The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-01-164_Report 1- -.l N 0 0 :::::J o (J) ~ C> C> W , s::: , 00 o 0\ 0 0 N 0 ~ ~ ~ ,---1 I I I Merlino Site (2002-M-8) Aerial Map Study Area o 300 600 f lz! I I : 3600 e"'( <f' Economic Deve lopment. NeIghborhood:. & Strategic Planning • .., • Ale ... 1'1 "1'0('11. AlIllllnl\(ral,!r ~ G. Df'! R" .... LflO "[" J lui) 2()1)J Existing RN-I IH~ .. ~i1pt:»jt>*=~;:'::-'\;x 1 ---.. Proposed R-10 /-7f~ ;j '"'II i dz R-8 0N~ '-,'01 ~ ~ l G:"'-::~ I C 0 co '\. '" R -G , ~ RCg ,,, RC RC RN-I co RC(P) RC(P) Merlino Site (2003-M-8) Landuse & Zoning Map Economic Dc\'e l o pm~lH, Neighborhood~ & Su,l1cgic Planning A\cx Plw.ch. Adrnini,l rJlm G,lkll\p'>;lfn' J hll) ~IX)3 ~- RC<P) RC<P i IN c:::==:J EAI·Employment Area tndustria l c:::==:J EAV-Emp loy ment Area Valley c:::==:J RM-J.Residential Multi-Family Infill c:::==:J RO -R esidentiat Options ~ RR-Res idential Rural c:::==:J RS-Residential Single Fam ily ? o co 600 ""- R-8" '-~ RN-I -----~ IN 1200 ~! L »..~ r --------E ----------1 Study Area City Lim its 1 : 7200 \.;J 0\ o o :::J o (f) o \.;J o o 0\ o o / / ,\ t ~. , ; III t I I / , . " . , I I I \ \ I; • l ------...-- ..... __ .. _ .... _ ... _ .. -.. , ... .... / .... ~; .'~ /'/ ./' j ,/ ~~:~. . ... ., ... . / ~ " <.~:;/ I •••• ;:., , ~ C) "'~, ~ , ~r" ,-.) • , J , '~/ "-" I L / ~'\ _ /,;) I --.l._ -~~ , I --"-~'~-.JI r _ ~' i? r) '" ._ .• ,:-;.::;::; .. ;. 'i~'" i / / / / \ / ~ /r---__________ ___ < .. -:".. W-5 i .. \ \ Merli no Site (2003-M-8) Sensitive Areas Map Econom ic Dc\'c lopmcnI, Neighborhood;.. & Slralcgi c Pla nni ng i\lc~ I'IC I-.ch. Admlnl~lral"r Co Od Rn ":lrin J Jul) 200.l ~ Study Area - - -Corporate Boundary Fl ood Area Boundary Wetlands Boundary c::=:> Steep Slopes 0 300 600 ______________ J r ----UP &&31 ----1 I : 3600 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Date: To: From: MEMORANDUM October 28, 2010 City Clerk's Office Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: Merlino Comp Plan Amendment & Rezone LUA (file) Number: LUA-01-164, ECF, CPA, R Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Don Erickson Acceptance Date: August 8, 2003 Applicant: David Halinen Owner: , SR 900 LLC A Merlino Family Company Contact: Same as applicant PID Number: 1323049010 ERC Decision Date: September 16, 2003 ERC Appeal Date: October 3, 2003 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Request for Environmental Review for a City initiated proposal to change the Comp Plan land use designation of 25.68-acre site from Residential Multl-Famlly-Infill (RM-I) to Residential Options (RO) with R-l0 zoning and a modified Development Agreement limiting the maximum number of units on the site to 69 detached units. location: 1101 SW Sunset Blvd (S of SR 900 Btwn Thomas & 76tJ1 Ave S) Comments: Return Address: . City Clerk's Office City of Renton ?x~ OF RENTOM AG 28." PAGE"l OF "I 01/1112814 11:2. KING COUNTY. lolA 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Pl .... print Dr type I.rorm.tio. WASIDNGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 65 04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document !!!!!!! be filled in) f. Deve10pnent A9reement 2. 3. 4. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'s on page ___ of document Grantor(s) (Last name, fnstname, initials) 1. SR 900 LLC , 2. , Additional names On page __ of document. Grantee(s) (Last name fnst, then fnst name and initials) 1. City of Renton , 2. , Additional names on page __ of document. Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) That portion of Government Lot 7 and the Southeast quarter, both in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in the C1ty of Renton, K1ng Count}, Washin9ton, 1yin9 southerl:t: and southwesterly .. of the southerly . . '. . . . . Additional legal is on page b.£. of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number" o Assessor Tax # not yet assigned 1323049010 and 1323049006· The AudilOrlRecorder will rely on the infonnation provided on the fonn. The staff will not read the document to. verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing infonnation provided herein . . . I am requesting an emergency nonstandard recording for an additIonal fee as prOVIded In RCW 36.18.010. I understand that the recording processing requirements may cover up or otherwise obscure sO!I1e part of the text of the original document. _________________ ---, ___ ---'SignabJre of Requesting Party I DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES This apeement (11 ''Development Agreement" or "Agreement") is made and entered into this ~ day of ulA11.J.w, 2003, by and between the CITY OF RENTON ("City"), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, and SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, the owner of the parcels of property within the area covered by this development agreement ("Owner"). RECITALS WHEREAS, a proposal has been made for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment of the Owner's property that is legally described as follows (the "Property"): That portion of Government Lot 7 and the Southeast quarter, both in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly and southwesterly of the southerly right-of-way margin of Martin Luther King Junior Way (SR 900, SW Sunset Blvd., Primary State Highway No.2), easterly of the west line of said Government Lot 7, and northerly of the northerly right of way margin of Pacific Coast Railroad (Burlington Northern Railroad) right of way; EXCEPT that portion of said Southeast quarter lying southerly of a line beginning at the northwesterly comer of Lot 15, Block 13 of the plat of Earlington Addition, as recorded in Volume 14 of Plats, page 7, records of King County, Washington, and ending said line a distance of 1250 feet westerly at a point on the northerly right of way margin of the Pacific Coast Railroad (Burlington Northern), said point being at right angles to the centerline of the main tracks of said Pacific Coast Railroad at a point therein distance about 2050 feet westerly, as measured along DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 1 , said centerline of the main tracks as now located along said right of way, from the intersection of said centerline with the east line of said Section 13; and EXCEPT that portion of said Government Lot 7 and said Southeast quarter lying southerly of the southerly line of vacated Beacon Coal Mine Road and westerly of the northerly projection of the west line of Adjusted Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-92-070-LLA, recorded under King County Recording No. 9205219005, records of King County, Washington. WHEREAS, the City has assigned City File Nos. LUA 01-164 and 2003-M-8 to the proposal; and WHEREAS, the owner seeks to have the Property, which is approximately 26.1 acres in size, given a Residential Options (RO) Land Use Map designation and Residential-l0 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-I0) zoning. WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to have the City grant the requested comprehensive plan designation and zoning subject to this Development Agreement that would embody the site-specific restrictions that are set forth in Section 3, below. WHEREAS, staff members of the City's Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning and of the City's Department of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works have reviewed the Site-Specific Restrictions and concur that they are appropriate; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment on October 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Planning and Development Committee report on No~embt.r ~4 ,2003; WHEREAS, this Development Agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the City Council held on November 17, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at that public hearing; and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington; and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement appears to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton, Washington; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do agree as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 2 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY Pursuant to RCW 36. 70B.170(1), the City and persons with ownership or control of real property are authorized to enter into a development agreement setting forth development standards and any other provisions that shall apply to, govern, and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration of such development agreement. SECTION 2. SUBJECT PROPERTIES A. Illustrative Map: The drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A graphically depicts the Property. B. King County Property Identification Numbers: The following list indicates the King County Property Identification Numbers applicable at the time of this Development Agreement: 132304-9006-09 and 132304-9010-03. SECTION 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND ZONING SUBJECT TO SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: A. Site-Specific Restrictions. The parties hereby agree that the following site-specific conditions (the "Site-Specific Restrictions") shall apply to the Property in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation described in subsection B, below, and in conjunction with the Zoning Classification described in subsection C, below: (I) The maximum number of residential units that may be permitted on the Property shall be 69 units and all of such units shall only be single-family detached units on individual residential lots; (2) In conjunction with residential development of the Property a minimum 6-foot high fence shall be constructed along the south side of the development for the entire length of the development (i.e., from the west edge of the southerly projection of the westerly-most residential lot to the east edge of the southerly projection of the easterly-most residential lot), which fence may lie either north of or south of stormwater facilities anticipated to be constructed along the southerly portion of the site and along the RC-zoned strip of land owned by Owner that is legally- described in the second "EXCEPT that portion . . ." paragraph of the Property's legal description set forth on pages I and 2, above; and (3) No residential or recreation buildings may be constructed on the Property within 100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right- of-way that lies to the south of the Property. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 3 , B. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation: The parties agree that, subject to the Site-Specific Restrictions set forth above, the Property shall have a Residential Options RO) Land Use Map designation. C. Zoning Classification: The parties further agree that, subject to the Site-Specific Restrictions set forth above, the Property shall have a Residential-l 0 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-IO) zoning classification. SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF PRIOR DEVELEOPMENT AGREEMENT That certain prior development agreement pertaining to the Property recorded under King County Recording No. 20001013000484 is hereby terminated and shall be of no further force or effect. SECTION 5. EFFECT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Unless amended or terminated, this Development Agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to this Development Agreement; provided, however, only the City may enforce the Site-Specific Restrictions. Development of the Property shall not be subject to a new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or to a development regulation or standard adopted by the City after the effective date of this Development Agreement unless (a) otherwise provided in this Development Agreement or (b) agreed to by the owner(s) of any of the portiones) of the Property to which such new zoning ordinance or an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development regulation or standard shall apply or (c) in the case of a new or amended development regulation the regulation is one that the City was required to adopt or amend because of requirements of state or federal law. Any development permit or approval issued by the City for the Property during this Development Agreement's term must be consistent with this Development Agreement. SECTION 6. AUTHORITY RESERVED Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170(4) the City reserves its authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public health and safety. SECTION 7. RECORDING Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.190, this Development Agreement shall be recorded with the real property records of King County. During the term of the Development Agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 4 SECTION 8. TERM This Development Agreement shall run with the Property until amended or rescinded by the City Council in accordance with Section 9, below. With respect to any portiones) of the Property that are not developed, the parties to this Development Agreement agree to evaluate the Agreement periodically, but not less than every ten (10) years. Where appropriate, periodic review of the Development Agreement shall generally coincide with the City's evaluation of its entire Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 9. AMENDMENT The provisions of this Development Agreement, before the expiration of ten (10) years from the date of execution of this Agreement by all of the parties, may only be amended with the mutual written consent of the parties; provided, however, that the owner(s) of portiones) of the Property shall be entitled to amend the Development Agreement from time-to-time (with the consent of the City) as it relates to their particular portiones) of the Property. After ten (10) years, the City may change the zoning and development regulations pertinent to the Property as part of its normal process of alteration to its Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Development Regulations. DATED this }O"f/l day of ~ ,2003. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 5 CITY OF RENTON By: ~.d1' ;:t.. ,'Co" L Jesse er, Mayor Attest: dmunud ILJaf:tttry Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Approved as to Form: ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company By: Gary M. and Donna M. Merlino Family Trus No. I ulald 8/9/90, its member By: () A.lTIVn. 0 2 VV\ 0 1'\ Q A vW Dionne Merlino, Trustee By: Donald J. and Joan P. Merlino Family Trust No. I U/ald 8/9/90, its member By: &LA.!V& ===-:> Steven A. Merlino, Trustee B~&~ ichael J. M ino:TIUStee I certify that on the / o-ti::-day of j)e.c~er-, 2003 JESSE TANNER appeared before me and acknowledged that he signed the instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Renton, the Washington municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute such instrument, and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said City. Dated: {dl 0 10'3 I ~ D. f",.,,(--.4 Title / L /" q _<1(_0\ My A6pointment Expires DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 6 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that GREGG MERLINO is the person who appeared before me and acknowledged that he signed the instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as a trustee of GARY M. AND DONNA M. MERLINO FAMILY TRUST NO.1 u/AID 8/9/90 in its capacity as a member of SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the ~R~tuw!:ent. ..... ,,.,; "~"~I Title ~~~~:-( M. O~'''' -...... . .F ,·:'~lA'ssi.::· •• ~!'l : ,,'0'" 'V""" ' .. ~ '" ; ... C; NO],: ~"'O~ , fI) : ~ "to: (II ~ $ -I : A '. ~ $i ;;: ~ , : "iI ... ",. ,. :I \~\ ~l.le '4j J '. 0 ·fS:.ft .". " ~"~07 ••.• ~: '.. It-. • .. •• .. ·~o~ .; I". ~8HIN~' ,.' "\"''',, ..... '''''' Signature Notarv Public Dated: _---'-'I').-"L6~1 O""?J'---______ _ My Appointment Expires STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that DIONNE MERLINO is the person who appeared before me and acknowledged that she signed the instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as a trustee of GARYM. AND DONNA M. MERLINO FAMILY TRUST NO.1 U/AID 8/9/90 in its capacity as a member of SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. I ............... ~"M"'''''' Dated: 0/5' O!> ~~~ _..a.:, • 0, .... _--'c:.c. '-J_W<...::'--______ ~ l""'.......... '4~' 'i f .. cP~lSsi01:~~ ", :-_--.Jty~~W1~.:...::.P~a:::::D":.....,~~~"-'::..· ----l;~0f-i/ NO/:. ~:~ ~ ::-~~: "~'!:0* Signature , >.: ~,._;L:D' -~ ~ ",. V'~.. ",.;:,., =::-:-_____ N"""o""tarv .......... Pu,..b""I""'ic ____ --4.$.:->:111..,:.11' (Ie '4/ ! T,'tle 1 0 ". '9. .' # I it,~·.07 .'-S 1/01' ", ~., ....... , .. ,.~ .; ::-::-__ -=--.L. ~-=,---:~ ________ -,IIII. 8H'NG'tO .... "r My Appointment Expires •• ",,""' ..... . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that STEVEN A. MERLINO is the person who appeared before me and acknowledged that he signed the instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as a trustee of DONALD J. AND JOAN P. MERLINO FAMILY TRUST NO. 1 U/ AID 8/9/90 in its capacity as a member of SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ___ -'-I :?---'I'--p..:...to--'.J> _____ _ Signature ~~------~N~o~t~ruy~Pu~b~I~------ Title My Appointment Expires STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MICHAEL J. MERLINO is the person who appeared before me and acknowledged that he signed the instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as a trustee of DONALD J. AND JOAN P. MERLINO F AMIL Y TRUST NO. 1 U/ AID 8/9/90 in its capacity as a member of SR 900 L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ___ /'-'r~I6':....L..I=-D:...~---------""'"'''''''' " ........ ' h\Y M. "e. D'", n. _. . -"' •....••.• ()~' .... ~ 1oY'. I ~,'--' .: .. ~O ... MI8s.·.. I. =-~_~:...:...--"'--------------...;.-.' v 'Q'. ~' Signa e ; &.> :" No~ '1-\"" ~ -c1 • '... ""~"'. N t P bl " ~ »: ~, <j) '><: 0 ~ =-,----____ --''''o''''''ruy~''_U'''''''''''lC ------l'h-iift : "',;.c.:!!: en ~ Title ~ "0' \'" &(lC l~!:;; ~ I L .,.~ ....... $ S "'f or " ii(\ '. "<0 .' ___ ...,....;'--_--'-----, _________ ----'1". ",.·· ••• 7 .... :* My Appointment Expires I·,1~8,:,;NG10~-~J".: ',\\ ... \,~ ... , ... ~ C:\CF\2422\OO3\Developmenl Agreement\A.gmt.Final.doc DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT--Page 8 M.L. KING JR W _---tPRJIdARY STArE H;l' (t. I -Y NO. < I,(P/~c tt # .... ..., EXISTING ~~~C"'r ZONING = Rid-I ~ S PROPOSED ZONING = R-10 '-.) GOV'T I BEACON COAL MINE ROAD VACATED LOT 7 I BY COUNlY COMMISSIONER'S JOURNAL VOLUME 29, PAGE 3 ~ e:,'). <f7~~ <;;)~,,~ .~ ~ IEAlin.nNG'fO~ ADDITION mi;) ~.J®.:ty!Cl~L:' ~ ~ ,-~ : B.N.s F ( , . _-+-i---':' "':'-P , " _ I 'ACt!'"'1 ' ... ~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ , c ," J I ~ i --r!~ "~CO-1SI' ,,~ I I ~~ ~ ..,: "I '1> '::"~J ~ . J .' j' .., .' :!t" // 13 ~ 1 \. \. SUN'OIIMTIE :.--~/ I ~ '\. '\. TOWIMHOMIIES GOV'T LOT 2 ~ VI I~ tJ ~ I I I~ SCALE 1" = 400' LEGEND: PROPOSED ZONING LINE (ORO. #) ORDINANCE NUMBER -_11 ....... -Xrefs: I ~Il .... .... -o ':" z zOO _..... .... ..... • C!J Ill: Ill: z w· % ~wO -<I ~ z t-I-::l dO:.. iii • N I -, ..... w:::& :c ..J Ill: Ill: >< o o CD • Ill: rn ~ • w :E o a: !:!::. i ~ I ~!'! -.. JUl !Ol. =!i1 ~ ~ ~ -~-....... • n - ~! z e z w a: STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Notice of Resolution No. 3677 and Ordinance No. 5049 through 5059 was published on Friday, 12119/03 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $238.50 at the rale of$15.00 per inch for the first publication and NIA per Lily Nguyen Legal Adv;.hising Represen\lltive, King County Journal Subscribel~~d sworn to me this 19th day of December, 2003. d/Jrt ~ \\\\\\\1111111",/ ~\\\ p.,GHE-,/ /111.z Tom A. Meagher '" ~'<;. ......... ~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, ReSid!~i'~.~nl8\\~'v.(.a~~ton Ad Number: 844952 P.O. Number: g ~ tl <..'?-~'( \ 0 ~ Cost of publishing this notice includes an affid~ia~r!i~e .. / <:.> i t; § ::;::. ~o ,/ ~.i): ~ ~ ~ ... ?~<o r?/~ 2: -;:::.. -.. 'l.'o"r_ ~ ~ • M .... '1." -J'::;:' ~/. <S',. .............. ~ "r' ~ "//11, ,q rE or ,\,\\;f. " CITY OF RENTON NOTIm:IJFRESOl,J.l'l'jON AND ORDIl'rANCES ADOPl'ED BY RENTON CITY " COUNCIL , ·FollowiD( is .a IWIlID8l'J'. . , oC·1;be ..... lution and ordinancao &<!Opli>!! by ·the ROntDli CityCouncll ~.on .December 15, 2003: . _~ .. ;RESOLUTlON NO. 3677 . A reaolution DC the City of Rentc!D, WUhiiurton· declaring a moratorium on1J>e. 'ifeveiopment of surface Jlarlo:, in&' lola iIa a primary use, eatabliah· ing • hearin&' date of Jan_ '12, 2004, and eatsbU",;ng a ~ti.oD date of June 15, 2004 Cor the ",or ... torium. '-, Effective: l2Il5fJ003 .... ORDlNANCE NO. 5049 An ordinanoe of the ·City 'or Renton, Washington, JIr(lVidin&'. for tho 2003 year and bud,et a<ijuat- menla in the toteJ amount of $9,176,407. Effective: 12/2412003 . ORDlNANCE NO:5050 An ordinance of the' CitY of Renton, Waahington, adoptin'r the annll8l bu<\iet for the year no." iQ the balanced amunt of $146,500,500. Effective: 1212412003 ORDlNANCE NO. 5051 An ordinance of the City. of Renton, Weahington, increaaint'2004 athletic field lights fee,. Effecti6iJl~~~NO. 5052 An ordinance of the City of Ren'toll, W~ increaaing 2004 boat. !&unch lees. E1IOcI:ive:'01lO1I2004 '.' ORDlNANCE NO. 5053 . An oidiilimce. or the City of Renton, Waahington, am~ Chapter 501, FeeSChli!ule, or'ntl8 V' (J'fnimce and. B1Iainou ~) ~ ~c~~:::? -.:t't1!adC;t Renton. WaahingtoJi' 'bY .... ~: A4uatic OeDt.-' ,dmii,ion ~.;.::~ .. '. '.' Ettectlve: QlI18I2004 '. ~,~': 1 ,", ORDlNANCE NO. 5054 '. . Anordinane. of the CityOi Renton, Weahin&'ton, increaaing ~ . Ranton Cinnmwuty· Cante< ~ depooit feea and after hoUl'lllees.: ,: EffoOtive: 0110112004.: ORDlNANCE NO. 5065 '. ,i ) An ordinance . of. tho C~' of Renton, Waahington, increaaing ~ . Gene Coulon JIaok pionic ohaltar, f .... Effective: 0110112004 L--v...A-O r -/ ~'t ORDlNANCE NO. 5066 An ordinance of the City of lienton, Washington, cr8I\ini .: new fund. titled "Insurance HealtJ>care Fund" for the year 2004. Effective: l2I24I2OO3 ORDINANCE NO. 5057 An ordinance of the City 01 Renton, Waahiniton, Manzinr: the'· zoning c1aoalfication of oartein prdp- erty, conaiating of approximatelJ~.32 ...... located on the 3300 and 3900 blocka orNE 12th Street ~ 126 teet north of the public rliht-ol- , Within the City of Ranton fzom ii':1dential-8 Zoning "to Center' Noiihbotbood ZDIlinI. File Nq, J;U~' . 02·139 ·(I)alpar. . .,t al:) Tho ~'. ". dea<ription -is "on Ille at the Ci C1ork'aoftlce, and .. avaUahla II ~< . Eft'..;u~e: . l:1.1W.l003 . ORDlNANCE NO. 5053 An ordinance DC tho City of' Renton, Washington, cbsDginr the zoning claaalfication' of oartein IJl'OlI- erty, conais\ini of approzimate1y li16 ....... located on the 3800 and 3300 blocka of NE 12th Street extendin, Of far as .126 f.et north of the Publle right-of-way, Within the City of Renton fzom Re.idential-8 Zoning to Residential·l0 Zonin" .. File Na .. LUA- 02·139 (Dalpay et aI.) The lesal desqiption is on file at the :'Ci~y Clerk's office, and is available upo.o Eil.:!:.: 1212412003' ORDINANCE NO. 505~ An ordinance' of' the Cily ' .• f Ranton, Waahiniton, chaniing.tho -.r c1 ... jIlcation of :f."J; .ery,conaiatini of a . 25.68 acraa immadia~ ... t.·the Sunset VIeW ~ and 'aoUth DrSW Sunset BOulevard and north·.f the· BN-BF Railroad right-okay, Within the City of Ranton fn)m lMaid entja1 Multi-f'amily . -~ Zoning . to Residaotial 10 DUlAC Zoning. File No. LUA-Ol·l54,sooa· M-08 (Merlino). The legal d~p tion . is on !lle at the CiI7' Clerk/I o1IIce, and is available upon roqueat. Efl'ective: l2I24I2OO3 Complete text of the reaolution and these ordinancao is availahlo ·.t Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Wa,y; and jI08ted at the Rentc!D Publio Llbraries,l00 Mill Avenue SoIlthaud '2902NEl2th Street. Upon req_t to the City Clerk's oftlce, (<25) 430- 6610, copi .. will alao be maila,l'Cor a fee. . ~~ I .. W~ton . _ December 15, 2003 Ordinance #5054 Community Services: Community Center Fees Ordinance #5055 Community Services: Gene Coulon Park Picnic Shelter Fees Ordinance #5056 Finance: Insurance Healthcare Fund Ordinance #5057 Rezone: Dalpay Property, NE 12th St, R-8 to CN (R-02-139) Ordinance #5058 Rezone: Dalpay Property, NE 12th St, R-8 to R-lO (R-02- 139) Ordinance #5059 Rezone: Merlino Property, SW Sunset Blvd, RM-I to R-lO.@: 01-164) EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT Recorder: Michele Neumann December 15, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 472 An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 Renton Community Center damage deposit and after hours fees. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 picnic shelter fees at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read creating a new fund entitled "Insurance Healthcare Fund" for the year 2004. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 2.32 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th SI. beginning 126 feet north of the public right-of-way from Residential -eight dwelling units per acre (R-8) to Center Neighborhood (CN) zoning; R-02-139 (Dalpay et all. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 1.16 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th SI. extending as far as 126 feet north of the public right-of-way from Residential - eight dwelling units per acre (R-8) to Residential -ten dwelling units per acre (R-lO) zoning; R-02-139 (Dalpay et al). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 25.68 acres immediately east of the Sunset View Apartments and south of SW Sunset Blvd. and north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from Residential Multi-Family -Infill (RM-I) to Residential-ten dwelling units per acre (R-lO) zoning; R-OI-I64 (Merlino -SR 900 LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS LITIGATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 9:01 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council meeting adjourned at 9: IS p.m. BONNIE I. W ALTON, City Clerk December 8, 2003 Community Services: Gene Coulon Park Boat Launch Fees Community Services: Henry Moses Aquatic Center Fees Community Services: Community Center Fees Community Services: Gene Coulon Park Picnic Shelter Fees Finance: Insurance Healthcare Fund Rezone: Dalpay Property, NE 12th St, R-8 to CN (R-02-139) Rezone: Dalpay Property, NE 12th St, R-8 to R-lO (R-02- 139) Rezone: Merlino Property, SW Sunset Blvd, RM-I to R-lOJB:, _01-164) NEW BUSINESS Transportation: Parking Policy re No Parking-Signed Streets Renton City Council Minutes Page 457 An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 boat launch fees at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/15/2003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1, Fee Schedule of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by setting the admission fees for the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 Renton Community Center damage deposit and after hours fees. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 picnic shelter fees at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/15/2003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read creating a new fund entitled "Insurance Healthcare Fund" for the year 2004. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 2.32 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th St. beginning 126 feet north of the public right-of-way from Residential-eight dwelling units per acre (R-8) to Center Neighborhood (CN) zoning; R-02-139 (Dalpay et al). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/1512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 1.16 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th St. extending as far as 126 feet north of the public right-of-way from Residential- eight dwelling units per acre (R-8) to Residential -ten dwelling units per acre (R-lO) zoning; R-02-139 (Dalpay et al). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 25.68 acres immediately east of the Sunset View Apartments and south of SW Sunset Blvd. and north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from Residential Multi-Family -Infill (RM-I) to Residential -ten dwelling units per acre (R-lO) zoning; R-OI-I64 (Merlino -SR 900 LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1211512003. CARRIED. Council President Keolker-Wheeler noted parking problems on S. 3rd St., explaining that although the street is signed no parking, a house is being constructed on that street, and the construction worker's vehicles are parked along the street as they have nowhere else to park. She requested review of the policy related to situations like this. November 24, 2003 Resolution #3667 Comprehensive Plan: Tydico Development Agreement Resolution #3668 Comprehensive Plan: Merlino Development Agreement A J l)AA' ,. 0\-\ \up \ Resolution #3669 Comprehensive Plan: Boeing Development Agreement Added Resolution #3670 Planning: Heavy Industrial Zone Development Moratorium NEW BUSINESS Police: Animals at Large ADJOURNMENT Recorder: Michele Neumann November 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 437 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a development agreement with Liberty Ridge LLC (Tydico). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a development agreement with SR 900 LLC (Merlino). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a development agreement with The Boeing Company, establishing certain roles and responsibilities for the potential phased redevelopment of all or a portion of the Boeing Renton plant site. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. A resolution was read tenninating a moratorium on development in portions of the Heavy Industrial (IH) Zone, effective December 1, 2003. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Councilman Corman reported receipt of complaints from some Highlands area residents regarding menacing pit bull dogs, and he advised residents to call the Police Department if they are intimidated by any animals on the loose. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:03 p.m ~..J.W~ BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk uu+-ol-Ifc'f CITY OF RENTON, WASlllNGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3668 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SR 900 LLC. WHEREAS, SR 900 LLC made application to the City of Renton for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and zoning map amendment of its property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee of the Renton City Council have recommended that the requested modification to the Comprehensive Plan be granted subject to a development agreement; and WHEREAS, this development agreement is authorized under RCW 36.70B.l70-210; and WHEREAS, this development agreement has been presented at a public hearing before the City Council held on November 17, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council has taken into account the public comment presented at the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, W ASlllNGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the development agreement with SR 900 LLC. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 24th day of November ,2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3668 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 24th day of_--"'-N..:..ov..:..e.:..;m;...cb:...;e:..=r'---__ -----', 2003. Approved as to furm: ~ RES.I020:11l17/03:ma 2 I:re CIT~ ~F RENTON Jesse Tanner, Mayor December 18, 2003 Mr. David Halinen Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8th Street Bellevue, W A 98004 Re: Merlino Property RezonefRM-I to R-IO; File No. (LUA-OI-164) Dear Mr. Halinen, City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 5059, adopted by the Renton City Council on December IS, 2003, finalizing the subject rezone. If additional information or assistance is needed, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Rebecca Lind, Economic Development SR 900 LLC, A Merlino Family Company -:-1O=-=S-::-S-::-So-u-::-th-=O-ra-d-y-W,-ay---R-en-t-on,-W,-as-h-in-gt-on-9S-0-SS---(4-2-S)-4-30--6-S-IO-I-FAX-(-42-S-)4-3-0-6-S-1-6-it E N T ~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF' THE. CURVE I ; ... CITY OF RENTON, WASIDNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CI~ANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY -INFILL ZONING, TO RESIDENTIAL 10 DUlAC ZONING. FILE NO. LUA-OI-164, 2003-M-08 (MERLINO). WHEREAS, under Section 4-2-020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the ''Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential Muhi-family InfiJl (RM-I); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission fur investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about October 15"',2003, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duJy considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASIDNGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 10 dulac (R-IO), as herein below specified and subject to the Development Agreement for this rezone, which was adopted by resolution. The Neighborhood 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5059 and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibits" N' and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth he~in. (Property consisting of approximately 25.68 acres immediately east of the Sunset View Apartments and south of SW Sunset Boulevard and north of the BN-SF Railroad right-of-way.) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 15th day of __ D_e_c_e_mb_e_r __ -" 2003. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15th day of December ,2003. Approved as to form: ~ Date of Publication: 12/19/2003 (summary) ORD.l068:11113/03:rna 2 ... \ Exhibit" A" ORDINANCE NO. 5059 SR 900 L.L.C. (MERLINO) 2003 COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RM·l TO RO . 2000-M-08 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Government Lot 7 and the Southeast quarter, both in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly and southwesterly of the southerly right-of-way margin of Martin Luther King Junior Way (SR 900, SW Sunset Blvd., Primary State Highway No. 2), easterly of the west line of said Government Lot 7, and northerly of the northerly right of way margin of Pacific Coast Railroad (Burlington Northern Railroad) right of way; EXCEPT that portion of said Southeast quarter lying southerly of a line beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 13 of the plat of Earlington Addition, as recorded in Volume 14 of Plats, page 7, records of King County, Washington, and ending said line a distance of 1250 feet westerly at a point on the northerly right of way margin of the . Pacific Coast Railroad (Burlington N orthem), said point being at right angles to the centerline of the main tracks of said Pacific Coast Railroad at a point therein distance . about 2050 feet westerly, as measured along said centerline of the main tracks as now· located along said right of way, from the intersection of said centerline with the east line of said Section 13; and EXCEPT that portion of said Government Lot 7 and said Southeast quarter lying southerly of the southerly line of vacated Beacon Coal Mine Road and westerly of the northerly projection of the west line of Adjusted Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LUA-92-07O-LLA, recorded under King County Recording No. 9205219005, records of King County, Washington. • ORDINANCE NO. 5059 Exhibit "8" S 132nd St R-10 s Merlino Rezone (2003-M-08) 0 600 1200 RM·I to R·10 I~~_~~~~I e Economic Development, Neigbbmhoods & Stmtegic Planning Alex Pietsch. A~ O. Del Roaario 19 N01ImJber 200J 1 : 7200 I Holly Graber -12-0B-03.doc December 8. 2003 Community Services: Athletic Field Light Fees Community Services: Gene Coulon Park Boat Launch Fees Community Services: Henry Moses Aquatic Center Fees Community Services: Community Center Fees Community Services: Gene Coulon Park Picnic Shelter Fees Finance: Insurance Healthcare Fund Rezone: Dalpay Property. NE 12th St. R-8 to CN (R-02-139) Rezone: Dalpay Property. NE 12th St. R-8 to R-lO (R-02- 139) Rezone: Merlino Property, SW Sunset Blvd, RM-I to R-10 (R- 01-164) l-UA 0 \ ~ II. Renton City Council Minutes Puge 7 An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 athletic field light fees. MOVED BY PARKER. SECONDED BY NELSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12115/2003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 boat launch fees at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READIl\'G ON 1211512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5-1. Fee Schedule of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code by selling the admission fees for the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. MOVED BY PARKER. SECONDED BY PERSSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READWG ON 12/1512003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 Renton Community Center damage deposit and after hours fees. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12115/2003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read increasing the 2004 picniC shelter fees at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/1Sn003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read creating a new fund entitled "Insurance Healthc.re Fund" for the year 2004. MOVED BY PARKER. SECONDED BY CORMAN. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/15/2003. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 2.32 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th SI. beginning 126 feet north of the puhlic right-of-way from Residential -eight dwelling units per acre (R-B) to Center Neighborhood (CN) zoning; R-02-139 (Dalpay et al). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12115/2003. CARRIED, An ordinance was read changing the zoning classificalion of property cOnSIsting of 1.16 acres located on the 3800 and 3900 blocks of NE 12th SI. extending as far as 126 feet north of the public right-of-way from Residential - eight dwelling units per acre (R-B) to Residential -ten dwelling units per acre (R-W) zoning: R-02-139 (Dalpay et all. MOVED BY BRIERE. SECONDED BY CLAWSON. COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12ll51200J. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning clasSification of property consisting of 25.68 acres immediately east of the Sunset View Apartments and south of SW Sunset Blvd. and north of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way from Residential Multi-Family -Infill (RM-I) to Residential -ten dwelling units per acre (R-W) zoning; R-Ol-l64 (Merlino -SR 900 LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE. SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12115/2003. CARRIED. Page 7[ ~OIIY Graber -11-17-03.doc November 17, 2003 Comprehensive Plan: Development Agreements (Dalpay, Tydico & Merlino) Comprehensive Plan: Dalpay Development Agreement U"'-A 0 1-/ ~4 Renton City Council Minutes Page 4 In response to Council inquiry. Community Services Administrator Dennis Culp reported that the Community Services Department is interested in using the property for storage for the museum and historical society. and he is currently identifying the costs related to this use. City Attorney Larry Warren confirmed that it is general fund property. and proceeds from the sale would be deposited into the general fund. Responding to Councilman Corman's inquiries, Ms. McFarland stated that the subject property is wned Center Suburban (CS) and the value of the land is $174,500. Public comment was invited. Doug Kyes, Municipal Arts Commission member, 3924 NE 11th PI., Renton, 98056, asked Council to consider keeping the property and using it for a satellite museum. He explained that the current museum lacks office space, meeting space, display space, workshop space, and storage space. Additionally, Mr. Kyes noted that many people participate in cultural tourism, which entails enjoying the amenities of a local community, and a satellite museum would be a local attraction for the Highlands area. Craig Soucy, Vice President of Renton Firefighters Local 864, stated that Local 864 is investigating the possibility of purchasing the subject property for use as a union hall. He indicated that the property is a historical asset to the community, and asked that Local 864 be listed as an interested party. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch announced that each development agreement would be handled as a separate public hearing, with relevant public comment solicited after each presentation. This heing the dale set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider the development agreement between the City and Dalpay Properties LLC, required for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments (CPA). Gil Cerise, Senior Planner, stated that the development agreement concerns a 3.48-acre site, consisting of six parcels, located north of NE 12th St., west of Union Ave. NE, and south of NE Sunset Blvd. The R-8 (Residential-eight dwelling units per acre) zoned parcels are owned by four separate parties. Mr. Cerise explained that the proposed CPA and rezone will permit 2.32 acres of property abutting the CN-zoned (Center Neighborhood) property to the north and east to be rezoned to CN, and the 1.16 acres of property abutting NE 12th St. to be rezoned to R-IO (Residential-ten dwelling units per acre). Page 4 I Holly Graber -11-17-03.doc November 17. 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 5 Mr. Cerise noted that neighborhood concerns about the proposal include traffic volume and speed issues on NE 12th St., and the appearance of what will be built. He explained that the proposed 20-year development agreement provides the following assurances: • No commercial traffic enters Or exits the CN property to the north via NE 12t St.; • Residential development is accessed via an alley with a maximum of two acci points; • A IS-foot wide sight-obscuring landscape buffer will be created on the CN property where it abuts R-8 andlor R-IO properties; and The lot line adjustment andlor platting occur prior to development on the new zoning lines to avoid split-zoning parcels. Continuing, Mr. Cerise indicated that it was discovered today that Mr. Blanco, owner of the 7.000 square foot parcel, does not want to go along with the development agreement. However, the development agreement can be applied to the other parcels. He concluded by stating that if Council approves the proposed CPA and concurrent rezones to CN and R-IO, approval of the Dalpay Development Agreement is recommended. In response to Mayor Tanner's inquiry regarding the Blanco parcel, Mr. Cerise stated that Mr. Blanco's parcel would still be rezoned from R-8 and R-IO, and he would not participate in the development agreement. In response to Council inquiries, Mr. Cerise explained that the homes would face NE 12th St. with access to the garages via the alley from the back. He confirmed that the R-IO zoned property would act as a buffer to the commercial development to the north. He also confirmed that the two alley access points are not required. Additionally, Mr. Cerise verified that changing the zoning from R-IO to R-8 would result in a loss of four to five units, and an average of ten vehicle trips per day is estimated per single-family unit. Public comment was invited. Bruce Hulse, 1033 Shelton Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, expressed his support for the proposal. Larry Wood, 1155 Shelton Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, inquired as to how high the required landscape buffer would be. Mayor Tanner replied that it would be at least "eye-ball" height since it is a sight-obscuring buffer. Continuing, Mr. Wood noted that property owners residing south ofNE 12th St. had submitted a petition in opposition to the rezone from R-8 to CN. Stating that the property should remain R-8, he explained that if rezoned to eN, an imbalance of retail, commercial, and multi-family dwellings will result in the neighborhood, and the CN zoning would affect the marketability of the nearby single-family residences. Page 5 I HollyGraber-11-17-03.doc November 17, 2003 Comprehensive Plan: Tydieo Development Agreement Renton City Council Minutes Page 6 Nick Petruska, 1174 Shelton Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, objected to the R-IO zoning due to the density, access and potential turn-around problems in the alley. and lack of a buffer between the homes and alley. He also expressed concern regarding the Blanco-owned parcel. Mr. Petruska indicated. however, that he does not object to the CN zoning to the north of the site, depending on the nature of the commercial development. Councilwoman Nelson expressed her preference for R-8 zoning rather than R- IO. Councilwoman Briere commented that R-IO zoning is better suited for the alley access. and instead of using NE 12th St., residents will use the alley to enter and exit their property. Jim Dalpay. PO Box 2436, Renton, 98059, reported that he is going to purchase the Blanco property. He noted that the site's six current property entrances will be reduced to two, thereby eliminating four accesses to NE 12th SI. Mr. Dalpay expressed his support for the zoning as proposed, and confirmed that it would not be economical for him to develop the site if it were zoned R-8. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider the development agreement between the City and Liberty Ridge LLC (Tydico), required for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments (CPA). Don Erichon. Senior Planner, stated that the development agreement pertains to the 9.46-acre site located between NE 3rd PI. and NE 2nd PI., if extended, and west of 136th Ave. SE, if extended. The site is currently used for heavy construction equipment storage, Mr. Erickson explained that the site is being considered for annexation by the City, and voters within the area approved annexation on September 16, 2003. The proposed CPA would change the land use deSignation from RS (Residential Single Family) to RO (Residential Options), with concurrent R-10 zoning. Mr. Erickson stated that the proposed development agreement contains the following provisions: * Requires 100% single-family detached units; Reduces allowed density to ten units per net acre (R-lO zoning allows up to thirteen units per net acre for 100% single-family detached units); Requires a minimum 50-foot wide lot along the southern property line; Requires the owner to cease its business operations; and Requires the owner to relinquish its right to continue the existing non- conforming use. Page 6 [Holly Graber -11-17-03,doc November 17, 2003 Comprehensive Plan: Merlino Development Agreement Renton City Council Minutes Page 7 Mr. Erickson noted that 106 units could be placed on the site without the development agreement, and a maximum of 81 units with the agreement. In conclusion. he stated that staff recommends approval of the ten-year Tydico Development Agreement if Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment from RS to RO. and concurrent R-IO zoning. Public comment was invited. There being none. it was MOVED BY PARKER. SECONDED BY NELSON. COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws. Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider the development agreement between the City and SR 900 LLC (Merlino), required for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments (CPA). Senior Planner Don Erickson stated that the development agreement concerns a vacant hillside site, consisting of 27.09 acres -1.41 acres zoned RC (Resource Conservation) and 25.68 acres zoned RM-I (Residential Multi-Family Infill). It is located on the west side of the City above the Black River conservation area. extending from the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to SR-900. He explained that as part of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. a 17.54-acre portion of the site was prezoned CA (Commercial Arterial) in 1996. and the same CA area was prezoned RM-I with a development agreement in 2000. The site was then annexed to the City in 2001. Continuing, Mr. Erickson said that the proposed CPA changes the designation of the 25.68-acre portion of the site from RM-I to RO (Residential Options). and staff recommends maintaining the provisions of the existing development agreement pertaining to the six-foot high barrier fencing over the length of the development, and the 100-foot setback of residential and recreation uses from the site's southern boundary. Additionally. a modification to the development agreement is recommended that restricts future development to no more than 69 single-family detached units. In conclusion, he explained that the RO land use designation with the development agreement will provide greater development flexibility than the RS designation. while responding to concerns raised by members of the public. Mr. Erickson stated that approval of the ten-year Merlino Development Agreement is recommended if Council approves the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment with concurrent R-IO zoning. In response to Mayor Tanner's inquiry. Mr. Erickson replied that the maximum number of units allowed under RM-I zoning is 260. which will be reduced to no more than 69 units with the proposed development agreement in place. Public comment was invited. Suzanne Krom, 4715 112 36th Ave. SW. Seattle. 98126. stated that she represents Heron's Forever, a non·profit organization dedicated to protecting the Black River Riparian Fares!. Ms. Krom urged Council to approve the rezone; however, she warned that the heron colony and forest will still be impacted. She recommended that the fence be fully enclosing to prevent residents and pets from entering the sanctuary. and that the distance between the development and the forest be fully maximized. Page 7 I Holly Graber· 11·17·03.doc • November 17, 2003 Comprehensive Plan: Boeing Renton Si te EIS f'age !l -----_. __ ..... Renton City Council Minutes Page 8 Referring to letters she previously submined regarding this matter, Ms. Krom reiterated her recommendations to densely cluster development in the northwest quarter of the hillside, using SR·900 as the access; and to maintain the lower portion of the development as undisturbed habitat that is impassable to humans and domestic pets. She also noted the lack of a nearby recreation area for residents, and expressed her fear that the residents will use the forest as their primary recreation area. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8th St, #1900, Bellevue, 98004, stated that he represents the property owner, and urged approval of the development agreement as proposed. He indicated that Ms. Krom's recommendations would make it difficult (0 develop the property anywhere near the proposed 69 units due to the grade constraints of the site. Mr. Halinen noted that there will be opportunity to express concerns regarding the design of the project during the preliminary plat process. Dr. Kate Stenberg, Chair of the National Urban Wildlife Worldng Group, 23022 SE 48th St., Sammamish, 98075, stated her support for the rezone in concept; however, she pointed out that more thought regarding the design and mitigation of impacts is needed. Noting the importance of the habitat for the heron colony, Dr. Stenberg recommended that the fence be installed on three sides of the development, aod that the residential lots be kept as far away frorn the railroad tracks and southern boundary of the site as possible. Brett Kappenrnan, 1004 SW 4th PI., Renton, 98055, expressed his concern regarding the entrance and egress off of SR·9QO, saying that people will use the area as a shortcut to the Skyway neighborhood. As this project progresses, he urged the City to consider the impact of the additional traffic On the current residences_ MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider The Boeing Company 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendrnents (including lhe Fry's Electronics property), concurrent rezone, development agreement, and amendments to the development standards in Title N of Renton Municipal Code. Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, stated that Boeing submitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA) in December, 2002, and since then, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared and completed; Comprehensive Plan land use element policies and map changes have been drafted; two new zoning districts proposed; and supporting documents have been prepared, including" development agreement. Indicating that the Planning Commission supports the adoption of the new Urban Center·North Comprehensive Plan designation, Ms. Lind pointed out the proposed Urban Center·North area on a map, noting that the existing Urban Center designation has not changed; however, new policies have been created for the deSignation. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Allison Prohn, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: NOTICe qt::; £ryVlf.()/'''_M€IVT4L !)€TC)'.MI NATION was published on: HI. <:; II '1 /03 ; , } The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ /07 . .25 at the rate of /6.00 per inch for the first publication and IV A per inch for each subsequent insertion. /!/Adm Allison Prohn Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this I ebb day of~ ,20~. ~V~ \\\11 \ \ 1111/11/// ~,,\\\\ p... M.EA 11//1/ " V.··· ..... G,. ''l ~ 0 o"\ssion t·:7~ 'l Tom A. Meagher ~ " .... ~<:O' -1",0) •• ~ ~ __ • a ...._ Notary Public for)he State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, Wa~ngtpll' "OT AR Y ~ \ ~ Ad Number: 'i yt./16 "$ P.O. Number = \ -. -1 == Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. % '1 \ Pu B L \ C, ./ J t -:.-"Y,;. .... ." '\ 00' '" ~ 'l ~"""Y2 '2 0 °"'0":::-~ \,' 0 ..... -~ ..... \~ -$' "'I "WAS"" "" If; \\\\ /1111111111\\\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. MERLINO SR-900 SITE, CI!U20Q3,M·jt 'WA.(l1·164"cYA,R,ECF Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment1Rezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land U.e Map for tbi. ±26·acre site from the Residential Multi-fam- ily Infill with RM-I zoning and a- development agreement limiting den- sity to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RQ) with R-lO zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 Single-family detached units (2.65 units per net. acre). Location: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset VJ.eW Terrace apartments on SR·900. It abut. Residential Multi· family lnfill (RM·1) to its we.t and east. A Public Hearing wiU be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers. City HaU, on October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to con· sider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3, 2003. Appeal. mu.t be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are gov- erned by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4·8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430· 6510. Published in the King County Journal September 19,2003. #844163 D~II~1.0PA1E:. e'i>;-0,," ~ P~"'tvIA'_ ri~IVfOtv ..... OCr 06 2003 RECEIVED ~fit Jesse Tanner, Mayor September 19, 2003 Halinen Law Offices Attn: David Halinen 10500 NE 8'h St. Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Merlino SR-900 Site, CPA #2003-M-8 LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECF Dear Mr. Halinen: CIT~ _F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they h ave completed their review of the environmental impacts of the a bove-referenced project. The Committee, on September 16, 2003, decided that your project w ill be issued a Determination 0 f Non- Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals 0 I I he environmental d elermination must bel iJed I n w riling 0 nor b elore 5 :00 PM 0 n Oclober 3, 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on October 15, 2003 at 6:00 PM to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6581. For the Environmental Review Committee, Don Erickson, AICP Sen ior Planner cc: Parties of Record SR 900 LLCIOwner . (1" \;:.f;"" ,"). " . dnslette"""r.oo"-c ------------~RE N TON 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper cuntain5 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • !fit Jesse Tanner, Mayor September 19. 2003 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504·7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations CITY" RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on September 16, 2003: DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE MERLINO SR·900 SITE, CPA #2003·M·8 LUA·01·164,CPA,R, ECF Proposed non·project action Comp Plan AmendmenURezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this :t26·acre site from the Residential Multi·family Infill with RM·I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R·l0 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single·family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and require a six·foot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the residential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. Location: The site is located immediately south of SR·900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of- way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and currently vacant. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3, 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6581. Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation ~~=~~~,e®~.dOC~\----------------------~RENTON 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper-contains .'}D'.{, -"cyCled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-01-164, CPA,R,ECF APPLICANT: City at Renton PROJECT NAME: Merlino SR-900 Site, CPA #2003-M-B DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map tor this ±26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning with a development agreement limiUng the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting ot residential and recreational uses within 100 feet ot the site's southem boundary and require a six-toot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the reSidential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad riQht-of-way east ot the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and currently vacant. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department 01 Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340, Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmentat determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3, 2003, Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application lee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: September 19, 2003 September 16, 2003 ~~ Renton Fire Department dnssignature.doc Y-/C--D']7 DATE \ ., ;<':: . On the 2 day of _~ .. :,-,C' I-'t ,-'-.' ";;,<,,,,,' "'"--____ -'. 2003, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containll]g r, ~ ,: 1'2 1···· ) .c c": -',; ,~ ~, ;-, .. ,";. ~ (" documents. This information was sent to: (Signature of Sender) ---"-=:...l--.;J.......,..~-----------'~:+-_r.~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactOf)' evidence that " ' ,. iCr . ' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the InstrUl~ent. Dated~ l£~.z dO, ~c'l:s "'·~~Mic~~;-;:t.~~m~~~-- Project Name: ,'f. c:. r, _Ii ~ -)~:-;') Project Number: NOTARY.DOC Notary (print),--;-ilIMIffiH<AMe!'im:-----__ My appointment e~=tS 6=29-01 , ,... ~-. \- Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAIUNG (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckieshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • clo Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer 3190 1601h Ave SE 39015 -172"" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 , J WSDOT Northwest Region' Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot CuHurai Resources Program' Attn: Ramin Pazooki 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Burien, WA 98166 39015 172"" Aven ue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation' Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-QSO Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Jamey Taylor Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA98055-1219 13020 SE 72"" Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 South center Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-Q1W Tukwila, WA 98188 KSC-TR-0431 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Util~ies .. c .• Real Estate Services . Eric Swennson . 700 Fifth Avenue, Su~e 4900 Seattle, WA 98104-5004' '. Note: If the NoiiceofApplication states that it is an "Optional DNS·, the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. Last printed 07122103 9:40 AM ;OOO-M-tiPOR Joe Pomerleau 833 SW Sunset Blvd. F-32 Renton, WA 98055 Ed Mallary Friends of Black River 7524 S. 1351h Seattle, WA 98178 Tom Malphrus 18713 102"d Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Joan McGilton 2640 SW 164th Place Burien, WA 98166 Jerry Chroman 438 NE 72"d Street Seattle, WA 98115 Jan Mayrhofer 12047 69th Avenue S Seattie, WA 98178 Hugh Jennings 16116 NE 41h Street Bellevue, WA 98008 Ted Mallory 7524 S. 1351h Street Seattle, WA 98178 Louise Baldel 13020 SW Princeton Court Lake Oswego, OR 97235 Ed Newbold 4972 171h Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98108 Mark S. Gnagy 321 Powell Avenue SW Renton, W A 98055-2254 David Halinen Halinen & Associates 10500 NE 8th , #1900 Bellevue, W A 98004 Patrick Texeira 1013 SW 3'd Place Renton, WA 98055 Connie & Jordan Heiman 110 Stoneyside Lane SI. Louis, MO 63132-4124 Araya Sol 3238e N E 100th Street Seattle, W A 98125 Sharman Badgett-Young 6925 185th Place SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Davidya Kaspersyk, AlA Architecture Urban Design. BioRegional Pin. 1050 N. 341h Street Seattle, WA 98103 lIeen Weber 12530 Admiralty Way, #J-302 Everett, W A 98204 Chak N~ 5536 18 h Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. K.C. Wildlife Program Manager 201 S. Jackson, Suite 600 Seattle, W A 98104 _. _.ig J. Stone, P.E. Area Administrator-Sough King County WSDOT, NE Region PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Susanne Krom Heron Forever 4715 Yo 361h Avenue SW Seattie, WA 98126-2715 Kim Browne 1003 N. 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Rose Clark 16856 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 Anne Offen backer 10225 SE 281h Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Didi Catherine Anstett PO Box 17023 Seattle, WA 98107 Nancy Thomson 12500 SE 100lh Street Renton, WA 98056 Lynn Chagman 12341 35 Avenue NE #404 Seattle, WA 98125 Chris Barry 1401 N. 361h Street Renton, WA 98056 Elizabeth Dunn 1122 East Pile Street, PMB 1120 Seattle, WA 98122-3934 2000-M-6POR Robert Gramm 502751" Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98136 Teresa O'Lea~ 13715 SE 188' Renton, WA 98058 Joshua Steinberger 303 Harvard Avenue, E., B-1 Seattle, W A 981 02 Richard Gandolfo 8114 NE 110'h Place Kirkland, WA 98034 Amy Black 395 Broadway R2B Cambridge, MA 02139 Laurie S. Almoslino 11 0 Florentia Street Seattle, WA 98109 Nancy Wilson 2861 SW 171 ,I Street Burien, WA 98166 Mary Marsh 7605 South 1281h Street Seattle, WA 98178 Kathryn Du~an 5834 NE 75 h Street, #B1 01 Seattle, WA 98115 Susan McClellan 22826 1 051h Avenue S.W. Vashon, WA 98070 Mike Keary 2522 Monroe Court NE Renton, WA 98056 Linda Radolf 6550 1" Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98117 Thelma R. Gower 2508 164'h Avenue, NE Bellevue, WA 98808-2317 Julie Haddad 3505 222" Street SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Jan Magnuson 21900 111h Avenue S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Doris & Kurt Samuelson 10017 Upper Preston Rd. SE Issaquah, WA 98027 Corinne J. Berglund 1932 SE 161h Place Renton, W A 98055 Trudy Davis PO Box 2014 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Lynda Voigt 15713 SE 148'h Street Renton, WA 98059-8807 Jane Anne Haworth 14449 127'h Lane NE, S-26 Kirkland, W A 98034-1239 Suzanne Zeeve, Ph.D. PO Box 2082 Setauket, NY 11733 C. Gary Schulz 7700 S. Lakeridge Drive Seattle, WA 98178 Ellen Blau, Ph.D. 4525 89th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Ken Marquess 7605 S. 128'h Street Seattle, WA 98178 Marian Broida 5844 N E 7th Street, A303 Seattle, W A 98115 Stan Kostka 28603 Kunde Road Arlington, WA 98223 Shirley Tollefson 3611 I Street N E, #79 Auburn, WA 98002 Stewart Wechsler 917 NE 63" Street #20 Seattle, WA 98115 Range Bayer PO Box 1467 Newport, OR 97365 Anne Noonan 9823 51" Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98136 ZOOO-¥-bPOR Judy Tabak 1024 SW 4'" Place Renton, Wa 98055 Barbara Petersen 30902 5'" Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Bonnie S. Kone 23412 55 1h Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Avenue NW Renton. WA 98055 Clayton Gnagy 108 Spring Place Enumclaw. WA 98022 Lauren Braden Seattle Audu bon 8050 35'" Avenue NE Seattle. W A 9811 5 Don Norman 2112 NW 1991h Shoreline. WA 98177 Carolyn E. Dubuc 115 17lh Street S E Auburn. WA 98002 Craig Fluvog 6849 461h Avenue NE Seattle. WA 98115 Mike Sanders 13750 SE 23"' Lane Bellevue. WA 98005 Tammy Lianu 11025 SW 2381h Street Vashon, WA 98070 Emily Hamel 4702 Davis Avenue S., #2F302 Renton, WA 98055 Duane Anderson West Hill Community Council PO Box 78583 Seattle. WA 98178 Bruce Harpham Conservation Chair Rainier Audubon Society PO Box 778 Auburn. WA 98071 Carl Haynie 2416201" Avenue SE Issaquah. WA 98029 Chris Clifford 2721 Talbot Road S. Renton. W A 98055 Dianne Clancy 446 S. 3061h Street Federal Way. WA 98003 Jan Mayrhofer 12047 691h S. Seattle. WA 98178 Chad Adams 13501 MLK Jr. Way S. Seattle. W A 98034 Darlene J. Shevham 25418 1391h Avenue SE Kent. WA 98042 Susan Minerich 12616 SE 232"" Street Kent, WA 98031 Sharon Mathers 8052 12'" Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98117 Margaret Oliver 14442 58 1h Avenue S. Tukwila. WA 98168 Juliet Tharp 359 Thomas Avenue SW Renton. WA 98055 Richard & Susan Hopkins 2511 Park Place N. Renton. WA 98056 Theresa Henson PO Box 7208 Tacoma. WA 98406 Kathleen Crabtree 115 Wells Avenue N. Renton. WA 98055 Carl Haynie 2416201" Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98029 James & Phyllis Saelens 6915 S. 132"" Street Seattle. WA 98178 Charles Mapili 23167 NE 31 Renton. WA 98056 2000-~-6POR Chuck Lennox, Conservation Chair Seattle, Audubon Society 8050 35'h Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 Brian E. Lawler Lawler & Burroughs, P.C. 999 Third Avenue, #4750 Seattle, WA 98104 Duane Anderson PO Box 88745 Seattle, WA 98138 Bruce Harpham Rainier Audubon Board 4325 S. 343,d Street Auburn, WA 98001 S.E. Eastman 317 Powell Avenue S.w. Renton, WA 98055 M. Susan Tarrant PO Box 7273 Covington, WA 98042 Karen G reytak 1685 134'h Avenue SE 1301 Bellevue, WA 98005 Pam Cahn PMB 3365, 10002 Aurora Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98133 Donna Kostka Heron Habitat Helpers 2420 30'h Avenue W Seattle, WA 98199 Patricia Sumption, President Friends of the Green River PO Box 288 Black Diamond, WA 98010 v,_ra Green 16236 145'h Avneue SE Renton, WA 98058 Stephanie Warden, Deputy Director K.C. Office of Reg. Policy & Planning 516 Third Avenue, Rm. 402 Seattle, WA 98104 Lauren Braden Advocate for Wildlife Habitat Seattle Audubon Society 8050 35'h Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Pat Sumption Sierra Club, Green Duwamish Watershed Alliance 10510 11'h Avenue NE Seattle, W A 98125 lIa Larsen 12919 69'h Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 Theodore A. Ripley 26804 102 0d Avenue SE Kent, WA 98030 Caroline Gerneglia 16848 124'h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Debra Duncan Russell 3116 Morris Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 James O. Wood 7525 S. 135'h Seattle, WA 98178 Jim & Sharon Peterson & Son 19015 106th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 ~v, ,ora Blauman Executive Secretary WA State Boundary Review Board 810 3'd Avenue, Suite 608 Seattle, WA 98104-1693 Susan Thomas, Policy Analyst K.C. Office of Regional Policy & Planning 516 Third Avenue, Room 402 Seattle, WA 98104 Daniel Drais Seattle Audubon Associate Director 8050 35'h NE Seattle, WA 98115 James Rassmussen Duwamish Tribal Office 14235 Ambaum Blvd SW Seattle, WA 98166 Barbara Retelle 22004 SE 277'h Street Maple Valley, WA 98038 Michael Hamilton 20418 NE 41 $I Street Sammamish, WA 98074 Vicki M. Shamek 1171982"" Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 Nancy N. Kroening 6536 Parkpoint Lane NE Seattle, WA 98115 Cathea Stanley, Chair South Kin~ County Group 20120 15' Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98198 Liann Sundquist 7211 36'h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 fOOO-M-.6POR Mark Orsen 3900 55th Avenue SW Seattle, W A 98116 Eve Irvine 9040 Burke Avenue N. Seattle, W A 981 03 Patricia A. Thompson Wildlife Biologist Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 Kelly Crouse 7621 So. 135th Street Seattle, WA 98178 Rebecca Ripley Sparling National City Mortgage Co. 2310 Mildred Street, W. Suite 120 Tacoma, WA 96466 Mrs. Cornelia Remy 13406 SE Fairwood Blvd. Renton, WA 98058-6957 Kate Stenberg, PH.D., Principal Quailcroft Environmental Services 23022 SE 48 th Street Sammamish, WA 98075 Ted Cambouris 22004 SE 277'h Street Maple Valley, WA 98032 Louise Baldel 13020 SW Princeton Court Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2326 Alex Morgan 8050 35th Avenue NE Seattle, WA98115 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME; MERLINO SR-900 SITE, CPAII:2003-M-8 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA.Q1.164, CPA, R, ECF DESCRIPTIO,. AND LOCATION: Proposed non-project action Comp Plan AmendmenVRezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this ,:!:26-acre site from the Residential Multi.famlly Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached units (2.65 units per net acre), In addition 10 the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 1 DO feet of the site's lolJlhem boundary and require a slx·fool high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the reBldential portions from the BNSF raM IIneB and col"Igervancy properties to the south. b2£!!!.2n: The sile is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-9OO. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM_I) to its west and east. The sloped site Is heavily treed and currently vacant. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND HAS ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS). APPEALS 0 F THE ENVIRONMENTAL 0 ETERMINATION MUST B E FILED I N WRITING 0 NOR BEFORE 5;00 PM ON OCTOBER 3, 2003. APPEALS MUST BE FILI:'D IN WRITING TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75.00 APPLICATION FEE WITH: HEARING EXAMINER, CITY OF RENTON. 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY. RENTON, WA 98055. APPEALS TO THE EXAMINER ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8-110. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL. ON OCTOBER 1S, 2003 AT 6:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE. I 'l·}~~'~~_S~ -~}rf'~"(.·~~.<.l. ~ __ J._ ,5.·ITE. ~'~ ,,: '. --.1· " .'" ' I· s. ".-~,..tj It / RENTON,DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION I, ~ d.hereby certify that j' copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 5:.r't. z. ~ ZC03 . signed:117~ ,tf;<VI-6/j r!6. ATTEST: SUbscribed¥WOm before me, a Notary Public, in and ford te of --tV Washington residint. i,rie I~ ,on the 0/'71-. day of ,. ¢ ,)c)O'3 . MARILYN KAMCHEFF /1'1 APf'OINTMENT EXPIRES 1>2!J.jjj ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: MERLINO SR-900 SITE, CPA #2003-M-8 PROJECT NUMBER: LUA..Q1-164, CPA, R, ECF DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Proposed non-project action Camp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this ~26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-l0 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached unns (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and require a six-foot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the residential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. Location: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and currently vacant. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND HAS ISSUED A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS). APPEALS 0 F THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MUST B E FILED I N WRITING 0 NOR BEFORE 5:00 PM ON OCTOBER 3, 2003. APPEALS MUST BE FILED IN WRITING TOGETHER WITH THE REQUIRED $75.00 APPLICATION FEE WITH: HEARING EXAMINER, CITY OF RENTON, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA 98055. APPEALS TO THE EXAMINER ARE GOVERNED BY CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8-110. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ON OCTOBER 15, 2003 AT 6:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE. FOR FURTHER liN IFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT I I DO NOT NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. MERLINO SR-900 SITE. CPA #2003-M-8 LUA-01-164.CPA.R.ECF Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this :!:26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). Location: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Planning Commission in the Council Chambers. City Hall. on October 15. 2003 at 6:00 PM to consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3. 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. (425) 430-6510. Publication Date: September 19. 2003 Account No. 51067 dnspub CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-01-164, CPA,R,ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Merlino SR-900 Site, CPA #2003-M-8 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposed non-project action Comp Plan AmendmenVRezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this !26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and require a six-foot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the residential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and currently vacant. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3, 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Dennis Culp, Administ r September 19, 2003 September 16, 2003 Community Services epartment ;/~~ '~eler, ire Ct1le Renton Fire Department dnssignature.doc DATE I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: September 16, 2003 Time: 9:00AM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. West Shops Demolition-Boeing (Consent) (Fiala! LUA-03-076,ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the demolition of two aircraft assembly and support buildings. The 4-63 complex of 483,000 sq. ft. and the 4-73 complex of 138,000 sq. ft. are located within the Renton Boeing Plant on the west side of Logan Avenue North and north of North 6th Street. Utilities would be rerouted to support remaining buildings. The proposal is to redevelop these areas in the near future with a parking lot and a dolly storage lot. Location: 800 Park Ave. N. Tydico Site, CPA #2003-M-14 (Erickson) LUA-02-144,CPA,ECF,R Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designations shown on the Land Use Map for this 9.5-acre site from Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 zoning to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning. The site is currently under consideration for annexation into the City. A special annexation election is scheduled for September 16, 2003. Location: The site is located between NE 3'" Place and NE 2'd Place, if extended, 1341h Avenue SE, if extended on the west, and 1361h Avenue SE (Bremerton) on the east. It abuts the Center Suburban (CS) land use designation to the north and a Residential Options (RO) designation to the west. Merlino SR-900 Site. CPA #2003-M-8 (Erickson) LUA-01-164,CPA,ECF,R Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this ±26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) with R-10 zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single-family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density, provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and require a six-foot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of the site separating the residential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. Location: The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and cu rrently vacant. WSDOT Carr Road, CPA #2003-M-1 (Erickson) LUA-01-165,CPA,ECF ,R Proposed non-project action Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone to change the land use designations shown on the Land Use Map for this 55-acre site from Residential Rural (RR) with R-1 zoning to a combination of RR, Residential Options (RO), and Residential Single Family (RS), with concurrent zoning to R-5, R-8 and R-10. Location: The site is located south of Carr Road/S 179"' Street and east of Talbot Road South. It abuts S. 47'h Street on the south and unincorporated King County on the south and east. cc: J. Tanner, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer A Pietsch, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council S. Meyer, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Name Applicant File Number Project Description Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE September 16, 2003 Merlino SR-900 Site, CPA #2003-M-8 City of Renton LUA-01-164, CPA,R,ECF Project Manager Don Erickson Proposed non-project action Comp Plan ArnendmentlRezone to change the land use designation shown on the Land Use Map for this ±26-acre site from the Residential Multi-family Infill with RM-I zoning and a development agreement limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre to Residential Options (RO) wifh R-IO zoning with a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single- family detached units (2.65 units per net acre). In addition to the these density provisions the development agreement would limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and require a six- foot high barrier fence to be constructed the full length of fhe site separating the residential portions from the BNSF rail lines and conservancy properties to the south. Although we have received a number of comments (see attached letters) regarding the heron rookery (located more than 1,000 feet soufh of the site) and the importance of protecting this and other species, there is no indication of heron nesting on the subject site. The site is located immediately south of SR-900 Sunset Blvd. SW and north of the BNSF railroad right-of-way east of the Sunset View Terrace apartments on SR-900. It abuts Residential Multi-family Infill (RM-I) to its west and east. The sloped site is heavily treed and currently vacant. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf NI A 21.76 acres Total Building Area gsf NI A B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental DeterminatIon: x DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Project Location Map DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED. Issue DNS·M with 15 day Conunent Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS~M with 15 day Connnent Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. ERe STAFF REPORT.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department Merlino SR-900 Site Comprehensive Plan Amenument and Concurrent Rezone REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 16. 2003 C MITIGATION MEASURES Envirr Jta! Review Committee Staff Report LUA-01-1M, CPA, R, ECF Pagel 0/4 Not applicable now for this non-project action. Staff note, however, that at the project level environmental analysis will be required for this environmentally sensitive site. Also, a development agreement is proposed that would limit development to 69 single family detached dwellings, impose a 100' setback for residential and recreational uses from the properties southern boundary, and require the construction of a 6-foot high barrier fence the full length of the development between it and the rear property line. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. Has the applicant adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in the conjunction with the proposed developmellf? 1. Earth Impacts: The site includes steep slopes regulated by the City's critical area regulations. This is a non-project action. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is recommended for this non-project action. Nexus: N/A 2. Water Impacts: Water runoff from West Hill has been reported on the site in the form of springs and intermittent creeks. Although no impacts are associated with this non-project action the applicant will, at the time of development need to conduct a stream and wetland delineation report. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is recommended for this non-project action Nexus: N/A 3. Transportation Impacts: Under current zoning and development agreement the site is limited to a maximum to 10 units per acre, or 260 multifamily units on the subject 26 acre site. This number of units would generate an estimated 1,724 A WDTEs or 862 round trips (6.63 AWDTEs per unit). Under the current proposal a maximum of 69 single-family detached units would be allowed on the subject site. Based upon an estimated 9.57 A WDTEs per detached unit (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition) future development, under the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment, concurrent zoning and development agreement, would generate only 660 A WDTEs, or a reduction of 1,064 A WDTEs. As a result no impacts from the current non-project action are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is recommended for this non-project action Nexus: N/A ERG STAFF REPORT.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department Merlino SR~900 Site Comprehensive Plan Amenament and ('ol/current Rezone REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 16. 2003 4. Wildlife Habitat £nvir( tal Review Committee Staff Report LUA-OI-IM, CPA, R, ECE Pagd 0[4 Impacts: Although the City has reviewed a number of comments (see attached letters) regarding the heron rookery located more than 1,000 feet south of the site, there is no indication of heron nesting on the subject site. The applicant has been advised that environmental analysis will be required at the project level for the 69 detached single-family dwellings they wish to ultimately develop on the site. Because this is a downzone from 260 to 69 units, and development on the site continues to be regulated by the fencing and buffer requirements in the development agreement, no further mitigation is identified at this time. Previous environmental action was taken March 28, 2000, for the existing RM-I zoning and development agreement. The present action is below the threshold previously analyzed for this site. Mitigation Measures: None. The existing development agreement conditions limit the siting of residential and recreational uses within 100 feet of the site's southern boundary and requires a six foot high barrier fence to be constructed separating the residential properties from the BNSF rail lines and the conservancy properties was already established by prior environmental action on March 28. 2000. Nexus: N/A 5_ Housing Impacts: The current land use designation and zoning with the development agreement limit development on the site to a maximum of 260 units. Under the current non-project action to change the land use designation to from RM to RO with concurrent R-l 0 zoning and a development agreement limiting the maximum number of units to 69 single- family detached units, no significant impacts were identified. Below is a matrix showing the capacity analysis for this site. Below is the calculated theoretical capacity for thc subject site assuming an RS designation with R-8 zoning and an RO designation with R-IO zoning. These are shown in comparison with the existing RM-I zoning subject to the current development agreement. Modeled Theoretical Capacity RM-IZone R-IO Zone R-8Zone (17.51) (9.53) (6.7) Estimated Residential Capacity; based upon 24.18-acres (wi sensitive areas) 260 units' 230 units 162 units 'Existing Development Agreement limits number of units to 260 units. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required for this non-project action. Nexus: N/A 6. Archeological Impacts: The City received a letter identifying potential archeological site and trails from the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program. This letter requests that a cultural survey occur prior to construction or groundbreaking activities. An investigation as to whether artifacts exist on the site is more appropriately held at the time of site development rather than the zoning/land use review. With the proposed amendment to the development agreement, capacity on the site is reduced from 260 to 69 units with a density reduction of 10 dulac to 2.65 units per acre. Site development is anticipated to occur on a smaller area within the site. If, at the time of project level review, the presence of ERC STAFF REPORT. doc City of Renton EDNS? Department Merlino SR-900 Site Comprehensive Plan Amenament and COl/currellt Rezone REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Envin tal Review Committee Staff Report LUA-OJ-IM, CPA, R, ECF Page40/4 archeological artifacts is confirmed, it is anticipated that development can be clustered on the site to accommodate necessary preservation of these resources, There is nothing evident at the non-project level to suggest that capacity of 69 single-family homes will not be able to be achieved on the site. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I D;visif)lwl Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures andlor Note~·lo Applicant. _L Copies of all Review Comments are contained in lite Official File. __ Copies of all Review Commenls are a/tached to lhis report .. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as in/ormation only, they lire not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. 1. A stream and wetland delineation report must be provided with any development application. The report must either show where the all streams and wetlands are located on the subject 26-acre site. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on October 3, 2003. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERC STAFF REPORT.doc ( I r I I ___ --.1 Merlino Site (2003-M-8) Vicinity Map E);.¢I Economic Development. Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + .... + Alex PieL'iCh. Administratllr ~ G. Del Rosario J, JlJly 200] Ll L_ / r--___ -- / v----.J / / Study Area Corporate Boundary o 600 1200 I I I 1 : 7200 Merlino Site (2002-M-8) Aerial Map e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + .. • AIel( Plel:'iCh, Administr~lllr ~ G. Del Rosario 3 July 2003 o 300 Study Area I I~~~ 1 : 3600 Existing CD RC CD RC(P) RC(P) Merlino Site (2003-M-S) Landuse & Zoning Map e Economic Development. Neighborhoods & Sirategic Planning .... + Ale)( Pietsch, Auministrator ~ G. Del Rm.ario 3 July 2003 R-8 RC RC(P) RC(P) IN c:::=:=:J EAI-Employment Area Industrial c:::=:=:J EAV-Employment Area Valley @J%.:?§l RM-I-Residential Multi-Family Infill c:::=:=:J RO-Residential Options ~ RR-Residential Rural c:::=:=:J RS-Residential Single Family Proposed R-: R-10 CD IN o 600 1200 I I I Study Area City Limits 1 : 7200 ,I I" .J ~-f' , ',L, ~'" , " ,~, ~ , , , ,::,1,; \~ ---'--." ---Q , ,,"\ 1/ ', .... '\ '--1/ / o " \ ~" / , u I I ) o o \0 o o C"l o 0.. <l3 ~ >-.<::: 0.. ~ 01 0 0.. ~ CO , ~ , C') C> C> ~ Q) +-' .-en 0 C :I.- Q) ~ o o \0 C"l ~ c '" c • 1i: u '''' ~ ~ <;j ~ -E .8 ~ .. '. z " • !i E • ft:~ • E > ~ ~ <,. <.I .c ~ "E ~.i~ § ~~b u 2 . ..:: W -<0 ..... G) .# I • ~, " .• 0 }jj' ,;) --------- '" "" -"'- fj # If' ,~ 1'3 rJ /1 / /C:K--J ~r.=> W-5 / / / / / / / / ~ r--_______ _ / . ----- """- ~ \ \ S 0 300 600 • • Study Area I I I Me rll no Site (2003-M-8) Sensitive Areas Map - - -Corporate Boundary 1 ' 3600 Flood Area Boundary • Wetlands Boundary ~ Steep Slopes e Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning .. am .. Alex Pielsch. Administrator ~ G, Del Rosario 3 July 2003 APPLICATION 2003-M-8, MERLINO LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INFILL (RM-I) TO RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS (RO) OWNER: SR 900 L.L.C. APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 25.68 acres from RM-I to RO as well as amend Section 3. of the September 2000 Development Agreement between the City of Renton and the owners, SR 900 L.L.C. The site is located along the south side of SR-900 about 950 feet east of its intersection with 68 th A venue South. The site was annexed into the City on February 12, 2001 and designated MF-I on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that same year. It was zoned MF-I at the same time. ISSUE SUMMARY 1) Whether it is appropriate to reduce the zoned land capacity for this property, and if so, 2) Whether site development should be limited to a single-family detached unit type through a development agreement. RECOMMENDATION Support a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Residential Single Family with concurrent R-8, 8 units per net acre zoning subject to an amended Development Agreement being signed between the City and property owners limiting future development to a maximum of 69 single-family detached units. Retain the existing prohibition in the development agreement on the construction of residential or recreation buildings within 100 feet of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, and the requirement that a 6- foot high fence be constructed along the south side of the development along its entire length. BACKGROUND The site abuts an existing RM-I designation to the west and to its south/southwest. Across SR-900 to its northwest the area within the City is designated RS, Residential Single Family, and zoned R-8. The rest of the area to the north across SR-900 is located in unincorporated King County and is designated Urban Residential, 4-12 dulacre. On its south the site abuts both a Commercial Office (CO) and a Resource Conservation (RC) designations. Prior to the annexation, this site was within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and it was designated RM-I in 2000. The site was annexed into the City the following year and given RM-I zoning subject to the provisions of a Development Agreement restricting the maximum number of units that could be built to 260 units. This was approximately half the number of units that could have been built under the RM-I zoning. Because a portion of the site was within 1,300 feet of an established Heron rookery to the south, this development agreement also limited the siting of residential or recreation buildings within 100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-<:>f-way that lies to the immediate south of the property. In addition, as a safety device and deterrent to children and pets crossing the BNSF right-of-way, a 6-foot high fence was required to be constructed in conjunction with any residential development of the site. This fence is to run along the south side of the development for its entire length. APPLICATION 2003-M-8, Merlino.doc\ July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing In July, 2002 the applicant's representative requested that the City, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update, adopt an RO land use designation for the ± 26-acre site with corresponding R-lO zoning. The applicant's representative indicated that they were interested in a lower density single-family detached development for the site with approximately 69 ± 5,000 square foot lots. The R-lO zone allows a maximum net density of 13 units per acre for developments including only detached dwellings. The R-lO zone, unlike the R-8 zone, allows minimum lot widths of 30-feet for interior lots and 40-feet for comer lots. ANALYSIS In order to detennine the most appropriate mid-density land use designation and zoning staff looked at three land use designations, Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 zoning, Residential Options (RO) with R-lO zoning, and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) with R-14 zoning. There are no mandatory mapping criteria that must be met for the RS designation. In the RO designation, a site must meet three of the following five criteria to be eligible for mapping: 1. Area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multiple-family zoning; 2. Development patterns are established; 3. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential; 4. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development; and 5. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. The site meets three of these criteria. The area had for a number of years multi-family zoning on the property to the east, the subject 26-acre site is currently vacant, and few new roads or major utilities would be required for development to occur. Under the RPN designation a site must meet all fi ve of the following criteria: 1. Adjacent to major arterial(s); 2. Adjacent to Employment Area and/or Centers; 3. Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres; 4. Site is buffered from single family areas or incompatible uses; and, 5. Development within density and unit type range is achievable given environmental constraints. This site can only meet four of the five RPN criteria. Clearly, the site is adjacent to a major arterial (SR 9(0), it is part of a proposed designation totaling over 20 acres <± 26 acres), and it is buffered from single family areas or incompatible uses (SR 900 on the north and 100' setback from BNSF Railroad right-of-way on the south). The site is also adjacent to an Employment Area -Valley designation on Monster Road. However, the site can not be developed with single family unit types with sufficient density to meet the minimum density of 8 dulnet acre required in this designation given environmental constraints of steep slope and landslide hazards. This would suggest that either the RS or the RO designations might be applied to the site. Further analysis below under Comprehensive Plan Compliance suggests either RS or RO might work as well, however the RS designation would appear to be more consistent with the applicant's proposal in terms of lot size, minimum density, and orientation of some of the units around interior courtyards or parking areas. APPLICATION 2003-M-8, Merlino.doc\ 2 July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing CAPACITY ANALYSIS Below is the calculated theoretical capacity for the subject site assuming an RS designation with R-S zoning and an RO designation with R-lO zoning. These are shown in comparison with the existing RM-I zoning subject to the current development agreement. Modeled Theoretical Capacity RM-I Zone R-lOZone R·8Zone (17.51) (9.53) (6.7) Estimated Residential Capacity; based upon 24.IS-acres (wI sensitive areas) 423 units' 230 units 162 units *Exlstmg Development Agreement hnuts number of umts to 260 umts. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The following analysis looks at the policies of Residential Single-Family (RS); Residential Options (RO), and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) designations in order to determine a preferred designation for this Comp Plan amendment and rezone. Based upon the attached Comparative Matrix of middle density land use designation policies, it would appear that a single-family detached project concept fits closest to the RS land use designation. In terms of lot size (Policy LU-35) it appears that the minimum lot size is met with the smallest standard lots being + 5,000 square feet. Also, under this proposal it is in the public interest to retain distinctive stands of trees, particularly along the steeply sloped areas (Policy LU-40.2). The RO and RPN designations are intended to encourage high density mixed unit type projects that are designed to resemble a single-family neighborhood. As the density range and unit type proposed by the amendment to the development agreement would result in 69 single-family detached units, the RO and RPN designations do not appear necessary for the unit types now proposed. AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA RMC 4-9-020, Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process requires that a proposal demonstrate that the requested amendment is timely and meets at least one of the following: A. Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments: 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, or 2. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies, or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. The proposed redesignation to either the RS or RO land use designation would appear to be consistent with the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically. under Future Housing: "Single family areas will continue to dominate the residential character of Renton. There areas will over time also come to reflect a greater diversity of population and housing stock. Increasingly single family housing will be found in mixed single family/mult-family areas. APPLICATION 2003-M-8, Merlino.docl 3 July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing New single family housing will also consist of a greater variety of unit sizes catering to different income groups, household sizes and life styles. " Also, under Future Neighborhoods: "Outside of the downtown new residential neighborhoods would be organized in a way that would be reminiscent of small towns of the past. The newly developing areas would have a noticeable absence of large multi-family complexes. Small lot single-family and small multi- plex homes would be most common. Buildings would face tree-lines streets with wide sidewalks. " Single-family detached housing or a combination of single-family detached housing and small multi- family homes (duplexes, townhouses, etc.) would be consistent with both of these vision statements from the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING CONCURRENCY In the case of Residential Options, the concurrent zoning would be R-IO, 10 units per net acre. In the case of Residential Single Family, the concurrent zoning would be R-8, 8 units per net acre. CONCLUSION The land use designation most consistent with the mid-density residential policies is Residential Single Family (RS). If the proponents were going to develop the site with both single-family detached housing and some lower density multi-family housing, then Residential Options (RO) might be appropriate. Currently, the applicant's preferred scenario is 100 percent single-family detached on lots greater than 5,()()() square feet. APPLICATION 2003-M-8. Merlino.docl 4 July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing Comparative Matrix of Middle Density Land Use Designation Policies Residential Single Family Residential Options Residential Planned NeiEhhorhood Potiey LU-34_ Net development densities Policy LU-48. Bulldings should frODt the Pollcy LU-S7. Areas may be mapped should fall within a range of 5 to 8 du per street rather than be organized around interior RPN where the site meets the following acre. courtyards or parking areas. criteria. a. adjacent to major arterial(s); b. adjacent to employment are and/or Centers; c. part of a designation totaling over 20 acres; d. site is buffered from single family areas or other incompatible uses; e. development within the density and unit range is achievable given environmental constraints. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 Polley LU-SO. Residential neighborhoods Policy LU-58. Density in the RPN sq. ft. should be allowed in SF neighborhoods may be considered if they meet three of the designation should be in the range of 8- wheo flexible development standards are following criteria: 18 du per net acre. used. a. Area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex m low density multi-family zoning. b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential. d. Few new roads m major utility upgrades will be need with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center desionation. Poticy LU-37. Maximum height of Policy LU-SI. The net densities should be Policy LU-S9. A minimum of 50% of a structures should generally not exceed 2 10 du per acre. If 100% of units are project should consist of the following stories. detached, neL densities can be increased to a residential types: traditional detached, maximum of 13 dufacre zero lot line detached, or townhouses with yards which are designed to reflect a sinele family character. Pollcy LU-38. Development standards Policy LV-52. Minimum net development Policy LU-60. Townhouse building should encourage quality development io densities should be 7 du per acre. clusters when a primary residential type neighborhoods. should be limited in size so that the mass and scale within the cluster retains a sinl!le familv character Poticy LU-39. Development standards Policy LU-53. Detached single family Policy LV-63. Projects in the RPN should address transportation and pedestrian housing, townhouses, and small-scale multi-designation should have no more that connections between neighborhoods. family units should be allowed. 50% of the units designed as secondary types, Le. longer townhouse building clusters, and other multi-family buildings. Poticy LU-40.2. Site features such as Policy LV-54. A maximum of 50% of units Potiey LU-63.1. Development standards distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes may consist of attached units, which includes should reflect single family should be retained. townhouses ,nd small-scale multi-family neighborhood characteristics and access units. to public amenities and services. Poticy LU-SS. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design. and private yards. APPLICA nON 2003-M·8, Merlino.docl 5 July 9, 2003 Planning Conunission Briefing ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS INTRODUCI10N Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identifY impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply·. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. . Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan t() do them over a period of time or on different parcels ofland. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nOll project proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDmON, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as. "proposal," "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. Page I 20681OOIfCOMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CIIECKUST-I.Fl.doc; 0 1131100 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Merlino SR 900 Property Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone (a non-project action) 2. Name of applicant(s): Gary M Merlino and Donna M. Merlino; Donald J..Merlinaand Joan P. Merlino; and Quarry Industrial Park, !LC, a Washington limited liability company 3. Address and phone number of applicant(s) and contad person: Applicant: Donald J. Merlino c/o Stoneway Concrete 1915Maple ValleyHighway Renton, WA 98055 (425) 226-1000 4. Date checklist prepared: January 31, 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: Contact Person: . David L Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 10500 N.E.ff' Street, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 454-8272 City oj Renton Department oj Economic Development and Neighborhood & Strategic Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The proposed Comprehensive Pion Map and Text Amendments and Rezone are anticipated to be processed by the City by June 2000. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or . connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Multi-jamily residential 'aevelopment oj the property consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone is contemplated in future years but is not part oj this proposed non-project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The City oj Renton issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement jor the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element (daled January 16, 1992) and a two-volume Final Page 2 2068/00 IICOMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST-I.FI.doc; 01131100 Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element (dated February I, 1993). . 9. Do you know whether' applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Renton City Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this'.checklist-.that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to includeadditionahpecific information on project description.) The Applicants request the following changes to the subject property's existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations and Zoning classifications: ~" (a) An amendment of the propel'ty's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map y~ designations from Employment Area Commercial (EAC) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres, including 3./4 acres of unimproved S. /4(/h Street right-of-way), Employment . Area Office (EAO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 acres) and Rural Residential III II (RR)) (which encompasses approXl.·mately 1.08 acres) to Residential Multi-Family Infill ~/M ~okJ i),1 »1); and .1 4t1r-l~ lAJ~ta 11;n;1-ff,tftnt U!£...j;.. "'0 AlJPre..,-llth t;1 ";ll,P', «f If '1 {}.J, U"F(;S I ,.,., "'."" /I '/ P'D..f!!I1~Y!}. line W4r1/~ 'J,1iII """""" ,t,,8IIt "17 • 141 ~ (tf,1flt1U I .,.J._ ft"-'1'c,,,p 1_dl/J# ~blJJ,/~"u.(tl'6i:::'/; ,,~,"""&Idf! .4u.oo: /&'~r )'f ~ t' 4J1l" (b) An amendme t of the property's Zoning Classipcations m Arteriat omftiercial/ tJJ;(r,......J .JI~ ~ (CA) (prezoned), Commercial Office (CO), and Resource Conservation (RC) to Residential ""-" t1/1~' Multi.Family Infill (RM-I). 1'-J The Applicants also request the following text amendment to existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy LU-69 (with the proposed additional text illustrated by underlining): (Proposed Amentree/) Policy LU-69. Residential Multi-family Infill designations should not be expanded (Application of this desi'{TUJtion to properties lving between parcels that alreatfy have this designation shall not be considered an inappropriate "expansion" but. rather. an acceptable "infill".J Land within the districts should be used effiCiently to meet multi-family housing needs. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to uuderstand .the precise location ofYQur proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, Page 3 2068/00 l/COMP'PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV.cllECKLlST,l.Fl.doc; 0 1 (J I 100 township, and range, if known. H a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topograpbic map, if reasonably available. Wbile yon sbould submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted witb any permit applications related to tbis cbecklist. The 27.09-acre subject property (which includes 3.14 acres of the unimproved S. 140" Street right-of-way that runs from west to east through the property) is located on the south side of SR 900 (known as ''Martin Luther King, Jr. Way S."in unincorporated King .County and "S.W. Sunset Boulevard".in the City of Renton) from approximately 76" Avenue S. (based on unincorporated King County addressing) on the west to Thomas Ave .. S.W.,(based ()n Renton addressing) ()n the east. The site currently lies partially in unincorporated King C()unty and partially within the City of Renton. A legal descripti()n of the subject propertY is attached to the Land Use Permit Master Application form submitted with the request along with a Property Map Exhibit and a Neighbcrhood Detail Map depicting the boundaries of the subject property 13. Does tbe proposal lie witbin an area desigllated on the. City's Comprehensive .Land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive? The City's "Potential Wildlife Areas, Forest, Open Spaces and Wetlands Map" and "Lakes, Rivers & Streams, Wetlands & Stream Reach Labels" map both depict a wetland along part oj the easterly portion of the subject property's south boundary. (It is difficult to tell from thOS$ two maps whether any of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely offsite near that part of the subject property's south boundary or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily offsite.) Nearly all of the subject property Is mapped "King County Hazard" on the City's "Slide, Sensitive Areas" m'ttp.(J1re extreme east end of the site is mapped either "High" or "Very. High"ontbat map.)' . Nearly all of the subject property is mapped as Greenbelt. The portion of the site lying south and east of the unimproved S. uri' Street right~f-way is mapped as "Erosion Hazard". B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly. steen slopes, mountainous other ___ ' b. What is the steepest slope on tbe site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 70% (at the southeastern portion of the site). Page 4 2068100 IICOMP.PLAN.AMENDMENTIENV.cHECKUST.I.F1.doc; 01131100 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, day, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The 1973 King County Soil Survey (prepared by USDA' Soil Conservation Service) maps the site's soils as "BeD" (Beausile gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading. proposed. Indicate source of fill. None proposed at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. f. Could erosion occur as.a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,generaUy describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces afier project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NIA. (No development is currently proposed) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NIA 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known PageS 20681OO1ICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV·CHECKLlST·I.FI.doc; Olfl 1/00 Co Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or otber impacts to air, if any: NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is tbere any surface· water body on or in;tbeimmediate-vicinityof.tbe site (including year-round and seasonal streams,-,"saltwater,_, lakes, . ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If . appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. An intermittent drainage course runs from north to south approximately 1100 feet west of the site's extreme southeastern corner. ·.'A><storm,drain pipejromabutting SR900. (which transports runoff fromthe.existing single-jamilyresidential neighborhood lying north of SR 900) discharges,intotha! drainage course. That . drainage course appears to discharge into the area that ismapped as a wetland on the City's "PotentialWildlife Areas, Forest, Open Spaces ,and,Wetlands Map" and "Lakes, Rivers & Streams,Wetlands &'Stream Reach Labels" map along part of the easterly portion of the subject property's south .boundary ... (Itis difficult to tell from those maps whether any of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely offsite near that part of the subject properly's south boundary or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily offsite.) 2) WiD the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) tbe described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversious? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Page 6 20681OOIICOMP·Pl.AN-AMENDMENTIENV.cfIECKLIST·1 ,FI ,doc". 01131100 • No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waten? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water becdischarged to ground water? Give general description, purpose,. 'and>'approximate·.quantities if known. NIA 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged'into,the',ground ·.Jrom septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: ',Domestic . sewage: ',industrial, containing the following chemicals .••. ; agricultural;etc.) •. Describe·tbe general size of tbe system, tbe number of such systems; the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans .the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe tbe source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waten? If so, describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) However. future development will reqllire preparation and City of Renton approval of an onsite storm water plan 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waten? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: ' NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: -.X_ deciduous tree: alder. maple, aspen, other: -.X_ evergreen tree: fir,_cedar, pine, other: Page 7 2068100 IICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV -CHECKUST·I.FI ,doc; 01131/00 ..JL shrubs ..JL grass pasture wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup. buUrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily. eelgrass. milfoil. other: other types ofveg$tion: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or al.tered? NIA. (No development is currently proposed) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other,measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 5. Animals a. • Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds. other: crows and miscellaneous small birds mammals: deer. bear. elk, beaver. other: squirrels. chipmunks. raccoons fish: bass. salmon, trout, herring. shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be On or !lear the site. None. t. Is the site part of a migration route? H so, explain. Unknown. , d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NIA PageS 10681001ICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENT/ENV-CIlECKLlST·I.FI.doc;; 01/31100 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NIA. (No development is CII1Tently proposed) b. Would your project affect the potential use ofsolar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy, impacts, if any: None. Application is for CPA and rezone only. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, riSk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. Application is for CPA and rezone only b. Noise 1) What types of,,"oise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? An existing railroad line abuts most of the site's south boundary. The southerly portion of the site's west edge abuts the east edge of the Black River Quarry, which is owned by the applicants of the subject property. Noise from the mining and recycling activities on that site currently exist. Mining of the Quarry property is nearing completion, however. Page 9 2068100 IICOMP-PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST-I.FI ,doc; 01131/00 2) What types and. levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-tenn or a long-tenn basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise l1;'ouJd come from the site. Traffic noise and other noise commonly associated with a multi-!amily residential development would ultimately be created by such a development on the subject property. However, no development is being proposed at this time. (Application is for CPA and rezone only.) 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise·impacts, ir any: NIA 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use or the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. To the west of the site (in unincorporated King County) along the sOuth edge ofSR 900 lies an approximately300-unitaparlment complex . called the Empire Estates Apartments. To the east of the site . (in ·the. City of Renton) along the south edge of SR 900 lies another multi-!amily,resitkntial development called the Sun Pointe Townhomes. Acrass SR 900 to the north lie developed single-!amily residential subdivisions in both unincorporated King County (west of 8rf1' Avenue S.) and the City of Renton (east of 8ft' Avenue s.). An existing railroad line and right-of- way abuts most of the site's south boundary. The southerly portion of the site's west edge abuts the east edge of the Black River Quarry property, which. is owned by the applicants of the subject PT()perty. b. . Has the site been used for agriculture? H so, describe. No. Co Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? H so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification ofthe site? The site's current zoning is Arterial Commercial (CA) (prezoned) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres of the site, including 3.14 acres of unimproved S. 14rf1' Street right-of-lfay). Commercial Office (CO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 Page 10 206811lO1ICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST·I.FI.doc; 01131100 acres of the site), and Resource Conservation (RC) (which encompasses approximately 1.08 acres of the site). What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? . Employment Area Commercial (EAC) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres of the site, including 3.14 acres of unimproved S. 14dh Street right-of-Way), Employment Area Office (EAO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 acres of the . site) and Rural Residential (RR) ) (which encompasses approximately 1,08 acres of the site) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive":area? If so, specify. The City's "Potential Wildlife Areas, Forest, Open:SpacesandWetlands:Map" and "Lakes, Rivers & Streams, Wetlands & Stream Reach Labels" map both depict a wetland along part of the easterly portion of thesubjectproperty 's south boundary. (It is difficult to tell from those two maps whether any of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely of/site near that part of the subject property's south bouncktry or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily of/site.) Nearly all of the subject property is mapped "King County Hazard" on the City's "Slide Sensitive Areas" map. (The extreme east end of the site is mapped either "High" or "Very High" on that map.) Nearly all of the subject property is mapped as Greenbelt .. The portion of the site lying south and east of the unimproved S. 14(jh Street right-of- way is mapped as "Erosion Hazard". i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Unknown at this time. ,Application isfor CPA and rezone only. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. Page II 2068/001ICOMP·PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST-I.FI.doc; 01(31/00 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compati~le with uistiDg and projected land uses and plans,ifany: Amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan are sought. 9. Housing Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? . Indicate whether high, . middle, or low-income housing. unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, ·middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing Impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not ineluding antennas; what is the principal uterior building material(s) proposed? Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would. be altered or obstructed? Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. (However, because the site is currently wooded, which obstructs views from the higher properties lying to the north, development of the site is not anticipated to obstruct views from the north.) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No aesthetic impactswe anticipated 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. PageJ2 2068iOO1ICOMP.PLAN.AMENDMENTIENV-CIiECKUST.I.FI.doc; OlfjllOO Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. {Lighting typical of a multi-family residential development would ultimately result, such as parking lot lighting during the night.} b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing ofT-site sources of light or glare may afTect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Skyway Park (King County), Bryn Mahr Park (King County). ond Earlington Park are all are located within about a J -mile radius of the site. b. Would tbe proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? H so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? City of Renton parks impact fees would be paid in conjunction with development of the sile. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation , a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? H so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Page I3 2068/(JO IICOMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CBECKUST-I.FI.doc; 01/31/00 ... None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and bigbways serving tbe site, and describe. proposed access to tbe existing street system. Sbow on site plans, if any. SR 900 lies along the entire north edge of the site. b. Is the site currently served by public transit! If not, wbat is the approximate distance to tbe nearest transit stop! Yes, Metro Transit currently serves SR 900. A transit stopis·approximateiy_700 feet to the west of the subject property. Co How many parking spaces.would :tbe.completed projeet bave!' How. many would the project eliminate? The number of parking spaces that a completed develppment ojthe site would have is unknown at this time. No parking spaces would be eliminated. (Application is for CPA and rezone only.) d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate wbetber public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in tbe immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If 50, generally describe. An existing rail line runs along most of the site's south boundary. (The rail line will not serve the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate wben peak volumes would occur. Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. Page 14 2068J00 I/COMP-PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST-I,Fl.do<; DlfJ 1100 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: City of Renton traffic impact fees would be paid in conjunction with actual development of the subject property. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for .. publicservices(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)?.Iho,.generally describe. Application is for CPA and rezone only. Ultimatedevelopmentoj.the:site_pursuant to approVal of the request wold result in an increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. Fire Department impact fees would be paid in conjunctionwith;actuaJ.deve/opment of the subject property. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas.· water. refuse service. telephone.sanitarv sewer. septic system, other. All utilities are available. to the site through a proper extension of services. Extension of services will be the developers' responsibility at the time of ultimate development. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Water Service will be provided by the City of Renton Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton Telephone Service will be provided by US West According to David Christensen, Utility Engineering Supervisor of the City of Renton Waste Water Section, the existing City of Renton 12-inch diameter sewer main in 6lf' Avenue South (to the west of the site) has adequate capacity to provide sewer service for multi-family-residential development of the subject ,f'0perty. (The Applicants own the abutting property between the subject site and 68 Avenue South and will be able to construct a connecting sewer main between 6tf' Avenue South and the subject site.) According to Abdau/ Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor of the City of Renton Utilities Division, (a) the, subject property lies within the City's water service area, (b) a J 2-inch Page 15 2068/00 IICOMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV -CHECKLIST-I.FI.doc; 01131 roo diameter main lies in SR 900 approximately as far west as Powell Avenue sw. (c) an existing 16-inch diameter line lies in 611' Avenue South (to the west of the site). and (d) suitable. connectiOO(s) to these lines should provide adequate water service to the subject property. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best ormy knowledge. .I understand that the . lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. .. ~ Ie !?~'------ Sipature: ~ - Hal P. Grubb, P.E., . Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Date Submitted: January 31, 2000 Page 16 ~),a)MP.J'LAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHF.CKJ.J8T·l.FI.doc; OII3IAlO D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do notuse this sheet for project actions). Non-project actions are those that do not include a specific project. A non-project action may be a rezone, annexation, or amendments to ordinances. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "alTectedgeographic area," respectively. Because tbese questions are very general, it may be helpfuHocread ,theminl:onjunction with the list of the elements ofthe environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would alTect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. oRespondbriefly.and in,general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; produetion, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning are very simi/arin intensity of allowed use to the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning already applicable to about 96% of the site. Development under the proposed designation and zoning will not lead to significantly increased discharge to water, emissions to air or production of noise as compared to development that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. Uses permitted under the proposed categories will not produce, store or release toxic or hazardous substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None proposed since the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone will ultimately result in uses of simi/ar intensity to uses previously aI/owed by the City for the subject property under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. 2. How would the proposal be likely to alTect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed Comprehensive Plan..designation and zoning would not be anticipated to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life to any different degree than the· existing Comprehensive Plali designations and zoning. Proposed measures to proteet or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: When development of the site ultimately occurs pursuant to the proposed zoning, erosion control and water qualitylstormwater detention/retention facilities will be required per City regulations. Page 17 20681001 fCOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV·CHECKLlST.1. FI.dcc; 0 IIJ 1100 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development oj the site pursuant to the proposed zoning will have approximately the same impact on energy and natural resources as allowed under the current ComprehensiVe Plan designation and zoning category. . . Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natlJraJ resources are: None rl!quiredbeyond adherence to City energy codes. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally,sensitive:areas.lIr.areas designated (or eligible or under study) for· governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Development setbacks from the wetland along part oj the easter/YPOrtion,ofthe :subject,pl'operty 's south boundary would be rl!quirl!d under the City's wetland protection regulations. During the review oj a particular development proposal jor the.subject.property,a geotechnical study by qualifiedprojessionals would be required to evaluate appropriate·development conditions in relation to the site's mapping as a slide haZard area and the portion of the site mapped as an erosion hazard area. Current!y-anticipated changes to the City's Envirionmentally Sensitive Areas regulations will eliminate the City's Greenbelt designation. Proposed measures to protect sucb resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See priorparagraph. 5. How would tbe propOsal be likely to affect land and sboreline use, including wbetber it would aHow or encourage land or sboreline uses incompatible witb existing plans? The proposl!d Comprl!hl!nsive Plan designation and zoning is idl!nticalto the aisting Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning oj the properties lying to both the west and the l!ast oj the subjl!ct property. No significant qffect upon /and and shorl!line use is anticipatl!d by the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce sboreline and land useimpac:ts are: Site Plan Review will be required jor any development proposal ultimatl!1y brought forward 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Page 18 20681OOIICOMP.PLAN.AMENDMENTIENV-CIIECKUST.I.FI.doc; 01131100 Demands on transportation and public services and utilities from future development in accordance with the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning would be very similar in intensity to such demands stemming from development of the subject property under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. No significant increase in demand for-these services is anticipated. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federailawl or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal is not anticipated to conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment •. Page 19 2068100 I/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV -CUECKLlST·I.FI.doc; 01131/00 MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM August 29, 2003 39015172nd Avenue S.E.· Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (360) 802-2202 • FAX: (360) 802-2242 Don Erickson, Project Manager Strategic Planning EDNSP Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 RE: LUA-OI-I64, CPA, R: Merlino Comp Plan Amendment Rezone #2003-M-8 Dear Mr. Erickson, RECEiVED SEP 3 2003 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEQ! . .s,:~t\._NNIf\iG On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent regarding LUA-01-164, CPA, R: Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone and have the following comments. The property is in a high probability area for archaeological sites and trails. It is relatively undisturbed land along the Cedar River. The area is known for rich archaeological sites of which several are registered at the State Historic Preservation Office. It is important for the City of Renton to require a cultural survey prior to construction or ground disturbing activities. As policy, ground disturbing activities in areas of high probability for archaeological discovery, the Cultural Committee requests: I. An archaeological field survey of the project APE by a professional archaeologist 2. To review the archaeological survey's scope of work 3. The option of sending a tribal monitor during the field survey 4. To review the draft survey for completeness and accuracy 5. A Recovery Plan in place in the event that human remains or artifacts are uncovered The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. If needed, please contact these departments for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. It is better to review projects upfront. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 360-802-2202, extension 103. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. Sincerely, S~~t cc: Melissa Calvert, Wildlife and Cultural Coordinator Return address: / Cathea Stanley, Chair South King County Group 20120 -15 th Ave, S, Seattle, W A 98198 Date: September 2, 2003 To: Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 CITy Of:" RENTON RECEIVED SEP 022003 BUILDING DIVISION Subject: Comments regarding LUA-OI-164,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear: Dear Mr, Erickson, Please accept this letter as the official comments for the Sierra Club on LUA-OI- I 64,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone With more than 700,000 members, the Sierra Club is the largest and most effective conservation organization in the United States, The 27,000 plus members of the Cascade and Northern Rockies Chapters organize and support conservation efforts within Washington State, One of our priority places is the Black River Riparian Forest in Renton, This is primarily because it supports one of the largest Great Blue Heron colonies in our state, We applaud Renton in recognizing the significance of this site and understand that over $8,000,000 has gone into the acquisition and preservation of this property, We therefore fully expect that this tremendous public investment will be protected. It is our position that any development on the hillside adjacent to the Riparian Forest is likely to adversely impact the public investment. The proposed rezone includes a revision to the Development Agreement authorizing the applicant to build 69 units. This is not a non-project action, and thus our comments are not restricted to the issue of rezoning, but are expanded to include our concerns about any hillside development plans for the hillside above the Black River Riparian Forest. Hillside development puts into danger the quality of the multiple habitat values offered by the Riparian Forest and therefore endangers our public investment. This is because the wetlands that feed the wildlife in the Black River Riparian Forest are themselves fed by streams and wetlands located on the Merlino property, directly upslope from the Riparian Forest, • We have spoken with city council members who have been told that the PI pond is wholly fed by Springbrook Creek. This is not so, and in fact, the adjacent hillside is ribboned with streams, wetlands and groundwater flows that support the hydrology of the Black River Riparian Forest. These interconnected waters are the basis of the food web that supports the wide range of species that are seen at the Riparian Forest. These species are what made it worthwhile to invest so much public money in the Black River Riparian Forest. Protecting the public investment is important. The Black River Riparian Forest is a site of regional interest. People come from all over to see the heron colony that the city of Renton has preserved. These huge birds amaze people and draw them to your city, and from within your city. Herons Forever and the Sierra Club recently had an outing at the Riparian Forest in which over 250 people came to see the nesting birds and fledglings. The biology ofthese nesting birds and fledglings is such that they depend upon the wetlands on the hillside as well as those in the Riparian Forest itself Nesting females and juvenile birds stay very near the colony for feeding, and this space is a limiting factor. This means that the number of adult females and young birds the site can support is limited by the available feeding space and the amount of available food. Primarily Herons eat fish, reptiles and small mammals that live within ISO feet or more ofwetIands and waterways. Reptiles and fish are known to be particularly sensitive to pesticides, herbicides, and other urban runoff contaminants. Aside from hydrology and contaminant issues, we are also very concerned about slope stability. We have visited the hillside property with University of Washington Professor, Estella Leopold and a geologist, also from the UW. They unflinchingly said that the site has obvious and significant slope instability issues. They found much evidence that the soils have already moved numerous times. Maps depicting this area with erosion and landslide hazards, as well as steep slopes, mirror these concerns. More detailed mapping is needed in order for Renton to make informed decisions about the likelihood of a development sliding down into the Riparian Forest. The significant adverse impacts that may occur as a result of development above the Riparian Forest must be fully analyzed and addressed before the city can move confidently forward with awarding development plans. An environmental impact statement is warranted to protect the significant public investment in the Riparian Forest. Right now Renton can proudly boast that they took action to set aside land that is home to one of the lO largest remaining heron colonies in Washington State. We ask that Renton will recognize the significance of this and act to protect the Black River Riparian Forest. Sincerely, LJL.9c .. ~ Cathea Stanley Chair of the South King County Group Suzanne Krom, President / Herons Forever 4715 y, -36th Avenue SW Seattle, W A 98126-2715 September 2, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RECEIVED I SEP 2 200~ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHOOFi}o!OODS ' AND STRATEGiC P:""·,N~I~i{j Subject: Herons Forever comments regarding LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, Please accept this letter as the official comments for Herons Forever on the above-mentioned action. I am president of Herons Forever, a 400-member non-profit organization involved with the preservation of the Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. Our members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region. A large number are Renton residents. Herons Forever has been involved in the public process with land use issues as it relates to the Black River Riparian Forest area since our inception. The subject property includes a hillside adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, officially designated as Open Space. Any development that occurs on the hillside will have a probable significant adverse impact on the protected Open Space below. The Black River Riparian Forest is a public resource with regional significance for Renton. It has become a magnet, attracting economic benefit for the city by its mere presence. The subject hillside provides critical habitat that contributes to the rich diversity of life that exists on the Black River site. In addition, the hillside has a profound effect on the waterflow and water quality on the Black River site, including the wetlands, PI Pond, and Springbrook Creek, as well as the GreenlDuwamish River, which is less than one-quarter mile downstream. The pond, creek, and river are home to Coho salmon and threatened Chinook salmon. The Black River Riparian Forest, next to the subject property, consists of 93 acres of Open Space. It is surrounded by urban development. The Forest provides a rich oasis for the animals that live there, and as a result, a refuge for the hundreds -if not thousands -of people who visit this site every year. Black River is home to the largest Great Blue Heron colony in page 1 of 5 Suzanne Krom, presiden.., .lerons Forever LUA-Ol-l64,CP A,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 2 of5 the tri-county area (King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties). This 2003 season alone, the colony had approximately 135 active nests. In addition, the Black River site provides habitat for myriad other wildlife. Native birds such as Bald Eagles, Great Homed Owls, Hooded Mergansers, Wood Ducks, and neotropical migrants such as Common Yellowthroats, Wilson's Warblers, and Western Tanagers all live in the Black River Riparian Forest and forage in the subject hillside to the north. Raptors (hunters like Cooper's Hawks and American Kestrels), fish (threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Cutthroat Trout, Coho Salmon), and mammals (Red Foxes, River Otters, Pacific Shrews) can be found among the Black River Riparian Forest's cottonwood trees, deciduous shrubs, and PI Pond, and on the adjacent subject hillside. The Black River Riparian Forest is one of the last protected lowland, deciduous, riparian forests remaining in Puget Sound. This habitat type was once abundant, but is now rare. The protection and preservation of this area and its sensitive wildlife is crucial Herons Forever values individual property rights. We recognize that Mr. Merlino has a legal right to develop his property. The City must balance the landowner's rights with the importance to the community of the $8 million public investment of the Black River Riparian Forest, paid entirely with taxpayer funds, and the tangible and intangible public benefits of this valuable and rare natural resource. Black River represents the largest outlay of public funds ever committed to a single site for the purpose of acquiring Open Space in King County. In order to best protect this rich, unique resource, Herons Forever takes the position that, ideally, no development should occur on the subject hillside. And we recognize that development in some form will probably occur on the hillside. Therefore, Herons Forever acknowledges that the proposed rezone to RO-IO is an improvement over past proposals. We appreciate the significance of the downzone from 260 Multi-Family units to 69 detached Single Family units. Therefore, we recommend that the City of Renton approve the proposed rezone with the following conditions: Allow a maximum of 69 single family units on maximum 1I8th-or lIlOth-acre lots clustered on the northwest quarter of the property, leaving the remaining property as an undisturbed greenway. Herons Forever does not believe the proposed rezone is a non-project action as it includes a revision to the Development Agreement authorizing the applicant to build 69 units. Suzanne Krom, president, Hero ___ 'orever LUA-Ol-l64-,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 3 of 5 Justification (or conditional approval of rezone • Despite the fact that this is a downzone, it does not mean that there will not be significant impacts. • This downzone by itself does not go far enough to safeguard the Black River Riparian Forest- • The City of Renton has enough information to issue a Determination of Significance and require that an accurate, comprehensive EIS be prepared to address the impacts of development- Our concerns • • • Existing SEPA checklist: The existing SEPA checklist is incomplete and inaccurate. The inadequacy of the SEPA checklist is not simply a failure to fulfill a requirement. Without good information, decisionmakers cannot know the potential impacts, nor can they make informed decisions. Trespass: Without adequate conditioning, there is a high risk of trespass into the Black River Riparian Forest as a result of development on the adjacent hillside, including but not limited to pesticides, surface water runoff, groundwater contamination, and impacts from human residents and their domestic pets. Potential impacts: Potential impacts of the project include but are not limited to the following: • Changes to water quality and quantity. • Increases in light, noise, human activity and intrusions, and pet intrusions into • • • • critical areas. Adverse impacts to threatened Chinook salmon. Adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse impacts to the viability of the heron colony. Erosion and landslides. • Seismic impacts as they relate to the safety of the future residents. • Construction impacts (noise, erosion, air quality problems, water quality and quantity problems). Our recommendations a. Replace the current SEP A checklist with one that accurately reflects the environmental conditions onsite and on nearby property, including the Black River Riparian Forest. 1. Require the applicant to include the following on the project-specific SEPA checklist in order for the City of Renton to make an accurate and informed SEP A determination: Identify all critical areas onsite and adjacent to the site, including but not Suzanne KrOIIl, president, Herons Forever LUA-OI-I64,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 4 of 5 limited to steep slopes, wetlands delineations and categories, erosion hazards, streams, threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act, Essential Fish Habitat per the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, City of Renton Critical Habitats, and Washington State Fish and Wildlife Department Priority Habitat and Species. Buffer and setback information should also be provided. 2. Require the applicant to address the full range of potential impacts to the critical areas in the SEP A checklist -to those located offsite as well as onsite, in order for the City of Renton to make accurate and informed decisions. b. Locate any development as far from the heron colony as possible, clustering it as densely as possible in the northwest quarter of the hillside, using SR 900 as the residents' access. c. Maintain the lower portion of the development as undisturbed habitat that is impassible to humans and domestic pets. No alternative nearby recreation area exists for the future residents of this development. Unless measures are taken, the Black River Riparian Forest will become their primary recreation area. It is imperative that the residents and their domestic pets not have direct access to the Black River site. We recommend that the Sunset View apartment complex be used as a model, as its residents and pets have no direct access to the Black River site. d. Issue a Determination of Significance. The City of Renton has enough information to issue a DS and require that an accurate, comprehensive EIS be prepared to address the impacts of development. Conclusion People love Black River. At a recent field trip hosted by Herons Forever, over 250 people attended, including many Renton residents as well as people from Maple Valley, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Redmond, Medina, and Spanaway. People from as far away as Europe, China, and Korea attended, many of whom had made Black River a priority destination during their visit to the region. People come to Renton for the rare opportunity to see a heron colony of such magnitude. This translates into direct economic benefit to Renton. Visitors to Black River patronize local restaurants and bnsinesses. In fact, we know of at least one person who purchased a new car from a Renton dealership as a result of its proximity to Black River. In "Nature in the City: Seattle," published by The Mountaineers Books this year, the Black River Riparian Forest is listed as one of the last best places to view nature in the Seattle area. And both the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer have featured Black River as a premiere viewing area for herons in the region. Suzanne Krom, president, Hero._ • orever LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 5 of5 As long as the heron colony continues to thrive at Black River, people will come to this magnet destination, bringing their pocketbooks with them. And as long as the habitat is suitable, the herons will continue to build nests and raise their young every year. It is a delicate balancing act, and one that Renton should consider carefully when allowing any disturbance, such as development on the hillside, to the herons' home. Black River is an outstanding example of an urban city working to enrich the lives of the citizens and wildlife that call Renton home. Renton should be proud to include Black River within its borders. To protect the city's valuable and fragile resource, we urge Renton to take the most conservative and cautious approach possible to development of the hillside. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom Attachment: Species inventory for the Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hi11side Black River Riparian Forest "pecies inventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever swom@juno.com, 206-933-0222 Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory The following is a list of the species that live in the Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside to the north of Black River. Birds American Bittern --in wetland at east edge of hillside American Coot --nesting American Crow American Goldfinch --nesting American Kestrel American Robin --nesting Bald Eagle Belted Kingfisher Blackbird Brewer's Red-winged Black-capped Chickadee --nesting Bufflehead Bullock's Oriole California quail --nesting Canada Geese Cedar Waxwing --nesting Common Yellowthroat Dark-eyed Junco Double-crested Connorant Ducks: Canvasback Ring-necked Rudy --nesting Tufted Wood --nesting Gadwall Goldeneye: Barrows Common Gulls: California Mew Glaucous-winged Hawks: Cooper's Red-tailed Sharp-shinned I Black River Riparian Forest Species , ... entory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno.com, 206-933-0222 Herons: • Great Blue Heron -nesting. The great blue herons use the entire Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside (Merlino property) for nesting, roosting, and foraging. They use the wetland at the east edge of the hillside of the Merlino property for roosting and foraging. Nesting infonnation for the 2003 season: The Black River great blue heron colony is now the largest in the tri-county region, which consists of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. The 2003 season resulted in 460* great blue heron chicks. There were 270 breeding adults who established 135* nests. The total for the 2003 season was 730* great blue herons in the Black River colony alone. The colony is on land that is directly adjacent to the Merlino hillside. The herons use the entire Black River site -including the hillside - for foraging and roosting. It is incorrect to refer to their use of the site as if they remain in one spot. In addition, they use alternative nesting trees throughout the Black River site. *Numbers are approximate and are within 5% of the actual totals. • Green -nesting. Also use wetland at east edge of hillside of the Merlino property. House Finch --nesting Hummingbirds: Anna's --nesting Rufous --nesting Killdeer --nesting Kinglets: Golden-crowned Ruby-crowned Mallards --nesting Mergansers: Hooded --nesting Common --nesting Merlin Northern Flicker Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Northern Shrike Osprey Owls: Barn Great-Horned: Nests on hillside north of Tract C Ring-Necked Pheasant Peregrine Falcon Pine Siskin Rock Dove Sandpipers: Baird's Least 2 Black River Riparian Forest Species inventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno.rom, 206-933-0222 Spotted Western Scaup Lesser Sparrows: Fox Golden-crowned House --nesting Lincoln's Song --nesting White-crowned Steller's Jay Swallows: Barn --nesting Cliff--nesting Tree--nesting Violet-green --nesting Teal: Blue-winged Cinnamon Green-winged Thrush Swainson's Varied Vireo Solitary v. nest found June 2001 on Tract A (north tract) near bicycle path. Warblers: Townsend's Yellow-rumped Wilson's Western Tanager Widgeon: American Eurasian Woodpeckers: Downy Pi1eated -nesting in Protected Forest Wrens: Bewick's House Marsh Winter Yellow legs: Lesser 3 Black River Riparian Forest Species ••.. entory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krrnn, President, Herons Forever szkronl@juno.com, 206-933-0222 Greater Mammals and amphibians: Beaver Deer, white-tailed Frog, Pacific tree Lizard, Northern alligator Mice, field Moles Muskrat Rabbit Raccoon Red fox River otter Shrew, Pacific Snake, garter Turtle, Western pond Vole, Townsend's (and Creeping? Possibly seen in 2(02) Weasel Fish, per 1995 Harza Final Report*: Species composition at the Black River Pumping Station during Spring 1994: Lamprey Pumpkinseed sunfish Salmon: Chinook Coho Sculpin Speckled dace Threespine stickleback Trout Cutthroat Rainbow Steelhead *Harza Final Report: Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook System, published June 1995. Prepared for the City of Kent. Harza contact: George Gilmour, 425-602-4000, ggilmour@harza.com 4 ~'. v'seattle. Audubon SocieD'--~~ for birds and nature September 2, 2003 BY FAX AND US MAIL Mr. Don Erickson Project Manager Strategic Planning EDNSP Dept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re. Dear Mr. Erickson: LUA-01-164, CPA, R Merlino Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone #2003-M-S R ECIl'YCOF RENTON EIVED SEP 02 2003 BUILDING DIVISION Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. We especially appreciate the City's re-initiation of the application in order to allow reasonable notice. Summary of Seatde Audubon Position: Seatrle Audubon encourages a designation of the Merlino property that will accommodate the landowner's interest in achieving a reasonable financial return on his property without significantly harming or jeopardizing the valuable Black River Riparian Forest. To that end, Seattle Audubon encourages the City to (a) change the property's designation under the Comprehensive Plan to RS or an amended RR, (b) perform a more thorough environmental review of the likely impacts of residential development on the Merlino property, and (c) resume deliberations on the appropriate zoning designation (and! or Plan/Zoning Code text amendments) following the completion of the environmental review. Seatde Audubon's Interest in the CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon represents some 5000 households over most of King County. Our mission is to cultivate and lead a community that values and protects birds and the natural environment. Our members express their interest in birds in many ways: Recreational birding, engaging in citizen science, participating in advocacy for wildlife and habitat at the local, regional and state levels, supporting and participating in environmental education for students from 3,d grade through masters' level work, and so on. The Black River Riparian Forest (the Forest) has attracted our interest and participation over the years due to its importance ~ and, unfortunately, increasing rarity ~ as a lowland, deciduous, riparian forest. Not only do our members enjoy birding in the forest, they recognize and appreciate the forest as a home to a vibrant community of wildlife. Many people in the area are aware that the Forest is home to a colony of more than a hundred herons. Less well known is the fact that these herons belong to a subspecies of Great Blue Heron that exists only Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Ccmments September 2, 2003 Page 2 of 2 , .' in British Columbia/Washington coastal areas (and perhaps a little way into Oregon), and that this subspecies is in decline. The Reton colony's ability to grow over the last few years stems from outstanding habitat conditions and, unfortunately, a shrinking number of alternatives in the Puget Sound area. One should not conclude that the herons thrive in urban areas or that they can easily adapt following significant impacts to the hillside or their forest. Seattle Audubon's interest in birds naturally extends to concern for functional ecosystems and their inhabitants. The Forest provides hard-ta-find and suitable habitat for other important species of birds: Bald Eagles, Great Homed Owls, Hooded Mergansers, and Wood Ducks; neotropical migrants such as Common Yellowthroats, Wilson's Warblers, and Western Tanagers that winter in Latin America and fly to the Northwest for the summer; and other raptors, including Cooper's Hawks and American Kestrels. Equally important, the Forest is home to threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, as well as cutthroat trout and coho salmon. Mammals live there, too -red foxes, river otters, and Pacific shrews, along with more abundant squirrels and mice and voles. Frogs, lizards, and other amphibians -important parts of the system -live, forage and breed in the wetlands and other water of the Forest. Of course, impacts to land adjacent to the Forest may well cause severe problems for the forest. Hydrologic connections likely exist, which causes concern about water quality problems in the Black River, Springbrook Creek, and the PI Pond. Inappropriate clearing and/or grading of the hillside could easily result in water quantity {runoW issues, as well as siltation or other contamination of the downhill water bodies. Development too close to the site would threaten human encroachment into important wetlands. Noise, light, glare, odors, and other consequences of construction and/or development could easily create conditions that the Forest ecosystem, or important parts of it, could not withstand. Seattle Audubon therefore hopes to see development that advances the City's goal of creating quality residential opportunities while protecting the important and fragile resources next to the Merlino property. Discussion While the application appears to link the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning change as if they were intrinsically related, we believe that each should be analyzed independently. The Appropriate Comp Plan Designation for the Property is RS or an Amended RR RO Is Not Currently Appropriate for the Subject Propertv The RO (Residential Options) designation includes a number of criteria that the subject property does not easily meet. Policy LU-50 recommends: • Established development patterns (the site is vacant, as is the adjacent site; other neighboring developments include office, light-industrial, and multi-family). • Adjacency to a Center designation (no Center is adjacent to the site). Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 3 00 • Either a mix of existing "small-scale" multi-family units or "long-standing" zoning for duplex or low-density multi-family housing (this 26-acre property was zoned for multi-family only three years ago, and the 93-acre Open Space adjacent to it has not ever been zoned for multi-family, to our knowledge) Policy LU-48 calls for building to "front the street"; it appears unlikely that a development plan would be proposed with 69 units fronting the street. Policy LU-51 recommends net densities of 10 units per acre, or about 260 units; the Development Agreement contemplated under this CPA and rezone would provide only 25 percent of that density. Even at the same policy's recommended minimum density of 7 du/acre, one would expect 182 units. Policy LU-55 urges single-family characteristics such as "private yards"; on this property, though, a more appropriate design might well be clustered town homes without private yards, but featuring acres and acres of spectacular open space next to the Forest. Moreover, under current zoning code requirements, a designation of RO would limit the use of the Merlino property to R-IO or RMH (mobile home park). RMC 4-2-010(0). More flexibility might benefit this site, given its numerous environmental constraints. RS Suits the Property Better than RO As the July 9 Planning Commission Briefing observed, a designation of RS (Residential Single-Family) suits the property better than RO. Its lower densities (5 to 8 units/acre) (Policy LU34) come closer to fitting with the 69-unit cap proposed as part of the rezone. It calls for retaining distinctive natural features such as stands of trees and natural slopes (Policy LU 40.2). Also, an RS designation allows zoning of either R-5 or R-8. As explained below, the uncertainty concerning the property's capacity supports that flexibility. An Amended RR Would be the Best Designation The RR (Rural Residential) designation might actually be best for this unusual property. Under RR, the permissible zoning would include R-I, R-5, or RC -any of which would allow development of property without sacrificing the important values of the adjacent protected area. However, neither the Comp Plan nor the zoning code appears to allow RR-type protections outside a rural area. Policy LU-l mandates the protection of "open space and natural resources and ... environmentally sensitive areas." It directs that that development be limited in such areas. And yet the policies that should effectuate that goal apparently assume that all such sensitive areas will be in Rural zones. All of the policies that implement LU-l (Policies LU-26 througll LU-2S) apply to Rural Residential lands. For instance, Policy Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 4 of 4 LU 23 calls for development within all non-Rural designations to be built to a minimum density; LU-24 is similar. But the Comp Plan and the Code should recognize that important environmental areas exist ("environmentally sensitive" or "habitat-laden", in the words of Policy LU-18) outside of Rural areas. See also Policy LU-18 (the City should encourage RR designations and less intense platting where either agriculturally productive land QI environmentally sensitive conditions exist). As discussed below, the types of protections allowed under an RR designation could allow both development and environmental protection, even in a non-Rural area like the Merlino property. Seattle Audubon encourages the City to amend the RR policies to recognize that where significant and environmentally sensitive or "habitat-laden" properties exist, they should receive the same kind of protection as agriculturally productive lands in Rural areas. Alternatively, a Residential-Protective designation might be adopted, that could apply equally to agriculturally productive lands' and environmentally sensitive areas. The City Should Carefully Consider the Purposes of the Zoning Districts The Property Would Not Advance the Purposes of R-1O The R-1O zone' is intended for a mix of residential styles, including detached and attached housing. The landowner, however, wishes to develop detached homes only, according to the Planning Commission Briefing. The zone also should "maintain single-family character of the existing neighborhood" -in this case, though, along with nearby single-family homes across SR 900, the property abuts multi-family developments to the east and west, a quarry to the southwest, a conservation area to the southeast and some neighboring commerciaVlight industrial uses. There is not an established single-family character. Consistent with the RO policies, the density requirements of the R-1O zone are higher than warranted for this site, requiring a minimum of 7 units/acre (182 units for the site) and permitting as many as 13 units per acre. Seattle Audubon recognizes, however, that if the development included only detached homes, and if the units could be clustered, 69 units could be built on a small portion of the site -in theory, on as little as 5.3 acres. If properly situated, that would be advantageous to the Black River Forest habitat, if not consistent with the zoning policies behind R-10. I "The Re.idential.10 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R·10) is established for medium density residential development that will provide a mix of re.idential.tvle. including detached dwellings or semi-attaehed dwellings on small lots, attached . townhouses, and small-scale attached flat dwellings. Development promoted in the zone is intended to increase opportunities for detached and semi-attached Single family dwellings as a percent of the housing stock, as well as allow some small-scale attached housing choices and to create high.quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the .ingle family character of the existing neighborhood. Allowable base densities range from .even (7) to ten (10) dwelling units per acre, with a total density bonns of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre for one hundred percent (100%) detached dwellings. The zone .erve. as a transition to higher density multi·family zones: RMC 4-2-020(0) (emphasis added) Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 5 of 5 Property bearing an RO designation under the Comp Plan may only be zoned R-1O or for Mobile Home parks. RMC 4-2-010 (B). The Merlino PropertY is Better Suited for R-5 Also intended for medium density is the R-5' zone. But this zone is free of several of the R-lO zone's drawback. Significantly, this zone's purposes include the protection of critical areas, and the use of clustering to create on-site open space amenities for its residents. It requires no minimum density. While in this instance there is no adjacent RR area, the 93-acre protected open space could be construed as a similar area. An R-5 designation may be applied to property in an RS area. An R-8 zone' is also permissible in an RS area. Again, this seems too intense for this site: It requires 5 to 8 units per acre (with the "goal" of achieving the maximum density -in this case, that would be more than 100 units), does not appear to allow clustering, and envisions development that "maintains the characteristics of the existing neighborhood." The property at issue is not well suited for this zoning. An RC Designation Would Be Highly Appropriate Under an Amended RR Designation The inadequacy of the RR designation as currently written shows up in looking at the RC zoning designation, which can be applied only to Rural Residential lands. The Resource Conservation zone 4 is 2 "The Re.identhl5 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R·S) is established to promote urban single-family residential neighborhoods of intermediate density, serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. The ResidentialJ 5 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R.5) will allow a maximum net density of five (5) dwelling units per aCre. No mioimum density is required. The RJ 5 designation serves as a transition between rural designations and higher density and more intense zones. It is intended as an intermediate density residential zone; applied to Residential Single Family (RSF) areas within one-half (l/2) mile of the King County Urban Growth Area Line and to Residential Rural (RR) areas with no significant environmental constraints. (iT raditional or duster development is allowed, with clustering used to create open spaces that protect critical areas as well as extend open space amenities available to the residents. l"he clustering of development may also be allowed to meet objectives such as the efficient provision of sewer service." RMC 4-2'{)20 (0) (emphasis added). , "The Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R·8) is established for single family residential dwellings allowing a range of five (5) to eight (8) dwelling units per aCre, with the goal of obtainiog a density of eight (8) dwelling units per net acre. Development in the R-B Zone is intended to create new opportunities for single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high.quality infill development that increases density while maiotaioiog the .iogle family character of the existing neighborhood. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support the residential environment." RMC 4- uno (E). 4 "The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is established to provide a low-density residential zone which endeavon to conserve critical areas and maintain agricultural activities. This zone promotes uses that are compatible with the functions and values of designated critical areas and allows for continued production of food and agriculuual products. No minimum density is required. The Resource Conservation Zone is also intended to provide separation between areas of more intense urban uses; encourage or preserve low-density residential uses; reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and streams, Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2. 2003 Page 6 of 6 expressly intended to "reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and streams. aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous areas." Surely this identifies the exact challenge facing the City with the Merino property. The City recognized when it executed the Development Agreement that the Black River Riparian Forest called for some reduction in intensity of use on the adjacent property. It is currently considering exactly what type of reduction is appropriate when the anticipated use is single-, rather than multi-family dwellings. The RC zone, however, may be applied only in RR areas. RMC 4-2-010 (D). The R-l zone' affords similar protections for natural resources. Again, its stated purposes are for hobby farming ;md the protection of open space and critical areas. Depending on the natural constraints of the Merlino site, it may not allow enough units for the development that the owner anticipates. On the other hand, depending upon the environmental conditions on the Merlino property, the City may decide that R-l is indeed appropriate. Like the RC zone, R-l at this point applies only to RR areas. RMC 4-2-010 (D). The Environmental Information Is Not Adequate to Proceed at the Moment Seattle Audubon believes that there are likely development scenarios for this property that it would support. However, the City at this point does not seem to have a good grasp on the real environmental constraints that exist. The SEPA checklist that was prepared in January 2000 does not correctly identify the site conditions, many of which might have changed. Of particular concern to the City, one would think. are the threatened Chinook salmon in the Forest and the coho habitat listed as Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson Stevens Act. One would also expect to see more detailed geotechnical information: The slope's stability is apparently in some question, or at least parts of it are; there are wetland seeps on the hillside; and there are presumably hydrologic connections to the Black River. Environmental review under SEPA, as under NEPA, should assist the decision makers in their efforts. It should not drive the outcome of the decision, but it should be adequate to allow the decision makers to consider reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of their decisions. In this case, Seattle Audubon believes, it will be extremely difficult for the City to knowledgeably apply a Comprehensive Plan designation -let alone a zoning designation -without having more information about the site and the adjacent critical area. What would happen with 69 units on the site? What if they were not clustered? Can the property accommodate a density across the entire site of 7 units/acre, as apparently required under R- IO zoning? aquifers, wildlife habitat, ,teep ,lopea, and other geologically hazardous are .. ; and allow for hobby farming to commence or continue." RMC 4-W20 (B) (emphasis added) 5 "The Residential-l Dwelling Unit Per Acre Zone (R-l) is established to provide and protect suitable environments for suburban estate single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre and allow for hobby farming associated with residential use. It is further intended to protect open space and critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions. and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that are detrimental to the residential or open space environment. No minimum density is required." RMC 4-2-020 (C) (emphasis added) • • Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 7 of 7 And in fact, given the fact that this is part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City should take advantage of the opportunity to revisit its Rural Residential policies and determine whether they adequately protect critical habitat that lies outside of an RR designation. That consideration would also be informed by more environmental information. Such a text amendment would likely affect more property than just the Merlino parcel, which adds to our conviction that a redesignation of the Merlino property is unwise at this time. Conclusion The City of Renton has earned the appreciation of the entire region by protecting the Black River Riparian Forest. We hope that it will continue to protect the Forest by making land use decisions that take into account the importance and the fragility of that wonderful resource, and making such decisions only after gathering all the appropriate information. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this application, and for your careful consideration of our comments. Please contact us if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, Daniel G. Drais Associate Director Seattle Audubon · ' Suzanne Krom, President Herons Forever SEP 2 2003 4715 Y2 -36th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126-2715 ECONOMiC DE\il:L.OPMEl~T September 2, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 .\lEIGH[}OH,-<~·,~.[i:-f AN!~' ~;~::.'\T::':" ': _~~~" __ ~-.J Subject: Herons Forever comments regarding LUA·Ol.164,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rewne Dear Mr. Erickson, Please accept this letter as the official comments for Herons Forever on the above-mentioned action. I am president of Herons Forever, a 400-mcmber non-profit organization involved with the preservation of the Black River Riparian Forest since 1989. Our members live and work throughout the Puget Sound region. A large number are Renton residents. Herons Forever has been involved in the public process with land use issues as it relates to the Black River Riparian Forest area since our inception. The subject property includes a hillside adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, officially designated as Open Space. Any development that occurs on the hillside will have a probable significant adverse impact on the protected Open Space below, The Black River Riparian Forest is a public resource with regional significance for Renton. It has become a magnet, attracting economic benefit for the city by its mere presence. The subject hillside provides critical habitat that contributes to the rich diversity of life that exists on the Black River site. In addition, thc hillside has a profound effect on the waterflow and water quality on the Black River site, including the wetlands, PI Pond, and Springbrook Creek, as well as the GreenlDuwamish River, which is less than one-quarter mile downstream. The pond, creek, and river are home to Coho salmon and threatened Chinook salmon. The Black River Riparian Forest, next to the subject property, consists of 93 acres of Open Space. It is surrounded by urban development. The Forest provides a rich oasis for the animals that live there, and as a result, a refuge for the hundreds -if not thousands -of people who visit this site every year. Black River is home to the largest Great Blue Heron colony in page I of 5 Suzanne Krom, president, Herot'" Forever LUA-OI-I64,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 2 of 5 the tri-county area (King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties). This 2003 season alone, the colony had approximately 135 active nests. In addition, the Black River site provides habitat for myriad other wildlife. Native birds such as Bald Eagles, Great Horned Owls, Hooded Mergansers, Wood Ducks, and neotropical migrants such as Common Yellowthroats, Wilson's Warblers, and Western Tanagers all live in the Black River Riparian Forest and forage in the subject hillside to the north. Raptors (hunters like Cooper's Hawks and American Kestrels), fIsh (threatened Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Cutthroat Trout, Coho Salmon), and mammals (Red Foxes, River Otters, Pacific Shrews) can be found among the Black River Riparian Forest's cottonwood trees, deciduous shrubs, and PI Pond, and on the adjacent subject hillside. The Black River Riparian Forest is one of the last protected lowland, deciduous, riparian forests remaining in Puget Sound. This habitat type was once abundant, but is now rare. The protection and preservation of this area and its sensitive wildlife is crucial. Herons Forever values individual property rights. We recognize that Mr. Merlino has a legal right to develop his property. The City must balance the landowner's rights with the importance to the community of the $8 million public investment of the Black River Riparian Forest, paid entirely with taxpayer funds, and the tangible and intangible public benefIts of this valuable and rare natural resource. Black River represents the largest outlay of public funds ever committed to a single site for the purpose of acquiring Open Space in King County. In order to best protect this rich, unique resource, Herons Forever takes the position that, ideally, no development should occur on thc subject hillside. And we recognize that development in some form will probably occur on the hillside. Therefore, Herons Forever acknowledges that the proposed rezone to RO-lO is an improvement over past proposals. We appreciate the signifIcance of the downzone from 260 Multi-Family units to 69 detached Single Family units. Therefore, we recommend that the City of Renton approve the proposed rezone with the following conditions: Allow a maximum of 69 single family units on maximum 1I8th-or l/lOth-acre lots clustered on the northwest quarter of the property, leaving the remaining property as an undisturbed greenway. Herons Forever does not believe the proposed rezone is a non-project action as it includes a revision to the Development Agreement authorizing the applicant to build 69 units. Suzanne Krorn, president, Hero.~ Forever LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2oa3 page 3 of 5 Justification for conditional approval of rewne • Despite the fact that this is a downzone, it does not mean that there will not be significant impacts. • This downzone by itself does not go far enough to safeguard the Black River Riparian Forest. • The City of Renton has enough information to issue a Determination of Significance and require that an accurate, comprehensive EIS be prepared to address the impacts of development. Our concerns • • • Existing SEPA checklist: The existing SEPA checklist is incomplete and inaccurate. The inadequacy of the SEPA checklist is not simply a failure to fulfill a requirement. Without good information, decisionmakers cannot know the potential impacts, nor can they make informed decisions. Trespass: Without adequate conditioning, there is a high risk of trespass into the Black River Riparian Forest as a result of development on the adjacent hillside, including but not limited to pesticides, surface water runoff, groundwater contamination, and impacts hom human residents and their domestic pets. Potential impacts: Potential impacts of the project include but are not limited to the following: • Changes to water quality and quantity. • Increases in light, noise, human activity and intrusions, and pet intrusions into • • • • critical areas. Adverse impacts to threatened Chinook salmon. Adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse impacts to the viability of the heron colony. Erosion and landslides. • Seismic impacts as they relatc to the safety of the future residents. • Construction impacts (noise, erosion, air quality problems, water quality and quantity problems). Our recommendations a. Replace the current SEPA chccklist with one that accurately reflects the environmental conditions onsite and on nearby property, including the Black River Riparian Forest. 1. Require the applicant to include the following on the project-specific SEPA checklist in order for the City of Renton to make an accurate and informed SEP A determination: Identify all critical areas onsite and adjacent to the site, including but not Suzanne KrOD\, president, Heroru. Forever LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 4 of5 limited to steep slopes, wetlands delineations and categories, erosion hazards, streams, threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act, Essential Fish Habitat per the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, City of Renton Critical Habitats, and Washington State Fish and Wildlife Department Priority Habitat and Species. Buffer and setback information should also be provided. 2. Require the applicant to address the full range of potential impacts to the critical areas in the SEP A checklist -to those located offsite as well as onsite, in order for the City of Renton to make accurate and informed decisions. b. Locate any development as far from the heron colony as possible, clustering it as densely as possible in the northwest quarter of the hillside, using SR 900 as the residents' access. c. Maintain the lower portion of thc dcvelopment as undisturbed habitat that is impassible to humans and domestic pets. No alternative nearby recreation area exists for the future residents of this development. Unless measures are taken, the Black River Riparian Forest will become their primary recreation area. It is imperative that the residents and their domestic pets not have direct access to the Black River site. We recommend that the Sunset View apartment complex be used as a model, as its residents and pets have no direct access to the Black River site. d. Issue a Determination of Significance. The City of Renton has enough information to issue a DS and require that an accurate, comprehensive EIS be prepared to address the impacts of development. Conclusion People love Black River. At a recent field trip hosted by Herons Forever, over 250 people attended, including many Renton residents as well as people from Maple Valley, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Redmond, Medina, and Spanaway. People from as far away as Europe, China, and Korea attended, many of whom had made Black River a priority destination during their visit to the region. People come to Renton for the rare opportunity to see a heron colony of such magnitude. This translates into direct economic benefit to Renton. Visitors to Black River patronize local restaurants and businesses. In fact, we know of at least one person who purchased a new car from a Renton dealership as a result of its proximity to Black River. In "Nature in the City: Seattle," published by The Mountaineers Books this year, the Black River Riparian Forest is listed as one of the last best places to view nature in the Seattle area. And both the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer have featured Black River as a premiere viewing area for herons in the region. · (. Suzanne Krorn, president, Hero._ • 'orever LU A-OI-I64,CP A,R,ECF r Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone September 2, 2003 page 5 of 5 As long as the heron colony continues to thrive at Black River, people will come to this magnet destination, bringing their pocketbooks with them. And as long as the habitat is suitable, the herons will continue to build nests and raise their young every year. It is a delicate balancing act, and one that Renton should consider carefully when allowing any disturbance, such as development on the hillside, to the herons' home. Black River is an outstanding example of an urban city working to enrich the lives of the citizens and wildlife that call Renton home. Renton should be proud to include Black River within its borders. To protect the city's valuable and fragile resource, we urge Renton to take the most conservative and cautious approach possible to development of the hillside. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom Attachment: Species inventory for the Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside l Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno.wm, 206-933-0222 Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory The following is a list of the species that live in the Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside to the north of Black River. Birds American Bittern --in wetland at east edge of hillside American Coot --nesting American Crow American Goldfmch --nesting American Kestrel American Robin --nesting Bald Eagle Belted KingfIsher Blackbird Brewer's Red-winged Black-capped Chickadee --nesting Bufflehead Bullock's Oriole California quail --nesting Canada Geese Cedar Wax wing --nesting Common Yellowthroat Dark-eyed Junco Double-crested Cormorant Ducks: Canvasback Ring-necked Rudy --nesting Tufted Wood --nesting Gadwall Goldeneye: Barrows Common Gulls: California Mew Glaucous-winged Hawks: Cooper's Red-tailed Sharp-shinned Black River Riparian Forest Species mventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever ,zkrom@juno.com, 206-933-0222 Herons: • Great Blue Heron -nesting. The great blue herons use the entire Black River Riparian Fnrest and adjacent hillside (Merlino property) for nesting, roosting, and foraging. They use the wetland at the east edge of the hillside of the Merlino property for roosting and foraging. Nesting information for the 2003 season: The Black River great blue heron colony is now the largest in the tri-county region, which consists of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. The 2003 season resulted in 460* great blue heron chicks. There were 270 breeding adults who established 135* ncsts. The total for the 2003 season was 730* great blue herons in the Black River colony alone. The colony is on land that is directly adjacent to the Merlino hillside. The herons use the entire Black River site -including the hillside - for foraging and roosting. It is incorrecl lo refer to their use of the site as if they remain in one spot. In addition, they use alternative nesting trees throughout the Black River site. *Numbers are approximate and are within 5% ofthe actual totals. • Green -nesting. Also use wetland at east edge of hillside of the Merlino property. House Finch --nesting Hummingbirds: Anna's --nesting Rufous --nesting Killdeer --nesting Kinglets: Golden-crowned Ruby-crowned Mallards --nesting Mergansers: Hooded --nesting Common --nesting Merlin Northern Flicker Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Northern Shrikc Osprey Owls: Barn Great-Horned: Nests on hillside north of Tract C Ring-Necked Pheasant Peregrine Falcon Pine Siskin Rock Dove Sandpipers: Baird's Least 2 Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno,com, 206-933-0222 Spotted Western Scaup Lesser Sparrows: Fox Golden-crowned House --nesting Lincoln's Song --nesting White-crowned Steller's Jay Swallows: Barn --nesting ClitT--nesting Tree--nesting Violet-green --nesting Teal: Blue-winged Cinnamon Green-winged Thrush Swainson's Varied Vireo Solitary v, nest found June 2001 on Tract A (north tract) near bicycle path, Warblers: Townsend's Yellow-rumped Wilson's Western Tanager Widgeon: American Eurasian Woodpeckers: Downy Pileated -nesting in Protected Forest Wrens: Bewick's House Marsh Winter Yellowlegs: Lesser 3 Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno.wm, 206-933-0222 Greater Mammals and amphibians: Beaver Deer, white-tailed Frog, Pacific tree Lizard, Northern alligator Mice, field Moles Muskrat Rabbit Raccoon Red fox River otter Shrew, Pacific Snake, garter Turtle, Western pond Vole, Townsend's (and Creeping? Possibly seen in 2002) Weasel Fish, per 1995 Harza Final Report*: Species composition at the Black River Pumping Station during Spring 1994: Lamprey Pumpkinseed sunfish Salmon: Chinook Coho Sculpin Speckled dace Thrccspinc stickleback Trout Cutthroat Rainbow Steelhead *Harza Final Report: Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook System, published June 1995. Prepared for the City of Kent. Harza contact: George Gilmour, 425-602-4000, ggilmourCalharza.com 4 , - Return address: Cathea Stanley, Chair South King County Group 20120 -IS'h Ave. S Seattle, W A 98 I 98 Date: September 2, 2003 To: Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE'cOe"tvED SEP 022003 BUILDING DIVISION Subject: Comments regarding LUA-OI-164,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear: Dear Mr. Erickson, Please accept this letter as the official comments for the Sierra Club on LUA-O 1- I 64,CPA,R,ECF / Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone With more than 700,000 members, the Sierra Club is the largest and most effective conservation organization in the United States. The 27,000 plus members of the Cascade and Northern Rockies Chapters organize and support conservation efforts within Washington State. One of our priority places is the Black River Riparian Forest in Renton_ This is primarily because it supports one of the largest Great Blue Heron colonies in our state. We applaud Renton in recognizing the significance of this site and understand that over $8,000,000 has gone into the acquisition and preservation of this property. We therefore fully expect that this tremendous public investment will be protected. It is our position that any development on the hillside adjacent to the Riparian Forest is likely to adversely impact the public investment. The proposed rezone includes a revision to the Development Agreement authorizing the applicant to build 69 units. This is not a non-project action, and thus our comments are not restricted to the issue of rezoning, but are expanded to include our concerns about any hillside development plans for the hillside above the Black River Riparian Forest. Hillside development puts into danger the quality of the multiple habitat values offered by the Riparian Forest and therefore endangers our public investment. This is because the wetlands that feed the wildlife in the Black River Riparian Forest are themselves fed by streams and wetlands located on the Merlino property, directly upslope from the Riparian Forest. We have spoken with city council members who have been told that the PI pond is wholly fed by Springbrook Creek. This is not so, and in fact, the adjacent hillside is ribboned with streams, wetlands and groundwater flows that support the hydrology of the Black River Riparian Forest. These interconnected waters are the basis of the food web that supports the wide range of species that are seen at the Riparian Forest. These species are what made it worthwhile to invest so much public money in the Black River Riparian Forest. Protecting the public investment is important. The Black River Riparian Forest is a site of regional interest. People come from all over to see the heron colony that the city of Renton has preserved. These huge birds amaze people and draw them to your city, and from within your city. Herons Forever and the Sierra Club recently had an outing at the Riparian Forest in which over 250 people came to see the nesting birds and fledglings. The biology ofthese nesting birds and fledglings is such that they depend upon the wetlands on the hillside as well as those in the Riparian Forest itself. Nesting females and juvenile birds stay very near the colony for feeding, and this space is a limiting factor. This means that the number of adult females and young birds the site can support is limited by the available feeding space and the amount of available food. Primarily Herons eat fish, reptiles and small mammals that live within 150 feet or more of wetlands and waterways. Reptiles and fish are known to be particularly sensitive to pesticides, herbicides, and other urban runoff contaminants. Aside from hydrology and contaminant issues. we are also very concerned about slope stability. We have visited the hillside property with University of Washington Professor, Estella Leopold and a geologist, also from the UW. They unflinchingly said that the site has obvious and significant slope instability issues. They found much evidence that the soils have already moved numerous times. Maps depicting this area with erosion and landslide hazards, as well as steep slopes, mirror these concerns. More detailed mapping is needed in order for Renton to make informed decisions about the likelihood of a development sliding down into the Riparian Forest. The significant adverse impacts that may occur as a result of development above the Riparian Forest must be fully analyzed and addressed before the city can move confidently forward with awarding development plans. An environmental impact statement is warranted to protect the significant public investment in the Riparian Forest. Right now Renton can proudly boast that they took action to set aside land that is home to one of the 10 largest remaining heron colonies in Washington State. We ask that Renton will recognize the significance of this and act to protect the Black River Riparian Forest. Sincerely, LJk"'A .. ~ Cathea Stanley Chair of the South King County Group 09/0212003 12:25 FAX 425 338 1066 ., WA DEPT OF FISH&WILDLIFe ~ /lqarImuII 0{ FISH """ WILDLIFE Ii!i 001/003 "'--' . :\':KJ ~ ::P 2 2003 J 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard, Mill Creek, W..,hington 98012, (425) 775·1311 FAX'{'I2STTI8-IO!" FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ________________ iii ______________ I'II 1_ D' '''''E ".!w-l --:7 'J'''''O-;? :.tl.l. : ~~ / .' • CX·, -... t.-C V, :-> TO: ~i-;~_ t',<-<-~£..s.i"--../ PDAJ 6J:'.(c-/(soA-i FAX#: ~;Z~-"130-7:3cc;> . RE: ;j!t..AeK C; I/fe. l~,e O~ 5- _______________________________ 11111_ You should receive 3 page(s), including this cover sheet. !fyou do not receive 1111 'the pages, please call (415) 775-1311. ____________________________ '111_ Notes: 09/02/2003 12:25 FAX 425 338 1066 WA DEPT OF FISH&WILDLIFe ~ 002/003 . . '-, ,'-r-., t SEP 2 ;:~~ \ "':~~.J STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16D18 Mill C"' •• Boulevard' Mill Creek, Washingron 98012' (425) 175·1311 FAX (425) 338·1D66 August 28, 2003 Don Erickson Development Services Division City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone LUA-Ol-164, CPA, R, ECF •• , Black River Great Blue Heron Colony WDFW Occurrence #/178 Dear Mr. Erickson: The above Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone has come to my attention via concerl.; I researchers and citizens. I am submitting this letter as formal comment in the interest of protecting the viability of the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony from over-disturbance a'i the Black River Riparian Forest Open Space from further habitat degradation. I believe that any development on the hillside adjacent to the Forest will have adverse impac :; I)n the protected Open Space and the great blue heron nesting colony. These herons utilize the hillside and pond outside of the colony proper. Recognizing that development will take plac( , however, I urge the City of Renton to require wise development of the subject site, taking thl most conservative approach to protect the Riparian Forest and the heron colony. The Blac:k River Great Blue Heron Colony Occurrence #178 supports the largest great blue f I~on rookery in the lower Puget Sound region. This colony contributes to much of the recruitment I. I' young herons, fledging approximately 340 chicks in 2003, into the Puget Sound great blue b:r JIl population. The birds in this colony belong to a sub-population of great blue herons all its 0" 'I , the Pacific great blue heron (Ardea herodius Ianni";), which is thought to be unstable due to many factors, not the least of which is human disturbance and habitat destruction. I urge the City not to ignore the reason that Black River Riparian Forest was purchased in th,: ilTSt place -it is a critically valuable wildlife habitat resource. It supports many species of wildlif, including neotropicaJ migrant birds, a group of birds experiencing extreme habitat loss and population declines. This lowland deciduous riparian forest habitat is becoming rare in the metropolitan Puget Sound area and should be considered significant. Many species of migrall! birds depend on the hillside habitat for nesting such as American goldfinch, cedar waxwing, rufnus hummingbird, rubY<rOwned kinglet, and bam, cliff and violet-green swallows. Man} birds inhabiting the Forest and pond are listed species including State Candidate Species sue 11S merlin and pileated woodpecker, and Priority Species such as buffiehearl, wood duck, Barro'I'1 and common goldeneye, and hooded merganser. 09/02/2003 12: 26 FAX 425 338 1066 • WA DEPT OF FISH&WILDLIFe • I understand that the proposed rezone is a down-zone from 260 Multi-family units to 69 <Ieta.:i ::d family units. Nevertheless, development on the hillside wuld adversely affect the forest, pOD ,. and heron colony, particularly if the units are distributed across the site. I support the propos,: rezone with some conditions and cautions. Development should be restricted to the 69 units, " d clustered in high density in the north/northwest comer of the site, or as fill: away from the hel:~ I colony as possible. TIlis also allows for a larger protected green space, which should be restr" ,!d to human access. A comprehensive and biologically sound EIS, including affects to the Blael: River Riparian Forest and the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony, should be submitted he: Ii ,re any permit approval or development. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you should need any assistance froo' , ,e, please do not hesitate to contact me -tdephone 425-775-1311, ext. 11 I; email thompnat@dfw.wa.goy. Patricia A. Thompson Wildlife Biologist cc. Lee Kantar, District Wildlife Biologist, WDFW I4l 003/003 I)) • To: Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton Dear Sir; This letter is in regards to Plan Amendment & Rezone LUA-Ol-164,CPA,R,ECFlMerlino Camp. The Black River Riparian Forest is a rare resource. With continued encroachment of development on the few remaining areas that will support wildlife in the Renton area, this site's importance grows and grows. The amazing variety of wildlife that live there and /Tequent the site need a place to live, unthreatened by humans and all that go along with us. Approving additional development to the lands that border this site will create additional strain that many naturalists strongly believe will force those residents to leave. Renton would be morally harmed by their departure. For Renton to have this site preserved for future generations would say a lot for this cities concerns for more than just money. As you've probably heard, the great blue heron colony at Black River is the largest in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. This is something to be proud of. There are also so many other species that need this type of envirorunent, another rarity in our tri-county region, For me personally, this site means quite a bit. I visit Black River at least once a week and often more. I am a photographer of nature, especially birds. I would like to preserve their environment for generations to come, so that pictures aren't the only way children learn about the wonders of nature that surround us. There is so much this site has to offer and it's rarity increases daily. The RentonlKentlAuburn valley used to be full of places where wildlife could flourish. That excess is no more. Please don't let this opportunity to save our future pass us by. Sincerely; (Lifetime resident of western Washington) 2003 Seattle.Audubon Society_ ~ for birds and nature September 2, 2003 BY FAX AND US MAIL Mr. Don Erickson Project Manager Strategic Planning EDNSPDept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: LUA-OI-164, CPA, R Merlino Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone #2003-M-8 Dear Mr. Erickson: TIlank you for the opportunity to comment on the Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. We especially appreciate the City's re-initiation of the application in order to allow reasonable notice. Summary of Seattle Audubon Position: Seattle Audubon encourages a designation ot the Merlino property that will accommodate the landowner's interest in achieving a reasonable financial return on his property without significantly harming or jeopardizing the valuable Black Riwr Riparian Forest. To that end, Seattle Audubon encourages the City to {a} change the property's designation under the Comprehensive Plan to RS or an amended RR, {b} perform a more thorough environmental review of the likely impacts of residential development on the Merlino property, and (c) reSUllle deliberations on the appropriate zoning designation {and/or Plan/Zoning Code text amendments} following the completion of the environmental review. Seattle Audubon's Interest in the CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon represents some 5000 households over most of King County. Our mission is to cultivate and lead a community that values and protects blrds and the natural environment. Our members express their interest in birds in many ways: Recreatlonal b,rd,ng, engaging in citizen science, participating in advocacy for wildlife and habitat at the local, regional and state levels, supporting and participating in environmental education for students from )'" grade through masters' level work, and so on. TIle Black River Riparian Forest {the Forest} has attracted om interest and participation over the years due to its importance -and, unfortunately, increasing rarity -as a lowland, deciduous, riparian forest. Not only do our members enjoy birding in the forest, they recognize and appreciate the forest as a home to a ,ibrant community of wildlife. Many people in the area are aware that the Forest is home to a colony of more tllan a hundred herons. Less well known is the fact that these herons belong to a subspecies of Great Blue Heron that exists only Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Cllmment..;; September 2, 2003 Page 2 oi7 in British Columbia/'Washington coastal area, (and perhaps a little way into Oregon), and that this subspecies is in decline. TI,e Reton colony's ability to grow over me last few years stems from outstanding habitat conditions and, unfortunately, a shrinking number of alternatives in the Puget Sound area. One should not conclude that the herons mrive in urban areas or that mey can easily adapt following significant impacts to the hillside or their forest. Seattle Audubon's interest in birds naturally extends to concern for functional ecosystems and their inhabitants. The Forest provides hard-to-find and suitable habitat for other important species of birds: Bald Eagles, Great Horned Owls, Hooded Mergansers, and Wood Ducks; neotropical migrants such as Common Yellowthroats, Wilson's Warblers, and We'tern Tanagers that winter in Latin America and fly to the Northwest for the summer; and other raptor" including Cooper's Hawks and American Kestrels. Equally important, the Forest is home to threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, as well as cuttllroat trout and coho salmon. Mammals live there, too -red foxes, river otters, and Pacific shrews, along with more abundant squirrels and mice and voles. Frog', lizards, and other amphibians -important parts of the system -live, forage and breed in me wetland, and other water of the Forest. Of course, impacts to land adjacent to the Forest may well cause severe problems for the forest. Hydrologic connections likely exist, which causes concern abour water quality problems in the Black River, Springbrook Creek, and the Pl Pond. Inappropriate clearing and/or grading of the hillside could easily result in water quantity (runoff) issues, as well as siltation or other contamination of the downhill water bodies. Development too close to the site would threaten human encroachment into important wetlands. Noise, light, glare, odors, and other consequence, of construction and/or development could easily create conditions that the Forest ecosystem, or important parts of it, could not withstand. Seattle Audubon merefore hopes to see development that advances the City's goal of creating quality residential opportnnities while protecting the important and fragile resources next to me Merlino property. Discussion While the application appears to link the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning change as if they were intrinsically related, we believe that each ,hould be analyzed independently. The Appropriate Comp Pian Designation for the Property is RS or an Amended RR RO Is Not Currently Appropriate for the Subject Property The RO (Residential Options) designation includes a number of criteria that the subject property does not easily meet. Policy LU-50 recommends: • Established development patterns (the site is ,,"cant, as is the adjacent site; other neighboring developments include office, light-industrial, and multi-family). • Adjacency to a Center designation (no Center is adjacent to the site). Merlino Parcel CPA and Reznne Seattle Audubon Comment.~ September 2, 2003 Page30f7 • Either a mix of existing "small-scale" multi-family units or "long-standing" zoning for duplex or low-density multi-family housing (thi, 26-acre property was zoned for multi-family only three years ago, and the 93-acre Open Space adjacent to it has not ever been zoned for multi-family, to our knowledge) Policy LU-48 calls for building to "front the meet"; it appears unlikely that a development plan would be proposed with 69 units fronting the street, Policy LU-51 recommends net densities of 10 units per acre, or about 260 units; the Development Agreement contemplated under this CPA and rezone would provide only 25 percent of tllat density. Even at the same policy's recommended minimum dcn,ity of 7 du/acre, one would expect 182 units. Policy LU-55 urges single-family characteri,;tie, ,ucll a, "private yards"; on this property, though, a more appropriate design might well be clustered tovmhomes without private yards, but featuring acres and acres of spectacular open space next to the Fore,t. Moreover, under current zoning code requirement" a designation of RO would limit the use of the Merlino property to R-IO or RMH (mobile home park). RMC 4-2"()10(D). More flexibility might benefit this site, given its nUluerous envirofilnental con::-:traints. RS Suits the Property Better than RO As the July 9 Planning Commission Briefing ob,erved, a designation of RS (Residential Single-Family) suits the property better than RO. Its lower densitie, (5 to 8 units/acre) (Policy LU34) come closer to fitting with the 69-unit cap proposed as part 01' the rezone, It calls for retaining distinctive namral feamres such as stands of trees and nannal slopes (Policy LU 40.2). Also, an RS designation allows zoning of either R-5 or R..s. As explained below, the uncertainty concerning the property's capacity support,; that llexibility. An Amended RR Would be the Bc,;t De,;ignation TIle RR (Rural Residential) designation might actually be best for this unusual property. Under RR, the pertnissible zoning would include R-I, R-5, or RC -any of which would allow development of property without sacrificing the important values of the adjacent protected area. However, neither the Comp Plan nor the zoning code appears to allow RR-type protections outside a rural area. Policy LU-I mandates the protection of "open ,pace and namral resources and ... environmenrally sensitive areas," It directs that that development be limited in such areas. And yet the policies that should effecmate that goal apparently assume that all sllch sensitive areas will be in Rural zones. All of the policies that implement LU-I (Policies LU-26 through LU-2S) apply to Rural Residential lands. For instance, Policy Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Auduhon Cnmments September 2, 2003 Page 4 of 7 LU 23 calls for development within all non-Rural designations to be built to a minimum density; LU-24 is similar. But the Camp Plan and the Code should recognize that important environmental areas exist ("environmentally sensitive" or "habitat-laden", in the words of Policy LU-18) outside of Rural areas. See also Policy LU-18 (the City should encourage RR designations and less intense platting where either agriculmrally productive land or environmentally sensitive conditions exist). As discussed below, the types of protections allowed under an RR designation could allow bodl development and environmental protection, eYen in a non-Rural area like the Merlino property. Seattle Audubon encourages the City to amend the RR policies to recognize that where significant and environmentally sensitive or "habitat-laden" properties exist, they should receive the same kind of protection as agriculturally productive lands in Rural areas. Alternatively, a Residential-Protective designation might be adopted, that could apply equally to agriculmrally productive lands and environmentally sensitive areas. The City Should Carefully Consider the Purposes of the Zoning Districts The Property Would Not Advance the Purposes of R-IO The R-IO zone l is intended for a mix of residential styles, including detached and attached housing. The landowner, however, wishes to develop detached homes only, according to tlle Planning Commission Briefing. The zone also should "maintain single-hillily character of the existing neighborhood" -in this case, though, along with nearby single-family homes across SR 900, the property abuts multi-family developments to the east and west, a quarry to the southwest, a conservation area to the southeast and some neighboring commercial/light industrial u>es. There is not an ~stablished single-family character. Consistent with the RO policies, the density requirements of the R-IO zone are higher than warranted for this site, requiring a minimum of 7 units/acre (182 units for the site) and permitting as many as 13 units per acre. Seattle Audubon recognizes, however, that ii the development included only detached homes, and if the units could be clustered, 69 units could be built on a small portion of the site -in theoty, on as little as 5.3 acres. If properly situated, that would be advantageous to the Black River Forest habitat, if not consistent with the zoning policies behind R-10. I "The Residential-IO Dwelling Units Per Acre Zoot (R-IO) j:-; estahlished for medium density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including detached dwellings or semi-attached dwellings on small lots, attached townhouses, and small-scale attached flat dwellings. Dn'''[l \pment promoted in the zone is intended to increase opportunities for detached and semi-attached single family dwelline~ a;-; J. pLTcent of the housing stock, a!' well as allow some small.-scale attached housing choices and to create high-quality in!'ill dt'\'e!upment that increases density while maintaining the single family character of the existing neighborhood. A lIl)wabl" base densities range from seven (7) to ten (10) dwelling units per acre, with a total density bonus of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre for one hundred percent (] 00%) detached dwellings. The zone serves as a transition to higher density multi-family zones." RMC 4-2-D20(G) (emphasis added) Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comment..;; Septemher 2, 2003 Page 5 00 Property bearing an RO designation under the Comp Plan may only be zoned R-IO or for Mobile Home parks. RMC 4-UllO (B). TIle Merlino Property is Better Suited for R-5 Also intended for medium density is the R·5' zone. But this zone is free of several of the R-10 zone's drawback. Significandy, this zone's purposes include the protection of critical areas, and the use of clustering to create on-site open space amenities for its residents. It requires no minimum density. While in mis instance there is no adjacent RR area, the 93'acre protected open space could be consttlled as a similar area. An R-5 designation may be applied to property in an RS area. An R·8 zone' is also permissible in an RS area. Again, dlis seems too intense for this site: It requires 5 to 8 units per acre (with the "goal" of achieving the maximum density -in this case, that would be more than 100 units), does not appear to allow clustering, and envisions development that "maintains the characteristics of the existing neighborhood." The property at issue is not well suited for this zoning. An RC Designation Would Be Highly Appropriate Under an Amended RR Designation The inadequacy of the RR designation as Cllrrently written shows up in looking at the RC zoning designation, which can be applied only to Rural Residential lands. The Resource Conservation zone 4 is 2 "The Residential~5 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R·Sl i" c"tablished to promote urban single~family residential neighborhoods of intermediate density, serviceabk b\· urhan utilities and containing amenity open spaces. The Residential,S OweHing Units Per Acre Zone (R--5) will allow a maximum n~t density of five (5) dwelling units per acre. No minimum density is required. The R·5 designation serves as a transition hen. .... een rural designations and higher density and more intense zones. It is intended as an intermediate denSity residential WIll:'; applil'd to Residential Single Family (RSF) areas within one-half (1/2) mile of the King County Urban Growth Area Linl.' a]ld t,) Rt':-:.idential Rural (RR) areas with no significant environmental constraints. "Traditional or cluster development is allowed, with clustering used to create open spaces that protect critical areas as well as extend open space amenities available to the residents. TIle' clustering of development may also he allowed to meet objectives such as the efficient provision of sewer service." RMC 4-2-020 (0) (emphasis added). 3 «The Residential-8 Dwelling Unit..;; Per Acre Zone (R·8) i~ c~tablished for ~ingle family residential dwellings allowing a range of five (5) to eight (8) dwelling units per acre, with the goal of obtaining a density of eight (8) dwelling units per net acre. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create !lew l)ppununities for single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that incrt';)"t'." dc-n"jh' while maintaining the single family character of the existing neighborhood. It is intended to accommodate use" that an.' cumpatible with and support the residential environment." RMC 4, 2-020 (E). 4 "The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is estahlis!wd tp provide a low-tiensity residential zone which endeavors to conserve critical areas and maintain agricultural artiviti~s. This zone promotes uses that are compatible with the functions and values of designated critical areas and :1l!uws tl)r continued production of food and agricultural products. No minimum density is required. Tht R~suurCl' CllllSt'rvation Zone is aL.;;o intended to provide separation between areas of more intense urban uses; encourag~' 1.)1" prt'st'rve low-density residential uses; reduce the intensity of u\Cs in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and streams, Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 6 of7 expressly intended to "reduce the intensity of use, in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetland, and streams, aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, .and other geologically hazardous areas." Surely this identifies the exact challenge facing the City with the Merino property. The City recognized when it executed the Development Agreement that the Black River Riparian Forest called for some reduction in intensity of use on the adjacent property. It is currently considering exactly what type of reduction is appropriate when the anticipated use is single-, ratller tllan multi-family dwellings. The RC zone, however, may be applied only in RR area,. RMC 4-2-010 (D). TIle R-l zone' affords similar protections for natural resources. Again, its stated purposes are for hobby farming and the protection of open space and critical areas. Depending on the natural constraints of tlle Merlino site, it may not allow enough unit;; ror the development that the owner anticipates. On the other hand, depending upon the environmental condition" on the Merlino property, the City may decide that R-l is indeed appropriate. Like the RC zone, R-l at this point applies only to RR areas. RMC 4-2-010 (D). The Environmental Information Is Not Adequate to Proceed at the Moment Seattle Audubon believes that there are likely development scenarios for this property that it would support. However, the City at this point doe, not oeem to have a good grasp on the real environmental constraints that exist. TIle SEPA checklist tllat wa, prepared in January 2000 does not correctly identify the site conditions, many of which might ha\'e changed. Of particular concern to the City, one would think, are the threatened Chinook salmon in the Foreot and the coho habitat listed as Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson Stevens Act. One would also expect to see more detailed geotechnical information: TIle slope's stability is apparently in ,ome question, or at least parts of it are; there are wetland seeps on the hillside; and there are presumably hydrologic connections to the Black River. Environmental review under SEPA, as under NEPA, should assist the decision makers in their efforts. It should not drive the outcome of tlle decision, but it should be adequate to allow the decision makers to consider reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of their decisions. In this case, Seattle Audubon believes, it will be extremely difficult for the City to knowledgeably apply a Comprehensive Plan designation -let alone a zoning designation -without having more information about the site and the adjacent critical area. What would happen with 69 units on the site? What if they were not clustered? Can the property accommodate a density across the entire site of 7 units/acre, as apparently required under R- IO zoning? aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous areas; and allow for hobby farming to commence ur continue." R1v1C 4~2-O20 (B) (emphasis Ji..hlrd) 5 "The Residential,l Dwelling Unit Per Acre Zone (R,l) is t'.-;t:lbIL-;hed to provide and protect suitable environments for suburban estate single family residential dwellings, at a I1l;)XilnUIll denSity of one dwelling unit per net acre and allow for hobby farming associated with residential use. It is further intended to protect open space and critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurbdictions, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that are detrimental to the residential or open space environment. No minimum density j" rt'quirl'd," RMC 4;2-020 (C) (emphasis added) Merlino Parcel CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon Comments September 2, 2003 Page 7 of 7 And in fact, given the fact that this is part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City should take advantage of the opportunity to revisit its Rural Residential policies and determine whether they adequately protect critical habitat that lies outside of an RR designation. That consideration would also be informed by more environmental information. Such a text amendment would likely affect more property than just the Merlino parcel, which adds to our conviction that a redesignation of the Merlino property is unwise at this time. Conclusion TIle City of Renton has earned the appreciation of the entire region by protecting the Black River Riparian Forest. We hope that it will continue to protect the Forest by making land use decisions that take into account the importance and the fragility of that wonderful resource, and making such decisions only after gathering all the appropriate information. TIlank you for allowing us to comment on this application, and for your careful consideration of our comments. Please contact us if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~Lc. Daniel O. Drais Associate Director Seattle Audubon SeaUIe Auo:Iubon 8050 35'" Ave NE Seattle. WA 98115 206-523-8243 Ip) 206-528-7779 If) Fax To: Don Erickson Fax: 42&-430·7300 Piton.: 425-43Q.6581 Seattle Audubon From: Dan Dreis P .... : 8 u.t.: 91212003 Ro, LUA -01 -164, CPA, R; #2003-M-8 cc: [Click here and twa name] o Urg.nt OForR.~ o PI •• 5. Con .. ,,.n. 0 Pl •••• It..ply o Ple •• e Recycle • Comments: Attached are SeaUIe Audubon's convnenls on the Mer1ino CPA and rezone. Thanks very much for considering them. Yours. Dan DralS Seattle. Audubon Society ~-(or birds and nature September 2, 2003 BY FAX AND lJS MAil Mr. Don Erickson Project Manager Strategic Plannmg EDNSP Dept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA98055 Re: Dear Mr. Erichon; LUA-OH64. CPA. R Merlino Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone #2003-M-B Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Merlmo Comprehemh-e Plan Amendment and Rtwn~' 'X'l" e~p\"-Iaili' .lpkJlecl<nv rlK ClfY', rt-ll1it!anon 01 rh<; appilc:1tion III ord"r to ;lllml r<"il.'()Il<1hl.- nonce Summary of Seattk Audubon Position: S(·~1tlt, !\\lriuhnn t'IKOur<1[!t.< ~ dt'"i~n"ti(ln nt tht Merlino pmpnlv ill:11 '.' iii ;1<-C()llllll(lJ.1t<· til\' lallt!Co\\'lwr'" !ntt're~t in ,\chk\'ing ~ rn~onJhlr tinancial rdurn Oil hi~ pr(\p ... lh without .<lgnlfIGlIlth· harming or jeopardizing the valuable Black River Riparian For~st. To that end, Searde Audubon t'nr.ourages th~ City to (a) change tht' property's designation under the Comprehensive Plan to RS or an amended RR, (b) perform a more thorough environmental leview of the likely Impacts of residential devt'lopment on the Merlino property, and (c) resume deliberations on the appropriare zoning designation (and/or Plan/Zoning Code text amendments) following the completion of the environmental review. Seattle Audubon's lnteres[ in the CPA and Rezone Seattle Audubon represents some 5000 households over most of King County. Our mission is to cultivate and lead a comml1nity that values and prorects birds and the namnl environment. OUT members exptes~ their imerest in birds in many ways: Recreational birding, engaging in citizen science, participating in advocacy for 'wildlife and habitat at the local, regional and state levels, supporting and participating in environmental education fOT students from 3'" grade through masters' level work. and so on. The Black River Riparian Forest (the Forest) has attracted our interest and participation over the years due to irs importance -and, unfortunately, increasing rarity -as a lowland, deciduous, riparian forest. Not only do our members enjoy birding in [he forest, rhey recognize and appreciate the forest as. a home to a \'ibrant community of wildHft'. Many people in the area are aware that the Forest is home to a colony of more than a hundred herons. L>ss Wf'll known i.~ the fact that these herons belong to a SUhspf>cies of Great Blue Heron that eXISts only Merlino Parcel CPA and Re:rone Seard .. Audubon COmn"-,nb Sept .. mber 2, 20m Page2of7 in British Columbia/W~hington C03.Sta( 3.reas (and perhaps a litde way into Oregon), and that this subspecies L-; in decline. TIle Reran colony's ability to grow ove-r the last few years stems from outstanding habitat conditiotl.<I and, unforrunately, a shrinking number of alternatives in the Puget Sound area. One should not conclude that the herons thrive in urban areas or thar mey can easily adapt folloY..ing significant impacts to the hilLside or meir forest. Seattle Audubon's interest in birds naturally extends to concern for functional ecosystems and their inhabitants. The Forest provides hard-to-find and SUitable habitat for other important species of bis:ds: Bald Eagles, G!eat Horned o.vLs, Hooded Mergansers, and Wood Ducks; neotropical migrants such as Common Yeltowmroats, Wilson's Warblers, and Western Tanagers mat winter in Latin America and fly to the Northwest for the summer; and other raptors, including Cooper's Hawks and American Kestrels. Equally important, me Forest is home to threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, as well as cutthroat trout and coho salmon. MammaLs live there, too _ red faxes, river otters, and Pacif((: shrews, along with more abundant squirrels and mice and voles. Frogs, lizards, and other amphibians -important parts of the system' -live, forage and bret'd in the we-tlands and other water of the Fort'st. Of course, impacts to land adjacent to the Forest may well cause severe problems (or the forest. Hydrologic connections likely elcisr, which causes concern about water quality problems in me Black ru'v"er, Springbrook Creek, and tht' PI Pond. Inappropriate clearing and/or grading of me hilLside could easily result in water quantity (cunom issues, as well as siltation or other contamination of the downhill water bodies. Development [00 close to me site would threaten human encroachment into important wetlands. Noi:o:e, light, glare, odors, and other consequences of construction and/ot development could easily create conditions that [he Forest ecosystem, or important parts of it, could not \\'ithstand. Seattle Audubon therefore hopes to set' deovelopmenr that advances the City's goal o( creating quality residential opportunities while protecting the important and fragile resources next to du' Merlino property. Discussion While the application appears to link the Comprehensive Plan amendment and me zoning change as if they were intrinsically related, we believe that each should be analyzed independendy. The Appropriate Comp Plan Designation for the Property is RS or an Amended RR RO Is Nor Cllwnrly Appropriate for the Subject Property The RO (Residential Options) designation includes a number of criteria that du: subject property does not easily meet. Policy LU-50 recommends: • Established development panerns (the site is vacant, as is the adjacent site; other ne:ighboring developments include office, lighr-industrial, and multi-family). • Adjacency to a Center designation (no Center L~ adjacent [0 [he site), M .. rlinD £'aK .. 1 CPA 3m1 ReZOIl<' S~attJe Auduhon Cumments S~prtmher 2, 200'3 rag .. 3 of? • Either a mix of existing "small-scale" mUlti-family units or "long-standing" zoning for duplt'x or low-density multi-family housing (this 26-acre property was zoned for multi-family only three years ago, and the 93-acre Open Space adjacent to it has not ever been :mned for multi-family, to our knowledge) Policy LU48 calls for bUilding to "front the street"; it appears unlikdy mat a development plan would be proposed with 69 units fronting the street. Poticy LU-51 recommends net densities of to units per acre, or about 260 units; the Development Agreement contemplated under this CPA and rezone would provide only 25 percent of that density. Even at the same policy's recommended minimum density of 7 du/acre, one would expect l82 units. Policy LU-55 urges Single-family characteristics such as ~private yards b ; on this property, though, a mou appropriate design might well be clustered tmvnhomes without private yards, but featuring acres and acres of spectacular open space next to the Forest. Moreover, under current zoning code req uirements, a designation of RO v,,'ould limit the use of the Merlino property to R-lO or RMH (mobile home park). RMC 42"()!(XD}. More flexibility might benet'it this site, given its numerous en\'ironll1~ntal constraints. RS Suits the Property Better than RO As the July 9 Planning Commission Briefing ob~rved, a designation of RS (Residt"ntial Single-Family) suits me property better man RO. Its lower den.~ities (5 to 8 units/acre) (Policy LU34) come closer to fitting \\'ith the 69-unit cap proposed as part of the rezone. It calls for retaining distinctive natural features such as stands of trees and natural slopes (Policy LU 40.2). Also, an RS designation allows zoning of either R-5 or R-8. As explained below, the uncertainty concerning the property's capacity suppons that flexibility. An ADl('nded RR WQ1]!d hf. d)e {kg Designatjon TIle RR (Rural Residential) designation might aCUlaUy be beSt for this unusual propetty. Under RR, the pemlissible IOning would include &1, R-5, or RC -any of which would allow developn~nt of property without sacrificing the important values of me adjacent protected area. However, neither the Camp Plan nor the mning code appears to allow RR-typt' prmections outside a nlral area. Policy LU-I mandates the protection of ~open space and namral resources and ... ell'.itonmentally sensitive areas." It directs that that d("\,elopment be limited in sllch areas. And yet the policies that should effecruate that goal apparently assume that all such sensitive area$ will be in Rural lones. All of the poliCies [hat implement LU-) (Policies LU-26 through LU-28) apply to.BJJ..ri!l Re~identiallandg. For itl.~tanct'. Policy Malin" rar,~l CPA and Rt-z(on<' S<'Jrtl~ Audunun C"l1lnWl1t< S<,pt,lI1bn 2. :00' Pace 4 ut 7 UT 2, call~ t01' developmenr within !ill. non·Rural designations to be built to a minimum density; LU·24 i~ similar. But the Camp Plan and the Code should recogniu~ that important en .... itonmental areas exist ("enviwnmentally sensitive~ or "habitat.laden", in tht' WOTds of Policy LU-IB) outside of Rural areas. See ;JI~o Policy U:·IB (the Cit)' should encourage RR designations and less intense platting where ci..tha agriculturally productive land ill: environmentally sensitive condirions exist). A~ discussed below, the types of protections allowed under an RR designation could allow both d('ve\opment and enl.ironmental protection, even in a non-Rural area like the Merlino ploperty. Seanle . Audubon encourages the City to amend the RR policies to recognize that where significant and environmentally sensitive or "habitat·laden" properties exist, they should receive the same kind of protection as agriculnlrally productive lands in Rural areas. Altt'rnatively, a Residenrial-PrmectL\'e Jt'~ignation might be adopted, that could apply equally \'0 agriculturally productive lands and t'llvinmlllentillly sensitin-ilfe-<l~ The City Should CarefuUy Consider the Purposes of the Zoning Districts nH: Prooerty Would Not Adv;mce the PUDlOS!"::; of R_lQ The R·lO zone l i~ mtcndt'"d for a mix (If n-""idt'"mial sn·l<,,~. Induaing de-t,,("h~d and "rt,,("heclll(ll1~ill.!! Tlw Lm<k'''-IWf. lh'\\"<'\"'T, 1.\'I,h,-, [0 dt"\'t'lnp dt't.LCht'd ]I<\IIW_, '-'II]\". arent,JIIl!: 1<". tilt' rl.lnilln~ COillllll,;,_wn nl'idllH.' Tlw ,Ont' ~L" ~llnuld "IlUillt.lill ~illl!i"-~,Ullikch.ILlnn Llilhe' ~x!~llI1g llt'l£!hhurll(,(.d" -1:1 rill- (,\'1:', dHludl, al,)l1.;! witll Ilt'.ubv ,illS'Ie'-Lllllih-l,oll1<""' :lnu.'~ SR GO\!. the' pWPt-I1\" ,IhuL< 1ll1dIH';\llll!y ,i<,\·t'iol'III'IlI' to til," ,-a~t ;lilt! \\"t'~l, a tjll:lrry 1" 1:1<-,<,)"tln\'t·,t, a '()Il~f'lyatl'lll an'~ 10 tll<' "l'lHh,·~_'t ,llld '<JIllc' ll,·i"hh"rill;! C()llllllt'T(lal/lll!ilt illdll~tTi.llll~t'S, nWrt· L, not;m ~.'lahll,lwd >i11S':k-t".lIlllh-,hJL1<"ln. Consislent v.ith rhe RO policies, the density requiro:-merrts of the R, to zone are higher than warranted for this "jte, requiring a minimum of? units/acre (182 units for the sitt') and permitting as Illany as 13 units pt'r acre S<;>atcie Audubon Tecognizes, hov..'ever, that if the development included only detached homes, and if the units could be clusteTed, 69 unit" could be built on a ~Illall portion of the site -in theory, on as littie as 5.3 acres. If properly ~ituilte-d, that would be advantageous to the Black River Forest habitat, if nor con$i~tent with the tonin,g policie$ behind R·lO. I "The Residential.J(I Owt-Uing Units Per Acre Zone (RW) i~ esmhli,;hed t,)r m~ctium d~l1Sitv resid~ntial df'\lelopmem that <>."ill provide a mix of rc~jdent;a1 styles including detached dwellings or semi-attached dwellin~ on ~malilots, attached townhouSl'!, and small-scale attached flat dwellings. o..vrl .. pment promoted in the ~on(" is intended tD increase opponunltltS iur d~tached and ~~mi-attach~d ~Ingle famllv dwdling~ a~ a I~rc~nt of tile Ill'using stock. a,' weI! as alhw,' som~ ,mall_~(al~ atr.ldu·,J ]IIIU,'in;: dwiC{':; and to create high-<.iualitv infill de"dupmen! that inOta.se~ d~l~~ity while maintaining the single familv character of the exi6ring Ilei{hborhood_ AlIl'wahk base den$ides rangt' from seven (7) to ten (101 dwelling units ~r acre, witb a total density b()llus of thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre for ('"e hundred percent (I 00%) Jetach~d dwellings. The zone ~rve! as a transition to higher density multi..family ~()IIn.M R.MC 4-~.(J20(G) kmphastS Jdd~d) 'Mnlin(1 Parcel CrA and Rt-wnt Stattl~ A1.lduboll C(\rtllll~nt' September 2. 2003 Pag .. ~ ut 7 Properry bearing an RO designation under the Comp Plan may only bt' mnt'd R·lO or for Mobile Home parks. RlvlC 4·2..() 10 (B). The MerlinQ PrOlxny is Better Suired for R·5 Also intended for medium density is the R·5" ione, But this zone is free oi"Sf-veral of the R-IO zone'~ drawback. Significantly, this zone's purposes include the pTotection of critical areas, and the lise of ciustt'ting to create on-site Open space amenities for its residents. h requires no minimum density While in this instance there is no adjacent RR area, the 93·acre prorected open space could be construed a~ a similaT aTea. An R·5 deSignation may be applied to property in an RS area. An R·8 tone 1 is aL~o permi$sible in an RS area. Again, this seems too intense for this site: It requires 5 to 8 units per acre (with the ~goal~ of achit"-'ing the-maximum density -in this case, that 'NOuld be more than 100 unit..~), does not appear to allow clustering, and envisions development that ~maintains rile characteTi"tics of the eXlstlng neighborhood.H TIle property at isslle is not well suited for this zoning. An RC Designation Would Be Highlv Appropriate Under an Amended RR DeSignation Tilt' lllad,',!,,;!c\." p[ tllt' RR d"~ll!narhlll J.," ellTwlld\, \\T!rtl"n ~il()w_" lip 111 I"l\kllli:: ,It tlw RC :;<11ll1L' d~.'IL:ll:ltl()ll, \\-);11-]. (-;111 lw ap)!ilt',l 01111' t() Rur.-ll Rt'.'Hlt'lltJaI b"d."', TIlt' Rl_'<lurn~ C,on~('IYJrh'll ;,)1)1."; j" . "Thl" R~",lenlial·'i Dwtllin): Unit, r~r :\<:r~ Zone IR-51 -, ,·,t~l,bhc'<I:" I'r('llluk urhall ""g'~_t,lIl"k ,-"""I'"lllIal ntighborhu<"is of intnmed iatt' densitv. serviceable by urban utilities and containing arru.-.nity open spaas. The Resld~nt1al-S Dwelling \Jlllrs Per Acre Zone (R.-5) Will alk~w a maximum netdenslry ,)t tive (S) dwelling unit;:; per acre, No minimum density is requi~d, The R-S designation sen.'eS as a transition between rural designations and higher density and ml'r~ inttnse .ones. It is intended as an Interm~dlate deruity residEntial zone, applied to fuo~idential Sll\gl~ rnmify (RSF) areas within one-half (1/2) mile of the Kin):: County Urban Growth Area Line and to Residential Rural (RR) area< wirh no significant environmental constraints. "Tradltlunal or clu~t .. r d .. vtlopment is allowed. with flustering used to create open ~p.to:e~ that protect critical Meas as well as extend open space amenities available to the residents. The clustering ot dl'W'lopmfnt may ai,,) be allowed to meet objectlves ~uch as th~ dfiClt:nt pmvislon ot sewer service," RMC 4-2--020 (D) (emphasis addt'l.l). J ''Th~ R~side!ltial-8 Dwelling Unin< Per Acre Zone (R.-8) IS eitablished for ;i[Jgl~ family residential dwellings alk,wing a range oi iivt (5) to eight (8) dwt"lIing unit' per acre, with the goal of obtainiTl&" a densiry of eiJ:"ht (8) dwelling units per net acre. Development in the R.-8 Zon~ IS int~nded !('l create new opporrunities for .lingle family r~~identia! nei.o:hburhoud~ and t() facilitate high""4uality infill Jevelopment that increas~s d~nslty while maintaining the single famity character of the existing nei{hhorhood. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and ,uPPOrt [h~ rf.~ictentlal envif(mment." RMC 4- 2-020 (E) 4 "Th!:' R.e.,ouree C<lIl.-;{,lV<ItH)1l Zone (R.C) IS established to provide a low .. l~l1Sit'l re~idential zone which endeavors to conserve critical areas and maintain agncultural ocnvirits. ThL~ zone promotes uses that are compatible with the function~ and value~ of designated critical areas and allow:> flor contInued pnxluction I)f t;',od and agriCUltural pwdun •. No minimum densiry u. required, The Resourr~ Con .. ~rvarion Z(Jn~ i~ al~II intfnded to provide separation ber",:een areas ,>t" more intense urban use.<; tncourage or p~serve low-densiry residennal u~e~~ reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the extent of ellvironmt'ntaltv sensitive areas such as floodplains., wetlands and streams, Mo:rlinu Parc.,1 CPA and !lel"n ... Seattle Auduhon eomm~ms Sept.,mher 2, 1003 !'a{:e f.J uf7 expressly intended to ~reduce the in.tensiry of uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as fluodplains, wetlands and screams, aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous areas." Surely this identifies the exact challenge facing the City with the MerIno property. The City recognized when it executed the Development Agreemem that the Black River Riparian Forest called for some reduction in intensity of use on the adiacenr property. It is currently considering exactly what type of reduction is appropriate when dle anticipated use is single-, rather than multi-family dwellings. The RC rone, however, may be applied only in RR areas. RMC 42-010 {D}. Tlle R·l 2One~ affords similar protections for natural resources. Again, its stated purposes are for hobby farming 1Ild the protection of open space and critical areas. Depending on the natural constraints of the Merlino site, it may not allow enough units for me development that the owner anticipates. On the other hand, depending upon the environmental conditions on the Merlino property, the City may decide that R-l is indeed appropriate. like the RC zone, R-l at mis point applies only to RR areas. RMC 4-2-010 (D). The Environmental Information Is Not Adequate to Proceed at the Moment Seanle Auduboll belie-.'es that there arl:' likely development scenarios for this property that it would support. However, the City at this pOInt does not seem to have a good grasp on the real environmental constramts that exist. 1111:: SEPA checklist that was prepared in January 2000 does not correctly identify tht' ~ite cunditions, many of which might have changed. Of particular concern to the City, one would think, are the threatened Chinook salmon in the Forest and the coho habitat listed as Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson Stevens Act. One would also expect [0 see more detailed geotechnical information: TIle slope's stability is apparently in some question, or at least parts of it are; there are wetland seeps on the hillside; and there are presumably hydrologiC connecrions to the Black River. Environmental review under SEPA, as under NEPA, should assist the decision makers in their effortS. It should not drive the outcome of the deciSion, but it should be adequate to allow the decision makers to consider reasonably foreseeable environmental co~quences of thdr decisions. (n this case, Seattle Audubon believes, it will be extremely difficult for me City to knowledgeably apply a Comprehensive Plan designation -let alone a zoning designation _ .... ithom having more infomlation about the site and the adjacent critical area. What would happen with 69 units on the site! What if they were nO[ clustered? Can the property accommodate a density acTOS!! me entire site of 7 units/acre, as apparently required under R· 10 zoning! aquifen. wikllife habitat, steep slop>."!i, and other reoloeically h~OU5 areas: ~nJ all(llOl fur lwbhy farming ttl r~'lllllH.'nct' or colltinu.,," RMe 4·:'-020 (8) kmphasis aJded) .' 'TI1~ Re,iJ~ntial·1 Dwelling Unil Pt'r A<:r'" Z"ne (R·l) Is e~rnblished to provide and·protect 3ultabk envlrunments for suhurban ., .• tat., single family resi.!",miaJ dWt>lIIn,s, at a maximum Jeru:ity of une dwelling unit IJI'f nttacre and allow for hobby farml1lg a:~"da[ed with resi,j.,ntial use. It is further intended to proteCt open space and critical an:;u, provide ~eparation betw't'~n neighborinJi! junsdictions, and prohibit the ~Iopment of incompatible wes t~t are detrimental to the residential or Open sp~ environment. No miniinum density is r~quire<i.· RMC 4·2-020 (e) (empha..;s added) Merlino Parcel CPA and Relon", Seattle Audubon eomn~lts September 2, 2003 P:ige 7 "f 7 And in fact, given the fact that thb is part of a Comprehensiw Plan amendment, the City should take advantage of the opportun.ity to revisit its Rural Residemial policies and detennine whether they adequately protect critical habitat that lie..~ ou[Side of an RR designation. That consideration would also be infomled by more environmental information. Such a text amendment would likely affect mort' property than just the Merlino parcel, which adds to our conviction that a redesignation of the MerHno property is unwise at this time. Conclusion The Cil)' of Renton has earned the appreciation of the entire region by protecting the Black River Riparian Forest. We hope that it wiU continue to protect the Forest by making land use decisions that take into account the importance and dle fragility of that wonderful resource, and making such decisions only after gathering aU the appropriate information. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this application, and for your careful consideration of our comments. Please contact lIS if we can provide additional information. Sincerely, ~~ Danid G. Drals A3~odate Director Seanle Audubon L Louise Baldel 13020 SW Princeton Court Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2326 September 1,2003 Don Erickson, EDNSP Dept/Strategic Planning City of Renton lOSS So. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 SEP 2 2003 Subject: Rezone of Merlino hillside, LUA-OI-164, CPA, R, ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, My family lives in Lake Oswego, Oregon, a suburb of Portland. We travel to the Seattle area several times each year and have been delighted to discover the community of Renton. Renton has become very convenient to us for motels, restaurants, and shopping. We like that it is a short commute into Seattle. Each time we are there, we explore more of the community. Several years ago during the winter, a good friend introduced us to the Black River Riparian Forest. We were astounded to find this sanctuary hidden in the middle of an industrial- commercial area. We saw what looked like hundreds of large nests in the trees. Our curiosity was peaked and we returned specifically to see the herons during their nesting season. To see what looks like hundreds of nests and hundreds of herons is a sight to behold. Each time we visit the Sea Lions Caves, we feel the same sense of awe. There isn't a zoo on the planet that ean replicate an animal in its own environment. I am writing to you at this time as a voice for the herons. I am concerned about the proposed rezone of the hillside adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest. I do not want anything to jeopardize the continuation of this colony. I would like this area to be protected for generations to come so that your great-grand children and mine can have the same sense of awe that we feel each time we visit Black River. Renton has this wondrous natural place that is a treasure. The city should consider actively promoting this resource. Thank you, ~ I)",,",:'-L t)v..1 J t.1 Louise Baldel MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM August 29, 2003 39015 172nd Avenue S,E.· Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (360) 802-2202 • FAX: (360) 802-2242 Don Erickson, Project Manager Strategic Planning EDNSP Dept. 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RE: LUA-01-164, CPA, R: Merlino Comp Plan Amendment Rezone #2003-M-8 Dear Mr. Erickson, R r;: ri ,' ," i:::O ~= "'" .' , '"'' SE[) 3 2003 On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent regarding LUA-01-164, CPA, R: Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment Rezone and have the following comments. The property is in a high probability area for archaeological sites and trails. It is relatively undisturbed land along the Cedar River. The area is known for rich archaeological sites of which several are registered at the State Historic Preservation Office. [t is important for the City of Renton to require a cultural survey prior to construction or ground disturbing activities. As policy, ground disturbing activities in areas of high probability for archaeological discovery, the Cultural Committee requests: 1. An archaeological field survey of the project APE by a professional archaeologist 2. To review the archaeological survey's scope of work 3. The option of sending a tribal monitor during the field survey 4. To review the draft survey for completeness and accuracy 5. A Recovery Plan in place in the event that human remains or artifacts are uncovered The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, If needed, please contact these departments for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. It is better to review projects upfront. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 360-802-2202, extension 103. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. s~,n erely" ~ , __ (~~~ Donna HogerhUls, ~~I~Specia~t cc: Melissa Calvert, Wildlife and Cultural Coordinator FROM : DANIEL M. LOWERY PHONE ~O. 206 721 3890 Sep. 02 2003 03:57PM P01 '. . - Soplcmber I. 2003 SEP 2 2003 I Friends of the Green River p, 0, Box 288 Black Dialllolld. W A 9801 0 0011 Bricksoll, Senior PJanller Developlllellt SeIVices Division Cily omonton JOSS South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 , ,:;- -,;'::: .. ,.';- Rlt: City of Renton Re,,one: LUA-OI-164,CPA,R,ECF I Merlino Coml.rehensivt PIMn Amendment & RIl'I,onc Dear Mr. Erickson, TlIHnk you for Ulis opportunity to commellt Oil the above ciled Action by tbe City of Renton, Friends of tile Green River is. not-for-profit organi1.11lion whose mi,sion is the preservation and enhancement of environmental and recreational values ill the Orcell-Duwllmisll Wlltershed. Originally a sub-group of Rivers Council of Washington, Friends of the Green River (FOG) bCCAmo an indC),o"dcnt lion-profit IS years ago. Our membersllip numbers inlhe several hundreds, and we arc affilialed with a number of recreational boaling organi7.11tions who work will, U~ to I)rotect the Green River for its recreational And environmental resources, For the last sevellli years, FOG has become aware of the \Jcmcndou$ resource Renton has in the Black River Riparian Forest. Tho City QfRenlon's repulalion is g,e.,lly enhanced by doing everything it can 10 protecl such a wonderful amenity, The heron colony in the Black River Ril.arian Forest (IlRRF) is a true treasure, bringing delight 10 oUr members alld associates who live in Renton and beyond. We also enjoy the traii, tile ponds, the wetlands, the fish and wildlife of Ule Riparian Forest. To protcct Ihis resource, FOG is pal1 of R coalition of organizations who wod< to see no harm comes 10 iI, Tile BRRI' and its wnlers provide habital for a number of aquatic species, Chief among tI,e1l1 arc Cllinook salmon which arc listed 8S threatenod under the Federal Endangere.:l Species Aet I'OG has wod<ed fol' a lIumber oryea.rs in "V/ITiety of ways to help protect Chinook salmon in III is Green River Watershed. In AddiHon 10 Ihe many aqualic species, there are many birds Ul811lse Il'e habilllt of tile BRRF, 1110 Blue Heroll colony is the 1I\1·ge.~t ill the area with over 100 nests and over 300 new chicks, This alone makes 1I1e BRRF 811 extraordin81Y site to visit, but tllere arc also Illany other birds, some of thom also lisled for protection by the Stllte or Fedeml governments, There arc also a variety orm~mmals that usc this wonderful habillll. The Black River Riparinn Forest itself is something of 8 "threatened species," as it is one of Ihe last protected lowland. deciduous, riparian forests remaining in Pugal Sound, As FOG sees it. here's what's at sUlke that Ihe City of Renton mu" prolcct: -In Bdditionlo acting as a buffer for Ihe BMF, it is Ihe posilion of rOG Ulatthe hillside above it is parI of the ecosystem, providing critical habilatlhal allows the ecosystem as a whole 10 function as it should. The Cily mllsl en,ure that any development on the proposed site be rcquire<i to have as lillie impael as possible on this critical habitat and the ecosyslem as a whole, -The stability orthc hillside and nlinimi/.alioll of erosion during oonstrueliul\ and afterwards musl be studied and underslood. Experts must be involved 10 ensure IhBt developmenl will nol incrca .. erosion and illSUlbility which would negatively impact Ihe BRRF below. The City !lllIsl 1101 Bilow such neglltive impacts. I I i .. ,I· FROM : DANIEL M. LOWERY PHONE NO. 206 721 3890 Sep. 02 2003 03:57PM P02 .. -Water Qualily and WalCT Quantity (Inmcam Plows) m"" Mt be allowed 10 degradation cRused by any developmCllt. The hillside impacls bolh Waler QU"lllity and Quality as water seeps undorground And flows on the surface down from WCSI Hill. We Undergland tllm many ortlle residenoos oulhe north side of SUIISc\ Way arc on septic syslem,. We do not know the ftlll impacls of seepage from seplic .~y~cms on groundwaler which ul1imately reachos Ihe BRRF. but arc concerned tllatl1lo proposed development nol add 10 the negalive impaCIS on groundwaler. ThaI would meanlbal tbe Cily muS! require Ihal any development on Ihe site proposed for this Action bo OIl a ~wor system. Additionally. 111c City IlIUst be assured thaI any developmeul mus! not either inlhe cOIlS1ruCtion phase nr aftCIWards negalively impact fhe water qualily and qU3nlily necessnry for l1Ie protcction oNle IlU\ny silecies that use Ihe BRRF and its waleTS. -FOG Is also eoncerned thaI If a DOWn7()nC occurs. Ihere may be " lot of lawn~ planted for the single-family homes lhat .... uU. Lawns. being really uMuited to the Pugel Sound region, requi.·e a 101 ofwalcr 10 kcep!hem green in Ihe sumlner. willa Ihe resul! IIlal theR may be negative impacts on the sUlbilily Orlhe hillside, erosion. Bnd ul1imBlcly, negative impacts below in the BRRF. BeealL~ lawns am nOI easy to keep beautifully grccn. people tend to IISC a lot Orpc,~ljcidcs and herbicides 011 them. The City must en6U1'O thaI lawns are keJ)\ very small and tl18tsuch usage of chemicals is nOI allowed. -The aqu"lic species, including IhreatClled Chiuook <almon. as well as the Blue lierons and all !he olher species that IlSC the BRRF, must not be harmed by this devclopmCll1 so ncar Iheir habitat. The Cily mllSI ellSUR Ihat neg"live impaels are minimal and do not niTecl Ihe ability of "11 these speeies to colllinue to live in the I3RRF. In regRrds 10 this Aclion -tbe Comprehensive Plall Amendment and Rezone -POG bas concems aboul8ny developmenl so close 10 Ihe BRRF. especially one on such. slecp hillside above the Fo .... t. FOG believes tllat ony development on this hillside will have significant ~dverse impacl on Ihe BRRF. an omcially desigllaled Open Spa""C, whieh lies below Ihe hill. The preferred position of Friends oftllc Green River is thaI no development should ooeur on this hillside. We underS1and the dimeul\ies tile City of Renlon race< in keeping all development oITthis hilloidc. If il is impossible for the City to devise a way to kcep developlllent off Ihe hill'ide. IIle City mus! ensure tllst impact. 10 the I3RRI' arc truly minimal. FOG believes thnl cvcnlhough Ihe proposed rezone is a Down1'()lle, IIlere may be SOlll. impacls Ihal would be g.·caler with such a dowlll.onc 10 Smglc Family Residelllial. For example. if tltere ar" greater amounts of lawns with Single Fmnily. and those lawns receive '1101 ofpe,ticides and herbicides, Ihis could he a grealer impact lban with MUlti-Family Re.<idcnlial ,.oninl:. FOG would like Ihe City to have ExpClts evaluate the differences of imp. cis befOR the decision is made to rezone. It is Friends ofllle Green River's posiCion that Ihe proposed 1'Cmne is not a non-project action as it includes a revision 10 Ihe Development Agreement alllhori,ing Ihe applieAnllo b\lild 69 unils. The exisling SEPA checklisl is incomplele and inaccurate. Tlte inadequacy or tile SBPA checklist means tllat without good information. decisionmake ... eannol know the potential impacts, nor can they make informed decisions. As we indicated above. the DowlIl()ne does nol mean Ihat there willnol be signifieRnl environmental impacts. Therefore, Friends of the Grecn River joins wilh Herons F01'Ov.r in a<king for Ihe following: A. Allow a maximum of69 single f~mily unils on maximum 1/81h-or I/IOth-acrc lOIs clustered on tbe norlhwc,~l.quarter of the property. leaving Ihe remaining properly as an undis!urbed greenway. B. Replace Ihe current SBPA chccklisl with one 1itat acel1ratel~ fellcelS Ihe environmental condi1ions onsile and on nearby prope.ty. including Ihe Black River RiJl!lfian Fores\. J.Require the applicant to include tbe following on the project-specific SEPA checkli'l in order for IIIe Cily of Remon to make an accurale and informed SErA detorminalion: 2 \ FROM : DANIEL M. LOWERY P~ONE NO. 206 721 3890 Sep. 02 2003 03:58PM P03 -. Identify all crilical areas onsile and ndjncellllo Ihe silC. including bulnollimiled 10 steep slopes, wel1ands delinealions ""d calegories, erosion l'Rzard •• ~Ire.ms. threaloned species lisled under the Endangered Species Acl, EsscllIial Fish HahitaJ per Ihe Magnuson-Slevenson Fishery Conservalion "nd Managcmonl. ACI. Cily ofRenl.On Critical Habilats, nnd WHshingloll State Fish and Wildlife Depanmcnl Priority Habitat and Species. BulIer and setback information should also be provided. 2. Reqllire the applicant to address the full range ofpolcnl;al impacts to Ihe critical areas in Ihe SBPA checklist- 10 tho!<C located offsile as well a., onsil •. in order for Ihe City of Renton to make aecurate Rnd infonned decisions. 11. Locale any development as far from the heron colony as possible, clustering il as densely as possiblc in the northwcsi Cjullrter of tho hillside. \lsin); SR 900 as Ihe l'C$idcllt .• ' IICCCS~. b. Maintain the lower IlOnion ofille development as undisturbed habitat tlml is impaSSible 10 humulls and domestic pels. No altel'lllllive nearby recrealiol1 area exists for the filtl1rc residents oHllis developmOlll. Unless measures are tuken, Ihe Black River Riparian Foresl will become their primary recreation area. II is iml)Crntive that tho residents lind their dome~1ic pets nol have direcl R.cceSSlo the Black River sile. We recommend Ihat the Sunset View apartment complex be used a.. 3 model. as its residents and pelS have no direcl aooess to Ihe Black River sile. c. Issue a Delenuination of Significance. The City of Remon has enough informationlo issue a OS and require 11131 lin accurale, eomprehet\sive EIS be prellared 1.0 address Il,e imllacts of development. Sinocrely. j1~, ~~ ~;jcia Sumption, president Friends of the Green River 3 ;. " .,.,' ; [ "i r~~ '~_n\"'~, V !,:.~ LP-. I k~~.:::{'f:r""e'ft ) Y /:z erlo -S I SEP 2 2003 I ECO~,:01,,.i~C U!:_'..'~L0~\~U,'T f<E: . ~I/NJ to /h~. (//0-/1 1f/J\C2Ji;;j!;i~~~;·1'e:kOM..... Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa. 98055 Aug. 29,2003 Dear Sir, In reference to LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R,ECFlMerlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone. I wish to state that I am opposed to any development that would destroy or change the habit that has been established in and around the Black River Riparian Forest. Any development whether intended to be environmentally friendly or not would eventually result in the loss of this habitat forever. Having traveled and lived in many other parts of the country, I have seen that having a breeding area chosen by the heron is rare. We are fortunate that this still exists. The other habitats in Washington State are less likely to be able to support these birds in the future. As more development continues in King County, we must ask if the revenue outweighs the real cost to the community. Will Renton be known as the Slum Lord Capital of the area without control of its future. Once Boeing finally moves out of Renton will there be a need for housing that people can afford or will the city decide to allow high end housing to come in? If there is less employment in the city will there still be a need for this temporary housing? I see a great number of new homes in my area, but little new employment to pay for these homes. Are we going to see a sudden drop in the price of our current homes as a result of uncontrolled building and a glut of empty businesses and apartments like Seattle and Bellevue? I have lived in places where the economy was based on the future prospect of money that never materialized and the resulting vacant homes and businesses only added to the downturn in the community's welfare. The only person to benefit from destroying the wild habit would be the builder, not the community. Once this land is developed, he can forget the matter. Anyone wanting to come to Renton to work or shop would not see the effort to preserve a species, they would only see the ugly buildings. To be selective in how a community grows only adds value to its future. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ted Cambouris (425) 413-5108 ~~ Aoyailcroft Environmental Services August 29, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Developr:nent SetVices Division City of Renton ~ .:'.: i\~U r.· . '1" "! jJ Iil.-·~ , , .. ' ... ·""E 1• 'E"""l ,. ' ",." .. !,~:f! 'Ii. a...f "-n 2 :-1 t~. r 20n3 .J •. 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: LUA-O 1-164, CPA, R, ECF / Merlino COllll'r('hcIlSive Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, This letter is in support of Herons Forever's COlIllllt'llts on the proposed rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, LUA-OI-164, CPA, R, ECF and to provide the City of Renton with further technical information with which to make informed decisions. I have been involved with lnonitoring herons in King County including the Black River heron colony and its surrounding habitats for over a decade. I am a nationally recognized expert in the field of urban wildlife hioiob,)' and have expertise in wetlands and land llSC" planning as well. r have also consulted colleagues with expertise in soils and hydrology in compiling the folluwing information. The Black River Riparian forest (BRRF) is a public "pm space resOUrce with regional significance and is adjacent to the Merlino SR 900 property that is the subject of this rezone proposaL Any development that occurs on the hillside above the BRRF will likely have significant adverse impacts on the resources found in the public open space. Thruugh informed dccisiulHllaking, there may be ways to avoid some of these i1npacts and Ininimize others. We strongly encourage the City of Renton to gather the appropriate information needed to make an inforrned decision ahout development on the hillside above the BRRF. Likely significant adverse irnpacts include impacts to w;lter quality and quantityj to sensitive fish and wildlife including the significant heron colony, threatened Pugct Sound Chinook, and Essential Fish Hahitat; impacts fr01n changes in noise, light and glare, human and pet activity and intrusions; and erosion and landslide hazards that would impact future occupants. Water Quality and Quantity: The Black River Riparian Forest is supported by and uwC's much of its diversity and character tu the wetland known as PI Pond and Springbrook Creek Huwevcr, the water in the PI Pond is only partly from Springbrook Creek. A significant portion of the watf'r that maintains this wetland comes from the adjacent hillside wetlands, streams, and hydrology. The property that is subject of this proposed rezone (the Proposal) contains a large mapped wetland, a stream, and a numher of sloped seep wetlands. We would caution the City of Renton to not overlook tbe importance uf these s(~ep wetlands as they are generally not considered to be isolated and would still fall under Federal jurisdictioLl. My colleague, Ms. Kulzer, who has expertise in hydrugcolug'{, notes that dense urban development on the hillside could block existing groundwater flowpaths resulting in a drying of the wetlands at the bottom the hill and adversely impacting the P I Pond. Groundwater movement from the hillside to the floodplain below 23022 SE 48"' St., Sammamish, WII 98075 Quailcroft@comcast.net 42.5-313-1017 Merlino CPA and Rezone August 29. 2003 Page 2 should he studied before any develoPlnent pTopu~al i~ approved. With greater understanding, it may be possible to devise mitigation that ensures minilllai aitcrarion to the groundwater supply. Ms. Kulzer also notes that since the City of Rf'Lltun sri II uses the older King County stormwater standards and has not yet adopted the newer 1998 flow nmtrul standards there will be a significant increase in stonnwater runoff from the Proposal over currt'nt cunditions, This is not a likely impact; this impact will occur. King County upgraded and adopted the new standards in 1998 after careful research showed that the older standards did not control stonnwater Tlmoff and were resulting in significant adverse impacts to adjacent environments. Increased stormwater runoff would impact tllf' BRRF adversely by increasing erosion and sedimentation of the P I Pond, increasing adverse water level fluctuations, and reducing base flows that maintain the pond year' round. This means that there will be too much water to support fish and wildlife in the rainy season and not enough water in the dryer SUIll.mer months. Advt'rs(' water level fluctuations result in adverse changes in vegetation. and adverse changes in the fish and wildlife that call live there. In addition, the concentration of pollutants in the runoff from the Proposal would increase significantly and could increase even more if the area is developed with single,farnily homes versus developments with smaller common landscaped areas, due to poor individual lawn management. Again, this impact is largely due to the application of the older stormwater runoff control standards rather than the newer 1998 standards. The 1998 stOflnwater treatment standards have bccn dlOWLl to reduce pollutants by 50% to 80%. However, Ms. Kulzer notes that these results may only be arhit'vt,d it' the correct treatment BMP is chosen. Passive stormwater BMPs are not as effective in removing pesticides and dissolved metals. We suggest the construction of a stormwater wetland as the BMP lllost likely to reduce pollutants in the runoff from the ProposaL In addition to adequate stormwater treatment BMPs, we reconunend that any development be clustered. Clustering will minimize the amount of impervious surfaces needed, which will reduce the amount of runoff generated and minirnize the arnOllnt requiring treatment. Clustering will also reduce the amount of maintained landscaping required which will minimize the quantity of fertilizers and pesticides used, further redUcing the downstream impacts. Given the significance of the environment (the BRRF) adjacent to the Proposal, we strongly recommend that the City of Renton require the application of the 1998 King County stormwater control standards to help mitigate fur the significant adverse impacts that will otherwise occur. We further recommend the use of a constructed stormwater wetland to help control polllltants fro111 leaving the site. Great Blue Herons Status The Great Rlue Heron colony at BRRF is the largl~st culony in King, Pierce, and Snohornish Counties and is among the 10 large::;t in Puget Sound. The heruns return every year to build nests and raise their young partly hecause Black River provides excellel\t ILll,i';]' fur the birds and partly because few alternative sites still exist. There is a high risk that any development Ul\ the hillside above and adjacent to the BRRF will threaten the habitat and the lonwterm health of the heron coluny. Strong measures should be implemented to prevellt any adverse impacts from occurring tu the heron colony at Black River. The portion of the Black River heron colony that is referred to as the "Main colony" was impacted by a commercial development that was approved by Rellton. The city did not implement recommended Merlino CPA and Rezone August 29, 2003 Page 3 mitigation strategies and that portion of the colony is now used much less by nesting herons} even though, by other lllll"nan~based standards1 that portion of the l'llluny should still he more suitable for nesting. The actual impacts to the herons were much greater than anticipated by the City. The herons at Black River are significant because they ;lfe members of a distinct subspecies of Great blue heron. This coastal subspecies is found along the west coast of British Columbia and Washington and perhaps into Oregon. The Inain populations are fOHnd in the greater Puget Sound or Salish Sea area. Researchers throughout western Washington and British Columbia have noticed a downward trend in the [lumbers of these herons and are growing alarmed at rhe declines. Canadian scientists have already taken the steps needed to list the coastal subspecies of tilt' Great hille heron as Usensitive~~ under the Canadian version of an endangered species act and are currently collecting the data needed to upgrade the species to "threatened," The City of Renton should ensure that its actions do not endanger the significant Black River colony and lead to a listing of this species in thl' \ I.S. Impacts to the Nesting Colony The Proposal would likely result in a [lumber of significant adverse impacts to the heron colony including increases in noise, light and glare, and human and pet activity and intrusions. We have already observed impacts from construction noise and activity and from lm-going occupancy of the adjacent comm.ercial development, including light and glare and human activity. While the commercial development is closer than the Proposal would be, the Proposal wOlild "l:lee these impacts at a level that is geographically higher than the colony. This is important because til{' nesting herons are more sensitive to disturbances that occur above the level of their nests than ones that arl' lower and some distance away. In addition, the risk of human and pet intrusiun is vcry high since there are no significant barriers be!\Veen the Proposal and the nest trees. (The PI Pond provides a significant barrier to intrusion from the commercial development and public access point::; tu the south.) People and domestic pets walking under or near the nest trees during the nesting season are highly disruptive, resulting in adults Hushing off nests, which allows egg predation to occur, disturbs nestlings causing them to leap from their nests resulting in death, and ultimately colony abandonment. These impacts have be(~n documented at other colonies. A number of relatively simple mitigation meaSlirt'S could be implemented to control sonl.e of these impacts. The most significant construction noises may Ill' restricted during the sensitive nesting season, Outdoor lighting may be minimized and shielded to dircct light and glare down towards intersections and away from the BRRF. The proposal should be clustered ill the nurthwest comer of the property to place it as far from the sensitive areas and nesting herons as possibl('. Any development should also be fenced along at least three sides leaving only the access to SR 900 on till' north open in order to prevent intrusions into the sensitive areas and the nesting colony. A dense hand uf native evergreen trees should be established between any development and the BRRF to further mitigate the impacts of light, glare and noise. These and other potential significant adverse impacts and mitigation Llleasures should be explored in a complete environmental impact statement before any potential development is approved. Heron Habitat Impacts, PI Pond As shown above, any development will likely have ~ignificant adverse im.pacts to the water quality and quantity downhill from the Proposal, which will in1[w't the PI Pond. This pond is critical to the sustainability of the heron colony for a numhcr o( f(';lSl HlS. It provides protection from intrusion into the colony. If the water quantity is affected and the pund h .. ~gins to dry up in the Slimmer then rhe colony will be much more vulnerable to disturbance by pets, hllmans, ilild other predators. Merlino CPA and Rezone Augu,t 29, 2003 Page 4 The PI Pond provide, critical habitat for breeding (rmales and juveniles. During the nesting sea,on, the breeding females rely on food SOUTces dose tu the colony to support themselves and their brood. Juveniles tah" several weeks to learn how to forage for tiwmsf'ives after fledging, This critical learning period occurs dose to the nesting CL)!ony. For the Black RiveT colony, the PI Pond provides this critical foraging habitat for fledglings. Both breeding females and juveniles rely heavily on amphibian, and small mammals as well as fi,h for food. Colonies that lose these critical components of their food resources do not survive. If the water quantity or quality in the PI Pond is affected, the availability of these critical food sources will also be impacted. Adverse water level fluctuatiu!1s that will occur with the implementation of the old stormwater standards create conditions that IHt'vent :mccessful amphibian reproduction, which will lead to a decline in amphibian populations. If the pond also drie~ lip in the summer months when the juvenile herons are fledging and learning to forage, they will nut have that critical food source available and mortality will significal1.dy increase. Finally, the increase in pesticides, PAHs and nll'tals th,lt is likely ro occur under the City's storrnwater treatment standards are likely to bioaccumulatc in rhl' ruod chain and could damage the herons' reproductive success. This issue should be fully disclosed in an ellvironmental impact statement and appropriate mitigation measures implemented. Heron Habitat Impacts -Habitats on the Hillside The herons in the Black River colony also usc the hillside area extensively for a variety of activities that are critical to the sustainability of the colony_ Adult and jlLvenile herons loaf in the mature trees on the Proposal. They are also frequently observed foraging in the large mapped wetland that is located at the eastern edge of the ProposaL This wetland 'lTC(I serves the same critical function for breeding females and juveniles as the PI Pond and it is essential that it also he protected from adverse impacts from stonnwater runoff and pollutants. In addition, studies have shown that the breeding f('males and juveniles during these critical periods will forage up to 150 feet from the edge of a wetland. They are foraging in this upland buffer for amphibians and small mammals. We strongly recommend that the huf(er around the large mapped wetland be increased to at least 150 feet to ensure the sustainability of rhis critical habitat for the heron colony. The mature trees on the hillside within the Proposal may also function as alternate future nest sites for the heron colony. The Black River heron colony ha:-> gmwll in recent years, but many other colonies in the general region have abandoned and disappeared. MUl·h uf the observed growth at Black River may be due to birds moving in from other disturbed colonies. If rhe (olony growth is due to an influx of individuals from disturbed colonies then that rnay be an indicatiun th:lt there are no other suitable locations available to estahlish new colonies. Protection of potential altnnatf' nest sites will be critical to the long-term viability of the Black River heron colony and to efforts to prevent a listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act. Other Significant/Listed Fish and Wildlife Species listed wildlife that occurs on or adjacent to the PrLlpusal include the threatened Bald eagle and the threatened Puget Sound Chinook (a species list is attadled.) Bald eagles have been observed resting and foraging on both the hillside uf the Proposal and in the IIRRF. The threatened Puget Sound chinook has been observed in the PI Pond and the Springhrook Cn'pk system. Coho are among the species that comprise Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevcllson l-:ishery Conservation and Management Act and have also been observed in the PI Pond area. Til" PI Pund is hydrologically conneL1:ed to the stream and wetlands Merlino CPA and Rezone August 29, 2003 Page 5 on the Proposal and actions that would imp,ll't the PI P()nd should be evaluated in an environrnental impact statement. The Renton Municipal Code also requires a habitat assessment if a development is proposed adjacent to an area that meets the definition u( a critkal area. The BRRF, with the presence of listed species and a heron colony, meets the City's definitiun uf a lTitil'al area. The Proposal is directly adjacent to this critical area and a habitat assessment should he l'unductcd to identify impacts and potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures befort' tllt' City approves any development. Suitability for development The proposal contains areas mapped as landslide hazards, erosion hazards, and steep slopes. These areas should be accurately m.apped prior to the rezone so that the City can make an informed decision about the extent of the area that is logically constrained from c!eveloptnent. We are also concerned that the engineering measures required to deal with tlWSf' gf'otf'chnical issues may increase the off--site impacts of erosion, water quality and quantity, and sedimentation. It appears that clustering any proposed development in the northwest quart.er of the property may help alleviate some of these concerns. The potential impacts to erosion and landslide hazard areas and steep siopf's should be evaluated in an environmental impact st.atement prior to any approval for development. Conclusions Despite the down~zoning nature of the proposed actiun, there may still be significant adverse impacts. We believe that an envirunmental impact stat.ement will need t.o be prepared before any developtnent can be approved. Likely significant adverse impact.s inl..,llldc impacts to water quality and quantity; to sensitive fish and wildlife, including the significant heron coluny, threatened Puget Sound Chinook, and Essential Fish Habitatj impacts from changes in noise, light and glaTt\ and human and pet activity and intrusions; and erosion and landslide hazards that could impact (uture uccupants. We support the rezone to 69 detached single family units with the following conditions: • Cluster all units in the northwest quarter of the property leaving the rest as undisturbed habitat. • Minimize ilnpervious surfaces by minimizing road and building footprints. • Minimize building heights and limit bulldings to a maxim.um of 30 feet. • Minimize lor sizes to 1/8'h or 1/10th ant' to facilit.ate the clustered pattern and minimize potential lawn areas. • Orient structures so that access points (garages, front doors, etc.) face north. • Fence along at least three sides of any devel()ped area leaving only the north side along SR 900 open. Fencing should be a minirnum of 6 (out chain link fence with signage alerting people to the sensitive nature of the open space beyond. • Plant a dense band of native evergreen tn-'cs ;11ld shrubs along the outside edge of the fence between the development and the BRRI'. • Minimize outdoor lighting and use shielded light fixtures to direct light and glare away from the BRRF. Developer installed landscaping should include a significant proportion of native plants to minimize the need for water, fertilizers and pestiridc:-;, • Protect vegetation in undeveloped portions of dle property and prohibit cutting for view corridors or other purposes. Require that the 1998 King County sturmwatcr control standards be implemented for any development that uccllrs on the hillside or within the Proposal. Minimize pollutants in stormwater runuff hy implementing a constructed storffiwater wetland BMP among other 13MPs used. Merlino CPA and Rezone August 29, 2003 Page 6 Establish a buffer of 150 feet around the large Illapped wetland near the eastern edge of the Proposal to ensure adequate critical foraging habitat (or herons. Study and implement appropriate tnitigation measures to ensure that groundwater movement from the hillside to the floodplain below is not "l"'m]. • Prepare a habitat assessment to fully evaluatE' the potential for significant adverse impacts to the adjacent BRRF and its critical areas. • Require an environmental impact statt'llwnt before any permits are issued on this site to fully evaluate the significant adverse impacts that may occur as a result of development above the sensitive BRRF. In order to make an accurate determination of effect the City must have accurate information on the location and size of critical areas including all wetlancl:-; and streams on site and adjacent to sitei steep slopes, erosion hazards, landslide hazards; City of Renton Critical areas; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species areaSj threatened species and Essential Fish Habitat. Environmental documents must be prepared to show that the suits, gt'ulogy, drainage patterns, slope stability, and vegetation are suitable for the proposed level of development, prior tu alJproval, to ensure that (uniTe development will not result in soil erosion and sedim.entation, landslide slippage, excess surface water nInof(, increased costs of building and maintaining roads and public facilities, or an increased need for emergency relief and rescue operations. The Black River Riparian Forest is a rare commodity in the urban area. There has been a tremendous amollnt of public investment both in dollars and in volunteer labor in. acquiring and maintaining this urban jewel. "Build it and they will come" doesn't always wurk with wildlife. There are many pieces to the habitat puzzle that we do not fully understand and when we try to create habitats, they often remain unoccupied. The Black River Riparian Forest is full of life and encompasses a diversity of species that is rare to find anywhere in the region. It is in the best interests of the residents of the City of Renton to be conservative in evaluating potential impacts to the long~tenn viability of the Black River Riparian Forest. Since")', ~"~1'-' Kate Stenber Principal Enclosure Black River Riparian Forest Species ... ventory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Fore,"cr szkrom(illjuno.com, 206-933-0222 Black River Riparian Forest Species Inventory The following is a list of the species that live in the Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside to the north of Black River. Birds American Bittern --in wetland at east edge of hillside American Coot --nesting American Crow American Goldfinch --nesting American Kestrel American Robin --nesting Bald Eagle -threatened Belted Kingfisher Blackbird Brewer's Red-winged Black-capped Chickadee --nesting Bufflehead Bullock's Oriole California quail --nesting Canada Geese Cedar Waxwing --nesting Common Yellowthroat Dark-eyed Junco Double-crested Cormorant Ducks: Canvasback Ring-necked Rudy --nesting Tufted Wood --nesting Gadwall Goldeneye: Barrows Common Gulls: California Mew Glaucous-winged Hawks: Cooper's Red-tailed Sharp-shinned Black River Riparian Forest Species mventOlY May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom(iiljuno.com, 206-933-0222 Herons: • Great Blue Heron -nesting. The great blue herons use the entire Black River Riparian Forest and adjacent hillside (Merlino property) for nesting, roosting, and foraging. They use the wetland at the east edge of the hillside of the Merlino property for roosting and foraging. Nesting information for the 2003 season: The Black River great blue heron colony is now the largest in the tri-county region, which consists of King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. The 2003 season resulted in 460' great blue heron chicks. There were 270 breeding adults who established 135* nests. The total for the 2003 season was 730* great blue herons in the Black River colony alone. The colony is on land that is directly adjacent to the Merlino hillside. The herons use the entire Black River site -including the hillside - for foraging and roosting. It is incorrect to refer to their use of the site as if they remain in one spot. In addition, they use alternative nesting trees throughout the Black River site. *Numbers are approximate and are within 5% of the actual totals. • Green -nesting. Also use wetland at east edge of hillside of the Merlino property. House Finch --nesting Hummingbirds: Anna's --nesting Rufous --nesting Killdeer --nesting Kinglets: Golden-crowned Ruby-crowned Mallards --nesting Mergansers: Hooded --nesting Common --nesting Merlin Northern Flicker Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Northern Shrike Osprey Owls: Barn Great-Horned: Nests on hillside north of Tract C Ring-Necked Pheasant Peregrine F a1con Pine Siskin Rock Dove Sandpipers: Baird's Least 2 Black River Riparian Forest Species ",ventory May 2001 Source: Snzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom@juno.com, 206-933-0222 Spotted Western Scaup Lesser Sparrows: Fox Golden-crowned House --nesting Lincoln's Song --nesting White-crowned Steller's Jay Swallows: Barn --nesting Cliff--nesting Tree--nesting Violet-green --nesting Teal: Blue-winged Cinnamon Green-winged Thrush Swainson's Varied Vireo Solitary v. nest found June 2001 on Tract A (north tract) near bicycle path. Warblers: Townsend's Yellow-rumped Wilson's Western Tanager Widgeon: American Eurasian Woodpeckers: Downy Pileated -nesting in Protected Forest (WDFW species of concern) Wrens: Bewick's House Marsh Winter Yellowlegs: Lesser 3 • Black River Riparian Forest Species ,,,,entory May 2001 Source: Suzanne Krom, President, Herons Forever szkrom(a),juno.com, 206-933-0222 Greater Mammals and amphibians: Beaver Deer, white-tailed Frog, Pacific tree Lizard, Northern alligator Mice, field Moles Muskrat Rabbit Raccoon Red fox River otter Shrew, Pacific Snake, garter Turtle, Western pond (endangered -unconfirmed sighting) Vole, Townsend's (and Creeping? Possibly seen in 2002) Weasel Fish, per 1995 Harza Final Report*: Species composition at the Black River Pumping Station during Spring 1994: Lamprey Pumpkinseed sunfish Salmon: Chinook -threatened Coho -Essential Fish Habitat Sculpin Speckled dace Threespine stickleback Trout Cutthroat Rainbow Steelhead *Harza Final Report: Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, and Springbrook System, published June 1995. Prepared for the City of Kent. Harza contact: George Gilmour, 425-602-4000, ggilmour@harza.com 4 6057 Ann Arbor Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115-7618 August 29, 2003 Don Ericson, Senior Planner REC' i.,~.. .;, ~'l,' ' Development Services Division . ,. City of Renton i .~, I' ~~"~:::A ":;:irt'y [ :::;~~,~;~~, _ J Subject: LUA-01-164, CPA, R, ECF/Meriino Comp Plan Amendment & Rez~;;----'" Dear Mr. Ericson, Please consider my comments in the decision process for this project It was with great dismay that I learned that Renton might, through amendment and rezoning, deliberately damage the habitat for your heron colony. [was always impressed that Renton, that little suburb south of Seattle, valued the natural environment of its setting. I associate Renton with the" Renton Heron colony" and sincerely hope that Renton does nothing that endangers an outstanding example of how people in an urban setting can protect valuable wildlife Please do what you can to protect the habitat and the long-term health of the Renton heron colony. Sincerely, ~L~ .. ~ .. " Bonnie E. Miller "~ Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson, 1901'i 10!ith Ave. SF Renton. WA 98055 August 28, 2003 We are writing in response to the proposed housing development that will threaten the Black River Riparian Forest Heron Rookery This Forest is a rare urban treasure which provides critical wildlife habitat within the Renton City limits. Any development on the surrounding hillside threatens the habitat and health of the heron colony, and the herons' ability to nest each year. It would be a tragedy to lose the largest great blue heron colony in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties to yet another development, both for the wildlife, and for all those in the community who enjoy this very special area. Ultimately, even the image that the City of Renton is projecting as being "ahead of the curve" will suffer, if one of the truly unique areas that sets our city apart from others, will be overrun by a construction project. We hope that the Forest and Rookery will be preserved intact, as one of Renton's very special attractions, along with Coulon Park and the Cedar River Trail. The City, the greater community, and the herons and wildlife will be greatly diminished if this area is lost Sincerely, ,P~ tJrmt?·~~ !Jv4~~' ~~·f~ Sharon' &: Jim PIlterson & Family STAT~ OF W,ISHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard· Mill Creek, Washington 98012' (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066 August 28, 2003 Don Erickson Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF FlE~~N/NG SEP -8 '2003 RECEIVED RE: Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone LUA-01-164, CPA, R, ECF and Black River Great Blue Heron Colony WDFW Occurrence #178 Dear Mr. Erickson: The above Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone has come to my attention via concerned researchers and citizens, I am submitting this letter as formal comment in the interest of protecting the viability of the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony from over-disturbance and the Black River Riparian Forest Open Space from further habitat degradation. I believe that any development on the hillside adjacent to the Forest will have adverse impacts on the protected Open Space and the great blue heron nesting colony. These herons utilize the hillside and pond outside of the colony proper, Recognizing that development will take place, however, I urge the City of Renton to require wise development of the subject site, taking the most conservative approach to protect the Riparian Forest and the heron colony, The Black River Great Blue Heron Colony Occurrence # 178 supports the largest great blue heron rookery in the lower Puget Sound region, This colony contributes to much of the recruitment of young herons, fledging approximately 340 chicks in 2003, into the Puget Sound great blue heron population, The birds in this cobny belong to a sub-population of great blue herons all its own, the Pacific great blue heron (Ardea herodius fannini), which is thought to be unstable due to many factors, not the least of which is human disturbance and habitat destruction, I urge the City not to ignore the reason that Black River Riparian Forest was purchased in the first place -it is a critically valuable wildlife habitat resource, It supports many species of wildlife including neotropical migrant birds, a group of birds experiencing extreme habitat loss and population declines, This lowland deciduous riparian forest habitat is becoming rare in the metropolitan Puget Sound area and should be considered significant. Many species of migrant birds depend on the hillside habitat for nesting such as American goldfinch, cedar waxwing, rufous hummingbird, ruby-crowned kinglet, and barn, cliff and violet-green swallows. Many birds inhabiting the Forest and pond are listed species including State Candidate Species such as merlin and pileated woodpecker, and Priority Species such as bufflehead, wood duck, Barrow's and common goldeneye, and hooded merganser. • I understand that the proposed rezone is a down-zone from 260 Multi-family units to 69 detached family units. Nevertheless, development on the hillside could adversely affect the forest, pond and heron colony, particularly if the units are distributed across the site. I support the proposed rezone with some conditions and cautions. Development should be restricted to the 69 units, and clustered in high density in the north/northwest comer of the site, or as fur away from the heron colony as possible. This also allows for a larger protected green space, which should be restricted to human access. A comprehensive and biologically sound EIS, including affects to the Black River Riparian Forest and the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony, should be submitted before any permit approval or development. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you should need any assistance from me, please do not hesitate to contact me -telephone 425-175-I3l I, ext. III; email thomppat@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Patricia A. Thompson Wildlife Biologist ! cc. Lee Kantar, District Wildlife Biologist, WDFW National City" Mortgage August 28, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Don, National City Mortgage Co. 2310 Mild!ed Street, W., Suite 120 • Tacoma, Washington 98466 Telephone (253) 564~~~~~ ... -. ::'J. -".,C.' ........ --~:1 ... . Fax (253) 565-8519 I ~"" ..... ,. '. . ". www.accubanc.com ! ~ 1:.. " .... ~. 1,"':1 'Ii .' .,,<if <::": i.) 2 0"O~ •. j ,-I t."\ ,,1 r;L ':""i'_I\ ~ '-sO ,~ '''''' •• _ I am writing this letter as a lifetime resident of the greater Seattle area. Although I am a real estate professional, I do think that there should be limitations for development. As the tri-county area becomes more and more developed, undeveloped areas in urban and suburban areas are precious! As more and more development encroaches on forests, streams, and wetlands, wildlife is fast disappearing from our cities and towns. The 93·acre Black River Riparian Forest is an urban rarity, providing critical wildlife habitat within the City of Renton. Any development on the hiIlside next to Black River threatens the habitat and the long-term health of the heron colony. Please do not allow any development that will compromise the herons' ability to nest every year. The great blue heron colony at Black River is the largest in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. The herons return every year to build nests and raise their young because Black River provides exceIlent habitat for the birds. Renton should be proud to include Black River within its borders. Black River is proof that an urban city can stiII provide essential wildlife habitat, enriching the lives of the citizens and wildlife that caIl Renton home. Remember that protecting the blue heron population at Black River makes your community a desirable place to live and work. Best Regards, tda//tf( ~J~tJ Rebecca Ripley Sparling Mortgage Banker No one Ceres More! Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dave C. Conner 498 S. 55th St. Renton, WA 98055-6346 August 28, 2003 CE· • "c:.I' 3 Subject: LUA-OI-I64,CPA,R,ECF/Merlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone 2DO:i I have recently learned of your intentions to consider a rezoning to allow for construction of a housing development for the hillside next to the heron colony within the Black River Riparian Forest in Renton. Please consider the following: As more and more development encroaches on forests, streams, and wetlands, wildlife is fast disappearing from our cities and towns. The 93-acre Black River Riparian Forest is an urban rarity, providing critical wildlife habitat within the City of Renton. Any development on the hillside next to Black River threatens the habitat and the long-term health of the heron colony. Please do not allow any development that will compromise the herons' ability to nest every year. The great blue heron colony at Black River is the largest in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. The herons return every year to build nests and raise their young because Black River provides excellent habitat for the birds. Renton should be proud to include Black River within its borders. Black River is proof that an urban city can still provide essential wildlife habitat, enriching the lives of the citizens and wildlife that call Renton home. I care, and I vote. Sincerely, f)tk<-L-c2 ~ Dave C. Conner Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 So Grady Way Renton WA 98055 I RECET~rED . AUG 29 2003 Aug 28, 2003 Subject: LUA 01 164, CPA,R,ECF/Merlino Company Plan Amendment & Rezone A huge thank you to all that had the foresite to preserve our wetlands for humans and wildlife alike to enjoy and call home. My family and I have lived and worked in the city of Renton for close to 30 years. We have enjoyed the fabulous parks, trails, and wetland properties that Renton has provided and by the way, kept in excellent condition. Now, I hear the news that the Black River Riparian Forest is in danger do to the possible development to the north. We are so lucky that the Great Blue Herons call that protected area of Renton "home". Please protect their habitat as best you can. Sincerely, Debra Duncan Russell 3116 Morris Ave So Renton WA 98055 August 28, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: LUA-01-164, CPA, R, ECFlMerlino Compo Plan Amendment and Rezone I'm writing to urge you to deny the proposed development adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest. Blue herons are a sub-species in decline. Their habitat should be protected by whatever means necessary. Developing land assures that there will be a decline in the numbers of heron nests because people and buildings and construction do affect the herons. The colony is a very huge attraction for the City of Renton. The City should purchase the adjacent land and protect it. What a thrill it is to see those huge birds, especially when they teach their young to fly. Neck, legs, wings, all going in different directions and the kids squawking to beat the band! Wow! What a show! Thank you for taking steps to protect the forest adjacent to the great blue heron nesting area. Sincerely, 71~7tvlw~f Nancy N. Kroening 6536 Parkpoint Lane N.E. Seattle, W A 98115 'a3nJaJ afi uvqJn uv sv au!MIl S!UVtVlf:Y aJo/saJ 0/ 3uPI UO!lVz!uv3JO ([)(:» [Or; POOlfJoqlf3!au 0 sl SJOOPH IV/NoH UOJ'H .,---....... .- ~ a..Jlut:t-cL c:1 ~ ~ 6zA.- ~ &-7a-d~ .£](2~ tU£czu ~ t.0 ~, ~~. ~f-~~. ~~ /2 CJ { q (P9 U tJw j;J ~-cut..fL.. WTf q gl'7t5 :~O& I/~p.. ""BIb -::, ') 0 ~-"-.. -< ..J "-v.. ~' --.., " ~, , ~ -...: ~ ~ " ,"-.. 0 --, ) ~ -" '-~ ~ ~ ~ .---L ~ '-' ~ , '-0 ~ ) --!..; ',...J -" " " '0 -' "-'--'" -< " ~ ~ ---~ ~ --. ,,"-., " , .) ,J -~ ::l -.l. "'-.<. ~ -+--\-. ~ <.) ..;:; ;: 0- c;:::) '-~"" --:: --) ..r--. "-~ .:; ~ '" ,. ~ -? ~ -2 ~ -"-. ..J G REVY 'S ZEBRA: The Grev)'~' ::.ebra (LqlfllS Xrcl/yi j is the largest of the zeln'as, stanaing over five (at a/ the sholl/der. Grevy's zehras arc found in the dry. sflbdesert steppe and arid. hI/shed grass /alld of lI orthern East Africa. PHOTO BY: TIM OAV IS t..~ RECYCLED • .., PAPER The person send ing this card \vQuld like to Sh;1(e \Xf WF's conservation message, educatC' others <lbollt the rhre:lt~ being magnificent creatures l ih rhe one depicted on rhe cover, :1Ild C1KOlH:lge invo lvement ill the struggle to save endangered spec ies everywhere. ~~ World Wildlife Fund 1250 Twenty -Fourth St., NW Wash in gton , DC 20037 w \,v·\v .wo rldwildlife .o r g 1 '--, ',I", t_ 0, , Jon {:-r;ct 5c'rV cI.ltd';j1 mn.:! .Se YI/,' (.( 0 dw i 5; h-u lo5':S-Suo {7{,eJ tJa f /2tndzli I {J I:J . f R()55- Mr. Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 11719 82 nd Avenue South Seattle, W A 98178 August 26, 2003 AUG 2 7 ?003 Subject: LUA-OI-164, CPA, R,ECF/Merlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson: Recently I went on a walk through the Black River Riparian Forest with my granddaughter to see the blue herons. It was a wonderful experience seeing those large birds flying around and my granddaughter loved it. Walking the trail seeing all the bugs and the flowers and birds was quite an experience for her. We were told that the City of Renton might allow developers on the land adjacent to the Forest. Please do not allow this. We have the largest great blue heron colony in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. It would be a disaster if developers were allowed to come in and destroy that resource. By building next to them, it could very well cause the birds enough distress that they would not come back each year to nest. Renton is so fortunate to have the blue herons here where we can take our children and grandchildren to see them in the wild. So much development in the name of progress has changed the city I grew up in and love, that I hope you will be able to keep it from destroying the blue heron habitat. Thank you. Sincerely, U~vh -s/;{L~ Vicki M. Shamek M. Susan Tarrant P.O. Box 7273 Covington, Washington 98042 August 25, 2003 Subject: LUA-OI-I64,CPA,R,ECFlMeriino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, I've recently learned that the blue heron nesting site in Renton is being threatened by development. I know you already know the basic arguments against disturbing them: this is a unique site in an urban area to be enjoyed by the local citizenry, this is a historic site in the sense the birds have returned for many generations to procreate and rear their young and the coexistence of this site with human activity is something of which Renton can be proud. I would like to offer two more points for your consideration. The first is personal. My family and I relocated here recently due to employment growth/change. We came from a rural area in Oregon and for the most part liked what we saw in greater Seattle. Soon though it became apparent that the developers try to control things. All these new developments sprawl with little regard to aethetics or traffic, nevermind the lack of easily accessed parks or town centers, etc. Once a project is begun it might be slowed down by an impact study but essentially the project is a done deal. So from a personal standpoint I must say I'm dismayed that yet another hidden gem is going to be destroyed. And the bottom line is there really will be no recovering that area. It will essentially become one more memory of how nice things used to be. Frankly I wonder at times if moving here was worth the hassle. Point two is directed to you. How the public will perceive you and your department in general. As mentioned in the above paragraph, far too ollen the public perceives the developers as having control of all growth within the area. Having had many a conversation, I have yet to meet anyone who actually trust our empowered officials. Yet the Pacific Northwest continues to enjoy the reputation of good stewardship toward the earth. Our air is not always that clean but thank goodness the wind blows through periodically to clean things up. We don't have Oregon's bottle bill so we do have more litter and trashcd out areas. But generally speaking we are known to take care of our surroundings. This issue affords you the opportunity to strengthen that reputation or to play into damage the public feels has bcen done. Let's face it, the developers are going to continue to build. You and your office have the power to point them in a better direction. I surely hope you will use your power wisely! Thank you for reading this. Sincerely, Lf/l. ra~I~~+ August 25, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development SeIVices Division City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Don EI ickson, Senior Planner, 26804 10Znd AYe. SE Kent. WA 98030 Subject: ~T6lJ';CPA, R, ECF/Merlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone I have spent. many enjoyable hours over the past two years vie.iug the Heron rookery and other wildlfe in the Black River Riparian Forest. This is truly a unique natural feature of the Puget Sound Region located in The City of Renton. I cannot be replaced or replicated elsewhere. Over 200 nests of sticks are built or rebuilt each spring by these graceful birds. Each stick selected by the male and flown to the nest in his beak is passed to the female who accepts and carefully places it in her chosen location in their nest. There is a ritual for each stick placed. We have the opportunity to allow this nesting ritual to continue within this city. We should be honored the Great Blue Heron has chosen Renton as their nesting community. They cenainly helped to put Renton "Ahead of the curve.· Any development on the hillside next to this nesting community will threaten their habitat. The sticks used for the nests in the tallest CottoIIWOOd trees are ca •• ied from surrounding woods, food for the young as well as adults is foraged from nearby wetlands. This is a sere"e area shielded from the noise and energy of the roads and activities only a few hundred feet away. The hillside where a development is proposed is part of the topography making this habitat special for the wildlfe it supports. Instead of removing a part of this topography and pushing a development into this marginal location we should be proud to extend the protection for this habitat chosen as a rookery by the Great Blue Heron. I ask that you act to protect the Renton Black River Ripaiiai. Forest habitat from development that could compnmise this nesting area. 16848 1241h Avenue SE Renton,W A 98058 August 25, 2003 Mr. Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: LUA-OI-I64, CPA, R,ECF/Merlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson: I have lived in the Renton area since 1959 and have always loved it. During that time, I have seen a lot of development, a lot of trees and open space gone forever, and a lot of what I loved about Renton has disappeared with it. Now I understand that the Black River Riparian Forest is in danger because of development on the hill next to it. 1 beg of you, please do not allow this. This is the largest great blue heron colony in three counties. Every year those birds come back to build their nests and raise their young. If there is development near them, with its attendant noise and commotion, I fear that their colony will be seriously adversely affected. Renton is privileged to have such a wild habitat within its boundaries. 1 hope that a short- term solution to financial problems will not have been resolved at the expense of wildlife habitat and quality of life for its citizens. 1 also want to express how nice the downtown is looking. The market is a great idea (I am taking my great-grandchild there today, she loves it). Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~~ 4 t 7«:7':;' Caroline Gerneglia • August 25, 2003 Doo Erickson -Project Manager, Strategic Planning EDNSP Depar1ment 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Diann. J. Clancy 446 S. 306· St. Federal Way, WA 98003 AUG 272003 This correspondence is in reference to the Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone #2003-M-8. I wish to express my dissatisfaction with development of any type in a parcel adjacent the Black River Riparian Forest As you are likely aware, there is a flourishing Great Blue Heron colony which bas inhabited this area since 1987. Development in adjacent lands will greatly jeopardize the continued success of the colony, one of the remaining successful colonies in the South Puget Sound area. The owner's blatant disregard for the safety of the colony, and the City of Renton's IDlwiIlingness to advocate for the protection of the wildlife in the forest is very disappointing. I wish to become a party of record in this matter, and do not supp<rt development of any type in the above noted parcel. Sincerely. -~~.(>~}- Dianne J. Clancy • • • • • • ... • • • • <II • • ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • August 25, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: LUA-OI-I64,CPA,R,ECFlMerlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Mr. Erickson: RECEIVED AUG 2 B 2[J03 I understand that the City of Renton is considering a housing development on the hillside near the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony in the Black River Riparian Forest. This heron colony is the largest known great blue heron breeding colony in King County and exists within a unique 93-acre wildlife habitat within the City of Renton. This proposed development may threaten the continued survival ofthis heron colony. The impact of new development in such close proximity to this fragile ecosystem needs to be very carefully studied to prevent any action that might threaten this very important breeding colony. Urban wildlife habitat is an important resource to the local community and to the region that we must consciously preserve and protect. I urge the City of Renton preserve the existing buffer that ensures this Priority Habitat Species a healthy environment, free from disturbance- necessary for the herons' survival. ~;~ , PamCahn PMB 3365, 10002 Aurora Ave N. Seattle, WA 98133 To: Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 August 25, 2003 20418 NE 41 st St. Sammamish, W A 98074 Sub: l!lJA-Ol-l64;CPA,R,ECFlMerlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, I am writing over concern for the potential threat to the Black River Riparian Forest from the subject proposed rezoning ofland adjacent to the Black River heron colony. The heron colony and, indeed, the whole preserve known as Black River is a unique element of the natural environment of the City of Renton. As the setting of the largest great blue heron colony in the Puget Sound, it is, rather, a regional prize that is in the hands of the city for its protection. Though the great blue heron colony is the signature feature of the site, there is a great variety of companion ducks, birds, and animals that reside there over the coarse of the year. This menagerie of creatures, with their seasonal color changes, provide a close-by arena to the citizens of Renton to observe and wonder at the dynamics of nature. Sometimes a place such as Black River assumes a more important role for its human neighbors. Let me cite from my personal experience. Though I am not a resident of Renton, I was employed by Boeing at the Renton Benaroya office park for over ten years. Unfortunately, my acquaintance with Black River spanned only the last few years. It began as a curiosity, grew to become a photographic laboratory for a budding amateur photographer, but then became a source of comfort during a difficult time. In May of 2002, after a short illness, my wife of thirty-eight years passed away. That has led to an early retirement. But before retirement, and even continuing now on a weekly basis, visiting Black River has offered a stability of sort through its window into the natural world, where life and death are perhaps more easily handled. It is a source of strength to have access to a place whose denizens endure their own threats and failures, but continue to come back, persevere, and even grow. To this point, the City of Renton has provided an environment in which the Black River heron colony has been able to thrive. The City, in effect, has even boasted of this by the large heron caricature on a city sign at a nearby major street intersection (Oaksdale and Grady Way). As robust as they may seem, they herons of the colony need human diligence to ensure their continuity at Black River. A miscalculation will produce a consequence that may be impossible to reverse. I urge you to give serious consideration to the potential threat to the Black River environment from the proposed rezoning to avoid setting an irreversible process in motion. To the extent that there may be uncertainty is assessing the threat, I urge you to err on the side of the herons. They will not be able to thank you, nor even know they should, but the citizens of Renton and nearby communities will. Thanks to my Black River photography lab, [ have become not-a-bad nature photographer. I am in the process of assembling a computer CD with hundreds of images of not only the herons, but a great many of the other inhabitants, along with landscapes and the indigenous flora of Black River. My hope is that, in the future a decade away, this CD may be an inspiration for someone else to visit Black River, rather than a memorial to a place that used to be. I hope the thoughts expressed above will challenge you and other involved in the review process to give every consideration to ensuring the long-term continuity of Black River and its heron colony. Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. Yours very truly, Michael C. Hamilton August 2S, 2003 Karen Greytak 1685 134th Ave SE 1301 Bellevue, W A 98005 , Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: LUA-01-164,CPA,R,ECFfMcrlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, I am writing to you to express my concern about the proposed development on the hill near the heron colony on the Black River. I was recently lucky enough to have discovered this beautiful area, and spent several hours with some friends watching the herons and walking around the area. I am from Bellevue and drove to Renton specifically to see the area. I know you probably have never considered that this beautiful area might boost the economy of Renton, but while we were there, we also ate at a local restaurant and put gas in the car (and I'm sure other visitors have done the same.) And while Renton is a lovely community, I can't honestly say that we would have driven down just to eat at the restaurant and get gas (though we might go back to eat at that restaurant again!) As you probably know, the great blue heron colony at Black River is the largest in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. The herons return every year to build nests and raise their young because Black River provides excellent habitat for the birds. Any development on the hillside next to Black River threatens the habitat and the long-term health of the heron colony. Please do not allow any development that will compromise the herons' ability to nest every year. I personalIy am all for growth and development, but surely there are other places where your new development could go that will not threaten the herons. ;/$--- Karen Greytak Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: LUA-O 1-164,CPA,R,ECFlMeriino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson, I am a Boeing employee of ovcr 20 years and a wildlife enthusiast. I have spent about 15 years working in the Renton area so feel I am at least a part-time resident. One of the most unique sights I know of is found in Renton-the closeup viewing of our large, flying Great Blue Herons juxtaposed with our large, flying Boeing airplanes. In a way, the Black River Heron Colony is better than the Woodland Park Zoo-all the birds fly unfettered here and that's just one part of the area's specialness. I am asking you to pursue a course that will help preserve, not endanger, the Black River Riparian Forest. The proposed rezone would adversely affect this unique resource. Rather, at some point, steps should be taken to enhance the area for its use by birds and human observers alike. As Boeing's presence continues to become less and less in our area, what will Renton be known for in the future? Assuring the preservialion of the Black River Heron Colony is, at the least, a prudent course of action. Sincerely, J;(aJc a~ Mark Orsen 3900 55th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 AUBURN YOUTH RESOURC August 16, 2003 Don Erickson Project Planner 2537351864 Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 08/18 '03 08:13 NO.371 01/01 AUG 1 B 2003 Ref: Project NumberIName: LUA-Ol-164, CPA, R, ECF I Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson: Bruce Harpham Conservation Chair, Rainier Audubon Society Eve Irvine 9040 Burke Ave. N. Seattle, W A 98103 "~ I ?CD,? I 'I:', ":""'~'~,n I Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: LUA-01-164,CPA,R,ECFlMeriino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone Please preserve the Black River Riparian Forest. It is truly wonderful for the Herons to keep this home. My whole family goes there every year to see the babies. We do not have the right to take away another critical wetland area for wildlife. The City of Renton should be proud to have such an outstanding site. I have traveled to a lot of bird preserves and this is the largest Heron rookery that I know of in existence. Please do not allow any development that will compromise the herons' ability to nest every year. ..... ..1 7605 South 128th Street Seattle, WA 98178 August 24, 2003 Don Erickson, Senior Planner Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: " ,~ '.' ~ ...... ~ H'':'; ..... · •. h., I am writing in regard to the Merlino Compo Plan Amendment & Rezone #2003-M-8; LUA-Ol-l64,CPA,R. I believe very strongly that the City of Renton should not allow the development of this site. The great blue heron colony in close proximity to this area would be put at great risk ... shrinking habitat, water quality, erosion concerns, noise pollution, and human intrusion are the main issues that I see threatening the most unique biological treasure in Renton. I do not want to see this amazing area put at risk ... please advocate developing elsewhere and leave this spot of incredible beauty alone. We have shared this treasure with all of our out-of-state visitors as well as friends that live elsewhere in WA ... usually followed up by lunches/outings at local Renton merchants. If you must put a $$$$ value on the herons, please remember the tourist angle. But most importantly, we have a moral responsibility to protect the riparian habitat and its inhabitants. I trust that you will help convey and carry out this obligation so that current residents and future generations of people in this area may share in this awesome niche found only 2 miles from our home. Thank you, ~f2 Mary P. Marsh S""hjec'i" U -DI-iC4, __ ._.~2~~ -0 '3 CPA) R) E l.' c P1 /'''D 4'DR~Ctl"'~~~ )",,,,,,,'1*7 D~ ~[L. C~!.'-'~t :_~:;;~~:~:~, ih~~ / £47'~ <-;, ;.0 ~~~ ~dC..-/~~.J / I.J I CFh./ AJ.EtC 4-,<,:-) £Ga:-a.~ ~ c;:Jd~AL- fdC'..£4. Jd;..'J' /~<-J£ 4t.. (~ .Ala: ~..e --4~+z.... '>L--//'l,4 ~-cC'-:Xd ~£c~ d"z"-z:c.::i';4£U2· /;;',1<,,4 J8~f ~~--<"- ~;Z~ .~ -I ,./ ,·1 .7~'-:?;:"~A-~ ;;?/L£-c_.<"-z-:;;. ~~ A',·JI/?"';;"L. ~f-.kLee?C eX-~1.--t.>.I'> t.< 1~c7 ~4'H-'~ oAui J ,..-?Z--4 /~ r ,-'I -1 .~-c~ .-?U& d~~) C---/i .-.~-L '~4'l/! / ....... ~~<. ~./c 71 l' /' J .;::--:t'/(,..J? '~ .( '.'/ < / J.: ""7'.AZ'-rJ-(:,'~.( 3.b.t...? #' L~J"-7-Z.J . J J{'?lA./-f? ~/t .. » lA-p~'L-¥LeA' 4"/~ C'~~ "~~. ' •. r.,/I~,.e';L>? ~~'~)'~~ /~~a.c/J vC, {T .Lu-).~ ~< ~.~dz' -<~ A>~=t·) s~vn~/LjCi..-i/.J f .-U2~~ C",,"'7"tAU, (., a:g ~~~~'1::'7 - ~vf C"/'"L. .?Ct, . ~ /..--r..-eft ::z'tr . . . diila-eA.. ~/r;,_.f ~1.A-~-~~£J7'ft;t- L~ /eT~ -~'/':,-'c<-ah~ ~ A/ce .../v"~ c~~. 2::2604" ,~~ ~ 77fk..S-J- . ,~1~)E' Vtt)!e J iJlt 98'd3e NOTICE OF APPLICATION AMBllo" Ajlp~C!l1!on has been "lad 800 accepted with the Developmeol Services Division of tne City of Renton. The lollgw~ brl~y daacrlbH the IIppUcal')n and the nec .... ary PUblic Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAMe, PROJECT OeSCItlPTION; PROJECT LOCATION; PUBLIC APPRO\' AL$: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: LUA-Dt -164. CPA, R; ECF; MERliNO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT &. REZONE ~200~M-tI City sponsored pmoosal to change the Comp,ehall:live Plan 1000 use deSignation of a 25 56-ec:ro &il8 hom RM·I (Residantlal MuIIWami~.lnftU) \0 ReI (Residenhal Options) wIIh R-l0 Ulnlog and a mod~"'" OeYfliopfMnl Agreemel11 limitinQ, among other thingll the mumum number of unb on the Sile to 1\(/ detached units The 25 68·acre s,te 'S bO","led 00 tho north !II'1d aasl by SR 900. an the W051 b)I the Sunset View T8ITatlIt Apartments. and SOUth 140" Str&\'lt and the BNSF Railroad ROW on 11'18 lOulh David Hali"a", Helinen Law omces, 10500 NE 8'"SI., 51 1900, Bellevue, WA De(l()ol Cornmanl. an th8 ~boWi applk;allon must be subm<ltoo in wrlUng \0 Don Erlck8Ql1, projact M~r, Strat8gic Planni'lg, EDNSP DapI" lOSS SOUlh Grady Way, R"nlo~, 'I'll>. 98055, by 5:00 PM on ...... gult:zt", :zOOS. ~ you hlWe-!IIl~t;OM 8bout thIS proposal. or wish to be made a party of reoord aoo r!t(;4ili~8 addilional nolif,catOJn by mall {;(Intact Don Erfci<wn at (42$) 43(1-6581. Anyone who suomits wnt'..,n commenlJ wYI automDl\C8l~ becom8 '" pony 01 record and w;1I b8 notiIi&d of IItl)' decision onlhis proje.-;t I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAlLING FOR PROPER FIL.E IDENTIFICATION DATE OF AF'PUCATlOO: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATfON: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION, ~ I ! December 11. 2001 JBf1uary 15,:Z003 ...... guS! 8. 2003 If you would fike 10 be made a par1y of rocord 10 focoi~e fu"hOf InIorTnetion on \hI, proposed project., complete \hi& 10nn and relurn 10: C~y 01 Renton, Deveiopment Plonnll1g. 1055 South GradyW~. Renton. WA 98055. FIB NoJName: LIjA·01·1E14. CPA. R, EeF: MERLINO COMP pl..JIN AMENDMENT *2oo3-M-8 NAME, __________________________________________________ _ ADDRESS' ________________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________________ __ NOTIClI! OF N'J'UCAl101J1oo CERTIFICATION ~~~ ~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION REVISED A Master AppUcation has been flied and accepted with the Development Services Division 01 the City of Renton. The following brieflY describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC APPROVALS: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: LUA-Q1-164, CPA, R; MERLINO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE #2003-M-8 City sponsored proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of a 25.68-acre sHe from RM·j (R9$ldentlal MultlfamUy-lnflll) to RO (Residential Options) with R·10 zoning and a modified Development Agreement limiting, among other things the maximum nt.mber of units on the site to 69 detached units. The 25.SB-acre site is bounded on the north and e88t by SA 900, on the WEIst by the Sunset View Terrace Apartments, and South 1401h Street and the BNSF Railroad ROW on the south, Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone Don Erickson, EDNSP Dept/Strategic Planning, City of Renton; 1055 S. Grady Way; Renton, WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing 10 Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning. EONSP Dept., 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on Sapten,ber 2nd, 2003. If you have questions about this proposal. or wish, to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall, contact Don Erlckaon at (425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notHled of any decision on this proJecl. PLEASE INCLUDE THE P~OJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTlFICAnON DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATION: December 17, 2001 January 15, 2003 August 18, 2003 CERTIFICATION I, au d<d <&. u..bu;;..t.t.. , hereby certify that " copies of the abo~e document were ~ed by me in " conspicuous places on or nearby ~,,,,,,,\\. the described property on U<-< ~ / f' cfloo,5 . -.... '~'1N ~"'. 1/ r1n ~ .J..-'.~ ~~ ~~ ....... OL", S· ed a ...,.. t .f' •. ~SSIO/.;~ •• :~ '1, Ign : ...!~-:I-':A-~"F-'7--..L...; f /d' OT4 '-I-i;'.~:SUb=ibed~WOmbeforeme,aNotaryPUbliC'inandfOrthe of f {o ~ 1/).-",\ d'.hington residing· _~, -,on the ~ ~ day of Q:z ~ C)~ ~ : .... ~ f/): "!" ~ II> ;. .oUSLle : : MARl KAMCHEFF ., ~ •••• ,.: ~ ; MY APPOINTMENTEXPIRES 6-29.()7 I. ~·.'~'29.01 .... ~ .; ...... O';·W:·S·-:;'\~~_-··· l_ ~ ,~~ "\\\.\,,, .. ,,,,,,,,,", On the 13 day of _Aua'-':""7=.l-_______ " 2003, I deposited in the mailso! the United States, a sealed envelope co~ng V'lDI'I f MIS Gt..wU i ."t documents. This information was sent to: Name ~ f'41 "h ell li,,>t. (Signature of Sender) a L a7 ~ 8TATEOFWA8HINGTON ) ) 88 COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that fh-~<.L ().e.13 c:.......y signed this instrument and acknowledged H to be hisJher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the Instrument. Dated: 1 ?m;"o</2c::?3' ........ N k'JII .. -~II. ~~ .... :::~C'/". : ••• ~SSIO", ~ •• : "-" ". ¥':~ ~..o'~'\~ ~ ! ':f1 ~OTA~,_ ~\ -1\ ~ :: r "'-:. ~ ~ ~ ... ~ en: ~ '-. Il . ~ $<I'~ 'IJD, If'. : • projecr~~: "'~,: .....~.~~,.j'e~ [P(.\ Project NUiWj fl.r:1iV AS"'~:':'~~- UA~ \'...\\.\~", ...... ~ I toL( L PI'! NOTARY.DOC ton Notary (Print) MARILIIN KAI'CWEFf My appointment expires: MY APPOINTMENT fX!?IRES 6 2!1 07 IZ r:: c.~ AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Tribe Fisheries Dept. En1(ironmental R:eview Section clo Department of Ecology 3190 160" Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172"" Avenue SE • <1<1_071 0 Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 WA 24 DAr"'rI~ of Natural Resources Box 47015 98504-7015 Dev.& Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Sen ior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Real Estate Services Eric Swennson 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 WA 98104-5004 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Burien, WA 98166 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 WA981 Municipal Liason Malnag,er Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-Q1W Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"" Avenue SE Aubum, WA 98092-9763 Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and c~ies will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperviork. Last printed 07122103 9:40 AM • · On the 0 day of _<-:.4'-7'lA 03-'-' _____ -'. 2003, I deposited in the mailso( the United States, a sealed envelope co~g k' Q fI documents. This information was sent to: Representing () LJ. ~ ,~ G i e '\ I (Signature of Sender) __ ~~2:'=:"'-'"2--:::'~~'O:=-=---L/_~L""~::!:':Lii&-,-____ ~ __ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Il I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I1h h LC-a· 8euA L() signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be hislher/lheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ........... ...::; .... N":;~\""', _-\\..... ''''1.11 " ~ .-~\ a.··· ... ~o. I, Dated: L.1~ sa, !iRa""!>. :::;;~~~~~""5-~~i:f.'2.l'I4&,dI.tf:7:,---....j.:~~,~·;i.\SSIO""~"'~\ Notary (Print) MARlL:4j K~,MG"'Err My appointment expires: MyAPPOIWMENHXPI~"'?C " ::0 '+...00 • 00(\ I, : :0 ","OT"'09L~'" -11 ~ ~: r m~ , , : ........ (1): ~ ,~. ~ . '" .. ~ \ USUC .: : ',"y'. ...~: " ~ ... ~.<9 07 "'~o: f'f o,;·· .. : ... ··-:.,(!> _-,:-r-=~-.,..,:-:-----------------------------, "I, WAS~\'" ---Project Name: "'\h ... ,," ..... "", ...... LP'1 WM.d. f Project Number: NOTARY.DOC Dept. of Ecology' EnVironmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olvmoia WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, W A 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-Q431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Eric Swennson 700 Fifth Avenue, SuRe 4900 Seattle, WA 98104-5004 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ' c/o Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer 3190160'· Ave SE 39015 -172"" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office ' Muckleshoot CuHural Resources Program' 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Burien, WA 98166 39015 172"" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation' Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"" Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official J09Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cRies will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. ' Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her 'theERC Determination paperwork. Last printed 07/22103 9:40 AM . '.<, . , ,. " "., .. On the 18 th day of _-;A",u;-,,9,;:-u,,-S t"--_____ -', 2003, I deposited in the mailsol the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA, checklist, Report documents. This information was sent to: Representing S"" nttac:h!'d 1 i st Aaencies l~nA nn1v Pa rtv of R!'c:ord (Signature of Sender) 9'ddid C/. I~q./P STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactOl)' evidence that ,111 d it h A kJ rig h t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherllheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY.ooc .... . ... : Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympja, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro TransH Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Eric Swennson 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98104-5004 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • c/o Department of Ecology Attn. SEPA Reviewer 3190 160'" Ave SE 39015 -172"" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Aubum, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot CuHural Resources Program' 14235 Ambaum Blvd. SW -Front A Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Burien, WA 98166 39015 172"" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation' Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Stephanie Kramer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"" Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-G1W Tukwila, WA98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS·, the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMTs, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices he gets his from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. Last printed 07/22103 9:40 AM i Joe Pomerleau 833 SW Sunset Blvd. F-32 Renton, WA 98055 Ed Mallary Friends of Black River 7524 S. 1351h Seattle, WA 98178 Tom Malphrus 18713 102nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Joan McGilton 2640 SW 164th Place Burien, WA 98166 Jerry Chroman 438 N E 72 nd Street Seattle, WA 98115 Jan Mayrhofer 12047 691h Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 Hugh Jennings 16116 NE 4'" Street Bellevue, WA 98008 Ted Mallory 7524 S. 135th Street Seattle, WA 98178 Lou ise Baldel 13020 SW Princeton Court Lake Oswego, OR 97235 Ed Newbold 4972 17th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98108 Mark S. Gnagy 321 Powell Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-2254 David Halinen Halinen & Associates 10500 NE 81h , #1900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Patrick Texeira 1013 SW 3'd Place Renton, WA 98055 Connie & Jordan Heiman 110 Stoneyside Lane SI. Louis, MO 63132-4124 Araya Sol 3238e NE 100lh Street Seattle, WA 98125 Sharman Badgett-Young 6925 1851h Place SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Davidya Kaspersyk, AlA Architecture Urban Design. BioRegional Pin. 1050 N. 341h Street Seattle, W A 981 03 lIeen Weber 12530 Admiralty Way, #J-302 Everett, WA 98204 Chak N~ 5536 18 h Avenue South Seattle, W A 98108 Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. K.C. Wildlife Program Manager 201 S. Jackson, Suite 600 Seattle, W A 981 04 ~ I'o.e 8-/4'-03 cfloc>£1-P1 -#R g J. Stone, P.E. Area Administrator-Sough King County WSDOT, NE Region PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Susanne Krom 4715 y, 361h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Kim Browne 1 003 N. 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Rose Clark 16856 Des Moines Memorial Drive Burien, WA 98148 Anne Offen backer 10225 SE 281h Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Didi Catherine Anstett PO Box 17023 Seattle, WA 98107 Nancy Thomson 12500 S E 100lh Street Renton, WA 98056 Lynn Chagman 1234135 Avenue NE #404 Seattle, WA 98125 Chris Barry 1401 N. 361h Street Renton, WA 98056 Elizabeth Dunn 1122 East Pile Street, PMB 1120 Seattle, WA 98122-3934 Robert Gramm 5027 51 st Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98136 Teresa O'Lea~ 13715 SE 188' Renton, WA 98058 Joshua Steinberger 303 Harvard Avenue, E., B-1 Seattle, WA 98102 Richard Gandolfo 8114 NE 110th Place Kirkland, WA 98034 Amy Black 395 Broadway R2B Cambridge, MA 02139 Laurie S. A1moslino 11 0 Florentia Street Seattle, W A 98109 Nancy Wilson 2861 SW 171 51 Street Burien, WA 98166 Mary Marsh 7605 South 128"' Street Seattle, WA 98178 Kathryn Du~an 5834 NE 75 Street, #Bl01 Seattle, WA 98115 Susan McClellan 22826 105th Avenue S.w. Vashon, WA 98070 Mike Keary 2522 Monroe Court NE Renton, WA 98056 Linda Radolf 6550 1~ Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98117 Thelma R. Gower 2508 164'h Avenue, NE Bellevue, WA 98808-2317 Julie Haddad 3505 222"' Street SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Jan Magnuson 21900 11'h Avenue S. Des Moines, WA 98198 Doris & Kurt Samuelson 10017 Upper Preston Rd. SE Issaquah, WA 98027 Corinne J. Berglund 1932 SE 16'h Place Renton, WA 98055 Trudy Davis PO Box 2014 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Lynda VOigt 15713 SE 148'h Street Renton, WA 98059-8807 Jane Anne Haworth 14449 127'h Lane N E, S-26 Kirkland, W A 98034-1239 Suzanne Zeeve, Ph.D. PO Box 2082 Setau ket, NY 11733 C. Gary Schulz 7700 S. Lakeridge Drive Seattle, WA 98178 Ellen Blau, Ph.D. 4525 89th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Ken Marquess 7605 S. 128th Street Seattle, WA 98178 Marian Broida 5844 NE 7th Street, A303 Seattle, WA 98115 Stan Kostka 28603 Kunde Road Arlington, WA 98223 Shirley Tollefson 3611 I Street NE, #79 Auburn, WA 98002 Stewart Wechsler 917 NE 63'" Street #20 Seattle, WA 98115 Range Bayer PO Box 1467 Newport, OR 97365 Anne Noonan 9823 51 st Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98136 Judy Tabak 1024 SW 4'" Place Renton, Wa 98055 Barbara Petersen 30902 5'" Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Bonnie S, Kone 23412 55'h Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Avenue NW Renton, WA 98055 Clay10n Gnagy 108 Spring Place Enumclaw, WA 98022 Lauren Braden Seattle Audubon 8050 35'h Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Don Norman 2112 NW 199'" Shoreline, WA 98177 Carolyn E, Dubuc 115 17'h Street SE Auburn, WA 98002 Craig Fluvog 6849 46'h Avenue NE Seattle, WA98115 Mike Sanders 13750 SE 23'" Lane Bellevue, WA 98005 Tammy Lianu 11025 SW 238'h Street Vashon, WA 98070 Emily Hamel 4702 Davis Avenue S,' #2F302 Renton, WA 98055 Duane Anderson West Hill Community Council PO Box 78583 Seattle, W A 98178 Bruce Harpham 4325 S. 343" Street Auburn, WA 98001 Carl Haynie 2416201" Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98029 Chris Clifford 2721 Talbot Road S, Renton, W A 98055 Dianne Clancy 446 S. 306'h Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Jan Mayrhofer 12047 69'h S, Seattle, W A 98178 Chad Adams 13501 MLK Jr, Way S, Seattle, WA 98034 Darlene J_ Shevham 25418 139'h Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042 Susan Minerich 12616 SE 232"" Street Kent, WA 98031 Sharon Mathers 8052 12'h Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98117 Margaret Oliver 142258'" Avenue S, Tukwila, WA 98168 Juliet Tharp 359 Thomas Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 Richard & Susan Hopkins 2511 Park Place N, Renton, WA 98056 Theresa Henson PO Box 7208 Tacoma, WA 98406 Kathleen Crabtree 115 Wells Avenue N, Renton, WA 98055 Carl Haynie 2416201 8 ' Avenue SE Issaquah, WA 98029 James & Phyllis Saelens 6915 S, 132"" Street Seattle, WA 98178 Charles Mapili 23167 NE 31 Renton, WA 98056 Chuck Lennox, Conservation Chair Seattle, Audubon Society 805035"' Ave. NE Seattle, W A 98115 Brian E. Lawler Lawler & Burroughs, P.C. 999 Third Avenue, #4750 Seattle, WA 98104 Duane Anderson PO Box 88745 Seattle, WA 98138 Bruce Harpham Rainier Audubon Board 4325 S. 343'" Street Auburn, WA 98001 Stephen Eastman 317 Powell Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 ' ......... a Green 16236 1451h Avneue SE Renton, WA 98058 Stephanie Warden, Deputy Director K.C. Office of Reg. Policy & Planning 516 Third Avenue, Rm. 402 Seattle, WA 98104 Lauren Braden Advocate for Wildlife Habitat Seattle Audubon Society 8050 351h Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 Pat Sumption Sierra Club, Green Duwamish Watershed Alliance 10510 111h Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98125 David Halinen, P.E. Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 2115 North 30lh , Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403 L tra Blauman Executive Secretary WA State Boundary Review Board 8103'" Avenue, Suite 608 Seattle, W A 98104-1693 Susan Thomas, Policy Analyst K.C. Office of Regional Policy & Planning 516 Third Avenue, Room 402 Seattle, WA 98104 Dan Drais Seattle Audubon Associate Director 8050 35th NE Seattle, WA 98115 James Rassmussen Duwamish Tribal Office 14235 Ambaum Blvd SW Seattle, WA 98166 Daniel G. Drais, Associate Director Seattle Audubon Society 8050 35th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115 - LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECT NAME: ____ MClJet:JruluiwnClJQ:.....IJ.COUlmlljp,ur..<:e:JJhJ::ello ,,-5 J.'-" y,-,e:....LP.Ll ... a OLL.JA;lIJmUlOe"'n .... dlllme"'nu..t"--_______ _ APPLICATION NO:. ___ .L.I.JJII""A~-Ou.1L:-:.J1CIJ6"'4 ... , _CwP'-'Al..o,.....,R~ _______________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS See attached list. .. .. , ... ' Q:lWEBIPW\DEVSERVlAFORMlafonnlistospo.doc06125102 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER , .. . , • NAME (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) ADDRESS Applicant Certification ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER I, Ga r:11 Del BQSill:Hl , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: f\ 1'\ Title Company Records -/King County Assessors Records ..::1 '" t' "- Signed II \J ./ Date ~1I Qi03 \, (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at on the Signed (Notary Public) Q:lWEB\PWlDEVSER __ Y:WEwtospo.doc MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 __ day of ,20 __ . 2 .~ ~I ,j'-1<P-t!JS 747190000501 811990052003 811990039000 BALOGH JAMES BARAJAS PATRICIA L BARNES GEORGE L+LILY PO BOX 3781 833 SW SUNSET #K52 833 SW SUNSET BL #H-39 SEATTLE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98055 RENTONWA 98055 747190003000 811990055006 811990038002 BAUMGARDNER WILLIAM BAUTISTA ALEJANDRO+HILDADEL BLACK LORRAINE B+DORlNNEG SOCORROM 833 SW SUNSET BL H 38 313 POWELL AV SE 833 SW SUNSET BL #155 RENTONWA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 747190003505 811990035008 811990033003 BODENHAMER MARY A BOWSER MICHAEL L BRECKENRIDGE SCOTT 309 POWELL A V SW 833 SW SUNSET BL #G35 833 SW SUNSET BL RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTONWA 98055 298880016506 298880016001 811990004004 BROCKWAYBRYCEE BROCKWAYWC BROOKS SHANNON N 2320 HUGHES A V SW 7805 S 135TH 833 SW SUNSET BL SEATTLE WA 98116 SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON W A 98055 298880014501 000140000902 811990028003 BUI TOM V CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK COM CARNAHANP PO 300 632014 AV SW LOAN SERVICE/TAX-INS 833 SW SUNSET BL #F-28 SEATTLE WA 98106 PO BOX 193924 RENTONWA 98055 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94119 811990050007 811990046005 298880011002 CHEN WEI NENG CHISUHUA CLAIRMONT TRACY B+ JA NITA M 833 SW SUNSET BL #J-50 833 SW SUNSET BL #J46 7609 S 135TH ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 747190001509 811990010001 298880010509 CLAYTON GNAGY COOK MICHAEL A CROUSE KELLY R 108 SPRING PL 833 SW SUNSET BL #BIO 7621 S 135TH ST ENUMCLAW W A 98022 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 811990034001 298880014204 298880014006 DAI WEI QIANG DEVERA ARTURO DEVERA ARTURO R SR 833 SW SUNSET BL #G-34 4615 S FRONTENAC 4615 S FRONTENAC ST RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98188 SEATTLEWA 98118 298880014303 811990036006 298880015607 DEVERA ARTURO+NORMA R DOMINGUEZ FRANKLIN R DONA ANTHONY+LOUELLA B 4615 S FRONTENAC 833 SW SUNSET BL #G-36 9903 -64TH AV S SEATTLE WA 98118 RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98118 811990020000 747190004503 298880017009 DORSEY RHONDA L EASTMAN STEPHEN E+HAZEL D ELARTHMARY 833 SW SUNSET BL #D-20 317 POWELL AV SW 7655 S 135TH ST RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 214370084003 ELISEUSON WARREN E 924 SW 4TH PL RENTONWA 98055 811990054009 ERWIN DAVID J 833 SW SUNSET BL #K54 RENTON W A 98055 214370081009 FARTAJ ALAN SAM 1036 SW 4TH PL RENTON W A 98055 298880012505 GALAROSA ALBERTO F 7545 S 135TH ST RENTONWA 98178 811990008005 GOODWIN VIRGIL L 833 SW SUNSET BL #B-8 RENTON W A 98055 214370085505 HAYWARD RICHARD A &ELV ALENE 916 SW4THPL RENTON W A 98055 811990053001 HERNDON CINDY LASHION 833 SW SUNSET BL #K53 RENTONWA 98055 811990032005 HUANG CI YAN 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F-32 RENTONWA 98055 214370083005 KAPPENMAN BRETT A+KAPPERMAN CRiSTAL A 1004 SW 4TH PL RENTON W A 98055 801360007000 KLINE LLOYD D 7285 S 135TH SEATTLE WA 98178 214370186501 ELLINGSON SHARON S 611 DALEY ST #1 EDMONDS W A 98020 811990024002 EVANGELISTA EVA D 833 SW SUNSET BL #E24 RENTON W A 98055 811990019002 FISHER RICHARD C 833 SW SUNSET BL #D19 RENTON WA 98055 747190002002 GNAGYMARKS 321 POWELL A V SW RENTON W A 98055 392660003006 GRANT ROBERT R+GRANT JANET 270 NACHES A V SW RENTON W A 98055 811990059008 HENDERSON MEAGAN L & CARL E + HENDERSON 10 ANN 833 SW SUNSET BL #59 RENTON WA 98055 811990002008 HOTHAI 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-2 RENTON W A 98055 811990047003 JONES KELVIN R 833 SW SUNSET BL #J-47 RENTONWA 98055 811990025009 KHALIFE MARILYN 833 SW SUNSET BL #E-25 RENTON W A 98055 392660005001 LEPHI 6211 142ND AV SW BELLEVUE W A 98006 21,,370084508 ENG GERALD L & KATHERINE B 920 SW4TH PL RENTON W A 98055 801360006002 EVANS TODD D+MATSUMOTO KANAKO POBOX 17015 SEATTLE WA 98107 811990023004 FOWLER THOMAS+AMY M 833 SW SUNSET BL #E 23 RENTON W A 98056 811990057002 GO EMMANUEL S+MARlSSA F 833 SUNSET BL #L-57 RENTON W A 98055 811990042004 HAYES ROBERT DUBRE' 835 SW SUNSET BL #142 RENTONWA 98055 811990044000 HERNANDO ANTHONY GIL C 833 SW SUNSET BLVD I 44 RENTON W A 98055 811990045007 HOLM JEFF A 15221 SE FAIRWOOD BL RENTON W A 98058 392660004004 JUBANE JOSE C 276 NACHES A V SW RENTONWA 98055 811990030009 KING ERNEST 833 SW SUNSET BL #F-30 RENTON W A 98055 811990026007 LEATHERMAN HISAKO 833 SW SUNSET BLVD E-26 RENTONWA 98055 214370098607 811990051005 3~~660001oo0 LEE KRISTIENE ANN+JOHN M LEW RAYMOND WING LIMON BONIFACIO C JR + LIMON 832 SW 4TH PL 833 SUNSET BLVD 3J-51 MARGARITAT RENTONWA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 301 OAKESDALE AV SW RENTON W A 98055 811990041006 298880011507 811990060006 LOWEWANDAL MCDOWELL JAMES HARVEY MILLER JOHN A JR+GLORIA J 833 SW SUNSET BL APT 41 7605 S 135TH ST 833 SW SUNSET BL #M-60 RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON W A 98055 214370080001 811990003006 811990048001 MUCDUFFIE GLORIA C MURPHY ROBERT NAGAMATSU YOSHITAKA 1048 SW 4TH PL 833 SW SUNSET BL UNIT A-3 833 SW SUNSET BV J 48 RENTON W A 98055 RENTONWA 98055 RENTONWA 98055 811990018004 298880015508 214370082502 NAKAGAWA DEEAN S NAVARRO MANUEL C NGUYEN LIEN THANH+OANH 833 SW SUNSET BL #D-18 243 NW 198TH ST 1111 S 4TH ST RENTON W A 98055 SHORELINE WA 98177 RENTON W A 98055 214370078708 811990001000 811990021008 NGUYEN LUONG+HANGTRUONG ONEIL PETER C K+LAVERNA P ALAMA JEFFREY K 318 POWELL AV SW 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-l 67 1243 KAOMOLOA PL RENTONWA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 KAMUELA HI 96743 811990013005 801360006507 377920000504 PATTON CHARLENE A PROCTOR DOUGLAS L QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK L L C 833 SW SUNSET BL #C-I3 7273 S 135TH ST 9125 10TH A V S RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98108 811990005001 811990015000 811990056004 RACOOSIN ELIZABETH R REESE MELISSA A REINGOLD EVELYN JOYCE 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-5 833 SW SUNSET BL #C-15 833 SW SUNSET BL #L-56 RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTONWA 98055 81199001 \009 811990031007 132304905707 RICKEY JEANNE S ROBERTS LOIS JEAN RUSSELL ZANE F+TAMMY L 833 SW SUNSET BL #B 11 833 SW SUNSET BL #F31 13475 81ST S RENTONWA 98055 RENTON W A 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 811990049009 747190004008 811990014003 SAKO_WLIEL SHAVER GREGORY V+ELIZABETH SILVEO ALMA S 833 SW SUNSET BL #J49 \085 SW 3RD PL 833 SW SUNSET BL #14-C RENTON W A 98055 RENTON W A 98055 RENTONWA 98055 811990016008 132304901003 298880010004 SLADE JEFFREY D SR 900 LLCI MERLINO GARY M STAATS KIM 833 SW SUNSET BL #C 16 9125 10TH AV S 9766 ARROWSMITH A V S RENTONWA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98108 SEATTLE WA 98118 298880001508 SUCKIE O'NEIL R+PAULA M SUC 13518 80TH AV S SEATTLE WA 98178 298880017702 TAYLOR TERRY G 7645 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880015003 THOMSON JAMES B 7837 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 811990029001 URHMARIAN 833 SW SUNSET BL #F-29 RENTON W A 98055 811990058000 WHITE MOZELLA R 833 SW SUNSET BL RENTON W A 98055 392660002008 WONG BING KWAN+CHAU LING PA 307 OAKSDALE A V SW RENTONWA 98055 811990043002 YU WEI LUN+YUCHAN CHEN 833 SW SUNSET BL #143 RENTON W A 98005 214370081504 TABAK JUDITH PO BOX 904 RENTON W A 98057 392660006009 THAI KIA VAN 331 OAKESDALE A V SW RENTON WA 98055 811990027005 TONG DONALD 833 SW SUNSET BL #27 RENTON W A 98055 811990009003 WEST JA YCEL P 833 SW SUNSET BL #B-9 RENTON WA 98055 298880012109 WILLIAMS ALFRED F+EVEL YN B 7601 112 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880013602 WOOD JAMES 7525 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 811990007007 YUNGYUNETHANYMAS 833 SW SUNSET BL #B7 RENTON WA 98055 8 •• 990012007 TAVERNA RESIDENCE 833 SW SUNSET BL C12 RENTONWA 98055 214370086107 THARPJOHNM 236 WELLS A V N RENTON W A 98055 811990017006 TRUONG KATHY T + LAW TIM 0 833 SW SUNSET BL #C 17 RENTON W A 98055 811990022006 WHITE JOAN 833 SW SUNSET BL UNIT E-22 RENTONWA 98055 811990006009 WIMER FRAN + RANZ DALE 16625 REDMOND WY #M-PMB 254 REDMOND W A 98052 811990037004 WUBAIXING 833 SW SUNSET BL UNT G-37 RENTON W A 98055 811990040008 ZENG GUO LIN 833 SW SUNSET BL #H 40 RENTONWA 98055 • --, .. LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECT NAME: o1t.Yli@ {p .... i'. P {p.1\ ~p fb,c"",/,JI1Ur.t It &.um~ __ APPLICATION NO: kf1.A or ~ 1(,'/ LPIt, elF "-. I ( The following is a list of property OWners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development NAME ADDRESS • ,,-' Q:\WEB\PW\DEYSERV\AFORM\afonnlistospo.doc06125/02 .. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER '/o~. \. t .. ! .. '; -,_. , .. . . NAME " ..... -, (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) ADDRESS " • .~." ' • ',' <' .• ') .. ~ t .. , .,'. . ' •. , \iIoJ. " '. . . . -. ~ , , ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER \ . Applicant Certification I, ~Q;:::::.:/¥2....:.:....'1~()::a.-::::::~\WsAet::!:2::!!::!;QIL-___ ---" hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: Title Company Records "King County Assessors Records Signed ~ ;r ~ Date bMo3 ~plicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and swom before me, a Notary Public, in and for the Stale of Washington, residing at on the __ day of , 20 __ . S~ned, ______________________________ _ (Notary Public) Q:\WEB\P~RM\afonnlistospo.doc MY API'OINTMENT EXPIRES 6-2Q.(J7 , • • --... , , 2 smoot!) teea :,neets'''' 74719Q00050:' BALOGH JAMES PO BOX 3781 SEATTLE WA 98124 747190003000 BAUMGARDNER WILLIAM B+DORINNE G 313 POWELL AV SE RENTON WA 98055 747190003505 BODENHAMER MARY A 309 POWELL A V SW RENTON WA 98055 298880016506 BROCKWAY BRYCE E 2320 HUGHES A V SW SEATTLE WA 98116 298880014501 BUI TOM V PO 300 632014 AV SW SEATTLE WA 98106 811990050007 CHEN WEI NENG 833 SW SUNSET BL #J-50 RENTONWA 98055 747190001509 CLAYTON GNAGY 108 SPRING PL ENUMCLAWWA 98022 811990034001 DAl WEI QIANG 833 SW SUNSET BL #G-34 RENTON WA 98055 298880014303 DEVERA ARTURO+NORMA R 4615 S FRONTENAC SEATTLE WA 98118 811990020000 DORSEY RHONDA L 833 SW SUNSET BL #0-20 RENTON W A 98055 SAVERY® Address Labels 10052003 BARAJAS PATRICIA L 833 SW SUNSET #K52 RENTON W A 98055 811990055006 BAUTISTA ALEJANDRO+HlLDADEL SOCORROM 833 SW SUNSET BL #155 RENTONWA 98055 811990035008 BOWSER MICHAEL L 833 SW SlNSET BL #G35 RENTON WA 98055 298880016001 BROCKWAYWC 7805 S 135TH SEATTLE WA 98178 000140000902 CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK COM LOAN SERVICE/TAX-INS PO BOX 193924 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94119 811990046005 CHlSUHUA 833 SW SUNSET BL #J46 RENTONWA 98055 811990010001 COOK MICHAEL A 833 SW SUNSETBL #B10 RENTON WA 98055 298880014204 DEVERA ARTIJRO 4615 S FRONTENAC SEATTLE WA 98188 811990036006 DOMINGUEZ FRAmcLIN R 833 SW SUNSET BL #G-36 RENTON WA 98055 747190004503 EASTMAN STEPHEN E+HAZEL D 317 POWELL AV SW RENTON WA 98055 _ ... -..... ···r· ..... -.-. ---- 90039000 B~.-NES GEORGE L+LILY 833 SW SUNSET BL #H·39 RENTONWA 98055 811990038002 BLACK LORRAINE 833 SW SUNSET BL H 38 RENTONWA 98055 811990033003 BRECKENRlDGESCOTT 833 SW SUNSET BL RENTON W A 98055 811990004004 BROOKS SHANNON N 833 SW SUNSET BL RENTONWA 98055 811990028003 CARNAHANP 833 SW SUNSET BL #F-28 RENTONWA 98055 298880011002 CLAIRMONT TRACY B+ JA NITA M 7609 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880010509 CROUSE KELLY R 7621 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880014006 DEVERA ARTURO R SR 4615 S FRONTENAC ST SEATTLEWA 98118 298880015607 DONA ANTHONY+LOUELLA B 9903 -64TH AV S SEATTLE WA 98118 298880017009 ELARTHMARY 7655 S 135TH ST SEATTLEWA 98178 Laser !SmootI'! feed 5heets' M 21437Q08400, ELlSEUSON WARREN E 924SW4THPL RENTON WA 98055 811990054009 ERWIN DAVID J 833 SW SUNSET BL #K54 RENTON W A 98055 214370081009 FARTAJ ALAN SAM 1036 SW 4TH PL RENTON WA 98055 298880012505 GALAROSA ALBERTO F 7545 S 135TH ST RENTONWA 98178 811990008005 GOODWIN VIRGIL L 833 SW SUNSET BL #B-8 RENTONWA 98055 214370085505 HAYWARD RICHARD A &ELV ALENE 916SW4THPL RENTON W A 98055 811990053001 HERNDON CINDY LASHION 833 SW SUNSET BL #K53 RENTONWA 98055 811990032005 HUANGCIYAN 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F-32 RENTONWA 98055 214370083005 KAPPENMAN BRETI A+KAPPERMAN CRISTAL A 1004 SW 4TH PL RENTON WA 98055 801360007000 KLINE LLOYD D 7285 S 135TH SEATILE WA 98178 aAVERV® Address Labels 10186501 ELLINGSON SHARON S 611 DALEY ST #1 EDMONDS W A 98020 811990024002 EVANGELlSTA EVA D 833 SW SUNSET BL #E24 RENTONWA 98055 811990019002 FISHER RICHARD C 833 SW SUNSET BL #D19 RENTON WA 98055 747190002002 GNAGYMARK S 321 POWELLAV SW RENTONWA 98055 392660003006 GRANT ROBERT R+GRANT JANET 270 NACHES A V SW RENTONWA 98055 811990059008 HENDERSON MEAGAN L & CARL E + HENDERSON JO AI-iN 833 SW SUNSET BL #59 RENTON WA 98055 811990002008 HOTHAI 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-2 RENTONWA 98055 811990047003 JONES KELVIN R 833 SW SUNSET BL #J-47 RENTON WA 98055 811990025009 KHALIFE MARILYN 833 SW SUNSET BL #E-25 RENTONWA 98055 392660005001 LEPHI 6211142NDAVSW BELLEVUE W A 98006 ......... • ..... ·r .. -.. -._. ---- 70084508 Em .. GERALD L & KATHERINE B 920 SW 4TH PL RENTON WA 98055 801360006002 EVANS TODD D+MATSUMOTO KANAKO PO BOX 17015 SEATILE WA 98107 811990023004 FOWLER THOMAS+AMY M 833 SW SUNSET BL #E 23 RENTON WA 98056 811990057002 GO EMMANUEL S+MARlSSA F 833 SUNSET BL #L-57 RENTONWA 98055 811990042004 HAYES ROBERT DUBRE' 835 SW SUNSET BL #142 RENTON WA 98055 811990044000 HERNANDO ANTHONY GIL C 833 SW SUNSET BLVD I 44 RENTONWA 98055 811990045007 HOLM JEFF A 15221 SE FAIRWOOD BL RENTON W A 98058 392660004004 JUBANE JOSE C 276 NACHES A V SW RENTON WA 98055 811990030009 KING ERNEST 833 SW SUNSET BL #F-30 RENTONWA 98055 811990026007 LEATHERMAN HISAKO 833 SW SUNSET BLVD E-26 RENTONWA 98055 Laser 5160® 5moo~h feed ~neets"" 21437009860i LEE KRISTIENE ANN+ JOHN M 832 SW4THPL RENTONWA 98055 811990041006 LOWE WANDA L 833 SW SUNSET BL APT 41 RENTONWA 98055 214370080001 MUCDUFFIE GLORIA C 1048 SW 4TH PL RENTON W A 98055 811990018004 NAKAGAWA DEEAN S 833 SW SUNSET BL #D-18 RENTONWA 98055 214370078708 NGUYEN LUONG+HANG TRUONG 318 POWELLAV SW RENTONWA 98055 811990013005 PATTON CHARLENE A 833 SW SUNSET BL #C-13 RENTONWA 98055 811990005001 RACOOSIN ELIZABETH R 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-5 RENTON W A 98055 811990011009 RICKEY JEANNE S 833 SW SUNSET BL #Bll RENTONWA 98055 811990049009 SAKO_ruLIE L 833 SW SUNSET BL #J49 RENTON W A 98055 811990016008 SLADE JEFFREY D 833 SW SUNSET BL #C 16 RENTONWA 98055 IIAVERV® Address Labels 8 10051005 LEW RAYMOND WING 833 SUNSET BLVD 3J-51 RENTON WA 98055 298880011507 MCDOWELL JAMES HARVEY 7605 S 13 5TH ST SEATTLEWA 98178 811990003006 MURPHY ROBERT 833 SW SUNSET BL UNIT A-3 RENTONWA 98055 298880015508 NAVARRO MANUEL C 243 NW 198TH ST SHORELINE WA 98177 81199000 1 000 ONEIL PETER C K +LA VERNA 833 SW SUNSET BL #A-l RENTONWA 98055 801360006507 PROCTOR DOUGLAS L 7273 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 811990015000 REESE MELISSA A 833 SW SUNSET BL #C-15 RENTON W A 98055 811990031007 ROBERTS LOIS JEAN 833 SW SUNSET BL #F31 RENTON WA 98055 747190004008 SHAVER GREGORY V+ELIZABETH \085 SW 3RD PL RENTONWA 98055 132304901003 SR 900 LLc/ MERLINO GARY M 912510THAVS SEATTLE WA 98108 ,000\000 LliV10N BONIFACIO C JR + LIMON MARGARITAT 301 OAKESDALE AV SW RENTON WA 98055 811990060006 MILLER JOHN A JR+GLORIA J 833 SW SUNSET BL #M-60 RENTONWA 98055 811990048001 NAGAMATSU YOSHITAKA 833 SW SUNSET BV J 48 RENTONWA 98055 214370082502 NGUYEN LIEN THANH+OANH 1111 S 4TH ST RENTONWA 98055 811990021008 P ALAMA JEFFREY K 67 1243 KAOMOLOA PL KAMUELA HI 96743 377920000504 QUARRY INDUSTRIAL PARK L L C 9125 10THAV S SEATTLE WA 98108 811990056004 REINGOLD EVELYN JOYCE 833 SW SUNSET BL #L-56 RENTON WA 98055 132304905707 RUSSELL_ZANEF+TAMMY L 13475 81ST S SEATTLE WA 98178 811990014003 SIL YEO ALMA S 833 SW SUNSET BL #14-C RENTONWA 98055 298880010004 STAATS KIM 9766 ARROWSMITH A V S SEATTLE WA 98118 Laser 5160® • 2988'8(1001508' SUCKlE O'NEIL R+PAULA M SUC 13518 80THAV S SEATTLEWA 98178 298880017702 TAYLOR TERRY G 7645 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880015003 THOMSON JAMES B 7837 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 811990029001 URHMARIAN 833 SW SUNSET BL #F·29 RENTONWA 98055 811990058000 WHITE MOZELLA R 833 SW SUNSET BL RENTONWA 98055 392660002008 WONG BING KWAN+CHAU LING PA 307 OAKSDALE A V SW RENTONWA 98055 811990043002 YU WEI LUN+YUCHAN CHEN 833 SW SUNSET BL #143 RENTON W A 98005 flAVERV® Address Labels 2 0081504 TABAK JUDITH PO BOX 904 RENTON WA 98057 392660006009 THAI KIA VAN 331 OAKESDALE A V SW RENTONWA 98055 811990027005 TONG DONALD 833 SW SUNSET BL #27 RENTON WA 98055 811990009003 WEST JA YCEL P 833 SW SlJ'NSET BL #B·9 RENTONWA 98055 298880012109 WILLIAMS ALFRED F+EVEL YN B 7601 112 S 13STH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 298880013602 WOOD JAMES 7525 S 135TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 811990007007 YUNGYUNE THANYMAS 833 SW SUNSET BL #B7 RENTONWA 98055 8 0012007 T. _ ~RNA RESIDENCE 833 SW SUNSET BL CI2 RENTONWA 98055 214370086107 THARPJOHNM 236 WELLS AVN RENTON W A 98055 811990017006 TRUONG KATHY T + LAW TIM 0 833 SW SUNSET BL #C 17 RENTON WA 98055 811990022006 WHITE JOAN 833 SW SUNSET BL UNIT E·22 RENTONWA 98055 811990006009 WIMER FRAN + RANZ DALE 16625 REDMOND WY #M·PMB 254 REDMOND WA 98052 811990037004 wu BAI XING 833 SW SUNSET BL UNT G·37 RENTON W A 98055 811990040008 ZENG GUO LIN 833 SW SUNSET BL #H 40 RENTON WA 98055 Laser August 16, 2003 Don Erickson Project Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 r.~G 2 0 Ref: Project NumberlName: LUA-OI-164, CPA, R, ECF! Merlino Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Dear Mr. Erickson: Rainier Audubon Society has a long history of interest in and concern for the heron colony located at the Black River Natural Area in Renton. This colony offers South King County the best hope and opportunity to preserve the continued presence of great blue herons in this area. The loss of the Peasley Canyon colony in Auburn was a major blow to the many people in this area that love and enjoy seeing these wondrous birds. It would be tragic to lose the colony in Renton. Due to development here in King County, the type of habitat needed for viable heron nesting areas have disappeared. We believe it is critical that each and everyone of us take whatever action is necessary to protect and preserve this important bird area. We must not allow greed or shortsightedness to destroy the chance for future generations to have and enjoy what we have today. We feel the new proposal is much better than previous proposals and shows movement in the right direction. However, we believe the best course of action would be to totally protect the area from all development. Thi s would help to preserve the natural systems that still exist in the immediate area. It is our position that if any development is allowed in this area, it should be minimal and environmentally friendly. This may be possible with an Rl rating. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue. Bruce Harpham Conservation Chair, Rainier Audubon Society Rainier Audubon Society P.O. Box 778. Auburn, WA 98071 (2531 939·6411 Visit our informative web site at: !7UpJiwww,audubon,orglchapter/walrainierl Jesse Tanner, Mayor August 15.2003 Daniel O. Drais. Associate Director Seattle Audubon SocIety 8050 35'" Ave NE Seattle. W A 98115 Dear Mr. Drais: CITY" RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Ale.,J'ietsch, Administrator Thank you for your letter to Jay Covington requesting infonnation about the Merlino Rezone and requesting an extension of the SEPA comment period. I would like to apologize for the late SEPA notification to you, andior the fact that while you are on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment party of record list, your organization was not carried over to the 2003 list. This was an error on our part and we have corrected it. Due to this omission. we are re-initiating the process for this Amendment. Enclosed is a new notice of application with a new comment date for SEPA review. This revised notice is being sent out to all parties of record. In addition, I am sending you a copy of a staff report to the PJanning Conunission which provides some infonnation about the proposal and a preliminary recommendation in support ofR-8 zoning, rather than R- IO. Staff is also supporting an amended development agreement limiting density to 69 detached single family units, prohibition on the construction of residential or recreation building within '00 feet of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, and a requirement for a six foot high fence to be built along the entire length of the development along it south side. The remainder of the OMA update Comprehensi ve Plan amendments will be processed during 2004 rather than this year as uriginally anticipated. As a result. we do not have additional citywide SEP A review documents that are pertinent to this site. The initial review process and comment deadline on the amended notice of application will be for the purpose of SEPA review. We anticipate a Planning Conunission public hearing on the substantive issues in this proposal on October '''. Typically the Planning Conunission holds the written record open for comments for one week after the public hearing. Please contact Rebecca Lind of my staff if you have further questions about this application or this process. Rebecca can be reached at 425-430-6588 or by email.rlind@ci.renton.wa.us. ~'(2~lVl Alex Pietsch Administrator cc: Attachments -------IO-S-S-s-ou-t-h-O-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-o'-l.-w-a-sh-i-ng-t-on-.-9-80-5-S------R E N T ~ ® This paper contain5 50% rec:ycled malerial, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE " cc: By Facsimile (425.430.6523) and email Jay CO\.;ngton Cit)' Manager City of Renton 1055 S, Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 212165287779 08/14/03 05:29pm P. 001 Seattle~j\UdUbon Socie~y ~ for bird~ and nature AUl.;LI:'t [4, 200, R.e: Merlino Rezone: Rf'quesl: lor Extemion of Comm.ent Period Dear Mr. Covington: Almost exac.tly a ye.ar ago, representatives hom Seattle Audubon, Siet1-a Club, Friends of Green River, Herons Forever, and the ClTeetv'Duvi1aml.sb W<lt('r~hed A11ian.ce met 'with yoll and other City staff to discuss dle Merlino propen-y that lles a.djacent to ~emitl\'e heron habitat on the Black River. We emphasized our interest in parti,cipatlng ill t:1C dp.vdoplllenr process for thar parcel from the earliest pOint. We stre,~~ed OUT desire to take a positive and proactive tole. We comme-nted that in the past, we had found the City apparently unable lcrep om grollp:::: Informed ofland use actions ill a timely manner, and we asked how we could contribUte to illlprcn'lng rli,lc sltuation. You and your staff assured us that "''''tth respect to the Merlino property, we would bl;:' informed at the earlie,<;t pos::lible Ill.oment. Indeed, Rebecca Lind infonned us last October :hac we i1ild become parties of record fOT the Merlino Camp Pial) Alnendment. We 'were therefore surpri<;ed and dLo,;appoimed te (hlC: 8 notice on the City's website th.at the Merlino Comp Plan amendmeLlt -along with a {czone to R·l 0 -is moving forward, with comm.ents due one week from today. Previously, the: la.::c we had hca:-d frolH City sw.ff -which came in response to an inquity from llS -... \'a .. ~ this, dated January 10: TIlis issue [the Merlino Comp Plan /\nlendmentl ~'d.S held over from last year and we will begin work on it again over the next sevt'ral mon01s. \Y/e do not have a citizen's committee convelled all the Comprehenslw Plan l1pdate 1;\:ork progrnm. We will send notice of Planning Commission \1;urk.'lhops C1nd hearings to any parly of record who indicates an interest. We have not had any COllll1'.bsion activity on this i5Sue siDce we communicated last. Please call me if you have t\utlH'r q"'le~ti(lllS. Ai, has happened befoTe, the lack of adequate notic(' from the City put..:: our grol1PS jn an awkward position. We would like to be supportive' of the prop()~al, and it is possible d\al. a decrea:>e in density Seattle Audubon .. 212'165287779 08/14/03 05:29pm P. 002 would actually be more pTOtective of the wly $emitiw heronry than the existing MF del'ignation. However, as you can appreciate, more in[orlll~tion would assist us in reaching that detenllination. Are other new Camp Plan policies relevant? Are other areas aojacent to the Black River being considered for new desi!,>nations or new zoning! Would tlw R-l 0 wning be accompanied by any restrictions other than those in the existing Development Agreement' rhe website notice refer> \0 a "modified" agreement - apparently, then, dle existing Development Agreement would not still apply to the property? What environmental review has been clone regarding tllis and other Comp Plan amendments! Are there cumulative impacts that migllt concern us! We would appreciate an extensioll of the COllllnenr period in order to have a rea,onable opportunity to review the file ancl make inquiries of the PIa:1ning Sl<lff. It ,,<, a< I said, disappointing that the City did not provide earlier notice. The result is that we have no choice but to ask you to delay the project timeline for a reasonable period. Thank you faT your help. , --CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 001 f TIlank you for your help. Associate Director REVISED A Master Application has been tiled and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Ranton. The following brietly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBERINAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC APPROVALS: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: LUA·01·164. CPA. R; MERLINO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE #2003·M-8 City sponsored proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of a 2S.6B·acre site from RM-I (Residential Multifamily-lnli11) to RO (Residential Options) with R-10 zoning and a modified Development Agreement limiting, among other things the maximum number of units on the site to 69 detached units. The 25,68-aor& site is bounded on the north and east by SA 900, on the west by the Sunset View Terrace Apartments, and South 1401h Street and the BNSF Railroad ROWan the south. Environmental Review, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone Don Erickson, EONS? Dept/Strategic Planning, City 01 Renton; 1055 S. Grady Way; Renton. WA 98055 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson. Project Manager, Strategic Planning, EDNSP Dept .. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. by 5:00 PM on September 2",2003. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at (425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments wilJ automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: December 17. 2001 January 15. 2003 August 18. 2003 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project. complete this form and return to: City at Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA·01·164. CPA. R. ECF; MERLINO COMP PLAN AMENDMENT #2003·M·8 NAME: ____________________________________________________________ _ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: __________________________ __ NOTICE OF APPllCATI01.doc NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBERINAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCATION: PUBLIC APPROVALS: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: LUA-Ol-l64, CPA, R; ECF; MERLINO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE #2003-M-8 City sponsored proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of a 25.68-acre site from RM-I (Residential Multifamily-Infill) to RO (Residential Options) with R-lO zoning and a modified Development Agreement limiting, among other things the maximum number of units on the site to 69 delached units. The 25_6B-acre site is bounded on the north and east by SR 900. on the west by the Sunset View Terrace Apartments, and South 140111 Street and the BNSF Railroad ROWan the south. Environmental Review, Comprehensvie Plan Map Amendment and Rezone David Halinen, Halinen law Offices, 10500 NE 8~St., 51 1900, Bellevue, WA9B004 Comments on the above appUcation must be submitted in writing to Don Erickson, Project Manager, Strategic Planning, EDNSP Dept., 1055 South Grady Way, Renlon, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 22"', 2003. If you have queslions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at (425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: -~_._..J ~ __ December 17, 2001 January 15, 2003 Augus18,2003 .> . i! If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and retum to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA-01-164, CPA, R, ECF; MERLINO COMP PLAN AMENDMENT #2003-M-1l NAME: __________________________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ____________________________ _ NOTICE OF APPlICATI01.doc CITY OF RENTON Jesse 11mner. Meyor PlanningIBuildi _ ublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August 8, 2003 David Halinen Halinen Law Offices 10500 NE 8th St. Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Merlino Camp. Plan Map Amendment & Rezone LUA-01-164,CPA,ECF.R Dear Mr. Halinen: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 26, 2003. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 430-6581, if you have any questions. Sincerely, cc: SR 900, LLC/Owner ------:,:-O-SS-s-o-ut'-:-h-=O-ra-=d-y -W-ay---R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-S0-S-s------it E N T ~ ® This paper conta,ns 50% recycled material. 30% POSI consumer AHEAD OF THB CVltvE David L Halinen, P.E. davidlwli Ilell@lialillenlaw.com HAND-DELIVERED HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professiollal Service Corporation Bellevue Place / Bank of America Bldg. 10500 NE 8'h. Suite 1900 Bellevue, Washington 98004 July 9, 2003 City of Renton Planning Commission 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 454-8272 Fax (425) 646-3467 a RE: APPLICATION 2003-MJ(f, MERLINO LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI·FAMILY -INFILL (RM-I) TO RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS (RO) The Applicant's Comments on the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Dear Commission Members: I represent SR 900 L.L.c., a Merlino family company that is the property owner and applicant concerning the above·referenced Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment. After reviewing the Staff Report a few days ago and subsequently discussing it with my client and with Mr. Don Erickson of the City's Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning, I am writing to request on behalf of my client that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the Residential Options (RO) land use map designation that my client previously requested and corresponding R-I 0 zoning (subject to a Development Agreement) rather than the RS designation and R-8 zoning recommended in the Staff Report. The RO designation and R·IO zoning is a wiser choice because, as I explain more fully below, that map designation and corresponding zone will enable this sloping site to be developed in a more environmentally sensitive manner. Explanation As To Why RO and R-IO Would Be a Wiser Choice Than RS and R-8 As the Staff Report correctly notes, the applicant is now planning to pursue single-family detached residential subdivision development ofthe site. About a year ago, the applicant's engineer developed a 69-10t concept plan for such a development with 5,000 square foot minimum lots sizes under the R-8 zoning regulations for such a development. That plan contemplated creation of a generally east-west running public street stemming off of Sunset Boulevard with a single row oflots on the north side of the street and private driveways extending to the south with two lots on either side of each driveway. (This approach was originally developed because so few lots could otherwise be developed under the strictures ofthc R-8 zone regulations if that zone were to be applied to the site.) Only 69 lots could be achieved because of the site's steep slopes and other site constraints. (That number of lots is far fewer than the "~l()dcled Theoretical Capacity" that is indicated in the table on page 3 of the Staff Report under any or the three zone classifications mentioned in the table.) Subsequent to the preparation 0 f the above-noted concept plan, the applicant has had its engineer consider a design approach that would only involve a row oflots on the north side of the proposed street and a single row oflots on the street's south side. With the flexibility as to lot width City of Renton Planning Commission July 9, 2003 Page 2 that the R-I 0 zoning regulations affords, this layout approach would not have as great a downward impact upon lot yield as would this approach under the R-8 regulations (although it may still have some downward impact on the number of lots)! while enabling development to be more environmentally sensitive. Specifically, this approach under R-I 0 zoning would allow two important things to be achieved: (l) Bccause there would not be the private driveways to the south of the public street with two lots on either side, lots would not extend nearly as far south as under the originally-developed concept that was predicated upon R-8 zoning, thereby reducing clearing and grading impacts to the slopes and making it easier to save trees; and (2) Because the front yard setbacks to the primary structure are only 10 feet in the R-IO zone as compared to 15 feet in the R-8 zone, horne builders would be able to locate their primary horne structures closer to the street, again reducing grading impacts since (a) there will not be as much elevation change between the edge of the street and the front of the primary structure and (b) they will not have to build their homes as far to the north into the upward slope (as to the lots on the north side of the street) and they will not have to build their homes as far to the south over the downward slope (as to the lots on the south side of the street). Further, this approach under R-l 0 zoning would allow future homes to be located even further from the distant heron rookery to the south than would otherwise be the case. Conclusion In sum, in view of the sloping nature of the site, an RO land use map designation and R-IO zoning would actually enable a more environmcntally sensitive development ofthis site. My client and I thus urge you to recommend the RO designation and R-IO zoning to the City Council. Sincerely, ~NEN~AWOFF~ David L. Ha . l '1a cc: SR 900 L.L.C. (Attn: Michael Merlino) Donald J. Erickson, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning , As I have explained to Mr. Erickson, my client would be willing to accept a Development Agreement that would include a 69-10t limitation and a restriction to single-family detached development under the R-l 0 zone. C,\CF\2~22\OQ3\Pl"nrllng Commisslon,LTl :7 9-Uj,.J City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) ..... <;;R rpJ f{b ·111""3 o / ~/4 ADDRESS:'7fJlitt I!~b ~ IftL ~~;t, /c~ ,up.'~::"p"'~. (; CITY: 'BeI~fte) w4, ZIP: WI TELEPH°lc NUMBER: 9-&/3~1-'64---'d-72-0 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: V;U'W /b/;I1#J COMPANY (if apPlicable)&itY' ~ WJ tl/(pf5 ADDRESS: I{/~ 1Jl!g#r'i/. .. CITY: l:2/,bf!<e1 /{II!. ZIP: tff()(J.'/- TELEPHONE NUMBER ad-7 ~ ~&r;; -f'£i~-. CONTACT PERSON / NAME: ~ce (l.f3. dJIIIr~;;J v v COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 101;7 -~f -o[N71- Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVIAFORM\afonnmasterapp.doc06125/02 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ~cPEVELOPM~NT ~E: Jti /L _, J JJJ#/ /!W 14M W/¥'-II/tP. AJl7)M1f1fi, PRO~CT/APDRES~tS)ILOCAT18N AND ZIP CODE: f::OIA:1f1 <;;/r:-"t: & D # -6R -'j!A:Y 'ilMtf klflft :;tf} KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1i7!Ol;l//t63 /~ EXISTING LAND U9E(S)L _7 /.'/0:)" t/a4tP-I.ft:J 7Y.f£C !I/II~/,?f/ EXISTING ZONING: If'1J1-f. PROPOSED ZONING Of applicable): 1f. -/0 SITE AREA On square feet): /, /1&/ tbt'./ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): /./, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): cJ.~,{;t8 NUMBER 9F YiWPOSED,LOTSjif ~PPli Ie): @I' ~ '/NJ...; /11 F ~ECTINFORMAT~I_O_N~(~co_n_· __ .. _~_ed~)~ ____________ ~ 'J/A NUMj;i XF EXISTING D\l\lELLING UNITS (If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If appRcable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If appRcable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (If app6cable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (If applicable): PROJECT VAlUE: 4) j7f IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAlLY CRITICAl AREA, PlEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (If applicable): C AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE C AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO C FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. C GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. C HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. C SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. C \/\/ETlANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following Infonnation included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION -' TOWNSHIP -' RANGE-, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property Invollled In this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Infonnation herewith are In all respects true and correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentatlve) (Signature of OwnerJRepresentative) Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVlAFORM\afunnm_rapp.doc06l2S/02 I certify that I know or have satisfactory avldence that ===-::-:-;==""'-:-=:7.: signed this instrument and acknowledged ft to be hislherllheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument Notary Public in and forth. State of Washington Notary (Plint)'---__________ _ My appointment expires:. ________ _ INTRODUcnON JAN 3 1 2000 I· ECC~~f?r:!!,'~,.I>':".:~' ANDIS ~ :'~~~"?E~::~';_:::\ ,.,,: .. ,: ;~,~~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identifY impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS ~~. . For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. Page I 2068/00 I/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENT/ENV -CIIECKUST-I.Fl.doc; 01/31/00 A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Merlino SR 900 Property Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone (a non-project action) 2. Name of applicant(s): Gary M Merlino and Donna M Merlino; Donald J. Merlino and Joan P. Merlino; and Quarry Industrial Park, !LC, a Washington limited liability company 3. Address and phone number of applicant(s) and contact person: Applicant: Donald J. Merlino c/o Stoneway Concrete 19I5Maple Val/eyHigJnvay Renton, WA 98055 (425) 226-1000 4. Date checklist prepared: January 31, 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: Contact Person: . David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.s. 10500N.E8'h Street, Suite 1900 Bel/evu~ WA 98004 (425) 454-8272 City of Renton Department of Economic Development and Neighborhood & Strategic Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone are anticipated to be processed by the City by June 2000. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or . connected with this proposal! If yes, explain. MUlti-fami/y residential development of the property consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone is contemplated in future years but is not part of this proposed non-project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The City of Renton issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element (dated January 16, 1992) and a two-volume Final Page 2 20681OOIICOMP·PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST-I.FI.doo; 01131100 Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan's lAnd Use Element (dated February 1, 1993). 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Renton City Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendments and Rezone. 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist .that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The Applicants request the following changes to the subject property's existing Comprehensive Plan lAnd Use Map designations and Zoning classifications: \J,,:. (a) An amendment of the proper.ty's Comprehensive Plan lAnd Use Map ~~ designations from Employment Area Commercial (EAC) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres, including 3.14 acres of unimproved S. 14O'h Street right-of-Way), Employment . Area Office (EAO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 acres) and Rural Residential Ifl II (RR) ) (which encompasses approximately 1.08 acres) to Residential Multi-Family Infill ~/d ~JeJ ~ J I F); and .I. a'-l~ ~{d /tj't'li /-{itft/te US£.."'" I'1Ifl ,#/tJre.. -11th v1 <S"I"J,P • ,Ii} '~I~ 4J !1etflt1ll fJ, I u,J!"s ,"~tJI);5Iitu (;HH~{;"f )f9itf!.M '=' ~1~1:a"J ilKS;,""":' 61ft? ',N!i/~~":; r..;{ .~ ~ J~ot (b) An amendmeht of the property's Zoning ~s'flcations m '1rre:raf Com'Xfercial'1 tJl:f~ ~~., ~ (CA) (prezoned), Commercial Office (CO), and Resource Conservation (RC) to Residential • ut"~' Multi-Family Infill (RM-I). 1" J The Applicants also request the following text amendment to existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy LU-69 (with the proposed additional text illustrated by underlining): (Proposell Amentlell) Policy LU-69. Residential Multi-jamily Infill deSignations should not be expanded. (Aoplication of this designation to properties lying between parcels that already have this designation shall not be considered an inappropriate "expansion" but. rather. an acceptable "infill".) lAnd within the districts should be used efficiently to meet multi-jamily housing needs. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location ofYQur proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, Page 3 2068/00 I/COMP·I'LAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CIIECKLlST·I.FI.doc; 01/3 1/00 township, and range, if known. IT a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The 27.09-acre subject property (which includes 3.14 acres of the unimproved S. 140th Street right-of-way that runs from west to east through the property) is located on the south side of SR 900 (known as ''Martin Luther King, Jr. Way S." in unincorporated King County and "S.W. Sunset Boulevard" in the City of Renton) from approximately 76th Avenue S. (based on unincorporated King County addressing) on the west to Thomas Ave. S.W .. (based on Renton addressing) on the east. The site currently lies partially in unincorporated King County and partially within the City of Renton. A legal description of the subject property is attached to the Land Use Pennit Master Application form submitted with the request along with a Property Map Exhibit and a Neighborhood Detail Map depicting the boundaries of the subject property 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the. City's Comprehensive .Land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive? The City's "Potential Wildlife Areas, Forest, Open Spaces and Wetlands Map" and ''Lakes, Rivers & Streams, Wetlands & Stream Reach Labels" map both depict a wetland along part of the easterly partion of the subject property's south boundary. (It is difficult to tell from those two maps whether any of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely offsite near that part of the subject property's south boundary or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily offsite.) Nearly all of the subject property is mapped "King County Hazard" on the City's "Slide Sensitive Areas" map.(Fhe extreme east end of the site is mapped either "High" or "Very . High" on/hat map.) . Nearly 0/1 of the subject property is mapped as Greenbelt. The portion of the site lying south and east of the unimproved S. J4dh Street right-of-way is mapped as ''Erosion Hazard". B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes. mountainous other ___ ' b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 70% (at the southeastern portion of the site). . Page 4 Z0681()O IICOMP·PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CflECKLIST-I.fl.doc; 01131100 " c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The 1973 King County Soil Survey (prepared by USDA' Soil Conservation Service) maps the site's soils as "BeD" (Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unknown. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading, proposed. Indicate source of fill. None proposed at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NIA. (No development is currently proposed) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NIA 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NIA. (No development is currently proposed.) b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known PageS 1068J00I/COMp·PLAN·AMENDMENT/ENV.CHECKLlST·I,FI,doc; 01131/00 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 3. Water a. Surface: I) Is there any surface water body on or in/the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams," ",saltwater"" lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. An intermittent drainage course runs from north to south apprarimately 1100 feet west of the site's extreme southeastern comer. ,·A"storm,drain pipe/rom abutting SR 900 (which transports runoff from the"existing single1amily residential neighborhood lying north of SR 900) discharges into that drainage course. That drainage course appears to discharge into the area that is-mapped as a wetland on the City's "Potential Wildlife Areas, Forest, Open Spaces and Wetlands Map" and "Lakes, Rivers & Streams,Wetlands & Stream Reach lAbels" map along part of the easterly portion of the subject property's south boundary.,(Jt is difficult to tell from those maps whether "'!Y of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely offtile near that part of the subject property's south boundary or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily offsite.} 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Page 6 20681001ICOMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV.cflECKUST-I.FI.doc; 01131100 No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? Uso, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, 'and, approximate quantities if known. NIA 2) Describe waste material that will be dischargedinto,the,ground:Jrom septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic, sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals •••• ; agricultural; etc.) •. Describe·the general size of the system, the number of such systems,' the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff{including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? U so, describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) However, future development will require preparation and City of Renton approval of an onsite storm water plan 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: _lL deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: ~ evergreen tree: fir,_cedar, pine, other: Page? 2068100 I/COMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKLIST-1 ,F 1 ,doc; 01/3 1/00 ..1L shrubs ..1L grass pasture wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount orvegetation will be removed or altered? NIA. (No development is cu"ent/y proposed) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, nse of native plants, or other,measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: NIA. (No development is cu"ent/y proposed) 5. Animals a. . Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows and miscellaneous small birds mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unknown. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NIA Page 8 2068100 IICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CIIECKLlST·I.FI.doc; 0 IfJ 1100 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. Application is for CPA and rezone only. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NIA. (No development is currently proposed) 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NIA. (No development is currently proposed.) 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. Application is for CPA and rezone only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? An existing railroad line abuts most of the site's south boundary. The southerly portion of the site's west edge abuts the east edge of the Black River Quarry, which is owned by the applicants of the subject property. Noise from the mining and recycling activities on that site cu"ently exist. Mining of the Quarry property is nearing completion, however. Page 9 2068/00 I/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST·l.Fl.doc; 01/3 1100 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-tenn or a long-tenn basis (for example: tratTJe, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Traffic noise and other noise commonly associated with a multi-family residential development would ultimately be created by such a development on the subject property. However, no development is being proposed at/his time. (Application is for CPA and rezone only.) 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise 'impacts, if any: NIA 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. To the west of the site (in unincorporated King County) along the south edge of SR 900 lies an approximately 300-unitapartment. complex called the Empire Estates Apartments. To the east of the site (in the City of Renton) along the south edge of SR 900 lies another multi-familyresidential development called the Sun Pointe Townhomes. Across SR 900 to the north lie developed single-family residential subdivisions in both unincorporated King County (west of sdh Avenue S.) and the City of Renton (east of sdh Avenue S.). An existing railroad line and right-oj- way abuts most of the site's south boundary. The southerly portion of the site's west edge abuts the east edge of the Black River Quarry property, which. is owned by the applicants of the subject property. b. . Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site's current zoning is Arterial Commercial (CA) (prezoned) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres of the site, including 3.14 acres of unimproved S. J4(jh Street right-of-lfay), Commercial Office (CO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 Page 10 20681OO1/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKLIST·I.FI.doc; OllJllOO acres of the site), and Resource Conservation (RC) (which encompasses approximately 1.08 acres of the site). What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area Commercial (EAC) (which encompasses approximately 17.54 acres of the site, including 3.14 acres of unimproved S. J4o'h Street right-of-way), Employment Area Office (EAO) (which encompasses approximately 8.47 acres of the site) and Rural Residential (RR) ) (which encompasses approximately 1.08 acres of the site) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h, Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify. The City's "Potential Wildlife Areas, Forest, OpenSpaces and Wetlands Map" and "Lakes, Rivers & Streams, Wetlands & Stream Reach Labels" map both depict a wetland along part of the easterly portion of the subject property's south boundary. (/t is difficult to tell from those two maps whether any of the wetland actually lies on the subject property. The wetland appears to either (a) lie entirely offsite near that part of the subject property's south boundary or (b) slightly encroach onto the subject property while lying primarily offsite.) Nearly all of the subject property is mapped "King County Hazard" on the City's "Slide Sensitive Areas" map. (The extreme east end of the site is mapped either "High" or "Very High" on that map.) Nearly all of the subject property is mapped as Greenbelt. The portion of the site lying south and east of the unimproved S. J4o'h Street right-of- way is mapped as "Erosion Hazard". i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. Page II 2068100 I/COMP-PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKLIST-I.FI.doc, 01131/00 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, ir any: Amendments to the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan are sought. 9. Housing Approximately how many units would be provided, ir any?· Indicate. whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. Approximately how many units, ir any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, ir any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height or any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would. be altered or obstructed? Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. (However, because the site is currently wooded, which obstructs views from the higher properties lying to the north, development of the site is not anticipated to obstruct views from the north) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, ir any: No aesthetic impacts are anticipated 11. Light and Glare a. What type or light or glare will tbe proposal produce? What time or day would it mainly occur. Page 12 2068100I/COMP.PLAN.AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKLlST.I.FI.doc; 01/31100 Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. (Lighting typical of a multi-family residential development would ultimately result, such as parking lot lighting during the night.) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Skyw~ Park (King County), Bryn Mahr Park (King County) and Earlington Park are all are located within about a I-mile radius of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? City of Renton parks impact fees would be paid in conjunction with development of the site. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Page 13 2068/00 lICOMP·PLAN-AMENDMENTIENV -CIiECKLIST.I.FI.doc; 01131/00 None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SR 900 lies along the entire north edge of the site. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? . Yes, Metro Transit CU"ently serves SR 900. A transit stop is approximately .700 feet to the west of the subject property. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?·Howmany would the project eliminate? The number of parking spaces that a completed development of the site would have is unknown at this time. No parking spaces would be eliminated (Application is for CPA and rezone only.) d. WiD the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. WiJI the project use (or' occur in the .immediate vicinity 01) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. An existing rail line runs along most of the site's south boundary. (!'he rail line will not serve the site. r. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown at this time. Application is for CPA and rezone only. Page 14 20681001ICOMP·PLi\N·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST·I,FI,doc".011311(10 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: City of Renton traffic impact fees would be paid in conjunction with actual development of the subject property. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for.public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)! .Ifso, generally describe. Application isfor CPA and rezone only. Ultimate development o!the.site.pursuant to approval of the request wold result in an increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Fire Department impact fees would be paid in conjunction'withcactualdevelopment of the subject property. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natllral gas. water. refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer. septic system, other. All utilities are available to the site through a proper extension of services. Extension of services will be the developers' responsibility at the time of ultimate development. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be prOVided by Pllget Sound Energy Natllral Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Water Service will be provided by the City of Renton Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton Telephone Service will be provided by US West According to David Christensen, Utility Engineering Supervisor of the City of Renton Waste Water Section, the existing City of Renton 12-inch diameter sewer main in 68'h Avenue South (to the west of the site) has adequate capacity to provide sewer service for multi-jamily-residential development of the subject property. (!'he Applicants own the abutting property between the subject site and 68'h Avenue South and will be able to construct a connecting sewer main between 68'h Avenue South and the subject site.) According to Abdolli Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor of the City of Renton Utilities Division, (a) the, s71bject property lies within the City's water service area, (b) ail-inch Page 15 2068100 I/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKUST·I.FI.doc; 01/31/00 diameter main lies in SR 900 approximately as jar west as Powell Avenue sw. (c) an existing 16-inch diameter line lies in 6If1' Avenue South (to the west ojthe site). and (d) suitable connection(s) to these lines should provide adequate water service to the subject property. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the . lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. . ~ Ie !?~'------ Signature: -::y; - Hal P. Gmbb, P.E., . Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Int. Date Submitted: January 31, 2000 Page 16 2068i00IICOMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV.ctIECKUST·I.FI.doc; 01131100 · ' , , D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions). Non-project actions are those that do not include a specific project. A non-project action may be a rezone, annexation, or amendments to ordinances. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpfuHo'readthem in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning are very similar in intensity of allowed use to the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning already applicable to about 96% of the site. Development under the proposed designation and zoning will not lead to significantly increased discharge to water, emissions to air or production of noise as compared to development that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. Uses permitted under the proposed categories will not praduce, store or release toxic or hazardous substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None proposed since the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone will ultimately result in uses of similar intensity to uses previously allowed by the City for the subject property under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning would not be anticipoted to affect plants. animals, fish or marine life to any different degree than the' existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: When development of the site ultimately occurs pursuant to the proposed zoning. erosion control and water qualitylstormwater detention/retention facilities will be required per City regulations. Page 17 2068100 IICOMp.PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV·CHECKl.IST·I.Fl.doc; 01/31/00 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development of the site pursuant to the proposed zoning will have approximately the same impact on energy and natural resources as allowed under the cu"ent Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning category. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natgral resources are: None required beyond adherence to City energy codes. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally:sensitive areas. or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for· governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Development setbacks from the wetland along part of the easterlyportion,olthe'subject-property's south boundary would be required under the City's wetland protection regulations. During the review of a particular development proposal for the subject property, a geotechnical study by qualified professionals would be required to evaluateappropriate.development conditions in relation to the site's mapping as a slide hazard area and the portion of the site mapped as an erosion hazard area. Cu"ent!y-anticipated changes to the City's Envirionmentally Sensitive Areas regulations will eliminate the City's Greenbelt designation. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: See prior paragraph. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning is identical to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning of the properties lying to both the west and the east of the subject property. No significant affect upon land and shoreline use is anticipated by the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Site Plan Review will be required for any development proposal ultimately brought forward 6, How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Page 18 20681OO1/COMP·PLAN·AMENDMENTIENV-CHECKLlST·],Fl.doc; OIIJIIOO , . · ' Demands on transportation and public services and utilities from foture development in accordance with the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning would be very similar in intensity to such demands stemming from development of the subject property under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning. No significant increase in demand for these services is anticipated Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal is not anticipated to conflict with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment .. Page 19 206RI00 I/COMP-PLAN-AMENDMENT/ENV-CIIECKLIST-I.FI.doc; 0113 1/00 , APPLICATION 2003-M-8, MERLINO LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INFILL (RM-I) TO RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS (RO) OWNER: SR 900 L.L.C. APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 25.68 acres from RM-I to RO as well as amend Section 3. of the September 2000 Development Agreement between the City of Renton and the owners, SR 900 L.L.c. The site is located along the south side of SR-900 about 950 feet east of its intersection with 68th Avenue South. The site was annexed into the City on February 12, 2001 and designated MF-I on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that same year. It was zoned MF-I at the same time. ISSUE SUMMARY I) Whether it is appropriate to reduce the zoned land capacity for this property, and if so, 2) Whether site development should be limited to a single-family detached unit type through a development agreement. RECOMMENDATION Support a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Residential Single Family with concurrent R-8, 8 units per net acre zoning subject to an amended Development Agreement being signed between the City and property owners limiting future development to a maximum of 69 single-family detached units. Retain the existing prohibition in the development agreement on the construction of residential or recreation buildings within 100 feet of the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, and the requirement that a 6- foot high fence be constructed along the south side of the development along its entire length. BACKGROUND The site abuts an existing RM-I designation to the west and to its south/southwest. Across SR-900 to its northwest the area within the City is designated RS, Residential Single Family, and zoned R-8. The rest of the area to the north across SR-900 is located in unincorporated King County and is designated Urban Residential, 4-12 du/acre. On its south the site abuts both a Commercial Office (CO) and a Resource Conservation (RC) designations. Prior to the annexation, this site was within Renton's Potential Annexation Area and it was designated RM-J in 2000. The site was annexed into the City the following year and given RM-J zoning subject to the provisions of a Development Agreement restricting the maximum number of units that could be built to 260 units. This was approximately half the number of units that could have been built under the RM-J zoning. Because a portion of the site was within 1,300 feet of an established Heron rookery to the south, this development agreement also limited the siting of residential or recreation buildings within 100 feet of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way that lies to the immediate south of the property. In addition, as a safety device and deterrent to children and pets crossing the BNSF right-of-way, a 6-foot high fence was required to be constructed in conjunction with any residential development of the site. This fence is to run along the south side of the development for its entire length. APPLICATION 2003-M-8. Merljno.doc\ July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing In July, 2002 the applicant's representative requested that the City, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update, adopt an RO land use designation for the ± 26-acre site with corresponding R-10 zoning. The applicant's representative indicated that they were interested in a lower density single-family detached development for the site with approximately 69 ± 5,000 square foot lots. The R-IO zone allows a maximum net density of 13 units per acre for developments including only detached dwellings. The R-IO zone, unlike the R-8 zone, allows minimum lot widths of 30-feet for interior lots and 4O-feet for comer lots. ANALYSIS In order to determine the most appropriate mid-density land use designation and zoning staff looked at three land use designations, Residential Single Family (RS) with R-8 zoning, Residential Options (RO) with R-IO zoning, and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) with R-14 zoning. There are no mandatory mapping criteria that must be met for the RS designation. In the RO designation, a site must meet three of the following five criteria to be eligible for mapping: I. Area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multiple-family zoning; 2. Development patterns are established; 3. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential; 4. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be needed with future development; and 5. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. The site meets three of these criteria. The area had for a number of years multi-family zoning on the property to the east, the subject 26-acre site is currently vacant, and few new roads or major utilities would be required for development to occur. Under the RPN designation a site must meet all five of the following criteria: 1. Adjacent to major arterial(s); 2. Adjacent to Employment Area and/or Centers; 3. Part of a designation totaling over 20 acres; 4. Site is buffered from single family areas or incompatible uses; and, 5. Development within density and unit type range is achievable given environmental constraints. This site can only meet four of the five RPN criteria. Clearly, the site is adjacent to a major arterial (SR 900), it is part of a proposed designation totaling over 20 acres (± 26 acres), and it is buffered from single family areas or incompatible uses (SR 900 on the north and 100' setback from BNSF Railroad right-of-way on the south). The site is also adjacent to an Employment Area -Valley designation on Monster Road. However, the site can not be developed with single family unit types with sufficient density to meet the minimum density of 8 dufnet acre required in this designation given environmental constraints of steep slope and landslide hazards. This would suggest that either the RS or the RO designations might be applied to the site. Further analysis below under Comprehensive Plan Compliance suggests either RS or RO might work as well, however the RS designation would appear to be more consistent with the applicant's proposal in terms of lot size, minimum density, and orientation of some of the units around interior courtyards or parking areas. APPLICATION 2003-M-S, Merlino.doc\ 2 July 9, 2003 Planning Connnission Brieftng CAPACITY ANALYSIS Below is the calculated theoretical capacity for the subject site assuming an RS designation with R-S zoning and an RO designation with R-IO zoning. These are shown in comparison with the existing RM-I zoning subject to the current development agreement. ...... Modiir¢dtj[~re(i~1 Cl!paClty . . ......... . ..... RM-IZone 1/ .... R;mZOiie R-ltZ9ne .. (17.51) (9.53) I (6.7) .... .. . Estimated Residential Capacity; based upon 24.lS-acres (wI sensitive areas) 423 units' 230 units 162 units *Exlstmg Development Agreement limits number of umts to 260 units. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The following analysis looks at the policies of Residential Single-Family (RS); Residential Options (RO), and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) designations in order to determine a preferred designation for this Comp Plan amendment and rezone. Based upon the attached Comparative Matrix of middle density land use designation policies, it would appear that a single-family detached project concept fits closest to the RS land use designation. In terms of lot size (policy LU-35) it appears that the minimum lot size is met with the smallest standard lots being + 5,000 square feet. Also, under this proposal it is in !be public interest to retain distinctive stands of trees, particularly along the steeply sloped areas (policy LU-40.2). The RO and RPN designations are intended to encourage high density mixed unit type projects that are designed to resemble a single-family neighborhood. As the density range and unit type proposed by the amendment to the development agreement would result in 69 single-family detached units, the RO and RPN designations do not appear necessary for the unit types now proposed. AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA RMC 4-9-020, Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process requires that a proposal demonstrate that the requested amendment is timely and meets at least one of the following: A. Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments: I. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. or 2. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with eXisting elements or policies. or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. The proposed redesignation to either the RS or RO land use designation would appear to be consistent with the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, under Future Housing: "Single family areas will continue to dominate the residential character of Renton. There areas will over time also come to reflect a greater diversity of population and housing stock. Increasingly single family housing will be found in mixed single familylmult-family areas. APPLICATION 2003-M-8, Merlino.doc\ 3 July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing New single family housing will also consist of a greater variety of unit sizes catering to different income groups, household sizes and life styles. " Also, under Future Neighborhoods: "Outside of the downtown new residential neighborhoods would be organized in a way that would be reminiscent of small towns of the past. The newly developing areas would have a noticeable absence of large multi-family complexes. Small lot single-family and small multi- plex homes would be most common. Buildings would face tree-lines streets with wide sidewalks. " Single-family detached housing or a combination of single-family detached housing and small multi- family homes (duplexes, townhouses, etc.) would be consistent with both of these vision statements from the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING CONCURRENCY In the case of Residential Options, the concurrent zoning would be R-IO, 10 units per net acre. In the case of Residential Single Family, the concurrent zoning would be R-8, 8 units per net acre. CONCLUSION The land use designation most consistent with the mid-density residential policies is Residential Single Family (RS). If the proponents were going to develop the site with both single-family detached housing and some lower density multi-family housing, then Residential Options (RO) might be appropriate. Currently, the applicant's preferred scenario is 100 percent single-family detached on lots greater than 5,000 square feet. APPLICA nON 2003-M-8, Merlino.docl 4 July 9, 2003 Planning Commission Briefing Comparative Matrix of Middle Density Land Usc Designation Policies Residential Single Family Policy LU-34. Net development densities should faU within a range of 5 to 8 du per acre. Policy LU-3S. A minimum lot size of 4,500 sq. ft. should be anowed in SF neighborooods when flexible development standards are used. Policy LU·37. Maximum height of structures should generally not exceed 2 stories. Policy LU-38. should encourage neighborhoods. Development standards quality development in poncy LU·39, Development standards should address transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods. Policy LU-40.l. Site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained. APPLICA nON 2003-M-8, Merlino.doc\ Residential Options Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. Policy LV-50. Residential neighborhoods may be considered if they meet three of the following criteria: a. Area already has a mix of small-scale multi-family units or had long standing duplex or low density multi-family zoning. b. Development patterns are established. c. Vacant lots exist or parcels have redevelopment potential d. Few new roads or major utility upgrades will be need with future development. e. The site is located adjacent to a Center designation. PoUey LU-5t. The net densities should be IO du per acre. If 100% of units are detached, net densities can be increased to a maximum of 13 dulacre Poliey LU-52. Minimum net development densities should be 7 du per acre. Policy L U-53. Detached single family housing, townhouses, and small-scale multi- family units should be allowed. Policy LU-54. A maximum of 50% of units may consist of attached units. which includes townhouses and small-scale multi-family units. Policy LU-55. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics such as ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design, and private yards. Residential Planned Nei2bborhood Policy LV-57. Areas may be mapped RPN where the site meets the following criteria. a. adjacent to major arterial(s); h. adjacent to employment are and/or Centers; c. part of a designatioo totaling over 20 acres; d. site is buffered from single family areas or other incompatible uses; e. development within the density and unit range is achievable given environmental constraints. Policy LU..ss. Density in the RPN designation should be in the range of 8- 18 du per net acre. Policy LU·S9. A minimum of 50% of a project should consist of the following residential types: traditional detached. zero lot line detached. or townhouses with yards which are designed to reflect a single family character. Policy LU-60. Townhouse building cluster5 when a primary residential type should be limited in size so that the mass and scale within the cluster retains a single family character Poliey LU-63. Projects in the RPN designation should have no more that 500/0 of the units designed as secondary types. i.e. longer townhouse building clusters, and other multi-family buildings. Policy LU-63.1. Development standards should reflect single family neighborhood characteristics and access to public amenities and services. 5 July 9. 2003 Planning Corrunission Briefing