n �.� ,��. � 5.�• � Yi�- �' ',� 4C J•:' � �� •�q' �� .y i - i � ,� � 1K�1�♦ �T i �t�• i } `S� �. v + rr6(t f'11{y,' 11!• `S. it' I �i +` '11 t`• - �t+j (:' 1 q rc. �.. r ,r�tJ I��S� ,� '� ��Z i �� .`at\S � y, .fr.•'t.• {• � !,•i ee '.X T �'��uY� +1 <., .M1r }'�z r 1 1 - , t i r a fit I +`!t�t^`':� YF�ft `�,('iYt?"��,. •1 �9o�1•f �� }ti.;y 1.or• �. t �i�' � r°:i.�r� t'.♦._ ) ,( . i�]�y,'r �3•AY � 4� 1 � i�'�a 7� `I - �i � � S „��i��i i �' � 5 f�A�S� t �� „ti,�,'1tit�'�: o �)�•`�Rx �:.�p�l � .y �,�i��' 1��; 4 7" 1' .tit �I:1�' .. < - :•:Y r �� s'�._ __ - .------.__ _ Kl: � �� s•`�t�'""X-'i::.�r _ 0'� �Sfi L f r` �__r�11�'t >'�'; 1r(S ( jp.:� r.S `_ -: .. �. 4 mot` •�`�kf 1.' • -Vr�l.•;iti r • d �� rlt .f1 P� •_�`. ;i��>?�' -' �r1E.l� •I♦ �� ,l t OP V lid sf p 7? 1 ��1 �' to �; ;,� •:::� I-- i R 20.001 '� v.,..: {, sr t9-,TI bear► � � ��j�ME 0 10_000 y �J� S x Sternolftfeial 'y� t - = Aooroximale Scale in Feel ® '.r• ! ! : 13 Parcel Number /' v�,Gx ,J; xk J-3.1058 Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by ��i G� W,ilMrtr Aq^—Mle Anted 19A5 j" CITAk)F RENTON �%41 Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren May 11 , 1992 TO: Mayor Earl Clymer FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Purchase and Sales Agreement - Glacier Park Company Dear Mayor Clymer: The Purchase and Sales Agreement is approved as to legal form once the legal descriptions have been proofread for accuracy. Once you have been notified that the legal descriptions are correct please sign both copies of the agreement and return them to my office. C Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as . Encs . A8 . 82 : 79 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 i • City of Renton MEMORANDUM I TO: Earl Clymer, Mayor FROM: 'May u , PB/PW Administrator DATE: 11 1 2 STAFF CONTACT: Mike Do ,Technical Services SUBJECT: PURCHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACCURACY- GLACIER PARK COMPANY i Property Management staff has proofread the legal descriptions attached to the Purchase and Sales Agreement and verifies that they are the same descriptions as those contained within title insurance policies (Transamerica No. 861563 and No. 861564) effective April 17, 1992, at 8:00 a.m.. The map attached hereto represents those legally described properties. The descriptions do not encompass those properties previously designated as wetland mitigation bank sites 1 and 2. If you require any additional information please advise. Thank you. i GlasrPk/MDD:ckd Attachnmt I i, I i i i i PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This Agreement (the "Agreement" ) is by and between GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ( "Seller" ) , and the CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation and/or assigns ( "Purchaser" ) . 1 . Offer and Acceptance . Purchaser offers and agrees to purchase from Seller and Seller accepts such offer and agrees to sell and convey to Purchaser all of Seller' s rights , title and interest in those parcels of land in Renton, King County, Washington, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Property" ) . 2 . Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ( $200, 000) . 3 . Payment of Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be payable in full in cash or by certified check at closing. 4 . Deposit. Purchaser shall pay, as earnest money, to escrow agent upon the mutual execution of this Agreement a deposit ( "Deposit" ) in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ( $10 , 000) as consideration for Seller withdrawing the Property from the market during the term of this Agreement. The Deposit shall be held in an interest bearing account, with all interest accruing to the party to whom the Deposit is released. The Deposit shall be nonrefundable except as herein provided. 5 . Title and Title Insurance. Seller agrees to execute and deliver on the Date of Closing a quit claim deed conveying title to the Property to Purchaser. On the date herewith, Seller shall furnish Purchaser a preliminary title insurance commitment for standard coverage issued by Transamerica Title Insurance Company to include proper searches covering bankruptcies and state and federal judgments and liens . Purchaser shall have 10 calendar days from the receipt of the commitment for examination of title and the making of any objections thereto, all objections to be made in writing to Seller or they shall be deemed to be waived. Seller shall notify Purchaser of the objections it will cure or insure over and the objections it will not attempt to cure or insure over within three business days of receipt of Purchaser' s written title objections . Purchaser shall have three business days after receipt of Seller' s response to notify Seller in writing of its election to either: ( i) Terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller, whereupon the Deposit plus interest shall be returned to Purchaser; or - 1 - ( ii) Waive its objections to title and, in such event, Seller shall remove or insure over the objections that Seller agreed to remove or insure over, and the parties shall close the transaction contemplated in this Agreement. Exceptions approved or waived by Purchaser pursuant to this Section 5 shall be deemed "Permitted Exceptions . " As soon as reasonably possible after closing, Seller shall cause Transamerica Title Insurance Company to provide Purchaser with a standard owner ' s policy of title insurance on the Property, in the amount of the purchase price. 6 . Review of Studies . Seller shall make available for Purchaser' s inspection and copying Seller ' s due diligence files regarding the Property. These due diligence files may be reviewed in Seller ' s offices during normal business hours . If, after reviewing such files, Purchaser decides that it does not wish to proceed with the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, Purchaser shall provide written notice of such election to Seller. If Seller receives notice of Purchaser' s election not to acquire the Property on or before the tenth calendar day following the date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate and the Deposit plus interest shall be returned to Purchaser; if Purchaser' s notice is received after the tenth day, this Agreement shall terminate and the Seller shall retain the Deposit plus interest. 7 . Date of Closing. Closing of this transaction shall occur in the offices of Transamerica Title Insurance Company, on or before May 14, 1992 . For the purposes of this Agreement, the Date of Closing shall be construed as the date upon which all appropriate documents are recorded and the proceeds of the sale are available for disbursement to Seller. If the Closing of this transaction does not occur by May 14, 1992 , this Agreement shall terminate, and neither party shall have the opportunity to extend the Date of Closing. 8 . Closing Costs . 8 . 1 Seller. Seller shall pay the following costs and expenses in connection with this transaction: ( i) Seller' s attorneys ' fees; ( ii) Real estate excise taxes, documentary stamps, recording fees or transfer taxes; (iii) Title insurance premium and tax; ( iv) One-half of Transamerica Title Insurance Company' s escrow fees; 2 - (v) Outstanding street improvement performance bonds that affect the Property; and (vi) Real property taxes, and all special assessment and Local Improvement District installments against the Property prorated to the Date of Closing. 8 . 2 Purchaser. Purchaser shall pay the following costs and expenses in connection with this transaction: ( i) Purchaser' s attorneys ' fees; ( ii) Recording fees for recording the statutory warranty deed; ( iii) One-half of Transamerica Title Insurance Company' s escrow fees; ( iv) Expense of a survey, if any; and (v) Real property taxes, and all special assessments and Local Improvement District installments against the Property for the period following the Date of Closing. 9 . Conveyance . Seller shall convey title to Purchaser by Quit Claim Deed. 10 . Possession. Purchaser shall be entitled to possession of the Property on the Date of Closing. 11 . Condition of Premises . Purchaser offers to purchase the Property in an "as-is" condition, with all physical defects , including those that cannot be observed by casual inspection. Seller shall have no obligation to repair or remedy any physical defects of the Property. 12 . Commissions . Each party represents and warrants to the other that, except as set forth in Exhibit B, no real estate _ brokerage commissions or fees of any kind or type are or will be payable by Seller or Purchaser as a result of the transaction herein provided for, or if any such commissions and fees are payable, the party that breaches its warranty shall pay the same and hereby indemnifies such other party, from and against any and all claims for any real estate brokerage commissions or fees which may arise as a result of any acts of the warranting party. 13 . Default, Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement. 13 . 1 Purchaser' s Default. In the event Purchaser fails, without legal excuse, to complete the purchase of the Property, the Deposit made by Purchaser shall be forfeited to - 3 - Seller as the sole and exclusive remedy available to Seller for such failure . 13 . 2 Seller' s Default . If Seller defaults hereunder, Purchaser shall have the right to pursue such remedies at law or in equity against Seller as may be afforded to Purchaser by the laws of the State of Washington, including, without limitation, specific performance, damages and/or termination of this Agreement . 14 . Notices . Any notices required or permitted to be given shall be in writing and delivered either in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows (or at such other address as may be designated by either party) : Seller: Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Marty L. Sevier With a copy to : Glacier Park Company 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Corporate Counsel Purchaser: City of Renton ' 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Lynn Guttman With a copy to: Lawrence J. Warren Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes 100 S . Second Street P .O. Box 626 Renton, Washington 98057 -, Any notice given pursuant to this Agreement, except as otherwise provided, shall be deemed effective the day it is personally delivered or three business days after the date it is deposited in the United States mails . 15 . Waiver of Conditions . Purchaser may, at its election, waive any of the foregoing conditions by written notice to Seller - 4 - given at any time or times on or before the date of satisfaction of such condition. Purchaser' s election to close this transaction shall waive all such conditions . 16 . Assignment by Seller. Prior to the Date of Closing, Seller may assign its rights under this Agreement to a third party. In the event that Seller assigns its rights under this Agreement, Seller shall be released of all liability hereunder and the Assignee shall assume all obligations of Seller hereunder. 17 . Reasonable Attorney' s Fees . In the event Seller or Purchaser shall bring any suit or action to enforce this Agreement or any term or provision thereof or, if, by reason of any default on the part of either party to this Agreement, it becomes necessary for the other party to employ an attorney, then and in such event the unsuccessful party shall pay to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney' s fee and all reasonable costs and expenses necessarily expended or incurred by either party in connection with such suit, action or default. 18 . Entire Agreement. All understandings and agreements previously existing between the parties, if any, are merged into this Agreement, which alone fully and completely expresses their agreement, and the same is entered into after full investigation, neither party relying upon any statement or representation made by the other not embodied herein. This Agreement may not be changed or terminated orally. 19 . Nonforeign Affidavit . Seller is not a foreign person as the term is used and defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Seller shall, upon request of Purchaser, complete an affidavit to this effect. 20 . Purchaser ' s Title Information. Unless otherwise notified by Purchaser in writing not less than 10 days prior to the Date of closing, Seller shall convey the Property to the Purchaser as named on page one of this Agreement. If Purchaser wishes to have title to the Property conveyed otherwise, Purchaser' s written notice shall clearly set forth the full and correct names of the party or parties to whom title will be conveyed, their address, their relationship to Purchaser, if any, and whether conveyance is to be in joint tenancy or otherwise, and if a company, whether it is a partnership, trust, trustee or - 5 - corporation, address of principal office and state of incorporation. PURCHASER: SELLER: CITY OF RENTON GLACIER PARK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation By: By: Earl Clymer, Mayor Its Date: Date : ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: , City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lawrence J. War en City Attorney 156481.M24 05/08/92 6 - EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A (SEQ NO. 120 #1) : LOTS 1, 2, 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 6 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME ill OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE FORMER 20 FOOT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS DELINEATED ON SAID PLAT ADJOINING SAID LOTS, AS RELINQUISHED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8909110687; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B (SEQ NO. 120 14 +--2£) : THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 6 IN BLOCK 7 OF PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHE'_ INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME ill OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, LYING NORTH OF T1 FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNINGINT N THE SECONDS ST LINE EAST O172.52 SAID FEET FROMWHICH LIES THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 1204.25 FEET TO THE EAST LINT OF OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID DESCRIBED LIN! TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE FORMER 20 FOOT RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJOINING SAID DESCRIBED PORTION OF LOT 6 AND THAT PORTION OF THE OF LOT 1, ASAST 1RELINQUISHED UNDER RECORDING2 OF SAID FORMER AN0�909110687 OINING SAID PORTION , EXCEPT THAT PORTION BY SAID LOT 6 AS DEED RECORDED UNDERYED To RECORDZNG N0�8030609 RENTON1 FOR STREET PURPOSES AND AS CORRECTED BY RECORDING NO. 8308050568; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. (SEE NOTE 3) _ PAP.CEL C (SEQ NO. 120 13) : LOT 7 IN BLOCK 7 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME ill OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORD. OF KING COUNTY; Exhibit A - Page 1 of 7 EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 7 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR ROAD' PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8306090701, AND A. CORRECTED BY RECORDING NO. 8305080568; TOGETHER ADJOINING WON THE ITH EEAST, AS WEST 2RELI RELINQUISHED UNDERRAILROAD OF THE FORMER 20 FOOT RECORDING O. 89091/068 SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Exhibit A - Page 2 of 7 PARCEL IA (SEQ NO. 968 #13A) : THAT PORTION OF THE HENRY A. MEADER DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46 LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 10 EXTENDED NORTH AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE BOW LAKE PIPELINE AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4131067; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 9 LYING SOUTHERLY OF SAIL BOW LAKE PIPELINE; ALL IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. ; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SOUTH AND EAST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 180.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 180 FEET SOUTHERLY OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAIL NORTH LINE, 20.01 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 20.00 FEET WESTERLY OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH AND 180.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 1,026.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 1,095.58 FEET; . THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 01 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, ON A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 300 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 9,TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID LINE; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOB LOT 9; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF. 20.01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 20 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,254.20 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7603250650; Exhibit A - Page 3 of 7 THENCE, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT OF LAND, NORTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1,022.32 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 300 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 01 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 19 SECONE EAST A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300.01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 AND ALONG THE WES LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25 SOUTH 01 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300. 01 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 300 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 01 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 49 SECOND EAST A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF .BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF RING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL 1B (SEQ NO. 968 113B) : THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. ; EXCEPT THE EAST 20 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE PLAT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARR RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF RING COUNTY; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 WHICH IS 300 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, ON A LINE PARATLLE: TO AND 300 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 7 IN BLACK 7 OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARK RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 111, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF RING COUNTY, AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID LINE; AND EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; Exhibit A - Page 4 of 7 THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF 20.01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 2 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,254.20 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF A TRACT OF LAN CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7603250650; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT OF LAND NORTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 1, 022.32 FEET TO A LINE PARALLE WITH AND 300 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 01 DEGREES O1 MINUTES 19 SECONE EAST A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 300. 01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 9 AND ALONG THE WES LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25 SOUTH 01 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 300.01 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 300 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 25; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 01 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 49 SECONL EAST A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF RING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL 1C (SEQ NO. 968 113C) : ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF GOVERNMENT LOT 11, OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTIC 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 10 IN SAID SECTION AT A POINT 255.38 FEET SOUTHERLY, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FROM THE SOUTH LINE OF HENRY MEADER DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46; THENCE WESTERLY ON A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT A POINT 289.12 FEET SOUTHERLY, AS MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, FROM SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE DONATION LAND CLAIM AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 60 FEET EAST OF SAID EASTERLY LINE •OF THE NORTHERLY PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT A POINT 1100 FEET NORTH OF THE EAST-WEST CENTERLINE O SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF A TRACT CONVEYED TO BROADACRES, INC. BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7504010373, SAID POINT .BEING 545.6 FEET NORTH OF SAID EAST-WEST CENTERLINE; Exhibit A - Page 5 of 7 THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION AT A POINT 545. 6 FEET NORTH OF SAID EAST-WEST CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LONGACRES PARKWAY AS DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL PARR RENTON II, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 111 OF PLATS, PAGES 42 THROUGH 44, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST 1, 624.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE PROPOSED P-1 CHANNEL AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED PLAT, SAID LINE BEING 20.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5 IN BLOCK 9 OF SAID PLAT; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID EXTENSION, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 88 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST FROM A POINT BEING MEASURED ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND 2,028.44 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL 1D (SEQ NO. 968 113D) : THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , LYING EASTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LYING WEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 180TH STREET (FORMERLY CORD) , 114 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF AFORESAID STREET AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 644.78 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ON A STRAIGHT LINE, PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE TERMINTJS OF SAID LINE; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF; AND- EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4; THENCE NORTH 30 FEET; Exhibit A - Page 6 of 7 THENCE WEST, PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, TO POINT 69.95 FEET EASTERLY OF, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, SAID c MAIN LINE TRACT CENTERLINE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID OLD MAIN LINE TRACT CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 213.40 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID OLD MAIN LINE TRACT CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 20.95 FEET TO A POINT DISTANT 50 FE: EASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID OLD MAIN LINE TRACT CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG A LINE 50 FEET EASTERLY AS MEASURED AT RIGH'. ANGLES TO SAID OLD MAIN LINE TRACT CENTERLINE, TO A POINT 30 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL 2 (SEQ. NO. 968 113E) : THE NORTHERLY 180.0 FEET OF THE SUB-STANDARD NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ; EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 3603998; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 20 FEET THEREOF FOR DRAINAGE CANAL OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 32912; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 40 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON E DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7206190414; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Exhibit A - Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT B Brokerage Commissions/Fees Seller shall pay a commision to American Marketing Network/Realty Marketing Northwest in accordance with a separate agreement entered into between Seller and such broker. Exhibit 3 - Page 1 of 1 ArC'��C�`� , 'C'� % - CITY*F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren RECEIVES PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. April 30, 1992 C,TY OF RENTON TO: Lynn Guttmann, Administrator Department of Planning/Building/Public Works FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: Purchase of Glacier Park Property Dear Lynn: 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 complication 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 +� Lynn Guttmann, Administrator • .. 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 on Straka Priscilla Pierce Lee Haro A8 . 82 : 36 .