No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 2 - Folder 3 of 3STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of neneral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months .rior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on January 11, 2013. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $161.00. ) ./. ,//; 2 _,;;/ ;fu-, ,..·// .. //v(L L Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 11th day of January, 2013. }-[,_ ( L• ~·s.. / ;., .-.--:-:.':l'Lc [,;}{_.t./ ,-- Kathleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington , ', -s,\'.\\ \\ \ 111 NOTICE OF E'l\'IRO:\ME~TAL DETERM IN,HIO:\ [:\VIRO:\l\lENTAL REVIEW COl\1\-11TTEE AND PllBLIC 111-:ARl:\G RISH>~, WASHINGTON The l·:nv1ron111cntal Rcvu;,, l'ommillcc has issued u l)ctcr1111- natllln of Non-~ignilkance-M111- gc1tcd { DNS-M) for the follm1 im.! flro_1c..:t under the authority of thC Rcnlon MunH.:ipal Code Ht:LDBROO!,; COM\IONS LllAl2-00I, ECF, PPllD LOCATION: 17040 -I08TII .-\VE. SE, RE:!\TO'\ WA, 98055. Sl-:PA R.:\'U:\Y .\'.\I) A PPl'll FOR THE CON- STRl(TIO~ OF A \1l Ul- 1-AJ\.IILY DEYELOP\1E:\T CO\T.-\1 1\T~G 162 li'.\;JTS IN TIIE R-14 ZONL BO~LS JlENSIT\ HAS BEEN RE- Ql' ESTW RESllLTING IN A OE\SITY OF 17.90 llNIT/ AC THE PROJH'T WOllLD CONTA" 13 SEPAR Ht: \ffLTl-f'.\MIL\ STRl'C- ll RES A~D \ RECREA- l'ION Bllll.rnl\G, TOTAL- l~G 183,795 SF. TIii: PRO- JECT COVERS J PARU:LS TOTALING I0.77 AC AC- CESS WOl'LD BE AT 3 LO- CATIO:\S ALO:\'G SE 172ND ST .\'.'iD I E,\U:R(;E:\CY \'E- IIICLI: ONL\ ACCESS OFF OF 108TH AVE S. TIIE PRO- POSAi. PRESERVF:S TIIE WETLANDS Al\D FOREST- rn AREA ALONG TIil: USTERN POIUION OF ,-' C S 1111 .: ~ ~\ . 1-f~ ,,,, ~-:'-(.,. ,;;, ..... ~;\\\l\\11, "? .... ,, -'°' ... ,.:, 01°'' ,_ '11 ~w ,, ~-j>' :_:~\ · ' C:)(,1:::,11,, ~ ''l : t:::.· .:.··,::-·· ~An ,.~11 '1.,, ~ .::;,· 0 '"{ )-\""'.\ ~ •' ,;:r -~ ":~ ~ (.J'l~ ~ -3 L f3 -• -~ § ~ ~ v izE -;. ·'f. ~r,B\,.\ .. _ ~ 0 ~ ,ri'',, 4 \o .:..";:" t.::. E . ·-· " 111, -1 g~ §" 0 .:: ''\,, ,;11'c:ll\\\,\\\\\,,, .... '-y,.,~ .... .? .,J,.' OFWP...5 ...._ ............. .... 111 \ltO\\\\\\\\,,,,.._ TIIE SITE AND llEVt:LOPS THE Rt:MAl'IDER OF TIIE SITE B\ FILLING 3 WETL\:\DS A"\I) PRO- TECTING 31 EXISTING TREES. .\ WETLAND Kt:PORT & MITIGATIO'< PLAN WHICH HAS l'i\DER- GONE SE<ONDARV Rl:- YIEW, A TIR, TRAFFIC sn [)\, GE(HECIINICAL REPOl{T, AND AN _\RBOR- IST REPORT \vt:RE srn- \llTTED. 25,000 C\ OF Cl T AND 24,926 Cl OF FILL IS TO BE BAL.\NCE ACROSS Tln: srn:. Appeals of the l)NS-M must be fi1cd in writing t>n or hefore 5·00 p.m. on .lanua1y 25. 2013. togeth- er with Lhe required fee with: [ !earing Examiner. City of Ren- ton. 1055 South Cirady Way. Renton. WA 98057 Appcub to 1he 1:,aminer ;:ire governed by RMC 4-8-1 l () and more 111forma- tk)ll ma\ be obtained from the City Cl~rl,;"s Office. {425) 430- 6510 A Public I !caring will be held by the I [ec1ring l·.xamincr 111 the Council Chambers. C1tv Hall. on Fcbruatv 12. 201J at lo:Ofl a.m to coi1sidcr the Preliminary Planned Urban Development lf the DNS-M is appealed. the ap- peal wil! be heard as part of this public hcarmg. lnti.::rcstcd parties .:1re mvitcd to attend the public he.iring Published in Lhe Renton Reporter on January 11. 2013. #726743 ' CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 5th day of February, 2013, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC Contact/Owner Ray Lotto Owner William O'Neil Owner Parties of Record See attached A dlL£ ,,,,,"'"'"'"• 1/1/l ' /)_ ,, ~·-'•,, (Signature of Sender): -'ti fU.l'lt,_,-ff~~/:=--;..\~ 11 '\ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ~ 'A ~01~,, 1,;\ t ~ $ .... •i ~ ' 55 ~ i -" -i ~ I ::; ~ ~ i~ $ COUNTY OF KING ) \ ~ :flftt,,:~"' i /:! j \ ~ ... 29.,z # ,,. ~ '""'' .; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11111 ~ W'-'6 ,./ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t~1.!lu"'~urposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary P blic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ _:._11'-'-;1---"-----"G"-'-1..:::,;'::c-J:..:, ':...1.· -------------- My appointment expires: AV 1; ,, i !-.:;;, '1; ;/_() ,_3 ,} Project Name: Fieldbrook Commons Project Number: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD PARTIES OF RECORD Fieldbrook Commons (Apts) LUA12-001, PPUD, ECF Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) William O'Neil Executor of Viola T. O'Neil Estate 215 N 56th Avenue ste: #36 Yakima, WA 98908 tel: (509) 965-0573 (owner) Robert B. Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-0395 (party of record) Timothy S. Bell 11004 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055-5927 tel: (253) 569-9801 (party of record) Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2C Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 226-7823 (party of record) D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd Street ste: #5· B Renton, WA 98055-5969 tel: (425) 277-1415 (party of record) Updated: 02/05/13 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street ste: #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 588-1147 eml: justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com (owner/ contact) Richard Niemi 17022 108th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 255-3054 (party of record) Linda & Jesse Hurtado PO Box 59743 Renton, WA 98058 tel: ( 425) 228-2481 (party of record) Sylvia Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2A Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 235-8076 (party of record) Dan Miles 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #1B Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 228-7164 (party of record) Laura L. Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street ste: #9A Renton, WA 98055 eml: lauraleesmith@comcast.net (party of record) Ray Lotto Trustee of Marjorie L. Lotto 1250 Jones Street ste: #1701 San Francisco, CA 94109 tel: (415) 928-5482 ( owner) Steve Cuspard 17515 110th Lane SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Patrick Creager 10833 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2B Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 271-0148 (party of record) Dan Russell 829 S 31st Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 853-6678 (party of record) David Hoffman 10824 SE 170th Street #A201 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of l} DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING February 12, 2013 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9;00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME; Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. PROJECT NAME: King County Public Health: Renton Center PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-000273, CU-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit for a change of use from an existing childcare center into a day-use medical clinic for King County Public Health (KCPH). HEX Agenda 02-12-13.doc DEPARTMENT OF COM • ~ NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ar Cityof, . 0~ ------_r{s;Jl f()IJ I~ REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: HEARING DATE: February 12, 2013 Project Nome: Fieldbrook Commons Owner/Applicant: PNW Holdings, LLC., 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Contact: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC, 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA98040 File Number: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approximately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,S26 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. Project Location: 17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055 Citv o( Renton Cmnmunitr and Economic Ficldhrook Comnuins I'UD PUB/JC Hf.ARING JJATE February 12. 2013 lopmenr Departmenl Project Location Map Report to the llearing Examiner LUA/2-001. £CF. /'/'UD Pagf' 2 of 39 City o Renton Communitv and Economic lo men! De urtmenl Rf'(IOl7 10 the Hearing Examiner Fieldbrook Comnwns PUD PUBUC l/EAR!NG DATE Febntw}' 12. 2013 LU.412-001, ECF, I'I'UD Page 3 ()f39 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner Environmental Review Report and all Exhibits identified and attached thereto (identified is the subject report as "SEPA Exhibit 1 -26"), Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Diagram Trash Enclosure & Mail Kiosk Building Plans, sheets P2.1-P2.6 Building Elevations, sheets P3.1-P3. 7 Drive Aisle compliance Staff identified "parking lots" School Bus Stop graphic Kiosk and Signage graphic Applicant's e-mail requesting Bonus Density Change Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated October 31, 2011, 10 pages, 4 graphics and 2 appendices Geotechnical Engineering Study, Supplemental Materials, prepared by Cornerstone, Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006, and Icicle Creek Engineers, dated September 12, 2007. Limited Scope Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx, dated November 14, 2011, cover letter, 7 pages, 5 figures and an appendix Preliminary Technical Information Report, prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, dated November 13, 2012 Environmental "SEPA" Determination Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Proof of Notice of Application Mailing C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: PNW Holdings, LLC. 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 2. Zoning Designation: Residential 14 du/ac (R-14) 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Medium Density (RMD) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant property 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single family residential (R-14, R-10, and R-8 zones) East: Vacant property (R-14 and R-8 zones) South:A combination of single family and multi-family residential (R-14 zone) West: Single family, day care center, and vacant property (R-14 and CA zones) Fiddbrook ComnlfJ11s PUD PUBUC HEARING DATE February !2. 20!3 Proposed Orientation: N/A 6. 7. Site Areo: 469,327.93 SF (10.77 acres) 8. Project Data: Proposed Building Area (gross): 180,934 SF Proposed Building Area (footprint): 71,939 SF D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning -Fire Station 13 Pre-zoning Benson Hill Wagner Short Plat E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Land Use File No. N/A N/A LUAll-007 N/A LUA08-034 Ordinance No. S327 5329 N/A 5351 N/A Water: Project is located in the Soos Creek service area Sewer: Project is located in the Soos Creek service area Rf'pnrt w the Hearing Examiner LU.412-001, ECF. I'PUD Page 4 o/39 Date 03/01/2008 12/20/2007 04/22/2011 02/26/2008 Expired Surface Water/Storm Water: There are storm drainage facilities in 108'h Ave SE and SE 172nd St. 2. Streets: There is sidewalk, curb and gutter along the frontage of 1081h Ave SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-130: Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Cirr of"Renton Cmrununirv and J-.'conomic Fiddhrook Cmnmrms PUD PUB/JC HEARING DATF Ft>bnuiry 12. 2013 Section 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element -Residential Single Family 2. Community Design Element 3. Environmental Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT: Reporl to the l/earing Examiner LUA12-00/, ECF PPUD Page S <!f 39 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building. 2. The applicant is requesting approval of bonus density to provide for an additional 4 du/ac resulting in a maximum density of 18 du/ac. 3. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 3, 2012, Following submittal the application was placed on hold January 17, 2012, pending secondary review of the wetland documents. The project remained on hold due to a combination of critical area issues and the applicant's request. The project was taken off hold upon the applicant's request and the City began processing the application again on December 10, 2012. Therefore, the project complies with the 120-day review period. 4. The site is bordered by a combination of single family, multi-family, and vacant property. In addition to a small day care across 108'h Ave. SE. 5. The site is made up of three parcels, Parcel A -292305-9023, Parcel B -292305-9022 and Parcel C -292305-9168 all of which are zoned R-14 and have a Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Medium Density. 6. The site is located at 17040 108th Ave. SE and is 10.77 acres in area. 7. Under current conditions the site is undeveloped and primarily forested, with one small shed located in the center of the site. 8. With approval of bonus density the 162 unit development would result in a density of 17.90 units per acre, after deducting 51,815 square feet of wetland area and 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way from the 10.77 acres (469,327.93 SF site). 9. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet of building area. Each separate multi- family building is labeled A -N (excluding F and I) each containing a variety of unit types. The following table provides more detailed information on each building: BLDG.# Total Footprint Total Area BLDG Height Total Units A 5,152 10,251 27'-2 1/4" 9 Cit'.' of Renton Conmwnitv and Economic la;,oP;a"as""='=D"ep=a'='"="="t========- Ficldbrook Cmrununs PUD PUB/JC HEARING DATE Fcbruan· 12. 2013 B 7,002 16,098 30'-81/4" C 5,955 14,050 32'-3 3/8" D 5,955 14,050 28' -4 1/2" E 7,002 16,098 28' -8 3/8" G 5,955 14,050 23'-111/8" H 5,955 14,050 27'-0 3/8" J 5,955 18,507 31' -8 3/8" K 5,152 15,345 33'-7 3/8" L 5,152 15,345 36' -9 1/4" M 5,152 15,345 34' -10" N 5,152 15,345 34'-111/4" Recreation 2,400 2,400 19' -3 7 /8" BLDG. Recm1 to rhe Hearing Exa,ru·ner LUAJ2-00J, t'CF, PPUD Poge 6 of 39 14 13 13 14 13 13 17 14 14 14 14 N/A 10. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Ave SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. 11. Parking is provided both in garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. Garage parking would be provided for 47 vehicles, tandem driveway spaces would be provided for 46 more spaces and 117 surface parking stalls would result in a total of 210 parking spaces. 12. Pursuant to the City's Critical Areas Maps, wetlands and coal mine hazards have been identified on the subject property. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands. The coal mine hazard was identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area. 13. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 7, 2013, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Field brook Commons. The DNS-M included 10 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 11, 2013 and ended on January 25, 2013. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. 14. Comments were received from the Department of Ecology and the Muckleshoot Tribe. In addition, six public comments were received. Comments are included in SEPA Exhibit 13 -15. 15. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by 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 Environmental Review Report. Citv o( Renron Ca,mnunirr and Economic ~lo;;;pm;:;;c~nt,,;;D;;,ep~a~m;;:;nc~n~t ========~ Report w /he Hearing t.'.wmine, Fieldbroak Conmums PUIJ LUA12-00J, ECF, PPUJJ Pogf.' 7 of39 PUBLIC HEARING DA.TE February 12, 2013 16. The proposal requires Preliminary Planned Urban Development Review and Bonus Density Review. The following contains project elements intended to comply with PUD decision criteria as outlined in RMC 4-9-150 and Bonus Density Criteria as outlined in RMC 4-9-065: Table A RMC# a) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation (Code provisions restricted from modification through the PUD process): The subject site is designated R-14 on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for a 162 unit multi-family development on a 9.02 net acre site. i. Use: A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those allowed by the underlying zone. The applicant is proposing the development of an attached residential multi-family apartment complex. Attached residential is permitted in the R-14 zone. ii. Density: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base zone. The R-14 zone allows a density range of 10 to 14 dwelling units per net acre; except that density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. The applicant has requested approval of density bonus (see analysis of compliance below is subsection f Compliance with the Bonus Density Criteria). The proposed project would have a net density of 17.96 dwelling units per net acre and, therefore, complies with the density requirement with approval of a density bonus. b) Code Provisions That May Be Modified: In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapters 4-2 Zoning Districts-uses & Standards, 4-4 City-Wide Property Development Standards, and 4-7 Subdivision Regulations and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards, except as listed above in subsection a). If all conditions of approval are complied with, the proposed Fieldbrook Commons PUD complies with all the City of Renton's development regulations including: Chapters 4-2 Zoning Districts-uses & Standards, 4-4 City-Wide Property Development Standards, and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards, with the exception of the requested modifications identified in Table A below. Required per RMC Requested Modification RMC 4-2-llOA: Maximum Number of Units per Building No more than six (6) dwelling units per building. To provide buildings with up to 17 units per building as shown above in finding of fact 9. RMC 4-2-llOA: Maximum Building Height, except for uses having a "Public Suffix" (P) designation and public water system facilities Residential and Civic Uses: 30 ft. To allow up to 36 feet 9 1/4 inches in height, as identified in find of fact 9. City u( Rt'ntun Cmmmmitv and Economic la,ol;;;""aa"aa"aaDseePaa"'aa"aaneaam---------Repon 10 rhe Hearing Examiner Fieldbmok Commons PUIJ PUBUC HEARING DATE February 12. 2013 RMC 4-4-130D.3: Restrictions for Critical Areas RMC 4-6-060F.2. Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys UJA/2-001, ECF, PPUIJ Page 8 of 39 3. Restrictions for Critical Areas -Tree removal in wetland buffers General: Unless exempted by to be permitted. critical areas, RMC 4-3-050C5 or Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree removal, or land clearing, or ground cover management is permitted: a. On portions of property with protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K; streams and lakes, per RMC 4-3-050L; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-050M; and their associated buffers; Frontage improvements on 108th Frontage of 1081 h Ave. SE to Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks include a 5' sidewalk and an 8' and 8' planter strips per the planter strip. current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. *RMC 4-4-080F.10.e. Parking Spaces Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-The applicant has proposed to Required Based on Land Use T, RM-F, R-14 and R-10 Zones: A provide 56 one bedroom units, *RMC 4-4-070H.4. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. minimum and maximum of 1.6 88 two bedroom units, and 18 spaces per 3 bedroom or large three bedroom units, resulting in dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 a requirement to provide 208 bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.0 parking stalls. Request is to spaces per 1 bedroom or studio provide 200 parking stalls. dwelling unit is required. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the street right- of-way. Standards for planting shall be as follows: a. Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh) for multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses at an average Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping be approved as proposed in the provided conceptual landscape plan SEPA Exhibit 11. Citv of Renton Communiti.: and Economic lopm.enr Department Report to the lleari113 Examiner Firldbrook Commons PUD I'UBL!C HEARING D/1.TE February 12. 2013 *RMC 4-2-115F.2. Open Space minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. b. Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. c. Ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. LUAJ2-001. ECF. PI'UD Page 9 of 39 Standards for Common Open Raised beds 4 ft. x 8 ft. and a Space: Pea-patches shall be at fence height of 6 ft. 10 in. least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size with individual plots that measure ten feet by ten feet (10' x 10'). Additionally, the pea-patch shall include a tool shed and a common area with space for compost bins. Water shall be provided to the pea- patch. Fencing that meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea-patch with a one foot (1') landscape area on the outside of the fence. This area is to be landscaped with flowers, plants, and/or shrubs. *Staff recommended modification, not requested by the applicant. c) PUD Decision Criteria: i. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of the PUD regulations and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development shall be superior ta that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. Comment: If the conditions of approval are met, the applicant will have demonstrated compliance with the PUD regulations and the Comprehensive Plan policies. The applicant will have demonstrated that the development is superior to that which would result without a PUD and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: first, the applicant has proposed Citv of Renlon Comnumirv and Economic Fieldbrook Commons PU!) PUBLIC HEARING DA.TE February 12. 2013 opm.ent Deportrn.ent Rep{JJ1 to the Hearing Examiner LUA/2-001. ECF. PPUD Page JO of39 to open the recreation center for public use as a meeting space or party rental space. Second a covered school bus shelter would be developed which would serve both the new residents of Fieldbrook Commons as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Third, the overall building orientation and consolidation of the units provides opportunities to increase the amount of common open space or green space throughout the development. This open space area provides a large variety of recreational opportunities of both passive and active recreation. Furthermore, the concentration of the units allows for preservation of additional mature trees to provide retention of more than 10 percent of the trees on the site. Finally, the project provides a public wetland trail system which would include interpretive signage, which would not only provide an educational component as well as a benefit to the surrounding community. This proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in Table A above. However, it should be noted that the applicant has also requested bonus density, which requires additional site features that are also above and beyond R-14 minimum standards. These items shall not be counted towards the public benefit of the project because the applicant would be receiving double credit for one amenity. As such, the recreation center has not been included in the public benefit table (Table B) below. More importantly, the projects ability to demonstrate superior design should be evaluated in conjunction with the bonus density as the additional units should not take away from the quality of the overall projects design. Particularly, as demonstrated in the following analysis, the site is comprised of 78 percent surface parking. The proposed site plan, as show in SEPA Exhibit 3, utilizes an excess amount of area in order to accommodate vehicle parking, which is not aesthetically pleasing. These parking spaces in some cases contain surrounding landscape areas and in some cases do not. Code standards would require additional parking lot landscaping, in addition to the Bonus Density Criteria. Moreover, Staff believes the overall project could be developed and maintain a superior project with 18 du/ac if the excessive amount of surface parking creating a "parking lot feel" could be minimized and the additional open space could be maintained as proposed. It is staff's belief that this could be accomplished in a number of different ways including additional landscaping and/or more parking garages. However, it is unclear if the applicant can meet all the required parking lot landscaping standards and the bonus density standards and at the same time achieve both a superior design and credit for the bonus density. With this said staff would recommend approval of the PUD upon the condition that the large amount of surface parking could be minimized to a level that is aesthetically pleasing and clearly superior to standard code parking lots and at the same time meets Renton Municipal Code standards. This could easily be accomplished without the bonus density and/or with a reduced amount of units to 16 du/ac, as the number of units directly correlates to the amount of needed parking at the site. Staff has recommend a reduction in parking for the overall site from 208 to 200 stalls, however staff feels 200 stalls would be necessary to adequately provide sufficient parking for the proposed number of units. ii. Public Benefit: The applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those Cit-r of Renton Communitv und Economic ·lupmenl Depurrm.enr Reporr to the Hearing Examine, Fiefdbrook Commons PU/J LUA/2-001. ECF. PPUD Page 11 of 39 PUBLIC HCAR!l1lGDATE Februmy 12. 2013 Table B adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: ~ Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or ~ Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or ~ Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or ~ Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a sustainable development; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of alternative energy resources, low impact development techniques, etc.; or ~ Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: • Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or • Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or • Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or • Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or • Alleys: Provides alleys for proposed detached or attached units with individual, private ground related entries. PUB.UC BENEFIT PROVIDED: PUBLIC i=Acii..iTIES 8t ()VERA.LL DE$JGN PUBLIC FACILITIES: The applicant has proposed to provide additional public facilities that are not required by code as follows: 1. The applicant identified the Recreation building would be available for public rental for birthday parties, social activities and meetings. City ofRenron Communitr 011d Economic lopm;_'nf Depar/menr Fieldbrook Comnwns PUD PUB/JC HEARING DATE Februory 12. 2013 Repm1 to rhe Hearin& t:xaminer LUA/2-001. EU. PPUD Par;e 12 of 39 2. A covered school bus stop is proposed to be built along the northeast corner of the intersection of 1081 h Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. The applicant has verified with the Renton School District that this intersection is the current bus stop location (Exhibit 9). OVERALL DESIGN: 1. Open Space/Recreation: The applicant has provided a variety of recreation and open space throughout the development. As proposed the development would contain a large number of open space/recreation areas as shown in Exhibit 3_ These areas total 111,018 SF in area which is above the R-14 requirement of 97,300 SF (common open space= 350 SF x 162 units= 56,700 SF and private open space 250 SF x 162 units= 40,600 SF, for a total of 97,300 SF requirement). Amenities throughout the development in the open space/recreation areas (excluding those areas allocated to bonus density) include community garden space, a pickle ball court, three play structures, picnic table, BBQ, benches, open lawn play area, passive park space with arbor, and a soft surface trail through the wetland buffers. The provided open space areas are scattered throughout the development and would provide a variety of recreation options to the community. All open spaces are accessed via a pedestrian sidewalk and/or trail directly from the units and from the street. In addition to the provided recreation space, the proposed trail through the wetland includes interpretive signage/information kiosk at the trail entrance and a second located near the "dog leg" parcel. Information was not provided with the application identifying what would be included on the information kiosk. However, providing the public with information about the critical areas and the mitigation project would be an important role for the kiosk to convey. This information may help to preserve the mitigation project and protect the critical areas in the future. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the kiosk design and signage be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Additionally the wetland trail should be open for the general public so the neighborhood can take advantage of the amenity. The expansion of the trail to public use, results in an increase in public benefit as a result of the overall project. In order to achieve public access, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. Furthermore, comments were received from the City of Renton Community Services Department recommending the trail through the wetland is looped. Typically, public trails are designed to loop if possible, as looped trails are more attractive to the public and more commonly used. Based on the Park's department recommendation; staff recommends that the trail be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" shape to provide a turnaround that acts like a loop. A full loop is not available at this location due to the presence of wetlands. 2. Site and Building Design: The proposed project provides for aggregated units which in turn provides for increased opportunities for open space throughout the overall development. All units either face onto a public street and/or an open space green area or park space. Furthermore, the reduction in buildings provides the opportunity to preserve existing mature trees within the development. The preservation of some of the existing tree canopy will increase the compatibility of the development within the surrounding community. The development would not be fenced which would provide for community connection, further enhancing a sense of community in the neighborhood. Pursuant to code, the applicant Citv o( Renton Conirrmnitv and Economic f()pment Depai1ment Fieldhrook Commons PUD PUBLIC Hf:ARING DATE Fehrnary 12, 2013 Rcporr to the llearinx Examiner LUA12-00J, ECF, PPUD Page 13 ci39 could fence the entire development walling it off from the neighborhood degrading the sense of community. Without a fence, the project allows for neighborly interaction and opens up the development as if it is part of the overall community instead of a separate private area. The architectural design of the proposed buildings varies from building to building, however common themes persist throughout all the proposed structures. The applicant has proposed a variety of siding materials including cultured stone veneer, hardishingle siding, smooth lap siding, and hardipanel smooth siding. In addition to wood corbels and knee braces, wood vents with wood trim, prominent entry features, and detailed balconies railings are proposed. See Exhibit 6 for details of each separate building design. However, a few portions of the overall design could enhance the street presence of the internal "street" system. Particularly the ground floor garage doors could provide additional detailing such as windows and the sides of the buildings facing the public streets and internal "streets" should include an increased "front door or front porch" presence. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the garage doors provide additional details and all sides of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. Furthermore, the proposed buildings contain horizontal and vertical modulation, reducing the bulk of the overall structures. The residential buildings are both two and three stories in height. The changes in height provide for additional building modulation increasing the variety in the overall architectural components of the development. In addition, the site abuts single- family residential development to the north and along the southwest side of the "dog leg" portion of the site. The buildings proposed along the north property line (BLDG. C D G and H) are proposed to be two stories in height along the north side. By placing the two story buildings adjacent to the north property line bulk and scale impacts are reduced for the neighbors to the north. It should be noted along the south side of BLDG. CD G and Ha portion of the buildings are proposed to be three stories in height. BLDG. M and N located in the "dog leg" are both three stories in height; however the development is setback from the property line approximately 42 feet at the closest point. This setback reduces the impact on the single- family home located adjacent to the site at this location. Located in the center of the project is BLDG. J, which is proposed to be three stories high. This building faces SE 172°d St. across an open space area. The building would be screened from the street by a grouping of preserved existing trees and new landscaping, however the scale of the building appears to be larger than anticipated by the zone and the other buildings in the development. Building J is the largest of all the proposed building at 18,S07 SF and 17 units; however it is not the tallest building. The west elevation of BLDG. J provides a variety of materials and architectural details such as balconies and entry features to break up the fa~ade and reduce the overall bulk of the structure. However, the east elevation is primarily sided with wide smooth lap siding and visually appears to be a typical large apartment building. The east elevation of BLDG. J could be improved with additional variety in materials and vertical modulation, similar to that of BLDG C and D, to break up the bulk of the structure. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that BLDG J be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. Cirr of"Renron Communit\' and t.:conomic lopment DepaHmPnt Fieldhrook Commons FUD PUHUC HFARING DATE February 12. 2013 iii. Building and Site Design: Report to the Hearin3 f,"_,wminer LU.412-001. ECF. f'PlJ!J Page 14 if39 Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transitian ta adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. Comment: See comments above in Table B, Overall Design, 2. Site and Building Design. With the recommended conditions above the proposed development would provide a suitable transition to the adjacent lower density and intensity zones. Furthermore, the development would be consistent in character to the existing multi-family development located across SE 172nd St. and what could be developed across 108'h Ave. SE on the CA zoned property. The building is proposed to be sided with hardi siding and cultured stone, which is non- reflective, reducing glare. Each unit would have windows, which could slightly reflect light from the building but not to an extent beyond any typical multi-family development. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type. Comment: As mentioned above in Table B, the proposed buildings have been designed to be built in a coordinated fashion, utilizing a consistent set of materials yet at the same time each building with a unique design. Furthermore, the site is designed to promote open space providing visual and physical access from each unit to a shared common area. The applicant has indicated that the project would provide a rich color palette that would be coordinated throughout the project to unify and tie the neighborhood together in an organized manner. iv. Circulation: Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities: The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the locotian, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. Comment: The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Parking is provided both in provided garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2} incorporated herein by reference, the project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development. Citv o Renton Comrmmilv and Economic Fieldbrook Convrwns FUD !'UBUC HEARING DATE February 12. 2013 Report ro the Hearing .Exa111ir1er UJA/2-001, ECF. PPfJIJ P;ige 15 of39 In addition to vehicular access the applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would include the extension of public sidewalks along both 108'h Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. Once off the public sidewalks pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the internal "street" system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development including cross walks and connections to the refuse and recycling, parking areas and site amenities. With compliance with the conditions of approval, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well designed and would encourage walkability throughout the neighborhood, potentially reducing the vehicular traffic and impacts on the neighboring community. Promotes safety: Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. Comment: Based on the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, no safety concerns were identified (Exhibit 14). The applicant has avoided many potential safety issues by providing pedestrian crossings throughout the development and alternative routes for pedestrians by providing for separation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. However, many sections of the sidewalk proposed in areas near garages would be constructed at grade with the internal drive aisle. This type of construction would not provide for sufficient separation of vehicles from pedestrians. In fact this type of design may result in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, by not providing a clear delineation as to where the driveway/tandem parking area ends and the pedestrian sidewalks vehicles could end up blocking the intended pedestrian walkway resulting in pushing the pedestrians out into the road. As such, the proposed design would not provide a safe environment for pedestrians. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that all sidewalks and cross walks in the development be built with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. The different materials would provide a clear delineation as to where the parking stall ends and the pedestrian pathway begins. In addition to different materials, the projects bylaws or CC & R's should restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. In addition the project would result in two curb cuts along SE 172nd St. which provides for a continued and uninterrupted sidewalk. The only curb cut proposed along 108'h Ave. SE is for emergency vehicle access only and therefore would not result in much use if any use. Overall the internal "street" pattern has been designed to meet fire department requirements both in terms of road width and turning radius requirements resulting in sufficient sight distance and turning patterns. Provision of a system of walkways: Walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. Comment: See "Section iv. Circulation, Subsection: Provide Sufficient Streets and Pedestrian Facilities" above. The street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, 108'h Ave. SE and internal to the site provide a pedestrian connection to the commercial development located southwest of the site along Benson Dr. SE. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to Citv o( Renton Cmmnunit,; and Economic 'lopment Depur111u.'11f Fie/dbrool:. Comm~ms PUD I'UBL!C IlEARING DATE February 12. 2013 Repon 10 the Hearing t."'xaminer LUAJ2-00J, ECF, PPUD Page 16 of 39 provide a covered bus stop for the school bus which would be connect to the proposed development and surrounding neighborhood by the new street frontage improvements. South of the site along SE 1761h St. or SE Petrovitsky Rd., is multiple Metro transit stops providing public transit to the development and access to the greater community. Provides safe. efficient access for emergency vehicles: Comment: If the roadways are designed per code standards, the development would provide safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. See "Section iv. Circulation, Subsection: Promotes Safety" v. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. Comment: Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by Soos Creek Water District. See "Section E. Public Services" for existing utilities on and around the site. The applicant has proposed to connect to existing Soos Creek facilities located in 1081h Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit application. With a water and sewer availability certificate, the provided utilities plans and the existing infrastructure in the area, the development would be provided with sufficient services. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. Sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The applicant submitted Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., dated November 13, 2012 (Exhibit 15). See the Environmental Review Report subsection 2. Water b. Stormwater (Exhibit 2) for more details, which shall be incorporated herein by reference. The proposed infrastructure and services are sufficient to serve the proposed development. vi. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, ar a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. Comment: See Table B, Overall Design, 1. Open Space. As mentioned above, the site is designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive and active. With the application, the applicant submitted a preliminary landscape plan (SEPA Exhibit 11). The preliminary landscape plan included a preliminary planting schedule, which included types of trees, shrubs and ground cover but did not identify exactly where what type of tree, shrub, and or ground cover would be planted and at what spacing or interval such plants would be planted. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Cit1· 11( Ren1on Cummuni/\' and Economic ·foprne111 Deparrme111 Fieldbmok Conmwns PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE Febrwiry 12. 2013 Rq1011 ro the Hearing Examiner UJA12-00l. f.'CF. PPUO Page 17 of39 Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Conceptually, the provided landscape plan identifies screening landscaping bordering the properties to the north and to the west of the "dog leg" portion of the development and screening landscaping around the perimeter of the refuse and recycling areas. In addition, the plan identifies street trees would be planted along both SE 172nd St. and 108'h Ave. SE. However, comments were received from the City's urban forester requesting that Tulip and Red Maple trees are not used as street trees. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval to prohibit the use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees. Overall, the applicant has proposed to landscape all areas not proposed to be impervious surface with a combination of both evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. Aggregating the units into a smaller number of buildings and providing for stacked units, as proposed, the overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces. vii. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement af the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. Comment: The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family construction. Each unit would have a separate interior entrance with insulated walls separating the units. All units would have access to light and air, as each unit contains a balcony and windows. BLDG. Kand L along the east end of the property would also have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BULD. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. As mentioned above the proposed landscaping along the north side of the development would provide screening for the single-family development to the north and southwest edges of the site. The screening landscaping includes the construction of a 6 foot wood fence. The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. Screening landscaping and fencing is required around refuse and recycling facilities. Based on the provided landscape plan all but one facility would be screened with Cirv of Renton Communitv and Economic Fieldbmok Commons PUD PUBLIC !!EARING DATE February 12. 2013 1opmem DepartmNif Report to the Hearin& Er:aminer WA/2-001. ECF. PPUD Page 18 of 39 landscaping. The refuse and recycling area near BLDG. E only provides landscape screening along two of the three sides. Staff recommends a condition of approval that all refuse and recycling facilities be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. viii. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Comment: The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a valley etc. However, small more localized view opportunities exist on site. BLDG. K and L along the east end of the property would have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BLDG. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The overall orientation of the project enhances local views taking advantage of the site's features. ix. Parking Area Design: Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. Comment: For multi-family developments in the R-14 a minimum and maximum of 1.6 spaces per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit is required. The applicant has proposed to provide 56 one bedroom units, 88 two bedroom units, and 18 three bedroom units, resulting in a requirement to provide 208 parking stalls. Based on the provided site plan, 39 spaces would be provided in garages, 8 in ADA Accessible garages, 46 tandem spaces in the driveways and 117 surface parking stalls for a total of 210 parking stalls. Twenty two percent of the provided parking stalls would be located in garages and therefore screened by the structure. However, the remaining 78 percent would be outside surface parking stalls. Overall, the excessive amount of surface parking stalls scattered throughout the development detracts from the aesthetics of the overall development and the quality architectural design and landscaping proposed throughout the development. Some section of surface parking stalls are separated by landscaped areas and are 7 stalls or less. However, some sections of surface parking stalls contain long rows without landscaping. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the long rows or parking be broken up by landscaped areas to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. Furthermore, staff recommends approval of a reduced number of parking stalls to achieve the necessary parking lot landscaping. Overall the development is over-parked by two stalls, with the reduction of stalls a significant amount of new landscaping could be provided, however sufficient parking would still need to be provided at the subject site to achieve the demand created by the development. Staff recommends approval of a modification to the minimum parking stall requirement to 200 stalls from 208 stalls to allow flexibility to achieve much needed parking lot landscaping. Alternatively, the Hearing Examiner could deny the bonus density request which in turn would reduce the parking requirements, allowing for a reduction is surface parking stalls and proportionally increasing the percentage of parking being provided within garages. Ci!v of Renton Communirv tmd Economic lopmenr Depar!1ru'nl Fieldbrook Conmwns FUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 12, 2013 Rl'f}(Jrl lo !he llewing Examiner LU.112-001. ECF. I'I'UD Page 19of39 The provided parking is located in groups near the buildings it would serve. The proposed development does not have shared parking facilities nor the opportunity to conduct shared parking as the entire development is residential. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Comment: See comments above under sub-section ix Parking Area Design. In addition, a 200 stall parking lot would require 6 ADA parking stalls and a 210 stall parking lot would require 7 ADA parking stalls. The applicant has proposed to provide eight ADA parking garages, which would exceed the ADA requirement. Aisle widths in the parking areas vary depending upon the location. The majority of the aisle width meet the minimum width standards of either 24 feet for two way 90 degree - parking, 20 feet for two way 60 degree angle parking, 17 feet for one way 60 degree parking, and 18 feet for two way parallel parking. However a few portions of the aisle widths do not meet the minimum standards. The primary drive aisle running east west in the rear of the development between BLDG. A, B, and E and C, D, and G is only 20 feet wide and is required to be 24 feet wide (area 1 in Exhibit 7). In addition, the alley between BLDG. A and B is 12 feet wide (which meets alley width code standards) however the back out space for both the garage parking and the tandem parking is not sufficient at 12 feet (area 2 in Exhibit 7). Both these locations are required to provide 24 feet of back out room. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that all aisle widths meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton Municipal Code. Parking was not addressed in the provided traffic study; however the applicant has indicated the parking provided would be sufficient to meet the demand created by the development. Bicycle parking is required for multi-family developments at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit. The proposed 162 unit development is required to provide 81 bicycle parking spaces designed consistent with RMC 4-4-080F.ll.c. The applicant has indicated that 53 spaces would be provided in the garages and 30 additional spaces would be provided in the buildings. However, the applicant did not provide details of the bicycle parking proposed to verify compliance with RMC 4-4-080F.ll.c. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide a bicycle parking plan consistent with RMC 4-4-080F.11.c to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. x. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so thot each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. Comment: The applicant has not proposed to phase the subject development. As such, this criterion does not apply. xi. Development Standards Cit)' of Renton Cmmnuni[)· wid Ecmwmic Fiddbroot. Cumnwns PUD I'UBUC H£t\RJNG DATE February 12, 2013 lopmenr Depmtment Report to the lfruring Examiner LUA/2-001. ECF. PPUD I'ap,e 20 of 39 Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and. may be designed ta provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential developments ore described below. Attached Housing Developments: shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal ta fifty (SO} square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s} for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Reviewing Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewing Official may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100} units. (a} Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; {b} Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development; (c} Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d} Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e} Children's play spaces. ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties} courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development. iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Comment: The proposed project is located in the R-14 zone, which requires more common open space than required by the PUD regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-2-1150. Conflicts, where there are conflicts between the design regulations and other sections of RMC the regulations of RMC 4-2-115 shall prevail. In addition, in times of conflict the more restrictive standard shall prevail. In both these circumstances the standards of 4-2- 115 prevail. Therefore the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development proposal. Pursuant to 4-2-115 Standards for Common Open Space, developments with four or more units 350 square feet of common open space shall be provided. See analysis above in Table B, Overall Design, 1. Open Space/Recreation. In addition to the analysis, noted above in Table B, it should be noted that the open space calculations included in Exhibit 3, are based on the minimum dimensional requirement of 20 feet in width (as required in 4-2-115) and not the PUD standards above. Cirr of Renlun Communir\' and Economic Fieldbrook Conmums PU!) PUBUC HEARING DATE February 12, 2013 lopmem Department Reporl lo the Ifrarins Examiner LUA/ 2-001, ECF PP/JD Page 21 of 39 Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit, The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15'} in every dimension (decks an upper floors can substitute for the required private open space), For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet {5'), Comment: As mentioned above R-14 standards are more restrictive than the PUD standards therefore the requirements located in RMC section 4-2-115 shall prevail and the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development, Pursuant to 4- 2-115 Private Yards, developments of attached dwelling units (other than townhomes) that do not provide private yards, an additional 250 square feet per unit of open space shall be provided, See analysis above in Table B, Overall Design, l, Open Space/Recreation. In addition to the calculations noted above in Table B, Exhibit 3 identifies that 9,720 square feet of the provide 111,018 square feet of open space is provide in the form of private open space as either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on the information in Exhibit 3, each private space is approxamily 60 square feet_ However, staff's analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet. If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would be reduced to 109,074 square feet, which still exceeds the minimum requirement. However, in terms of public benefit and superiority of design as required for PUD approval, the quality of the open space shall be taken into consideration when evaluating the PUD. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City. Comment: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device, A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period, A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: Ail common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner by the property owners' association or the agent(s) thereof. Comment: Based on the proposed application the only area to be dedicated to the City is the required right-of-way. As such all other facilities shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. d) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation: CitY o(Rentcm Communitv and Economic Fieldbrook Conunom f'UD opml:'nt Depanment Report to the I/earing Examiner LUA/2-001. £CF. PPUD Pap,e 22 of 39 PUBLJC Hf:ARING DATE February 12. 2013 See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations and Table A. Any development standard that has either been requested for modification via the PUD application or addressed for compliance with the code in section "b) PUD Decision Criteria" above are not addressed below. i. lot Coverage and Impervious Surface: The R-14 zoning designation does not have a maximum building coverage. The maximum impervious area allowed in the R-14 zoning designation is 85 percent. The proposed impervious area of the site would be 159,939 square feet, on the 469,327.93 square foot project site, resulting in an impervious cover of 36.0 percent pursuant to the site plan, SEPA Exhibit 3. However the provided TIR identified the site contained 42.5 percent impervious surface. However, despite the conflict in the submittal materials the overall proposal would comply with the impervious cover requirements of the zone. ii. Setbacks: The R-14 zoning designation requires a minimum front yard setback of 8 feet to the building, 5 feet to the porch, or 7 feet to a stoop. The minimum side yard setback is 4 feet for the unattached sides of the structure and O feet for the attached sides. The minimum rear yard setback is 12 feet, except when the rear yard is abutting a common open space, then 4 feet. Based on the provided site plan, all buildings would meet the above setback standards from the exterior property lines and the proposal would therefore comply with the setback requirements of the zone. iii. landscaping -Renton Municipal Code requires that 10 percent of the trees on site be retained. See Environmental Review Report subsection 3. Vegetation for a detailed analysis of the tree retention (Exhibit 2) which shall be incorporated herein by reference. The applicant has indicated on the tree retention worksheet that 31 trees would be retained which would exceed the minimum requirement of 28.4 trees required by code to achieve the minimum 10 percent tree retention. However, as noted in the Environmental Review Report, a number of trees are required to be removed to accommodate the wetland creation. A modification has been requested as a part of the PUD application to allow for removal of trees in a wetland buffer, however it is unclear to staff if these trees were included or excluded from the retention calculations. In addition a number of mitigation measures proposed require the retention of trees throughout the mitigation area. As such, the overall retention calculations are anticipated to change following compliance with the conditions of approval. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed, colored coded, tree retention plan with associated retention worksheet and arborist report be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval, to clarify which trees are to be retained, dead and/or disease, removed, and eliminated as a part of the wetland mitigation project. Furthermore, a narrative should be submitted explaining what trees are included in the calculations and which trees are excluded and why. This way staff can verify compliance with the tree retention standards and ensure the same trees are preserved throughout the construction process. The applicant will be required to comply with protection measures for retained trees as set forth in RMC 4-4-130H8 during construction. Cin' of Remon Comrnw1irv a11d Economic ·lopmem Department Report to rhe Hetiring Examiner Fieldbmok Comnums PU!) LUAJ2-00J, ECF, PPUD Puge 23 o.f 39 PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 12, 20!3 The R-14 zone requires a 10-foot on site landscape strip along the street frontage, except where reduced through the site plan development review process, Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The landscaping requirements apply to the subject site's 1081 h Ave. SE and SE 172 St. frontage. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The landscape plan indicates a minimum of 10- feet of onsite landscaping along the frontage of the site. In addition street trees are proposed in the landscape strips along both frontages. When a residential multi-family zone is abutting a less intense residential zone a fifteen- foot (15') wide partially sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, or ten-foot (10') wide fully sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, is required along the common property line. North of the subject site is property zoned R-10 and R-8 and to the east is property zoned R-8. The protected wetlands are located at the eastern edge of the property therefore additional landscaping is not required and/or needed at this location. However the applicant has proposed to provide a 10 foot wide fully sight obscuring visual buffer along the north property line and along the southwest property line where there is an existing single-family development. In addition to vegetation a 6 foot solid wood fence is proposed which would provide additional screening for the development to the north. Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. A revised detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan will need to be submitted at the time of building permit review. iv. Parking Lot Landscaping: Surface parking lots with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped with 15 square feet per parking space. The provided site plan contains a large amount of surface parking; however the parking is not designed in a typical parking lot with long rows and aisle one after the other. If individual areas of the development are lumped together they would resemble a small surface parking lot. For example, the roadway between BLDG C and D and A and B or the area between BLDG E and J, each of these separate locations exceed 15 surface parking stalls in the same area and should therefore comply with the interior parking lot landscaping requirements, see Exhibit 8 for details on areas identified by staff. This would be taking into account the tandem parking stalls in combination with the standard surface lots. However, based on the provided site plan, these standards have not been met. Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval that areas within the development that result in more than 14 surface parking stalls (including surface tandem stalls) provide interior parking lot landscaping consistent with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070H.5. and provide 15 square feet per stall minimum. V. Perimeter Parking Lot landscaping is required, however due to the non-traditional style of parking proposed, the overall development provides sufficient landscaping to meet the intent of the perimeter parking lot standards if all conditions of approval are complied with. Therefore, staff recommends a modification from this standard be approved as a part ofthe PUD application. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas -The City's refuse and recyclable standards for a multi-family development require minimum of 1-1/2 square feet per dwelling unit for recyclables deposit areas. A minimum of 3 square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided Cir\" of Renton C()fnmunitv and Economic Fil'ldbrouk Comnums PUD PUBLIC !!EARING DATE Februa1}' 12. 2013 opment Department Report rv the Hearing Examiner WA/2-001. ECF. PPUD Page 24 (_if 39 for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 80 square feet shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. Based on the proposed 162 units the minimum 486 square feet of refuse and 243 square feet for recyclable deposit areas would be required. The applicant has proposed five areas with 221 square feet of dedicated refuse and recyclables enclosures for a total area of 1,105 square feet. As proposed the refuse and recyclable area exceeds the minimum size requirements. Outdoor refuse and recyclables deposit areas and collection points shall not be located within fifty feet (50') of a property zoned RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM. Surrounding the entire site with the exception of across 1081 h Ave. SE is zoned either R-14, R-10 or R-8. Based on the provided site plan two proposed refuse and recycle stations would be closer than 50 feet to property zoned R-14 and R-10. The facility in the south "dog leg" section and the facility located along the north property line by BLDG K. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the refuse and recycling stations be relocated to meet the minimum SO-foot standards. Enclosures for outdoor refuse or recyclables deposit areas/collection points and separate buildings used primarily to contain a refuse or recyclables deposit area/collection point shall have gate openings at least twelve feet (12') wide for haulers. Weather protection of refuse and recyclables shall be ensured by using weather-proofed containers or by providing a roof over the storage area. The applicant provided a detail of the trash enclosure (Exhibit 4) with the application. Based on the provided detail, the facilities would be gated with a minimum 12 foot clearance and be constructed of CMU wall. In addition all facilities with the exception of one were proposed to be screened by landscaping. A screening detail plan will be required to be submitted for review and approval at the time of building permit application. Additional standards for refuse and recyclables deposit area and collection points for multi-family residences: 1) There shall be at least one deposit area/collection point for every thirty (30) dwelling units. 2) The required refuse and recyclables deposit areas shall be dispersed throughout the site when a residential development comprises more than one building. 3) Refuse and recyclables deposit areas and collection points shall be located no more than two hundred feet (200') from a common entrance of a residential building, allowing for easy access by residents and hauling trucks. And 4) Trash and recycling containers shall be located so that they have minimal impact on residents and their neighbors and so that they are not visible to the general public. Based on the proposed 162 unit development 5 collection points would be required. The applicant has proposed 5 locations that are dispersed throughout the site complying with both item 1) and 2) above. However, based on a site analysis it appears BLDG M is further then 200 feet from a refuse and recyclable deposit area. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval either the relocation of a facility to meet the 200 foot maximum distance standards for all buildings or an additional facility within 200 feet of BLDG. M. As two of the 5 proposed locations are within 50 feet of the adjacent residential developments these locations would impact the neighbors and should therefore be relocated. In addition, to relocating such facilities a minimum of 50 feet from the adjacent Citv o( Renton Corrununir-r and Economic !op11101t Dcpartmen/ Repon to the Hearing Examiner Ficldhmok Commons PlJfJ WA12-00J. ECF. PPUD Page 25 of39 PllBUC Hf:ARING DATE February 12. 2013 residentially zoned property, the new locations shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager to ensure minimal impact on residents and neighbors and so they are not visible to the general public. vi. Utilities: Utility boxes that are not located in alleyways or away from public gathering spaces shall be screened with landscaping or berms. Not enough information was provided with the application to verify compliance with the above standard. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a detailed utility screening plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. vii. Sidewalks, Pathways. and Pedestrian Easements: All of the following are required: a) Sidewalks shall be provided throughout the neighborhood. The sidewalk may disconnect from the road, provided it continues in o logical route throughout the development. Sidewalks are provided throughout the neighborhood connecting each unit to a common green, public/private sidewalk, or a parking area. b) Front yards shall have entry walks that are a minimum width of 3 feet and a maximum width of 4 feet. All walkways throughout the development are 4 feet wide. c) Pathways shall be used to connect common parks, green areas, and packet parks to residential access streets, limited residential access streets, or other pedestrian connections. They may be used to provide access to homes ond common open space. They shall be a minimum 3 ft. in width and made of paved asphalt, concrete, or porous material such as: porous paving stones, crushed gravel with soil stabilizers, or paving blocks with planted joints. Sidewalks or pathways for parks and green spaces shall be located at the edge of the common space to allow a larger usable green and easy access to homes. Sidewalks are provided throughout the neighborhood connecting each unit to a common green, public/private sidewalk, or a parking area. All walkways throughout the development are 4 feet wide. However, the site plan did not identify the type of material to be used for the sidewalks/pathways. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the pathways be made of concrete or other material approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The overall development has a number of green spaces identified by numbers in Exhibit 3. The majority of the green spaces have pathways along the edge of the common space which allows for larger usable areas. However, a few areas have placed the pathways in the center of the green space. Common Space 2 and 21, as identified in Exhibit 3 would not be in compliance with the above standard. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the pathways be realigned to be provided at the edge of these two green spaces to allow for a larger usable green area in the center. d) Pedestrian Easement Plantings: Shall be planted with plants and trees. Trees are required along all pedestrian easements to provide shade and spaced 20 feet on center. Shrubs shall be planted in at least 15 percent of the easement and shall be spaced no further than 36 inches on center. Cir"J.· o( Remon Communirv a11d Ecmw11u·c lo(lfllfilf Departnu.'111 Re(lort 10 rhe Hearing Examina Fieldbrook Corrmums PUJJ UJA!2-00J, ECF, PPUD Poge 26 of39 PUBLIC HEil.RiNG DATE February 12, 2013 viii. No pedestrian easements are proposed. e) For all hames that da nat /rant on a residential access street, limited residential access street, a park, or a common green: Pedestrian entry easements that are at least 15 ft. wide plus a 5 ft. sidewalk shall be pravided. All units face onto either a common green, public street or private "street". Mail and Newspaper Boxes All of the following are required: 1. Mailboxes shall be clustered and located so as to serve the needs of USPS while not adversely affecting the privacy of residents; and 2. Mailboxes shall be lockable consistent with USPS standard; and 3. Mailboxes shall be architecturally enhanced with materials and details typical of the home's architecture; and 4. Newspaper boxes shall be of a design that reflects the character of the home. The applicant submitted a detail of the Mail Kisak, Exhibit 4. Based on the provided detail the mailboxes would be clustered near the recreation center and would serve the needs of the USPS. In front of the kisok are four parking spaces which would allow residents the opportunity to drive to the kisok and park. In addition, pedestrian pathways connect to the kiosk which would allow for pedestrians to easily access their mail. The kisok is proposed to be constructed with siding, corner trim and shingles that would match the buildings. The applicant provided their proposed mailbox plan to the USPS. The USPS approved their plan, therefore the mailboxes would be consistent with the USPS standards. ix. Critical Areas: Pursuant to the City's Critical Areas Maps, wetlands and coal mine hazards have been identified on the subject property. With the application the applicant submitted a Critical Areas report, a Habitat Assessment, and a Geotechnical Report with a Coal Mine Hazard Assessment. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands. See analysis included in the Environmental Review Report, subsections 1. Earth and 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes, incorporated herein by reference (Exhibit 2). Based on the analysis included in the report, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: • The proposed site plan shall be modified to eliminate the parking stalls located in the wetland buffers of Wetland A and Wetland B and be re-located outside the buffer areas. • A split rail fence and critical area signage shall be provided along the edge of the wetland and a gate shall be located at the trail entrance. • The final wetland creation plan shall include the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. • The wetlands and their buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement, which shall be reviewed and approved prior to building permit issuance. Citv of Renton Commrmitv and Economic lopment Depanment Reporr To the llearir13 t.\:a,ninn Fiddbrook Commons PUD PUB/JC IIEARJNG DATE February 12, 2013 UJA/2-001. HCF. PPUD Paxe 27 of39 • The easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit occupancy. It should be noted, that the overall project results in many impacts to the existing wetlands on the subject site. The applicant requested modification to the critical areas section of the code, RMC 4-3-0SOC.5.f, as a part of the PUD. However, RMC 4-3-050 is not a modifiable section of the code through a PUD. Therefore, staff has not included these requests in the modification requests located in Table A above. The accumulative impacts to wetlands and habitat should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether to approve, approve with conditions and/or deny the proposed request. Staff's analysis of the code is included in the attached Environmental Review Report for the Hearing Examiner to consider when making a decision on the subject project. e) Compliance to Residential Design Standards The proposed project is subject to the Residential Design Regulations (RMC 4-2-115). The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority of approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the design regulations. The proposed project meets the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable if all conditions of approval are complied with. A. SITE DESIGN: 1. Lot Configuration: Variety in the configuration of lots enhances the image of variety of housing stock and helps minimize perceptions of monotony. ../ Minimum Standard: Developments of more than nine (9) detached dwellings shall incorporate a variety of home sizes, lot sizes, and unit clusters. 2. Garages: The minimization of the visual impact of garages contributes to creating communities that are oriented to people and pedestrians, as opposed to automobiles . ../ Minimum Standard: Carports are prohibited. Minimum Standard: One of the following is required; the garage must be: ../ 1) Recessed from the front of the house and/or front porch at least eight feet (8'); or 2) Detached . ../ Minimum Standard: Garage design shall be of similar design to the homes. Minimum Standard: A minimum eighteen feet (18') driveway length from the face of ../ the garage to the back of the sidewalk or access easement/lane is required, unless accessed by an alley. Minimum Standard: If sides of the garage are visible from streets, lanes, sidewalks, N/A pathways, trails, or other homes, architectural details shall be incorporated in the design. Minimum Standard: If shared garages are allowed, they may share the structure with other homes and all of the following is required: 1) Each unit has garage space assigned to it; and ../ 2) The garage is not to be located further than one hundred sixty feet (160') from any of the housing units to which it is assigned; and 3) The garage shall not exceed forty-four feet (44') in width, and shall maintain an eight foot (8') separation from any dwellings. City of Renton Comm1min.· and Economic iopment Department Report to rhe Heuring Examiner Fie/dbrook Cormnons P/JD PUBLIC HEARING DATE Februmy 12, 2013 LUAI2-00I. ECF. PPUD I'age 28 rif 39 B. OPEN SPACE: 1. Open Space: Intent: Open space is a significant element in the development of livable communities and creates opportunities for good health. N/A Minimum Standard: For developments that are less than ten (10) net acres: No park is required, but is allowed. Minimum Standard: For developments that are greater than ten (10) net acres: A N/A minimum of one one-half (.5) acre park, in addition to the common open space requirement, is required. N/A Minimum Standard: Developments of three (3) or less dwelling units: No requirement to provide common open space. Developments of four (4) or more units: Required to provide common open space as follows. ,/ Minimum Standard: For each unit in the development, three hundred fifty (350) square feet of common open space shall be provided. Minimum Standard: Open space shall be designed as a park, common green, ,/ pea-patch, pocket park, or pedestrian entry easement in the development and shall include picnic areas, space for small recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. ,/ Minimum Standard: Open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to the neighborhood. ,/ Minimum Standard: Open space shall be contiguous, serve a minimum of four (4) homes, and be at least twenty feet (20') wide. Minimum Standard: A pedestrian entry easement can be used to meet the N/A requirements if it has a minimum width of twenty feet (20') with a minimum five feet (5') of sidewalk. Minimum Standard: Pea-patches shall be at least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size with individual plots that measure ten feet by ten feet (10' x 10'). Additionally, the pea-patch shall include a tool shed and a common area with space for compost bins. Water shall be provided to the pea-patch. Fencing that meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea-patch with a one foot (1') landscape area on the outside of the fence. This area is to be landscaped with flowers, plants, and/or shrubs. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed to provide a pea-patch area that wauld be 1,800 square feet and 4 ft. x 8 ft. raised beds and a 10 ft. x 10 ft. ,/ potting shed. The minimum size exceeds the 1,000 SF requirement however each plot is less than 10 ft. x 10 ft. As the proposed project is a PUD, staff recommends approval of the 4 f. t x B ft. raised beds. Typically in urban style pea patches a raised bed should be no more than 5 ft. wide, so the user can reach across the bed when gardening. A 10 ft. x 10 ft. raised bed would be difficult ta cultivate. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to fence and landscape the exterior of the pea patch. The landscaping would be in compliance with the above standard; however, the fence is proposed to be 6 ft. 10 in. high finished with arbor details. Staff recommends approval of a fence that is higher than the front yard fence, as the area is frequented by deer and a taller fence would protect the garden plots from deer. Minimum Standard: Grass-crete or other pervious surfaces may be used in the N/A common open space for the purpose of meeting the one hundred fifty feet (150') distance requirement for Emergency Vehicle Access. Cir--.: (>f'Remnn Communitv and Economic lopmt>nr Depanment RepoH to 1he lfeari113 Exumi11a Fieldbrook Commons FUD PUBLIC liF.AR/NlT DATE Febnwry 12, 2013 LUA/2-001. £CF. PPUD l'ap,e 29 c:(39 Minimum Standard: Storm ponds may be used to meet the common open space N/A requirement if designed to accommodate a fifty (50) year storm and to be dry ninety percent (90%) of the year. Minimum Standard: Developments of three (3) or less dwelling units: Each individual N/A lot shall have a private yard that is at minimum six hundred (600) square feet in size. Backyard patios and reciprocal use easements may be included in the calculation of private yard. Minimum Standard: Development of attached dwelling units (other than .,, townhouses): For developments that do not provide private yards, an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet of open space per unit shall be provided. This open space is in addition to the required amount of common open space. C. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN: 1. Primary Entry: Intent: Homes with a visually prominent front entry foster the sense that the community is oriented to pedestrians. Features like porches and stoops at the front entry provide opportunity for social interaction and can contribute to a sense of place for residents. Additionally, porches work to minimize the appearance of bulk by breaking up the facade. .,, Minimum Standard: The entry shall take access from and face a street, park, common green, pocket park, pedestrian easement, or open space. Minimum Standard: The entry shall include one of the following: 1) Stoop: minimum size four feet by six feet {4' x 6') and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade; or 2) Porch: minimum five feet (5') deep and minimum height twelve inches (12") N/A above grade. Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be taken from a front driveway .. Staff Comment: The development is not o typical townhome or cottage style development therefore front porches ond stoops ore not proposed. 2. Fa~ade Modulation: The modulation of facades creates an appearance of variety, as well as visual breaks that help to create visual interest. Minimum Standard: The primary building elevation oriented toward the street or .,, common green shall have at least one articulation or change in plane of at least two feet (2') in depth. .,, Minimum Standard: A minimum one side articulation that measures at least one foot (1') in depth shall occur for all facades facing streets or public spaces. 3. Windows and Doors: Windows and front doors are an integral part of the architectural character of a home and when they incorporate architectural elements of the home, they contribute to the overall balance and integration of the building form. Additionally, when they represent a significant amount of the facade of a home, they amplify the sense that the community is oriented to people. .,, Minimum Standard: Primary windows shall be proportioned vertically, rather than horizontally. N/A Minimum Standard: Vertical windows may be combined together to create a larger window area. Minimum Standard: All doors shall be made of wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and Unknown trimmed with three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum head and jamb trim around the door. Staff Comment: Based on the provided elevations it appears front doors would be Cin· of Renron Conununity rmd Fc(>nomic lopment DepartmPnf Report to the Hearin~ Examiner Fil'ldbrook Comnums PULJ PUBUC HEARING DATF Februury 12, 2013 LUA.12-001. ECF. I'I'UD Page 30 of 39 comprised of either wood or metal. However, the plan set did not specifically identify the material type. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the door material be provided with the building permit application and be made of either wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with 3 Y, "minimum head and jamb trim. N/A Minimum Standard: Screen doors are permitted. y' Minimum Standard: Primary entry doors shall face a street, park, common green, pocket park, or pedestrian easement and shall be paneled or have inset windows. Minimum Standard: Sliding glass doors are not permitted along a frontage elevation or an elevation facing a pedestrian easement. Staff Comment: The fallowing building has sliding glass doors along a street frontage Not or an internal frontage: BLDG. A, west elevation, BLDG. E, east elevation, BLDG. J, Compliant east elevation, BLDG. K & L, west and east elevations, and BLDG. M, west elevation. The sliding glass doors could be replaced with French doors to provide the appearance of a front daor. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the above mentioned sliding glass doors be replaced with either French doors or another door approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 4. Scale, Bulk, and Character Residential communities are intended for people and homes that have appropriate scale and bulk contribute to the sense of orientation to people. Variety in the character of homes helps to minimize visual monotony while helping to foster a perception of uniqueness of place. Minimum Standard: The primary building form shall be the dominating form and y' elements such as porches, principal dormers, or other significant features shall not dominate. y' Minimum Standard: Primary porch plate heights shall be one story. Stacked porches are allowed. Minimum Standard: To differentiate the same models and elevations, different colors shall be used. Not Staff Comment: A color palette was not provided as part of the Site Plan application Compliant materials. As a condition of approval the applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Minimum Standard: For single-family dwellings, no more than two (2) of the same N/A model and elevation shall be built on the same block frontage and the same model and elevation shall not be abutting. S. Roofs: Roof forms and profiles are an important component in the architectural character of homes and contribute to the massing, scale, and proportion of the home. Roofs also provide opportunity to create variety, especially for homes of the same model. Minimum Standard: Primary roof pitch shall be a minimum six to twelve (6:12). If a y' gable roof is used, exit access from a third floor must face a public right of way for emergency access. Minimum Standard: A variety of roofing colors shall be used within the development Not and all roof material shall be fire retardant. Compliant Staff Comment: See condition above to provide a color palette. Roof materials shall be included in the color palette. 6. Eaves: The design of eaves and overhangs act as unifying elements in the architectural character of a home. When sized adequately and used consistently, they work to create desirable shadows that help to Citv of Ren/on Commu11i1y and Economic lopmenr Department Report lo the Ilearin3 Examina Fic!dbrook Commmis Pl/[) PUBLIC HEARING DATE February I 2, 2013 LUA/ 2-001, ECF, PPUD Page 31 o.f 39 create visual interest especially from blank, unbroken wall planes. ,/ Minimum Standard: Eaves shall be at least twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on the face of all eaves. 7. Architectural Detailing: Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a home and the community_ It helps to create a desirable human scale and a perception of a quality well designed home_ ,/ Minimum Standard: Three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and details all doors. ,/ Minimum Standard: At least one of the following architectural details shall be provided on each home: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns. Minimum Standard: Where siding is used, metal corner clips or corner boards shall ,/ be used and shall be at minimum two and one half inches (2 1/2") in width and painted. If shutters are used, they shall be proportioned to the window size to simulate the ability to cover them. Minimum Standard: If columns are used, they shall be round, fluted, or strongly ,/ related to the home's architectural style. Six inches by six inches {6" x 6") posts may be allowed if chamfered and/or banded. Exposed four inches by four inches (4" x 4") and six inches by six inches {6" x 6") posts are prohibited. 8. Materials and Color: The use of a variety of materials and color contributes to the sense of diversity of housing stock in the community. Minimum Standard: Acceptable exterior wall materials are: wood, cement fiberboard, stucco, stone, and standard sized brick three and one half inches by ,/ seven and one half inches (3 1/2" x 7 1/2") or three and five eighths inches by seven and five eighths inches (3 5/8" x 7 5/8"). Simulated stone, wood, stone, or brick may be used to detail homes. Minimum Standard: When more than one material is used, changes in a vertical wall, such as from wood to brick, shall wrap the corners no less than twenty-four ,/ inches (24''), The material change shall occur at an internal corner or a logical transition such as aligning with a window edge or chimney. Material transition shall not occur at an exterior corner. Minimum Standard: Multiple colors on buildings shall be provided. Muted deeper tones, as opposed to vibrant primary colors, shall be the dominant colors. Color palettes for all new structures, coded to the home elevations, shall be submitted for Not approval. Compliant Staff Comment: A color palette was not provided as part of the Site Plan application materials. As a condition af approval the applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Minimum Standard: Gutters and downspouts shall be integrated into the color Compliant scheme of the home and be painted, or of an integral color, to match the trim color. Stoff Comment: See comments above. f) Compliance with the Bonus Density Criteria Cir; of Renton Communil\ und Economic Fieldlwook Co111111.1.m.5 PUD PUBLIC IIEARING JJ.'1.TE Febrnar_v 12, 2013 lopm-l'n1 /Jepartmrnt Report to the HParing t.Xaminer WA! 2-001. ECF. I'I'UD Page 32 nf 39 The purpose of the density bonus review is to provide a procedure to review requests for density bonuses authorized in chapter 4-2 RMC. Density bonuses are offered to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies, including but not limited to Land Use and Housing Element policies and the purpose and intent of the zoning districts. These bonus provisions are intended to allow greater flexibility in the implementation of the purpose of the zones in which density bonuses are allowed. Bonus criteria encourage higher amenity neighborhoods, affordable housing, building practices that minimize the environmental impacts of buildings, mixed use development, aggregated open space, superior architecture and site design, and/or significant environmental enhancement/restoration. Density bonus review shall occur concurrently with any other required land use permit that establishes the permitted density and use of a site. The following table lists the conditions under which additional density or alternative bulk standards may be achieved: R-14 Zone Maximum Additional Units Up to 4 additional dwelling Per Acre Bonus Criteria: units per net acre. Densities of greater than 18 units per net acre are prohibited. To qualify for the density bonus, the applicant shall provide either: (i) Alley and/or rear access and parking for 50% of detached or townhouse units, or (ii) Civic uses such as a community meeting hall, senior center, recreation center, or other similar uses as determined by the Administrator, or (iii) A minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre (fractional results shall be rounded up to the next whole number) to qualify for a density bonus. In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate at least 1 of the Compliance/ Analysis The applicant is requesting 17.96 du/ac. The applicant has provided a 2,400 square foot recreation center that includes a gathering room, kitchen, outdoor BBQ pit, fire pit, outdoor living room, meeting space, social activities space or private party rental space. The provided recreation center would meet requirement for part one of the bonus density criteria. In addition, the applicant originally proposed to allocate the pickle ball court and play area to meet the second qualifying criteria. However, after evaluating the need for additional open space amenities to meet the Public Benefit required as a part of the PUD, the applicant submitted an e-mail request to utilize the parking lot Citv o(Renton Communitv and Economic Fie/dbrook Commom I'UD PUHUC HEARING DATE Fellruary 12. 2013 /11pm('l1/ Depar/m.ent features described below: (i) Active common recreation amenities such as sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/jacuzzi. (ii)Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. R('pnrr ro lhe Hearin3 J:~wmincr LUA/2-001. ECF. I'Pl!D Page 33 of 39 landscaping standard instead of the pickle ball court. As such, the provided site plan does not reflect compliance with this criterion. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant update the site plan to comply with the 15-foot landscape requirement or reduce the density to 16 du/ac as only half the bonus density criteria would be met. g) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project property is Residential Medium Density (RMD). The purpose of RMD is to create the opportunity for neighborhoods that offer a variety of lot sizes, housing, and ownership options. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies as long as all conditions of approval are complied with. Land Use Element Policy LU-164. Support projects that create neighborhoods with diverse housing types that achieve continuity through the organization of roads, sidewalks, blocks, setbacks, community gathering places, and amenity features. ,/ Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU-165. Development densities in the Residential Medium Density designation area should range from seven (7) to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre, as specified by implementing zoning. -./Policy Objective Met Not Met Objective LU-LL: Residential Medium Density designations should be areas where creative approaches to housing density can be implemented. -./Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU-167. Very small-lot, single-family housing, such as cottages, zero-lot line detached, semi-detached, townhouses, and small scale multi-family units should be allowed in the Residential Medium Density designation in order to provide a wide range of housing types. No single housing type should dominate in this designation. -./Policy Objective Met Not Met Citv of Renton Cummunirv mid Economic Fieldbrouk Commons PUD f'UBUC I/EARING DATE frbmary /2. 20/3 lopmenl Departmenl Rcp011 to the flearing t.Xaminer WA/2-00/, ECF. f'l'UD Page 34 of39 Policy LU-169. Residential developments should include public amenities that function as a gathering place within the development and should include features such as a public square, open space, park, civic or commercial uses in the R-14 zone. The central place should include amenities for passive recreation such as benches and fountains and be unified by a design motif or common theme. ,/Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU-170. Residential Medium Density site development plans should reflect the following criteria for projects: 1) Parking should be encouraged in the rear or side yards or under the structure; 2) Structures should be located on lots or arranged in a manner to appear like a platted development to ensure adequate light and air, and views (if any) are preserved between lots or structures; 3) Buildings should be massed in a manner that promotes a pedestrian scale with a small neighborhood feeling; 4) Each dwelling unit should have an identifiable entrance and front on streets or public open spaces rather than courtyards and parking lots; 5) Fences may be constructed if they contribute to an open, spacious feeling between units and structures and do not provide a barrier to pedestrian circulation; and 6) Streetscapes should include green, open space for each unit. "'Policy Objective Met Not Met Community Design Element Policy CD-7: Interpret development standards to support projects incorporating site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes that can be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Replanting should occur where trees are not retained due to safety concerns. Retention of unique site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. ,/Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD-21: In areas developed with high intensity uses, circulation within the site should be primarily pedestrian-oriented. Internal site circulation of vehicles should be separated from pedestrians wherever feasible by dedicated walkways. ,/Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD-34: Support project site planning in residential land use designations that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets, 2) Private open space for ground-related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, Cirv of Renton Community and Economic ,loprnent Department Repcirt to the Hearing F.xaminer Fieldbrook Co111.r11,(111S FUD LUA/2-001. ECF. l'l'UD Poge 35 of39 PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 12. 2013 I. 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, S) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. tl'Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD-41: Site design of development should relate, connect, and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. tl'Policy Objective Met CONCLUSIONS: Not Met 1. The subject project complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision are complied with. 2. The subject project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Medium Density, and the zoning designation of Residential-14 du/ac if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The subject project has the potential to comply with the bonus density requirements if all the conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision can be complied with. The applicant has not demonstrated that compliance is achievable at 18 du/ac. A reduction in density may be required to comply with the conditions of approval. 4. The project would not be detrimental to the surrounding property owners, if all conditions of approval are met. 5. The project would be in compliance with the purposes of the PUD regulations if all conditions of approval are met. 6. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the proposed development if all conditions of approval are complied with and impact fees are paid. J. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Field brook Commons PUD, Project File No. LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD subject to the 30 conditions below. However, staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/ac if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of open space remains as proposed. The Examiner could choose to approve partial bonus density to 16 du/ac as half of the bonus density credit has been achieved by providing the recreation center. There is a direct correlation between the reduction in density and the elimination of required parking, which would reduce the number of required surface parking stalls. However in both instances the surface parking lot presence should be reduced and at the same the square footage and configuration of open space remains as proposed. Cirv o(Reriton Conununity a11d t:ronomic Fieldbrouk Commons PUD Pl!HLJC llEARJNG DATE February 12. 2013 lopmen! Departme/11 Repwt to the Hearing .Exam.inn U]A/2-001, ECF, PPUD Poge 36 of39 If neither of the above are feasible, staff would recommend approval of the PPUD subject to the 30 conditions below, provided the Recreation Center remains a part of the development, as the rental space provides a necessary public benefit to the project. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 10 mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 7, 2013. 2. The interpretive kiosk design and signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 3. In order to achieve public access to the wetland trail, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. A signage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. The required public trail easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit final occupancy. 4. The wetland trail shall be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" to provide a turn around that acts like a loop. The updated trail design shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. S. All garage doors shall be designed with additional details, such as windows, and all side of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 6. BLDG J shall be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation similar to BLDG C and D, and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval 7. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit application. 8. The use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees is prohibited. A different street tree shall be proposed and included on the final landscape plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. The screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 10. All refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. The final landscape screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Citv of Renton Communitv and Economic Fieldbrook Commons PUIJ f'UBUC I/EARING DATE February 12. 2013 (lpment 1Jeeanmn1t Report lo the Hearing Examiner UIA]2-00I, 1-.'CF. PP(}IJ Pas:e 37 of3Y 11. The long rows or parking shall be broken up by landscaped areas every 6 or 7 stalls, to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 12. All drive aisle widths shall meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton Municipal Code. 13. A detailed, colored coded, tree retention plan with associated retention worksheet and arborist report shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. This detailed plan shall clarify which trees are to be retained, dead and/or diseased, removed and eliminated as a part of the wetland mitigation project. Additionally a narrative should be submitted explaining what trees are included in the calculations and which trees are excluded and why, to verify compliance with the tree retention standards. 14. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking plan consistent with RMC 4-4-0SOF.ll.c to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 15. Areas within the development that result in more than 14 surface parking stalls (including surface tandem stalls) shall provide interior parking lot landscaping consistent with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070H.5. which would at minimum require 15 square feet of landscaping per stall. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 16. The refuse and recycling stations in the south "dog leg" section and the facility located along the north property line by BLDG K shall be relocated to meet the minimum SO-foot separation standards. The new location shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager to ensure minimal impact on residents and neighbors and so they are not visible to the general public. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 17. The applicant shall either relocate the refuse and recycling facility near BLDG M to meet the 200 foot maximum distance standards for all buildings or an additional facility within 200 feet of BLDG. M shall be provided. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 18. The applicant shall provide a detailed utility screening plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 19. The proposed site plan shall be modified to eliminate the parking stalls located in the wetland buffers of Wetland A and Wetland Band be re-located outside the buffer areas. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 20. A split rail fence and critical area sign age shall be provided along the edge of the wetland and a gate shall be located at the trail entrance. An updated site plan shall Cit-v of Remon Communit-v and Economic Fieldbruok C<anumms PUD PUBLIC JJEARING DATE February 12. 20/3 lopment Deearrwenr Report to the llearinf!. Exmnina LUA/2-001. ECF. PPUD Page 38 of 39 be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 21. The final wetland creation plan shall include the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. The final wetland creation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 22. The wetlands and their buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit occupancy. 23. All pathways shall be made of concrete or other material approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Material shall be identified and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 24. The pathways in Common Space 2 and 21, as identified in Exhibit 3 shall be realigned and be provided at the edge of the green spaces to allow for a larger usable green area in the center. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 25. Door materials shall be provided with the building permit application and be made of either wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with 3 Y, " minimum head and jamb trim. Door design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 26. The following buildings have sliding glass doors along a frontage elevation or an elevation. BLDG. A, west elevation, BLDG. E, east elevation, BLDG. J, east elevation, BLDG. K & L, west and east elevations, and BLDG. M, west elevation. The sliding glass doors on the building elevations listed above shall be replaced with either a French door or another door approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Updated elevations shall be provided for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 27. The applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 28. The applicant shall update the site plan to comply with the 15-foot landscape requirement to achieve bonus density up to 18 du/ac. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. If bonus density is not approved by the Hearing Examiner, this condition of approval would not be applicable, unless otherwise required by the Examiner. 29. All sidewalks and cross walks in the development shall be constructed with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. Material proposals shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Cir-v of Renton Commwiiti,• and f,'r-mwmic lopment Departmen! Fie!dhrook Commons PUD PURUC lfl:.ARJN(; DAFI: February 12. 2013 Report to the Hearing t.Xaminer WAI 2-001, ECF, PP/ID Par,e 39 of39 30. The applicant shall create bylaws or CC & R's that restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. Final bylaws shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit final occupancy. EXPIRATION PERIODS: The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the Department of Community and Economic Development a final development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed planned urban development or the final phase or phases thereof; provided, however, that for a preliminary plan approved concurrent with a preliminary subdivision, the developer shall submit the final development plan within five (5) years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the preliminary plan. Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted for a planned urban development. If a final development plan is not filed within the identified time limits or within the extended time period, if any, the planned urban development preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned. To activate an expired or abandoned planned urban development, a new application is required DEPARTMENT OF COMMI fY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner/Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: January 7, 2013 Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner PNW Holdings, LLC., 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC, 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214, Mercer Island, WA 98040 17040-108'h Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. None 469,158 SF (10.77 acres) Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): Total Building Area GSF: 71,939 SF 180,934 SF 180,934 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). ERC ReportlZ-00. N I- t-I m 1-1 ::c >< w City of Renton Department of Community & r:r;onomic Development FIELDBRDDK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 , I I i 1100.; . ~I Project Location Map ERC Report12-001.doc Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 2 of 23 City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 .momic Development PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 3 of 23 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet of building area. Each separate multi- family building is labeled A-N (excluding F) each containing a variety of unit types. The smallest building (BLDG. A) would be 10,251 square feet, contain 9 units and would be 27.19 feet high and the largest building (BLDG. J) would be 18,507 square feet, contain 17 units and would be 35.27 feet high. For detailed building unit break down and square footages see Exhibit 3. In addition, the applicant has proposed to provide a 2,400 square foot recreation center for the common use of the future residents of the apartment development. The recreation center would include a fitness center, outdoor BBQ, fire pit, outdoor living room, internal kitchen and gathering hall for meetings, social activities and private party rentals. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped with the exception of one small dilapidated shack located in the center of the site. The site is primarily in a forested condition. North of the site is property zoned R-14, R-10 and R-8 comprised primarily of single-family residential development. To the east is property zoned R-14 and R-8 currently undeveloped. To the south is property zoned R-14 developed with a mix of multi- family and single-family development. To the west is property zoned R-14 and CA developed with single- family residential and a day care facility. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including approximately 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Parking is provided both in garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. Pursuant to the City's Critical Areas Maps, wetlands and coal mine hazards have been identified on the subject property. With the application the applicant submitted a Critical Areas report, a Habitat Assessment, and a Geotechnical Report with a Coal Mine Hazard Assessment. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. Due to the proposal to fill three wetlands, the City has required that the provided studies undergo an Independent Secondary Review process which was completed by Otak prior to moving forward with the project's review. The final secondary review report was completed by Otak on June 13, 2012. The proposed development would result in approximately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Fronomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 4 of 23 II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The stormwater line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation; and, that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new stormwater discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUD Approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the filling of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 4. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. 6. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 7. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outermost extent of the existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for the Fieldbrook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 9. The-applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 10. An additional coal mine assessment review shall be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Reportl2-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit} FIELDBROOK CDMMDNS .1nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 5 of 23 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Neighborhood Map Parcel Identification Map Preliminary Site Plan Civil Plans Cover Sheet Generalized Utilities Plan, 4 sheets, P2 -PS Conceptual Grading Plan, 4 sheets, P6 -P9 Drainage Control Plan, 4 sheets, PlO -P13 Wetland Delineation Map Conceptual Mitigation and Grading Plan Final Mitigation Planting Plan Preliminary Landscape Plan, 5 sheets, L-1-L-5 Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan, 4 sheets, TR-1-TR-4 Public Comments, Katrina Garrison, Sylva Jean Coppock, Donna Hart, Terestia Tamayao, and Dan Miles Department of Ecology Comments Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments DOE Comment Clarification WDFW Wetland Rating Form Drainage Basins Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Critical Areas Report, November 8, 2011 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Habitat Study, December 14, 2011 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Stream Study, December 14, 2011 Otak, Critical Areas Review of Fieldbrook Commons Project, February 29, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, March 16,2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, April 10, 2012 Otak, Fieldbrook Commons Second Review, June 13, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Response to Otak's Critical Areas Review, September 17, 2012 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The existing site topography generally undulates between a high of about 436 feet to a low of 420 feet mean sea level. The site is primarily forested and contains wetlands throughout. In addition, a medium coal mine hazard has been identified along the southern portion of the "dog leg" lot, identified as parcel A herein. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Deportment of Communit} FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 JflDmic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-D01, ECF, PPUD Page 6 of 23 The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study {"Geo-tech") prepared for the Fieldbrook Commons project by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. However, at the time of preparation of this report the developer had not acquired parcel A, as such parcel A is not addressed in the provided report. The provided Geo-tech evaluated seven test pits located across the site. Based on the test pits in general the site soils consist primarily of firm sandy glacial till deposits. However, two areas of fill were encountered during their fieldwork, one to the extreme east of the site and a second along the western site frontage. Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations extending to depths of between about four to eight inches. Perched groundwater was observed within the fill zones at several test pit locations during the fieldwork. The report concludes that construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between one to three feet below existing grades. The report continues to include recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, in-situ soils, imported soils, structural fill, wetland filling, foundations, seismic design considerations, slab-on- grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, infiltration, excavations and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Based on the recommendations included in the provided report, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC. Parcel A had a previous development proposed for the development of single-family homes. The applicant for the subject project submitted the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the Wagner Short Plat to address the development of the proposed multi-family units on Parcel A. In addition, the applicant submitted the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment prepared for the same short plat with the application. The two additional reports submitted are as follows; Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 11, 2006 and a Coal Mine Hazard Evaluation prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers, dated September 12, 2007. The Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. states that parcel A is generally level and the estimated elevation change across the site is less than 10 feet. The site explorations conducted by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. indicated the site is comprised of variable materials, consisting of silty sand with varying amounts of gravel, consistent with glacial till, as well as weathered sandstone, siltstone, and coal seams, consistent with the Renton Formation. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. observed light groundwater seepage approximately 11.5 feet below the existing grade. They expect that a perched water condition may develop during the wetter times of the year at, or near the contract between the weathered and unweathered glacial till layers, and within sand interbeds in weathered areas of the Renton Formation. The Cornerstone Geotechnical Report indicated that parcel A has a low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. concludes the site is suitable for development; the underlying medium dense to very dense native soil deposit area is capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. Staff recommends the project proponent follow the recommendations presented in the geotechnical study regarding site preparation {includin_g vegetation removal and subgrade compacting), structural fill (including density tests, fill materials, and fill placement), cut slope stability (including slope height, incline and erosion protection) foundation support (including placement and dimensions of footings, bearing pressure, lateral resistance and foundation settlement tolerance), slab-on-grade design (including ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 7 of 23 construction support and capillary break layer), Erosion and Sediment Control, Drainage, Utilities, and Pavement installation. The site is underlain with the Upper and Lower Splits of the Springbrook No. 3 Coal Seam. Icicle Creek Engineers conducted a drilling test on August 23, 2007, boring to a depth of about 71.5 feet. The boring results indicated soft drilling resistance; the blow count data and rock samples indicated the boring encountered caved rock from a depth of 23 feet to 67 feet (44-foot thickness). The caved. rock consisted of very loose to medium dense coal and sandstone fragments. A 2-foot thick void was encountered at about 45 to 47 feet below ground surface. At a depth of about 67 feet, the drilling resistance increased suggesting intact bedrock to the completion depth of the boring at about 71.5 feet. Groundwater was observed during drilling at a depth of about 18 feet. The report concludes that it is probable that progressive caving, over time, of the two coal seams and bedrock interlayer has occurred causing the unstable and loose caved rock encountered in the test drilling. Icicle Creek Engineers recommend that the area in the south portion of the property, south of the north edge of the Lower Split Coal Seam, maintain the classification as a "Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area" and would be best suitable for open space and trail use. However, the applicant has proposed to develop the area identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area with a trash enclosure and surface parking as well as landscaping. As such staff recommends as a mitigation measure that an additional review be completed by the project applicant verifying that the weight of a waste management truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. Grading and filling activities are proposed as a part of the site infrastructure improvements including filling of three wetlands and the creation of replacement wetlands. Based on the information provided by the project applicant, preliminary grading estimates show 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill which would be balanced across the site. There are some areas on the site that contain unsuitable materials (topsoil) which would need to be removed. Suitable clean topsoil and mulch from the site would be used in the wetland buffer enhancement and creation areas. The applicant has indicated that select crashed base course materials, trench backfill, gravel backfill as well as asphalt treated base and asphalt top lift would be brought to the site from local sources and unsuitable soils and excess materials would be hauled off-site to approved locations. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for the Fieldbrook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 3. An additional coal mine assessment review be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community :.momic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 8 of 23 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The subject site contains 6 wetlands and off site several hundred feet is a Class 4 stream. Due to the presence of critical areas the applicant completed a Critical Areas Report and a Supplemental Stream letter, both prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., Dated November 8, 2011 and December 14, 2011 respectively. The stream letter addresses the potential for a stream to be located on or near the site. Based on the site investigation, the letter concludes there are no streams on the site. However, there is a portion of a wetland that extends onto the east side of the site. This wetland forms a portion of the headwaters for Soos Creek. The investigation extended into this wetland a distance of 100 feet east of the eastern site boundary and revealed no stream channel. As such, no impacts are anticipated to the stream due to its location several hundred feet to the east. However, the site does contain 6 wetlands; the provided Critical Areas Report evaluates and delineated each wetland located on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to fill 3 of the 6 wetlands on site; therefore the provided report also includes replacement ratios for the wetlands proposed to be filled and a mitigation and monitoring plan. The following table addresses the identified wetland characteristics in the provided report: . Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Characteristics . . Wetland Size Category Buffer Proposed to be Filled Wetland A 10,300 SF 2 SO-foot No Wetland B 30,736 SF 2 SO-foot No Wetland C 1,149 SF 3 25-foot No Wetland D 7,671 SF 2 SO-foot Yes Wetland E 68 SF 3 25-foot Yes Wetland F 1,591 SF 3 25-foot Yes Prior to moving forward with the Environmental Review on the subject project, the City required the applicant to complete an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Critical Areas Report including the mitigation and monitoring plan for the wetland fill and re-creation. This secondary review was completed by Otak. Once completed, Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. addressed the comments received from Otak in two separate letters; one dated March 16, 2012 (Exhibit 23) the second dated April 10, 2012 (Exhibit 24). The results of the Secondary Review included modifications to the original mitigation and re-creation proposal, including the removal of the stormwater detention pond from the wetland area and the relocation of the re-creation area from the buffer of wetland B to the middle/buffers of Wetland A and C. The updated proposal was reviewed a second time by Otak which resulted in additional comments in a memorandum dated June 13, 2012 (Exhibit 25). A final response was provided from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated September 17, 2012 (Exhibit 26). The information provided below is based upon the updated mitigation and monitoring plan provided after secondary review had been completed by Otak. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit) FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Wetland Fill and Creation: ,nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, £CF, PPUD Page 9 of 23 If wetland changes are proposed for a non-exempt activity, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order and provide reasons why a less intrusive method of development is not feasible. In determining whether to grant permit approval, the Reviewing Official shall make a determination as to whether the feasibility of less intrusive methods of development have been adequately evaluated and that less intrusive methods of development are not feasible. Sewall Wetland Consulting addressed the following criteria in their April 10, 2012 letter to the City with the following justifications. a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; Sewall Wetland Consulting states that due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 1081h Ave SE the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to Wetland F. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct half street improvements along SE 172nd Street the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to Wetland E. Wetland Dis located generally in the center of the project and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop the site in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; Sewall Wetland Consulting states that the developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building location to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to construct. The proposal has minimized impacts by avoiding Wetland A, B, and C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetland on the site and preserving these wetlands would be the priority. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and Sewall Wetland Consulting has indicated that all areas where temporary impacts are proposed would be restored. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the Jo/lowing methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those Jost The applicant has proposed to complete wetland creation to mitigate for the loss of wetlands by filling. Renton Municipal Code (RMC) permits filling of wetlands if the following is met: 1) A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; and 2) The proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located. RMC establishes the following criteria when completing wetland creation: ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community . ,nomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 10 of 23 a. Creation or Restoration Proposals: Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions. The applicant has proposed to complete wetland creation on the subject site meeting the first priority for creation location criteria established above. b. Compliance with Goals: Applicants proposing to restore or create wetlands shall identify how the restoration or creation plan conforms to the purposes and requirements of this Section and established regional goals of no net lass of wetlands. The following table is included in the Sewall Wetland Consulting March 16, 2012 letter, addressing Functional Comparison of impacted wetland and proposed mitigation based on the WADOE wetland rating system: Wetland Area Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat Category** Storage Richness . Qua!. Function Function I capacity function Wetland D 7,671 SF 3,800 cu. ft. 5 species 12pts 8 pts 13pts 3 Wetland E 68 SF 34 cu. ft. 2 species llpts 4pts lOpts 4 Wetland F 1,491 SF 500 cu. ft. 5 species lOpts 8pts llpts 4 Proposed 25,508 SF 7,600 cu. ft. 15 species 24pts 20pts 21pts 2 Functional +16,178 +3,266 cu. +8 +12pts +9pts avg +l lift SF ft. species* avg Category *only 7 different species were found in Wetland D, E & F. **The categories utilized in this table are not the City of Renton categorizations but the WADOE categories. As an approximate comparison DOE 3 = City of Renton 2, DOE 4 = City of Renton 3 and DOE 2 = City of Renton high functioning 2 or low functioning 1. The response letter concludes that the newly created wetland would connect to existing Wetland A and C and provide enough lift that the new wetland would now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the WADOE rating system. The report indicates that this would be a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value WADOE Category 3 and 4 filled wetlands. c. Category: Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Rent"On Department of Communit} FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 anomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 11 of 23 As shown above the new wetland would be a WADOE Category 2 wetland, which is higher than the exiting City of Renton Category 2 wetland. A WDFW Western Washington Wetland Rating Form for the created wetland has been provided, qualifying the WADOE Category 2 (Exhibit 17). Pursuant to Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., response memo dated September 17, 2012, some of the functions that would increase would be the split rail fence providing protection to the wetland and buffer area preventing the current type of human intrusion from occurring, trash and debris within the area would be removed, and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry would be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the specious richness within the plat community. Furthermore, the creation plan includes the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. e. Acreage Replacement Ratio: The ratios listed below apply ta all Category 1, 2, or 3 wetlands for restoration or creation which is in-kind, on-or off-site, timed prior to alteration, and hos a high probability of success. The required ratio must be based on the wetland category and type that require replacement. Ratios are determined by the probability of recreating successfully the wetland and the inability of guarantees of functionality, longevity, and duplication of type and/or functions. RMC RA T/05 FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTO RAT/ON: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. The following table is provided in both the Critical Areas Report and the April 10, 2012 response letter from Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Requlred Type Wetland Creation Wetland D 7,671 SF 2 Forested 3:1 23,013 SF Wetland E 68 SF 3 Scrub-shrub 1.5:1 102 SF ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit: ;nomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD FIELDBROOK COMMONS . .• Report of January 7, 2013 Page 12 of 23 Wetland F 1,595 SF 3 Scrub-shrub 1.5:1 2,393 SF Total 9,334 SF 25,508 SF As shown above the wetland creation would meet the creation ratios established by RMC and would result in a functional lift to a WADOE Category 2 wetland. There would be no loss of function and value as determined by the provided reports and letters. Despite these conclusions, Otak, the Department of Ecology and the Tribes provided comments expressing concerns about the wetland creation being located in an existing established forested buffer of a Category 2 wetland. In Otak's June 13, 2012 memo they indicated that no assessment of wetland buffer functions and values was provided. In an e-mail comment received from DOE stated that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas, which the Muckleshoot Tribes concurred with in their e-mail comment (Exhibits 14 and 15). Following receipt of the above comments a follow up e-mail from DOE was received concurring with a conversation summary from Ed Sewall, the applicant's Wetland Biologist, stating that DOE was less concerned about the project once they had a chance to go through the report in more detail. Following this e-mail another e-mail was received from DOE which further explains their position on the proposed mitigation proposal and explains that it's no longer a concern by DOE (Exhibit 16). An analysis of the buffer functions and values was provided in the response letter from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated September 17, 2012. Ed Sewall's analysis concludes that the wetland creation area would require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland, which would shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetland A and C into the buffer as the edge of the buffer area is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to create the new wetland. The new expanded buffer would be of similar forested character as the existing buffer, and therefore provide similar benefits to the new and existing wetlands that the existing buffer provides today. However, the portions of the buffer that will be graded and be replanted would result in a temporary reduction in buffer functions over a period of ten or more years, the time it will take for the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately twenty feet or more. The provided mitigation planting plan identifies replacement tree plantings. However, these trees are identified to be a 2 gallon size plant. In order for the forested buffer to establish faster and provide the equivalent functions and values as exist under the current condition staff recommends a mitigation measure that all trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees and that a final planting plan be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. Additionally, due to the need for an updated mitigation and monitoring plan to comply with the recommendations included in the Otak memorandum, new hydrologic data that may result in changes, and the requirement for a final mitigation and monitoring plan, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Deportment of Communit: FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Jnomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 13 of 23 Finally, the provided Critical Areas Report and the Otak memorandum dated February 29, 2012 indicated that all fills of Waters of the United States and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands for the subject project. The Otak memorandum recommends that documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW be provided to the City. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. letter dated March 16, 2011, addressed Otak's comments by stating that when the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, they can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to WADOE for 410 Water Quality Certification. Based on the above recommendation/comments staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant provides the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the fill of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. Wetland Buffer Averaging: In addition to filling three wetlands on site, the applicant has proposed buffer averaging along the western edge of Wetland Band Wetland A. The buffer averaging is proposed to provide space for the drive aisle behind proposed buildings Land Kand to provide additional surface parking along this drive aisle. Overall 2,13S square feet of buffer would be averaged and 4,153 square feet of buffer addition is proposed along the western edge of the re-created wetland and a small 131 square foot area along Wetland B. Pursuant to RMC buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and iv. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25'} wide. Sewall Wetland Consultant's letter dated April 10, 2012 has concluded that the averaging would not impact the functions or character of these wetlands, the area where averaging is proposed has sufficient dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect them, and finally the proposed averaged buffer widths would be reduced to 28.5 feet and 34 feet both of which are greater than 50 percent of the standard SO-foot buffer. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan in relation to the buffer averaging request and believes that the amount of buffer averaging needed for the project could be minimized by relocating a small number of parking stalls. If the southernmost parking stall located in the buffer of Wetland A would be shifted north the amount of buffer averaging and temporary construction impacts would be reduced to Wetland A's buffer. In addition four parking stalls are located in the buffer of Wetland B resulting in the required buffer averaging and related temporary construction impacts. It appears based on the provided site plan that these stalls could be re-located out of the buffer and still be within the vicinity of Building K. Furthermore, if these modifications to the site plan were accomplished a minimum of three trees (Trees 2339, 2400, and 2086) could be retained in the existing quality ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit, FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 .Jnomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 14 of 23 buffers of these two wetlands. In order to reduce the impacts on these two wetlands staff recommends that the buffer averaging only be approved for the necessary drive aisles and not for parking stalls. This would reduce the impact on the wetlands, mature trees, and the buffer. Furthermore, due to the high quality buffers located in the area around both Wetland Band A, buffer enhancement would not be required. Staff recommends approval of buffer averaging proposal with the above recommended modifications to the site plan. Wetland Trail: The applicant has proposed to provide a trail through the wetland buffer of Wetland B, and the buffer of the re-created wetland. Overall the trail would impact 1,680 square feet of buffer area and would be 4-feet wide. RMC permits trails and walkways in wetland buffers provided they are located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer and that the trail is constructed of permeable materials. Based on the Otak memorandum dated June 13, 2012 the trail location is not within the outer 25 percent of the buffer, therefore Otak recommends that trail be re-aligned to be located in the outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer area. In the September 17, 2012 Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc., response letter he identifies that in order to create a trail that would allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site the applicant would need to go closer to the critical area than the 25 percent code allowance. The applicant has proposed to place the trail in the outer 25 percent of the buffers for the majority of Wetland B with the exception of a small section near the end of the trail. Furthermore, the applicant has identified that the trail would be placed over the new stormwater line to reduce construction impacts to the overall critical area. Based on the provided site plan, excluding the new created wetland, it appears possible to provide a trail either outside of the buffer area altogether and/or within the outer 25 percent of the buffers of both Wetland Band C with the exception of a small portion located near the end of the trail. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, and in the outer most extent of the existing buffers on the subject site. Following modification to the trail to meet the above standards, it appears the trail would be in compliance with the Critical Areas exemption criteria for a trail in a wetland buffer. Additionally, no information was provided as to the proposed construction material for the trail, as such the proposed trail would be required to be re-designed to be in compliance RMC standards. Lastly, RMC requires that the buffer area along the trail be enhanced adjacent to the trail, however if enhancement is not feasible do to high quality vegetation, additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. The applicant has proposed to provide 4,284 square feet of buffer addition for the overall project. After buffer averaging there is an additional 2,149 square feet of buffer addition. If this area is attributed to trail impacts the total area of impact (1,680 SF) would be balanced by the buffer addition proposed. As such, staff recommends approval of the wetland trail, pursuant to re-design and approval of surface materials. Temporary Wetland Impacts: As a part of the project's construction temporary wetland impacts are anticipated. These impacts would result in 3,393 square feet of impacted area. The primary impact is a result from installation of a stromwater outfall. Temporary construction impacts are identified to be restored and re- planted. A mitigation planning plan was provided with the application, which identifies the areas ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of CommunitJ FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Jnomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUAU-001, £CF, PPUD Page 15 of 23 of temporary impact to be replanted with buffer enhancement plantings such as vine maple, Douglas Fir, Hazelnut, Indian Plum, etc., all to be 2 gallon size plants. As mentioned above under "Buffer Averaging" staff has recommended a reduced amount of buffer averaging, which should also reduce the amount of temporary construction impacts to the wetland buffers of Wetlands A and B. Furthermore, as shown on the Tree Inventory Plan three trees are proposed to be removed from the areas of temporary impact from these buffers. Tree removal results in a more significant impact to a wetland buffer than typical temporary construction impacts. This is due to the long duration of time needed to establish new trees to mitigate for the temporary impact, specifically when compared to shrubs and ground cover plants. Therefore staff does not support the removal of trees in the buffer of Wetlands A and B and recommends a mitigation measure that temporary construction impacts do not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2085, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2185. Stormwater Outfall: New surface water discharges to wetlands or buffers surface water management structures is an exempt activity in the critical area; provided, the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm and Surface Water Drainage Regulations (RMC 4-5-030); will not result in significant adverse changes in the water temperature or chemical characteristics of the wetland or stream/lake water sources; and there is no increase in the existing rate of flow unless it can be demonstrated that the change in hydrologic regime would result in equal or improved wetland or stream/lake functions and values. The provided stormwater report has indicated the proposed discarded is consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as such the discharge would be in compliance with the regulations located in RMC 4-5-030. Furthermore, Ed Sewall had indicated in his September 17, 2012 memorandum that the stormwater outfall would release water from the same drainage basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site and that no change in hydrology or character of Wetland Bis anticipated as a result of the stormwater outfall. Based on the provided information staff recommends approval of the stormwater outfall provided the temporary construction impacts are mitigated and existing protected trees are avoided to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 2. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the fill of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 3. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 4. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plant shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Deportment of Communit) FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 anomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 16 of 23 5. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 6. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outer most extent of the existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., dated November 13, 2012. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious services for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces. The TIR evaluated the existing site conditions as it relates to stormwater runoff. Based on this evaluation the pre-developed site is contained within two Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs), TDA West and TDA East (Exhibit 18). TDA West has three Natural Discharge Areas (NDAs), NDA 1, NDA 2 and NDA 3. TDA East has two Natural Discharge Areas, NDA 1 and NDA 2. Runoff is discharged as follows: TDA West: NDA 1: discharges at the site's southwestern property corner and heads south through the conveyance system in 108'h Avenue SE. Eventually crossing 108'h in a westerly direction into a stream through the Springbrook Project. NDA 2: discharges at the Site's southern property line and heads south through the conveyance system in 109th Place SE. It eventually is collected in the conveyance system within Benson Drive Sand converges with the path of NDA 1. NDA 3: sheet flows to the east across the southeastern property corner of parcel A. It sheet flows across adjacent developed properties and into SE 173rd Street before converging with the downstream path of NDA 2. TDA East: NDA 1: sheet flows to the east and exists the site near the northeast corner as sheet flow. The runoff is eventually collected in Soos Creek. NDA 2: sheet flows to the east and exists the site near the southeast property corner of parcel A. It reaches a closed depression and overflows to the east where it converges with the downstream path of NDA 1. Section II of the TIR reviewed the Renton Amendments to the King County Service Waster Design Manual (KCSWDM). Pursuant to the TIR the project is located in a Conservation Flow Control Area and will therefore adhere to Level 2 Flow Control Standards, forested conditions. The applicant has proposed two wet vault facilities located in the western and eastern portions of the site. The project is also located in the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment area. The applicant has proposed to follow each vault by a media filtration system to accommodate the Enhance Water Quality Treatment standards. Additionally, the proposed conveyance system was analyzed using the KCBW ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communi~ FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 .momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Page 17 of 23 program, and has been shown to be capable of conveying the 100-year peak storm without overtopping any structures or channels. D.R. Strong completed a downstream analysis and identified the downstream area to be located in the Black River Drainage Basin; more specifically the Panther Creek Subbasin. The TIR provided a review of documented drainage complains within one mile of the downstream flow paths. This review documented several complaints within the past ten years. Many of which were found to be water quality audits, which are not pertinent to the subject analysis. However, the TIR's analysis of the remainder of the complaints revealed that no mitigation would be required by the proposed project. As all the complaints were found to be maintenance issues and should be resolved by either City Maintenance (public systems) or the respective property owners (private system). Lastly, the provided TIR states that standard sediment and erosion control methods would be utilized, which would include the use of stabilized construction entrance, perimeter silt fencing, and other necessary measures to minimize soil erosion during construction. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: The site is currently forested with the exception of the portion of the site which was historically the location of a Renton fire station. The upland portion of the site is vegetated with a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, bitter cherry and Douglas fir. Understory species include Indian plum, hazelnut, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, vine maple and creeping blackberry. The applicant provided a Significant Tree Inspection Report, completed by Greenforest Incorporated, dated September 8, 2011. The arborist visited the site July 11 and 12, 2011 and again September 6, 2011 to perform field inspections and identify which surveyed trees are dead, diseased or dangerous for the purposes of calculating tree retention requirements. Based on the provided Tree Inventory 786 trees are located on the subject site, of which 275 are located in critical areas and buffers and 227 were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous. This results in the exclusion of 502 trees from retention calculations. As such, 284 trees are utilized to calculate retention requirements of 10 percent of the significant trees located on the site. Ten percent of 284 is 28.4 trees required to be retained. The applicant has indicated on the tree retention worksheet that 31 trees would be retained which would exceed the minimum requirement of 28.4 trees required by code. Additionally, it should be noted that the applicant has requested a modification through their PUD application to remove trees from the wetland buffers, specifically the three wetlands that are proposed to be filled, in addition to trees located in the buffer of wetland A, Band C due to stormwater line construction and wetland creations. Forty four trees are proposed to be removed for wetland creation and four trees are proposed to be removed for the stormwater line construction. As discussed above under subsection "2.a. Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes" the removal of these trees are necessary to create the new higher quality wetland. However, it was further mentioned that the new expanded buffer would be of similar forested character as the existing buffer, and therefore provide similar benefits to the new and existing wetlands that existing buffer provides today. In order for the "new" buffer to maintain these functions and benefits the mature trees need to be retained. The removal of trees for the construction of the ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit} FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 =momic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, £CF, PPUD Page 18 of 23 stormwater line further degrades the "new" buffer of the created wetland. A few additional trees are identified for removal in the "new" buffer for unknown reasons, these trees included 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193. In order to retain as many of the trees as possible in the "new" buffer staff recommends a mitigation measure that the stormwater line be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation and that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. It is unclear if these trees were included in the calculations for tree retention based on the provided materials. With the application the applicant provided a Landscape Plan which identifies a significant amount of new landscape proposed at the subject site as a part of the proposed development. The planting plan shows a variety of new trees including deciduous and evergreen trees. The applicant contends that the new trees would provide a healthier stand of trees for years to come while being strategically located to create screening buffers and architectural interest. Public comments were received which identified concerns about tree retention at the subject site. As proposed the retention standards have been met per code and additional trees are proposed to be planted throughout the site. Once the new trees have time to mature the overall site would contain a quality tree canopy for a developed multi-family site. Mitigation Measures: The stormwater line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation and that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new storm water discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUD Approval. Nexus: SEPA, Critical Areas Regulations 4. Wildlife Impacts: Under current conditions the majority of the subject site is forested. Historically parcel C was the location of a Renton fire station. However the fire station has been removed from the site. With the application the applicant submitted a Habitat Study, prepared by Sewall Wetland consulting Inc., dated December 14, 2011. This study identified that no state or federally listed species were identified or known at use on the site and/or are located on or near the site. Pursuant to the provided report there is no "critical habitat" as defined by Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. The above conclusions may be true, however the site still provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed species. Noted in the projects SEPA check list songbirds, crows, small rodents and raccoons utilize the site. In addition, public comments were revived addressing concerns about the loss of habitat for deer and coyotes in addition to the previously mentioned raccoons. The removal of a large portion of the trees and filling of three wetlands would impacts that habitat for common local wildlife. However, a portion of the site would remain in a vegetative state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. As such, it is not anticipated that the subject development would result in an adverse impact to wildlife. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 5. Transportation Jnomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 19 of 23 Impacts: The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Parking is provided both in provided garages and as surface parking along the internal circulation system. With the application the applicant submitted a Limited Scope Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Study), prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated November 14, 2011. The study was originally completed for a 161 unit proposal however the applicant increased the number of units after the study was completed, therefore an additional letter was submitted by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated November 30, 2011 addressing the increase in units from 161 to 163. However, the applicant is proposing to develop 162 units, which is covered in the two documents submitted with the application. The traffic study analyzed the intersections at 1081h Avenue SE and SE 172"d Street and Benson Dr. Sand 1081h Way SE. The study used an anticipated horizon year for the subject development of 2013. 1081h Avenue SE/SE 172"d Street is a stop sign controlled intersection and Benson Dr. S/1081 h Way SE is a signalized intersection. The provided study evaluated the new trips attributed to the development as well as conducted a Level of Services (LOS) analysis. Based on the trip generation for a 163 unit apartment development the Traffic Study concludes that 1,084 new average weekday daily trips would be attributed to the project, 83 at AM Peak Hour and 101 at PM Peak Hour. The trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including residents, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. The Traffic Study included an analysis for LOS, which is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of Service are given letter designations from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and Bare high, LOS C and Dare moderate and LOSE and Fare low. The Traffic Study calculated LOS using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity manual 2000. The traffic study concludes the intersections would operate at LOS Cat the 1081 h Avenue SE/SE 172"d Street intersection and LOS Bat the Benson Dr. S/108'h Way SE intersection, therefore meeting the City of Renton intersection standards of LOS D or better. Overall the provided Traffic Study recommends the applicant construct the frontage improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk along 172"d Street SE to City of Renton Standards and contribute to the Transportation Mitigation fee required by the City to mitigate for traffic related project impacts. As such, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendation included in the Traffic Study. Many public comments were received expressing concerns in regards to traffic impacts related to the development of the subject project. Particular interest was related to the intersection of SE 172"d St. and 1081h Way SE. As mentioned above the provided traffic study has indicated that the post development condition of this intersection would operate at a LOS C which is consistent with City of Renton LOS standards. Concerns also were brought up about the Benson Dr. S/1081 h Way SE intersection. As with the previous intersection, the traffic study has concluded that this intersection would provide a LOS B, which is considered to be a high functioning intersection. However, the last intersection that was of concern was Carr Road and SR-167. This intersection ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Communit) F/ElDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Jnomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WA12-001, ECF, PPUO Page 20 of 23 was not addressed in the provided traffic study. However, an expanded traffic study was not required because the City has enough information that an expanded traffic study would not have provided new information to the City. Additionally, it should be noted that the City understands the traffic challenges in this area and has a funded traffic improvement project planned for construction in 2014. Mitigation Measures: No Further Mitigation Required Nexus: N/A 6. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Mitigation Measures: No Further Mitigation Required. Nexus:N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or" Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: l. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community " ~conomic Development FIELDBRDOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-001, £CF, PPUD Page 21 of 23 appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Wetland Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (SO') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING - Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Plan Review -Water: 1. The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the water for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. 2. Per the city of Renton Fire Marshal the fire flow is 2750 GPM; a minimum of 3 fire hydrants are required. The project will be required to install associated fire hydrants, an approved fire sprinkler system, FDC and backflow device in order to serve this project with adequate fire flow. Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. 3. Per City of Renton code the lateral spacing of fire hydrants shall be predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. 4. The number and location of new fire hydrants as required by Renton Fire Department shall be determined based on the final site plan and fire flow demand. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer: The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the sanitary sewer for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. Plan Review -Stormwater: 1. The project is required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE ERC Report12-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community"' ~conomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12·001, ECF, PPUD Report of January 7, 2013 Page 22 of 23 was submitted with the formal application and per the report the project is complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The report submitted states that the project will adhere to the flow control -forested conditions. 2. The conceptual utility plan submitted is showing a vault and a pond. The storm drainage needs to be consistent with any other wetlands plans in regard to location and number of vaults and ponds. 3. Plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of a construction permit following land use process. 4. The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.40S per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Plan Review -Street Improvements: l. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. Note: the applicant has requested a modification to the required street improvements. This modification will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for a determination. 2. Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108th Ave SE will be required. The right of way dedication on SE 172nd St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is at the back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. 3. This project needs to extend SE 172nd St to the east property line of the parcel being developed. SE 172nd St will be a dedicated public right of way prior to issuance of a construction permit. 4. The cul-de-sac needs to show a 45' pavement section. 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. These fees are calculated as $80,797.50 based on the proposal. 6. Street lighting shall be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The lighting on SE 172nd St shall be decorative with black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. Plan Review-General: l. All required utility; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. A Fire Impact Fee shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow calculation for the project is 2,750 gpm. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculations and final access road configuration. A water ERC Reportll-001.doc City of Renton Department of Community ~ -conomic Development F/ELDBROOK COMMONS Report of January 7, 2013 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Page 23 of 23 availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 3. Approved fire sprinkler 9per NFPA 13} and fire alarm systems are required though out all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Required turning radius are 25- feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-feet dead end. Landscape islands are not allowed in cul-de-sacs. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. Property Services: 1. There are minor errors and inconsistencies in the Project Narrative. 2. The PUD plans use a six pointed star but this is not located in the legend. It is likely the area of wetland creation but it isn't plain. The wetland mitigation plan may spell this out but the wetland information contained on the PUD plan sheets is sparse. £RC Reportll-001.doc 0.. <( :;; a 0 0 ::c 0:: 0 00 ::c Cl iii z 9 ---------------3S;,A/"J/J9Df "' u l 0 ~~--l __ .:J ~ 1::1s,,,,,,-,/laor--- C ,,,,.., ,<}-. 1i 0 ~ I f • ~ .... t::; i::o M ::c >< w Parcel Identification Map Notes None 203 0 1: 2,432 0 101 NAC _ 198 3 _HARN_ StatePlane_ VVash1ngton_ North_FIPS_ 4601 203 Feet [cityorReirlonf) Finance & IT DiVlsion Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries Cther [J Ci'.y of Rento1 Addresses [J Parcels Overlay Districts O Aut::iMallA 1··-··1 Autci Mall I:' D EnployMent Area Valley ;-i C:ty Ce~ter S1;:n Rr:gula'. or, Area Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa gov 12/26/2012 N I- I-I al 1-1 J: X w Th:s map 1s a us~r gene-~ted sta1,,: ~-utput fro111 an 111:err,e: mapp ng site 2nd 1s for refe·e1ce on y ~!al2 layers \ha: appear an tf·,is 17\~P ·n.iy Qr ma\' noi be accurcJte. cuTent. O'Olhww:se ·e18b!e THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR KAVIGATION l • i ' ' ' ' ' ' • ' ' l ' !i !' ,)i + I> ' 'I ' • f l, i ! ' ' ' ' .. • • . ! I ' i I r """I lhdJ ' ,CTi,,J ~) ."' Ii ~ iG ' ·g~ ! ~of " ~ ' Ll:J 'ilM.NOJJ6".tj 3S 3ml3/\Y H.UO< Ol'CH B3H<"'-'= and AHVNIWl13Hd SNOll'IIWO:) >100~80131.:J ---r.... ~ ' ' _,,\_:',; --,:,{=~= 1:1 '' Ii I--·- '' ,,, _..Jt'-- ' ----'--- 1'"11-NS(~ IM 'ONY"l~ 1:13~ !;Cl __ .SH3li1S H.l.K3S~.!.9& ::nl 'S-SNIOlOH MNd ,-,,;. ~=«.,i·u """""' -,.,._,. .. ....,, - ! ~, ~ ~~ ~ !' d :1 F ' .-g~ ~ ;S ·'f' q1. -;J_ i .. e ~~~ii ~ f~ :I t~-'l!!i' ~ !" ~ ' ~ ! :~ ;;; a2. l ·, <!-~ i! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ' • i • (f) '~ .. -1, ,, ., ,, 0 ~~ ~ ii ,. 1.·_) > ~i C! ./: u• F, ~~ :~ !! •! ., ~; j!~ .. !!i '!' !..,~ !ti i;5 .,. i!l ,, j•I ~;~ "1 , . . , > 0 = " • 111:1" I- 1-1 ca 1-1 ::c >< w ¥M 'NO.l.lGoi 3S 3i1'°''3.'1¥HlllC> Ol'OH and A~YNtwn;rud SNOW .... O:::> )100HS0131~ ~wvwl~ .M 'ON'flil li38l:i3l'I !,O __ OS.l.3.:!l:I.J.SKJ..toi:3SS/.96 ::n, ·s~NJalOH MNd ..., ...,,....,._"""'"""~'" .... ~~ ~ l r.n 1- 1-t ca .... :::c >< w YM 'N0.1.N3W ;;.: 3ntGt.Y H.L,cn Ol>Oll 1Vd.U{:0 'N'l'l<I S:3W1W1 03211Vl:13~ and AliVN/WfU}Jd SNOWWO:J >1001Hil01~ '· ' --I 1·-. i,,11--m!lod M 'QNV1SI 11;;:J\laM .0 l.33'1:!!S Kil'£ 3~ H~ ::rn ·s~NlOlOH MNd >.i~iic«~<·.: '"""""°"""""""""°"''on, \fM •NOlJ'Glil as 3nNY.'I' fillOI MOL\ .LS\f:i '"""'1ol S3LlillJJ1 G3Zl"1Yli3N'3~ and .AHVNIWn2Cfd SNOWWO::> )l00HS0131;1 -•a::_·. ,(kWS-!!lOit M. 'Ol'NlS: l::B:)1::131'1 !;CH l33WS H.1.91: 3S Sl95 OTl ·s~NIOlOH MNd ... ~ : . ,., .. ' ~ l '-'--="~''" ,.,~ """"""'""-LL•"""""" ""~' ' ' ! I ' ' - ~z~ r~;:; L.1, t :i CJ: fi!'_ -c_~ ,- }:;i '~ - ,---;---'--___.:_'.:..:::_:__.------,-.-.-.-.-. -. ~ ~ '-:--_._. -_:_ _:_ _:_ ~-· 0 :::) a.. >-::i 0::: ". <( wz "-' . tJ2 z_ •.! ~_, ·1 ... ·-' ·- zW ;j 0::: a. a.. 'c u, Cf) ~z :o :2 ~2 ~o .;0 " :;;~ "'.O :to 3' 0::: z(O 0 \.: _, w LL .. ·:-...._. ·. . ·- -·. ·_: .. -· . ....._:- •, ' •. ". . . ·-..• -;_f .. i." . ' ~ • .,:.... . ----_""'.'\~;~ ::-.-:-~~~-!- -_..:_ .. ·.:.,· . . . . . . . 1·. ·.•......,:_ J. ,_.... ,· . ' <t .. 'I.' ... : ... l,: ,-. . I I • I I I' I,, '·:;: : _.:, I .. ,·, I ·1 . I. 1 . . I ·1 ... ) 1:, . . .1. ·.:; I :(• l i l ~ ' j ~ ' " ' ~ ~ ' ' f=}} ~:'}j -::-::-;:;::-·- ({_ .)': iJ;J: 'r/M 'NO.l.Nnl 3S 3ml3'1V f.Utcll. Ottlll fi..L!lOS 'NY1d Sa!llllWl CB2!1'0'h'3N3cl and ,U:fYN1wn:rad SNOWWOO }IQ01:f80131:::I ·a-ws(!IO<:J 1,' DNYlS:I M30cl3~ SO .l..ilnilS fUK 31i 'il96 :::n1 'StJNJa10H MNd ! j • 11 J ·[[]• 0 •• I I '\ ", ,:;· .. _ ' •" . . ' • !! ll !l •Q:i\:~ "" 1·-: I,_,; •·. I ' ~ I '""'"""'""' ,.~.-., ,,.,...,,.:><!DSO...m.:>< "'in' l I ! ., > ~ t ) ' . -z-! 1 ., . r, 1: I • • VM '/i0.l.N3'1:a1 3S ;lf1tel'IV H.1.tCH 01-0L! .l.S3M 'N'"r"l,j DNKJVblD 1¥ru.d3.Jfl00 and AUVNrwn3~d SNOWWO:l )(00cfSQ131.:I "" ·1-1-w,(~ M'<l~.t3.:.1!i3l'i .83\ilS KUK: '15 !.l96 011 'S~NIO,DH MNd If.' ID 1- 1-t m 1-t ::c >< w 'JM'"'8.LNS1::i 3S 31l1i3/\'o' Hl1'01. Clt'OH l'f".:!.!.N38 'NV"ld SINICM,m 'Nflid3:JN08 and )JNNIWl13bld SNOWWOO >tOO~BO,~H • i -w.; (9(rj 'Ot«lSI 1!3~31'1 SO: :ilJrlS .!3311..LS 1-U91: 3S ;.(96 011 'S:~NIOlOH MNd i I YM'NO.llal:,' 3S 3ml31\¥ H.llO( oYOL( .l.SV3'N'1'"1.1$NIIJ¥lr.)1¥fUof3:>NOO and AHYNtwll:Illd SNOWWO::> >400l:!SQ131;1 ~~-"(:,\_ ::-.. _. . . ; . .""-.'.· . . . , '- ·-. tl>-ttS(g()i!:) lM 'Gh'YlS:f '113:>'IBl'I SO 133.U.S HJ.9-C 3S SL% 311 'S~NlcrlOH MNd a I ~ ~ r !ill ~ < r r_ •. --.,._. /~---- .<;-:-.:. ·: ! ' ' ! I I l D ~ """""'="'""" ".=-,,,...,,~11Tn:L )' ' ' ' ' -z~,. ' ' 5 : . .£1:· -: {'' •,, 'i/M'NO.l.tffl, ;JS 3/'lNo<,W H.llOl OKU l H.lflOS 'N'f1cl DNIOVli!l1'1'fl.L:13::>00::J and AHVN!Wn3Hd SNOWWO:J )IOQHBOl:il,:j ,afl!;(SICZ) 1·al\'Y1S1 <l3:J!.13l'j !;Cl( , J.3:nt.J.S ~ 3~ !.'L!/6 :Jl, 'S~NIOlOH MNd ! c-, I I I I """""°'""''m'II """""'"""""""""'11QS"n,:' . .. ?~ ,=-:=J qr: n ~ l ' ) ' , --z-~,,: i~ : ,. / I I VM'NO.l.N31a' 3s: 3f"IN3AY HJ.IOI OKI.LI lS3M 'NY1,;l 10\ilNO:l 3'D'l'Nl'lb'IJ and AWNIWn3Nd SNOWWOO >IOOll.SQl31:l 0 :::> 0.. >- "' 0:::: "'.<( wz "'- ~l!~i9"(!1Cil} 'M ·m«1s1 b'3::i1;3v~ sa, __ ,SL:,""3b'.UlH.J.9£3SSL95 on ·s~NIOlOH MNd ~ ~ 0 ' ,...,......,_,.,,~ .. r.:1< t:5 -i ~ : -/------. . = : ~ " I::; £Q .... ::c >< LU YM 'NCllN:Jlo 3,: 3nN3/IY H.HIQ;. OtoH 1"l,'l)G;) '1'«1,/ lOlillNO;) ~'t'NMoO and A~1wn:rad SNOi'i:WDO )100}:ISCT13l:I -·· LL !flS(~ ''ONV1SI H3:rii31'l \.ll f J3illil.S 1-lJ.!X'. 3S 5l96 011 'S9NJO,OH MNd "" l(M 'NoL',3li 3S 3'"11<'3:\\f H.HIO\ o;QH .tSV3 'f,'Y1,:i lOG'.LNO:l 3~M:la and AWNIWn~d SNOWWO:::> }t00~130"l31.::I t, -. / .•. ' '· . ' .......... 'l'ffl (!IOt) J.'at«")5:I~ !:GI ~H.1.9t3SS!95 :>TI 'stlN1010H MNd • --.. rl • •. ".\.-. ·i-, . -·- /.\ -~-''1Jf, --- -.\~ i": l, ,,. ,'. ·-..(•,. ·,· .,·~ . ~, ,: - ' . , """"""'"~ "~'" .,.,,,.,.i,, :HCTll'C:N<DIC5 U'E"'<\ ' --3NnHO.J.'t'l'i VM't+:J.ltad 3$ 3fHH,WH.111Cll [IK)J:\ 1-{ll)a.;: '/Nld lOWJKl:J ,l!)'r't,ll'l"aQ and AMYNJl'lln31::ld SNOW WO:) )100'HBCT1:ild .'l'l-t--H<;(!aOZ:) ,M'Oh'l'1SIV3:::iw3N Sl33'tl.lS~'1S~l96 :JTI 'S~NICilOH MNd '·"""··-- . ·-· ...........:= ""''"" _.._~"''''" ·-..... C le, D ! ~1 C'L "-··c• '}· --z--J, i 5,;, - ' ' i Note: Base map provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC WET/AND DELINEATION MAP JOB# 11-121 DATE: s, DRAWNBY: ES SCALE: fn=100' REVISED· DESIGNER:....!§____ EXHIBIT 8 i('; .. ·, J" ·'> v,,y o,· '~'o,--·-o t ·~-.... -n f.Jhr1n,,7~ o· .. ·c.. -· 8 iv,,_, '"J______ .JAN ·-s :·u1;: r°7.!';;=:~~~.,..:ii"" :;."'.f$',$.-i,?'"-2-...}-:,·\'f[...,.,~ ! l ~. ·--~~ ;'. LJ I NV"ld DN!lIV<!D ~ lVD!l.Il'i'1Yfll&!:JNO::> ~,1,1111 .. 1 _______ v ::>Tl 'SDN1G'10H M.Nd _J , . "i ____ _ ;g sNol'ffilo::> )!Oo11amau , i;;. e s~ W-d~ _ ~d~~iils" ----m ' ~ . 8 ~ -. • ! i I I • • • • ! ! 11 11 -- fj d ij ~; h u h H • • ~ . ® e 88 IN1d DNll! NOlLVDllil\! 1YNB =:£ 'SDNICTIOH MNd SNOWWO::J XOOlHIU'IBli! ~--.~.-. ~-1 u-·---,- _N /10 ~! ------ I ! I I ! • • • • ' 11 11 -' ! 11 11 -- lt d fl d Jt u u d I, § • • • • 0 @ • • 0 I ! I • • • 11 11 ! -- lf I { H h u • • , 8 @ G I l I l l l " " " 0 0 0 !!,: ~ " 11 l J i I I I i ~ ~ ! ..... • i;j ,,-I., I ' 1" I i ' j ' f C • , i ~ 0 .-t t:; ca 1-1 ::c >< w ! • "' • a C .. p .2 7i i~ "° "3 I! u 7i u C) :l .. li tn O• • • • ~5!g ;i~~~--S!~f;g .. :i;:~ e ·"'-!~loe,r: :i!;j ... ,,. ... ,..5 Jfsl f"" C <> ;.:§ ;..!le iH!~t'E ""'··li§f !ii~~~ ,:,..a...: 'l; .!i ~ ;~~ii; 8'8~:§l~ Y.V. ·Iiuno:) 2ue1 'l>Dlu:,~ 1S :,r,uo•1;• ~'--· .o ,p<lJ£ DOW '.Jll ·1:1u1p[OH /ill,;d Ond ,GeUJW!Jdld S'UOWWO) ~OOJqpl;J!:f 1S3M -NV!d 3d\lJSONVI ·wn3lld NOll:>nt:JlSNO:> t:10::1 lON, -M31A3t:I N01N3t:! ::10 All:> : ' -f/1 ~ "'tJ ... CD - 3 -· ::::s SU '< r SU ::::s a. f/) 0 SU "C CD "'O -SU ::::s s: -· a. : , ' ' ' I =Jtff\~\ I !1 \ \ :Qi\ '"-- 1 '- I ........ , .. I ·, /r· ~ C/1 I ;;: \._ I):: fl:-·-.:·: /~ £ '· .::''''=':()~:, . --~--;:;.;.~ 0 -, \ \" \ ' ,_,,,,, '-... "TJ "i!.;-P ---..... i\[li~®>~ \1t3·1 .I "'!"-"""-~---,. \ ~ i ; ,, .ITh... ~' \ , ' \ ,,MATCH LINE _____ ..., _________ _ ' '$ee Sl1e_et L-3 -Q ') • 0 // 'd'l'I', 1c ', ' ''\ ' / / . '-. '/ ~-~-/4,-· -i IC' .i . i u C:::/:::::; ~~ ~· 8-' ~ ' -cc-..: ,,.,:, Z) '·+. CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CJ -- ; ~ ! _N ' E ,, PRELIM. !AND SCAPE Pl.AN -MID. Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdin.9. UC 17100 Bloc• nf I01lth A«noe5[. !<J:olon. l:lng County. WA /' I / " (i) 1 \ •. , ' ' •, ~_Qj 0 i I ; ' , 10i ' ' ~ t : ' 0 0 / ---. \ 1 ' ' \ ( I ~ / 0 YM •,Guno~ Sul)I 'lJOl!t>~ '35' onu:i.,y LJ)l, Ill OOILl :rn •flu1p10H M.."ld Gnd .GeU[W!JJJd SUOWWO) )fOOJqp[;>!::f 1SV3 -NVld 3dVJS0NV1 'J/\II1311d NOl18nt:l1SN08 t:10.::! lON -M31/\3t:I N01N3t:I :IO A.118 -----· 0 0 y ' (-. ' .\ .. ,. ' . \~ /' \' '-; .. -:\. ·'-:-·~-:·"' -.---..J ...,..:1 . 1-++t~-+- /' :;) ( > ,- ,.._ ,. (: c- ••,. C .... , 0:, :'i 0 0 0 0 ; /L-, fi :1 l::'_ ?=:i r:-...:.._-::.; C ' --..::.., ,nJi ( :_[ _ f ( f ! ( j : f ( • ( ( ( ( L f ( • [ ; -L ( ( f ' L ( -L (/) cu ( w ' C: t cu ( -Q;, Q) C. cu u (/) "C C: cu ..J ~ cu C: ·-E Q) I- ll. 't/N.. •,(juno:,iu~~ -UO!"-li ~ ~=i'"lliOI JO"f'.'0111 0011. :m ~iu1p10H MNd and AIEU[W![dld SUOlUWOJ )!OOJqpjJJ;:.( OS -NVld :ldV'.)SONVl ·wn:1110 :,1 ' " .~ N01l.8ntf1SN08 t!O.::J l.ON ~, ~:, -M31/\38 NO.LN38 ~O A.ll:J'. ; .-i.,_/1 ' .c: -:::s 0 Cl) C: (ti -a. Q) C. (ti 0 Ill "C C: (ti ..J ~ (ti C: ·-E ·--E a. • f ( r f • ( r ( L f • • . L ( ' ( f • l ( f ( w ..J ::> C w :i: u If) 1-z :3 Q. i z :E :::; w c:: Q. ·' Ji• -.:I s I l,j b I •i i. i~ 1 .. 1.. '! Mt!! I l ff i l·11'i l'' 11! • -Ii. ·1 J'l 'JH , 1~1 j w! ,i !!,llt : "· :& " 0 1/M "Aiun<>:> 1u1~ ·uo1u~ll i$ ,n=v ~l~(JIJO j>Ojll On!LI :)11 'ri'u1pJOH MNd Ond AfRU!WJJ;)Jd SUOWWOJ ~ooJqpp[_j Sl1Vl30 'S :llnO:lHJS 9NllNVld I ' I I :. ' . - I I I l l -C: ,, c_--:; ~. ' ]j I r '· r VM ·JionOJ ~"!:l ·uni=i:i "3) '""'"V ~l~OI JO ~)OjS OOIJJ )TI •6urp10H MN<l Ond AleUJWJFJJd S"UOI.UWO) )jOOJqpp!.:f .M -NVld ,UIO.LN3J\Nl 331'.1 .Vllll3ild NOI..L8n~l.SN08 ~O.::l l.ON -M31/\3~ NOl.N3~ :JO J..l.18 • --·---1-::-..:-~ / --·--·--~-... ,.:r·---·--·--· "" ,, 'l';1F ! .. - l ' -. ' .... II) a, 3:. C: (IS -D. ~ 0 .... C: a, > C: a, a, ... I- ~ (IS C: ·-E ' ' ' f \ I ( \ ----\ ' J ' ( j I 1-a11aa4s ;) ------_ 3NIJ..H::!.L ------------------~· and ,{IBU!lll![Jld SUOWWOJ ~001qpp1:1 IV\! -NVld All01.N3/\NI 33ll1. "VIII13ll NOI..L8nt:i..LSN08 c!O.::l ..LON M31/\3H NO..LN3cl .:::10 A.118 ; "C ·-::i!: I C: IU -a.. ~ 0 -C: Cl) > C: -Cl) Cl) 5,.., I- ~ IU C: E ·--~ a.. Vt.I '.(i.....oJ 'lcix '001w:,i 1S :mo:ny JO vo:i l)Jli! )11 ·du!PIOH MNd f -- 1.f-., C ! '; ;::-· ':··' C • ( • ( ( [ ( l f ( ; i [ ( f l 1ii ( . ctl L :-;,· w ( • I ' C: ' ctl I a: ( ~ 0 -C: Q) > C: Q) ~ I- ~ ctl C: ·-E ' ' .c .... :I 0 U) Q) ... a. ,-,--- Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: To: Cc: katrinag26@hotmail.com Friday, July 06, 2012 11 :59 AM Laureen M. Nicolay katrinag26@hotmail.com Subject: Zoning Land Use Information Request Public Works/Utility Inquiry Data from form "Zoning and Land Use Information Request" was received on 7/6/2012 11 :59: 17 AM. Zoning and Land Use Information Request Field Sender's Name Sender's Address 1 Sender's Value . .1 Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Address 2 M Sender's City, State, Zip Sender's Phone Sender's Email Question ,-1 I- Renton, WA 98055 . l 2062261993 J katrinag26@hotmail.com --.. --·-- To whom it may concern: My address is 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (Parcel# 863710-0400). PNW Haldings, LLC has filed an application with the City of Renton to build three story townhouses on the property directly behind my house (Parcel#292305-9022). I have several concerns wi~h.this that the City of Renton needs to address: There is more than a foot of standing water on the property_ My yard is soggy in the winter and takes a month or more of nice weather to dry, I am concerned with flooding in tbe area and my house if the ·city allows this project. I was informed by Vanessa Dolbee that there are several category II wetlands on the property that will be filled as part of this project. WAC 173-183-710 Category II wetlands_ The following types of wetl~ds are classed as category II wetlands: Documented habitat recognized by federal and,state agencies for sensitive plant, animal, or fish species; or Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies; or ;wetlands with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or Wetlands with significant habitat valUe; or Documented wetlands of local significance_ Think flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife_ Every natural wetland, from a high mountain bog to · a scummy l_owland pond, serves as a flood control device and water filter_ These places and the plants that evolved there can reduce runoff at the rate of about a million gallons per year. Multiply that by the magnitude of wetland loss that 1 s been tolerated in the Puget Sound region in the past 100 years, and you begin to see why floods have become worse, Puget Sound water quality 1 .... m 1-1 ::c >< w ' ! Sender's !Name ' Value has degraded, and salmon runs have belly-flopped. • What is going to happen to the water?• Category 2 wetlands cannot be replicated, they will be gone forever. Does the city of Renton support this? • Previously this property was under the jurisdiction of King County there signs all along the fences around the property that state "protect our wetlands." Does the city of Renton take the stance that it is ok to demolish and build on our sacred wetlands?• There is also wildlife on that property. What will happen to these animals? Do you have a plan to place them somewhere safe? Or do you just let them get hit by cars?• Traffic-I called the City of Renton and learned that there was a traffic study waiver provided for this project. On the mayors page he states that one of his major concerns is improving traffic in Renton. Why was a traffic study waiver provided? (I called and spoke to Arneta Henniger on 11/2/2011 since she is the person who waived the traffic study, she could not 'tell me why it was waived and sounded very frustrated with me, I asked her if I was frustrating her she responded that it wasn't me it was her workload. As a homeowner, citizen and taxpayer I am concerned that Renton City employees .are not doing their jobs properly because they are overworked. Since, I called ·they decided to they would require a "limited traffic study" she didn't have the time to tell me what that is, please tell me what the difference between a ·limited and full traffic study are? o Building 100, 3 bedroom units on that property is going to increase traffic significantly. I have sat through 4 rounds of stoplights on the corner of 108th and Benson Dr on more than one occasion for ,up to 12 minutes (I timed it), just to go to Fred Meyer to get dinner. What·does the City of Renton plan to do with the traffic on that 'corner as well as Benson Dr. Sand SE? o Driving west on Carr road to get on 167 will back up to 106th Ave at times, not due to accidents but the number of cars on the road. Another apartment complex was just built on the corner of ·Carr road and 106th. Was there a traffic study completed? It can take up to 30 minutes to get down that hill, what does the city plan on doing about that? ·Just continue to build more apartments?• Personally, this is very frustrating as this will further decrease my property value, I have already lost 65K in value and I am scared to see what this will do. I will lose privacy (one of the reasons I bought the house) I will now have three story apartment buildings looking directly into my house. Below is the Mayors statement on the State of the City for 2011, I hate to say you are not living up to your goals . and visions. We rnus·t continue to work together to make sure that our city is I uniquely prepared and effectively protected against fires, floods and any disaster. With the new Census numbers putting us at over 90,000 residents, :Renton is now the 4th largest city in King County and the 9th largest in the state. Our task ahead is very exciting -but also challenging. The buzz word in . government these days is '\green!" And it should be. We are committed to moving .. forward with a 1'green 11 agenda where we lead by example and promote a healthy ·environment.We have made significant progress. Trees provide numerous environmental, social and economic benefits for people, yet urban areas :present challenging environments for trees to grow and survive. We completed the urban forestry plan for Renton to ensure that we manage and protect the :tree canopy in our city. For the second year in a row, we received the Tree- City USA designation and also received our first Tree City USA Growth award. I ,know this is a long letter but please take.the time to read. Thank you, Katrina Garrison Field Brook Apartments Email "Zoning Land Use Information Request" originally sent to lnicolay@rentonwa.gov from katrinag26@hotmail.com on 7/6/2012 11 :59: 17 AM. The following were also sent a copy: katrinag26@hotmail.com. 2 I Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172°d Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055-5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 ~ Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net September 5, 2011 City of Renton Community & Economic Development Attention: City Clerk · Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Surplus Property Fire Station 13 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have some concerns about the disposition of the property referenced, and the forested area adjacent on the east and south sides of that parcel of land. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums on SE 172°d Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land adjacent to where the fire station once stood. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the .area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. A doe, with her fawns frequents the woods each spring, and I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the old Benson Road, waiting for traffic to clear so they can safely cross the road. There are also large communities ofrabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. I would be opposed to someone buying that small parcel of property, and then perhaps expanding their holdings to the adjacent wooded area, building a new housing development and, as a result, driving the wildlife away. I will plan to attend the hearing on September 12, 2011 to listen to the public comments from others in this area. ~w~ Sylva Coppock Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172"' Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055 .. 5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 -Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net July 7, 2012 City of Renton Department of Co=unity & Economic Development Attention: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED-Planning Division Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Construction of 162 Residential Multi-Family Units at 17040 108"' Avenue SE. A Ci1Y OF RENTON ECEIVED JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have concerns about the decision to build 162 apartments to be known as Fieldbrook Commons on the 10.77 acres ofland at the above referenced address. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums just south of SE 17200 Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land north of 172"' and east of 108th. Last week as I exited the driveway from the complex two beautiful deer were grazing in the grass alongside the east/west road. A doe, "'~th her fawns frequents the woods each spring, I see them often in the spring and su=er. And I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the highway, waiting for traffic io clear so they can safely cross the 108th. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. There are also large communities of rabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. Development has crowded out the wildlife to the point where there is no phce for them to go and they are in constant danger of being sttuck by vehicular traffic that speeds much too fast up and down the old Benson Roaci The small island of trees on this property is an aesthetic not to be dismissed as unimportant. There is so little green space left in our crowded cities. Please take into consideration what we are all losing by continuing to build these mega-developments, which are so densely populating the landscape. Another aspect to consider is the traffic nightmare that will result from three more access locations along SE 172Pd Street, which already carries a constant stream of traffic from the 36 units of Kelsey Court Condominiums and from ten single family residential homes in a cul de sac i=ediately east of the condo-complex. Since there is no traffic light at the intersection of 172"' and 108"' there is typically a wait for cars to exit or enter 108"' Avenue SE, especially during the morning and evening commute times_ There have already been several accidents at this intersection over the years. be notified of any community meetings or public hearings scheduled in regard to the project. ,:;Zf.~~aµCl1o~p~.$,;,.,10~8~13~SJ.E_~~~ Renton, WA 98055 (425-235-8076) f!:::!;::::;.o?Jl.!ttJ;f~t, Unit ZB, Renton, WA 98055 (425-271-0148) Terestia Tamayao, 10813 S 17zndStreet, Unit2C,Renton, WA 98055 (425-226-7823) ,??,.--4 =<C) )., Jv_ . Dan Miles, 10809 SE 172"" Street, Unit lB, Renton, WA 980555 (425-228-7164) Enclosure: Letter submitted on September 5, 2011, regarding Surplus Property, former Fire Station 13 site. Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Monday, July 09, 2012 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Fieldbrook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands. Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that ta ken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and B4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Fieldbrook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Vanessa, Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, July 09, 2012 4 58 PM Vanessa Dolbee RE: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD--SEPAComments Follow up Completed Thank you for sending us WDOE's SEPA comments for the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project referenced above. We agree with WDOE's comments and recommend that the applicant provide an additional analysis in-depth regarding the existing wetland conditions, the functions of the existing forested buffer and demonstration of no net loss given potential temporal impacts to the forested wetland buffer. As a result of this additional, in-depth analysis, the project may need additional mitigation to ensure that this project complies with local, state, and federal regulation regarding impacts and no net loss. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:52 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Karen, See DOE comments below on the subject project. 'Vanessa (J)o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [mailto:patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments 1 in ,-1 1- 1-4 r::c 1-4 :::c >< w Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Thank you Ed, McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:49 AM Ed Sewall justin@americanclassichomes.com; Vanessa Dolbee RE: Fieldbrook Renton Follow up Completed This is a good summary of our conversation. I would only add that I also wanted to implicitly remind the city that current buffer standards do not meet BAS and that when the time comes to update their CAO, this will need to b1 addressed. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner, Wetlands Specialist, Department of Ecology/SEA/NWRO From: Ed Sewall [mailto:esewall@sewallwc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:42 AM To: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) Cc: justin@americanclassichomes.com; 'Vanessa Dolbee' Subject: Fieldbrook Renton Patrick, back on the 17'h you and I discussed the Field brook project in the City of Renton on the phone. I passed 1, ,d, information onto the city through an email, but they would like something in writing from you confirming our conversation. I think just a reply to this email would suffice. I informed them that during our conversation you mentioned; ~ .-4 .... """ cc """ :c >< LLI 1. You were less concerned about the project once you got a chance to go through the report in more detail. We discussed how the ratings of the City of Renton don't match up with the WADOE rating system. The Category 2 wetlands under the City rating system equate in this instance to Category 3 wetlands under the WADOE system. 2. You were just responding to a citizen request to review the project, and; 3. That since there was <1/4 acre of fill, under a US Army Corps Nationwide 29 permit, which would be the permit we would receive fro a project like this, WADOE would not be required to issue 401 cert., nor would WADOE be reviewing the mitigation plan under this scenario. Thanks! Ed Sewall Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (253) 859-0515 1 Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Field brook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands. Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and B4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Field brook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:22 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Field brook Commons LUA 12-001 Hi Vanessa, I am home sick today and don't have the specifics on this project with me but when I spoke to Ed Sewell some months ago about my concerns, he described the existing conditions to me with regards to the past disturbances from mining and other activities. He also described to me in detail the existing plant community such that I was no longer concerned about the proposed location of the mitigation area within a forested area. Additionally, this application would likely meet the conditions for a Federal Nationwide Permit and would not require Ecology approval. I hope this is sufficient. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner/Wetlands Specialist/WSDOE From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:15 AM To: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001 Patrick, Thank you for your voice mail regarding the wetland creation proposed in the forested buffer included in the subject project proposal. Would it be possible for you to provide me with an e-mail documenting DO E's new position on the proposal. As the last e-mail received from DOE did not support the proposal and Ed Sewell's e-mail stated the DOE was "less concerned". Which could mean a number of things. Thank you for the follow up clarifying DOE's position on the subject projects mitigation proposal. Vanessa ([)o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 1 .J '"' "c, ' :Po z 6?;: ,.. [1 t E ;::- 0 "' ~ ,_ "' "' ~i 1 t ~ ~ -l ,::5 ~ (.; "' ~ i -~ !:. -" .a:-5_ ]- t1~ :> E.§.; ~ .-:! !:~ i! till -i p q q p p Q 0 ' 2 ..,.....,_<, ; t" - llH .... , ~· ;, c I -f 1-til -3 J c----- 1~~§f;.~ ~ -t a '"' -a o 8 c, ~ < - ,., ::-:~ ~ ,:::; __ ·:=; ~ 1~]! 0 tlb.2"'.2i: %L~.;11 ~"o : -" ~r1 r1 1 \ ~1 ~, I ! ,, i <'l i i "- = ~----·"""' ii .'=," ' L1-----,- .. £ :-"· ~-§ ·- ? ~ .= :'.) ; ~5 . '5 ::;,·. 1~ 11{! ~ '.f ~ 19 :cl ;; .-. 1m1m l~ - !;:; 'Q. ~ 1 f ~ ~ 'a~.::: ::: -:;- ~ oa'o :;; .... ] <> "'.... r-.::::. ":::' ~-~~i .... -_ -~----~i~~ t· '• !l "'O .. ::, "' "" t2 3: ;j ,::; ~;.,-!::' .:j: ;- 1] l !~ i l ·---·------ ,·-----,---f+-·-----;r--c-------, I "' j . ~ .... .;J-;t· ii I ' ' I ' I I ;:a;_ Iilll ' N ' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 ----::-':·;z;j 1 INCH =100FT. ·1 200 I i \ \ \ \ '" "" TOA WEST: NDA 0.163 AC. FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY TIR ·~ FIGURE 3: DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS EXHIBIT 18 i _,,..,,.j "" . _/[, / .,/-- -...... _________________ , ···, . ' 1-----, i ' I CDPlR""'T@ 2011. UR. smooc CONSVlTING ENG1NHSS JNC Bl DR. STRONG COHSIJLTING [HO,HURS """"""' ..,,,..,. .. ,,,., .. ,,,." '"'"'~""~".'1ff',:W''"' "'"''"""nct; """"""" "'"""' ,.,,,,...,,,,. _...,,,~,., ... Dlll.rlrD nY• \t_p ['<S1C~[~ 0~ '11..P F'RO-"f.l fN(:l.'JHe >JM DA"[c J:!-ll-lYl1 e•b..l:CT NO.: 110a> S<!!:ET J or 1 Sewall Wetland Consultin Inc. PNW HOLDJNGS LLC-FIELDBROOK COMMONS CITY OF RENTON Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE, #2 Covington, WA 98042 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Prepared For: PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36"' Street Suite214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attn: Justin Lagers November 8, 2011 Job#ll-121 Phone: 253-859-0515 Fax: 253-852-4732 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 PNW HOLDINGS LLC -FIELDBROOK COMMONS CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Phone: 253-859-0515 Fax: 253-852-4732 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes jurisdictional wetlands on the 10. 7 acre proposed Fieldbrook Commons PUD on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172"d Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. ·--·-·-·Q.1 $ '""..!;'. \ • ®" • \i; l ,? ~ > l g ~ ~ ~ " , ~ @) s' 5':f £ • ' , @) , g !; H uJ .. 1/J!ll,':\' ~.1c-o1i~ .... 1 .'. (:r,,,1,.r C11~.-:ar1<: ,.. S!'>:)f'~,ir.~ C,snta t!I SITE ~ Sr,dr.:J ~l,,;,n I!>. S.h<;,p;,1n,:i (.:i,,r:t>e:r Vicinity Map -.. Tifl";;my P1:1rk .. CM,.esde. P&rk sr: H34~~ s1 " a > ~ .~ Cascade-Fairwood FaiN Cf~ l The site consists of undeveloped deciduous forest with some relic soil disturbance from past coal mining activity. The site is proposed to be developed into 161 unit PUD development with associated roads and infrastructure. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Fieldbrook!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 2 Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site in March, April and August of 2011. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual/Regional Supplement all require the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (F AC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. Following delineation of the wetlands on the site, the flags were surveyed by Concept Engineering, Inc. (see attached survey). 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Existing Site Documentation Fieldbrook!# JJ-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 3 Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soils Survey, King County iMap website with sensitive areas layers activated, the National Wetlands Inventory, the City ofRenton's Water Class map, the City ofRenton's wetland Inventory map, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats on-line mapping system. 3.1.1 Soil Survey According to the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al 1973), the site is mapped as containing Alderwood gravelly loam soils (AgC ) and Arents, Alderwood material (ArnC). Alderwood soils are moderately-well drained soils formed in glacial till under conifers. Alderwood soils are not listed as a "hydric" soil according to the publication Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No.1491, 1991). However, Alderwood soils can contain small inclusions of poorly drained hyric soils such Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soil series. Soil Map of the site 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory Fie/dbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 20 JI Page4 According to the National Wetlands Inventory there is a portion of a forested and scrub shrub wetland located along the east side of the site. National Wetlands Inventory map 3.1.4 City of Renton Water Class Map According to the City of Renton Draft Water Class Map, there are no streams on the site. There is a Class 4 stream oft:site to the east several hundred feet. ;,, z' sr 1"-11-st -;! ;( 1.;c"" ~.1 Above: City of Renton 's Water Type Map 3.1.5 City ofRenton's Wetlands Map ' Fieldbrook!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc, November 8, 2011 Page5 • Above: City of Renton 's Wetland Inventory Map. According to the City ofRenton's Wetland Inventory Map, there is a wetland located to the east of the site. The scale of the map and lack of most streets make the actual distance from the site impossible to detennine. 3.1.5 King County iMap Website The King County iMap website with wetland and stream layers activated portrays a wetland located along the east side of the site. 3.1.6 WDFW Priority Habitat Website Map Fieldbrookl#l J-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 6 According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access layers activated, there is a wetland located along the east side of the site. 3.2 Field Observations 3.2.1 Uplands The center of the site is the topographic high point of the site, sloping off from here to the eats and west. The site although forested, has evidence of significant past surface disturbance. The northwest comer of the site contains an old paved area that previously contained a King County Fire Department building. The eastern side of the site has had significant past disturbance from historic coal mining activities. Topographic undulations and mounds are old coal tailings and a portion of a road. Review of the 1936 aerial photograph of the site revealed a small gravel road crossing the east side of the site Fieldbrook!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 7 as well as open barren ground with a grid-like appearance to the southeast. This is the location of an historic coal mine. The upland portion of the site is vegetated with a mix ofred alder, big leaf maple, bitter cherry and douglas fir. Understory species include Indian plum, hazelnut, sahnonberry, Himalayan blackberry, sword fern, vine maple and creeping blackberry. 3.2.2 Wetlands A total of six (6) wetlands were delineated on the site. Several of these have evidence that they may have been fully (Wetlands E & F) or partially (Wetland A) created by past hnman disturbance, probably related to coal mining activities and or work associated with them. Wetland A Wetland A was delineated with pink flags labeled Al-Al9 and is located within a closed depression just north of a large historic coal tailing pile. The shape and contours of the wetland suggest it was at least partially created by excavation, or compaction of a mix of tailings and natural soil. This wetland is a depressional wetland that has standing water within its center throughout the winter and spring and goes completely dry in August- October. Trash and old metal debris were observed within the wetland. The wetland is primarily scrub shrub and emergent in character, although a small forested perimeter is found along the edge of the wetland. Species observed include red alder (A/nus rubra), vine maple (Acer circinatum), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolinifera), sahnonberry (Rubus spectabilis), slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) . Soil pits excavated within the wetland edge revealed 4" A horizon or organic laden gravelly loam with a color of 1 OYR 2/1. From 4" -16" in depth, a gravelly loam with common, medium, distinct, redoximorphic concentrations was observed with a color of 1 OYR 3/2. Soils were saturated on the edge of the wetland in March and included standing water in the center of the wetland. By late April the water had been reduced in the wetland to a small pool in the center, and in July and August the wetland was observed to be completely dry. Wetland A contains areas that would be classified as PFO IE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated), PSSlE (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, saturated), and PEM2C (palustrine, emergent, non persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). Fieldbrookl# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 20/1 Page8 According lo the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. 1, and despite the past apparent disturbance, Wetland A appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more -of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not 'Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, ·i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland B Wetland B (flags Bl-B22-10,300sf on-site) consists of the western edge of a relatively large (@4-5 acres) located primarily off-site to the east. This wetland is known as a headwater wetland to Soos Creek, which forms further to the east of the site several hundred feet. This wetland is primarily forested although also contains a scrub-shrub component and a small portion ( 10%-20%) of seasonally standing water to the southeast of the site. Investigation into this wetland to a distance of 100' east of the eastern site boundary revealed no stream channel. The portion of this wetland found along the east side of the site consists of an area that has been historically disturbed from past mining activity, and evidence of grading and roads along the edge and to the north of the site are present. The majority of the wetland on-site is dominated by red alder, pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) and to the east, a few scattered western red cedars (Thuja plicata). lbe understory is sparse in some areas but generally consists of salmonberry, red osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, hardhack (Spirea douglasii), slough sedge, lady fem (Athyriumfilix-femina) and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum). Soil pits excavated in this wetland revealed a dark (1 OYR 3/2) gravelly loam with faint redoximorphic concentrations. Soils were saturated at a depth of -12" during our April delineation of this wetland. Wetland B would be classified as PFO!E (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated) and PSS IE (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, saturated) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page9 According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.1, due to its headwater location, size< 10 acres, lack of any unique plant associations or listed species, Wetland B appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; -------·····--~---------------------------------------- ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more , of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not · Category I wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, . i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent /channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing €Vidence of human-related :p_~y_sJcal al~ration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland C Wetland C is a small (l,449sf), isolated scrub shrub digressional wetland that was flagged with flags Cl-C6 on the east end of the site. This wetland is a shallow depression vegetated with a mix of vine maple, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) saplings, red-osier dogwood and slough sedge. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (1 OYR 2/1) mucky loam soils that contained 4" of standing water within its center in the early growing season. Wetland C would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.l, Wetland C would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; ---------------------·---- iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and Fieldbrook/#11-12 / Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page JO (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (]) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness :and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as '.smaller, high quality wetlands. -.. ---·-.. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland D Wetland Dis an isolated, 7,67lsfforested wetland that was flagged with flags Dl-D22 near the center of the site. This wetland is vegetated with an overstory of red alder and Oregon ash, with an understory of vine maple, red-osier dogwood and slough sedge. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (]OYR 2/1) mucky loam soils that contained 4" -12" of standing water within its center in the early growing season. Wetland D would be classified as PFOlE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous, persistent, saturated) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.l, due to relatively undisturbed character, and its lack of any unique plant associations or listed species, Wetland D appears to best be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as follows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more : of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category I wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alter,ation such as diking, ditching or channelization; an.dlor Fieldbrookl#l /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 201 I Page I I Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. 'Wetland E Wetland Eis a very small (68sf) scrub-shrub wetland that appears to have been formed by the past road constructional SE 172nd Street. The wetland contains several red-soi er dogwood shrubs as well as Himalayan blackberry. A small culvert leads from this wetland into the street drain system. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed black (lOYR 2/1) gravelly loam soils that was saturated at the surface in the early growing season. Wetland E would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, persistent, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. l, Wetland ER would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more ! of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands i are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related ihydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet ;modification; and i (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal !and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. Wetland F Wetland F appears to have formed in a historically disturbed area along the northwest comer of the site. This wetland was flagged with flags Fl-F5 and is l,59Isfin size. Fieldbrookl#l/-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 12 Soils are very disturbed with old tire ruts and ditching. This area abuts the old Fire Station site to the north. Veegation found within this wetland consists primarily of hardhack, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), some red osier dogwood and himalayan blackberry. A few of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Oregon ash are found along the boundary but not enough to consider this a forested wetland. Soil pits excavated within this wetland revealed mottled, dark (1 OYR 2/2) gravelly loam soils that was saturated within 12" of the surface in the early growing season. Wetland F would be classified as PSS 1 C (palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M. l, Wetland F would be best classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined in Code as follows; iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more ; of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands 'are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related ihydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet 'modification; and ' (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness :and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge. 4.0 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. November 8, 2011 Page 13 Wetlands A has a moderate function for water quality, hydrologic function and wildlife habitat. The small size , past disturbance from mining, and close distance to disturbance reduce these functions somewhat. Wetland B has a higher functional value as this is a multiclass wetland located at the headwater of Soos Creek. This wetland stores and attenuates flood waters as well as removes water contaminants from the water column, which would otherwise pass downstream into Soos Creek a salmon bearing water. Wildlife habitat is relatively high in this wetland as a result of the complexity of the vegetation, hydrologic regimes and relatively intact buffers. What does reduce the habitat of this wetland and all of the wetland son-site is the isolation of this area within a relatively urban landscape. The wetland and surrounding upland is totally isolated by residential homes as well as paved City streets. Wetlands C and D have low to moderate function which is primarily due to their isolated location in the landscape, lack of vegetation complexity, small size and lack of connection to other habitat areas. Wetland E and F are oflow value as they are very small, are highly disturbed and have been altered by past uses. 5.0 REGULATIONS In addition to the wetland regulations previously described for wetlands and streams, certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE regulates all discharges into "waters of the United States" (wetlands) under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. Due to the increasing emphasis on Endangered Species Act compliance for all fills of Waters of the United State and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands or streams for this project. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT FieldbroolcJ# 1 I -I 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc_ November 8, 2011 Page 14 The proposed project is the construction ofa 161 PUD project with associated infrastructure. The location of Wetlands D, E and F result in most of the developable property on the site being encumbered by wetland or buffer. Since these wetlands, particularly Wetlands E and Fare oflow value, and WetlandD is small in size but because of its linear shape impacts the sites usable space so greatly, we are proposing filling these three wetlands. As a result, it is our intention to fill these wetlands and provide adequate mitigation for their lost functions by creating wetland on the eastern side of the site in and around Wetlands A, B and C. Impacts to wetlands must be justified through a mitigation sequence as detailed in City of Renton Code. This sequencing requires addressing the following criteria; a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing wetlands A, B & C in the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring 1595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 108th Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. l 72"d St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 7671sf. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around this wetland, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to construct. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and Resoration of this wetland in this location would not be feasible due to the location of the impacts and configuartion of the parcel and remaining wetland. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; Fie/dbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consuliing, Inc. November 8, 2011 Page 15 This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and A total of9334sf of wetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower". Code Specifies the following mitigation ratios for wetland impacts; i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category 1 Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required Type Wetland Creation D 7671sf 2 Forested 3: 1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: 1 102sf F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: 1 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation -- Conceptual Mitigation Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. November 8. 2011 Page 16 To compensate for the impact to 9334sf of Category 2 &3 wetland, we are proposing creating 25,508sf of wetland along the west edge of Wetland Bas well as between Wetlands A and C This results in an overall wetland mitigation ratio of2,73:l (created wetland:impacted wetland). This mitigation will create Category 2 wetland for a combination of Category 2 and 3 wetland impacts. As depicted on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, 25,508sf of area will be excavated out to a similar depth to the existing wetland in two areas to intercept the surficial groundwater table and create conditions favorable to create wetland hydrology. A berm will be placed between the two wetland creations due to the differences in elevation of the two areas. This will prevent wetland creation between Wetlands A and C from draining into Wetland B. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted using peizometers in the proposed mitigation area through the winter and spring to verify groundwater elevations. This area will then be graded back at a slope no steeper than 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical). The area will then be planted with a mix of native trees, shrubs and herbaceous species and will also include several habitat features (logs and snags) to increase its habitat function. The goal will be to create at least 25,508sf of area meeting all three wetland criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) as specified in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). All disturbed buffer areas will be restored with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. The resulting wetland creation area will be monitored for 5 years as required by Code. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 REFERENCES Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 17 Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31, Washington, D. C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method ofvegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33 :43-64. Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson. 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter 1984, pg 9-15. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. City of Renton Municipal Code Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kolhnorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Pub!. No. 1491. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW October 31, 2011 Page 18 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetland, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland along the west side of Wetland B, a Category 2 wetland as well as between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to enlarge Wetland B as well as connect Wetlands A and C through excavation to create wetland conditions. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sfofemergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3 .2 Construction staking 3 .3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3. 7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3 .10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall \Vetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 19 The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and hydroseeding are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Arca All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with native hydroseed mix or mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will re-seed or over-seed all hydroseeded areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3. 7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. · · Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, tbe County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall \Vetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 20 The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of sub grade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60. l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 21 4.2.4 All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3 .2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3 .5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall \Vetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 22 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October I st -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or surumer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not adequately established by October l st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside tbe silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 23 This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.1.2 Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.l.3Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 \Vatering Requirements Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting: Inc. October 31, 2011 Page 24 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. 5.3.2Ifplantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1'' ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand- watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal oflitter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of two tasks. The first is the inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the stream and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. 6.1.3 Hydrology Monitoring of hydrology within the created wetlands will be conducted to confirm that wetland hydrology has been created. Sampling points will be established within the created wetlands. At these points monitoring wells will be installed to determine the level of surface or groundwater in these areas. Fieldbrook/#11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 6.2 Standards of Success October 31, 2011 Page 25 6.2.1. Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon a 100% plant survival for all planted vegetation at the end of Year 1; 90% at the end of Year 2; 85% at the end of Year 3; and 80% at the end of Year 5. 6.2.2. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when measunng cover. 6.2.3. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasive, e.g., Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning glory, etc. Is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond-holders are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards through the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. 6.2.4 Wetland hydrology will be considered to be successfully attained when inundation or saturation within 12" of the surface is present for 2 continuous weeks or more in the growing season (March 15-0ct15). 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7 .2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. I-111 / I I Ill~ WETLAND B I I ~tJLI~ L___L___ -~~--L~j Nu Le: Base mAp provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delinealion. F/LDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DEUNEA T/ON MAP JOB/I 1f-:.f21 DATE; DRAWNIW ES SCALE· 1"=100' REVISED: _ DES!GNER:_____cc,cS __ _ Sewall Welland Consultin_[, [nc. Ecologicnl Services 2764J Covic,gton W~y Sl:lf2 Covinglon, WA 98042 25J.B59-0Sl5 FnJC: 25J B52-4732 i I I i ~ ' J ··.'.·.· •:f}JJ;••••r ., / ~i"" j;; l~tt-= .l&i:_/ </ ., I O g O g I 25,503 SF WETLAND CREATION I™ I t<<<:J i===:=:=:=:=::=j 9303 SF WETLAND FILL 1,485 SF BUFFER AVERAGING· ADDITION 7,485 SF BUFFER AVERAGING· SUBTRACT/ON c:c····:,:•'.<:'.:'.:'.:'.:'.:'.:'.'.':'.::::·-- :: /Jf!!1tLl/l'' m )~~~ --=--.;,,;: J '""'"· .-----1....--,-----..---;;.""i7 s~:'i.t-·"( Note: Dase map provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. ·1 :-.:,:, ._·:,. :~~~j~~~~~::::. ··········.·:::::\ <iii ~ JOB# 11-121 DATE DEC. 2011 F!LDBROQK COMMONS Sewall W,llaod Coos,lliog, loo ~ I DRAWN Br'.' ES SCALE 1"=100' Ecolog1cal s~rvices ~ 15,934 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR PNW HOLDINGS, Ll C . 2764 l covington Way SE#2 ~ TEMPORARY IMPACTS CONCEPT DELINEA T/ON MAP REVISED DESIGNER:_!§___ Covington, WA 98042 l 253-859-0515 FodB-852-4732 u-el~ /V ..,._,.. ~µ,4- WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Wastam Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projocl/Sllo· Applkanuo,,.,..,,, ln•••tigolm(a): Fi1t,../d bf"e4:JU Clly/Covnty /u,vh,, ,,.J Sampling [)Qto: /../ rl., "l...---/ / ?{vi,,.., H.r;1\& l'Y'"J S s1.1,· WA-Sampling Polnl b 'f"~ \ E....l S.e ;;.t..\ S..:llon, Tov,mhlp, Range: $ Z.."1 /73/1-{ /l-'fl=- lan~rorm (hlilolop•. l•rru•. •le.)" Loo1I rel"'[ (<;oncavo, convex, n<>ti•I Slope(~): __ Sub<0glon(LRRJ L•t LD11~ 0a1vm. ___ _ Soi Map Unit Name NWl cla1111Jcallon -----~-- iv, clln,allc I hyd,ologlc oo_M~lons on !11c slle typloal ror 1h11 lime o( year? Yu __ No-----, (If na. ••piol, In Rem1,kt.J / At, Vo~OlaUon __ , S011 __ , or Hy<lfoll)\ly __ slgnlnoantly dls1vrbod7 Ar• "Narm•1 Clrcumstancol" pre1enl? YH _V_ <o <o -- Ar• VegelaUon __ Soll __ o, Hydrology __ notvr•ny p,a~lomaUc? Ill nudd<!, eKpl•ll11111y 11111w.r, In R•m•rk• I SUMMARY Of FINDINGS-Atta.ch site map showing sampling po!nt localfon-a, transects, Important feature-a, etc, Hy~1ophfllc Veg-,-_._, Hydrlc Soll P,uonl? Welland Hydrology Pruonl7 :-5' I ls lhl hmpled Art• ••~•,M ....... ,o "•• / "'L' , .. '" "' No~ wllhin • W•11•nd7 . '" R•m•r>u: VEGETATION -Use sclentlllc names of plants .I!.ll..ml.il.l {Pk>l ,la: c.::.;: fl..,"--Absol\Jte Domlniant Indicator I Oomln•nceT11!wcrklh"I: ~~ ~ Nvm~erorDomln~nlSp,cln --1.S!_ ----•-=_.., Th1lA110Bl, FACW, orFN;.: ,,, 1. 4ru ""'"=<ref I --. --== ' -- ' ------ Total Numbe; ol Domln~nt Sr><cln Aerou All S1r1!1 _!:t___ '"' '·-----, = Total Cov11 s,nUm1Sbrnb Sl!ah,m IPlot ,120 -~---> ,4.r (A ~ ,/'"i::,......'-6, e::-, ...!::!....:._ ___ /'A(_ o,,...,,....,_ c....-,0,,,,,~-s: ~---F>I<" '------------------ P•rc•nl or Domlnint Speale1 .._ £ That/';oOBL.FACW,o,fAC· ~ (!v'B) Pr1val1nc• lndu work1hul: IR1al%Crow2t -OBL opoCIH ---d • FACW 1p1cln ---• '• FAC 1poci11 ---, a• --------1 FACU 1pecln ~ ~ • • Tolal Covor ------~ IPlot•iu: ) ---. UPL1~cl,o ---,S• ___ _ 1.Jf"'I fhtb...,,..,, """""'',..Vt, 3& ~iColumnTOl~l1: ___ (A) ----1'1 ' --; Provafonc, L..:lu ~BIA• ------------------------, Hydrop<'lyUcVogol.o!lon lndlc,1011: --------1-1. Rtpkl Tait for Hydrophytlc V1g•t•llon ------------------------_ 2-0omln•r>e•T .. tl1>50% ------------------------I_ 3 • p,..v•l•nco lndnl1:1"3.01 ----------------------------"· ------" ------ Wqqdy \litlt <Ht'.ihlm (Plo111u: ----- '------------ % B•ro Ground In Horb S1ra1um Romuks us Nmy Corp, ol Engineers ___ & Tolo.l C011or ___ • Tol•I Cover _ 4 • Moq>hologl<:111 A<l•Pl•llon1' (ProYldo ,upportlng d•la In Remar"Mo or on a ooparalt 1hut) _ 5-WoUandNon-Vuci.rl,rPlanl•' _ P1obl1mallc Hydrophyt:c Vegotatlon' (Explain) 11ndloalors o< hydr~ 101l 1r\d wo\lar\d hydrology mu1I be pre11nt, 11nla11 d:olurM<l or problomaUc Hydrophyllc Vll'J•tallon Pr• .. nt1 , .. "'/ Wu10,~ Mounlaln•. Vall•~•. ond Cout -V•relon 2.0 SOIL Samp!ng Point· Pioni.i 0HOtlptlon: (Oucrib• ·1,:,·lh1 d•plh hud1d to documo~l lh1 lndlca101 o, confl1m th• 1bunc1 or lndlca1oro.j Depth __MilrJ2:....______ ..llnmJ.1L.._ ColDf /mPllll _li....... Rum FUIIICU G91orlm<>irn _J_ ..l:ti2L... ...l.9L... ~ ___ __J"'""~---- _J___ 0 V ;:.:, ..1..k__ /~-f,t,.."L/Z' ---- ----,,,;;zp~ --------------------------------- 'Type: c~C0Mcntr1tlon D .. Otpltllon Rl,,l•R1duced Matrix CS•Covered or Coaled Sand Grain• 'Locallon PL•Pora L.lr~_nc M•M~lrix Hy,drlc Soll lndlc1tor•: (Applle1~le to •11 LRR•, unlou othorwloo not..:!.) lndlcato11, for Problomallc Hydrlc Soll•' _ Hl1to1ol(A1) _ SandyRedox(S~) _ 2cmMLX:k{A10) _ Hlt(lt Eplpedon (A.2) _ Sirlpped Malrlx (5111 _ Red Partnl MaWlal (":"F7) _ Black Hit lie (A31 _ Loamy Mvel<y Mir,t,al (F1) (•~~•pl MLRA 1) _ Very Shan"""' Dork Surface (TF1 2) _ Hydrogen Svl!do IA~) _ Loamy Qlcyed Ma!rll{(f2) _ 0(hor (Explain In R,marK•J _ Oo~oled Below D•rk Surfae, (A11) _ De~e1ed Matrix iFJ) _ Thick Ouk Surtae• (A11) _ F11<!o" Dork Surr,.c, (F6) '1nolca(or. or hydrophytlc vogatallor. and _ Sandy Mucky Mlnual (S1) _ O•pl•t<1d Oark Surface (FT) w<(land hydrology mu,i be pra,ent, _ Sandy Ql1yod Matrix ($4) _ Rodox D•pr11110,,, (fSJ unleu dlo\vrbcd or problemallc Flnlrlctlv• l..l~or (~ ptHanl)' I Typt: __________ _ Depth[lnci'\H)" KydtlcSollPtu•nt? Yu __ tlo~ R•ma•k•: µe, .,,. i.-.A• r -._h., .::1 HYO RO LOGY I W•tl•nd Hydrolo~y lnc:!le.olo11: Prlrn«O' /ndfu/Ql"I /m/CD'rnsau >7/ Ml r.wvknt ,;MM d CO!C «AA'l'I _ Surlac1 Waw (A11 _ Hl~hWalorT•blo(A21 _ Sa\vrallon (A31 _ WlllorMukt(B1) _ Walot-Slalned lnvu lB9) (uc•pl MLFIA 1. J, ~A. and ~B) _ SaK c,u1l (B11J _ AqUlll<: lnvertebnlo1 (81J) ~J s~wm:110: 1Qdkii9G '2 9[10" ·,: Cf<TUICcd/ _ Water-Sla•nod Loave, (891 iMLRA 1. l, ~A. ond ~Bl _ Drainage Pa~erM 1610) _ Dry-SeuonWaterTaDle(C21 _ S•dlmont Dopo11t1 (B21 _ Orin Depoollt IB:l) _ HydrOjlon Svtncie Odor !C1 I _ So(urallon Vi•ible on .A~rl•I lm•s•r) (C9; _ Oxldt,od Rhizospho,es along LMng Rocio (CJ) _ Geomorphlc Po,;cio~ (O"<) _ A"1al Mal"' Cruol lB~) _ Preune• o( Roducod Iron (C~) _ SM II ow Aquila rd (OJ) _ Iron Dopo,,111 IBS) _ Recont l,on Rodue11on In TIied Sol lo (C6) _ Surhoo Soi C11.c~1 IB5) _ Stunted or Slruood Pl•nt. (01) fLRR Al _ 1nund1ttlon V11lblt M A•rl•I ITT1og1ry fB7) _ Omer !Elcplajn In Remorko) sp,,.•ly v,~tlotod Concovo Sur!ae& (88) _ FAC-N11,1r~IT .. \ iD5) _ Rae••~ Anl Mounds (De) (Ull'l Al _ Fro•l-H .. ~• Hummoc~• (071 I ~l,ld Oburv1llon.: ./ /... cl, )" 1 1 surt.c, w,10, Pr•••nt? Yu --"' ~•P (In e,,. / , 111 Inc/lot. NOf,,L....... Water Tlblo Preunt7 .,..., --No p l J· Wtlland Hyd,ology Preunl? Yu__ I Saturallon Pre .. nt? Ye, --"0 --Oeplh (lnc/lH · ----- J !!l,;!U<!~~-~~!n'.)L'!2!1 DHcrlba R.e"Ci,id,d Data (1trum g~"w•. m0flilo~r19 We11, aerial ))hotoo, ·p,..,.lou• lnsPoctlons), If avallabfo: I I I''""' J_ , ~ l (7./ 7 ,,,.._. , ..-a ,,, e US ;,.my Corl,'& o( Engln,ers We,lern Moun1alno. VB11ey,. and Co••t -\lorslon 2 0 1.,.,-e;j- WETLAND DETER.MJNATION DATA FORM -Western Mounb.ln•, Vallty•, and Cout Region ProJocVSllo: FiJddbt'rJrJU City/County: !u,.;h,,J Sampir,gDalo: 4 .. z.'Z...-...f{ Pf'Jw H-o\ql rq S St~r•: WA--s,mpllng P<llnt: P P.J:E 'Z.-Applloon\/Owne, IMullgatarl•) €,l. S':c,-....,, l I S1cuon,Town1~p.R1ng,: f;z..P'f rz:;s.,....... &5:E- Land form (hllllk,po, lorr•o•. olc.): Loc•I r•ll•I (cone1.v,, eorwu, oon1): Slop1 I~): __ Subroglon [LRR) l..•I: Long: Datum:---- Soi Mop Unil N•m• NVIII olH1ine1tlon: -----~-- Aro 00m1tlo I hydroh,iilc condnlon1 on Illa 01!1 lyplo11 Jor till• !Im• ol yur1 Yu __ So __ (11 r,o, ••ptoln "'Rtm11<~1.) ~ Aro Vogelotlon --Soll __ . or HydtOl"IIY __ 1lgnlno1ntly dlllUtb<id? An "Norm1I Cllllllm1!1Mt1" pronnl? Yn _v_ C So• -- Aro v,g,\a\lon __ Son __ or Hydrol<>11Y __ n1tur1tr, problom•llo? (If nHdlil, ••plain any 1n1wor, In l!tmarkl.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showing nrnp!lng point loc:atlons, tunncts, lmporttnt faaturu, ate, Hydraphy!lc V•g•1>.,m1 rroum1 Hy<!rle Soll Prtun!? Wollan<! Hr<l<ology Prue~\? Rem;,-,i;.. YH~~:== ::::z Na 1 11 th• hmpled Aru within • W•tl•nd? Y,/ Nq VEGETATION -U•e BC!entlflc names of plants Ab101Ylo Domlnenl llldl,a!o1 om n,nc• utworlu Ht: ~ 1Plol1lu ~..a.r..tlllll1~ Numt>fro(Oomln.,,lSprclH .., 1 ~/NVS: Gr. ~---~ Th1tAr10BL.,FACW,orFAC. ---~-(A) '------------- SaPliM/Sbl4hS1Cill6\'fl {P101,1u:_~--- 1. A:,,... c:,.-,ri:t.-...:h,.,e., == == ~;t:~1~:'.:~,:12i°:i~~:l __z.._ (Bl ---~.,.,-.,--~~;~~~ob~~F~~0~~~1~. ~ (Ml) ..J..Q__ f71.c.. P11v1l1nc1 Ind•~ workohut: ------I2l1l '6 Ce:m 91 MirtllP!Y bx: '·-----------,. ------------ ,. ------ ~ ll'lo\alu· ____ _ ___ • Tot,1 Gov" ---------------- OBL •fNltlU ----' • ---- FAr::-Nopoolu ___ »• ___ _ FACtfNlcln FACU 1p1ol.- UPLopoolu . ,. ... ". ColYmn1'"1aJ•: ---(A) ---,., --Prtulene. Ind ox • B/A • '· --------Hyd1ophyllc-Vtg1\l.t1on lndle•loro: < ------_ 1 -R•p!d THI !<or Hydroph)'llo Vogo!ollon ' --------.. --------------.. ------ ' ------" ------" ------ WMdY \/]QI lllrntiUD IPI011la· ----- ---· Total Cover 2. ==== 'r\ Ba1e Ground In Herb Slr,(um ___ • 1'olal Covor R~m~rk,: US 1,1my Car"° or Englneofl _ 2-0omlnoMOTHll•>50•,t. _ 3 • P/e\'lllnOI lndO I• S3.0 1 _ ~ -Morpt,01<>~1011 A<l1pUHon1' IPro'lido •up~ort"1g data In Rtm•r~• or on 1 1epm1lt 1httt) _ ~ • W11l1nd Non.vn....,1,r Pl1n11' _ Probl•m•~C H~droph)'llc V1g1t~\lon' {E~plaln) '1ndlr:aloro of hy,Jrlc 1011100 W1U11'1<1 hyd1ol<>Qy mu1l Dt-pre1en~ unlou dl$\u!bed or protit,maUn Hyd1ophyllc Vogol•llon P1•unl1 Vt1 /No __ w .. 1orn Moun111n1, v,11,y,, ond Cout -Y•r•lon 2.0 A- BO!L Sampling Point· Prom, OuorlP!lon: (0•10<1b• 1o 1ho doplh nHd•d to documont !he lndlcoto, or conllrm tho •l>unc• of lndlcuo,q o,p1h Rooox full!fn llfilllltL. Cr I PC (molt!) -L-Color lm91!1l _JL_ ...1xll.L.. ....i.wL.. ..Jn1IIU..__ ---__J""""'-------__.!j_ ID,,,_-</! ..!..l!_ to'1n 3/"L = ""'/ .., • .L.. ---------------- -------- 'ryp1· C•Con•onlr1!IM D•O~~M•Aodueed Mal rt,;. CS•Co.'!'•r&d ~o~ra~e,~on PL•Po,e llnl-1.Jl......M •M~~ Hyd,i;a(i11 !n<11 ... 1oro: (AP~lloabl• to-tll LRR•, unl,u othoiWlu notod.-1 -----ind1COl1oro tor Prob.tun•!lc Hydrlc 5011,•: _ Hlo!oool(A1) _ SarKly Re<1ox!S5) _ l em Muck IA10) I ~Hit fplpo,don{A2J _ Slrlpped M1lrlx{S8i _ R•<I P•1•nl Materi~l 1Tf2) _ okHlotlcJAJ) _ Leamy Muo;l<y Mln<ral (fi)(Uc•pl MLl'!A 11 _ Vory Sl\onow Dark Surlooo (1'F12) Hyd•e><;1•n Sul~d• (A~) _ Lo•my Oloy..:I M•trlx (f2) _ O!Mr (E~ploln In l'l<mUkl) _ D1pl•lot<I B1lcwD1rl1Sur11c• (Al1) _ OA)ltled Malrl• {f3) _ Thlok 011k Surf10. (A12) ~,<lox Oor~ Surloeo (F~) 'lndlc11o<t ot hydroph)'llc vogo1,llon ar,d _ hM)' Mucky Minor•! (51) _ Oepl•t•d pa,~ :5urfoc~ (F71 welland h)'(lrology mu,1 b• pr~ur,t. 5andy Ol•Y•~ M•ltlx (S~I _ R•_da! Depr11110,,.. (fSJ __ un'.u• dlolurb,d o.:...e_1otitema110 Rolflotl,e uy;,, [H p,ultiii): I / 1'Y!ll:__________ /" D1pll\(lnehuf. Hyd1lo Soll p,uon1? Vu __ eo Ff,m.,k,: HYDROLOGY ) W•tl•nd Hydralopy lndlc.11tcr,: Pcimm IC'IISIIAC! (rnlnlmwo 2! 90ft C!Q\ll{r1" choct IV 1h11 IPPIY) i:lrcnodarx IOCIIGil9'l 12 Qt ffl9(0 (09\IIC•dl _ .!lurfaetW1t1rlM) _ High W1lor Tobi• 1"2) -hM1Uon !AJ) _ Wtler-Sl•ino<I Lnvu (B9J (uoopt _ W31o<•5!oln.d Lo.VU (B9) [MLRA 1, l, _ W•t•r M•r~• 1a1) -Sodlm,nt Dtpo•"• IB2) r,\LRA 1, 2, •A, 1n<1 ~8) _ SoltCru•llB111 _ !,quanc lrwortobra(u (913) _ Hyd<og•n Sulndo 0<1or {C1) •A, •nd <B) _ Dro"10Q• P•~orno lB10) -Dry-$o8ton Walu TOblo (C21 _ Solurotlan Ylolble on Ae<l•l lma~ory (C9) _ D1Jn Dtpo1l\1 (BJ) _ Oxldl~od Rhlzo,phorot along LMn11 Roo11 {C31 _ Goorna,ph1c PodlM (D2) _ ,'Jgol Matot C1v,t (B~) _ P,ucnco or R•duc•d Iron (C~) _ Shilllow AqulJard (01) _ 1<0<1 0opc0lto(B5I _ RccMI 1<on Roduollon In Ttll•d Sollo lC6i _ FAC-N•Yl1•I Tu! 105) _ 9Yrl•••.!loll Crael<o (B!) _ S1un1od orstroued P10nt1 (01)(LRR A) _ Rol,od Ant Moun<!• (OS)(LRII A] _ loond•!lon ',lloiblt en A1rl1l lma11.ry (67) _ D!hor (E,:ploln In RomotMol _ F,oo(-/-lu"" ttummoc,,o (07) Sporuly v,g,111td Concave Surl•c• {B&i Fltld Obu,nffcno: Surf11,, Wiler Pr,un!? W1l11T1blt l'tu,nt? I ~~~~~~~~:~:1~"; 1 ~1ng,1 Vu No / Doplh{lnch••):_~=-Veo"Z No __ Dtpthllnch") _aG>c.,. __ Yu_..:::.. No __ Dep1hlinchu): 0' W•ll•nd Hyd,ology l'<uenl? ,,,..,., "' '" -- Du,~D<o Rtwl"d--;;J"oo(1T,irum gau,;it, monllor\n11 we11, aorlal p11010,, prcvlouo lnopc~llon•), 11 ovollab"io: I Romllk,: U.!1 Almy Corp, ol E"'lllnoor, We•l•m Mcunt1IM, Yall•y•. and Cou( -Ven1os 2.0 ~ WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Wut•rn Nlol,lnia!ns, varrey,, •nd Cout Rearon f'1ojoctl511t: HJd bravU C~y/Counly: lZ?vh;_,,, S•mpl1>;0~t1: 4-z..-i.;--t( Pg.i....;;;..;.qd) Y'="J 'S St.ti: W ,4 S•mpllng P<>lnl: t)i"-:"j Jl,pplcanVOv,r,o, lnve,1lg1lor(o): .$,?: S1t11on,Town1h1p,R1ns11· ~/2:J/\.{ /t5:l=- Landlorrn (~lll>lopo, torr•ce, tic.I local rell1t (eot1c1v1, con~u. MM): Slope (%I: __ Su!.>(1olon (LRRI L,t Lo"ll: 01tum: ---- Sol Map Vnll Namo NVVl ela11J1101Tlom: -----~-- Ne <>lmotlc I hydrol<,gto condlllon1 on 1n, Jlto 1yplo1I r~, thlo llm, ol yur? 'l'u __ "'--Ill no, 1Jipl1Jn ~ Romar~I.) ~ Ne Vrgo\a\lon __ Soll __ , or Hyd,ol<>;iy __ 1lgnlnc1nUy dl1lu1bod? No "Norm Ill Ci1cum,t1Mu" prnonl7 'fe, _L Na __ _ f.ro Vtg1t1tton --· Soll __ or Hydrotogv __ n;ilur,111 ptobl1m1tlc1 !If n"dtd, upjaln 1ny 1n1w.r,i In R1m,1 .... ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-Attach site map showln..51 sampling po!nt location,, transects, Important f&aturoe, ale, -•••'--~ J -I MVdropny\lo Vo99'"'""' ,.,,,,.,,, ffydrlo Soll Proun!? W&llond Hydr~looy Pro .. nl? A:omark1 , .. -- '" --, .. N<l~ l11h•S•mplHIArH No~ l N<l _JC_ within I W•ll•nd? , .. VEGETATION -us~ scl~ntlf!c Mmes of plants AbtoM• · Dominant lodlc1lo, om n1nia1 u wo1k1httf: ,o/ ~ (Plol11I1· ~~ S1•_!.":!, Numb9rorDom1ntntSpeciu ,.(N,U r~bc:< ---~ Th•IA,.OBL.,FM:W,orFH;; ~IA) ' --------' --------'· --------___ ~ To!1I Cov,r Si1MD9/ShC\lh S1fa1Lrm (Plol 1lze ) ; '.f.fi-• ,r,~ ,:;;__ -fut. :~ '~· (1£,.,;_i;:.......f == ~,'.., Totol Nvmb9r oroomln•nl 9~cl•1 AoraH All 6lr1t1: _.i:._ (B) Per.en\ ot Oomlnont Sp•olu Tntl Mt 061., FAaN, o, FAC: Pr•v•l•nc• Ind•~ workthut: Iol1l '6 C9Ytr et ",IV -oal 1p,,c!u ___ " • ---- FACW opec!n ---, > • --- ,,,,,., ------FAC 1p<1ci<11 ---,a• --- ------FACU 1p1"1e1 K 4 • ___ •Tot1ICovor ------ ~ IPl01,1zo: ) UPl.1peclu ---d• __ _ ~:~-::,> ~ S:b£b IY": C:::':'",.....ti{_ .1!Q._ ___ J2.fl_ ColumnTolal1: ___ (Al ---1'1 ------Pr<1va1cnoM lr>d•~ • 8/A • '·------------------------Hydrophyllc\l,goll.tlon lndlc1101•: ------ '· --' --'· ------,. ------ '" --" ------ W9odY Yin! §l!JIYm IPlol •I•• ----0 % B1r1 Ground In Horb SI/alum I Romorks us Nm1 Corpo or EnQlnuro ------___ • Tol•I Covu ------------___ • Tola I Covu _ 1 -fhpld THI kir H)<lrop~ytlo Vog1l1~on _ 2. Oomln1no1 hot 1, >50% _ 3 • Prt>"lltno, Ind•• I• ,3.0' _ 4 • MorphologlO'II A<hpuUon,' (1'1ovld1 1upport!V dot• In R<1ma1X1 or on 1 ,.p.,,1, ,1'1,,.t) _ 6 -W1\11nd Non-\lnw11r Planl1' _ Problomollc Hydrophylio Vog•l~\lon' (f;•pl1ln) '1r.dletlor1 of hVdflo 1011 and -11,nd h)"drofogy mu,1 t>o PfUonl, u~l•u dl~Mbll<l or p,olilomo!lo HydrophJ!lc V0911111on Froon!1 '" No/ Wu!•m Mountain,, Volley,. 1no Co111-\11rolon 2.0 L-'"T A-.,_ w,,J-C'... SOIL Sampllr>(/ Polnl: ---- I P1o/ii.-D11onpU0ii·: IOiii:1lbt to 111• d1p1h no,<iod 10 dcx:um1nl lht lndlu1or o, i:oriii,m lh• 1boti"~c• ofTiiiifCzitoro.j Oti:,lh MllrlK ~ );;(t!,.;'2--_ji_ Color (m21Srgx ~· ~ _L.wl... -1.uJ.ila._ ----'""""~---- Li,,__ I ryn-3/'f ----'?~ 7...._ ----------------------------------- 'Tye,· C•C0Mr111lr1tlon D•Q•Pl•Uon RM•Roduced Malito: CS•Cover&d or Co;llod S1nd Or1ln1. 1Loc•Uon: PL•P_oro Lining M~M•l1l~ Hydrla loll lr,dl~1or•; JApplll>A~I• lo •11 lRR•, unl,u oth1rw111 naffll.1 1r>;;11c,1or1 !or Probl,mallc Hyd,lc Sol It': _ Hlo!o1ol(A1) _ SandyR1do•(S5) _ 2omMvcklA10) _ Hlo!lo Eplptdan (A2) _ S!rlpf>-d Mal/Ix (S61 _ Rod Por"nt Matorlal [TF2) _ Bla<k Hl•tlc 1"3) _ Loamy Mucky Minero I (F1) (oc•p1 MLl'I.A 1) _ Ver)' Sn1!ow Dark Surl1co (TF111 _ Hyd1oe1n 8u1M& (A4) _ La~my Ol•ytd Matrix (f2) _ OIMr (E,p111n In Rtrnar~,) _ Do"'o!od 8,low Do,~ Surhoo 1A11) _ D•plotod Mal/'lx (FJ) _ Thick Dark Surl•ot IA12) _ Redox Oa1k Surlac• (r~) 'lndl<:1\or• cf hydtophyilC vogotatlon and _ 5•ndy Mueky Mln&r1I (St) _ Dopl..iod Ouk Surface !F7) w,,[lond nyd1ol~y mu,1 b& pre,om, _ Sandy Gleyod M1t~11S~) _ Rodax Oeproulo,,. (FSJ un111u dlotur!led or prablemallc. flttlrlc!lv• L..oyo, (~ prtnn!); Typt ---------- Oop\h (lnohe-sl: Hydric Soll Frounl? "' NO v' R1m1rk,: .,v, ,,.._/, .,. />-;r HYPI\OLOIJY woU1nd H~dialo~y lndlc.olo,o: Pdmm lndl21tpe1 lmlnlmvm ;I on, conukm· check an m,t tPPIYI llfl99ndW IQdlCJl9'112 C/ rnort (CQW'<d\ -Surlac&W1l.r(A\I _ l-n~hW1l,rfoblo(A2) _ Saturollon \"31 _ w111uMar~1!111) _ hdlm1n1-o.,,.,.~, i1121 _ Drift D1pa11l1 [B3) _ Alg1IM1torCr11t\(IH) _ wator-Slolnod le&Ye1189) (uc,pl MlRA 1, 2, ~A, and ~SI _ SallC/Utt(B11) -watof-~\011\·~ ~ .. y •• lll9) (MLRA 1, 2, ~A. and ~SI _ Drainage P•Horn, (!1101 _ Aql!IIIC ln,;onebrolo, IB13) _ 0,Y·Su,on w~1or To~I• (C:l) _ 1--tfd,ogon Sulftd• Ode, !C1J _ S•luro1lon Vlsibl• ""Aerlol lmogery (CSj _ Oxl~l~•d Rhlzc,pno,u •long U\/lng Root, (C31 _ G•omo,pl"Mc Poo!l~n [021 _ Pr, .. noo of Re<tuood Iron (C~) _ Sh•ll9wA<1ull,rd 1031 _ Jron Dopoo~• (851 _ Roconl Iron Roduc11on In TIied so,10 IC Si _ FAC-Nou1<1I hol (05) _ Surl10• Soll Cro<kl 1st) _ 5!untedor S\r1ued f'lontl (01) (LI\I\A) _ RIiied Ant Mounds (0~) (LR fl Ai _ Fro•I-Huva Humm<ick, (071 _ 1nu!'ld•!lon \l\1lbl1 on Aorlol lmaQtrY (B7) _ Olhu (E•pltln In R1muS1J _ Sptruly \11~1\1~ Cono1v1 Surl•o• (BGI I fltld Oi,u,votlon1; Surl•c• Water P11unt? w,1,1 Tlblt f'ru,nt? 91lur.1lon Pr1unt? LJ!.ri~M~~I'!JY...!!b!l.•I Yu No ../.o,pthllll<:ho1): ___ _ '"--t-10Z.Oop1hllnchn) ___ _ '"--"°--"' 0 Poplhllnal\u): ___ _ W•Uand Hydrology Pruonl? Yu So / O..~ocor•:ltd Oat, ;11rum ~augt, monltor1nQ wen, urlal pholo•. provlou1 ,n,pecl1on1), II ovail1t,l1: I K1m"a1ks· .N• v;...,,,.j..,.J us Armv Corp1 al Englnur, W••l•<n MounUlno. v,11,y1, and Cout -Vlr,lon 2 C we-t-15 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -W111tem Mountain•, Valley,, and Cout Region PrO)MVSttt: Fi1t.f d /:,f}:4$)U, Clly/Counly: !Z?vfz.. .--/ S•mpnr,g Dalt: 4 ~z. "L--f { ?Nw l,fo\sfl t'q 5: st1to: ~ Ba mp Ing Polrrt· b i" [J: .... ) Applletnl/Ov.flor; lnv,.tlgt!or(II ,E./ .Sc-wa.l \ So>cllon,Town,hlp.R,ng•: $z...'"'1, T7"3~ Jr-,rC,.. Landro,m lhillolope, 10,raoe, etc.) Lcc1I roller !ooncav•, i:onvo,, non•I: Slop• l%): __ Sub<oglan (LRR~ Lal: Long Datum:---- Sci M•p Uni! Nome: N\M ol1olllc1lloo· -----~-- "'' ellmalle I nydrologlc ,;ondltlcn, on cr,o 1l1t tvplri.l lor lhl1 llmo o! yu,? Yu __ <• __ (II no, txpl•ln I'! R,mulu.) ~ /Vt Vogot1Uon __ "" __ or HVdrolo,iy __ 1lgn1nc,nUy dl1turtled7 ;,.a 0 N¢rm11 Clr~m•l•no,,· p111ont? Yu L No __ _ /VtVogol1llon __ . 5cU __ 01 Hydrology __ n•t~rdyprobl,mdc7 (If nHdod, upt•ln 1'1)' 1n1wu1 In Rem1rk1.J SUMMARY OF F!NDINGS-Atb.ch site map showing 1tmpllng point locatlon1, tr~naecls, lmportlnthalurn, etc. Hydrophylk: v,g I •l•tlan Pto .. n!? Vu I / .Nn J 7 , .. ---J,L.,,.,_ ~ Hyd!lo Soll Pr,unt? Wt11ofl'J Hydrology Pt;,M\1 llomark, YK~ _NQ I• 1h, S1mpl..!ArH Yu~No--wllhln1W1!l•nd? Yu Ma __ VEGETATION -Use sclenllftc names or plants. Ab1olul1 Oomlnitril lridlcaior Qm nincaiiiifwork,hNt: ~ (Plot •lie ) ~ ~ ~ N~m~rolOomlnonl $p•clu 1';:tb z-,Dl~";._;t-~--~ Th1lAt10BL,FACW,otFAC· • IC. • S 40 ---~ Tol•I Numt11r ol Oomlntnt __!j__ IA) ___ ---SptclOI A«on All 81r1t1: _!:t__ 1•1 ------___ ~ TD1al Cova, S•pl!OQIS~~q Stratum (Pio( !~f: J 1. or--vs 1h,\ .... ,,J;,....._, "30 --{'"11<.-,, ' -------------------------- ~ Total Covtl l::l1!tllWllll) !Plot 1lu· Jc, ...!:i.!L__ £!1!=-c --e..c_ (,\;,HYf -- Peroon1 of Dominant Sp&<:le, Thal Aro OBL, FACW, or FAC: Pr1v1l1no, lndu workll'lotl: TP111 '6 cmw or f..02_ -OBL 1p1clu ----' • ---- FACW 1pecit1 ---,,. FAC lpotiH ---, '• ---- FACV ljH,;IU ---.. • UPLljHclot ---•••---- IMa) ColumnToHl1: ---IA) ____ t•I ------------------------Pre~111nc1 lridoK • BIA• ------Hydrophyllc \l•g,utlon lndlc1lo11; < ------_ 1-A.1pl<jTt1lk,rl-1ydn:,ph)1loV1gal1llon ' --------.. -------- '· ------,. ------ '° ------" ------------ Wo91Y Ylnr Strnl11m (Plot 51u· ---- ___ • Tol•I Covu ,. ------ % Bo,e G1ou(ld In Horb Slrllum R,-mar~ us Armi Corp, cl En9lnuro --___ .. Tolar COVtr -2 • D<>ml~lr\OO THI I• ~50% _ l • Provol•no, lndu 11,13.01 _ ~ • t,lo<p<'>olo~lcol Adoptollcno' (Pn:,Yldo ,upportloil dat, In A"mark1 or on a up•r•t• 1heot) _ 5 • WttlMd M°"·VHOOIU Pl•nl1 1 _ Probl1m1llo Hydroph)'llc Vogola~on' (E,ploln) 11r>dl.a\or. of hydffc 1cll 1ri<1 wollond hyd101~y mu•l bll Pf Han~ ul'llu, dl1turbed or p<oblom1lle Hydrophy!lc V19•1&Uon p, .. ,nn v •• L_ Wnt,m Mountilno, Valloy,, and Ccul -V,ro1on 2.0 SO!L SampllnQ Polnl: ___ _ PrOill• Ot1Crip\lon; (Ouc[Jbl 10 lh• doplh nndcd to docum,n! 111• lndlutor al coriilrm th• •bnnCI of indlu\0·11.I 01p1h Rodq, Eulmu .lllU.1luL-CRIW/TPl!il __ji__ C.11/&Ytmell/! ___li_ _rniL. ~ .......LtuliLL. ----"""""------ !_!!._ /Oj,t..Jh t .. _ .... ,-..J-c:,1.,~-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'Typ,· C•Con .. n1rallon p•01p1,11on A.M•Roducod 1,1,111l< cs~covu,d or Coa(od Sand Grain, 1Loc1tlon: Pl~Por• Lining M0 M,111>. Hyd,lr, :lloll lndh:u,1011; (Appll,,.bl• to ,11-LRR1, 11n11u olh.;-rwin n<>Jf<I.) lndlootor, for Probl•m•II• Hy~rlc Soll•': -Hloto101 IA1) _ Sandy RtdOX(S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10] _ Hl,llc EplptdM (A1) _ Slllpl)Od Mo1rJo [88) _ R~d Poronl M•lorlal jTF2) _ Bl,ckHl11lc(Al] _ Lal(ny Muc'°"' Mlnorol (F1J l•~c•ptML"A 1) _ Vo,y ShanowOor~ Sur1Ne l"Tf12) 2'.. Hydrogen 5ulffde IM) _ Loamy Gleyld Mitri• [F2) _ 01Mr IExpl•lll In Aomark,] _ o,p1111d Below Dark Svrhoo (A11) Doplolod Malll, {F~) _ Thl~k D•rk !u/1101 (A12) :&,..Rodox Dork Sur1oco !F6] _ 81ndy "'1u~y Mlnar11 IS1) _ O~pteted Doi~ Sur11c1 (F7) Sand~oytd Ml~r1x(S~L_ _ fh<fox Oepru1lon1 IF~) '1n<rlcll(OJO o( hydrOph)'11c voi;re1allon and w,,lfand hydrolo,;iy mu,1 bo preHn<, unlou dl,1urMd or p_roblernatlc A.uLrJaijv• Uy,, l~ pr.,,nt), '~· ---~------j Hydtlc Soll Preunl7 Yu / Dtplh (lnchu): "' R1mark1: HYDROLOGY I W•ll~nd Hydrology lndi0.101•; f'rlrllf'Y IMICfW1 lrnlo!m11m p( ADI tl:9111(<\'.l' £MOK OIi !hll IPW) ~a<:oM,IY lcdlcnlor, f2 or m91t ceoli1Crd 1 _ sur1u,w.1or1A1) _ l'lfOh W1t,r hblt (A2) _ .ii.tu,atio~ (A!) _ Wiler llollrkll (B1) _ Sodlment D•po•R• (132) _ D~~ D•pGoH• (B:l) -Algal Mil 1)1" Cl\<11 IB~) _ Iran 01pooll1 (95) _ Sur1•c• Sall c,1ck0 (06) _ W1ter•Sl1lnod Lnvu (B9) (•~~•pl MLRA ,, 2, ""'· and ,!El) _ Sal1Cryoq81\) _ V'lller-lila!Md LHVU [69) (MLRA 1, 2, "A, ond ~El) _ Drainage Po~ornt (8\0) _ Aqu111e lnver1•1>r•tu (813) _ Dr,-Sno0<1 Waw Table (C2) _ 1-tfdrogon SWldo Odor (Cl) _ Saturollon Yloltl11 on Aulol Imagery IC9] _ D,i<jiled Rhltoophorn 1lono Living Roott (CJ) _ Geomo,phlc PoUlon 1021 _ Proun<:o ol fladuaod Iron (C,!) _ Shallow Aqul1ud iD:l] _ R•c•nt Iran Redu<:\lon In Tlllod Sait (Ce) _ FAC-Neutrol foll IDS) _ S\Unteda, su,u..:I Pl1ni.101) (LA.A A) _ RoJoedAnl Moun<ro(Oe)(LIUl A) _ lnurid•tion Vlolblo on Aotl•I lmogory (67) _ Dlh•r (E•plaln In Remu~,) _ Froot-Hnv, Hummoc•, (D?) 6poruly V,go\oltd ConQ.-,o Sur!•o• _(B8i Fl1IQ OburY1Uon1: Burfoc• w,tei Prount1 w,1,r Tobit Pr.,,m? SJh.otlon Prounl? l.!n21U<ln c,plhry lrlM6I fo __ No ,/"' Doptt1 [lnch•tr. ----,n __ Mo.:::::_ OoplhllncM•):_~~~ Yet~l'to __ o,plh(lnch.,J:__L_O w1111nd Hydrology p,uonl7 Yo, ./"" D11Crlb<r Rocgrd•d DaG,{11r,1m ~·<.Igo. monltortn~-=ll urlal phQlos. p"ioViou, 1riipe<:11on,), II ~~•llili1,: I K•mar1,.1: V!I Nm~ Corp, ~, En~l~ur, Wu!ern MoYntaln•. \lal11 1i, and Coul -V•rolon 2Q we,"t- WETLAND DETERMINATION OATA FORM -WHhrn Mount11lns, Va.ll~y,, and Cout Rt!glon ProJ•cVSlt, Apl)llc1n\/0...,1r lnvutlgalor(o) Fi1r.,,/d b~U Clly/Coun1y: ~h,,,.J SampllniD•t• 4 ~z 7...:..-/ { PQH-.i:->\.& t"q S Stitt: WA-Sampling Point t>5?: C:.-'- Z,l S \ SectlM,TOW111hip,R1ng1: $z..-,, T73/\{ &!i:E- Laridro,m [MIOlop•. lon,c,. etc.) Loc1l r.ll•f (cono•v•. convu, nontl: ------Slop1(%)1 __ sub<~ton ILRR): Lil: Loo~: O•tum: ---- Soi Mop Unit Nam,: N'M c11,11nc1\lon: -----~- Ne ollmatlo I hydrolo~c condlllon, on m, •~• typlc-al for lhl• l<n, ol YHf1 Yeo __ <• __ (II no, .,,p1,1n In RtmJrk•) ~ N, Voljll(lllon __ Soll __ o< Hydrology __ 1lgnlncant1y dl1l11rta<11 Alt 'Norm1I C1rcum1l1ne,11' pruenl7 YH _V_ S <,o __ Ne Vo11011llon __ Soll __ or Hydrology __ natur1ny problom1llc? (If nud1d, 1xp1,1n ,ny ,n,wut. In R•mar~•.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Atta cl, t1!te m• thowlng .um piing po!nt 1oc1tlon1, tr1n,ecit, Important featuru, etc, ,,,..J~a a,,,,n+? "·· -IJA Hydrophytlc Yeg •. _,,_ -,.. .. --;;:: No __ Yot No y., ---p--No-- H¥<1r•c: Soll Preunl7 We11an~ Hy,hology P,~ .. nl? R•muk, 1 11 th• hmplod Aru WIii>~ , W•!lend? y.,_L_ No VEGETATION -u,e •clantlflc name, of plant,. ~ (Plot1lzo J ~~~ Numt>orolOom"1•~l9p~,;ju ~ / Ab.ofut• Domlnont lndl<•lo, ·1 Domlniiiclh1twor~,n .. 1: '--------------------Th11An0BL.fACW,01FAC __ ...,. __ {'I ' ------'· --------'·------------- SiU"ifiM'illJ{]I~ Slralym (Plol llU: ) ___ •fol al Covu To!•I Numb tr ol Oomlnanl Speclu ,o,orou All $lrol1 _!:f__ '" ~~~'.:,~06~~mJ~~~~~~~~~ ..L!:!.JL IM3J P,eulonc• lnd1~ wo1k1hut; ,. r~ ..... w \ ....+:,J'.;,\. r 7 v r',1,lhl !' ,._ L .... ,. ---J:i..+( 1 ·-'"'"''"''•'•C•w•ecu,cr__ 1.NlfPIYhV" 2. !:!-"-,-, ,-, '"'-rv.,_ _.Q._ ---- 1. Cec-i.-.,s i1tz..l&H'~-~---~ oaL,,,.c:h, ___ ""---- FN::"" 1p1<1n ---,> • ---- FAC •pooln ---, > • --- FACU •P•~u ---, • • --- ------------ U.~L 1peo1<11 ---,0 • ---- Colvmr, TQ\111: ___ [Al ___ {O) ___ ~Total Cover ~ IPlotJizo· ) 5() t:dJl Cw: & o\oe:::...,p& ---- ------Provalonco lrld•~ •BIA• > ------Hydroph~UoYo~•IAllonlndlcalDro: <. ---___ _ 1 • R1pld Tut for Hy<lrophyllo Y1g•t•llon >. ---_____ 1 _ 2-DomlntnooTnli,>50% O --------1 -J • PflVIIOMf lrod~X It ~J.D' ,. --------.. -------- '· ------'° ------" --------------- WOndY Ylnr: Stralirm (Pio! sizo: _____ , ---" Talal Cov•r 1. ------'·------------- % e.r" GrouM In Hort, Slro\um I •mor~ US Alm) Corp, or Engln,,r, ___ • To111 c""" _ ! · MorpMIO;IO'OI Mop1oll<>111 1 IPr<>Vld1 IUpportlng da!1 In R1muk1 or Qn 1 1opora1e thttt) _ 5. W•ll•nd Non-Y11~ul1r Pl1n\1' _ Probl1m1\lc l-lydropi'\yllo VogoUllon' (Explain) 'lndlo110,. ol hydrk: 10! Ind weU1nd hy<lrola;y mull be prn,n( unluo dl,1urboo:J r,r problom111c. Hyd1Dphy~c V-iJ•illlon />rHtnt? , .. ~.- Wn!tm Mountt!'ii. v,11,yo. 1nd COHI -v,noron 2 o c... SOIL s,mpllr,g Point: ---- Profll• Ducrlpllon: (Ouc,lb• lo lh• dtp!h nuded lo cccum•nl lh1 lndlcalor 01 conlhm !he abunca ol lndlo,10, 1.1 --- D•~h aodox Fnlucu ...llru.llu.l-Gow rmnlot\ _ji_ Color (mo•m ___:a_ J.ai.L ~ --1.Ull!(L---c---''"'""'------ .1.L_ /P7k 'Z-/ L_ = = ,,..,,..,_/,,_ _____ _ ------------------------- ------------------------ '_!lli· C"Conoon1111lon O•Depletlon fl.Mgfhduoid ~~So.Covortd or Co•t•d ~Ind Gra1n1. 'Lcc•lion· PL"Poro Lining M•Maln• Hydric·acl/ Indicator•: (Applloalil• to •II LRR•, un1111 o·ihuwlu ncled.) · ln<11c,101,· roi Picbl•m•.11c Hydrlc Soll•' _ Hl1to1ol(A1) _ SandyRedcx(SS) _ 2 cm Muck (A'.01 _ Hl1Uc Eplpodon 1"'2) _ Strlpi:,od Mat/Ix (S6) _ Rod Puonl M•le<l•I (TF2) _ Bliek Hilllo(A3) _ Lot my Mucky Mineral lf'1) IUC.p\ MLRA 1) _ Very Sh•Jlow Dark Suli•c, iTF12) _ Olho, (Exp111n In Romarko) _ Hydrog•n Sul~d• lA4) _ Lo•mr Oltyed Mot,I~ 1F2) _ 01plol1d B•lcw 011k S\l/ltc• (A11) _ Oephled r,Mrla (F3) _ Thick Dor~ 8urf10, (A12) ~ Redox 0.,.1< Surf10• IF6) _ 9aMy M~<o!<y Mlno,111s1) hnd~•)"'~~~K_(~i!_ ilutrl~tlv• L.lyor (~ p, .. 1nll: _ Oept,1,d Dari< Surf•~• (n) Redox Oeproulon~JF.!) Typ1: _________ _ Deplh (lo<:hHY. Fl•matk•: HYOROLOOY / W1!11nd ihdrDlo~Y lndlcalcr,: P1lmnrr: lrd1Ji112r, 1rol01m11m 2( 20111au1w1· chock 1111t11l 1PQM _ !lurtlc•W1tul"1) _ High W11,r T1bl1 IA:2) _ W1ler•S1•lned Lnvu (B91 luupt MLl'I.A 1, 1, 0,, •nd ~D) 111\dlcotor• ol hydrophyllc v-.i,111lcn ar,d weUand hyd1ology must b• p•uonl, unloU dl!Mbod or proe1oma11c J Hydnc Soll Proun!? Yu~ No sr:goQdm: lodlce\o'I 12 or moro ,;ouudl _ Waler-Sl,lntd Luvu (B9) IMLRA 1, 1, ~A, •n<I <BJ _ S1lu,otlonj,O,l) _ Sal!Cru•t 18111 _ Or•ln•o• P•~erno (810) _ W1l•r Marki IS1) _ Aqu>llclnverubl"~\H (B13) _ Ory-Soeonwat" T,01, 1c21 _ 81dlmonl 01po1H11S2) _ 1--l)"d•c.-on SulM• O<lot(C1) _ S1lurat1on Yl•lblc on ,..erlol lmagttV (CS) _ Drlff D•po,I!• (B3) _ Oxldlud Rt11l:o•~hueo along Llvlno Root, iC:l] _ Geomorphlc Pooltlon (D2) _ Al~ol 1,h!or Cru,t(B•J _ Proooo•• o/Ro<!uC1d !Ion 1c•1 _ snaNow.',quliord (DJ) _ Iron Dep,111, (BS) _ Recont lion Re<!uct1on In Tlllod Soll• IC~) _ FAC-Noulral To•I (05) _ SurfUI Sell Cruk1 (B~) _ Slunl•d or Struood Plants (01) (LRR A) -Ralu~ Ml Moun<!, (DI\) (lRR A) _ lnund•llon Vltlblt en A11ltl lmag11y (B7) _ O~er (EXploln In Remtrkl) _ Fro,!-Htav, Hu,.,mo<:~• (01) Sj>Oruti-Yo11111!1d COMJVI 8u<1100 (Be) Flo Id Cburutlon,: ~ / Su<1,01 Wlltlr Ptn1n11 YH _.i:::::::. No __ Ooplh (ln,;hn)· _-,. __ _ Yu /Ne Wlltt Tablt P1u1nt7 I ~~~~~~1 1 ,~ 1Z1')Qe) WtU•nd Hydrology P1eunl1 Oe1e11r,, Fteeord1d D~!1 (•lrumijtu11~ monl\otl<>g w,11, aerl•I phQIOI, p,..,t<ou, ln1p~cliQn1~ II •va"iiiliTe: 1·Flell1irkf: us Army Corpt of EnQinuro w~,!~rn Mountoln,, Valley•, and Co~,1-Vor,lon <.O WETLAND DETERMINATION OATA FORM -Western Mo.unttlnt, Vtlltys, •nd Coast Region Pr¢iecVS1te: Fi1Jd /:,/):;'t:)/,,£ Clly/C¢unty; !Z?v}v.-..,, S1mp~ngD1tt: 4 .-z.. "L-f { Applic1nvo,.,.,.,. lrl-Gl\&rg;s St,11: WA-s,mpjlngPolnt Pr'. p-.Ja So~~on, Tov,mhlp, Ron~•: 5: 'Z...., 1 T'23/\/, /1!-'fl=-1/1•·•111~alorl•); L~ridlorm (hlll•lope. lon,c,. ,1c) Loc1I relier (oonco¥1, convex, non ti: SfQp, (',\): __ Sul>rogl0/1 ILAR) Lil: Long Oatum: ---- Soil Map Unll N,mo: NWl cl•ulfic1llon: -----~-- Are cOmollo/tiyd1ojog1, oond~lon, on !no ~110 typjoal ror 1n1, time ol yeor? Yu __ "'--(lfr,o, ••"'1•1n In A1m11k•.) ~ Ar, Vog,ta!lon __ , Soll __ • or H)'<lrol,;,gy __ •lgnlMoantly dl1(urbtd? No 'Norm11 C1rcvm,t1Mu" pr1Hnl7 Yu _V_ N Noo __ At• V,gotatlon __ Soll __ or Hy<lrotogy __ naturally l)lobl1m1tlo? 111 n,,d..i, ••p[1ln any ,n,......,,-In A11n11k1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-AttAch site map show!ng sampling point lo_caUons, lransects, Important future,, ale, Hydropnyllc Vog,, .. .,n noon, 1 Hydrlo Soll Pr .. on\? Wotl>M Hyd1ojogy Pinon!? R~maiks: :°'~ No v::~No __ ---"' 1 1• lh1 lhmplf<l A, .. wl1hln o W•tl•nd"I YuL No VEGETATION-Ust sclen11flc namas of planis Ab•orule" Dominant ll'!dlo1tor om n•M•Tutwo, 1hN\, !Pio! olzo hi , ~ ~ ...£illlL N'1tl\tltr of O<imlntnl Specio, ,._,. { f, '"-...,Jf!_ ___ fJ1<1.o,,,1 ThalA1o061..FAr:x.,orFAC: ' ~ ,, ---~ Toi al Number or Oomln1nt ; V ...u<----_,..,....___ Spoclol AllfOU NI Slrot1· ' --Perconl of D<>mln,nt Sp6olu ---• To1al Cov,r That Aro 00L, FACW, 01FAC· 5ap11na1~ub SIUliim (P1o1 ,tn: I _ _£._(A) s--(B) /t-'C/ !Ml) Pr•v•ltnca lndo worl!thttl: 1.f""'"' C•r,,.,-h h__~~ IP1l!'6CWtrPt bi<lilPIYPY 2 r,,,.,.,...-4 !Shh-,.."""'='= ~---~ OBl.optcl" ----'"---- ,. --------FACW1p1cJu ---"" ---'· ------------ ~(1"101,lu I ___ • Talal Covtr FAC 1p1clu ---•' • --- FACU lpoclu ---"' --- UPl.1p<1olH ---.0 • ---- I. e-e,.)4 obe" .... ., /-,__ ~(),, ---.~ • Cc,Jum/\TQtolo: ___ (A) ----I') '· ------I P1onlon<:o lodu • SJA • I ------( Hydrophytlc Vogo\.oUon lndlc,1orr: ,. --. --------------------·--------------------------"·-------------------- "· ------___ • Tolal Covot WQOO:YYIM S.lfll'lm (Plcl "u: -------- ,. --------'--------- % Bare Growr,d In Ho1~ Stralum Romark•· U5 Army Ccrp, ol En~lnoo,s ---• Tot•I CQVor _ 1 -R1pld Toot for Hydropt,y1lo v,g,to(lon _ 1•0omlnancoT11llt,50% _ J • Prov•l•no• Inda. lo i3.0' _ ~ • Morpholc~lc11 Ad1pltllon1' \Pr'1\'lde ,up porting d111 In R1mu~, or on a 11p1ratt thHt) 5 • Wolltnd Non.Yuoular Plan!•' _ ProblemaUc H)'IJrophytk Vo~etollon' (Explain) 'Indicator, or hydilc ,oll 1nd weiand hydro~y mw,l be p,enn\ union dl•ivrt,e,J °' pro~1m1ttc. Hydraph~Uo V~•llllon P1uenl? Yn /No __ W.ot•m Mount11'\1, V•lloy•. and Caul -Vorolon ~. O S01L. sampll'lg Point: ____ _ Profll• OuorlpJlon, (O••crlb• lo lho d•plh n .. d,<1 10 docum•nl Iha lndlc11ar or con!l1m tho aiiun,-ii-or lndlcato,,.) Depth .il°'1lllL-CPIRC (IDP rtJ __!L_ CqlD( /rrP ,n,doX ~11...I:tJu.:... _uL .....lfL_ t Q'-fYI-..,_ I/ ---- ------------- --""""'--, ~ L "' -------------------------------------------------------- 'Hp•· C•Cono•ntr-atlon D•O~pl1Uon RM,,Reduoed M•trl, cs~co~trod or Caa\1d Sand (!rain• 'Lo.,,.llon PL•Poro Llmnq M~M•_!ilir-- Hydrlc loll lndl,:,01011: jAppllc.o~I• 10 all LAR,, unl•u Olho,wlu noll<I,) lndlcalars lcr Prabl•m,tl<: Hyd1IG Sall•: _ l'<l1101c>j(A1) _ 1-<11110 Eplptdon ("'21 _ 911o~l·ll1UclA:!) ~ydrog1n SufMe (Aol) _ Dtplolod a,1owDark sur1,,, (Al1J _ Thie~ Dark Sur/101 (A12) _ Sindy Mucky Mlnortl(S1) S1ndy Gley,d ~11r1~ (941 R11iilclf.,.--L11tf(lf pruiiii), _ Sandy r!od,o, (S5) _ S!rlpp,,d Mitri• IMJ _ Loamy Mucky Mlnorol (F1) (1,c•pl MLRA 11 _ Loamy Gloy..i M•llrl• (F21 _ Dopletld Matrix (F~) _!::'."1:ledox O~r~ s~rrace (F6) _ 01pl•!•d Oark surr,c, iH) Rodox Depr .. ,lcn• _l__f:BI _ 2cmMvca(A10) _ Rod Poron\ 1,Hlorlal(TF71 _ vorysn,11owD•r~Sur!tc~(Tf'21 _ Oll\tr 1E•pl1ln In flomark•) '1nd1c,1or, or hydr,opnytlc v~olollon a rod WOll>nd Mydrol,:,,;iy must b• pr<,.111, union dl1lurood or f_'eb:omall:. Typo: _________ _ l Hydolc Soll P11onl? r .. ~0 Ooplh (lr,Cl'lftl; [ Romuk•: HYOROLOOY / w,11,na Hy.cl,a)agy lndlc.a!o11: 1'rlmux I011s!lnr 1mrolm11m pf oot C1m1!c,st· <hoSII ,M •b1t 100M !ircoMacY lo<lls:alors (? u more r~ _ Svr!1ctW•1•1fA1) _ Hlgl'I Wat1r hblt ("'2) _ Saturation ("'l) -W•l•r ~Ukl (S1) ~ Wuor•St1IMd Leovu (89) (ox~1pt MLf\A t, l, ~A, and ~B) _ Sal1Clutl(911) _ W>(Or•Sla'ned L•~v« (69) (MLRA 1, ~A. ond ~B) _ Drain•~• Pa~or.o, (8101 _ Aquatic lnvolloblllel (B1~1 _ Ory-So,,on Walor Tabl, (C2/ _ S1dlm•nl D1pr>d• (92) -l'.lrl~ 01p<llll1 (B31 _ Hydrog•n Sul~d• Odor (C1) _ S1\ul'llon Vl,ibl• on Aorl>< lmogeri iC9i _ Algll M•I Qr C1u11 (B~) _ Iron Oopo,111 (B6) _ S\lr1•"" 9all Croc~, (981 _ O•l(!~od R~1,a,ph1ro1 along Lt.Ing RootJ ICJ) _ Gtan\orptilc PoOJlion [021 _ Pruen,;:1 offl<<!ucod Iron (C~) _ SM~!ow ,',.qu,taid ID:ll _ R~centlron R<rducilon In Tlllod ~ail !CG) _ fAC-Neu1ral Tul (051 _ SHHW>~ o, Slr•••ed f'lln11 ID1) (l.1\1\A) _ Raio,<! AA\ Mound, iOO] [L/1.fl. A) _ Inundation Yl•fbl• "" ...,11,1 tm1g,ry (B7) _ 01~c1 (Exp[ain In R•mor1<•J _ Fro,i-H .. v• Hum!'1oc~• !01) S?•l1!1Y._~!g1lt\1d Cono,vo $url1c1 jBa) 1TOTlOtiOOm11on1; .,,/' Surt101W11~rF'11unl? Yu_...-.:;_ N•o __ D~p1h(lnche.): '1 W1t~r hbl• F'tuonl? Ye• __ No __ Dtp\h \Inch.a):---- Sa\uro11on P1uenl7 I C~de1 o•plllary lflnq• rn __ NO __ Depth (ln,h"): ----W•!land Hyd!ology P'roent? Yoo~o ---- Dncril:eAe,ordii1"0at1 (111nm g•~~•, monl\orlng w~I•, urlal p1101oi; p1evlou1 ln,poctiQri"I), II ov•llabTo: / ,,,ma"""ik•: IJS Nffly Carpi or EnginHr1 WHltm Mountain!, Valley a. •nd Coa1I -V•r,lo~ 2. O i _J I ~-\--'=- WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western MO!Jnlaln•, Valleys, 1nd Cout Raglon Projac\/SJI•· FiJd /:,n,tt)J..l Ctly/County: /u,.;h, ,...,,;' Samp!n~ oa11: 4'" -Z. 'l... .. / { p~ t'g' S $1-te: WA-S•mpllnQ Polnl: D f» §"-J ... ppilcanl/0;,nor lmo,1lgolor(1): 2~ S0cil<>n,Town.h1p,R1ngo: '$'.Z.."'1, f2'3/\.{ &'f.E:... laM!<>rm(Mllolope, lorroo-, •le J Loni ralloltoon~IYO, IQnvu, non•): Slopo(l't): __ Su~roglon (LRRJ Lal Long: Oalum: ___ _ SoN Map Uni! Name· NWI clau1na1llon: -----~-- Ar• ollmollc I hy<1rolog1c e<indl~on, an the 1110 typical/I• llm• or yu,7 Yu __ >• __ Ill no, exp11ln Ill R1mor1<1.1 ~ l'I• V•g•l•Uon __ so11 __ or HydrolQGy __ •lgn1noon1~ <1l1Mtie<I? ,',,re ·Norm1I C1roum1l1no,o1• prounl1 Yu _L tfo __ _ Aro Vegolollon __ S011 __ o, Hy<lrolo<;y __ naturally 1m:ibl~m111o1 (tr no,do<I, .. p111n any 1n,wu, In R1rn1rk1.I ~MARY a~.~::~~~-~~.-Atta~~-Sl'.e map .s!lowlng .sa.mpllng point locttlone, transecis, lmporttnt future•, etc, Hydr,>phyl1c Y•g.,a,,w,,, ,, • .,,. Yt•~No __ Yu~o __ vu.....L_ No 1 11 !ht S•mple<I Aru Wllhln I W•!l•nd? Htdrlc Sol Preunt? Watland Hydrology PrHonl? Rtiriarl<, e,.vfv..._.T" ""'"'-t-.s.so..,-r\... ~ =F VEGETATION-Use scientlllc names of planh, ~ (f'lol,lze. ___ _ YH~. "'-'<--ft _.,-l Al>ooluio Oomln,nt lndlc1lo< oml~•nc1 Tltl wo1k1hKI: ~ ~ J.li1liL. NumD-Dr or Domln•n1 Sr,t.ln ------------------------Th1!/vt oai... fAf;W, orFAC: ---1...__ IA) ' ---------------------------------------- Si1oi1Q9l$b•u~ S~m !Plot ,120 ) ---• To111 Covu Toi,! Numb11 of Dominant SptclH Ac,r,;,U All $(11!1: Pero on! or Dominant Spooln TMI Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Pr1v1i•nct Ind•~ wor~oh,i,iii: ____'.1_ ,,, ...k..L '"'' J ?'v < ,S•f~{-:sg_ F',..,..,, 2QrNVJ :f l-e:, c;.;..; "JC.,, ---=1 ro 111'4C9Xecat M111got>:bw , ---OBL•P<O<MII x1• ------FACWtpoCIII == x2-.=:= -- .l:k~_Slu;.ll~)Plol ,lu· ) • Total Covel FAC tP<'ciOI f.',CLJ OpooJu UPL ,peel" .,. . '. . '. ColumnT01111: ___ i'I ----IBI ~ ~ r1.,.. F,,t,.. ~ .2.L __ FA-<.. '· --------Pr1v1tonco lndtx •SJ.',• ------------------------HydrophylluVt;tt.otlon Indicator•: ------------------___ ---_ I. Flap(d Tut l<rrHydrop/iytloV•~•l•llon ------------------------_ 2 Oomlnanc• ht! l1 •SO% ' ------. ------------~~.--------------- "·--------------- Wsorlt Vioc S!rawm 1P1<11 ,1i•: ---- ___ a To!al Covu ------------ % B~1• Ground in H,ib Stro\um ---" Total Covtr R•rliark,: US -"rm'f Corpl o1 EnglMer, _ ~ · Prav•l•n~• lndo 11,l,O' _ ~ • 1,t,.,pht>loglc,1 Adap!a!lon•' (Provide ,uppor11ng do(• In Romotkt Of on 111p1rot• ohool) _ 5" W•ll•n<I N•n-\1'11cul•1 Plmt•' _ P,obl•ma\lc Hyd('(lph)'llc Y•~e!lllon' (E~i:,lalnl 11ndlc1lor1 or hy<!rlc ,~I •nd wo111nd hydrology mu,t oe prooen~ unlu1 dl11urt>ed or probl•m•llc flydrophyllc V191t.ollon Pt,Hn\1 Vu V:: __ _ Wu lorn 1,1oun1>ln1, V11tey1, ond Cont -Yuolon 2.0 SOI!.. Sampllng Po!nl: ___ _ P1olll1 Duo1lpllon: ID11c1lh lo \ht dtpth nud•d lo docum1nl lht lndlcalo1 or con!11m th• ,bunc1 o1 lnd1c,1or1.) ~ GaNr/wsfart -1L.. Cg12rl'Il"kn•do:<~,..lrJlL~ ~ -----''-"'""''----- ./.JL___ ;c,,yvt. 7--/l__ ----~ ------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ·~· C•Concenlrtllon D•D1pl•llon._RM•Roductd Ma\rl>'.,_CS~Coverod w Coolod Sand Orarn, 1Locallon: PL•Poro Llrln9 M•~olr,, Hydrl<> 5011 Mdloo101,; (Appll,,,.blo to •II LRR,, unln, othorwiu nolad.) lndlcalon lo, P,oblomallc Hydrlc Sp<ls'· _ Hl,101011"'1) _ Sandy FlodoK(S5) _ 2 cm Muc• IA10) _ Hloll<: Eplptdo~ (A2) _ Slrlpped Ma1rl• IS~J _ Fled Paron\ Mo1crl11 jTf21 -B11Ck HIiiie (Al) _ Loamy Mucky Mlnorol jf1J (e•otpl MLRA 1) _ Vory Sha!ow Oark Surrac, 1Tf12) _ Hydrcg1n S~l~dt IM) _ Loamy Oley~ M•lrbc IF2) _ Olhor [E•pla"'1 lo Romacks] _ O•pl•l•d Btlow Dark Surloco (A11) _ Deploled t,!a~Jx (F~) _ Thick Dirk 9ur1,c1 (A12) _ Rodo• Ouk Sur(ac• (F51 _ Sindt J,tyct;y t,!in.r•I IS1) .? D0p1111d D1rk Surt•c• (F7) 1indloaloro of hydrop!,ytl~ ""!)•tollon ord wellan<l l!y<lrclogy mu,! be p,ue'l\, i,nlou ~l,hll~<d Q• probl,m~tlc _ S1ndy Gl1y1d M:Wi• (S~) _ Rodo, Deprosskm• (f8) R.,1rlcl ~· yu (lf pru1nll: Typ1: /. Oopih (lncl!t1): Hydrlc Soll Preoon!? Yt1 __ '-__ •m111<1: ---J HYO RO LOGY W•li1nd Hyd,oioQY lrldiutor•: edrn1ry lmtiO!l'tft {rn/OICD'lrn 91 901 Cog• lr.d· £h!CII M lhol MPM ~da'Y 1na·rno•1 12 2, mm• rH ·lwiJ _ SurfaotWllor(A11 _ HlghW•t•rTobt•(!o.21 _ 91turo!ion (All _ W1(t1 M•r11• (Bl] _ Sadlm•nt Dop,;,olt• (B2) _ Drt~Dtpolllo(Bl) _ Algal MIi O< CNtl lB~) _ Iron OtJIO"llo lB~) _ surtac, ~oil c,,ca, IB!) _ W.l<r•Sloln<d L .. vo1 IBg) (uc•pl MLR.', 1, l, AA, ond ABI _ Sal!Crv1t(B1t) _ W,,lor·Sltlnod LU.,u iB91 ih',U\A 1, l, ~A. ond ~Bl _ D,a•n•g• P,~oin• lll10) _ Aqu,llo •n~M•Dralet (B1:l) _ Ory•SUtM w,1., hol• (C2J _ Hycrog•n Surn11, Odor (C1) _ S•1u1a11on y;,·,1,, or, Aorlol lmagory (C9J _ O•ldl>oa R.~l?OIPhtru •long LNlng Flool1 (C3J _ O~omorphle Po1ilon ID21 _ Proun,;a ol FlodU-Oed 1,on {C~) _ Shallow .<,qul\>rd IOll _ Rocontlron Fl~dYc!l<rnln TIied S01il (CIII _ FAC-Noulral Teol lD5] _ S!un!Od QI Slrtuod Pl•nts (D1) (\.RR A) _ Rolud Anl h\OuM, (0~) (LRR Al _ lnundlllon vi,11111 ~n Atrl1l lm1gt,y 167) -o _S_earuly V1g1tat1d_ c_ono•~• Su_,:_hc• (BIii _ OlherlE~plalnln R•mlfXo) _ Fro•I-Hnve Hummock• (07] Fltld Oburn\lona: Surl1c1 W111r Prn,nt? W•t•r Jil)l1 Pr11tnl? 1 ~~'.~r~llon F'r.,•nt? L..i!!!IDl'l~~..!'.!l'.!!L.."'1'...!!.!!l!z Yu No V Doplh jlncho1): ___ _ y.,--No~ Ooplh(lncheo): ___ _ YH 7 No __ Depth (lnehn): -':1 WtHond Hydrclogy Pruon11 'I' .. ,..,/No __ I D119/jb;-J:rocord1d D•l• (1l10•m gavgo, rnonllortn~ woll, aorlal pl'lo\oc, prevlou• lnspe~1,on1), II ""'llblo: / /hrn,ril,sc US Army Corp• o/ Englnooro Weol•m Moun\al~•. v~11,y,, Md Cou\ -Yo~lon 2 C t,,...<_;\-l= WETLAND DETERMINATION OATA FORM -Western Mountllns, VaU,y•, tnd Cont Region ProjocUSlto: ,',ppliclll1VOWotr lrwu~1111c1I•): Fi1Ud /:,()%)/,.(. Cily/Co1.rn1y lu,..;h,,..../ S•11'pllnijOat1: l./ ,z.. 'Z...--/ { (;,§!w ~ rq :S Stalt: ~ SampllM Point C,? fS \ ?... St St~llon. T""""hlP, l'lange $ Z.. °1, / 2 3 ,'-'{ /'(.,,':( £=_. L•ndform lhJll,lope, 11,1ao1, etc.) Lo~a! roll•! 1conea.o, OOilVtX, nont) lllopt (~): __ 5~bl1gl<m (LRR) L•t Loo~ o,1um'. ---- Soi Map Unll Nam•: NWl o11ull'k:1Uon: -----~-- ,.,,, ollmallc / i',ydr~ COMtt~n \ho Jlle lyploal (0111111 llm6 o1 yoar1 Yo• __ >• __ (Ir rio, nploln Ir, R1mtrk1.) ~ 1\/, Vegetlllon __ Soil--· or Hy<jrolc,gy _L 1lgnlnoantly dl•M~d? No 0 Norm11 Cl~~m1t1nu,· ?fUOnt? Ye1 _V_ '>•• __ Alo Ve11•t•llon __ sc,1 __ or Hydrology __ n,l~r.iy probl1ma~c1 (If nu<lod, oxp1,1n r.'/ •niwer. In R1m1r~•.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach lllte m•p showing umpllng point loc1tlo-n1, tranaect1, lmporta.nt fea.tures, etc. Hydrophylln V,g 1 11 !ht Blmplld AIU within , W,!11n<1? I 1lollon P,,,~~,? Y•• tJn j "'--"'--"'--"' Hydric Sell Pro,onl? WollaM Hy<Jrofo~y Pr~•MI? R1mork•. f",rA.. i "J'" , .. __ "' , .. __ "-- r-vt+--t.J,. t..-,/ -f,r-.c... l-,-, ..... (.ks J $",&]>\'\ ' ,... ,""J& 1.0 C ~ v r.--.. #'( /- VEGETATION-Uae scientific Mmu Gf plants ·Ab.olvt, bomlCuint lndlo1(or om n•n•• ul wo1 lhtt1: lu.Ul!Jllun (Plol ,1u: ~ ~ ~ Nvml:>o/ of Dominant Spectu t:11 ? ,. ------Th•IN•O!IL,FACW,orfAC: ~ (A) '· ------' --------. ------ ---• Tolal Covu SIOIIOO/Sb'llb s1ral\J"0JPlot ,1zo. ~ ) ~ ~ i ne:-¥z·&:.::. = ~ . ---'-------== '---------------___ ., Total Cover ti~IPlot.iu. I ,.1,,,,,./-·s: _,_,-~-, k", ---~ Tot91 Nvmb•r or Dom1n,nt L,. SpeclOI Ao:ron All S\n,11: --/--IB) Per~enl of Oomln•nt Spoolu / ~ T~al >Jo OBL, FAr::11, or F~: ") !Nil) Pr,valtn<:• ind•x work1hu~· TPl1t 'ti cm, et -0BL IP'ciH ---,> • ---- FAC'('l lpO<.ln ---"• ---- FAC opo<,01 ---,a• --- fACU op,clu ---"• --- UPL •1"'cl11 ---,0 • --- Co1umnT~al1: ___ ['I ___ ['I ' ------Pron lone• lnd•X ~ Blil. • '· ------Hyd1op~yllc V,g,1.ulon Indicator•: <. ------_ 1-~1pi<1Te,1rorH)'d<ophyt1•V•ij•l•llon '· --------_2-0omln1nooT .. 1l,>!O% '· ------,. --------. ------'"· ------"· ------------ Wo,;,gy YID' SlralHm 1Ptol 1ln: ----- ___ .. Tal•I Covu '·-------------.. ==== '/I Bore o,ound In Herl> Slralum Romo,k1 US Almy Corp, o/ Engln1011 ___ • To111 Cov1r _ J. Pr1v1lonco lndul• :113.0 1 _ ~ • Moroholo~l••I M•p!ollona' [Provldt 1vpp,,rting' d1t1 In Rtmork• •• on I oopJflt• thet\) _ 6. w,11,1111 Non.Vuculu Pl1nt1' _ Problom1tlo Hyd(ophy\lc V1~ol1\lon 1 (Ex~lln) 'ind,calori or hydrlo 1oll 1!"1d WtU1nd hydrok>i"/y mu11 bt pru•N, \/nlH1 diolurb<l<I or pro~1rn1Uo Kydrophyllc V'"!lltlllon FrtHnt1 / "'--"' Wn\etn M(iijnl1lnt. Va lien, and Co111-V1r1lon 2. O SOIL Samplln~ Point: ---- P1or111 bnc,lp1lon: tbu~rlh lo 111• a•iah nuded to do"""'•nl th• lndle,to, or oonrtrm lh• 1buM• ol lndli:0.1u, ,.) Dtpl.h ~ CPklr 1m21,n -li..- ~ ... ,~=---- 9!d9Zi fHIU'O CPIQC /m21Stl ___'t\.__ JJ:ia:... ~ .......I.uJ.lla Bomurk, ~Cc--a.__ ___ Y9 J, h.,.J.;c9' ------------- -------------I ----H 'TYR!" C•Conc1ntr1Uon O•Q•plellon RM=Rodvc•d Matt<>: cs~coverod or Co~1od S1nd G111n,, 'Loc,IIM' PL~Poro L'nln9 M•M•lf1x. Hydrlo So!/ lndlaator1: (AppllOllblt lo 111 LFVl•, un1u• 01t,orw1 .. nol..r.) lndlc1tor1 tor Probl1mollc Hydrlc Sell,': 1 -Hlo!o1ol(Aj) _ S1ndyR•dOK(SSJ _ 2cmMuck(A10) I _ Hlo\lc Eplptdol\ (_.,,) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Rod P•r•nl M•l<rl•I (Tf21 _ Block Hl,uc (A31 _ Lot my Mucky Mlntral IFll lnc1p1 MLl'IA 1) _ Vory Shallow O•rk Sci<ac• 1Tf12) _ ),fydrogtn Sull<I• i,'.4) _ Lo•my Gl•ytd Matrix lf2) _ Othor (Explain 111 Rtm1r1<o1 -Dtpltlld S•i<7WO•tk6url1~t ("111 _ O•pl•l•<I Mtlrlx (F3J _ Thick DUk Su/lac• (A121 _ Rodo,c Duk Sur1ao1 IFS) _ Sondy Muclcy MIMrtl 161) _ O•pl•tod D1rksurr,c, (F7) Sondy_~yed_(,hlrlx~ ____ R•~ o,pr•t1lon1 (F~J 1lr,dlcatoro ol hydrophylle v•g•t~1:on and woUond hydrology mll•I b• pruonl, unlou di,tur~•d 01 problerr>a:lc RulrictlY1 Lliy•t (~·p,1un11: / Typ•: Hydrlc Soll Pto11nt? Yu --'° --D1plt1 (lnchu): Romuk•: 1-!YDR.OLOOY W•~•n<I M~drolo~y lndi.,.lor>i Pr'mm IOdlc1IP'l lmlo'mum or oo, cowlrrst· s~ect :all mat 100M _ sur1..:0W1ttr(A1) _ HlijhW.lor T1~l1 jA2) _ W1ler-Sl1lne<I Lnvu (89) (Ucapl MLl'IA 1, l, U., •.od ~8) ~;f,;11w, o or !MCI reu1,·lcrd1 _ Walor.S111nod Loavn (B9J [MLR.A 1, l, 4A, onc:I. ~B) _ hli.J<'lllon !.'.l) _ s,~ Cru,1 !B111 _ D1a1naQe P•ti•rn• IB10) _ W1mMark1 II!\) _ ..,,,u,uo lnv,nebra\" (B1l) _ D'l'•Su,onWatuTabio \C21 _ 81dlm1n! Dop:,1111 IB21 _ Hyd,o8•n sutnd1 Odor (C1 I _ s,1ur•lloh Vl•lbl• on ;lorlol /mogory (C9! _ 0,1n Dopo1~1 (Bl) _ Oxldlud Rhl1oopM101 alMg Living Root, (CJI _ Cloomorphlc Po1IIIM (02) _ Alg1IMatorCrv1\(!HJ _ Prouno1olRMuce<1lron(C~J _ Sha1low;\q\J!tord(Ol) _ ~on D•P,,tlll (BS! _ Rtcenl 1100 Roduotlon In T<ll•<I Soill [C51 _ FAC·Noulr•I Tui (0~) _ Surtau Soll Crocl<ajBB) _ Stun\od or Slln•"" Plants(D1)(Ll'll'IAJ _ R1l1od Ml Mound> (O~)(Lf\R A) _ lromd110,n V11lbl1 on ;\orlol lmogory (B7) _ O\hlf (E~plaln In R•m•rk&J _ Fro•l·HU~I Hummix:k• (07) Sp1r,~~ :,t,g1tlltd COMtvt Sw1o"" (88] ?1oi!<fobl"1-r"Vallon1; Surhct Watu PIHlnl? W1l11 Ta~, Fru•nt? Slluno~on P1u1nl7 l~~~-~!.~1 ""--No~tpl~(lnchHJ: ___ _ Yo No D1plh (lnohH); ---= YuZ No= DtplhllnehuJ:..:::::..L.J2.. ~ W•lland Hydrology Praunl? Duorlb• R,cor:l•d OaU. fllrnm ga"ll•, monitoring wel( unBI pholo1, pr,v,ov• ln•pocl1on1~ I! •~•llab1a: ("""Rorila,kl· Y••~ "' US ;\rmy Corp, ol Englnuu WHl1rn fv'ouolalno, Y•ll~y,, ~nd Coo,t -Ver,lon 2 0 December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 RE: Habitat Study-Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington SWC Job #11-121 Dear Justin, Sewall !tland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way Covington, WA 98042 3-859-0515 3-852-4732 This letter is in reference to the City of Renton' s requirements for a Habitat Study for the Fieldbrook Commons project. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a I 0. 7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172nd Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. Typically a Habitat Study is required by the City when Critical Habitat as defined in the Code (RMC 4.03.050K.1.a). Critical habitats are defined in Code as follows. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. Habitats associated with the documented presence of non-salmonid (see subsection L 1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; ancVor ii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M1 of this Section for classification criteria). b. Mapping. 0 N I- I-I CCI 1-1 :::c >< w ie ldbrook Commons!# 11-121 uewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 201! Page2 i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non- game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ii. Referenced inventories and maps are to be used as guides to the general location and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection K1a of/his Section, but not shown on the referenced inventories and maps, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this Section. iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. c. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to K5 of this Section, apply to all non-,,,xempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection K1a of this Section. 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection K1 of this Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-1200. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. A review of the WDFW Priority Habiats Mapping was conducted for the project. This was detailed on Page 6 of our November 8, 2011 Critical Areas Report for the Fieldbrook Commons project and is reproduced as follows; 3.1.4 WDFW Priority Habitat Website Map According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access layers activated, there is a wetland located along the east side of the site. ieldbrook Commons/#] 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 20 II Page3 As shown above, WDFW has only identified a wetland (purple shading) along the east edge of the site. No state or federally listed species arc identified or known to use the site. The wetland has been rated using the City ofRcnlon methodology and is rated as a Category 2 wetland. Our review of the site did not reveal any state or federally listed species on or near the site. Conclusion There is no "critical habitat" as defined by Code on or near the site. If you have any questions in regards to Hus report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@scwallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Sewall Wetland Consultin , Inc. December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36'h Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 9804-2 RE: Supplemental Stream Study-Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington swc Job #11-121 Dear Justin, Phone; 253-659-0515 CilJFd,3-llsz-4132 P1 . Renton .annino O .. . , rv,s,on JAN .. J !U/2 This letter is in reference to the City ofRcnton's requirements for a Supplemental Stream Study. Typically a Supplemental Stream Study is required for projects containing a stream within their limits, or within 100' of the study site. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a 10. 7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172nd Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site''). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. There are no streams on the site. As detailed on Page 8 of our November 8'\ 2011 Critical Areas Report for the project, there is a portion ofa wetland, identified as Wetland Bin the Critical Areas Report, that extends onto the east side of the site. This wetland forms a portion of the headwaters for Soos Creek. The paragraph below is from Page 8 of the Critical Areas Report under Wetland B; Wetland B (flags Bl-B22-10,JOOsf on-site) consists of the western edge of a relatively large (@4-5 acres) located primarily ofFsite to the east. This wetland is known as a headwater wetland to Soos Creek, which forms further lo the east of the site several hundred feet. This wetland is p1imarily forested although also contains a scrub-shrub component and a small portion (10%-20%) of seasonally standing water to the southeast of the site. Investigation into this wetland lo a distance of 100' east of the eastern site bounda,y revealed no stream channel. Although a stream is thought to form within this wetland, our investigation of the area over 100' to the east of the site revealed no stream channel. If there is a channel it is .-1 N I- loot co loot :c >< LLI , ieldbrook Commons!#J J .J2 J Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2011 Pagel > 100' from the property boundary and the largest stream buffer that the City of Renton uses (100') would not encroach onto the property. If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859..0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 City of Renton Planning Division FEB 2 9 2012 Technical Memorandum 102 30 IVE Points Drive Suite400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist February 29, 2012 Subject: Critical Areas Review of Fieldbrook Commons Project Documents Project No_: 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists conducted a site visit and reviewed documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances_ The project proposes to construct a 161 unit Planned Use Development (PUD) with associated improvements on an approximately 10_7 acre site, located in Renton (City of Renton LUA12-001). The west side of the project site is bounded by Benson Road South (also called 108"' Avenue SE) and the south side is bounded by Cedar Avenue S (also called SE 172•' Street)-A vicinity map is located at the end of this document. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and D) and three Category III wetlands (Wetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023). Two of the parcels create a long, narrow corridor east to west and the third parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat "T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest corner of the project area, previously had a fire station on the property_ The building has since been demolished, leaving the property vacant but for paved parking areas, gravel, and overgrown landscaping-The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands (approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habitaL The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. This memorandum outlines general background information, the resttlts of the site visit, findings of the review, and reconunendat:ions. K.: \projea:\31900\31989B\Reports \Eeldbrook Review.docx ''/---no· , IL----V ' N N ... 1-t cc 1-t :c >< w Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 2 Review ofh"eldbrook Commons Project Documents Febmary 29, 2012 Documents Reviewed Critical Areas Report (dated November 8, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Includes the Wetland Delineation Report and the .Mitigation Memo; • Supplemental Stream Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Habitat Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Sheet Pl.1 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Site Plan (dated December 29, 2011) by Riebe & Associates, Inc. Architecture and Planning (site pb.n); Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland map); Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland mitigation map); and Boundary and Topographic Survey for Fieldbrook (dated December 27, 2011) by Concept Engineering, Inc. Background Information Sources • City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: http:/ /www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RMC) The following maps were accessed from the City's website: http://rentonwa.gov/ government/ default.aspx?id=29885 (Referred to in this memorandum as City CAO maps) • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Map City of Renton Coal Mine Hazard Map City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map City of Renton Flood Hazard Map City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map • City of Renton Steep Slopes Map King County L.\1AP accessed from: http://www.kingcouot;y.gov/operations/gis/Maps/i1'1AP.aspx (Referred to in this memorandum as King County iMAP). Background Information According to City CAO maps and King County iMAP, the following are mapped on the site: A portion of one Category II wetland (Wetland B); • Coal Mine Hazard area; and • Steep slopes (may be just off site) . General Site Assessment Comments Otak biologists, Suzanne Anderson and Stephanie Smith, conducted a site visit on February 8, 2012 to assess general site and buffer conditions and to verify the delineated boundaries and ratings of K: \project \31900\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook Review .doc: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton C01nmunity and Economic Development Page 3 Review o[Fie!dbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 Wetlands A through F. The western and southern portions of the project area are generally fut, while the eastern section of the project area slopes down to the east. Just southeast of the project site there is a large bill with steep slopes tint is a result of past mining activities, some of which may have taken place on the project site. The site is predominately forested, dominated by deciduous species including 01ature black cottonwoods (Populus baisamifera spp. trichocarpa), red alder (A/nus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyl!um), Western red cedar (Thuja p!icata), and Douglas fir (Pseudetsuga menziesit). Dominant understory species onsite include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasifarmis), beaked hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabi!is), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifo!ia), and sword fern (Pojystichum munitum). There are so1ne areas of the site ~1.th infestations of non-native invasive species, particularly Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), holly (Ilex aquifo!ium), and yellow arch-angel (L:zmiastrum ga!eobde!on). All of these infestations are near the project site edges, outside of the wetlands and mostly located outside of the buffer areas. I. Findings I .a. Verification of Wetland Boundaries and Ratings I.a. I. We concur with the wetland delineation report that Wetlands A, B, and Dare all rated as Category II (RMC 4.3-0SOMl.a.ii), with SO-foot buffers (RMC 4-3-050M6.c), and Wetlands C, E, and F are all rated as Category III (RMC 4.3-0SOMl.a.ii), with 25-foot buffers. l.a.2. We concur with thelocations of tbe wetland boundary flags of Wetlands A through F. 1.a.3. During Otak's site visit a wetland was observed on the east side of the parcel that extends to the south (parcel 2923059023). It is likely that this wetland is a result of past mining activities as it is a long, linear feature adjacent to a very tall and steep-sided bill (tailings). The wetland was not mentioned in the wetland delineation report, nor has it been assessed for its rating and required buffer width. The eastern portion of this wetland may be connected to Wetland B. l.b. Critical Areas Report I .b. I. While each wetland was categorized in the report, the author does not state which criteria is being met for the wetland to receive this category. The entire City category definition is pasted into the report '.vithout justification. 1.b.2. 'The function assessment of existing wetland and buffer functions and values is not supported by a recogoized function assessment tool e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (http://www.eq.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pdO. K \projoct\31900\31989B\Reporu \Fieldbrook Review.docr Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 4 &view ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents Febmary 29, 2012 I.e. Maps I .c. I. The topographic contours and many site descriptions are not legible on the wetland delineation or wetland concept maps and scale bars are not provided on all maps. I .c.2. Maps indicate that there is a Coal Mine Hazard Lne at the south end of the southern parcel (parcel #2923059023). City critical areas maps indicate that the Coal Mine Hazard risk is unknown. I .c.3. There are slight discrepancies between the Concept Delineation Map and the Preliminary Site Plan Map. these discrepancies include: The buffer to be created on the west side of Wetland B (the northwestern lobe) is smaller on the Preliminary Site Plan Map. It is difficult to interpret whether there are differences between the design of the storm pond on the Delineation Concept and Preliminary Site Plan Maps. I .d. Encroachment in Existing Wetland B Buffer I .d. I. According to site conditions and the wetland delineation map, the north/ central section of the existing buffer for Wetland B appears to include an intrusion from a portion of the neighbor's back yard. If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent future intrusion. 1.e. Tree Retention I.e. I. The proposed project does not address the requirements of tree retention as outlined in RMC 4-4-130. I .f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets I .f. I. The mitigation memo and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation plan. 1.f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, and F by removing existing high functioning wetland buffers in order to create additional wetland. Wetland Buffer requirements per RMC 4-3-050M6.a.iii states "All required wetland bziffir zones shall be retained in their natural cond£tion." l.f.3. The mitigation memo lacks many elements required by RMC 4-8-120D.23 and RMC 4- 3-0SOM. The most important lacking elements are: I .f.3.1. Native Growth Protection Areas: Requirements for placement of wetlands and buffers into a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) (RMC 4-3-050E4 and 4-3- 050M7); as well as, specifications for NGPA signs, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance covenants (RMC 4-3-050E4); I .f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessment and K: \projecr\31900 \31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook Review .doo: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 5 Review ofFie/dbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using an approved methodology, e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd(), to demonstrate tbat tbe proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3-0SOMl 1.d). I .f.3.3. Protecting Buffer Functions: Specifications for locating and directing lighting outside of and away from wetland and buffer areas (RMC 4-3-050M6.c.ii.b). I .f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for minimizing wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i); I .f.3.5. Hydrology: There is no information to determine whetber tbere will be sufficient hydrology to establish and maintain wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils at the proposed devations within the wetland creation area. • There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater devations in the wetland creation area will be the same as in the existing wetlands. In the wetland creation area between Wetlands A and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in devation and in tbe wetland creation area on the west side of Wetland B there is generally a 4-foot difference, with as much as a 6-foot difference in elevation. There is no information that determines bow the construction of the berm proposed between the combined Wetlands A and C will prevent water in this larger, combined wetland from flowing out to Wetland B. There is no information to determine that excavating adjacent to Wetland B (Soos Creek headwaters) will not harm and/or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and vegetation. I .f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specified planting of grass seeds in all disturbed portions of the buffer and created wetland. Grass has been shown to compete with and inhibit growth of instaled woody plants, and tall grass can bide installed plants making them more difficult to locate during monitoring visits, and increase the likelihood of damage during maintenance activities. I .f.3. 7. Performance Standards: adequate performance standards are not addressed and should be included to meet RMC 4-8-120D23 and those included in the Recommendations section below. 1.f.3.8. Trails: The proposed trail will require significant grading adjacent to created wetlands, therefore the new buffers adjacent to trail (west of wetland B and east of wetlands A and C) will be very steep and will not provide the same functions as the cnrrent buffers (even once the forest grows back). The trail is located through the center of the restored (proposed) buffer between Wetlands A and C and Wetland B. Trails are permitted in critical area buffers when they are located in the outer ZS-percent of the buffer (RMC 4-3- 050C7.ai(2))- K \projecr\319D0\31989B \Reports \Fieldbrook ReVlew.doa:: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Conmwnity and Economic Development Page 6 &view o[Fie!dbrook Commons Project Documents Febmary 29, 2012 l.f.3.9. Grading: The proposed extent of clearing/grading in the wetland mitigation buffer area is not sbown on the plans, aod the mitigation memo does not demonstrate that the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RMC 4-8-120D.7 Definitions). I .f.3.10. Storm Pond: The mitigation memo and plan sheets lack sufficient information to determine whether the stormwater pond proposed in the wetland buffer is an exempt activity pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C7.a.ii and meets the Wetland Protection Guidelines of the City's Surface Water Design Manual. Specific information that is lacking or cannot be confirmed because of the quality of drawings includes: • The outside of the stormwater pond berms cannot be counted as buffer. The berms have to be counted as impact or not count as addition. It is uoclear if there is an outlet from the pond and if so, where the water outlets to. It is assumed that the plans suggest grading into the existing buffer in order to construct the berm around the stormwater pond. Grading information and proposed slopes are not included on the drawings. I .f.3.11. Required Permits: No documentation is provided that Ecology and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will permit the filling of Wetlands D, E, or F. The USA CE will have to decide whether these wetlands are jurisdictional. Excavating adjacent to Wetland Bis likely to require a USACE Nationwide Penn.it (NWP), and may also require a Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). If the Corps also finds that either Wetlands A or Care jurisdictional, a lJSACE NWP may also be required for these actions. I .f.3.12. Long Term Monitoring: The mitigation memo specifies five years of monitoring and maintenance which is sufficient per RMC. However, the possible requirement for State (Ecology or WDFW) or Federal (USACE) permits may require additional years of monitoring.Joint Guidance from Ecology, lJSACE, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends monitoring and maintaining mitigation areas with forested communities for a minimum of ten years (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/060601 la.html). I .f.3.13. Final Delineation: The mitigation memo does not include provisions for delineating the created wetland area at the end of the monitoring period to verify whether the required compensation is achieved. I .g. Buffer Averaging I .g. I. The mitigation memo does not specify how the areas of buffer addition and the remaining-reduced buffer portions will provide full functions, and how they will achieve no net loss of functions by buffer averaging (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.e and f.). I .g.2. The southern portion of the created wetland, adjacent to Wetland B appears to come K: \p:roject\31900\31989B\Reporn \Fieldbrook Review.doc:: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 7 Review of/c<zefdbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 too close to the property line. Wetland creation cannot impose buffers on adjoining properties. I .g.3. Areas that are proposed for buffer addition must provide like-functions to buffer that is being destroyed. The following buffer addition areas will need to be included in a restorarion plan: Any buffer that will be added as proposed will either be disturbed by construction or installation of the mitigation plan The buffer addition area near the SE corner of the project area (where the proposed trail ends) primarily consists of a fill plateau (from past mining activities) and is heavily dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Proposed buffer addition on the northwest side of Wetland B. Currently this section contains a few trees, but is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and includes an intrusion from a neighboring yard. Additionally, the narrow rectangular portion ( shown on Delineation Concept Map) of the addition (furthest west) will not provide adequate buffer functions as it will be sandwiched between neighboring fences and the proposed parking lot. 2. Recommendations 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: According to the RMC (4-3-050M3.a.i), "The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to detem,ine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is nnthin one hundred feet of a wetland even if the wetland is not kcated on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in questions O( its buffer." If any portion of the wetland or buffer is located onsite, the site plans v,,-il.) need to be revised accordingly. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Functions: provide an assessment and comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecology methodology (http://www.ec;y.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd0 to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3- 050M11.d). Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values, such as that provided in the above mentioned methodology. 2.c. Maps: Future maps submitted should be printed at the appropriate scale and all contours and map notes should be legible. Provide appropriate scale bars on all maps. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent funire intrusion. 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e. I. Per RMC 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances. K: \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fie.ldbrook R_e,,;,.iew.docr Vanessa Dolbee~ Senior Plan11er, Renton Con1munity and Econon1ic Development Page 8 Rtview ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents J<ebrnary 29, 2012 However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers ( 4-4-130D3). Ths chapter of the RMC also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2). 2.f. Mitig;,.tion Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: 2.f. I. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to contain all of the elements required by RMC 4-3-0SOM and 4-8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section I .f above. 2.f.2. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to retain the existing wetland buffers in their natural condition (RMC 4-3-050M6.a.iii). The majority of buffers associated with Wetlands A, B, and C should not be changed from established, functional, mature forest in order to create new wetland. 2.f.3. Monitor Groundwater: If the revised wetland mitigation plan proposes wetland creation on-site, monitor the existing groundwater regime inside, and in the vicinity of, the proposed wetland creation area to inform the design and ensure a greater likelihood of successfully establishing wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Groundwater levels at the proposed created wetland elevations should be monitored according to guidance from the USACE: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ el pubs /pdf / tnwrap00-2.pdf ; http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wrap /pdf / tnwrap05-2.pdf; and http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /wca/Water-Table-M-Design.pdf. If berms are proposed to contain water in created wetlands, provide studies and construction plans regarding how the berm will function to retain water. If Wetland Bis expanded, a study will be required to determine how the expanded wetland will NOT impact the hydrology and vegetation of the existing wetland and associated stream. 2.f.4. Grass Seed: Remove provisions to plant grass seeds in the wetland mitigation area and buffer, and in disturbed/ enhanced portions of the wetland buffers. Include provisions to apply and maintain a minimum of 6 inches of arborist mulch (or approved equivalent) to entire planting areas where native woody species are installed. 2.f.5. Performance Standards: Expand the performance standards to include: percent survival is only necessary for Years 1 and 2; only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performance standards; percent cover performance standards for native woody species (including both installed and desirable native volunteers) and native ground cover for Years 3 through 10; species diversity performance standards for woody species for all 10 Years (native volunteers can be counted toward this performance standard); and K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Review.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Plam1er, Renton Community and Economic Deve!op=ent Page 9 Review ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents Febntary 29, 2012 • • provisions to incorporate 4 to 6 inches of compost into the upper 12 inches of all graded portions of the wetland creation area; permanent monitoring plots that reasonahly represent the plant communities to be established as well as the size of the mitigation monitoring area. All four corners of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar; and permanent photo points should also be established that represent the mitigation area. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffers must conform with RMC 4- 3-050C7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trails will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. 2.f.7. Gradirig Plans: provide clearing/ grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that demonstrates the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RMC 4--8-120D7). 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Provide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that specifically needs to be included: proposed outlet location and flow rate; specifications regarding emergency overflow information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target community should be similar to the existing vegetation onsite. 2.f.9. Permits: Provide documentation regarding the required pennits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW. 2.f. I 0. Long Term Monitoring: Provide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer. • To be consistent with guidance from the USA CE and Ecology, Section 5 Monitoring Program should specify that Year 1 vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. • At a minimum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. • Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USA CE (hnp: // el.erdc. usace.army.mil/ el pubs /pdf/ tnwrapOO-2. pdf). 2.g. Buffers: 2.g. I. City code requires impacts to critical areas and their buffers be avoided, minimized, restored or compensated (RMC 4--3-050M8). Because avoiding all impacts does not appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED. Extensive proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these K.: \project \31900 \31989B \Reporu \Fieldb:cook Review .docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 10 Review ofFieldbrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 critical areas. In order to minimize impacts: Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new wetland; Retaining walls should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond, and any other area where extensive grading would otherwise impact the buffer; and Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than they are under existing conditions. 2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and invasive-dominated buffer additions, as well as the areas designated as "buffer restoration for temporary impact!' have to have an enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; installation of appropriate native trees and shrubs; performance standards ~ess than 10% invasive cover, at least 80% survival for the first 2 years, reasonable % desirable woody cover, reasonable diversity of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. 2.h. Other Information: • The Coal Mine Hazard Llne needs to be addressed hy the appropriate professional. K: \project \31900\319 89B \Reports \Fieldbrook Review .doa: March 16, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response swc Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, r,-,,,o R ~, (' F i;E:;~/(;j,.J ,E_,f:IVEo MAR 1 9 2012 BUJLD!IVG f•"11~''0 '--'/\, ,')r N I have reviewed the OTAK February 29, 2012, "Critical Areas Review ofFieldbrook Commons" letter, The following is our response to the Recommendations listed starting on Page 7 of the OTAK memo; 2,a, Offsite Wetlands: According w the Rc\1C (4-3-0SOIV!3,a,i), "The applica/11 shall be required to conduct a studv to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred/eel of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely lo impact the wetland in questions or its buffer," If am portion of the wetland or buffer is located onsitc, rhe site plans will need to be revised accordingk As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OTAK, It appears to be a linear extension ofWetland B, We measured the distance of this wetland to the eastern property line of the site and it was 55', As this appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer, This, buffer would not extend onto the site, 2,b, \X-'etland and Buffer Functions: proYidc an assessment and companson of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecolog\' methodology 01ttp://www.ecy,wa,gm·/pubs/Cl806009,pdf) to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or irnprowrnent on a per function basis (RMC 4-3- 0501\111,d), Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and nlues, such as that provided in the abow mentioned methodology, M N 1- M al M J: >< w Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 vewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16. 2012 Page 2 of /8 2.c. f\Iaps: Fur-urt !ll;ip.-; submitted should be printed 2r rhe appropriate sc::ile :1.nd JJl conLours and 11up notes should be legible. Pre)\ 1dc appropr::ite scale bars on ;ill maps. Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. 2.d. \Vetland B Buffer Encroachment: If the buffer is being Intruded upon from the neighboring yard) the applicant \ViU need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to pre\·ent future intrusion. This area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e.1. Per RMC 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activin-under certain circumstances. HoYVe\·er, -prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers (4-4-130D3). This chapter of the RJv!C also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted ( 4-4-13CIH2). It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. 2.f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: 2.f.1. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation phn sheets to. contain all of the elements required by RMC 4-3-0.'iOM and 4-8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section 1.f above. The following are the sections under l.f referred to; 1.f.1. The n1it.igarion merno and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation plan. 1.f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of e,cisting wetlands D, E, and F by removing exisrjng high functioning wetland buffers 1q order to create additional wetland. \'('etland Buffer requirements per fu\1C 4-3-0501116.a.iii states "All required we/land Im/fer zones shall be retained in their natural condition." The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created wetland. No loss in buffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. 'ieldbrook Commons/11-121 " val/ Wetland Consulting, lnc. March 16, 2012 Page 3 of 18 1.f.3. The c1itiganon memo bcks rnany eln11en1s re,1u11nl b\ IZ..\lC: 4-8-120D.23 :,nd R~IC 4-3-0501\L 'fbe most important Licking elements arc:: 1.f.3.1. NritiYe Cro\nb Protectjon Areas: Requirer:1ents for placen1ent ofwetbnJs and buffers mro a Natin~ Gro\vtb Protection Arca (NCP/1) (RMC 1-3-050E4 and 4-3-050M7); as well as, specificatJons for NCP/1 signs, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance CO\'enants (R,\!C 4-3-050E4); The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. 1.f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessn1ent and comparjson of existing and proposed \vetland and buffer funccions and values using an approved methodology to den1onstrate that the proposed mitigation \vill achieYe functional Using the WADOE Wetland rating systems which is based upon 3 major recognized wetland functions, Wetland D scored a total of33 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table 1 below, a substantial functional lift will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508sf of additional wetland over the existing functions of the proposed fill wetlands. Table 1. Functional Comparison of impact wetlands an d nronosed miti ation Wetland Area Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat Storage Richness Qua!. Function Function capacitv Function WetlandD 767Jsf 3800cuft 5 svecies 12vts 81J[s I 3vts WetlandE 68sf 34cuft 2 svecies 11 vts 41Jls I Ovts Wet/andF J 59Jsf 500cuft 5 svecies IOvts 8vts 11 vts Provosed 25508sf 7600cuft 15 species 24pts 20uts 2lpts Functional +I6178sf +3266cuft +8species* +I2pts +I2pts avg +9pts Lift avg av!! *only 7 different species were found (excluding exotic/invasives) in Wetlands D,E &F The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. Category 3 4 4 2 +I Category 1ieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 uev,.;a!l /Vetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 4 of 18 1.f.3.3. ProtecLing Buffer Functions: Speciilc-1tions fr-.ir locnir:g ,md directing lighting outs1Je of and awa1· from \\·etland anJ buffer sreas (R\!C 4-.3-050\l(u.11.b). This will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetlaud aud buffer areas. 1.f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for mirumizrng wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i); 1.f.3.5. Hdrology: There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient Jwdrologv to establish and maintain wetland lwdrology, h1·drophycic \'egetacion, and hydric soils at the proposed elevations witl1in the wetland creation area. • There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater elevations in the \Vetland creation area v,,:jlJ be the san1e as in the ·ex.isting \vetlands. In the \\Ttland creation area between \X'etlands /\ and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in elention and in the wetland creation area on the west side of\X'etland B there is generally a 4-foot difference, witl1 as much as a 6-foot difference in eJe,,ation. Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between wetlauds A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from 16"-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area, The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. Its possible tlhat a small portion of tlhe created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrology monitoring which is currently being conducted. • There is no inform:ation that determines bo\v the construction of the herm proposed between the combined Wetlands/\ and C will preYent water in this larger, combined wetland from flowing out to Wetland B. The use of a berm in this area if used, will be constructed of a soil material tlhat will be an impediment to water passing tlhrough tlhe berm through tlhe use of a barrier such as clay. • There is no information to determine that excanting adjacent to \X.'etland B (Soos Creek headwaters) will not harm and/or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and yegetat.Jon. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time. 'ieldbrook Commons/11-12 I .Jewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 I'age 5 of 18 1.f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specjfied plantir:.g of gnss seeds 1r1 ;,/] disturbed portions of rhe buffer and created wetland. Grass has bctn sho'\n1 ro compete with anJ inhibit gru\1,.:r.h of insrnlltd \Voody plants, and tall grass can hide inst:::illed plants making them more difficult to locate during n1onitoring \'isits) and increase the like1hood of damage during maintenance activities. Grass see will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffers must conform with R.\!C 4-3-050C7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trails wilJ not degrade wetland or buffer functions and Yalues. The trail was a requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: prm·ide clearing/grading plans in the wetland rnitigatinn area that den1onstrates the proposed clearing/grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (Rll!C 4-8-120D7). The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required for the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of April-middle of May. 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Pro\'ide detailed plans regarding the storm warer pond, Information that specifically needs to be included: • proposed outlet location and flow rate; • specifications regarding en1ergcncy O\Terflow • information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and • provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target commufUty should be similar to the existing \·egetarion on site. The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized outside the wetland and associated buffers. 2.f.9. Permits: Pro,·ide documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and \X.'DFW. 'Cieldbrook Commons/11-121 cewa/1 Wetland Consu/ring, Inc. March 16. 2012 Page 6 of 18 When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to WADOE for 410 Water quality Certification. It is premature to submit for these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. 2.f.10. Long Term J\'lonitoring: PrO\"ide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the miriga6on area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer. • To be consistent with guidance from rhe USl,CE and Ecolog1', Section 5 Monitoring Program sl:.ould specify that Year 1 vegetation n1onitoring \vill occur in the at the end of growing season after rhe plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. • At a minimum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. • Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area from :\farch through May in piezometers per guidance from CSACE Qittp:/ / el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ elpubs/ pdf/ tmnap00-2.pdf ). City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of a wetland mitigation project for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE may require 10 years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of monitoring. Hydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component 2.g, Buffers: 2.g, 1. City code requires impacts to critical areas and their buffers be avoided, minimized, restored or compensated (RMC 4-3-050M8). Because a,·oiding all impacts docs not appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED. Extensi,·e proposed grading in the existing buffers does not n1inimize impact to these critical areas. In order to n1ini1nize impacts: • Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new wetland; • Retaining waUs should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond, and any other Jrea \1,rhere extensi,,e grading \Vould othen;rise impact the buffer; and • Buffer slopes should not he anv steeper than they are under existing conditions. In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The previous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland B. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 7 of 18 The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbance from mining and contains existing disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 16"c28" of the surface within the proposed creation area, Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful. The proposed work in the buffers of these wetland to create over 25,000sf of additional wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existing forest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during the creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native tree and shrub species. All the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. 2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and im·asi,c-dominated buffer additions, as well as the areas designated as "buffer resroralionfor rempormy impacts" ha,·e to bave an enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; insullation of appropriate nacive trees and shrubs; performance standards (less than 10%) invasiYe cm·er, at least '80°;;, su1-;,rival for the first 2 years, reasonable%) desirable \Voody cover, reasonable diYersity of \\ioody species); and monitoring, 111aintenance, and contingenC)' plans. · All disturbed areas and the entire mitigation area will meet this goal. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859~0515 or at esewall(a),sewallwc.com_ Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Existing Conditions Map Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 7 ieldbrook Commons/11-121 ...... ..!i-vall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 8 of 18 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROTECT OVERVIEW To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,SOSsf of wetland between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant conununities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,SOSsf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to conunencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved 'Cie/dbruok Commons/11-121 Je)val/ Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 9 of 18 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. ~ieldhrook Commons/11-121 :-Jewall f-Ve1!and Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 10 of 18 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have beeri stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 ,)ewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March I 6, 2012 Page 11 of/8 4.2.lAll plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more· than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated w1til time of installation. Immediately after · installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation 4:3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. Fieldbrook Commons!] 1-121 ~ewall Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 12 of 18 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted irnmediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides; and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.SAll containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6 All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.lA fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1". If the cover is not adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page /3 0(18 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and s.moothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures an_d goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March I 6, 2012 Page 14 of 18 a, No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5,l.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. "ieldbrook Commons/11-121 ,~t!wall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 15 of 18 5.3.21£ plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1st ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on- site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the Com1ty Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, fue first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/ crest gauges located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and fue middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. .i"-<'ieldbruok Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16. 2012 Page 16 o/18 Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season. Readings will be made early in the growing season (@ March 15) to determine if wetland hydrology is present. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. 6.2 ST AND ARDS OF SUCCESS l.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. ~ieldbrook Commons/11-121 0ewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 17 of 18 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cove.r of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50 % cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area after year 10. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. · 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. ?ieldbrook Commons/J J .. J J l Sewall JVetland Consulting, Inc. March J 6, 2012 Page 18 of 18 -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. 1-- I J "V ~ir@llllO L I REVISED ------·--;;;;;~0/19T[L _______ _ r~ .... ..... -{::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·· ~ -r~ ~·.., -~ JOBI 11-121 ll47E: MUIWBI': ES SC,IJ£ 1'=100' REW1ED: MARCH 2012 -~TS~- c:1r• riF li':11.cr,, HECEl'/lD MAf! l 8 i:Jii BUILD!f\}G Di\/,'Si01\' I , L~ I . No1:c: Base mapprovidod by D.R. Strong based upon survey of .se,;,.,aIJ. Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNWHOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DELINEA T/ON MAP ---------------~i~l~53~-~8°5a9~--0u·5~1.5~F~,,~25ul~8~5:?.:..111L____. ___________ . _, ··-. I!. .,..,,,.~'4,.. '= ~ I /= "'!f~ ---,,,.~.,~., =};;.1 .,. .J ~~11~·"·~!?1,<~ n ,,· '-ml n · ,., n-n. .., n~ n [o::.o_:_q 25,430SFWET!AN[)CREAnON ~ /J3IJ3 SF WFTI.AND FILL I ... I .;:-IS f---·~~ ,. ' -J#: . .,-:,::!?:_:..:.·· ·-~ ~--·\:::>>· ,-.D: --= ~ ~_,y({:_)~ -,,. c' ~-/ ·- \ _ ; .~/;]' \/ \ /']: ~----..u. . _/If" w--\ .·.~~- ~ T--'-----4, --+--~;.;,; \ ' ··!"t_~ ·; __ ;"i I ', (;"1 ~, ··-·1:-<--F --,u' ·:~c·". -,-nj ' . - D--"u'----_) __ ,' / ---------- . -~-- . ---.--· Data '-yr 1/I~ I + + + + + + + ) 4,787 SF BUFFER A VERA GING -ADDmON + ± ± ~· ... ·t-------==-'= \.,:· ~-z: . --·--· - t~'TV<'1r CiEf.;,,, REc1::,v11r: I==-=-=-=--::-=--:: 3 ma 2, 134 SF BUFFER A VERA GING· SUB TT/ACTION 4,688 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS -.. ---------- Note: Be.sc map provided by D.R. Strong based upon survey of Sowall Wetland Consulting Wctl,nd Delineation. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNWHOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT DELINEA T/ON MAP JOB# 11-121 llUE: l\'i,IIM\I gy;____§§_ """8El> MAR. 2012 ~ DES/ONER: TS MAR l .tJ BUil.DJt..'G-1:i1·, '}(~' '- I I April 10, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Ficldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUAl2-00I swc Job#ll-121 Dear Vanessa, CITY OF RENTON RECEi\JFO APR 1 v 2012 BUILDING DIVISION This is a response to your March 30, 2012 email regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below in italics are the items you asked us to address. After each item we have provided a response; I. The Map was not drawn to a I to 100 scale, it appears to be drawn to a I to 50 scale. Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drawn" scale. The plan is now shown with a "drawn scale" and is at a scale of 1 "~100'. 2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area. The areas of buffer reduction and buffer addition using buffer averaging are now shown on the mitigation plan (see attached). 3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer. Dimensions are now included in the areas of reduced buffer as requested. 4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the total area of permanent impact and temporary impact. At this point in time we are still monitoring groundwater levels within the proposed creation area So far monitoring has shown groundwater levels between I 6"-28" below the existing surface of the proposed creation area. However, we need to monitor the area for approximately I more month to completely understand the hydrology ofthis area as it pertains to creating an appropriate grading plan that will allow us a higher certainty on creating adequate wetland hydrology. At that time we will prepare a grading plan which will depict the area to be graded and all areas to be -:I' N 1- 1-4 ca 1-4 ::c >< w Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulzing, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 2 o/8 replanted in the creation area and any area within the buffer that would be graded back and require restoration. 5. RJ..fC 4-8-120 D.23.i, this was not addressed. This section of Code states the following; i Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: Avoid any disturbances ta the wetland or buffer; Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts; Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; Create new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas between Wetlands A and Con the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring l 595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to I 08th Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. l 72"d St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. l 72"d St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 767lsf. This wetland is located in the center of the site, and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts: The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to Fie!dbrook Commom/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. April JO, 2012 Page 3 of8 construct The project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers, These are the more valuable wetlands on the site, and preserving these wetlands would be the priority, c, Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily: and No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed except for along the edge of Wetlands A and C wehre the newly created wetland area will be constrcuted, Some temporarly buffer impacts will ccur from the construction of the stormwater outfall and along the edge of the buffers, These areas will be fully restoired following construction and replanted with native trees and shrubs. d, Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i, Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property to restore, ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and A total of9334sfofwetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses, Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions", Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland, In no cases shall they be lower", Cd S 'fi th fi II o e ;oec1 1es e 0 owmg m1ltga!ton ratios or wet an d ·mpacts; [ i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category I Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. . Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Fieldbrook Comrnons/11-111 Sewall U'etland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 4 0(8 The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required Type Wetlaud Creation D 7671 sf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: 1 102sf F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation As required by Code, we are proposing to create 25,508sf of wetland. This wetland will all be Category 2 wetland. Proposed Wetland Mitigation location rationale. Given the configuration, topography, hydrology and character of the site, the available wetland mitigation areas arc limited by 1. Where sufficient hydrology exists 2. Where enough area exists without extending a buffer onto off-site areas. 3. Where it makes the most sense to create a wetland that doesn't leave an isolated, low function wetland. If any area of the site except the eastern side of the site were selected we would be creating a wetland that would be surrounded by development, and there fore isolated from other open space areas. This creates a functionally isolated feature that will not provide suitable wildlife habitat or support for many species. Additionally, there are no areas on the site, except along the eastern portion near Wetlands A, B or C that have suitable groundwater elevations to support creation of a wetland. For example, ifwe were to attempt to leave Wetland D intact, ad do creation around this wetland, its likely there would not be suitable wetland hydrology to support this wetland. Wetland D is an isolated feature that appears to be perched on an impervious hardpan, that allows water to sit long enough to create wetland conditions. This wetland, as well as Wetlands E and F do not appear to be intersecting a surficial groundwater system as does Wetlands A-C. As a result, creation in these areas in and around Wetlands D,E and F would most likely lead to areas that would not successfully create wetland hydrologic conditions. Ideally, as is typically done in most wetland mitigation projects that are successful, expansion of an existing wetland with sufficient hydrology is utilized to create addition wetland. This consists of taking the edge of an existing wetland or wetlands, and by grading back from the edge of the wetland and creating grades similar to the wetland, interception the surficial groundwater table allows creation of wetland hydrologic conditions. This is what we are proposing to do in the area between Wetlands A and C. Based upon our hydrologic monitoring, these wetlands appear to have suitable hydrology for creation of wetland between them. Fieldbrook Commons!) J -121 Sewall iYetland Consulting, inc. April JO, 2012 Page 5 of8 As is typical in this type of creation, and also unavoidable, the excavation and creation must occur within the existing buffer of the wetlands. However, as is shown on our plan, we now move the buffer to the edge of the creation area, thus maintaining the required buffer on the new enlarged wetland. It should also be pointed out that most of the area between Wetland A and C proposed as a mitigation area has been historically disturbed by past mining and clearing activities. We have specifically tried to avoid the larger grove of conifers located in the buffer of Wetland B to preserve this higher quality habitat. 6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the following additional items: a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios As depicted in the Table above, and on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we are meeting the ratios of mitigation required by Code. b. Planting scheme for wetland recreation and buffer enhancement areas At this point in time, it is premature to prepare a detailed planting scheme. Once the concept is approved, and the grading plan completed, we will prepare a plan that depicts the location of the native trees, shrubs and emergent plants to be installed, as well as the habitat features such as large woody debris (L WD) and snags. However, we would expect to include the following species within the created wetland and buffer areas; Douglas fir, western red cedar, sitka spruce, big leaf maple, Pacific willow, cascara, western crabapple, red osier dogwood, sitka willow, salmonberry, nootkarose, clustered rose, twinberry, Indian plum, hazelnut, black hawthome, red elderberry, vine maple, slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and other species. c. A complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland As previously described, the new created wetland will create a larger combined Category 2 wetland by connecting Wetland A and C. This will result in a wetland that will include several hydrologic regimes including seasonally flooded and saturated areas. In addition, several types of plant communities will be present based upon hydrologic conditions. The created wetland will have a mix ofhydrologic and vegetation characteristics which will provide a greater variety of wildlife habitats and opportunities for wildlife. The placement ofL WD and snags will create habitat features that do not current] y exist within this area. d. A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands I have worked on hundreds of wetland mitigation projects throughout Washington State and the Pacific Northwest as well as in Ohio, New England and in Georgia since 1990. I have worked on small projects as well as large complex projects and have designed wetlands with a variety of hydrologic regimes, including numerous with slope type characteristics as presented here that have been very successful. I am very aware of the criteria needed to successfully create wetlands that replace and exceed the functions lost by the filling of the wetland they are meant to mitigate. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 6 o/8 I am highly confident the proposed Fieldbrook Commons mitigation plan will be successful as we have described it e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water supply, flow patterns, etc. As previously described above as well as described below, we have been monitoring the levels of groundwater within the proposed creation areas. The monitoring results within the first month of the growing season show the water table within 24" of the existing soil surface in the proposed creation area. We are aware that currently, groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"- 24". Our goal within this creation area is to maintain that same hydro logic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions. 7. An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the buffer size? As previously stated, we are currently monitoring the hydrology of the area between Wetlands A and C to determine final grades of the creation area. It is probable, given the slight difference in elevation between Wetland A and C (approximately 12"), a portion of the creation area will be a "slope type" wetland. The grade between these two existing wetlands in the creation area will be determined based upon groundwater elevations we determine from our monitoring. Based upon those findings, the sloping portion of the wetland creation area will be a portion of the wetland that will have primarily saturated soils with no surface water. This will allow a slow migration of water through the soil profile from the south to the north throngh the creation area. This is currently occurring already in the upland area between Wetland A and C. However, it is at a depth > 12" which differentiates it from an area that would be considered wetland. A portion of the surface soils will be removed that will bring this saturated soil zone within 12" of the surface meeting wetland hydrology criteria. This should have no impact on the wetland hydrology of either Wetlands A or C. The water we will be intercepting exists within the soil profile in the proposed creation area. We will be removing soil from this area to bring this hydrology closer to the surface, and in portions on the surface of the creation area. We will also be directing clean roof water from the proposed development within the contributing basin, to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain the hydrologic patters of the site. Connecting Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland, to Wetland C, a Category 3 wetland, will result in Wetland C now being considered a Category 2 wetland. As a result a 50' standard buffer would e required on Wetland C now, and that is what we are providing as depicted on the attached plan. 8. Address review criteria of 4-3-050M6f (i-vii) for buffer averaging. i. That the wetland contains variations in ecologi.cal sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 7 of8 The proposed buffer averaging in the reduced areas will be within areas that have sufficient dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect these welands. The portions of the wetlands closest to these reduced areas are not unique or have any sensitive characteristics that would make them susceptable to impact. ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and The proposed averaging will not impact the functions or character of these wetlands in this area. The area of the reusltion is in low impact parking areas and will generally not have heavy use such as living or recreational areas. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and The proposed averaging will result in a reduction of 2, l 35sf of buffer, but with a subsuquent addtioon of 4, 787sf of buffer, resulting in a net gain of 2,652sfof buffer. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted The proposed b-uffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed The proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements as specified in the code. The document cited above is a document that was put together to give jurisdictions some guidance on determining standard buffer widths to include in their regulations. It does not appear an appropriate citation or document to be using in this contex as standard buffer widths have been decided and adopted as Code. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25; wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and The standard buffer on the wetlands being averaged is 50' There are two areas of buffer reduction within the averaging plan, onfthat reduces the width to 28.5', and a second to 34'. Botht of these areas are >50% of the standard buffer widtha nd meet this criteria. vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case- by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall J.Yetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 8 of8 The buffer in the areas of the reduction is densly planted with native vegetation. There is no need to enhance these buffer areas. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection FB of this Section. Notification, if required will be done. 9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions of OTAK's report on trail impacts to the wetlands. As required by the City, we have included a trail through the wetland buffer. This trail will be a soft surface wood chip trail that passes through the middle of the buffer area between Wetlands C and B. The If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan BUffiR RESTORA1'l!I ,O•H SF 81..fl'ER REOOCTION. FOR<aTY-TW.CI ~ '""'·' .. ~ :~~~. -..:~~~~~~;~. ,: n, __ _r't.1~ b ."1;1'::.,_ J r·1..-r'c~ ' ""' -j''' ., . .,._. n 1 . '' ',I 1 \) 11 €:I_ --= I r Ii [o:oXJ ™ + + + + + + + ±........±..... t-------d -------------- mllm ID t, ,j,··-CS ··1._r· \ .J ' ,, i· 1. ;r ' j \ .1<' ' ~L I / /f, ... -(_"-JI '\ --0 ' ~·· r' / ' ' "C\ ; -_ i / ;i '.1·.:.: ' ··· "'. '( \ D,\1 1 ••• c·_. \ \. ~} WEnMDE 25,5118 SF WEnAND CREA T/ON 9,334 SF WETIANO FILL 4,TBT SF 8/JFFER A VERA GING -ADOfT/ON ' £~--~ ,~ ·G, -.. ·--, • .• -.·.u-y> .,. ··. r~~ "':t -,,, .· ' .,-. ' !"' -,, ' \ /-_; I. ;,!!';.. ~ ,'1 ),> ~1 '"<h 1 / 1f;l.-., ~ ";y, r 1 \ •-> ., 'I 'I ' ·.·, \ / .\ U, 'I -:"'.'.'."':i_... \.~'.'> 2 'p r.-,, • c "-:: J I \ ) U-'-_J ) j)' __.:_,;__, ... ,. c·cCC' .. r ,-~ r·· --~-----;:-;, I]' ,-•1 . "·.:,:;~::: :f:t::}'.: 11,-:.: :{:i: .,, er ~j I A_:~r~~ i 1,o188F BUFFER 8IJfmACTJON l i5!78F lllFFER RESl!RltTJON -~::·- . 'I j .. '· ·P"·,.,,_,.-~c,'I / I,: ~ 1 ~~--{ :·· 1~j\'-. ' \/ . -,_,i_, ·-- ' 4, 176 SF BUFFER A VERA GING - SUBTRACTION Now: Base map provided by D.R Strong based upon survey of Sewall W otland Consulting Weti,rui Dollru:sllon. ll47E:. SC4IF: flf::fQ(}' J ::1 1:11 :1a \j ~·;,\;,;,;-;-11 lrt.l:t:2+-------; ' ' 0 j / 25,600SF IOtH'.AiKfl 5/J f(X) 15/J 21/1) SCAi.E: t·= tOO' 4,624 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS FIELDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT DELINEATION MAP DII 11:1:n £1'1411H BY'~ ~ N'Rl.:JIJ12 -~rs __ Technical Memorandum 10230 IVE Points Dnve Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist Kevin O'Brien, Senior Wildhfe Biologist June 13, 2012 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists have previously conducted a site visit and provided a review of documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances. Ot:ak provided the City with a review memorandum dated February 29, 2012. This second review is in response to the comments and changes provided by the applicant's biologist as outlined in Ot:ak's February review. The applicant's biologist has provided a detailed outline addressing many of the recommendations brought forth by Ot:ak as well as a revised concept delineation map and wetland delineation map. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and D) and three Category III wetlands (Wetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023). Two of the parcels create along, narrow corridor east to west and the thitd parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat "T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest corner of the project area, previously bad a fire st:ation on the property. The building has since been demolished, lea,~ng the property vacant but for paved parking areas, gravel, and overgrown landscaping. The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands (approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habit:at. The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. K \proj~\31900\31989B\Reports \Fiddbrook Commons Second Rev:iew _0613_ 12.doc in N .... 1-4 ca 1-4 ::c >< w Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Colillnurlity and Economic Development Page 2 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 This memorandum outlines general background information, findings of the review responses, and additional recommendations. Specifically, this memorandum provides reVlew, comment, and recommendations for the documents and exhibits indicated below: Documents Reviewed Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-001, response to City comments (dated April 10, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response with revised Mitigation Plan, response to Otak comments (dated March 16, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map -1 lxl 7 and full size (dated April 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map -1 lxl 7 only (dated March 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Background Information Sources City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: http:/ /www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RMC) Response to Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response, dated March 16, 2012 by Sewall Wetland Consulting,. Inc. Sewall Wetland Consulting comments are indicated in italics, below. Otak response comments are indicated in bold, below. Underlined lettering below indicates further action needed or if the recommended action has been appropriatelv addressed. 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: As requested, we investi.gated the off-site wetland area identi.Jied by OTAK. It appears to be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of thir wetland to the eastern property line of the site and it was 55'. As this distance appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the site. The applicant has appropriately identified and addressed the offsite wetland in the response memorandum and also by including the approximate location of the wetland and its buffer on the wetland delineation map. This action item has been appropriately addressed. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Functions: The applicant's biologist copied the recommendation to include a table into the response memo, but did not provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer K \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fiddbrook Commons Second Review-_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Rento11 Department of Community and Economic Development Page 3 Fie!dbrook Commons Second &view June 13, 2012 functions and values (including the low, moderate, and high ratings) using the Ecology methodology. The recommendation for wetland functions was appropriatelv addressed later in the document (1.4.3.2). We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the Cit:y to provide concurrence v;,-ith the analysis, and to verify the functional lift associated with the proposed wetland conditions. However, no assessment of wetland buffer functions and values was provided. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation·wilJ achieve functional equivalency~particularly aS the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. 2.c. Maps: Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the Cziy. The fu.11 size map provided to the City and forwarded on to Otak contains scale bars and notes are legible. The 11x17 maps provided to tbe City and forwarded on to Otak do not contain scale bars and are not legible at half-size. Future submittals should include fuJl scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. This action item is adequate for this review. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: The area wzil be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. In addition to removing the dilapidated fence and replanting the encroached area with native trees and/ or shrubs, the buffer will need to have a split rail fence installed to prevent future intrusion. This recommended action is sufficient for this review: the final wetland mitigation plan should include fencing in this area. 2.e. Tree Retention: It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, ail of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. It is understood that tree removal will be required in order to fill wetlands and buffers as well as grade the area for wetland creation. However, this comment was provided in order to highlight the importance of a high functioning buffer. While many more trees will be planted, it is the existing forested canopy that is providing the function. Small trees, recently installed will not provide the same functions for up to 20 or 30 years or more. Through the revised wetland mitigation plan the forested buffer of Wetland B will be preserved. Some forested buffer areas and the functions they provide will srill be impacted, but at a slightly lower level of function. K\project\31900\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Colll.lllons Second Review_061.3_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community a11d Eco1101nic Devcloprne11t Page 4 Fie!dbrook Commons Second &view June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been appropriatelv addressed at this time. The City and City biologjst will review the tree removal and land clearing plan when submitted by the applicant. 2.f.1 Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: The March 16, 2012 memo from Sewall Wetland Consulting addressed a number of issues and provided numerous comments under the 2.f.1 heading. This memo addresses these comments below: The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate Junction buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created wetland No loss of buffer Junction will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. The project proposes to convert existing buffer for Wetlands A and C to created wetland. Per the response to 2.b above, an assessment of existing buffer function and proposed buffer function should be conducted by the applicant, in order to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland buffer function will occur as a result of the project. We recommend an ex;plicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation "INill achieve functional equivalency-particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. The final mitigation plan will depict NGP A areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. Using the W ADOE Wetland rating systems which is based on 3 major recognized wetland Junctions, Wethnd D · scored 33 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low Junction Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Tab/.e 1 below, a substantial functional hjt will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508 sf of additional wethnd over the existing/unctions of the proposed fill wetlands. The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in Junction, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the City to provide concurrence with the analysis, and to verifv the functional lift associated with the proposed conditions. A revised.and updated critical areas report, including the ratings forms, is an appropriate vehicle to do so or submittal of the ratings forms as a critical areas report addendum. This Oocation and direction of proposed illumination our of and away from the wetland and buffer areas to protect buffer functions) will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. K\project\31900\3 l 989B\Repor+..s \Ficldbrook Co=ons Second Revli:w_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 5 Fie!dbrook Commons Second &view June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been approprutely addressed at this time. The Cit:y and City biologist will review the site plans when submitted by the applicant. Currently we are monitonng groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between wetlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from 16"-28" beklw the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into Apnl to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area. The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. It's possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have sklpe wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our fydroklgy monitonng which is currently being conducted. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project timing constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The Citv will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. The use of a berm in this area (to prevent surface water draining from the proposed created wetland into Wetland B) if used, will be constructed of a soil matenal that will be an impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay. This recommended action is currentlv sufficient: however the City mav require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland B are proposed at this time. This recommended action is currentlv sufficient: however the City mav require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. Grass seed will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. Grass seed provision will be removed from the planting plan and arborist mulch will be used instead. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. 2.f.5. The performance standards have been revised and included in the revised conceptual wetland mitigation plan. Further recommendations regarding the performance standards are included below in a separate review of the document. 2.f.6. Trails: The trail was requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. K \projeo:\31900\31989B\Reports \Fiddbrook Co=ons Second Rev.iev;, _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 6 Fieldbrook Commons Second Rtview June 13, 2012 The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25% of the buffer. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required far the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrolngy monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we haJJe sufficient early grou,ing season hydrolngy data the gradingplans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of Apnl-midd!.e of May. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project timing constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriatelv addressed at this time. The City will request review of the grading plan and the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. 2.£.8. Storm Pond: The storm pond has been eliminated from the prrject and a buried vault will be utilized outside of the wetlands and associated buffers. A storm.water outfall is located on the Concept Delineation Map. If available, provide additional information regarding stormwater outfall design anticipated stormwater volumes and how the adjacent wetlands and buffers (particularly Wetland B) will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location (e.g. How will the hydroperiod of Wetland B be affected?). At a minimum a conceptual description of the stormwater outfall the extent of its service area, proposed vault volume and sizing criteria, proposed discharge structure proposed stormwater fate after discharge (infiltration, sheet flow through buffers to created wetlands and/or to Wetland B) and its potential impacts to wetlands and buffers should be provided. 2.f.9. Pennits: When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detai!.ed Plan which would be suitab!.e far submittal far a Nationwide Permit from the Army Co,ps of Engineers, as well as to WSDOE far 401 Water Oua/ity Certification. It is premature to submit far these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. Final mitigation plan designs may undergo changes, possibly significant, based on responses from the Corps and/ or Ecology. Development of a final mitigation plan in a coordinated fashion with the Corps and/ or Ecology may minimize future design alterations. This recommended action has been appropriatelv addressed at this time. K \project\31900\3 l 989B\Report.s \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc Va11essa Dolbee, Senior Pla1wer, City of Re11to11 Departme11t ofC011Wwnity and Eco1101nic Development Page 7 Fieldbrook Commons Second Rt view June 13, 2012 2.f.10. Long Term Monitoring: City ofRtnton Code requires monitoring and bonding of wetland mitigation project for five years. Although it is likely that the Co,ps and W ADOE mqy require 10 years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of mentoring. Hydrology monito,ing of the creation area will be a component. An effective mitigation plan could be developed for a five-year period and a ten-year period, with the performance standards and monitoring events for a ten-year effort triggered if the Corps /Ecology ten year monitoring standard it imposed. If 10 years of monitoring are required, an addendum to the wetland mitigation plan will be prepared to address the Co.r:_ps requirements. 2.g. Buffers: In order to minimize impacts to the wetland and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The replacement of the proposed storm pond with a vault as a potential means of minimizing impacts to wetlands and buffers is acknowledged, but additional information would validate that minimization effort. Please see response for 2.f.8 above for additional information on vault and stormwater outfa!J design and impacts to wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25% of the buffer. The previ.ous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/ wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland B. The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbances from mining and contains existing disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 12 "-28 "of the surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly kams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneaJh. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful The proposed work in the buffers of these wetlands to create over 25,000 sf of additional wetland area will not nmove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existingforest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed dunng creation of the mitigation pro;ect will be restored with native tree and shrub species. All K \project\31900\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Commons Second Rmew_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department ofC01mnunity and Economic Development Page 8 he!dbrook CommonsSecondRevie1V June 13, 2012 the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area 1Vill be utilized as habitat features (mags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. Existing forested buffer habitat occurs on the project property, surrounding the onsite wetlands and providing buffer functions, with buffer widths substantially greater than 50 feet. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalencv particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat v;,ith created wetland. Comments Regarding Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan attached to Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response Memo (March 16, 20 12) A final wetland mitigation plan and report will be forthcoming at a future date. These comments address the specific sections of the conceptual mitigation section in the memo dated March 16, 2012. General Comments: • Remove residual language from previous reports, in particular, all references to the County (Sections 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 5.4, 7.2). Either City staff and/or agency (Corps and/or Ecology) staff will be project contacts. All portions of the wetland mitigation plan that pertains to the site preparation and conditions, plant installation, schedule, and warranty etc. should be included on a plan sheet for project bid and work reference purposes. 3.0. Construction Sequence 3.9. Monitoring: Add caveat that 10 years of monitoring may be required if the Corps takes jurisdiction. 4.0. Construction and Planting Notes 4.1.3. Sentence should read "The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native, invasive plant species onsite, including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly." Trailing blackberry, a native species in the Pacific Northwest, should not be removed. Additionally, provide details regarding how the invasive species should be removed so as to not damage the desirable native species, and specify that the applicant's biologist shall oversee weeding of the buffer addition planting areas. 4.2.3. No balled and burlapped or bare root plant stock should be used. Container stock only. K \proji:ct\31900\31989B \Rq,orts \Fieldbrook Commons Second Ret'1ew_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Sem'or Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 9 Fie!dbrook C,mmons Second Rwieu, June 13, 2012 4.3.3. Planting Pits: Revise the section to specify that the planting pit shall not he deeper than the root hall. Plants should be installed according to http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDF /planting_tips.pdf. 4.4.2. All disturbed areas will be protected with arborist mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. As stated previously, grass seed should not be applied around newly installed plants. 5.0. Maintenance Program 5.1.3.a. The use of glyphosphate herbicide should be a last resort. The removal of stems and root crowns is more effective. Add a caveat that herbicide must be applied by an appropriately licensed individual.· 5.3. Watering should still take place during the first spring and summer after planting, even if planting occurs between October and March 15". 6.0. Wetland and Buffer Monitoring Program • To be consistent with guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, revise the "6.1 Sampling Methodology" section to specify that Year 1 monitoring will occur in the growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. In other words, if the plants are installed in fall 2012 or spring 2013, Year 1 monitoring will occur in August or early September 2014. • Revise the "6.1.1 Hydrology" section to include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area monthly (at a minimum) from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (http://eLerdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tnwrap00-2.pdf). The use of staff/ crest gauges will not provide useful data if the water is below the ground surface. • • Revise the "Vegetation)' section to specify that annual vegetation monitoring will occur in late summer (August or early September). In addition to data specified in this section, sample plot _data sha:! include: plant species present; count of surviving installed plants; general health and condition of installed plans; and presence and percent cover by individual non-native invasive spee1es. Revise the "6.1.2 Vegetation" section to include rectangular or square (not transects) monitor:ng plots that represents approximately ten percent of the-installed vegetation areas and adequately represents the wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas. The permanent monitoring plots should also reasonably represent the plant communities to be established. All four comers of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar and marked with flagging. Revise the paragraph regarding photo points to include photos at a consistent comer of each monitoring plot as well as overview photo points. Add a section to specify that that during the annual monitoring visit (during the first two years), flagging or markers will be replaced as necessary on each of the originally installed or replacement plants to distinguish them from volunteers. If flagging is used, it must be attached to side branches, not central leaders, and it must be attached in a manner such that it does not K.: \project\31900\31989B \Reporu \Fieldbrook Commons Second Revic:w_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Pla11ner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Developrn,ent Page 10 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 restrict growth or girdle the plants. Old flagging should be checked to see if it is restricting growth. 6.2. Standards of Success: 1.b. Add caveat that only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performanc~ standards. Add a performance standard for plant diversity; native volunteers can count towards this performance standard. 1.c. If only 'i years of monitoring is required per the City, performance standards must address all 5 years. • A performance standard of GO% cover by woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Year 3 is ambitious and difficult to achieve, and may be adjusted downward: 30% for the restored buffer during Year 3, 40% during Year 4, and 50% by Year 5 • Performance standards for woody vegetation in the created wetland: 40% cover by Year 3, 50°!<, by Year 4, and 65% by Year 5 • Emergent vegetative cover is likely to be shaded out as woody vegetation establishes. We recommend emergent vegetative cover of 25% by Year 5 to reflect a shrub and forest vegetative community. Performance Standards for percent cover will be addressed during the review of the final wetland mitigation plan. It is difficult to appropriately address performance standards without a grading plan and plant pallet, and the above recommendations may be subject to change based on review of the grading plan and plant pallet. 1.d. Revise sentence that there should not be more than 10 percent cover of non-native invasive species within tl1e mitigation area during all monitoring years. Specify that non-native invasive species include those on the King County Noxious Weed list htt:p: // w,vw. kingcountv.gov / em~ronment /animalsAndPlants /noxious-weeds /Iaws /list.aspx, including the Non-Regulated Noxious Weeds and King County Weeds of Concern. 2. A final delineation of wetland boundaries in Year 5 should be conducted to ensure the appropriately-sized created wetland area has been established. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species can only be included as acceptable components of the mitigation performance standards through the percent cover performance standard, not as part of the percent suMvaL 7.0 Conringency Plan: 7.1. Provide additional information regarding contingency plans if adequate wetland hydrology is not achieved in the wetland creation area. 7.3. Remove residuaUanguage from previous reports including references to "irrigating the stream area" and "reseeding stream and buffer areas". K: \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Co=ons Second Re"1.'1ew _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Com.mum-ty and Ecorwmic Development Page 11 Fieldbrook C1!nmons Second Review June 13, 2012 Response to City Email (Sewell Wetland Consulting document dated April I 0, 2012) Items 1 through 4 were appropriately addressed_ The City and City biologist will review the clearing and grading plans when submitted by the applicant_ Sa_ Given tl:e nature of the project and the site constraints, the issue was appropriately addressed. Sb_ The second sentence states, "the project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A B and C and their associated buffers_" This is not the case as there will be significant impacts to t~e buffers of Wetlands A and C in order to combine the two wetlands. Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency will provide a rationale for avoidance and minimization of impacts to the wetland buffers_ 5c_ Issue was appropriately addressed. The City and City biologist will review restoration details as mitigation planning develops- Sd.i. Issue was appropriately addressed. . Sci.ii. Projecr applicant provided appropriate wetland creation ratios for the identified wetland impacts. 6a. Issue was appropriately addressed_ 6b_ A detailed planting plan will be forthcoming at a future date for review by the City_ The City and City biologist will review planting plans upon submittal by the applicant. 6c. It is assumed that the created wetland will provide a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime_ The City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. 6d. Issue was appropriately addressed. 6e_ Under 6c, it is assumed that there will be seasonally flooded area within the wetland, and 6e states that it is the "goal to maintain the hydrologic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions." Additionally, without a hydrogeologist conducting a site study, it is the assumption of the applicant's biologist "that groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"-24"-" It is our K\project\31900\31989B\Repons\Fieldbrook Commons Second Revii::w_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department ofCmnmu11.ity and Economic Development . Page 12 Fieldbrook CommomSecondRecfrw June 13; 2012 best profes,;ional judgment and our concern for project success that '.N-ith marginal hydrology data regarding groundwater levels that these are results are assumptive. As the information becomes avaihble, the City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis to further evaluate the project feasibility. 7. As stated above, without more hydrologic information and a grading plan, these comments are assumptive. This section is also the first rime it has been mentioned that "roof drains will be directed to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain hydrologic patters (sic) of the site." Provide additional information regarding number of roof drains, assumed volume, and where on the site the flow will. be directed. Provide an analysis addressing how this hydrologic input will not affect the hydrologic ;oatterns of the wetlands and buffers. Si. Issue was appropriately addressed. Sii. While it is adequate that the buffers are reduced in the proposed areas, it is not the basis of it being a parking lot that makes it low impact vs. high impact living areas that may adversely impact the wetland function and value. Considerations for the "low impact" parking lot include potential for toxic rut1off, headlights shining into the wetlands and buffers, and trash being contributed to the buffer. Numerous tlueats exist for the pedestrian trail being placed in the buffer, including people creating new trails, leaving trash, and causing noise disturbance to wetland birds and animals. While buffer averaging is adequate in the proposed areas, the final wetland mitigation plan should address solutions these issues Oe, installing a split rail fence along the trail). Siii. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8iv. While the proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements, the City code still requires the applicant to provide a site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy (FMC 4-3-050M6.f). Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency and would constitute an appropriate evaluation. Per If the McMillan 2000 document is not an appropriate document to reference other Best Available Science documents can be referenced. 8v. Issue was appropriately addressed. Svi. Some enhancement of the buffer may be necessary near the western and northwestern sections of Wetland B as this area had some disturbance and encroachment from the neighboring properties. Additionally, it is noted on the large plan sheet that the areas adjacent to the buffer subttacrion '.N-il! K \project\31900\31989B\Re:ports \Ficldbrook Commons Second Revie,;,;r _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Pla1wer, City of Renton Depart111ent of Community and Economic Development Page 13 fieldbrnok Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 also have some buffer restoration due to temporary impacts. All buffer restoration and enhancement components should be included in the final wetland mitigation report and plan sheets. 8vii. Include the notification requirement in the final wetland mitigation plan. 9. Per RMC: 4-3-050C:7.a.i(2), "trails and wall.-ways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer". As previously requested, the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trail will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. Relocate the trail to be in compliance with RMC: 4-3-050C7.a.i(2). Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Regards, Otak, Inc. Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Kevin O'Brien, Ph.D. Senior Wildlife Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 K:\project\31900\31989B\R~rrs \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc (425) 739-7978 ( 425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) (425) 739-7975 (Direct Line) (425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee-Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 27641 Covington WayS1l #2 Covmgton WA 93042 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response-LUA12-00I SWC Job#! l-121 Dear Vanessa, Phare 253-S59-0515 Fax 253--8S2-4732 This is a response to the June 13, 2012 OTAK review regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below, listed with the page and paragraph from the OTAK report in italics are the items that were underlined in the OT AK report that required further response from us. After each item we have provided a response; Page 5 paragraph I: "We recommend the applicant submit rating forms in order for the City to concur with the analysis and verify functional lift,, we recommend that an explicit assessment of existing proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency". The rating form for the new wetland mitigation area, which includes Wetlands A and C are attached to this report as requested. The existing buffer of Wetlands A and C that will be impacted consists of an open deciduous forested canopy comprised of big leaf maple, some small western hemlock, as well as an open understory of vine maple, indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and scattered other small shrubs. Several trails, piles of trash and debris, several coal tailing piles, and· a small homeless camp is found in this area. This area currently provides some thermal cover to the area around and along the edges of the wetland. It also provides a source of organic material which contributes to the soil composition as well as a source of food to invertebrates utilizing the wetland. The buffer provides some sound reduction from the surrounding residential uses abutting the property. The buffer also provides some barrier to human intrusion. However, the forest is relatively open and sound reduction in this area is not that high. Additionally, the use of the area by local youth on bikes etc. and on and off by homeless has further reduced this function as human use in and around these wetlands appears to occur regularly. '° N 1- 1-4 ca 1-1 ::c >< w Fieldbrook Commonsll J-121 Sewall Wetlwui Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 2 of/5 Wetland buffers can also act as filters to runoff entering the wetland, acting to clean and filter contaminants form sheet flow into the wetland. This function appears relatively intact. The proposed wetland creation area will require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland. It will also shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetlands A and C, into the buffer as the edge is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to connect into the wetland contours. The area to be merged into the buffer is of similar forested character as the existing buffer. The portions that will be graded and be replanted as buffer will have a temporary reduction in some buffer functions in the period (IO+ years) it takes the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately 20' or more. Some of the functions that will increase will be the fact that the wetland and buffer area will be fenced preventing the current type of human intrusion in this area from occurring. The trash and debris within this area will be removed and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry will be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the species richness within the plant community. Numerous pieces of large wood will be placed within the wetland and buffer to increase buffer complexity and provide some habitat features currently not existing within this area. Page 3 paragraph 2: Future submittals shall include full scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. See attached Final Mitigation Plan Page 4 paragraph 3: redundant to Page 3 paragraph l answered on page 1 of this report. Page 4 paragraph 5: redundant question asking for rating form of new mitigation area. See attached rating form. Page 5 paragraph 2: The city will request review of the hydrology monitoring data and analysis. A series of 6 monitoring pits/wells were located within the proposed wetland mitigation area (see attached wetland hydrology monitor point map). These were monitored with weekly site visits from April of2012-August 2012. At each of these points soil saturation and water table levels were measured to determine what surficial groundwater elevations are, to facilitate designing grades for the new wetland creation area. What we found was that within the proposed creation area, groundwater levels in the early growing Ficldbrook Comrnonslll-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 3 of 15 season area between 14" -30" below the existing surface (see table below). It is assumed in the very early growing season February and March) the groundwater elevations are shallower than the measurements we took, meaning the groundwater elevations are closer to the soil surface. As shown on the attached Final Mitigation Plan, we utilized these existing groundwater contours to create the new grades for our mitigation site. As can be seen by the grades and associated cross-sections, the grades will remove soil down to the existing groundwater elevations to create wetland areas with soils saturated to the surface for the early growing seasons, to also include flat areas that will hold some shallow l"-3" of surface water to provide a variety of wetland hydro logic regimes from saturated, to seasonally flooded. Table 1. Groundwater elevations below surface o 'hvdrolo u monitorinf! points 2012 Monitor DATE point& elev. 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/24 617 6/28 7/12 A417.5' -15 -14 -15 -20 -26 drv drv B418' -17 -16 -16 -22 -27 dry dry C417' -20 -18 -17 -20 -25 drv dry D416.5' -14 -14 -14 -16 -20 dry dry E418.5' -27 -26 -24 -30 -36 dry dry F418' -21 -22 -20 -28 -36 drv dry Note: All elevations indicate the elevation of the saturated capillary fringe of soil saturation observed in hydrology monitoring points. 8/12 dry dry dry dry dry drv Page 6 paragraph I: We recommend a design realignment of the trail to the outer 25% of the buffer to comply with Code. The City has requested that a trail be run along the mitigation and wetland areas to create additional public benefit. It is not possible to have a trail of any public value in the outer 25% of the buffer as it would essentially be a trail paralleling the development and within 12 feet of the development. In order to create a trail that will allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site, we will need to go closer to the critical areas than the 25% Code allowance. As a compromise, the trail has been placed approximately halfway between all of the wetland areas, essentially splitting the buffer areas. This would allow a trail to pass around and along the majority of the wetland areas. To compensate for the area of the trail in the buffer, additional area has been added to the buffer as compensation. Page 6 paragraph 3: Refers to the proposed stormwater outfall and its potential impacts to Wetland B. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. September 17, 2012 Page 4 of 15 The current stormwater outfall is release to a level spreader near the edge of wetland B. This outfall will release water from the same basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site. Wetland B already has a highly fluctuating water table as a result of historic modifications off-site. As a result, fluctuations of surface water (when present) up to 6" are seen in this wetland during storm events in short periods oftime. As a result, the plant community in Wetland B generally consists of species tolerant ofa highly fluctuating water table such as willows, hardhack and reed canary grass. No change in hydrology or the character of Wetland Bis anticipated. Page 7 paragraph 1: ff ten years of monitoring are required (by WADOE&Corps) an addendum to the mitigation plan will be prepared to address this change. The Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Corps and W ADOE using the City required 5 years of monitoring. If the Corps requires additional monitoring years, this will be changed to reflect this requirement. The revised Monitoring Plan notes are attached at the end of this report. Page 8 paragraph I: redundant requirement to address buffer functions answered on Pages 1 and 2 of this report. Page 10 paragraph 2: Performance standards for cover will be addressed in review of the final mitigation plan. See Final Mitigation Plan attached. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall(ci)sewallwc.corn. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 1.0 MITIGATION PROTECT OVERVIEW Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 5 of 15 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C 2.0 MlTiGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,SOSsf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickeLG of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2. 1 Create 25,SOSsf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre--construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Oearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3. 7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3. 9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 6 of 15 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Gearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the City's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Fieldbrook Comrnons!"l 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. September 17, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Upon.completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the City biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project If additional years of monitoring are required by the Corps or WADOE, the plan will be revised to reflect this change. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The City's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.lThe Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Lar,dscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native invasive plant species including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 8 of 15 4.l.4The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to final grade with 8" of topsoil, The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.lAll plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved, 4.2.3No balled and bur lapped, or bare root plantings will be used. Container stock only. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5Substilution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2,7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule, The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation Fieldbrook Commons// 1-121 Sevvall Wetland Consulting, inc. September 17, 2012 Page 9 of 15 4.3.lAll plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at alJ times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3AIJ planting pits wilJ be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. Planting pits shall not be deeper than the root ball. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.lA fall-winter installation schedule (October 1" -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. Fieldbrook Commons/] 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page /Oof/5 4.4.2AH disturbed areas will be protected with an arborists mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. 'The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAlNTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope Fieldhrook Commons/} 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page fl ofl5 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.1.2Work to be included in each site visit a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard dPbris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and removing the root crowns. As a last resort, treating the remaining cut sterns only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed) by a licensed applicator can be utilized. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. Seprember 17, 2012 Page 12 of 15 5.3.1 Wa.terwing with a temporary irrigation system will be required during the first spring and summer after the installation. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, starting with the first year after the plants have been installed,and as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four ( 4) combination staff/ crest gauges as well as four hydrology monitoring holes dug each sampling period near the piezometer. These will be located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 13 of 15 and som1d professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. Hydrology will be monitored twice a month from March 1st through May 30th of each year. Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil wifuin 12 inches of the surface · during tile growing season 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of tile planted material in late summer or early fall (August-September) to determine tile health and vigor of tile installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine tile level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whetller tlley area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant comrrumity for a total of 6 transects. Wifuin the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made witllin these plots. A total of 10 sample points witlun tile herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during tile installation sign off. At each of tllese points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Wifuin the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during tile installation sign off as well as at each permanent monitoring plot Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with tile monitoring report for each year from these points. During years 1 & 2 of the monitoring, replacement plants as well as dead plants will be flagged with distinctive flagging to distinguish what plants these are. 6.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS Fieldbrook Commons/I I-I 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. September 17, 2012 Page 14 of 15 I.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100 % survival for all installed planted woody vegetation at the end of year :l. 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area at any time. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,SOSsf of wetland meeting at l,,ast the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The new wetland area will be delineated in Year 5 to establish and insure adequate wetland has been created. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation for percent coverage measurements. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented i£ necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency /maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: .Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. September 17, 2012 Page 15 of 15 -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigatmg the mitigation area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding wetland and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. .... ·.·.':·;.,_-~ I i -__ _j "---"_.------ :fl iiiii;:itr.:t't t' \I 1' ..... ii, u,.,!UHI ~ •~oeoM®•• I ~ ;iii"il;'ti;:ttt ~ !H!'!""'' ' !!ll~I ffl eeaeeee&esee ,i M "' ii ; t:; ,! ,• '° 0 :! :,: ~ ii '""' ::c X D w . .L~3.llH:lllV ~q~1~ *1uo~o·3 i I I I , ). ~ \ \ ' , ' L J._ ! II I ! !! • I I ri I I I I T Tl 1/1 ... ,. • " 0 .. ::, 0 . 11111 I 111 I I • =-JErll!KI3'1lV'13 lioi,~(m)'t<J tlil-!in(o;;?;T)'hd LS0116 NOJ.~NIHS'o'M 'NOllOci ~a 3llJlS -IIS 3nl8\v J'ldVn rrn ~NINNVOd • 3~n.L~3.LIH~~v ·:JN!'saLVIJOSSI' ~ ~H:il!H ~- ' w N '-~ ~ t ~ ;;z _J i! [() ~ ' I ' ' ~ ' ! ' ' ' I I I I I I ji! I I --------' .I! r------, I ' ' ' • I I I ' i ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------- I j ' I I I i SNOJfflOCl XOmlQII'ml .•. ro;:--------' ', --------~------------~ : ',, \ ' ~· ' ', :( : ', --11--r2I l I :: .. 'I ', ,,,," ! II I a : I 1~ ·~ ',,, ,,,," ,., I ,, ~ B Ii j i, ~o=cv ,,,," .... , i l \J \,. // ,.... 1 · , .. : ~ :I ., ',, • ' u''"_Jf-"--,r-t-""1-1"1 : 7 _.. II • .. 1-, .. ., ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .. I! ------· ------------1--------- ,_.,_,_ .:::, l ~ ~ 1! _J ([) Q_ ii ~ ll! ii => <J) 0 ~?, _J 1111 o, m· 1111 i! ,,,, I'!! .._~ I 11 I I 111 .. ! ~ ''I 1 ,,1 1·1 , ,11 ,I .. ,. . ... .. ' ,,,," I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ___ :,i > w _J w ll!~ ~~ 0(5 -'- O .-~ mhl. :,: <J) i ~~-.._ ;;,! G _,; ·? D ' :m 'SON!a'IOH JI.lid 1'11);)16N031:E3l!l8 'IDl'[I ttri;--SU(<;:ZT):XV~ m;-gn:j,i:t):;ld LS086 NO.lf.lNIHSVM 'NOlNJI/ lllZ1llllS-~31l1131.~31d'l'lltlll DNINN'<"ld • 3~:l.L:J3l_lH::ll:i'<>' 'JNJ'S:.J.VIJOSSV '1 a8ll!H SNOJIJIOJ >oomm:ru ,-... C .-= >, ·•~ J> .... ;::; ",-...· -_:::, r;---::.~ '...::::::'J fulli ~.-: I I I I 'r ,J .. I 8 I a' -~ i ~ Lt) I- I-I ca 1-1 ::c >< w --· ·----· ·-- allLDINGS: 6 AND E • TI-IIRO FLOOR Fl...6N Gity ot Renton ~JL:1nni11t:.; O\v\sior1 NOV Z ti !J\i ::-~1) ' r(' n:; :iw1 if; re, .. , , -,:! \/ c.=\!.:_V ElUILD1NG5, 6 AND E 14 UNITS E.lleml ~-.... AAO!IT~CT - --· ·-- -- --· ·-- - --· ·-- 6UILDIN::i6, B .ANO E eEc<>ID FLOOR FLAN --· ·-- --· ·-- --· ·-- --· ·-- -------1 -------; __________________ r----sur~~' e ,41,lD E HOLDINGS, ILCI SC ;)11111 S'T. Sllltt 111!1 lsu.t«l. lM5HINGTcH ·- RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 112J Mm.I: ~\OruE SW -sum 278 RENTON. WASH!NGTOO 98057 PH:(42~)22&-~4 fAX:(425)228-5:144 EMAIL: ED'UEBEOltGLCCM '"'"; FLOOR FLAN IL 'I l=-:J I ~ -,u..._. I I FIELDBROOK COMIIONS RENml, 'IASHINGtffi BIIILD..... ~ r:::::11 ~~wui :-------l _____ -, r---------------, r _____ J _______ l I I I I I I \ I \ L _______ l ' : ..J L-------, I _______ J '--i-I I l I L--J I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '-, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' L------1 r---- L--~--~ I ' ' ' ' ' ' ,... ________ ..J BUILDIN6&1 Crsv, Drev, Ci, J-1 • lHIRD FLOOR PLAN --· ·_,d~.-/ fV ··t\on ~-) !._ ,_·;!\;\'-'. .n Nl.W 2 ii '/,l i, !' · r,,, w; [IV/!t:,~~5) BUILDINGS, Crev, D rev, G, 14 13 UNITS D ' HOLDINGS, LLCI 111575 SE 31111'1 ST. SUllE 111! ,~-~- --· ·----· ·-- c!UILD!Nrl&, Crev, Drev, CJ, 1-1 • 5ECCND FLOOR PLAN -- SUILDN::r&i Crsv, Drev, G, 1-1 • FIRST FLOOR FLAN --RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC, ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 112J MAl'lE A',[NIJE SW -SUITE 279 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 Ptt:(4:15)126-~•;m F.t.X:((25)226-5:Wt EMAIL; EDRIEBEGMS'/.wt FIELDBROOK EUILI> ..... COMMONS C NV, D M-i, G, M --OU1LDINlil"I.AH6 --· , __ m=• ·-- -- :l -,, I I j IIW;lit'/ll/t:i -~~ I F2_3 ,i ,! ii ,_,... ... C ..... :-+ ;-i :7 ,-::_ ~ -.. 'i1 -<l) Q>--- ::! z c,=> IQ t:: ' I ~ l ~ . ! ! I , is it 111 s I --· ·-- --· ·----· ·-- eu1u,N1S K. L rsv, M, N -"THIRD FLOOR PL.AN -·-·----· D --· ·-- --· ·----· ·-- 11875 SE Jlllh ?if. gJil[ IIIO IEICER lLfilll, V.SUlllml - --· ·-- --· ·----· ·----· ·-- ~ EIUILPIN:!i& K, L rev, H, N -5ECOND FLOOR FLAN --- L ___ _ S1JILPING& K. L rev, H, N • FIR&T FLOOF/: Fl...dN RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 112:1 MAPtE A\£HUE !r« -&l!TE 279 RENTON, WASHINGTON 9Bl!l57 P11:(~25)226-SJ44 fAX:(425)221!1-~H [M/11l.: £DR1EEl£CII.ISILCOM FIELDBROOK COMMONS -·- --~ :,:~ty n-f ,r:i::nior1 . ) '•j• ;-:1 "i()r) Nu:: 2 ;_) >Jii /, I~:. I'_--:_-, :; -.; /i\\i//f'i /DJ /_·.-~·~/ '-' ~~:.;::i, __ 6UILDING5, K, L REV, M, N 14 UNITS ~~at L_JOLJ F2.~ l D = -~'Ol,Y'6!!fDIIJ, i1113J.!IE-'1S 'll9l'. 3S SL9o :m ·smmnOH ""' r., NIIrN51'DlH:llOO] 'l!Ylfl ttl:S---iZl(m):XV.J nt;-!lZ(,;.:1-)'lid ,;0gs NO!.!:>mHSV/11 'NOlNJij 0a llll1S -/IIS IDNll~ lloYn rm £.lNINNVld • 3:ie!n_1_:;i3.J.JH::J;;,j'I 'JNI'S:l.LVIJOSSV 'i ~H:;IJH ... "' lili 111 (0) -,-x;iffi -cp ! lZ 1~1 "---rr- II II II II II II ~~ I II ~,:: 1.. II II t: ffi II Bl II > ~ OIi II II II II II II II II II II ~G G [ill 1.. I I 18 l [ill i I -- n II II II II l II I II ,_ II~ II~ II II l DD w i l 0 ! l l C ·~) .... _-( C (:) I"-,·' C'- '--1-· 0 :>1 ;.., D I I i I I I I I I ~ 0 '·' '. c, ' :·~ '" c· ::::: • -"I 0:·':..,'! -;-: ::,., \;_;::;,- D -=, -=IHSVlfl'!).'ff"fil!!Dll]II ~U-31lll:i ·JS 'i"l!II: .s = 'SDNlcrIOH lid II .. .. !I ~ ~ "l w Ii l\l " :i! ! n• "'I ii! l'J:O"'-Slll383llKl3 'll'IIU ttts-m(si:~)::('IJ tt'.'i-=(.z•J™ £;0116 NO~Nlf!S'l"M 'NOJ.N3~ eU3JJllS-MS3VG\r,kll'llri11 :JNINN,..."1d • 3~n.L:J3J.IH::l1'1"' .JN!'S3lVIJOSSV 'I imm1 !I i ~ w ~ ! lil I SNOJfflO:> XOOHHcmlJ.il ! .; ' ~ l 91 iil ' ' h I I l ) ~ ~ w lil m .., .. I ' I l I J ~ I J' . J II ,. C 0 C .:,...~ r• () ·-:. r:: ,... t) ::rrI 'sD.NI<l'IOH JLNd IIO:'.rNS"'13eJl!l(I] 1J;'"3 ttl:'.-SZ"i:(.i:t):x'i.J nr;~i;i:•]'11,J LS086 lfil.l~r.JHS','11, 'J.OlN3!! llr )Uri;; -115 3r.u.lY = 1:1:IL ':ININN\;,'ld • 3~n.l.:J3.LIH::O~"' 'JNI'saLVIJOSSV ~ aaam a ei~ 9' iii e SNOJfflOO XOOHEl<n:ill!t ~, I Q l i ~ i I .......... "" l.L .. rn m u ;i! ! 9, e iii e D~-·-,~··-~·· !;el llJ.flS '.IS 'Rill: lS '!96 :::rn 'srimmoH JI.Nd 0 o .:-. .;, '.-~~ .-- () ;:: noJ'N5i'ilJ6:lJIIIIl '1IVl'G ttr;-gll(,;i:1-)~J ttl:'.i-SU(ml™ L~~ue NO!~NlHS\fl,\ 'NOlNTh' &l? 3!1flS -I'S Jl'OOI\¥ ndY" rn1 !JNINNl;f"lcJ • ::31'!n.L::J::3.LIH::J1e!\;f ':JNJ's:i!,LVl:l0SSV 'I 3H:;JJH 0 e II 11 • SNOJ'l)l[O:> X0"""'1'lllli i ! 9' .! l ?i I § w it S' ji! l ~) ~:.,,; ... ,_ C , :~ :t: t ... ~ ',,,.., e 11:;Ci,sr,o:;i.;:;nm '11Ylt3 t>fS-'lU{o;i:~):XV.J W.:.--Sll:(m)™ !;096 NOl~~'JHS\I,\\ 'NO.lN3d ea lllilS -MS 31Wl'.Y n;v~ mi !:ININNl:'ld • 3~n.L::03.l.IH~H::I .... "Jl!I'SfilVIJOSSV 'I aa:;im .L:l)il!O!I~ ~~~Ill IJUUafl") [:~··-·-·-,ll.!OS'.1.S'.!l'l':~l.!H 'sommoH JlNd ). ) ro:rr,is,.EH,ll ~r,n:i »rs-su:1.-1,);xv.J ttr,; ·smm),lld LS086 NOJ.:>NiHSVM 'NQ!.Njll eci :ums -11$ Jnl,{].\~ nr;~ >i:11 o;JNINN<>'ld • 3Cln.L:::J3.LIH:::J~<>' "JNJ'B:iJ:.LVJJOSSV ~ :,:11:,:m (I !i (I~ ~! ~ w' !i "~ li! li! ' iii ~ ~ ~iil i! iil' ~, ,,~ li! li! • 99; ,i ,i i r:.: re ·- ';;--· ,:) ,, .,. "\ :,...t 0 ? ,. '.:::::'-' ',: --JLJ, "'° >61'11]8]]ll(j] ~r,'"3 ttr,---g12(o;i1-)~.1 nrs-9.V:ml=fld L~096 NQ~NIHSVM 'NQlti]<i Ill lUns -1\5 3f'IM3/IY 31dY~ mr SIN!NN1;;'0d • :::H:,ln_l_:::13.J..IH::Jl::II;;' ':JNI'SfilVI:JOSSV ~ :.a:.m ~ ~ '" ! z -" ~ i Ii i '" I z " ~' 91 Hi l , _ _) ,----,. r.·· ' ' >, :t: .~ ... _ i.:.::..~ .• ,-:;:::.--- r:c .. ;~.:'.~ :.:.::.> ;:;.:~ - "Ii l ~ w ~ ) '; 1i! Cl d al ~ .. 11(m,sJ10383lllCl3 CJ!Vn] ttf!i-9ol:(!.ll-)'l('(J 1,K!;~(!.ll-)'l!d l;IIQ6 NO~:)~lHS\IM 'NOlN:3~ ea :i:ms -11.1 :nm~ Jld'I~ rm ~NINN':lld • 3o'n.1.C:03.LIH::llcl"' ·:i11!'S:iL1Vl:JOSSV 'I ~a:;1.111 ; ) ; I ! (: u . l I! ,~ 11 • ! ~ , "' I I 1, I i !! I I l I ' "' .wc,-... ~ i I I ,: • l I ~ ~I I : ~ I / )g ~ . ::, ' w iil I;; !ll . 1i! 9 al ~ ii I!' I i 11 • ·, ! ! I r ) • I ' l, i I ___________ _I I ! ' ' ;,so-~------- • ¢1~lqJ ~ i! i ' (QJ --I ;:::; ,·.,e, ij~ cq il f C> = 2: i I D " . . ! ' i , , , , , , ' ' ' 11! , ' ' ' ' !I !' '!, ' ' I, ! l i !! ' ' , ! ' ' l ' ' ' ' ' __________ l_ ' • • • . ~ J • (1 :!';-~------- r • ... ......... s ! "' 11 """' l~I"-."-' r,, ~ ' ! ~ ~ ' i ! - ©) n k·' -~ ~- !:.:. ~ nfrf ..:::;..Ji :'.,.:-Ii , ... ~ 1g i t:Jo ~ u ~ D u . co 1- ""4 m ""4 ::c >< w C - 0 o .... ·-c -~ Qi ·-a: 0 .... g, 0 -C >, C .... ~ ·-a.. () !'· \ \ ' . \ \ \ I j \_ r~ ~ '-"' "'· ,j \ . ' ~ ~{ }-~--.~ . ' '•' . .;.,I·;'. \_~1" . ' :~ .: '.· i ..._, r"" · ,, ' ti).· ~'l \ \ ~ ( 1 I IQ) i:: C ™ 0 0 -· ~ ...., ·en C: s --~ = QJ ·- 0 ™ a: 0 OJ = g .... C z 0 c <( ™ ~~ ~ ·-Q_ 0 @:; Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: justin@americanclassichomes.com on behalf of Justin Lagers <Justin@pnwholdings.com> Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:06 PM Vanessa Dolbee Re: Bonus Density Follow up Flagged Vanessa, we are opting to provide the 15' landscape separators between every six stalls as the bonus density incentive and we would like our outdoor recreation facilities (pickleball court, tot toys, climbing wall, etc .. ) to go towards satisfying the PUD. We will need to request a variance to the parking calculation requirements by decreasing the amount of spaces provided by approximately 10 stalls. We feel our proximity to public transportation and the on street parking available on 172nd will more than cover the reduction. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Justin, I was quoting the minimum parking lot landscape width which is 5-feet. It turns out to qualify for the bonus density you do need the 15 feet. Sorry for any confusion, this was an old code standard. Will the 15 feet work for you? After looking at the stalls I was thinking you would lose 10 to accommodate the 15 feet. 'Vanessa (J)o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 1 'l"'I 'l"'I l:; co 1-1 ::c >< w From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1: 10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Bonus Density In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate at least 1 of the features described below: "Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet." Code says 15 feet but you said it was less than that correct? Just trying to make sure we can make this work. See attachment -we actually loose 8 parking spots. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC (/i'i,i. 206-588-1147 c·c: 253-405-5587 Justin@pnwholdings.com Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC (','.re'.: ,:111· 1Jf L;,1,(i -\npl!\Ui\1,1 & L:~·,·i_,iHfnl~l'Ht ",{;7:' ::;;. 3>i:' c;,Su1:e· Jr:, Justin@pnwholdings.com 2 PREPARED FOR PNW HOLDINGS, LLC October 31, 2011 Revise December 13, 2011 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal REVISED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED FIELDBROOK COMMONS RESIDENTIAL PLAT SOUTHEAST 172ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2089 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 10Du.oLi:i t ,J~ - l/ f:i( Cl{)h le,S -lopp~d ,ces I t [ [ r: [ ~ ' i r I I I LIO!S!i\!CJ Ou1UUl?/d LO:j.UG:J JO .~l!O Fieldbrook Commons Geotechnical Engineering Study Supplemental Materials FIELDBROOK APARTMENTS LIMITED SCOPE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by T:!i!lfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 N.E. 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 November 14, 2011 City of Renton Piann1r1q Division JAN -.3 Z01i l·~~ Y E\ro.ph,cs 2 oppayiic.c::s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) for Fieldbrook Commons 17040 1081 " Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. Renton File No. 11062 LUA 2012-001 Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 361 " Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Report Prepared by il!lii.11 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date November 13, 2012 City ot Renton P/a11ni•1q Oivls,on NOV. 2 o LU12 DEPARTMENT OF COMMLJ,., ,Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD PNW HOidings, LLC Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the R-14 zone. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 17040 1081h Avenue SE City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development 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 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2013. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department e ry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department January 11, 2013 January 7, 2013 Date Date Fire & Emergency Services I h ,;;, u-- C·-~\_J~ .J 1 (# 13 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF C MUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD PNW Holdings, LLC Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the R-14 zone. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 17040 1081h Avenue SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The stormwater line shall be re-designed to reduce the number of trees required to be removed for its installation; and, that trees 2089, 2185, 2184, 2183, and 2193 be retained. Alignment of the new stormwater discharge shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final PUD Approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a final Wetland Mitigation Plan compliant with RMC 4-8-120D.23 and recommendation included in the Otak's secondary review memorandums dated February 29, 2012 and June 13, 2012 for final review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the City documentation of State and Federal required permits for the filling of the three wetlands prior to approval of the Final PUD. 4. The applicant shall provide a final mitigation planting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 5. All trees identified in the final mitigation planting plan shall be a minimum size of two inches in caliper for deciduous trees or 6 feet in height for coniferous trees. 6. Temporary construction impacts shall not impact significant trees located in existing wetland buffers, including but not limited to the preservation of the following trees, 2086, 2088, 2400, 2399, 2108, 2330, and 2186. 7. Staff recommends that the trail be designed, to the extent feasible, over the top of the stormwater line, to avoid trees, in the outermost extent of the existing buffers on the subject site, and constructed of permeable materials. A final trail plan shall be provided to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to Final PUD approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared for the Field brook Commons project, by Earth Solutions NW LLC, dated October 31, 2011. 9. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Prepared for Wagner Property, LLC, by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc., dated October 11, 2006. 10. An additional coal mine assessment review shall be completed by a qualified geotechnical professional verifying that the weight of a waste management truck, Fire department ladder truck and other vehicles parking in the area is not likely to result in subsidence at this location and the proposed parking/trash facility would be an appropriate use located within the hazard area. This assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of S 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Wetland Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (SO'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Plan Review -Water: 1. The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the water for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. 2. Per the city of Renton Fire Marshal the fire flow is 2750 GPM; a minimum of 3 fire hydrants are required. The project will be required to install associated fire hydrants, an approved fire sprinkler system, FDC and backflow device in order to serve this project with adequate fire flow. Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. 3. Per City of Renton code the lateral spacing of fire hydrants shall be predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. 4. The number and location of new fire hydrants as required by Renton Fire Department shall be determined based on the final site plan and fire flow demand. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer: The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the sanitary sewer for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. Plan Review -Stormwater: 1. The project is required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE was submitted with the formal application and per the report the project is ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of S complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The report submitted states that the project will adhere to the flow control -forested conditions. 2. The conceptual utility plan submitted is showing a vault and a pond. The storm drainage needs to be consistent with any other wetlands plans in regard to location and number of vaults and ponds. 3. Plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of a construction permit following land use process. 4. The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Plan Review-Street Improvements: 1. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. Note: the applicant has requested a modification to the required street improvements. This modification will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for a determination. 2. Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108th Ave SE will be required. The right of way dedication on SE 172nd St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is at the back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. 3. This project needs to extend SE 172nd St to the east property line of the parcel being developed. SE 172nd St will be a dedicated public right of way prior to issuance of a construction permit. 4. The cul-de-sac needs to show a 45' pavement section. 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. These fees are calculated as $80,797.50 based on the proposal. 6. Street lighting shall be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The lighting on SE 172nd St shall be decorative with black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. Plan Review -General: 1. All required utility; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 5 remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. A Fire Impact Fee shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow calculation for the project is 2,750 gpm. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculations and final access road configuration. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 3. Approved fire sprinkler 9per NFPA 13) and fire alarm systems are required though out all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 1S%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-feet dead end. Landscape islands are not allowed in cul-de-sacs. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. Property Services: 1. There are minor errors and inconsistencies in the Project Narrative. 2. The PUD plans use a six pointed star but this is not located in the legend. It is likely the area of wetland creation but it isn't plain. The wetland mitigation plan may spell this out but the wetland information contained on the PUD plan sheets is sparse. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of 5 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNllY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 25th day of June, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application (NOA), Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan See Attached Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC -Accpt Ltr Contact/Owner Ray Lotto -Acceptance Letter, NOA Owner William O'Neil -Acceptance Letter, NOA Owner Katrina Garrison -NOA Party of Record 300' Surrounding Property Owr,ers -NOA only See attached '7 JJ.v,-Jv,,/ ~,\\\\\\11111, 1/lA ~'~.a,;,:. ltf// (Signature of Sender): , Jfl _$"" ~.~ 11, 11 ff 'f''(i'.~ .. ~ ~\ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON :: J:j o<.t.ttl' \J~ ) 55 ~ ~ ,1t I.. -.,.· ~i 'Iii COUNlY OF KING ) ~ 1,,) ~,; ... "1j O, t -.,,,, a-i1:, I l . . ,,, ·~ ~'"'"" .... '' ~ ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11111 '17l Of >f1'1",--:---:- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t~~~\l.~i!'trposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~,,n.:. d~ ;J,.,otz Notary Publiin and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) :. ___ ___,I-.\'-'-'-. -"'A,._,_. --"'{,..--'r,-"ul,'='='--""'«"------------- My appointment expires: A , a 00 (3 . "'-3'l<<;;-r ;z-,1 o'-- Project Name: Field brook Commons Project Number: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD template -affidavit of service by mailing co 'l"'4 I- I-I ca .... ::c >< w Dept. of Ecology** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region "' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS} WDFW -Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * . Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. · **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Chec~list, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing Parcel ID: 0087000291 Parcel ID: 0087000293 Parcel ID: 0087000285 TEUNG YAOTA SUBIC MARGERY SUBIC GEORGE & FRANCES CHAOCHIOTA POBOX78414 PO BOX 769 PO BOX89 SEATILE, WA 98178 RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 Parcel ID: 0087000298 Parcel ID: 0087000295 Parcel ID: 0087000305 NGY TENG+MORANY ROBISON JAMES L BAKERG MARK 17003 105TH AVE SE 9670 RAINIER AVES 10011 SE 187TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 SEATILE, WA 98118 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 0087000300 Parcel ID: 0087000296 Parcel ID: 2892700130 WILLIAMS CHARLES D ROBISON JAMES+EDWARDINE SALAYMANG HALIMAH 25603 E LK WILDERNESS DR SE 9670 RAINIER AVES 16824 113TH AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038 SEATILE, WA 98118 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 1626800020 Parcel ID: 1626800055 Parcel ID: 2892700140 NEATHERY DAVID H CREAGER PATRICK H CARTER STANLEY D+BILLIE B 10830 SE 173RD ST 10833 SE 173RD 17107113TH AVE SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059176 Parcel ID: 1626800025 Parcel ID: 2369200020 RUSSELL DANIEL & DEBRA EALY MICHAEL R NELSON DONALD LEE JR 829 S 31ST ST 10838 SE 173RD 11011 SE 173RD ST RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2369200005 Parcel ID: 1626800060 Parcel ID: 3811300060 BELL TIMOTHY KUMAR KAMLESH+SAROJANI VONGBIEU C 11004 SE 173RD ST 10839 SE 173RD ST 5570 15TH AVES RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 SEATILE, WA98108 Parcel ID: 2892700120 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 2923059107 KILLIAN DANIELS NIEMI DONALD RICHARD NIEMI SYDNEY 2100 PEARMAN DR 17022 108TH AVE SE PALMDALE, CA 93551 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059145 Parcel ID: 1626800030 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC BJORNSTAD DARLENE R TRUST KUMA KAMLESH+SAROJANI 8110 E UNION AVE #200 14624 SE 183RD ST 17314 108TH AVE SE DENVER , CO 80237 RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 236920001 o Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059022 ADAMS JEREMY R SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC M B INVESTMENTS CHATHAM WR 11012 SE 173RD ST 8110 E UNION AVE #200 1851 CENTRAL PL S #225 RENTON , WA 98055 DENVER , CO 80237 KENT , WA 98030 Parcel ID: 2923059128 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059052 LOWERKYNAJ ,SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC NIEMI DONALD R+SYDNEY J 10819 SE 170TH ST 8110 E UNION AVE #200 17022 108TH SE RENTON , WA 98055 DENVER , CO 80237 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2892700150 Parcel ID: 2923059147 Parcel ID: 2923059144 LYONS WADE M+AMANDA A KELLY LLANE LYON RB 17109113TH AVE SE PO B0X58093 10817 SE 170TH RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059148 Parcel ID: 2923059148 Parcel ID: 2369200015 SPRINGBROOK RIDGE LL C SPRINGBROOK RIDGELL C GILLELAND JOHN W 800 S 3RD ST 800 S 3RD ST 11005 E 173RD ST RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3811300050 Parcel ID: 3811300110 ZHONG ZHI GUANG+JIAN MING W GONZALEZ CHRISTIAN+CLAVEL N 17219 109TH PL SE 10925 SE 172ND ST RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3811300090 Parcel ID: 3809000000 VENNING EDWARD W+DONNA 17210 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300020 Parcel ID: 3811300040 Parcel ID: 3811300080 SEIM JOHN R+CHARLENE A OKADA-LOUIE JULIE ASSEFA ASAMENEW 17203 109TH PL SE 17215 109TH PL SE 17216 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059026 Parcel ID: 2923059113 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C KIRK FLOYD & GAIL 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 10845 SE 170TH ST SEATILE, WA 98102 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 2923059015 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC 8110 E UNION AVE#200 DENVER , CO 80237 Parcel ID: 2923059027 SOREM RON 10835 SE 170TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100350 GARRETT DANIEL 17017 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059026 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Parcel ID: 8637100330 STOIANOVA DINA 17007 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100410 YU Al LING 17026 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100360 MARCHAND TERRY M 17021110TH PLSE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100000 Parcel ID: 2923059015 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC 8110 E UNION AVE #200 DENVER, CO 80237 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 2923059031 NIEMI DONALD RICHARD+SYDNEY 17022 108TH AVE SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059015 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC 8110 E UNION AVE #200 DENVER , CO 80237 Parcel ID: 2923059168 RENTON CITY OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100420 BOGGLE ADDISALEM 17018 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059180 SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER PO BOX58039 RENTON , WA 98058 Parcel ID: 8637100000 Parcel ID: 2892700160 HUSETH KAREN J 17123 113TH AVE SE RENTON , WA 98058 Parcel ID: 2923059023 PNW HOLDINGS LLC 9725 SE 36TH ST STE 214 MERCER ISLAND , WA 98040 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 2923059026 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Parcel ID: 2923059174 PETETT BUILDERS 10622 SE CARR RD RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059094 SCHLAMP PHIL R+LINDA 10825 SE 170TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059028 SANBERG BRUCE+TAMI 17014 SE 224TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100370 MANGAHAS THERESA 17025 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059026 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 SEATTLE, WA98102 Parcel ID: 8637100000 Parcel ID: 2923059168 RENTON CITY OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059112 MARTIN ANDREW WILLIAM 10839 SE 170TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300030 COURTNEY ROBERT & TAMAKI 17209 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300070 TZVETANOV IVAYLO K+VASELA T 17220 109TH PL SE RENTON . WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 863710UINT Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT, WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100320 LEE DOUG+PHUNG VAN 17001 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 86371 OUINT Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT, WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100390 HUA MY M+ TIN YEN N 17033110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300100 HURTADO JESSE & LINDA PO B0X59743 RENTON , WA 98058 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 8637100400 GARRISON KATRINA R 17032 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100470 RENTON CITY OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON , WA 98057 Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT, WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100430 VAUGHN TAMARA L 17010 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100380 Parcel ID: 1626800065 Parcel ID: 2923059026 VILLAGRANA RAMIRO+MARISELA BATSCHI JR JERRY A+DIANE R DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C PO BOX 1336 10843 SE 173RD ST 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 BREWSTER, WA 98812 RENTON , WA 98058 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Parcel ID: 2923059179 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 8637100340 SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER NG ROBERT PO BOX58039 17013 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 ANDERSON BETTY HALLMARK MICHELLE ERIN LEGGETT JILL L 10817 SE 172ND ST #A-3 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT 38 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT C-3 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 THOMAS DAVID E THOMPSON MICHAEL VARDANYAN EDUARD 10817 SE 172ND ST #3-D 10821 SE 172ND ST#4A 10821 SE 172ND ST #48 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 JUANEDA YARA SANCHEZ SERGIO L +ANAL YNN C LINDSTROM JOYCE 10821 SE 172ND ST #4C 10821 SE 172ND ST #D 10825 SE 172ND ST #A-5 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 STANLEY D BRUCE+NANCY A FLAGSTAR BANK FSB BONIFANT DEANN MARIE 10825 SE 172ND ST #85 5151 CORPORATE DR 10825 SE 172TH ST #50 RENTON , WA 98055 TROY, Ml 48098 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 KELLAR ANN MARIE WOODS JENNIFER L LEWIS DANIEL 10829 SE 172ND ST #A6 10829 SE 172ND ST #6 B 10829 SE 172ND ST #C6 RENTON , WA 98055-5969 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 GOLD GLADYS M MARYOTT DANA G MILES RICHARD D MILES VIRGINIA C 10829 SE 172ND ST #D6 PO BOX 188 10809-B SE 172ND ST RENTON , WA 98055 OCEAN PARK , WA 98640 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 MADFAI MARK CALLIA GINA+RUTLEDGE KEVIN COPPOCK SYLVA JEAN 3010 ILWACO AVE NE 10809 SE 172ND ST#1-D 10813 SE 172ND ST #2A RENTON , WA 98059 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 HART DONNA MAE TAMAYAOTERESITA T BACANI DENNIS P+MARIA CIELO 10813 SE 172ND ST #28 10813 SE 172ND ST 32C · 10813 SE 172ND ST #D2 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 REAL TY EXCHANGERS INC+NUNE,, 22732 126TH PL SE KENT, WA 98031 Parcel ID: 3809000000 STEVENS KRISTIN L 10817 SE 172ND ST#7-D RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel JD: 3809000000 SIMPSON KEYSHA 10837 SE 172ND ST #SC RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 ONORATI KAREN M 10841 SE 172ND ST 9 B RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 ADEGBITE STEPHEN+UCHE 17577110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 BENNETI ROBIN 17583110TH LN SE#4 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 NUTT CHRISTOPHER L 17569110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98056 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HARRELL FLORENCE 17557110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DOZIER MICHAEL 17551 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HURNER JAMES F+RUBY 17545 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 LOOK JANAE D 350 106TH AVE NE #100 BELLEVUE • WA 98004 Parcel ID: 3809000000 KELLEY MICHELLE 10837 SE 172ND ST #8A RENTON • WA 98055 Parcel JD: 3809000000 LOUIE GARLAN W 9311 MAYESCTS SEATTLE, WA 98118 Parcel ID: 3809000000 CONE CLARA L 10841 SE 172ND ST #9C RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 CLOMAN GERALDINE 17579 110TH LN SE #2 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 WATSON JESSE JR 17573 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel JD: 6614800000 TRAN MY+THUAN VAN ET AL 17567 110TH LN SE #8 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 MENDOZA EVELYN D+CYRUS 17559110TH LN SE#11 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 RUIZLI WEN 17549 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel JD: 6614800000 MOFFA TI MARK W & THERESA C 17533110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 SOHNL Y MARY P 10833 SE 172ND ST UNIT ?C RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 TURPEN SUSAN K 8008 39TH AVE NE SEATTLE, WA 98115 Parcel ID: 3809000000 SMITH LAURAL 10841 SE 172ND ST #A-9 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 GARANA RICHARD 10841 SE 172ND ST #D RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DE LA TORRE MELINDA L 17581110TH LN SE RENTON • WA 98055 Paree·! ID: 6614800000 SANT GAIL 17571110TH LN SE UNIT6 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 SHPREYREGIN LEONID+SVETLANA 17555 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DAVIS ROSS+SUSAN BRADY 17561 110TH LN SE UNIT 12 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 FLOYD LANA M 1754 7 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 STERLING SUSAN M+ROBERT D 17535 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98005 Parcel ID: 6614800000 YEE DEBORA A 4401 40TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98116 Parcel ID: 6614800000 COYLE JANICE M 17527 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GREVE DAVID P 17511110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 SHUTLER MICHELLE L +JOSEPH J 17517 110TH LN SE #28 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GINER DAVID+JESSICA 17503 110TH LN SE #31 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DEMENEZES TWILA 17539 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DANG NINA 17525 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GORMLY EILEEN E 17513 110TH LN SE #26 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HOPPER SUSAN J 17507 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DAMM MICHAEL +DAMN KELLI P 17529 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 FERGUSON DARLENE+NEAL 17523110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 CUSPARD STEVEN F 17515110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 JANOWSKI HENRY F+ANNA E 17505 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055