Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA98-062 • 0 0 CITY OF RENTON A1V - irirt, :7:— - 1- .u. Planning/Building/Public Works r6 * Aili 2 ve a 0,,-.4.1 a F. 0 2 91 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton,Washington 98055 -t4A.: A * 1 MUER * S. STAGE : ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED • --0---412 . 98 F C - '':;"" 0 leiPlfi6i BURLINGIoN NoRTHERN RPaL14440 3501 E. VALLEY Pz• RENTon), WA 9Soss • 13 1.-;-- i 1 t a T 0 E L I V EH B L E .1-----,- ,.....1 s:3„777:\ i25360 COW CA- AS ADDRESSED 9 MAME TO FORWARD to-) v, Vid I RETURN TO SENDER --/i •A' i SW:17:7:::;•)v=k-S'' 1111111"lilluillilill'Imilll ' __ — I - d 0 'ziP.LT D ' , i_____ i• i. C5,4 JaIli.-- •,. 11 II! 0 I IS n' r ,,., I' (iej, ‘,.d.c^ EAST VALLEY NW al D MOTEL. . •1, 7. •'-, J V Farrell , , t ...1. _ .., ' ..1, -::: " John V Fa:re II 1 •• A IP Pc y,,..,,-- --,"- 3c:50 E.,114,4711.1.E141t :4 , H swrit sr... ...Y.CS R-8 :," 1 , , ,, ,',`„,,H° ,... , R-8 , „;:q.1.7-14'..fc8' - 1rn,5,1.?e4rierotti '<U, ; ''1•‘ •;, i (AI . ,•' 5 P 37.0.71 ,....„9 'i e ------ -./' -''' I 4 7:3. ' X >.• . CA . W CC' ..? .1 ..I ---,L.,,• ''': r !..,W:' :.;,p, ..VI.e,o.-u :emp,_:.! —4 .: k• Sc' ':' -„ , ta: • Ci-H,an URLINGTON CA ii , ' t:', , ,f,o,i,:,..,„, 4 S. 36TH :rr ir; 2 I M ;1,- 3 P ole-el 11 :'I. ' • 3k.. :31 fl-j . • ,.........43 , 17_: -.. .. ico -,;-:,,i ."-.%'") . ., . ' ,- Hawkins Nd. RTHERN „ CA R-8 4 issiagymEmor.. Immo ., z. _. iior. 1 (.) . .., • A.''',;•El'INDING SITE ' 3 Scrn You., ti, f, . .3 4. 11 z• ,,,,.. I 61AL '''VAL cBuous LE `i. ;MED I ClIA 11 - .. 1.4 I 30 ......--. . . CENTER ' ---4a-- 603E 1 HRoLL.MAPS —.. D .V. LEGEN SOLE:V.I.C.' Elmo.1=1 PPPROX siono= MCCSE MAWR 61B ...",4";...:...?:=Z-r.:•=7.....77:.... PPiLPOPO-•-•-•-....... 7V.......7.7......":::,==.7:.•::::'.:7-"... • • Ifi �G 8• p ;'-B; B1O i , >,.B , I 589•ISSWE 403, n1 � cwt�-Tt.RI II ,., , , ,�i p �CEt��' 'cam' Chi' -- .,. -> e v B;ol .11 ..I ..1 ..1 .51 I .. .>j.:1 vl ..I n . a> w 53, >] > 1� ��.� Co o� / .' g ti 4 / IDutP> IM1rzi ITi � PROPOSED 3 STORY o�� - E" 88 UNITMOTEL 46,937 SF. 1 I 28 SETBACK 9 41 \: \ FGG266�TCC1��Cf�EK •V $ y,' / a / \ \\ `_ ---- --- I r-----__ E+ rn \ • N . A— — _ - -- —_ . �� / — r_ — — _ �'/am ` C 3lUS' - — - -10 9B9•W39•E W f 036' PdvET.:11T ..--••—•• PdvvEl•ENNT eon.6 PROP.Line , .�,'Sf' STTE DATA: �(7 ��r.� r� SSE: 1bp11 8q Ft �Y _ ice BLDG.FOOTPRINT. Ib081 Sq Ft T�M'm\ TOTAL I T PA4CPYJAREA WALKS: 1B319'-Ft a�uwsrz onrauBocx a� romwSw - TOTAL IHPERVIp19 dREA: 44,d016gR ° ' LANDSCAPE, 31b11 5q Ft 42, BUILDING DATA: 1*--,‹-- �TN4te 1 let FLOOR: 15.482 ea. 7. TS , IH4/ rIL r�� yY/ 1rd FLOOR 15313 BO SITE PLAN J v�a�>ev • 3444015 3rd FLOOR ISOM 80. 34-UNITS $[`A1 P,r-3Y-P :IT TOTAL: ABS3T SO. ��/ B8-LLVIT9 OSIDEWALK DETAIL O D,J DETAIL O HANDICAP SIGN PARKING: eceb:t•.I'O• S,-.I'-0• Bu1m>4'.I'-0' HANDICAP, 4(8'#0') 1 COMPACT, 21 C8B.,61•) STANDARD, 51 f9'#01 TOTAL: 81 PARCING SPACES,...PSI( CI10(SP(RYLA W S AVOTTi0NAL SPACES,[VJ[ORT L OT ,'EAST VALLEY Hwiwsv Morel" BEST N¢STE¢N CE.STONE -4:,,,tO 1°"°''''''' SIRUCTRAL.IW'1b9ION.CME,pt'CWS DATE:o.,.r,se REVISIONS: DESIGN RENTON MOTEL CINISULTANTS •,�M � s s PIS RENTON, MOTEL DE R�.tF �BNeT¢¢�BN SQUARED PIA WA SMS a-�'_ •oa8 CONSULTANT. MC SQVAI�GLJ SUITE El Sena 4 u;7:. t 1Y1 (gp 757-9DJ L o Bo.]... ol.--.... , caA1. -. B.-.,...>r r, o B 3t.. o _ _ .1+6113 m r , . ,•,, _ m 1 T -19cFadden ERR vALLEy Hwl J. V. Farrell I C5Ac Jack L. (I) ' I::.: ,:•• r7 `• i.:.•.1 1 @ Et MOTEL° ...-- I -- 'i. 0 '`,. -t--- --. •-::! ; :i ' 1, :1 . John V Farrell 771'1 . ' I i I ': • i..) ,.„ ' .•,,. '2'., I .1;.'•:1 .-::.1 6.14 Ac. - ::::_................2;3G 3650 E.VALLEY HWY RENTON,WA i8053- to tox.5 I. ..0.' R— H 34" Sr. s F.9 -0.• --., 5 70Ac .:,., .:i:I @ 1 t,171,c/.5.''-N-a k-.an i-s-h-i .i::: :::../ .x247 ; IN • 400 C5 ' 25159 0 r:-S! ;:: . I ); '8- , CIA ,...s, s.:. v , . ,::• :,, 10, \ V' 2,x4r:.3:C4 rd. 1 Z I . ,,01.. 11°S• p../ LS.' 01 C't 3.51 Ac A tk - " Is 1 •':' I:::)/e.;:•:! I 1::Alle!:•:: • ..•• - Emilio Pierot+i 1.:::.: ;:i:::. i-,---;', R-8 -, y • . t::....tu,,::: • .'_J I CA ;i::,ii•ii.::.? ,,.. ... 71 \t.: - ,,;::,,:::-I...o 0:5,.::::05:3 AA cc. 2134 .,itr,:::. . ;,.:' (A) • 3 ).• _-• : 1.*:.:AL :i •••• •- ,,fri3.5s4. @ , . . . • S.R 378-73 - 3C' • .:::41E, : , • .,.' V= o 67Ac. i•"•35,"/'-, .„4j.:.7(1... ',5(0&- ©,..,Illapm, ,. ..„. ..., . . . ,r, 6.1...t.-• --------.5;.69- 2°'---- ,54', _ . la •_ . ': ,/,::'. -:'? ,:... ... 4, • 594 al (..., ,...:MCI:..' (... ''-`•,•:" .___r:53 56. ,,..:.-.5. ----_.--- . --' —' -" -- 7-12 . -',.5 --- •••I `4' . _.... — -A • . • •• ,• 11,,,:.1 u tAki.. . ----- —III— —•—- - - • .'....: ':..' Q ire g 0.32Ac. g_,0.74 4't .43,a. (D .@ II, > .... , ...., ,..:., , ,,,,-3 c...„ 4-'4'? ,...."..p, .:•.,5 az.14c.0,71 ...'','e 13 U F . L I NG TON 3 ." - .. .?.'')..,.5'' a 36TH @ CA . ,,.. N..' i-36o4 '..7--,--, ,0 s •,c,2 I M 3 • S.P.014-81 .41 l iii i'' \' /3 .... „ 9......--'•Ss '. p- I- . ... ).1.7.-I-JR C=H 0.55 Ac (3) O 1::.') f.:::; Howard a 2 PI,. ,, a?s i 1 .,,,. 4t 10 CI,.•,,,c1C, •,..r l5 i IN -. I:::! ti.:/ Hawkins ,,,' k., 16 , 17 18 ..'7, .... 2'r -Ea E2 OR ag 0.5,1 . N 01 R T •H E R N • ,..„,., CA 1 ...4-1:.,7•;;C__ ''.9 .." • -5 C:8. •W " -'S A;..,,g 8 34, • I PAD f.....7 • 14 2CO 1 '—--•30556•—---. —-- --- --: ''',:•:/ Mae 120 1 -—----—---1:::.^, • 2 R-8 225 . •In--•198-•-- --.____.le- —-—37156--—•—• R .(2) (2) ..,, f_;271. /tit_ . ____ •._ „ CA I ! 65342 AO 252 (4) 116155 / P. - /::.: Lii.....4........*.:7I I 21382 56(42)A c.Z.O3.9S.P 113-77 6 A ;/81NDING SITE PLAN CA i'., /:::1 90 ,4 5€21/ CO 3 Sam Younker .,; ii:.:11 P-3„. , • 1 lk011:.61 Ac. 11. l24 ::,:r , ..../ F-1.1. VAL LE.A : MED I CAL .3/0• q ----'•1 T6 AM ...4 :,i-1 ' s 14 5 3ii a;\CR ri !.:::i II:::.II A IC .,.. , 6 _x (A) ,:•,:r.1 :::::r R CENTER l 8803 1 xa° -_.`1.0 —.\21.. . i'll.. ::: ix,„ SP213-78. .3, 5 2 g'''I 4 1 3 • ,_ , NORTH CAMPUS 4V3INDING SITE PLAN .67 I rIS c. io Ic14 I CA ---z,, L__ 3 603E I KROLL MAPS LEGEND .._ roll Maps are compiled from Official Records 11..-... .-.. 1 BUILDING r--1 APPROX STORIES I-1 HOUSE NUMBER Ma i EASE VOTE 1,01 4:as Pao.are av saa t t oast enc.a,.,....•0b..P.SLI,VeyS.They are produced I or refere nce use :Vic no warranty is expressed or Tripled SCALE 200. ied. RAILROAD-4.--4-1-4-0.- MAIN THOROUGHFARE ______, e___ ) .___ .. s - TAX LOT NUMBER ( . _ --• . --.- • • ---- - - • ---- -- . . ., .. . • .. . ,. . 7:. . . . . . ...''', • .• . __ • . --- ---- ------ -------— — --- - - - • ' - _ . - .. • . - 1 „ ......,,../..... ... ., - -, - .---- , . ____.--____ -- „___ ,__,...._ ' ,-."-• „ 1---- 17 in l Li i i ll I=3 == == l== _ IL Zi [L, , == Meat LINE . , L...INta LINE ' It I 'rTh Il [ZI CE 1 i =3 1= =I 1= 1=1 1= IZI 1='-' nriTT1 1=1 1=1 3=1 F.- .8, -r , § , =® 111 Ill IL © =1. - . . == .. == == == . __. === _ --. mow moon `-'71-- 1 - • - M NORTH ELEVATION Se...alm l'e•I.-0° Ilm •••!..011.0111111111%.100.mmiI M Liml . I --- RE= . . GELD.h.r,s_ I ill .. ...._.... III 1:1 EI ki :: El El P.M I..__ I 111 11- ----- —.P1 III 111 I_ I — ..—IM.1. 1111111.11MI--- ! I \ 0 P- --- --- ---i 1 . r, I I I 0 0 0 0 1 I ;, El , , 1 1 i I II , EAST ELEVATION WFST ELEVATION 9.18:li,..hh_0. Scala,4.•1.-0. - = . • _,-- t IT] rin rn .T. m 0 0 rzl rr --1 ir . 1=2 =1 1=1 11.0oR Ln. . i 11 . IZ Ill IL . . =3 13= I= IL 1=1 =1 35= 1=1 C=1 1=1 1= =3 I? ® m 171 H II- II .. [..., n . . == .=, . . = . . . . . hhow Ficoot _ SOUTH ELEVATION • ..k.,,...I.-.. . . :.:. .. .. . . "EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL" BEST wesrERN • ociekaRgate ,..... . -.•.: •....'"0-1"1. ittimouxiciii.C111.Mei I:Mit o3,31,9e REVIerj i ONONen RENT MARdH . I RENTON, WASHING-TON.. : --,,,:-L L: . ',2=flpac,saumwb-4, odia.g. , . - , ... . • ::.:•.,.. . . - — -,,...:44'.17'..' ....r.:4irtai.F7721•27.7.77Tki.m.'*VI kig:it.il,witatg,ii iti;- . ...(0)Ihk438 ' ....-- . . '-•;'';.- , ' • . :.•:',' :-.'h ' • : ' ' - • . s: •..'ll' ' • • . ... • • . - . g. ; i Ii I ! TREE CUTTING/LAND CLEARING PLAN to SECTION 30,TOWNSHIP 23 N,RANGE 5 E,WM. rn cITY OF RENTON,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON a. o to zo ao N >3 e MITS OF SITE 6 I p____.p LEAKING(TYR)p 9 savtg�et /// aw.to {71 f r O r, :, I >4w >- j /' •,. -•Ilia �. zd °a g <I, 1 . _ ./ \ / i= j , °' I � �+ �--=-��` / � � P P03®88 UNIT ' ' � JWJW v .-, \ BE WESTERN HOTEL I / U M ai I \ 1 ` ` Sri \ / -- _ _i; LIMITS of sITE > \ E �(((r' CLEARING(TYP.) S', I \ \ UMITS OF(ITEj \ +.* CLEARING IYP. I 44:1-3ZtE4P7 / 1 6 o ki p 1 .!,1 R t ati3 \\ _ /�e cMLF�INCF SITE \ _ il p ( C_r ------- --"' -----------c--- -----I-.;4-.7.ill""-____, SCITOYDrE a N 1 11. $ CLEARING NOTE ^mYvv O r ----� NO EXISTING TREES LOCATED ON/OR 0 0 ss � 1 ADJACENT TO THIS snE.ALL CLEARING t LEGEND_. WILL BE COMPRISED OF REMOVAL -- - PRE - - ! --- I OF GRASSES. r.c *) s.."%" r%sx%A `'b fANI PABt ■ O Q,'„ /� INN v / i srow DRAINAGE• - OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE: P J~�•y'-; Ii ' O samurr stxw 6uraatc • 0 M.C.CONSTRUCTION 4� swerAtrc stew u¢ ___= 2T42 ABERNATI Y RD.N.E °fDTSSSI e \ z OLYMPIA.WA.98506 roWst c+c d'��'o+°� ' vunanar CONTACT. EI VW. I g�y Got �� ,wa a MIKE COHEN CITY OF RENTON ta (360)456-6307 of F,Frrnmrr Or wE31.1O WORKS PAYF1Lwtf SIAF —�•..— —� sruawm ASANALT PANDIQZZ ... .... TREE OUTTHVO/CANT)CLEARING z i 1 PLAN I IDISasP ❑FAAg .....�.....t m® o� a z - - - - re DAM F.-0 _ Lii 7. _ Pie�n oEmu DIV anus I-�2d �o5-_r,� xo icwa R II. tore "T5.'m ..,...,...a e.. Wa£r ¢ �h_P:�SOSxPfM11�66SD\ENGOt..\6fd8-PEOWG pv1eR p{/IS/19SB Ofl9S Smla:1.20 OMB%refc ZEEHB-SZfi6PH-0, m E I i PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 23 N RANGE 5 E WM CITY OF RENTON,KING COUNTY,WASHIIGTON a a o to za w Q65 a >3 i NEW 40 x 90 a ea LNOFAOIIO(U)CONC.STORM DETENTION/TREATY/INT VAULT NEW XEYB DlE NM s awz aa6D cP. RETAINNO WALL asl Sme.- OFT.)g 1 �am io€I migni , PO \as I I7 r,l gas! _ -1—\ P fff I. ._S_ .� ._ u ;mow (ram L. _ TT tea_ - 7 J i i , , e 8 I �29L _ .f � WiDS , ` —i y, Y 1 1 4 OO SE - 3 r P. - ' Ititi ; O £ • _ 2 Wa� e •? .. rb w . / cs ® w ::� I FETAP OWALL 1 0 / g .-Ri a Fi I \ / I■k. / .�!J I on ill , €H 2 _-_, \ I \ (BEST PROPOSED 88 UNIT _ ( --. . 1 6 6 ll • ! I' \\ / \ WESTERN HOIa o' O1 � f�2L40 r j :li / d� 4 >I \ \ \ / N j ! { i 1 ,P , 1 I" A \ \ Ds ter° os :,�i r \ -... ___ :__ ,:: . -:_ ;/: ,../N/ 25 is ' E D- I 1 /o / _ J — , 1 IL. �\ _— + / Q ! i Hill _ �J I saror3e� m 1 1 NEW PRIVATE ACCE39 ROAD m S I_l. CHANNEL!memo CULVERT ^c I I A 3 HH $ 14.___-37 0 gi �; APPROXIMATE EARTH LEGEID [ WORK QUANTITIES OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE, v �l Bd CAW BASH . o CUT(EXPORT) .e 1,300 C.Y. MC. CONSTRUCTION RD.N.E ` ur'•'Q� ' et STOW DRNTOLE UNE 1 - FILL(IMPORT) —3,000 C.Y. OLYMPIA,WA.98506SANITARY SOO " _ .' w 0 S Y4d0 E • o CONTACTS�D;:r<<°�° Ob '1�p\ SWUM MIKE COHEN sro,.` c�' `.e s o.r.* uw• ,s+ --------------------- (360)456-6307 I PmDES !IO/DD I 0 O aw rP i ---ID--- CITY OF RENTON MOM'SMILE .�...—�...� OEPARTA�lYT t7P PUBLIC.WOPUCB SPOT�� ...... PRELIMINARY GRADING AND 5 STORM DRAINAGE PLAN S1M2YO1/EMU PAVOIETIT ._...I O .................. = QR ,AmMEo. 7 zer Ann, oce n ae �ur � .. 0' : _1 „Px_ Wm Ole P:\SOSVPPDASSE8\ R2NG\6688-PGvp Dote/Tme:04/lt/+9DB 1551 Some:t.]O am ANc Z6288-5.16838-$ \ A SET 19'38'E - . • 403.10' ` • �--:-� .��.-�-.-. .-.-��•�•.�+'��•.•:.+��.-.•.►• .•. -i.•,r-.�.��-..r-.��.•.-.�•.r•.�.•�. .•. -i+•r►•r.• -i+��'i•.-�•.�•�-�.-�•w-.-.•w•w'.r.•�m®�a�C�S �IS_S� t 3_-�5'�C�Coio�®0�®OPTO�®�6306�ft•� • • •' _ .:.i•: ?Zt%S.-.ii i.ill;�.w:� Wit•y�'.: I % - -_ _ ,.,. -— __�� '�_ — - —_— ---___— -_� _- - — ___. f _L.1¢: _ :1A1„r•S:r�.�alu�:aa>r 'taie.ew.wae�u sarG y - __�.{ I _- CriF LIPS,...‘ ems..L-'^.u, _.- �nP�••., -- t tRr��'•>�IR-cn ra..xw. _ ..^. .' .•�.L -:sG�?f'=T'-c's. �°.L�.E''- ,.R'"F�c-r-• `- - .M....a:.. pqB,_ .sa..-s:- � r�W}�YL z'>< 1 9I f , i•i p�31 �sr i m.? 's. ?` - 't-T.:• < - S.a._,_tip. ._ e.::*y.^7::-. .• :.a•�ka->"'-"'- _ IM:V"_`?' 'ts-•,�. -"' JS __ -a! u,r•.1'' • :^'t..t ?. L •• _ �fl�:SAA••Sc l L'Y '� _ •1 , - - _ _ -------�,:.r g..t' T'u:nr • .i _ � _ Paz!• P 'a:..,g.ti` ru. _Y ,I w�_t. -t:-{e'r-"-" .cdai� +.:. _%� �. 1T,9t Y��.� . 'E`,, F- �.� T�.- ^iT A"-�E' J4:d: �e� • -y� �.-.L�.;} .F,�:^.L.. � 'r tom'-�-'r 1.x1. _ `^'1 2S n'•t.�Gi��Z � � •V I .��•C �• �• �r i:.�_ � .'.��--.:.; T..'.^�_• :�•.� •.��.i1 %5•��.-.'V+,_ uT:F..r:.•. ��..: - ��.�'�=� ,. _ -1 .I<i��( :' Ltt .rr! .,: y. ce ': r': ?a �w^' �`r' £ ::Vi.. _ =' 1.� � � ',art: _- ''.'.. ~' _ •'is:... V.., ..•. ...v ,. lr�, � _- r.. :.,_._......,«.c_r :c '��E�S '- _ _ ��3;;_-i>�i:... �L7`'_t•.-_. :tr�a - �.�Z�1^6•�0. -.+-c=;_ -c��... _ � v r.Y3 •.r. � - ;A•�r .�x 'a Si sr _ � _ I . .p�1 - _'.3�.,' 4e+s..:.�=�: .: ��:a:p :7 - �'w.�x.. , - s'r•�5:,w_v_. n.` �� F"'�- ��-r 'a - � = t -- 4 • '�:2 __;5-:'.3"..�.- i%i�:� .S:r 4_:u� '�:::.i^'j �_�_:_.;`y __ -.t._.a a3.i•- c� ':�l�-+ _ '3`'�. L:-�.,^• �Sy C• 1 Y.'-w...... �e -••:� - y-:-.-. _,.. r.'b ` '.'.�_ _ '- - _ L_ "::.r•?"�e _ •-�-`ss,.. :tz',-._ yv,.:_ -rr+. -z�aa� .s'..=.r. .•�.--._. :J� >!• .y, t- 9. Mi^ '..ssY.+—T ..Rt'�-iit _ r _ - _ ._. t-ti=,.-^,._<i � . � ..._. ,III '�:6..r'_'Y:^ ..:�:� a.'e..�_'^•YY r:".:'•ci:- a•.. - u.C:.•.1.. �.�.:.rsc -p'. ._.. �,:.__:a f.s. _...t.�nr..:iiL F' :_%1i'.::=:..='±_.'.YC�s.`"a.�-.� __ -!'s_ -�.es.:a 3rd'�� - "-_",i�•. ...,-_s= . � �z a. _ •' ,::. ...�.,�.•„ �_> .fit:.' .;��--+- 2 �.a� :-`�•Z..^:- c t"` y . a �-..a �z - is .sue. `t° 4 - 3� =.n ems.:= ram - -•YI rr,_<•l�'. .•v'ixJ S _ - ?= .vJ'>u`rn?,. _ w :.:, `a 3 _.,r`fir. __ 'crr3a ,yy " _^r':-�" :. '•.t::.St''!<,a' _ .F.` _, .^^ - __�tl• -,: .4 ■ rv: ,fT3.T;.:�,te1?• .==±� 4.;':. ';A::e*.--s: . .- cS --.€` ' ,.' ._-x:, =�•r-,� --i, ?'�--_ � :-'.' ...' _.._'i."`� -- a ,:^«. is• _:'•ram-<T.t,^.:..:r`.+.:: _ ..:._ ...- _e, "�re_r - •.ti• ..- - - - w--.=.. -..._....�7 _ "' :_%.: '•''t-''' r r': `> :�.: - =sr. :,• . ,. a. ..'�.r3�•�- �- .. .�....r.-: ..ieg .•.'.�o._�.. ,��/�'4, .. :. _. ._:.z'�:` '>Y_.•Y_.' fa"� _ ,::�' .r.�' .I.,-,'. - _ �,+i=.i. .y� � =.--�.. --r,=_-.-.,�•1".r..�-� q/' i . - .• :3.....-f.:ar .. t:-t,- ".'•.1t:. Y xri`•''" •.elt•..-- •.• �_�er wT'.^. .Q: - •�-.. - 4:. - _ V-+1 '• -af-=--.-� - _ ,�... .t! _a'..r""^ >-y�b ,"lt w( x _ _• :;r_+ mom- .fin_ w� =r^.__ - - _ .. - - - /""-_"x.- = u • •ua - _S7 ..•_ _ :=a>�"" "'!3i- ii-r�-]S.f_.` _ =z='G.-+r� - �'�_�_i +" •:.f - -- - c:__=•^=r-1a - . : - I�' - .r.fi_ - -�; "'�[`S�'--r^_ �:'�-'.' �— a..._ :,.+at"' a'�,,,a_ xSii..-� ~-' �..'�-`.:^•c'-• ysre;,a=_.v c�`•_-:-�....``�-=�'�s_'%: �a=•fit=-,�.. _. E� '<.rr,��.-'-,r•,- . .. � �: ;x. ie=ac�T' '�.3 _ y-„o.. - - �:'a_=,_' :�:�- r. _ ..._a. _• ,.�_)- -..- - •- - _ - • -- .a;5.t : - -'= • F r,x -sa: __- -Rom_ X :..a- - . ,,- -.' :::. - - _. V. '.t' `•.P- ri-.:.-;s• _ _ _ _ ".'_' •—;.a.-yam,.:=•E--- _ .`z_"t• i•= -y-•'��„>c.••±.., f _.t r'1='� ,.:_ ._••ce' �' 3 ice• _ :._:. �'�_'`��•'i+t _ _ �..�.-'-s. ..A �'-•- _ ..�,,.E,• �•.• +�-a n I� _ F a= 'ice e r mob_ iiTj r'. T�l�i L �x . - ! _w�� v>' b �t�5 x= cF _, sr •_ iI ".ArA. , m r` �1�1I4�� +• ��: it ' Rik a t F" - -�/,r . _' � ` i N .c�ia • •i _ [ 4., Tea�, _ _� ' ii 3 tl C }- -:sT. `''�"•" �-i.,. _r_ ;� ••a a. " ?` - :::. s''= •_. ;., rn�� r.�e.A.d _,....>� -,.:,,nrsc�sy -nF� --'•i --_��^:4 ;_T :; � i Cz•.. _-.:== . '•. �, . .it II .� ..f.. ; :: .Y . Ni rx„• .}--ram. _'',.. ,�:; _�.- M.=5- 1- i p - = f:tYL•-_ - A - - 5e..__ YC:.1Lba /i ._ _ "i1 �'S�. I��%. _ _.. -'E l:.ai-.'. _..-.�_ _ ..-»_ I �, . ::il1 �+ v�� r r s .� S i. I - ,is - s� �� :_' :� is •-L = y r..t_ ; Y�.i I1 ...a. +fa• �a_ ... •1 .1a. . n - • r :a • ma's-- �V_-,--d. =u li ,.... . _iiix b. , . . • ••••• •••••:•:•••:46,..,.....:::.-. :... ..,- ,,,,. -,h t-...--I--... \ 7 • e � • _-r N ~t_ : .:r• ••_V .g \ ' `--, � ::::...7":::.7:13.7.;_.,::;" - -g '' : OPOSED g6 UNIT= BE WESTERN HOTEL a - �r _ fr _ _ t _S t 1. r • •• p LIMITS OF SITE n -� 9M•t: _ ,•.tit..-•r_+-:.. -•,.: V CLEARING TYP. � .i:!, a-' • •p �& D _ _�• s -5-1 {{ ,• ..._.,._ E.4- 1 4 4- �J • • • N - - i _ .s r "i' ♦?��i 1 •�7'S•r Y •,ria>:»i a ...�[,»%t.. <aX3Z Jii'i � «..x »xl2x max - -•: E::%�'': '' �•P.S KS t:FaZiW.�-> .a2'.`2 Y.w`•i �,. .x<^irgx>•"�1:« .Y'S `x'7. - �"�'t,^+-< <e.ar.�'s'"''!' •--4«-ax.+".<aYx«'-sx :: >:ii.':L.Fr.a:' - -ti:''a^�+w''..« �r.:.::•:.:.: •�Fgy,4 rD R:s dS>sELr(:SA 3ALFi+IL`LK :e.v --'-.2'?i v=:Y: «...-• x •Y a•! .«... .<«. .x'2 .c.. xS::•---.<, ,�".«.r«-•:." ''tx.YiRi a. r1.a > «- x«..Y .• .2'a w s Pr. - «,., x a... -^x - ,, 5 ''•`:.' 24: •""r!+ '''4,-„..t ..x .-,. .41-4•4.4i.rt..ax.a... x , .-:•C��•`'�•' .r.,,f««`#,,,.Yxtr. . : .a ••. ,4., .9�5nz arsr•xs,c.onyvsn>m �.r:••.w ::2+<«v�a•'?t �xsY.wa .7"i--+�•r=w.-'......�' .23:5.'. ..SLR:'-Z..«.«•«:«C"!�y.# yY.itya.ic.T as-.x«• ..xYx«..aY'r - � � >..a.--x«x • .@� .-sl.. -.�a>�.# .,.wxa•' ..-.-rnt•'"'` "-<S! ..5: ...'i ."•�« «+•-.�'•:tII:::^-e.a.... ••„•i... ...!.•... ..._ $ �'! ,. a w-••.�'"+.Z.-... ...i'«:wN - .»r•asw!+< 1:«i«Jjk ' x--R . x32 SS^-.+..«••-" .'^#x. •r x< #x£'w."`.-_n•:w`K....x "' �,�.a>4`. :G:,w< x z?S --•N .*�.«:;.,. ':'lei. {` �. Yn ..... ......... .... '•:tv:.� .... •. .: � ��dR _. ..Flf3a�" .42 � «..,,G->«�:-�:«"' .,,.tx "•. - _ Mtit.«.M«,�.,«,.,.c:,. • ..... ...... _. J�Op001Glfea1Ca010T 1l� .. ... .. ... ..:... • JTr� ° • . .-:_:'•i ..t....,..::yr' .0 t p .:mo:•."r?`•... p yy• _:i • ' tl 7 ga -t v- .V.r %` .r •./tom-�. C•�.ti�ir• • ',,x a •A'�t - rft+y °i 'c .,j 1w... • _ '' _ ...,fir.. F Y 5 .. ..' L. , ...s::::::::::::::::.:...........i::::::::....:::::*::::::::::::::......:::::::::::::::::::•:::;i:::::...:•:•:.::::::•••:•:::::::::::::::::: — ----- 'S89'02'38'E 371-54 ' ^� '- • CLEARING NOTE NO EXISTING TREES LOCI ...j ADJACENT TO THIS SITE.. LEGEND: -,... `‘-� ' a• WILL BE COMPRISED OF PROPOSED EXISTING GRASSES. _ - -THE-COOT COMPANY - -- = OF CATCH BASIN ■ O Wetland and Wildlife Biology N T �F� STORM DRAINAGE LINE _ _ - „ OWNERS REPRE A• 6 S Washin ton. 1„•= 30' i » -:.: i ,./ .A SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE � • 0 Fe OF � 41_ • -SANITARY SEWER LINE EEGEh•IDr:. - Olympia, WA 8501 . . �� R •,. _.: . 2142 ABERNATHY R� I�. L9 • waTERMAIN 'F -: PROPOSED BEST:WESTERN OLYMPIA, W �°,� , �Tp�/t�i�A. 9850 .. =Panther Creek . .:- CONTACT: . . CONTOUR —• -- 1s--- - HOTEL PROPERTY MIKE COHEN �:�• ��Q� KEYSTONE WALL • - DISTURBED BUFFER . . . (360) 456 6307 �;°r .,e =Creek buffer �'_ PAVEMENT swALE x REVEGETATION PLAN `� • Y..tn=:i;f. La.' '' .wn't'=-,HNC STANDARD ASPHALT Pr•EMENT t.a ing and• _ WAITS OF SITE aFAR::; revegetClearation area April 1998 ` FIGURE 1 ,Y r_�:. .. nil CITY.OF RENTON • ..LL .� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman RE.,Administrator • • • • • • April 5, 1999 • Steve Yester MC Construction Consultants P.O. Box 8478 . Olympia, WA 98506 SUBJECT: East Valley Highway Motel- LUA98-062, SA-A, ECF I;. Dear Mr. Yester: • • Your request for a modification from parking code requirements is approved based upon the following findings: • 1) Site plan condition #3 required the applicant to secure access to 8 off-site parking spaces in order to satisfy their required number of parking spaces. The* • • applicant has demonstrated there is*sufficient parking on the adjacent Nendels Motel site to satisfy the parking requirements for Nendels as well as provide for • the 8 additional spaces of off-site parking needed by the East Valley Motel. 2) The property owner of East Valley Highway Motel has a legally recorded easement providing for cross-parking with Nendels Motel. 3) With satisfaction of parking requirements, it is expected that there will be more than sufficient parking to meet the needs of the two motels. Motel/hotel parking requirements are 1 space per room plus 2 parking spaces for each 3 employees. The applicant claims the normal occupancy rate is approximately 60%. If you have further questions related to site plan conditions or building permits, please contact Peter Rosen, project manager for the City on the East Valley Highway Motel.. Sincerely, N184 1 , Gregg Zimmerman Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator • — • • • • 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 , MC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTAN l a` P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAx:923-9763 March 8, 1999 N ? ) , Gregg Zimmerman :;:,� _ .!•:--;...; Planning,Building and Public Works Administrator City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: The East Valley Highway Motel Land Use Case No. LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF Building Permit No.B980374 Dear Mr.Zimmerman, It appears that the building permit for our project has been ready to ores its except t but land-usea this last condition he that has resurfaced. We have appreciated Mr.Rosen's help through project has recommended we contact you. er the In b ief: our project, an 88-room hotel, is on a creek hastbeen relocated several times to te that contains a portion of and up nra man. imade development of the surrounding area,theIt is now protected by 25-foot buffers, which channel along the southern property line of this property. eite. We have posed significant challenges in desiritng prttie creek andct on an lready constrained even providing for itsfenl,ancemenhamd managed to design a feasible project whileprotecting to doing,ar have asked for but one concession that we Nendels Inn to sat slieved we had been fy our 90 space minimum parking requirements. to Use 8 parking spaces at the adjacent This idea came up early in designing the project as there was already a recorded cross-parking agreement between the past owner of Nendels and of the subject property. The agreement'anticipated a bridge across the channel and allowed for the customers h d ofne eproviding emergelishment to ncy vehiclelize ta cesss at the other. Also, and turnaround was we realized that the best,perhaps only,met to connect the properties by a bridge as contemplated by the agreement. A copy of this easement was submitted with the original application. When we received our land use action decision, it contained the following condition: -, "In order to satisfy criteria for permitting off-site parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking arka g eed. The o at , site parking must be within 750 feet of the proposed building. The applicant 1 there is a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall provide this to the satisfaction of Development Services Division,prior to the issuance of building permits." - We addressed this condition shortly thereafter. I spoke with Peter Rosen by phone to discuss this and the other conditions of the land use decision. I submitted by fax on June 9,a19 added v998 a ised e eme to that low referenced and re-stated the terms of the original cross-parking agreement have it emned. this access too bothSopin, the owners ed that this be approved in ofproposed East Valley orm and Highway HighwaylHot l,dhad just 'signed. At this time, Bill and Soo An, the necessary Nendels. As the two properties were in common ownership, I could easily have any 'easement executed. I then obtained and submitted a site plan of Nendels showing the number of parking spaces versus the number of rooms and employees,which deinon ad'ated 12 additional spaces.centNsndels was obviouslyt within 750e same tme feet` Irfollowed 'ovided a 1 property map of the area,to scale,showing the ) I up with a short meeting on June 28th, 1998 with Peter Rosen to review the above submittals. l made notes Page l of 4 C:WIy Documents\Renton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc • 1 • 1WiC: CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• Fax:923-9763 that the site plan showing the availability of spaces at Nendels was approved as was the area map showing the 750-foot radius from the property. In my notes I also wrote that the"new easement [is] not necessary. Fire department has standard form for emergency access easement. Get signed for both properties." I went to the fire department but no one knew where the forms were. I left a request for one to be faxed to me, which it was. I retyped it as the fax copy was not very clear and the 1" side margins required by the auditor were questionable. I had this signed by Bill and Soo An as to both properties. They recorded the document and submitted a copy to the City. I received a call from Peter Rosen that the easement would have to be reviewed by the city's attorneys for form since I had retyped it and that this process could take some time. I asked to be let known if anything further was required. The next I heard of this issue was in October as I was franticly going from department to department to expedite the handling of the final few requirements holding up the release of the permit. With the sensitivity of the creek, the weather was threatening to postpone the project for 7 or 8 months. You are aware of the complexity of permitting a hotel, especially in an unfamiliar municipality, and can appreciate that I had my hands full trying to make sure I had the all-inclusive "short-list" of requirements from the various departments and was addressing each of those items. Even in my efforts to track down such straggler requirements,I did not come across the easement problem. This was literally the last item I found out about. Suddenly I would need to revise the easement to "identify 8 particular spaces at Nendels, reserve those specifically for the use of the East Valley Highway Hotel and stipulate that these may not be used by Nendels to satisfy parking requirements for any future expansion. I was not immediately concerned about the last minute resurfacing of the easement issue or that it was suddenly much more definitive and precise in the language and terms it was to contain. I was frustrated that it would be an additional delay,but frankly, I was starting to give up on the prospect of being able to start the project anyway—things had just taken to long up to this point and the weather was turning. But when I called the An's to make arrangements to draft yet another easement I learned they had sold Nendels! Predictably, the buyer recognized this as an opportunity to hold-up the An's and demand renegotiation,remuneration,etc. The entire idea of an easement is to eliminate the need of renegotiating an agreement with every new owner of a property,as they will always demand payment if they think they can. This is whether they are actually impacted adversely by the agreement or not. In this case,there is a valid easement against his property that allows customers of the East Valley Highway to park in his parking lot and vice versa. He still has 4 additional spaces in his lot, though there is no room for him to expand his facility anyway. There would be no real additional impact on him in signing a re-worded easement. Yet, he is not required to sign a new easement and knows the An's are well-vested in the process; therefore, it becomes an opportunity to demand money. This puts the An's in a difficult position after they have spent a year and better that$200,000 in permitting the project to date and still have final fees of another$150,000 to the City of Renton to look forward to. I must ask for your help in resolving this. We were aware that an easement was necessary from the beginning. We knew that we had to satisfy Development Services as to its form-this was stated in the land use decision. We produced the easements and must take issue with how the approval process was handled. We were not aware of the specifics that came out at the last moment. We did not know that approval of our original easement had been withheld. The numerous conversations about the deficiency of the original, recorded easement which we submitted with our initial application centered around emergency access and that it did not contain the language to fulfil that'requirement. I drafted a new easement that combined the parking and emergency access requirements, and asked for comments. The response again focused on the emergency access portion and that I should use the fire department's accepted form. This led me to the conclusion that otherwise the easement was acceptable, that if I executed the fire departments form as a separate easement then the original parking agreement could stand as it was. I never attempted to revise the parking agreement portion of the easement itself as I never understood it to be in question. The requirement of the land use decision said that we must satisfy development Services as to the easement prior to building permits, but that does not absolve the Department of informing us if it is withholding such approval and for what • C:W1y DocumentsVtenton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc Page 2 of 4 a { • A 5 MC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS • P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAX:923-9763 reasons. I had many discussions over'a considerable period of time in which any problems or objections could have and should have been raised. I knew that not only Peter Rosen but also others had reviewed the easement. We were given no notice and no reason to believe it had not been accepted until the very last minute when we could no longer easily address the matter. I don't doubt that this was an honest mistake on the staffs part. Indeed, I have found the entire staff most helpful and responsive throughout the process. Nevertheless,we find ourselves in a tough spot and are not convinced it is of our own doing. If I had been given specific provisions the easement was to contain at the onset, or at any time during the six months in which the An's were in ownership of Nendels, I could and would have easily provided one just as I did in the case of the emergency vehicle easement. If I had at the very least been told that, despite my efforts, I still had not gained approval on the easement I would have asked the additional questions to determine what I must do. I did what I thought was required by and acceptable to the City based on the description of the easement in the conditions of the land use decision ("a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property" — the original easement matches that description)and based on what I was told. In multiple discussions and correspondence on the issue I never was alerted to the fact that I needed to identify particular spaces or reserve them exclusively for the East Valley Highway Hotel or I would have done so. I addressed every requirement that was communicated to me. • Fortunately, I think this can be fairly easily remedied. We understand that the City has its rules and requirements, which are the staffs responsibility to follow. But I also know that specific sets of circumstances can recommend a variance to them if the underlying intent of the rule and public welfare concerns are met. I believe that'we have addressed all public safety and welfare concerns: there is an easement for emergency vehicles (the primary concern); there is a valid easement allowing for the customers of the East Valley Highway Hotel to park in the adjacent parking lot should the need arise. In my opinion,that the easement does not specifically identify the 8 spaces and reserve them for the sole use Of the East Valley Highway Hotel is certainly of far lesser,if any,consequence. From the standpoint of having adequate parking for guests,there is justification for leniency. The 8 spaces in question would rarely, if ever,be needed. The hotels in the area have not historically pushed capacity. I have enclosed an excerpt from a recent appraisal of our project that estimates the average occupancy of several comparable hotels. Perhaps the best comparable project is the adjacent Nendels Inn. During the Period in which the.An's owned the Inn the occupancy rate was less than 60%. The attached revenue report from Nendels covering the years of 1994 through 1997 indicates that this has been the norm. The arking space requirements of the City of Renton are based on 100%occupancy plus additional spaces for personnel. Several municipalities with which we are familiar have parking requirements with formulas based more on those average occupancy rates, like one space per 80% of the rooms. Franchises such as Comfort Inn and Best Western have similar requirements: between 1 space per 65% and 1 space per 80% of rooms. Certainly their requirement would be based on a thorough knowledge of the business and what is necessary to avoid problems. The East Valley Highway Hotel can operate at 90% capacity, with two spaces utilized by employees, and probably still not need the 8 off-site spaces. It would be extremely rare Ifor the East Valley Highway Hotel to be full and almost inconceivable that Nendels would be full at the same time. Given the circumstances: that we were notified of these additional requirements with regards to this easement only after 7 months of correspondence; that this late notice creates an extreme hardship for us and jeopardizes our project in which we are heavily financially vested and which in all other respects has been found acceptable to the city of Renton; • C:\My Documents\Renton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc Page 3 of 4 MC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAX:923-9763 that the parking requirements of the City of Renton are comparatively stringent; the parking needs of the project have been met with the on-site spaces considering a model of average occupancy based on historical data from hotels in the area as well as the opinion of national hotel franchise operations that are in the business of running profitable,problem-free establishments; that the effect of these additional requirements would be relatively minor in any event; we request a variance as to these final required easement provisions that would require a new document to be executed. We ask merely that you now accept the easement of record as fulfilling the requirement for a parking easement,as we truly believed it had already been accepted some months ago. At the last meeting Bill and Soo An and myself had with Mr. Rosen, I was left with the impression that he also felt such a variance was warranted, under the circumstances, and possible to arrange. He did initially take the request to his immediate supervisor with, I believe,his vote of support. Now I understand that you are the person who would have the authority to grant this request and am hopeful you will agree. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. I appreciate your assistance in advance. Ve ly yours, r. ester Pr. •ct Administrator MC Construction CC: Bill and Soo An Peter Rosen • CA My DocumentsUtenton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-I2-99.doc Page 4 of 4 Proposed Best Western - Renton - Rental Comparison Summary Basic Double Single #of Single Double Corp. Estimated Amenities No. Name/location Rooms Age Rack Rate Rack Rate - Rate Occupancy Comments Comfort Inn Kent 101 1997 $80 $90 $67 61%.._Newly constructed limited service facility 2 miles S. of subject. 22311 84th Ave S. Amenities incl.indoor pool&spa, exercise room, cont. brkfst. Kent Occupancy first 6 months of operations 61%,at$70.95 ADR. 2 Holiday Inn 122 1987 $109 $109 $89 75% Located 2 miles south of subject,adjacent to SR 167. 22218 84th Ave S. Amenities include outdoor pool,spa; Mitzels Restaurant Kent adjacent. Extensively upgraded and changed franchise 9/96. 3 Best Western Southcenter 146 1986 $88 $88 $69 .60% ,Full service facility with restaurant, lounge, 6,000sf of 15901 W.Valley Rd. meeting space. Outdoor pool,spa. Good location near Tukwila Southcenter Mall. Previously had Nendel's franchise affiliation. 4 Hampton Inn Southcenter 154 1990 $70 $84 $70 70% High visibility location adjacent to I-405 near Southcenter 7200 S. 156th St. Mall. Mid-priced newer hotel with corporate orientation. Tukwila Similar rooms quality to subject;superior location. , 5 Homestead Village Southcenter 93 1997 $44 $47 $44 80% High visibility location adjacent to I-405 near Southcenter 15635 West Valley Highway (Over 7 Days) Mall. Budget new extended stay hotel; full kitchens, Tukwila $74 $84 $74 weekly housekeeping, limited project amenities. (Under 7 Days) Subject w Proposed Best Western 90 1998 Located adjacent to S1. 167,in commercial/industrial nbrhd 3600 Block E:Valley Rd. —Proposed— — -- — __- on east side of Kent Valley. Amenities will include indoor Renton pool,spa,—exercise room.—Good-freeway visibility-and-access •• Prepared by McKee&Schalka April 1998 I��` r K) • a a - a • r- REJ1�£Q1f: NDLL:S lNld� ti p` 1994 Roar.Re:•enaj rn �' 1996 in Jan9896 1997 Fepvpa b 4 , 4Q 30 55,166 29*/ 40.09 47,831 lr 43% 34 69, 39% 39.90 51,750 30% 47.50 53 621 62% 42.02 SMAo 3 84,321 0� 30?�0 4730 29 53,52 1 102,aS9481 6'% ,320 4gg� +32,0 40.04 67,979 40'� 46 A1 76,070 •off` 92, r �S9'. 39.89 74,795 45% 4418 38% 45.51 7 4 .6 4v.5E 995 Jua 6•.C�42 �- Ju! 45% -09.07 70.515 51% 43.65 9Q,'14 44% 4'.32 72,922 4% 4615 118,554 53X 40.60 83 511 Q 99 96,037 74% 45.7, 32,174 Au � 41.91 127 fix' 41.36 712,534 6;4 48.59 .129,934 72% 44.91 ,908 68% 48.59 133 8 40% 48.26 72899 8,,% 48."0 161,753 152,283 78% 50.13 157, 10 a3.21 62% 42.86 53 0 52.i 1/5.942 65% 47.53 120,251 ° 33010 52.18 115,942 0 a• Nct 4207 63,311 42;� 105'06Q 65 n 47.95 100,688 ©ec 43,311 42 43.80 73 738 57% 47.67 111 165 1 29% -q `�A.?t 4825i 'O 40.13 67.298 4�94o 44.08 6'., 47% 45.83 183,959 .y aYCafrOTA��r�4.09,C 41.83 $886,150 J-��4?3fr.�s 4fix'1�: '��:�i':'''•: . •.�i;'o-'•qf:g$`.:'�1fl3-4�A6:.:'�--:;.A.:� ;;: 'B7':-:;-�- 2'..ti -- 49,• .`?: ' 43.60 SZ,034,7'16 3� .O% 45.96$1,138,717 60.3%. 46.68$1,324084J r. z Roing 12 months i 9 a • E 0 0 L W i r F- 0► ti N - n 0' iT. W -. A . ,CITYktw RENTON ..LL..:•� 4>:: Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 22, 1998 • • Mr. Mike Cohen MC Construction 2142 Abernathy Road NE ' Olympia, WA 98506 • . • SUBJECT: . East Valley Highway Motel Project No. LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A • Dear Mr. Cohen: , ' • This letter 'sic, inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review.Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-'Significance Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures,and Site Plan Conditions of Approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee,• • Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Bill and Soo An/Property Owners • • • • FINAL.DCC 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer. ' c0-u1� CITY OF RENTON . PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM ' DATE: March 26, 1999 TO: , Peter.Rosen FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G. SUBJECT East Valley Highway Motel Peter,I agree with your analysis and recommendation regarding the Parking Code Modification Request. Please modify your,memo into a letter for my signature, attach a copy of the original request letter,,and send up for my signature. Thanks. " • • • • \\TS (SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\Document2 y j r � f CITY OF RENTON Planning / Building / Public Works MEMORANDUM CO'CURRENCE DATE 1/a3l'9ci NAME INITIAL/DATE DATE: March 19, 1999 f{e R . /3/a3 TO: I Gregg Zimmerman Sa,�o�. l'� ova CJ • FROM: Peter Roserift_ ec-est 2- 3/26 _ SUBJECT: East Valley Highway Motel - LUA98-062, SA-A, ECF Parking Code Modification _ . The subject proposal received site plan approval on May 28, 1998. The parking issue was discussed thoroughly in the site plan report. The motel proposal was 8 parking spaces short of their required parking. The application included a copy of a cross-parking easement with the adjacent Nendels motel. The applicant was told and the report described the inadequacies of the existing cross-parking easement. First of all, the submitted easement did not provide an adequate legal description of the properties which benefit from the easement. The cross- parking easement would essentially allow for joint use parking between the sites, which would not satisfy the parking requirements of the proposal. The code requires shared, joint use parking only when the uses have dissimilar peak hour demands which two motels obviously could not satisfy. The applicant was told 8 parking spaces would need to be provided as off- site parking and reserved on the Nendels site specifically for their proposed use. The site plan condition states: In order to satisfy criteria for permitting off-site parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off-site parking must be within 750 feet of the proposed building. The applicant shall also verify that there is a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall provide this information to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. After site plan approval, I received sporadic correspondence from the applicant and I explained what was necessary to satisfy the site plan condition. The applicant did provide a site plan of Nendels and a parking analysis to indicate there was sufficient parking available. The applicant also sent a draft easement which was again essentially a cross-parking agreement, not'reserving the 8 spaces as required. With all their building permit submittals, I made the same comments regarding a need to revise their parking easement. It should also be noted that the required emergency access easement through the Nendels site was an entirely separate site plan condition, and the applicant was able to record this required easement. It is very unfortunate for the applicant that the owners sold Nendels without having revised the parking easement when they had ownership control. However, I object to any assertion that staff is somehow responsible for their oversight. Therefore, the applicant is.now in a situation of needing a parking modification, if they are unable to modify the easement language. The following facts support their request: 1) There is sufficient parking on the Nendels Motel site for satisfying the-parking requirements of Nendels and also for the 8 spaces of off-site parking needed by the applicant. 2) Motel/hotel parking requirements are 1 space per room plus 2 parking spaces for each 3 employees. Assuming occupancy is less than 100%, (the •applicant claims Nendel's occupancy is 60%), there should be adequate parking available for both uses during peak periods. 3) The applicant does have a legally recorded easement providing for cross-parking between the two sites. We recommend approval of the parking modification. The only concern we have is that if Nendels expands in the future, the need for additional parking could interfere with that parking purportedly for the East Valley Motel. This could be prevented if Nendels agrees to a covenant to set aside the parking; however, the intent of the requested modification is so the applicant would not require further easements or covenant agreements from the owners of Nendels. cc: Jana Huerter • I • _ I _ CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 1999 TO: Jana Huerter "PeterRasen • FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G a SUBJECT: East Valley Highway Motel Parking Variance Issue The attached letter presents an interesting issue. Although the applicant is asking for a variance, I'm not sure that is what he needs- it sounds more like he needs our easement language requirements relaxed. Anyway,Peter is more versed on this issue than I am. Please provide a written recommendation to me. I would assume this is fairly time sensitive. Thanks. cc: \\TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\Document3 _ MC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTAI" S P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAX:923-9763 r:•. , March 8, 1999 F Gregg Zimmerman G._; ,, Planning,Building and Public Works Administrator d City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 IZ I : The East Valley Highway Motel Land Use Case No. LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF Building Permit No.B980374 Dear Mr.Zimmerman, Itl appears that the building permit for our project has been ready to release except for a land-use condition that has resurfaced. We have appreciated Mr.Rosen's help throughout this project but on this last issue he has recommended we contact you. In brief: our project, an 88-room hotel, is on a site that contains a portion of Panther Creek. In the development of the surrounding area,the creek has been relocated several times to end up in a man-made channel along the southern property line of this property. It is now protected by 25-foot buffers, which have posed significant challenges in designing our project on an already constrained in-fill site. We have managed to design a feasible project while protecting the creek and even providing for its enhancement. In So doing,we have asked for but one concession that we believed we had been granted:that we be permitted Yo use 8 parking spaces at the adjacent Nendels Inn to satisfy our 90 space minimum parking requirements. This idea came up early in designing the project as there was already a recorded cross-parking agreement between the past owner of Nendels and of the subject property. The agreement anticipated a bridge across the channel and allowed for the customers of one establishment to utilize vacant spaces at the other. Also, We realized that the best,perhaps only,method of providing emergency vehicle access and turnaround was to connect the properties by a bridge as contemplated by the agreement. A copy of this easement was submitted with the original application. When we received our land use action decision, it contained the following condition: "In order to satisfy criteria for permitting off-site parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off- site parking must be within 750 feet of the proposed building. The applicant shall also verb that there is a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall provide this to the satisfaction of Development Services Division,prior to the issuance of building permits." We addressed this condition shortly thereafter. I spoke with Peter Rosen by phone to discuss this and the other conditions of the land use decision. I submitted by fax on June 9, 1998 a revised easement that referenced and re-stated the terms of the original cross-parking agreement and added a provision to allow emergency vehicles access to both properties. I asked that this be approved in form and I would have it signed. At this time, Bill and Soo An, the owners of the proposed East Valley Highway Hotel, had just purchased Nendels. As the two properties were in common ownership, I could easily have any necessary easement executed. I I then obtained and submitted a site plan of Nendels showing the number of parking spaces versus the j number of rooms and employees,which demonstrated 12 additional spaces. At the same time I provided a property map of the area,to scale,showing the adjacent Nendels was obviously within 750 feet. I followed up with a short meeting on June 28th, 1998 with Peter Rosen to review the above.submittals. I made notes C:Uvly Documents\Renton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc Page 1 of 4 MC' CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• Fax:923-9763 that the site plan showing the availability of spaces at Nendels was approved as was the area map showing the 750-foot radius from the property. In my notes I also wrote that the"new easement [is] not necessary. Fire department has standard form for emergency access easement. Get signed for both properties." I went to the fire department but no one knew where the forms were. I left a request for one to be faxed to me,which it was. I retyped it as the fax copy was not very clear and the 1" side margins required by the auditor were questionable. I had this signed by Bill and Soo An as to both properties. They recorded the document and submitted a copy to the City. I received a call from Peter Rosen that the easement would have to be reviewed by the city's attorneys for form since I had retyped it and that this process could take some time. I asked to be let known if anything further was required. The next I heard of this issue was in October as I was franticly going from department to department to expedite the handling of the final few requirements holding up the release of the permit. With the sensitivity of the creek, the weather was threatening to postpone the project for 7 or 8 months. You are aware of the complexity of permitting a hotel, especially in an unfamiliar municipality, and can appreciate that I had my hands full trying to make sure I had the all-inclusive "short-list" of requirements from the various departments and was addressing each of those items. Even in my efforts to track down such straggler requirements, I did not come across the easement problem.This was literally the last item I found out about. Suddenly I would need to revise the easement to "identify 8 particular spaces at Nendels, reserve those specifically for the use of the East Valley Highway Hotel and stipulate that these may not be used by Nendels to satisfy parking requirements for any future expansion. I was not immediately concerned about the last minute resurfacing of the easement issue or that it was suddenly much more definitive and precise in the language and terms it was to contain. I was frustrated that it would be an additional delay, but frankly, I was starting to give up on the prospect of being able to start the project anyway—things had just taken to long up to this point and the weather was turning. But when I called the An's to make arrangements to draft yet another easement I learned they had sold Nendels! Predictably, the buyer recognized this as an opportunity to hold-up the An's and demand renegotiation,remuneration,etc. The entire idea of an easement is to eliminate the need of renegotiating an agreement with every new owner of a property,as they will always demand payment if they think they can. This is whether they are actually impacted adversely by the agreement or not. In this case,there is a valid easement against his property that allows customers of the East Valley Highway to park in his parking lot and vice versa. He still has 4 additional spaces in his lot, though there is no room for him to expand his facility anyway. There would be no real additional impact on him in signing a re-worded easement. Yet, he is not required to sign a new easement and knows the An's are well-vested in the process; therefore, it becomes an opportunity to demand money. This puts the An's in a difficult position after they have spent a year and better that$200,000 in permitting the project to date and still have final fees of another$150,000 to the City of Renton to look forward to. I must ask for your help in resolving this. We were aware that an easement was necessary from the beginning. We knew that we had to satisfy Development Services as to its form-this was stated in the land use decision. We produced the easements and must take issue with how the approval process was handled. We were not aware of the specifics that came out at the last moment. We did not know that approval of our original easement had been withheld. The numerous conversations about the deficiency of the original, recorded easement which we submitted with our initial application centered around emergency access and that it did not contain the language to fulfil that requirement. I drafted a new easement that combined the parking and emergency access requirements, and asked for comments. The response again focused on the emergency access portion and that I should use the fire department's accepted form. This led me to the conclusion that otherwise the easement was acceptable, that if I executed the fire departments form as a separate easement then the original parking agreement'could stand as it was. I never attempted to revise the parking agreement portion of the easement itself as I never understood it to be in question. The requirement of the land use decision said that we must satisfy development Services as to the easement prior to building permits, but that does not absolve the Department of informing us if it is withholding such approval and for what C:\My Documents\Renton Best Westem\Zimmennan 3-12-99.doc Page 2 of 4 • MC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTAI:iTS P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAX:923-9763 reasons. I had many discussions over a considerable period of time in which any problems or objections could have and should have been raised. I knew that not only Peter Rosen but also others had reviewed the easement. We were given no notice and no reason to believe it had not been accepted until the very last minute when we could no longer easily address the matter. I don't doubt that this was an honest mistake on the stars part. Indeed, I have found the entire staff most helpful and responsive throughout the process. Nevertheless,we find ourselves in a tough spot and are not convinced it is of our own doing. If I had been given specific provisions the easement was to contain at the onset, or at any time during the six months in which the An's were in ownership of Nendels, I could and would have easily provided one just as I did in the case of the emergency vehicle easement. If I had at the Eery least been told that, despite my efforts, I still had not gained approval on the easement I would have asked the additional questions to determine what I must do. I did what I thought was required by and acceptable to the City based on the description of the easement in the conditions of the land use decision "a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property" — the original easement matches that description)and based on what I was told. In multiple discussions and correspondence on the issue I never was alerted to the fact that I needed to identify particular spaces or reserve them exclusively for the East Valley Highway Hotel or I would have done so. I addressed every requirement that was communicated to Me. • Fortunately, I think this can be fairly easily remedied. We understand that the City has its rules and requirements, which are the staffs responsibility to follow. But I also know that specific sets of Circumstances can recommend a variance to them if the underlying intent of the rule and public welfare Concerns are met. I believe that we have addressed all public safety and welfare concerns: there is an easement for emergency vehicles (the primary concern); there is a valid easement allowing for the ,customers of the East Valley Highway Hotel to park in the adjacent parking lot should the need arise. In • my opinion,that the easement does not specifically identify the 8 spaces and reserve them for the sole use of the East Valley Highway Hotel is certainly of far lesser,if any,consequence. !From the standpoint of having adequate parking for guests,there is justification for leniency. The 8 spaces ,in question would rarely,if ever,be needed. The hotels in the area have not historically pushed capacity. I have enclosed an excerpt from a recent appraisal of our project that estimates the average occupancy of several comparable hotels. Perhaps the best comparable project is the adjacent Nendels Inn. During the period in which the An's owned the Inn the occupancy rate was less than 60%. The attached revenue report from Nendels covering the years of 1994 through 1997 indicates that this has been the norm. The parking space requirements of the City of Renton are based on 100%occupancy plus additional spaces for personnel. Several municipalities with which we are familiar have parking requirements with formulas based more on those average occupancy rates, like one space per 80% of the rooms. Franchises such as Comfort Inn and Best Western have similar requirements: between 1 space per 65%and 1 space per 80% of rooms. Certainly their requirement would be based on a thorough knowledge of the business and what is necessary to avoid problems. The East Valley Highway Hotel can operate at 90% capacity, with two spaces utilized by employees,and probably still not need the 8 off-site spaces. It would be extremely rare for the East Valley Highway Hotel to be full and almost inconceivable that Nendels would be full at the same time. Given the circumstances: that we were notified of these additional requirements with regards to this easement only after 7 months of correspondence; - that this late notice creates an extreme hardship for us and jeopardizes our project in which we are heavily financially vested and which in all other respects has been found acceptable to the city of Renton; I ' C:\My Documents\Renton Best Westem\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc Page 3 of 4 1VtC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS P.O.Box 8478,OLYMPIA,WA 98506-8478• (360)456-6307• FAX:923-9763 that the parking requirements of the City of Renton are comparatively stringent;the parking needs of the project have been met with the on-site spaces considering a model of average occupancy based on historical data from hotels in the area as well as the opinion of national hotel franchise operations that are in the business of running profitable,problem-free establishments; that the effect of these additional requirements would be relatively minor in any event; we request a variance as to these final required easement provisions that would require a new document to be executed. We ask merely that you now accept the easement of record as fulfilling the requirement for a parking easement,as we truly believed it had already been accepted some months ago. At the last meeting Bill and Soo An and myself had with Mr. Rosen, I was left with the impression that he also felt such a variance was warranted, under the circumstances, and possible to arrange. He did initially take the request to his immediate supervisor with,I believe,his vote of support. Now I understand that you are the person who would have the authority to grant this request and am hopeful you will agree. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. I appreciate your assistance in advance. Ve � ly yours, P0ester r. ct Administrator MC Construction • CC: Bill and Soo An Peter Rosen • C:\My Documents\Renton Best Wester\Zimmerman 3-12-99.doc Page 4 of 4 • • Proposed Best Western - Renton Rental Comparison Summary Basic Double Single #of Single Double Corp. Estimated Amenities No. Name/location Rooms Age Rack Rate Rack Rate Rate- Occupancy Comments _ - I. / Comfort Inn Kent 101 1997 $80 $90 $67 61% Newly constructed limited service facility 2 miles S. of subject. 22311 84th Ave S. 'Amenities incl. indoor pool&spa,exercise room, cont. brkfst. Kent Occupancy first 6 months of operations 61%,at$70.95 ADR. 2 Holiday Inn 122 1987 $109 • $109 $89. 75% Located 2 miles south of subject, adjacent to SR 167. 22218 84th Ave S. Amenities include outdoor pool,spa;Mitzels Restaurant Kent adjacent. Extensively upgraded and changed franchise 9/96. 3 Best Western Southcenter 146 1986 $88 $88 $69 .:;,60%o Full service facility with restaurant, lounge, 6,000sf of 15901 W.Valley Rd. meeting space. Outdoor pool,spa. Good location near Tukwila Southcenter Mall. 'Previously had Nendel's franchise affiliation. 4 Hampton Inn Southcenter 154 1990 $70 $84 $70 ': 70%0:',High visibility location adjacent to I-405 near Southcenter 7200 S. 156th St. Mall. Mid-priced newer hotel with corporate orientation. c' Tukwila - Similar rooms quality to subject;superior location. . 5 Homestead Village Southcenter 93 1997 $44 $47 $44 �;;80% High visibility location adjacent to I-405 near Southcenter 15635 West Valley Highway (Over.? Days) Mall. Budget new extended stay hotel; full kitchens, Tukwila $74 $84 $74 weekly housekeeping, limited project amenities. (Under 7 Days) Subject Proposed Best Western 90 1998 Located adjacent to SR 167,in commercial/industrial nbrhd _— —-- 3600 Block-E.Valleyy-Rd.-- _ Proposed on east side of Kent Valley. Amenities will include indoor Renton -- — --pool,_spa,exercise room. Good freeway visibility and access. • t , , Prepared by McKee&Schalka April 1998 to, 9 • , a. al z s A RENTON r_REMDFIS INN WS Roar.Re%.•enue r- , oi. 1994 1995 1996 1997 ;Ik al. v.. cn Jan. 34% ' 40.30 5f..166 29% 40.09 47,831 23% 47.39 43,689 62% 41.0E 102,495 o Feb 48% 40.40 69,1388 39% 39.90 51.750 30% 47.50 .53,621 ' 82% 4222 94,580 • d Var 55% 37.93 84.321 42% 40.04 66,105 40% 46 Al 76,070 594 45.22 92,320 '3 API • 48% 39.89 74,798 45% 44 18 '7,979 38% 45.51 57,042 4396 48.55 93,995 MaY 45% 39.07 70,935 51% 43.65 90,"14 44% 4-.32 • 72,922 64% 46,15 . 118,554 Jun 53% 40.60 83,511 53% 45.99 96.037 77% 41.91 127,330 74% 45.72 132,179,, Jul 54% 44_36 92,534 66% 48.59 129,934 72% A4.91 130,908. 88% 48.59 133,5134 Aug 60% 46.91 113.799 82% 48.'0 161,753 73% 51_42 152,283 78% 50.13 157,810 itti Sup 41% 48.26 72897 62% 42.85 105.060 53% 52.16 115.942 654% 47.52 120,251 faOct 37% 43.01 63,311 42% 43.00 73 738 57% 47.67 111,165 56% 44.95 100,688 Nov 29% 42.07 48255. 434';;; 40.13 67298 49%, 44.C.8 84,099 47% .45.83 83,959. 7, Dec -• ' •-•-Witia. 1-4140.: --691-764 .. --- 4*-1:. 4811::'. 17• _,_,-,!::;,:::.,-,__,_,;!,,;,./..-,. ,.. AVefrOTAL.4).-W 41 4941%w .83 $886,150 .':,.:',';‘ ' 'r 43.60$1,034,715 ''-.:52,0% 45.96$1,138,717 ,.,...604%.1-- 46.08$1,320,080 -•:'-.7,-,-t.--... ,..,.., , _. --.,-,:',::::.7,''f..: ‘'' Rolhg 12 mouths 6 2 • UI .--.-_- 9 C. i .•• E a co . co ND 1 e IP Is.- I N -- N 5 1 - - dr U 4 U. W -.... , ; CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: j MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3650 East Valley Highway LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton I Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2Ac). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has decided to reconsider the traffic mitigation fee for the subject proposal as requested by the applicant. The Environmental Review Committee concurs with the staff recommendation to reduce the traffic mitigation fee from $45,936 to $41,505.75. 'The applicant's request to further lower the traffic mitigation fee is denied. DATE OF DECISION: June 23, 1998 SIGNATURES: G gg immerman, Ad inistrator DATE apartment of Planning/Building/Public Works a,eiztlpt � 9d 3 � am a DATE stain Administrator Community Services r)%di Lee Wheel ', Fi e Chiefe DAT/c"/91 Renton Fi Department DNSMREC.DOC • CIT C� R NTON ..t� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 16, 1998 Steve Yester MC Construction Consultants 0 . 2142 Abernathy Road NE . Olympia,WA 98516 • Subject: Traffic Mitigation Fee Calculation East Valley Highway Hotel,LUA-98-062 • Dear Mr.Yester: - • We have reviewed your request to reduce the traffic mitigation fee for the East Valley Highway Hotel project based upon traffic counts at a nearby hotel. We are unable to fully approve your request for • reducing this mitigation fee, but have recalculated the fee based upon a fitted curve, equation which results in a partial reduction of the fee. For uses which are evaluated for trip generation values in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, it is our policy to use the published trip generation values rather than substitute lower (or higher) values based upon small scale traffic studies of similar facilities." Hotels are listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as Land Use 310, Trip generation values, based upon seven separate studies, are given for average daily trips based upon occupied rooms.,The.average rate listed is 8.70 trips per room, with a range from 5.31 trips to 9.58 trips. Our,original calculation used the average value of 8.70 trips. The manual also provides a fitted curve equation for calculating the average daily trip generation. The formula is as follows: T= 8.802 (X) -59.208 where X is the number of occupied rooms and T is the average daily trips. Using this formula results in a reduced trip generation value. For hotels it has been our policy to calculate the traffic mitigation fee based upon an assumption of 80% occupancy. A recent study prepared for an ESA hotel in Renton listed average occupancy rates of 89%. We believe that the value of 80%the appropriate value for these calculations. The report prepared to justify your,request for a reduction in the traffic mitigation fee concluded that the average daily trip generation per occupied room is 3.85 daily trips. This value seems unreasonably low. The minimum values provided in the range by ITE is 5.31 daily trips. The value of 3.85 trips means 'that on average there would be less than two round trips per occupied room. This does not seem realistic for the room occupant alone, with trips for shopping, visits, meals, business, etc. There would also be additional trips associated with hotel employees, service vehicles, visitors, and business contacts. The values provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual seem more realistic for this type of use. • 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055. • . al This oaner contains 50%recycled material.20%oost consumer • CI __ POI• RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • In summary, your request for substituting revised trip generation values from a limited study for the • values listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for this use is denied. Similarly,your request to revise the assumption for occupancy rate is also denied. The traffic mitigation fee calculation has been revised based upon the fitted curve equation provide by ITE in place of the use of the average daily trip rate. This'revised calculation reduces the fee from$45,936 to$41,505.75. If you have further questions regarding this project,please contact Clint Morgan at(425)-430-7216. Sincerely, Aje4'(it& Neil Watts, P.E. . Plan Review Supervisor . . • Development Services Division . cc: Peter Rosen Clint Morgan _ H:///planrev/evh-tbzl • • I . • • • �I • r F,VH-TR9.1 no 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 • MC Construction Consultants 2142 Abernathy Rd..NE Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 456-6307 Fax 923-9763 rT June'12, 1998 c -ro PLE izC$E � Mr. Clinton Morgan.` OpMENRES Ott City of Renton,Development Services D �(OF 200 Mill Ave S. 5 199� Renton,WA 98055 NIA u RE: EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL,Traffic Mitigation Feefte0°\/G� Dear Mr.Morgan: As I had informed Peter Rosen after I received the Determination of Non-Significance (Mitigated)for this project, the only item of real concern was the Traffic Mitigation Fee as calculated therein. The owners of this project own several other motels and immediately reacted to the estimated number of average daily tripsi They felt that, based on the whole of their experience, the anticipated number of trips had been significantly over-exaggerated. To test their suspicions, we commissioned a traffic count at a comparable facility,Nendel's Motel. Nendel's Motel is located immediately adjacent to the proposed East Valley Highway Hotel in Renton, WA. Nendel's is a larger facility than the proposed Hotel having 130 guest suites as opposed to 87, but in other respects is equivalent to this project. Trafficount performed a traffic study for both driveways of Nendel's hotel for a period of 72 hours from 3:00jPM on June 8, 1998 through 3:00 PM on June 11, 1998. The corresponding occupancy data for that same time period has been obtained from the owners of Nendel's. The average occupancy rate for these three days was within 1%of the historical annual average,which is 59.6%. That1 information is summarized in the table below. The total number of one-way trips (as opposed to round trips which would be half'of the number shown) for each 24-hour period from 3:00 PM to 3:00 PM has been divided by the total rooms occupied for that night to arrive at a trips-per-room-per-day average. l30 bA 7= fr 300PM61'8to 300Pl116J to 30.0P11 6/toto 3,:OC1.PM,f76 3 00 PM 8110.. 3 0b 611.1 ...•.......•.. _. : :�:'•:: ��::•.... ::" :... '.:'is'..::. i . Total Tnps (In and Out): 296.: ': :• � . _. : 298 .... ... :... 79•. :': : 76 ::::.: ..:. Rooms Occupied: �:.•° : . 71 .. .. :......:•. .::. Average Trips/Room: • AVERAGE TRIPS PER ROOM PER DAY OVER 3-DAY PERIOD: II Upon the conclusion of the study,we asked Jell Schram of Transpo to review the traffic count data and our findings based on that data. He agreed that our methodology and findings appeared perfectly valid. Sixt -percent average occupancy is typical of a motel such as the East Valley Highway Motel and is what the owners are using in their financial projections. This assumption is validated by the occupancy averages reported by Nendel's and the other motels owned and operated by the owner's of this project. Sixty- percent occupancy of this 87-room motel would be 52.2. Based on this data,we request a reconsideration of the Traffic Mitigation Fee. We propose to pay the City of Renton what we believe is a fair Traffic Mitigation Fee based on the averages of 52.2 rooms occupied rooms times 3.85 trips per day,per room times the$75.00 per trip fee,which equates to$15,072.75. Should you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to call me at(360) 456-6307. Sincerely, to e er MC Construction CC: Peter Rosen • II RECEIVED WiWashington State Northwest Region J U N - 9 1998 Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison • P.O. Box 330310 CITY OF RENTON • Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. (206)440-4000 DATE: June 8, 1998 • TO: Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator • Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South ' Renton, WA 98055 Subject: SR-167 MP 25.00 CS 1765 East Valley Highway Motel • 3650 East Valley Highway LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A ��4rtif0 Foxy FROM /'obert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning &Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project, our response is checked - below: ' We have reviewed the subject document and.have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. X The State requests that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the impact of the project's generated peak hour trips on State Highways and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. The State also requests that a Hydraulics Report be provided to ascertain the hydraulic impact on the State Highway System. If you have any questions,please contact John Sutherland, (206) 440-4914, or Don Hurter, (206)440-4664 of my Developer Services section. J JBS:js 1strspns.doc SC) .. On the 2i54 day of W , 1998, I deposited in the'mails of the United States, a;sealed envelope containing Revoirl avNci Ue.c Stove documents. This information was sent to: • • • Name •Representing IM‘ke. Colnevt W\C. . Cov.slvuc.#tov, B‘tl av4 Soo Av% • • • • (Signature of Sender) Servo- STATE O,F WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING • ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ��-nc'L ,, S-eer.216 signed this • instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act foithe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: G +' P ,=)/, / nj 5 Notary Public' and fo a State of W gton Notary (Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment expieaei 9 Project Name: • e0.5�' V��. • y Angel • Project Number: Lu A, 018.O(o2,S4 - ,E4. • • NOTARY.DOC • • r - REPORT City of Renton ' & Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION r REPORT DATE: May 26, 1998 i Project Name: East Valley Highway Motel Applicant: MC Construction Owner: Bill and Soo An File Number: LUA-098-062, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Peter Rosen i Project Description: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking I spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs ' along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. i Project Location: 3650 East Valley Highway I Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Undeveloped Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 46,937 sq. ft. Site Area: 76,022 sq. ft. Total Building Area SF: - 46,937 sq. ft. 1 1 i m III1 Q I I;I --- ------- I .:Lie s L•i<=acaeo •EAST VALLEY Hw? II LI MM�N I: Z J V Fdrtell ,, !; I I </ Jnxn'J F cell - ", -- 3650 E.V�UEY 111.1 _ �NaMer•s L,e _ ` r �' RINTON,6J�TTOST R-S Ir xx,'>r H 34" SL 0.' ., sn.:• @ \T " La''q.,,,., :E R-8 E u55 is 14 L II CR se s+e re , J .to.,, g.e aoan,--- 4, y'�. tsi .' a.414). URL INGTON CR Z: .i ST .3 36TH 1 I� SM . . °'t!1 a r°w.In, • 6 . ... m Hava I 6• I -- -- -- p (2) R.' R-8 121 IN L-- —. s.....— — nn eA .6 P-i -.. tl i =M eP - <' INDIND SITE PLAN - u L I�'�1 u '" 11 •.,� I1 3_ _ VALLEY .MED I CIA _ ,l .ldi _ /5� 1 .. c ® / f�l C E HIT E R , V/ ._... '--�� 5 2 A'4, �I JnmL s..c niax 1 cA LE a E N Dr I ...MC"neP u O .rn PONES O au en -_. ..... - ..�r• r UAW 1 Rma -- x tx°.ameue—� Project Location Map - sITERCDoc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Err ,nental Review Committee Staff Report • EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL. LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 2 of 15 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant seeks Site Plan Approval and Environmental Review to construct a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The motel would include office facilities, an indoor pool and recreation area, and conference room. Primary access to the site is via a driveway off East Valley Highway. The applicant proposes an emergency access exiting the southeast corner of the site to adjacent property on the south, developed as the Nendels Motel. The emergency access would connect to Nendel's driveway. The emergency access drive would require a bridge over Panther Creek. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on the adjoining NIendels Motel property per a cross parking agreement. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposal maintains a minimum 25 foot setback from the creek. The applicant is proposing to enhance the buffer on the north side of the creek with native plantings. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 4321 C240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. 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 site is fairly level, with a gradual slope to the north. The steepest slopes on the site are confined to the stream banks which are approximately 40%. Vegetation on the site is mostly low grasses, with reed cannarygrass along the streambank. The geotechnical study was prepared by Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services. The study identified a fill section varying in thickness from six to ten feet on the site, underlaid by native soils which are organic silt and peats in the upper level, becoming more sandy with depth. The native soils become more dense with depth, even at a depth there are layers of peat and fine organics. The geotechnical , report does not recommend use of the existing fill to support foundations. For support of the motel, the report recommends use of driven wood piles. Geotextile support fabric is recommended to underlay paved areas. The grading plan indicates 1,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill would be required to develop the site. The site would be stripped of existing vegetation and graded for asphalt and building areas. Erosion could occur during the construction phase of the project. Potential erosion impacts would be mitigated by City Code requirements for approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TOSCO) and a Construction Mitigation Plan and prior to issuance of Construction Permits. I ' SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Eni :mental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 3 of 15 Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: NA 2) Air Impacts Impacts to air quality can be anticipated during construction and after occupancy of the proposed project. Impacts during construction would include increased levels of airborne particulates (especially dust) from disturbance of exposed soils. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be mitigated through best management practices of the required TOSCO and with the Construction Mitigation Plan. Emissions from construction equipment exhaust would have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City Codes. After construction the impacts would be associated primarily with vehicle exhaust from customer and employee traffic. Vehicle emissions are regulated by the State of Washington. Overall air impacts would be relatively minor in nature and not considered significant to warrant special mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus NA 3) Water Impacts Panther Creek was relocated onto the subject property during development of surrounding properties and now runs along the south part of the, property in a man- made channel. There are no wetlands associated with the channelized creek. According to the East Side Green River Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (December 1996), there are few fish expected to be, present in Panther Creek, both due to habitat problems and upstream and downstream migration blockages. During flooding conditions, Panther Creek flows can exceed the downstream capacity of a 3,000-foot-long pipe system along East Valley Road/SW 34th street. As a result, the project site and surrounding properties are subject to flooding and localized drainage problems. The City has plans to reroute the major flows,from Panther Creek to the north (via the wetlands east of SR 167). However, plans have been delayed due to concerns expressed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Therefore, the flooding problem in the vicinity of the site is expected to continue and staff recommends measures to mitigate potential impacts both to the subject proposal and to prevent impacts that could affect surrounding properties. The proposal would not directly impact the creek. A minimum 25 foot building setback is maintained from the bank of the creek. The proposal would bridge the creek in the southeast corner of the site to provide a secondary, emergency road access through the adjacent Nendels Motel site. The culvert must be sized to convey 100-year flood flows. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton Stormwater Utility. The crossing will require a Hydraulic Approval Permit (HPA) from the Washington State Department of Fisheries. The proposal includes an oversized, underground concrete detention/treatment vault located under the access drive. The vault is sized to provide water quality treatment as well as required stormwater detention. Stormwater would be piped from the detention vault to the Panther Creek. The stormwater facilities will be required to meet the SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Eni ,:mental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 4 of 15 standards of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSW,DM) as adopted by the City of Renton. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to approval of construction or building permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the stream/channel across the site with routed flows from the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRVV) Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event. A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream storm system from the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. 3. The new building floor elevation shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a shelf along the north side of the channel on the property within the 25 foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down to one foot above the ,ordinary high water mark, with a 3:1 slope within the 25 foot set-back area. The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their HPA permit requirements. 5. The culvert for bridging Panther Creek shall be sized to convey flows from 100-year floods. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton Stormwater Utility. The applicant shall provide further details about the sizing of the culvert, subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility, prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus Environmental Ordinance 4) Fire Protection Impacts The proposal would add new construction to the City which would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee applies to all new construction. The required mitigation fee is based on a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. For the proposed development the fee is tentatively estimated at $24,407.24. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable at the time that Building Permits are issued. Mitigation Measures The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $24,407.24. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance, SEPA Ordinance. SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Em nental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 5 of 15 5) Transportation Impacts Primary access to the site would be via a 25 foot wide driveway off East Valley Highway. The applicant proposes a secondary, emergency access exiting the southeast corner of the site to adjacent property on the south, developed as the Nendels Motel. The emergency access would connect to Nendels driveway. The emergency access drive would require a bridge over Panther Creek. The emergency access drive is 25 feet wide. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per each average daily trip attributable to the project. Trip generation numbers are estimated from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The proposal is estimated to generate 612.48 new average daily trips. Therefore, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at$45,936 (612.48 trips x$75 = $45,936.00). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $45,936 (612.48 trips x $75 = $45,936.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment and Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&En► . nental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 6 of I5 C. Mitigation Measures 1 Prior to approval of construction or building permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the stream/channel across the site with routed flows from the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event. A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream storm system from the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. 3' The new building floor elevation shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100- year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a shelf along the north side of the channel on the property within the 25, foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down to one foot above the ordinary high water mark, with a 3:1 slope within the 25 foot set-back area. The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their HPA permit requirements. 5. The culvert for bridging Panther Creek shall be sized to convey flows from 100-year floods. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton Stormwater Utility. The applicant shall provide further details about the sizing of the culvert, subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $24,407.24. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $45,936 (612.48 trips x $75 = $45,936.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ent ,'rental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 7 of 15 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,500 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. BUILDING 1. Geotech monitoring will be required. 2. One;hour construction, no sprinkler substitution, one-hour occupancy separation A3/R1 &B/R1, elevator lobbies one hour. PLAN REVIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is$5,727.72. 2. The Storm Detention/Treatment Vault plan must to be submitted for structural and access approval. Access opening to be 36-inches. 3. Provide vertical profile. 4. Core requirements and Special requirements are to be addressed as listed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards to be followed. 6. Panther Creek is a stream that the Corps has commented is within their jurisdiction and any work impacting the stream would require a Section 404 permit. SEWER (Waste Water): 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is $5,929.71. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease,then an appropriate removal system will be required. 3. A vertical profiles of the sewer system will be required. Sewer line to have a 2% slope to property line. 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout every 100-feet. 5. A sewer backflow prevention device is required for the sewer line when the floor elevation is below 25-ft. Proposed floor elevation as shown is 21.4-feet. 6. Vertical profile to be shown on construction plans. 7. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. WATER: 1. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be in a 15-ft. Utility easement. The required fireflow per Fire Prevention is 3500 gpm. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow. Therefore, four(4) fire hydrants will be required. 3. The Iprimary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 4. A 10-inch loop water line is needed to get the fire flow above the required 3500 gpm. A 10-inch loop will provide 4000 gpm of fire flow. 5. There will be a System Development Connection charge is$8,590.48. 6. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 7. Vertical profile will be required showing the water system.. 8. A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly for the fire flow to be located at the back of sidewalk in a vault. TRANSPORTATION: 1. A brief traffic distribution report to be provided. 2. Provide a recorded copy of joint access agreement between two motel properties. • SITERC:DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Administrative Site Plan Approval&Em nental Review Committee Staff Report ' EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 8 of 15 AIRPORT The proposed site is located slightly west of the airport's extended centerline. The impact of aircraft operations is considered minor, however,the aircraft operations should be acknowledged by the project applicants. PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan/Landscape Plan, (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, Preliminary Utility Service Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, Exterior Elevations (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, First Level Floor Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Second Level Floor Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Third Level Floor Plan (Received April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 10: Drawing No. 9, Neighborhood Detail Map (April 17, 1998). Exhibit No. 11: Drawing No. 10, Disturbed Buffer Revegetation Plan (April 17, 1998). SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen. Administrative Site Plan Approval&Em 'nodal Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 9 of l5 C. ,Consistency with Site Plan Criteria 'In reviewing the proposal with respect to the site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31- 33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: II 1. ,GENERAL CRITERIA: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES; The site is designated Employment Area-Valley (EAV) in the Comprehensive Plan. The 9 � P EAV designation intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, office and industrial uses. The proposed motel use falls within the range of uses indicated for the designation. New development should be located designed, to achieve compatibility with adjacent uses. The subject site is surrounded by existing commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with the following applicable EAV policies: Policy LU-212:1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. Policy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. The following policies are intended to guide development in the EAV designation. Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. Policy LU-291. Beautification and screening of parking lots should be encouraged through appropriate landscaping, fencing and berms. (Community Design policies) The site plan incorporates a number of elements which are consistent with the EAV Comprehensive Plan policies listed above. The site plan includes street trees, and shared parking with the adjacent property allows more intensive utilization of the site. B! CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS; The subject site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). Motels are allowed as a primary permitted use in the CA zone. Setbacks - The CA zone requires a front/street setback of a minimum of 10 feet. This setback abutting public streets must be landscaped. The proposed site plan complies with this provision. The landscape strip is planted as a grass area with street trees except for the stream buffer area which would not be cleared of existing vegetation or would be planted with native plant species where disturbed. There is no side or rear yard setback requirement in the CA zone. SITERC.DOC ' City of Renton P/B/PW Departmeni Administrative Site Plan Approval&Eni 'nental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 10 of 15 Height- The CA zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet. The peak of the roof of the proposed motel is 39.5 feet and facades on the side elevations reach 44 feet, complying with the height limits of the CA zone. (Lot Coverage - The CA zone allows up to 65% lot coverage for buildings. The building ' footprint of 16,082 square feet equals a lot coverage of approximately 21%. (Landscaping - The Parking Code requires a minimum of 5% of a large parking area (over 110,000 square feet) to be provided as interior parking lot landscaping. It appears that the proposal accomplishes this standard. The applicant should verify compliance with this provision. The subject site is within the Green River Valley Planning area. An environmental mitigation agreement between the City and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) requires that 2% of a site area be provided as a natural landscape area for wildlife habitat. The applicant is Proposing enhancement of the stream buffer on the north side of Panther Creek with native plantings. This would comply with the code requirement. The code requires a pedestrian connection between the public entrance and the street. There is a sidewalk provided along the entire north side of the building which would only need a minor extension to connect to the sidewalk. The site plan should be revised to provide a pedestrian connection between the building entry and the sidewalk along East Valley Highway. Parking- The Parking Code requires 1 parking space for each room plus 2 parking spaces for each 3 employees. The proposed motel has 88 guest rooms and 4 to 6 employees according to the environmental checklist. Therefore, 90 parking spaces are required to meet the code. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on the adjoining Nendels Motel property. Because both of the properties are motel uses, the parking agreement would not qualify for shared, joint use parking. Off-site parking is permitted by the code. The applicant must first demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off-site parking must be within 750 feet of the intended use. The applicant included a parking easement/agreement recorded in 1989 which would allow for parking on the adjacent site. However, the copy of the easement does not include a description of the properties which benefit from the agreement. The applicant should provide further information to clarify that there is a recorded agreement for the off-site parking. Environmentally Sensitive Areas - Panther Creek runs along the south part of the property in a man-made channel. It was relocated onto the, site when surrounding properties were developed. The proposal would not directly impact the creek. The Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance requires a 25 foot buffer from the high water Mark of creeks. No tree cutting or land clearing is permitted within the buffer area except enhancement activities. The proposal maintains a minimum 25 foot setback from the creek bank. The applicant is proposing to enhance the buffer on the north side of the creek with native plantings. A revegetation/enhancement plan has been prepared by The Coot Company, wetland and wildlife consultants. The existing creek channel and buffer is comprised of a nearly monotypic community of reed cannarygrass. The outer ten feet of the 25 foot stream buffer would be cleared for site preparation. Following grading, the disturbed buffer area would be replanted with native shrubs. The enhancement with native shrubs would provide forage and nesting for some avian species and provide some shading and detritus source to the stream channel. The proposal bridges the creek in the southeast corner of the site to provide a secondary, emergency road access through the adjacent Nendels Motel site. The Land Clearing and Tree CLitting Ordinance allows for the "installation of essential roads and utilities'where no feasible SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen„ Administrative Site Plan Approval&Ent __..:'nental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF REPORT1OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 11 of15 'alternative exists." The subject site is constrained by the creek and the,proposed location of ',the secondary access is the only feasible alternative for providing the,required emergency access. IC. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The proposed motel is in a commercial zone and is surrounded by properties developed with commercial uses. Because the immediate area is already intensively developed with commercial uses and the site has direct access to a major arterial, the motel is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to surrounding properties or uses. There is an existing motel located adjacent to the south, a self-storage use to the.north, and a Home Base and Act Ill Cinemas across the East Valley Highway west of the site. The construction and operation of the proposed motel is not expected to impair the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties. The site plan indicates landscape plantings along the north property boundary which would assist in screening the parking area. The proposed planting is not continuous along the property line. The applicant should revise the site plan to provide a continuous planting of shrubs along the north property boundary to screen the parking area. i D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; The proposal is not expected to adversely impact the site. The site plan maintains a minimum 25 foot buffer width from the creek and the applicant proposes to enhance the buffer with native plants. The length of the building is oriented so guest rooms will have views toward the Creek, taking advantage of the creek as a site amenity. The subject site is narrow and the building is oriented along an east/west axis. The orientation of the building would reduce the bulk and scale as viewed from the street and surrounding Properties. It would avoid an appearance of an overconcentration of structures on the site. Construction activities related to the proposed development would be required to utilize best Management practices which would reduce potential construction impacts on the site. Required utility improvements, including the stormwater drainage system, would be designed to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on the site. Therefore, the construction of the development is not anticipated to adversely impact the subject site. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The subject proposal would develop a vacant commercial property that is very constrained due to the alignment of the creek across the site. Development of the site is anticipated to conserve property values in the vicinity. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Primary access to the site is via one driveway off East Valley Highway. The applicant proposes an emergency access exiting the southeast corner of the site to adjacent property on the south, developed as the Nendels Motel. The emergency access would connect to Nendels driveway and exit from the existing driveway on the Nendels site to the East Valley Highway. The applicant should provide a copy of a recorded easement allowing use of the Nendels Motel site for the purpose of a secondary, emergency access. The on-site vehicle and pedestrian circulation is designed to be safe and efficient. Transportation staff has not identified adverse impacts to the local road system. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to require the applicant to provide a pedestrian connection between the building entry and the sidewalk along East Valley Highway. There is a SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env nental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 12 of 15 'sidewalk provided along the entire north side of the building which almost connects to the sidewalk. 'G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The proposed building is sufficiently setback from property boundaries and existing buildings to allow for adequate light and air circulation to the building. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; The proposed development is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise, dust, and odors which may result with construction of the project would be mitigated through measures described in the Construction Mitigation Plan and with best management practices. The building is oriented east/west on the site which minimizes exposure to both Highway 167 and East Valley Highway. This would reduce potential noise impacts from traffic on motel guests. I. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE;AND The project site is adequately served by utilities and roads. The applicant will be responsible for extension of utilities on-site to serve the proposed building. See the Advisory Notes section of this report for detailed information concerning utilities and public services. J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would serve to prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight by improving a vacant site in an active commercial area. It would provide for more continuous commercial development which may assist the neighborhood. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for development of the East Valley Highway Motel. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmer Administrative Site Plan Approval&En ..,::mental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT IOF MAY 26, 1998 Page 13 of 15 departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other 'pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project (drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 11. ',4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area Valley (EAV). 15) Zoning: The site plan as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Self- Storage use; East: SR 167; South: Nendels Motel; and West: Home Base, Act Ill Cinemas. E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area - Valley (EAV); and the Zoning designation of Commercial Arterial (CA). 3) Specific Land Use (e.g. Site Plan Approval) issues were raised by various City departments. These issues are addressed in the body of this report. II SITERC.DdC 1 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env rental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL I LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 19 of 15 F. Decision IThe Site Plan for the East Valley Highway Motel, File No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. I . The applicant shall revise the site plan to include a calculation verifying that a minimum of 1 5% of the parking lot area is provided as interior parking lot landscaping. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services 'Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection between the building entry and the sidewalk along East Valley Highway. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. In order to satisfy criteria for permitting off-site parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off-site parking must be within 750 feet of the proposed building. The applicant shall also verify that there is a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall provide this information to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan/landscape plan to provide a continuous planting of shrubs along the north property boundary to screen the parking area. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded easement allowing use of the Nendels Motel site for the purpose of a secondary, emergency access. The easement shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division and recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: I ' // ,5'-a7-2X ��-yl�Ci im,tao--- I J es C. Hanson, Zoning Administrator date ! TRANSMITTED this 27th day of May, 1998 to the applicant and owner: Mike Cohen and Steve Yester MC Construction 2142 Abernathy Road NE Olympia, WA. 98506 Bill and Soo An 3122 Leeward Court NW Olympia, WA. 98502 SITERC.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Env ,rental Review Committee Staff Report EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF MAY 26, 1998 Page 15 of 15 TRANSMITTED 27th day of May, 1998 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Art Larson, Fire Marshal Neil Watts, Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney South County Journal Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the,environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15, 1998. If no appleals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required'1$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. SITERC.DOC ..........:::::.::................................................. • • ENT ,:LANNIN .:<',DIVISION `''» <> <`» >`> >'>`» ' :mi . ........................................................................................ MEMmim ER ...................................................::................................. On the' 28th day of , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States,,a sealed envelope contains g IBC. d. erwuvw ►Ytns documents. This information was sent to: • Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F.Dietzman Department of Natural Resources i y Shirley Lukhang -• Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy • (Signature of Sender) hrri K. Scco`cir� STATE'OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that�izh_ _ S L, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tile/uses and purposes. mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ¢ c=7, /c/C/4c7 C7 9'idi»I/%.l Notary Public and for the State of Walton Notary(Prin / �. . .. A � FF My appointment expire COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name: last ,, y IMciVe t Project'Number: LL)P • cis O(4221 Sw -A EL NOTARY.DOC CIT% OF RENTON =45-', Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 28, 1998 • Washington I State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on May 26, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL/LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. Location: 3650 East Valley Highway. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15 , 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of,the:Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there;is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period: Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe.:Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 OM June 15. 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the.Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235- 2501. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 235-2719. • For the Environmental Review Committee, 6:2) .\, • Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher,Department of Fisheries. David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation - Shirley.Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom,fisheries,Muckleshoot IndianTribe (Ordinance) .Joe Jain9 Puget Sound Energy 9Y AGNRVT.TR DOe.\ 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION. OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL 3650 East Valley Highway MITIGATION MEASURES: • 1. Prior to approval of construction or building%permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the stream/channel across_the site with routed flows from the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event. A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream storm system from the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. 3. The new building floor.elevation shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a shelf along the north side of the channel on the property within the 25 foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down to one foot above the ordinary high water mark, with a 3:1 slope within the 25 foot set-back area. The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their.HPA permit requirements. 5. The culvert for bridging Panther Creek shall be sized to convey flows from 100-year floods. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton Stormwater Utility. The applicant shall provide further details about the sizing of the culvert, subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $24,407.24. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. . East Valley Highway Motel LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF Mitigation Measures&Conditions (Continued) Page 2of2 Mitigation Measures (Continued) • 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $45,936 (612.48 trips x$75 = $45,936.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Site Plan for the East Valley Highway Motel, File No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to include a calculation verifying that a minimum of 5% of the parking lot area is provided as interior parking lot landscaping. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection between the building entry and the sidewalk along East Valley. Highway. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. In order to satisfy-criteria for permitting off-site;parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking'spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off-site :parking must be .within .750 feet of the proposed!building. The applicant shall also verify that there is a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall:provide this information to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan/landscape plan to provide a continuous planting of shrubs along the north property boundary to screen the parking area. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. .. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded easement allowing use of the Nendels Motel site for the purpose of a secondary, emergency access. The easement shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division and recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits. CITY OF RENTON. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther . Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3650 East Valley Highway Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations FIRE • 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,500 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. BUILDING 1. Geotech monitoring will be required. .. 2. One-hour construction, no sprinkler substitution, one-hour occupancy separation A3/R1 & B/R1, elevator lobbies one hour. PLAN REVIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is $5,727.72. 2. The Storm Detention/Treatment Vault plan must to be submitted for structural and access approval. Access opening to be 36-inches. 3. Provide vertical profile. 4. Core requirements and Special requirements are to be addressed as listed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards to be followed. 6. Panther Creek is a stream that the Corps has commented is within their jurisdiction and any work impacting the stream would require a Section 404 permit. SEWER (Waste Water): 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is$5,929.71. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease,then an appropriate removal system will be required. 3. A vertical profiles of the sewer system will be required. Sewer line to have a 2% slope to property line. . East(Valley Highway Motel LUA J98-062,ECF,SA-A Advisory Notes(Continued) 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout every 100-feet. 5. A sewer backflow prevention device is required for the sewer line when the floor elevation is below 25-ft. Proposed floor elevation as shown is 21.4-feet. 6. Vertical profile to be shown on construction plans. 7. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. WATER: 1. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be in a 15-ft. Utility easement. The required flreflow per Fire Prevention is 3500 gpm. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow. Therefore, four(4)fire hydrants will be required. 3. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 4. A 10-inch loop water line is needed to get the fire flow above the required 3500 gpm. A 10-inch loop will provide 4000 gpm of fire flow. 5. There will be a System Development Connection charge is$8,590.48. 6. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 7. Vertical profile will be required showing the water system.. 8. A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly for the fire flow to be located at the back of sidewalk in a vault. TRANSPORTATION: 1. A brief traffic distribution report to be provided. 2. Provide a recorded copy of joint access agreement between two motel properties. AIRPORT The proposed site is located slightly.west of the airport's extended centerline. The impact of aircraft operations is considered minor, however,the aircraft operations should be acknowledged by the project applicants. I ' • , CITY OF RENTON 1 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel I DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site:and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. I LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3650 East Valley Highway LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section I The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on rroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will tie no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15. 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235- 2501. PUBLICATION DATE: June 01, 1998 _DATE OF DECISION: May 25, 1998 I SIGNATURES: T / �(/r9 egg' Zi erma , d mistrator DA E Departm t of anning/Building/Public Works I Z6 Sam Chast n, Admi i rator DAT Community . ervices \..X..z>1 .._ ? ""-- -A 'ff he�er, it Chief DATE -enton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC INNNEL CITY OF. RENTON - DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE = . . (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East.Valley Highway Motel. . , DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:•. Proposal,for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency•access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25,foot setback from the creek. • ' LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: : 3650 East Valley Highway MITIGATION MEASURES: ' 1. Prior to approval of construction or building permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the stream/channel across the-site with routed flows from the East Side Green River Watershed(ESGRW) Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event.' A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream-storm system from the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted to.the City: 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the-channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. . 3: The new building floor elevation shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a,shelf along the north side of thechannel on the,property within the 25 foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down,to one foot above the ordinary high water mark, with a 3:1 slope within the 25 foot set-back area. The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work . will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their HPA permit requirements. 5. The,culvert for bridging Panther Creek shall be sized to convey flows from 100-year floods. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton'Stormwater Utility. The applicant shall provide further details about the sizing of the culvert, subject to the approval • of the Renton Stormwater Utility, prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall'pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This-fee is estimated at $24,407.24. The .Fire Mitigation Fee is• payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. East Valley Highway Motel LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF Mitigation Measures &Conditions (Continued) Page 2 of 2 Mitigation Measures (Continued) 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $45,936 (612.48 trips x$75 = $45,936.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Site Plan for the East Valley Highway Motel, File No: LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant.shall revise the site plan to include a calculation verifying that a minimum of 5% of the parking lot area is provided as interior parking lot landscaping. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a pedestrian connection between the building entry and the sidewalk along East Valley Highway. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. In order to satisfy criteria for permitting off-site parking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional parking spaces beyond their own required parking • needs. The off-site parking must be within 750 feet of the proposed building. The ' applicant shall also verify that there is a recorded parking easement.benefiting the subject property. The applicant shall provide this information to the satisfaction of, the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan/landscape plan to provide a continuous planting of shrubs along the north property boundary to screen the parking area. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits: 5. The.applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded easement allowing use of the Nendels Motel site for the purpose of a secondary, emergency access. The easement shall be submitted for the approval of the Development Services Division and recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) - ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: • MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel DESCRIPTION.OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story,.88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site]and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to,through adjacent property to the south.. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the"property in a man-made:channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: '3650 East Valley Highway Advisory Notes to Applicant:, The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. ,Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations FIRE 1. The preliminary.fire flow is 3,500 GPM which requires one hydrant within 150 feet of the building ,and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. ' 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation., BUILDING 1. Geotech monitoring will be required. 2. 1 One-hour construction, no sprinklerr substitution, one-hour occupancy separationA3/R1 &B/R1, elevator lobbies one hour. PLAN REVIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is $5,727.72. 2.. The Storm Detention/Treatment.Vault plan must to be submitted for structural and access,approval. Access opening to be 36-inches. 3. Provide vertical profile. 4. Core requirements and Special requirements are to be addressed as listed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. , - • 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards to be followed., , 6. Panther Creek is a-stream that the Corps has commented is within their jurisdiction and any work impacting the stream would require.a Section 404 permit: SEWER (Waste Water): 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is$5,929.71. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease, then an appropriate removal system will be required: " 3. A vertical profiles of the sewer system will be required. Sewer line to have a 2% slope to property , line. • • East Valley Highway Motel LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A Advisory Notes (Continued) 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout every 100-feet. 5. A sewer backfiow prevention device is required for the sewer line when the floor elevation is below 25-ft. Proposed floor elevation as shown is 21.4-feet.' ' 6. Vertical profile to be shown on construction plans. 7. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. WATER: 1. '{If,required fire flow is over 2500,gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be in a 15-ft. Utility easement. The required frefiow per Fire Prevention is 3500 gpm. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow. Therefore, four(4)fire hydrants will be required. 3. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 4. A 10-inch loop water line is needed to get the fire flow above the required 3500 gpm. A 10-inch loop will provide 4000 gpm of fire flow. • 5. -There will be'a System Development Connection'charge is$8,590.48. 6.' Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 7. Vertical profile will be required showing the water system.. 8. A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly for the fire flow,to be located at the back of sidewalk in a , vault.. TRANSPORTATION: 1. A brief traffic distribution report to be provided: 2. Provide a recorded copy of joint access agreement between two motel properties.. AIRPORT The proposed site is located slightly west of the airport's extended centerline. The impact of aircraft operations is considered minor, however,the aircraft operations should be acknowledged by the project applicants. er CITE -"OF RENTON .4;..' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Greggimmerman P.E. Jesse Tanner,Mayor gg ,Administrator - I May 28, 19913 I I I I Mr. Mike Cohen MC Construction 2142 Abernathy road NE Olympia, WAI 98506 • SUBJECT: East Valley Highway Motel j - Project No. LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A I Dear Mr. Cohen: This letter is!written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their.review of the subject project. The ERC, on May-26,-1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15. 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not I. be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written:comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there:is not.sufficient evidence to=amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period:,. Any-person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe'. Written comments must'be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division,-200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM June 15, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be:obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235- 2501. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call -me at (425) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, 110 Peter Rosen Project Manager -cc: : Bill and Soo An/Property Owners • • Enclosure DNSMLTR DOC i 200 Mill'Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft.and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the'creek: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL ''3650 East Valley Highway MITIGATION MEASURES:.;; 1. Prior to approval of construction or building permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the;stream/channel across the site with routed flows from • the East Side Green River Watershed;(ESGRW) Plan(92 Pis);through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event. A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream stormsystembfrom the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted,to the City. 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. 3. The new building floor elevation shall be ya minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a shelf along the north side of the channel on the property within the 25 foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down to one foot above the ordinary high water mark, with.a 3:1 • slope within the 25 foot set-back area. The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their HPA permit requirements. 5. The culvert for bridging Panther Creek shall be sized to convey flows from 100-year floods. Flow information for sizing the culvert is available from the Renton Stormwater Utility. The applicant shall provide further details about the sizing of the culvert, subject to the approval• of the Renton Stormwater Utility, prior to•the issuance of building permits. _ • 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is estimated at $24,407.24. The Fire Mitigation Fee is .payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. East Valley Highway Motel LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF Mitigation Measures&Conditions (Continued) Page 2 of 2 • • Mitigation Measures (Continued) 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $45,936 (612.48 trips x$75= $45,936.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The Site Plan for the East Valley Highway Motel, File No. LUA-98-066, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to include a calculation verifying that a minimum of 5% of the parking lot area is provided as interior parking lot landscaping. The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval Of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall revise the site plan`; to provide a pedestrian connection between the sA building entry and the sidewalk along"East Valley Highway .;The revised site plan shall be submitted for the approval;ofthe Development Services,Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. In order to satisfy'criteria.for permitting',off-siteparking, the applicant shall demonstrate that Nendels Motel has 8 additional sparking spaces beyond their own required parking needs. The off-site parking must be within :.750 feet of;.theproposed building. The applicant shall''also verify that there is:a recorded parking easement benefiting the subject property. The :applicant shall provide this information to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan/landscape plan to provide a continuous planting of shrubs along the north property,boundary to screen the parking area. The revised site plan i shall be submitted for the approval ;of the Development Services Division, prior to the issuance of building permits:.. 5. The applicant shall provide a copy Of a recorded easement allowing use of the Nendels Motel site for the purpose of a secondary, emergency access. The easement shall be submitted for the-approval of the Development Services Division and recorded, prior to the issuance of building permits. I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A APPLICANT: MC Construction PROJECT NAME: East Valley Highway Motel • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three-story,.88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 sq. ft. and a total building area of 46,937 sq. ft. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on- site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway, with an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther . Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25 foot setback from the creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3650-East`Valley Highway Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the_appeal process.for environmental determinations FIRE :` 1. The preliminary fire flow is'3,500 GPMwhich"requires'one hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300;feetof each building. 2. Separate plans and permits for sprinkler and fire alarm systems installation. BUILDING 1. Geotech monitoring will be required. ` . .:' ::` 2. One-hour construction, no sprinkler substitution,'one-hour occupancy separation A3/R1 &B/R1, elevator lobbies one hour. PLAN REVIEW STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is $5,727.72. 2. The Storm Detention/Treatment Vault plan must to be submitted for structural and access approval. Access opening to be 36-inches. 3. Provide vertical profile. 4. Core requirements and Special requirements are to be addressed as listed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards to be followed. 6. Panther Creek is a stream that the Corps has commented is within their jurisdiction and any work impacting the stream would require a Section 404 permit. SEWER (Waste Water): - 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is$5,929.71. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease,then an appropriate removal system will be required. 3. A vertical profiles of the sewer system will be required. Sewer line to have a 2%slope to property line. ' East Valley Highway Motel LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A Advisory Notes (Continued) 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout every 100-feet. 5. A sewer backflow prevention device is required for the sewer line when the floor elevation is below 25-ft. Proposed floor elevation as shown is 21.4-feet. 6. Vertical profile to be shown on construction plans. 7. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. WATER: 1. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be in a 15-ft. Utility easement. The required fireflow per Fire Prevention is 3500 gpm. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow. Therefore, four(4)fire hydrants will be required. 3. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 4. A 110-inch loop water line is needed to get the fire flow above the required 3500 gpm. A 10-inch loop will;provide 4000 gpm of fire flow. 5. There will-be a System Development Connection charge is$8,590.48. • 6. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 7. Vertical profile will be required showing the water system.. 8. A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly for.the fire flow to be located at the back of sidewalk in a vault. TRANSPORTATION: " • 1. A brief traffic distribution report to be provided.-°. 2. Provide a recorded copy of joint access agreement between two motel properties. AIRPORT The proposed site is located slightly west of the airport's extended centerline. The impact of aircraft operations is considered minor, however,the-aircraft operations should be acknowledged by the project applicants. • I I . i • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Kristina Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL _ NOTICE"OFENVIRONIMIENTAL7- 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL-REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal The Environmental Review Committee • newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- , prior to the date ofpublication, referred to, printed andpublished in the English languagepro ect nde - Mitigated for ofthe Renton g• project under the authority the Renton continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Municipal Code. I 1• EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A tJt State of Washington for King County. Environmental-review-and site approval 1• The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County ti for an 88 unit motel. Location:3650 E. Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers I' Valley Highway: during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a I' The 15 day-comment-and'`appe'aRperiod for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will East Valley Highway Motel end at 5:00 PM on June 15, 1998.Written I h-comments--shall=be=forwarded=to=the=ib1 Development Services Division Land Use as published on: 6/1/98 i Review Supervisor.Information on the pro- ject file and the mitigation measures imThe full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$38.40 I Env nmentosed al theviewtyComm Committee of R Dare Legal Number 4713 I available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, ' Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235- 2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office,First Floor,Municipal Building. Le I erk, Sou County Journal" Publication Date: June 01,1998 Published in the-South-Count Journal nn y�/,�� June 1,1'998t,47.1�„3t- ` ,��•'° 4- I Subscribed and sworn before me on this`l ' "day of� ;19 �„�lltltllI,, ` ` Vvi0;r , `� e ' Notary Public of the State of Washington `;P.".�, , residing in Renton �. ^A = King County, Washington 1 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL LUA-98-062,ECF,SA-A Environmental review and site approval for an 88 unit motel. Location: 3650 E. Valley Highway. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on June 15, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: (425)235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. Publication Date: June 01, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot a -11111 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION • POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION . PROJECT NAME: EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY MOTEL • PROJECT NUMBER: LUA.98.062,ECF,SA-A ' Proposal for a three-story,88 unit motel with a building footprint of 18,082 sq.R.and a total building area of ' ' 46,937 sq.ft. The proposal Includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on adjacent property.l Primary access Is via a driveway off East Valley Highway.wills an emergency access connecting to through adjacent property to the south. Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property In a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains.the required 25 foot setback from the creek. Location: 3850 East . Valley Highway. • • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 6:00 PM June 15, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day 0melrame. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Hoarier,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 88055. Appeals of the environmental determination IRCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680]must be filed in writing on or • before 5:00 PM Juno 15.1998.If no appeals are filed by this date,the action will become final.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner ere governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8.1t B.; Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained tram•the Renton City Clerk's Office.(425)-235- 2501. • • r- it- i r-------- — 41._:• .,gym Re a •f zxt ; — i _ . . URLING TON • ,,,Q F' •e—`, �.R T N E R N ~~ r` .' ,. 1 [ :-' i•', .. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please incltide:the project NUMBER when calling-for properfrle ldentiticatfon:?:` =' r.'.'I CERTIFICATION I, Swnkti VA`v \,t•h , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on M tiI,t q'g • Signed: coortafir NNvV �-h ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and r the State of - Washington residing in e...,,I -7,-) ,on the .5 - day o /‘,01 1 � /a 4,--7-r0---4.,2-01 , MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: MAY 20, 1998 TO: PETER ROSEN FROM: NEIL WATTS )0R.A) SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY BEST WESTERN-3650 EAST VALLEY ROAD REVISED SEPA RECOMMENDATIONS We have reexamined the above listed project for drainage concerns at ERC's request. Since our initial review, plans for rerouting the major flows from Panther Creek to the north (via the wetlands east of SR-167) have been delayed due to concerns expressed by WSDOT. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project should be examined assuming that the flooding problem experienced in the past in this vicinity will remain unchanged. Therefore, after consultation with Ron Straka (Supervisor, Surface Water Utility), we recommend the following conditions be placed upon,the project through the SEPA process. 1. Prior to approval of construction or building permits for the project, the applicant shall expand upon their drainage report by analyzing the stream/channel across the site with routed flows from the East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using the HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation for the 100 year storm event. A Level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream storm system from the site to Springbrook Creek shall also be prepared and submitted to the City. 2. The applicant shall improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto the adjacent southerly property by providing a minimum berm elevation of one foot over the 100-year storm event elevation in the channel. 3. The new building floor elevation shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel, and the parking lot elevation shall not be less than the 100-year storm event elevation for the channel. 4. To help minimize or reduce the flooding problem, the applicant shall excavate a shelf along the north side of the channel on the property within the 25 foot setback area. This excavation shall extend down to one foot above the ordinary high water mark, with a 3:1 slope within the 25 foot set-back area. -The buffer area on both sides of the channel shall be planted with suitable trees and/or vegetation to provide shade for the channel. This work will need to be coordinated with Fisheries Department for their HPA permit requirements. cc: Ron Straka Clint Morgan IRRENT CONDITIONS • • 6.4 EXISTING VALLEY AREA DRAINAGE SYSTEM ' 6.4.1 SPRINGBROOK CREEK The existing Valley area surface water conveyance system is illustrated on Figure 6-2. The primary drainage system in the Valley area is Springbrook Creek, which extends north from the City of Kent to the Black River Pump Station (BRPS). Figure 6-6A includes photographs of selected reaches. Tributary to • Springbrook Creek are Mill and Garrison creeks (Kent), Panther Creek, and Rolling Hills Creek. These streams originate on the plateaus east of the Green River Valley and are supplemented by localized inflow within the Valley. Springbrook Creek flows north along the Valley floor to the BRPS, which discharges through the last remaining reach of the Black River into the Green River. The Black River today is a small remnant of the old Black River that drained Lake Washington before construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Ballard Locks, which lowered Lake Washington and diverted flows from the Black River. • Several of the main drainage features along Springbrook Creek downstream of SW 16th Street were constructed as part of past ESGRWP improvements that have been largely funded by the NRCS (formerly SCS). These features include the BRPS,a large storage pond known as the BRPS floodwater storage pond, the Grady Way and I-405 box culverts, retaining walls along Oakesdale Avenue and the SW 16th Street Bridge, and widened and realigned portions of Springbrook Creek between the BRPS and SW 16th Street. A construction project to improve the SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street reach by constructing a parallel channel that flows through the I-405 box culvert was completed in summer 1995. This project is referred to as the Connecting Channel Project, and its location is illustrated on Figure 6-2. Upstream 'of SW 16th Street, Springbrook Creek is much narrower, but has been deepened and widened in past years by farmers, local jurisdictions, and King County Drainage District No. 1 (DD No. 1). 6.4.2 PANTHER CREEK Panther Creek originates in the plateau area in the eastern portion of the basin and drains an approximately 2-square-mile basin. Panther Creek originates at Panther Lake in unincorporated King County and flows in a northwesterly direction toward the City of Renton (see Figure 6-1). Panther Creek enters the Valley area at the base of Talbot Hills just west of Talbot Road. In this area, the creek flows through an alluvial fan and the creek channel becomes braided. Low flows enter two culverts under SR-167, which are the southernmost culverts between I405 and SW 43rd Street. The two culverts are shown on Figure 6-2 in SR-167 between SW 34th Street and SW 39th Street. These culverts discharge to a short drainage channel that connects to an approximately 3,000-foot-long pipe X1159121.801 DECEMBER 1996 R.W.Beck 6-3 -. ,.. • fie" " SECTION 6 `/ - i� system along the East Valley Road (EVR) and SW 34th Street. This pipe system ': ; .' discharges to Springbrook Creek Moderate and high Panther Creek,flows split where the channel becomes braided. Some of the flow enters the two culverts under SR-167 and some is '... directed north into the Panther Creek Wetland. Panther-Creek flows also exceed ' the capacity of the two southernmost SR-167.culverts during large storms, and ,_ excess flows travel north into the Panther Creek Wetland. Flows entering the '`r',A wetland are temporarily stored and/or discharged to the west under SR-167 sz.'a • through a series.of existing culverts ranging from 12 to 48 inches in diameter as _ well as a 36-inch-high by 48-inch-wide box culvert at the north end of the ...: 4. wetland near I-405. With the exception of the 36-inch by 48-inch box culvert, ' many of these culverts are severely plugged,limiting their capacity. - 4 ' The Panther Creek Wetland outflows from the SR-167 culvert crossings between approximately SW 23rd Street and SW 34th Street enter a ditch/wetland system ``' (Wetland W-48e) located along the west side of SR 167. This system drains to a "-4ch, ' pipe system in EVR through an open ditch at approximately SW 29th Street. The •:,, EVR pipe system extends north and discharges to an existing channel along SW :i' 23rd Street that flows west to Springbrook Creek '' • During flooding conditions, Panther Creek flows that pass through the two N. southernmost SR-167 culverts can exceed the capacity of the 3,000-foot-long pipe • system along EVR/SW 34th Street. As a result, flooding of private property ands_;. EVR occurs. In addition, the system also overflows to the north to enter the E, ` ditch/wetland that runs along the west side of SR 167. 7.4 6.4.3 ROLLING HILLS CREEK '' Rolling Hills Creek originates on a plateau area in the northeastern portion of the ;,,:; ,. A. basin and drains an approximate 1.4-square-mile drainage basin. Rolling Hills AY Creek enters a pipe system within the Renton Shopping Center on the north side 'F,4' • of I-405. The pipe system discharges to a short section of channel running west ;= : along the north side of I-405 (see Figure 6-2). The creek then runs south under � ` s I-405 through 48-inch-diameter and 132-inch-diameter culvert crossings. From � _ the I-405 crossing,a low-flow channel carries runoff along the east side of SR-167 .. `' . to a 36-inch-high by 48-inch-wide box culvert that crosses west underneath z ' SR-167. This culvert connects to a 60-inch diameter system that flows west to -..=.', Springbrook Creek During intense storms, the capacity of the 36-inch-high by f• 48-inch-wide box culvert is exceeded, causing water to be stored in the Panther -'; Creek Wetland. During periods of extreme flows,flows from both Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek become interconnected as the entire Panther Creek < =, • Wetland area is flooded. Following a major storm event, this stored runoff is released from the wetland and flows return to their respective low-flow ' . y channels. ,1- ti;4 6-4 R.W.Beck DECEIvIBER1996 X1159121.801 `., • I 1-,2t 7.., 1.0,13, $',... - -ram _ .;: - - - + �„r. es�".c�Sr� 4r ;1t*. .•n.- ,ya' 'rs ,;.!.k;"�� ..y;; ,'r::'s , :.:,.�i:';:,;+,;, I Y !', M1s .� - ..»�y.{ ,t.�tY_.ti/t:. '{k:s."y.�4`M1.��t fa,rx .fr`Y:,::1 N -r!!.r 7}N e1u>rt a.. FR[{w.aj vl.F-n..Jlvnt< '1 C Ah - +ate _ SLO f 1�'r�l"tj'5.�¢p`�L- • 1;: %1'S^"ryT i; LrjrY�C":"r #"!. 1 e.}S�'3Yf'-:'.�f,;✓ ,,tl W} `+t' r�l¢r SF �!'ri43Sn 5 "1 3 ". .5fy 1" 5 .�+r`r d' !,, nrx k`' �}�i1,01 1 Y' ,•♦ s•r• l lrr Ai, ',^ 6i�� e""'z:�r:7•p"„,s 'fie;'+;�a �!n� I• 4;,,,,-.*_ cy'r ,`3 ; `,s-*,s �51�.,, .,t j!`Aar „-.Jk+y. _3*:5 r?-),n ,A Er � kr Iti� i �?AS+ � � �y� Im � 5 f\yi = y t }' a ;-4 i 4'� f# t � R �r,"* a� 9� Fs� . . {� ; 1 ` *M " ;4; , Np -r'rqC �� "cF - " A.tg}� ? )r F,-r`.f, Lk r kr, @ th ° s, [ Yt.+ y' ✓4i . laf. JFY.. �I 'y'i ,..' vt!n Sr ,. ty aan4, ,-i,_.t 1k . �n ---. " tk'�}• +y r �1Ck` ,_a , '.� ^ ', jq+ �ni ,� e ,3.�5' '' "sj.s ' A6 t:X y ', s sa rti.. N , Y / YSS , x` .+ ,„g,.ia ' t,1 4'-i rr ,k., ?'-,/a,,, ur 1;fiFr V , ,.L + ,F•� : µr,3 t t : ? frt) •TM " ! k . .:,?,,,..,e r. , .eL`� 4 Picture Number 3 - Flooding of East Valley Road between SW 27th Street and SW 34th Street during 1/9/90 flood Picture taken near the soutwest corner of SW 27th Street and East Valley Road looking south ' = 1 I }J ,�^ �y {; -ta6.� , �}' n�'-./(af�:; �, t'�+''� 4 4T ?'!3• '4J .1,'r • .. � � 1 • �:, •1, ,, is • • '"ti _r", SIP., 1• r-,e ��t. tak!,fz ‘3.1n �>r f �� r ,tjnl -. • A^ "" rrx • Vd .' � � �v A^k..'i ILA 1 • iWfhxrw�'� ` r s a r t i r r' .n t 5y. "' ,e`.rn. ,1•r"+ rj q. r .,;.' r .csr "4Fe t1. `„�.. t c fir* "$ -..-0 r` ti yr' ctr+ 1 j. ? r .•• * f i.'k 5 Y t'.yJC''' �rl St k•f.. Picture Number 4- Flooding of SW 43rd Street and East Side Green River Watershed Project adjacent parking lots between East Valley• Road and Lind Avenue SW during 1/9/90 flood - FIGURE 6 6B(Continued) Picture taken near the northwest corner of East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street looking west Photographs of Problem Areas I • • 1\ • }• \�://-OELEZ�S CAE y 11 C i Pv SE} �,s+ ...9 ;� I4.y . •:...... ' � gyp,' . . f;:: .•1 r...7._ ..' ��,,_ ...i ..:......._.........:....:.. --�1 Nil � i if I, { : ....... .i)��-- t.. t= M{ VALLEY t v� TALBDT..C:. R WETLAND �• `i GENERAL ......_..._. _..... f . .... Y6 EK a i PANTHER CRE �� _.... HOSPITAL. � ' .— Oimigi®®®��d1AV2701®=C�.®'0®' / 36 �i�i�'� ) ... I./ p, 17 .01'21, V// PIC-3► VALLEY RD n �"'�!!.:: % • I X _ • '`� i f Os. It 1'7 1 I i. 1N1 p)IE M' f n II 1i -- • .M . 1 LiND -) (.-......- --AV.- ---t -6 - - ---...- a } � "'(+ PICf5► k v) N c ii wn' '11 a I__ co F ' ' I/ i :• 3 .._1 I /. ei---• a f ' is ' = T c)F !a �s 1I (4 N f • U N t/ X. N1 I 1 =rD ` i in I j 3 I � 11 �. � � • v) ii 311cv d- LEGEN I f `� 1 �'I �' x: n a D �.__1 1 . 15 " • 54n er 0Rg-`c 36" OAKESDALE AV SW „ 36 DIAMETER STORM DRAIN 11 36 -• ••—► STREAM/DRAINAGE CHANNEL I ,; o , ---C CULVERT(S) ; I k ��m OBSERVED FLOODED AREAS (ONLY AREAS "'f� WITHIN STUDY AREA ARE SHOWN) Nfl C-1 ► LOCATION/DIRECTION OF PICTURE INO. 1; REFER TO FIGURE 6-6 1 . "7"..:. i .....\ • • :,._ .:.' �, • N. I CREEK iTUKWILA ,\ "'- RENTON CITY LIMITS ..... { .... ----- ' ' "_....._. EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER _.._ WAT PROJECT RR . . . D f, .:jff ,-:- WEST VALLEY = HWY.....__... �, FIGURE 6-5 w ' . 4FF CURRENT CONDITIONS • 11 �l CK Neil R. Watts From: ! Ronald J. Straka To: Neil R. Watts Cc: Clinton E. Morgan Subject: RE: Drainage Concerns? - 3650 E Valley Rd - Best Western Hotel Date: , Tuesday, May 19, 1998 1:14PM This is a tough one. The ESGRW Plan called for restricting flow in the channel by diverting a portion of the flow on the upstream side of SR -167 into the wetland to flow through the new culvert at SW 23rd St. that will hopefully be constructed this year. This would reduce the flooding problem on the site, on Nendels Motel site and on East Valley. However the diversion of the flows has been postponed due to WSDOT and Fisheries issues that remain to be worked out. I cannot guarantee that some of the flow will be diverted into the wetland in the future, but I think the chances are better than 50%. The primary flooding problem is due to the lack of capacity in the downstream storm system in East Valley and SW 34th St. Given all of this information, here are some of my ideas for mitigation measures that we will need to discuss: 1. Could we require them to improve the channel to convey the 100-year flow that is currently conveyed across the site? 2. At a minimum, the consultant should be required to route the flows from the ESGRW Plan (92 cfs) through the channel using HEC 2 model to establish the water surface elevation. A level 3 offsite analysis of the downstream storm system from the site to Springbook Creek will also be needed. 3. Improve the berm on the south side of the channel to prevent the channel from overflowing onto Nendels property to provide one foot of freeboard above the 100 year water surface elevation. 4. Set the building finished floor (and parking maybe) at an elevation above the 100-year storm water surface elevation in the stream. 5. Based upon the 100-year water surface elevation on the site and the sites topography, compensatory flood storage may be required. 6. To address comment #5 and to reduce the flooding problem, the applicant could be required to excavate a shelf along the channel on the property within the 25-foot set-back area. The excavation could extend down to one foot above the ordinary high water mark and the buffer area on both sides of the channel could be planted to provide shade. The applicant will need to coordinate with Fisheries about the work and any HPArequirements. This will provide more flood storage on the site which may prevent flooding of East Valley and Nendels. 7. The culvert crossing under East Valley Rd. is a 24-inch culvert and connects to a storm system on the west side of East Valley Rd, which is a 36-inch storm system. To reduce the flooding the culvert crossing could be replaced with a new 36-inch culvert. During flood events, flow in the ditch ponds up and overflows onto East Valley where the ditch flows into the culvert under East Valley Rd. I am not sure if this is due to,the fact that the 24" culvert is under sized or the downstream system lacks capacity. It is probably both. I am not sure how much reduction of flooding would occur if the existing 24-inch culvert is replaced with a 36" culvert, but the applicant could look at this option. Again, Fisheries may need to be involved. I recommend requiring mitigation measures 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mitigation measures 2 and 4 could be considered code. Please let me know what you are going to recommend to ERC. From: Neil R. Watts To: Ronald J. Straka Cc: Clinton E. Morgan Subject: Drainage Concerns? - 3650 E Valley Rd - Best Western Hotel Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 9:58AM As you probably know, we are reviewing a proposal for a hotel at 3650 East Valley Road. This site contains a portion of the Panther Creek system, and is identified as a flooding area in the East Side Green River EIS. What do you recommend for mitigation, if any, for this proposal? ERC has the project on hold pending staff response to this question. Page 1 City:;.. enton Department,of Planning/Building/ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1=bkicc COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy SITE AREA 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and atotal building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS c Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Estimate 24.26 police calls for service annually, based on the size of the business. Construction sites in Renton account for 9% Of all Commercial Burglaries. In addition, this business is going to be constructed in the highest commercial Burglary crime area in the City. Recommend that the business be surrounded by portable, temporary fencing during the construction phase. Applicant will also need security lighting on the site during the hours of darkness. All construction materials and: tools will need to be secured as well as possible to help prevent theft. If a portable trailer is used for an office while constructionis underway, it will need to have any ' doors and windows reinforced with metal bars to help prevent burglary. All office tools and XXXAXXERMWATIONNTARIEEK machines need to be secured; computers and fax machines should be cabled to walls or floors , and record needs to be kept of all model and serial numbers in the event oftheft'. The correct "No Trespassing" signs need to be posted on the exterior of the temporary security fencing (refer to attached Trespass InformationCifli:er) . - The hotel itself should have electronic locks on all guest rooms , and the same locks on the exterior of the building. The only entry available to non-guests or those checking in, should be via the .front door. The adjacent Nendel:'s Hotel has had Burglary and Robbery problems in the past. Recommend that the business use a drop-safe for excess cash. The business owners should also strongly, consider the use of off-duty police or private security to patrol the business durin the hours of darkness. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. (Le Signature of Directo r Aut orized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 a "t ,, fit", k. [°", -,:1°, Renton Police Department r` � � CITIZEN REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME STATISTICS Name: Date of Request: Phone No(s): East Valley Hwy Motel 4-28-98 Address: City State Zip Fax No: 3650 East Valley Rd. Renton WA Location: Incidents in this report took.place between the 3000 —4000 blocks of Grid(s) East Valley Rd. The majority of the incidents occurred between 3600 — 3800 blk. Time Span Reviewed: 4-28-97 through 4-28-98 TYPE OF CRIME TOTAL TALLY/COMMENTS ASSAULT ' 1 AUTO THEFT/RECOVERED 16 Includes vehicles stolen elsewhere,found in Renton. CHILD NEGLECT 1 COMMERCIAL BURGLARY 13 COUNTERFEIT 1 COURT ORDER SERVED 1 D.U.I. 1 FRAUD/FORGERY 4 HIT AND RUN 6 INDECENT EXPOSURE 1 LOST PROPERTY 3 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 6 POSESS STOLEN PROPERTY 1 PARKING VIOLATION 1 SHOPLIFTING 7 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS 2 THEFT MISCELLANEOUS 7 THEFT FROM VEHICLES 17 THREATS 2 VEHICLE ACCIDENTS 11 VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER 1 TOTAL REPORTS: 103 Prepared By: Date: Audrey Moore/Crime Prevention 235-2571 4-28-98 • S ;: o : it out R F N T N :Renton: iTLD o t O Police Department Garr.ry C..Aziderso n,. STACK: Chief Business Watch UN TT.: 235-2571 • March, 1998 Dear South Renton Merchants, — --- I recently completed an analysis of Commercial Burglary in Renton for 1997, and found several interesting patterns to share with you concerning this crime. Last year there were 302 Commercial Burglaries reported in the City limits of Renton. In 70% of these cases,the burglars gained entry to the businesses by using various types of force. The most common ways to break into a building in 1997 were: • Pry a door. • Smash/break a window. • , Climb the fence surrounding a construction site or business. • Cut or pry off locks or padlocks. The 5 most common types of businesses to steal from were: • ' Offices 18%of all burglaries • Retail 15%of all burglaries • Restaurants 10%of all burglaries • Construction sites 9%of all burglaries. The most popular items to steal from a business during a burglary were: • Nothing stolen 31%(possibly because alarms activated) • Cash 21% • , Tools 14% • Computers 11% Businesses in the South Renton Business Watch newsletter group reported the most in- stances of Commercial Burglary, at 37% of all crimes reported. This area's preferred locations to burglarize are: • 2200 -3600 blocks of East Valley Road. 27 burglary reports, 1997. • 800-2700 Lind Ave SW block. 8 burglary reports, 1997. Citizens and Police:Partners for a Safe Community. SOUTH RENTON BUSINESS-RELATED CRIMES RECAP FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1998. CRIME/LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: $LOSS: AUTO THEFT: 100 SW 7th St.block White'98 Toyota 4-Runner stolen. No license plates. $27,000. 100 SW Grady Way block White'97 Suzuki 4-door stolen,license#709 HUZ. $12,800. 200 SW 41st St.block '82 Toyota truck stolen in King County/found in Renton. 600 Naches Ave SW block '91 Honda Civic stolen from Issaquah/found in Renton. 1100 SW 16th St.block '84 Datsun truck stolen/found 3 days later by Federal Way Police. $ 2,500. 1100 SW 16th St.block '81 Toyota Corolla stolen from Kent/found in Renton. 3900 East Valley Rd.block White'94 Chevy Camaro convertible stolen,license#466FFT. $16,000. COMMERCIAL BURGLARY: 300 SW 43rd St.block Door glass smashed/cash stolen from cash register. $340.00 3700 East Valley Rd. block Window pried/headphones stolen. $ 130.00 CRIMINAL TRESPASS: 1000 SW 34th St.block 11 adults arrested for trespassing on business property that was posted with the correct No Trespassing signs. (For sign info,call 425-235-2571). FRAUD: 400 S.43rd St.block Prescription forgery reported. Case under investigation. 4100 Lind Ave SW block 1 adult employee arrested for using a company credit card machine and transferring money into a personal bank account. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: 600 SW 13th St.block Parked vehicle's door and window struck with a pellet gun. $600.00 4200 East Valley Rd. block Window smashed out of a parked vehicle. $ 100.00 THEFTS: 41st SW/Oakesdale Ave SW Car Prowl/window smashed/stereo stolen. $1495.00 300 SW 43rd St.block Cash stolen from unsecured cash drawer in an open business. $ 150.00 600 SW 43rd St.block Car Prowl/window smashed/stereo stolen. $ 100.00 600 SW 43rd St.block Wallet stolen from locker in an unsecured area of a business. $ 55.00 1100 SW 16th St.block Car Prowl/door lock punched/unknown losses. $ 200.00 1100 SW 16th St. block Car Prowl/vinyl top entry/unknown losses. 1100 SW 16th St.block Car Prowl/door lock punched/unknown losses. $ 200.00 1600 Lind Ave SW block Car Prowl/unknown entry/wallet,climbing gear and backpack taken. $1350.00 3700 East Valley Rd.block Shoplift/1 adult arrested/misc.tools stolen. $ 40.00 4200 East Valley Rd.block Car Prowl/window smashed/CD player and CD's stolen. $1665.00 DRUG/ALCOHOL ARRESTS: There was 1 DUI arrest and two drug related arrests in the South Renton area, in February, 1998. • 400 - 600 Monster Rd SW block. 7 burglary reports, 1997. • 500 - 1600 SW 16th St. block.' 7 burglary reports, 1997. • 20 - 1000 SW 7th St. block. 6 burglary reports, 1997. • 800 - 1400 SW Grady Way. 6 burglary reports, 1997. • 900 Powell Ave SW block. 5 burglary reports, 1997. The South Renton Business Watch area also reports the highest number of repeat-victim burglaries. This means that businesses in this part of town report 68% of all the crimes where the same business gets victimized more than once annually. This information is intended to assist you in estimating your risk to be the victim of a Commercial Burglary in Renton. By knowing that burglars primarily use force by prying or breaking a window to gain entry to the business, you know that you need to strengthen the security of all your doors and windows. This analysis also shows that burglars prefer to steal unsecured cash, tools and computers left on the premises. You should consider locking up all cash and tools, and using wire cables to secure your computers to your office areas. You also know now which streets in your area are preferred targets by burglars. If you are located on one of these streets, and your business is an office, retail, restaurant or construction site, you need to take a hard look at the physical security of your business. The Renton Police Department offers free Security Survey's to any business which calls to make the request. A Security Survey is when a member of the Crime Prevention Unit comes out to your business to check your security and offer suggestions on how to strengthen your property to keep the criminals out. If you are interested in this free service, please give me a call. Sincerely, t� wane Business Watch Coordinator Renton Police Department, (425) 235-2571 During the month of January, 1998, 1/3 of all business related crimes reported in the South Renton area, regarded stolen and recovered stolen vehicles. 36% of these Auto Thefts occurred in the 3700 block of East Valley Road. In'addition to the Auto Thefts, there were 7 Car Prowl incidents reported, with the majority also occurring along East Valley Road. Commercial business parking lots are a preferred location for Auto Theft and Car Prowls to occur because of the many vehicles that are left parked there during the course of the day. A thief has the ability to "shop" many of these cars, and choose which one he wants to steal, or steal from. To help prevent Auto Theft and Car Prowl remember to take these easy steps: Lock your car. Keep your windows rolled up and all of your doors locked. If you have a car alarm, use it every time you leave your vehicle. Clean it up. Remove all loose objects from your car such as clothing, purses, wallets, cellular phones and cash. These items only serve to make your vehicle an attractive target for thieves. Park it wisely. When in a business district, try to park as closely to the business as possible, so that you can observe it from the inside of the business. If you're going to be away from your car when it's dark, park it under a light. Employees should try and get into the habit of checking on the parking lot several times a day. Target hardening. A car alarm or other security device, such as The Club, are always recommended. Car thieves and Car Prowlers will choose the easy targets first every time. The point in having a car alarm or theft prevention tool is that it slows down the criminal and makes it more difficult for him to conduct the theft. This increases the chance that he may choose a different target, and also increases his chances of getting caught. Aditeet Name Business Watch Coordinator Renton Police Department, (425) 235-2571 Trespass • _u.:. 4.0xemitEecteltamt4; 1 USINES Enforcement `.:WATCH....; Quite often, business owners and managers are faced with crimes that occur on the property after the businesses are closed and the employees have gone home. Some of the crimes that occur are burglary, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing, drug dealing and robbery in the parking lots. There is a way for police and business owners to discourage these types of crimes from taking place on private property, and that is by enforcing the City of Renton's Municipal Trespass Code 6-18-10. In order for police to be able to make an arrest for Trespass, business owners or managers need to purchase signs and display them in conspicuous areas on the property. These signs need to include the following language: 1. Indicate that the subject property is privately owned and; 2. Uninvited presence on the specified property is not permitted during the hours the business is closed, and; 3. Violators will be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Renton City Code 6-18-10. MOST IMPORTANTLY-THE SIGNS SHOULD BE CONSPICUOUS FROM ALL POSSIBLE POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY,AND ALSO BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS. This way when a suspect is arrested, he/she will not be able to claim as a defense that he/she did not know he or she was trespassing. EXAMPLES FOR TRESPASS SIGNS: NO TRESPASSING NO TRESPASSING This is private property. Persons without specific No Trespassing after business hours business are not authorized to be on the premises between (insert specific times). Anyone on the the hours of(insert the hours your business is closed). premises after business hours is subject to Violators are subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal arrest and/or citation for Criminal Trespass pursuant to Renton City Code#6-18-10.. Trespass and/or impoundment of vehicle. Per Renton City Code#6-18-10. By enforcing the Trespass Ordinance, business owners and police will be sending a message to criminals that they are not allowed to conduct criminal activity on the property. In making arrests for Trespass, police may be preventing the more serious crimes from taking place. o r COURTESY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT �h'i� 235- 2571 City`t..-, en ton Department of Planning/Building/F✓c„rc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: is COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal fora three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing. Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 4,40-6,c,..67-7-wf±:fc2_,Z,---(---01.---)," G :(4;1-.C.-----'c.47.42-R._ '7' 0 zref> `k(/)/64-. /1--&07.2-Lt) Ci. -v? eb-77-2/ &M/r).Z1(7, 2:4)1r no--ecci Pc• -i/A5L- Pict, a-4-A fikt-4--2) ge-e ' a/0--/-40A ae-e k1,0-Yit/r) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal.e4-• 2-4/2X- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 r City_. ..enton Department of Planning/Building/Fw.,,,i Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:GANskmaQVl sexutce4 COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 CV'YOF APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 �..,� FIENT'O N APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen Ariz PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 2 11998 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy ,, SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS -TAG H M o N'TO 6Q I NG / OBI 1 I-1 O v R. rc>iJSTR ux 77O N /vo SP 6ST-I TUTt 0IJ c JE Hau p ag A- / 2 1 RI LCVA-TOt2 1_c3QB1 ES (-I006e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Ae:2„;:c7- /98 Signature of Director or Authorize;Jr epresentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/9V f . - it, FIRE R,RFVF l I E LiEPT City 6rrienton Department of Planning/Building/P,....:Works pp ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REV°llf11 5ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: a Ye Preuewnc�sh COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, a 11 ZI VE APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA.(gross): - SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information . - Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water , Llght/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet I 'Vo / e i- � ,Qt/S B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 44- . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1 .e e �1t:he1 CD44Knevt,,5 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio/-1 information Is Al..ded to properly assess this proposal ri /A;'✓ Si natur= Director or Authorized Re-,�esentative• Date 9 DEVAPP.D! Rev.10/93 • M , (cY Gti 0,� ' + ® + CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: April 22, 1998 TO: Planner /! FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal -4I SUBJECT: East Valley Motel , Best Western- V 50 Easy Valley Hwy. Fire Department Comments: . 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 3500 GPM, which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of the each building. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the fire alarm and sprinkler systems installations. 3. A fire mitigation fee of$24407.24 is required based on $.52 a square foot of the total building square footage. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. )(//: V City ch,-enton Department of Planning/Building/PuYm.Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plash P,0e1/44,,ems- Wq'G V COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 • APPLICANT: 'Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER:. Peter Rosen PPROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 CITY OF '.. ... 9 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy APR 2 1998 SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16; S2.sAQzartd e�tota�J1 g area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary . access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts . Necessary Earth i Housing Air Aesthetics Water t/ Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use • Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • . !�i P�5 c 15 to he 1/Y.7%�r /e ci 'er ehe_,/ revreK) Ca�.� Gz� ' B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Represent ivt a Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.1pi93 East Valley Highway Motel 3650 East Valley Highway .EIS Review April 30, 1998 WATER: 1. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be in a 15-ft. Utility easement. The required fireflow per Fire Prevention is 3500 gpm. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow. Therefore,four(4)fire hydrands will be required. 3. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 4. A 10-inch loop water line is needed to get the fire flow above the required 3500 gpm. A 10- inch loop will provide 4000 gpm of fire flow. 5. There will be a System Development Connection charge is $ 8 5 90, 6. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 7. Vertical profile will be required showing the water system.. 8. A Double Detector Check Valve Assembly for the fire flow to be located at the back of sidewalk in a vault. 98cm077 98CM077W.DOC\ • . PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIE1 98 —0 2..i . . • . IN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 0 'PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP - . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW'SHEET 0 OTHER• , . APPLICANT: fb/1140 Ca Yew . 'RECEIVED FROM e/14 47//2-3 JOB ADDRESS: . 3 45-1:1 egS7 OA.G Ley 1-ANAIA9/ woll . (date) NATURE OF WORK: • Col-Sr 1441-ey h4 es,i 1447/ AyrEL. . GREEN# ge SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 VICINITY MAP 0 NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES 0 FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHER 0 VESTED 0 NOT VESTED 0 This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review II dated S 0 PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# 3o is or--Ill 5 • 0 King Co.Tax Acct#(new) ... , .. . . It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. MI quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering,mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances ' and determined by the applicable Utility Section. . Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,i/w permit fees ix the cost of water meters. • ' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL •METHOD OF ' ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT S DISTRICTS _ NO. ' NO. • ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE 'Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER . 1, . , Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER . Latecomer Agreement(pvt IL)THER. , •. ' , . . , • _ . —'0 •I Special Assessment District/WATER . . Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER 7001 ' ' Ott rr '/O &ads 78 ge 7a--7P7_,•11A14 Joint'Use Agreement(METRO) - ' , Local Improvement District . , - . * - Traffic Benefit Zones • ' . $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS ., • - 1 I SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-.WATER - ' #OF UNITS/ - SDC FEE 0 Pd Prey. ' 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) Hi Never Pd . SQ.'FIG. - Single family residential$850/unit x .-- . . i Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park . . . Apartment, Condo$510/unit not in CD,or COR zones x • . - . , ' Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq. ft. of property (not less thin$8.50.00)x 749 02:2- : f 8:5-9(7. 'I ' • ' Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,80 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER ' .. ' • • . . . 0 Pd Prey. 0 'Partially PdlLtd Exemption) IS Never Pd - . .. , Single family residential dwelling.imit$585/unit x • . Mobile home dwelling,unit$468/unit x . . • . . . . . . Apartment, Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x: , - . Commercial/Industrial, $0.078/sq..ft. of.prOperty'(notiesi than$585.00)x "n02-2- - . .1 5-7-2.9,71 - " ' REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: (New-Old Flow)/New Flaw X Above Fees . - ' -• SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SURFACEWATER ,, ' , , • . . 0 Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption)' lik Never Pd,.. - • . ' ' . - •.-- . ' Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x ..‘ . All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area of property x ' . .. . (not less than$385.00)' . . . ... . . - ' • - . 4/4/1.6,/ '. . . . . PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ 2-0 27,V <144- . 5 . :' ' ' • 1//C k . . ,, Signature of Revie rPrir Authority DATE' *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility'to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. a I4 **The square footage figures used are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only. g — c:/template/feesthp/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16,1995/Ord. Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526' Z. .. . 4 , - , City ,,-enton Department of Planning/Building/P am„ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:i vet COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen Crr Qf 1 � N PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 _ .. LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy API? 2 1 199D SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f.. I BUILDING AREA(gross): Cittja, � SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story,,88 unit motel with.a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building V area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts . Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants s Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities ! Animals Transportation . <� Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet S a. c. f 6, Y rev'eofi B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representaf e Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 East Valley Highway Motel 3650 East Valley Highway .EIS Review April 30, 1998 TRANSPORTATION: 1. The traffic mitigation charge is $75 per trip end. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is the document used for estimating the number of trips. The total charge is$-45,936.00. 2. A brief traffic distribution report to be provided. 3. Provide recorded copy of joint access agreement between the two motel properties. 98cm077T 98CM077T.DOC\ >I. , .. -31c( • . . 1 G� O� n rssrr £ Eo«;�y�r..�.wa!!et;7!Kl�i^.yN.at:LL` .7»y► ..%cSv'`... �. ^';:cb�..s:�".»+N.•.,�;,.vM+.y� • M'.^rs''.'...' .•�:x a �; ::t,;:: ... ..e'�.oa 'liY.. : .r.:<t.»►aro»w,r.,r;Awwuer.;ww.n.wax..rawi)tis,. c .»s».!ueEw«. � <,x„�y„O<. o ;<V..+�+43 Project Name Gas? llaltel Hutt/ Hofe 1 ( 13e>7 U)es7evii ) Project Address 3650 Ee sl llc,(Icy Ku Contact Person Arf,ke Co/ie vi 1 MC Cods tvuct,oi1 Address 21/.12 AbevLia-afj Kra IvE , &IWLU/1U Q8506 Phone Number 3 6 0 - 4 5 6- 650 7 . • Permit Number L UA - g i - 0 6 Z Project Description 3 sly/ ' $$ L/4IZ wad ; ,,it° b/dt, -(ooi,ynJ of /4 6?2-71 locip cC.4 $2 pu✓k►1 5/a-e.4 eqv-sift 4 8 0i ecittxP,0 Ptavee/. . Land Use Type: Method o Calculation: 1-bte I (3io) ❑ Residential QITE Trip Generation Manual i'le 519 0/Retail 0 Traffic Study Da,1 y Lry rate fei a Non-retail 0 Other Occ.0 pled £oo+M 1.70 elQ,1y /off Calculation: 15$a wt e g o% vc c utG h c y Ito to Io�al Deoii Tvies : ( SS)( <3 .76) Co,vo) = 6/2 . 4,3 deoIii -titles At 4-75 1) • - (L12 . 49)( $75 ) _ # 45, g36. oo Transportation Mitigation Fee: i 4 5) R 36 0° Calculated by: • At6c/1 u a Date: /2Z/r? 8 Account Number: 105. 5 QR. 3180, 7 0. 00. Date of Payment . City it itenton Department of Planning/Building/FiJun Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: SWt -acel Lei KtptAraOMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter lPeter iniSiariDr RENTON PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 _—,wrn LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy APR 2 1998 SITE AREA 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(grossttoD—bsigv� VISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a UAW building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the. south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a.man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histortc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /9/ lv� 'I��/�/ �J'� �" a %clfe�� Y�j� � ��27D/7�L� '�� C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representati Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 East Valley Highway Motel 3650 East Valley Highway .EIS Review April 30, 1998 SEWER(Waste Water): 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is $ 5 ¢z ? ° 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease, then an appropriate removal system will be required. 3. A vertical profiles of the sewer system will be required. Sewer line to have a 2% slope to property line. 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout every 100-feet. 5. A sewer backflow prevention device is required for the sewer line when the floor elevation is below 25-ft. Proposed floor elevation as shown is 21.4-feet. 6. Vertical profile to be shown on construction plans. 7. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards. 98cmO77s 98CM077S.DOC\ East Valley Highway Motel 3650 East Valley Highway EIS Review April 30, 1998 STORM(Surface Water) 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is $ 72 7,,, 2. The Storm Detention /Treatment Vault plan must to be submitted for structural and access approval. Access opening to be 36-inches. 3. Provide vertical profile. 4. Core requirements and Special requirements are to be addressed as listed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. City of Renton Drafting Standards to be followed. 6. Panther Creek is a stream that the Corps has commented is within their jurisdiction and any work impacting the stream would require a Section 404 permit. 7. The City's ordinance requires a minimum 25-foot no impact buffer along the stream. 98cm077D 98CM077D.DOC\ • PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEI 98 —o Z/ ■ DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 0 PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 0 OTHER A APPLICANT: A9u1 r �a >U RECEIVED FROM Cit4 4/z3 JOB ADDRESS: 3 Vi4t, y M GI/cal/ WO# - (date) NATURE OF WORK: COST a4ci..ey 124hww,,,. /44rTEL GREEN# • SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: ❑ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES 0 FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHER ❑ VESTED 0 NOT VESTED ❑ This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review# dated 0 PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# 30 23 01---7i16 0 King Co.Tax Acct#(new) It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer • :reement 'vt)WATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER � I Special Assessment District/WATER S i: ial Assessment District/WASTEWATER 7401 012 1=F p e,,,uds -re Joint Use Agreement(METRO) Local Improvement District Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION { FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-.WATER #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE 0 Pd Prev. 0 Partially Pd.(Ltd Exemption) IN Never Pd SQ.FIG. Single family,residential$850/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment, Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq. ft. of property (not less than$850.00)x . 76,02-Z SS9t7, yg Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,soo GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. ❑ Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) IIR Never Pd Single family residential dwellin g unit$585/unit x Mobile home dwelli : unit$468/unit x A. . rnt •t ' Ise I/ t't . t •i 1 t it is :, Commercial/Industrial, $0.078/sq. ft. of property (not less than$585.00)x 'nozZ. . S91.9,2 1 REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: ew-Old Flow)/New,Flow X Above Fees SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-.SURFACEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) a Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit'x All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area.of property x (not less than$385.00) 'I4'Leo/ 3727,. n I PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ 2O, Z5/7, 1 5 s/ Signature of Revie ng Authority DATE o0 *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. **The square'footage figures used are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only. r' .r c:/temptate/fccapp/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord. Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526' S. l9 _ i .. Clty,,, enton Department of Planning/Building/Fiiunc Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: letWf?art COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT:, Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy SITE AREA 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. ' I A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor - Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals • Transportation Environmental Health N o 1 S e Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resoumes Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet The attached diagram shows that the proposed site is located slightly west of the airport's, extended centerline. The hospital/Victoria Hills area is subjected to aircraft noise from Boeing Field/King Cty Int' l Airport and the hospital is used as a visua3 checkpoint for aircraft arriving Renton Airport. This area is also overflown by aircraft departing Renton , airport directly south. The environmental impact elements do not address noise impacts. The impact of aircraft operations is considered minor, however, the aircraft operations should be acknowledged by the project applicants. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS None C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additio - formation IV eded to properly assess this proposal. !,, `I ® / ekto. 23 l $ Signature of Djj;tor or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 gI/ c. _ .4.7--.tfuzi,) . 14. -: " \-:•_:.:..: 1 Ajk,' Aq./ .-.7:774.30.-"-'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-H-Hr.... .....iij ZEL'Eff:3-...::_::::::::;E::::::::::_aL::: - air•.%. I, 1 1 lt. 1 : 6 6 ;::f:_*:::::::::::::::::-:-:::-:-:-::::::----____:_::::::_:_ __:_:_:...:..:_:_:_:..:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_::::_:::4. . Istkair = ._,,,_,__dINA i „ --::::::-:::::::::::-:-:-:-H-HEf::::::---::::::::::::"FHE-HZ-:-H-H-:-.}:-:-H-H-E-E-:-.::::::::-:-:::-..vs.35rINI . "...111 , ' . --(' ... - "kVE::_::::_f_i:E.--53:_f::::::E_EE.,:•:-..:::-::::::::_:::::_*1_:::-:-__-:;2?-;-..K:Ef_cE::::::::":Er.:•_::::::":71.2:E:E:E:E:E:EtEEEEEEEEE_:_•::-.I11:::::::::::__ nil .... , 'l�} li 1‘, 1.,... ..„„ .: .a _ rilit ' R�47 B. `� - --- --- --- ----- --_---- -- . I F jilt ill`. 1\ \I.. ��, I rgil IFE ._. 6 Lk WO 7474, " 151,70AfIrrIA.1 D -3.-i Pd,‘" I(' -''''...--r" "1--"..":"--7---=X--. ----.."-.---r-.1 7 Fic 1 Ell ral. ...ID it 1 r :\\\-I 4/1,1\,, c-\\ ,.'''.. .:::::E:Sit.:-_--:::E=E:Eag.::::_ag::33-_-_f_'::::::::::::::§A:: _ ...I .it 1 I 1. . i ilii . 402-4 ..Ntyrit.igiF )/715/ ire. J ,qo ots li ==- ____--_- - on; 1flov t\ipl lihr 1 EIEL.,„l_l 1 .-•\ �I 13 ��: \'•fir, , w. a f a is t! _I'' l Ce; u tc gi •s %EMIRIEPP.AL:la 9 iiCt liiimul IA .-• a ; :i.:d:i:fi �l\ 0I Its,_11M. ..n, J " '�,1�((j)\ 'S,t1.Agt 41 P. 14:i.;Il1_i1r te°1 3''01::-1'1:41 I1..i'ed e ■-■ al Aa 3;, tl : 11 °-4 -- Iligu3t3mFlI m,P ' �®©�_/• RI . .D • ___k._„12 . ISZta .41 II i KY /4:" I: ..1111 It 1;4/ �t'itI RIIl'1Is.t .I11 v te wwo .-,o ... 1,,,, e 1 ft ' _ (°ice r�. �. ® m�iit (4 ' � n tip.... ..idolop 4'0,r � ®�©® - we ,-1 .4sub!",:ir s- Rigoiligmf 1 - -- Ike 8.1fer, o _ _ r n n. �1,..11 ws c ' 0 'i ' ♦ . .o C ii.11 .J . . .. i AI. / � � "a. V � Y . ' 0 ),tniEN'_CIIII---L_ •4#0,„„:. 6 � :� ;� ..,,, . Ail co cowpoo,.. ksivip rt.mi 1901 n.• I ! _. a ♦-. lir 111114 co ill pa a .1 ,.. Itz, ,,,,,_ c_ ,,,, ,_ ♦ .12 u. i'= ce inc*w.� /q, ----Altremm•-• V eill :_i_, ,,-,, di . .,I 1111 111 A a �� [I .■ ��. .. g . , 1 — 4 . . ..1 IOW il �4444...: ., r 11111 1‘ Itli , _LJ aril- 1 lI ELiu 1 sr ill___"ill I NA a Ur ' &hI M Pa,PIT.)� /J rrl a-,o E T., t 1:'..l j :i ' I: I:::! I C5Ac. r1a 1_. I:: 1: <@ , rcFadde • :1. V. Farrell i.::l ,i .L .•I l:::I s ,7— "9G 1:•I John V Farrell a„=-•-___---- '0 I' I j.,:/ 6.14 Ac. Nakarishi I15 c" ;.:: I:::I R 3�J: �, 1y .i , :� s c5 7OAc. I .::: i. 5 • 1 ;I•':l _ Sa. 0l 10r \ 165 W IA.°5.C4 Oto eiR I ,. �'::f 3.91 Ac 2 `� y 'P�04 ��Q5CAc a6 Opd co 3a12I I•.�:;Q :••.1 ��p \ ``S a<.� 2c Emilio Pierotti ':::, ;: (...---,-;\) Q `4e, c f.3: sisj� �S r erg r ��r G i:`:i1�1••1. /�j° : - " ., :'I j v. 9 0 LeI1a.n 54 J ::: a !'''' I..; ` 6 Ac - . I y I•:• Il2 lam'i'• f•G s "> .2. a 167 LtV ct E o - -GA — '' i (9'.94) � , 177 — �9<sh. • �J' as a23A c. I 'I'. /:•;; '•:•I, CZ) � 4A S. 36 THT:: `S Q c -�31s { �sj :...! ::..1 t l 6?! .:'. CO 111.1111114.11 S.P. 014-81 ,y1, lll� s' , `a J • D.28 7 0..5! iAe. �;•• Howard W „c0 1 I 1 . A CA• pi 44 I l :IHavlkins r m o I6 II7,. Elll:: I...1, 1.::1 R_8 20 (2) m I:•' '':/ 225 I.•.1 .,•. too I::.+h .:, A (I) 33°.Z9 CA 1:::1 /1/i cm— t 4 6542 1 ,60.2: miss g g (I) ti : L.' to 7I.T1O 55831 160 I../ /::a 7.64 Ac. r (3) CA 1::I ;i O S.P. 113-77 ' 1 30:.39 1 I.':; 92.0 •••••... 105 , 2:782 20319 400 Sam Younker rr 1. P �44 o I.61 Ac. '••••2401:::: I 1� �sa.z . , ..7......1j 1:�: VAL L E Y ' M E D I C SA L „a °� CA r:1':.IjJ• 01 C E f� T E R - SP213-7e g .•. �415.L I 1 $ 150.53 Jf 1 NORTH CAMPUS 4N84NDINGG SITE PLAN c54I . a 003E LEGEND BUILDING APPROX STORIES 1----1 HOUSE NUMBER LOB n un phis.comnor,lrum�at ea rnn PM corporat�imitta.Addr-ming en wail..rocia d atruc to RAILROADTT'T eta:a,ad lea,frequently.1 Am r eo.e:opyrigfloan at in I:o-n loa at•a cOnlen7 r / In..hobo ,•1n pal.or into aloft n-n■I•o .:a pro•,inaaa by law.MAIN THOROUGHFARE 4— -revu-rev I rt tuoro /.;;\ -ttnyng t 1937.i o I Map I;nrwpery.Inc.-Seattle Weenm;tnr•• Al.,nn.3 City i:,.-eienton Department of Planning/Building/Puwnc;Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:ttolAcinn iL (e(flOABCC.!- COMMENTS DUE: MAY 5, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 21, 1998 APPLICANT: Mike Cohen/MC Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: East Valley Hwy Motel WORK ORDER NO: 78375 LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy SITE AREA: 76,022 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for a three story, 88 unit motel with a building footprint of 16,082 s.f. and a total building area of 46,937 s.f. The proposal includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to the drive on adjacent property to the south: Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property in a man-made channel. The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment . Minor Major• Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 6,e1(111_14,--etevic / P B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with p rticu ar attention to those areas in whic we-hav expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info atio nor pro aaSeaS, is ro /72.-^ ,2 --f cf.-- Signature of Director or Authorize epresentative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 - v iii !:?:i:1O 1 r:} i::::i::::::::::::iiii:jy:n::::}n:::::::i:::i::ii:i:::j:'i�2'•:::!}^t:::i::is:::'r::{:i�'r::i:::::i:l:::{�:'r::<::::::::::::i:::::? '.ii:i.:i::.:':•:.::.:::.::.::.:':':.:::.�:•H.2.ii:iiiii,r}}i}:.:'.:':'ii:'i:'ii:�:i::{•;•i:iniii:i.::'{;.i}i.4}:�:::::.:�:..:::..:::::..:':.�::•.:.: .ENT. . ::iii:i::iiR:i::::iiis:iii:i;>:::::i!;icii:b::i::iiR:�::;':::::::�::ci::i::ii:::::i#.:ii::^;::;ii::::i::i::i::::i::i:i;;:. hiiii`iiii%i:':iii:i;iiii:::•:<:::ii;(:L%i;i:;::(:iiiiiii$:iv iiii}iiiiiiii:::i::iii::iii::iii::ii::ii:�:::iii:<:>i>i:;C�I>::::iY.'..... . i> ::�:>::::>:<' <::>:::i::: i::i::i::i::iii:::::;:::>::i::::i:::;:i:i:; :; ::<::i:>;:<:>i>::»::i:<::<:i:i:«:<:«::::<::::i:;::i::i::«:>::>:: :.:.;:.;:.:>:;.:.::.;>::.>r:::::�:::::�::iiiiiii::;:i::;:::<::�:<:i:>:>:;::::::::::iii:i::I�. ... �.QPMI«N.T..S�..... . E. ... . ................................................................. : ::i::i:::i::ii::::::i::i::::i:::.::.::::.::.::::::::i:::::ii:i: ::::ii::i:::iiiii::;:::i::iiiii:i: :feet>bf t ..s h ::.::::.:: :.::.::.:.::.:.:�:.::::.:::i::i:::::i:::i:i::iiiii::i::i:::i::::::::::i:::.::::i:::iii::i::i::i::::::::i:::.;:.; ::«:wlthln 300. . PROJECT NAME: EAST VALLEY lit RWAY morEL . APPLICATION NO: WPC 963•062, S A - k ,E The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 60,LINGION No1;T4ER.N1 RiTUbap 3501 E.VALLEY p.m, g'En1TGOv iitoc5 1Z5360 OQZO OS. , ER5r6R'TE THEATRE,INC. sTTE: 3751 E. VALI-Ey c.o. .E.NToN `7$OSS man.: 919 SW TAYLoR sr #900 PQIZTLAND,az 4720S (Z536b 6030 03 I i C PTEC. NET LEA5E RERL:Ty/TNT 3750 E. VALLEY RD 1LEncTON 9 ft0S5 3023b5 90$Z n'i gc PRoPF2'ry HoLDZNGS,liu . 3boo E. VALLEY RD .iREnrToN gSosS 30230S 9I04 OS . CITY.OF r,FE E I C);J - , - APR 1•-•'T)` `If 6,B • RECEIVED • -r . (Attach additional sheets, if:.riecessary) . . ' - . „.,• • (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • • • • • Applicant Certification I, ,SrEuF SfER. , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records D'Title Company Records • 0 King County Assessors Records Signed is .I YIT , Date W/9J45? ,..l (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED .=.Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, - 'rae4idi ai` ' �,.' fetrr/ 5i- iV(/tl on the Ili day of e r-il , 19f8 Sig'red �. ? ,e:, .c�'i'• i.r�` ,g �y�:'•,, (Nota y P 1(c) .. 0::::{::!;:}}:isii::j?i::ti$jy{Lj:(:i:::;:jS;:jjjj::iiiijv':::::Y,.j+j:<t::::::i::jj;:ii}}!.:......: .'�.�'. ........................................ .. t .of:::Renton:::Use>:.;:.;::;::>:.>:::<::«:::::»::::::::;�::>;::;:<:::>::>:: »:<::<:::>::»»::::::>:,:.;::.::.:::::::.:::.:::::::::::. v FI:: .»: :.;:. �; . ;;::.;.; :: : ;: ;.;;:.; >:.>:. :.::.::. .:<.; ::E RT C. . ION.OF...MAILIN ; ' ► hereb certifythat notices of the.proposed:applicaton were''mailed to .:.:,::::::: 5....)gp.ed.. ►11 , ,.. . + *.. :::...... ::::: :.:::::::::::::::.:::.:.:.::..:::Date...:::.::.' ':.::: :!:.:: .. :.::.;;:.:..::;.:::.::<.::.:;.::.;:.;;:.:.;:.;:.::.;::.;:;::::.::.:;:.;;;:.::.: : ::: ::.::.::;.:.:;;.: • ATTEST.g:::Subscribed..a.nd sworn b for me N. a ....Public:::in ::::.::::..� :.�:.. :..::. .......................:..:..:.:::::.: :::::.:e.::.:::c.::.�:::...::�......ot ... .................:....::arrd.for.:the:::State<;o.fWashln n:::::>::><:><::: . .��. .. ? 1'�' • on the,..:;:�c�.��: 0411o.c.if.>. ' ,lislprop.doc , REV07/95 MARILYN KAMCHEFF 2 COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 . • (04 Y p rN'S�� NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: April 21,1998 • • A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application end the necessary Public Approvals. FpS VAIleyNWy.mat-ei ' PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-062,SA-A,ECF DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a three story,88 unit motel with a building footprint of 18,082 s.f. end a total building area of 46,937 s.f.The proposal Includes 82 parking spaces on-site and 8 additional spaces on an adjacent property. Primary access Is via a driveway off East Valley Highway,with an emergency access connecting to .the drive on adjacent property to the south.Panther Creek runs along the south boundary of the property Ina man-made channel.The proposed building maintains the required 25'setback from the creek. GENERAL LOCATION: 3650 East Valley Hwy , STUDIES REQUIRED/OR - AVAILABLE: Drainage Report Geolechnical Report Stream Buffer Revegetation Plan . ' PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Administrative Site Plan Approval Building Permit i Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,.Project Manager,Development Services DlvLsion,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on June 8,1998. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Peter Rosen at(425)235.2710 Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any declsion on this project - I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION , DATE OF APPLICATION: • AprI117,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 21,1998 • DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: April 21,1998 •Iss•VatLar INS d 1 ill •° '. I ::a_x,5,'lo- il ,,- v' — .. ' '�xk F ...R._ 7 _ xx E.'''," . . . 1 S"-att. S\1ft U fl L I N O T O N _!O Imo© .. , IS, s N U E R N L.N T,_ Nam,. (• .� ; Mr 1 , ( P..' L .. . JVA 'xri. • `�OENMALOT.000 CERTIFICATION . I, cSiLr.al j WI i innc+ ,hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 4- i ,2a- .l0V9' . Signed: S�� wt� Af\ ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public,in and or the State of Washington residing id'114, ,,,,, , on the a 3,,.,C day of Q ",,:t /y t . MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 • CIT" OF RENTON •al ' :,• Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 21, 1998 Mike Cohen MC Construction 2142 Abernathy Road NE Olympia, WA 98506 SUBJECT: East Valley Highway Motel LUA98-062,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Cohen: The Development Planning Section,of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is 'accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for,.consideration'by the Environmental Review Committee on May 19, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if..any additional information is required to continue`processing your application: Please contact me, at 235-2719, if you have any questions. Sincerely, • Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Bill and Soo An/Property Owners ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South- Renton,Washington 98055 :.. This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer c ✓T1e'sS > > €> € iggi>;>'» <»?:iiiiin >>>!# >[[<I>' >z >';>` <':i«<usitI::>; <?;:>�:::>>::::E<::: .......... umumonoweimensommimmigamomme .. ....._.......... ...:.:::::::.:�:...........................................................................:CII'.....�.F.:RENT'Q............................................. ..................................::: ::::::. :::::::::::: .::::::....... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::.;:.;::..................::::::::. ::::::::::. .:. E.T:SE.1/fC S..1 1. .1SiQ 1................................................................... .,...... :;<:::>:<:>:: ::>::>::»:::»::>::>::»;::;;>::>:: . ... Note= :If there`:is more>than;one:;legal;owner;;pl ease:attach:an addit onal iytar nizecf:Master Appl,catwn a each:Rwner mi PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: EAST VALLEY FR NAME: A LL AND 50o A W L('N iAY Kc7TEL PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: •312Z LEEt,kJAVD cr 10141 3,SO EAST VALLEY HI6 iL WY . REIVTON, i,)A q$O56-- CITY: . . Zlp; KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): OI.1fm1Ptc `)8502 30Z3059II154:3Z DEVELOPMENT PINN, : . ClTI'.OF•RENTON ING 1360)y56-6'307 utrirvlP(zoVE0 LAND 'APR- 1 '7I 1998 RECE •'10 ED NAME: N''1(1. 0011 e4 + Or tGVei yf 'ti('" PROPOSED LAND USES: . MOTEL COMPANY(if applicable): Me Gns( ' h 611 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: yy. _ErnPLoymE.n)T AREA-VALLEY (EAv) ADDRESS: 2i4-'2- At eA v1Jtk9 / 'NIL" PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CITY: ,t� • t( VVI Pia ZIP: 9S '3O(Q EXISTING ZONING: • V vJ ARTERIAL Cotv1(v►ERCSAL TELEPHONE NUMBER: (366) q(0_ 63-:5V J- ��"" PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): ::::;:<:>::::<:::>::>::>::>:::>:::»>::: ::<::<:>:::>::» !>'<:::: :<> >€>: < + ti..TAIT..PERSON....................................:..::. - • -• SITE AREA(SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: (Y1•XIKE C)HE1v'O14.- SCEVE YESTER ; . 76,OZ2 . COMPANY(if.:apglicable): - . PROJECT VALUE: /SIC..L6iiUj �RUC-CiCIN t'Z.—3 (Y1S L LICJo ADDRESS: 2.11-12. FieER RII•1Y RO NE IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? CITY: 01.YIf►'1PSA ZIP: d4g5(56 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? ' TELEPHONE NUMBER: CL1$5 3 WETLAND (PROTAER CREEK) 1 (3b0) 4S6-b307 . -, ,.. -----h :::: ::i:; : :;; : ::::'...: ..: ::>:.:: �: .: . ::.., ,:: .. :. .:.::: .;.;::.::..::..::.>.;:.:::. :. a : : •;. . ;: ; ,:..,y...::.::.. .>.: ..:c.:::.; :;.>:.;:.:'.>:.:...:.:.:: 'r: :::::i:i n::::i:::::i::iii: i'::i'r':i:»::i::>:::::i::>::::>:<:::<:>::<::::>>::»::<: : >;<: < . . b � <:: ' ::>:: :> <: .: ; :; ; : .., :: . heat:>i�>::�tec�s s.... ............................... ::::::: :::::::: .C�t:G�►L:.> ES.Ct�1P'1.�,.: 1�.(�FP.C�E3PERTY::.tAtt�ch.:ae .aka� _ .:....:......:....:.......................... .)...............................::.: • • • > 1E.. .Aft ..LC A <'& FEE`;:.:,<<` ''`> > im<` >mi:: >> >> >> >� ' '': ` : :::::>::> :::>::::»::><:::>>::> :: :::>» h k::alC:>: lr a ( :n : es a apply--City>:staff.....v.....all...dexQr...m.....in...wf... e ....>....>.........»>...i...><......<.....>....>:.. • - _ANNEXATION • $ SUBDIVISION:• . _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ . — REZONE $ — LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ TEMPORARY PERMIT $ —TENTATIVE PLAT $ • JONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ — PRELIMINARY PLAT • $ o'SITE PLAN APPROVAL $/POO,- _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $_ (FROM SECTION: ) — PRELIMINARY . - WAIVER $ _ • FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION — MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ — CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ — EXEMPTION $No Charne 'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ , REVISION $ • < : >: > > : i : . ::i;::i::;>..::>::>:::»::>':>::»':>::::»::>: :>:,•W. ERStlipi>:::>::::::<::>:::::<: <>:::::<::<::::>:::::ii:::::§::i::::iiii:i:i::::::i::::::::::::»:::::iii:::::::<>:::: :ii I, (Print Name) STEVE Y STE(2. ,declare that I am(please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,,the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before,me a Notary Public, in and STEVF )/li_STEQ for the State of Vkfeee,hine.14- ,Vesidirig•at;'7 p,.,, r .;t_- + N.3L (Name iif Owner/Representative) r`t 19�� ,1 , on thecU1/\ dayof° n',a > (Signs of ,e, er/Representative) , _ 119 f/6 ;12; j :,-q:, t Signature of Notary ublic) - " :.;:.;;;g:;;:;:..:.;:.;:.;;;:;.:;::::.;:::.;:.;;:.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.>:.;;;:.;';;:.:;;'::. (Thls'si*ctiag'to`iit'c0:#a::.l.�tOAfiI::C' ..Staff)...............:.......:.......... ...........c . ...::"""•.... . . AI�::.�:. :i'siiiCAP.:i.:::i.:CAP.U•:Mi CPA;:.;:.C.13 A:.;:•:;:C. .::::i4ii »ALA::>:«iii::]: :::: >:::»:.;:.;:.;; .>.'It.::.:(=i)�:.:Ntlrnher.:.:.:;:.: ::..::.: ;.��r�...:.. :. � . . .:. ::A:...::.:�:B.S:�:.: .......:..................................................................�1......... ...................,.....:. ......R:ii•..::C . . .. ..... . ... rtlI.... .. P..... .A..A ..SA.H.....SH:14•L A.....SH.P.I...N.....5.........SI1 .....SNC)w.........i'..........} .. ....N:.H.... ::>:>::>:<:»::>::>:.>;:.>;;:.;;:.;;;;:.;:.::.;:.;:.:.:OTAL.PE6S, 5::. : . ............................ .. .....TOTAL..)!?.OSTAOE..PROVib�D.....5....1..�r ...............................................: ...... .............................. ..::+:..:.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: ::4....:.... . .. .. •i::L;•isv:vi:L;•ii:vi:LL4iiiiiii:vji:^:•ii:�iiii:4i:::. .............................................................................................. MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 ./fk `• x• i . sa== m M :OSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE 1 KING COUNTY EXPANDED LEGAL DESCRIPTION _ _ ..=========s=mass=:'======.ama===== ====a=am_===sob= s==a TS ".l Qom.=�=sm=C- Site Addre8s23650 E Valley Rd Renton 98055 parcel==mez= 05 9118 ====gams====a= sagassaga===aa'a.csov =9ffimsa=vase=acaacvca-==aaseaama==m7�xxxx=-raa+sa==-- • STR 302305 TAXLOT 118 LOT 3 CITY OF RENTON- TO SSHORTW 1/4 PLATF NO/0014-881- BAAPON RECORDING NO 8105209001 SD PLAT DAF -03 E N/S C/L SD SURD WCH RYSSTS0 HWYTNO SFTB NLY ALG SD WLY N LN SDF$W - M/L TO WLY LN PRIMAIMP► O 1/4 OP SE 1/4 TFi WLY VALLEY RDSD N LN TO SD LESS N/446H71LFxTASpMEASEALGPWRLN WITHIN 92ND AVE 5 THE S LN IS PLW N LN i • �aa=�a- 5?O-'Q==Sfl t� ---- Th e Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. r . MC Construction Consultants 2142 Abernathy Rd. NE Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 456-6307 Fax 923-9763 April 1, 1998 To: The City of Renton RE: East Valley Highway Motel , _ 3650 East Valley Highway Renton,WA 98055 We,Bill An and Soo An,hereby attest that we are the owners of the property for this property and authorize Mike Cohen and/or Steve Yester of MC Construction to act in all respects as our appointed representatives with regards to the permitting process for the proposed project. Sign ?„....._ ,,-- , Bill An Soo At {�. A'kj q tio3/46,, �; • ATTEST: Subscribed and signed before me,a 4,�_`` ,,k'Y" > t j • Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Olympia,on the lst day of April, 1998. '-.' i1.3 ri Ya , //JJj ./ .';.ter ;- l��l�'��i1�tt ( .) {}i 4:g r4 ,,,, , ., ry V,1 r{`•l-•9, ;)I i. \,q Ci' �r l;,Ah* MC Construction Consultants 2142 Abernathy Rd. NE Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 456-6307 Fax 923-9763 March 26, 1998 City of Renton • Current Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 REGARDING: Proposed East Valley Highway Motel, Site Plan Submittal PROJECT NARRATIVE Please find herewith our submittal for Site Plan Approval of our proposed East Valley Highway Motel at 3650 East Valley Highway,King County Assessor's Account Number 302305911802. r The parcel has a site area of 76,022 square feet and is currently unimproved land with no indication of any previous use. The parcel is generally flat. Panther Creek was relocated onto this property and runs along the Southern property boundary in a man-made channel. The required 25 foot setback from the creek will be maintained in locating the building. We are proposing the construction of a 46,937 square foot motel on this site. The footprint of this three-story building would occupy 16,082 square feet with another 28,319 square feet of impervious surface containing driveways,parking and walkways. The remaining 31,621 square feet(42%)would be landscaped per a plan 1 designating areas of planting,undisturbed natural vegetation and enhanced natural vegetation. The motel would contain a total of 88 guest units along with office facilities,an indoor pool and recreation area,and conference room. Our plan provides for a total of 82 parking spaces which include 4 handicap,27 compact,and 51 standard size spaces. An additional 8 spaces are available at the adjoining and connected Nendel's parking lot(these spaces are in excess of Nendel's required available parking spaces)per a cross parking agreement,copies of which are included with this submittal. This connecting driveway will also serve as the emergency vehicle turnaround. The primary access for our project will be a 20-foot driveway to the East Valley Highway at the Northwestern corner of the property. , Si erely, St a !ter MC Construction 0,`,43 (360)456-6307 '�O�`,i`�e��C,� OS\I RQR 1 MC Construction Consultants 2142 Abernathy Rd. NE Olympia, WA 98516 (360) 456-6307 Fax 923-9763 March 26, 1998 City of Renton Current Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 REGARDING: Proposed East Valley Highway Motel—Construction Mitigation Description We propose to complete this project within approximately 7 months of receiving a building permit from the City of Renton. Construction will be limited to hours of daylight. It is anticipated that the majority of construction vehicles and hauling will follow State Route 167 and East Valley Highway to the site. All efforts to minimize the impact of this construction on surrounding properties and vehicular travel in the vicinity will be taken. No significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Sincerely, Steve Yester MC Construction P�C\i?1`1111C' �� k' Rom+� C�T civ APR 1 A * • U d--1611�/-�L, • NaMOMENOMMigiNIMENNaNigg ::......:..::........................:..::.:::::::.::.::::::::::.:...........DEVELOP:M E NT.5 ERV....-. .....:.::::.::::.:.:.:::..:::::............::.;:::;:.;:.;;;;:;<.;:::.:::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::. . •. :: ... :. ENTAL CHECK.:: .::: : .::::::::::::::::.:::.:.:::.::. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act.(SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts'of a proposal before making decisions: Ah Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this.checklist is to provide Information to help you and the 'agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or.avoid impact§from the proposal, if it can " -be done) and to help the agency decide.whether an EIS is required: ; • : d 'FF INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist.,toy deterrnine whether.the environ fnental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepa'ratiort of an EIS. ' Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. • You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations.or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not know"or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. • Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zon ;ing `shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to.do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land: Attach iriy.'additionai informatidnf that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may'ask you to • explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. • • USE-OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: • Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not .,apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read ads, "proposal," ."proposer," and "affected geographic area;" respectively..•; : p��p.1,r`1\N tot�11F R • Environmental Checklist • A. • BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: • EAST VALLEY NwHwNY Mora. 2. Name of applicant: EMU. RNO Soo AN GIo nu. GONSTRue-T .co - M=KE C0H£N OR. weJE YEs1€ a. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: t14Z ABERNArTHY ;R0 NE 01...YMPT.A WA 10506 C360)456-6307 4. Date checklist prepared: ileac 8, 1 18 5. Agency requesting checklist: FfjSSoCXATEO WITS LTE PLAN APPRIDUAL, 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): ComPLETxoN TN SPR'INb oF iggy 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. • NO PLANS AT TNYS TSME 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. GROTECKNwML REPORT SuSmtTTEP NEREwZTH 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N0, WE DO NCST 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. aon1E Knlow+v • 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. CONSTRUCTION OP R TMRE6-STORY , In? UNIT 1'1DTEL oF 4E037 S©. FT. co THIS 77,415 SQ. T. Lor n ! 2 • S S' Environmental Checklist • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if • reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 365o EAST VALLE( biL6 wAV .RENToN,WA q QSS . . . PARLE.L #: 3az3O31tt5/ I -B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one CO oiling,.hilly,.steep.slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) ?HE, SrTEEPEST SLOPE IS coNFSNEO -TO Tt-%z cRES14 GPINKS w CR AQE RFpRO)(LMATE,LY C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. , •• , SAND, SILT: d. Are there surface indications or historyof unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. . • :.'..::,';• .": • :> r .. T Ecte, 1s• tUo'iivin iTLON OF NNSVRBLS 509.15 2N THE tliCSN2TY; e. Describe the purpose, .type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. . a iv-szrE soxt.s OE usED 'To CATS MOO FILLS. THEa.FOf_ rNo . LMPokT OF MflTERIALS SS RikrviciefiTCD. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NOT LIKELY tia.TH APPROPIELAtE. EROSION uutrTROt.$••tN PL.P c PRi02 TO troNslibAcrsdll, g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? R PPRO1l2MATELY S$%o 3 Environmental Checklist h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: FILTER FABRLC. FENCE Wi1.L SE USED ?L.ON6 WSRi C7THER REGmItEIrcircg AS RILE ?ROMPED. 2. AIR • i, .;, : - ,,. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. PUTT MAY es FOUN 0 OURRXNl.TkiE Cords 1 C&cTxoN PHRASE oFs TtiE PRCISECT. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your"proposal? If so, generallydescribe. No,THERE ARE. M'Nb • • c. • Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: C.on1 PI-Y wLTN L.0CJaL, Sr-ATE, AND FEDcast. cnr:x::cs 3. WATER a. Surface Water: Nta .. _t1f.i•... . 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. PANTHER CRfEK wq5 RtLOCaTED ofv10 T►+SS PRopEtrry DNRRSNGTNE DEVELOPMENT of SURROHNo7JJ& PRAPERTLEs 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.' YES, B T Trit. RF41.4t.RED Z5 Foci' SAFFPR TO THE BuZt.PTNG' wi.u. (3E MAT.AITF D. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. . • 'THE SURFACE WATERS AND WEIL.AND C.ON'TAIWED LQrfl4 N THE CHANNEL wZIL "- (JOT eE PFFEc.TEO. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • No. 5) • Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO. tl , 4 • Environmental Checklist • 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO. • b. Ground Water: ' l 1) •Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SVoitm wPnE2. W tUL. BE CONTAINEO,'TREFTTEP AND RELEASE WILL.BE METERED 1NTO CREEK. 2) _ .Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;.industrial, containing-the•following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general'size`of'the'system;the-number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No w'crE. TAINT MAL, t,J2t.t. GE DISCh1RR&D VNTD THE 6,12OUND FROM ANY souR.CC. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): • 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water):and.method. of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. STORM wATFQ w=t,t_ (3E &Et-EASED CO A METERED 6AStc AFTER- Or SITE RETENSICN AND -fa A?mE(OT 6 iNro QANTNEg CREEK 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: METERED RELEHSE RFTERTREATMENT WSLL CONTROL, lifIFACTS• NO mot WATER. Witt. BE REI( ASED AT ANY GIJEN TronE is CtARRENTLY Ft.OWINi- 101-0 4. ' PLANTS TW`- CR K• • a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs -7 grass pasture crop or grain f wet soil plahts: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? ME SITE W'LU, (3E CLEW° AND 61W4BDE0 AS NBCC$SAQy Tb =MRU_ HrxLYTZES�CdJsTWuCT ectRt(tnu,t WALKS ANp 9TRut:mac. &OYER 6a CREEK WILL as NNAL?ERfp at Ii PRovED F1k.ORDZN(,TO AN ENHnN(MEAT P LAN. 5 , I Environmental Checklist C. List threatened or endangered species known to be near the site. NONE t NC J. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: • t.AND5CAPZN6 PER CSTY REQtxte.e.muZS WLl.L pc.a.NSYALIED • 5. . ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on.or.near..the site or are known , ,< to be on or near the site: (see next page) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds other " • Mammals:deer, bear;elk, •--I-r, other • Fish: bassKalm9 trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. SAu cN (L.5Ho) c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Mosi LLKEty,FoR. sALmorJ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 25' Sucf-ER NJILL B4 ItiE StAerECT OFa A HABITAT/VE(,ETATIVE PR/AUNT-ON AND ENH RNCEINENT" . 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES • • a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. GAS AND ELES-TRIC FOR MOTEL usc- -- b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, • generally describe. NoT Lzy(ELy, c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: BIAtoIN(, To MEET ALL PRESENT STATE AND LOC.UL ENERGY C.ONSF_RVRTLCtJ RE QtAI2EM5.NTS • 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • • i • Environmental Checklist • I a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, . • risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO, THERE IS NOT, • • 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 1r�ERE SHout-D BE NONE REQIAIeED. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE PRO?OSEO. , b. Noise 1) 'What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,• equipment, operation, other)? NONE Sii014 0 AFFECT Tvq5 P�DJ'Ec.T 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,-.construction,,•operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. GONS1 kC-TIWr' NOISE, 34‘) 'THE SNORT -TERM 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: t rnnxr CONSvizticTSON -to GA'- -zkHT Nouv5 oN1.Y. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? tHE SATE 15 c.URPE(J1.Y VtiU I . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NOT IN CZEcENT NSSTotzY, • c. Describe any structures on the site. . No STkU wa.ES EXSST CN SITE d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? A ERIAL mmEosa.gt✓ f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? �mP�oY1nEivV fMREA VAU-CY 7 Environmental Checklist g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NOT KNOWAI h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,. • specify. . CLASS 3 wert-ANo (PANSHER-(-R•EEK.) i. .Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? $8 GUEST aoom5, 4-6 c►neu icEs STricc", j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE NEEDED, I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: OcuELot rilOur AND LSTQ.vic1 , ?LANs WiL1, Comet' wz7K cry KEQVaREtvIely . 9. HOUSING • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. SNORT-t J2f\ GUEST AccohrA oPr TONS ON of b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NINE QEQVIREO • • 10. AESTHETICS — a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No VIEWS WILL. BE ALTER-CP oil- OLISTR-U(,"{EP c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:, INSTAi,L Lt4NDSCAvaNG To CoN 11:1 kaTti CITY g'EGNS-REMENTS 8 • Environmental Checklist 11. LIGHT AND GLARE • a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Li6Nis FROM P.,00m5, STREET 1,SbNTS VINO YE1.13kLE NE\DIZMiTS, THESE woLALD IYUWJLV oLOW. A'T NL(,NT. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Nor L:LKELi, c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?. No NE SNoNLP RFFccT THIS PRDSEL-T d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Now E fRoPosCO, 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? NONE S{J T1-1E VeQ' NEAR VLGZNLTV b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N01 iT W L LL NOT. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NONE PROPOSED. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NOT "To OuIR I:NOwL^EOGE.. • b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or • cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. IJONE KNooN, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 140I4E. QPvotosED, • 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. THE PROIEcT uLLt. Pt CcEs5 ar.c2.ELTLY 01.3To THE EAST UAL LEyr tiletW W, 9 Environmental Checklist b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NO. vJTTNLN QUARTER MiU.. • • C. • How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? THE PR03F Q WO U O tP UE S . cary sITE PAQKTA .7 SPACE VW O gCCESS TO ANOTHER g 01J •ADIAoCNT P2oPE2TY AND ELtiVINATE XVE. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,.or•improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe..(indicate whether,public or private? No, st. WCL L NDT • • e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate:.•vicinity- of). water,::;rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by.the completed.project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 7q VEND-IAl.rR TRIPS PE2 PAr Rd2E ESIIPEP wZil1 PEAK VO1AlivtCS OC AAKTIUL IN THE EVENWG AND LATE MOR AM.,• g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NorNE P2.OPO5ED. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES • a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO /arJDINTONA1— 5ERitic E5 AREANT=PAttp TO SERV:ECE "ME PR01CCTi • b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NONE PROPOSE® qT THt5 TIME. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ectricity atural g ,411112,4ragr$ service, ephon;, anitary seweJseptic system, other. • 10 Environmental Checklist b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Pov,EQ! P%A( Cr 5C'.&P p ENEmi WATER: cZTY of REPTotJ GAS: PJ.VET so Lim) Et3Ec.& tZEF�tS� FNONE.: vs WEST SEuU£R: curt oc C.ENTON C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is.understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in r iance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of fu d sclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: 5 Date: 411o14g • • • it • a. •i Environmental Checklist r. • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS pro9 .here:::shee#s;;:sh .::::::::::::::::::::::.::::.;.;::<.;:.::::::::::::::.�:::::.::::: rams=;>'You<:do::net:rteeclsto:fll:out these:sheets for:profetmactions:):>::><.:>:»::>::>;<:: ::;:;.;.::>;:;;:: Because these questions are very general, it maybe helpful to read them in conjunction with the. list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities :.r likely to.result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate :than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly-and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to -increase discharge to water;;.emissions to.air;.production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or,production-of.noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2.. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? • , • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would.the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether It would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 12 Envirdnmental Checklist 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: - may Identify, if possible, whether the proposal conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the,environment. SIGNATURE . • I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw•any..declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there ..be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: • Date: REVISED 9/94 II ' I 13 ..LIJI U • I •UUI1L11 Lv'..i. - ,. __, ., , ,, , E+isi u r ' Hiatt/JAY MotEL D �1 EV OPMElrr,p auNERs carzFruirE c!?Y OF REN�f C� 11G oF 'TITLE 1NSitPANC..E APR 1 7 1998 � C IV D SUSJECT. TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY ANID • OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HERETO .ANNEXED AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE, AND SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION THAT NO GUARANTEE IS GIVEN NOR LIABILITY ASSUMED WITH. RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF ANY PARTY NAMED OR REFERRED TO IN SCHEDULE A OR WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY, LEGAL EFFECT OR PRIORITY OP ANY MATTER SHOWN THEREIN. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES the Assured named in Schedule A against actual monetary loss or damage not ,exoeeding the liability amount stated in schedule A which the Assuxe•:t shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A, 4! 13I 'UUfi1L4 L'J0V0 1I1': i_ ."+n cri► in IU .i • . • • O OMMONWEALTH 'LANU TITLE INSURANCE CO. 14450 NE 29TH+,PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 9800/3697 COUNTERSIGNED; ' BURIEN ESCROW 116 SOUTHWEST 153RD SEATTLE, WA 981662386 By: 4 _3,� 5 Attn: RAY (2/2) R _ (206 FAY NICKLS - (206 646-3517 SCHEDULE A Subdivision Guarantee Y Liability! 15U • j Order '. H79147.6 premium: 12 •..'.:.. Customer Na. 24048 Total : $iTaxs b' BILL C. AN AND SOO K. AN, husband and wife• .. Name of Assured: who acquired title by Statutory Warranty;" 1 . Deed recorded under king County No. 9712021281 CH 18, 1998 2 . Date of Guarantee: MAR FACE PAGE HEREOF A.R.E: THE ASSURANCES REFERRED TO ON THE Thas tcconstrg u to those public records whch, underlthearecorfinglaws, impartng constructive notice of matters affecting described lands See "LEGAL DESCRIPTION: " this gua 'aritae The estate or interest in the land which is covered by • sae Simple: greeted in s Tt .1m to the estate or interest in the land is BILLC. who acquired title by p,N AND S00 K. AN, husband and wifeCounty Statutory Warranty Teed recorded under King Recording d No. not necessarily shown l�' 9712021281 Exceptions shown below, which are ordercofttheir prioo the ity. assessments which are not shown as existing 1ieno by the z. ec or recordsof anytaxing authority that levies taxes or assessments " land ndor r by the c+ public records . l � ed mining claims? (b) reservations or eXceptioniain";. (a) Un ore int authorizingthe issuance thereof; (c) Indian ¢t 2 . Patents or i ncluding, but ,not limited to, ee COwet..�s'' equitableor i se rights, claims yr titl$ , whhr snot theematters or dexceptedrunder� (a) , (b) , ( )', -.br i n) .,,_. shownhn+sb °the°Public records . by i ,c U I RiJR 1�M E�JI.i.UuJ �Y ;Bull 1pii tbURVW 1I�' ��r;: i n �tIV I ' " ► ,' 1i Order No. '�''` ; • EXCEPTIONS rt beyond the •lines of the land exprwayessly or descl: :. 3 , Title to any property lanes, hnrwhi or title tobuts, roads, avenues, au rights or onin which said land abuts, or the riiaraany auta, tunnels, ramps or any other structure or improvement/ easements therein unleea suCetfo propertyrth right the land described herein• expressly and specifically and • GLNERAL' TAXES as follows, ta�gtanr/wa�te�ndeiinquencY�l�ember �:�' • 4 . (letuhal delinquent foreclosure ancosts, 1/ 2nd hale delinquent on No Tex- Ace G ount No. Year Billed Billed $0 . 00 $8. 4d4 . 85 302305-9119-02 1998 88, 044 . 85 Levy Code : 2110 t608, 300 . 00 Assessed Value Lands 0 . 00 Assessed Value Improvement : DRAINAGE DISTRICT TAXES for the year 1998 . Billed Paid Balance $40 . 80 $0 . 00 $40 . 80 CONSERVATION TAX CHARGES for the year 1998 . Paid Balancegillad $5 . 00 $0 . 00 $5 . 00 ENT OF ALL EXISTING, FUTURE OwOTEfNTIA.' EASEMENTS S� �' ae «, 5. RELINQUISHMENT► view and air, and all rightsng i�r greys y regress es, ' from a:Yd between the land and the highway h &Ye;► beegcons to, proceedings under Xing CbnorrCourt,on lands condemned by p Supers state of Washington By: Cause No. : 582�33 6 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Om any Puget Sound Power & Light t Grantee: Eleatrid transmission ailiderY�erei.n �.:� Puepose The description cont Area Affected, sufficient to determine its exact location within the property ein described �,103039 • Recording No. : t IU vLiV l u l .UUIILIV :CS JJ r�R ' UI'I LUI'II' Ili 1L I I1 .,, Order No. H7 514'. �' ��CCEPTIONS v,. • THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 7• EASEMENT AND of Metropolitan Seattle Purpo Grantee of Electric tra0 Municipality nsmission line Area Affected:Affected: Easterly 6414758 Recording N4• ' 8 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: City of Renton hydrants and waterGrantee:` Water main, fire Y urpcsze meters The deacriPtion contained therein is ::- Area Affected: socationnwithinethe proprmine erty herein • . location described Reccord May 17, g976 andd01ec December 29, ].9$0 Re 76051706 ordinng No• 0 RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS �?�I • Short Plat No. 014-81 rec.�c: ;, . ;: OTH 9. ALL COVENANTS, S, if anyyy, di RESTRICTIONS, underER Sing County if No. 8105209001. King RECORDED BENEFITS, IF ANY, wgHICH MAY DISCHE LOSED THE RECOR IN RIGHTS DOCUMENT (S)OR B OUTSIDE ABOVE AFFECTING LAND SCHEDULE A. 0 , EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 1 City of Renton Grantee: Public utilities with necessary puxpoee : appurtenances Strip of land 15 . 00 feet in width. ai... Area Affected: di 8010aed therein October 31, 1986 Recorded: 6610311869 Recording No. : _ • AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF! iI • October 30, 1989 Recorded: Nb. • Cross 00arkin and landscape mairtenar.:-' Recording Cross p 874 Regarding: provided cptct tea of NOTE: Sy alt t e were no Guarranter .wee rcquco't r� le liability shown her time thisi red,s type ofrd amount increased ed lin is a minimum for amount is required. will Please contact tot youroreTd liabilityadditional a l � e be oontact Title Officer. An applied in the event an increased liability requested. ESK/Cgs . • ��L t 1 U bUl 1 tl i �:: .��.� . Sr��,i ,u�_,uu►ci�l� ��t!f�UVJ ��;�,� w�rt��►, ` I Order No. H7914 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: d1,4-81, Lot 3, as delineated on City of Renton Short5Plat0io. O 14- a recorded under King County eoording No. portion of the southwest Norarteraof the Esottheast,quarter Section 30, Township King County, Washington. • . • n• �,i } SCHEDULE A Amount of Insurance: $ 677180. 00 Policy No. : H780672 Premiums $ 1830.00 Date of Policy: SEPTEMBER 26, 1997 AT 10:22 A.M. 1. Name of Insured: • BILL C. AN AND BOO X. AN, hurband and wife .2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is • covered by this policy is fee simple and is at Date of Policy Vested in: THB NAMED INSURED 3. The land referred to in this policy is situated in the state of Washington, County of XINa and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A-1" countersigned u or ma oar or g® EXHIBIT "A-1" Plat N®• Q14�-s 1.;. of Renton Shortbeing �soordi�►q, No. 8105209001,quarter o:. --- Lot recorded2, as undlrnaatXingdCountYin Kxrtg r:s:,,�,.t:., o� th• eouthssvt poton of the sou west. quarter of 5 East, w.s , action t�awn� P �� porch, �aatiaS 30, Washington{ • END OF EXHIBIT "A-10 Po y No. : ►;7806:. ONS MOM COVERAGE ; ! ' EXOEPTTO W.i 4 And the CAKt �ltlx damrias�n of the !0 1.owinc� does not insure against penses) by This policy attorneys; leas or. exlP not p • SX TYONS or are nay. STANDARD are not now paya�'1itAKin iauthor) c:�. t,r�• ssoxisting lionsioh she uori.t Taxes or a b the record• olreyYor by '�:�.r.•��r; 1. own as taxes orrng assessments on real property rrso p in which may . result as public agencyethre l not thJ(J assess : Sflt s, or no s by a p roaerdi s records; proceedings notices o! such p ��c recoxas. onay or by the p b t.ha� w i assessment's,of such ag ,, the recordsots or claims which are by not shown Iw rots, rights, intone aacsrtain 2. �T lea land but whioh could be •rs1A�+e in possession, or e land or which may be asserth�roolp . claiming to be in possesS�.on, which are nod, 3. las�ant■, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, Shown by the public records. in area, dary lines, [Mortal* of �hr hme ts, conflicts feats whiah a oorrecttbl r records. • 4. Discrepancies, or and V are not shown encroachments, whist serviaas nX would disclose, for labor, material, lens; or 7,:..' or right to a liars, •• sri&]benefit the public 5, Any lien, con of disclosed by ,�or Woo or gax compensation Acts, n ar worms camp rsoords• or o>,�ccptians in claims; (brerervations c Indian in Ut' ruin Acts authorising the issuance tot is ;.t(c) t ndi.an .. pros'treaty or aboriginal igiaurightS including, d water imltod ., tr emY oris orrorggitab tudoi f or (d) tod under (a) , .. ' sarements equitable not the matters •xarp title to water, shown by the pUblic records. (d) ox' (d) y Q United States. of ��' • regulation t aUy prohibition car _ . in the ofex rcis control powerso or over *nt prohibition the ion�i 7. exercise net of use, 0 up f e navigation; to u'•,•.: in the this a or or riparian owners limitation on ofuse any n owners to kelp+. resulting from the rights the land to cover the been coveredby any waters iswh n �r may aonstruc :. ►' land which is now 0onneotion, maintenance or lien irie►ts7�iater 1 or garbagecollection irk °r �y gee for, water, elsctrio t , o loved sr an c B. ohAxgos °or$othi�= utilities unless disposal, records. the public Polk y No. : 1 fl3O61 :r . SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 0 penalty and together with interest, p s i! any, attar telest, pen 1, GENERAL TAXES, as follows, ent on Novamly�:: foreclosure on flay and half de l inqu statutory ent flay 11 Balance �SSt half del • pgid Year i� ilea 17,�.5Z•11 Tax ACG� Max '.r--- Z 7� 15 9 . 1 i $ 3 09305�9117-•t1� 1997 $84r3®4 .33 � • Code: 211063, 100.00 Value Land: $3,563 ,100.00 • s seed valve tmprove�ments Assessed year 1997. DB71INaam DISTRICT TAXES for the Y - Pai • Bala ca BiBi 11 $lry 48 .$24.95 $17.47 CONSERVATION TAX CHARGES for the year 1997 . CON9ERv ea�noa Billed Paid $0.63 g0.62 $1.36 2. ASSESSMENT: • $14,826.87 ORIGINAL INTEREST:AMOUNT: $.62 5 13, 198 4 PROMSAL 1d INSTALLMENTS S INSTALLMENTS: N USNT: August 12, 1998 INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT:DELx Q LEVICityy of Renton rOR: SY: Road, sewer and water OR= L.X.D. NO. : 3 • fi1 :, PARCEL 1N0. 3 . MEMORANDUM OF LEASE: pp a FlttahS tyc�'�, • Banyan Invea►tment Oro„p,H Harman H. LESSOR: Alle ad h, managing general• ar tx1k A1,lvnbaoh, man S and Dixie L• 1arlos R. KearnaL. E�G�+,4-e. .. LESSEE: husband and wif!, Larrynueba►rd and end Gloria Bse■ n9Lr, huabaax err warp, ands rsltner, husband, and wr.:'E: Carla D. Not disclosed DATED: June 11, 1985 RECORDING NO. : 85061.10824 ` • Apo] Y No. : H78067+s - 1\ as assigned by instrument + e lease v s interest in husband �tA,:, Assi x Bill C. An and Soo C. An, wife paoignso►►1 9709260718 THERM?: . Recording No. a D CONDITIONS � TERMS AN BVBORQ=�TYoN 1►a1tRT AND �Au st 12, 1988 • HY AGREEMENT DATED, gus 16 1988 �CpRDBDf August8818096� the i RECORDING NO. $ subordinate t0 No. 8g0a1a09$0, sota fortho at .. ,a intesMa* in Said lease-was made eU x The leers« under Recording of Tr1�st r6ah�ri�n, . paragraph �p CONDITIONS THEREOF: f o THE TERNS dba Monarch Motor. . 4. =,rASE LESSOR: Territorial Inn• a• Yno• 1►tkinson WashaddServriia�. 1 Year �: u�:,.,. TORA 3 years with LESSEE; periods 3986 �AAT� Q�f 14er� 25, 1 8 19$$ RECO 1 September RECORDED; 06�1918067 RECORDING No. : DiT=ONB ¢+IISRROt $. I,EA9E AND THE TERMS S AND Vandals Ihn/Rlntun LIMO: e3. Pao America - ATCON services, Inc. ®Hex ncn t0 r roR A 3 years with99op DATED* 0�1 April 28, ii RECORD July 27 , 9a RDf RECORDING NO. : 9407170144aoeo Instrument recorded +uat�leY� ent au�Yiedea and replaces said instrument Xing County Wording O. 8906090470• POJ-cY Na. : 0780672 ' T G. DEED OF jHVBT AND TX AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantor: Banyan investment Group, a Nauhin yto: Limited Partnership, tsmanaging ensrai partner of Rich ii�si Her WA man M llilanbaoh► Charlesand wife; L•,x�x•a L Kearns, husband ainyer, Bassin er and GlOrind ass i�.p r, husband and wife PhiliPaL. Oarstnor and Cara D. ar.:( husband and wTitleo insurance camp Transamerica Trustee' Transamerica aa1.iP4rnia corporation • U.B. Creditoorp origin aAmount: $a 650 000.00 9 original Am Julyg1515. 88 • Date 86081g015d RGcordin No. : R�ioard�.nG made to determine the present balance vwa�.: investigation theu appropriate lender/agency/individual. AssimmENT or DUD or TRUST: vnitod stet t►Natio al Sank of Ore y. �eignee: a national Zgg3 on Recorded: 9312152192 p000tdinq No. : RENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 7 ASSIGNOP OpCharles R. Kearns and Dixie Li Itaar.;. L. d and ASSIGNOR: husband Gle and wife, n, husban and �=a; and oloria Philip L. Gerotn r wife, and r, uiband and wife D. Gerstner, h V.S. Crpditcax'p DATE N$E: au1y 15, 191888 DATED z August 15 r RECORDED: mama NI ' 88081 5Q961 7:7--- . axLan»ech► eneral partner Covers: Personalty on the promises Recorded: AuWat 181088 - _ , 880815090 Recording No. ; • . Policy No. s 87806'72 • • ' BAND CONDITIONS '�H>e►R$OF 0 Larry i. DUD of TRNBR' A TNN TERMS ° ,,, pixie L• aerns► Kearns► g L. Xeaer s PLa a...f, 9• C.R. er, GloriaGerstner Granters L. Gera ar and C. Diana L. c#erMCn Co>IaPanY of St�oha�oa.ish Stewart Title ,tstee t County/ 0. Lockhart and Noeem�►ry a Lockhart ser►efioiax'Ys � Obb.Oo : .. al Amounts sa Dated' May . 1, 19 Dated' 88$5is,� Re988 Recordingo No. a no the present balance owF�a 70 Ine mad• to determine then went In contgation should appropriate lender/agency/individual. enders q the app p s CONDITIONS THEREOF:by coni�aating ANT AND THE TERNS sysoRn=NRTtorr AaRE ADENTpATEDi Aliquot 18► 1988 RR August 19, 1945 RECORDING NO. t 01 S80519 6 subordinate to the Deed of Trust 7u 'moon Trust was made set forth at paragraph The undereed of Tau No. 9$08150960► supersedes that a��'e;tm�ni: hissubordination Recording agreement amends; and rdina►tion ag�r t Recording No. 8408150964. This under King County Leasehold interest ATFEcTe: o� TRvsT� ASSIGN OF DES Charitable mrust S. Vetter Lemons Ch AsBe►ignee�i Trustee l8 ].9 4 February Recorded: 9409i80 23 ... Recording No. ' an Yighta of vendors e dos and holdeds oL th� ed interests on, ei! Y property ins ones id 10. Unrecorded tq�� personal 3? trade fixtures property;o rty �'ndrrightsnof tenants to rsupave term. EASEMENTS fo4, eira in of the , OR PONT ''i'$ Il1egress �t►�r.; INGr ingress, , or ALL axt rights of infi igss a Z1, acL7CpQ' light, view and air, and landr andigh the highway ror hi �'ni',rdk;: £Y0>m and between the an proceedingl� regbe 00na to, on lands condemn s constructed on �' State of Washington _ g6]133 Cause No, s Pol--i No. : H780672 v 12. T . TONS AND CONDITIONS TH FRSOPs Grantee: Puget Sound � S Light C ompany .urpo �t Sleotriatiranaiaeipn line Afpobods The description contained there'll ..: ea not sufficient to dwtermine 3te ox, location within the property hereir',' described 1103Q39 �tidOrdiYf�j No. : OFt � - . E TERMS AND CONDITION0 THERE Metropolitan Beath..,. l3. Ea►d : AND Hunicipality eniss ro line ® pe:. Electric to sot Purpose: aster 8 . Area fleati�_ Recording No. : AND THE TENS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF= 14. Ei►6T City of Rgnto» hydrants and wat�•�: Water main, fire Grantee' ed therein "� � purporo: meters The deecri tion contains determine r oxa .,. . . area Affected: not sufficient property herein location within er 29, 19SC descMay ribed 1976 andDoc bee Recorded: 7605170692 and Ro No. :. : Recording • AND THE trams AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: a jgastti.k° 16. EABE : Banyan Investment Group yy and xenprio Limited Partnership; oo orati6P Grantee: 11 mercer, P.O. ,PaS• , Deed v't: ar Trust 1 banef�.ol�►ry of Trust ct� operate, maintain, To constru and enlarge main an Purpose: repair, anpd electric underground eloetrivatetnfm iur�evrQar�s , and/or distribution system together �ai under the nigh convenient all necessary or 5 *set Q ;: . appurtenances therefor Area hffeota®s 10 feet in width having widthon each ride of a centerline eror bed an follows' The a*nter] i''' of grantee', faci.litie�xsondo3aoruo o bay constructed, extended d 0 feat t: or within the South . relocated 1965 November 4, Recorded: November Recording No• . {, ;. policy No. : H7B06'7^ :i '' . � �pNbITIONS�. THSRSOr' d public u�,iliticL AND TRH TERMS AND ogress 6. EASEMENT ndrh loot under King Count,► so s The nt recorded under 9 =u pt1�t Instrument g Recording No.Disclosed by: CONDITIONS THEREOF!TERMS AND l?. EASEMENT AND City of Renton necessary gublio utilities with npa �t apt- 'Grantee: appppurto�ar$ 15 feet bYaisoloe,�.d Furlio Strip easterly portion as Affected: the � Area I►f therein �Asd Warded: ootober 31,No. : �o�rrdira $ Tyr AND aoNnr�rxaNs TH�°y' 8610311870 UMWAND City of Renton necessary�,s.. piio utilities with Grantees app4�trrtena ces I5.00 feet in width a�� Purpose: Strip ofdisclosed therein Arse Affected' disclOctober osed iSi86 Reco Reco rd No, i ROF s 8610311069 eoordi s nq THETERMSTM� AND CONDITIONS THRR 19• AM ANTSOctober 30, 1969 0910300874 30 and landscape cordads Cr08' parking geeord rig Noss maintenance Regarding: END or SCHEDULE 8 +. . No. : g7g(612 • • � poJ Y xrLAn�r.�Hz,� Cg COMPANY OF �' C�O�igALTIi LAND TITLE xNs • . MO WAY AF�'1LZAxFL. AND IS 1Ii$ OR CO�lMp L'�'N "THIS COMPANY IS A aYLVANIA CORPORATXON ITH COMMONWEALTH TITLE INSURANCE COMP T LE COMP Or PIERCE TITLE COMPANY Kht _- 4 • PR t 1 CO F !.t70 . A►E WIIIFENCE + i 2.00r«+11.0D CROSS ►ARKING AND LANDSC 73 daaa o{ ��r• f S ACIEFUM it tud into this , 1gtg. by and between 1bNARGI �oid►tek ant am 'monolith".td h�iaeur and ands aft hats y ,ufWud to w kip. a d• 6ANy hall be harnessing*=our.pantile*rirrasiATA Maned*Zm ip, HERM N • d ALLf.►► mango in and I caging and pee capspaat ainta9 set h oprnop9 the County. ton, . iA of peopty King G forth below. and WouP U a Ywµ glob linseed epaitnea- WNEWSAS. banyan Investment its pseud manage* exenal P Hamm 6aeh u : ships N. Alton MontAgh Motors 1n,u. Ltd. U'an (Megan vacant d Ul sktp. composedChanle► R. Ksaa and DishSeams. 6 da, wife;Wa o{ axd Waal' lassintµ, and fanny L. labialµ ea«. V. Goutnta. e• �d Philip L. Gtastnea UvllI a{ peal pbptAly U Frog C°unly. _ ��. Banyan own islegally daµ4bed as follows • lot t and $ Short Plat No. 011-In. Records of 9 County. del' King County Auditon's ,r„r,ben Washing. ad nee hin the City of O". Kind Co by. . Washington, ttsituated10l !•■ Washington 1"ton (lot t above iseWei *named to as 'Lot ! and Lot ! hues{ is '� �� ducaibed uxdea WHEREAS, lwyan , the tun ee oi9Co=nty A iADei ctw�9 • _ i and has to cd • sumo �o6110 I4 d a4*Ch un eaaox the+�u� a natal Iu on ai uenL paap y. and a motel upon said th WHEREAS. Lot owed i aot, y vawt: 'who've*.ta, ea s said developed an the a asrya bty nmnutuRL.L EREAS. the , dui sham to Sh the mutual benefits of a l Cash W .kAa mid Landscape maintenance sy'uraent. N0w. THEREFORE. AGREE AA touo,wr I. The Flanking arnica of thud Lot 3 shall be contiguous and tact +n tl`t.N u'�'on ,/ and shall allow ease °f Laval �) /�• w a. ` .d%•0 `� ` -I. e4 L,: • • . • • . I - r.1. �- n ... ..nrS.• n �l ..l..+yL Y �.�A: 1:• .1,_ •AG: ... t. 1 III ® (I) - h 1:::i I...� I CSAc. .i2 L• M a, cFadden m i N • I • I: ►_.. �g EAgT ALLEY V� MOTEL " rn . Z I `�c�,•i J. V. Farrell 1::: j m H "_ , '' • i' I•"I John V. Farrell I,� ❑ -_____- 3650 E.vAUEY w'NY JJ „� I ^7 9G�b i:.I. G.14 Ac. _ _ _- _ , r N - -r/-.__ akanlshi__ =RENTON-WA OSs- 20 265 I11 2F,5 2D-o�,r-225.99 - ' - �— I:I �;:. ___ ------;��96Ac' H - .34T" ST 3-0 `�, I... ., ,2 • 2�' 5 7GAc. i;:.: i• 6z ?50.47 I IL) 400.05 0 25L59ilt ;% ; 13 ion 165l.�'� II .1 I t,• �� f 3.51 Ac. 2 \(.7-� � PQ ,0.5QAc a E� t�5� 34 i� �Ar)''' 5 . j Emilio iero iCA . U� \E�,E � _�.63Ac. 34i all r::'W 1 mc '-— 35-7?-- S./e ayil i/4 �i �n --- ----- ••1�;'•' t .Cj=- iiJ �T91.C3-ram /fit (A) ! �'�/ pi J�1•..i• �sr' .. ' �T ........./ �� 0 0 • 3 l Ui 9 a Leland • I �} 1.32Ac. S. Wilso S.P. 378 -73 ,;+W!'... �' p r 346± t, �; / L, !Ji:: - Vi '}. o ��.67Ac. �i is 's m Too co f3gA 61^ - — 5i7 56 ao_ r/� Esn+r — W r::a�r•'• '.1.'>j��/ �� SrQ 4j csA+r. _ _i 83 38_f_,l:_3 _i - —- - --- — ' -- - o -• _-..-. + - : •�1 'y - -.n� �+gal .p'. .r lea — • . '1.3 •„�m 0.3Zac, �+��.344c. 49 �� ! • I'' T' h��'l C I I67 CM i ':•I O a 175.65 /. C� a U R. L I N G T 0 N - 4 x k�b: 2 S. TH O� y �QQ o• J I v �`, A r 77 • f NCO n T. • 2 M • - • :1 r�r i p ,- Q (in ,� `? s I � ,• :_q 7.28 0.55 ,� 1 fie. S.P. 014 81 1: I� q ,28 AC T Y• ,0 (3) a f.•., 1.,, m 2 �� .3..?5 I Iu ►�r AC. �.J re! a o ::•1 r•:-: Howard 1 r, � 15 116 sr 1I :, :'••i Hawkins -s°` _ CAR. i::: i r ., �c��. i i� is N37 : 'f '.. 337' �,M 1 `- 2E8 • `:L� E r Q.5 R E N S� 0 T H R ,� f:::;",I:.r 12 .E �� 5 �` r .I m AC.IGO ® 3 • - . �r n .•.•i R- — — �— 198— n (2) m 1 8 (2) 225 — —371.%- — tir( ZO' VT-L/..-Y :SMr. i.•.1 - (I) r:..1�j::ji _o i. c 333n CA f::-f 'I 6it. ... `s542 i60.Z52 i I. — 1`•j ;1.-:i (4) na.Iss I I.•r (1) .'•'.1 •,.f 'I.170 55a31 !60 •! i N f::: i PA = I.::� :;�':l 5.64 Ac. s.l? 113-77 "• (3) D�`VFC A �,/B I NDING S I T E P L A N 30�.39CA ::f �:•i9zolos ;P:P11/1 -; .A17- 1QF AlT �A NJ Rp/ Sam Younker i::: /:••JP� zoo A I. Ac. • . ]/:/ / ° /CA ;l V A L L E Y , M E D I C 14 Llit 310, .��9 394.27- - - -iz moo . I (A) /7A„,0 A D R/W 1 2 Eso C E T E R l02]3 18803 30 — sz /i/ -/-i SP378 •2Ii tr467 /f.d6 5 # 4 CA NORTH CAMPUS r1JINDINL SITE PLAN ] �4� II 603E I • ItROuti. MAPS L E G E N D roll Maps are compiled from Official Records BUILDING APPROX STORIES r� HOUSE NUMBER UM FLEASEv°TE f.ollAtaeFapesarernv�eaatt'eaatonceeysarwithrnparctop1• a,ort plea,rondon'r m:na,ara corporate Ilmite.Addnecmp end etructvr el`n'nr urveys.They are prodexpressed for reference use ff • RAILROAD ut nararl Inca Irequondy.r i,i9 rep ie Dopy igh tad in iron loan er,d convent Pap o warranty is expressed or implied. S��' , _�� TTTT� 1n.Malro•in pal.or Iran fart'np into digital!orm,;a pronfnited by law. MAIN THOROUGHFARE 4--- TAX L0T NIIMRER (• • =onvng t,vas.r:ronmapranwry,ve-se.me.waan,ngmn.al gntrea.ne �,_.. N.,_ IN,. THE COOT COMPANY Wetland and Wildlife Consulting Services 416 S. Washington Olympia,WA 98501 (360)352-9897 FAX(360)352-9914 DISTURBED BUFFER REVEGETATION PLAN FOR THE BEST WESTERN MOTEL PROPERTY April 1998 prepared for: Mike Cohen DEVELOPMENT PLAT M.C. Construction CITY OF RENTG 2142 Abernathy Rd. NE APR 1 7 �� Olympia, WA 98506 RECEIVED prepared by: S. Shanewise Senior Ecologist M. Bennett Ecologist banyAP98.pin CONTENTS Introduction 1 Planting Plan Planting Specifications Maintenance 2 Monitoring Costs 3 Figure 1: Disturbed Buffer Revegetation Plan Figure 2: Typical Planting Plan • Tables 1A and 1B: Plant Schedule MAINTENANCE Sprinkler Irrigation Landscape watering should be extended to the revegetated buffer area. Biannual Weed Control Weed control should be conducted in June and September of each year. All overgrowth should be cut back from each installed plant. In addition, any growth of invasive plants (Scot's broom or blackberry) within the mitigation planting area should be removed. MONITORING Plant Installations A qualified wetland biologist will monitor all plant installations. Monitoring will entail single, annual inspections for plant survival and general vigor in July/August for three years following installation. Two permanent photo points will be established within the planting area to help document overall success. A brief letter report with photographs, detailing results of the monitoring, will be submitted to the City of Renton by 1 September of each monitoring year. CONTINGENCY PLAN Plant Mortality If the mortality of installed vegetation exceeds 20% during any annual inspection, the installer will be required to replant all dead specimens. Replanting will be performed using the same specifications details for initial installation. PROJECT NAME 2 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared per the City of Renton Land Clearing and Tree Cutting .Ordinance to compensate for temporary land clearing disturbance within a reach of the Panther Creek buffer. The subject property is located within the City of Renton immediately west of Highway 167, east of East Valley Highway, and north of Nendel's Motor Inn. Existing buffer habitat conditions are comprised of a nearly monotypic community of reed cannarygrass. The outer ten feet of the 25-foot stream buffer will be cleared for site preparation. Following grading, the disturbed buffer area will be replanted per the specification of this re-vegetation plan. The goal of the project is to enhance a portion of the existing degraded stream buffer with establishment of native shrubs. The enhanced shrub community will provide forage and nesting for some avian species and provide some shading and detritus source to the stream channel. PLANTING PLAN PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS Groundcover Hydroseed A standard upland groundcover hydroseed shall be applied to the entire disturbed buffer area. Hydroseeding will be performed immediately upon completion of the building project. Native Shrub Border A dense border of native shrubs will be installed throughout the disturbed ground. An alternating, repeating pattern will be used to provide some habitat diversity while maintaining an overall uniform appearance. Planting Plans/Schedules A typical planting plant has been developed for a 20-foot section of disturbed ground. A plan view illustration is provided in Figure 2. A plant schedule detailing species, size, type, and cost is given in Tables lA and 1B. Plant Materials If shrubs are installed between 1 Nov. and 1 Apr. (winter planting), bare root materials should be used. If installation occurs between 1 Apr. and 1 Nov (summer planting), containerized materials should be used. Bare root plants are preferred. Large Planting Hold A 12-inch diameter planting hole will be clearly excavated for each installation. Digging bars and shovels will be used by a 2-person crew to ensure full size holes. Topsoil Supplement Topsoil will be added to the planting hole. Excess soil will be sidecast across the open ground. PROJECT NAME 1 COSTS Irrigation Not Included The calculation below does not include costs for irrigation installation or maintenance. TOTAL MITIGATION PLAN COSTS Plant Materials (See Table 1A/1B): $ 480.00* Installation 2 workers, 8 hours each @ $30/hr 480.00 Maintenance 1 worker, 4 hours @ $30/hr = $120 $120 x twice a year = $ 240 per year $240 x 3 years 720.00 Monitoring: Wetland Biologist, 5 hours @ $55/per hour $275 per year x 3 years 825.00 TOTAL COSTS $ 2,505.00 *Cost given is for containerized plants. If bare root specimens are used, costs will be slightly lower. • PROJECT NAME 3 - BEST WESTERN HOTEL PROPERTY Table 1A: 1 April - 1 November (Summer) Planting PLANT SCHEDULE • Common Name Species Size Type Density Number Cost* Total $ SHRUB Service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal. container 5 ft. centers 48 2.50 120.00 Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa 1 gal. container 5 ft. centers 48 2.50 120.00 Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor 1 gal. container 5 ft. centers -48 2.50 120.00 Mockorange Philadelphus lewisii 1 gal. container 5 ft. centers 48 2.50 120.00 TOTAL PLANTS 192 $480.00 * All prices approximate. Actual costs may vary. Table 1B: 1 November - 1 April (Winter) Planting PLANT SCHEDULE Common Name Species Size Type Density Number Cost* Total $ SHRUB Service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia 24-36" bare root 5 ft. centers 48 2.25 $108.00 Red elderberry Sambucus.racemosa 24-36" bare root 5 ft. centers 48 2.25 $108.00 Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor 24-36". bare root 5 ft. centers 48 2.25 $108.00 Mockorange . Philadelphus lewisii 24-36" bare root 5 ft. centers 48 2.25 $108.00 • TOTAL PLANTS 192 $432.00 * All prices approximate. Actual costs may vary. banyAP98.scd C cs�1: Egsf VnI. Y HSG6t141y moTEL (CRD.SS PARKING EASErvIE,T • a, tii Eny to Mona4eh w ea•trcnt lot the pa4iin9 • o� cats •i eu•to.e4 , t/ , yue•t•, nek , the* iavitea• ea the poking spates of Lot 3. w &dydwwerwt1O4the , • J. That Moaaneh ktneia f4w�ewL._Wt►�. ae,•idext►, and otkot SON the opankua9 eu oft Lot . lua94erent, t•uW w g 1 wbntittw •e• The e toe p. muse that axe xe/Lar-mUAIV Wit be oo ideatiiied. pex wnafiove daeaibed . S• This ta•erxt eaei+ ► t`e w tyc`at oi wd be .nd •watt Add ridh the Sand ;• them ode ��'�-oPtME�T PLO ��G bia�aP apo,i wttc••o4• and a••i9'u• ® Ty pF REN w. Meow Attenbacw'• •igoatu4e f " _ up a ... _ 9 cexwt and u tt�•o4 : -. o .. Man}9�! f�aAtnea oe 1998 Liaited pa4tneA•hiV. a• oaMe4 0{ Lot �0autho4i W to eaeeute t 1 4.4 Lot ti and Heenan Attembaeh A R rot,,,,ent the ywpa•a •ec WWI weneln•a. RE D• � � .. ,µ,,I,fTffEMr M. _ , r ,e - L? • • e. ti C u C,ad�`{'`., .71/ ' , . . e(..el ill -1• • y� j •V :.J,• r j- `L ,,_:......_3 a..4.fr}........... .. .. Cw.L C:{.. >... ,.,.. .. A. I • r , - . , ,, _ ., le . . , . • 1 . . . . a . . O' MONARCH ,!Droll 11I1s.LTO. . \ . 8 • aupe� I i . . lieiaz.. ........„ 1 . CA t • STATE PT wlsH1MGTON cu. COUNTY of KINff Hs1. bed ' • CD Oa tl� '1 d+w�{ iEIDLDI ll. A1LEi16ACH. wa"' :• aa�:Ad wpm,, poi Heucated thesomnia a Net it to be #e Lndt+r ; dae+�that ke stigma and et4Lrd aeJ�L°"td• • end�nowCedp dud km u►a Pu�P°ue tea . ma votoadmic Act mid • WITNESS above seal i.�ttekDA. aiiiud t11e deli aKd Vuul AA AAA i _. eeatti�'• Reyidiag at . • 1 ' esmsesboA... . __OMAR.' i 's.v *.. ! : . . i •3- .. ..... eL..d '-' . . • • , . • r T N • • - . o : . ON � STATE OF OREG ) COUNTY OF 1,A — On 1lg�, before me, i day of tale o Oregon+duly aomm undersigned. gory Public in and or the and sworn,personally appeared CHARLES R.KEARNS and DIXI�Ed�KRvNrh�o known,to be the Individuals desa husband and wile, me ad to me dot they signed and executed the foregoing instrument and adotawlad and sealed said instrument astheir bee and voluntary act and deed for the uses , d imposes therein mentioned. heed the day and year in this . CO WITNESS my hand and seal hereto , COO certificate first above written. O • — O • CI NO P IILI in and for the • vfl State I O egon,(t.Residing. Ia • My nos G STATE OF OREGON -i tsa• COUNTY OF Li to t' thisday of OG , Inc, before me, the or the State of Oregon,•duly commiufened On d.' lazy ie N ed LARRY L. SASSINGER and GLORIA undersigned. Individuals described In and sworn, husband wife,appeared me(noun to be the a d who h executed the Instrument and acknowledged to me that they signed and xsealed said iretrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes t•'lraltn mentioned' the day and year In this WITNESS my hand seal hereto • . certificate first above written. NOTA Y LI in d for the j State Omen,Residing My comm 91'�'f��fet • 1 rc. • n~ . v w • • • • • • l • • STATE OP OREGON ) its. COUNTY Of 11'AI N ) On this P. S? day of C 7 , !Sitbefore me, the ' undersigned,a Notary Public In and for the State of Oregon,duly commiul j and sworn personally appeared PHILIP L. GERSTNER and G 4-' . GERSTNER,husband and wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged so me that they signed and sealed said Instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. • wiTNESS my hand and seal here the day year this and • certificate first above written. • NOTA PURL and tor the v.i State of eon,Residing • fACD at • My expires •`Y • r. • • • • -3- f ;• • „-•• DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS •. OMMENTS ••'.. • • ••• •••'• • • • ' „ .REQUIREMENTS BY BY ... ... . . •.• .. • : Calculations, Surveyi . •••.. Draina6;•.C6ptfpl:',...p.isl66;....i.:::••••,: • ... • Drainage Report 2 Elevations ArchItectural3ANo4 Elevations, Grading 2 Existing:Coyenatitsi:(ROborded:::cops) .:.:.....• ........4 • . . Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 • Flood Plain Map if applicable 4 ••••••••••••„•;:.:•;:.;;,;:! ••• Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnic41:ReppTt.. . p3 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 ........ --.••••••••••-•,-*:•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-• -•••••••••••••-••••• Grading Plan Detailed 2 • King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual4 .•• • Legal Description 4 List.ofStirrOtihdiOg•IPrdpOrty Owners 4 • .•.• ••••••• •• •••-. • • • . .• Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map Conditions :••••; •-• •••• • • Master Application Form 4 • Monument mql;!()10i1t):;1; • %;:•-• • Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan R ed u MT5),4 . ••••••••...: Postage 4. Public Works Approval.Letter2 •••• Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography.Map (5'%contours)3 • • ••••••;'. 0 Traffic Study 2 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan 4 . . . . . ”_ • . . .... • Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 ' • • • Wetlands DelfireAtjp:;;MP•4 ••••;,;:••••••,;.•,;::::•••••••;:;;;:•.,:-..1••• •••••. . Wetlands Planting Plan 4 ".••••••••••••'• • .• •• • ..... • •••••• . ••••••• • •.• • vvetlandstooli4.:. • . ••• This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: i)rt°71"- 'w..J M ô MI 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. 11 - 4. Development Planning Section h:\division.s\develop.sendev.plan.ing\waiver.xls ***********************************ic******************ic********* City of Renton WA Reprinted: 04/17/98 13 : 13 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9802318 Amount : 1, 501 .28 04/17/98 13 : 13 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #1013 BILL C. AN Init: LMN Project #: LUA98-062 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 1, 501.28 This Payment 1, 501.28 Total ALL Pmts: 1, 501 .28 • Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 .519 .90 .42 . 1 Postage 1.28 1 PROPOSED BEST WESTERN HOTEL SITE DISTURBED BUFFER REVEGETATION PLAN TYPICAL PLANTING PLAN 20 FEET -+ O I 10 FEET O Q O LEGEND-: = Ocean spray = Service berry Elderberry =Mockorange FIGURE 2 MEKue Is. .°,ate "g„. ,,,,, ,,, ,y, m'" e PPP—SS—TITT — r 6_® CITY OF PRELIMINARY UTILITY SERVICE PLAN — \ ±I` RENTON _ � � I a { ��' �e °�mC v Pwnni�Emr smug P L. worts Os NO. BENISON BY DATE APPR - w^�' . Gngg Zimmannan P.E,AdminiatraW w °A�pIC ,--Ar--,2ss-- _ EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1 LgR 4rf ir. v 'TA I21V Inv--- I I 12'B --- liPl Z R ,ro: sorsr,gw 1l /_ Igsa• + N: ,. )8 -� J R • / ) ' 4. 1 1 ggf gg, f ( I 0 Y �u 1 I .� g IC\\ \�� 1/3C ' -7..'r : `I 13 I ajl 44 I \ 1 -- — I q r 1 g3 � / v i. >----------,i- § m / my \ �'' 7 % ��, 6� �i � f .. , 0. co L I 1 n , ill , ` � r i� i _ I r z Ih ,l i ■ / ll1 l I a i J o,= O m\ \\\\ \ I t j 3 P gN , g \ v 1 1 I `..+,y , z —�� N it %� _ 3T 7ERO N 19 ; =Z4:.� A 167 g. 02 Q� TTILE• LOCATION. 0 O Q,G�AI/O 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Z 4. yllJ�, t KENT,WA 98032 PRELIMINARY UTILITY SERVICE PLAN ��jj 206)251-6222 il -p ® 'c �U i (206)251-8782 FAX m� • 3650 EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY R '�A'O e.,:06,a GM SURVEYING,ENGINEERING,RONKENrAI.SQNICES PROPOSED 88 UNIT BEST WESTERN HOTEL RENTON,WASHINGTON BCE JOB NO. 6688 _\ . 01 Ls" 1NVES po RT ,..,..'..4, ...,,,, ..: ,,;.RATITE ,, PROJECT. NEW .,,,RENToN,..,;,,,,,,,- , . , , 0 .....2,,,,,.., , ..,. 2 - ,, .. .,.., ,,, ,•, ,, , , , ,. , TON r' ,- ,„iik I" AM. - '' ' ,G . . . . , REN ,rk)nu; :VW, - . , ' ASH], .;,, ,, . ,, ,•. ,,,-,4,` ,., s, . --- . . 7 7.1.2,,,,,,I,A, ELOPU'EN DEV REA--CON, 0F Cril 'gqB AP? 1 t'l 1 ' . EGr: ., ,r:n v,,,,-...i..., L.,- Bradley-Noble cieotechnical Sr rvIces z WA 9808 A Division of 2401 2ristel Court SW - PO Rex 12267 - Olymp „,, The. Brady Gr°511 -)33601- 15c;7883 Bradley-Noble Geotechnical Services A Division of The Bradley Group, Inc. 2401 Bristol Court SW, Olympia, WA 98502 PO Box 12267, Olympia, WA 98508-2267 Phone 360-357-7883 FAX 360-754-4240 SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE NEW RENTON MOTEL PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON This report presents the results of our subsurface investigation for the new three-story motel project in Renton, Washington. Our purposes in exploring the subsurface soil conditions were to evaluate the bearing capacity of the site soils, to present recommendations for foundation design, and to address other geotechnical considerations for this project. We understand that the new motel will be a three-story, wood-frame structure, situated on the south area of the lot at the setback from the existing stream. Parking for the motel will be on the north side of the lot. Work was authorized by Mr. Mike Cohen, Principal of MC Construction Consultants, the project's design/builder. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project is located west of State Highway 167 and east of East Valley Highway in south Renton. The project site is level with East Valley Highway and slopes down to the north to the mini-storage facility. A creek flows across the property east to west on the south side of the property. We found standing water in the northwest corner. There are broken concrete and large boulders on the surface. Adjacent to the street, a tow-behind vibratory compactor is stored. Vegetation on the site consists of low grasses. Subsurface Conditions We originally mobilized to the site to conduct the subsurface exploration on the 15th of February 1998. The ground surface from the recent rains was too soft to support the drill truck. We arranged for a dozer to pull the drill on the site and returned to complete the work on 23 February 1998 . We explored the subsurface conditions by five test borings at locations indicated on the enclosed site plan. These 98030301 Page 1 of 7 1..Li 1. 98030301 Page 2 of 7 explorations were made using a continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger to advance the borings and to provide borehole support between sampling intervals . Samples were obtained at standard intervals using a two-inch outside diameter, split-spoon sampler driven by a pin-guided, 140-pound weight free falling 30 inches . The blows per six-inch interval were recorded. The first six-inch drive interval is allowed for seating the sampler. The blow counts for two six-inch intervals, when combined, yield the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) of the soils encountered in the sample interval. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the consistency of cohesive soils. The results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test, along with other tests and engineering judgments, were used to develop the recommendations of this report. The 750 John Deere dozer was barely able to move the drill through the northwest corner of the site. This area had ponded water which saturated the soils to depth. On other areas on the site, the drill truck sank into the soft surface soils. Two soil units were found in our explorations . There is a fill section that varies in thickness from six to ten feet on the site. Underlying the fill section, we found the native soils which are organic silt and peats in the upper level, becoming more sandy with depth. Even at depth, there are layers of peat and fine organics. The native soils become more dense with depth. We carried a column of water in the auger once we penetrated the fill section. This was to help hold down the native soils . Even with the water column, hydrostatic uplift of soils into the auger occurred between sampling intervals when we drilled below 20 feet from the surface. The near-surface ground water level is found about 15 feet below the site. The stream on the south side of the property does not appear to influence the ground water level, probably because of the relatively impermeable soils that confine the stream. 98030301 Page 3 of 7 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Existing Fill Section We found the existing fill section to be loose and comprised of soils that we suspect are excess soil and strippings from other construction projects in the area. This fill material also contains construction debris . Our opinion is that it would be uneconomic to excavate this fill section to expose native soils and replace it with a controlled structural fill section. We expect that the actual bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of this fill section will vary point to point on the site. We do not recommend its use for support of foundations. Additional structural fill material will be required along the north property line. This will allow construction of the parking area as indicated on the plans. It may be practical to use the existing fill material in the parking areas to construct this fill section. Removal of unsuitable material and highly organic material will be required. If the work is done during the dry season, the existing fill material may be aerated, dried to less than optimum moisture content, and placed for support of parking areas . Density under paving sections should meet a minimum compaction of 95% of ASTM D 698 . On the surface of the new fill section and the soils exposed in the existing fill, we recommend that a geotextile support fabric equal to Marifi 500X be placed .according to the manufacturer's recommendations . On the surface of the geotextile, the ballast section and paving section may be placed. We expect that a retainingwall will need to be P constructed along the north property line. The existing fill surface level is about seven feet above the footing level for the mini-storage unit. Construction of the new fill section along the north property line may induce secondary consolidation into the existing foundation of the mini-storage units . We recommend research be conducted into the type of foundation used and site preparation method for the miini-storage. This information may influence 98030301 Page 4 of 7 construction in this area. Once this information is available, we should be consulted to prepare recommendations for design of structural fills or retaining walls in this area. Foundation For the support of the new motel, we recommend the use Of driven wood piles. Based on the N-values, we expect that piles can develop capacities in the 20- to 25-ton range at 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Wood pile capacity is in part determined by the cross sectional area of the pile tip. Imposed loads of 1000 pounds per cross section square inch of the pile tip should be used for design. We recommend a minimum tip diameter of eight inches. If higher capacity piles would be beneficial, then the use of closed end steel-pipe piles should be explored. The hydrostatic pressures moving sand up the auger limited our depth of exploration. Prior to the ordering of the production piles, we recommend that a minimum of four test piles be driven in the building site. These piles should have a minimum length of 40 feet. Use of test piles will allow evaluation of production pile lengths and actual developed capacities based on resistance to driving. To minimize cost, these test piles may be driven at production pile locations so that they may be reused. iI We should be consulted for the recommended location of the test piles . Driving stresses may induce quick conditions in the native sands. If this condition develops, then we recommend that the pile be allowed to stand for a few minutes to allow the excess pore pressure to drain. It has been our experience, that once the pore pressure has drained, the pile cannot be started without difficulty or damage to the pile. All piles should be installed by an experienced pile contractor. We recommend that fixed leads be used to ensure proper placement and control of the pile during installation. Use of the Engineering New Formula is acceptable for wood piles driven to a maximum end-bearing capacity of 35 tons each. 98030301 Page 5 of 7 Piles should be pressure treated Class B wood piles with a natural taper from butt to tip. All pile tips and butts should be banded. Pre-drilling or pre-excavation at the pile location may be necessary because of debris in the fill section. If allowed by the Building Official, use of recertified used piles might allow economy of foundation construction. You should be aware that breakage of used and recertified piles can be higher than in new piles . Piles should be placed no closer than four feet center to center. Reduction in pile capacity resulting from group action will occur. Typical configuration of three to six pile groups will experience a reduction of 15% . Lateral loads may be resisted the use of battered piles . Use of bending moments in the piles for lateral loads is not practical. With the relatively short length of the piles, the fine grained soils, high water content and ground water level, use of battered piles is recommended for seismic loadings . Batters should be limited to a maximum of 3:12 (horizontal to vertical) to prevent loss of end-bearing capacity of the pile. Ground Level Floor The existing fill section offers poor support for concrete slabs on grade. Even excavation and replacement with a thin structural fill section supported on geotextile is not expected to improve the long-term service life of the slab. The owner can expect slab on grade to settle and deflect. In time, the slab will have to be replaced. Differential settlement of the parking areas from the pile-supported structure will occur. The amount of settlement cannot be predicted because of the variable composition and density of the fill section. We recommend that the ground floor system use a concrete plank system or wood framed floor. The plank or wood framed floor can be supported by the pile and grade beam system. This system will provide a floor slab that will not settle. An alternative to the plank system would be a pile-supported structural slab system. An economic analysis is recommend to determine which system is the most cost effective. 98030301 Page 6 of 7 Seismic Site Period The project area is in Seismic Zone 3 as shown by Figure 18-2, Seismic Zone Map of the United States, in the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code. Actual ground motion during a seismic event is influenced by the distance from the epicenter, the depth to bedrock under the site, and the condition (degree of consolidation and saturation) of the soils supporting the structure. We believe that the underlying soils are prone to spontaneous liquefaction under major seismic loadings. Available geologic information, as presented in Thickness of Unconsolidated Sediments, Puget Lowland, Washington by Hall and Othberg, 1974, shows a sediment thickness of about 800 feet under the project area. We believe that these soils are granular and are well consolidated below the Green River flood plain deposits because of loading by the Vashon glacial ice mass. We recommend that a soil coefficient type S3 be used for seismic design. LIMITS OF LIABILITY BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES is responsible for the opinions and conclusions contained in this report. These are based on the data relating only to the specific project and locations discussed herein. This report was prepared within the standard and accepted practices of our industry. In the event conclusions and recommendations based on these data are made by others, such conclusions and recommendations are not the responsibility of the soils engineer or engineering geologist unless he has been given an opportunity to review them and concurs in such conclusions or recommendations in writing. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained in the explorations at the locations indicated on the attached plan. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between these explorations . The nature and extent of variations between explorations may not become evident until construction is underway. Bradley-Noble is to be given the opportunity to review the final plans and specifications for soils work. 98030301 Page 7 of 7 This is to verify that our geotechnical engineering recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the final design and specifications . We also recommend that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during the foundation construction and trenching. These services would include review of backfill operations, excavations, and other geotechnical considerations that may arise during construction. We would observe compliance with the design concept and project specifications. If the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated in our explorations, we would also evaluate changes in construction specifications . BRADLEY-NOBLE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Report prepared by: David C. ,Stron g Engineering Geologist Please see attached soil engineer's review letter. 30 March 1998 1235 EAST 4TH AVE SUITE 101 VW ' III • mommin OLYMPIA,WA 98506 (360)754-9339 FAX(360)352-2044 MC SQUARED I N C O R P O RATE D March 30, 1998 Bradley Noble Geotechnical Services P O Box 12267 Olympia, WA 98508-2267 RE: SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE NEW RENTON MOTEL PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear David: We have reviewed the attached seven page soils report entitled "Soils Investigation Report for the New Renton Motel Project in the city of Renton, Washington. This report was prepared by you based on field work performed by you and your firm. MC Squared, Incorporated has reviewed this report and the conclusions contained therein. It is our opinion that the report and the conclusions meet the standards of good geotechnical practice for this place and time. I1C Squared's recommendations and opinion are based on our review of the field information and soils logs presented to us. MC Squared has made recommendations to you regarding allowing bearing stresses, lateral resistance and loads, site period, and other items of an engineering nature. These recommendations and conclusions have been included in the attached report. If you have any questions, or I may be of further help, please call me at (360) 754-9339. Sincerely yours, MC SQUARED, INC. oc w9s�.��' 4 o • 0 FG15T .ti VINCE MCCLURE, PE • ss/oNAL��' 4 48 Imr . .• 3-30. Principal (FMB 08l 171 99 I STRUCTURAL • FOUNDATION • CIVIL ENGINEERS O 1 I • r , . 7.-------i- — tag 'fig 1 i I 1 t -!!=fg I i 1.b gt- 10114 iiiii ry II ig \ _........,?....46..,ii,-- .... , , 1\ I • ' • r - - Y • I :\ \------ \ \ \\'\ li IIgt>o ' ---- /I I i IriIllillii t. IA I s_y n I. \ \ 1 x is ill 1 1 i i 1 1.., , , r, r z \ \\4 , I I : �gli 1 z \ ii ‘.‘ ) i 0 I \ 3I 1 I,I ; \ k\\1 14 1 p _ ‘ 41;: 1 45 ): ‘, N . /I I, z • R — I A • It_St. \' 1 •, \ ; A i / t i �oouon000a. 1. 2 `�-x +� y r— . � / / 1 . i „„D \ i;,/ 9 12 k-- _ F ...17(Y — , . - xTiLI; FI .i r=re Zerm GENERAL NOTES FOR SOIL INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY AUGERED BORINGS SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION All sample classifcations are reviewed by a soils engineer in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System ASTM D-2487 . Field soil classifications are in accordance with ASTM D-2488. SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS Dd: Dry density, pcf LL: Liquid limit PL: Plastic limit W : Moisture content qp: Penetrometer value, tsf qs: Vane-shear strength, tsf qu: Unconfined compressive strength, PI: Plasticity index tsf N: Penetration resistance per foot or fraction thereof, of standard 2-inch O.D. , 1.3-inch I.D. , split-spoon sampler driven with a 140-pound weight free falling 30 inches, in accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications Ii ASTM D-1586 Apparent ground water level at the time noted after completion SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE SOILS Unconfined Compressive Comparative Consistency Blows/Foot Strength (tsf) Very soft 0 - 2 0 - 0 .25 Soft 2 - 4 0.25 - 0 .50 Medium 4 - 8 0.50 - 1. 00 Stiff 8 - 15 1. 00 - 2 . 00 Very stiff 15 - 30 2 .00 - 4 . 00 Hard 30+ 4 .00+ NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS Relative Density Blows/Foot (N-Value) Very loose 0 - 4 Loose 4 - 10 Firm 10 - 30 Dense 30 - 50 Very dense 50+ DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS SS: Split spoon DB: Diamond bit core AU: Auger sample CB: Carbide bit core WS: Washed sample RL: Ring-lined sampler TC: Tri-core drilling ST: Shelby tube - 3" O.D. (except where noted otherwise) II JOB #: 98.03-03 DATE: 2/23/98 TESTING BY: D. Strong Renton Motel Site MC Construction Consultants Boring No. 1 , west end of building pad 0 Blows/6"drive using a 2.0" O.D. split-spoon sampler Fill Section I 5-6-7 Firm moist reddish brown silty fine sands with N=13 organics -5' I1-4-5 Loose gray and brown silty sands with brown organics N=9 1-2-4 Loose gray and brown silty sands over organic N=6 silt and peat -10' _ I1-1-4 Loose brown peat interbedded with gray silty sands N=5 Native Soils I 3 N 3-3 Loose gray silty fine sands 6 -15' I6-4-12 Peat over firm gray silty sand N=16 -20' 10-17-1 7 Firm gray silty fine sand -24' , N=34 Vertical Scale 1.0":5.0' Bradley Noble Geo technical Services JOB #: 98.03-03 DATE: 2/23/98 TESTING BY: D. Strong Renton Motel Site MC Construction Consultants Boring No.2, center of building pad 0 Blows/6"drive using a 2.0" O.D. split-spoon sampler Fill I 1 1-24-10 Loose brown plastic silts with organics; driving on construction rubble -5' I12-8-5 Firm brown plastic silty sand over sandy gravels N=13 1-1-1 Very loose silty pebbly sand fill over peat -10' Native Soils 2N-5-712 Firm brown silty sands = -15' I4-8-10 Firm gray silty fine sand over dark gray medium N=18 sand with wood -20' sands under hydrostatic pressure 4-15-18 Dense dark gray medium sands -24' I N33 Vertical Scale 1.0":5.0' Bradley- Noble Geotechnical Services JOB #: 98.03-03 DATE: 2/23/98 TESTING BY: D. Strong Renton Motel Site MC Construction Consultants Boring No. 3, east end of building pad 0 Blows/6"drive using a 2.0" O.D. split-spoon sampler Fill 111 3-5-6 Firm brown silty fine sand with organics N=11 -5' I8-19-8 Firm moist brown and gray plastic silty fine sands N=27 with rubble 14 2-2-2 Loose brown peaty silt N=4 -10' Native Soils I 4N-2-35 Loose gray silty fine sands = -15' I2-4-10 Firm gray silty fine sands N=14 -20' sand loosening from hydrostatic pressure 1-5-8 Firm dark gray medium sands -24' I N=13 Vertical Scale 1.0":5.0' Bradley- Noble Geotechnical Services JOB #: 98.03-03 DATE: 2/23/98 TESTING BY: D. Strong Renton Motel Site MC Construction Consultants Boring No. 4, east center parking area 0 Blows/6"drive using a 2.0" O.D. split-spoon sampler Fill 9-14-12 Firm brown plastic silts and silty sands; high blow N=26 count because of weathered brick -5' 2-4-9 Firm brown and gray moist plastic silty sands with N=13 organics - 2-2-3 Loose moist gray silty sands with construction -9' N=5 debris of weathered bricks over gray and dark brown peaty silt Boring No. 5, west center of parking area surface had standing water 0 Blows/6"drive using a 2.0" O.D. split-spoon sampler Fill 6-6-3 Loose brown silty and very silty moist fine sands N=9 over brown pebbly sand -5' 1-2-4 Loose brown silts with organics over gray silts and N=6 silty fine sands 2-2-2 Loose gray silty fine sands over brown peaty silt _9' Native W N=4 grading into gray peaty silt Vertical Scale 1.0":5.0' Bradley- Noble Geotechnical Services 4 q6 -OIoZ �Y , v • ;y LEVEL 1 DRAINAGE REPORT ;, Bi- v£ FOR` , �� RENTON MOTEL r u r.� �; ��LOCATED ON EAST VOLLEY HIGHWAY s ' '' � ��C.STt• KIORTH OFFS.11i ■ _ � STREET` b �r-� ? - i, adz •mom=gi a1`A a �l --,''S' �;� e ' k y �3 ® ENTO Sr' vi WASHWGTON,� _ , 71 x --« S` �, s-'s�, em � \ g, � y�e 5 `�. �9it`+ �ro. § ' tee ,)OUR JOB NO. .6688 .FW /wch : APRIL 3, 1998 iA ',,1A , ,i., ',!,„,A,,-,0, • r849 N ''ohs+9For. ' 0 S1ON . EXPIRES 41101 Prepared By: ,�� 0 N�°� BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. p��° � 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH '" KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 QqGHAUSF (425) 251 -6222 (11 '' 02 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES s y. G(,'hG ENG\te, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 3.0 ON-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 4.0 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEM'S DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM SCREENING 5.0 RESOURCE REVIEW A. BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT B. CRITICAL ARE DRAINAGE MAPS C. FLOODPLAIN FLOODWAY FEMA MAPS D. OTHER OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORTS E. SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS F. SWM DIVISION, DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION SECTION PROBLEM MAPS 6.0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOILS SURVEY 7.0 WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS 8.0 CONCLUSION APPENDIX Exhibit A Vicinity Map Exhibit B Drainage Area Map Exhibit C Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table Exhibit D Assessor's Map Exhibit E Basin Report Exhibit F Sensitive Areas Folio Exhibit G Wetland Inventory Maps Exhibit H Drainage Complaints Exhibit I King County Soil Survey 6688.001 [BE/sm] 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION The following report is based on a field observation performed on March 19, 1998. The proposed site is approximately 1.7 acres in size and is located in the Southeast quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, Washington. Based on a more localized description, the property is located between East Valley Highway and SR-167,just north of S.W. 41st Street. The proposed project will be to construct an 8e-unit motel. The site's existing ground cover is mostly brush and grasses. The site's existing topography is generally flat However, based on the on-site topographic map provided to us, it appears that the middle of the site is a high point that slopes gently in all directions at approximately 2 percent. 2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS A portion of the upstream can be seen on the aerial topographic map within Exhibit "B" of this report. The site receives upstream flow from Panther Creek wetland just east of SR-167. This area drains through two culverts running under SR-167 and onto the site. This upstream area collects within an on-site open channel that conveys water from east to west across the subject site. • 3.0 ON-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS The current on-site drainage for this project consists of sheetflow that runs across the site from the middle of the project in all directions. However, a large portion of the site is collected within an open channel that runs from east to west and is located on the south portion of our site. This channel has _ a 3-foot bottom width, 1:2 side slope, with an approximate depth of 3 feet. Flows are concentrated in the open channel, which runs westerly into a 24-inch culvert that runs under East Valley Highway. 4.0 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEM'S DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM SCREENING For a more detailed description of the following downstream analysis, please consult the Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table contained in Exhibit "C" and the drainage area map in Exhibit "B." The downstream runoff from this project runs through a 24-inch concrete culvert and flows in a westerly direction under the East Valley Highway. Runoff then joins the City of Renton tightline drainage system and heads north along the west side of East Valley Highway. It continues north until it reaches S.W. 34th Street, then it flows in a westerly direction. The drainage eventually reaches Springbrook Creek through the tightline conveyance system along S.W. 34th Street. 6688.001 [BE/sm] 5.0 RESOURCE REVIEW The following is a description of each of the resources reviewed in preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Report. A. BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT This site is included in the Black River Drainage Sub-basin that is within the Eastside Green River Drainage Basin. B. CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA MAPS After the review of the FEMA map for this project, it was found that the site is not located within a floodplain. The FEMA map can be found in Exhibit "E." C. FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY FEMA MAPS The site is located in an area that does have both a FEMA map and a Floodplain map. After review of these maps, it appears that the site is not threatened by any flooding problems. D. OTHER OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORTS A review of the basin study area maps and site investigation were conducted for analysis in preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Report. E. SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS Each of the sensitive area folios associated with the site were reviewed. After review,it was found that our project incorporates no sensitive areas. F. SWM DIVISION DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION SECTION PROBLEM MAPS No drainage complaints were available from the City of Renton for this project. 6.0 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOILS SURVEY The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Survey for King County has been incorporated into this report and can be found in Exhibit "I." 7.0 WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS Wetland Inventory maps were reviewed for this project and it was found that no designated wetlands are located in or adjacent to this project. 6688.001 [BE/sm] 8.0 CONCLUSION The downstream area for this project appears to have no drainage-related problems. Based on our field inspections, it appears that there are no erosion problems. If designed in accordance with City of Renton design standards, we anticipate no surface water runoff problems and mitigation should not be necessary. 6688.001 [BE/sm] EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP . _ VICINITY MAP • • _........,Th...,. .._ -c- .. „...r..... ---------mt. .-- -- `` 626 ""r c•-.‘...-:-.:2MyS::,-,7'71-..7FA AMMT:•lit7. 0 iii2I-Irf•Kammilithilim c a:r...zm raaz up il in is:ir-i.•..:L...aa-a:11X.W.Mrhd kW EMI ESW.ii;ea S.."liailas;EA ILI t_-..wrEvr_lniza_Asa::.,.. : larM Iliffl-0117 kit., ,,?,,‘.'41 1I ,-,7•M7Allg-Z13S9p ....,1_,'--:,-1-1-::::,15 :;2.Ceit;;•;--4-0.4i. ,, , . Fr i i v-o "ni i kr-10i)13.." *6I1:l1..4.,,V 1. 5•jf.:.,....i•..rAA,/t gm :: P n.67,4tpz-P,t.V...11g.6m.,?,":4.1.Pr:"7:..,.u,..vr.?V'..v."-/c,1.,.,,-,,.-.---.,`.•.:'.:•.,1!•.,.,-e,:o-y4,,IL,.,.Vi 9.,J.:dE°,,1c.°'dj'.'i;f‘,i.1t.:-L,,',-,-j,,; ¢'4 V•.,P•I,0$.'c7A 1;,4'':.#'-!„‘T'`,9'??{'.-1,;4..1^.2,,i"9+,,2,..1,•'s',;1i`:..&i"t:/:...-'4,,10t,',,"4.,1-,-ir4eF•?-gr,..t4 4,'4.„4,:o_5.r4T:x.-‘ 4i'I kA"Iter.i -- &Ur Al 5 -: Itk2'.r4L ID -4 _ twig nii.,a....... — , oc.. ' •• g ...a. ',roz+i ••1 iaa • maw:-NZ;;••,_,TillE:g - .7,1, _UFA 7 t-.;.t.;7,,,44.7...)r' ,A-,: - , ‘, glEibliri51-•°,±vty, 01241°7T ,...../fr.„.."_m,1 IIV, $ uI0r'1 iTh,tig ..,..,.i'tf,6 NAi E t7/,.474,/4/, r,fio,ctt.-4.'.`:.,Ne,5..11l,."'p•'°',,,',4's,4.1_7N#-1•-1',,...•3.,.4 •••• d . t4iti ''...Ii7Wr'l 'P 4% . 1 gir !. *:• I4 : 1".`1,41'ritra..„'"--,,q t r.„... 4% '72ND . ,:oing ; 44 11.\'1 ,/'A-kl:.•gz*.- % 1 4. ; eitiql; 4 1 - .-, • ,t4 . iv ii,Z.-:,-..•_... S,.... ,s7 g ,In owilo.,Ts IllEnn 900.,-;,,,,, p..,,..*„./..:,:.:,•,...:::::4,-L.:_i„,,it-t ','",4 ..,....e., •• ...., k i ,y7 I ' ii).--` S;:i -ElAgallit ki$ d' Ilk, ,,. .....417„ e3 ..7kr, Joi • mits_AlL',../.... ,f3 ,. .,•:.gArt viiiastram..900 ....-..-22_ '-diihir2:1/2aiaz,..7%... .- -.!1/4 • 11Z1-91X-Nr:SIX14en'Tii,k7;:lingEitrigliri/--fe.';‘,.',-`74" " .,trealf . i'l- '„,„:4,1:.,v4 rrnil, , '',. -1;1 j,:i'.1 ‘`,1,,4 k _40,1t, ,• idEig,lti .4 ..- , = ' % ,Pi. ', ' , _ c,•‘.. '''' kie•-....:euglib„. " • • I-'i Mt' ;$0;.,la 13''...,-,1iV . -0....1 . ii ,it ki.... ., , ., -,. .„..,,,,. ,, .,..,,,,, 1 ,. A LACAIMIlitd, Ligid,71.., , •,..).t..is ...,...;,.... ::..,_,1 ..7.., •': s OF4'..-•'..' AI 4,,'• 1 ete All " IRV"PF'OP io'nktli,e ' t iiiPMFNL_ 14',„er! .-k-` 4.,i) . ,i t',.,..S ES r• IF.C.' ,I ." . 44- ' s di Sty"-s..•.M 515 i • f'11-1UPAR211'..,....... 1,.:A. -.0.0,..._ , • ---, • i ,T,.Lil, ,les WI.§,f••. ''' ;47119"7, ,.-"'”- Fr pm! 971,3r! li'-.74,- -,4'.4e..,--t-% . '054,',.-::•! 4hp-, m...NI .110;"eigi i - ':-:-`7:4 3 ihif . . ___..,..--3Th' .' ... '-s-aagt,ik ,d., r',Aptl - '111';'4, l'',1%,"ii, -4`5.T)b • ', ' -v"-t-;-Ai ' 0-1'•1.4/iii .'esimCg`c.1-i' ••': IR;:‘,ilLit---1*.,.,:l...'. /.. •V•A\-:-.4r-='•.". • -4.5..;;R:•;;";',.t.l.r;?!.F'ci .,.,,,rii ' V••*,,,' , • t 1.44•4'"w-"'""13147,11.tilt"ier5l, 4'L--'•'' ' •Nr"' ' i.• P2•01,.7%:';-•-t ..'04c'4:::::-Af.;!•;1 ?st1.41if.:14 ''%.'k-S.',„,,, - ,,_______,____: ___ - _:• -- --,,,-,nii.". .l. ii, _frs .,7;;;;.,. ,fig,l_zi .',..441:ii•Zi:::•:;•-•,-,4:,',.. ,'; -.. ji•-.4:‘'zii.,1 • "5 ..*1-.-- - MIME tylrfj:114:114- L Fk •-A''. k4'''40.1, '''''';‘,41C;"e'-'be W-1.. ‘;i. •'/Z;':1-C.;2 4 .1., •--...'- •V i- 't '24 - i ,•s ''''''''.....9 ^ Of ' ' 27•:"Se' . t- •• •-i'• •,5. ••"{,T1-.' -, ,(7•S Kli'l•• 4 16TH ST tL, ipts,...;.•'''.,-. - , • -7..-'s'Yet- , ,,,em. h-rs,,,,,""1.••, " EU• Mf.r.givai.M.M.1151 •i-aa:•Eail I i'. "" .. - ... .____i .tgaiis,sim-r*,..i.-.-•, Agra.... .. . rob..-,41..A....S.: , • ..,,,,,, ......,,,,..„,.. . -s„.. , .. .... ,_. - . ,.,.„, 3,.. .4.0-,e4 1 • • •trt- '- Mi.-, •A •',;',1'' .4-. -, P s 17,.;.-7 AI 1 -, •t - , 4'1.4. •• • If-. ':- '.q3,•':%„..1•:•- ' • ,'.,' 4F•r' ^ , i-qf'.: :. ' A.' ,i, 44,-.,. , .•.. ": . 1-,„,-, , .v.„, .., . .„. . . .....2_,...1. .... 4..,„ ,. -'4 . -r"'",..4 ",,t,,:ik ... 1 " ',, •I:7,4. '' •ay ,,d. :f ,..;•'7-rn"' .J',...*, TsiD•rratn -,. .3.4 1 i k,,,,,,, ,lt.a ,,rs..-:,_:1,,,R..,.-Z.,:44.5Y. : 0. 4 I...A,. ,•;.- ..1.• -,, .• .,• i,.....s.4.40,, ji$,,pe .. WEI .- :- •qetf4;:='-'4. ":-..\--';ii-'.514A eta, --‘,1 ... .. Itt•p-Vst.e. , .1-- 13ts 1 • , -•'2311g•1- .1 2. . f..•r 4,4 :S..• ti. .• .. F .,,........t, .... ..... -1.1 r- ix r, ,,..,..9 or,;...g. , . 4,4.-c„I.:v.1444i , ,:11,.,,,•ilf i.„, ,..1.,,,:;.,......, .., „ .,,,.:v 1 I ,=/', ,,, i ' a,r..... t.:tit,rd.3.• t ' ..4 v,',..j .:1.f.t...- :-: 3, ';',N,j_, ...t... .. 621. 13.. ...,,IT,,,. a E' , !!!Frt,W.,4s.71....7-''...• 1,-',•'''.'t,.4.1:11•Li :,,, 4-:czar: .,;\ igro!Y-----:Nkitsv We, -. - MILLICiiiiii i.c.:-.,,:i..,-- w .,-., - .„,. <,--....•)--.4 - h_im , s.27n itsr - • 10900 w! 11100 , woo f,;:1-177:177,MrS'` ie .V:•...'5,1:-".1-ii-k-', -; I-,'"4 ',Yll,* •‘1, .1 0, ' ''' '' v • 'AtO ".:'5' I 6... . ST -1. • ;.4 sT erj Aft',?:?..tf,•'1,i'-`-f.-',"-i';•••;91.1. 7• •.:'••/: IA, , if.t- -..,,,,,,,‹.-fa_4_, - -.,..„.....„,,,,...4.,,,,,,,,,, .j-.<4.1,1 -'4,. 1 .';-4 .,,ir ..i.A,'"A V- - 1, -,V..1.'"" •i • N !??'',-;1'0.q.k;:jeal Z;I: -:-.: ri.tV1.7,t; :•1,11.', 'V; '..f, i40,4,`;1'1-- -. t j ., -"• n_,,l. :,';','-N1-,-:,%;,f.::z.`,0,-.. l'clr,,I.,:i./4 ',1,:,: . ..--,-,'A A4-;'1,11:!-,,,:av' '.3 L'v; .7: • -. -.''' falai' i qv r,;:),E4ziL;;;,-;:".:,'.1r)„..q-7-.1., •'-:,_,_:vr,7,-, ...,„--•,t:,.4*1 t>0&t..1,41.0.t..r,„,, ,,,' 4 w ,•vbr 1 1:41,1.1T6.'"42L'.117,Fc.."2: 1' *1'44;r4•1 ''-'' ' ..f"V 1 tsr...'-'t47:2,:I-Nli; Sils-=14 ST 170ggring fl -' 167 .1".-11 '-• ..-"" - - , -- -• N 4•viiAk•'j,;.,i.''z,i'''*;',:,'1'-'-5-•-,...q1,.''',`".‘.‘:. \e•+'.,''•*1'".-.5,'5.,.-,',';,ii''.,;k,..:..;:,".13i,',,14s.ii-,,,,,,,k1i,,r.,.%.•--..f.,.'?.A&„:A•.I:eW‘t-l37-:,.e I..-3 -4iiI'ean'Y',.A.4'.i'-,'.A.,'.'r"i..4.,.1l,4rI,-,l;,,4,4,(Z,".'..,t.!,,.',,,,1..-."•,,1 F[.-.-.'.*,,, ..,,,....4 s.--.,t%-••1-,••-.:t,".'.I.,1,...t:L4J .stk0. -- — i . .eST : SE SE%L- 17417ST 1 SITE 1Y1,E 7 4 S.TT' E1•41'eA7-„5 2i-11 s4al2rA 1.4 ( r•--,'-' .4,1. 1 's. -:, '' •."' ''' - , ‘t:',fv7:Mr4-7A74 V'YZ'%24.1 MI ''''IT. li ' ' ' ilio WM ZE i g inn En , ' Al 5 - st 0 WI.Was.ML13.?."S mom REIVS=STCOR•tal=i2=11WAIELIMMINIEMPFICZMIIIK2 NIMINIIMIII:MM., gpg SEE '''' W EXHIBIT B DRAINAGE AREA MAP EXHIBIT C OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Basin: Green River Subbasin Name: Black River Subbasin Number: gWMPNAIPM':PPNPA9'KPSPCCKP;': Type Name, and Size Desnption from&te Problems Problems Resource Revtwer,or ESEMEN .............................................................................................................................................................. See Map Type: sheet flow, swale,stream, Drainage basin,vegetation,cover, Ft Constrictions,under capacity,ponding, Tributary area, likelihood of problem, channel,pipe,pond;size, depth,type of sensitive area, overtopping,flooding,habitat or organism overflow pathways,potential impacts diameter,surface area volume - destruction,scouring,bank sloughing, sedimentation,incision,other erosion • 1 Open channel 3' wide, 3' deep, 1:2.side 1 At source None None No erosion, good flow slope, sandy gravel bottom 2 24" CD Culvert running east to west 2 0'-40' None None Good flows under East Valley Highway 3 24" CD Tightline 40'-600' None None Good flows 4 48" CD Tightline 600'-3100' None None Good flows 5 Open channel City of Renton Drainage 3100' None None District No. 1 6688.0r .n] EXHIBIT D ASSESSOR'S MAP J i5/Zg/ -OW TO Ai C f rr i,A4.71.5 ai,0 a 7 4 f EAST . VAi.L5Y HWY. tZv.7G 1,5.2, ( /P.orrie 7 ), a -I-y .4,0-1 1 r-I 0 AP tIT€1-4 - di 0 -.540 - 01 E Xi P1 • • - z • 03 -0 3 0% -, o • Cr) r • a '110 k., - a/ 41. 4 ' to 9 1 . 0 0 Cn --1 LI CI 03 0 ... Da •ism ' RI M vo 0 to CA 1...111 j. 11. Cl) 01 cc2.0- t Cn a0 I • ..., ec 0 az 7 a 5 Al lo_ 91 0 lirst,,ss, .4-4... _ CnZoin 4. .0. , Rim• 4, e•e ...,-__ .31 ".------------_ _...„.rA -T SR /67 S. 2 2 8 T E H. ••••-- c IN l' ENT f-ire.)W .13 k ,... ........ 1\1 " "- INION ..i...,......., 5 ... •-r• k e 4,a "I •40 4..4.44.4 , . . .• • • ... EXHIBIT E BASIN STUDY co I— g' co g , Q m a 0 a e. c -x's ,r m u> ,,is. r A I :.. r : 30 _ _ IV _ ,,` ,£:, CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY CORPCJ - -,: ..i Alii WW 4rI •.Y rit- . NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THI T TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EA / SIT ; ,� �2 c,�` SOUN STRE TH K UNINC( e - y SOUTH 37TH STREET E NI _ Li., STREET n7rH `fly Z S z Q 5 118T4 9Z- 2 j N O 2 J Cy STREET�— 2 ti T m o 1�gtN �� iY- �J w CITY OF RENTON -- CITY OF KENT 31 ,6; ZONE AH (EL 18) CITY OF RENTON / T ° 530088 RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 14 BLACK RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington P:BR.TOC/mlm King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 • Department of Public Works Parks, Planning and Resources Don LaBelle, Director Joe Nagel, Director Surface Water Management Division Natural Resources and Parks Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Russ Cahill, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Resource Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Matthew Clark, Project Manager Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Bruce Barker, Engineer Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Arny Stonkus, Engineer Lee Benda, Geologist Ray Steiger, Engineer Derek Booth, Geologist Pete Ringen, Engineer Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Consulting Staff Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth David Truax, Planning Support Technician Consultants, Inc. Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Consultants, Inc. Susanna Hornig. Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician P:CR TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN BLACK RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 7 A. Expand existing and/or construct additional R/D facilities 7 B. Preserve wetlands on plateau to provide natural storage 7 C. Protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides 7 D. Reduce sedimentation in streams along valley floor 7 E. Enforce prohibitions against dumping domestic trash 7 F. Increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management 8 V. MAP 9 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: . Estimated Costs A-1 APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Projects Rating List B-1 APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations C-1 P:BR.TOC/mlm SUMMARY Black River Basin, located in south King County, is named for a river that ceased to exist in 1917, after major alterations to river systems were made to build the Lake Washington ship canal. The reconnaissance was conducted along the streams and tributaries still remaining in this basin. Development in the basin in and around the cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila has produced extensive areas of impervious surface, which are expected to double by the time the basin reaches its development capacity. Storm runoff from impervious surfaces is drained through pipes and discharges in some cases directly into the stream system. Field investigation of problems in the Black River Basin revealed that volumes and rates of stormwater flows have contributed to serious acceleration of erosion of streambanks and lower slopes and have produced downcutting and landslides in some places. Sedimentation resulting from these processes has, in turn, clogged existing conveyance systems, rendering many of them ineffective, and destroyed fish habitat for spawning, rearing, and migrating. In addition, the general inefficiency of the basin drainage system has increased the potential for flooding. Another problem cited was visibly poor water quality resulting from large amounts of domestic trash placed in streambeds and from commercial/industrial runoff, particularly near the Longacres Racetrack in Renton. Recommendations for action in the Black River Basin include: 1) expanding R/D facilities and preserving wetlands to assure adequate stormwater storage, 2) taking measures to protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides, 3) reducing sedimentation on the valley floor with sediment traps, 4) increasing enforcement of regulations against the dumping of trash into streams, and 5) increasing the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the basin through doing more maintenance of facilities, continuing intergovernmental agreements, lowering volumes and rates of release for stormwater, and other measures. II. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recom- mend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in deve- loping more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as P:BR/jr 1 Black River Basin (continued) descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among com- peting projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site-specific basis for any proposal. III. FINDINGS IN BLACK RIVER BASIN The field reconnaissance in Black River Basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner; Ray Steiger and Doug Chin, engineers; and Matthew J. Brunengo, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A. Overview of Black River Basin Geographic and land use features. Black River Basin is generally. bounded on the north by the cities of Renton and Tukwila and on the south by the city of Kent. The western and eastern boundaries are formed by the Green River and 116th Avenue SE, respectively, in this southern King County basin. The Black River, which gives its name to this basin, actually ceased to exist in 1917, when the Lake Washington ship canal was built and the level of Lake Washington was lowered, cutting off flow to the Black River. The 28-square-mile basin investigated by this field team includes what remains of the network of tributaries that formerly connected with the Black River. The Black River Basin is split nearly equally into an eastern upland plateau and a western floodplain in the Lower Green River Valley along State Road (SR) 167. The floodplain is almost wholly contained within the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent, where extensive development in the last two decades has changed the landscape from a rural farming area to a commercial and industrial one. While open space and farming still exist here, the area will be infilled, primarily by a combination of commercial, industrial, and some multi-family complexes, by the year 2000. The King County Comprehensive Plan shows that the upland area will be developed at urban densities. This transition is already in progress, with commercial developments emerging along the Kent-Kangley Highway (SR 516), the Benson Highway (SR 515), and the Carr Road-176th Street SE-Petrovitsky Road corridor. Multi-family land use occurs in the uplands also and surrounds commercial developments. New single-family units are being built throughout most of the eastern upland portion of the basin. The amount of impervious surface is expected to nearly double between 1985 and the time the basin is fully developed. This will require strict controls on surface water discharge to assure prevention of further degradation of the stream system, which has already begun to exhibit adverse environmental impacts resulting from urbanization. Other factors of concern in this basin are those sensitive areas occupied by wetlands, streams, floodplains, coal-mine zones, and landslide zones. Mostly located in the eastern portion of the basin, these areas have already been damaged by the effects of develop- P:BR/jr 2 Black River Basin (continued) ment. Details of the damage, along with suggestions for mitigation, are contained in later section of this report. Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. Black River Basin consists of the, part of the Duwamish Valley east of the Green River and the western edge of the_Covington drift plain, a plateau underlain by glacial deposits. Small creeks, which flow across its rolling surface, have eroded deep, narrow ravines up to 1.5 miles into the plateau. Downcutting is migrating headward in the upper reaches, and erosion of banks and lower slopes causes landsliding in the canyon walls, most of which are naturally unstable. Both of these processes are accelerated by increased flows attributable to urbanization. Sediment is deposited where the streams flow onto the valley floor. The surface of the Covington drift plain is dominantly basal till, mantled in places with recessional outwash or deposits of post-glacial lakes. Near the edge of the plateau are several lenses of sediment deposited adjacent to a glacier lobe in the Duwamish Valley. • Older sediments are exposed in the ravines and bluffs. In the north, unconsolidated sediments lap up onto the southern limb of the Newcastle anticline; sedimentary and volcanic rocks crop out in the bluffs north of Panther Creek and form the Renton, Talbot, and Earlington Hills in the northern end of the valley toward Tukwila. Coal was mined from this area from 1853 until the 1940s. The Duwamish Valley is part of a trough carved into the drift plain during the last glaciation; it later became an arm of Puget Sound. A catastrophic mudflow originating on Mount Rainier approximately 5700 years ago dumped massive amounts of debris into the trough. This and other events, plus the deposition of alluvial sediment, expelled the salt water. Through the nineteenth century, the combined White and Green Rivers meandered through the valley. Near Renton, the Cedar River flowed into the Black which drained Lake Washington and flowed into the Duwamish. Beginning in 1906 a series of changes was made to these river systems. The Cedar River was diverted into Lake Washington, and the White River was diverted south to the Puyallup. The Black River itself ceased to exist. Geomorphic processes in the Black River Basin are most active on the western edge of the plateau. Lakes and wetlands formed here in the poorly drained swales. Where conditions of drainage and percolation are appropriate, small streams flow between the drumlins, eroding deep ravines into the unconsolidated sediments in the process. Over time, the ravines have been widened by mass-wasting of their walls (a process aided by groundwater) and erosion by tributary creeks; their upper ends have migrated their upstream into the plateau. Sediment carried by these streams was deposited in the Duwamish trough; after the trough became an alluvial valley, small fans formed on its edge. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. There are three distinct geographic features asso- ciated with the hydraulics of Black River Basin: the plateau east of the Lower Green River Valley, the steep (5-35°) erosive hillsides, and the flat floodplain of the valley floor. Mill, Garrison, Springbrook, and Panther Creeks, as well as three small, unnamed tri- butaries (0023, 0006B, and 0006C), all originate from locations on top of the plateau. Panther Creek originates i'rom Panther Lake: and the surrounding wetlands. The P:BR/jr 3 Black River Basin (continued) remaining tributaries originate primarily from surface water stored in natural depressions and wetland areas along the top of the hill. The surface water is collected and routed generally north and west via natural swales, open roadside ditches, culverts, and pipelines within street rights-of-way and, finally, down the steep hillsides to the valley floor. Mill Creek, located at the southernmost end of the Black River Basin, flows north between the Green River and SR 167 and then crosses under the highway at various locations. Mill, Springbrook, and Garrison Creeks continue north along the west side of SR 167 and eventually combine as Springbrook Creek before being pumped into the Green River through King County's Black River pump station. Tributaries 0006B and 0006C flow north independently down the hillside adjacent to Interstate 405 and into Renton, where they enter the city's storm drain system. Habitat characteristics. The use of natural streams for urban stormwater conduits has had a detrimental effect on most stream systems in the Black River Basin. Increased stormwater release rates that are higher than streams can convey without problems have resulted in extensive erosion, sedimentation, and landslides. Water quality problems caused by domestic garbage placed in streams and point discharges of pollutants/are additional factors. What is striking about this basin is that these habitat problems exist everywhere. While some problems are worse than others, their impact on the fish habitat of each stream examined was profound. No fish were observed in any streams during the investigation. For this reason it is surprising that the fish counter at the Black River pump plant located on Monster Road (through which all water in the basin is discharged into the Green River recorded 84 fish entering the stream system in 1986. While this figure is • higher than that for fish counts in the previous five years, it is significantly lower than historical levels or the potential levels that might be achieved if streams were in better condition for spawning. The current habitat conditions offer little hope for the future of these salmon runs. To reach spawning areas fish must first pass through an open • flood-control drainage ditch for a minimum of five miles. This ditch has no vegetation or pool protection for fish to take refuge against predators or water-temperature increases. In addition, water quality is visibly poor. The eggs of fish that do reach spawning territory are likely to be smothered with sediment or washed out during heavy rainstorms. If these problems associated with development worsen, stream systems will probably be left biologically sterile. Reversing this pattern of degradation is dependent on revising the policies and priorities in the planning and zoning activities, the develop- ment review processes on the Surface Water Management programs of King County, Renton, Tukwila. and Kent. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin The existing upper reaches of the Black River Basin were once heavily vegetated, and natural depressions retained much of the surface water. Water was released slowly then, and the stream systems could convey flows easily. Development has brought about the removal of this vegetative cover and filling of the natural depressions. Many streams arc now being piped. Impervious surfaces are increasing and will eventually account for 50 percent of the basin's surface area. In general, surface water is entering natural systems at a faster and higher rate than before development accelerated two decades ago. • P:BR/jr 4 Black River Basin (continued) Earlier discussions pointed out the serious effects this is producing in the form of ero- sion and sediment transport to lower stream reaches. Additionally, sedimentation decreases the efficiency of the entire basin drainage system by filling culverts and chan- nels. This in turn increases the potential for flooding. The city of Kent removes an estimated 1,100 cubic yards of sediment annually from its sediment facility at Mill Creek Park. The Washington State Department of Transportation also employs a regular cleaning schedule to remove gravel and sediment from its culvert under South 212th Street on Tributary 0023. Sediment from Springbrook Creek has been transported downstream from the erosive hillside to a pri- vate trout farm west of Talbot Road and-rendered it inoperative. Similar examples occur throughout the basin along the bottom of the steep hillside and east of State Road 167. Erosion is further accelerated by drainage outlets from developments and public areas. Discharge from a pipe into Garrison Creek adjacent to Benson Road freefalls for approximately 10 feet before scouring the ravine it enters. Similar erosion occurs on Tributary 0006B where water is discharged from the Fred Nelson Junior High School across Benson Road to the top of a severely eroded ravine. An onsite detention facility downstream at the Victoria Hills housing development accumulates large amounts of sediment. Its capacity is decreasing, and the function of the facility is threatened. The development trends in this basin mean that land for regional R/D facilities will become more difficult to obtain at the same time that erosion and potential for flooding are increasing. Additional problems may arise if existing onsite R/D systems malfunction from improper design or construction or from lack of maintenance. An onsite facility for a privately developed trailer park, located west of the Benson Road adjacent to Garrison Creek, exemplifies the potential hazard. Unstable fill was placed on the steep ravine and an R/D pond built on its edge. The fill becomes saturated when the pond is in use, and tension cracks in the fill along the slope indicate potential failure. Such an event would add large amounts of sediment to the drainage system. Development may create similar problems elsewhere if the proper design, construction, inspection, and maintenance of R/D facilities is neglected. C. Specific Problems Identified Black River Basin exhibits serious problems throughout its system, with exceptions only in the south fork of Springbrook Creek and on Panther Creek in subcatchment,10. The most significant problems noted by the field team during its investigation are listed below. 1. Stream channel erosion accelerated by the muting of runoff from developed areas into streams. Major problems exist in the ravines, where streams are cutting into till at the upper ends of canyons and associated landsliding and surface erosion occur (see section 3 below). Although these processes have been taking place naturally for a long time, increased runoff from developing areas on the plateau is causing acceleration of the erosion. a. The worst cases of erosion observed include those on Mill Creek (0005), P:BR/jr 5 4-..-.‘-. '‘ ,•.,.. '. . i " I ._ i. V' ' ) LI 1 • t i P:11 1 II lilli.. . 11 0 • • ..: -- - ...._ r---0. '-.,..) r...7:. • i • I 1 "7:C ( / I 4'..i .1: .,.5454 . 3.45 11 i 1 ; ,.. ...„, „4.57 it : il II ' :1,11'!1 5.94 .. -14' I •f"; 1 1 ;55 :,,,IL I ILI L f„ "lit ..:0 C iii ti ei 51'9 • I I'I• I i.1 • I ..--r.. 11(11:•:_''.•4 ...,!:1 I • : .1... : 2 -• CE ..1. \- ----------- i am, .. 1 $ . - , 1 ..aa I" 1 6'.."*.: I i. 11 ,, I I I !I / ... A 5.44 1 ,,.44 1 1 11 4.43 '.....----- •c: 5.:45 6,7 .,> I3•70 1' I I I .4 0.44.1 • 4.: ,,i;C. , ;•. , 1.34 I N. s'...) 5. , .. 42) •;i ''II 1 \ 4.W ''' e.03 x • ,4' (..c"x. t.i.•C•(1.. . xt c. 5 6.4 X st:, 1 r l.. Lki4Lallir" „ 5.7,5 f 69 Iiii IC•,. ' t 1 '4::513 I' •il ' 131i q ( It- -611"-• -:aniefrmos , -ammo._ -f. ,..... ... ... ..,_=,___I,It 'A.4.II preINISM in ..__ _lo:s..%) 1 r. .5 I.1 I . Al ft.41 9 k f , x. Yll. SEMOO.ENMEN 1•17111111.111116 v.eriimdmit,..eyisor .. -.. 2,2. I ell :,'i • ;xi .....---- A"'''' .v Loa 111....7.1.....0. 4 4--77- ............. ,.-- "nt, ; - . t ..!" ,,..2.ii. .. . Y. • • -; _4.. 1 .... .. t•• illikk ..1 1I '11 tx0%1,,;..1:1 INI . IA 4.----"-Irk -.......... ... x prjr......_ , - /....-.--;, ..•„., 0 , 7.c..:. •s.43 :...1 • ''..<1 s.,:.., 0-19'4..4. 't .......?i.,; . f I 111"11.1.11111# 22 t-• 1-4, lisi;10 , . 11 I-,- ,----------------------- x6.14.‘ ,......„. 0 I ....e it.O.Vi 1 ' : C./i I•••• i VP pi i i nil 61.1: t, •il 4 / , /. . .4.5.44.1 • e • / • VIP ../i/ : . )6', LiiiiiiiiinworliM 911ILL1"153.1 - C ,;... . • .. 17 IPA..• ,/ ,57.,, , ,,. / \ / .". . . •I I I I ......i.,:-- it,. , • / R.....) • 1 ( ' 7 'N,•.\,. -.---.- , I..... .....__ ..../ .•=•••.... .Zr .....- ,e, /'--.-- ,‘L - \ .••!..S. .. ..___ , .. li •- ....,.., - •iio , . 1 ..,..,:.; / ------') Q "--, .,r7-- _____----F7. \Jr --))A, .- ..,f.-----.... e.,: L_ . . .st:r.'... "I. 1 . 3 .• -./ s •-.- I ' "CT, .41.• ' .°.1/4' -- I . \* ..--) %, CIO i ..: -- ., i , v .... .. ... - , iiy..,)j• r--- -___ a A ' . 4' 11; • , . . ,.,, .....„../ ... . ...i .". r ::',=___,.„,,_-----. --.-rr_ .. . . ----,_-.,,... ' _- 1 1 1, ... . i . 6,...: . ... ,\ fiL------.._-------- ( i( 7-c-' „,-_----, \--) ..„.._.> 3 ''' d •• Pr /II • (/ i I i 1 i (,...:: , . .- ' . (. , ) / . : - 41-(2) .,./N { / .,_ -7,5.. \-.6::I. .-f IP, - ',. NI J „K,- .\ \ l.../ I . • • . - IP -1-> / •, .„._.. ,.. - -_-,. .___ - • . .- . -.-- -----.. ._-_,..._,.......- • , ii• '4 ' iv i - 1 -- - --..--z_.--..._:_=_---- ------- 7/. ! . i 1 -11 ., . r, , ,. . 1 , ...4.,..•••• -' ________ I: .."..7.1.n. , 7 1 4 ,• t 1 1 II . • o .44,.. ,.,i7.---sk 1 /11 lintr." 1' c . -' i f 'I': .. ''' .... ..' 4; ,--- /ny ( :--, 4.. ... 1 i N.---------1 \ 1 . .... .... , , ..... .... , ii ,i , / ...•,, ,,... , , , , ... , .., ..I . ---\-,. __., .• ., --.. c : (r) .?...„ : .../ 3 ., ... ------' . i 4.-".• i 1 1 ' i ARE rat MAP • ,v3„------,....______ .._____ , ,.. .. -fi ......_......r. -7-S) edittLE v2.00 ,,i. - ,..,r-- \ A 1-1. t/- ---N) .• • - f ,• 4'5 I t 1 I.; '; ' . 1,' . % I .i I (._V , • L ) 1) i i / ..,, , / if 4.%. I, 1 \ \ .___-(- --.... --=.7.: 11 I -.. -.--.'----7.(7I).47.I.:::::77.-•,r---- 0 (-) , ril...) • ... 1 ,./ l? i - • ..,..\ t, ! i', -, i , : q 1 -- • • ' ------- • ---- --- -- - - --• . : ---.. i , :. .,, .:). - . ---- ) ---• i ,1, I ,i, , • \ • '' ' '' .•' i 1 1 ' .• • 11 HIT( II . 'T• .f ' i . • • , •• • •.• t.• ..... • y " . . . It • .' ..... 1 :ii I 1/1/ i , ' 1:'./.'ii\\ • ' (\_____"i i i , ,, 1 1 r! 1 •. .. , •..)il .1 • - ' ,f i i t I tit I ` \1... \ .• \ ' •••----".\..e•-••_...--------"' -7 • r. n. 71/ . . , . . . , . . 5330 NW 1/4 i . • 26.15-4 2614-7 . mSURy oF RENToN 26.E 4-B 2‘CS-5., 12615-7 :_....RD b • • 26,f 5-5 '2615-6 FACE WATER . . ,..• . . . .. . : .4. • •••. . : • : .. .. . • DRAINAGE SYSTEM I,• . : SW 30th St 26.05-1 ' - .' 26.1 5-3 • .7).5 7 -14 - • .. . • - ' LEGEND in , . . . c=1 • ,2615-2 • -f-t - 0 25.1-15-4 Eal • fai 2615-I a 1 : ..; ____ STORM SEWER LINES d i: 26.D6-1 11----- c • 26,16-13 •• 6 . • a ! '7:4 , . . . .• . L.: I V) 2616-6 ..:.,____...../ *... - . - I=1 ' . . DITCH LINES li cd q, • .• .cc : : i: .a6.,.-f„5. 2616-7 t D CATCH BASINS • : . . 26,F6-4: • 2616-3 cil MANHOLES : • • !. .. : . :• ; 26,06-2 4 DIRECTION ARROWS i• - :. 26.r6-2 • •26;6-I' CULVERT CROSSING . ..S V.,.3.4 ii.).„.S..t;.................... 2,..526-2 i : : . , .g.4..0.7:!...„-i ''''..........26.5625....... ' 4-•.-•MI6-1 25.16-• ,, SAV-3+4th-S4.-.' • ..,...........................,.............,,,............ . : .......,, • ........ ,...... ..............., ..26.r.672 ,....„.„....... ,... . • . . ! 26.26-2 '-''-...............• .. ? . ..... ...,,............„„,.... „ ..„.,........._ , ...=. 4. REts1TON CITY LIMITS 26,D6-3 1 ; ••''"'''-'''w''''''', NI" 1 i • •. -... 26.(7-4 1: 27-5 i f Ul W • i-....... . - I OW 1-4 i ( . .-: • 2617-6 i • „i , . I . .S '' 2617-3 ; ! 26E7-6 ! W I W . .. - i. ..' . . .. . . •..'. . .. • • til• . .. - . ..s . • . -- .. •• . ---... .-• .•. • i / 1, • •• -, , CO, - ... ..... • -- •-• --- !,. •- •: 26E7-2 • . 26 iF7-2 , I ,...... 26,07-1 . , I -....... .."/ -23 •- i 1 CC • ' . : 1 i • '.... ›...- , .••' CU • 4 , . . • • 15 _ 26.,-7,i . V) • > .- • 26.0 7-V ,.. ...'. ../ i., % 1 DISCLAIMER .• > 3 In„.•••.• • <C d . THIS INVENTORY INFORMATION FOR THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM ..../ LJ . ' .e• • -• .. ' IS SCHEMATIC IINLY. IT VAS COMPILED FROM NUMEROUS Sf3URCES. C• ; . . t -'IT IS THE BEST INFORNATION AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME. AND SHOULD . " , . BE USED F BR GENERAL GUIDANCE ONLY. THE CITY OF RE 26.D8-I 26..E8-4 NTON • ---- .• . -_ ....... is"Ku RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, •VHEN THIS • ../ ' .- INFORMATION IS USED FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES. DESIGNERS .. :., / . ARE TO FIELD VERIFY THIS DFORMA ----".... T ION. ... ../ -c . :. r'..S.V....,...39.#11..S.t....._.,....,.......,............„,_.. .. t 26.E8-3 • .• , . • . . .. .. . •, , f • ... ....„,...„. . . ... 25.'8.-2- .73 .. . 26.01-1 ..„.,.... ' I • -...1. 26.E8-2 - : B. N. 1 tx <r if E ' . . :. . - • . . . . . - ..... -.• . . . ..... .... , 26002 0 : 400 800 .... - 26.1 Ft-I %.... .: 3012,7 • . 26.03-1, ''' • , • 4 . •• • • ]30,22.5 • : F.1 " ..X.'•'•;••'•••1.3.14121 IMilil.11:5•12:21;1.1.14.14,:;•;•:.,•1.::::.1:;•,•,•:-:,•:: . • . . . . • • 31)E2-fi . • . • • 1 :4800 . . .„. , . • . * . 3 .. ---4-15-t--St........................................ 1342-i .I .... .. • . •. ""•................""'""'................- 3.?:F.-1; '...'-- '''''S.../.........4.1.s.t...,.......St............... 30.12 .... • XI 1?-1 ••.• . .k.r. -7Y 0 . 0.C2-2 30,C2-4 3012-3 - .. "-V CritiCe VA ...... 47•••..R.. ........................................,...; • .•. 29.112-5 2932-1 is,30. 30..02,4 1. .•'..30.02-I •••' "D2-2• \L . 30.C2-3 3,irCi: 50121:9 ia 09/23/96 1-4i.% '• .. 30.02 3013 6 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES .•- .4 3,0_5 30.C2-10 , . ....., ,I : '• •eltb ,.,. . •. .30,C 3-4 3"3-6 .. , ' . .• '•4‘Nrc 0-f i 5330 SW 1/4 : • _...;•, . . .. . . . - 1 5331 NW 1/4 . , Black River Basin (continued) Garrison Creek (0022) and its tributaries (0023, 0024, and 0025), the north fork of Springbrook Creek (0021), and Panther Creek (0006). b. Prominent examples of gullying at drainage-structure outfalls are in Mill Creek (0005), Springbrook Creek (0021), Panther Creek (0006), and below Benson Road on both Garrison Creek (0022) and Talbot Creek (0006B). c. Examples of accelerated downcutting resulting from increased runoff from developing areas are located in Talbot Creek and two small streams (0064A and 0006C) in Renton. 2. Iandstiding associated with stream erosion in ravines, as a result of steep slopes and saturated soils. Instability generally takes the form of rotational failures or debris slides triggered by stream undercutting. In many cases, natural instability is exacerbated by filling and/or by construction on canyon walls; for example, a new fill above Garrison Creek at Benson Road is failing, and old .fills are being under- cut. All of the ravines should be considered landslide-hazard areas. The same is • true of the bluffs at the western edge of the plateau, even though there have not been many problems yet. These are moderate to steep, landslide-susceptible slo- _ pes, especially in the northern (Renton) and southern (Kent) ends of the basin -- the area under the most development pressure. 3. Damage to (or destruction of) habitat due to: a. High flows and high velocities, which remove macrophytes and benthic orga- nisms, plants, insects, and possibly fish. Visible evidence of high velocities • was noted on all the streams in this basin except the south fork of Springbrook Creek. • b. Sedimentation from excessive erosion, which is filling pools, choking spawning gravels, and in some cases filling stream beds to the point of making channels impassible to fish. All of the four big stream systems in Black River Basin exhibit this problem. The Kent parks department annually removes 1,100 cubic yards of material from Mill Creek. A large sediment flow has filled the Springbrook Creek stream channel to a depth of approximately 5 feet, and Panther Creek just north of Valley General Hospital has a large alluvial fan. c. Visibly poor water quality: 1) Large amounts of domestic trash have been deposited in these stream canyons. Mill Creek has become a dump for appliances at river mile 9.60, and Garrison Creek appears to be more of a landfill than a creek at 1.30. Such practices have a detrimental effect on water quality as well as the visual quality of the environment. 2) Commercial and industrial enterprises are producing runoff that causes many streams to be oily, turbid, and sudsy. Springbrook Creek (Trib. 0005 at RM 1.30). flowing under the bridge of Southwest 16th Street just east of Longacres in Renton, is one of the worst examples noted. The Western Processing facility just upstream has been identified as a source of toxic wastes entering both surface and groundwater systems. P:BR/jr 6 Black River Basin (continued) IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Habitat, erosion, landsliding, and flooding problems in the Black River Basin can be addressed by the measures identified below. Most of the solutions listed here will mitigate specific problems observed during field investigation or will prevent similar problems in the future. However, additional recommendations have been included to suggest administrative •or regulatory measures that would increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management in this basin. A. Expand existing and/or construct additional regional R/D facilities on the plateau in order to control storm flows that originate there. Site facilities upstream of the four large creek ravines that are experiencing the worst! damage. Facilities should be regional in scope and should follow the general specifi- cations outlined in Appendix A of this report. These will impede the direct conveyance of runoff into the steep, naturally erosive ravines, thereby reducing erosion rates that result in sediment transport and slope instability and that damage habitat. B. Preserve wetlands on the plateau to provide natural storage. In addition, reconsider Panther Lake for use as a regional R/D site. Although the lake has been classified as a #1-C wetland, the amount of storage it offers is substantial with a moderate addi- , tional (.25-to .50-foot) fluctuation in depth. - C. Protect steep valley walls from erosion and landslides caused from direct discharges of stormwater: 1. Tightline discharges or provide other appropriate nonerosive conveyance over steep hillsides; provide energy dissipation at the outfalls. This has already been done'at several points on Mill Creek (Tributary 0005) with good results. • 2. Consider rerouting flow in cases where tightlining or other methods are not feasible. For example, runoff from the area southeast of Springbrook Creek might be piped down Southeast 200th Street rather than routed into the north fork (0021) as it is now. 3. Lower the potential for landslides by restricting development in and along the tops of ravines. In particular, strongly discourage filling along the edges; the fill at Benson Road above Garrison Creek (0022) will probably have to be removed. D. Reduce sedimentation in streams along the valley floor in cases where sedimentation is not adequately prevented by R/D and other upstream measures. In extreme cases (probably including Panther Creek [0006]), construct sediment traps (with convenient access for removal of accumulated material) at points where streams flow onto the valley floor. E. Increase enforcement of regulations against the dumping of domestic trash into ravines and stream channels. The Seattle-King County Health Department and the King County office of Building and Land Development should he asked to investigate this ongoing problem and to take appropriate action when violators are identified. P:BR/jr 7 Black River Basin (continued) F. Increase the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the Black River Basin: 1. Continue cooperative intergovernmental arrangements between the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Renton; the Washington State Department of Transportation; and the King County Surface Water Management Division to identify and propose solutions to habitat and hydraulic problems in the basin. These efforts should include de- veloping cost-sharing agreements where capital improvements are required. 2. Evaluate and reduce, if appropriate, the volumes and rates of release for stormwater originating from developments. Present release rates and volumes are causing erosion, sedimentation and habitat problems.' 3. Increase the maintenance and inspection of existing King County and city drainage systems to ensure that they are functioning properly. 4. Encourage public participation in maintaining water quality and in stormwater management in the basin, including citizen action projects to clean 'trash from streams and education about citizens role in maintaining clean water and stream systems. S. Perform more detailed and comprehensive hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of all drainage systems within the basin to determine how the existing facilities will function under existing and future flows. 6. Prepare a comprehensive basin plan with participation by all agencies concerned with surface water management in the basin. The plan should assess the econo- mic, hydrologic, and habitat impact of individual. projects on a basin-wide scale! P:BR/jr 8 BLACK RIVER BASIN - - 41181."8". Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary 1� O Collection Point °o ots% r o '— Stream 10 0006 Tributary Number �� o o 00301 Proposed Project �'' 000s,�• �' N a .- 4... ...:: . .i 4 0006A rAL O0 1 % 0 INiI� 9 1 G. 0 0 0 July,1987 • - 0.' , , G_c °°� !$0 �' 0301 , . ., . .,-,..., i4,1..4..f.,,. , ../ ,. , , .. . ....., • x •1 1 r— • • 4 V� , 03®.;, o • ' .• 0012 -030, ' r m i r.A f -0 0 , .i. i 0 ? ►' j o0 • 03.5 ., 0o rdima vo ; Off cl 0 g'cl o °� °° 0 • ,1, ; -, 9 0 I 7 1.,E • APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COST: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BLACK RIVER BASIN Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Collect. Estimated Costs Number Point Project Description Problem Addressed and Comments 0301* 10 Increase R/D capacity of Panther Reduce erosion and flooding $345,000 Lake by constructing earthen downstream in Panther (Panther Lake is #1 berms and outlet control Creek. Wetland and will require structure. Trib. 0006, RM 3.40. agreement to use as R/D site. Further biological study also needed at time of basin planning.) 0302* 22 Provide regional R/D facility by Prevent erosion to sensitive $208,000 constructing earthen dam across slopes downstream of (Project costs should drainage swale. Provide control proposed site by be shared with City structure and overflow spillway on reducing peak flows. of Renton.) Trib. 0021 at RM .40 (Springbrook Creek). 0303* 29 Construct instream R/D facility at Reduce erosion and flooding of $125,000 point where Benson Rd. crosses of Garrison Creek by reducing (Project should be Garrison Creek. Reinforce peak flows. constructed in conjunction Benson Rd. Construct outlet-control with proposed Projects structure around existing cross 0304 and 0305.) culvert R.M. 1.40. P.BR.APA/mlm A-1 Project Collect. Estimated Costs Number Point Project Description Problem Addressed and Comments 0304* 23 Construct instream R/D facility in Reduce erosion and flooding of $151,000 Garrison Creek. Construct dam across Garrison Creek by reducing peak (Wash. State Dept. of existing ravine with outlet control flows. Transportation has cost- structure and overflow spillway. sharing agreement with King Provide for fish passage. (Trib. County and the city of Kent. 0022, RM 1.0.) Coordinate with Projects 0303 and 0305.) 0305* 30 Construct RID facility. Install Reduce erosion and flooding $116,000 proportional discharge outlet downstream in Garrison Creek (Construct in conjunction and overflow spillway. Excavate by reducing peak flows. with Projects 0303 and 0304.) to existing streambed level and provide earthen berms around site. (Trib. 0024 at RM .30.) 0307* 19 Construct regional R/D facility in Reduce erosion in Mill Creek and $309,000 Mill Creek Wetland 8 (rated #2). prevent downstream flooding. Construct berms around north and west sides to increase existing capacity, and provide an outlet control struc- ture. Enhance downstream conveyance capacity and stabilize channel with dense native vegetation. Provide habi- tat enhancement to maintain existing wetland values. 0309 27 Construct an instream R/D facility Will reduce flows that $26,000 in sewer line right-of-way adjacent cause severe erosion to (Dependent on the availability to SE 208th St. (Trib. 0023 at unstable downstream ravine. of right-of-way for R/D. Addi- RM 1.00.) tional cost will result if sewer-line relocation is required.) P.BR.APA/mlm A-2 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING BLACK RIVER BASIN Prior to the Black River Basin field reconnaissance, seven projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, seven projects remain proposed for this area. They include one new, previously unidentified and unrated project. This displaces one previously selected project, which was eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team because no problem was apparent in the field. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Black River Basin had an estimated cost of $1,250,000, while the revised list increases to an estimated cost of $1,280,000. This 2.4 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due mainly to upward revised cost figures for securing or acquiring easements over wetlands and costs associated with a new project to solve a previously uni- dentified problem. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the Black River Basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can be considered now for merging into the "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 0302* 125 $ 208,000 2 0303* 110 125,000 3 0309 100 26,000 4 0301* 95 345,000 5 0305* 90 .116,000 6 0307* 60 309,000 7 0304* 55 151,000 TOTAL $1,280,000 * Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. P:BR.APB. B-1 APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BLACK RIVER BASIN All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin. Planning. • Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item- River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 1 0005 3 Habitat Fish ladder through pump Based on the condition of Develop and implement a comprehensive RM .30 plant. Automatic counter the basin habitat and future Black River basin plan in agreement records all returning development, these numbers with all local jurisdictions. anadromous species will probably decrease. Habitat improvement would be one goal (apx. 84 in 1986). of this plan. 2 0005 12, 6 Habitat Drainage district has Condition will continue. - Contact drainage district about RM 1.30- removed all stream cover the feasibility of select plant- 4.65 along drainage channel. ings along the ditch levees. Water quality looks very - Develop a plan to address point poor. Some oil and suds on and nonpoint water quality surface, also very turbid problems originating from the water. thousands of acres of commercial and industrial land in the basin. • 3 0005 18 Habitat Large amounts of sediment More erosion, sedimentation, - Increase size and number of R/D RM 8.30- moving down the stream and loss of fish habitat. facilities upstream to reduce 8.70 system has filled in flow volume and rates to non- all the pools. Kent removes erosive levels. 1,100 cubic yards of sedi- • ment from Mill Creek at Canyon Park annually. P:BR.APC/mlm C-1 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. ProtConditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 4 0005 18 Cieologv Erosion in narrow, steep- Increased flows from tribu- - Increase control of stormflow in RM 8.50- sided ravine -- intermit- taries on plateau will cause streams originating on the plateau 9.70 tent bank erosion, slump- continued or accelerated (especially Trib. 0005). ing; gullies below cul- erosion. Flow directed over Direct local drainage (below RM verts; downcutting near the edge of the ravine 9.80) around the ravine, or tight- upper end. Deposition at causes gullying of walls. line to bottom of ravine. mouth of ravine. Erosion of banks and lower - Remove or repair old dam. slopes causes accelerated - Restict any further development on landsliding in lower slopes the edge of the ravine. (e.g., around old dam at RM 9.40). 5 0005 18 Habitat Left bank has lots of gar- Potential water quality - Remove garbage (preferably by the RM 9.10- bage deposited from access problem; since inside Mill parties who placed it there). 9.20 road above. Right bank Creek Canyon park, it could - Increase enforcement .of regulations is a major dumping ground be a public hazard. prohibiting the random dumping of of used appliances. garbage in non-approved disposal sites. 6 0005 18 Habitat 12" culvert discharges onto If not tightlined in a safe, Kent Surface Water Utility should RM 9.40 top of left bank and has nonerosive manner to the put this tightlining project on caused landslide into the bottom of the ravine, mare their list of future CIP projects. stream. erosion will occur with resulting sedimentation downstream. 7 0005 18 Habitat Good spawning gravels. Without increased rate and - SWM/Basin Planning should deter- RM 9.60 Protection from high storm velocity and volume controls, mine the allowable rates and veto- flows and velocities new development will cities to maintain a stable, needed. Most large organic further threaten this nonerosive channel. New devel- debris flushed out of the spawning area. opment must then be conditioned to ravine. meet these requirements. - Add structures or large organic debris to create pools. P:BR.APC/mlm C-2 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 8 0005 19 I-Iabitat Fish blockage due to con- Condition will continue. Encourage State Fisheries person- RM 10.05 crete and asphalt debris nel to organize a citizen-action piled in stream. _ project to construct a stepped pool or other solution to allow fish passage. 9 0005 19 Habitat Native vegetation Livestock will erode stream- - Fence to provide a stream corri- RM 10.10- removed down to stream edge bank and defecate in stream dor. 10.30 and replaced by pasture. channel. This will result - Plant native plants or allow in erosion, sedimentation, natural revegetation along and water quality problems. streambanks. 10 0005A 19 I-Iydrology 0307 Tributary contributes to This area will continue to - Obtain required easements and RM 0.2 Mill Creek, which experien- develop and will contribute construct a regional R/D facility ces erosion and sediment greater runoff to the in wetland area. transport. Wetland 0308 downstream conveyance system. - Construct berms along the western now provides some RID and The wetland area may be and northern sides of the existing has much more potential damaged by development wetland. capacity. around the perimeter and this - Increase the storage capacity may decrease the ability of of the wetland by excavation. the surface water to infiltrate. Runoff will continue to increase and erosion and sedimentation will likewise continue. 11 0006 7 habitat Stream flows throuth wet- Condition will continue. If anadromous fish were rein- , RM .50- - land. No visible channel. troduced to Panther Creek, 1.40 Fish transit through this wetland passage would need to be cattail wetland looks assured. A biological assessment difficult. by fisheries and wetland biolo- gists would be needed to formulate a viable solution. P:BR.APC/mIm C-3 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 12 0006 8, 10 Geology Channel downcutting at Problem will get much worse - Provide additional R/D facilities RM 1.40- upper end; bank erosion and as development proceeds in upper basin. 2.60 mass-wasting. Deposition along the ravine and in the - Restrict development along ravine above 180th and at wet- upper basin. Ravine is edges. land below Talbot Rd. sensitive to high flows in - Route runoff around ravine or channel, and slopes are tightline it to bottom in a safe, susceptible to gullying. nonerosive manner (gully at Sediment is filling a major RM 2.50). wetland. 13 0006 7 Ilabitat Alluvial fan from upstream Killing of trees from sedi- Provide a sediment pond and increased RM 1.50 erosion; landslides filling ment inundation. Little or maintenance or reduce flows upstream wetland and blocking no fish passage. to nonerosive levels. stream for fish use. 14 0006 8 Habitat 3' drop out of culvert Condition will remain. Improve system only if a fisheries RM 1.70 under Talbot Rd with biologist deems the Panther Creek no pool. Potential fish system viable for fish. barriers. 15 0006 8 Habitat Two debris jams pose Condition will remain. Remove debris or improve passage RM 1.75 potential fish barriers. through the debris jams. 16 0006 10 Habitat Extensive bank erosion, . Worsening of current condi- Same as Trib. 0006, RM 2.55-3.00. RM 1.80- channel downcutting and tions. (See Item 19 below.) 2.55 sedimentation has elimi- nated most pools, fish, and benthic organisms. • Both large organic debris and bedload material are active. 17 0006 8 Ilabitat 12' waterfall and concrete No future fish access to If the upstream habitat justifies RM 1.95 channel creating fish upstream areas. improvement, then a fish ladder should barrier. be constructed over the falls. P:13R.APC/mlm C-4 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 1 8 0006 8 Geology Large landslide (transla- Slide will continue to Direct surface runoff away from RM 2.15 tional and rotational contribute to sedimentation top of slope to gravel pit failure), with raw slope downstream. (to west). remaining; gullying of slope. Apparently caused by combination of under- cutting by stream and routing of road drainage over slope from above. 19 0006 10 I-Iabitat Stream in good condition. Possible erosion and loss of - Maintain stream flows at non- RM 2.55- Setbacks and protective habitat if future develop- erosive levels _ 3.00 vegetation needed at points ment increases volume and - - Maintain a natural stream corri- along the. stream. Some rate of flow. dor from Panther Lake down into good pools and spawning and along Panther Creek. gravel in a few places. 20 0006 10 Ilydrology 0301 Panther Lake is a #1-C Future development in this The sensitive nature of the RM 3.40 wetland that provides a area will triple the amount wetland would require precise large amount of natural of impervious area. The boundary surveys and control over storage; the downstream available area for regional the amount of water artificially system is in fair R/D facilities may soon be retained by the proposed control. condition with some exausted and the system Use Panther Lake as an R/D facili- erosion. The contributing will continue unchecked ty by constructing earthen berms drainage area is not downstream. Erosive on the north and west sides of the currently densely devel- soils throughout the area wetland area; construct a control oped. are further threatened outlet, enhance and increase the as higher amounts of runoff capacity of the downstream channel will increase the rate at (stabilize with vegetation), and which the existing stream obtain easements. erodes. P:BR.APC/mlm C-S Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile I'oint Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 21 0006A 7 Habitat Incised stream eroded to Reduction of wetland area Consider tightlining stream from RM .10 bedrock above Talbot Rd. and values. Loss of flood Whitworth Ave. S to Talbot Rd. Little or no habitat value. storage. Two slides are depositing sediment in large wetland on east side of Valley Free- way (inside city of Renton). • 22 0006A 7 Geology Erosion in short channel Stormflow is discharged rap- R/D and/or energy dissipation at RM .I0-.20 reach below development: idly into channel from cul- upper end of channel needed. downcutting at upper end, vert below street. Down- failure of lower slopes cutting is prevented at throughout. lower end (by bedrock and culvert at Talbot Rd.) but will continue to undercut slopes at upper end: 23 000GB 4 Geology Extreme gullying below cul- Runoff from Benson Rd. and Reroute some or all of the RM 1.55- vert outfall (below Benson area to the east is dis- runoff or tightline through the 1.70, 1.00 Rd.) causing rapid sedi- charged onto erodible sand erodible reach. (Problem area is mentation, especially and gravel, which is depos- slated for development.) in. R/D pond (RM 1.55); ited downstream. Most of probably contributing to the coarse material is deposition at RM 1.00. caught by the R/D pond -- will require more frequent • maintenance. 24 0006B _ 4 Habitat Drainage from Fred Nelson . More property loss from - Provide R/D at Jr. High School. Jr. High School is causing unrestricted flows from Jr. - Other possibility is to pipe extensive erosion problems High. High maintenance the stream. between Benson Rd. and costs to dredge R/D ponds of SR 515. Large sediment silt. build up in S 22nd Ct. R/D pond at S Puget Dr. No fish habitat in this system. P:BR.APC/mlm C-6 I'rih. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems ,Recommendations 25 0006C 5 Habitat Rolling Hills Creek exhib- Little change due to riprap None. its oil sheen on water in along stream to protect upper portion of the creek. sewer line that parallels Little or no fish habitat stream. (or potential) exists. 26 0009 9 Geology Bank and lower-slope erosion Flows in tributary will in- - R/D in upper basin. RM .00- in small tributary channel, crease; erosion will continue - Remove fill along stream. .15 especially behind construe- causing sedimentation down- tion equipment lot. stream and perhaps threaten stability of building. 27 0009 9 Ilabitat Lots of litter; stream has Worsening of water quality, - Reduce the volume and rate of water RM .15-.20 extensive downcutting, bank sedimentation, and erosion. to non-erosive levels by new R/D. erosion, and bedload - Consider restricting future develop- movement. ment (down-zone). - Community action projects could remove litter. 28 0020 12 Habitat Sediment has destroyed fish Possible flooding and sedi- Remove sedimentation source (see also RM .20 habitat. City of Kent mentation along S .192nd St. Trib. 0023, RM.95). removes sediment each year. 29 0020 21 Geology Bank erosion, landsliding Problems will continue. - Control storm flows. Increase R/D RM .50- in canyon due to outfalls above RM .40 in 0021; reroute or .70 at end of SE 196th St. and control flows from vicinity of SE from R/D on 200th plus 200th (tightline west on 200th). natural sensitivity - Provide energy dissipation at R/D (landslides). Heavy damage _ outfall (RM .40). in Jan. 86 storm. Sedi- - Restrict development on north side mentation above old road, of 0021 (runoff to be tightlined or and in trout farm below routed around ravine). Talbot Rd., as well as ero- sion in the ravine. P:13R.APC/mlm C-7 Trib & Collect Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 30 0020 21 Ilabitat Excess sediment from Further sedimentation from Several options: construct sediment RM .()0 upstream has destroyed a upstream sediment sources. pond above Talbot Road. Reduce private trout farm. flow rates and volumes in Trib. Thousands of fish were 0021. Increase R/D upstream of killed during Jan. '86 Talbot Rd. Down-zone land to storm. reduce surface water impacts of future development. 1 0021 22, Geology Bank erosion, landsliding Problems will continue. - Control storm flows: R/D above RM .00 in ravine due to outfalls RM .40 in 0021; reroute or 0.50 at end of SE 196th St. . control flows from vicinity of and from R/D pond at SE SE 200th (tightline flows west 200th plus natural on 200th). sensitivity (landslides). - Provide energy dissipation at R/D Heavy damage in Jan. '86 - outfall (RM .40). storm. Sedimentation above - Restrict development on north side old road and in trout farm • of 0021 (runoff to be tightlined below Talbot Rd. (0020), as or routed around canyon). well as erosion in the canyon. 32 0021 22 Hydrology 0302 The upper reaches of Development will continue - Construct a regional R/D faci- RM .40 Springbrook Creek lie and impervious area will lity in the natural drainage within the city of Renton continue to grow. Increased swale at the upper reaches of City Watershed. The creek runoff will further erode this system. originates in highly ero- the unstable soils carrying - Construct a dam across the swale sive and steeply sloping sediment and debris with an outlet control structure soils. Alterations of the downstream, where they will and an overflow spillway. natural drainage patterns reduce the efficiency of or - Tightline existing drainage into by development, roadway even destroy culverts, pipe- area to further reduce erosion and construction, and poor lines, and streambeds. raise existing roadway to prevent practice in handling Flooding could result from flooding. runoff have increased ero- the inefficient facilities sion and sediment coupled with the greater transport to the lower runoff. gradient downstream reaches. P:13R.APC/mlm C-8 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations • 33 0022 26, 28 Geology Bank cutting and slope Natural instability of - Increase R/D capacity, especially RM .20- failure in canyon of - canyon walls is aggravated upstream of Benson Road. 1.40 Garrison Creek. Some ero- by increased flows from - Tightline flows to bottom of sion caused by outfall over upper part of catchment. canyon; provide energy dissipa- edges or flow out of tight- tion. lined culverts impinging on - Restrict further development on opposite banks. Deposition edges of canyon. in vicinity of SE 218 St. 34 0022 26 Habitat Large sedimentation zone has Flooding of adjacent proper- Reduce flow rates and volumes RM .30- filled channel and pools. ties due to rising streambed to non-erosive levels. Then caused by sediment consider habitat improvements deposition. such as large organic debris for • pools and instream protection. 35 0022 29,23 Habitat Surface water runoff is More development will exa- Reduce flow rates to nonerosive RM .30- 26 causing severe erosion and cerbate the problem. levels by providing more RID. 2.30 sedimentation. Instream Stricter development controls by habitat for fish and benthic down-zoning development areas. organisms is very poor. Most pools are gone, in- stream large organic debris and bcdload are both moving. 36 0022 28 Habitat Stream has a whitewashed, Worsening of existing Reduce stream flow rates and RM .80 sterile look due to the problems. volumes to non-erosive levels. water volume and veloci- Then consider habitat improve- tics. These have created ments such as large organic debris a very unstable system for pools and instream protec- that has destroyed the tion. fish habitat and removed most fish, benthos, and macrophytes. P:BR.APC/mlm C-9 Trite. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 37 0022 28 Geology Erosion below culvert out- Gullying and failure of Tightline to bottom of canyon, RM 1.10 fall; downcutting of side- sideslopes will continue with energy dissipator. gully into loose sandy unless outfall is materials. These are controlled. causing some slope failure in backyards. 38 0022 28 Habitat Large quantities of Water quality and visual Remove trash. ItM 1.30 domestic trash instream. problems. 39 0022 28 Geology Mass failure of new fill on Problems will continue. - Fill should be rebuilt or RM 1.40 edge of canyon; erosion of removed. culvert outfall; under- - R/D pond on edge should be cutting of slopes. Trash moved north. disposed of by nursery is - Culvert outfall should be entering stream. Fill was rerouted into a new R/D facility emplaced poorly is settling southeast of Benson Rd. (or toward creek; side is tightlined to bottom of hill). failing. Runoff from - Removal of trash from stream streets and development east should be required. of Benson Rd. is eroding slopes at outfall. 40 0022 26 Hydrology Garrison Creek experiences Additional development There are three recommended pro- (See items erosion and downcutting upstream and along jects along Garrison Creek #42-43 because of the step gra- Garrison Creek will continue that would impede peak runoff below) dient and erosive soils in to exacerbate the erosion flows and would thus reduce ero- this reach. Development in problem and degrade the sion and flooding potential. the upstream areas has existing conveyance system. The system would need to be further accelerated this Sediment load and erosion hydraulically modelled to deter- problem by concentrating will reduce the efficiency of mine the individual/joint impact runoff into the stream. (and potentially destroy) of the recommended projects. existing facilities. Potential cost sharing should be reviewed with the Washington State Dept. of Transportation and the city of Kent. P:I3R.APC/mIm C-10 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 41 0022 29 Hydrology 0303 See Item 40. See Item 40. Construct instream RID facility RM 1.40 at intersection of Benson Rd. and Garrison Creek. Roadway would be reinforced to act as impoundment. Construct outlet control structure and tie to existing cross culvert. Check realignment schedule with WSDOT. Provide fish passage. 42 0022 28 Hydrology 0304 See Item 40. See Item 40. Construct instream R/D facility RM 1.00 in Garrison Creek. Construct a dam across the ravine with an outlet control structure and an overflow spillway. Provide access road from SE 220th without increasing landslide potential. Project will provide fish passage. 43 0024 30 Hydrology 0305 See Item 40. See Item 40. Construct R/D facility. Would require excavation of soil, remo- val of existing vegetation, and construction of berms. Facility would require proportional discharge outlet and overflow spillway. 44 0023 27 Geology 7* Downcutting, undercutting Erosion in this ravine has - Control flows into canyon with RM .50- of lower slopes -- extreme been aggravated by R/D upstream of RM 1.00. .90 in upper reach (RM 0.70- increased flows from upper - If possible, route runoff (from 0.90); box-gully up to basin and runoff from resi- development to south RM .70-.90) 22' deep. Deposition in dential area to the south. around the canyon to S 212th St. field at mouth. Worst erosion occurs at - Restrict further development knickpoint of headward along ravine edges; in areas migration (currently RM .80 north of ravine any future out- -.90) and will move up- falls should be tighlined into stream with time. canyon or (preferably) routed around. P:BR.APC/mIm C-11 1'rib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile l'oint Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 45 0023 27 Habitat Whitewashed, sterile Worsening of existing Reduce stream flow rates and RM .60- channel. Channel material problem. volumes to nonerosive levels, .80 is very unstable. Little then consider habitat improve- fish habitat remaining. ments such as large organic debris Steep, incised valley. for pools and instream protec- tion. 46 0023 27 Habitat Construction-yard drainage Further erosion and possible Notify Dept. of Ecology and RM .`LS from existing pipe on top toxic runoff from private King County Health Dept. of slope causing eroded construction business. left bank. 47 0023 27 Hydrology 0309 Large amounts of sediment Erosion and sediment - Reduce the rate of erosion RM 1.0 are transported from the transport will continue to and sediment transport by highly erosive soils and degrade the system and require constructing an instream R/D steep gradient to the continued maintenance of the facility to reduce peak discharges, lower-gradient downstream downstream system. using the existing sewer-line reaches. This problem is right-of-way. Increase storage aggravated by peak storm capacity by expanding size of the runoff and poor develop- existing berm. ment practices (e.g., - Construct an outlet-control development on steep facility. As part of project, slopes). The resulting downstream channel will need erosion and sediment proper erosion-control facili- transport have led to ties. decreased conveyance- system capacity and need for increased maintenance. P:I3R.APC/mlm C-12 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile l'oint Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 48 0024 30, 31 Geology Channel downcutting, bank Increase in impervious area - Increase R/D, especially in upstream RM .20 erosion, landslides in on plateau will continue to area of Trib. 0024 (where most ravines. Natural instabi- aggravate erosion in the future development will occur). lity aggravated by ravines and cause deposition - The downstream analysis required by increased streamflows. in Garrison Creek. BALD for new developments should fully address the impacts of new developments on the conditions foun at this site during reconnaissance. New development that will aggravated conditions should be required to include mitigation proposals prior to approval. 49 0024 30 Ilabitat Loss of pools and instream Any remaining fish, benthos, Reduce flow rates and volumes to IZM .10- habitat from high-flow ero- or macrophytes will be lost nonerosive levels with development .30 sion. due to the high, erosive controls and/or with additional stream flows. R/D at existing sites. 50 0024 30 Habitat Large quantity of garbage More garbage and increased -Encourage citizen project to clean IZM .70 deposited in the stream. water quality problems. up the stream. -Large commercial area and parking lot runoff need oil and metals separation before discharge into the stream. P:BR.APC/mlm C-13 'Drib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 51 0025 30, 31 Geology Channel downcutting, bank Increase in impervious area -Provide energy dissipation below RM .00- erosion, landslides in on plateau will continue to culvert outfall at RM .70. .70 canyons. Natural instabi- aggravate erosion in the Restrict development along canyon lity aggravated by ravines and cause deposition edges. increased stream flows. in Garrison Creek. -The downstream analysis required by BALD for new developments should fully address the impacts these developments will have on the conditions found at this site during reconnaissance. Developments that will aggravate conditions should be required to include mitigation proposals prior to approval. 52 NA 7 Hydrology 0306 None observed. None. Drop project from priority listing; small tributary area at top of knoll; city of Renton in agreement with this recommendation. 53 NA 7 Hydrology 0303 Project completed. None. P:BR.APC/mlm C-14 EXHIBIT F SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS , , , , 1 1/2 0 1 . ,..., 167 1/2 _ I MILE { ...f- '.— ,4, ��,-1� w.rl\��`��‘,1 ` r,�, 'rIiiib htiii/N'� k `'� " < \ \� Jlf '9fiIi:ALL-.9�� 1• )1 iO Elo;1°® • ! / ✓C-.y�\r.: .�•` fit: 't c• `N /u. `C ,.. ijjlff,,z, Q ,. , - _ ti. ay 1 x /ice„{.•, !�3 ( • ]..: '.V � 0' I It -• • rry`AI1IM� ,,' \� • sk i J'% a■S YS ,' 11 n') r 1L1 `� lIv.= it::: R►' t" - '� • 1 . JAI 77 ! VIPS ..t\\ w dl. .t. t; C p S1 RI IN ir _I f Yr' '/7s'AgliNQ3�,''� .0)...... �II.� in I - r .•'44111t `�i A. '`\ i LM �` "j '`t pig \': ` 't ;1� .' � �5.111f;14 `�►`�., &s 1C §,R1i!' 0.Qll' - ~`rl L,- `\ '1 1 1�. ��t�,, F��+//"' 4 ' �n a•4rr t1s-11-i.rivz...:77_,.0.%, r 0:1=01%,:=. / ,, • / 1 'Mt y - LLb' ..f�spli f}� .•y i 1, , ., p A'-. - .T`.. IL - tom:' :. t T� ""r�/yD ,?fy- u &.r ':�' ., 0, $. ,..-.-• sew. N. ..,.i.ri 1....,•?....,..•, . • . .11.:=14,. ,,I.:„.•_?..:1 7 - .4., . onyoull,-;.; _,‘ wit. •,... _ . , .z., II .4 ..,i. ., t."..1., ' A-14* ,==;2 Wif-2,•iz: '4 t-iity'411treal 11 . .. ..,. 4 si., =l111 :,.. ,‘,..-1. 1 '`.."4. '1- , ',ra � � - :�1 " r kir" slung a 4'b , : 4a�,Cw'',y,. r.?a ., - _to � Q 's d�1116„yt.�� ,.`�, i�a ,i61001%,. ,* ffir•-,-- ,0110 .1 ,A,i,.komet'''''444itifq111,417011044.*kiel.4:..t(.4_,d- ,;\:.C.4%.,1 „..:. b.111 li ,,,,,,„ -1:4i.._ , .-p, c,,,kv,,, , ,,,,....., .. , 12:::,-_,..-N El ki Ns tt I j '".rii f.. t; o �sy•, �_ 11111 ,s a sp ` � ri erre li `, t__ .. . �:� - 7�iii*ip 'Nitiv;:i---f, 164( ' sue In 1112 1111 \� k 'i`/ !; 1•,...�\ '~?�'"_IFF-�`'001 ,�,�` :1►i _ `.L:,� 'j, �'' t om'`�. ...mmk,.,..7_ . 14: -qiii10-11\Ili:.- .611_441-wv, Ili ..____ \,, ,,..i..„.:._.:. ... .„,....,_14\44, S re IIIIII = Sitiltista . q - 4. p lip - 4 t: �1�' ' Ida ,_- � ,,;),,i ri.i el �i� �.� ` -'--- 1 l',q‘; tft 411111ormen,Wramui,\ 1 s tu.n..air fl. .01 2,\ 1 , -,- ;21,., .114tvisrowillitx---_:- \i ti, A\ . . k pra f' I•tifitiruweyro 4$I9A; J' .., .., n • '.rt, Duwamish 4 EROSION HAZARD AREAS .,....____ , iiiii;:t!!!!ii 1 1/2 0 1 mem MILE __i. ...tol.till ‘ k w,4., ...,.) l/ .T// \'",7V;,:,..1.,,i1/4..(,.\,A40.'....m lr.onrI clt,o girr 1 - "tag_V1p`w__�f. gv. 1.' .1 ', \' • `�M`• •�i'--C:•,1•• "p0 ('T". 1�' 'J�' ` '!• ,I ter.�� ` r•�••\'F •,;:, r )" • 11 .i` .i}1 ice. Ic -. . , 2 -•. ll /7gAss kt,i.-i,......:Rire-,,,,f.,.,:.s! , • .. '''','"..:::/,,,r,.,..I ar-c..s __. 4' • ,?:=Iii • -.,';,::Ill wei."411)-,,,,:.',,....,.40,,.1, .,....._, ...,:z., ...:::::/..,_„:„..,.., f v Smiavxrs \.� ' . '/r6•.RM' �D S • 3E�e4� 'f• team.. •`��•ir�. 1 �. �,ri � N. es JJ r` . ,` ' ` tt719ita, „I '' .1. 1 C , I '. _ •:. J' •`_^�: � .rig; � ,, .'i ��:•<`ti,:-', ' _ - J �1 �Ia(-�i ��ia� �e+ � ;in- '•:� �`: ..1" \fir % - g, .S„� - "7*" .L....."- / � ••' k, . A � S vj�i� ` ``�'• p } Jfrs�•� ' i� 'C,i NIT ,'2 A I �Z3+ ' :�. •• �'.fK! '/ �� `�� GVi��s10 w ••. .. 1 • wa Illitk '-‘'‘,„%::•'-"; ..L.141".1:_44. '1 s•lttniii . 2Ty, S'il ' ly4;-iiiiiii ii oisi _ cL,T.ini".. —,s,,ri ri,. ._._, 4 lir , i 0 i!I ' - - ,r,,,,, • 'f4-�: - 1 ', ` ay:!•_. ,FriiiFigiir-ww \i . 4F • Xt4rr* .',1:..' .k , •I. d ` gt .._ \•'_ fr'� '.� 1�n, : , '- .,fir p._ rm \.•-q, tt4 •; '" \l' 01 ';.'''' , -!. $ . i• \ -si:."--'.-----t:1110_11/11 ,/,4:_‘'Nlir'.11-'"r,1/4%),,z.:4"---\,\;. .1.',`,.... •-•:''.::?:;.,,i,::, Nip,1044. ...',...... --c/1',._.:\,.:-.112.::::.7.7 , 6 ''.....'Z.N.4„: illb...7.. 11...''... 1:......'1. ', „ a .... r.,..1 ,,,„,,,,. dif letlitragifeet.2 j . .,- ',,,, ''''. 'III \tt, 1141E-fir:/Ill -. 1 1111 -,-A kir it "111611115firlithala.ANV;;.;";::;'.6 raLqma ',.,`-'2'„,i,_- `,_ . ...•6�llte�► i I . r - -ail' ✓ 4. - I r i. ` 2 �1�t1111 IS � o .. `0 � 4 II 1 ' � c� i i! � .aunriim 1I `�, to • . „ ' f �,. ,. �- .�i! ' ,a '42, — ( : •, •� � "__ fli wamich • SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS .._ ,, , , . , , . __. , • __......_.........., 1 1/2 0 1 i i MILE 11! gl::111 ...-.=!:-...,-,A!.75i. . - .-:ii a.1'. %.,,.4.; '.', .r..c.,7 -'''.. c''*-,,,,,,i_.. .N.''......'.'il iz. 1‘.e.'t.irii1121011141A .1 t Lt.'1/ • /21.: •".:,:..., 'i>,_11 ILIftv.i. •. :- t4C.-?iillr. lit IF.;,•;;4.:. .1 i • ) j p .CS; ^ ;-.. ,. *,c. � . . I t 1. ; : �PN 7AID . .Q A • �: t: • ' �` ass• t- � T , it t rsx .+1. 4."fir•--17 rjjsr f ..`. `.+ � Jit, ( 161.14 Ft! a� "r y . c.,o-,,.�.ce• \' iw+vi k� . `�' -'%. .\'::..Irr(4.... ..::'S:) j..'•', .3 lam �� 1! �. . , .,.�p. _... 'j�' �i (,p,}� tz { ) :' Ida •• 1. • .:.►.--1 \ �}� ,,,,,,,,44 , t ,„ � : \itm=7215. i'q ''‘''''• ' •\ ..:5. -.: \ • • `. ` �� y lyiy ►`1 .C. TYITIMMI__ ' 7"'."---- .•'•• s\ • - . k k .1 (91Mil. 4.1 :::"- .. . i ..,. • • I.,,w i1,4.-z,mtb, ..1. , ../11.... t sig)§4,, . 4 -;.. vt,„.. 4„..._.75m. vir ,01=2, Britillii - l':.t.! r.:-." . .-....• -.• r - c ��i . Alt 1:' ; B -:g__ f. �� r, : �', trig .. ,..; }} "Niflil •.17, ►, II,I"` II?tie 44 :•; II ' ii.,';,,,, - .,64.1.,: , at-. 6,,.0...,-, ,:d, ,,, to.,„,„,, _ „,,,c,, ,..i,v_ , , ti ,.....,„..i 1\ 7, •:, '`..../.•• la /•.h„It- .•�(. f ''.`.::: i.:, •`�.' . C°r�ii ht �� ,601, •��%,.. tit +...' I'. x41W!PPiFt:4111,-..-....0::•.,:t1.-'vfvf,f,„:_ ,...,--'!..*. re-04:.: .:,...gi Iwo- ,••• •.'.. • �k' , ;$4,‘:;Ir.-, ,,.,...,.,.... •cr-- .-b,,,-„_.....,-,.— - ,,,,,,,00,,A....-,,,, _T-igi N.,,,,,,...„,.., .,....„.,":„.,:,..„,....:.:,,...:•,....• ...., -,......:....„ .... . _.„.... .. •.• 11,\:,,.....„......:.A..,4:,,-,....i,......liti.„-117-4-7,4,.. .\ lisavr,..fit: , 4._:.f..611-4,-- . - --ekt)N" - _,_'-.4-:::3,.--.-:•,,,,...):;:.'...\.-'7. ..-::::-1.i:;..c.....:::::.-..- ..:....,-• Ira i‘k:::. T-A, "a; =w�9� �1> . ,;i a• - `.. _ i ( 4,.„. --,7,2..r.,,i.,,. `� .ter - \\ •., . a 42. • u • r - n\ I I—_ ,,A/hi • r �V111 ra T `_ ill i. "`111� ' ' i1l.7, ,I 1 oilliial ipi v 11 e q: "' yr,, r • n...un mich STREAMS AND 100 YEAR , ,,, _ class, FLOODPLAINS _... ._ Class 2(with salmonids) Class 2(perennial;salmonid use undetermined) =� Class 3 Unclassified ' 1 1/2 0 1 4":41 100-Year Floodplalns t r ' 7,1 / MILE • • ,,.iiiv a... IN,,,CI i.. ,O.V. .. I 1104::' . •- •11.? . ti I-1. - -• -ts1; ; I ii 1 1010-k 2.5,- F,... -- Ai .A1 .e.-sr,-Aia.i' i.'•.:Fig'';ital....',C.1:7(Vli; : -- -:_c;.-_-.1-1,;,••: /-7;.:N,11.,‘''k'I '?,. Stp . .. gfmnig,.., . v1I'ltifil.CdpgilgiViVtP4 i P) -- '• ---4.i - •I I I. ....,,,,-,...„2-..-..„.,_....-__„2...,....\ t, n_ 7. ,--' , 1 . 7 • Tr r 1 ':"zr''•-,,:\.%1-.' \ 4111-,.L,-ft". ,a.' - , 473s, lialgrplimp) If litio-r-,;I, • ) 4:434 • :.',I. •..A . ., - .,i,'. • ••'` lib;;N1 fir, ':• t `�'_ a '�; La 4 j#j, 4 r \ /�, �2 • �. 'm.o. -: ,' 'l SwuM Porn. ntrywhEt - • r\ r` 4 .,\ -�. : I ' �e �' reenatawi.A• r I-..� wa ,! .• I '�° r� 'ter l•![..; . t......-; .,—rializi„, ..i• c...,,,.„‘„,, :,,r,r= ,,b, :.- f A,' tar ,...., ,,, ,., : ,... -:‘,41, , -1,:... J. : .: , i ,._.,..;.,1 , ,'p , -. ••• •t, _. ..,,ji, .,-,.. Silliks •a:$,At.,,,...— Tr" o .1. tVg ,::::.• ..p. ,;, •-t,•••,,t, ' --<7), • i . . \ 1 ,:..F.:.• ',! . Sigiiiiilkstot -7"-, . --- .- `,i'->k,•t•••• EmNr_tav —1..\k,,*--,I4,11.,ri, ' '.. .•2: • ,..f. - \r .1. - I:_ L `} `.�-;••'_.fin alawT. :. : .. C`'r •. ��_ iJ� T ` Iv * ''�ii lr a ' s: ' \a '* zit n 1 •,--to:, , c •:arc, ii.- 3%,,Igii, , N.,....... . .,\N‘ c-' •.)111 rg#ti r..1111al Vtit;,s- III—Mg. '...E._ '' )itill!IlikNs.‘,: 1 (.'" 'i / I li . .r s.'4 ' :".--....' ...' ,'''Ai. ! :..f ...t ' lip.-..“" ND. '',A\\ '...2.1:44;:olf;I,Ltri*'—LIL 111(1*.,‘", 111111111h r /f;jet44'Viii4,4r.\Mat' IOW- • '...!•,' ' • l'-' 11 ,,,, ti,;.- :9) .-;B.A.'''. .... '4;r4.-.. .,!i„_4-.1-htWAIN-3.-- .• !.(1 .1°, - hlig111.61 spA,„...e.r•I•... . t ,,,, ,0 ___ R r , y1 .. a 7 a i Iv 1111li�li ,�i�� / i~ -0; •,�; ��, ,. � �<11 4g011,;1 j�r ;•i�.�� ;-� �,Iraq I •,--,N,i,;ridt•it t.•:, '4- edtA )...--.54,- 6...-..,ir,„_,..ipifeit.61,illielge4trz, ,,,,.. -',. , --..,1 i':..c-tr.7,,j- , , .11 ,..14 :=•,,,,„re., • .tA a-A ink.'t,. ,xs-_,_--- t_,x,,AsAv,ir.,.-d-rEE.iitNi: . .,-.:- - N.z.t:-!_0:,,,, .,,„,„du-iiir .,:"..... ..- - • , irfat ii,j! . sit---,._... ...> . r ,„.....,s, _.„(..., ilti 161 , :•MallIalt. Ili&, •, 1(#' :.•,..)::, -"" --- 1 6 rti i... 1.,„04.3 i.t:..: 400,k...,y'`". r'" feAs v;.T. < ,'y l ri0.• ) `V l • f t L'' .` 1ztk wtA - • ....{11111 N..t:NI; ii:z.... si, "Iva .1,•••••:; mg `',./igiii.A /4" , 1,431 . ,--.ri-NJ---) , ' rim ^ _. .. �•f_ i <� �•o. . t 11� ICIiii 1 * �.L. ` �.- . A i14111k. 4111112BUTIP2 1 rtpia\' 41.11 ' - . . ___ alittaTIMI.c. f,, liwificieik ii,VI . 25 I I siamlii1;:;413,1 .ijimu„ ‘ .NIAMIllik,=,5- \I it A *.. ,....-i k: "PA , s: _M•rs _ 1Zi Ins extend be- C¢ro - ci nr� 1 (1(l_.. l)inmamish A WETLANDS , , . ..... _ • _.......... .... _, _________ ,,..... --_ Wetlands • Open Water Basin Boundaries , 1/2 0 , i Sub-basin B n oundaes MILE Sub-basin �� ' J I ��i • ,Goal Cree �I i\ // r . , . ..-:::,...,..-;.:::;...zi.--;-:.-.,..",•.:5'..-.",,/,'..f4f„''kr 114er ,"t:C....,..____..,-../1.1 ".kif\':i .,',,.. . l'" 911./.!1:!.1:::::'..":"i;;;:.!::::::-:.::::,f,.,:-..-.1/44111 OM '1,;):,i.:5F1 ii;j'''' : ..*.::.,::7,1;:-A ':L:i:.L.::4 1 .1 Er, • t_stk .i„—..,,,.. .:,;:,,, ,.::5...:„-. ....••••'fAcfr',.421 =0 • , .ii .? . ,_?.. -. -.0 i Ito ;gymi•igrF. '-'-r,"::?:::;;'-i.r....."'-'..-.-:... .,16 "`"m ,../..-.:.;',. ..:-....-.).:.:.::::::.=.:.::_,Avr,ff 4, 1,34 Ilt 'I � 1, e ! ` • �:,, \_ ,1. i.'i 1•%,'-',.',':-:-•,f,-'-....-:,-':'c:-;,i...-',::--.,'•.•.(!..'-.,-'.-..'f.,v.--;:•-?-:)..,;::'.:..-...--.,:1''.";•::,-...?-.y.':.,";••.•:•••.•-"••.,;,...:'.:..,-.:::•:;.1::•::-::.:::;„:::::--,:,..::...:,.:i3.,2.,.'-.-..$--':,:,.•---:,'•,-,',-,•.,0.,,.o,,,,-.,a',..1l,, ,ii.1-i:I,,<c,`. ke...tR-.ae-,.'. ,I-tP-h r•-/•..4-.7 .1 -..',,..,:a„.,., /i•trz..4' tie, lipAi; v; . • Am bl U i/• � .r - eft s w�, ' , ,,•„ .,..• .?..'A:1 k-,.4....,-;•I;:,....L.('‘?•:.,;•..;:,.c,-,,.,_;_,:?s.1 r Jc• .r- ' 4,..7 :"-'-.."11, 11c: ',OS' • ,4•':-•,.;:i v..::-.',..Z..;1:-;-::•:-.-.',:::•••1-1" ,::',.'••••:.•;.;••,.'-", •••.'. .••;',-, ":49-4 ..0, r_ ..--;.,,,,,t...,,L-„,: , . . . '''ft.: -..',.• ...-:- Ilif.\•. . -<.1.1A `, .... ..-'''''•.':..I.J ,..r.liNk\.-::::-....,: •.--:'•..••''s.;1-'.•-•:••'..;'-•'-...'..- : •.' • ... . :-! ,,...t.';." lzw.•__.-N....:.:„:,11.,=111 N rk. .., . , ,,z,ik •c-- 4 , „,„,.,.,, ... ..... 3 ..,•• ., .. . . .... ... ., r Vi.•'•JaiNE fit' Akirtigt14, Fria ' -\‘'''-'-‘:.;..:'''''`' '1:.: '::. li ), 4.. ,,, . g lip._.Isiiv..,....,!,, - . a . .......Y '.., ki§d g ..a.:, rava Rir ' -or • ‘Iii% �. • • ZL. ] • A:� , -,,, ��AIL •2 'b 1-.:.;:-_*_--••-,••,••,•:.-‘1.:. N.,'',.'i,'.,.,.....r.:.,..:..ra..,,:.,,...".,i f a• 1.,,41:-.k:r...:-\\‘-- .,,,t-:\i,..-. wtt'.....-.....Ittfulit.: '4.T.".'s !'ll\.vr...'.7,igiii rAttx.,,:t1.4, c,..,ni,,_ .t.,..i 11. it..2._ . ' 11.4151." .%7 'W'.j • 111114 " •p vilszli - •- -•,-.-,.. w 6- NI. r ' ' '..: ''':**4,11...c17411 .4w:-.7a4Vili*). "7-§kimmtk,irkirri '''-'". '.. ' . ' -7Yi _ ,,,,, ,,..a.z.. . ., ,.....A.. ..,. ,,,.„4, 5 _,.,\\,.•,.. , . .., •, i :,, (' ' ' A. ... ----.--"3-.(4.--. .-„,-„-- ---,',0fiii,, ...,;11r,.. ,e, .....,..,--.„'„, 3.-.,". L-4,,, ---,,,-.-Ls...:.6s0). .;,.....- :::.."1... : _ , .il,.,. ,,,...„.. ..,..__ . ,_, ..„, . i .., ,,,,,,,,. . 't•ii-4'.1: , --:-/,_..,.-:-":-..'....,f, 0,ittko.•01•P"t;0,..55111ilaltNt•i , •s<6.; ... ..----- -"Lciw,..t_iatarN•Ouar -. '-''I'.;P- -': "air '''.---: -' .;.:••:‘ aN •iiciiiiiii% .", .,...,....,...t.t.4.„,„ . •., _yiri01,Wlii.. ,h, - 0- •• -• ---- ---,-,. :,,,,...tc.- -.-. ;en ,,,.,_,...„.. ..,,.x...0R....,' . ,,.I .1--11-1O.,- ith-4i\4{, i-.;1''0-1) .-11. .1,4 i'.0\:V - ak 1, . j.:61 ... � ��D .. ,5�ld eia�; ,� i ,„. ?, y 'r'�fS'S '- , K�_.� ^, 3 ,;.-r 1 T-.,ei.'..1..1...j.-...4.. .5,_._ _ -4,,,,. .\-.7".,6-g!,...;-••---.., r,. 111 ---:.-- , : .... ,,,li >,-• , Iihrlat*Al.fidi ,....-mr --) .‘•\''.:..\Iiirijr$ • ".....! .i liatiqiiei• .,. 111 1.111%;•‘/Dir.ft..7. _ _...-4,,,.: ,... ..., ..( ......... . ........„Kz,,. ' '''''' lit li ,. ..-----4 •... ,.I.:• I . .., i-R,1 vrr . ••Br.ff:OA •11 I. Irr-M11 :7E1 le ..,i'CIZ:e... -77.7-=;-.1 NI= 71114.1 .1--1121111glial Vit.""mlik‘f;/47/4" - r . ..• -1 IT\ 1: as I jMI till'I. 114�� +iba �` ��r ��w`■aa■d,c y:1 vw� , ; "val ' , q ' 7� .'�■ `' a • .". �,;i ,.. , • .: ,' : • ., . ,�. {: 1 —3 flu micF� A EXHIBIT G WETLAND INVENTORY MAP ••••••:•:•:•:::•;:•:1:1::.:"•.:?........ 1.:::::::::::•••••••................................. f, ...:... ...,L•• ....•..92 ...••••:•:e..•-,::::•:.•:.•:••:•::'•:•:.. :.:::::,:::,:::::::.. ......................„:„........„...„....::::.:.,.........,....,::,.:.:„......,.::::. ........ •-•-•:-.• • --•.:•::::.:,...„-.-:....,....:-:.::::-:. .......::::::.::.:..r..................:,•:To .....-:-.:::::::::•:..ff.: ..14!.t1: e. .!! :..... 3:-.... iler.:-..:? .:14fiAyr.:.fi.:e.........:::•::::::::::::::•t V......:-...e:'•::::::•......:::-..:::,....;••••:::::.:1.f•-•••••.•:.:*•••••:",::.::::::•. f . !..'.`. t....,......-..... „:::::::.............. ... . .. .. •••..•••••••••••••••...... •••••••••,..:-.:.:•:••••••:::•:::::::::::::*:::::••• • • • - •••• ••••••• --.::::::::.5:::::/.....: :::::-,: :::-."-.--,:4?::::,:::::::-: :::::: i„........„.......••.. . . • . . 1 ..•.. ...... . • .„ x".:;"-::.. '•••:)... *.‘, ...**.•-••••••••••••::••::•f•RIV74"..::.BaSill ":.1".......*... '61:•••••":::.:Iiii.:::::*:•:::::,::: -.....•:::::;:.::::•:;,:;::::::.:::::.........;....•-. 4.. :•:-•. "•:-.•:•:::•.•: :::::•:•••••••:::::•.:•.••••....••••:••••••.....•... .......•:•::..... --le-•••-......:;•:•::::::...• %••::-....:•::... . 1.:'''• '....•:•••:::. **•:•......:-•''•:•1: '•*;.•:•::::::::'::::::%;•:;:::•:•::::•:•::::::•:-%.•:::::.•••::::••:::-.•• '.. '•::::••••::::::•:•::••••::•:•::::•:•: ••••:i ....•-•:.....*;:••••••:::::•......•••'..".:::::;:::::.....::::•::::::i:ifff:•:::::::::::: . 1:::••::::.::: :.... ::::::.•:::::::::.. •........1::::::::::: :.iff::::§.1:i:IfA_, ....::iii111:.:••••":1:l ;iai :-..........:::: ::::•::?:::::•:•:::::iiii:::::::;::::::::::•••• •:•itii....::....................................... 1:::::::...•:;:li:•:::::.:1:::.:.....1.:•,:::: 3.:3::...:::•:::N4•:::::::::::•::::11....:::::W.•:•,............::::•{• :::::::::::::3::::-.*:::::.:::i.::::::::::::::•:::::::ii.i.li:...'.. ,•••••:::::1::::::::-....:::::::::.::::::::ruj . D5447,.....:::::::::::::a ..:',.. . . 7:.M1 Fhl....::.:::::•:::::5t.:8;.::::::-.. .................::;;;f:*;::::;.::::::::::::;:it..:::::::0::::.*::F;:.::.:'::::::::;:i.::::::::-:-:::::::.::::::::.:::::g.....15.:•::::::•::::::::::::::::::. ..„........„,:•:::::::::::::::::;::::; • •••••••••••••••42:•*2:•" •••••••••••••••••••••• ••••:::::::.•?.::::......:::::::1•:::: :::::::.:?:::::::•;.•::::::?..:14....f..." 4-4-•-•;:a . • :::::::::.-.......::.::::.:::.:::.::.::::-. ...::::::::::::..iiii::::::f::::::::::•.:11::::::•::::.::::::::::::::.:::11:::: ....5..:1.:.:.:.:::, -::::::::::: :•••••-:•••••••::••:::?1 4. 4.::::it.:::fi.:1:1:11:-...1:::::.•.:iita::::::"..:•:•::::.?.:••••:::•.:::: :•••••l:::.*: .Z.....:::::1:•::::.t...i.•:::::;•:.•1'...::::.:::if;.::;:.:.:-.•::::::::...:::........::::.1:••i•i.:.:.if -4 . Et..)... . ........••••*•:::::;•• ••:••• ;•••••••:::••411:•R:••:::::::::%•111:::•::::::.1.1.1-.."::If.::'::::::::.•::::::::. •::::::::.:::::::::::::::::':::'::-.11- % , ,irtsr- FA. a.:A....; . . .i...::::••• ::::::::.....::::::.•:::: -..--.•:•:-:?- -:* :::. •:: •••• . .... ::: : ::: :: : 1 til-.:::::::.:1.:.:::::::.!.;.............::•••";:i.5.••••!.:.;•:::::::::•:::;..."•::::::::•!............:::::::;....................::.::::::•::::!;:::•:::...:::::''....l.......::::.:":.....::::::.....::::....:::::.....:.....:1;::1:.:Ii.":"•:::**•:::**•:::::.1;:!...:;::..;:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::.::::::"..:1;:-:.:::...r- 1::::::::.::•:::f.......1. .:•••••••••....::::::' ................:.:3:: :-.....:::::-........ .1.::::::W.I..-:.:,...:1:::.........-f. •:...1z.... • , 4...::::• •••••••: :: ;•::::::::f:::::•:•:•:•::::::.:-:::.:•::.:•::•:.:::::.::•:-..:.:::::.::.:::.:.:::. .,.;j .::.:....:::.:.:::::- .::::::::::,:if:korii.::::.?:::.::•::::.:1:.::::::.:K:Iii f•- -...:::::: ..::::::::::::::ii:::•:;:.::::::::::.:;•::•:::.:.?.....:::::::%::::::-7 • ...---ii;) :::•::::•::::::. *::::::::::.::.::::;:::.::.:.::::::: ......::::.::::•:•:::.:::::::::•:::::::•:f...:-..::::::.:e...:::::'.1)4 6 ' -;:::::::::::•:•::::•:;!:::::::•i•••:::?::::.f;:-.1iff„?..*•:„:1:1::::::•::-..::;.•,:.:::,-.................i ‘,. .........,....,.............•.:„.:.:.:•.: •••••••:::::::::::•::::::•:•::•••:::I ... ._ ) ::::::;f5.11.1. ... .......:*•.A.. ..::::::::::1.t::::::::::::::......*::::::::::::::.11,......•:-..31...:::::::...:.....i.„ fi : 1:::::.:::.::.•::.::::::.11•::::: :11.iiiaciiii Citive ...:.: ,):.....i.i.ii :.1.:„..:.:• •:....::::„:„..:::::.:„.„,:.......„...,:.......„......,...,...„,.......,............,:;• , 11 Soos Creek ....... e.:::::•':::::::::•:::.::•:::::::::::::::::::e.•:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:.:::::::;r:•5:::. ' I ..i.:**i.:i*: ::::.:::.:_:::::::::.:.:*.:::::::.:.::::.:::.:.:.:.:.:::::::.::.::::::iiiliff:11.::::.::.:11.:::11:1:.;11.11.1.:.:44,„ .:400.- • (----',,. 7.fi7:1 Nikigl? .4i1:Illii.:111111111.:"::1•*g.-3.4.•:: '....*.:-.,•ii..f....,:::::-.I.::.:*:::::..1.1i.iii.:*:::::::::-:::::::1 4 •••• .......••••••1::::fif;t::::::::.::::::......... %........................ .. : :: :::. ..::. -.....4.:1:::::::.::::::::.:.:::::::.::::":::::::::x. .:..: .....f..::::::::-:::.:.:::::::.:::::::.:::.:::,..:::if:::::::::::..4 111.1•::::'::::::•ifS:.:;:.•f.g.:::::•11:::::::•*:*:•::::15-.::::::*fit'i•gi:.::::::.:.:::::::.:::::::::::,;„...:::::::::.....f:::::::::iir :::iiiii,:•fa.,:.iiiiiEiiE;i:.. .:::-,:::::::::.:::11.:::::::11111:::.::::::.::::::::.:::::::....::::ii.:::::::::?::.i:..-;i:,::::::il • ..•:::•174 ;•••••:: ::.::::4N-1.1..::::fili•iii.i.11.:::::•::::::::•:.:::.•§•::::..1.:::::::::::::•5i1:.11.1::':?: ".....ii::::ii.ii:.::.:::.:*: ::::::i.:.::•::.1 .:.:.............::.::: .. 7.W:....., ......:.22 •Nli:.:%‘:-..-.::Mk..* .M1.B.ffi '''.......Wf....1- ,4:i.wi.o, ni. -. ......::?.. &..gmi-..1-.,... ....-. :....z*re?''''..- "--- .Y r..-.....§.:::: :::-..:-..-:::::::---- • ---...L...-......,-4:::- Ii.i:.i:-::::iN::.i::iiiA.... ,--::::::::•:•:•::•:::.:•::•:::::::•:::::,,,.„•••• t. •. . .!!...?p,:p.:•:::e. .-•.-:•-•: ,,,:in ?a.:,m7.ia . .••••••••••- •••••-•-•• ----:••••••••••••••••••...-.‘.,......:::::::.:. ..........,.:.::::::::::.:::.::::-*::::::::..:. r •••••••••••••:4 :.:::::::::.::::::, lei:::: ::::::. :::::::: :: :::::: ::ii::.. ::::;;;::::::::::::::::::::::::":.:::::•.:::,:::31:•::::: ".. ::::::::::fifiii.i.:::::::::.55f:::::::::::51::::::::::::•:-:::::::::::: .,FA -::::::::::::::::::::r ,..:-. to-- Lie:c::.::.-:.::::::::: :::: :g:::i:: *N:-*--• ) ..::::••••••.--1.•••••:::•*: •• :i::.•:::;::.:*:*:::::::i.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::.:::::::*::::::::.::::;•. .:::::: ::::: -.1::.fi. :: :.; :::ii::ii:!:igij.ii;;i ..:.I ..•:::::. •••••••••::::::::::1:-.1..*:.•:::..41.•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::gl.i.;:::-..•:;:;:::::.::::::::::;..:::::::::-...i.::::::.:::::::: :::::::::.:::'..••••• •• ::::::::::4 ..... .............. ............. -,.......... ••• •••• •.•.. . '1.....:: ................: :.• -..,.. -.....; 1:!;- -j:i:::;.:•yi:•:E4:•::i::::::iii ..._-........4,:•::. r....-.......:?...-, 1....-.... ' : 1111UP:::: :::::::::-. --- , • 1101 ::::::::: • •••••• ::::. Lower Green River -. .-.- :.: \":::::::::::::::::::•:.: Mile N _ ., . .......... .....:-:::„..::.:.:.:.:.:::::..... cnrri..::-...i.„:. : :::::::::::::••••. • o % 1 - 77•775••••:::::.••••::::::::•:.::::.-••••::::::::::::::0.:: f....::::,:.:;.*:::::::iii :....::::•:::•::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::::i..........::::::..............-........a . 1:::.•.•: •••....?„'•:::::::.::.:::::•:•.iiii... ...-....„:::::::::::................. Black River . ( . Green River Basin . . EXHIBIT H DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS EXHIBIT I KING COUNTY SOIL SURVEY SOIL SURVEY King County Area Washington OPGUAL • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with WASHINGTON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Issued November 1973 . 7 •.,... / (4? '11•- ;61,,,• . I t*r.. . 4'40. = ° -..:—.....'-''..--- -• .,,.t... ., ie.', .'-':: - t • - .,:ie . % . -e---. 4- ‘,..;:-'E.' .1-''-- -- .. -,,:: , , e:.1,.. ,. ,. ..- - ,,e„,.-•,- il.._, . ....•1 ii - !,„„pik ii,..,,,,,A4,,..,‘... .....n.v..1 ..-,-, -ii.,1,02,-......... -,i4,,,-1,-.41.-- .4,,.., .,;.:4,-1 .• , .,-7:-... , . v; ... • Alb, -11:. ..x., I N .' . .. , , .1 ... .. . i 4 iw...., A. it -Ts 3e, A 1 ... . \ ‘-' • !...• •=.,,,,r . .1.1.•,.;Ht it",•-•-.1ge; • : ... .._-.. : i '',• rm., • , l',,,, -:,4-4', ;•-11' ,fr, , • •.1,' ..•,. ,-‘1. ir-....-,,,,i ii - % , or. . .., _ Al— ( ,-,•!jli&pitl±11*•, ,%, r 0:4 .,... , ., -'°''49' •Nie' •''., --.:=/5-115as - ,c1'41:".±':'' i-'' -•t411111.514.0w—lrialto.. 1,L;:',V, -,11.: .'r •• • *., „„whimr.L.._— at•— •.. ...........ki. TIPAL!--, ..*•• ••%.' - :, ,--' *,, .,,,„ 1.41,.i ,e,.•,;i': ;•f.,:',,;.,j1Lit....J..s!kl: I - '‘. it'd,' ,„;;_„.. in.7• -••,- -.. 1 -# •....• am•:,..-.- ",.. u. : •-1•1•- . a g---. - - .1-Alt, - , "..ir - ` •••••1."'"—-- \ '''.."-, - --(„ ---4- --;'. ..,!.,t,, ,___L.---1.443—ylw-1:--4,475.ittrac.,,r,1•11,,ck,a --..,. ,,t...., -4, I. = • -4' -,Li.,,,..„„.....•o'..---J- - I•••' '..... '" , :ii,t4246• iLtreil::•-, .1* • ir :tm& .s. ,,k.ltia..-,.::,%-+ 1./..,.....16-41,7c:vt,-,. .,,, A ' ---5,w?g,,,,40...,„ `t- ,:i.,m;J 6,....,224.,„.,.., • i.41,... ,.... 4 . ,..r . ,I.._/-.4- ,,,."*,,,.444s,,.• .-,,,,i,,,,,e;.,..,•41,.,fi,.. :1,...,47.;:-17,7 ` ....:,..,. • • •..••••:i .:4-". 'W, ,7tY--,,. . L.•,1,--..„..,,,,....hilli VArkii,./.. ____; L-4. ,v s\.- . . ,,..,...0..,..:L.,..,: ,,,,,,o,.7,0,01;14,.,: '• . ...;,„, ..... ,.,,‘,„„..1,„„ ii Nito '4.-4..e-s:-. /i--- ip. , .,..''' ,or 4f. ''‘. t'- '•', 1 7" , •4: U•A"'t-,..",- " .-..s. :0; / . ..,,4•,-,v,,,, ,,,,,,,..7, ;,;-.,,, , :: s--;:i.: 4,-bi,..,,,;::v t,,,,,•:.,,,, : - „ ,k, ...„ r,-.1,,,..:/;,:,,:?...,:,........,-,,,,,,,,..;,...,.s:::,,*,.",iv,z4.,4...4;•... ,, . ,, ::::/6„, .... - II -• -‘ ....',,c.,,,1,•=2--,t1.. - rin. , 4,....r... '...P`,? .Tc.%,.,..,-g.y.`,,y.:•`,,T,,:.,,,.,2,.::..r. .AV,...1;'„:-.t't,;:),.c" ' eii. '4'4\:;,`"0 . ' 'ar— ffi• - -,4,'..,....• .•••.;!•,., I" .i . •''''.- NV!..k.,1,-;,,,--4 ei u. 4 •-„,,,,- ,_-_,_,,,,,,,y,. ,. ,,, ,„. „„:„,,,,,„,,;,.., ,,,,,,,,„.„,,,..„ ,,. ,,,.:,.,,..„ .'',1 . , ,- ..,,,, _, ia. ,--.4P.--_-.00",,---- ,,/ ,-.17,..,,,;:: -.,,,,,,::,,%::,--..-,,,,,,•,:,..:,..- -- ; 't,*,..,t,'.'9/.:i Yi..:E.--'1,-.!, , .143)-7.4 :/,--,,..7 '. • 4.`•:',it-,, ..; : ";=,,.• -,''-AL- :-.- Itt-- ,Ipri...„...„,,,,..,,,..„,............--di,,,.:41,,,*-,,,k,, ,!..,, ,, ,, ,.,... ..1.1:,:$4,,,:,::.:.. ,*4,:''.1•..'fr" .' •• /‘ tiAzi ••• 14'.".?'-• •-1 ...,et . (--.--;—.,--sei, ? "f.V.: ; .^.. ..- ,"i•- .•--, 1114 ''''.:.f-A;-*.,:. '4'"•:I. %'1•":"ATI :".':K**4.,,,'i''''ee•-t,!••' ... Vi,,Vs.3:,seT,-,gss.'son"-4-1-. --; s-,jel'•-• po,/,..,r.....,• 7,.,I,-1-1/4 .: . . ..,P...1-,Ii 15 "," ',..`.:• •-•:ri'''-c- ,.-1,11':::n.4, - -'•'' -," 'M'\,\V 1.:C.. .1.4",''''''i-'1‘..i::,7:1'''''F"t:P31,=.7.. .-11'--. 1• 114ti,In G.1.'f° 1:44::'''ivr. ,., •-•..,!,,' -' ',kr< ' • -.14, '1,"' ' -• • ••: ,,- • -,-..: 4.1.0,-__L-- — ,..,o.p.,z1, . v, ,,,,. .i 1 J Y..- -- .'t• ,‘,1 4•L.:+,.. %Le i .. ii),..,e...A0'' -ii7.` ' ''''-'; , s -.,'r*,'''4, ii.,71,4';'''' -.' 111 `i.-;:'%,,9'':."'' 'C,t11› -----1 '.. __ --04ka-fX;;.1:11:w7...A, '',”' ": ..' •. ' lit A * \ f.'s<il;-:-; < I 6 - -..k.,... PO, l 1. '' .‘ _1 ... , 4.- RD, ,,,, .\ . • .: Il'II'. ' : .. ... . - .. .. ., ,.. . ,, ,,„,.‘,,..,..4. ..';',"• 1••.‘;'il"U'•".. /Mtpliii-;751.kFli'''''.- ••' • , ...44° .. ,.: . .. 4. :„,....,wys 0 ‘.. _ .-., :3 t-ss';'/Arl 6., .n --'-. -ILIMO'..••• •1-;:".1.;;;'-'1';;:ili.'7.:*-ir..."4. '1'4,s'.' '' .:s...-:,:t.••4-7.Li ii''.1.; *••:!....t.. •';. .".. ..47.r. ,..,?''',.-" '-,-•-..,-, .' ii ' t:::::::..riA,..•'4 u .,;" :':',.• .11:f.,... .0,-;",, . :';,,,,,IVI'C.:',:.24; I ,.. gal; 5,,,,:1-- ._-': ,.. . , • , ... __,x,__ . iti:3,,..0 ,.:1.?,,:,:,,,•.',,„„;_,,,,..:,,,c...:e_lizr474:115‘fs,,W41‘. ..1 4/.• 1.4.11.:AA. :I Ir1;.', . -'s' • ", .;.. .',i,'-1,,4 . , ..',, . -,. . E ikkt& ____ _ _,..6,4W.iii,--ikz.... "tr,:iXPZii.i?.1,11PZIVLV-7 . '--;'' vW•wri -- ,,,. :,.... Qit • ,,,,.. , . alto .4 - ', 0:-..... (C: 0 : , •-.4. 9 , • !_-• %re- r--.. . 4-.7.st-7 ..•.„ s."-,;.,--•-.•...J.;e<1...ts•tt'-i•I'lr 5011111111114asisegoom 1-,, -., ... NE4 :' RI -'fe ' ..;'1:). \''''eq..,•-'"I.ii, 1-.11'$'• -,--,,•!*.7"*.i.i.-.....:'.4.^..,..g..i-A-'.,-. , .-......, •t: 7;;;;;,..: ''.t.i'4,-.:::F.::.4...`&44-:,---;`",•''.-'1_____-,-;;-, ,,,,v.., IM itztl, IE. 'il,.1. 1-----_,:g,...-.4.:',:..44i.::.;,'„,:,;;trf f.,-...--. - _-- •••=5,,.::'.01.4-1"':- ''' Rop,i--..• 1 ..,---- -la :,....44:tf.:;,,...,..,./A,.'...(7. ,4.6„,,,,,,',.., ,,,........,,*- .....:m....t.*•=. t':,...7.%••.•_•,,..,'..-,,,.:,.k-:',....,` ' ,---- ._.„..,..,,.'^',.,.,-.F,MILL1_ _ ___ C/11) ter. -^•-•' ad.....U.r.....,.....,-.-p. ,..., 1 ,. trIf1,77-7,.:4;',-;•,,97.',TOTS154 7,m.L. .,,,t, .,.i.. ',4,;...-- „sr,i'f."411„(4,..4.0,A7,44,',..,,,'R_.,••(,-------------.,. ..6. -i,,-------it" • •" -" - -V.'''...i' "- •s:.''''.'''''SY' '•i„l'ArissIgu...,,-,,,,,4,s., ,, .10{,J..4.0 ,..4 s.. — -^.•-CiLlr-7..4 I--,;(--,"" . C,•,. s'0.4 s,4-cp•.•,.,-,-,..7.t.,,,,,I,..7 • . 1 Ilk.•••••, " --4.• 1 ---s•*--•• ---0' a -f-....,•T---,..,;..1,447r.:...:,,,,,I ,,,:.11r.,:..../...,......„.. .,,,,.,,,,,,,:f.,:,.1 474A0t,nt,..'7`,,V,41,.:-. ,%,,,4 '‘'''' ''', ' . cll''''' ., .! .44,. MI A flfZ. - i. :1,"- r447, : '•,:'::.,:;;:,4::'1 'It,...._I'C't%:; .,,•.>',.• •.:-•::'''',".t. • •• ., .r f------; . . .,..... ..,..,...",............,,... 1.,,,,...1..,...r..„,„.,.:...... ,.....„ .,„,..... .. .„..„, . ,.;,. . ... .„,.. ,. _.„,_... k.....,,,,,x,./..eek.., , ,., s s•-•'-'s,.&•.,...4•1 ..s .u,'.,..'4'....•••V,, '''. -4,,,,.., ,...... Vs•ri r•1111 l•. • ....--,... ,..-_,.....___.1111 , 1 ,a s. ` .o. ,r. ."." .,.. ,A• 0.4,,e'.'4V... ' INEPir- , ,. f . Ns:1.T' e M psi . , .', I . •..., ...... Uiissiditr 0 1.,:. 0011:.• ,Il , 4,4• — . • ./.4!i CO •III •, C, MIMI rg '"n.'....G.2r 7,''.t.ff '‘rtii'Val l':/:'::;;4t 5.,i.,'V..4?*,, ,,,q., et;.' 4.,r,ki.4',....., ..."- .-.4,&,•;,,,, '."t' !".i'r,;., "' ! I . k;. ' ;‘.4'"4.• 'I.\ ''.'---- t.'.1.''."'-',..,'":3,14°,7''.2:-;q fr:.'-', 1.;,t-, '" • .-?Va,),.." '••.c..-..,r4",'f,+,,,`,..,,44 sfl. ta iirii •1••• t;" • ' 'goo... • • • ' . ji 'V,•.7;',,t,t'il.:-4.':It tr.l',.''.'-',,..0,..1...c,'4-r,.,1,,A.1.,A4r:'"1,,,"^ „"! -,,,,,,.. ,i P'' ..t-it_,,„'*'.u.:,:l'e !';'.* ••"' *._,1 -'0 • 1r..„. .i 4:6.,.1";•-F. ' -, ,4.'''.4 ,/‘Z,..'', ''''' "Lii-14 t.1 ::.,,:', " 41, . -11.1: 74F::'4%,li''' ''''',' ,:''.•.("'a':2...',.-.-4--•'...1,4JE,2 ".t.Z.4.-4. ,Q;',.s.-1•",i0.s;f;ve.",.,.,....;.:1 Try ,..,..,-.,...; ,.."-Jil"' •( •. ' •.'t:4,•''`• '- ' "..i,,P1,7,:•-••..-', ..."7".' "?'''.i'::1•1: .'t''''' ''..,....."---klywof="77-1.,,-, Fq,,,,,,..i,9-....•4.,--,..,,,,..,,„1- t...•t•- -..',0.7,..,,,, -,:‘,....17,•• ‘.1ta:,i':.t-o.s.o...,..,-,Ais•,4„‘„. -1., ; _tt,,,,,,,,77: -„,,, - -, ,4..c. . _• .., • s 1, I‘.• i •°'"- A. • 0,-, --------,'--: Clii) "-I,..-1•;--..••••‘:-.,,' ,,,p,:e.:43C.': i'''''4:4:'''r;', - ,T,..'N.I.d.''':•,:4`' ' ,..*1.',.4p-,7,- • II- . " ', •-I-- 're ‘•""tt•N'i•'''4''':•',,-k6•• rPs-k.‘A.444,%C...:04' v, 1:-," ' 8-2:' t i. '"-•4 114''./tro-4' s'''''' ' '''' tjr• '-'-- ijk„...•:-..s....,? ' '• ' .''''''' :".- 4.6 •4 .'''''''•';'''' ''f ' r 7.s. 4'.' '' ''''' •- si3s•- ,),,, '1,4".,."' s\'71.?4'i,4‘i'kt,,.4''s• , '. ,', ,'-- 4 - ....r• / • , . 1 UU -- i '''31•..,. 1' ' ' 1 1.,•,..•,• 1: j; ,7t tsitijr-P - "' ' se••••••••si,:s.Vs• s'." r•-,• -V' ,, gr p ' Ar•'I': 31" "4 311111-117-C-'fAe kt..‘;V:•(11,„fkl' iii?'17:-.I',,,,g':':":!.1',,t,4 '4141) ..,-.*-: i , \a-': z 1° ./1 .? ,I ..- ...•_,,......+••• \ ..i.-- .•po ,.",.,.:,,..,...;`,..oti.:;.,,r..."441:,..,,,,.. - .. 1:-'21:1,. ..::::.,:!;.0..ft.,:ttiverc.,,,,,,' .,,,..:440H.y 11:,,.....7.. x, ii4sift,,,,\,.\%v •\.16...._AD • ' NI -,•.:-:-J!.:----' 0 Jr! . -,-,Vka'-'• •1,, ';,:.,/".': .tt-,:re'/, In'A.!'&14•VeV'''•• i 4_,L'''':"\ ‘Wile„,,,.. Cr) . .......,...--- ,. aliks.. . • 1 -••:-%". :.'C's.,'fQ ...""' n•'' 31...,.., -, ' - - -v ,.*:-.4,-,-.70, .... , ,...-:„,-;-_-=auslikle....{.;••* •ki.../r.e,-----...1•4:. ••7;-imp-acii A 3.,.... , . • ..) ' s •.1 i .-,. / • '71..80,.. ••••••""asar,71-;.•411 -'•"'%,',V.,,... ••••-"'",:,1,4y. II. ,.....f‘7,e. '2.1,,,Forrikli.'"...''';;;-..-"1:.,.;-;;°1-ititisjim.i.,,51.i - — -27,..-.---7--,,, •• ,,,6,410. rg 1,1.—---. ,r. , i'1:4•141"^ ,‘4 ,...„,,',.„-Nip- 4..\‘•• --,...-A..„---!--__L--., .1••,, , •#•,,,,._., .-/-- ' - • For 7`. 7.k. '''• . . - ....... ,•s- . 7--....,•., . . - '•-I': ' 40/-• • ii 0''-- - , . . . . .-,.. *.p GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS--Continued Woodland Described Capability unit group on l Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol 26 IIIw-1 75 3w1 Re Renton silt loam 27 111w-i1 75 3w1 Rh Rivexwash 27 IIwVIIIw 74 201 Sa Salal silt loam 27 IIw-2 75 2o1 Sh Sammamish silt loam 27 IIw-2 75 3w1 Sk Seattle muck 298 IIw-3 75 --- Sm Shalcar muck 29 IIw-1 74 --- Sn Si silt loam 29 llw-2 75 2o1 So Snohomish silt loam 31 IIw-2 75 3w2 Sr Snohomish silt loam, thick surface variant 31 IIw-1 74 3w1 Sultan silt loam IIw-3 75 Tukwila muck 3 -- --- Ur Urban land 33 IIw-2 75 3w2 Wo Woodinville silt loam 1/ • The composition of these units is more variable than that of the others in the Area, but it has been controlled well enough to interpret for the expected use of the soils. I GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS • For a full description of a mapping unit, read both the description of the mapping unit and that of the soil series to which the mapping unit belongs. See table 6, page 70, for descriptions of woodland groups. Other Information is given in tables as follows: Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Town and country planning, table 4, page 57. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. pages 36 through 55. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. Woodland Described Capability unit group Map on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 8 IVe-2 76 331 AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 10 VIe-2 78 3d1 AkF Aldexwood and Kitsap soils, very steep 10 VIIe-1 78 2d1 AmB Arents, Aldexwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1/-- 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AmC Arents, Aldexwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes 1/ 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 An Arents, Everett material 1/ 11 IVs-1 77 3f3 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11 IVe-2 76 3d2 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 12 VIe-2 78 3d1 BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 12 VIIe-1 78 3d1 Bh Bellingham silt loam 12 IIIw-2 76 3w2 Br Briscot silt loam 13 IIw-2 75 3w1 Bu Buckley silt loam 13 IIIw-2 76 4w1 Cb Coastal beaches 14 VIIIw-1 78 --- Ea . Earlmont silt loam 14 IIw-2 75 3w2 Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam 15 IIIw-1 75 201 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 15 IVs-1 77 3f3 EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs-1 78 3f3 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16 VIe-1 77 3f2 EwC 'Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loans, 6 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs-1 78 3f3 T"1 Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes 17 IVs-2 77 4s3 Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes 16 IVs-2 77 4s3 D Indianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 17 VIe-1 76 4s2 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 17 IIIe-1 75 2d2 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 18 IVe-1 76 Zd2 KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 18 VIe-2 78 2d1 KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes 18 VIs-1 78 3f1 Ma Mixed alluvial land 18 VIw-2 78 201 NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 19 VIs-1 78 3f3 Ng Newberg silt loam 19 IIw-1 74 201 Nk Nooksack silt loam 20 IIw-1 74 201 No Norma sandy loam 20 IIIw-3 76 3w2 Or Orcas peat 21 VIIIw-1 78 --- Os Oridia silt loam- 21 IIw-2 75 3w1 OvC Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 22 IVe-2 76 311 OvD Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23 VIe-2 78 3d1 0vF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 23 VIIe-1 78 Ill Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand 23 VIw-1 78 2s1 Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam 23 IVw-1 76 2s1 Pu Puget silty clay loam 24 IIIw-2 76 3w2 Py Puyallup fine sandy loam 24 IIw-1 74 201 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 25 IVe-3 77 4s1 RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 26 VIe-2 78 4s1 RdC Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping: 1/ 26 -- --- Ragnar soil -- IVe-3 77 4s1 Indianola soil -- IVs-2 77 4s3 RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/ 26 -- --- Ragnar soil -- VIe-2 78_ 4s1 Indianola soil -- VIe-1 77 4s2 U. S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 0-468-266