The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA87-001 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE 1 ITLE A•b F4-00 I upotdze ENT (r� fe oP/ _-_ �P United States Department of the Interior �� o$ • FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Olympia Field Office 2625 Parkmont Lane S .W. , Bldg. B-3 Olympia, Washington 98502 February 20 , 1987 ]1+ ;i 'I , NA ; nL. .11I `� f, � FEB 2 31987 ,.� Donald K. Erickson . DEPT. Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1987 , concerning the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . We made a site visit to the project area on February 18, 1987 . The development plans for the Blackriver Corporate Park Development contain some good recommendations to mitigate adverse impacts to important resources . However, these documents do not go far enough in protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat (e. g. project area wetlands are not protected from filling) . Consequently project plans should be revised to provide improved protection to fish and wildlife resources . During our site visit we observed ongoing and past project- related activities that adversely impacted fish and wildlife habitat . These observations included: 1) logging activities that destroyed much of the forest on the east end of the property; 2) active road construction on the east and north sides of the property; 3) evidence that part of the forested wetlands had been filled. We also observed that the great blue heron population (we counted 14 adult birds) , of the project area, was located at the west end of the forested area. Our interpretation of this is that the birds were stressed by the logging and other activities and were attempting to distance themselves from this human disturbance. The vast majority of ducks were also located at the far west end of the Pond indicating that they too were reacting to the human activities . It is the policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife habitat as a result of development projects . We have applied the Service' s Mitigation Policy (Federal Register Vol . 46, no . 15 , Jan 23 , 1981 ; amended Feb. 4, 1981) to the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . The Mitigation Policy is based on four Resource Categories which are used to ensure that the level of mitigation recommended is consistent with the affected fish and wildlife resources . The project area wetlands, forested area, P-1 Pond ( including islands) and open fields (used as feeding area by the great blue herons) fall under Resource Category Type 2 . The mitigation goal for Resource Category Type 2, as described in the Mitigation Policy, is that there be no net loss of in-kind habitat value. This goal will not be reached if the project is built as proposed. In addition, some mitigation should be required for habitat losses incurred to date. We recommend the following in order to insure protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat . 1) The wetland on the north side of the P-1 Pond should be protected by a 100 foot no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone. Wetlands that have already been impacted by the project should be restored to original configurations and revegetated. 2) The great blue heron rookery should be protected by a 660 foot (or greater) radius no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone to be measured from the center of the rookery. 3) All surface waters of the P-1 Pond including its extensions into the P-1 Canal and old Black River channel should be protected by a 200 foot no-construction and no human activity buffer zone. 4) All disturbed areas within the protected buffer zones should be revegetated with plants that are native to the Puget Sound lowlands . 5) All buildings and parking lots should be constructed as multi-level structures . This will reduce the amount of land to be covered by buildings and parking lots and at the same time provide buffer zone space. 6) All buildings should be sited to act as a visual/sound screen between the parking and service areas and wildlife habitat . In addition all buildings should be sited so that conditions are not created whereby there is potential for increased wind turbulences that can damage trees or nests in the great blue heron rookery or other trees of the forested area. This aspect may require the services of an atmospheric sciences engineer (or similar type) 7) All windows that face into wildlife habitat should be designed to reduce the possibility of birds striking the glass . 8) All lighting facilities and noise producing mechanical systems should be designed to minimize disturbances to wildlife resources . 9) All stormwater runoff should be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators . The processed water should then be routed through grass-lined swales and into a sediment detention pond before entering the P-1 Pond. The grass-lined swales and detention pond should not be constructed in wetlands . Stormwater should be monitored for pollutants and meet Federal and State water quality standards before before it enters any wetlands or the P-1 Pond. 10) Construct a fence that is designed to prevent people and pets from entering the protected buffer zones . 11) All clearing, grading and construction activities should be accomplished within timing schedules set by the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game. 12) Close coordination should be made with all Indian tribes affected by the project . This office would conduct an additional and separate evaluation pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered Species Act if the project requires permits from the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers . In the review, our agency may concur, with or without stipulations, or object to the proposed work, depending upon whether important fish and wildlife resources and their habitat are affected. Accordingly, we would encourage the project sponsor to contact our office, (206) 753- 9440, prior to submitting permit applications that may be necessary. We may be able to offer more specific design criteria which will facilitate the permit review process . In summary valuable wildlife habitat has already been destroyed by initial stages of project construction . A substantial amount of additional fish and wildlife habitat will be destroyed if the project is constructed as proposed. These adverse impacts will be significantly reduced in scope and severity if our recommendations are strictly followed. Additional review of the project may be necessary if Corps of Engineers permits are required. These comments have been prepared under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat . 401 , as amended; 16 U. S . C. 661 et seq. ) and other authorities mandating Department of Interior concern for environmental values . They are also consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act . re 4 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . Sincerely, Charles A. unn Field Supervisor cc: BIA EPA NMFS SCS (Lynn Brown) WDE WDF(Robel) WDG (Muller) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe SA—DOI—K-1 3426Z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT THRESHOLD DETERMINATION STAFF REPORT February 4, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-001-87 APPLICATION NO. : SA-001-87, SM-001-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a three story office building have approximately 74,000 square feet and an application for a substantial shoreline development. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. SITE AREA: + 5.85 acres. ISSUES: 1. Whether parking located near the natural area easement (due to the movement of pedestrians, cars, garbage truck, etc. , light and glare and engine noise) is potentially more disruptive than the building once erected? 2. Whether more of the existing trees should be saved? 3. Whether the plans should reflect better pedestrian linkways between this building and future buildings, streets, sidewalks and bus stops. 4. Whether the building should be- re-oriented to reduce the number of views onto the parking lot? 5. Whether there is a relationship between the parking areas along the west project line with that parking area for the future project to the west? 6. Whether the northernmost driveway should be relocated to the south to save trees located in area of the proposed driveway. 7. Whether the development should be allowed to be located as shown on plans due to the nearby heron rookeries? If allowed, should time period for construction activities be limited to July through December? RECOMMENDATIONS: Mitigation Measures: 1. Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. 2. Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. 3. Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc.) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. I . Building and Zoning C._ rtment Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page ,2 4. Building sites closer than 660 feet from heron nesting areas should be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment. Earthern colors and textures would be preferred to high tech, brightly reflective surfaces. 5. Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. 6. Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 7. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). 8. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a n?embrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. All runoff from these areas must be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. 9. The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. In order to protect the waterfowl measures, such as screening, need to be taken to collect floating debris/oils before it flushes into the Forebay. 10. All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated glazing in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. 11. Parking on site not to exceed minimum code requirements. 12. Provisions shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. Site Plan Approval Recommendations: 1. Building should be sited to maximize view outlook opportunities of the wilderness/natural areas of the site. The building should be sited further north. 2. A clearly delineated pedestrian circulation system between this and abutting buildings, sidewalks, bus waiting areas, nearby trail systems, etc. , needs to be developed. (Provision for night lighting of these pedestrian routes is also required.) COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Building Division: Recommended DNS; noted there was a major impact to transportation. Fire Prevention Bureau: Recommended DNS. Utility Engineering: Recommended DNS. Zoning Division: Recommended mitigated DNS. Provided the following comments and questions: 1. Recommend shoreline management approval. \/ Building and Zoning 0, Anent Threshold Determinati�L_. Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 3 2. Landscaping: Incorporate some of the 10"-18" alder trees along the west side of the building into the site plan. 3. Will great blue herons on Black River site be effected with development of Phase IV? (Impact not noted in checklist). 4. Add additional coniferous trees into landscaping; what is proposed is rather sparse. 5. Traffic mitigation requirements? Requested more information on impact to plants, animals and transportation. Police: Recommended mitigated DNS lith the following comments: Comments on previous paperwork relating to Black River Corporate Park. This individual building will have no traffic impact by itself. Request no reflective glass on 1st floor for officer safety reasons. Parks and Recreation: Recommended mitigated DNS with the following: The pedestrian environment needs to be re-examined in terms of circulation and passive recreational amenities. 4 The main pedestrian circulation issues fall into three categories: 1) pedestrian access t the site from the street, 2) pedestrian circulation on site and 3) pedestrian access to the trail system. The main issue regarding passive amenities is seating areas. Seating should be included in the plaza areas and at appropriate locations in the natural preserve area. Policy Development: Recommended a mitigated DNS. The following comments were provided: 1. Provide additional linkages to surrounding development phases, creating more of a connection between buildings. 2. Will bus lines run through the park complex? 3. More parking is provided than is necessary by code, thereby encouraging use of individual cars as opposed to carpooling or transit. 4. The Shoreline Master Program designates the Black River Channel as being a natural environment. Under the SMA, this proposal is clearly not allowed. If the project proceeds, the SMA should be amended. 5. Where is the 18,000 cubic yards of fill coming from? I .Building and Zoning I rtment Threshold Determinat—' Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 4 6. Additional landscaping needed around building and between the natural preserve area and the complex. 7. Application requests construction to occur between February and November, 1987. Blue Heron nesting period runs from Jebruary to July. Construction should not occur during the sensitive nesting period. A buffer area should separate the rookery area from the complex. The report from the Game Department suggests a buffer of 660 to 800' . 8. Mitigate aesthetic impact by relandscaping site, as suggested on site plan. BEGINNING OF FILE FlLE TITLE rn,; (0 P� 1 . is1) A -DO MICROFILMED r/ Ind .2438G MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Effective Determination Date: February 9, 1987 File: ECF-001-87, SA-001-87, SM-001-87 Proponent: First City Equities Black River Corporate Park - Phase IV Description: Application for site plan approval to allow a three story office building having approximately 74,00 square feet, and application for substantial shorelines development in the vicinity of the Black River. Location: Property located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. 1 Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #1. The building has been situated on the site to comply with fire and emergency vehicular access, maximize site• utilization efficiencies, and act as a buffer between the parking areas and the natural area easement. In addition, the positioning of the building places the main entrances away from the ditch, causing the least demand for the parking stalls abutting the natural area easement. In summary, we believe our current plan meets the intent of Condition #1 , while still complying with other applicable regulations. United Slates d)epariment of the flnterior FISH AND WII.IDI.IaI., SERVICE 6) . All buildings should be sited to act, as a visual/sound screen between the parking and service areas and wildlife habitat . In addition all buildings should be sited so that conditions are not created whereby there is potential for increased wind turbulences that can damage trees or nests in the great blue heron rookery or other trees of the forested area. This aspect may require the services of an atmospheric sciences engineer (or similar type) O./ Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. ERC Condition #2: The proposed site plan complies with condition #2. FCE is committed to saving as many large trees as possible for the office park. All of the significant trees between the building and the ditch are being retained. Careful planning in locating the building and parking areas enable us to retain major trees for the enhancement of the project. j • Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc. ) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with Condition #3 . Although a portion of the northwest parking lot encroaches within the proposed 660 foot setback, that area is buffered by a 40-80 foot width of 50-80 feet tall cottonwoods. It is, however, of the utmost importance to clarify that although Phase IV complies with the proposed 660 foot setback, in Mr. Van Wormer' s expert opinion, building setbacks of 400 ft. from the center of the rookery are sufficient for protection of the heron. As it is our desire to create an office park that compliments and enhances the beauty of the natural environment, we are implementing Mr. Van Wormer's recommendations in our planning for Blackriver Corporate Park. 5) All buildings and parking lots should be constructed as multi-level structures . This will reduce the amount of land to be covered by buildings and parking lots and at the same time provide buffer zone space . �' The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possible for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. _ . FCE Response: Condition #4 contradicts the intent and authority of the Site Plan Ordinance which states: "Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic consideration of architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. " We object to this condition on the grounds that it is expressly outside the intent of the ordinance. Further there is no evidence to substantiate potential significant impacts to fauna by colors or textures of building surfaces. It is an established fact that most animals are colorblind and unable to distinguish on the basis of color. While we do propose a harmonious planning solution for the project, no basis exists to make this mitigation request a condition for threshold determination. (See item #5 regarding reflective surfaces. ) All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. FCE Response: The selection of glass is governed by several issues: energy code compliance, material availability and cost, aesthetics and potential hazard to wildlife. It is not in our best interest to use a glazing material that will present a greater risk to our tenants and building managers as well as the birds. We will take all of these factors into consideration in the final selection of the glass for the project. /. „ j``.''�j � 7) All wind ; that face into wildlife bit.at J4 should bc� • ` ,' ' % designed to reduce the possibility of birds striking the ,�,�� ,. glass . • 0 Construction activity (until the building is hermetically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. • FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #6. The Phase IV building is approximately 700 ft. from the center of the rookery with a ,dense buffer of mature vegetation between them. Rex Van Wormer has informed FCE that there is no need for a time limit on the construction of Phase IV and has received - concurrance of this from Ted Muller of the Washington State Department of Game in a personal communication on site February 19, 1987 and again on February 20, 1987 by telephone. 0 Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. FCE Response: • • FCE objects to condition #7 on the basis that again under • SEPA guidelines, one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impacts. Mr. Van Wormer establishes in • his attached letter that to his knowledge no studies have determined that urban noise levels would disturb herons, particularly consistent, low level and predictable sounds such as that generated by mechanical systems. Our units will be screened both visually and acoustically. Restricting the mechanical systems to 75 decibels is excessive. Since no potential significant adverse impacts will result from the use of standard mechanical systems that meet applicable code requirements, this condition has no basis for inclusion and should not be imposed. United States Department of the intenkir __ I Itili ANU WILDLIFEti1:E2vie - 8) All lighting facilities and noise producing mechanical systems should be designed to minimize disturbances to wildlife resources . 8. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result 0 in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). FCE Response: • We have designed our lighting levels to reduce glare on site, eliminate glare entirely offsite and shield the light source by using fixtures specifically engineered to reduce glare and control light dispersion. But an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon is restrictive, according to my architect, Mr. Royce Berg. Further, Mr. Van Wormer has indicated that the heron will not be adversley affected by the project's lighting. Therefore, condition #8 should be edited to indicate that lighting fixtures should be selected for their ability to reduce glare and control light dispersion onsite. /- r United States- Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 8) All I i ght i ng faci .l i t. i es and noise producing mechanical minimize disturbances systems should be designed to m wildlife i fe resources , to • v/ All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to pre infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering vent thesealant: ,;• -r •� �:. United Mates I)e art .., :x , ,1 p ment of the tiUerior \ '•�•. /I FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 9) All stormwater runoff should be regularly cleaned oil/water Sc processed through separators The processed water. should then be routed through grass--lined swales and into �� l�, sediment detention pond before entering the P--1 Pond . Thc� grass- lined swales and detention constructed in wetlands . Panel should not, hc, Stormwater should be monitored for pollutants and meet Federal and State water ity standards before before it enters any wetlands or thealP-1 Pond. • FCE Response: As discussed in Mr. David Morency's February 20, 1987 memo, since the legal basis for making this request derives from SEPA and since before requesting mitigation under SEPA one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impact, and since Mr. Morency clearly establishes that no significant impact potential exists, FCE concludes there is no basis for requesting the fabric liner mitigation. We, !v . therefore, object to this condition. 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt convering the sealant. . See � g d2� 0 �. /�a" . - - ---- ----- --- (/_ All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. /,774 United Stales Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: \Js. 9) All stormwater runoff should be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators . The processed water should then be routed through grass--lined swales and into a sediment detention pond before entering the P--1 Pond . The grass--lined swales and detention pond should not he constructed in wetlands . Stormwater should be monitored for pollutants and meet Federal and State water quality standards before before it enters any wetlands or the P-1 Pond. . , - . ., . 0In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. FCE Response: The measures should be implemented to mitigate potential runoff impacts. FCE is committed to providing these necessary and desirable mitigating measures and has been working with Mr. Joe Robel, Department of Fisheries , in the design of biofiltering vegetation for the ditch area. \''' United States Department of the llnteroor cl`.!': / I FISH AND WILDLIFE 'I'.RV10E 11 ) All clearing, grading and construction activities should be accomplished within timing schedules set by the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game. d�/1 13 The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking '�"'" and service areas and the nature environment to the north. cl 0 FCE Response: Condition #13 seems to be a reiteration of condition #1 . The proposed site plan is in compliance with the intent of this condition. The building is situated as a buffer between the natural area and the parking areas to the extent possible and still remain within Fire Department code . compliance for emergency vehicle access. `yl ,), , ,.1 United States Department of the Interior . ,'. <+ k, •'/ I�IsII ANI) WILDLIFE SERVICE ..,p . 1 ) The wetland on the north side of the P--1 Pond should be protected by a 100 foot no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone. Wetlands that have already been impacted by the project should be restored to original configurations and revegetated. 2) The great blue heron rookery should be protected by a 660 foot (or greater) radius no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone to be measured from the center of the rookery. 3) All surface waters of the P-1 Pond including its extensions into the P-1 Canal and old Black River channel should be protected by a 200 foot no-construction and no human activity buffer zone. 4) All disturbed areas within the protected buffer zones should be revegetated with plants that are native to the Puget Sound lowlands . 10) Construct a fence that is designed to prevent people and pets from entering the protected buffer zones . r • .I The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. FCE Response: FCE has already established with Metro a Transportation Management Plan for the entire Blackriver Corporate Park. This plan is currently in operation on our existing Phase I and II buildings. Since the plan already exists, there is no need for the first sentence of condition #14 . Regarding the second sentence which restricts parking to minimum code requirements, FCE needs the flexibility to increase parking stalls when negotiating with certain tenants. In some cases, we have been successful in limiting the additional parking stalls on the basis of net square footage of building space, rather than the gross square footage. However, some tenants require parking at 6 stalls per 1 ,000 square feet. (City code requires 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. ) Limiting parking to minimum city standards will effectively eliminate Blackriver Corporate Park' s ability to compete for certain tenants. Further, since the development' s traffic impacts have already been assessed and mitigated by participation in the Oakesdale LID, further traffic mitigation is punitive. Therefore, we must object to the second sentence in Condition_ 414 . gFacilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. FCE Response: Metro has been unwilling to establish defined bus stations or routes without actual demands on the existing road network. However, FCE and Metro are working together to establish planning criteria and optimum station and route locations as the park develops. If this meets the intent of condition #15 , FCE has already been in compliance with it. OF 4ei ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .`k RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR ZriaLL 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 a 235-2540 0,941- 0 SEPT BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR March 17, 1987 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle. WA 98104 RE: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report for 5.85 acre site and 74,000 square feet three story office building Dear Barbara: Attached is a copy of the Staff Report for the above referenced project that you recently requested. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you that this project has been tentatively scheduled for the Environmental Review Committee meeting of April 1, 1987. We have scheduled this following the Committee's review of the Special Permit application recently remanded back to the Committee by the Hearing Examiner for the grade and fill on the south side of the P-1 Channel. That meeting is currently scheduled for the Committee's consideration on March 25, 1987. These meetings are not public. On occasion, the Committee may schedule a public meeting and invite all parties of interest to attend, but this is not anticipated in this case. If you have any questions regarding these two meetings, please give me a call. Sincerely, t Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Enclosure DKE:3575Z • a , k• t st 5 1 FIRST CITY EQUITIES �� i.= ,, ,;,. February 27 , 1987 1: ii11 -t, 2• .111.3`�31 ; Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building 200' Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Grading Permit SP-100-861 (Valley 405 Business Park) Phase IV Site Plan Approval SA-0.01-87 Infrastructure Site Plan Approval SA-.108-86 BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Mr. Erickson: Per your request, for an explanation of how Mr. Rex Van Wormer determined the boundary of the restricted area affecting the blue heron rookery, please find enclosed a letter addressing these issues from Mr. Van Wormer dated February 17, 1987 . This information is pertinent to the Grading Permit currently - under review for the Valley 405 portion of the Blackriver Corporate Park (SP-100-86) and should, therefore, be included in the record for that review by Mr. Fred Kaufman, the Hearing Examiner, on Tuesday, March 3, 1987 . Since Mr. Van Wormer is explaining how he arrived at the restricted area outlined on his map #2 included in his previous submittal, this information should also be applied to review of the Phase IV Site Plan Approval (SA-001-87) currently being reviewd by the Environmental Review Committee at this time. Further, since it addresses the heron issue and since the heron issue is of possible concern with our Infrastructure Site Plan Approval (SA-108-86) , please include this letter in the record for review of the Infrastructure Site Plan Approval with the City of Renton also. 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments r . c r Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 27, 1987 Page Two / ___ I Enclosed, also please find a copy of a letter prepared by David Morency dated February 20, 1987 responding to the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated February 4, 1987 in regards to storm water impact concerns raised "on the Valley 405 portion of the property. David points out that the storm water impacts were addressed properly through the original Environmental Impact Statements and the SEPA documents submitted on the property. Further, First City Equities is implementing adequate storm water/erosion control safeguards in conjunction with the proposed grading permit for the site. Under the circumstances, I am providing copies of Mr. Van Wormer' s letter and David Morency' s letter to all members of the E.R.C. as well as to Mr. Fred. Kaufman for their consideration. Since I have not received a staff report to the Hearing Examiner for the public hearing on March 3 , 1987, I 'presume none has been or will be issued. Sincerely, FIRST CITY EQUITI S ( 11411'41A4t` • 7-11-4". Barbara E. Moss .-� I, .., r. - ), 11 �� !: _; � 1. . t ; 1 Director of Planning (i 1, " _.. ' I• fI BEM/bc t \1` FEE 2 . 1981 ( ) i Enclosures 1't�;; i,,?,", .; 3 ;;�:; f Ar-7P . cc: Fred Kaufman w/encl. E.R.C. Members w/encl. Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. w/encl Royce Berg w/encl David Schuman w/encl Robert Roed w/encl. Elliott Severson Greg Byler HAND DELIVERED 2/27/87 TO: Donald K. Erickson Fred Kaufman E.R.C. Members Charles Blumenfeld Royce Berg Robert Roed at) itkgeti OF R 'i ci '" ° L) 4v BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 't z .4:4 RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR Z � eat o ' r 09 f co� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 235-2540 0Q7- 0 SE PI BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR February 24, 1987 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: Phase IV Environmental Review for a 74.000 sq. ft. office building and at grade parking lot Dear Ms. Moss: As a follow-up to our phone conversation last week regarding whether or not the Environmental Review Committee would take testimony from First City Equities while it was in the midst of its fifteen (15) day comment period, I am writing you to let you know that the Committee will reconsider this item as soon as it can after the Hearing Examiner's scheduled hearing on March 3, 1987. Since you correctly point out in your letter that some of the mitigation measures adopted by the Committee pertain to herons and possibly other water-fowl, we believe it is appropriate to await the outcome of the March 3rd hearing before reconsidering any of these measures or issuing a final threshold determination for this project. Also. since other parties of record will obviously be interested in the resolution of these mitigating measures, we will probably also have to schedule this at another public meeting so that all interested parties can attend. I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to your letter of January 30, 1987. in which you state that it is FCE's intent to proceed with the infrastructural elements at this time. As you may recall. in my letter of January 9. 1987, to you I noted to you that it might be preferable if you withdrew your site plan approval application since: 1) we had no vehicle to approve it, i.e. preliminary site plan approval; and 2) your application was apt to change because of new environmental information that had been raised. 2 Y , Barbara Moss February 24, 1987 Page 2 I had assumed, apparently incorrectly, that because of all the new environmental information suggesting that the trail system would likely have to be modified (as well as the possible location of viewing areas associated with it) and that the timing of construction might also have to be modified so as to minimize impacts on certain species of wildlife habitating the site, that you understood that we would await resolution of some these matters before the Hearing Examiner on March 3, 1987, before proceeding further with your application. Since you also state in your letter of January 30, 1987, that "modification of the plan would thus occur prior to a threshold determination" we thought you were also awaiting resolution of some of these matter before proceeding. Since this item has not been scheduled for review at this time by the Environmental Review Committee, and no staff report has been prepared, I did not think it necessasry to notify you of this in writing. I hope this letter helps clarify things a bit for you. I'm sorry you feel that we have not been as responsive as you would like. We are, however, endeavoring to balance your interests with those of others who have also expressed concerns which we are mandated to take into consideration too. If you have further questions, please feel free to give me a call. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:35I7Z:wr 2438G MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Effective Determination Date: February 9, 1987 File: ECF-001-87, SA-001-87, SM-001-87 Proponent: First City Equities Black River Corporate Park - Phase IV Description: Application for site plan approval to allow a three story office building having approximately 74,00 square feet, and application for substantial shorelines development in the vicinity of the Black River. Location: Property located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. 1. Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. 2. Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. 3. Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc.) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. 4. The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possible for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. 5. All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. 6. Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. 7. Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 8. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). 9. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. /r ' fj Mitigated Determinatic F Non Significance February 9, 1987 Page 2 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt convering the sealant. 11. All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. 13. The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. 14. The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. 15. Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. The Building and Zoning Department has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43. 21C030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file at the Zoning Division's office. Agencies, affected tribes and other interested parties may submit written comments on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from the above determination date. Written comments will be accepted until February 23, 1987. This determination may be appealed within the fifteen (15) day comment period. Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. Comments and/or appeal arguments should be addressed to: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 (IMNDA4/) r /sr , , , bi:,,,2 Signature of Responsible Official or Designee Published: February 9, 1987 / . ti Do �GR � • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION .1 NOTICE c TAL, ,.E tIRONMRN• .•, .�,,, ;,DETERMINATION. . Audrey DeJOie Environmental Review Cornrnittee Y , being first duly. sworn on oath states that , 'Renton,'Washington_ ,. .,Pi he/she is the Chief Clerk of the • The Ehvironmental•Review.Corninrt;a i (ERC)has issued a Preliminary Mitigated declaration,-of'NON-SIGNIFICANCE for of VALLEY NEWSPAPERS the fRent ng pr nisi a Under the authority c- the Renton Municipal Code. 'fhe,Applic- ants ants have completed a mitigation process Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, DailyGlobe News ppursuant to WAC 197 11-350. ; � CF-001-87 A-001-87 Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers 'r.�r t�,;.661-87 are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six IRST CITY EQUITIES = '►c .-iyR i . months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published caRaORATE GG3 �I - ;. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King 'i, ,'i`ilicatwnt 1l app ° al TOO% County, Washington. Valley Newspapers have been approved as legal ' , a."�w•-e 00 t 7 bu ° a e-pproori mati§' 74,000 sguacefeet;_and applicatlon� newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for ' for substantial'ahorelines,de"velopmentin King County. • \ the vicinity of.the Black,'River. Property'" located at the northwest corner:of'S.W.7th,, Street and Neches Avenue S.W _' 's,'y .,,., The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Daily News Further information regarding this action, is available in'the Building and Zoning' • Journal—, Daily Record ChronicleL, Daily Globe News , (and Depadment, Municipal.-Building; Renton,;. not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Washington,on this pr sal f r'1 Rdaye.,'. pp g Y will'not act this proposal'for 15,days.• subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Comments must,be received by February. 1 23, 1987. • Notice of Environmental Deterininati on was published Published ih the .Valley Daily News on February 9, 1987 P2088 February 9, 1987 R2088:' The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the . sum of$ 2)1 .60 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day.Of Feb 19 87 ,. .' - (. r v� Note blic for the State of Washington, • . residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. -,,... ,, ;: ; - ;: VN#87 Revised 10/84 '•`i L c--•1 1 r'_j i[, '�d) 1H Li L I ;! I k-V i). 1 8 i ,),J i r 3426Z - BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT THRESHOLD DETERMINATION STAFF REPORT February 4, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-001-87 APPLICATION NO. : SA-001-87, SM-001-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a three story office building have approximately 74,000 square feet and an application for a substantial shoreline development. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. SITE AREA: + 5.85 acres. ISSUES: 1. Whether parking located near the natural area easement (due to the movement of pedestrians, cars, garbage truck, etc. , light and glare and engine noise) is potentially more disruptive than the building once erected? 2. Whether more of the existing trees should be saved? 3. Whether the plans should reflect better pedestrian linkways between this building and future buildings, streets, sidewalks and bus stops. 4. Whether the building should be re-oriented to reduce the number of views onto the parking lot? 5. Whether there is a relationship between the parking areas along the west project line with that parking area for the future project to the west? 6. Whether the northernmost driveway should be relocated to the south to save trees located in area of the proposed driveway. 7. Whether the development should be allowed to be located as shown on plans due to the nearby heron rookeries? If allowed, should time period for construction activities be limited to July through December? RECOMMENDATIONS: Mitigation Measures: 1. Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. 2. Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. 3. Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc.) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. r Building and Zoning DepE ant Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 2 4. The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possible for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. 5. All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. 6. Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. 7. Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 8. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). 9. All vehicular stprage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt convering the sealant. 11. All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. 13. The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. 14. The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. 15. Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. Site Plan Approval Recommendations: 1. Building should be sited to maximize view outlook opportunities of the wilderness/natural areas of the site. The building should be sited further north. 2. A clearly delineated pedestrian circulation system between this and abutting buildings, sidewalks, bus waiting areas, nearby trail systems, etc. , needs to be developed. (Provision for night lighting of these pedestrian routes is also required.) COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Building Division: Recommended DNS; noted there was a major impact to transportation. Building and Zoning Deps :?nt Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 3 Fire Prevention Bureau: Recommended DNS. Utility Engineering: Recommended DNS. Zoning Division: Recommended mitigated DNS. Provided the following comments and questions: 1. Recommend shoreline management approval. 2. Landscaping: Incorporate some of the 10"-18" alder trees along the west side of the building into the site plan. 3. Will great blue herons on Black River site be effected with development of Phase IV? (Impact not noted in checklist). 4. Add additional coniferous trees into landscaping; what is proposed is rather sparse. 5. Traffic mitigation requirements? Requested more information on impact to plants, animals and transportation. Police: Recommended mitigated DNS with the following comments: Comments on previous paperwork relating to Black River Corporate Park. This individual building will have no traffic impact by itself. Request no reflective glass on 1st floor for officer safety reasons. Parks and Recreation: Recommended mitigated DNS with the following: The pedestrian environment needs to be re-examined in terms of circulation and passive recreational amenities. The main pedestrian circulation issues fall into three categories: 1) pedestrian access t the site from the street, 2) pedestrian circulation on site and 3) pedestrian access to the trail system. The main issue regarding passive amenities is seating areas. Seating should be included in the plaza areas and at appropriate locations in the natural preserve area. Policy Development: Recommended a mitigated DNS. The following comments were provided: 1. Provide additional linkages to surrounding development phases, creating more of a connection between buildings. 2. Will bus lines run through the park complex? 3. More parking is provided than is necessary by code, thereby encouraging use of individual cars as opposed to carpooling or transit. r Building and Zoning DepE ant Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 4 4. The Shoreline Master Program designates the Black River Channel as being a natural environment. Under the SMA, this proposal is clearly not allowed. If the project proceeds, the SMA should be amended. 5. Where is the 18,000 cubic yards of fill coming from? 6. Additional landscaping needed around building and between the natural preserve area and the complex. 7. Application requests construction to occur between February and November, 1987. Blue Heron nesting period runs from Jebruary to July. Construction should not occur during the sensitive nesting period. A buffer area should separate the rookery area from the complex. The report from the Game Department suggests a buffer of 660 to 800' . 8. Mitigate aesthetic impact by relandscaping site, as suggested on site plan. OF RF4,Ci '0, z '1111- 99 0 94TF0 pT�1O�P 1 . SE POSTED : 3/3/87 t0 F '" ENDING SITE PLA1 IC A AI TVs N FIRST CITY EQUITIES DESCRIPTIO : : SA-001-87 BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE IV APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A 3-STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET ON A 5.85 ACRE SITE. GENERAL LOCATI I N AND/OR ADDRESS: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7TH STREET & NACHES AVENUE S.W. PUBLIC APPR • VALS !', EQUIRED : 1 , SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2, SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 3, BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING - . ZONING DEPARTMENT ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND "RING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NSTICE Nil' TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION o ' r/ „viEMORANDUM To Date 7 /9 9 Fr om . Subject Arc t nare r s d- II 1 ?Or e-4. OR; Pvk- tS?" C1:I6- /4; LiJ � FEB 2 0.19&7 GuLDING/a0..\!,�_; DEPT. (---- .„ )r,4,4) :a23,,,,I, i1�•o' . u,Flio ,oi, ! L (�, IJ; / .,,,___ ') FIRST CITY February 23 , 1987 EQUITIES �r �� JlLr.�llvG/ ;��,,,, G DLp.r. Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator CITY OF RENTON - Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 RE: Site Plan Approval Phase IV 74,000 Sq. Ft. 3-Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in response to the Environmental Review Committee' s mitigating conditions imposed for the preliminary Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval of the Phase IV 74,000 square foot 3-story office building in the Blackriver Corporate Park. I have included copies of letters from my project team responding to the mitigating conditions in detail. Their letters, as well as this summary, should be entered for the record and taken into account in the final decisions. ITEM #1 ERC Condition #1: •Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #1. The building has been situated on the site to comply with fire and emergency vehicular access, maximize site utilization efficiencies, and act as a buffer between the parking areas and the natural area easement. In addition, the positioning of the building places the main entrances away from the ditch, causing the least demand for the parking stalls 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Two abutting the natural area easement. In summary, we believe our current plan meets the intent of Condition #1, while still complying with other applicable regulations. ERC Condition #2: Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #2. FCE is committed to saving as many large trees as possible for the office park. All of the significant trees between the building and the ditch are being retained. Careful planning in locating the building and parking areas enable us to retain major trees for the enhancement of the project. ERC Condition #3 : Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc. ) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with Condition #3 . Although a portion of the northwest parking lot encroaches within the proposed 660 foot setback, that area is buffered by a 40-80 foot width of 50-80 feet tall cottonwoods. It is, however, of the utmost importance to clarify that although Phase IV complies with the proposed 660 foot setback, in Mr. Van Wormer' s expert opinion, building setbacks of 400 ft. from the center of the rookery are sufficient for protection of the heron. As it is our desire to create an office park that compliments and enhances the beauty of the natural environment, we are implementing Mr. Van Wormer' s recommendations in our planning for Blackriver Corporate Park. / Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23, 1987 Page Three ERC Condition #4: The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possilbe for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. FCE Response: Condition #4 contradicts the intent and authority of the Site Plan Ordinance which states: "Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic consideration of architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. " We object to this condition on the grounds that it is expressly outside the intent of the ordinance. Further there is no evidence to substantiate potential significant impacts to fauna by colors or textures of building surfaces. It is an established fact that most animals are colorblind and unable to distinguish on the basis of color. While we do propose a harmonious planning solution for the project, no basis exists to make this mitigation request a condition for threshold determination. (See item #5 regarding reflective surfaces. ) ERC Condition #5: All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. FCE Response: The selection of glass is governed by several issues: energy code compliance, material availability and cost, aesthetics and potential hazard to wildlife. It is not in our best interest to use a glazing material that will present a greater risk to our tenants and building managers as well as the birds. We will take all of these factors into consideration in the final selection of the glass for the project. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Four ERC Condition #6 Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #6. The Phase IV building is approximately 700 ft. from the center of the rookery with a dense buffer of mature vegetation between them. Rex Van Wormer has informed FCE that there is no need for a time limit on the construction of Phase IV and has received concurrance of this from Ted Muller of the Washington State Department of Game in a personal communication on site February 19, 1987 and again on February 20, 1987 by telephone. ERC Condition #7: Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measured at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #7 on the basis that again under SEPA guidelines, one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impacts. Mr. Van Wormer establishes in his attached letter that to his knowledge no studies have determined that urban noise levels would disturb herons, particularly consistent, low level and predictable sounds such as that generated by mechanical systems. Our units will be screened both visually and acoustically. Restricting the mechanical systems to 75 decibels is excessive. Since no potential significant adverse impacts will result from the use of standard mechanical systems that meet applicable code requirements, this condition has no basis for inclusion and should not be imposed. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Five ERC Condition #8: Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon) . FCE Response: We have designed our lighting levels to reduce glare on site, eliminate glare entirely offsite and shield the light source by using fixtures specifically engineered to reduce glare and control light dispersion. But an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon is restrictive, according to my architect, Mr. Royce Berg. Further, Mr. Van Wormer has indicated that the heron will not be adversley affected by the project' s lighting. Therefore, condition #8 should be edited to indicate that lighting fixtures should be selected for their ability to reduce glare and control light dispersion onsite. ERC Conditions #9 & 10: 9. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt covering the sealant. FCE Response: As discussed in Mr. David Morency' s February 20, 1987 memo, since the legal basis for making this request derives from SEPA and since before requesting mitigation under SEPA one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impact, and since Mr. Morency clearly establishes that no significant impact potential exists, FCE concludes there is no basis for requesting the fabric liner mitigation. We, therefore, object to this condition. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Six ERC Conditions #11 & 12: 11. All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water spearators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. FCE Response: The measures should be implemented to mitigate potential runoff impacts. FCE is committed to providing these necessary and desirable mitigating measures and has been working with Mr. Joe Robel, Department of Fisheries, in the design of biofiltering vegetation for the ditch area. ERC .Condition #13 : The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. FCE Response: Condition #13 seems to be a reiteration of condition #1. The proposed site plan is in compliance with the intent of this condition. The building is situated as a buffer between the natural area and the parking areas to the extent possible and still remain within Fire Department code compliance for emergency vehicle access. ERC Condition #14: The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Seven FCE Response: FCE has already established with Metro a Transportation Management Plan for the entire Blackriver Corporate Park. This plan is currently in operation on our existing Phase I and II buildings. Since the plan already exists, there is no need for the first sentence of condition #14. Regarding the second sentence which restricts parking to minimum code requirements, FCE needs the flexibility to increase parking stalls when negotiating with certain tenants. 'In some cases, we have been successful in limiting the additional parking stalls on the basis of net square footage of building space, rather than the gross square footage. However, some tenants require parking at 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet. (City code requires 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. ) Limiting parking to minimum city standards will effectively eliminate Blackriver Corporate Park's ability to compete for certain tenants. Further, since the development' s traffic impacts have already been assessed and mitigated by participation in the Oakesdale LID, further traffic mitigation is punitive. Therefore, we must object to the second sentence in Condition #14. ERC Condition #15: Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. FCE Response: Metro has been unwilling to establish defined bus stations or routes without actual demands on the existing road network. However, FCE and Metro are working together to establish planning criteria and optimum station and route locations as the park develops. If this meets the intent of condition #15, FCE has already been in compliance with it. r • ► Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Eight Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I trust we will reach a satisfactory resolution through this process. Respectfully submitted, FIRST CITY EQUITI S (i:01464-044-A ,Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM/bc cc: ERC Members Enclosures: February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Res Van Wromer, Independent Ecological Services. February 19, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Bob Roed, Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from David Morency, Entranco Engineers, Inc. February 20, 1987 memorandum to Barbara Moss from Royce A. Berg, LPN Architects. e - INDEPN r ECOLOGICAL SERVICES L.l_ �. 1514 Muirhead J F � 23 fig$? Olympia, WA 98502 TO: Barbara E. Moss February20,1987 First City Equities ��- C)EPT Ph: 943-0127 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4172 Seattle, Washington 98104 • RE: Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a 3 story office building having approximately 74000 square feet and an application for a substantial shoreline development. Enclosed are my comments relative to the concerns addressed in the February 6 ,1987 City of Renton letter relative to the preliminary Declaration of Non-Significance conditions. Item 1: The single building in Phase IV has been located along' the north boundary of the development site to use the building as part of the buffer between the surface water run-off ditch and the parking lots and people entry areas of the building. The building has been designed so that all but one small portion of it abuts the vegetated buffer between the surface water runoff ditch and the building. The one area where this has not been possible has been along the west corner of the building. This parking and traffic pattern were required by the Fire Department to allow access to all sides of thebuilding by fire trucks. Negotiations to utilize grassr:ete or other pervious surfaces :in :this. fire .lane and truck turn-,around area were not successful. `The Fire Department has required macadam or anot+her, type permanent ,surface area along one side and across a portion of the front of the building. To maximize utilization-of this area, limited parking has been located along the west end of the building and the northwest corner. Parking stalls utilize only that space which was required by the Fire Department for fire truck access and turn-around. By utilizing the area for parking it reduced the impervious surface requirements for other portions of the site, thus reducing the number of large trees which had to be removed in the southwest portion of the Phase IV project site. The parking area located between the building and the surface water runoff ditch will be located behind an 80 foot buffer of native mature black cottonwood trees which will not be . disturbe,• . There will also be an additional 50 foot setback to the buil•.'ng. It will also be buffered by additional vegetation on both ides to create a visual buffer between the parking lot and groun6 level areas. The location of this parking lot is • ima , ely 650 feet from the edge of the blue heron rookery isl However it is buffered by a linear stand of black co on` t,•oo which is approximately 40-80 feet wide for that 650 tre- ranging from•_50-80. feet tal l. �E main entrances are dway om une ui ccii d11u Gnat L11C ) L seiectea , and used parking areas 1 be south of the buildin ,, away from the surface water runoff ditch and its buffer area. By the design of the building, this will reduce the amount and limit the types of parking uses on this small parking lot at the northwest corner of the building. • Item 2: All of the largest trees in this portion of the site, including all of the trees between the building and the surface water runoff ditch will be retained. Through placement of the buildings, placement of the parking lots, and by the utilization of the fire access road as an overflow or supplemental parking area, we have been able to reduce the amount of impervious surface slightly 'and maintain additional larger trees and tree buffers on the site. Item 3 : Establishing a 660 foot no-disturbance buffer from the heron nesting area unless screened or buffered has been accomplished. A minor portion of the identified parking lot along the west side of the building will encroach within 660 feet of the edge of the island (approximately 700 feet from the center rookery trees on the island) . This area, as mentioned in item 1, is buffered by a row of 50-80 foot black cottonwoods extending for the full length of the 650 foot distance between Phase IV and the heron rookery, with an average width varying from 40-80 feet. This corresponds to the requirements identified in "The Great Blue Heron in King County" (1981) , Werschkul et al , (1976) , De Vos, Ryder and Gaul (Colonial Water Birds Vol 8 #1) and Parker (1980) . Werschkul showed that impacts increased when the active disturbance was reduced from 200 meters to 148 meters. This impact was caused by consistent activity during the neting season. This distance is also consistent with theminimum recommendations of the January 30, 1987 Washington Department of Game letter to the City of Renton. The WDG letter is consistent with the information_ I received from the Non-Game• Department. (WDG Non-game Department, Personal Communication, January 27, 1987) . With the available buffering, we believe the construction activities and the creation of a parking lot in this area , would have minimal impacts because of the distance, the extent of the tree buffer and the probable time it would take before the permits were implemented and work started. All of the evidence indicates that as the nesting season proceeds the birds are less sensitive to disturbance with the least chance of nest disertion after the young are hatched in early May. Also, during observations of herons during 5 site visits between January 29 and February 18, their flight movements, even before construction, were north from the pond into the treed area in and adjacent to the "forest preserve" area. There was no attempts to use the area south of the pond and rookery. In addition, two buildings proposed under the Valley 405 would add additional buffering with their height and size. The view line of the herons from the top of the rookery , with the existing tree or the proposed future buildings would be over 1500 feet at the point where the building would be constructed and over 1000 feet at the back of the site in the parking lot areas. ( See attached figure 1) . Our recommendations have been discussed with Ted Muller, WDG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since our combined site visit on February 18, 1987. In •initial discussions, Ted agreed that a 650-660 foot setback, as recommended in thier first . 2 • • letter should be adequate based on existing conditions (Personal .. Communications February 18 and February 19) . I understood at the time that. this might not be the final formal position of WDG. Item 4. .In an effort to reduce the visual impacts to wildlife, and to limit the. potential for bird strikes against windows or building . surfaces facing the surface water runoff ditch and to the west towards the pond, reflective surfaces will be designed to reduce glare and reflection and minimize the impacts which could occur to birds. With this type facing and non-glare windows, buildings can become an effective part of the buffer. (Muller, WDG, Personal Communication, 1987) . Item 6 Establishing time limits for construction at the Phase IV site. We suggest that the site, because of its distance from the great blue heron rookery approximately 700 feet from the center of the rookery to the building, with a dense buffer, that there should be no need for a time limitation on construction of this building. ( See item 1 and figure 1 This is consistent with the data referenced under item 3 and with the initial recommendations of Washington Department of Game because of the distance from the rookery and because of the tree buffering. When restricted time periods are required, we would recommend that the time period be established on monitored bird activity, limiting the activity to the period when the birds start posturing courtship behavior and breeding prior to the nesting. In documents this varies from mid-February to early March, with the egg laying in approximately the first week of April, incubation for 28 days with a 45 day rearing period (Bent, 1926, Heney '& 'Bethens, 1971, and Pratt, 1972) . The resumption time should be based, again, on the young :herons leaving the nest and not on a ;predetermined date which may or may ;not correlate to the actual nesting activity. ' 'This monitoring should be by a recognized specialist in the field and-with concurrence by : the WDG and a representative of First 'City Equities. Item 7: Requesting a limitation of 75 decibels is of questionable value in its effectiveness to reduce impacts to nesting herons, if this is the purpose. The location of noise (ie. distance from wildlife, buffered or unbuffered) would influence the degree of disturbance. I know of no actual measurements of noise which have been determined to be a fright level or disturbance level for herons or other wildlife. Human disturbance, movement, changes in noise, explosions, inconsistent activities ' have a greater impact on wildlife than consistent, predictable sounds such as drones, air conditioners, etcetera. Use of noise as a means of controlling bird damage to crops has been studied and used for years. These studies have demonstrated that noise must be inconsistent and non-predictable, and variable in pitch and direction to be marginally successful over long periods of time. . These studies were conducted on a variety of waterfowl, blackbirds, and other seed and grass consumers. The degree ' of success varies with the species and time of year. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968) . Item 7:Because of the distance from the rookery and the pond, and the' placement of lighting being onto the parking lot, away from the pond and rookery, it is improbable that any • lighting which was utilized other than a high , broad, glare lighting such as on ball fields or road right-of-ways would have an impact on the heron while they were on the nest. Once the heron are in the pond or the forest preserve they would be out of the line of vision of lights. Some posts within 900 feet of the rookery might be visable. The lights, which are to be used, will be directional , lower in elevation and low density low glare. They should have limited impacts on wildlife resources in the pond. Once the buildings between Phase .IV and the rookery are completed there will be additional line of vision buffering that will affect the' impacts of the parking lot and lights of Phase IV. Line of vision is the distance the birds can see from their perch to the ground. As obstructions are created closer to the rookery, either by plantings or structures , the line of vision distance increases . (See Figure 1) . Based on documents and biological data,impressions from WDG and observations of the movement and activity patterns of this specific colony of herons in late January and early February during extended surveys and two days of construction, it is still my opinion that work could be conducted at the Phase IV location, within 650 feet of the rookery without interfering with successful nesting and brood rearing. Monotoring would be continued throughout the construction period , just as was conducted during the 2 day construction period in February, to make sure the activities were not disrupting the nesting activity. Sincerely R. L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist Indepndent Ecological Services REFERENCES Shipe, B.J. and W.W. Scott, 1981. The Great Blue Heron in King County, Washington. Urban Nongame Program, WDG. Werschkul, David F. et al. , 1976. Some Effects of Human Activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin, 88 (4) : 660-662. Parker, 1980. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana. 4 r . Vos , D.L. , et. al . Responses of breeding birds to human disturbance, Colonial Wading Birds , Vol . 8 #1. Washington Department of Game - Nongame Program, 1987 . Personal Communication. Muller, Ted, WDG, 1987. Personal Communication. Bent, 1926 , U.S. National Museum of History, Bulletin 135. Heney, C.J. and M.R. Bethens, 1971. Population ecology of great blue heron with special references to western Oregon. Can. Field. Nat. 83 (3) : 205-209 . Pratt, H.M. , 1972 . Nesting success of common egrets and great blue herons in the San Francisco Bay Region. Condor 74 (4) : 447-453 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968. Use of Zahn guns and other noise devices - in animal damage control . Animal Damage Control Research Center Unpublished Reports , Denver, Colorado. • ' ' 0 ' .711-a-D 7' -5-0) 0-i I /fr 17 42-/ 4 3-: >4---? IL-0 ''' 5 11 3-/,7 ,/ /up se .//2 y 0 -2 /le.7 : / 7 a r) .,2, Q00, / 1 . . .. -, .70 j j. -f,--b --_---.- . ii"V//I-7,7 , -4 4..79 77 7/ a I-° 2,,,..---.7 / 09/ i pc '• y pn,f)c 0..f j clv .. . . . 3 POO/ , ... im v .ezyj 1 1 _ • ,I _soh.stria: . . 1,1,va __. ,,,$)/ ,ti 1.)3)0.),.i a v ,rx [ . . . • , It 1• I. . . , . . I .1 , ,. . . . . . • ' . • • . • ,. . . . _ ... — .. , . . . . 114 r . 9 a,� Architecture and Planning 7 ft Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.Royce A.Berg A.I.A.,114 Vine Street(2nd&Vine)Seattle,WA 98121(206)728-5771 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Barbara E. Moss DATE: February 20, 1987 First City Equities 800 5th Avenue, Suite 4170 PROJECT: Phase IV Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT' NO: NW 86024 FROM: Royce A. Berg SUBJECT: ERC Committee' Comments Application for Site Plan. Approval letter dated, February 6',, 1987 Phase IV I. The building has been situated, on the Site. 'toy 'create, a. major barrier between. parking arid the natural areas,: and to orient the most passive and "quiet" elements of the project toward those natural areas. Less, than 10% of the. required parking is located between the natural area and. the building at the, northwest section of the site.. The. major entry points to the building are also separated from the natural area to provide access. identity for the building from Naches Avenue. The major access drive to. the southwest directs frequent traffic away from the natural area. The parking along the north edge of the building provides required emergency access: for fire vehicles. .The Uniform Fire Code requires paved fire and emergency vehicular access to within 150 feet around the entire structure. Utilization of the access in conjunction with minimal parking allows greater efficiency in the utilization of paved impervious surface, resulting in the preservation of existing landscape and trees as well as new plantings and enhancements. In addition, it is unlikely that the parking area to the northwest will be used as a primary parking area. Most likely this parking will be used less frequently than those parking areas more conveniently located near, the building entrances. • 2. We have conscientiously maintained existing significant trees to the greatest reasonable extent possible. The position of the building and parking areas has been meticulously planned to preserve existing trees without adversely impacting utilization ERC Committee Comments Page 2 February 20, 1987 efficiencies. Changes in building location could jeopardize the existing trees we are intending to save, as, shown on the site plan. 3. While the necessary set-backs for mitigating disturbance of the Blue Heron are better addressed by Rex Van Warmer, we have responsibly planned the building and parking locations in relation to the natural area easement to the north. Site utilization efficiencies are maximized by situating the building in the middle of the site, completely surrounded by parking,. which is commonly done. We, on the, other hand, planned the Phase IV site, and even sacrificed some utilization efficiency, to, address; the environmental issues better. 4., The Site Plan Review;. Ordinance, is clear regarding the intent of the site plan review process with respect to architectural, design.; " ite plan review does. not. include design review v which addresses the aesthetic considerations of architectural style, exterior treatment„ and colors."' We believe, therefore,,` that the comments of the ERC one this: issue; are inappropriate:, We endeavor to provide lour clients, with the finest', ar,cYitectural. services leading to a building that, is designed to: be functional, economical and aesthetically appropriate and attractive. Our work has been recognized, throughout the western United States for distinction 'and quality. We propose, no less for Phase IV.. 5. Whether clear, tinted, or coated with reflective materials, all glass is reflective. While the specific type of glass has not yet been determined, we propose an exterior treatment of the building that will consist of concrete, reflective and painted glass, all carefully composed to create an attractive and appropriate building. It should be noted that the selection of glass is not governed entirely by aesthetic issues. The State, Energy Code requires that the building operate within specific criteria. The glass selection has a significant impact on compliance with energy code regulations. The use of reflective glass is very common since it allows the building to function most efficiently with respect to energy consumption. We intend to use reflective glass in conjunction with other building materials so that the reflective glass is not necessarily the predominant material. 6. Again, the limits on construction activity as it pertains to the Blue Heron rookery are best addressed by Rex Van Wormer. It should be noted, however, that it is inconvenient and costly to restrict construction scheduling under any circumstances. As Mr. Van Wormer has reported, Phase IV is adequately buffered from he rookery so as not to constitute a disturbance to the birds. ERC Committee Comments Page 3 February 20 , 1987 7. Mechanical systems generate noise at the source of 80-90 decibels which is typical of all multi-story office developments in Renton. An enclosure screen for the equipment will be constructed and will reduce sound pressure levels at the source. A precise noise level of 75 decibels is extremely restrictive and might apply adjacent to residential neighborhoods. For example,, conversation face to face is rated at 70 decibels. in addition, the mechanical equipment is intended to operate on a fairly consistent basis, thereby becoming more of an ambient source, rather than a frequent, start-up and shut down situation. We. believe, as Mr: Van Wormer has indicated,. that wildlife will become accustomed for routine, established noise and not be disturbed 8;c, Lighting levels will be designed to reduce, glare}, however„ an angle of 30 G with, the horizon is restrictive. We, have; eliminated glare and: shielded light;; sources both on and of f Site. The; t ,c ,1. ,j. ut,=o�ff`� fors l.igiht"s;. is, about 75°' vertical, oar 2�5� horizontal. The fixtures we will, select, will be specifically, designed to .reduce g+late: and: control light dispersion. 9: We have never encountered this requirement. . It would be excessive to require membrane waterproofing under parking areas, to, keep storm water from migrating into the water table. First, the water will typically travel to catch basins faster over the paved surfaces than it will have time. to "puddle"' and seep through the asphalt. Second, the migration of the water through the soil, or percolation effect as it is called, is a cleansing and detoxifying process in and of itself. 10. Our response to this item would be consistent with Item Number 9 above. 11. All storm water over impervious asphalt surfaces will be processed through oil/water separators. In addition, we have been working with Mr. Robel of the Department of Fisheries to biofilter, per his approval, all storm water runoff through the ditch at the north side of the site before any water enters the retention pond. 12. In conjunction with the biofiltering process, and with the Department of Fisheries, we have developed design plans for the ditch extension and enhancements which will provide for the interception of floating debris and pollutants. ERC Committee Comments Page 4 February 20, 1987 13 . The building is situated to serve as a buffer between parking areas and to preserve as much existing natural area as possible while providing access for emergency vehicles. 14. Transportation management plans have been developed and presented to the City on prior applications and will continue to be developed in conjunction with Metro and the tenants who occupy the Blackriver Corporate Park. 15 . The owner is currently working with Metro to develop planning, criteria, for locating bus stops and. shelters.. FCE contracted Metro: indeperide�ntlLy to; commence the' psocess since the integration. of the Metro transportation netwOrk. with: ,n;< the project, isa a definite benefit to the' project• We Will cone nue> to) work, with, the; owner to develop) these plans further', • • cc: Greg Byler FIRSTCIIY eFFGE:j/671'21:11, - ID0: 11:11171-5 L February 23 , 1987 EQUITIES �vf Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 RE: Site Plan Approval Phase IV 74,000 Sq. Ft. 3-Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in response to the Environmental Review Committee' s mitigating conditions imposed for the preliminary Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval of the Phase IV 74 ,000 square foot 3-story office building in the Blackriver Corporate Park. I have included copies of letters from my project team responding to the mitigating conditions in detail. Their letters, as well as this summary, should be entered for the record and taken into account in the final decisions. ITEM #1 ERC Condition #1: Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #1. The building has been situated on the site to comply with fire and emergency vehicular access, maximize site utilization efficiencies, and act as a buffer between the parking areas and the natural area easement. In addition, the positioning of the building places the main entrances away from the ditch, causing the least demand for the parking stalls 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170 Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Mr. Donald K. Erickson. February 23 , 1987 Page Two abutting the natural area easement. In summary, we believe our current plan meets the intent of Condition #1, while still complying with other applicable regulations. ERC Condition #2: Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #2. FCE is committed to saving as many large trees as possible for the office park. All of the significant trees between the building and the ditch are being retained. Careful planning in locating the building and parking areas enable us to retain major trees for the enhancement of the project. ERC Condition #3 : Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc. ) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with Condition #3 . Although a portion of the northwest parking lot encroaches within the proposed 660 foot setback, that area is buffered by a 40-80 foot width of 50-80 feet tall cottonwoods. It is, however, of the utmost importance to clarify that although Phase IV complies with the proposed 660 foot setback, in Mr. Van Wormer' s expert opinion, building setbacks of 400 ft. from the center of the rookery are sufficient for protection of the heron. As it is our desire to create an office park that compliments and enhances the beauty of the natural environment, we are implementing Mr. Van Wormer' s recommendations in our planning for Blackriver Corporate Park. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Three ERC Condition #4: The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possilbe for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. FCE Response: Condition #4 contradicts the intent and authority of the Site Plan Ordinance which states: "Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic consideration of architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. " We object to this condition on the grounds that it is expressly outside the intent of the ordinance. Further there is no evidence to substantiate potential significant impacts to fauna by colors or textures of building surfaces. It is an established fact that most animals are colorblind and unable to distinguish on the basis of color. While we do propose a harmonious planning solution for the project, no basis exists to make this mitigation request a condition for threshold determination. (See item #5 regarding reflective surfaces. ) ERC Condition #5: All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. FCE Response: The selection of glass is governed by several issues: energy code compliance, material availability and cost, aesthetics and potential hazard to wildlife. It is not in our best interest to use a glazing material that will present a greater risk to our tenants and building managers as well as the birds. We will take all of these factors into consideration in the final selection of the glass for the project. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Four ERC Condition #6 Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #6. The Phase IV building is approximately 700 ft. from the center of the rookery with a dense buffer of mature vegetation between them. Rex Van Wormer has informed FCE that there is no need for a time limit on the construction of Phase IV and has received concurrance of this from Ted Muller of the Washington State Department of Game in a personal communication on site February 19, 1987 and again on February 20, 1987 by telephone. ERC Condition #7: Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measured at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #7 on the basis that again under SEPA guidelines, one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impacts. Mr. Van Wormer establishes in his attached letter that to his knowledge no studies have determined that urban noise levels would disturb herons, particularly consistent, low level and predictable sounds such as that generated by mechanical systems. Our units will be screened both visually and acoustically. Restricting the mechanical systems to 75 decibels is excessive. Since no potential significant adverse impacts will result from the use of standard mechanical systems that meet applicable code requirements, this condition has no basis for inclusion and should not be imposed. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Five ERC Condition #8: Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon) . FCE Response: We have designed our lighting levels to reduce glare on site, eliminate glare entirely offsite and shield the light source by using fixtures specifically engineered to reduce glare and control light dispersion. But an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon is restrictive, according to my architect, Mr. Royce Berg. Further, Mr. Van Wormer has indicated that the heron will not be adversley affected by the project' s lighting. Therefore, condition #8 should be edited to indicate that lighting fixtures should be selected for their ability to reduce glare and control light dispersion onsite. ERC Conditions #9 & 10: 9. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt covering the sealant. FCE Response: As discussed in Mr. David Morency' s February 20, 1987 memo, since the legal basis for making this request derives from SEPA and since before requesting mitigation under SEPA one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impact, and since Mr. Morency clearly establishes that no significant impact potential exists, FCE concludes there is no basis for requesting the fabric liner mitigation. We, therefore, object to this condition. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Six ERC Conditions #11 & 12: 11 . All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water spearators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. FCE Response: The measures should be implemented to mitigate potential runoff impacts. FCE is committed to providing these necessary and desirable mitigating measures and has been working with Mr. Joe Robel, Department of Fisheries, in the design of biofiltering vegetation for the ditch area. ERC Condition #13 : The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. FCE Response: Condition #13 seems to be a reiteration of condition #1. The proposed site plan is in compliance with the intent of this condition. The building is situated as a buffer between the natural area and the parking areas to the extent possible and still remain within Fire Department code compliance for emergency vehicle access. ERC Condition #14: The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Seven FCE Response: FCE has already established with Metro a Transportation Management Plan for the entire Blackriver Corporate Park. This plan is currently in operation on our existing Phase I and II buildings. Since the plan already exists, there is no need for the first sentence of condition #14 . Regarding the second sentence which restricts parking to minimum code requirements, FCE needs the flexibility to increase parking stalls when negotiating with certain tenants. In some cases, we have been successful in limiting the additional parking stalls on the basis of net square footage of building space, rather than the gross square footage. However, some tenants require parking at 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet. (City code requires 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. ) Limiting parking to minimum city standards will effectively eliminate Blackriver Corporate Park' s ability to compete for certain tenants. Further, since the development' s traffic impacts have already been assessed and mitigated by participation in the Oakesdale LID, further traffic mitigation is punitive. Therefore, we must object to the second sentence in Condition #14 . ERC Condition #15: Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. FCE Response: Metro has been unwilling to establish defined bus stations or routes without actual demands on the existing road network. However, FCE and Metro are working together to establish planning criteria and optimum station and route locations as the park develops. If this meets the intent of condition #15, FCE has already been in compliance with it. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Eight Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I trust we will reach a satisfactory resolution through this process. Respectfully submitted, FIRST CITY EQUITI S Barbara E. Moss , Director of Planning BEM/bc cc: ERC Members Enclosures: February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Res Van Wromer, Independent Ecological Services. February 19, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Bob Roed, Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from David Morency, Entranco Engineers, Inc. February 20, 1987 memorandum to Barbara Moss from Royce A. Berg, LPN Architects. I - . FIRST CITY February 23 , 1987 EQUITIES rJ a/ / S Mr. Donald K. Erickson l9x 3 r Zoning Administrator CITY OF RENTON ,�� Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue So. 1� ,T Renton, WA 98055 RE: Site Plan Approval Phase IV 74,000 Sq. Ft. 3-Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in response to the Environmental Review Committee' s mitigating conditions imposed for the preliminary Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval of the Phase IV 74,000 square foot 3-story office building in the Blackriver Corporate Park. I have included copies of letters from my project team responding to the mitigating conditions in detail. Their letters, as well as this summary, should be entered for the record and taken into account in the final decisions. ITEM #1 ERC Condition #1: Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #1. The building has been situated on the site to comply with fire and emergency vehicular access, maximize site: utilization efficiencies, and act as a buffer between the parking areas and the natural area easement. In addition, the positioning . of the building places the main entrances away from the - ditch, causing the least demand for the parking stalls 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4170 Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments J ' , Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Two abutting the natural area easement. In summary, we believe our current plan meets the intent of Condition #1, while still complying with other applicable regulations. ERC Condition #2: Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with condition #2. FCE is committed to saving as many large trees as possible for the office park. All of the significant trees between the building and the ditch are being retained. Careful planning in locating the building and parking areas enable us to . retain major trees for the enhancement of the project. ERC Condition #3: Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc. ) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. FCE Response: The proposed site plan complies with Condition #3. Although a portion of the northwest parking lot encroaches within the proposed 660 foot setback, that area is buffered by a 40-80 foot width of 50-80 feet tall cottonwoods. It is, however, of the utmost importance to clarify that although Phase IV complies with the proposed 660 foot setback, in Mr. Van Wormer' s expert opinion, building setbacks of 400 ft. from the center of the rookery are sufficient for protection of the heron. As it is our desire to create an office park that compliments and enhances the beauty of the natural environment, we are implementing Mr. Van Wormer's recommendations in our planning for Blackriver Corporate Park. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Three ERC Condition #4: The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possilbe for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. FCE Response: Condition #4 contradicts the intent and authority of the Site Plan Ordinance which states: "Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic consideration of architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. " We object to this condition on the grounds that it is expressly outside the intent of the ordinance. Further there is no evidence to substantiate potential significant impacts to fauna by colors or textures of building surfaces. It is an established fact that most animals are colorblind and unable to distinguish on the basis of color. While we do propose a harmonious planning solution for the project, no basis exists to make this mitigation request a condition for threshold determination. (See item #5 regarding reflective surfaces. ) ERC Condition #5: All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. FCE Response: The selection of glass is governed by several issues: energy code compliance, material availability and cost, aesthetics and potential hazard to wildlife. It is not in our best interest to use a glazing material that will (' present a greater risk to our tenants and building managers as well as the birds. We' will take all of these factors into consideration in the final selection of the glass for the project. 1 Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23, 1987 Page Four ERC Condition #6 Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #6. The Phase IV building is approximately 700 ft. from the center of the rookery with a dense buffer of mature vegetation between them. Rex Van Wormer has informed FCE that there is no need for a time limit on the construction of Phase IV and has received concurrance of this from Ted Muller of the Washington State Department of Game in a personal communication on site February 19, 1987 and again on February 20, 1987 by telephone. ERC Condition #7: Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measured at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. FCE Response: FCE objects to condition #7 on the basis that again under SEPA guidelines, one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impacts. Mr. Van Wormer establishes in his attached letter that to his knowledge no studies have determined that urban noise levels would disturb herons, particularly consistent, low level and predictable sounds such as that generated by mechanical systems. Our units will be screened both visually and acoustically. Restricting the mechanical systems to 75 decibels is excessive. Since no potential significant adverse impacts will result from the use of standard .mechanical systems that meet applicable code requirements, this condition has no basis for inclusion and should not be imposed. . Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Five ERC Condition #8: Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon) . FCE Response: We have designed our lighting levels to reduce glare on site, eliminate glare entirely offsite and shield the light source by using fixtures specifically engineered to reduce glare and control light dispersion. But an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon is restrictive, according to my architect, Mr. Royce Berg. Further, Mr. Van Wormer has indicated that the heron will not be adversley affected by the project's lighting. Therefore, condition #8 should be edited to indicate that lighting fixtures should be selected for their ability to reduce glare and control light dispersion onsite. ERC Conditions #9 & 10: 9. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt covering the sealant. FCE Response: As discussed in Mr. David Morency' s February 20, 1987 memo, since the legal basis for making this request derives from SEPA and since before requesting mitigation under SEPA one must first establish the potential for significant adverse impact, and since Mr. Morency clearly establishes that no significant impact potential exists, FCE concludes there is no basis for requesting the fabric liner mitigation. We, therefore, object to this condition. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Six ERC Conditions #11 & 12: 11. All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water spearators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. FCE Response: The measures should be implemented to mitigate potential runoff impacts. FCE is committed to providing these necessary and desirable mitigating measures and has been working with Mr. Joe Robel, Department of Fisheries, in the design of biofiltering vegetation for the ditch area. ERC Condition #13: The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. FCE Response: Condition #13 seems to be a reiteration of condition #1. The proposed site plan is in compliance with the intent of this condition. The building is situated as a buffer between the natural area and the parking areas to the extent possible and still remain within Fire Department code compliance for emergency vehicle access. ERC Condition #14: The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23 , 1987 Page Seven FCE Response: FCE has already established with Metro a Transportation Management Plan for the entire Blackriver Corporate Park. This plan is currently in operation on our existing Phase I and II buildings. Since the plan already exists, there is no need for the first sentence of condition #14. Regarding the second sentence which restricts parking to minimum code requirements, FCE needs the flexibility to increase parking stalls when negotiating with certain tenants. In some cases, we have been successful in limiting the additional parking stalls on the basis of net square footage of building space, rather than the gross square footage. However, some tenants require parking at 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet. (City code requires 5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. ) Limiting parking to minimum city standards will effectively, eliminate Blackriver Corporate Park' s ability to compete for certain tenants. Further, since the development' s traffic impacts have already been assessed and mitigated by participation in the Oakesdale LID, further traffic mitigation is punitive. Therefore, we must object to the second sentence in Condition #14 . ERC Condition #15: Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. FCE Response: Metro has been unwilling to establish defined bus stations or routes without actual demands on the existing road network. However, FCE and Metro are working together to establish planning criteria and optimum station and route locations as the park develops. If this meets the intent of condition #15 , FCE has already been in compliance with it. J Mr. Donald K. Erickson February 23, 1987 Page Eight Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. I trust we will reach a satisfactory resolution through this process. Respectfully submitted, FIRST CITY EQUITI S'//!/? Ci4/14 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM/bc cc: ERC Members Enclosures: February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Res Van Wromer, Independent Ecological Services. February 19, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from Bob Roed, Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. February 20, 1987 letter to Barbara Moss from David Morency, Entranco Engineers, Inc. February 20, 1987 memorandum to Barbara Moss from Royce A. Berg, LPN Architects. • INDEPI )LN1 EC;OLOUIUAL SERVICES ' ' ll : L l_I 9 11111 ll ' 1514 Muirhead ALB ,.�3 08-7 Olympia, WA 98502 TO: Barbara E• . Moss _ First City Equities '.�G ,). 7ebruary 20,1987 Ph: 943-0127 • 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4172 Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a 3 story office building having approximately 74000 square feet and an application for a substantial shoreline • development. • Enclosed are my comments relative to the concerns addressed . in the February 6,1987 City of Renton letter relative to the • preliminary Declaration of Non-Significance conditions. Item 1: The single building in Phase IV has been located along' the north * boundary of the development site to use the building as part of the buffer between the surface water run-off ditch and the parking lots and people entry areas of the building. ' The building has been designed so that all but one small portion of it abuts the vegetated buffer between the surface water runoff ditch and the building. The one area where • this has not been possible has been along the west. corner of the building. This parking and traffic pattern were required by the • Fire Department to allow access to all sides of the building by fire trucks. Negotiations to utilize grassrete or other pervious surfaces in this fire lane and truck turn-,around ;area were not successful. The Fire Department .has required :macadam ;or another type permanent surface area along one side and across a portion of the front of the building. To maximize utilization-of this area, limited parking has been located along the west end of the building and the northwest corner. Parking stalls utilize only that space which was required by the Fire Department for fire truck access and turn-around. By utilizing the area for parking • , it reduced the impervious surface requirements for other portions of the site, thus reducing the number of large trees which had to be removed in the southwest portion of the Phase IV project site. • • The parking area located between the building and the surface water runoff ditch will be located behind an 80 foot buffer of native mature black cottonwood trees which will not be . disturbed. There will also be an additional 50 foot setback to the buil.. ng. It will also be buffered by additional vegetation on both ides to create a visual buffer between the parking lot and ground level areas. The location of this parking lot is •• imaiely 650 feet from the edge of the blue heron rookery isl-,. . . cowever it is buffered by a linear stand of black co • on,i.o' which is approximately 40-80 feet wide for that 650 =-t, _ t.e tre=(ranging from•_50-80. feet •tall. • r . � ' Allimp i4ite .,4 - • •r. ! .f IIC11_11 C111.LCLI L,t J uic awr" Li01(1 L11C ULLL11 c]llu Lilac L IIIOSL Selectea ; ' and used parking area; ill be south of the build __J, away from the surface water runoff ditch and its buffer area. By the design of the building, this will reduce the amount and limit the types of parking uses on this small parking lot at the northwest corner of the building. Item 2 : All of the largest trees in this portion of the site, including all of the trees between the building and the surface water runoff ditch will be retained. Through placement of the buildings, placement of the parking lots, and by the utilization of the fire access road as an overflow or supplemental parking area, we have been able to reduce the amount of impervious surface slightly and maintain additional larger trees and tree buffers on the site. Item 3 : Establishing a 660 foot no-disturbance buffer from the heron nesting area unless screened or buffered has been accomplished. A minor portion of the identified parking lot along the west side of the building will encroach within 660 feet of the edge of the island (approximately 700 feet from the center rookery trees on the island) . This area, as mentioned in item 1, is buffered by a row of 50-80 foot black cottonwoods extending for the full length of the 650 foot distance between Phase IV and the heron rookery, with an average width varying from 40-80 feet. This corresponds to the requirements identified in "The Great Blue Heron in King County" (1981) , Werschkul et al , (1976) , De Vos, Ryder and Gaul (Colonial Water Birds Vol 8 #1) and Parker (1980) . Werschkul showed that impacts increased when the active disturbance was reduced from 200 meters to 148 meters. This impact was caused by / consistent activity during the neting season. This distance is also consistent with the minimum recommendations of the January 30, 1987 Washington Department of Game letter to the City of Renton. The WDG letter is consistent with the information_ I received from the Non-Game Department. (WDG Non-game Department, Personal Communication, January 27, 1987) . With the available buffering, we believe the construction activities and the creation of a parking lot in this area would have minimal impacts because of the distance, the extent of the tree buffer and the probable time it would take before the permits were implemented and work started. All of the evidence indicates that as the nesting season proceeds the birds are less sensitive to disturbance with the least chance of nest disertion after the young are hatched in early May. Also, during observations of herons during 5 site visits between January 29 and February 18, their flight movements, even before construction, were north from the pond into the treed area in and adjacent to the "forest preserve" area. There was no attempts to use the area south of the pond and rookery. In addition, two buildings proposed under the Valley 405 would add additional buffering with their height and size. The view line of the herons from the top of the rookery , with the existing tree or the proposed future buildings would be over 1500 feet at the point where the building would be constructed and over 1000 feet at the back of the site in the parking lot areas. ( See attached figure 1) . Our recommendations have been discussed with Ted Muller, WDG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service since our combined .site visit on February 18, 1987. In initial discussions, Ted agreed that a 650-660 foot setback, as recommended in thier first 2 • letter should be adequate based on existing conditions (Personal Communications February 18 and February 19) . I understood at the time that this might not be the final formal position of WDG. Item 4 . In an effort to reduce the visual impacts to wildlife, and to limit the potential for bird strikes against windows or building surfaces facing the surface water runoff ditch and to the west towards the pond, reflective surfaces will be designed to reduce glare and reflection and minimize the impacts which could occur to birds. With this type facing and non-glare windows, buildings can become an effective part of the buffer. (Muller, WDG, Personal Communication, 1987) . Item 6 Establishing time limits for construction at the Phase IV site. We suggest that the site, because of its distance from the great blue heron rookery approximately 700 feet from the center of the rookery to the building, with a dense buffer, that there should be no need for a time limitation on construction of this building. ( See item 1 and figure 1 This is consistent with the data referenced under item 3 and with the initial recommendations of Washington Department of Game because of the distance from the rookery and because of the tree buffering. When restricted time periods are required, we would recommend that the time period be established on monitored bird activity, limiting the activity to the period when the birds start posturing courtship behavior and breeding prior to the nesting. In documents this varies from mid-February to early March, with the egg laying in approximately the first week of April , incubation for 28 days with a 45 day rearing period (Bent, 1926, Heney & Bethens, 1971, and Pratt, 1972) . The resumption time should be based, again, on the young herons leaving the nest and not on a predetermined date which may or may not correlate to the actual nesting activity. This monitoring should be by a recognized specialist in the field and- with concurrence by the WDG and a representative of First City Equities. Item 7: Requesting a limitation of 75 decibels is of questionable value in its effectiveness to reduce impacts to nesting herons, if this is the purpose. The location of noise (ie. distance from wildlife, buffered or unbuffered) would influence the degree of disturbance. I know of no actual measurements of noise which have been determined to be a fright level or disturbance level for herons or other wildlife. Human disturbance, movement, changes in noise, explosions, inconsistent activities have a greater impact on wildlife than consistent, predictable sounds such as drones, air conditioners, etcetera. Use of noise as a means of controlling bird damage to crops has been studied and used for years.. These studies have demonstrated that noise must be inconsistent and non-predictable, and variable in pitch and direction to be marginally successful over long periods of time. These studies were conducted on a variety of waterfowl, blackbirds, and other seed and grass consumers. The degree of success varies with the species and time of year. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968) . Item 7:Because of the distance from the rookery . and the pond, and the placement of lighting being onto the parking lot, away from the pond and rookery, it is improbable that any 3 lighting which was utilized other than a high , broad, glare lighting such as on ball fields or road right-of-ways would have an impact on the heron while they were on the nest. Once the heron are in the pond or the forest preserve they would be out of the line of vision of lights. Some posts within 900 feet of the rookery might be visable. The lights, which are to be used, will be directional , lower in elevation and low density low glare. They should have limited impacts on wildlife resources in the pond. Once the buildings between Phase IV and the rookery are completed there will be additional line of vision buffering that will affect the' impacts of the parking lot and lights of Phase IV. Line of vision is the distance the birds can see from their perch to the ground. As obstructions are created closer to the rookery, either by plantings or structures, the line of vision distance increases. (See Figure 1) . Based on documents and biological data,imprpssions from WDG and observations of the movement and activity patterns of this specific colony of herons in late January and early February during. extended surveys and two days of construction, it is still my opinion that work could be conducted at the Phase IV location, within 650 feet of the rookery without interfering with successful nesting and brood rearing. Monotoring would be continued throughout the construction period , just as was conducted during the 2 day construction period in February, to make sure the activities were not disrupting the nesting activity. Sincerely R. L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist Indepndent Ecological Services • REFERENCES Shipe, B.J. and W.W. Scott, 1981. The Great Blue Heron in King County, Washington. Urban Nongame Program, WDG. Werschkul, David F. et al. , 1976. Some Effects of Human Activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin, 88 (4) : 660-662. Parker, 1980. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana. 4 Vos , D.L. , et. al . Responses of breeding birds to human disturbance, Colonial Wading Birds , Vol . 8 #1 . Washington Department of Game - Nongame Program, 1987 . Personal Communication. Muller, Ted, WDG, 1987. Personal Communication. Bent, 1926 , U.S. National Museum of History, Bulletin 135. Heney, C.J. and M.R. Bethens, 1971. Population ecology of great blue heron with special references to western Oregon. Can. Field. Nat. 83 (3) : 205-209. Pratt, H.M. , 1972. Nesting success of common egrets and great blue herons in the San Francisco Bay Region. Condor 74 (4) 447-453 . ' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968. Use of Zahn guns and other noise devices - in animal damage control . Animal Damage Control Research Center Unpublished Reports, Denver, Colorado. 5 • .a Y.!! w 1 �. ? • v ,�f r }r _ �. - _.. dr.� 1r c4N ,� �� 1 r s J� ty e 1 3 tY 5 Archrt'ecture and Planning ` '� r "' j • ., r ,. 1)S .. t � a to r , "Y ,. Leason,Pomeroy Northwest Inc Royce A Berg,AIA 114iV ne Strreet(2nd&Nine)Seattle,WA 9,8121(206)728-5771,w, MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Barbara E. Moss DATE: February 20, 1987 First City Equities 800 5th Avenue, Suite 4170 PROJECT: Phase IV Seattle, WA 98104 PROJECT NO: NW 86024 FROM: Royce A. Berg SUBJECT: ERC Committee Comments Application for Site Plan Approval letter dated February 6, 1987 Phase IV 1. The building has been situated on the site to create a major barrier between parking and the natural areas, and to orient the most passive and "quiet" elements of the project toward those natural areas. Less than 100 of the required parking is located between the natural area and the building at the northwest section of the site. The major entry points to the building are also separated from the natural area to provide access identity for the building from Naches Avenue. The major access drive to the southwest directs frequent traffic away from the natural area. The parking along the north edge of the building provides required emergency access for fire vehicles. The Uniform Fire Code requires paved fire and emergency vehicular access to within 150 feet around the entire structure. Utilization of the access in conjunction with minimal parking allows greater efficiency in the utilization of paved impervious surface, resulting in the preservation of existing landscape and trees as well as new plantings and enhancements. In addition, it is unlikely that the parking area to the northwest will be used as a primary parking area. Most likely this parking will be used less frequently than those parking areas more conveniently located near the building entrances. • 2. We have conscientiously maintained. existing significant trees to the greatest reasonable extent possible. The position of the building and parking areas has been meticulously planned to preserve existing trees without adversely impacting utilization , • ERC Committee Comments Page 2 February 20, 1987 efficiencies. Changes in building location could jeopardize the existing trees we are intending to save, as shown on the site plan. 3. While the necessary set-backs for mitigating disturbance of the Blue Heron are better addressed by Rex Van Warmer, we have responsibly planned the building and parking locations in relation to the natural area easement to the north. Site utilization efficiencies are maximized by situating the building in the middle of the site, completely surrounded by parking, which is commonly done. We, on the other hand, planned the Phase IV site, and even sacrificed some utilization efficiency, to address the environmental issues better. 4. The Site Plan Review Ordinance is clear regarding the intent of the site plan review process with respect to architectural design. "Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic considerations of architectural style, exterior• treatment, and colors." We believe, therefore, that the comments of the ERC on this issue are inappropr• iate.. We endeavor to provide our clients with the finest architectural services leading to a building that is designed to be functional, economical and aesthetically appropriate and attractive. Our work has been recognized throughout the western United States for distinction and quality. We propose no less for Phase IV. 5. Whether clear, tinted, or coated with reflective materials, all glass is reflective. While the specific type of glass has not yet been determined, we propose an exterior treatment of the building that will consist of concrete, reflective and painted glass, all carefully composed to create an attractive and appropriate building. It should be noted that the selection of glass is not governed entirely by aesthetic issues. The State Energy Code requires that the building operate within specific criteria. The glass selection has a significant impact on compliance with energy code regulations. The use of reflective glass is very common since it allows the building to function most efficiently with respect to energy consumption. We intend to use reflective glass in conjunction with other building materials so that the reflective glass is not necessarily the predominant material. 6. Again, the limits on construction activity as it pertains to the Blue Heron rookery are best addressed by Rex Van Wormer. It should be noted, however, that it is inconvenient and costly to restrict construction scheduling under any circumstances. As Mr. Van Wormer has reported, Phase IV is adequately buffered from he rookery so as not to constitute a disturbance to the birds . ERC Committee Comments Page 3 February 20, 1987 7. Mechanical systems generate noise at the source of 80-90 decibels which is typical of all multi-story office developments in Renton. An enclosure screen for the equipment will be constructed and will reduce sound pressure levels at the source. A precise noise level of 75 decibels is extremely restrictive and might apply adjacent to residential neighborhoods. For example, conversation face to face is rated at 70 decibels. In addition, the mechanical equipment is intended to operate on a fairly consistent basis, thereby becoming more of an ambient source, rather than a frequent start-up and shut down situation. We believe, as Mr. Van Wormer has indicated, that wildlife will become accustomed to routine, established noise and not be disturbed. 8. Lighting levels will be designed to reduce glare, however, an angle of 30° with the horizon is restrictive. We have eliminated glare and shielded light sources both on and off site. The typical cut-off for lights is about 75° vertical or 25° horizontal. The fixtures we will select will be specifically designed to reduce glare and control light dispersion. 9. We have never encountered this requirement. It would be excessive to require membrane waterproofing under parking areas to keep storm water from migrating into the water table. First, the water will typically travel to catch basins faster over the paved surfaces than it will have time to "puddle" and seep through the asphalt. Second, the migration of the water through the soil, or percolation effect as it is called, is a cleansing and detoxifying process in and of itself. 10. Our response to this item would be consistent with Item Number 9 above. 11. All storm water over impervious asphalt surfaces will be processed through oil/water separators. In addition, we have been working with Mr. Robel of the Department of Fisheries to biofilter, per his approval, all storm water runoff through the ditch at the north side of the site before any water enters the retention pond. 12. In conjunction with the biofiltering process, and with the Department of Fisheries, we have developed design plans for the ditch extension and enhancements which will provide for the interception of floating debris and pollutants. ERC Committee Comments Page 4 February 20 , 1987 13. The building is situated to serve as a buffer between parking areas and to preserve as much existing natural area as possible while providing access for emergency vehicles. 14. Transportation management plans have been developed and presented to the City on prior applications and will continue to be developed in conjunction with Metro and the tenants who occupy the Blackriver Corporate Park. 15. The owner is currently working with Metro to develop planning criteria for locating bus stops and shelters. FCE contracted Metro independently to commence the process since the integration of the Metro transportation network Within the project is a definite benefit to the project. We will continue to work with the owner to develop these; plans further, cc: Greg Byler • Wsuf ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. I AKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING (206)827-1300 5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E. KIRKLAND.WA 98033 First City Equities • rco >, J1987 February 20 , 1987 Barbara Moss First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 Subject: Response to Letter from City of Renton, Building and Zoning Department, dated February 6, 1987 re- garding the Valley 405 Phase IV Site Plan Approval Items 9 and 10 On Page 2 , Items 9 and 10 of the City' s letter, a re- quest has been made to underline and seal parking lot fa- cilities with fabric liner. The City' s intent in making this request was based upon a desire to mitigate water quality im- pacts in the P-1 pond. This intent was clarified by a tele- phone conversation with Jeannette McKague, a City of Renton . staff member. The City' s legal basis for making such a request would derive from SEPA. However, before requesting mitigation un- der SEPA one must first establish the potential for sig- nificant adverse impact. In my opinion this potential does not exist. Given the relatively impervious nature of as- phalt, about 95 - 98 percent of the precipitation falling on the parking areas will be discharged to the storm water col- lection system as surface runoff. This surface runoff will contain a corresponding percentage of the pollutant loading generated by the parking surface. Any minor amount of water that manages to infiltrate through the paved surface will undergo soil treatment prior to discharge via subsurface flow to the P-i pond. Various studies (e.g;. , Horner, 1985 and EPA, 1981) indicate that soil filtration is a very effective pollutant removal process. Organics are typically removed by sorption, degradation and • volitization. Horner (1985) indicates that the majority of stormwater runoff pollutants discharged to a soil medium are absorbed onto soil particles near the point of discharge, and EVERETT OFFICE 516 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (206)258-6202 1602 HEWITT AVENUE.EVERETT.WA 98201 ,l -- Barbara Moss February 20, 1987 Page 2 that further lateral or vertical mobility is restricted. We must therefore conclude that the great majority of pollutants would be removed by soil treatment processes for even the small amount of stormwater that would reach the pond by sub- surface flow. We must also conclude that there is no sig- nificant impact potential and therefore no basis for request- ing First City Equities to provide the proposed fabric liner mitigation. Since - significant volumes of surface water runoff will discharge to the pond, measures identified by the City of Renton, (page 2 , items 11 and 12 ) should be implemented to mitigate potential runoff impacts. I believe First City Equi- ties is committed to providing these necessary and desirable mitigating measures. Sincerely, EN ANCO I INC. i David A. orency, Manager Environmental Services References: Horner, R.R. 1985. Washington State Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Implementation Manual, Volume II: Ba- sis of Water Quality Criteria. U.S. EPA. 1981. Process Design Manual, Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. BUSH, ROC & HITCHINGS, INc. III , 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206 / 323-4144 L.. February 19, 1987 • • Ms. Barbara Moss First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4160 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Phase IV Project Blackriver Corporate Park Dear Barbara: - The mitigating measures in response to conditions number 11 and 12 of the Renton Environmental Review Committee's preliminary Determination of Non- Significance are as follows: Item 11 All surface storm water runoff will be collected and processed through a gravity oil/water separator unit prior to being discharged into the storm drainage system in Naches Avenue. From the Naches Avenue piped system the storm water enters the old Black River channel drainage swale where additional filtration is provided by the natural vegetation. The oil/water separator unit will be Utility Vault Company's No. 5106 SA • without Coalescing Plates. This unit was recommended by the City of Renton Engineering Department for the Phase III project presently being constructed due east of the proposed Phase IV project. Item 12 Floating debris carried by the water runoff will be intercepted by the catch basins while the pollutants will be processed by the oil/water separator unit and the natural vegetation found in the Black River Channel. The water runoff from the impervious surfaces will be directed to the internal drainage system and no runoff will directly discharge into the P-1 pond without first passing through the oil/water separator unit. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sind- -$fil l • 7 `��'IiG .ter. , '4.bert M. Roed RMR/cd • CIVIL ENGINEERS/LAND SURVEYORS • 0• ,a, , ; I 1IT :ti�l United States Department of the Interior :i., ,, . to '',1, ^v-,. , 'b` FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '' I-� Olympia Field Office 2625 Parkmont Lane S . W. , Bldg. B-3 Olympia, Washington 98502 February 20 , 1987 _ ,'-1 ,' (i n ,' ', , I ti :� i i L_ FEB 23 1987 Donald K. Erickson f, N1�, f T. Zoning Administrator Building and Zoning Department Municipal Building 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton , Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1987 , concerning the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . We made a site visit to the project area on February 18, 1987 . The development plans for the Blackriver Corporate Park Development contain some good recommendations to mitigate adverse ' impacts to important resources . However, these documents do not go far enough in protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat ' (e. g. project area wetlands are not protected from filling) . Consequently project plans should be revised to provide improved protection to fish and wildlife resources . During our site visit we observed ongoing and past project- related activities that adversely impacted fish and wildlife habitat . These observations included: 1 ) logging activities that destroyed much of the forest on the east end of the property; 2) active road construction on the east and north sides of the property; 3) evidence that part of the forested wetlands had been ; filled. We also observed that the great blue heron population (we counted 14 adult birds) , of the project area, was located at the west end of the forested area. Our interpretation of this is that the birds were stressed by the logging and other activities and were attempting to distance themselves from this human disturbance. The vast majority of ducks were also located at the far west end of the Pond indicating that they too were reacting to the human activities . It is the policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service to seek to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife habitat as a result of development projects . We have applied the Service' s Mitigation Policy (Federal Register Vol . 46, no. 15 , Jan 23 , 1981 ; amended Feb . 4, 1981) to the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . The Mitigation Policy is based on four Resource Categories which are 4IP i used to ensure that the level of mitigation recommended is consistent with the affected fish and wildlife resources . The project area wetlands , forested area, P-1 Pond ( including islands) and open fields (used as feeding area by the great blue herons) fall under Resource Category Type 2 . The mitigation goal ' for Resource Category Type 2 , as described in the Mitigation ' Policy, is that there be no net loss of in-kind habitat value. ' This goal will not be reached if the project is built as ; proposed. In addition, some mitigation should be required for habitat losses incurred to date. We recommend the following in order to insure protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat . 1) The wetland on the north side of the P-1 Pond should be protected by a 100 foot no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone. Wetlands that have already been impacted by the project should be restored to original configurations and revegetated. 2) The great blue heron rookery should be protected by a 660 foot (or greater) radius no-construction and no-human- activity buffer zone to be measured from the center of the rookery. ' 3) All surface waters of the P-1 Pond including its extensions into the P-1 Canal and old Black River channel should be protected by a 200 foot no-construction and no human activity buffer zone. 4) All disturbed areas within the protected buffer zones should be revegetated with plants that are native to the Puget Sound lowlands . 5) All buildings and parking lots should be constructed as multi-level structures . This will reduce the amount of land to be covered by buildings and parking lots and at the same time provide buffer zone space. 6) All buildings should be sited to act as a visual/sound screen between the parking and service areas and wildlife habitat . In addition all buildings should be sited so that conditions are not created whereby there is potential for increased wind turbulences that can damage trees or nests in the great blue heron rookery or other trees of the forested area. This aspect may . require the services of an atmospheric sciences engineer (or similar type) 7) All windows that face into wildlife habitat should be ( designed to reduce the possibility of birds striking the glass . 8) All lighting facilities and noise producing mechanical systems should be designed to minimize disturbances to wildlife resources . / ( 9) All stormwater runoff should be processed through ' regularly cleaned oil/water separators . The processed water should then be routed through grass-lined swales and into a sediment detention pond before entering the P-1 Pond. The grass-lined swales and detention pond should not be constructed in wetlands . Stormwater should be monitored for pollutants and meet Federal and State water quality standards before before it enters any wetlands or the P-1 Pond. 10) Construct a fence that is designed to prevent people and pets from entering the protected buffer zones . 11) All clearing, grading and construction activities should be accomplished within timing schedules set by the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game. 12) Close coordination should be made with all Indian tribes affected by the project . This office would conduct an additional and separate evaluation pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered Species Act if the project requires permits from the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers . In the review, our agency may concur, with or without stipulations , or object to the proposed work, depending upon whether important fish and wildlife resources and their habitat are affected. Accordingly, we would encourage the project sponsor to contact our office, (206) 753- 9440, prior to submitting permit applications that may be necessary. We may be able to offer more specific design criteria which will facilitate the permit review process . In summary valuable wildlife habitat has already been destroyed by initial stages of project construction. A substantial amount of additional fish and wildlife habitat will be destroyed if the project is constructed as proposed. These adverse impacts will be significantly reduced in scope and severity if our recommendations are strictly followed. Additional review of the project may be necessary if Corps of Engineers permits are required. These comments have been prepared under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat . 401 , as amended; 16 U. S . C . 661 et seq. ) and other authorities mandating Department of Interior concern for environmental values . They are also consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Blackriver Corporate Park Development . Sincerely, Charles A.qunn — Field Supervisor cc: BIA EPA NMFS SCS (Lynn Brown) WDE WDF(Robel ) WDG (Muller) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. a' 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206 / 323-4144 February 19, 1987 • • Ms. Barbara' Moss First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4160 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Phase IV Project Blackriver Corporate Park Dear Barbara: The mitigating measures in response to conditions number 11 and 12 of the Renton Environmental Review Committee's preliminary Determination of Non- Significance are as follows: Item 11 All surface storm water runoff will be collected and processed through a gravity oil/water separator unit prior to being discharged into the storm drainage :system in Naches Avenue. From the Naches Avenue piped system the storm water enters the old Black River channel drainage swale where additional filtration is provided by the natural vegetation. The oil/water separator unit will be Utility Vault Company's No. 5106 SA without Coalescing Plates. This unit was •recommended by the City of Renton Engineering 'Department for the Phase III project presently being constructed due east of the proposed Phase IV project. Item 12 Floating debris carried by the water runoff will be intercepted by the catch basins while the pollutants will be processed by the oil/water separator unit and the natural vegetation found in the Black River Channel. The water runoff from the impervious surfaces will be directed to the internal drainage system and no runoff will directly discharge into the P-1 pond without first passing through the oil/water separator unit. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sinc 1 , / /44-ftq bert M. Roed RMR/cd CIVIL ENGINEERS/ LAND SURVEYORS „yI}ylF, F Po r\ • -01 FIRST CITY � �� Fj��' °f; EQUITIES 8 , [ID February 11, 1987 fgQ7 QUILDING/`t),0,' DEPT. Mr. Larry M. Springer Mr. Richard C. Houghton Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Phase IV Site Plan Approval 74,000 Sq. Ft. , Three Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Committee Members: I am in receipt of the Environmental Review Committee' s preliminary determination of non-significance with conditions outlined in Donald Erickson' s letter of February 6 , 1986 (sic) , and am writing to respond briefly to it. It is not clear to me whether the review of this application was conducted without benefit of information contained in Mr. Rex Van Wormer' s January 31, 1987 letter report addressing the blue heron issues which we provided at the request of Fred Kaufman in his review of our grading permit (SP 100-86) . For example, conditions 1, 2, 3 , 6, and 13 are specifically intended to mitigate heron impacts, although Mr. Van Wormer' s report excludes the Phase IV site from the recommended restricted work area. (See attached map #2 from Mr. Van Wormer' s report. ) Further, clarification of several conditions including 9 and 10 is needed before we can agree to them. I also have other concerns about several conditions included in the proposed mitigation. We believe there are enough issues raised from different departments as well as staff and ourselves to warrant a discussion of mitigation for this building and we request, therefore, an opportunity to meet with the Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled February 18 meeting. As 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments • Environmental Review Committee February 9, 1987 Page Two there is a 15 day comment period which ends February 23, a meeting on the 18th would be timely. Without the opportunity to meet with the committee, First City Equities will be unable to agree to the mitigation conditions as presently suggested. Warm regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM:bc Enclosure cc: Donald Erickson Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. ' Royce Berg Rex Van Wormer Ted Holden Robert Roed David Schuman Greg Byler Elliott Severson HAND DELIVERED z438G IND MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE Effective Determination Date: February 9, 1987 File: ECF-001-87, SA-001-87, SM-001-87 Proponent: First City Equities Black River Corporate Park - Phase IV Description: Application for site plan approval to allow a three story office building having approximately 74,00 square feet, and application for substantial shorelines development in the vicinity of the Black River. Location: Property located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. 1. Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas. 2. Existing mature trees on site should be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. 3. Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc.) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. 4. The building shall be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment in order to create as natural an environment as possible for fauna in the adjacent nature area. The exterior surfaces shall utilize earthen colors and textures rather than brightly colored or reflective surfaces. 5. All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. 6. Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. 7. Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 8. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). 9. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. --"Mitigated Determinations 4111 Non Significance February 9, 1987 Page 2 10. All runoff from vehicular storage areas shall be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer with asphalt convering the sealant. 11. All runoff from areas be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. 12. In order to protect the waterfowl and fish, measures shall be taken to intercept floating debris and pollutants before it enters the forebay. 13. The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. 14. The applicant shall work with Metro on developing a transportation management plan in order to reduce on-site parking. In no case shall parking exceed minimum code requirements. 15. Facilities shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. The Building and Zoning Department has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43. 21C030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file at the Zoning Division's office. Agencies, affected tribes and other interested parties may submit written comments on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from the above determination date. Written comments will be accepted until February 23, 1987. This determination may be appealed within the fifteen (15) day comment period. Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. Comments and/or appeal arguments should be addressed to: City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Yr. (CM) Adj //;1:41V Signature of Responsible Official or Designee Published: February 9, 1987 / • ��£ T DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY te "' SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS :a tvl P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 FEB 1 81987 Regulatory Branch RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1987 Ms. Barbara E. Moss ENGINEERING DEPT. Director of Planning GN1'OF REMON First City Equities 300 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 Reference: Black River Technology Park Dear Ms. Moss: On November 14, 1985, personnel from the Seattle District inspected the referenced property to determine if a proposed develop- ment would require a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This inspection revealed that wetlands, as defined by Department of the Army permit regulations, exist on the property. Using permit regulations effective at that time, we deter- mined that this wetland was not a water of the United States; and thus, the Corps of Engineers had no jurisdiction over the referenced development. Our March 12, 1986, letter to you reflects this determination. In late 1986, the Corps of Engineers published new permit regu- lations which became effective January 12, 1987. These regulations provide a clarification by the Environmental Protection Agency of the definition of waters of the United States and now include waters: a. Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or b. Which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which cross state lines. This clarification is significant because it expands the Corps Section 404 jurisdiction. The wetlands on the referenced property are now considered to be waters of the United States and subject to Department of the Army permit requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404, authorization is required for the discharge of dredged or, fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. We request you contact this office regarding permit procedures if you still propose to, fill the site. A copy of the Department of J. f -2- the Army permit pamphlet is enclosed to assist you in making appli- cation, if appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Sam Casne, telephone (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Vernon E. Cook Chief, Operations Division Enclosure cc: City of Renton Irvin Lloyd Environmental Protection Agency _, +'i IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SH ll REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Psi -Crni n-P P.IrN t r9i DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - on - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-0O1- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM -�01-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BLACK RTVRR CORPORATE PARK PHASE TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 ,SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE • IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth ✓ 2) Air i✓ 3) Water i✓ 4) Plants ✓ 5) Animals �✓ 6) Energy and Natural Resources l✓ 7) Environmental Health 1✓ 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics ✓ 11) Light and Glare ✓ 12) Recreation ✓� 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services r✓ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: ✓_ / _ RECOMMENDATION: r,Ed DNS f] MITIGATED DNS D EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: Z1/0M7 FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENTO UILDING & ZONING DEPAP-1ENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET EC F - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLO SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF IHE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : Ei ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT fl .BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : T-727 El APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS f NOT APPROVED Ga-) S---;4 745 (\re-"( 7 S �co DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 -" - RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPI "WENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) ; SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-81 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES • PROJECT TITLE ; BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF-THE BLNUK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO: El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE ; Ej ENGINEERING DIVISION E TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE ; El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU r---1 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT 111 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ei OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED • IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; APPROVED PPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ❑ NOT APPROVED � J 0 4, {' C� G t £?r` � U�' l I Y G �L - ,/Q�657( 7 L-1j 7 CJ z La 6,2-7 1Z fv 6e / , , s3¢sq I, l 6 s,l'4 65c9/ 7 4,A'/c ;1/ vs raClu ck>«..�, //hivP 6�/ , 99?. ,3 64,4. 9L 7Y 1/- -)�) DATE; %2-,/62 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AU. •RIZED REPRESENTATIVE o fee_ c5,a� c 1�( REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 J J r FIRST CITY EQUITIES BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE IV 2. Pending outcome of a traffic benefit study for the S/SW Grady Way area, a cost figure of $188 per vehicle trip generated has been determined to be appropriate as an assessment fee from the Valley Traffic Impact Study. We are requesting a letter of credit as security to provide traffic improvements. It is customary for the City to charge 150% of an assessment amount for security. The assessment figure of $188 would be adjusted in accordance with the South Grady Way Impact Analysis Study. The assessment from the study would be to bring or keep the following listed intersections at a service level D or better. Rainier Ave. & Grady SW Interurban Ave. & Grady Way S 7th St. & Rainier Ave. S S 7th St. & Edwards Road (Hardie Ave. SW) SW Grady Way & Lind Ave. SW SW Grady Way & Powell Ave. SW SW 7th Street & Lind Ave. SW The assessment would also provide assurance for the extension of Oakesdale Ave. SW. A letter of credit would be for the amount as follows: 1 ,528 vehicle trip ends $188 benefit district fee then, 1 ,528 x $188.00 = $287,264.00 @ 150% of $287,264 = $430,896 letter of credit amount The latecomer ' s fee in item #1 should be credited to the letter of credit amount. IIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SI ' REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -T1'0.- (7, DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21, 1957 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - oo1 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM_ -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: $LACK RTVF.R CC)RPORATR PARK PHASF. TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER: LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shorelinell � ; 1,;-] +' h� Ili/ 9) Housing tif J 10) Aesthetics FEB 1 / iqR? 11) Light and Glare E,. � vu/4uNiNG 12) Recreation DEPT, 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: • )A-/c P�r 8kte_.ie, TsP (►r�r = �,�� 6, ._� Fay -f-� })o USG d /),-,f7e„1 s id 3L-2- Z X /S`zg — 534,--- .5- 62.3 di 75i 7(2-. i 0 as # � 3, G c� ) 993, C ru u + s / /63 , ?� .36 6 RECOMMENDATION: 1IDNS [J MITIGATED DNS Q *of,' REVIEWED BY: °,4 v��G'�T ( ) - TITLE: DATE: " /'//67 7 FORM #14 / REVISED 9/10/85,„- FIRST CITY EQUITIES BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE IV 2. Pending outcome of a traffic benefit study for the S/SW Grady Way area, a cost figure of $188 per vehicle trip generated has been determined to be appropriate as an assessment fee from the Valley Traffic Impact Study. We are requesting a letter of credit as security to provide traffic improvements. It is customary for the City to charge 150% of an assessment amount for security. The assessment figure of $188 would be adjusted in accordance with the South Grady Way Impact Analysis Study. The assessment from the study would be to bring or keep the following listed intersections at a service level D or better. Rainier Ave. & Grady SW Interurban Ave. & Grady Way S 7th St. & Rainier Ave. S S 7th St. & Edwards Road (Hardie Ave. SW) SW Grady Way & Lind Ave. SW SW Grady Way & Powell Ave. SW SW 7th Street & Lind Ave. SW The assessment would also provide assurance for the extension of Oakesdale Ave. SW. A letter of credit would be for the amount as follows: 1 ,528 vehicle trip ends $188 benefit district fee then, 1 ,528 x $188.00 = $287,264.00 @ 150% of $287,264 = $430,896 letter of credit amount The latecomer ' s fee in item #1 should be credited to the letter of credit amount. OF R4, $ ® ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - o RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055. • 235-2540 9,0 �• 0991. 6. 0SEPI"- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM • DATE: JANUARY 28, 1987 TO: ALL PLAN REVIEWERS • 'FROM: BUILDING & ZONING DEPT. ' SUBJECT: MOBILE OI'L SERVICE STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE • Southwest corner of N.E. Sunset Boyd. & N.E. 12th Street Files: ECF-081-86, CU-096-86, V-006-87 • The Building & Zoning Department has received new drawings for the above referenced applications consisting of: 1. Plot Plan 2. Survey Plan 3. Grading Plan 4. Landscaping Plan In addition, we have also received details of the secondary containment . for the underground storage tanks. • Finally, we have also received a variance application to reduce the required ten feet of landscaping along N.E. Sunset Boulevard per the zoning regulations of the B-1 zone. Please review this new information and comment. Your old routing sheets are being recirculated and a new one i"s also attached for the variance. o J I l��` `J is � � .. -- i %I 1��\ r� • D i 3 f 11- J • tV0J-s'•``•-A - RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 081 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S) : VARIANCE: V-006-87 (REFERENCE: CU-096-86) PROPONENT : BUSH, ROED, & HITCHINGS, INC. PROJECT TITLE : MOBILE OIL SERVICE STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4-711(D)(6) (a)(1) OF THE ZONING CODE TO REDUCE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING ALONG SUNSET BOULEVARD. 'NOTE: CITY RIGHT- OF-WAY ALONG, SUNSET BOULEVARD WILL BE LANDSCAPED AS PART OF THE REQUIRED OFF-SITE STREET LOCATION : IMPRfVFMFNTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SUNSET BOULEVARD & N.E. 12th STREET. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 2/11/87 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : E UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ; " - == [1,11 �I POLICE DEPARTMENT 1 )1 Fr'-`' ' LJ n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT n OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON FEBRUARY 5, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : £2r -ir/ p&IA4E,eiel/ n APPROVED LI APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Fl NOT APPROVED 4/6)Y A(e g/fie,t- ahlit3YJ • j11114r 6436. 7/Lif `oc, ice • DATE: / 1t / SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 A i. OF R4, o TFIF CITY OF RENTON z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 a BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 `o. FRED J. KAUFMAN. 235-2593 o94, SEP1,140 February 11, 1987 CITY OF RENTON C E V [E FEB 1k1987 J Charles R. Blumenfeld Attorney At Law BOGLE & GATES BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. The Bank of California Center Seattle, Washington 98164 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: I am in receipt of your letter of February 9, 1987. While the Renton Municipal Code does not clearly define the issue of a reopened public hearing, I believe it is an inherent right of the presiding officer to reopen a hearing when matters presented warrant such reopening. If support is necessary, I believe Section 4-3013 (A) confers such authority when reviewing an application. It states: "the Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. " That language obviously does not strictly limit the review to one public hearing. As a matter of fact, this office reopened the hearing initially in order to allow the applicant, First City Equities, an opportunity to bolster its vague initial application, rather than simply denying the application. This office, upon receiving the submission of Mr. Van Wormer, had felt that additional questions of Mr. Van Wormer seemed in order. The Fish and Wildlife letter simply reinforced that determination. The receipt of documents out of the ordinary course of the proceedings, while unusual, is not unheard of. As Section 4-3015 indicates, such additional information may require a decision to be reconsidered. Since such reconsideration is possible and would potentially delay a final decision in any event, it seems appropriate, to paraphrase you, "to address the blue heron issue and resolve it once and for all. " In addition, this office is not entirely clear as to whether the City's Responsible Official, its Environmental Review Committee, was aware of the "blue heron issue" when the • application was processed. The checklist submitted for the project appears to neglect the heron population entirely. A number of Checklist questions refer specifically to whether an environmental element is located, known or observed on or near the site. These questions are always answered in the negative. Item 5a specifically requests the applicant to circle any known birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Included in the list of choices to be circled are 'heron. ' No birds were circled. If heron were not accurately portrayed as being on or near the site, it is reasonable to assume that information regarding heron would not be reasonably available until such knowledge was shared with all interested parties. In summary, in order for this office to issue a decision based on accurate and complete information, no choice remains but to reopen the hearing. I believe that this procedure comports with due process and is also eminently fair. While I imagine that you and your client, First City Equities, have now received a copy of the Fish and Wildlife Service letter, I have included a copy in any event. If this office can be of further assistance please feel free to call. Sincerely, FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER FJK/dk cc: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Mike Parness Building and Zoning Department Members ERC Marty Murphy Mary Anderson Charles Dunn, Fish & Wildlife Service Stephen Penland, Dept. of Game CITY OF RENTON ICI OMfE,-. \ FEB 1\ 1987 J BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. LAW OFFICES BOGLE & GATES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS �YCYEW ��, . THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER F E B 91981 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98164 _ CABLE'BOGLE SEATTLE° CITY OF RENTON TELEX:32.1087 FAX:(206)623.4326 (206)682-5151 I1�AlR�Na EXAMINER ANCHORAGE OFFICE BELLEVUE OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C.OFFICE PORTLAND OFFICE SUITE 600 SUITE 1500 SUITE 900 1600 WILLAMETTE CENTER 510 L STREET 10900 N.E.4111 ONE THOMAS CIRCLE,N.W. 121 S.W.SALMON ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99501 BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 WASHINGTON,D.C.20005 PORTLAND,OREGON 97204 TELEX:09426.695 FAX:(907)276-4152 FAX:(206)462-0811 TELEX:89-7410 FAX:(202)293-5825 FAX:(503)227.2207 (907)276-4557 (206)455-3940 (202)293.3600 (503)222-1515 CHARLES R. BLUMENFELD PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE FILE: 0 9 7 2 0/3 4 2 3 2 February 9 , 1987 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Land Use Hearing Examiner Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: First City Equities - Special Permit No. 100-86 Dear Mr. Kaufman: We are writing as attorneys for First City Equities, with regard to the above-referenced matter. By letter of February 5 , 1987, you advised First City Equities that you had received letters from the U.S . Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service and the State Department of Game, which has caused you to consider extending the period for issuance of your decision, pursuant to City Code Section 4-3014 (B) . We certainly have no problem with an extension of time; however, we are a bit perplexed as to why letters , which were submitted after the close of the January 27, 1987 public hearing, are being considered at all -- letters, by the way, which First City Equities has not received. In addition, we can find no authority in the City Code for "motions to reopen the Public Hearing, " although Section 4-3015 does provide for motions to reconsider after a decision is issued. We would appreciate having an opportunity to discuss with you the procedure being followed and the authority for the procedure, either on the telephone, if appropriate, or at a public meeting. CITY OF RENTON F E B 111987 J BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. • Mr . Fred J. Kaufmz__ BOGLE ca GATES February 9 , 1987 Page Two We do want to make clear that we are not opposed to addressing the blue heron issue and would like to resolve it once and for all . We believe that the January 31, 1987 Report by Independent Ecological Services is responsive to this . However, we do want to make sure that the procedure adopted to address this issue is consistent with the Renton City Code. _ Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours , BOGLE & GATES � L ►ter ' /�� Charles R. Blumenfe' d cc: Ms . Barbara Moss CITY OF REN"ION 5) FF © V E FEB 1 ) 1987 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. • . • _,,‘ - - • • • /q r✓ l CITY OF RENTON TECIREIVR-;\ FIRST CITY FEB 11.1'. 7 J Februar 11, 1987 EQUITIES BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. Y Mr. Larry M. Springer Mr. Richard C. Houghton Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • RE: Phase IV Site Plan Approval 74 ,000 Sq. Ft. , Three Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Committee Members: I am in receipt of the Environmental Review Committee' s preliminary determination of non-significance with conditions outlined in Donald Erickson' s letter of February 6, 1986 (sic) , and am writing to respond briefly to it. It is not clear to me whether the review of this application was conducted without benefit of information contained in Mr. Rex Van Wormer' s January 31, 1987 letter report addressing the blue heron issues which we provided at the request of Fred Kaufman in his review of our grading permit (SP 100-86) . For example, conditions 1, 2, 3 , 6 , and 13 are specifically intended to • mitigate heron impacts, although Mr. Van Wormer' s. report excludes the Phase IV site from the recommended restricted work area. (See 'attached map #2 from Mr. Van Wormer' s report. ) Further, clarification of several conditions including 9 and 10 is needed before we can agree to them. I also have other concerns about several conditions included in the proposed mitigation. We believe there are enough issues raised from different departments as well as. staff and ourselves to warrant a discussion of mitigation for this building and we request, therefore, an opportunity to meet with the Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled February 18 meeting. As • 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Environmental Review Committee February 9, 1987 Page Two there is a 15 day comment period which ends February 23, a meeting on the 18th would be timely. Without the opportunity to meet with the committee, First City Equities will be unable to agree to the mitigation conditions as presently suggested. Warm regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM:bc Enclosure cc: Donald Erickson Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. Royce Berg Rex Van Wormer Ted Holden Robert Roed David Schuman Greg Byler Elliott Severson HAND DELIVERED CITY OF RENTON ECIEDVIEr) FEB 111987 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. • ria. Iw 7 L A• '.ti 7 : .111.1111111: ..- . :I: ' . • �t^;4 aair LL1�o• ; b �rJ'r , a� `•y • p f��' n ' 1•J, ye'.',4 •J� ' .AI,• •oi,a-♦ ` �• y- se'` s 0.. k �1U .:' • ., es•) 'Pr". i-. .. , ler. , idle- A '1.• ,.L • Z. `sue? `v�'4�:c� e�• e O�•-��—'.er•�r .ev.ye ;�i., o i ��-i �+ :l •Qy1'' • • if .. J. ° Q°••1® •O,1? %D.% ,,1?t. •.° .rYr..MY• Y MY•R .•Q f ° 'nT e¢0 F .......,0 - • 11r pf o l V a \1'• CD ,.0 1 .e .� �q .�1 •• °•: • • s� y 2 tP el C f. ce:17."...:' .., a Q; 1 ��eo t jib • .• � .' ,' '"Ge4�eeI ae �,, is..+ te a` es"°� _ ' - O 6 'ip" 7. e.na.e n•.�. tl �i • ;•• -,�Y+ �� '�i.So.�y. .yr-. ° �'eo V+-- t:r•uo a oc..-J4, _ oc� r �-��— • "•� •; •'ego, �'ayIr___ -i' 7 4}ti4A�°rGTdgy O U ��i. or^•�i�o v_. _ i �°' o •��• �\ t �• - y��••P : E s i VIIIa •y I Pir V ° r+"sao ��, a a..+ ,_:P\. -�e� \" �2., ' 11 `'"� • Nr y ! . i, ...a...Y..c..r. I. • O �.Q�•� y. e•o tee. . •�t'.y � 1 _o °+�� - F' t oe ° Cy�.��Y.fi�"'••'• _:O t , A i' ' • i 1f;>„',pe�• Ui. • e S a — rlsdti �vt ' �t.:t` j s Ohl'- /'� i` `4 • . . kJ R., -o 2'3i: ,-`. ,' s. ,e,---" - • h • - - ': - • Co e ,t`€ e• " c , ' 04t Q �' � _:' •�'� , ,. vs � ` o i � - 8 f 5b`o � Yki �_ •-^v • �, 1,... V� a Ip9 � � ° � � e' J'oy . • - 1 J' t o 6 P i t:.`. 7,., N. •••-0., 4iiv, ., , • ..- , .- , [J, -• ! �� s1,.1/ •:_ ; : rj= l September 18. 1986 9 '��, a 4flf 0 j . Bld 9 SFSF. • V -i '' `�, • ' 1Nubr Nrber Floorz Type Sfte BottIq1 Vi j`S�_. � ?l I 1 a lirj office 180,344 S.F. 9,500 S.F. } 2 office 9.500 S.F. .. `' £ `R ••W"`Q . - •s 3'1 S'6 : it,i,. p ii .64p S.F: C 1• . office, :::: , ,831 S.F.- fC.f� )000 S.F. - •e" ` ; •.000 S,F: •. ,636 S:F: , ' ' ' �';,�,. , • 12i 1.story' office 18:636 S.F. �� '., ...-°.:va, 3.i 14., ,'S :, . _ ;; _ 13; 't story; office Si VD: 15,540 S.F. 829.173 S:F. r; r.,t�.r+•: -' j'j5 j 'story;, office L R/D CoaePark• k 4�. �•Cy. � ,: 'stortes, office 683912SF. 69150 SF:` :atort:a orfte. RENTON, WASHNGTON 'i- .stories office % tcs� .stories office \�,.7 .•4` •r•,1 stories office 1521.275 S.F. 80.365 S.F. i, •� ' ek �X ti :."-"` '• F e 20 4 stories office 64,292 S.F. FIRST MY E01.1MES 21 3/1 stories office 55,469 S.F. 55,l69 S.F. •'••'^"'''^�• J 1t `. ••`! 1 ,_ �. �L„•.•••�'e�� -:rt• - tEAnt4 pOs4EROY NORTHWEST 04G ?. 1. , 4 TGe^..��'�� if ;$ u st Z7 1st°ry RID / 158,887 S.F. 23,163 S.F. _ `�, ,� 4 E , IS �,sto 22 600 5 E }�,� •. f . f. r Z! 2/1 stories office 6 R D 314.1b1 F._111.IOS S.F. "�•�'� '/ z r�1�t _ ZS 1 story R/0 / 128.-004 S.F. 31.450 S.F, £11 NELSON GROUP • =i,, • :: �� :�=fJ a �. ., r�%' 26 2 stories office / 266.000 S.F. 264160 S.F. �� •, �' 1, 89:9V' ._ 27 2 storm office 26,160 : : - z stories •690.688S.F. .;^ �� sl800 S.F. I �::1. : ,ramoffice • 17(N �;j'• • stories office / 168.553 S.F. 26,240 S.F. I � � I 35 2�tortes office - 27.u0 S.F. u l • •*y.. - 36 4/2 stories office /163.035 S.F. 90,760 S.F. .mere �, ,it CITY- • • 1.575.330 S.F. `/ 1 =• •V• OF RENT®fV /Appro:,..t.sit. \ _�•_ - o - FEB©ERVED 1 i987 /� Map 2: Recommended restricted BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. work arE a lJ i , CITY OF RENTON • . lrECEDVE . FEB 111987 FCTY EQUITIES BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. February 11, 1987 • Mr., Larry-M. Springer Mr. Richard C. Houghton Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON Municipal Building _ 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Phase IV Site Plan Approval 74,000 Sq. Ft. , Three Story Office Building BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Committee Members: I am in receipt of the Environmental Review Committee' s preliminary determination of non-significance with conditions outlined in Donald Erickson' s letter of February 6, 1986 (sic) , and am writing to respond briefly to it. It is not clear to me whether the review of this application was conducted without benefit of information contained in Mr. Rex , Van Wormer' s January 31, 1987 letter report addressing the blue heron issues which we provided at the request of Fred Kaufman in his review of our grading permit (SP 100-86) . For example, conditions 1, 2, 3 , 6, and 13 are specifically intended to , mitigate heron impacts, although Mr. Van Wormer' s report excludes the Phase IV site from the recommended restricted work area. (See attached map #2 from Mr. Van Wormer' s report. ) Further, clarification of several conditions including 9 and 10 is needed before we can agree to them. I also have other concerns about several conditions included in the proposed mitigation. We believe there are enough issues raised from different departments as well as. staff and ourselves to warrant a discussion of mitigation for this building and we request, therefore, an opportunity to meet with the Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled February 18 meeting. As 800 Fifth Avenue•Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98104•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Environmental Review Committee February 9, 1987 Page Two there is a 15 day comment period which ends February 23 , a meeting on the 18th would be timely. Without the opportunity to meet with the committee, First City Equities will be unable to agree to the mitigation conditions as presently suggested. Warm regards, FIRST CITY EQUITIES 4j• Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning BEM:bc Enclosure cc: Donald Erickson Charles Blumenfeld, Esq. Royce Berg Rex Van Wormer Ted Holden Robert Roed David Schuman Greg Byler Elliott Severson HAND DELIVERED CITY OF RENTON RICE [IVE -] FEB 111987 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. • • • : ` G ••J .R` EY It aT �y . ice• '..• ,Y _ �/• r,!I' co r'f4 1`E' ■ �� .Y a^9i�y,° J�r�• --��= CJ•�.: 1e.`. ,`�-. • -- '- .3 4•„%, . • re','?'" -—... ,-_ fiel.;_ ,, • c9 :C'_r�1!✓ ter c� ,, _■'1�' •y .. �. x-! :1 , -- •r"• Q •ep�® w ..'• ,��i.\3. �.r.r•�•e.r...,./ •'i�i/ �� ne sC <y ,�� l`�'.� �fyLW • 0•,,, Rr'i Id .8c.. "� 4:1$,#11 f" HHHVVViii ••1HI. { •J v alb f" . .." 4-,A • rrI �, viv,• � t�w.. OC,'�x.' D O e� •••ci si• • ..'• ',��ti C `O �•I�•�•'.� i. 0 c'a�0' C� �.T .,r,,.4n '• °• ;/i' �' �~ iai.4,..... '4I '� `c.E .11 777 0 ,b •�`�`ep o t af - �.... . _ e — <:'_ •' _•. s N. } �� ♦ illI .CQ� 1 43,5-0a �'� �f ..e...M '��"�'� x �•�. .age osr�c �! �`—� �_ taw ` S•� .e��9 -C��o.t• h • - a...dr n.no. a.•�4 0:"V10:1'/� b`: pee is i•y�oo - Z]n . - ^!' i o c `b-' ' n� - ''ma`s. x:r►�•+ ..��s.4:,;'R.• • ?TP11 • + ,. .or %• 7 ,• • �� '„'so-0 �: 4 t ,{ ,. 'i C p . a4 ' .7• Ve]icfl • -- ,:.t .�" Q . ,w,. . , , , `� .�, ':moo " P P &.�- a A masi I - .. .aC< ~�?J .ai re- _ _ _ . • -».�:- '�. f-��^cam ,.-; - ®. 1 September 18. 19864 . � '. -« a.eY • • 81dy, S.F. S.F. •c� 'Via• i �:::: g12Nu■ber M1 tc Floors Type Stte Building ;4• ) ..- _ - iydI r ' l 1 1 story office 180.344 S.F. 9,500 S:F, 1 � Or, 7.A48118. 1 , 2 1 story office 9:500 S.F. it,.-. v�• : •� s 4 3'stare office 26.400 S:F; 11 �s Ste .Ao a sue. a� _ yYc-Y`'. 4- ]'stnrtrs' aftlr• lSfl 716 F F- 49 Rf10 S F �•„� _-"•eL �•• Sr 2 stories, offtre 197.600 S:F 67:600-S:F t i',�fl 1' i - 6 3,stories- office- 183;150.S.F. 36000;S:F:. L�.ff"` �.` 7- 2.stories• off1et- 401640 S.F . •� ® 1;l ti'i} � ;-• a' _�. • 8% ]-stories. office? 403;084'S:F: 7T,832%SCfi • - _ ¢ •� • � ill _9: ` • 9 2 stories office; 41;000 S:F:, 4•, YYY • oa: ii,h ' Lc3 �. t .: .�.10; 2'stories, of rice: 41:f100 S.F.::. 31•@@S." t :•' �10 Y• ..1, 11,` 1,'story, office': 298,780 S:F: 18;676 S.F.; ei 12: 1'steer office. 18;636 I▪f ,'. � .•.........• office i R/0: 1$:S,o. • :. B29:173 S F 14, 1 story office i R/0 17;410' : c.office683.912 S,F. 69,150 ••��F • -16'' 4 stories • office 64',000 S.F. •'/� y y s. 21 3:tortes office 48,000 S.F. RENTON, WASHINGTON .. �•••~ b If 18 2 stories office 39.972 S.F. • . :11 t`� 4. craw. .',4^ :►Q per• ,. �, 19 S stories office /521,275 S.F. 80,365 S.F. FlE?SF QTY. CQU7T1Eg ,10,..... 1`v 1, 4,-. S� .14:13 •Is`_ �• 20 {4 :tors office 55.469 S.F. Y,�CM . y«T'o: :`� 21. 3/4 stories office 55,469 S.F. 55.469 S.F. '•' warn., 1 .�mi �C" ,„. eC t 22 1 story R/D 1158,884 S.F. 23,167 S.F. �ASOtF POs1EFi0Y NORTHWEST IME. ��1 �•��,S,f o•�, _ r ,: �,- z3 1 story Rip _ 22 600 S F =: =i��yL� . •i-\1 .r 1.Z6 211 stories o{{fice� ]16.167 .f 141.1J S S.F. Y� � 1 t + �e�� r•�.�r�%�- 25 1 story R/D I ]28 004 S f. 31.450 S F, tfiCftEt1 NELSON GRpt�p NC -;mow4 26 2 stories office 1266,000 S.F. 26.160 s.f, ',,.:,,�- <G•_<<. ��4: 1 I r P._ 27 2 stories office 26.160 S.F. « • - - ZB 3 stories office I 240 S,i , •soroffsa 113 -MO c F• ,770 S.F. 690688SF. "^....' •:�30 stories office 1540,000 S.F. ,000 S.F.31 3 stories office .800 S.F. �': ,32 3 stories office ,800 S.F. • MI ' -}4 - 33 2 stories office 47.000 S.f. �'• • 34 2 stories office 1168,553 S.F. 26.240 S.F. f (� 35 2"tortes office 27.440 S.F. u I "• 36 4/2 stories office /263,035 S.F. 90,760 S.F. _ oA _ CITY OF RENTON ,1.575.330 .•j ®� __ _>0 S.F. '.< ( •� 11 n f7 1, /Approxlmae Site Areas4. , ,,..( .r., ...„,%.:- -----;---- .. SI\t • �w FEB 111987 3) • • BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. Map 2: Recommended restricted work area NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Preliminary Mitigated declaration of NON-SIGNIFICANCE for the following projects under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The Applicants have completed a mitigation process pursuant to WAC 197-11-350. ECF-001-87 FIRST CITY EQUITIES BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PHASE IV SA-001-87 Application for site plan approval to allow a three story SM-001-87 office building have approximately 74,000 square feet, and application for substantial shorelines development in the vicinity of the Black River. Property located at the north- west corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches avenue S.W. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. The City of Renton will not act on this proposal for 15 days. Comments must be received by February 23, 1987 Published: February 9, 1987 ie T��NT oF+'yF/ United States Department of the Interior �� ¢P r ._ mil' O T 4 ' j FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE fjJ CITY OF RENTON -�.tr�;�,. YO FFICE "�,c63•‘gj9 Olympia Field Office 2625 Parkmont Lane SW, B-3 Olympia, Washington 98502 206/753-9440 FTS 434-9440 February 4, 1987 FEB 5 198 CITY O[::F RENTON Mike W. Parness m i w l ; Administrative Assistant , City of Renton FEBD Renton Municiple Building F 05 �987 200 Mill Avenue South Renton , Washington 98055 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Dear Mr. Parness : This letter concerns a potential development project that is apparently under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton . The project could have significant adverse environmental impacts . We have recently been informed that a development called the Black River Corporate Park/Valley 405 Business Park has been proposed for construction in or near the Renton City limits . The project consists of large buildings , roads , parking lots and trails . It is to be located adjacent to the U. S . Soil Conservation Service ' s P-1 Pond which is part of their Green River Watershed, Eastside Project . We, ,request that you delay issuing any permits for project construction until we have had an opportunity to make a formal review of the project. Such a review is necessary to ensure that Federal standards are met for conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat . The P-1 Pond and adjacent area contains valuable fish and wildlife habitat i . e. wetlands , forested wetlands , forested uplands , and open fields . The pond is used as resting, wintering and probably breeding habitat by substantial numbers of waterfowl such as mallards , canvasbacks and ruddy ducks . A great blue heron rookery has become established along the eastern end of the pond. Migratory passerine and raptorial birds could be expected to use the forests and fields that surround the pond. The pond is also used by anadromous salmonids and resident fish. Approximately 150 adult coho salmon spawn in the tributaries above the pond. The Washington State Department of Fisheries annually plants 80 , 000 coho salmon juveniles in suitable areas above the pond. The surviving population of these fish move through the pond during their seaward migration. The degree to which these young fish use the pond for rearing purposes is unknown at this time. • Construction of the proposed Black River Corporate Park/Valley 405 Business Park will adversely impact fish and wildlife habitat in the area. It appears that much of the forested area (including some forested wetland) and open fields that surround the pond will be destroyed and replaced with buildings , roads , parking lots and trails . Consequently there will be a sharp reduction in existing wildlife values of the P-1 Pond. This is because there is an ecological linkage between the pond and surrounding habitat . Examples of this linkage follow. 1 . The undeveloped vegetated space that surrounds the P-1 Pond serves to buffer the adverse effects of human disturbance on wildlife of the pond. 2 . Waterfowl may feed on terrestrial insects produced on vegetation that surrounds the P-1 Pond. This vegetation also supplies detrital material ( leaves , twigs , etc. ) that energize the food web which produces aquatic macroinverte- brates . These macroinvertebrates are fed upon by waterfowl and fish. 3 . Waterfowl that depend upon tree cavities for nesting purposes may use suitable trees throughout the forest that is adjacent to the P-1 Pond. The preferred management strategy is to maintain natural cavities as opposed to construction of artificial nesting structures . 4 . Great blue herons depend on trees in the adjacent forest for nesting and perching. In addition , the project could produce significant quantities of stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff is noted for transporting various pollutants such as petroleum based products . These pollutants would adversely impact fish and wildlife resources and their habitat in the project area. In summary, construction of the P-1 Pond has produced valuable fish and wildlife habitat. This habitat is of particular importance to substantial numbers of waterfowl in their annual migratory cycles . Furthermore this habitat is within an urbanized/industrialized setting and should be of high value as a conservation education area for nearby schools and as a birdwatching area for local citizens . Our goal is that the full ecological value of the Pond be maintained so that fish and wildlife resources are conserved. Please supply us with any information that you have concerning the Black River Corporate Park/Valley 405 Business Park project . ■ 1 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 753-9440 . Sincerely (-q_de„,.C.4, Cam( Charles A. Dunn Field Supervisor c: EPA SCS (Lines) WDF (Robel) WDG (Mueller, Zigler) 4' . Untied Stages I ep artme t of the linterio- Q ➢SH ANDWI➢ DLIFE SERVICEo crrvof RENioro 17 .-':, ,% MAYORS OFFICE Olympia Field Office Egn\V D 2625 I'ar'knlont bane SW, B- 0Iyelpia , Washington 98502 206/75? -91.140 FTS 4:34 --9440 February , 197 FEB 5 1987 Mike W. Parness Administrative Assistant , City of Renton Renton Muni.ci-ple Building 200 M:i l 1 Avenue South Rel7,ton , Washington 98055 Dear Mr . Parne ss : This letter concerns a potential development project that. is apparently under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton . The project could have significant adverse environmental .impacts . We have recently been informed that a development called the Black River Corporate Park/Valley 405 Business Park has been proposed for construction in or near the Renton City limits . The project consists of large buildings , roads , parking lots and trails . It is to be located adjacent: to the U . S . Soil Conservation Service ' s P --1 Pond which is part of their Green River Watershed , Eastside Project . We request that you delay issuing any permits for project construction until we have had an opportunity to make a formal review of the project . Such a review is necessary to ensure thal Federal standards are met for conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat . The P-]. Pond and adjacent area contains valuable fish and wildlife habitat i . e. wetlands , forested wetlands , forested uplands , and open fields . The pond is used as resting, wintering and probably breeding habitat by substantial numbers of waterfowl such as mallards , canvasbacks and ruddy ducks . A great blue het-on rookery has become established along the eastern end of the pond . Migratory passerine and raptorial birds could be expected to rise the forests and fields that surround the pond . The pond is also used by anadromous salmonids and resident fish . Approximately 150 adult coho salmon spawn in the tributaries above the pond. The Washington State Department of Fisheries annually plants 80 , 000 coho salmon juveniles in suitable areas above the pond . The surviving population of these fish move through the pond during their seaward migration . The degree to which these young fish use the pond for rearing purposes is unknown at this time. Construct i orr of the proposed Black River Corporal I';r vl; Y,r I I e 405 Business Park will adversely i.ml,nc• t f i slr and wildlife h,rh i ! .c l in l he area . I t appears that much of the forested ed al ea ( in( I ud i n� some forested wetland) and open fields that. surround the pond will be destroyed d and replaced with buildings , rcc:rds , par lc i nt; lots and trails . Consequently there will be a sharp reduction in existing wildlife values of the P 1 Pond . This is ',cause there is an ecological linkage between the pond and surrounding habitat . Examples of this linkage follow. 1 . The undeveloped vegetated space that surrounds the P 1 Toned serves to buffer the adverse effects of human disturbance on wildlife of the pond. 2 . Waterfowl may feed on terrestrial insects produced on vegetation that surrounds the P--1 Pond . This vegetation also supplies detrital material ( leaves , twigs , etc . ) t ha t energize the food web which produces aquatic macroinverI: o . brates . These macroinvertebrat.cs are fed upon by waterfowl and fish. 3 . Waterfowl that depend upon tree cavi ties for nesting purposes may use suitable trees throughout the forest that is adjacent to the P- 1 Pond. The preferred management strategy is to maintain natural cavities as opposed to construction of artificial nesting structures . 4 . Great blue herons depend on trees in the adjacent: forest: for nesting and perching. In addition , the project could produce significant quantities or stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff is noted for transporting various pollutants such as petroleum based products . These pollutants would adversely impact fish and wildlife resources and their habitat in the project area. In summary, construction of the P-1 Pond has produced valuable fish and wildlife habitat . This habitat is or particular importance to substantial numbers of waterfowl in their annual migratory cycles . Furthermore this habitat .i within an urbanized/industrialized setting and should be of high value as a conservation education area for nearby schools and as a birdwatching area for local citizens . Our goal is that the full ecological value of the Pond be maintained so that fivh and wildlife resources are conserved . Please supply us with any information that you have concerning the Black River Corporate Park/Valley 405 Business; Park pr•o,jec l . • , milik you rnr your (.ousid,rutiou or this mlt I I Lduv questions ehll Inc ot ( 20W 7r; -01/10 . Sineorely 01-L—Ce„ Charles A . Dunn Field Supervisor c : EPA SCS ( Lines) WDF ( Rohe] ) WDC (Mueller , Zigler) i . . . 0..1 rj ,.►.i„... FIRST CITY February 3,1987 EQUITIES CITY OF RENTON r FEB 31987 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON BU1LD1NG/ZONING DEPT. Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. SP-100-86 Grading Permit BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK (Valley 405 Business Park) Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to the January 27 , 1987 public hearing in which you allowed one week to provide a professional biologist' s report aridreccing the blue heron sensitivity location, the number of birds and the number and location of rookeries on the above referenced site, enclosed please find one copy of his report along with extensive photographs of existing conditions. Mr. Rex Van Wormer, senior biologist for Independent Ecological Services, contacted Marty Murphy who accompanied him on his site visit over the weekend and has concurred with his report. Marty had provided the ERC a letter dated 11/1/86 addressing the heron issue. Mr. Van Wormer is recommending that clearing and grading activities be limited on the portion of the property identified in his map #2 from March 1 until approximately June 1 to June 15. We are prepared to respect his recommendations. I suggest we condition the area outlined on Mr. Van Wormer' s map #2 to restrict clearing and grading activities between March 1 and June 15 or until after early fledging, per his recommendation. I think some of the most important findings of Mr. Van Wormer' s field trips include documentating the exact location and number of heron nests near the property. With Marty Murphy' s concurrence, he has identified a maxiumum number of heron observed to be 21 birds with a total of eight nests in the rookery, all of which nests are located on the island in the middle of the P-1 pond. This is in direct contradiction to the information provided by Mary Anderson. Mary Anderson provided the ERC a letter dated 11/6/86. Please note under Mr. Van Wormer's findings on Page 2 in his last paragraph he indicates that both he and Marty Murphy searched carefully for additional nests, specifically in the areas outlined in Mary Anderson' s 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4170 Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments • 1• v Mr. Fred Kaufman February 3, 1987 Page Two letter. They could not locate any nests in the areas identified on her maps. He has documented this fact by including photographs of the trees where Mary Anderson identified rookeries one and two to be. These are included as photographs 6 through 12. It is quite evident that there are no nests in these trees. Additionally, he examined the ground beneath the trees identified as rookery #2 by Mary Anderson, to see if there was any evidence of a previously existing or recently destroyed rookery. He found no evidence of old nests either on the ground or in the trees and further indicated that had there ever been the number of nests in the area as Mary Anderson established for three years, the ground and the tree limbs would have been stained white. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond with this additional information. Per your request at the public hearing, I am providing Don Erickson and Jeanette Samack-McKague as well as members of the Environmental Review Committee copies of this report for their records. Respectfully submitted, FIRST CITY EQUITIES (54kaleitAd;44 /Z74,14 Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning Enclosures BEM/bc cc: Donald Erickson Jeannete Samack-McKague ERC Committee Members Richard Houghton Ronald Nelson Lawrence Springer VIA: HAND DELIVERED INDEPEII NT ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 January 31 , 1987 Ph: 943-0127 Ms. Barbara Moss First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4170 Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: Heron activity on Black River Corporate Park Property and recommendations to reduce or negate impacts from clearing and grading land south of the P-1 Canal Pond and the designated natural area easement: • This letter is in response to your request to have Independent Ecological Services conduct an independent analysis and evaluation of the great-blue heron rookery, their activities and periods of use on the Black River Corporate Park property. You also requested that we make recommendations to reduce the potential for impacts from clearing and grading and to evaluate the Hearings Examiners decision as to timing restrictions for work activities south of the P-1 Pond and the designated natural area easement. Procedures - On Thursday January 29, myself and Marty Murphy, Member, Cooperative Research Group, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, visited the P-1 Pond area and observed and counted the great blue heron on the site. We also searched for the rookeries reported in the letter submitted to The Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton by Mary Anderson. We entered the area from the P-1 Pump parking area and walked the trail along the south side of the pond. Since the leaves are off the trees it was easy to observe and count herons and to monitor- their movements. We continued the trail to its end near the gate and bridge crossing the canal at the end of 7th Ave, identified as S.W. Oakdale Drive on the project plans. We photographed the pond, the surrounding trees and the heron rookery. Special emphasis was given to photographing the area where Mary Anderson identified rookeries 1 and 2. After backtracking the trail we drove to the dirt road along the south side of the pond We walked into the corner of the pond and the existing slough (natural area easement) . We counted the nests and birds and made notes of their activities. On Friday January 30, I returned to the pond and rookery area to conduct -xaminations of the trees on the proposed development site that .a ea t• have the ability to support heron nesting activities. The tree an• areas identified by Mary Anderson were further examined and 40iN/ ' A i^„:� 4o-;. E , the areas beneath the trees examined for heron sign or evidence of destroyed nests or past concentrated bird activity. Types of evidence examined for were: • (1) white wash, regurgitation or other evidence of long term use by heron. Normally areas beneath heron rookeries are smeared with "white wash" (heron defecation) and frequently have fish parts or remains of food fed to the young. (2) evidence of old nest activity and /or abandoned nests. Sign included partial nests or twig accumulations in the trees and accumulations of twigs on the ground or in the low shrubs. On Sunday January 31 a third trip was completed to evaluate the movement and distribution of birds during or after a severe storm. Monitoring was directed to use of trees protected from the open water and wind area by other trees. Large trees that do not show evidence of heron use but have the physical characteristics of nesting trees and were close to the green belt buffer were identified and photographed. Findings \ During all three field trips the area of the pond and the small cluster of trees were being used by great-blue heron. The pond was also supporting a variety of other species, both waterfowl and other marsh and water birds. A list of the birds identified by myself and Marty Murphy on Thursday as well as birds identified on Friday and Sunday is included in an attached bird list. The maximum number of heron observed was 21 on Friday. On Thursday the birds were using the rookery on the island in the pond tPhotos 1-5) . During the 1 hour that Marty Murphy and I observed, the birds flew from the tree to the water then back into the tree. There was no evidence of nest repair which indicates that nest building is complete or has not started. In two instances pairs of birds were on the same nest in what appeared to be preliminary courtship behavior. On Friday the birds were standing on the islands in the pond. They remained on the islands for over an hour until they were disturbed by my movement down the trail along the south side of the pond. They remained on the islands until we were within 50 feet of the closest birds. When one flew they all flew. Birds milled about then landed in the trees. All of the birds landed in the rookery trees or in trees immediately adjacent to the island in three large trees on the mainland ( Map 1, Photos 6 and 7) . On Sunday morning only 5 birds were on the islands and and none were in the trees. Water was higher in the P-1 Pond than on the previous visits because of the heavy rains on Saturday night. The mud flats where the birds were feeding on Thursday and Friday were covered with water. The remaining birds were located in low shrubs and along the railroad fill north of the project site. After extensive examinations we were only able to locate 8 nests in the single rookery on Thursday. During our discussions Marty told me that this was the only rookery she had observed on the site during her study period. She was unaware of the rookeries discussed in the Mary Anderson letter. On Friday, under blue skies, I could not locate any nests in the areas identified on the maps included in the Mary Anderson letter. On Sunday I walked these areas again to be sure I had not missed the nest locations. I walked into additional areas with large trees to see if her map was slightly inaccurate or if the nests did not exist. I 2 photographed the trees where Mary Anderson identified rookeries 1 and 2 . These are included as Photos 6-12. When compared to the trees on the island that do support a rookery, it is evident that there are no nests in these trees. I also completed a photo log of the remaining large trees north of the pond that have been flagged for preservation. These are identified on map 1 and in photos 13- 20. The area identified as rookery 2 is used by birds as a fly-in and perch area. Birds sit in three large trees prior to flying into the rookery or when disturbed. The cluster of three large trees near the inlet of the slough and the natural area appears to have limited interest to the birds. This could be due to their proximity to the clearing south of the slough, however this does not appear to be the reason as there are more trees between them and the clearing than there is between the rookery and the clearing. A close examination of these trees failed to show any whitewash or other signs of extended or intensive use of these trees (Photo 21) . The trees used by the birds for perching and identified as rookery 2 by Mary Anderson were further examined and the ground beneath them searched for evidence of a destroyed rookery. There was no whitewash or remnants of old nests either on the ground or in the trees (Photos 22-25) . Had there been the number of nests in this area for three years the ground and the tree limbs would have been stained white. Her rookery 1 area was examined in the same manner (Photos 26-and 27) . The areas below the reported rookeries have no physical evidence of nesting ever occurring. White wash staining from three years of nesting would be obvious. Even if the nest had been deserted for 1 or more years the stain would remain on the understory vegetation. There is no evidence of old nests in the trees as can be observed from the photo documentation of the reported nest trees (Photos 6-12 and 22-25) . I was unable to locate more than the single rookery which consists of 8 nest . Heron feeding activity or evidence of other uses was monitored for the natural area extending from the rookery area of the pond east to Nanches Ave. SE. This area is a drainage swale that is heavily overgrown with Himalayan blackberry. Except at the northwest 50 feet, next to the pond, . there is no mudflat or hunting area for herons. The slough bank vegetation does not support mice or other non-water forms of food. During the three days in January and during five other visits to the site, during vegetative studies no heron were seen using the slough. There are no major cottonwood trees along the bank which are used as perch areas or have the potential to become rookery trees. Disturbance During my three visits I , and Marty Murphy on Thursday, moved about beneath the birds. They did not respond negatively until we left the vehicles and walked close. They were much more alarmed when they were flushed from the islands in the pond than when disturbed while in the trees. On Thursday and again on Sunday there were 4X4 pickups driving in the mud along the road on the south side of the pond. The birds did not respond to this activity. In January 1986 I monitored a rookery that is located within 50 feet of a railroad spur and less than 150 feet from a warehouse with truck docks in full view of the nests. The opposite side of the rookery faces a golf course. This nest is located near Bybee Lake in northern 3 Portland, Oregon. During and after construction of the warehouse, during draining and grading a marsh for a golf course and after locating a switching spur on the railroad, all within 150 feet of the nests , the colony maintained its integrity (18 nests in 9 trees smaller in size and stature than those at Black River; Joe Pesek, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland Office) . I have no idea when the warehouse was constructed, however there were no conditions in any permits required that would have protected the rookery. I discussed conditions of the site, the proposed clearing and grading activities and the possible disturbances of the birds with Terrance Wahl , a recognized expert in ornithology to insure that my impressions were correct. I also had an opportunity to read about a heron rookery in Thurston County from an interview with Jack Davis of the Black Hills Audubon Society facing similar conditions and to relate his concerns about timing of disturbance and its effects on the rookery. My discussion with Terrance Wahl was related to nest disturbance , and the response of birds to disturbance at different times of the breeding/nesting season. His experience indicates that birds are more prone to disturbance during the brooding, egg hatching and early young rearing than in earlier or later periods in the season. In a newspaper interview, Daily Olympian, Jack Davis stated that the critical nesting period in western Washington was from early March to mid June. After my three visits to the site, and using the data supplied by Marty Murphy about the breeding activities of this rookery, data received from discussions with bird expert Terrance Wahl and report of Jack Davis, and my experience with great-blue heron, I have developed a set of criteria which I believe will protect the rookery from the clearing and grading activities south of the P-i Pond and the natural area. They are: 1 . Restrict all activities within the building 16 and 17 areas from March 1 until after early fledging, approximately June 1-15 . (Map 2) . This restricts activity from an area approximately 900 feet, both east and south from the rookery and a minimum of 350 feet from the mudflat feeding area in the P-1 pond.- , This exclusion is only for clearing, particularly tree falling, and grading activities. 2. Limit grading activities that will create excessive sediment discharge into the pond during the nesting and brood rearing seasons, approximately March 1 to the end of the rainy season or approximately June 1-15 , which ever is earliest. These birds appear to rely heavily on a fish based diet. Excessive sedimentation of the mudflats and shallow waters could affect the prey base. This will limit work in the natural area to the uplands adjacent to the drainage ditch. It is my opinion that these limitations would provide an adequate physical buffer, because of distance and the vegetative cover , between clearing and grading activities and the rookery between the early stages of egg laying and the later stages of brood rearing. I do not feel that restrictions on grading and clearing activities need to be extended beyond these distances. Much of the activity proposed is of equal or 4 • greater distance from the rookery than the existing construction on the Sewage Treatment Plant. Activities on the plant did not discourage the birds from returning to the site and have not interfered with early nest preparation and pair bonding. It is my suggestion that the existing dirt road leading from S.W. Oakdale Ave. to the rookery be barricaded with an informational sign asking people to please respect the needs of the birds. Sincer R.L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist Independent Ecological Services attachments: 4 Map 1 Map 2 Personal experience resume Bird list 5 f Personal Experience; great-blue heron R.L. "Rex" Van Wormer Senior Biologist Independent Ecological Services My personal experience extends to 1957-58 when I was a student assistant for the Nebraska Department of Parks Forestation and Wildlife working on Loop River rookeries in central Nebraska. Efforts were made to move the direction of expansion of the rookery as well as treat a disease outbreak. The disease was believed to be caused by the concentration of birds during the summer. Efforts were made to move the birds to a wider nesting area. Nest platform work and disturbance was continuous during much of one summer breeding season. The birds tended to respond negatively and abandon nests more frequently during the pre- egg laying and hatching periods. Once the young were hatched the birds were difficult to move. Efforts to move the rookery were marginally successful . From 1968-72 I was a wildlife biologist on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge complex in northern California/southern Oregon. One of my responsibilities was the on-going banding programs on four great-blue heron rookeries as well as five other species of closely related birds. These birds were nesting in dense colonies on the ground. Because of other management activities men and boats came in contact with these colonies during the nesting and rearing periods. The only evidence of nest loss was when predatory animals destroyed nests or when some men broke up a rookery. In all instances the birds continued to set the undisturbed nests and returned to the rookery the following years. Evidence of nest desertion in this area and the Malhuer National Refuge indicates that loss of an adequate food source may be more of a cause of rookery desertion than nest disturbance. From 1972-1976 as management biologist for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge I was responsible for a large rookery on Long Island in Willapa Bay and for a second rookery south of Puget Island in the Columbia River. The Long Island rookery was isolated but had not grown for ten years. During my tenure the rookery remained stable but did not grow even though there were frequently over 250 heron feeding on the mudflats in the Bay during winter months. The rookery in the Columbia River had an active red-tailed hawk nest in a large fir tree in the center of the rookery. They co-existed for the four year I was there. In 1979 I walked and inventoried the Black River black cottonwood forest encompassed in the Black River Corporate Park site. During that time there were heron on the area and nests in the trees on the island. The major difference between now from 1979 is the extensive hunting activity that took place on the edge of the golf course in 1979. This loss of a short grass area which supported frogs, snakes and mice may have been the source of food that created the optimum conditions necessary to start heron to nesting in this area. Early nesting also appears to have been related to the creation of the P-1 pond, the mud flats and isolating trees on the small island. 6 % 3 i� :- l,.Ja. ' "afisi/41l41w9 .; }_ ` Ili,• •'L .4 5 tlif ' •t z rf, t„i • • • b ..)1 n ryr P. Photo 1: Black River,P-1 Pond great-blue heron rookery: Note nests in tall trees in the center of the photo. Photo taken from trail south of P-1 pond looking northeast. Trees behind and to the right of nests are areas identified by Mary Anderson as rookeries 1 and 2. 7 • Y."L`�F 4"A�``.'�*1•{.<� ]..v':'�i ti�`�r'�r`i`':Yi � 1 f.-rr.r'. •• �r... .Fr $1 F --.�•i'.. .t.r aty.j}�9��Yd`'r�%1 k,„1;,in '1.11 v..;..•�i.b;.;r •4: 1=ar try y. ;s:_:a::,.k. - �?. t:`��ri i;. �_"� sr-1;-�.: .•'fit • O �•1 ._ :,'c•= 72::IifS 4i��, - ,r.ft:1.:tea. :' •a, , • 4+ 1 ` '?'rij' '.�' ? , % ,. c •F f-" 3, :-&; r? az % 4.1 .I. ,tr `^ ' P Z Nry• ir ; t � V C t �ti ` 't' i.�.�'" fi t'to ,S• , ' 1�4e f tfr•t? 5 „tw4, 4. ! N a �-\ Ai � pa) • . ,,L��t,1} � 9i � � \, lk. ‘,4,...„: s., . F# � ` a A a)S r `w-i;.r ••:•: .%Vor .S,,e1 . ` , Nt RsS ' ,, t� '' i_.. +Da /►. � ck !,--.4.:L.c.LO:i';i:L.:L,'N.,,,'t'''',. •- :...f„.'•.•.. s'''"•743.6; •'''''''' ..-1.".•r. .:, ,,,—„,,,,,,,,, a, › %,,,..-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,, _....,.,,....:,,,,. 0 . „..,,,,,,,,,,,„.,„„ .,,.......: ..... . „,„. „, .e, ,......,...„._4.0,,,.,. - , -�... �,�• «w:� 9I'r . •Art -''-.v"t-&.„ * #'��. ��./ � N t f' �'t' {�Ltl t wt.. ti • k it 1.t •..� '4 aialr �•�.• s� �- . O yI tSF�'CarS4rsS`- 4 ,' � � rtlii..a( .yG•!.'` O lj op Ifi .y,'•_� ! i . ice{ �5 �w s i +a;;°a tits �:`i • y1�'�' 01'�►°" � rt� !d ow �¢ U iZ !'jam+ r 'rt; >�it �..,� .• k�s r •jra.,„;:w ), -�4+�.►�a��v i`ir.`�• �� 9'• : cir'. ,yy_r'` R `- rz„r • v s ,� . -+r.1` ` C ry .. �!. L`.s7�,,;°t. iA� -rr'� ��,Alp'hal? • wel �' ...1t1• w�` ti`�.a1�_'!r •...e =-� !A a, � }: 0 x gut �T:c /, •M �1+.ilt:�a �.. • 31,1 ` •:....` .,T: arw Cyr r •iii-,-ell.tt O J 5rY,f�{; ;y�,�s�>pi+. �r-•r'Yt�,,,'./y�,+.�, �;.�,.;D.._,... • ,.fia�� ;` 1 • �' O ` -- --` o• `- ,• b�t •, L,„or, +, T ,, •gi 1-.'i,'-y, �a'e" - '(,tjt'� -1� 1: t h rti >• '{�'3"- i .Ci �✓ -e f l g-i Q 'S.. n2 ,_:!4 rl.''r7t+S.t • •-.err' a/ �•.:. k 't 4 �ra'k .a. '"''YYYK. �tyh�f�$�•�+-rq`iag��_,•.sy ��W..•�v; y�'t f • ,��•• ` er iP4'�-¢ s�.. - 7� -sIK'+ ft .•xt.. s„t JR1 s �. •. .. .,. ., _ ` .'. ,.{! i.. 4 ..?•�•Y.r.:.... ?,+h>.r e +•> • ;yyi '�4t!-tom; �.i >f s� >-4•-. ..+4•.. An a.s.4 !. w- ,� •D/�t»''ILL.'` 1 r . . . ' ..• • - . t . . , ! i„ .. • ' . , ... i 1 .: • . • , . . t , , ,1. 1 . ,/ • 1 el "! : .1 li 1 A I if , 4 ‘ ,. .,...„ 1.4,,, , . ,.7. ; i(if ' •4, • ! It4.!-44, A • (111 t;14M .1 11. . •.1 ' 111 ii.i.. 44 ' .q• 'icii ••14). s. ‘'./:10 AA tr. .'. ' • • .2.',1 •4....e 4!..“:4-`t i.y.• .,..c , 414 .s-•,' ril. i ! /A 4 ,.4N)tp. : 1,,,•,-,fr,t4 ;');;."..1 17.* er,;. Afei.':' . -4 .;,*,;•,M.,•Itif,i'''.04,?$!N,4'..i1,,C:5 ? At,,,,ei of 01' .• ,A*;,--. 'i . , • 4,.7..,i".11;.'14 94.."..5 *J.,•.-At-,;—•;'op.. . •, 3'/•. 11)12.,-r,lrigr",.;-i.trill.7.-•;;;`,76., .....-"'tar . iii AV:!:iiiir -- ----'" . P.,‘ '4 . . • . 'F .I !fi.If 'M eirlilla, litt 74, ?;fpri-000,47r4-44-i. - 1 i , : 1. 11 re...irk 441% 1 . , ,,...0•14114:- . • ;111.107:111. 1 ikt. ,--1(11_,,; ro-:,;.11t,_. '--v:-. • N ICS/ ll ora••.•::*Witt.niffe, ..,... 1 .OR:' 'Or-sit ' —A- , , ." ' .. r 14 ir rgati,:1*.....-Ai,"Sit'4,:lif .• tor', '':. - It '.. lii f58,44i iiii"...18EP A % • Y -/ •i k • A _— • ,':&--'''',,•• , it fielk. .ttii... 1.' ' f..it'---.'''':i fv?•IL'• '' 'FA. -.r.•I VikAl'• .1-, 011ie•i IT •, XD , ._ -.1,A.....•,.....i,.-:- :-:..,,,,;"4;''.-• ;!. . Z-125.%,;f. O.I it AP-iiik1V.ir3,1,,,f-e. ,.4.4.,,w--.1y,... Photo 4: Pair bonding in nests. . • • _ . ; • : , , . i . 1 • ; s •i; i ! :,::.' , / • . .. . \ -• ' • ‘":;( •- • s • 0. i ii , `••••• • - • / . •- •tk:;‘ , , , ....,,,, -. ,. ... •„;••. .‘ Akk.)( , ' :- 1; .41/, ' /.. , t. • '•' '.--..... . . .. - ..,11 .4 A 1 \ •'. • ' .. - :_.. &‘:.'s. ' .A;„ ‘ i t ir .-. 1r ,..ii • .. '.• '-: .; . ..* k 4gi • . t•-t% ..... • ', ... •=- , --.?%,"..11,t • 1,',dirA Alf„„,:6126,--"'.. 411:14)1 1/4 2 s-- -_,,A,.7." 1:`".,16'71" 7 • - i.,-... •iegt...:1-izi p-.4.!4_, Nt ilf...741111‘\Ni- . .. .. .1.9.4,ti .44 .. . _• , ,... . ..,-._ wApY4u...,61:-.. -- ..ca -n, , .4 ,..„, . IF • ' ' • : , -:•41.P"'- fr'tar:s. „ 1 .'YEN, . 1.• ."' ' :. 7 .•,,, ., its."—W•di ' . " 1 NVIVA 1.1:1 le .1 .,, ; — .., Alk,11A ,:a,', \ '1; v . • •• ‘/' i -**- . ' .,., , I‘.- ' 1 4.V.:441.'4",i..i,‘' .. ..6 ,.dr.; • ••••. . -4.4.--•.. 1 • AY\ ) ,,•01...-:-tili--.... e. . 4..... . .. ,r-,..-.-_ , ,,— .\- PIL: .."-'7 k.`--"r1.....--(f--7.".412.,"•:,2...,.:.:-.-.'- - 457141,-Q,Ne. .•,..., -INc.-• ., 0 ink 47 AtilhaTii. i!-000.1- -. r I -. • • „\:, PIP'•''I, 7‘"ili,-.4- ' ''-''...-1" "',.• ' Photo 5: Rookery showing concentration of nests to one tree. . . 9 ‘'fit' ' . ;. -• i‘Y) Ai. I i•"1//ii 74.';4,:z... ‘\ r _ ...4! „ ‘lif , ••• ifii,,,,tp,,p,.. r ; i .„ ,,,- clik,. �� r f,'.� t ` Photo 6 : Tree northeast of `,14, '•41,4•01, 040-44, �' :4. h. ,llk ~`' : rookery: rookery 2 4. •; ' r •, "tq !/ , '--` : in Anderson letter. f. , ,° rj'•A '6` +� Note absence of • . r. . •a. ,•• ,�. jT,„�? nests . Heron using k , µ 4 ,- 'x : tree for perch. �` •fir M... , , rt.- ''F *}. 'a,3. r T: `• ��ty, rye,, y a•. - F ' F .+ t w 1 �"-4,. . � -e ; • E, yl , f t .,c,;• • ,,Mi em' '. ,ems. '4 \f$i • , a " , .1 ,, ,t'1. I. . i0. t•; - i , ' ; i I- , c'• a\V1/4*e4' ''‘i,i' , - j„ A • -r; Photo 7:Tree identified as ;`'�:ll144 �`/ 1 part of rookery 2: l Note perched heron v `� _' It, j �" !` • �• but no nests. i `% #j11/F ' . 's i At.,,, . 'Isit_ilol. t• s A-vrAVINk , ' -�r� `r f titrogiattp.twiro‘11etla4:' , 1t,ktb. 10 • t Y • \ .\ - t.Y ; / ;ibi .: . • • --;1•• •••• ,••••1 t 1//OA, kii‘ ;4'. `44 y+i.' /4* rk / it i it �� ft n d 4&!'a At � g..y:. i Gi 'i. ' {- s , ` _ .' ,_ , ,�. Photo 8 ; Island rookery 4, • t :'} with M. Anderson , �.,- ,., :�.., ' rookery 2 trees '-- ' ,,;{ .r in background: Note � n . lack of nests ^w i .• `f.1j, ;,•• •.1. ,Tit. , • I 0 _.,, ''` \`.r !, 'r r ' .1 I, AllATI• ' ;1 „ • kt AvtrAys ..;‘v •;10* 7h .Z � ti —-'-' i : 1 a j-" `r � f -'('t, ,. Ki r4 . Yi„,.„u4 iM :, .*!."1.4r r . i y rr • k t.C' v w. c s t y i'S + A t^ f y..6/ 1 dry , , t i ""' :.1 /'''',.":11 tS ,' i ((,�a. y�'? .1.I " l 3-.' t f' t 4i tri,,-,; �a r t^ `- 1, '''.1 ; ,' . '4 ti .aC ti 1 t i4 Photo 9: Cottonwood at ,F'a , !) Y., I,• F ,m t i ! ( ' Y f ! 1 confluence of `- ' r:E wi,,.} # ti _`x . `• 1i ' ` 'i and and natural t""'"' "43:4" f • . 4',• ' I - "iiarea, looking NE. .).-•:,i?r �•.•'•• .'+r f-. '$- r.'.4. r• •. , a. Note absence of a 4%,.. , ' `�"t-.' 2h,-•,,• ,, X• i ;11 birds or nests. ` . .. '"'',T,..i1^'- '*IC► ^.*.►ti,� lhr.pr•,, lii i. yam. e• ,:`• y t f s. , F y. 11 A � 4'�v0 y4it.f �'4' • ,7 • r..4 I,4.y .7",i.V rif...4.‘41. 1{iCii, ii$ Y,',141,4(44",e...:: p-,1g.,,,,I. '4 - 1 s„, rat,,,.,,,1, 'r,,e,t '�"` f.-''.,J, (N1 4"i`" ASS a 'i• '1«"C't ^k lrl ` � p {�z, l'��"�'� ? fe.. if tL"'Zsx •t •y} 1;, .,+r rt ' [;N« o,1 1 � i� 1+i., . er4.1,4 #tit 4Alt, i e. w # . IC1}f. .4., 1/� a [. izi, {•'� �>sfi# �� ' a' 'gt,, ` ` Photo 10 : East end of Forest r xr „ , 1 it n 'I^{i.ro� {{' C - *b.k4'r `,}•�( ° preserve at edge of ' �arR ; . k � ' ,, � $"1 ` ' M. Anderson rookery ' '- . '" % a 2 . Note lack of nest ,r-. 5,.. ; } s+. f 511 `A.-1, r t ''1 4 s :'s. `:., 4 '4t. t • „; activity in large d ---'"T a,. +'• 41,-.fir' 1 41.y*rl-1 .,t '+ tree. � 1,,,,,,,,* ! ^- •' -=tom... Fxa1 e 44:s.•;� �.;''yM ° t_ Ai'A r ,d. 1 •t , n•, i. , �:,'{.' f ' > �r 1 1.,,,N....;,-,s.x.w.v...: II�'/ ,Afy;1� t �� ,,,...A,,`�t' Pi rt_l�1 r\ { ,. , cFY ,,'' (" ` . •- 'r/ . 1,,, •;��yj{ ►•` \"d/ • • sk { j., /...:��4'?y�7 f'• <e•7" _/ j t. _____.,11,A t~°''�) �r. ir fr 9 J_.f e \ ^t. i., ..�. i(jr t��. i ;�s4 ff '(� b t?u'�hw. !'}.. 1rt�F-` at s � Sv T�� r .�a�•. }.t ,Lie:{, }' �• c��-!'�"�[t 1{ i' -- 14 P; ~ er , • :$.'' C: t•.7. I 'i,:. Z$r !'t ,.•�4t /4,Tf1 _"_ r ts"1' :•0 ,7•1'41 . • v V rf; r. �" ✓ .{ •t eL *'' .. !: f f # Os 1�}L / •• 7• /� mot.?': V •x` j� : t £a +a • � F� y ti Z1'. 4$ v `'♦ ji`.41.fi Fr .e .r r,:- ,' . i L7,10..'1''�,x^ i4JA: K 0 'I 4: _ 4{:_ �., ,,`,+/ •1Ni,,s.fits70,s, t'a,a -i. s a lr' 1 . Ic1 ' et 'nip,. i f I. ? 1 n, 1 " f :C c+r'c , .• ti ! '+i•/fit; a •. r: i ! . I. i .. t la ,. P S fitIl�tl,< 1 i f i:. 6":� $'" '�• pJ"'� � pi .e a"�.'� 1� 1,ti! I:1, ' • f, �,�� . r -;�c- .: r • 1 .. 1 .1 al t1, o ; it!t;i1 •- ? ;) ,t f• x,,// !' 0 /P« ;#R.': t11 •1 r: +f: N♦ . P4.A .� •:!'�' R.'r�'•_ 'd ' rr K. \ 1 11 r rrer �. f r 2 . t 1 r :1�hf . {S;�<� RI :Az, ) a '; f' �:VR 1 � r . , • ?• : - , - `5 e. ta'' ri' r r t !y Kt l tab ♦• � '..� � r r � t ,[1 t t r%a.' R• l irz 1f'It� �I r j J 11 r':s.'-�•' 11 i f! ! /f ri q..A " ` ti '11 f • + r 1 Nr, y' 1• ff( : §• I f f•a .4, 1 P'I ri 1 a ✓' l t S ' ;MI , ' +r Ai.;'. '; , ,t, { • . r , . t# NI. r,• Pi(1 •.,,t j' '' 1 ;wl . •A, . ' 1a rt wail+ 1 '. 7�. p • •yam.... ?9 1 .J it!" •1; 1.1 1 .7 ��. I.•,f s - ♦, '. l t r ° ,,+I V Al .., j,{ t fy t ,.,, N. -s• .air i 1... 11 I ,. , ..,,,, .1 _ ,,. t . jttir. -,1 �,. ,, , �. .. .r i ,,. �'N I . , 1 .;�,tt, _ �� fi ., • ., rZ • :11 _.,A i �*`r_ia,r i•. •I ram. ��:.M 1 r .lr , Photo 11 : Large trees at west end of forest preserve in area of M. Anderson rookery 1 . 12 . . . . .,ri• ,,i'T. i •.: , ,„ ,. ... ‘.....i.:,•••%..F .; •• . , 11 —. 1;4' , 1.11ttA't • . - .• , ,, rtfro-7A6*AV .:. ;iir .4,01 ..v.,.i.;!•sal.i • --',s IT,s'Ilii- ••1?,';'&'-ilff.74t. • • ,,,:-..t. . . . . . , • -,iv..,,,. A:a ,t,-,,...-10., ....,,,,...,,... t, ..)11.., .,.. •‘ ".„;•, .c,,, . • , 4,,/ . • - .... •.., 41, , / , , ; .y. ,(, '......,1")1'.. :; \''t-1',. ko`. ';',.•••h:'..-7.• '111--•:::**‘:%11,?:"‘;:trit.1/4••;:•ti: , . .... .• ,..._ "v„„:4r,.,.o. 4.44,1.....li,,-1, 1 1 qr,,,t. It , : . !: li• ;'.t,1.42!'-4 g .q:'. ' ' • ' i 1 . •kt tt ., t• tip ,• . ,.,4,-. • Iv Itri? %.gli ,0,0., ..;',," . .1) N. ,Iftk eri-e...„;....rp;IP 4.1.„r4c,,,-;.•Gir,• ekAr411 . 1 • 'i,i c'` .. - ';Tat*. 1!•4;t:"•C"- *1 A;'14::::;,..4..t.g-•-.,-'-:',..- 1.4.i.i'flk.4. 411'i. ro(,rk;;,',!,4 , r •A'. '1=4•1 ," 1 ... ..",.1.:'..?*;"'''•4.-iv•;:,'.1,,...k""'s•titZ„a,'ItV::1,,'-.',II..., ... ;TA,,•,. '.,,, ..,4 ,......r.'", ",',....* ,..,,,,'IK s;:•,,,,,"'t...t..;(!l''., V,,,Altaii,z ,,,j1,,if,,,..,2, `*II .1114.P.;: ii.'z'ri 4'4. #ke-P, ',."'-'fr,,ot.-,-0 ...". ..tz,l' '-;,'",:•,.4.1.,-,.,,,,,F.k...--e4A--,. -. .._..-,.,..-;.i..4.k .„1,:, ,. (p....,.,;.,i,i,...i.t.fo,,,-..„el,:it liQ.,., li.t..t,ka„,„?.„„•:.,;(fi,.:.••,,... ,...,.:,14•.:T '..,,,, ,f,„,...-Afi:.t....1.,..*.r.,, .. .1rt.,,..,,,:,-.., •:y...,.., .,.:437.- -;...,.t,•-•,,tf.,...-..7..sk..:ie....!:%..-„,ic.,,fli..4:V bl'.• 1.'-41'1:•:,•','''',1.73•14., —4j':-,,,•''' ,1.1.81'.-;',44474;;;11:,1%,' .4, .,, ,.,1' ‘if'.*:..,'''i'Z'45*'''Zi''.'::`';');;;#;'1"'")' ' '1.t' .if.'•• '''''.•:•','i:'','''-• '.••';:.:4-'1'. '''')A :''k'-.4z-...'•`4:-',.A,,'`,Z.•.t '"Yr- .' /..40,4-;•";::', ,,,'..f,', ''''',„,.t.'';',41.74,.-ill.:•1, ,,,`..;_i,"-.1'.•••. •''. .,•,'".',:,'•4 i'',,'.2 .: .,,..-L.f ':t..,!..e' :.j. ,V,.'''' '.1,,,:-.114,f, ;Alt;.•,,,,a4 -'-''''''.,"-1: '''.-1,.‘"'•:.'°+,14'il.f,e,07'.4-r.„.5-'`,-21-:''-,......!,;4,'" ''i'ti,'... V :-.% ...?'' -•..',''-',''',:l.'',,-`?",~; ',..-•••,, ' ,,,„2,,Lit.'',.,-1,. .i,,,.. iit.,,,,,-..i. '' -....0,`,.- ..c;" z`..'','+''' f ; i; -,.., ,-,1";7: „,-,.:'''''4-'2':. ..,•:'-'•,'''' „:":77. •••••' '',--;'-','4':3,1, .,,,q;;;r. -..*„..• ,• 44,, ,4,.;1/4..: .;,.. . ...; -,'",•1„,,...t,•.'n,•4;:',), r.f•''`•tz , ' "..,•,; ,vi,s,..-."*. ;.-,.. :.... ' f. L :r ,':,..$-' ..-r,7.4',14.4'..f7r,i •ei.:,t'4''4':',"--.,4.4-''''', . •"7,1,4;''.'4;?[4,"41:4;', ",, ,-:'''.;!:,'.`,'•1.•:', '‘''',*:k:4'. %,", t, 'i ;''''' ,.. .`j'Ai'bt,P4`,•e.;iv- -* 1. •....., , ,•',1 ,71.- •':;v•••'•;,-; ,,,:;,,,... ;•14,t4...„,'••••,,." •,,i,'1 gii',..t.4s,-..-14.4...,,:..%,..1:-, ,,,-,„.7%-..:4A,4,,,,..?.:ft; -4,...„1.;.'-',,.41`,'''•Nfi''''C' ,t!":iffk.,,,3..,' :'t.o. 4'-•,t4-.s.t,t..,...,,-:,z,-i 1:."..kl....-lbet-;4',AL.,t,'„,•0')'1.,-..4 i. i'.:-..7155,--.3,"„.2,..1;,1.,..4.1.;',.$.:,. .,,,. ...,..,-....;;_. -,,,.,.;..r..„,,,..,0.•„..A.4.,,.;.. ......,. .k ..t..:41;.... ,W. .4..i. ...•" , triN,44.j.,A,-,•4,;,'-'4,s-7., ,i.71X-':? ,77,-;,:te,-14-$:,•.t4',..' kt , .4.„,‘,..../......0.,...,,..;,,,,...1......,A,wil,,A., ,s4,1,,,,,, ..,.1,&,,•-•••,,•••:-‘,.-..1.*.../.e- „.2,.".*- ''''.... Y...J.-....A..,:yr, 4..„ ...4 i,....k.,f.; ..- ,„•;,,, ..„, ,....i.„,...nei.,. ,-,-.. ,7^,., t; •., :,-., 4 ‘„ii,„2.,,,,i,,:.;.;„-,,,,,,,,, 1-, ^, ''•,'1.. • ' .-,'"i.::.1 4,,',‘;''..0 ....'1,',1\•t.,•,41.irPti f_1;',..'-'''..,,.,„; S.0•;-'1,- -4..,•;;;;--.•...:•,:‘-•• '.,.%,, :t:.4.'" .%,C.,..*rt.' ''••••':ik11:1:: :Z 4::,.'"''''4.:4. '..,V';',.'.: .1/4:4-e) ;:Y7:'`11,"....T.'4”.'-4-....“..,..:'-1:'1`...We:. r-'-•*,'. , ,.' - - . • ., , Photo 12 : Trees at west end of forest preserve in M. Anderson identified rookery 1 area. Note lack of nests. • • ' .j.t's-. "A q••,' :- 's...), • -co,. ..•i e. '.' • l'.•ii.'4% ',.`,i,i"-;ii It f • •'..*:,sk71‘,7i IA ',1i ,iti,`; '''''','• '''''F et• ;e1•:'''' • \ ......V,N.k.t'lr i:::;.74:-. -re:;,.-'•1.',F,--. •, 1kOkit:':'11;.''ii 3 il ie;,-4:- '' t.r. --•„.._.:..-4;-...!..1 t;.-s,t'''.. 1',Iiiv ,,,•re.f-j-1" • '•' kiltif`t',4•?-,:e: ':,ik•`.-,.'...Ir'-'i',,-,,--,...:4•• .; .,i. %.1....4.. (.4—_4..,4,0 oz.'i::LP;,,,.-4-•-•-.••• ,.i-,• •-•••••5..111N.,-.•-. 41; 'i7f,d—,,,,,,•-•-•••-. u. '0 '.• ...4,-4...t...4.1,,s.s..„,;;ii.v4.-- ,44,. It,t/.....;3-..-__ •.•-••••_,. : . -..• 4.4;i4AVis'0 ii•i$ f(p-ie-e.c•-•-t•I‘v...7,,v,I. • • '.. •ir.,. .t.,..N.-,',..:; ...?A N'ei fi,;... ..,"4./.1.S•-•.',.,:,.-, : , • '::-"i?,;;;.1•11Z),it jilt;I illnekft• „•a:14, .', -..04.',34acticii•Ot'AP; r ,-,.....z..-i 4-•,...t,r:-..:•-- . --,•:,P,Eveta,11)4 ,?-torIrk-. , .• , .1 ..,.r. 1/.21..4th.11,i.t.', i•i.„..---—•:..t.,. • -411!:.-4.-•,: -,,,-,- ., 1. . ie .4.4, A14$101.. ' •....-• Photo 13 : Large tree #1 on •. ... ,_......--.....,,,,a4......... ,?...:.,. sip Nanches Ave. - - tklencr:Wi 0;.i‘ .d.7''kip' okr-or. •-=--- . ` .,',.;::--r-•:::fe:: '! ;e;e44 4,....q.:Sep,'It r: . -_-, . '. . " . 't..?.-,•,%/•stlt..,k'fr.i .. .0-. ,-7-`•• . It • . k --. ,;iiirrach._`•% ; •••! '•N,-••.1. ...-;),' ' . : ..... ' I • ‘. . ..,••..,,,- ,• • .:".;..-,1:••••• % .5itt• " . '1, Vt,, • ). 1"/ I 4%.:•%/7-afiv?: r."` .4 i',-;..41.','T.r 1 P.1 Se. :Lel '.. IA - . •'%,'10.1i,.i 't..:1;:!,11. k'.:C.4, ‘iit) -ids:413 iti- i'..4 4.!:titTi i •• Iv 1 ' •' to.':- ‘'.7-4. •. ..-i'l ,C•••• '.' - FF.:.-.c•- , :',,,;AIN i 44%•;,. Is'i • :'i 160...kor:,t;t:44141•;.•41.4 ;•,..*: .4.4:, Alcris,•44;',,i.j."4,1,:•,,,,...b14,k14),..41k. ,,,,,•,,..: ' - ..3x,•I 1-1,., ir...,,I, 4., ,I 1,,,,i l• 1, 1,,,,,,,-.,•,,..A.„ "..;• 4.,'..,-, ..v. lik- ?.ctiii71 ": ;IT- f P' -..t %,,,.., .,.. ip••fq .:.,..,i '4„.":,,,,*tv• ‘.,.,,,• 1.,..:? .g:.' .20. A.filVii-9 '"';;-:4; :cl, ' . i,f, • '. .:',..',-•,..1.,,isl.fi:1,;?v't•1;,. '•'...4,1•4:kX.,•••t'I ..,',. ,'. .,'t. ,;... 1%'• - :?: .'t,t..,, :,,1+1 ''''.1,, .,' 1 •1?...:' „ 1.,'"--'j''? "-- .-• A • • , '', 1,.'; .. ,..I.• ,,,,o.•,,,,, :•%•''.i''1:4:". ' .' . lob'. ' .' .. • p.••• ' ,'r ...r ' ..4"f'OA -'. .y. . '... . ''.e. . , ', .• 0.,''• „•••e ,7..}, ''',.1• •• 1•• •'#.•.':,- . (.• b :., "....1:0.4:".,„. -A- ' - • -s, t. . • •• .,, t ; I V- jN,s•ip tkr.4,11•-. '' .A . ',..:.;.;..,;,.. . „.• -t ,1.` .,,....,1'7,1`,...i..•,,,,, ;' • , • , • -, n. ,„ . •...•4......• •,,,,,•-•14,..L-,:f?••-,,',...k,r4r,t.,,,,,k,-. ,..,,..,Z.:. ... :,*s'...7, 1 3 • • • .__ • . . , . s -•v't,.'%',... %. 1.... : . . . . •\,...1 ! •,.. Ai I , .1% (, ) . •• .4‘'st.10'• '7- '''11•l` '''' !'`"''' i - • ,,, ....,),,\,.•,,..,•, ,,,,A .11,/,.a , •,... ,••• ...,,, .r. ,. ,41,•„,,, ,,,i .....,,1), r1 ! ....rv• •-•... .„..t...:,.-c- ...,,,,•_‘,..,..,,,,t,..e. .: , ';.• V:, •!..,., As,ii(,, •••:.N,,,,:.;',,e qe'„;-, .%Aph..';.... '• ",*1,1.16puT,O,,,:',VT4 Id 7,•lm, . •-1 :,..:-.‘-....... Ni i i.,,-v i . ......: • --. ...k-• •.. - -.7 .. - - •--% %, t .,. - • \: .--1,.....;,. „,,A4.,..tz:.:...z.,, i.,:t W-.., •le. „ ne.-_1,,,,,.e.,;,, ..V4;,..fi .... , . ' '..'- • - v...,,, ••••• fli •‘' x •• RI.----.0:e.. . e.....'.ell'•V i Att -!`,..... , •, . drAjli;,,V; \..‘-i as,- .0,04--41••••••"+*- .1.: 7.7.'-••••-4:z•:6 14,:I.INFRA s'A. • 4.9"-'40'0.- --C. ..4.4,, ' ‘1'",N??,;17 2a.•t -f••••• a, -,€••••eu_-- .-..• '•. . . .- ..4•••• ••7.4 47°'•It q:--%.Z.Z.'• 4. - r;OPP.,,.;3.-..,li- ' .- Photo 14 : Tree # 2 on Nanches , Ave. South of road. r''•:'-2:...;' -..--:;;;-,;'-'._-441k-17-4/'i 1 fr;1L.‘1.-r4-1 14g, a.- .r.,..'74.1iic ,T:"...''' .. • - • • •, - ,. !.).•.':' Y '', -. . . .-- ,c:,:: pjf-...,. .% .f•,•,..,,ie-71.:..1 ,_... r ;• '-0''t':I---.•, I:IA L i r•- 4.4-.4.7:*t::•..4.^1.. , • :--7 • •..,i .;..t.' .x0 ;•.• .,.). r,e ,... ••••:' '. au....i. •s-1,...,..g gi,./...0 ;v.:: -,t,',.;:::.„ " .%1C-ECie-"•"'-1,.„ ' ' 4:: ,, -,4, %-t-'7.411'ej."' •-'1,. . " - `,' r3....'!: ''''.";-":21;::•s••';',''''i..",e , -.' ; ..f• t ifi....'i..A.-, •,.,'Ari,,K.,..t, , •ea.,„,..,.• • 14A• ...‘,,,,?.:$.••ly '-lilt:••?. r---ri.`4;pi•-• ....1",i'.', -.•:-;(if 05,'...:.,'. , a.,r Ii.,:i J.:10....! :,1 +t •,-4„.........Nol L.;...,„:, . . .....,,,,..tr. - '-'i 'AT''1.t..,0 4'1'1.... ;'.',.,---:;::7:: "...., ' 1••::1-litZAV.!:•f,i Alleti:VA..S. '...- .!‘tip.".el:': •;,,r. -• Esi,:„t?..,. :,... • •a -;,$„s7,..., ;•:,,...,...-,....„,,,,,,,,:. ;,..:4 ..\ ,,,k01... •k:.t..i.•,,e.fp, -.0..!;;;A ,...-6 • , '...,-.,,o!.t.'n,,.' ;.:*".-;:rp-::-.,.-.';...,..: i •r3,'Z. 1e:te, .1,,,!.A 4: ,......; tt zote.-.j4:f....... , , . ....... ...•• '-‘ 1•A,s-t-''ii; '''.' ..4'r. 41 .-:..1-7- • • '. i'., -,-,:',., '•-: •, , 4 Iii .7•A\.-Ifiltn%1'."; VOA -,'::-. til tf- *.•!(:k :'''''..,r,•• ' • ..; ',.' . .:, g'-•?•-,,'Ir-T..''.A1-0;-.1' it•t•(4'.. d ,-„ ,,,„.%,1••• , •• •.....!IF„Ar;,..• ,,•.• ,..1117' .1'...., ,,. , . ',..V.1... . '.. ' • . * , t ' i • , . . . .. . . ,. . ' 4,..•t, . • . 4 • •, .. ..... a i.I. ' ';•4•' ,. • :. I • :, • ..A ...,r qr.: .•Az ), t:'A(', .',. \...'z. ft,s,•2 4:ei •4 ;..- ...(-,• •-1,...T.-.0\ OP . . :,,' ,. f ..i'• 'e ,••• • ,„.•!11,-,...),Itil •; i I.A'iSbi A --- .,. ...,,/:‘:'''-'"''',..S:iln(l„' .- riV/P,„," i ,;•• . . .. ....;.:-. ,..,,,r,.,..,i;....AI •,,....: At,/ ‘4,, A:.•.L‘ •%, . •-• "„ ,... :A,V.-;!di 4, , 17 a ...?,,v...- ......... • . , , • • . e',.f:. "if I,•f; alP,'ZN 171' .••'1113• ,-:: ,-: 011114.6,41.;'t'0;4 •i':*'' ..\:.;it'll'..40,;0'.. . - .1 40 A. 4' Ir •--kit f.' ) '•" ) ,‘:,: ''rl i'. \.1‘•:,'......N....:Gui•••'74',„ t;firAS 1 Pt::i 0:4 t ' 'VI" --i. - • -'.. .':44\' .7*".i.t•flr.'s 4q..;t11. ::,i ir ili ': ;,-•i.47-4i..--. - .3, :; ;I.Zs.';.+ ••-•,....,;• -tr,v.t.: :. , ,A iit'•1!. pi.•41,(. 4j.'„e....-•-_.1 2] ... .,:i:- -;',.',.-..4, -.7`-'•:':::N A,.'..?i f;:415i RiAl•:. A•- ).• ' !. • -,...-••- •.i.iz.-isc:',:;\..--,..1,..;:i fil,,..,i,, -:;•.7„t.L.•: ' ' L , • ,Q,.„,'-= • •. 1 ' , „,,Z0r-,..;',`•,,,11...,......;•,:z.;,r(rh!..•:, ..t.•:,;•,t-'•r'' ',:T.:::---4,:•*- ..' .' Photo 15: Tree #3 west of Nanches -:*,44.''t..;;:..i....41,ii...?,:k-t.::,-;.1.1,,...7.-1,,fq..i.77 e,4).t., 4 i. ‘•:.:i;a::,..,:w.- .! 1 . - ,,,,f• •.k..r.ir-*••, •.. :PA le•O.' 1 .t t;.,i e 1 WI'a.':• Jean. , in development area. -:@•'"...:‘.:.'w.t,44-03..4*-4-.,' ' ••••• .4?•%.' • .4 o'/CA " ,..azw.- ,44 -.... '..'''..tizet'..j..-1 i ''''' i'i '.; .fc.I• l'-7.14 r - 1c -=i1L7:-..,:k.11,:ct..,...:,.•Iti le ,,,c.i,.tt r .,..:-,• . 4, r • t .,..•:,:-.0..::.: .-,-;- t,:,..• .,., •i t , •gru: - A',,,,ak _ '; .tx ,,, ,,,,., -..,•-•Vt.,-.....c.„111VrAittiI,t1.;.:-...•••, Z ' V I X;r. , •? #01•41P I: • - A,ii,;7.N'Serip. N rfi 2.,•,.• ve. • . ....-.-.9...41i, -.., , ..... ....!....i.4,1"...,.1...,4:-, ,\s•IP, : t• .N. i'l•.'...e 4:14.:6:...*,l'atit• - ,... A •• 7: . . .`1..r",1 ,;,••,..n...i..-'''"..;, 40.et INtie.,1'iz,r NIII. % -, • e., ;, •...,t-...,'‘' - . ..; -..-.' --.41gr I 16... ••it'..rt. '\l'Allix f )" „I 6-0't l', .•.. '.;-• :."ii: • . 4.. ", ‘: 1.Ali re,viiit-i,-w t„y•ii v,-, :.• . :' r 4r,...,n. . :„. il-•., ;••••4, .,....., \., .t.. . 4 .14a•,!„ v, • •1/4 • ..• le •••t„1 ••roi.-•••• • 1.0i:,,,,rt,..1 ki•7 i ik I" •.! 11, - ,-• •- , i . ' ...A„fe.0,-,,,"7.1".'.'l'lb....."!- .4' ii611'•' /1\ ....Z. ' ll!It 1:IC. '''''''?:, -4-41. ..'...;''V -•4•:•isr.11.1V vizio, tizt, t ik, L, , ,i.j ,,,,-7•4\\fp•dit, •.‘„,,, 4....,. . 4.„• , ...,,.%,,,,tr,.., ,,,::. tke•V• •:',i r i-...t.'''•• i i•--` s I . 1°i': .PII t‘: '•'•••. ''r .44:Ari..,, •z-l'.."..•.4% -,g;_ii kit, i.411 1. •f, -94 1 tiA, .,,t:. ,. t.• . •,v- -:,.%,- - :I.,,,-)tit'-.`.,:ri 1 t , ••= %i t t 7 71.-':1 i , •••• • . ,• :.7 ''''';-•:•:- --ii'i.1 ;fi'i ' ';:.i'k '' fra •'''t-fl;4 i I t 711 ..* . •• I , C.." In•Ii`. • % 7 41 . r, 1 . . .- ..,.. - ..1... .. .'..r 14 ` t A � Niii f • ` '� ry it, .4. / l ,, I / • , ,1 wr ' 1 • q.-- •Y, hw 1 ,,,.. 'Pi,_.... .,, ,,,,, ,..,:......:.71. :, -, , •7. ...it%c, , *.Ar....4tkiti p lc riZty4, , y i .i^r:',+` �•f ,k } .}k ' z7 ,�,� 44 14 r*•' '{��+5 . l ai). },l t r5i -, . '• `to-,-A .Pz tt,, ',0 f f ,,$'t s 4, •;',,t�? n•1'+ s♦ 1` +r.t 1' r ,jiL �tr/ n .►:.V171-'mot „r,41""r5"wimp"x,i,..r�,: iJ t t +t 1P', jd'""ii.,'+�ffi"n, Yl SZ` T},� 5r fr'..y,I y. � 15,aa "k ,,4 u x intt'Y st n 7 •�P7 :5 t m s'�. L� e 3 . { C1 3 Ike s��. 5 z6 h S 5 ? ' � u�K a �kry�'., �,t. � x�Ott rr ,5t?r� �a �45� r $' x''a S � 'Ito, 1: ,r „....f"S k,,,3 .. ? a tc,• ti5+r x y4 ,lt •zrG.t�<;k� ` �, 4%1 ,. r ti Y� • >F r ' :r• lS.-•� ��1+r.r S'y"i. i.1•a .t N7.,,x d'i`f 1., '}SS Y;.':.,c, - .ti ,,`, rr t *. zy yy .�,,„.'.' ` # i'ik„ 1.} i "bNq ,'` 7.14141 4•P'yxi'- ' is'. , 'r ' :``•s. { a• t.,yt"—V''3,w iiv+ fi >�� i,.. 4 =1 14i,r" �' .4 t '1w4,- 4.r 'S'.r -a •3+ .. -0. fir,E"H >k',y 4'�-[ Y A 3 F^.. ,�' '� i -r:, ,f;',,�3..' kd.i,..,t' £k' 1y% .t:,..�5 dt,.'kW,4.,.-:.* r �jt",,F.0 s,F•c,.„.•-,t, .�..- r ..,, * "3de.7"Z 3 4"` � rY' ,-,.1w M �: . ti f �, + n `.." may. R r�t•-v�j.� �,+iS.S Ji�+vilit`, ih N�-.Cr •r t,t p1 �= 2 t(�.r-�r,��•-•-'--Z 7s Ir. ri; y"i��;,�:n* +`le .t. ,-. {,. f':",�` -' `i",, ,,��:.iir ,�.:�•ec:'•b�f.�:-- 7 4,A f . . . r 1r 1 •r,, h?� f'„4►��y:'� Y A ,q✓�y" �1x- 2 N� Photo 16 : Looking toward rookery from railroad . Large tree in left at edge of green belt area . Tree #4 . .r e7lc I' F • 4 Il' t'� 4r �1�;�� X= r A.- J ti \f rti• j�,{,,,.0 .•-, ,4;1 i t ,,'i �,: ;,-` ,,. !,11 r• � 4 rt#i A-1*-1• y.•t4'`j<h�w .•t•r"t"5 �r iy 4., '4 ,r , "`• * ,,ei „x f I ; '?`F+ 4 it. fa,W4!J j''A , . , ,.;liit H t., r t .. _ Si41%,- R`}r+e :,.I ,x5� ,.4 ftr :T " ,.1„ J , 4.+ .4iit.At .r # ' .• .er• 7" a "i er-7,A'X r r t IFS. {s., a t.k, t•.• ,y,1 ,'! + r'1c 4 r r ix '' `Vt.r '', ,4;r*? f+ t '• •5 i r.. t i+` -•'v`tr—"S" a., .....,-..,. � ' l, < s4 ' .r4 .4 i - -~41, ,1 t ) • . �. 54.7 c *^I►",.� .r � ' 4• „ - �-ae`. r6 ,,,ZSer.; - ti r ',. t, _._ t�0. �.. 7.. 4,•_ " c �. , trt , 9...Y ` • 144 4. .�".♦ 1p5 „ t -� ti`• Photo 17 : Looking south from railroad. Tree #5 located at east end of forest preserve. 15 1 ,• /,,• T i It if • \\ a'.'' i ; `il lt � • � ) IS l/,: • { F� e M 1+- tr S ,� .F^,,+'+,� r 4',..1F.".� Aft. ;. A' •• . ` , • 1.I4ai'r r! 1K r`9`'ram 9 1t;R Ya ';i, 4 . sr, �s , - .1 Photo 18 . Single large tree `'I .. , f� "f at west end along ,,k " #� ,r- = 1+ . railroad. Tree # 6 . ,f., �+E •'�aM.µ 7$,...i-'t1,.,3�. .." It`"k +y, � pit,! a p".�*S tr,_ ,.,„„..„.. .., :„., :•_:.,•,_ _,....: ::,,„,.,,,,,,,,,.:„....... , ,...._,• . ..„..... ,, , ,, ,,,,,,,„,„ . i -• ..� IL ',-, `fit ila ft - ;�` kt. �� ice'' ... .1; i- .I ,• •. ,� ,.., ‘,.,“, _ , _ • •.-,....,.,..,..,,,,,. e. it :-;_tz,-.1.........<._ . ,k406.4(1;0„,-1,,, . - tot. k.-L .., , r:a0.' .sue -,! -•*.o's-.1 mt-• .:M. '.., si, .YIP,.' +::tea-t:"-+ �. � 01.. t4k Photo 19. Crowns of tree in ,.� ! 1;Mt 44'4 „F ti II.: �titsi , -z,,.•.<_z!;_'�,T' Preserve, along P-1 = • ' G' �1. �; " .•>41'�i ••• Pond. ►, •� ., I', ,` - • r- ,! t , �� •t v .�� . Is 4, N III:;i 'i* 'C...., L.; ;•,.4k1 4.itt,„... tr.,.Y.;,.1,,-. , ,..,... .e.li liti �., 4 �v 11.4t'?`&•ei t, ill .11::1,!..141;:itit:'.\11:‘,.:",t;,:ik).........i.f.e.iroli..>":;i:::1-.:11,rk 1.,1 Itii .4-,s.:111:ii,.4..,1:14,‘\,,:e1,.v.(4-4:it,:it\\: 16 .. ...I... 1., : .... ‘`I, ' ..19,11‘, ilk'..•lit-'''''...1:tyillial reloto -0,--. 4 it i p,.. ‘s • . 4 .....,,, ..„.... .....Griallikl . , . .,. L. , •.. .1.• :.;..- r tik:11\.4, por"...*-: : . .,...._., , . . , foe;. f? ......e. •.'• , ' • ?ft'.'.. ' IC' .;•11i.L.\A I i. -4 IlAv.44:: .0%7." •,,* ./. p 4 • •J , j I I P 1:f;,,.. i „1.-'re i ',AP& . . - • ' ,, 4, .. _ . ..-.0„.zk......, .- -::, . •:.--,..N.T4,. ; .1.& y.k,tytt,: e.,,-,, . ., r: ---/ft# ,..- ,•,'...4t.1/4^,Nt.%:-I " ek,"..--44; _. .. ,. .;.., r< ilitiNt., t - \l'ili AiL A 1 -_,e•-•,Z,6 . ---__ -• t. -,Z4 1.• 4-•,- \' 4 t'N_f• Atyp e eie:iiiiv.4...;,_• ...,, --•„...- 0.•,t,:,,,,,... At A' ' • .. - '-:-. t ' .". 44 "it. 11 - ;'t- - N 4, •-•:,Kit.1,,,re • ''' ,- • - • 4-- -•• - ‘ ..,.. ,.•1 _t- - , 4 .. • ... : . w_p• imp ipi• '11.1 li . , `• k,,,,z, •-'w 4 2 1 /4-4- n';, & 1..'. 14•104't 'v.,.• '1';.‘t: ';- egi . . i_... . • - ... , . •„4 >,., e., ,.., V G- • . , ,/,...,.:•44. ,,,,-,,,, '4.1 ',7;* 1944. -.-'-' - • ' „•.:-.• " 1..,ho., / t '.o''' 7 ,t ..,14. ,,-.• •.',. r:714.•-• .r , • '4:It ' -, • 1 1 , 4 • , ' • I n'f' , •,,..,,, , • • % ....*4.'3 -•- " -- i ..,.* .., - . Photo 20: Large tree near east end of preserve Tree # 7. 1-• ::.;-• . ..;..• 4,... ilk , , ' ;,`;.''' 4-.". N ' ' •:' . '‘ : ailli., '•' 116\ -•••1' • '• A%‘A .(1: • • I , • . . - •,.'",'',1 , ' N•14•`4, , ,••.. , , 1 , - .- q• • ' V ' • • , . .,., . •:, . , _ , \ • t . .. -- ,. ••- - -•.- A Ip. : - * ': \. ': . -"*.\ .,,'.-• .-,' •.:11:' , 4. , '''. ' - r•4.-- •‘ti, -- • , ,- , • . t.N • 1 , ' ...... • . ' 1. - 1.' I, .• -','''' -.e.---I i 1 . 4i• .4 4 • : 1 11 , - • L'4%.'t t 1 ...% . : 1 Photo 21: Ground and trunk , z,-, . 1 r •• .._ A.‘ . • iii 4.1. ,,4.,3.`' 'jk it .. lk' "+'. t t.....4.4,•f. under large trees ,_ 4... 4.;(41,... 14 1.1 b-cf.,,A1 le%‘ef:''IV.•-•.• "•••• :,,,, t-:,:•-*•-''''',•• :.z -.4 pp ,.40-.4 rat k- .4 ti 1.kt, ; * • . ,...,.•„ ';, 1 A:0 near inlet of natural '',Z::;:;,,i-tit':-.'- --1.1 ,t .',.P',..,-.4.v t ''' l•' .• •,- " ,b , ‘to,i..14.--- -,T.,:i4-,,i ..;, ,,,•,.--,.,,i lif..A.,- , - •A,.:-.. .,: area slough. Note lack :I.,- •,1 ..;. , , ...'-', , A - ' '''' ..,'' :1 t .• gt 17 i elti. 74' i. of whitewash or debris. ..,, Tr-, „ 1 .s4,. . 'V", t'.1., 1. i.,',',,t•k r ''' 1'-`; t ',.', P. t' r r '', • t re, ' ,,'' •-f- ;• "•-• .'• .0:••• ....!•q!•••••t r ' . . . .:1 - ', .•• 2.,i..,",•-••>1- ,, 4,' L , "7,, .!-• •.-i- •,r,+...te. . ;' 1. , ; ,' . , , „i , ,-t.„-, .4 11-:', .,- , C. '''..:`,,.'144 '. :'''' ' ' .j.,,*,'.•_,.% • ,r;t'''.',,, 1, •se,ls '1%1 .. •.'.:142.:.1.:A:4,i: ''',4*a .'"..;1;".../..1..- 1/.1''' * i ..4.1"••:::. ",' `.;',..‘"):?-..,-,;.„'.:,..:::.:_4::.,-J'i.4:,Pii.,:. • -4..., 4 .* r, f. •,, •,, •;,•-;•, 0••: -2.-.;-,.,..•••••``.• ...),'*:.'''' * - . . ... '. •,*. :„ * - '...-"..12,-1,.' •- ''''''''-,7;•- -4,-•-• ,• ` ••. ••', • • , •'. ...x.N, . .•,•,. 4w--',„,.-, :14-•.,•.:7,•••1--:*' ' -...t' "' :.' ' ° ;, '' ' . •;.:4- '1A:c."..Y'Y.- 44 ''.1.4,1:1,-,,N,T-t- 'ft' '' ' •?,,' ?..,II' `" .3''''A: x 'V '- ',.., 'ot'' •" 't -".. - ':-l' -,•,-:"•,..1,.!*r.' . ,:, ,i0 1 ',"'%% .;, .:;•0- ,,. r.,...,.;•;.' +-•6r,s-=,•'';,..,1,41'`."4..•:', '01'Sg" ' .x... • i24.6-*' ,P,T Nkt,„'', '..,,.-`,...."..,:.1 414.Vili.zi ry'S.k lel:,ir',N er- '''''4.1•L--:'4' ' 17 • • I. '.)) ; 1:P7..ri 9 trl •11 4 . I" '1 ' 1‘ 1 ,"' 0 ' 0 \i i• '/+ il li t , *:11 • 4 . .' •' i • 1 • • It 0 V:P '.." i. to • /V. i l',Iiik"111. • ' ri P., 4-, ' . ' 0, .. 0::k., ' • t ' ..., ), ,4-4, 1* ,'*- t 4 i I ' A., -4v4. v `4:4-N11%i !,4c til " 114' ' t .1,P,k.74,rt;'''' 61 \- • :1:1,4"dt ti.'" ;'..•1 413:;t4i ' 4„..,..5." , '2 -In-?'og' ,..i.,,1.,c."'/•' z itd,s' `,„, ,i,,,r„, 1,,t,`,f,' ‘I''''i .6,„• I'',...t ,% .0k,A,4§.I:4,n :".•j" '44 iitA - '!I`41•,—.11. : •• 4.. --ode‘, :;,,tk'4'4 '1,4`,,,? '4u I'2"*C(14-' 11 /.'ViVW,..A .1,1t ,,',' '". VO, s 4-ks„,, :i, ,, ,„,,t':vi, •-.z m , . ,..tv-.4. ',,,'A-,-,‘„,„....f.1:1 I 4:4,--4-.-'qiv ki', ' 4,Alk, -'w:.', 41` ' r•',it'4V,- •,j'. • '1,44 '4k.f.4.,14e.,t,a4:.;• ,,4.f." . .. ,, -, 144.1?„, r... , 04f,a r. )J1,411, A: , • ,, ti, -a, e= II; ,P. ^ '-•f iit: , .4 4.r,.:`4 •., x,e) , , ..i, . ,'`.•,-„id,y 0•-•* '1 vt(t 2%:,1,• 41'41' ..,•.. ' 4.11.V. ,1, Vlii, •,-441. '"' '''''' ' clii "W •' ;V.i'' it v \ 41;it •4., 1" fl •',41, k , ..-e ,'4 li IC' '• ' 4';• 4 4.-0,.:..vi.t. ,' -', v,,,,,,,,_r, , .'„,,.. ,,,, 00. „I., '.,.„,. ', griv,r,..:.---v,:•&-'4. -91 • ' 11,45zfr , .:4211 '4- 4', , si:fr ,--1, ,4z0 1.:1. .-ITte-444.`. -...VP'itlf-'4-' 'N'r..' W'Eltr4".111 - 'k '11 4.'' (4‘•.. '-e c ii(40 Pci,,,,, tt, ,., 1 '„,•,1Yr..4.5.45- -i-4rd,e-7.- 4..-.'.. ' 45•„,„Ilivell• 4-37k*.3,1Z.,. rv.. it, 44,4,.• '011:',. : ..p,„-4, --.....-40---1,--„,41,,,,q „,!&Pay, .t,,A,AS.,';'.4, ''''Y'.C., 4'.'I",..:. -IS•:4,-,4,''. ,441.0-‘41.i.„4'ie..<' 'Are 14vv.,:".....1e1/444.6.ty't1144,,,v1:i4v,:4;4-1.1:74>J74 .i.i.. -4.1-44,,,,,,,,,...a.„„0:41,- . . ...•,--i4-4 .,,. ,1,,,,ii,,;,,1, '''' ' ,4.''',.`741`S'ir-i, -4.4..Y 'kz-4'.., .*C.IldW,.'-': ..,,,t%,,:t•I',0_,5,7-V • '?,04.'.). :F,,,A.„4"....,,..,+?4,,..t.1‘.?. i r 1-:-... ... ,..,,,Itl. `,,t\...,,,,,•$&- ':•1_,,,,...-4v,.• c . .,,,;„ ,..10'11,.444-44 ..:`,•:- ',,A.''',' "',,,Vir,‘''4,.. ver,.. .,.. ,, ,--,:; ..f.,.1,14.7. ..:1,,,,,17., .„ve.,, .. ...,......., . .. .w.::: ,..., 2,,,.... _.... .,.•,,ri .,,,:.,..-4-6 , ,t-..,I,.., , 4,., ,,4e- :,,,,` ^.4,1 fix A., "4,-1,44 j„,..,"<,,,,ft..s.,.., .41 '",••4 .2" p, r'..., O...., i ,,, A V'f;AL);11 A-'t'''.1444* •',4'''''' It14. '' ,t: •,..,4`e' r.4 414:VVR 4.'r,A4' 4 '4 44 ;' •Ss. 'f•4.41 . .**:..y. -, 1,),,t71:77,...z.e.„(„Z%vt: ,Sig.!,,:',":ils!,,0:. t:14,..4`- -.• 4t14.9...4.ten,. 't• '' AO.1 :t., ^t C4 +tt)N4, ' ;+t,Vitt -eitt ft.1* . -, ?er Vt. 4', /4.14131,f;V:Ait.;:h'WI. ‘,..•3'1'• t, - r,"<<',,,, ,i,,,.., v4x.i.,,,„-w:_,-,., Q tt... • f - ,v,--:- '.:4 .,_..1.i.„,.., - 44,,,,_. .\, ... ', zs,,, ,- -',. --.1 '2,,,,.•. . -.'‘,,,,,....-.?•. 2„, 1,'''' •'" . :,..17,:;',/V,ZO'47,5,-.' "4:7:1'4`,.', ...,;„...i.• .'\ -, , ..;3:4^.- f.,211 '-t.,•k\...,, -•;-,..,--,2:•tf--L'•-•-'-,•••-":;>"•-•-.r.e'-'r-i,")•I -1,A,,.."4 4,° t..r "--"' ,- ,....Z.,.5i,4,pr'f-4.....r. 4.'s•.1-•".14,Iv . il, „,' . ,,r- '., .0"14....4;iv,. f.....".....,,,'"%•,..i..f..0."- -,--ri 0 A N. ,,, ,t. , If . •.+-,--,.- •-111, '3-2: 23.'',....'''.' ..:7,,Z1;71.,,*1 „r- - .LI, -- ‘;;C:,`"la-,-..,.,-r".4.-..e.-,>-'n'T: rA-Clk,'t."..C•''./...4 -, 44, . Photo 22: Ground and shrubs under trees in M. Anderson rookery 2 area: Note lack of white wash or debris . . .. ,_ •. ' , , 4. iP',.4:-...'A-:412114' ,-"4'. -.4: "vito-Ai ,i-Az'1.,.., 7,2•4;..1k,,.. ';'''; ,."4•4•11% -•••• 'il -3, ,444, ;4' v. : ift ..,,......,...;."..,eVra.,I A.1, ..- A. in ,4.4., f 1 'p 4 ..-4.1;. , .4'....•3-la, a 'IA.' ''' ' '4, 1 1 1k. '",.#7 510,4e -4, •v.. .4.4, .. . ,. r.,.,„,,,,,A 7. ...", ..c.k.,t 4T . 164.f. IA.1$VI. r 4, .j * r 't .',A, J...r."/. %'' "V ''. i ,,, A.i.‘,10,r 1,:,. ,--t• , .. - . — - 11-...1'' l• 54`g ., ig 0',A At ' /e 4 -tc*,,,,3 -, 74 4 ,3-., - h .' . • I -1..it 1 ' 211:.%...?"C.0 ti",.‘,V 41.1,' illir ^Ai ..,•'' f,„,.3. 41... try-,-, ,1.. ., , ,-,,-.4. , , 0 4.,FSJ::17`cAelit ttO„r11.00.'AZ:*.-"*.A:,,c•k!., ;lig 1;-',.: ;`,.t 4,, r"*. rs `;'.. l'I'''''",; '',r . I '.4 V.174.1"'''''‘';' ,r'"•4•Aticir.,*-11 k.it :f.,,,A,:ti ti. *, ',A ..t.„, ."4" t ,,,,,v, , . ,,,,, , L',...P----'1.-t;*-,stti'. ,Noi,,t . •4,r--',Yz,,1 - 44 4'07 II.,"-,:tp:A. --4.,--',1';r, , '.2- ., . _ , 4,---7 , ,A . 4,..0-re.i.„, , .4k-',-.P .'•A " t.... '''...' ', ilftleV":4:*'Y A tN' -.0",4W•Ar ,N, 4,t. ,...,4,y. .0,-, t ,-.51:,.. \,s, , , '..- P-. , ,- I 't,,44'pet ci.RINVik.' *11..P-A Ati,',/, -*4-V-4-,'•Prr :,;.4-4.'!'"?,''tx,'...:,''''t'''' -'• -- .-": ' 0%,•%,fte.6 ""A':-.1 4:1f6A7,''4''IVO Pi'.i)Cktql,l',1.T.g. tit4*.V.1: %, '. ' •'';.1, re A:. •1 ;1' ' kk,,V "qt1 ) ;1.4.10+. w . .4,434,,i.li-01,4-C;til'7tt . 4...'' IKk:::',,f." -••k,, 'r,,'1!‘ 'A'.'. fit ,' .4* 4*-,Z, j'A'' :FA;t41\4 iirAk..4-q. t 14- "'• t ''' - 41'4:!:.4 ., = i: 4' .5- i - ,i. ,:i Al '> 'L? 2s-,e k 4.-`k s 41'44i N 1 " '1 4 el! i ' '1.'44 '• *'' . ' . , ' i,`?" 7,,4,If.. „i';`,F„.1 -,,t' . :sia.;;:! • t,'--- ,", V• - 6' ' '''.!; ,, ' ; '`i- ,''' -...'.. I .;•1.45::., '' t- Af. 4 -, , t .. _ 1: irts ,,„ 90,--.14 ,,....; ...- • .,-;, --4.-„, .. ,.. .. 11.4 * Ar, .. ..- •%...,... -1; , 2 • 7.7 x..t.; --'.0.-1. , ,,...,: „,% -.i. ,.-., '4.. 1?, ::"..e it.' '''''' ..: ..0.'"- otrOV-1 ,:•'.1 V:w...Z.'$....' '"'"4. '' ..,' ' ', '''''* .tt: ,- ". •:::.i.,' 7.- ' . Z.Z.":-} 1. .91;0.411.,...,... , - _%.. •,; ,4tr•••,4. A• --- Ai "I'`;* -Itot' <, al it" • N ' ..te4t-- '''- l'S.44,; •-.4;17,.'•;,'.- ''' T.:* # VC 1 4 , A 1,!-'' '74•.,... .7„-•As,.-4. ' t, • i ..:, ....4„ .... ,..r. , pel .,r, . • . , 42,1,,,,,,,.-., . •• :, I '5, 4e •••'(..- ) ..14',., ,. , /4, t .14,,.vjgct `-/ '', ,. "..:rt *f :,/,-, .,:t.,_.,,, .4*" '...1411. '1' '`' 4',.•;- 4 , 4-%:: .44,,A itfl p • .ofiy, „ 4/ ,,, .1. ...le ac.., 10 :\'' ,ti V4 -0.. ‘ fi. ..~1 _,et - ••.,Vi.,, ,Iv ,, ,Orft'S„' ..§.„ ' *,- = -`. 1 i ',4.4114 7 440. -4 '''l ' t ,„r:i. bar , ,B,-, ' re. ",,c'e!.4,*. kV'. dit a % - \ --- ,43. , .:4 • . A,Avs, t.,.. * ... ' ,11 ., .0 iirt.i. ri N. iv.. ,... ,. .i...4 - \ - cr, .--A-: r , Photo 23 : Ground and base of trunk of tree in rookery # 2 area. 18 • C. ? Y ; - \ " 'altiNt'll4ttalibbft h ' • • t'lii. ' ; : • Photo 24: Tops of trees in rookery # 2 area. Note lack of whitewash or stick accumulation. / ' -• I ), tc:4. - ' '-- '4 y --"-- 11- 4'441.,' li ' .1 .- V ' • V i : ' , J 411 /".::,"ic:-..1141•Nvilik\N4 1fib,4rA t ,, i• tit -L 1 -.--., 1, , '''• .1::.9 • .,‘ ..„....,NN .11' ' 7ifilittiil - • : P.''''''•A‘. 1' • -• A "tr.^.04% .i /4 -----.-- - \ ..,. .. __ 1 itto,, grroi,1:`•1.,0 ?°i, c-.- "illiP:IZI , ;* ,---- • i iru-dliliT fil IpPYP .:.' fli• llikk\>. --.-,ry- '. ‘ k- ,13' t 1:31;I.,,•, ,f ,i`1 fel F.41/ -tk I -- 1 Photo 25: Top of trees in rookery 2 area. Note lack of whitewash or sticks. 19 • Bird identified on P-1 Pond January 18-31 Eared grebe Podiceps caspicus Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Canada goose Branta canadensis Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Widgeon Mareca americana Shoveler Spatula cylpeata Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis Canvasback Aythya valisineria Greater scaup Aythya marila Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Great blue heron Ardea herodias American coot Fulica americana Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 21 . ra p • AirelO\ 1 t '/�;' {lam °® °� °9-:•- sty'" .11Fir. r 1:r.. . . «1 styr•r. .�m•, 5- . F :� `90 ,• '124 -, • Qz.z f�y . v : — 1 ... „ / . ..!- �1.�>.{< j':TN ril...' yV�:a aWOSET .:„:,,... ,.. _ 1•.. � � �[�'..40 �h�VM i , . , cUZIZW:Ss rd7V;4 sts.f..,: s.Ls,f,• : 9 ,2 r.-.? - ,,(1)•,'.,1.1 ..asi tteive -•:" e ' 4' -- 'II-' fil[ .:1.31/44tr49.6'443 el V'T 1 4 .00'..e,- ca •••"1/41\cNbik: 1\' "I' . I ••• - 1' ....r' 1• Jac- `p er p (��----— \ / ' w0 r ta;,�:�n`,am;„ ° ..,I� l 1 I s er,.....__---. ---->,,,:.___ ,.._,, , •-s.s. f aht j t . Fri _ i ItAsai: 40. . 0— S••a.•r 1L 1104 \ $ TA 7• f'i 7 3 3..- 1 ' n1.. LI. s.r. V� *-L•; I 1 .•..• Otto IN.St2 L/. iip + 'i%,r,;, i•Illy v 1 • i.. Ja„-��', ) .:ff; rS `'1.. ` I•• '""►� ,-�„. ,; s a . . 1 �.+ 150 111 i t a•',5 .1 1 ', ; f ,.f.. •Ir1,• 11/150 5 r I/100 S( _•°r •,'I 1 .,r1n ••rlfu 1LI,IW S.I. 'X.ff00 Lf. ` 34? . a® `.% • star* et 11.1 Lt. ,1.1. 1 AMN L/. ILIA f.1. BLACKRIVER r/ 1/1)/Lt. / �c r - n •,r•, I1F' 1•4171y LI, ttI.ID L/,.,.., IIaoLr.IatllILI. N150 Lt.4$000 Lt,000 Lr.. . ,`• 1�.• . I f,il.rri LI. IL In S.I. MST CITY I'a1Ir1D `' '"Y .m .1r•M Nflc• y.2f2 Lt. `, f ' n 1/1 1rM. me 11.2N Lt. 1LW S.F. "� 'Jt '"V.. 4- ..4...14,•,1 ,� 22 1 story D /Mils LI, n.It)Lr. Lupo_IG ow 1fa1r1.1.tsr NC '$ • ,y q•spou.s4,_-• - A. „.C._ jjj�---z1.1r1.. 1..1/7/ 312 11(ft E —2 }� rr�; ',•T/1 � ,, `Y 7f .{rW •Il1u /2/�{.WO 1. i{0 I 0/,OII MC rl We d.'�''' •• ! - 221/ t.1r1M *Mu 14.1/0 LI. '— S , I ' ft �. .Ills I/,y ,f, • OI.W L/. •..M...�I��•0OO= NC. 'A-- �'I e, .0• . 1« 71r. -I�1S-l+�n+1 iii, fir_JT; •� stir M. In•4194� 21 11 1~les Mrlo y,•N S.I. '- 11 1 41r1r *Ma 4,I00 Li. ( �p'`'1., •.� S2 I::::::: tt/1,1. !SKRf Lr. 26.2y fL,i. I( f \I1q7.-DhC09 LE If` II Uf'.,.r... .rrl•. 1 ti AU LI. Il.fy Lf. •• °'1 ° LIrL31•LI. /•N•••14400 Ma 1n. l ��• r • Map 2: Recommended restricted work area 1 .----__ --•'1:nit 6544,1;91?fill'§1.1.,:.':QD'oZ3, ;„ \*.e1 . . 'r;r T e. ?i': f. —fit, 4.s ' Ca - , p'-1t ', .i 0, ~ C�, saw "•' !,^:r.; ...lo•t ot'4it ,A. r .11�•e i, c W ,tt: ®?fE !►,t}� 1,'•''..�:•.. ;•It .-iit -a"F � a a,re:, g t1e$>F re�ke'y r , it l:' 't .' ,Tao,�. S. , ': fK ��C t: cep n�'l� g t. e t e as ,t��a o- r y $ti� V, ! ,,:...,�. �i�y:.✓ (.; 1 rg '. ��1� 1 2 .11111111 - Quo 40- *••••ir )7. ..›.141103o, ''., .; • -........ .... i),:..-1711.111111111!,":: (l_ d5 b — %•:.ter cifATP', - �'; a e�1�.��5'r�i lx.i 4 �S••oar;="'�^o'�►' '' _._ .. 0 .0 V�Q-•., . .•,v r'� ....• � ~:-. - :•;' ps i\ mi o lion 'I '* � ,d. 1. ''ti,,,, ,. ,•r i r • • ..,,,.,....,, wez1 o..,:o.A,',.., ...t.-:4. c!r";6,":9,..:.''',,,,,b.6,9,1,\N.,\, ,f),;-- :;:„,::1.4. LI 11 ri. . -.4.10:714,,N. ',1.::•.,_.... '`•-::.:',"--",-- --.".`c-i . o )1.�.f;` ��sk. �,. •``•;: moo &lc !AZ) t1. 4. 1 ,'—c-- '• , 0 3w•r•r If,1f11 Q��. : II I it •Z r 0 ` :,Ji > pd 11.1. Isis S.I. `, .. . l .../r ..►r/leer• boo 31N MIl,lo• �-. , I ,t.,1 office 180.3411.F. 1.1001.1, !. 1 �; n ►«�1..�.q„- - i .ten •f/lw 1.103 LI. X 1(�,l •y -. . .tr. /It I Igo ff tt { f 7*'�1��••-.- ~' fl•Af •• I .51... ttn lJ[sr t}3mif' �iiT:P.filli, "vnne cc�=a�. jj ,iftre 117 I s I 1/Oa s I .'�^'•17 ,tr4, dllu IQ.nO LI. xq,fn1p 3L*!, .f� Pii et % . t LI. il1 .tries WI. .03.OM Lr. ,i:U1t .�' ft e3 .1 ..rw •file .1,001 LI, n Wirt. •fIlse 41,003 Lr, iS, 0 ci ,I story MOM LI, ILO{L%. �� •a 3�If •r ./,1e11/a ILt•aLI. aD,I3LI. BbACKRIVCR '` r; !,: .�:� f#_ G - �►.�.ti. , # =�... Corporate Park , �'-b ,tr, ./nw 1 1A v,n1 Lt. �- . n .vies *Moe W.In S. H.n1 LI, 11 art. Wig M,001 L/, .tt . ttw f 11 stow office u.em Lr. RENTON,WASHINGTON ••�i_1k `% i,� �;.'.. .�.;�y4 ��. IS .tot. office n.1/I S.F. ` i �;— I n art. once !atbt/1 LI, 10.xf S.F. M1O1r MI1fa '•! ` rj :.•;`!�_ �, r H Wolin office Non!LI. 1 . .0 n I/.•vs. .Ifs. non Lrt ai,.N•.f. ! t, •�• _' _ '� I I 77 I tiro t/1 I Mae S.F. rLt13 L/. .�. 4�� IIOR1...'0/ K colt / n I•wles .111w X.1f0 S.F. ~ 11 I t t1 .trio. ,{sls. �+too tr.' race. f a moons me. '�{r. I �� fi tvl,. In r,>r.00a L� •.7n S r Min 1.r. .I' "� .vs. • ice o01 I;rT.000 i.l, ^� n 3.trl., office a.0a S.F. �� f� . •) n 3.tow office 11.100 LI, vs. f,w eta II lit ... of !1,3.mLr. +o:3.:EI. — -: .',- . • t.a/1,pa S.F. 1 A1t1...•.t.sib►rra 1 =+ /7......., ......,,... ............„....._..,_..-----""----1... '------——:'-.-.-c•Nti . Hap 1:Tree and rookery locati I r .. g lik.....%.' ), t .2-.., \r/ ;FA, :a.,:' '17.1 '4:7•°"'. 7: . . . '4 P t - -I P 4 i r "i ,,,* '. ''' `• •; fl 4. ( 4 , , '''_,,,--•. , „,-... : ' ,1-j' ;g ' 4...tA,y- . ,i, .., ., ?',,, 1 '0‘,1-4-.,/ = • 4-.„-,i'k '•';*4.1. ' ' '- iik.'sii64. 4V1 4; :, ; -,,y1.,-,',4 e-."%. ' ' • . taw.. ,•• 1 '#'',It '';,:kt,j • -,., .0 4 ,,m-'45,0..._ s s. a 0' ?.-r% gb A e t 0. , •-, . ' * .'- (Al&t4/./f{FO-Att...-1A\i' .%•• - IN t • I 4.,0 c s...yri% . ...,.•-h - .P..•t.• ?' i •<537t-..---,..v,i, .,:ilsAq-1.ft-P,,, .4. • - • - AA- "iir ii A,- -., .„,-, - t.' ,.... ..r4.... - .4,t,NI ''''''fl,,,'•.,,.'--•'et ,-' • t- • A .1'.' N. . ‘3, .%*; ; 1 ur,',,t-: '' e ''...',f . 'V''. Ar;.-'`kar,,f IZettYMMIVt, ' '..;'-. -''-i, ni' ''.11/ '1 ,Y'- •'.Y-f-Ztig, .' -- . .. . .--„. •.-1, .-. lak, v.,_cl.-, gli:•ye,'....-'i. e.-'• .. - •:. ,,J0.4- ,-,,, ....` -? .,_'11 -,-1‘ ,Liik A tr,,,...;-, ---tze.zot-, 4.,?, igtit, 3 -:'.4.1,-**,-. •:,- - ,,, ._-;,,,,I...1-{-,.42"- 417-111-4;,ti, „e , 'IR, iTif • ,- kt,,A,Aes : ,,,,Aee.',. , 1p;.,.''4\,, ''''1017:ft:0/. * -.'`'#,I, • 4( 2.4.,A'''. '41 ..'.../t.r , ''.ii ''''t-.. ,','. . ., : • ),,,..• i tel, y '1'^'"Att. . i .. 4.'' ' ' P'.7.' - ,.. ..„11-I' '4 4- '"' :e i- • , , ..f 4 t kr' .r. • ...10. • ' 4..1 , t;t.' ..4 ,...- ' ,1:4:11, ' .' ,,,,.1k., , t, . . 4,-1,.x -,,,,, v-,,,.ii,f-i- V wi *,,,w,,if 0,0- . • -.. - 40,:.•7,6 '.., I.,.:, -, - - •... ,..1, -, ',.,,','47.t'..4."- „ r -.1. I, i .4',. ',.."-- ''' ' 'OA '''' .#4./"4',.. ---A, `.• .4 -A-c„,4„..'..'1, ',i•rf 4.14%-imetm.i-,-.k::',..,./e., : 'N....?..'.4. 4' -..r — J.....k 41101rtArd,oriet . . ,,..+i ‘,04,,•.'. f4i4, '42.4,,,,,, .:6;*...,.. ', 'fifl y, ,,,,,;II:- '..' 0:41044. - 4."10: l'*4. '1_,..t.A,''' 'A.' . , j• ,...14 l'p' -,,,„_4,13:,7,3.,.. .A, .....„,xylt --,\.i24.1 $,,,,,..1„.g.., .,),,. .... ,t 4.• , -4-,i'lL':,----3-41 , 5Nzvor--' 4..r,-!*.... '' .. .4.,..,•4 .t.,..", : . k. ,f 1: . , . , ss,'''''- V '40-1.04.4,, - it4 4,b)t t.-v.-^t71/4,,,,.'t...... • ' IL -kizr„, ' = - ' :le, .,.....,.._ ...,..• ..g.,:la .. ..e. . -,..-7.,., -...,4N • , ‘1... - ' k .1 \ ,^4- •*'/0,/ .', 4,''''k P,.....zt•14:-.. '1;4; '; i.,:,11,44.4-,,•.-,1 :st' A.N.t 7* • ^ .1.2,,- i ''‘..., ,._-....-,*" A" 4,- '.',..,,t5''4., Alc,4>,..t.',,"e s. V.t;et,t,'H.C..g.:-W.'," .!*-•-lit' t ., ' '' 44 al.V c 1-,0,19.1.711..,, lie...415 . •, , i. --AS N 42e' , ',..7., "..,„, -,.r....1, ,,14,*,.?„:'1.y:AN., '.,„;‘, ' ,. `..., .. .:a. • ' c/. .., .4?...,... tt,;tc f,.. ,v;.$. , :., .;:' ..., '‘" -";•.4 . - t , .t1 tii,: r. ,. ...* A ,.=.. ,,,, ,r•,.: ,.. 4, i4 ; :..L - Z4:,"tt., '-')4,1-.%Se4 A:g kk,ji:'Oil IX A Z.,- .-.•''.-..--.V ' -,.1t: /-.1.5,7, 1.,',,,,I .;. . ..,-,A.... ..it -- ,......, ,,Zi-,- ''.4 ZJ, 4.i.4-:\tea.'7.4,4 ...,L.,4r-,,.'11-,rt-- • --, .4---;.-4 . .-* ' '1"'../4:. Z: Ati 4:SI: -- -.-- - m...,----='.i,..•.,z'f....4*,.$.,,-, - ..,, . ',..,--,-,.- Pk. .,,...ty.,.: , c ct '-'-f-3111`;z1\'-,-1.---,....7..7,t,::* k.„-.,,, . oc.5.:., — •-• -,- ' — ' Photo 26 : Bdeenre area .. -.NI, 4...., ...* A.'. .. . ... .1,. • .of -z''kei: f(14-4.y,-,.• . ' , 7 t. • 1,... .i-.4v. ,i"•-., -l'e':,...14,, ,„?..,y..74-1, k-t,-.-4.1,-:, :f :r';:.(;.:'';',.. t"? e. /..:-.'• si , „' .' mtt,t,4 6tM1...4 4 Ai""....1!,4,'_,I.''."7,,,, ,,,It'f's?,rif.i y.• ,p,..',* •o.''..„,:1,4 t.; ", ' «' "... .1".if'4rli„„''' - . 1. .,:, *;14,;.'?"' :.4-,.;:,•'-'I t.9, S,.4.ktei'.71.:,,r;scketv.7,11.4,-.ks ' - '7%-';,1", :".4,7' lb,yir-,,,,:-,,,,,,,,,-,,,,. - y •......,,,,,,,„ ,s‘, I4-,,,.c.:,---'...,,'-'7;:,,,,A,4--1..i.P.-1.4, 4,,,--.)':^k-%„1, it.--,;,-.,esp..-.• ,,.:,-,-,, .i. -,,, , -.,-,, !:.,... .. , • %, ,,,t,,to. ,•,.., ..,.,H4,,,i-re.T,-;,;-,,...1%**-4-r.%. ..r.,-;.I,,,- lc,.c :'-':: ..,.,..= ter,' 4. --t, ;',Lei.--':-)- i i ':-4- - i'', -;P• iv...,...i....,....4:0,, ........,4!.4.*,„•ti, :.;-/•". 71:04,.,,,,,.1 ...4,-,.!.fr -9.•Li•..;.L.,--.1:;re r,'i''',.!«,1t,".,.47„,.;4„..',.-,r",-,.., . . t wr,„.,ti.,,-;iti, el..,,,b..1,/,.:4i,, ?,-i..... .1...<IF -,.11,..1.,,x,„z..1.,,,,;,,,,,7.11v3.1,....;17;1 j s ,r Ar• . ' $ .'°1••=iflt"1*-74;Vt',0''''API?°41•1171q.4jayi .4I'rtit01;)-WIV'9'V«17:,7 10 • ii )2sx ,.. t '' "t-i.`,.4,. vlri",%reli'..V,t,'...r4t.<0.02/1 4'e'I,' 7'*',4,,sit 1•24''-“17-1 Iti‘111444-` ' ' , , 4" 4r; - 0—'4, ;:R14,,. 1\i'..ik'.11;.V.:6a...ry,i.lial''.1g,0.f, ''.1 ";1.41 ' , ',?,.p•ftf`I. A''''' .0 :\..a. dei,,; • 1 %.sit.'/J '' ' 4t.'4' . 4‘. - ' • 'f, _-;,-.'.6. ...7. -4 ' "„. gi't• k '' '4.,- -4 ' if..... ",..,,>,,,,-,..... ..,„ . .1,, r -7;yrfo,- ,1 '- 5.I.It<1.r..7.74 I, + • eivrerr- i .' ".. k 11•,,..‘..1.74-'-''?Iriciirt-.::t.1""_':.:-'.,...;,...'ir'''- Arr:::t:7::--..A4::1',,‘oi''',,,,iliti.1.4: 1W-W'''-41„,.t24:3L4-7.):1"k ''''''111,-11 t.'',1_,,--0'.. . 1..41.;),.5)11'- s,.". i'''''' ..t ti n-t.7(--,.. -...` ,."- • i..-:-(if, 4•17' ic.;,t;-.,.v.•.4: -.1•,-•41..-.. ',. t...-•,.- , • . .,.. , „,.*•-,„..,,, . 0*-- . • .7 - i ...., •••---:•:,. •'••--- - .,,,,,.--- ,., ..; •..2.- 0 v -.7 • t. 0• ._r„.. .4t..- ...;;,,-, ..-- ,f u0., . '' —_,,,,,,..t .,,,,„ ,''C'"'.''''' ,...... , ,,,,- . ,f .. 4.n ''...- ;.;:.?":,/-nr,./. ^-4.4.1', .. ?lir '-.. '''',44'..:,.''''.r.'r".' ' ' ' a A' 4.1. • k: - J ,. ".."t. •-•.''IP;k. 0 /ft-2,k.4' • . •,./....„....-.., -....7);:.-. ; Z / 0.-r*, --r• - •,, , ......;er, •;•,..-•';:iy• ,r.„ :kr-1,.. 07- , - ,,it....,,,,, '. i 4 • „ ,. " ' .r... As,1'4 i 'ti-%•,,,'''A".7 C-Vt'.. •‘=t4, '` -. • -4-3-.... —,), , • 2,••,,r,s , ,.. . ',_..4.'T 4.4 •,'' ' le I.V. r'47'.44.Jir.p....6 11111".A^ '''' ' A e;., , ''.::•95,,,,A., .- .4 i..4, ""ar.- et . 0171;:: x A 14 4' ..p jil 1-1 kV', Or• .1"" rjeo ' '—.A i••• -• ,..P. .1'4‘BOA ., .,'•?,,- ,..--f• • Ott - •-*•-•'- 1,-" :141,4..., - ,• • Y Photo 27: Clean ground under2ndlargest tree in identified rookery 1 area. 20 OF R4 IP ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT tf• RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 co- 09gT�D SEP040 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 23, 1987 Barbara E. Moss Directeor of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Wa. 98104 RE: Infrastructure Development Dear Barbara: Thank you for your letter of January 16, 1967 requesting an additional two weeks in order to determine whether you wish to withdraw your Infrastructure Site Plan and Environmental Checklist. We will postpone any action on your application until after hearing back from you on January 30, 1987. The main reason I am writing to you today is in response to a memorandum from Y. Ken Chin to Dee Beetle of my staff regarding Naches Avenue S.W. improve- ments. Since you do not yet have an approved site plan approval for the Infra- structural Plan it would be in violation of our subdivision and platting ordinances since no formal review and acceptance by the Hearing Examiner or the Council has been given. Furthermore, there has been no site plan approval granted either. Although we would probably be stretching things a bit, we could probably argue that in light of the fact that you had previous site plan approval for the Admac site, you probably could argue that the Environmental Review Committee had approved, in principle, the configuration of Neches Avenue S.W. as far north as the edge of that site. Since overall approval of the infrastructural element has not yet been given, there may be some risk with proceeding with Neches this far north without further site plan approval. The intent of this letter is to let you know of our concerns so that there will be no misunderstanding as to our position further down the line. Whereas it is true that the Building and Zoning Department do not issue road construction permits, it is also true that Public Works does not issue site plan approvals. Obviously, it is in no ones interest to see this thing reversed or appealed later on. • • -2- • have any questions plate give me a call. • Since ly. Dona d K. Erickson. AICP Zoning Administrator DE:de 3403Z • • ,r. 1 • FIRST CITY - = EQUITIES 11' February 3,19 8 7. clTx oF IErs re*l FEB 3 1'`;7 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South , Renton, WA 98055 RE: File No. SP-100-86 Grading Permit BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK (Valley 405 Business Park) Dear Mr. Kaufman: Pursuant to the January 27, 1987 public hearing in which you allowed one week to provide a professional biologist's report addressing the blue heron sensitivity location, the number of birds and the number and location of rookeries on the above referenced site, enclosed please find one copy of his report along with extensive photographs of existing conditions. Mr. Rex Van Wormer, senior biologist for Independent Ecological Services, contacted Marty Murphy who accompanied him on his site visit over the weekend and has concurred with his report. Marty had provided the ERC a letter dated 11/1/86 addressing the heron issue. Mr. Van. Wormer is recommending that clearing and grading activities be limited on the portion of the property identified , in his map #2 from March 1 until approximately June 1 to June 15. We are prepared to respect his recommendations. I suggest we condition the area outlined on Mr. Van Wormer' s map #2 to restrict clearing and grading activities between March land June 15 or until after early fledging, per his recommendation. I think some of the most important findings of Mr. Van Wormer' s field trips include documentating the exact location and number of heron nests near the property. With Marty Murphy' s concurrence, he has identified a maxiumum .number of heron observed to be 21 birds with a .total of eight nests in the rookery, all of which nests are located on the island in the middle of the P-1 pond. This is in direct contradiction to the information provided by Mary Anderson. Mary Anderson provided the ERC a letter dated 11/6/86. Please note under Mr. Van Wormer's findings on Page 2 in his last paragraph he indicates that both he and Marty Murphy searched carefully for additional nests, specifically in the areas outlined in Mary Anderson' s 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4170•Seattle,Washington 98904•(206)624-9223 Real Estate Development and Investments Mr. Fred Kaufman February 3 , 1987 Page Two letter. They could not locate any nests in the areas identified on her maps. He has documented this fact by including photographs of the trees where Mary Anderson identified rookeries one and two to be. These are included as photographs 6 through 12. It is quite evident that there are no nests in these trees. Additionally, he examined the ground beneath the trees identified as rookery #2 by Mary Anderson, to see if there was any evidence of a previously existing or recently destroyed rookery. He found no evidence of old nests either on the ground or in the trees and further indicated that had there ever been the number of nests in the area as Mary Anderson established for three years, the ground and the tree limbs would have been stained white. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond with this additional information. Per your request at the public hearing, I am providing Don Erickson and Jeanette Samack-McKague as well as members of the Environmental Review Committee copies of this report for their records. Respectfully submitted, FIRST CITY EQUITIES Barbara E. Moss Director of Planning Enclosures BEM/bc cc: Donald Erickson Jeannete Samack-McKague ERC Committee Members Richard Houghton Ronald Nelson Lawrence Springer VIA: HAND DELIVERED ' INDEPENDENT ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 January 31 , 1987 Ph: 943-0127 Ms. Barbara Moss First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4170 Seattle , Washington 98104 RE: Heron activity on Black River Corporate Park Property and recommendations to reduce or negate impacts from clearing and grading land south of the P-1 Canal Pond and the designated natural area easement: This letter is in response to your request to have Independent Ecological Services conduct an independent analysis and evaluation of the great-blue heron rookery, their activities and periods of use on the Black River Corporate Park property. You also requested that we make recommendations to reduce the potential for impacts from clearing and grading and to evaluate the Hearings Examiner's decision as to timing restrictions for work activities south of the P-1 Pond and the designated natural area easement. Procedures On Thursday January 29, myself and Marty Murphy, Member, Cooperative Research Group, Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, visited the- P-1 Pond area and observed and counted the great blue heron on the site. We also searched for the rookeries reported in the letter submitted to The Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton by Mary Anderson. We entered the area from the P-1 Pump parking area and walked the trail along the south side of the pond. Since the leaves are off the trees it was easy to observe and count herons and to monitor their movements. We continued the trail to its end near the gate and bridge crossing the canal at the end of 7th Ave, identified as S.W. Oakdale Drive on the project plans. We photographed the pond, the surrounding trees and the heron rookery. Special emphasis was given to photographing the area where Mary Anderson identified rookeries 1 and 2. After backtracking the trail we drove to the dirt road along the south side of the pond We walked into the corner of the pond and the existing slough (natural area easement) . We counted the nests and birds and made notes of their ctivities. On F iday January 30 , I returned to the pond and rookery area to conduct xaminations of the trees on the proposed development site that ..airpea t have the ability to support heron nesting activities. The tree an areas identified by Mary Anderson, were further examined and A :: is ._ the areas beneath the trees examined for heron sign or evidence of destroyed nests or past concentrated bird activity. Types of evidence examined for were: (1) white wash, regurgitation or other evidence of long term use by heron. Normally areas beneath heron rookeries are smeared with "white wash" (heron defecation) and frequently have fish parts or remains of food fed to the young. (2) ievidence of old nest activity and /or abandoned nests. Sign included partial nests or twig accumulations in the trees and accumulations of twigs on the ground or in the low shrubs. On Sunday January 31 a third trip was completed to evaluate the movement and distribution of birds during or after a severe storm. Monitoring was directed to use of trees protected from the open water and wind area by other trees. Large trees that do not show evidence of heron use but have the physical characteristics of nesting trees and were close to the green belt buffer were identified and photographed. Findings During all three field trips the area of the pond and the small cluster of trees were being used by great-blue heron. The pond was also supporting a variety of other species, both waterfowl and other marsh and water birds. A list of the birds identified by myself and Marty Murphy on Thursday as well as birds identified on Friday and Sunday is included in an attached bird list. The maximum number of heron observed was 21 on Friday. On Thursday the birds were using the rookery on the island in the pond (-Photos 1-5) . During the 1 hour that Marty Murphy and I observed, the birds flew from the tree to the water then back into the tree. There was no evidence of nest repair which indicates that nest building is complete or has not started. In two instances pairs of birds were on the same nest in what appeared to be preliminary courtship behavior. On Friday the birds were standing on the islands in the pond. They remained on the islands for over an hour until they were disturbed by my movement down the trail along the south side of the pond. They remained on the islands until we were within 50 feet of the closest birds. When one flew they all flew. Birds milled about then landed in the trees. All of the birds landed in the rookery trees or in trees immediately adjacent to the island in three large trees on the mainland ( Map 1, Photos 6 and 7) . On Sunday morning only 5 birds were on, the islands and and none were in the trees. Water was higher in the P-1 Pond than on the previous visits because of the heavy rains on Saturday night. The mud flats where the birds were feeding on Thursday and Friday were covered with water. The remaining birds were located in low shrubs and along the railroad fill north of the project site. After extensive examinations we were only able to locate 8 nests in the single rookery on Thursday. During our discussions Marty told me that this was the only rookery she had observed on the site during her study period. She was unaware of the rookeries discussed in the Mary Anderson letter. On Friday, under blue skies, I could not locate any nests in the areas identified on the maps included in the Mary Anderson letter. On Sunday I walked these areas again to be sure I had not missed the nest locations. I walked into additional areas with large trees to see if her map was slightly inaccurate or if the nests did not exist. I 2 photographed the trees where Mary Anderson identified rookeries 1 and 2 . These are included as Photos 6-12. When compared to the trees on the island that do support a rookery, it is evident that there are no nests in these trees. I also completed a photo log of the remaining large trees north of the pond that have been flagged for preservation. These are identified on map 1 and in photos 13- 20. The area identified as rookery 2 is used by birds as a fly-in and perch area. Birds sit in three large trees prior to flying into the rookery or when disturbed. The cluster of three large trees near the inlet of the slough and the natural area appears to have limited interest to the birds. This could be due to their proximity to the clearing south of the slough, however this does not appear to be the reason as there are more trees between them and the clearing than there is between the rookery and the clearing. A close examination of these trees failed to show any whitewash or other signs of extended or intensive use of these trees (Photo 21) . The trees used by the birds for perching and identified as rookery 2 by Mary Anderson were further examined and the ground beneath them searched for evidence of a destroyed rookery. There was no whitewash or remnants of old nests either on the ground or in the trees (Photos 22-25) . Had there been the number of nests in this area for three years the ground and the tree limbs would have been stained white. Her rookery 1 area was examined in the same manner (Photos 26-and 27) . The areas below the reported rookeries have no physical evidence of nesting ever occurring. White wash staining from three years of nesting would be obvious. Even if the nest had been deserted for 1 or more years the stain would remain on the understory vegetation. There is no evidence of old nests in the trees as can be observed from the photo documentation of the reported nest trees (Photos 6-12 and 22-25) . I was unable to locate more than the single rookery which consists of 8 nests. Heron feeding activity or evidence of other uses was monitored for the natural area extending from the rookery area of the pond east to Nanches Ave. SE. This area is a drainage swale that is heavily overgrown with Himalayan blackberry. Except at the northwest 50 feet, next to the pond, there is no mudflat or hunting area for herons. The slough bank vegetation does not support mice or other non-water forms of food. During the three days in January and during five other visits to the site, during vegetative studies no heron were seen using the slough. There are no major cottonwood trees along the bank which are used as perch areas or have the potential to become rookery trees. Disturbance During my three visits I , and Marty Murphy on Thursday, moved about beneath the birds. They did not respond negatively until we left the vehicles and walked close. They were much more alarmed when they were flushed from the islands in the pond than when disturbed while in the trees. On Thursday and again on Sunday there were 4X4 pickups driving in the mud along the road on the south side of the pond. The birds did not respond to this activity. In January 1986 I monitored a rookery that is located within 50 feet of a railroad spur and less than 150 feet from a warehouse with truck docks in full view of the nests. The opposite side of the rookery faces a golf course. This nest is located near Bybee Lake in northern 3 Portland, Oregon. During and after construction of the warehouse, during draining and grading a marsh for a golf course and after locating a switching spur on the railroad, all within 150 feet of the nests, the colony maintained its integrity (18 nests in 9 trees smaller in size and stature than those at Black River; Joe Pesek, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland Office) . I have no idea when the warehouse was constructed, however there were no conditions in any permits required that would have protected the rookery. I discussed conditions of the site, the proposed clearing and grading activities and the possible disturbances of the birds with Terrance Wahl , a recognized expert in ornithology to insure that my impressions were correct. I also had an opportunity to read about a heron rookery in Thurston County from an interview with Jack Davis of the Black Hills Audubon Society facing similar conditions and to relate his concerns about timing of disturbance and its effects on the rookery. My discussion with Terrance Wahl was related to nest disturbance, and the response of birds to disturbance at different times of the breeding/nesting season. His experience indicates that birds are more prone to disturbance during the brooding, egg hatching and early young rearing than in earlier or later periods in the season. In a newspaper interview, Daily Olympian, Jack Davis stated that the critical nesting period in western Washington was from early March to mid June. After my three visits to the site, and using the data supplied by Marty Murphy about the breeding activities of this rookery, data received from discussions with bird expert Terrance Wahl and report of Jack Davis, and my experience with great-blue heron, I have developed a set of criteria which I believe will protect the rookery from the clearing and grading activities south of the P-1 Pond and the natural area. They are: 1. Restrict all activities within the building 16 and 17 areas from March 1 until after early fledging, approximately June 1-15. (Map 2) . This restricts activity from an area approximately 900 feet, both east and south from the rookery and a minimum of 350 feet from the mudflat feeding area in the P-1 pond.- . This exclusion is only for clearing, particularly tree falling, and grading activities. 2. Limit grading activities that will create excessive sediment discharge into the pond during the nesting and brood rearing seasons, approximately March 1 to the end of the rainy season or approximately J4ne_ 1..-15, which ever is earliest. These birds appear to rely heavily on_a fish based diet. Excessive sedimentation of the mudflats and shallow waters could affect the prey base. This will limit work in the natural area to the uplands adjacent to the drainage ditch. It is my opinion that these limitations would provide an adequate physical buffer, because of distance and the vegetative cover , between clearing and grading activities and the rookery between the early stages of egg laying and the later stages of brood rearing. I do not feel that restrictions on grading and clearing activities need to be extended beyond these distances. Much of the activity proposed is of equal or 4 greater distance from the rookery than the existing construction on the Sewage Treatment Plant. Activities on the plant did not discourage the birds from returning to the site and have not interfered with early nest preparation and pair bonding. It is my suggestion that the existing dirt road leading from S.W. Oakdale Ave. to the rookery be barricaded with an informational sign asking people to please respect the needs of the birds. Sincer , A4g, R.L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist Independent Ecological Services attachments: 4 Map 1 Map 2 • Personal experience resume Bird list • • Personal Experience; great-blue heron R.L. "Rex" Van Wormer Senior Biologist Independent Ecological Services My personal experience extends to 1957-58 when I was a student assistant for the Nebraska Department of Parks Forestation and Wildlife working on Loop River rookeries in central Nebraska. Efforts were made to move the direction of expansion of the rookery as well as treat a disease outbreak. The disease was believed to be caused by the concentration of birds during the summer. Efforts were made to move the birds to a wider nesting area. Nest platform work and disturbance was continuous during much of one summer breeding season. The birds tended to respond negatively and abandon nests more frequently during the pre- egg laying and hatching periods. Once the young were hatched the birds were difficult to move. Efforts to move the rookery were marginally successful. From 1968-72 I was a wildlife biologist on the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge complex in northern California/southern Oregon. One of my responsibilities was the on-going banding programs on four great-blue heron rookeries as well as five other species of closely related birds. These birds were nesting in dense colonies on the ground. Because of other management activities men and boats came in contact with these colonies during the nesting and rearing periods. The only evidence of nest loss was when predatory animals destroyed nests or when some men broke up a rookery. In all instances the birds continued to set the undisturbed nests and returned to the rookery the following years. Evidence of nest desertion in this area and the Malhuer National Refuge indicates that loss of an adequate food source may be more of a cause of rookery desertion than nest disturbance. From 1972-1976 as management biologist for the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge I was responsible for a large rookery on Long Island in Willapa Bay and for a second rookery south of Puget Island in the Columbia River. The Long Island rookery was isolated but had not grown for ten years. During my tenure the rookery remained stable but did not grow even though there were frequently over 250 heron feeding on the mudflats in the Bay during winter months. The rookery in the Columbia River had an active red-tailed hawk nest in a large fir tree in the center of the rookery. They co-existed for the four year I was there. In 1979 I walked and inventoried the Black River black cottonwood forest encompassed in the Black River Corporate Park site. During that time there were heron on the area and nests in the trees on the island. The major difference between now from 1979 is the extensive hunting activity that took place on the edge of the golf course in 1979. This loss of a short grass area which supported frogs, snakes and mice may have been the source of food that created the optimum conditions necessary to start heron to nesting in this area. Early nesting also appears to have been related to the creation of the P-1 pond, the mud flats and isolating trees on the small island. 6 • ,.. J. 401141! '..��. {.fin. tt• '424t a` r i!.O ' Fit 9 1 !' t t 1%(S'Y �{ • a F ti t; Photo 1: Black River,P-1 Pond great-blue heron rookery. Note nests in tall trees in the center of the photo. Photo taken from trail south of P-1 pond looking northeast. Trees behind and to the right of nests are areas identified by Mary Anderson as rookeries 1 and 2. 7 f E , 1, /•• , i l .3 ri /- , !`. ..�. /1�w/ -011S5�i 'Z,,fYEryr��{S t�`y. '� 4Ie�./�" --• ..,•,.4 ti 444/1 Ili.lii7,:!..,,*,..not.;4;e ;•01F v: 0,,' .•• --..: ti ;:-:‘!'0'-•- 4•\\A! isiV i‘t/i1:4A'i• A 4rey„..,ie., - _ ,,. .„ "4,rA --;. , %, ' 4'%:!....)/%- .•• '... ,,,_. or 41 IN 7 411,71,,.4,pit.? r . -- , " ,.'/ i t •417etk 1 t.9.. 4,..,..st. At ,/•,.,,'",.. it._ ,-AFfrAt....‘ S• ''r or 1 It : iA.P.*-r• /7,- .,:c VC ; e+ 14 14, y`7 ] .� . 0 {',' s 'w s ,} 1.•E,„j�s >y,b: � " `,dTt ^� r•4E�a:,' if�J r, Photo 2: Crown of rookery tree with birds using nests. j. jy:�. 'r `-k a` _ . .°:-tea 1,-.7•a F77--rRaT;,,7.7_ .''....;',,:.. t311- I.•?4,.: ,�^ rir 2 ' ;"l .f:.,•a. i't,�k; - •;ti:-" -.;.�:+'i:<s:2 r'ai -,1 p:i.'r:]-- ':$ r`e:y'w_`�. _F ,�•, ::G.7d ,•H -: 1 -x;:4:kj:,ry` .tom :.-•''1 d.%:•^`'Jr" '�'. :q-rv�•,�`•.�>>:'5c ,::�+. ,.6,�•'`_ ._°.7 '.;2��) ;_`i::;,--t,;,;._',.-:A.rain.:;"C,tr-'-? - '.'ki.,,,'.x R � ` '4N. ^L.i',r,�-t1', .u*:'4,S' 4:• }�, �'� .t j,",- �`y :'>r•`,:-';: :3.-: :. .t,`:.�.. -a+ t�:.c.'_yy � n.y°,y"' ft,.,.}a>�p..Y�-��• �^ r?ne �.x._< M.. ,..: •"n ,.i'p �N.,a l+•^.:^r j}:.�. 1:r,_ .r5j�y:::�:?yi::•. it J i , ;, -, .�:;,ti i1 , �+ i . ° `4 tr r y ' '• -,:; rim .1 'il....1% .. .A!t.r ib 01 ' . • . •- - . 4 : •,4, ,34 : 44,4;.,,,,,..)4;4...1-,S,i - ....:-..v,.1- • -. ,;,,,,- ,,,.:2,-..---;:-.-., .1 ,Iii'-f. At ,/ t',4,Wit'A Ere..yilil irr': ,,4,..1.!,;,- ,,- i-,4 -'''- ,t` -::,,,,,, •-,:-.,.-.:. - .: 4fik \ '‘ 're'.•''''' 'F it.Or;.4 A Vili '120r.., ,A, 1,, •••;,,& , r•oo•sitzp-Zgr- -. r',.- -_-:- - , le •a ' 4 l Mj -4 • • . , • .i.4. . Valli '.-S\4" s yid / 11�} 17 1; r ray � �i„ �S.` • '. ` 4� �+ a¢ ,, ,.t : -4�.ti`�,'. c"yL`-1_ .�r :�' • ' .L'.r.•. r ems! Photo 3: Closer view of birds using rookery: Note how visible nests and birds are. 8 • . 1 . . ',- , 1 f t ' if t i s, I, • + , , ,. ":iti4 ' ‘P;10;4' i'l' •• ' 1 ' ''' , ! . .4 f; :•411vi?417 0 . ,i'l„ , 1‘44 ,/ /4'14 .t.lig •',..;\qt.,.4,tv,,7N',401•Y:,,,.i•4.',11, 44',:iiti4SiritiiiiriUr/1 '' ' - , #„.t.,'It Klitir.t?, '..., •pi,it,,,;-4,,A , 4,tx, eli .0- t,ft,4 y',/, ' f i •,-,1\ ,,,,,,wa,.. li,O.N y.,t f,k,:41,4,.i v.; .p. , /Is Li,E-.-0,=', ,, , ' -I'VI.n1.-Y.'1 4 re." ilra?,.,-,,, .ii• ,.• -;:.;,4,:%, .s`O.iilehr l'rAtijs 40..-1 p ,il.v 5e....1,,,,,"_, • • .,,,•,,,,,.:..•...',,,,,,....t..,.r,;.1, ,.;s.-1.sr ft ,..iti ,,,,,,-. .7,- J —,c.,/2 ,„.,. N.,,o4r,61."I• p7-..7 ' .:%. ' ----.all"' -'' ttr.• i P•••'A': ...,..-.-.."..i l'av 4 x• -*Ya's Or, .I- i'i'•""4.' 4,, g„,t ,47, -e,,.,,:!.c.,-.;;-,:. ..-N.'TIC r,f? • 4r -4 1 44 if s44;it.''.‘,'1.1"IVAltkfirti TIVi!r i'APiii• ,raki,, ,ir 1! '';aPt°I:let I sl~..:;7's*••-:4tis'res.A`b 10.1 / Aga? ___ . , 's: Ci.: .;.:;IA gr-'4::%-'4'1 -- -.0,l'1 ' • IrOrpt• - - I a' . 0 fP.4,'•Alk/ if, 1st- XI ./;1'i;p,',... elo.026"mr in'i/0.7"r• AP"- fr. tok ....., i ., ,:4 •itl*--.N. ,, - . . _iizt hk •Ae , _re.- --‘,.._ • _ : . ::...ie..,,, , , .;,.....1,0, , r ::-• -.4.4--,K47 i ,, .I 24,,.,.....1,•,....4.1 , , 1 mgr.. A A .I 1'4 •-,,,-,,,!•,,,0., ..' t/i//‘. , k •Ra i s,..„. Ili . V ,..-'4trit - ..' i 1 'f off "'I;'il far.',.Pr;•••-•.".".'f.,--.:;.,_"1 0:0441/17%..iirerl..14*.:."ST4V .-' ' ',i - '.. 1 i.14 tir ;-...-,11:6,16 kip, (4,••gig-OP.-J.4e ,l&k•-,.-Y-% - . - ,_ - I, ;ipx- 04,1.,,....„ ..-.. ,s. AA 00; ••rat,..". . t ..,r ft ;41:1:1*. s it ""4146V.••••il•g•4".14$ •••b_livrA.:----,,-„„-felrw-t- • ,----',---- . ,, t - (..e. ...: •-;f1,..-- elf vio. •i've,.7. -"ktirlitr-- itift-1.-4r.7- --.'-., -0-r..- _ 1 . 11'.1 . 40'.il .m‘-•, ‘.-r./ Y.1• ..' '• - .00- , -4 4..... .. ......_x, Photo 4: Pair bonding in nests. • i . 1 • ' ..,1 1: ,i/ 4 ''', I 7 ‘.....i • V i k' c, ' • 1 , ' '• • s,Vt1.7t It ih ..s .\If' t/ 4 t A ' I,•• . , - , • , .. \k ',\ ‘,` iili / , 1 `. , . , • i) \--twdwz. N!' 'cl -..' . • „PIT.44 - \ ,„ ,411 ,-4,\i k „-- %If 4./,• —, i ' , • .4.,- - k,i'-' • A.., ‘,1,Air ,,.. /.. 1 i-. rtii; \ 5,424- .t i t4.4i, ., -.___, ., .- __....,„„„, f 6 . •, Alik,„41/4.Y-, -‘4 '.. -; ' ,......, . . , ..,.. W ' ... 4;4. 09tp-o -clr400- ,.. ,:0.1 . 16. , , . ,- `i!s<dter.-14,16.141:4:- I Al •.?; i.Al .f,.1 '..'• , • .., . l'6" ` gf 1014#/t1IP iel l .).., k kt =11 ..i. ‘ , • ' 4 .'' t••• • .- , . ,,,, s 44,,111Acip \IIPi 's. ? . ‘r t 7'-.• ? .-, ..../.../ -.. . i ' dr:V;(1.'411AI).-,$. 11, T. •ff. , ,,,,-•40,40111".• -_. 'i • ' /*Aillit=:W4A, Irsi.'slitii„-,- eh, 4...fr Ar'reirlio;_tif.-v'- .N_ ' 0 an0P „a, ,7•• ••-ss'- / 1 ; ..... • ' fi tit. ' jlr's_0-.:114.--7?.,..4,,,,k: ; .7...,,- -; 4. 4 • r ..,4 r - e, ••..• • - - ,„,.1,PA.pr. rUli,lbzeWitt p I ''-411.,42filit .r' ' ‘' 1 IR 1%Tgth,ft.-%.k - I it -.0% -..'•-•,-- I toloo;ti: -- A74.6 ., Nip.,• , „ .... , , ,Photo 5: Rookery showing concentration of nests to one tree. 9 1 utiT+, ' F;1 .' ;°a .; V t�' t ,..4 1, '. -"wske• i '19:MI01Y" ' re qp,,,,,,,,. ..., , - . ti ` *a$f 71:j. 1‘1',' ;1,tirft.:4_41!•;15'• \\ r *wk.N:44 r .,4 �� t �.L 4 `.- 1 r rr': j ': Photo 6 : Tree northeast of .:s.•,.•• 'ett3' ...P,''��1: ,.- �` p"":44,V4'.,, Alik ^�3 r;: rookery: rookery 2 r , JI,, .'t .ice 47!4i1 - � Z T x' �' -'� i��t ` ` in Anderson letter. ' P ,t+ ;;. ?.Ay1, ,ti Note absence of nests. Heron using tree for perch. __ s \bit `,L .j f t ''''''' -' '4 1 1)1 , ji ‘1,t ;`,.\\I erit \ :lit i „ , ' t ‘ t . 1 ••' i,X, * . ..,i,li ..t.ii, , ‘ .. , . , ,,,,.....,,,, s .,ii., ,,. .,,, .... ,., , . 1,., ,,,, ,.f it / " r f'r Photo 7:Tree identified as ti,.• 1�f��w' ' ' IP =iy� �` ,, part of rookery 2: ! f- A t' : , ; N Note perched heron ‘ j „ n' ' '" but no nests. •, � ,1� �,. " 1I jr �/_ $ .i• - A-7AM* , i` N.., '� x �AIlt : j II- � �._. �! 'mot .4 • V. ''—'''i . .:" �` .,,.- . .orb ; „. v. ,:z 10 • 4411.'N )/'-r- • .rf :.:- i I. Y� s �. .. ,I; ' 2 N' * --,;:--14.ii:IVIO .4‘..f. 7' ''' lit• s i=y''' Photo 8 ; Island rookery with M. Anderson .. . ;. ,,„, - _ - _ :•1, rookery 2 trees ""`_- in background. Note lack of nests. < j i 7 r I I� i l r ;)::� 0"4�F ..,:kie -•', ,,•,/ !- ', , ' ...'i-;44P t,..!,,: k ,, ,4 4 ..,), -. ,-.. . d .4 `' 'it: .. ?� !_ • , 11 - .ax, e..i. f- ,;.,, - - ----.; -1411„,,,,,,v.,1%:;i-,ifiti, oxicki,-,,,..-f,; t,,..'1,;..14.-.,'„),:-...^- i s :X.-.4-5. •?‘"t;;i."':1' li, M 4 tilv,\ ; I S 4,:\,,,.1 4 i• *Y 1 1 y 1I l i t , t Photo 9: Cottonwood at i -( ; f i ; > - ' u r I confluence of '' ��" �t' pond and natural D, , } , i area; looking NE. :..- .... r, ,', r. ' 4`, wit,: ..r+ 4 , l `Note absence of i � ^birds or nests. N � 13 � (4 I.+_ r M • ; . f ` 'er ; F,.r �r • ,i E. •, .. r i/l, is,wit 5 '- 11 . ' 1 . I 1 ' i •1,‘ .‘:• 'I '; 11 4i•.7 A ,•4 , I •• , '' • \ At • . , A. '2\\C' :'f •11(' ' ‘1 • .• .1 )• • , , • 1‘ ) \• , , / 4(1 • 1 J ' , •i ,, 4 'AA, • 6, 'ili '" • .v•Z" 4.i 7 ' isvt, 1 ., , 1.... -7)A.• t, 11 ' .,,.,.,!lit'..1 .„4: ••,,,o••ip.• A41pi. i ' \ Itt,'41.,• 7,:..P.ItNiti4sii if ..t,t, ::"•,f.9 et.ct'.',4, ,' .,.‘i .,', .!J.A.\;'F1.6..01.V ieritj 1'4 11;,fiT.A.',,..i,;"•riV i'.V,14t;til-4 '-...,,it;;1;x L 4 .• ,i,'.i .. 44'it'i,''.,,,f":"'W C.1.•Ci,..;,f t ?'1';• -":is.':' I'''. "'''.".. 1 f if.17.4';.' l ,81.4;. 4Vt..*1.,i L.•',1;'..-.$ )1 ':. 1'.." :t,,„'.• ,-1 !-, ,1 ti. %;. ';-1 r* 3--:'' 1, tZ -,- ' .,"••.1 -,t •, it'',;-1 4%t-- 6,..-, ..,...- I. ,, .4 4 4 4v s:;. ''. 4 . ,,"•,•1. P•,,(•••. , `..1 • ;• •• s.' • , ; 'Is 0.. 1' . • • . •" . ' -s.'14-,' . . • ,:lri•:` "P . ..t'.1.; '''),11)Pi•I`•/••;••;'' • ' r-} - i•1°114 ,I' , S •--yte.4,,,„,It.„. '•111:1 ' 1 ,,, -, s'".p,, ,,,,( 1,11:. .0 Li /0•1•' ' ...... ; ,-. • I,"4,& Photo 10 : East end of Forest 6,.. 1 . preserve at edge of , - , , M. Anderson rookery „ , - .. • ?:,;:. 2 . Note lack of nest . . ., . . . • activity in large :,• • ' • .•,- - . .- _.- tree. ...; . , -• ...4.1644444.......-....... .... ,... _ • - •„,...et.1.2.71-..... ......1149114-"-4 . „. '• .'nr.""`.....r : . . X •., ' - N • • •--7 al'- - •,t „ .. I `.. " ' '''...4- .--.....- ---'`- • ` ' ....a"...*,.....4: - . . ti,*1 F•i,,-•ie - .,----i,.-.7-%-....,. .--.., ,......-4-,• - .N.k , . '...: ',- , • \ , I A, 1 1 ,, 0 ..fri • ••••..k‘,14,, '11, • l' 1 ...A: '":41!..4,1 1iz . .. I ' i 1 I.., ...•..N' '-'sio. pill ' • !, ,11,ere•1 , . : ' „ 4Alert Y. t . ' '•'.' k,‘ ' ,, i 1 .'\... • 'y A•'' .11; k s •'14 1,‘,4_ /.9"• ',tA,-'t.”•.-i4:f;i',,,kOP r-t',s.2:t.1;-1-14,,.vA1°7".•,s(•k•`•3:...k......--: -;'I'.-,:'l./),fA••','' ,iN‘•:1.).\ ';.,•i,.tf,14-?,1Vl•-';•.,,-%_i,,:•.s--tJ,4tfV.'.11--.,,.-,Aa.fI.iP1..i.•,--1N:A,--e.'"."--:.lA1-b-g:-,..:Asr.;; •,'i',00r*-i;1j4t) ..-1.4t,---0'4*A44:• V_,.;•'.*V i,..Vsf;1*,i I.iI I.t'f•%fP.4Vr.Prfei'i-.ide I-t.jt:,/,:i.,'0f,,6.i-t.'I',i.;:"'.'il)'M:./,t 4""'e a•k!i1'-.-r4-.0ie,.;„'!sy ti,-/iI:44t.',"-6r1;i!'.-'O.,(::te*14/,,-.2-.f.0-.t4V-.-i.=.,01-W'w\4',V1V,-_.-,n7t1t)t,1 i-,i•,1,04:.:.o",:,,,'i,1 1 r,'.'t.,,i;f,,fet 014e„4;.,.4•,e,'J Vr/i..rX..•P,4..r-,•.,,f,0.,;2iV 4:-0,,')'..*•;.,4—•!541-;4•-';,1:1-•.•7,11•‘;'1---1-,/'-"•;1',s..'':1-A-*•,4_*.v;„3,Al4-1,'.'..:"--04 N.''-‘S..,.,l'.‘ti.A li‘,t l i1'.,.it l r,f.iFAdti f1 ff1l.'e-'.‘.'1fe•/1'A.4.,4'4.;.ii'it‘;'::.4_,w''•4_$Pc,,..A1I.0.-,..Y.0si t•,1;..lA.;,;..tit.i1wl:‘-:liitJ,`k.,.-'.:i:r.,,P.'i.f:,1i.,i.•1ir.-'l''- ii"•,.1i'.ti''./..1''4,-t,f,,-"m 4I'i',l',:9 r'L,c-il'-11,,'i•e,,rri 4rs.•7t,..-•,r?,f/r 1 s„,:i,,,,-r t-,--'','--:,'\--I,,L x I,-,'s',k-1,..‘'.-kI,ii.IF i.i11,•,,1 41,)),,`i t f i 11'4r 1 f i...ie,f(t,;,r,4'/,fid., ,? 7 i. •d 7_-,,I,•- -/ fi.1 & r/ 10i ,• , . . ,,,,:.-,-....-,:nli.--,-..,..,..r.,4...., ;-,i7--4,, I.-. .-44.0,,2,.... - v., /7-;',"4•••:i 7 .. '.'..'4' 4 P.'"., '. ' -•P ev.'-'11-%; AI i./. .•-" 1 C.-.V."-* •:-,-Itit,•-•-... ''''. .., rt-,;.t",;.'1.ii....",. ..-,. --•`,s';I i'',:'•:2"..../`'^'.7r•Pr---„Air.ir:` , ,,„ -. ..7,•-..- , . -0_,,,,,•;:„..••., .. •„.. . e :.f ras::,..-! . , 4 W .4.5'..i.:. .i-, . -,...ri-41-, ..,,, . ,.P14,-. I .......' . '.*r. 417:v340,41'V,4.;,'. • r.•4"..."-,. , , )/t fi'',"--,s ' - E.,. ..' •r:,..!•.firl cs „ ,..'',2-,.; '4..... - ' •.4-••.,:.0:•.,6,% ,....7 -.. '.ff••-, ;• .- ...,,,,.- .4.. ' ,, . •4,4 , yft .. •A.:...,•:7 ..:._.` , ,-. .4 t' , , '4., zilf I r• ,,.• • ',lb,.//,• e.-7.-...„1-4,0 • .....:,, - ‘...4"ti.:,•?t,..%-.. ,,-,- ,,A-': ',.t•, r:.• 'Y'`.te---,"--,- •','-'..." ", ..441L•to,,,,. • ,:•,f,,‘'• ‘10..);N•k1.- ,„":', ,- -: ' 1., •i;Irj! FP ;64-t-,',...i:• ,,'3,•-• ., -' I..P.. • 'i• 'I F.' -.'," •41;i '"'s''"'"i;•14 i -1CP..A V'i.g.,' ' . is.:: : . "1;•: 11 •••If;. '•11 1 r 0 0 ' 1.4 .. ;"- •4 1.--,,Ai X A' ...1-:;'.•Kt.' 4 --'•••V 1' •“is • : 1 fits•• •:, •. •.;:L . ''• ..7:".'•/'t Is'' . 's,t ''"- lie 4310 1 ;a"k t 'i b ,.;i,..„--- la—.g-'!2 $ o f -;.‘ •i •,. ef,,•• • .P. ' , • 4 --1: . P:r,..••,'r R.-...,a i • 3. -4-;•4.f....I: ..•••V ,4,! ' • ;P 4;..'''• S '1 ) .. ''. .4.".;,....-, -a i ,i,7• . ...,., P.,9.),t I.s....= .,,n•.,t , 0, ,..lii , -.i)'.., ?J',1,rl, I-Alg:17, • j .4...s i s ', : .t, ;,-I.• ' : w s. - ..-4- - 1t .4.--1 ,.. •••• '• • •,. . .." •:-.: v..1.7: .',..,.• #.....t.4.c, 44•••••• 1 't 4,t..t1,:::2" •••;4, i.1, I•,... ,: •111 r• , :4 ....'''"--* f il,,0•,..:41* s le•;:-...i.:41,-- t;.* ). ,- , "• ,,.. . ,• 1, ••••-,• .•,•A' •.'"•.t.,.elkee•-)'''.,- , .. - .•- --; t-.I •.:;4. •,, .1 ) 1 ilt .,-. •)) - ...74 .5,1 -......••, 1 e, ,.., .• .; ., ..'e‘'••:. t •;•-4..; • .4 ' ^ .:•,,.1., .4.‘ ;1..1 tr.,,,,,,„•5,.. ...;„. --, ..„ •.. ......,:•.1.7".; ,'.. • i es. .t i.f 0 ( i ( ':. i ii%''.. ;Ai t '4.5:• N.':/ ...4'.,,f •t. I' ,,f 1; , ' . s 1. ",?.‘ ..rr •..-,.r-1..,00.- i- . .,'..• ju, '';-:4;;; 1,1 11.:.1 ti4 !, 1 ,i• 4 fii='-6a7s l'„t. --..c!• ; e.''. .1-',"xls '''.• \ ‘'ell W ' ,‘i ' ":* •:"...".. sr: . :"1615:•:;11., Is' I .• '. 1 •• ' t..".,:' * !. 'j Pr lg. ' ' ' . r'i r i:te.4 - -1-1"::rs ; `•,17 4.',,,Ny 1:- `-. ,..4L4 '- .., :'.4.:-::l:Te4..r,;4;,•F,-.;...,s-..,.".4,u..,sv1.17,,t ,'•AI I-lti'fi.;..,,.i00!?i sii,.1p0,.: .Ii1. ,'I 4 I1,1 •.j4!4... ,4:1-..:0',4',.,,.,..r...-C.-., i1 ,•.•v‘t.•4,.,71.•.;, )„,. .;,k.- 1;--:' ".l'! .-4...7`4. ,;-,h,,.. 4••..`%,:; 11 •-,-...:.4.•0,.*,::.-4,...',6•.•.!4:4i-.4-;-•-,,-,.p4.•,..,'-.-.....1z1-:•..,4111,--;* .'.'..;,1•'..•-ifvfr• ,gtt.'-:a.l 1i-f-t,._e.•-,.•.'"•...=-,.•,t. •.:' `.. :=`,. \,-- -,--0,--.. 4 '• 1 '1' Photo 11: Large trees at west end of forest preserve in area of M. Anderson rookery 1 . 12 a-C,•.s ,k, � 1 \ i•`tiIt:`1 r , � 1.' _ :,: .1.. '-z�Z� „��NW of r• ;:; ‘ PPVIikicii74.. I' ‘; },V, '• i , t‘•• .....•:7. ,. ='''., ; ....". ? '..A•!`.:.A....4 f!:=.•.,. k ' .11, .,,l'f&',li i.10 ''.11 ' • ' ..'‘Cillif' .4$4-.-t % y*.N 0•:1'.`,*.A.•..•!:7.-. ia`� �fiY,, ri r1f it} �¢j \r Y�1'I '.„. r 6.. c.. ,L.,;, 4\ i .T r fir 1+'+:v_1h�'A.74 e.Z•��tYt''��.L• tft 5+@ %1, 4 ,-i• i ,W Y�•-$ ( .. `1.1 • "1.1 r ..:' n! . 1 , • , .+ ' , + yam! Photo 12 : Trees at west end of forest preserve in M. Anderson identified rookery 1 area. Note lack of nests. 1 1 \ . , r4 ' ` i`.'Li r. ; ^, .•lAt 1, •II;1":ar .• p�'4./ , . q.rti,=-• ~ .'t�+, {`f~i 0 lei :4-f 'I LR c��`,.,-� ,1 \I I..•i: its, • ,r.#,1. r ' ,,, P.r o �!�'i• .! F es¢_..+.'I:k"f Photo 13. Large tree #1 on ;�q %.,;•atf,',y' - •Nanches Ave. - : <'.`is;.; ;a ; �: 0►� '.n".1,`.), Pftlly;` +I'.fotT} ' y ` y.'1 !^Vl i'''.fa ;.' 1 1 .fit`',, ', k.A.,?T.t.3,\''''.jr t(I-; '''.5 P'....i..:. '.--, - .' :rri7itt.*-4.4.,`.,t'-' 11 r77111111I' Ps t t ' '{,I. '' !'liar.t H`t ' 13Tl!l'}I \1 ^;.i t '• :• fit''=.,: .� '3'i` , r , , s x ., . 13 . . • .. • . ) • - - , • . . . • . , . •-: ' ),•, , . •4 I.,,. ••v,i 11 '• ' • , . . '• ' ' • ' kl .iir,:..4!.i . 11.: . to,i., -, i . . ( k• ,.. ..,.. . ,.•,, .,...-.\. v.,i,:. .4 ,,,), ,-, , . .. kl .• i ,. .... : . I ••, • ., ••,, .„., .1,11,t,, ....:‘,-..to)..t 0,.....,:. . .,. , . .,•• •••••••• ,4,,,,,, ,---\\.\,,,,, 4, Vi) ) ..,.....„...;• •' : -'...v..1-`11';‘-vz'i,'t 4;‘::1"),P1.'1%; 'el' -• .,,,,!...'. • -V,k`!..::.-- i.t.N.,.. .• ---•-‘;,''.„-.',..-:••\.;,-'-',.•-,•„t--,-,z,--v,-.-.--.;.o-':,-4-,,..v:-,.4:-s--'--..',t,:'..•4.•'„•i'`,•',•.,-.•'..,`-.,;.::•.!'..-:,'•?'=".-:,.-•:,".:.-•,.-4-•;-,.1-.,:-si.-,:.7i`,--A.,--;".A,',.V,,!',A4,.i;4I,',.()t..i,4.4i./.1t.t,,r,,.:•,e..,,1•i,-'•-••,E-9•f•Li.V I'.i::r•,h'--.. e.,;...,.'-',-1-•;,1'',,.''.‘.-'-`.-.-e.2,..:"---0-'--,:`6-•"-7.•-• •_ :,„. ••-••- ,-,;-•t.. ' , 4A ,i, tfiY1?' - ,_ . :.. , 20 .• • „ -- i ), "7.7•:•:,.. -1 ...•- .;s:•/,,.•-'!,....•AV,"l'5-ila. t% .4‘.i 1. i,,Valf--------4,:h..:.' "•...• \.,: ..-... . --:':- 7477.•:;W..:ii?.4,707,. ''I qv: -,,.-.: . ---.-- , _,.,-.6.• ',.- • - -.:..,,,,,,,-,:i........,,. m .....-a I :-_,?!,-,..z.-i..e...,, k.-.:.. .• 41 ' :•'•:.• •-!..t. 1-••`',••14:1,04."•9?,...?"':VZ.1 w... •Ii7A10, 7,•,'": ; ' • I NI Photo 14: Ave.eSouth 2 on of i :,...-,-:-.,,..4.:.4.•-....,A=ffir-7-,1 vii? , . "..s--- a nches 0road. 9;..• .-17--_--;;;:exyci.- fr,i.,:.--1r1,i, :....--5-,---e4li:"./-- ,..i,, :•,.^.•/".• *-kti.6. 't-4-i.41's t'•-' 5.-- `,Wilk '''.\- ',' N se......,...,„....„.001,..._,,, hi.,:•,t -•.19, A :-.•••.% ir'-•••-• .- .,"`• •ev,••• 1!.....tV.I.,,„.:;.... ,, ,,.. ,..%- • , ...fh ,•..-• .-......1...„• 0.... ,, -- - •;fip • ' r,.. .,,,,,-re,,,,,A,A1, ii,..h. ,,,-. ,•...„‹w",.'""--.,-,:.-,,,.."&it,11, , . -'•- --....• • .ft,t, . ',,,,.2,-6:;,;;;Vit :611..i '!,'; '''-i s'.' "*....aili:..' .41...rIti',; . r1--r,-,`,. .,-, wh,-.-i,--,at. ..,.' -•-•_-,-,,.. .,,.....,....„.,:i.e,..-.:„.-A ,..,;,,r,",,!1;•,.. r :P..!;: 411- 1'4:1 M-60.?• ": ' . A:.•'= ":..`;:24t;iibrzt.'iliSt,' "•';kttiej,4.i .•,.0 ,..'. .. ''.'- 1'iVi''',,,S.!'.f,•4•2,,,.Zt,Z4..%44', :.:'- Niklixio,-,.:',•'l'.;:g-%-:, t•f;.1.,,t1 :.;: .'.: .1.i.: .PI'[''.A ..1,..4.1'41,0-•••••••••;:•:••7:- ' ,,..\‘)1.!?44.•V...' :1•••\'‘...1. -...•^L:7: , . 'A ii,,st-‘,,A.,:s! ..-.--,,„1-..--s:,,,?-,.-.w 1.,,T,t.-i.,,,,.,::,,, • ,-:-...,- e-,......::,.. i., .P.,}...a klk, 1.., .I.'..,:Y.,.,fe.let,..;!,4 5'!;,•'..N.1 .4, .,,,.. •.• .-;•• .rii ....,4.,.,.4.fi' ..s.. .:a.,u, t.i.AN,, ,, , ...1..,,,,:,,,,e;. ,1.L . . ' 1.A't'ki',•‘.4 1 49.../ ..::*..+.1‘'0 ' .:li,t1tt,.!.A'. . '•'iiV:.'• . • '':',..Z 1, , A.4.0.7,ce...,,:,.1,,,;?...4,6, 4,-:":11*. 4: -1,': ',I'M' ".•'-'4,1';:'.. • . ,„..... - fift;4--..---*.-`:',4'..1 i,V.v':-.-- . - .•i: - ','• •- • ,-...., . f ina,, •••-,„-• ,...4:04 V,r,•4•4+...•• .'1. •,y1„,, „..74 ii • , ,,, .'%..,'It 1,',,A,••,,,,,„Y_....4,. „71,`.,,..1•-• kiViika., jif •••I .6•k• la l'-‘' , • "- . ..... ?..4.. I f4• 1p:-•7‘,•,,, ',...1••• 4''':. s, - • • ' . • ' • • A ''...•: 'Vii't: : - : '' 'At: ":,..* •,.. .; . ..,., k\i'lk.'A.. 1 - ' .a F,..$,.,ki.• , ..! -•,i; ,r: -_c- - .-,:f.....-f,,,, .. i, Id. ....;‘,Tfrios 40,•... 11..,1‘ \ •'• .-1.....4,. -fo •,54,4, . ..j' .k.•.l'-'\ ----,,e,,-.....4,,14.:.E.: IN.,.%'.'itAY f':;:1,,7 . ,... ,,,: N-i ,i& ,...... ,P-..;4.41. S.•b.-,z:,1 A t"'..,-L.ta:',„,,",- • . - -, .• -1', 'Alb .o. -=',A0.1 i-k.',01,',..4 1,1 (..:1,,.:0...N.' ...., ... . . •• . t%-. 't,'''Nt. ilV\I p-,...m‘p,,i,'6 if.'A ir \i'el,41*, " • . '.,, 'I? 'I•f, -•,,... ,o,....4'i,+,,klei-y,•:. !),,,,•1'•a. 1,k,e.t= f.-.1.! -. --.,,, :.7i,,,e,','. .0,1%.7.,.*".-tit-, f&.,,toKr'•;,...,:!".',7.'$.,f. !.!EY,f7-075.:',--.. .- .;.1• . ...4„,k\Vd\Azi... \`-:;,;-•-,'-'4: Ze'lkft4.:4,: Lir ''it• • ..-.:4----4.1:,..!., . -, • , .. Vkil'iz..T. i.i;,!i; .,04 is, •-,,,I.::4 0.: .;i..../7,..--. . .., '''' .3.:\v. # : . .•,;ft,.,: ...•', crg;011 II ',..i,'` ‘,14: r. r?-1••• -0.,r;••- Photo 15: Tree #3. - -•7..*;-'',7-..•.!.;.;• ..4,30.-:-,,-....._ .,. :,•,.: -.1.4 -,.-, •.4 ,.••' c J.le„:11•......4%.V. . ; •- west of Nanches 7.illiw"1".-.:k7-:•:',;ill*i;--k}::1-':-,1::::1 -7..t.1;,,,.. it.).s,„•i th....;,...-,,,..*.s.,- ;:: ,•,.. :,•t, -:4 e Ai, • r "!.•.,'" .'.... 'ef,14 j. r.;1 b •12'1 ''' •••••i-r- •F : in development area. t,...,-..., t s.„•:,.Az i; - •....:1., "...ig• . : , - .11.-i-g: s,,!...:::z_ k'rea 1‘ ,;, 14,‘..., ',;...Zi•.). Alip,,s...,,Itk i. • ,- ... ••. ,ip.1,7., ,. f...1, ,-... I i, ig.•,.., ..,401-.4...,n3 ' ,r1.6 •01,--...*(4,..,s.e.,..--s-, l: s P.-• 'li i :t• 4 •-",...--trt,- ''," .`•:'i. ..• ..•-' '17-011rAi• 1, M :i€ 11.*i t.' '''IZ. $•.--,".',, . ,''. ' • .• yztt :.,4,..' ' ,.•••k -,: f.t.... • - • ..2; iNt ,&.4,?. 44,100iN,, v k4 ;, ' r' ,,, 4.•, .',.'"-,,,:a -. .,---..:, i<-1A. i -,w .yk.. k r,kt, .: „•,.#_I.1.,,• 4.:.., .4.„ , . ,...( "ttll•,,...."0-941.4.:11:011%...1 Ilk, , I ..- It•.1: qa•• . . #.* e..::4:i .., t, =, • ...--tr'..i• -:':• :'0'0'1'4,4.1,,,\‘`,1-44tP2iii °I.>•-!:. 3' 7tv,tiofit'...1.... -.''. . ,..,..-q:-• ,,,- e•..•:^e.',....‘ it t 1 fr •., : • 1,!. r e.i*,..,,df:•-•`',' .'', :.°-, 't• *s.'e qe,I • 1 ' • 4' lipl: A' •••1.` . - Is_wft•-s:. .f..). fj,:. '-i,1 * ,,,‘ —*..' ) " ' •„t- .., II t • •••' „•,-1.:• ,:,:ja,,:, . 1•4. -'-,-., ,,„!, .,,,.1. 41. i...4.1 t".•„ I 14, , !,j•,....,.. '• ...,`ft. ;),*, t ••ir J :.ii 1 ••eN . qj !t,f•. ;.1 I y.• ,,..,, i,' '' . •i 't : A•A I." i . . . . • 14 • . • ) • . •-k • .r i I 7• 1 . • . , \I ,'' ' .•1... ••- i 1..• • 4% )1 i ' r•1 .• ' ' ., .• N, I • ' :6 • 3 -1, . 4,tr A.%). i• ,0 ita.s..lir` -• 4.-l',',, t 7 V fit..4.2,,I07 0 ' \ . :::.1 , . r- ', : ••‘,/,,,,4'fig.A . ..,.-\;();•,,..74,r,i,s. ,...:4 Ills 71 it ,,,,.. a A•40.-A•1 ,-• J. • A'fregiliti Ittc.7 ,A4 znqi s- - • . 011, ,,,'.-4-:'. 'ro:/„••-.-I V/e4/44.` 4'' 4. • r •• .•p ./ATTI if i '•I i ...;-..'IL . - ... • -S''a• 't, i. 1 . 1 k'91. 1.71:0',. ....,14....-..q •.'•1 At A' - ' 4 fifl-V, - , , ; ,-1-'...'„ i',4.' .., It k A 2 :••1 'ri''‘;'*".. " '0 4*I'S ptte, •"'I.-Z.4 A, .:,...z • A, •:----,, ....,. s,.?* A-,-;,:lp,,...;it:t i.,‘ .-• 4:1(hiy,,, %`-f' •'' „if,,,,-i -1,1 1,-gra,,i'f.:', „.` --- ---1- ;4,4'e.- itx,.'? / 4.rt tor, ' liti "•r• ..• :,••,bt,4:4,7?-r, r ,f....,...: .:,...eg...,., ,,c,/ .4. ...,„• „.: , ...,,,.. ..,! -..,,,.,4,-40 . 3 ;r1 ki,...Y.0,:: , q //1 .ti '.L`Ft 12;; ?k 1 aieg7,--.2-..ssa 1.‘li , ,;., . N.• •,,,,e3, - ,, .r.,L'''• ' 1-, 1,"•''''''' .Pt% 4:411 '4,•'`':, . -"""1:• • '47: ""'tri ' ' • , r ,• ' r" "• -sr, , ,'•-:-.r.f. .,•'"' -' • ‘- .•tt • • • • • Le ,v ,.?. i l . •t. 0..., i,t.' ;41 ;.• i i. . • .. . It- 4 1 ' • • . 4• .44 "t• , "1 t , I ..4 et.1 ;.•..4.:4'.'.•'6' '-'1*%•,_ ' •. ,•' .• .•"C •74...„,..• : . . ' 1..' .. " ` r••••,,•••••%.2 1,' -.-.-.-6 4 '..,.t.,t...-'••,•7'-'..•+.-:,-..1.-..,1,--C.•;•:.•'•N•-• -_•.7.•..'-'.'..-... -.,7.,',7-;..- •".,•--•'.-7 l...•.,.7'-,.•..'.•.,-..,:..........-..•,:.'.-•. :''-' 1 -' - " tt7 .•.•-•.-,1'.N,'.•..',.:'A:•••,,.,,.,.• „‘.6•...•.••'.:.•"•7 0.t4 77, . . . ' ' 34, „ : Aw - ,, .. -., ; - cs. 1 l . _,,•• .1., , :.-.Y••-.''.-b,--"-r.Z,•,-..--„A.4'Nss..°„.,-r'- • ...1C4,.., ...-• •_ Photo 16 : Looking toward rookery from railroad . • Large tree in left at edge of green belt area . Tree #4 . •L'I' , i f r4/ , 11;., ‘ •,, ,„/ , , , ,vAvip/- j'y %s i r.J 0;;?,,•110.*+,.7 ,, .,. •ts.i? i•A'• •- '44 4.. - .,.., .v %;1 ,!:".P$" .41,, f Y.Z.-,,11\1.NO i•'IV , • -.. •:411;:iti/4, •-• . . 4.4.. ' tt"it :i.p,,.••: 4.4••••• - i , .4 h./- :..,'t.'/"El` • I ' i i . s%., •P.4.1e... .1 , \ ' t 4, . •11.•1.1 Pik... b%NJ A 1 il.,'r•i: •.',11":: . itf".,4 • 1`, r • ' '`t,14/4.% ,,-,,‘s ',, 6.=. ••• ,gr".1-b 'N . • • ' 4.4 • ".1 '=_qr..07 1 ri•••• ' ri 4 ''', *'irk);gi'`,11 At •' , , - ' '' ' `'•I. • 1 '•.,, • •B .4.4s, ciit4: l'r• k'422;ci ',;•ig) ;,.•••'115.1..11?‘11 ' '•'''' • 'P ,.. •. ." 1. t'':' 4•14•4 ; .. •.:: 4. •4 4 ..-•. 3 - ; ,„.,:e. , . .. . • . v ,t ' „ • • , . • 1 . . 4 . • r . • • "0? •:...ry>•4' 'i t •• • • •••4.^..., •-•••-`• -,..-it.. „. 3 tr.......,- .4......t•••••• •„!•••-• •• rr ''...... '.. ''' •.: -If. •••V•- `,......t.,-"7 ; ......S'st...1/4•;z:•ti.•.7' ..."••••••••... :7: ...Z.". ••:` .". ''''... ‘•-•••-r•-.+4 - •••••••r•"‘-•••••"•••••." .t.1; :":*, .•,...,r. x,,,,,,---.--_, , - ,,..::...-' --:-... .. ...-;”.. .sr„.2„,..7..4:-,',7-..--:,-:-.,t-- -s• •••---'"....--;,...- 7‘ • .,•••'‘'S4..A....- 11 ;,,-1.7•44••• ''..."...% .21-'''•°"'.7..1 77.......;.....••t.'.4- '‘'..'''''.....'''J'.•1.. •.:..". '..... .-:Ai 44..*:*-±"tt...•::-.... .7.‘..1 ''''‹"7.-. or:.''4.N.-:`-... .-••-.;-.,...,--,.,--- ••••. •-•...„!..9.•••••_,:: 1.,--tr,-:e_--, - ,,....,--••• •,,, :,-,,,:.;,-,...- .34„:4....44,.r.:- .•-•-•;,....-- :•2, •s,„,.:-....-#1 ,--..., „..r..._.,... ,;&-. ,-•,--,-,..,_. -.........„-. 474.:--st...±:,•4...r.....,' ,. ,„_,7 !.....".....-,..-ck-'7"..-- '- 1,e 'f--7"5.4•••"-'-"Y. .•,-,.,-• --.4,-,',.,-."„,jet,y,,..-- , ---,.-, -. " -* ^ ......-• • ... .. . Photo 17 : Looking south from railroad. Tree #5 located at east end of forest preserve. 15 . , . . . - ,\ \ %, ,• z'e\ ,' ‘, • ; _ r. ,. \ •,,,,at 6, , ' ..._,,,,,,---6 ‘ 1 1 ..__.,.. \ -, L, eed ... f -e, .417 •:: . ..1 .:'',"• ‘1:1 •1 ,' • .2.' --...-- ILI liftri —: • , , ' _ 7_,....„:• Ali 14 1...,eirf 1-- ' 4. ' . . • . , - .t 1 • ' ".'''.'.. ' Photo 18 : Single large tree , ... at west end along railroad. Tree # 6 . .....`: ', a• - . _. . 1 . .". ". ' 4'' I 1.-." 41:1•:.$i' - A il i 0118,,, t "f: ' .71"t ag '- ''''''7, 0 -..-•\ . \ VI e.• .... 7;. A S'. t . , N., Pl.',,'" .. . i .0 v'i' Ajf CI ' ,,,ro,"-. . ,,,_4, I % •i....... .,,,..,. .,r. _. , .... , , .. .,,.,,. {., , ,..., •••• " '*` .' -.rt'e, --*P.A __ A II 4 0.1"41., "-r ' 7 ••Is" - P,s',e1.'„Wk•I r M,,ir,,-..a.M,.t c-i-t.l.P t,Ap,`1l4 ak1)1,k)-6`e..-.„.._2N.....c.4-..'_4oz..,kSs.4tile,4i.a,t.i"3„.$.%..4.„,,1X-,-,..1,4.„.X...4,.,6-.7._1--1 64‘..h%0-,.-si...t00,i.:;4.t.;41.,.,*....,v'$`1 l-.•,,.4wl,1'1 t4,w1tl•V0a.d.?7, ..- /,- ..... ...:4et•a i 1 liof r A ; 4I ,o-.-.-1\ • r ' 1 i i ' m44 -.- 'N•( ''':*; . f•tiii:$4".iiir PAifdli.A A -p.,4;..n. - ,:.,,,-.. , ----x A 40t1'#•%,......';. i 2.04 • ;..s e.t•'r!,,N7 -'1;\"S"'t 4 k 4'.4 0.4'W -.. \- . e' ,al, .4.'Zgrt '''',2 igil):1...- • - 1 r••7 ‘.5-Are i:'.. ''' / a. '---41.4t.•.;e , -41.;- 1:$ Y,•'''- •-.. - Al i ....,..g..:40,40. •, -• , ..it. -•..... . ,,._ :.... . .-...tcr:, . f• - • 91'...' a`' ._..,' " - • ' ..' rpp:Z16. 6!•••1 56101:411 le 6 . dge 1 Pol ip 3'0' • - 11. - :-.-...;„ Al-ve i0.1*-4. . i it.iti'' , . •s-.. Fe.- .. '‘.;1• •,..,...r..Aii,y2.9,,,,e-ii.*••:. ,,.. : . i 1,1i u \ --1 ' , - • , VP, :•.rsv,... .,:itl,....e....%:i.-. 1 4t •;•1 '. •v '. , i-Z,--#6.1th,i pici ii Y.4 I.... . •-••,,.‘,, i --,‘:...it \ t,,,...„..*:, ‘‘ t -., ,. .- •.. , ,,,,....,,,.;.,..„, -, t fi. r- ,,-....... .., -.Awl, .........-- -A- -.- v, 4 ib7.-1.a, fil:70!:••k NT ' i 1 P •Iik ft) 1 rt kA,."P,....,::. i 9 , ' 4 - . ,,,..-..„ty; Photo 19: Crowns of tree in .tvwt,:•Avoll ko‘o, % 1 kr, 'tf ' '4.,Z• . i'"0- I •"`4,.- li: :.- `,0..Z.‘, .1.4%0 :-.-,,5cf•-.,ii-,ylii to 4--,-,--.., .,:=•-.. Alt 't5 ti,44:it ''':•,115. .\vic4, :67•*' Preserve, along P-1 Pond. '-'' Ili IA -- VI‘k' Q4 ' II* '.•':1 kit k.Z.V:V, .!',..1-. lep.T, t N ,I, Li,!:• f'„ i ,t. R 1 :40't,'",4i0- ilviza".4 I 11%., No - --t•-•• • i;• 4 el'aj, ,kat,/a...4:,a r 744t.- i j ' ''94 , . •cietiti, 1 I. , , .er.ftt, 1 ' !4 '44 ,t fl'.A ',) ... i R, C .... 1.,•ra 1 lit al!I ..v•Jo,-(rri A', ' - k t t • ' , . 1 i r,....v.11:v‘tr 1 IA ' to s • I ifi. t .c, ,i i i ,010, i f '.,i .: • 4 41! 1 1• % 16 . IP . , 0 : ..) ,'it. I •`•--..... • 4, /Fr "-•* ,..' ''' ' *am"Aws'*''''''4_.... an. ,,,-- ---•••••14.,„ . ..‘. i 1.1t. Ara&11111rAVY' 41111;fir ' /I rS'77rPii...41/1.111170ak P. ::101/4..4, 4tirft rA,,,.•wk 4 ir4r ,' owAr-- 1 ;• ;- •i.,.4,,At. *k ilki -:.•;". •or%4.-Ito -, , 0.1.mr-x- •-_,• . , ., -• it.v...,,...s1 i 1 ,-,,,.---,- ,v1.4...._ 11„,„‘I.A.,1„,400,,,,, >4.. /. k 4 .• ...c-tem,.::\ ,,,,p, , ..5.*'..0".""t.4 , ...T - , ,,S' . .4 I„.' 1.1T, itt%rims,. , , ein., ..e.• -4 - ' .4.' A( 4 1-.:'..rA rdtr :1_,-. • lik.--Nt1:40 t WIVAN iii 7 dt6 i - A 4 , . ., ,.., N ' - 40.# Arts77,i-----•,;-07-API "ItIwk----='-'-'::.c.:.•*"ii,i,t4,'N'Ip- • m.,/ik .or..1,_.-'4.1..-...i.,1..,....tm -1, ..1.1.,....;." :iii ...ia,..)...Pligir.,..„.7 ,..\ ...,---I,„ it, _ -----,-. tmli-R,--....*,,, • ' ap 11002,.: - .z.ray- %., , -2-.1__,...41,11,,„ „,,.. .... ... , - . -11vp.ir "ki e IrS• 411., .:Toj.;-4a; ,, . -. •,li4: , ea ti..._ •- V., t 411 11/,--, ...-4.4.01 • aatte...:iir. .., a.. • Is. A, , ---, .....k 4 . - ) , i ..,, •-. 4'< -.• fair 44 4„)110. nor. 1 • : - .._.7 I. . -.1:4111 ' II' 4 , i i , , I A • • % '.-• i ,• . — - \ - ,./ / • __, I J ' .11k ,., .3.4 4 ", Photo 20: Large tree near east end of preserve Tree # 7. '''. '...-=;--s• - fa:-. % l'' i• 1"-. 1 litil4 AN iiIi _ -, • was. - \lax . , , -r,, „ -- - • s,...,, , . .. ., ....,.• • _ , • Ill k , .• , ... ,._ • ,- • . .„,, .....,401 , Nittk \k, ' -..e.- , •-..t ciri. .......- '' —e, i t...... k— -,. ',•.' ,;-.. .-„,,•• 1 rii a.1.11 , e. e . "%:.•N. ' t kt ' • 1 !.'k' r/- Vk .,., ‘. :. • , • -.. It I 1- `.1104e.,-; . • -c'' VI t * 1 i ‘:'46,:1$70 ' • ' br;•1 1 1, , .- ..... Photo 21: Ground and trunk . . ,e, under large trees , %II.,i,i 1.':-. ItP ''',."-,:. 7',$%Yoivt-,:,A - —, near inlet of natural '' -,c ;. -* --,- ks,V,-;: i area slough. Note lack of whitewash or debris. ; . . .k , ... . . A .. ... , ' .. . • , 1 4- Rt ' *. • ., ... - t '''', ••• \•• . ',. • 17 • kj1 jLi''l' t' t'l 41 1 . { 1� *11 ,t I4 t c, !j'1't43f's }�j4� y 44'. rMk.' • 1 / t .l� i t; t{'•a 'Ps Itt"1,,.} 6.4......., 41A• ..111 .4 a :s 1i+ F t ,a t.•i. ., 4 1 - `,t1 a,.A e l ...5 ♦tl i,',„4 . rr .r.r.• Py�M. f t .+" '' r ,1!•.V Y • tY.- tt Z, cyst.";', '`' , '{ `:♦ a •1 f F.. .( s *Nr tI h t' '' £,4`J, -�1', , .,*r t /t ' 1 atf1i:.' 1- *A, a,, ., • ,3•• ., �1 1 r,{',ti Li ,\ ,.r y.. t z 1,",. •r Wt. d,. }'`" 1.`,��r 1. t'f7 /• ,C.!1 i..+!l1. •,, i^f'is'^ , ,,-;it�+`.t,-.11.1 1' `-,.•,....J•. `„..r ••• ,.•.'• •,`l� +x • ''i J S!t .:rrl it 'r1 r • `j. i1t�41 . i• • {. ba -_f 'dy« t It' 'r'4r'• ;�•r / ,t ♦e ' '.•1 F '� V ! t�..� •. 11 1 ty f� > .' - • t--:k. .YYr4-••: './.-*4, '•t'y1."}'"y�y-• ve -ti-t,' x 4 a, !i.,ts ' �� 5 k i ,*'K' , W,i:a . .L fir is ' '.A 1 f y * * '¢ 'y -* l r'1 r*"4.,,*ftl a x * k tip. i�� sl ..t.`v If,t,,r . `.:1 11•• %•t k.." t14,� `..' ' n' '*`'4 . ~,y.bi i x JY•S y F{r t'_/ i ,:t ,P' y; `1.° . ?.s ♦ . { r .1 _fi 1 '*' T�11r�I. .i it � .• � �1 at 7' "t t.. _�. •a• y r��. r 1 9i i 4�a• / • I l'.. -.>>•Y ., F'„ : , 4 ' t ,0,,,it•-• ...\211,„,,,,--i. , A.p"..,=-A,,,1*„4—,1,4 . 4.•:-',.,-4,-,. ."...---,-"‘si.,5,\:::-, 1.1,,.••*•Z - N1.. ., "1"..0 Photo 22: Ground and shrubs under trees in M. Anderson rookery 2 area: Note lack of white wash or debris . t .a. t: 1 t• ,„ 1.. Yam'..+ t 1�� ,t�,1 [iw a..,r.„4,, F' 7 ?+*,.i rr, R z,. n i 1 . i •/ tr- . r ie ..k4:f'f 4 . .y' ry,,a`. r' V.,,+ ^ is h 1,^,,r r, 1 ..�r.•a�. tr • . 4'.:NY. k' '''';.'' il'';1:, 'ill;1../44'.:4\ s;.!..N, I st \'' if,ir 41::k‘.•1':,..c'-* 1 .t `��. F,q A lrt r, 1 'a; .R` ,a `� tt'�fS ,1 .a 1, vs , )x,, 4 ,,, ,� :; i -S,;7.. /A �jjrt jits�' r 2ic? ... 1 t I� t.- ;4*;;;.6•X: ' 3r.../:.v:5''.t-*,..k at: " '' ' . \ 7 \ • ' , s • i C 1 cl yI „lei( Photo 23 : Ground and base of trunk of tree in rookery # 2 area. 18 • —. r . >. /1\,0 \ ; /. , �N /,ram " '1 4441111MOL .___:.„ 1 _ \ '\4i . ,fr 'P ' figii s Alb, „..,..---", - k 1 — - s,.1.. : Photo 24: Tops of trees in rookery # 2 area. Note lack of whitewash or stick accumulation. 1 • 1: I) S� y . Nook il, \•� %.•.; -,-\ . , s,: 1,:t.„ . ,- - ' il , -,-..• --..:-- jik •, ..---- ..- -- 1 -_ . -,,, ,. ip . -.',-- '"' : 4i ' .‘ .. ,) y —k i PI", + 14.'1241111iti :\ 1.-Ait --.' ;.• -4'.r'' i' '14..•, , , 4 .. .., - - .14 F 1 ,4 •Art t• I q' j9d & -III . •S , ",� , l_ : ••':'`� , Q. .f. it ./4;ttoltilk - \ ' 'Is' -4,- ' '''il"e"'11 ‘? r ,„ :-....,,,,:.‘ v.:iv, i ,) _...c f.: .161.irtfilia, . .... , ,_ sz. 74k, . , , 4. ,:' ot — , ..i. ;> et 1.1.1" vi tow • 0.. , .„., „4,11,41,, , _ ,.- .. /A & ..,,.,..., _ ...... .. •• ..., __,.. .., 4 - % AV •,..1„ ,7,-.0-r---t.**; ag. 't --% \—.N._s.V-. 7 . t, i ,k,, 41,,,„$:,.,.,, .." ,,, 11, -'•"1,'',1 . k : t 44 lirO f:AV.8 A. -. .,,,,..„-t,.. N-Nith.. . .1%,.• 0, 1 '. frilipti ,. .. ..A ''''<. 4,- Wk-..,-7!. 11t ,... lk . ii.i..., i . ' ,.••- ' Photo 25: Top of trees in rookery 2 area. Note lack of whitewash or sticks. 19 \—4. *„.,:\s,;/.", ilk \, . . kr t ., L 'A' 4:' ' • A \ it 4, )7, .7'.'71' l-1.-} ) t 't A ..; it, ,,i,..,.. t,t` . IP ,,,-...1. ,,y,,,,..c.A , vi: ,c, 1-,,,, ... _ 1 t.i 4,st), tom[ _� �{F'� _ r .. 4'"4 L, �• -iy1� a ; ;'' fl. ,1r �, r x. ,,,. ... 4 p hrr�t t, `s :.,.; /-. 1" �/may,{{ �' s1� .. trrtt►a"`+ '� " yr `{�1 _ f ,ly..-- : -�_`Y-�'� 'K '^a� •\`\4.j.S . r\ .1' •` •., js' E if .�+�Y 4�."'" I , .'► . ' 1' nay . ', 7r .� rQ r '-'':. -1:1;:s ....„_, „.1... .., ,..., ,_:-. _ ..--r.,•;......... c • . . Photo 26 : Base of largest tree in area identified as rookery 1. tY ., r, 1 ,. \-t.:f.*''.7 aa,,' ' , � , , y y 1, [ ,+i= �, ,' f I r,, «j 1 ids , , i ♦- 7 • s ,•, xttt • .. + 1 . 1,F.� 1 +t y t\n,j4, f,f, f14�,h� �; I 4 `4 . �ffL/.I ,'i pi sue; 'tT ,,,J-..•/./. . 4 r i-.; r-''-i'-4 c,' '-'4. J"�,`j •,4 is -�*,4 4. , . , ''� •4 r t ' • •" '1 jam, w,.i. ,�' f ' f +,� 1 - �.-..ice - •,.,,,}^ t� +5 r tl a� vim;; `/fir '�` 1' • ` , .k .r }�' ti'`� (�+~ n�.. �� .,k, , ',of 4, 12i Itt 5- • . Photo 27: Clean ground under 2nd largest tree in identified rookery 1 area. 20 • _.- 1'A 6H, - ~lr O' ipY7.:.. •mi l•?n • , ....,:', r.•""li Ae: f:Till...,,,,11• •L.g.A.:-.;:,. --:.W:1114.1 4t..... --- ' I' c" , ,-,1045.----. -- ...- cam,} : �'��,r .. .*,.7._ 4 • �,y:,l x ) L(% 4.J flIST Y00/��• r c L �aatal -`.ems: ,KA TAM• •.ii /.� j �..:�'• �7R,: / , 4. $ �� `:�°�' .10�?:�r `•a,;�i�,"r�° i��; a -�14 ` : • a,o.�. .eii i` . • 7 21„,aJti ), ......... ..I �: �_ • � it4i.,-6 :Vt.:. id ♦: liv�i,4 4,1016, • So.••!y�?Vs.�4tvial.. i:�'i •. '••ttf •••• •. a ••• ,Y t S� �r• tr a ri:1)401%;11Pts•'Q .v w.4...z. „1 ---Me_,- •ti, _ ,• ••• , 1 o i,k 'v' � /qf("Z t.. re` _^ �'�° .•f�.J�—.-,�` ,�,s. 1_� . � •�A, ��-'zJ6 •��©� � _s ��if: - �`', ~ 1��S • �'0+ '� \. F-- .o i y8s 1\'bT. v .r'• f.. /'1tr �.'+, •,c-aa `•,._q, 0.1-Pk.,�'r• j•;8 •,oC 4:0 `�%.: ova '' _ • .. :0 w -.�1�.r� :. af..,�, -lyr �' .:`...-- i.7 I.- •(t- �. 1 i'1 ] 'c: ----(0�rwlo- . '�z e : ,, e,, ..mac,a ¢¢� . . l_ ` a"c" *+��' o, . 13 1 ;1y '� ( ii . -•s ' 2`.7, ,,I,Ceog f...'.4 • ru,r4.,,.<orce.3 6'4' .... ,02:-/., -.- ri n A .11*;!,(1.40414..j" ' n- j .: 11-1 I %it, . -7• : 1111. S./. S.I. J«"` P r� ,J /,t S. ,'f]i"' El ! 1 1ri 1 Tt el1o11, 0 S./1, 01.1{. 0 S �1 0 S•I7 m s f wbr .tHn lU,1W Soli x, o l.1v,.. offireice •pp 0 yS.�f(.brie° •nlre .0S,0M LI. ,1: 2 U.w,er •I fits •,, 0 S.,araa .nfr. 11,oao S,r.str1 .,flee 211.70LI. 1BLACKRIVBR .— . F.by office 11.1M S.I, y. y GL:.:a-y p'j:. 1/ elm, .trio 1 1/1 13440 S.F. 111077 S.F. Corporate Park J` ` ..c,- ,. _ -<o• 9 _ /s aeey 1/0 17.410 S.F. P • J. .i, `.`, .;i J„ ,{ eertn Olin 47.l,2 S.F. I1,130 Solo j ; , � ry u Mori•. office 1•.00e S.F. RENTON, WASHINGTON :_`'. :�-o... �. titib '` 17 atr/n office MIX*S.F. �• �„- 11 *WI. •!fire 71472 Soli ' .'t jS %�/'�._ T 11 *torte. office /ULM 1.f. 10.711 S.F. MST (MT 1: r• street fits 1•,2n s.r. n S(s stare*. office SS,41 1.F. x.w 3.I. •••,•�� • F`f. `s .•�y,•••.-•,-�: . LL4011 ►Collet I00117I 11'[TT PG •` `,, '1,. X' n 1 .`ter, to 1111.w S.I. not,s./. �.�,..-�2 _ .It }i� fit a ,, � 11 'l.ar, 1([Jp 1te.oW ] 13p er7cxil .E110w alaotr. 11G • • .��•.•--+ - r--" ova. :MN 11..008 3.: i�:lfd •r C:;.-.�. '� fi 27 :.Irin office ri.I40 S.F. -Awl° '(F,:41' . �.,t`o.r�t'e's, •.(r(rIce S1 s0 S,/r Baal bm 1 fTC1eM6t INC. - •K ' ateielos t"" OW . 17.�010°o i:1, NO w s r. - 1k s*.. Sl S aWln office N.100 S.F. �e�' •1,1,l) stn S;vl•. 4,101 S.f. m [y t vies M//fn 17 000 Fr. JIIIgyp"St 3 vte. .tflr• 1 IIJ. U S.!. 2/,24 S.E.11i tra° •/ etI7.tr0 Lx V .tr,n .ISIn 1 2 0.011 kf. 10.710 S.E. .'.-'� • • 1,171,331 S.F. / . r 1!0•r S, 'rr4 Site / Map 1:Tree and rookery locatio1 INF Bird identified on P-1 Pond January 18-31 Eared grebe Podiceps caspicus Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Canada goose Branta canadensis Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Widgeon Mareca americana Shoveler Spatula cylpeata Green-winged teal Anas carolinensis Canvasback Aythya valisineria Greater scaup Aythya marila Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Great blue heron Ardea herodias American coot Fulica americana Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 21 • --lift r• . 1. _ • `�. ®`gym 4tor.l. -, ; '.. A• e- t�ae...� t 9aef r•�Rit�!)�.•f� ,„„,ii ejr. . C,y:y t •t � .a:''m®� ! :lk. G\— Q�r/�• .1 ^c c •, Q , loon`°a;4'7 1102)% 'f J ` •1:,) o4. m .. �.i .1: • "!'•�\`" .c 4,c f$gp-�Cl r„ ... .. a.. .o� 'c� - • /4., '',idss..-,' .::6..$•::/-',---,._...: 114t ----- , ,,N'''''t#41‘1400:1 ''•-•;• L-141111111:111;-"..% •43- ,,,, . • , .„ • -, .... ,, • • 1 %w y/ •mo 7�' i l�� C; .•' • • ler o ' 2 •� .- ;: -. ' ` ` i •: Allyr. "°`•1 � �e ,;Y1 ^`J . 1 !•t I� °1 Q r ifilit f` . ° ! ..� s ° `'�' 1 z•. _ �96,. .c, y . - ' © 1.,1I„ - -_ ��•.... ..1'.,,'Z... .11- ji _ — _w•- P. C.:= •1.I mo I , s.K�a tw1 �\=, *t 1 �'�', 4 ; 11••. S.F. S.F. Y� •ti y ♦♦ I Df 1 ....• ....•Floors 11•. silo r,,,,•• 11 Li, +•'., 3 �%,ro �:�+V►�-:' t $4., o1!'! i 110.xa S.F. 1.500 S.F. V1. �_• :." .�, ....... t •etr, 14 i��•�• i • 4' P i`ice 403•w A,. 11.,33 S.f� �- T BLACKRIVF.R �d m : F• F co 4 l; L aj c # - O - II star" *Mu S tilW IS,S10 S.F. 121073 soli Corporate Park .� •}�`t o .:<,•• 3`-- , II star" WIN 11A 11.a,O S.F. `. IS .Vice dace 10•M$S.F. 11.150 S.r. i • ■ 16 •tr,•+ elfin 64.110 solo RENTON, WASHINGTON /' 1r n start" office u.oro S.F. •s\ �•yitilljr. i ;1/ .trt" office 31.,13 S.r. �. 1, arI« •face I SMITS S.r. 10.xf i i. �3 OTT MUTES tf�` � ,1'�.� y■'tea•_ II 3/1 star,. *MN SS,aH S.F. KIN S.r. I tr ;mow'.:f' �\y�.•17f.tu,p, .o.ota ,tom K :rtriu ,.} \t"\\ y {fsz• Ct3 ,a,.ey NI lY.w 3./, now L�. : ��% ' {f olio. •(nt• - 1IIETCSEIa�say ata� INC. ^•'' �• 33 t Arlo /floe NON S.F. �� 1'I .tfSp� _C ^_" Alin f Ice t0 S,/ WAO, ni/EIT I KfC/Mof NC. -4j. 9 V 0{It trio+ ,t. i ut4.s. .>o IMAM S.1. r•Is I F=�r !y,,�twl. p .om a.000 S, !I .'1 11 3 awl. WI. •.100 S.F. Y 3+trice N/ln aM,1/o S.f. m ii i.,r,.t :ff ` of-111 El. L1i trio ,.• i 1K W S.r, :,fal 5i !At:::., ell,.. i 333,131 S.F. f/.fa S.f. - i;-1 1,333.3x 1.r. I fw•••r•t•11t•An. J �,�, / � -- ; ..__.._.:._.__._._....--------.-----'-/'';-----"'---'-- Map 2: Recommended restricted work area Architecture and Planning � ( 1 Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg A.I.A.,114 Vine Street(2nd&Vine)Seattle,WA 98121(206)728-5771 TRANSMITTAL TO: Mr. Don Erickson DATE: January 23, 1987 Department of Planning City of Renton PROJECT: BCP - Phase IV 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa 98055 PROJECT NO: NW 86024 ATTN: RE: NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Affidavit of Publication 2 I� �j u BAN I2'3 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. REMARKS: For your records as required for Site Plan Approval . • BY: Y. Ken K. Chin cc. Barbara Moss 4� q _ • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Notice Al ;o '' • Shoreline Management AudreyDeJoie Substantial Development Parmit , being first duly sworn on oath states that Notice is hereby-'given Xthat.'First City he/she is the Chief Clerk of the Equities has filed an: application for a substantial development' permit for the construction.ordevelopment of Black River • j Corporate Park Phase IV,,a 3 Story Office VALLEY NEWSPAPERS Building, located at:Adjacent to S.W. 7th • Street and:Nacho's Avenue S'.W:,Renton WashDaily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, DailyGlobe News Township withinh �SectionM., ,the13,2 of � Township 23N',Range 4E,W.M:;in the City • of Renton,King County,Washington.•Said Daily newspapers published six(6)times a week.That said newspapers development is proposed to be within are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six • Springbrook and/or its associated wet lands. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published Any person desiring to express his views in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King or to be notified of the•action taken m..0110 County, Washington. ValleyNewspapers have been approvedlegalZoningoation should'notify the Building ipal g as � Department,�Renton. Municipal newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Building;200 MI Avenue S nth, Renton;, King County. n�b Washington 98055[hi writing CflCi nteresi' within thirty(30)days of the last'pubiication • The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Daily News I of this notice. published in„the Valley Daily •News Journal—, Daily Record Chronicle X, Daily Globe News , (and 1 January,911;t3 1(11987,R2029. not in supplement form) which was. regularly distributed to its ` ' • subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a Shoreline Application was published on January 11 and 1 R, 1 9R7 R2029 CITY OF The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the 6 D rg lM.F W sum of$ 40.00 PREPAID sum U JAN 2 71087 • �' BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. • Subscribed and sworn to before this 18th day of Jan 19 87 Notary Public for the State of Washington, • residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VN#87 Revised 10/84 JAN 21 1987 • • LPN Architects& Planners • OF R4 0y ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT lop 04, RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR O MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 0g7. sO SEPS00 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 23, 1987 Barbara E. Moss Directeor of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Wa. 98104 RE: Infrastructure Development Dear Barbara: Thank you for your letter of January 16, 1987 requesting an additional two weeks in order to determine whether you wish to withdraw your Infrastructure Site Plan and Environmental Checklist. We will postpone any action on your application until after hearing back from you on January 30. 1987. The main reason I am writing to you today is in response to a memorandum from Y. Ken Chin to Dee Beetle of my staff regarding Naches Avenue S.W. improve- ments. Since you do not yet have an approved site plan approval for the Infra- structural Plan it would be in violation of our subdivision and platting ordinances since no formal review and acceptance by the Hearing Examiner or the Council has been given. Furthermore, there has been no site plan approval granted either. Although we would probably be stretching things a bit, we could probably argue that in light of the fact that you had previous site plan approval for the Admac site, you probably could argue that the Environmental Review Committee had approved, in principle. the configuration of Naches Avenue S.W. as far north as the edge of that site. Since overall approval of the infrastructural element has not yet been given, there may be some risk with proceeding with Naches this far north without further site plan approval. The intent of this letter is to let you know of our concerns so that there will be no misunderstanding as to our position further down the line. Whereas it is true that the Building and Zoning Department do not issue road construction permits. it is also true that Public Works does not issue site plan approvals. Obviously. it is in no ones interest to see this thing reversed or appealed later on. T ' -2- (___Ifyou have any questions(please give me a call. Sincer'vly, ;/ 1 Dona d K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:de 3403Z OF R4-4 411 � . j ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT c.0 vo . �o z z o RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR 09 �� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 e 235-2540 0,917- 6D SEPTE ' BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR January 23. 1987 Barbara E. Moss Directeor of Planning First City Equities 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, Wa. 98104 RE: Infrastructure Development Dear Barbara: Thank you for your letter of January 16. 1987 requesting an additional two weeks in order to determine whether you wish to withdraw your Infrastructure Site Plan and Environmental Checklist. We will postpone any action on your application until after hearing back from you on January 30. 1987. The main reason I am writing to you today is in response to a memorandum from Y. Ken Chin to Dee Beetle of my staff regarding Neches Avenue S.W. improve- ments. Since you do not yet have an approved site plan approval for the Infra- structural Plan it would be in violation of our subdivision and platting ordinances since no formal review and acceptance by the Hearing Examiner or the Council has been given. Furthermore, there has been no site plan approval granted either. Although we would probably be stretching things a bit, we could probably argue that in light of the fact that you had previous site plan approval for the Admac site, you probably could argue that the Environmental Review Committee had approved. in principle. the configuration of Neches Avenue S.W. as far north as the edge of that site. Since overall approval of the infrastructural element has not yet been given, there may be some risk with proceeding with Neches this far north without further site plan approval. The intent of this letter is to let you know of our concerns so that there will be no misunderstanding as to our position further down the line. Whereas it is true that the Building and Zoning Department do not issue road construction permits. it is also true that Public Works does not issue site plan approvals. Obviously. it is in no ones interest to see this thing reversed or appealed later on. -2- _If__yyu have any questions please give me a call. Since ely, j// Dona d K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:de 3403Z IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S, .T • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pk( t c De 1Qr,IY1 DATE CIRCULATED: ` JANUARY 21. 11987 COMMENTS DUE: sPirduAR.V214hKON ECF - 001 - 87 JAN 21 1987 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: sM Pa mt--e7 DEVELOPMENT rr11 ►rr PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EOUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BT,ACK RTVF:R ('fRPC)RATE PARK PST TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74;000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVWV45pTAIJI4MENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE ® r" IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth ) 2) Air • I-E U. 198/ - i 3) Water vt=PT 4) Plants • *CZ) 5) Animals *- ( : ) 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use • * ( -) 9) Housing Agz. • 10) Aesthetics ' (AO 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation C5) . 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation ' (to) 15) Public Services (se 16) Utilities COMMENTS: (I) Where I� -! Imo, cr t� � 5 0p I tre,ryi -7 (2) Mat hev-lot..1 l h -Sv= � L IeA ih co' Iic ,,,r) r r_� ?- � 1-t-'c am -{a occ- I�1-vu 1- -ate hi 2 �c rvhs -i c�c� hst-ruuohoh sl�ov of ►yak- oc�c,G•- cdUrin -�-}� � I'4Iha� 1� . A. om re=r,= e::04e-doc— 1441fr Cal') I 1h'1c-' r�la.h� d1 ln F - RECOMMENDATION: fJ DNS )2MITIGATED DNS Q EIS REVIEWED BY. TITLE: Ft_OAriir DATE: J (��- FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 f 1 1 , _ji( )_. acf4 I frellod ____Iinkgce ____,. .2rroit14it:ej___ )6ezirteda(210______11 ,--40___ 11.;IWiver---, 1 Cam) wi I i 1tvra c.iam&I)<4___F 1 -ram • (i-?._._ _.hre -- --... -_-� 1 . CM OF!tENTOtt_ D , G A) *IL S B rp ri.; 11 L is 5 prziall is c eg Vk 'f Ft 0 319B7 _ -� CUILD1NG/ZON„iZ iPr. i=22=X-e--e-A --. . • 1 4 I t • ,, . 1 ,! 1.--- .„ ,____ ) I fF . li "-'----- RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPL_ 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET 4.,11 NENTON ECF - 001 - 87 JAN 21 1987 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87,' SHORELINE MGMT. : +T nFpr PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU en OF RENTON OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT El BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT L D OPOLICE DEPARTMENT OUILUwGI,wlwiivi DEPT. EPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DOTHERS : _ COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING& ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : f› APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED /-lov lo� � Ovt of I I h wl ] ref-rla,it, �'ld/off' d dL l Iv . Add rh ovletl m► a )11 -{--e2 k- . add - -t1/ 9If-'#t.et'h I nylic GIB tr i add�-ho�-,�,( la' � �a� �ovld !� ►i�vl t�� ►� --mac,( �r�� ,el -f- � Esc „„t„ SIPIT - hwl�l. t DATE: Va2. � 1777"- SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S • I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Po\lce DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - ooi - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELII MGMT: SM -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BLACK RTVF.R CfRP[1RATR PARK PHASE TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics �.\f, 397' 2 MI-CM, 11) Light and Glare �� 4 .� ��% c' n1 12) Recreation ` 1 �I� �� '��, r, 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation rii "I 14) Transportation t� ' •BWWLD 15) Public Services • 3 � LUf� NG DE T. 16) Utilities COMMENTS: —Z -6-7 PALL,- 4(-Gz 1,___ , GL EoCec� Coe�rr�u�s 1�otp Uou� e i�� Tn 13 La*.- 2cu ccr �� . P L. l c,s v‘,LCCw�Ckta. !U t Lth 1L k.(L 1&Cj e 1�n �`r-C f-ff L 1� _LT s S RECOMMENDATION: [l DNS2,1W- MITIGATED DNS n EIS 'REVIEWED BY: TITLE: /-,/ii�i2, DATE: ,,M.. ,,,. � FORM ##14 REVISED 9/10/85 r _ •_ RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEP/ 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-81 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOP M R. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO: ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ❑ ENGINEERING DIVISION 1:1 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ❑ UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY �'� G'E_G TON 111 v - aUt/ L BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTt :\ (i8.7 I�--- POLICE DEPARTMENT j fl POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. 00THERs : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : LI APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED f1 Gj C,±? DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S T • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I c)h 1 t' DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - 001 - 87 ' APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BLACK RTVFR MRPC)RATP PARK PHARR TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water ‘"-.L 4) Plants � 5) Animals u J� 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing �T �. 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation )4, 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities 1‹. COMMENTS: ® Rf.OMIv\Ca}p Sf--foR.<,li\Z YYlGarr. PppRovpsL, L o,0 poi , 1 RCowPo ,R46 or T146 le— 1%" Detz- 1 e &,o(VC, f k L1U S-1 SI oe c iSuluoIiu(( IAA() �►¢� c oIL,V Coi c kekoac, 31,\.) r5LIKf: uucR, soe, 6 vOfet-160 (A) D6L -o rn P � C� 121-ipi56 7 (111ApAC-I cbcr rvcrk.D 1L) RDD IrDb1-11311 ( CDN1ie6Ruu5 I N-ro L RN)0 P,pIrQ(0) LoFf PRoCco [s SPAP RECOMMENDATION: El DNS d MITIGATED DNS ED EIS REVIEWED Whol1/4_ TITLE: _ DATE: I 2Q. FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 wy RENT I BUILDING & ZONING DEP FMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION LII FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU fl PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT E1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : L01(0I( 369 . Ei APPROVED 0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ` NOT APPROVED 114s uor6s1 5106 Dr- -rW 13u Iuo to6 1 ra-1O ioc 'aQ d!lUNAl_, CioN 1 reft.00S T-R.,66 t\)iO l Latsskin5cApe' �Lro�h1 o wW11 Is, P1zop0 1�, RI 10eK sP iZ9' S i NNO Nit D Pitt'Ktru(o S LL,5 Pc GI ' )(2,0' P O GANtvNG-I 0009,0flIr\)(. 1 NAo IZG,O., L-N\)050poP►NX, h e ( orA pacd 5-7 d1u.5 L,AMU _)e,A_A '0( DATE: /J, o - a 7_ SIGNATURE OF DIRECTQR) OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW 5 T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (1411 Mkt—e DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - o01 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001— 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM —001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: pLACK RTVRP C(1RPC)RATF. PARK PHARR TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74.000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services ✓ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: lito/ bsr RECOMMENDATION: DNS ED MITIGATED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: (}j/ yy 4-NNG/N►EEEie DATE: /e 2r - 87 FORM ##14 REVISED 9/10/85 �.y RENT I BUILDING & ZONING DEP, 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET EC F - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLO SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF IHE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACRES AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION ® TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ELUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ® PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF PENTON ® BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 16) 1E C:; E. VI E LI POLICE DEPARTMENT � ,� J?,,L3 0 987 o POLI CY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : BUU Dl'' G / ZONII\G DEPT. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 077.4/7y .EA/6//1/.E,EzbCll4 El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 0 NOT APPROVED ter/ !UTILITY APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SITE I_ma OiUC/ -,� t. " LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-WATER No LATE COMERS AGREEMENT-SEWER `^ 8/, /. (57Z To h/d,' S- 323 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER )/ 5 f D. Si? T X 2SS,/OD SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SEWER; YES '� �� // =y /D, ZC4'. °O SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE-WATER A/Z7 0 2 40F. o 0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT iT.71, CS;.ZCGE-SEWER /./) APPROVED WATER PPl:"1 , 4 /�e /J/4,4-e QP�'E`t5VED SEWER Pier, �.2C APN ICIIED FIRE HYDRL. 0;:S / � BY FIRE. E Ar DATE: /- -" SIGNATURE F DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 4 �.. , $VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW ;T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pre DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21, 1987 COMME S DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - on - 87 U LIGATION NO(s). ITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM -001-87 ;PP OPONENT: FIRST CI Y EQUITIES iJAPi, 2 2 ).J67) PROJECT TITLE: ST.AC`( RTVER rr)RPnRATR PARK - PRASF. TV F � 3 — BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STIOI&E3ING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74.000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANT3AL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER: LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: Sv8— e .✓E7o Fief Leo ohs f o,ea i,e ,e),v cis. • CITY COF RENTON a.t Ai, 2 2 BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: DNS Q MITIGATED DNS Q EIS REVIEWED BY: XA TITLE: -� �.9_,, Q DATE: i 7,,e., , 071_. /9f 7 . FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT I BUILDING & ZONING DEP FMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - OO1 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: El ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OP RENTON E Cc ' 0 V , BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Q OPOLICE DEPARTMENT jak '2 M7 OPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. OOTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M, ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OAPPROVED EIAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED /116 Cligie/teyze.e, ,...te,x/ec... 6-c...• ate c,=, , az, 75O _iyrl t c, (3) '4 70' _a_&e.e.,7,6e4._._ y DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE y__41„, , /V-C REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 /,//.ni;vl39,.. z747s€. I 4 REQUIRED FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS j 1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION _i, NAME /�//C 2'c).�E , :��,2,'°,e.47-f A U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD ADDRESS S, Go . %-2-: 1 d- /j/7C/Ve 42-VO s.ZeJ .11 o FIRE MGMT AREA . 2. DETERMINE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - CLASS (C 0 ): I - II IV III v FIRE-RESISTIVE NON-COMBUSTIBLE / WOOD FRAME MIXED f (NOTE: IF "MIXED", SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: ,Z,e/, l�/ FT2 (A) NUMBER OF STORIES: 3 .,7'` TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 7,44000 f 4. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE #1, USING AREA (A): _S,o o GPM (B) , 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: - /zs D GPM (C) II 1 IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% OF (B) 3 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C): • (IF B+C IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) .�75-D GPM (D) 1 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: /g 7S- GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D). 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: „j USING THE TABLE AT LEFT AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF w•^ THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: F SEPARATION MA . ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0 - 10 25% MAX. NORTH /s o .1- ADD Q % A 11 - 30 20% MAX. EAST 7 s' ADD i o % { 31 - 60 15% MAX. SOUTH ' / 6 s 'Y- ADD -� % �° ADD /o 61 -100 10% MAX. WEST % 101 -150 So MAX. TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT il 150 OR 4-HR WALL 0% MAX. (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) : .j) % (TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJYST�MENT. � S7 GPM (F) ' 9. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: GPM (G) ` 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: A • (IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) 4 (IF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,0a0 GPM) (D+E+F+G) REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: 5- = �4-� 7 „21750 GPM (H) . 11. SIGNED: . ,� , Z.6wdg--- [,ATE 4/c,.. �� . �201, /9� • CITY OF RENT©N1 ECEUVE 0 J 1=0I`t, ' / 2 N ..,,D,"ssG /ZONING DEPT. IVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW :T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: RuMInci DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - ool - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN_APPROVAL: SA-001- 87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BT.ACK RTVFR CORPORATE. PARK PHASE. TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health y� 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation r� 14) Transportation 15) Public Services � . 16) Utilities _ 6� COMMENTS: I OF RENTON Ifl) ) © !LVj : ir) ZONING RECOMMENDATION: DNS Q MITIGATED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY: 7 /�' �i TITLE: DATE: / ?' - FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 REN' 4 BUILDING & ZONING DEP TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - U01 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF -Tilt BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : El ENGINEERING DIVISION ID TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT CITY OF RENTOd POLICE DEPARTMENT 15\1 r © FA POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I ; OTHERS : � � JAN271987 El )y..DJ a / ZONING DE PT, COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : a7-)c, jqAPPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED DATE: ,7(0.�o SIGNATUR/DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 'VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S. T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1 ca r 1t �e DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21. 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - o01 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s).�RTTE PTJAN_APPROVAT,: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT_ SM -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BLACK RTVRP C'nRPnRATF PARK PHARR TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE ' STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 9D is% 15) Public Services \-t Si 16) Utilities COMMENTS: N1N 0310N�IZ Re c rea,(-i 0 YkII _r e pedel-4-c ik. or-0 pity ° C B,�(,`�- l�1 f 1 he ieP kko ct 1 ' si-cr*f o'i e caia:/-1 ail d I c1sr` U� r recredI-cot/I c a ein- 0°5 The Ka,c In ed.ed 4,w cG Cc rciki of Ok- is Pie.' Fail Clitre-o +14rc e CaPe owl e s . 1) ejr rc aw s i e p ,� �� .r f e r� V'v"A. 414e- Y`iIre , ; z) ed.ei1N(•4"_ ct •rncL' row o s cwt. g 1) eof rC t iA- aGG ens 4 +'ke RECOMMENDATION: [i DNS MITIGATED DNS Q EIS REVIEWED BY: (1dM 100-4 / TITLE: / //CV ("ooi•/// viar DATE: //2f/P7 FORM #14 r REVISED 9/10/85 ( it .t iffy e re av aLi�i Petri ue amen C7'1-Qc- /.J 5 t/n 0 ar"el r. s-e4'7i i 1/ sh opti&( 6e /;<Idv del - • e V��z� eset,s 0,461t v" I 14- -114 e vkGt-4, pre erU e are& RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEN 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY Uh THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION Ej TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : fl UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT cm OF We BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ik% ((�� ❑ Cl ‘\ LI POLICE DEPARTMENT 5t, 02 �sJk ❑ POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTWII.DIIVGJ�AtdIN� DV.Ei OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Park f El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Need-1 -v �J e. rtv t ed S h u u) tit ho(A) P eaelf 1� `11/-C-@G- Gi Jrc,,.d- ,1-Cow auk. Oe a G`Z' vcfi`e a C Q 661,led ,aAye, hGw yew/ h arr�f /h6 f-dreel a( d Me .1(7ze _ Rjr144 l; the r /e I/she •404/ Ik(A.) /h e /row l Oe.hcf&e-L- 'I (J rote d ie, e,) p /n DATE: / 2f/1 TOR R SIGNATUR OF DIREC AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE f / G 76 f�C ��'$t REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 ►IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SF: REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 21, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JAMUARY 29, 1987 ECF - o01 - 87 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001- 87. SHORELINE MGMT: SM -001-87 PROPONENT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE: BTACK RTVFR MRPMATT1 PARK PHASR TV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY" 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION ' SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: , 5. 85 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): 74,000 SQUARE FEET IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS MINOR MAJOR MORE IMPACT IMPACT INFORMATION 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: El DNS ED MITIGATED DNS ri EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: FORM #14 REVISED 9/10/85 RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 001 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-001-87 PROPONENT : FIRST CITY EQUITIES PROJECT TITLE : BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW A THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING HAVING APPROXIMATELY 74,000 SQUARE FEET, AND APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BLACK RIVER. LOCATION : LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. 7th STREET AND NACHES AVENUE S.W. TO : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ❑ ENGINEERING DIVISION in TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ❑ POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT El OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : n APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED DATE : SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 / 3426Z BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT THRESHOLD DETERMINATION STAFF REPORT February 4, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ECF-001-87 APPLICATION NO. : SA-001-87, SM-001-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for site plan approval to allow the construction of a three story office building have approximately 74,000 square feet and an application for a substantial shoreline development. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located at the northwest corner of S.W. 7th Street and Naches Avenue S.W. SITE AREA: + 5.85 acres. ISSUES: 1. Whether parking located near the natural area easement (due to the movement of pedestrians, cars, garbage truck, etc. , light and glare and engine noise) is potentially more disruptive than the building once erected? 2. Whether more of the existing trees should be saved? 3. Whether the plans should reflect better pedestrian linkways between this building and future buildings, streets, sidewalks and bus stops. 4. Whether the building should be re-oriented to reduce the number of views onto the parking lot? 5. Whether there is a relationship between the parking areas along the west project line with that parking area for the future project to the west? 6. Whether the northernmost driveway should be relocated to the south to save trees located in area of the proposed driveway. 7. Whether the development should be allowed to be located as shown on plans due to the nearby heron rookeries? If allowed, should time period for construction activities be limited to July through December? RECOMMENDATIONS: Mitigation Measures: 1. Building to be sited to create a physical noise barrier between vehicular parking and circulation areas; 2. Existing mature trees on site should, be retained to the greatest extent possible since these provide habitat for birdlife, retain soil, contribute moisture to surrounding air, provide color, and help to visually define the site. 3. Vehicular circulation and parking areas (because of noise, glare, etc.) should be set back at least 660 feet from Blue Heron nesting areas unless screened or buffered to reduce their intrusions on these areas where sited closer than 660 feet. R Building and Zoning Deplent ; ' Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 2 4. Building sites closer than 660 feet from heron nesting areas should be designed to be as harmonious as possible with the natural environment. Earthern colors and textures would be preferred to high tech, brightly reflective surfaces. 5. Construction activity (until the building is hermatically sealed) shall be limited to the months of July, August, September, October, November and December. 6. Mechanical systems shall not exceed a noise level of 75 decibles measure at the. source. The King County Department of Health, Noise Control Division shall perform a noise analysis prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 7. Lighting shall be shielded at the source to ensure that it does not result in visible glare (below an angle of 30 degrees with the horizon). 8. All vehicular storage areas must be sealed with a membrane to prevent infiltrants of hydrocarbons to the soil layer, with asphalt covering the sealant. All runoff from these areas must be processed through regularly cleaned oil/water separators. 9. The building should be sited to act as a screen and buffer between parking and service areas and the nature environment to the north. In order to protect the waterfowl measures, such as screening, need to be taken to collect floating debris/oils before it flushes into the Forebay. 10. All glazing facing onto the nature environment to the north shall be non-reflective coated glazing in order to reduce the likelihood of birds flying into these surfaces. 11. Parking on site not to exceed minimum code requirements. 12. Provisions shall be provided on or near the site to accommodate bus service and transit users. Site Plan Approval Recommendations: 1. Building should be sited to maximize view outlook opportunities of the wilderness/natural areas of the site. The building should be sited further north. 2. A clearly delineated pedestrian circulation system between this and abutting buildings, sidewalks, bus waiting areas, nearby trail systems, etc. , needs to be developed. (Provision for night lighting of these pedestrian routes is also required.) COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Building Division: Recommended DNS; noted there was a major impact to transportation. Fire Prevention Bureau: Recommended DNS. Utility Engineering: Recommended DNS. Zoning Division: Recommended mitigated DNS. Provided the following comments and questions: 1. Recommend shoreline management approval. Building and Zoning Dept- ant Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 3 2. Landscaping: Incorporate some of the 10"-18" alder trees along the west side of the building into the site plan. 3. Will great blue herons on Black River site be effected with development of Phase IV? (Impact not noted in checklist). 4. Add additional coniferous trees into landscaping; what is proposed is rather sparse. 5. Traffic mitigation requirements? Requested more information on impact to plants, animals and transportation. Police: Recommended mitigated DNS with the following comments: Comments on previous paperwork relating to Black River Corporate Park. This individual building will have no traffic impact by itself. Request no reflective glass on 1st floor for officer safety reasons. Parks and Recreation: Recommended mitigated DNS with the following: The pedestrian environment needs to be re-examined in terms of circulation and passive recreational amenities. The main pedestrian circulation issues fall into three categories: 1) pedestrian access t the site from the street, 2) pedestrian circulation on site and 3) pedestrian access to the trail system. The main issue regarding passive amenities is seating areas. Seating should be included in the plaza areas and at appropriate locations in the natural preserve area. Policy Development:. Recommended a mitigated DNS. The following comments were provided: 1. Provide additional linkages to surrounding development phases, creating more of a connection between buildings. 2. Will bus lines run through the park complex? 3. More parking is provided than is necessary by code, thereby encouraging use of individual cars as opposed to carpooling or transit. 4. The Shoreline Master Program designates the Black River Channel as being a natural environment. Under the SMA, this proposal is clearly not allowed. If the project proceeds, the SMA should be amended. 5. Where is the 18,000 ' cubic yards of fill coming from? r, Building and Zoning Dep- lent Threshold Determination Staff Report February 4, 1987 Page 4 6. Additional landscaping needed around building and between the natural preserve area and the complex. 7. Application requests construction to occur between February and November, 1987. Blue Heron nesting period runs from Jebruary to July. Construction should not occur during the sensitive nesting period. A buffer area should separate the rookery area from the complex. The report from the Game Department suggests a buffer of 660 to 800' . 8. Mitigate aesthetic impact by relandscaping site, as suggested on site plan. • - "•:i�;��% '-r- FILE NO(S): �7/'1.-�l-Cal r o C TY OF RENT® J�E� ® BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMR t SiYI-Co(-87 • ELF:-CO(-87 14‘Nrc0 MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attoch additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT 11, TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME FEES First City Equities a REZONE*(FROM TO ) ADDRESS 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 0 SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY ZIP TEMPORARY PERMIT* Seattle, WA 98104 ZI g EJ� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* SITE PLAN APPROVAL 7_j_/QQ TELEPHONE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL (206) 624-9223 No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON Q VARIANCE* From Section: * Justification Required NAME • Barbara E. Moss (Director of Planning) ADDRESS ' SUBDIVISIONS: 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Q SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP Q TENTATIVE PLAT Seattle, WA 98104 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE Q FINAL PLAT (206) 624-9223 [] WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: First City Equities M ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 0 PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP =I FINAL Seattle, • WA 98104 P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE (206) 624-9223 0 Residential ® Industrial 0 Commercial 1:::] Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS (to be assigned) El Northwest corner of SW 7th and Naches Ave. TENTATIVE ED EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY FINAL Vacant OP PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: Office structure NUMBER OF SPACES: I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 41 SQ. FT. ACRES AREA: 2 55.;100 S. F.F. -5.'85 I61 I ` (Q TOTAL FEESQ�,�(� - CIAy 1TnT, , USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING DATE �� '' lib0 APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: _ 0 Accepted Pu«®)M /Z�I(�+NG D4 1u r CDIncomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: 6 2 I - E9 7 CD Accepted ® Incomplete Notification Sent On By: • (Initials) ROUTED TO: Building psiDesign Eng. 54 Fire 1±1:-Parks IJ Police I2.7 Policy Dev. 1.21 Traffic Eng. Utilities "Pt_. 12. In the event that any of the proposed buildi..,:: or structures will exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view. 13 . If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought. ITEMS I4, 15, AND 16 TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT: 14. If applying for a variance or a conditional use, complete the variance or conditional use form. 15. Project Maps : Attach to application accurate site plan and vicinity maps. Refer to application instruction handout for map requirements. 16. Additional information (If necessary, attach as separate sheet) : STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS CITY OF RENTON J COUNTY OF KING I, David M. Schuman , being duly sworn, certify that I am the above-named applicant for a permit to con- struct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements, answers, and information are in all respects true and correct to the best of my owledge and belief. S gnature Subscribed and sworn to me this 24th day of November, 1986 • )41. • Notary Pub lc in and or the Stati of Washington, residing t Redmond., Washington • CO T _ L5 Al 6 1987 ¶U!LDIN4/ 4N1NG DEFT • • FORM 177. ' Wir a r . 0398Z CITY OF RENTON Building & Zoning Department (206) 235-2550 SHORELINE MASTER APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR: OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. : Sm ' 001 - Ell LLI SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT ECF No. : �F GoI V 7 PERMIT SEC-TWP-R: I_I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Date Approved: II VARIANCE Date Denied: _ Publication Date: I_I EXEMPTION Comprehensive Plan: I_I REVISION Zoning: 0 P ( 0-PitE pA,<I,K) '743®a CWI! .2014°- Water Body: IN_Acki, RAvel - STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING D P21 7 N Application ::: e ;o Apcaon Be: D a Accepted a Incomplete Alt G 1 87 : Notification Sent On: PUILDIN fZQNIN. DEFT.. By ( Initials) : Date Routed: " Additional Material Received by: . • Application Determined To Be: a Accepted o Incomplete I 2, I - 87 Notification Sent On: By ( Initials) : • In addition to the information below. the applicant should include a site map and any other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The Building and Zoning Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to evaluate the application. APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1-10 THROUGH 14-16 BELOW: • INFORMATION: 1. Applicant Owner X Purchaser Name: First City Equities Lessee Other Mailing 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Address Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 624-9223 2. Name of Property Owner First City Equities Mailing 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 624-9223 Address Seattle. WA 98104 Phone: 3 . Contact/ Consultant: LPN Architects & Barbara Moss of First City Development Corp. Mailing 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4170 Address Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 624-9223 728-5771 ' PROJECT INFORMATION: • 4. General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and intersection) At the Northwest corner of ,y,�._ • of SW 7th St. and Naches Avenue S.W. 5. Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) : Lot ? Cit. , of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 001-86, as filed under Recorder's No. 8609179004, Records of King County, Washington 6 . Name of .adjacent water area or wetlands: p,l d BlackRiver Bed, P-1 Channel 7. Current use of property and existing improvements : Undeveloped old golf course with existing drainage ditch and adiacent office and industrial facilities. 8. PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY and proposed improvements (be specific) : Development of office with latidscapinq and associated required parking. 9 . Proposed construction costs and schedule: A. Total construction cost and fair market value of proposed project include additional developments contemplated but not • included in this application: $2 4.90. 000.b0 B. Construction dates (month/year) for which permit is requested: Begin February 1987 End November 1987 10. List any other permits for this project from state, federal, local governmental agencies or the City of Renton for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the application, whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same, and number of the application or permit: Renton building permit to be applied for construction. Fill and grading permit #SP-100-86 has been applied for the portion of the BlackRiver Corporate Park formerly known as Valley 405 Business Park from Renton. Renton site plan approval and substantial development permit for Shoreline are pending for the Infrastructure of the BlackRiver Corporate Park. Shoreline permit SM-90-81 issued for property (Earlington Industrial Park) by City of Renton.. ITEMS 11, 12, AND 13 TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL: 11. NATURE OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE. . (Describe type of shoreline, such as marine, stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as accretion, erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike; material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any) : • Legal description of property (if more space Is required, attach a separate sheet). Lot 2 City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 001-86, as filed under Recorder' s No. 8609179004, Records of Kin° County, Washington. • AFFIDAVIT I, David M. Schuman i being duly sworn, declare that I am 0 authorized representative to act for the property owner,®owner of the property involved in this application 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. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 24th DAY . OF November 19 86. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT Redmond, Washington OA/Mk 8: (Name of Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) 800 5th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 800 5th Avenue , Seattle, WA 98104 (Address) (Address) (City) (State) (Zip) ( 206 ) 624-9223 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Form #174 Architecture and Planning r Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg A.I.A.,114 Vine Street(2nd&Vine)Seattle,WA 98121(206)728-5771 January 5, 1987 BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK, PHASE IV FIRST CITY EQUITIES DESIGN INTENT The intention: of this project is to create a single 3-story office building, approximately 74,000 S. F. , for use by single or multiple tenants. The building is designed with outdoor plazas to enhance the natural landscaped area and the development of the drainage swale to the north. The landscaping and the swale will provide links with other landscaped areas within the total Master Plan concept fir this BlackRiver Corporate Park, incorporating trails , benches , seating areas , and other amenities for employees and workers to use. The building is designed as a 3-story concrete tilt-up panel building. The use of reflective glass curtian walls are intended to soften the building's corners while emphasizing the points of entry. The primary access for this project will be from Naches Avenue S.W. The future primary access will be from S.W. Seventh Street and Oaksdale Avenue S.W. as the L.I.D. is developed and provides the major access for subsequent development within this parcel . wiCIFIRAN'Irpro )" U UT JAN 6 1987 � :) OUILDING/ZUNING DEPT. • OF R�� ECF: G� -QO(-'87 sA *'y © Z City of Renton LU: s � oat � 7 sm-0oI -87 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0,941' E0 sEPIt' 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. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) 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 as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND • 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 3 Story Office, Phase IV BlackRiver Corporate Park (Valley 405/Earlington Industrial Park) 2. Name of applicant: First City Equities 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Barbara Moss First City, Equities 800 5th Avenue, Suite 4170 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624-9223 4. Date checklist prepared: December 16, 1986 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Bu i 1 di ng & Zoning • 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction - Spring & Summer 1987 CITY r.v1 D . JAB6 1987 RUII,DIN /ZQNING Dr, F./ 7. Do you have any for future additions, expansions, or 'further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. • Parking will overlap with future phases on this area of land. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Original E.I.S. for total project for .Earl ington Park by R.W. Thorpe & Associates for First City Equities and City of Renton, February, 1981. E.I.S. for Black River Office Park by R.W. Thorpe & Assoc. , April 1983. 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. Infrastructure for total BlackRiver Corporate Park Site Approval , Sign Variance for infrastructure, grading and fill permit for Valley 405 site. L.I.D. 322 for Oakesdales and 7th in progress by City of Renton. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, • if known. City of Renton Building Permit, Site Plan Approval , Substantial Development Permit for Shoreline. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Design and construction of an 74',000 S.F. , 3 story office building on a vacant piece of property. Parking shall be provided at 1/200 S.F. as required by Code. Landscape yards to be incorporated with the building and parking on approximately 25'5:,100-;'S_:_F.; of site for this phase of the development including a preserve to the north of the phase. . 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 topography 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. Located in an existing area of development adjacent similar projects off SW 7th and Naches Avenue SW in Renton, Washington (north of Interstate 405), at the NW corner of 7th and Naches. SE 1/4 Sec. 13-23-4, NE 1/4 Sec. 24-23-4.- B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); 4110 rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Two percent (2%) except area of drainage ditch. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sand, silt and gravel . d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. . No. - 2 - e. Describe tt:=- urpose, type, and approximate q6a,,,ities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 18,000: cu.yds. are estimated for this phase of development to fill the drainage ditch (replaced by the storm water tight line in Naches) and to leyel the property with the nqw street elevations at Naches and 7th. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? it so, generally describe. Site is flat, minor erosion of surface could occur on site. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 75% of this phase development. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: • Siltation and erosion control per City Standards. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal emissions from dust, auto and truck equipment, and roofing during construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: • Water site to reduce dust. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. P-1 drainage channel approximately 180 ft. away and Old Black River drainage ditch. 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. Development within 200 feet and the Old Black River drainage channel and P-1 Channel . 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. Old Black River drainage swale, running generally south to north on this Phase, to be partially filled. New drainage runs in pipe down Naches Ave. to drainage swale at north end of property (per City requirements). - 3 - 4) Will the prL.,..oal require surface water withdra:.o.y or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. See overall site plan. 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. None. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. None. 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. None. 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 water into storm drainage system per City Standards and to detention area at P-1 Channel through new storm drain in Naches and ditch at north end of property. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. • -.4 - d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface. ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm drain system with catch basins connected to storm drainage system. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ® deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other o evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other • Shrubs ® grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage. other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other o other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Clear and grub all existing grass and scrub Alder except significant trees noted on site plan to be preserved. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Grass lawn areas, combined with mix of Evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. 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: Birds: Hawk. ror)eagle, songbirds, other seagulls, sparrnws, ducks Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other none b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so. explain. No. • - 5 - d. Proposed niticmures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Addition of trees and landscaping. Preserve existing significant trees on site. Maintain and enhance the preserve to the north of the proposed site by incorporating the building landscaping with the preserve in the design of the project. 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. Use of gas and electric power for heat, lights and air conditioning. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 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: Meets Washington State Energy Code requirements. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. - 6 - 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. Construction noise from normal work hours 7-5 for a short term basis. • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. if any: None: Noise not significant in relation to existing adjacent uses. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Undeveloped site with adjacent developed properties. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Road and bridge left over from old golf course, and drainage pipe under dirt bridge. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Above items to be, removed. • e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? OP f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? OP g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Old BlackRiver drainage channel is a designated shoreland. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Black River drainage channel and the natural preserve at the north. Note Black River drainage has been relocated to Naches Ave. per City of Renton requirements. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 630 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - 7 - 1. Proposed m-__fires to ensure the proposal is cor.,..ible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Use is compatible with adjacent uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A c.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 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. ±45 ft. maximum height plus mechanical screen for roof mounted equipment. Painted concrete and glass exterior building materials. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The building is designed with an irregular shape and decks cut into the facade of the building to reduce the scale and mass of the structure. Heavy landscaping is incorporated with the natural preserve area to control the impact to the surrounding areas. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from parking lighting at night time. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Control light dispersion of pole lights and building lighting to prevent glare off site and on site. - 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None existing. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. Provide links to jogging paths programmed around development and P-1 drainage detention ponds. Paths designed with par courses for recreational use. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: • N/A 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. Direct access to SW 7th Street, Naches Avenue and approximately to interstate 405 with on/off ramps at Interurban, via Oakesdale and S.W. Grady Way. to the west, and Old Rainier Avenue to the East. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, approximately 3/4 mile. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 373 stalls, none eliminated. 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). Naches is being completed at this time with curbs and gutters being extended partially down SW 7th Street. The 0aksdale L.I.D. includes the balance of SW 7th Street. No new roads are required. - 9 - e. Will the pr t use (or occur in the immediate pity of) water, rail, or air transportaton? 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.. See *below. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Proximity to bus line and other developments to incorporate car pooling and transit bu$ use. The Transportation Management Plan for the BlackRiver Corporate Park is in place between FCE and Metro and is operating successfully. 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. Project will require normal fire protection and police protection already serving the area. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site(electricity, natural gas water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewej)septic system; other. 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. Elec. power., gas, water, sewer, telephone. All utilities are directly accessible at the site and at the adjacent street requiring minor excavation to extend to the building. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Barbara E. Moss * Daily Trip Rate: 21 vehicle trips/1000 sq. ft. 550 daily trips PM Peak Hour: 2.4 vehicle trips/1000 sq. ft. 177:-6 ,vehicle trips/PM peak hour Based on Trip Generation and Informational Report, 3rd Edition, published in 1982 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Per Traffic Impact Analysis for Valley 405 Business Park, Figure 9, August 1985, by the Transpo Group. - 10 - • #176 11-8-84 . CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS/SITE PLAN BlackRiver Corporate Park - Phase IV * * *FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY* * * PROJECT TITLE: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK - PHASE IV APPLICANT: FIRST CITY EQUITIES APPLICATION NUMBER: SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-001-87 • The following is a list of adjacent property owners and their addresses. A notification of the pending site plan application shall be sent to these individuals as prescribed by Renton City Code. Chapter 7 Section 38 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 relating to site plan approval. ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER • Holvick,Dereget,Koering 1230 Oaknead Pwy 918800000090 Suite 210 918800006002 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 918800005004 918800004007 Damson/Birtcher Fund 11400 SE 6th St. 918800008008 c/o Birtcher Property— Suite 120 Commerical Bellevue, Wa. 98004 Burlington Northern Inc. 810 3rd Ave 242304909904 208 Central Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Power Puget Power Bldg. 2423049110 and Light Company OBC — 11N 2423049108 Bellevue, WA 98009 9188000125 City of Renton 200 Mill Ave South 242304909805 Renton, WA 98055 9188000150 CITY Cf RENTONr tt 11 JAN 6 1987 BUILDING/ZONING, DEPT. r ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER • • • CERTIFICATION Y. Ken K. Chi n, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public. in and for the State of Washington residing at on the a day of t\•-r„•Q , i 9 g�. SIGNED: CERTIFICATION OF MAILING • I. . hereby certify that notices of the public meeting on the subject site plan approval were mailed on . to each listed adjacent property owner as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public. In and for the State of Washington residing at on the day of . SIGNED: FORM 20B `' ; Architecture and Planning •;` Leason Pomeroy Northwest,Inc.,Royce A.Berg A.I,A.,114 Vine Street(2nd&Vine)Seattle,WA 98121(206)728-5771 TRANSMITTAL TO: Mr. Don Erickson DATE: January 5, 1987 Planning Department City of Renton PROJECT: BCP - Phase IV Municipal Builidng 200 Mill Avenue South PROJECT NO: NW 86024 Renton, WA 98055 ATTN: RE: B1ackRiver Corporate Park - Phase IV NUMBER DESCRIPTION 7 Sets Drawings 1 Set 82 x 11 Reductions 7 Copies Master Application 7 Copies Environmental Checklist 7 Copies Shoreline Master App. For Substantial Development Permit 8 Copies Design Intent 1 Copy Certification of Notification of Adjacent Property/Owners Site Plan. 1 Copy Mailing labels for adjacent property owners 5 22¢ Mailing Stamps REMARKS: Submitted for Site Plan Approval . CITY CLF REEN[T�ONFE [..) 11 `:{ BY: Y. Ken K. Chin JAN 6 1987 cc. BUILDING/ZONING KEPT. ENDING OF FILE FILE TITLE 8POOH57: