Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA96-164 Volume 2 of 2 ` • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,ECF,SA APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. This is a submittal of a project that was originally submitted on February 11, 1997. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. PUBLICATION DATE: July 14, 1997 DATE OF DECISION: July 08, 1997 SIGNATURES: Az e6/77 regg Z rierm ,A��or DATE , Departmeryf of P anning/Building/Public Works 7-/P(q Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Community Service Department 7,1 ce g 42-7 Le heeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. Table of Contents ii. List of Tables ii. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 CRITICAL AREAS and IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY 1 2.1 Wetlands 1 2.2 Stream 2 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT and IMPACTS 2 3.1 Impact Assessment 2 3.1.1 Hydrology Evaluation 3 4.0 MITIGATION PLAN 4 4.1 Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards 4 4.2 Restoration Measures 5 4.2.1 Soil Decompaction and Compost Addition 5 4.2.2 Planting 5 4.2.3 Temporary Irrigation 5 5.0 FUNCTIONS and VALUES 5 6.0 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 6 6.1 Post-Construction Assessment 6 7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 7 7.1 Reports 7 7.2 Methods for Monitoring the Performance Standards 7 7.3 Photo Documentation 8 8.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY(C) 8 9.0 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES 9 10.0 REFERENCES 10 - I December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page i Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan LIST OF DRAWINGS W-1 Site Impacts and Mitigation � I LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Projected Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Statement of Qualifications of Author Appendix B. Wetland Test Plot Data Appendix C. Surety Device Quantity Worksheet Appendix D. Full Size Plan Sheet December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page ii Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Williamsburg Condominiums are located west of Lincoln Avenue and inimediately north of NE 40th Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The complex was constructed in 1999. Construction of the complex included impacts to wetlands and streams,which are located on and near the property. Mitigation to compensate for these impacts occurred in the form of wetland enhancement and creation, stream channel creation/relocation, and buffer enhancement. To ensure that the installed plant material survived and that the hydrologic conditions in the stream and wetlands were functioning appropriately, the site was monitored for several years. Following this monitoring period, it was determined that the.implemented mitigation measures were successful and the City granted final approval of the project. As a result of construction defects,maintenance activities are needed that can not be located outside of wetland and stream buffers. The purpose of this report is to describe the locations of wetlands and streams in the vicinity of the proposed maintenance activities, describe impacts to these features or their buffers, and provide a plan to mitigate any impacts. Since the construction of the condominiums was completed,the City adopted new regulations for wetlands and streams. This report will be prepared according to these new regulations, as required by Section 4-3-059 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Teresa Opolka prepared this report and conducted the delineations for this study. A summary of the author's qualifications is included as Appendix A. Field work for this study was conducted on December 8,2006. 2.0 CRITICAL AREAS and IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY The boundaries of both the stream and wetlands were flagged where their buffers will be disturbed by maintenance activities. Fluorescent orange flagging was used for flagging both the OHWM and the wetland boundaries. Flagging was marked with a letter designation and numbered consecutively. 2.1 Wetlands Wetlands on the subject property were identified and delineated according to the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. One pair of test plots bracketing the wetland boundary was established to aid in determining the location of the wetland boundary. Test plot data forms are attached(Appendix B). Wetland ratings and buffers have been applied according to RMC 4-3-050 M(1)(a) and M(6)(a). A wetland system is located to the west and north of the condominium complex. This is a Category 2 wetland and requires a 50-foot buffer setback. The wetland was delineated west of the complex, as well as a small portion near the northwest corner of the complex. The wetland boundary off-site was not delineated, but its location has been approximated and is also shown on W-1. Additional details regarding the wetlands and stream can be found in the original Wetland/Stream Delineation Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants. This report was prepared for the original construction of the condominium complex in the late 1990's. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 1 • xi co • WETLAND EXTENDS ./• 10'%10' QUARRY SPALL \ . VICINITY MAP V mw I • WETLAND C — OFF-SITE, LOCATION SPLASH PAD. • WETLAND B CATEGORY 2 APPROXIMATED. NOT CATEGORY 2 J I I APPROX. 2,600 SF PLANT 20 BLACK TWIN-BERRY APPROX. 1,500 SF CM!F: NTS J o 0 \ (ON-SITE) DELINEATED OFf PROPERTY/' AROUND PAO \. (ON-SITE) co•7 -- •�. 50' BUFFER ( -_ — -_ _- (SEE PLANT SCHEDULE) J r- - 50' BUFFER 'a'� i .{`ice t"t=-,`Ttss r S:`:' •I. z $ ` r c-7 PFR�EN ODRNN - �= == e'S' '%-' — �:,,,, I ;3j —'PROJECT SITE +' A: U N 1-LL. - bil • ._:,„,, 1 `•�,•.jC-2 3 ��-2 - / '��,,,�, � 1�1111 11• '���' i� � ,.7'-i EN :.• Cy. j., :- + r III 64 Q pp �A4611111114111111, . . . r V i ,�..•.•ts •°tan a_ ,.o•.. I �-• a w &N 1 ..•I`.I.,•'•-.,.„:,::'•:'':'''.- •. ,' r'�, 1.4 I,,. iii- Al ems" Y3l nI?I'. F pp i: trfi(.{'•.Si3�'vc'R'(SC>tSl.T/S't•7G4'a`KKti`L.HesW!:�a= 47•^ n i, (!! �2 LI o, -- •. G! , �1 I ...i- t471,t b�•,r�i�=�_\g •.1 , .r.. h'i"^ ..0 1!,,17:114‘!.-' O <I .c - ►�*ttair't y -‘ ra S+7� r .-i a_a- t� f Q cc _; • II: l , z• I ♦♦ s 1-1 4L Z a z IIIi �..nR � � WNZ 1 4;,1111It; ` '` ,P ' ,��,y�*r� mr.is,LSD: : 'ipr,H27- N'ASlF,,,F ♦♦ n j� i y aa'�.•. N 3' �,�;�. gm ilv 1 I# M1 • ,.� y §rlrr=. , s;r...__+j� `� zx'" ,"'ram*�yrE e I __ ♦ r?:1 e;:�,;" ° \ rmi `�". Aratiiisi lomm. • v - - • . OLD WETLAND .,.� ... �f"•ta •• •• _- OLD AREA SOURCE. THE THOMAS GUIDE, KING COUNTY " —,�� 'II ,'!� �,/ / &LK } §� WETLAND MOSAIC 1 r lirmimica=memovmmil galviiLAL,.., :r ."--44,1 71rAt/.40,1,4• AI — ':% 1 ' r;, t 1= ICI MI 1 a �`I ? -11�i11til ! 1 ' v . '��'41111b / —=.: -:-, • 1 PLANTING TYPICAL .,4 • � :A. • •, I SCALE: 1•=10' nsar W =�1� 1 �::-. • �ir� .', * 1 T 1 "**; 3 ` DISCHARGE TOAREA ADJACENT TO STREAM/WETLAND 7 { •:_• .:}� ��i t f. w 1 I LL TCH BASINdY�� _ _ .• 'i�1�#- �i : ,� iii _.('�It.) --I'I'� I'I�'1- lir f G 1 / 100' / 11 �i / � A` / �:f `' i.: iiili i PL 0 RS RS w 0 ��w� PL ��©0 0 RS Q Q RS w ,4 P • •.Z �/ 16 : , -$---. -B -- - - PROPOSED 18' FRENCH DRAIN A-17 -- •.. STREAM '.` ...— ..����=Z+A_e --TA_s--- AREA ADJACENT TO BUILDING CLASS 4 �..._... Z 35' BUFFER =Y T ' PROPOSED DRAIN '�,;2 PLANT SCHEDULE (PLANT PER w71GATION REPORT Q 0 ® ® _ ��\ SHRUBS v � �•'t^-{�,1 '\ �" SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING 0T1'. SIZE(MIN.) E 0 Z /'/ rtV�y�}�-,�.m'?>' "F.`", ~ •}1 i."I,r' (i,!�XYi• y ...i LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWIN-BERRY 3' 0.C. 20 0 SPLASH PAD 1 GAL 7 �O ""'�we n a , rn '`• i Ie''. EFij:v,, ; r ,-O o-MAHONIA AQUIFOLUM TALL ORECONGRAPE 3' O.C. 121 1 GAL. L (•') *' ,.„, _ � �_ PHILADELPHUS IEWISII MOCK ORANGE 5' O.C. 130 1 GAL y�L3 _Z -,1p°� ✓, je RIBES SANGUINIUM RED CURRANT 5' O.C. 130 1 GAL OI LINCOLN �'"NE — — co ROSA GYMNOCARPA BALDMP ROSE 3' O.C. 121 1 GAL U Q ST _/- ° O—SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS SNOWBERRY 3' O.C. 121 1 GAL. U -- / SEED BARE AREAS WITH RED FESCUE(FESTUCA RUBRA VAR.RUBRA) d & 0o SCALE IIX I— siefIcflAic r Go writ, Z gDZ - - (FEET) '-=%%• LLI 1 INCH-30 FT I 0_ ��/'1�[IL I_ V cJ SET SNRUB/GROUNDCGVER STRAARR AND RACE ROGiHLLL N PLAN LEGEND ON�"°GROUND OR ON COMPACTED 9ACRRu1 Q ``.,ter;; ter' NATIVE NOTES . PROPERTY LINE •;.j.,'•f' ... ;',.... NOT DISTURB ROOTBALL. BAcI(Fa.l REMAINING 1. WETLAND&STREAM DELINEATED BY AOUATICA, =. =EXISTING WETLAND PLANTING VOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. -• —•-DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY ry - 2006. J -•—•—•-APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY MULCH 3•DEEP `'•7:;'.x Z-{'._,` 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY AOUATIG 24'WA RING -..•.ill!- • fHI VISUALLA AN ATTACHMENT - —•••9—•••—STREAM CENTERLINE(APPROX.) - - - - - - -- _ P_yiijJ - -- - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - 3. MMGATTON IS O ATTRE ARED TO THE - - - - - - STREAM OHWM (DELINEATED 12-08-2006) ----.f� FOAL GRADE DECEM ERN REPORT PREPARED BY AOUATICA IN -———-STREAM/WETLAND BUFFER c�l�llly/ '!L:;'. :�r111111- . 4. AND WETLAND M DELINEATION MEASUREMENTS. LOCATIONS I1r�\\::`•P!\�-.+'- OF �• ._ BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS. •A-11 STREAM/WETLAND FLAG LOCATION 71`C11r4ii :_VaT HOLE RAS GOOD DRAINAGE. PI W�y�Dye Oakes YqN pb DELINEATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED. •TP-/ SOIL TEST PLOT LOCATION , ,'_,1•�.' �\��\_�\��\i\�,II�11 w 1-800-424-5555 5. PRIORTI TO PLANTING. DECOMPACT CT SOIL IN 117 III 11�11.�11 I. MOM Localen Gen* DISTURBED AREAS AND ADD 4.OF COMPOST. EKG MI a�TO IMPACTS '11*71P i- S TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT- 6,500 SF(APPROX(APPROX.) ROOT BMl DY111ETER APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION NOT F'OR COINSMIXED)M A WE NOTED 02.05.07 BY: - rroaa.n 3 (� I •M R PNUTE FOR REVIEW AND CITY OF RENTON, NOE SEEN suswiTo TO THE 06-044 C O SHRUB PLANTING(TYP,) APPROVAL UM APPROVED.TM�PTAAS ARC COMMUNITY SERVICES DMSION a �i!ii�ii!iii:�:BUFFER RESTORATION - 6,500 SF(APPROX.) 1 °rr='� -- 3 sok:ins sUB.ECT TO REVISION DATE: W— 1 I o 1 a 1 - ©COPYRIGHT - AOUATICA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 2.2 Stream One small stream is located between Lincoln Avenue and the condominium complex. A portion ' of the stream was relocated"to facilitate construction of the complex. The boundary of the left bank(west side) of the stream was identified in the field by flagging the ordinary high water mark(OHWM). Determination of the OHWM was conducted in accordance with the State OHWM Definition(Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971). - i Unclassified Stream Assessment The stream is not classified on the City's steam map. The basis for classifying the stream was based on the following. The stream has both intermittent and seasonal flows. During the drier months of the year(May through October)the stream is dry, with the exception being small 'pools of water in the lower parts of the channel. During the December 2006 stream delineation, the stream was flowing. The wetted portion of the channel was approximately two feet in width, the water depth was less than eight inches. The stream is not salmon-bearing. After the stream flows into the bird-cage at the north end of the site, it flows through a culvert beneath the fire- access road and down towards Lincoln Avenue. The steep gradient in this area would prevent fish passage. This stream meets the definition of a Class 4 stream under the RMC 4-3-50 (L)(1)(a). Class 4 streams require a standard buffer of 35 feet. 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT and IMPACTS !After the condominiums were constructed, it was discovered that there is a problem with water intrusion into the basements. The apparent cause of the water intrusion was due to construction defects that affected the foundation walls (Corke Amento, 2006). To prevent further damage and rectify the water-intrusion problem, an interceptor drain is proposed for construction adjacent to the foundation walls on both the east and west side of the complex. The proposed interceptor (drain is located near the outer edge of either a wetland or stream buffer, for nearly its entire length. The RMC 4-3-050(C5g) allows for maintenance and repair of existing private uses when the buffer will not be altered. A total of 6,500 sf of buffer will be temporarily disturbed by installation of the interceptor drain. As described in the Section 4.0,the disturbed area will be !restored,resulting in no permanent alterations. , 3.1 Impact Evaluation Avoiding this impact(installation of the interceptor drain)is not possible, as it would result in continued water intrusion and possibly instability of the foundation walls caused by increasing hydrostatic pressure. The amount of disturbance caused by the activity will be minimized through the use of light machinery. Minimization of impacts was also considered when determining how to rectify the water intrusion problem. The alternative to an interceptor drain would be exposing the foundation wall to repair the water proofing and add drainage material. This alternative is not an option due to the cost, invasiveness, and large impact it would have on the buffer. All impacts will be restored. The project is avoiding the use of heavy, destructive construction equipment such as a back hoe to install the drain. Instead, a MX502 ditch witch is proposed to be used. This machine can dig to the required depth and only has a footprint of five feet. The proposed interceptor drain will be approximately ten feet deep and eighteen inches wide. The December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 2 _I I Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan I � majority of the trench will be backfilled with gravel; the top 12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with native soil. Damage to the buffer(soil compaction, vegetation removal) caused 'by equipment tracks will be restored(described below in Section 4.0), as a result, the buffer will not be permanently altered. 1 Temporary erosion control measures will be implemented to protect the wetland, stream, and buffers during construction activities. A silt fence will be installed at the edge of the areas proposed for disturbance. Following soil disturbing activities, all areas of bare soil will be 'seeded with a native grass(Festuca rubra). The silt fence shall remain until the grass has ;become established. 13.1.1 Hydrology Evaluation 'Two interceptor drains are proposed to be installed; one drain immediately adjacent to the condominium buildings on both the west and east sides of the complex. Both drains will discharge into the wetlands located north of the condominium complex. To understand the 'effects of the drains,the project geologist and engineer(from GeoEngineers)were consulted for linformation regarding anticipated flow quantities in the drains and general water movement in the area. As a result of information from GeoEngineers as well as my own observations, negative impacts to the wetlands are not anticipated for following reasons: • The discharge point is following the natural direction of water flow on the site. In the present condition, water is getting trapped in the building foundation;with installation of the drains water will flow towards the wetlands. • The drains are expected to have relatively low flows,less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm). The drains may introduce slightly more water into the wetlands, although the low flow volumes should be rather insignificant compared to the overall large size of the wetland system located north and west of the site. • The discharge points will be located in a relatively flat area thereby avoiding steep slopes and limiting the possibility of erosion. The discharge areas are also fully vegetated with both woody and herbaceous vegetation, which will further prevent erosion and any negative impacts to water quality in the wetland. The discharge at the northeast end of the building will be tied into the existing drainage system that disperses water along the concrete retaining wall. • The drains will be located relatively shallowly, only affecting surface drainage in the vicinity of the buildings. Deeper groundwater movement will not be affected by the drains. • The drains will be picking up water that is flowing towards the buildings. Since this water is flowing towards the buildings, it is not providing significant hydrologic support to either the wetland located west of the complex, or the stream located east of the complex. Due to the relatively small amount of expected water flow in the drains, topographical location Of the drains in relation to wetlands/steam and the overall size of the wetlands; it is not expected that the project will have any adverse impact on wetlands or streams. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 3 • Williamsburg Condominiums • Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 4.0 MITIGATION PLAN The 6,500 sf of disturbed area will be restored. The few feet closest to the building will be restored to its original state,with lawn grass. The remaining portion will be restored with shrubs,thereby resulting in an improvement over its existing state. The majority of the area where the interceptor drain is proposed is currently vegetated with lawn grasses. The exception is the area east if the most southeasterly building. This area currently is vegetated with large shrubs that were planted for the previous mitigation project. At a minimum, disturbances caused by exempt activities must be returned to their original state 4-3-050(C5). Since the project will cause the removal of a few large shrubs installed in 1999, restoration measures will include planting shrubs in the outer half(stream or wetland side)of the area disturbed by installation of the drain,where ever the drain is located in buffer areas (W-1). Through restoring the area with shrubs, it will mitigate for the loss of the large shrubs at the southeast end. Since the interceptor drain will be installed relatively close to the buildings, enhancing the outer half of disturbance area will still allow for access to, and regular maintenance of the buildings. 4.1 Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards The following goal and objectives have been created,to summarize how impacts will be mitigated. The performance standards will provide measurable parameters that will be monitored to evaluate and determine if the project has successfully obtained the stated goal and objectives. Goal: Mitigate for 6,500 sf of temporary buffer disturbance by restoring 6,500 sf of buffer. Objective A: Increase the density of woody species to improve the structural and biologic diversity of the buffer. (Performance Standard A: All plants that die at the end of Year 1 will be replaced. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 85%for each subsequent year of the monitoring period Objective B: Increase the woody vegetation coverage in the mitigation areas through planting of woody species. Performance Standard B: A combination of woody native sapling tree and shrub areal coverage Twill be at least 40%by the end of Year 3. Objective C: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10%cover in mitigation areas. Performance Standard C: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period Hof five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 10%total cover in the mitigation areas. These species include but are not limited to: Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry,reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, Canada thistle, and creeping nightshade. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 6-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 4 • Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 4.2 Restoration Measures The enhancement and restoration areas-will be treated to reduce impacts from site development 'on the sensitive areas and increase wildlife habitat value. Enhancement measures will include: 1) decompacting soil in the disturbance area and adding compost, 2)planting the buffers with a variety of native shrubs, and 3)installation of temporary irrigation. Through successful implementation of the enhancement measures,the project will satisfy the goals &objectives in Section 4.1. 4.2.1 Soil Decompaction and Compost Addition Soil compacted by activities relating to drain-installation will be decompacted by rototilling to a depth of 8 inches. Since the area will have dirt that is churned up from depths of up to ten feet, compost addition is proposed since the resulting soil will likely require amending to make it an appropriate planting medium. Four inches of compost shall be added to the area prior to planting. 4.2.2 Planting The plant species depicted on the mitigation plan were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife,value as a physical or visual barrier,pattern of growth(structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Plant materials may consist 'of a combination of bare-root shrubs(during the dormant season) and container plants. Plants shall not be installed during the dry, summer months (June through September). 4.2.3 Temporary Irrigation System An above ground temporary irrigation system must be installed to provide irrigation to mitigation plantings during the dry season. At a minimum,the system must be operational for the first year following installation. If a significant number of plants die,replacement plantings must also be irrigated for their first year following installation. Mitigation areas shall be irrigated between June 15 (or earlier if needed) and October 15. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1" of water per week. - I 5.0 FUNCTIONS and VALUES The functions and values that wetlands and buffers provide include: a)water quality maintenance,b) stormwater storage and conveyance, c) ground water recharge, d)providing !wildlife habitat, and e) aesthetic and other functions valued by humans. This project is not expected adversely impact these functions and values of either the wetland or the stream buffer. Since the existing conditions of the site include buildings that are already constructed on the edges of the buffers,the construction of an interceptor trench on the outer edge of the buffer is a minor impact. No change is expected with regards the water quality, hydrologic, or groundwater recharge functions of the wetlands or stream buffers. With the exception of one area, most of the areas proposed for disturbance are vegetated with lawn grasses. Some minor loss in habitat value due to the noise during construction of the interceptor drain and loss of shrubs in the one ;area is expected. However,through the proposed planting,these negative affects will be 'mitigated. Overall,the addition of shrubs will provide a slight increase in the habitat value of the 11 buffers as the plants mature. 'December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC :06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 5 • Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 6.0 CONSTRUCTION/SPECIFICATIONS i • Prior to construction,temporary erosion and sedimentation controls shall be in place (i.e., silt fences). • Species substitution shall not be made without approval of wetland biologist. • Plants shall be locally grown(western Washington or Oregon), of normal health,vigorous, and free of weeds, diseases, insects, insect eggs and larvae. Plants may be a combination of container plants and bare root. • Container grown plants shall not be loose in container and shall not be pot-bound. • B&B plant material shall not have cracked or mushroomed root balls. Root balls shall be firm,natural balls of earth of sufficient size to encompass the fibrous and feedingrooting system necessary for establishment and health of plant. • Do not prune plants prior to delivery or planting. • Take all precautions and customary good trade practices in preparing plants for transport. Cover plants transported on open vehicles with a protective covering to prevent wind burn. • Protect plants from drying out. Bare root plant material shall have their roots kept moist at all times. Protect from freezing,wind, and sun. Keep roots covered with sawdust, compost, or soil at all times. Water plants as necessary. • Water plants within 24 hours of planting. • Provide mulch rings around shrubs and trees, 24 inches in diameter,three inches in depth. Mulch may be compost, bark, or wood chips. • All receipts for labor and materials shall be retained for submittal to the City if requested. • The surety device holder shall replace any plants that die within the first year following approval of installation. Shrub and Tree Sources ' Storm Lake Growers Tadpole Haven Native Fourth Corner Nursery Sound Native I Monroe, WA Plants Bellingham, WA Plants I360-794-4842 Woodinville, WA 360-592-2250 Olympia, WA 425-788-6100 306-352-4122 Seed Sources Plantas Nativa Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration Inside Passage Seeds Bellingham, WA Langley, WA Port Townsend, WA ;'360-715-9655 360-579-2332 360-385-6114 6.1 Post-Construction Assessment A post-construction assessment conducted by Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC, will be conducted upon completion of the mitigation plan construction. A report including as-built drawings will be submitted to the City. The purpose of this assessment will be to determine (whether the site conditions are consistent with the approved plan and to establish baseline 'conditions for future monitoring. !7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted by a qualified biologist, for a minimum of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the schedule presented in Table 1. • December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 6 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan i - Table 1. Schedule of Performance Monitoring Events Year Date Maintenance Performance Report Due to Review Monitoring City Spring X X X* Summer X - X X 1 Fall X X X Winter X X X 2 Spring Fall X X X 3 Spring Fall X X X 4 Spring Fall X X X 5 Spring Fall X X X** *First monitoring visit will serve as the baseline assessment. **Request City-approval and facilitate release of the surety device (presumes performance criteria are met). 7.1 Reports Each monitoring report will include: a) estimates of percent vegetative cover,plant survival, and invasive species, b) wildlife usage, c)water quality and hydrology, d) site stability, e)photo- ' documentation, f) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the mitigation areas, g) methodology, and h)maintenance recommendations. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring will cease after the fifth year,unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. 7.2 Methods for Monitoring the Performance Standards Each monitoring report will include an evaluation of the mitigation project to ensure that the goals, objectives, and performance standards (as stated in Section 4.1) of the project are being met. The methods that will be employed and evaluated during each performance monitoring event are listed below as they pertain to each objective. ,Performance Standard A Methods: Permanent transects, 50 feet long and eight feet wide, will be established during the baseline assessment at two locations within the enhancement/restoration areas. During monitoring events, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation will be evaluated within each of these sampling locations. 1Plant survival will be evaluated within each of the sampling transect locations. Percent survival !of shrubs will be evaluated in a eight-foot belt along the established transect. The species and location of shrubs and trees within this belt will be recorded, and will be evaluated during each !monitoring event to determine percent survival. performance Standard B Methods: Percent areal cover of shrubs will be evaluated in the three e transects through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 7 • Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan tape is extended between two permanent markers. Shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified,-and the intercept distance recorded. Percent areal cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressed as a total proportion of the tape length. Herbaceous vegetation coverage will be visually estimated in the transects. Performance Standard C Methods: During monitoring events,undesirable plant species will also be measured within each sampling location. Invasive plants will be maintained at levels below 10%total cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasive, e.g., Himalayan and evergreen blackberry,reed canarygrass, Scot's broom, morning glory, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, etc. is permissible in any monitoring year. Mitigation sites should be maintained within these standards throughout the monitoring period,to avoid corrective measures. 7.3 Hydrology and Site Stability During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the mitigation areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within the wetland and buffer areas. Specifically,the site will be examined to ensure that there are no erosion problems on the slopes adjacent to the wetland. 7.4 Photo Documentation A series of color photographs representing panoramic views of the mitigation areas will be taken during each monitoring event. Photographs will be included with the performance monitoring reports. 8.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY(C) Maintenance will be performed regularly to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation areas. During monitoring events, any maintenance items requiring attention will be identified and reported to the property owner. Maintenance items requiring attention shall be completed within 45 days of the monitoring event. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with the mitigation achieving its performance standards,the surety devise-holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include, but are not limited to: regarding, additional plant installation, erosion control,modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such,contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 31st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. Contingency and maintenance items may include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event(unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • During year one, replace all dead plant material. (M) December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 8 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan • Water all plantings at a rate of 1"of water at least every week between June 15 —September - 15 during the first year after installation, and for the first year after any replacement plantings. (C &M) • Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the mitigation plan, subject to the approval of the wetland biologist. (C) • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified(e.g.,moisture regime,poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions,wildlife damage, etc.). (C) • Weed trees and shrubs to the drip line,by hand. Do not use mechanized devices,herbicides, or pesticides. Maintain mulch rings around trees and shrubs at a depth of 3 inches. (M) • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.). All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off site. (C &M) • Clean up trash and other debris. (M) • Selectively thin volunteer species(such as alder)to preserve species diversity. (M) 9.0 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES A maintenance/monitoring surety device equal to the estimated installation, maintenance, monitoring, and contingency costs for the five-year monitoring period shall be posted with the City(Appendix C). The surety device may be released in partial amounts at the reasonable discretion of the City. Partial release of the surety device-obligation would be in proportion to work successfully completed over the five-year monitoring period. f . December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 9 r . Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan • 10.0 REFERENCES Corke Amento, Inc. 2006. Outline for Geotech Proposal. October 25. Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter,F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Renton, City of. 2005. Critical Areas Regulations. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev. 1.29.07) Page 10 i IE APPENDIX A Statement of Qualifications of Author jl �I , Teresa Opolka SUMMARY OF Over eight years experience as a wetland ecologist,consultant, and botanist in the QUALIFICATIONS Puget Sound Region. Expertise includes technical writing,wetland delineations, ordinary high water mark determinations,groundwater monitoring and analysis, I- functional value assessments,biological assessments,permitting and botanical sampling. . Wetland and Stream Delineations • Assessed over 1,600 acres of land in the Puget Sound Region for the presence/absence of wetlands,streams, and sensitive wildlife. Delineated over 150 wetlands with a high rate of agency acceptance. Technical Writing and Permitting • Prepared over eighty technical documents in 20 jurisdictions for permit submittal in western Washington. Includes preparation of Critical Area Reports,Mitigation Reports and Plans, Functional Value Assessments,Biological Evaluations,JARPA applications and Wildlife Assessments. Performance Monitoring • Monitored over 40 projects in 18 jurisdictions within Washington State. Hydrologic Assessments • Designed and implemented shallow groundwater studies to determine wetland/upland boundaries on 15 projects where site conditions were disturbed as a result of modifications to the hydrology, soil,or vegetation. EDUCATION B.S. Biology,Seattle University, 1998 TRAINING Wetland Training Institute • Advanced Hydric Soils(May 2006) University of Washington • Wetland and Upland Habitat Restoration Design(April 2006) Coastal Training Program/Department of Ecology • Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington(May 2005) • Ordinary High Water Mark Determination Training(May 2003) Richard Chinn Environmental Training • Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Course, Richard f - Chinn Environmental Training,Inc. (January 2002) Everett Community College • Introduction to Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes(Fall 2003) APPENDIX B Wetland Test Plot Data Project/Site: Williamsburg Condominiums Date: 6 December 2006 Applicant/Owner: Corke Amento, Inc. County: King Investigator: T.Opolka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: PFO - Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 2 Is the area a potential Problem Area(If needed,explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#1 _ VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Status Rubus spectabilis S FACW Alnus fibre T FAC I Equisetum telmateia H FACW Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,or FAC:100% _ Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: >50%of dominant veg. is fac or wetter - i Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: 0 Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations 0 Technical literature ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities 0 Other(explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Is it the growing season? ❑Yes ® No Depth to free water 6" Based on:. 0 Soil temp(record temp) Depth to saturated soil to surface ® Other.(explain): soil survey Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators(minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water-stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines ❑ FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits El Other 0 Drainage patterns in wetland ' Criterion Met? Yes 1 Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators present SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,6-15%slopes Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts mapped type? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) . concretions, structure,etc 0-18" 10YR 2/1 none N/A sandy silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: • 0 Histosol 0 Matrix chroma <_2 with mottles ❑. Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor 0 High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ' Listed on National Hydric Soils List ' 0 Aquic moisture regime 0 Y ❑ Reducing conditions 0 Oxidized root channels ® Gleyed or low chroma(=1)matrix 0 Other( ) Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators present WETLAND DETERMINATION , Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes All three criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes . Project/Site: Williamsburg Condominiums Date: 6 December 2006 Applicant/Owner: Corke Amento, Inc. County: King - Investigator:. T.Opolka • State: Washington - Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland forest Q Transect ID: 1 Is the area a potential Problem Area(If needed,explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#2 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Status Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Equisetum te/mateia H FACW Polystichum munitum H FACU 1 Percent of dominant s•ecies that are OBL,FACW,or FAC:66% Criterion Met? Yes I Rationale/Remarks: >50%of dominant veg.is fac or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities 0 Other(explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Is it the growing season? 0 Yes ® No Depth to free water none @ 18" Based on: ❑ Soil temp(record temp) Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" ® Other(explain): soil survey Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators(minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated 0 Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm 0 Water-stained leaves 0 Water marks 0 Local soil survey data O Drift lines 0 FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits 0 Other O Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? No il Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators not present SOILS I Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,6-15%slopes Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts mapped type? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure,etc 0-14" 10YR 2/2 none n/a sandy loam 14-18" 10YR 3/4 none n/a sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma 52 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions O Sulfidic odor 0 High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List ❑ Reducing conditions 0 Oxidized root channels ❑ Gleyed or low chroma(=1)matrix ❑' Other( ) Criterion Met? No I Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators not present WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? No Only one criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? No ' APPENDIX C Surety Device Quantity Worksheet Critical Areas Mitigation- Surety Device Quantity - i project Name: Williamsburg Condos Date: 12/12/06 Prepared by:Teresa Opolka Permit Number: LUA96-164 Applicant: Corke Amento Location: Lincoln&40th Il PLANT MATERIALS* Type Unit Price Unit Quantity Description I Cost PLANTS:Container,1 gallon,medium soil - $9.00 Each 623.00 $ 5,607.00 PLANTS: Seeding,by hand $ 100.00 $ •All costs include installation' 'TOTAL $ 5,707.00 INSTALLATION COSTS(LABOR, EQUIPMENT,&OVERHEAD) Type Unit Price Unit I Cost Compost,vegetable,delivered and spread $37.88 CY 30.00 $ 1,136.40 bewmpacting tilVhardpan,medium,to 6'depth $100.00 per1000 sf 5.00 • $ 500.00 Irrigation-temporary $3,000.00 Acre 0.10 $ 300.00 $ - ITOTAL $ 1,936.40 10TH ER (Construction Subtotal) $ 7,643.40 Percentage ITEMS of Construction Unit Cost !Mobilization 10% $ 764.34 Contingency 10% $ 764.34 I TOTAL $ 1,528.68 MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING Maiataaanse a ntaG>» > » °>s >>' >> »s> >':>=s> # >>»>'« »><<'`:< <`:>»':>»'<>>> »z> `<> ;< `''''`'r>`'l'`'`' <['>is>`:>'`'i` r`'> >>> ?` `•>< :>>> <<> «>s z<z<> Larger than 1,000 sq.ft.but<0.5 acre-buffer impact only $ 450.00 EACH 5.00(12 hrs©45/hr) $ 2,250.00 Larger than 1,000 sq.ft.but<0.5 acre-buffer impact only $ 720.00 EACH 5.00(8 hrs @$90/hr) $ 3,600.00 TOTAL $ 5,850.00 �.. .......m.. ........ ...... .:•::::::::::::::::.:.:......: .......... .... Total $15,022.08 APPENDIX D Full Size Plan Sheets - I N1NG 1. ovegri =5 ZQ�� Wetland/Stream Report and Buffer Mitigation Plan 'UGC ' P ff g R Williamsburg Condominiums Renton, Washington (City Project#L UA96-164) • • Prepared For: Corke Amento, Inc., 710 2nd Avenue, Suite 820 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared By: Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 21214 Rimrock Road Monroe, Washington 98272 _ APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS THE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL ANY PROVISIONS OF CODES, December 12, 2006 ORDINANCES, OR OTHER REGULATIONS (Revised March 1, 2007); ENFORCED BY THIS CITY DATE3//2 Y//I PPROVED BJ,/ e j PERMIT# PBPW2-05 10/99 I I - I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. Table of Contents ii. List of Tables ii. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 CRITICAL AREAS and IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY 1 2.1 Wetlands 1 2.2 Stream 2 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT and IMPACTS 2 3.1 Impact Assessment 2 3.1.1 Hydrology Evaluation 3 4.0 MITIGATION PLAN 4 4.1 Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards 4 4.2 Restoration Measures 5 4.2.1 Soil Decompaction and Compost Addition 5 4.2.2 Planting 5 4.2.3 Temporary Irrigation . 5 5.0 FUNCTIONS and VALUES 5 6.0 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 6 6.1 Post-Construction Assessment 6 7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 7 7.1 Reports 7 7.2 Methods for Monitoring the Performance Standards 7 7.3 Photo Documentation 8 8.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY (C) 8 9.0 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES 9 • 10.0 REFERENCES 10 _ I December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page i Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan LIST OF DRAWINGS W-1 Site Impacts and Mitigation LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Projected Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Statement of Qualifications of Author Appendix B. Wetland Test Plot Data Appendix C. Full Size Plan Sheet December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page ii Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Williamsburg Condominiums are located west of Lincoln Avenue and immediately north of 'NE 40th Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The complex was constructed in 1999. Construction of the complex included impacts to wetlands and streams,which are located on and near the property. Mitigation to compensate for these impacts occurred in the form of wetland enhancement and creation, stream channel creation/relocation, and buffer enhancement. To ensure that the installed plant material survived and that the hydrologic conditions in the stream and wetlands were functioning appropriately,the site was monitored for several years. Following this monitoring period, it was determined that the implemented mitigation measures were successful and the City granted final approval of the project. As a result of construction defects,maintenance activities are needed that can not be located outside of wetland and stream buffers. The purpose of this report is to describe the locations of wetlands and streams in the vicinity of the proposed maintenance activities, describe impacts to these features or their buffers, and provide a plan to mitigate any impacts. Since the construction of the condominiums was completed,the City adopted new regulations for wetlands and streams. This report will be prepared according to these new regulations, as required by Section 4-3-059 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Teresa Opolka prepared this report and conducted the delineations for this study. A summary of the author's qualifications is included as Appendix A. Field work for this study was conducted ' on December 8, 2006. 2.0 CRITICAL AREAS and IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY The boundaries of both the stream and wetlands were flagged where their buffers will be disturbed by maintenance activities. Fluorescent orange flagging was used for flagging both the OHWM and the wetland boundaries. Flagging was marked with a letter designation and numbered consecutively. ' 2.1 Wetlands Wetlands on the subject property were identified and delineated according to the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. One pair of test plots bracketing the wetland boundary was established to aid in determining the location of the wetland boundary. Test plot data forms are attached(Appendix B). Wetland ratings and buffers have been applied according to RMC 4-3-050 M(1)(a) and M(6)(a). ,A wetland system is located to the west and north of the condominium complex. This is a Category 2 wetland and requires a 50-foot buffer setback. The wetland was delineated west of the complex, as well as a small portion near the northwest corner of the complex. The wetland boundary off-site was not delineated,but its location has been approximated and is also shown on W-1. Additional details regarding the wetlands and stream can be found in the original Wetland/Stream Delineation Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants. This report was prepared for the original construction of the condominium complex in the late 1990's. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 1 • •-. WETLAND EXTENDS •/ 10'%10' QUARRY SPILL WETLAND B • VICINITY MAP U m OD I WETLAND COFF LOCATION SPLASH PAD, • CATEGORY 2 / CO c0 APPROXIMATED. NOT PLANT 20 BLACK TWIN-BERRY \ CATEGORY 2 SCALE: NTS J o 0 \ APPROX. 2,600 SF• / DEUNEATED OFF PROPERTY- AROUNDPAD (ON-SITE)1,5 0 SF °- (ON-SITE (SEE PLANT SCHEDULE) _ .-- 50' BUFFER rl'',v t E" 'D i0t ° �- Q' U'• •�� 5\' BUFFER -- -- -- -- --_-'_- ----- - - __._c 9 I _ .3s_zc nnt�L:;Tho+ .t :n o�S C.x' • �> Z to 0 • PROPOSED 18' -• ;„••:rz i'°- .Ae.. °' IZ J ..4.............. �/ / C-7 FRENCH DRAIN .. -_--:.•! . `•- B--• 1 — --!r- =- biti, -',PROJECT SITE -. _4->:�'.' V ��- �`•`• ,P_2 -fill_-IQ--II1�_ • .� L _ r • Ia ' `•.•�O-2 C-3• • •„.4fir • alk �,,,�� _.ItLILJI' I = � �.•.%.•• v~r p°)'AA •r '�' I•i��� a : F zm _° are co Z Y" w•' � ,,,�� =�i\�= I Az,: / l4. }�°i �:,' g�•: a Urn "--, _ .. .. _•.•_ +Itilkia, �' ,\ `jt ' p14 -it \I. -.( �,v!�tstl ',in "r Ia�y v ,6• I I : •:•_. -• • / \� � \t 3fe' 1_ i ♦ '�• R •:a r •S'%'"'q<:,r� Q. I ,.'��•• IL 1�j \ 1� `t'�C,\ 1� III ♦ San n.a . �,.... Z 'Z•• �� IL �� 1 \,�Nyf3+� , '°• I a ! °" %'• LL1 .etlol vum 1[IR 4'11- Fr _ 1ll.I II'IIL ^I i..7,!,;IITI.:,..7- li"9y�"`avM'::tiN 2 ' /- 1 ttttl • I tY v :s+.'W f ? # M»>I Ii.Nn�,l ie`u•-u. ,�'`� RR �,/ '�K�0' �,, EMI -III •. E If+ - \EsW r — fit, `u r .-•, � I ♦ • _'f14, ).§." _i�`�#� — a -LLm'm1 • ` � `��C ,`/� ,•�'• -��I. (WETLAND MOSAIC) I • EA SOURCE THE THOMAS GUIDE: KING COUNTY I . ,ram �©� �'' � h47-171./ . i-i-i viiii I . • I V1.1. 1.11111.1.,„,..., J. . 1 - 41' 4/,' - � ���*v �4):01.7.0 immin 1"rag il: II- E'OMilalin ' � I'll -' II f • ii. • .r.111'C`fc R1 111111 Y �•1� v mg I •.II G, �_I?0 d 'Fat:" �M� `�`...t1,41 , �klli. i ���: �� lilllllri ♦.♦ / ,4 t'11i Illll:dllll I =.511- • _ ,o&-.1 I�idi�1,I� 1�/; � ito —iiiti T:^:••�i'?'�':'�� . . _ �� "- ♦♦ I PLANTING TYPICAL f�, �,i� - - if / J. '`� ��= A- A- I SCALE: 1=10 +t1 ` ��I�� ' ---------- -�. '� `� / � ,* �jg{tyt_"P.Z'dr19TFtf8"�[y}J \, W k'; "'® ''"" -� ._-; •:.� i,it/kg/fir' !I I �T!' �Ti I ! ` DISCHARGE TOAREA ADJACENT TO STREAM WETLAND 7� n �l --+ :, L .1 Lr .7_LEI .1 4 `: CATCH BASIN I /0, :.T•�uu�� �i� ,�� _•�._:� � ,I �I�illiii II �— • • i O z. .•. - mow►-yj1+W law .i.,--vi -ta. wwww+w i,'"'CO+td -.�- a Z ...8 W. — • ,•/ 16 —— —— STREAM - �1�•,•A-s• -8 —— —— �f — ':---—— — • PROPOSED 18' FRENCH GRAIN +==6 AREA ADJACENT TO BUILDING — ` A-17 CLASS 4 •• •••�•``�=Z A-5 Y_--- •R` 6-�- A 35' BUFFER FRENCHEDRAIN ��'�,�2 PLANT SCHEDULE (PLANT PER MITIGATION REPORT) O O ' ® ® `••\ SHRUBS (') �, A-1 _ SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING OTT'. 512E(MIN.) Q Z j/ :mac..- s.._h - '-' " LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWIN-BERRY 3' O.C. 20 Q SPLASH PAD 1 GAL 7 ' }z'oi-:.,�, � _,� —K�"-~ 8 �1 '_ �• , ;0 8-MAHONIA AOUIFODUM TALL OREGONGRAPE 3' O.C. 121 1 GAL 2 L 8 �\��j °MTMI+>a,o�.� C - __ � ^�•'�y' y' 4�? �• SHRUBS LEWIS!! MOCK ORANGE 5' O.C. 130 1 GAL y0 O Z ��'Y `"`m .a ,� -•'-'ram• t�•>' a T-• RISES SANGUINIUM RED CURRANT 5' O.C. 130 1 GAL = �A,�OP`•K e.,---- OW_ 0 ROSA GYMNOCARPA BALDHIP ROSE 3' O.C. 121 1 GAL (/) (/) I'- LINCOLN ST NE -� �"°°°` o-5YMPHORICARPOS ALBUS SNOWBERRY 3' ONam .C. 121 1 GAL NE � SEED BARE AREAS WITH RED FESCUE(FESTUCA RUBRA VAR, RUBRA) e n �J Z SCALE I O 1 INCH=30 FT •�+Ii 1 N a. {co SET SHRUB/GROUNOCOVER STRAIGHT AND PUCE ROO18.111 ON SOUR GROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFTL PLAN LEGEND .�,...1t BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE T/2 FULL WITH NATIVE —-.... ...,,,::..'<'l. SOIL TAMP SOIL TO STASTJZE ROOTBALL CO NOTES �PROPE:RTY UNE r•4 NOT DISTURB ROOTBAU- BACKSILL REMAINING I__ DUSTING WETLAND •; �•f>j"'2K�4' .'• PLANONG HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. - t. WETLAND&STREAM DELINEATED BY AQUATICA, -•- •-DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY ` :'•` • ;,;�;;". �^'}'�{;;.' • 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY AQUATICA • -•-•-•-APPROXIMATED WETLAND BOUNDARY MULCH sDEEP -y FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. ••—STREAM CENTERLINE(APPROX.) Z••DU RING '. JE•.:'�� 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT BY THE • �...�. -- - - - - -- - -- - - I,' - - - -- - - -- `- - - -- -- - - MRIGATION-REPORT-PREPARED Bl'-AQUATICA IN - -- -- -- STREAM OHWM (DELINEATED 12-08-2006) /'-I" IILI!' �.� FINAL GRADE. _ DECEMBER,2006. III—II��\\IIII -�\\ II 4. OHWM AND WETLAND DELINEATION LOCATIONS -----STREAM/WETLAND BUFFER /*:::_:F V412,T . - SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. MANE SURE BASED ON FlELD MEASUREMENTS, •A-Q STREAM/WETLAND FLAG LOCATION ' ' G0Ilrf i- •� u 1 HOLE HAS GOOD DRAINAGE. . /W ����\\.-... :\\� CY 2 WMiW Dq�ItMoF�YW fXp � DELINEATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED. •TP-# SOIL TEST PLOT LOCATION I I-e A!C!\<\�/�� -al LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. �'�����%R•��.I I EXISTING NATIVE SOIL -800-424-5555 5, PRIOR TO PLANTING, DECOMPACT SOIL IN IMPACTS I J1-1 UBRIS 181 LAoatlon Center DISTURBED AREAS AND ADD 4" OF COMPOST. Cawley Oen�DBY 1T1—F ;l�— II- mA1TNcatwAl KG To • !'•'••'•••"•'•'T TEMPORARY BUFFER IMPACT- 6,500 SF(APPROX.) ROOT BALL DIAMETER APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION ' -- ".MS. .M.4.. NOT_FOR CONSTRUCTION sw re AS NOTED 02.05.07 BY: Eaora/. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR BMW AND CITY OF RENTON, �6-�44 3 MITIGATION APPROVAL UNRL APPROVED,DESE PLANS ARC COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION o O SHRUB PLANTING(TYP,) aRaMMSO BUFFER RESTORATION - 6.500 SF(APPROX.) ], Sale: NTS SUBJECT TO REVISION DATE: A/_ 'I a V� I 1o1 mr 1 0 1 ©COPYRIGHT - AQUATICA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 12.2 Stream One small stream is located between Lincoln Avenue and the condominium complex. A portion 'of the stream was relocated to facilitate construction of the complex. The boundary of the left I,bank(west side) of the stream was identified in the field by flagging the ordinary high water mark(OHWM). Determination of the OHWM was conducted in accordance with the State OHWM Definition(Chapter 90.58 RCW, Shoreline Management Act of 1971). Unclassified Stream Assessment The stream is not classified on the City's steam map. The basis for classifying the stream was based on the following. The stream has both intermittent and seasonal flows. During the drier months of the year(May through October) the stream is dry, with the exception being small pools of water in the lower parts of the channel. During the December 2006 stream delineation, the stream was flowing. The wetted portion of the channel was approximately two feet in width, the water depth was less than eight inches. The stream is not salmon-bearing. After the stream flows into the bird-cage at the north end of the site, it flows through a culvert beneath the fire- access road and down towards Lincoln Avenue. The steep gradient in this area would prevent fish passage. This stream meets the definition of a Class 4 stream under the RMC 4-3-50 (L)(1)(a). Class 4 streams require a standard buffer of 35 feet. 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT and IMPACTS After the condominiums were constructed, it was discovered that there is a problem with water intrusion into the basements. The apparent cause of the water intrusion was due to construction defects that affected the foundation walls (Corke Amento, 2006). To prevent further damage and rectify the water-intrusion problem, an interceptor drain is proposed for construction adjacent to the foundation walls on both the east and west side of the complex. The proposed interceptor drain is located near the outer edge of either a wetland or stream buffer, for nearly its entire length. The RMC 4-3-050(C5g) allows for maintenance and repair of existing private uses when the buffer will not be altered. A total of 6,500 sf of buffer will be temporarily disturbed by installation of the interceptor drain. As described in the Section 4.0,mitigation will occur for project impacts. A 10 x10' quarry spall splash pad will be provided at the discharge point for the northern trench,the purpose of the splash pad is to disperse flows and prevent erosion. RMC 4- 3-050C7aii exempts drainage outfalls within wetland buffers. 3.1 Impact Evaluation Avoiding this impact(installation of the interceptor drain and splash pad) is not possible, as it would result in continued water intrusion and possibly instability of the foundation walls caused by increasing hydrostatic pressure. The amount of disturbance caused by the activity will be minimized through the use of light machinery. Minimization of impacts was also considered when determining how to rectify the water intrusion problem. The alternative to an interceptor drain would be exposing the foundation wall to repair the water proofing and add drainage material. This alternative is not.an option due to the cost, invasiveness, and large impact it would have on the buffer. Impacts caused by trench installation will be restored. The project is avoiding the use of heavy, destructive construction equipment such as a back hoe to install the drain. Instead, a MX502 December 12,200.6 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 2 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan ditch witch is proposed to be used. This machine can dig to the required depth and only has a footprint of five feet. The proposed interceptor drain will be approximately ten feet deep and eighteen inches wide. The majority of the trench will be backfilled with gravel; the top 12 inches of the trench will be backfilled with native soil. Damage to the buffer (soil compaction, vegetation removal) caused by equipment tracks will be restored(described below in Section 4.0), as a result,the buffer will not be permanently altered as a result of trench installation. A minor permanent impact, a 10' x10' quarry spall splash pad will be placed to prevent erosion. To mitigate for this impact, enhancement with black twin-berry plants will be planted around the splash pad, which will further prevent erosion. Temporary erosion control measures will be implemented to protect the wetland, stream, and buffers during construction activities. A silt fence will be installed at the edge of the areas proposed for disturbance. Following soil disturbing activities, all areas of bare soil will be seeded with a native grass (Festuca rubra). The silt fence shall remain until the grass has become established. 3.1.1 Hydrology Evaluation 'Two interceptor drains are proposed to be installed; one drain immediately adjacent to the condominium buildings on both the west and east sides of the complex. Both drains will discharge into the wetlands located north of the condominium complex. To understand the effects of the drains, the project geologist and engineer(from GeoEngineers) were consulted for information regarding anticipated flow quantities in the drains and general water movement in ' the area. As a result of information from GeoEngineers as well as my own observations, negative impacts to the wetlands are not anticipated for following reasons: • The discharge point is following the natural direction of water flow on the site. In the present condition, water is getting trapped in the building foundation; with installation of the drains water will flow towards the wetlands. • The drains are expected to have relatively low flows, less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm). The drains may introduce slightly more water into the wetlands, although the low flow volumes should be rather insignificant compared to the overall large size of the wetland system located north and west of the site. • The discharge points will be located in a relatively flat area thereby avoiding steep slopes and limiting the possibility of erosion. The discharge areas are also fully vegetated with both woody and herbaceous vegetation,which will further prevent erosion and any negative impacts to water quality in the wetland. The discharge at the northeast end of the building will be tied into the existing drainage system that disperses water along the concrete retaining wall. • The drains will be located relatively shallowly, only affecting surface drainage in the vicinity of the buildings. Deeper groundwater movement will not be affected by the drains. • The drains will be picking up water that is flowing towards the buildings. Since this water is flowing towards the buildings, it is not providing significant hydrologic support to either the wetland located west of the complex, or the stream located east of the complex. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 3 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan Due to the relatively small amount of expected water flow in the drains,topographical location of the drains in relation to wetlands/steam and the overall size of the wetlands; it is not expected that the project will have any adverse impact on wetlands or streams. 4.0 MITIGATION PLAN The 6,500 sf of area disturbed for the trench will be restored. The few feet closest to the building will be restored to its original state, with lawn grass. The remaining portion will be restored with shrubs,thereby resulting in an improvement over its existing state. The majority of the area where the interceptor drain is proposed is currently vegetated with lawn grasses. The exception is the area east if the most southeasterly building. This area currently is vegetated with large shrubs that were planted for the previous mitigation project. At a minimum, disturbances caused by exempt activities must be returned to their original state 4-3-050(C5). Since the project will cause the removal of a few large shrubs installed in 1999, restoration measures will include planting shrubs in the outer half(stream or wetland side) of the area disturbed by installation of the drain, where ever the drain is located in buffer areas (W-1). Through restoring the area with shrubs, it will mitigate for the loss of the large shrubs at the southeast end. Since the interceptor drain will be installed relatively close to the buildings, enhancing the outer half of disturbance area will still allow for access to, and regular maintenance of the buildings. Approximately 120 sf of area around the splash pad will be enhanced with black twinberry plants,to mitigate for the area of the splash pad, and aid in preventing erosion. 4.1 Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards The following goal and objectives have been created,to summarize how impacts will be mitigated. The performance standards will provide measurable parameters that will be monitored to evaluate and determine if the project has successfully obtained the stated goal and objectives. Goal: Mitigate for 6,500 sf of temporary buffer disturbance by restoring 6,500 sf of buffer and enhance 120 sf of area surrounding the splash pad. Objective A: Increase the density of woody species to improve the structural and biologic diversity of the buffer. Performance Standard A: All plants that die at the end of Year 1 will be replaced. Percent survival of planted woody species must be at least 85% for each subsequent year of the 'monitoring period ,Objective B: Increase the woody vegetation coverage in the mitigation areas through planting of woody species. 'Performance Standard B: A combination of woody native sapling tree and shrub areal coverage will be at least 40%by the end of Year 3. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 4 WilliamsburgCondominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan P g Objective C: Remove and control invasive plants to less than 10% cover in mitigation areas. Performance Standard C: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 10%total cover in the mitigation areas. These species include but are not limited to: Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry,reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, Canada thistle, and creeping nightshade. 4.2 Restoration Measures The enhancement and restoration areas will be treated to reduce impacts from site development on the sensitive areas and increase wildlife habitat value. Enhancement measures will include: 1) decompacting soil in the disturbance area and adding compost, 2)planting the buffers with a variety of native shrubs, and 3) installation of temporary irrigation. Through successful implementation of the enhancement measures, the project will satisfy the goals &objectives in Section 4.1. 4.2.1 Soil Decompaction and Compost Addition Soil compacted by activities relating to drain-installation will be decompacted by rototilling to a depth of 8 inches. Since the area will have dirt that is churned up from depths of up to ten feet, compost addition is proposed since the resulting soil will likely require amending to make it an appropriate planting medium. Four inches of compost shall be added to the area prior to planting. 4.2.2 Planting The plant species depicted on the mitigation plan were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife,value as a physical or visual barrier, pattern of growth(structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Plant materials may consist of a combination of bare-root shrubs (during the dormant season) and container plants. Plants shall not be installed during the dry, summer months (June through September). 4.2.3 Temporary Irrigation System An above ground temporary irrigation system must be installed to provide irrigation to mitigation plantings during the dry season. At a minimum,the system must be operational for the first year following installation. If a significant number of plants die,replacement plantings must also be irrigated for their first year following installation. Mitigation areas shall be irrigated between June 15 (or earlier if needed) and October 15. The irrigation system shall be programmed to provide 1" of water per week. 5.0 FUNCTIONS and VALUES The functions and values that wetlands and buffers provide include: a)water quality maintenance, b) stormwater storage and conveyance, c) ground water recharge, d)providing wildlife habitat, and e) aesthetic and other functions valued by humans. This project is not expected adversely impact these functions and values of either the wetland or the stream buffer. Since the existing conditions of the site include buildings that are already constructed on the edges of the buffers,the construction of an interceptor trench on the outer edge of the buffer is a December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 5 it Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan minor impact. No change is expected with regards the water quality,hydrologic, or groundwater recharge functions of the wetlands or stream buffers. With the exception of one area, most of the areas proposed for disturbance are vegetated with lawn grasses. Some minor loss in habitat value due to the noise during construction of the interceptor drain and loss of shrubs in the one area is expected. However,through the proposed planting,these negative affects will be mitigated. Overall,the addition of shrubs will provide a slight increase in the habitat value of the buffers as the plants mature. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION/SPECIFICATIONS • Prior to construction,temporary erosion and sedimentation controls shall be in place (i.e., silt fences). • Species substitution shall not be made without approval of wetland biologist. • Plants shall be locally grown(western Washington or Oregon), of normal health,vigorous, and free of weeds, diseases, insects, insect eggs and larvae. Plants may be a combination of container plants and bare root. • Container grown plants shall not be loose in container and shall not be pot-bound. • B&B plant material shall not have cracked or mushroomed root balls. Root balls shall be firm, natural balls of earth of sufficient size to encompass the fibrous and feeding rooting system necessary for establishment and health of plant. • Do not prune plants prior to delivery or planting. • Take all precautions and customary good trade practices in preparing plants for transport. Cover plants transported on open vehicles with a protective covering to prevent wind burn. • Protect plants from drying out. Bare root plant material shall have their roots kept moist at all times. Protect from freezing, wind, and sun. Keep roots covered with sawdust, compost, or soil at all times. Water plants as necessary. • Water plants within 24 hours of planting. • Provide mulch rings around shrubs and trees, 24 inches in diameter,three inches in depth. Mulch may be compost, bark, or wood chips. • All receipts for labor and materials shall be retained for submittal to the City if requested. • The surety device holder shall replace any plants that die within the first year following approval of installation. Shrub and Tree Sources Storm Lake Growers Tadpole Haven Native Fourth Corner Nursery Sound Native Monroe, WA Plants Bellingham, WA Plants '360-794-4842 Woodinville, WA 360-592-2250 Olympia, WA 425-788-6100 306-352-4122 Seed Sources Plantas Nativa Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration Inside Passage Seeds Bellingham, WA Langley, WA Port Townsend, WA 360-715-9655 360-579-2332 360-385-6114 6.1 Post-Construction Assessment A post-construction assessment conducted by Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC,will be conducted upon completion of the mitigation plan construction. A report including as-built drawings will be submitted to the City. The purpose of this assessment will be to determine December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 6 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan whether the site conditions are consistent with the approved plan and to establish baseline conditions for future monitoring. 7.0 MONITORING PROGRAM Performance monitoring of the mitigation areas will be conducted by a qualified biologist, for a minimum of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the schedule presented in Table 1. Table 1. Schedule of Performance Monitoring Events Year Date Maintenance Performance Report Due to Review Monitoring City Spring X X X* 1 Summer X X X Fall X X X Winter X X X 2 Spring Fall X X X 3 Spring Fall X X X _ 4 Spring Fall X X X • 5 Spring Fall X X X** *First monitoring visit will serve as the baseline assessment. **Request City-approval and facilitate release of the surety device (presumes performance criteria are met). 7.1 Reports Each monitoring report will include: a) estimates of percent vegetative cover,plant survival, and invasive species, b) wildlife usage, c) water quality and hydrology, d) site stability, e) photo- documentation, f) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the mitigation areas, g) methodology, and h) maintenance recommendations. If the performance criteria are met, monitoring will cease after the fifth year, unless objectives are met at an earlier date and the City accepts the mitigation project as successfully completed. 7.2 Methods for Monitoring the Performance Standards Each monitoring report will include an evaluation of the mitigation project to ensure that the goals,objectives, and performance standards (as stated in Section 4.1) of the project are being met. The methods that will be employed and evaluated during each performance monitoring event are listed below as they pertain to each objective. Performance Standard A Methods: Permanent transects, 50 feet long and eight feet wide, will be established during the baseline assessment at two locations within the enhancement/restoration areas. During monitoring events, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation will be evaluated within each of these sampling locations. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 7 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan Plant survival will be evaluated within each of the sampling transect locations. Percent survival of shrubs will be evaluated in a eight-foot belt along the established transect. The species and location of shrubs and trees within this belt will be recorded, and will be evaluated during each monitoring event to determine percent survival. Performance Standard B Methods: Percent areal cover of shrubs will be evaluated in the three transects through the use of point-intercept sampling methodology. Using this methodology, a tape is extended between two permanent markers. Shrubs intercepted by the tape will be identified, and the intercept distance recorded. Percent areal cover by species will then be calculated by adding the intercept distances and expressed as a total proportion of the tape length. Herbaceous vegetation coverage will be visually estimated in the transects. Performance Standard C Methods: During monitoring events, undesirable plant species will also be measured within each sampling location. Invasive plants will be maintained at levels below 10%total cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasive, e.g., Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, Scot's broom,morning glory, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, etc. is permissible in any monitoring year. Mitigation sites should be maintained within these standards throughout the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. . 7.3 Hydrology and Site Stability During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the mitigation areas to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within the wetland and buffer areas. Specifically,the site will be examined to ensure that there are no erosion problems on the slopes adjacent to the wetland. 7.4 Photo Documentation A series of color photographs representing panoramic views of the mitigation areas will be taken during each monitoring event. Photographs will be included with the performance monitoring reports. 8.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY(C) Maintenance will be performed regularly to address any conditions that could jeopardize the success of the mitigation areas. During monitoring events, any maintenance items requiring attention will be identified and reported to the property owner. Maintenance items requiring attention shall be completed within 45 days of the monitoring event. Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results to judge the success of the mitigation project. If there is a significant problem with the mitigation achieving its performance standards,the surety devise-holder shall work with the City to develop a Contingency Plan. Contingency plans can include,but are not limited to: regarding, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions of type, size, quantity, and location. Such contingency Plan shall be submitted to the City by December 31st of any year when deficiencies are discovered. December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 8 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan Contingency and maintenance items may include many of the items listed below and would be implemented if performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event(unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • During year one, replace all dead plant material. (M) • Water all plantings at a rate of 1" of water at least every week between June 15 —September 15 during the first year after installation, and for the first year after any replacement plantings. (C &M) • Replace dead plants with.the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the mitigation plan, subject to the approval of the wetland biologist. (C) • Re-plant area after reason for failure has been identified(e.g.,moisture regime,poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions,wildlife damage, etc.). (C) • Weed trees and shrubs to the drip line, by hand. Do not use mechanized devices,herbicides, or pesticides. Maintain mulch rings around trees and shrubs at a depth of 3 inches. (M) • Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry,purple loosestrife, etc.). All non-native vegetation must be removed and dumped off site. (C &M) • Clean up trash and other debris. (M) • Selectively thin volunteer species (such as alder)to preserve species diversity. (M) 9.0 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES A performance surety device in the amount of 150% of the cost of installation will be required by the City to ensure installation of the mitigation project. A maintenance/monitoring surety device will be required to ensure the structures, improvements and mitigation for a minimum of 5 years. The maintenance/monitoring surety device will be 125% of the contract amounts (per administration determination) for the maintenance/monitoring of the mitigation area. • December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting, LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 9 Williamsburg Condominiums Stream/Wetland Report and Mitigation Plan 10.0 REFERENCES Corke Amento, Inc. 2006. Outline for Geotech Proposal. October 25. Cowardin, L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 � pp. Renton, City of 2005. Critical Areas Regulations. • December 12,2006 Aquatica Environmental Consulting,LLC 06-044-Buffer-Mit-Rpt(Rev.March 1,2007) Page 10 APPENDIX A Statement of Qualifications of Author Teresa Opolka SUMMARY OF Over eight years experience as a wetland ecologist, consultant, and botanist in the QUALIFICATIONS Puget Sound Region. Expertise includes technical writing,wetland delineations, ordinary high water mark determinations, groundwater monitoring and analysis, functional value assessments,biological assessments,permitting and botanical sampling. . ' Wetland and Stream Delineations _ • Assessed over 1,600 acres of land in the Puget Sound Region for the presence/absence of wetlands, streams, and sensitive wildlife. Delineated over 150 wetlands with a high rate of agency acceptance. Technical Writing and Permitting • Prepared over eighty technical documents in 20 jurisdictions for permit submittal in western Washington. Includes preparation of Critical Area Reports,Mitigation Reports and Plans, Functional Value Assessments,Biological Evaluations,JARPA applications and Wildlife Assessments. ' Performance Monitoring • Monitored over 40 projects in 18 jurisdictions within Washington State. Hydrologic Assessments • Designed and implemented shallow groundwater studies to determine wetland/upland boundaries on 15 projects where site conditions were disturbed as a result of modifications to the hydrology, • soil, or vegetation. EDUCATION B.S.Biology, Seattle University, 1998 TRAINING Wetland Training Institute • Advanced Hydric Soils(May 2006) University of Washington • Wetland and Upland Habitat Restoration Design(April 2006) Coastal Training Program/Department of Ecology • Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington(May 2005) • • Ordinary High Water Mark Determination Training(May 2003) Richard Chinn Environmental Training • Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Training Course,Richard Chinn Environmental Training,Inc. (January 2002) Everett Community College • Introduction to Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes(Fall 2003) APPENDIX B Wetland Test Plot Data Project/Site: Williamsburg Condominiums Date: 6 December 2006 Applicant/Owner: Corke Amento, Inc. County: King Investigator: T.Opolka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: PFO Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 2 Is the area a potential Problem Area(If needed,explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#1 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Status Rubus spectabilis S FACW Alnus rubra T FAC Equisetum telmateia H FACW Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: >50%of dominant veg. is fac or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: 0 Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database El Morphological adaptations 0 Technical literature ❑ Personal knowledge of regional plant communities 0 Other(explain) HYDROLOGY Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Is it the growing season? 0 Yes ® No Depth to free water 6" Based on: 0 Soil temp(record temp) Depth to saturated soil to surface ® Other(explain): soil survey Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators(minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated ❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ® Saturated in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Water-stained leaves ❑ Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data ❑ Drift lines 0 FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits ❑ Other 1 ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators present ' SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,6-15%slopes Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts mapped type? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure,etc 0-18" 10YR 2/1 none N/A sandy silt loam Hydric Soil Indicators: El Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma . 2 with mottles 0 Histic epipedon 0 Mg or FE concretions El Sulfidic odor 0 High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils ❑ Aquic moisture regime El Listed on National Hydric Soils List El Reducing conditions El Oxidized root channels ® Gleyed or low chroma(=1)matrix ❑ Other( ) Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators present ' WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a Yes Wetland hydrology present? Yes All three criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? Yes - Project/Site: Williamsburg Condominiums Date: 6 December 2006 Applicant/Owner: Corke Amento, Inc. County: King Investigator: T.Opolka State: Washington Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: upland forest Q Transect ID: 1 Is the area a potential Problem Area(If needed,explain on reverse)? No Plot ID: TP#2 VEGETATION Plant species Stratum Indicator Plant species Stratum Indicator Status Status Rubus spectabilis S FAC+ Equisetum telmateia H FACW Polystichum munitum H FACU Percent of dominant species that are OBL,FACW,or FAC:66% Criterion Met? Yes Rationale/Remarks: >50%of dominant veg.is fac or wetter Check all Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators that apply and explain: 0 Physiological/reproductive adaptations ❑ Plant growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ❑ Technical literature El Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Other(explain) HYDROLOGY ' Field Observations: Depth of surface water none Is it the growing season? El Yes ® No ' Depth to free water none @ 18" Based on: 0 Soil temp(record temp) Depth to saturated soil none @ 18" Z Other(explain): soil survey ' Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators(minimum 2 required): ❑ Inundated 0 Oxidized root channels in upper 12in/30cm ❑ Saturated in upper 12in/30cm El Water-stained leaves El Water marks ❑ Local soil survey data • ❑ Drift lines El FAC-neutral test ❑ Sediment deposits 0 Other ❑ Drainage patterns in wetland Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: Positive indicators not present . SOILS Map unit name Alderwood/Agc Drainage class moderately well drained (Series and phase) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,6-15%slopes Field Observations confirm Taxonomy (subgroup) Entic durochrepts mapped type? No Profile Description: Matrix colors Mottle colors Mottle abundance/contrast Texture, Depth (Munsell moist) (Munsell moist) concretions, structure,etc 0-14" 10YR 2/2 none n/a sandy loam 14-18" 10YR 3/4 none n/a sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma <_2 with mottles ❑ Histic epipedon ❑ Mg or FE concretions ❑ Sulfidic odor ❑ High organic content in surface layer in sandy soils El Aquic moisture regime El Listed on National Hydric Soils List El Reducing conditions ❑ Oxidized root channels ❑ Gleyed or low chroma(=1)matrix 0 Other( ) Criterion Met? No Rationale/Remarks: positive indicators not present ' WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland vegetation present? Yes Remarks: Is this sampling point within a No Wetland hydrology present? No Only one criteria met wetland? Hydric soils present? No APPENDIX C Full Size Plan Sheets I ' Tri Delt ,- '• Edwin Stone ._ Paul and Para Miller .. 6840-112th Avenue SE 744 Belmont Place East 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE \ Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98102 ; Renton,WA 98056 , Marty and Mike Roberts Dave and Monica Lafever Hal Brandt 3925 Lincoln Avenue NE 3915 Lincoln Avenue NE 12727 SE 63rd Street Renton',WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue,WA 98006 Pamela Mullen Peter Johnson Blair Baummer 5320-242nd Place NE Port Quendall Storage 3636 Lincoln Avenue NE Redmond,WA 98053 PO Box 744 Renton,WA 98056 Kirkland,WA 988083 Pat Dana Sheri Waddington Gordon Donnell 5219 Ripley Lane North 2332 NE 31st Street PO Box 2576 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Frank and Rose Falaniko Richard and Teri Brunory Margaret Nielsen 2224 NE 31st Street 3866 Monterey Place NE 3835 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Rober Urbaniak Sue Bollinger Lisa Brick Eastside Commercial,Inc. 3812 Monterey Place NE 4006 Lincoln Avenue NE • 1020-108th Avenue NE,#109 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue,WA 98004 1 Kimberly Swanson Nancy Crisp Gene Jackson 1909 NE 36th Street 2100 NE 31st Street ' . 1909 NE 36th Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 1 C Ralph Shaw Jim and Lynn Bisset I Andy and Beth Alexander 3935 Monterey Place NE 3901 Lincoln Avenue NE ( . ' 2336 NE 31st Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 L ' Renton,WA 98056 Clem Heath 1605 Boyslton Avenue Seattle,WA 98122 %?..loss GC -7cc..ord 100.5 "107 w u 107. i NI - 95b o r.e wi f ut.o o D I on- i ru e.o i i.,` Ipz6�/ 3tv� \ � --'Oci 1 a %/i Q al I it �" � , t1, ic•� is 1�O. O� 1 �I I Z� I1 �V - I ` T- • I `° a ` N N IV tit e. N.I r, - 1 O � l Ir I O r _ N L/MJTED ACCESS s :..:::........ ..... Z-:... TER < Tom; m 0 I 6.„,_ .1 pSSi 39 y 7 ; 73NNTHJ vrool '�" ...... ... 320.84 20 23 9. 205. 3 T oIt) • �z .N / I I 609.66 D ff a� i 1 I \ .l N.a CD I O � wo= Eto m SKI ul : � P o `I�A K � D O �! � -�i R 'Er C R' E 0 N Q.• E P11'�i / e�� li D S' ,. � I 2 I 107.fi 82.6• 5 25� Io7.6 0. q 329..,5 964.03 n ::.\___ 69.1 134.5 loafi )� I667.az ----'- ----- ---------- -- -- S'ek -tD-(J1 I:::. o __ _-- -__-= RENTON JONES:,CORPORATE LIMIT. AV E N E ��� ' i.' - -�0 - 255 ;; .•' e I2.7_1', 127.5 1 j Ilo I I r145 255 I I 169.5 3'416 o �70- _ 253.33 210.83 �5`' .Si: '' i /1 I 1 I 30130 `���'' :::r::::':. ... m -0 lij1, tt hAI / m III I 1 S o "" .._ .. r -6�r fL�J , 1 I I 1 1 w r I� %i' � , a III ` •.;,\ �ACCE5S-► t.I :i • LINCOLN `" N ev ry R10 u I m a.y titi j I -'..U;�8 _�.r`+' 11,SI-\ I lei9.3q ww m 2~ --- 1a G1 O (u Qo• - '-- ---"� I 1g462 min IV I, (71 m I (n d t° t I Z I d '• a, h _ ^ '� P -169.59 ,5'vr4c,rr FgsE.newr 346.9 52 27 i.......: 2. 162 I65 �� 21p.83 W'254• zss T -- •A 135 RO 765 16.5 �/ - zz 343.46 m 1.(� •' 106.71 {1 8, U7 A A v 6z4 8S6 I50 N I t rn B - i&n m N D $ 1 'v m O 0 1 n 6 2 44 �.I I h,54 • Z iro r., J CO W N m N 0 9 I a, i w . 1 N °I , ry • N T I //� g, < in 0. Poi 1i l E+ _ , ..': _ _ 162 I65 133.33 / / i�p 210.83 105 150 : 765 l65 102 170 216.8� 6U 121.12 isime�r/// 255 Z55 : (2 91 \� SJS % -❑ LINCOLN AVE. N.E:I aoEa{`'== NOT o OPEN -y LINCOLN AVE. N.E. =3��nv M1O0 ° `,��, C prii- �° - _22 25595 60 I .. I: ii - �'� 0 win 120.13 I 126 // 225 / �l' z �� GO ��r, o �i m - =- '' ��� 1 • .� o I • I Z I- \•gyp j ^'------J-- `J= as r‘i i rip ---L----- N � _; L�155 - -75 J w - ='-'JL1 t---- o O 2 • h. C 267.99 •�O :� rm % ° Z zs s W Z 242d3 225 �' 2#S r 444 I AP .16 �I 255 O {0 .1 411.11MIIIIIIIIF (0 co to cn I w 1 n, V � k7 • co N ��. '' U W 6,o V Co Z v P ti O .1 ❑ 60 / ❑ 238.73 / (255) 85 I 110 155 IOo 6 255 255 135 I 120 270.65 (� w 634.7'7 NO F+-� NOT OPEN �- - C �7 0 G--1 (, ' J ❑,E3 qNOT N C. c r-o 1}�. ... �. P -_i 0 Q 0 0 l I ❑ .---' 7 O 9 q O t�TO fl ❑ O O +_' r-r Q O ❑ Q ❑ L 30 i ❑ ❑ C� = '.zs bo Iso.lbIso.n ISO.Ifi Iso.n 100.11 333;46 NEWPORT 333.4 HILLS CORPORATE 661� LIMIT OPEN 7 112TH ' AVE. / 6 - -iv --- - ----------- - .. - _ .._..-------'---- ----- -- .--- - • 67.583 n - I 167.583 0 /�\\ /Zd�Cb 2660\ s u°°i in ,� I I 0 I y - 1 1 ' / \Y ``�'Z� C a t a� ;93 60 ;7 O n ) rub / 4,0g1' .y w °?B r684 �9 rev /2 $ I fl (D I - I d • I /I2 _- Hl£II i •�- eftMla . 141 ri ... ). ) 1 I g • JONES e AVE. „ N.,E. s€ 253 31 ZS) y" icoLN . . ii. (,.) Ct. I' ::I\l'e , .., . i i ..1" __ . •e... - , ,.. t' , 0 ''' A , -, Lt I —Ds°1 . ,,,rri 33 9 "' ., .. - -,. . .,, = . la ,.•,.. - < E7 F iv ..: 1 —!. f. ,„5 ... : .:.. ... z , i L ..0 .. ,.. .c, .., --: „, .... ,.., It5.91, -.i COLN AVE. N..E.1-:,.•,r-:-..: I . N.,, ,' v°°.'" ,LINCOLN AVE. ti.E., i SO 1 12 Z 'cvz ,,,v,„,-c.''' 1,...,0 . z 1 E.... ..../ 51:, ch co 10 . .3-,Y)° 5 ...fal -.4 s L arta__ 21J 6, DJ —I 1 ri . - i • • = ,i, • • .1 '% 1 ' 'N6 1 .;, '-,G1 .it. ,,,% 0, .. 6' I l.0 co (1, ••:. rri z co 1 i0 4: , .... = . ...n ens) • es • .•0 752 . 24, , ao 1 IMO 1, ""- '"'' EASTSIDE COMMER , ,:j \L , INC. 1020 108TH AVENUE NE, SUITE 109 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 451-8487 FAX (206) 451-8467 DEVELOPMENT NCITY OF p NING P1AR 0 3 1997 February 28, 1997 RE ..-421VED City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Street Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: Williamsburg Condominiums Dear Sirs, I have received information describing the proposed Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-ECF,SA that would be located at 4000 Lincoln Ave NE. In general the concept of condominiums on the subject property is acceptable to me as proposed. Even though the present zoning does not encourage this use it is felt that the relative remote location of the subject property does not appear to significantly detract from the projected retail/office development of the zoned property to the North and West. Because of the significant increase of impervious area of the proposed application, it appears that our property downstream from the subject property will be impacted by the attendant increase in water volume and definitely by the longer duration of water drainage. Our property over the years has been increasingly adversely impacted by the upstream generated surface water. This negative impact could be lessened by relocating the present drainage way as shown on the attached exhibit. This relocation is also favored by Mr Clem Heath who owns the property West of us. It is our collective opinion that this would correct current flooding that now occurs on his Easterly parking area and his most Southerly&Easterly building and storage area. While reviewing the subject application we also took the liberty of sketching our ' recommended drainage relocation should property on the hillside East of our subject property eventually develop. Implementation of this recommendation may be addressed at a later time. In other respect our review of the subject proposal remains favorable. Sincerely, Roger Urbaniak 02/'28/199 15: 83 216=562-4854 HAL BRANDT PAGE 02 ' l? ` • w• _1/4 • • tic iST' /C CocRSe •� -� --4 -- Pats IVSSCD /PCLa'C4T/v" . ... •.;;;" ,,,..ss,.;•.',' , I ....(4-51, • . „32 • —.:N.E_- — •— 44 H ...o.. a—St - r . . 11EV. . d 80TH PEx'••I. T d,I =r 0 , I'.Y P I I I 1 r.: I; jJ1 I �'4 1 i _. I ,� I' I 'J !i- I w • -1 ,�Qom• _w "k�- `4 /.. G( ` '' P. I .ik 4k. I ...-'s t i ® ----ya r— 244.1t i 1, r�- , .T �: �� wo '' 1*.' __ ' It l', —I , ,..., I \ r I r \ (�11sA' I C v. 4add r kJ if ll " • •4--74•••.. 24v*.4-• , —,.—.1--:' ice------ J -Lij v `I se ' 71 r. 1 ` { 1 w� wi i__ -.W_ ffOT Ihr,y L LJ JI`1 _ Y Y •• 4" ._ —_ rl L. \ 10 :',,' 9 . _ __ _ ., NOf }-�— n,•/ .1 COR..ORATE 1' •. 'fot 4. {1/." - I * —3•} .. _� Ate., � • - - FBI S` A. Q ® •1 , E __...... —_ ,per,,._ (l�r —nog—_ • 1 D la/ 1 s N :ill ....c• 7 0 1 4, a A137 IA iiii 1 1 r 4Ilt ' I.• 1 ,.!I L...- ..t.. _ N• .4 I ♦ _ ._ —y- ._- ._ _- _._�_r c I . z { 1 ' . .............................................:... i iP >` Pilil.......iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :>::::<:IIIi: ::>::<::i:. ::>:::;<:>::»>:.::.:»:::.;::>::;»>«;.».: :>:: :.:.:: E! LAN ING.DI . :>:«<:>:::::::;:l::>:::>::::::>;:.;::»»::;:;::::»>:>:::::»>::>::::::::«<:::»:;:::>:_>:<::>:::............. . DAVL ... F..SERVICE..B.Y.MA ......... . On the 2.04& day of • , 1997, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing • eRL c tevtn‘lvvlil(f1AS documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology . • Dick Anderson Department of Transportation KC Water Pollution Control Metro Department • of Wildlife • Larry Fisher Department of Fisheries i David Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Sue Rumery City of Seattle 1 . Duwamish Indian Tribe - Rod Malcom, Fisheries Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • Rita Perstac Puget Power . (S)gnature of Sender) StAJAAUL V—. ,r STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that E zrt g& fr. e 2 'signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for Ifie uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.- Dated: 9'' • �0 l�i q `t/ 7r�-v�- Notary Pu c in and for the State ashington • N/ .,:.t .. .. Notary (Print))1,Q R i'I yvK/f 9 Mc, A e•-(--C '; :A'' • -n • My appointment expires (D.- 7:. 9 5. •J * t%L ! fg%j Nag e: Wi11 rr1 „ . .... �0.1M���v� Cohdow��v�t�vvLS Project Number: it* + I G44` 5A a NOTARY.DOC I I ;y 1. CIT'A. OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department 'Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 18, 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 18, 1997: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF • The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. Location: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on March 10, 1997. Following the end of the comment and appeal period,the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a re-evaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's ERC are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone E 235-2550. If you have questions, please call me at (206) 277-5586. For the Environmental Review Committee, OW," Mark R. Pyw ICP Project Ma er cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro ' Department of Wildlife '; Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Sue Rumery, City of Seattle I Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power AGNCYLTR.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 C�CI Thic nanar rnnfainc F(1%rarvrlarl malarial 5n/nnce rnncl imar ! �% - CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 18, 1997 • Mr. Mark Goldberg SDA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way NE Suite#1607 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums Project No. LUA-96-164,SA,ECF Dear Mr. Goldberg: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on February 18, 1997, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated. See enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation.measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals (including the applicant) who may-have an interest in the Committee's decision. The required 14 day appeal period will run concurrently with the comment period. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on March 10, 1997. Following the end of the comment and appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination, unless comments received require a re-evaluation. WAC 197-11-660 states that the responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the imposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project, any mitigation measure established by the ERC not directly attributable to an identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. Staff urges you to contact the various City representatives, as appropriate, (e.g., the Public Works Division) as soon as possible, to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. Appeal procedures and mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to.make specific factual objections. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on March 11, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval (SA). The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206) 277-5586. For the Environmeral Review Committee, gokif Mark R. Pyw , AICP ' Project Manager cc: Parties of Record Enclosure DNSMLTR.DOC ' 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,SA,ECF APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE • MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands, the areas that will be filled as part of this project, the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands, the treatment of the buffer areas, a five year monitoring plan, and identify the party responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. 2. The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. • 3. The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this area to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. i 4. The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of$388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at $24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). 5. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. 6. The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport, the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. 7. The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property, with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,SA,ECF APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking ;spaces. ' LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. GENERAL NOTES 1. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 69.12 calls for service annually. Police staff recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (Burglary of construction sites is qne of our most common crimes lately). The lot should be fenced in during the construction phase of the project with the use of security lighting. 2. The elevationsthat were submitted show that the front door in each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistance glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. 3. The front doors should be fitted with dead-bolt locks with bolts 1 1/2" in length. 4. Addresses on the buildings need to,be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the wall color, and located under a light. 5. Stairwells,the areas around the garages, and parking lots are areas we recommend to have extra security lighting. 6. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Police staff recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible to parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. 7. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespasses off the property and provides security to the residents. Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,SA,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Page-2- • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-hour construction is 2250 GPM. If construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Plans will need to be submitted with application for building permits for sales location and method of protecting the public during sales from the rest of the site still under construction. Occupancy will be approved for each completed and approved building only. 2. Soils engineer to supervise all grading, footing excavations. • 3. Structural engineer shall design all foundation and retaining walls per the soils report. WATER UTILITY 1. There is a 12"watermain in N 40th Street. There is a 12"watermain in Lincoln Ave. NE south of N 40th Street. 2. The construction drawings shall locate the watermain in the driving lane. Fire hydrants shall be located unobstructed by trees and landscaping: 3. The conceptual plan for water is not approved. The watermain shall be extended past Building F out the access road and connected to watermain extension in Lincoln. The fire hydrant location shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention Bureau. SURFACE WATER UTILITY 1. There is an existing 8"sanitary sewer in Lincoln Ave. NE. 2. The site is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area. 3. The storm site plan submitted by the applicant appears to be making adequate provisions for a storm water drainage system. Detailed construction drawings may require modifications to pipe sizing and conveyance pipe location. WASTEWATER UTILITY sewer a sanitarysystem on-site to serve the site. Thisstem will be a s 1. This project will constructyY private system. Service to the on-site system will be provided as agreed upon by the City of Renton and Coal Creek Utility District. If the City of Renton is the provider the City will collect the SDC (Special Development Charges) fees. AIRPORT MANAGER 1. The project site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157' above sea level, this is below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level. A notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits because the construction exceeds the imaginary slope of 100:1 from the airport. 2. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an Avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. 3. If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. ' I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,SA,ECF APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. I LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE LEADjAGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on March 10, 1997. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor,1Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. i A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on March 11, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval (SA). If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. i PUBLICATION DATE: February 21, 1997 DATE OF DECISION: February 18, 1997 SIGNATURES: .6j9./. reggfilfR,Pilf/ 71 2—//14/q2 i i mer ad, Administrator DATE Depart n f Planning/Building/Public Works \-,, 1 ---) Ldvrk V?7 Sam Chastain, Admi strator DATE (z Community Servic epartment ' , A. , ....2 - /0P-- 97 4 %ce DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIIG.DOC DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,SA,ECF APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a.62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One_hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands,the areas that will be filled as part of this project, the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands, the treatment of the buffer areas, a five year monitoring plan, and identify the party responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. 2. The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this area to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of$388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). 5. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. 6. The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport, the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. 7. The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property, with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,SA,ECF APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to .construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats,in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information.,only, they are not subject to the appeal process for:environmental determinations. GENERAL NOTES 1. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 69.12 calls for service annually. Police staff recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (Burglary of construction sites is one of our most common crimes lately). The lot should be fenced in during the construction phase of the project with the use of security lighting. 2. The elevations that were submitted show that the front door in each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistance glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. 3. The front doors should be fitted with dead-bolt locks with bolts 1 1/2" in length. 4. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the wall color, and located under a light. 5. Stairwells, the areas around the garages, and parking lots are areas we recommend to have extra security lighting. 6. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Police staff recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible to parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. 7. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespasses off the property and provides security to the residents. • ' Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,SA,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Page-2- FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-hour construction is 2250 GPM. If construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Plans will need to be submitted with application for building permits for sales location and method of protecting the public during sales from the rest of the site still under construction. Occupancy will be approved for each completed and approved building only. 2. Soils engineer to supervise all grading, footing excavations. 3. Structural engineer shall design all foundation and retaining walls per the soils report. WATER UTILITY 1. There is a 12"watermain in N 40th Street. There is a 12"watermain in Lincoln Ave. NE south of N 40th Street. 2. The construction drawings shall locate the watermain in the driving lane. Fire hydrants shall be located unobstructed by trees and landscaping. 3. The conceptual plan for water is not approved. The watermain shall be extended past Building F out the access road and connected to watermain extension in Lincoln. The fire hydrant location shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention Bureau. • SURFACE WATER UTILITY 1. There is an existing 8"sanitary sewer in Lincoln Ave. NE. 2. The site is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area. 3. The storm site plan submitted by the applicant appears to be making adequate provisions for a storm water drainage system. Detailed construction drawings may require modifications to pipe sizing and conveyance pipe location. WASTEWATER UTILITY 1. This project will construct a sanitary sewer system on-site to serve the site. This system will be a private system. Service to the on-site system will be provided as agreed upon by the City of Renton and Coal Creek Utility District. If the City of Renton is the provider the City will collect the SDC (Special Development Charges) fees. • AIRPORT MANAGER 1. The project site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157' above sea level,this is below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level. A notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits because the construction exceeds the imaginary slope of 100:1 from the airport. 2. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an Avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. 3. If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the-operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. , , , • NoTicE . ' IMOTlOE . __ _, . . .. . . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION&PUBLIC HEARING , POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS , _ PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96.164,SA,ECF Proposal to construct a 82 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes In seven buildings and . 28 gals In two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided In garages with an • additional 18 open parking spaces.Location:4000 Lincoln Avenue NE. • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE'- . ENVIRONMENT. • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. - ® YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON MARCH 10,1997 OR APPEAL • ' THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,MARCH 10.1997.THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. I . PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CITY COUNCIL • CHAMBERS,SECOND FLOOR,CITY HALL ON MARCH 11.1997 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM TO I REVIEW THE SITE APPROVAL(SA). �- 7l® n I:': ti e z ; I 4D , c. ...Hi AN�s , f H -�CF . TNe70N"'— fro-...,. o°!pv p GA-D,E O5sN. �.E11...-t'� I II _ J1'AOOris ON N: — @' ', -v 1 I • •b t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. 1. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION - Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification.': , -__ Rv CETIFICATION -.--- • I, 54,l'Ict, 3o,c -.Scrn ,_hereby certify that 3 copies.of the above document were poste by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Signed: SQL - I STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS . COUNTY OF KING ) • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that SAN DY 7A-cg.,50,"/ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to.be his/her/their free and volun�la cap?,gr•Jhe..uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. - ti •'. • Dated: P�1q i ..1- . ,.,,,,K my L Notary PubIi and fot Stdle(af ias inglori Notary (Print) 4JGLLG My appointment expires: /'9t • NoTARY.DOC _ \ N (C)- 1110E- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-164,SA,ECF Proposal to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. Location: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. 'XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON MARCH 10, 1997 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, MARCH 10, 1997. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL ON MARCH 11, 1997 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM, TO REVIEW THE SITE APPROVAL • (SA). —ux E---93RD—_-- ST-•A -- Er-9 w. 3RD "PL—• 2L j of I .1._ 1Z:9 2 4 7. 4 I'RIO-'1 5 14 „„i C. D. .114:1 AN'S 1= CIg A "' D. 7 8 1 Hs' . A • 1W• . INGTON' .L ,i GA"REEEt , ottyj oy E©EN, _ o - f I,:2001 Ely ' `I V I S al N' 7 Is, G__== 5 _- ._•cam_ y 3 zi _ El' II _ tom S..• S6TH e...g7 `laz a Q' 1 '-zJr 7 _ S 'iik 1110 .=�3, 4 ...__-_Z o\ 1 i • i, Z, zo FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION .. . Please include::the.project NUMBERwh:en"calling;forproperfile identifications:':;:;"r`':;°< `: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE N a dailynewspaper seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a le al RENTON, tal Review w Committee publishedg The Environmental Review Committee newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Significance - Mitigated for the following continuallyproas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCount Washington. The South CountyMunicipalc underC the authority of the Renton Y� 9 Code. 1 Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS State of Washington for KingCounty. LUA-96-164,SA,ECF g Y Environmental review for construction of The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County a 62 unit condominium project. Location: Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers 4000 Lincoln Ave. NE. Theperi- durin the below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a ods for 15 day commenrun day ur appealtland 9 this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 PM on March 10, 1997.Appeal Environmantal Determination and Public Hearing procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's ERC are -available at the Development Services Divi- as published on: 2/21/97 sion, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Ren- ton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. ed for said foregoing publication is the sum of$44.92 You should be prepared to make specific The full amount of the fee charged g 9 factual objections. Legal Number VN2582 The date of Tuesday, March 11, 1997 at �, 9:00 AM, has been set for a public hearing to review the Site Approval(SA). The hear- 0TL 1141 ---) ing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner,will be held in the Coun- cil Chambers on the second floor of City Legalerk, Sou County Jour' al Hall, Renton, Washington. All interested persons are invited to attend. \ C Published in the South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this a. .lay of -3 , 19 1-7 February 21, 1997. 2582 ....,.......1-",...,„Nv. itccUlAWl^ -YY\. '--4 1"14-- -c/Q ��stn', �-: K") w Notary Public of the State of Washington ie-'o`S� QP�J'��/, residing in Renton DEVELOPMENT pi tlN�,nr, e*: N U ^ t, i King County, Washington CITY or Q .•,= G 0•/''o� u 6 ► o o% NAP 1 ='- 1997 '9'F"oF?6.%.2 %�. RE cur WAST��= CE, ipf NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF Environmental review for construction of a 62 unit condominium project. Location: 4000 Lincoln Ave. NE. The 15 day comment/14 day appeal periods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 PM on March 10, 1997. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's ERC ' are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. The date of Tuesday, March 11, 1997 at 9:00 AM, has been set for a public hearing to review the Site Approval (SA). The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. All interested persons are invited to attend. Publication Date: FEBRUARY 21, 1997 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot _ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 1997 TO: MARK PYWELL FROM: NEIL WATTS /V f W SUBJECT: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN As was discussed during the last ERC meeting (2/11/97), there have been flooding problems in the downstream system for this site. The City has recently improved the condition of some of the system through maintenance of existing ditches, but an undersized culvert through the Baxter site on Lake Washington still has limited capacity during larger storm events. The Surface Water Utility is working with the property owner to replace this undersized line, but there is no schedule at this time for its immediate replacement. The additional runoff from the site, and an increased rate for storm events not controlled by standard detention requirements, could result in additional flooding in the downstream system area. Therefore, we recommend that additional detention be required through SEPA to provide storage through the 100 year storm event. No additional downstream mitigation is required. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100 year storm event. This alternative would require work on private property, with approval from the property owner. This recommendation has been discussed with Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who concurs with the proposed mitigation. cc: Ron Straka Arneta Henninger K STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE February 11, 1997 Project Name Williamsburg Condominiums Applicant Kennydale Vista L.L.C. File Number LUA-096-164, SA,ECF Project Manager Mark R. Pywell, AICP Project Description The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. Project Location 4000 Lincoln Ave. NE Exist. Bldg. Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A Site Area 143,612 sf(3.3 acres) Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significant- Mitigated. • a .-- -.-Tit •s N •—.E- •-43RD 7. —St-•—•f=N.Er•—.43RD= u "*sPL:—• •- 4 • W I '-1----- ! •z El 2 I 1 ;i. .,IL a - - ,. iJ 1 ., ' C 4A 0 x 3 Fr. `4--nai a ‘z iiik j RIO- c o . 5 O .,..1 C. D. H-1 •ir: AN'S - I= T w_ z e ,=;,Pi i 1 �. ❑ z 8 to 1-I '-, LA' a• IWAG ,. INGTON' .L.— 2 1 ' 10 7, 9 { Q 2 O . 3 . '0 e.its in A DE ® E 1 EN, - .. r o, 4 , .. . F15 11 Project Location Map ERCRPRT.DOC I = ,�GQ 1 DIVI�SI ON N9- 7 ap • City of Renton PB/PW Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 2 of B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. XX Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands, the areas that will be filled as part of this project, the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands, the treatment of the buffer areas, a five year monitoring plan, and identify the party(ies) responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. 2. The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this area to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of$388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). 5. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. 6. The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport, the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. 7. The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property, with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. ERCRPRT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department E nmental Review Committee Staff Report • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 3 of8 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. GENERAL NOTES 1. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 69.12.calls for service annually. Police staff recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (Burglary of construction sites is one of our most common crimes lately). The lot should be fenced in during the construction phase of the project with the use of security lighting. 2. The elevations that were submitted show that the front door in each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistance glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. 3. The front doors should be fitted with dead-bolt locks with bolts 1 1/2" in length. 4. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the wall color, and located under a light. 5. Stairwells, the areas around the-garages, and parking lots are areas we recommend to have extra security lighting. 6. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Police staff recommend a tot lot to be built on the'grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible to parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. 7. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites,the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespasses off the property and provides security to the residents. FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-hour construction is 2250 GPM. If construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Plans will need to be submitted with application for building permits for sales location and method of protecting the public during sales from the rest of the site still under construction. Occupancy will be approved for each completed and approved building only. 2. Soils engineer to supervise all grading, footing excavations. 3. Structural engineer shall design all foundation and retaining walls per the soils report. WATER UTILITY 1. There is a 12"watermain in N 40th Street. There is a 12"watermain in Lincoln Ave. NE south of N 40th Street. 2. The construction drawings shall locate the watermain in the driving lane. Fire hydrants shall be located unobstructed by trees and landscaping. ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department E mental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 4 of 3. The conceptual plan for water is not approved. The watermain shall be extended past Building F out the access road and connected to watermain extension in Lincoln. The fire hydrant location shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention Bureau. SURFACE WATER UTILITY 1. There is an existing 8"sanitary sewer in Lincoln Ave. NE. 2. The site is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area. 3. The storm site plan submitted by the applicant appears to be making adequate provisions for a storm water drainage system. Detailed construction drawings may require modifications to pipe sizing and conveyance pipe location. WASTEWATER UTILITY 1. This project will construct a sanitary sewer system on-site to serve the site. This system will be a private system. Service to the on-site system will be provided as agreed upon by the City of Renton and Coal Creek Utility District. If the City of Renton is the provider the City will collect the SDC (Special Development Charges) fees. AIRPORT MANAGER 1. The project site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157' above sea level,this is below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level. A notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits because the construction exceeds the imaginary slope of 100:1 from the airport. 2. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an Avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. 3. If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project on a vacant 3.3 acre site. The project site is fairly level and includes wetland areas that will be further described later in this report. Approximately 53.6 % of the site will eventually be covered by the proposed buildings, interior sidewalks, and on-site roadways. Approximately 27% of the site is covered by wetlands, a stream, and the required buffer areas. The remainder of the site will be landscaped. All of the disturbed area will be covered by structures, paving materials, or landscaping upon completion of the project. According to the applicant's engineer for this project there will be 9,000 cubic yards of cut and 8,500 cubic yards of fill. The 500 cubic yards of excess fill material will be distributed throughout the landscaped areas. It is not anticipated that there will be a need for importing or exporting of any fill material. This is proposed as a balanced cut and fill project. The application included a landscaping plan that demonstrates the minimal amount of landscaping on the subject property. Long lengths of the buildings are without any landscaping that could soften the appearance of the site and help the structures blend into the natural landscaping of the area. ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment E nmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 5 of8 Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: N/A 2. Air Impacts: Air quality impacts during the construction phase of the project are associated with the fugitive dust during the grading of the site and potentially lasting until the landscaping is completed during the final phase of the project and with exhaust from construction vehicles and machinery. During the operation phase of the project air quality impacts would be associated with the heating of the buildings and exhaust from vehicles accessing or leaving the project site. The potential impacts during the construction phase of the project will be mitigated to the extent possible by requiring the applicant to sprinkle the site to minimize fugitive dust and to hydroseed or cover any portion of the site that is disturbed during the rough grading of the site and left in an undeveloped state for more than ninety (90) days. The requirement for covering the undeveloped portion(s) of the site is to ensure that the fugitive dust does not become a significant problem for the residences and businesses in the adjacent area. Exhaust from the construction vehicles and equipment is already regulated by state and local regulations. The air quality impacts associated with the heating of the buildings and exhaust from automobiles on-site is already regulated by local, state, and federal standards. The cumulative impacts are monitored regionally by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). At this time it is reported that the air quality in this region is improving. Continued compliance with the standards established by the state and federal agencies will ensure that the continued development of the region will cause a deterioration in the air quality. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 3. Water Impacts: The applicant has provided a preliminary drainage report that has been found acceptable by City staff. Drainage will be collected on site and from the new roadways. Storm water will be detained in an underground system of vaults and then released into a bio-filtration system. The storm water will then be diverted into the natural drainage system for the area. The intent of this system will be to ensure that the project does not cause in increase in the flow rate or cause downstream flooding. The storm water will be released from this site at the same rate or a lower rate than it is released at this time. Due to the increase in impervious area, the duration of the flow may increase but the rate of flow will not increase. The applicant will need to have final design plans approved in accordance with City of Renton requirements and standards. There have been flooding problems in the downstream system for this site. The City has recently improved conditions of some of the system through maintenance of existing ditches, but an undersized culvert through the Baxter site on Lake Washington still has limited capacity during larger storm events. The Surface Water Utility is working with the property owner to replace this undersized line, but there is no schedule at this time for its immediate replacement. The additional runoff from the Williamsburg site, and increased rate for storm events not controlled by standard detention requirements, could result in additional flooding in the downstream system area. City staff recommend that additional detention be required to provide storage for the 100-year event. No additional downstream mitigation is recommend for this project. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property, with approval from the property owner. ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment E, anmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 6 of 8 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property,with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual, Storm & Surface Water Drainage, Environmental Ordinance 4. Wetlands Impacts: There are three wetlands on the project site. Two of the wetlands are Category III wetlands and one of the wetlands has been classified as a Category II wetland. Twenty-five (25) foot wide buffers have been provided around the Category II wetlands. The plans submitted by the applicant indicates that 1,248 square feet of one Category III of the wetlands will be displaced. This is being replaced by 1,360 square feet of wetland for a.net gain of 112 square feet. The wetlands ordinance requires a replacement ratio of 1.5 square feet of wetland for each square foot of wetland that is disturbed or filled in. The applicant will need to provide 1,872 square feet of wetland to replace the wetland that is being filled. The applicant will need to submit a final wetlands mitigation report prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. The applicant is also requesting to use buffer averaging around the Category II wetland. None of the development will come within twenty-five feet of the wetland and the area of the buffer area will remain the.same. This approach appears to be consistent with the intent of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. The applicant has requested administrative approval of this proposal. A decision by the Department Administrator is anticipated prior to the public hearing. There is also a stream located on the subject.property. City ordinance requires a twenty-five foot buffer on each side of the stream. The applicant has shown the appropriate buffer area but a close inspection of these drawing show that the patio of at least one of the units would be located within the buffer area. The applicant will need to adjust the location of the building or unit so that the buffer area remains undisturbed. The applicant will need to submit a revised site plan prior to the issuance of building or construction permits. The applicant will also need to submit a report or plan demonstrating the treatment of the buffer area for the stream. The applicant will need to create a Homeowner's Association to ensure the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document should also contain language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and the associated buffer areas. The documents should also describe the potential penalties for allowing the filling of wetland areas without first obtaining the proper permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands, the areas that will be filled as part of this project, the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands, the treatment of the buffer areas, a five year monitoring plan, and identifying the parties responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this area to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Nexus: Wetlands Management Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment E inmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 7 of 8 5. Public Services Impacts: The City of Renton provides Police and Fire Services to this area. Police Department staff have noted that this is a low crime area but that there are steps, identified in the Notes to Applicant, that should be followed during the construction and operation phase of this project that will deter crime. Fire Prevention Bureau staff have identified the Code-required improvements that will be required on this site. The applicant will also need to submit a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of$388.00 per unit. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated to be$24,056.00. This fee is used to offset the financial impact of the development on the City's fire services. It should be noted that there presently no fire station located in the Kennydale area. The City has two fire stations that can respond to this area and agreements with the adjacent fire districts for mutual aid. In the future, as the Kennydale area continues to develop, additional fire services in this area will be reviewed. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of $388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 6. Transportation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed 62 unit condominium will generate approximately 401.14 trips daily. The applicant will need to provide on-site roadways and the Code-required improvements along the adjacent public streets. In addition the traffic generated by this development will have impacts on the established City transportation system. In order to mitigate these adverse impacts the applicant is required to submit a traffic mitigation fee of$75 per trip generated. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is.$30,085.50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00 = $30,085.50). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units =401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X $75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 7. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The applicant is proposing to construct a 62 unit condominium complex. No recreation facilities or buildings are proposed for the project. The people who move into these units will be using the existing City parks and recreation services. In order to mitigate their impact on these facilities and services the applicant will need to provide a mitigation fee of$345.51 per unit. For a 62 unit complex the fee is calculated at $21,421.62. This fee will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Parks Mitigation Fee of $345.51 per unit for the 62 unit condominium project. This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Nexus: Parks& Recreation Mitigation Fee Resolution, Environmental Review Ordinance 8. Noise Impacts: The Airport Manager has identified the project site as being located within a heavily traveled corridor as planes approach and leave the Renton Municipal Airport. People living in this complex will be subject to noise of aircraft approaching and leaving the airport. The airplanes in this area will be still at an elevation above ground where the noise should not be a significant problem, any noise from aircraft has a tendency to irritate some people. The Airport Manager has requested that either an Avigation agreement or a notice be placed on the deed notifying the future owner of the presence of the airport and associated noise from aircraft flying over head. City staff believes that the appropriate place for these notices would be on the sales brochure and within the Homeowner's Association documents. ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment F ;mmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS - LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:February 11,1997 Page 8 of 8 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport, the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan --Transportation Element E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.. ERCRPRT.DOC a�sT�TE o :..._. ,_y s:r. 5 ? 18B9!O • State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N•Olympia,WA 98501-1091 •(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building•1111 Washington Street SE•Olympia,WA February 21, 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF P` 't', FEB 2 4r'r 97 Mark R. Pywell City of Renton • a. wT1 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept . Ft 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SUBJECT: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated - Williamsburg Condominiums - LUA-96-164, ,SA, ECF, Unnamed Creek, Tributary to Lake Washington, King County, WRIA 08 .MISC Dear Mr . Pywell : The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced document and submits the following comments . A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is required for relocation of the creek, alteration 'of any adjacent wetlands, and outfalling of stormwater to waters of the state from this proposed project. I am disappointed that the requirement to obtain an HPA was not noted in the environmental checklist, since I have already met with 'the applicant ' s consultant at the site . I recommend that • alternatives to relocation of the creek be selected, due to the -probability of significant impacts on the creek if it were relocated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or need additional information, please call me at ( 206 ) 392-9159 . We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpet- uate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Habitat Management Program if cc: WDFW, Muller WDFW, Banyard AUG.04 '97 14:36 2065242927 PAGE 3 HYDRAULIC PROJECT •,,t,41'. :,� APPROVAL eft": ): R.C.W. 73.20,100 t R.C.R. 75.20. 103 OliwiSi0 July 29, 1997 46ii0 DEPARTMENT OF FISHER! (appticant should refer to this dote in ail correspondence) PAO DF 3 PARES LAST WANE .... I CONTACT PHONE(6) ® Goldberg, ark 18 ECONTRDL N eER G gel (206) 524-4846 00-DI423-03 m WATER_unnamed i JWRIA 08.0282 5. Before ,:ter is diverted into the permanent new channel approved aquatic abitat components, streambed materials an pr bank otection to prevt t erosion shall be in place. Aquatic habitat components and bang protection material shall be installed to withstand the 100-yea peak flows. 6. Within ztven calendar days of project completion a .1 disturbed areas s 1 be protected from erosion using vegetation or other means. ithin on® ar of project completion all banks shall be reveget• ed with native or other approved woody species. 7. The an 1 : of the structure used to d vert the stream into the new channel :hall allow a smooth transition of stream flow. 8. Diversio of flow into the new channel shall be accomplished by the follow in. : a) Fir remove the downstream plug. b) Pa tally remove the upstream plug to allow /3 to 1/2 of the flo down the new channel for at least overnight. The old channel shall not be allowed to dewater. c) Rem .ve the rest of the upstream plug once the new channel has flo;• throughout its entire length. d) clo e the upstream end of the old channel and securely armor the, entrance to the old channel to prevent' reentry of any flo , . Armor material shall consist of clelan, angular rock and sha 1 be installed to withstand the 100-year peak flow. 9. Filling f the old channel shall begin from the' pstr am closure and the fill,material shall be compacted. Water discharging from the fill sha 1 not adversely impact fish life. 10. The aquatic habitat log structures shall be of fir or cedar or other approved coniferous species and shall be placed so that they are within tle low flow channel. ' 11. ErosiQn • ontrol methods shall be used toprevent siltation from entering the stream. These may include, ut are not limited to, straw bales filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, chock d ms of pea gray 1-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching ,of exposed areas. 12. If high 'low conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during t ie project, work shall stop until the flow subsides. 13. Extreme . : re hall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydr uli• fluid, fresh cement sediments, sediment laden water, chemical: or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream. iiiWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O. Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206)440-4000 • DATE: July 22, 1997 JL 2 4 kowi TO: Mark Pywell REC....! _ City of Renton, Project Manager / 'd 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 405 MP 7.13 CS 1743 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance-W it liamsburg Condominiums File No.LUA-96-164,ECF,SA FROM: o' rt A. oseph Ti n, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the project, which is located at on the west side of Linconl Drive NE at NE 40th Street. Our response is below: We have reviewed the subject document and have the following comments on the drainage report. The first page of the report does not identifie a reason for overtopping, please address. The second page the problematic culvert system downstream of I-405 is not described, please address. We recommend that the conveyance issue between I-405 and Lake Washington be addressed before the additional imperviouse area is added to the watershed. If you have any questions, please contact Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee IP L-4 v WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COTTINGHAM Supervisor DATE: July 25, 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON TO: Mark Pywell, AICP JUL 2 8 1997 City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Ave South RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 FROM: David John Weiss Resource Protection Specialist South Puget Sound Region SUBJECT REVIEW OF: Williamsburg Condominiums ACTION SPONSOR: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT: Timber Harvest/Land Conversion [] We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. [X] We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following comments: A *forest practices permit will be required for the harvest of timber associated with this project. CC: Dave Dietzman - SEPA Center - DNR SEPA#: 11505 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 28329 SE 448TH ST I PO BOX 68 I ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 I FAX (360)825-1672 I TTY.•(360)825-6381 I TEL:(360)825-1631 ®die Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER() r CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the day of �.I , 1997, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing -1eamn v.o Lv v\ov\e-r - o� documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing cult c) . ) P-D• . 1CexN%Ama e V ts� (Signature of Sender) % va..V- -���r STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �:'l,�c,lc's� <' �;�'.: signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1 1 (�/ `711.a4-Y) Notary Publi n and for the State of ' shington • MARILYN KAMCHEFF • ���� .e, ,• Notary (Print) ... s ;; My appointment expires: COMNMSSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 ,r `2 0 r r P rode ct N m,ai°• \1 k o aiv�s�w0 vao\M k V\ WIY\ Project Number: LoP\cvo- `(4` SP zc NOTARY.DOC Tri Delt Edwin Stone , Paul and Pam Miller 6840 v, .12th Avenue SE 744 Belmont Place East 3623 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 - Seattle,WA 98102 Renton,WA 98056 Marty and Mike Roberts Dave and Monica Lafever Hal Brandt . 3925 Lincoln Avenue NE 3915 Lincoln Avenue NE 12727 SE 63rd Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue,WA 98006 Pamela Mullen Peter Johnson Blair Baummer 5320-242nd Place NE Port Quendall Storage 3636 Lincoln Avenue NE Redmond,WA 98053 PO Box 744 Renton,WA 98056 Kirkland,WA 988083 Pat Dani Sheri Waddington Gordon Donnell 5219 Ripley Lane North 2332 NE 31st Street PO Box 2576 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Frank and Rose Falaniko Richard and Teri Brunory Margaret Nielsen 2224 NE 31st Street 3866 Monterey Place NE 3835 Lincoln Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Rober Urbaniak Sue Bollinger Lisa Brick EastsideCommercial,Inc. 3812 Monterey Place NE 4006 Lincoln Avenue NE 1020-108th Avenue NE,#109, Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Bellevue,WA 98004 Kimberly Swanson Nancy Crisp Gene Jackson 1909 NE 36th Street 2100 NE 31st Street 1909 NE 36th Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Ralph Shaw Jim and Lynn Bisset Andy and Beth Alexander 3935 Monterey Place NE 3901 Lincoln Avenue NE 2336 NE 31st Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Clem Heath 1605 B4slton Avenue • Seattle,WA 98122 I / ............................................................................. EXAMINEE " >` _» »>>>`<` EARN >>> <'>>>>< >> _>> > >> G PROJECT NAME: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. 120 parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. This is a submittal of a project that was originally submitted on February 11, 1997. Location: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE AGNDA.DOC I ' City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: July 29, 1997 Project Name: Williamsburg Condominiums Applicant/ Mark Goldberg Address: SDA Bros., Inc. 4739 University Way NE, Suite 1607 Seattle, WA 98105 • Owner/ Kennydale Vista LLC Address: 4030 Lake Washington Blvd., Suite 208 Kirkland, WA 98105 File Number: LUA-096-164,SA,ECF Project Manager: Mark R. Pywell Project Description: The applicant seeks to construct 62 condominium units consisting of 44 townhome units in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. The project will provide 120 parking spaces in garages and sixteen uncovered guest parking spaces. Project Location: 4000 Lincoln Ave. NE • qyT - �•y N.Er•—•-43RD—•-9Z— —•fN.Er•�•43RD— PL:---- n W j - t4A • 4 j _ ,• 0 C. D. •i-ri --I. AI�aN'S IW• , INGTON'' ----9-- 10 9 E o= GAR RE O jyoy EtEN, I2Go' jivFiON LANE 7 a, • B 7 42 z 10 zr'3,. 4 •z- - ? ti4o 5 / City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 2 of 13 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record:: Pickle II Trust 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Arterial (CA) 3. Comprehensive Plan Employment Area- Commercial :Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Commercial &Vacant East: Residential &Vacant South: Residential &Vacant West: Commercial &Vacant 6. Access: Lincoln Ave. NE 7. Site Area: 3.3 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: N/A New Building Area: N/A Total Building Area: N/A C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation 4275 6/25/90 Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning 4404 6/7/93 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: 12"Watermain in NE 40th St., 12" Main in Lincoln Dr. NE Sewer: Provided by agreement between Coal Creek Utility& City of Renton. Surface Water/Storm Water: On-site detention and water quality system 2. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department 3. Transit: Route 925 (DART) HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 3 of 13 4. Schools: Hazelwood Elementary School McKnight Middle School Hazen High School 5. Recreation: Coulon Beach Park Kennydale Beach Park Kennydale Lions Park 6. Other: N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Parking & Loading Ordinance 2. Arterial Commercial (CA) Zone 3. Wetlands Management Ordinance F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element- Employment Area - Commercial 2. Housing Element 3. Environmental Element G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant seeks to construct 62 condominium units consisting of 44 townhome units in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. The project will provide 120 parking spaces in garages and sixteen uncovered guest parking spaces. There are three wetlands on the project site, one Category II wetland and two Category Ill wetlands. The applicant has requested a modification to the Parking and Loading Ordinance in order to provide more on-site parking than is required.by Code. This modification was approved by the Department Administrator. The applicant also requested approval to utilize buffer averaging along one portion of the Category II wetlands. The Department Administrator approved the use of buffer averaging for this project. The applicant submitted new and/or revised materials that were designed to address the issues that were raised by the appellants of the previous determination issued by the ERC and the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner. The new SEPA checklist, dated May 29, 1997; letter from Talasaea addressing comments of the Hearing Examiner, dated May 8, 1997, a document titled Presentation to the Environmental Review Committee, dated July 8, 1997, were presented to the ERC prior to their reaching a determination on the project. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 4 of 13 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on February 8, 1997 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non - Significance -- Mitigated. This Determination was appealed to the Hearing Examiner. A public hearing on the appeal was held on March 11, 1997. The Hearing Examiner determined that the ERC had insufficient information available to them to make a.Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated and determined that the appellant's request for an EIS should be upheld. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), the applicant submitted a revised application with detailed information addressing the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner. This information included detailed information on the impacts to wetland and the stream. After a two day review of the information provided by the applicant, on July 8, 1997 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant will need to provide this document prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of$388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x $388/unit= $24,056.00). The applicant will need to submit the Mitigation fee prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units =401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. The applicant will need to submit the Mitigation fee prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport,the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. The applicant will need to comply with this mitigation measure. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department -- Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 5 of 13 5. The applicant shall record a Covenant on each of the Deed(s)that the subject property is within 10,000 feet of the Renton Municipal Airport and that the property could be subject to noise from all types of aircraft at low altitudes as the aircraft approach and leave the airport. The applicant will need to comply with this mitigation measure. 6. The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage,the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through.the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property,with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. The applicant will need to comply with this mitigation measure. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-31-33 (D.) "The Hearing Examiner and City staff shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan Review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:" (5A) GENERAL CRITERIA: (1) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-AA: Provide for commercial and residential uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. The proposed residential use is consistent with this policy in that the applicant is proposing a residential project that will access from Lincoln Ave. Policy LU-171: Residential uses in the Employment Area - Commercial designation may be a single use development and should be limited to a maximum density of 20 du/acre. The proposed development is a single use project and provides a density of approximately 20 du/acre. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 6 of 13 Policy LU-175: Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impact (e.g., visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. The proposed project has provided the Code-required setbacks and additional setbacks to accommodate the stream location and other natural features. These areas will be landscaped through a combination of natural landscaping that will be left undisturbed by this project and new landscaping required by the development of the site. Policy H-1: Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimates of market demand for new housing provided through growth forecasts. The proposed residential development will allow the City to meet the growing housing demand in the City of Renton. Objective EN-D: Preserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning. The applicant has provided a preliminary wetlands report that designates the wetland areas and establishes a method for preserving the wetland area on the project site. Policy EN-8: Achieve no overall net loss of the City's wetland base. There are wetlands on the project site. The applicant has proposed a plan that will achieve a no net loss of wetlands. The applicant will be providing a connection between two existing Category III wetlands that should aid in the preservation of the wetland area. (2) CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The following requirements and development standards contained in Section 4-31-10.4. Arterial Commercial Zone (CA) of the Zoning Code [adopted June 1993 requirements and development standards are applicability to this proposal]. When an adjacent lot is zoned R-8, R-10, R-14, the CA Zone requires that a fifteen (15) foot landscaping strip be installed between the proposed development and the adjacent lot. The applicant has provided a fifteen foot wide strip between the dwelling units and the property boundary and proposed to install a four foot tall picket fence. However, staff does not believe that the applicant's landscaping scheme is in compliance with the development standard for this zone. The applicant will need to submit a revised landscaping plan. . The landscape design theme will be further discussed later in this report. The applicant has requested approval to use buffer averaging on the Category II wetland on the west side of the project site. The Wetlands Management Ordinance allows for buffer averaging provided that the buffer width is not reduced beyond a minimum of twenty-five feet, that the square footage of buffer area remains the same, and that the use of buffer averaging is approved by the Department Administrator. The use of buffer averaging was approved by the Department Administrator. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires the applicant to provide 109 parking stalls. The applicant is providing a total of 136 parking stalls. The applicant has requested a modification to the Parking and Loading Ordinance to allow for the 27 additional parking stalls. The Department Administrator has approved the additional parking stalls. (3) CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The project site is currently vacant. The development of the site for a residential project should maintain the area-wide property values. The applicant has stated that the proposed units will be sold. The future owners will be responsible for the maintenance of the buildings and grounds through a homeowner's association. (4) PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; I The buildings are well laid out around the project site. Adequate spacing is provided between the buildings to allow for the movement of area and for adequate sunlight to reach the buildings. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 8 of 13 (3) Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements. The applicant is providing a pedestrian and vehicle linkage between this project and Lincoln Ave. A pedestrian walkway is being provided within the project. This walkway is being continued out the main entrance to the sidewalk along 40th Street. The sidewalk along NE 40th Street will then connect into the sidewalk along Lincoln Ave. The applicant is proposing to use the emergency access road at the north end of the site as a pedestrian linkage with the surrounding area for pedestrians and bicyclist. (4) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over-concentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the zoning code. The buildings are well spread out over the buildable portion of the site and are not over- concentrated on any portion of the site. On the original plan the applicant had the patio's for some of the units encroaching into the stream buffer area. This has been corrected on the revised site plan submitted by the applicant. (5) Effective location, design and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote "campus-like" or"park-like" layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities. The majority of the parking spaces are located within the buildings. Sixteen parking spaces are located around the core of the project site. The trash enclosures are shown on the site plan with gated enclosures. The applicant has stated that they designed this project based upon a colonial theme. In colonial times landscaping, except for the formal gardens, was kept to a minimum with lawn areas as the predominant landscaping and few shrubs placed around the central village green. Although this may have been appropriate in colonial times, staff does not believe that the plan should be carried forward without some modifications. Without landscaping along the perimeter of parking areas it would be appropriate to provide some landscaping, at least a hedge, in order to break up the headlight beams of the vehicles. People frequently complain to City staff when headlights of vehicles entering and leaving parking areas shine directly into their homes. City staff believe that the same problem will exist on this site. The applicant should provide a revised landscaping plan for the area around the parking area. As this is a central point of the project and in keeping with the colonial theme of the project, this could be either a formal landscape garden area or an informal hedge approach. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 9 of 13 (6) Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting "campus-like" or "park-like"settings in appropriate zones. The sites to the north and west are largely undeveloped. Future development will need to setback from the wetlands in these areas as has the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project should not impact the views from buildings in these areas. Roads are located on the west and south boundaries. The road right-of-ways and the required setbacks should protect existing and proposed development from the impacts of this project. The natural landscape and the landscaping of the project should promote a park-like setting in this area to the extent possible. (7) Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus- like" or"park-like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code. The applicant is not proposing any outdoor storage as part of this project. The only screening that is being offered is a low, 4-foot tall, white picket fence. Although this is consistent with the applicant's "colonial theme" it does not provide the screening that is commonly required on this type of project. City staff believe that additional landscaping around the perimeter of the project, consisting of a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover that will be sight obscuring, can be provided and still comply with the colonial theme being presented by the applicant. (8) Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. The applicant has not demonstrated an exterior lighting scheme for the proposed project. It is anticipated that exterior lighting will be required for security purposes on the project site: The applicant will need to submit an exterior lighting scheme for the proposed project. This plan will need to show the location and type of lighting that will be used. (5C) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE: (1) Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs. The buildings are located a minimum of ten feet apart. This spacing is to allow for the movement of air between the buildings and to ensure that natural sunlight can strike each surface of the proposed building. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - ' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 10 of 13 (2) Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over-concentration or the impression of oversized structures. The buildings are well laid out on the project site in relation to the natural characteristics of the site. The applicant has provided a twenty-five foot buffer along the stream that is located on the east side of the project. The applicant has also provided a twenty-five foot setback from the Category III wetland and a fifty foot buffer from the Category II wetland. The buildings are still well laid out on the site to avoid giving the appearance of being over-concentrated in one area of the site or oversized structures. • (3) Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development. The applicant was retained the wetland areas on the project site and retained the natural vegetation along the stream bank. The preservation of these areas will benefit natural characteristics of the site but will also enhance the development. (4) -Use of existing topography to reduce undue cutting, filling and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation. The applicant is maintaining the existing topography of the site to the extent possible. Due to the natural slope of the property no large cut and fills, rockeries, or retaining walls have been proposed. The site will need some relatively minor grading in order to construct an interior roadway that meets code-requirements. (5) Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration. The applicant has provided a looped roadway system to avoid the construction of a long cul-de- sac and to provide access to all of the proposed structures. The looped roadway narrows down to a single entry due to the constraints placed on the site by the existing wetland area and the location of the stream. Less than one-third of the site will be covered by impervious surface. This will allow for natural infiltration to occur in the landscaped areas. (6) Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. The planting areas will be protected from the movement of vehicles by curbing and wheel stops. The applicant will provide walkways on-site to protect the landscaped areas. As noted previously, the applicant has stated that they are following a colonial theme for the project site. In colonial times landscaping was seldom provided around the perimeter of buildings except as they led into formal garden areas. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 11 of 13 • The applicant submitted a revised plan for the wetland mitigation and the impacts associated with the relocation of the stream. These plans were reviewed by City staff and presented to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) at two sessions. It should be noted that during the appeal hearing concern was expressed that the relocation of the stream could expose it to direct sunshine for a period of five years if inappropriate plant materials were selected. The applicant has selected plant species that are fast growing, such as willows, and it is anticipated that the plants would be providing shade to the stream after two years. The applicant has also noted that due to the location of the stream, the banks of the stream will provide shade as the proposed stream is not oriented towards the direct sunlight. The ERC has accepted the plans and the proposed mitigation measures. (7) Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year-round conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. The building form and placement as well as the landscaping should allow an enhanced pattern of sun and shade on the subject property without significantly impacting the adjacent properties. (5D) CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: (1) Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties. The applicant is providing a vehicular and pedestrian access on the south end of the project. A second, emergency only, access is planned for the north end of the project. The emergency access will allow emergency vehicles to access the project even if the main entrance should become blocked. The emergency access is also being designed to allow pedestrians and bicyclist to use the roadway as a second access to the site. Transportation staff did not want this access to be opened to daily traffic due to view limitations on Lincoln Ave. NE. (2) Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements. The applicant is providing a single access point from the project on NE 40th Street. This will allow vehicles to enter the main traffic flow on Lincoln Ave. at an existing intersection. City staff has not noted any problems with the movement of vehicles in this area once the Code-required improvements have been installed. (3) Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible. In this case there are no access points on the adjacent property with which the applicant could co-ordinate. (4) Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized. To the extent possible the applicant has provided a series of walkways and roads that are co- ordinated with the existing movement of vehicles and pedestrians in the general area. I HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 12 of 13 (5) Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial street, when feasible. Vehicles from the proposed project will first enter NE 40th Street. This is a short local road. It is not anticipated that NE 40h will carry a significant amount of traffic even as this area continues to develop. (6) Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways. The applicant has provided a safe internal circulation system for the subject property by providing separate pedestrian paths and vehicle roadways. Staff notes that the applicant has not indicated the provision of crosswalks in the area where the pedestrian paths will cross the main internal roadway. These crosswalks could be indicated by providing a different paving material in these areas or as simply as painting a crosswalk in these areas. (7) Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas. N/A (8) Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access where appropriate. N/A (9) Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. The internal paths are connected to the external sidewalks by the provision of a walkway at the main entrance. City staff also recommends that the applicant provide a pedestrian path along the emergency roadway at the north end of the site. (5E) SIGNAGE: The applicant has not provided a sign plan with the project site plan. The applicant will need to submit an application for a sign permit prior to installing any signs at the entrance to the project or on the subject property. HEXRPT2.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164, SA, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 29, 1997 Page 13 of 13 H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Williamsburg Condominium, Project File No. LUA-96-164 subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. (2) The applicant shall submit an enhanced landscape plan prior to the issuance of construction/building permits to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department. The revised landscape plan shall demonstrate a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the south and east boundary of the subject property to provide the sight obscuring landscaping required by the CA zone. The landscaping plan shall also include enhanced landscaping around the parking stalls. This landscaping may include a combination of landscaping and berms for a height of 3 1/2 to 4 feet. (3) The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the subject property prior to the issuance of construction/building permits to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department. This plan shall demonstrate the location of and style of lighting to be used within the project. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2) years from the final approval (signature) date. HEXRPT2.DOC Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 28, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 28, 1997. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on July 29, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Plan Approval (SA). If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,ECF,SA APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. This is a submittal of a project that was originally submitted on February 11, 1997. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of$388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). 3. The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00= $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. 4.' The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport,the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. 5. The applicant shall record a Covenant on each of the Deed(s)that the subject property is within 10,000 feet of the Renton Municipal Airport and that the property could be subject to noise from all types of aircraft at low altitudes as the aircraft approach and leave the airport. 6. The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property,with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-164,ECF,SA APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT NAME: Williamsburg Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. This is a submittal of a project that was originally submitted on February 11, 1997. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. GENERAL NOTES 1. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. POLICE DEPARTMENT - 1. This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 69.12 calls for service annually. Police staff recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (Burglary of construction sites is one of our most common crimes lately). The lot should be fenced in during the construction phase of the project with the use of security lighting. 2. The elevations that were submitted show that the front door r in each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistance glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. 3. The front doors should be fitted with dead-bolt locks with bolts 1 1/2" in length. 4. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6�in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the wall color, and located under a light. 5. Stairwells,the areas around the garages, and parking lots are areas we recommend to have extra security lighting. 6. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Police staff recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible to parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. 7. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespasses off the property and provides security to the residents. ti FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-hour construction is 2250 GPM. If construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 1 Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA Advisory Notes(Continued) Page 2 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1. Plans will need to be submitted with application for building permits for sales location and method of protecting the public during sales from the rest of the site still under construction. Occupancy will be approved for each completed and approved building only. 2. Soils engineer to supervise all grading, footing excavations. 3. Structural engineer shall design all foundation and retaining walls per the soils report. WATER UTILITY 1. There is a 12"watermain in N 40th Street. There is a 12"watermain in Lincoln Ave. NE south of N 40th Street. 2. The construction drawings shall locate the watermain in the driving lane. Fire hydrants shall be located unobstructed by trees and landscaping. 3. The conceptual plan for water is not approved. The watermain shall be extended past Building F out the access road and connected to watermain extension in Lincoln. The fire hydrant location shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Prevention Bureau. SURFACE WATER UTILITY 1. There is an existing 8"sanitary sewer in Lincoln Ave. NE. 2. The site is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area. 3. The storm site plan submitted by the applicant appears to be making adequate provisions for a storm water drainage system. Detailed construction drawings may require modifications to pipe sizing and conveyance pipe location. WASTEWATER UTILITY 1. This project will construct a sanitary sewer system on-site to serve the site. This system will be a private system. Service to the on-site system will be provided as agreed upon by the City of Renton and Coal Creek Utility District. If the City of Renton is the provider the City will collect the SDC (Special Development Charges)fees. AIRPORT MANAGER 1. The project site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157' above sea level,this is below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179'above sea level. A notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of Building Permits because the construction exceeds the imaginary slope of 100:1 from the airport. 2. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an Avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. 3. If this project is approved,the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. City.Renton Department of Planning/Building/r=uunc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Llght/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment . 10,000 Feet � 14,000 Feet B. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS e(v) 4!) -7-7-1L-Fir34-7 0 4._. /go 6') -k_._}, C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified are: where additional information is needed to properly this proposal. -- r/‘• (-U s , 0,�� .`�. r� 7 T7 ignature of Director or Authorized Representative � Datd YAPP.DOC City w Renton Department of Planning/Building/ _-''c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Awroyet COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the . Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing ✓ Air 1/ Aesthetics Water ✓ Light/Glare ✓ Plants, ✓ Recreation Land/Shoreline Use ✓ Utilities ✓ Animals ✓ Transportation ✓ Environmental Health ✓ Public Services ✓ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment ✓ 10,000 Feet _ ✓ 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. The deeds should be filed in King County with verification submitted to the City. • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conicial Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a•drtional info tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. 6 ' SCR lceri Signatu rf Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. u• Rev.10/03 City tenton Department of Planning/Building/ ;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ayrpo,rt COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing V Air Aesthetics Water V Light/Glare J - Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use V Utilities Animals V Transportation V Environmental Health ✓ Public Services r/ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet r / 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface.. The proposed building elevations will be 157 ' above sea level , below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level . A Notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit because the construction exceeds a slope of 100:1. The proposed development lies beneath. a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi• al informati needed to properly assess this proposal. • Signature o` erector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.o•. Rev.10/93 'Renton Department of Planning/Building 1 _ --'lic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CL)r s is St4(ii;joc COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWEy OFNTON PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 ' "`'",iztvD LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE -IAN Q 3 19n7 SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A UIl/1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 town o 9N in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS f-PLf t: -TO 835u8Mfirii 1s via 111)NR/fi �D FDA zab, J' 1Y. F0[L sPLLtS LU k1iOh RI31 � ' W D iOiL PRDtea0 .PURL(G 1JD�fN C� 5 • >� Q. IttsT�.UUio[) , Ow P GY of -riff, 5[� S ((li �l ID f� � WILE] 6, APPQ60 ) APP 00 iDtt,PM C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 5D1LS UtelOggick. Tb L p Ill/Wdg •RLL GQ-AD I CoOTOJA '!%ILOIO AT[O Is 11' STQ.jctU SAL irO&ILECt. SN?L& nt616 Mkt) AT(otS {Vs R.�1k1U tft 50(L6 kcPo2i We ha ' e this appacatio with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a 1 a' n �n d d to pedy assess this proposal. AAA, ,� 1-itt4) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • C if Renton Department of Planning/Building" olc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPL1L.#1 TION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1:)®` COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 1.6, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.LC. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL, PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS N" Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Intonation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Plants LighUGlare Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural • Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet (0% ca police mils estrnatL annul/hi . This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. Recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary. (burglary of construction sites is one of our most common crimes lately) . Fence in the lot while it's under construction and use security lighting. The elevation plans submitted, show that the front doors to each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a. burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistant glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. The front doors will need to be dead-bolt locks wit bolts 1 1/2" in length. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the color of the home, and placed under a light. Stairwells need extra security lighting, and so do the areas around the garages and parking lots. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible by parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespassers and loiters off the property, and provide security to the residents. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. r f Director uthorized Represents' e Date C1 r bpi^ ` ccdiN . ) Rov.1on3 • i..1111-..:(Renton Department of Planning/Building tiui7liC Works ENVIRONMENTAL. & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ? VA Re:4 t cu..) k.t.)'a. LVtOMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16,,4\9az or ROI:FON .APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 - APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. • PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYVVELM igg7 PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE Wi VISION • SItE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in ' seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. • • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code).COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major. Information Environment . Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics •Water LighVGlana Plants Recreation • •Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ • Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Airport Environment • 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • • Z " t1;:i az,, -•&•• ,./ ;,/ 71 194 • K (r0C--'•• - . f VC zr • • gji- , , . • • -• • 4•••••• (.•,..),L..,,,,(;•••-::.0.4„/„.(y., d /47L-2--- . • , ••• B. • POLICY-RELAtED COMMENTS (-7 • • • • • • • • - C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS . ,•• 3.7(7- • •.,•'•1 . L =",! • - /e /-7.-c f 6:;"2. .•• • E,),..e1:-.:•(::7 • •-•.. • . •-•-t•t/- a •-., „„c, . r fr-P r ' -• - ( (7-•-•••/ b4..„ • ^ • ,J /./ We have reviewed this appication with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or area' where ad:funnel Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. • • " C?/1 /9 97 Signature of Director or Authoéd Representative Date• DEVAPP.DOC • CY CQ° + hal* + r .;;%°.?a�`irt„�''°.�.i;>ec??'9ci%2ir}aam��qZ��_'�r/ ,u,.. ,x?iiyry9°d?QX•p�..`�%»s,�:cx:;':rnv::". '1,wo,•... ':✓.fi'b':%P.6 �;�..,����.YY.,�,�.'. M".�r... .^c>7;J�'!4l:ir,.o>�(G.z'.sr...J?>:?iY.,;cp;;:wr�'�p.�A>.i:•ICY . •ii •. .e .sty .,Aga.. K >r w• s�.. Yi2i,":: rw>0>• .... .:.... .w . :� is•. '..�ce�id»�si?o�. • •�s <... ;Lf .^xo^rn•>r.�.wnw:::wN'.•ieoxar't+yyu:>�y.Ni�s:Tmse.a•.swx;sa» �� �•• •: Q � ...< .... :>,.•� �q' .v r?x ;:::;:;Hr; •s•.w�w.•✓wiceT.r'r..gook?w.>:?»���mr>,,:>sw .:`',mis�.l.,. . .. .„Y Project Name Wrllla,mshue) Coezdotytivtiury5 Project Address 4000 Ltmcolyi AvoHuc IUE Contact Person Mark Gold bey C/O 5 DA $vos) bic. Address 4739 am/cyst/1 Way Ali 5mitc. /407 ) Sta tt/c 'W 1 58/05 Phone Number 5 2y - 1-18 4 , o r yob- 16y b Permit Number LOA ' - /44 Project Description 62 vk1i7 mutt; Tururly e_ov,s,s7n, 0-6 IN -owy 4o ,yj I 7 b1c d 23 4/4Z lei Z bldis. Ia7a,Q ot /34 parkin yetcl, 020edve✓ed) Land U,s�e/Type: , Method_ ofj Calculation: f1pur7'K-tetil C2Z0) Residential Or ITE Trip Generation Manual emes. 311 ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study ❑ Non-retail 0 Other Read. - 4.47 ci► TZ- Calculation: Meg) .a✓eraye dad) tries : (6.47 ) (62 ) = LW' ', itt dadij -tiles At $ 75 , tvy ( got. 1LI) (. 75) _ 30, 0 ?5 . 50 Transportation Mitigation Fee: 30, 0 S 5. 5 v Calculated by: Al d (N2 Date: 1 /71/47 Account Number: Date of Payment • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: u'cl LusAvu.usity. COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: -KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that - is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Impacts Impacts Necessary Impactspar Major Necessary Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Llght/Glare Plants _ Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet rl..0 t r—v Vl wt.c'a`u( (r✓I G tdoCiv ' Cc i lcii 1 IOU yCL9 5 Jzr12'I fib-v� B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS i n it i C1 4-4 G o 1N 4 I 1114-0'�'�/ 1!1 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A Al Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • • .,-.,Renton Department of Planning/Building.r-uutic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1 . �G( 0,..tate ►J.LteCOMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA C7A,{>j v t TE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. / PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 ^fr), LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE OF • SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A• l4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominiumTcdrt frog of 44 towtft6mes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provide�athgrages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. , i A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Housing Aesthetics Water ' Plants Light/Glam Recreation • LandShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ri ^ � a �,f/tlli !- ..✓- /-/-)cz y r �r, e v�-�I'. C;)--- .) 4 /�/ ` c/f P • • ,s5-gyp,, j / � p e fir. - ,. ' ,c rt, 7-- -ems), ci C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS W'GLotiza-4tIN-3 — 7.4i "; 2J ,C ;.,G©- '-i-c-,\r-) .&-e--..:2... .d- ed-- ei cL 1 4oL )/b J `�✓ D . , c Wiz- -�, 7(o 2/_Q.. a te, ,c� �:,6-ef b �F1 c ,� .,_ ,,0 � C ry ,Q2 ,' c / ADC We have reviewed this application with partic ar attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to property assess this proposal 717 -1T1 /sue /9 97 Signature o Director oCA4thorized Representative ate / DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10r83 " III Y oy.. O� + ; e' + CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell, Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal AL SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums, 4000 Lincoln Av. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-Hour construction is 2250 GPM. If the construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required for each 1000 GPM or fraction thereof. The primary hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. 3. The fire mitigation fee is $388.00 per unit for a total of$24,056.00. Please feel free to contact.me.if you have any questions. SHE Z1-1-"(1.111/10.1.,1111.&:., rj=.,•")/1=rtt•• 3113.ARTA .11.Ala• 0i nit us SI-•2.e.. MM.•A• 1 ON•Ii 221,19A.1.___Itsmaillsa II. 1.1.2 Nmay Peer. ''.' '. 4;7'4.:''. 1 6121 R....I.••••••6.0.......••4,./..•se S.01.1.111.ermels Law N.,...... 1••0.to•7 1"Iv L .4. 1.M1_1. 1/ 07 .010117.N.We IAN el . All.N.De.N. •111..Per Aere 10.1...A.•Yu . 20 1.0•1140 A.•62 40 leo.All.... •11 BD 2 _ Le W_5_••• '''.... N._50,Nale -•• 1.11.0 Ill..,.:AUL At._.1•111.013.-411.7LA. IL_ . I Pee .1.2.. . .2;3 la 6.4.N 7 o14 ea 7.100. - 2.31 II . Leop NJ .0 70 10s 70 ... /Lel/0 441 OD 1 La 0.. 4.101os .01.1 .111 40 • 10070. 1.42 lu 1.0.1 Nil 4,77 515 - ILI.61 P......CO 1.30.70 1.5.11.0 •077••• -- 11..1. .11 10 4 341606. (-) I N 11.2.04 7.0.11/..Syy•0.0r 0.01 (A I 0010l Isl.07 .19 CO TIN 00 1,1441 00 alF,P... DJ an•_-.EALI32_10 ON Ol TIN 00 3.3.10 3.3N CO 14.1 CO ........-, 11.0..1 Plea 11 01 "L' •Lea6 16013 64 0.370 II 17.114 01 TON UT 10.201 RI 1....1 Rme 0 xs- 01 - -- --- - - C 4, S.IN. O.W. .,. 1,...d 1.1,116 120•1,0 3••••11 IT 1.6.S.1.1..... • •1.2) 11.•A....1 5.4.71 lee EA...•••••••••..171 Id T.------- •- -- 71.4•74-.•tr.r-la o...... .1.. 0 1 a.m., •.ze sta •-vr•16.0 1 T.44/1•011•0_00 ' PV...4 7.. C)1:1 ':: ..,,tr,I 4 • • • • II 71.....•C. ....S. d g a.t•-• J. 0 • 12 We 11.04 0. II 12 ••16..••••we.•11,....../.........., 12 12 6.NI 1.01•N.34.4.7111.4013.7.44•7,1.wade 00110. 7.4.0 7.07. OK • 16 7 V IS 0.•••••••••.•0nm.. IA • 0.0...04114.4..71 10 W. . .' )• Loner L..14.1.....C.o..YR IC.. 45• • 0 •14,A 1• •••••310.•R... 1 5 P.D. .. INN.o. 16 1.111 153.110.6271.4. . ........ 73• il11111,1.1 La IVA,Rap. I 3•11 P.O 0602 Fere. 51 54• at62 11a.01,..01.4 10.-IS 40 Sie.3.... P02..1 Om.P....31.1•14-10.•1V/e 16 (It 4.31-•71 IC I...•••••••••.• L.P.,a..... 1.•11..Ile.. 4.1.6.110...35.•ea In L.IN..I 1....P.,r.,.....1 t•.le-31 Siaa-3.501 j P.,.L........1...01.4,... at .., 04,....10.4.4.....Pm 14.1141.0) 4,14D II T.L.0 62 Ne••••ISL.•4211 140..40...1• 27 WC... 1.....14 Umbel,•rm a Immo, 0 Duo•1 5 3.11./0•M.Reg• OLIO 17. 17.7...1 1••••Ned. OK • I .... ,•,.,,...- / f.......1 17 GO Pl.,. 11 VI Pap..11.7........ CM .,11 tarst•&!.. a.a.,.....a ........„, ,,,,,,...., ,.., 17.00.11.01.1• .1.1...1114.10.47. -..:5 11 F- F-,,,,, ,-,..-E . •,. .'i.E_E ,..•-.E L- A-:: Fs, .-7 1.0. .. T.a• 1_a y lb..73•1,•le e 2.17e ON/ I ., Pe.T.0.......•0.100. . . -6.........0,141 Lod Pea be..4411S• p.m...A AT•a.. A 7.40.•.teams p110p.77 13. CZ • 6700•1 • 1'7.1.. 244 IAN I IL ...N.Y.. 7,-.•7-.a-:.•1 -: „ -- TN••••I ..••••••••4 . . .........-- 1.7 Ol•1 Ps*.4....D.A.Tad 01 X 4 L .ILL P. .•11.....1 N tal .)..'...." •. .,,,, 1.101.41.1 OR II.as.. I 0231.10 4 D1 Hada , t ••••. ,. . ....•a m i I Wspal L.,m,Lma,S.•4I•17., 3.•11.0031...A,. 0 i 11! 61...32.110.0.73 7.144 Oleg P.,...1110..... III 40 Alea..... at • •._ „_ 4 ar• ---•• •" .:".,ni:`1 1 ....r.,,,H°I..-...111.al 1 I \:,..Z:,,>1- ...;;;;?7:2,7--. .... '-, •_____,„ DermoStma... PI•. N•01 104 ' TO 4.11•10 4 0. 12.0.1 Mu 11•01e 30 , . ,..• 1".7... 1 D 3-h""'.•••••.•••'".'''' '' f:3.,i i •'- 00.‘4.". • lr '"" . . ..... . I . tX1 4 u • .•0 : ON 1 • Ls C.Lega.e.l.tp ."• (0)1 P. • kl - -- • _........ 1:1-L '- .I.-'`., •••'1•••--.1 ;.- F.i i....gi.7.:4; Away:mann SI 00 , _.,..._ 1 1•70.• •NM 01 .ILI I '.'"' 1.1.02•I I 4.01.0)0 0. L...0.. • 0 * • l ‘,...,.0.i'C'...• ,00" .1.. 1,00.A.0. ....1. romme P.14.0 tel._ IT i......,.1P - It - .'2'^.4 g -,,,,,:,,,,..--,,,,- ,._ - , , , , 1,43.10 ,........ 4•416 CO 10.621 75 2.401:0 00 a.i e ma I . ;i1 .-' 'C' t.' . ef'.'. . . . . ... I ,...7-R ' way. Pt!_a•_.t_ 1_,...4.,.......,...,_ ' 1........1 I U , .1. S - . • • ..-. 1•74 Ida 21.1•3•37 1..4. 50 •44 Le.0 0 4 • r-- .:-_-1 , 4 • . --------1 • . ---4.,:::::-...: az.g• ,110. 5,..... 11 0.1 •11•0 I I. :••....2 Tff_7•07 . •NT.•11.• 1.....1.077ENNINVINE . I • : 11. V lad,.7 4.11.3 30" 3.1.0 SO . g LI IEI2II I ) ;I'. ........... •1 , n . 4 . :•............: • • : • ..... ...... ..... 1.1.1.... I Pe... IN.L..... . N • :-i(f4 • -•,il )p.. -- N• ,. "CI; I' . • . f.- .e r_j ':1---.....' ., n 1 • l'.. 1 i.:'..'.....: •••...• . I • 10.10 1.•1 I ..127 is•i , 4 11 14•I,I. 3.06.0014 P.....•...AY••••••••••• ,, ‘0.< i ... 1 P •.• 3 1•,....., TTLY .T, 1 : A 'j,• • ---• . ••••, ' i . ...! P., , ...:-. . .- i• y,• a a • ... . s . • • d : . . I - •,.., ._ . . _. - .. _ ._____ _ ...--"' '••1 I --,.• '0"'.. .I9 3... 27..2 I. 1.5•10. 15 II 1 17 IVA I.DiSCRIPTION e , .16. 5.1 • • 1-'' ...,' .• se.‹.. .......IT.,'.. -•-•,. '''L.• C''''''\ \..\ O...Pe., annes.104 5/01 1,1.110 14./0 42 11,1 pa vx . PARITI A ... ._D•1•,g.C.2.,119lA 0 Se.....1.3.0 'I Se 100 1 AND/.BLOM 1 I 0 111LINAN 31010 WASIIINOTI1N UAROLN OP EDEN ADDITION TO .0,. ‘. -- . .1..1 i •---.-- .11•9._..:.,••••-' ..'-'''.----'17---:-T..-"rr..-..-- '.N.. '-‘--2.',.. • \e. 1.10•6,,,•M0..110 Pate.MOM LOB ei I. SEAM/.DIVISION NO 7.ACC...Ill TNE PLAT 111E11.0,RM10.060 IN VOLD.16 Or • • 50•11."Lk. re 40' X.( ...... ..... . ...‘„,...„.____! .3 ft•"•* '‘.0, 7.......4•AY*....1,...." 2..0.1 I., PLATS.PAM III.IN IP.COUNT.IN.1117.1. LXCLIT THE SOUTH Oil PEET.leDT 2 CONVENED TO THE OTT Of RENTON.1 OW.CLAIM Sae 1/1•010.Y.04 •••••••• La...•I.e.•An..Sew. TOW 00 4 IV --------i VI i•..../....<"4','/ ...Z..] '-'`.. &s .., • C • • 7.1.0.4•Sew Pena. 0.1•210 10. DEED RECORD,.LINDER lbOORDING MAMA 1100•3101. •ZONL C.C.T..1.1. .e''''•.'- .,•.e'T ••"" I? . . , 10.02 00 „.„, TOOETN.WTI TNAT NORTON Or VACATED.1413LP.PUCE 14•ANON•GST STREET- .. -mr--..." - t3 E 1,1•D MEET.ADJOINING...MD ATTA714•T OSESATION L4117.AS V.CAIED 10 MP . - T..11.....•C....0 0.1.'••"""•' 101.01111.DINAN.NUNRE•.1 11.74 01115•11 1 PI.D6R.167•1•00•0 NON1.0.0471201 . . .• . PARCEL R • -...•-::--_-...e...--r•T'-•:-..-...' .•-.• . ..-- - •-•••.77", - s":-:',::"- . LOT I.BIM••I.C.D NITLYAN 3 LAZE WASHINGTON M.D.Of EDEN ADOITION TO JRb.No. '16,04 • SIAM!DI 131011•40/.ACCORDING TIT THE PL•T MERL.RECORDED IN 510111.16. iff.•-•;.-*::•<- ......... . T----------"-- - . ' •. -...• 71-.1.rAo.0.IN KING rIMINTV.10.111.01110. Slim, Of ....• : , -.r..t.-- • .I-Lacoo,..n„, •-?--...-7 - _ 711•1711011 wilt TI.T 11.1010.4 Of VACATED 7.11•100.PLACE•6 AND••41ST man' - --------.....: - • ,s&111.0 TREE,ADKIINING AS 1.7111D A rr...-H BY 0/00A(101,1111 LAW.'a VACA i UP NT • TY 0,R.TON ORDINANCE NUM.&Nei RESNIRLIED traar•.07....0 NUM. All • • • • • 1 MO :--t-•_ - -- --------------= - ---- ----'`- ,'::;t;•;;` uui • �p82g.7g 4—' = DQ:.D,f.b'IAI'Di,p1_ 1 rl w� • �gUFF.EK -. -_ . . v _ ,r - _:.,_ ` 1".••:- .. I. I' ka it ',I: � ..,�j_.-I_f ,-\- -Jo, ,�.•„ :� V'� >x, � • -Rom' r. ys^•� .,� �� ,r ... +„s ., c = L t = yB I _~ II• i" _ --' y1 b. mod." •r• __ - uj' • •, , • ;JI .... •, '',,L,N.i :-.1 ,171::-:--;%, I 1.- .(1.ii.',.•- - : k. IP ^'' ifrlDC. l th %° i _ -_L Ja � I _ ,• _ _� l ;�`��` • -- _ ,. ,..n, :tl.i /^ : — .. B:.. . .- ,p'y.E`_`_: t'' --- = s =: ' \ 00 . - ,.._=- :\.,•'•,� j' ' - • 1 'K _-^^ __ •.. P• o'.,,' gym`, \ `-�. V°, - V , �/--� ry P-� ::-_- "• .� .1'id rM5"qb 9• ��. .:.y _•;— '• •• • �;� �'. ] 'I I o- A �� SITE PLAN "�per= 77 -- - ,-'w'-• - - ° '`' :�'. , •�_„� ,L - sue - • ...- - _-- l ..7. .:-; -r' -i- t"anPo`� a <_. - �i-•: _ ...-c�:ry..�..-,..-...-...-..-... ...�... m - _ �- -•-`h -ice--'--� ' - _ - - f�l -.�_ - --- - Y `1 c•k c.u- / Sr`rt,•L'�.'- -- -)6 -`• "�� __'6�:—� �S•552. _ "e - - --- _ si_�"7 ___ _-'-_DRIVE N,E. 1 - • - - • se Job No. y '"14 M amuc cnv-- e '��_�.g� N G IVI • : :.;:::.;::.:::.�::::::::.::::..::.::.;:::::::::::.................... Y AILING...........:.�:::::::.:::.::::.:::::.:::::..................................:..:..::::. On the 1 —' day of . IUD. • • , 1997, I deposited in the.mails of the United States, a sealed - envelope containing . t e.1(M`IA 10ti % documents. This information was sent to: • Name Representing Department of Ecology Dick Anderson Department of Transportation KC Water Pollution Control Metro • Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher Department of Fisheries David Dietzman Department of Natural Resources .Ste Runielry may of Seattle Pu.61 Utt t i'tteb 51n�Y LtJLt o..0 DUwamisii Indian Tribe Rod Malcom, Fisheries Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • Rita Perstac Puget Power (Signature of Sender) b .k.. •e- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ' ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) - I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that '114i1//D1Z44 S6E�L--72_. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the• uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ( _ ..• Dated: '��f 1 /q`q Al %rD t p �'!f Notary Public i d for th tate of Wasititlgtca i.vyi rs Notary (Print) MARGARET • �. My appointment expires /9$ Project Name: k).),,``bleYN51la U MW Project Number: • (G = I64 , S , �L NOTARY.00C { :•_ CITX --OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 10, 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on July 08, 1997: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM S LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium project consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 18 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. This is a submittal of a project that was originally submitted on February 11, 1997. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 28, 1997. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person , wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 28, 1997. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington,on July 29, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Plan Approval(SA). If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have questions, please call me at(425)277-5586. For the Environmental Review Committee, • Mark R. Pyw CP Project Ma er cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities, • Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power • • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 iA This caner contains 50%recycled material.20%nost consumer City of Renton PB/PWDeparhnent ,fronmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERC MEETING DATE:July 1,1997 Page 6 of9 3. Water Impacts: The applicant has provided a preliminary drainage report that has been found acceptable by City staff. Drainage will be collected on site and from the new roadways. Storm water will be detained in an underground system of vaults and then released into a bio-filtration system. The storm water will then be diverted into the natural drainage system for the area. The intent of this system will be to ensure that the project does not cause in increase in the flow rate or cause downstream flooding. The storm water will be released from this site at the same rate or a lower rate than it.is released at this time. Due to the increase in impervious.area, the duration of the flow may increase but the rate of flow will'not increase. The applicant will need to have final design plans approved in accordance with City of Renton requirements and standards. There were discussions by the applicant at the appeal hearing regarding flooding problems downstream of this site. The City has recently improved conditions of some of the system through maintenance of existing ditches, but an undersized culvert through the Baxter site on Lake Washington still has limited capacity during larger storm events. The Surface Water Utility is working with the property owner to replace this undersized line. Under a separate permit the City has submitted an application for improvements downstream of the subject property. These improvements are intended to address the most of the flooding issues in the area downstream of the subject property. The additional runoff from the Williamsburg site, and increased rate for storm events not controlled by standard detention requirements, could still result in additional flooding in the downstream system area unless.additional measures not required by Code are installed. City staff recommend that additional detention be required to provide storage for the 100-year event. No additional downstream mitigation is recommend for this project. As an alternative to ,providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-yearstorm event. This'alternative work would require work on private property,with approval from the'property owner. As part of,this project the applicant is required to install Code-required improvements along Lincoln Ave. NE. These improvements will force the applicant to relocated the existing stream/channel along side the road. The applicant has submitted a Conceptual Wetland/Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants and dated March 20, 1997 (Revised May 27, 1997). The report notes that fish are not present in the stream/channel as it crosses the subject property due to a perched culvert located North, downstream, of the subject property. Unless this off-site culvert is replaced, fish can not reach the subject property. As this culvert is not on or adjacent to the applicant's property the City can not require the applicant to replace this culvert. In brder to minimize impacts associated with the stream relocation, the relocated stream/channel will be constructed in a manner that replicates or enhances the habitat value of the stream channel. This work will also help to stabilize the stream bank that has been covered with riprap in places to prevent erosion. Although the channel may not support fish due to the downstream corridor, it still can provide food habitat for fish that may live downstream of the culvert. The plantings along the bank of the stream will also shade the water. This will help to modulate the temperature of the water as it flows across the subject property. At the appeal hearing, the impacts on the stream were discussed. One issue was the gradient of the stream as it crosses the applicant's property and if the stream should be sloped in a manner that would not require a structure to be installed to accommodate a change in altitude of the stream. The main question is whether or not fish would be able to migrate up stream of the subject property. There is an existing structure downstream of the property that already blocks the passage of fish in this area. As this structure is not located on the applicant's property,the City can not require the applicant to remove that structure. There is another structure just upstream of the applicant's property that would also block fish migration. Again the applicant can not be required by the City to grade the entire stream to make it accessible to fish. The improvements that the applicant is proposing will increase the streams ability to provide a source of food that will be carried downstream by the current. The plantings proposed by the applicant will also fill in rapidly and will help to modulate the temperature of the stream. This will make the downstream portion of the stream more habitable for fish. ERCRPRT2.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:July 1,1997 Page 7 of 9 Mitigation Measures:The applicant shall design and install a surface water 100-year detention system as part of the storm water system for the condominium development. As an alternative to providing the additional on-site storage, the developer has the option of improving the downstream system to provide adequate capacity for the basin through the 100-year storm event. This alternative work would require work on private property,with approval from the property owner. Plans for the system shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual, Storm &Surface Water Drainage, Environmental Ordinance 4. Wetlands Impacts: There are three wetlands on the project site. According to the wetland report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, two of the wetlands are Category III wetlands and one of the wetlands has been classified as a Category II wetland: Twenty-five(25) foot wide buffers have been provided around the Category III wetlands. The plans submitted by the applicant indicates that 1,248 square feet of Category III of the wetland will be displaced. This is being replaced by 1,360 square feet of wetland for a net gain of 112 square feet. The wetlands ordinance requires a replacement ratio of 1.5 square feet of wetland for each square foot of wetland that is disturbed or filled in unless the created wetland will be used to connect two existing Category III wetlands. The created wetland proposed by the applicant will connect two existing wetlands. The wetland report submitted by the applicant notes that this work will enhance the wetland area. The applicant is also requesting to use buffer averaging around the Category II wetland. None of the development will come within twenty-five feet of the wetland and the area of the buffer will remain the same. This approach appears to be consistent with the intent of the Wetlands Management Ordinance. :The applicant has requested administrative approval of this proposal:.The Department Administrator has approved the use of buffer averaging on this site. As noted in Section 3 - Water of this report, there is also a stream located on the subject property. City ordinance requires a twenty-five foot buffer on each side of the stream. The applicant has shown the appropriate buffer area. In the past, the applicant had shown the patios on some of the buildings extending into the buffer area of the stream. The plans have been revised so that the buildings no longer intrude into the buffer area. The applicant will need to create a Homeowner's Association to ensure the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document should also contain language describing the importance of the wetlands, stream, and the associated buffer areas. The documents should also describe the potential penalties for allowing the filling of wetland areas without first obtaining the proper permits. The Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation Report meets the City requirements for a wetland report in that it adequately describes the work that will be completed as part of this project and provides for the monitoring of the site. In accordance with the Wetland Mitigation Ordinance, the applicant will need to submit a report upon completion of the wetland work that describes how the field work complies with the conceptual plan. The applicant has proposed to place the bio-swale in the buffer area of the Category III wetland. This location was chosen as it is the low area for the drainage that will need to be treated prior to its release into the natural environment. The bio-swale is designed to trap pollutants in the plant materials and periodic maintenance will be required. The level of activity to maintain a bio-swale was reviewed as part of the environmental review when the ordinance was prepared. It was determined that, in general,the level of activity required to maintain these areas would not have a significant impact on the adjacent wetland. In fact,this has proven to be true on the projects where this has occurred. Due to the design of the storm water system for this project, it is not anticipated that the bio-swale will be collecting significant amounts of sediment. The detention system will slow down the movement of the water and in effect will act as a trap for sediments. In this case,the maintenance will be limited, for the most part,to the occasional replacement of the plant materials. This will not require a large amount of work or heavy construction equipment. Thus, It is not anticipated that the work could have a significant impact on the adjacent wetland. ERCRPRT2.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:July 1,1997 Page 8 of 9 Placing the bio-swale in the buffer area will bring the point of entrapment for these pollutants closer to the wetland area than if the bio-swale was placed further to the south. However, as noted above, the bio-swale needs to be located at the low point of the project in order to be able to collect all of the drainage from the property and also be below the points that might produce some of the pollutants, such as parking areas and roadways. In order to release water from the proposed bio-swale to the natural drainage for this site, the bio-swale will need to cross the buffer area and discharge the water into the wetland. If the bio-swale was pulled out of the wetland, the applicant could lose nine dwelling units. Although this would leave the project within the acceptable density range for this area, the loss of the units would make it more difficult for the applicant to provide the significant level of improvements that this site requires. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall create a Homeowner's Associations that shall be responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, buildings, structures, and facilities. This document shall also include language describing the importance of the wetlands; stream, and associated buffer areas. It shall also include the potential penalties for allowing the wetlands and buffer areas to be disturb or filled without the proper permits. The Homeowner's Association documents shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the issuance of building permits. Nexus: Wetlands Management Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 3. Public Services Impacts: The City of Renton provides Police and Fire Services to this area. Police Department staff have noted that this is a low crime area but that there are steps,identified in the Notes to Applicant, that should be followed during the construction and operation phase of this project that will deter crime. Fire Prevention Bureau staff have identified the Code-required improvements that will be required on this site. The applicant will also need to submit a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of$388.00 per unit. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated to be $24,056.00. This fee is used to offset the financial impact of the development on the City's fire services. It should be noted that there presently no fire station located in the Kennydale area. The City has two fire stations that can respond to this area and agreements with the adjacent fire districts for mutual aid. In the future, as the Kennydale area continues to develop, additional fire services in this area will be reviewed. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Fire Mitigation fee of $388.00 per unit prior to the issuance of building permits. For a 62 unit complex the fee is estimated at$24,056.00 (62 units x$388/unit= $24,056.00). Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 6. Transportation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed 62 unit condominium will generate approximately 401.14 trips daily. The applicant will need to provide on-site roadways and the Code-required improvements along the adjacent public streets. In addition the traffic generated by this development will have impacts on the established City transportation system. In order to mitigate these adverse impacts the applicant is required to submit a traffic mitigation fee of$75 per trip generated. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is$30,085.50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units=401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X$75.00= $30,085.50). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per daily trip generated by the 62 unit condominium complex 50 (6.47 trips/unit X 62 units =401.14 daily trips -- 401.14 X $75.00 = $30,085.50). This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposed project. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution ERCRPRT2.DOC • City of Renton PB/PWDepart.nent ,• 'ronmental Review Committee Staff Report WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS LUA-96-164,SA,ECF ERCMEETING DATE:July 1,1997 Page 9 of 9 7. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The applicant is proposing to construct a 62 unit condominium complex. No recreation facilities or buildings are proposed for the project. The people who move into these units will be using the existing City parks and recreation services. In order to mitigate their impact on these facilities and services the applicant will need to provide a mitigation fee of$345.51 per unit. For a 62 unit complex the fee is calculated at $21,421.62. This fee will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a Parks Mitigation Fee of.$345.51 per unit for the 62 unit condominium project. This fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Nexus: Parks&Recreation Mitigation Fee Resolution, Environmental Review Ordinance 8. Noise Impacts: The Airport Manager has identified the project site as being located within a heavily traveled corridor as planes approach and leave the Renton Municipal Airport. People living in this complex will be subject to noise of all types of aircraft approaching and leaving the airport. The airplanes in this area will be still at an elevation above ground where the noise should not be a significant problem, any noise from aircraft has a tendency to irritate some people. The Airport Manager has requested that either a Covenant be recorded with.the Deed(s) that will informeach purchaser that the property is within 10,000 feet of the airport and is subject to overflight of all types of aircraft at low altitudes 24-hours per day. City staff believes that the it would also be appropriate to include this notices on the sales brochure and within the Homeowner's Association documents. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall include in the sales brochures and within the text for the Homeowner's Association, language identifying the location of the airport, the approach to the airport, and the fact that a significant number of aircraft will fly over this project site as they approach the Renton Municipal Airport. The applicant shall record a Covenant on each of the Deed(s)that the subject property is within 10,000 feet of the Renton Municipal Airport and that the property could be subject to noise from all types of aircraft at low altitudes as the aircraft approach and leave the airport. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan—Transportation Element E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. ERCRPRT2.DOC WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMININUMS (LUA-96-164,SA,ECF) Renton, Washington ��� *I P ��i��P �ta 3 Presentation to Environmental Review Committee City of Renton • Bill Shiels Talasaea Consultants July 8, 1997 • ILP COPY al 1 1111 ► TA LASH E 4. CONSULTANTS , ( U ; cS . I• 8 May 1997 TAL-313 • Mr. Mark Pywell, Senior Planner City of Renton _ 200 Mill Avenue. South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Response to Comments by City of Renton. Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision dated 29 April 1997 Dear Mark: Following are comments prepared by myself pertaining to streams, wetlands, buffers, water quality, wildlife, and any other matters pertaining to the natural environment. Also summarized in this letter are responses by Shupe Holmberg of Baima & Holmberg pertaining to stormwater, and by Lyle Kussman of Kussman & Associates pertaining to general site planning and traffic. Comments correspond to the Hearing Examiner's numerical listing of Findings (1 through 40) and his list of Conclusions(1 through 22). FINDINGS Item 13. Finding states that the relocated stream would be deeply incised. The stream is now somewhat deeply incised. Relocation, as proposed, would result. in a less incised stream channel. The current proposal includes raising the exit culvert about six feet, thus flattening the gradient and increasing streambed and streambank stability. It is true that by lowering the streambed gradient water temperatures could potentially rise. However, this is not likely since dense riparian vegetation (both deciduous and evergreen) will be planted along the stream to create a shaded canopy to moderate'temperature and humidity changes (among other reasons). Item 19. Stating that sightings of bear, deer and cougar have occurred south of the site seems inappropriate without providing clarification that these sightings Prsour<.•r c�C� Em•imnmrnlaI Planning • l:i(1�O 13 a Lrr�lc 12a.u1 Norlhrsai • \\u,,clinvilio. \\•,I:,hina;lun !)8072 • I3iis: (2(1(i) 861. .i:i(1 • 1=.ix: (20N0) 561-7:i•1 ) Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 2 were made: a) in another (i.e., May Creek) drainage basin, b) in a much larger and relatively less developed drainage basin, c) by an observer who raises sheep (an attractive prey animal for large predatory mammals), and d) in a relatively rural area compared to the subject site which is only a few blocks from commercial development. Drawing any parallel between the subject site and the small farm area to the south seem inappropriate regarding wildlife habitat value. Item 23. Again, there is reference made to increased stream temperatures without mention of the mitigation for this possible effect. Plantings of both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs along the re-routed stream corridor will actually improve shading. The statement was made by a witness that the temperature differences between existing conditions and those immediately after construction of the relocated stream would be measurable and not speculative. I disagree. The stream is north-flowing (low aspect to sun), has an 8% gradient (relatively steep), is deeply incised, and only extends a distance of slightly over 500 feet. I do not believe that a temperature differential, if it could be measured, would exceed 0.5 degree F. Item 28. What have May Creek's habitat problems to do with the subject site? Item 32. Statement concerning riparian environments and that they are not easily replaced. This statement by itself leaves the impression that there is only a downside to riparian modification, and that the stream will only be exposed to direct sunlight with corresponding warming of the stream's waters. First of all, the issue of solar warming of the stream's waters is grossly overstated. The rise in temperature between the south and north property lines is probably so low as to be nearly undetectable. And, during summer when the sun angle and ambient air temperatures are highest, there is no stream flow at the surface (i.e., any flows are subsurface where effects from solar warming would be quite unlikely). With enhancement of the stream corridor by grading, planting, and installation of large woody material.(both in-stream and along the riparian edges), significant improvements to the aquatic and riparian habitats is expected. On some of our projects, willows have grown between 30 and 60 inches in one season. Our proposed plan for stream relocation and restoration includes the use of evergreen trees (e.g., Douglas fir and western red cedar) along the stream banks, which will provide more dense shade than exists with the present plant species. The plan also includes installation of habitat features (e.g., Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 3 stumps, snags, down logs, bird nest boxes, bat roosting boxes) which will further enhance the habitat value along the stream corridor. Item 34. Contrary to this statement, there has been recent slope instability along the subject reach of the unnamed seasonal stream. Item 35. Statement was made concerning the placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer, and that by so doing there would be impacts on the wetlands. The proposed plan is to provide a bioswale planted with native trees and shrubs along its northern (i.e., wetland) side. By integrating the landscape of the bioswale with that of the wetlands and buffers north of the swale, we believe that an overall benefit will be achieved, and that the wetland system (existing wetlands, the mitigation wetlands, and their corresponding buffers) will be of higher value than that existing in these wetlands at the present time. Comment regarding removal of the culvert reflects confusion as to the correct location of the culvert adjacent to the northern end of the subject property. The culvert referenced in the comment at the hearing is actually located well off-site to the north. Item 39. The comment that there was no demonstration that the mitigation would work is confusing. Our firm has designed and supervised construction on many similar projects. We are more than willing to provide evidence, if requested, that these wetland and stream projects were constructed successfully and that they are functioning successfully today. Based on our knowledge of the site, the proposed development, and our past experience on similar projects, we • believe that we can construct a successful stream and wetland project on this site. Item 40. Statement was made that the stream mitigation plan was worked out after the appeal was filed. This is not entirely true. More detail was provided after the ERC made their determination (as is common), but there was information provided to the ERC pertaining to the issue of stream relocation. Detailed mitigation plans are not ordinarily provided at the time that the SEPA threshold determination is made. Detailed plans are provided once the applicant knows whether or not he or she has a project at all. Issuance of an MDNS, as we understand it, means that we must mitigate the adverse impacts, and that this must be done to the satisfaction of the City. Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS Item 7. Statement made that the decision-makers had insufficient information to make a decision based on evaluation of options that are permitted by code. Various site design options were considered and discussed with the City's project manager during site plan development. It was our strong belief that by combining the two northern wetlands (Wetlands A and B), and then integrating stormwater facilities with the wetland system, the net ecological result would be positive and the functional values of the combined system would be greater than the functional values existing at the site at present. The alternative to not impacting the two wetlands would be to leave them as they are today. This would mean that there would not be new wetlands created between them and that there would be no enhancement of wetlands or their buffers. But, by filling a total of 565 square feet of wetland, mitigation is required. By placing the biofiltration swale in the wetland buffers, the buffers must be enhanced. Therefore, the impacts to the wetlands and their buffers will result in a wetland system with higher functional values than what occurs at the site today. Approximately 1412 square feet (0.032 acres) of Class 3, isolated wetlands would be impacted under the proposed project. Only 565 square feet of wetland would actually be filled; the remaining 847 square feet of wetland would be inadequately buffered (i.e., the site would encroach into the wetland buffer beyond the minimum standard buffer such that the wetland would be considered "unbuffered" and is consequently treated as "wetland fill"). Approximately 1624 square feet of wetland area will be created as mitigation. This created wetland will occur between the two small existing wetlands to create one combined and enhanced wetland system. Item 8. The statement is made that this site will a) increase impervious surface, b) fill portions of two wetlands, c) alter the connections between two of the three on-site wetlands, and d) re-route and regrade the stream bed. a) Impervious surface will be increased, but will be mitigated for by implementation of a stormwater management plan meeting and exceeding City of Renton design standards. For example,\stormwater will be detained for the 100-year event. Following on-site detention, runoff from most of the impervious portions of the site will be routed through a biofiltration swale. Treated stormwater leaving the biofiltration swale will be released to Wetland B. Some rooftop runoff will be Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 5 routed to Wetland A after detention. Surface flows from Wetland A will extend through the mitigation wetland area and into Wetland B. b) Portions of two wetlands will be filled. The total amount of wetland fill is 565 square feet, or 0.013 acre. Total wetland impact on Wetlands A and B (both Class 3, wetlands) is 1412 square feet. The remaining 847 square feet is treated as wetland fill, but is actually that amount of wetland area in which the site development has encroached into the wetland buffer beyond the minimum amount allowed by City code. Mitigation is proposed for both the actual wetland fill, as well as the effective wetland fill. Approximately 1624 square feet of new wetland area will be created as mitigation. Minor impacts to these two wetlands is proposed to allow optimal use of the site, to facilitate integration of stormwater facilities (i.e., biofiltration swale) into the wetland area, and also to allow development of one larger wetland system supporting higher functional values. We evaluated the possibility of creating stormwater facilities between the two wetlands, but felt that by creating a wetland connection between the two wetlands and placing the biofiltration along the south side of the wetland system, we would achieve a better ecological solution. c) The connection between the two wetlands (Wetlands A and B)? There is no connection. The two wetlands are now isolated, except for large storm events in which surface waters flow from Wetland A to Wetland B. d) The applicant has not requested re-routing of the stream. This was a requirement of the City of Renton. The proposed project cannot be developed without road improvements. Road improvements require widening of the road toward the west, thereby affecting the present location of the stream. The applicant has attempted to illustrate and describe the concept for stream relocation. Further detail of this concept should and will be presented to the City and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for review, comment and approval. Item 9. Whether the stream's culverts and gradient are changed or not does not seem appropriate to a SEPA threshold determination. These are specific design issues which should be dealt within preparation of the mitigation plan. Both the City of Renton and WDFW will have ample opportunities to comment on the mitigation plan as it is being developed, and finally to approve the plan once it is found to meet the requirements of the respective agencies. Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 6 The plan that has been developed to date does not depict a detailed stream relocation design. Consequently, locations of meanders, deflector logs and rocks, weirs, plunge pools, point bars, root wads, fish rocks; etc. have not been shown. Significant changes in water quality, including water temperature, are not expected to occur with construction of the new section of stream channel. WDFW will condition the HPA by requiring that specific procedures be followed and specific measures be implemented to protect the resource. This will include an erosion control plan, contingency measures, construction timing and sequencing. We understand that fish passage in this stream is limited by a perched culvert off-site below the subject property. This off-site impediment to upstream fish migration is not an issue that the present owner has any ability to deal with. Item 11. This conclusion seems to ignore the fact that this project cannot be constructed without an HPA from WDFW. That permit will be issued only if the WDFW believes that the stream relocation will be done in an environmentally responsible manner. Talasaea's wetland report was submitted to the City of Renton on February 7, 1997 (Williamsburg Condominium Development: Wetland Delineation and Study Report. February 7, 1997). Our mitigation report was submitted to the City on March 20th (Williamsburg Condominium Development: Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation Report. March 20, 1997). The latter document contains a drawing titled, Detailed Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan, Sheet W1.0, dated 3/20/97. Item 12. Talasaea has submitted to the City of Renton all Information stated by the Hearing Examiner to be necessary for an environmental analysis of the proposed project. Item 13: Comment made that site development could affect adjoining properties. The mitigation wetland area has been designed so that the buffer around the mitigation wetland would not extend onto the adjoining property to the north. Stream flows are not expected to change with construction of this project. Therefore, no downstream effects are expected. Item 14. Relocation of the creek cannot occur without regrading the entire area. An examination of the existing topography should make clear the need for Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 7 vegetation removal and regrading. Impacts will occur to vegetation and to water temperatures (theoretically, but probably not to the degree to which it could be practically measured). Erosion will be controlled by implementation of an erosion control plan. This plan will be submitted to the City and to WDFW, along with our final mitigation plan, for permit approval. Loss of riparian vegetation will be mitigated for by planting a wide variety of native evergreen and deciduous tree and shrub species. Water quality will be protected by scheduling construction during the summer low flow months, and by implementing standard BMPs as presented in the final plan and as conditioned by the regulatory agencies. The water elevations now occurring in Wetland A will remain the same following development of the proposed project. Wetland A is an isolated depression that flows toward the west during heavy rainfall events. This same flow path will occur following construction, passing first through the mitigation wetland area, and then to and through Wetland B. Question was posed in regard to possible losses of stream water through pervious soils in the relocation area. We would not expect this to occur. However, if it did occur, we would introduce fine materials into the streambed (e.g., natural silt or silty sands from a site certified to be clean of contaminants). Item 15. The biofiltration swale will involve periodic maintenance. Location of the swale in the wetland buffer may result in some minor disturbance to wildlife during these maintenance events. It is believed that the normal activities in this residential community will probably create similar disturbances to the wetland system. However, none of the disturbances (whether by maintenance or normal on-site activity) is expected to cause any significant impact to the wetlands. The composition of wildlife species using this site is expected to trend toward a more urban assemblage with development of the proposed project -- even if no impacts were to occur to.the wetlands or the stream or their buffers. If the stormwater facilities, including the bioswale, are designed, constructed and maintained according to code and best management practices, there should be no adverse water quality impacts to the wetlands. Item 17. I do not believe there will be "more than a moderate impact" in the site's hydrology. The plan for stream relocation is to sequence the construction so that the new stream channel is constructed first, while the existing stream channel remains in use. Then, after the new channel is constructed and Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 8 . stabilized with plantings and large woody material, the new channel will be "unplugged", allowing the stream to follow the new path. The old channel would then be filled, graded and planted. Hydrological impacts to the existing seasonal wetlands would be negligible, since construction of mitigation wetlands and grading and,planting activities in the vicinity of the wetland system would occur during the dry summer months when there is no hydrology. I hope that my comments on the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions are helpful to you and the Environmental Review Committee in further defining the proposed project and in clarifying certain points raised in the April 1st hearing. If you have any questions pertaining to the information provided herein, please call me at (206) 861-7550. Thank you for your continued assistance on this project. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS \ • William E. Shiels Principal cc: Mark Goldberg Allan Bauman . John Phillips • r/ • Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 7 filtered light in the summer. In the winter it is not a serious problem with insulation. Responding to further questions,Mr. Shiels described Wetlands A,B and C--their depth,water flow,drainage, recharges. Ms.LaFever questioned Mr. Shiels regarding ratio replacement to loss. He explained that the code provides for 1 to 1 replacement to loss ratio if two Class III wetlands are connected,which this project shows between A and B there will be a physical connection of wetlands, one contiguous wetland system. The wetland replacement to loss ratio physically is a 1 to 1 on an area basis. The ratio for replacement to loss for a Class III wetland to be filled is 1.5 to 1..If two Class III wetlands are joined,then the replacement to loss ratio is 1 to 1 as stated in the code. Mr. Shiels stated that on the project site the applicant has demonstrated avoidance and minimization with respect to the stream and wetlands. It was his understanding that the existing road has encroached beyond the road right-of-way on the east side of the property, so the only opportunity for expansion was to the west. He stated that the net result will be an improved riparian corridor when this project is built as designed. Applicant must monitor any project that involves mitigation to streams or wetlands for a period of five years per the City's code. Mark Pywell, Senior Planner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055, spoke as project manager on behalf of the City. He explained the City's code as it relates to joining of wetlands. The applicant could have designed a created wetland area on site at a 1.5 to 1 ratio and left the two wetlands as separate wetlands. However,the code does allow the 1 to 1 ratio because it is looked at as being a better solution to combine the smaller wetlands into one functioning large wetland for better survival rate. Regarding the moving of the stream,he stated that it was the outcome of a requirement to improve Lincoln Avenue along this project to meet current City standards. Mr. Kussman stated applicant's position and related the problems associated with the stream relocation as well as the street improvements required by the City. A representative of the Fisheries Department, after reviewing the plans, stated that there should be no problem with the stream relocation. Regarding the wetland buffers,he stated that under Renton code they have met every requirement. There are provisions in the wetlands ordinance that public ways,utilities, etc.,may be placed through and around buffers of wetlands and actually even through the wetlands if it is required by code for the benefit of the public. Closing arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 4:07 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Monica Rosman LaFever and Marty Roberts,represented by Monica Rosman LaFever (hereinafter appellant), filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)issued for a proposed multiple family complex. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on March 10, 1997. The Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 8 subject proposal was subjected to the City's ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. During the review process the City determined that certain conditions should be imposed on the project to minimize the potential impacts associated with the proposal. The appellants objected to the determination and raised a number of issues concerning the impact of the proposal on the stream and wetlands found on and adjacent to the site and to the waters into which they flow and the habitat. 2. The underlying proposal entails the construction of a 9-building, 62 unit multiple family complex. It will be located on an approximately 3.3 acre site. Parking for 120 vehicles will be located within garages in the nine buildings with an.additional 16 open stalls located throughout the site. 3. Three separate wetlands and a small creek are located on or partially on the site. Wetland A is approximately 3,079 sq ft on-site. It is approximately 10,000 sq ft in total area. It is forested. The wetland is probably fed by rain for the most part,but there is an artesian well leaking offsite. The wetland is a Category 3 wetland which requires a 25 foot buffer. The applicant proposes filling approximately 1,248 sq ft of it. 4. ! Approximately 1,094 sq ft of Wetland B is located on the subject site. The wetland including offsite portions totals approximately 5,000 sq ft. It is forested and is also a Category 3 wetland. Approximately 164 sq ft of it would be filled. 5. Wetland B appears to flow in two directions,toward May Creek and toward the other stream. 6. Wetlands A and B are forested with cottonwood trees approximately 60 to 70 feet tall and are estimated at about 40 years old. 7. In total approximately 1,412 sq ft of Wetlands A and B would be filled. In compensation,the applicant will be excavating approximately 1,624 sq ft in an attempt to create wetland between A and B. The 'replacement ratio would be approximately 1.15:1 which is slightly more than the 1:1 required by the Renton Wetland Ordinance. That ordinance permits 1:1 replacement when two smaller Category 3 wetlands are combined. . 8. Category 3 wetlands require a buffer of 25 feet. The applicant proposes constructing the site's needed biofiltration swale in the proposed wetland buffer. This is permitted by ordinance. 9. Wetland C straddles the boundary between the subject site and property to its west. Approximately 2,617 sq ft is contained within the site. A large portion extends offsite. It is located at the toe of a slope and contains black muck. It is a Category 2 which is higher in quality than the other two wetland areas. It requires a 50 foot buffer. With City permission,the applicant proposes buffer averaging which would reduce a portion of the required buffer below 50 feet but to not less than 40 feet. The total square feet of the buffer will be maintained. • 10. A stream flows from south to north along the eastern edge of the southern half of the site. It crosses in and out of City owned property both near the north and south ends of the site. It is located below Lincoln Avenue NE. A 25 foot buffer from edge of high water is proposed along both sides of the creek. . Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 9 11. The record reflects that the stream bears fish downstream(north)from the subject site. A change in topography at the lower end of a culvert appears to prevent fish passage upstream to the segment of the creek flowing beside and through the subject site. 12. The City proposes widening Lincoln in this area in order to serve both the subject site and the general . traffic needs of the area. This widening would necessitate the relocation of the creek. Stream relocation would require the removal of vegetation, as well as excavation, filling and grading on both sides of the creek. To prevent erosion,riprap has already been installed along portions of the creek. 13. The stream would be moved to the west.._Some meander would be accommodated and its gradient (drop from south to north)would be lessened. It would be deeply incised and riprap would be part of stabilization. The outlet would be raised approximately 6 feet. This would increase any obstacle to fish migration that the existing two foot drop already presents. The existing obstacle probably is already too severe to accommodate fish migration upstream. The gradient change would lower the overall velocity of the creek but could also lead to increased water temperatures. 14. The area north of the site is a mix of commercial and residential uses concentrated around and generally east of the NE 44th Street interchange at I-405. South of that fairly developed node,the area becomes more sparsely developed with scattered single family uses located on larger lots. 15. Lincoln Avenue NE which runs north to south east of the subject site is a narrow street developed to older standards. Just north of NE 40th(unopened)Lincoln forms a"Y" intersection with Monterey Place NE. Jones Avenue NE is located west of the subject site. 16. The subject site and property north and west of it are zoned CA(Commercial Arterial). East of the site, across Lincoln Avenue is an R-10 zone(Residential/10 units per acre). Immediately south of the site is an R-8 zone(Single family residential/8 units per acre). 17. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial uses but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 18. The CA zone does permit the development of multiple family uses under certain conditions. One of those conditions is that a single use multiple family use be limited to 20 units per acre. The proposal complies with the limitation. 19. At least south of the site there have been bear, deer and cougar sightings. Salamanders have been found in the area as well as song birds,piliated woodpeckers and other birds. 20. While wildlife has been seen in the area,the appeal did not initially raise any issues dealing directly with habitat. In any event,there is no definitive evidence of threatened or endangered species occupying the subject site. 21. The appellant addressed concerns regarding the recharge of May Creek(from Wetland C)and impacts on the wetlands and the wetlands'buffers,flooding and erosion. Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 10 22. There is some evidence in the record that some testimony may have been about property not within the boundaries of the subject site. Employees of the State Fisheries Division noted that preferred policies, not necessarily those in effect within the City,would provide 150 foot setbacks from both sides of a stream and 50 feet around wetlands and that lesser buffers are ineffective. 23. The loss of vegetation that might occur with road construction and vegetation removal could result in raised stream temperatures. The differences would be measurable and not speculative. 24. The increase in impervious surface could lead to altered stream flows with less water released from underlying soils in summer and greater flows and scouring in winter. City code requires detention which necessitates post-development flows leaving the site not exceed predevelopment release rates. 25. A hydrology(hydraulic)permit will be needed from Fisheries and this was omitted from the checklist. 26. The checklist did not deal with storm water but noted it would be managed by discharging into the wetlands. It will be channeled through a detention structure,routed through a biofiltration swale and released into the combined A-B wetland. 27. The site had been an extraction site and quarry. There are ridges along the east and west boundaries of the site. There are sands which allow water to percolate into the site; however,there is no information on hydrology and which way the underground flows run. 28. May Creek studies indicate habitat problems and suggest restoration. A management plan is under review at this time but has not been adopted. 29. Flooding occurs in the area upstream or south of the subject site. The City had responded and did repair work on the drainage ditch east of the site. The most recent heavy storm appears to have not caused a recurrence of the flooding. • 30. There is also flooding north of the subject site in the vicinity of Denny's Restaurant and at Jones and 43rd. Staff noted this is caused by a substandard culvert system under I-405. This flooding has closed off access to the areas south of Jones Road just west of the subject site. Flooding has also occurred in the vicinity of Ripley Lane. 31. The ERC did impose a condition that the applicant provide for a 100-year storm event either with onsite detention or downstream improvements. 32. The record reflects that riparian environments are not easily replaced. Recovery can take at least the five years specified by the ERC in its mitigation measures and can take longer. Depending on the type of vegetation planted, it could take a number of years before the creek is shaded sufficient to reduce water temperature. It was predicted that a minimum of three years would permit trees to grow from 4 feet to 8 feet. Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 11 • 33. The bioswale, depending on circumstances, will need to be maintained by the property owner. This would necessitate entering into the wetland buffer area. The scope of the operation was not fully discussed. 34. The slopes above the stream do not evidence any immediate erosion or slide potential or any recent geological instability. 35. The appellant recommended a number of measures to reduce or eliminate the impacts this proposal would have on the wetlands and creeks: that the bioswale not be developed within the wetland buffer area;the culvert should be removed under the emergency road and the gradient altered to allow fish passage; and straightening the channel would be inappropriate. The appellant's plans show a gentle meandering stream course and suggest lowering the gradient of the stream on the subject site but potentially increasing the drop at the culvert. The second, lower culvert, apparently mislocated by the appellant already presents a formidable obstacle to fish passage. Woody debris and pools would create a preferable stream profile. 36. It is not known who installed the culvert or when it was installed. It is not clear if fish passage might have been accommodated for its installation. 37. The ERC imposed the following wetland condition: "The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report. This report shall include,but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands,the areas that will be filled as part of the project,the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands,the treatment of buffer areas, a five year monitoring plan, and identify the party responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands, and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permit." 38. The ERC imposed the following stream buffer condition: "The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this areas to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits." 39. There was no demonstration that the mitigation would work. The applicant believes that a better riparian environment would result from the proposed stream work. The applicant also indicates that there will be limited impacts to the wetlands. 40. The stream mitigation plan was worked out after the appeal was filed. It was not fully reviewed by the appellant or the ERC. • CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. • Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 12 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is reversed. • 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason as a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability.(Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity. . .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. . . The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782) 6. Even given the relaxed standards cited above,a case can only be made with the submission of support for the contentions of error. 7. The primary issue encountered in this matter is that there is insufficient information in the record to allow the various decisionmakers to determine between options permitted by code. Just because the code allows certain options like filling portions of wetlands if they are consolidated or building the biofiltration swale in the wetlands'buffer does not mean they should be sanctioned. The environmental • consequences of such actions should be spelled out before committing to them. The problem is that approaching this project from the outside as are the appellants and the various decisionmakers, such as the Hearing Examiner on the site plan and the Public Works Administrator on some wetlands options, there is insufficient information to decide between some of the options or variations. Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April 29, 1997 Page 13 8. The applicant proposes developing an approximately 3.3 acre undeveloped site with three wetlands, severe slopes and a creek. Along with this development which will increase impervious surface,the applicant proposes filling portions of two of the wetlands, altering the connections between two of them and re-routing and regrading the stream bed. While the applicant and maybe even the directly involved staff might have been privy to additional considerations,that information is not available in the existing file or record to allow anyone else to reach any informed decisions. 9. Should the stream's curves be altered and should its gradient be lowered? To what effect? Should it meander or be widened? What are the affects on water quality and stream temperature? Will the • additional elevation difference created by lowering the overall descent of the creek make impossible restoration of fish passage above the culvert? 10. While the applicant and City indicated that Fisheries likes or approves some of the mitigation ideas, those ideas only are clearly enunciated in documents that followed,not preceded some of the environmental review. The ERC's condition is that: "The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation report..This report shall include,but not be limited to, a description of the existing wetlands,the areas that will be filled as part of the project,the establishment of new wetland areas to replace the disturbed wetlands,the treatment of buffer areas,a ' five year monitoring plan, and identify the party responsible for the maintenance of the wetlands, and buffer areas. This report shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of construction or building permit." 11.' Similarly, another ERC condition applicable to the creek is: • "The applicant shall submit a plan or report detailing the buffer area along the stream and the treatment of this area to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department prior to the issuance of construction or building permits." Thee conditions are vague. They provide no basis for an interested party to know what is proposed as mitigation. They assure nothing at the time of the environmental determination. There is nothing adequately defined to assure the appellants that the stream will be protected--only that it be submitted and satisfies someone ultimately. At that point, if the plan appeared inadequate, challenges might be too little,too late. Or it could require significant alteration of a plan built around stream and wetland relocations and acreage devoted to biofiltration that might need to be moved. Might a thorough study indicate whether filling should or should not occur or relocation should or should not occur? The submission of the mitigation plan that appeared at the appeal hearing cannot substitute in the time frame for review prior to the committal of resources. The appellant did not have an access to the plan to see if it was sufficient prior to the appeal. 12. Shouldn't the full description of the wetland be available before the environmental determination? Shouldn't the extent of fill be known before environmental determination? Shouldn't the new wetlands areas and the vegetation proposed also be known so that the ERC can truly conclude that mitigation will minimize the adverse impacts? There is nothing that assures any reader that, in fact,the impacts of all of these various actions will be fully mitigated or that these actions are the best alternative given the sensitive nature of the site or portions of the site. Monica Rosman LaFever Marty Roberts File No.: LUA97-029,AAD April29, 1997 Page 14 13. The site is not simple from a topographical or hydrological standpoint. The site appears to have three discrete wetlands and a creek. Each of the wetlands is shared between the subject site and adjacent property meaning any change could affect other property. The stream also traverses adjacent property. 14. Staff correctly pointed out that City Wetlands Ordinance permits the various options that the applicant proposed for wetland fill, consolidation and construction of the biofiltratrion swale in the buffer. That does not necessarily mean they have to be permitted or should be permitted. An analysis of those options, alternatives to those options or avoidance is necessary. Again,the record does not disclose in any affirmative fashion the background that would appear to be necessary to make decisions on whether to regrade the creek and what affects that would have on streamside vegetation,erosion,water . temperatures, etc. Nor is there any information in the file which apparently weighs the options of filling portions of Wetlands A and B and joining them together. Do they drain to different areas? If so, would joining them alter the seasonal recharge of their respective downstream areas? Will altering the creek's course by straightening,moving and realigning it and changing its gradient cut into clay or impermeable layers that would change its capacity as a creek,or would introducing such layers to prevent saturation of nearby soils have the opposite affect? 15. Would permitting the bioswale in the buffer, a swale that might require periodic maintenance, introduce intrusions into what should be generally undisturbed "setback"buffer from the actual wetlands? Will this move pollutants and sediments closer to the actual wetlands? Again,this information is not available. 16. SEPA requires this type of information before committing or altering the environment. While the site is not very large, it does contain sensitive areas. As SEPA points out, it is neither the size nor even beneficial ultimate results of a project that determines whether a project has more than a moderate impact•on the quality of the environment. All factors come into play in assessing how the alteration of the site will affect the environment of the site and surroundings. 17. Even if all told,the proposed modifications to this site's hydrologic components would be beneficial, that still does not alter the fact that the total of all such changes will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment and therefore deserve the study and analysis that can only be accomplished preparing an environmental study. 18. Since the only issues raised on appeal deal with the wetlands,creek and drainage issues,the required environmental studies shall be focused on those issues and shall not be expanded to include wildlife or other habitat issues other than those associated with aquatic ecosystems. 19. Finally, in doing the appropriate environmental analysis,the fact that all of the options that the applicant planned or proposed might be permitted by code does not minimize or remove their potential environmental impacts. It is a well-known fact that not everything sanctioned by code is exempt from SEPA review. SEPA has clear exemptions and any other action is subject to appropriate review. 20. The mitigation measures proposed do not necessarily remove the environmental consequences of these actions. Further, as was noted at the hearing, certain documents and mitigation measures were not developed prior to the issuance of the DNS-Mitigated and were not available to either the ERC or the appellants in this case. 21. Those mitigation measures may in fact address the environmental consequences, and then again they may not. They were not part of the record of review before the ERC when a decision was issued and when an appeal was timely filed. In addition, as noted,the record does not have much information in j ■ ► TA LASA EA CONSULTANTS 30 June 1997 TAL-313 Mr. Mark Pywell, Project Manager City of Renton, Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 • REFERENCE: Williamsburg Condominiums (Project No. LUA-96-164,SA,ECF) SUBJECT: Response to Letter to City of Renton from Appellants, dated June 25, 1997 Dear Mark: On June 26th, I received a copy of a letter/memorandum prepared by.Ms. LaFever, et. al. which once again attempts to describe our proposed project as being environmentally unacceptable. I have prepared the following written response to Ms. LaFever's comments and concerns which I hope you will convey to the Environmental Review Committee before it convenes on Tuesday, July 1st Having worked in the Greater Seattle Area for 23 years as a natural resource and environmental planner, I must say that this is the first project with which I have been involved where so much has been made over such relatively minor issues. Most of the issues raised by the appellants have been raised before, and were responded to in my letter to you dated May 8, 1997. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your review. There are many comments made by the appellants that are either exaggerated or clearly incorrect. I will attempt to address the major issues that they have raised in this most recent letter/memorandum. Issue 1. Hydrology of May Creek. The geotechnical engineer for this project has determined that most of the existing flows from the site extend northward to the two existing wetlands. This is due to a relatively impermeable till layer along the western side of the site, as well as the local topography. He has concluded that the post- development hydrology will not be significantly different from the existing hydrology in RCS0UI-CC '7 Environmental Planning I;5(I20 Box- Creel; I20,1(1 No rthalst • \\'n dim illC. Washington 98072 • I3u': (2U(i) $(il-7;550 • Fax: (20(1) 8(1l-7 54(i • Mr. Mark Pywell 30 June 1997 Page 3 Issue 7. Permeability of relocated stream channel. We have stated in our contingency plan that if the bed of the relocated stream channel were found to be too permeable, we would install a clay liner(e.g., Bentomat). Issue 8. Food sources for fish. The relocate and enhanced stream channel will produce more food for fish than the existing channel, because a) there will be more wetted surface for macrobenthic invertebrates, and b) there will be more large woody material in the stream channel to serve as a food source for these invertebrates. Issue 9. Issue of wetland filling. We are avoiding a substantial amount of wetlands, and have minimized the impacts by filling only about 1500 sf. We propose combining the two small wetlands with a mitigation wetland to create a larger, more valuable wetland system. Issue 10. Flooding and sedimentation downstream. The proposed project will alleviate the flooding and siltation problem downstream by detaining and treating water not only form the site but from some of the roadway surfaces offsite. . Stormwater facilities will be built to detain the 100-year storm event. This exceeds the City's standard. No downstream sedimentation or flooding problems are expected to result from the proposed project. Issue 11. Big game animals. Big game animals have been sited in the May Creek valley, well south of the subject site and in a much less urbanized environment. The habitat offered on the subject site would hardly be considered desirable for big game animals, as most wildlife biologists would likely agree. Issue 12. Amphibians. We have made several site visits throughout the spring to the present time, and have not observed any amphibians on the property. Issue 13. Mention of eagles, great blue herons, and red-tailed hawks. This means very little, since there is no suitable habitat for any of these species on the site. Eagles may fly over the site. Great blue herons would not be able to enter and leave the ponded area of Wetland A, or any other portion of the site. Red-tailed hawks might perch, or possibly nest on the site, but would not find suitable habitat for foraging. We have conducted a wildlife reconnaissance on the property and have found no raptor nests —active or inactive. SUMMARY In my opinion, the City of Renton made the correct decision when it initially issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for this project. Through the hearing process, we have had the opportunity to further refine the site plan and • • Mr. Mark Pywell 30 June 1997 Page 4 mitigation design and are confident that the project can and will be constructed in a technically sound and environmentally sensitive manner. We hope the City will offer us the opportunity to prove this. If you have any questions,'or if you require any additional information at this time, please call me at(425) 861-7550. Thank you for your consideration and careful review of this proposed project. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS William E. Shiels Principal Enclosure cc: Mark Goldberg, SDA Brothers, Inc. Allen Bauman, Polygon Mgmt. Lyle Kussman, Kussman Assoc. . . • , •••.....-• • - 4, •• .. -.; 4 4... 'il .'•'..• '--..t.;4 ,C.' - '•.'''-kii%•1' '!': ''' ''''!• :44-. ",• • £ :i1 --- .xr .. ..-,,,•314.:1-:....4. -.,,..,.,..,.,:,..,,,, t- .......,v,14,.. s ,.,.: ....„:0,4,-, ,-,...zp-,A. : ,_ .,:o.,1 f. „ „;:try: ,,..1.;,..'..,4 f,; • ' ' S"• -, :-...';..-8--1'V*44,1.--:-'-h--... ,,,,,,,,:,..,,:•••• ..,.„-, ,2,..::::..,„4,r4,4M-,‘,k:St.".• reit,-4!`•.4•,,•6.2p.,-,..3 -.•4. 2,4...4:---, ..,-;1"`1., -,:•-, w , •, , );,. ...p. 4-4-,.,. . • ,---ler ii -...0,k. ,......,„ -, .s.r..11-A,,i J,4,, ....4,.. .14,,., 1+1, , _;;A•• •,.4-„) •hy...*:Ay:-'-'70:6. ' ..-41:'`iii'l.'..'11SNIN_'.?:.1- - 4.. '''. -./...;!:,1 7i'";:',..'4.4.::1)1...;:',!1,1,111tWAVII.,.4 .:411:,, yy...v.:';;Pk.:::,.....-4,*:;;;s5,1:6+.1.:i‘411. 41"-Y 4;';4-1-- '.,:-•,1".....4":'-'..%41: 1:;.:-.14't-'''''''''''''..i115.441i'',::•41,fr.1-`041v4;ic:',..'' ill • cu ._ 1' ..41„_,---' ''''.'t ''1.;. ' - •. '• '-':';',."---mr".•-‘.1,...ir`''',1 .,•-iir'''t!' 4.4,,,.. ,,,• .'''.:'',Zki•11;4/,',tin,.f.,, 4, ••:,: 4 r•-•1,,,,,,,!:...fi, n, •,:..•T,-;,-AVA,f,',,,,,,4t,t.'-...,.t.%-ti;J:,144..„.t!1 ',...,.,. .;.. • .- 0 —.6.v,, -'.D$ 1 •...!,:..i,:4,..,..::t.:,?:.%,r,4!.......',,. ;-:: 4„..!,,,.',;.4 iii,,,..1: :,..„:1;i4-4:4k.„:r. ,.:,.,,-,..., .:7,;,,,,,,,:lot..1,.A.,,,ijr1::4',.;.."5,..,,,,;.....,y,,,,,ro.:.,:i61414,,,,,, .,,,,,,...,,,...:,,,,,,..,..,.-.;;;;,,A.f.t„..,:. :',..:!..;...lift..,,t::::.":„.4.1.1.:::;;;t;..,...t1.-,..„ ...,;:!.:::::.!„.;'t:.,./1.;;i..:!':',)itrl.jij..,:::..i:::.7,,,,,t,',1.:,,,,,,T.,..;:i.;.•„.1::..1 cri !...:,1,-,:,6..:, ., ,t,..,.-.' -.:x, ....s!... ...4,4i.. '--.,,,,,-;:..-,.'...,1-4,:,.,N,.--4-,;tf.---..)..f.,,,q-,..,...•4.,•••4,,.t".£-',-,-i ..I,:.r , .,.A,--.-4;.-4?'•41.,,:',,r• '•P•gly,'.4.1-i-m .li,It-rt ..,,,,•i ':.$00,4, (1) - ''-•• t-•,•.--..,c4m.,,,,i 4.r-•..,';!,,,VA•••,,...4.). .,,,•s. , :2•••••,".4,,,. ,‘,.,.111q, 4,:,.. ;,... ':• •,,.:1 ,.6.,Et-,,,:.,:.N,1*,,,,. .,,,,,,,-4,,,Ve,,,O'j, .116..,VLv•••, ,-*.7- ;Lk,,;;,,t i *.'::;*-P,,..ia,. • " .e.g.:`.1,..-i', ',,,,,t.-1-,1-7,1%:'.. .,.•"•41,•,:l.../.!".4,:y•••:":" s".-••'}•.,,,.,: < "•‘:- .L2•;1•'.i;''''.' ‘..:24,•e'k!';41•44*Zie,•f;N•S'"V;°.t•C'li 4•Cv st7;.VRO.4;''''. •F'''- .7::1•.:4".•31tieP.P1P41''''0""•14•1Agt 142.1./t.Yit- 01...`•' iirr.."•'.;;I'4.)-11 :',1'-': rtii.V4V-41V",Z1H:''''''''''''s .. '-tiZit%'• '‘',/ 06.1:.1* ii'.., P.04:thair.W.I•AEA•••••4 '..; •%,•:. •S/J-4."-f4 R`'.''''" ••'1,:•`;•;..4.--,.11,*!",.;,;,:rtj' •...1,4711•,.::::i..41,04ilt.O.N*,..i1,,,t4 ;-,'„?.''"f;.liiieli,-,,,se.c.Zik.,•:',,y.....:+•,'• .--."-VAW,,i;',A . ...1,1•4;4N '•,.•.7.,;6;t• lii-if,..1i,. •.,„ ' 1:3 •;4",f1•,.„„iiiiy- .:.A.i!..,04; ,:•.;,,..,-,:..•!:.e•;:::..,.-,•A4-...;• .,. :.,:,,,, ••••, .,,,.kv . ...i.,,.; ..!•-ctir.,k..., -10".---„froe...!.';':%r•-.rnit__Y•1,?.A -At:- ••..r•oibittV,'NO.,..•?.,••,,,,,•'17;hik- '74,, ir:',;:::'.. 1.4,4•-•:.:::" ...•!;',,s.t.4':•.;•.•'-.4 '4•4."--;)•••,',.1.' f.•,:i., C 4.4. ' C••••• ...I'':•''".1:34N i.?•.'"•..1:-3.,,,eA,r1-4...;','-,'•i.i tiff 4.4 11,,,r.1.-P.-,...::$ .,-0',V,:..4.--:-....- i' '..:4Mq.‘,?•;-.'.....t.i,V4,1,00r, q••,•. 9,..di,t1:•',1,:,!-'4. ;; ',. ''-',•:i0.5.1:47t1,..6.r.,.;iik::,:ipr;._ ..4?•,..Viii4 (13 ?r4•4141.- ••••• f•-14Iffk st4.,. ti:•-":04/11;1V,••.. ••••' r•-. •`‘....-• ir,--r•'s.r..?':.•••.::'-a-. .;•',P ''sr:ti e.i.:‘.•.:;4'•-•47•;',..i.•'...t.,'• C--s!•.'orx,?-24k.,,,•-..T.0. 3::j.V,Iii••z,.:{!: '''11.'•Atli-V•-•:.••. .•...:.4 :ii::.,...,:!ia.l.p:,,,....,.m..:4,1*i.,,,,,-14,-le...,..,..,,..'"v 4;,:ler " .$ ,., .....-... ..,..,.7•1,...,4,, ,..,,, ,,,,.?....,,..,....„ .,1%,,...... •..1, .ff ,..,4 .,, IL.,, : .4..,-.,.‘,...-._;_,,,,,c,,, .f„, :*.-,..,.1,., ..,,4;,,.. .... u„fkv,,N,..,,iii2,,,A0,:i.,1,se„,..,,:i.• xr,.,;.14• ,,,.,-..*,,, 4.t ' .•.,',•.."•,-_. .'0 1,';,..p..::;sw- .1,...:.,.'1,.r,r-zs.!...4.. .,,,4,,., ;•L,•Iril••,7. .14...t..,"11.'-',•sfe .' 'I-r•••• ';••••'-if=s •• -.--4.'.•••;:.zs' 'sr1.1.f.. '•71 ,;:'•••'.1.sl•L'1•:.•:42r''' 7.' .4 '•••7-Cr''"••••••4 - •'....•'1•147;$ti-I'.•'4,••••t';'1-. ••',•siAc:i. ,r. -= :. :. f--A)" , ' '''.,4'. -?bk.*1•''''..:Oti';',te-. k. Nii.tr._,',.-..-t••.N. cl) .v.:- ?..,,tpi,...,-„,--•!`", .•,. i..:,.:,:..,..4.;;; .:ZW.,;,.. -,.,..,,iNtrz.0 ti„;:ttl,,. ,:i.-.,..,p,,.:,e •_7.-frittol•r;V-..:(_!,:,-.,-...:t. : '0' ,,,,',I'C•.:3•-":•:',," ' '...! • .. ,iii:;''i---- : 'A) <1.: :'1. --' - a. 1.•••;.....,-41,:fPrf-P,:,.._'i, .-, ...,-;,,P s.,.:44`,;:t;•. -._-. :... -a- .''' '-'4011-'il,;-.4-4316.,.1 4 7 4 7..v A .-1i-VP.-41.1'3i40.1j$4:g--•f-':--1:4.:e7.-??'!•:..f17, '--it..?z .-4".- 4-.1. .?4,.-s.1%4;t,N .r.'-'..-.$--,-.-IN • ,,,Y,,.Z.;*-.4. ,s;.:-.•,.-.0... ,.‘,.-.-ei:'1.,..ii.c-4'),-4-3,,IA:•V•;.• tt. 14-.•:' ct " .V.:14;" -2.. -Iv'....t.-,?- 4:1,..-.;;; i -'74.1.:A••,#"4".'4'.a.• .',":•1'.. tti... ii-7.14-4.•‘. : ..-,,...A.:„..•'„,,. ..11'.-•:',,i-ii,r" ,....10.,..-41,„,,,.-,-,.e.„ •-....q-ai,:,.1:,,, .,.,<I.,.,41,..,.adi,.,,,,,,...,,...i..,,,,,,g,i,,f. ..,,._ ..,,c.,,,,,,,„_,...fr.„-,;,i ..., ,,- -..,._, "...,..._:-.pte‘-i,::: .,. •,..4.1 : ,,k-V„-.5.;;;•.,q..4.: .7,...wo-., s..':' •it..ifir.:9±..A.... 3,,er ,4.4„_....i.,:.. .i.ril..,33 3., .;'''.37.. t.r4411 IS: ..r7.-, .— . - ' '•••••'4,y3t,f,•,9,-;ffl.P.,',4,..--.,,i,... ,:/.. -7.z_ .;•:,,:s•A.,,...-, 5, .. te,iti.......,...1..1...,.„. !.,.....,"7,0,"--;1.. :•; I X?'iz.:•1'•''..•.''l'i-`:-qAty ''': .,. -...." • it, '..*. ...k-5'''';'-:-'t•-)4 t*".. ••''4-'''''''•-ik.4.-..'''.0:'•„•':,.,,,•• -1-;,•-,5, 0., .-,..,..• -•--404. ' •-,4.. ''..-.1°'' .., -n ''',1 A i 441 ,.,)P. C--..,b.,-.1.". 'ti•-...".-V-C-111griliC..e.F11;:. ,7.1„,';,•,:t:;.,-.In. 744' 7.2;0,,'--.'..,:.-1..-.• .. •;:•-•-•• .,. . ,. .„. ... .,., ..t,„..,••:,,,,,,,lr,fr-....,...,...i.-.. 'VA.+ ,,;.,.. ‘.....i.-W -.;,... -., A,t.,' '':,..e;.).,....;.Xt. .:.•lit.ii......? >, .. ..-.'-' '-'-..:,14 ' :."1.k•V*ZA.,•41,it.i tic'. • :'!'-'..:M''. eiN".e...,..'.. "44K,.4 i''. ..* '.31.f.- !!... .... .........f, * , .740490 ' '' .''.41.PriS,1: $ .' ..-4.•;#'41"i'''e""N'''' r-r! '.V.'"--..-:' ."7- l•4-•'-!'•'''-!.!'•-•;',',!'l""' '?. - ' ';.,..-'...-1::!:•4!":':•:s' -!.i. ! 'i'''t' ':,.,fi•.:".1,A+74, .,.1:.-•1•4.„....i,:i40-174 • ,' •: •is.: 4, .1,;.-: -',!'!...-..i...k''...!' ., sfi A.A. • 'O•gK..1,...l,p•,t.S•-••-•.,-.•r"r•-t.•V.,,._,-,.•4-'_-i''''f',.'',•,-e•,-.f-i•.'g.--..•,-",.,••'.•,•-•-•:,1.••..1..'.-,."4.;.-.2''...-,n.•:•r•.4..•---'•,.4,•..:...':_..;;.V:;41,..'0•.1_..'--;',e4z;-.46.-.;\.;.:1;i-'r,.k',.:.,._../;,......",..'£r,i..ii,f,.-i i,---,k•er'A••O•-t•4•:t•W%t-t--,4-'-1 r•,:1-s.'"4.v40,1,140,..-,.-1.i•.,.-4`'•,'!.;'4','t-.'1'--.,.'.':,..•;!,,.:7.;f1:.,';:'?4 1tI.1zr.‘z.Ar..1. •..,g S-.1 :,4-.0?4-.,..,0•,:.,.-..4.e.:,.-A..1•..uI'.':'.3.1.,...i..,..--.•1r'...;,."••..,1,.`.,.......,o".•,-:.6„0'•,.4.:;-••,,4? -44-:f':.,..,1..•.,7"•:.•.-•-":'-,.'..1.\•.11R''• .,:.,,.;':",,;•".••,•:. .-4•'';II:..tt.E1,,,e,'..•1,,•r r...f-....- •.:-1.,'.•..,I••h..'•...-.-4....,0.g.I4...A,„Y:,.i,).:A,,,-.,.I-ec',,-:,l.;,.I--l.,•,.'.:.,:;6.'.,.•..,.4.'1.-'.-4P i..-..:...V..•;-.t.,r•-,:..•,..-oi.',,r/.•,I...#i.,,'•.,,7,',..r.:fj.l';.'.:;':.s:.''1,-PF•,.:,it4A.,.a',1•,.„,...•L.t.i.'A..t..:L-,I•.;-At•i-.r4l4r-.e2l44.StT.',:.40,c,.,.:.i.•3•4•1,1.r1,r.4.•,11,4%.4.,:.t,....A.•..-,"-",_..-..','•.,,..i.-„.-•'..•k..r03f)i,p:E,„'4 p.,4.i..,-4-.,,.1.!..:.401I:4s,..e*..i•,•."t•';,,t••c:..‘*..,,4.N•1.U.Z'..,.:k'}:,',t...I,r•..,•..,'.t;,,ft,-...•:•W.L:':.,,,a:-,r•'-'"4k,0.:••?4..,144i..-:44A•.""0;;,:r0:4t.4:..,.,*f.?".-i'-;i't,•i•-,;,e'5-4•:.•0,,,• .'.".w.n.i;y-r',-4"r,10zi:,i13,i...!,t!,,,'',,.i',0.s',.4:i-,„....A."-f.•,'•1i%q..'.''i'--:„.1-4i.0.4,-'7.,1.,-,'24t.,l:,-fy-..1.s4.k,!',!4!.i i - le!q,,:•4,4•Ncitii;.,'-:'' ''''-'`•;4*•-••••••••"'•-•:::'''`"_5*.•'4•42 ti..,.4-"•?--Ifil rfir'•••:,1•4cii•?:1,`':41,441 .....).-L.. .'...w.',..j..".14.-:pr- ., .„...•... . .,. - ;‘,.,41, .1 _-,,i,'.,, i.:. ,,•,,,,:„. .:,.. . , ,,,,,,,-,,,,,'1, ,.,..,, ,... .,..v, • , :te',.4:,,. -•''.T'vli-iyirgAft',4„71,,-,.."-'-'. ..-'•--.4444, ''.4.1.2;1, • ' i'V'' 1-404,..A i fitT.41:4,4•4Y.W.41 , ,4,..', rk_111 . '•' iii••:'-'•.• ••• 1 1 tee? ,,,r4,., ,., •;: .-,.•..,i4-9,,,..1.0.,,,,„. „,,..,,.4, ;,•,...),„;,.,:lf„, ; --... . ' ",,,—.. '''.4kcilic,404A,.(--'• • '-'- '"•44. '' i,,...r.r-.'.... •• ,„it,w.ri.1.--, ,,i,„.., .,:. ...... !ri!.•-,..741,'-i•-i.;,-,..7%.-.-•',.- ...,:s74.."'4'6,,,:;.N.;c1.- • _. ---.....S".41,, ..-"IIN At,•1, 47''''''' . •....,,-L. ..k'''.1i1;..0..itiZt-f.:::.-Jos .J.' ;•;:.•_.i •.• •••..,...... ... :6,444., ,-.' rf.c......•1,-:-...3. •-•^0,..„..... 'z'-'4'.:,-?:.• '..,,.'••„:„....q.:.-,;;;,--,,so.,,,..-•': , '; .;'•-f-iF-,:.:21-p •z•-• . . - -• , .,.:.•-:.6frysiVc;4.k..,.. ---...,-• . - -._.... • • _.-.„.,,,..„....„:,,, ,,:...t-• •-•..:-..- ---.47,,. --'.i. • .. . ._.. , • .- .1e. ,•.; ,,,..„.,,,,' • :--..-.-,-- . .•,•-. -•., --.•,, :,---4•,,". ',-.4.---;:•ii •-,...4,••••••,••!A'• ...: t./. . ,,,.. . ... „...,... .,, „„.„ivi.iirosi,?t. ,...„ • • "... . ‘-::•.,‘..,::::9,•."1:-,•-•,:::-;-....-.;....;-•:.;•pi:',..!:i •--:••••:..•,••:',,,,-.) • "2.,4,-•• '",-,,-..,•..•F•A , .-..f.•,:t;', 415-,....,, , a -,,,,., * 7`s' - - .,g',;11y4.!.14./.' ;.-Pt,c, ",:.s,kpiXe''',;i,-"':.1 e dj•!`,:'.: •:iiitP.,,7 y :,•*k, '•••..?:::: ..,:',-; ',.:.'4'..k,'".:^-,•,'''', ''''';•s•.,k4-4.01*-1. •,....1---., ••-,,,':',"•:-•:•:,:;,].±.1.. .f;,,,.. .-. •'. ...,..7.':•;:a4q l',L...•-,.-.,... ''',,,..'•• ,•'...:. -,,,4„- .:', ."41..r.i..,-iq.,...431.t.k,.,...At h'. . ot.,' ..*. ,1.4, -,-ly, . ,..,,it ,A.-. , „ ...,.N .- , 4 el.. t;.4•1.` •:' • '0::•!:',;i:•.;•;..:•''''''Ve .... .. ' '''' ctr''''! •... • "' . ••-- •• '''::."..-''114;;:'";1 ••••*••s''••';:ie,f.4" .1.•:.,:::-.: -'4.4:7„."',...•Y .-?.'el'ii''..0...=t-;katil,,,,•,..p,..- -4.. 4.,7.,. 4e.,. v. ..p.,,,t,ti,T.,,.,,. . ,.,,_ vir-,,T4..,,,,x.*.:,,,,, . ,.! . 5,1 7:,,....,:,i,..- , • ,.....9kiwfw, : ' Ft, • •- *-7, . '.P.-4 .- ;-,;,,-,4i;;-•"; -':•:1'''..,",".•-, -1Tit ' 1.! •''.-• . 'n Ty,' ..,#-. • '',i*,.• ' ,..,A : . i„. ,,,,,.„,e,....,...,,,,. .,,,...?t,.....:., .,•,..,,, i A.. ':..'?;:'''-...'. '- •-•--- .,...V1,',:.4.;%: ;:_i":',..:.:,. :':::. r',,,;,,,:, ' '' - ""' .F. .".'''''''' -4..' -' - '-"-. ': . -•-71---..--.-.. • - ".. ' ,'.'...r 7, ...,. .,,,:„,:i.,:.,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,:-.•„, :'••!4".' : ' ;1,' d' .11: - "-4*--N,'",1;;•;:..;•A'ilif":.--WON..• `..;,t«...- •-•.-..,y . .,. . .. ..... ._.,,,, , . . • E ,;,,,,, -.4r.fi,...••:'•••IsAiss...••,:!•••:.•:4.- ••:'+.sy•r.• ,:w•Ail.•S,'N,••'.';1, ••••••• ..4:-. '''',-r.-.'.:' .•••? . ,• •• • ••'. --' •• •• : • . --_ • -' • -"' .:". •-;1- •• c'.. .' -r .'r•- - 0 C :•••.',Fr:.,741!'... 47. .:,i,',::•.;q:::!-=.--.. ,:•'''''%.:•".,",'••":•...••••..-...',..•,';. •••`44-.1:b;•,.::.-..-4.•;• . .,,kti -!'••••;•'.."•:'•''-'• ••••• - • -. .. • • ., .• •. ••,. . ..-••••. 0,.,-,,,tt,.,,i.,,,.. ,. . ,., ,i, ,, ,..... ., . •,::,, .-0 0 _.,.,,.„ • ,.::-••• ',. !:„., s.i., -.;,•:.,•„•,•,7•:*;...,.•,•..„•,. ",.,..4•.:••••,•;.•?i.. "•:.:..,.:•.•..,•-+Al-^,i„,:-...;;i.,.,..k•,,.,, . ji,-,.,.., ...• ..,.,•!. ,••,.... ...... ,, ..„,,,, , , . ,.... , .. ,,, , . _ ,,. ,,_. .. ,. , .. ,.., .. • C 4-'' ;":". '-k.'•':.1k ...1kt.:...;.zi.....:....i...,..; ...,-..-.,....,,,...,--,....-..,,,„-,. .....k...„4.,NN g, .4:,. ‘..'1 .,..k 4.... -::.-...,::. .• :-....:7 1. . . 7 : ':(4•- ';"4v ii ''.. :,.1 it''' '... ......i.3.. , 40? I`i,,,.., 0 0-1 C , „,„.• ... ,.14" 4-.4i.,,oi''''t,...*1 •••-"•f•.:- '3',•••.--.:•-•::::',-•••:'•••••:11:--.'. •"4„::•,,f,•!:44:••••t•--7042&,i0:••• •:‘,...-'741-,:cr...,.. .... ...-.,...-.. ., .. . .. , i , "...:7:4... .',ITA' ..' ejte, --.At.....*Si.., NIS. ,- ,-..,' _i_3 a ,. ,.-.. !ict..:4,..,v);,,.: ,Iff,,,,N1.-.4:;... ,.. , ..,-il,...,,,,,:.41.ipir,...N,..f;,.,._. :. c u„ 01 0 P- — -..;-.i....:,:...-- -:'-'•`::,0....;:f6-.4,s',.....;:?;,--::::::'-- .-14':-/i ‘-,.......7•ti;;;,•,4tt',.......'...:,--•cz, ,,' ,..,...,...:-1%...*. , ,• ,:42,.--n. - .44,-.4.A,.._,512),;—•:.,.... ;-.,?4- .,...; .iit 'fail ..!?''. 'ii ilf.p,,,,,..„ --,',.4, ', t_ ,_ 0 .•2.:',.m.'45""-At,-704, '-:44-. '.--'• i't.. ....4P.' ••?' •1*.',:--..;'.',.1.: 1r-p,;•,•;.'f',V•1••.1-''.'.:•':*; 'T D t K- . .',..:e.l.'••:.!-.1t,r,:. ... .-.4..-i,-.=';'.--:•-.' '...i,... . „ .:'• ''-..t.'1,.. '44T-4.,%.,-....4.':...,44..-. 14t. .7.,,,,..,:....•.$.N..„; •,. . ,.-- " • ' --,..v. -:,..,,,. It, . ft, .0,,t -,--4, --,-,....- I ,r..'b.....411. Ilik„,,• , .. cl..0 0_ '..*.; 14.-471.:1•••:.:,,113i,-•4t4i4.. ..4.* ,- ' .,. '4:- .--)es' :• . • • - . !!!:Y '•••••''4!-•Kfti/:-4:-.-4'•r'''• .,--1 - , P•." 4 I.:.:4•if.`,:,;:7: r.." i.1,1/....-i':' ',.1 ,.0 fi,•-•`.:••••-••:","•:...... .. ,... , .,;.•tit..,:....,• -...?- .,..--. -, ••4• „v.,..,...,..,...„ -... .i-,,A--711-44,... '. :'-f :"!. !'.'ire>'4'.,- .-'•Y:,-fe. '.'-•••T• : 'I . '.-•'•;',q!,:':-. 'AA,'--.....-4., • ..... 0 tf) 0 e • - 1 • . r;•••••4•,..1, -•-•;ft... ,,,,,,,:t, 0.tkilo -.- c t.,...,"......j.::.,...:•-;. .,:i-,:.!•,,,.-.-.s..,,; ,:t... :_ .,,. ..•,.. ••-f*k.-... •-- _:-••")•••• •'•••••••••i''.:..,•!!....,,,..;,•,- ,.... .44... ••*'i `-i•,,,i, . e..5.....,yt::. .•,!••;•!,....,,i.e..4,..*.t a,. r,,t...p.1,-,,. -0. 4. ..4 A•••=.1 .1 4..,..-",' .1. x.,i.- :14,,•;e,i,ert, • .,_ ,_ 7; 0 - .•.1;'':::'''...:: :..,--•eq,;•,:"..-:•.•4.`r..,=..it,:ii. ......, , ...,.,.,;,.....,,,,,i,. .... -. •,:.-••.cA•'; ..6.-..-.r.--,•4::•-.." -:', -7.3., '• ' -4' - ‘t" iiil.... ••-1.,"A, i'•itiv.; •."-4 ..• • t-•.- ..••••••f ,•'' • 0 `," 4-1 ,',',,,,,r.C..".:, ...,.;. ,-,,,,;..,:. - ...1,,,, .....• ,;;;;,....,3,.,e.'...'..14- '• • I•1,4,•.•il.,,,,, • ...,'.10)•' ' .,,,:, . ' ' 1..,3 L.= -,e- C '.4114-::, ...'i.:;..- - 1•4.,:z.::.-',';'), '...Of:::',4;Ai• .• ..'.4'''..V1,,...:7•'' f'•:'..'(.1'''''."-P-ge.:;*4.1:.:.4'. -,z,......,,k-,.,:t",,. . -. 41'...,,,s, .,•?,..'•;.•.. .••••;.-.•,.4:44s.f.4 •••=14.7.,•_,..4.,,37,',.,,L..'''...7,1,4.4airk.c'd.1.' .----1. i*, A ,•• ii••••:.. .,ti 4--1 = 4.) QO :h'••• :,''...".e,.....,;:,-•-,•••••',3:••.......,•0',.;'.:••,•"•• 'f'..-'•"--.4:4:'1 ' '''• ""• - • - ' .•' ." •. -"'rciiiiii•-,..,-,,,.1, .,. . 4.--;.. -.-4- •....‹•,-,- %.,,',,,..a.•'L - ' • 4,•••-r•••'A .,-r.":`:'.••....;•`-,..,11.: ,. .4:-.),(•)7,4, •,-,4-!,...-,:';•;..-:.-•:,:-;,,...;,••••41,., .7.-,.....:;,. ..,...i...:j. ,.„.„-:::.::::: .,.,.1,-,4i,r,q,..„„p... 4-.'-%.0:::•''.,;,i,,. . *1-•;',;,.1/4;:,- ',., "'-'1'''..rf,m41,_ -ty,,,'4?- ' k:-,i' AIL,.' '.,. . 'r.1:: ,,.. ,r`s.r 41d,;)%14 l' l' • ••LL '- ) .. . , 1:• • 1,,,, ..•,,• ';•*t'. • ,:.!.• f, , . ,.. .... 461 . , 41'...,'",..::'1,.f.:'..‘•'.....,.'il. ',.,:i,:',.';'..4.,.i."::'P‘V;1;,::.2:49f4K. 6 . '.1 ...•''3)1.:: ....!...14.::PI: il.'03;h4 f;*.Z6.:ZSt'O.AtliOn.,1 61. 'I‘e.1,,. •'.4, .'s:'.0;f0i,k,iii.'41:'!: ''‘...'...lir. ..,';.'.• : if l'W.ilif, '77*--.114.0 f. . ,."-*11-- rj. '',t'2,-.2.-......4:.=:.-;'• „.,r -,i 2,,..,,k-y...„.„......*:...,.:,..z,„,.„4.:1k,,,..,..,i ..,:s, •„...„,j.,,.:,.,,,y • .. ....!....,.t.-:•.,j;a .•.•:;*5•,••••:•,,w.,' . :1' ‘44.,..ryt.,,,. ,.; L.,1.. .etk,(1...-„; ... •• 1..........1 C eN , c k..•:•.A.:-• ......P.--s't'.,1.4.,,*2'4•••;.•-:."•.; -;.-...''''k•--*;,,,'.if:, '•',V.5 2•-.4iiilf; -'.r, •...-.•4.;•••',74`.•;-::..• •'•'...'^I'',2.'?:•!..?:.'''....i •••:'"'- 1."•., • ,...-avv-*. "...LI: 1, ,,,, .......-4!,..,.., •....V.44,--•' :P : 4'. ..': t1:',:, ..-'1:55^1 ' .t.r ''.. r,:': ..,:i' ')'. ; -.;••;•1•••I'k•'•'-'••••. -'''''•-•.-il'-••':-.1,:r_il ,l,•-•',. ----t-4,-, .•,.., ''-,:-'.2..‘,..,,•••! .r•-.-... .-- ,... ...5.•.4....--.. ,I•i;6'.. .-- •,,, . • j -• '''...q•;.•4:,..)..4,...- -. • 11.',,;-1••i.: .<V.3..'1';..3.1' 41, ',.'",,i'I''._ ':- ..% "4:4, - "*.:9='',7:c• 6,r.'i. .•-- - 4' ','" -fg,..f.-tii. •',47:',.4.1:0:',.:,%„tc..• ., `,-:1,,i l.., ,. yo,, •441A., . ..,,,,,,,,;:--.•If • ... 1, ,§-1,,,..?t, . - ,,,..., odd. iiii cy ,;•,•-3.-•-: •:'.:If. ,•.:: ...,i..•:',...r;:,•,......,- .-, ,44.::,...,-'"g. :T..;-. ,':',:.,:i':: N'--•'.01-:i••....,. -‘, •• ,:. ••.,-.J...il'A-4.-....>;7-N,;:-.,-,•••.•,-f:7 1 K . •‘. ''1 .$1:',7-;.!....,.',2..,-..--'`I'l* .\ .,.1',.,, ,),-f'(*.f,1-'3. -•. :,‘iwe.4* il.. 1..., *.. i• 4‘4t.,• ,..:.....:,,t,..,...,,:., , .„..,.:::,_,,..:,.,. .-4.... .,,,,,,,....:::,..,, . _., , .,„, , ,, , . Ar ., ..,...,...,i, ..,.. ..-. .- ,•,,, , ET;:: _IA, '•..• • • ...mits.-,,e;.., :. ..!. . 1.,../.N.-.,. .4,4..,e.:. .6„,,... . v....j ,7,•,.,, ,..1 .,t, _ .,,,..i..':'41.-',- -p :.P.;:i-. ov,.7-'''.::', .f4i•:-',.-2;:s . ../._:.:.!-I-:.0 _ ,.'•_- i.: : ;:',,[...'-'1',::-,i'...4 i ...,f-- ii .• , ......-- V.:2-......z-vittpr. -itkr,‘ ••:...m.-51- ;;A:•ot;14,.;••:10,k,':• ,- ;elk!, I--; . :i",,,.:. LO ot ..p . ..:.,.,,A4. . r: ... I ,, •••,. 0•1••• ., -- -•••$4,.. •.,.. . ..• . ••••. ••• .... , , •-.... ... , ,•• •r-,, -I.•••. 1 '$....• "'. •• ..ttu- sla -N, • • 4..1 - -• •-•--- /4- , a i LL I ;,..,....,. ', ; . ...., .1.:,:s..-.33r)., -,33,,,,":,• ;.:L.,:,....„.'3,•,3',..4 4 .:: :',',•.1 V-.114,:tifTrI 4-' 1 :.- c- - .-A.• t. '1;*i"':':fr:"::: ''' 7111%. .,4-- .C%:,--. =';',:..7,;"'..-%* ...."' ;'-',1741;,-.:::'1V•',.':' ;',.1 :•i:;1 L;t1-..1:;;...:''''f:1 . :.' • „; : I!X : •i ' ''".•;'''.. ' -••'',fle'lf.q!.'' ' •• '.." '•••tr.F.- ji,, im f „,...t,.c...,,....:::.;„„. .,•%., *!..e.,,;:,!:„7. p.;,:•'•.:,, ": . .:. ,• :-...,,,11'.,; ,..,.. 4,;., ,4-:-4-.•:6„, ,,;„..,::: ,. .1:4 r•-07, - !!, ; 'i"'1 :' VI ' o j .\ . 4,,,......•.'".. r,-..- -("Li''•.''.) •.,:•-.4••:'`!*,,,f' .-(••••••,•"' -•-• . -,,,• v.... -:•441%,,f--,,,,.•.',.,•-z4._..4, fs• -•• #.f -1•-• , r. .'.',, • '-olded/g4S4 • .•6,- - .i,..: ....• -4 ,,‘4t. 74w•-.7.1_71 ,for,,•.;....:-.-:',:,:.• -''-',,',..t,:?-.---•,..;--.,,E,..;;-:---.Y...__^,,‘:- -.."-C*•il-••,•-•.' • ..z•-•••••:,A•C•••••fr-L-•-'.:?!..,;, ..L--.'.`:,..-•-•''Awl,.: •:.i.,' - ' .ta,..,„,t- i .., itf:::;'•••• i'i',:l.:::.,,,,......i.'::.:::'•:,:i-:. ...'.47' , .::.:..;:..''..1.'' - _ ir';;.:t...t..,'1r4.. .z.: ...., ':',,t-", i:f;,":,,:k.;.i.:.;i11:1,.!::::-..:,..-.N.,:v.•:.•• ' ::.,'N. ' 14.•..-4 4. ';,:.: 2 *:•`.*".•';'. '4%'..":-'-''-- -'.',':'.7 •:^".•••••:'4-'.1.'''• • -41••.'•.• I'm e3,11, fe' ' .,,,-.:1• • 't!....t. ,,,0434, ...17.0*, ...ki,,,, ..,.• 411••••-.*a. ‘ • • - ‘.• I .4- L'... 2 ,,,... ,, •, % '....:,„,,,, •,$.,;.f,L.,!...7_,...,,,,, r.LL ;. ::LL.E.,?..c.. :*..:,..11. il, . :•0:7;...„.'„*.,y„;'..;!.....'......1,4 ,,,.,..10)+,-,..7.::;:r:.IV.. lN7144 206-277-445F '7NTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 809 P02 JUN 27 '97 11:17 NoISl1AIONI01Infl rune, 1997 L661. 9 Nnr To: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC) J° �' Subject: Determination of Significance for Williamsburg Condominiums,File No.WA- 96.164, SA We as neighbors to the proposed Williamsburg Condominiums site,and as citizens of Renton concerned about responsible development in our neighborhood, submit this letter to the City of Renton ERC. We are convinced that the Determination of Significance for the Williamsburg Condominium proposal should be retained. The determination of nonsignificance mitigated for this project was reversed in an appeal granted by Mr.Fred Kaufmann,Hearing Examiner for the subject case. In addition,the City of Renton was directed to perform a detailed environmental impact statement. A subsequent request by the applicant to reverse the decision of the appeal was denied by the hearing examiner. This denial included consideration of the formal mitigation report for moving the stream. After reviewing the resubmitted proposal,we see that the applicant has submitted essentially the same plan with respect to mitigation,number of units,and site layout. The applicant seeks to have the ERC reverse the hearing examiner's decision by supplying additional data for consideration. After reviewing the resubmttd,there are still no adequate answers to questions raised in the appeal regarding impacts of the proposed mitigation for the wetplaces in and around this site. Significant adverse impacts are still probable from this project. The neighbors in this community disagree with the conclusions of the resubmitted plan. This proposal should retain the DS and proceed with the EIS. These are the reasons why. • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex,with sensitive areas, and this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial These reasons are detailed in the attachment. We are asking the ERC to consider data that states that the groundwater from the site contains a substantial connection to the health of May Creek via wetland C. Wetland C is wetland#34 detailed in May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. The ERC must 1 06/25/97 206-277-445� -:NTON DELI SVCS/PLAN 809 P03 JUN 27 '97 11:17 • consider the impact to the migrating salmon and the overall health of the May Creek Canyon and its adjacent wetlands in order to make a sound determination. The ERC must make a sound decision based on complete information. It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations,a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. In addition,there are benefits and opportunities that present themselves in response to avoiding adverse impacts to our environment and discouraging the alteration of wetlands. It ensures maximum protection for the health, safety and welfare of Renton's citizens_ It maintains water quality,land quality, and wildlife habitat. In the May Creek Canyon,it provides opportunities to restore wet places and substantially enhance the health of May Creek and its surrounding habitat. It also provides opportunity for volunteer activity and education about the value and function of the environmental resources right in our back yards. Prepared by Monica C.Rosman LaFever,David L. LaFever Concurrence by: V-a-M6- gazeo .c1 jer/lAa4-44 Pkk6t6C141 r b 2 06/25/97 206-277-445r", ---VTON DEL) SVCS/PLAN 809 PO4 JUN 27 '97 11:18 Unanswered questions Many questions are still left unanswered after reviewing the resubmitted proposal. I would like to highlight questions about wetland C and its impacts to May Creek as probably the most significant in consequences and the most unexplored issue in the file. It may help to refer to an excerpt from the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report before reading the unanswered questions for wetland C and May Creek. Wetland C is Wetland#34. Listed also are questions regarding impacts to the stream and wetlands E and A. Wetland 34 Current Conditions: Wetland 34 is an uninventoried 2.4 acre CIass-2 wetland that appears to straddle the basin boundary east of Jones Ave NE and south of NE 43`d Place in the City of Renton. The wetland contains forested and scrub/shrub habitats,and receives water primarily as groundwater discharges from the base of steep slopes that adjoin the wetland to the east. Water flows through several small channels to created ditches along Jones Avenue NE some of these ditch waters subsequently discharge to May Creek. The wetland has been severely impacted by historical and very recent filling,clearing, and ditching activities,including two large fills and one large cleared and ditched portion. Several industrial developments built on wetland fill suggest portions of the wetland may be receiving contaminants produced by those light industrial operations. Primary wetland functions include wildlife habitat,groundwater discharge, and toxicant retention. Future Conditions: This wetland will likely continue to experience incremental acreage and habitat losses due to unpermitted fill and cleating activities. Low levels of toxicant contamination and trash dumping may continue. Forest vegetation could be removed from slopes above and adjacent to the wetlancl resulting in increased flows and sedimentation in the wetland. However,this wetland does offer feasible opportunities for restoration and enhancement and,restored, would substantially supplement the valuable May Creek Park Habitat corridor. What is the extent to which this development will impact wetland C and its substantial connection to the health of May Creek? Groundwater seepage from this site is the primary source of water for wetland C. This suggests that more than 5%of groundwater flow from this site is to the west toward May Creek. How will the introduction of impermeable surface affect the amount and direction of groundwater flow to this wetland? What will the clearing of trees on this site do? How much increase in sedimentation will May Creek see as a result? How much decrease in water flow will May Creek see as a result? How much rise in temperature will May Creek experience? How much more 3 06/25/97 206-277-445' :NTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 809 P05 JUN 27 '97 11:18 adverse impact can wetland C experience before it can't sustain itself;its value,and its function? Isn't it necessary to explore the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope,feeding wetland C? How will bringing the pollutants closer to wetlands A and B affect their functions? Less permeable layers of soil close to the surface to the north of the site means there is less soil to aid in removal of toxicants introduced from oil,gas,antifreeze,tires,etc. in parking lot. What are the consequences of an ineffective 25 foot buffer and location of the bioswale within thatbuffer? Would joining A and B alter the seasonal recharge of their respective downstream areas? The stream? May Creek? Might a thorough study indicate whether • filling of wetlands should or should not occur? What are the cumulative effects of relocating and modifying the stream channel? What are the impacts to water temperature? What are the impacts to the food source? Five years for an area to be restored to something in which there is going to be some temperature modification is not unusual. How severely will the stream flow be impacted lithe surface flows are allowed to seep into the ground? This is something that often occurs if an impervious layer is used under the new stream channel. What are the impacts to the stream regarding the maintenance work to be done on its downstream system,e.g. the dredging,restoring vegetation,replacement of culverts,etc.? See Fite# LLf l — Cri_O(a 3. What is the final configuration of the road widening of Lincoln Drive NE? How much will the stream be widened? What are its impacts to the buffer on the stream? Less buffer area? Decreased quality of riparian vegetation? This suggests that more buffer area should be allocated on the west side of the stream,since it will be further impacted on the east side.What are the pros and cons of purchasing private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side,avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream? Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street • and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development. The City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street(say 15 to 18 feet)on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream,putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests 4 06/25/97 20G-277-44F',. "_NTON DEU SVCGJPLt1N 909 POE JUN 27 '97 1i:19 • that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate for this. Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? Also,there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side,avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream. The mitigation is the same as in the original proposal The mitigation proposed is not significantly different than the original plan, All the dimensions for buffers on the creek and the wetlands are exactly the same. What is - different in the resubmitted plan is that there is more detail in the record. a)Wetland A and B. The buffer on wetland A and B is exactly the same. The bioswale is still within the 25 foot buffer. The plan to consolidate the wetlands is the same. The City of Benton requested more vegetation in the original proposal. There is now text outlining more vegetation in the buffer. There is additional text outlining the reasoning for consolidating the two wetlands rather than putting a detention system in between. The impact on these wetlands and the downstream system will be the same as in the original proposal. b)Wetland C The buffer on wetland C is exactly the same. The impervious surface introduced to the site is the same. The plan for clearing trees is the same. There is an approximation of the groundwater flow based on test pit samples from Geotech Consultants. There is no discussion of the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope,feeding wetland C. There is no discussion of the substantial connection between wetland C and the health of May Creek. The impact to this wetland and the discharge to May Creek will be the same as in the original proposal. c) Stream The plan to move the creek and restore the vegetation along its buffer is present now, rather than missing as in the original proposal. This stream is now going to experience maintenance downstream in addition to being moved. It is difficult to weigh the potential benefits and adverse impacts this stream will experience since it is being modified and encroached on in so many areas,in multiple projects,in such a short time span. Given the precedent set in the appeal that the original mitigation will have probable significant unmitigated adverse impacts,and that this proposal will have the same adverse 5 06/25/97 206-277-445F 'DENTON DEL) SUCS/PLAN 809 P07 JUN 27 '97 11:19 impacts or doesn't have enough information to determine that,the mitigation proposed now does not offset the significant negative impact this proposal will have. Complexity of Site This site is complex,with sensitive areas that are interconnected,and this necessitates testing/further study. The site is not simple from a topographical or hydrological standpoint. It is difficult to determine the impacts this proposal will have since the site is so complex. There are three wetlands and a stream on or adjacent to the property. May Creek is also nearby. Wetland A and B interact hydrologically with the stream. Groundwater from the site feeds wetland C. Introduction of impermeable surface and redirection of groundwater effect wetland A,E,and C. Wetland C provides discharge that is substantial to the health of May Creek. See reference to wetland#34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. There is a sizeable amount of water that runs onto site. There is flooding and sedimentation in the downstream system. This demands higher standards for mitigation. The site provides value to the habitat of the surrounding area. May Creek provides habitat for many species of salmonid. The stream adjacent to the property has good riparian habitat and bears cutthroat trout. Cumulative Impacts There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts in this proposal. Every wet place on or around the site will witness modification and adverse impacts. Wetland A and B have ineffective buffers. See letter from the Department of Fisheries, attached. Effective buffer width is essential especially around wetlands that have ponded water. There is a bioswale within the buffer replacing it and its trees with immature vegetation subject to monitoring and maintenance. Portions of the wetlands will be filled to support the bioswale. The bioswale brings pollutants closer to the wetlands. Wetland C uses buffer averaging. No consideration is given to the groundwater seepage from the site to wetland C and discharge to May Creek. The effect this site will have on May Creek has been purposely minimized. The stream channel will be moved and its shape modified. The portion of the stream to be moved has complex and valuable vegetation on it,e.g. Western Cedar, big leaf and vine maple,elderberry, salmon berry,trillium flower, etc. The stream is proposed to be moved to a much less mature canopy subject to monitoring. Measurable differences in water 6 06/25/97 206-277-445' . _-NTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 809 P08 JUN 27 '97 11:20 temperature will occur. The fact that trout exist in the stream has been purposely minimized. Since these wet places are so interconnected and every wet place will be modified,the likelihood that the cumulative impact will be significantly adverse is high. Also,the wet places on the site are part of a system that has already seen significant impacts of cumulative encroachment. The neighborhood has already seen significant erosion,flooding, and deterioration of its wet places. This demands higher standards for mitigation to preserve the value and function of the remaining system. Information supplied is incomplete or missing Some of the information in the file is incomplete or missing. Some of the information supplied in the file is based largely on individual component study of wet places rather than whole system study. There is not enough system wide study. There is an incomplete and possibly inaccurate analysis of groundwater seepage to wetland C. In the file,there is an approximation of the direction of flow and amount of flow of groundwater on the site. It concludes that it largely flows north and feeds wetlands A and B. There is no analysis of the source of water for wetland C. Wetland C is fed primarily from groundwater seepage from the slope on its east side,or the west ridge of the site. There is a substantial amount of groundwater seepage that comes from the site,enough to support wetland C. Wetland C's health is significant to health of May Creek. See reference to wetland#34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Wetland C is Wetland#34 in the report. The environmental checklist had errors or omissions. The stream on the site bears fish and there is a blatant omission of that. There is no mention of the existing migrating deer, coyote, or other big game through the site. I'd like to add my knowledge of sightings of hawks, heron,and bald eagles in the immediate area(my own back yard). Bald eagle-occasionally, last sighting 6/17/97 Great Blue Heron-4/2/97 Red-tailed hawk-constant,daily There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development, The City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. 7 06/25/97 206-277-44E' NTON DEU SVCS/PLRN 809 P09 JUN 27 '97 11:20_ There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street(say 15 to 18 feet)on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream,putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate. Also,there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side. The information in the file influences how sound a decision can be made. Professional opinions involved are substantial The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries have substantial weight. The hearing examiner granted the previous appeal of DNS for this proposal. He also responded to a subsequent request for reconsideration of the appeal by defending the original decision. This was in light of the formal stream mitigation plan. He clarified that the decision of the ERC was reversed, and the City shall prepare a focused EIS dealing with the wetlands,creek,and drainage issues. The only way consequences can be analyzed and questions can be answered regarding this proposal is to prepare that ETS. The Washington Department of Fisheries has been concerned about the impacts of this proposal to the state's fish resources from early on in the application process. They have highlighted this plan as having more than a moderate potential for causing adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. Both a representative from the county office and state office testified to the adverse impacts of this proposal at the appeal. They recommend increasing the buffer on wetlands A and B to 50 feet and putting the bioswale outside the buffer. They also recommended a 150 foot buffer on both sides of the stream. Attached is the letter from Bob Zeigler with recommendations. Conclusion All of these reasons support a retention of the determination of significance of the Williamsburg Condominium proposal. • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex,with sensitive areas,and this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial 8 06/25/97 206-277-445`".' --NTON DEL) SVCS/PLAN 809 P10 JUN 27 '97 11:21 It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations, a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. • • • 9 06/25/97 206-277-445' --NTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 809 P11 JUN 27 '97 11:21 References May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report,August 1995,Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.,King County Surface Water Management Division,City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Attachments: State of WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program,Bob Zeigler .letter • to • 0626/97 206-277-445'. -7NTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 609 P12 JUN 27 '97 11:21 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 • DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HABITAT PROTECTION SERVICES DIVISION AQUATIC SYSTEMS UNIT March 26, 1997 • TO; .Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist 7 3 • PROM: 13ob Zeigler(360)902-2578 Wetland Biologist • SUBJECT: Wetlands and Aquatic Resources on Site that is approximately 2 blocks south of 44th Street N.E. and east of I-405 in Renton. We visited the site on Tuesday,March 18. We observed the stream,two seasonally flooded wetlands; wetland A with water ponded to depths greater than 20 inches and wetland B,an emergent and forested wetland(a component of which had cottonwood trees that were estimated to be 40 or more years in age and 60-70 feet in height). This is the area proposed to be used as a drainage swale. We also observed drainage that flowed in two directions from wetland B. Both wetlands would interact hydrologically with the stream known.as Gypsy Creek, We observed and sampled cutthroat trout in the stream attempting to migrate upstream of the impassible culvert. Maintenance of water quality and providing for fish passage are important components that should be incorporated into any proposal. One hundred and fifty feet is the prescribed buffer for type 3 streams less than 5 feet wide made in our Department's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations. Some resource literature includes the following: The Aquatic/Watershed Group for the Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team,July 1993 outlined what is needed for aquatic organism from water quality: "Elements of water quality that are important for aquatic organisms include water temperatures within a range that corresponds with migration and emergence needs of fish and other aquatic organisms(Sweeney and Vannote 1978; Quinn and Tallman 1987). Desired conditions include an abundance of cool(generally less than 68 degree 1~),well-oxygenated water that is present at all time§of the year,free of excessive amounts of suspended sediments(Sullivan et al. 1987)and other pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic invertebrate abundance (Cordone and Kelley 1961;Lloyd et al. 1987) . . .Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington and found that 200 foot buffers,or about one site-potential tree height,would be t effective to remove sediment in most situations if the buffer were measured from the edge of the 206-277-44G- - -ENTON DEV SVCS/PLAN 609 P13 JUN 27 '97 11:22 Larry Fisher March 26, 1997 Page 2 floodplain."(Broderson,J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle,Washington). Wetland Puffer*:Use and Effectiveness,Andrew J. Castelle,Catherine Conolly,Michael Emers, Eric Metz,Susan Meyer,Michael Witter, Susan Mauermann,Terrell Erickson, Sarah S. Cooke, for Washington State Department of Ecology, February, 1992 provides information on needed buffers: • "lauffgasi.lcathaillithathuyjilih are eg nera� y j ie ective in p rotecting wetlands . ..fir we to Wa t w tla ant wildlife functions should have 200 to 300-foot buffers based on land_use . . .To retain wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland based on land use. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron... .suffer widths effective in preventing Significant water qualityli y impacts to wetlands are gene yam, Feet Qx_greater. . ."(Page 48). The wetlands on the property would appear to be Category III wetlands but a component of forest cover is reaching maturity which increased the diversity of species that would depend upon the area to meet primary breeding and/or feeding needs. The wetlands provide habitat for neotropical migrant species of birds and would appear to support amphibians. I recommend that fish passage be restored to stream above the culvert and that 150'riparian buffer be left on both sides of the stream. This would be consistent with Department Priority Habitat and Species Riparian recommendations and Wild Salmonid Policy. I would also recommend that buffers on the wetlands be increased to 50' instead of the proposed 25'and that the proposed drainage swale be moved out of the existing wetlands. Mitigation is a sequenced approach including: • First,the avoidance of the impact; Second,minimization of the impact; Third,compensation for unavoidable losses. In the site plan approval,I recommend that impacts to the aquatic resources be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. 670 Q"/P I. S '-rin---dribwIltfirtaggririr peitg,-...:____-_ - — - . _ .t? .,--- ____ 7 — „ . . . _ / . .; D l , .4/ 'Ow, . __- e) r-vC - c4 l'•S`31% 7 - 1 \V ' JUL-07-'97 MON 17:06 ID: TEL NO: e212 P02 — • s•4 , • •N F1 ;2,4A , N6, STATE Or WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 1QOTB MU!Crook BvuIavard•MN Croak, Weshin?t a 90012-(200)770.1SI1 FAX(2Oe)999-1066 July 7, 1997 Mark Goldberg • .4739 University Way NE.,Suite 1607 Seattle,Washington 98105 SUBJECT; Hydraulic Project Application-Stream Relocation-Unnamed Tributary to Lake Washington-Section 32,Township 24 North,Range 05 East,King County, WDFW Log No. 00-D1423-02-WRIA 08.0282 Dear Mr. Goldberg: ' The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)received the above-referenced Hydraulic Project Application(HPA)on June 13, 1997. A letter was sent to you on July 3, 1997 that listed the stream as an unnamed tributary to May Creek. Recent field investigation by Talasaea Consultants has shown that the stream is not tributary to May Creek,but actually flows directly into Lake Washington. This letter is to inform you that we have corrected this error. The completion of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)review is still necessary before WDFW can issue the Hydraulic Project Approval for the project. However,the set of plans referred to in Our original letter are sufficient for our issuing the IPA when SEPA is completed. As soon as the SEPA process has been completed,please provide a copy of the notification of compliance from your local jurisdiction, so that your application may be processed in a timely manner. Your proposal will remain on hold until we receive notification of SEPA completion. We appreciate your cooperation in our efforts to protect,perpetuate and manage the fish resources of the state bf Washington. If you have any questions regarding the status of your application,please call me at(425)379-2309. Sincerely, • Ton • •p Area Habitat Biologist cc: William Shiels,Talasaca Ted Muller,WDFW is. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ■ ■ r TA LASA EA CITY OF RENTON CONSULTANTS JUL 0 7 1997 RECEIVED 30 June 1997 TAL-313 Mr. Mark Pywell, Project Manager City of Renton, Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 REFERENCE: Williamsburg Condominiums (Project No. LUA-96-164,SA,ECF) SUBJECT: Response to Letter to City of Renton from Appellants, dated June 25, 1997 Dear Mark: On June 26th, I received a copy of a letter/memorandum prepared by Ms. LaFever, et. al. which once again attempts to describe our proposed project as being environmentally unacceptable. I have prepared the following written response to Ms. LaFever's comments and concerns which I hope you will convey to the Environmental Review Committee before it convenes on Tuesday, July 1st. •Having worked in the Greater Seattle Area for 23 years as a natural resource and environmental planner, I must say that this is the first project with which I have been involved where so much has been made over such relatively minor issues. Most of the issues raised by the appellants have been raised before, and were responded to in my letter to you dated May 8, 1997. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your review. There are many comments made by the appellants that are either exaggerated or clearly incorrect. I will attempt to address the major issues that they have raised in this most recent letter/memorandum. Issue 1. Hydrology of May Creek. The geotechnical engineer for this project has determined that most of the existing flows from the site extend northward to the two existing wetlands. This is due to a relatively impermeable till layer along the western side of the site, as well as the local topography. He has concluded that the post- development hydrology will not be significantly different from the existing hydrology in Resource `8Q Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville,Washington 98072 • Bus: (206) 861-7550 • Fax: (206) 861-7549 Mr. Mark Pywell 30 June 1997 Page 2 regard to flows into Wetland C (which he estimated to be about 5% of the total site runoff). Issue 2. Wetland mitigation plan. The mitigation plan has been provided in significantly greater detail. The plan meets the requirements of the City of Renton. The implemented plan, including the area of stream relocation, is expected to result in increased wetland functional values, including improved flood storage and increased habitat diversity. SEPA review comments received by the City from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) indicated that the project was acceptable. The WDFW Regional Supervisor, Mr. Ted Muller(Larry Fisher's supervisor), believed that the proposed mitigation plan that we personally presented to him was more than adequate address adverse impacts. Issue 3. Impacts on migrating salmon in May Creek. The study has not addressed impacts on migrating salmon in May Creek because impacts to this resource from the proposed project were considered remote and unlikely. Water from the site will be treated and released to a drainage basin north of the May Creek basin. Groundwater flows to Wetland C, and hence to May Creek, will remain unchanged. Issue 4. Sedimentation in May Creek. No additional sedimentation will occur in May Creek, because no additional flows from the site will enter the May Creek basin. Issue 5. Temperature in the stream. As discussed in my May 8th letter(see enclosure), there will be virtually no perceptible temperature rise in the stream with the proposed project. Issue 6. Buffers. Appellants have cited literature regarding adequacy of wetland buffers that is over five years old. Current papers on wetland buffers discuss the "target function"when prescribing buffer widths. Also, current literature discusses topography and vegetation type as criteria for prescribing buffer widths. Comments on wetland buffers by the appellants failed to mention that there is no city or county sensitive areas ordinance in Washington State that requires a 300-foot buffer around wetlands, especially Category 3 streams—which, in the City's Code, require a 25-foot buffer. The City of Renton Code prescribes no wetland or stream buffer greater than 100 feet. Buffers of 25 feet, if enhanced as shown in the project's mitigation plan, are adequate to protect both Wetlands A and B and the mitigation wetland area. Mr. Mark Pywell 30 June 1997 Page 3 Issue 7. Permeability of relocated stream channel. We have stated in our contingency plan that if the bed of the relocated stream channel were found to be too permeable, we would install a clay liner(e.g., Bentomat). Issue 8. Food sources for fish. The relocate and enhanced stream channel will produce more food for fish than the existing channel, because a) there will be more wetted surface for macrobenthic invertebrates, and b) there will be more large woody material in the stream channel to serve as a food source for these invertebrates. - Issue 9. Issue of wetland filling. We are avoiding a substantial amount of wetlands, and have minimized the impacts by filling only about 1500 sf. We propose combining the two small wetlands with a mitigation wetland to create a larger, more valuable wetland system. Issue 10. Flooding and sedimentation downstream. The proposed project will alleviate the flooding and siltation problem downstream by detaining and treating water not only form the site but from some of the roadway surfaces offsite. Stormwater facilities will be built to detain the 100-year storm event. This exceeds the City's standard. No downstream sedimentation or flooding problems are expected to result from the proposed project. Issue 11. Big game animals. Big game animals have been sited in the May Creek valley, well south of the subject site and in a much less urbanized environment. The habitat offered on the subject site would hardly be considered desirable for big game animals, as most wildlife biologists would likely agree. Issue 12. Amphibians. We have made several site visits throughout the spring to the present time, and have not observed any amphibians on the property. Issue 13. Mention of eagles, great blue herons, and red-tailed hawks. This means very little, since there is no suitable habitat for any of these species on the site. Eagles may fly over the site. Great blue herons would not be able to enter and leave the ponded area of Wetland A, or any other portion of the site. Red-tailed hawks might perch, or possibly nest on the site, but would not find suitable habitat for foraging. We have conducted a wildlife reconnaissance on the property and have found no raptor nests—active or inactive. SUMMARY In my opinion, the City of Renton made the correct decision when it initially issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS)for this project. Through the hearing process, we have had the opportunity to further refine the site plan and Mr. Mark Pywell 30 June 1997 Page 4 mitigation design and are confident that the project can and will be constructed in a technically sound and environmentally sensitive manner. We hope the City will offer us the opportunity to prove this. If you have any questions, or if you require any additional information at this time, please call me at (425) 861-7550. Thank you for your consideration and careful review of this proposed project. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Ato William E. Shiels Principal Enclosure cc: Mark Goldberg, SDA Brothers, Inc. Allen Bauman, Polygon Mgmt. Lyle Kussman, Kussman Assoc. • L.. FILE COPY r TALASAEA CONSULTANTS t t 8 May 1997 TAL-313 • Mr. Mark Pywell, Senior Planner City of Renton • _ 200 Mill Avenue. South Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Response to Comments by City of Renton Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision dated 29 April 1997 Dear Mark: Following are comments prepared by myself pertaining to streams, wetlands, buffers, water quality, wildlife, and any other matters pertaining to the natural environment. Also summarized in this letter are responses by Shupe Holmberg of Baima & Holmberg pertaining to stormwater, and by Lyle Kussman of Kussman &Associates pertaining to general site planning and traffic. Comments correspond to the Hearing Examiner's numerical listing of Findings (1 through 40) and his list of Conclusions(1 through 22). FINDINGS Item 13. Finding states that the relocated stream would be deeply incised. The stream is now somewhat deeply incised. Relocation, as proposed, would result in a less incised stream channel. The current proposal includes raising the exit culvert about six feet, thus flattening the gradient and increasing streambed and streambank stability. It is true that by lowering the streambed gradient water temperatures could • potentially rise. However, this is not likely since dense riparian vegetation (both deciduous and evergreen) will be planted along the stream to create a shaded canopy to moderate temperature and humidity changes (among other reasons). • Item 19. Stating that sightings of bear, deer and cougar have occurred south of the site seems inappropriate without providing clarification that these sightings Rcso ircc .3 F.nvircnnli.'ntdl Planning 1509(1 13,2,1r Crack Ih,ncl \orthrast • \\'r.i,clim•tll.•. \\'Ashington M072 • Bus: (2(16) 861.7.5;ili • Fax (2(1(1) 501.7:5•Iil Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 2 were made: a) in another (i.e., May Creek) drainage basin, b) in a much larger and relatively less developed drainage basin, c) by an observer who raises sheep (an attractive prey animal for large predatory mammals), and d) in a relatively rural area compared to the subject site which is only a few blocks from commercial development. Drawing any parallel between the subject site and the small farm area to the south seem inappropriate regarding wildlife habitat value. Item 23. Again, there is reference made to increased stream temperatures without mention of the mitigation for this possible effect. Plantings of both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs along the re-routed stream corridor will actually improve shading. The statement was made by a witness that the temperature differences between existing conditions and those immediately after construction of the relocated stream would be measurable and not speculative. I disagree. The stream is north-flowing (low aspect to sun), has an 8% gradient (relatively steep), is deeply incised, and only extends a distance of slightly over 500 feet. I do not believe that a temperature differential, if it could be measured, would exceed 0.5 degree F. Item 28. What have May Creek's habitat problems to do with the subject site? Item 32. Statement concerning riparian environments and that they are not easily replaced. This statement by itself leaves the impression that there is only a downside to riparian modification, and that the stream will only be exposed to direct sunlight with corresponding warming of the stream's waters. First of all, the issue of solar warming of the stream's waters is grossly overstated. The rise in temperature between the south and north property lines is probably so low as to be nearly undetectable. And, during summer when the sun angle and ambient air temperatures are highest, there is no stream flow at the surface (i.e., any flows are subsurface where effects from solar warming would be quite unlikely). With enhancement of the stream corridor by grading, planting, and installation of large woody material (both in-stream and along the riparian edges), significant improvements to the aquatic and riparian habitats is expected. On some of our projects, willows have grown between 30 and 60 inches in one season. Our proposed plan for stream relocation and restoration includes the use of evergreen trees (e.g., Douglas firand western red cedar) along the stream banks, which will provide more dense shade than exists with the present plant species. The plan also includes installation of habitat features (e.g., • Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 3 stumps, snags, down logs, bird nest boxes, bat roosting boxes) which will further enhance the habitat value along the stream corridor. Item 34. Contrary to this statement, there has been recent slope instability along the subject reach of the unnamed seasonal stream. Item 35. Statement was made concerning the,placement of the bioswale in the wetland buffer, and that by so doing there would be impacts on the wetlands. The proposed plan is to provide a bioswale planted with native trees and shrubs along its northern (i.e., wetland) side. By integrating the landscape of the bioswale with that of the wetlands and buffers north of the swale, we believe that an overall benefit will be achieved, and that the wetland system (existing wetlands, the mitigation wetlands, and their corresponding buffers) will be of higher value than that existing in these wetlands at the present time. Comment regarding removal of the culvert reflects confusion as to the correct location of the culvert adjacent to the northern end of the subject property. The culvert referenced in the comment at the hearing is actually located well off-site to the north. Item 39. The comment that there was no demonstration that the mitigation would work is confusing. Our firm has designed and supervised construction on many similar projects. We are more than willing to provide evidence, if requested, that these wetland and stream projects were constructed successfully and that they are functioning successfully today. Based on our knowledge of the site, the proposed development, and our past experience on similar projects, we believe that we can construct a successful stream and wetland project on this site. Item 40. Statement was made that the stream mitigation plan was worked out after the appeal was filed. This is not entirely true. More detail was provided after the ERC made their determination (as is common), but there was information provided to the ERC pertaining to the issue of stream relocation. Detailed mitigation plans are not ordinarily provided at the time that the SEPA threshold determination is made. Detailed plans are provided once the applicant knows whether or not he or she has a project at all. Issuance of an MDNS, as we understand it, means that we must mitigate the adverse impacts, and that this must be done to the satisfaction of the City. Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS. Item 7. Statement made that the decision-makers had insufficient information to make a decision based on evaluation of options that are permitted by code. Various site design options were considered and discussed with the City's project manager during site plan development. It was our strong belief that by combining the two northern wetlands (Wetlands A and B), and then integrating stormwater facilities with the wetland system, the net ecological result would be • positive and the functional values of the combined system would be greater than the functional values existing at the site at present. The alternative to not impacting the two wetlands would be to leave them as they are today. This would mean that there would not be new wetlands created between them and that there would be no enhancement of wetlands or their buffers. But, by filling a total of 565 square feet of wetland, mitigation is required. By placing the biofiltration swale in the wetland buffers, the buffers must be enhanced. Therefore, the impacts to the wetlands and their buffers will result in a wetland system with higher functional values than what occurs at the site today. Approximately 1412 square feet (0.032 acres) of Class 3, isolated wetlands would be impacted under the proposed project. Only 565 square feet of wetland would actually be filled; the remaining 847 square feet of wetland would be inadequately buffered (i.e., the site would encroach into the wetland buffer beyond the minimum standard buffer such that the wetland would be considered "unbuffered" and is consequently treated as "wetland fill"). Approximately 1624 square feet of wetland area will be created as mitigation. This created wetland will occur between the two small existing wetlands to create one combined and enhanced wetland system. Item 8. The statement is made that this site will a) increase impervious surface, b) fill portions of two wetlands, c) alter the connections between two of the three on-site wetlands, and d) re-route and regrade the stream bed. a) Impervious surface will be increased, but will be mitigated for by implementation of a stormwater management plan meeting and exceeding City of Renton design standards. For example, stormwater will be detained for the 100-year event. Following on-site detention, runoff from most of the impervious portions of the site will be routed through a biofiltration swale. Treated stormwater leaving the biofiltration swale will be released to Wetland B. Some rooftop runoff will be • Mr. Mark Pywell. 8 May 1997 Page 5 routed to Wetland A after detention. Surface flows from Wetland A will extend through the mitigation wetland area and into Wetland B. b) Portions of two wetlands will be filled. The total amount of wetland fill is 565 square feet, or 0.013 acre. Total wetland impact on Wetlands A and B (both Class 3, wetlands) is 1412 square feet. The remaining 847 square feet is treated as wetland fill, but is actually that amount of wetland area in which the site development has encroached into the wetland buffer beyond the minimum amount allowed by City code. Mitigation is proposed for both the actual wetland fill, as well as the effective wetland fill. Approximately 1624 square feet of new wetland area will be created as mitigation. Minor impacts to these two wetlands is proposed to allow optimal use of the site, to facilitate integration of stormwater facilities (i.e., biofiltration swale) into the wetland area, and also to allow development of one larger wetland system supporting higher functional values. We evaluated the possibility of creating stormwater facilities between the two wetlands, but felt that by creating a wetland connection between the two wetlands and placing the biofiltration along the south side of the wetland system, we would achieve a better ecological solution. c) The connection between the two wetlands (Wetlands A and B)? There is no connection. The two wetlands are now isolated, except for large storm events in which surface waters flow from Wetland A to Wetland B. d) The applicant has not requested re-routing of the stream. This was a requirement of the City of Renton. The proposed project cannot be developed without road improvements. Road improvements require widening of the road toward the west, thereby affecting the present location of the stream. The applicant has attempted to illustrate and describe the concept for stream relocation. Further detail of this concept should and will be presented to the City and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for review, comment and approval. Item 9. Whether the stream's culverts and gradient are changed or not does not seem appropriate to a SEPA threshold determination. These are specific design issues which should be dealt with in preparation of the mitigation plan. Both the City of Renton and WDFW will have ample opportunities to comment on the mitigation plan as it is being developed, and finally to approve the plan once it is found to meet the requirements of the respective agencies. Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 6 • The plan that has been developed to date does not depict a detailed stream ' relocation design. Consequently, locations of meanders, deflector logs and rocks, weirs, plunge pools, point bars, root wads, fish rocks, etc. have not been shown. Significant changes in water quality, including water temperature, are not expected to occur with construction of the new section of stream channel. WDFW will condition the HPA by requiring that specific procedures be followed and specific measures be implemented to protect the resource. This will include an erosion control plan, contingency measures, construction timing and sequencing. We understand that fish passage in this stream is limited by a perched culvert off-site below the subject property. This off-site impediment to upstream fish migration is not an issue that the present owner has any ability to deal with. Item 11. This conclusion seems to ignore the fact that this project cannot be constructed without an HPA from WDFW. That permit will be issued only if the WDFW believes that the stream relocation will be done in an environmentally responsible manner. Talasaea's wetland report was submitted to the City of Renton on February 7, 1997 (Williamsburg Condominium Development: Wetland Delineation and Study Report. February 7, 1997). Our mitigation report was submitted to the City on March 20th (Williamsburg Condominium Development: Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation Report. March 20, 1997). The latter document contains a drawing titled, Detailed Conceptual Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan, Sheet W1.0, dated 3/20/97. Item 12. Talasaea has submitted to the City of Renton all Information stated by the Hearing Examiner to be necessary for an environmental analysis of the proposed project. Item 13. Comment made that site development could affect adjoining properties. The mitigation wetland area has been designed so that the buffer around the mitigation wetland would not extend onto the adjoining property to the north. Stream flows are not expected to change with construction of this project. Therefore, no downstream effects are expected. Item 14. Relocation of the creek cannot occur without regrading the entire area. An examination of the existing topography should make clear the need for Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 7 vegetation removal and regrading. Impacts will occur to vegetation and to water temperatures (theoretically, but probably not to the degree to which it could be practically measured). Erosion will be controlled by implementation of an erosion control plan. This plan will be submitted to the City and to WDFW, along with our final mitigation plan, for permit approval. Loss of riparian vegetation will be mitigated for by planting a wide variety of native evergreen and deciduous tree and shrub species. Water quality will be protected by scheduling construction during the summer low flow months, and by implementing standard BMPs as presented in the final plan and as conditioned by the regulatory agencies. The water elevations now occurring in Wetland A will remain the same following development of the proposed project. Wetland A is an isolated depression that flows toward the west during heavy rainfall events,. This same flow path will occur following construction, passing first through the mitigation wetland area, and then to and through Wetland B. Question was posed in regard to possible losses of stream water through pervious soils in the relocation area. We would not expect this to occur. However, if it did occur, we would introduce fine materials into the streambed (e.g., natural silt or silty sands from a site certified to be clean of contaminants). Item 15. The biofiltration swale will involve periodic maintenance. Location of the swale in the wetland buffer may result in some minor disturbance to wildlife during these maintenance events. It is believed that the normal activities in this residential community will probably create similar disturbances to the wetland system. However, none of the disturbances (whether by maintenance or normal on-site activity) is expected to cause any significant impact to the wetlands. The ' composition of wildlife species using this site is expected to trend toward a more urban assemblage with development of the proposed project -- even if no impacts were to occur to the wetlands or the stream or their buffers. If the stormwater facilities, including the bioswale, are designed, constructed and maintained according to code and best management practices, there should be no adverse water quality impacts to the wetlands. Item 17. I do not believe there will be "more than a moderate impact" in the site's hydrology. The plan for stream relocation is to sequence the construction so that the new stream channel is constructed first, while the existing stream channel remains in use. Then, after the new channel is constructed and • Mr. Mark Pywell 8 May 1997 Page 8 stabilized with plantings and large woody material, the new channel will be "unplugged", allowing the stream to follow the new path. The old channel would then be filled, graded and planted. Hydrological impacts to the existing seasonal wetlands would be negligible, since construction of mitigation wetlands and grading and planting activities in the vicinity of the wetland system would occur during the dry summer months when there is no hydrology. I hope that my comments on the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions are helpful to you and the Environmental Review Committee in further defining the proposed project and in clarifying certain points raised in the April 1st hearing. If you have any questions pertaining to the information provided herein, please call me at (206) 861-7550. Thank you for your continued assistance on this project. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS K \ William E. Shiels Principal cc: Mark Goldberg Allan Bauman John Phillips CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 27, 1997 TO: ERC Members FROM: Mark R.Pywell,AICP SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,SA,ECF The attached document was prepared by Monica and David LaFever. This is the couple that appealed the original Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated that was issued on February 11, 1997. They have reviewed the new information that was submitted by the applicant and feel that this information is insufficient for the ERC to issue a determination other than to uphold the Hearing Examiners Determination of Significance. The LaFever report is submitted for your review along with the staff report that reviews the information submitted by the applicant. Thank you. No!sIAIa ON!a1111S June 25, 1997 L661 9 To: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC) Subject: Determination of Significance for Williamsburg Condominiums, File No. LUA- 96-164, SA We as neighbors to the proposed Williamsburg Condominiums site, and as citizens of Renton concerned about responsible development in our neighborhood, submit this letter to the City of Renton ERC. We are convinced that the Determination of Significance for the Williamsburg Condominium proposal should be retained. The determination of nonsignificance mitigated for this project was reversed in an appeal granted by Mr. Fred Kaufmann, Hearing Examiner for the subject case. In addition, the City of Renton was directed to perform a detailed environmental impact statement. A subsequent request by the applicant to reverse the decision of the appeal was denied by the hearing examiner. This denial included consideration of the formal mitigation report for moving the stream. After reviewing the resubmitted proposal, we see that the applicant has submitted essentially the same plan with respect to mitigation, number of units, and site layout. The applicant seeks to have the ERC reverse the hearing examiner's decision by supplying additional data for consideration. After reviewing the resubmittal, there are still no adequate answers to questions raised in the appeal regarding impacts of the proposed mitigation for the wetplaces in and around this site. Significant adverse impacts are still probable from this project. The neighbors in this community disagree with the conclusions of the resubmitted plan. This proposal should retain the DS and proceed with the EIS. These are the reasons why: • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex,with sensitive areas, and this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial These reasons are detailed in the attachment. We are asking the ERC to consider data that states that the groundwater from the site contains a substantial connection to the health of May Creek via wetland C. Wetland C is wetland#34 detailed in May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. The ERC must 1 06/25/97 consider the impact to the migrating salmon and the overall health of the May Creek Canyon and its adjacent wetlands in order to make a sound determination. The ERC must make a sound decision based on complete information. It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations, a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. In addition,there are benefits and opportunities that present themselves in response to avoiding adverse impacts to our environment and discouraging the alteration of wetlands. It ensures maximum protection for the health, safety and welfare of Renton's citizens. It maintains water quality, land quality, and wildlife habitat. In the May Creek Canyon, it provides opportunities to restore wet places and substantially enhance the health of May Creek and its surrounding habitat. It also provides opportunity for volunteer activity and education about the value and function of the environmental resources right in our back yards. 4„,,,,,eze ,e,„_j_____. _ • t_____ Prepared by: Monica C. Rosman LaFever, David L. LaFever Concurrence by: VkaAA-8. *-, kA 1c e_ - (k etfacc.) 2€ /- el'‘.----‘-4 ,TW1 S C rill i/5,6 T fa 5 3Aronk , a 2 06/25/97 • Unanswered questions Many questions are still left unanswered after reviewing the resubmitted proposal. I would like to highlight questions about wetland C and its impacts to May Creek as probably the most significant in consequences and the most unexplored issue in the file. It may help to refer to an excerpt from the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report before reading the unanswered questions for wetland C and May Creek. Wetland C is Wetland#34. Listed also are questions regarding impacts to the stream and wetlands B and A. Wetland 34 Current Conditions: Wetland 34 is an uninventoried 2.4 acre Class-2 wetland that appears to straddle the basin boundary east of Jones Ave NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton. The wetland contains forested and scrub/shrub habitats, and receives water primarily as groundwater discharges from the base of steep slopes that adjoin the wetland to the east. Water flows through several small channels to created ditches along Jones Avenue NE;some of these ditch waters subsequently discharge to May Creek The wetland has been severely impacted by historical and very recent filling, clearing, and ditching activities, including two large fills and one large cleared and ditched portion. Several industrial developments built on wetland fill suggest portions of the wetland may be receiving contaminants produced by those light industrial operations. Primary wetland functions include wildlife habitat, groundwater discharge, and toxicant retention. Future Conditions: This wetland will likely continue to experience incremental acreage and habitat losses due to unpermitted fill and clearing activities. Low levels of toxicant contamination and trash dumping may continue. Forest vegetation could be removed from slopes above and adjacent to the wetland, resulting in increased flows and sedimentation in the wetland. However,this wetland does offer feasible opportunities for restoration and enhancement and,restored, would substantially supplement the valuable May Creek Park Habitat corridor. What is the extent to which this development will impact wetland C and its substantial connection to the health of May Creek? Groundwater seepage from this site is the primary source of water for wetland C. This suggests that more than 5% of groundwater flow from this site is to the west toward May Creek. How will the introduction of impermeable surface affect the amount and direction of groundwater flow to this wetland? What will the clearing of trees on this site do? How much increase in sedimentation will May Creek see as a result? How much decrease in water flow will May Creek see as a result? How much rise in temperature will May Creek experience? How much more 3 06/25/97 • adverse impact can wetland C experience before it can't sustain itself, its value, and its function? Isn't it necessary to explore the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope, feeding wetland C? How will bringing the pollutants closer to wetlands A and B affect their functions? Less permeable layers of soil close to the surface to the north of the site means there is less soil to aid in removal of toxicants introduced from oil, gas, antifreeze,tires, etc. in parking lot. What are the consequences of an ineffective 25 foot buffer and location of the bioswale within that buffer? Would joining A and B alter the seasonal recharge of their respective downstream areas? The stream? May Creek? Might a thorough study indicate whether filling of wetlands should or should not occur? What are the cumulative effects of relocating and modifying the stream channel? What are the impacts to water temperature? What are the impacts to the food source? Five years for an area to be restored to something in which there is going to be some temperature modification is not unusual. How severely will the stream flow be impacted if the surface flows are allowed to seep into the ground? This is something that often occurs if an impervious layer is used under the new stream channel. What are the impacts to the stream regarding the maintenance work to be done on its downstream system, e.g. the dredging, restoring vegetation, replacement of culverts, etc.? See File# k U p— 9-].—O(a 3. What is the final configuration of the road widening of Lincoln Drive NE? How much will the stream be widened? What are its impacts to the buffer on the stream? Less buffer area? Decreased quality of riparian vegetation? This suggests that more buffer area should be allocated on the west side of the stream, since it will be further impacted on the east side. What are the pros and cons of purchasing private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side, avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream? Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development. The.City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move. the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street (say 15 to 18 feet) on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream, putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests 4 06/25/97 • that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate for this. Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? Also,there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side, avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream. The mitigation is the same as in the original proposal The mitigation proposed is not significantly different than the original plan. All the dimensions for buffers on the creek and the wetlands are exactly the same. What is different in the resubmitted plan is that there is more detail in the record. a)Wetland A and B. The buffer on wetland A and B is exactly the same. The bioswale is still within the 25 foot buffer. The plan to consolidate the wetlands is the same. The City of Renton requested more vegetation in the original proposal. There is now text outlining more vegetation in the buffer. There is additional text outlining the reasoning for consolidating the two wetlands rather than putting a detention system in between. The impact on these wetlands and the downstream system will be the same as in the original proposal. b)Wetland C The buffer on wetland C is exactly the same. The impervious surface introduced to the site is the same. The plan for clearing trees is the same. There is an approximation of the groundwater flow based on test pit samples from Geotech Consultants. There is no discussion of the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope, feeding wetland C. There is no discussion of the substantial connection between wetland C and the health of May Creek. The impact to this wetland and the discharge to May Creek will be the same as in the original proposal. c) Stream The plan to move the creek and restore the vegetation along its buffer is present now, rather than missing as in the original proposal. This stream is now going to experience maintenance downstream in addition to being moved. It is difficult to weigh the potential benefits and adverse impacts this stream will experience since it is being modified and encroached on in so many areas, in multiple projects, in such a short time span. Given the precedent set in the appeal that the original mitigation will have probable significant unmitigated adverse impacts, and that this proposal will have the same adverse 5 06/25/97 impacts or doesn't have enough information to determine that, the mitigation proposed now does not offset the significant negative impact this proposal will have. Complexity of Site This site is complex,with sensitive areas that are interconnected, and this necessitates testing/further study. The site is not simple from a topographical or hydrological standpoint. It is difficult to determine the impacts this proposal will have since the site is so complex. There are three wetlands and a stream on or adjacent to the property. May Creek is also nearby. Wetland A and B interact hydrologically with the stream. Groundwater from the site feeds wetland C. Introduction of impermeable surface and redirection of groundwater effect wetland A,B, and C. Wetland C provides discharge that is substantial to the health of May Creek. See reference to wetland# 34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. There is a sizeable amount of water that runs onto site. There is flooding and sedimentation in the downstream system. This demands higher standards for mitigation. The site provides value to the habitat of the surrounding area. May Creek provides habitat for many species of salmonid. The stream adjacent to the property has good riparian habitat and bears cutthroat trout. Cumulative Impacts There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts in this proposal. Every wet place on or around the site will witness modification and adverse impacts. Wetland A and B have ineffective buffers. See letter from the Department of Fisheries, attached. Effective buffer width is essential especially around wetlands that have ponded water. There is a bioswale within the buffer replacing it and its trees with immature vegetation subject to monitoring and maintenance. Portions of the wetlands will be a filled to support the bioswale. The bioswale brings pollutants closer to the wetlands. Wetland C uses buffer averaging. No consideration is given to the groundwater seepage from the site to wetland C and discharge to May Creek. The effect this site will have on May Creek has been purposely minimized. The stream channel will be moved and its shape modified. The portion of the stream to be moved has complex and valuable vegetation on it, e.g. Western Cedar, big leaf and vine maple, elderberry, salmon berry,trillium flower, etc. The stream is proposed to be moved to a much less mature canopy subject to monitoring. Measurable differences in water 6 06/25/97 temperature will occur. The fact that trout exist in the stream has been purposely minimized. Since these wet places are so interconnected and every wet place will be modified, the likelihood that the cumulative impact will be significantly adverse is high. Also,the wet places on the site are part of a system that has already seen significant impacts of cumulative encroachment. The neighborhood has already seen significant erosion,flooding, and deterioration of its wet places. This demands higher standards for mitigation to preserve the value and function of the remaining system. Information supplied is incomplete or missing Some of the information in the file is incomplete or missing. Some of the information supplied in the file is based largely on individual component study of wet places rather than whole system study. There is not enough system wide study. There is an incomplete and possibly inaccurate analysis of groundwater seepage to wetland C. In the file,there is an approximation of the direction of flow and amount of flow of groundwater on the site. It concludes that it largely flows north and feeds wetlands A and B. There is no analysis of the source of water for wetland C. Wetland C is fed primarily from groundwater seepage from the slope on its east side, or the west ridge of the site. There is a substantial amount of groundwater seepage that comes from the site, enough to support wetland C. Wetland C's health is significant to health of May Creek. See reference to wetland#34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Wetland C is Wetland#34 in the report. The environmental checklist had errors or omissions. The stream on the site bears fish and there is a blatant omission of that. There is no mention of the existing migrating deer, coyote, or other big game through the site. I'd like to add my knowledge of sightings of hawks, heron, and bald eagles in the immediate area(my own back yard). Bald eagle- occasionally, last sighting 6/17/97 Great Blue Heron- 4/2/97 Red-tailed hawk- constant, daily There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development. The City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. 7 06/25/97 There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street (say 15 to 18 feet) on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream, putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate. Also, there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side. The information in the file influences how sound a decision can be made. Professional opinions involved are substantial The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries have substantial weight. The hearing examiner granted the previous appeal of DNS for this proposal. He also responded to a subsequent request for reconsideration of the appeal.by defending the original decision. This was in light of the formal stream mitigation plan. He clarified that the decision of the ERC was reversed, and the City shall prepare a focused EIS dealing with the wetlands, creek, and drainage issues. The only way consequences can be analyzed and questions can be answered regarding this proposal is to prepare that EIS. The Washington Department of Fisheries has been concerned about the impacts of this proposal to the state's fish resources from early on in the application process. They have highlighted this plan as having more than a moderate potential for causing adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. Both a representative from the county office and state office testified to the adverse impacts of this proposal at the appeal. They recommend increasing the buffer on wetlands A and B to 50 feet and putting the bioswale outside the buffer. They also recommended a 150 foot buffer on both sides of the stream. Attached is the letter from Bob Zeigler with recommendations. • Conclusion All of these reasons support a retention of the determination of significance of the Williamsburg Condominium proposal. • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex,with sensitive areas, and this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial 8 06/25/97 It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations, a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. 9 06/25/97 References May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report,August 1995, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp., King County Surface Water Management Division, City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Attachments: State of WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program, Bob Zeigler letter 10 06/26/97 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HABITAT PROTECTION SERVICES DIVISION AQUATIC SYSTEMS UNIT March 26, 1997 TO: Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist FROM: Bob Zeigler(360) 902-2578 Wetland Biologist SUBJECT: Wetlands and Aquatic Resources on Site that is approximately 2 blocks south of 44th Street N.E. and east of I-405 in Renton. We visited the site on Tuesday,March 18. We observed the stream,two seasonally flooded wetlands; wetland A with water ponded to depths greater than 20 inches and wetland B, an emergent and forested wetland (a component of which had cottonwood trees that were estimated to be 49 or more years in age and 60-70 feet in height). This is the area proposed to be used as a drainage swale. We also observed drainage that flowed in two directions from wetland B. Both wetlands would interact hydrologically with the stream known as Gypsy Creek, We observed and sampled cutthroat trout in the stream attempting to migrate upstream of the impassible culvert. Maintenance of water quality and providing for fish passage are important components that should be incorporated into any proposal. One hundred and fifty feet is the prescribed buffer for type 3 streams less than 5 feet wide made in our Department's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations. Some resource literature includes the following: The Aquatic/Watershed Group for the Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, July 1993 outlined what is needed for aquatic organism from water quality: "Elements of water quality that are important for aquatic organisms include water temperatures within a range that corresponds with migration and emergence needs of fish and other aquatic organisms (Sweeney and Vannote 1978; Quinn and Tallman 1987). Desired conditions include an abundance of cool (generally less than 68 degree F),well-oxygenated water that is present at all times of the year, free of excessive amounts of suspended sediments (Sullivan et al. 1987) and other pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic invertebrate abundance (Cordone and Kelley 1961; Lloyd et al. 1987) . . . Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington and found that 200 foot buffers, or about one site-potential tree height, would be effective to remove sediment in most situations if the buffer were measured from the edge of the • • Larry Fisher March 26, 1997 Page 2 floodplain." (Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington). Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness,Andrew J. Castelle, Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers, Eric Metz, Susan Meyer, Michael Witter, Susan Mauermann,Terrell Erickson, Sarah S. Cooke, for Washington State Department of Ecology, February, 1992 provides information on needed buffers: "Buffers of less than 50 feet in width are generally ineffective in protecting wetlands . . . In western Washington,wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to 300-foot buffers based on land use . . . To retain wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland based on land use. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. ... Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater. . ." (Page 48). The wetlands on the property would appear to be Category III wetlands but a component of forest cover is reaching maturity which increased the diversity of species that would depend upon the area to meet primary breeding and/or feeding needs. The wetlands provide habitat for ' neotropical migrant species of birds and would appear to support amphibians. I recommend that fish passage be restored to stream above the culvert and that 150' riparian buffer be left on both sides of the stream. This would be consistent with Department Priority Habitat and Species Riparian recommendations and Wild Salmonid Policy. I would also recommend that buffers on the wetlands be increased to 50' instead of the proposed 25' and that the proposed drainage swale be moved out of the existing wetlands. Mitigation is a sequenced approach including: First,the avoidance of the impact; Second, minimization of the impact; Third, compensation for unavoidable losses. In the site plan approval,I recommend that impacts to the aquatic resources be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent.possible. .I NOISInIa mains June 25, 1997 L66L 9 NM' ®3�I33311 To: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC) anti�o u�� Subject: Determination of Significance for Williamsburg Condominiums,File No. LUA- 96-164, SA We as neighbors to the proposed Williamsburg Condominiums site, and as citizens of Renton concerned about responsible development in our neighborhood, submit this letter to the City of Renton ERC. We are convinced that the Determination of Significance for the Williamsburg Condominium proposal should be retained. The determination of nonsignificance mitigated for this project was reversed in an appeal granted by Mr. Fred Kaufmann, Hearing Examiner for the subject case. In addition,the City of Renton was directed to perform a detailed environmental impact statement. A subsequent request by the applicant to reverse the decision of the appeal was denied by the hearing examiner. This denial included consideration of the formal mitigation report for moving the stream. After reviewing the resubmitted proposal, we see that the applicant has submitted essentially the same plan with respect to mitigation, number of units, and site layout. The applicant seeks to have the ERC reverse the hearing examiner's decision by supplying additional data for consideration. After reviewing the resubmittal, there are still no adequate answers to questions raised in the appeal regarding impacts of the proposed mitigation for the wetplaces in and around this site. Significant adverse impacts are still probable from this project. The neighbors in this community disagree with the conclusions of the resubmitted plan. This proposal should retain the DS and proceed with the EIS. These are the reasons why: • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex, with sensitive areas,land this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial These reasons are detailed in the attachment. We are askingthe ERC to consider data that states that the groundwater from the site contains a substantial connection to the health of May Creek via wetland C. Wetland C is wetland#34 detailed in May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. The ERC must 1 06/25/97 consider the impact to the migrating salmon and the overall health of the May Creek Canyon and its adjacent wetlands in order to make a sound determination. The ERC must make a sound decision based on complete information. It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations, a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. In addition, there are benefits and opportunities that present themselves in response to avoiding adverse impacts to our environment and discouraging the alteration of wetlands. It ensures maximum protection for the health, safety and welfare of Renton's citizens. It maintains water quality, land quality, and wildlife habitat. In the May Creek Canyon, it provides opportunities to restore wet places and substantially enhance the health of May Creek and its surrounding habitat. It also provides opportunity for volunteer activity and education about the value and function of the environmental resources right in our back yards. eavaz reo, Prepared by: Monica C. Rosman LaFever, David L. LaFever Concurrence by:4:1 " VkickAvkid lid V{ ,t - JW, 4 CyI /, ?f5 /7 ockL001,111. fop2 06/25/97 Unanswered questions Many questions are still left unanswered after reviewing the resubmitted proposal. I would like to highlight questions about wetland C and its impacts to May Creek as probably the most significant in consequences and the most unexplored issue in the file. It may help to refer to an excerpt from the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report before reading the unanswered questions for wetland C and May Creek. Wetland C is Wetland#34. Listed also are questions regarding impacts to the stream and wetlands B and A. Wetland 34 Current Conditions: Wetland 34 is an uninventoried 2.4 acre Class-2 wetland that appears to straddle the basin boundary east of Jones Ave NE and south of NE 43`d Place in the City of Renton. The wetland contains forested and scrub/shrub habitats, and receives water primarily as groundwater discharges from the base of steep slopes that adjoin the wetland to the east. Water flows through several small channels to created ditches along Jones Avenue 1VE; some of these ditch waters subsequently discharge to May Creek The wetland has been severely impacted by historical and very recent filling, clearing, and ditching activities, including two large fills and one large cleared and ditched portion. Several industrial developments built on wetland fill suggest portions of the wetland may be receiving contaminants produced by those light industrial operations. Primary wetland functions include wildlife habitat, groundwater discharge, and toxicant retention. Future Conditions: This wetland will likely continue to experience incremental acreage and habitat losses due to unpermitted fill and clearing activities. Low levels of toxicant contamination and trash dumping may continue. Forest vegetation could be removed from slopes above and adjacent to the wetland, resultingincreased flows and sedimentation in j �in the wetland However,this wetland does offer feasible opportunities for restoration and enhancement and,restored, would substantially supplement the valuable May Creek Park Habitat corridor. What is the extent to which this development will impact wetland C and its substantial connection to the health of May Creek? Groundwater seepage from this site is the primary source of water for wetland C. This suggests that more than 5% of groundwater flow from this site is to the west toward May Creek. How will the introduction of impermeable surface affect the amount and direction of groundwater flow to this wetland? What will the clearing of trees on this site do? How much increase in sedimentation will May Creek see as a result? How much decrease in water flow will May Creek see as a result? How much rise in temperature will May Creek experience? How much more 3 06/25/97 adverse impact can wetland C experience before it can't sustain itself, its value, and its function? Isn't it necessary to explore the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope, feeding wetland C? How will bringing the pollutants closer to wetlands A and B affect their functions? Less permeable layers of soil close to the surface to the north of the site means there is less soil to aid in removal of toxicants introduced from oil, gas, antifreeze, tires, etc. in parking lot. What are the consequences of an ineffective 25 foot buffer and location of the bioswale within that buffer? Would joining A and B alter the seasonal recharge of their respective downstream areas? The stream? May Creek? Might a thorough study indicate whether filling of wetlands should or should not occur? What are the cumulative effects of relocating and modifying the stream channel? What are the impacts to water temperature? What are the impacts to the food source? Five years for an area to be restored to something in which there is going to be some temperature modification is not unusual. How severely will the stream flow be impacted if the surface flows are allowed to seep into the ground? This is something that often occurs if an impervious layer is used under the new stream channel. What are the impacts to the stream regarding the maintenance work to be done on its downstream system, e.g. the dredging, restoring vegetation, replacement of culverts, etc.? See File# /U ll— 97—O(a 3. What is the final configuration of the road widening of Lincoln Drive NE? How much will the stream be widened? What are its impacts to the buffer on the stream? Less buffer area? Decreased quality of riparian vegetation? This suggests that more buffer area should be allocated on the west side of the stream, since it will be further impacted on the east side. What are the pros and cons of purchasing private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side, avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream? Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development. The City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street(say 15 to 18 feet) on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream, putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests 4 06/25/97 that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate for this. Shouldn't we evaluate this impact now? Also, there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side, avoiding the negative impacts of moving the stream. The mitigation is the same as in the original proposal The mitigation proposed is not significantly different than the original plan. All the dimensions for buffers on the creek and the wetlands are exactly the same. What is different in the resubmitted plan is that there is more detail in the record. a)Wetland A and B. The buffer on wetland A and B is exactly the same. The bioswale is still within the 25 foot buffer. The plan to consolidate the wetlands is the same. The City of Renton requested more vegetation in the original proposal. There is now text outlining more vegetation in the buffer. There is additional text outlining the reasoning for consolidating the two wetlands rather than putting a detention system in between. The impact on these wetlands and the downstream system will be the same as in the original proposal. b)Wetland C The buffer on wetland C is exactly the same. The impervious surface introduced to the site is the same. The plan for clearing trees is the same. There is an approximation of the groundwater flow based on test pit samples from Geotech Consultants. There is no discussion of the groundwater seepage that exists off the site's western slope, feeding wetland C. There is no discussion of the substantial connection between wetland C and the health of May Creek. The impact to this wetland and the discharge to May Creek will be the same as in the original proposal. c) Stream The plan to move the creek and restore the vegetation along its buffer is present now, rather than missing as in the original proposal. This stream is now going to experience maintenance downstream in addition to being moved. It is difficult to weigh the potential benefits and adverse impacts this stream will experience since it is being modified and encroached on in so many areas, in multiple projects, in such a short time span. Given the precedent set in the appeal that the original mitigation will have probable significant unmitigated adverse impacts, and that this proposal will have the same adverse 5 06/25/97 it impacts or doesn't have enough information to determine that, the mitigation proposed now does not offset the significant negative impact this proposal will have. it Complexity of Site This site is complex,with sensitive areas that are interconnected, and this necessitates testing/further study. The site is not simple from a topographical or hydrological standpoint. It is difficult to determine the impacts this proposal will have since the site is so complex. There are three wetlands and a stream on or adjacent to the property. May Creek is also nearby. Wetland A and B interact hydrologically with the stream. Groundwater from the site feeds wetland C. Introduction of impermeable surface and redirection of groundwater effect wetland A,B, and C. Wetland C provides discharge that is substantial to the health of May Creek. See reference to wetland#34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. There is a sizeable amount of water that runs onto site. There is flooding and sedimentation in the downstream system. This demands higher standards for mitigation. The site provides value to the habitat of the surrounding area. May Creek provides habitat for many species of salmonid. The stream adjacent to the property has good riparian habitat and bears cutthroat trout. Cumulative Impacts There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts in this proposal. Every wet place on or around the site will witness modification and adverse impacts. • Wetland A and B have ineffective.buffers. See letter from the Department of Fisheries, attached. Effective buffer width is essential especially around wetlands that have ponded water. There is a bioswale within the buffer replacing it and its trees with immature vegetation subject to monitoring and maintenance. Portions of the wetlands will be filled to support the bioswale. The bioswale brings pollutants closer to the wetlands. Wetland C uses buffer averaging. No consideration is given to the groundwater seepage from the site to wetland C and discharge to May Creek. The effect this site will have on May Creek has been purposely minimized. The stream channel will be moved and its shape modified. The portion of the stream to be moved has complex and valuable vegetation on it, e.g. Western Cedar, big leaf and vine maple, elderberry, salmon berry, trillium flower, etc. The stream is proposed to be moved to a much less mature canopy subject to monitoring. Measurable differences in water 6 06/25/97 temperature will occur. The fact that trout exist in the stream has been purposely minimized. Since these wet places are so interconnected and every wet place will be modified, the likelihood that the cumulative impact will be significantly adverse is high. Also,the wet places on the site are part of a system that has already seen significant impacts of cumulative encroachment. The neighborhood has already seen significant erosion, flooding, and deterioration of its wet places. This demands higher standards for mitigation to preserve the value and function of the remaining system. Information supplied is incomplete or missing Some of the information in the file is incomplete or missing. Some of the information supplied in the file is based largely on individual component study of wet places rather than whole system study. There is not enough system wide study. There is an incomplete and possibly inaccurate analysis of groundwater seepage to wetland C. In the file,there is an approximation of the direction of flow and amount of flow of groundwater on the site. It concludes that it largely flows north and feeds wetlands A and B. There is no analysis of the source of water for wetland C. Wetland C is fed primarily from groundwater seepage from the slope on its east side, or the west ridge of the site. There is a substantial amount of groundwater seepage that comes from the site, enough to support wetland C. Wetland C's health is significant to health of May Creek. See reference to wetland#34 in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Wetland C is Wetland#34 in the report. The environmental checklist had errors or omissions. The stream on the site bears fish and there is a blatant omission of that. There is no mention of the existing migrating deer, coyote, or other big game through the site. I'd like to add my knowledge of sightings of hawks, heron, and bald eagles in the immediate area(my own back yard). Bald eagle- occasionally, last sighting 6/17/97 Great Blue Heron-4/2/97 Red-tailed hawk- constant, daily There is no discussion of the impacts of road widening. Reasons for widening the street and moving the stream are unclear and not thought through. One reason for widening the stream is that the stream is causing unstable conditions on the west side of the road. There have been major culvert improvements upstream so how do we know there will be any more road damage done? Is the stream still causing unstable conditions or is this problem fixed? Reasons for moving the road are that it is to be widened for general use and widened to accommodate extra traffic from this site development. The City of Renton says there will be no significant traffic impacts from this development yet it wants to move the stream and widen the road as a result of the development. Both of these actions are significant undertakings. 7 06/25/97 There is no discussion in the plan about how far the street will be widened. Widening the street(say 15 to 18 feet) on the west side of the road will decrease the buffer area along the east side of the stream, putting the road very close to the stream again. This suggests that there should be an increased buffer width on the west side of the stream to compensate. Also,there is no discussion of the pros and cons of purchasing any private property on the east side of the street and widening it on that side. The information in the file influences how sound a decision can be made. Professional opinions involved are substantial The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries have substantial weight. The hearing examiner granted the previous appeal of DNS for this proposal. He also responded to a.subsequent request for reconsideration of the appeal by defending the original decision. This was in light of the formal stream mitigation plan. He clarified that the decision of the ERC was reversed, and the City shall prepare a focused EIS dealing with the wetlands, creek, and drainage issues. The only way consequences can be analyzed and questions can be answered regarding this proposal is to prepare that EIS. The Washington Department of Fisheries has been concerned about the impacts of this proposal to the state's fish resources from early on in the application process. They have highlighted this plan as having more than a moderate potential for causing adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. Both a representative from the county office and state office testified to the adverse impacts of this proposal at the appeal. They recommend increasing the buffer on wetlands A and B to 50 feet and putting the bioswale outside the buffer. They also recommended a 150 foot buffer on both sides of the stream. Attached is the letter from Bob Zeigler with recommendations. Conclusion All of these reasons support a retention of the determination of significance of the Williamsburg Condominium proposal. • There are still unanswered questions • The mitigation is essentially the same as in the original proposal • The site is complex,with sensitive areas, and this demands testing • There are cumulative adverse impacts adding up to significant unmitigated adverse impacts • The information supplied in the file is incomplete or missing, sometimes based on individual component study rather than whole system study • The professional opinions of the hearing examiner and the Department of Fisheries are substantial 8 06/25/97 . I It has been established in the appeal that significant adverse impacts are probable from this project. There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding the impacts of this proposal. The only way these questions can be answered is with a focused environmental impact statement(EIS). According to SEPA regulations, a proposal with these characteristics requires the issuance of a determination of significance and an EIS is required. 9 06/25/97 References May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report, August 1995, Prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp., King County Surface Water Management Division, City of Renton Surface Water Utility. Attachments: State of WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Program, Bob Zeigler letter 10 06/26/97 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM HABITAT PROTECTION SERVICES DIVISION AQUATIC SYSTEMS UNIT March 26, 1997 TO: Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist 73-0-0 FROM: Bob Zeigler(360) 902-2578 Wetland Biologist SUBJECT: Wetlands and Aquatic Resources on Site that is approximately 2 blocks south of 44th Street N.E. and east of I-405 in Renton. We visited the site on Tuesday, March 18. We observed the stream,two seasonally flooded wetlands; wetland A with water ponded to depths greater than 20 inches and wetland B, an emergent and forested wetland(a component of which had cottonwood trees that were estimated to be 40.or more years in age and 60-70 feet in height). This is the area proposed to be used as a drainage swale. We also observed drainage that flowed in two directions from wetland B. Both wetlands would interact hydrologically with the stream known as Gypsy Creek, We observed and sampled cutthroat trout in the stream attempting to migrate upstream of the impassible culvert. Maintenance of water quality and providing for fish passage are important components that should be incorporated into any proposal. One hundred and fifty feet is the prescribed buffer for type 3 streams less than 5 feet wide made in our Department's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations. Some resource literature includes the following: The Aquatic/Watershed Group for the Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, July 1993 outlined what is needed for aquatic organism from water quality: "Elements of water quality that are important for aquatic organisms include water temperatures within a range that corresponds with migration and emergence needs of fish and other aquatic organisms (Sweeney and Vannote 1978; Quinn and Tallman 1987). Desired conditions include an abundance of cool (generally less than 68 degree F),well-oxygenated water that is present at all times of the year, free of excessive amounts of suspended sediments (Sullivan et al. 1987) and other pollutants that could limit primary production and benthic invertebrate abundance (Cordone and Kelley 1961; Lloyd et al. 1987) . . . Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington and found that 200 foot buffers, or about one site-potential tree height, would be ( effective to remove sediment in most situations if the buffer were measured from the edge of the • Larry Fisher March 26, 1997 age 2 foodplain." (Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington). Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness,Andrew J. Castelle, Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers, Eric Metz, Susan Meyer, Michael Witter, Susan Mauermann,Terrell Erickson, Sarah S. Cooke, for Washington State Department of Ecology, February, 1992 provides information on needed buffers: "Buffers of less than 50 feet in width are generally ineffective in protecting wetlands . . . In western Washington.wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to 300-foot buffers based on land use . . . To retain wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland based On land use. This is especially the case where open water is a component of the wetland or here the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. . . Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally 100 feet or greater. . ." (Page 48). fThe wetlands on the property would appear to be Category III wetlands but a component of forest cover is reaching maturity which increased the diversity of species that would depend upon the area to meet primary breeding and/or feeding needs. The wetlands provide habitat for neotropical migrant species of birds and would appear to support amphibians. I recommend that fish passage be restored to stream above the culvert and that 150' riparian buffer be left on both sides of the stream. This would be consistent with Department Priority Habitat and Species Riparian recommendations and Wild Salmonid Policy. I would also recommend that buffers on the wetlands be increased to 50' instead of the proposed 25' and that the proposed drainage swale be moved out of the existing wetlands. Mitigation is a sequenced approach including: First,the avoidance of the impact; Second, minimization of the impact; Third, compensation for unavoidable losses. In the site plan approval, I recommend that impacts to the aquatic resources be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible. AP KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Architects, Planners & Consultants OEVELOPMENTPLAN ^iry np oRivioNNING June 19, 1997 j j 2 Q 1997 Mark R. Pywell Development Services Division - ED Planning/Building/Public Works Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 Reference: Williamsburg Condominiums j Kussman Associates Job No. 9606 Dear Mark, Please find enclosed one colored site plan and one colored landscape plan for the above referenced project along with one PMT reduction(8 '/s"x 11"original) of the site plan. These drawings should complete the submittal previously delivered to you for the Environmental Review Committee and for site plan approval. If you have questions or need additional information, please call. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, A/ Steven M. Grassia Architect P.O. Box 1705, Bothell, WA 98041-1705 • (206) 861-7200 • Fax: 885-1302 • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1997 TO: Reviewing Department FROM: ! rk R. Pywell SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to ensure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please ieturn this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. /U0 a lce euriwis . cc: atiLd&of oLt'' e- H:\W W6ODOTNMEMO.DOThh 1 St.urface_i CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS CITY Or RrAf9'ON MEMORANDUM JUN2.37 DATE: June 12, 1997 TO: Reviewing Department FROM: ! rk R. Pywell UBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to ensure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please rlIeturn this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would Appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. cc: H:\W W60DOT\MEMO.DOT\bh bark - pJ 0 aad,-tID04J c©vfrikflektts UC((uwed AeJa}a1Z 6/16/1') CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WOS MEMORANDUM % 1 °1 / DATE: June 12, 1997 O4. •`cs TO: Reviewing Department FROM: !l/"`"rk R. Pywell SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to ensure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please return this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. cc: H:\W W6ODOT\MEMO.DOT\bh Fire ?retie vt. m RENTON FIRE DEPT Fier n!!PFAU J U N 1 2 1997 CITY OF RENTONFt PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS p �'� MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1997 TO: Reviewing Department FROM: R.R. Pywell UBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to ensure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please return this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. A.)0 CediLla adert ‘11 7 VeA---- H:\W W6ODOT\MEMO.DOT\bh c6vva-kvu.L—Itrv, rasa is op LJ r , CITY OF RENTON '"'®soy PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1997 TO: Reviewing Department FROM: Ogrk R. Pywell SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to ensure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please return this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. svicead,„..; ‘013/fi cc: H:\W W6ODOT\MEMO.DOT\bh s CEO CITY OF RENTON Community Services DEVELOPMENT PLANNINP MEMORANDUM CITY ncor:A JUN 2 3 1997 M 9CE§ � Date: June 23, 1997 To: Mark Pywell From: Leslie Betlach, Parks Directof Re: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-194, ECF,SA My previous comments on the Williamsburg Condominiums are still applicable. In regard to landscaping, I am not able to comment until a landscaping plan is submitted for review. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 5549. LAB/dlf cc: Sam Chastain, Community Services Administrator 97-348DF.DOC PoWhcs CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 1997 TO: Reviewing Department FROM: l"""rk R. Pywell SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums LUA-96-164,ECF,SA The applicant has submitted these revised plans for their proposed project. Please review the plans to eesure that your last comments are still valid. If no changes are required to your comments, please return this memo with a note saying no additional comments required. Otherwise, we would appreciate any comments that you have regarding these plans. Thanks. cc: H:\W W6ODOT\MEMO.DOT\bh RECEIVED JUN 1 3 1997 PARKS&RECREATION City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r ueitz COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 I LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES • I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I Housing Air I Aesthetics Water I Light/Glare Plants I Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet W vl-CVO s • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ice, trp . s4 `71"..'")° 176 s d� /eV) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly a ess this proposal. Sif 60Y-t of Director or Authorized Representative ` Dat� 7ure DEVAPP.DOC / Rev.10/93 City ur Renton Department of Planning/Building/P4.,tic Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8- DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 17curics COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 I - APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE • SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF.PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information - Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare - Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistorldCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet fZ� AA Sr-/i ) ✓�/ ' u�` tip' i lr) 1 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • /1.ti&42 /7 2-1!,,t) O 3 -3 67 ,,51 c p ,12-&✓C�L. G 6-7'u f` 2; C x 7�. y% c�T .7fk, %ct4 t-1 Gg/ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Wei have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dafe DE APP.DOC r, 1019. I .' City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: AArre,rk COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the . Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing ✓ Air I i/ Aesthetics V Water I LightGlare Plants V Recreation Land/Shoreline Use ✓ Utilities ✓ Animals ✓ Transportation ✓ Environmental Health ✓ Public Services ✓ Energy/ I/ HistoridCultural NaturaiResources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ✓ 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an.avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. The d reeds should be filed in King County with verification submitted to the City. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conicial Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land.. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a ditional info tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. 0 Oen Signatu f Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. Rev.10/93 City or7Renton Department of Planning/Building/Pubiic Works -kiNVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Aw po —t COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. , A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing V Air Aesthetics V Water I Light/Glare Plants I . Recreation Land/Shoreline Use V Utilities Animals V Transportation tt� Environmental Health ✓ Public Services r" Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Alrport Environment 10,000 Feet r / 14,000 Feet 1/ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The site is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157 ' above sea level , below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit because the construction exceeds a slope of 100:1. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utilized aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the operation of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi• al informed needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature o'c irector or Authorized Representative Date • DEVAPP.DO' Rev.10l93 , City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEIWING DEPARTMENT: COh chcr1 5tvo COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I Housing Air Aesthetics Water I Light/Glan9 Plants I Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animal§ Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy'/ Historic/Cultural NaturaiResources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS • We haVe re ed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add;:• :I information Is nee ed to pro d assess this proposal. 6A0 7 Sig tuFe of Dire or uthoriied Representative Date DEVAPP.00C Rev.10r93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: cotAstsii. Se/41(ULO COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWEI)$y OF RENTON • PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 °� nit„O LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE JAN 03 Ngg7 SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A -svit_L,uvka 01Vf SS o)i nn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 town' in sevens buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth 1 Housing Air Aesthetics Waters Light/Glare Plants', Recreation • • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment I 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS I.PLAv lb 8 ,5tHEITUI 1111 f APPuGR1t0 L FDA, 6LD , ealAtIll Nksikiitt5LOOklioi5 RIND WW1 f k PRDfciI1LY. •PULL D?.1N CI. 5 5[ ( s f ui >S Dgi. 1 sTEL1CTIou , Dc.�PRoG' ��,�s1F�D(� THE R�� of �� T l N WILD 6L APPkbUU GOLOU{ /motion itmt) APPeDtkD ib1LDM1 DA)L)?. - C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I. 50 1LS 6Et(do_ lh b 8 PiiiS.g ALL &kilos I WW1(( & .ci 0 AT[O Ili , l' S'[Q.DGIO PAL iNfx111ft. 5Hk i At61&10 Alt FDOtuQ RT(b PM b i UJ ma ND KA tNig, 6CAL,6 ft Po QT We ha ' eot this applicatij7opetf with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where a ict -ma on d d assess this proposal. .11 t A / /q -tr) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 I J 1 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Politic Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT- APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: `(c COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants. Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet nO iwt) force . 0_ exlyinvosa, Ipat c t o "Ai " ctO . Ccu iu ct && / �.- SaveaA C4 fYCI " . B. I?OLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sç41E�� � La -S�t'1 n of DirectoAut rized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lookt�c COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA 96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.LC. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELI, PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven)buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS !I Element of the Probable Probable More Element al the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth _ Housing - Air I Aesthetics Water] Light/Glare Plants] Recreation • LancVShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet . ca ?deice calls estimated. cinnua k j This area of Renton has a fairly low crime rate. Recommend that construction materials and tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (burglary of construction sites is one of our most common crimes lately) . Fence in the lot while it's under construction, and use security lighting. The elevation plans submitted, show that the front doors to each unit will have glass windows. Breaking the glass to reach in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a. burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need to be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistant glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. The front doors will need to be dead-bolt locks witt-. bolts 1'I 1/2" in length. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the color of the home, and placed under a light. Stairwells need extra security lighting, and so do the areas around the garages and parking lots. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly, visible by parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gating at both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespassers and loitersoff the property, and provide security to the residents. We have reviewed this appication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where addtional information is needed to property assess this proposal. upiebu Signature of Director outhorized Representa• e Date • hy,M,, J Dr=vAPP.Doc C ll bey) vet ca; a 1. Rom.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t:14aA c/ %eu) tdottl,COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997. APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water ; Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/, Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS CO vw vtt� -From. ovi i submit-to/ S/-i///I ceiyhi . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed tUf/U1 properly assess this proposal / Ala 5 A7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 .. ., City..i Renton Department of Planning/Building/I-uolic Works . ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ?k alt1 RallGw LOS. L.letOMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 1 6,,I.N9U ROfFeN APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 - "Mf) APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELAN g g PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 • LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE vie_Lia,dVi IA VISION . SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in ' seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major. Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth ' Housing Air ' Aesthetics • Water l Llght/Glare Plants! Recreation ' Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet I 14,000 Feet 1 rAL.,, :___, c,.. /z - ,,,,._,6:,. „,_,, ,....„ t„._, -17 40 tz _.-...y, _ .. ....., . --,/ c,./ ,-;( go .-/-- -7( r/ ,k 6. (il, / 2 r .,r/'-,2-,4 r o„..- ,---- rn L,'G e-� ✓',...) C,.eAl f:. L.' i ri-t q ,,7 f, ` '�. .' -'..'`. f. '_e--E- zc,-f;:-.,:air.Jr,'.' >. ,.1/T e lf. ter i` �.� , I''r-r_'!.-l�(� B. POLICY-RELAtED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED rC, OMMENTS, %' -l') -�'d-,c-- r--C �-�_-e_— G. rl-GC�((C�"2,,t ;,(.• / P.-''L 1 , tL ' f a, -y�_n ,,.., t 7..,, , • :7 r i `� Si.: e (;"_��,1 re-. .-` f:�-r' f 0 /.. ,,j �: r7e-A" /tit'.:'':'._,-LFa�--2 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or area' where'additional information is needed to properly assess this proposaL 6k 2 .i /,�jq/7 / 9 97 Signature of Director or Auth �d Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: SAJOY"Va-11?N COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY.OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water I Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natura/IResources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Ovirva COW1144.614/ Sfi ll apply . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informatio is needed to properly assess this proposal. t12' 6/54) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 r � I • (SY + ... Yr�ri wyF%3a-`o-}> <., .exrngay'�q??o-x"o't)lsini;F??�:rnn.�r»•..cpsv.:j,M{,t�yu;.RxfG�:.Y.�giapi•.� o:•: :W"...Cya....:., '»'aw'Xd4.?q�JS? .' .:.. rrrys,.'°.Y3 y >.+/ ... ar.;» ws�Qiy.9:k Y]4f.M•iO:J tY.V}'iwY.0�fi0 k x .'t;4i � j '.y(.2p�/�^•6b '��GL�`Y .�jj��''��//��..�� st•� sr •k� ,q: �^^''r�'(.• •• ]]��((��:'s � f� �•F,�\'A�'_�c= .Y,,. ..;:��,.•,>wi�'?�icE <f: Ai•6 r.%4/.51y1 Ti:.F t., ..E : AZI.1 1 MY E•V Qz11::.� Tik'L s n, w•�.�Y�.�r.%/�A'J0 �YS:S)^•.4Y/N'.:':•i''Wnrj!l6iCS�)�'Y^:J.t9¢-.'^::yN'.^ivlC:Yr:YKii{OG%•i0�]?r '•i}ti>h�wOFAi•S'i�i4NnrNeNi6NCii'I.^�P"n`Oi/.•.tid >SS•wMSa•.Vjt4> Project Name (-Or //I kg harj Condo ri'iivi►um 5 Project Address 4000 Lrncoiki AvrHue k)E Contact Person Mc✓k Gold bev. c/o S DA $vos) 14c. Address 4739 (JvirVevsr/cj UJa y AJE 5,4,te 1607 ) Sea tic t0/1 R8105 Phone Number 5 2-I - �}g 14 60 or 140 6- 164 • Permit Number LOA 616 - 164 Project Description £2 04,1- wtuIti fawrrlu con src7/ 1 ob y�{ tou i 11oudejiy 7 bider d z3 - laid, ih 2 bl�( S. crte.e o 134 parkin, ya..c€4 020cove✓ec/) Land Us_e/Type: . Method�o iCalculation: 7Ipuri's4ei'i C220) Ly1 Residential 1 ' ITE Trip Generation Manual pale. 311 ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study ❑ Non-retail 0 Other Rate_ = 6.47 p-2-) un_ Calculation: ,Ue.to ade✓a'e lard) 7r;Ps • (6.4-7 ) (62 ) = yo /, i4 durli) tvrPs At $ 75 , �t✓'P ( yv1. 114) ( t75 ) _ 30, c) 85 . 5O Transportation Mitigation Fee: 30 ) 0 S 5- 5 v Calculated by: uA !J Date: I /71/47 Account Number: Date of Payment • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:S41 t,��}et . COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997. APPLICATION.NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA '^"�', DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA 3.3 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project._ The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information • Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water ' _ Light/Glare Plants ' Recreation • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals _ Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/, HistorldCultural Natural)Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet R-6 6-471� w� (I✓1 G f t G o 14 I to ti -f Ly) de tic.vi t/o vi /a ,l 100_rwi 51c)7 4 f/utfrut, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 51,11 ly . 1 P We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Aka G/9 Al Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City"oY Renton Department of Planning/Building/Puutic Works • ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5wifacGI 'r OMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLIICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA c )A44- JPt ATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 ^f�, • o LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE iletyA�� ~Th TON • SITE A ,J REA: 143,612 S.q.Ft. (3.3 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A" �V /7 2 I 97 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium tipg of 44 towrmomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provide with an additional 16 open parking spaces. ,.•,., r kjiv I A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I Housing. - Air I Aesthetics • - Water] Light/Glare Plants] Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriciCultural . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet / A71€. . �& Gj �L€ r P/ G --4-. • a'__.' de. 5Gov,/ , ., 4 er: <) j A2e__ G�i�i . /u v-,-�GC4 by �� ,41,/,--,rc.- /cg-vwi2Vr)p • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS W'GLo :17 A — 7A", '�jJ 2,L.0,rii.„..6?,r,.4 �•� r yob,,, V 4 , ,9.Gvt�-� 4da.., . 'Lt.�,J mac" ',r.,� G, ,c�l. '2.,e,/ rt..., >61M/- 6-- ,Ceet-,-k.-)i Ze,z,,,,,..4t.,.0_," , A ..,e/..e.. (9,-1...e../62.„ ,,,.-:37.--‘,-,),-(,,,e-ef A6,--, 4,?,,,,„/„.:_dfil ,,y.„- cze,...,2",./r.„9„ 4,,, ,,,,z2., ae, gye_a__,,....ze,-,...) cr-,-.:," co-,-,_P/ c-Lw.,-,-,--- layre... c,te, 4,7 Ic,v-,96, ,/:,. 674v/ps(o-LA-t.k„)"a-¢, C, c-i-e1co-e-&amt spe ' We have reviewed this application with partic attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas pp� where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. (7/k, 1---7 , //5/ /9 97 Si nature of Director oCA(tthorized Representative ate DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 RENTON FIRE DEPT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works I IN J 4 iQai ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVI E7 T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fum rife u.eyv\#tu,vI t e it i V E U COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 03, 1997 APPLICANT: KENNYDALE VISTA LLC PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3.3 ACRES I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I Housing Air I Aesthetics Water I Light/Glare Plants I Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /0,0 p a6. s teL e V / B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS k 4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Yleal We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add. oval information needed to properly assess this proposal. 0/97 Sign tu'e of Director or Aut oriz Representative Date DEVAP DOC Rev 10/93 (CY • CITY OF RENTON bat 4',t7 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell, Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums, 4000 Lincoln Av. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-Hour construction is 2250 GPM. If the construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required for each 1000 GPM or fraction thereof. The primary hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. 3. The fire mitigation fee is $388.00 per unit for a total of$24,056.00. Please feel free to contact me.if you have any questions. T„JN.06 '97 15:10 2065242927 PAGE 1 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES THE M.S . CAVOA❑ CO. INCORPORATED. imp D To: Qr ? iwef/ Date: G 1 , Company: �4y r 11 �l n Time: / FAX #: 277- y65_ No. .of Pages: 2 l (Including This Cover Sheet) From: ,] £ //Aer- Subject: ; iy h e, - Wi>7-s/v y_ (If you have any problem with this transmission, please call MESSAGE: • 4739 University Wayy Nottheut.Suite 1807 (206)524-4646 Seattle,Waahlnpton 98105 Fas(206)524•2027 • J2,1N.06 '97 15:11 2065242927 PAGE 2 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES THE M.S. CAVOAD CO. INCORPORATED 944.-1. 4 , Iff7 474 277- 5tpt„ MaitA d/nt � .; ,_144 -44t./11.VittArte- ri4-.A& iff7, J C, 4 11' C r-...1144e 1..4,- . Abpt. "ntatit 1071 ..e.4 t1,114 c c . &Lig, yy yy.• (200)624.4040 9 Seetc e,Weshlnpt n 69105 ul Fu17c(201)124-292? • KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Architects, Planners & Consultants Ar� 1997 DEVC4 1,1LA r�AIJNI TY OF RENTON NG June 11, 1997 Mark R. Pywell City of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mark: Enclosed are eleven sets of revised plans for the Williamsburg Condominiums which we are resubmitting for site plan approval. Revised application forms and SEPA Checklists have already been submitted to your office under separate cover. Please forward these documents to the appropriate individuals for review and give us a call if there are any questions. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Steven M. Grassia Architect P.O. Box 1705, Bothell, WA 98041-1705 • (206) 861-7200 • Fax: 885-1302 ,k�Y O U + Initti + NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON Checklist Review (ECF) and Site Plan Approval (SA)Application has been filed and accepted with the An Environmental pp Pp P Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS/LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DESCRIPTION: In response to the Determination of Significance, the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. GENERAL LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review II Site Plan Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting date, Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative decision. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the' public hearing, date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project.NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. 716 N.E_._._43RD_—ST-._. 31D="'PL:—•x Iii Os N 10 i.i, W 1.1.._._ 1 Z ® 2 I i i a ' 7 W_ alb ,, ..11L_Q se sT-- _ D. 'i a j sit lbI , ;.; k107 0 ,,, , C. D. 'H'fI: AN'S ,, _.__ }} ,__0.GC(1' FA •' IWARS INGT•N'- w ' g . k 10 9 _ a- l,4.9. J,S GARDaEtN x *i :; E1 EN, $.' . In I :200 li � VIVISI ••N N� 7 • Sys i,i < =!_ sows"b Z "- ',_ GENAMLOT.DOC ag' — _ �B 77 7� -• �-6- �5-.. " �,_�__ '4r S. B6THa ST', ��_ . , . , . ,, • & . NOME, . . . , PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAMEMUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS I LUA-96-064,ECF,SA 1 DESCRIPTION: In response to the Determination of Significance,the aplicant has submitted a revised pro sal Thal is Intended to address the potential significant adverse Impacts previously Identified with the project.The r project Includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. ' GENERAL LOCATION: 4000 Uncoln Avenue NE ' PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit _Preliminary Plat _Short Plat . _Conditional Use Permit _Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review _PeShorelineril Conditional Use _Other _Fill&Grade Permit — Shoreline Substantial _Other Development Permit • The application can be reviewed In the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. • ' Comments will be accepted any time poor to Environmental Review Committee(ERC)meetings,Public Hearings,during . Public Hearings,or poor to an administrative decision. For further Inrorallon on the application,or If you wish to be - made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications,please contact the Development Services Division al 235-2550• e. I.r . t `© t L..�.r , :itc I i , • • H TU.z. L9 ,','W,3 TN v i d o z pt�, I •91 ^.GARDEN OF„�t}�E LN, �n _ I ' II=2OI:rr - 9' IV19 CAN'his .. _— • = .„,e 1 7.13..---P g e.,.......5: "^wwJJJ 'r .a arm. \ �Irt a ' I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION:• 'I,•.",( ' • CERTIFICA-TTON- —.—__.... i, jeLCA SOrl , hereby certify that 3 copies•of the above document w re posted'by me in .3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on • . .JtLVU 6 EGtg1 Signed: gQ::N di idaryi . • U STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . • i ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) _- certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -6 i y J ,'!I signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and v.AiVIp+th for the uses o : and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • . . igT&Irtp,y, . '14r.•�4i: Dated: I(pl GJ`7VIVA� . Notary Pub in and f r he Sfal�e'�at,W s Vigion Notary (Print) MARG R t''1 •li I AR My appointment expires: /gg • ' NOTARY•OOC • .140.TICE PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS/LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DESCRIPTION: • In response to the Determination of Significance,the applicant has submitted a revised proposal that is intended to address the potential significant adverse impacts previously identified with the project. The project includes the construction of 62 condominium units on a 3.3 acre site. GENERAL LOCATION:• 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Environmental Review Committee(ERC)meetings,Public Hearings,during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative decision. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications,please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. —.p•, NET—•-93RD—•-9T-• .N{r .Er—•431)" L: •-- W I-_21_Jt_Q __ .e any ,— 2 ' J r 4A � 3 J . 0 „,r C. D. •H-I I� AN'S. , L___ , : , H '-- ;_ LA IW�S INGTON' • a-G° 2 ` o „- b. 4,��""d, t� - y ��GA D3EN I o,�,r E©EN,,., .'s = 4 ;(�F9F 2 I11:2OOi -DIVISION Na 7 e• 3 C BY li'. 10 Z-3 4 :5 `� au __.____...10 9 EGT:NUMBER:::WHEN.GALLING_'f.OR`;PRORER:FILEI,Q�IVTI.FICA1'IONr :° PLEASE,INCLUDE.THE PROD , %• , CITY OF RENTON [l,` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 4, 1997 • Mr. Mark Goldberg SDA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way NE, Suite 1607 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: . Williamsburg Condominiums Project No. LUA-96-164,ECF,SA .. Dear Mr. Goldberg: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. As per my telephone conversation with Mr. Allan Bauman on June 3, 1997,we need a set of mailing labels submitted as soon as possible. • The project is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 1, 1997. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 277-5586, if you have any questions. Sincerely, - • Mark R. PWa414€1 . ICP Project Manager cc: Kennydale Vista LLC/Owners Parties of Record • ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT Prepared For: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Bothell, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington February 7, 1997 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT Prepared for: Kussman Associates PO Box 1705 Bothell, Washington 98041-1705 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 February 7, 1997 Table Of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY 1 3.1 Background Data Reviewed 1 3.2 Field Investigation 2 4.0 RESULTS 2 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 2 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions 3 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4 5.1 Description 4 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands 4 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams 5 5.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts 5 References List Of Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3: Soils Map Figure 4: Existing Conditions Map Figure 5: Site Plan Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Data Sheets for Routine On-site Determination Method WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT February 7, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland inventory and delineation on an approximately 3.3-acre site located in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The site is proposed for the construction of a 62-unit condominium development. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the property, 2) identify wetland impacts from the proposed development, and 3) describe measures which will be implemented to mitigate wetland impacts from the proposed development. Information in this report will be utilized by the City of Renton and any other concerned agencies to evaluate impacts to wetlands on the project site. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The property appears to have been historically used as a gravel mine, but is currently forested. It is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 32, Township 24N, Range 5E, W.M.). Surrounding properties consist primarily of a mixture of single family residential and undeveloped areas. Topography on the site generally slopes down from south to north. However, the eastern and western portions of the site slope sharply down to the east and west respectively. Much of the topography on the site appears to have been significantly altered during the historic gravel mining activity. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the subject property involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, and (if present) the extent of their boundaries (see Field Investigation section below). 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Renton, Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988 • King County Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, 1973 • City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Map, 1991 • Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S., Wetland Determination Report, Aug. 14, 1995 1 <g _ L• - o'•'' -_ _ ,rTN� _ !�' W A rI SE 70TH T ❑ \ 41 E� 1 PARK N , r rn7�O5l ,�°- - cl 2 --SE 72ND S7 ST , F tie �'l S o. i_,_.I ST eL R h 30 a g s . ma j.; r`(IST HAZELW00D ro i� �, 1ST � � �.sf :�.� - PK ova SE 72ND PL `" DR �.:u- a -57 .�- ST C f;� (7 ', NE 50iN i IL T •y eti 1 — - E m �f/ i T'E �Q•,I:,•t--..�:,:..ST'�ti Q DD 1_ JI'Z.s a �^'. %i cc �r6TH \ ST :tea`. w � - �'� rW e{r - s a ws. 9 isE ,',s,, a / O /� �'�n SE 75TH- < F c7,1,,TH,_ T^ SE76' =FLP! JAA'yS �' ;/ Nf.. .. '„ s= ���J V lte;76iH Q` Pam. 44T -'< �! = E >er^78TH LAc6r / fIr �`i i i = -" Sty .. sr `'� �` BEACH /\ N SE 9TH FLisLANDs -,Qy -� PARK ' N 43RD' 'SE^" 80TH 7yTH ST " ST �-1 L 80T LN HEIGHT`9°i ,`�+, ST_ fi ��J GT 5 I T PLC _ 11200 11600 T SSE 807 Si LH C.. ' � O Z Z C� L Q.`N� 5 PLO - - y� 82NC 2 �.;1 OC P^� Q� I NE A 8f N 40TH ST ¢ DTj I 6.E___ 84TH Wr 1300 I , jU/ •�Inv AVALON J = A! y Ni,, m 31/ N 38TH ST o J' <� SE aaTx ST =1 5 � Z of �J �4J N 37TH Sf-e ' ���l�E'p Se 97TH 5T CO iEM SE,..,' •�y 1 14 4, ; KENNYDALE 36TH ST¢, I N; 36TH S ^ a,t7TH a 1 E O,`y0 BEACH PARK 35TH ST 3c 1•.00 H §,y P W ,1600 V 11 ST '' 34TH <' ST < '¢ `rF2 A!�1 ';i S 89TH ST TH POINT 33RD PL _ `'""� L: 90TH ST j 33RD ST en' 33RD ST SE 91ST SE S Q 32ND ST= Y COLEMAN POINT 31ST ST_4 'O f. NF 315T ST z �a%v, &,x ,�, N 0TH a ST t 2c^ MAY,<:.CREEK SE 93� r700 29TH ST o 1300f x9Tx RK t�V `re1, ',;;llA: 28TH PL .a x s-- .,,, S. - :: :.,a'r, 9G n r 1 NE'.:;:'J'28TH ST .N1 `r,!''W,f f _ --5� z NE 1 ---N� LAKE y Fh� _2&T1L 7TH 2 27TH ST E,,�a�_`'`"'i•" cT _J •_ _7ry. ,44 ' N 26TH ST< I c L., i•F < '' w N 30 I W ;22= 'Q, ,.KENNYD•LE Z STH ST is I CO 1; o o --TE i LIONS N 24TH STD t W H N - - I• WASHINGTON £ 1700 F._, < N >J I ¢ It E N N B_t1 NE 3RD ST t \ 22ND .00 y LPL '1 =< 5NE 21ST SToz o 22NDSTs 0 i C -., Y •xE 215T ST i S� 2 ;I NE 20TH o $T o ,I. '3 1700 W i 2300 NE S - NE SZ i• 19TN c! a NE�•''H ST ® : Il ¢ a NORTH I; z Q 2 NE 167H NE ST HIGHLANDS 07 ;I E. u i 5T z PARK .. j, r2 II tp W. << E_ I6jH 2ll� i c Li BOAT LAUNCH I 9 W W Z O tiI N w ci S��� �: • I,• 1 -�14TH� 3 ST E m NE R3TH FL JR s ¢ 3� QA 4 o GENE CO 0 �, •1\- > m HI �W NE 13TH ST w N s ` oC :=MEMORIAL•' ' •;, 1.'-' NE • ¢o 12TH Al5 18 �112TH vS BEACH PARK �� )0 �� ; I2100 � o Sr0 z mart. �v ,_ -s \ ,, Po mart. �... �i� HT. SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition Ici95 II, 1 VP North ' DE516N DRAM �I 1 FIGURE I: Location Map AO II�IDI TALASAEA SCALE CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. Resource a Environmental Planning Development DATE (111 15020 Bear Greek Road Northeast 2-5-crl Woodinville,Washington 98092 Renton, Washington REVISED Br7s(206)861 1550-Fax(206)861-154R 3.2 Field Investigation A preliminary wetland reconnaissance was conducted on the site on August 19, 1996. Following this reconnaissance, a more formal wetland delineation was conducted on the property on October 7 and November 5, 1996. The routine on-site determination method was used to delineate the wetlands using the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the National List of Plant Species that Occur in wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Reed; 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the basis of Cowardin's system of wetland classification. Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer, • matrix chroma just below the A-horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A-horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and predicted flood elevations, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils and hydrology was made at various locations along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information. Wetland boundaries were marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix A contains data sheets prepared for representative locations in both the uplands and wetlands. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) do not indicate that any wetlands are located on the project site (Figure 2). The City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory map also does not indicate that any wetlands occur on the site. Since these maps are only general inventories based largely on aerial photographs, and because wetland areas change over time, actual field investigation was necessary to ensure that any wetlands were identified. 2 ' b' •! ../7 A., /P,...F • jj 1 /i. ("/".. jNi . , . :: 1 ------•.. , p , , /,, , 8/ • -.77.14 . / „--. -.. . ---..„--„T. 1:"Er, ), , , . ,.,. I,. ! J- / , ) ' _As.-, • 46, v_\ ' '' il : IA 1 i f il .... •../ ! . /4tru,:t-.... . 4 \•,.11. \ i ti 1 I li • 1 7, (/ 1 1 • { lia3Nd. i :., i • i J .r ,. . •-4----..-- ,,P ,;; \(\ k • •ii:..1. 7:\1.4 • \if . I,-- --1,• ei, .. - _...... - . ——•,.-,.1 , . , ii ‘ PROJECT SITE i 1 ,,.\- \ ( . . 1,, . sin •, . , ; I v ii !: , •I , i . I I . •,i • 7 - • • ." Y • 1 1 I ! 1 l''r I ., \\ ,• ( i i i 1 ''' . s. • - .-1.„, li '..:. I i ( ;. . 1 . c) . ., - . ,. • 1 p e.-.::::.:::::•.; I, • . , ,,,, ' ›, efint3,2 . ...4... ; a ( )) .........:----_,. ; .i!::-:::::.: • • ...) / 4„, ,, __. ..„ a, tin••• i-If \i ....... I . . .•:. ..---1--,---•i- ,I-• i -'11'.• i i / li 1 t • V•• • 6 . I - . • / / i• 6 ; . ! 'I/ ili ' : ) 6• , . 1 I . A.j 6 ,111;444. f I \It . . 1 a - 1' • at...A i II i ! I • il • • jj - 4. i 1• \...., 1• I I I/ .'s. i • I....4... i ri, : / • i• 9 71 1 • 4, 41'.AS'Agiegat ,.- IVIttlik. li i) V / 0 • •• a 1 ain ••6 i i 1 ,... ..-. . At, '4113,.:" -4+,..,-Z..........**) ' 1 \ J At.0^1, '''..t '', '''' -.i'$'' .;••''Ir.' -; . •*: :.. •'• . ,,e-,74.i. • :. A . • . • 4 r -'74- iv .7 -TA, : ...,.- ........._ . • . :f. :42,- 0',.,4::''' '..z.-„Ai....:7...._.::, . --.4•44--. ,,, --•-• , ,,,,\ • • ' i - 71 • ;oil, : ..-‘: : ':;•.:,,r-.:• :..;:',5,_ -,;gt-,4'sz, .' ,... '.,sii. sA\ • a • / / r \ • 1 2 , . 1 i ,,:. .,(: t. •ta 0..,,66 % itidr.' 1 6,- \ \\\ ..-------.../ 6, 11 111 I z. • . &,. :.:1; -": ' ,••':4'.- ' * ''' / . 6 .- 1 I. f•'''i 7 / ;;;': :.-•••-•.:."—•,-- - •, '' *1:gAlirk f lo, • / ?,.. ., ' '. :,':.3$,,..:•-..1,;I *.: ift.z. : ., "if-;..' •=,~ -, .-11n 7:t:i6 ...'... - . ..-) te. 1 (//11\) .L :•;r•b. KOnnyciale e ;,IF.,;:',::7 .7.-:;,-; :iN7.----,-,N.•-• i; hi ) \ .,.. ,,,,.. : . ,,,t,..:.. !', ;.-111h ',.4' 'kr .7;.t.,::4.< ig, i' (;). 1 AP .:41.--,,mili-,:--,,.-::„.•,,,, -; z ::-,..-;:::,„i.,,...,-....Y4 1 i, • _______/ ---- ..• , ...,,,,'...,,_,..:::...;lr'....:.: :::-..,„.........._,.. ,,..A..tR: A,,• —.. ." / -.----.'N •70°-.Ek /114.,,W'' ;,4....t 7. ,,,e4 ‘:t. . ,r......,........' y,'.,•.t:12 ..'`.Z..`----""\ V -_,... ".71 / I\ Al '? .°- • • *>'' .':";7:4':;:.44'.;:'.14.-'''. r;*•••• ' '‘.\\\ b. N. ''...."---,..\-...\C----''' ,..." ; _,..---•-2-". 1 1 ••—.- „PA: • I.1'4''`.7'.grik. '''::.!,:'..1.:77„.:1::"'... .;':2...I.,,".,-:,V•:4.. •'''1,1',§ti.:, '. \\ /.'"N. • \ :3;A: 7,;;T:14,•:_, :.: \,..i, '...\''''.. .,. --,,. • \ ....-:; ......._... I ..3t - .mrv. -,...,,,. - .1.--.. -, . .<, t.- ......: .,,,,,4, ,... ...... : . , , ---- _ - ,-4-Ifirt. .., :...4..g...,„glzi:,,,e „. ,„. ,, krzt‘,.*:. :: x‘ •\?.._.) , -,--:-.-- ry.,...11 , • \st,„ --,:-...,..4-:,- ...„ • ..,.- :. NIE \\., ,.7‘kli,;i:7.,''.6A7 "" 4,. E.M.-.' \ I .. - ,, - ...- -- - - --:::1.,,,,,. .,, ..... . , . ..l'h7— 1 rit. s-:,-..., . ---....\\ sv.c. '--,:f, -, • - - .-e, , . . . ___ . . ' v.C. 1 .e-___ __-_,... ' • . ,- .,, .,. , : .„., ...4,e, •ratotikort,e4. „. - - ,,,, ,- ›,,,,,....„„4.4„,g......., ..'.5..... B . . .'• "--- l C- ,• ... • ••>.• , .4.-•,.A.,*._ :-, ..... . :... • . :.'..,wit ,.:,, `i:.,..";-- ':...;: •-•,..&-.... .:.: " l!''.• .47. "::`,7:::::-::::—:-...:----:--". SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish $ Wildlife Service Mercer Island Quadrangle, Icit3e, /III II/ North PE5161,1 DRAWN .,-. FIGURE 2: National Wetlands Inventory AO 4111111111i liiiin TALASAEA Map SCALE CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium 1"=1000' 1 Resource tt Environmental Planning DATE 15020 Boor Creek Rood Northeast Dove lopment Bus 0WI oo d8in6ville,5 Wa s hFinagt on 950 12 2-5-cl (26) 1-150- x006)661-1549 Renton, Washington %r idr 1 . I . The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the SCS) has mapped the site as consisting almost entirely of Everett gravelly sandy loam (Figure 3). This soil is not classified as hydric by the NRCS, but may contain hydric soil inclusions. The soils map also indicates that a gravel and/or borrow pit existed on the site at one time. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions Three wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, and C) and a stream (Stream D) were identified and delineated on the project.site (Figure 4). Each of these sensitive areas is described below. Wetland A Wetland A (3,079 sf on-site) is located in the northeastern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site area, has been estimated to be about 10,000 sf. The wetland is forested and consists of an isolated topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. In addition, a leaking artesian well was observed off-site in the northern portion of Wetland A. This metal encased well, which is approximately 10 feet in height and 5 inches in diameter (O.D.) was flowing continuously at an estimated one gallon per minute (gpm), and may provide additional hydrological support to the wetland. Dominant vegetation in the wetland consists of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus rubra) trees along the wetland edge, and scattered patches of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale). Groundcover vegetation was generally sparse and most of the wetland contained bare ground, apparently as a result of seasonal ponding. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland A would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland B Wetland B (1.094 sf on-site) is located in the northwestern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site portion to the north, has been estimated to be about 5,000 sf. Wetland B is primarily forested and consists of a slight topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. Vegetation in the wetland includes black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Hydrology in the wetlands was assumed due to the presence of hydric soils and evidence of seasonal ponding. 3 Bh ' -. "'‘'i rTh6 '/..'•fr'''--• • • . • •• • ® Q'i 1 ' • ' • .� a I• May e -� j-- � KpC I. ■ , , o� '� • ' I '••i' ' " / ., I� LI • I • •— --- PROJECT SIT I •• • A ,) ' f • •foil I- \\I .N. RcIE �.�= • ..aa>.. l I- 0,:..a it EvG , ; S_ t• •�/'■ • •> No •":ji‘L • • • • •. •. /. •• • ■ • • I• • • 11 • a T'AgC / • 15 • ■•••• V. • - ' L■ • . • .. • • • • . L r r ■ ••■ ii ii • ■ ■ • ■■ • • • •■ ■r ••1 : AgCKennydale ■ •••• • • ► o. • • . • I • is litC • • ■ •• 1 • InC ( AkF :Ii/ • f •■ • ■•• . • ••■■■••■■■ . ! • • ••• •• I V•• , • .� . .•1 .. " •; • . . . . .: . . . F • �.' el, 'II( •■ ■ • ■ ■ y • • \ :1!u .. • : ■ • BOO ■ ■ • AkF InmA . . 4: . ■ ■ .1 ■ "— .. . --■ r . .. _ \________________: B • gC Age '/ 1. ro� . • • •• a - I SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, King County Soil Survey, 1c113 ,I, LESEND EvG Everett gravelly sandy loam, RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, M. 5 to 15 percent slopes 15 to 25 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam, slopes North are less than 2 percent DESIGN DRAWN I111u ���l TALASAEA FIGURE 3: Soils Map SCALE AO � 1 CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium 1"=1000' Resource Q Environmental Planning DATE 15020 Bea-Creek Road Northeast Development 2-5-crl Washington 98012 Renton, Washington REVISED A Bus(206)861-1550-Fox(206)861-1549 it Z Q< 1 irr: : 3 v t- N z W z z 0. X Q�C N n.. c W Q. W W x o.F1 1 '. co o rn I Z l + i \ / I c mc 0 Ili . , . I tt •• 3 .' t 2 0 I . 1 I 1 ‘ • uL1 " • V 1 . % ' \ c ----c-7,--.-..--------__17:-_- , 1 f / . i u- . 11).. -:0, 1 I. I .1 ' ' I ' 0 . • ' I \\ Vcc-c--s-----::- -:-.......-- 1, .., .<VI 2", i .. Di I . . 67 if; .../......r",f... .7....=.1., 7,47. ..67.....rtfr 7 .7:444‘..... u•' \\ \\ )iii v--- /•/ ) ! w Eik 11 hi Z•d' l`l' • 'Y ''‘ 4 . / . .31 "'*C'77 . \ 1 ) )/1/1 IA 4.e.‘i / ' 44111E4 ' 7 --1 0 ' \ / -''' i • - .4 4 • • ) . .. ' / ii / /ill / ,,,1% I l 0 i ›-I . ' '3 * ',-i / ' • 44 0/\\,j)0 i 174; ,`A 1 t_li! D.' • • / ••• , 3 + • • - .. ie, ' 100 r tqfivii , 1 [ cp .: 84 ' 1 /..: l� / / li. N ,. i� i-..�---�- ---: Q _ -Y / J I I I I '111'1 - 1 '‘,\e'y a i I i f 1 \\\ • III I �i�������-�� -� \\ � � �� / � / , / I P�� Ilhlll \ 111 1111 ,' 1� 0 �� `` \� \ \ 51 ---- ! y / )I. JJ '/I'jl ii ii i i��I I ILi \ �� L \\ 11111 f / / / \ \ Q � / / / 1 ,R, I11 /111 ,,,I z �, 1 ` 1 / / . \ \\ 1 _ 2 _�__ / / 1 I i�► I11 I I I 1 , ua' �I/ 11 \11 I /( \ �\ ` / 7 < ( ! IjjI I III Ii,i,II �,I 0\\\\\\( \ bry_ r / ./l 'g► 11 111.'II \ 11 \ 1 I �� / / 1/i$II 11) Ib �l —i �' o \\� \i 1iI \ \ 1 i ,� / / // 1 lI ! l II ' EL °— \\ \ \ \ 1 \ . / / / 0\\\ \\ \�1\\ \ ( / ! /ii //� �/afi�r ;IIl\ 1 \ \ — N . I . 1 _ . � '/ // /// / 4:p 1 ,�,111.\�1111 \ \ ` — 1\ { I I r / �,�'// /i�' /j /lI I o. . . 1 \./ -7--- \ /l / / / ............* 4` 111{ ID 1111 .1 .. \ :11 \ \ \ _ - ._. �l ll/ \�/ / / / I / o = r i`1 I I �! � :�� � I � 1 � —,a— . �/ / �/ ice/ ( l� l // 1\ 1I 11 li � \ < --- -n--- // I r /r// r 11 ,_ . / i/0 // / // -�, \1\\\ g\\\ , I L \ 7 4 ( 1 I ////�� /� , /// / /4i1 , -'• Dil-;-. ''.— \\ \ \ \7' ‘‘\ \\ ‘- N \ ''' / / / 1 )) fir(0 ) ( /// // il \ ' _�` 11((1I11I \\\ \\ \ \�( \\t\ \/ \• (,�I \\ } \ \\\\1 — 1 111 IIII 11 \ ` . . 1:tC 44 eil g \�11\\\ C -- , ' \ 2 li \\I C � \ \ 1 ;l �- _ oNZ. \\\ \ �iIli ( . \ � � , 1 '3 p \ q(� ..\ \ \_ _ / I ( ) \r `\\� � 1 //I ,! \_ , q (�- � I � � / 31 .4t1.1\0 \\ \ 1( II (ll i\\ $\\', I 1 -.-�\ oz- ri f \ \ / ti\\I � \ \-\ \A 1 1 f qi, o - NI I. II \ \ \ 1 f \\ V-'' \\ v ( ti o i4\\11\\1111\11\ 1I1 \ / \\% ��� \ ,III .(P\ t.o.L , ___ , ' C c ''N, i)\\/ / \\\�,„ \\ ; , 11\ � '� �- ,..,,v, IL,J . \,,,,,,, \\\, , , �lJ�� I ��`-i �- ��. /- .,t ✓ V / // o o ° + )/11- 441 &\ 1 ' .r7 . -.... . - ' -7.-- --- I 1 : r --1/ I( //7//// -'./////,�/• f' i , Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland B would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland C Wetland C (2,617 sf on-site) is located in the southwestern portion of the site and is part of a much larger forested wetland which extends off-site to the west. The wetland is situated near the toe of the slope which runs along the western portion of the site. Vegetation in the wetland includes Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corn us stolonifera), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanurn), and giant horsetail (Equisetum te/mateia). At the time of the field investigations, soil within the wetland consisted of a black muck which was saturated to the surface. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland C would be considered a Category 2 wetland and would require a 50-foot buffer. Stream D Stream D flows from south to north in the vicinity of the eastern portion of the site. Although most of this stream is located east of the site on property owned by the City of Renton, a small portion of the stream channel does extend onto the project site. The ordinary high water of Stream D was flagged and subsequently surveyed. The City of Renton requires that a 25-foot buffer be provided from the edge of the ordinary high water of all streams. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a 62-unit condominium development (Figure 5). 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands The proposed project requires the filling of 1,248 sf of Wetland A and 164 sf of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,412 sf. This wetland fill is necessary to provide room for the construction of a biofiltration swale. Following construction, the bioswale will be landscaped with native vegetation to provide additional wildlife habitat area. In addition, the proposed project requires that buffer averaging occur along a small portion (approx. 850 sf) of the buffer for Wetland C. The total amount of buffer area required for Wetland C (10,624 sf) will be maintained, and in no area will the buffer width be less than 40 feet. Furthermore, areas proposed for wetland buffer reduction will not extend beyond the top of the slope leading down to the wetland edge. 4 di................. .............., • . N\ . /0--- 1� TLAND IIG II _^-- �... e N� I °O R'A•-P.•V1Yf0'�'IM.P MILT..V. =^^ — ___—_—__—• •,•``, I 6'stJ�won.✓1 If4U tl. SQ— •.• 2,61� s.f. (on-site) "' J, _ '"" • \ •----------- = _ _ UNDISTURBED WETLANDS ill' I4<<=" 14 42.11'�' ,{'•. }I � _-_- _ ....... .................. I FILLED WETLANDS 1,412 s.f. 1 `,\`,•` 14Y• '- ii al rrtr� �^J�DWi-tF Tr{ I ....................---------------":: --r--- :`i • ;�••;'.• •;�:;••;, --IN I-———— .0111,1 L. • \;_,i,i.,- « ',-7,...� ''.ii 'I ,l ?�i�j'�t`tF'f. .P '`I ---_-- --------=. --- _- 1 . , '•:;:;.`••:• CREATED WETLAND ,b 1'• 1 -` .i fjll• %. 11 lfJ''eh1 t i 'FU�''ai'1 iltf:l�{IF� � f't�. �{T i/ as --- r j I l! `i .�` I 2Q S.f. ' `�f ,•IIli• 1 Illl - rii �i1 irf•rl.1.1.1.t tririr:Jr-to-23,7 -4-1-f'_+iflitfcrh ® - ! _ �. D 1. .1i / %�; I • - .� - • -1.__.,:,,.„1rf.:,:•flf,lrrt -t i -1 ! 1 I II ` - ,� - - 1- __i,D, 1, ls• :O+1,i%•D••_ -�,`II'• -� • _:11,l�F 1r._ i -i?t I,•,t�a.n•� r14U .FfR:Itsp..31-gi tr .-1 1 1111 k . ,,, _4 " . --- r-' _ .;' ,J F. '-`1' 'r o .:•0,. .}I„._- .., � '4•' :rt�y Gl,: ;:,1 : 111111 IIf -1t �,' --- "� I: „l' _ Il :i• )I_r ' -F_ � I rnllr•1 { ,. J , f ,�r J I ` ;.\ -�F• .2• _�i,--.• i I'�% �- r�ETLAND IIII ,•1'•`'' __ F FF I. i. t " aTrrj '•`. 1 D `.1 .Y i 1,� �.,•!�I I I 4\'• \,•, • I it Ei,>�i.1{ Ii y 17�tt.•'L �, 1 �ff JI ' r< wriu,r :..� • I V• -• _ Fr it -� 111 ! 1 \ ` ♦ - • an' - r':r:'1 .x.'a1. � , ) rtt Fri I �' ��'... ,oa s.f. (on-site ..1• • \••-- l{}i�r•i,i-r ; �; i� I ` \, .1,, '` ` '`\\,.t,.o - ,��—�'1-- ---t--� "�i ",—^-1--w \ - - -- • , • •VII,t Ii1 - �:sn.rl rt:i �- g' .,\ ^ ---.Y�r __- _ _ . ,� 1 ,\••,�e IIV t; 11' ' ____ yy•, .• • ...mill-1 i^ �In/ _I:"- it I I I. __ tl�_t.� i� "i 1 - y ff.y� III • ______.. ' r k —-I—•l— 'T"?'t '�--�-`.-'-•I 1i'' .*-- it''.' i �I • �• ;ti� I l '-' . • . . ~''A' 51051N�L� 1'i•,',ii; ', \ 4 • /1.1.1111117-----"7-), s .11. s, •N-•••=-L:— • ..,........../.., ‘iirail../4 i..... ... 1 :i:I I. Y1 . f n• .r:: •kr`�\,� '`� 1. ' F i -NT - � i!I !r,, :_J-�� - 'a32 ---- --- _• ` D.I • rr• - ^1. •.I, `,,. d. . {-•.f ./;� a1▪ '�� .,� T ,_,Ia�t�_A�-M,'• _L.'. rii���` • ICI TL ND 'An I I • 1 1 i 11 , l I ► { I'.•�' tr`k it, . ( • �_ \ .I�•h'i < ,0-19 S.f. (on-site) • ,`••. ,; Iy,I ',� J• I -I r t 1'•'r1-Ii . I \I it1•11:1,,,is-;. 1 /' O• ,L`43 ,% '`^ nY'In1 i♦ `1��1��yy i i , }• I I •Ijlr I�• `Io� `\ , ...J' `./6 `I ""�I,ur ` i \ 1� �fni� ��{ -' • �� �� f fit • ' \\ _ ► ' I �• :; l; ' ,rrrll ;�,-f�lttk ' 1 +I ', ;:-= `:,:I1-_ ;� �1 f I•� 1 • `_� D , D �_ � :� /'1 �i1 Lit, {(�L f 1 1• _ �+- �I 111 i, t I�, r % D i fJt� _ zr� J �rl I I :;'( -F �,. IIy ff �!NI:I.:1,1:1.IIF t � ,'�'!�1 �, ' - _ - -` • ,, - .,.+ - �Hr Lll I _ �J TII�• �ll lif• "�,;-'`III}" •.I�1I_I • \\` \`�__ __ - _ __- _ , -'o 9 -�i�� 111 .i__1 �i�1• %LLL • II' i� I ____________ .L•t7rHr - -h,�' lllll:l`�``�•. •,,�'• _ _ _ -rr-rr`rl� �� III, "-1'�- ` ,, \\` - -_--_- 7: 1 A 1 'rt 11-—_-———-- tl _ • .. I : • ,.; .:,..:%'... . ) S, .. ...-- 1 ' , 1 -- •rs = .� •.:tea+:.- 1 - _ `�-tee-•--- - --_-_ r- --- -- _ _ ---- DESIGN DRAM Plan NOTE 11--i: TALASAEA SCALESCALEAo IIIArchitects, plan provided by Kussman Associates, — FIGURE 5: Site. __ CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. Planners 4 Consultants, Resource It Environmental Planning DATE P.O. Box 1-105, Bothell, W g801 A O41. 20 Bear Creek Rood Northeast Develo ment North 150 Woodinville.Haahingtan 98072 p 2-5-97 Bus(206)4561-7550-Fax(206)861-7549 Renton, Washington REVISED 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams If the relocation of Stream D is required as a result of road improvements along Lincoln Drive NE, then any impacts to Stream D from the proposed project will be determined at that time. 5.4 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts Mitigation for the 1,412 sf of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,624 sf(1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation between the undisturbed portions of Wetlands A and B. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to connect Wetlands A and B to form a larger, more diverse wetland system. Following construction of the wetland mitigation area, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be provided to the created wetland system. • References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S. August 14, 1995. Northwest Volleyball Center Wetland Determination. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest(Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Renton, City of. 1991. Critical Areas Inventory Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area Soil Survey. 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Mercer Island Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. APPENDIX A WETLAND DATA SHEETS FOR ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ''I # I • • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Invest.gator(s): rvt=T EIJ/}fit-"Tbr." tlr1 Date: 10 -1 - 9 ( Project/Site: LS`LL.t WS(31/4 l~1.,1 f-EwtTori State: L-A County: Kt e' ApplicanL'Owner: Kv55MAtJ Plant Community a/Name: ;'+� 11. I • Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No )( (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum • 1. co6Cos FAQ TerE 11. 2. ?( ,i,s tcl�lnoCc ccl FPC 12. • 3. RI .;s 5.eck4.S;1i5 FPc + 54t1ut1 13. Rul,o s ck,sccie FAC V 4. 14. S. Cc.c fly (et'Av'tc FAcu ,. 15. 6 f 47 IA-/ckJ A:4-4 y PCA; -.' ' 16. 7, ho.\ZS aecacec tJ� t' 17. ,t8. 16. 9. 19. • 10. 20.. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAG ii V-3(0 is the hydrophylic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: • N JT '7 sogc> f Ac o— L ja TT Ea-- - SOILS Series/phase: E.r t RETT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Hislic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Ye No )e Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: to`1'R '1j — Mottle Colcrs: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: tr!1(7 H C N f=c'-4 A HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No )< Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No yC Depth to free-standing water in ph/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No jC Rationale: aJlbENca dr tN4.;N1 ' I .- O& SATLIf=-Act. J JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: . N o (itITE-gt JHET 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI Field lnvestigator(s): 'TV F'rE NI/A .rrnAnicJ Date: 10 -1-5l0 projeciJSite: 1,43t�".km5(3vR(PL t?EN-rorJ State: L'iA County: i ttJ(h Applica ntiOwner: vSSM A Plant Community ",Name: T '& Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ?( No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum • 1 Sc1ix 1SSi4ftcicn fA�Cw4 -Mee 11. 2. 1Zob 4 uS S?ec ,L; tis rPC4 Sl. tu,, 12. 3. lix -4wLinc FF& 6rt6.,+J 13. • 4. E .,ts.4101.1. {elv.-tqteic FACL,J 'r 14. 5. Lys-6k;4.01,, �w,eri c.:n.,.. G gw " 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. • 10. 20.• Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC I co°fc Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No • Rationale: > So`io FAC Oiiv w SOILS Series/phase: P'OP—ghit- Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes X No Hislic epipedon present? Yes No is the soil: Mottled? Yes No x Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: t°7 ri (t Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes }C No Rationale: HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes fC No Depth to freestanding water in piJsoil probe hole: S v cAc List other field evidence cf surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes K No Rationale: • S,4T�a--Per c-p i c� S,l 2.-AcE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes )f No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: A t.t. -5 ce..A reg..P livsf;T I This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): Date: 10 Project/She: to ILIA r4wNsi3.Ji Cif te.A rok1 State: 1-J'� County: k 1"(-/ Applicant/Owner: ic--05StIA126 Plant Community iMame: t 3 Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No Off (If yes, explain on back) - f-ti Bruck 1)%%-tut:t3okr(CC - VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum 1. .e' I ' 'I-r'i ckocc - F A( -1K.EE 11. 2. 'fit.,;S '-" lnytrnc%\r Faces 6(164'''1' 12. 3. 13. • • 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. — 7. 17. 3. 18. • 9. 19. 10. 20.' • • Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 100 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes g No • Rationale: So%o FAC C(L TTk-2 I SOILS Series/phase: E v£R E-TT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X. Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Glued? Yes No Matrix Color: t''t%x Ev- Sc - istnaU c u'" lottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: ASSuw•Ey bow ro rt`t'DgoL4 c.,Y HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: A SSur..cb 13AS�D 0,4. re.r11>E,JcE_ Gi= t o���i�£ &ArcE Gee, ,,.r'?� LE-Pa- S7Alarr A!.(.5 N^AT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: — • ISAce.> t- cc., LA or-1 0ENc£ c XL- IP4rrNtJ(7 • 1 This data form can be used for th© Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): A►-'Te1/4 IQ.).Tvi-..'rkrl Date: tO -`1 - R (o Project/Site: 'Wiu-IAMSG3u;(, jZrn1TON State: t'IA County: ktrie' Applicant/Owner: KJSSNtAnt Plant Community #Tame: P 4 • Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes >< No (If no, explain on back) • 'Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? 1Yes 7C No (If yes, explain on back) MISTORtC 1)iSnutt3•ANC . - VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum 1 Pr t�n,p elus -t'c c4c koc.c?c, t:AL T(t— 11. 2, oS r..bcc. PAC Tf. '/siv-e 12. 3. RJ6t..;; clisce.)i or FACU sua.,,g 13. Cy4 x ;suS Stc•j .c;u5 NL if 14. 5. aferckit, S-1. • Gf. -en 15. 6, tre.,S f cv) 16. — 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. • 19. • 10. 20.* Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAG. 50°r1: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: • is c >So°ice trAC oE� ui:TIER SOILS Series/phase: C`r - T"r Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: t o . 413 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Mt(,H cK - �a _ HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No x Depth to free-standing water in pi'Jsoil probe hole: List other field evidence cf surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: C:- San„A•Tlo.l I NaNAATtd JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: i c C g-t-r ' V"r.T 1 This data form can be used for th© Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classication according to'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 FROM KUSSMNN RSSOCIRTES 2. 10. 1997 14:22 P. 2 11111 t ■ ■ r TALASAEA CONN 11.I ANTS February 7, 1997 TAL-313 Mr. Lyle Kussman Kussman Associates P.O. Box 1705 Bothell, WA 98041-1705 - . • SUBJECT: Impacts to Wetland C from Buffer Averaging on Williamsburg Condominium Site, Renton, WA Dear Lyle: At your request, we have reviewed the site plan for the Williamsburg Condominium Development located on Lincoln Drive NE in the City of Renton, Washington (dated December 24, 1996). It is our understanding that due to site planning constraints, buffer averaging must occur along a small portion (approximately 850 sf) of the buffer for Wetland C, located in the southwest portion of the site. It appears that this buffer averaging should not have a significant negative Impact on Wetland C since: 1) the total amount of buffer area required for Wetland C (10,624 sf) will be maintained, 2) in no area will the buffer width be less than 40-feet (a 20% reduction of the 50-foot standard buffer, and 3) the areas proposed for buffer reduction will not extend beyond the top of the slope leading down to the wetland edge. If you have any questions, or require any additional information, please call me at (206) 861-7550- Sincerely, • TALASAEA CONSULTANTS • • • Jo n Altmann Ecologist • • cc: Mark Goldberg Rk:,,.,urt a cs2 Environment Al Planning 15020 liar Creek 'load Northeast • Woodinville. \Washington 98072 - ISus: (206)Hlil-7550 • Fax; (206)(M l-7549 e„ d; CITI 3F RENTON ••1 � Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tan,t er,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON January 28, 1997JAN 2 8 1997 Mark Goldberg SDA Bros.,Inc. EC 4739 University Way NE, Suite 1607GV 'VEC� Seattle,WA 98105 SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums,4000 Lincoln Ave NE Street Improvement Modification Request , Dear Mr. Goldberg: We have reviewed your request to modify the street improvement requirements for your proposed 62 unit condominium project on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avd NE and NE 40th St. You proposed to modify the improvements requirements to allow for a reduced widening of Lincoln Ave NE,NE 40th St, and to delete the westerly portion of NE 40th St from new street improvements. Your request for modification is partially approved,with some changes to your request for improvements to NE 40th St. Lincoln Ave NE is a principal arterial, serving as a direct connection to the interchange with I-405 to the west,and a primary route to Coal Creek Parkway to the east.''It is currently improved as a two lane street with partially paved shoulders. Widening this section of street to a five lane arterial width would require extensive grading, including relocation of an existing creek along the westerly side of the right- of-way. The estimated cost of this stream relocation is in excess of$400,000, NE 40th St is an undeveloped right-of-way with steeper slopes to the west of Lincoln Ave NE. Grades in excess of 20% would be required to complete this as a through street for the entire width of the development site. After discussions with staff from our Transportation Division, the street improvement requirements for this project have been modified to the following • Lincoln Ave NE adjacent to the site shall be improved with a new concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk along the westerly side of the street. The new curb shall be located approximately 40 feet from the easterly edge of the existing pavement section. This will allow for retaining two 13 foot travel lanes, and provide room for 7 foot bicycle lanes on each side of the street. New pavement must be provided from the existing pavement to the new gutter. Drainage improvements for the new curb and gutter will also be required. A new six foot sidewalk adjacent to the new curb will be required. Street lighting to City of Renton standards will also be required along the full frontage of Lincoln Ave NE. • Improvements are also required for NE 40th St. Street improvements will be required to the proposed entry way to the project. This street must include a minimum pavement width of 28 feet. Concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required along the northerly side of the improvement. Street lighting to City of Renton standards must also be provided along the improved portion of NE 40th St. No street improvements are required west of the proposed entry to the project, due to the excessively steep slopes. 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 t: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • The intersection of NE 40th St with Lincoln Ave NE must be modified to make the intersection with the arterial meet at approximately right angles, rather than the straight northerly alignment proposed on your submittal. Appropriate signage (stop signs, no parking signs, street name signs, etc.) will be required for all associated street sections, as well as new channelization for the adjacent streets. Your request is eligible for modification, as there are practical difficulties involved which makes the strict letter of the street improvement requirements impractical, and said modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Street Improvement Ordinance. The approved modification will meet the objectives and safety, function, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance, based upon sound engineering judgment. The approved modification will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity. If you have further questions regarding the street improvement requirements, or any other public works aspect of this project, please feel free to contact the project plan reviewer, Arneta Henninger (277- 6198). Sincerely, Neil Watts, P.E. �, Plan Review Supervisor Development Services Division. cc Arneta Henninger d .. 't �, , Mark Pywell f , ' Karl Hamilton F 7 , 11:///planrev/wilcdo-1 '- fC ' ,. ` -- 4 i 1 t , i"MJ}a o .+ ' - ,':� "! .' ": ''Y g ; , 41111.111- KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT PANNING 0'ry r eti Architects, Planners & Consultants n/ruN FEB 0 d } v,7 RECEIVED February 4, 1997 Development Services Division City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 RE: 62-Unit Williamsburg Condominium 4000 - Lincoln Drive N.E. Renton, WA. Kussman Associates #9606 Dear Mr. Pywell: We have been requested by the owners/developers to request from the City of Renton's Planning/Building/Public Works Department a departure from the Parking Standards (Section 4-14-8) which setforth the maximum allowed parking stalls for multi-family developments. As we review Section 4-14-8 the above named departments may authorize a deviation from the maximum parking requirements for a specific development. The Calculated maximum parking requirements for the purposed 62 units x 1.5 stalls per unit = 93.00 plus Guest Parking at the ratio for 1 stall per 4 dwelling units which is (63 4) x 1 = 15.75 rounded to 16 stalls proposed: A) Guest Parking: Required by code 16 Stalls. Proposed by applicant 16 Stalls. OK which are located outside the structures and have landscaping surrounding. B) Multi-Family Units: Maximum allowed by code 93 Proposed by applicant 120 More then allowed by code 27 Stalls. Section 4-14-1 C 1 a of the Parking and Loading Ordinance has provisions for the applicant to request a deviation, from the code standards if these are practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of their chapter. The Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator may grant a modification to the standards per the four items setforth in this section of the ordinance. P.O. Box 1705, Bothell, WA 98041-1705 • (206) 861-7200 • Fax: 885-1302 1) Conforms to the intent of the Code: The proposed development which is a Condominium will in real life be more like an attached single family development which by code would allow two (2) parking stalls per single family unit and they could be in tandem. We are proposing individual garages for 44 of the units all of which have two (2) stalls completely enclosed and of that number 8 units have garages which allow auto's to be parked side by side. The remaining 36 units have garages designed for tandem parking. Thus, of the proposed total of 120 stalls, 88 stalls are in individual garages directly attached to the units for which they serve. The remaining 18 units are in two (2) structures which are 3 stories in height over a semi-private garage which has a total of 16 stalls in each garage. Of the 16 stalls, 14 stalls are in tandem to serve 7 units in the structure and the remaining two (2) parking stalls are for the eighth and ninth units in the structure. 2') Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended: We feel that the situation of a development located in this area of Renton demands that the development provided parking at a higher ratio than the Code allows. Because of the lack of good public transportation, two family members working and present day life styles. 3) Will not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties: The proposed additional parking is all located inside of enclosed garages and not visible to the surrounding properties. 4) Will be made prior to detailed engineering and design: We are requesting the modification now during the Site Plan Approval process which is prior to building permit applications. Thus with the above information, we feel that the granting of additional parking will not be incompatible with the items setforth in the code and the request should be granted. Sincerely, (‘i°; yle Ku sman P.O. Box 1705, Bothell, WA 98041-1705 • (206) 861-7200 • Fax: 885-1302 FROM KUSSMAN RSSOCIATES 2. 5. 1997 13:02 P. 1 ,,,,E„,„NICUSSMAN ASSOCIATES f ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS & CONSULTANTS FEB 0 5 1997 w�,1i-i 'i ‘2 iiv SION FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE:. , _ 51. 1941 TO: U./61107ntauT. (.3afeoGIGF S_ t�,.no'u t,_C�r_� o _ItiE•uro,� ATTENTION: Mx. MAMK 7-tweAge, REGARDING: Wt L L t Ari►3 deo-42.22.0 Ivy te!I a m s _ PROM: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES 17425 68TH AVENUE N.E. KENMORE, WASHINGTON MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 1705 BOTHELL WA 9804-1705 PHONE: (206) 486-8300 FAX; (206) 806- 628 CONTACT PERSON: PROJECT NUMBER: THIS TRANSMISSION CONTAINS 3 PAGES, INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. IF ANY PAGES ARE MISSING, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT THE NUMBERS LISTED ABOVE. FROM KUSSMRN ASSOCIATES 2. 5. 1997 13:03 P. 2 KussmAN -Assocums . .. ..,,,, '.. , • • .: ::. . ,.... . ---V "' -'` °Architects,;; Plar�rier ~&.�;Consultants ... ..,..• ,,.. . . . . . . . • . .: ... -.....,......,., ,, .,. . .:d. • February 40 1997 •• • .. .. • Developmerott,services Division . . City..of Renton•-. • - • . . Municipal ..Building'. • . . : . • - 20o;:ril1 iXve.. .,so.. . . Renton, •il/aealiitigton 96055 . RBI 62,-Unit'llillianablirg. Condominium 4000- - Lincoln Drive;.N.E. • Renton•,: MA... • - . . KURsman;Associates ,#9606 Dear Mr. Pywells We have been requested ,;b7.. he owners/develo'$o"i to request from the:City of:Renton's-:;piaiih ng/Building/Pub)ic work `tie a ent a departure •'front the Parki1hg.,;:-standards {.Section;' 4;+.,1(APB.) , :which setforth. the mex1mW , alloPed parking stalls' ::fd> :;;,�tli ti= >oitertily developments. . • - •As. we • review•'Section• 44-14^-8. the• above. named_dapgiAtfiehte.:.may authorize .a•deviation from: the maximum pa►rking::.requixeio rits-'for a • specific devoloprment. - : :' { = The Calculated 'maximum,parking requirements:{:•.for:,th' •purposed 62 the ratiosts fora 11 stall per s 4 lWi ling 9units pwhich uist4�63ick ri4' x• I - 1S.15 rounded. to 16 stalls proposed: A) Guest Parking: • Required by .code 16 Stella.. . Proposed by applicant . 16 stalls. • '. '•' which are located 0utaide the structures and lg . landscaping surrounding. - . B) Multi-Feu 11y Unites . . . . k Maximum -allowed by .code 93 • Proposed. by applicant: l2SQ. . More then al lotted. by ,code 27 Stalls. Section 4-14-1 C 1 a of::,the Parking and Loading ordinance..,has provisions for..the .appl ioidnt.I to.,request .a deviatiOn. fekiia the ;coda . standards if these 'are:practiOal •difficulties aitOlait-rf th blit°-jthe• provisions of their. 'Chapter..:`,.:. The Planning/Buil 1. ig` �_ lib._;Works Administrator may grant a.-'codification. to tb$:'etliihdda::per,••the four items setlorth in this section of the ordinande.-: - • . . . .... - r. - ... 1-,nS P y11,-11 wrA 4RNN1-1-m6 . ' �2�r,1 sr,l-72n(1 • Fix:�t3AS-13o2 FROM KUSSMRN RSSOCIATES 2. 5. 1997 13:03 P. 3 • 1) Conforms to the intent .of the Code; The proposed development which. is a Condominium will.,,ir•;.real life •b• .more like '..an :attached single family development whichi:;:by.'code would allow two :(2). parking.. stalls per single faiily:;ufit�:;,�nd'they could• be .in.•tandem.:: , . • We are proposing.. individual _garages. 'for • 44.. ors t rie::.;un tei .all •of which: have- two...(2);4stal1acompletely .enclosed and :ot;_; ist �iiber 8 units have garages ,whi ch''al to auto's.:to• be: parked.::.side':by►;::aide. The remaining 36 unite have..garages designed for tende> '•:parking. Thus, of the 'proposed total of 120 stalls, 88 stalls are in individual garages directly attached to the units for which they serve. The remaining, .is • .unite are ••in two (2). structuress wihioh: :.are 3 stories in height over a =semi-private garage which:,,h s.:a:•total of 16 stalls in each. garage® • ,; Of' the 16 stalls, 14". stall-S.. -are in tandem to serve 7 .unite in the;structure and the:remaining, .two (2) parking stalls are for the eighth and ninth units in :the•structure® 2) Can be shown to be justified and required..for the.: use and situation intend'ed$ . • .. We .feel•that the ;situation of:.•a.development located itt this:'.area:,of • Renton deritands • that ..the:.development provided. pbtrkingL;_ati:. a.:higher. • ratio than the . Code a►llowws. . .Because of the lack•::.of;;:good'.public transportation, two family :members. working and preaent. -day life styles. 3) Will not create adverse:impacts:impacts to surrounding:.propetties: The proposed. additional parking is all located insfdb v:;of •enclosed garages and not visible to :the surrounding properties:: ; • 4) will be made prior to: detailed engineering. and ,deiign t: we• are requesting the .modif ice tjon now during '.the.':8it'e;Plain Approval process Which is prior. to building permit •apPlications. • Thus with the above information, we feel that the,;granting of • additional parking will not be incompatible with the items setforth in the code and the request should be granted. Sin .rely, ‘4"ja yle Ku sman • n n flew 1WPC Bothell W/A 9R(141-1705 • (206) R61-7200 • Fax: 885-1302 f • A TRll= EL?9 NC0 6640 4 00 2 JH AVE S.E. 'ENTON9 WA 96066 066 (200 6) 266-72 o 2 NQ ®F 'NTOi 37 7997 January 29 , 1997 ":c4..7 tiSRA City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Street Renton , Washington 98055 Re: Proposed Williamsburg Condominium project at 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE . LUA-96-164 ,ECF ,SA Gentlemen: We have several questions concerning this project . First , is the project allowed without variances under the currently existing "CA" zoning? As a long-time business owner of the properties , 4108 and 4024 Jones Avenue , which are immediately west of the site , the area between Jones Avenue and Lincoln Avenue south of 43rd to 40th-has seen previous attempts by the City to down-zone all of the currently zoned CA parcels including the parcel under consideration to residential useage . We have no desire to prevent progress , but neither do we • intend to see the area be converted to the residential useage that the City has sought in the past . The CA zoning within the area described must remain intact . Any attempt to alter that designation is vigorously opposed . Second , will this project jeopardize existing CA zoning by. requiring a new transition zones between the project of adjacent CA-zoned parcels? The current transition zone between commercial and residential is Lincoln Avenue which divides the westerly CA zone from the R-10 zoning to the east . This is the logical and existing transition which utilizes the width of Lincoln Avenue , and the change of the upward slope of the land toward the Renton-Newcastle boundary . Any current or future development restrictions on our parcels due to the need for a new transition zone between commercial and residential is therefore likewise opposed . Third , as both a residential and commercial land owner in the north Kennydale/ 44th exit area , we have serious concerns about the existing lack of adequate fire protection for the area . The proposed massive Port Quendall development across the freeway from our area , coupled with the existing commercial development to the north , and now another new proposed high-density residential development behind us , requires an obvious increased need for a fire station located within the area . Response from the downtown Renton station , or reliance on the Bellevue fire department station on 68th to the east is not acceptable for the increasing needs of the area . Without improvement , the City knows that bonding and financing requirements for the area sidewalk , lighting and traffic improvements will be much more costly . How can development in the area continue without this being immediately addressed? Or will a threshold be reached where a building moratorium will be required until a station is built? Fourth , another major concern is the effect of the project on the existing drainage problem that already exists at the corner of Jones and 43rd . The City is well aware that the intersection of this area floods regularly now . This new project must not add to this problem , or divert runoff west towards our parcels . The existing high bank between our parcel and the proposed project must be maintained , not lowered . Because the natural absorption rate which will be obviously altered , a detention pond of some type must control the runoff into the creek that either crosses or borders the north side of the project . If not the flooding at Jones and 43rd will increase both in frequency and volume . The sewer capacity must also be addressed . Will this project place any restrictions on existing Jones Avenue businesses , their plans for expansion , or full development of their parcels? Finally , what road and traffic control improvements will be made? Will Lincoln be widened between 43rd and 40th? Will a center turn lane on Lincoln be necessary for traffic coming in and out of the project? 2 What traffic improvements will be made at the intersection of 43rd and Lincoln? Stop signs if not stop lights must finally be installed on Lincoln to slow down the traffic both coming from and going to the freeway? This is necessary with or without this proposed project . Likewise will 40th street be opened to the public between Lincoln and Jones? With the loss by slide of the old SE . 86TH one lane road between Lincoln and Jones , and the severe flooding that has occurred at Jones and 43rd , 40th must be opened as viable alternative to maintain access to both the businesses and residences on Jones Avenue . It is obvious , and has been to all of the property owners in the CA-zoned area , that with or without the Port Quendall development , the area is on the verge of intense commercial development . This proposed project merely confirms that premise . As we have previously stated to the City when we fought with other land owners within the CA-zoned area to maintain our CA zoning , exit 7 at NE 44th is the last undeveloped exit on all of Interstate 405 . The business property owners on the east side of the exit recognized that long before Paul Allen set his sights on the west side of the exit . Business developement must not be restricted to one side of the freeway , especially when the historical usage and existing CA zoning already is in place on the east side . Additionally , no development on either side of the exit should restrict , alter , or prevent maximum development of the parcels within the existing CA designation . Regards , Charles C . Dietsch Secretary Ail I_. IFilHEATH PROPERTIES 1605 Boylston Avenue • Seattle,Washington 98122 • 323-3577 January 29, 1997t.of Renton 19 200� lDevelopmentl Street Services Division �I �ViS Renton, Washington 98055 1GN Gentlemen: We are in receipt of your notice of the approval application for the proposed Williamsburg Condominium/LUA-96,ECF,SA that would be located a 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE. While we don't have any great problem with the project, we are concerned that a residential. development will be constructed in an area that is zoned for CA(business). We do not want a trend to develop. In the past 4-years we have had to defend the logic of business zoning in that area on two different occasions. On those occaisions, there were attempts to zone the area for residential use. The general area has been used for businesses for the past 35-years. It should remain zoned for business. In our opinion, the area designated for the Williamsburg development is logical for residential use as long as it does not establish a trend to allow residential use in the balance of the area that is now zoned CA. Another concern would be for the drainage that must be provided. Buildings and parking lots create impervious ground. We would not want to see the drainage capacity greatly reduced for business development. The same concern can be applied to the sewers in the area. If the storm drainage and sewers are sufficient to allow the building of the condos without impinging on the potential for further business development, we have no problem with the condos being constructed. Re ards Clement H. Heath Heath Properties 679999 NOTICE OF PROPOSED SITE APPROVAL APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON - A Site Approval (SA) and Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS/LUA-96-164,ECF,SA ;$z,:jp•,.�}fit,ii f,,7.::zi,`, : r,`}.1,:',:,:i11.:. 11 ,.. , ,e M(an.i DESCRIPTION:' �''° r.,i., The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 Ffov�nhomes'in,se,ven';puitdings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided'in gar'ages'itith',an additional 16 open parking spaces. F: GENT AL LOCATION: 4000'Lincoln Avenue NE PUBiLICAPPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval' Building Permit - A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled before the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the 'Council'Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on February 25, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. The application can be reviewed in the"Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public.Hearings or during Public Hearings. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made aPARTY-OF-RECORD-and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal.periods and/or the;. public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550: lease -include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. o:-ra.E--•-43Ao+•-sr1wf NI?•--n3ao =-.r" I 1 1gia •2 I c c i, .; 0 4 t 2 3 r trn i o r mu • .44 Nap 5a 'E I 0 ",, C. D. H'I- AN'S .s> _ '_ �. s 1 W'-_-------7--- a . .7 • 8 i H '® EA I‘Au S I N'STOW'''L ' w_L y-- 10 , 9 1 GAR RE ® J44. E EN 'd , 'p, i�,r b .. I 20 in ,.,�. •oC .c• . ,. n r,��� _ � ....';7t:_ . a'. .iy-.a '� "*. S. 86TH.... St R GENMALOT.DOC - 9 _ \ �` _ - : . . . . • , 1 I , , • '...-,;,..'":•:•,,,,:",1,2, •;::,,k 1-, ::::! . : • ,•- ' — , : ;. 1 : ' ••. ,•'.. •,--,n;.:;, i-,-,....- ;-.:,--:. F.:DzJiir,-.1.mo,..1 ,.-. .wi,•, ,;,'Df....,:::;;;;;,.ry,..,'.. :: • : •,•,;,1•.-4 -:•:, :::,, ) ... • .: .::::-: ,..',,...:1;1.),-•:•.,.7.-, f2.,:•?3,:li`:-i.:•;',.' ',.,:j?,,,,V.' c.',•:-:, \,,-t•b!::n:TSC:,.] ;.'Fj;:..- •i."-:if:A. _:=': , ,, . • ..--, „.:;.,. ,., ) . . i • •I . .• , , , . , . • 1, :H 1, . , , •• I ;: 'i it I iii•1' 111 I ' " ' ' .1 1 . • . . . : . . .. •.. I i , II 11 . I , C.> • • ll! il I 1! • 1 . .• . • _ _ - • 11 ' ?'-‘ .--. •3:\" - - ..........- 1;1 (,)) I,1 _,,, ,-...)., 2'.. .!.:.- --„ii ------ ...,.,...--- -,---*-'''' •• CITY OF RENTON t \L Lc?ag,/ , .77-r,------ '-' Development Services Division . t-,- -t-,-4 y.."*.s-.;X12/7-,-,-:-,... .-d-j;P'----------':=" ' '.. . .". ..".."`", 200MMAImmie&mth 0-!:,, „,i) 4, Renton,Washington 98055 vie,,,,,,,f,,-,,,v4 . _ : 4. 1 KUL • U.S:---,,r1STAnA : I I _ - - --- I 1--- 334570-0165-04 SHAW RALPH • G 6N9999 l 8415 110TH PL SE . , RENTON WA 98056 , — , I — \ ;i V' N `',.(" 1 ca t ) P 2 al RETURN ICJ SENDER ;:.'• LI 4.- .0..) , II • - ',•;.str-)74-'4,' ?,A eAS iiiildilliniliiii 1;lialuili3„111,:Lij.,ii,„IL...M.1 u11 -1 f i.]7! 14. LO •771.y1700 riHIMA HULMEERG INC PAGE 01 ` Baima & Holmberg Inc._ ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 100 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUA , WASHINGTON 98027-3817 (206) 392-0250 FAX #: (206), 391-3055 TO: a L m T 1T 2 N ATM- A112,9 • }-irlu Ad) P4 ma.______ I -7 7- - — - ,-4•)., DATE: . �� rQe o o/V/• SSG /V FROM: 7i'i KEPL 1 1 f . DOCUMENT/SUBJECT WI Gr-1 UQq rNF 4. - 12P-riser r REMARKS: 7litr VAN Anr ► t C v[g° 2 Ta "2- nte Gro/1Z/JlVI1f VRAtii 7)£'i-i./, 7 EiliEE tor cc_ i Aci2.0 or- AAA, pt,Lit , co 4 • Lv 6.-)D wl Ct- i? PO ppQI' J — ONL-t 4 -130 MCie q r' _en) 0 i�& { f214&i t 7 t . AP r 7 —Tv PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): (3 FAX Na: " 2 71 r' q-!cc Ul/1J/I1J7/ 1L.GU JJIJUUJ uMll'n-� �VL�'WLI�V ii�v rHl7G. UL BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC. • CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR WILLIAMSBURG- January 13, 1997 • SUPEr 0. Baima & Holmberg, Inc. �.' h .:�sy1� r_ • 7. Prepared for: •s/ONAL 3.' Mark Goldberg EXPIRES n(J3p/k 100 FRONT` TREET SOUTH • ISFAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027-3817 • (206)392-0250 • FAX (206)391-30'.5 01/1:1/1y I/ 12:2U 313 55 IJA1MA HUL1WEKb INU it Project Overview This project involves the construction of an apartment complex on a 3.3ac parcel located at the 4100 block of Lincoln Avenue NE. The parcel is the site of previous gravel pit and is generally covered with brush and medium-sized cottonwood trees. The site slopes down to the north at about 10%. An existing stream flows north along the east boundary, generally located in the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way. J.evel I DownstreannnalysiL The site generally drains north into an existing wetland area, partially onsite, but generally extending north a few hundred feet to NE 43rd Place and west to a row of old commercial buildings located on Jones Avenue NE. Flows collect in a Swale along the east side of the commercial building crossing through a ditch along the south side of 43rd. Flows cross to the north side of 43rd through a submerged culvert, then north through a ditch located along the west side of McDonald's. Flows cross NE 44th street through a large diameter culvert, continuing north along the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard through a stream/wetland, Flows cross 1-405 through a large diameter culvert in front of Denny's at about 2000.feet downstream of the site. Recent snow and rain has apparently caused flows to cross over the surface of NE 43rd Place in the area of the culvert crossing. The stream adjacent to the sit also overtopped culverts and causepsome erosion and sloughing. • N, SURFACE W ; ER DESIGN M'AN,,UAL,, Section 1.1 Introduction Section 1.1.1 When is Drainage Review Required? • Section 1.1.2 . Other Agencies May Also Require Drainage Review -poctioviztor a Section 1.2 Core Requirements KC0 r aV '4161) Section 1.2.1 Core Requirement #1 R1�2,71r( )rjUP��' Discharge at the Natural Location trust. ection 1.2.2 Core Requirement #2 Off-Site Analysis r +4'G`�'St3 VelfroT(oi� Section 1.2.3 Core Requirement #3 /VG L vTA.fulei.� E DiED pWIRG Runoff Control P Section 1.2.4 Core Requirement #4 Dhfl i Gt r Conveyance System .4 ,W l/�,e Section 1.2.5 Core Requirement #5: Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan BrvsG �y4,r.. wL LL ' Section 1.2.6 Core Requirement #6 as Maintenance and Operation A-- OF r�l Section 1.2.7 Core Requirement #7 TAM- Ve � Bonds and Liability Section 1.3 Special Requirements erection 1.3.1 Special Requirement #1 . N//4 Critical Drainage Areas .. • fy/k .- -Section 1.3.2 Special Requirement#2 Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage Plan , IN •—,.-Section 1.3.3 Special Requirement #3 Conditions Requiring a Master " N Drainage Plan *111••.Section 1.3.4 Special Requirement #4 Adopted Basin or Community Plans 4. MG or- IM jTt(/19Sec on 1.3.5 Special.8equirement #5 Su[(Cher ] . tf WiliC4tAR- Special Water Quality Controls ection 1.3.6 Special Requirement #6 Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators Section 1.3.7 Special Requirement #7 Nor l rj7 Closed Depressions No .'1.o Eb Section 1.3.8 Special Requirement #8 Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed • .Trea4 90/14 Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control r peleyenw Section 1.3.9 Special Requirement #9 Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain VII- Section 1.3.10 Special Requirement #10 Flood Protection Facilities for Typ6 1 and 2 Streams iijc,LUP0M-416ection 1.3.11 Special Requirement #11 &+,,tgm11t1h✓ Geotechnical Analysis and Report w't Nf l¢" _-* 'Section 1.3.12 Special Requirement #12 • Soils Analysis and Report Section 1.4 Variance Process Section 1.4.1 Variance Authority Section 1.4.2 Variance Request Application Process Section 1.4.3 Variance Request Review Process, Section 1.4.4 Criteria for Granting Variances Section 1.4.5 Appeal Procedure i 11/92 ...i• i JJ, 1c_a•_u •JJsJljJ•J L,y.LVIr-1 I IIJLI'ILLI\V 1111J rr-+']C pp ' ' BAIMA & HOLMBER NC JOB 7/ r si`./ 100 Front.Street Soutn SHEET NO. - OF 1 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 /� (206) 392-0250 CALCULATED BY / fL DATE /l0 '1'1- CHECKED BY DATE SCALE : 1 I r— , 1 ..T7:z..........-.1;,'1._17t- : t _j \may(//-y'/_J-_ .._ i �C[5 ri Co p . T' • 1 eJp ! ; i 1 : s T4 T'w �.L... �� l_. _.._.... aic __ l off? Q 1 ' i : • • Ati q 1 1 1 , i 1 1 I _ i : 1 1 1 1 I i • 1 1 i 1 1 I • : : zi _i J i i : 1 . ... ; 62, Aiz. i lootit-t)i zio) i 3c)e) 1 .ti .• 4 . : ,.. .....4. t I . ., - .6.kir-.- 7-.- no"..' Lapivei.. .. .C.tati) _ _ I iY 'tI t : 1 . C 1 a. titp . -.off*...friete..q.-&.0_. ......._____.......__. I . 1 . i i . . : : . i 1 1 1 , 1 i ' ; 1 US/ J....II J.-.I...I f J.L• G 1...1 .....1-3.1"...1GIJ•.... IJP-.a..-11.-. I 1,JB-..1-1.-. 4-•,..• .....,..../ . . I •-sul— u I' BAIMA & HOLMBEL ,_.. INC. JOB .. ., ,........_ 100 Front Street South. SHEET NO. OF ISSAQUAH. WASHINGTON 9E027-3817 ,„,11 (206) 392.0250 CALCULATED BY -7-7Z_ ne.-rE /--/e, —4,/-4-- , CHECKED BY DATE . SCALJE 1 _ i i ; • : • ,-...--...- . . i. . ; . 11 . ; 1 i ; . .• ; ; ' ; • -4.- • •i , -.--...........:. -.-. .. . : ? 4 .I -..1...••• - .:— ..:. i i ? ! i • i 1 .- r-- -.- •••••-•-Pir. .. . • • '- 44/41-21; - --- i ••• —4 --."4••••...4. ..... .. ; I 114":" :!: ; . • i i a i i 1 IJ : , i • : ; . i I. , , , ; _... ..... ___. , , 4,,. ..... ••••••. 'i i • i ; i•.• ...4... ...J. ..-• - ••••••••••.•-....."". : 1 ; . ; . .i..- t• . i I I . 4 4 _ . t, --.7-.i..a. 3,.,.4....er..... • . : I „ .. i __:. i . ....... , .41%,7. 7..,....$2.co_.. ..!.../...-IN2s.clIpe,vg_ . . I - - .... - .,.. _. .. .........._.. 1 i i "'"'.....___ .1...24.... ..' v-....._.K....__.. _ _...........1._ ._..._. ___i_ __ _F...--,-.........4....--.. . ..-...,...C-4/--t=_76,10 _ lar.....wq .- s It..C9TS• : i 1 I 11 : • 1 . • ; • ' ; • . ; TII • 4 ÷ — t.... —i---4.- .' . . .. . .......... . __.!...„,.._.../... . , if i 4 . i ,._ ) VIA-)(c,-....i._ .k i.424 ‘49 _i_._ tliq) i so4.-_ m-rfk/vii_a 111'c, ; . . i II I .1 :. : --4. i - .o• ..-. .- ..,...... . . . - i 1 ...... . --/-. ' ... • .,...._ .... ...i • ' e.. ' L? a . lig Gite, , , 1 ...... ... TT . . : 100......--..i..1-...a.....742c-r$ - ---- — • . — -- - -4—----.—— : .... r.... .. .,.. . --I-..... . ; : : I . • : l'.1) 6driari 74.5.i : ‘ .I ....i...._,..... • i ; i . ., _:.......4._ i : : i ; ! ; !---:••• •-•i• -. ... . ; . . : ;• ! ; ... . . : i i . i .. i 1.• : I : I -I ". -. •••••• "" ; . ''''.. ' I I i h I .-• ( L 0 fr6 ! ! . „.. ....,... i • • ..•.••••••-•••• f • . .' . ..1 : 4)1.-Al:EZP4) .. s" : I I I I i 1414•0•CifrtA) ,..1 . .; ...........-t i ! .1.. ----...... i .; a .. - I --e• .4...... I ! ; mi... ! Ve...6 1 C -. ....."' ....7" ' ; : . 4-1-444v. -,.. , I. , i ... .. i- --.1 1 - !, ; .--• i.--.. i i''.. .i I ; 1 '.i t P6/4)1 !X4/4..... .60,,••• . ' P ' .0 -i•.. : .- - --•-i-- 4 i . . • . . 4.......... ... • I ...L. .1-6. a. , ...____ ..... , . , : ! , ; -f- - ••.i.. . -1 'it .1 • -•:- ------- 1 ;•• _i,.. g 671:4" 1 : 17V.-1...7-f`. irir3. ' - . . 0- .,-• . • , ; ? ,1 : i ! I, : • .... . ............... 1 ?ER v votopim _in- -...11606.01)c .. . ! : . ; ; 1 • ! ,_ , 1: ; ; : _:. . :__. . . .:. JA., r4;.••••, az4,L-F: ., Tr-*A7 II : ..-- i .• •: - • : . :. ef !'ADP'7. S.&2-/-F i lzgfor 1.0, .,. , . .,. I I ! . I -: . I ( : e. ..4,,,f....,,i....6„,... ,-__:, ,,,,-- r& . 6:j. . ...... ...• ......... , ••,• .: ,, . . • 1 U. 17-11 1JJI 1L.LU JJIJCJJ.J• ' DH119IH fluLl'1DGFC17 1191,' 1-HUG CJD • Trapezoidal Channel 4raiy is fg r'esxorc • Open Channel - Uniform low Worksheet Name : Co ment : . So ye For Bottom Width . ai en Input Data: - 'Left Side Slope.'. 3.00 :1 (H:V) ' Right 'Side Slope. • 3 .0(1:1 . (H:V), ' . . _ . . Manning `s n 0.3`1�i Channel Slope 0. i200 ft/ft . . ' Depth , . 0.33 ft . . Discharge 0.06 .c•fs ' Computed Results: _. • 1�. . .t�tll 2-F0 Bottom Width . . . . ("� cr ft��• �� ... W G . Velocity 0 . 13 fps �Q 751 - F law Area 0.34 sf Flow TopWidth .2.V2 •f t .-: . Wetted Perimeter . 2,i3 ft Critical Depth 0.11 ft -Critical Slope 4 .88 ft/ft - ' Froude Number 0.0. (flow is Subcr i t rda l ) Open Channel Flow nodule , Version 2.01 (c.; 1990 Haestad Methods. Tnc . * 37 Brookside Rd 1 Waterbury, Ct 06708 I I♦ ..a.a• a; • .pj rr `i—>~•....___ • 1 • I + • r•r — r.- ••' 11 1i. •,•+•{-—-;.••,'. �I _' _ lf�Jtrlrt 'l 1 / /+yam. • • ,a '.111 . p ', ; '• •.: ••••v••.-:::`.4 • 1 .-4 - ;::,W,•:•;;;:iii?-,/,e,/ / • 1 ♦ .,� i 'l,rf '• .,.•••�+ram-�i`-I+'''A1•.>14 V• IT, \ - I'r!.l%r' . ��f''•'•.7# 2<' • ‘". ,\,/ :iiil i 04 a' i l'.•• i.i f ▪ ' � 1 I 'IV.• 1 I J . .`J�j�l; ;'.• • ►--~ -ate f'-s- ..i-t, ' 113,•.:--r,--,...(!:1 i:!▪-; -..::;:::';;;:::! 1 (,, ,•67------_...__.9. rldr I r.t.11,1;_vit?.•i. • •4'/1 •'i fI /,; '- - /: •i I t , k �".! +• •-p is.,f &J .. to;. ... -•'-::-yi : 1 i f ; /-//11,:-.• /;i- ,--, ;, 191,.... r••••, .4.010, .1% -,/,:,-,.,,ey. f ,i , .-•••••..--,‘ •-.,.....,10 . .. • • r.% -... 1.;;;I. ,,:, i - f� \ .- ,i ' dr, --r �._ _%; I l ii % '. -., .,,,...t.dir. v .� � ,r � I1 r i I.- �• r' v�;. .- ;, . �i..., . � • iLlj \ .1 , , ;;yy c/ � 4 � t. fry `� , .t i' tilli ' 1 • ,• ,,,.......0........, ,,f„,,,..-„,-../•„....,,,___,_..... .- ...,- ..,__:__ ......,,..,.....„... ..,,:::. .,...„:„.._,,...- ,- ...-. ..- ..- .. i • ,..„ ......„,.,•,.:. -...-,.„' -o_-_1-.•‘1.-s-1_ .,i„ -,; ;a,,: '1• ; . :•r! •:,.: AQ- '-. 1: .:..•• ,......•;''. :::;..•.•.-..:. + ... .1' ' •.l. ...., - I r•. ...: ,t . . . . . f,;-f,..•.,.;.:".• ..-::-- 1__ ...i....._10__.1 c...s,.1.i„—t.s..:. ,...,•--,I/,'.,•.,,. 'r("I ..;Ii //,P: a Mrr ••'.- =•y 1 rram; ,?.J I. l .• .'% !t ' r1///1r.1.1'.: •f„•-1 • •r''',,'/ • \ •• � • a. \_!• : :' ; f i..l i;tr1''t:'+•1. ''•'71 1s.• '1' ,•, r'r' ice' r. - - ' 4�• .,•,• / l:'::I:'i'li • 1 .1 ', 1'•; ' ' •r�. • �--._' -'' -` ,_,•a'- _- si;% -1/; • • //eei ' ' • •z.: >Ia' I • K . i I • 1 . . ,R M • UK I ' iff1 7f*'Ti oo�0.BO®•••4 tql Firm • ! N r� H i - • • • .t 17 •Inu . rla.T I1�r1IT...11-Y.. u..aun • n7.7T ,rrr .e•.T .Tr. W./1 J/1�'i/ 1 L.L b 371�n3U DH1.I'IR flULI1DCKO 11VL. r-FSLIC J.U P 516(17: apAiPt rl d Ai, ****0-**:j*******it*** . S.C.S, TYPE—IA DISTRIBUTION *****: ,e********* *its *****+ R* 2—YEAR 24—HOUR STORM **** 2 .00" TOTAL .'=RC.CIP . **i '***** ' • • DATA PRINT—OUT : • * . . . 'AREA i ACIES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC {MINUTES) , A CN A CN 2.3 2.^u- .72.0 . .0 98 .0 13.9 ' PEAK—t (CF-S) l—PEAK(HFcS) VOL (CU--FT3 ' .I��r 12.0 2�jr_•r_. hRz... . -*****************'*** .S.C.S. -TYPE.._1A DISTRIBUTION **•****************** . *'******** 10—YEAR '24—HOUR STORM **** '2. :.„ ,TOTAL PRECIP . ********* • DATA PRINT—OUT : ' • AREA iACF ES) . -PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (M.1 NUTES.) "_ . . A CN • A CN 2.3 e2 .0 .0 98;0 . 18.9a - PEAK—O(CF S) T-F'EAK(HRS), -VOL (CU--FT: - 24 f .2 - 7600 . • ********I *******'***.** S.C.:S .. TYPE—IA DISTRIBUTION ******* ************ ' . ******.*it* 100 YEA1 24—HC)UR STORM , **** : 3.':!tr" TOTAL P REC I FF . ******* DATA PRINT—OUT : AREAiHCRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN F+ CN 2 .0 2:3 .. 72.t_► .0 9S .0 13.9 • PEA}:' EI i CFS' . T-PEAI.: (HRS) VOL (CU—FTi- r=.,"' 7.02 140 1 01'/13/1997 12:28 3913055 BAIMA HOLMBERG INC PAGE 11 - 7)Vie . s,t*ii******i***k•*****•. S.C.S. .TYPE--1A DISTRIEUTION *************x* *x** *********' 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2-OC " TOTAL PRECIF- . ********* `DATA PRINT-OUT : AREA(ACRES? PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(rciNUTES • H CN A CN . -.lJL' 1'' .3 ram?�.1-r}- 2.�� =�t�.r.tJ �r_t_1 , PEAK-O(CFS.:; T-F-EAK (HRS: VOL CCU-FT) 1 .29 7.67 1b714 �Zr ,,"_.******„*********;:* • S .C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION **********• *****•****- ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM 4**.* 2 .90" TOTAL F.REC I F' .' * ******* • • AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN = 2 .0 -a 80.0 2.5 98 .0 c.4_) . , PEAK-•O (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU--FT) 1 .96 7.A7 254`►5 • gco *****#lei***** *:# S.C.S. TYPE--1A DIa"1RIBUlION **** *************** • .********* 100--YAR: 24-HOUR STORM *.*** 3 .94" TOTAL PREC I F . ********* DATA PRINT-OUT : AREA t ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC i M I NUTES) A CH A CN . • 2.@ .3 30 .;) 2 .5 .jO . , 5 .0 • PEAK--CA(CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL(CU-F-T J 2 .70 7 .67 353_ . ....... .... __.,. ....a-.J .JJi u......r. ..vim..u�..v a. r1VL 1l. i "� i.�T c a pc.p171,/v �� �CL /1� zf I o CcO 4 (DOitc1c ''ERFnRHANCE: INFLOW TARGET-OUTFLOW . ACTUAL-OUTFLOW PK--` ' AGE, STORAGE RAG 7 .24 .2�4 ,50 _ DESIGN HY-L�: 2.00 :�D 1 : 1 .04 0 TEST H .mac � �•-, � ,=�`ri i�.2""�i� TEST HYLt 2 : 2 .7F. .63 .•_ STRUCTURE DATA: Ri l.: TANK (FLAT GRADE) RISER-HEAD TANK•D I AM.. SToR-DEPTH TANK-LENGTH STORAGE-VO_UME ' 0.50 FT 9 .(0 FT O.=;i, FT 261 .9 FT 16 7.•:C: -FT Q ljp _� 147C. TRIPLE ORIFICE TR I CTOR: D I A( INCHES) HT (FEED t!-MAX (CFI BOTTOM ORIFICE: .94 .60 .0l0 MIDDLE ORIFICE: 1 .74 7 .o0 .100 TOP ORIFICE : 2.27 r..2`5 .07O ROUTING DATA : STAGE :F T) DISCHARGE(CFS). STORAGE (CU-FT) PEF:M-AREA(SO!--FT) .00 .00 .0 ,cJ .65 .02 1203. 1 .0 1 .70 .03 2791 .7 ..i; • 55 - _04 - , 4409.2 .0 J J.4u .04 h 555r .9 .0 895A. I .0 5 .10 .05 10534 .0 .r'- , 5.95 .06 12415.5 .0 . 6 .00 .06 14112.5 .0 . 7 .00 _06 14472.9 .0 7 0._.5 . 12 15501 .0.0 .0 - • 25 . 16 1" 16..5 .0 3 .5�:, .24 1 F.293.3 -i-` ' 3 .40j .64 16298.3 .0 Fs ,70 1 .56 1 c 9G .s ,0 u..0 2 .28 16298.3 .0 _ a .''_'!Ij 3.08 162 9O.3 .0 .. AVERAGE VERTICAL PER 1EA8I L ITV: .0 MINUTES/INCH 01/1J/177/ 1L: LU J'ild000 DH1mM PlULillitil7 11Yl. I '"".' J. 9 • t g 7)r-7-isnincav p t r x i,--. 5 L ce. it.i 2/2_ /CO a c t ef7 CO c,-- 'ERFORMAWCE: INFLOW TARGET---OUTFLOW ACTUAL-OUTFLOW P'K-STAGE STORAG DESIGN HYD: 1 .96 .24 :r 5 ..E.7 1594. TEST HYD 1 . 1 .25 .06 . 1`I' 9:rY, TEST HYD 2: 2.70 .63 .A3 ;TFiUCTUF:E DATA : Rib TANK FLAT GR ADE)E) r • t STOR-DEPTH TANK-LENGTH H STORAGE-VOLUME RISER-HEAD FAD AI'•i) I AM 6 . i._T 15586 i U-F` c, tD 7 .50 FT 2 .00 FT 7..0 FT :;G HT (FEET) �,..-Mw?. iCt=S) VeL� TRIPLE ORIFICE RESTRICTOR : DIH(INCHES) H c_, .ills' BOTTOM ORIFICE : .51 MIDDLE ORIFICE: 1 .74 rz..t.0 .100 TOP ORIFICE: 2.40 ROUTING DATA : STAGE(FT) DISCHARGE(CFS) STORAGE(CU-FT) PERM-AREA(SQ-FT) • .00 .UG .0 .75 .02 1210 .8 1 .50 .03 2721 .7 2 25 .04 4568 .1 .0 ` . 4 r`4-?'...S .0 i t 2 .0ll .0 ..0.`5 84r�2 .1 4 .50 .05 10364 .E . .06 12200.6 .0 5 .25 r..c �7 .IJ 6.00 .06 12_•9J_I5 A .75 . 14 15205 .1 _ 7.45 .17 1597E.S .0 7 .50 .24 1592 .1 .0 .62 15986.1 .0 7 .70 1 .42 . 15986 .1 .00 7 .20 2.31 15926 . 1 .0 7 .90 3 .47 15956.1.1 .0 2.00 4 .60 15986. 1 .IJ i AVERAGE VERTICAL PERMEAD I L I TI : .0 MINUTES/I t:CH Citjl,,, ,-enton Department of Planning/Building/f Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 1 REV IEWING.DEPARTMENT: EaJVI,IC�4 frva . ti• . , ��I OMMENTS DUE:; JANUARY 16, 1997• . ' :::• :-.,s ,' ; ��• APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA e 7A,J9 J . ti ATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 - , t APP (CANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 ^/rt, OF LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE ''�! - mBN • SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A // ` � .03 py SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium ii •g of 44 towrti`�mes in`° ° seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be providedlhdgrages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. a` i A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air I Aesthetics Water LIghVGlare Plants Recreation • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historlc/Cultural . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet/ L G'` , a.,--),c/(`4 ]/g/r >�e - (iy✓ - - - &) 4. e /V/ r �� 'f P C a 4Q E-1 if►S Jam" 'of'N/ � ��/�n`q�f�" ,e® / ' /2rel4E-1 .( )1 " G►.: 4 `-' — 7 L f�� '" f"�C�6//' � .� - C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �,a,L () ,D bY-'- -6',� ). ,6)- 2/i /Jvk . v� .0�.f -,,,_) GU-e- t#ti ct.. ifr1-14;*- 6-- ,-,L)/ Ze/24,4,4-b_../ 7to 24/e, 6,-,-1....aa, ,c270A-i,5,(,,e_ei 42-e_ ::1-a-gy„r‘&Ae-cy, 4/ Zrj,;6v-"jyle:0_,A7,66 , ev/i),),(3, tiik,e 4 .c15-e-ea-olge. sDe We have reviewed this application with particiYar attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /�� /9 97 Si nafure of Dire rued Representative ate DEVAPr.DOC Rev.10/93 - PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW- 97- I)O S ,. ❑ ., DEVELOPMENT APPLiChTION REVIEW SHEET CI Lr;N REVIEW-ROUTING SLIP ' 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ' 0 ' // OTHER : APPLICANT: (E�,yyn arc'. L� :4 L L, �, RECEIVED FROM• •'ATN ///y/7 JOB ADDRESS: yaeo:' :;Lin e cc,} :Ayr ,.IV ...-- _.. WO# _:.--.: (date" NA u ' OF WORK •Wi iq,vi 231,r24 4 2 tm iY et,A)pr)enii0u GREEN# . --- . ® 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: , "'7',.❑:,,;.,,LEGAL DESCRIPTION • 0 I SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE .; ".'•a:•. •VICINITY MAP ❑ I NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES • ' . 'P .FRONT FOOTAGE - ❑ '`'.OTHER ,. " ❑ 1 VESTED ' ❑ NOT VESTED ;'..,,.:? ;: ❑ This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review y • dated _ - ,. ❑ •. PARENT PIDN(subject to ch ej_'' SUBJECT,PROPERTY PID#"- 3 3y•67o -0/Ob 4- 007G ❑ King Co.Tax AcctA'(new) It is the intent of this development fee'analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below'may be:applicable to the subject site Upon''.;•(, '.-.. :_• development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to"install the on-site - •. and off--site improvements(.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on'current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section, •,l.j, .Please note that these.fees are subject to change without notice.,„Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time,of Building Permit/Construction-Permit'�< y it,,n� t-,-,- i ..t.,,. y , ., , .F• ,u'r:'Y.":; ";�":_-.-apt:,,_ y'7 "'.''i;. "z 4� :The followin noted fees do NOT include i action fees,aide'sewer ermits;r/w 'ermit.fees"or'the"cost of water mete;0. ,:4;,i;,: fay`^ it •t:'<!":' L;�E;'r:''s .. ..i. g:4,r • , .. . � i -,. .... 1pl• � .'p • < :u..... ...... ...�. -•:rrc^Lla.-.. . S�iy;bl�S ��i'`..y:�..',S`� a`!-�,F}{..�'�iq SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.i •`, " ,.• ',;.: ;;; '.METH D.'OFI,'7,`'='i•::ASSESSMENT.' ASSESSIEENT. t, -- - s:' � DISTRICT�� ..PARCEL, _ O. :,�;! >.:} _ + ;"',,. .;.��.,_: ,:':. _ .,pi, :flit i'r '�:- :i c' - ,l -u"Y�=_'tom' :;r5;;,, ,,. -},:a.. :i. ,. i; as!tin; '1'" ;Y - Y ,r... .p 7. Q:.::`' `c.-.T; .:I. ,.x "i::; - DISTRICTS•• ,.„ _ . ..1.:,, ., r ... ., 'NO.�:"r"•=� .. .=•NO.,ttl;: 'i:;'.:;.ASSESSMENT,,,.,.r,::' •,;�;�#�•;UNITS., ,.,�?� _.OR-'FEEe.,. . Latecomer�Agreenieiif(pvt)WATER".,. ., ,..:::,`.., -�{:... ,..-, - ,.. „r.; _*:;. ::,:eaYl`K, :?t24. ,i0 .I:..,. ,.: ....:, iii- _ - rift.:N,,1 iV.? ,k;-Vir 9; „tlt.!;,',-,�tl;'.::t .' ''E;' .. .... ,.. t'1�•{�� . . :lF4Z�a� '.�r d..TS":.a>.;,"_ :.�,.. .f,. :�'.4, -, • Latecomer'Agreement(pvtjWASTEWATER:"� �;�: .;>�, .• :b',�,,;tii:�"�:• k,, "'����`a,"�^.F"! �a>..,.,.1�1.,>{..._s�,:E; .4,. ,7a•sr�;::4 t: :"r t- - - :,�..::. :%L, :_..ru`+r:' '7;a ,y;::;"'i`r++:�.- ^:d�:o .Lkr.,!.". Latecomer•Agreement'(pvt)OTHER ?. �._,,,. ,� . , ,. . ,-. .,,. :._. . . .......... ._.... .._, ,4 r,>#�•' , .. „ . - �, r-',!,..,I,';.�;,:. .;;:.;.:.•: ;-.. j;(4.i:r;: _ • ..iT'.r,i ::a:;:;r :a+hY. - ,:vn a v•;•�r•, - t.. :.r,. F, ';fi"..:.' '$ �i7.{tit. ,.'Special Assessmenf District/WATER;:,.. ,. ;;;;: .. .._ .,..,.,r�;,e:°: , .., .�:I.:,'-,11,,..1....., ,.;�t�;::�rr..�,3�.:•:` �.-'... :I.: ,.•�;,�::�.,,.1:r;,�.:,.,.7�4s ,.._.r:.,., _s ./'h-Y'e ..'!•ly, �1.. �1`. 1',r} {::,' - lS�:., it: :a1. . ny T .r I- S t`fr.' it ` r u= • 1 I r.,,., r,{,t.r - 'Ir•C.b d'. _t.,'. ....nt;.o�S, ., .,.{•71t:.�. •,,'C..t!?$�,'.. Ya:.., .. .,. .,x•"•6„Jd...,Al�,:+-i ....f� 1Ti�'i1`.�i4'::rmy° ,J, ':�,i. t't;. ...�.,7-'%SS.:�;vi:SU�e,�r.,.,};• �5w.'.. + dit �•n�:• r • as .I,i fi , C•r'� r.err� ,.s �'t.r .., ,.1^:(4i" I�±,.. ..(. e..6i�a:,t{n'-':+ - r Special'Assessment Dtstnct/WASTEWATER-;°:;. ,.• ,';,:.. :".•, ..• .. 'r:, .: ,... ,. . . ..•...<. ... .. ,•��:•>;. :/ f: - :1.--4?i'!v -1,5C•',. -1:_ $;..k5.r;f.P:i^,rpr'•,i 1a^', 1"- ;'C':{•la;=.;' 'Joint Use Agreement(METRO) .",...:�' ,... _ . . _.. . . .._ ,. _...•.. .. ,...... ..,- , . ::q%ra i9%'i'-= iitic;'4f'r=:"^ :''r' - di%Ts t♦'L, f..�.j:rdlGT �. ..(A�i: �. ``::j. :i't- `f.:': 1J:'...: l�'.; i�.{':Ii�i�_•:kl:'�,+.,r.e '.(...k .1•.. _A, : .Local Improde'ment.Dustrtct�: ,,,' yh. � r;- ".' , . .... 1... ... J. ,,.,-.s:... .;..��r•..:• ... ,...... ,.F.} 4!r,�.-. . _ i,, ._ ... ..., +k:`.-.... .gig, ,�,r+•.,.,,_„ . .. . n:`.�.4r.r <, . 'Traffic Benefit Zones ...-, .. , ,,;`:, . _, . , . :-575.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY,TRANSPORTATION:;: ';=4:. 4','''''gq . >.'.-, , _ 'al , f,.1:'r..,, ti<}: 'n;;^.k��%:iT:a a'�:'i.'i:f:�r''.i F'��..1.,y ¢fie„ ;^1' j - .t r/ .L., FUTURE OBLIGATIONS ,.. .. ,' : . �"�.. ;.'''„ ,. ..,I'��f... _ � , 1 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT;CHARGE'-.WATER'-,:a= - ;r; #OFUNITS/,;`r;" 'q . 'SDC-FEE: .=�. : ;:`. ❑ Pd'Prey. •- -O Partially Pd'(•I.td Exemption) .W Never Pd'-•. 1 SQ.FTG. .''< Single fainilYresidential$850/unit x �r> _. �= -.. � , . , ;{� . . '< {;" 5 :... ,;r , ...'.. `'•):1 dwelling unit$680/unit m parka Mobilehome ;�--•- ".:•�:':,,::,. , . �., ,. ',„S,Frit`;r.:r�,::,a;':° ;:?;.:,"::• :;L; $510/unit f� :;. '.:3 (,,.2 • Apartment Condo not in CD or.COR-zon z� ,�r�;,. I � •,�ri �•' D>'''O.(U,;'. Coin hercial/Industrial, .113/sq. ft.Of property(not!MS than ) . ,`"''"``.:',`'' , : 1 Boe;t!g by SpticialAgiroement/Footprint.of B(dg_plus 15 ft perimeter mg,cmttire+tiol� ' . • ,.,;,,:;:?;:.. S'r'. r - - ' • .. ' SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE' ''WASTEWATER ` r:�:;;'s 1'".`;t': :`'�' ":•�; i 0 Pd;Prev.:•:' -❑..Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) ..•® Never"Pd • Single family residential dwelling unit$585/unit x ' .. ' " . - I I Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x 1 ! Apartment, Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x (,'2 "2 I) 700,Or" • • Commercial/Industrial,$0.078/sq. ft. of property(not less than S585.00)x r ' REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: (New"-Old Flow)/New Flow X Above Fees . • SYSTEI'DEVELOPMENr CHARGE-SURFACEWATER - ,,.It:",'. ' '. • ' ❑ Pd Prev. '0 Partially.Pd(Ltd Exemption)•-: ® NeverPd •-' ;• - • , _- • Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x . •' '• .. All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area of property x .• ' • (not less than$3_5.00) • ..7t. g4Cg'a vi q, ci ., l - PRELIMINARY TOTAL. . .$ 6 3 2 Y 9 3 k �-.��zik-' o . l/S"A7 • -. Signature of Reviewing A idaority' ' , . DATE v '' *If subject property is within an LID,it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. • (•, **The square footage figures used.are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only.::. . '" 1.1 c:/tecoplatelfecapp/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16,1995/Ord.Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 e v\ • F• • City Renton Department of Planning/Building/ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET • REVIEWING.DEP.,ARTMENT:. y'� , . 'COMMENTS'DUE ' JANUARY 16, 1997 - -"APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164;ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: 'JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYW 013'O PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 ��,��AA/I _ � LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE "AY O 3 1997 SITEIAREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3.acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N tLq�,t-‘4 u1 Vy SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:,',-The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting•of 44 in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More • Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earthl Housing Air I Aesthetics • Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation • • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS �-ee e j4c elta•�G f�24Q��-ez Cry�ue/4�t • We have reviewed this application,with particular attention to those areas in which we have_ expenYse and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is nee e_d to properly assess this proposal. Ved R/140'47 V27 b Signature of Director or•Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 Cr O .t,.�:�:/.%��%�; ?},y�Zrny",e�ii'i�A'9,'l,O�:W�%j�6}ZY`,7.Y�FllG,�:)C?RY,Y%J:% ir^PS?•^"jYI.d.4iK:??;O]fC�;C...N�%..Y.!%fSY,.iAGY3C ! a�Y.yrxc:�.c;?yerx.,J .aaz�oRtit�o 14 .. .. .. ,•: r a.:;;�•r..'?.:rr.�$i}:irw...;::e»a» v:M:scaa:w. .aiwyy:wck.>�: o�...i�»ac' arr .. .. Project Name 1()( /ha►mshu✓q Cozdo►Kiilium 5 Project Address 4000 LinJcolri AvCNue. k)E Contact Person Mark Gol4t bevy % 5 DA Rvos h1C. Address 4731 (AHNevstil Way AlE 5,41te 1607 ) Sea ctic WI) 58105 Phone Number 524 - LI$46; or 406- I64‘ Permit Number LOA qC - 164 Project Description 62 0&i t multi fawo// e_ov,srs7►�u e6 Lig lowki ltou�j'iy 7 Oder I Z3 -1/w ih Z bI dig. 'Told o 134 parkil 5/oa.ePi, (12t ove✓ed) Land Us_ ,/Type: . Methodofj Calculation: Apur1&iey� (220) L"J Residential ITE Trip Generation Manual Pc 311 ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study ❑ Non-retail 0 Other Read_ : 4 .147 P'') un Z Calculation: Mel.) eve✓aye oleo') 7 rips • (6.47 ) (62 ) = 1--)0 I, da►k) t✓►Ps At $ 75 ivo 1v' ( yv1. 14) ( 75) _ 30, 085 . 50 Transportation Mitigation Fee: 30 , 0 S 5. 5 6 Calculated by: Al e-(,1 t 2.z271 Date: I I-)1/4 7 Account Number: Date of Payment City z.anton Department of Planning/Building/Pw,irc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEIWING DEPARTMENT: 1rrnY—�`' COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 I APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL I PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 I LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. E{VV/RONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Enviro ment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I 1/ Housing r Air I r Aesthetics V Water I ti Light/Glare 01 Plants I V Recreation If Land/Shoreline Use V Utilities Animals V. Transportation Environmental Health ✓ Public Services le Energy/ Historic./Cultural NaturalResources tr Preservation Airport Environment S 10,000 Feet r / 14,000 Feet ti B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS The siite is located within the Airport's Conical Surface. The proposed building elevations will be 157 ' above sea level , below the Horizontal Surface elevation of 179' above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction is to be submitted to the FAA and reviewed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit because the construction exceeds a slope of 100:1. The proposed development lies beneath a very heavily utd.Itzed aircraft flight area. As mitigation for permitting this development, either an avigation easement for overflight by aircraft or notification of such aircraft activity in the condominium deeds is requested. I C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS If this project is approved, the construction of the condominiums within the Airport's Conical Surface area will be considered as acceptance by the developer and subsequent owners that the' openatdon of the airport and the overflight of the area by aircraft of all types is a compatible use of the land. We hav reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi• al informati needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature o' irector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. O' Rev.10/93 City:..Renton Department of Planning/Building/1 -.1.7 Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REV-IEWING,,DEPARTMENT:; • ._.- t7�..U'�"�" - COMMENTS'DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 _ � -: ''���= :�°-�:. -:' APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE • SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF-PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting`of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth, Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation • • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS CGa� C. ,CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. -(4/4,4 il--7R7 Signature of rector or Authonzed Representative ate DEVAPP,DOC Rev.10/93 • Cit. _. Renton Department of Planning/Building/ —;ic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET .,.. :; REMIEWING,DEPARTMENT: P,. .R tCU)-•!'W'S q t�OMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 16,4991 • or REKritiN APPLICATION-NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02; 1997 '- APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYVVE44,N g g 1997 PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 • ��aase�oovia urViSION • LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More - Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth. Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet cc, /z " 17 4o-(-4, q / 2 'i ;v//'�, ,,ova.-� cam-- o�Lr� /ll�Jam ' G� 1/1 4(f) �?� :� U..: 4 ,04 ---e -, - • r �f f E' � / E r�v:,7z.i.ii t•p�� rq ` /��� /'//}G•G,t�i i7�� e g} �/ //f/i.�� /$/ ni i1L f 6 (rite B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 9 • • C. CODE-RELATED COMME'NTS .�o <`s 4 'Y1—Zip' ') /'1,Ch?/ 1 0.'ra ,v`' ���--� ,.�/ i,`'_ riAR, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 9 97 Signature of Director or Authotied Representative -Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 ON Cit; :.. Renton Department of Planning/Building/. :..;ic WRMTPRE DEPT. ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIMPRWWEVHEET REVIEWING,DEPARTMENT: fife.,UfAAANCOMMENTS'DUE:' JANUARA6, 1997 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA '' DATE CIRCULATED: JANUAR Efa APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE • SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross):. N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to construct-a 62 unit condominium'consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. I ' A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth' Housing Air I Aesthetics Water LlghvGlare Plants Recreation • Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ,a VDAd oV �rk�aL/S / olei • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS i 1 • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS See A,,t...LI COmiriertiS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas wham additional in rmation Is nee to properly assess this proposal. Vre/?? Signature cc D)actor o rued Repr tative Date DEVAPP.DOCi / Rev.10/93 • 0 • CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell, Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal fr SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums, 4000 Lincoln Av. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary required fire flow based on Type Five 1-Hour construction is 2250 GPM. 'If the construction is Type Five Non-rated, the fire flow requirement would increase to 3250 GPM. One hydrant is required for each 1000 GPM or fraction thereof. The primary hydrant is required within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required in each building. Separate plans and permits are required for these systems. 3. The fire mitigation fee is $388.00 per unit for a total of$24,056.00. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. . • - City-Eli Renton Department of Planning/Building/rialiic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET -, f3EVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Cam, ^ m..Seiti( -COMMENTSTDUE: .JANUARY 16, 1997 .- APP IICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA - DATE-CIRCULATED: JANUARY 02, 1997 - •- APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWEtty OF':oN PROJECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 . °'17r,n-rif.EIJ LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE JAN 0 3 1997 SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �i.rrLiviIVti OIVIsM gn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:•-The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 town o in-- seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. . A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air I Aesthetics Water Light/Glans Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment . 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS I...pt./fib O Sf Ju mi1Tt1 %i Il l'PUa hD L fa, 611)4i PEMNUT io& SALTS LOGAk1EOf Rl68 IClllEob M. PRDt 1I •PV LfG V DrJlU(1- L Lb TL[�t�'!b[� , Ot L,b PRIG' 5 NCS5 �I�Del ZH kW l of 'Cf� SITf� Srltc� t1>u Df l�5 wULU 66 tipPQ6U 8 Goi&aal t inigl Q AMP nPPDU D ED1LDta Dlui✓/. • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I. 5D lLS U&asires.. ¶I .58 JX ha, &Kh O ilM', P0DTEIttk CILRO ATED DS II.' S'(LI)ctU PJAL 0)&l1S .. SNPoii tt lG I) a PODid IT(bL M D Rfa U) l(J& IIIM PIS tUfg. 50(L6 AfPo al. We h = 'a e• this applicatiwith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wherea••''. i a 7o )njdryoPertYassessmisPmPosal. F lq 41 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAT.DOC Rev.10193 ..'Renton Department of Planning/Building/raolic Works • ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET I • • REVIEWINGDEPARTMENT:.•, -::,�..a '_- �� . p`[�;(,`, _. ..-. COMMENTS'DUE: JANUARY 16, 1997 -- = � -- •,• . " APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-164,ECF,SA - • DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY'02, 1997 ' I APPLICANT: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: MARK PYWELL? PRO1JECT TITLE: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS WORK ORDER NO: 78174 LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE SITE AREA: 143,612 Sq.Ft. (3.3 acres) I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: S-The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44'townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS i, Element of the - Probable Probable More - Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural . Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet (�R. ca. police calls 6timottcci annuctiki This area of Renton has,a_ fairly low crime rate. Recommend that construction materials and 1 tools be secured when not in use to help prevent burglary (burglary of construction. sites one of our most common crimes lately) . Fence in the lot while it's under construction; and us'e security lighting. The elevation plans submitted, show that the front doors to each unit will have glass windows. Breaking' the 'glass to. r.each in and unlock a door is one of the most common ways a. )0060CAEQUAMMETARPAWAYEk burglar uses to gain entry to a residence. These windows will need t10 be plexi-glass or some other type of shatter resistant glass, or they will need to have an application of security film installed. The front doors will need to be dead-bolt locks wits bolts 11 1/2" in length. Addresses on the buildings need to be at least 6" in height, of a color that contrasts strongly with the color of the home, and placed under a light. Stairwells need extra security lighting, and so do the areas around the garages and parking lots. There is no place for children to play on these plans. Recommend a tot lot to be built on the grassy area in the center of the property, behind Building E. This area could be clearly visible by parents, and will help ensure child safety by keeping the children from riding bicycles or playing in the parking lots. - It would be fairly easy for the applicant to provide security gatingiat both entrances to the property. When this occurs at apartment complexes and townhome sites, the crime reported is extremely minimal. This helps to keep trespassers and loiter off the property, and provide security to the residents. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. fa Fat-9 7 Signature of Director o uthorized Represents ve Date Review DEVA .DOC CT Vt Z been OY) Veteailiq i r I . 11111; s. . 1;t"` • CITY OFRENTOW DEVELOPMENT S • 1111141§31.19F1':SURRCIUNDINGIPROPERTY:i'i,:OWNERS""""'"°' . ........ . . • y . , PROJECT NAME: Will%O.,.MS6U..vai ecovvi0.5 1/4.1 APPLICATION NO: CIL," IC04 EcJ SA • The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the e subj ct site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL • NUMBER attmiteel • • • ••,„ •,. • . • • .• • • • • , f sO'S' (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) 1 r.Y 9 ' (Continued) N ' - NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER I II !I RECE V DI ' DEC 2 4 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANN NG CITY OF RENTON; • • . Applicant Certification I, Ilr k 6-oltthl , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property ,' • (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: 1 . 0 City of Renton Technical Services Records 1 0 Title Company Records I King County Assessors Records 1 Signed L 2:1//ali Da 12 2. . , 'C / / (Appl. nt) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before y_r;.k. ;,,,ry Public, r2ekz4,4 and for the State of Washington, residing at .,��1 11`n',, Y of � , 19 W. Signed � �/l/`' .of �;`. 2 ►il ' (Notary Public) yy%�.. :1J NO I AR y ; t (!I ••,4 PU LIC ' _` B ::::e}*:::..}.;:{...}...4.....e i .fib:aR"entd... , {•'•d;?�};r{:�i:i:iiYi:iiiii iiiiiiin:i is{:i:?i :::jii?i:•;•ii ii:4;}ii .i ..}::{•iii:�i ii$iiiii i}:•}}}:C:?}{4;{{.t,{•}:v: ,i,:,i.:::.;::,f:5:?§:{:•`:::":::'>..{gin:;':;:::; },y.,:,`::�•' �E.T 0 A LIN » «»r :.:?>.:?:??•:is ii:::,.:: i::C R �.KQ.� f.. I >>} ; :: ::><:::>~ ere .I. t .;: ha :::noticesiof:•the.::proposed<:a lication;::were::;malted::>to:>::::<:::::::>{: :..�'� '� .. by:cert:fir..:t::...t .::...::........... ..:PpPP..................:::.:::........:::::::::::::..............�:::.�.:::ii ??. i`iii �i €iiiii iiiii> ::i i::?::,„0,ii`iiii;>iigilg ii:i::.:i:><>ii:>iii>iiiii'.iimi i ' > nis :> >> :> > ` i::g<: : m: » >?<<'><. ..........:.......Cif':Em"I"' a ............ ... t.:......:.�::::::•::.�............ :'{ji;i::iii: :•i:,'::•::':: ..�.iy i:;S:;:%;}:;;::i;;:!:i;; ; {::.::�ii::; j,'..:;isi:;:;:;:�:;iy:::::::::::::•• ::::i?:i:•:ti'iiil:??;i:;:;i�i:;ryti:;{i::::?:;i:;:;i:;:ti::::Y:::':.:.{�i}•:::i:{{:i::i:•:•:•i:•>i:•}:'.>: ::I >: �: caner.:>. :::::::.::.}::..'�'..?.i::.:.>;:.::}:..::...:..:...::.:?.. .:.::::::.......:..:::::...:....::::::;;}>::.:.�:::::::.:.:.:...:.... .:. .;.:.:..:.�.�::}::.::::::::.:::::.::. .e.. h..isted.. .ro .ert ..o........ I ::: >:>::<:<::i:i><i::::i::>:i::::::::::>:<:::>:::< »:>:<::>::»::>:::>::i:>:: »:>: >: :::>: > >: :' ::::i>:<::>:•:.. :::::::.:.....,.:::.::::.::::::::.::::.::.::.:::::::::.:.:.... :.:::>:.}:.}:.:.>:.}}:}}:.}:.}.:.>:?.}}::.:{.::.:?.}:.:.}:.: :'AR''Y:isi:><i:>isisi::<:isii�:>�:� <>::> » :» <:>::><<�«:;:{: '::: ...>,................NOT ...�. :::•i�}::?:�:?:•}::;i:iiii}}iy{:,>.ii:•i'r::i}:jji;:;:i i:{^'!??:?::•iii:i{::}{?•ii::};:,}•:;:;}:}?;:;:y:;i;:;:Q:;:;i:;iC:ii}::'+•:•ii.'•i:{•{;:}'}?ii•'•n:iii?i{+':i iii':i:}{:�:<}}:{,:y;:i;:;:;ji�'•::`�:;:'i:;�i ii•..:,::i:r;:}}`}J::. .i .::::::::::::.�::::.�::w::::::::::::::..�::.:::::::::::::•::::::::•::::::•:::::::::::.:.�.::..�:... .::::::::}._:::•:::::•:::::.:.�:}::::}::•::;:::•}::::>::}::::::.:;:•}}::;:.}}i:::};;.}::...::::::... .�.}}}},.:+:ie:i::ii:iiiiii i::::. A:::;E 0S.: . sc7i 'e :[ nU:r:worn. 'f ... "' .'e`°i::a:::NOta. .i;Pu61i niand.;for:thCig-t. 4.i: °<1M4Olti tan:>:i:>::::::: ::T...T....S..::::.�:5.......::.:b..d.:a..:...::y:::::...�:...:be.:or..e::m...,:..:::. .:..�....rY.:::. .:.....:. :..:..:..........:... :..}:::�.::: :, �. :::. . g'::.�:::::::::::::.. resdin <at:::.�•;:.•::::.�'�';.}'?..' ::.. .............:.:{:.;:..on:;the::::.>.:<: ::�°:<:::::;::;<:i::da :>:o:•�r�.�..>y�.,:. ,�::::::::.::..,...:::...�.{.��.,: .,.�'. <:}}i:i:<:}>:{<;. i ... .. .... �,.�.:.}.::::::::::.,ems ,, ir::i { �`'` < �'�'i�%`>�>'' '` � ':r����2`i��? s '''< :::fit::%:�?%�a''::}:::.. ................ ..... ........:. .. ;??%:' :.{;i':•ir 4'. ,.'{:i:�Ei:i 3i#i2:'igi::''iiii i':°:iiii I..ii.•i 2.11:1' <'i"i'` $`.,,f i i? i' in ni i?: is'.i inia.:<i.iiit. Signed;`<:'<: >> :> € �' �. � .. tr> .. . ... listprop.doc n 6/9/9( REV 07195 2 r I • 4, '. BATCH NUMBER: COMMENTS 4 p- A, * CUSTOMER NAME BROS INC 4 _,c. * 4 'r , _,. r,,<, ttl—*-,•R•t!'!lrrr, :e ,t;t*:!,lhit•Ritf *f!ttc *!t-Pr **-!,*!,-t1*t*—►-,t,4fi . . . - '1•_.---• --- 334570-0015-06 )., 334570-0016-05 — FU-TIEN .INC - 463914 i ; FU—TIEN INC 463914 _- C/O CHEN KUN LIN C/0 CHEN KUN LIN - 1007 S WELLER ST . l • 1007 S WELLER ST — SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 98104 334570-0019-02 . i 334570-0035-02 •— OLSEN CHRISTINE A 409999 SHAW LORELIE M 299999 4006 LINCOLN AVE NE 3828 LINCOLN AVE NE RENTON WA . 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ' 334570-0055-07 334570-0060-00 — HESS IMOGENE C 0N0404 , ' HEATH PROPERTIES LTD PTSHP 679999 12727 SE 63RD ST 1617 BOYLSTON -AVE BELLEVUE WA 98006 SEATTLE. WA . 98122 334570-0075-03 334570-0080-06 - STONE EDWIN S . 612193 TRI—DELT INC 01076 744 BELMOND•PL'E 6840 112TH AVE SE SEATTLE WA 98102 RENTON WA 98055 334570-0081=05 • 334570-0082-04 . -- JOHNSON PETER W &'NATALIE F2N9999 JOHNSON PETER W & NATALIE F2N9999 • 310 14TH ST 310 14TH ST RAYMOND WA - 98577 . RAYMOND WA 98577 334570-0083-03 " . . 334570-0085-01 . ' JOHNSON PETER W & .NATALIE F2N9999 TRI—DELT INC 01076 . - 310 14TH ST 6840 112TH AVE SE RAYMOND WA 98577 RENTON WA 98055 334570-0095-09 334570-0096-08 DIETSCH CHARLES C 559999 TWENTIETH CENTURY DEV INC 420179 - 3737-PARK AVE N ' . 1111 E MADISON t131 RENTON WA 98056 SEATTLE WA 98122 • 334570-0097-07 . . . . . .334570-0110-00 TWENTIETH CENTURY UEV` INC 420182 i ROBERTS.MICHAEL 'G+MARTHA A 1N3331 . 1111 E MADISON 0131 3925 LINCOLN'AVE NE SEATTLE WA 98122 RENTON.WA 98056 334570-0112-08 • 334570-0115-05 ' LAFEVER DAVID LLOYD+MONICA 449999 'HANSEN LYNN D + 370263 3915 LINCOLN AVENUE NE BISSET JAMES RENTON WA 98056 3901 LINCOLN AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 334570-0120-08 - 334570-0162-07 . ' CHELLSON J W H 902685 PHAN KIMSON & CINDY ,'„ 560682A 8189 S SANDY HOOK•DR - 5813 MATTERHORN PL NW . CLINTON .WA ' 98236 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 334570-0165-04 . . . 334570-0166-03 .>.'^ .. . ' SHAW RALPH G 6N9999' COLLODI FLORIO & PATRICIA 3N2841 8415 110TH PL SE 3709 .JONES AVE NE RENTON WA • 98056 . RENTON WA 98056 000000-0000-00 ********************************* ******** ********************* ** • rz-r , NOTICE OF'. . OPOSED SITE APPROVAL,—:.1PLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Approval (SA) and Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS/LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. GENERAL LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled before the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on February 25, 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings or during Public Hearings. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be madera PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550.-__elease -include_the _project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. ,-HE"-"43R0 -Si-•- N.Er•-43RD�TPL:-•p' W 1 • 1 323® z pit , 1 SP)!•11 i �• 4� Z 3 " : .r3r r ID:411 _i ' ' �p j c"L 5 I IN C. D. H'1 AN'S i_ i. H s _,. 7 A d''r" 7 8 0 •` LA ,W/GS INGT0N'ML i_ a, 2 ` 9 .� . T GA D3Ef� (IS E!P hl, a 4 y J'`2oo1 wl�`IVIS OW N2 7 or qr ' in i' • . :.b 8 _ 7I °."! 6-6------5-- Ev Lt �, •i P- S. . 86TN PP,. Si: , ' i I, GENMALOT.DOC a �'� �+ ' . Irememil . i\ii (fir i i ,.... .„.2..... .__. . •.J - - PENDING APPLICATION • PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURO CONDOMINIUMS I LUA-96-161,ECF,SA • DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 • ' lownhomes in seven buildings and 28 fiats in two buildings.One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided In • garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. • GENERAL LOCATION: 4000 Uncotn Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: • _Building Permit _Preliminary Plat Short Plat I Conditional Use Permit _Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review _Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit _FM 6 Grade Permit _Shoreline Substantial _Other Development Permit , A Public Hearing Is tentatively scheduled before the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the - ' Council Chambers on Um wooed floor of City Hall,Renton,Washington,on February 25.1997 at 9:00 AM to ' _ consider Um Sits Approval. All Interested persons to sold petitions are Invited to be present at the Public Hearing. I The application can be reviewed In the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings or during Public Hearings.Comments for Substantial • Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days horn the lest date of applicant's'Notice of Application' I . publicallon In the Volley Deily News.For further Infornelion 0n Ne application,or If you wish to be made a PARTY OF I RECORD end receive addit onal protect, please contact the Development Services Division e1235.2550. j - ' 3 • e r r 1•.-.,I a ill „_i a t o rl- O _- C. ,. H :f AN•S . I i f • e r • d n OA'D,Eba .� i ez r B' VT • Ns ar -...`_ t ,r, • _ewe. —i.It�•: ,e-lre. `�': •, r V of I 1IA, s , __.._-iD a ;.I' i PLEASE INCLUDEi'HE'PROJECT.NUMBER WHEN CALLINGFOR PROPER FILE IOENTIFICATION.e=' • CERTIFIC-A-TTON • le ct h(1' )U GIGS a hereby certify that ? copies-of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . JtU'u ,q.rj 7- ) 1°l9-� • Signed: 9t(iti vi U . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) ' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free d olu(rf\34I,:exiMfof the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • ' •`.' 'v-E;• ✓ Dated: VP-3// 1 r_ No ary Pub• in and the Stela oPWashington Notary (Print) flu Ale/ Pit-LLeig._ My appointment expires: to 4/4/cf- NOTARY,OOC 1\-1. rtinCE PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS/LUA-96-164,ECF,SA DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks approval to construct a 62 unit condominium consisting of 44 townhomes in seven buildings and 28 flats in two buildings. One hundred twenty(120)parking spaces will be provided in garages with an additional 16 open parking spaces. GENERAL LOCATION: 4000 Lincoln Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review ShorelinePermit Conditional Use Other Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled before the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington, on February 25. 1997 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings or during Public Hearings. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty (30) days from the last date of applicant's "Notice of Application" publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. N.Er'—•-43R0-•-9T-•-'g•N.Er-•93RDj*'0... �2 . .1.__ LZ i® 2 1 i • u A9 ` D =}; . 5 y� ¢a�' 1 • r ��:IN C. D. H-La I AN'S 1= 0 H •-.-, I WAG I N G T N >— '' W. •"9--: ,r,., 10 9 g GA"D3Ekt a DIVOm EIs : , eT 4 Idi=2Oc biVISION N= 7 [A, 1 Pk .. ra - --- - or ® -.y F- 2 " r r 1 4r 5.. 86TH^•••ST. �_, 11'Qti1'g/,.,..•_ 4 -z' . .5 ________j10 9 g T PLEASE'INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER REN;:GAI LING FQRPROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION:::;:".';:,11 CIT! . OF RENTON .:LLB Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 21, 1997 Mr. Mark Goldberg SDA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way NE Suite 1607 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums Project Number LUA-96-164,ECF,SA Dear Mr. Goldberg: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is now complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on February 11, 1997. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. The date of Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 9:00 AM, has been set for a public hearing to review the Site Approval (SA). The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If you prefer to make other arrangements to receive the staff report, please contact Sandi Seeger at 277-5581. Please contact me, at 277-5586, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark R. P , AICP Project Manager cc: Kennydale Vista LLC, c/o Pickle II Trust/Property Owner ACCPTLR1.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 tfi)This paper contains 50°°recycled material.20°°post consumer r fz- CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: JANUARY 3, 1997 TO: MARK PYWELL FROM: NEIL WATTS Ai/lvv SUBJECT: WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS (LUA-96-164) INCOMPLETE APPLICATION The site plan application for the Williamsburg Condominiums project does not include a conceptual drainage plan and report, and is also missing a utility plan showing new and existing utilities (storm, sewer and water) for the proposed development. We are unable to complete our review without these items. A "Content List for Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan" is attached. cc: Arneta Henninger • CIT OF RENTON ..rl ., Planning/Building/Publio Works Department . Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 3, 1997. Mr. Mark Goldberg SDA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way NE • Suite 1607 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Williamsburg Condominiums • Project No. LUA-96-164,ECF,SA Dear Mr. Goldberg: We have received your application`for..the proposed condominium project located at 4000 Lincoln Ave NE. The application cannot be accepted as complete as it is lacking both a utility plan and a-conceptual drainage plan and report.- As:soon as these plans and reports are submitted we will be.:able to accept the .application as complete and initiate the review process. No,schedule for:the completion of the review can be established until the application is complete. ` A copy of the content list for a drainage.report is enclosed for your review. If you have -! any questions regarding the report 'or its contents please,.contact Arneta Henninger at • 277-6198. ' If you have any questions regarding the processing of this project, please contact me at 277-5586.. .. • Sincerely, M rk R. Pywell, AICP : -P• roject Manager ACCPTLTR.O©C 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 - •®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer c. ,yr CIT' )F RENTON toll.`` . Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 02, 1997LIU e-7-)671A 6 5 ( I kECE1VED OFFiCE ur r SUPERINTENDED • Superintendent's Office Renton School District#403 435 Main Avenue South. Renton, WA 98055 , The City of .Renton Development- Services.: Division has received an application for a 62 •unit condominium to be located on a vacant 3.3 acres. The property is located.4000,Lincoln Avenue NE. In order to process this application, the Development Services Division needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by"children'Iiving in residences at the location indicated above. Would you please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return.this letter to.the Development Services Division,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. Elementary School: • Middle School: L-772.Cl -lyiZe - High'School: Will the schools you have indicated be able.to;handle th impact of the additional'students estimated to come from the proposed development?, ,. Yes V • No •i Any Comments: • Thank you for providing this important information. • Sincerely, • • • 10/ Mark Pywell '=LOPMENT PLANNIN - Project Manager 3ENTON • . JAN 1 O 1997 school_/kac ,. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer •- --,--1 ' , I ., . . ' Efigifi.tiqiigii:tikegialgaliaRIBROSI::::::1:1:i0:::::::::::0:11:eggallii$:::lii:Mil:qiiiallk..i.i:i.;:•!:ti.: .:1...1.;'iii:.:iiii:i.:1.:iii:i:liii.:::1!.:1,&.$1:1,1::ilii$1.::i.E.ii.i.i.::.i:1.1:.1.:Iiri.:..:.1.:..:iil.g.il.ilii....i:.::iii.::.ii:ili:iiIiiIiliilii.ili.i:i..i..:11.0,1!1.i..;i:::!::.i:11:::.::::1:1,!i':'is.::.:: :::$!i:I.:':;:%::::.!.:i.:1:1,1::ii.i..:.i:':::'::::.i.:1::;:••1:::::1::ii:':1:i::.;.:::::.•;:i:.••:::',:i:•.'i::'i::::::::,:i:...:!::i:r.iii:I.:1;1!:i"...•!::::::'::,: i.•:1,..i......: •:•:••••,•,•••••••••••••••,•:••••••••••:•••••••:•:•:•:•••••••:•:•••••••••••••:•:••••::•:••••,:•:.,x.,:-:-:•x:•:M:ia::::.:::?;x:i::::*]*::::iff::::.•••.*:::::.*:*•;:i:•:*•:•••.*::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .......::....P •••R .Nt11 0 ......••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••...•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .• sf.:::::oivingiggiii.i.iiiminomi::::::::::.*::::::„...,::.:*:.:...*:.*:.*:i..i:::i:i:::::::::-..::::::::::::-::::::::•:::::::i*isi.i:,,K*:•;*:.:m:::::::u:i:::::.:1::::....i:if, •e*i...„ ..,••••: ..... ::::::::i,:i:.:x::::*:::i:,::::::.i:,,,,,:.:::::::,:*:::::::,•%:,:::::*.:::,,,::i*....mi*::i:i-::50,.:....-..:.::,:•.......-.:•....:-...' ....,••••••••••••••••••,....,....,...,,,,:::,..,,,,, 1:::i::::::,1::::.,•AV.:,.iMiN:HENNONSims:::::mg::::::',;::::i:::::MR,:;!•iii]i;itEVECORME611"N$EAV.Iett:::i:15.tVigtONmiig•ii•iifi'000::imil:ani:";:sig,;::,:;:•;:i::::.:;; ::•.1....:i:.,:ii:::•:•iii::::.i.i.f.i::,.R.:;:wiiiig,,iii::::•!iri..:•::•.;i1... :iroildiDECT,nM996,-1::il.,.:ii:::::::.i!;,..;ii,.i;i::on. MASTER:::::::::APPLICATION:::::::: :::.::::::.K........:;:::,::::?:::i:::.::::.A..i:::::?:0: :::::?::::.::::::::::::::q:;:i:::i.::,::::::*m. :::::.....:.,::::::,..4::;:.:;,;:::i:::;;;;;;;; ;;;:;;;;.::::::::::;:•::::;;:;:;;;;;;;:;:;.g.;; ;;;;; ;.g;m:::,„: :::: .Lggi:::: ..F....::::i::„....z.,: ,,:::•,..,.:',. ..,.., ,r:';';E:!: :: ...*:::,...........::.:,:.,..:::.:::::g::ii.::u:;:,.:::.i:Nmeiii:i:i.gg:.iiii:ii.:iiiiigiiimgwinimii,..i.iit,ii.:;i...igamii:mim:imoo;i:iisim]...mi.;:::: o.,.'aii•:.:'::riumg:::::::::::::::.:,unioniiivg:Itg.45.4.ti411:47fii::t4.eVIMq .:.......:.i.::::::':::::.i::.. .: 14 ........:?:',..::-•:,... ..•:::; :a•:ftis•::.: :.0.g.g.i.i :M::::.REii!-:;?.g.:gi:Ni::iff:R.i.V:g.:::::,.MMEgEge•aiii.,•iiii::: :::::::i'.i.:M..1:•Migair:::]!M!iMili]inii.iiniM;:Ni;;;;::.*Mi ::•....:!!Orr.VC. ti.0..: t6it..0.10e:;•:;:..•!:•......is..:.i. .:gii ::ii:•..:::.::::::?,:::.•:ii:::........:i:i;i::::ii..:::::::iiMiiMi .....ff:iiiiiii...iiiiiMi:W.Mia....iMEN•iiiiiiii.:iii:::::::.:iii:>.i:j.::::.ii:i.:':•:•:•iii:.'.:Zi:iiiiiMi.:ii:.iiiiiiiii::::::•aiii,:•!'•::• ::.::gigia::.:•nii : i!g!'.P;Mgagi:•.i:A:M:•:-M: :::: ::.,:i:.,'.:.•.::•:'....iiiiiii::::t••:.i:i;"iii::•':4i'i':.:!•: ::.i:'•i..:i.::f•iii..i:::::,:•:•••:i.:g: -j:':'•.:.::.::::::::.'.:::i:..::::U:'..:::.::::::.::'a;:::MiMniMi::giMi:•:::iNi:•:••i:..i':i::iNgR.MgE:•M::•.i::.ff:i:R:!P::::. M::.g:•i.:•E::.:::l:!'•iMi.i'•.ii.g!Mi.O.Migi'.!:H:.:..•Mig.::.i:•:M2:Mia:N•H'•i.'•I'•:r:!'•..::::ga:ii:::0X:!;!;::N:N:..:':T.:i.i'.;N..:•:.'.:•':;E::%::::: ! ..-.........;i:::::i::::*i:i:::::::::::::;:;:::.::::.::i..i:i*,:i:i:i:i:i*:::••••••:•-•:-.:•••::••:•-•-,::......:•:::•:•:•••:::•.::•:•::••••*..,:••••••::•••••••.••••:••••••••:::-.•:*...:.•••.••:•:.,,:::,::::•:•••••••••*i.,:i*i•i:i:i:i:i:isi:i:i:i:i*i*.:*..:..:i*:*i•::i*i::*: ...:::::::.:i:•:•:•:::•:.:::::::•••:•:•••:.:;:.:•:•••••:•••••••:.:•••.:.:.••••••:•••••••:•:.•••••,...:.••••••:•••••••,............:........•...,•••:.••••••••••••..........:.:......:•:•,,,...:...,:•••:•-......•.,..........:....•.......••••... .::.'i.:••i.iiii.i.niiigiiiiiIii'i;iiggei..g::.!iiii:iiiiiP:V.VINg.R.(§.)11.ARF.V.PAkrignigingingi laggiiiIiingilEg. .4.. .1.0Iiii•OrP.R.M.A11:00iild. :.6.'.4.t4iiiIiiiigini.F.11: N4i.:4Vlit.•:iii4i4:iii::'64i.4!.'siiiWWi.i.41:t4iiitWW40iWt:4.:iiWiiii4iii.f4.ifigiiiii:8:6:iii:::. •Fidtarkzed:.M66teriApplication:i.fotepqh:ip76.t.tler..:::::i .i•.:;;;•.:;...!::.i•:iiiiiM:::':.:0:MiNN.I':;::•:•::::.iMi EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: ifennydale. 1115±L L- 1---C i-5 ilireilit.6t tieltaiii hind -Fte,41 Ackit ra: 717V5t ADDRESS: I/436 Lir ildshing4-04 /3/vii PROPOSED LAND USES: • S41/71.e. loy-I 6.2 uni'l. conbininiv• in _ LT. .. i i CITY: 11 irk'laiit , 14114 ZIP: ci1e33 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 1 1 • . 1 .y.Irtnlit TELEPHONE NUMBER: g22_ 1(fpf - (;771. ,/ 1 •• PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: • ,,• 11111,11,11,1100..:NT.A.OTIi.g. ..0.$0.NiliiillierniliginiiiiiiiiiI -Girit14•11t ailit,'.- 6/?///g-tiete NAME: /Id r k GoWerriSD4 . y5,Aifes__ii Br v,, T , EXISTING ZONING: Pre . J ADDRESS: , t,n vrr, t") Att. (-' A Su,/6 4d 7 PROPOSED ZONING :CA CITY: I Se,'lik . ill}. ZIP: fria5— • • • SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): /48;6 I 2..../4./ . TELEPHONE NUMBER: 524'- gego ftd - 144 • j. . .........1„„.:...,....,..,...,.,::..,..:;:......,-,:i:,i:.:•:,:.:..:,:A,.....,:20.:mgii:..g,:.::•.....:.:....::::.::•••.:..i&.:,•,•.:::::•••................::::....:::.::,.::•:•:::::•:•:•.....,.:.........:.............:•:•:•.....:•:•,.:••:•:,•••:.:.•••::::•:*......i?•.:.iFi:mf. ,:mi:iii imiift.;.?,,,m::,,,.:::.;g,•::?:..-,... ..i PROJECT VALUE 7/ j u PROJECT INFORMATION t4.' , , PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: i • • • : • tiliiiidinbeij IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: 116 1/0JJ Lincoln Ate AffF : 1 . IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? - . •• • • • KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): • '16 • . .3,3its70 -0100 • ,. , S39570-0P16 . • i . . . . ':'::::: ::>>:::>:::::<:: :::::::::::»>:: .. DES.Cf, I.O.N<.OF:;P:ROP.ERT:Y.. .. tt . .......... te.:sheet.:ff:necssar:. • 1f ;::.; ; .> ::.>..: : .: < :.::Che ck:..;:all:a ::.:I:lL�.c;?::at(o'•S.;:nf: t{:t� .es::.::.t<'h a a :� � :.:.....:it :;:s;:.;:.:$..•t>.:.a.:.:i.:f"..`f.%'..<•:.<:.;.:..w.`.•.i.:.�..r..l:."...'.::.:.;.:�..c t..'.`e.�.::.:.'•t•.::.;a.:�.i.`.rm:.:.i'..r.iif..n.i�..e..i.a.>f%..�.°e`.i�..ie�..i.'•.s..? .i....:< >:>::>;» ; : >::<>:::: ::: :::... _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION:. 1 — COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ 4 E _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ i I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ 11 Z SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ 1 _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ 11 (NO. CU. YDS: 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ 11 _ VARIANCE $ 1 (FROM SECTION: ) — PRELIMINARY _ WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ — ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ 11 MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ — EXEMPTION $No Charge _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ — REVISION $ 11 1( • JJ I, (Print Name)M��C {Qhe ,declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,�X the authorized representative to ac or the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and ansli'vers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. MQri Gel�(/�t'.1 ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and (� II for the State_Qf- t/" residing at e_p(Name of Owner/ prestative) 19 ,A.12'tt - , on thelL7 day of ,i Xv�Ss�O�.,611111 (Signa re of wner/Repr sentative) +��10 I 4. /L:0• OTAR N i' (Signature o Notary Public) � °N Y`°" 2 � d ..... .......... :.....:.:.:......:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:... :.:. :.. :�;:::::.: : :::. . :... :::i . ; ; ; ; ; . . : :... T I :sec .. t. .a..co . leteb ::CAt >::Staff.1 : : : : . ..; --:;:>> :;-:::.•::: :;.;:. :<.:�;:.;:• HPL.;:.;:� .U;:;:.;LLA.:.;:;.;PP::.;;:.:F.P.;;;;�TP>::>:. . ?:<`> S::><i:::•N::>:CPA ;:::;:::::«<><`*{; > >:::::t:»:::<:;:.:;<.;:.;:>::•':::;« <<:» <i;<><<»; ::>;::..::::':: ;:»>;::»«<::>::>:.:. . , : :�:::. . . �<;:� :: :<• >:�>::"::<:::��::>:::<>:: :` :<s::?::::::::=><<T.� '1"AL:>1'OS'�"i4:GE:pI�O:V1 .FD......$.... ........ ....... REVISED 2/95 1 1 i EXHIBIT A I LEGAL DESCRIPTION E !D31T (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) 1 PARCEL. A: 1 LOTS 1 AND 2, 3LOCX 3, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO 4 SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 7, ACCORDING TO THE ?LAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 18, IN SING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; • EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF LOT 2 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON 3Y QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7508200651; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED LINCOLN ?LACE N.E. AND N.E. 41ST STREET (S.E. 83RD STREET) ADJOINING AS WOULD ATTACH 3Y OPERATION OF LAW, AS VACATED 3Y CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2961 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7509120571. PARCEL 3: LOT 3, BLOCE 2, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAEE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 7, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 18, IN ICING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; . TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED LINCOLN PLACE N.E. AND N.E. 4IST STREET (S.E. 83RD STREET) ADJOINING AS WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW, AS VACATED BY CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2961 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7509120571. lN, FLU v C , I 'ZI - ; • --- v.' f ) : Q• I + ,D ` Q S 4 -1 v. i I I . ,'f 0 0 � ins�r a.1 �.. na .1 ' - I l� C r R'=Pr) CT , v •� A I i,, h I i . vt Ai O . �►. ' 1 + ' O {i n '�i' i: i • I 29 1i o 1 V • / * ft ,. ..! O...f.4 vvl ...ti ,314j d 1 Z — - t�s t., •, . s i t.. 4 \I_ OR; A N 1� ` V 0 � j •a �,..A..I. L L j 7.---; , -/-- tir,mi. ,.. .r..u.w ...a rs1 r i �" 24! + .ZIP it :c tans fib $26.41 I ; q _ /h — .\ /O•) • • - REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES THE M . S. CAVOAD CO . INCORPORATED ♦ REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This Agreement of Purchase and Sale ("Agreement") is entered into, for reference purposes, as of July 19 , 1996, between SDA Bros., Inc. and/or assigns ("Buyer") and Oldrych Fryc, Robert F. Mast and Alfred M. Amundsen, Trustees of Pickle-Il Trust Agreement ("Seller"). 1. PARTIES 1.1 Buyer. Buyer hereby agrees to purchase the real property hereinafter described from the Seller upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Buyer shall have the right to assign Buyer's rights hereunder. 1.2 Seller. Seller agrees to sell the real property hereinafter described to Buyer upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 1.3 Escrow Holder. The purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement shall be closed through an escrow to be held by Stewart Title Insurance Co. ("Escrow Holder") at its office located at 1201 Third Avenue, 38th Floor, Seattle, WA. 2. PROPERTY 2.1 The real property("Property") that is the subject of this Agreement is approx. 3.17 I acres of land, located at Northwest corner of S.E. 84th St. and 110th Ave. S.E.., Renton, WA, land is legally described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2.2 If the legal description of the Property is not complete or is inaccurate, this Agreement shall not be invalid, but the legal description shall be completed or corrected to meet the requirements of the Stewart Title Insurance Company (the "Title Company"), which shall tissue the title insurance policy hereinafter described. 2.3 The Property includes, at no additional cost to Buyer, the permanent improvements thereon, including those items which the law of the State of Washington provides is part-of the Property, as well as the following items, if any, owned by Seller and presently located in or on the Property: electrical distribution systems, air conditioning equipment, carpets, window coverings, wall coverings, and all appliances and fixtures located in individual dwelling units and common areas, if any. 2.4 Possession of the Property shall be given to Buyer at the Closing, subject to the rights of existing tenants. ♦ PICKLE2AGM 4739 University\lay Northeast,Suite 1607 (206)524-4848 Seattle,Washington 98105 Fax(206)524-2927 10.10 Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays If the time from performance of any of the terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the time of performance shall be extended to the next business day thereafter. 10.11 Acceptance This offer shall automatically expire if not accepted by Seller on or before July 22, 1996. • SELLER: Oldrych Fryc, Robert F. Mast and BUYER: SDA BROS., INC. Alfred M. Amundsen, Trustees of of Pickle II Trust Agreement �h� Name: C.Q Name: Title: -t/ -TCF Title: C 5 Date: / Date: -?l if 9 i 6 , Name:., d /haif" / Title: 7r-cea 7 /9 Date: � l9lP Name _ if--fA.4-4t-o/-1-z.-- Title: Date: 7//1 /f , A TRUE COPY OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY THE SELLER, IS HEREBY RECEIVED ON , 19 , BY BUYER Buyer: PICKLE2AGM 8 Environmental Checklist F•ECE ©IED DEC 2 4 1996 A. BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING f / CITY OF RENTON 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: W I Ul Zi, 1D I) 2. Name of applicant: �enny(;� ,t V;5t4 +—-1--�- 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Hat-4 celAe-rif 0Y4/44—/6,4( SO4 31-VS 41731 Oil e'er5i��i •thy !v•E 4. Date checklist prepared: �� %� So. f�c'C1 /14Seh 5. Agency requesting checklist: CA/ o7~/�el'rle 1 U�ff��Cj 1ne,11 Serv,Ctrs UiV15/111 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): (n145- r71&f`I t3 • ,PI 7f' 07 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. nv 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. wetko1 5ft/dy 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. no 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Sitt pion eL prai1d 3 vtl dMn el/16 f 11. Give brief, complete description of your/proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. I Ile_ AjtM / 3 6/z 4. / (3.3 uc►e5 Autud- .h l(' Z.u►u,Z� ciantin.644t- ,privttattz.4e•Azi.,‘ 4piaavii41 7-/-eal4 tud /4, u4. tit• „tati ie • fz Environmental Checklist 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ` �o in, ,t SI r I Au_ ,z r ( 3, AIL lklbi t A( if ) ctm,t (i1d dec,'t ite�) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other X •�enfle sIape. `z N,rl�h v✓rl6i rile± le-Pt 4 n mining ale M� e e&sht I wesf freer+y (ite. • b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) ,ff 7 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of,agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. S211 fi /and 5/ / 54/ d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, • describe. AD e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. . ter- .u,�(�a-ucr.�. �'► ../ , 11.y c 62,(-4,a .a:4 �� A rtAir e9trat . f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. I)D. g. , About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project . construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? �0 iedir 3 Environmental Checklist h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to theearth, if any: n rind ere'sten con4vioft 'Surcy eyi a co"4 /-ryc/-i i A , 1 `Sf/f ieaeti Aert alp/leej e fir I 2. AIR - a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, -:odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If .any,-generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. pest 044,44,4it, adt.1 datht/14 -14/1-4:044-1/14 ;61vwx:oitta3 cnyAliin 0-/owiect, b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. fl c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: I - none 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams,saltwater, lakes, ponds,-wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes opeoi b fryer-tie. 3 ens ll bo'7lI47 an I 'Avenue-AvenUe- . 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Caits+r-i et-id A to 1I d CCU r wl�h it, 2430 -�ef q 6 a y i 1z4. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and Indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. nano 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Ditch c(t sh-eawt , aprrx SD�Gt, ov;// be mare/ a ri%. L2O/ (&t 1 / a.ccomo 4/ ro�.cr wale/„7 siltWdeks refvf,-cI'.$y ( y. 5) - Does the proposal lie within a i00-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. nU • 4 Environmental Checklist 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. no b. Ground Water: 1) - Will ground water be withdrawn,.or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. no 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for.example: Domestic sewage;.industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general'size'of.the system;-the.number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. - c. Water Runoff(including storm water): . 1) Describe.the source of runoff. (including storm water)..and.:method of.collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will thiswater flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe.gm , w4/r will AC C//cC/e/, rc/i,re,j and 44e,) relttsd Mid a 3/31erri. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: now.. 4. PLANTS • a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: � deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other CO7tj,i mad/s ra /o X evergreen tree• fir cedar, pine, other 2 shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b/QckAer-r,.1 icni,s b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? a// above. 5 Environmental Checklist c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: I() e.p541. //ti s Oz'k /Ie I .6 or�-cr areas will he re tr cnei. wr/( b J' Ss/cinrt#y /4,I5cueI tv/k /4 / ,frees 5. ANIMALS b li6he6 s-e e Land scd e 214,,, , l a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed.onoor near the site or are known to be on or near the site: (see next page) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbird other - Mammals: deer, bear, elk, ver, other non-e Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other NA.-( b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. none c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain nG d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 46,11,1 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. ,(1� � _` �'� ze b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. l�`d�/ c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 11444141 U 4C 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 6 Environmental Checklist • a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. jif 1) Describe special emergency� services that might be required. • Anse 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? AJ/lint 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:.traffic,-:construction;:operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 11 LITALtiztatin /tint 14l , x Pill 3- 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: .//®4c 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? ,r& /vaca i-/ V ,� 4 - . l�+u Ateiktio 70o ylu-,,- , ytince/4 , g Att 4444/a . -at 4 . Y A 2 t z, , • /moo b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. n c. Describe any structures on the site. . Ale e d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? /1,6 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CA Environmental Checklist • g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 4( 4 . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. D I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? i2 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Am k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 4/4 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: A IT•�� � !1 r1 Yd l �J 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided,t if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 6 2 2 an, 3 liei re in;ielle 07. a e b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. //0ne_ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: ndn.6 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. s-7 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? none c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Sec plaii5 8 Environmental Chec{dist 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Mite b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 06 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? fl0f1. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 77 an IL` 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? % f 59uaic j4zei b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. 170 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including.recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: c--efirid,i4zel o 13. HISTORIC.AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. n6 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. runt c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: rid 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. J See S!-,rid 9 Environmental Checklist b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? �e-5 , itelk uw4 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 13 6 n 4 n 6 d. -Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,-or.improvements_to.existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe.(in�dficate whetther,public or private? Lincoln mcn al: will he �✓iio, / Vile-on 1/ 51 �1rcL e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate .vicinity.:of) water, :rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. n G f. • :.How many vehicular trips per day would be'generated .by the completed.project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. �! ilawn g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: nont 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. no b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. nan-c 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities current! vailable at the site electncit,natural gas orate refuse ervic , lephone sanitary sewe eptic system, lies. 10 Environmental Checklist b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. /�� mUI�4- trim h ;n '005 - rd/ezt uth lilt c C. SIGNATURE. -I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the.•above information is true and . complete. It Is.understood that the:lead agency .may::withdraw. any declaration of non- .• ,significance that it might.issue in reliance upon this-checklist.should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. • Proponent: . _ tat/ Name Printed: > far' (db Date: t x- 7o/e1/0 • • 11 Environmental Checklist D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS .: ese::s.ee s:shou d::�onl �.>a�e:>�sed;�:foc:>:actions::>ari�oly ii'`:'decistons :fln>: olicies:::: lans�°' rid :W:do riti eed ali i`outt.;;ese zhee s. o':.: roect ctlo s; <><><<gi m::: igif <»<> > < program :> You, on. tn.a .to.fl h f r..p � .)..:::::::.::....:.....:..:. .......................... . Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. • . :.:When answering these questions, be aware of the extent.the proposal, or the types of activities : likely.to.result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly.and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to.water;;emissions to air;.production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? .. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,:animals, fish, or marine life are: 3.. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands,flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed'measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 12 Environmental Checklist 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw.any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: REVISED 9/94 • 13 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION octErsrr (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A coadazatzae) PARCEL A: I LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 3, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAXE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO ! SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 7, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, PAGE 18, IN XING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 .FEET OF LOT 2 CONVEYED TO TEE CITY OF RENTON 3Y QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7508200651; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED LINCOLN ?LAC? Y.E. AND N.E. 4IST STREET (S.E. 83RD STREET) ADJOINING AS WOULD ATTACH 3Y OPERATION OF LAW, AS VACATED 3Y CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2961 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7509120571. PARCEL 3: LOT 3, BLOCK 2, C.D. HILLMAN'S LAXE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 7, ACCORDING TO THE ?LAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLATS, ?AGE 18, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; . TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED LINCOLN ?LACE N.E. AND N.E. 4IST STREET (S.E. 83RD STREET) ADJOINING AS WOULD ATTACH 3Y OPERATION OF LAW, AS VACATED BY CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2961 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7509120571. I 1 • 1 Q• ®� At8 d jv. :e 1 t___-_______ • I I J,i:., -' 1r�s�r d 4 ' 7 i a'o ti . r4�� — — ri? S c 4'A Art CT (� gi1 I ;,1• i /,. yy 9 : C • j'' by Y • I ) 2f1 0 , •fAl 4 1 e:,%4 a ! ,o - — a1 , ., r z ,0 T t4 0 11 k �� ti i�� y1y I . `''f�.,-ro , <n I y7 u N% ao 4p 0 i •\ ZS... Ay , , e. t 2 0. �.— 300.4 • • E 0 rM it,•..4.._ ... .r...,.4 .... ,, s ` O 444ci ; /il �' N. /4.7 Project Narrative The proposed development site of 143,612 (3.30 acres) is located on the west side of Lincoln Avenue N.E. with N. 40th Street being the southern boundary. The site is rectangular with its approximate dimensions being 489 ft. along Lincoln and 305 feet along N. 40th. The site slopes gently from south to north and there are three wetlands on the property. One is in the southwest corner, approx. 2400 s.f.; the other two are against the north property line and they are approx. 1094 s.f. and 3079 s.f. The property has no structures on it and was once a mining pit for sand and gravel. The site is currently covered with blackberry bushes and cottonwood trees. No other properties will have any views obstructed by this development. The proposed development will be a 62-unit condominium which will be called Williamsburg. It will be designed to resemble an early Colonial village. The units will be (44) 2-story townhouses over garages on the street level and (18) flats on three levels over garages on street level. There will be 7 buildings containing townhouses. Square footages of these townhouses will be between 1272 and 1468 s.f. There will be two buildings containing flats. Each building will have an elevator. Square footages of the flats will be 1070 and 1194 s.f. The townhouse buildings will be approx. 43 feet high depending on grade and the buildings containing flats will be approx. 57 ft. high. There will be parking for 136 cars, 120 in garages and 16 open spaces. The main entry will be on N. 40th Street midway along the south property line and there will be a 20 ft. wide emergency access road in the NE corner of the property to Lincoln Avenue N.E.. Lot coverage is 25.71%. ECElvE DEC 9 4 1996 DcVELOPIMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Construction Mitigation Narrative Construction should start early June 1997 and be completed by March 1998. Hours of operation will be 7 a.m. to approx. 5:30 p.m., five days a week. The hauling/transportation route to this site will be along Lincoln Avenue N.E. to Exit 7 on Interstate 405. This will be the only ingress/egress route to the site. Sprinkler trucks will be used to prevent dust during grading or any other times when necessary. There will be little or no exporting of dirt. Noise will only occur during normal working hours. There are no noxious characteristics to be mitigated. EEC 9 4 1996 oi„VE_ut'ivicN1 PLANNING CITY OF RENTON 12/24/1996 -11:23 391311 g .M1 . .+ .,., r... - --.. _---.-.Bi4IMA F•OLM>3ERG INC PAGE 04 • ='BAf1YlA 8c HOLMBERG INC. RECEF,,•EP DEC 2 4 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING . CITY OF RENTON DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE REPORT • • FOR • WILLIAMSBURG December 24, 1996 • Bahia&Holmberg lob No. 997-005 cg UP:ER � o• wAs �Q� • Prepared for: ,„ ,z es. Q_ 127.1 • Mark Goldberg . 4,FG` tom 6,- ZONAL • • EXPIRES I1('30! llir 1 • • • 100 FRONT STREET SOUTH •°ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON •-9.027-3817 • (200)092-0250 • FAX(200)391-3055 12/24/1996 11:23 3913055 BAIMA HOLMBERG INC PAGE e•43—, .tift44.: en (") . „I) C4lif Pi -.... _ : L.-...a.V....='............-..••--!-;.-1.-c teg,1401 ../ ..? .. / . , ...., .. , ,.. ; . . /.. . i I 1 )11((tf. 1 ".... ,. . ,- . , . , ,,„,„:,_ ; -,:. • , _ , :. .., , ,, . „, 0.- .3. , . • 1‘.. . 1 -, 0 " - . . ' . ' - ' 1 lb' . f / 3 / / I. I i ( . - / I% k 9 // 0 . /// if.' ! ilti . ........ ..:• .. .........,...0 .1./ .,44.,....,.•.•........//: A,..., .......... .., . T.. .:;. .. C. O. , / -... 4,/ /i - i 4/ t 1.... ....,"'"' / •4. e , i( Ilb, lk) (. . / /1/ i' REN•TON / t lq triitt .') . J / . / b .\ t. *. roitim 1 [ At C $19 ..... . • 0 td.V-,0%\\ 6\ • i Loa‘%'.1 k:,1w1: it:IfiP 4' ' - a :(1APIIP__. _...ridelkiale.ii‘‘ /6-e, :.., .4(4(41144V ...II.. . ie —.7 IW °sr.156 c3 1,11/i. .; 1 ' Ji. .- iff\\ ) t . • i C141 g' 110 ;-, - \ \ . ` n. 4 race '. I \ c(c co i ) „.1117.. Ifl9D!1t \ icii• q t A ' ('-‘4 / Ill 14‘.% kej 11;114 ‘\ IVI(( (i WilivI _ . I " , c 1 ;1( i�,.- , j 1100 7 1 - If 4 , , ► �. . 1 diiilL I Li)) _ a ,c, , i .\ _ 1,k • ,(,,, . 0 • _ • eftirtL, ‘A. I. .l'.. 914/e : > ' a s,�. , , : . , ... \ . \ .: --0 .: _ m,,y7. _ . __-kt? . �� ,„ _ . • A � -12/24/1996 .11:23 .• 3913AF� - - -....- -- - --• BAIMA HGLMBERGNC.INC ' PAGE 86 • . • BAIMA & HOLMBE _- JOS RG, INC. .- • • 100 Front Street South s r►°. of I ISSAQUAH,*WASHINGTON 8027.3817 cciaGo DATE 1 . SCALE 1_ ! _ I __I _. I ' 1 1 t i I ' i i ! I I ciail {' ' 1 I t � ���r.....4 -•.+-• 4�. ..Jr.7r1 A.Y .. 14 , it . .• ..:. �} ; •rl4 i.._.. d.� .......� -�i•- --i--_�'�^ 1 ,fla�4_.. -PI _._,_.. ', , _._.:..S.�i1� r.�..J•.+•_. r�i•• .__._. _ • ! . 1-,-.,.a !'! i i ! i . _ ....r..i ..s _ _ _ � : Y _. . n . 1. M . . _.. I�_ . t.� : 1 L ' i I7 44I Ia . iI _ I , ! - _! - t i i . ..._._t... t ...L....} - :../. .L_ ._f. .k.. j ..._-?� �i1L__� W - Pa r' _' I . 1 I! 1 I i ' 1 C,-.4055 .kik 1 $ , le; rii 1 67- il 1-r-#195 r..0 I_tiAareZ, ' • . , .._.i I .-...i .. * i-,. 3 142)� ram: ! rem J I,�!/_ I 1 i. , !Ai 6Apieriim. /• . . . ..1 .. ___�•._. .._..x -. -- -- • A -_ ite -. . . - _ r ; 1 i ...414:_ ! ! ' .--- i _,..__ - ._.f.�_1_, . ... ' .-._5..H._._i_...._.i-.... L..--_s._...i__ ---. 1�-,J...,... ..i.._. .-{.......-• •_1 i i ! 1 ' i j J I. I I t . i 1 t { I I ', , ! I I I I ' 1 ! i I 1 i 1 ' I i s 1 i i I ' ! T111 11117111 i t 1 1 t • • t _.+_....t....7_1 i 1 I k_i_L+-.....--.1..-....ri______.t.' ...E._ ....1 i _T-.7.7.- ;. , . i. . i . i . i 1.: I , i i . . . i i i i- I - : I i i i 1 i ! 1 - I I t t { i I! ± i •-'•---- .-.-.-.-.. .. ,....__-.� _ n-....Htt y-....r�•-,.. -1.._._..--.._..;_••--1__ .. _I•• 4.-7--1., ftftHffyd t , 1_ 1 _ IIHI !• I . 1 t -I GE0TEC H September 13, 1996 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E.20th St.(Northup Way),Suite 16 JN 96285 Bellevue,WA 98005 (206)747-5618 FAX 747-8561 SDA Brothers, Inc. c/o M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1807 Seattle, Washington 98105 Attention: Mark Goldberg Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Apartments 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Goldberg: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed apartment development to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-3984, dated August 5, 1996. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building-site were explored with 10 test pits that generally encountered medium-dense to dense sand at relatively shallow depths. This soil is suitable for support of the building loads using conventional footings. Some significant grading will likely be done across the site, especially on the eastern side. The non-organic, on-site sand should be suitable for use as structural fill. Vibratory equipment will be necessary for adequate compaction of this soil. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us, if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, •. GOT CH ONSU TANTS, INC. obert Ward, .E. - Associate DRW:ant DEC 7 4 1996 -'A DE1rf� ray.r:;a; rf�d�NIC�O CITY OF RENTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Apartment Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed apartment development in Renton. . The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. We were provided with a 1994 topographic map and a preliminary site plan. Kussman Associates developed these plans, which are dated July 26, 1996. Based on these plans, we anticipate that the development will consist of three 21-unit apartment buildings and one recreation building. Each apartment building will have three stories over one level of parking. Much of the area around the buildings will be paved. Cuts of up to about 20 feet are likely on the eastern side of the site, while fills of up to about 10 feet are likely in the middle or northern portion of the site. Large amounts of soil are also expected to be needed at, or just outside, the eastern edge of the property to fill an existing swale. A new swale will be constructed east of the existing swale. Access to the property will be near the southeastern corner of the property via the newly-constructed North 40th Street that connects to Lincoln Avenue. The storm water detention pond is proposed to be located near the northeastern corner of the property. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is somewhat rectangular in shape and is-located in the northeastern corner of Renton, just east of Interstate 5. The property has approximately 490 feet of frontage on its eastern side along Lincoln Avenue Northeast and approximately 305`feet of frontage on its southern side along the undeveloped right-of-way of Northeast 40th Street. The undeveloped site is generally heavily covered with small, deciduous trees and brush. Tiwo apparently low grade wetlands are located on the northern end of the site where the site elevation is the lowest (about elevation 60 feet). The site generally slopes gently to moderately upward to the south to an elevation of about 90 feet. However, a steep ridge that has an elevation of about 110 feet at the crest is located along, or just off, the eastern edge of the site and just south of the site. Some underground utilities are apparently located just off the southern property line, and a cut through the ridge was obviously made to install the utilities. A storm water swale is located just at, but mostly beyond, the eastern property line, east of the high ridge. This swale is proposed to be relocated so that the entire swale is beyond the property. Subsurface The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 10 test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 2 proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and the time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on August 21, 1996 with a large trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 7. • The test pits generally found sand and silty sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. The sands were loose above these dense layers. In Test Pits 4, 6, and 10, excavated on the side of a steep bank, the loose sand was deeper. In Test Pits 4 and 5, at the northwestern portion of the site, the sands were underlain by hard silt at 7 and 4 feet, respectively. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problern, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. • Groundwater The only groundwater seepage observed in the test pits was at a depth of 7 feet in Test Pit 3 at the northern end of the site. However, the test pits were left open for only a short time period and groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be a significant consideration for this project unless deep cuts are made on the northern end of the site. We would anticipate that the only potential deep cuts in this area would be for utility installation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The test pits encountered sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. This sand is suitable to support buildings that are founded on conventional footings. Structural fill placed over this sand is also suitable for building support. Compaction of the sand will be needed at the footing subgrade level regardless of whether the - sand is native or consists of structural fill. A major geotechnical engineering aspect of this project is the large amount of mass grading needed for the project. Cuts of up to 20 feet are proposed on the eastern side of the site, while fills GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 _ Page 3 of up to 10 feet are likely in the central or northern area. The uppermost soil encountered in the potential cut areas had a significant amount of roots and should not be used as structural fill. Below that, the soil consists of sands that are relatively fine-grained. These types of sand can be used as structural fill, but may require extra compactive effort. Only vibratory equipment should be used to compact these sands. In addition, fine sands are very difficult to compact if they are dry. In the summer months, much water may need to be added to the sand during the compaction process. On the positive side, sands can be compacted during wet weather provided it is not raining heavily and the soil is not excessively wet. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. • Conventional Foundations The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense to dense, native sand or op structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the later sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.- When creating the building pad above the existing ground surface, the outside edge of the structural fill should begin at a distance from the building that is equal to the height of the fill beneath the building. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent, native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 10 feet in thickness, will be about one inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing. - Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the following • design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 4 Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf . Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S2.. The soils are not subject to seismic liquefaction. Slabs-on-Grade The building floors may be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop competent native soil. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine-grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. We recommend proof-rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof-rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls-that restrain level backfill: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 5 Parameter Desitin Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 120 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads; such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The on-site sand that meets this recommendation can be used as backfill. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled with pervious soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 6 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. Excavations and Slopes Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand can cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential. for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled.over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Drainage Considerations We recommend the use of 'footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all backfilled, earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch- minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as _ the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage.• GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. 1SDA Bros JN 96285 jSeptember 13, 1996 Page 7 iAll roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 8. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Some groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. Pavement Areas All pavement sections may be supported on competent, native spil or structural fill, provided these soils can be compacted to a 95 percent density and are in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Structural fill or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non-woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be 'required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill-beneath pavements are given in a later sub- ...., ' section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. ' The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4.inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas; such as landscape beds. _ Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 8 optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The-following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: • Minimum Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in the test pits is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. _ Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SDA Brothers, Inc. and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 ,September 13, 1996 Page 9 standards of practice within.the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No 'warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to ;construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the ;contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in ;our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. '.The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map i 6 Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 7 Test Pit Logs Plate 8 Footing Drain Detail . GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. 1 SDA Bros JN 96285 ' September 13, 1996 Page 10 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ;,�'Qv,ERT Asb. ,,, •q•, j �0 t'2`� fr �/f o� .,, zmao p �j tr ZONAL E� .,c (EXPIRES L -V- D. Robert Ward, R P.E. Associate James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal DRW/JRF:ant cc: Kussman Associates • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • 'r 4, i '-' '` `�I � �� ,c55; its` 1i ". :• ' j�N7,--:M1: Wj••W. - C SF 44v Srt' 7 S li O I a N�+vS ,We='�3--�+•oY -_q•g ��::ivii 5qA 1 SE prn T u;N='' Q,, _ _ =�E 7Ji ¢ ii SE ` . I WC5� G- .-Sa..iVI° 7 _ iE ;r6 o In /• 7:ir 5._ .�? ti•yy �L LW ~ 74 rur �,� R rzm srr=,a9 �' t3 PL 5 O7 •;,ee' '> -{ NAIELw00D rJPO co�r/.Zle I ^;C^' 7 RO 5>pa =s:Tetoel7cCi . 3. a.5`J' Q5cqNW�v"i J' `�'�� /,� S:' :.`• < ..s° - 5 SEAii 1 ..•f l� a-. _ SE 75� P .�, _ Yj., nro' _ - O Y. 5_7iN Z.' - _ F� rr ' _ i 2. c 3�t'•� 1. SE f75TH PL LAK4�a� 11447-' --_ -�" _ l l'- 'E, '3 9 - N5 e ^j = T`,t;^ 5`,9,. B4REN/ STd -` -0' s� `. II 43Re Y =.:&1 ncn sr ear sr o N X'c"wPL J� ^' �� ^ iio 0 -Cry` Bi'' y �.• '1 �'':1 .- .z UO -- h N P! ::.•U .1 u t. - [ 4: N 40TH sr ['4 asrJ /27a :I.. iE -- i Mm 5,c," 1i y°3.V / ` 1300 m . I '� 0,'Y se asrr -- / _ �' N Sc N 38TH ST :y ¢S �`,1 t, s: =e:"sr \ PC i7, r < , A 3 TH $f ��•J.at.�. Jr„ SE 3rTM ST A:, CA sir > • .L, o >✓ it Bin, �^ ••-,,KSYNYGICE p 3oTH '� sr ¢ ^ NE 36THra SE • - ,Cr ST ... BEACH PARK - 3 ST 1 'LOCO r• ��, g 'P,^ R 1111 35TH ST o J \A ^� �; 89TH ST �l9op 89r" >P t ery - Nk .,a ir.- c h 34TH a> ST `r c°`-K. Q��pt • :-'•c '_r'..:_p(_\ S- u { q 90TH ST = t 33RO PL „.t.-MAY sue•:. _ r L: SE 'a915T CREfK, ',��ry°x'` j tl 33R0 ST n ♦�� J SE 8 122C0 "'-> ':;PK=: N �: sE 92N0 ST LEWAfI 7C0 .. N p .:, 'OfP/T N' 31ST ST �' , HE 31ST Sr oil ,a v� h< ) ( . x-- •; N 30TH ST I. r :CREEK f Ito S,,.l i''5' Xt` -• '"t MAY c SE= 93• �;:. :? ,, MY,,...._ ^+,:5_"t 7C0 1300 •RK' ��'7i �Lt. •`.'*'• s• "'. ,,..,.tee PI 29TH STD �, ° n _ ' :t.-. :+.�C' •:S:c j'l`°95�Y1�� �...:+•-' �s - � e �Lyra�:.':�:_�...... .y G ..Fu' t>:+:.'.'1 ,•.r,•�'. ,---'� y N 28TH PL N :: ❑ ',� .': .' y .�y.: s�ii'�'^ �i - s:oa o -- 1 NE 28TH ST . .V; _ q S� — •i XF tt _ZST�—- Sr —_ n --- IT 27TH ST T • r•^ ' M'TC SE 95 rN P_ N S� - ' 2100 E -H-t ivy act J v SIERRA �/9 Cr r �� J' L> sE 9;' sr HEIGHTS p '1� 25fiI sr :-'•"" Q w _> .` ::.:' r PARK ❑ - E-25 -� s ia. H Sr, - w .'�'KfiblYD :E e D3ri sr • tom' Lki!' o` s ' `I _24rH 'iT- w � � � ��� - �� > 1700 =;TEN 3 RO PL W , - 1\ - $ . E r . "l 102ND ' S CN 2Vi° 2 0 i ' ,,r3 t IS_ `IJ3°^•-'ST' = - ^' r „' C i'- Z '.. > z N• 22t10 ST : 4 n N ,,'SE INN - o LL , x 5 NE 21ST ST',J < o 3 �� 4oa ii t29co sr ,;,II/i_ ®�' - :Llir sr C•P•c s- OSr., r=---'_' (Z 20TH - :3.sr N_ zi.y O '°n 1700 u i 2308 NE 20. Sr og. y t�Q .:•. sr g WaoS� larvL- �_ NE 13 ti Sr 5® cStt�_ _ r a �9�1 i`. f l•'H' w a •.e:.+ NE NORrH= '\''�� �L�T`'.'t. 6TH STD di70 YN z t3• ST HIGHLANDS ,T.,y :'k,.,. co > *:•• r. Y =PAR.(•.. >;Q S'( °: r�N •i A,f- ^ G Y 7` i;� c 16Ty' NE sr °< = so 17TH U • \��.�= •E I>.-.St = to BOAT LAUYCH• I':?9:i: 2400 L/PLGD ¢�5�' �1.----_i_ET • NE '5,70 4 Jai cY k> C . O ¢ ,y_11;N 'El ,\ � :i-+I'+ o rl_ u J Z 1,_, _ >[ ST , �'/' :EL.+tip '�`• .-:_ 14rH! S ST o c�'I--11rn PL ,grn-- .¢ ? u • NE tar+ Sr \: �c, / GfYE,:.CO .N = "O F l •r: nn+ sr „�.. 'z '�� . MFMORIACi%, 1. o '�' rld.� �.'` - _ 5 ✓/ `BEAUI;PAg. tIE 12TH o Si NE `® 12TH ST .---rj7". r v 2 0 vuu, PO `• � lOT T4: t caa, PL / >1111:1". r. , ' Nrr�,.m W 33C9 't:a c{' / d \"' NE IOTH �-•v > > z AE i„M o Rim. tons LAUNCH ` // `/�. RfGE F^ .� ®4. i�.''. < C �, CT VICINITY MAP,__ -tA GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS RENTON, WA 9 __ Job No.' Doter Logged By: Role, � -0„x.r-rR,,,- 96285 SEP 1996 1 g TP-4 TP-3 A A I , I , TP-2 A PROPOSED BUILDINGS ATP-5 w z TP-1 I m A w a TP-7 Z 0 TP-6 0 0 F, A Z_ • J 7 TP-8 A TP-.10 A TP-9 / . LEGEND: I - - ® APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS t\N 40th STREET (PROPOSED) SITE EXPLORATION PLAN _ GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS RENTON, WA Job No.+ Dale: Plate � �'_ - 96285 SEP 1996 2 S • 0 • TEST PIT 1 JS 4o1y°�°�� USCS Description ! 0 _ Topsoil over: Tan, slightly silty SAND, fine-grained, moist, dense • -becomes silty, wet, less dense 5 _ sP sM -becomes less silty, medium-grained 10 — . _ Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. ;15_ No caving. I n TEST PIT 2 ,c 4 • 0 4G° USCS Description Tan SAND with traces of silt, fine- to medium-grained,moist, _ medium-dense (roots to 12") • _ ( -becomes gray, less silty,.medium-grained — :tsP 5 — 110 _ — Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No•groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. — No caving. 15_ I ' • TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA �� Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: • 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 3 • TEST PIT 3 • • ,c) USCS Description 10 Gray SAND, medium-grained,a few roots, moist, medium-dense i5 • -becomes saturated 110 Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. Slight groundwater seepage was encountered at 7 feet during excavation. Caving below 7 feet. 15 rt TEST PIT 4 4 a q USCS Description 0 — Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moist,loose heavy roots to 2',light roots to 5.5' I _ SP i 5 — -becomes more silty, medium-dense Gray SILT intermixed with compressed peat lenses, medium-plastic, _ MLI moist, hard 10 — • _ Test pit terminated at 10 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15— No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. • Slight caving above 5 feet. ' TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 4 TEST PIT 5 0 0 G° USCS Description Tan SAND, traces of silt, fine- to medium-grained, moist, dense SP 5 _ WI l I Tan SILT with some sand and gravel, low to medium plasticity, ML very moist, hard 10 _ Test pit terminated at 6 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation.. No caving. 15._ TEST PIT 6 4 0 ° USCS Description Tan SAND, traces of silt, many organics to 2 ', slightly moist, loose 5 — -becomes gray, medium- to coarse-grained, medium-dense SP • .. 10 _ — -becomes gravelly 15 Test pit terminated at 15 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Slight caving above 5 feet. TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 41 00 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 5 • TEST PIT 7 $. •�y~. 4 00� i q 4G° • USCS Description 0 — Tan, very silty SAND,very fine-grained, moist, dense • — -becomes gravelly, very dense 5 — -many intermixed boulders — ;ISM -no gravel, becomes dense - 10 _ Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15- No groundwater seepage was encountered during'excavation. No caving. TEST PIT 8 0 0 G° USCS Description Tan, slightly silty SAND, some gravel, fine-grained,.moist,loose, ....' roots to 18" SP I ®> • 5 -becomes medium-dense,-some boulders 9988 -becomes silty, wet, medium-dense to dense ON 10 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. 15 No caving • TEST PIT LOGS • GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 6 r ` TEST PIT 9 ck 0 4G° USCS Description . _ Tan, very silty, very fine-grained SAND,wet, medium-dense,roots to 18" _ -lens of gravelly sand ISM 5 _ -becomes less silty, very wet to saturated 10 — Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. • — No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. — No caving. 15— ' TEST PIT 10 heci/e USCS Description 0 Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moist, loose,heavy roots to 2' -becomes gray, moist, medium-dense 5 _ sP � 10_ 15_ Test pit terminated at 13 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Some caving throughout. TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE .41/ CONSULTANTS, INC. " RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 7 • Slope backfill away from foundation. \ - ` ` ✓ TIGHTL/NE ROOF DRA/N Do not connect to foo/ing drain. e , BACKF/L L See /ex/ for n VAPOR BARR/ER requiremen/s. SLAB WASHED ROCK p.° 'o' ��;; ,(;; .,`;.; 4"min. 6 o FREE-DRAINING • NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE • SAND/GRAVEL FILTER FABR/C • 4"PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Inver/ al feast as /ow as fooling and/or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place weepho/es downward. • • FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL • GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS RENTON, WA 'A _ i __ Job No.: Dole: Seale: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 N.T.S. 8 ************************** ************************************* City of Renton WA Reprinted: 12/24/96 12 :41 Receipt *******r******************************************************** Receipt Number: R9606832 Amount : 2, 502 ; 56 12/24/96 12 :41 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #1553 SDA BROS Init : LN Project # : LUA96-164 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 2, 502 . 56 This Payment 2, 502 . 56 Total ALL Pmts : 2, 502 . 56 Balance : . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 2, 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 2 . 56 RECEWED DEC 2 4 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT• WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT • • T a- . ).Sit... 1671 • [_-II Prepared For: THE M.S. CAVOAD COMPANY Seattle, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington October 13, 1997 EXHIBIT • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS 1 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS . 2 3.1 Goals and Objectives 2 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation 3 3.3 Construction Management 4 3.4 Monitoring Methodology 4 3.5 Success Criteria 5 3.6 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) 5 3.7 Performance Bond 6 3.8 As-Built Plan 6 LIST OF FIGURES • Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Existing Conditions Map LIST OF DRAWINGS W1.01 Wetland Mitigation Plan - Grading Plan W2.01 Wetland Mitigation Plan -Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Details, & Notes S1.01 Stream Relocation.Plan -Grading Plan S1.02 . Stream Relocation Plan -Details and Notes S1.03 Stream Relocation Plan -Details and Notes S1.04 Stream Relocation Plan - Clearing Limits . S2.01 Stream Relocation Plan -Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Details & Notes _ WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT October 13 , 1997 1.0 INT RODUCTION A wetland inventory and delineation was conducted on the Williamsburg Condominium Development site in the fall of 1996. The property is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). Three wetland areas (totaling approximately 6,790 s.f. on-site)and a stream were delineated on the property (Figure 2). A description of each of these sensitive areas is provided in the Wetland Delineation and Study Report(February 7,. 1997) prepared by Talasaea Consultants. The delineation report was submitted to the City of Renton in February of 1997 as part of the site plan review package. The Williamsburg Condominium Development consists of construction of a 62-unit condominium project. 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS • All of Wetland C, the highest value wetland on the site, and most of Wetlands A and B will be preserved following construction. The proposed project does, however, require impacting 1,271 s.f. of Wetland A and 80 s.f. of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,351 s.f. (Drawing W1.01). This wetland impact would occur in an area proposed for construction of a biofiltration swale. Approximately 362s.f. of impact will occur as a result of direct fill due to grading of the swale. The remaining 989 s.f. of wetland impact will occur from an insufficient buffer (i.e., less than 25-foot minimum), and will not be•physically impacted. The proposed project requires relocation of a portion of the stream located along Lincoln Avenue NE (Drawing S1.01). This stream relocation is necessary due to a City of Renton requirement for improvements to Lincoln Avenue NE. The existing stream channel is too close to the road and has caused unstable conditions to occur along Lincoln Avenue NE. ,Fish are not present within the stream channel immediately adjacent to the project site. A perched culvert that prevents fish passage is located down-stream and off- site to the north. Fish passage immediately up-stream of the site is also blocked by a large, recently constructed birdcage structure and a series of long culverts. Since the down-stream perched culvert is located off-site and is not within the project limits, stream channel modifications will not occur in this area. However, if the perched culvert is modified in the future to allow for fish passage, the amount of habitat made available for fish use would be minor due to the impassable birdcage structure located immediately south of the site. Williamsburg Condominiums 1 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt • - o" gz 6 TH= A AlSE 70TH ST 0 '<`57 _ice ['. I PARK w j P :i H' - '` _ rn At. ) SE 12ND= - =( s S , -Pe •I! !'is HAZELWOOD -- $T PL 1 '0 1 c�r�'< © ls;/ i 'ti si '�' i . PK . >.9. SE 72ND PL ` �. oK =sr e sr j c" ,xe Sor7�. n .LAND RI H E;- . i °�� SE 'DD a I�- ' - r rfTH ST w 'SE `/' C i .w SE 75THr ,Ssf nrH crc�SE 76'H / ;% 4' = FE = I o!4 31 ST ti' r�4 N£ ��< 5^.,.. - :3T _'E. ld 5'^78TN ':I` �9.. 6, LAVE ST ' '} _ SE_` 1sc r �E 9r.. �t 5,_ C.- ��� BEACH f •' N 43RD 1 I SE n 80TH 7;Tr. ST�" ST -= [susE• PARK ' L_Nis LNS FE7G`ti 6�D��ST- ; f�f .OJ GT PLo w -•- 11200 11600 -E 5D7 _ 51T :� �_ �p S oo s' ' - s2H� A Y � .ti �o�Q�j� / 4-05 --I II? SE 1 O S I IA 6 i. I E 84TH N 40TH ST 'i'> d1 ;1! --- -- u r II II �� ) /' 1300 U • AVALON / / II •f A< 1'::I: - .`' m 31/ ` 38TH ST w •o . f: � / / i z 3 F SE ?ET sr xl .. s Q" c 1 i 0 — SE 2, / j N 37TH ST > I 7 •' f sE 3Ti.. ST __57"'sr-'1 `I L' "~ K£NNYDAL£ ' ST < (� i 1?-1 ," , sE t� � ' BEACH PARK 36TH 3. 1 f • 00 36TH w tiZ 1600 -rE-\ e ST I S / 35TH ST 11I w l' ti w JI ST e 34TH a ST I( < > Je a<titi ,1 S 89TH ST //• 33RD PL • II = -.- 90TH ST 77/ POIPT j = - 7 Ti33RD ST R g :`c NE 33RD ST' SE 91ST I '" 92ND S / t 32ND = 11 i ^ 1 COLEMAN POW L. / 700 31ST ST b'1'I�0 ` N •3150 Sr : �aA s'„ ti > II N 311TH a ST I;� mar CREEK SE= 93� } 700 N 29TH ST o 1300 !'I�m' RK t1P�'_ 9���f�E N 28TH PL , !; r' NE 28TH ST- 1 .v•;e..r_ f LAKE -�� 7T 27TH ST --- ' \ 27TH - E 27ry G > rl 7 2100 i ,9• -F N 2oTH ST< - z < LA D Z tiro- -�`,` 00 W ~ KLIONS E N:�'24I$,TH ST > N 24TH •' ®��\i PiRK ST Iw4SHINGTON i 170D <®I3RD - >- I R. EN N'_.- NE �� 3RD ST s 3 •+ N, 22ND 00 \ z f.! 5 NE usr sTw : 2uiD sr cos ��_ '.1,:sr ' ti N< STC S� Z 10�N ( 1700E 20TH = `I2300 NE 'Hsiilp s 0E S< :?'" vE > > NE "H ST 1 3r' i w a= NE IS' NDRTH N_ I .. CO :' z ec Q a NE ST HIGHLANDS > > va 4 PARK fe .G 1 Q P, - < ISry -at .41611b, O. BOAT LAG. H I i Li' � t2 2400 1PLGDr NEy �.r Q O � � Z. u. 1 j '�14TH i, c ST c a'NEc 3TH PL E 'S < W N `� o CO �, <N W NE 13TH IB�' �` „6 HENORIAL .•`: _ _ )0 <°112TH S ,G\ BEACH PARK NE 21002TH c 25,0 _ SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial .Edition Ia45 • ,I, ,11, . North • DE51614. DRA6•A! �I�, FIGURE I: Location Map AO Ill: TALASAEA SGALE ' ONSULTANTS WIIUamsburg Condominium - N.T.S. DATE Resource d Environmental Planning • Development - 2_rJ_� 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast 1-`. `206)86i-1550 Fax 06)866i-1549 Renton, Washington REVIseD - r""me".."."m"'"".mm".."" Il"....""u"..."'"""'""..""lm."' "'"'"°'"""'""""" oisr T-171-7 l'-•.:-// -"V;/ _r____,_=77---77:=.—______ ___.= - '.--- .'---,........._ -----;-2 -•"..-2- .::,.... /z L w z //,' ,P. [ (( (0`) ?6' 0 - / 1 . 1 ,A :-_-_-_ , — -----,--=_-_--,--:,---,-_-__ ---.__, -/,;, . // 1 N ) z/ ,N, „. _jI . \\o 1 - „ /c › , , \ F, .I I . f , II , ' 4' 1 ii f '''-' I v,--:7N76 -7-7- ."----- - -• — — — - L L.2__ )) ' x m -0 \ ) Ir 1 ) 1 / ,1 V/ & \\ \\\ \ <o ° ( / l )� - l\� III IrE/ * , R \ \ .41 ,✓ 11 P k:... \, 1\v J ✓" — l )1 \ \III1IIIIII1I1IIIIIIi� -E 1EEEoth �., / /� ; ...:�,vtii II11I1111f I \ 111 I II I �� EE ;,oz ) ♦f / / 1 : .; \ \ ' I , — • ,/ ( \ \ � IIII 11 1 C)-, ` \\ \ \ \ } II II r \ 01\ 11 .` \ II II I I 11 }\1 11 111/ //// / I1II III1IIlllljl � i,� v � \ 1 1I1I \1\\ \ , _ \ / v / j' qi , zz/ // x :,:, � �/ 1A / / i ) / 1I111I / / ,' 7. Jill, l ( / / k, \ \ __, I1 11 \// / , /A J/ I ¢' \ \ `/ 40::fat,f. L /, � - \ l I 1II II I\ IIk/0.„:•;::.:::g..!/:.::;.:.::;:kfi:))7/// //j// //' ifig1 I� i/r I ) i/ — ,\ „iiiii / _"_ / \` � gII ICI $ / : ; :: / A /j /%- D — � \ I111IIII• 4 -. ,,j / � : I / // /// iI I� / / / I ,. IT . 4 . / ,, ; ;,)1) � I,. / : � / / I _ I ° '` : ��- f / / , ,HI± 1 11� , II I I II11 r— ' /: :j I I S / //1/// / Z / _ \ \ I I 'ill I Pil I I / I \ II I I III // Ill11 1� / // I � � \ � \ I1 � 1 I1� z /�: IIIIIlII // . — \ ( / \ \ 1111111 ,►� / ,. i i I 1 \ \ s 1111111111111 I Obi I I I ) —ti° \ / 1 \\ \ I}II `I11{IIIII I E / .� I -\\ 1 1\ I1 i >>1 111' / Mi' /111 1 11// / ! VI ' / _D.— �„ 0 t I I I 111 I1 // /�� /l J / �II / 1I t.... I I //1 Ili l I Nr1 ` \ \ \ , // / ,I 11}11111 • ? tril, 11 .::. I I$ /I 11 1/,/1r / _�.— _ \\\\ \ \�� \/ / / „ III III I o -- . Ills .: 1 1�\ l/ Illl�� 1 --, \ \\\ ��� \--- -. ) � y /III ���l j l j �, I cj \ ` �� ���%, � z 1II 14 ��� ,, / ,Noy / / �--._ _ _�\� ,—_y- uidil�. r i �i.` �1 ///// /1//` / / E E E 4 1 / / / 1�� -. l F"3 I / I . . \/ / * E E E a5 -i2P>o � 11 :. ��1 „ / 11/l • E E • / I 1.. RI co> i ( / Y \ \///( \� \\ / 1 ZE�AF E�E.1 •/' jo r 2 ! . / )1 ,_--,--__________=-___ \ \\ / / ' ''-'7 .1-4' . . dIU ' 041 ------.--'----=-)--\ ) \ ( / / 1 .-D_'-ui N ; • - • rii - ? O (Af o CD La p-3 0 • ! (, i ' t. I 0 a o m / \ I 1FI 111 ' LJ3 fl 1 o, . 11 rri z r r u) . 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS Drawings depicting the wetland mitigation and stream relocation are attached to this report (Drawings W1.01-W2.01 and S1.01-S2.01).- Mitigation for the 1,351 s.f. of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,554 s.f. (1.15:1 • replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation and as•approximately 1,080 s.f. of wetland enhancement. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 • wetlands are combined to create a larger, higher value wetland area. Wetland creation will occur between Wetlands A and B, on the east side of Wetland A, and on the north side of Wetland B. Portions of Wetlands A and B will be enhanced with minor grading and planting. As part of the plan, the 25-foot wetland buffer will be enhanced with berms and supplemental plantings to give additional protection to the wetland system. In order to minimize impacts associated with the stream relocation during road construction, the existing flows will be temporarily tightlined (see Civil Drawing 1 • "Temporary Bypass for Stream Relocation") to the existing culvert on the north end of the existing channel. The new channel will then be constructed and flows will be introduced into the new channel after it has stabilized over the winter. The new stream channel has been designed with a reduced gradient of 4-7% to decrease velocities during storm events. The new stream corridor will be enhanced with native plantings and the installation of large woody material (both in-stream and along the riparian edges). The enhancement measures are expected to significantly improve the aquatic and riparian habitat. 3.1 Goals and Objectives Goal l: Relocate approximately 220 linear feet of stream channel along Lincoln Avenue NE to increase the stability of the stream channel and to accommodate road improvements. Objectives: • 1. Widen the stream channel to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities. 2. Reduce bed load movement and channel erosion by placement of 2"-12" rough rock, plantingof native riparian vegetation, and installation of in-stream structures P 9 , within the channel and along the streambanks. Goal 2: Replace wildlife habitat lost due to stream relocation. Objectives: 1. Place three log weirs in the stream channel to create pools for aquatic habitat enhancement. 2. Plant native riparian and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and - structural diversity. Williamsburg Condominiums 2 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt 3. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, and nesting boxes) within the riparian corridor (above 100-year storm level) to enhance habitat value. - Goal 3: • Replace•lost functions due to direct fill of 362 s.f. and buffer encroachment of 989. s.f. of forested wetland, for a total wetland impact of 1,351 s.f. (0.03 acres). Objectives: . • 1. Create a larger wetland system by connecting two Class 3 isolated wetlands (A & B). . 2. Simulate pre-construction wetland hydrology by supplying the existing and created wetlands with rooftop runoff, treated stormwater, and surface runoff from • the swale behind Buildings 5 & 7. 3. Plant native wetland and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity. 4. Plant the biofiltration swale with shade tolerant emergent grasses and shrubs to provide an enhanced wetland buffer. 5. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) in the wetland and buffer areas to increase habitat value. 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation In order to accomplish the goals and objectives for this project, the following components have been incorporated into the design of the mitigation plan; • Relocation, as proposed, will result in a less incised stream channel over what currently exists. The mitigation plan includes raising the exit culvert about six feet, thus flattening the gradient and increasing streambed and streambank stability. • As many existing trees as possible will be retained within the relocated stream • • corridor and existing wetland areas. In addition, dense riparian vegetation (both deciduous and evergreen) will be planted along the streambanks and within the stream buffer to create a shaded canopy to moderate any potential temperature and humidity changes resulting from the relocation. Since the existing stream is north-flowing (low aspect to sun), has an 8% average gradient (relatively steep), is ( deeply incised, and only extends a distance of slightly over 500 feet, it appears that measurable increases in temperature will be unlikely. Furthermore, during the summer when the sun angle and ambient air temperatures are the highest, there is little or no stream flow at the surface (i.e., any flows are subsurface where effects from solar warming would probably be negligible). • Following on-site detention, runoff from most of the impervious portions of the site will be routed through a biofiltration swale for treatment. Treated stormwater leaving the biofiltration swale will be released to Wetland B. A portion of the rooftop runoff from the site will be routed to Wetlands A and C after detention to replicate pre-construction hydrologic support. Surface runoff from the swale behind Buildings 5 & 7 will be routed into Wetland A. Surface flows from Wetland A will extend through the mitigation wetland area into Wetland B. Williamsburg Condominiums 3 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan - October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt • As part of the wetland mitigation plan, the bioswale will be planted with native woody and herbaceous plants. By integrating the landscaping of the bioswale with that of the enhanced wetlands and buffers located north of the swale, it is anticipated that an overall benefit to wildlife habitat will be achieved. . • Minor impacts to Wetlands A and B are proposed to allow for optimal use of the site by incorporating integration of stormwater facilities (i.e., biofiltration swale) into the wetland and buffer area. The possibility of creating stormwater facilities between the two wetlands was evaluated, but it was determined that by creating a wetland connection between the two wetlands and placing the biofiltration along the south side of the wetland system, a better ecological solution was achieved.• • Construction of the wetland mitigation plan and stream relocation will be sequenced in conjunction with site and road construction. During road construction, the relocated portion of the existingstream will be temporarily p Y tightlined (see Civil Drawing 1 "Temporary Bypass for Stream Relocation") into the existing culvert on the north end of the existing channel. The new channel will be constructed and flows will be introduced into the new channel after it has been stabilized with native plantings and large woody material. 3.3 Construction Management Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the mitigation areas, the clearing and construction limits will be staked, grade staking will be completed, and fencing will be installed around all existing vegetation to be saved. A pre- construction meeting will be held at the construction site to review and discuss all aspects of the project with the selected contractor. Talasaea will supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any significant modifications to the design that may be necessary due to unforeseen site conditions will be jointly approved by the City of Renton and Talasaea Consultants prior to their implementation. 3.4 Monitoring Methodology As required by the City of Renton, the monitoring program will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the following schedule: • quarterly for the first year following construction • annually (at the end of the growing season) for the second through fifth years Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist from Talasaea Consultants. Williamsburg Condominiums 4 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation and restoration areas. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo-point locations will be shown and described in the first • monitoring report. • Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates which are readily observable (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs.• The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 3.5 Success Criteria Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the • basis of both percent survival and percent cover of desirable species. Undesirable species include exotic and invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, morning glory, Japanese • knotweed, and creeping nightshade. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Success for herbaceous species will be based on an 80% cover of desirable plant species by the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Undesirable plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover. Removal of these species will occur immediately following the monitoring event in which they surpass the 20% maximum coverage. Removal will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval• by the City. 3.6 Maintenance(M) and Contingency(C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation and restoration project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and objectives of the plan (C) • re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) Williamsburg Condominiums 5 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt • line wetland areas with impermeable material where hydrology is deemed to be insufficient to support the desired wetland plant community. Where appropriate, liners may be installed immediately upon completion of grading to increase probability of wetland success (C) • irrigate with a temporary system for at least one full growing season following plant installation (M) • after consulting with City staff- minor excavation, as needed,'to correct • alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) • remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other . measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) • clean-up trash and other debris (M) • • clear or repair trash racks, culverts, etc. (M) _ • selectively prune woody plants to meet the plan's goals and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M) • introduce fine materials into the streambed (e.g., natural silt or silty sands from a site certified to be clean of contaminants) if stream water is lost through pervious soils in the relocation area. V 3.7 Performance Bond A performance bond will be posted with the City by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings-and the 5-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation and restoration plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the 5-year monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 3.8 As-Built Plan Following completion of construction activities, a revised set of"as-built" plans for the wetland mitigation and restoration area will be provided to the City of Renton. The • plans will identify and describe any City-approved changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. Williamsburg Condominiums 6 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313m it4.rpt I ' • • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT Prepared for: The M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way NE Suite 1607 Seattle, Washington 98105 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 October 13, 1997 LuA• q(o • t'.4' , sr4 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT ram` ""s t' r. f-"6 F� `,I l,•'•.11. "' - s «i it "a Plea•'1.^..�. tFe `{ ',t f/i�i:uv' L,�'•eSY 1 Prepared For: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Bothell, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington February 7, 1997 • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT i WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT Prepared for: Kussman Associates PO Box 1705 Bothell, Washington 98041-1705 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 February 7, 1997 Table Of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY 1 3.1 Background Data Reviewed 1 3.2 Field Investigation 2 4.0 RESULTS 2 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 2 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions 3 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4 5.1 Description 4 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands 4 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams 5 5.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts 5 References List Of Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3: Soils Map Figure 4: Existing Conditions Map Figure 5: Site Plan Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Data Sheets for Routine On-site Determination Method WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT February 7, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland inventory and delineation on an approximately 3.3-acre site located in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The site is proposed for the construction of a 62-unit condominium development. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the property, 2) identify wetland impacts from the proposed development, and 3) describe measures which will be implemented to mitigate wetland impacts from the proposed development. Information in this report will be utilized by the City of Renton and any other concerned agencies to evaluate impacts to wetlands on the project site. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The property appears to have been historically used as a gravel mine, but is currently forested. It is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 32, Township 24N, Range 5E, W.M.). Surrounding properties consist primarily of a mixture of single family residential and undeveloped areas. Topography on the site generally slopes down from south to north. However, the eastern and western portions of the site slope sharply down to the east and west respectively. Much of the topography on the site appears to have been significantly altered during the historic gravel mining activity. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the subject property involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, and (if present) the extent of their boundaries (see Field Investigation section below). 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Renton, Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988 • King County Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, 1973 • City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Map, 1991 • Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S., Wetland Determination Report, Aug. 14, 1995 1 < C ...... 6�TH x \ ,`\ " A �I SE 70TH ST 0 \ 1 El1 IF PARK W P °7 0 ) \' 7 r o a'S i Z SE 72ND =I ST T %a ,0 .� " „'L�� - ¢ it j�'�jIST ST p� R H , 30 a c d71r s I l :S .. 'Pe 1' $`I. HAZELW00D ova T. SE 72ND PL ^' ` 1 s�'�,.,5 1 �� %I �j `�ar,5 S ,��. f /;% fiTH ST :c�SE i7 S, O .�"i 5 75TH- _ cS'fre 77TH r^ SE 76 ' =P� J'0'SlyaL / '/� 1 a S�^__v=-.�r._I y •1187N 4. Is7 � �E. ..._, 1H r� (,� "RICE • / > •I STD' ', r sE ` "0 r, 1 ,,;,, `' Q' BEACH SE 9TH 7-ISLAND ST..Q\' �� PARK N 43RD ' 'SE=N 80TH 79TH ST • ST LEWIS EN HEIGHT',09 • S7 pL o ' s = - 11200 11600 ,^ 5E SOT 5� ST En E. o▪ ffPROJECT 51 T :� ___ YD P'�tiN� �P� 405 �! SE sa P Q ` S _� Y �D Sll�j e° r N 40TH ST i i? f +I1 ""I E--- �_ H '�11 rn AVALON / 1300 11 AIU� F EK y I z i' J _ y c'e T/7, m S� 31 N 38TH ST } z 3 S '(s' SE BSTH ST �' ! 1 �y` >`s, �•rQ� N 37TH sT n ' 1 'I ,114�o , SE B7TH ST m 87T••sr SE v.' 1 4-d 1 KENNYDALE 36TH S7 ¢ 1 , ^ 36TH ^" a x7 CT i SE � BEACH PARK ,34 l i �' h 11600 E o 357H S7 j I r AO N 4 Il ST a 34TH a' ST 11 a J'�Ah,1, �i 89TH 5T 1 TH POINT = 33RD PL o i I o -ki"•� __; 90TH ST 33RD ST 2 o •I 7 ENE 33RD ST'-: SE sE 1ST T e ST< •) ~ 92ND S 32ND 1, �_ a COLEMAN { 700 ^ c " POINT { 31ST STt O; i�� NF 315T Sr F ^$� �� N 1 N oTH a ST 2� MAY ; CREEK' SE;9310 \00 w 29TH ST o 1300 (11 jie fe RK. hp�=.k s,..i. im 28TH PL /I li Li r1' NE'... 28THf ST \lz :,..,.,..;';''`:_ _ LAKE * �, _�T1i-_-�� _ J NC 27TH --- 2100 TH ST —'•. ; ,1 7 —w .H 1 4 N 26TH sT 7 i W ;1' z w ` o I w "' ;_i':KENNYD•LEz :Lt-f6TH ST ‘'! o -3:t'' LIONS N_24TH IMO ;;I. w ® i scan ,mr.� ST :.::r ®� 3RD PL IvASHINGTON - '� �� � >- i s , EN N *�' NE C 3RD ST \ 22ND 00 1 \'?". +%`.`_.. cc I xa 5 NE 215T ST it. - 22ND ST a 20TH 2, ST o F. `, 2 t I i 1700 W i 2300 nE St F. yf e.,�s 0E St i 19TH v1 z a NE !H ST u z i' Z c e W "E zar" NE ST H1GRiHAzN05 r ,' < tit" W < rn W T PARK . �l G. 11 0Y 91. a" E I7' BOAT LAUNCH 1 kilt '.. !I " u 1 w y� ' 2400 w LIP a 4 Oti. G 'I H z ` o,-o w xl N PLGD a { 5s� P9` �1\ 'T1THST- I mNE3THPLRJR 'S ' wN .p` OR o GENE'. CO EN i1, •t 1,. z 1-.1 "'o w r NE 13TH TB w 112TH S , HFIIORIAL. 11 o ■ 6 �G BEACH PARK NE 12TH o ,. S 3p < IttE -� ,;, 2100 $g 2510 x S°xSEr 0. - --- m 2� H ,_ \ST-'� \, Q• \' iv _.. $-- E.V O CC4Rr 4-/n. SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition I9ci5 \I North DE516N DRAWN ii�I FIGURE I: Location Map AO 1111 —1l TALASAEA SALE CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. DATE Resource 4 Environmental Planning Development � 15020 Bear Greek Road Northeast 2-5-Gil Woodinville,Washington 9E012 Renton, Washington REVISED this(206)661-7550-Fax(206).561-95A9 3.2 Field Investigation A preliminary wetland reconnaissance was conducted on the site on August 19, 1996. Following this reconnaissance, a more formal wetland delineation was conducted on the property on October 7 and November 5, 1996. The routine on-site determination method was used to delineate the wetlands using the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the National List of Plant Species that Occur in wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Reed; 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the basis of Cowardin's system of wetland classification. Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer, • matrix chroma just below the A-horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A-horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and predicted flood elevations, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils and hydrology was made at various locations along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information. Wetland boundaries were marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix A contains data sheets prepared for representative locations in both the uplands and wetlands. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) do not indicate that any wetlands are located on the project site (Figure 2). The City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory map also does not indicate that any wetlands occur on the site. Since these maps are only general inventories based largely on aerial photographs, and because wetland areas change over time, actual field investigation was necessary to ensure that any wetlands were identified. 2 - i - PS SC —�. , // t/ • 771:1 I -------- r*7/k' , , . , , ,--.-. �w 1 . I if IUdi/ „r \II i 1i1 1 1 Af.._!;t4----";:':/ 1 ..:( i c 1 . M.ay ;NI!fil 4ft /sf ,, \ \ \( `' / •• •ilk• •� • i1 -P.7. ''. ..\1 0 a el, ' .i 1 1:-.1, ) ) ) PROJECT SITE ! ` ':.\- \ t • ..,1 ip ill& I 'r .: . ,n,.,„ „ ,• K )) 7ii:-. - - ,, . I' , ,„;........,..., s ......„ • ,r, ,• ( , ( , / , , _,,,, I! ,_ , , \, . . , I P II 1I. • ,......., I': ` I thl.s..) 9., ' .i ir•II4c I f : )11 •• 1 C ••• - x � ;'1 yam ,; . ,,''.. . •� • • • ...•• .11. • +1t. • .-t'. -++- G • \, I t It J.\ • • It g AS'ar.'-.*ibT:'.:,.. :k!-4.1(r:":.'.'.;*,iii:',?,i .: i : '0 ‘'‘"" ' '\ _.!_a______/ / e 3,a • • i , : a ! : l Kennydale . - } ni, ' ; EV>1.--\...y"--,-, 'i r-=-' '44..4,itii-Arps-::4ii,:-%,„--i„--..fi •,--1.....4,,,,, 1 I A,.'s — --,\s__________„,' ---N_____,,g-rrf:- _ 5 � '• LPL K Y'i.�rW , \`• .\ -1`,.. • \ • -N \ ' 'a 1 ;iei ll,p14, -.. .chi •'. SOURCE: U.5. Department of the Interior Fish 4 Wildlife Service Mercer Island Quadrangle, Ici88 ,I, North 1 DESI6N DRAWN till' TALASAEA FIGURE 2: National Wetlands Inventory Map SCALE AO II�I� 1 CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium I"=1000' Resource L Environmental Planning DATE 15020 Bear Greek Road Northeast Development 2_5_9-1 WoodlnvIlle,Washington 98072 Renton Washington REVISED Bus(206)861-1550-Fax(206)&61-1549 • The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the SCS) has mapped the site as consisting almost entirely of Everett gravelly sandy loam (Figure 3). This soil is not classified as hydric by the NRCS, but may contain hydric soil inclusions. The soils map also indicates that a gravel and/or borrow pit existed on the site at one time. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions Three wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, and C) and a stream (Stream D) were identified and delineated on the project site (Figure 4). Each of these sensitive areas is described below. Wetland A Wetland A (3,079 sf on-site) is located in the northeastern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site area, has been estimated to be about 10,000 sf. The wetland is forested and consists of an isolated topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. In addition, a leaking artesian well was observed off-site in the northern portion of Wetland A. This metal encased well, which is approximately 10 feet in height and 5 inches in diameter (O.D.) was flowing continuously at an estimated one gallon per minute (gpm), and may provide additional hydrological support to the wetland. Dominant vegetation in the wetland consists of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus rubra) trees along the wetland edge, and scattered patches of salmonberry (Rub us spectabilis) and scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale). Groundcover vegetation was generally sparse and most of the wetland contained bare ground, apparently as a result of seasonal ponding. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland A would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland B Wetland B (1.094 sf on-site) is located in the northwestern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site portion to the north, has been estimated to be about 5,000 sf. Wetland B is primarily forested and consists of a slight topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. Vegetation in the wetland includes black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Hydrology in the wetlands was assumed due to the presence of hydric soils and evidence of seasonal ponding. 3 • , , V J , • •• 1• ------.- a May e �-�-- , \ K p C rQ I• , , I. / es4--; 444Z// • • Hill : 1.I I ... AP alle • •6441r: : ll • .) a • PROJECT SITE , AgD . <<' / ,,?1;?\ . N RdE __________,:= I No \ ) T ____.../1•0 /Jil . ..:::::::::. • a No i`z. _- a I a .... • 1.1 2 • 0 11 a 1 II i: a• \ i iii, Cc\ •6 • • . . . 1 .� „ . • ■ l / 1 1 I , ,J . / •■ •Y• ■■■ • AgC G. • II .••• , ■ ■ - • f , , • AgD \• • • 1. . . • ■ ' • .A8. 1E1 �, ■ . ..• II ■ II • • •• ■• ■■ ■ II > ; Ago +a • ■• Kennydale , •••• ■, . • r, • • S °' • InC • 1 ..•/Aimit••• • a .1 . • , � • al.. ■ ■• ■ ••■ •■•• I • /. • • i•■ • •• • ■ • ■ • •• • .yam QL . ® ■• • InA I - — — — ——— — II • � T� ' •' •• B 1 .N. . gC AgD �: r ro ' •� � • •. 4 • • --...5...__ i SOURCE: U.5. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, King County Soil Survey, 1c 73 „ LEGEND - EvG Everett gravelly sandy loam, RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, „ 5 to 15 percent slopes 15 to 25 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam, slopes North are less than 2 percent DESIGN DRAWN jlu'uI� TALASAEA FIGURE 3: Soils Map SCALE AO ■i■ CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium I"=1000' Resource 4 Environmental Planning DATE 15020 Sear Creek Road Northeast Development 2-5-cil (5 ' Woodinville,Washington 98(712 Renton, Washington REVISED -_ A Bus(206)861-1550-Fax(206)861-1549 i i H aQo 46.- .'i l !z Q ~ o " . 0", v i� §-I- (. z re- ILI z z N a I I a w a w w E- 1 N o c I0 c —P I , 1 zr , 1 1 J (3-, � o c r ic N U i 0 Li I • • oe El . ; 1 ° DI— I i i / ! — _-- --- 1 \ c -- -_-- ---__ Viti. 2i ) i / \\ C \-------\ :=:-:---------- V q 1 / LL . y_.1I.-1,,C 1`.u49l-: .„.- >.'-.--_---,-/,:—:-_--)-:-".1N,/- — "\7- "---=<7-12•37 1 —i'/-*---7e4p-,+— — C N+ 41I :/ / :m ` ) l \\ \\ III\ 1 ` ; h/ ) ; il<ti4 *-.c,r._,* 7 7/1 )/\// °t i mod . * 9 • + • * , / / / / /////l A\ r\11111 / ' < 012,LL —_ ,! / * • / 4/ // \ \ �l1)I \ 1 atn ` � 2 . _ - _ - _\ . ., . /•/ p, ///// /r 4�ti�1Vi11 . .1z hag ..,..- .- ,......„.„.---__--z_ ----„,.. 1 ,___--- ---..,„ \ \ IN L Z IIISIIIIII I /V1\\\! ‘'Al i tili r°2 A 7A--,... ....._ ......, N •... ...., \ \\ \ _21_ ____. , _.,- 7 7 , ,1 II , 1/, // 21 ilik 11 ---- i !Nor I I 1I 1 / \ � / ti / i/ I IIl .,, ;II \III\ I (// / \ \\ \ Ir -- � / III/ lt 1\ \11\.1Ilr` u1 1 I II ( — _ — / l I \ I 1 III11 'VI I I Iui I1 \ \\ I \ \ 6z— _ r ( i/ ifirgaii111IIIIIIIiiil/l/\ \I \ \\1I\1 \ \ f /// // / IIII, l 1 \\ \\til!l;\ \ \ \ I \ I \ ' / // / / r4- � / \/ 0 I A. o I I I __ 1 I / 1%�= _ / /� $ 1r /\ �1 \ Ir 72/ // / �-7-i, IIIIIIII\II \ i `1\�\ - � II � � fi ,: l / ti ,,IIII IIIII\I �/ � /�,/ �, /I I 1I 1 �� Il / i, / / /// r-., /�� y, 1 1 °rills11111 1 1 � 1 — _"� �� // / / // i/ � i //� / . $1 ; \i, I / I__ a - - /////// t //// //4// I / .r�z ncl I IIIIII \ ) 10\\ 11 • \�` 1 � I III �I\ , 1 \ � -- —�._. _ � ( � // ram/ ( ;/ //.� // � 0� 0 t1\11\\\\ ( l \\ J I 1 I/// � e) / Iv IIIII \\ \ \ `:, / ) 1 //� '�i /�` �/ //ice :,� / 11 � \IIIII % � �- -� i /// III i\ � ( /'� // / %� \ \\\ \\ \ - �I II 1111, \\1 \I \. fic /4 // 4 1 \ 1 ;\\I\ �� \,,,, IIIIIII Ill \ ��� \ t \ \\ $�I 1 \ /:93 � \ \it PO II \ 1; \ / I6111"11V\ I1111I \ \ . .„\ ,� :\III\ \.0 �� < / `\ 't` � I < w11 I ��\\ �01)1{-- ,� I 11111 , . ,• 1. \ 1 �1 1 \ 1 c1IItzL : :; ,I IIIIIIIli /N ! .Ijj1IIIII \ 111111 � \\ I /ii / � . c ' o /--- : ii1111 \ I / 11II \\ $\\ / i , + t [ i 1111 I,1 I I I 1,, ,,, ,,, , , ,,, ____ - f ill 11I\I\\� \ \-� � ..� 1 f l �, , .T 1 w �- 2 IIIII I ._.- ( �\ � \\\ � 1 / ' (� � ° 1 , / 1�111111Ih,i / y \\� t I11 1 \ yl : < <I \ °- ° • // ��/ ( - f r--- — ��` � I: I DiA;� 1 " offs '�;/// /� /jj j/�=�,f — _1 I ( 1 / \ I :h: --I // O O ° N Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland B would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland C Wetland C (2,617 sf on-site) is located in the southwestern portion of the site and is part of a much larger forested wetland which extends off-site to the west. The wetland is situated near the toe of the slope which runs along the western portion of the site. Vegetation in the wetland includes Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). At the time of the field investigations, soil within the wetland consisted of a black muck which was saturated to the surface. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland C would be considered a Category 2 wetland and would require a 50-foot buffer. Stream D Stream D flows from south to north in the vicinity of the eastern portion of the site. Although most of this stream is located east of the site on property owned by the City of Renton, a small portion of the stream channel does extend onto the project site. The ordinary high water of Stream D was flagged and subsequently surveyed. The City of Renton requires that a 25-foot buffer be provided from the edge of the ordinary high water of all streams. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a 62-unit condominium development (Figure 5). 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands The proposed project requires the filling of 1,248 sf of Wetland A and 164 sf of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,412 sf. This wetland fill is necessary to provide room for the construction of a biofiltration swale. Following construction, the bioswale will be landscaped with native vegetation to provide additional wildlife habitat area. In addition, the proposed project requires that buffer averaging occur along a small portion (approx. 850 sf) of the buffer for Wetland C. The total amount of buffer area required for Wetland C (10,624 sf) will be maintained, and in no area will the buffer width be less than 40 feet. Furthermore, areas proposed for wetland buffer reduction will not extend beyond the top of the slope leading down to the wetland edge. 4 • --1 . • • ..• I .. • ,--, .. .. ..----.--------------..... LE6ENr, __.-:--- --------------- -...,. . . . • IAIETLANt7 "GP KI,•••••0.11.4 GO SW wat 11,01 WU"SA Ca•••-•4:2 11.,1,0 M.Mk/L. .......- .:.------------------------.:‘...‘'s SO--.. ..... ----- -------- ...„%ss I \ 1.• 2,611 s.f. (on-site) : , *MAO.sa•rml•ALA 1134 5•11 If. wo all 1.00 ..l' SI --•-• ';'..:------------------'`*s%.,‘ ." ....:.--•-••-'---------------\\V••`‘‘,C' " • % , . ee -.----------------------•------------- ---------- -'.'-''-'"' UNDIST1JRBED IAIETLAND5 , . . ... ---------------............----.....---...--...----------------------- -.••.,•,,,,,, ,.. ------------------------ ---------_---....--...-------------------------••.•.•,•".••, X , •• • , i ; , , ., .• -.,\ - . ,. ,,,,, --------.------_55 . . __---------------------------------7.----::.----.---------------------------------------------- ,-------- _ ---7.7:---:'------------rciTitir::::-------------:::::::---_-_-------."..-•::----::::.----:::::--.:•S.,voNv.\-;, I, '• ,%,\ ; -- "rf,-7-7,-;:----,-1-7.—. --------------- -------------_::--':---------------------------••••.V.,..;::,.•1/4'.'0,`•‘ . FILLED lAIETLAND5 1,412 s.f. . 1-2-..*...\••,\'• • .:_-_.'.. -_ -1-1tri.-iltri,' -:Li,/ i•rr,,..a rr ----------------r.-----------:::.---_-_-_-__ ...-_-__;...:--_,,,,,,-,..„.,s,.., MN ="--t...-.7._ P'•"•'.i.'4;•;•;'r ',AV*" 1 . s \ '4V.,-r s.,.„,------..f. 4.1i!ifir44,1--------------------------1-V4111-111tRiV.-::::::-::::—::::::-:::.:.::::::7_.::----------------------- ,--_--:f,s•.:,:•,.::Ns......:::;.•:.:•;:ss\ -•J'isa-L.L...1-1-01' ' . p4"4'-i-',IrELL lii4j4r ra.3en_______.:::_-.-------.-_-_---------------7.-:------ ,--„ i:,1•,,•.•••,;,•.„•,•.‘ .--> P• ••••••••• •••• • 4. CREATED IAIETLAND 1,624 5-f-- ______ __ -- - . . , '''.-,-, . ' -.,1 --; •; .-- 11.17-iiiiT i I;- 1- 't4i;%•<-------------------:------------se --- .---- •,--. I's'', .'' b.... 't.• ......•.•.. •a•'&1 ---- • '. i '• 11 ' \-' I.1 " • '' `Vrtt'''-ililL:14,-1 ,ilinFrEalirlitir.,:f. ,.,,,------ ------------------ :213-.0 - '1;.;•::,sir r-rtlfi,„-k.:1 [A- 0- ...r.-p.." . .1 • .14r • -•-• '• - e s `a .• ,.. _,__tr--0 i!-13--;, r;13,-,-.11::ti,iA :I, I!, m _-- , . '• cr.' 1 , [:1111'.,1.1? -fj4,4,-",-,..1r1-..,-.„4- 1-t•-',.-.62-1,f,,tr.-.11•''rc' *ilt•.i I i bi.iii•i[ 11, 1,k:::-;1--141.•.0.114'.&; v54f,*-Til rililt 11 '`.•:,._A-,- ''`- - . ._.k,D 1 D•_. " \ ----,, . .4.4t.p.:111....tirri.rmiatli.11.--`11m115.3.q.1.,,,gt, ,i.t1 ,,C. I IR No• .-'1_,. '. .-- ----,1-71-. it.7-.;,••..., 'if-. —Pt ii.44/:1 h--a - . ,p'\\0\„<" ,' Ar---- --1 ---- . -N.' — I/41/". .1(1.1,••! I ' 4=1.1 N., IAIETLAND "E3"', . , _ „„,,..„.,X-.2..-.. - -- .f..1.21.!ifcrr.l...4:.,,,i.v.t.4•Wift-,..:;fif' 1 II' [ ' 1 •,,(1.)\ - _-- ‘.......\•.\\., i . _ .H..--Li •• t.1.-1-i4 til•ril./14,!...610•:,•••I ., ' i 1 ' • • \\`•-•' \ Illac 1\c...".::.\ . .., F „ n,.„ ,. ax . I i .. • .• 1• .1 •NJ,...Lar • ....s.'•riur• '.....r ' 'm 1.• ' • t ••'L.' .1 1`, 1,094 5.f. (on- ite) --. .:‘,.\\1,...\\-.. ...,iii _441- [ ri-,, I,. ;'. "' ' • ' I' ,.,, • , • ' , • '' N -__________ • lemor,.,-111"---,--r7-,..--1-i-mr,_. ._..w ; ..*••••\,•\.N..•\'---- -- :ifl ,r'- ---,,rii.;-` -.-- ,,,...- ..- ; ; ; 1 ; ; I ''..s..\‘'.:,:-.11::::•14":s‘'.11%11:...:•%.,‘.-- ---. zy..1%;i1',,r.L.1;ft rrir rir;TIT i :7 . /1.,,ti . „.)-7\:u-: .•'\-\\---1...'..\.::\-:.:::_,....—..,.---1.1.- .-.:—..,-;.:, ../.\,_..:./...1.__d 4. LI Po • . .\‘`..\\\\\\‘`.\\:`''' -I .I'l\i.-------.. , Jr e ..• 4.. Pi ,•;1! \\•.`'''',%,..‘'‘‘', . _•....‘----- , • — ...,. .: I4. ,-,-- ..-„. , .• , I • it‘,111',Ctlit'. ••• / '-- - 4 '''''' a'' 1, I AO ------;..--:;11:14.-?""...-------- ..; ------1 11711,11,1V.. 44 -11 VO-It•1111.11,1•11 -'. --- - U .- " • -,,,a/-‘ , ; o.,,--- ; : ....I .,----- ---.I, .. . •' - 4441 , V.V.::•••1 ;%,i i t,-' -----..•• . / '-S• '• • 1 , i -----------------r_sigla/„, •_.../ ..., • _: Ill; billapiti 7. 7,------..-----------.• • _51.1 117- , ME ' "--' -6 ....- - --- ..,_ szoraer • . ••••• __.- -1. - t.,...43:1:..1:.....,t,'...\-.1V.,t,11,i • ,'..:\\'‘,'1%\'•,'.'A t 1 1 1 1. ) .11 "--- . .., : I I II :VON, Ititthci;•::;:.---- -- 1 • ___.,, II „' i I' C,*:•:4 1 iiiiiiiii; ;:tr. . '.. 1-1 .1_•.'5.12'?:f_.__ 54 I ! . it•t:!:*; • -,' ,-------, I I %WM / . in 1 i . )1140 e 51051^1ALE ._-_ :1, 1_ \ .., . k r--- , •la;t./s//z •--r r 1 • I a t:::::*IiiiiHill II- -- ' V;.•••:'----. t . • *ZS - -,,, WIWI: a.1--•--•----,--•-•`>,2s•-•-,•- -• .---2--.'--,-, ' ai-'-g--,04., /, / # ' .. li - II • I :,:•:•)$ .-.' • iliIiif; !I 1 i ‘, " i -Pi;sr'iry-' 1.1- ‘• s''‘. '<':.'-'-.. --.1lb 3/4WW,,/ '--'. " ..-- 1 -_-.- -1161'..!•44 . nil .. 1...' t % / --All:. ---------------- "Rsei• ... %-'• ..-__V.. • -a • 0/ \ a- _g_ :.v, 1 .. Aiwa I ,waiLwini4F, \q1 . . :i..1. ; : .d• 14 % .....m.'1:1.: ' ' II `. •, D...,. !..--- , r•,14..-•'"i 1.01 -- ls.- *-, s.'"?r,,/•‘‘ \--- '-'-'z: --:- i I I 1 i I I : , _ ..-- -gE --,-,-- 4.\- 1* \ I•Malit ',aware ••=1 ••• - • - • ) i I 1 I:; I .----... • L__ _ II , •,.... _ .......a__,,.• • 4111111111in •• t T-_-_-_----.7.--•._ ' ,.,t.,., _=:" ...,go ,--:-_,1- ip.-,-_::::::-..4.- 1--../ss. , I ilffilii, ! \ --s- _ :. ---:--------- •----. '-_:-:- .1211--- - ass,.. -„ gs _ - id A- . — ----__ .--\\v-1N .. t .__, .".....„., , . !1:1:! 1 t. .... .,,......--4r, , -::. 7.;:;-..:-::—.-.)3 =::.:4...1.-,--;Tilt_ 1 t:::11: :::-.•.,,,,:\ ,,,,,\.,•._ P. ', 1,-; -i 4,„ *to'.A___\1 .---\"%:---1-'41.--14?"..,__!__?IwN:r.2:, ...v.ss _j_.1, Zr7...zr-4 .. • a; INETLANE7 "A" :::- . ". : .__3_.__ --. •31,..----;?_=::: --_-_- -ram F '''..if P-i - '' \\-- 'is,"/-4' . ,t- ,,... . \ ', T's -.*--_-...-4. 4)1 5,079 5.f. (on-Site) - , •' — ----' ., Hi 1 Rt. - ' :::•-•E?:5:-::: ::••-: a ,-,..-,-...," , q111 ,,,,,,,,,..f.. •/0.4,3 \ /"• 4 ',s-• \41114 -------)\ " ' " N -. .. • ...te4. ,,:•:.•:,:is: . 1-1 ... -./,-.,./..-;-..----ilf.. x, .---1.- - Ili i-, • 1'I. •111•:,:.iv ,,,,'\ - ''',,t,„/,, . -ell./‘, sh, aft-\--- oft '-'s7.! \ • • --„, s. • - \\‘'s.1••:. .el. • , •••••"i'•"' . .,‘.‘ ., „I • ; ///,',/ • I 1 ir Li 1,.11:!: \ I i'r iii..I' s‘.fsfs-,2-4r, /;:ti ow.. .4;\',.! it%'il— .1-11iL • 1 \ - ......------ __ . . . . • . r i.1,,I.,,, Lip.k....,,Ilii ,. HI %.;:s.;;• s:;\•, ', ; '% 1 ' _.----::-_----:"41.: r il lit II I 1111 -ii 1 1 ' ..,-r-N.'tt.r.1 ' 1 tl • -- - - lif % -.° 4-‘‘ a.__11 N 4g '''' ....- .,<, ‘ . .11, .-- s. [ [ , --. '. I I ii \ , • • " P- B s • s-'4'epo 6). .... :-. , s, %.•..=PO. •I 1 I t '..-----:::: / i,.. r, .-i 11,1-1. p .-,111, • ".••• -- •-----N . . , , , .... )otti. ., t .,•,..:------..-f-----Fry ' rf-liii Til •Ir- . , .. ,..:::::-.:," ,., ...::.:.:,,,,_ r„i. , ‘ -..)I i,•:• 4r. ss. . ,i 1 .. . ,. . .: ...,----1,.3t•I I,it,' ....------1,411-tr, •111:„;....-- ..-- __ ., .... .- ••,''il `. • • ., + i, r --,.: 1 \I . . , .7.,--- , ,: 1:4 . IR ..c, 111-4-0. Iv, --; ..,...,...; :-_-:„..-.••=r.-;;;...---1 ii ii -• '--.---_-_- ....,. 'NI-44 .11 i! 1 I 0 11,1-.,1--‘,1-%.,`:;:-Z-22,1--„:\. ‘ I i-nI \ _ , ---; ),......%.. .... _, -:,..-;,_‘ 1,,,, ."'xi ' 1a11r 1 Mil 1-4-' 41,0' 1-5;ifiifillMI -In l'Ill I - 1.'1 1 \.-- •-• - , 1-41-, fy ---- • • - - - • I r :-. ---.. --4.--- ,I r-r-- s• '-:----='.2--2---'--,-..`-, '•-------1-_-------:::: -----. ------.------ -s, -- , -- ..." t . ; • •• . . -------1---.2:--;,i ill --------_ .....--,:99.--=w:.---- . . - ., . 1 „ t, -ss.... .... ., ....Id. 1, I , , ..1 . _ - .. .... ... , At ••• ,..." ,•-•• I i . J III r. I k -2,--:;--,----,2-::---;'--,-,-----------:---------- -------4 ----., ,,..°-..--- 00 .. ,--- tit % :-...,„,:z-_:-.;;:i I/ 10, ....__....._,-.,„5,,....:Isf-,...• -------------------- --/--.......--- .....„ ---_, -„---., .,•-•,, --..„, --\\ ---„ s. „..,..„,. .., -.',.. ..._ --------------,_ --_-_-------"----"----:---::---:::------0"--- - '"' I ' ' .4 . -,:ii:-_:-.1-_-z--:'i v ii t ...----,----,ef _---,---, n., ,.,- „-- .----:- ,'----2-----.--.N-.2-..-- ------."\v---:-.. \-,'•,-'zz:-;---.--':--1--:-..--:-...--------------_-_-_--;--;,•--':-:-'-i-:---------- --------:----_------.- '-- - 77%1-1-1't-—---- . -- r.- , ,--:::--...------------2----=':--...--. :0".--- ..-----------_..---- :2-_,...._:...-,.'s -.2\'.•. • ----' . - \ • sz:-.-;--;,---..---.1--------..---.:_e_.----:--------:::-:-----...----_. ----Z----:-----:.:15.-..--'. 1 % II 1 . . -, ----:---------- -------------- -.-;• ..- „- „-- ...-_-_-_,-;----. --. \--,--.---, -: -. -4%. , \ \, ----,•,-. --.. ---,,,...1z-------------------- ---.... --... ........ .....•,_ ..- , 1 , 11 , 1 . . ---------, . ------._, , , , . , .sec.n-se ...• ----:=1---:--C2)----.--—--.:4-"(• .- .. 7 % '- ---. • •• \ ••. .',....-."- •:-- ' %.\'.--.." :'-•---=,-.1:1:7'.----- ------------:::.:::z-:::-----::---------..--------------'--- ----- - '-'-', i • ', 1 ', .! • ..'. ----------' '''•'''h. •• --- , '. •• -. - --' --- --- -a----- -------------------- - ---- --- ---------- -- ------:------.--- 1 .,,,,- . ; I . , % , . __ ,..:„„w ; ,, ......--.--,--, , .,-..-,N.. -....---,,---="-----,....,-----------------ea` ":. :.., :.• :: --•••• ...--....-'" 1 ir • 1 ' • 1 '......• - .,...• ,,...... --:. --'-•r.— L.- • • '•‘-'...*•,''..''-; *<•'..„' .--.';":-----------'7'----, "..5............---..... ---.....'........-....,'.. I . 1 I . ••• r.:.-.:.•-.1,:.... ---- ... \ . . ---4. • \ ...........\L•,... ......•••..-:-------------------------.....-------------------------- Si• 0.-.....--.•........-....-.......-:'Nt, .• i • 1 I .. • -------L. •••••-.........,a!/..-11.1-...-7::-.................. ___.., \s • ...... . ••-•••----- ---------:,---........---7 ....--, ,, _ --7• ... .-------•___„,_ •._:.,..,--_-, -,•,:, - -------- -- ---::::-...-.....---------------,..-- 1°.1.--.-"..------,3"--.:.:-,11 : 1 ,' --". ,,t. . . : 1 ,/ „ _;_----e's / '... •••••, .- I „ . svw,______ ..- -:::::::-:_-.F:::::-- '.------..::-------------------------=----..- ______--- ..- ..... 1 la. ,- „... .„I , _ ___ _ [1 --...1 , \ _--::--„,.....- 1 / .., ........,:ss ,-• „1 • . ------ .:-_.:.z,::,.r,-:s.-_-s:.:::-.__-__-::-f.----^'±'Z'E;:::1----'-"H::!iue ':..--.- ." ----,-::.--. -^'''' '-" 2...";';.1.'"I r4.^iii .'fr..elt:°::: ...-.13. .,--•-t' . •sc a Irise.:-.3.-•••-• .../ s.---' ••• . t -... ..f."•-. ''.. it.'•:r.::. •:,-.P_T.::- ---'1/ --, • . . . :...zz -z---=:::::::---:------------------------------- .'.:- :1:"4-':::". :--L".5-5 ---.-:::::---- -- — . •• ..----,74.:P.rm,;_•,---.::-_---:..z:::::::::::::-_-_-_-_-:-:--_-_-_-::;:::•_•:•;;.*E--:::::::-.:-.F..1: -.... ' . ---•- ---- ''--:------ --- '--, ---.<"-:---t':"ekt -----;-'1;rt.,-- / s\/ • I , • 1.."----.,-;'<., .".- ,.- . •• .1 ..-- . • .„ -__-- ____--g.- • . --. . -,., -. - --:- ---A-. --- '-' ' --- - ,. ..---- .--?'" / ....---- --..*."--- ‘4. .- •., . sl-- -.._ ,.. -_ "--, - ....-_..4...__-..--- • ., ---.- : • ' .• . . , • DEGIGN DRA1.14 , ' . NOTE: (1111111 FISURE. 5: Site Plan AO ism, TALASAEA .. ., . ,..i..E N.T.S. Site plan provided by Kussman Associates , . - . : -7-A --', CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium Architects, Planners a Consultants, • • Resource a Environmental Planning DATE Development 2-5-9-1 P.O. Box I-105, Bothell, IAIA ci&041. /':-- . North 15020 Veer Creek Road Northeast ' . • KoodInvIlle.Hoshtnciton 1,3072 134,5(206)/361-7550-Fax(20E4 861-1549 Renton, Hashington REVISED • . -.„ , -r • APPE NDIX A WETLAND EETS FOR ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S. August 14, 1995. Northwest Volleyball Center Wetland Determination. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest(Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Renton, City of. 1991. Critical Areas Inventory Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area Soil Survey. 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Mercer Island Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams If the relocation of Stream D is required as a result of road improvements along Lincoln Drive NE, then any impacts to Stream D from the proposed project will be determined at that time. 5.4 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts Mitigation for the 1,412 sf of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,624 sf(1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation between the undisturbed portions of Wetlands A and B. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to connect Wetlands A and B to form a larger, more diverse wetland system. Following construction of the wetland mitigation area, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be provided to the created wetland system. 5 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Invest'r„ator(s): Tv6.'T NI/Aurms./J) Date: 10 - 9�a ProjeciSiie: tAm-Li St31/4.:p.(.71RE1-1-t-ont Slate: V-1 A County: g.1 (.7 Aoplicant1Owner: (-05SMPri Plant Community /Name: ;'+� t. • Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No >4.. (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum • 1. Al ws co6co. FAQ SEE 11. 2. �c�u� S tciclnaC�.C�n 12. 3. PUS ecicAV,115 FACk 54(441 13. Rv�vs � sccr,p, t✓Acli " 14. Y. 5 (,oc \t)`' Ccf,AtAct Fyace • " 15. 6. ?crt S�i c6Jrn n,,,ni 4�+.. YP�l1 Gi o�rD 16. — 7 �AwkiS Aer4&ct; AID 17. • 8. 18. • . 9. 19. • 10. 20.' Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAO j{ 3`3(t is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: • o-r ' S c i c, F-A c o g— t;..1ET-rea- 1 SOILS Series/phase: E.r C'RE'TT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Ye9 No )C' Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: to'R `I/ Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No )t Rationale: /416N C14Rae-4A HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No K, Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No yC Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No K Rationale: Np a,/lbfNLE of- INuN't Tic;,t Uc< SATt12hTIaiJ JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: N o ( Et‘A- 'MET 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy: 8-2 T 1 11 2. DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investgator(s): 'TVF TEN/r4LTrAAN1r-S Date: 10 -1-9(o ProjeeJSite: wri-"4k0'`StS4) f (ZENror-f State: 6'314 Count: 019 • ApplicantiOwner: K OSSM Ant Plant Community "/Name: T?•-ec 1Joie: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes 7( No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum 1. Salix 14s;4"Arh FM.WT Te- C 11. 2. gu•,us S1,ec4ct,; (;s Ace s(•4rt.4 12. 3. A+114--; ..r. 'ci FAC G,zo.,+J 13. • 4. E�. i s:�4,,.-ti {QlvKc,+ti.; '►ACW r r 14. 5 Lys��l�;1�. •:a+zr�cc�.,:.. C$L . If 15. .6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20.• Percent of dominant sped' es that are OEL, FACW, and/or FAC 1 00% is the hydrophylic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No • Rationale: > So% F AC: O(k.. c"-;tiYt E rt SOILS Series/phase: No/Lt.-AA- Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X No Undetermined • Is the soil a Histosol? Yes X No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No x Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: t°7 R' 2"(r Motile Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: u — H( c A HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No }C Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes )C No Depth to free-standing water in pi/soil probe hole: .s List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes K No Rationale: •z-A.•T c1:0 icy SJ V-rA E. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for•jurisdictional decision: • ALL- 3 LP_•t rir¢tP �^ET 1 • 1 This data form can bo used for th© Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy: 8-2 1-' 3 I ' DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI Field Investigator(s): f5k 1 t Date; iO-7- (' • Project/Sit / Gprror-) State: 14 r' County: k (NCI Aoplicant/Owner: •I��Ss�.a NI Plant Community /Name: i Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. • Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No M (If yes, explain on back) - 4-it STcs-k bkViugePArrCC - GRA•-,E c_ •u9N I - VEGETATION Indicator Indicator - Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species • Status Stratum PertJIUS 4-ri C�aCeJ1s �AL TL€E 11. 2. 'Et.;Se'L)A (eye no,1 v FAccJ GR•c.ir ) 12. • 3. 13. • 4. 14. 5. 15. • 6. 16. — 7. 17. 3. 18. • 9. 19. 110. 20.• • Percent of dominant species that are OEL, FACW, and/or FAC I coo is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No • Rationale: SO%o FAcE 0(- t.sE-r—T SOILS Series/phase: E u t R E.TT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No rC Undetermined Is the soil a Hislosol? Yes No )C Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Glued? Yes No Matrix Color: M x SPrJb I-I1ST"' - D'"hotile Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: ASS.,vs.%EN) b.)E re, ti`tpRaw vY HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No ( Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Rationale: A SSur+tb t3As-i.a O . e-.tcpewcE- CC: t?oa-C7,1N* 3A(LE 624 +NJ'n LEA<r ,5akiisi;nro A N^A-e JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No Rationale forjurisdictional decision: • e•ASe-> t-Kt-Gi•L'( On► ►=./iaENC.E t4(7 • 1 This data form can bo used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 21CIass fication according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 . - --P ii 4 1 •• • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): AI-Ta"Paly f Tv1:..TEr► Date: IO -`I - `I (o Project/Site: 113 tt-LIp.M551-17-6 I REOToa State: .• •.A County: l<<NCa Applicant/Owner: r JS51NR4 Plant Community 4/Name: T.P 4 • Note: if a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes > No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes )C No (If yes, explain on back) - 14(SToRtc 1)1SIu=13-Ar.ICE - 6, - wtrtsc VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. PRo IL)5 -1-ctc1nocc.('p a -AC -rRca 11. , 2. H`nuS r,:bCc. FPC. Ti•Ec,5µR.3 12. 3. (ZJLU; .isce,ior FACc1 sAr.-'+Z 13. • II 4. Cy 4:sus Sc j r;JS ► I- 14. 5 fthi.0 ST. • Ge,.rt> 15. 6. �a-,.,,.ca/ ,. tus tepe } IA.' i q 16. --- 7. 17. 8. 18. . 9 19. • 10. 20.• Percent of dominant species that are OSL, FACW, and/or FAG 5o°r-4 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: • lJcT 7 Sc9e C-P.C. Cit w:.-tTER .i SOILS Series/phase: E`r�e-€-T"r Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: to' - 4)3 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: Ht(pH CH4-'o1.A ' I' _ HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No x Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: /Jp cJon,jcc Lit SAh7-A-Tta.i C.2 INJNAHTtd ;--1 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE • Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: .----- --- 'kIp ( �IT'c.RtP. V- T I This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 0. -- ---- - - - • j,- -, 1. I\ I /1 11* f 17 7,—"1—. ' ..' ' 77---- r—= =---- --"•—.- ---7---:— .----- --7------:—:: V ---.. , //// - A §. 0 , vi.16 .. I , 1 --'------, ..-::::- .. ..---;:',..... .. — —1-1 ... .: \., ..),..„.4. -,..-470c 1--\ . I \ c;-------:,NW / / , ,- --- \ Itd I \ �- 1 I i �E E EI o =_ {�� �,): I . : 11w64\\ c r — / T 1III J ( l ' FA O 1 \ 1 1�.:3:•,:,,,;'; \� ) I ✓ ii L`\III1II.4 • 0,EF _, o 6 ° ,.:�,, :..:.,. \ \\�\ , ) � II IIIII II E•o � � � 1 ` _ ,� i'11/ � ..: � �\ \ 1111 1 f II II I I 1 1 F � o �' • / :. \\ \ Ill / 1 1 I F z z � ) �f //�R I ��..:.; � \ )11111 I \ \\ll\I II 11 ' � F 1 N -� ,,/ /M .:•\� t Ill { III I _._._ ___- \ \1 \\1111 I . F rn i • ` ys I 2:: IIV 1 1 � �` � 1� IE l —�I \ q1q ' I ._ ,\ ;::' \ _ , \ illI \ )1 ����\� N — , , IIfi rI 1 :. Z\ Ill l > l 1 1 \\ � l � ` E �,r > I \ \�..:: . ..: , \ �i IlI 1 �� 1 1I\ IIl Ioz Phu° � • � \ \ � �;,.a \\ \\� II �IIII / / \ � r � �� �\1111111 • r,. - I -\\\/J/ <\ \111// IIL /11 1I / II N 11 !; \ I/ / /// � /iij (/40:::::::::::.:::::04,, ) ) ) 1 ( I / f \ ) .� Illll \1 / / :g::-:.•: , < l IIJ , 4'N 11111111\`1 . ,, i// / : . ram%���/%/ I � � � � � 11 1 1 o � � 1 //j /�, ::: ..Y.:•- fj/ -' 1 ( I 11 ��— ..,\ 1 1 1.2 \ 111111i� / ; 4 ::::!:::1011:Ne � i • /// i // . ._._ —o�— —1 \ 1 I I II I I I I / / // /// ,/ � / � _ 1 / \ \ 11I 1 II f o / / ::::,,,: '...!' , f---/ /// / 7 ( // I I 4\ '• ) JI I JJ III1-1." \ fli // //^,/ / z l //f - -" 11 I \ II (II , 1II f���.::::�i j/ //�---�-� --� � I � \ ` _ ,.. � � IIIII II toil/ / 1 : ii,/ // / i 'a, I IIIII o �. /::i I . 5 / �/ �� i / , �1. _ \\ \ II 1 ICI III '` � � IlI 1(1/� / � i / I I \ � \ \ \ I,III �II 111\c /// +I I J 111! / / / -- \ ( / \ \\ \ \ '1 11 111 Z C1 irrr // III I II1 ' I/ /7 z IIII 11/17/ I II ' J � _y,/ \ \ ( � \ \ I11 \I\ \ \ , IQ. : 1 •:: 1 I I I// ,11 ) 1 / _ _0._ ____ ) \ I I 1 it yI1 ` 1� / / � � lIm2 :: :.:i\ \\ i / /II! / v � / -- --9g � \\ \ / )II : III ► / f1 �� 7 IIjI ::: III„'1/1 , 11 / I r i / \\\\ \ �`-� \/ III)I II ll A ,.�.N 1 I k11\\ I$ // 11 1 lI I r i —,-- — �-,z- \� `\\ — ��!%o , • Illlln : . � l 11 l 11 $� I � / z .N � � \�-_=--����-_i��ii/ii% -''' A o ►-] ' 111114 ��.. \$`\ /// //O p/ 17 7:-- �, _ _ �I`--_---- / ��� �' v�i ..a III{ �\� // 00/ , �/ / /• F E E � / � ��v /. z S I .•; '�\ ///// /r/ / / / E E E F E E E / / lO N�� RrTn I / �\l1 •.;� \I // /l E EO E / / I'Q� VL / 11 Ri l ti.iJ gga ' ( / (/ v, ///(t ' \ + � E F E F �E. .� / e+. /•cx+ . Z 2 t : ( M 1 -----.:-__-_.7. --•-,-.-___-_-_---_-___ ) ( • . , z l ------ --=-----2 ) \\ / 4, • I / I g-ti. ,� - — fli— . / e . flI • : \ ri pi . g2 0 I 1 I F 7. O fl # ° _ E. U ' 1 fl5 T. 0 X X X O 6 7d ni N > -I Ni O Ut �� 0 � O I— � J O 3 g z —t in Q 77 O N N . f v J WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT Prepared For: RECEIVED KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES MAR 2 0 1997 Bothell, Washington DEV CITTY OF RENT PLANNING N Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington March 20, 1997 • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WE TLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT Prepared for: Kussman Associates PO Box 1705 Bothell, Washington 98041-1705 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 March 20, 1997 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS 1 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS 1 3.1 Goals and Objectives 2 3.2 Construction Management 2 3.3 Monitoring Methodology 3 3.4 Success Criteria 3 3.5 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) 4 3.6 Performance Bond 4 3.7 As-Built Plan 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Existing Conditions Map WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT March 20, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION A wetland inventory and delineation was conducted on the Williamsburg Condominium Development site in the fall of 1996. The property is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). Three wetland areas totaling approximately 6,790 s.f. (on-site) and a stream were delineated on the property (Figure 2). A description of each of these sensitive areas is provided in the Wetland Delineation and Study Report(February 7, 1997) prepared by Talasaea. This report was submitted to the City of Renton as part of the site plan review package. The Williamsburg Condominium Development consists of the construction of a 62- unit condominium project. 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS All of Wetland C, the highest value wetland on the site, and most of Wetlands A and B will be preserved following construction. The proposed project does, however, require impacting 1,248 s.f. of Wetland A and 164 s.f. of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,412 s.f. (Drawing 1). This wetland impact would occur in an area proposed for construction of a biofiltration swale. Approximately 565 s.f. of impact will occur as a result of direct fill due to grading of the swale. The remaining 847 s.f. of wetland impact will occur from an insufficient buffer (i.e., less than 25-foot minimum), and will not be filled. The proposed project also requires that a portion of the stream located along Lincoln Avenue NE be relocated. This stream relocation is necessary due to a City of Renton requirement for improvements to Lincoln Avenue NE. The existing stream channel is too close to the road and has caused unstable conditions alongside Lincoln Avenue NE. 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS A drawing depicting the stream relocation and wetland mitigation is attached to this report (Drawing W.1). Mitigation for the 1,412 s.f. of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,624 s.f. (1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland-creation between the undisturbed portions of Wetlands A and B. Section 4- 32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to connect Wetlands A and B to form a larger, more diverse wetland system. Following construction of the wetland mitigation area, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be provided to the created wetland system. 1 .r > -u ""'_ \ A PARK /1 �. _ .,1.s..\ 5E i2ND t s57 �'(!.t :7 4 :•,,S:,_,•:..: i s '•-„,„,60,,1; : NAZEL►rOOD • J2 . S ��ti_� �� -:,, FK `o , ^ tt / ` _ �1': :.,.� _I. �^: • v�,.; SE•r7GT ..N ST ``qcy. >< .S J. "s-TX ,� e SE J6 H l/ / :id �C�~ , r s r yy '_�a f„Aey L �Sr ti �44T. i- ... - .., :E ,E, F C: ^78TH tr /''Y C }. �LARKE /{�F S �5 11 E A* �lJ "2 �S" BEACH • l T 1 SE i°�L^= PARx N= 43R.D, SE_ ' OTH % sT 'ST 26. E�'_r_Ys,._S:`= 61ca ST< 7✓ PROJECT SITE t PLo 11200 f 1;500 SE Y r.'/' LH r AY ST ,i k 'I! SE °°ut I IK�` +\ A1'nLON v /' x 1300 x t > A��� �': '1\_E 1 31 % N 38TH ST `v <_g s Icy v.s `�4� J X 37TN Sfu 5'`F..'4.0 ciTY S;5 C3'[�aE Y�I 1. I K0 •/ KV:JUANE i1 ti 36TH ST < i !75 — 36TH S s%+ �C:r •r_ 1��� 3::ACN PARK 3L 1 IO W •.J. fi 1500 -x�• sr-H o.. / 4 35TH ST �, o ✓f \� /< q ' S�89TH ST s 1- / f 3aTH < ST > `is. !'.. u rX POINT /y = 33RD PL =` •••C 90TH ST N 33RD Si n $ �1' NNE 33RD ''ST'-': SE 91ST � t ; ! vN. ♦ ` ^ 92ND S !: 321:7 S : 1- il PO POINT ( T y 1 700 N 31ST ST_ ' 1 F� NE 315T ST i =<'a r�x N ti 30TH F ST N+1Y CREEK SE. 933 1 700 1.100 t RK ,..in\✓,r 1. S i N 29TH S7 o /j)- it`, Y .. YA �`4 e\ - N 28TH PL ❑f',LNE ' 28TH ST t 2\�01.�r LAKE ' `�\ _2sT,`- _ • zN H ` T 2100 7TH , ST 14E'_ •ry o• Cr �F x 2era sr C W I L. :y'?KfN)JYDALf= n_=)<5:4,x sT ASP c =o �y LID7i5 h�.ASHINGTON ' ..:, .� z:rH 57� W •;, NE '�-, -_��>, E 1700 c N 3RD PL 3 r N N ,2,,.. 3RD ST — C 22ND q <> ST NA 22ND ST Z LL 5 NE 215T S7 a o ; :\ T Ste= < <§ _ .s's::si Sq 5 y P NE ii 20TH P.,z ST c `pzN �1)00 t _W 12300 N'- 76 S z . i 1 }1 = *1 „ nE i5 N 5T HIGHLANDS BOAT LAWCN 1 _ �z Lw"Z 1fJLGD. 9PL JR S < c X -I �• j GENE Cad N�' 3 "' liJ 8: 13Ti °� tiL .`:• kit\ / Hd1JR1AL s E ' *E a~I Q ,18 7127H ,qG� / BEACH PARK ' = NE 12TH cJ S 5v c 1 SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Outdo, Commercial Edition IciG5 /I\ 4 \I -- North II DESIGN DRAM �I�jjl� TALASAEA 1=1GURE I: Location Map ��� AO 1 '- CONSULTANTS 1"1111tamsburg Condominium N.T.S. DATE Resources Environmental Planning Development 2-5—cil 1---- 15020 Bear Greek Rood Northeast , Woodinville.Woshlroton.18012 Renton, Washington R>=VIED Bus(206)86I-1550-Fax(206)861-1549 • p In order to minimize impacts associated with the stream relocation, the relocated stream channel will be constructed in a manner which replicates or enhances the habitat value of the existing stream channel. 3.1 Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Relocate approximately 220 linear feet of stream channel along Lincoln Avenue NE to accommodate road improvements, and increase the stability of the stream channel. Objectives: 1. Widen the stream channel to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities. 2. Reduce bed load movement and channel erosion by placement of 2"-12" rough rock within channel and along streambanks. Goal 2: Replace wildlife habitat lost due to stream relocation. Objectives: 1. Place large boulders in stream channel to create meanders and pools for aquatic 1 habitat enhancement. 2. Plant native riparian and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity. 3. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) within the riparian corridor(above 100-year storm level) to enhance habitat value. Goal 3: Replace lost functions due to direct fill of 565 s.f. and buffer encroachment of 847 s.f. of forested wetland, for a total wetland impact of 1,412 s.f. (0.03 acres). Objectives: 1. Create a larger wetland system by connecting two Class 3 isolated wetlands (A & B). 2. Simulate pre-construction wetland hydrology by supplying the existing and created wetlands with treated stormwater. 3. Plant native wetland and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity. 4. Plant the biofiltration swale with shade tolerant emergent grasses and shrubs to provide an enhanced wetland buffer. 5. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) in the wetland and buffer areas to enhance habitat value. 3.2 Construction Management Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the mitigation areas, the clearing and construction limits will be staked, grade staking will be completed, and fencing will be installed around all existing vegetation to be saved. A pre- construction meeting will be held at the construction site to review and discuss all aspects of the project with the selected contractor. 2 Talasaea will supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any modifications to the design that may be necessary due to unforeseen site conditions will be jointly approved by the City of Renton and Talasaea prior to their implementation. 3.3 Monitoring Methodology As required by the City of Renton, the monitoring program will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the following schedule: • quarterly for the first year following construction • annually (at the end of the growing season) for the second through fifth years Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist from Talasaea Consultants. Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation and restoration areas. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo-point locations will be shown and described in the first monitoring report. Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates which are readily observable (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 3.4 Success Criteria Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover of desirable species. Undesirable species include exotic and invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, morning glory, Japanese knotweed, and creeping nightshade. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Success for herbaceous species will be based on an 80% cover of desirable plant species by the end of the 5-year monitoring period. 3 Undesirable plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover. Removal of these species will occur immediately following the monitoring event in which they surpass the 20% maximum coverage. Removal will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval by the City. 3.5 Maintenance(M) and Contingency (C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation and restoration project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and objectives of the plan (C) • re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) • line wetland areas with impermeable material where hydrology is deemed to be insufficient to support the desired wetland plant community. Where appropriate, liners may be installed immediately upon completion of grading to increase probability of wetland success (C) • irrigate with a temporary system for at least one full growing season following plant installation (M) • minor excavation, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) • remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) • clean-up trash and other debris (M) • clear or repair trash racks, culverts, etc. (M) • selectively prune woody plants to meet the plan's goals and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M) 3.6 Performance Bond A performance bond will be posted with the City by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings and the 5-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation and restoration plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the 5-year monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 4 3.7 As-Built Plan Following completion of construction activities, a revised set of"as-built" plans for the wetland mitigation and restoration area will be provided to the City of Renton. The plans will identify and describe any City-approved changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. 5 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE 35MM 3- 2O-9 -3 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT -- • 44•,,fr Prepared For: THE M.S. CAVOAD COMPANY Seattle, Washington Prepared By: I8 .061, 6<op,_ 149.9? TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington 1"*.4111//ii o,v • October 13, 1997 KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS & CONSULTANT OCi '8 . TRANSMITTAL SHEET F�F� k7.97 o/ry_ M� DATE: 10/16/97 �F��p 4,10- /0 TO: City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works ATTENTION: Mark R. Pywell Municipal Building, Renton WA 98055 REGARDING: Williamsburg Condominiums Wetland/Stream Mitigation Report by Talasaea_ FROM: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES 17425 68TH AVENUE N.E. KENMORE, WASHINGTON MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 1705 BOTHELL WA 9804 11-1 705 PHONE: . (425) 486-8300 FAX: (425) 806-9628 CONTACT PERSON: Steven M. Grassia PROJECT NUMBER: 9606 • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT _ Prepared for: The M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way NE Suite 1607 Seattle, Washington 98105 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 October 13, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1. 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS 1 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS 2 3.1 Goals and Objectives 2 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation 3 3.3 Construction Management 4 3.4 Monitoring Methodology 4 3.5 Success Criteria — - . 5 3.6 Maintenance (M) and Contingency(C) 5 3.7 Performance Bond _ 6 3.8 As-Built Plan 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Existing Conditions Map LIST OF DRAWINGS W1.01 Wetland Mitigation Plan - Grading Plan W2.01 Wetland Mitigation Plan -Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Details, & Notes S1.01 Stream Relocation Plan - Grading Plan S1.01 Stream Relocation Plan -Details and Notes S1.01 Stream Relocation Plan - Details and Notes S1.01 Stream Relocation Plan - Clearing Limits S1.01 Stream Relocation Plan -Planting Plan, Plant Schedule, Details& Notes ' • 1 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT October 13, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION A wetland inventory and delineation was conducted on the Williamsburg Condominium Development site in the fall of 1996. The property is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton; Washington .: Three wetland 'areas' totalin a roximatel 6,790 s.f. onsite) and a (Figure-1). ( 9' pp y stream were delineated on the property(Figure 2). A description of each of.these. ;:. .sensitive areas is provided in the_Wetland.Delineation and Study Report:(February 7, ::.. 1997) prepared by Talasaea Consultanfs. The..delineationrrepotwas submitted to the City of Renton in February of 1997 as'part of the site plan review package. The Williamsburg Condominium Development consists of construction of a 62-unit condominium project. 2.0 -DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ONWETLANDS/STREAMS All of Wetland C, the highest value wetland on the site, and most of Wetlands A and B will be preserved following construction. The proposed project does, however, require impacting 1,271 s.f. of Wetland A and 80 s.f. of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,351 s.f. (Drawing W1.01). This wetland impact would occur in an area proposed for construction of a biofiltration swale. Approximately 362 s.f. of impact will occur as a result of direct fill due to grading of the swale. The remaining 989 s.f. of wetland impact will occur.from,an insufficient buffer (i.e:,.less.:than.25-foot minimum), and will not be physically,impacted. .. _ :.,. : The proposed project requires relocation of a portion of the stream located along Lincoln Avenue NE (Drawing S1.01). This stream relocation is necessary due to a City of Renton requirement for improvements to Lincoln Avenue NE. The existing stream channel is too close to the road and has caused unstable conditions to occur along Lincoln Avenue NE. Fish are not present within the stream channel immediately adjacent to the project site. A perched culvert that prevents fish passage is located down-stream and off- site to the north. Fish passage immediately up-stream of the site is also blocked by a large, recently constructed birdcage structure and a series of long culverts. Since the down-stream perched culvert is located off-site and is not within the project limits, stream channel modifications will not occur in this area. However, if the perched culvert is modified in the future to allow for fish passage, the amount of habitat made available for fish use would be minor due to the impassable birdcage structure located immediately south of the site. Williamsburg Condominiums 1 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13,1997 313mit4.rpt • t >i •c'' .r'z 67TH= "•7 t �I SE 70Tx ST ❑ \ 1 < E:C ' f PARK .W i `. P orl��� p 1 \t '� r, _ _ PI I^J '^ 2 ..SE.-72ND ST ST T !.-f 3O">o " ,tie - 9¢�'1' IST ST L R �` a g s' sf 51, {`r is HAZELWOOD 111PJ�a SE'72ND PL ti^`Si"� r, isr . ,,,: ,=., PK • OR 4 i C72p_s.11 -...NE 50r 1 ODLB. ,- I1,7 a �, i ar E h. � P cr 6TH ST �SE i��� :Ili O '�; � SE 75TH- = c< >slF 71. nrH T� . SE 76 %/ i . PL ^ST F= S s.�A(y v� (- q N ':_ �'r, L ;,eir• 7.TH ." ` .. LARxE Q 4r .1 e SE "sr JBTH t -' ST '1 SE-` Tq e BEACH 717 SE 9TH PLIsu.„0 staK'5', ' PARK Ni 43RD:--:-SE-' N 80TH 79Tn STo ST '_ LEWIS LN HEIGHTS g9 ,�, PL Z --^_ 11200 g 11600 ,^ SSE B07 ST ST LN �1��.O� ��OJ GT SITE: = i J B2ND P .;LNO PJPQv _ - /. !• Li SE L,0 ���jl (A�Y 405 SE 33: !Li 1 ! \ 1 O� 70 STI Zj N 40TH ST ill< coTi x I; =SE - 8416 m AVALON ' / 1300 z .i 1 I .'r h.':olo>• ( — < ti + C 1 =E m ,"31 i.• N 38TH sr t W • •<8 ,r SE•esrH sr ' �� � - s' o. - 1,O LQIN_ .F ' SE OI q $�,s @¢ -r`- ,N 37TH 51�n i , OF.F• ;SE 87TH ST`2' F•A 5,.Ni11 `I ^ �y,, / t 36 o. o . ;N.. c'osr_8TCT N TH II NE KENNYDACE � .+ r- se .pro' BEACH PARK ST 3L i , 1 OO~..36TH W ,.y,, 11600 ' -u\. e7rx o� N.35TH ST i f o !I ST •Q M1 34TH ¢' ST .•1 i'N W .,.¢ J'�`�C 1r� ••1 ^S E 89TH ST rH POINT N 33RD Pl. o : o • ` ....in:,_ 90TH ST N 33RD ST o : NE 33RD `LST"" SE 91ST -- w ..T t St S e N 32ND ST f )l) .1 f rk COLEMAN t 700 N 31ST ST "I '°� T f 1 K64 9z50 x: c POINT (Ix } _e e^ NE 315 sr t a e, a 11 2 N 30TH.•- a'ST j� 2, HAY''""CRE•EK: SE=9380 700 N 29TH ST 1300 i 1,e t� RI(' N.P�` - =';r r: , = N 28TH PL N d -o n=ice.•;,-.,,i.;;i:'. _ v .; o-.:':a:.: 9G o 1 r NE 28TH ST .V't•. :.,.:,1„s,, LAKE y l � N_ -28T11---5—� i NE -- 2-7 ... " '.:. . ., 271H `2100 =l Sr _E____27Ty "r' .i CT - 9'�� N 26TH ST< 'I uC'W y") < z W -11: `` o .. W F Z - KENNYDAL£a isTH ST �\ o } =oo r'`i LIONS N_24TH IST fi ; W N N 2 e 24111 PARK ST l I` 3RD PL WASHINGTON NT4 ' �' �- a 1700 ; < NEE �3RD ST L I =a o 5 NE 21ST At'c .HF-• S› _ 22ND ST d ' _ - !� - =< Q - :FINS 315,ST 1 c _ C, So N N S is S "" y 2t� 1700 20TH 1412300 NE S NE SS 19IH PL ? > NE OH ST 5® lS z W ¢ < NORSH B r 7 ' nE Q• = :if Sarn NE Sr z PARK i . . BOAT LAWCH j';;-• '` - Z 2400 i V PLGD 0. c,. a 97 Z W Z � ZO W N W S . z NE'4 <' -ems. w ~ Li`g. < z z �a�``s� 14TH- _. ST m NE�3TH PL c2 JR 'S a w .P' v�� o GENE.'..;2:CO 'N �, m ❑ o r W 3 NE 13TH ST W'- �o � HENORIAL,, 1 NE 12TH S IB.� 0112TH o6S ,y BEACH PARK, i //� )0 < y�l \ ,/ 2100h $25'0wo c�awiTj/• SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition Ici95 \I North FIGURE I: Location Map DESIGN AO111111111 limp TALASAEA SCALE ■I■ CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. DATE Resource it Environmental Planning Development0 15020 Einar Greek Road Northeast 2-5-011 --- 'Woodinville.Washington 9H072 Renton, Washington REVISED Bus(206)861=TSSo-Fax(206)861-7549 E, ?,„:4 / 1 .-- $ J I r- i.- -- -- -- i , /' 7 /1f cw, M �, ° _ \ ) I 111 1 /{::.;: \ 1 \ \ / �1� �Illl �ri`FI E E o ° t ,/ I .. ....:; I \ / I `., t_\\\11111 I� • E1.VE Esl slob , /,I � � I r . \\\ 11* / 1 I II If IIII1 F§ ?;113) 7'A I� �:: .��, \ i IIII 1 f II 1I I I I � E -/ `- `'��. :`,..,:�,\\'8 \ III / \ 1 \ I I 1 F • zz -� ) �f �// I �.j \ ' � IIIII I \ \1\IIIIII I •�� F IN 2 -< I 1 /&p IIII `I 1,1 1\I I FEN Q iI 1\1 :; _\ \ II 1111 I I .. )j l \\ E I p-Th‘ \? ' ,r rn o 4 :::k::_ z> 1 \ .kvi;x:N \ Il 11 II \ r 1 \1 1 11 , ___ r'-1 �, U _ (P -` �\\ \ \ \ III IIII l�s / .� — �1\ \ ..6 - �/ \ :I \\ j' \\ :` 1 II III 11 / ' \- IIII\ \ - I // i fit: .. 1 11 1 11111� v \ 111\\1 N 1 1 I I IIII i / 11 11 \\ • / ( .. -/, , 4::;:::":014:k f.. ,,,..„_ .....„ i 1 / 0 f,, \ ,,,. , ,, 1\\ \ \\ - i` . //, /44:02.)::. ("<f.9t - - i 1 I - i i --„, " \ \ 1 ) \\\\\\\\\\\i, / ,1:.11:1::::0 ) 1I \ i , /// .,:;•:':::::::::':::,0" ,zz illiil 1 / `'` \ ‘ 1\1 \ — �\ �I IIII i1 �$1 V1 / :;i::if::( ?;: ../ / /, !-. .__of--- -- 1 .b \ I 1 I licl I 4_ � / `1 ,.��'Ii. I�/. . � \ //j 1 � I \ \ ICIIit�a'J `. : l " // ) // // 1 ( .\ IIIIII i I ° /// /, 7 / III 11 .� i/ / / \\I\ I \ � I1I I I II I t\ . ///0.04:4"////::. A ^ // / / \o\ \ _ 1i11i i II II 44 ll :: .Jji41/ //// ::= / I 11 III it ° l : c r / / / / 1� ___._ \ \ 1 1 �1 11 4. ° '` -a /.:�� I 1 //////7 /i / 1 [ . / I1/ / \ \\ \ \ II 11111; z I III III $ 1 /� / _„ \ \ \. l 1 \ \ I\ \ 1\ \\\ , . r-rt / AI III I i \ I \ \ 1 I1111�1�11i11 � / = - I I \ \ III � > I\\1\PII11Iii/ �41/ fl / /� � _� _ � 11 \ I ( I 1 \ 1111\� rn 111 II II lIl 11/�l 1I , b \ I \ \ � ) �/ / ) I1111 11 / - _.�____ —fill.'-- \ / / 1 1 III III „.11 .:: I II11�/ // �T 111 r % / \ \ \ \ \ / / 111 : : II I3J�l1 11 1 I / \\\` � � \/ IIIIIIIII A ,a.� III : I1l1 11 1 i11 r / _.— �" \\ \�� )1, g o �L�.I� I Jill'n .._III\ I // l H1�, 1i z 1.� \ � ��-,\,:--,.. 7 ' ziw' o y jIllfll ::. 1;\ // /// ,z/ . , /.--' ` P -- ^``=�,�// i/ , �$ I I \� J / N/ / .., . E _ _ // III{ :: \1 // //// / / / /• E E E \ / / vr//a�0' ,,. . t--1 I C.� � .,i� /� I / � E EEE /r � / �111 ° \/ // // ' . ' E E® F / , ' 1:V il ^t0 - !gill ; v. > 1 : . / Vt:. \ \ v //(' ( , \ •* z-):' / d - ' ' / • Ni. 17„P C I / / �OM( \\ \\ C:- E E F �F• I� / /F f�/E` O \ \ \\ \\\\ -- - -,% -- — — -� — — _ _!_ _ 4' •\ * . FDK3 1 al f . z / -----_:--- --___ )\\ / 4, , . • ,--4 _ , ( MI ----1----- ------ -)-- \ / 1 z - N 7 Ox r I. 1 r co � �• ° N 2 . 1 , 1� 10 7 \ ni S 5. 0 Q # I I ' 1e E1• z p r+- 4 z 0 0 0 0- m ‘ \ I LI " 5 X N X X 7-(1 Cr 3 -I --I 71 -I soo ? Na - -1 0 n - x E M 2 - 9 o �r o N • IQ) • 1 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS Drawings depicting the wetland mitigation and stream relocation are attached to this report (Drawings W1.01-W2.01 and S1.01-S2.01). Mitigation for the 1,351 s.f. of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,554 s.f. (1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation and as approximately 1,080 s.f. of wetland enhancement. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined to.create a larger, higher value wetland area. Wetland creation will occur between Wetlands A and:B, on .the east side.of Wetland A,,and on .the north side of Wetland B:. Portions of Wetlands A and B will be,enhanced with-- minor grading and planting.' As part of the plan, the 25-foot wetland bufferwill be : ' • enhanced with berms and supplemental plantings to give additionaLprotection to the wetland system. In order to minimize impacts associated with the stream relocation during road - construction, the existing flows will be temporarily tightlined (see Civil Drawing 1 "Temporary Bypass for Stream Relocation") to the existing culvert onthe north end of the existing channel. The new channel will then be constructed;and:flows will:be . . introduced into the new channel after it has stabilized over the winter. The new stream channel has been designed with a reduced gradient of 4-7% to decrease velocities during storm events. The new stream corridor will be enhanced with native plantings and the installation of large woody material (both in-stream and along.the riparian edges). The enhancement measures are expected to significantly improve the aquatic and riparian habitat. 3.1 Goals and Objectives Goal l: Relocate approximately 220 linear feet of stream channel along Lincoln Avenue NE to increase the stability of the stream channel and to accommodate road improvements. Objectives: . 1. Widen the stream channel to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities. 2. Reduce bed load movement and channel erosion by placement of 2"-12" rough rock, planting of native riparian vegetation, and installation of in-stream structures within the channel and along the streambanks. Goal 2: Replace wildlife habitat lost due to stream relocation. _. Objectives: 1. Place three log weirs in the stream channel to create pools for aquatic habitat enhancement. 2. Plant native riparian and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity. Williamsburg Condominiums 2 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt 3. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, and nesting boxes) within the riparian corridor (above 100-year storm level) to enhance habitat value. Goal 3: Replace lost functions due to direct fill of 362 s.f. and buffer encroachment of 989 s.f. of forested wetland, for a total wetland impact of 1,351 s.f. (0.03 acres). Objectives: 1. Create a larger wetland system by connecting two Class 3 isolated wetlands (A & B). 2. .Simulate.pre-construction wetland hydrology by supplying the existing and • created wetlands with rooftop:runoff;_-treated.stormwater, and surface runoff from . the swale behind.Buildings 5 & 7. :3 ' Plant native wetland:and buffer. vegetation,.to..increase.plant-species and structural diversity. . . .. 4:= '.Plant the biofiltration swale with:shade tolerant emergent-grasses and shrubs to • provide an enhanced wetland buffer. 5. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) in the wetland and buffer areas to increase habitat value. 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation - , .. ... In order to accomplish the goals and objectives for this project, the following components have been incorporated into the design of the mitigation plan: • Relocation, as proposed, will result in a less incised stream channel over what currently exists. The mitigation plan includes raising the exit culvert about six feet, thus flattening the gradient and increasing streambed and streambank stability. many existing trees as possible.will.'be:retained within:the;relocated stream corridor and existing wetland areas. In addition, dense riparian vegetation (both ' deciduous and evergreen) will be planted along the streambanks and within the stream buffer to create a shaded canopy to moderate any potential temperature and humidity changes resulting-from the relocation. Since the existing stream is north-flowing (low aspect to sun), has an.8% average gradient (relatively steep), is deeply incised, and only extends a distance of slightly over 500 feet, it appears that measurable increases in temperature will be unlikely. Furthermore, during the summer when the sun angle and ambient air temperatures are the highest, there is little or no stream flow at the surface (i.e., any flows are subsurface where effects from solar warming would probably be negligible). • Following on-site detention, runoff from most of the impervious portions of the site ' will be routed through a biofiltration swale for.treatment. Treated stormwater leaving the biofiltration swale will be released to Wetland B. A portion of the rooftop runoff from the site will be routed to Wetlands A and C after detention to replicate pre-construction hydrologic support. Surface runoff from the swale behind Buildings 5 & 7 will be routed into Wetland A. Surface flows from Wetland A will extend through the mitigation wetland area into Wetland B. Williamsburg Condominiums 3 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13,1997 313mit4.rpt • As part of the wetland mitigation plan, the bioswale will be planted with native woody and herbaceous plants. By integrating the landscaping of the bioswale with that'of the enhanced wetlands and buffers located north of the swale, it is anticipated that an overall benefit to wildlife habitat will be achieved. • Minor impacts to Wetlands A and B are proposed to allow for optimal use of the site by incorporating integration of stormwater facilities (i.e., biofiltration swale) into the wetland and buffer area. The possibility of creating stormwater facilities between the_two wetlands was evaluated, but it was determined.that..by creating . wetland'connection.between the two wetlands and placing the biofiltration along . the south side of'the'wetland system, abetter ecological solution was achieved: •-,:Construction of the wetland mitigation plan and stream relocation will b.e: sequenced in conjunction with site and road construction. During-road:: Construction, the relocated portion of the existing stream will be temporarily tightlined (see Civil Drawing 1 "Temporary Bypass for Stream Relocation") into the existing culvert on the north end of the existing channel. The new,channel will be constructed and flows will be introduced into.the new channeLafter it has::._; been'stabilized with native plantings and large woody material. .. ., • '• 3.3 Construction Management Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the mitigation areas, the clearing and construction limits will be staked, grade staking will be completed, and fencing will be installed around all existing vegetation to be saved. A pre- construction meeting will be held at the construction site to review'and.discuss"all aspects'of the'project-With.the,selecte&contractor. .. - Talasaea will supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any significant modifications to the design that may be necessary due to unforeseen site conditions will be jointly approved by the City of Renton and Talasaea Consultants prior to their implementation. 3.4 Monitoring Methodology As required by the City of Renton, the monitoring program will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the following schedule: • quarterly for the first year following construction • annually (at the end of the growing season) for the second through fifth years Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of Williamsburg Condominiums 4 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13,1997 313mit4.rpt the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist from Talasaea Consultants. Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation and restoration areas. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan.• - Monitoring.and photo-point locations will be shown and descri_bedinthe':-first . monitoring report. Wildlife r Birds,.mammals; reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates which are:readily-obs'ervable (either by direct or indirect means) will-be identified and recorded in.the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be.noted, as will any•breeding or nesting activities. 3.5 Success Criteria Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover of desirable species. Undesirable species include exotic and invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, morning glory, Japanese .knotweed, and creeping nightshade. For woody planted species, success will be .. _ based!.on_at.leastan.85% survival rate:of,all,planted trees 'and.shrubs;-.::or at least::; . :`.': ": 80%;cover of equivalent:recolonized:nativesp.ecies;.by the:end.ofthe:.five-year_:._ : : :..::_.:. monitoring period. Success for herbaceous species will be based on an 80% cover of desirable plant species by the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Undesirable plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover. Removal of these species will occur immediately following the monitoring event in _ which they surpass the 20% maximum coverage. Removal will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval by the City. 3.6. Maintenance(M) and Contingency(C) --' Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation and restoration project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). Williamsburg Condominiums 5 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt • replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and objectives of the plan (C) • re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) • line wetland areas with impermeable material where hydrology is deemed to be insufficient to support the desired wetland plant community. Where appropriate, liners may be installed immediately upon completion of grading to increase probability of wetland success (C) • irrigate with a temporary system for at least one full growing season following .- , plant installation (M) ,. • ' after consulting with City staff- minor excavation, as needed, to correct ;_: . alterations of.surface drainage patterns (C) ; • remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed..- canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) • clean-up trash and other debris (M) - .- • clear or repair trash racks, culverts, etc. (M) • selectively prune woody plants to meet the plan's goals and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M) • introduce fine materials into the streambed (e.g., natural silt or silty sands from a site certified to be clean of contaminants) if stream water is lost through pervious soils in the relocation area. 3.7 Performance Bond A performance bond will be posted with the City by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings and the 5-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation and restoration plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the 5-year monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 3.8 As-Built Plan Following completion of construction activities, a revised set of"as-built" plans for the wetland mitigation and restoration area will be provided to the City of Renton. The plans will identify and describe any City-approved changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. Williamsburg Condominiums 6 Wetland/Stream Mitigation Plan October 13, 1997 313mit4.rpt • • WILLIAMS�URG COND0MIlVIIJMS '•Revised Site Plan;.Submittal •• • • - ,. • and SEPA:.Checklist • - . • 4 .. ,'„ , • • ' . File:No:'LUA-96-16'4,SA- • • . City-.of Renton, Washington • • — • °�VEco 9, r/ p . Ty j �yyroNl NG - ' • ', 'June.2, 1997. • PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES JOHN C.MCCULLOUGH McCULLOUGH MARKET PLACE TOWER WILSON SUITE 1130 HILL & 2025 FIRST AVENUE FIKSO SEATTLE,WASHINGTON APROFESSIONAL 98121-2100 SERVICE CORPORATION (206)448-1818 FAX:(206)448-3444 June 2, 1997 Ms. Jana Huerter Plan Review Supervisor Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 Re: Williamsburg Condominiums File No. LUA-96-164, SA Formal Revision to Application Dear Ms. Huerter: We represent the applicants for the Williamsburg Condominium Project, file no. LUA-96-164, SA (the "Project"). We are writing pursuant to WAC 197- 11-360 to make formal modifications and amendments to the site plan application for the Project. The purpose of the modification is to mitigate the possibility of adverse impacts associated with activities affecting the wetlands and stream channel on and near the Project site.. 1. Project Amendments. The formal amendments to the Project include the following: (a) Wetland mitigation. A formal wetland mitigation plan is hereby submitted for your review. The mitigation plan includes provisions for creation of a larger wetland system by connecting the two Class 3 isolated wetlands (the wetlands A& B) on site, measures to simulate pre-construction wetland hydrology by supplying the existing and created wetlands with treated stormwater,planting of native wetland and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity, an installation of habitat features in the wetland and buffer areas to enhance habitat value. The specific components of thy plan are set forth in the revised wetland mitigation plan attached to the revised environmental checklist. G:\POLYGON\332.001\CORR\HUERTE01.LTR Ms. Jana Huerter June 2, 1997 Page 2 (b) Stream Relocation. The amendments include a formal stream relocation plan,which involves relocation of approximately 220 linear feet of stream channel off the development site along Lincoln Avenue NE to accommodate certain road improvements required by the City of Renton associated with the Project. The stream relocation will also increase the stability of the stream channel. The stream channel will be widened to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities, and relocation as proposed would result in a less incised stream channel over what currently exists. Stream gradient will be flattened,thereby increasing stream bed and stream bank stability. Large boulders will be placed in the stream channel to create meanders and pools for aquatic habitat enhancement, and native riparian and buffer vegetation will be planted stream side to increase plant species and structural diversity. This dense riparian vegetation will also create a shaded canopy to moderate any potential temperature and humidity changes resulting from the relocation. Finally, habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) will be installed within the riparian corridor to enhance -1 habitat value. The features of the stream relocation plan are set forth in the report attached to the revised environmental checklist. (c) Stormwater Drainage. The amendments include a stormwater drainage plan and temporary erosion sedimentation control plan (for construction phase activities). These plans include provision for detention of Project-related stormwater consistent with applicable standards, and measures to address water quality of stormwater run-off. As described in the wetland mitigation report, run-off from most impervious portions of the Project site will, following on-site detention, be routed through a biofiltration swale to recharge existing wetlands on site. The bioswale will be planted with native woody and herbaceous plants and will be integrated into the landscape of the wetland buffers in some locations,thereby achieving overall benefit to wildlife habitat. No stormwater facility will be created between the two wetland areas on the Project site, but instead,the bioswale will be placed along the south side of the wetlands system,thereby achieving a better.ecological solution. (d) Mitigation Monitoring. The Project amendments also include the methodology for monitoring of the success of proposed wetland and stream mitigation. The monitoring will be established for a period of five years, subject to specific criteria as described in the wetland mitigation report. Ms. Jana Huerter June 2, 1997 Page 3 (e) Site Hydrology. As indicated in the attached wetlands report from Talasaea and groundwater letter from Geotech Consultants,the surface water drainage system for the project has been designed to ensure recharge of the two small wetlands to the north of the project site. This recharge design is formally incorporated as a modification to the project plans. (e) Additional Information. In addition to the foregoing Project modifications, we are supplying you with a revised environmental checklist,which incorporates additional information for your review relating to geotechnical, environmental and downstream drainage issues relating to the Project. The applicant hereby also incorporates in the Project all mitigation measures set forth in the determination of nonsignificance (DNS)previously issued by the City for the Project. 2. Request for Withdrawal of Threshold Determination. Based on the foregoing modifications to the Project, and the substantial environmental information submitted in support of these modifications, the record now demonstrates conclusively that the Project, as mitigated, will not result in significant adverse impacts to the environment. The Project is now subject to a determination of significance issued by the lead agency (through the hearing examination.) WAC 197-11-4360 provides as follows: If at any time after the issuance of a DS proposal is changed so, in the judgment of the lead agency,there are no probable • significant adverse environmental impacts,the DS shall be withdrawn and the DNS issued instead. The DNS shall be sent to all who commented on the DS. A proposal shall not be considered changed until all license applications for the proposal are revised to conform to the changes or other binding commitments made by agencies or by applicants. Enclosed with the revised environmental checklist for this Project are revised plans and permit applications reflecting the identified modifications to the proposal. In addition,the applicant has submitted the same revisions to the pending hydraulic project approval application with the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. • Ms. Jana Huerter June 2, 1997 Page 4 Accordingly, the SEPA regulations require in this case the withdrawal of the existing DS for the Project and the issuance of a determination of nonsignificance for the proposal. We appreciate your review of this matter, and we look forward to issuance of the DNS in accordance with the regulations. If you have any questions about the issues discussed here,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, John C. McCullough JCM:sch Enclosure cc: Alan Bauman Mark Goldberg William Shiels Zanetta Fontes • • ' I I co 11 fD co i c, IV^1 It 0 t.ents I 1 I I • � I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Description 2. Site Plan 3. Vicinity Map 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Revised SEPA checklist 6. Level One Environmental Report 7. Geotechnical Study 8. Hydrology Study 9. Stormwater Drainage Analysis (including downstream analysis and temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan) 10. Wetland/Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report p ! 1 I'r ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS RENTON, WASHINGTON May 30, 1997 1 The 3.3 +/-acre project,zoned arterial commercial(CA)per the City of Renton,Washington, is located on the west side of Lincoln Drive NE at North 40th Street. Access to the project is off I North 40th Street. It is located immediately south of a more intensive commercial zone and immediately north of an existing single family development. Williamsburg condominiums has been thoughtfully designed to provide a sensitive transition between the commercial development and the single family neighborhood. It will provide the city with the type and quality of housing that meet with the goals and objectives of the City of Renton. The site is a former gravel mining area and will house 62 condominium units. The mix of two and three bedroom condominium will provide a range of affordable housing options and will enhance the sense of"community"within the local area. It will include 136 parking stalls of which 51 are compact parking and includes 16 guest and/or visitor parking facilities. 1 This destination residential community has proposed development features that will enhance the environmental quality of the site by providing enhanced wetland and stream mitigation measures land will provide Renton with a necessary and desirous addition to its housing inventory. Careful consideration and design have been given to environmental issues, storm water and drainage issues, architectural elements and to providing a high-quality lifestyle environment for the community's residents. i I� 1 � i1 ' Sliii 1 , , , 9 - ,`• \ Oil ' ' �' ' \ a � a ! I '; • 11 1 ilk ,'49,/ ,,/ , i 2 s b b ‘,. ( --------- _ _---''- ------ i , i , , / , / 1 irAVVVVIIIirumalliml 1 .cii ...vkisio,t.,„,k A nirivValtitliWiil ii0'' ..1 '.'"is , 1 O==a GIl 'ir_,,,:wk-N: ', •-v-_,7 A i' ate'!04-liii I e� ,\' g\s. z�'':j� I i ilk oel . __ ,... ..___ ..":,,,------., .1%.itiallat4,141tyri Altok 1- \,. ' 1 I - A \\ oc'," 60i 1 .- ) ''Illhh.1111kw. r-".„---g;-----i,:—::-:":---I----6---:\,k lltilkirlA441111:4 '17.1341411L\. *'''''''' ''' 1 g ' •\.,,,,„ii„IT : . 9 ii, w 1 . i r :I/ IIMIN2I;IIIIIIIIIr�- �1��i11a Ilk\ ��115/laiii'- �':MT1Jsrd !_ -P� `-4111 :� (`a, ( Y, 3 /,Al"�, ./ o-• �. ✓ --.ram, =" - �L � .1 � Ai � r, mow ii ! — i tier.m�l '� I t'' / ' %%� j� L"�� _ T _r,�t_ •L `�_-- P 111111"......"1111 ./., i A, ; -_ '__= IIIIIII 1 y/ 1 �I i . li ' 1 , , 1 1 1 f I S;\ 1: �Ilil,llul,lli L�. I -Milt z' o , ' / / • 1 'I !Illi.' 1 r I t i i ' 1 1'; 1 , 4IIIILIiiiilli I C7.' I\. •,. . � 11 , ! ,,rJ .� I ill 1 1 I 1 1 I '1 1 } / r ;; ..� /-si. 21,24VY:r7>!L.�C JIIIIIIIL�IIIIi t 1 1 '. A' lI7 ,,11 4 , ' ►I1 i�1 1,11 i► • ' I'^- , 'O ' \ � �� t �= - '-� r71'�',I�I�rIIII�Y,. { i� 1� I li ! 1 ' 1 / I 11 1j/ Ma . • I a , „ „ 1„ „ 1i1 ,' 4 r-- `,``\ ` �� ;, ` -M'Nl-- 31►•KMS. __��•�-•.'7- ; I / I 4011 i If 1/` 1 , --j,`11{ ;�I1 , ' AIIII'�III IIIIIL� ` `' , 6D ill I, \11; 11i, r' ' \, i r 1 I l 'I jihi.i'_.L I�I\' I Il r I\\\\�\�'�1; :, ` � ,.,y `` Ii' qII •, ,, t, I' i 17 r ! ,,,„,,,,,,,,,\, , , ,, \,,,\'''\\ , ', \ \��,. \ Ali;' t.�•`_, F 'Rr". .: -J;:11 1 lij" �/t' ! C(,�IjI tiii 1 ,,„ \ \A ---i a. aiiiii, 111 1 .sei rl ,11\i1;;''; 1 1 111 -., 7 i ``'1 �„,,:ip/f 4' - \ D.JIIP,,,,,,I . i I , ( , `-il1, I wittitif ,,A kr- -- ,-- /A.. I .:: ,r ''. '' 2 1\ ji is lliAiit' Iiir I I ii if )\\\\\\I, 111,11 sugaill . INFAI , I, a ` I . 1 / -14., 10! '. -----r---inlej e Aptiii:/ @ 01 : 11 1 r :,/,'"/",,,,i,":,v,ii s; =1j1 II „ , „ I';\ 1 �A ;,\�� •x� if,J � Vt. (1/ `,; ;/ I1 �J .�I, . i'L 1 ' . fi . ..' , VI'\ 9� i i l i ' I i , i :S tom`+ ^ 4` \ . �' // / '/q/i/,/!/l/i�. - /�, / I { =1 \I i i 1 i ' I } ge ,p�'y`1 ; •Ige1 '• ,� ; �� ' , / , ���� r' ': . •�i 1`,f J I i i I i i I A t`, \, 1} ; `li,l/i \ ' '&u� i \ �' • tr ' i,� �A ' ilp ,-.7;,....-- A%. i . . t , 1 1 ,IIIH:Iii imi \ \ / , k 1 n�%bii/'� / ,•14;1„„ ir ....rap , �'; `o,,,,' ///A ' I I• I i 's , . A ; elit. 1 I \I V,. �;; ,h V 1 1 I \I, _. ilt __`;-%1011 k III ' 1iii / / 1 • ,,, . ., \ jt 1 ;'„I :F - ;r: l�OI` f L I I.Ly s H•_,. f,. , t q 115Il ye {�,t 1 it` 1 , �- // ���� alINN/ f g_' „ 41 Q: ti'�' r,u- W 1,, IIllrEti • •-• III/ilik 6. _ .. .i . 33 `3 1. \. I � . ,:, ,(4. i/Hul.0 N 71 .p t� / I 11I t,\ ;( ► . o \1i# Iti _ to ,_lII ', III ;II ; ' % t ._ I 1 : 1`'`. /e0a il i a 1, �tt .1-e41 ., 0 bun11 . t 1 , \ b■lli '' T' 'I :1 Firi 111 � y{�,, __/ _ , -\�. I \ rm�'rill .' . I`,, ,�e1 T i>4- —„ � 1b�' ; ili�d`` 21. \ `` 1 -\ I 1= j \ , ► . ;iii, I� • 14 4 oru f!+ ��,umr \ I�( , ,iiii •�, in.... . ♦ _Q_I.a •d11I►•, , I I B ',` / 1i' 1 1 ♦ 1i� ' �. `\ t11 111 �v I , I1;; ; ..: ► I ` }firr t 1` y Ty, w�1 k .i 6y , i I Mii'ili; '' r�77.t' \\l�' ,'% / ,' \r\ /\#���V,,„. i1 \\ •: 1,, j � i`iIIII-Ii .III I,1 c `, ,§1I!pcd / it/ / \ ! . \ N. ' 11, ►*+�4400101 � ' ,' i L .rr/ t; i'' 11,11111111111n! ,.� 1 i ,1\ 1 i , `\ 1' • � ; �." /,1, IIIII.,'Illlekm...r... : _ . ' 1 1 j 1 ,• ' ' ' ' \ - / S i 1. Jrid—revaiiiiirmii ,, • ' ��+�� -i• I ,1 ul1r�'' „!• `�� r a.�cc-osr i.rl ev..,14, \ . 1o1 4 `7 � i i r\ -\\\, % \I`�� , I \� 1 ‘,, L.. '� � � ►•I 11 il 1 i /p_, I ....1 - —', i'. , �,`,‘ �`+ ). 1,, I T 1 A I ,,,\-, ,,, - 1 \ �;,��, ,.`. ,1' 1, '�� Ha I I 1, it ir1 %\ �►p ♦��4,• s ►/A71 itt ��.� • ; 1 \ '"1 tea. ' , tr,�_4� / ' , ' _.� .-1`. 7 4 i - _ ♦ .-1`s ^' i , 1 ; ; i�'', I I 11!I 1 '; ! \, '/ • ix 1 ,, - =+" _,,_ �c "T '�-`��, �— s. s r v- T -2_. .! f SOIiY?s fY\r-A z'�' r�i�rz 1 I %i '^'r\', `', ,, - { • I .,/ ter=—Y'`` ,w ," , . ---•`=' I R k I r 1 — \ I p '''' \ _1;., . '�/ ', - ---- _ '—soe►r , ate, 9Aiiii„ _4 { \•-\ .. I i >�; ; 9 s „.s. 1 , .. __ ...............----------__J.._____-.::______--- . ' -'' ----- ---- - 1 _ .� F , ,,, ., ., . / /\ ;sto ,_ _____ , _____ ______ .._._--- --------_____-------------- , „ .......„,,............ %�, 1' IL1 i " TH x `� A �i SE 70TN ST 0 \ ` 7, C PARK i P S T E al E III I D i 5� 1 2 ~SE 72ND ST T Sm f\ > ,o ,o O<' 1 15T ST pi'. ' R H , 3� < s �a . •sPe .__I I, HAZELW7O0 Ceti is J ' SE 72ND PL a^=5�'T .1 iv r .eE r.. PK � 1, II1 1� 2 a / C� 4r 1 ' ¢ E ODIB. , � 1' a ti _ .`,, a SG , TH ST a `:c: ! A .W v b s IV < -.slf 7pTN Or SE 76 : N ' > u-= " x kli4.; I L STti/144T _ ' Z - _ 0'7E �er77 f- . e f x c c�".ST/ �� S �� ��i^ E '^'< �qt" 'rl BEACH E 9T.n FLISI(,ND lST5y4 i• PARK T T N 43RD' 'SE 80TH 717"ST_ ST �-. SSE 60S LNS• LIN-01pi. ST 7. ��0� � 1 G ( 1 `� PLU Z 11200 11600 yam, N bS1. ,_ •90, r N 40TH ST Ili'^-,_'- Ij I --�____ �w� � � � 1300 a � O 'A I r l AVALON J > of �yI nl 31// N 38TH ST '.n <o s 1 E 1 5� N $ FSE 867H sT�8$ _ . of L �$ a" N 37TH$f `�N��o SE 87TH ST . e77 sE._,• '`I g: ce, � KENNYOALE (,,,,, N 36TH ST Z. N; — 36TH S '" R e>(I SE BEACH PARK 3i Z h 1600 B7TN o' 35TH ST /J 1 00 ' A a w j1 sr a 34TH < ST < > J� ( ti~ `i S 89TH ST W z __ ` 90TH ST H POINT = o \o r N 33RD PL h NNE 33RD ST SE 91ST % j N 33RD ST F, e } S 2ND S l N. 32ND ST f \ a.rx ^Iii r 700 K f4: a COLEMANO it N 31ST STD `0 2 NE l T Sr <'` sx N 3,TH o ST M4Y CREEK RN— y SE.93 700 L� N 29TH ST o 1300 ,o '��+ 297H• �� ��� MA as - 4 - 9 l N 28TH PL lJ r, NE 28TH ST V ' LAKE _ "E 100 ST _W 27TH 2100 = f __27T,�. ' \e > CT 9�F N 26TH STa =` > W -,3a z KEINYS E Z e.`sTN ST ass i II = e ' 24Ti1 PARR" , ST ` N 24TH,ST E W N N WASHINGTON >-I [I- 1700 111 rn I N E <> N®E Q 3R R� STLLiiEI\I . • 22ND DOZs 5 NE 211 cz a . 1ST E z o Sr 22ND ST d 1 0nE lrc a'ST 5t y H NNE 20TH 2300 N s : Lk 0 1700 = N6 S� :9'n o'_ = a NE STVir 1 .4. 4i < < NORTH z nt i= ;H NE ST �HIGHLANOS PARK .0 BOAT LUNCH Z _ P _ 2400 z V PLGD ¢i t© z 1L. <I e = � f aI 0 0f 4THeaST . SNETH PL E", 'S w N A COs'� GENE . .7 .� W m 9 ow ' NE 13rH 5T W .d' . a >I ill .� TH fitthifi" EAL N - J NE — 12TH $ S 10 . N�:_ N uoo � �2s„ :,5F l �s N C7 /� SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Gvide, Commercial Edition I995 AI ', North DESI&N PRA1+1 FIGURE I: Location Map AO SCALE Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. o 4 DATE Development 2-5-1 Renton, Washington REN/1 \ V < ii ,,,_ .' r '' - 7.4, , I, ;, "t-t c",,''„''.'.1-.-• t -7- 'f s ''. ',' ,.• ...N, . •. ' ',, .- , trit 4- f , .: , ' ,'.t '''0 1 P,Li 1."" 1 +, '- °i-..,• . - -4 .' 1 4 , '1? ,,„"r' #0 Ur ''' ;'''' '' . .. .,,,l,t.(1,...., 4ri..,„.._ „„... - .2-,-..,', , ii, ,. -. ....,.. -. ,,,° ,ii, ''' - • A' ,.4,. ,‘„,_ ,..., i ..."''.. .. , • ,.., .,,'. a " t t 46 ... fa ' ". 1,..0 A , -,,,, , , , e tr 471 ' • . .1.',''. .. ,li '..4' ' A ola , ,.-. A..1 ,,it 4' _ t k 't"4 .1*‘ ' lit • - 4t III%AAA, 4 la 1 41/4,'Alf 1 Olf.44 Om' *A-N ,of ct----- --- „ 0 ' . ii 1 * : *- , , -1--...,,,,,, ,4, 11.,, -.,'L le 40 - • _,,,...- c ,/ c, ''''4, r' *4 ' '-.. ,41,!.. ,' ,,, • !" **‘ • ' A' ' 4 a/ < • or ,4 .,... ,,,, - * , ...v. lie' , , .., A 4 ' ' 4 alli lit g• : ; A ii•• .fig ,: ^ n * flitt 1 ' 4.0 4 1411 44 ' .4'.. 1 '''''''' 1 04 .1„ , ...:1_, f,4rif , ...f. .44,40. i' . *t" , Jr( :-;.,,,,--• '''' . .7-rvia4 r" ..,•, , ' (-5- -7,417 . . .„,, 4 -, . ;"‘ . * ' - ;sie:;.%,', iii.`: (00..?'1# -*"."-- ' . v oir 7 4,87:,.. if 0' , ,.... '',.'Al . ,,," ,,:-.* '3 , 1 • vt • Irfrow .„,,,, - - 1, ,-,,t. .t. - at l'%.:-' ' .1 4, ,"ot '''-cc '' , ,,,c,:*:: _, 114v--' • ''- C k .4-****. 7,1 ,,, , , ir, - , III. ip 4.,----- * - ''"4-- 7`,:- .._ 1111C. 4 -A• ' '-' , '' *wyt;:t.' 4* 1 . .411; 14#11010i. jii., ' , 41 1 ' .."" .... ...,-.c-4-, ).. IIIL 1. ci.,S NW ''''''' A. 71 c /kr-• •,-,,,-, , ,i ,. , fti IT . . ,0. '11I3 - • '' ', . • . V"v • _, , , „,„ .. t- IV -•,, •" 0,,,,, 1,, '. ..1 v .,.. , ,•,'" "' „. 0, •••,.( /• .••••,, "Irk , „* Nail. Altila . . ,. 1,00,,,,r- i f„ - , -4,,., 7`. ,„ -'I'lli$,A . „,„, .,„Ali f •., #4,4,1 ve- •• • •-". forista _ a ;ii ,ii,v•.7.7...E;1; el* , • 4 ' 1995 FISURE 2: Site Map photo by Walker and Associates WI I I iamsburg Gondominum Development Renton, Washington r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (REVISED) WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUMS RENTON, WASHINGTON Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C ROW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal. Write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. 1 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Williamsburg Condominiums 2. Name of applicant: Kennydale Vista L.L.C. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mark Goldberg SDA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way NE Suite 1607 Seattle, Washington 98105 (206)524-4846 4. Date revised checklist prepared: May 22, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to begin approximately Fall 1997. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 2 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Level One Environmental Report Geotechnical Study Stormwater Drainage Analysis (including downstream analysis and temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan) Wetland/Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton: Site Plan Approval Grading Permit Building Permit Public Works Permit Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife: Hydraulics Project Approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal involves construction of a 62-unit condominium project (44 townhouse units in 7 buildings and 18 flats in 2 buildings), together with 120 parking spaces within structures and 16 surface parking stalls. The project site is 143,612 square feet (3.3 acres) and was formerly used as a gravel pit. Lot coverage of the completed project will be approximately 26.35%. See attached project description. 3 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK 1 Z Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to • understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is located in the 4000 block of Lincoln Avenue NE in the City of Renton. See attached vicinity map, site plan and legal description. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The majority of the project site is generally flat, with a gentle slope to the north. Steeper ridges that are relics of the former gravel extraction uses on-site are located along the east and west property boundaries. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 18%. c. What generaltypes of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, P � gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sand and silty sand. See geotechnical report attached hereto. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. 4 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK No. e., Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will occur over most of the project site. However, the grading plan for the project has been designed to largely balance cuts and fills on-site, thereby reducing the need for import or export of fill materials. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The project will be required to implement a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan during construction in accordance with City of Renton requirements. As a result, no erosion is likely to occur as part of the proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 26.35% of the site will represent building coverage. Another 27.07% of the site will be covered with other impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion and sedimentation plan will be implemented during construction phase and storm water controls will be implemented in final drainage plan (see attached). Balance of site (approximately 46.58% of site) will be covered by new vegetation and trees or left undisturbed. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust from construction activities and vehicle emissions from construction vehicles and, following project completion, from approximately 100 +/- cars 5 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK owned by residents of the project. , 1, b. • Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, P P if any: New landscaping and trees will help to reduce the off-site impacts of both noise and dust emissions, neither of which is anticipated to be significant. 3. Water a. 'Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Approximately 0.155 acres of low-quality wetlands on the project site and a seasonal watercourse flowing east of the project site (next to Lincoln Avenue) of about 0.58 acres in area. See attached wetland report. (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposal will involve construction within 200 feet of the above-reference watercourse. Widening of Lincoln Avenue will require relocation of a portion of the watercourse. The project will require the placement of fill in approximately 1412 square feet of wetlands on-site. In addition, approximately 847 square feet of wetland buffer impact will occur through buffer encroachment. See attached wetland and stream report. (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site 6 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK p that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. , Approximately 565 square feet of wetland area on-site would be filled in • connection with the proposal. An additional 847 square feet of buffer area will be impacted by encroachment. In total, less than 1% of the project site will be so impacted. The proposal also involves relocation of a portion of the watercourse adjoining the project site. Fill would most likely be obtained from other locations on the project site. See the attached wetland and stream report. (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The proposal will involve the relocation of approximately 240 feet of the watercourse adjoining the project site in order to provide for the widening of Lincoln Avenue. That portion of the watercourse would be relocated about 25 to 35 feet west of its present location. See the attached wetland and stream report. (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic 7 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of • houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The proposal will not result in such impacts. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): ( g (1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The proposal incorporates a complete stormwater collection, detention and treatment plan that exceeds City of Renton requirements and meets Department of Ecology requirements for detention and release rate. Water quality enhancements will be provided through development of a biofiltration swale and enhancements to the existing wetlands on-site. Please see attached drainage report. (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposal will not result in such impacts. Runoff from impervious surfaces subject to vehicle use will be subject to water quality treatment prior to discharge to any receiving waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The revised proposal includes a complete mitigation plan for the proposed wetland fill and a complete relocation plan for the off-site watercourse, and plans for the collection and treatment of stormwater from the project. The storm water system is designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event, exceeds City of Renton requirements, and meets Department of Ecology requirements for detention and release rate. Please see the attached wetland and stream report and the attached drainage report. 8 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK • 1\ 4. Plants a., Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: Cottonwoods x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs: blackberry, ferns grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 105,486 square feet (2.42 acres) of the site will be cleared in connection with project development. Wetland areas not proposed to be filled will be preserved, and new wetland areas will be created. Wetland buffers will be enhanced in various locations. Approximately 38,128 square feet (0.875 acres) of the site will remain undisturbed. See the attached wetland and stream report. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None identified in connection with this proposal. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached wetland and stream report for a description of the wetland preservation, mitigation and buffer enhancement measures proposed in connection with the project. Developed areas of the site will include approximately 27,211 square feet of professional landscaping following completion of construction. 5. Animals 9 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: • birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: _various small mammals. deer_ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: none No fish have been observed on or near the site. The reach of the seasonal stream located adjacent to the project site is upstream of a man-made culvert structure that prevents the passage of fish. See attached wetland and stream report. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None required. The project will, however, result in the creation of improved wetland habitat areas that may serve to enhance wildlife in the area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used in the project for heat and lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 10 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of •this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The buildings in the project will be designed and constructed so as to comply with the provisions of the Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. (2) Proposed osed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required. b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Limited traffic noises from vehicles on Lincoln Avenue affect the site, as do typical kinds of urban noises (airplane overflights, vehicles, emergency vehicles, etc.). (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, 11 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. • Short-term: Noise from construction activities from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. during weekdays. Long-term: Noise from vehicles used by residents in the project, as well as other minor noises from urban residential dwellings. (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None required. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site is presently vacant. Vacant land lies to the north and to the west (for at least 150 feet). One house is located to the south of the project site and three houses are located across Lincoln Avenue to the east of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not applicable. The site is a former gravel pit. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification of the site is CA (Commercial Arterial). 12 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK f. , What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The comprehensive plan designates the site for commercial uses. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of g. PP � p g 9 the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Some portions of the site are regulated as wetlands by the City of Renton's critical areas ordinance. See the attached wetlands and stream report. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 125 people would live in the project units. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will obtain site plan approval from the City of Renton. 9. Housing 13 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The project will provide 62 units (two- and three-bedroom) of middle-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether'high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None required. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest structure in the project would be approximately 57 feet above grade. The principal exterior building material will be wood siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None required. The project will be developed to meet the landscaping and site plan requirements of the City of Renton. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day 14 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None required. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The project will include a central gazebo and lawn area for recreation and gathering. In addition, the following recreational opportunities exist in the vicinity of the project site: May Creek Park; Kennydale Beach Park; Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will include a central gazebo and lawn area for recreation and 15 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK gathering. 13. • Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, • or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. ; c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None required. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is principally served by Lincoln Avenue with a direction to 1-405. See the attached vicinity map and site plan. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The vicinity of the project is currently served by transit. The distance to transit stop is approximately 3 blocks. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 16 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK The project will incorporate 136 parking spaces; it will displace none. d. • Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal involves widening Lincoln Avenue on its west side and developing North 40th Street for 200 feet west of Lincoln Avenue. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 316 average weekday vehicle trip ends with p.m. peak volume of 37 vehicle trip ends. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None required. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal may require some insignificant increased need for such services, but will also provide enhanced tax revenues to offset the cost of such services, together with a fire mitigation fee of$24,056. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 17 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK None required. • 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. ' I b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Proposed utility connections for the project are shown in the project plans. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: /7 t Date Submitted: 7.#,, z9 Yff7 U -- I 18 H:\JCM\ENVIRONM.CHK 111 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multifamily Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington i PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Proposed Multifamily Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington Submitted by: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Shannan Spencer-Roth Environmental Assessor N ? 4! 4=' 'Po 19660 ;' +44, �GISTEV• s�'�:5 ),.S1ONA ( / f'1 James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal GEOTECI-I CONSULTANTS,INC. G E O T E C FI September 9, 1996 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E.20th St.(Northup Way),Suite 16 JN 96285A Bellevue.WA 98005 (206)747- 618 FAX 747-8561 .• SQA Brothers, Inc. 4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1807 Seattle, Washington 98105 Attention: Mark Goldberg Subject: Transmittal Letter Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Proposed Multifamily Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Goldberg: Geotech Consultants, Inc. is pleased to present the results of our recently completed Phase 1 p Environmental Site Assessment for the subject property. Our work was completed in accordance with our proposal dated August 5, 1996. Please find the assessment attached. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to SDA Brothers, Inc. on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of additional service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Shannan Spenc r-Roth Environmental Assessor �1 TABLE OF CONTENTS IA 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 Special Terms and Conditions • • 2.2 Purpose and Scope of Work 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RECONNAISSANCE 2 3.1 Location and Legal Description 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics 3.3 Hazardous Materials 3.4 Other Conditions of Concern 4.0 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION 5 4.1 Previous Environmental and Geotechnical Investigations 4.2 Historical Maps 4.3 Tax Assessor Records 4.4 Washington State Archive Records 4.5 Aerial Photographs 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6 5.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions 5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions 5.3 Hydrogeologic Conditions 5.4 Assumptions and Opinion of Contaminant Mobility and Site Vulnerability 6.0 RECORDS REVIEW 7 6.1 Federal Records Sources 6.2 State Records Sources 6.3 Local Agency Sources 7.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 8 7.1 Findings 7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations 7.3 Limitations 8.0 REFERENCES 9 ATTACHMENTS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Plan Plate 3 Site Photographs Appendix EDR's Radius Map with GeoCheck GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT � Proposed Multifamily Development • ' 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Vicinity Map;. Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The subject site is undeveloped and covered by dense vegetation. Land use in the surrounding area is characterized primarily by single-family residential development. Commercial and multifamily development is further to the north. Historical research indicates that the property has never been developed. Southeast 83rd Street, an abandoned street, divides the subject property into two parcels. This assessment did not reveal any recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. A discussion of the scope of our work, our site observations, and our conclusions are contained in this report. .2.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the property at '4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. • 2.1 Special Terms and Conditions .The scope of work for our review of this site did not include the examination, sampling, or analysis .of subsurface soil or groundwater on the site for potential environmental contaminants. If new 'information is developed in future site work, which may include excavations, borings, or studies, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the findings, re-evaluate the conclusions of this report, and provide amendments as required. ,2.2 Purpose and Scope Of Work The purpose of an environmental assessment is to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 'Liability Act (CERCLA): that is, to make "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice." Our scope of work and the limitations of our study are consistent with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) ,Designation E1527-94: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. The objective of a Phase 1 assessment is to minimize. . ,potential future liability for environmental problems by demonstrating that at the time this report.was ,prepared, the owner, holder, or buyer had no knowledge or reason to know that any hazardous substance had been released or disposed on, in, or at the property. An additional objective of the Phase 1 assessment is to identify potential contamination sources. GEOTECI I CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 2 The goal of the processes established by the ASTM is to identify recognized environmental conditions. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence, or likely presence, of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or the material threat of a release of any hazardous ' substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, Or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally•.would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies. Our study included: • A review of the chronology of ownership and site history, using county assessor records, archival property record cards, historical maps, title company documents, and aerial photography as primary resources. An attempt was made to identify possible former industries or uses presenting some probability of generating waste, which may have included dangerous or hazardous substances, as defined by state and federal laws and regulations. • A reconnaissance of the property to look for evidence of potential contamination in the form of soil stains, odors, vegetation stress, discarded drums, or discolored water. • The acquisition and review of available reports and other documentation pertaining to the subject property or nearby sites. • A review of a search by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of available state and federal government records. EDR reported those sites and businesses that are located within the minimum search distances specified by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-94. Additionally, through observations made during our site reconnaissance, we attempted to identify local topographic conditions that may influence the potential for regulated facilities to adversely impact the subject property. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RECONNAISSANCE Location and Legal Description • Located west of Lincoln Avenue, which is also referred to as 110th Avenue Southeast, the subject property totals 142,799 square feet of land. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. Lfhe property is situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington. The tax identification numbers, as recorded by the King County Assessor's Office, are 334570-0076 and -0100. GEOTEtH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 • Page 3 3.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics An environmental assessor from our firm visited the site on August 20, 1996 to observe on-site conditions and land use practices in the surrounding area. The undeveloped subject property is covered by large deciduous trees and low-lying bushes. Land use in the immediate vicinity is characterized by single-family residences with commercial and multifamily development further to the north. Photographs displaying the subject property are provided as Plate 3 of this report. 3.2.1 Site Improvements The entire lot is undeveloped. The property slopes down towards the north and west. Several wetlands are located on the low-lying portions along the northern and western borders of the site. A utility road is located at the southeastern corner of the property. Potable water, storm, and sanitary sewer services will be provided by the City of Renton. 3.2.2 Building Materials No buildings occupy the property. 3.2.3 Current Uses of Property The site is currently undeveloped and covered by dense vegetation. At the time of our site visit, no major stains, odors, or unusual vegetative conditions that might indicate the potential presence of hazardous contamination were noted on the subject property. 3:2.4 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties Land use in the site vicinity is characterized by residential development. More specifically, the property is bordered as follows: North: Undeveloped property defines the site's northern border. East: Lincoln Avenue Northeast, also referred to as 110th Avenue Southeast, defines the eastern border of the property. An undeveloped, wooded hillside is across this street. Single-family residences are to the southeast. South: Single-family residences are to the south. West: Single-family residences sit below the property to the west. A mini- storage business is to the northwest. During our reconnaissance, we did not observe any signs of improper storage or disposal practices of hazardous waste on any of the neighboring sites. See the Site Plan attached to this report as Plate 2 for the site area layout. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 4 3.3 Hazardous Materials ••3.3.1 Storage Tanks and Containers At the time of our site visit, we looked for evidence of underground or above-ground storage tanks on the subject parcel. No signs of underground or above-ground storage tanks were observed during our site reconnaissance. 3.3.2 Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint No structures are on the site. We• did not observe signs of asbestos-containing g materials or lead-based paint on the property. 3.3.3 PCBs Prior to 1979, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widely used in electrical equipment, such as transformers, capacitors, switches, fluorescent light ballasts, and voltage regulators, owing to their excellent cooling properties. In 1976, the EPA initiated the regulation of PCBs through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These regulations generally control the use, manufacture, storage, documentation, and disposal of PCBs. The EPA eventually banned PCB use in 1978, and the adoption of amendments to TSCA under Public Law 94-469 in 1979 prohibited any further manufacturing of PCBs in the United States. No transformers were observed on the subject property. 3.3.4 Waste Generation and Disposal No hazardous or solid waste is generated at the subject property. 3.4 Other Conditions of Concern 1Radon is a naturally occurring, highly mobile, chemically inert, radioactive gas created through the 'radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. The potential for the occurrence of radon varies widely land depends on: (1) the concentration of radioactive materials in the underlying bedrock, (2) the relative permeability of soils with respect to gases, and (3) the amount of fracturing or faulting in the surficial materials (EPA, 1987). The EPA has established a concentration for radon of 4 pico- Curies per liter (pC/I) of air as a maximum permissible concentration "action level." According to some studies, the average concentration in homes across the United States is on the order of 1.4 pC/I. Typically, the Puget Sound area of Washington is underlain by a consolidated thickness of glacial (drift and rocks that do not contain radon-forming minerals. The Washington Department of Health, Division of Radiation Protection, published a study listing the King County average as 0.7 pC/I. 'Based on this information, it is our opinion that the potential for elevated levels of radon at this site is low. GEOTECII CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 5 4.Q HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION Sources reviewed for information on site and area development and land use included historic aerial photography and resources at the King County Assessor's Office, the Puget Sound branch of the Washington State Archives, and the Seattle Public Library. 4.1 Previous..Environmental and Geotechnical Investigations Geotech Consultants, Inc. recently completed a geotechnical engineering study for the site. We excavated ten test pits throughout the property. Our subsurface explorations encountered medium- dense to dense, slightly silty sand in the upper 6 to 13 feet of the site. • 4.2 Historical Maps A 1950s Kroll Atlas map of the site and area shows the subject property undeveloped and owned by King County. This map shows Southeast 83rd Street (also known as 109th Avenue Southeast) dividing the subject lot in half. The road connects 110th Avenue Southeast, which is east of the subject property, with 108th Avenue Southeast to the west. One small structure is on the adjacent property to the north and two residences are to the east. A 1960s Kroll map shows residences to the west, with the subject site remaining undeveloped. A 1983 U.S. Geological Survey map of the site and area shows the mini-storage facility to the northwest and residences to the east, west, and south. A small pond is on the property to the north and May Creek is across 108th Avenue Southeast to the west. 4.3 Tax Assessor Records The King County Assessor's Office lists the current taxpayer as Pickell II Investors, having acquired the property in 1993 from Jane Hinderman in a Quit Claim Deed transaction. Continental Investors Corporation apparently acquired the property in 1983 from Robert Ordal in a foreclosure. The two tax parcels of the subject property are zoned for commercial uses. No restrictive conditions, contamination, or open space conditions are associated with the property. Additional information obtained from the Assessor's Office indicates the mini-storage warehouses to the northwest were constructed in 1973, the residences to the west were built in the early 1950s, and the house that borders the site to the south was constructed in 1943. 4.4 State Archive Records The property to the north was developed with a single-family residence in 1909 that was torn down in 1966. Information on file at the archives indicates that Thomas Barto owned the subject lots and the adjacent parcel to the north in 1939. The Munson Investment Corporation purchased all of the lots in November of 1962. The northernmost subject parcel slopes down to the north at an eight percent grade. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 6 Additional information gathered at the archives suggests that the lots to the west were developed Witt) single-family residences between 1953 and 1957. The lots to the south were developed with residences in 1943. .5 Aerial Photographs • e reviewed aerial photographs dated 1936, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995. It appears that the subject property has never been developed with structures and the northern portion of the site was used as a gravel pit in 1968. In the 1936 photograph the area is rural in nature with sparse residential development. Residences appeared to the south and east in the 1946 photograph and then to the west in the 1956 photograph. The northern portion of the site and the property to the north appear to be used as a gravel pit in the 1968 and 1974 photographs. The property is covered by trees and dense vegetation in the 1980 photograph and commercial development has occurred further to the north. No major changes appeared in the remaining photographs. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5.1 Regional Physiographic Conditions The subject property is located on the western border of Newcastle Hills above the southeastern area of Lake Washington. The southern property border is at an approximate elevation of 90 feet above sea level and the northern border is at an approximate elevation of 60 feet above sea level. Lake Washington is approximately one-half mile west. 5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions Our geotechnical engineering study for the property included ten test pit explorations. Our investigation found glacially deposited medium-dense to dense sands. 5.3 Hydrogeologic Conditions The geologic unit that we assume characterizes the site is moderately permeable. Based upon local drainage patterns and upon our review of a U.S. Geological Survey map of the area, it is likely that the flow of surface, or shallow-seated subsurface, water across the property would be toward the northwest to Lake Washington. According to a U.S. EPA Ground Water Handbook, water tables typically conform to surface topography (Chapter 4, page 78). No drinking water wells are located within one-mile of the subject site. 5.4 Assumptions and Opinion of Contaminant Mobility and Site Vulnerability We have not confirmed any potential sources of environmental contamination on the subject property. No confirmed hazardous waste contaminated sites lie within 1,000 feet of the subject GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 7 property in an upgradient hydraulic position. As such, it is our professional opinion that the potential for the migration of theoretical water-borne contamination onto the subject property is very low. 6.0 RECORDS REVIEW Geotech Consultants, Inc. utilized the services of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to complete a search of available state and federal government records. EDR reported those sites and businesses that are located within the minimum search distances specified by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-94. Additionally, through observations made during our site reconnaissance, we attempted to identify local topographic conditions that may influence the potential for regulated facilities to adversely impact the subject property. The databases searched by EDR, as well as the search areas applied to each, are summarized in the following sections. A copy of the EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck is included with this report as an appendix. 6.1 Federal Records Sources 6.1.1 NPL No sites within a 1-mile radius of the subject property are found on the National Priority List. 6.1.2 CERCLIS A review of the EPA's CERCLIS listing reveals no active sites within approximately one- half mile of the subject property that have been designated as potentially hazardous or eligible for participation in the Superfund cleanup program. • 6.1.3 ERNS The subject property does not appear on the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database of spill response activities. 6.1.4 FINDS A review of the Facility Index System (FINDS) listing and the EPA's RCRA Notifiers list, along with our site and area reconnaissance, reveals no RCRA-regulated businesses on, or adjacent to, the subject property. 6.1.5 TSD A review of the RCRIS-TSD list shows no sites within a 1-mile radius of the subject property. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 8 6.2 State Records Sources "6.2.1 WDOE Underground Storage Tanks A review of the WDOE listing of underground storage tanks (USTs) reveals no registered USTs on, or adjacent to, the subject property. A review of the current Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list also reveals no sites within a half-mile radius that are upgradient of the subject property that have experienced leaks of petroleumlnto the environment. 6.2.2 WDOE Hazardous Site Listings A review of the WDOE Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites (C&SCS) report shows no sites within one mile that are upgradient of the subject property that have been designated as confirmed hazardous substance sites. 6.3 Local Agency Sources A review of the King County Health Department records pertaining to current and abandoned landfills within the county suggests that no landfills are located within 1 mile of the subject property. A statewide listing of municipal solid waste facilities also does not record any landfills in this area. 7.0 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION We performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, consistent with the scope and limitations of ASTM Designation E 1527-94, for the property at 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. 7.1 Findings This assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property. 7.2 Conclusions and Recommendations No recognized environmental conditions were found in connection with the subject property. As such, no additional environmental study appears to be warranted at this time. 7.3 Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SDA Brothers, Inc. and its representatives for specific application to this site. This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work is in accordance with our Fee Schedule and General Conditions and our signed proposal, which is dated August 5, 1996. • • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Brothers Inc. JN 96285A September 9, 1996 Page 9 8.0 REFERENCES Division of Radiation Protection, Department of Health, State of Washington. Radiation Fact Sheet. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, subject site. Inquiry 131507.1 s. August 20, 1996. Geotech Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Study, subject site. Job number 96285. September 1996. Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA Ground Water Handbook - Volume 1: Ground Water and Contamination. EPA/625/6-90/016a. September 1990. • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. I . ,•" 'mime rr� �=X N iE57T u y 3Ttf 'ST}\.i 93ao- y ,g SE R911r �t PIO•NEER 4, 3 a' ...�•y TS ,s 6TH= \ m A r'• SE 70TH...1 ST SE h 7OTHST•r2 ]OTw t w� PARK.i aEu w P !T T t �' r I. ,- 6� SE/J 4 w s 5T SE e. 4'ikss= ' ,tis , 2 t.SE.. ND- SE sr� _��/• 11 si __I {.:o' < 5 i, 1sr • .. . • f�Nf 7. T NAZELW'OOD Ilsr SPLN < : sE 7(39. . 72N0'`'PCK. Q'r ©51 �ti ">�f, LtO �' PK .5i, P 7 RO PL '� 7 a < ti It.� r Vali fy 5E�•r � � • N ST ®J s � f !'' �� a ' �, ..„'�'.. r _ c SE 7 .400 it .... • y 1. ry i`r r!r^ $EST' tip =iN s•Sx PLy .' _ < a a SE T6S SE 751H PL r .r�' 44 r:F:,•..•'' =hl - ci r E )9t _ °`r '�.k ���SF•9VURXE y ' ;lei \l •`�w H r�. _ n S t:s . �'< `4C' BEACH ,,/� ST 1 SE.7.. • j9 ct ell 79TH Sr Jv tie. .f"A • ST !PIRX' 43Rtl ? SE 6arx ST PLz 11200 11500 �, E 8 1 r SE 5' w rr BEST 0 •t4o, 11 U. w N PL „�V azsD = A Y /Q� • 4U5 .� 5 S / \ 1 SE 93RD6 • ' N CT N 40TH ST > aar 1 Jy C •x • EK / < sT ,$ . L300 z 5E aSrF N PL .E BSTH '••' N 38TH o ST \LN �Q SE 86TH ST PL,,Z • H 37TH Si ^ ST < \,`Q �`�• (�'„J SE 77TH Si 3S>r"sE J� N • • f --INWNYPARX 36TH '"' NE 36TH SE :8TH., a erc ST 'BEACH 600 I 34TH ST a ST, "r ST `�% �' r7$ S 189TH ST V ft9pp B31N - 9l yy g9lH.`o,- 33RD PL • i:r L IL i�Tt• 90TH ST ri 7;•,• re L :h • 0 3o SE 91ST S }.''••••I CREEK'''`i • • �� 33RD ST^ < SE 1220D , -E" S' `.'t,,p w :1 i�fi;,�' L:FK t'u:i r 1 92ND ST ,�,VI LC.-,„ 'I. L.�.: POINT % r^ ` PI 3151. ST e -< t e x ^ , P.1.:, EaEEK • N 30TH a ST . •• ,,r•E•-•-4 ,,z:... e i 93A0. SZ `gib !+; 1-..••• ,MAY.:.'' ,,, p,^,... .., 5E- f I K ,.. • 7aa two I rs;.>> RK:< '''' h.i+r..^'.' r - N 29TH ST i o n , .:`'"''',:l., .•,..~iA�: ;,�"."c fea.., ";'' Sµ•.j.,,+" .9rH�':: icy-?:.r;�::. r:�..:.. ,,.'a y .�. zT . 28TH PL N [ 1 ' 1 \ ...-. s,5'1,.. � _ 9. _ r NE 28THy ST 1`!"�;a: F ' .* _28TLL—.—-Sr-— N ——--� --—-- Ti .,,. �;''-...�,, .r S"SE 9. T% �C � St I, E 27TH sT •Wit, tIltw• rx \' f •, • 27TH 2100 i I , E.'Flit1._7T,�('r� ``, & se qat 5. �/L a Gi > ,y "Jz.`i -<;vr:,'r�l.e p F SE 99TH Si N. . ..• .AL' 26TH ST • 251N o c W iw < z w E \,.t Ir `tip '1'1l- x� w t E _ �KENNYO LE . is ST i 1m -SE ST' • = a ti . ;' LIONS 1 • L, INGTON • \ 'I _24TH EL w ®�F ' : W 1700 p =_}<'< NE 3RD PL • "'., v' 1 ¢ • E 1\I N 7F 22PID oD 3R0 ST =_ . I `9 ' `r;' 3 `�<' W _ I. 22PID ST 0 ¢ ^1 A:'1 = 5 NE 215T Sox : o s • ;Oa_ r1 g VIE!E! i s<�� .�uir sr op�q.�,,. 00 ` O o HE 20TH $ :01.;300° - �9 s stH 4,1 `r,�`; y i0'c 1700 w_ NE 20 5 `c �`7 + ii SrII • .., SS 19ix n�. NE St 3 Tr Ei St • K• Z vE i NE S9 NE Sr NORTH H DS V•`a�0 NE "23 P._•,,. W a ARK--r„„,< SS /� •Tj•^ Q ti� VS W s:: k r 4 ci, G v. a z x 16jj/':�: rrH Sr °E .ttN;,r... w G_i 1tt� VE l5,C _ • I'r•T " <w2 1 BOAT LAb CH °'sy.y1;2 i zaoo= PlGD =S�` s• :\.-....T: 9 NE k s S? w 13TH ST NE PL c2 NID -�Q w Y ST HE 134H ST • p' 'M- _ z ti NE I3TH ST GENE '_CO rN V, - ' Fo w ? NE 13TH W >< W >;HE'HOR1AL;:S. • y 7 `*o r ■ 18.' o: `BEACHPARR' \ NE 12TH o sr 7� NE d- 1,..,�: tc� /L\ /�/ I2100 �W =25(j0 = /�(" P•4,0 wI :3' 5 Ct^ ` •s:. i$ ►•7 o EC%s�svir/i- /.4 .ter vI I. ..zL R� vI. LEGEND: PROBABLE DIRECTION OF SHALLOW GROUNDWATER FLOW NEAR SITE 1 • • ' VICINITY MAP .,..441, GEOTECH • 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Plate: 96285A SEP 1996 1 1 it 1 MINI-STORAGE I,I, UNDEVELOPED • WOODED PROPERTY .. UNDEVELOPED I WETLAND I SINGLE-FAMILY j RESIDENCES I . WETLAND' I. SINGLE-FAMILY I j RESIDENCES ' • j w . I j • w I I • SE 83rd STREET I z (VACATED) I I > I I r I 0 DIRT ROAD T SITE I--------------•— z w D z w > I Z . J 0 SINGLE-FAMILY z i RESDENCES Zi z i 1 I 1 I • I .- SITE PLAN _ GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA 1 Job No: Date: Plate: 96285A SEP 1996 2 r . , • . . -':',7,:';;;;,r,•,••4" '" :bp -• , .i,„,. • _ ,•.$ -,., 449 1 :,..:::;if.'NI'NI'• '. 44 '. . ' ,,z/i4r, , ,, ,' ,„,,t;,h;,!,••, • 'tate,-.' . .' .1.. L''7 ' ' • .. ' "!"-b , .. '''l . 1"q,4,,,o, ' -''''• 4*. ..6:ft t • _6 " ':,,,,,,:. , 4. '..0 -`, 14) .---•:;,!, :'4...- .s. 1. ' ,... .01* '....0: •-•7a. •••,.. •,..'" ,..., .,,,.. 4,,,t,.,..:.4.,:i..%•••,,, , , •:•':" ',o'V,''',,,,4xv,„,"t-t;', „s• 40`1,-,, ,•,7!••L • • ' '--1,.10,,A710'..','" Pr , k .,... , 1 y. •1111111° F . ,,„ I ••;k:,„..... 1--4--.:. .. '1 ,;4714......t, •".4 i,"-- A •Nah.„.t. -----..., 's",%. •.:. •*i'" ' is, \ • , . •,,,‘,st.„.., •• ...V.'..-. .i , 404 • • 1-.• h,.,.- .10,.;`;',•--"..,:. •I. itto .t• r• • •41-.".19' ...•;1'. I e . :i0P0ere. ,•",ii:",", * • .. •. :,'`‘' ' . i F•,- , 0. .,.....-..-7•-•,....:---rar-T„ ...., _..... -- ,.._ - .. ...,.....- _ _..._ rait,40.4.....,..... ' P __.. ------ .. _____.---- --- ..,...;.......- ,. EASTERN PROPERTY BORDER, FACING NORTHWEST , • . , •-•,%. .,•• :ii,"•••. ,.."'s.,,, •,-;,e.,.,..,- 1"--,A"^:4 fll,tis ./, ' ' ^ '.3.." '• z• : — , • --t,: •,:t-4C 4 .i • 1 . , •,.. .,,,....1,, ..,,,I.,e .74..,: .,.1i,r.-.t1 c. ,.:?.,;e1.,•.•.,•...1,-f• •....- ; .4 Oa l'' •'' 1. .71!,;":11:1, 4e • ' • ' - .1.. 15,•. : - ..*.P e ,3 4:„...-' k`,.f„ -• .0 , " . ' ". 4,'' !. .`'-• , b*. •,.... ,' • •.` r.1.; ;.. :•'' .4.11y A . :f , , z•. ',-'.. . ",, ,, „,:, .:'.' ,:',,t,... ,:: re) • L' - • ' , c• 't''': ., ' ''• ......•'•:,.4.• i. ' •", ' '4'' . • ' •!.'•••'•• .," ' ",1‘41'. , • • • ' . ••• • '.•:'• • , • ''''...-,1•';:•44 ('-,t?': •""'. ..1.1. .f• • ' •• .. '' ' •'. •V 4, ., •- , :,'',.;•t•'4. ' u".• - ' ' ,'' •'t i;..) '1-4'1,..:!,,i-Af,'". ..-'.. ..)."..1: • ' ••"' " .,, .•.'''.14: Vi'''''',1".4 ',: • '•'' • • • :. .,' '-'1'•.'4- •7,... . .. . • ' ..-;..Y47-...,:-.z.1- ,..•- '. I . • • -' ,, •;?I',..e.,4.1 e',,:' 1i — . . '•vi.:Vd-ei;,::`-11C''''' . 'r:' es"'N'i.T:t.-1-6.4.7".04,-,.—" • z- ,h-^, . -1,z-01..-*:•-•10142Zerv ^tr,. .1:••••(.21: .. N••••• 6.,..47.3..74..C.,• t'... • : '''.S••1."-* ....• . . I C.'S." el ieW0/4..;# 4......:1',X,..:1: '.'5,- .'si•::. .'..'.4,i,.. .a* ".'''• •• . .'" 'a::.... APO'-'' -•'s' '",* .:2"---s-. ,,--••..'..Asr:'+4 ti ..*' '•,'"'a v st,•6`,-6, `'.••-• .. •''7-... •- -'" • ,L, ‘.:• ,.,::,,..;. Ve'` ,,',"'. C...0- 7 , '44. -•-•-• ,2-7,,:4•-k'C' .. .4.17"....t..-E-Z;;, _ -•". ..,_, . %„:-- ec,;k,f-..,°-.•_ '''1.•' -"`.G.:,' ..-V '--- . ...• '' 'S .. ., ' T: 1 - -z ''.----,-, \-N-,:i.1-',.,e "• •.,), '''‘ '•..• -. . • ...e.1. , ':,-... ' , • • ,:ii.",,2,'4V;^'::::. " , • , ,..,.7.`;-;,.-,7,-...--t,•'--.. 'tl. ,I i4 .% y" .." 4'".• ' ..o- kW,• ..... I • SOUTHERN PORTION OF PROPERTY, FACING SOUTH , SITE PHOTOGRAPHS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA -49,n i...„,. ...._.... ,, „..,...- Job No:96285A Date: Plate: SEP 1996 3 APPENDIX EDR's Radius Map with GeoCheck F GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. ELF : Environmental • Data •• Resources, Inc. • • Creators of Toxicheck/® The EDR-Radius Map with GeoCheckTM 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 Inquiry Number: 131507.3s The Source For Environmental August 20, 1996 Risk Management Data 3530 Post Road Southport, Connecticut 06490 Nationwide Customer Service Telephone: 1-800-352-0050 Fax: 1-800-231-6802 : : :.::.:.::,TABLE .OF..CONTENTS ........ .. :.:...:...: .. ........:.. .. .::::.. SECTION PAGE ' Executive Summary_ ES1 ' Topographic Map _ 2 GeoCheck Summary_ 3 Overview Map_ . 4 Detail Map- 5 Map Summary-All Sites_ 6 Map Summary-Sites with higher or the same elevation as the Target Property_ 7 Map Findings- 8 Orphan Summary_ . 10 APPENDICES GeoCheck Version 2.1 Al EPA Waste Codes.. A6 • Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking Addendum A7 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer This Report contains information obtained from a variety of public sources and EDR makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy,reliability,quality,or completeness of said Information or the information contained in this report. The customer shall assume full responsibility for the use of this report. No warranty of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose,expressed or implied,shall apply and EDR specifically disclaims the making of such warranties. In no event shall EDR be liable to anyone for special, Incidental,consequential or exemplary damages. Copyright(c)1996 by EDR. All rights reserved. TC131507.3s Page 1 A.search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). The search met the specific requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-94, or custom distances requested by the user. The address of the subject property for which the search was intended is: 4100 LINCOLN AVE. NE RENTON,WA 98056 No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the subject property or within the ASTM E 1527-94 search radius around the subject property for the following Databases: NPL: National Priority List Delisted NPL: NPL Deletions RCRIS-TSD: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System CERC-NFRAP: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities Handbook UST: Statewide UST Site/Tank Report RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRIS-LQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System PADS: PCB Activity Database System ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System FINDS: Facility Index System TRIS: .Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System NPL Liens: .Federal Superfund Liens TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System RODS: Records Of Decision CONSENT: .Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Wa Air Emissions: .Washington Emissions Data System Coal Gas: Former Manufactured gas(Coal Gas) Sites. Unmapped (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. Search Results: Search results for the subject property and the search radius, are listed below: Subject Property: The subject property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. TC131507.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 i I .:..:... .::..... . CUTIVE SUMMARY : ::::>-' :. :>;> ''�`"; � :'°,;. J. Surrounding Properties: • Elevations have been determined from the USGS 1 degree Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. EDR's definition of a site with an elevation equal to the subject property includes a tolerance of -10 feet. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the subject property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the subject property (by more than 10 feet). Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. CSCSL: The State Hazardous Waste Sites records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS.These sites may or may not already by listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. The data comes from the Department of Ecology's Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites List. A review of the CSCSL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 11/13/1995 has revealed that there is 1 CSCSL site within approximately 1 Mile of the subject property. Lower Elevation Address Map ID Page QUENDALL TERMINALS 4503 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N 3 8 CERCLIS:The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, persuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. A review of the CERCLIS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/31/1996 has revealed that there is 1 CERCLIS site within approximately 0.5 Miles of the subject property. Lower Elevation Address Map ID Page QUENDALL TERMINALS 4503 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N 3 8 LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents.The data comes from the Department of Ecology's Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List. A review of the LUST list,as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/1996 has revealed that there is 1 LUST site within approximately 0.5 Miles of the subject property. Lower Elevation Address Map ID Page • HEATH CUSTOM PRESS 4308 JONES AVE NE 1 8 • TC131507.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE:SUMMARY<: ` ` ` ` RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites 1, that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the RCRIS-SQG list,as provided by EDR,and dated 05/31/1996 has revealed that there are 2 RCRIS-SQG sites within approximately 0.25 Miles of the subject property. • Lower Elevation Address Map ID Page ' ' HEATH CUSTOM PRESS 4308 JONES AVE NE 1 8 WDOE NRQ,MONARCH PAINTING 4016 JONES AVE NE 2 8 _ I I ' • _ I TC131507.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 E • ... ...............:.....:..... ...:.:.:......:......, E.CUTIVE'SUMMARY. > �': `>.; :`...> . :' ' '''`?`" � ;. ..; Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) J H BAXTER&CO RENTON RCRIS-SQG,CSCSL ' RENTON SCHOOL CASCADE ELEMENTARY LUST RENTON SCH CASCADE ELEMENTARY LUST • WDOE NRO MAY VALLEY DRUMS RCRIS-SQG,FINDS PUGET SOUND POWER& LIGHT CO FINDS,RCRIS-LQG ' 'CORNER OF SE MAY VALLEY RD& 143 AVE SE ERNS • • • • • • • TC131507.3s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 ERROR: undefined OFFENDING COMMAND: 1 STACK: 39.6 198. 0 • :;:: • .:' .GEOCHECK..VERSION• 2• . •1. :.. • SUMARY::::'.::. M . : :: ;:.°,` GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATIONt ••Geologic Code: ITa • Era: Cenozoic • • System: Tertiary Series: Lower Tertiary andesite ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNITt Category: Volcanic Rocks GROUNDWATER FLOW INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site Is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site-specific well data.If such data Is not reasonably ascertainable,It may be necessary to rely on other sources of information,Including well data collected on nearby properties,regional groundwater flow information(from deep aquifers),or surface topography.# General Topographic Gradient: General West General Hydrogeologic Gradient: No hydrogeologic data available. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE Target Property: 2447122-E2 MERCER ISLAND,WA FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL DISTANCE DEPTH TO QUADRANT FROM TP LITHOLOGY WATER TABLE Northern 1/2-1 Mile Not Reported Not Reported Eastern 1/2-1 Mile Not Reported 242 ft. Southern 1/2-1 Mile Not Reported 2 ft. Western 1 -2 Miles Not Reported 140 ft. STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL DISTANCE QUADRANT FROM TP NO WELLS FOUND PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION(EPA-FRDS) Searched by Nearest Well. NOTE: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. PWS Name: LAKE SAMISH MOBILE TERRACE MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 Location Relative to TP: >2 Miles North Well currently has or has had major violation(s): Yes AREA RADON INFORMATION Zip Code: 98056 ,=. Number of sites tested:2 Area Average Activity 0/0<4 pCi/L 0/0 4-20 pCi/L %>20 pCi/L Living Area- 1st Floor 0.800 pCi/L 100% 00/0 0% Living Area-2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Basement 0.600 pCi/L 1000/0 0% 00/0 t Source:P.G.Schruben,R.E.Arndt and W.J.Bawiec,Geology of the Conterminous U.S.at 1:2.500,000 Scale-A digital representation of the 1974 P.B.King and H.M.Beikman Map,USGS Digital Data Series DDS•11(1994). U.S.EPA Ground Water Handbook,Vol I:Ground Water and Contamination,Office of Research and development EPA16 2516-9 0/01 6a,Chapter 4,page 78,September 1990. TC131507.3s Page 3 OVERVIEW MAP - 131507.3s - GEOTECH Consultants, Inc. r`rx.!r ij tit r f iØ'4'! UIU ,-........„.....iftillitill 7. `' • at idt to _ gill 111111 1 r r r - r n i, H Ii' r Yfr I l` rf 7r.,tt r (lf�rr`(i+r rA < 1i ! 4 ! r r �r t j 14f ti 1 Sk f ,, f y r 5 h r 4 4 1r f f. J J IYtI 4.. y r , rt r t 1,ij .i x-il .,1 4 r J r ,,j rrr /' ,f i l`11 ,,. C r { \��,irf .riA ,/"Vl 1 ) rrf r Irt'I(rN 4% 1 7 r fr,`kt',ts.t 4 n r C' S ,r ra,,tilt °,!: "tit, rJ,r,r1� ' ,S ry i}' • . �� 1 1 1 '��2 r �,+r J,', A - �r 1�, I1 r, ill (u 1/ 1d 1r {• tl " .t r- ( s r '' Ir Aiili ' f 1 r `,,,',,,I,ii t Irt,{i, + ,_ a ,.nt.. . uNA§ _ 0 11., . , v___________________ _7 t i � ,_... ,„„, „........... ,.. ,,,,,L,„,, ,,. ... ,,,,/,,,- ------ ,re, ......" i J4j t ,r r 1 tin 1! r. �� imil. I t- IIi1 i g�• t tr�i, 4 5 4 1' !<r 5 .:7, x 1�-{ yl ti ix j yV in tr,p, t ,rniJt(Inn, tr(7nl ,,ALt i,. „t yt�,,:', 4A�jH)(t!Il y`_lj _ al , . * - Indicates TARGET PROPERTY. "' td 'YOI. A - Indicates sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property. • - Indicates sites at elevations lower• than the target property. A. - Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) 8 - National Priority List Sites - Landfill Sites 14/ - Power transmission lines (USGS DLG, 1993) uv - Oil & Gas pipelines (USGS DLG, 1993) TARGET PROPERTY: 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE CUSTOMER: GEOTECH Consultants, Inc. ADDRESS: 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE CONTACT: Shannan Spencer-Roth CITY/STATE/ZIP: Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 131507.3s LAT/LONG: 47.5293 / 122.1927 ' • DATE: August 20, 1996 6:02 pm DETAIL MAP - 131507.3s - GEOTECH Consultants, Inc. ‹ I ce i, C < .:. a' w v� . $ a h , 1.1• N E 4 4 T H Sr NE43Rn PL t4 N m Z m N 9 m m * NN 2 kip „, 1 1 z zz m m a > w < S -sr II ; .Ay 2 ..q \ LOBO .o P � N� F * - Indicates TARGET PROPERTY. '"` "` 1/4 Mks a - Indicates sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property. • - Indicates sites at elevations lower- than the target property. A. - Coal Gasification Sites (It requested) Z - Sensitive Receptors R - National Priority List Sites - Landfill Sites ,X - Power transmission lines (USGS DLG, 1993) uV - Oil & Gas pipelines (USGS DLG, 1993) TARGET PROPERTY: 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE CUSTOMER: GEOTECH Consultants, Inc. ADDRESS: 4100 Lincoln Ave. NE CONTACT: Shannan Spencer-Roth CITY/STATE/ZIP: Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 131507.3s LAT/LONG: 47.5293 / 122.1927 • • DATE: August 20, 1996 6:03 pm i ::::1:;;'MAP fI D N G $ M . ...:. S U IVIARY`:SH IN .... .: . ... . . :........ . ........ . ... ........ :::::...::. : . ..: ....... ::ALL'SITES'::`: `':;< : ': '; ; Search ,,, Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) <1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 'Plotted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RCRIS-TSD .. 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CS. CSL 1.000 0 0 1 0 NR 1 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 1 NR NR 1 CERC-NFRAP TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 1 0 NR NR 1 UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR • NR 0 RCRIS Sm.Quan.Gen. 0.250 0 2 NR NR NR 2 RCRIS Lg.Quan.Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR ' . NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Wa Air Emissions 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TP=Target Property NR= Not Requested at this Search Distance *Sites may be listed in more than one database TC131507.3s Page 6 . . ....:......:::: ....::r:::: : : ::.::: :.;:::: �,.:MAPFINDINGS:S.UMMARYSH01iN.INGy� ':`:::--:: �.;:;0:. .� ; . -. ;°; ONLY:°SITESHIGHER::THAN:. ... ° :'°°: :° . . ........ . .... .....:.....:.......RT : E::SAME°ELE....ATION�ASTP ���� ;::.::>::: :.,'': Search i.i. Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8- 1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 ' Plotted ' ' NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL TP NR NR NR NR NR •0 ---, RCRIS-TSD . . 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CSCSL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 • CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CERC-NFRAP TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST .0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm.Quan.Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg.Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP • NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Wa Air Emissions 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TP=Target Property NR= Not Requested at this Search Distance *Sites may be listed in more than one database , • TC131507.3s Page 7 >;MAP:1 IND INGS Map ID ::::::::...:..::::.;.r,:. :: : .:::.;,. : .::r•:. Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found In a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database. 1 HEATH CUSTOM PRESS RCRIS-SQG 1000405668 NW 4308 JONES AVE NE FINDS WAD061672630 1/8-1/4 RENTON,WA 98056 LUST Lower RCRIS:•' Owner: CLEM HEATH, HOWARD HEATH Contact:Not reported Waste Quantity Info Source Waste Quantity Info Source D001 .00000(N) Notification F005 .00000(N) Notification X001 .00000(N). Notification (P)=Pounds, (K)=Kilograms, (M)=Metric Tons, (T)=Tons, (N)=Not Reported LUST: Facility ID: 200471 Ecology Region: North Western Release Date: 01/17/1990 Affected Media: Soil Release Status: Reported Cleaned Up Status Date: 1//95/05/2 Status Time: Not reported LUST: Facility ID: 1675 Region: North Western Status: Reported Cleaned Up Status Date: 05/21/1995 Media Affected: Soil Release Date: 01/17/1990 2 WDOE NRO MONARCH PAINTING RCRIS-SQG 1000199634 SW 4016 JONES AVE NE FINDS WAD981769540 1/8-1/4 RENTON,WA 98055 Lower RCRIS: Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON Contact:Not reported Waste Quantity Info Source D001 .00000(N) Notification (P)=Pounds, (K)=Kilograms, (M)=Metric Tons, (T)=Tons, (N)=Not Reported 3 QUENDALL TERMINALS CERCLIS 1000310247 WNW 4503 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N FINDS WAD980639215 1/4-1/2 RENTON,WA 98055 CSCSL Lower CERCLIS Classification Data: Site Incident Category: CHEMICAL PLANT Federal Facility: NO , Ownership Status: OTHER NPL Status: REMOVED FROM THE_PROPOSED NPL EPA Notes: POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN MONITOR-ING WELLS AND IN SOIL ON THE PROPERTY AND IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM LAKE WASHINGTON,NEAR THE PROPERTY. CERCLIS Assessment History: Assessment: DISCOVERY Completed: 06/09/1981 TC131507.3s Page 8 -- :::MAP.FINDINGS: Map ID Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number • • QUENDALL TERMINALS (Continued) 1006310247 Assessment: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Completed: 09/01/1984 Assessment: SCREENING SITE INSPECTION Completed: 10/01/1984 Assessment: PROPOSAL TO NPL Completed: 10/15/1984 Assessment: REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSED NPL Completed: 06/10/1986 CERCLIS Site Status: This site is currently under investigation by the government to assess the extent of further action CERCLIS Alias Name(s): REILLY TAR&CHEM CORP QUENDALL TERMINALS CSCSL: Status: Remedial Action in Progress Affected Media: Affected Media Status: Sediment Confirmed Groundwater Confirmed Soil Confirmed Surface Suspected • • TC131507.3s Page 9 ORPHAN SUMMARY City EDR ID Site Name Site Address Zip Database(s) Facility ID RENTON 9008578 CORNER OF SE MAY VALLEY RD&143 AVE SE ERNS RENTON 1000197735 WDOE NRO MAY VALLEY DRUMS 162ND AVE SE&HWY 900 98056 RCRIS-SQG;FINDS RENTON S102020244 RENTON SCHOOL CASCADE ELEMENTARY 16022 116TH AVE SE LUST • 200421 RENTON S101509252 RENTON SCH CASCADE ELEMENTARY 16022 116TH AVE SE LUST RENTON 1000223629 PUGET SOUND POWER&LIGHT CO 1101 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD 98056 FINDS, RCRIS-LQG RENTON 1000104025 J H BAXTER&CO RENTON 5015 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N 98056 RCRIS-SQG,CSCSL TC131507.3s Page 10 GEOCHECK VERSION 2. ADDENDUM: FEDERAL DATABASE WELL.INFORMATION : Well Closest to Target Property(Northern Quadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 473212122112601 Distance from TP: 1/2-1 Mile Site Type: Single well,other than collector or Ranney type 'Year Constructed: Not Reported County: Not Reported Altitude: 300.00 ft. State: Not Reported Well Depth: 72.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Not Reported Depth to Water Table: Not Reported Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: Not Reported Prim.Use of Water: Domestic LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Not Reported TC131507.3s Page Al >: < ::: ,.>.::..;: ::`` . ......: .. :FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION ::;' Well Closest to Target Property(Eastern Quadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site lb: 473201122110101 Distance from TP: 1/2-1 Mile Site Type: Single well,other than collector or Ranney type Year Constructed: 1936 County: Not Reported Altitude: 550.00 ft. State: Not Reported Well Depth: 407.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Not Reported Depth to Water Table: 242.00 ft. Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: Not Reported Prim.Use of Water: Domestic LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Not Reported TC131507.3s Page A2 <: ':::..:GEOCHECK VERSION 2:1.. . <:::::": .:::::::. .::..:::::::FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION; Well Closest to Target Property(Southern Quadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 473114122113001 Distance from TP: 1/2-1 Mile Site Type: Single well,other than collector or Ranney type 'Year Constructed: Not Reported County: Not Reported Altitude: 262.00 ft. State: Not Reported Well Depth: 9.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Not Reported Depth to Water Table: 2.00 ft. Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: Not Reported Prim.Use of Water: Domestic LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Not Reported • TC131507.3s Page A3 ;.` : GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1 ", .;:... .FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION : " Well Closest to Target Property(Western Quadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 473158122131801 Distance from TP: 1 -2 Miles Site Type: Single well,other than collector or Ranney type Year Constructed: 1953 County: Not Reported Altitude: 350.00 ft. State: Not Reported Well Depth: 154.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Not Reported Depth to Water Table: 140.00 ft. Prim. Use of Site: Withdrawal of water Date Measured: Not Reported Prim. Use of Water: Public supply LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Not Reported • • • TC131507.3s Page A4 : . GEOCHECK:VERSION 2.1: ; :. : : .'::.:::::;..;::: ::: :;:PUBLIC.:°WATER.SUPPLY:SYSTEM.INFORMATION::.°:`:.: Searched by Nearest Well. PWS SUMMARY: PWS ID: WA5344540 PWS Status: Active Distance from TP: >2 Miles Date Initiated: Not Reported Date Deactivated: Not Reported Dir relative to TP: North •• :PWS Name: LAKE SAMISH MOBILE TERRACE MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 Addressee/Facility Type: Not Reported Facility Name: Not Reported Facility Latitude: 47 34 14 Facility Longitude: 122 13 14 City Served: Not Reported: Treatment Class: Treated Population Served: 101 -500 Persons Well currently has or has had major violation(s): Yes VIOLATIONS INFORMATION: Violation ID: 9400405 Source ID: Not Reported PWS Phone: Not Reported Vio.beginning Date: 12/01/93 Vio.end Date: 12/31/93 Vio.Period: 1 Month Num of required Samples: Not Reported Number of Samples Taken: Not Reported Analysis Result: Not Reported Maximum Contaminant Level: Not Reported Analysis Method: Not Reported Violation Type: Monitoring, Routine Major(TCR) Contaminant: COLIFORM(TCR) Vio.Awareness Date: 123193 Violation ID: 9400405 Source ID: Not Reported PWS Phone: Not Reported Vio.beginning Date: 12/01/93 Vio.end Date: 12/31/93 Vio.Period: 1 Month Num of required Samples: Not Reported Number of Samples Taken: Not Reported Analysis Result: Not Reported Maximum Contaminant Level: Not Reported Analysis Method: Not Reported Violation Type: Monitoring, Routine Major(TCR) Contaminant: COLIFORM(TCR) Vio.Awareness Date: 123193 ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION: Enforcement ID Enforcement Enforcement Action Date Follow-up Action 85E0001 09/30/85 State Intentional no-action 86E0001 09/30/86 State Violation/Reminder Notice 86E0002 09/30/86 State AO(w/o Penalty)Issued 9100045 05/31/91 State Site Visit(enforcement) 9400051 12/31/93 State Violation/Reminder Notice TC131507.3s Page A5 • •EPAWaste Codes:Addendum :.:: • ,Code Description D001 IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE THOSE WASTES WHICH HAVE A FLASHPOINT OF LESS THAN 140 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AS DETERMINED BY A PENSKY-MARTENS CLOSED CUP FLASH POINT TESTER. ANOTHER METHOD OF DETERMINING THE FLASH POINT OF A WASTE IS TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET, WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF THE MATERIAL. LACQUER THINNER IS AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMONLY USED SOLVENT WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE. F005 THE FOLLOWING SPENT NON-HALOGENATED SOLVENTS:TOLUENE, METHYL ETHYL KETONE, CARBON DISULFIDE, ISOBUTANOL, PYRIDINE, BENZENE, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL,AND 2-NITROPROPANE;ALL SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES/BLENDS CONTAINING, BEFORE USE,A TOTAL OF TEN PERCENT OR MORE (BY VOLUME)OF ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE NON-HALOGENATED SOLVENTS OR THOSE SOLVENTS LISTED IN F001, F002,OR F004; AND STILL BOTTOMS FROM THE RECOVERY OF THESE SPENT SOLVENTS AND SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES. X001 WASTE OILS • TC131507.3s- Page A6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis,as required. 1•1•Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM RECORDS: CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 703-603-8904 CERCLIS: CEFfOLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,private companies and private persons,pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL)and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version:03/31/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:04/23/96 Date Made Active at EDR:06/03/96 Elapsed ASTM days:41 Database Release Frequency: Monthly Date of Last EDR Contact:07/17/96 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-2342 ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/26/96 Date Made Active at EDR:02/19/96 Elapsed ASTM days:24 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:06/25/96 NPL: National Priority List Source: EPA Telephone: 703-603-8852 NPL: National Priorities List(Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such,it Is EDR's policy to plot NPL sites greater than approximately 300 acres in size as areas(polygons). A polygon boundary is based upon EPA's defined Area of Impact(AOI)for the particular NPL site. The AOI may be the boundaries of the property,the boundaries as determined by the extent of plume migration,or other such boundaries as defined by EPA. Sites smaller in size are point-geocoded at the site's address. Date of Government Version:09/01/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/17/95 Date Made Active at EDR: 10/25/95 Elapsed ASTM days:8 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:06/19/96 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 703-308-7907 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System.RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate,transport,store,treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Date of Government Version:05/31/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:06/10/96 Date Made Active at EDR:07/17/96 Elapsed ASTM days:37 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:06/05/96 TC131507.3s Page A7 - GOVERNMENT:RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING • • • FEDERAL NON-ASTM RECORDS: CONSENT: Superfund(CERCLA)Consent Decrees 1•1 Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL(Superfund)sites. Released periodically •• by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version:Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A Database Release Frequency:Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/01/95 • CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report Source: EPA Telephone: 703-30 8-7907 CORRACTS: CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version:04/10/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/19/96 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/16/96 FINDS: Facility Index System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-908-2493 FINDS: Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and"pointers"to other sources that contain more detail. These include: RCRIS,PCS(Permit Compliance System),AIRS(Aerometric Information Retrieval System), FATES(FIFRA[Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act]and TSCA Enforcement System,FTTS[FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System]),CERCLIS,DOCKET(Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS(Federal Underground Injection Control),FRDS(Federal Reporting Data System),SIA(Surface Impoundments),CICIS(TSCA Chemicals in Commerce Information System), PADS, RCRA-J(medical waste transporters/disposers),TRIS and TSCA. Date of Government Version:09/30/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/05/96 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/07/96 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S.Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-36 6-455 5 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version:12/31/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/29/96 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/28/96 MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version:02/13/96 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/15/96 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/96 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 205-564-4267 NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA)of 1980,the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version:10/15/91 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/25/96 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:08/26/96 • TC131507.3s Page A8 .GOVERNMENT°RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING : :• PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3992 O. PADS: PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators,transporters,commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers ''of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 10/14/94 Date of Last EDR Contact:05/20/96 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:08/19/96 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA. Telephone: 202-564-4104 RAATS: RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. Date of Government Version:04/17/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/19/96 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/16/96 ROD: Records Of Decision Source: NTIS Telephone: 703-416-0703 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL(Superfund)site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version:03/31/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/07/96 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/02/96 TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-2320 TRIS: Toxic Release Inventory System.IRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air,water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version:12/31/92 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/08/96 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/30/96 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202 260-1444 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. USEPA has no current plan to update and/or re-issue this database. Date of Government Version:01/31/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:06/21/96 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:09/16/96 TC131507.3s Page A9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED./ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING . . STATE OF WASHINGTON ASTM RECORDS: CSCSL: Confirmed&Suspected Contaminated Sites List 1.1• Source: Department of Ecology Telephone:'360-407-7200 SHWS: State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states'equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund)are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available information varies by state. Date of Government Version:11/13/95 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:01/15/96 Date Made Active at EDR:02/19/96 Elapsed ASTM days:35 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:05/20/96 HSL: Hazardous Sites List Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7200 HSL: The Hazardous Sites List is a subset of the CSCSL Report. It includes sites which have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method(WARM). Date of Government Version:02/20/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:03/15/96 Date Made Active at EDR:03/26/96 Elapsed ASTM days: 11 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:06/17/96 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7200 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents.Not all states maintain these records,and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version:04/01/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:06/10/96 Date Made Active at EDR:07/11/96 Elapsed ASTM days:31 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:05/07/96 SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities Handbook Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6132 SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites.SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state,these may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 2004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version:02/23/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:02/29/96 Date Made Active at EDR:03/01/96 Elapsed ASTM days: 1 Database Release Frequency:Annually Date of Last EDR Contact:02/21/96 UST: Statewide UST Site/Tank Report Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7170 UST: Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Government Version:01/31/96 Date of Data Arrival at EDR:03/21/96 Date Made Active at EDR:04/18/96 Elapsed ASTM days:28 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact:06/11/96 • TC131507.3s Page A10 • • GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY-TRACKING WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS 0,KING COUNTY: Seattle-King County Abandoned Landfill Toxicity/Hazard Assessment project • Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 206-296-4785 This report presents the Seattle-King County Health Department's follow-up investigation of two city owned and four county owned abandoned landfills which was conducted from February to December 1986. Date of Government Version: 12/31/86 Date of Last EDR Contact:08/14/95 Database Release Frequency:No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Abandoned Landfill Study in King County Source: Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Telephone: 206-296-4785 The King County Abandoned Landfill Survey was conducted from October through December 1984 by the Health Department's Environmental Health Division at the request of the King County Council. The primary objective of the survey was to determine if any public health problems existed at the predetermined 24 sites. Date of Government Version:04/30/85 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/21/94 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Abandoned Landfill Study in the City of Seattle Source: Seattle-King County Department of Public Health Telephone: 206-296-4785 The Seattle Abandoned Landfill Survey was conducted in June and July of 1984 by the Health Department's Environmental Health Division at the request of the Mayor's Office. The primary objective of the survey was to determine if any public health problems existed at the predetermined 12 sites. Date of Government Version:07/30/84 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/21/94 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:N/A SNOHOMISH COUNTY: Soilid Waste Sites of Record at Snohomish Health District Source: Snohomish Health District • Telephone: 206-339-5250 Date of Government Version:03/15/96 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/23/96 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually . Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/21/96 TACOMA-PIERCE COUNTY: Closed Landfill Survey Source: Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Telephone: 206-591-6500 Following numerous requests for information about closed dumpsites and landfills in Pierce County,the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department decided to conduct a study on the matter. The aim of the study was to evaluate public health risks associated with the closed dumpsites and landfills,and to determine the need,if any,for further investigations of a more detailed nature. The sites represent all of the known dumpsites and landfills closed after 1950. Date of Government Version:04/15/93 Date of Last EDR Contact:01/11/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A TC131507.3s Page A11 ...A., .... :. NC:::::.: ..,..,..,, ...::.:::... . .. .: GOVERNMENT:RECORDS SERCHED:/ DATA CURRENCYTRACKING°.-': Washington Department of Ecology Regional Records '.1•LUST Region 1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Source: Department of Ecology Central Regional Office Telephone: 509-454-7658 Date of Government Version:07/06/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/15/96 Database Release Frequency:Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/96 LUST Region 2: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Source: Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office Telephone: 509,-625-5193 Date of Government Version:06/09/94 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/15/96 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact:10/14/96 LUST Region 3: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Source: Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office • Telephone: 206-649-7000 Date of Government Version:06/01/96 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/15/96 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/96 LUST Region 4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Source: Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office Telephone: 206-407-6365 Date of Government Version:01/24/95 Date of Last EDR Contact:07/15/96 Database Release Frequency:Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/14/96 Historical and Other Database(s) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report,the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example,the existence of wetlands inforniation data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover,the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Former Manufactured Gas(Coal Gas)Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan,Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be found at such sites,contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan,Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report,Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. DELISTED NPL: Delisted NPL Sites Source: EPA Telephone: 703-603-8769 DELISTED NPL: The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP)establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e),sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. TC131507.3s Page Al2 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY:TRACKING NFRAP: No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 703-416-0702 '•/• NFRAP: As of February 1995,CERCLIS sites designated"No Further Remedial Action Planned"(NFRAP)have been , removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where,following an initial investigation,no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL,or the contamination was not • serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states,private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. • FRDS: Federal Reporting Data System Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-260-2805 FRDS provides information regarding public water supplies and their compliance with monitoring requirements,maximum contaminant levels(MCL's), and other requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986. Area Radon Information: The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The • study covers the years 1986-1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. Oil/Gas Pipelines/Electrical Transmission Lines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil,but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals who,due to their fragile immune systems, are deemed to be especially sensitive to environmental discharges. These typically include the elderly,the sick, and children. While the exact location of these sensitive receptors cannot be determined,EDR indicates those facilities,such as schools,hospitals,day care centers,and nursing homes, where sensitive receptors are likely to be located. USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey(USGS)implemented a national water resource information tracking system. This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000 wells,springs,and other sources of groundwater. Flood Zone Data: This data,available in select counties across the country,was obtained by EDR in 1994 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Water Dams: National Inventory of Dams Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Telephone: 202-646-2801 WATER DAMS:National computer database of more than 74,000 dams maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Water Wells in Kitsap County Source: Public Utility District No. 1 of Kitsap County • TC131507.3s Page A13 _ -- V I - _ _ G E 0 T E C i i September 13, 1996 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256'N.E.20th St.(Northup Way),Suite 16 JN 96285 Bellevue,WA 98005 (206)7 4 7-516 1 8 FAX 747-8561 SDA Brothers, Inc. do M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1807 Seattle, Washington 98105 Attention: Mark Goldberg Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Apartments 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast • Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Goldberg: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed apartment development to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-3984, dated August 5, 1996. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building-site were explored with 10 test pits that generally encountered medium-dense to dense sand at relatively shallow depths. This soil is suitable for support of the building loads using conventional footings. Some significant grading will likely be done across the site, especially on the eastern side. The non-organic, on-site sand should be suitable for use as structural fill. Vibratory equipment will be necessary for adequate compaction of this soil. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us, if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, F_ TECI H CONSU^TANTS, INC. obert Ward; .E. Associate RW:ant lh. Yip- e�•y __ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Apartment Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed apartment development in Renton. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. We were provided with a 1994 topographic map and a preliminary site plan. Kussman Associates developed these plans, which are dated July 26, 1996. Based on these plans, we anticipate that the development will consist of three 21-unit apartment buildings and one recreation building. Each apartment building will have three stories over one level of parking. Much of the area around the buildings will be paved. Cuts of up to about 20 feet are likely on the eastern side of the site, while fills of up to about 10 feet are likely in the middle or northern portion of the site. Large amounts of soil are also expected to be needed at, or just outside, the eastern edge of the property to fill an existing swale. A new swale will be constructed east of the existing swale. Access to the property will be near the southeastern corner of the property via the newly-constructed North 40th Street that connects to Lincoln Avenue. The storm water detention pond is proposed to be located near the northeastern corner of the property. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is somewhat rectangular in shape and is-located in the northeastern corner of Renton, just east of Interstate 5. The property has approximately 490 feet of frontage on its eastern side along Lincoln Avenue Northeast and approximately 305 feet of frontage on its southern side along the undeveloped right-of-way of Northeast 40th Street. • The undeveloped site is generally heavily covered with small, deciduous trees and brush. Two apparently low grade wetlands are located on the northern end of the site where the site elevation is the lowest (about elevation 60 feet). The site generally slopes gently to moderately upward to the south to an elevation of about 90 feet. However, a steep ridge that has an elevation of about 110 feet at the crest is located along, or just off, the eastern edge of the site and just south of the site. Some underground utilities are apparently located just off the southern property line, and a cut through the ridge was obviously made to install the utilities. A storm water swale is located just at, but mostly beyond, the eastern property line, east of the high ridge. This swale is proposed to be relocated so that the entire swale is beyond the property. Subsurface I _ The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 10 test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the GEOTECI.1 CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 2 proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface cgnditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and the time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on August 21, 1996 with a large trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 7. The test pits generally found sand and silty sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. The sands were loose above these dense layers. In Test Pits 4, 6, and 10, excavated on the side of a steep bank, the loose sand was deeper. In Test Pits 4 and 5, at the northwestern portion of the site, the sands were underlain by hard silt at 7 and 4 feet, respectively. • The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines, on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture.descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. • Groundwater -. The only groundwater seepage observed in the test pits was at a depth of 7 feet in Test Pit 3 at the northern end of the site. However, the test pits were left open for only a short time period and groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be a significant consideration for this project unless deep cuts are made on the northern end of the site. We would anticipate that the only potential deep cuts in this area would be for utility installation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The test pits encountered sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. This sand is suitable to support buildings that are founded on conventional footings. Structural fill placed over this sand is also suitable for building support: Compaction of the sand will be needed at the footing subgrade level regardless of whether the - sand is native or consists of structural fill. A major geotechnical engineering aspect of this project is the large amount of mass grading needed for the project. Cuts of up to 20 feet are proposed on the eastern side of the site, while fills GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 3 of up to 10 feet are likely in the central or northern area. The uppermost soil encountered in the pptential cut areas had a significant amount of roots and should not be used as structural fill. Below that, the soil consists of sands that are relatively fine-grained. These types of sand can be used as structural fill, but may require extra compactive effort. Only vibratory equipment should be used to compact these sands. In addition, fine sands are very difficult to compact if they are dry. In the summer months, much water may need to be added to the sand during the compaction process. On the positive side, sands can be compacted during wet weather provided it is not raining heavily and the soil is not excessively wet. I , Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. Conventional Foundations The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense to dense, native sand or on structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the later sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of " loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site.and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.- When creating the building pad above the .existing ground surface, the outside edge of the structural fill should begin at a distance from the building that is equal to the height of the fill beneath the building. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot �psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent, native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 10 feet in thickness, will be about one inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and • the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation: For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEOTECI-1 CONSULTANTS.INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 4 Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. ' If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will ' not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. Seismic'Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S2. The soils are not subject to seismic liquefaction. Slabs-on-Grade The building floors may be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop competent native soil. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of sla•l?-construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine-grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. We recommend proof-rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof-rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls-that restrain level backfill: GEOTECII CONSULTANTS.INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 5 Parameter Design Value • Active Earth Pressure* 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 120 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. i . * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. i n The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. • The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. • Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of - particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The on-site sand that meets this recommendation can be used as backfill. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled with pervious soil. GEOTECFI CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 6 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. Excavations and Slopes • Excavation slopes should not exceed the'limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based" on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations,. retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during:wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand can cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Drainage Considerations We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all backfilled, earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch- minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, S.upac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDABros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 7 All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 8. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Some groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should { slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. Pavement Areas All pavement sections may be supported on competent, native soil or structural fill, provided these soils can be compacted to a 95 percent density and are in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Structural fill or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non-woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be 'required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc.,. after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill-beneath pavements are given in a later sub- section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to 'be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be. placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 8 optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Minimum Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry .. density to the maximum dry density, as. determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in the test pits is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SDA Brothers, Inc. and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. • SDA Bros JN 96285 Page 9 September 13, 1996 standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However,-our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 7 Test Pit Logs Plate 8 Footing Drain Detail • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 10 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. r a, ✓/y 1 �J • � tin • — 66 ¢ISTE �ON�LE��' EXPIRES t� D. Robert Ward, P.E. Associate James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal • DRW/JRF:ant cc: Kussman Associates • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. / �k ��pp �ur^f _ t: ::'':- -' :f S5ryr - IyL1 :::''.T.:21:1'4‘1:."1::::"...C:f.":.: 8 �.. . .. .wt. .�. r.vy. t1. C1 t� �` �, ; 79 rn ISr --' it - .,j,, C a r _-_r U r• i � -nsrPLGN - - I E72p~,.. y1 4% HIIELrG00 � < ;: rr� srti:r ® �/f � , _ offN ¢ noo ;r tSt1 zIJ'c0 p:• S f�• A' . . 6Tp 1; c 01. . - C. j 1 SE 77TH PL N . ME( ' i1,ri s- "7 Yam" T',, �"•`/ J 44T �.' rL 1,.y _ a vp (\/\.AK Eli Si- .I • E St sr , / I ,J Ili S;- •` • r t�,ci 1. 'r 9Q/i=C'. . uua Ny :LFlll it• t �tl 4]RD '---- 1 cr r1:n sr porn -,-• St f Z1 1 t •o 0 fir.[- SE`+ - 1✓y Y . -,, :a, + B.ST ;t 'zI• :fit •- ,M .1� N PL r:W n i(Ef u -� . a - 1 3_,a a P . . E1V.1 c. . / 405 , LL s° v r AY S WO3:t >• •? • ti Cr \� . r .'1 r-• 9e �/:. N 4OTH Sr '�` IN/0, il. t.•.-_ x . Jr NMISrae 4-., _ �a? lJcO ,,, iE dir- I • I a o,�f ,Q rlI j' �`(t_E K se sD r -• > �,,• 7 S s t1 38TH ST . .rs Lam .e - tl 3 .r I^ SE Sirs Srr n 7't1• Sf •o rJ Y Si 9'ta Sr i CO'rei•r J/ E . C I \ I1 JYØ36TH ST 35TH ST `. Sr J ti to 3 5:189TH ST 1/9p0 99rl1 x' P• t 1_ A9Jy., -� .. ��to F 34TH a Si � t^_C^ice,`�: :.ice.. s..5.:• S: F90H ST cr'• �.., c t 33RD PL _ tr`. 1- T-, 4 "� SE 9L5T ST."? CREEK;21i "'"` r�-- tl 33RD \ ' °` 115 ST a 1 CS SE - tIa_00 PK;:,-•s ,.ii,:,;:.. 0!R( 700 tl 31ST 5T d. b 0et^ .\r !Ie ,`a K x o - •.".::1 r c rK o \ 'IF 315T ST :1 ::::Ti r� _, ti< _ _"±fi:`," CR • H 36TH a ST ,IWY:.;C2EK :. r_y]ao r'.:':.c;:i • • WI,...::,--S cl�.t tl 29TH ST 11:4 '° r °. .1 `rt.: -r-C =..v.-....., / „950A----Lv77Q"' ti,� y a N 29TH PL + , TH Si % ..::.�1� F•/.("nSL'/ M .t - S. �-'o m tIE :.28 , _:: ,. __ tLN44,e, _2fli'k— ...sr_' If -__ 27TFI •^.4,'`'.1. SE 9'n. .. ti t ..-- ` 27rH uoo ST _rE'__"'z_ir i ; '; +t',�" sr�alzl _'.- .. -'c CT [ w •E-J ` .ii, I: P� SE 9.1:.n sr HEiGrITS p _u 25ra Sr E:s':. > ; a w . 3= •, •tr t ..,,J! _ H. PARR ❑ �''_j22 : w >W= ..•:i KE.1"%0._E •I s;rn St `� ,r'r• _ `c-1o4_H St al fi \` '� =y J• LIGHS �5Tl - vI - s I-< _ 1 `1 'I 2•EiH iT u =r rir Ic H I = 1 = _ I " MO "", a N PL Sc c- ` 23RD �• - 102:10 1r . S - ]: 22ND 2, . 3R0 ST _ \ ` f H +Sf�•t7°a 57� a� REN ST N S_ Io,r:t j r a W • z N: zrlo ST s 4 0� 2 5 HE zlSr ,r o > > s ^ boo I sr - •ri. ��:' 2� ` ,. t Iiir St i.• .:Tt •,` S OSr.. , 1129130 w - r{ n i::�.);_ O -�ilE 20TH c STS` o 1`. ,• 1yF sr i _ : '�" ''• 2 T7•'r l7JJ 2])4 I,E 2^ sl ? .., y a 4�,• ip 4{1 2 = as • ,:Il gt :t 11^' >• - n; l9 St 3 J w �-.` II`L;.rr:2•IfIC6TH ST' NE _J/•? t , w < K ,_: NriTH;: ~�'s' iw.7u. .„' Siy r.'I `7..' 1. --t 13 Sr HrGI1GL705 ..'LEI S 3:0 t„};i 'ii::•%': W °` 4 r z VAnK....,•;••. SS /q \\ o •{'!,9 -- . ?:iti.F e. B d T` _ 1 : _ rr:E �c. 6TH 0.t , y. "it f`''"it •.t 0 t• a rie I1iH BOAT[AU'JCH• ,i' ;;•' _ 2JD0 4 PLOD'. a .� "I f,; T 4.:I`-• .I?$ - .. L. -yt� zo tt.11-n sl` /�2i I;1..,.\ 'It' a.`.. 1STN e' 5 Si~ ` o't[ )tH PL Nip S. `' RE � ... nE 11ti Sr c.t K::::,:rti GENE:i:?. ' 'H ,r, o �I w riE llrn swJd (v _ •Z h f/ •�E(GRI�ARX: -_"!J ilc 12TH o'1 1'2isr 0 ' „ C' ^'` NE ` 12TH Si c� ` ^� 2lc'i zrtr i o; 71'g z z I e J700 .I \vim\ `V go P ARK "<DR I r..;14. Po W y: 17 NE IIT nE CI Llr. / ,� c[ .`(: '' uA sr P rSi 5= ;I:lIr'�t +' • ', M RAF.t w` ��rt. _ �,,\, - tid < i 7J{'I) ,�e 6 ItM;rr'r, Yl 3 • 14, LAUNCH �/ b (J• l'" ,;. ° lJ7H " . a ' {I' I ••• rt o_ -` .E I w I•o' i. rl_ 1 t 1'F_ i= VICINITY MAP ;.. GEOTECH• !L` r = t 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS i RENTON, WA 4:y�►Ki �� �_�___ deb No., Doter Lopped Op Plate: • 96285 SEP 1996 1 I __ __ © TP-3 TP-4- L . 0 1 I 1 TP-2 O PROPOSED BUILDINGS ®TP-5 z ILI ' TP-1 I m 0 w r Q TP-7 • Z J 0 Tp_g 0 ,- ® z J -.7 . • • I TP-8 A TP-.10 / • TP-9 Gil . • LEGEND: k N 40th STREET (PROPOSED) APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS \ _ _ _ _ _ SITE EXPLORATION PLAN GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS RENTON, WA Job No.' Dote: Plole: ''�‘ `'^ySEP 1996 2 • 96285 • TEST PIT-I • • 0 0 4 G° USCS Description Topsoil over: Tan, slightly silty SAND, fine-grained, moist, dense • _ -becomes silty, wet, less dense 5 _ sP -becomes less silty, medium-grained 10 — .._ �..,� • _ Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. 15.- No caving. . r• • TEST PIT 2 q 'G°c USCS -- Description►: 0 — Tan SAND with traces of silt, fine- to•medium-grained,moist, — medium-dense (roots to 12") — -becomes gray,less silty, medium-grained _ sP 5 — • 10 _ — Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. — No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. — No caving. 15__- • TEST PIT LOGS 4 GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: P/ate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 3 TEST PIT •3 (f USCS Descri#tion 0 Gray SAND, medium-grained, a few roots, moist, medium-dense 5 .F -becomes saturated 10 Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. Slight groundwater seepage was encountered at 7 feet during excavation. Caving below 7 feet. 15 TEST PIT 4 e . `sue q oc�(� USCS Description 0 Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moist, loose _ heavy roots to 2', light roots to 5.5' SP 5 ' ` -becomes more silty, medium-dense Gray SILT intermixed with compressed peat lenses, medium-plastic, mL 10 — I II I moist, hard • Test pit terminated at 10 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15_ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Slight caving above 5 feet. TEST PIT LOGS G-EOTECFI 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 4 a.�e TEST PIT 5 Z , q �,°c uscs Description Tan SAND, traces of silt, fine- to medium-grained, moist, dense `5` SP 5 = III Tan SILT with some sand and gravel, low to medium plasticity, ML very moist, hard 10 _ Test pit terminated at 6 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation.. No caving. 15.. TEST PIT 6 G° USCS Description{, 0 ' ` `' Tan SAND, traces of silt, many organics to 2 ', slightly moist, loose • ..Net!. -becomes gray, medium- to coarse-grained, medium-dense SP>..:. . TV 10 _ ? 't _ `'y:y" -becomes gravelly 15 • Test pit terminated at 15 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Slight caving above 5 feet. . TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 5 1 isms. TEST PIT 7 • 4.0 0 __ G° USCS Description _ Tan, very silty SAND, very fine-grained, moist, dense — -becomes gravelly, very dense 5 - -many intermixed boulders — • SM': • — -no gravel, becomes dense 10 _ _ Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15_ No groundwater seepage was encountered during'excavation. No caving. r' TEST PIT 8 MTh. ��., . 0 q G° USCS , Descri f lion • !:` f Tan, slightly silty SAND, some gravel, fine-grained, moist, loose, •.: roots to 18" Sp -. 5 t •'. -becomes medium-dense,`some boulders "z:• ,t rEBEI -becomes silty,'wet, medium-dense to dense EMI 10 . Test pit terminated at 9 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15 No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. No caving. • TEST PIT LOGS • . .,,.- 41 GEOTECI-I 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE • CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 6 • • TEST PIT 9 Z4 qG°c USCS Description 0 • Tan, very silty, very fine-grained SAND, wet, medium-dense, roots to 18" -lens of gravelly sand SM 5 • -becomes less silty, very wet to saturated • 10 — Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. No caving. • • 15—' A TEST PIT 10 • 611.4tt) Vtie USES • Description 0 Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moit, loose, heavy roots to 2' • • -becomes gray, moist, medium-dense • 5 — SP • 10 ._ • 15_ Test pit terminated at 13 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. • Some caving throughout. TEST PIT LOGS • GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. . RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 7 _ I • • Slope bockfill away from foundation. \ • ✓� T/GHTL/NE ROOF DRAIN EDo no/ conned to fooling drain. BACKFILL See lex/ for VAPOR BARRIER requirements, SLAB WASHED ROCK °.'.'°': �`�� �, %� �..`i., 4"min. • \' 10 ..��: ,,�WrcT/.ls / lire.. 6 min• \\°.,. % �� ' / •• .. FREE-DRAINING SAND/GRAVEL NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/L E FILTER FABRIC • 4"PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Inver/ a/ leas/ as /ow as fooling and/or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place weepho/es downward. • FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL _ • _. ,. . GEOTECH - CONSULTANTS41 00 LINCOLN AVENUE NE ,; • RENTON, WA ._.. Job No.: Dole: Scale: Plate 96285 SEP 1996 N.T.S. 6 i I/ V GEOTE+ CH May30, 1997 _ CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.L.20th St.(Northup Ways).Suite 16 JN 96285 Bellevue,WA 98005 (206)747.5618 FAX 747-8561 SDA Brothers, Inc. do M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1807 Seattle, Washington 98105 Attention: Mark Goldberg Subject: Approximation of the Direction of Groundwater Flow Proposed Apartments 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Goldberg: • The undersigned associate of Geotech Consultants, Inc. recently spoke with Bill Shiels of Talasaea regarding the subject project. We understand that a question has been raised regarding the direction of subsurface groundwater flow at the site. We had earlier prepared a geotechnical engineering study for the project dated September 13, 1996 which included the logs of 9 excavated test pits. Based on these test pits, this letter addresses the approximation of groundwater flow through the site. In general, the site slopes downward to two small wetlands on its northern side. A very high bank is located on the eastern side of the site, maximum height about 110 feet, while a smaller bank is located on the western side, maximum height about 90 feet. We understand that the middle of the site is lower because it was used as a soil borrow pit. Our test pits revealed permeable sand at the eastern bank to the maximum explored depth of about 15 feet. On the western bank, some upper sand was revealed that was underlain by a less permeable silty sand. The approximate elevation of the silty sand, based on the site topography map and our logs of Test Pits 7 and 8, is about 82 and 80 feet, respectively. Some test pits were also excavated down the middle of the site. On the middle-southern portion of the site, Test Pit 9 revealed that the silty sand was located at about elevation 86 feet, while on the middle-northern end, Test Pit 5 found impermeable silt at elevation ' 62 feet. It is apparent that rainfall which can readily permeate the sand on the eastern bank eventually seeps downward to a less permeable silty sand or silt layer. In the middle of the site, where much sand was apparently removed, the less permeable layer is relatively close to'the ground surface. Groundwater that reaches the less permeable layer will tend to flow laterally instead of downward through the soil. Based on the elevations of the less permeable soils revealed in the test pits, we 'i1 SDA JN 96285 May 30, 1997 Page 2 estimate that 90 to 95 percent of the rainwater that falls on the site and reaches the less permeable soil layer likely flows laterally northward to the two small wetlands. The remaining rainfall appears to flow to the west toward the small wetland at the southwestern corner of the site. The proposed stormwater system for the site will discharge water to the wetlands to the north, thus water will continue to flow to the northern wetlands. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • #E ' ' a -41 fiyfr 1,214. 7.0 4 '��• o sTsys 1� • �S ION AL ECG _ s-3o-11 EXPIRES (,0--24 -47 D. Robert Ward, RE. Associate DRW:drw cc: Talasaea Consultants GF.OTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. ;. ' ' ' ' ' ''* " aivol'Al ' ' '-'1,0.----':'-41 is- I) li.h.z2 v ''.: 4 \- 1.7 i'237 - [--- a Di 9-. 0 ' ))A4,I*-1,0614(),L . — " oei , .q . fitc.! 0 . ,..0,, ,, 1 '1 1. I 41441:1111, I, relri I.14 il 1 I 1 0017 =ill I 11 I ef 4 ! ,... ,:, . i ,,,- am- 10, - d )11 I oEl1 II ) k O' ❑ 0 r ell ..„, ..11 . .I ' D ' ( lip • \,-.'/ r"1 . t . ,)&% '%`3--1 It] ( \ \\\ k,i U )), , 1\ - N pi ..1 '- /t/ . . .:J .' \ . \-, !NN;,,,,41 0 ii : 41 I�I ' I� II ', cn \\ � C . ")M k 1 C° Ilaisql i .. . li' \ 41 sA 'N ' . "' ii" , ) ' ka '1V7`.44 I . ' '-' l'41- e' .v°.j 'r IL :' / ))L '•,I lip,e, O 411- It to, ‘IIV\.1/4°vaiii i , ),,fat' wog .,j • ,,. -?:i. ii . f ') • 1 : -mrikomi . ithM__, ...,,-ki, 4' , . / / (13 , 1 , . • yaws Q./LN3ti / /o E .,, .,.: .,. 7B. /7,:. ., / 1 0..... / .... ' 1 ' _ :- - -- ._ —1 / , . 4 IF 7,, . ,•:''' -- 111 c ' I ,---: m i' 4 / / p / ' r _ I _) // O I o O C .611 ' .I / / c ?., / 00 .. k \I ii .16.i) ,/ 7' / i'l �, ''''%) . ill. 11.11 . ! / / C e /73. / I r / /. / e j,1 ' u^' 0 7 et- i , / eP .9 AA:Otk‘NI., 19 / .t, ° p g' U ( I / / iFvF47 f' _r.Jc °-1 ,BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC. JOB ?, 7-00 5 100 Front Street South • SHEET NO. OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 (206) 392-0250 CALCULATED BY 777 DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE -12 .17.71f NTL.p3 c L L4t1J6 T-VATIC r\ Fic(5 TT/ co4/p17/emis- 5 41`)Dt..7, .,5)1 ?5"aLert-r 4 N441 r wooDs r-- 2.7 t' pia 317 si ... ............... ................ ....... ..................................AT. ... ................. ................... ....... ..... ........... ........... ................................................... ...................... .......... C. 7.." • Or 47-(_/One'6)q0 30ef, 74" •0:0 A- 5 ler570- 1. .................................................. .............................................................. ............................................ ....................... "re,P &nye- ,c U".1.t•it_ Y---vi•.).4 .........., coe f0411.47-e2±9 qz_ 7-7 • 0,00 .4-6- , ..... ...... ...... ............... ............................ ..... ... ..... . ................. . ..... ....... ..• PRODUCT?al(Ginnie heets)205-1 IPadded1(44.4ErdiVeL Inc Groton Mass,01471 To Order PHONE 1011 FREE 1-800-225-6380 ,BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC. JOB 100 Front Street South SHEET NO. OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 (206) 392-0250 CALCULATED BY TR-- DATE CHECKED BY BY DATE SCALE ZP. elP.A).1%.!/71.c-lki. ............... . . . 2,..1...0...k. ... . . , 4F ---- 0 i A- (-, ,f?,CV ( 11VP.s.clekpe _.. .. ff. -= 24.5..14 .- e.,,v----,• al& • C13.1,..Dc i; ,. e• ce_r_9 t 1 i.V.....6-.0.1.1. . rt.-t-- S 1/ ouq_ te.7.( 14- 66 i tirepi 6.z, (Paritv ..a() Q.7--:-, (.izc14. .. (06e5 etZ.,e).....z. 1D. .77. it........... .7214.514.A) 12rivrOtt) . T.77. ,.) C MIA-Tei-i- yi, L 01 1.0 . f I.00/./..v.e, . . eP — • (9, 06 fir3 a-A-t-Lef-4.1 169 4....t,c,ei?.u) r-- 491_6 k aeliti, i . 1_ . •. il-6.1..iu...1 ).. /./1)4 6-',0 C-11-P i. oP f/1.-14). ............................................................................,.........................................................., , ,.........................,.............. _.„, 2,1 ot i -p-,--rreivir91,1 771 ,r. Pa--07 Votuii4 - Lt.:L.' ribo06 -F-- : . ,. i ai ,.u. •Z.4.L-F -r-re?'.b 21;407-4;r - izFrrerf ID . . t-repo.10- 6.1ci oTti-crt r Ai IooI • • . I , • • , , . : . —, - , . . ........ . '..-.:::::::.....::)..:.:',...., ......::-:-.1i i42:.::.i.i...'2s:..:,,... ..;.‘:..................:.•::::::. ...-:,..::::.'.: 1.,:-.-:. 13 13 @ N X IV illg V : i t 2a 2 1 g4 i 11 ,Ng qi •....•.......,..____ : _.........,....... . ..,,,..3 I if s -ex- w 111'1' 1' ' t ill ill j 2 glill ggia2f51 I -,.. ., . Li ...,,$,..„3„pe...0.El-iDdIgl II I 1. , lin',:; gil ..-1, ', '• , . 0. . g,' -.<,?; ,.., _is .___. ,:-....:. .1.•:',,•..,I • 1 5.1 • 2 s A V.: I - .z‘, -„--;:•:::.-7,::::•:-..:-..-::::--,7 'le; — — J1 s8,915191 ,•, 2. /0/ i \\\.\,`, ..:'.,::---2--.7'...••V-1,:. . . . '‘‘`...,•••.\',\-‘--;.••1:;.' L': •• . i_ '; s!'' ...:',,\''.;‘;.;:\•,,-0-:c:-':,. / r, . % • I I. I.1, Iv i' s '::'II ' ' ilc,7,1.:)::I,,,....,\..k..:,• sl ... ./ /.,,-ir,,,..,•-;,•!-.;...s...., 1 • , /",.: ,.,.V.,.,. ... . ,.,...;....?;::::::::-.:.,:-.::::..:,-.;:-...............—..._, „,-,:' f,........ ,, •;.,,,:::-::::.:.:...;;.....:;. : ::'..",. %-''''. ..,...' ... ,' f :•:.;:.:::::',1::• I. ,• :::".::: ':.:::, .: ii:...."......,. 's s '''' ''' .1;1!' ....?•:.:::..,?,;::::..."::..::.. ::::::: .......:.:....‘•',.'-.........\(.1111111111%.1111%maiv;".• 10,...' ,,''' .,,,.." :i ..armar. .'":''''\ ss, 1 1 \‘'‘ ....v./. ../ , Ij ri,i':,1111,','11: 'i.I * i ; ' r', '.. '..: % \ t '------- ----'-- ..-- / ..--Ih't!,, '^.':(ilYi';; ,..--:- -.7...•--7,."--5,,-;;!/;/,,,•1:;',/;1,,!; , s, 1, . '----....--.--------- „...' ..1" ......--" '!,'ilt,'ijill0/011,'.",. •••• ' CA ' , 1 , ,.. _ow; • :: s . .. r•-' S..)",--` f,,,,,..,11 ;11! !i,21,,, V;111;;;I:1:( - ,,,........, --. . py• ..'s 4 C-t; !'.'! 1! ;! rt;It i,":: ;;.`.',1 ''. ,,4, -, ....'.74 - . ...,-----...-:.-,•=,-e,,-.-.1,'../.,op', /..,, .:, ;,‘,.,,i'll't‘1,,;,,,i I\,, .,•....,,.---•-J,.;-irf. ; • .; , ,-- .,- ..1,5-',..•-• .....',.../.-'8c/".,.. .,-...1,',' /,.4, i — .',-; ,.........f.-::::-:.:.:-...--._..1/, ',V.74,' ::; !.1'•.' :t1"i I'1.41 ',4,:.`'...-.—_''/.4 `., ,*"`".::-.::::-;:•''''':•••'.1•;•.:'"4/2-,f.,1/':''',f' /4/ii 1-:114' ‘::11:1•.11.411 st`IIC"'\44:':r:)ttl ''''''.ii'' • "4./ 1/;'' ,'''//7-:::::;';',':' 1,-',// R1//,'"; - , ,,,:.,v\lI, • c)''.f.,-.)/ •.'",-,1//s,,::::fr ,///1,-//,:ir i \-i I' \:11'; ?1, ,g '..., ..1.'''.- - ,: / "•.1.!iilli ---"- 'A..7:/ ;.''--,4.;/,./•fi.11/1 '///:/, ;/. ../ %''',")/N ..‘,'',.."•,—---- --- 4. i.:Ti 1/;//>:;-"fl,frI/ii//1/i/':: . /1--.l' ''''.'''..\;,11\\I':''fi in '; 11`•ii It\I----"---,Poi' -')1 II ; ,:.; . 1::' ,;II. iv/ /;;-! • ',',',/,.1',r,'. , S'• ! i'' -7,,,4'•:-;,/.. ..."'.. .• : I .1;,/;;•;/::::::*:.- :•,,///,/,., ../i::.,.' ,11../..* 'a .:, s., ' ' .'".':''.. ' ..P'3';;I::;r1r, • ' ,"i:Yr'•/././.' . l/Zi /' /./' l' I''''::'It'';‘,.. $1 ..."`../1 ''(!\:-.' „ 1,-1. / ' blte'l 4''i I' i ' ').?.. '' ' ' ' I 'I 1 ‘311 4i, y ..... 1 '4.4.... ' .....1 '' .,...04'1,"i I I . ',%, ., I .,3/, ,k ' ‘' 1;;..\ s, '• I r-, — I ,i -• ,:,,,1,1,;,,,,47-4,r-----. \-..,. .... ' i .',,Ili,,:::,;.,,,, ',.','•,\,',..- N• \ . \'...,„\''N- -...; :',,!.., i 11:,':1;'• ' ,'•`,...s '•'.4'....-. \'. ' A-'' . f'ip• ,.. :If . y ',t4 ,, ,...-..'.',I's,' ,•%°.‘‘'\\. / - ' -;; %.. 'et,„.....-.....' • .,.4:. i,.,,iioi., ‘,,,,,,•,.,,i.,,, .,,r,s, 1 ,?/.; $4.,;•''.,.,•;,,,, -,,., i •N.• 41g0 .,.!,-...\‘‘,, ..•....\'',,i'..:,,\, 14:, ?" 1. ,'•'.:;;:',:%,' /ii..:1'.....',..,::',;•••••:'•;, '‘.. .., r; •-Et.--°3 •!:;1;1:10,.i1,,,\.=••,..::,,,\\Vis,:‘,' iff,;:,.1. \i',.....• •,•••,";••-:;•6 I Vi',,,V I r2. ',. ', . *t to ..V, , ,0 ,.1.?,-,,i, ! ,\ :,..,•••:.? •,',: 1;i1',",:,? 44:.,t, '. ‘IP. '''' IA' 91., / •••,N;`,;:':',t',.` ,v'..-:•.....', .,`,.. ..., I''.14.-,/,',;'''' / ....1 , i.,7,:..?....',E;:,:e'.1, i..i .;I::::t: ..,,,',' v1;''. '. ,..1:4,5 ...• Z'''. ,'".1,'‘.\.1'''..;''''::t.i,eit 1... .:**,'''''''::.dt.14,811!';,'11 ,,,, „, . ,:;;;,ii: .7-• k ' :, •:".; 0 ,..s. ., ; ,6. '.'•,..A`..'01.1.)-.:._. ,.', ''' ‘.., -4.:,, 1 -, *-, { I I, ..:',,,,),,,0 .1.1, ,, ‘ , ..,,...,,,,z,,„;:.,,,,,,„;,:,.. ,r,;;‘,, ,.,, ..i,,, 1 1 iii:•‘‘, • • V ,,//4/''./../11:,',P,,_:P.:-.-t•::-:.:;.4 . , •--, --s4:;‘,,,;••••*A.,,',,, .,V-:1: .,„...*',,....--.' i ; N..k.,...,..‘...N.-L. ,.1 . `, , ,, • I 1,it , •-• I3.,•—•-•••'" /1; 41,\,s.:',`+','":-.•'•" ,( ' _. `,./ I 1 II,lav, I lisa'26-46'm s „..-• .:','i•f',.;; . . . _. •. ,„ ,,,..6,, , , ... . •• , • •• „ g 1 ip I .._ .••• .•:-_2:,,..._ ,--•wr.of. . . . •.'- , "7-"— ,---.„—;2,...:•-•_1. • " S.F. 84-TI ,i,-1 ST. '-' 4. . - , . . , • ., ' • , 7)EVE L,gplEP • ' . • . . . •. . . . . . . , • ' k****** ************ S .C .S . TYPE-IA DISTRIBUTION ******************** 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM i***:st '' •2 .00" TOTAL PREC IF ,, **it*..*it* , . . • , . • . • . DATA PR I NT7DUI t . •• • • • , . • I . . AREA ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS IC (MINUTES) • A CM A CM 3 80 .0 • p .Fr, . 9p, ,,0 5 .0 • . . . . , . . ., • • • P E Al.:::--.GI (OF.S) 1" PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) 1•..Er?9 7 „E.',7 • '16'714- ' • : •• . . . - . . , • • . . . • • Ce2.-- • • • ' . . . ". • • • •. . .. • , • . . . • • . , . . E**t**************** R .C-S . TYPE--IA DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 10 YEAR 84-HOUR STORM ***X ' 8 .90" TOTAL PREOIP . ********* , . • • . . . , . . . ' . . rATA' PRINT-OUT ;1 •• . , AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS - IC (MINUTES) ' • ' i • A ON A CM . . 8 .8. . BO .0 2 .5 98 .0. 5 .0 • , • . PEAK-12 (CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 1 .96 . -7..f:..,.7 2549P,= • • . ' . . q(0 • , . 4************* ***** S .C .S . TYPE-IA nISTRImTITION ******************** ., ,******I** 100-YrAR 24-HOUR STORM *4** 3 .90" TOTAL PRECIP . ********* , . . . . . , . , • . )ATA PRINT-OUT . • • . _ . . . . .. • AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS ' TO (NINUTES) • A • CM A CM , • • . . . 123 e.... .3 R0 .0 2 .Fi 98 .0. 5 .0 ,,.... .,,.., • ' . • • . PEAK-IQ (OF'S) I--l'''E l'--11.::: (H R S) VOL (OU-FT) ' • 2 .70 7 .1:',7 3539(:',. • • . • ----_, • • . . . ., • 11RCO • .., • • I ,u ^� �JNVPII nERFORMANCE : INFLOW TARGET-OUTFLOW ACTUAL-OUTFLOW PK-STA6E ' STORM DESIGhl HYD : 2 .00 .24 , .24 8 ,50 16297 TEST HyD 1 : 1.32 .06 .06 6 .43 13370 TEST HyD 2 : 2 .76 .63 .57 8 .58 16290 STRUCTURE DATA : R/D TANK (FLAT GRADE) ' ?ISER HEAD TANK-DIAM STOR-DEPTH TANK-LENGTH STORAGE-VOLUME 8 .50 FT 9 .00 FT 8 .50 FT . 261 .9 FT ' 1.6297 CU-FT -12-tv-qlL� -_-� ----- �"~��m�� - ^ 'RIPLE ORIFICE RESTRICTOR : DIA ( INCHES) HT (FEET) Q-MAX (CFS) BOTTOM -ORIFICE : .94 .00 .070 i MIDDLE ORIFICE : 1 .74 7 .00 . 100 TOP ORIFICE : 2 .27 . 8 .25 .070 ROUTING D(YTA : . iTAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PER&AREA (SQ-FT) .00 .0 .85 .02 1203 . 1 .0 1 .701 .03 2791 .7 ` .0 2.55 .04 ` 4609 .2 .0 3 .40 .04 6556 .9 .0 4 .25 .05 8556 . 1 .0 . � . 10 .05 1V534 .0 ` .0 5 .9 .06 12415 .5 .' .0 . 6 .80 .06 14112 .5 .0 7 .0 .06 0472 .9 ' .0 7 .65 . 13 1550110 .O 8 .25 . 16 16168 .5 .0. 8 .50 .24 16298 .3 .0 8 .6- .64 16298 .3 .0 . 8 .70 1 .36 16298 .3, .0 8080 2 .28 ' 16298 .3 O 8 .90 3 ,38 16298 .3 .0 ' AVERAGE VERTICAL PERMEABILITY : .0 MINUTES/INCH � ' ' ` ' ' . , `r~~ t Z -. ' [ / -=~�� "ERFORMANCE : INFLOW TARGET OUTFLOW ACTUAL-OUTFLOW PK-�A��D� �� / uRAGE DESIGN HYD : 1 .96 .24 .24 7 .50 15986 TEST HvD 1 : 1 .29 .06 .06 5 .67 13130 TEST HYD 2 : 2 .70 .63 .63 7 .59 15980 � STRUCTURE DATA : RID TANK (FLAT GRADE) !ISER-HEAD TANK-DIAM STOR-DEPTH TANK LENGTH STORAGE-VOLUME 7 .50 FT 8 FT 7 50 FT 326 5 FT 1598�\ CU-FT �. �� . . - jD �^n� 'RIPLE ORIFICE RESTRICTOR : DIA ( INCHES) HT (FEET> Q-MAX (CFS) �^'~ ' BOTTOM ORIFICE : .97 .00 .070 MIDDLE ORIFICE: 1 .74 6 .00 . 100 TOP ORIFICE : .070 3 40 7 45. . ROUTING DATA : !TAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (CFS> STORAGE (CU7FT) PERM-AREA (SQ-FT) .00 .00 .0 .O . 75 .02 1210 .8 .O 1 .50' .03 2781 .7 .0 2 .25 .04 4568 . 1 .0 3 .00 .04 6476 .8 .0 3 .75 .05 8432 . 1 .0 4 .50 .05 10364 .3 .0 5 .25 .06 12200 .6 .O 6 .00 .06 13855 .7 .0 6.75 . 14 15209 . 1 .0 7 .45 . 17 15972 .3 .0 7 .50 .24 15986 . 1 .0 7 .60 .68 15986 . 1 .0 7 .70 1 .42 15986 . 1 .0 . 7 .20 2137 15986 . 1 .0 7 .901 3 .47 15986 . 1 .0 8 .00 4 .60 15986 . 1 � .0 ` ' 4VERAGE VERTICAL PERMEABILIA : .O MINUTES/INCH ` ` � ` ' Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel. _ Uniform flow ` ' worksheet Name : Comment -] Sblve For Bottom Width . ' Given 'Input Data : � . ' Left Side Slope .. 3 .00 1 ' (H :V) ' Right Side Slope. 3.00:1 '(H :V) Manning 's n . . . .. . � 0 3. 5 Chahnel Slbpe . . . . 0 .0200 ft/ft . Dep th 0 33ft . . . .. . . . . . . . ^ ` Discharge . . . . ., . . 0 ,06cfs C _--_~- �mputed R�sults : ' -r� `, I Bottom Width . . . . Velbcity . . . . . . . . . -- . 18 fps . Flow Area . . . . . . . . 0 .34' sf o Flow Top Width . . . 2 ,0i� +tm��� $��� Wetted Perimeter .` 2 . 13'ft ' Critical Depth . . . 0 . 11 ft Critical Slope . . . 4 .88ft/ft Froude Number 0 O8 (flow is Subcritical > ' � ` � ' . ' ` | . ' ` Open Channel Flow Moduie , Versicn 2 .01 (c> 1990 Haestad Methods , Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury , Ct 06708 ,BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC. JOB g1I--®o5 -' 100 Front Street South SHEET NO. OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 (206) 392-0250 CALCULATED BY 7g...., DATE S -z 7- -9 1" CHECKED BY DATE SCALE r 1 VET...rAiT'.t2..It • .j.0S.1414..L. ` . .5...t... ....Nr....*1. ..__- ........................................ ]71..Iv..T.'c_6:4AJ ....lc c s . Kwra-f. ,k2,4i.' 2-`03-/ ztit 1 /..o,........... /...voymo..... q .....Q(,usw rt — .0.,.....0 .Fs Or..Q ..G.FS Lyle; ..... ....... ....A-ctw , n ,.,�.4. I< k, .0. , -tYj ' (.51e.. e(4-1_fv�._ - . -14742.'..a 1s......V a1V!vrts*4 rtiom ✓vtv . H 1 ' C_F:kovp- 4PF -----: rfo. 1 1 N-t...s............l, ......._, 0. `Ia[U... "i...o..ax, 1..5 1675.5..�..3�r . . . ..V.I. � . r .. .............................................. ............. ... . - - ..M N; `[ ............... i Tgiv....rzpv.. 1: k...(0/11.1,&41Fro.%.%. 1 40. T 1 e z .-4-1=. 5 0 OL., , I pir s /167..0L-F :(D.......... ...� ..e. �30............F 1 nnnnnrran!!I��nm+Shrr!!'n5 I'I'�'''^n .nv Ominn Idisa 0!d71 Tn Order PIIONF TOI.I FNCC bAOO??.5-03R0 BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC. JOB q ?7 ©45 100 Front Street South SHEET NO. of ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 �f C (206) 392-0250 CALCULATED BY TII DATE J 7 CHECKED BY - DATE SCALE a ma, v_47.,t\n if ................................................................. .rC.o.f+,I..nur 4ii .2 . .r r ti a vl` • t o Z� ...4, 51r...A...4.G .........,C 42� ..................... ?).a. .... z.............5 A..f,. v,,u.1... .............:......................................................................................................................... • PRnIRIf,T 7n1 I non!,Shartsl 70511Paddedi „Inc.Proton Mass 01471 To Order PHONE T011.FREE 1.800-725-6380 ' ' . r , ,ERFORMANCE : INFLOW TARGET-OUTFLOW ACTUAL-OUTFLOW PK-STAGE STORAGE DESIGN HYD : 1 .96 .24 .24 7 .50 17483 TEST HYD 1 : 1 .29 .03 .03 6 .02 15190 TEST HYD 2 : 2 .70 .63 .64 7 .58 17480 TEST HYD 3 : .77 .03 .02 3 .57 O710 ' 1TRUCTURE DATA : R/D TANK (FLAT GRADE) RISER-HEAD TANK-DIAM STOR-DEPTH TAN&LENGTH STORAGE-VOLUME 7 .50 FT 8 .00 FT 7 .50 FT 357 . 1 FT 17483 CU-FT -r�� / �, [RIPLE ORIFICE RESTRICTOR : DIA ( INCHES) HT (FEET) Q-MAX (CFS) BOTTOM ORIFICE : 64 00 030 �, `�� . . . ^»~. �0 MIDDLE ORIFICE : 1 .74 6 .00 10O. . TOP ORIFICE -. 4 .26 7 .45 �r� - :OUTING DATA : ~=�, ~`- STAGE (FT) DISCHARGE (CFS) STORAGE (CU-FT) PERM-AREA (SQ-FT) .75 .01 1324 .2 .O 1 .5O .01 3042 .3 .0 2 .25 .02 4996 . 1 .0 3 .00 .02 7083 .5 3 .75 .02 9222 . 1 .0 4 .50 .02 11335 .2 .0 5 .25 .03 13343 .6 6 .00 .03 15153 .7' .0 6 .75 . 10 16634 .0 .0 7 .45 . 13 17468 .7 .0 7 .50 .24 17483 .7 .0 7 .60 .71 17483 .7 .0 ' 7 .70 1 .47 17483 .7 ` .O 7 .80 2 .43 17483 .7 .0 7 .90 3 .55 17483 .7 ` .0 8 .00 4 .69 17483 .7. .0 WERAGE VERTICAL PERMEABILITY : .0 MINUTES/INCH ' / ` . . ` ' Triangular Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow ' Worksheet Name : Comment : ` Solve For Depth 77 �7, , � ���� . � Lk)to, Given Input Data : Left Side Slope . . 3 .00 :1 (H :V) Right Side Slope . 3 .00 :1 (H :V) Manning 's n . . . . . . 0 .350 Channel Slope . . ~ . 0 .0200 ft/ft Discharge . . . . . . . . 0 .02 ,cfs Computed Results : ' Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .22 ft , ��.0� Velocity . . . . . . . . . 0 . 13 fps 2���� J���"~- Flow Area . . . . . . . . 0 . 15 sf Flow Top Width 1 34 ft ` °�-~~~ ' ~�� �� [� ~ ^ ^ ^ �r -- Wetted Perimeter . 1 .41 ft Critical Depth . . . 0 .08 ft Critical Slope . . . 5 .67 ft/ft Froude Number . . . . 0 .071flow is Subpritical ) ' ' ' ` ' ` Open Channel Flow Module , Version 2.01 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods , Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury , Ct 06708 . / -• \ \\ \.„rk.•As ekiri‹:-Izre,:: "• . wi.,33. / f \ • • -,-141 -,c...t •••••,---':-.•_-:' 4 ; ' • -, f I •FcrryifF. / •''•/re" '''- '1'''''."•'..1i ' e• " ,,i 141:.,s-c:A IV:" C--p4,;,' Of,' - i ' VI:,';''.21.1.,, 4' ,r,...r/..//i rf'/,'.,-.4":,'..2,•' :••,:',":'4% \ , k.'."...'yel.•••/,'...._, . ./.•'..4 '' izr It—E0.-e. "..../..27..,://7.,..?...,..,/,! %. . ir 04., ,..4.0.,;(4 4-, ; ....v,n. :,q4,‘ , f.4 i r'• '•?.....'„:":4;*:0'7L:•,,,•pf.'s,.-:•":1 ,/ !,./...../,/•::4-„:4:/./..2' i f '‘ , '041 11,("•:10-1,•-r1 i % ;\\\ ^!'‘'''Ai f:,./e 1, LII:Lk:•;;••:6:.....•:.::44, • 4---,/,7---i, . i ' // .,,, _/-14.5-i I I I ' 1 1"\\'' ' %OAT.iirl .-- ,\ •-. ''''','-'::".',".':••";•:',` _11, i • e - ••*44:;*::.ti:i::.:i:X•::$-:;,':::: ::::".;:.::"; '.1::::.(r? ‘ 4;11111 ./.•'.1.a.(,•,5,1111.„1/1•,, ; I A ,\;•-, '4,,,1,1)\:F,',,,if,,,•1 \•:,:,,-.,_, ...' •-•,.., - 4"...M.:44.10.............i• i, , yar ;,.. f I,. -..- Zgt,:i::•:::15,1;;;:i.z; ,ii0.7. ,., ,..,,,or ,,,,l..,::0_/-r ,.// / 7 ‘,y;, At...q 41•1. - iik...........10 ,'..- •, ' ' ' ._ ''' Ettlflp''''.7.,;.:",•,,IP ../It. i',/, / ri.14,•;:-.171 i . ., i 4jet?. ....,2 X r:11- .r.re. ... •,....4.1. t.q., r..4 4. ' • : . / • ' ' 'r ili•tt 'I;e • .- - i,`-----_-"45.' 'I'i 4 %-.--;:',:‘%'-----:_,T5.',.,- .:.....::- 1 --, IN ----.......11111-•- -,` :rt.'-r-,-I.'- .\-..•':17, ;LI:1 : 1 1; i ; P ‘"t I 4...e1;' - -- --------;'g•--:----,c1;`14,---.--__I i •• /-,•t• -77-7- ••• • • • --- Al-1 ,! ---"," ; ; 1 ...ris, i i ...•;;;.-:. -:-*-.-.:: ---..;.-•::::),K-- _!...___ . :..1., ---• •----- -• •-•--" . • ••• ...„,..; ;IV: :.- ',7,;.,;;,g7,,;::;.„, ,; ' 4' r i 1 ,d li 1 il,1:lip . .....,1,•;':%::::,.. ..:.. •:-.::,.::".:.71----1":•:-.1:',"i;•`-‘: , ^-4 _.,'s,5.1: •,„ :'.: -f:;:, I,---..;;if:. I,-1.:'; • „--....'•;;; I i,7 i I ; 1 ' l' 17.171,11, ,I.4,..11111.i. I.e. ----"- --; -%'•, :- ::------ '• --.:Zs'sss'stst.ii:.1_-_-_-:•_11: '' "1:', s'\,.. %,:,_1,------:- - • -.,,----.6t-- 'S.:-!,' zi ,I i I*I /I ...1 i 41%1;1 it•-'' - •••••-/I' I ' ' 1 , 1 , t i ------ •1'..• Ite••••••:"••••••Ver',..e„rc.%/,21/1•••••",e-..:•• ••••,./.x.:•://e.e.;,,,I,...:-.. ::: •--:t ‘, :---- '-i.C.:•' `Nss';41"!--.,i_: -I sl,..'s :r4g.ese'g;•31-4:•.."•/C."?..?:"."• ••;:;4 ,-;41I,Lf:/;%;?,?•;:a lir ."";'-5.` / ..'f,.. --•+.4.,-!"•'' : ; 1 ' ,' i I ; r ; 1,1 Ili i 1,I,kr ft,'Ill 1,11 1 f -f.:::-.. ....1.:',:" .. `4?•7•-t:.,:,--:- 'ss -•''z's''''''''''144, - ' ' . .. . r...„„„„1.4-.-"--; f.." ,,„ti )7. 1 i:':?,": ,,,,••• .::::.?.1 i 1 1.1.,..1 :' I f i I:'1 1 1,,I,1 A ,,./.11!1.4: --", -, :.1.,..': ') ss:;!Z'•:TT"-:' 4,;.:.,.;"-i..,,ifiti,-,, ..,3;:-..,4141.•;?Yit;• _ .,,o),,,r ,.. „-„•:„•,,,,,•",,,.. ,, + ,„...-- , , , , , , ,,,t,,,,,,, • ,„,,,, , ,,...,.;.: / ,,,.. „„ „ ,,,„••„,,.,„..„.„.,,,•. ..,•,4, .If I. • 4ifr ' . 'r7F1...`,11.1' 414--'' ' ; , ' 'i,, / I i i 1 .., 41!11:9 .-..t...--c--‘ ,\ 1 ...tr:Iff,11, riF41, Iff r-off SOT r riallkitiiti, , a . \ \ t ' ilr;tilrr Irlarggillkti 1:111filltiVartrilkiltt/1±....,.r '‘:• r,... .1111' ; , i ; ;I . A j\.. ;,:f 4:47.-...." a'14.4 .1,72r4=IkIlr I I pt '...,‘\\yo, 1., , 1 ,,..,..., /1 / -:•A ,.....1.....47*----,.”-i- .; f - '.0 ,- .;f4 I 1 ili'lli,LE .\i i i 1, ,1 1 i t: •.t.f:;-•;•4•-:;;.'A.:':1 _ 1., ;5;•••••••::,-.':.....:2,4,,..1 L 1.7F ,, ,•••,',•'e. •i , - '' ."1f;;f1U•;1,.**;.:,-1 1 ", . ; '1 1 I I If•iii; 1 1111 •0/1,,••,..., • • :s- ss t•-,-•--- - • r•-••••••7 err' '''.?..,reb::•:,') •- tli,‘II\;,,, ,1 'I. .:•,.1z*: .1,,,'s:11.H ri,?1,z,:y,.••,„,,„ . i .i".•ss '„,`---k;;;>---,.. ,,,--•••••---'i.e.'.',,,,-•'---- ....r"4.4_ J : • •-• eikY • i 1 1:1 i I I I 11 4 1.41. f!!,p I ;•---- ;;.z.i. f • i,•._.i :.. i : %,.. ___,.... • ,.. 4,,,,1 ... :„...-.I rP. I • •; 173/Cer ...r.?/..r i • , l •1.4.,,W ,f./.....Q.e.... ,' • •• •• 'dik„L / 1 Li V•.,4'. r,r t ..,.1 1,, l•t L\1 0.,. ,.31,-; • , 2r.,:‘•• --1,: e4'\e''''\-.-...---141 -41•I I i A ri'141-Y•Ar 3.7-'1'' .rf / ' j ;i 1: : IIII.P. °iI.11 11 \‘\\\\I t, II \ ''I,' .1`1rFr'-'efrilb,L ••:;,;f,i--/- ti 1 ,...7 l'f*"1:.!:!,•45.-- 4, 1 •14i.W.1,, 1.;••• II1'a --Ili '\\ \ ,1 I‘ \"I,iIi14,1,44'..:t4A: : `;;:,: --:"'„1::":,,i? ••.,, \'....---K:,. %' I\I‘• 1 ' '`i\ •\ 144 \ ;;Vii'- ''''- ':°-•--• 4"-.1:4•1 1%::V4 /\re'''. P;:r. '1,*;;11 I ir'4f ' '1 4:if :A'r...1;';i'V' /7"1/ I I 1 I 1111 'II I I 111/ {6 S 001% 1‘. t,1 ‘Wi:V/..?-\ \ y's -- . ..-..;,.. 72• 1 1.• i er'''' /s4 r i • f / _„...1-', ;.5..'er ,,' /; /i // , :i 1 II.ii1,1,1 /:I \ ILI'I II /),'''.• \ \ \l';',•\ - ''',, '.7.5,;.,' "'„"lci. I/ rfl ; ii:::;•••••;7.-'"'...v:gfe!';:"2 f / ••• 1 -i-, 4:•%• // .7';ef'Z'/r e r'i'./Ire / ,---1-rti ie!,'4 I tit' 'leILIT f 1 5r ;\,„‘;‘‘,., c ,11 .....?i‘, \ \/./,„ .,_ ___ —__:,.•••._1. .......;:ei,ii ...,/ \ss_ tit....1 .:.,..- fez_-.:zi f_i,, ,,.,:i,,-..-,-;c5,:::_,- ,1:1.?i,/,1,-,/, •/,, ,, , .s. ..." ,%/11.i • ,4: ,11,111 , tt., ),,, ‘, ‘,„,g --, , . .•.1 ....... , ft. •..„1 J • .1(4.... i'`e- ....r. ----• ,, , • i • , • , ,, . 4 c.) , ,,, t t ,./.. f/f 1•• r• ..)-li ••I'd.'''''•-- •••••1" •/ /•• i•/ • • "... ;1111!.• ..4 • -'/"."•••t \ ‘n:1•-•:.:•! ••‘. .' P.,\ ,.'ll:1 I J1.;•;.1 ; °J • ' •• • •'• •'' 'Me": ----•••'",..r ''/ / ' • • / '''' / 43,14,.1' ...*.0 if -:" :s .14i :, :. '--- ?--,.!: , !...:;.:L., i 1::::::•::::::;• :fi:f i I..`,. -.--..- ---/,::4=1"ffrc-,,'-':f:.--.1.6,--",/,//,/,,,' " ' /,:lit. i IS\ 1 I 1,11\ 1, 11.47-c.. \•:",:r s.i.------' i' --- ..i.,I ,,, \ --:"..1%.. \I .1.;:;;;;;;... •:?/„.? i/lit i --;"/ 1 11":%/ e/ •••'..1"7Z--/././.1, /...;;•1..I4 /ii.4 ' i 1 1 '1 i- i .1 i 1 1.':, frk. l'i.:1; i'-'--. I i'Mc'5.-,A; .;;5•;:, I s'ss, ""if}:c•-•--., •''?__if.',1'..(1.,j1 .f 1.1 irri•?:";. ///:;,,,,t_-_-_f,/,/,' /1 '',;/„.drfl'Illt. f k; I I III 1 I 1 1 1:1.1,i 1 1 If ...11::------'71.J.,5;:;;Ir ill/it/•1 sl.i—ril FAr',?:;{.111/1.56, ,/--,:';// / if//401,11: //:://11.4 1 " ' 1 'Ile 11 I ;1.1' N •. • ...,Viefi:4.4 J "1e„i fl4 •r, 4 i.r..... . / ,r•ry •• ,' ,' I ilir ''f.'''•-e•;/;l-Y-Illrz---...-s ,• 1 . 111 , .,,. 1. , .. r ., r , 44 '1,:": / :••:*•...' / / '. • ' ''i i •i•• ..''''4"13(1.71! •i 1 i I 1 lkil i .%.s! .t.11,.*I..f,,V“.,1% ;:f l'• •"-"-..• j..z.'.`........ ...41 tiii/ijitli,4)•,/ •111•1•:`•r.r r..." ;1 ' 1 1...4" I IP i I i/:1 ••'i`, 1 WI ''''-'1.g.74‘: il'Z'c :5 if,/,,'„'1. f ;i• 'OA i 11 :47. ''',,'':',.."4 :t; \i't '-1.1.17,..:7r',.-rr.rit.'37,V... '''..6,:'1:1-, .-"r.r:•;I•f..•,..... X:4/1"1,14:;1•1/ di:/,•11.:fi --/r'' '';;;;/ ii ,LT2',I / 41141 al t li.A. ' /i (fit I:)It 1 WI tt'1, 1 I i ilf:'; 1 r.,j-,, ,. 1. i J .1.....:;.',( / '''',/ / ,• / / ,J. : 1 34 • , .... __.,..,.......... . 'I.' .,.''s'ilrl•I 1;j4li t 1---•--').!1:47.11. fr RcO'fi.:'41:q' IE1(//k i ft Pi.;;;;'r2 / ,r '/ •/ i // ,trit ' 1 l'i 1/1 ..'r.:FTT'I ----t, . . ....-.1..\, \1 .7;4A*, .._-----'0,-// ..-7-2t,-.1" 4•Af.'fne•JF-lf--.4,;:," •1•,...-•: --"- - 'I•tr •1.1-/ i'f'tz' ,' i J i 4 '; Arrill':: Isst.11/ \ ‘ t ;ve.,'•,......4K ••?).)•"- 4.l-'--)4.,0 v./11'1 !irn-1,../2,:.;;;-: '-`,""- ' / -/ '''},1'..,t- ': , ,0.1 ‘. ..itifils•• 1,tv,,., %,,,,,'‘•I ••,,,.• ; st.r., •-!---_., • k., \',.V.,--tity:,.._____:„,!",:f. __,,-.;;;,_-,r,..___. „ „, ;.4. 1 ,t_.11•4•8..,1;•,:„.....„-t::4-1,...t, ; •• ,....: ;0,4 r" ••-,.. I i 1 . t 1;;-: ',;;'.,;%V.,..4',16).4,,,..."2 :„.A.,.. \if .1 \s,'ili.Vi,..'' '1.!.#•; I .1' ''';',.-: It 1 1 ill'-.L:-4',"?..,1_,--44...? „-•1 i / I/ r / yl; ' / i.•..•',... .. Si 44.i VI \ 1 VR.V1,21:21%,s..11,7•4gCCf4„ 1.1.•----------'• ii li ')NA.grj.. ••••-•",fil., i ib•=17,1 . I it ,i'`k i.....//I.','',.,'',..• '' I ,i•Ve': : /,' . ///i,4, '41-•••----4 fr-, se 11: ‘‘;; ,1 i‘, ,,,,1_t:-,: t .,;..fkr....; 1:,'1.6...i-if{ \,•„.,,..11..y,;-,-;-,-"•,----41•1•4, ; '-'-'-1 1 c' :I , r.p.i---------...-- --,-; L',:i", , 1 4" / i •i':: ;i'' - 1.. .. :: • .4-`,C.---.-'•-•- )-.- -'EF-):i••.:1;.:1":•liti •/;',1,371 "---•}3, • /5-••Fli/./ef •'' / ri l:i.'i ‘'''• ",-,..E.\is f if -'''.14.,;I\V",\,;",\,\,11 .1.,•,./::•...?--`'-'1.:.;:';41•A\\\\14-i.\ \tCA•-.•-•k-t7i"..%?.. ''':Vit-"-- 1/ i?,1 ii ir i..er;:.•1/17/11,7,:1•%C":"-' -;-/ "-1/195//,''' 6''l '' / / '''fit' 'le' -.‘j lifi tl s''s .:' .;%,\1,'t,1,I,;'t,143;;.K'' -,?.'2,4-1,t., ti?-, Q.'..,-,A,LI.TI..,44Y;,:', ._•••cr.rrli ,..4. ' "''''`Z•fi' p;f41;i 1 il(,(! : ,--- • •,:ffil!„•:,/ / ,, i 7 l'i yi 1 ite-__L.,01;‘, it, ss , ,,,II.,,,,,,,0 ,......%.,.... ......1,..:, ,..... ....,:ly ss,, 1;1 fiji.:•.,,f' 'ft.*••`,..: : ,s:- • ..:_,. 140.;1 1•'0'Ir.':•• o'' i\‘‘',%',.,I.',%', ,..54',‘. '•',..ii. 1;1. ;-•'• 11.1.\\ t.1.4.17',...; ---,..rfii; , ,/ ...tit'i.,4.,•,;,;;V,..., ; , 'V/ „•••-• // / trk. I/ ini,1: ss-„ ';', kr;:':"t•••,--..'1,,e114:L'i VI I "1 Ni. --1.43; j e . .. 1,10Ill ij,i;f1 I , ', 1-,N. ,r;'Ai." e" I l ,'' ,E'''Y g w! ;,-;. •-ss •I ...,„ \i I T.g..-r , •••;• ....1.,. li. --....-1.).2.f., :.. . ..b• - •-••_...-.L. "AtAiiitili 11-..i.:\ '‘, .; '1 .s,,i,.i v-i' f' / / i 141 N , .;....i.1.4.tii.),. .11,,,;' '1\;x1(4,,,, ',,.....t.---,a.' ..;P:43-0 III i q'i.: '', \ 1 ' ' ri% \''ikl\ \ 't C I\ t‘a yl, i 4 -, \,....,..,..r.,,,. , tt'll'A;I;;'I..,''I I I 1 %, \; \ N i \ ', \ r.V2Perirfit's I:.! II •''VV.:\:" \t\I ri'."A -"'•-• F;;;II;ICti.•••-s 1,11 "1:1,.,•-•-• 1:i • ' "• •I•..:Trrill'IT:tn I 1 ; \ \ ''''''c%is, . i; ‘,. .,\,,'\,,,",•,,`,\t, ....1( \ \,4,\',. \ \ \ \ l'.•;3•••,%. .fir•-•1-. ---\ • ' ::if,kX-*•!:.. 4-'1,','‘ -,0;._.-..--lk,\ .1; 4 to 011iiiii.i:::;-. ‘ ‘‘.\\:\ \ \ \•A, \ \ \ \ \•c..• ,-;: ..r • ss- ) •••• 'A\,' ' \‘'::\\\‘' • VI;-------:,.::•i'it\\!I .*-:- 1 ..--.-1 ..‘ it 1 el i i I 1.1 1 11:1:;i:\‘\ 's`s \\'\‘•t°1 ./..`N, \ \ \ % \\rrOt .:1 i 1. •••'2-% 1 \%\\\ i ,,,,--.r..-.11...;.t.C.i.\,,j lc- t\''''..T4:::::::<`, 1• 11;7:...1.triiiktilea•it. Ps.'\,%.,\\Ili`\ -.,--4'S... \,:\\fi•!..,, t'.,`,3%II' til.{. '4•':fliq.k;31-- 11\ •rP"" '.:,..itt, , \...1 . • , •••-, ... .\••• , r„ •,( • •.,. • Ii 1,„Fi*m. \ s'.:••.f, \ \ \ \- t.;‘1., 1.„47r. \s• 11 If .13" 0 It'',IVIt )P111. ,A\, \ •, ..„ ,.... 4.,... \ a. Z.ii.‘i\ ., 1:.%11.., I I, \c: 'r(y..... . . . ""i - i...". T.i.4..A.131140,4; \ \ \"s % 1.. 1171‘ ..... ', ....:AVIII : ; %.............. 1...} 1- 7";',.. .\ / lirll t 4i:11.1.7-2t..N.i:/>1 \ ..s : 'k‘, 1 .-._ , ..t, , :,,,,, , • ;‘, , \., , ; ,--,77-.• ,12....::,:.„ : •. ..... -'4 ) , r„.,f Ii,,,,„,,.,., ssf,e,r.,,,,i,,, ,... ;.-•• -. It, .; , ,••• ,/..-:4 ‘ oo, -.T.,. - •../ ' ' 1,--r •-'1••• - -• ‘1 --------r-..-1;-;.0-1,41. \ \ ....N.,i -... ,, ., , ; PE ••,N ,,k. ' i •1. l . •i,•;,',/,,, ,‘,L,,I •:.>,... -,. ..i';,.." 1, t, .,,.....-'4.' -.. •:v ..._•••-• .0;;.Iff:Alt t I \ \.',4,-'-'1'....,'''s,' ', ' '11:1 ' i -'1 ':'NS '• s ; ',....:;:"`44. IalOts:s,s,;tt;,, 1.:-... t .,,,,;-: t • ,4,- • -cf 1 ';t,."Sti,I, ' 's.,' 1 ..:',r7.21.7.:/.1.1 ' ".:',‘,\\:\Al\..\ i,;:/:.: \j.''11:2.11,...r'''- -----''.. 'i'..3.: 44+,z:3.0,,i,;,: ...1 .•••••,,......J,, .. ,.;,, .., ...:, .••••.4.,,.., ....,..1:..1-4-1, (,j,..,, .,..•:-......,.., .;,./..;:•..r.:•;...,r'.'%/4...",,:.'1"; t,1 1 \:`%;,\\:‘,, ::Ifri,‘ .i..I.' \ .,... i. ''' '*- ' "-t- ------,110111,11,114 `<•>,-:\\ ‘,-31V4,,..'‘,, '4‘,1 i,'1101; Ill ; '''';',•,. -''';\ilk, 1 .,- ..I. i /...---) l'o.i111`), ::.q• % • •T-.; , .,/ 44. f '?: • .i.r....„.,...,\ v..ijk i.\ ''':::;../,';;;:/:/Ar 1 I : I I i‘ .:7;:::••• I :7(,1'—'111'./. V 7 .. C. t'' ; 1 11111 A„.,_"'4....4'.3.1:. •.-1 , .. . 1....'. ...:••••,: ‘ ..":1•;•••- 3 : • 6 '''' r'77:7;,,,,•• V I I'lit tIrd.--;:;•;1!411:.:1; .1%•;!,*;•.:.:\\‘‘‘, ."r.,71.1,":. I I i 6 Yi 1,p-t,-...-:11.„1,\ tf•\ .../..•:41,r.li 1 I: 1., i t 1 i *.t.11:".;"‘''';':•,•;&`„ 4.,:!),,,,-'-'-__fi. tf: :'••• "P'-"t!•:'-':4;.r..1.),,AVg,,!:14,1-•,‘Vel •:.•"./..?..•••:"..v.-,I, . ;1 1 ;;;. -.'15:.%:•........;;;;.5...1•:•..K•24:::::: • -.•_.... .,... 4.: • ••• „ ,4,1..c,„..,s,.;-. lit ..r..:2,:,::....:..::::K4.2. Ili i„.. iii i •,- -, 4,r,..;...::.r,........-1 .P:. :. 1:11c.,. I \\A".—.0:k0::.— ;ill% '* \ '1.::::..;2:::':::!:• :irli 1 ! 1:1'; '..P."' ... ---- .......,--z-----.-- ...-,kf'';;'..i.:, . L-. i;',;>ne,\'';',;-=‘,;:_-_•.:7•,'1,1, ,,,k, , \\'‘,,,, „:i. : 'i ! .• \-.,K\..,11 1 •1://,,::":"2.1:40'.:i:ar \' I ri ,1:?:::,... •.... ::;?,. ,.••••,' '••[ ?.;&:',....41',4.1.I.:/.:•; -,.=-•st,-',42;\ ; ',, \ ; \ ';• .7.1; It 1. si.p.i4t, 1 / /,•7 , ---"I'-.•_,. :R.;.: ,• -,''''''-; ,\`1,•:,..,;',"-•.:-• '.-.' ' '1 3 k • oj'••; ,f i / 11 qtil, \ : •-; --- i s. 'i".'--'-------- 3Fj• -: ".--.. -'•N‘k."-• , :—.------1-1 , Bfl-{3 t •C.,/,../r/.73.!t;ZI i '' , , % % ",:sj::::' ..". I: .. cdS,-.._...' /.. ../ -....0''''''4Z-•,..• •-•••-• ...eh 4. I , 111143 % ,....r. .2;4. i • / '1/4.•' ..*.—TITG:ii.„ :...1.1.1-..., "fa-..r..01:4...:1 •• :... —"....4... I 1 ."' Iti --- ;.''''' / j C -'. 1 W-116'k° % 1---fr. 1,__/ ::_:1•....,j4,-.,,:"7.-'7,1,,-..4.-.rf4..i..b:•,1--i..:•77..,-;...)7N. :*.e......Eti it:,.7) . .,p, . .,.. .,,,,..-,,, °.,!...,--4/ ....3 \ s.s ‘. x.. I P 5 c ..' f--...."1:; ..1%°"1-...:f—--. '7: • / y ,-- • ' -- ---„••••',..-'; ,,,......,..AT•witir A ; 1 -...., -s, :•-•, . ..p.c I -'.:--------_-i t77.-- 't' . I• '• 1-7--'7..: / % ..-...,...7,.•P`12 J ..\- . 1 ...,, - --,.-------------_ •;--A ,.. , If , 471L. ,--_-_-,-_-1._-_...-1;ss. it '' ' ' ----1, .7,,- „ „ , , „ .• ,,,..,,„-„,„.„--___---___-_-__*-4,:-.7.-::-:----- --- • . f I • , 1.--,'J-',/-•-•;.J,4- turc.•,'.‘ •,'li. ... ; / / • EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD WITH THE CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, PLAN REVIEW PROJECT MANAGER. ALL LIMITS OF CLEARING. AND AREAS OF. VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE'PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD AND OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION/EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORILY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE EROSION HAS PASSED. THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE. • • 4. THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES WILL BE NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 5. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY. IT DOES'NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS OR RETENTION FACILITIES. 6. DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF'NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, ALL PROJECTS DISTURBED SOIL AREAS GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET THAT ARE TO BE LEFT UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN TWELVE (12) HOURS SHALL BE COVERED BY MULCH, SODDING OR PLASTIC COVERING. 7. IN ANY AREA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR MORE, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR IN QUESTION. GRASS SEEDING ALONE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE ONLY DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER INCLUSIVE. SEEDING MAY PROCEED, HOWEVER, WHENEVER IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE, BUT MUST BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING OR OTHER TREATMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON, OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD.. 8. FOR ALL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PONDS WHERE THE DEAD STORAGE DEPTH EXCEEDS 6 INCHES, A FENCE, A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET HIGH IS REQUIRED WITH 3:1 SIDE SLOPES. 9. A TEMPORARY. GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 24' X 50' X 8" OF 4"-6" QUARRY SPALLS SHALL BE LOCATED AT'ALL POINTS OF VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. X X f I Project Overview This project involves the construction of an apartment complex on a 3.3ac parcel located at the 4100 block of Lincoln Avenue NE. The parcel is the site of previous gravel pit and is generally covered with brush and medium-sized cottonwood trees. The site slopes down to the north at about 10%. An existing stream flows north along the east boundary, generally located in the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way. Level 1 Downstream Analysis The site generally drains north into an existing wetland area, partially onsite, but generally extending north a few hundred feet to NE 43rd Place and west to a row of old commercial buildings located on Jones Avenue NE. Flows collect in a swale along the east side of the commercial buildings crossing through a ditch,along the south side of 43rd. Flows cross to the north side of 43rd through a submerged culvert, then north through a ditch located along the west side of McDonald's. Flows cross NE 44th street through a large diameter culvert, continuing north along the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard through a stream/wetland, Flows cross I-405 through a large diameter culvert in front of Denny's at about 2000 feet downstream of the site. Recent snow and rain has apparently caused flows to cross over the surface of NE 43rd Place in the area of the culvert crossing. The stream adjacent to the sit also overtopped culverts and causepsome erosion and sloughing. 9A. ALL WATER MAINS AND SERVICES SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED TO A MINIMUM OF 200 PSI .OR 150 PSI OVER OPERATING PRESSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE WASHINGTON STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. ALL PRESSURE TESTING SHALL BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF RENTON. 9B. ALL WATER MAINS AND SERVICES SHALL BE DISINFECTED BY THE INJECTION OF A 50 PPM (MINIMUM CONCENTRATION) CHLORINE/WATER SOLUTION. DRY CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN THE PIPE AS LAID. CHLORINE SHALL BE METERED/INJECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7-11.3(12)E OR 7-11.3(12)F OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCED IN 1 ABOVE. 10. A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. A MINIMUM OF 10 (10) WORKING DAYS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR SCHEDULING. PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE PRECON A PERMIT INFORMATION SHEET MUST BE SUPPLIED TO THE UTILITY ENGINEERS OFFICE. TWENTY-FOUR HOUR NOTICE WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING NEW CONSTRUCTION. 11. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SECURE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. 12. INSTALLATION OF CORPORATE STOPS, WATER SERVICES, LINES AND METERS SHALL NOT BE DONE UNTIL ALL SERVICE AGREEMENTS, • METER APPLICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND PAYMENT OF FEES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE CITY OF RENTON. 13. ALL CONNECTION TO EXISTING MAINS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF RENTON. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBIUTY .TO NOTIFY THE CITY INSPECTOR 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BACKFILUNG ALL CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR AS WELL.AS THE ENGINEERS SHALL KEEP AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. 15. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PLUGS AND TEMPORARY BLOWOFF ASSEMBLIES FOR TESTING AND PURITY ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO FINAL TIE-IN. 16 ALL JOINT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS (SHACKLE RODS, NUTS, BOLTS, ETC.) SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY THE STAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF COLUMBUS OHIO _OR EQUAL APPROVED IN WRITING BY TE WATER UTILITY SECTION. 17. ASPHALT AND CONCRETE STREET PAVING SHALL BE SAWCUT TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWO INCHES. OIL MAT STREETS MAY BE SPADE CUT. ALL SURFACE CONCRETE, PAVEMENT, SIDEWALKS, CURB, GUTTERS AND DRIVEWAY APPROACHES SHALL BE SAWCUT TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWO INCHES OR REMOVED TO AN EXISTING EXPANSION JOINT. 18. A TEMPORARY COLD MIX ASPHALT PATCH SHALL BE PLACED ON THE DAY ON INITIAL EXCAVATION WITH A PERMANENT, SEALED PATCH TO BE PLACED, TO CITY OF RENTON POLICY, WITHIN TEN DAYS. CALL FOR SUBGRADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FINAL PATCH. TRENCHES WILL NOT BE-LEFT OPEN OVER NIGHT WITHOUT PRIOR • WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTOR. 19. FOR CITY PROJECTS SUCH AS TELEMETRY CONDUIT, THE PVC USED SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 IN UNIMPROVED AREAS AND SCHEDULE 80 UNDER IMPROVED AREAS. ALL CHEMICAL PROCESS LINES SHALL BE SCHEDULE 80 PVC PIPE. , N, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Section 1.1 Introduction Section 1.1.1 When is Drainage Review Required? Section 1.1.2 Other Agencies May Also Require - Drainage Review pfrsGN Ltot a Section 1.2 Core Requirements �iCCS T; A/E'rL-4 '1D Section 1.2.1 Core Requirement #1 Na►2T14 >✓ivp -- Discharge at the Natural Location L riC, Section 1.2.2 Core Requirement #2 Off-Site Analysis Q-A/P4Gr1515 "D nuTIoN Section 1.2.3 Core Requirement #3 MX LLIPIrj, ���,440 Runoff Control PE �jOS Section 1.2.4 Core Requirement #4 otv CepC.1 )I Conveyance System ,0y ,"� re� ti Section 1.2.5 Core Requirement #5: O( -• wL LL - , Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan Section 1.2.6 Core Requirement #6 5�- P�` ���(Lc Maintenance and Operation T4'2-r � Section 1.2.7 Core Requirement #7 `14,t s iSi! Bonds and Liability Section 1.3 Special Requirements ilk erection 1.3.1 Special Requirement #1 Critical Drainage Areas AIA --- Section 1.3.2 Special Requirement #2 Compliance with an Existing Master NA I Drainage Plan .Section 1.3.3 Special Requirement #3 As Conditions Requiring a Master N, Drainage Plan �'.► Section 1.3.4 Special Requirement #4 Adopted Basin or Community Plans .. (AG ot. istf) to',gSec 'on 1.3.5 Special Requirement #5 5ctaTtier -1-6Pt-fi1C.tLLAIL Special Water Quality Controls -1121kfFiC. t- ection 1.3.6 Special Requirement #6 Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators Section 1.3.7 Special Requirement #7 N6q f y Closed Depressions (AVC.LOSED SectQ ion 1.3.8 Special Requirement #8 Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed VIeRRCirV Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control may- paofevw�,.Section 1.3.9 Special Requirement #9 Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain (1.) A— Section 1.3.10 Special Requirement #10 Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 UPL� • and 2 Streams l ti L(, - Section 1.3.11 Special Requirement #11 Geotechnical Analysis and Report Nf 4. __rSection 1.3.12 Special Requirement #12 Soils Analysis and Report Section 1.4 Variance Process Section 1.4.1 Variance Authority Section 1.4.2 Variance Request Application Process Section 1.4.3 Variance Request Review Process Section 1.4.4 Criteria for Granting Variances . Section 1.4.5 Appeal Procedure 11/92 G E O T E C H September 13, 1996 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E.20th St.(Northup Way),Suite 16 JN 96285 Bellevue,WA 98005 (206)747-5618 FAX 747-8561 SDA Brothers, Inc. do M.S. Cavoad Company 4739 University Way Northeast, Suite 1807 Seattle, Washington 98105 ' Attention: Mark Goldberg Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Apartments 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Goldberg: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed apartment development to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-3984, dated August 5, 1996. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building-site were explored with 10 test pits that generally encountered medium-dense to dense sand at relatively shallow depths. This soil is suitable for support of the building loads using conventional footings. Some significant grading will likely be done across the site, especially on the eastern side. The non-organic, on-site sand should be suitable for use as structural fill. Vibratory equipment will be necessary for adequate compaction of this soil. The attached report contains a discussion of th'e study and our recommendations. Please contact us, if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, •. InIZ-1711S1U^TANTS, INC. • obert Ward, .E. Associate �RW:ant w„‘, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Apartment Development 4100 Lincoln Avenue Northeast Renton,Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed apartment development in-Renton. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. We were provided with a 1994 topographic map and a preliminary site plan. Kussman Associates developed these plans, which are dated July 26, 1996. Based on these plans, we anticipate that the development will consist of three 21-unit apartment buildings and one recreation building. Each apartment building will have three stories over one level of parking. Much of the area around the buildings will be paved. Cuts of up to about 20 feet are likely on the eastern side of the site, While fills of up to about 10 feet are likely in the middle or northern portion of the site. Large amounts of soil are also expected to be needed at, or just outside, the eastern edge of the property to fill an existing swale. A new swale will be constructed east of the existing swale. Access to the property will be near the southeastern corner of the property via the newly-constructed North 40th Street that connects to Lincoln Avenue. The storm water detention pond is proposed to be located near the northeastern corner of the property. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The property is somewhat rectangular in shape and is-located in the northeastern corner of Renton, just east of Interstate 5. The property has approximately 490 feet of frontage on its eastern side along Lincoln Avenue Northeast and approximately 305 feet of frontage on its southern side along the undeveloped right-of-way of Northeast 40th Street. The undeveloped site is generally heavily covered with small, deciduous trees and brush. Two apparently low grade wetlands are located on the northern end of the site where the site elevation is the lowest (about elevation 60 feet). The site generally slopes gently to moderately upward to the south to an elevation of about 90 feet. However, a steep ridge that has an elevation of about 110 feet at the crest is located along, or just off, the eastern edge of the site and just south of the site. Some underground utilities are apparently located just off the southern property line, and a cut through the ridge was obviously made to install the utilities. A storm water swale is located just at, but mostly beyond, the eastern property line, east of the high ridge. This swale is proposed to be relocated so that the entire swale is beyond the property. Subsurface 0 The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 10 test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the r.rm-f-rT/cry,'el II TAN'T(' Nr SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 2 proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and the time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on August 21, 1996 with a large trackhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from • the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 7. The test pits generally found sand and silty sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. The sands were loose above these dense layers. In Test Pits 4, 6, and 10, excavated on the side of a steep bank, the loose sand was deeper. In Test Pits 4 and 5, at the northwestern portion of the site, the sands were underlain by hard silt at 7 and 4 feet, respectively. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture.descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. • Groundwater The only groundwater seepage observed in the test pits was at a depth of 7 feet in Test Pit 3 at the northern end of the site. However, the test pits were left open for only a short time period and groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be a significant consideration for this project unless deep cuts are made on the northern end of the site. We would anticipate that the only potential deep cuts in this area would be _ for utility installation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The test pits encountered sand that became medium-dense to dense at approximately 1 to 6 feet below the ground surface. This sand is suitable to support buildings that are founded on conventional footings. Structural fill placed over this sand is also suitable for building support: Compaction of the sand will be needed at the footing subgrade level regardless of whether the - sand is native or consists of structural fill. A major geotechnical engineering aspect of this project is the large amount of mass grading needed for the project. Cuts of up to 20 feet are proposed on the eastern side of the site, while fills GPOTF.CI-I CONSULTANTS,INC. • • J N 96285 SDA Bros Page 3 September 13, 1996 of up to 10 feet are likely in the central or northern area. The uppermost soil encountered in the potential cut areas had a significant amount of roots and should not be used as structural fill. Below that, the soil consists of sands that are relatively fine-grained. These types of sand can be used as structural fill, but may require extra compactive effort. Only vibratory equipment should be used to compact these sands. In addition, fine sands are very difficult to compact if they are dry. In the summer months, much water may need to be added to the sand during the compaction process. On the positive side, sands can be compacted during wet weather provided it is not raining heavily and the soil is not excessively wet. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. Conventional Foundations The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense to dense, native sand or or structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the later sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon siteand equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.- When creating the building pad above the existing ground surface, the outside edge of the structural fill should begin at a distance from the building that is equal to the height of the fill beneath the building. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent, native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 10 feet in thickness, will be about one inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: OF.OTECI-I CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 4 Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Passive earth pressure • is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will ,not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to 'lateral loading, when using the above design values. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S2. The soils are not subject to seismic liquefaction. Slabs-on-Grade The building floors may be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop competent native soil. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab=construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine-grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. We recommend proof-rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof-rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls-that restrain level backfill: r-r-n-rrrt 1 rrlvc!ti"r.%\rvv T\'P SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 5 Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 120 pcf Where: 1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2. Active and passive,earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for.the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads; such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should 'be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the • higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The on-site sand that meets this recommendation can be used as backfill. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled with pervious soil. GFOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 6 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The sub-section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. - Excavations and Slopes Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations,. retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during:wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand can cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Drainage Considerations We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all backfilled, earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch- minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, S.upac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as . the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 7 ' All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 8. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Some groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. - • The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located'away from any slopes. Pavement Areas All pavement sections may be supported on competent, native soil or structural fill, provided these soils can be compacted to a 95 percent density and are in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Structural fill or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non-woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be 'required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill-beneath pavements are given in a later sub- section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The CFOTFCH CONSULTANTS.INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 8 optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must.,be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Minimum Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, 95% or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio,r. expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry .. density to the maximum dry density, as_ determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). • LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site astf d ued in the conditions test pit s is they representativeexisedat the of subsurfacetimeoour conditionsexploration onan theass site.me Ifthat the the subsurfacesoilencounter conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SDA Brothers, Inc. and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current nFoTFCH CONSULTANTS,INC. • SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 9 standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. • ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 7 Test Pit Logs Plate 8 Footing Drain Detail • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. SDA Bros JN 96285 September 13, 1996 Page 10 • We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. j.5.Q$E RT ,7.'81•0 '' o '' p, .p„ 29740 �.Q 1 Fv� _66 5 (EXPIRES L)47-4'7 D. Robert Ward, P.E. Associate James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal . . • DRW/JRF:ant cc: Kussman Associates • • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. i I / 1 • ..... , , L I•r. I II � —.I �� --- V .1-" 3 r, i _ 4' / l I sE zpri• _I ;r 6 ^ 9 ?11r.r_I e e u s4' Q -$_ F2:IJ �� •n r:is i•_ Z ® "i ^j}N—�{i I ? NAZELWG • 00 rur PLC N ` ; rem s. ^S y SE,Z;P+? lJ:C1w� a pK iF N rpPp z 7• �\,'}'' rq .....�iic'•'-. 7 RD _ r,,x'Q S_1 Gt j::! �.r .+µ..me 7w� S _ ." i2 _ 7, ..// • Si AM' ST v -`I 1. cr S •_ �'•. 6TN t' - i . 'L U Pt • t,Y° SE 7iTH 'PL c�-r ‘ 11�,_•:�' •i�j .�:L'rf^) y 5=t P�, �� ti` � S: U•l- R / •44r•�,i`I • _ 3 rgryr �S .�"" '9'vp� 81 fN ST sl 11 _-4 110 r g' p ', , , -1- SE` CS G �1, JCE11 I , 1A4Q. •. tit 43RD ' ���a�]T:n sr eorN =1=sr �: � r.� \e • .i • '( .�-Ir AY SE d70.a 4 %• Cr �y r it N 40TH ST >=1•� r0 .1 cko t:"- a+ry E� �� S i•:ditr (1 �� r z-It H 38TH ST � tt•- t<r'� 5E 9;:i sr v PL r ,.v ri 11TN Sf,� � A./ ,,• yuIE S: d•T•r sr 4 .~n-, 1r'-'Si �e , C CASi KENiYRALE I 36TH ST ¢ ^ NE 36T8 SE 88TH- >E-er ST X 4 BEACH PAn•K JC ST L 116C0 - T? ,,. 9 iPr 9 N x P•- > .9ry -?� .0 • t JSTH Si r ? LP;off 'y"s�3 S: 89TH ST //�00 ger t -o ] 74TH >a Sr c^_ w ' pt a 6'e<;; A :\ 5, Ql� :E 90TH ST $ „ :FGIY_:.4.:,>�-,•;,. o j - ] 37R0 PL L, r, IA•',_.;Y; o SE 91ST sr,) iCR£EK,:�s,�?7w' ,;:_.A j II 33RD ST n c SE - g sl22CJ pK:"?�.I;ti•,:4;.• S- • 9]io Si til " k" T a •'I • - :+' 2 •� :'i.''\'.:''••4��i W 7917iil I ]aJ '4 T iii �y '.:a K2 o Q .i•.1::�'. tGIC ::} 'OINT N 31ST ST '` Nc 315 ST £j a r, �' ^ T': lil'i.,;'� (� • `.4: hl 3 TH ST I J• ,M 4Y•.,:CREEK i ? x:• • ' , :-" E :i 7C, ]I 29TH ST° 1J00 c ci . . ,' ,i.:5, it, .c ;L.--. �..-95.. � ttioe' a, ti A im' �:• v •i�?��• ..."' �r��' ;:SS w� - y` \ o= N 23TH PL r ']IE . ..28TH ST V", \ ..�';,' . '"'S�°/ =Ir';_- -' et L� i IL _2$Tg—--Sr—_ - --- 1-�t 1--—-- - .T,'r...".:,;;;.•'-:;r•31 SE "- 7'-r -s;+„ a t • I 11_ ,}� S - 21A-I 00 'i $T E• -' 7i `9. .ks. 1.,...,.,.'�F3 • s:9'M SIERRA a CT a- > w w71 ' .sue ( .� SE 9;:i Sr NEIG ITS .0 s a s `•�r '..�..-; PARK . 1. .:.7 25 9� MA sr w :sy`W •'KEN•'%O.LEz e.3sri sr ssJ iln 5 @I 1 sL •1 _24TH 1313 w ; llagan01111.1l5A7-®�SJ. - • _ L)0 Y.. ' .. I .3RD PL -,,-SE El0 I STJ=A L!s 0' 22ND 2 ,0 - ' ! ` m rSS IO?P.3-STj 5> E N T o ST ]I 22`ID ST s 4 �.I r �J'�'S_ lOaTi 3 =o Z L� = 5 NE 2lsi i ` j 00 'J •12900 5r - — 040 ? g a� sr q ��� l = u '( p -+NE 20TH :"c Si6 o ` 5's psr.. I F •y i� 2JJ0 ] a Q..� TI\ i ' a 1a�.1;. St N; 11 Sr 3 . , ,, �5 Ili :SZII.MTH ST' NE ..+ ': ~ K NE Nr'7rH¢ 7`j� T+.:+-I... r}1�Q y... `Vit La i 13' l9 Sr HIGHLANDS> r}'' ti7, to > •• N • 0...J z PAP.•Z.•...,.LQ SS �1I''`•( / y o' a a1 • .t;:.`r`+' 7 3 u L•i, 1 S=,. !.. \c 1 'II V.l r.Y Itt-\( .. p LiE. 1 1 u II: - • - A r .• SUS ,,i :1rJf. 1 BOAT LAG'LCH• ,�'n .' - _ 12_ J2400 i PLGO. •`- ^' Jd00 ET ` / 'rti _ o` N:'`st Z IM 'ice 6 cc ICH :i i'i -' sSH - ST- o o NE ) PL ;710 S'UPI Sr . N: L.17 Sr - ;:,ti:,:\ Lf. y •GEE y;�CO� it ,� S? o`I :le t7rN ��,;� `IIF 12TH Sr `S BEICY'PAn^K.ii LIE 12TH �I S1 •.:c 2100 25 0 - c; 7- J w j 3700 =1 R1, ��t I, •, s. :Lii NF tt•:• (f N: r. `„^ �• Q P A R - w Ilrn �r • _l. /� V� ILii $T S. t7:n P. a LA� A �'// �/.M ITf `r ,.s O ik: &M �: - ` ¢ Q^= JJ:'1 M1• `r...= ITM•o1� I St I^-N • VICINITY MAP - �� GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE �; CONSULTANTS a. RENTON, WA ____-_. Job No.+ Dale: Lopped By: P/o/e: 9 62 85 SEP 1996 1 . i , g TP-3 TP-4 0 II 0 I i I I TP-2 0 PROPOSED BUILDINGS ®TP-5 w z tu TP-1 m 0 w r Q TP-7 z J 0 TP-6 O ® - Z J 7 TP-8 TP-10 • / • TP-9 • LEGEND: I ...- ® APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS \N 40th STREET (PROPOSED) SITE EXPLORATION PLAN AlGEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE , CONSULTANTS J RENTON, WA Job No.: Dole: Plate: Ki „� '.� _— � 96285 SEP 1996 2 • TEST PIT 1 ;�J G° USCS Description 0 _ Topsoil over: Tan, slightly silty SAND, fine-grained, moist, dense • _ -becomes silty, wet, less dense 5 _ \SP ,. -becomes less silty, medium-grained • 10 _ Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. 15._ No caving. . TEST PIT 2 G° USCS Description. 0 Tan SAND with traces of silt, fine- to medium-grained,moist, _ medium-dense (roots to 12") - _ -becomes gray, less silty,.medium-grained SP ' • 5 — • • 10 ,_ • Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. _ No caving. • 15� TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 3 TEST PIT 3 „ ea oy s G° USCS Descri.tion 0 `'`"` • Gray SAND, medium-grained, a few roots, moist, medium-dense .tj• 5 • -becomes saturated 10 Test pit terminated at 8 feet below grade on 8-21-96. Slight groundwater seepage was encountered at 7 feet during excavation. Caving below 7 feet. 15 TEST PIT 4 s. .4- 4- . eQ °�G° USCS Description 0 Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moist, loose heavy roots to 2',light roots to 5.5' - SP 5 — <" ' -becomes more silty, medium-dense • _ Gray SILT intermixed with compressed peat lenses, medium-plastic, mL . 10 Ifll moist, hard • Test pit terminated at 10 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15_ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Slight caving above 5 feet. TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECEI 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 4 .• TEST PIT 5 Jeer aQ q . `�c� 0 G° USCS Description 0 Tan SAND, traces of silt, fine- to medium-grained, moist, dense SP • 5 _ 1111 Tan SILT with some sand and gravel,low to medium plasticity, — ML very moist, hard 10 _ Test pit terminated at 6 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation.. No caving. • 15 ._: . TEST PIT 6 G° USCS Description, 0 _ = Tan SAND, traces of silt, many organics to 2 ', slightly moist, loose 5 — -becomes gray, medium- to coarse-grained, medium-dense >: SP... .::: _10 _ ?° -becomes gravelly 15 — Test pit terminated at 15 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. Slight caving above 5 feet. TEST PIT LOGS • - GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 5 • TEST PIT 7 T ,tom r 0 G° USCS Description • Tan, very silty SAND,very fine-grained, moist, dense -becomes gravelly, very dense 5 — -many intermixed boulders _ ::ISM -no gravel, becomes dense 10 _— • _ Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15_ No groundwater seepage was encountered during'excavation. No caving. TEST PIT 8 q4 o" 4G° USCS -- Descri'tion 0 Tan, slightly silty SAND, some gravel, fine-grained, moist,loose, • f ;'>. roots to 18" SP • 5 6 ` -becomes medium-dense,-some boulders • IEBBEI -becomes silty, wet, medium-dense to dense BBB - 10 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below grade on 8-21-96. 15 No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. No caving. TEST PIT LOGS • GEOTECH . 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. . RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 6 y . TEST PIT 9 °c USCS Description 0 ' Tan, very silty, very fine-grained SAND, wet, medium-dense, roots to 18" _ -lens of gravelly sand ISM 5 — -becomes less silty, very wet to saturated 10 _ Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below grade on 8-21-96. _ No groundwater seepage was encountered during excavation. No caving. • 15_' • TEST PIT 10 USCS Description P 0 Tan SAND, fine-grained, slightly moist, loose,heavy roots to 2' -becomes gray, moist, medium-dense • 5 — ISP} 10 — 15 Test pit terminated at 13 feet below grade on 8-21-96. No groundwater seepage was,encountered during excavation. Some caving throughout. TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS, INC. . RENTON, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 96285 SEP 1996 DRW 7 • • • Slope backfill away from foundo/ion. ‘ ‘ ✓ T/GHTL INE ROOF DRAIN Do no/ conned /o fooling drain. BACKFILL See for R ( / VAPOR BARRIER requfreiremen/s. SLAB WASHED ROCK `�•;• `� �, 4 min. • • FREE-DRAINING NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE SAND/GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC • 4"PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Inver/ a/ leas/ as low as fooling and/or crow/ space. Slope /a drain. Place weepho/es downward. • FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL __.4,1 • G'iEOTECH 4100 LINCOLN AVENUE NE CONSULTANTS CO RENTON, WA 4. 1 Job No.: Dole: Scole: P/o/et 96285 SEP 1996 N.T.S. 8 BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC. CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT • • AND TEMPORARY EROSION&'SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN • FOR WILLIAMSBURG • • • • January 13, 1997 Revised May 27, 1997 Baima&Holmberg Job No. 997-005 �UPEtr O � woF WAsy e `' �, • ', 44_111332 • SJONALENG'Y : Prepared for: Mark Goldberg • 100 FRONT STREET SOUTH • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027-3817 • (206)392-0250 • FAX(206)391-3055 --1 .)C 1111 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT • Prepared For: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Bothell, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington February 7, 1997 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT Prepared for: Kussman Associates PO Box 1705 Bothell, Washington 98041-1705 Prepared by: I � Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 February 7, 1997 Table Of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 1 3.0 METHODOLOGY 1 3.1 Background Data Reviewed 1 3.2 Field Investigation 2 4.0 RESULTS 2 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 2 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions 3 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4 5.1 Description 4 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands 4 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams 5 5.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts 5 References List Of Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3: Soils Map Figure 4: Existing Conditions Map Figure 5: Site Plan Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Data Sheets for Routine On-site Determination Method WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT WETLAND DELINEATION AND STUDY REPORT February 7, 1997 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland inventory and delineation on an approximately 3.3-acre site located in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The site is 1 proposed for the construction of a 62-unit condominium development. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the property, 2) identify wetland impacts from the proposed development, and 3) describe measures which will be implemented to mitigate wetland impacts from the proposed development. Information in this report will be utilized by the City of • Renton and any other concerned agencies to evaluate impacts to wetlands on the project site. 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE `f The property appears to have been historically used as a gravel mine, but is currently forested. It is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Section 32, Township 24N, Range 5E, W.M.). Surrounding properties consist primarily of a mixture of single,family residential and undeveloped areas. Topography on the site generally slopes down from south to north. However, the eastern and western portions of the site slope sharply down to the east and west respectively. Much of the topography on the site appears to have been significantly altered during the historic gravel mining activity. r 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of the subject property involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, and (if present) the extent of their boundaries (see Field Investigation section below). { 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information was reviewed prior to field investigations and included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Renton, Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988 • King County Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, 1973 • City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Map, 1991 • Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S., Wetland Determination Report, Aug. 14, 1995 • to,.,- 1 a' C ' PARK e P 6 7HI= \ A �i SE 70TMF-ST ❑ \ EP w^ g rn4' =1. �1 al D • 2 ~SE 72ND= 5T ST , =_ \ 30 > e " a - ST Pi ' R "' 1 <oG�N pi'S -SF '1-tj. $ HAZELWOOD E SE 72ND PL ` _XL ti..rrj ;a ' PK ��a OHS - 7� m -5i i. .�. ST yI �Z,'Qt. .._NE 50i c. E. LAND R -�:1'�JA i n < ,I `a `n S A 1 �, t • / /ScTH /\ ST a b`O _75TH- 'N =P y _.,�� ' tt':; : : J�Q ,j/ 44T -�: ^N v/ ;; , StsE_` -E 9TH PLtsIANO 5i�y. ' ' PARK f N 43RD ' 'SE=N 80TH 7:TH ST_ ST - • LEOT _LN HEIGHT'.Li1'3)/5T PROJECT 5 I T v, PLo z-._, : 11200 11600 T- SE 55T S7 '��' W E. ,..J 6I: P��tiNa 0 0y \- 405 SE:3e. I ?li SE fi24D `/- P AY �D si,�A e° �' <oT _"' .E 84TH • % N 40TH ST i? , tl} ---- wr '�ilk AVALON Z 1300 = f 1 " O Ui� "jt = EX n1I 31� •N 38TH ST <g fy:l?, ' �� z W r F SE 86TH ST 2, �i r �¢y II 37TH Sf A f I o " �F'F= SE 87TH ST 82 66 NI <- l > I i Q O ' 55 ST 871N ' 0" 1 KENNYDALE $T a I N ' I _ 1 y N 36TH r !l N: ^ 36TH S -� r-LTi SE ,�t0 BEACH PARK 3L !' _ 7�`T i 1600 'V E oQ P 36TH ST : L,00 N °; ,A d,W II Sr N 34TH < ST 1(l< > s� !yti •..,i 'S 89TH ST TH POINT - P) 33RD PLo tl c ¢ ';_...- �L z t._ 90TH ST / a F�NE 33RD ...ST-'-'; SE 91ST j N 33RD SIP, o S I 92ND S 4- COLEMAN (..x POINT 700 N 31ST ST b;?l; " 315T ' �>320 N E' ti NE Sr5 s, a e ,x N 3)TH a ST (II MAY •-• o CREEK SE9 93 700 N 29TH STo 1300 i ii`o - '•RK r,p�'r Nr� 71 N 128TH PL o j '`.':- 9� k . r NE 28TH ST .\1`;•, II --5Y- a ; LAKE 'i 27TH _E•_'__27Ty l zloo <W- L > ,ACT y > w -- q'I ' N 26TH STo I, w z KENNYDFLE z -25TH ST �`N'f� 0 I1 ?O o> "'' LIONS N-24TH STz w N N `4 24TH PARR' ST 1OS�`/� p/�+7 �/ N"> a 3RD PL IIYU/OIY ��ii 1700 N,EI�i �� NEE : 3RD 5T S ; <> ' EN 22ND 00 \ ,,., Z ; =¢ r NE 21ST STo. le Sj 22ND ST d � O O w a G ¢ i•NE 215T ST L. D F3 NE 20TH N< STo • S '. IQ, 1700 1700 w zI2300 NE ' SI dE S� 18TH PL > NE •'H ST 1 4, < NORTH 7 .(_.' hE C 2 NE STH NE ST z HIGHLANDS yet • G „ `''Q < f E Ic 16TI S ��c - O, A BOAT LAWCH 2a00= I" PLGD S�r,,, N 2 2 O W 55 9 '-' W < Z Ua > N � ; • 14TH_ = ST 6. m NE 0.3TH PL 2 JR 5 Zi . w c OR CO 'N J_ w z o w N, ` Q, o GENE ., S o m o 9 W ii NE 13TH ST W o � MEMORIAL ' 1 h'J NE < 12TH o S IB °112TH o6S ,y� BEACH PARK )0 < \ /,(��� ,7� 2100 25,0 m son5[r�c Av y.�la_ \Sl`� \ /11 h 8 Nvo czare.,/�. SOURCE: The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition Igici5 \I North DESIGN DRAM FIGURE I: Location Map AO 11•J TALASAEA SCALE CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium N.T.S. 0 Resource 8 Environmental Planning DATE ' 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Development 2_5_crl Woodinville,Washington 98012 Renton, Washington REVISED Bus(206)861 1550-Fax(20e)861-•1549\ 3.2 Field Investigation A preliminary wetland reconnaissance was conducted on the site on August 19, 1996. Following this reconnaissance, a more formal wetland delineation was conducted on the property on October 7 and November 5, 1996. The routine on-site determination method was used to delineate the wetlands using the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987). Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the National List of Plant Species that Occur in wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Reed; 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the basis of Cowardin's system of wetland classification. Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant . species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter(i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the followingcharacteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer, • matrix chroma just below the A-horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or, less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A-horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and predicted flood elevations, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils and hydrology was made at various locations along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information. Wetland boundaries were marked with flagging and surveyed. Appendix A contains data sheets prepared for representative locations in both the uplands and wetlands. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) do not indicate that any wetlands are located on the project site (Figure 2). The City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory map also does not indicate that any wetlands occur on the site. Since these maps are only general inventories based largely on aerial photographs, and because wetland areas change over time, actual field investigation was necessary to ensure that any wetlands were identified. 2 * 47,c: I • _ii PSSc it � � / ; r_-_.,....-1, - PEM, / , -----• /. • „ sii 41r, .. . •it. \ i ti' ( 1 l' ,") l'r •" > I I Udi ` • May ♦` rt. ter •• ,: • • I 11 • PROJECT IT I itI: \ j • 1.1 i ��y \ • I: • t i ( I ` IC irl I 1 t• ' I v., \I ji Ii j i• • ` D.l� t 437_1 ;we . . t . .:11:A.it- - •:. • . 1. 1I ! 111 r li i • • j , I• Irl/ i 1 ' • •�J,\'.:' . : i \ '• •'i{ 4,ffi4."r..—'.t0-4-.i'', 4 47t-',-:4/1i7r.:its,-4",4._•,-".*l./s_. ks , x .` • ,\ M �1 II Y +1MMhx: fir.,.. M .\=&. • , • .., Kennydale /.4---m, .� �,,... .1„.„, :,„. ,„.,„ .„,... .e.„.,:: J ; l� /h co__ �/ rr -= «+- ' �,z' ':� 1, l v i ��� \ �/ � 't: /" is I., , \\ • • 4 4 • :tlea.,,,,-,„_, : .:„."<fitu.„-: ,:., -....,,v.,_.,:-...., \J• .:\ ,,- ---__..,.. • , .,,,,,, ,. .„....„..„,• ....... :_,_ ___ ,....„ ;..._.. . ,,,wcw.,,,,,,„....,,,_• • ,_ st„. ... ... .,,..64.. .„.,:‘,...A-61, ...„...,...,„„ , , ___;., ,:t__, . ....,„,_.........,,:. .... .., . . *,...: ii,.:;41.. ...41. 9 : - - • „.........ii,iitit. ,,,,.---,-, ,,, ,. ,.., ..„-- ......„-_,, SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish $ Wildlife Service Mercer Island Quadrangle, IQ88 ,I, mi, 1 - North I DRAM ��; FISURE 2: National Wetlands Inventory �� AO ,I t, TALASAEA Map SCALE CONSULTANTS Williamsburg Condominium 1"=1000' I Resource d Environmental Planning DATE Development 2_rJ_Gi1 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville,Washington 98o'12 Renton Washington REVISED Bus(206)661-1550-Fax(206)661--1549 r The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly the SCS) has mapped the site as consisting almost entirely of Everett gravelly sandy loam (Figure 3). This soil is not classified as hydric by the NRCS, but may contain hydric soil inclusions. The soils map also indicates that a gravel and/or borrow pit existed on the site at one time. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions Three wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, and C) and a stream (Stream D) were identified and delineated on the project site (Figure 4). Each of these sensitive areas is described below. Wetland A Wetland A (3,079 sf on-site) is located in the northeastern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site area, has been estimated to be about 10,000 sf. The wetland is forested and consists of an isolated topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. In addition, a leaking artesian well was observed off-site in the northern portion of Wetland A. This metal encased well, which is approximately 10 feet in height and 5 inches in diameter (O.D.) was flowing continuously at an estimated one gallon per minute (gpm)., and may provide additional hydrological support to the wetland. Dominant vegetation in the wetland consists of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and red alder(Alnus rubra) trees along the wetland edge, and scattered patches of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale). Groundcover vegetation was generally sparse and most of the wetland contained bare ground, apparently as a result of seasonal ponding. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland A would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland B Wetland B (1.094 sf on-site) is located in the northwestern portion of the site, and extends off-site to the north. The entire wetland, including the off-site portion to the north, has been estimated to be about 5,000 sf. Wetland B is primarily forested and consists of a slight topographic depression that appears to be hydrologically supported by precipitation and surface water run-off from the surrounding area. Vegetation in the wetland includes black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). Hydrology in the wetlands was assumed due to the presence of hydric soils and evidence of seasonal ponding. 3 i ^ . -. ..ry--: • • • • ® Q, 1 •i • May e '--ic~- - K P C � i. 1 / 4)--4-:;4t/ •..,,, II : •r • PROJECT SITE . --`� i AgD • • • I ® . •l�•i 1' " I ro. • , e�,?` w o Rd • • , • `11 rtVC • • t .1 No � , ■• � • _ . ■• • , • 71 . i: su ' •� • I .• •G■ ■■■ ■•• • I • ,AgC / I V l (1 A • • gD \• . .■ f _ ■ II M II a• k\, I . � , \.......\\ 4:. ... tr.;._2 •.• Kenn dale • • . • . .• .. .. � g�. �� • •• 6 � 0 ■ • • • laAkF J ' ill' ' ' • ' "' InC ilia • . ■.■I■•■ •• ■._ ••• ••• .. 1 • ••• I. we • a a ••• I r ■ Is ■■ • ■ .• ■■ ■ ■■• ■■■• /�• f • II • • • i II • e:^ : . • P T. ■■ .■ ■ ; . IL • •■■ ■ • _ •• AkF • • InAI — — --- — 414I • .• • \_______________ B ' S. • C AgD r✓� 1. ro • . • •■ .a • • '' ----5---- I_ SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, King County Soil Survey, Ici i3 ,I, LEGEND EvG Everett gravelly sandy loam, RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, M. 5 to 15 percent slopes 15 to 25 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam, slopes North are less than 2 percent i DESIGN DRAWN �j� FIGURE 3: Soils Map AO tl E: TALASAEA SCALE CONSULTANTS WIIIlamsburg Condominium I"=1000' Resource 4 Environmental Planning DATE 15020 Bear Greek Road Northeast Development 2_5_11 Woodinville,Washington 98012 Renton, Washington REVISED iBus(206)861-1550-Fax(206)661-9549 c / /' II i ((i ' :---7-7 ' ( — ------z--:::-- -- — ----:--_; vv', _--- ,, z/z. / kilil: YJM // z, il -,:-- ,- t- L2"'„'„„4- • - --- -- --::./ - - - -- - - - _ v 44 • i,%r_6011� ) ; L III ' I / 1 , \\\� / / \;� ' �'�7,� " E I ,IJ. . ( 1 \ r rr �\ / l �1IIIII �r fE/ EE1yi / Ii. (U \ ?/ / J \ I "'�Y 1 `1 � II �1I i/ E E E 0o ,. �,1 1 � \\t1 \\1 � \ 11 l 1 IIIII E -� ° " \'''' f / `� �11 \ I III i \ \ 1 IIIII I E, z -( ) '1Il/��, I �►� 1 \ 1111` 1 \ 111111II1 I• � E IN Nf2ro 1/ /Z \\ = III11111 ,- -- "L \111\ 111 E Ar-,1 � / i I \ -aC II I f� I I 1l\\�` � � IE I -� \' it IJ . 1\\\,NI\ \ \�� . \\ 11111II -- r \IIIIrk � z \ \ \ \ \ Nrl iiiiL1i- - --,' ' '' :7: ::: ' � � JLl / / �b\\ \I \\ ,� T \ \ IIIII11 IIIl1 \\ _ \\ . IV // 1/ )1\•\ 1 11 11 11111.• \ 1111\\ N / // i,/ 1) 1) \11I 111111 ;� �ite _ / I' I rr \\ 1 ' � ►` \ / - k�1//011 � r/i% )jmil/Ill ( / / \ NN \\\1\\\I\V\\\\\\ii / #I 1 I 1 1 . ---*4--- -- 1 ) hd\\I\\t\\\\ \\ - - • . I / . /.// pl111/;t1) 1.vA77(//1 ) i 1 — --tc- , Q N / ;� /7/ �� ,,, ._,_. _ou— 1 `� \ II III II �� l. �'/ l�� �� \ .� �// 1 1 \ ICI I 1 I 1 4__.:,.' /4 �i / ,, // ." y /..2 I / // /// . . /( // 1/ � 1 ( i I I III \ -' i � � //;�//����/ ' gL.--y/ z � l // � -- -�� ` \1IL \ � � IIIIIIIIIf ��, //�1/ ,��'� ,i ce=� , ,�, �/ i `o\Il _ Ifiill (l I/, . 11i/foi//)////� / �� ;�, if _ � - I�II _ � � IIIIIIII _ 1 � � � � � �, I \ \ III (io / _- r / / / // / ) �r — ' \ II I I I III 4' ° '\ / 11 / ////// // ,/ / 1 I \ \ Yr Irrr r ,.i I � � / / / / \//� ,II 111 11„i� / / / �, � \ 1 / �. \ \\ \ \ lrrr� 6 //��b111 1 Il/ r 11 (7 / ) f _ �y9� \ \ I ) \ \ \ 1111r , 'rn 11l' 1 IIII IIIII/ I II '' / / / -��� II \ \ IIIl\\\ \ �, (P11) 10 III1Il7� �' I 1 \ Illyrrrs ,--- /// / �i 1I � � � --- —�-- � _ 1 I I � ` � �/ l Ir 11 r Ilrn . 1 // iii 1 7 _� \\ \ ) I III 11l\ II11 ,v/ I/ /, 111 V 7 --" -s—� \ \ \ \ \ // / / PI I ' 1111 1 ' : / 11 1 t,. \\\\ \ �~ \/ L �° I II II II IIJji \1� � I\$ /1 .1l 1�111 r / _ -- - �-. - \ \ ` ��� �� � %i�� ,Iii■I, 1 111 `II\I.` l/ 1//1�i 11 / �� __ Y N� % o 0 -- I 1 �i \�1..] I 'Mid \ii \ll 11 8j / �- _ \ _-�•���,=i�'/ a R gi Z ` 1 qIIII\\*\\ // ///// 1 . • /. /' E E * E E E 4 / 7 _-^�=-I� g ,WC �' -A ///// i/ / / • / E E E [47. / ' '( t /11 , \\ ` „ / { 1 • E E�E / ./' ' mil �r�-' A 44. 1I / ,l� �),\//( ( \\ \\ i •- E-E E E �E• / ' eE .'�,E` • c) . �( a\ �\ \\\ - --. - - -�. - - -._._l- - . = \ E 1 (IC1 2 1 , / 1 ' .' \ ---1---- --::L.----— ) \\ I I . ( MI x ------- ------ -F__--. . .- ) \v 1. . ,.!. 1. ,171r _ . ..., , -._,„, ; _ _ , . _ . _ , --- I - 1 .4-- • -rn --- - _ 61_ ,_ ,..T __ J. • . .2.i.:.:,--. A' , . . :- -- .- -=:, --. ;-. 11 - :- - u (15 I l I � E (j, m� 1, / \ I EI23 I` EurO 2'.= %o n 0 N X X X - ill '' 2 . i-__- > gi r; . O o i I • 1 : I , 411/ ItIN I . NE TLAND "0" ..t.,,0 h•L.Or Se'.X St,. 1...13.1, 69,32 1,,,t••,..•110,1 I/. ...-......::::::::::::::'' \ , .. - ------- ...•%s 50 ---::-'::-"::-----::---------.•'.....‘\ I 1 LE6ENI, . s.f. (on-site) I \\ UNDIST1JRBED VIETLANDS , •.. \ `,, ' --------------------------------------------------------------------------.....-------------------------------- • ..................................:-.:..:_-_-::-.-:...........................--.:::::---...;..,:•.;•;••••: , 1 7._-_---:.i3-----..................................................„.............:.................,,..,‘:..,,N.:..„: I FILLED HETLANDS 1,412 s.f. I, '• ..\!.,, F.) s',.,i,1 t'''\•••\.•''•'‘.'s'i1-.\-\--:•-:-::2.. A911'4-Pic'''*'WI'T..,'4'-E'14'r-,p•-t,iq'7l'l'•4''-t?',--;t:'4.17;„-;'1.4r1.-11°.--_i..'::11.'-1.;-,'.1-,,-1.I'4.1t0i.1-r: 1i6-p1-I12I-J44 Pq'-.,:F11i'1i4.,,`,-iJ41t.i1Lrl1T1i7,-.I-1Ii r iItT-iiiIilt1-•it1:ri4rt-..tfF:..i,..--.--1-P.i•I--1 j-I0--TP'..1-Ir.r--.i.1J-.,!1T,,1I14}r.r,)J=iPr1..vt....-g;p4t;4,--.if8.7,ii02 l"..7i.i-.p.1.-..4...:.7.-..7.Z...--......-....L...-.--....z...-...-.:.........:....-..:....-...-..-.....--.z.-.-._..-_.._.-.-_.L.......-........1.....-.............-............:..:.:.._--_.._:._.•-____-..-._..".-1_::.-:..:.-:__--____:..:_._..r.'.__.._i'.__,.I.--_.:.-..:.. .:_.:...-..._-_-_1_--,1:.•.':‘,...•,;.,,,,•..•4,;,,.,.,,1.,,,,.I;1.A,\r....\;....•,.h•,,:.,'.,-,:.,.,-.p‘i,,,.,i\.„.,,V‘i:„ •,.-: •• •1 Iw _ - .4....,...-•--)A..N..._I ..-...-._"-_---_---_---_------.7__•,__-_---_-_- . .••••••..- •;•. •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••• CREATED VIETLAND ,624 5.f. I1,1r1 t1i i \• iltrAll'itrtrc453-11"1.6.;:ritieWrilitilill'i ill r'-• A- - lir a _ __)--1-- ,- . ---. _ --... -- -- -:-.--i-----ri-ttr,.7c= 7-.1r,°:-::,---:'-v-eal:, 13-:„-is .,-_- 4 . ;„ •,±•,,-11,*-,•-,0--ii-P-,,-,..._.- .5.0'P'',.....-...+4; , 'lilt' rffifli 1 1 1 . % O.-- --• --- .-'' ... -- 'r\NI 1 1./. 1•'...1 ill/.::"I 1 4- Ar". ':. ..• NETLAND 1.—II i • -,••::..\••,\\\, 1: ____.#:-Liii1D-T1111Pg1111,14-f-tlAt. ill irr . ''0 - \K:\\ \,vt:',. ,\--.-;\. dill „...,, • l• , -.41/4 A-. 1,0c14 s.f. (on-site) .\\''..\\*.\\''•.-- .r.niti .PliI:Itt",ciiiiiir0*:41t t . ii • \ -. \\ors, ....___. : • ,- • ---__••••''''''‘j'ss'•\•\\s--- --- Aill4r-ffilwi-14-"." " - . , 5.s.........\12.,:,.•\\\__ _, •(„}-rt::Irr,,,,i"i i • I 4 I: 0 \..........“:,, .,\ r\\ ..t\ ....1_._._. . LrecrE ...,::.:7.-4 .• I I , . 1 1 1 I' : \\p\-Wt.---.'„ \ ' \I.,".\ , :a a 0.. r...,:::_':—.f:11111111.: i -7/1---1111111.1 i,..,, ,..• / i i i i i 1 ... -,..,.... __--- \_---- . ..,...%...,:,...,\,. t Alial....,:r,r. 1 _r: 1....,, Lte Iti\----\\ \ \',of',\'''-e. ---' ,--177.-", ...12!:"-E:2-6rld•--4•-**---; -17': 7-.,;---:'.--/ .e- ', ,.,\\\\c,\',A..\___ -.: ,",:,t,1\-----...-' sr-a A , ! p„. V. \\.. A r 0....;::::::. ._ :,:-- -:-._.1__..1• i i ,,_ _ _ 4 ,l ,--::::::--'.7---:\--..___ "--- - 1.7--:r7. -', - - ....-,- • " " .i.ltitt: -- ,--•,, -- „,--w. e...; . . .410 - -- - tt•T ---,'', --- ; 3 ....... 1 . .-------- -.A--•:- ,__ ..-• _:- -;i . T--- -... -;\-:-L. . . ,7'• ----1, -_,J,„-inn -4 4.•: „ .... • ---,- • ,4-il-f • - - ----_-__ . .1-1 1 , •••, -----1._.-1 , __44 ,........tr....___ _, , ,,,,, /...,,,,,,- i ! 't ....•.- p ,.... ......................._..../7..asru„...E_.._..../>""":;*; .---,:,,, .4;i...4h' ; , ... .....................- __, . -1..--• — i ' / ' - 1-1.111, r -- r- ifTz- Ail 11.••• ' k. ....\ S., .%%••••••\%\...0,11 ,„ ,h I I j , ., ,. mai i .. /111114;14 I .11 --- 1 „ ' iii iiir• • ....--1—.11--)Mqr—C-.--1.."4._..._.j 8 . . . • 1 it4440.1.4 __ 1::•Jil :II• ,1 I / 1 L-------' _.11)._ 1 i I )11/141 © kiiiiiii: 13105NALE ,,.., :, L . .,. ,, 1 1 , ilit--- .. ,—..,: ,._ -._ iiiii: :: i -,,4 ‘..., imunsm.' 1 1111111111.11%. il Ifrif / 0-.4,i, . : I • ! ' . :if • 1"-'•\ II :: ::e:1• :: r•-- • '3. ‘ ••• - -: :::.....•\i' .......„Iliti, 44/11frt/7 et.-,I.-•'''71,ft ,.- I, , --7 4 rag Q I.••"."V.4 ••., !Hill(' il i I k _\._. • .10 /3 / \g -VI- - I 1 ____:7] ..— . =---____ 1 ! 1 .-- ---..MEC-- •.WiNfAsC--- - s••• . ••.' Z' _s 4../11111: ! : I /r• 1 .1- • --1cWi• s.',. '' -- -4,c,--, 4' In. c'' • ) I 'It . . • ----- .,.::; 1 ; b• :i , . „ ;UM. : ,,,..FT-,...• •...,- - * S--2I-Pq.\ •.... '''.-- -- IIIIIi I i !I '• \,, •--- -et::: :::..,--:-. ,--:. :-.. . . ,.... ....0'N.,'.. `, ............-.14,,..,., N--%11111iiiin r. - -,, .. _______ ,,,4 ,--. .I,:1,: ; 1-.. -s. z7—. -4---------- , -• .---•:- 41------- ,----'.7-'--E.„--i--.:':"::-1 --.‘-'1 ''‘,./k. '4111 ----------% ''''• i• i=._;,.. . 11,111,11 ti '• _ '--- .74,1,,„,.. . ___, _.,_ g --.2,„-... ti, r__ f....,•,.... , ., , „e.- .,...., . .., • 41.1/ f. 1 1 1::: . 4: N., :„ ,, ••••• 7,1,,.----..r• E.-A,_-_.:-.1 2 ::: t I.::: -- :_-:.•.i , .„ ‘,, .,s„ A. \ I...I ./4,,r 4111ti', \ ti '::-..-L..1 1._21.k..7_j__Alrr:I.A_Lt,rs....j_.\‘ g 71.7A1L.., .-...... - . '3‘-z, s• N s. ‘ . ., r, -. 7.---, .0„1:, %1 5,07q s.f. (on-slte) •1 ill I 1 , _.__ .. .-_-f-::::;-.E.,: 1----."izaii"--0 tl:,ial,P-.: --'' 1 - '' '' .,\'--4..it.--,...14-1- ,, ,..k:.4 „ • - , 1 c.--1:-.1.--- , 1 I.' •, 1 1., s• -.w •Ii.,--, • /2.),/.., 4.-....4...42\14•-,,-'‘.. 41,1.,!_i_.111h., dm ' . [i [ 171 •if 1% ,,,l'i:t 11•11,11 ` ,,-. '•, s, /..75--..•...:.0 , ,.. .1 nle i I ft..,1 •..,ice lirkte:. 1 it . ... Ir:.•%, .. . , \:•:•.%\.•••••.:61.1/- ' :'(f .: . :,;--- .-1 'l'i'Y I I r fritf 1 'ill lil il-IJicti' 'ill 111 '''' l' s' 1 , -Ili ‘v1 \:,..; -•:..-Jv \ ; %, I,',------::_-_-_-_-:::',"..fl-:„.1 1 ridil 1 111, 11110 I" ,•••• •••'•• '' . 11 . NAV. ‘‘ ., I, .4 N.-.___, R• '--;fr "4- , ? s••• s.,V:I't ' \ .‘ '-":"---------------ir 1111.;Pillifrf 41°4F' I r 1 -1g11—..e . •:----., ---:.-sz< , L f 1 , [it ili , \-,'',, 1 : ''. i i. \-, '---,I°,1 I°II -.° IR 9-2I'P "6'1' \ cit, ,,• , ..-. 13 4\ -1. I f Ag '•-,1 I __ if.„---i; ?tij 1,ner• '.,--_-_--„,-------riFilif rkli:•[,,- .:,,-11 „--- _ ---:1,...--4,-;"-:---- . -.1 \ ''-::-.'...'''''-; tl.,Ilis ---1, I I si ;I isi,,-. -.. \ \ 1 , ___, \ ;0, \I 1\ \-., ti. %. --- ,--- II, . : . ---- i -: • 4 1 1" TrTrinit Ir'iirtill-fi-1- -;,,,,,--':' =:;--'-f-';;--[ 1. di hi.' \ ‘..__-_-_- ....,,..', ri--i.JII, 1 II; ,;--..---..--, , •\,i. % _i .. %;• 1 i -__ •-„ ---....-- -....-- .,--•---; I ,, s'''''''' -•„-;•,.•r-„ 1 ,, i 1 ii; ---- -...--_ ,.::&#,.--f-e---...- -- 7- T-----;=:-, 1,1 111,1------,. ...-0:15' -------------------- --;?'-",:.--1- 7.--E -".*::--.'.. --1,--..,-1%-:: --..._-_--..N. --.2-„.-„ :..-4..,:s.....-:-.:: ..-:-:-_--_-1-..--____:::::-_---._;;-:_-;= 5-:,' v I'" ---"'"=': „--"....-----.,.•.---._..---.,:---_,:s\':-,•-,:',,, ----.:•s "-- N •\ ssZ;z,`,.. .::-.::-.2.---:::-:-_-.-;•:.:;;*:4...'...::::-,-:::::::-----....II's-.•-` -...'..•"..:...•*:::-• -::15:,'• .. 1 III 1 -- 7.- `* :::::„;111-_-_-_-_1•••----:-.:2--..', ,%7„'-'„". ....••.' .Z.::•-';:'•-'7:--- .:,-'•• •`,.1‘..:`, ••:„ %..., •.••%,.. %...\ \% ssssN'..`:'....5-4-:.:I.!..!---.:.7.7---:::-.:.---------:•-----'------•-----:::-..:-- ---- "-•-::::..•-•":". I \ It ..•1 1 : - -----•, , ; I .1, 1 1 rT,.t-''''''•••• .....••. • -•--.._„---::.;......•------------------------- --- ,..•P.,..„.........`..... ..s, ...,:•.:\ N... :\Ns, '••-•:.,-,. ...,_\. •P, ••°\ ••:-.•••-:-----_-::::::•-•---:•-•-..Z-z--:::-•-:::-.--:.:.::------.......'":..-.....-%-.--•-••-::...'------:.--•--• ,1 t . I i "I ' '••''''.".... .....'.. . . ' . ... , cf., • ... .:L.J..i.d. ..'''' ----. )' \-- %. .*..., .11:,:;:•'... *‘,...*.',S‘.,\.. :\ *<" ... ‘' ‘."....:,...'..1!r..7*----- .... ......::::4:::::::::::. ....::.....::.'".....:..'....:*..:S<:: :::...... 1 .. i 1 1 1 V ..... .i.. . ::: 'I:4:,l'IX / '' '''‘'....:*.:*‘ '......:::S.2. .S**'1' .* .....,. -- ---------------'.-n-SI'''„ .1::.'''1.1' :.'::".'':;' •:..%. / 1 t I 1...' . ,. U........:::...1.......... ......E.M tr..,:•%L.7.7:::•17::::• ••.....,,:::az j..., ....... ...........,.. .....;'‘ 0 / .. . ••......_ ‘% SS..*:.:...:'',. , '........7 1'S-------------------------------------------------.:..... /* 15-•.;,.••••••••,..-.,•,•••:.••••'•::-":11' / / . ••,....r t, -.. , . -----..N...... ',...--,...N. 'N.-, "1.., -------------- ----------••••-.:::------ ---••• --• • -1..0," ••" „..•-•••....--.111 . . ..„ ..1. ,, •••• --'--------- • I ! .. • '1•'.4Z• . "s., .......... _,... , : %Ii•••,._....„ •••-••• ---2-..---F::......7:::::::::_:•'.....•-•-"•••••7.;,,, 2::-----------__-:•::- --Z..--c.L,;:--- ••:-.: "......-e-2:71:1 ......„,•-•-•."I ...---- .--2..;••••- -".‘• ti • -••.•"-/ . I) ‘, '',..,--.--- ,. •••1 •• .* --•••4;:- .:: :.••;,:-•%•:::----."......•TZ.'.'•-•--"^:--.F;;:—.,•72:-.t.i.:4;;---477T:''. -,---,..,....:,-,...,4--,___-_ :......_:f.r, r1-7..12.!...3 _:!,..c,.1,..:_s__ __ ______ ..„.„....-- --..... 1 , , --.., \Mc.••,•64.t.;-13,--•••• .....„,/, N. / •• ; 1 '--",-...... ...::-...Z.---.......---::::::-----:::- ._ ..::::-- -4-7..---:----- 'c"---s.m.:.71=.v..,g--1:::.___,,. -:-..L. -1-4..3 ., s----_:-...:: ---- --- • • / , . . -------:,....-sznn;,.--.:::,-----:::::-:::-------_-_-_-------_-_-_-_-_:::-..-_-..-EE7z--7=--,=3.-:::;_."..=:-----._,_ ,' --s- "•-., --...---- .. \ -. --- --------- --.----1._::..----'........'-,:,11.,:::__7'__:::- -,...",-....;!:_--.,...------;.:••;;;''5--.„,..- --- --i • .-- • r,•• /--.adrin,'• ------- --•••.--- L-....e_01.fi DR/ 1 ., „ • ... r -.--- • .-- j---- ,../ / „ ... _ _ __ ---,..z.z.:. ____ '.... ...-1-• ,--- / .. .% • ---,.._ -- -----.... i .,_._ -7.-, ._____ - ---- • , 7' __ _ .,'1- ‘-',•'':,./'--:--)-•----- ./. ,--------- /•'-:::: ---..s.; '1%. - - --'s•• \'',.. , ----,,_ .." -----.-- '. -----% • . . FIGURE 5: Site Plan . A NOTE: TALASAEA. . i Site plan provided by Kussman Associates, VIII Ilamsburg Condominium N.T.S. (206)81- 50-Fax(206) 1- 49 DATE DRAY440 Resource d EnvIronrnental PlonnIng Architects, Planners c$ Consultants, Development 2-5-crl ' I P.O. E3ox 1105, Bothell, HA ciE5041. North 15020 Boar Greek Rood Northeast HoodInvIlIe.14as/14143ton 98072 Renton, lAlcishington REVISED 615 8615 100. \ . Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland B would be considered a Category 3 wetland and would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland C . Wetland C (2,617 sf on-site) is located in the southwestern portion of the site and is part of a much larger forested wetland which extends off-site to the west. The wetland is situated near the toe of the slope which runs along the western portion of the site. Vegetation in the wetland includes Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina), skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia). At the time of the field investigations, soil within the wetland consisted of a black muck which was saturated to the surface. Based on the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance, Wetland C would be considered a Category 2 wetland and would require a 50-foot buffer. Stream D Stream D flows from south to north in the vicinity of the eastern portion of the site. Although most of this stream is located east of the site on property owned by the City of Renton, a small portion of the stream channel does extend onto the project site. The ordinary high water of Stream D was flagged and subsequently surveyed. The City of Renton requires that a 25-foot buffer be provided from the edge of the ordinary high water of all streams. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Description The proposed project consists of the construction of a 62-unit condominium development (Figure 5). 5.2 Development Impacts on Wetlands The proposed project requires the filling of 1,248 sf of Wetland A and 164 sf of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,412 sf. This wetland fill is necessary to provide room for the construction of a biofiltration swale. Following construction, the bioswale will be landscaped with native vegetation to provide additional wildlife habitat area. In addition, the proposed project requires that buffer averaging occur along a small portion (approx. 850 sf) of the buffer for Wetland C. The total amount of buffer area required for Wetland C (10,624 sf) will be maintained, and in no area will the buffer width be less than 40 feet. Furthermore, areas proposed for wetland buffer reduction will not extend beyond the top of the slope leading down to the wetland edge. 4 5.3 Development Impacts on Streams If the relocation of Stream D is required as a result of road improvements along Lincoln Drive NE, then any impacts to Stream D from the proposed project will be determined at that time. 5.4 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts Mitigation for the 1,412 sf of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 1,624 sf(1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation between the undisturbed portions of Wetlands A and B. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to connect Wetlands A and B to form a larger, more diverse wetland system. Following construction of the wetland mitigation area, a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be provided to the created wetland system. 5 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Ecology North West and LandPlan P.S. August 14, 1995. Northwest Volleyball Center Wetland Determination. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Renton, City of. 1991. Critical Areas Inventory Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area Soil Survey. 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Mercer Island Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. APPENDIX A WETLAND DATA SHEETS FOR ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD -FP ia DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investgator(s): Tv6T EtJiA el'►^^p.niJ Date: to -7 ` c9 Project/Site: W`t-t- ikM•St31/44.C,/RENn•ori State: 1i-IA County: K1 (•1 t3 ApplicantOOwner: KOSSMAN Plant Community /Name: -r f • Hole.: }f a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bads of data form or a field notebook. • Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )t No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No >4.. (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. AlAQS FAQ +GE 11. 2. •poT u i S t-cl'J oce.c'c vis,c " 12. 3. R13b.is 5ec�rAla�Vt FPC+ sKRut1 13. • s scc14 r t=Ac 14. -- 5, Coc lJ a CcCAJ+ci FAcv • " 15. 6. Q.:17 5�icku i✓Pcu 7. hooka. Aec44.41;4 NIL"' t' 17. I 8. 18. • 9. 19. 10. 20.. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No )C Rationale: • N oi- ' Sv°/a FAC o r;,j i TEtL SOILS Series/phase: PftiriffekMantibs Es t-gZETT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X(' Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Ye No X' Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: Io`'R yj3 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: 1.11(i1 cNRc,,iA HYDROLOGY • Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No )G Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No '4 Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: '- - (List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No K Rationale: • E.rbENL& O - NU NtaNT.14,4 0( Sf1T0f=itT"a.' JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RAT1ONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: • N o cht1—EgtP 'ET 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Class?ic.ation'according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field lnvestigator(s): /At-Trv\Ar:1rA Date: 10 -1`910 Project/Site: W«LIAr.S&)RC,� e-EN Cr1 State: wA County:, i Applicant/Owner: KO-SS A n1 Plant Community .1/Name: ? Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. • Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )( No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? - - Yes No X (If yes, explain on back) VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum • 1. Sc1:rc tcs:ti..erh fis4. i4 tRE G 11. 2. gv�u5 Srec•{e"L; l;s -fC4 S14rt.* 12. • 3. A+Wyrt FAC. 4. E .+?ss44u- k-elw.cr44ti t-Au.J r r 14. r. 5, 1_ysr�t4.:i•0:m. CN+er;c�emu:. C Ri f- 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. • 10. 20.• Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC t Oo°fo Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X _No • Rationale: •FAC Oft. c..s -r't rti- SOILS Series/phase: NOP-tA/sc- Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes X _ No Undetermined • Is the soil a Histosol? Yes X No Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No x Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: t°T a• -2-(1 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes )C No Rationale: uCt( - e-% HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes )C No Depth to freestanding water in pit/soil probe hole: FAce- List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. • Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes K No Rationale: SolvT.d.tkt c'1) JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: _ • 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 • 7? 4a- 3 -. ' DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Inveslgator(s): AL-TMPrs,-+/Tag IlitS Dale: to-7- ito Project/Site: 1134-uierw^st3�,G1e_Grstv1J State: County: IN(o Applicant/Owner: lc-0SsoAa13 Plant Community #blame: 7? Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No pV (If yes, explain on back) — Nr s'rcrctC bkV-tuft,Nkr cC - 6 / -'Er✓ r-rr.i VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. PertoIvS +r'i CkoCc,r�S �PC -MEE 11. 2. 'EVse'l-' " tn( nnci\? 1 FACcs Gnc.Joi) 12. 3. 13. • 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OEL, FACW, and/or FAC I coo Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes iC No • Rationale: • SO%o FAc._ c SOILS Series/phase: E £R TT Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No >C Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No )C Histic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X GleYed? Yes No Matrix Color: I'\ K••-•D SPri> - r-�IsroR' - 'IJiorale Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: , Is the hydric soil criterion mat? Yes X No Rationale: ASSur E.N) boz.. Ro�a c�Y HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No . Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: • List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetlandAhydrology criterion met? Yes ANo Rationale: ASSJw,61> S.Ase. 613 aAr;E �E/4r S711/41wi;N A ..c .- YKAT JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: • 13Ase.> Ors ►=JiOENc- Pdrfl7�f.1C7 This data form can be used for the-Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 • P `{t DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field !nvestigalor(s): At-'CN^ Date: (O - q ( Project/Site: 1Wll-1-01-PASCSuP-G / tZrn3Toa State: ' ' County: kIN Applicant/Owner: r JS5(tiAn1 Plant Community /Name: re Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes x No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes 'X No (If yes, explain on back) I4t5ToRtc- 1>15-tviztAr is - - L-gPuFc �r - VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. P,f� ulos -Ix tctnocc.c?c, c-Ac_ Trt 4 11. 2. �t�nlJS rLibcc. PFC TEE`/S1,.(1312. 3, Ri Ls caisCc>1 Or FACU she....G 13. 4. C 4;Sua Sccj r-; if 14. Cile5, ;c :., Si,. ' 15. 6. fire.,; FACiAJ 16. _ 7. 17. 8. 18. • 9. 19. • 10. - 20.. Percent of dominant species that are OSL, FACW, and/or FAC °r-,, Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: ' O.1cT >Sc°ic FAC c.E: w:.TTEK SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No ' Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol7 Yes No X Hislic epipedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: IoYR 14;5 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: HIV- C - HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: • Aro C.J GnJc[. C - SATutiA-Tlo,j f_ (NuNAAi- JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale forjurisdictional decision: 1J( C -tZt=f�lP WET 1 This data form can be used for th©•Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.- 8-2 WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT ti Prepared For: KUSSMAN ASSOCIATES Bothell, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS Woodinville, Washington March 20, 1997 (Revised May 27, 1997) • WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT • .f Prepared or: P Kussman Associates PO Box 1705 Bothell, Washington 98041-1705 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd. N.E. Woodinville, Washington 98072 March 20, 1997 (Revised May 27, 1997) I ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS 1 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS 2 3.1 Goals and Objectives 2 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation 3 3.3 Construction Management 4 3.4 Monitoring Methodology 4 3.5 Success Criteria 5 3.6 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) 5 3.7 Performance Bond 6 3.8 As-Built Plan 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Existing Conditions Map it { I . WILLIAMSBURG CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL WETLAND/STREAM MITIGATION REPORT March 20, 1997 (Revised May 27, 1997) 1.0 INTRODUCTION A wetland inventory and delineation was conducted on the Williamsburg Condominium Development site in the fall of 1996. The property is located west of Lincoln Avenue NE and south of NE 43rd Place in the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). Three wetland areas totaling approximately 6,790 s.f. (on-site) and a stream were delineated on the property (Figure 2). A description of each of these sensitive areas is provided in the Wetland Delineation and Study Report(February 7, 1997) prepared by Talasaea. This report was submitted to the City of Renton as part of the site plan review package. The Williamsburg Condominium Development consists of the construction of a 62- unit condominium project. 2.0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS/STREAMS All of Wetland C, the highest value wetland on the site, and most of Wetlands A and B will be preserved following construction. The proposed project does, however, require impacting 1,248 s.f. of Wetland A and 164 s.f. of Wetland B for a total wetland impact of 1,412 s.f. (Drawing W1.0). This wetland impact would occur in an area proposed for construction of a biofiltration swale. Approximately 565 s.f. of impact will occur as a result of direct fill due to grading of the swale. The remaining 847 s.f. of wetland impact will occur from an insufficient buffer (i.e., less than 25-foot minimum), and will not be filled. The proposed project also requires that a portion of the stream located along Lincoln Avenue NE be relocated. This stream relocation is necessary due to a City of Renton requirement for improvements to Lincoln Avenue NE. The existing stream channel is too close to the road and has caused unstable conditions alongside Lincoln Avenue NE. Fish are not located within the stream channel immediately adjacent to the project site. A perched culvert that prevents fish passage is located down-stream and off- site to the north. Fish passage immediately up-stream of the site is also blocked by a large, recently constructed birdcage structure and a series of long culverts. Since the down-stream perched culvert is located off-site and is not within the project limits, stream channel modifications will not occur in this area. However, if the perched culvert is modified in the future to allow for fish passage, the amount of habitat made available for fish use would be minor due to the impassable birdcage structure located immediately south of the site. 1 Io,.�- 6 TH_ �' W A �I SE 70Tx 57 E�C n PARK `' 4 �T j ) \'' ,x - yC` '. a S�r i 2 SE 72ND= - nI II ST T '70 >o ' {' - < •'-•'-.IST ST PL ' - , J .4oa� 5 s .. yF _Is ?j NAZELNDOD o - $` Ca` ISE72flD PLm ;2f/ •' ILAND f? 'iISE 4LQ SF ,c.767H STV 'l IP>SSF 77Tx F�SE 76� /< •3SE( 9TH DtISL„, sTaS\' .\ PARK }' N 43R0'•'SE 80TH MTn Sit ST _ LisT __v:. l4•g9.:),5T_ i FROJEGT 5I TE:� PLJw. ... 11200 11600 SSE E�- s- E. -- / o z ys,,,- /i 40(5 SE:3: :4 SE r/ \ 1N 40TH ST'+a Rl AVALO / _ 1300 = i it AIU� :.a n L 31 N 38TH ST ! N<3 sy t', S. EETH ST �� . /` `yi ~aQ� N 37TN Sf- > ? s QE•o _ c S"' Si 5�.S[NI 'Y 14 yh KENNYDALE / ST < Ni — B%CT, BEACH PARK 36TH r ` N: 36TH S a� r ti\* 3c l:.00 w 1600 - 67Tx c`� / P 35TH ST i a "' ,j,.a' ti w S 89TH ST 1I $T h 34TH >< ST > es.: ~ ' ' W i < '- :' 90TH ST rH POINT 1 = P 33RD PL _ n:• ' �/ / N 33RD $T rn ' ~�.NE 33RD "ST"` SE 91ST ` SE S M 32ND 5Tz . nig COLE(NE: ‘,....4 sc. - - POINT j r )00 N 31ST ST �� N 3157 ST =<�� sa N fN 30TH a ST ` ��F MAY CREEK SE. 93RDD 1\ 700 w N 29TH ST G 1300 1•e RK 1's : 6 %\ 8 N 28TH PL i -o 5 N --_-- _ \9 , ,- NE 28TH ST °:.O ' Syr\ it r F \ N- _MT1!_ �� = i''NE 7-_--17E 27TH Sr '' LAKE : 27TH _E ____27T -! cr q�F N 26TH S7� i: z z= ..%;KL NYS LE A:012tix ST \'r o> • tI_24TH ISTf w v 16 _� 'nn r_. IvASHINGTON £ > 171kEN =="<®0 3R9 PL s � N„,, N�, �,I NE NSTgoo�3RD S7 22NDco>\ LL =< 5 NE 21ST ST o z R 22ND ST O R NE 20TH::1:1,412300--)- ST S 2 2°i� 1700 x= S _ • 0.SZ :gixe! NE�xST5 " s z ` NE 15"x SE - ST �XIGHUNDS W PARK : r ( . G C 1�,' ... < y 16 • o. c BOAT LAUNCH • ;; Z _ p� 2 . 2400�I V PLGD `h. 2AIL: i i Z i� < {- _ < Z o O Y = s G0.� Z I ''14TH C o ST- g ct NE 3TH PLO JR ,S c = c 1%c..* c \' / GENE LO N �„ !��' e = m o 0. - w NE 13ix 5�T IB N H OF1112TH -6S G` /-v/ BEACH PARK ! \ f NE <= 12TH of S ' - )0 m � y�i_S7`i� / \\' ,. A ,�, ive. 210., .'k .. -9 25.0"o h..' 4 Win. --...n.1... -, - SOURCE: . The Thomas Brothers Guide, Commercial Edition Icici5 II, North • DRAM DDESIGNDESIGN"W FIGURE I: Location Map AO��WW1 TALASAEA SCALE i CONSULTANTS Nilliamsburg Condominium N.T.S. Resource 4 Environmental Planning DATE • 1 i 020 Bea,Creek Road Northeast Development _ 2-5-crl I HoodInvIlle,Hoshington 95012 Renton, Nashington REVISED Bus(I 06)561-1550-Fax(206)561-9549 c Ak lfl Q . In VO 0 --I °- p v Og Ilo (V z E z z ° W 0.. F- X O X X WW� II 00 W fL W W ~ Z n Fl I \I l in 0 c a � , Ut � ILI 0 L 0 6 0lad o o� ' 1, E — 0 . -7-1 V.:--al I i x — 4) 0 • • cf I / I --- =; I lif J ....L . . /4 ____2/ / < NY / ` am `a� \ j \\ )IIII 1 �. I �' wza n � • �• / af— � > l/ \ � :.: 11 / I $1 /. oa aOh °L / / / a a a a a : a / / / l/ ////// /\ \ :,.. IIII`(/ i 1 ' / + ./ / 41//1//8/ I/ \\ I 11 I' °i • _ -N I J$1/8/ t :.:: III(- L' ° il %� l b / /= - N-_- -\ \\ \ ,- .-z --n L_ _ lI i.IIl /I ,$I iriiii . ;.�.,I ( i � \ \\\ . . ll l l l i8 111 I III III � / / / / � � \� \ l �`�_ __...�-- / � 1 ��r llI ll/ ►�I I :�� �.� I III 1111 1 / / \\ \\ --1-1 11 iI / l I 1 I1." 1 1 Ill ( / \ \ QJ ///\\// t: ,I11l ( II .- -&m - - / � 11 / II ::. 1I 1 ( / . , Iqli ►I \ � \I11 1111 \\ \ I I \N °z_ II 11!�ll 11. I .�I1l Jul z II1 I1 111 \ \ 1 \ f — 7 // :I T11'iI I I I*fill �I '// 0' 1111 1 \ \ \\ \ � � 1 / f / / / 1$ I / 0)I1111\1\111111 \ \ \ -\ \ / -' � � / / 1 —'I ( / / / / // Jj1j�I / -zi / / . o IIII IIIIlII \ \ _ 1 I / i� /// %//PIrr l//iIIIIIM\' (\ _ II\1 / � / 1 .::: : i. 1II ! I III II \ - 1II - _ '�/) 11 / / f/ /i '// ' I 1 \ ,I 11\ A// /I, / /// ,--/ / <:::`.�.':: // III I f IiI1I 1 ee / /// // 1 i 0 III I I Ii \ I \ // // ( / / / A :: /// III I � `� I I �. _�o— - -- �, /// /�/ / ::.��: :�: � � I �, III WOO \ \ \ ) / / V/ //! l f ::::..:....::.: ' / N 1\� 1 \ 11 4i> 1 \\ n- - / 1 ( / 1 ,r:� r::.::::/ '' / // eti 1\\\\\ 1 1 ( \ 74- - � I j I ram% ` 1 �:...: :.. ` // 1� 111111 � � � ;--4 / f ///ram °�/� : �..�,'` . / // '\ \1`11\1\11 � / , • \1\ il1111 / ( _� / / j/l I i / / / 4 . / / ll\\ lII• � \ � `" ' / l III lll\ 11 : * ( /� // //II f1 1 � � ` = - ' 1 I � ll � \ , \\ $�1 , \ / .. . . )6044* i ,111111Y/1\1 II \\ . . \ \\\\1 \ ` I o W 9is 11111111111 � / I1IIIt \\ i :: . l ` \ I"4: 1 1.) p\` \ I . 1 < Il I II I` z \_ 1 1 `\ I a -16I a •il 1 �1 I I l 111It \ \ 1-r I 1 \\11 I _ 1f1IIII k �..: \ I :F I / i Z NI a I 11111 \ \ I1II11I \\ / / I 0_ 6 ►- a . I I 111I \ I / 111 << \ � I:. I // \ ( }- zz . 1111 $\\ : .: / l , , o aat1 1i11111 1II 1 / /\ 11 \\ : . cerz � or- 1I1 Jill I\, 1 *\\ \\\ \: ,`' I ,i(il i f / ''' ai0 aaa l _. _ ( \ 1 � V O � 1 , / 11I1II ���f / \� \ 111 1 \ I 11 - (Toil a` � I 3.0 MITIGATION FOR WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS Drawings depicting the stream relocation and wetland mitigation are attached to this report (Drawings W1.0 and W2.0). Mitigation for the 1,412 s.f. of wetland impact to Wetlands A and B will occur as approximately 11624 s.f. (1.15:1 replacement-to-loss ratio) of wetland creation between the undisturbed portions of Wetlands A and B. Section 4-32-6 (C)(6) of the City of Renton's Wetland Management Ordinance allows for a 1:1 replacement to loss ratio if two Category 3 wetlands are combined. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to connect Wetlands A and B to form a larger, more diverse wetland system. Following construction of the wetland mitigation area, ' a 25-foot enhanced buffer will be provided to the created wetland system. In order to minimize impacts associated with the stream relocation, the relocated stream channel will be constructed in a manner which replicates or enhances the habitat value of the existing stream channel. With enhancement of the stream corridor by grading, planting, and installation of large woody material (both in- stream and along the riparian edges), signific nt improvements to the aquatic and riparian habitats is expected. 3.1 Goals and Objectives Goal 1: ' Relocate approximately 220 linear feet of stream) channel along Lincoln Avenue NE to accommodate road improvements, and increase the stability of the stream channel. Objectives: 1. Widen the stream channel to reduce flow depths and decrease velocities. 2. Reduce bed load movement and channel erosion by placement of 2"-12" rough rock within channel and along streambanks. Goal 2: Replace wildlife habitat lost due to stream reloc tion. Objectives: 1. Place large boulders in stream channel to create meanders and pools for aquatic habitat enhancement. 2. Plant native riparian and buffer vegetation to increase plant species and structural diversity. 3. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, nesting and roosting boxes) within the riparian corridor (above 100-year storm level to enhance habitat value. Goal 3: Replace lost functions due to direct fill of 565 s.f. and buffer encroachment of 847 s.f. of forested wetland, for a total wetland impact of 1,412 s.f. (0.03 acres). Objectives: 1. Create a larger wetland system by connecting two Class 3 isolated wetlands (A & B). 2 • 2. Simulate pre-construction wetland hydrology y supplying the existing and created wetlands with treated stormwater. - 3. Plant native wetland and buffer vegetation to 'ncrease plant species and structural diversity. 4. Plant the biofiltration swale with shade tolera t emergent grasses and shrubs to provide an enhanced wetland buffer. 1 5. Install habitat features (snags, down logs, ne ting and roosting boxes) in the wetland and buffer areas to enhance habitat value. 3.2 Significant Components of Mitigation In order to accomplish the goals and objectives for this project, the following components have been incorporated into the design of the mitigation plan: • Relocation, as proposed, would result in a less incised stream channel over what currently exists. The mitigation plan includes raising the exit culvert about six feet, thus flattening the gradient and increasing streambed and streambank stability. • Dense riparian vegetation (both deciduous and evergreen) will be planted along the stream to create a shaded canopy to moderate any potential temperature and humidity changes resulting from the relocation. Since the stream is north-flowing (low aspect to sun), has an 8% average gradient (relatively steep), is deeply incised, and only extends a distance of slightly over 500 feet, it appears that measurable increases in temperature would be unlikely. Furthermore, during the summer when the sun angle and ambient air temperatures are highest, there is no stream flow at the surface (i.e., any flows are subsurface where effects from solar warming would probably be negligible). • Following on-site detention, runoff from most of the impervious portions of the site will be routed through a biofiltration swale. Treated stormwater leaving the biofiltration swale will be released to Wetland B. Some rooftop runoff will be routed to Wetland A after detention to provide seasonal hydrologic support. Surface flows from Wetland A will extend through the mitigation wetland area into Wetland B. • As part of the wetland mitigation plan, the bioswale will be planted with native woody and herbaceous plants. By integrating the landscape of the bioswale with that of the wetlands and buffers located north of the swale, it is anticipated that an overall benefit to wildlife habitat will be achieved. • Minor impacts to Wetlands A and B are propoised to allow optimal use of the site by incorporating integration of stormwater facilities (i.e., biofiltration swale) into the wetland area. The possibility of creating stormwater facilities between the two wetlands was evaluated, but it was determined that by creating a wetland connection between the two wetlands and placing the biofiltration along the south side of the wetland system, a better ecological solution could be achieved. 3 • The construction of the mitigation plan will be sequenced so that the new stream channel is constructed first, while the existing stream channel remains in use. Then, after the new channel is constructed nd stabilized with plantings and large woody material, the new channel will be routed into the new path. The old channel would then be filled, graded and planted. During construction, hydrological impacts to the existing seasonal wetlands should be negligible, since construction of mitigation wetlands and grading and planting activities in the vicinity of the wetland system will occur during the dry summer months when there is no wetland hydrology. 3.3 Construction Management Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the mitigation areas, the clearing and construction limits will be staked, grade staking will be completed, and fencing will be installed around all existing vegetation to be saved. A pre- construction meeting will be held at the construction site to review and discuss all aspects of the project with the selected contractor. • Talasaea will supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any modifications to the design that may be necessary due to unforeseen site conditions will be jointly approved by the City of Renton and Talasaea prior to their implementation. 3.4 Monitoring Methodology As required by the City of Renton, the monitoring program will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted to the City according to the following schedule: • quarterly for the first year following construction • annually (at the end of the growing season) for the second through fifth years Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same ' monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis Of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist from Talasaea Consultants. Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation and restoration areas. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo-point locations will be shown and described in the first monitoring report. 4 I ; Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates which are readily observable (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 3.5 Success Criteria Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover of desirable species. Undesirable species include exotic and invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, morning glory, Japanese knotweed, and creeping nightshade. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Success for herbaceous species will be based on an 80% cover of desirable plant species by the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Undesirable plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover. Removal of these species will occur immediately following the monitoring event in which they surpass the 20% maximum coverage. Removal will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval by the City. 3.6 Maintenance(M) and Contingency(C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation and restoration project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goals and objectives of the plan (C) • re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) • line wetland areas with impermeable material where hydrology is deemed to be insufficient to support the desired wetland plant community. Where appropriate, liners may be installed immediately upon completion of grading • to increase probability of wetland success (C) • irrigate with a temporary system for at least one full growing season following plant installation (M) • after consulting with City staff- minor excavation, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) 5 r • remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants (e.g., Scot's broom, reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, purple loosestrife, etc.) by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) • clean-up trash and other debris (M) • clear or repair trash racks, culverts, etc. (M) • selectively prune woody plants to meet the plan's goals and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M) • introduce fine materials into the streambed (e.g., natural silt or silty sands from a site certified to be clean of contaminants) if stream water is lost through pervious soils in the relocation area. 3.7 Performance Bond A performance bond will be posted with the City by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings and the 5-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation and restoration plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to'work successfully completed over the 5-year monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 3.8 As-Built Plan Following completion of construction activities, a revised set of"as-built" plans for the wetland mitigation and restoration area will be provided to the City of Renton. The plans will identify and describe any City-approved changes in grading, planting or other constructed features in relation to the original approved plan. • • 6