Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA17-000112_Report 1. . DEPARTMENT OF COMMU!rJITY --------Renton® AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER: CONTACT: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWN-R: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (King County Assessor) March 01, 2017 LUA17-000112, SME Hunsaker Critical Area Restoration Mona Davis, Senior Planner ~ itJWtN CIW' 5201 Ripley Ln N Renton, WA 98056 Kristen Numata 15020 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville, WA 98077 5201 RIPLEY LN N (II o,cc1dtr1~ The applicant is requesting approval o a Shoreline Exemptio for the proposed replacement of an existing porch a sidewalk and rester on of approximately 34 square feet of fill that was inadvertent/ placed in a n-site wetland. The single-family property is located on La e Washingto ith approximately 30 feet of natural shoreline. A lake fringe wetland o urs along the southern parcel boundary, which has been rated as a Categor 3 etland with a 75-foot buffer. The applicant proposes to reconstruct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed in September 2016 to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidentlv oushed into a small area of the on-site wetland. The o.1 pf1~ I> P.Pr•rmy ftJ r.,>p'r,-.,,,n,~ p~rh, wW/d l'Jl"~psrtv wii/ et: resterea to pre-existing conditions. This will be achieved by replanting the wetland with lrttails, as any other nativ~.lJ.ryJ,.-gent could not :1- outcompete the existing CJattail stanOUntreated cedar~-be placed between .-- the replanted area and the lawn to help delineate the wetland edge along the I J south property line and avoid similar infractions in the future. The project lli@" remove approximately 34 square feet of fill from the wetland and replant eattails in the wetland as part of the restoration project. This project is -1. tAf considered to be a normal maintenance and repair of existing development. Work is anticipated to occur in March or April 2017. No other permits are required for this work. NE29-24-5 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 3 36 & SH LOS ADJ & POR OF 35 & SH Page 1 of 3 Mona Davis From: Sent: Kristen Numata <knumata@talasaea.com> Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:52 PM To: Mona Davis Subject: Attachments: RE: Hunsaker Property Review Status (Tal-1634) (CODE16-000650) 1634 Mitigation Plan Page i (02-28-2017).pdf My apologies Mona, here is the single page to be inserted into the plan. Please let me know what else I can provide. Thank you, Kristen From: Mona Davis [mailto:MDavis@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:36 PM To: Kristen Numata <knumata@talasaea.com> Subject: RE: Hunsaker Property Review Status (Tal-1634) (C0DE16-000650) Hi Kristen ... I am reviewing your shoreline exemption this afternoon (finally). I'm noticing on Page i of the mitigation plan that the Site Location is incorrect. It is reflecting a 5.64 acre property in Issaquah. Could you please update this sheet to reflect the Hunsaker property and pdf me that page to re-insert in the plan? Thanks! Mona© SENIOR PLANNER City of Renton I Community & Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 425 430-7246 I Fax: 425 430-7231 From: Kristen Numata [mailto:knumata@talasaea.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:27 PM To: Mona Davis <MDavis@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Ann Olsen <AOlsen@talasaea.com>; Jennifer Marriott <JMarriott@talasaea.com>; Hanes, Teresa <teresah@shamrockln.com>; pat@shamrockln.com Subject: Hunsaker Property Review Status (Tal-1634) (CODE16-000650) Good afternoon Mona, I am just checking in on the status of the Hunsaker property violation. Is there anything else you require on our end? Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Kristen Numata, CESCL Ecologist knumata@talasaea.com 1 _ . ...-:~~~··:~ ~.<t~\ ·.\: __ ~'j;;, TA L1\SA E.1\ ·,.:---:··-:J/ rn-..:...:.1·1r,.._T~. i,,- Talasaea Consultants, Inc I 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, WA 98077-7849 Office I 425-861-7550 Fax I 425-861-7549 2 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Hunsaker Property SITE LOCATION: The Site is an approximately 0.76-acre property located in Renton, Washington. The King County Tax Parcel number is 334330-2850. The property address is 5201 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Pat Hunsaker PROJECT STAFF: Ann Olsen, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, Senior Ecologist; Alicia Schulz, Landscape Designer; Kristen Numata, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site on 13 and 18 October 2016. DETERMINATION: The Site is located on Lake Washington with approximately 30 feet of natural shoreline. The rest of the shoreline is fill material that is managed as lawn. Lake Washington is a Shoreline of the State with a 100-foot setback. A lake fringe wetland occurs along the southern parcel boundary that is fed by a swale conveying road runoff to Lake Washington. This wetland was quickly rated as a Category Ill wetland with a 75-foot standard buffer. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Applicant proposes to re-construct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed approximately two months ago to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidentally pushed into a small area of onsite wetland. ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND IMPACTS: It is estimated that 34 square feet offill was placed in the wetland. Estimations were completed using aerial imagery and photos included in the violation documentation. PROPOSED MITIGATION: The property will be restored to pre-existing conditions. This will be achieved by replanting the wetland with cattails, as any other native emergent could not outcompete the existing cattail stand. Untreated cedar will be placed between the replanted area and the lawn to help delineate the wetland edge along the south property line and avoid similar infractions in the future. This will also allow the property owner to keep and maintain the pre-existing lawn. 28 February 2017 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page i Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Hunsaker Property SITE LOCATION: The Site is an approximately 5.64-acre property located in unincorporated King County, Washington. Tne King County Tax Parcel number is u32306-9151. The property address is 23515 Southeast 111 1h Street, 1ssaquah, Washington. The Public Land Survey System location 1s Section 1, Township 23 North, Range 6 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Pat Hunsaker PROJECT STAFF: Ann Olsen, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, Senior Ecologist; Alicia Schulz, Landscape Designer; Kristen Numata, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site on 13 and 18 October 2016. DETERMINATION: The Site is located on Lake Washington with approximately 30 feet of natural shoreline. The rest of the shoreline is fill material that is managed as lawn. Lake Washington is a Shoreline of the State with a 100-foot setback. A lake fringe wetland occurs along the southern parcel boundary that is fed by a swale conveying road runoff to Lake Washington. This wetland was quickly rated as a Category Ill wetland with a 75-foot standard buffer. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Applicant proposes to re-construct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed approximately two months ago to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidentally pushed into a small area of onsite wetland. ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND IMPACTS: It is estimated that 34 square feet of fill was placed in the wetland. Estimations were completed using aerial imagery and photos included in the violation documentation. PROPOSED MITIGATION: The property will be restored to pre-existing conditions. This will be achieved by replanting the wetland with cattails, as any other native emergent could not outcompete the existing cattail stand. Untreated cedar will be placed between the replanted area and the lawn to help delineate the wetland edge along the south property line and avoid similar infractions in the future. This will also allow the property owner to keep and maintain the pre-existing lawn. 22 December 2016 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) ~CQ&o.!L Cci,f.. (/J-()l(U_Q_O._ J·'J..S-f7 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page i TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. INC. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM: Kristen Numata TO: Mona Davis Senior Planner Community and Economic Development City of Renton PROJECT: Hunsaker Property Violation CODE 16-000650 1055 South Grady Way, 6'" Floor Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: DATE: Shoreline Exemption Permit 27 January 2017 TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING FOR: letter X review & comment duplicate copies information X report X approval originals use & files specifications as requested proposal action noted X other X submittal DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS: • Five (5) Shoreline Exemption Permit package dated 27 January 2017 consisting of: o Shoreline Exemption Permit • One (1) Land Use Master Permit Application Form • One (1) Mitigation Plan dated 8 November(revised 22 December2016) by Talasaea Consultants • One (1) Shoreline Tracking Worksheet • One (1) Neighborhood Detail Map • One ( 1) Existing Site Plan Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, • • ' I,, Ll I J • 1., • ./h,.,. -I(,, t,t,J \f<~ .. rr · ,v~ ¥ -- Kristen Numata, Ecologist Sent via: Mail cc: Pat Hunsaker, Property Owner File Courier Other X Resource & Environmental Planning CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2017 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast• Woodinville. Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 ~ SVl!Jre,{ul.Q_ ~ I Wit 11-cw11z,, 29 December 2016 Ms. Mona Davis Senior Planner Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 5th Floor Renton, Washington 98057 REFERENCE: SUBJECT: Dear Mona, Hunsaker Property Violation (CODE 16-00650) Shoreline Exemption Permit TAL-1634 Below we have provided for you the application materials necessary for a Shoreline Exemption Permit for the Hunsaker Property violation (CODE16-00650). We will be providing the language verbatim from the Shoreline Exemption permit in bold text with our responses following in italic text. 1. Land Use Permit Master Application Form: Please provide the original plus 4 copies of the COMPLETED City of Renton Planning Division's Master Application form. Application must have notarized signatures of ALL current property owners listed on the Title Report. If the property owner is a corporation, the authorized representative must attach proof of signing authority on behalf of the corporation. The legal description of the property must be attached to the application form. Please see attached Land Use Permit Master Application Form (Attachment 1). 2. Waiver Form: If you received a waiver form during or after a "pre-application meeting", please provide 5 copies of this form. There was no pre-application meeting, as this permit addresses a violation. 3. Project Narrative: Please provide 5 copies of a clear and concise description of the proposed project, including the following: Answers to most of these questions can be found in the attached Mitigation Plan dated 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) by Talasaea Consultants (Attachment 2). • Project name, size and location of site Hunsaker property, 0. 76-acres located at 5201 Ripley Lane North Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek RoaJ Northeast • Woodinville, 'w'ashiog:ton 98077 • Bus: (415)861-7550 ( ··ax: (425)861-7549 Mona Davis 29 December 2016 Page 2 of 5 • Brief description of proposed work The Applicant (Pat Hunsaker) proposes to re-construct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed approximately three months ago to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidentally pushed into a small area of onsite wetland. • Basis for the exemption request (reference exemption category from first page) This project meets three of the activities listed for Shoreline Permit Exemptions: any project with a cost or fair market value (whichever is higher) of less than $6,416, normal maintenance or repair of existing structure or developments, and construction of a single-family residence or associated structures for use by the owner or owner's family. • Anticipated dates of work Construction of this project will likely take place between January 2017 and March 2017 • Other permits required for proposed project No other permits are required for this project. • Current and proposed use of the site The Site is currently used, and will continue to be used, as a single-family residence. • Special site features (i.e. wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes) Lake Washington is located in the western portion of the parcel with one associated wetland to the south of the property. • Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions The top layer of soil is primarily gravel, as the area adjacent to the wetland where the fill occurred has been maintained as lawn for several decades. Water enters the property from the east as sheet flow from Ripley Lane North and drains west down to Lake Washington. • Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project Construction costs will be approximately $1,000, and the estimate fair market value of the proposed project is sub $5,000 • Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Approximately 34 sf of wetland will be excavated of fill that was accidentally pushed into the critical area. Once the fill is removed, it will be replaced with 0. 6 cy of native soil. • Number, type and size of any trees to be removed There will be no tree removal during this project. Resource & .Environmental Planning 15020 Hear (:reek Road :'\iortheast • Woo<linville, \\.'ashington 98077 • Hus: (425)861-7550 1:ax: ('US)861 7549 Mona Davis 29 December 2016 Page 3 of 5 • Distance from closest area of work to the Ordinary High Water Mark of the shoreline The wetland is located adjacent to the OHWM of Lake Washington • Nature of the existing shoreline (e.g. high bank, naturalize, rip rap, bulkhead, etc.) The majority of the shoreline is maintained as a bulkhead and dock structure, which occurs in the middle of the property. In between the bulkhead and the property owner's bulkhead to the north, there is a small patch of shoreline that is completely unvegetated. To the south of the bulkhead, there is maintained lawn and a lake shore wetland. Most of the vegetation in the wetland is invasive species. The most dominant native vegetation was cattails. • If the proposed project exceeds a height of 35-feet above the average grade level, discuss the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view The proposed project will not exceed 35-feet in height. 4. Shoreline Tracking Worksheet: Please provide 2 copies of a completed City of Renton shoreline tracking worksheet. See attached Shoreline Tracking Worksheet (Attachment 3). 5. Neighborhood Detail Map: Please provide 5 copies of a map drawn at a scale of 1" = 100' or 1" = 200' (or other scale approved by the Planning Division) to be used to identify the site location on public notices and to review compatibility with surrounding land uses. The map shall identify the subject site with a much darker perimeter line than surrounding properties and include at least two cross streets in all directions showing the location of the subject site relative to property boundaries of surrounding parcels. The map shall also show: the property's lot lines, surrounding properties' lot lines, boundaries of the City of Renton (if applicable), north arrow (oriented to the top of the plan sheet), graphic scale used for the map, and City of Renton (not King County) street names for all streets shown. The map must fit on a single map sheet. Kroll Map Company (206-448-6277) produces maps that may serve this purpose or you may use the King County Assessor's maps as a base for the Neighborhood Detail Map. Additional information (i.e. current city street names) will need to be added by the applicant. See attached Neighborhood Detail Map (Attachment 4). 6. Site Plan: Please provide 5 copies of a fully-dimensioned plan sheet drawn at a scale of 1"=20' (or other scale approved by the Planning Division). The Site Plan should show the following: • Name of proposed project • Date, scale, and north arrow (oriented to the top of the paper/plan sheet) • Drawing of the subject property with all property lines dimensioned and names of adjacent streets • Identify all adjacent streets and alleys • Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Rear Creek Road '.',.;orthcast • \X,'oodinvillc, \'Vashington 98077 • Hus: (425j861-7550 i"ax: (4.25)861-7549 Mona Davis 29 December 2016 Page 4 of 5 • Parking and off-street loading space • Free-standing signs and lighting fixtures • Storage areas and job shacks/sales trailers • Location and dimensions of natural features such as streams, required buffer areas, and wetlands Indicate Ordinary High Water Mark and show distance in feet to closest area of work See attached existing site plan (Attachment 5). 7. Wetland Assessment: Please provide 5 copies of the map and 5 copies of the report if ANY wetlands are located on the subject property or within 100 feet of the subject property. The wetland report/delineation must include the information specified in RMC 4-8-120D. In addition, if any alteration to the wetland or buffer is proposed, 5 copies of a wetland mitigation plan are also required. See RMC 4-8- 1200 for plan content requirements. See attached Mitigation Plan dated 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) by Talasaea Consultants (Attachment 2). 8. Standard Stream or Lake Study: Please provide 5 copies of a report containing the information specified in RMC Section 4-8-1200. In addition, if the project involves an unclassified stream, a supplemental stream or lake study is also required (5 copies). If any alteration to a water-body or buffer is proposed a supplemental stream or lake study (5 copies) and a mitigation plan (12 copies) are also required. See RMC 4-8-120D for plan content requirements. Project does not propose any work within the PHWM of Lake Washington, so no Lake Study report is provided. 9. Flood Hazard Data: Please provide 5 copies of a scaled plan showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, and drainage facilities. Also indicate the following: • Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the lowest floor (including basement) of a II structures • Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been flood- proofed • Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood- proofing methods criteria in RMC 4-3-050 have been met • Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development Project is not located within FEMA-mapped floodplain. 10. Habitat Data Report: If the project site contains or abuts a critical habitat per RMC 4-3-050B5b, please provide 5 copies of a report containing the information specified in Section 4-8-1200 of the Renton Municipal Code. See attached Mitigation Plan dated 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) by Talasaea Consultants (Attachment 2). Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 lkar Creek Road Northeast• \Xioodinvillc, \X-'ashington 98077 • Hus: (425)861-7550 ]!ax: (425)861-7549 Mona Davis 29 December 2016 Page 5 of 5 We trust that the information presented here constitutes a complete application for this project. If you have additional questions or require more information, please contact Ann Olsen or me at (425) 861-7550. Thank you. Sincerely, TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Kristen Numata Ecologist cc: Pat Hunsaker, Property Owner Ann Olsen, Talasaea Consultants Attachments: 1. Land Use Permit Master Application Form 2. Mitigation Plan dated 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) by Talasaea Consultants 3. Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4. Neighborhood Detail Map 5. Existing Site Plan Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast• \Voodinvilk, Washin1-,>1:on 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549 ATTACHMENT 1 Land Use Master Application Form Resource & Envirorunental Planning 15020 Hear Creek Road '.'.iorthcast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Hus: (425)861-7550 l;ax: (425)861-7549 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning I LAND USE PERMIT M~ PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Pti-1 lf u.iis 4ev ADDRESS:S].-0 / ~ P Ley LA,he-N CITY: ~ ZIP: q l?t)5b TELEPHONE NUMBER: (4,15) !sk,f ... g3f3 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: ,._._. CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON NAME: ~h(,~J./~ COMPANY (if applicable): p}.m,JaYQ.... vf}h(/~ ADDREss, 15 oJ. 0 ~eM vrea---~c( ,V<c,- CITY:~ ZIP: Cj"jJ07f TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 4---2r -n, t -?-~-s-o k:--h u.,,m~ @ +a,,/ t?,J'q e6L. u;t,,-,.._ 1 I8l-lb?t ,, ;y-,. CITY OF ~ _____ ,,,,_....,. D"I"'\ -t"' n ~ 0/4~ JE: R(S): ·'33> ,4-?:>? D "?-({? 0 0 ( EXISTING LAND USE(S): t3th?'j/e-{Mn-dy l{J',.. ~ ~ 'J.... .... -,,.. PROPOSED LAND USE(S) .,4,(,,/lf} le., ~ J.,., ... --• .J ,. -(/.., EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ~Iii~ ~ PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) rv( A EXISTING ZONING: itf-l<..P)1~M '(J..l,((ac PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): .I\/ { A SITE AREA (in square feet): '?? / 1t7 * SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: ('I ( Ir SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: rv(A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) N'/A NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) /\// ,4 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N (A, X:\Tal 1600 to 1699\Tal-1634\Permitting\Shoreline Exemptlon\Land Use Pemnit Master Application Form.doc Rev: 08/2015 PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) ~-~-----'-----------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): !V{4 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): /II f It- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENT~ '17f,?1J BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): JV/;t SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ,Air NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): ;v/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): .,v/,f PROJECTVALUE: i$'l; /g ,~~'i)t{ j IS THE SIT!: LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION --sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. ~ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES ,1, 14~• sq. ft. ~ WETLANDS 34-sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leaal descriotion on seoarate sheet with the followina infonnation included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION~. TOWNSHIP 24-N , RANGE l;lf:;: , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) __ , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) D the current owner of the property involved in this application or D the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ,. / JL ,--. .· t f;hav,/~~1 Signature of OwMeepresentative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I oertify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -f 0-\y. ~ \:h !rJ:sc\ k:11.. V signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. X:\Tal 1600 to 1699\Tal-1634\Permitting\Shoreline Exemption\Land Use Permit Master Application Form.doc Rev: 08/2015 ATTACHMENT 2 Mitigation Plan dated 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) by Talasaea Consultants Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Hear c:rcck Road 'i\"orrhcast • \Voodinvillc, \X/ashington 98077 • Hus: (42.:;)861-7550 fax: (425)861-7549 MITIGATION PLAN HUNSAKER PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Pat Hunsaker 5201 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington 98056-1503 Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) Mitigation Plan Hunsaker Property Renton, Washington Prepared For: Pat Hunsaker 5201 Ripley Lane North Renton, WA 98027 Prepared By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 150250 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 8 November 2016 (revised 22 December 2016) Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Hunsaker Property SITE LOCATION: The Site is an approximately 0.76-acre property located in Renton, Washington. The King County Tax Parcel number is 334330-2850. The property address is 5201 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. CLIENT: Pat Hunsaker PROJECT STAFF: Ann Olsen, Senior Project Manager; Jennifer Marriott, Senior Ecologist; Alicia Schulz, Landscape Designer; Kristen Numata, Ecologist. FIELD SURVEY: Talasaea Consultants evaluated the Site on 13 and 18 October 2016. DETERMINATION: The Site is located on Lake Washington with approximately 30 feet of natural shoreline. The rest of the shoreline is fill material that is managed as lawn. Lake Washington is a Shoreline of the State with a 100-foot setback. A lake fringe wetland occurs along the southern parcel boundary that is fed by a swale conveying road runoff to Lake Washington. This wetland was quickly rated as a Category Ill wetland with a 75-foot standard buffer. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Applicant proposes to re-construct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed approximately two months ago to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidentally pushed into a small area of onsite wetland. ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND IMPACTS: It is estimated that 34 square feet of fill was placed in the wetland. Estimations were completed using aerial imagery and photos included in the violation documentation. PROPOSED MITIGATION: The property will be restored to pre-existing conditions. This will be achieved by replanting the wetland with cattails, as any other native emergent could not outcompete the existing cattail stand. Untreated cedar will be placed between the replanted area and the lawn to help delineate the wetland edge along the south property line and avoid similar infractions in the future. This will also allow the property owner to keep and maintain the pre-existing lawn. 28 February 2017 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page i Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i Table of Contents..................................................................... .. ............ ii List of Figures, Tables and Appendices ...................................................................... 111 Chapter 1. 1.1 1.2 Chapter 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 Chapter 3. 3.1 3.2 Chapter 4. 4.1 Chapter 5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 Chapter 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Chapter 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Chapter 8. Chapter 9. Introduction...................... .. ............................................................ 1 Purpose of Report.............................. .. ............................... 1 Statement of Accuracy ...................................................................... 1 Property Description .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ............ 1 Property Location ................................................................................ 1 General Property Description .. .. .. . .. .. ................... 1 Existing Site Development ................................................................... 1 Background Review............. . ................................................. 2 Background Data Reviewed............................................ ... .. .. 2 Background Review Results ................................................................ 2 Proposed Development and Critical Areas Impacts ................................... 2 Project Description .............................................................................. 2 Proposed Mitigation .. .. .. .... . .. ......................................................... 3 Agency Policies and Guidance ............................................................ 3 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................. 3 Mitigation Design Elements..................... .. ................ 3 Plantings .............................................................................................. 3 Re-establish Lawn............ .. ........................................ 3 Temporary Irrigation System.............................................. ... 3 Permanent Irrigation in West Lawn ..................................................... 3 Construction BMPs................ . ..................................... 4 Mitigation Goals & construction sequencing ............................................. 4 Goals............. . ...................................................................... 4 Mitigation Construction Sequencing..... .. ................. 4 Post-Construction Approval ................................................................. 4 Post-Construction Assessment ........................................................... 5 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................... 5 Monitoring Schedule ............................................................................ 5 Monitoring Update...................................... .. ............. 5 Photo Documentation .......................................................................... 5 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 5 Water Quality.............. . .............................................................. 5 Site Stability....................................... . .................................. 6 Summary............................................................................. . .......... 6 References ................................................................................. 7 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page ii Hunsaker Property LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map & Directions Figure 2 -Site Plan Figure 3 -Notes & Details LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Projected Schedule for Site Evaluations and Reporting APPENDICES Mitigation Plan 5 Appendix A: Wetland Rating Form, Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Version 2 (2004, Revised in 2008), Talasaea Consultants, 2016. 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page iii Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report This report is the result of a critical area study for the Hunsaker property (referred to hereinafter as the "Site"). The Site is located in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this report is to address the violation cited by the City of Renton, as well as propose mitigation for the impacts on the property. This report will provide and describe the following information: • General property description; • Methodology for critical areas investigation; • Mitigation approach; • Proposed mitigation design; • Site specific goals and construction sequencing; and • Monitoring plan 1.2 Statement of Accuracy Wetland characterizations and ratings were conducted by trained professionals at Talasaea Consultants, Inc., and adhered to the protocols, guidelines, and generally accepted industry standards available at the time the work was performed. The conclusions in this report are based on the results of analyses performed by Talasaea Consultants and represent our best professional judgment. To that extent and within the limitation of project scope and budget, we believe the information provided herein is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. Talasaea does not warrant any assumptions or conclusions not expressly made in this report, or based on information or analyses other than what is included herein. CHAPTER 2.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Property Location The Site is an approximately 0.76-acre property located in Renton, Washington. The King County Tax Parcel number is 334330-2850. The property address is 5201 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. The Public Land Survey System location is Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. 2.2 General Property Description The topography of the Site is sloping from the east to the west. The property occurs along the shoreline of Lake Washington. A bioswale is located along the south property line which discharges into a lake-fringe wetland. Vegetation on the undeveloped portions of the Site is maintained as lawn for several decades since the house was constructed in the 1970s. 2.3 Existing Site Development The Site is developed as a single-family residence with lawn along the southern and western edges of the property. The majority of the shoreline is maintained as a bulkhead and dock structure, which occurs in the middle of the property. In between the bulkhead and the property owner's 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 1 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan bulkhead to the north, there is a small patch of shoreline that is completely unvegetated. To the south of the bulkhead, there is maintained lawn and a lake shore wetland. Most of the vegetation in the wetland is invasive species. The most dominant native vegetation was cattails. CHAPTER 3.BACKGROUND REVIEW The critical areas analysis of the Site consisted of a preliminary assessment of the Site and the immediate surrounding area using published environmental information. 3.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information from the following sources was reviewed: • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016) (www.wetlandsfws.er.usqs.gov/wtlnds/launch.html); • Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016)(www. websoilsurvey. nrcs.usda.qov/app/); • King County GIS Database (King County 2016); • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Database on the Web (www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/); • StreamNet database, 2016 (www.streamnet.org) • SalmonScape database, 2016 (www. wfw. wa .gov/mappinq/salmonscape/databases ); • Orthophotography from Earth Explorer (USGS), Google Earth; and • Relevant studies completed or ongoing in the vicinity of the Site. 3.2 Background Review Results The following contains the results from the review listed in Section 3.1: • Lake Washington is located within the parcel to the west of the single family residence. The lake is home to several species of migratory fish and is located in the Pacific Flyway. • No priority habitats or species are found on or in the vicinity of the site. No wildlife was observed during the two site visits. • No wetlands are mapped on or in the vicinity of the site. • Three soil types were mapped on or in the vicinity of the site: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8 to 15 percent slopes), Alderwood and Kitsap soils (very steep), and Seattle muck. CHAPTER 4.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL AREAS IMPACTS 4.1 Project Description The Applicant proposes to replace a pre-existing porch and sidewalk to replace rotting wood supports. The patio and sidewalk were initially constructed with the house in 1979. The Applicant removed these elements two months ago, and in the process, inadvertently pushed a small amount (34 sf) of fill into an onsite wetland. Impacts 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 2 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan outlined in the violation by the City of Renton dated 29 September 2016 (CODE16- 000650) include: • Fill and grade over the existing lawn; and • Gravel imported and placed between the house and critical area to the south In addition to replacing the old porch and sidewalk, the Applicant proposes to install an automated irrigation system to the remaining lawn space as part of the general maintenance of these areas. CHAPTER 5.PROPOSED MITIGATION 5.1 Agency Policies and Guidance The mitigation proposed for critical areas impacts is in accordance with the following policies, codes, and regulatory guidance: Renton Municipal Code, Chapter 4-3-090, "Shoreline Master Program Regulations" 5.2 Mitigation Summary To mitigate for the minor wetland encroachment of 34 sf, the Applicant proposes to remove the fill from the wetland, install 8x8" untreated cedar timber at the edge of the lawn outside of the wetland boundary, and replant with cattails (Typha latifolia). 5.3 Mitigation Design Elements 5.3.1 Plantings Existing wetland vegetation is dominated by cattails, bindweed (Convulvulus arvensis) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). Areas that were identified as fill will be removed and replaced with cattails. We recognize that other native emergent vegetation would provide better forage and habitat opportunities in the wetland, however, cattails will likely outcompete these species in a few years. 5.3.2 Re-establish Lawn The lawn to the south side of the property will be re-established to pre-existing conditions. A series of 8x8" untreated cedar timber will be placed on a setback from the wetland edge to define the lawn edge. Fill will be placed on the north side of the installed timber to establish the lawn (gravel, topsoil, etc). 5.3.3 Temporary Irrigation System Temporary irrigation will be not be necessary, as hydrology is continuously provided by Lake Washington and the street runoff from the east. 5.3.4 Permanent Irrigation in West Lawn The Applicant will be installing irrigation along the western lawn located along Lake Washington as part of ongoing lawn maintenance. According to RMC 4-3- 090(0)(2)(d)(ix)(d), "Existing facilities: maintenance, repair or operation of existing structures, facilities, or improved areas, including minor modification of existing 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 3 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan serviceable structures within a buffer zone does not adversely impact wetland functions, and subject to the provisions for nonconforming use and facilities in chapter 4-10 RMC." The western lawn is a pre-existing non-conforming use that is in need of irrigation for continued maintenance, and thus meets the intent of this stipulation. 5.4 Construction BMPs The proposed project will implement BMPs as needed during construction to minimize impacts to the on-site critical areas during the construction process. The proposed development will comply with the latest edition of the King County Stormwater Management Manual and all applicable construction site erosion control and stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Silt fences; • Straw bale dams; • Erosion control mesh, netting, seeding, or other cover for exposed soils; and • Covered, seeded, or otherwise stabilized soil stockpiles. CHAPTER 6. MITIGATION GOALS & CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 6.1 Goals The goal of the proposed mitigation plan is to replace the ecological functions and values lost due to small amounts of wetland fill. To accomplish these goals, the proposed mitigation plan will: • Enhance 34 sf of wetland 6.2 Mitigation Construction Sequencing The following provides the general sequence of activities anticipated to be necessary to complete this mitigation project. Some of these activities may be conducted concurrently as the project progresses. 1. Conduct a site meeting between the contractor, Talasaea Consultants, and the owner's representative to review the mitigation plans and work areas. 2. Survey mitigation project limits and flag or otherwise clearly mark boundaries of mitigation work areas. 3. Install any erosion and sedimentation control BMPs necessary for work in the mitigation areas. 4. Remove fill. 5. Install untreated cedar timber that delineates the lawn edge. 6. Place topsoil or amend soils in restored buffer areas. 7. Plant cattails as shown on plans. 6.3 Post-Construction Approval Talasaea Consultants shall notify the City in writing when the mitigation planting is completed for a final site inspection and subsequent final approval. Once final approval is obtained in writing from the City, the monitoring period will begin. 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 4 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan 6.4 Post-Construction Assessment Once the mitigation construction is approved, a qualified wetland ecologist/biologist from Talasaea Consultants shall conduct a post-construction baseline assessment. The purpose of this assessment will be to establish baseline conditions at Year O of the required monitoring period. A Baseline Assessment report including as-built drawings will be submitted to the City. The as-built plan set will depict any field changes to plantings or other features in relation to the original approved mitigation plan. CHAPTER 7. MONITORING PLAN 7.1 Monitoring Schedule To ensure the success of this project, Talasaea Consultants will conduct two site visits and supply an update to the City according to the schedule presented in Table 1 below. Monitoring will be performed by a qualified biologist or ecologist. Table 1. Proiected Schedule for Site Evaluations and Recortina Year Date* Site Visit Ucdate Due to Citv 1 Sarina X Fall X X "Actual dates will depend on project construction schedule, to be determined. 7.2 Monitoring Update The update to the City will be sent one year after the construction is completed. Wetland health, survival and untreated cedar stabilization will be discussed as standards of site performance. 7.3 Photo Documentation Locations will be established within the mitigation area from which panoramic photographs will be taken during each site visit. These photographs will document general appearance and relative changes within the plant community. Review of the photos over one year will provide a semi-quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. 7.4 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates observed in the wetland and buffer areas (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded during scheduled monitoring events, and at any other times observations are made. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of the habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 7.5 Water Quality Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: • Oil sheen or other surface films, 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 5 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan • Abnormal color or odor of water, • Stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • Turbidity, and • Absence of aquatic fauna. 7 .6 Site Stability Observations will be made of the general stability of slopes and soils in the mitigation areas during each monitoring event. Any erosion of soils or slumping of slopes will be recorded and corrective measures will be taken. CHAPTER 8. SUMMARY A critical areas study was conducted for the Hunsaker Property located in Renton, Washington. The site is approximately 0.76-acres in size. The address is 5201 Ripley Lane North. The majority of the Site is developed as a single family residence with lawn to the west and south. Lake Washington is located immediately to the west. The Site occurs within the Shoreline Management Zone and proposed work will occur within this zone. However, all activities are allowable per RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(d) and 4-10, and are except from shoreline regulation. This report was written to address a violation from the City of Renton dated 29 September 2016. The Applicant is proposing 34 square feet of native emergent enhancement within the wetland and a series of 8"x8" untreated cedar timber that will be installed to define the lawn edge. 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page6 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan CHAPTER 9.REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70131. Hruby, T. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #04- 06-025, 2008. Iowa State University. 1995. Hydric Soils of Washington State. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 5. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [10/24/2016]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. June, 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [Map Online], Olympia (WA): Salmon Scape [10/24/2016]. URL: <http//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html> 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Page 7 Hunsaker Property FIGURES Figure 1 -Vicinity Map & Directions Figure 2 -Site Plan Figure 3 -Notes & Details Mitigation Plan 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Figures ·,.,, . •.,,' ~1·•1•""' I,· ·1,· ,,. ['., I •• ,,,., Ro!. ' ·· ·,~ r, rt ,.-,.,,., ,· . . •• ',.1-. f IMAGE SOURCE, GOOGLE MAPS, NN0LMAPS.600GLE.COM (ACCESSED 2 NOV 2016) DRIVING DIRECTIONS, I. FROM SEATTLE, TAKE 1-CfO E AND TAKE EXIT IOA TO MERGE ONTO 1-405 S TO RENTON 2. FROM 1-405, TAKE EXIT 1 FOR NORTH EAST 44TH STREET 3. TURN RIGHT ONTO N 44TH STREET 4. CONTINUE ONTO RIPLEY LN N 5. DESTINATION NILL BE ON THE LEFT, 5201 RIPLEY LANE NORTH RENTON, HA '18056 ffi T ALASAEA w CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning t,-,(1'..:() llc,-,r ('red.; !foad ."\urth,·>l,I \\'oudw,lllt-, \\a,-1>11,gtnn '.)/JUT;" Bus ( 1·:,-,)/lf;l-(.-,:-,U -F;;~ I !~:-),'1\li)-·,.-,J!l FIGURE #I VICINITY MAP 4 DIRECTIONS RESIDENCE OF PAT HUNSAKER 5201 RIPLEY LN N RENTON '18056 - DESIGN I DRAWN I PROJECT I ABS 1634 SCALE / l-'?=l'=~=2=0=16~_-\(0 ~.; REVISED ~ ·' © Cop,vn:2,lil -Tcll;J.c«H'<l Co11sull;illt,-. ['\r·. G RAPH IC SCALE ( \I =EE' ) I 1 1 I 0 5 30 6 0 SC ALE, 1"=30' CD ~(,""'V1 "7f'f'!I~'• LAKE HASHI NG TON PROJEC T SI TE t ,c,.._..,l.,......,. ~· CONTACT INFO PROPFR~ O HNE"<- 1\AME: P A T HUNS AKE R ADDR::SS, 5201 R PLEY LAI\E NORTH RE NTON. HA 08056 PH ONE: (..:1.25) 864-8383 HETL AND A CAT Ill (CONTI NUES OFF STE) R ESTORAT IO N AREA (3 4 SF) SEE PLANT SCHEDJLE PR0°0SE D DOHN [_06, TYP . ~~~ APPROXIMATE PLANT SCHEDUL E KEY BOTAN IC.AL NAME COMMON NAME r:----, APPROX. 100 SF OF pq_E EX IS-11\G PORCrl/DECK/SI DEHAL K -o 3E REPLACED H ITHIN S AME FOOT PR NT Q T Y . SPACING SIZE (M IN.) Ds.x.~ TYPrA L A TI F O_ A BRO A D -LEAF CATTAI L 25 15 " O.C RHIZOME * SEE NO r ES Al'-.D DETA ILS ON F IGURE 3 PLAN LEGEND ----• PROPERlY LI NC (H HITE) -A PPR OXI MA TED H ETLAND BOJNDARY; NOT SURVEYED (ALSO OHH M FOR LAKE HASHINGTON) K x 7v7x·",(,; ,:-,i M ITIGATION AR[A I_~ X' x _ X _ X x, . ·-_J ,, • ~ - 0 / ;. ,: /' ;::, - !v11TIGATION OVERV IEY'! SC.A L E : I"= 0 H f-TLAND BOUN DARY ::::-"· C, • REMOV:: F IL L SOIL S • D ECOMPA C.-IF NECESSARY • P L ACE 8x8" UN rREA-=D CEDAR BORDE R • R::PLANT RESTORA.T ION AREA V'J ITH NATIVE PLANTS (34 SF) • NO 0 -IA NGE -o IMPERVIOUS SUR F A C,E SQU ARE FOOT AGE DESI GN DRAW N ABS/M SCALE F IGURE " 2 AS SHONN _ e EA DAT£ "' T ALASA S ITE PLAN _ F PAT HUNS AKER 1-21-201 s CO NSULTANTS, I NC. T HE R ESI V,E=NGL~ ~ RENTO N '1805 b R EV ISED 5 2 01 R IPL::Y Re s o urce & En viro nmenla l Planning 1-Jl!:!O B t· u C 1 ·'<'k Hc.).1d '\01 I J1r;p,t \\ood 11 1\ di,. \\~1 -..t un~ton DHO ';''; 11 11 ... t l :!:",)fh i l ··,;>,->0 ~a, I J°l:'J)UGI 7:'"d !J © C'oJ1.,Ti :;!;1 1t Tc1 l a"-:11 ·..-t ( o n:,..ullttnl"'-. I\< W ct land name or number _Pi __ l I 2.3 Near or adjacent lo other priority habitats listed bv WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft ( I OOm) of the wetland unit? NOTF.· the connections Jo not have to be relatively undisturhed. These ure DFT,V definitions. Check wiTh your local DFfV bioiogisl ifrhere are any quesrions __ Riparian: !"he area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains clements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually inOucm:e each other. __ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). __ Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 tl) high and occurring below 5000 ft. __ Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west or Cascade crest) Stands or at least 2 tree species. forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of age. __ l\lature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover ma) be ks~ that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than tbat found in old- growth: 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. __ Prairies: Relativi.::ly undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. __ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andcsite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliff-;. ~-Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void1 or system of interconnected passages __ Oregon white Oak: \Voodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%. ___ Urban Natural Open Space: A priority spl:cics resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha ( I 0 acres) and is sun-ounded by urban development. __ Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi- enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. Th;; salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some lmv-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landvv·ard to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. [ncludes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the tenestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that arc important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, (:rosion control). Ir wetland has 3 or more priority habitats= 4 points lf 1,-vetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat= l point No habitats= 0 points J.Vote: All vegetated wP.t/ands are by deJ!nition a priurity habitat but are not included in this list. Neurbv wetlands are addressed in auestion H 2.4) Wetland Rating Form -western \.Vashington versim1 2 16 August 2004 D Wetland name or number _A_ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile. and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. D points= 5 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake-fringe wetlands within Y, mile D points= 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within Yi mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed D points= 3 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-lringe wetland within Y, mile I:» poims = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within Y2 mile. D points= 2 There are no wetlands within Yi mile. D points =O H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2. l,ll2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOT AL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on Wetland Rating Form -western \Vashington version 2 17 D. I August 2004 r----- I -1 I ----· ti ----- 13 Wetland name or numher _A__ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Plea~e determine if the wetland meets tlte attribute~· de~·cribed below and circle tlte appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that appfv to /he wetland. Circle the Catego,}' when the am1rovriule criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The dominant water regime is tidal, -Vegetated. and -With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC t. I NO - SC l. l Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge. National Park. National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under W J\C 332-30-151? YES = Category 1 NO go to SC I .2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least l acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category !I -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than l 0% cover of non-nalivc plant species. [fthe non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more lhan 10% of the wetland. then the wetland should be given a dual rating (1/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however. exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of I acre. -At least 31, of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest. or un-grazcd or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels. depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form~ western Washington version 2 18 August 2004 Category Cat I Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating !Ill Wetland name or number_ A __ SC 2.0 :\atural Heritage Wetlands (1·ee p. 87) J\:atural Heritage wetlands have been identitied by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen our most sites hejore you need to contact WNff P/DN//) S/T/R information from Appendix D __ or accessed from Wr\HP/DNR \veb site YES __ -contact WNI IP/DNR (see r-79) and go to SC 2.2 '-:0 SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES~ Category I NO __ not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (,·ee p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part uf the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the ke_v below to identify ,f the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based Oil its function.<. I. Does the unit have organic soil hori/.ons (i.e. layers of organic soil). either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the !irst 32 inches of the soil profile? (Sec Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes· go to Q. 3 D No ·goto Q. 2 D 2. Does the unit have organic soils. either peals or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes· go to Q. 3 D No -Is not a bog for purpose of rating D 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table , as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes -Is a bog for purpose of rating D No -go to Q. 4 D NOTE: If you arc uncertain about the extent of mosses in the undcrstory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at kast 16" deep. If the pl! is less than 5.0 and the ·'bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. I. Is the unit forested(> 30'Yo cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WIT! I any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the Iota/ shrr,b!herhaceous cover;! 2.0YES = Category I \,\.iet!aod Rating Fonn -western Washington vt:rsiun 2 No~ Is not a bog for purpose of rating 19 August :?:004 Cat. l Cat. I Wetland namt! 01· number _A_ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (.<ee p. 90) Does rhc wetiand unit have at ieast i acre ortOrest that meet one of these criteria for the Depa,1mcnt of Fish and Wiidl itc's forests as priority habitats? ff you unswer yes you will still need to rare the we!land based on itsfunctwns. ~-Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species. forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at kast 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that arc at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dhh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two-hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. -Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large dowt1cd material is grncral ly less than that found in old-growth. YES -Category I NO __ not a forested wetland v.ith special characteristics SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon° -The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks -The lagoon in which the wetland is lncated contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoor. (needs to be measured near the bol/om) YES = Go to SC 5. I ~O_ not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC S. I Docs the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? -The v,ctland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching, tilling. cultivation. grazing). and has less than 20o/o cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). -At least'/, of the landward edge of the wetland has a l 00 t1 buffer ol- shrub, fon.::st, or un-grazcd or un-mowed grassland. -The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I 'iO = Category II Wetland Rating FlJrrn -western Washington version 2 '20 August 2004 Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Wetland name or number _ _L SC 6.0 Intcrdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the l 8 89 I ine (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)'? YES -go to SC 6. l D 1\0 ~ not an intcrdunal wetland for rating ff you an.,wer yes you will still need to rate.the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • I .ong Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR l 03 • Grayland-Westport-lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6. I Is the wetland one acre or larger. or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II O NO -go to SC 6.2 0 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0. 1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acrc9 YES = Category Ill D Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the "highest" rati11x i(wetlandfalls into several c111egories, and record on p. /. If vou answered NO for all types enter ·'Not Annlicable" on p. I Wetland Rating form -western Washington version 2 21 August 2004 Cat. II Cat. III ATTACHMENT 3 Shoreline Tracking Worksheet Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Hear Creek Road "\:orthcast • \\:oodinvilk:, \\:ashington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 J,'ax: (425)861-7S49 Tlrl-{&34- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------RentOil ® SHORELINE TRACKING WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 I www.rentonwa.gov The City of Renton is required by the Washington State Department of Ecology to track and evaluate the effectiveness of the Shoreline Master Program at achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions with respect to shoreline projects. The City will use shoreline development tracking information to prepare a Shoreline Master Program report every eight years to comply with the Shoreline Management Act requirements. SHORELINE STABILIZATION l. Is there currently a bulkhead on your site? I) Yes D No; If yes, fill out table below. If no, see "Site Conditions", Section 2 below. What Type of Materials is Your Bulkhead Made of? Linear Feet of Hard Materials: ~ g,._ (Q /,,tJV//!-'J frf"J-1 I Io Linear Feet of Soft Materials: 4-3 Examples of Types of Bulkheads: Hard (e.g. rocks, wood); Soft (e.g. sand, plants); Combination-soft materials at the water with hard materials further inland, or a combination of hard and soft materials at the water. SITE CONDITIONS 2. List the size (in square feet) and type of all structures (1'1 floor only) on your property (e.g. 2,000 sq. ft. house, 125 sq. ft. greenhouse). -{~ i._ J t~ -e.,::;_;h· ~ AA-3) t,s} s-F 3. List distance (in feet) from the water to the closest point of each structure. List each building separately (e.g. shed, dock, carport). /W1M--e, -I 'l (;-u,1- ~ -.'i8'W 4. List the size (in square feet) and type of all impervious surfaces (e.g. driveway, parking area, walkway, patio). //Vu~ (?>2i 5{)J ~ (1--i?--, sf)~ ')a.AAJ)£ (tµ"JS/)J ~~ ( IT??> 5{) = 0I;4osf iob.-f 1 X:\Tal 1600 to 1699\Tal-1634\Permitting\Shoreline Exemption\Shoreline Tracking Worksheet.docx Rev: 08/2016 5. List distance (in feet) from the water to the closest point of each impervious surface (hard surface). flftl,1,,62& C { f kvt) J ~ Cs--q-kbr); vvc~ ( 4-?> fl), c;{/vl i~VVNj ( 1;,s {ce;() 6. Describe the existing vegetation within 100 ft. of the waterline. Estimate the amount (in square feet) of native vegetation. Grass and ornamental plantings (e.g. plants requiring care or grown for decorative purposes) should not be counted. iu;t,V'i'...,, \;~~ [7U,,{,{//,,j CL,U;~ 41,',,urlVfaf1- [2-M~ -~ Svf,WVv/-c,,l a.A-"'lo.sf'. 7. Will the project require any added fill? If so, how many cubic yards will be added: IN WATER AND OVER WATER STRUCTURES 8. Are there any in or over water structures on your site (e.g. docks, floats, bridges, mooring piles, boatlifts)? ~ Yes D No; If yes, fill out the table below. Describe the in-and over-water structures on your site ,&J <YvlL clo-Jc ~ M t-eA~ ~I° J4"£r~ -µ,J)'L ~ 01~ i+ ~ ~ 2 X:\Tal 1600 to 1699\Tal-1634\Permitting\Shoreline Exemption\Shoreline Tracking Worksheet.docx Rev:08/2016 Type Surface Area Light Penetrating Materials (e.g. dock, /loot, bridge, (in square feet, if (the percentage ofthe surface mooring pile, boat lift, etc.) applicable) area that is made of material that allows light to reach the water) Existing Vvfvl!.U ) fJ ~ / structures to ITTMA~,~, '1&<J.7s-F remain ol,vt 1/'Vv\/!UJ / 10-#( /} I W~w&) Existing p~-{~ structures that will be /t£1YVVll'-4::il tlf,,tA.J2-, fv sf. removed -~Avppi7f--f S33 /I/ /,q 6LJ.,,fn,Sl_. . Proposed fDTd,v ~ W~J structures J'U1~ /w/'IVfV'C,( s 33sf ~ _;,,;.._, ./J/ I~ ~~ 3 X:\Tal 1600 to 1699\Tal-1634\Permitting\Shoreline Exemption\Shoreline Tracking Worksheet.docx Rev:08/2016 ATTACHMENT 4 Neighborhood Detail Map Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Hear Creek Road I\ortht:ast • \\:oodinvillc, WashinJ-.,:.ton 98077 • Hus: (425)861-7550 1:ax: (425)861-7549 -:t' B~ II ,::,. C) :.... 't-o .. _s;,: -llJ 0 ~ w.. ~ :il I C) I ATTACHMENT 5 Existing Site Plan R esource & E n vironmental Planning 15020 lkar C:r cl:k Road >lorthrnst • \X'uodinvillt:, \Xfashing-mn 98077 • Hu s: (4 25)861 -7550 I ·'ax: (4 25)86 1 7 5-19 GRAPHI C SCALE ( IN FEET ) I J t I 0 '5 30 60 SCALE , 1"=30' CI) I,..., ....,.,..-.-n• • LAKE HASHING TON PROJECT SITE ~ ,1....., ... ,... "=' GONTAGT INFO PROPERTY OHNER NAME: PA -HUNSAKER AD::)RFSS, 5201 R IPLEY LAN:: NORTH R ENTON, HA '1b056 PHONE : (425 ) bbL.-8383 HET LAND A CAT 11 (Cot-.. -1Nu ES O FF SITE) .,,_.-RESTORATI ON AREA (34 s==) SFE PLANT SCHEDULE PROPOSED D O HN LOS, lYP . ~r,w IE A 0 PROX IMAT E PLANT SCHE D ULE KEY B OT At-.. CA_ NA ME COMMON NAIVE APPR O X. 100 SF OF PRE-EXISTING P O "<C H/DECK /S I D E /'lA L < TO B E ~EPLACED H I TH \I SAME F OOTPRI NT Q TY . SPACI NG S IZE (MI N) r,--------:r., LX'_Y~ TY P HA L A I IFOLI A B'<.O A D -LEA F C A TT A L 25 15 " O.C. RH IZOME • SE:: \J OTES AND DET A IL S ON F IGIJRE 3 PLAN LEGEND ----• PROPERlY LI NE (HHI TE) -A 0 PRO.X IMA TED HETLA'JD BOUNDARY; NO-SUR V E"'ED (A L SO OHH M FOR L AKE H ASH INGTON) ~~VKY7K'K .--,..l MIT IGAT ION AREA ,, < J "' - :-0 -f- / , ~ ,-:: -= M IT IGATI ON OVERVIE~ SCALE: 1''=10 HETLAND BOUNDARY f- / ~ • REMOV:: rill SOILS • DECOMPACT IF NECESSARY • P L ACE 8x8" UNTR=A TED C EDAR BORDER • R EPLAW RESTO~ T ION AREA H I TH NATIVE PLANTS (34 SF) • t-..0 C HANGE TO M 0 ERVIOUS SU RFAC E SQUARE FOOT AGE <.: I DR AWN PROJECT §_ DE S IG~ l634 -:: ABS/M ;., SCALE ,,,,---......._ '; FIGURE <2 AS SrtONN e EA DATE T ALASA S ITE P L AN c F PAT ~UNSAKER 1-21-2 011 CONSULTANTS. INC. T PE RES IDENG N ~ RENTON g8o56 nEVI sF.a Resour ce & Envi r o nme ntal Planning J .=jOlO B<·.,r ( n·\.·k Ho,ld ,orl h,,..,,t n oo<li nnllc·. \\:.t,h 111µl nt1 ~:mo·,·~ 5201 R IP _EY L ~ Hu.., 11 '!f,)H(,l 7;,:·}o -~<n { 1:CtHJH!-7:",I J :-.: © c,,p, 1 1i2hl -T..tJ;..p,,;n·ct ( ou ... 11Jt.-n1I:--.. l \l. I 1 I 8 RESTORATION PLANTING DETAIL LIGHTL I GOMPAGT SOIL AROUND AND OVER RHIZOME If: ALLOH HATER TO SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. HITH PLANTING BAR, SHOVEL, OR TILE SPADE, CREA TE PLANTING HOLE LARGE ENOUGH TO ACGOMODATE RHIZOME AND ROOTS. DO NOT OVER-EXCAVATE. IF TURF IS PRf:SENT, DO NOT REPLACE TURF. FINISHED GRADE -EXISTING NATIVE SOIL :==-i 1-~. NOTES: I. SOIL MUST BE VERY MOIST OR V'IET AT TIME OF PLANTING. 2. SEE PLANTING SPEC,IFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 0 l=_t,,,IERGENT RHIZOt-,;IE INSTALLATION DETAIL GENERAL PLANT INSTALLATION NOTES I. PLANTING, INSTALL PLANTS PER PLAN AND DETAILS. HATER PLANTS IMMEDIATELY UPON PLANTING, THEN PROVIDE MANUAL HATERING TO PREVENT PLANT MORTALITY AND ENSURE PROPER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. PLANTS SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF APPROXIMATELY ONE INCH OF HATER EVERY HEEK DURING THE DRY SEASON (GENERALLY JUNE 15TH -OCTOBER 15TH, OR EARLIER OR LATER IF CONDITIONS HARRANT) FOR THE FIRST SEASON AFTER PLANTING. IRRIGATION AMOUNTS MAY NEED TO BE INCREASED DURING PROLONGED PERIODS OF HOT, DRY HEATHER 2. HABITAT FEATURES, PLACE HABITAT FEATURES UPON COMPLETION OF TOPSOIL AND/OR SOIL AMENDMENT PLACEMENT, AS DEPICTED ON THE MITIGATION PLANS AND DETAILS. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS SHALL APPROVE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. 8X8 UNTREATED CEDAR BORDER, UNTREATED CEDAR BORDER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 20 FEET. "' ' ~ ~ " '" ~ r f ;:: ~ < / ? ---------...-------------....--i---...... ...---1 e FIGURE #3 DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT , T ALASAEA SCALE ABS 1634 CONSULTANTS, INC. NOTES a DETAILS AS SHOHN .;..· ' Resource & Environmental Planning THE RESIDENCE OF PAT HUNSAKER 1 :,o:co lkar ('red, l(u,-,<I '."orlhn,\I 5201 RIPLEY LN N RENTON q8o56 l'.,·,orl,n,,lk, Vr«~hrn1ctcrn \1/\0?7 llu• ( !lC.•1861 ,-,-,,,Q hVi I L'J)/JGJ ,·,,.rn DATE 11-2-2016 REVISED © Cop_\'rigll\ -Tnl;-ic1a0;; ( 011c111ltant~. ]"\C. ~ - 0 Hunsaker Property Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A Wetland Rating Form, Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Version 2 (2004, Revised in 2008), Talasaea Consultants, 2016. 22 December 2016 Copyright© 2016 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1634 Mitigation Plan (12-22-2016) Appendix B Wetland name or number __A_ WETLAND RA TING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (ifknown):TAL-/(7:?4-Wfd1rkhJA Date of site visit: JJ2/J 3 /;b , Rated by~. (1/U,fn,qJa Trained by Ecology? Yes2(_No_ Date of training 3/~/ b SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No Map of wetland unit: Figure__ Estimated size __ _ SUMMARY OF RA TING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I_ II_ III-1.. IV Category I = Score >=70 Category lI = Score 5 1-69 Category Ill = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOT AL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I_ II_ Does not Apply _x__ Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above} ~ Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit has Special Characteristics Estuarine Natural Herital!e Wetland Boe Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Laeoon Tnterdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form -western Wa~hington version 2 Wetland HGM Class used for Ratine Depressional x Riverine Lake-frin"e Slope Flats Freshwater Tidal Check if unit has multiple HGM classes oresent August 2004 Wetland name or number _A Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? l t· you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES (in addition to the orotection recommended for its cateimrv) SP l. Has the wetland unit been documented as a hahitatji,r any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species Jc' For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the a11propriate state or federal database. SP2. /las the wetland unit been documented as hahilm(or any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species:' For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are cateQorized as Cate!!orv l Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. l 9 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland uni! contain individuals of Priority species /isled by !he WDFWfor the state.? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to itsfunctions'/ For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of'the data sheet vou will need to determine the Hvdrogeomorphic Class o(the wetland being rated NO X X )( X The hydrogcomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland ti.tnctions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -western Washington wrsiun 2 2 August 2004 Wetland. name or number ___.i__ Classification of Wetland Units in Western \Vashington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which bydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Arc the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? Jli;I NO -go to 2 D YES -the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES -Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) Ifyour wetland can be clas.,ijied as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the tem1 "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (seep. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only soum; (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. D 1\0 -go to 3 D YES -The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats'' wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? Rfrhe vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores ol' a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; ~t least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)'' D NO -go to 4 ~YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. DDcs the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? __Qrhe wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), __Qrhe water flows through the wetland i,1 one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow suhsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. __Qrhe water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in ve1y small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <Jji diameter and less than I foot deep). D NO -go to 5 D YES -The wetland class is Slope Wttland Rating Form -western Washington wrsion 2 3 August 2004 \Vetland ndrne ur number_.&__ 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ___[::] The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by ovcrbank flooding from that stream or river ___[::] The overbank flooding occurs at ieast once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is notJlooding. D NO -go to 6 DYES --The wetland class is Riverine 6. ls the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface. at some time during the year. This means /hat an_v outlet, ifpresen/, is higher than the interior of the 1,,vetland. D NO -go to 7 DYES -The wetland class is Depression al 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. D NO -go to 8 DYES -The wetland class is Dcpressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example. seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine ilooclplain, or a small stream within a dcpressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK A?\:D IDENTIFY WI l!CH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS l"J TIIE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than I 0% of the unit: classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit bein<> ra/ed HGM Class lo Use in Rat in!! Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Deoressional Deoressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Lake-frinue Depressional 1-Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Dcnressional + Lake-fringe Dcoressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater Treat as ESTUARINE under v.ctland wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 flGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Oepressional for the rating. \VetlanJ Rating Forrn -western Washington version 2 4 August 2004 Wetland name or number ___A__ L Lake-fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to imorove water aualitv L L 1. Does the wetland unit have the l!atential to improve water quality? L LI. I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore (use polygons ofCowardin classes): Vegetation is more than 33ft(l0m) wide points= 6 Vegetation is more than 16 (Sm) wide and <33ft points = 3 Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <!6 ft points= 1 Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points= 0 Mao of Cowardin classes with widths marked L L 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland: choose the appropriate description that results in the highe.~t points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shnih or /Orest community. These are not Cowardin clas.~es. Area of Cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: Herhaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points~ 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is> 1/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed or herbaceous covers > 2/3 unit points= 3 Other vegetacion that is not aquatic bed in > l /3 vegetated area points= 1 Aquatic bed vegetation and open water cover> 2/3 of the unit points~ 0 Mao with oolunons of different veaetation t,mes L Add the points in the boxes above L L 2. Docs the wetland have the OPl!Ortunity to improve water quality? Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or polluted surface water flowing through the unit to the lake. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of poilutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources. but any single source would qualify as opportunity. -Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reser\<oir that does not meet water quality standards -Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft -Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge -Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland 2(_ Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland -Parks with grassy areas that arc maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) -Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake -Other YES multinlier is 2 NO multiolier is 1 L TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 Add score to table on n. I Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington . ' version ... 9 August 2004 Points (r,nJy I SCt'HI!" per box) (see p.59) Figure_ s Figure_ ~ ----- I q I -----(see p.61) multiplier 1 Q. -~ .0 1i Wetland name or number .A L Lake-fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L L 3. Does the wetland nnit have the (!Otential to reduce shoreline erosion? L L 3 Distance along shore and average width ofCowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland) > V. of distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 6 > Y, of distance is shrubs or forest at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points= 4 > Y, distance is shrubs or forest at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 4 Vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 2 Vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide (any type except aquatic bed) points= 0 Aerial nhoto or man with Cowardin veaetation classes L Record the points from the box above L L 4. Does the wetland unit have the O(!(!Ortunity to reduce erosion'! Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes'/ Note which of the following conditions apply. 2( There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. -There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion -Other -- YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is l L TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 lO August 2004 Points (only I srure µ,:1 l.iox) (see p.62) Figure_ 2- -----"'),.. -----(seep.63) multiplier yZ. .0' + Wetland name or number ___ti__ These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points (onl~· J score HAB1TA T FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per ho:-.) H I. Does the wetland unit have the [!Otential to provide habitat for many species? H I. I Ve~etation struclUre (seep. 72) Figure_ Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold/or each class is 1,~ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. X Aquatic bed __l(_Emergent plants __ Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) __ Forested (areas where trees have >JO% cover) !(the unit has a forested class check if.' \ --The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs. herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon e Add the number ofvegetatiun structures that qual(fy. If you have: 4 structures or more points= 4 Map of Coward in vegetation classes 3 structures poi ms= 2 2 structures points = 1 I structure ooints = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure_ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or "Y.t acre to count. (.,;ee textfor descriptions ofhydroperiods) _i,_Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points= 3 t, .....}<_ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points= 2 __ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point= I __ Saturated only I type present points= 0 ,r __ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland __ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland z __ X_ Lake-fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland= 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO fr. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the si:::e threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mi(/Oil, reed ccmurygrass, purple loosestr(/e, Canadian This{/e If you counted: > 19 species points~ 2 l List species below ifyou want lo: 5 -19 species points-::: l Wi //o(A) < S species points= 0 CtL.t/-~.S ~ 1:i,~v,1ecd... k:>11-dJA~ t--tre-~ I u.Jo.k.,L, lj Total for page _l...l_ __ Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 13 August 2004 Wetland name or number -A- H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation cla.;;5es (Je:.e,:;ribcJ in H 1.1 ), or the classes and unvegeiatt:<l areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. o@ @ 0 None= 0 points 0 Low = 1 point 0 Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] ~ 0 I Iig.h = 3 points NOTE: [f you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "hi h"". Use map of Coward in vegetation classes H 1.5. Special 1 lahitat Features: (seep. 77) Check lhe hubilat fi!atures that are present in the wetland. The number qf checks is the number of points you put into the next column. __ Large. downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 n long). __ Standing snags (diameter at the bottom> 4 inches) in the wetland __ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 n (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 n (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 n ([Om) __ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30dcgree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) __ At lea<;t 1/i acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in area.., that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures.for egg-laying by umphibians) ___ lnva<;ive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants y igure_ 0 NOTE: The 20% .stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. ~--------------------------------------.-----H I. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat L._ _____________ _:_A:cd:cd:..:t:.:h.::_e-"s<:pres /iwn Ill.I. HI 2. H/.3. Hl.4, Hl.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form -western Washington version 2 14 August 2004 I (o I L ____ J Wetland name or number __A__ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure_ Clwost the description that b;:.st represents condition rfhujfer n_fwetland unit. The highest scoring crirerion that applies to thi! wetland is to he used in the rating See text fbr definition (f ··undL~·turhed" ~ JOO m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water >95% ofcircumforence. No structures are within the undisturbed part ol'hul'fer. (relatively undisturbo;:d also means no-grazing. no landscciping. no daily human use) Points= 5 -l 00 m (,330 rt) or relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open vvater > 50%) circumference. Points= 4 ~ 50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points= 4 -iOO rn (330~) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas. or open water> 25% circumference. . Points= 3 -50 m {170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> 50% circumference. Points= 3 Ifhuffer does not meet an,.-of the criteria aho\'e NL> paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% ..::ircumforcnce. Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points= 2 No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing. or lawns are OK. Points= 2 Heavy grazing in buffer. Points= 1 Vegetated buffers are <2111 v,1 ide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields. paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points= 0. -Huffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I Aerial ohoto showina buffers H ~-2 Corridors an<l Connections ('t·ee p. 81) H 2.2. l ls thl'. wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken \·egctated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide:, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, for~st or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetl.:rnds or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparit1n corridors, heavily used gravel roads. paved road~, are considered breaks in the cnrridor). 0 YES -4 points (go to H 2.3) ONO= go to II 2.2.2 ! [ 2.2.2 ls the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridur (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50t1 wide, has at least .10C:/~ cover of shrubs or forest, and connects rn estuaries. other wetlands or undisturbed upklnds thnt are at least 25 acres in size? OH. a I akc~friugc we1lomd if it dos::s not have an undisturbc.d_£':)rri~or ~ in tl.l£J]Llt:Stion abo.y~?. gJ YES = 2 points (go 10 H 2.3) 0 NO~ 11 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 ls the wetland: Owithin 5 rni (8km) or a brackish or salt \Vater estuary OR Owithin 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR Owithin l mi ofa lak~ greater than 20 acres'? 0 YES = 1 noint ONO -o ooints Wetland Rating Form -w~skm Washington \eersion 2 15 Total for page _A--- August 2004 DEPARTMENT"OF COMMUNITY AND ECdNOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------Renton® PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER: CONTACT: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: March 3, 2017 LUA17-000112, SME Hunsaker Critical Area Restoration Mona Davis, Senior Planner Pat Hunsaker 5201 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056 Kristen Numata Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 5201 Ripley Lane N The applicant is requesting approval of a Shoreline Exemption for the proposed replacement of an existing porch and sidewalk and restoration of approximately 34 square feet of fill that was accidentally placed in an on-site wetland. The single-family property is located on Lake Washington with approximately 30 feet of natural shoreline. A lake fringe wetland occurs along the southern parcel boundary, which has been rated as a Category Ill wetland with a 75-foot buffer. The applicant proposes to reconstruct a pre-existing porch and sidewalk that was located along the western and southern sides of the house. The existing porch and sidewalk was removed in September 2016 to address issues with rotting support beams. During the removal of the old porch and sidewalk, fill material was accidently pushed into a small area ofthe on-site wetland. The applicant is proposing to restore the property to pre-existing conditions. This would be achieved by replanting the wetland with Cattails, as any other native emergent could not outcompete the existing Cattail stand. Untreated cedar would be placed between the replanted area and the lawn to help delineate the wetland edge along the south property line and avoid similar infractions in the future. The project would remove approximately 34 square feet of fill from the wetland and replant City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption Jrom Shoreline Substantial Development Hunsaker Critical Area Restoration LUAl 7-000112~ SME SEC-TWN-R: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (King County Assessor) WATER BODY: Cattails in the wetland as part of the restoration project. This project is considered to be a normal maintenance and repair of existing development. Work is anticipated to occur in March or April 2017. No other permits are required for this work. NE29-24-5 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN# 3 36 & SH LOS ADJ & POR OF 35 & SH LOS ADJ SLY OF LN RNG N 89 DEG 31 MIN 09 SEC W 131.42 FT TH N 88 DEG 41 MIN 39 SEC W 228 FT FR PT 19 FT SLY OF SECOR OF 34 TGW VAC ST ADJ PER VAC ORD 4246 Lake Washington (Reach B) EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby Approved on the proposed project in accordance with RMC 4.9.190( 'Exemption from Permit System' and for the following reasons: Subsection 3: Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements: a. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. b. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment The proposed development is: Consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. Not Applicable to the guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or adopted by the Department. Consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. Page 1 of 3 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Shoreline Substantial Development Hunsaker Critical Area Restoration LUAll-000112, SME SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party of record may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 day appeal time frame. APPEALS: The administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on March 17, 2017 (RCW 43.21.C075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. EXPIRATION: Two (2) years from the date of decision (date signed) Attachments: Vicinity/Neighborhood Detail Map, Site Plan cc: Pat Hunsaker/ Owner Talasaea Consultants -Kristen Numata / Contact Page 1 of 3 0 eRAPHIG SCALE ( IN FEET) ~ I 100 200 SC.ALE , 1"=100' NORTH ® --eenton c ,'ry u f>'l ,·f ' GRAPH IC SCAL E ( 11'. FEET) 0 15 30 SCALE-: I "=30' I 60 CD ,.,.,,,._ .. .,.,.~...,,,. LAKE ~ PR.O J EC T HAS HINGTON -/ S ITE ·,,,1,......,, .... ~ 6 GONTAGT INFO PROPERTY OH'lER N AME, PAl HUNSAKER ADDRESS: 5201 R IPLEY LANE NORTr-l R ENTON, HA Cl8056 P HOI\E, (425) 864-8383 HETLAND A GA-I l l (CONT INUES OFF SITE) RESTORA~ION AREA (34 SF) SEE PLAN-SCHEDULE PROP OSED ::)OJAJN LOG, -yp_ PLANT SCHEDUL E K ::Y BOT A N I CAL I\AME COMMON NA VIE r-"--, APPROX . 100 s::: OF P~E-EXIS-ING PORCH/DECK/SI DE HALK ..,..0 6:: REPLA.CED rllTH IN SAME FOOT PRINT .WWW: W4 QTY. SPAGI N6 S IZE (MIN .) i_x_x_'xl TYPHA _AT IFOLIA BROAD-LEAF GA !TAIL 25 15' C.C RHIZOME • SEE NOTES AND DETAILS ON FISURE 3 PLAN LEGEND ----• PROPERTY LINE (HHI-L) -APP'<OXIMA TED HETL AND BOJNDARY; NOT SURVEYED (AL SO OHHM FOR LAKE HASHINGTON) ~{ J ~ :.,.. - "' / f--,,; ~,<~ X/ :vz:_x\() M ITIGA TION A REA ,::: APPRO X IMATE -~--~--~---'-' z; H E-LAND ; tv!IT IGATION OVERVIE~ SCALE: 1"=10 ' B OUNDARY ~ C, • R E MOVE F ILL SOILS • D ECOMPAG T F NE CESSARY • PLACE 8x8" UNTREATED CEDAR BORDER • R E PLANf RES-ORAT 0 1\. AREA HITH NAT IVE PLANTS (34 SF) • NO CHANGE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SQLiAR= FOOT ASE ,,,,,,,.---------....,.-----------------...--.... --.... ---1 "' e 2 DESIGK DRAW'.'< PROJECT Fl6UR:: tt T ALASAEA SCALE ABS/M 1634 ;, CONSULTANTS, I NC. SITE PLAN AS SHOWN ~ Resource & Environmental Planning THE RES IDENCE O F PAT HUNSAKER DATE ...., 2 I ;)O'.!O Ut·,-u c·rr,•l.. R o ad \.01 llu·1' ... 1 \'t ood111 , ill, \\a..,h1n,eton 98077 1111-. I l '.!;-1 )H Ht -·,;\;>O hn ( 12:",)flGl -i':"110 520 RIPL::Y LI'\ N RENTON Ci8056 1-21-2011 REV ISED © ( op~n!!l1t -TrtJ;..1s ,u·a ( 0 11...:ulta111-.. l\t / "