The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 3 - Folder 3 of 3Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: Stacy and Cindy Vanessa Do I bee Thursday, July 11, 2013 422 PM Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya Fieldbrook LUA12-001 Please add the following person to the POR list for the subject project. Thank you. Richard Garana 10841 SE 172°• St. Unit D Renton, WA 98055 P.S. Stacy, please use all the LUA12-001 POR's for the variance application which was added to the 12-001 file. Thank you. 'Vanessa (})o[6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 1 Jeremy Adams 11012 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055-5927 Party of Record Robert Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton, WA 98055-5909 Party of Record Richard Garana 10841 SE 172nd St #9D Renton, WA 98055-5945 Party of Record Patrick & Claire Creager 10833 SE 173rd St Renton, WA 98055-5907 Pa,ty of Record Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36'" Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Contact George & Frances Subic PO Box 89 Renton, WA 98057-0089 Pa,ty of Record Laura Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street #9A Renton, WA 98055-5945 Party of Record Darlene Bjornstad 14624 SE 183rd Street Renton, WA 98058 Party of Record Karen Huseth 17123 113th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Party of Record Field brook Commons, LLC 9675 SE 36'" Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Owner/Applicant Jesse Hurtado PO BOX 59743 Renton, WA 98058-2743 Party of Record Dan Phillips PO Box 60256 Renton, WA 98058 Party of Record Corine Kumano 10829 SE 172nd Street #6C Renton, WA 98055-5945 Pa,ty of Record Richard Miles 10809 SE 172nd Street #1B Renton, WA 98055-5926 Pa,ty of Record Denis Law -c·ty f ---~M:ayo:r ______ ... r l __ O ,r, l_ . ._, October 21; 2013 Justin Lagers Field brook Commons UC 9675 SE 36th Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 ~~lQ>lll Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Fieldbrook Commons Variance . LUAlZ-001, V-A Dear Mr. Lagers: This letter is to inform .you that the appeal period ended September 3, 2013 for the Administrative Variance approval. No appeals were filed, therefore, this decision is final · and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant should be aware that the Administrative Variance decision will expire two (2) years from the decision date of August 20, 2013. If they are unable to commence construction or otherwise implement effectively the variance granted within the two- year time-frame, a sing.le one (1) year extension may be requested in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-9-2506.18. If you have any questions regarding the report and decision issued for this variance proposal, please call me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~-D(Jlbea_ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Fieldbro·ok Commons LLC / Owner{s) Jeremy Ad.ams, Darlene Bjqrnstad, Patrick & Claire Creager, Richard Grana, Jesse & _Linda Hurtado, Karen Huseth, Danny & Corine Kumano, Robert Lyon, Richard Miles, Dail Phillips; laura Smith, Geo(ge & Frances-Subic/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov ~ R-8 I~ ~ I R-8 ~ "' ,:; "' i' ~ .,.,j. CA 400.0 Cit of Renton, Washington CA o 14 R-14 ti l "' :g ... SE·I7211d s;:_ ti ~ -s: ~ ... 200.00 400.0 Feet Private Rd R-14 ~ 8 r-Rdf 6-,;; ... I~~ rr& --· SE' 173rdSt R-14 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP SE' 1691/1 Pl ~[ I 1, IR-1~ I I ..., /;; "' ... l ] Ji s!; f =f.-8 / 1~·~1;,sir·· ~e~~ti" ·' ::;: .. _'.' -_ - ·• · .. "1Jor'ls>1;,~cl(;,\, 'q~ i "' "' SE' 1·70th ·SI~ ~ "' ~ ,.,. R-10 · ···SE·/691/1 St· R· ---·--·SE-172mtSrf ~ This map is a user generaled static output rrom an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers !hat appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or olllerwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION D Lakes and Rivers D Parcels Zoning Resource Conservation Rasidenlial 1 du/ai:: Residenlial 4 du/ac Residanlial B duf.ac Residen1ial ManufaC:Ured Hames Residenlial 10 dufac Residenlia! 14 dufac Resldenlia1 Mum-Family Residential Multi-Family Traditional Residential Multi-Family Urban Ct!l1 l Center Village :.J Ccmler Downtown Urban Center -North 1 Urban Cen:et • North 2 Commercial Office/Resi(ren!ial Commercial Arterial commercial Office • Commercial Neighborhood Industrial-light Industrial-Medium Ci1 lndus1rial-Heavy Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions Bol!llVUQ Das Moines Issaquah Kent (] King County Mercer lslartd Newcaslle RENTON SeaTac Seallla ~..';';~ila ' ,,, -·· l .~i-f"> ,·1,:1:;: ~::{';-~f:)!; ,!UN ;J .Jat1 '?,ii-: ,i,· /\ :/ 1 1 ,,: r ··,·1 ·, 1: 2,400 @11" X 17" 0 Notes Enter Map Description 1~ Ji--------- R-8 ,:t· ;,::. -;5 .. , R-8 -;g, • i----------1 --= 400.0 CII o! Ren Ion, Washhgton NEIGHBORHOOD MAP -B 200.00 r--i ' I I \J0-(1 (UO(C ~;+kJ R~10 I I I llilil!!II Lakes end Rlvar.1 Pan.e15 Zoning " Rnc,inoCom,o,..uor, R•-1<111ac RH-4dullo0 Rul<lri1l!du/M: R"<lonl""-•-1-hTIH R••"°"'lol1D<1<>'10 ,, R-14dulao •; -IM~U.fomly u R.uklnialr.utl-FOlll'l'T,.dltonal lluldri1lt.lull~Fornl/tllil>onCOfl Contarl•ll•'l• • c ... ,,Do,,oi...., U-.Conlor-HOllh1 U,t,onC..--Naon2 " Con1-0fflcel!loo.ior<1e1 , __ --• ~N""'1t>o"1o<>d ---u -1-Modun r.i lno'51rial-lie&Vl' Street NamM Rlghl9 of'JVay Streelll ""'' Jurtsdlctlons ··-Oeot.lOll>oo ,._. .. -lJ K"'ll'Cou,iy "*""<l....,d I.' ·--RENTON llnToo -~· ,_. 1:2,400 @11"x:17" 0 This map Is a LIS&J geoaraled staUc oulput rrom an lntumut m8pplng slle and ____ _ I• ror nofnnce only. Data layo"' ln•t appear en lhl• map may or may not ba I ! Enler Map Dewlplion aa:uratl!I, current or otharM"'I r~llable, TlllS MAP IS NOTTO BE USED FDA NAV,GATION "' is :::, ~ i "' " ~ w a: • NW 1/4, 5£ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, WM ~- ., .,,· - ·-I•! ll~ I I I I I I I -_ -, I ~ I /} 11 I lli LJ :~ (\ :·~,, .j -' i~i- ',,, ----,,, ..; -----, --I ,r;.·D • ---_--r------,------+-----~-----._ , ----~ _ _ ,~-'1/if ~ 1;,,. tr.:-.i ,1UN .. ,'} iL;;,j @ 1W NOR.TH oe,PH,c sc•.e ,~"' ~ -----+------./~-------~~ -=~'••· ·' ---------------~ ,('l'.-----;DflA:::::\'aN=--GS----------+-~-· FOi! coosn:_,or AP?ROVED ~ /Ji"-STAMPED OR SI CTION UNLESS ru BY l1-iE ~ APPROVED GAGENCY ~ "'""""" """""""'""""""' ---_ .. _ ... ____ _ G-.-,- RECOMMENDED Fal APPROVAL "-----"----- " " RrnSIOI< Plcan,ng/S,, ,,,,/P""" -•• 0.,>1 17040 108TH A\ENU( SE R£NTOO, IA -"'- ,._ * ~ CITY OF FlEI..DBROOI< COMMONS PUO .!!! 1!..;.~, RENTON TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLJ\.N a• lnAT< "' ~ :, 2l <.) ~ O] ':l .., C: --/ I-/~ r -r -\,._ ~ /I,-,~ 1( it..\ \ \\ :> I ~....._ ........ / NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, WM. 1 / . ' _.-/--.......·. ·.:-"' r, . /.·/ ~ --....~/'\ '·-, ~-" """~· / \ / / - ' \ "-•" . J8!!:':... ,!_/ I . \ ~ / ,f ' /v / '/ \_,,--- -" . J IL) ' __) -/ '~, ·1~ .,., -.. -.. ,..., ~.::-..:11~ so I£:';.";,. I RN010N ~ I I ' \J ~ \ ' ~ ,= ~ CITY OF RENTON Plon,;"'l/au,ld,,gjP,bl,, W<rl> D<pl (;i / I ;·~ tlW , .. -,_,;.'!ti, -~· \ ) )1)/:l i! .J ,· @ NORTH -~ ''J""'"" Df!AlMl',IGS NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED OR SIQ'llED APPROVED BY THE F€VIEWINQ AGENCY REca,IMENDED F~ lff'RCNN... "-----,, ____ _ " F1EL0BR00K COMMCNS PUO TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN/ GRADING PLAN 17o«I 108TH A',£NUE 9:: RENTON, WA "' i5 " ~ g "' <D " cJ a: . :~r;· \· "1,:,;;.,~J'· ;1 I . I ., I ~· I ~ .;;_.- I I I ; I / I I I I I ' qi ,I B ,,n,_,.o •,• '"""""'' " _,010.:10>10.ff. '_(·":""~',, ~"~:· NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, WM. --------i--".::Ji:" / -.......... ......... ;;,1 \1 i ~\t\ .· \\ . \ _ .... ,,,.~' \ l ~i;r.:;•; ......... , .. ,., "· ("-""""'Tt) ----.. -"'~-/· . ...,.,~ ----. I \ .. ........, ... ""'""'"' NIU-,0,1>0 >O. ,r, l•""' """"'l"l --f~[NTON -.... """""""'""""""" ---,·-~ CITY OF ,,...:..: ,, _ _;, !,. -r,1 f,o,;- • ~'.:c---. ,,, ~-lt,, . e JI ~) 'i J1. . JUN .r .;! @ NORTH """'HIC SC'LS ~,:, DRAWINGS NOT APPROVED FOA CONSTRUCTION UNLESS ST M4PED OR SIGNED APPROVED BY 11-E REVlEWING AGENCY FIELDBROOK CCIIMOOS PUO RECC...MENDID :~_-__ "_~ __ 1 " (WJJ DR.smoNG --:=====-1;,..;~1 *-Pio,n,no/3a,.o.ag/P,Ol,c """'' ll<pt TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN/ GRADING PLAN 17().f(J 108TH A'l{NUE 5£ "' RE\,'~ION ~y 10.icl/.f'P!11"= RENTtft, WA I NVld DNIOV1!D o' NOLL VDLlll\ 1VfUd3JNOJ J11 'SDN!OlOII MNd ' ' ! i l ' ' l SNOWWOJ 2100l!H013U i ' ! ml I I•••] III I :•: ::::::: '.1····· I /} cu I •I' •,I -"---~{H{J(N~,="":."~,'';,'~i:c:~'.'{{~;.fi]w~311 V s,,,.,=..,,u,1x:1-'Jl!IJY'd.l<~J;= "[; -NV'ld QNLL;.!Vld NOLL VDilll'. 1VN!d ·<" Y!1 'SDNIG101I MNJ ~NOWWO:l )100118G'J3), 0[J- L__~~--+---.,.-+---~ t I \. I' ,I ' I *· I I ' ' ' H, fl1 i)i !"':-. 1~§!!. "' ., it I i -l; § l C! HH i, -- a • , ----- 0 @) 6l ' ..... ·,,~ '._. ' ... ' >~:..:._: ! ; H I~ I • 0 •-. •. ! ! ! 1 L 1 Hilb " © • " ' ' u ti • ® ~. !! d ~ 0 l l 1 l i ! 1 t 1 l ~ it;.~ ~ .. -... ·. ,• ; i ·I ', [ H '. ' l ] . t •) iii . ,; ~ • i~ JhU ! llfl!l1 , " , f j ,i i ' ,i l i!l1iuln! 11Hh!lllf1 ., cli. ~ ~ .,. ·1 ~,a---, !{, I l p ! "'1 ~H I I ' ! ' I l ' \ v- r- ~ .. -- I ) I I ~ ----·--- • 1. I I ,I I I \ \ ! JUN 1 :i 1.IJt\ DEPARTMENT OF COMML .. Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION .. .. ,i:c.iri;; A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST ' DATE/"'J;·',; / c'., REPORT DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Pro1ect Manager. Owner/ Applicant: Contact: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: NAMc:: ....... ~ ... ···- August 20, 2013 Field brook Commons I(__ I ',i'\°~J/1,..-J ....-~1! I I 'J._, i / l, -~t.-1 ' A.)\'. " Y-/.,.,/L; LUA12-001, V-A ')' J::f::--IJ ,:n,,, JJlc/13 . ~ . ', ,. , ·;J I_,.,, Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner \T_AJ1~-,c_~ \t .. ./ _-, ., __ , Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 361h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers, Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 The applicant is requesting a Varince from RMC 4-4-13003 Restrictions for Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and their assoicated buffers. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zoning designation. 17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055 N/A 469,158 SF (10.77 acres) : •. J Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 71,939 SF Total Building Area GSF: 180,934 SF '' Project Location Map Variance Report12-001.docx DEPARTMENT OF COM Ml Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner/ Applicant: Contact: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: August 20, 2013 Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, V-A Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Field brook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers, Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 The applicant is requesting a Varince from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions for Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and their assoicated buffers. The subject site is located at 17040108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zoning designation. 17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055 N/A 469,158 SF (10.77 acres) Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 71,939 SF Total Building Area GSF: 180,934 SF Project Location Map Variance Report12-001.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of: August 20, 2013 I 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND: Administrative Variance Report & Decision WA12-001, V-A Page2of7 The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped and forested. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R- 14) units per net acre zoning designation. Prior to this variance application the applicant requested a preliminary planned urban development (PUD) approval and SEPA environmental review. In the Hearing Examiner's decision on the PUD, he denied the request to modify 4-4-130D3 as a variance was required. Due to the Hearing Examiner's determination, the subject variance application was submitted. All other development on the subject site have previously been reviewed and approved with conditions; which is not a part of the subject variance. The applicant is requesting a Variance from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions for Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in wetlands and their associated buffers. The subject site contains 6 wetlands identified as wetland A-F. The applicant has identified three different reasons for the need to remove trees within wetlands and their buffers as follows: 1) The applicant has proposed to fill wetlands D, E, and F. The filling of these three wetlands requires the removal of the trees within these areas. The applicant has proposed to remove 99 trees from these three wetlands and their buffers. 2) In order to mitigate for the impacts of wetland filling, wetland creation is required. The applicant has proposed wetland creation between retained wetlands A and C. The area between these wetlands is forested. To create an on-site wetland grading is required. As such, removal of trees between the wetlands is proposed to create the new wetland as mitigation. The applicant has proposed to remove 27 trees and replace these trees with 141 trees. 3) The applicant has proposed to remove trees in the wetland buffer of wetland A and B, for temporary construction impacts (trees identified as 2399 and 2400). Trees are proposed to be replanted in the temporary impacted area following construction. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOC; tree removal is not an exempt activity in wetlands and/or their buffers; however, pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOM.2.a, a proposed action on property involving regulated wetlands can be approved if the project takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts and that the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated wetland area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located. Pursuant to the previous Preliminary PUD approval and SEPA environmental review, mitigation has been identified for all impacts proposed to the wetland and such mitigation has been approved subject to conditions. By way of providing background; the following is a description of the perviously approved project which would be developed at the subject site. The applicant applied for a Preliminary PUD to develop a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density was requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. Preliminary approval was granted by the Hearing Examiner on March 29, 2013 subject to 38 conditions of approval. The applicant is still required to gain approval of a Final PUD and the subject Variance in order to complete their required land use permits for the proposed development. Variance Reportl2-001.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development FIELDBRDOK COMMONS Report of: August 20, 2013 I C. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Map Exhibit 2: Tree Variance Site Plan/Grading Plan, VSPl -VSP3 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Mitigation and Grading Plan, 2 sheets Exhibit 4: Parties of Record I D. FINDINGS: Administrative Variance Report & Decision LUAlZ-001, V-A Page 3 of 7 Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following: 1. Request: The applicant has requested an administrative variance from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions for Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and their assoicated buffers. 2. Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials comply with the requirements necessary to process a variance request. The applicant's tree retention site plan and grading plan and wetland mitigation plan are provided as Exhibits 2 and 3. 3. Existing Land Use: The subject parcel is surrounded on the north by single family residential (R-14, R-10, and R-8 zones), on the east by vacant property (R-14 and R-8 zones), on the south by single family and multi-family residential (R-14), and on the west by single family, a day care center and vacant property (R-14 and CA zones). 4. Zoning: The subject property is within the Residential 14 dwelling unit per net acre (R-14) zone. 5. Topography: Site topography generally undulates between a high of about 436 feet to a low of 420 feet mean sea level. 6. Lots and Building Size: The lot area is 10.77 acres in size. The propsoed Field brook Commons development would have a total gross building area of 180,934 square feet. 7. Tree Removal: A total of 133 trees have been requested to be removed within existing wetlands and/or their buffers. I E. CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA: Section 4-9-2508.5.a. Lists 4 criteria that the Planning Director is asked ta consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. These include the fallowing: The Planning Director shall have authority to grant an administrative variance upon making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Variance Report12-001.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of: August 20, 2013 Administrative Variance Report & Decision LUAU-001, V-A Page 4 of 7 Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification: The applicant contends that due to the requirement to provide secondary fire access directly from 108th Ave. SE and the required street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, impacts to wetlands E and Fare unavoidable. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) is in conflict with itself as one cannot construction a wetland in an upland forested area without removing trees. Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and concurs with their analysis. As the secondary fire access and the street frontage improvements are required. Furthermore, in the SEPA Environmental Review for the subject project (City file number LUA12-001) impacts to the three identified wetlands to be filled was evaluated and mitigation was proposed, identifying compliance with RMC wetland regulations. Furthermore, the proposed wetland fill and development was approved previously by the City's Hearing Examiner for the wetland fill and creation on the subject site. The applicant is correct in stating that there in an internal conflict in the RMC which allows for wetland fill and creation but does not exempt tree removal in those wetlands that are being filled and/or created. As such, the applicant suffers practical difficulties and an unnecessary hardship with the strict application of the Zoning Code. However, as it relates to the trees proposed to be removed, due to temporary construction impacts, trees identified as 2399 and 2400, this same practical difficulty does not exist. The applicant has proposed and is not required to grade the site to result in temporary construction impact to the buffers of wetlands A and B. Furthermore, as a part of the SEPA Environmental review, these two trees were identified through a mitigation measure and as a condition of approval of the preliminary PUD as required trees to be retained. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated: The applicant justification was not clear in their submitted materials. However, staff has reviewed the proposal and concurs that by allowing the removal of the trees from the identified wetlands and their buffers (with the exception of trees 2399 and 2400) it would be detrimental to the public welfare, as this would restrict the construction of a secondary fire access onto 108'h Ave. SE and street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street. Furthermore, prohibiting the removal of trees for wetland creation would restrict the ability for the developers to mitigate the impacts of the wetland fill. The proposed tree removal would not be injurious to the property or the improvements in the vicinity and the zone; as the applicant has proposed to re-plant trees throughout the developed site and plant 141 trees as wetland mitigation. When analyzing the overall future development there would be more trees following the development, a larger wetland area, and improved street frontage and fire access, compared to the existing site today. c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated: The applicant contends that RMC is in conflict with itself as one cannot construct a wetland in an upland forested area without removing trees, and mitigation for filling of the wetland would be provided through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing Wetland A, B, and C. Variance Reponll-001.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Administrative Variance Report & Decision LUA12-001, V-A Report of: August 20, 2013 Page 5 of 7 Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and concurs with their analysis. The SEPA Environmental Review for the subject project (City file number LUA12-001) evaluated impacts to the three identified wetlands to be filled and evaluated the proposed mitigation; which identified compliance with RMC wetland regulations; provided all conditions and mitigation measures were met. Provided the applicant's mitigation proposal does not result in a net loss of ecological functions and values; granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, with the exception of trees 2399 and 2400. d. That the approval as determined by the Planning Director is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the proposed tree removal is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and partially concurs with their analysis. The removal of the trees within the three wetlands to be filled and the wetland creation area is the minimum amount of trees necessary to accomplish the required mitigation necessary for the project to not result in a net loss of ecological functions, provide secondary fire access and street frontage improvements. However, the trees identified to be removed due to temporary construction impacts exceed the minimum necessary to provide mitigation for the filled wetlands and are not in an area needed for street frontage improvement's or fire access. As such, trees 2399 and 2400 exceed the minimum to accomplish the desired purpose. I F. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located 17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055, Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. 2. RMC 4-4-130D3 restricts tree removal in wetland and their buffers unless exempted by the critical areas regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050( (critical areos regulations); tree removal is not an exempt activity in wetlands and/or their buffers. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to remove trees in wetlands and their buffers. 3. The requested variance, with the exception of the portion identified below in conclusion 4, meets the four criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4- 9-250B.5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report. 4. The requested variance to remove trees 2399 and 2400, due to temporary construction impacts, does not meet any of the four criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-250B.5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the Staff Report. Variance Report12-001.docx City of Renton Department of Community & J:conomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Administrative Variance Report & Decision LUAll-001, V-A Report of: August 20, 2013 Page6of7 G. DECISION: The Administrative Variance for the Fieldbrook Commons, File No. LUA12-001, is approved in part and denied in part. All trees proposed to be removed as a result of the wetland fill and creation is approved. All trees proposed to be removed as a result of temporary construction impacts is denied. The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall comply with all the conditions identified in the Environmental Review and Preliminary Planned Urban Development located in City file LUA12-001. 2. No tree removal is permitted on site until approval of a Final PUD and an approved grading and/or construction permit has been issued for the activity. 3. The development shall meet the minimum tree retention requirements of the R-14 zone, and shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet identifying compliance with these standards with the Final PUD for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 4. The wetland creation shall be completed prior to the tree removal and fill of wetlands D, E, and F. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: J c.2.\_~ C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator TRANSMITTED this 20" day af August, 2013 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact: Field brook Commons LLC 9675 SE 36'" Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island. WA 98040 Justin Lagers Fieldbrook Commons LLC ., 9675 SE 36'" Street, Suite 105. Mercer Island, WA 98040 TRANSMITTED this 20" day of August, 2013 to the Party(ies) of Record: See Exhibit 4 TRANSMITTED this 20th day of August, 2013 to the following: Neil Watts, Development Servkes Director Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Fire Marshal Renton Reporter H. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXP/RATION The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14days of the effective date of decision. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on September 3, 2013. An appeal of the decision must be filed within Variance Report12-001.docx City of Renton Deportment of Community & f:conomic Development FIELDBROOK COMMONS Report of: August 20, 2013 Administrative Variance Report & Decision LUA12-D01, V-A Page 7 of 7 the 14-day appeal period {RCW 43.21.C.075{3); WAC 197-11-680). 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, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the effective date of decision, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. EXPIRATION: The variance(s) approval will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A variance one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B.17. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. Variance Reportll-001.docx D. <( :;; C 0 0 :c ~ CD :c ~ w z -- I j I l ! l ! V) , z I j " " 0 0 "' <D g1 !\ ! ! • I ('. I ~r..; .. ·t .-i7 NW 1/4, S[ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG£ 5 £, WM ,.,,_.,..._.) /-L , -I--;;' JI -1 '.'1. ·1 '- 'l_,i-1 i ' ,-- J -1 C -:...:; 1"·----' ·r.:: -· \-:; ~'. ·., \ ,-.11 ·:·< L '1' () 0 ·"'/ ), ,,, I I ;:i I _liU __ _ I JJ ., I TT l_i I le !Jfl' ii,,: , • ! I ·-'"-L·-·' :-·,. __ _J_ '" ___J ' ~- I .-, 0-' I City t)f a o · "enton · f(tnr 1 /nc1 r·J -- ' · ,~ c n,.;1sion I I_ \ ~'<· ,----, · --'\'. A_· ,1u1v 1 o ~.,. ,. · --~ >F \ ·) 21;1) @ , , ·--• _ _J_1 _ I', '\ -..,. -,-,-·--• \ ,_,. ...... \ -·,· 1 ( &. 6--;,-- ( ; _ :: 'i U .. , () ; \. : ,/, , ',1 C ,, !!lf'lr--,J ?:;f" __ >/~~-/f,l/7 _ NORTH (:,-·;/ . . C i_ )_ ., ·' -. •• . ,_. ----__ /~ b{_l. ,{/'I"/~§-_], .. ;"•:•"" ' • -.: _:___' -------=~;~--=-.. ~;-~_:::_~} ~~~ DAA.aNGSNOTAPPA:VE~ 1 • ·- ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ • r__ FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS ffi ~~~~~~ --------=-------7--------1-------1-------,-------f-------1--------------------------\----+-~-.. -"'"a~~E ~~ !6":::10 m ::. ____ 1 .,. ria]J) .. '""""' OONSULTINO ENGfNEERS ---_,..,_ ... ,,,,, ___ .. _ o-.-F--',.o. _.. "'°'"SIOO ev1o.o•tl- EXHIBIT 2 ~-CITY OF ··-~ RENTON Ii.,_;.._;: "'"'"''"'/Bu''"""/"·'""""'"'""•' " FIELD9ROOK COMMONS PUD TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLAN 17040 108™ A'IENUE SE RENTOO, WA I I ! I ; l " V) l z ' ~ I el u "' 8 "' ~ C: NW 1/4, SE 7/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG[ 5 E, WM ~1··~ . ., ... C •,' '\ ~ L" \ '" I ', ··J~· -.. -~ f!E"SION SY fCt,1.!!ll"Pflf= ~ ··- I::.:,:...-;_ I 1 ?''! ···;.·' /:, • (·, *' CITY OF RENTON "''""'"w°""'"''•/1'•~'' -••'-"'o' / -, I I ~:::r. ,,.,.,,._,,, ... , ~·""'·""1'" ,---.c.!_· City Off:? i'1: .· •Or:,0 , 1 ,.tnn, .. ),-. 1 t,. ''~ .. ,. ' ; . ,_ --~ 'i/,;;iOn DAAWINQS NOT APPAOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS STAMPED OR SIGNED APPROVED BY TI-iE REVIEWING AGENCY REC<;Nr,,ENDcO roo N'Pfl.\NN. :~-----1 " FIELOBROOK COMMOOS PUO TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLAN 17040 10ij1H AVENUE SE RENTON, WA a ' l ! i i ! ' ' l • u, l z t 0 i ~ u ~ ~ 0: I /' --~:t;.t~: _..-_ ·.' "".'.) ... <::\ -~--~ / {,> .. <> fil lDl 8 §II:::§~ .., ___ _ NW 1/4, S[ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG[ 5 £, WM. ... ~·. ·\:·'_ '\~ - ::'J ••• - '"," -. . (~ --· ·· .... '.··,_ -._ ,~ . C) .. . /.!,. . . , .. ' ' {) ~-, ~-.. (: .. ~ .. ' \ . . ........._.,, ·.: -,.... '. '. ··1~ "'.::;:;-_ " .' ' '" ,. ' ,' ......... ·' \. ', \ '\ ..• ~\ ~,x": .'. I • ('; . . ocn.o.o-.-• . """""'' . -·· "'·"' IIO. n, \'"-"'"""'") ' J. ~ ' ' ----'· " ' ' ·, : \ {: : :\:· ,, ('. . < r) .. .:_· () c. ·._o_ '\~ \ ·~\\\ ,''•, ' 1\1 () \ (\~, J '' i) ._·_. \ i ··~ -~-~-~--~_i'i~} ·\' ~-. ·.::,,' -.. -~ ..... ~ ':.!\ , I .. ... ·, _\)i i'J._) . , ·' I, ' ----:~ ' !' ' .. c- I. ) .... .,. .... _., 1 ,. J 1·-20• ·0 .. 1.-'' .r'' .. , .. r:, _,,. ...... C · 1· ',· ... _;!;.--;:.' -:~i::-.?~J'1:· ill> CITY OF ~ RENTON Cit,, _ _ .,, Of f'.?~r, , ,~;-,,.) . T:011 . Cf /)/,'·1r, t) ·, · . '.~; '-1'.:1.slor.: Jurv 1 .1 21111 16Jficc --1 }, ·-~1 r~ ("-,, @ NORT .. ,0_ u;::, t,'C 1111/1~,, .. ", -II.,u IY, · /LJ1 ~y ,.....,...csc.ce 0 10 >f, __, -;-;;:;;:;-• ._Fl DRAWINGS NOT APPROVED FOA CONSTRUCTION UNLESS ST AMPED OR SIGNED APPROVED BY THE REVIEWING AGENCY RUX)Nr.t~NOE1J FOR l>J'?ROVAL "-----"----- " I::._:'..-;,_ I 1i ..,,,.,o,f&lld~o/Publi< """"' O.o1 FIELOBROOK COMMONS PUO TREE VARIANCE SrTE PLI\N f GRADING P...AN 17040 103TH A\€NIJE SE == RDITCN, W~ 0 ;;c r-----------~---.c, pl ) _41; ' ' !'. f i i I i ! ! i I ' I ! M t- M a:i M ::c >< w ~ I \. ~ I ' i ' ! I I ! I ' ~ ' i " . • ' • • ' ., ' ' • I ~ • • ;I•: • • l ! ! " . §),; ' ' ' ' ~ ~ !I lj i I ~ d H H fi ~ tl t !J " " a ' • I § • • ~ I ~ ~i 0 @ 00 0 ® • 0 I 0 ~ § ' I ' I !I ' { ~ . • ' • • ' ~ § ~ ! ! ~ !i I i • i: H ~ ~ H i ~ a a , • • I " 0 @ G !, 01® r-_ ( i i ' ! ! ' • ! ! I ,I ! i I 11 la d • • § 0 • © 'l ' ' -' ! ! ~ 0 0 0 ' ' , l l l ! I J I i 1 l ~ ~ ~ ::::::~:: , t I ! i ~ -i ,~ I ! I ' JEREMY ADAMS 11012 SE 173RD St RENTON, WA 98055-5927 Robert Lyon 10817 SE 170th St Renton, WA 98055-5909 Richard Garana 10841 SE 172nd St 90 Renton, WA 98055-5945 PATRICK & CLAIRE CREAGER 10833 SE 173rd St Renton, WA 98055-5907 George & Frances Subic PO Box 89 Renton, WA 98057-0089 Laura Smith 10841 SE 172nd St 9A Renton, WA 98055-5945 Darlene Bjornstad 14624 SE 183rd St Renton, WA 98058 Karen Huseth 17123 113th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 JESSE HURTADO PO BOX 59743 RENTON, WA 98058-2743 Dan Phillips PO Box 60256 Renton, WA 98058 Corine Kumano 10829 SE 172nd St 6C Renton, WA 98055-5942 Richard Miles 10809 SE 172nd St 1B Renton, WA 98055-5926 "It I- "'"' a:i 1-4 :c >< w r LY ~ +lo_. f~ 6t rt~ +, \,v~ 3'to~':f, rl ~~ w , r_~ OA-J2---~~ ' ao ~ o:<t, of i10 I ~ l.}j \< qt,,<,L{,,JJ,t~± . --H rtJU '1D ~ V\Ji ,~!r03 -~ \J . , . M-f~~ ~ JV,opof'd ~ . jY'A-.{ J We JV.i'AV~ . . . . f61 6VV ) . k ~I P (--ea:_~ cd~ MS2 -A--,. °J.~[pY',~ --o-r /V\~ 1rfy·~J 8-,,at ~ 2-Su,,~! ~f(vVY!~ I o 08-1 'St::-{ r-zd-._ hd 'St # fa c__ ' ~/ l,A/)( 1?15~'7 ~ CsQ)-;;,.c,'7-d-'l~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Ma,ter Aj>plbtlon ha. bun fll•d •f!d accoptod with tho Department of Community & Economk Dovolcpmont ICED)-Plonnlnc DM,Jon ol tho City of Ron ton. Th• folluwln1 brlofly dneribo, 1h1 oppllcatlM and the nea.>1ory PubllcApprov1I,. DAn Of NOTICE Of APPLICATION: July 2, 2013 PRO IE CT NAME/NUMIIER: Fioldbrook Commons Var~nce / LUA12-00l, V-A PIIOJfCT DESCRIPTION: Applicant applied for a vorionco !rom the tree re1ula1i<ms, to runovo !roes In the w,,ilartd buffer and woll,nd PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 108~ Avenue se PUBllCAl'PROVAl.S: Adminl,trot;.te Varl~nce Review APPUCAJfT/PROJECT CONT ACT PERSON: Justin Logo rs, Fieldbroak Commons, UC; !'167S SE 36"' Slroot U05; Morn, l51and, WA 98040; Eml:Justln@pnwfmldings.com PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on tho obavo appllcatl"" IT!\>51 be submlttotd In writing to Vantssa Dolbe•, S.nlor Plonnar, Popartment of Community• fc,:,nomk Dovelopmem, 105~ ~c.rth Gradv Wov, Ront<>n, WA HD57, bv 5:0ll p.m. on lu"r 1,, 2013. If you h'IVI! questions 1bo1111hl, propo .. l or wl,h tot,,, m•d• • ?!lrtv of rea,rd ind '"«"Ive ackll11onal no1rntation by mall, contact.tho Projeci M•""S"' at (415) 430-7314. Anyo,ie who submits wfinen ccmment, will •utomalitally become a party of re,;<ml ind wttl bt notified of anydeci>lon on thb p,oJe<:1. PLEASE INCWDETHE l'ROJECTNUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR l'ROl'ER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: June 13, Z013 NOTICE Of COMPI..ETI APPLICATION: July 2, 2013 ~you would like to bt made I party or re<."Ord to recelvo lurtlH!r lnformldion on this pr<>pooed project. complete this form ind roturn tti: Cl)' of Renton, cm, Planning Division, 1055 S.Outh Gra!fy W~, Romon, WA 9f'IOS7. file Name/ No.: Field brook Commons Variance/ lUA12-001, V-A NAME:-------------------------- MAILINGADD~ESS: ____________ Cty/Stat~ip -------- TELEPHONE NO.:----------- CERTIFICATION I, , :\ 1a::O l Q d-0 9: ··-. hereby certify that -, copies of the above document were posted in ___s__ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: 1/oJ/ I 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) Signed: j'. ,q::Dl \: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ __:L=' :uJ"'"'"--5_·_"'_0~_..:.,,..,_ ______ _ signed this instrnment and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. n~,:,;~''''''\\\\\\\ \111,, ~s ·eE.!t,; 11D. kt J ff 0 .... ,,,,~=~j 1111 = , $'0"f#,,. ~_, 1111 A '/ -~:~ t-,fll" I,,-~ ~ ~ :v; .... ~ 0 ~ -.. ., .. : ~i O .. ,;; I-.,, ~ ..i.. ~s z .. " }! ~ C!> ~ ,; , 0 ~ !'?:=. ---~ 1-... a..· ..... -c;;._ -, "1""' Pl>¥ n.' = .;:, -"/. ,, ,.-.. ~:-c..== ,,., ,,,, 8" ~.... ,.,,,. = It ,..,, .,:,_.1 - ,, ~ 111\\\\\\,,........ ~-,; ,;:- ///// '".<1 re of $'" 111 -:,,..,,, 11\\\\\\\\''' Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary ( Print): _ __.:Ji1...L.A.!....:...""G.l.l.!.!~------- My appointment expires: A L.u1 ,-,k .J'i ,) /) I ·s ----'-'-"~.4J-"--'-''---'"'-4-, -""'-.c.L-'--------- CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of July, 2013, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter and Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Contact Fieldbrook Commons, LLC Owner/ Applicant 300' Surrounding Property Owners See attached ,,, "I ,,, 11, (.J...,, _ --..,/I ,, ·:~ -"".::-' GRAB~1:-.''1,11 (Signature of Sender): __ ....JA../J..L"""e::..,,"""~1<1--...il...LLL.L..-'~====--------~.:?...,,,:,~.,i'.,,ic1'~~-""011'1~•,,;,r 1 11 -.J:: .. f.'lb-v "''°1..: ,,, :i;. ' : ff~ o1Aff~ "P~\ ~ ) :; ~· ~ ""t / STATE OF WASHINGTON ::: ~8 . , -~ z ~ )ss ~ ~ <., :o::: '*-,ft\ "'u11"''\n, ff~ ::: ) ~ "). ,,,, 8-29· ... ~ c, = 1 ,.,. ,,,, .,.. ......... ..s: -COUNTY OF KING ,, . -, >:. 1hl\\\\\'''" ~"" .;: 111 I: OF W ,._s .;:'" I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11111 111 ,,,,,,, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u~~~~~d purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Priblic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ____ tl--',1-'1_....__._,,cs,~u.,:-·.,__ ____________ _ My appointment expires: A -... Ci ., ct. ri '4 c, <; t ·x '.) c;,.Oi..J Fieldbrook Commons Variance LUA12-001, V-A SPRINGBROOK RIDGE L L C 800 S 3RD ST RENTON, WA 98057 KUMAR KAMLESH+SAROJANI 10839 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 KUMA KAMLESH+SAROJANI 17314 108TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 US BANK NA 4801 FREDERICA ST OWENSBORO, KY 72301 SUBIC GEORGE & FRANCES PO BOX 89 RENTON, WA 98057 SALAYMANG HALIMAH 16824 113TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 HUA MY M+ TIN YEN N 17033 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 ROBISON JAMES L 9670 RAINIER AVES SEATILE, WA 98118 MARCHAND TERRY M 17021 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 SANBERG BRUCE+ TAMI 17014 SE 224TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 GILLELAND JOHN W 11005 E 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 CREAGER PATRICK H 10833 SE 173RD RENTON, WA 98055 EALY MICHAEL R 10838 SE 173RD RENTON, WA 98055 PNW HOLDINGS LLC 9725 SE 36TH ST STE 214 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 CARTER STANLEY D+BILLIE B 17107 113TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 TEUNG YAOTA CHAO CHIOTA PO BOX 78414 SEATILE, WA 98178 VILLAGRANA RAMIRO+MARISELA PO BOX 1336 BREWSTER, WA 98812 NG DEANNA 17015 113TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 NG ROBERT 17013 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 STOIANOVA DINA 17007 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 BATSCHI JR JERRY A+DIANE R 10843 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98058 BELL TIMOTHY 11004 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 NEATHERY DAVID H 10830 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 LYONS WADE M+AMANDA A 17109 113TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 SUBIC MARGERY PO BOX 769 RENTON, WA 98057 KILLIAN DANIEL S 2100 PEARMAN DR PALMDALE, CA 93551 MANGAHAS THERESA 17025 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 GARRED DANIEL 17017 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 NGY TENG+MORANY 17001 105TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON CITY OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 KIRK FLOYD & GAIL 10845 SE 170TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 LOWER KYNA J 10819 SE 170TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 ADAMS JEREMY R 11012 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 MADFAI MARK 3010 ILWACO AVE NE RENTON, WA 98059 LOOK JANAE D 350 106TH AVE NE #100 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 SANCHEZ SERGIO L+ANALYNN C 10821 SE 172ND ST #D RENTON, WA 98055 VARDANYAN EDUARD 10821 SE 172ND ST #4B RENTON, WA 98055 COPPOCK SYLVA JEAN 10813 SE 172ND ST #2A RENTON, WA 98055 HART DONNA MAE 10813 SE 172ND ST #2B RENTON, WA 98055 REALTY EXCHANGERS INC+NUNER 22732 126TH PL SE KENT, WA 98031 MARTIN ANDREW WILLIAM 10839 SE 170TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 LYON RB 10817 SE 170TH RENTON, WA 98055 TZVETANOV IVAYLO K+VASELA T 17220 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 KELLEY MICHELLE 10837 SE 172ND ST #SA RENTON, WA 98055 ANDERSON BETTY 10817 SE 172ND ST #A-3 RENTON, WA 98055 TURPEN SUSAN K 8008 39TH AVE NE SEATILE, WA 98115 BONIFANT DEANN MARIE 10825 SE 172TH ST # SD RENTON, WA 98055 CONE CLARA L 10841 SE 172ND ST #9C RENTON, WA 98055 LINDSTROM JOYCE 10825 SE 172ND ST #A-5 RENTON, WA 98055 LEGGED JILL L 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT C-3 RENTON, WA 98055 SCHLAMP PHIL R+LINDA 10825 SE 170TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 MAEHREN MARCIA L PO BOX 494303 REDDING, CA 96049 WOODS JENNIFER L 10829 SE 172ND ST #6 B RENTON, WA 98055 SIMPSON KEYSHA 10837 SE 172ND ST #SC RENTON, WA 98055 CHEN FONGPIN 10825 SE 172ND ST #SC RENTON, WA 98055 THOMAS DAVIDE 10817 SE 172ND ST #3-D RENTON, WA 98055 STANLEY D BRUCE+NANCY A 10825 SE 172ND ST #BS RENTON, WA 98055 KELLAR ANN MARIE 10829 SE 172ND ST #A6 RENTON, WA 0 HALLMARK MICHELLE ERIN 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT 3B RENTON, WA 98055 TAMAYAO TERESITA T 10813 SE 172ND ST 32C RENTON, WA 98055 ONORATI KAREN M 10841 SE 172ND ST 9 B RENTON, WA 98055 GARANA RICHARD 10841 SE 172ND ST #D RENTON, WA 98055 SMITH LAURA L 10841 SE 172ND ST #A-9 RENTON, WA 98055 MARYOTT DANA G PO BOX 188 OCEAN PARK, WA 98640 JUANEDA YARA 10821 SE 172ND ST #4C RENTON, WA 98055 GARRISON KATRINA R 17032 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT, WA 98032 COURTNEY ROBERT & TAMAKI 17209 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 RUSSELL DANIEL & DEBRA 829 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 ASSEFA ASAMENEW 17216 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 SOHNL Y MARY P 10833 SE 172ND ST UNIT 7C RENTON, WA 98055 LOUIE GARLAN W 9311 MAYES CT S SEATTLE, WA 98118 MILES RICHARD D MILES VIRGINIA C 10809-B SE 172ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 GOLD GLADYS M 10829 SE 172ND ST #D6 RENTON, WA 98055 CALLIA GINA+RUTLEDGE KEVIN 10809 SE 172ND ST #1-D RENTON, WA 98055 YU Al LING 17026 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 ZHONG ZHI GUANG+JIAN MING W 17219 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 HURTADO JESSE & LINDA PO BOX 59743 RENTON, WA 98058 BOGGLE ADDISALEM 17018 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 VONG BIEU C 5570 15TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98108 STEVENS KRISTIN L 10817 SE 172ND ST #7-D RENTON, WA 98055 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE A 301 W BAY ST JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202 BACANI DENNIS P+MARIA CIELO 10813 SE 172ND ST #D2 RENTON, WA 98055 THOMPSON MICHAEL 10821 SE 172ND ST #4A RENTON, WA 98055 HUSETH KAREN J 17123 113TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98058 VAUGHN TAMARA L 17010 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 LEENKNECHT MATTHEW+AMANDA 17210 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 SEIM JOHN R+CHARLENE A 17203 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 OKADA-LOUIE JULIE 17215 109TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 LEE DOUG+PHUNG VAN 17001 110TH PL SE RENTON, WA 98055 WILLIAMS CHARLES D 25603 E LK WILDERNESS DR SE MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038 HARRELL FLORENCE 17557 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 WATSON JESSE JR 17573 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 GREVE DAVID P 17511 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 RUIZ LI WEN 17549 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 NUTT CHRISTOPHER L 17569 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98056 SANT GAIL 17571 110TH LN SE UNIT 6 RENTON, WA 98055 MENDOZA EVELYN D+CYRUS 17559 110TH LN SE #11 RENTON, WA 98055 HOPPER SUSAN J 17507 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 DAVIS ROSS+SUSAN BRADY 17561110TH LN SE UNIT 12 RENTON, WA 98055 SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER PO BOX 58039 RENTON, WA 98058 YEE DEBORA A 4401 40TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98116 TRAN MY+THUAN VAN ET AL 17567 110TH LN SE #8 RENTON, WA 98055 MOFFATT MARK W & THERESA C 17533 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 GINER DAVID+JESSICA 17503 110TH LN SE #31 RENTON, WA 98055 SHUTLER MICHELLE L+JOSEPH J 17517 110TH LN SE #28 RENTON, WA 98055 SHPREYREGIN LEONID+SVETLANA 17555 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 ADEGBITE STEPHEN+UCHE 17577 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 STERLING SUSAN M+ROBERT D 17535 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98005 FLOYD LANA M 17547 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC 8110 E UNION AVE #200 DENVER, CO 80237 COYLE JANICE M 17527 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 FERGUSON DARLENE+NEAL 17523 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 DOZIER MICHAEL 17551 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 CUSPARD STEVEN F 17515 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 DE LA TORRE MELINDA L 17581 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 DEMENEZES TWILA 17539 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 PUTMANN-DAMM KELLI P 17529 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 BENNETT ROBIN 17583 110TH LN SE #4 RENTON, WA 98055 HURNER JAMES F+RUBY 17545 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 GORMLY EILEEN E 17513 110TH LN SE #26 RENTON, WA 98055 CLOMAN GERALDINE 17579 110TH LN SE #2 RENTON, WA 98055 FIELDBROOK COMMON LLC 9725 SE 36TH ST #214 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 SOREM RON 10835 SE 170TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 JANOWSKI HENRY F+ANNA E 17505 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 NELSON DONALD LEE JR 11011 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98055 BJORNSTAD DARLENE R TRUST 14624 SE 183RD ST RENTON, WA 98058 KELLY LLANE PO BOX 58093 RENTON, WA 98058 DANG NINA 17525 110TH LN SE RENTON, WA 98055 WASHINGTON FEDERAL 425 PIKE ST SEATTLE, WA 98101 NIEMI DONALD RICHARD NIEMI SYDNEY 17022 108TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 M B INVESTMENTS CHATHAM WR 1851 CENTRAL PL S #225 KENT, WA 98030 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development {CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: July 2, 2013 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Fieldbrook Commons Variance/ LUA12-001, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant applied for a variance from the tree regulations, to remove trees in the wetland buffer and wetland. PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 108th Avenue SE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance Review APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers, Field brook Commons, LLC; 9675 SE 35th Street #105; Mercer Island, WA 98040; Eml: justin@pnwholdings.com PUBLIC HEARING: N/A Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Department of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5;00 p.m. on July 16, 2013. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at {425) 430-7314. 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: June 13, 2013 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 2, 2013 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 of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. File Name/ No.: Fieldbrook Commons Variance/ LUA12-001, V-A NAME: --------------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: __________________ City/State/Zip:------------ TELEPHONE NO.: ---------------- Denis Law Mayor July 2, 2013 Justin Lagers Fieldbrook Commons, LLC 9675 SE 35th Street #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application Fieldbrook Commons Variance, LUAlZ-001, V-A Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore; is acGepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Renton City H.all • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • re.ntonwa.gov ·,'IY of Ff:-=·n·uH· City of Renton ttq,~ .,. '.,_ ' ,· i ~: ( 111 -~ LAND USE PERMIT ' JUN J " 10"' ~ ,J .. 1/., IA? /U ([;' 1,s' m,,J re:, 1,JVIA STER APPLICATIONiH/1 };-<A,...,., ./ ·v.:i 1~"[T }Y)) PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Fieldbrook Commons, LLC Fieldbrook Commons 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: 17040 108th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98055 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 206-588-114 7 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 292305-9023, 292305-9022, 292305-9168 APPLICANT {if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant Land -Unimproved NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): Variance Request -Tree Cutting EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: R-14 -Residential Medium Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) Same EXISTING ZONING: R-14 TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-14 + bonus density NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): 469,203.55 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): Fieldbrook Commons, LLC DEDICATED: 24,559.67 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 NA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Mercer Island, Washington ZIP: 98040 ACRE (if applicable) 162 units I 9.01 Acres= 17.98 dwelling units/ acre TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 253-405-5587 -cell I 206-588-1147 -office NA Justin@pnwholdings.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 162 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templatcs\Sclf-Hclp Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -I -03111 PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) --~-----~----------- NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 178,534 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2,400 square feet (rec building) SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 PROJECT VALUE: $16,356,000.00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): CJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE CJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO CJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. CJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. CJ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. CJ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. C!l WETLANDS 51,815 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followina information included} SITUATE IN THE S.E. QUARTER OF SECTION~. TOWNSHIP 23N , RANGE~. IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Michael Gladstein , declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) 7 the current owner of the property involved 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 information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~----.., /~: 05/23/2013 Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) ington Notary (Print): ----'c:!A=--.c:.,eo-=-.:..:~=--.(.-'---'-. -'-.@-'-=-021:>,,9=::_:_;.L.V ____ _ 7 My appointment expires: _ _;C,::_·-'/c...£7_·_:_/+¥''--------------- 11:\CED\Data\Fonns-Tcmplatcs\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc · 2 -03/11 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVE:., OF SUBMITTAL RE.QUln.~MENTS. FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Calculations 1 9pipf#il iili~R#fRFPr~mi~yj :r H>' "' Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 Environmental Checklist 4 §#r,~~r9'it?Y~m~~t~I~BP[#!l~fs?R~~~·:•••••·•:•:;::;;:;::•• Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Floor Plans , AND• 0 @~m1#pmr 1;\•R~@ri~~~*•: , > , , Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Irrigation Plan 4 ~im~:sp~nix~~#~~w~'#:M~R· 1m11s@rng ~it*#• •••·•·••••,, Landscape Plan, Conceptual, Legal Description 4 mii•if~Ki#/1m~~ii~gmH~i~i#r~•~•••••••·•·•·••••··•,••:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,. Master Application Form 4 i@Mlliii/:~~r:#iKP~~ p~/rn#1wn~~ti'\' • t u > Neighborhood Detail Map 4 A®f im~: it~m~~m~~•~,~~mijp~pii i~,~~i~ +••••::• Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: :Qdir,.t $1'.f 1hr fa(J( 0: 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning DATE: y !?JI 2/)(3 I H:\CED\Data\Fonns-Temp!ates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVE >FSUBMITTAL REQUIR IENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Plat Name Reservation 4 Traffic Study 2 x~~~RHm1mWµ~/@pi~~r1riH!>r4mi i'' ;,:t< · · Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 e ~@ti#~IBi~~: @'#n#H~i,:i'#Jt ::: ,,,, ........ . Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites ZAND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations , AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: ~h,_id~cl~btwt-'-----,_· _f(._(ti_e~~~=·d/J-C~e~, - ~/20/20~73~--DATE: H:\CED\Oata\Fonns-Tempfates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09 fl•)ti.l) D. R. STRON1.J CONSULTING ENGINEERS June 12, 2013 .iliN l J 2!r1:, DRS-Project No. 11062 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Fieldbrook Commons -Project Narrative Background: This project narrative is provided in support of the variance request for the Fieldbrook Commons PUD, located at 17040 1081h Ave SE. The Applicant is seeking approval to construct a 162-unit apartment complex on 10.80 acres (Parcel Numbers 292305-9168, 292305-9022 and 292305-9023). A variance is being requested to allow tree removal within onsite wetlands and wetland buffers in order to construct the proposed Project improvements. Land Use Permits Required: Clearing and Grading Permit Zoning and Density: The subject property and adjacent properties to the south are zoned R-14 (14 du/ac). North of the site is property zoned R-14, R-10, and R-8 comprised primarily of single-family residential development. To the east is property zoned R-14 and R-8 that is currently undeveloped. To the south is property zoned R-14 developed with a mix of multi-family and single-family development. To the west is property zoned R-14 and CA developed with single-family residential and a day care facility. The adjacent property to the east is zoned RMH. Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Site is currently undeveloped and heavily forested with moderate underbrush. Special Site features: There are six wetlands located on the Site. Three wetlands (W.L. "D", W.L. "E", W.L. "F") within the developable (western) portion of the Site will be filled in order to allow the proposed Project improvements. Three wetlands (W.L. "A", W.L. "B", W.L. "C") in the eastern portion of the Site will be set aside and remain undisturbed. Additionally, the filled wetlands will be mitigated through the creation of a wetland area adjacent to W.L. "A" and W.L. "C". Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: A review of the SCS soils map for the area indicates Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC & AmC). The soils map also indicates Norma sandy loam (No) with less than 2 percent slope. Per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, this soil type is classified as "Till" material. The predeveloped Site is contained within two Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs), TOA West and TOA East. TOA West has three Natural Discharge Areas (NDAs), NOA 1, NOA 2 and NOA 3. Runoff from NOA 1 discharges at the Site's southwestern property corner and heads south through the conveyance system in 1081h Avenue SE. It eventually crosses 1081h in a westerly direction into a stream through the 10604 N.E. 38 1n Place Suite 232 Kirkland. WA 98033-3063 Phone: (425) 827-3063 Fax: (425) 827-2423 Toll Free: (800) 962-1402 www.drstrong.com Engineers Suiveyors Landscape Architects June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Springbrook Project. Runoff from NOA 2 discharges at the Site's southern property line and heads south through the conveyance system in 109th Place SE. It eventually is collected in the conveyance system within Benson Drive S and converges with the path of NOA 1. Runoff from NOA 3 sheet flows to the east across the southeastern property corner of parcel number 292305-9023. It sheet flows across adjacent developed properties and into SE 173rd Street before converging with the downstream path of NOA 2. TOA East has two Natural Discharge Areas, NOA 1 and NOA 2. Runoff from NOA 1 sheet flows to the east and exits the Site near the northeast corner as sheet flow. The runoff is eventually collected in Soos Creek. Runoff from NOA 2 sheet flows to the east and exits the Site near the southeast property corner of parcel number 292305-9023. It reaches a closed depression and overflows to the east where it converges with the downstream path of NOA 1. Proposed Use of Property: The applicant is seeking approval to remove trees within wetlands and wetland buffers. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The Project will be accessed from 108th Avenue SE at SE 172nd Street. Number, Type and Size of Trees to be Removed: The proposed modification will result in the removal of 133 trees. See attached tree inventory for identification number, type and size of trees to be removed. Proposed Modification: The City prohibits tree removal within wetlands or wetland buffers. However, the City allows filling of wetlands. The proposed development will require tree removal within the three wetlands to be filled, as well as the wetland mitigation area and adjacent wetland buffers. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this variance request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Senior Project Engineer, Vice President WJS/lib Enclosures: 1. Site Plan 2. Justification for the Variance Request 3. Neighborhood Detail Map 4. Tree Variance Site Plan (Sheets 1, 2, 3) 5. Tree Variance Tree Removal List 6. Plan Reductions R:\2011 \0\ 11062\3\Documents\ Variance\Project Narrative_ 11062.doc fl•)til D. R. STRON<.:, CONSULTING ENGINEERS June 12, 2013 ..... ,L·~, ~>t .r=:·e~·i1ton f n,.,1:·~1on .:!JN ; 3 2013 DRS-Project No. 11062 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Field brook Commons -Justification for the Variance Request Per the City of Renton Variance Submittal Requirements, in order to approve a variance request, the following four conditions must exist: 1. The Applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, and location or surroundings of the subject property; and the strict application of the Building and Zoning code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical classification. 2. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. 3. Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. The approval, as determined the Reviewing Official, is the minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Justification (Applicable conditions from above are listed at the end of each bulleted item in bold) • The location of Wetlands D, E, and F results in most of the site's developable property being encumbered by wetland or buffer areas. These wetlands, particularly Wetlands E and F are of low value, and Wetland D is small in size but because of its linear shape limits the site's buildable area. (Condition #1 applies). • The Applicant intends to fill these wetlands and provide adequate mitigation for lost function by creating additional wetland on the eastern side of the site in and around Wetlands A, B and C. The proposed wetland mitigation consists of connecting two wetlands on the site with a created wetland in the area between them. Although Renton Municipal Code (RMC) allows the proposed wetland fill and creation/mitigation, the RMC is in conflict with itself as one cannot construct a wetland in an upland forested area without removing trees. In an attempt to avoid removing trees, the Applicant proposed using the King County Fee Mitigation method, in which the County would construct a mitigation area within the subject drainage using fees from the project. However, the City has not allowed use of the King County Fee program as it may move the mitigation area outside the City limits. Consequently, there is no option but to provide the mitigation on-site as proposed. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply). 10604 N.E. 381 h Place Suite 232 Kirkland. WA 98033-3063 Phone (425) 827-3063 Fax: (425} 827-2423 Toll Free: (800) 962-1402 www drstrong.com Engineers Suiveyors Landscape Architects June 12, 2013 Page 2 of 4 • Impacts to wetlands must be justified through a mitigation sequence as detailed in RMC. This sequencing requires addressing the following criteria; a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; • Wetland F located on the western side of the site is a Category 3 wetland measuring 1,595 sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly from 1081h Ave S.E. the Applicant is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland E located in the center of the site and adjacent to S. E. 172nd St. measures 68 sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the north half of the S.E. 172"ct St. ROW the Applicant is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland D is located in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 7,671 sf. The Applicant previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D. However, the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to construct. Therefore, the Applicant is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. (Condition #1 applies). c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; • Restoration of the wetlands in their original locations would not be feasible due to the location of the impacts, and the configuration of the parcel and remaining wetlands. (Condition #1 applies). d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; • This is not applicable as no historic wetlands are noted on the property. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; • Mitigation for filling of wetlands would be provided through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing Wetlands A, B & C in the eastern third of the site. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply). • Tree retention requirements listed in the RMC are addressed as follows: 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e. 1. Per RMC 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances. However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers (4-4-13003). This chapter of the RMC also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2). June 12, 2013 Page 3 of 4 • RMC allows filling of the small wetlands with adequate mitigation. However, wetland filling will require tree removal within the affected wetlands and buffers. The creation of new wetland will also result in tree removal within the Wetland A buffer. As mitigation, the new wetland and buffer area will receive a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply). • Within the 25.430 sf wetland creation area the Applicant will remove 26 trees and replace them with 141 trees. Once the mitigation area is constructed and the planted trees mature, there will be more trees considered "significant" in this area than currently exist. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply). • RMC 4-4-13H7.d allows the removal of all Populus species including cottonwood and lombardy poplar; all Alnus species including red alder, black alder, and white alder; and all Salix species including weeping willow. when these trees are located in a critical area or buffer provided that enhancement activities are being performed. These tree species are considered undesirable because of invasive root systems, weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties that tend to harbor insect pests. The following is a breakdown of tree removal by wetland area: Within W.L. "A" and its buffer 26 trees will be removed. Of these, 18 trees are alders and two trees are cottonwoods, which constitute 76% of the total removed within this area. Additionally, six of the total removed trees are listed as "dangerous." Within W.L. "B" and its buffer five trees will be removed. Of these, four trees are alders, which constitute 80% of the total removed within this area. Two of the alders are listed as "dangerous". One fir to be removed within this area is listed as "dead." Within W.L. "C" and its buffer three trees will be removed. Two of these trees are cottonwoods, which constitute 67% of the total within this area. Within W.L. "D" and its buffer 79 trees will be removed. Of these, 20 trees are listed as "dangerous," two as "diseased," and two as "dead." These trees constitute 30% of the total within this area. Twenty-five removed trees are cottonwoods and eight are alders. Within W.L. "E" and its buffer 7 trees will be removed. Six of these are alders, three of which are listed as "dangerous." These trees constitute 85% of the total removed within this area. One maple tree to be removed within this area is also listed as "dangerous." Within W. L. "F" and its buffer 13 trees will be removed. All removed trees are cottonwoods. Two removed trees are listed as "dangerous" and one as "diseased." (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply). June 12, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Thank you in advance for your consideration of this variance request. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Senior Project Engineer, Vice President MAJ/lib R:\2011 \0\ 11062\3\Documents\ Variance\ V130416_ 11062_renton. doc Tree Variance Tree Removal List Date: May 24, 2013 Fieldbrook Commons W.L. 11 F11 & Buffer Tree No. Si;iecies CanoelllDia. Condition 1494 COT 15.11 Dangerous 1495 COT 15.13 1496 COT 8.8 Dangerous 1497 COT 8.80 1498 COT 8.90 1499 COT 15.15 1500 COT 15.16 1501 COT 15.16 1513 COT 8.8 1514 COT 12.10 1515 COT 12.13 1516 COT 10.10 1926 COT 10.9 Diseased Total trees removed: 13 W.L. "D" & Buffer Tree No. Si;iecies CanoelllDia. Condition 1725 A 12.8 1726 A 15.12 1709 AL 12.11 Dangerous 1722 AL 12.14 Dangerous 1975 AL 14.12 1994 AL 12.14 Dead 2014 AL 12.7 2441 CED 12.16 2446 CED 10.8 Dead 2084 CHERRY 16.8 1592 COT 12.18 1658 COT 10.14 1659 COT 10.13 1675 COT 10.11 1693 COT 12.18 1699 COT 12.24 1700 COT 12.20 1702 COT 10.14 1703 COT 8.10 1704 COT 8.10 1705 COT 8.7 Diseased 1707 COT 8.9 Page 1 of 4 1710 COT 12.22 1713 COT 12.15 1717 COT 20.15 1724 COT 15.15 1736 COT 14.18 1737 COT 10.10 2009 COT 16.30 Dangerous 2465 COT 14.14 1660 F 14.18 1661 F 12.11 1974 F 12.18 1733 H 10.12 2015 HEM 12.14 Dangerous 1701 M 8.9 1706 M 12.7 1708 M 6.30 Dangerous 1711 M 10.10 Dangerous 1712 M 16.8 1714 M 18.15 1715 M 18.11 1716 M 24.24 1719 M 14.10 Dangerous 1720 M 12.7 1721 M 20.16 Diseased 1727 M 16.10 1728 M 12.9 1735 M 14.10 1808 M 12.10 1976 M 14.10 1977 M 20.20 Dangerous 1978 M 12.18 Dangerous 1979 M 20.20 Dangerous 1985 M 12.22 Dangerous 1986 M 20.20 1987 M 20.14 1991 M 20.15 1992 M 18.14 1993 M 24.24 Dangerous 1995 M 14.20 1996 M 12.12 1997 M 16.7 1998 M 12.8 1999 M 14.13 2010 M 16.8 2011 M 16.8 2012 M 30.28 Dangerous 2036 M 12.10 Page2of4 2037 M 10.8 Dangerous 2040 M 28.20 2444 M 18.12 2450 M 16.10 2453 M 18.12 Dangerous 1723 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1732 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1734 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1990 MCLUSTER Dangerous 2443 MCLUSTER Dangerous Total trees removed: 79 W.L. "E" & Buffer Tree No. S(!ecies Cano11lllDia. Condition 1771 A 16.12 1763 AL 16.16 Dangerous 1764 COT 10.8 Dangerous 1765 COT 12.10 1766 COT 14.10 Dangerous 1770 COT 14.10 1952 M 10.8 Dangerous Total trees removed: 7 W.L. "A" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l1LDia. Condition 2354 A 14.12 2092 AL 10.6 2117 AL 14.12 Dangerous 2118 AL 14.12 2119 AL 16.18 2120 AL 14.12 Dangerous 2121 AL 12.10 2144 AL 16.14 2145 AL 16.14 2146 AL 14.12 2147 AL 14.12 2148 AL 22.16 2157 AL 18.14 Dangerous 2158 AL 18.14 2159 AL 10.8 Dangerous 2160 AL 10.8 2161 AL 24.22 2340 AL 14.16 Dangerous 2361 AL 14.80 2360 COT 10.34 Page 3 of4 2091 F 20.24 2351 F 16.12 2048 M 20.8 2343 M 16.16 2363 M 14.60 2108 WIL 16.12 Dangerous Total trees removed: 26 W.L. "C" & Buffer Tree No. SE!ecies CanoE!lllDia. Condition 2345 AL 16.16 2349 AL 16.12 2344 MCLUSTER Total trees removed: 3 W.L. "B" & Buffer Tree No. SE!ecies CanOE!JllDia. Condition 2186 AL 12.12 Dangerous 2301 AL 14.12 2399 AL 20.18 Dangerous 2400 CAS 6.6 2401 F 18.24 Dead Total trees removed: 5 Page 4of4 Tree Variance Tree Removal List Date: May 24, 2013 Fieldbrook Commons W.L. "F" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l£LDia. Condition 1494 COT 15.11 Dangerous 1495 COT 15.13 1496 COT 8.8 Dangerous 1497 COT 8.80 1498 COT 8.90 1499 COT 15.15 1500 COT 15.16 1501 COT 15.16 1513 COT 8.8 1514 COT 12.10 1515 COT 12.13 1516 COT 10.10 1926 COT 10.9 Diseased Total trees removed: 13 W.L. "D" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l£LDia. Condition 1725 A 12.8 1726 A 15.12 1709 AL 12.11 Dangerous 1722 AL 12.14 Dangerous 1975 AL 14.12 1994 AL 12.14 Dead 2014 AL 12.7 2441 CED 12.16 2446 CED 10.8 Dead 2084 CHERRY 16.8 1592 COT 12.18 1658 COT 10.14 1659 COT 10.13 1675 COT 10.11 1693 COT 12.18 1699 COT 12.24 1700 COT 12.20 1702 COT 10.14 1703 COT 8.10 1704 COT 8.10 1705 COT 8.7 Diseased 1707 COT 8.9 Page 1 of 4 1710 COT 12.22 1713 COT 12.15 1717 COT 20.15 1724 COT 15.15 1736 COT 14.18 1737 COT 10.10 2009 COT 16.30 Dangerous 2465 COT 14.14 1660 F 14.18 1661 F 12.11 1974 F 12.18 1733 H 10.12 2015 HEM 12.14 Dangerous 1701 M 8.9 1706 M 12.7 1708 M 6.30 Dangerous 1711 M 10.10 Dangerous 1712 M 16.8 1714 M 18.15 1715 M 18.11 1716 M 24.24 1719 M 14.10 Dangerous 1720 M 12.7 1721 M 20.16 Diseased 1727 M 16.10 1728 M 12.9 1735 M 14.10 1808 M 12.10 1976 M 14.10 1977 M 20.20 Dangerous 1978 M 12.18 Dangerous 1979 M 20.20 Dangerous 1985 M 12.22 Dangerous 1986 M 20.20 1987 M 20.14 1991 M 20.15 1992 M 18.14 1993 M 24.24 Dangerous 1995 M 14.20 1996 M 12.12 1997 M 16.7 1998 M 12.8 1999 M 14.13 2010 M 16.8 2011 M 16.8 2012 M 30.28 Dangerous 2036 M 12.10 Page 2 of4 2037 M 10.8 Dangerous 2040 M 28.20 2444 M 18.12 2450 M 16.10 2453 M 18.12 Dangerous 1723 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1732 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1734 MCLUSTER Dangerous 1990 MCLUSTER Dangerous 2443 MCLUSTER Dangerous Total trees removed: 79 W.L. "E" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11v/Dia. Condition 1771 A 16.12 1763 AL 16.16 Dangerous 1764 COT 10.8 Dangerous 1765 COT 12.10 1766 COT 14.10 Dangerous 1770 COT 14.10 1952 M 10.8 Dangerous Total trees removed: 7 W.L. "A" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano1111LDia. Condition 2354 A 14.12 2092 AL 10.6 2117 AL 14.12 Dangerous 2118 AL 14.12 2119 AL 16.18 2120 AL 14.12 Dangerous 2121 AL 12.10 2144 AL 16.14 2145 AL 16.14 2146 AL 14.12 2147 AL 14.12 2148 AL 22.16 2157 AL 18.14 Dangerous 2158 AL 18.14 2159 AL 10.8 Dangerous 2160 AL 10.8 2161 AL 24.22 2340 AL 14.16 Dangerous 2361 AL 14.80 2360 COT 10.34 Page 3 of 4 2091 F 20.24 2351 F 16.12 2048 M 20.8 2343 M 16.16 2363 M 14.60 2087 M 14.7 2108 WIL 16.12 Dangerous Total trees removed: 27 W.L. "C" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11'1'LDia. Condition 2345 AL 16.16 2349 AL 16.12 2344 MCLUSTER Total trees removed: 3 W.L. "B" & Buffer Tree No. S11ecies Cano11','[Dia. Condition 2186 AL 12.12 Dangerous 2301 AL 14.12 2399 AL 20.18 Dangerous 2400 CAS 6.6 2401 F 18.24 Dead Total trees removed: 5 Page 4 of4 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. June 7, 2013 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas -LUA12-001 swc Job#l l-121 Dear Vanessa, 27641 Qwingtm WaySE#2 Covington WA \0012 Phono: 253-&59--0515 Fax: 253--852-4Zl2 .!UN I :1 lO/J Attached is our final revised (Revision date 5-30-13) mitigation plan taking into account all of the comments from OTAK (see attached comment response letters), as well as the hearing examiners report and subsequent comments from the US Army Corps of Engineers. This plan meets all the Hearing Examiners conditions, as well as all other requests from the City as well as the Corps If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Wetland Mitigation Plan 5-30-13 March 16, 2012 Review Response April 10, 2012 Review Response September 17, 2012 Review Response Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 27&11 Covington WayS'E#2 Covington WA 98042 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response SWC Job#] 1-121 Dear Vanessa, Phone: 253--859--0515 Fax: 253--852-4732 I have reviewed the OTAK February 29, 2012, "Critical Areas Review ofFieldbrook Commons" letter. The following is our response to the Recommendations listed starting on Page 7 of the OTAK memo; 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: According to the R.MC (4-3-0SOM3.a.i), "The applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred fee/ of a we/land even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in questions or its buffer." If any portion of the wetland or buffer is located onsite, the site plans will need to be revised accordingly. As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OT AK. It appears to be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of this wetland to the eastern property line of the site and it was 55'. As this appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the site. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Punctions: provide an assessment and comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecology metl10dology (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd!) to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3- 0SOMl 1.d). Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values, such as that provided in the above mentioned methodology. _ 'ieldbrook Commonsll 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 2 of 18 2.c. Maps: Future maps submitted should be printed at the appropriate scale and all contours and map notes should be legible. Provide approprinte scale bars on all maps. Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to pre,-ent future intrusion. This area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. 2.e. Tree Retention: 2.e. 1. Per Rl\1C 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances. However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers (4-4-130D3). This chapter of the R.c'v!C also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2). It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. 2 .f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: 2. 1.1. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to contain all of the clements required by Rl\fC 4-3-0SOM and 4-8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section 1.f above. The following are the sections under Lf referred to; 1.f.1. The mitigation memo and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation plan. 1.f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, and P by removing existing high functioning wetland buffers in order to create additional wetland. Wetland Buffer requirements per Rlv!C 4-3-050M6.a.iii states "All required wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition." The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created wetland. No loss in buffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. ieldbrook Commons/I 1-/ 2 I Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. March /6, 20/2 Page 3 of /8 1.f.3. The mitigation memo lacks many elements required by Rl\-!C 4-8-120D.23 and RMC 4-3-050!\L The most imponant lacking elements are: 1.f.3.1. Nati,-e Growth Protection Areas: Requirements for placement of wetlands and buffers into a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) (RMC 4-3-050E4 and 4-3-050M7); as well as, specifications for NGPA signs, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance covenants (RMC 4-3-050E4); The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. 1.f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessment and comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using an approved methodology to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional Using the WADOE Wetland rating systems which is based upon 3 major recognized wetland functions, Wetland D scored a total of33 points, indicating a Category 3 we!land which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table I below, a substantial functional lift will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508sf of additional wetland over the existing functions of the proposed fill wetlands. Table 1. Functional Comoarison ofimoact wetlands and orooosed miti ation Wetland Arca Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat Storage Richness Qua!. Function Function caoacitv Function Wetland D 7671.ef 3800cufi 5 snecies 12nts 8vts 13vts Wetland E 68.ef 34czd't 2 s1Jecies I lnts 4vts IOvts WetlandF 159Jsf 500cuft 5 svecies IOD/s 8vts llvts Provosed 25508sf 7600cuft 15 soecies 24ots 20nts 2lnts Functional +16178sf +3266cuft +8species* +12pts +12pts avg +9pts Lift ave ave *only 7 different species were found (excluding exotic/invasives) in Wetlands D,E &F The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. Category 3 4 4 2 +I Cateeorv ie/dbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Weiland Consul ling. Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 4 of 18 1.f.3.3. Protecting Ruffer Functions: Specifications for locating and directing lighting outside of and away from wetland and buffer areas (RMC 4-3-050/vIG.c.ii.b). This will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. 1.f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for minimizing wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i); 1.f.3.5. Hydrology: There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient hydrology to establish and maintain wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils at the proposed elevations within the wetland creation area. • There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater elevations in the wetland creation area will be the same as in the existing wetlands. In tl1e wetland creation area between Wetlands A and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in elevation and in tl1e wetland creation area on the west side of Wetland B there is generally a 4-foot difference, with as much as a 6-foot difference in elevation. Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between wetlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from J 6"-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area. The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. Its possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrology monitoring which is currently being conducted. • There is no information that determines how the construction of the berm proposed between the combined \Vetlands A and C will prevent water in this larger, combined wetland from flowing out to Wetland R. The use of a berm in this area if used, will be constructed of a soil material that will be an impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay. • There is no information to determine that excavating adjacent to \\i'etland B (Soos Creek headwaters) will not harm and/or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and vegetation. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time. _ ieldhrookCornmonslll-/2/ Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 !'age 5 of 18 1.f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specified planting of grass seeds in all disturbed portions of the buffer and created wetland. Grass has been shown to compete with and inhibit growth of installed woody plants, and tall grass can hide installed plants making them more difficult to locate during monitoring visits, and increase the likelihood of damage during maintenance activities. Grass see will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffets must conform with RJvfC 4-3-0SOC7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trails will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. The trail was a requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: provide clearing/grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that demonstrates the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (Rlv!C 4-8-120D7). The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required for the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of April-middle of May. 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Provide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that specifically needs to be included: • proposed outlet location and flow rate; • specifications regarding emergency overflow • information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and • provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target community should be similar to the existing vegetation onsite. The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized outside the wetland and associated buffers. 2.f.9. Permits: Provide documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW. _ 'ieldbrook Commons/11-121 5,'ewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 6 of 18 When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to W ADOE for 410 Water quality Certification. It is premature to submit for these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. 2. f.10. J ,ong Term Monit01'ing: Provide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer. • 'l'o be consistent with guidance from the USACE and Ecology, Section 5 Monitoring Program should specify that Year 1 vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. • At a minimum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. • Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ el pubs/ pdf / tnwrap00-2.pdf). City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of a wetland mitigation project for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE may require IO years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of monitoring. Hydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component. 2.g. Buffers: 2.g.1. City code requires impacts to critical areas and tl1eir buffers be avoided, minimized, restored or compensated (R.MC 4-3-0SOMS). Because avoiding all impacts does not appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED. Extensive proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these critical areas. In order to minimize impacts: • Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new wetland; • Retaining walls should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond, and any other area where extensive grading would otherwise impact the buffer; and • Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than tliey are under existing conditions. In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The previous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland B. _ 'ieldbrook Commons! 11-121 Sev,,·all Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 7 of 18 The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbance from mining and contains existing disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 16"-28" of the surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful. The proposed work in the buffers of these wetland to create over 25,000sf of additional wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existing forest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during the creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native tree and shrub species. All the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. 2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and invasive-dominated buffer additions, as well as the areas designated as "buffer restoralionfor lemporary impacl.1·" have to have an enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; installation of appropriate native trees and shrubs; performance standards (less than 10% invasive cover, at least 80% survival for the first 2 years, reasonable % desirable woody cover, reasonable diversity of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. All disturbed areas and the entire mitigation area will meet this goal. lfyou have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Existing Conditions Map Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan _ ieldbrook Commons!J J-121 Sn~'all Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 8 qf 18 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved _ ieldbrouk Cummons/11-121 Se1vall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 9 of/8 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. _. ieldbrook Commons!/ /-121 5)eirall Wetland Consult;ng, Inc. March 16. 2012 Page JO of 18 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner, 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 'ie/dbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Welland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 11 of 18 4.2,1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 4.2.4 All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. ieldbrook Commons/ 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 !'age /2of/8 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 'ieldbrook Commons/11-12 I Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page I 3 of 18 4,4,3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance, The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications, 4.5 Site Conditions 4,5,1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling, 45,2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction, The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading, 4,5,3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans, The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation, No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences, 4S4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched, Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area, 455Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area, 45,6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details, Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area, 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site, This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer, The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below, 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5,1,l To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: ieldbrook Commons/11-121 S'elvall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 14 of 18 a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. 1eldbrook Commons// 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page 15 of/8 5.3.2If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1,1 ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on- site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/ crest gauges located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. teldbrook Commons/11-121 S'ewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 16 of/8 Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season. Readings will be made early in the growing season (@ March 15) to determine if wetland hydrology is present. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. 6.2 ST AND ARDS OF SUCCESS 1.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. ieidbrook Commons! 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 17of/8 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area after year 10. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,SOSsf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet tl1e success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with fue same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. ieldbrook Commons/ I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulling, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 18 of 18 -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10,2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 27641 Covington WaySE#2 Covington WA 980l2 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-001 swc Job#l l-121 Dear Vanessa, Phone: 221-859-0515 Fax: 253--852-4732 This is a response to your March 30, 2012 email regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below in italics are the items you asked us to address. After each item we have provided a response; I. The Map was not drawn to a I to I 00 scale, it appears to be drawn to a I to 50 scale. Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drmvn" scale. The plan is now shown with a ''drawn scale" and is at a scale of ]"~JOO'. 2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area. The areas of buffer reduction and buffer addition using buffer averaging are now shown on the mitigation plan (see attached). 3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer. Dimensions are now included in the areas ofreduced buffer as requested. 4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the total area of permanent impact and temporary impact. At this point in time we are still monitoring groundwater levels within the proposed creation area. So far monitoring has shown groundwater levels between 16"-28" below the existing surface of the proposed creation area. However, we need to monitor the area for approximately I more month to completely understand the hydrology of this area as it pertains to creating an appropriate grading plan that will allow us a higher certainty on creating adequate wetland hydrology. At that time we will prepare a grading plan which will depict the area to be graded and all areas to be eldbrook Commons/11-12 I SeH'all 1Yetland Consulting, Inc:. April JO, 2012 Pa,;e 2 of II replanted in the creation area and any area within the buffer that would be graded back and require restoration, 5, RMC 4-8-120 D23, i, this was not addressed. This section of Code states the following; i. Altemative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; Minimize any wetland or bz{[fer impacts; Compensate fhr any wetland or buffer impacts; Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; Create new wetland\· and buffers for those lost; and In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost fimctions and values, This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy, a. A void any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new we!land area and enhanced buffer areas between Wetlands A and C on the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring l 595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 108 1h Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. 172nd St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland, Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 767lsf. This wetland is located in the center of the site, and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to • ieldbrook Commons/ll-121 Sewall Werland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 3 o/8 construct. The project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetlands on the site, and preserving these wetlands would be the priority. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed except for along the edge of Wetlands A and C wehre the newly created wetland area will be constrcuted. Some temporarly buffer impacts will ccur from the construction of the storm water outfall and along the edge of the buffers. These areas will be fully restoired following construction and replanted with native trees and shrubs. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property to restore. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and A total of 9334sf of wetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower". Cd S 'fi h f II f 1 d ·mpacts; o e ,pec1 1es t e o owmg m1 l!gal!on ral!os or wet an 1 i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category I Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. _ 'ieldhrook Commons/ l /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 4 o/8 The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required Type Wetland Creation D 7671sf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 102sf F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation As required by Code, we are proposing to create 25,508sf of wetland. This wetland will all be Category 2 wetland. Proposed Wetland Mitigation location rationale. Given the configuration, topography, hydrology and character of the site, the available wetland mitigation areas are limited by 1. Where sufficient hydrology exists 2. Where enough area exists without extending a buffer onto off-site areas. 3. Where it makes the most sense to create a wetland that doesn't leave an isolated, low function wetland. If any area of the site except the eastern side of the site were selected we would be creating a wetland that would be surrounded by development, and there fore isolated from other open space areas. This creates a functionally isolated feature that will not provide suitable wildlife habitat or support for many species. Additionally, there are no areas on the site, except along the eastern portion near Wetlands A, B or C that have suitable groundwater elevations to support creation of a wetland. For example, ifwe were to attempt to leave Wetland D intact, ad do creation around this wetland, its likely there would not be suitable wetland hydrology to support this wetland. Wetland Dis an isolated feature that appears to be perched on an impervious hardpan, that allows water to sit long enough to create wetland conditions. This wetland, as well as Wetlands E and F do not appear to be intersecting a surficial groundwater system as does Wetlands A-C. As a result, creation in these areas in and around Wetlands D,E and F would most likely lead to areas that would not successfully create wetland hydro logic conditions. Ideally, as is typically done in most wetland mitigation projects that are successful, expansion of an existing wetland with sufficient hydrology is utilized to create addition wetland. This consists of taking the edge ofan existing wetland or wetlands, and by grading back from the edge of the wetland and creating grades similar to the wetland, interception the surficial groundwater table allows creation of wetland hydrologic conditions. This is what we are proposing to do in the area between Wetlands A and C. Based upon our hydrologic monitoring, these wetlands appear to have suitable hydrology for creation of wetland between them. . ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 5 of8 As is typical in this type of creation, and also unavoidable, the excavation and creation must occur within the existing buffer of the wetlands. However, as is shown on our plan, we now move the buffer to the edge of the creation area, thus maintaining the required buffer on the new enlarged wetland. It should also be pointed out that most of the area between Wetland A and C proposed as a mitigation area has been historically disturbed by past mining and clearing activities. We have specifically tried to avoid the larger grove of conifers located in the buffer of Wetland B to preserve this higher quality habitat. 6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the following additional items: a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios As depicted in the Table above, and on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we are meeting the ratios of mitigation required by Code. b. Planting scheme for wetland recreation and buffer enhancement areas At this point in time, it is premature to prepare a detailed planting scheme. Once the concept is approved, and the grading plan completed, we will prepare a plan that depicts the location of the native trees, shrubs and emergent plants to be installed, as well as the habitat features such as large woody debris (LWD) and snags. However, we would expect to include the following species within the created wetland and buffer areas; Douglas fir, western red cedar, sitka spruce, big leaf maple, Pacific willow, cascara, western crabapple, red osier dogwood, sitka willow, salmonbeny, nootka rose, clustered rose, twinbeny, Indian plum, hazelnut, black hawthorne, red elderbeny, vine maple, slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and other species. c. A complete description ()(the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland As previously described, the new created wetland will create a larger combined Category 2 wetland by connecting Wetland A and C. This will result in a wetland that will include several hydro logic regimes including seasonally flooded and saturated areas. In addition, several types of plant communities will be present based upon hydrologic conditions. The created wetland will have a mix ofhydrologic and vegetation characteristics which will provide a greater variety of wildlife habitats and opportunities for wildlife. The placement ofLWD and snags will create habitat features that do not currently exist within this area. d A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands I have worked on hundreds of wetland mitigation projects throughout Washington State and the Pacific Northwest as well as in Ohio, New England and in Georgia since 1990. I have worked on small projects as well as large complex projects and have designed wetlands with a variety of hydrologic regimes, including numerous with slope type characteristics as presented here that have been very successful. I am very aware of the criteria needed to successfully create wetlands that replace and exceed the functions lost by the filling of the wetland they are meant to mitigate. eldbrook Commonsll l-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 6 o/8 I am highly confident the proposed Field brook Commons mitigation plan will be successful as we have described it. e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water supply, flow patterns, etc. As previously described above as well as described below, we have been monitoring the levels of groundwater within the proposed creation areas. The monitoring results within the first month of the growing season show the water table within 24" of the existing soil surface in the proposed creation area. We are aware that currently, groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"- 24". Our goal within this creation area is to maintain that same hydrologic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions. 7. An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the buffer size? As previously stated, we are currently monitoring the hydrology of the area between Wetlands A and C to determine final grades of the creation area. It is probable, given the slight difference in elevation between Wetland A and C (approximately 12"), a portion of the creation area will be a "slope type" wetland. The grade between these two existing wetlands in the creation area will be detennined based upon groundwater elevations we determine from our monitoring. Based upon those findings, the sloping portion of the wetland creation area will be a portion of the wetland that will have primarily saturated soils with no surface water. This will allow a slow migration of water through the soil profile from the south to the north through the creation area. This is currently occurring already in the upland area between Wetland A and C. However, it is at a depth > 12" which differentiates it from an area that would be considered wetland. A portion of the surface soils will be removed that will bring this saturated soil zone within 12" of the surface meeting wetland hydrology criteria. This should have no impact on the wetland hydrology of either Wetlands A or C. The water we will be intercepting exists within the soil profile in the proposed creation area. We will be removing soil from this area to bring this hydrology closer to the surface, and in portions on the surface of the creation area. We will also be directing clean roof water from the proposed development within the contributing basin, to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain the hydrologic patters of the site. Connecting Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland, to Wetland C, a Category 3 wetland, will result in Wetland C now being considered a Category 2 wetland. As a result a 50' standard buffer would e required on Wetland C now, and that is what we are providing as depicted on the attached plan. 8. Address review criteria of 4-3-0j0M6f (i-vii) for buffer averaging. i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and • · ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Snvall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 7 of8 The proposed buffer averaging in the reduced areas will be within areas that have sutlicicnt dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect these welands. The portions of the wetlands closest to these reduced areas are not unique or have any sensitive characteristics that would make them susceptable to impact. ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetlandfunction and values; and The proposed averaging will not impact the functions or character of these wetlands in this area. The area of the reusltion is in low impact parking areas and will generally not have heavy use such as living or recreational areas. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and The proposed averaging will result in a reduction of 2, l 35sf of buffer, but with a subsuquent addtioon of 4, 787sf of buffer, resulting in a net gain of 2,652sf of buffer. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted The proposed btiffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. The proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements as specified in the code. The document cited above is a document that was put together to give jurisdictions some guidance on determining standard buffer widths to include in their regulations. It does not appear an appropriate citation or document to be using in this contex as standard buffer widths have been decided and adopted as Code. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) ~(the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buf(er width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Sechon and RMC 4-9-250B; and The standard buffer on the wetlands being averaged is 50' There are two areas of buffer reduction within the averaging plan, onfthat reduces the width to 28.5', and a second to 34'. Both! of these areas are >50% of the standard buffer widtha nd meet this criteria. vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case- by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. . ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 8 of8 The buffer in the areas of the reduction is densly planted with native vegetation. There is no need to enhance these buffer areas. vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section. Notification, ifrequired will be done. 9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions ofOTAK's report on trail impacts to the wetland,. As required by the City, we have included a trail through the wetland buffer. This trail will be a soft surface wood chip trail that passes through the middle of the buffer area between Wetlands C and B. The If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at csewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 27641 Covington WaySE#2 Covington WA 'Nl42 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response-LUA12-001 SWC Job#l l-121 Dear Vanessa, Phone: 253-SS').()515 Pax: 25}.852-4Zl2 This is a response to the June 13, 2012 OTAK review regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below, listed with the page and paragraph from the OT AK report in italics are the items that were underlined in the OT AK report that required further response from us. After each item we have provided a response; Page 5 paragraph I: "We recommend the applicant submit rating.forms in order.for the City to concur with the analysis and verify functional lift,. we recommend that an explicit assessment of existing proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve.functional equivalency". The rating form for the new wetland mitigation area, which includes Wetlands A and C are attached to this report as requested. The existing buffer of Wetlands A and C !hat will be impacted consists ofan open deciduous forested canopy comprised of big leaf maple, some small western hemlock, as well as an open understory of vine maple, indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and scattered other small shrubs. Several trails, piles of trash and debris, several coal tailing piles, and a small homeless camp is found in this area. This area currently provides some thermal cover to the area around and along the edges of the wetland. It also provides a source of organic material which contributes to the soil composition as well as a source of food to invertebrates utilizing the wetland. The buffer provides some sound reduction from the surrounding residential uses abutting the property. The buffer also provides some barrier to human intrusion. However, the forest is relatively open and sound reduction in this area is not that high. Additionally, the use of the area by local youth on bikes etc. and on and off by homeless has further reduced this function as human use in and around these wetlands appears to occur regularly. _ ieldbrook Commons! 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc_ September 17, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Wetland buffers can also act as filters to runoff entering the wetland, acting to clean and filter contaminants form sheet flow into the wetland, This function appears relatively intact The proposed wetland creation area will require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland. It will also shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetlands A and C, into the buffer as the edge is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to connect into the wetland contours. The area to be merged into the buffer is of similar forested character as the existing buffer. The portions that will be graded and be replanted as buffer will have a temporary reduction in some buffer functions in the period (10+ years) it takes the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately 20' or more. Some of the functions that will increase will be the fact that the wetland and buffer area will be fenced preventing the current type of human intrusion in this area from occurring. The trash and debris within this area will be removed and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry will be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the species richness within the plant community. Numerous pieces of large wood will be placed within the wetland and buffer to increase buffer complexity and provide some habitat features currently not existing within this area. Page 3 paragraph 2: Future submittals shall include full scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. See attached Final Mitigation Plan Page 4 paragraph 3: redundant to Page 3 paragraph I answered on page I of this report. Page 4 paragraph 5: redundant question asking for rating form of new mitigation area. See attached rating form. Page 5 paragraph 2: The city will request review (){/he hydrology monitoring data and analysis. A series of 6 monitoring pits/wells were located within the proposed wetland mitigation area (see attached wetland hydrology monitor point map). These were monitored with weekly site visits from April of2012-August 2012. At each of these points soil saturation and water table levels were measured to determine what surficial groundwater elevations are, to facilitate designing grades for the new wetland creation area. What we found was that within the proposed creation area, groundwater levels in the early growing 1e/dbrook Commonsll /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. September I 7, 20 I 2 Page 3 of 15 season area between 14" -30" below the existing surface (sec table below). It is assumed in the very early growing season February and March) the groundwater elevations are shallower than the measurements we took, meaning the groundwater elevations are closer to the soil surface. As shown on the attached Final Mitigation Plan, we utilized these existing groundwater contours to create the new grades for our mitigation site. As can be seen by the grades and associated cross-sections, the grades will remove soil down to the existing groundwater elevations to create wetland areas with soils saturated to the surface for the early growing seasons, to also include flat areas that will hold some shallow 1 "-3" of surface water to provide a variety of wetland hydrologic regimes from saturated, to seasonally flooded. Table I. Groundwater elevations below surface o 'hvdrolo, v monitorinf! points 2012 Monitor DATE point& elev. 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/24 6/7 6/28 7/12 A4I7.5' -15 -14 -15 -20 -26 dry dry B418' -17 -16 -16 -22 -27 dry dry C417' -20 -18 -17 -20 -25 dry dry D416.5' -14 -14 -14 -16 -20 dry dry E418.5' -27 -26 -24 -30 -36 dry dry F418' -21 -22 -20 -28 -36 dry dry Note: All elevations indicate the elevation of the saturated capillary fringe of soil saturation observed in hydrology monitoring points. 8/12 dry dry drv drv dry dry Page 6 paragraph 1: We recommend a design realignment of the trail to the outer 25% of the buffer to comply with Code. The City has requested that a trail be run along the mitigation and wetland areas to create additional public benefit. It is not possible to have a trail of any public value in the outer 25% of the buffer as it would essentially be a trail paralleling the development and within 12 feet of the development. In order to create a trail that will allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site, we will need to go closer to the critical areas than the 25% Code allowance. As a compromise, the trail has been placed approximately halfway between all of the wetland areas, essentially splitting the buffer areas. This would allow a trail to pass around and along the majority of the wetland areas. To compensate for the area of the trail in the buffer, additional area has been added to the buffer as compensation. Page 6 paragraph 3: Refers to the proposed stormwater outfall and its potential impacts to Wetland B. ieldbrook Commons! 11-121 Sewall Welland Consulting, inc. Sept em her 17, 2012 Paxe 4 of 15 The current storm water outfall is release to a level spreader near the edge of wetland B. This outfall will release water from the same basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site. Wetland B already has a highly fluctuating water table as a result of historic modifications off-site. As a result, fluctuations of surface water (when present) up to 6" are seen in this wetland during storm events in short periods of time. As a result, the plant community in Wetland B generally consists of species tolerant of a highly fluctuating water table such as willows, hardhack and reed canary grass. No change in hydrology or the character of Wetland Bis anticipated. Page 7 paragraph 1: Iften years of monitoring are required (by WADOE&Corps) an addendum to the mitigation plan will be prepared to address this change. The Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Corps and W ADOE using the City required 5 years of monitoring. If the Corps requires additional monitoring years, this will be changed to reflect this requirement. The revised Monitoring Plan notes are attached at the end of this report. Page 8 paragraph 1: redundant requirement to address buffer functions answered on Pages 1 and 2 of this report. Page 10 paragraph 2: Performance standards for cover will be addressed in review of the final mitigation plan. See Final Mitigation Plan attached. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 1.0 MITIGATION PROTECT OVERVIEW _ ieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Snval/ Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 5 of 15 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C. 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved . ieldbrookCommonslll-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 !'age 6 of 15 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the City's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. ·ie/dbrook Commons// 1-121 Sewal/ Wet/and Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the City biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. If additional years of monitoring are required by the Corps or W ADOE, the plan will be revised to reflect this change. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The City's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native invasive plant species including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. _ ieldhrook Commons/ 11 -121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 8 o/15 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to final grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3No balled and burlapped, or bare root plantings will be used. Container stock only. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation _ ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 9 of 15 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. Planting pits shall not be deeper than the root ball. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15u,) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. _ ieldbrook Commonsll /-/2/ Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 !'age JO of/ 5 4A.2All disturbed areas will be protected with an arborists mulch to a minimum depth of six inches, 4.4,3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5,2 Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope . ieldbrook Commons/II-I 21 Seu·all Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 20 I 2 Page JJ of/5 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.1.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and removing the root crowns. As a last resort, treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed) by a licensed applicator can be utilized. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements _ -ieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 20/2 Page 12 of 15 5.3.lWaterwing with a temporary irrigation system will be required during the first spring and summer after the installation. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas, 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, starting with the first year after the plants have been installed,and as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/crest gauges as well as four hydrology monitoring holes dug each sampling period near the piezometer. These will be located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year . ieldbrook Commons!l /-/21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 !'age 13 of 15 and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. Hydrology will be monitored twice a month from March 1st through May 3ou, of each year. Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material in late summer or early fall (August-September) to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off as well as at each permanent monitoring plot. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. During years I & 2 of the monitoring, replacement plants as well as dead plants will be flagged with distinctive flagging to distinguish what plants these are. 6.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS ieldbrook Commons! 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 14 o/15 1.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all installed planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. l.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area at any time. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The new wetland area will be delineated in Year 5 to establish and insure adequate wetland has been created. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation for percent coverage measurements. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency /maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. ieldbrook Commons/ I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 !'age 15 of 15 -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the mitigation area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding wetland and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. RECEIPT EG00009532 BILLING CONTACT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT PO BOX6127 BELLEVUE, WA 98008 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA12-001 PLAN -Variance Technology Fee Printed On: 6/13/2013 Prepared By: Vanessa Dolbee TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: June 13, 2013 PAYMENT METHOD - Check #10258 '.::heck #10258 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID N<>m~~-,a,·""' $1,200.00 $36.00 $1,236.00 $1,236.00 Page 1 of 1