Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 1
PARTIIES OF RECORD May Creek Trail c/o Amy Maxim City of Newcastle 12835 Newcastle Way ste: #200 Newcastle, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 07/03/12 LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Todd Black City of Renton Community Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (owner / applicant / contact) '7-10-/2-. (\0 ~ +11.--eAS [0t \-k~. (Page 1 of 1) I- ::; 0 ;: W ui --, "' 0 '" z OC ~ a.. l- N ...J M Z ~ 0 i= () UJ III I-..: I-:::s::: 0 -' W I-> W 0 Cl OC u. 0 0 Z 0 ~ ~ 0 « a. ~ N01E)NJHS'dM 'NOlN31::1 N01N3~ ,]0 AlIO _0; llVlli )!33~O AVV'! NV'1d 311S 'i' 133HS l:I3AO:J Z o l- e) Z I Cf) ~ oc -OZ u..0 I- Z LU 0::: e'·""" '7;' -"" ... ~', .. ,h Q ; ./ /' ./ /~ ./ ./ . . //t-( I ,J I • / I ' u.. o I . I ~/. I /---- ! j ~ /!// , I ~ 0/1\1 / I ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I ! ~ CITY OF RENTON MITlGATlON SUMMARY "", 5H1REUN£ 1!.IPACT, (p£ocslRIAN TAAL) ""'-"" roTA!.. SHa!ElJNE WACT -11.11&5 s.r. PROPOSID IoIITlGA 110N 0':1 ENHANCEMUH !16§5 Sf /!l79 Acl Y1lCA1ION REQUlREII -• 1!.865 s.r. {o.20 AC} BASE IoIITIGATDI PROWlED WEllANO ", ~T -786 s.r. (0.02 At) SHOREUNE ENHANCEMENT _ 42,015 5.F. (0.96 1£: AU 1 WlTlGA1J(t( PROVDED SI!OREl.IHE EIotiIoHlDlENT -1$,219 s.r. (0.3$ ..I.e: ro", . __ . __ ._-- 58.020 $I, (l.JJ AC) II .. _,-,"".-8 H IiOr " -'r-T"'T T , 'Tu-r T -1"--" T ',--,--, I ! ,51) I .~ I " ~ • J. . i "I~ 2>7'0 2~ 'l+10 .-1>1iO ~ f'Or'lC'C' C'{:"f'T1nll.l '" II' aU " .......... , n~1 _.N, .-, -" @ ,32. TWP 24N, RNG. 5E., W.M. ~.~ .. . ~~"- "-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-"-\ \ \ LEGEND: [[:"'''-'''1'"1\ ":?".j -~'.-} l\f'q~;K~~?1 \ \ 100% FINAL SUBMITIAL !EXHIBIT \9 WET1.NfJ 'A' EIflO.NCEIoIEI(f """'"'" .,,'" """'"" "'"""""" """ '·":rBlNo'.TE·j 8QltOARY SHORELflE El'llWlCEKNf (ALlEfItIATE .j) ~h~S[~ -' . ~ i • ~ ~~ I-D.~ ;:: z-iil ~ W g~ w;>. ~ ~ .. ~ .z o o~ >-~~ «0 z ~ E • :;;; ~ ~;;; ~ , .~ j' zw'll I 0( f-~ ~ ~ !t~, 00;\' t! _0. ~; ~ll ! ~ Arl'll. o.n, .......... m' DUle,", _ DlUno, CIIII ~= -., HU"'B~", ~1'_3I1 '~O'"t'I' "~)lDIII, RENTOOOO-OO15 """'l"C~ _1'I(tm! W~~ M-1 0,17 Neighborhood Detail Map ClydRudon -/tII~y es-k Trd ~_eo.--.. t...tUo-f!lIrftf_GIIl) 0_......,., cc-~~ r.:'J~\.JrIo COl:-Ca 0" _ .... -__ ~T... RSf __ 9IgIoF.nIy -...,.er-RMD ___ Ooftdy !EXHIBIT 1 N010NIHSVM 'N01N3~ N01N3~ ;0 AlI:J "0' llVHl ~33~:J AWl NVld 3115 '9 133HS ~3AOO Z o l- e!) Z I C/) ~ c::: -OZ LLO I- Z UJ 0::: / LL o / I / / tu w I "' "' w b z I I I I I I ! I i , , ~ I , ~ '1M 'J.lNnoo 0NI)1 'NOlN3Il dO AlJO NOlN3Il dO AlJO !lO:I 1I'tI!J. lI33IIO A 'ffl A3AW1S , .I I , " , , .I I I , ! I I I I I:'~b~:.:.\!~i:i: ':"~~~i:!>~...1 ... \:>\>~\>~'i~il;,l:\! !! 11111 I! Illl! I! Ii!! i! Iii I i j j! I!! j j j i ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~! ~ ~ ~I~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ i; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ! 1 !~~\! •••••• ~~~\!~.~~ .. ~~\!I~.\!]~lll}.~'~~~J Ii !! i ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I ! ! i ! Ii I ! i ! I I ! i ! ! II ill! ! I 1~~ii~~ii~~i~~~ii~ii~i~~iiiiiilili~~~li ::;; ;:: ui '" 0: Z ..,. N >- N '" z 0 ;:: II UJ (f) ..: >-0 ~ ~ 0 l'J u. 0 Z 0 ;:: 0: 0 a. NOlDNIHSVM 'N01N3~ N01N3~ ~O All:) "0' llV<ll }l33~:) AVI'1 NV1d :JS31 , , ~~ ~, 1 ; :~i , , , I §i , , i c', g ! " " ii, ~ Ii i' ~ II , · , ~ ~ , 'I ~ ~ ; , i,i $ ~ >-I ~ ,.. II ~, • • -',. l' • ~I_':: h I / ~ ' M~'" .~, 17: !'I i ,. !i. I r II! , i , e""~''''-.... ~ .. , ',,\: "l{.'{~ • I ! I I I I I I I ) C~r I i ! " ! , , i , ! I , , I ! ! I 0 ~ z I w ()# ,'3' (0 " W ~ N01~NIHS'dM 'N01N3~ N01N3lJ ,0 AlIO "0, 11\flJl ~33lJO A\I~ Sl1V130 0$31 ITi~ I III: =1 III: I IIIL \C 1 I -, " III~ ,;1 I I Illf ! I I. i~I !"" ~F~III~~ I I IJl f r-!-,- i f l I I • j IP I II I I II I ~ I! ~ tI I I I I I I . I . I PII •• 11 III i~' :: . i i~;j , . ! ;;~~U: .-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ l L I,j I! ~ NI", ~, . '''·''-1 ~"f-i ,--'" I . .,,~ I I """ () ! , • , ~ ~ , il , fJ O" .)';'1-11 ~'-C(>J~\ -". '\~DIlOOOOCt'l::'~~]u~o",.£C 0';\,. Oh~,,: <~I'.lL'OS~;:IIIOC(l(l~tl·5'~*'1 ~ ... I <:> .., ~~ (f)~ C ;R!) J~' $' 0 CO ..... fi' '" ;:: ~ iJi'::;t g'es- ::: , a ! ~i iol !l!; g ~:;j ~ ~ P ~ ~~a~~~ (") ~ .. ()'1 I o· "I ., I I I I I I ® ~~ " ~: ~~ i i~ II 11 i ~i : ! ; , i 11] I [ ~ ~J ~ s: ~8 ~ ~ ~J ~~ I' " i l I~~.~I ~.IB ~ i ! l!;~: 11:1 ; • i Ie, I' ~.~ ~ : ~'. .~. ; ; ~i~~ Ft · I ill' .j: I ,. ~ I~~ I I j,ll hi · 1 ." l II' 1 I ,,~~p :.~ I j {:;' l~," , !!~i ,,,i , ., ", , ',1 I' :!:* ~i !i:'I· i;! ; io k; ~~, --~ ~ I! !.~i !I!!I!i!:: ~ DAV1D EVANS D .. A"QASSOCIATES,,,,,, -0 -::...:.~~,. :~ ~::: ~ .. "1 ~ ~ ,il ·,d q !: '1/ ~ ,,~ ~ ~ r}\'" ,:::::, ~ H { ~ It ~~, i . ~:' ~ ~ :::~ ~ ,~\i ~ ~ t:" ~J ~,Y:~~l ~.f'\;'~ I' ~l~ ", ; ID ~ii ~ ~ ~~ ,j. ~ • ,; , U I ~ ~ • i I ! II I '. i I! I ! ! , " ii 'j II • II i ! ! 'i! 'I! I! 1 Pi il 0 1 j i I l,llj ~ll ~ , I r=l '~(7~ ;/ Ir"r';r t i>;!~, I I \.c.;; l lj C' ,'-r-,.., n=:I.l:.::t'l 'I i .. / ~ =1:. TESC & STANDARD DETAILS MAY CREEK TRAIL FOR CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON 2l ~ o z o " Gl ~ r <:: (f) m '1 o z .fd -; ~ .z '" '" Jl1 ~ N018NIHSlfM 'N01N3~ NO.LN3~ ,0 A.J.IO "0' 11\flj.L ~33~O A\f~ S310N ::JS31 • 'II' - . [If -..1/"/1> <miI&IHl' _ ~ ., .. __ """",,""N._ 31: ___ .... " • .,. ~." SliIJ."IIIOOSS"II an .. '" SN"IIAli OIA"IIO ~ I I I I ~2 (0 I 0", I' ~~i " I: ! z w " , NO.lElNIHSVM 'NO.lN3~ N01N3!J "0 All::> HO' 11\I!J1 ~33K) AVI'1 NVld lOalNO:) lV.lNOZI~OH .lN3~NElIW llVMl ~ z o ti UJ (f) ~ z ! Q I ~I ~ I I ~I' ;;.-, ~~ .. ,~! 0 'I C!,><,~~~ , I i t--, I g () ~ E ~ , ~ • , § ~ " u. o z o ~ ~ NOJ..8NIHS'V'M 'N01N3~ N01N3<J ,JQ All:) "0' llV<JJ. >l33<J:) AIIW NV1d 8NIOVtl81N3WN81lV llV1:l1 I I I I I I ~ u.i "' '" z ~ l- N '" z o ti UJ en I-o -' § (!J LL o Z o ~ o a. NOIONIHSVM 'NOIN3~ NOIN3l:1 ,,0 All::> e ~' -"0' "Me ~ llVl:ll ~33l:1::> AWl S311,:jO~d IN3ViN0l1V ll'v'tll , --~---, -... ,-----~ -_._-~--- at ! ·t· -+--~ , . --\, _ .• I;\IU-Ull ___ _ • -"/11 l/;) -0000.0 ---t-_ .. - ·-r i---+---I--""..J! -~::-r -, _ ...... _----;----+--, .... _- -r-~- tl'/II~V)~:~~--§--+-----"-' --1------- • , lIYoU ~y) -,.'«., i --.-, .. ,---,+---- -+ ..' -j1~;~:f·~~j=..l--- I . -'-·/-,r--T-:-- _-j-L!f----;-' =-t: ..:!. !I.-' '_1.__1 __ _ ! ! , , ! I ~ ! ~ ! I . ! . " '" I I I I I I .~ DOOIII6I1U.-... !Ii , !~ I O'l ~LI'I:-:-......... ~~;;-(£a ~ , , 0 'ON' saJ.YIOOSSY~N. .. '" ~ , ~ !< SNYAa OIAYO ., (l ~ I Co ~ B~ ! ~ , ~£ ! ! !E~ ii ! ! ~ ~ ! ,1 ii::> ~j ~ :;:t ~~ ! ! ! I ! 0 , z w , "' w ~ NO.l~NIHS'I'M 'NO.iN3~ S~I:I'V'd NO.iN31:1 :10 Al.1:) ll~.l >l33l:18 AllVoJ N'o'ld A~\fV'lV'lns .1:J'o'dV'lI NOU\f~I.1IV'4 I < ~ ~ , , , , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ;U· "~ fe'O~ tJ -~~ ~ /f ,/ . / . i I I I I I I 'I :~~~ OIl'lOIl19U_ ~ ..... .... ~~':'~ -! i I , ~:: ·OM·.lIJ. ... IOOSS ... """ c:I ,~;U! i ~ ! IINYAii CIAya 3d" ~ i , I ~ " " ! I >. #. ~~ ~~ ~ • 0 ri z 0 F "' 0 ~ § N01DNIHS'IIM 'N01N3l:j S>ll:j\fd N01N3l:j.:lO All:) ll'o'Cll >l33Kl AIII'IJ N\fld NOI.l\fDIl:j~1 NOl.lltE)I.lIW I / ! / / / / ce;lI~ ~ "'! ' / I CC It I i§ ~. •• '. "z ~~ :!!::!!: ~~ <> .. ~5 g8 ~§ o. -g jt;: .< ZC g~ ~\t !!jii: ~~ "" ...:~ I I 0 1m 8 N ODOIOO'S"Sl"_ " '1\ .,---3S ..... ~""'''-S" ~ 2 I ·"~i 8aJ.VIOO$S'I'a~" "I' i" • ; ~~ SNYA;I 01.1'.'1'0 .. "i:' tl ~ ~ ~ ! ~!;! ; ." 0 , • (~ ~ ~ 0 ~ z Q 5 ~ e " , • B z 0 ~ " " N ::i '" w ~ " z "' Z V N ~ or ~ z 0 " " w ~ ..: ~ 0 ~ ~ "-0 " ~ 0 z 0 " "' 0 "- NO.l0NIHS\lM 'NO.lN3l:1 S>ll:Iltd N01N3l:1 :10 All:;! ll'Vl:Il )l33l:1~ A'V1f\! S11 ..... 130 ONV S3.l0N NOI1\fD1~~1 NOIlVDlll1foj I I ! ! \ ! I • , i i , I 0 , -, ,~ , , " , I ;, ! ~" ! I \ ~-Ui'i~" h UIiI .• t .« - I , ~, ! I Iii !jTI'-:oi , II ~ ~F-Ii ~ ;o~1 w~ ;'~h Ii .. ~. I !' 'q~TF ,I lli.Jlffi I I-;ITi,",' I ! j[~IP ~~I I"~ ~T!' w "z ! ~~ ~~ I ::;~ ~. , o~ , ~o ! g ~ "~ ~. , e i~ , ~ , g~ ! : • Ww e "" d ! -" , • i , , • 1 I ! , ; , , ~ ! , ~ \;i~ , ! '" 0 , w " ;? ~ Z \! w ~ ~ "' ~ 0 ~ 0 u ~ u " 0 " z .. u z w "' ~ " ~ " z 5 w ~ w z 0 ~ i ~ , !! ~ ~ "' ~ ~ r g: § w ·""'S:;IJ .... I:;)08SY"N. a CII SNYl\lI CIAVCI i w > ~ ;:: z ~ " ~ '" " z '" " w " ;? " z \! ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 u u ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ '" I , , I I I !i r-''''===I ,!! I " § Ii ,I ::~ R~~ ;i! I'! I I \ , \ \ u i NO.l.8NIHSVM 'NO.l.N3~ S>l~Vd NOlN3~:l0 A.U:l lllfl:l.l )!33~:) AWl NVld ~NU"NVld NOI.lV~I"UW / / / / I I / / / / / / / / / / / / !J~ 'Iii I, ce~ II 11 i ~ ", , / / / / i _." .. -" "~_-=:::-4 "ON'SliI.LVI::)O.8yaN¥ c:::I ! 8N'I'Aa ClAva ! Wi!· ~ mn \l \l i i \l 1m if n , , "Ii i! i ! ! ~ !~~~:~ ~ ~'~ifIH~~ o 0 <5 .. j' ~ '" " " ...... N I , ji~"~i~ or '< '< 'i"i "i ' , ~ ~ ;,. ". ;,. ;,. ". ;,. ~ Iii'" , ~ I' J i I 8 I!iiil ~ ,II ! -w ! ~ I! I " i ! i c ~ i1 ~ w :t: l!i I , u ~L "' ~0 >--~ 0 00 z :'i 0 0 0~0 n. I I I I I 0 i I i ~, """ i!!e I ~i,11I ' "' i ::a: ~ Id • .! . ~ §:~: ~ ~~~~ r ~'i' ~ I 50~ '~i~ , ':I~", I e e ~8~L.J ~"~~ fg co. '. , ~;~~ B~ :~ i!i~ *;~; (~ 5i~ J""~" On ;i~§~ "~ :l N~ 'W'lrll' I np!!! ! I ;,.;, Iilllld" , ~~;;~gg~gg~g~gg~ 1 1 11 C c C • , " '" ., ' , ~~ii~~~~~~~~"~::"~~ d d "", .. ",,, "" ; j NNN"'~NNN""""'" ........... 'i 'i 'i ''; 'i 0;; 'i '" 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i'i ;,. ;,. ". ;,. ;,. ;,. ;,. ;,. ". ". ;,. ;,. "l ": ": ": . , , , , , , , .. , . ............................ N ...... "N III. d h!Hililh!!lq n.ild~!i!H,! lll'I'1 ~ ~ qli.!!!i !I iii lj!\ !'p'r' .' j" 'S iii", ~~i i ~ ... dll lidll ndllli! i l H ' . , , l:l '0:"<D"9:~ i .tl • e :-9 i:)GJ@ ':?' "" 0 0 to) z 5 Q ~ >'- 1; " u. o z o " i5 "- N0.10NH-ISI1M 'N0.1N3~ S)l~'t'd N0.1N3~;JO A.110 11'<nJl >l33~8 AlllAJ SNOlllt:JI:lI:J3dS ON'9' Sll11130 NOlllffllllW '~ I ~i l-0 ~; '~ 5!:~ P -·1 'l'~ I w .' ~ 3" "'! 0 ilg\~:1 l'l z ,~ '." i= 8~ ~,~~ ,'" i! z ""'-.... ..., 1!i :5 a. w w a:: f- a:: w u. Z 0 U , I I I ill! iuUi , I :il! l'l, ;0 ;;;, w f- 0 Z :5 l'l z a. i= w Z " :5 ;0 a. (J) '" w => > a:: :J :I: (J) NO.J.£lNlHS't'M ·NOl.N3~ S}l~'Vd N01N3l:1.::l0 All::> lllfl:ll. >l33HO AliI-\! ~Nll:IOJJNO~ 'B SNOIIV::>I.::lI::>3dS NQI.1\f!)lllr-.1 'ON' .:;U."'I~o •• ya ..... 8NYAii CIA'f'O ! I I I I I I ~ 8I§I1 I NClJ.ONHlV. """"" ! I I I I I I I 8)11:1f'd NOJ.taj ='O.un m·',I!~I: • • I'. _.".'-• I '1'lf1:U )l331:l0 A 'If~ "":fs'!'"001-::';"t~~ . ~U:". I I '~Ii" I. ""'" BliI.LYI:)088y .... y .. I ':::!: \~~II\ !~ 8N'f'Aii o,,,vo "'iii l t " ~c " STY'13O ON/HSN:II'\:I 3.1E i a~h i , ~ ~ I l I , ! i, i ! " ~I! , " Illi i, 81 \, " -'I ,;a a: 'I 111 !l w " UI §~ ,01 ~I ~~~ I NOlDNHB'f'M 'NO.UQj S'.lI:I\fcl NClliBI:l:IJ JJJ:) llVI:ll )1331:10 A VV'l I I I I I I I I I I / / I' I I , /-1-- /' ' / @!~ Ii !l 0 ! l~'!:'fl~!o!!Il~~i<r , 11o:"\:<~\";.bl..~~ I I I I '! I '--r-ill ~I~ 11 ~ it I! 1!l i'I II 1I1l" l: II "tl1l11 J;i ~ ~,,~ II ~!! ".!? lit II i!' Ill:: ~:'":"2!? I J, '. '" " \0 ~ i: ~ j, j, j, :: l:l e '. ~ ;: \:< \:< :: l! 1> :. b b ':! 10 b e \0 b '!! b .~ ~ '!! e ~ '!! :e !!! I ~! I ii' ,Ill "I!! I! I 'II i II! i II i! II! I! i! I i ~I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ 1 ;1 I ~1 ! i J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1'1 I"!!!II 'I III h ! ! ! II ! • ! , I , ! ! i , i B I ! ! ! • Iii Ill! ! , I i I B iii i I ! ! I i I, I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : '2 " '1 '/I it 11 " it fl !: I: ~ i: i<r '!: J;o '!:! II II " i' " ,. " !> ~ '" ~ l< 101 i: " " " !! " :: :. 'l 'II II! II :: " to 'll,. il i \! ~ :! : l! " l! " '" " , "II II !" :: X l= ." ):! I I i I. • b . \0 • • • \0' I. I.' .... b" .. i", b \0 ... ~ 10 ~ 'Il _ :. ... ~ " '" ..... Ii ~ I:! ... 1':1_ ~ __ ~ ~ _ \0 \0 _ ..... _, __ ... __ \0 \. ,.. I J I' , ., ~ \:<I:e ... ~ 10 'I':! b !! ,I, ......... I-\0 \0 '2 :e ... !> li b 10 ..... b 1;> e I i 'I'I" I' II I' , ! ! I B ! ! ,]! ii' ! I ! .!. ! ! ! II I ! ! ! ! ! !! ,],!!!!!!! I d II! Hi,,!! nil i!! HII!!!!II! ! ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!; i ;i; i i E fl ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~I ~ ~ I ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ I H j i ! II Ii Ii 1111 ! II Ii ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M 0 RAN DUM December 21, 2015 Todd Black, Capital Projects Coordinator Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, Receipt of Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report, Year 3 May Creek Trail, LUA12-037 This memorandum is to inform you that on December 7,2015, the Planning Division received the Year-3 annual monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. The project appears to be meeting its established performance standards and is considered in compliance. The annual monitoring occurred in fall of 2015 by Northwest Environmental Consulting LLC. In 2015, corrective action at the site was taken. Herbicide was applied to primarily control Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. In 2015, the coverage by invasive species has grown since the previous year and exceeds the mitigation goal. The goal for area coverage by invasive species is 10% and the submitted report finds that coverage is estimated at 16% Based on monitoring results, the consultants recommend the City should continue the invasive species control through 2016. According to the consultant's recommendation, the density of surviving trees and shrubs will meet long term goals if invasive controls are implemented. The next monitoring report shall be provided in late 2016 for review. If you have any questions, please contact Kris Sorensen at (425) 430-6593. cc: leslie Betlach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ccd\planning\currcnt plunning\wctlunds\may creek trnil\year 3 rcceiptJua 12-037 _may creek trail.docx May Creek Trail ~@ Il'il'ilIPl <e [)'i) $~ ~@ IiW 1M! fi ~ ~ ~ tal ik g@[)'i) Airo 1m M tal 0 !Mil ~HTil Bihl» Il'D Im~ ~ @11 S; Prepared for ~Dfcy ~g ~cellUfc~1lU IP> allr~s IP> H alllU IlU 0 IlU 91 as INl alfc rullral 0 ~ ces~ llJll1'cces "iI (l)55 $ Gl1'alldly Wal3f !5fclhl IFO~~11' ~cellUfc~1lU9 W& 98(l)5i' Prepared by ,If Northwest ___ Environmental Consulting. LLC Northwest Environmental Consulting, LLC 3639 Palatine Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 206·234-2520 DECEMBER 2015 May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -Annual Report December 2015 The City of Renton (City) performed compensatory mitigation in May Creek Park for impacts associated with construction of the May Creek Trail Project. The project included components within wetlands, wetland buffers, and shoreline of the state. Permit conditions require that planting goals and performance standards are met to preserve the natural character of the area. A total of 1.33 acres (58,200 square feet) was enhanced in 2013. See Appendix A for drawings showing a vicinity map and details of the mitigation. Location The project is located in the City of Renton within King County, Washington in Section 32, Township 24N, and Range 5E. Recent Corrective Action Herbicide was applied at the site on several occasions in 2015. The goal of herbicide treatments was primarily to control Japanese knotweed (l'olyjfflnllm CIIspidatllm) and Himalayan blackberry (RIlbJ/s armeniams) at the site. Page 2 of 10 Monitoring Goals May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -Annual Report December 2015 Annual monitoring for the third year monitoring in 2015 was to include the following: o Total count of plantings, to measnre survivability. o Count of plant species, to ensure a plant diversity of at least ten native shrub species and four native tree species at the site. o Count of invasives, to ensure that non-native coverage does not exceed 100/0. Species counting towards this coverage include but are not limited to Him.,layan blackberty, evergreen blackberty (R /aciniatus), reed canarygrass (Pha/ans amndinacea), Scots broom (Cytisl/s scoparil/s), English ivy (Hedera helix), or other known invasive species. No cover of Japanese knotweed is permissible. Page 3 of 10 ,If Northwest __ EnvironmMtal (onWlling,llC May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -Annual Report December 2015 The annual monitoring occurred in the fall of 2015, and included surveys of plant survival and invasive species coverage. Plant Survival Monitoring The methods for year three called for a total plant count. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, Northwest Environmental Consulting (NWEC) used a sub-sample of the plantings to estimate the number of plants at the site. To monitor survivability, NWEC nsed the belt transect method. This method uses a 100-foot tape to create a transect across the project site and is repeated in various locations. Beginning at the zero end of the tape, the biologist walks the tape and records any trees or shrubs within 3.0 feet of either side of the tape. Using this method, each transect covers 600 square feet. The transects were placed in areas that represented typical conditions on the site and were spread around to sample all aspects of the site. Sixteen transects were surveyed (the same number as completed in 2013 and 2014). To calculate percent survival, the number of plants recorded on each transect was averaged and divided by the expected number of plants per transect if all original mitigation plantings survived. The number of plants found on the site was then calculated by multiplying' the survival percentage by the number of plants planted. Invasive Species Monitoring To monitor for invasive coverage, the locations of invasive species were noted wherever their leaves or branches intersected the transect tape along the 16 transects described above. The NWEC biologists measured each invasive plant's beginning and ending distances in feet along the transect. The percentage of invasive coverage was calculated by dividing the sum of the invasive coverage measured on the transects by the total length of all transects. Page 4 of 10 ,If Northwest .... EfI'IIifonmel'1l,)l(on~ultin<J.UC May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -Annual Report December 2015 If?lIESlUJl!.1i"S Biologists from NWEC conducted fieldwork on September 21, 2015 to evaluate the survival of planted shrubs and trees and the location and extent of invasive species. A summary of surviving plantings and newly sprouting shrubs and trees can be found in Table 1. Photos of the site taken during monitoring are shown in Appendix B. These photos include four photopoints for comparison to monitoring in previous years. Survivability In year one, a total of 1.33 acres (58,200 square feet) was planted with 2,883 trees and shmbs for a density of 2,158 plantings per acre. It is thus expected that 30.5 trees and shmbs will be present in each transect. In 2014, 537 trees and shrubs were tallied in the 16 transects, representing 110% survival (the increase in density was due to additional plantings, sampling errors, and volunteer shrubs and trees at the site). During 2015 monitoring, N\'VEC completed 16 transects on site, and tallied a total of 533 trees and shrubs. From this tally, the survival rate for the planting area is estimated at 109% (with an estimated total count of 3,231 plantings, or a density of 2,430 plantings per acre). Thus, the survival rate remains well over 100%. The surveyors noted that while the plant count is similar to 2014, the overall coverage has likely increased as each plant matures and contributes to more aerial coverage per plant (see Photos 3 and 4 in Appendix B). Diversity NWEC identified all plant species present along each transect (see Table 1). Five species of trees were planted at the site and all five were present at the site and on the 2015 transects. In addition, three other species of sapling trees were identified on the 2015 transects: red alder (AI nils nlbra), Oregon ash (Fraxi11lls lalifolia), and bigleaf maple (Ater macropl!J//llm). Black cottonwoods (POPII/IIS tricbocarpa) are also present on site. A total of 27 species of young trees and shrubs were recorded on the transects (8 tree species and 19 shrub species). Thus the site is meeting the shrub diversity goals for the mitigation. Table 1. May Creek Trees and Shrubs Tallied on 2015 Transects ,'1,', ':." ...... ". , , .... ,. ,j ,. .' • "'" . .,/",; " ,Total " , f¥ ;'.' .. .. ''', • 'Species ", '. Scientific Name···· .. . Plants ." Tree Species Grand fir Abies grandis* 4 Bigleaf maple Acer macrophvllum 25 Red alder Alnus rubra 2 Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 1 Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis* 14 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii* 33 Western red cedar Thuja plicata * 44 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophvlla * 1 Page 5 of 10 ,If Northwest .., Efl'VifOnmeo!,11 Con~ulting.llC ..•... I' • i······,· .... ·· '. ",", . '.' Species' ' ...... , ...•. ' '.' Shrub Species Vine maple Oregon grape Red-osier dogwood Beaked hazelnut Black hawthorn Salal Oceanspray Black twinberry Indian plum Mock oranQe Swordfern Pacific ninebark Red currant Rose Thimbiebecry_ Salmonberry SerViceberry Snowberry Evergreen huckleberry Totals Average plantsper transect *Spe"jes planted in Year 1 Invasive Species May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigadon -Annual Report December 2015 Acer circinatum * Berberis aquifolium * Cornus sericea * Cory/us cornuta * Crataec;us douqlasii* Gaultheria shallon* Holodiscus discolor* Lonicera involucrate* Oemleria cerasiformis* Philadelohus lewisii* Po/ystichum munitum* Populus trichocarpa * Ribes sanguineum* Rosa spp.* Rubus oarviflorus * Rubus spectabilis Sambucus racemosa* Symphoricarpos albus* Vaccinium ovatum* I' :total. .. Plants· 4 37 6 3 8 3 29 4 12 1 16 8 28 98 54 24 1 51 22 533 33.3 N\VEC recorded eight species of invasive plants on the site. The two most common species were Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed. These two species were present throughout the site in small quantities and have been controlled on several occasions, but still persist. Most plants were dead or appeared to be dying from treatment (photo 5) but some new, untreated growth was also observed (see Photo 6 for an example). Concentrations of Japanese knotweed were highest along May Creek on the eastern side of the site. Himalayan blackberry was also most prevalent along the eastern side of the site, along the trail. Additional weeds present were English ivy, English holly (flex aqllifolillm), herb Robert (Geranitlm robertanitlm), reed canarygrass, and bittersweet nightshade (So/antlm dllkamara) within the transects. 1\ tansy ragwort individual (Seneeio jacobaea) was also observed at the site. Based on aerial coverage of invasives measured along the 16 transects, total coverage of invasive species in 2015 was estimated at 16%. This is an increase from 2014 (with estimated Page 6 of 10 May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -Annual Report December 2015 12% invasive coverage). This percentage exceeds the 10% limit of invasives established in the performance standards. Japanese knorweed was present at the site (with an estimated 1 % coverage in 2015), which also exceeds the performance standards. However, if ongoing efforts to control this species are continued, the quantity of this invasive should be reduced and coverage will remain minimal at the site. Page 7 of 10 \If Northwest __ Env;rt)!'lmlYltal Con.u1Iing.lLC May Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation -AnnuaJ Report December 2015 [R{IECOMMIEINlIDlA lI'DOINIS Based on monitoring results, Northwest Environmental Consulting recommends the following action take place: o The City should continue the invasive species control through 2016, concentrating on both Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. The density of surviving trees and shrubs ,vill meet long term goals if invasive controls are implemented. Page 8 of 10 \If Northwest ...., Envi'Orlmenl~1 COJ'H.lJitin9.U.c Appendix A Plan Drawings - May Creek Compensatory Mitigation ... ~ 0'/1O;"'~'!«n _ p \'\"{~'OOOOOO"\O'OOCA"\[O\O~O\sn",\,,'~OO'.!t"O~O()l)O,~" •• ~ , I I I :' i I 1 '1 I . I I I I . I I . I II I I I I Ii! : 100 *0 l~ :!!Q1PIII!iiliP PHI!ll!jiiln i l d ~!I'i;' ,-" I i~~ih" ! ~i~£! ~ i ! i I ~ is "#- fJ) c CD ;::: ~ " '~-, ./'~' 'I' l'i" .-/' ,. /11'· ----I ii! / ',.i' i ! a ~ /' Ii ii ~!i i j I~ !I Ip I ! ; "' ,ii, !Iii i .. : .. iR~ii.'i' , 'I' ., ,I -ii, 0 !. I; il~ i ! !IiI!IP; :ll!I.: oj gll;l j ! j: ij ii / gl~ ~~ .~ ~< I~ , !:!® • " , ~I~ jE I!~ i. ,~ "~ I q E~iS£5E~ ! ~ ;I ••••• 9 tl Q Q t;l S2 0 n !2 !~ ~ :i! ~ i-~ i Z "i l ~ " , ~ ~ i: . ~ • • , , ! l = ~ IIi! II ~(). z" o .! . ..... I J , . jQ!~! i~~;? li'ii d" .-< !i! !:l , I B ~ -'m~~~~~ .'z. "0 ~ ~ 0 oj oj " ;I ~tJI~~:t ~ § ~ !i! !i (5 ~ :h!i d p ~ ~ S !" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·.1 e"O~Z ," ~~~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ q ~ Z n~uu HHP~ H ~ H ~. ~~~oi\ 0 q ~ H f H p ~ i ~ '1'1"'0' ~ I 111; • e I! II" DAVID eVANS . c:l ANDA880CIATE8'Nc. O ,,,.,,,,_BE • _~""'1IlI.lOO-3011 _ "'-0.1 •• .., "'I I I ! m !'I U I~ -. ~ ~ ffi L ~ ~ . ~ ,; !~ i~ ~C3 -< g o () "Tl ;;0 z o ." ;;0 m m m .... Z A~ -I"Tl-t';;; OO~~ Z;c ::; ~ -~ Gl § ~ (J) :I: Z G) -t o Z COVER SHEET & SITE PLAN MAY CREEK TRAIL FOR CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WASHINGTON r-~ -< -U I' ;;0 .z O~ C-m m':;; () s: -t N01~NII-IS'lM 'NOIN3l:l S~l:l'ld NOl.N3l:l .:10 All:) llV1ll. )l33~O A IIV'J NVld ~NIIN"ld NOI1\fDIIIW I I I I I I I I / I I I / / I / / / / / / 81~~::-". SN ...... B CIA ... C 'ON'1I3.1.'11001l1l"'''''' I" " ~ i!' :g :: ~ ~ ~ " ;: ~ :l ! ' ! II! I mil 'if: !i1 'if: 'if: 'if: 111111 II iiiii. ! l llllll ~ ~ UUH ;., ;., ""jj "'" .. "' ..... I , ~j·i§§~ ~ ~ so 'i so 'i ' , .. .• .. -.... ;, i:! i:! -' ~ :E tIl ::J (fJ -' ~ u: "" <=> ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~,<;!II!,<;! !; l ~ l ~i~i '" 't!!:! § g g i ~~~~ , i ~ . o~.~ · 7 !.~. • i. ~~;~ 8 @ , • ." ,~~~" " N~ ", •• § .... ~::!/.l0o:a0:!l~:::l~?i:;;!'! ::~"~;·"i'i~~fl::lll~:i§ . , , 11'1111111111111 II .'1,liiliiHiHi iiI! ,1;iiiliiiUiI/, i, " ~~~~::l~::l~~::Ig~~~~~ g ; !!!h.· •• ··•· .• · .• ·. " " """jj"" j j j j " .. .. " .................. ...... .. si !i !i !i 'if !i !i 'i !i oj oj !if oj oj ~. 'i 'i oj 'r'r'r'r·t'r'rTT'rT·~ T'r'n " . ................................ , Appendix JB 2015 Site Photos - May Creek Compensatory Mitigation i\hy Creek Trail Compensatory ~\'litigation-2015 Site Photos B-1 ,II Northwest w fnviroomentillConW1lin9-UC May Creek Trail Compensatory I\Htigation-2015 Site Photos B-2 ,II Northwest _ Eoviror\fneot~1 (on~uJtin<J.LlC Mar Creek Trail Compensatory Mitigation-2015 Site Photos Photo 5. Patch of treated Japanese knotweed on-site. B-3 ,If Northwest __ frtl/;rOl'lrnt,'O\Jl(on~ultilly.lLC f\1ay Creek Trail Compensatory l'vlitigation-2015 Site Photos in the southwestern corner of the park (where these two species were most frequently encountered). Photo 8. Conditions along interior trail in eastern portion of the park. B-4 ,II Northwest .... Fnvironrl1e(1I01I(on~ultirl,],tLC ~Iay Creek Trail Compensatory 1.1itigation-2015 Site Photos Photo 10. Conditions along the creek in the central portion of the park, at a debris jam. B-5 \11 Northwest -.r ErMroomP.flloli(oo~ulling.LlC , May Creek Trail CompeDu,atory Mitigation Annual Monitoring 2014 Prepared for ~Dtll' of Renton Parks Planning & Natural Resources 1055 $ Grady Way 6th Flool!' Renton, WA 98051 \Prepared by ,If Northwest ..... Environmental Consulting. LLC Northwest Environmental Consulting, LLC 3639 Palatine Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 206·234-2520 NOVEMBER 2014 The City of Renton (City) performed compensatory mitigation in May Creek Park for impacts associated with construction of the May Creek Trail Project. The May Creek Trail Project included components within wetlands, wetland buffers, and a designated shoreline of . the state. Permit conditions require that planting goals and performance standards are met to preserve the natural character of the area. t\ total of 1.33 acres (58,200 square fcet) was enhanced in 2013. A plan set with vicinity map and figures showing the project are shown in Attachment A. Location The project is located in the City of Renton within King County, Washington in Section 32, Township 24N, and Range SE. Recent Corrective Action Herbicide was applied at the site on several occasions in 2014. The goal of herbiciding was primarily to control Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry at the site. In addition, 153 red-osier dogwood and black twin berry shrubs were planted along the stream in early 2014. Page 2 of 6 ,If Northwest .w. EllvironmenlalConsultlng.UC Monitoring Goals Annual monitoring for the second year monitoring in 2014 was to include: o Total plant count of plantings to measure survivability o Insure that at least 10 nativc shrubs and 4 native tree species were present at the site to insure plant diversity o No more than 1O";() coverage of non-native or other invasive, including but not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning glory, or other known invasive species is permissible, and no cover of Japanese knotweed is pcrmissible. Page 3 of (, ,If Northwest .:,y. Environmental (onsultir'lg.LLC The annual moniroring occurred in the fall of2014. Plant Survival Monitoring The original methods for year two called for a total plant count. However in year 1, a subs ample of the plantings was used to estimate the number of plants at the site. Subsampling is often used to prevent double counting or missing plants altogether and provides a good estimate on the survival and was approved by the City of Renton in Year 1. To monitor survivability, the belt transect method was used. This method uses a 100-foot tape to create a transect across a portion of the project site. Transects are repeated in various locations. Beginning at the zero end of the tape, the tape is walked by the monitor who records any trees or shrubs that occur within 3.0 feet on either side of the tape, so that a known area is sampled (600 square feet). The transects were located in areas that represented typical conditions on the site and spread around to sample all aspects of the site. The same number of transects (16) were completed in 2014 as in 2013. To calculate percent survival, the number of plants recorded on each transect was averaged and divided by the expected number of plants that would be found on each transect per the planting density. The number of plants found on the site was then calculated by multipl)~ng the survival percentage by the number of plants planted. The amount of replanting required was figured by subtracting the number of plants planted by the number of plants estimated to have survived. Invasive Species Monitoring To monitor for invasive coverage, the locations of invasive species were noted where the tape encountered branches or leaves of invasive plants. Field observations noted the locations of the invasive plants by measuring the beginning and ending distances in feet from the start of the transect. The amount of invasive coverage was calculated by dividing the sum of the invasive coverage measured on the transect by the length of the transect. Page 4 ofG ., , -' RESULTS Field monitoring was conducted on September 12, 2014 by biologists from Northwest Environmental Consulting to evaluate the survival of shrubs and trees planted at the site and to assess the location and extent of invasive species. . t\ summary of surviving plantings can be found in Appendix A Photos of the site taken during monitoring are shown in Appendix B, Survivability A total of 16 transects were completed on site, A tally of all shrubs and trees found on 16 transects are shown in attached Table 1 -May Creek Planting Survival. Each belt transect was 100 feet in length and 6 feet wide making the sample area of each transect 600 square feet, In year one, a total of 1.33 acres (58,200 square feet) was planted with 2,883 trees and shrubs for a density of 2,158 plantings per acre, It is expected that 30.5 trees and shrubs to be present in each transect. In 2014, a total of 537 trees and shrubs were tallied on the 16 transects. This was an increase of 75 plants at the site. A total of 488 trees and shrubs would represent 100% survival. The survival rate for the plantings area for 2014 was estimated at 110%. The increase in density is due to' additional plantings, sampling errors, and volunteer shrubs and trees at the site. Diversity Species were identified on each transect and are shown in Table 1 in Appendix B. Five species of trees were planted at the site and all five of the species were present at the site. In addition, three other species of trees were present at the site: red alder, black cottonwood, and big leaf maple. A total of 20 species of planted shrubs were recorded on the transects. Thus the site is meeting the shrub diversity goals. Invasive Species Four invasive species were recorded on the site. The two most commonly found included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Japanese knotweed (Polygontlnl ctlspidaltlnl). These two invasive species were present throughout the site in small quantities and had been controlled on several occasions, but still persisted. Concentrations of Japanese knotweed were highest along May Creek on the eastern side of the site. Himalayan blackberry had the highest concentration along the eastern side of the site along the traiL Total cO\'crage of invasive species in 2014 was estimated at 12% which was an increase of 10% over coverage in 2013. Japanese knotweed was preSent at the site and therefore invasive species coverage was not being met. However, if ongoing efforts to control this species are continued, the quantity of this invasive should be reduced and coverage will be minimal at the site. Page 5 of 6 Based on monitoring results, Northwest Environmental Consulting recommends the following actions take place: o The City should continue the invasive species control through 2015 The density of surviving trees and shrubs will meet long term goals if invasive controls are implemented. ',' Photo Point 1 -From Bridge on Lake Washington Boulevard N . " 'i'" ~" -'1". , . '1.,"01;.' Photo Point 2 -Entering park Photo Point 3 -Center of May Creek Park Photo Point 4 -Looking west from east side of Park. · Patch of Japanese knotweed at the site. These areas are being treated. Conditions along the trail at the park. Looking west towards the entrance to the park. Woody debris accumulation in May Creek. The debris jam may prevent erosion along the bank. -- Table 1 May Creek Planting Survival fSpecles Scientific Name T1 T2 T3 T4 TS T6 ~ T7 T8 1'9 TlO T11 T12 T13 Tl4 -TlS T16 Total i . Western red cedar Thuja plicata 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 2 6 2 2 3 2 1 3 46 Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 1 1 2 Sitka spruce Picea sifchensis 1 2 1 3 3 10 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 7 6 1 29 Grand fir Abies grandis 1 1 1 3 6 Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii 2 1 3 1 2 1 10 Willow sp. salix spp. 0 Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 1 2 Beaked hazelnut Corylus comuta 0 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 1 Mock orange Philadelphus lewisii 1 2 3 Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 3 2 3 2 6 5 21 Red-osier dogwood Comus sericea 4 4 Pacific Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 5 1 6 Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovaturn 2 4 2 1 6 1 4 2 4 26 Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 2 4 5 7 2 21 Rose Rosa spp. 11 6 15 3 2 8 4 13 8 7 15 1 93 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 6 6 1 2 7 8 2 4 3 5 11 3 59 Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 4 1 1 8 14 Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium 5 11 2 8 11 8 1 3 1 1 7 1 59 Red currant Ribes sanguineum 1 5 5 5 16 Thimbleberry Rubus parvifforus 15 1 11 3 14 2 46 Swordfern Polystichum munitum 2 3 1 1 16 1 5 1 6 36 Salal Gaultheria Shallon 4 1 1 2 1 9 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 1 8 1 7 18 Totals 23 29 34 38 25 26 43 43 44 39 46 30 26 42 25 24 537 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM January 13, 2015 Todd Black, Capital Projects Coordinator Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, for Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Receipt of Annual Mitigation Monitoring Report May Creek Trail This memorandum is to inform you that on December 19, 2015, the Planning Division received the Year-2 annual monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. The project appears to be meeting its established performance standards and is considered in compliance. The annual monitoring occurred in fall of 2014 by Northwest Environmental Consulting LLC. In 2014, corrective action at the site was taken. Herbicide was applied to primarily control Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry. Additional plantings were installed along the stream early in the year, with a mix of 153 red-osier dogwood and black twinberry shrubs. Based on monitoring results, the consultants recommend the City should continue the invasive species control through 2015. According to the consultant's recommendation, the density of surviving trees and shrubs will meet long term goals if invasive controls are implemented. The next monitoring report shall be provided in late 2015 for review. If you have any questions, please contact Vanessa Dolbee at (425) 430-7314. cc: Leslie Betlach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ced\planning\current planning\wetlands\may creek trail\year2 receipt.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT {IVA 12-0:37 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2014 TO: FROM: Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator . ~ Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager W SUBJECT: Receipt of the Fourth Quarterly Monitoring Report This memorandum is to inform you that on December 23,2013, the Planning Division received the third quarterly monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. As mentioned in the second quarterly memorandum; each monitoring report should be a stand-alone document. As such, the items listed in the August 13, 2013 memorandum should be included in the next monitoring report. However, the information provided in the quarterly reports has addressed the performance standards approved during the land use permitting process. The monitoring repots should continue to include: 1. General site conditions and observations, and other information included in the current monitoring report (such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.). 2. Recommendation on maintenance and action items. The project appears to be meeting performance standards; however, the project should make sure to include all performance standard requirements. Three copies of the first annual monitoring report are due to the Planning Division by December 27, 2014. cc: Leslie Betiach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\cedlpJanning\current pJanninglwetJandslmay creek traiJlq4 receipt doc ,'r Northwest ~ Environmental Consulting,LLC 3639 Palatine Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 (206) 234-2520 "ii'IECHNHCAIL MIEMORANDUM TO: Todd Black, City of Renton FROM: Brad Thiele, Northwest Em~ronmental Consulting December 23, 2013 DATE: SUBJECT: Monitoring 2013 Quarter 4 PROJECT: May Creek Trail ONTRODUCTION The May Creek Trail project included project activities within wetlands, wetland buffers, and a designated shoreline of the State. These activities required that planting goals and performance standards are met to preserve the natural character of the area. A total of five years of monitoring are required starting in 2013. This memo summarizes the Quarter 4, 2013 site visit. SITE VISIT The site visit was completed by Brad Thiele (Northwest Environmental Consulting) on December 17, 2013. Overall the plants appeared to be doing well, but were dormant at the time of the visit. Pictures from the site visit are attached. Notes o Japanese knorweed, Himalayan blackberry and English ivy were present on the site. Treatments appeared to have eradicated reed canarygrass from the site. English ivy was present at a solitary site growing on a mature cottonwood tree. Past treatments appeared to have killed the Japanese knorweed and Himalayan blackberry, but these plants were still present at the site and will likely resprout in the spring and will need reoccurring treatments. Some of the invasives continue to grow interrwined with the plantings and care will need to be taken not to harm the plantings during removal of the invasive species. Invasive coverage did not appear to have significantly changed from invasive coverage monitoring that indicated the site had about 2% coverage of invasive species. o The shoreline erosion from the logjam had not changed and looked stable from previous site visits. A new tree had fallen across May Creek, which could alter the stream channel in the future. o A metal circuit box had been discarded at the site, but this was a solitary piece and no other dumping was observed on site. o The hog fuel mulch was still in place but had been covered by leaf litter. o The irrigation system was still in place and was not observed working. Todd Black mentioned that the irrigation system had been drained for the winter to prevent pipes from freezing. o No significant signs of herbivory from deer or beavers were apparent at the site. A deer had rutted on single Doug fir planting damaging the bark, but the tree did not appear ro be stressed and will likely heal. Action Items o Continue removal of invasive English Ivy, Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan blackberry by herbiciding or other method in the spring when these plants resprout. o Include invasive controls on the abutting areas on the north side of the park that were recently cleared and planted. These areas had similar invasive species as noted at the park and one area will continue to colonize the other if they are not controlled together. Pagc2of2 ,1, Northwest .w. En'tlronmtntal Consuhlng,lLC Photo Point 1 -From Bridge on Lake Washington Boulevard N Photo Point 2 -Entering park Photo Point 3 -Center of May Creek Park Photo Point 4 -Looking west from east side of Park . Small sprout of Himalayan blackberry at the site . Typical planting and hog fuel condition along trail. This area had extensive Japanese knotweed in the past and controls had significantly reduced this invasive at the site. English ivy on cottonwood tree Mature tree that had falien across May Creek adjacent to an area along May Creek that was eroding earlier in 2013 Item that had been dumped at the site . Douglas fir damaged by deer rutting. The tree appears to be unstressed from damage . WAll-O?J7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT -=~~@IIDe MEMORANDUM DATE: November 4, 2013 TO: FROM: Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Receipt of the Third Q.uarterly Monitoring Report This memorandum is to inform you that on September 4, 2013, the Planning Division received the third quarterly monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. As mentioned in the second quarterly memorandum; each monitoring report should be a stand-alone document. As such, the items listed in the August 13, 2013 memorandum should be included in the next monitoring report. However, the information provided in the quarterly reports have addressed the performance standards approved during the land use permitting process, with one exception as follows: Please provide signs of herbivory by deer or beaver to installed mitigation plants. The monitoring repots should continue to include: 1. General site conditions and observations, and other information included in the current monitoring report (such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.). 2. Recommendation on maintenance and action items. The project appears to be meeting performance standards; however, the project should make sure to include all performance standard requirements, including a report of signs of herbivory by deer or beaver to installed mitigation plants, which was not provided in the 2nd Quarter or 3 .... Quarter Monitory Reports. Three copies of the fourth quarterly monitoring report are due to the Planning Division by December 27,2013. cc: Leslie Betlach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ced\planning\currcnt planning\wetlands\may creek lrail\q3 receipLdoc ,~f Northwest .w. Environmental Consulting, LLC 3639 Palatine Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 (206) 234-2520 "ii"IECHNRCAIb MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Black, City of Renton FROM: Brad Thiele, Northwest Environmental Consulting August 29, 2013 DATE: SUBJECT: Monitoring 2013 Quarter 3 PROJECT: May Creek Trail BNTRODUCTIOili The May Creek Trail project included project activities within wetlands, wetland buffers, and a designated Shoreline of the State. These activities require that planting goals and performance standards arc met to preserve the natural ch'aracter of the area. A total of five years of monitoring is required starting in 2013. This memo summarizes the Quarter 3, 2013 site visit. SITE VISIT The site visit was completed by Brad Thiele (Northwest Environmental Consulting) on August 13, 2013. The plantings have progressed well probably due to irrigation acti\·ities. A few dead plants ~ess than 5%) were observed and there was no new die-off compared to conditions at past site visits. Willow stakes planted along the stream edge in shady areas appeared to have a high mortality. The amount of mortality will be estimated in September. Another species of plant may be required along the stream edge in shady areas to replace the willow stakes. Pictures from the site visit are attached. Notes o Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry and English ivy were present on the site. Treatments had kept reed canarygrass to a trace. English ivy did not appear to have been treated and was still present on one of the large black cottonwood trees. Past treatments appeared to have killed the Japanese knotweed and English ivy, but these plants were beginning to resprout and needed another treatment. No overspray was observed that was affecting the plantings. Some of the invasives arc growing intertwined with the plantings . and care will need to be taken not to harm the plantings during removal of the invasive species. • The shoreline erosion from the logjam had not changed and looked stable from previous site visits. • No vandalism or illegal dumping was observed at the site. o The hog fuel mulch was still in place. • The irrigation system was still in place and was not observed working during the site visit. The plantings did not look dried out despite the dry warm summer, so it is assumed that it is working properly. Action Items o Continue removal of invasive English Ivy, Japanese knotweed, and Himalyan blackberry by use of herbicide or other method. , . • Include invasive controls on the abutting areas on the north side of the park that were recently cleared and planted. These areas had similar invasive species as noted at the park and one area will continue to colonize the other if they afC not controlled together. Page 2 of2 ,Ir Northwest .JY. ErwIIonmentJl Consulting. LLC Photo Point 1 -From BrIdge on Lake Washington Boulevard N Photo Point 2 -Entering park Photo Point 3 -Center of May Creek Park Photo Point 4 -Looking west from east side of Park . Japanese knotweed growing entangled with planting. Typical planting and hog fuel condition along trail. .. English ivy on cottonwood tree Area along May Creek that was eroding earlier in 2013. ... " I , .. " Willow stakes with high mortality along the stream In shady area. Himalayan blackberry re-sprouting next to planting . fJ !--UA ll-Dsi - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT --=~it@illl e M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: August 13, 2013 TO: FROM: Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Receipt of the Second Quarterly Monitoring Report This memorandum is to inform you that on May 29, 2013, the Planning Division received the second quarterly monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. Each monitoring report should be a stand-alone document. In addition to the current monitoring results and general site conditions, each monitoring report should include sufficient information (monitoring methodology; vicinity map; site map(s) with locations of the mitigation area, monitoring plots, photopoints, etc.) to allow other biologists to perform the monitoring, and for the City to verify the monitoring. This information will ensure accurate continuation of monitoring in the event of staff turnover in the current applicant's biologist's firm or ifthe applicant chooses to change consulting firms. In addition to the information currently provided in the 2nd Quarter Monitoring Report, the following information should be included in future monitoring reports: 1. Please provide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, siies, etc.)etc, 2. Please provide the percent cover of invasive species in the mitigation area, and 3. The provided monitoring report referenced the success standard identified in Table 2 Performance Standards and Methods for the remainder of the monitoring reports. 4. Information regarding the methodology of how the installed plants were counted. 5. Data sheets from monitoring area or each monitoring transect/plot that includes: plot location and dimensions; species present and percent cover by individual desirable native volunteer species and non-native invasive species; quantities and species of plants originally installed in the plot, installed plants currently present, and percent survival of installed woody plants; and overall percent cover by desirable native woody species (installed plus volunteers), herbaceous species, and non-native invasive species. Data should continue to be presented in tables. h:\ced\planning\current planning\wetlands\may creek trail\q2 receipt.doc Todd Black Page 2 of2 August 13,2013 • 6. Provide site address, vicinity map, and project site map. On the project site map, include a north arrow and the locations of the mitigation area, transects/monitoring plots (if used) and photo points. 7. Please provide signs of herbivory by deer or beaver to installed mitigation plants. The monitoring repots should continue to include: 1. General site conditions and observations, and other information included in the current monitoring report (such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.). 2. Recommendation on maintenance and action items. The project appears to be meeting performance standards; however, the project should make sure to include all performance standard requirements, including a report of signs of herbivory by deer or beaver to installed mitigation plants, which was not provided in the 2nd Quarter Monitory Report. Three copies of the third quarterly monitoring report are.due to the Planning Division by September 27, 2013. cc: Leslie Betiach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ced\planning\currcnt planning\wetlands\may creek trail\q2 receipt.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 RAN 0 U M DATE: April 25, 2013 ellA (l-031 .-._-_. __ . --.---"-TO :'------ FROM: .. Todd Black; Capital Project coor~~ator---'-- Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner \lJ SUBJECT: Approval of Final Stream & Wetland mitigation and Monitoring Plan David Evans and Associates, Inc. have submitted a final stream and wetland mitigation and monitoring plan, dated April 2012. The planting plan has been installed and inspected and approved by City staff. Upon approval ofthe installation the 5 year monitoring period began on December 27,2012. The required submittal dates for monitoring are as fOllows: Quarterly for the first year: March 27, 2013 June 27, 2013 September 27, 2013 December 27, 2013. Annual: December 27, 2014 December 27, 2015 December 27, 2016 December 27,2017 cc: Leslie Betlach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ced\pJanning\current planning\wetlands\may creek trail\final stream & wetland mitigation instaltion and monitoring.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: April 25, 2013 -----Tad d Bli'fck,-Crpital-Proje-tf C60rdi -at6r------------------------- Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner \~ -------TO:----- FROM: SUBJECT: Receipt of the Firth Quarterly Monitoring Report This memorandum is to inform you that on April 5, 2013, the Planning Division received the first quarterly monitoring report for the May Creek Trail mitigation project. Each monitoring report should be a stand-alone document. In addition to the current monitoring results and general site conditions, each monitoring report should include sufficient information (monitoring methodology; vicinity map; site map(s) with locations of the mitigation area, monitoring plots, photopoints, etc.) to allow other biologists to perform the monitoring, and for the City to verify the monitoring. This information will ensure accurate continuation of monitoring in the event of staff turnover in the current applicant's biologist's firm or if the applicant chooses to change consulting firms. In addition to the information currently provided in the 1st Quarter Monitoring Report, the following information should be included in future monitoring reports: 1. Please provide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, sizes, etc.)etc, 2. Please provide the percent cover of invasive species in the mitigation area, and 3. The provided monitoring report referenced the success standard identified in Table 2 Performance Standards and Methods for the remainder of the monitoring reports. 4. Information regarding the methodology of how the installed plants were counted. 5. Data sheets from monitoring area or each monitoring transect/plot that includes: plot location and dimensions; species present and percent cover by individual desirable native volunteer species and non-native invasive species; _ quantities and species of plants originally installed in the plot, installed plants currently present, and percent survival of installed woody plants; and overall percent cover by desirable native woody species (installed plus volunteers), herbaceous species, and non-native invasive species. Data should continue to be presented in tables. h:\ced\planning\current planning\wetlands\rnay creek trail\q 1 receipt.doc Todd Black Page 2 of2 April 25, 2013 6. Provide site address, vicinity map, and project site map. On the project site map, include a north arrow and the locations ofthe mitigation area, transects/monitoring plots (if used) and photo points. The monitoring repots should continue to include: 1. General site conditions and observations, and other information included in the ·-------------cu rrent-mon itoring report-(such-as-the-speciesand-n u m bersot-dead/stressed-------------- installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.}. 2. Recommendation on maintenance and action items. The project appears to be meeting performance standards. Three copies of the second quarterly monitoring report are due to the Planning Division by June 27, 2013. cc: Leslie Betiach, Parks, Planning and Natural Resources Director File h:\ced\pJanning\current pJanning\wetlands\may creek traiI\ql receipt.doc .. ,J • • .. .. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT: Todd Black, City of Renton Brad Thiele, Northwest Environmental Consulting March 27, 2013 Monitoring 2013 Quarter 1 May Creek Trail INTRODUCTION 3639 Palatine Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 (206) 234-2520 City of Renton Planning Division APR 0 5 2u il The May Creek Trail projecr included project activities within werlands, werland buffers, and a designated shoreline of the State. These activities require that p lanting goals and performance standards are met to preserve the naruta) character of the area. A total of five years of monitoring are required starting in 2013 . This memo summarizes the Quartet 1 site visit SITE VISIT The site visit was completed by Brad Thiele (Northwest Environmental Consulting) and Todd Black (C ity of Renton) on March 26, 2013. The visit was completed towards the end of March during the growing season. The plantings were budding out and looked healthy. Pictures from the site visit are attac hed. Notes • Some beaver activity was observed along the creek, but did not appear to be recent. • Japanese knorweed, reed canarygrass, and English ivy were observed on site and should be removed to keep competition with the plantings minimal. If herbicides are used, care should be taken not to affect the plantings. • Some shoreline erosion was observed where a log jam is diverting the May Creek flow toward the shoreline. Erosion of the shoreline likely will continue ro occur until the log jam is removed. • No vandalism or illegal dumping was observed at the site. • The hog fuel mulch was spread evenly through the site. • The irrigation system was in sta lled but was not in u se Action Items • Remove invasive English Ivy,japanese knotweed, and reed canarygrass by herbiciding or other method. • Consider removing the log jam to prevent future strea m bank erosion. · . .. ~ -'. Photo Point 1 -From Bridge on Lake Washington Boulevard N Photo Point 2 -Entering park ,. . - • Photo Point 3 -Center of May Creek Park Photo Point 4 -Looking west from east side of Park. .\ -. Japanese knotweed beginning to compete with new plantings Reed canarygrass emerging through hog fuel mulch on site . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: November 5, 2012 TO: CC: Vanessa Dolbee, Community and Economic Development Senior Planner Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director FROM: Todd Black, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Capital Project Coordinator '$ MAY CREEK TRAIL -RESPONSE TO HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION CONDITIONS SUBJECT: The following narrative provides the Final Decision by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, Phil A. Olbrechts, dated July 24, 2012, regarding the City of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline' Variance (LUA 12-037, ECF, SM, SMV). The City requested a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP") and shoreline variance for the construction of a six foot wide pedestrian trail along May Creek. The variance is necessary because shoreline regulations only authorize four foot wide trails within the buffers of Class'" wetlands. The following are the Hearing Examiner's conditions and the City's responses. The shoreline substantial development permit and variance applications are approved as they meet all the applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision, provided they comply with the following conditions: 1. As identified in Conclusions of Law 12 and 27, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning staff that the parking demand created by the proposal is fully mitigated. At a minimum, parking shall satisfy the requirements of RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e)(i){b). Response: Parking for approximately twelve vehicles is available across from the entrance to May Creek Trail, along Lake Washington Boulevard North. 2. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 22, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that those portions of the trail within the inner 50% of the buffer to the on-site wetland must be located in that area for interpretive purposes as required by RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(f). If the Applicant is unable to meet that standard, the trail shall be re-designed to avoid the inner 50% of the buffer, even if that entails removing one or more significant trees. Vanessa Dolbee, CED Senior Ph.,ner SUBJECT: MAY CREEK TRAIL ;PONSE TO HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION CONDITIONS November 5, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Response: There will be interpretive signage adjacent to the trail and within the inner 50% buffer of the on-site wetland. 3. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that as required by RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(x)(b) the proposed wetland mitigation complies with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. Response: The mitigation monitoring plan was developed by a wildlife biologist, and a wildlife biologist will be contracted to provide the five year monitoring plan, and is in compliance with the applicable standards for studies and assessments in Chapter 6. 4. As discussed in Conclusion of law No. 23, all mitigation areas shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3- OSOE4. Response: As the City of Renton is the new owner of this property, there will be permanent protection of this site, without a need for protective covenants. The . area is determined to be a natural area (Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, adopted in 2011). A five-year mitigation and monitoring plan is being implemented to assure the long term growth of new native plant material being planted as a part of the trail construction. S. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period identified at p. 36 of the critical areas report and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; h:\parks\pks secretary\2012 files\2012-089mb (maycreeklrail-hearingexaminerrespClrlse) ,doc Vanessa Oolbee, CEO Senior Planner SUBJECT: MAY CREEK TRAIL PONSE TO HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION CONDITIONS November 5, 2012 Page30i4 (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. Response: Accepted by Parks Planning and Natural Resources 6. The Applicant will post a performance surety as required by RMC 4-3-0S0(M)(16). Response: The Parks Planning and Natural Resources budget will provide for mitigation and monitoring funding for five years. After that, the Parks and Golf Course budget will assume permanent budgeted funding for maintenance. 7. Prior to any construction, the Applicant shall acquire approval from staff of a mitigation schedule as required by RMC 4-S-120(D)(23)(b)(i) ("dates of beginning and completion") in the definition of a wetland mitigation plan. The approved mitigation schedule shall be construed as and enforced as a condition of approval. Response: Accepted by Parks Planning and Natural Resources S. If not done so already, as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 29 the archaeological assessment shall be submitted to any potentially affected tribes for comment in regards to development of the project site. Staff shall have authority to require further mitigation as necessary in response to the comments in order to assure compliance with SMP policies regarding protection of archaeological resources. Any additional mitigation required by staff shall be construed as an enforced as a condition of approval. Response: An archaeological assessment was submitted to the Muckleshoot Tribe and was accepted by them in 2011. 9. The Applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of staff that the use of bark as a trail material is resistant to flood damage as required by RMC 4-3-0S0(1)(2)(c)(i) or in the alternative that the replacement of bark in case of a flood is (1) the most feasible approach to construction of a permeable trail surface; and (2) the displacement of bark in case of flooding will not harm shoreline resources. Response: (1) The proposed fir bark is the most feasible approach to the construction of a permeable trail surface, and has been used in many similar conditions around the Pacific Northwest with success; and (2) The displacement of bark in case of flooding will cause no further harm than the displacement of "hog fuel" as the mulch cover over the newly planted landscape. These are natural h:\parks\Pks secretary\2012 files\2012..oB9mb (maycreektrall-hearingexamfnerresponse),doc .... Vanessa Dolbee, CEO Senior Planner SUBJECT: MAY CREEK TRAIL· 'ONSE TO HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION CONDITIONS November 5,2012 Page4of4 products which will break down and add valuable nutrients to the soil, while helping to suffocate the growth of invasive plant species. 10. The conditions and limitations recommended at Page 5 of the staff report are adopted and imposed as conditions of approval. Compliance with ERC Conditions (From Page 5) Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (C5WPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. 3. The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in diameter within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included inthe Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18,2009. Response: Accepted by Parks Planning and Natural Resources h:\parks\pks secretaryl2012 filesl2012-OS9mb (maycreeklrall-hearingexamlnerresponse) ,doc 'J '. I . STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office' 3190 160th Ave Sf. Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 5, 2012 l\I!r . Todd Black City of Renton Parks Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: City of Renton Local Permit LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Todd Black, City of Renton Parks Development -Applicant Approved Shoreline Variance Permit 169 Dear Todd: On July 26,2012, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) received the City of Renton's decision on your Shoreline Variance Permit for construction of a 6-foot wide trail along May Creek between Lake Washington Blvd and 1-405. By law, Ecology must review Variance Permits for compliance with: o The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) o Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) o The Renton Local Shoreline Master Program After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision: Ecology approves your Conditional Use Permit provided your project complies with the conditions required by Port Orchard. Please note, however, that other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you to wait at least 21 days from September 5, 2012, the "date of filing". This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shoreiines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit · . i . Todd Black, City of Renton September 5, 2012 . 20f2 The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Nightingale at (425) 649-4309. Sincerely, Geoff Tallent, Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program GT:cja cc: Vanessa bolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton , I Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office· 3190 160th Ave Sf· Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service· Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 5, 2012 Mr. Todd Black City of Renton Parks Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Re: City of Renton Local Permit LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV -Approved Todd Black, City of Renton Parks Development -Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) 1185 Dear Todd: City of Renton Planning Division SEP -6 lOll On July 26, 2012, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) received notice that the City of Renton approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is for construction of a .27 mile trail along May Creek between Lake Washington Blvd and 1-405 within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington . . By law, local governments must review all SDP's for compliance with: o The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) o Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) o The Renton Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDP's for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you to wait at least 21 days from July 26, 2012, the "date of filing". This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. Todd Black, City of Renton September 5, 2012 20f2 The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov. If you want to appeal this decision, you can fmd appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Nightingale at (425) 649-4309. Sincerely, ~ Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program BN:cja cc: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.govl Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:33 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Leslie A Betlach Cc: Nightingale, Barbara (ECY) Subject: May Creek Trail Variance and wetland rating Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Leslie and Vanessa, Follow up Flagged You may recall when we met in the field that I was somewhat puzzled about the 786 s.f wetland having been rated as a Category III wetland. This morning at Barbara Nightingale's request, I reviewed the plan sets for the proposed trail including the City of Renton May Creek Trail-Critical Areas Report prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. I was particularly interested in the rating ofthis small wetland and reviewed the Wetland Rating Form in Appendix B. On page 1 of the rating form the Summary of Rating shows the three separate scores for water quality, hydrologic function and habitat function. These three scores total 30 points, right at the threshold for a Category III rating. As I could not review specific characteristics only identifiable in the field, I limited my review to the few items which could be reviewed in the office. It came to my attention that Question H2.1 on page 5 of 9 of the rating form may have been incorrectly scored. This question relates to buffer conditions surrounding the wetland and was one in which we could make estimates based on aerial photographs that were available to us in the office. The consultant had marked the question for 50m (170 ft.) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 95% of the circumference for a total of 4 points. I looked at the site plan maps in conjunction with the aerials and noted that 1-405 falls well within 170 ft. of this small wetland along the entire east side of the wetland. In addition, the development to the north also falls well within 170 ft. of this small wetland. Thus, per my calculations, the scoring of the wetland buffer for being relatively undisturbed for> 95% of the wetland is not correct which would mean that this score would be something less than 4 points. This minor discrepancy is enough to alter the total to 29 points or less which would make the wetland a Category IV wetland and would thus change the standard buffer from 75 ft. to 50 ft. which would allow other approaches to be considered with regards to the trail location within the buffer. Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 1 Denis Law· Mayor July 27, 2012 · City of Newcastle. cloAmy Maxim . 12835 Newcastie Way, Suite 200 Newcastle, WA 98056 City Cierk -Bonnie I. Walton ". - Re: Decision for Shoreline· Substantial Developmeritper;nit & Shoreline Variance· . LUA-12-037, ECF; SM, SMV · Dear Ms: Maxim: Attached is·yiJur copy of the Hearing Examiner'~ Decision dated July 24,2012, inthe· above-· referenced matter. : . .. If I can provide further informatiori, please feel free to contact me. · Sincerely, · Bonnie LWalton · City Clerk Ene.: Hearing Examin~r's De:cision . · cc:, Hearing Ex?miner Larry Warren, City Attorney Garmon Newsom: Assistant City Attorney. Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Nei.1 Watts, Development Service Director Vanessa Dolbee, Acting Senior Planne, Stacy Tucker, Development Services Todd Black, Community Services 1 05S South Grady Way. Renton: Washington 980S7 • (42S) 430-6510 / F~X (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov· 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) LUAI2-037, ECF, SM, SMV ) 11--------------------------) Summary 16 The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP") and shoreline 17 variance for the construction of a six foot wide pedestrian trail along May Creek. The variance is necessary because shoreline regulations only authorize four foot wide trails within the buffers of Class III wetlands. The permit and variance are approved subject to extensive conditions. One issue that has not been addressed by the Applicant or staff but is repeatedly addressed in shoreline policies 19 and regulations is parking. The conditions of approval require the Applicant to establish to staff that any need for parking created by the project is fully mitigated. 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 'festimOllllY Vanessa Dolbee, Renton Senior Planner, testified that exhibit 1 is a neighborhood detail map. The map displays the location of the May Creek Trail. The proposal site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and borders May Creek to the south for approximately 900 linear feet. The site is near exit 7 of 1-405, and 1-405 borders the eastern portion of the proposed trail. Lake Washington borders the western portion of the site. The north is bordered by the proposed Hawks Landing Hotel development. May Creek is located in the Urban Shoreline Conservancy Designation. Exhibit 2 is the site plan for the project. The trailhead will start by SSDP and Shoreline Variance -I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Lake Washington and will include an overlook point (along with an access point to the creek). There are 2 access points proposed to the north-bordering property. Along the trail, 2benches, 2 interpretative signs, split-rail fencing, and a litter receptacle are proposed. The trail alignment is colored brown in exhibit 2, with the section in the wetland buffer area colored red. The shoreline variance permit is required to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The variance is only applicable to the "red" portion of the trail in exhibit 2. There is a full regional trail planned, and, once the trail is completely finished, it will end up being a 6-mile trail that will run from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain Wildlife Park. The segment within the proposal site is a vital piece to the full trail. Exhibit 9 is a mitigation and restoration plan which provides enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and restoration of wetland A. 1.33 acres of stream buffer and wetland . enhancement are proposed to compensate for the disturbed trail area. There are two mitigation scenarios proposed: base area I and additive alternative area I. Exhibit 9 identifies the base area I in yellow and the additive alternative area I is orange. As long as funding is sufficient, both areas will be completed. If there is not enough funding, only base area 1 will be completed. If the base area is completed, the mitigation ratio will be 4.8: I. If the additive area is also completed, the mitigation ratio will be 6.5:1 (which exceeds code requirements). The project underwent environmental review, and a determination of non-significance mitigated was issued with 5 mitigation measures. There was a 14-day appeal period which commenced on June 22, 2012 and ended on July 6, 2012. Section 43090esub7d is a design standards table in the Shoreline Code and includes a statement that docks may be 6-ft wide if the property owner qualifies for state disabled accommodations. This proposal is consistent with that code section. Staff recommends approval of the shoreline variance, subject to one condition of approval. The condition of approval is for the proposal to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the environmental review. Under questioning by the hearing examiner, Ms. Dolbee noted that there is no real standard for trails under ADA (only guidelines). The trail width outside of the proposal site (the brown section of exhibit 2) is 6-ft. Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director, stated that the existing trail on the other side of Lake Washington Blvd is 8 feet. The proposed trail section is narrower because it is in a more sensitive area. As the trail moves closer to Cougar Mountain Wildlife Park, it will become even narrower (4-5 feet). The proposed location is fairly flat and provides visual access to the shoreline without removing any trees. The environmental analysis included the base alternative and the additive alternate. The base alternative by itself exceeds the code requirements. Vanessa Dolbee commented that the future trail is intended to go under 1-405 in a specific section, thus there is no way to align the trail in a different manner. Exhibits The July 10, 2012 staff report and Exhibits 1-24 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were admitted into the record during the hearing. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 2 1 2 3 ]FINDINGS OF ]FACT 4 Procedural: 5 I. Applicant. City of Renton. 6 7 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on July 10,2012 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 8 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting a SSDP for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the Applicant is requesting a shoreline variance from RMC 9 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(f)(l) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width 10 in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) 11 12 13 units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek and access to a cobble beach. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and 14 preserve native plants. 15 The project site includes a Category III wetland that is 786 square feet in size. The proposed trail 16 runs through the wetland buffer and is 25 feet at its closest point to the wetland but is typically in the outer 50 percent of the buffer. 17 18 The Applicant has also proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in Wetland A as outlined in the critical areas report 19 and the biological assessment. The. mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of disturbance for 20 trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the Applicant has proposed 21 two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base Area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of4.8: I. The 22 Additive Alternative No. I mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting 23 in a mitigation ratio of6.5:1. 24 In addition to the site being located along May Creek, the proposed trail would also be located within the flood plain of May Creek. Based on the provided application materials, the trail would be built on 25 grade resulting. in approximately 250 cubic yards of soil removed and 230 cubic yards of soil 26 SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 3 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 imported to the site. However, the Applicant has indicated that the provided cut and fill would not impact the flood hazard area as there would be no net fill after final construction. 4. Characteristics of SurroundinR Area. The site is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR); to the east of 1-405 and across 1-405, CA zoned property that is currently vacant; to the south is R-8 zoned property which is currently vacant; and, to the west, across Lake Washington Boulevard, is the .Barbee Mill Development zoned R-\ 0 and vacant COR property. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The environmental impacts of the proposal have been thoroughly assessed and mitigation measures recommended in a FEMA biological assessment (Ex. \7) and critical areas report (Ex. 16). Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Fish. As concluded at p. 30 of the critical areas report and p. 270f the biological assessment, project impacts to baseline salmonid habitat would be minimal and beneficial over time. The biological assessment further concludes at p. 30-3\ that the project will have no effect on Puget Sound Steelhead Trout, Southern Resident Killer Whale or its habitat, or essential fish habitat. The restoration proposed by the Applicant should serve to significantly improve fish habitat along the river and its biological functions. In the past the project 'site has been cleared, filled and graded. Non-native species of plants currently predominate the understory. The restoration proposed by the Applicant, which extensively exceeds code requirements, will significantly bring the area back to natural conditions that are more amenable to fish and wildlife habitat. Further, no significant trees will be removed by the proposal (the restoration plan in fact includes the planting of trees) and native vegetation will be minimally affected. As a result of the restoration work, ecological indicators that are anticipated to improve are water temperature, large woody debris, stream bank condition and riparian reserve. The critical areas report at p. 29 concludes that the project would result in no net loss of ecological function and that no direct impacts to May Creek are anticipated. The findings in the critical areas report are adopted by this decision as they are based upon credible and thorough scientific analysis and there is no evidence to the contrary. B. Wildlife. As concluded at p. 32 of the critical areas report, the project will result in a net increase in habitat function by improving and increasing native species diversity and abundance. The species of vegetation selected in the mitigation plan are those known to be beneficial to wildlife. C. Wetland. As concluded at p. 32 of the critical areas report, the project would result in a measureable functional lift to the on-site wetland. The restoration proposed for the wetland area would improve vegetation structure and richness of species while removing invasive species. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 D. Stonnwater/Water Quality. No stonnwater or water quality impacts are anticipated. The trail will not be impervious, as it will be composed of bark atop a gravel base. As concluded at page I of the technidil infonnation report, no stonnwater improvements are necessary because the trail will match existing grades and its porous composition will not interfere with the sheet flow that currently serves to drain the project site. The report also concludes that the vegetation proposed for the site will also not interfere with current drainage. As noted at p. 30 of the critical areas report, the only water quality impacts that could occur would be during construction and appendix A to the biological assessment contains a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and page 23 of the report contains water quality and erosion control measures. All mitigation recommended in critical areas report, technical infonnation report and biological assessment are required to be implemented by the mitigated detennination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the project, Ex. 20 and 21. E. Floodplain. As concluded at p. 27 of the biological assessment, the proposal will not result in any in increase to the baseline· flood elevation so no floodplain impacts are anticipated. F. View/Aesthetic Impacts. The proposal doesn't involve any structures above grade except for benches, split rail fencing, interpretivy signs and trash cans. No adverse view or aesthetic impacts are anticipated. G. Parking. There is nothing in the record that addresses parking. Given that the· trail segment is expected to generate high volume use, the issue needs to be addressed. The conditions of approval will require that the Applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the parking needs generated by the proposal are adequately mitigated. H. Archaeological. The project site is in a high probability zone for archaeological artifacts given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. However, shovel probes and a pedestrian survey have been conducted in the area and no archaeological materials have been found. The recommendations of the archaeological assessment, required as SEPA conditions, require the halting of construction and consultation with specified qualified individuals should any archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance be encountered during construction. These measures adequately protect archaeological resources. 1. HistoricaVCultural Resources. The project site is undeveloped and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would have any adverse impact on historical or cultural resources. J. Noise. The closest residential structures are located more than 100 feet from the project and it doesn't appear that noise generated by trail use would adversely affect the SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 inhabitants. The City's noise regulations will ensure that noise levels do not exceed adverse levels. 6. Need for Variance. The variance to the four foot trail width requirement is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. The assessment of necessity hinges upon two factors: (I) whether the trail needs to go through the wetland buffer; and (2) whether the trail width needs to be six feet as opposed to four feet. The first consideration is an issue since a six foot width variance isn't necessary if the trail doesn't have to go through the wetland buffer. Six foot trail width is already permitted for trails located within the shoreline buffer of May Creek itself. The need for the location of the trail is not readily apparent from the record. The staff report notes that due to the lot's narrow shape there is no feasible way to continue the trail east without placing a portion of the trail within the wetland buffer. The site plans don't appear to support this position, as there is plenty of space to keep the eastern-most trail access ppint in place and still reconfigure the trail so that it completely avoids the wetland buffer. Nonetheless, due deference will be given to staff on this position given that there is no other evidence to the contrary and the preservation of trees and other factors could well justifY the buffer encroachment. Further the criteria requiring necessity are based upon reasonable use of the property. If the trail were not permitted to go through the wetland buffer, most of the property could not be used for the trail and the currently proposed secondary trail to a shoreline outlook and access point would. be lost. It is unclear if there is any other location on the property for this shoreline access/outlook point. Given that already only a small portion of the property will be used for the trail and that the rest is restored and preserved and given the shoreline policies that strongly encourage public access to the shorelines, the trail must be located within the wetland buffer to enable the reasonable use of the property. It is also worth noting that an alternative property for the trail is also not feasible, as it was concluded in p. 29 of the critical areas report that no alternative site is available that would meet the objectives of the city's "Trails and Bicycle Master Plan". As discussed in the staff report, six feet is necessary to accommodate the high volumes anticipated for the trail as well as to provide sufficient width for wheelchairs to pass it each other. As testified by the parks director, parts of the trail will only be 4-5 feet as the exterior trail system approaches Cougar Mountain, but it is reasonable to conclude that the shoreline portions of the trail will be much more heavily travelled both because of the views and the relatively flat topography. Parks staff clearly have expertise in what type of recreational facilities are necessary for their community and their conclusions that six feet is necessitated along the shoreline portions of the record is well supported by the record and common sense. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II applications and shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The shoreline SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 variance has the highest numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. . 2. Zoning Designation. The subject property is zoned Residential 8 (R-8). Trails are not identified in the table of uses governed by RMC 4-2-060, but it appears the use would have to be considered authorized as a park or impliedly as a transportation facility. Further, as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 30, the use is specifically authorized by the City's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP")I 3. Review Criteria. The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits are set by RMC 4-9-190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all SMP use regulations and substantial compliance with SMP policies. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances. The applicable regulations and policies are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law: SMP Policies SMP Objective SH-F: Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the natural amenities. 4. The project increases public accessibility by providing a shoreline link to the trail network of the area. Natural amenities are improved by the proposed restoration plan. SMP Policy SH-6: Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and nonregulatory means that may include regulation of development within the shoreline jurisdiction, 18. ecologically sound design, and restoration programs, including: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfY other required human needs. 2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, when feasible, increased to the fullest extent possible to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed salmon stocks and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks. 3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, iffeasible, increased. 4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, water quality and water flow are not affected by the proposal. As further determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal would be beneficial to aquatic habitat over time and is fully mitigated to prevent adverse habitat impacts during construction. Wildlife habitat is increased by the proposed removal of invasive vegetation and replacement with native vegetation and the addition of trees. The trail provides an opportunity to observe and learn from the shoreline and ample preserved and protected vegetation of the site. SMP Policy SH-ll. Critical areas in the shoreline should be managed to achieve the planning objectives of the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory 8 prOVisions for critical areas should protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 processes. In protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City should integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development regulations, and state, tribal, and federal programs. 6. As is evident from the critical areas report, much of the project design and mitigation measures result from City code and policy requirements. The result has been, as determined in Finding of Fact No.5, that all critical areas at the site are fully protected. SMP Policy SH-12: The City shall implement the Restoration Plan provided as an adjunct to The Shoreline Master Program in coordination with other watershed management agencies and groups, and shall manage public lands and may acquire key properties and provide for off-site mitigation on city or other public or private sites. SMP Final Restoration Plan Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach, May Creek Lake Washington Boulevard to 1-405: This is a relatively intact reach with mature native riparian vegetation. Preservation of a buffer can be expected to /-405 with future residential development. Planting of conifers within the buffer area in accordance with. May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 to supplement the existing deciduous trees will establish a mix of vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation J 2 calls for installation of LWD to make up for an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes. 7. As discussed in the critical areas report, a large number of conifer trees will be planted as recommended by the Final Restoration Plan and the addition of trees may ultimately result in the addition of L WD to the creek. P. 7 of the critical areas report acknowledges a deficit in L WD, but notes that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has issued a report concluding that the installation of L WD would not be beneficial because May Creek in this area is not wide enough to accommodate additional L WD. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 8 2 3 4 5 6 SMP Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in Policy. SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction with the following policies. 8. The policy is met The proposal involves the preservation and restoration of most for the site for shoreline habitat The relatively modest amount of the project site that will be developed will provide for physical and visual shoreline access to the general public, All other policies and reach objectives are satisfied as outlined below. 7 SMP Policy SH-21: Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's edge may be restricted 8 to protect shoreline ecological values ..... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9. The trail provides access both parallel to the water's edge as well as directly to the water's edge on the eastern portion of the site. SMP Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including trail systems. 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the project will not adversely !lffect the natural environment, natural processes or ecological functions and will in fact result in a substantial benefit to those shoreline resources. SMP Policy SH-26: Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided. II. The trails, benches and shoreline access point of the proposal provide both passive and active recreational opportunities to the public. SMP Policy SH-27: In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way and may be required on 22 private development. 23 24 25 26 12. There is nothing in the record that addresses parking. Given that the trail segment is expected to generate high volume use, the issue needs to be addressed. The conditions of approval will require that the Applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the parking needs generated by the proposal are sufficiently addressed. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 9 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SMP Policy SH-28: In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan,. rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. 13. It is unclear from the proposal whether the trail is intended to accommodate bicycle traffic, as there is no mention of bicycles anywhere in the staff report or the studies done for the project. The Trails and Bicycle Master Plan designates the trail as "multi-use", but it's not possible to determine from the Plan whether "multi-use" necessarily includes bicycles. Since the trail surface will be composed of bark, bicycles may be excluded from the trail. The shoreline policy does not require public access for both bicycles and pedestrians in all instances. Given that the City has a master plan for trails and the proposal is consistent with that master plan, any preference for pedestrian as opposed to bicycle usage in the master plan should take precedence over the policy above. SMP Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, May Creek From Lake Washington Boulevard to 1-405: There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of redevelopment, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include provisions to cross 1-405 to connect with trail systems to the east. 14. The reach policy is well met, as the proposal includes a trail both parallel to the shoreline as well as directly to the water's edge. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal also involves extensive restoration and mitigation that will enhance ecological functions. SMP Objective SH-G: Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public should be encouraged to the extent that the use facilitates the public's ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline. IS. Since the trail is designed to provide public access to the shoreline, it qualifies as a "water enjoyment" and hence "water oriented" use under the Chapter 4-11 RMC definitions. As a water oriented use, the proposal succeeds in facilitating public access to the water's edge and to view the water from the shoreline. SMP Policy SH-32: Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged. 1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved in existing parks and new development, substantial alteration of existing non-single family development, and intensification of existing uses where consistent with maintaining ecological functions ... 4. Both passive and active recreational areas should be provided. 16. The proposal provides for access to the water's edge. It apparently does not provide for active recreation, since passive recreation in Chapter 4-11 RMC is defined to include walking. Active SSDP and Shoreline Variance -10 1 2 3 4 5 6 recreational facilities are not feasible for the project area given the critical areas on site and the amount of restoration involved. SMP Policy SH-35: Public land. including city parks and public aquatic lands. should be managed to provide a balance of public recreation, public access to the water, and protection and enhancement of ecological functions. 17. The proposal adds a segment to a high priority trail while also providing for significant restoration and mitigation of environmental impacts. The policy is well met. 7 SMP Policy SH-37: Provision of recreation facilities and use shall be consistent with growth projections and level-ofservice standards established by the comprehensive plan. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18. Completion of the trail segment is designated a priority project in the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, so it presumably is consistent with growth projections and level of service standards, since all planning documents of the City are required to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, which would include its growth projections and level of service standards. SMP Policy SH-43: Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment of and access to the shoreline: 1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non-motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and of the Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline. 2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that links together shoreline public access into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools, public and private open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities. 3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system that provides non-motorized access throughout the City. 4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River, the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. 19. As previously noted the proposal completes a segment of a six mile trail connecting Cougar Mountain to Lake Washington, designated as a high priority in the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. 25 SMP Objective SH-J: Provide for the timely restoration enhancement of shorelines with impaired ecological functions. Such restoration should occur through a combination of public and private 26 programs and actions. This Master Program includes a restoration element that identifies restoration SSDP and Shoreline Variance -11 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunities and facilitates appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal of this effort is to improve shoreline ecologicalfunctions. 20. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal involves significant restoration that will improve shoreline ecological functions. As previously determined in Conclusion of Law No.7, the proposal meets the restoration objectives of the SMP Final Restoration Plan. SMP Use Regulations RMC 4-3-090(D)(3): a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that 10 prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize. in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020).· Shoreline 11 12 ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. 13 14 15 ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or 16 processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off-site. 17 18 iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following 19 prioritized order: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of ihe action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) RectifYing the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -12 I 2 3 4 5 (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to 6 provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological functions and processes. This was expressly determined in the critical areas report and the substantial amount of mitigation and restoration provides solid support for this determination. Mitigating sequencing has been properly met by minimizing encroachments into the shoreline and wetland buffers by maintaining a relatively narrow trail width, using porous materials for its construction, and avoiding the removal of any trees. Adverse impacts are also rectified by the substantial restoration associated with the proposal. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(f) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, III, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4J in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is requiredfor interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to jill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. 22. The trail width exceeds four feet and that deviation is approved below through a shoreline variance. Some parts of the trail are within the inner 50% of the buffer area and the record does not identify why that is the case. The proposal will be conditioned upon the Applicant demonstrating the trail must be located within the inner 50% for interpretive purposes as required by the criterion above. From the site plans for the proposal, it appears that a re-routing of the trail outside the inner 50% of the buffer may require the removal of one or more significant trees. Policies and regulations SSDP and Shoreline Variance -13 I 2 3 4 5 pertammg to the protection of trees only require mmlmlzation of impacts whereas the trail is absolutely prohibited from being located within the inner 50% except for interpretative purposes. For this reason, the need to protect significant trees shall not excuse the location of the trail within the inner 50% of the wetland buffer. As previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 21 the proposal minimizes impacts to the ecological functions of the site. Compliance with subsection D2dx is addressed below. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(x): Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect 6 wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetlandfunctions and values. 7 8 9 (a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized order provided for in subsection D2aiii of this Section. 10 II 12 13 14 (b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of Washington State Department of Ecology, u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -Part I: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version I); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. 15 (c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following order of 16 preference: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. (2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairingor restoring natural and/or historic functions. (3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species. (4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands ... (e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer Impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum 1: I ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures ... SSDP and Shoreline Variance -14 (i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the location that will provide the greatest ecological benejit and have the greatest likelihood of success; provided, that 2 mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same watershed sub-basin as 3 the permitted alteration. 4 OJ Protection: All mitigation areas whether on-or off-site shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values into 5 perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4. 6 7 8 9 10 (k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible after the permitted alteration. (I) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050M16. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but generally not for a period less than jive (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually for the next 11 jive (5) )lears following construction and subsequent reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. 23. As detennined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of wetland function and values. As previously detennined in Conclusion of Law No. 21, the proposal complies with required mitigation sequencing. It is unclear from the record whether the mitigation complies with the standards from other agencies as referenced in the criteria above so this will be addressed in the conditions of approval. The project meets preferred mitigation methodology for alteration of wetland buffers by providing for wetland rehabilitation. The minimum mitigation ratio proposed by the Applicant is 4.8:1, which significantly exceeds the 1:1 ratio required for wetland buffer alterations, although it isn't clear how much of the restoration will occur within the wetland buffer itself. All compensatory mitigation is on-site and as close to the altered areas as possible. It does not appear that any deed restrictions or similar measures are included to preserve the mitigation measures into perpetuity. Although this does not appear to be as necessary for publicly owned property as for private, the criterion makes no distinction between the two so compliance will be made a condition of SSDP and Shoreline Variance -IS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 approval. The mitigation plans in the critical areas report and biological assessment don't appear to include any timing requirements. Given the detailed and comprehensive nature of these mitigation plans it is assumed that the experts who prepared the plans did not find any timing requirements necessary to protect shoreline resources. Compliance with RMC 4-3-050(M)(16) is addressed below. The monitoring play recommended at p. 36 of the critical areas report complies with the monitoring requirements of the criterion quoted above except for authorizing the City to extend the five year monitoring period to ten years, which will be addressed in the conditions of approval. RMC 4-3-0S0(M)(16): Mitigation Plans: a. Required for Restoration, Creation and Enhancement Projects: All wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement in conjunction with restoration and creation projects required pursuant to this Section either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland specialists approved by the City. b. Timing for Mitigation Plan Submittal and Commencement of any Work: See subsection F8 of this Section. c. Content of Mitigation Plan: Unless the City, in consultation with qualified wetland specialists, determines, based on the size and scope of the development proposal, the nature of the impacted wetland and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland from other development proposals, that the scope and specific requirements of the mitigation plan may be reduced, the mitigation plan shall address all requirements in RMC 4-8-120D23, Wetland Mitigation Plan, and subsection F8 of this Section. d. Performance Surety: As a condition of approval of any mitigation plan, the Reviewing Official shall require a performance surety per RMC 4-1-230 and subsection G of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) 24. The mitigation. for the project recommended in the critical areas report and the biological assessment was prepared by Scott Swarts, a senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist employed by David Evans and Associates, Inc.. Mr. Swarts is a wetland specialist. The mitigation plan prepared in the critical areas report complies with the requirements ofRMC 4-8-120(D)(23) and RMC 4-3-050(F)(8) except for the apparent omission of a mitigation schedule (some of the site plan notes are too small to read for the examiner). If not already proposed, a mitigation schedule is required as a condition of approval. A performance surety will also be made a condition of approval as required by the criterion quoted above. . RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the following design and other features: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -16 I i. Relation to Other Facilities: 2 3 (a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for handicapped and 4 physically impaired persons, where feasible. 5 (b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet (400,) of a public street, 6 on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio'of one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space per five thousand (5,000) square feet of 7 8 public access area for more than three (3) spaces. Parkingfor public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped accessible. 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 (c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site. ii. Design: (a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water aJ1d the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible; provided, that 16 public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 reduction in ecological functions. (b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques. 25. The proposal is adjacent to other public areas since it will connect to what will eventually be a six mile trail. The parking requirements of the criterion above are imposed as conditions of approval. It is recognized that the six mile trail should be considered as.a whole in assessing whether adequate on-street parking is required. As previously discussed, the trail implements some of the objectives of the City's Trails and Bicycles Master Program. As noted previously the trail both accesses the water's edge and provides for shoreline views. From the aerial photograph provided in the critical areas report it does not appear that the proposed trail will be in proximity to any residential windows or private open spaces to the extent that trail users would disturb privacy. 25 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the 26 following location and design criteria: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -17 I , I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be bufferedfrom sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. 26. The proposed trail generally runs parallel to the shoreline as required above and also connects to the water's edge as authorized. Trail width is limited to six feet and fencing is proposed as authorized. As determined previously, the walkway has been designed to avoid adversely affecting sensitive ecological features. RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(May Creek Reach): At the time of redevelopment, public access should be prOVided consistent with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water consistent with standards of this Section, and goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. 27. As determined in other parts of the decision, the proposal meets all RMC 4-3-090(D) requirements as well as all SMP policies and use regulations pertaining to preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. RMC 4-3-090(D)(S): Building and Development Location -Shoreline Orientation: a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water- enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values. b. Design and Performance Standards: i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site. ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by 24 topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany development 25 proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include the 26 following general information: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -18 I 2 3 (a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear . designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features. (b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features, together with 4 the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological functions. 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria: (a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing, grading, and alteration of topography and natural features. (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of under- building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible. (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever feasible. (d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the needfor structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. 28. The trail, which qualifies as a water-enjoyment use, is located close to the shoreline while avoiding the most sensitive portions of the site by avoiding all significant trees and staying out of the wetland (although encroaching into its buffer). Impervious surfaces are minimized by the use of porous trail materials. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the proposal is designed and mitigated to prevent any adverse impacts to riparian, near shore and wetland habitat. An archaeological assessment has been prepared for the project and the SEP A conditions of approval require conformance with it recommendations. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, no adverse aesthetic or view impacts are anticipated from the project. The critical areas report, technical information report and biological assessment provide an assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site and contain all the information required above. As previously discussed the trail avoids sensitive portions of the site, avoids the removal of trees and avoids impermeable surfaces. No shoreline stabilization is necessitated by the proposal. RMC 4-3-090(D)(6): Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information SSDP and Shoreline Variance -19 1 from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. 2 3 4 5 6 b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Presen'ation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources. 7 c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified 8 professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified 9 parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups. 10 11 12 13 14 d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, Or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. 15 16 17 18 19 20 29. A detailed archaeological assessment has been prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the subject site, but there is no information in the record on whether any consultation has been conducted with any other tribes or agencies as required above. Given that the project site is assigned a high probability for archaeological resources, consultation with any potentially affected tribes will be required as a condition of approval consultation hasn't already been done. The recommendations of the archaeological assessment, adopted as SEPA mitigation measures, require that construction cease and persons be contacted if any artifacts are discovered during construction as required by the criterion above. 21 Table 4-3-090(E)(1) Shoreline Use Table: Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails are permitted, 22 provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline 23 24 25 26 area. 30. The proposed use is authorized by the SMP. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the proposed trail will not degrade ecological functions. The minor construction and absence of view impacts will also not degrade the natural character of the shoreline area. RMC 4-3-090(D)(8): Recreation: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when: i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on-and off-site mitigation. ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and are consistent with existing water-related and water-e'1joyment uses. iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment ... b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical Or visual access to the shoreline. i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be located on the shoreline. ii. Water-related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the shoreline .... d Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the 14 following criteria are considered: 15 16 17 18 19 20 i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the shoreline are protected ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in consideration of natural features. iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfo the diversity of demands of the local community. iv. Water-related and water-erifoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and uses are 21 consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses. 22 v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the adjoining 23 profJerty. 24 25 26 vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed public use ... SSDP and Shoreline Variance -21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 viii. Public parks and other public lands shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process that provides for a balance of these elements. 30. As previously discussed there is no net loss in ecological function associated· with the proposal. The level of human activity is limited to walking and possibly bicycling and should have little impact on the shoreline habitat. A split rail fence will keep trail users on the trail. As a water related recreation facility, the trail is located near the shoreline. As previously determined natural character is preserved. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided. No water dependent uses are displaced. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, no adverse impacts will be generated by the project, which includes impacts to adjoining uses. Parking demand is addressed in the conditions of approval. As previously discussed, the extensive restoration and mitigation associated with the proposal is well balanced with public recreational needs. RMC 4-3-0090(D)(IO): Transportation: a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities: i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water 14 interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back 15 further from the land/water interface. 16 17 ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts. 18 iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of 19 groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal materials. v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection. vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other features that provide for these functions. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails. 31. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. The transportation regulations above that require facilities to be located as far away from shorelines as possible conflict with the policies that require recreational facilities and public access facilities to be located close to the shoreline. Given that the public access/recreational policies are more specifically targeted at the project and that shoreline policies strongly encourage public access to the shoreline, the public access/recreational regulations supersede the conflicting transportation facility regulations. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, there are no adverse impacts to archaeological, natural, historical, or cultural resources. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the project will no adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Excavation will be very modest and there is nothing to suggest that groundwater movement will be affected. The Technical Information Report provides that stormwater moves across the site via sheet flow and that the project will not affect this water movement. Erosion during construction and construction debris is addressed in detail in the mitigation measures that apply to the project and there is nothing to suggest that erosion will be a problem once construction is completed. The trail does not trigger any significant need for shoreline protection. The trail provides both viewpoint and physical access features. RMC 4-3-0090(D)(lO)(d): Trails: i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails. ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners including'privacy and noise ... iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider' hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas. 32. As determined in Finding of Fact NO.5 the trail is designed to avoid environmental impacts and there are no impacts anticipated on adjoining property owners. The trail surface is relatively narrow and considered a soft surface to assure compatibility with shoreline resources. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations, adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2cii of this Section .. Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered. or land divided without full SSDP and Shoreline Variance -23 I 2 3 compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMC 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive 4 provisions shall prevail .... 5 6 (b) Areas of special flood hazard ... RMC 4-3-0S0(I)(2)(c)(i): All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed 7 with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 8 9 33. The use of bark as a trail material raises questions about its viability within a floodplain. The conditions of approval will require this issue to be addressed. 10 RMC 4-3-0S0(I)(6)(a): Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. 34. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. Variance Criteria RMC 4-3-190(J)(4)(b)(i): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same Vicinity. 35. The property is characterized by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because it is uniquely situated to provide public access to the shoreline and water's edge while also serving as an essential link of a six mile trail network. The wetland buffer interferes with this function because it is located in the only portion of the property that can provide direct access to the shoreline as encouraged by shoreline regulations by a looped system that prevents disruption of the continuity of the trail while still avoiding the removal of trees. RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(ii): The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 36. As shown in regulations previously reviewed, trails of six foot width are authorized in the shoreline buffer to May Creek but not to its wetland. Consequently, because of the wetland buffer the Applicant cannot build the same type of trail that other property owners with shoreline access could build. As noted in the staff report, a six foot width is important for a public trail along the shoreline SSDP and Shoreline Variance -24 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 because volumes for those areas tend to be higher and six feet is necessary to accommodate the additional traffic and to provide for enhanced ADA accessibility. RMC 4-3-190(J)(4)(b)(iii): The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will not create any adverse impacts and will substantially improve upon ecological functions and provide a valuable recreational asset to the community. Under these circumstances there is no material detriment and no injury to other properties. RMC 4-3-190(J)(4)(b)(iv): The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. 38. The proposal is consistent with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as outlined in the bulk of this decision. The overall objective of the goals of the shoreline management act and the SMP is to protect shoreline resources while providing for public enjoyment of the shorelines. The proposal accomplishes both objectives by providing for public access and a significant restoration program. 13 RMC 4-3-190(J)(4)(b)(v): The public welfare and interest will be preserved; ifmore harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the Applicant by denying it, the 14 variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general 15 purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline 16 Master Program. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 39. More harm will be done by denying the variance than approving it since the variance will facilitate public access to a shoreline for a project that, if approved, will substantially benefit the shoreline environment. The variance is also necessary for the reasonable use of the property given (I) the relative modest deviation involved; (2) the substantial public benefit served by the proposal; (3) the substantial portion of the project area that is impacted by the wetland buffer; (4) the substantial need for the deviation in order to make the project serve as both an important trail link and a water's edge access point; and (5) the lack of any adverse impacts associated with the request. Reasonable use and necessity is also discussed in more detail in Finding of Fact No.6. As determined in the previous conclusion of law, the variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act and the SMP. RMC 4-3-190(J)(4)(b)(vi): The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. 40. The four foot trail width requirement precludes and significantly interferes with a reasonable use of property as contemplated in WAC 197-27-170(a) for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 39. The hardship addressed by the variance request is caused by a natural feature of the SSDP and Shoreline Variance -25 I property as required by WAC 197-27-170(b), specifically the subject property's narrow width in conjunction with the on-site wetland. The trail is compatible with surrounding uses as well as uses 2 planned under the SMP and comprehensive plan as required by WAC 197-27-170(c) because it is part of a priority trail project in the City's Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, does not create any structures visible to adjoining properties or waterward of the shoreline and does not adversely affect surrounding uses. As determined in Finding of Fact NO.5 the proposal will not adversely affect the shoreline environment as required by WAC 197-27-170( c). The variance would not be a grant of special privilege not el1ioyed by other properties in the area as contemplated by WAC 197-27-170(d) because as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 36, other properties along the May Creek shoreline without wetlands w~uld be allowed to build a six foot wide trail. The variance request is the 3 4 5 6 7 minimum necessary to afford relief as required by WAC 197-27-170(e) because without it there probably would not be room on the trail to provide for a looped segment that provides access to the water's edge without necessitating the removal of any trees. As required by WAC I 97-27-1 70(f) and 9 for the reasons stated in Conclusion of Law No. 37, the public will suffer no substantial detrimental effect by the approval of the variance. 8 10 11 12 DJECISION 13 The shoreline substantial development permit and variance applications are approved as they meet 14 all the applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision, provided they comply with the following conditions: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. As identified in Conclusions of Law 12 and 27, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning staff that the parking demand created by the proposal is fully mitigated. At a minimum, parking shall satisfY the requirements of RMC 4-3- 090(D)(2)( e)(i)(b). 2. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 22, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that those portions of the trail within the inner 50% of the buffer to the on-site wetland must be located in that area for interpretive purposes as required by RMC 4- 3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(j). If the Applicant is unable to meet that standard, the trail shall be re- designed to avoid the inner 50% of the buffer, even if that entails removing one or more significant trees. 3. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that as required by RMC 4-3- 090(D)(2)(d)(x)(b) the proposed wetland mitigation complies with the applicable standards for studies and assessment 'in Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -Part I: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version I); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-01 la, Olympia, W A, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. 4. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 23, all mitigation areas shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area SSDP and Shoreline Variance -26 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4. 5. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period identified at p. 36 of the critical areas report and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: (I) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. 6. The Applicant will post a performance surety as required by RMC 4-3-050(M)(l6). 7. Prior to any construction, the Applicant shall acquire approval from staff of a mitigation schedule as required by RMC 4-8-120(D)(23)(b)(i) ("dates of beginning and completion") in the definition of a wetland mitigation plan. The approved mitigation schedule shall be construed as and enforced as a condition of approval. 8. If not done so already, as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 29 the archaeological assessment shall be submitted to any potentially affected tribes for comment in regards to development of the project site. Staff shall have authority to require further mitigation as necessary in response to the comments in order to assure compliance with SMP policies regarding protection of archaeological resources. Any additional mitigation required by staff shall be construed as an enforced as a condition of approval. 9. The Applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of staff that the use of bark as a trail material is resistant to flood damage as required by RMC 4-3-050(I)(2)(c)(i) or in the alternative that the replacement of bark in case of a flood is (I) the most feasible approach to construction of a permeable trail surface; and (2) the displacement of bark in case of flooding will not harm . shoreline resources. 10. The conditions and limitations recommended at Page 5 of the staff report are adopted and imposed as conditions of approval. DATED this 24th day of July, 2012. lsi Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner SSDP and Shoreline Variance -27 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11O(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change In valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -28 'f-. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS CITY OF RENTON JUL 262012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Shoreline Variance LUAI2-037, ECF, SM, SMV ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) ) Summary 16 The Applicant is requesting a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP") and shoreline 17 variance for the construction of a six foot wide pedestrian trail along May Creek. The variance is necessary because shoreline regulations only authorize four foot wide trails within the buffers of Class III wetlands. The permit and variance are approved subject to extensive conditions. One issue that has not been addressed by the Applicant or staff but is repeatedly addressed in shoreline policies 18 19 and regulations is parking. The conditions of approval require the Applicant to establish to staff that any need for parking created by the project is fully mitigated. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Testimony Vanessa Dolbee, Renton Senior Planner, testified that exhibit I is a neighborhood detail map. The map displays the location of the May Creek Trail. The proposal site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and borders May Creek to the south for approximately 900 linear feet. The site is near exit 7 of 1-405, and 1-405 borders the eastern portion of the proposed trail. Lake Washington borders the western portion of the site. The north is bordered by the proposed Hawks Landing Hotel development. May Creek is located in the Urban Shoreline Conservancy Designation. Exhibit 2 is the site plan for the project. The trailhead will start by SSDP and Shoreline Variance - I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Lake Washington and will include an overlook point (along with an access point to the creek). There are 2 access points proposed to the north-bordering property. Along the trail, 2benches, 2 interpretative signs, split-rail fencing, and a litter receptacle are proposed. The trail alignment is colored brown in exhibit 2, with the section in the wetland buffer area colored red. The shoreline variance permit is required to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The variance is only applicable to the "red" portion of the trail in exhibit 2. There is a full regional trail planned, and, once the trail is completely finished, it will end up being a 6-mile trail that will run from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain Wildlife Park. The segment within the proposal site is a vital piece to the full trail. Exhibit 9 is a mitigation and restoration plan which provides enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and restoration of wetland A. 1.33 acres of stream buffer and wetland enhancement are proposed to compensate for the disturbed trail area. There are two mitigation scenarios proposed: base area 1 and additive alternative area 1. Exhibit 9 identifies the base area I in yellow and the additive alternative area I is orange. As long as funding is sufficient, both areas will be completed. If there is not enough funding, only base area 1 will be completed. If the base area is completed, the mitigation ratio will be 4.8:1. If the additive area is also completed, the mitigation ratio will be 6.5: 1 (which exceeds code requirements). The project underwent environmental review, and a determination of non-significance mitigated was issued with 5 mitigation measures. There was a 14-day appeal period which commenced on June 22, 2012 and ended on July 6, 2012. Section 43090esub7d is a design standards table in the Shoreline Code and includes a statement that docks may be 6-ft wide if the property owner qualifies for state disabled accommodations. This proposal is consistent with that code section. Staff recommends approval of the shoreline variance, subject to one condition of approval. The condition of approval is for the proposal to comply with all mitigation measures identified in the environmental review. Under questioning by the hearing examiner, Ms. Dolbee noted that there is no real standard for trails under ADA (only guidelines). The trail width outside of the proposal site (the brown section of exhibit 2) is 6-ft. Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director, stated that the existing trail on the other side of Lake Washington Blvd is 8 feet. The proposed trail section is narrower because it is in a more sensitive area. As the trail moves closer to Cougar Mountain Wildlife Park, it will become even narrower (4-5 feet). The proposed location is fairly flat and provides visual access to the shoreline without removing any trees. The environmental analysis included the base alternative and the additive alternate. The base alternative by itself exceeds the code requirements. Vanessa Dolbee commented that the future trail is intended to go under 1-405 III a specific section, thus there is no way to align the trail in a different manner. Exhibits The July 10, 2012 staff report and Exhibits 1-24 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were admitted into the record during the hearing. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 2 I 2 3 4 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 5 1. Applicant. City of Renton. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on July 10, 2012 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting a SSDP for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the Applicant is requesting a shoreline variance from RMC 4-3-090(0)(2)( d)(ix)(f)(l) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek and access to a cobble beach. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The project site includes a Category III wetland that is 786 square feet in size. The proposed trail runs through the wetland buffer and is 25 feet at its closest point to the wetland but is typically in the outer 50 percent of the buffer. The Applicant has also proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in Wetland A as outlined in the critical areas report and the biological assessment. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of disturbance for trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the Applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No. I" herein. The Base Area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8: 1. The Additive Alternative No. I mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of6.5:1. In addition to the site being located along May Creek, the proposed trail would also be located within the flood plain of May Creek. Based on the provided application materials, the trail would be built on grade resulting in approximately 250 cubic yards of soil removed and 230 cubic yards of soil SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 imported to the site. However, the Applicant has indicated that the provided cut and fill would not impact the flood hazard area as there would be no net fill after final construction. 4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The site is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR); to the east of 1-405 and across 1-405, CA zoned property that is currently vacant; to the south is R-8 zoned property which is currently vacant; and, to the west, across Lake Washington Boulevard, is the Barbee Mill Development zoned R-I 0 and vacant COR property. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The environmental impacts of the proposal have been thoroughly assessed and mitigation measures recommended in a FEMA biological assessment (Ex. 17) and critical areas report (Ex. 16). Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Fish. As concluded at p. 30 of the critical areas report and p. 270f the biological assessment, project impacts to baseline salmonid habitat would be minimal and beneficial over time. The biological assessment further concludes at p. 30-31 that the project will have no effect on Puget Sound Steelhead Trout, Southern Resident Killer Whale or its habitat, or essential fish habitat. The restoration proposed by the Applicant should serve to significantly improve fish habitat along the river and its biological functions. In the past the project site has been cleared, filled and graded. Non-native species of plants currently predominate the understory. The restoration proposed by the Applicant, which extensively exceeds code requirements, will significantly bring the area back to natural conditions that are more amenable to fish and wildlife habitat. Further, no significant trees will be removed by the proposal (the restoration plan in fact includes the planting of trees) and native vegetation will be minimally affected. As a result of the restoration work, ecological indicators that are anticipated to improve are water temperature, large woody debris, stream bank condition and riparian reserve. The critical areas report at p. 29 concludes that the project would result in no net loss of ecological function and that no direct impacts to May Creek are anticipated. The findings in the critical areas report are adopted by this decision as they are based upon credible and thorough scientific analysis and there is no evidence to the contrary. B. Wildlife. As concluded at p. 32 of the critical areas report, the project will result in a net increase in habitat function by improving and increasing native species diversity and abundance. The species of vegetation selected in the mitigation plan are those known to be beneficial to wildlife. C. Wetland. As concluded at p. 32 of the critical areas report, the project would result in a measureable functional lift to the on-site wetland. The restoration proposed for the wetland area would improve vegetation structure and richness of species while removing invasive species. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Stormwater/Water Quality. No stormwater or water quality impacts are anticipated. The trail will not be impervious, as it will be composed of bark atop a gravel base. As concluded at page I of the technical information report, no stormwater improvements are necessary because the trail will match existing grades and its porous composition will not interfere with the sheet flow that currently serves to drain the project site. The report also concludes that the vegetation proposed for the site will also not interfere with current drainage. As noted at p. 30 of the critical areas report, the only water quality impacts that could occur would be during construction and appendix A to the biological assessment contains a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and page 23 of the report contains water quality and erosion control measures. All mitigation recommended in critical areas report, technical information report and biological assessment are required to be implemented by the mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the project, Ex. 20 and 21. E. Floodplain. As concluded at p. 27 of the biological assessment, the proposal will not result in any in increase to the baseline flood elevation so no floodplain impacts are anticipated. F. View/Aesthetic Impacts. The proposal doesn't involve any structures above grade except for benches, split rail fencing, interpretive signs and trash cans. No adverse view or aesthetic impacts are anticipated. G. Parking. There is nothing in the record that addresses parking. Given that the trail segment is expected to generate high volume use, the issue needs to be addressed. The conditions of approval will require that the Applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the parking needs generated by the proposal are adequately mitigated. H. Archaeological. The project site is in a high probability zone for archaeological artifacts given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. However, shovel probes and a pedestrian survey have been conducted in the area and no archaeological materials have been found. The recommendations of the archaeological assessment, required as SEPA conditions, require the haIting of construction and consultation with specified qualified individuals should any archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance be encountered during construction. These measures adequately protect archaeological resources. I. Historical/Cultural Resources. The project site is undeveloped and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal would have any adverse impact on historical or cultural resources. J. Noise. The closest residential structures are located more than 100 feet from the project and it doesn't appear that noise generated by trail use would adversely affect the SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 \3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 inhabitants. The City's noise regulations will ensure that noise levels do not exceed adverse levels. 6. Need for Variance. The variance to the four foot trail width requirement is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. The assessment of necessity hinges upon two factors: (l) whether the trail needs to go through the wetland buffer; and (2) whether the trail width needs to be six feet as opposed to four feet. The first consideration is an issue since a six foot width variance isn't necessary if the trail doesn't have to go through the wetland buffer. Six foot trail width is already permitted for trails located within the shoreline buffer of May Creek itself. The need for the location of the trail is not readily apparent from the record. The staff report notes that due to the lot's narrow shape there is no feasible way to continue the trail east without placing a portion of the trail within the wetland buffer. The site plans don't appear to support this position, as there is plenty of space to keep the eastern-most trail access point in place and still reconfigure the trail so that it completely avoids the wetland buffer. Nonetheless, due deference will be given to staff on this position given that there is no other evidence to the contrary and the preservation of trees and other factors could well justify the buffer encroachment. Further the criteria requiring necessity are based upon reasonable use of the property. If the trail were not permitted to go through the wetland buffer, most of the property could not be used for the trail and the currently proposed secondary trail to a shoreline outlook and access point would be lost. It is unclear if there is any other location on the property for this shoreline access/outlook point. Given that already only a small portion of the property will be used for the trail and that the rest is restored and preserved and given the shoreline policies that strongly encourage public access to the shorelines, the trail must be located within the wetland buffer to enable the reasonable use of the property. It is also worth noting that an alternative property for the trail is also not feasible, as it was concluded in p. 29 of the critical areas report that no alternative site is available that would meet the objectives of the city's "Trails and Bicycle Master Plan". As discussed in the staff report, six feet is necessary to accommodate the high volumes anticipated for the trail as well as to provide sufficient width for wheelchairs to pass it each other. As testified by the parks director, parts of the trail will only be 4-5 feet as the exterior trail system approaches Cougar Mountain, but it is reasonable to conclude that the shoreline portions of the trail will be much more heavily travelled both because of the views and the relatively flat topography. Parks staff clearly have expertise in what type of recreational facilities are necessary for their community and their conclusions that six feet is necessitated along the shoreline portions of the record is well supported by the record and common sense. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II applications and shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The shoreline SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 variance has the highest numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning Designation. The subject property is zoned Residential 8 (R-8). Trails are not identified in the table of uses governed by RMC 4-2-060, but it appears the use would have to be considered authorized as a park or impliedly as a transportation facility. Further, as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 30, the use is specifically authorized by the City's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP")/ 3. Review Criteria. The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits are set by RMC 4-9-190(8)(7), which requires compliance with all SMP use regulations and substantial compliance with SMP policies. RMC 4-9-190(1)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances. The applicable regulations and policies are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law: SMP Policies SMP Objective SH-F: Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the natural amenities. 4. The project increases public accessibility by providing a shoreline link to the trail network of the area. Natural amenities are improved by the proposed restoration plan. SMP Policy SH-6: Existing natural resources should be conserved through regulatory and nonregulatory means that may include regulation of development within the shoreline jurisdiction, ecologically sound design, and restoration programs, including: 1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life, and to satisfo other required human needs. 2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, when feasible, increased to the fullest extent possible to ensure the likelihood of salmon recovery for listed salmon stocks and to increase the populations of non-listed salmon stocks. 3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible, increased. 4. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, water quality and water flow are not affected by the proposal. As further determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal would be beneficial to aquatic habitat over time and is fully mitigated to prevent adverse habitat impacts during construction. Wildlife habitat is increased by the proposed removal of invasive vegetation and replacement with native vegetation and the addition of trees. The trail provides an opportunity to observe and learn from the shoreline and ample preserved and protected vegetation of the site. SMP Policy SH-11. Critical areas in the shoreline should be managed to achieve the planning objectives of the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. The regulatory 8 provisions for critical areas should protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. In protecting and restoring critical areas within the shoreline, the City should integrate the full spectrum of planning and regulatory measures, including the comprehensive plan, interlocal watershed plans, local development regulations, and state, tribal, andfederal programs. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. As is evident from the critical areas report, much of the project design and mitigation measures result from City code and policy requirements. The result has been, as determined in Finding of Fact No.5, that all critical areas at the site are fully protected. SMP Policy SH-12: The City shall implement the Restoration Plan provided as an adjunct to The Shoreline Master Program in coordination with other watershed management agencies and groups, and shall manage public lands and may acquire key properties and provide for off-site mitigation on city or other public or private sites. SMP Final Restoration Plan Table 4-1. Shoreline Restoration Strategies by Reach, May Creek Lake Washington Boulevard to 1-405: This is a relatively intact reach with mature native riparian vegetation. Preservation of a buffer can be expected to 1-405 with foture residential development. Planting of conifers within the buffer area in accordance with May Creek Basin Plan Recommendation 13 to supplement the existing deciduous trees will establish a mix of vegetation and over the longer term establish of forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). As an interim measure, Recommendation 12 calls for installation of LWD to make up for an existing deficit and promote natural channel processes. 7. As discussed in the critical areas report, a large number of conifer trees will be planted as recommended by the Final Restoration Plan and the addition of trees may ultimately result in the addition of L WD to the creek. P. 7 of the critical areas report acknowledges a deficit in LWD, but notes that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has issued a report concluding that the installation of L WD would not be beneficial because May Creek in this area is not wide enough to accommodate additional L WD. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 8 2 3 4 5 6 SMP Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions. as provided in Policy SH-3J Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction with the following policies. 8. The policy is met. The proposal involves the preservation and restoration of most for the site for shoreline habitat. The relatively modest amount of the project site that will be developed will provide for physical and visual shoreline access to the general public. All other policies and reach objectives are satisfied as outlined below. 7 SMP Policy SH-21: Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's edge may be restricted 8 to protect shoreline ecological values ..... 9 10 II 12 13 14 9. The trail provides access both parallel to the water's edge as well as directly to the water's edge on the eastern portion of the site. SMP Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located. designed. and maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided. including trail systems. 15 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the project will not adversely affect the natural 16 17 18 19 20 21 environment, natural processes or ecological functions and will in fact result in a substantial benefit to those shoreline resources. SMP Policy SH-26: Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided. II. The trails, benches and shoreline access point of the proposal provide both passive and active recreational opportunities to the public. SMP Policy SH-27: In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor. public parking should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way and may be required on 22 private development. 23 24 25 26 12. There is nothing in the record that addresses parking. Given that the trail segment is expected to generate high volume use, the issue needs to be addressed. The conditions of approval will require that the Applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the parking needs generated by the proposal are sufficiently addressed. SSDP and Shoreline Variance - 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SMP Policy SH-28: In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. 13. It is unclear from the proposal whether the trail is intended to accommodate bicycle traffic, as there is no mention of bicycles anywhere in the staff report or the studies done for the project. The Trails and Bicycle Master Plan designates the trail as "multi-use", but it's not possible to determine from the Plan whether "multi-use" necessarily includes bicycles. Since the trail surface will be composed of bark, bicycles may be excluded from the trail. The shoreline policy does not require public access for both bicycles and pedestrians in all instances. Given that the City has a master plan for trails and the proposal is consistent with that master plan, any preference for pedestrian as opposed to bicycle usage in the master plan should take precedence over the policy above. SMP Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, May Creek From Lake Washington Boulevard to 1-405: There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of redevelopment, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include provisions to cross 1-405 to connect with trail systems to the east. 14. The reach policy is well met, as the proposal includes a trail both parallel to the shoreline as well as directly to the water's edge. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal also involves extensive restoration and mitigation that will enhance ecological functions. SMP Objective SH-G: Water-oriented recreational activities available to the public should be encouraged to the extent that the use facilitates the public's ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline. 15. Since the trail is designed to provide public access to the shoreline, it qualifies as a "water enjoyment" and hence "water oriented" use under the Chapter 4-11 RMC definitions. As a water oriented use, the proposal succeeds in facilitating public access to the water's edge and to view the water from the shoreline. SMP Policy SH-32: Water-oriented recreational activities should be encouraged. I. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved in existing parks and new development, substantial alteration of existing non-single family development, and intensification of existing uses where consistent with maintaining ecological functions ... 4. Both passive and active recreational areas should be provided. 16. The proposal provides for access to the water's edge. It apparently does not provide for active recreation, since passive recreation in Chapter 4-11 RMC is defined to include walking. Active SSDP and Shoreline Variance -10 1 2 3 4 5 6 recreational facilities are not feasible for the project area given the critical areas on site and the amount of restoration involved. SMP Policy SH-35: Public land, including city parks and public aquatic lands, should be managed to provide a balance oj public recreation, public access to the water, and protection and enhancement oj ecological Junctions. 17. The proposal adds a segment to a high priority trail while also providing for significant restoration and mitigation of environmental impacts. The policy is well met. 7 SMP Policy SH-37: Provision oj recreation Jacilities and use shall be consistent with growth projections and level-o.fservice standards established by the comprehensive plan. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18. Completion of the trail segment is designated a priority project in the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, so it presumably is consistent with growth projections and level of service standards, since all planning documents of the City are required to be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, which would include its growth projections and level of service standards. SMP Policy SH-43: Trails should be developed to enhance public enjoyment oj and access to the shoreline: 1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element oj non-motorized circulation, oj the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plan and oj the Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential Jor low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline. 2. Trails should be developed as an element oj a system that links together shoreline public access into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools, public and private open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights oj way, waterways, and other opportunities. 3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community Jacilities and the comprehensive trails system that provides non-motorized access throughout the City. 4. A system oj trails on separate rights oj way and public streets should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River, the Black/River Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. 19. As previously noted the proposal completes a segment of a six mile trail connecting Cougar Mountain to Lake Washington, designated as a high priority in the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. 25 SMP Objective SH-J: Provide Jor the timely restoration enhancement oj shorelines with impaired ecological Junctions. Such restoration should occur through a combination oj public and private 26 programs and actions. This Master Program includes a restoration element that identifies restoration SSDP and Shoreline Variance -II I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunities and facilitates appropriate publicly and privately initiated restoration projects. The goal of this effort is to improve shoreline ecological functions. 20. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal involves significant restoration that will improve shoreline ecological functions. As previously determined in Conclusion of Law No.7, the proposal meets the restoration objectives of the SMP Final Restoration Plan. SMP Use Regulations RMC 4-3-090(D)(3): a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that 10 prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline 11 12 ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; irifiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. 13 14 15 ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or 16 processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off-site. 17 18 iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following 19 prioritized order: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) RectifYing the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the lift of the action. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -12 2 3 4 5 (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to 6 provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological functions and processes. This was expressly determined in the critical areas report and the substantial amount of mitigation and restoration provides solid support for this determination. Mitigating sequencing has been properly met by minimizing encroachments into the shoreline and wetland buffers by maintaining a relatively narrow trail width, using porous materials for its construction, and avoiding the removal of any trees. Adverse impacts are also rectified by the substantial restoration associated with the proposal. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(I) Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category 11, 111, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (/) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is requiredfor interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to jill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. 22. The trail width exceeds four feet and that deviation is approved below through a shoreline variance. Some parts of the trail are within the inner 50% of the buffer area and the record does not identifY why that is the case. The proposal will be conditioned upon the Applicant demonstrating the trail must be located within the inner 50% for interpretive purposes as required by the criterion above. From the site plans for the proposal, it appears that a re-routing of the trail outside the inner 50% of the buffer may require the removal of one or more significant trees. Policies and regulations SSDP and Shoreline Variance -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 pertammg to the protection of trees only require minimization of impacts whereas the trail is absolutely prohibited from being located within the inner 50% except for interpretative purposes. For this reason, the need to protect significant trees shall not excuse the location of the trail within the inner 50% of the wetland buffer. As previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 21 the proposal minimizes impacts to the ecological functions of the site. Compliance with subsection D2dx is addressed below. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(d)(x): Wetland Mitigation Requirements: Activities that adversely affect wetlands and/or wetland buffers shall include mitigation sufficient to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values in accordance with subsection D7 of this Section and this subsection. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided for all wetland alteration and shall re-establish, create, rehabilitate, enhance, and/or preserve equivalent wetland functions and values. 9 (a) Preferred Mitigation Sequence: Mitigation sequencing shall take place in the prioritized order providedfor in subsection D2aiii of this Section. 10 11 12 13 14 (b) Consistency with Policies and Publications Required: Wetland mitigation requirements shall be consistent with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of Washington State Department of Ecology, u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region iO, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -Part i: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version i); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-0//a, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. 15 (c) Wetland alterations: Compensation for wetland alterations shall occur in the following order of 16 preference: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) Re-establishing wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. (2) Rehabilitating wetlands for the purposes of repairing or restoring natural and/or historic functions. (3) Creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those consisting primarily of nonnative, invasive plant species. (4) Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands ... (e) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Buffer impacts: Compensation for wetland buffer impacts shall occur at a minimum i: i ratio. Compensatory mitigation for buffer impacts shall include enhancement of degraded buffers by planting native species, removing structures and impervious surfaces within buffers, and other measures ... SSDP and Shoreline Variance -14 (i) Location: Compensatory mitigation shall be provided on-site or off-site in the location that will provide the greatest ecological benefit and have the greatest likelihood of success; provided, that 2 mitigation occurs as close as possible to the impact area and within the same watershed sub-basin as 3 the permitted alteration. 4 (j) Protection: All mitigation areas whether on-or off-site shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area functions and values into 5 perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4. 6 7 (k) Timing: Mitigation activities shall be timed to occur in the appropriate season based on weather and moisture conditions and shall occur as soon as possible ajier the permitted alteration. 8 9 10 (l) Wetland Mitigation Plans Required: Wetland mitigation plans shall be prepared in accordance with RMC 4-3-050MI6. All compensatory mitigation projects shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that pe~rormance standards have been met, but generally not Jor a period less than five (5) years. Reports shall be submitted quarterly for the first year and annually for the next 11 five (5) years following construction and subsequent reporting shall be required if applicable to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensatory mitigation. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modifo or extend the monitoring period and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. 23. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of wetland function and values. As previously determined in Conclusion of Law No. 21, the proposal complies with required mitigation sequencing. It is unclear from the record whether the mitigation complies with the standards from other agencies as referenced in the criteria above so this will be addressed in the conditions of approval. The project meets preferred mitigation methodology for alteration of wetland buffers by providing for wetland rehabilitation. The minimum mitigation ratio proposed by the Applicant is 4.8:1, which significantly exceeds the 1:1 ratio required for wetland buffer alterations, although it isn't clear how much of the restoration will occur within the wetland buffer itself. All compensatory mitigation is on-site and as close to the altered areas as possible. It does not appear that any deed restrictions or similar measures are included to preserve the mitigation measures into perpetuity. Although this does not appear to be as necessary for publicly owned property as for private, the criterion makes no distinction between the two so compliance will be made a condition of SSDP and Shoreline Variance -IS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 approval, The mitigation plans in the critical areas report and biological assessment don't appear to include any timing requirements. Given the detailed and comprehensive nature of these mitigation plans it is assumed that the experts who prepared the plans did not find any timing requirements necessary to protect shoreline resources. Compliance with RMC 4-3-050(M)(16) is addressed below. The monitoring play recommended at p. 36 of the critical areas report complies with the monitoring requirements of the criterion quoted above except for authorizing the City to extend the five year monitoring period to ten years, which will be addressed in the conditions of approval, RMC 4-3-050(M)(16): Mitigation Plans: a. Required for Restoration, Creation and Enhancement Projects: All wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement in conjunction with restoration and creation projects required pursuant to this Section either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland specialists approved by the City. b. Timing for Mitigation Plan Submittal and Commencement of any Work: See subsection F8 of this Section. c. Content of Mitigation Plan: Unless Ihe City, in consultation with qualified wetland specialists, determines, based on the size and scope of the development proposal, the nature of the impacted wetland and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland from other development proposals, that the scope and specific requirements of the mitigation plan may be reduced, the mitigation plan shall address all requirements in RMC 4-8-120D23, Wetland Mitigation Plan, and subsection F8 of this Section. d. Performance Surety: As a condition of approval of any mitigation plan, the Reviewing Official shall require a performance surety per RMC 4-1-230 and subsection G of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) 24. The mitigation for the project recommended in the critical areas report and the biological assessment was prepared by Scott Swarts, a senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist employed by David Evans and Associates, Inc.. Mr. Swarts is a wetland specialist. The mitigation plan prepared in the critical areas report complies with the requirements of RMC 4-8-120(D)(23) and RMC 4-3-050(F)(8) except for the apparent omission of a mitigation schedule (some of the site plan notes are too small to read for the examiner). If not already proposed, a mitigation schedule is required as a condition of approval, A performance surety will also be made a condition of approval as required by the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(e): Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the following design and other features: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -16 i. Relation to Other Facilities: 2 3 (a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for handicapped and 4 physically impaired persons, where feasible. 5 (b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public street, 6 on-street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space per five thousand (5,000) square feet of 8 public access area for more than three (3) spaces. Parkingfor public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped accessible. 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline and non-shoreline areas of a site. ii. Design: (a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible; provided, that 16 public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 reduction in ecological functions. (b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques. 25. The proposal is adjacent to other public areas since it will connect to what will eventually be a six mile trail. The parking requirements of the criterion above are imposed as conditions of approval. It is recognized that the six mile trail should be considered as a whole in assessing whether adequate on-street parking is required. As previously discussed, the trail implements some of the objectives of the City's Trails and Bicycles Master Program. As noted previously the trail both accesses the water's edge and provides for shoreline views. From the aerial photograph provided in the critical areas report it does not appear that the proposed trail will be in proximity to any residential windows or private open spaces to the extent that trail users would disturb privacy. 25 RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d): Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the 26 following location and design criteria: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. 26. The proposed trail generally runs parallel to the shoreline as required above and also connects to the water's edge as authorized. Trail width is limited to six feet and fencing is proposed as authorized. As determined previously, the walkway has been designed to avoid adversely affecting sensitive ecological features. RMC 4-3-090(D)(4)(d)(May Creek Reach): At the time of redevelopment, public access should be provided consistent with standards of this Section from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water consistent with standards of this Section, and goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. 27. As determined in other parts of the decision, the proposal meets all RMC 4-3-090(D) requirements as well as all SMP policies and use regulations pertaining to preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. RMC 4-3-090(D)(5): Building and Development Location -Shoreline Orientation: a. General: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water- enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values. b. Design and Performance Standards: i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site. ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by 24 topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany development proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel less than twenty thousand 25 (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include the 26 following general iriformation: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features. (b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features, together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological functions. iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria: (a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing, grading, and alteration of topography and natural features. (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of under- building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible. (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-ol-way wherever feasible. (d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the needfor structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. 28. The trail, which qualifies as a water-enjoyment use, is located close to the shoreline while avoiding the most sensitive portions of the site by avoiding all significant trees and staying out of the wetland (although encroaching into its buffer). Impervious surfaces are minimized by the use of porous trail materials. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the proposal is designed and mitigated to prevent any adverse impacts to riparian, near shore and wetland habitat. An archaeological assessment has been prepared for the project and the SEPA conditions of approval require conformance with it recommendations. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, no adverse aesthetic or view impacts are anticipated from the project. The critical areas report, technical information report and biological assessment provide an assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site and contain all the information required above. As previously discussed the trail avoids sensitive portions of the site, avoids the removal of trees and avoids impermeable surfaces. No shoreline stabilization is necessitated by the proposal. RMC 4-3-090(D)(6): Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identifY significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information SSDP and Shoreline Variance -19 2 3 4 5 6 from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identifY the potential for cultural resources. 7 c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified 8 professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified 9 parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups. 10 II 12 13 14 d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notifY the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. 15 16 17 18 19 20 29. A detailed archaeological assessment has been prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the subject site, but there is no information in the record on whether any consultation has been conducted with any other tribes or agencies as required above. Given that the project site is assigned a high probability for archaeological resources, consultation with any potentially affected tribes will be required as a condition of approval consultation hasn't already been done. The recommendations of the archaeological assessment, adopted as SEPA mitigation measures, require that construction cease and persons be contacted if any artifacts are discovered during construction as required by the criterion above. 21 Table 4-3-090(E)(1) Shoreline Use Table: Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails are permitted, 22 provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline 23 24 25 26 area. 30. The proposed use is authorized by the SMP. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the proposed trail will not degrade ecological functions. The minor construction and absence of view impacts will also not degrade the natural character of the shoreline area. RMC 4-3-090(D)(8): Recreation: SSDP and Shoreline Variance -20 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a. When Allowed: Recreation activities are allowed when: i. There is no net loss of ecological functions, including on-and off-site mitigation. ii. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and are consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses. iii. The level of human activity involved in passive or active recreation shall be appropriate to the ecological features and shoreline environment ... b. Location Relative to the Shoreline: Activities provided by recreational facilities must bear a substantial relationship to the shoreline, or provide physical or visual access to the shoreline. i. Water-dependent recreation such as fishing, swimming, boating, and wading should be located on the shoreline. ii. Water-related recreation such as picnicking, hiking, and walking should be located near the shoreline .... d. Public Recreation: Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the 14 following criteria are considered: IS 16 17 18 19 20 i. The natural character of the shoreline is preserved and the resources and ecology of the shoreline are protected. ii. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided consistent with public safety needs and in consideration of natural features. iii. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfY the diversity of demands of the local community. iv. Water-related and water-enjoyment uses do not displace water-dependent uses and uses are 21 consistent with existing water-related and water-enjoyment uses. 22 v. Recreational development is located and designed to minimize detrimental impact on the adjoining 23 property. 24 vi. The development provides parking and other necessary facilities to handle the designed public 25 26 use ... SSDP and Shoreline Variance -21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 viii. Public parks and other public land~ shall be managed in a manner that provides a balance between providing opportunities for recreation and restoration and enhancement of the shoreline. Major park development shall be approved only after a master planning process that provides for a balance of these elements. 30. As previously discussed there is no net loss in ecological function associated with the proposal. The level of human activity is limited to walking and possibly bicycling and should have little impact on the shoreline habitat. A split rail fence will keep trail users on the trail. As a water related recreation facility, the trail is located near the shoreline. As previously determined natural character is preserved. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided. No water dependent uses are displaced. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, no adverse impacts will be generated by the project, which includes impacts to adjoining uses. Parking demand is addressed in the conditions of approval. As previously discussed, the extensive restoration and mitigation associated with the proposal is well balanced with public recreational needs. RMC 4-3-0090(0)(10): Transportation: a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects andfacilities: i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water 14 interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back IS further from the land/water interface. 16 ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or 17 cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts. 18 iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of 19 groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal materials. v. Facilities shall avoid the needfor shoreline protection. vi. Facilities shall allow passage of jlood waters. jlsh passage, and wildlife movement by using bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other features that provide for these functions. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails. 31. As detennined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will result in no net loss of ecological function. The transportation regulations above that require facilities to be located as far away from shorelines as possible conflict with the policies that require recreational facilities and public access facilities to be located close to the shoreline. Given that the public access/recreational policies are more specifically targeted at the project and that shoreline policies strongly encourage public access to the shoreline, the public access/recreational regulations supersede the conflicting transportation facility regulations. As detennined in Finding of Fact No.5, there are no adverse impacts to archaeological, natural, historical, or cultural resources. As detennined in Finding of Fact No.5 the project will no adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Excavation will be very modest and there is nothing to suggest that groundwater movement will be affected. The Technical Infonnation Report provides that stonnwater moves across the site via sheet flow and that the project will not affect this water movement. Erosion during construction and construction debris is addressed in detail in the mitigation measures that apply to the project and there is nothing to suggest that erosion wi II be a problem once construction is completed. The trail does not trigger any significant need for shoreline protection. The trail provides both viewpoint and physical access features. RMC 4-3-0090(D)(lO)(d): Trails: i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails. ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on acijacent property owners including privacy and noise ... iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas. 32. As detennined in Finding of Fact No.5 the trail is designed to avoid environmental impacts and there are no impacts anticipated on adjoining property owners. The trail surface is relatively narrow and considered a soft surface to assure compatibility with shoreline resources. RMC 4-3-090(D)(2)(c): Applicable Critical Area Regulations: The following critical areas shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations, adopted by reference except for the provisions excluded in subsection D2cii of this Section.. Said provisions shall apply to any use, alteration, or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Unless otherwise stated, no development shall 26 be constructed, located, extended, modified, converted, or altered, or land divided without full SSDP and Shoreline Variance -23 I 2 3 compliance with the provision adopted by reference and the Shoreline Master Program. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of RMe 4-3-050 shall be liberally construed together with the Shoreline Master Program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act. If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of the adopted provisions below and the Shoreline Master Program, the most restrictive 4 provisions shall prevail .... 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (b) Areas of special flood hazard ... RMC 4-3-050(I)(2)(c)(i): All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 33. The use of bark as a trail material raises questions about its viability within a floodplain. The conditions of approval will require this issue to be addressed. RMC 4-3-0S0(I)(6)(a): Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. 34. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. Variance Criteria RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(i): Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 35. The property is characterized by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances because it is uniquely situated to provide public access to the shoreline and water's edge while also serving as an essential link of a six mile trail network. The wetland buffer interferes with this function because it is located in the only portion of the property that can provide direct access to the shoreline as encouraged by shoreline regulations by a looped system that prevents disruption of the continuity of the trail while still avoiding the removal of trees. RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(ii): The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 36. As shown in regulations previously reviewed, trails of six foot width are authorized in the shoreline buffer to May Creek but not to its wetland. Consequently, because of the wetland buffer the Applicant cannot build the same type of trail that other property owners with shoreline access could build. As noted in the staff report, a six foot width is important for a public trail along the shoreline SSDP and Shoreline Variance -24 I 2 3 4 because volumes for those areas tend to be higher and six feet is necessary to accommodate the additional traffic and to provide for enhanced ADA accessibility. RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iii): The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. 5 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5, the proposal will not create any adverse impacts and will substantially improve upon ecological functions and provide a valuable recreational asset to the 6 community. Under these circumstances there is no material detriment and no injury to other 7 8 9 properties. RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(iv): The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. 38. The proposal is consistent with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as outlined in 10 the bulk of this decision. The overall objective of the goals of the shoreline management act and the SMP is to protect shoreline resources while providing for public enjoyment of the shorelines. The II proposal accomplishes both objectives by providing for public access and a significant restoration 12 program. 13 RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(v): The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the Applicant by denying it, the 14 variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general 15 purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline 16 Master Program. 17 18 39. More harm will be done by denying the variance than approving it since the variance will facilitate public access to a shoreline for a project that, if approved, will substantially benefit the shoreline environment. The variance is also necessary for the reasonable use of the property given (l) 19 the relative modest deviation involved; (2) the substantial public benefit served by the proposal; (3) the substantial portion of the project area that is impacted by the wetland buffer; (4) the substantial 20 need for the deviation in order to make the project serve as both an important trail link and a water's edge access point; and (5) the lack of any adverse impacts associated with the request. Reasonable use and necessity is also discussed in more detail in Finding of Fact No.6. As determined in the 22 previous conclusion of law, the variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the 21 23 24 Shoreline Management Act and the SMP. RMC 4-3-190(I)(4)(b)(vi): The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. 25 40. The four foot trail width requirement precludes and significantly interferes with a reasonable use of property as contemplated in WAC 197-27-170(a) for the reasons identified in Conclusion of 26 Law No. 39. The hardship addressed by the variance request is caused by a natural feature of the SSDP and Shoreline Variance -25 I property as required by WAC 197-27-170(b), specifically the subject property's narrow width in conjunction with the on-site wetland. The trail is compatible with surrounding uses as well as uses 2 planned under the SMP and comprehensive plan as required by WAC 197-27 -170( c) because it is part of a priority trail project in the City's Trails and Bicycle Master Plan, does not create any structures visible to adjoining properties or waterward of the shoreline and does not adversely affect 4 surrounding uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No.5 the proposal will not adversely affect the 3 shoreline environment as required by WAC 1 97-27-1 70(c). The variance would not be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area as contemplated by WAC 197-27-170(d) 6 because as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 36, other properties along the May Creek shoreline without wetlands would be allowed to build a six foot wide trail. The variance request is the 7 minimum necessary to afford relief as required by WAC 197-27-170(e) because without it there probably would not be room on the trail to provide for a looped segment that provides access to the water's edge without necessitating the removal of any trees. As required by WAC 1 97-27-170(f) and 9 for the reasons stated in Conclusion of Law No. 37, the public will suffer no substantial detrimental 5 8 10 11 12 effect by the approval of the variance. DlEC[SlION 13 The shoreline substantial development permit and variance applications are approved as they meet 14 all the applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision, provided they comply with the following conditions: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. As identified in Conclusions of Law 12 and 27, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning staff that the parking demand created by the proposal is fully mitigated. At a minimum, parking shall satisfY the requirements of RMC 4-3- 090(0)(2)( e)(i)(b). 2. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 22, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that those portions of the trail within the inner 50% of the buffer to the on-site wetland must be located in that area for interpretive purposes as required by RMC 4- 3-090(D)(2)(d)(ix)(j). If the Applicant is unable to meet that standard, the trail shall be re- designed to avoid the inner 50% of the buffer, even if that entails removing one or more significant trees. 3. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that as required by RMC 4-3- 090(D)(2)(d)(x)(b) the proposed wetland mitigation complies with the applicable standards for studies and assessment in Chapter 6 of: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006; Wetland Mitigation in Washington State -Part I: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version I); and Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, except in cases when this Code provides differing standards. 4. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 23, all mitigation areas shall be permanently protected and managed to prevent degradation and ensure protection of critical area SSDP and Shoreline Variance -26 , . I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 functions and values into perpetuity. Permanent protection shall be achieved through deed restriction or other protective covenant in accordance with RMC 4-3-050E4. 5. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall have the authority to modify or extend the monitoring period identified at p. 36 of the critical areas report and require additional monitoring reports for up to ten (10) years when any of the following conditions apply: (I) The project does not meet the performance standards identified in the mitigation plan; (2) The project does not provide adequate replacement for the functions and values of the impacted critical area; (3) The project involves establishment of forested plant communities, which require longer time for establishment. 6. The Applicant will post a performance surety as required by RMC 4-3-050(M)(I6). 7. Prior to any construction, the Applicant shall acquire approval from staff of a mitigation schedule as required by RMC 4-8-120(D)(23)(b)(i) ("dates of beginning and completion") in the definition of a wetland mitigation plan. The approved mitigation schedule shall be construed as and enforced as a condition of approval. 8. If not done so already, as discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 29 the archaeological assessment shall be submitted to any potentially affected tribes for comment in regards to development of the project site. Staff shall have authority to require further mitigation as necessary in response to the comments in order to assure compliance with SMP policies regarding protection of archaeological resources. Any additional mitigation required by staff shall be construed as an enforced as a condition of approval. 9. The Applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of staff that the use of bark as a trail material is resistant to flood damage as required by RMC 4-3-050(1)(2)( c )(i) or in the alternative that the replacement of bark in case of a flood is (I) the most feasible approach to construction of a permeable trail surface; and (2) the displacement of bark in case of flooding will not harm shoreline resources. 10. The conditions and limitations recommended at Page 5 of the staff report are adopted and imposed as conditions of approval. DATED this 24th day of July, 2012. rpLO~ Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner SSDP and Shoreline Variance -27 · , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the fmal decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. SSDP and Shoreline Variance -28 , Denis Law ,Mayor -: "Juiy 25,2012 Department of Community,and Economic Development , c:'E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator' , " State Department of Ecology. , 'Northwest Regional Office 3i90 160thAve. SE Bellevue, WA 98008'5452 , , " SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for May Creek Trail, ' File No. LUA12~037,ECF,SM, SMV Dear Sir or,Ma'dam: , Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Devel~pment Permit and Shoreline Variance for the above referenced project'. The permit was issued by the Cityof Renton onJuly 25, 2012. A ' Determination 'of' Non-Significance-Mitigated was iss~ed by the City's , Environmental Review Committee on June,lB, 2012: The appeal period ended July 6, ' 2012, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. ' ' ' . .-," -,'. .' '-. Weare filing,this aCtion with the Department cif Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14c090. Please revieW this permitand attachments and contact meat (425) 430-7314 if you have ~ny questio~s or need additional information. ' Sincerely, .q;;~~' Vanessa Di:ilbee Senior Planner., Enclosures: . Administrative 'Decision Hearing 'Exaininer"Recomendatio~' Copyo! MasterApplication ' , Project Narrative , Neighborhood Detail Map Notic~_ of Application .' 'SEPA Checklist, SEPA Determination 'SEPA Det~rminatio~ Mitigation Measures . SEPA Deter~ination AdvisorY Note~ · Mitigat~on.PI~1n cc: Office of ,Attorne'y G.eneral K;~uen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. · Fisheries D'ept: .. · Jennifer Henni~g, ,Current Planning · Manager City of Renton / Applicant/Owner DOE Cover letter 12-037,doc .' . . Renton'City Hall • .1055South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 25, 2012 LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV May 9,2012 May 22,2012 Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWN ER/ APPLICANT: CONTACT: PROJECT LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWN-R: WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF: APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: May Creek Trail Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Todd Black, City of Renton, Parks Department, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 4008 Meadow Avenue N LOT A RENTON SP #LUA-11-037-SHPL REC #20110726900006 SD SP DAF-LOT 2 RENTON LLA #LUA-05-069-LLA REC #20051012900009 BEING POR GL 1 LY W OF ST HWY & WLY OF LK WASH BLVD N S 32, T 24N, R 5E May Creek City of Renton PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile. long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to City oj Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 25, 2012 Shoreline Management Permit WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 2 016 May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The subject site contains May Creek which is identified as a Shoreline of the State; therefore the project is subject to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations. In addition to May Creek one small (786 square foot) Category III wetland was also identified on the project site. The wetland is located within shoreline jurisdiction therefore is also subject to SMP regulations. A Category III wetland within shoreline jurisdiction with a habitat score of less than 20 points is required to have a 75-foot buffer. The proposed trail project would be located within May Creek Reach B and is designated as Urban Conservancy pursuant to the SMP. As proposed the 0.27 mile-long trail has been designed to avoid all significant trees and is situated in areas currently dominated by non-native species. The trail is proposed to be 6 feet in width and composed of permeable materials. Overall the proposed project would result in clearing 0.20 acres of non-native vegetation. The trail setback ranges from 0 -70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of May Creek, but is typically 30 -40 plus feet away from the creek. The closest point to the OHWM is the beach access point, followed by the overlook pull-out that is approximately 17 feet from the OHWM. At the northern end of the site the trail makes a loop around the wetland adding impacts to the wetland buffer area. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC), walkways or trails required in vegetated open space shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. As demonstrated above, the proposed trail would meet the minimum standards of RMC and the SMP which requires public access in the shoreline area of May Creek Reach B, pursuant to the Public Access Requirement Reach Table (RMC 4-3- 090D.4.f). Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) trails are permitted in Category III wetland buffers if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with RMC is provided. ) City of Renton Department 0/ Community & Economic Development May Creek Trail Shoreline Management Permit WAU-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE OF PERMIT: July 25,2012 Page 3 016 The proposed trail would be located in the outer SO% of the wetland buffer, would be made of pervious material, is proposed in a manner that minimizes disturbance, and is associated with mitigation plan. However, the applicant has requested a variance from the maximum width of 4-feet for the trail to be 6-feet in width. If the subject variance is approved then all the above criteria would be met. The applicant provided a Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associate, Inc. dated April 2012, with the application. The subject report delineated and evaluated the wetland, May Creek, wildlife habitat, flood hazards, and geotechnical hazards associated with the development site. Furthermore, the report provides recommendations to minimize impacts on erosion and sediment controls, water quality, and provides a mitigation proposal for any impacts related to the subject project. The provided report breaks down the impacts on the flood hazard area, Shoreline Jurisdiction, the vegetation management buffer, and the wetland. Based on the report the following areas of impact are identified: Flood Hazard Area: Total flood Hazard Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area ofTrail within Flood Hazard Area = 0.16 acres Total Length ofTraii within Flood Hazard Area = 0.21 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Flood Hazard Area = 1.04 acres 200-foot wide Shoreline Jurisdiction Total Shoreline Jurisdiction Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.19 acres Total Length of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.26 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation with Shoreline Jurisdiction = 1.33 acres 100 -foot wide Vegetation Management Buffer Total Vegetation Management Buffer Area On-Site = 1.98 acres Total Area of Trail within Vegetation Management buffer = 0.20 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Vegetation Management Buffer = 1.09 acres Wetland Total Wetland Area = 0.02 acres Total Wetland buffer = 0.62 Total Area of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.06 acres Total Length of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.08 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland = 0.02 acres City 0/ Renton Department 0/ Community & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 25, 2012 Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland Buffer = 0.50 acres Shoreline Management Permit WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 4 of 6 In addition to the trail construction the applicant has proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in the wetland. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of i.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek. The mitigation plan would replace the existing understory dominated by non- native invasive species with a diverse assemblage of native species. The plan includes installation of a minimum of 320 trees, 390 willow cuttings, 1,324 shrubs, and 146 groundcover species if the mitigation is limited to the Base Area. The SMP has a minimum ratio for mitigation of wetland buffer impacts of 1:1; as the proposal includes a minimum ratio of 4.8:1 the mitigation plan exceeds the minimum requirements. The Critical Areas report concludes that the proposed mitigation has been designed to provide a functional lift to May Creek and the existing forested corridor by focusing the replanting effort as close to May Creek as possible, planting coniferous trees, and increasing overall native plant density and diversity. The plant selection includes species that will provide forage, refugia, and nesting opportunities for wildlife, while increasing shade, organic inputs and eventually Large Woody Debris (LWD) to May Creek. Specifically, the project would not result in a loss of ecological function, meets the design criteria for public access sites and provides substantial mitigation. With the application the applicant submitted a Biological Assessment, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Pursuant to the Biological Assessment, the trail has been designed to avoid existing trees, as well as the few patches of native shrubs present on-site. The report identifies that the vegetation to be removed is composed primarily of Himalayan blackberry, but other non-native species such as Japanese knotweed and reed canary grass would be cleared and grubbed during construction and mitigation-related activities. The report further identifies that few native species are present within the footprint of the proposed trail, consisting primarily of isolated sword ferns and salmonberry. The provided plan proposes to remove and replant any native species located within the trail footprint into the mitigation area. The mitigation area is comprised mainly of non-native plant species, the provided report indicates that these plants would be flagged prior to any clearing and grubbing so they are not impacted by the mitigation project. The following sections/pages of the Master Program is applicable to the development: RMCSection 4-3-090.C.2. Description Urban Conservancy Overlay District Page page 3-22 City 0/ Renton Department 0/ Community & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 25, 2012 4-3-090.0. 4-3-090.E 4-9-190.B 4-9-190.1. General Development Standards Use Regulations Shoreline Development Approval Variances and Conditional Uses Shoreline Management Permit WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 5 of 6 Page 3-24 page 3-40.10 page 9-51 page 9-58.1 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in its Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated issued on June 18,2012. This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition(s) hereof. 3. Construction permits shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: c.<£ L<. ~- C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator/Planning Director Planning Division APPEALS: Appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issuance must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals are made by filing a request in writing within the twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the final order and concurrently filing copies of such request with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office as provided in section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. All copies of appeal notices shall also be filed with the City of Renton Planning Division and the City Clerk's office. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, 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 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 25, 2012 Shoreline Management Permit WAll-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page6of6 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: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of RMC 4-9-190, construction activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Washington State Department of Ecology. DEFINITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: the construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. Exh ibits/ Attachments: A: Neighborhood Detil Map B: Cover Sheet & Site Plan cc: Attorney General's Office Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. City of Renton / Owner(s)/ Applicant Todd Black / Contact Parties of Record City of Renton Offical File NO.lDNIHSIIM 'NO.LN3~ NO.LN3H ;0 AJJ:' 'I~ __ ~:.:"'" K "0' llVH.L )!33K) A~ e .~ , -,~-~ ..., .. 'SilJ .... IOOSSVo-IC:II' c::I N'v'1d 3lJS 'i 133HS ~3AO::> "'/"/1> 0 @ !l:1 "-. • I ii ~.'........;: ~ 5 ~ ~ 'V, ; ~. ~ I- ::; () ~ ill ill -, "' ex 0 ;;i 0::: .. N 0.. f- oJ -l M Z 0 ~ i= <) w (f) I-.: f-~ 0 -' ill f-:> ill 0 (!) 0::: IL () 0 z 0 ~ i= 0: 0 a. ~ .., '''-----......., ....... ,. ~ ~. 2 o I- (9 2 I CI) ~ 0::: - 0 2 u.0 I- 2 ill 0::: LL o .. ~,. • • w ~ • 0 0 ~ E • 0 0 z ~ 0 ~ • w " .~ ~ z x • • 0 • z 0 • z w § " " " ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ;; >-w w I u 3 a ~ ~ ~ "' /~ / / / / / . . /I/t· ( / ~ / . I '. I I ~/ .. I /----.- >-v/ I-/-1 / I • 1m o. / I ~ / / / / / / I • / SNY,,:a 01""'0 ~ • ~ g w 0 I' ~ 0 0 ~ " ~ I • ~ ~ ~ • • ~ w , 0 ~ z "' , z ~ , ~ • ~ • 0 ~ z z • • ~ ~ " ~ iii ~ w • ~ • • • • • 0 z z z z • ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ • • " ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E E • • • n B B i ~ ; ; ! I I I ! I fI"" ., , :Ia i i II ..-• ;() , I I I I ,! !, , '" " ! I I"' ." , i UJ ; I , ~ .;~iB5~ i '5" I , w /5 r::: 'il; (V S .. 0:0 i::::! z iii": • • ..... z 0 OJ 0 " o .s 0) ~ z ° I • ~§ 0 ,.;. s ~ ~ • ~~ • • . j .Q • z ~ 0 0 , I • ~ < ~ \lI~ '~ • r ~ ~ Iii!! 0 " "I ~ ~ ~ " ",§ .. ; l!ii! • :~·8S • " i z z ~ ~ 5§h~ !~ ~ 0 0 ~ " ~ II • i1 ~ --, ! • ~ ~ ffi "' • II z E E ~ " • • • f ! ~ II , i 0, "t ~ ;. ~; ~Il i ~ . ~ "I ~ · ~ ; ° ! ",h ~~ ~, • ~---- STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the ReIrlltoIrll Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington, The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on June 22, 2012. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $119.00. moaM. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 22nd day of June, 2012. ~~a9N~~r the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMIMTIOX ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITI"EE AND PUBLlC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non-Significance-Miti- gated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code, May Creek Trail LUAI2-OJ7, ECF, SM, SMV Location: 4008 Meadow Av- enue N. The applicant is requesting SEPA Review and a Shoreline Substantial Develop- ment Permit for the construc- tion of a 6' wide and 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f){I) to con- struct the trail at 6' in width in- stead of the required 4' in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Ave. N and is zoned R-8, The site is ~~'\",\\HIHI $'"' ~~ S, Sit It", .E" ~ .... ,"''''\\\\11 ~~ "1 ff ~~t~\ON "~";'r'A ."" -I.::. ~.~ ~A"""''''';~' ffq:t~-0' ~).-~/~~\ ~~:::o ~ (\':~ ... -;. ~o -• -(I'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z~A.V-::: ~ ~ -UB\..\: : ~ ~ 'i.t.PI',1 =0: ~'I /'> 1111 ,/'-19"" ro....~.;::o.:" .# III;')-~ 1\\\\\\\\ ... "," i!"0 g IIIIIIIOF W",S'<' -:-..'..§" \\\\\\\\\\'",," 3,09 acres in size. May Creek is located in the Urban Conser· vancy Shoreline Designation, A mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012, together wilh the required fee with: Hear- ing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Ex· aminer are governed by RMC 4·8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. (425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers. City Hall, on July 10. 2012 at 10:00 am to consider the Shoreline Variance. If the Environmental Detennina· tion is appealed. the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are in· vited to attend the public hearing. Publ ished in Renton Reporter on June 22. 2012. #640704. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 3, 2012 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office . . ~ -~~~-~--~=~.-~= =--;::-,=,;;;:=.~=:;==========~~==~ :i Project Name: May Creek Trail " LUA (file) Number: LUA-12-037, ECF, SM, SMV :' Cross-References: , AKA's: : Project Manager: :: Acceptance Date: ! Applicant: : Owner: I: Contact: 'i PID Number: ERC Approval Date: , ERC Appeal Date: i! Administrative Denial: ,I Appeal Period Ends: " Public Hearing Date: ; Date Appealed to HEX: I By Whom: Va nessa Dol bee May 22, 2012 City of Renton Same as applicant Todd Black, City of Renton 3224059109 June 18, 2012 July 6, 2012 July 10, 2012 ,I II ,I • • D t " HEX DeCISion: a e: !, ----------------------------------------------------------~ , Date Appealed to Council: ,By Whom: , Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: ': Project Description:: The applicant is requesting A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit : for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is Ii requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in Ii width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. :1 Location: 4008 Meadow Avenue N I~----------------------------------------------------------------~I :1 Comments: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 3rd day of July, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Staff Report documents. This information was sent to: Name Todd Black, City of Renton Owne r / Applica nt/Contact Amy Maxim Party of Record (Signature of Sender): ~ ""-M ~l/jj,j.v- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING )U ) SS ) -. -~.~ 0.. . .to I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker -.. W",,",: \ . \ '~~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary del lur uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~d OJ 3, !l.o \2 Notary PubIC in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):, ___ ....LHl...'-'A.::u,-.l:G-~c.....b~:!.;if~ ___________ _ My appointment expires: ~ '"'\-~'? I d-.O 13 Project Name: May Creek Trail Project Number: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV , '. Denis Law' Mayor July 3, 2012 ... · Todd Black City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Rentori; WA 98057 . ;, . . r'--' . City" cit .... ' ..... . ·L~ (@rOlilrIDJlll Department of Com'munityand Economic Development .' CE."Chip~Vincent, Interim Administrator S.U BJ ECT: M~Y CreekTrail ; LUAlt-037, ECF, SM;SMV Dear Mr. Black: This letter is to inform ,you that the appeal period will end July 6,. 2012 for the' :Environmental' Review' Committee's' (ERe) Determiriation of Non-Significance - · Mitigated-Pf applicable) for !he ·above-referenced project.' .. As of the date of this letter, no appeals we~e filed on the ERC determination therefore, .' the deCision will become fi:n~lif noappe~ls 9re received by the appeal period erid date. '. The applicant must comply with all ERC MitigationMeasuresoutlined in' the Report and .' , Decisibndated June 18,-2012: Als(), a Hearing Examiner Public He9ring has been scheduied for Ji.dy 10, ion at 10:00 a.m., where.conditionsmay be issued. The :applicant or representative'(s)ofthe applicant are requireq to be. present. Endos!,disa . copy of the Preliminary R.eport to the Hearing Examiner for your review.. .' . . If you have any questions,please feel free to coni:actmeat (425)430:7314 .. For. the Em/ironmental Review Committee; ~-DoI~ Vanessa O'olbee . · SeniorPlanner Enclo'sure . R~nton City. Hall,. i 055 South ~:rady Way • Re~t6':l' Washington 980~7 • rento~wa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING July 10, 2012 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: May Creek Trail PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. HEX Agenda 7-10-12.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMI\. ... NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DA TE: July 3, 2012 Project Name: May Creek Trail Owner/Applicant: City of Renton, 10555. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Todd Black, City of Renton, Parks Department, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 File Number: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. Project Location: 4008 Meadow Avenue N :'\'\\ "/" / l , II mJIillIl ; 'I ~ -,C', \' I II \\ \ y " , .... ' .. \ \ .. ( '; Jet I . ~ \' ',',x', I' "i ~-~\/; .' ;;; .. ' . ii ." R·lO ./ / ! "-!~J 1 ......... / I / Sl"'~"'l "-I ~~ If ~ /S::/';7! /~ .- ,~ i I I' '-..,Y; / R'/ll 'v";--/ . / 'Jill:{ /// :YU' fj ,7-____ ., 'I:. ~ \/f --~-----I···································· .;/;' ", /'-, / /'''-. ,I ~~' "-. / I , ... .................. / . . f ., ", I / / '._, ~ '/ '-.. I I '-.. ,'" .. / '[ -"", / / I "-............... -0 ;', . R.IO,<; /! ...... I ,/ '-. ., I ~ " /'--.. / I ! /-// / . ,_ !-~. . i --/ ''1 1 u Project Location Map Cit\' of Renton Cummunil"\' and Economic , .,;;"!;;pn;;;Je;;;:nt.;,D;;,cp~a:;;rt;;;nJe:;;n;.t =========~~===.,;R;;;el~>O:;;rt.:;to;,;t;;;he.;,ll;;;ea::;r,:;;in",8 Ex=w~ni,:;;ne;;,r May Creek Trail LUA12·037. ECF. SM, SMV PUBUC HEARING DATE July 10.2012 Page 2 of 10 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Neighborhood Map Cover Sheet & Site Plan Topographic Survey TESC Plan TESC Plan Notes Trail Alignment Horizontal Control Plan Trail Alignment Grading Plan Trail Alignment Profiles Mitigation Impact Summary Plan Mitigation Irrigation Plan Mitigation Planting Plan Mitigation Details and Specifications Mitigation Specifications & Monitoring Site Furnishing Details Tree Inventory Plan Critical Areas Report, David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated April 2012, 39 pages and 3 appendices Biological Assessment, David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated April 2012, 34 pages and 2 appendices Technical Information Report (TIR), David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated February 2012, 18 pages and 2 appendices Archaeological Assessment, Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009, 21 pages and 2 figures Environmental "SEPA" Determination Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures Proof of Notice of Application Mailing Agency Comment: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Shoreline Substantial Development Permit C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. 2. Owner of Record: Zoning Designation: City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Residential 8 (R-8) Citv of Renton Community and Economic L .;"p~m;;;;e;;;n(,;;D~ep;;;a~m;;;ne;;,:n(~========~ ~===~R~egpo~rt~(0~t;;:lte,,!H;::e~an~'n~8 ~Ex~a~nn~'ne,"r May Creek Trail LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV PUBUC HEARING DATE July /0,2012 Page 3 of 10 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Single Family (RSF) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Old Pan Abode Homes site (COR zone) East: 1-40S and vacant land (CA zone) South: vacant land (R-8 zone) West: Barbee Mill Development (R-10) and vacant land (COR zone) 6. Proposed Orientation: N/ A 7. Site Area: 134,531 SF (3.09 acres) 8. Project Data: Trail length: 0.27 mile Maximum buffer enhancement 1.33 acres D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Short Plat E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: N/A Sewer: N/A Land Use File No. N/A LUA08-145 LUA08-145 LUA11-037 Surface Water/Storm Water: N/A. Ordinance No. 2341 5501 5191 N/A Date 07/03/1967 11/25/2009 11/25/2009 06/28/2011 2. Streets: There is sidewalk, curb, and gutter in Lake Washington Boulevard. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Zoning Standards Tables 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-090: Shoreline Master Program Regulations 3. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-190: Shoreline Permits 6. Chapter 11 Definitions City of Renton Community and Economic May Creek Trail PUBUC HEARING DATE July 10. 2012 opment Department G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. land Use Element -Residential Single Family 2. Environmental Element H. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. Project Description/Background Reeort to The IIcarill8 Examiner LUA 12-037. ECF. SM. SMV Page 4 of 10 The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f}{1} to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be locate~ on lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site; one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the abutting site to the north. In addition to the 6- foot wide trail, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split-rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. In addition to the trail construction the applicant has proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in Wetland A. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of disturbance for trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base Area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. The site is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR); to the east of 1-405 and across 1-405, CA zoned property that is currently vacant; to the south is R-8 zoned property which is currently vacant; and, to the west, across lake Washington Boulevard, is the Barbee Mill Development zoned R-10 and vacant COR property. The proposed trail development would serve the existing residents in the area and the potential future residences and/or employees that could result from development of the surrounding vacant properties. The subject trail has been identified as a high priority in the City's "Trails and Bicycle Master Plan". Upon completion, the trail would include a 6-mile long trail between lake Washington and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. The subject segment is a vital missing link to the overall trail system_ In addition to the site being located along May Creek, the proposed trail would also be located within the flood plain of May Creek. Based on the provided application materials, the trail would be built on grade resulting in approximately 250 cubic yards of soil removed and 230 cubic yards of soil imported to the site. However, the applicant has indicated that the provided cut and fill would not impact the flood hazard area as there would be no net fill after final construction. City of Renton Conununitl' alld Ecollomic ! -,'o;pme=";,;, D=e!;;pa;;;rt=me=,,~' =========~====R~e~po=rt='o~'=he=I,;;Je=ar,;;i" .. 8,;;;Exa=m=i"=er May Creek Trail LUA12-037. ECF. SM. SMV PUBUC /lEARING DATE July /0. 2012 Page 5 of /0 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on June 18, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the May Creek Trail. The DNS-M included 5 mitigation measures_ A 14-day appeal period commenced on June 22, 2012 and will end on July 6, 2012. As of the date of this report no appeals of the threshold determination have been filed_ 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. 3. The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in diameter within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Consistencv with Shoreline Variance Criteria: RMC Section 4-9-1901.4.b lists 7 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider when making a recommendation on a Shoreline Variance application. The Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject praperty, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. The applicant contends that the May Creek Trail is a unique and exceptional ongoing development between the cities of Renton and Newcastle, and King County. The trail will eventually provide continuous access along May Creek from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park. This proposed trail, located in an urban environment, would be very popular. The May Creek Trail is intended to be ADA accessible, providing a six foot width would allow for a more comfortable passing width Cit\' of Renton Communit\, and Economic May Creek Trail PUBIX HEARING DATE July 10, 2012 opmellt Department Report to the Ilearins Examiner LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 6 of 10 than a four foot wide trail. The four foot wide trial would likely require a pedestrian to step into the restored habitat and potentially damage new native plants as they pass other visitors, Staff Concurs with the applicant's statements and contentions and believes that exceptional circumstances exist on the subject property. Particularly, this property differs greatly from other properties along the shoreline in the same vicinity because it is intended to be a public natural area park facility. Additionally, much of the City of Renton is burdened by hills, making it challenging to provide ADA accessible access to natural areas. The subject site is unique due to its relatively flat topography making it a prime location to provide the opportunity for an ADA accessible trail, in a natural setting. The American Trails Association contains guidelines for ADA accessible trails. Pursuant to the guidelines a pedestrian trail should provide a passing space at least every 1000' where trail width is less than 60 inches. In this case the trail itself would be less than 60 inches making passing challenging, particularly if two wheelchairs happen to be on the trail at the same time. Due to the need to provide an accessible trail in this location, the recommended width of 6-feet is reasonable and the minimum necessary to achieve ADA accessibility, comfortable passing space and preservation of enhancement plantings. 2. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the some vicinity. The applicant concurs that providing a greater trail width within the wetland buffer would be necessary for the public's enjoyment of open space along May Creek. The trail is a portion of the proposed May Creek Greenway system, which will preserve and enhance a natural setting by planting native trees and shrubs along a salmonid baring stream. A narrower trail width through the buffer would create a bottleneck on what will be a popular streamside trail in an urban setting. Staff concurs with the applicant's statements and contentions. This trail segment would be the "trail head" for a planed greenway system which will extend to Cougar Mountain Wildlife Park. This trail segment can be reached off of 1-405 exit 7, which could provide access for not only neighborhood residence but provide a regional draw to the location for recreational hiking. As such, this particular segment of trial is anticipated to attract many users resulting in a necessity to provide passing space. As mentioned above, an insufficient trail width could result in unintended circumstances of trampling and destroying the restored natural habitat. This variance is necessary in order to preserve the public's rights to access shorelines of the state like other private property owners possess in the vicinity of the site. 3. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. City of Renton Conununitv and Economic j .;,,!,;;,pme~,~"I~D~ep;:,;a~rtmc;;;;;;;":=1 =========~===.;,R;;,ep!f:,o~rt,;,lo;,;lh~e~IJ§i:eai:§n~·n8~Ex~am:;::i~ne,"" May C"ek Tmil LUAI2-037. ECF. SM. SMV PUBUC HEARING DATE July 10. 2012 Page 7 of 10 The applicant contends that the request for the variance for trail width at the mandated four feet would be materially detrimental to the public welfare due to the expected volume of visitors. A four foot wide trail will allow for two people to walk side by side, while a six foot trail width would allow for three people, say two in one direction and one in the opposite direction. Creating a wider trail would allow for the restored habitat landscape to flourish without being trampled upon as visitors walk off the narrow trail to pass one another. Staff concurs with the applicant's statements and contentions. Additionally, staff believes that not providing a trail at least 6 feet in width, it may preclude the site from being ADA accessible; rendering it not possible for this segment of the population to enjoy the same rights as other members of the public. 4. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant contends that a greater trail width would provide the public with a comfortable walking access to an enhanced landscape buffer and to a salmonid bearing stream. The trail would also better protect the landscape of the May Creek Greenway by allowing visitors to comfortably traverse this area without stepping off the trail. Staff concurs with the applicant's statements and contentions. Additionally, the proposed trail width would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as demonstrated by the following SMP policies: Policy SH-6: Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation and provide opportunities for education and interpretation. Access and use should be restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas. Objective SH-F: Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the natural amenities. Policy SH-24: Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including trail systems. Policy SH-28: In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. Cit\' of Rentoll Cwmnullirv alld Ecullumic , ..;;o;!;:pm;;;e~nt:,;,D;;;ep!;;a;;,;rt;;;me~n;.t =========_~===~R:;;;e!;;po;;;rt~to;;;t;;;he;;;I;;;le;;;an;;;'n~s ,;;Ex;;;a;;;m,;;;'ne:;;,' May Creek Trail LUA12-037, ECF. SM. SMV PUBLIC IlEARING DATE July 10, 2012 Page 8 of 10 Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, May Creek B: There is currently no public access in this reach. At the time of re-development, public access should be provided from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property with controlled public access to the water, balanced with goals of preservation and enhancement of ecological functions. Public agency actions to improve public access should include provisions to cross 1-40S to connect with trail systems to the east. 5. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as lang as such use and develapment is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shareline Management Act af 1971, and the pravisions of the Shareline Master Program. The applicant contends that the public welfare and interest will be preserved by granting the variance. Providing a variance to increase the trail width from four feet to six feet within the wetland buffer would match the width of the adjoining trail across Lake Washington Boulevard, and will provide for a comfortable trail width in an urban forest setting. The restored landscape habitat with native trees and shrubs will provide a forested landscape that would benefit native wildlife and migrating salmon and trout, including the endangered Chinook salmon. Staff concurs with the applicant's statements and contentions. Additionally, the widened trail would preserve the public's interest by providing the opportunity for an ADA accessible trail in a natural area, expanding opportunities for environmental education and enjoyment to all segments of the population. As demonstrated above under criterion 4. the proposal would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act and the provision of the SMP. 6. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170, WAC 173-27-170: Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90,58,030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; The maximum trail width applied to trails within wetland buffers significantly interferes with the ability to provide a reasonable trail width in an urban setting. The subject site is expected to attract many users due to its location along 1-405 and as the trail head to a planned significant regional trail. The 6-foot trail width would likely increase habitat protection by providing sufficient passing space in turn protecting the habitat Cil1' of Renton Communil1' and Economic .t. .4'p;;;/IJc:;;;n;.:' D;;;,e~pa;;;rt:;;;me;;;.n;;,.' =========~====R;;;eo;;p(~m~,,;;,.,,;;;"e~H§e~an~·n~s~Exa~m~in~er May Creek Trail LUAJ2-037, ECF, SM, SMV PUBLIC HEARING DATE July /0, 2012 Page 9 of /0 enhancement plantings that will be installed as mitigation for the trail project. Moreover, the request for a consistent 6-foot trail width would provide increased environmental protection over the 4-foot trail width and at the same time provide space to allow the subject trail to be comfortably ADA accessible. (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, ar natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Due to the lots narrow shape there is no feasible way to continue the trail east without placing a portion of the trail in the wetland buffer, As such, the trail cannot be located to avoid the wetland buffer and therefore not be subject to the 4-foot maximum trail width applied in wetland buffers. (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts ta the shoreline environment; The subject trail has been identified as a high priority in the City's "Trails and Bicycle Master Plan", Upon completion, the trail would include a 6-mile long trail between Lake Washington and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. The subject segment is a vital missing link to the overall trail system. Furthermore, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, May Creek B, calls for public access to be provided from a trail parallel to the water along the entire property. The subject proposal would be fulfilling this SMP and Comprehensive Plan Policy. (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; The granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege enjoyed by the other properties in the area. In fact the granting of this variance would provide the opportunity for others in the area to enjoy the public trail which would provide sufficient access in a natural setting providing environmental education via interruptive signage. Ie) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and The applicant has requested a trail width of 6 feet which would provide enough space for three people to walk along the trail; two in one direction and one in the opposite direction. If the trail is to be comfortably ADA accessible, it is reasonable to assume that a 6-foot wide trail would provide sufficient space for one person to walk adjacent to a wheel chair and/or one person approaching in the opposite direction to pass a wheel chair. These dimensions would prevent potential impact of native enhancement Cit\' o(Renton Community and Economic May Creek Trail PUBUC HEARING DATE July /0. 2012 opment Department Report to the lIearing Examiner LUAI2·037. ECF. SM. SMV Page /0 of 10 plantings that would be installed as mitigation for the subject trail development. Therefore, the requested variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest would not suffer substantial detrimental effect, as the subject trial would provide access to and enjoyment of a natural area located in an urban setting. In contrast the public interest would be maintained by the granting of the subject variance by balancing recreation and environmental protection for all segments of the population to enjoy .. I. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the proposed public trail. The following sections/pages of the Master Program are applicable to the development: RMC Section Description Page 4-3-090.C.2. Urban Conservancy Overlay District page 3-22 4-3-090.D. General Development Standards Page 3-24 4-3-090.E Use Regulations page 3-40.10 4-9-190.B Shoreline Development Approval page 9-51 4-9c190.1. Variances and Conditional Uses page 9-58.1 Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit be granted. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the May Creek Trail project is provided in Exhibit 24. - H. RECOMENDATION: Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with criteria necessary for Shoreline Variances and Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Shoreline Variances and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the May Creek Trail, Project File No. LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in its Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated issued on June 18, 2012. I- ::E 0 l: W ui ...., '" 0 0: ;;i 0:: " N a.. >- N ..-1 '" z ~ 0 >= () w rn I-..: >-~ 0 -' W ~ W 0 (!) 0:: "-0 0 z 0 >-' ~ 0 <{ "-~ NO.lONIHS'VM 'NOl.N3~ NOJ.N3<1 "0 AUO "0' llV<iJ. >133<10 AVI"l N\fld 3.1IS 'lI133HS }:!3AOO Z o I- (9 Z :r: ~ 0::: -OZ LL O I- Z w 0:: ...• , ~ ~II~I~ / / / / / . //l~ ( I I J I / I ' LL o I " I ~/ I /--- >-1// I-/4 / I o / I~ / / I / I I I I • ·D"'IUlJ."'I:::IOSSV"~~ C ~ SNVAii alAva s I I I I I I I ' I , II I I I II II • , \ ~ I :::;; ;= ul '" i ~ '" ~. of ., z ~ ..r g § "-0 VM 'JJ.NOOO OND! 'NOlN3loI:IO AlJO NOlN3lol :10 AlJO • !,led 1IVlil. )l33IJ::> A VI'j A3AIlJ1S OlHdVIIDOdOl , ! I I , I I I I I I I / / ./ I I I /-1-- ,/ ! , , , Ii! I I i I I i I ! i I I I ' Iii : I i I ! i ' i " .! C\I , ;!. () , . '" ! iii t § ."§ .::: a .... 0, Os , .c § Jf' ' ... ,If! , Q I • ~ !! ~ .. ':!: 11: \1 "II 11: \' )j t: III "II "II II " ':: II III!! ~ !! J: "II II i <t ~ ~ 1: II , ... ~ b 11: ...... !! .... ~ Ii ~ "! ': .~ '1= 'II I:i 'II 'II t. ... 11: 11: ~ 11: ~ ~ ~ I! 10 \l. !! 1111 III III! I II II! n Ii ! ! II !! I i! i! ! t Il! !! II Il iii \II illl II II .. !! ldl .. iii 1'1 Il ~ ;, '!! !! II '!! '!! !! '!! II II ;, iii :: \' ~ '" "II "II !III 111"111 IlIdlllllllilllllll II!!,!!!! Ii Iii Ii II i ! i Ii I II n II i! Ii Ii \I II! Ii Ii Hli! Ii : 1: !! 11: \II II "II !! II II !! l!: 'II "II ): II 11: II ~ i:: !! i! !! l! 'II !! l! \! l! II II i:: !! '!! '!! ." '!! ': ": 11: 111"11 II ": to ): l! !! i: I .. !! to .:1 11: '!! '!! ": l! !! l! 1\ 11: l! :. Ii: l! l W i b ... 1"': \0 '" .. \:d! ... !r ... 'II ~ q ... k 'II !: l! '" ;. l!: 'r 10 ... 'II .. b l! \! 'II " '!! '! 10 \.. \.. , 'II b 'II ... ~ ... , !: b '! ~ ... 10 ... \.. ... 10 1;! 11: ... 2 11: b ... \0 .. b '!! l! i !::::::: :I::::!!!!:!: ~::::::::!:::::: i::!!:::::!:::: I::::::;:::;:: ::::: g ~ (!J u.. o z o ~ o n. NO.lDN1HSVM 'NO.lN3~ NOl.N3<1 ~O A1JO "0' llVlil >133<10 A \f~ NV1d OS3.1 I I I I I I , • 1 II I t I , , --" -_ .. j, oqo -' 1= ~ I=l 00 ::E I=l CD => ::t: U) "if' >< <:> <:> LY ~ N01ElNIHSVM 'N01N3l;l e I I I ! ij I N01N3H ,0 AlIO 'Ii' -"~"'=-iI& I ~i~ CD "0' .... I! .. !h ~ • I .'~-~:;;-. I ! , I ~ : I ;0 l1VHl>133HO AIi~ .~ .. , Sii.1.YI:lOSSYa .... 1:11 c::::I ; I z " .. ~~ SNYAii OIAYO ! I .. o,"!" I ~ i; , ~ S310N :lS31 ~~~L~ ~ ~ NOJ.ElN1HS'v'M 'NO N01N3~ "0 ~I'; "0' llVlll . NYld 10lliNOO 1'V.l~33HO A \flfll 0Z1~OHIN3Ir'jN E>11Vll'v1::11 i ~i :::; ;: ui "' '" z ... N f- N '" z 0 1= C) w rn .,.: f- 0 ...J ~ 0 (!) u. 0 z 0 1= '" 0 a. NO.l~N1HSVM 'N01N3~ NO.LN3lJ 00 A.lIO "0; 11\flJ.L >l33lJO A 'ffl N\fld ~N10W~ lN3ViN~I1V 11\1'W. ~ <.~ .0 " , • , '< ~ 0 , 1\ ,. I I I -~I :e.Ns! ! .~, 'W , "! £' ~ tJ ~ 1; --, I • e . f'i' -"'I"'lh 1,. ~ . ~ I I I I I I ,,~~:£~ ... iii I I I i i III co /Ia • ·"w'SBJ. ... IOOGS ... O .... I::t c:::I I I !IiI!! • i 11 .0 SN"'AB 01""'0 I I I : w ~ 1 " . ~ . , r-.. F 1=1 m I 1=1 f' :t: \l-X IJ,l g ~ " LL o Z o i;; o a. N01ElNIHSVM 'N01N3~ NOIN3~ ~O All::> e "0' "I/"f"-C1~ , ll\fljl >l33~::> A\f1'1 S31I:l0~d lN3ViNEl!1V 1lVHl • • , i : ,~ : : : , '" ! , : , . , , , : , ~ . ::;:"~,,!: ! , : I i , : I : : : ! "", I , : . ' . ~ , : ! , ' I , , '" i II I ~. c+:,,--~-~:--~:'--+-'~~ ~ i : • • ~ I I I I I I i _.=-IA! I I I ""7"'~::-;-~ I". ..... , 611.1.VI::>066V ...... a CI ! z .' e ~tl SNVl\a alAva I I I I ~~hE~ li""llo<z • • • _._------. ---.----.~~ j oo-n:·IJ!lIll<I'IOII:I,x] 1Ql'~ ;_"' ..... lII.(J(] , • • N"I-..ru , ....... V) -..... H ,-.,,41>'...... , •• ! 'f! c---j , . t Ii: !"'lOII_ .. '.",-.. ..: i · 1 " • I ~ . i I ! I = , l iql ; .. ~ A ~ ~ • • • ~~ ~' i ~! ~§ ! ~ ! ~-+--+--4+-+-+--'II'--~ , I '\il-+--f--+-'~ ·_L_-+: +--~-kf--i · i . I i 00 • • • (j) gO , ~ R ~ ~ ~ NOJDNIHSVM 'NO~ S>lH'f'd N~ ~o A..LI:) 11~1 >i33~O A'v'V'J NVld A~l"InS .1.:)Vdl'll NOLlIfElWI1 I / I I / il / / / / / / / ,,-,,- / /' /' ~"i~ 11i f / /' /' >- '" < z" 0" ~=> z'" ~a ~F 0< d~ DS: ~ ~ • ! . ~ I I I I I I Iii ! -"'--~ I I I 'IIi ....... "~-~:::-. ! """ J ..... , 8i1.l.YIOOSSY .... a CI ! : ~:: IiINYJ\B CIAYC I ,iSi!! ' !' i I I ~~IHj i: !~ d • , • • • -.. ~ 1XO+D YlSj I ~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~; " ~ e e ~ " ..: ..: ~ ~ " " " iI r1 S " " ., </ ~ r---+---+-+--r--~---r~-1! - ! -I II 18 I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ •• < ~ ~ ~ § 'qq ~ ~ , • i ~. • ~~ , " ; ~ ~ ., " -i' ~~ ; i1; NOJ.ElN1HS\'M 'NOJ.N3ij S}II:!\fC/~~A.Ll:::l ll'll<l.L >133<1:) AVV>' NV'1c/ NOUVDll:Il::I! NOUV~UI~ 0 z w t? w ~ dB ;; "H II i ; ~ 10 It 1 ,.j"; ,. o· ," i ~f5 g~ · !!; ~ ~~ ~ .. z ~. • ~s 0 <. 5 .~ ~ .< ;g e ~~ , •• " , S~ 2 <. 0 •• ~ ~;;: • " .,,; ~ w I'~ e- O "> N Z i ! ~ • ~~f ~ • ! ~: ~ • ~ ~ I ., ~. ~ i ~ ~. "i r' • . ~ " -. , ~Ii I III ~ ':i ~ '~~ ; ., " I > '8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.~< ~,! ~W~,; ih t t ~,c ~ .~8 n ~ Ii i ':-~7 ~ J, ~ I i} ~n , ~ ~ ~ i ~ i~j ~ ~ ~ j ~ ;jd QU e .. e.,.1SI 0 , n i ~ €l: , , i ~ 0 ~ ~ >' 0 '" ~ 0 z 0 <= " 0 ~ NCIJ.!)NIHSVM 'NOlN31f S)llf'(d NOl.N3~ ~O A.LI::l llvtl.L >l33);1:) A'i NVld ~Nll.NVld NOl1~WW / / / / / / / / / / / / /' / / /~ I " il ~ ~ ~I I I /' /' /' / /' /' /' iii J::I Ii! I :! !l ~ !:! .. ; :: :<I IWI Iml iii i i Imil BiOi l!ll!! I!HH .. ;; i3 ............ ;;.ili !C!C!;;!C!;; 1< ;';."';';' ' .. i' II ! ! ~ :t , " ; ; ' , ~ ~ -~~~~""'"'''IIIJe~!:!?i:;;!l , .' . l :: ~ .. ;: s: .... ~ .. iii 11 :ol I'l S; III i ,;j I r:: a" nuinlilllllll Ii ," ,lIoU,O"1I un ;llh,UUUU" U" ~~:~~~:;j:t:t:t~:t~~:t~ ~ :t "'L ... · ... · ..... "" ... ; i so Si i j'i ij .. ;; .. .............................. !i;i!i!i!i!i!if!i;i!i;ili !i!i!ili ;i;i 'r·rrri'r,.TTT,.T Tr'rr ~~~~~~~NNNNNNNN~ \;' ... NO.wNIHSVM ·NOJ.III~ ~dN01N~~A..L.r.) lJ\1tl! >l33H::J ;.: SNOllV::>I:lI:l3dS ONV S11V130 NOll~I.lIW :d ! iO' w Cl " Z ~ 0- W w :0 a: w u. z 8 NOJ.~IHS"'M 'NO.lN3~ S)I'tIVd N0l.N3}f;jQ A..lIO llVl:U >l33l:l0 A V'" £:lNIl::lOllNOVII 'i SNOIIV::lI:lI03dS NOI.1VElll.llr'j ! I I I I I , I ! I i < . iii N n 5 F " . . tg L I 1 I I. i :! I 1_ I ~ ! I I I I I I i I I I I i"' II I 1 ' ilim! .8-;: .8-.1 .. /, '::i '" :Ii <.:i z '" Z V N ~ oS ~ z 0 >= u "' ~ .: ~ 0 ~ ~ ;. 0 " ~ 0 z 0 F '" 0 "- I I I I I I I I / • ! I • i • . jI ! I 'l'I!!indilil I !dldl!!!11 s I I I I I I I ! I I I I' I I I I ~ 0* • ® ~ 'ii. II I ,: "I ' ! ~ ~ I : ii' • ! / / / • / f • /"f-- ,/ . @ . ...J ~ ~ m ::> en ...J ..: z G: '" 0 ~ t<.ll~"5''fll'f .. ~~Il!l1:III1~~'IIlI!:'''l!llllb.~;l!lIl1 i \, ~ !d~ t. 10 !:! I-\: ~ ~ ~ ~ !. k ~ I: ~ \. 10 \0 ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! II '" ~ !:! ! . • 1l!!!II)1.III1~1I111111!!lIlIi:1I:hlll!.!!i!!II!!!!!!"l.l! ):'::"':':",1I11 !' II • !. . I .11 II 11: !:' l! 1I }: .. II il !! l! !! 1": ':': II I: II III l! !! !! l:l II II 'Il III l:l 'II l! II II II lIlI II h:l li: II I: II I I:: .. ~ 'II ~ 1: \:!Iobll'll I! II '!!'II: II 1Il!!! II b\:;,I1'" Iol! .. ~I:l!\!;!; ~l:b'i"I11I111 ~~ !!l!'i!i:~ ,III IIldllllllndhllllllilllll 111111 I! Iii i I! i II! iii i i!! I III I! j iii iii III!!!!! i i II I llb'lJ:):lI!!lIl1!!lI.blllll!lIlIlI!:<l!"l!:"!!lo"!!l!l!IIIl!!!.'!! !!':':'!::'rllllll~!!II\,!!llllo!!!!"lrhl:'':':)':':l!III:,=':!IRl!lI ~ I!!" 'II == !! 10 t. !! 'It 10 k 10 II ~ Ii 10 II.,\!: l! !! It II !! .... l! '" l:I !! !! ." 10 l! .... I-I-., II .\.< = 10 ~ 10 .. ! b ";, ! 10 ... 10 I-10 10 l! l! \0 l! .. !! 10 ...... b II " i ' ill ! I I i I11I111111I1 i II IIIII!II III!! i I!IIIIII ! 1I111111111 I i II Iii I ! III !! Iii iii; i!; I i II! iii iii i llllll! I!. iii ! IIi II! II ! Ii 1.111111, i"! iii i i ! ,I! i CITY OF RENTON . MAY CREEK TRAJOL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT King County, Washington RENTOOOO-0015 Preparedfor: CITY OF RENTON Parks Planning and Natural Resources 1055 South Grady Way 1. P.O. Box 90012 . Renton, WA 98057-3232 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC_ 415 118th Avenue SE . Bellevue, W A 98005 April 2012 ~ ... ··~l -DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC. City Of Fl . P/annin enton 9 DIVISion /IIAY -,. " luii BIOJLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FEJ[)ERAJL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY NATIONAL FJLOOJ[) mSURANCE PROGRAM CITY OF RENTON PARKS PJLANNING &. NATURAJL RE§OURC~ Of MAY CREEK TRAH.JL . Planning~:snton King County, Washington RENTOOOO-OOJ5 Preparedfor: CITY OF RENTON Parks Planning and Natural Resources lOSS South Grady Way P.O. Box 90012 . Renton, W A 98057-3232 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005 April 2012 IOn MAY _ 0 " ~Uil 1Pd~~~I/'W~fN, 3Y r~es. DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC. 2.. Mpenci i C6 ~ TJECJB[NJ[CAL INFORMA 'fION REPORT (TIR) ANID CONSTRUCTION STORMW ATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWlPPP) May Creek Trail Ren:ntm:n. City JElIaiH -6th Floor 1055 South GradlyWay Ren:nton:n, W A 98057 Parcel No. 322405-9109 RENTOOOO-0015 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 -118th Avenue SE Bellevue, W A 98005 February, 2012 Revised April, 2012 CityOfA· P1ann· eOton 1n90' IviSio n MAY -... 9 lui{ I b ·tx'£Jes . ~DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC, 2... ri~\Y'resl ~p~i~S <.- December 18, 2009 City of Renton Planning Division \055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Attn: Jennifer T. Henning RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AsSESSMENT, IIA WK'S LANDING PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Henning: ~A lANDAU ~ AsSOCIATES This letter report outlines the archaeological assessment that was conducted for the Hawk's Landing project area and will support the environmental compliance documentation effort by the City of Renton (City). This report addresses cultural resource related compliance requirements pertaining to state funded projects, as outlined in the Revised Code of Washington and Washington State Governor's Executive Order 05-05 (EO 05-05). The City provided the following information regarding the project location and proposed improvements. The proposed project is located in the. City of Renton, Washington in Section 32 of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. The proposed improvements will consist of the following: a stormwater system and water lines that Will be located in currently paved areas of the Lake Washington Boulevard right-of-way and a 1,000-foot long by 20-foot wide trail segment extending in a southeasterly direction from Lake Washington Boulevard to Interstate 405 (1-405). The proposed trail segment will be distributed atop stream terraces in a forested area on the north side of May Creek just south of the existing industrial area. Ground disturbance associated with the trail segment will not exceed 50 centimeters (cm) below ground surface (BGS). This letter report summarizes the environmental and cultural context of the project area, and the results of Landau Associates' archaeological survey. Although no cultural materials were identified in the project area, recommendations for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, if any, made during the subsequent construction phase are also included in this letter report. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT The following sections provide overviews of the natural and cultural history of the Hawk's Landing project area and include summary descriptions of physiography, hydrography, climate, geology, soils, flora, fauna, prehistory, ethnohistory, local Native American place names, and history. Environmental Setting 130 2nd Avenue South. Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 0 fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI fY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: May Creek Trail DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4008 Meadow Avenue N LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: , Administrator Community Services Department June 22, 2012 June 18, 2012 h//qfkJ/l--tJ:@~ Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Fire & Emergency Services ~ ~(18Iw~ c. £.(j \ :?t C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Interim Date Administrator/Planning Director Department of Community & Economic Development Date Date EXHIBIT 20 DEPARTMENT OF COMMU. ,Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV City of Renton May Creek Trail DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1} to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 4008 Meadow Avenue N The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development . Planning Division 1 .. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by . David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. • 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. 3. The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in diameter within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. EXHIBIT 21 ERe Mitigation Measures OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: May Creek Trail LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant Is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet In width Instead of the required 4-foot width In a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue Nand Is zoned Residential 8 (RoB) units per acre. The site Is approximately_3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY 10, 2012 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SHORELINE VARIANCE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION II PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING ·FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION, II CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20th day of June, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name> ~~ : ~ --~ "'Y~~ :"'~:' .' j I' ~~ : }:-~:: .. ~ ::~ ',;~ ~'S,: ~~:1'::~~:~~:' ~Re'p;~.~-~;'ti'~~ :::;-L::~ .-.~~'~'. f.~,.,":,.'.':<., . , .. ~". -, -$ Agencies See Attached Amy Maxim Party of Record Todd Black, City of Renton Contact/Applicant/Owner /J'tj" "'fAA' ,,1 .. -A.. .$"'~~:'.':'\E\\!,III'" (Signature. of Sender): 7""4llU"""' ..... "'· ~"4-<m<-.:..~~='"""==----------:i .. ..::-'-E"",.:;'Ii-U"""' 'T 't --; ~ 0;.., .. ,,\\\\\, .. , I,~ ff 't$fo~ EXS',,1. ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ~:r:flo .. ~R~"'\~\ ) ss ~ in a: .. ~"" ~. 0 .... ~ -:::: ~o "'" _ . ~ COUNTY OF KING) ~ \<>"U9" .~ff i : ~ "','" 8 .. 'l.~ ....... f ~ = . "1 45\,. ,111\\\\\\\\,">'''' CO ;: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11111 'IrE Of ~"" ... f signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tn/~IU~l\,,~rposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~ 2D, :2Q/2 Notary (Print): __ --'b-+~A'-'-~. --LC.z..~.L.c ... r,J.,""'"-'-if'__ ___________ _ My appointment expires: A -,q "0'1;;> LAJ u.s-{-OL f ol. ~ template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology ** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region· Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133·9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: 5EPA Reviewer PO Box C·3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055·1219 Metro. Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utiliiies Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124·4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -larry Fisher· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172"' Avenue 5E Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106·1514 39015 172rld Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic PreselVation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson sT, Ms KSC·NR·050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 South center Blvd. PO Box 90868, M5: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009·0868 *Note: Ifthe Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site.Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing Vanessa Dolbee EXHIBIT 23 From: Sent: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.usJ Thursday, June 14, 201211:53 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: RE: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Vanessa, Thank you for sending the City's responses to our comments. Based on these responses, the information provided in the email, and the proposed mitigation measures, all of which should be implemented, our comments/concerns have been addressed for this project. Have a great day, Karen Walter MITFD From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2e12 1e:2S AM To: Karen Walter Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: RE: May Creek Trail, LUA12-e37, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Karen, Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project. below can be addressed with existing code requirements, mitigation and monitoring requirements. We believe a number of your comments proposed mitigation measures, and The trail alignment has been deliberately designed to preserve existing native plantings including all existing trees on site. The provided studies indicate that the trail alignment includes a few native plants which would be tagged, removed and replanted in the riparian area of May Creek. As such, the trail alignment is designed to minimize the overall impact on the stream riparian area and wildlife habitat. The proposed mitigation plan would improve the recruitment of LWD in the future as a large number of conifer trees are proposed to be planted in the riparian area. Furthermore, staff has recommended a mitigation measure to the Environmental Review Committee to required any tree that is 4-inchs in diameter be placed either in the stream as LWD or in the riparian area. The trail would be maintained by the City's Parks Department and in the future, if any trees and/or tree branches were required to be cut and/or downed, these snags would be required by City Code to remain in the stream riparian area. This requirement eliminates the potential for wood to be removed from the stream corridor. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the mitigation and monitoring plan which requires a number of performance measures to ensure plant survival and reduction of invasive species. The monitoring will be required for a minimum of 5 years. If challenges are encountered during the five year monitoring period a contingency plan has been proposed to address potential challenges that may arise. Included in the project proposal are two public information signs. Included in the draft design for these signs is the following statement: Please do not step into the creek. These fish have worked hard to get here and spawn. Help ensure their eggs will hatch safely. The provided signage should facilitate public awareness of the critical habitat located in May Creek thereby reducing potential impacts related to public access. 1 We hope the above addresses your concerns regarding the subject project. We believe the enhancement plantings will result is a higher quality habitat after project completion. Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project. We believe a number of your comments below can be addressed with existing code requirements, proposed mitigation measures, and mitigation and monitoring requirements. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee 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 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:45 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Vanessa, We have reviewed the proposed May Creek Trail project to construct a 0.27 mile long trail along the northern edge of May Creek, east of Lake Washington Boulevard. This is a site that I recently visited (May 17) with Leslie and Todd from the City's Park department. As we discussed in the field, I recommended that the trail be located as far away from May Creek as possible, with the allowance for a viewing platform so people can see the stream but avoids direct access and disturbance to salmon in May Creek. The basis for this recommendation is to create and maintain a vegetated buffer that preserves existing trees and allows for native trees/shrub/understory vegetation restoration to the fullest extent possible. This approach protects two key riparian functions: shade and wood recruitment by allowing for trees to be recruited naturally to May Creek without impacting the trail or requiring their removal due to trail maintenance and pedestrian safety concerns. As noted in the Critical Areas Report and apparent on our field visit, May Creek currently is lacking large woody debris; therefore, it is essential that trees that could recruit to the stream be allowed to do so without being cut into smaller pieces as often occurs during maintenance activities. Smaller sized wood is more mobile and can provide less habitat in the long run due to its inability to retain other pieces of wood and form jams that create large pools with cover for salmon. It is not apparent if the trail can be located farther north to meet these objectives and still avoid harvesting existing trees, which is another consideration, but if the 'trail can be moved north, it should. Per the Critical Areas Report, the trail construction impacts are proposed to be mitigated by avoiding all trees at least 6 inches in diameter and planting a minimum of 320 trees over a minimum of 0.98 acres which will mitigate for construction impacts. There is no discussion about trail operations and the possibility that trail operations will cause additional trees to be removed over time for maintenance and safety reasons as noted above. The concern is that the majority of the trail (0.26 miles of the 0.27 mile trail) is within 200 feet of May 2 Creek, the area where we w~ j expect tree recruitment based v,, the site's potential to grow a tree such as a Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar up to 2ee feet in height. Further, e.2e miles of the trail is proposed to be within lee feet of May Creek with most of the trail being 3e-4e feet away from May Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark. This means that the trail location and future trail maintenance will remove trees that could otherwise fall into May Creek unencumbered and provide fish habitat. The trail project should be required to have an operations plan that preserves existing and mitigation trees to their fullest extent. The operations plan should also include a provision that if any trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater within 2ee feet of May Creek need to be removed, then they should be placed within May Creek. Another element to be considered is the potential for salmon in May Creek to be disturbed or harassed by trail users where the trail provides stream/gravel bar access. This location should at a minimum include signage to remind people to avoid adult salmon, resting, spawning or migrating in May Creek and to avoid accessing the stream during spawning to avoid stepping on salmon redds. If human disturbance becomes a problem, then the City may need to close off the river access during the salmon spawning season to avoid this impact. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 3ge15 l72nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98e92 253-876-3116 3 DEPARTMENT OF CL .• MUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: To be determined LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV May 9,2012 May 22, 2012 EXHIBIT 24 Pursuant to Chapter 9058 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER! APPLICANT: CONTACT: PROJECT LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWN-R: WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF: APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: May Creek Trail Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton, lOSS S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Todd Black, City of Renton, Parks Department, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 4008 Meadow Avenue N LOT A RENTON SP #LUA-11-037-SHPL REC #20110726900006 SD SP DAF-LOT 2 RENTON LLA #LUA-05-069-LLA REC #20051012900009 BEING POR GL 1 LY W OF ST HWY & WLY OF LK WASH BLVD N S 32, T 24N, R 5E May Creek City of Renton PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to City of Renton Department of G Jnity & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 3,2012 Shoreline Management Permit WAIZ-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 2 016 May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The subject site contains May Creek which is identified as a Shoreline of the State; therefore the project is subject to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations. In addition to May Creek one small (786 square foot) Category III wetland was also identified on the project site. The wetland is located within shoreline jurisdiction therefore is also subject to SMP regulations. A Category III wetland within shoreline jurisdiction with a habitat score of less than 20 points is required to have a 75-foot buffer. The proposed trail project would be located within May Creek Reach B and is designated as Urban Conservancy pursuant to the SMP. As proposed the 0.27 mile-long trail has been designed to avoid all significant trees and is situated in areas currently dominated by non-native species. The trail is proposed to be 6 feet in width and composed of permeable materials. Overall the proposed project would result in clearing 0.20 acres of non-native vegetation. The trail setback ranges from 0 -70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of May Creek, but is typically 30 -40 plus feet away from the creek. The closest point to the OHWM is the beach access point, followed by the overlook pUll-out that is approximately 17 feet from the OHWM. At the northern end of the site the trail makes a loop around the wetland adding impacts to the wetland buffer area. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC), walkways or trails required in vegetated open space shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. As demonstrated above, the proposed trail would meet the minimum standards of RMC and the SMP which requires public access in the shoreline area of May Creek Reach B, pursuant to the Public Access Requirement Reach Table (RMC 4-3- 090D.4.f). Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) trails are permitted in Category III wetland buffers if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with RMC is provided. City of Renton Department of G unity & Economic Development , May Creek Trail Shoreline Management Permit WAll-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE OF PERMIT: July 3,2012 Page 3 of 6 The proposed trail would be located in the outer 50% of the wetland buffer, would be made of pervious material, is proposed in a manner that minimizes disturbance, and is associated with mitigation plan. However, the applicant has requested a variance from the maximum width of 4-feet for the trail to be 6-feet in width. If the subject variance is approved then all the above criteria would be met. The applicant provided a Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associate, Inc. dated April 2012, with the application. The subject report delineated and evaluated the wetland, May Creek, wildlife habitat, flood hazards, and geotechnical hazards associated with the development site. Furthermore, the report provides recommendations to minimize impacts on erosion and sediment controls, water quality, and provides a mitigation proposal for any impacts related to the subject project. The provided report breaks down the impacts on the flood hazard area, Shoreline Jurisdiction, the vegetation management buffer, and the wetland. Based on the report the following areas of impact are identified: Flood Hazard Area: Total flood Hazard Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area of Trail within Flood Hazard Area = 0.16 acres Total Length of Trail within Flood Hazard Area = 0.21 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Flood Hazard Area = 1.04 acres 200-foot wide Shoreline Jurisdiction Total Shoreline Jurisdiction Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.19 acres Total Length of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.26 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation with Shoreline Jurisdiction = 1.33 acres 100 -foot wide Vegetation Management Buffer Total Vegetation Management Buffer Area On-Site = 1.98 acres Total Area of Trail within Vegetation Management buffer = 0.20 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Vegetation Management Buffer = 1.09 acres Wetland Total Wetland Area = 0.02 acres Total Wetland buffer = 0.62 Total Area of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.06 acres Total Length of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.08 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland = 0.02 acres City of Renton Department of Ct Jnity & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 3, 2012 Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland Buffer = 0.50 acres Shoreline Management Permit WAll-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page4of6 In addition to the trail construction the applicant has proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in the wetland. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek. The mitigation plan would replace the existing understory dominated by non- native invasive species with a diverse assemblage of native species. The plan includes installation of a minimum of 320 trees, 390 willow cuttings, 1,324 shrubs, and 146 groundcover species if the mitigation is limited to the Base Area. The SMP has a minimum ratio for mitigation of wetland buffer impacts of 1:1; as the proposal includes a minimum ratio of 4.8:1 the mitigation plan exceeds the minimum requirements. The Critical Areas report concludes that the proposed mitigation has been designed to provide a functional lift to May Creek and the existing forested corridor by focusing the replanting effort as close to May Creek as possible, planting coniferous trees, and increasing overall native plant density and diversity. The plant selection includes species that will provide forage, refugia, and nesting opportunities for wildlife, while increasing shade, organic inputs and eventually Large Woody Debris (LWD) to May Creek. Specifically, the project would not result in a loss of ecological function, meets the design criteria for public access sites and provides substantial mitigation. With the application the applicant submitted a Biological Assessment, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Pursuant to the Biological Assessment, the trail has been designed to avoid existing trees, as well as the few patches of native shrubs present on-site. The report identifies that the vegetation to be removed is composed primarily of Himalayan blackberry, but other non-native species such as Japanese knotweed and reed canary grass would be cleared and grubbed during construction and mitigation-related activities. The report further identifies that few native species are present within the footprint of the proposed trail, consisting primarily of isolated sword ferns and salmonberry. The provided plan proposes to remove and replant any native species located within the trail footprint into the mitigation area. The mitigation area is comprised mainly of non-native plant species, the provided report indicates that these plants would be flagged prior to any clearing and grubbing so they are not impacted by the mitigation project. The following sections/pages of the Master Program is applicable to the development: RMCSection 4-3-090.C.2. Description Urban Conservancy Overlay District Page page 3-22 City of Renton Department of Ct.. Jnity & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 3, 2012 4-3-090.D. 4-3-090.E 4-9-190.B 4-9-190.1. General Development Standards Use Regulations Shoreline Development Approval Variances and Conditional Uses Shoreline Manage11Jent Permit WAll-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 5 of 6 Page 3-24 page 3-40.10 page 9-51 page 9-58.1 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in its Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated issued on June 18,2012. This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition(s) hereof. 3. Construction permits shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator/Planning Director Planning Division Date APPEALS: Appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issuance must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals are made by filing a request in writing within the twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the final order and concurrently filing copies of such request with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office as provided in section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. All copies of appeal notices shall also be filed with the City of Renton Planning DiVision and the City Clerk's office. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, 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 City of Renton Department of CI.. Jnity & Economic Development May Creek Trail DATE OF PERMIT: July 3, 2012 Shoreline Monagement Permit LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 6 016 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: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of RMC 4-9-190, construction activities, or a use or activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Washington State Department of Ecology. DEFINITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: the construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. Exhibits! Attach ments: A: Neighborhood Detil Map B: Cover Sheet & Site Plan cc: Attorney General's Office Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. City of Renton! Owner(s)!Applicant Todd Black! Contact Parties of Record City of Renton Offical File ,-. City.of , ~ ----...,-1l, ~)!~lhllh])TIn ~ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE Of A DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSoM) POSTED TO NOTlFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PR01~CTNAMl: M.yC_kTIlIIi PROJECT NUMBER: LUAll.f1J1, Ea, SM. SMV LOCATION, 4001 Mlld<>w Ann~. III DESCRIPTION: Tho Ippllnnt ,. roqu .. tlnl SEPA (nylronm.ntol R.vlaw ond • 51>o,01In, Substamlll O .... loplftlnt "rmll for tho conrtruttlon '" • O,Z7 mil. Ian. trail "onl May Cl'nl<. In .ddltlan, tho Ip~ICllnl 10 raquHtl"" SIIo",II ... Vorl.net Irvm lIMe 4-l-OlKIO.2.d.bo.II)(1) 10 tot\IUUCI the trail .,, 1.01 In width Inouod 01 tho roqulnld 4-'_ width In ._tl."" butl.r, Tho ,Ito I. """!Old .1400II Mudow Av ..... N .nd b lonod Rl1ldonll.l. (II·BI units PO' Icr •. Tho .It. I.oppnl,umllll., J.D!I .ere. In 11".,d .buts opprlllllm.toly 900 lIno" I.ot of May Cr.ok. Tho ,ublul "Imont 0' May Creok Is lotlt.d In tho Urbln COlUeN.nty ShoroUnl DISIIlQIIIon. Tho Inilhtld would blloQtld u LIke WI.hll\ltOn Boul ..... rd .nclwould munder throII,hout thl "",jl(t .Itl, onl vi,..... ...... ""ld bo pravldl'd for." oYlrIook to May CrHIt. Two ocu .. palntl art propowd to thl non.h to prvvldl I ... nneetlon to thl futu,. dey,lopm,nt on 1M lib to the north. Tho P"'jKl .. ould nakI "mo .. ,1 0/ IlIt"""nd pi'll""'" nlll ... pl,ntJ. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CQMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DEITRMINED THAT THE PROPOSED AeTlON DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICAm ADVER.SE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT .. . Appeal. olthllnvlronmlnlll determination must be mid In ..... rltlnl on Dr belor. $:00 p.m. on July 6, 2t1U, tOlltherwlth thl requl"d I .. With: Htlrlnl [,..mlner, Cltv 01 Renton, ttlSS South Grady Way, RlnlOn, WA 98057. AppI.I, 10 the Eamln ... ro lovernld by CIty 01 RMe 4-8·110 and Information r.prlllni the appeal process may h obtaIned from the Renton aty a'rk'IOfflce, (415) 4l().6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HOlD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.S ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL. 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY ttl, 2012 AT to;oo AM TO CONSIDER THE SHORELINE VARIANCE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISAPPEALfO, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF nus PUBLIC HEARING. CERTIFICATION I, JOO S.U biq , hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document were posted in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date:.....!rIot,a:...:..~AJ=).'O=(2. ___ _ Signed: C{}~. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that J IJ.-C~;+b, .5 t.c-b lC, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. cH cA ~t1~ Notary Public i and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): I LAG r f;.r __ ~~~~~,~=~=v~, ________ _ My appointment expires: __ "-,4,,,", L.l.131-""" .... d'--:...:::2"'-"'~r-:::-(;)...::.:O"'"' :...11<--___ _ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20th day of June, 2012, I deposited in the mails ofthe United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Amy Maxim Party of Record Todd Black, City of Renton Contact/Applicant/Owner ./, . _ /J.. _ A_ ",-=--=-""\\\\"~"', .. (Signature of Sender): ~?,LLkliU~~'tj,64-~tJt.!.L....!~=~~-=--------i!-.6'/r '~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ; ~ ~C>!l~ -~ ) ss i 8 .' . ~ .. II~ :I COUNTY OF KING) ~ ".l>U~.'" i! \ ..... e·"'" iF ~l ,,~ ..... -. ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ~III 4~ Of ~~-<:-.$' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t~~lI~Il~~rposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~ 20 :lot? i Notary PUlic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print):. __ ---'Hc...,AC!..~. ---l(.~~:lc:J;r.J,""Ia..l:x::!:v ___________ _ My appointment expires: A-u.j l.Ld--~ q ( ;lOU Project Name: May Creek Trail Project Number: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology" Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98S04·7703 WSDOT Northwest Region '" Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133·9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C·3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504·7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055·1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR·0431 Seattle, WA 98104·3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124·4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW· larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. '" 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office '" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program '" 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106·1514 39015 172T\d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092·9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division '" Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'" Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC·NR·050 Olympia, WA 98504·8343 Seattle, WA 98104·38S5 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032·5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD·01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009·0868 ·Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. ··Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: May Creek Trail LUA12·037, ECF, SM, SMV 4008 Meadow Avenue N DESCRIPTION: The applicant 15 requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline VarIance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.lx.(f){1) to construct the trail at 6 feet In width Instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site Is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue Nand Is zoned Residential 8 (R-S) units per acre. The site Is approximately 3.09 acres In size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4·8·110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430·6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY 10, 2012 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SHORELINE VARIANCE. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ~@]I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. " , (" .. " . Denis Law Mayor June 20,20i2 Todd Black City 'of Renton· 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA98057 Department of Community and Economic Development . CE."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator . SUBJECT: . ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOlD (SEPAl DETERMINATION M~yCreek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM; S(I,iIV DearMr. Black: . . This letter is written 'on behalf of the Erivironmental Review Committee (ERe) .to advise you that they have completed their review of the subjettproject and have issued a .' .threshold Determination cif Non~Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. · Please ~efer to the .enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation'Measures.· . .' . . .. . . . Appeals oUhe e~vironmerit~Ldetermination must be filed in writing otlor before 5:00 '. p.m: on July 6,2012, together with the required fee with: Hea'ringExaminer, City of R'enton, 1055 Sou"th Grady WaY,Henton, WA98057.Appeals to the Examiner are governed byRMC 4-8-110and additionali~formation regardi~g the appeal process may .:be obtained from the RentoriCity Cle;k's Office, (425)430-6510 .. ' . . · Also, a Public Hearing wil.1 be held. by the Renton Hearing Examiner in theCouncH Chambers on the seventh. floor of City Hall, 1055 South' Grady Way, Renton; Washington, on July 10,2012 atlO:OO a.m. to consider the Shoreline Variance. The applicant or representative(s) ofthe applicant is required toJJe presentatthe public. · hearing~ A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the tie~ring: Ifthe Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part ofthis public hearing .• . The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project · and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, 'if you choose to do so, If you . have anyquestions or desire clarification ofthe above, please callm'e at (425) 430-7314. Renton City Hall • i 055 South c:;rady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentoniNa.gov '" • ~ .,' Todd Black Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2012 For the Environmental Review Committee, ~-J)J~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Amy Maxim I Party(ie,) of Record ERG Determination Ltr DNSM 12-037.doc , , , Denis Law' Mayor Juhe20,,2012 Department of Community and Economic Development " C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator . Washington State '. Department ofEcology . Environmental ReviewSection PO Box 477P3 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 , Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following . project ,'reViewed by the E'nvironmental Review Committee (ERe) on Jurie 18, 2012: ' DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ~MITIGATED " PROJECT NAIViE: May Creek Trail' , ' " , PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV LOCATION: '40'08 Meadow Avenue N , DESCRIPTION:, ," The applicant ,is requesting ~EPA Environmental Review' and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the constru~tion ~f a 0.27 ' 'milelongtrail along May Creek. In addition,the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(l) tpconstrutt the trail at 6 ': f~et in width,instead of.the required 4-footwidth in a wetland b~ffer.' " Appeals oUne environmental determination mus't be filed in writing on orbefore S:OO ,:p.m. on July 6, 2012, togeth~~ With the required f~e with: Hearing Examiner, City of ,,' , Renton, 1055 So~th Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, Appeal~ to the Examiner are, governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional info~mation regarding the appeal p~ocess may , ,be obtained fro~ the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. .' ' ' Please refer to' the enclosed Notice of Environme~t~1 [)etermination fcircomplete details, If you halie questions, please call meat (425) 430-7314.' . . "". Forthe Environmen~al Review Committee, ~-EJJbtuL Vanessa Dolbee" Senior Planner Enclos'ure , Renton City Hall, ' 1055 South (:iradyWay • Re~t6n, Washington 98057 ~ rentonwa.gov -' I , ) Washington State Departmen, ecology Page 2 of 2 June 20, 2012 cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV City of Renton May Creek Trail DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 4008 Meadow Avenue N The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. 3. The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in diameter within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. S. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: May Creek Trail DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 4008 Meadow Avenue N The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are pravided as Information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT B Cit YOn. ." "< ~~ - -= ~ ... ' ~IIDl1@IID ~ ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) . APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: May Creek Trail DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the requir~d 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4008 Meadow Avenue N LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higa iya ,Administrator Community Services Department June 22, 2012 June 18, 2012 t ~~~ ,6J1/~I!-~ Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Fire & Emergency Services ~ ~6glWtL c. £.(J \ ;xf C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Interim Date Administrator/Planning Director Department of Community & Economic Development Date Date DEPARTMENT OF CO", •..• UNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: TIME: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE MEETING AGENDA Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Interim CED Administrator/Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Monday, June 18, 2012 3:00 p.m. Sixth Floor Conference Room 11620 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA May Creek Trail WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV (Do/bee) Location: 4008 Meadow Avenue N. Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3- 090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director· D. Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator -Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director· N. Watts, Development Services Director· L. Warren, City Attorney· Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal • J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN. . AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Nome: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner/Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: June 18, 2012 May Creek Trail LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton, 10555. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Todd Black, City of Renton, Parks Department, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 4008 Meadow Avenue N The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.{f)(1} to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 {R-8} units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. None 134,531 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): . Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): Total Building Area GSF: None None None Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated {DNS-M}. Project Location Map ERe Report lZ-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & , ,mic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND Ivironmental Review Committee Report WAI2-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 2 of 11 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trailhead would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site; one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the abutting site to the north. In addition to the 6-foot wide trail, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split-rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. In addition to the trail construction the applicant has proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in Wetland A. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of disturbance for trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base Area would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres reSUlting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. The site is bordered by the old Pan Abode Homes development to the north, zoned Commercial Office Residential (COR); to the east of 1-405 and across 1-405, CA zoned property that is currently vacant; to the south is R-8 zoned property which is currently vacant; and, to the west, across Lake Washington Boulevard, is the Barbee Mill Development zoned R-10 and vacant COR property. The proposed trail development would serve the existing residents in the area and the potential future residences and/or employees that could result from development of the surrounding vacant properties. The subject trail has been identified as a high priority in the City's "Trails and Bicycle Master Plan". Upon completion, the trail would include a 6-mile long trail between Lake Washington and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. The subject segment is a vital missing link to the overall trail system. In addition to the site being located along May Creek, the proposed trail would also be located within the flood plain of May Creek. Based on the provided application materials, the trail would be built on grade resulting in approximately 250 cubic yards of soil removed and 230 cubic yards of soil imported to the site. However, the applicant has indicated that the provided cut and fill would not impact the flood hazard area as there would be no net fill after final construction. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Report of June 18, 2012 Page 3 of 11 A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures C. D. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPPj, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. 3. The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in di'ameter within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. S. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Cover Sheet & Site Plan Exhibit 2 Topographic Survey Exhibit 3 TESC Plan Exhibit 4 Trail Alignment Horizontal Control Plan Exhibit 5 Trail Alignment Grading Plan Exhibit 6 Trail Alignment Profiles Exhibit 7 Mitigation Impact Summary Plan Exhibit 8 Mitigation Irrigation Plan Exhibit 9 Mitigation Planting Plan Exhibit 10 Mitigation Details and Specifications Exhibit 11 Mitigation Specifications & Monitoring Exhibit 12 Site Furnishing Details Exhibit 13 Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit 14 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 15 Muckleshoot Comment e-mail Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: . ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & , )mic Development MA Y CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 1. Water a_ Wetland, Streams, Lakes Jvironmental Review Committee Report WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 4 of 11 Impacts: The subject site contains May Creek which is identified as a Shoreline of the State; therefore the project is subject to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations. In addition to May Creek one small (786 square foot) Category III wetland was also identified on the project site. The wetland is located within shoreline jurisdiction therefore is also subject to SMP regulations. A Category III weHand within shoreline jurisdiction with a habitat score of less than 20 points is required to have a 75-foot buffer. The proposed trail project would be located within May Creek Reach B and is designated as Urban Conservancy pursuant to the SMP. As proposed the 0.27 mile- long trail has been designed to avoid all significant trees and is situated in areas currently dominated by non-native species. The trail is proposed to be 6 feet in width and composed of permeable materials. Overall the proposed project would result in clearing 0.20 acres of non- native vegetation. The trail setback ranges from 0 -70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of May Creek, but is typically 30 -40 plus feet away from the creek. The closest point to the OHWM is the beach access point, followed by the overlook pull-out that is approximately 17 feet from the OHWM. At the northern end of the site the trail makes a loop around the wetland adding impacts to the wetland buffer area. Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC), walkways or trails required in vegetated open space shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. As demonstrated above, the proposed trail would meet the minimum standards of RMC and the SMP which requires public access in the shoreline area of May Creek Reach B, pursuant to the Public Access Requirement Reach Table (RMC 4-3-090D.4.f). Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) trails are permitted in Category III wetland buffers if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with RMC is provided. The proposed trail would be located in the outer 50% of the wetland buffer, would be made of pervious material, is proposed in a manner that minimizes disturbance, and is associated with mitigation plan. However, the applicant has requested a variance from the maximum width of 4- feet for the trail to be 6-feet in width. If the subject variance is approved then all the above criteria would be met. ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & L MAY CREEK TRAIL mic Development vironmental Review Committee Report WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Report of June 18, 2012 Page 5 of 11 The applicant provided a Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associate, Inc. dated April 2012, with the application. The subject report delineated and evaluated the wetland, May Creek, wildlife habitat, flood hazards, and geotechnical hazards associated with the development site. Furthermore, the report provides recommendations to minimize impacts on erosion and sediment controls, water quality, and provides a mitigation proposal for any impacts related to the subject project. The provided report breaks down the impacts on the flood hazard area, Shoreline Jurisdiction, the vegetation management buffer, and the wetland. Based on the report the following areas of impact are identified: Flood Hazard Area: Total flood Hazard Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area of Trail within Flood Hazard Area = 0.16 acres Total Length of Trail within Flood Hazard Area = 0.21 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Flood Hazard Area = 1.04 acres 200-foot wide Shoreline Jurisdiction Total Shoreline Jurisdiction Area On-Site = 2.80 acres Total Area of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.19 acres Total Length of Trail within Shoreline Jurisdiction = 0.26 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation with Shoreline Jurisdiction = 1.33 acres 100 -foot wide Vegetation Management Buffer Total Vegetation Management Buffer Area On-Site = 1.98 acres Total Area of Trail within Vegetation Management buffer = 0.20 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation within Vegetation Management Buffer = 1.09 acres Wetland Total Wetland Area = 0.02 acres Total Wetland buffer = 0.62 Total Area of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.06 acres Total Length of Trail within Wetland Buffer = 0.08 miles Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland = 0.02 acres Total Amount of Proposed Mitigation in Wetland Buffer = 0.50 acres In addition to the trail construction the applicant has proposed a mitigation/restoration plan which would provide enhancement plantings along the shoreline of May Creek and in the wetland. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement and compensation for 0.20 acres of trail development. Due to the potential for bid costs to exceed estimates, the applicant has proposed two mitigation scenarios; identified as the "Base Area" and "Additive Alternate No.1" herein. The Base area would provide mitigation for ERe Report 12-037.doc City oj Renton Department oj Community & • Jmic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18; 2012 Ivironmental Review Committee Report WA12·037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 6 of 11 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would· provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek. The mitigation plan would replace the existing understory dominated by non-native invasive species with a diverse assemblage of native species. The plan includes installation of a minimum of 320 trees, 390 willow cuttings, 1,324 shrubs, and 146 groundcover species if the mitigation is limited to the Base Area. The SMP has a minimum ratio for mitigation of wetland buffer impacts of 1:1; as the proposal includes a minimum ratio of 4.8:1 the mitigation plan ex~eeds the minimum requirements. The Critical Areas report concludes that the proposed mitigation has been designed to provide a functional lift to May Creek and the existing forested corridor by focusing the replanting effort as close to May Creek as possible, planting coniferous trees, and increasing overall native plant density and diversity. The plant selection includes species that will provide forage, refugia, and nesting opportunities for wildlife, while increasing shade, organic inputs and eventually large Woody Debris (lWD) to May Creek. Specifically, the project would not result in a loss of ecological function, meets the design criteria for public access sites and provides substantial mitigation. However, to ensure the recommendations included in the provided Critical Areas report are met, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Nexus: Critical Areas Regulations and Shoreline Management Program. b. Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted with the project application a Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. Based on the provided TIR the project site is heavily forested and is almost entirely within the 100-year flood plain. The TIR identifies that with the exception of May Creek, there is little drainage that enters the project site and that there is no defined drainage channels into May Creek. Under current conditions, rainfall drains into the creek via sheet flow and interflow. There are no proposed changes to the existing drainage system at the subject site, as the proposed trail would match eXisting grades to the greatest extent possible. The provided TIR identifies that the trail is proposed to be constructed out of a porous material that would not impede the sheet flow and interflow characteristics of the site. The trail would be constructed out of bark mulch and gravel borrow, which would be equivalent or better at retaining moisture compared to the native materials. The TIR concludes that the trail project would have no impacts on upstream drainage and would not result in a backwater condition nor would the project have impacts on the downstream drainage or bridge crossings. Furthermore, the TIR concludes that the project is exempt from Flow Control and Water Quality because it creates less than 2,000 square feet of new, plus replaced imperious surfacing and less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface. In addition to analysis of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), the TIR included a CSWPPP analysis and design. Included in this section of the report are recommendations for erosion and sediment control; including but not limited to clearing limits, cover measures, perimeter protection, traffic area stabilization, sediment retention, surface ERe Report 12·037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & I )mic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 Ivironmental Review Committee Report WA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 7 of 11 water collection, etc. Based on the recommendations for sediment control, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the recommendations included in the provided TIR and CSWPPP. The subject site is located within a designated flood hazard area for May Creek. The applicant provided a Flood Hazard Area Memorandum, prepared by David Evans and Associates, dated April 19,2012. This memorandum addresses the additional flood hazard information required when a project is located within a flood hazard area. The subject proposal does not include any structures therefore compliance with flood proofing and minimum height above base flood elevation would not be applicable. Additionally the memorandum identifies that the watercourse of May Creek would not be altered by the subject project. The memorandum concludes that the May Creek trail project would not adversely impact the May Creek flood hazard area nor the FEMA 100-year floodplain. No fill would be added and no buildings would be constructed within the flood hazard area. Additional habitat impacts that could result from a development project in a flood hazard area are addressed below under "Wildlife". Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Technical Information Report (TIR) and a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP), prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., dated February 2012. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. Vegetation Impacts: The site is primarily forested and dominated by deciduous species. Red alder and black cottonwood are the most prevalent species, but a few big-leaf maple trees are also present at the subject site. The understory is dominated by non-native species including Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, and Japanese knotweed. Other species found on the site include beaked hazelnut, dogwood, salmonberry, English ivy, and sword fern. With the application the applicant submitted both a Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Pursuant to the Biological Assessment, the trail has been designed to avoid existing trees, as well as the few patches of native shrubs present on-site. The report identifies that the vegetation to be removed is composed primarily of Himalayan blackberry, but other non-native species such as Japanese knotweed and reed canary grass would be cleared and grubbed during construction and mitigation- related activities. The report further identifies that few native species are present within the footprint of the proposed trail, consisting primarily of isolated sword ferns and salmonberry. The provided plan proposes to remove and replant any native species located within the trail footprint into the mitigation area. The mitigation area is comprised mainly of non-native plant species, the provided report indicates that these plants would be flagged prior to any clearing and grubbing so they are not impacted by the mitigation project. The Base Area mitigation plan would provide mitigation for 0.98 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 4.8:1. The Additive Alternative No.1 mitigation would provide mitigation for an additional 0.35 acres resulting in a mitigation ratio of 6.5:1. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek. The mitigation plan would replace the existing understory dominated by non-native invasive species with a diverse assemblage of native species. The plan includes installation of a minimum of 320 trees, 390 willow cuttings, 1,324 shrubs, and 146 groundcover species if the mitigation is limited to the Base Area. Based on the provided mitigation plan and the ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & L mic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 8 of 11 site baseline conditions, the subject project is anticipated to improve the vegetation composition at the subject site. During the project comment period, a comment was received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. Included were a number of concerns relating to salmon habitat including but not limited to large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, removal of trees 4-inches in diameter and greater and potential impacts of the public on salmon resting, spawning or migration (Exhibit 15). Based on the provided plan, the subject trail proposal should avoid all trees on the site, if a smaller diameter tree was found in the trail area it would be re-planted within the riparian area. However, the Muckleshoot recommends a mitigation measure that if trees 4-inches in diameter and greater are removed within 200-feet of May Creek they should be placed within May Creek. Staff concurs with the Muckleshoot's recommendation .. The majority of the comments included in the e-mail have been addressed by either existing Renton Municipal Code or the SMP with the exception of public awareness of critical habitat. However, two public information signs are proposed at the subject site. Included in the draft proposal for the public information signs is a notice to the public that states "Please do not step into the creek. These fish have worked hard to get here ond spawn. Help ensure their eggs will hatch safely."The provided signage should facilitate public awareness ofthe critical habitat located in May Creek potentially reducing impacts related to public access. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall retain any trees 4 inches in diameter Within the riparian area of May Creek and/or place the trees removed within the Creek as large woody debris. No trees shall be removed from the subject site. Nexus: RMC 4-4-130, SEPA regulations. 3. Wildlife Impacts: The subject project is located along May Creek in a forested area to the north of the stream. The subject site has the potential to provide quality habitat to a number of species. The following species were identified in the SEPA checklist as being observed on or near the subject site: hawks, heron, eagles, songbirds, deer, raccoons, squirrels, voles, mice, rats, salmon, trout, sculpins, pea mouth and largescale suckers. In addition Chinook salmon and steelhead trout have been reported to occasionally utilize May Creek, both these species are considered either threatened or endangered species. With the application the applicant submitted both a Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. The Biological Assessment is a required study aimed at addressing the finding of the Biological Opinion (BO) prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be consistent with the judicial order in National Wildlife Federation, et 01 v. FEMA, et al (345 F. Supp. 2d 1151; 2004 U.S. Dist., Nov. 15, 2004). Based on the provided Biological Assessment, May Creek supports several salmonid species, including fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steel head, and resident cutthroat trout. In addition, numerous other non-salmonids utilize this stream. Furthermore, the Biologist who conducted the field visits for the subject report, observed Sockeye salmon and kokanee spawning immediately upstream of the Lake Washington Boulevard Bridge crossing over May Creek on November 16, 2011. The provided studies identify habitat conditions in May Creek to be variable, but typical for most urbanized streams in that habitat conditions have been ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & MAY CREEK TRAIL omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report WAU-037, ECF, SM, SMV Report of June 18, 2012 Page 9 of 11 degraded. In-stream LWD is mostly absent at the site however, some log/stick jams were reported to be creating pools. The provided Critical Areas Report identifies that many mammals, birds, and amphibians/reptiles may utilize the May Creek site. Some of which include: black bear, opossum, Trownsed's Mole, silver-haired bat, snowshoe hare, beaver, porcupine, striped skunk, bobcat, northwestern salamander, Western toad, Pacific tree frog, Northwestern garter snake, and 76 bird species that could potentially nest in the general area. The report concludes that based on the review of existing habitat conditions, federally-listed species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS do not exist within the immediate project area. May Creek does not provide suitable habitat for bull trout, nor has it been designated as critical habitat. There are no documented bald eagle nests within 1.0 mile of the project area. The Nationa! Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) has jurisdiction over federally-listed anadromous salmon ids, marine mammals and turtles, designated Chinook salmon critical habitat, and essential fish habitat, which is addressed below. The provided Biological Assessment includes a species analysis (for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and southern resident killer whales), impact minimization measures, (for erosion and sediment control, mitigation plan, water quality, etc.), effects analysis (for floodplain habitat alterations, salmonid baseline habitat conditions, southern resident killer whales impacts, and interrelated and interdependent actions), and a determination of effects. The Determination of Effects concludes that the project would have no effect on Chinook salmon and their critical habitat, Puget South steelhead trout, southern resident killer whale (SRKW) and their critical habitat for the following reasons: Chinook salmon rarely utilize May Creek and those that do are likely strays from the Cedar River or of hatchery origin; The project would not permanently degrade baseline conditions; The project would improve some baseline conditions The project is limited to construction of a pedestrian trail and mitigation The project would not remove trees along the stream channel The project would install a minimum of 320 trees, 390 willow cuttings, 1,324 shrubs, and 146 ground cover species on the project site; Land-clearing activities would occur primarily in areas dominated by non-native species; No in-water work is proposed; The project would not create pollution-generating impervious surface; The project would not result in an increase of fill within the floodplain; The project would not measurably alter topography within the floodplain; The project does not include any structures; The project includes erosion control and monitoring requirements; The SRKW does not occur in the action area; The project would not adversely impact SRKW prey (Chinook salmon); and SRKW critical habitat does not occur in the action area. Additionally the Biological Assessment concludes that the project would have no adverse effect on essential fish habitat for Pacific salmon for the same reasons as stated above. Moreover, the absence of in-or over-water work, the small project footprint, avoidance of existing trees, trail ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & , Jmic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 Ivironmental Review Committee Report WAl2-03l, ECF, SM, SMV Page 10 of 11 placement within an area dominated by Himalayan blackberry, implementation of impact minimization measures, and proposed mitigation/restoration measures, project effects to baseline salmonid habitat conditions would be minimal and beneficial over time_ Indicators that are anticipated to improve after the project is completed include; temperature of May Creek, LWD, stream bank conditions, and riparian reserve_ However, in order to ensure that all mitigation measures and minimization measures proposed are complied with, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in both the Critical Areas Report and a Biological Assessment, both prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. dated April 2012. Nexus: Critical Areas Regulations, judicial order in National Wildlife Federation, et 01 v. FEMA, et 01 (345 F. Supp. 2d 1151; 2004 U.S. Dist., Nov. 15, 2004), and Shoreline Management Program. 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: The applicant provided an Archaeological Assessment for the subject project, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. The provided study concludes that no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the current investigation. The pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological materials on the surface or in the shovel probes. No further archaeological work was recommended by the study for the project area based. upon the degree of previous ground disturbance and the absence of cultural materials in the shovel probes excavated along the proposed trail. However, the report further indicates that the potential for such discoveries remain as the project is located in a high probability zone given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. Therefore the report recommends that if archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance should be halted and activities directed away from the area. In addition the report recommends that if human skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, all work activities should cease immediately. Based on the potential for such discoveries, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included in the Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Landau Associates, dated December 18, 2009. Nexus: SEPA and Executive Order 05-05. E_ Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text ofthis report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43_21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680)_ ERe Report 12-037.doc City of Renton Department oj Community & < )mic Development MAY CREEK TRAIL Report of June 18, 2012 lvironmental Review Committee Report WAI2·037, ECF, SM, SMV Page 11 of 11 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 6, 2012. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-J'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERe Report 12-037.doc , I-- ::!; U ;; w w' ..., "' '" 0 Z 0::: '" 0.. N l- N -l M Z ~ 0 ;:: () w U) I--.: l- 0 ~ -' ~ W W (!) 0::: "-U 0 Z 0 ~ ~ 0 a. ~ NO.l.E:lNIHS'VM 'NOJ.N3}:l NO.lN3~ "0 A.lIO "0' llVlJ.l ){33~O Allv-I NVld 3lIS 'II' 133HS }:l3i\OO . . ! ,,',' ~. ~ ' __ -..........'"' •. '4~ .. Z 0 I- 19 Z I C/) <{ S 0::: -OZ LLO I-- Z W 0::: LL 0 >- I II " .; .... ,. e 'Ii .-. . <-""f h Q. ~§ ~i 5 ~ • ~ z a E • a Ii; z ~ 8 ~ .~ • 0 X ~ z a w ~ m 0 " • ~ m ;:: tu w r ~ G ~ '" ,; -"'~-Ii .I~--~=-- ..... , SlI.L ... I:>OS8'" aNY I=» ION ........ 01 ..... ,'0 ~ 5 ~ ~ • z • g a ~ a i 8 ~ ~ i ~ • 0 • ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ i ~ z 0 ~ ;;: z z ~ 0 0 0 a 0 ~ ~ z ~ x 0 • " ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ .~ , • ~ • ~ z z z z z ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Q a :1 * Q • z g ~ ~ g ~ g ~ 0 0 E E E E E ~ ~ " , • , > • 3 B ~ ~ ~ i g !1 i ~ < '" o· 8~ &~ ~5 / /:<1 ". ) gi t I I I I I I i I ~ . I I II, I iIi 0 I " I~; I "!' I I ~~ E!O! w il' ': a ~ B:li Co, 0 ..... c t:: ·2 a.t~ "'" ·0 CCQ ~ ~ a .... OJ e 0 0) z ·S a > ~§ a ~ , ~ e~ ~ ~ i l .f 0 • g " ~ ,d Ii; 'I I ;; a Iii'! li,11 @ 0 ~ • • ~ ,.j, !i;!i • x i z ~ -< e,,!:, .. 0 ~ !~g~ ~ ~ 6!l~~5 II • i1 a • ~ • ~ • II ~ I" t " e z • ~ II 5, ! ~ i ~r ~j '!' ~ II ~i ~ ~ ~ a ! ~~ iij ~~ __ L __ -< 0;=1 t= ~ ~ I:t) 1=1 ::c ::;; CD >< :::> (J) w .... '" <=> ~ '1M 'AlNflOO ONJ)I 'NOlN3ll :10 AJr.) NO.LN311 :10 AJr.) !,JO:I 1I'ftil )I33!l:) A Wi S I I I I I I -,,=-~ , , ,,-----___ 'I.;'. "· .. silli'loossv" .... ~ c::II , 6NVl\i1011\Va i I I i I P i ! I ~, > , I ~ • ~ I· i I i I!! i! !IIHI!L! I Hln!ihd!!i! ~ I r i j. • ' . iii C\I () ,1m! • • i t> §R~iH~ ! h • c:-.g .!!J '" is .... 0, Os ~€ I . • I / / I / / / .".- / / / ".- 0*··1 , I I f , ".-·r- / . ".- I , I I l I I I I ' "'-I i ~ iii: Jf~ :§ I I i I Q I ' I ' ! I i I ! I I i , ! t "!! 'Ii: 'II ~ II 11lI; 10 ~ "II 'II = II iii II II " I; _ li: ~ to !! iii II b 11 to Ii io JI II ! II IIIIII11 II ! IIIl! II IIIII ! Ii! ! II 1!!!lIIIi!1Hliil!!!niHi!!!!i!! ! , .1~t'~lIl!lI'l:lIli:lI.!!.lI.lIl1'11I1!!\':!!ioll'::~!!~lI.l!.;II:=." I. I.. .. l! I;< 10 ~ ~ :i: 10 ;. ;, ':. 'II '" 10 10 ); ':: !d: '= 1:0 .. 1;d! ~ ... ':: ;, ... '= ;, 1:0 .,. II l! l! II \I: ., : Ii: ':: '5' II iii I: ':: II lI:: 1: l! 'II iii):; \! li: ~ i:.:: l!;, \!"!I loll! l! io II .. it ':: l:: :: l!: io" ;, 11 II II b ;,!! i:. II" i: I=::"!! :: l! ~!!" l! ': l! II I!.;' :: i ); l! 'II ~ , , 9:l I ':: 10 II ~ \! 10 10 '= II 10 \! 10 'II !I; II 10 'II '= !; \! ;, 10 = '! 10 10 \;0 10 II b \! '!! 10 11 '= ... \.. ~ , lI. b ;, ... ~ 10 ~ ':. b '= ~ 10 \, 10 \. 10 10 iii It ... II II b ... 10 ... '!! II ;, ,~ !ilhlill!illlllld!l!lllilllillilil nlllll!dl!lilllillilil 1111111 f!: I i ~ i ~ I! I ~ ~Ii i J; i; II iii: II i I;! filiI, iii i i; i i IIIII ~ ~ I ~ II i I ~ ~; a iii iii ~ Iii i ~ w "' c: ;;i ~ I- ~ Z o hl C/J g ~ " u. o z o ~ ~ NOIDNIHSVM 'NOl.N3~ N01N3<1 ;0 All:) "0; llVlH >l33Kl AWl NVld 3S31 , \ irA, I R,r" I " i' ,I , i ! I ' II 0 s I I I I I I I ' I II I I I I I I t : . , , NOlElNIHS'v'M ·NOJ.N3~ S I I I I I I r I e 1" N01N3lJ ;0 AlI:J '/,'--"'~-~ I I I"-III~_~:::-. , "0' -....,,,,: . -II ·0 llVlH ll33lJ:J AVW -,.... SilJ. ... IOO&S ......... c:t ~ I dillf c SN ... ,.:a OIM'O I ; I I ~ NVld lO~lNO::J W1NOZl~OH lN3~N811V ll~l i I i . ~ • NO.L£>NIHS'tM 'NO.LN3B i I I I I I I !~ I NO-'-N3~ ~O A.l1:J e -=-~ I I ;"-co • '~-==~;:-M • !i HO:l. ""I':{~ ~ , gO ll~-'->l33lJ:J AVVI ·""'SilJ.'f'I:)OSS'f'G"~ a CI ; 'I! 'j c I SN'f'Aii CII\'f'C ! I I ,0 '§ a h I ~ NVld DNIO\Q:ID 1N3~NDI1V 11\fW. =~!5 r:: -' .s co~ r:: -!? - Ii' I' I. ! ! <ZI .I!! ::;; .(Q) CJ::: -~ III :' ! i i; hi ii '" .j I ! cS ::::J ~ w .... rJJ ~ ii~ i" i of' ><! §! I .~ ': In, · ~ z o ~! r . I ' '" h II I' ~co !;2 ilY 0 :1 . i -' "i '; ::> '"1 0 .~ f& .>...: " . I II-! 'i'!-0 ~~ !i Jl ~~ '" i ~ iii Ii Ii OQ' ~ fjJ "'" ;1 Hill! iii! !t z z ~i l5 o • ;:; 2 d" Iii! >= i • §I i. ,! i d 6 II irl5 '" ~Ii! .Il N 0 . Ii II ! I ~hl'!2 ~ i ~ :h III; III; 0. "'-z n. '" ,.-IIi 0 II ~ >iii e~ if ~ I :;~ ~~ :, :E! :!i~ !-. ~ Ii! 1~ il IiI II~I ;!I '" i ~ '+11 \1 " '" ~li! 9a .. ui ~ .. !iI " I dl~ I. " 8e ::> .. -15.15 .15 eee e e '" ::;; , ~ ;: ;~ ui ~ on 0: ;;i '" N t- N M Z 0 ;:: 0 UJ '" ..: t-o -' ~ 0 l'J lL 0 Z 0 ;:: 0: 0 "- g ~ CJ u. o z o ~ o a. NOl.ON1HS'lfM 'NOl.N31::1 \ I I I I I I " fJ N01N3~ ,0 All:) '/,' -___ ,.-IIZr_ A I I '10 = l'I:t_~ ... _ "0' "J/"f~ I'a t H __ .... "·S,. ! • ·Ow'SilJ. ... I:;)OSS ... " .... I ,I'm • 11'v'Hl )l33~:) A VVj SN"'''B al" ... a ; S311::l01::ld l.N3Jr'jNElI1V 11'tfill I I •• ! • • ~-----------~.--------~.'--------,--~ -------c-.--------~ __ ~ ___ __I____I 'C' _________ "-__ -+~!"_ .-----+,----\------'-----H/f--~ j' ",- ·.-----~----.·;---I • , l.---I+--~--'------f-¥ll'-l ! '. j ~-. -----. ---. --'---.-------Hilf-I • • • ! , tltt"lJll T ! , ....... Y)-WL.·L ""-"-~-, -, § i , ! i i "y § w Y f--wi--• fH d~ f-wi---! ~~ , -'--~~!----~-~---~-- t .... I1~§~- -''''''',VJ -Hll+f ~. I: f--\Il'-! ' ' ~~ ~ .. , >JJD ! I . i ! .'0 ~I +~! , · , /1 -, i lFi .-! !~~ I : ~i '" -. ----..l 1: .. ~ i · :~ -u'.,.,+I! ~ ! m ," ! " t"" ~ I . I • b"fl: ....... ,1 ! : m¥a)qVf·~=i /\ f " .,-)-~+" ! I , . , ! ~ • ~ ) i" ~ ! f i ., f I ~ , '" i ,,/ ~j'---f-\l ~-i-'W--- " ~~- , , .-----: ----=---' , , __ ".---_L-_~---~-~ i . ~-' . "l/:I-.n,...; " ! • • tl .. 1 ) -S" .... +O ! ., jl , • • • II ~ I en ; O~ ·>11 ! ! ~ • • ~~ c, [J N, ~~ NOiDNIHWM "NOlMRl t I I I I I I 'IIi i~ S>Ilh'd NOl.N3l:l:l0 J.U:I ce~ ~!i ~ I. _ .. =-~ I ' I .,.- lllfl:ll >f33l:l::l A VV'J ~!h ( ""r."'""~:.o;-~ i .. ~ ! ~ !, I ·O"'&iI~'tIloo&s",a .... a CI ; dim : ~::: SN"'A3 CIA"'C ! II I ! i w ! I NV1d .Al::fv'\."'j~ns ~Vd)'jl NOIIVDW)'j , hi • • ~ I ! I ~~ I I p ft • i , 1 I ~ i I i I i:i III ,! z w (!) , . w / ~ -' , ~ , , , :E I <Il I :::> I rJ) I -' I "" I Z W I u: ~ I ;1< <3 I C> z I ~ ~ Z I ~ I N I ~ \: ..... I=- 1=\1 W I=t ~ @ >< W ::i ~ ~ ::i " " Ii • • N ~ • ... ~ • • , i! H' I i ~ q I i ~ • • ~ , .< 5 i ~ ih~ " • i ~~ . NrutlNIHS'tM'~ S I I I I I I 0 S>Il:!'dd NOlN3"l:!.:IO All:> ce~ ;m -8 N -,~-• I I ~ h !" llill:Ll >l33l:18 A ilV'I : m~l "~~~ -I .. I .... sa:c ... IOOss ... " .... I:Ii c:II I : ~!: SN"'AiI CIA ... O I I diili j i ffi ! I NVld NOU~]'tI"!:I1 NOIJ.'IItllllV'j r: tt: ! • • / i i ~ .g , ~~~ ~ II f:: '·1 Hn ~h s·, ~ .. I ~I; ~; ~ ~ • 0" ~ !~i' i HI I ~ h! I;! ~,g Em ~ I! I I , ~., b.~ Ii t ¥ i i~; , ~ I" -' 9 H! ~ ~ hhU! ... Hi ' ; ""04S 0 \ ~ 9 : i I , ~dllii ~ ~ @Slll 111 ~ NO.l~N1HSVM 'NOlN31:1 S>Cl:f'Id NOlN3~:l0 A..UO llifHl >l33l:l:J AVV>J NVld ~NI.LN\f1d NOI.LVDIIIW ce ~III -~-~ ~ a of f .'sc-:-........... , .. :;-,Ii ! ..... , SliilJ.YI!)OSSY""· I:::. ~ t f SN'I'Aii CIA'I'C Il 1:1 Ii! :! ~ = ~ ::;; III :::J en -' « z u:: "" <=> <=> ~ ~"~~ ~ ~ ;t!; r ~ ~ ~~~~ .. i h~i I ~ ~ !* 19 i' l!I \5 i~ i~ ~~!~ @ iii" iii" 'I§i~ ..:~ ... i .;~ ~ , .... ::O;!li: .... 20.:!;:s!:!!::;~ .OO~ > ~ = !:! " == :: :a ~R ~~ .. ::;!: .... :1! ... l!aAJl~.e .::<.a nl!! I nm Ii' II li'i i IIUII ...... (j\ l=- I=l ~ I=l :I: >< W <> z '" z' v N ~ oJ ~ z 0 F " w ~ .: ~ 0 ~ ~ >-0 C> ~ 0 z 0 F '" 0 "- NO.lflNIHSYM 'NOlN3):l S)Mo(d NOJN:n:I.::IO A..U:) ll\fl:!l )i33~O AW' SNOl.L't?I.::I1!:>3dS ONV SlIV130 NOll'to'SUlW .' • § ,i I ~ ~I'§' !ilh g ~~ 'I: ~ ~~. ! ~ ~! I~~ i i;; i ; !I~~ ~ .:~§~ !~"I ~ • . i l 'd' II!II ! EN! il 'M ' il ~i~ I I ' ' i , ~;: ~ ih f I ~I~~I. I ~~I~h ':§I~ • rl ii. i i ~II!~ ;;;;11 Ii!; I I ;1 _I~ • I~: ~ ~ i~ "I i! '!n w' i ~i ~.a I 'II · i I:ill~ Ii I,;;:: I' 'i~ z g i~~ I ; ~ ~b i ., :1 ~~l d~' I " ~ I I~. ·'f i ! .'~.!~ il il!I"; !';~iE ;9 !n :l~ I! ~i. i 11!hl Ii I~I! II *11' ' ~i ." i~ 'j 'I'! i I, , I' il! ;. ~ :;1 .1 .! s~~ • jl' i,~.!, ,nh~ iu '1i;lljei'il " II Ji ~I!e II bl: !I II m , .~ ~, ,I ~ ~~ ... d -, >0' w ~i Q (!) -' "'. z tu F' z Q :5 (!) a. Z F' w z w :5 0: r-a. 0: !XI W => u. 0: Z '" 0 () NQillNIHS\fM 'NO.lN3l::1 S>/l:ff'cI NOlN3l:1.:l0 A..LI:l ll'tl:l.l >!33l:1:J A'tVoJ ~Nll:IOllNO'" i SNOI.L'v?1:J1:>3dS NOJ1'1F.)W~ c.o I : ~:: , . I<>WNHSVM N>lJaI 8:lI::IVoiNOlH3I::I~JJ.r.:l ,1Vl:l1 )1331:10 A V}"; L • iii " I"· j :1 B I ,_ I ~ I"-, I I : ~" • • u :i '" ui '" d z '" Z V N ~ oi '" z 0 F U w ~ .: ~ 0 ~ ~ ;- 0 '" ~ 0 z 0 F '" 0 "- ~ .. "'""" S':lI:WcI NO.lJGI:I::IO A..lJ:) 11'1'tll. )1338::> A \!VI N\fld AI::IOJ.N3!\NI 33I:U. / / / . / I i ! I • I • • / / / / ! ,/ I I I I I ce:ll~ -,,=-A I I .~-~:.;-- ~ Ii, I ·OHllliI.L .... I~OS8 ... G_ 1::1 CI I 8"''''1\11 OIAVO I I ,/ I I ! i lilpi/lllilil i !!llii!illil 0*··1 i / /' ,/ I • /-1"-- \ ' @' II : I I I I I : I 1 ! I 'i ! I, ' I : i 11 -' ~ ::E '" :=J (/) -' <t: Z G: ""-<=> <=> : ~ 11: ); ~ ~ " Ii: II .. Iii: : II II: 11: II: II tI \I 11 !! ~ l! b i "i: • ~ ., '!! }I II , . ! .. ~ !:-"-..... \:0 ... '1; iI~ ~~ ': \I \! b \! "1. .. \! i l!! ~i~'l:Io'rl b !!II1I1!!!!!!!!I!! 1I11I!!ll II! 1IIII!I!iiiHliHlliii!iH!!!!!!! !!i!!I!I!!llIlillllllllilllllllil 11111 ! I I i I I I ! ! I ; j II iii II ! ! i II ! iii j i ! ! II Iii I I !In III sill! 11111 d 1!il1! i III nlll Ii II 1111 I '·ii"lli"II"'"'I!!I!!!!!!''!!!1 iil""I' d. I .1 .. h. __ .....• '-.. .. ILl ~~~~~WW~~~WM~~~~MM~ ~ f¥f'f'I-'Wt'f.!f-'tW , Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Vanessa, Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.usj Monday, June 04,2012 12:45 PM Vanessa Dolbee Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Follow up Flagged We have reviewed the proposed May Creek Trail project to construct a 0.27 mile long trail along the northern edge of May Creek, east of Lake Washington Boulevard. This is a site that I recently visited (May 17) with Leslie and Todd from the City's Park department. As we discussed in the field, I recommended that the trail be located as far away from May Creek as possible, with the allowance for a viewing platform so people can see the stream but avoids direct access and disturbance to salmon in May Creek. The basis for this recommendation is to create and maintain a vegetated buffer that preserves existing trees and allows for native trees/shrub/understory vegetation restoration to the fullest extent possible. This approach protects two key riparian functions: shade and wood recruitment by allowing for trees to be recruited naturally to May Creek without impacting the trail or requiring their removal due to trail maintenance and pedestrian safety concerns. As noted in the Critical Areas Report and apparent on our field visit, May Creek currently is lacking large woody debris; therefore, it is essential that trees that could recruit to the stream be allowed to do so without being cut into smaller pieces as often occurs during maintenance activities. Smaller sized wood is more mobile and can provide less habitat in the long run due to its inability to retain other pieces of wood and form jams that create large pools with cover for salmon. It is not apparent if the trail can be located farther north to meet these objectives and still avoid harvesting existing trees, which is another consideration, but if the trail can be moved north, it should. Per the Critical Areas Report, the trail construction impacts are proposed to be mitigated by avoiding all trees at least 6 inches in diameter and planting a minimum of 320 trees over a minimum of 0.98 acres which will mitigate for construction impacts. There is no discussion about trail operations and the possibility that trail operations will cause additional trees to be removed over time for maintenance and safety reasons as noted above. The concern is that the majority of the trail (0.26 miles of the 0.27 mile trail) is within 200 feet of May Creek, the area where we would expect tree recruitment based on the site's potential to grow a tree such as a Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar up to 200 feet in height. Further, 0.20 miles of the trail is proposed to be within 100 feet of May Creek with most of the trail being 30-40 feet away from May Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark. This means that the trail location and future trail maintenance will remove trees that could otherwise fall into May Creek unencumbered and provide fish habitat. The trail project should be required to have an operations plan that preserves existing and mitigation trees to their fullest extent. The operations plan should also include a provision that if any trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater within 200 feet of May Creek need to be removed, then they should be placed within May Creek. Another element to be considered is the potential for salmon in May Creek to be disturbed or harassed by trail users where the trail provides stream/gravel bar access. This location should at a minimum include signage to remind people to avoid adult salmon, resting, spawning or migrating in May Creek and to avoid accessing the stream during spawning to avoid stepping on salmon redds. If human disturbance becomes a problem, then the City may need to close off the river access during the salmon spawning season to avoid this impact. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.usj Thursday, June 14, 2012 11 :53 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: RE: May Creek Trail, LUA 12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Vanessa, Thank you for sending the City's responses to our comments. Based on these responses, the information provided in the email, and the proposed mitigation measures, all of which should be implemented, our comments/concerns have been addressed for this project. Have a great day, Karen Walter MITFD From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:25 AM To: Karen Walter Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: RE: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Kare,n, Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project. below can be addressed with existing code requirements, mitigation and monitoring requirements. We believe a number of your comments proposed mitigation measures, and The trail alignment has been deliberately designed to preserve existing native plantings including all eXisting trees on site. The provided studies indicate that the trail alignment includes a few native plants which would be tagged, removed and replanted in the riparian area of May Creek. As such, the trail alignment is designed to minimize the overall impact on the stream riparian area and wildlife habitat. The proposed mitigation plan would improve the recruitment of LWD in the future as a large number of conifer trees are proposed to be planted in the riparian area. Furthermore, staff has recommended a mitigation measure to the Environmental Review Committee to required any tree that is 4-inchs in diameter be placed either in the stream as LWD or in the riparian area. The trail would be maintained by the City's Parks Department and in the future, if any trees and/or tree branches were required to be cut and/or downed, these snags would be required by City Code to remain in the stream riparian area. This requirement eliminates the potential for wood to be removed from the stream corridor. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the mitigation and monitoring plan which requires a number of performance measures to ensure plant survival and reduction of invasive species. The monitoring will be required for a minimum of 5 years. If challenges are encountered during the five year monitoring period a contingency plan has been proposed to address potential challenges that may arise. Included in the project proposal are two public information signs. Included in the draft design for these signs is the following statement: Please do not step into the creek. These fish have worked hard to get here and spawn. Help ensure their eggs will hatch safely. The provided signage should facilitate public awareness of the critical habitat located in May Creek thereby reducing potential impacts related to public access. 1 We hope the above addresses your concerns regarding the sUbject project. We believe the enhancement plantings will result is a higher quality habitat after project completion. Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project. We believe a number of your comments below can be addressed with existing code requirements, proposed mitigation measures, and mitigation and monitoring requirements. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee 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 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:45 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Vanessa, We have reviewed the proposed May Creek Trail project to construct a 0.27 mile long trail along the northern edge of May Creek, east of Lake Washington Boulevard. This is a site that I recently visited (May 17) with Leslie and Todd from'the City's Park department. As we discussed in the field, I recommended that the trail be located as far away from May Creek as possible, with the allowance for a viewing platform so people can see the stream but avoids direct access and disturbance to salmon in May Creek. The basis for this recommendation is to create and maintain a vegetated buffer that preserves existing trees and allows for native trees/shrub/understory vegetation restoration to the fullest extent possible. This approach protects two key riparian functions: shade and wood recruitment by allowing for trees to be recruited naturally to May Creek without impacting the trail or requiring their removal due to trail maintenance and pedestrian safety concerns. As noted in the Critical Areas Report and apparent on our field visit, May Creek currently is lacking large woody debris; therefore, it is essential that trees that could recruit to the stream be allowed to do so without being cut into smaller pieces as often occurs during maintenance activities. Smaller sized wood is more mobile and can provide less habitat in the long run due to its inability to retain other pieces of wood and form jams that create large pools with cover for salmon. It is not apparent if the trail can be located farther north to meet these objectives and still avoid harvesting existing trees, which is another consideration, but if the trail can be moved north, it should. Per the Critical Areas Report, the trail construction impacts are proposed to be mitig~ted by avoiding all trees at least 6 inches in diameter and planting a minimum of 320 trees over a minimum of 0.98 acres which will mitigate for construction impacts. There is no discussion about trail operations and the possibility that trail operations will cause additional trees to be removed over time for maintenance and safety reasons as noted above. The concern is that the majority of the trail (0.26 miles of the 0.27 mile trail) is within 200 feet of May 2 Creek, the area where we would expect 'tree recruitment based on the site's potential to grow a tree such as a Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar up to 200 feet in height. Further, 0.20 miles of the trail is proposed to be within 100 feet of May Creek with most of the trail being 30-40 feet away from May Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark. This means that the trail location and future trail m,aintenance will remove trees that could otherwise fall into May Creek unencumbered and provide fish habitat. The trail project should be requir'ed to have an operations plan that preserves existing and mitigation trees to their fullest extent. The operations plan should also include a provision that if any trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater within 200 feet of May Creek need to be removed, then they should be placed within May Creek. Another element to be considered is the potential for salmon in May Creek to be disturbed or harassed by trail users where the trail provides stream/gravel bar access. This location should at a minimum include signage to remind people to avoid adult salmon, resting, spawning or migrating in May Creek and to avoid accessing the stream during spawning to avoid stepping on salmon redds. If human disturbance becomes a problem, then the City may need to close off the river access during the salmon spawning season to avoid this impact. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 3 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Karen, Vanessa Dolbee Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:25 AM 'Karen Walter' Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black RE: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project, We believe a number of your comments below can be addressed with existing code requirements, proposed mitigation measures, and mitigation and monitoring requirements. The trail alignment has been deliberately designed to preserve existing native plantings including all existing trees on site. The provided studies indicate that the trail alignment includes a few native plants which would be tagged, removed and replanted in the riparian area of May Creek. As such, the trail alignment is designed to minimize the overall impact on the stream riparian area and wildlife habitat. The proposed mitigation plan would improve the recruitment of LWD in the future as a large number of conifer trees are proposed to be planted in the riparian area. Furthermore, staff has recommended a mitigation measure to the Envi[onmental Review Committee to required any tree that is 4-inchs in diameter be placed either in the stream as LWD or in the riparian area. The trail would be maintained by the City's Parks Department and in the future, if any trees and/or tree branches were required to be cut and/or downed, these snags would be required by City Code to remain in the stream riparian area. This requirement eliminates the potential for wood to be removed from the stream corridor. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the mitigation and monitoring plan which requires a number of performance measures to ensure plant survival and reduction of invasive species. The monitoring will be required for a minimum of 5 years. If challenges are encountered during the five year monitoring period a contingency plan has been proposed to address potential challenges that may arise. Included in the project proposal are two public information signs. Included in the draft design for these signs is the following statement: Please do not step into the creek. These fish have worked hard to get here and spawn. Help ensure their eggs will hatch safely. The provided sign age should facilitate public awareness of the critical habitat located in May Creek thereby reducing potential impacts related to public access. We hope the above addresses your concerns regarding the subject project. We believe the enhancement plantings will result is a higher quality habitat after project completion. Thank for your comments on the May Creek Trail project. We believe a number of your comments below can be addressed with existing codeTequirements, proposed mitigation measures;and mitigation and monitoring requirements. Sincerely, 'Vanessa !J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development 1 City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 12:45 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: May Creek Trail, LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated . Vanessa, We have reviewed the proposed May Creek Trail project to construct a 0.27 mile long trail along the northern edge of May Creek, east of Lake Washington Boulevard. This is a site that I recently visited (May 17) with Leslie and Todd from the City's Park department. As we discussed in the field, I recommended that the trail be located as far away from May Creek as possible, with the allowance for a viewing platform so people can see the stream but avoids direct access and disturbance to salmon in May Creek. The basis for this recommendation is to create and maintain a vegetated buffer that preserves existing trees and allows for native trees/shrub/understory vegetation restoration to the fullest extent possible. This approach protects two key riparian functions: shade and wood recruitment by allowing for trees to be recruited naturally to May Creek without impacting the trail or requiring their removal due to trail maintenance and pedestrian safety concerns. As noted in the Critical Areas Report and apparent on our field visit, May Creek currently is lacking large woody debris; therefore, it is essential that trees that could recruit to the stream be allowed to do so without being cut into smaller pieces as often occurs during maintenance activities. Smaller sized wood is more mobile and can provide less habitat in the long run due to its inability to retain other pieces of wood and form jams that create large pools with cover for salmon. It is not apparent if the trail can be located farther north to meet these objectives and still avoid harvesting existing trees, which is another consideration, but if the trail can be moved north, it should. Per the Critical Areas Report, the trail construction impacts are proposed to be mitigated by avoiding all trees at least 6 inches in diameter and planting a minimum of 320 trees over a minimum of 0.98 acres which will mitigate for construction impacts. There is no discussion about trail operations and the possibility that trail operations will cause additional trees to be removed over time for maintenance and safety reasons as noted above. The concern is that the majority of the trail (0.26 miles of the 0.27 mile trail) is within 200 feet of May Creek, the area where we would expect tree recruitment based on the site's potential to grow a tree such as a Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar up to 200 feet in height. Further, 0.20 miles of the trail is proposed to be within 100 feet of May Creek with most of the trail being 30-40 feet away from May Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark. This means that the trail location and future trail maintenance will remove trees that could otherwise fall into May Creek unencumbered and provide fish habitat. The trail project should be required to have an operations plan that preserves existing and mitigation trees to their fullest extent. The operations plan should also include a provision that if any trees that are 4 inches in diameter and greater within 200 feet of May Creek need to be removed, then they should be placed within May Creek. Another element to be considered is the potential for salmon in May Creek to be disturbed or harassed by trail users where the trail provides stream/gravel bar access. This location should at a minimum include signage to remind people to avoid adult salmon, resting, spawning or migrating in May Creek and to avoid accessing the stream during spawning to avoid stepping on salmon redds. If human disturbance becomes a problem, then the City may need to close off the river access during the salmon spawning season to avoid this impact. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Schafer, Hillary [Hillary.Schafer@kingcounty.govl Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:35 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: RE: Comments: LUA 12-037 May Creek Trail Vanessa, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We have no additional comments on the project at this time. Hillary Hillary Schafer .:. KC DNRP WTD· Community Services and Environmental Planning .:. (206) 263.7312 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8: 10 AM To: Schafer, Hillary Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: RE: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hillary, Do you have any further comments on the subject project now that you have received a copy of the plan set? I wanted to make sure we have all your comments prior to sending the project to the City Environmental Review Committee. Thank you, 'Vanessa (J)o((jee 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 -_. -_._--------_ ... _. __ . From: Schafer, Hillary [mailto:Hillarv.5chafer@kingcountv.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:11 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hi Vanessa, Please find attached comments from King County Wastewater Treatment Division regarding the subject project. We are requesting additional information at this time. Also attached is a GIS map for your reference. 1 Thank you, Hillary H£lLary SChafer Community Services and Environmental Planning I Wastewater Treatment Division King Street Center 201 South jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 (206)263.7312 http://www.kingcounty.gov/environmenUwtd.asox 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:10 AM 'Schafer, Hillary' Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: RE: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hillary, Do you have any further comments on the subject project now that you have received a copy of the plan set? I wanted to make sure we have all your comments prior to sending the project to the City Environmental Review Committee. Thank you, 'Vanessa (Do(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 From: Schafer, Hillary [mailto:Hillarv.Schafer@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1: 11 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hi Vanessa, Please find attached comments from King County Wastewater Treatment Division regarding the subject project. We are requesting additional information at this time. Also attached is a GIS map for your reference. Thank you, Hillary HiLLary SChaftr Community Services and Environmental Planning I Wastewater Treatment Division King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 (206)263.7312 htlp:/Iwww.kingcounty.gov/environmenUwtd.aspx 1 .... King County Wastewater Treatment Division Community Services and Environmental Planning King Street Center, KSC-NR'-0505 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 May 31, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 Dear Ms, Dolbee: City of Renton Planning Division MAY 3 1 2012 sent via e-mail The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and Proposed DNS for the May Creek Trail project. A Kin9 County facility, May Creek Interceptor, is located along the northern edge of the site and underlying the proposed trailhead. Please see the attached GIS map. In order to project this wastewater facility, King County is requesting the following: • Please submit construction drawings to Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator in Asset Management. Todd can be reached at 206-684-1369. Please send drawings to: ' Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator King County WTD Asset Management 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, h5chafer Hillary Schafer Water Quality Planner/Project Manager Community Services and Environmental Planning cc: Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator, Engineering & Asset Management attachment CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER i • =----»---~--> o - ... I. 'JO • Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Monday, June 04,2012 12:28 PM 'Keithahn, Todd'; Schafer, Hillary Subject: Attachments: RE: Comments: LUA 12-037 May Creek Trail 20120604123021013.pdf Todd, Please find attached a PDF of the plans submitted with the land use application. Thank you, Vanessa (])o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall-6th Floor lOSS South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Keithahn, Todd [mailto:Todd.Keithahn@kingcounty.govl Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:0S AM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Schafer, Hillary Subject: RE: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Vanessa, We'd like to see the design drawings now. Among other things, I'm trying to determine whether the improvements encroach on the KC sewer easement. If so, we'll need to sign an agreement, etc. Todd Todd J. Keithahn, PE, PMP LPA Coordinator King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division Mailstop KSC-NR-0508 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 206.684.1369 todd.keithahn@kingcounty.gov ----~------.---.. From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.govl Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:23 AM To: Schafer, Hillary 1 Cc: Keithahn, Todd Subject: RE: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hillary, I have reviewed your comment on the subject project. However, I have one clarifying question: would you like the construction drawings now to provide further comment to the City? Or would you like to see the drawings at the construction phase of the project as a condition of approval of the land use application? 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 From: Schafer, Hillary [mailto:Hillary.Schafer@kingcounty.govl Sent: Thursday, May 31,20121:11 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Keithahn, Todd Subject: Comments: LUA12-037 May Creek Trail Hi Vanessa, Please find attached comments from King County Wastewater Treatment Division regarding the subject project. We are requesting additional information at this time. Also attached is a GIS map for your reference. Thank you, Hillary Hillary SChafer Community Services and Environmental Planning I Wastewater Treatment Division King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 (206)263.7312 http://www.kingcounty.gov/environmenVwtd.aspx 2 December 18, 2009 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Attn: Jennifer T. Henning RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, IIA WK'S LANDING PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Henning: A£ lANDAU ~ AsSOCIATES This letter report outlines the archaeological assessment that was conducted for the Hawk's Landing project area and will support the environmental compliance documentation effort by the City of Renton (City). This report addresses cultural resource related compliance requirements pertaining to state funded projects, as outlined in the Revised Code of Washington and Washington State Governor's Executive Order 05-05 (EO 05-05). The City provided the following information regarding the project location and proposed improvements. The proposed project is located in the City of Renton, Washington in Section 32 of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. The proposed improvements will consist of the following: a stormwater system and water lines that will be located in currently paved areas of the Lake Washington Boulevard right-of-way and a I,OOO-foot long by 20-foot wide trail segment extending in a southeasterly direction from Lake Washington Boulevard to Interstate 405 (1-405). The proposed trail segment will be distributed atop stream terraces in a forested area on the north side of May Creek just south of the existing industrial area. Ground disturbance associated with the trail segment will not exceed 50 centimeters (cm) below ground surface (BGS). This letter report summarizes the environmental and cultural context of the project area, and the results of Landau Associates' archaeological survey. Although no cultural materials were identified in the project area, recommendations for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, if any, made during the subsequent construction phase are also included in this letter report. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT The following sections provide overviews of the natunil and cultural history of the Hawk's Landing project area and include summary descriptions of physiography, hydrography, climate, geology, soils, flora, fauna, prehistory, ethnohistory, local Native American place names, and history. Environmental Setting 130 2nd Avenue South. Edmonds. WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com • • r The Hawk's Landing project area is situated within the Puget Trough, a physiographic province dominated by Puget Sound and bounded by the Olympic Range to the west and the Cascade Range to the east (Franklin and Dyrness 1988; Weaver 1937). The littoral zone in the region is characterized by a concave shoreline of narrow beaches fronted by precipitous bluffs, while the interior areas are characterized by forested north-to-south-trending upland plateaus of subdued relief dissected by numerous drainages. Glacial scouring during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation 12,000 years ago created generally north-or south-trending drainages and lakes. Lake Washington is an extensive, glacially scoured trough filled in by glacial meltwaters at the end of the Pleistocene era approximately 18,000 to 14,000 years ago that is located approximately .20 miles west of the project area. The lake covers an area of21,500 acres (87.6 square km), averages 108 ft [32.9 meters (m)] in depth, is fed by both the Cedar and Sammamish rivers and is connected to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Washington Ship Canal, which was constructed in 1916 (King County website 2009). Lake Boren is situated 1.5 miles to the east of the project area. The shoreline along Lake Washington, in the project vicinity, is characterized by a zone of narrow beaches fronted in places by precipitous bluffs while the interior areas are characterized by forested north-to-south-trending upland swales atop plateaus of subdued relief dissected by drainages. Drainages are steep and deeply incised, and trend northwesterly. The primary drainage in the project area is the northwest-flowing May Creek, which empties into Lake Washington opposite the southern end of Mercer Island. The elevation of the project area is approximately 25 feet above sea level (asl) although elevations exceed 400 feet asl in the Newport Hills approximately 1.50 miles to the northeast (USGS 1950; photorevised 1968 and 1973). Given the influence of maritime and continental air masses, the climate of the project area is characterized by dry summers and wet winters with mild temperatures and moderate-to-heavy precipitation (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). The following specific data were derived from a local weather station between 1931 and 2006 (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). Average maximum recorded temperatures for the project area ranged from 75°F in July to 35°F in January. The average annual precipitation recorded for this weather station was 38 inches. Regionally, rainfall averages between 30 and 35 inches annually, although the presence of the Olympic Range to the west creates a rain shadow effect for the western part of Puget Sound (Franklin and Dyrnes!; 1988; Luzier 1969). Geology and Soils The most extensive glacial deposit evident in the project vicinity is the Vashon Drift till consisting of unsorted, unstratifed compact, clay, silt sand, gravel with interbedded stratified sand, silt and gravel. Vashon Drift was deposited approximately 18,000 to 14,000 years ago by a continental ice sheet 12121109 C:\Oocuments and SettingslvdolbeelLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\ConlenlOutlook\BTC2UTMRIHawk's Landing Letter Report DRAFT,docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 approximately 3,500 to 4,500 ft thick during the Fraser Glaciation (Dragovich et al. 2002; Thorson 1980; Wright and Frey 1965; Wright and Porter 1983). The Hawk's Landing project area exhibits a combination of alluvial overbank and stream channel deposits comprised of silt, sand and gravels distributed across low stream terraces on both sides of May Creek. The primary soil type within the Hawk's Landing project area is Norma sandy loam formed from alluvium on floodplains with 0 to 2 percent slopes. The typical profile consists of sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches (150 cm) BGS. In addition, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is located within the project area just south of May Creek and comprises the remainder of the southern portion of the project area. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is formed from a mixture of basal till and volcanic ash on till plains and moraines. The typical profile consists of 12 inches (30cm) of gravelly sandy loam over very gravelly sandy loam extending to a depth of 60 inches (150 cm) BGS (NRCS 2009; Snyder et al. 1973). Flora and Fauna The biotic communities in the Renton area were historically not limited to the current distribution of plants and animals. Historic, ethnographic, and archaeological data in the vicinity attest to the diversity of floral and faunal resources that were locally available for human procurement that were used for food, medical purposes, tools and adornment. Moreover, the complex physiography of the area with its mosaic-like distribution of resources from upland forest to riverine and lake margin environments, facilitated this rich biotic community. The project area lies within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) zone of the Puget Lowland, which also contains Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii); western red cedar (Thuja plicata); red alder (Alnus rubra); and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory of bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum); sword fern (Polystichum munitum); Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa); salal (Gaultheria shallon); and berry vines (Rubus spp.) (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Historically, deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), cougar (Felis concolor), and coyote (Canis latrans) lived in Renton vicinity. These mammals have extensive ranges and were at one time common in both bottomland and uplands. Riverine, lacustrine, and upland habitats within and proximal to the Hawk's Landing project also supported a diverse array of smaller mammals, birds, and fish (Dalquest 1948). Lake Washington supports populations of sockeye sahnon (Oncorhynchus nerka), cutthroat trout (0. clarki), rainbow trout (0. mykiss), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Williams et al. 1975; Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Prehistory 12121/09 C:\Documents and Settings\voolbee\Local Setlings\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOJUookIBTC2UTMR\Hawk's landing letter Report ORAFT.docLANOAU ASSOCIATES 3 Cultural change in Northwest Coast prehistory is evaluated on temporal and spatial variations in archaeological assemblage, subsistence, and settlement patterns within regional environmental contexts. The prehistoric record for Puget Sound is divided into three broad chronological periods: the early [13,000-5,000 years Before Present (BP)], middle (5,000-1,000 BP), and late (1,000-250 BP). The early period is characterized by chipped stone tools such as fluted projectile points, leaf-shaped projectile points, and cobble tools with associated core and blade industries. Subsistence patterns exhibit a reliance on inland hunting supplemented with fishing and marine invertebrate procurement in riverine and littoral contexts. Settlements were typically located on upland plateaus or river terraces, although littoral occupations may have been inundated by seismic or eustatic processes during the Holocene (Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). The middle period represented a proliferation in tool diversity within regional assemblages. Notched stone projectile points were characterized by a decrease in size, and toolkits were supplemented with groundstone, bone, and antler industries. Subsistence practices showed an increased orientation toward marine and riverine habitats; shellfish, salmon, and sea mammals became more important resources during this period. Shell middens appear in the archaeological record during this period. Occupation areas expanded to include modem shorelines and islands in Puget Sound, characterized by the earliest evidence of seasonal village sites Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). The late period is characterized by assemblages containing exotic trade goods imported from indigenous populations in the Columbia Plateau, as well as metal arrowheads and trade beads from Euro-American groups. Small side-notched and triangular stone projectile points persisted but were superseded by an emphasis on bone and antler tools. Salmon became a major staple, indicated by the construction and maintenance of elaborate fish weirs. Aquatic subsistence practices were supplemented by terrestrial hunting and plant procurement. Permanent, ethnographically described village sites were established and persisted into the historic period (Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). Ethnohistory During late historic times, Southern Coast Salish Indians occupied the Puget Sound area, from the Skagit River in the north to the Deschutes River near Olympia in the south, reaching inland to the Cascade Range crest. The project vicinity is located in the traditional territory of the Duwamish Tribe (Duwamish), a coast Salishan group that oriented their settlement-subsistence systems toward the saltwater, riverine, and inland environments around Puget Sound (Ruby and Brown 1992; Suttles and Lane 1990; Swanton 1952). The Southern Lushootseed-speaking Duwamish (Dxwdewabs) Tribe's 12121109 C;\Documents and Settings\\Idolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemal Files\Content.Outlook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's landing Letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 territory included the Black River, Cedar River, Green River, and White River drainage areas, extending from Puget Sound to the foothills of the Cascades. The name Duwamish is said to mean "inside the bay people" (Ruby and Brown 1992; Suttles and Lane 1990; Swanton 1952). The Duwamish are currently a non-federally recognized tribe whose ancestors greeted the first white settlers that arrived in what was to become the city of Seattle (Ruby and Brown 1992; Swanton 1952). Upon the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliot, the Duwamish were assigned to the Port Madison Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula. However, the Port Madison Reservation was in the traditional homeland of the Suquamish who felt the Duwamish were infringing on their territory (Ruby and Brown 1992). By the winter of 1856, many of the Duwamish had returned to their traditional homeland. Some settled on the Muckleshoot Reservation while other Duwamish chose not to live on the reservations at all. The Duwamish that chose not to settle onto various reservations have tried repeatedly to gain federal recognition only to be denied by the United States government (Ruby and Brown 1992). The project area also falls within the ceded territory of the Muckleshoot Tribe, which consists of those tribes who signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek in 1854 and Treaty of Point Elliott Treaties in 1855, (Ruby and Brown 1992). The tribes that make up the Muckleshoot Reservation and signed the Medicine Creek Treaty included the Skipahmishes or Green River Indians; the Stakamishes, or White River Indians; and the Smulkamishes, whose traditional territory encompasses present day Enumclaw (Ruby and Brown 1992). After signing the Medicine Creek Treaty, the Green and White River Indians were relocated to the Nisqually Reservation with a provision that they could be moved to a more suitable place. In 1856, Governor Stevens established the Muckleshoot Reservation, located on Muckleshoot Prairie between the White and Green Rivers (Ruby and Brown 1992). The Southern Coast Salish oriented their settlement-subsistence systems toward the saltwater, riverine, and inland environments within their territories. As with other western Washington groups, the Duwamish and Muckleshoot peoples relied on salmon as a staple resource. They established fishing stations along area rivers and streams, and traveled to troll the saltwater from which they harvested various salmonids and shellfish (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Suttles and Lane 1990). The focus of the Duwamish and Muckleshoot yearly cycles was the permanent winter village, which consisted of one or more cedar plank longhouses in which several related families resided (Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). At other times of the year, they used temporary pole and mat structures that were easily transported. Winter villages may not have been completely abandoned during the warmer months as family groups moved seasonally to various environmental zones to harvest abundant resources, process them for storage, and transport the supplies to. the permanent village (Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). Subsistence revolved around seasonal harvests of salmon; coho; Chinook; and shellfish, including butter clams; littleneck clams; horse clams; geoduck; Olympia oysters; mussels, snails, and barnacles 12121/09 C:\Documents and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\8TC2UTMR\Ha-Mc.'s Landing Letter Report DRAFT.doclANOAU ASSOCtA TES 5 (Haberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). Fish were caught using wooden weirs, woven nets, and rakes (Haberlin and Gunther 1930; Suttles and Lane 1990). In addition to marine resources, plants and berries were gathered, including camas; hazelnuts; red elderberry; blackberries; salmonberries; salal berries; thimble berries; dandelion roots; wild carrot; onion; and wapato (Haberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980). Hunting land mammals provided a large share of food for these groups; men specialized in the pursuit of deer, elk, bear, and beaver (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). Native American Place Names The area surrounding Renton exhibits many ethnographic locations in the form of toponyms, or place names, that describe areas associated with Coast Salish tradition, settlements, and subsistence. These traditional places are located along the shores of Lake Washington and along the length of the Duwamish River, Black River, and Green (White) Rivers. The ethnographer T.T. Waterman noted that the survival and oral transmission of place names varied according to tribal recollection, and his informants admitted that many locations were lost to tradition over time (Waterman 1922; 2001). Native American place names include geographic features or names associated with traditional subsistence locations. Place names near the project area include Tuqwi'ILUs meaning "red face," for a bluff located east of Renton; Cbat't", meaning "place were things are dried," for May Creek where large amounts of red fish were taken; Kwa'lcwau, for a small promontory; p3 E'sw;3, meaning "pressed, crowded back," for a place at the foot of Lake Washington, opposite the south end of Mercer Island; Spa 'pLxad, or "marshes" for wetlands at the south end of Lake Washington and east of the Black River; Ciqe'd, meaning "head or source," where the Black River flows out of Lake Washington; et3u'IEgwEli, meaning "resembling a trail," for a creek that drains into a swamp where silver salmon were caught and a fish weir was located; tuwa'Ldad'-aL3t or "Jack salmon's home or King Salmon house," for a deep place in the Black River were abundant salmon were located in the summer; bstsxEbe'dats, meaning "place of ironwood," where people went to gather ironwood; bIsxu'qId, "where there are cranes," for a swamp located west of the Duwamish River; r awe 'dI te, meaning "river duck," for levelland below the mouth of the Black River; and sqali'ls or "bad looking, the rocks are ugly," for a highland area that extends down to the Duwamish River (Waterman 200 I). Some toponyms are suggestive of mystical happenings and include a location named Sq!u 'I 'ats ("dirty face") where the Grandmother of South Wind (Grandmother) lived (Waterman 2001). The mottled sediments exposed in the bluffs are the basis for the name and describes the squalid fate of Grandmother when her people left (Waterman 2001). Another location on the west side of the Duwamish River is called hUtesa'tei ("cut in two with reference to the hand"; Waterman 2001). 12121/09 C:\Documents and Settings\vdolbea\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Conlen!.Outlook\6TC2UTMR\Hawk,'slanding Letter Report DRAFT. doc LANDAU ASSOClA TES 6 Other toponyms are suggestive of village locations and include: Sa'tasakaL or "water at the head of a bay" for a village site north of the project area; Sext'itcJ b ("place where one wades") for an old village site at present day Bryn Mawr; Sqoa'l-qo ("meeting of rivers"), a village site at the location of the confluence of the Black River and Green River; Stu'bla ("North-Wind"), located on a hillside south of the present day Interurban Bridge where North-Wind had an ancient village; Sba'badi'd ("crags") for a deep hole in the Black River with cliffs on both sides where a village was located; and TuxE 'b-qo ("confluence"), designating a village at the confluence of the historic Cedar and Black Rivers (Waterman 2001). Currently, Indian tribes are concerned about development that occurs 'within their ceded territories and traditional use areas. These tribal groups often want to protect cultural properties, which include archaeological, traditional procurement, history or landmark, and religious sites (Kennedy 1993). History Although Russian, Spanish, and British naval expeditions are thought to have penetrated the coastal waters off Washington as early as the middle 1500s, British Captain George Vancouver's arrival in 1792 marks the earliest undisputed record of Euro-Arnerican contact in the Puget Sound region. Many of the region's physiographic eponyms such as Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Mount Baker, Mount Rainier, and Dungeness Spit were derived from members of Vancouver's party and the British admiralty (Cole and Darling 1990; Kirk and Alexander 1990; Marino 1990; Meany 1923; Morgan 1979). Exploration was followed by incursions of Euro-American fur traders under the aegis of the Hudson's Bay Company during the 1830s. Early contacts between Euro-American traders and native populations proved disastrous to the latter as they fell victim to waves of malaria, tuberculosis, and smallpox epidemics in the late 1700s and middle 1800s (Cole and Darling 1990; Kirk and Alexander 1990; Marino 1990). Washington Territory was organized in 1853 by its first Governor, Isaac Stevens, who helped pave the way for Euro-American settlement and a Northern Pacific Railway route by compelling regional Indian tribes to relocate to reservations under a series of treaties in 1854-1855. The unpopularity of enforced removal amongst indigenous peoples was manifested by widespread tribal rebellion that was suppressed by the U.S. Army and territorial militias. Washington eventually achieved statehood on November 11, 1889 (Kirk and Alexander 1990). An especially significant stimulus for settlement in the region was the Donation Land Act of 1850. The law granted each male American citizen 18 and older a half section, or 320 acres, of public lands, requiring that he occupy, cultivate, and "improve" it for four consecutive years. Wives of the settlers were granted an additional 320 acres in their own names (Ficken and LeWarne 1988; Johansen 12121109 C:\Oocuments and Settin~S\vdOlbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Conlent.Outlook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOClA TES 7 and Gates 1967). A review of the 1865 GLO map indicates that May Creek was formerly named Honey Dew Creek and the presence of a wagon road extending east from the shores of Lake Washington to the north of the project area (GLO 1865). The GLO map exhibits no structures, villages or land ownership information within the project area (Figure 2). Comparisons of the 1865 location of May Creek with its current configuration suggest that the original course of the creek was located north of the project area (GLO 1865; USGS 1983). The City of Renton was founded on the Duwamish River delta, where historically the Cedar and the Black Rivers merged to join the Duwamish River. In 1853, Henry Tobin staked a claim with the intentions of starting a lumber mill. In 1854, a coal seam was discovered on the land claim of Dr. R.H. Bigelow. The area surrounding the Duwamish, Cedar, Black, and White (Green) Rivers had fertile farm land, abundant timber for logging, and salmon could be caught in the surrounding rivers. Logs were floated down the river, and several of the settlers provided logs to Henry Y esler's saw mill in Seattle and other saw mills in the area (Buerge 1989; Slauson 1976). Lumber, coal, and agriculture attracted settlers to the area, but it was not until 1873 that coal mining became a serious endeavor with the beginnings of the Renton Coal Company established by Captain William Renton. Due to its location and easy access to Seattle, Renton became the center of the coal industry in Puget Sound. In 1875, the City of Renton was platted by Erasmus Smithers, and its eponymous derivation suggests the importance of both Captain Renton and his coal mining operation to the town's historic economy (Bagley 1929; Buerge 1989; HistoryLink website 2009a,b; Meany 1923; Slauson 1976). The City of Renton was incorporated in 1901 (Bagley 1929; HistoryLink website 2009a,b; WPA 1941). Other industries iJ.1 Renton included farming, a glass factory, lumber mills, and brick and tile plants. As the coal mining industry began to decline, the increase of other industries, the improvement of roads, and the completion of the Interurban rail line made Renton an attractive place for people to live (Bagley 1929; Rowe 1987). The Hawks Landing project area lies within the Kennydale neighborhood of Renton. Kennydale was platted as a separate community in 1904 by real estate developer C.D. Hilhnan with the tracts being referred to as the Garden of Eden (Buerge 1989; Slauson 1976). As mentioned previously May Creek was formerly known as Honey Dew Creek and probably acquired its current designation in honor of a Mr. May who was the first Euroamerican to homestead along its banks (Meany 1923). May Creek was lauded as being filled with "millions" of brook trout in an early advertisement for the tracts along its course. In 1904, the Kerinydale post office was opened and by 1905 Kenoydale's population was approximately 100 people who lived in small farmhouses on I-acre tracts. Logging and coal mining were important industries resulting in the construction of a 116 foot tall log trestle over May Creek that was used to deliver timber from various logging operations and coal from the New Castle coal mines (Slauson 1976). A sawmill was located nearby on the shores of Lake Washington (HistoryLink 2009a,b; Slauson 1976). 12f21109 C:IDocuments and Settings\vdolbee\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIConlenlOutlook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report ORAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 8 A review of later historic maps reveals changes in local land ownership, as well as changes in the shoreline morphology of Lake Washington and channel of May Creek. The shoreline morphology of Lake Washington west of the project area did not change much between 1865 and 1912 based upon a comparison of the 1865 GLO map with the 1912 Kroll map. By 1912, the project area is located on a parcel originally owned by Joseph Jenotte (GLO 1865; Kroll Map Companyi 1912). By 1927, the property switched ownership to Jason M. Colman who oversaw its subdivision prior to 1936. During this time period the course of May Creek remained relatively unchanged from its 1865 channel although the shoreline along Lake Washington has .begun to be filled (Metsker 1927, 1936). At SOme point between 1936 and 1950 significant filling occurred along the shoreline of Lake Washington west of the project area (Figure 2; ESRI 2008; GLO 1865). By 1950, the course of May Creek shifted further south to its current alignment in the project area,. This change in the creek channel is most likely attributable to the construction of an unnamed road north of the project area in Section 29 affiliated with the Republic of Creosoting Company that bisected Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad tracks (Kroll Map Company 1958; USGS 1950). PREVIOUS INVESTIGA T10NS/LITERA TURE REVIEW This section and those following include information about archaeological investigations and field data. The Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) requires that survey data such as transect intervals, excavation depths, and prehistoric or ethnohistoric artifact measurements be recorded in metric units; English measurements are used only for historic period materials. Metric measurements are provided in this document to meet these reporting requirements. Cultural Resource Surveys Seven cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a I-mile radius of the Hawk's Landing project area (Table I) that are on file with DAHP. In 2008, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted an archaeological inventory of two dry docks (45Kl814) that are currently submerged in Lake Washington atop a Superfund site. The dry docks were inventoried in part due to the DNR Derelict Vessel Removal Program (DVRP), which removes environmental and navigational hazards caused by derelict watercraft. Because the dry docks are located atop a Superfund site they will be removed (Major 2008a). In 2007, a historic resource inventory was conducted for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which is proposing to abandon segments of BNSF railroad. Within the proposed railroad segments subject to abandonment, seven railroad bridges were recorded and 'recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (Allen 2007). In 2007, WSDOT completed a cultural resources discipline report for the I-405, Tukwila, to Renton Improvement project. One resource, the 12121/09 C:\Oocuments and Settings\vdolbee\LocaI Settings\T~mpClC'ary Internet Files\Content.OutlookIBTC2U1MR\Hawk's landing letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 9 Renton Civic Dump, was identified and recorded but is located more than a mile from the Hawk's Landing project area (WSDOT 2007). A cultural resources assessment was conducted in 1976 for the May Creek interceptor and no cultural resources were identified (Lorenz 1976). In 1997, LAAS conducted a cultural resources assessment for a proposed development project. No cultural resources were identified however, monitoring was recommended for the removal of hazardous material as well ground disturbing construction activities (Bowden et al. 1997). A cultural resources inventory was conducted in 2001 by NWAA for the proposed Washington Light Lanes project. No cultural resources were identified near the proposed Hawk's Landing project area (NWAA 2001). Archaeological monitoring was conducted in 2003 by LAAS for a pipeline excavation project however no cultural resources were identified (Murphy and Larson 2003). Table 1 Previous Cultural Resource Investigations Conducted Within 1 Miles of the Project Area Author Date Report Title Resources Recorded Major 2008a Archaeological Inventory Survey Report Lake Washington Floating 45KI814 Dry Docks, King County W % of the SW ~ Section 29. Township 24N, Range 5E (State Owned Aquatic Land) Allen 2007 Historic Resource Inventory of the BNSF King County Abandonment None Proiect, Washinaton WSDOT 2007 1-405. Tukwila to Renton Imorovement Proiect None* Murphy and 2003 Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP # 200799) None Larson Archaeological Resources Monitoring NWAA 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Ught None Lanes Project Bowden·et. a\. 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment JA G Development, King County None Washington. Lorenz 1976 Archaeological Assessment, Anny Corps of Engineers, Penni! N. None 0741-0 YB-l-002916, Phase I-May Creek Interceptor, METROlKing County Water District No. 107 Archaeological Sites Two archaeological sites have been identified within a one-mile radius of the Hawk's Landing project area. Site 45K.I425, a submerged aircraft in Lake Washington, is located approximately one-mile to the northwest (Mester 1990). The site form does not provide any additional information on the aircraft. The aforementioned floating dry docks (45K.I814), .25 miles to the northwest, were originally used by the U.S. Army during World War II and subsequently used by the Lake Union Dry Dock Company before they sank in Lake Washington (Major 2008b). 12121109 C:\Documants and Settings\vdolbee\local SlIIttings\Temporary Internel Filas\Content.OuUook\8TC2UTMR\Haw\('s Landing letter Report ORAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 10 Table 2 Archaeological Sites Located Within 1 Miles of the Project Area Site No. Description Distance References 1 mile northwest 45KI425 (in Lake Mester 1990 Submeraed Aircraft Washinaton) Floating Dry Docks YFD 48 and 51 0.25 miles 45KI814 northwest (in Lake Major 2008b? Washinoton) Historic Structures No historic structures listed on either the NRHP or the WHP are located within a one-mile radius of the project area. Inventory Methods and Results Three Landau Associates archaeologists excavated a total of 14 shovel probes (SP) at approximately 20-m intervals in unpaved areas located along the proposed trail route on November 24th, 2009 (Figure 3). Each shovel probe was 40 cm in diameter and was excavated to a maximum depth of 50 cm BGS. Three Landau Associates archaeologists (Kara Kanaby, Douglas Tingwall, and Linda Naoi Goetz) examined the sidewalls and bottom of each shovel probe for shell, charcoal, bone, lithic, glass, and ceramic artifacts or features and investigated the excavated matrix for cultural materials. All sediments (from the soil profile) derived from the shovel probes were sifted through 1I4-inch mesh screens over tarps. Sediments were described by color, compactness, and content. Depth measurements were taken at soil boundaries. Once completed, each shovel probe was photographed and backfilled with the sediment collected atop the tarp and the sod layer was put back in place. The shovel testing took place along the proposed trail route which is located on the north side of May Creek. Due to the presence of impervious areas shovel probes were not able to be excavated along the proposed water and storm line routes however these features will be located in previously disturbed right-of-way along Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 3). Surface visibility was poor and vegetation in the project area consisted of alder, reed canary grass, dense blackberry, and scotch broom. Photographs 1-10 provide overviews of the project area and representative plan views of the shovel probes. Descriptions of the shovel probes are provided in Table 3. The shovel probes exhibited fairly uniform sediment profiles consistent with depositional regimes comprised of fining upward sequences of alluvial overbank sediments and channel marginal sediments associated with May Creek. 12121109 C:\Documents and Settings\vdolbee\Local Sellings\Temporary Internet Files\Cootent.Outlock\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report ORAFT,docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 11 Six shovel probes exhibited similar sediment profiles consisting of dark olive brown to dark brown fine sandy silt to silt. SP-3 exhibited dark olive brown fme sandy silty clay over extremely compact, olive gray silty clay interspersed with lenses of dark yellowish brown fine sand. SP-5 exhibited dark olive brown silty clay with dark reddish brown mottling over olive gray silty clay witb dark yellowish brown and dark reddish brown mottling. SP-9 and SP -12 both contained black silty sand over very dark brown sandy silt. In SP-9 the very dark brown sandy silt was underlain by dark brown silty sand. SP-IO exhibited very dark brown silt witb trace fine sands overlying dark brown silt witb trace fine sands atop a basal stratum of olive brown clayey silt. SP-12 yielded grayish brown clay witb sand under the stratum of very dark brown sandy silt. SP-13 exhibited dark brown sandy silt with less tban 5 percent gravels over olive brown clayey silt witb trace fine sand and less tban 5 percent gravels. Six shovel probes exhibited similar sediment profiles consisting of very dark grayish brown sandy silt to clayey sandy silt. SP-I exhibited very dark grayish brown sandy silty clay witb less than 5 percent subrounded to subangular gravels and cobbles over very compact olive brown sandy silt' with a large cobble. SP-2 exhibited a very dark grayish brown sandy silt with mottling witb lenses of dark gray clay and yellowish brown sandy silt. SP-4 contained very dark grayish brown sandy silt with clay over dark yellowish brown sandy silt and mottles of dark gray clay. SP-6 exhibited very dark grayish brown silty fine sand over dark olive brown fine sand over dark brown sandy silt. SP-7 exhibited very dark grayish brown clayey sandy silt over very dark grayish brown sandy silt over clayey sandy silt witb less than 5 percent subrounded to rounded gravels. The gravel content increased with depth to less than 60% before decreasing to less tban 20% near tbe base of the profile. SP-8 exhibited very dark grayish brown sandy silt with less tban 5 percent subrounded to rounded gravels. SP-II and SP-I4 contained very dark grayish brown fine sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels over olive brown to dark olive brown gravelly sand witb 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles. The high density of gravels and cobbles in both shovel probes are indicative of a channel deposit associated with May Creek. SP# Depth BGS Table 3 Shovel Probe Summary Soil DeSCription Resources Identified 12121109 C:\Oocuments and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemel Files\ConlenlOutJook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's landing Letter Report DRAFT.docLANOAU ASSOCIATES 12 1 33 em 0-32 cm -moist very dark grayish brown None (10YR3/2), sandy silty clay with less than 5 percent subrounded to subangular , gravels and cobbles 32-33 cm -very compact, olive brown (2.5Y4/4), sandy silt with large cobble at base-till(?) 2 50cm 0-50 cm -very dark grayish brown None (10YR312), sandy silt with some clay and less than 1 percent round gravels and cobbles, (5Y4/1) dark gray clay with dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) mottling and lens. 3 52 cm 0-20 cm -dark olive brown (2.5Y3/3), None fine sandy silty clay with no gravels or cobbles. 20-50 em -extremely compact, olive gray (5Y412), silty clay interspersed with lens of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) fine sand with no gravels or cobbles 4 50 em 0-40 cm -very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2), sandy silt with clay and less than 10 percent rounded gravels and cobbles. 40-50 cm -dark yellowish brown < (10YR3/6), sandy silt with dark gray i5Y4/1) clay 5 50 cm 0-40 cm dark olive brown (2.5Y3/3), silty None clay with mottling of dark reddish brown (5YR3/4) beginning at 20 cm BGS. 40-50 cm -olive gray (5Y412), silty clay with mottles of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR4/4 to 10YR3/4) and dark reddish brown (5YR3/4). Becoming increasingly compact with depth. 6 50 em 0-6 em -very dark grayish brown None (7.5YR2I1), silty fine sand. 6-30 cm -dark olive brown (2.5Y3/3), fine sand 30-50 cm -dark brown (10YR3/3), sandy silt 7 60 em 0-28 cm -very dark grayish brown None (10YR3/2), clayey sandy silt with less than 5 percent subrounded to rounded _gravels. 12/21/09 C:\Oocuments and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Inteme! Files\Content.Outlook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 13 28-40 cm -very dark grayish brown (10YR312), sandy silt with gravels increasing in density from 20 percent to less than 60 percent subangluar and subrounded gravels and cobbles 40-60 cm -dark grayish brown (2,5Y4/2), clayey sandy silt with less than 20 percent gravels and very sparse cobbles 8 48cm 0-48 cm -very dark grayish brown None (10YR312), sandy silt with less than 5 percent subrounded to rounded gravels, Roots encountered at 40 cm BGS 9 50 cm 0-10 cm -forest duff and black None (1 OYR2/1), silty sand 10-20 cm -very dark brown (7.5YR2.5/2), sandy silt 20-50 cm -dark brown (10YR3/3), silty sand 10 50cm 0-20 cm -very dark brown (10YR212), None silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels 20-40 cm -dark brown (10YR3/3), silt with trace fine sand 40-50 cm -olive brown (2.5Y4/3), clayey silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent Qravels 11 50 em 0-11 cm -very dark grayish brown None (10YR2I2) fine sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels 11-21 cm -olive brown (2.5Y4/4), very gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles - channel deposit (?) 21-50 cm -dark olive brown, gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles-channel deposit (?) 12 50 cm 0-10 cm -forest duff and black None (10YR2/1), silty sand 10-35 cm -very dark brown (7.45YR2.512), sandy silt 35-50 cm -grayish brown (2.5Y5/2), clay with sand 13 50 cm 0-25 cm dark brown (10YR3/3), sandy None silt with less than 5 percent gravels 25-50 cm -olive brown (2.5Y4/3), clayey silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels 14 50 cm 0-4cm very dark grayish brown None (10YR31) fine sandy silt with less than 10 percent gravels 12121f09 C:\Oocuments and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content,Outlook\BTC2UTMR\Hawk,'s landing Letter Report ORAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 14 40-50 em-olive brown (2.5Y4/4), very gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles - channel deposit (?) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the current investigation. The pedestrian survey did not identifY any archaeological materials on the surface or in the shovel probes. No further archaeological work is recommended for the project area based upon the degree of previous ground disturbance along the routes of the proposed stormwater system and water lines and the absence of cultural materials in shovel probes excavated along the proposed trail.. Although no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the current investigation, the potential for such discoveries remains. The project area is in a high probability zone given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. If archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance should be halted and activities directed away from the area. The construction foreman should notifY the City of Renton Project Manager, Jennifer T. Henning (425-430- 7286) and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Archaeologist Gretchen Kaehler (360-586-3088) of any cultural materials uncovered and consult with them about the significance of the materials. If human skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, all work activities should cease immediately. The area should be screened off, and the construction foreman should contact the City of Renton Project Manager, Jennifer T. Henning (425-430-7286) who will call the King County Medical Examiner's Office (206-731-3232), DAHP Archaeologist Gretchen Kaehler (360-586-3088) and State Physical Anthropologist Guy Tasa (360-586-3534). If the Medical Examiner determines that the burial is Native American, DAHP staff will assist the City in notifYing appropriate Tribal representatives to confer with the City on the protocol to sensitively treat the remains. The City of Renton will provide strict 24-hour security of the area of the burial until appropriate treatment of the remains has been determined. Copies of this letter report should be sent to DAHP and the Tribes with which the City is consulting for their review and comments USE OF THIS REpORT 12121109 C:\Documeni!l and Settingslvdolbeellocal SattingslTamporary Intemel Flles\Content.OuUook\BTC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 15 • This cultural resources assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Renton for specific application to the Hawk's Landing project. No other party (with the exception of the appropriate reviewing agencies) is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included· in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based upon information currently available to us and are made within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for this project. The determinations made in this report are considered preliminary until concurrence with the determinations is received from the appropriate agencies. Our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Kara M. Kanaby Senior Staff Archaeologist Linda Naoi Goetz Associate Archaeologist/Cultural Resource Specialist Douglas F. Tingwall Senior Project Archaeologist Thomas C. Rust Principal Investigator KMKILNGIDFTrrCR/*** Attachments: Figures I, 2, and 3 12121/09 C:IDocuments and SettingslvdolbeelLocal Settings\Temporary Intemet FilesICont8nt.OuUook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter RepoI1 DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 16 Selected Site Photographs REFERENCES Allen, Jason. 2007. Historic Resource Inventory of the BNSF King County Abandonment Project, Washington. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington Bagley, Clarence. 1929. History of King County. Washington. Volume I. SJ. Clarke. Chicago, Illinois. Bowden, Bradley, Leonard A. Forsman, Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch .. 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development. King County Washington. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington Buerge, David. 1989. Renton: Where the Water took Wing. Windsor Publications. Northridge, CA> Carlson, Roy L. 1990. "Cultural Antecedents." Handbook of North American Indians. Northwest Coast. Vol. 7. pp.60-69. Editor Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Cole, Douglas and David Darling. 1990. "History of the Early Period." Handbook of North American Indians. Northwest Coast. Vol. 7. pp.1l9-134. Editor Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Dalquest, Walter W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Press. Lawrence, Kansas. Dragovich, Joe D., Robert L. Logan, Henry W. Schasse, Timothy J. Walsh, William S. Lingley, Jr., David K. Norman, Wendy J. Gerstel, Thomas J. Lapen, J. Eric Schuster, and Karen D. Meyers. 2002. Geologic Map of Washington-Northwest Quadrant. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-50. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Ficken, Robert E. and Charles P. LeWarne. 1988. Washington: A Centennial History. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8. Portland, Oregon. GLO. 1865. Survey Plat of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. East Willamette Meridian. General Land Office. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Haeberlin, Hermann and Erna Gunther. 1930. The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. 12121109 C:\Oocuments and Settings\vdolbee\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FilsslConlent.OutlooklBTC2UTMRIHawk'slanding Letter Report DRAFT,docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 17 • HistoryLink website. 2009a. Renton-Thumbnail History. www.historylinkorg. Accessed on November 30. HistoryLink website. 2009b. Renton beginning-Kennydale Post Office opens on August 18, 1904. www.historylinkorg. Accessed on November 30. Johansen, Dorothy O. and Charles M. Gates. 1967. Empire of the Columbia. Harper and Row. New York, New York Kennedy, Dorothy. 1993. Draft Ethnographic Site Typology. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Kidd, Robert. 1964. A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. King County website. 2009. Lake Washington and Physical Characteristics. http://green.kingcounty.gov/lakes/LakeWashington.aspx. Accessed December 16, 2009. Kirk, Ruth and Carmela Alexander. 1990. Exploring Washington's Past: a Road Guide to History. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company. 1912. Kroll's Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company. 1958. Kroll's Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington. Lorenz, Thomas H. 1976. Archaeological Assessment, Army Corps of Engineers, Permit No. 07I-OYB-I- 002916, Phase L May Creek Interceptor. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington Luzier, J.E. 1969. "Geology and Ground-water Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington." Water-Supply Bulletin No. 28. State of Washington Department of Water Resources and United States Geological Survey Water Division. Major, Maurice. 2008a. Archaeological Inventory Survey Report Lake Washington Floating Dry Docks, King County W Vz of the SW V. Section 29, Township 24N. Range 5E (State Owned Aquatic Land) Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. M,yor, Maurice. 2008b. Manuscript on file at the Olympia, Washington. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45Kl814. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Marino, Cesare. 1990. "History of Western Washington since 1846." Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp.169-179. Editor Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Meany, Edmond S. 1923. Origin of Washington Geographic Names. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Mester, Robert. 1990. Department of Community Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 45Kl425. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. 12/21109 C:\Documents and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\ConlenlOutlook~TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 18 Metsker, Charles F. 1927. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Washington. Metsker, Charles F. 1936. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Washington. Metsker Map Company. Seattle, Metsker Map Company. Seattle, Morgan, Murray. 1979. Puget's Sound: a Narrative of Early Tacoma and the Southern Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Murphy, Laura and Lynn L. Larson. 2003. Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP # 200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring). Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Nelson, Charles M. 1990. "Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region." Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp.481-484. Editor Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C. Noel, Patricia Slettvel. 1980. Muckleshoot Indian History. Auburn School District No. 408. Auburn, Washington. NWAA. 2001. Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Light Lanes Project .Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. NRCS website. 2009. Washington Soil Survey Reports. www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw soill wa reports.htm!. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed November 23'd .. Petersen, Kenneth L., Peter J. Mehringer, Jr., and Carl E. Gustafson. 1983. "Late-Glacial Vegetation and Climate at the Manis Mastodon Site, Olympic Peninsula, Washington." Quaternary Research. 20:215- 231. Rowe, Paul. 1987. Little History of Washington. SCW Publications. Seattle, Washington. Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1992. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Oklahoma. Slauson, Morda C. 1976. Renton, from coal tojets. Edited by Ethel Telban. Renton Historical Society. Renton, Washington. Snyder, Dale E., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Suttles, Wayne and Barbara Lane. 1990. "Southern Coast Salish." Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp.485-502. Editor Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Swanton, John Reed. 1952. Indian Tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Ye Galleon Press. Fairfield, Washington. 1~1f09 C:IDocuments and Settlngslvdolbee\local SettingslTemporary Internet FUes\Content.OuUook\BTC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing Letter Report ORAFT.docLANOAU ASSOCIATES 19 Thorson, Robert M. 1980. "Ice-sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade (Late Pleistocene). " Quaternary Research. 13:303-321. USGS. 1950 (photorevised 1968 abd 1973). Mercer Island Quadrangle, Wash. 7.5 Minute Series. U.S. Geological Survey. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington. USGS. 1983. Bellevue South Quadrangle, Wash. 15 Minute Series. U.S. Geological Survey. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington. Waterman, T.T. 1922. "The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast." The Geographical Review. 12:175-194. Waterman, T.T. 2001. Puget Sound Geography. Editors Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir. Lushootseed Press. Federal Way, Washington. Weaver, Charles E. 1937. Tertiary Stratigraphy of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Volume 4. University of Washington Publications in Geology. Seattle, Washington. Wessen, G.C. and M.L. Stilson. 1987. Resource Protection Planning Process: Southern Puget Sound Study Unit. An RP3 document prepared for the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Historical Climate Information, Climate of Washington. www.wrcc.dri.edulindex.html. Accessed on November 30. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1: Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. WPA. 1941. Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State. Workers Project Administration. Binford and Mort. Portland, Oregon. Wright, H.E., Jr., and David G. Frey (eds.). 1965. The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Wright, H.E. Jr., and Stephen C. Porter (eds.). 1983. Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota. WSDOT. 2007. 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvements Project. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. 12!21/09 C:\Documents and Settings\vdolbee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\8TC2UTMR\Hawk's Landing letter Report DRAFT.docLANDAU ASSOCIATES 20 t 1\1 o 0.5 I-''''~-'I!ri''$ !"6e<~~x51m~;5' .. !'''eb,;;sJ¥wo/rw ftw0&&&hJ¢,"£tii>'z" ,I I Data Source: ESRt 2008 Renton • o Spokane Washington IA Hawks Landing Figure • lANDAU Improvement Project Vicinity Map 1 . .. AsSOCIATES Renton, Washington ~~~~~-L ____ ~ ________ ~ __ ~ -I elL I 'doT$' . 31. 0=== ~ ~ Legend ~ -Modern Shoreline I • I • I I I'" • VI I I I I I , I I , ! J I , I I , I Data Source: General Land Office 1865 7 Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. o 1,500 3,000 Scale in Feet f City of Renton ~", lAND'''u I Hawks Landin~ 1865 General Land Office 2 . " mprovement PrOject Map and Project Area "',,,' AsSOCIATES...L_...:.:R::e;,,:nt::o::.,:n:..., Wa;,;.:.:::sh~i;,,:ng~t::o:..:.n __ .L ________________ ..l_-=_J Figure :.. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM June 21, 2011 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Arneta Henninger, Plan Review 44 MAY CREEK SHORT PLAT 4008 MEADOW AVE N LUA 11-037 Parcel 3224059043 I have completed the review for the above-referenced 2 lot short plat development proposal for a City of Renton park, located on & north of N 40'h St and east of Meadow Ave N in the general vicinity of Lake Washington Blvd and 1-405, all in Sect. 32 Twp 24 N Rng 5 E. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER This project is served by the City of Renton. It is in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. There is an existing 12" CI water main in N 40'h 51. Refer to City of Renton drawing # W0390. There is an existing fire hydrant in Meadow Ave N. City records show that there is an existing %" water meter serving the house at 4008 Meadow Ave N on what will be the new lot 2 of this proposed short plat. SANITARY SEWER There is an existing Metro sanitary sewer main on the north side of the parcel being. It appears per the City's records that the existing house, on what will be the new Lot 2, is currently connected to the existing Metro sanitary sewer main located to the north. There is an 8" sewer main in both N 40'h St and in Meadow Ave N. See City of Renton drawing S179. STORM There is an 18" storm drainage facility in both N 40'h St and in Meadow Ave N. See City of Renton drawing R2344 for details. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER • Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. H:jCED/PlanningjCurrent PlanningjPROJECTS/1l-037.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments LUA 11-037.doc -' May Creek Short Plat -LUA 11-037 Page 2 of 2 June 21, 2011 o Existing fire hydrants need to be brought up to current code if not existing. o Fire Prevention staff did not have any comments on this short plat. o System development fees are based on the size of any and all water meters. The fees are triggered if there is an increase in size to the existing water meter serving lot 2, or if any new water meters are installed. SANITARY SEWER o Additional review is required if there is a submittal of a commercial building permit application. o Confirmation is needed that the existing house is connected to sewer and that a private sanitary sewer easement is in place or will be in place prior to recording the short plat. o System Development Charges (SDC) are based on any and all domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are triggered if there is an increase in size or number of the domestic water meters. STORM DRAINAGE o Additional review required if there is a submittal of a commercial building permit application. o If there is a submittal of a commercial building permit application, the project will be required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. o The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development charges of $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS o Additional street improvements are not triggered unless a commercial building permit is submitted. o Traffic Mitigation Fees are not triggered by this project. GENERAL • All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals, prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards, by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/I1-037.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments lUA 1l-037.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan gevieu-J APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22,2012 PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/ A 11_,,~~vICES CITY OF RENTON mn, ¥" .u 1<. RIECIE~VIED SUMMARY'OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major ,;£ormotlon Impocts Impacts ecessary Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impacts Necessary Eorth Hausin Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS e have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • .. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 ~A~P~P~L~IC~A~TI~O~N~N~O~:~L~U~A~1~2-~0~37~,~E~CF~,~S~M~,~SM~V ____________ ~D~A~TE~C~I~R~CU~~~T~ED~:~M~A~Y~22~,~2~0~12~ __ ~~~~~~s€~CES APPLICANT: City of Renton: Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/ A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access pOints are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element o{the Probable Probable More Environment Minor MoJor Information Impacts Imparts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor MoJor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Water Li ht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS , C. CODE-RELATEO COMMENTS 4a~ We have reviewed this application with particular ttention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas 0/ probable impact or areas where additional in/or ion is needed t e operJyassess this roposol. I~~~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22,2012 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is locatedat 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline DeSignation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access pOints are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mojor Informotlon Impacts Impacts Necessary Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary forth Air Water ~ ]a Tiife Plants Land/Shoreline Use ftffitieS Animals Environmental Health Energy/ 1'*1 Natural Resources ~~~:~,- ~ B. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infJ mati is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: tconolY\ 'I (. 'Dev COMMENTS D~: JUNE 5, 2012 ') APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE ClRCULAT~22 20l2-~ APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/ A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are ro osed alon trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native pan s. e applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Imparts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary ,rth Housing Aesthetics 'at., Light/Glare ants Recreation ~areline Use Utilities Transportation . Public Services ~:~~;;; Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet B. C. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needet;J to properly assess this proposal. Date' , ~ King County Wastewater Treatment Division Community Services and Environmental Planning King Street Center, KSC-NR-0505 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 May 31, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 Dear Ms. Dolbee: sent via e-mail The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and Proposed DNS for the May Creek Trail project, A King County faCility, May Creek Interceptor, is located along the northern edge of the site and underlying the proposed trailhead, Please see the attached GIS map, In order to project this wastewater facility, King County is requesting the following: • Please submit construction drawings to Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator in Asset Management. Todd can be reached at 206-684-1369. Please send drawings to: Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator King County WTD Asset Management 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Hillary Schafer Water Quality Planner/Project Manager Community Services and Environmental Planning cc: Todd Keithahn, Local Public Agency Administrator, Engineering & Asset Management attachment CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER In." f" ~.~~;::~; ,~.~" . -----........ I City of Renton \Department of Community & Economic Dev~,opment I ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~lC-h"av\ COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22, 2012 PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/ A SHEET ... v Q Q ?OI? SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Nan-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts 'mp~cts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormotlon Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land horeline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ 1\ Natural Resources rrr~F;;; B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher dditional information is neede to properly assess this 'proposal. Date , . City of Renton Department of Community & Economic [h .dopment EN V I RON MEN TAL & DE VEL 0 PM E NT A P P Lie A T ION R E VI E W 5 H E E T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fire. COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22,2012 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/ A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Enviro·nmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access pOints are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glore Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet / t'-.", /~ 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /~! C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS V I I We have reviewed this application with porticular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional in/ormation is needed to properly a ess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~u:t.."" SV(S COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF\M, S~ DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22, 2012 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in Size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Probable Minor Impocts B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Probable Major Impacts M. Info Nee re ,motion essary / Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment MinOr Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Liaht/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans rtation Public Services HistoriC/Cultural Preservation ~ 10,000 , Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact where. ditional info matio ededt properly assess this proposal. \ \ ~~~2-~ ~~~~~z~4+r_~~~O~l~2-~ __ ___ Signature of Di epresentative Date \ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ifl)1tJJ{W COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 22,2012 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Community Services PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: May Creek Trail PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 134,531 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): Nj A LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f)(1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900.linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of all trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Impacts Impacts Necessary Eorth Housin Air Aesthetics Water Ligl]J/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservotion Airport Environment 10,DOOFeet 14 000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATEO COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particu/a attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact tion is needed t properly assess this proposal. Date .-... City of , , ~ ---~-%'--:JI f!~(BU'i11MjlDJ @ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON_SIGNIFICANCE-MITlGATED (DNS-Mj A "'ute. Appn .. Uon hoi boln filid ...... x<tp'od .... ,'" tho D.p.rtm.n' 01 com"",nlt'j & E<onomi. D.,,'opm,:nt IctDj-","l'II'IIn, OI"'oIDO 01 1M CIty of IIIIn'o ... Tho hIIlcnolnc """fly dauilMt thIIlppllalion Ind tho...... 1'/ Publl. App,o •• I •• DATfOF NOlla OF A",UCATlON, Moy U.lOll lAND U51. NUMBlll: LU.o.ll-037, iCF, 51.1, SMV PROJECfLOCATION: 4008 "'udow ..... nu. N OPTIONAL DEURMINATION OF NON_5IGNIAtANCE, MITlGAHD ION~·MI: ..., the l.ad .... r.cv. tto. aty ~ R~",IOn III, d ir>ed \lilt "Inilleont IfI\I'I<O"",.nttl ImpoeU ... ~nnk.ly to ,",uk I,om , .... projlllud prajotl .... d ..... .term (1 01 Renton ... 00nl the illIrional DHS-M pn>C.uto ..... notk. that. ONS-Plfmll~d und.r,n" RC: 4~'Z1C.l~~' ~~Od; for lito project .nd ,h. propo •• d ONS-M .r. Int.,roted In.o • ,'nil. :~::~:y~~o~. ~,~ wl:~:~ commtnt period IoIIawin,lhe IsSlJllf"Q 01 thl Th .... hold Dtllrmlnl\lan 01 Non- Sllnlficl""o.Mltliotld (ONS.M). '" 14·dlY Ip",," per10d will follow 1~II .. u.n'. oflho ONS·M. pf.~MIT olPPLICAllON DATE, NonCE Of COMpUTE APPLICAnorct olPPUCANT/P~OJECT CONTolCT PE~SON: p.",,'''/~.YI.w R.q~ •• t.d' 011>0, ,.rmll> whlcll fI\IY bo .. qul,.d: MIV 9. 2011 Mlvl1. lon Todd BlldI. Clt'j 01 R.nton; 1055 5 ,,"'1Iy ..... Iy: ~ ... ton, ..... ol 91OS1: Eml: Ibl.,~lIProOIO"""·IO' En.',onm.ot.1 (SEPA) ~ .. I.w. Sho ... II •• S~_"tI_IIH •• lopmo"t 11 •• 1_, Sho,.IIM v_""nc. ~ .. I ... Conotrv<1lo0 Inti SI," P",""" T.<~nl<.llnlo,mallon Roporl. Crlth:., ........ R.~O", oad Blololl<ol ~, II you would lI~o 10 bo maG. a pony ol .. ""d 10 ""olv. /Urlh .. Inlo"""I:O o~ Ihl' p'~:':~;O~O<I. <ampl." till' lorm .nd ... tum 10: City 01 Ronton, CEO -Ptlnolna o_n. 10S5 So. G .. 1Iy IY, onton. • NI"'."U. folD.' M_y Cn.~ TroiI/WA1H137. EO, SM. 5MV TElEPHONE /10.: lo<:ItIon..-l>o .... ppiigtl .... may b .... ,._d' PUBUC HURING, CONSISUNCY OV£Rvtrlr. Zonlnlllond VI., En ............ """ Iloaom.ntI tt.o. Ev.lu.t.,M Prop .... d '''')oct, D ••• lap .... "1 R'lulltlon. u .. d Fat ,,,,)oct MltlfltlOfI' ""'~ Mltlptlon M •• lUra' O'P0rl",.ot 0' Community" EeGnoml< O ..... lop"'"ol (CEOI-Pllnnlnl O .... I ..... SlxltlfIoorllolnlOftOly HIli, 1055 _Grady ..... o,!, I\eftIor\, WA lion Puhllr beorl ... " lro"'",,1v ""'tdylcd W'uly IQ 1012 bolo ... lb. 50nlon H ... 'n. !!Im'l"'f 10 Roo!90 Omnrl) C~ombro H .. ,'op bel'O "' 10:00 _.m. on the 7t11I1oo, 01 tilt new knloa Clty HIR 10ClIld 111055 South G .. 1Iy Woy. Th •• ubJ.ct "1. " dlSllo •• ed R .. ,d.ntlll Slnll. hmltv IR5Fi an t~. CIIy al R.nlon (om ..... h."',.. unci V .. M.p .ncI W._llar .. """ilII>I units "", &at! IR"lon \II. Oly" Zooln, M.p. Envl,onmenl.'ISEP",) (he<:kll.t Tho ",,,Iodwill be .ul:I)od, to"'. 01(, UP"...-o<" RMC 1-!HmI. WMC'-9- 190, ftMC 4'1~50 .nd otho, Ippllubl. <od •• Ind '.lull!lo", U ."prop .... t •• Th. lollowtn, Millptl"" Moo ... ,.., will "1o;<,1y be Impo .. d on lb. Prol'Old projee\. Tho •• ,o<ommend.d 10'11111"101'1 M ... ", ••• dd .. ~ projeellmp.cU Mt CD¥erod by ''''''tin, ....... ncI rquIa.lon. o. dtld ._. 1111 gppllCQI)t .hall comply with lhe I'fcommmdoll<Jl!' Ifrdudfd in tht CrltIa1I A,,,,,, Rtpcllt. prtp<J"d by Oovld hun, urICIolU«/IH.~ d<>lflIAptl/2011. 1111 appilcDnr JII<JJI compIof wIf1I tilt I'fcom .... rlda!JuttJ indIJdtd III 1M ~ .....".".."~ /If'ptnd "" DavId C""'" QJld ..... ocI"r.~ I/QltdAprlll011. eo .......... on Ih. "_ "P!'IIt1"on must be IUbmlttld 10 ",11111'111<1 Vlnoss. Dolb •• , Sonl", ~anno" ([0 -P'Ilnnln. Ol""'al'l, leu Sou.h Gra-dy WIY, WIfI ..... W" '1057, by 5,00 PM on Nne 5, lOU. "nI1 • ....tIff II oloo ,.nutl ... ,., ochodul.d !'O, I public h"M, an "",., 10, 1011,. It 10:00 1.11'1 •• CoUocn (llamben. Srvenlh Aoor. Ront"" Oly 1'1,11. 1055 Soulh G,.dV W.y, R.nton. Ilya" .,.Inl".ot.d In lltondlnl Ihll>olnnlL pl .... ..,Oloct 11>0 PI_nnl". Dlvlolon to on'"," \lI.i1!he hI • .-.I'Ia, no. 110"" rooc.ncdu!eclllIUS\.JO-7212. tt..,mmltllu cannol be SllbmIUod In..rttlnt by til, date lodleat.d Ibove, you may 'till IPP'""' Iho ~ ... Inl.nd 1''''''1'11 YD"' o;<lmmenU On the propo,.1 b.lo •• Ih. Hu,lni hIm"'.'. If.,.,., 110 ... q ... "Ion •• boul tllil propopl, 0' wl<h to be mod •• pony 01 to«InI Inci ....... oddi<IDnol Infa,moUDn by mill. pl .... ..,n\lct I~. proj.ct m'no.or. "'''1'61'1' w~" .~bmIU wrlilln commonll wilioulo",.tio"ly be..,me. POri\' of "ami ,ad w~l be nctln.:d DI .ny dedsion on thl, II"'~. CONTAcr PERSON: Vanessa Oolbee, Senior Planner; Tel: (42S) 43()'7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG fOR PROPER fiLE IDENTIfiCATION J CERTIFICATION \:' ~ ~tiJ~ . hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in __ . conspicuous places or nearb~i~ed property on- Date:\DJ~ c9J) de) )0) Signed: a ~ STATE OF WA I GTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that :Un,,-'De. /;c I e 5 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and mentioned in the instrument_ Notary Public in ;: d for th~ State of Washington Notary (Print) :_-----'l±""-'-"" Au--..,;fr"-,-"",-=Io",,,-lV,,--' _____ _ a p poi ntm ent expi res: ___ ---.'A"-It;,'t]¥If:.:03'>'--\--:!.-' .,::;;2=.Q"!,,r'" :2!!£.!.QL.\.C?.::L __ _ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVelOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22 0d day of May, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, Site Plan, Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan See Attached Todd Black -Accpt. Letter Contact/Applicant/Owner 300' Surrounding Propety Owners -NOA only See Attached Karen Walter -NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Biological Assessment,Critial Areas Report Deann Kirkpatrick -NOA NMFS Mark Carey -NOA FEMA (Signature of Sender): ~J~'4Jj1Jj!,jt.fJ.~::.....-_________ ~~~~~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Public i~ and for the State of Washington \ , Notary (Print):. ____ ..:..:I-\~A...:.:...-----=.(;...:..;..-a.-b=.eI..:::.. ___________ _ My appointment expires: A v.~ \.'-"51,--;z. 'I, 0l.0 \3 Project Name: May Creek Trail Project Number: LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV template -,affidavit of service by mailing - Dept. of Ecology" Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region '" Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. '" 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office· Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program· 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division· Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'" Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of. Application. ** Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing .--" .' 051850071005 O'CONNELL MICHAEL EDWIN+CAR 1241 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 051850072003 HARDEN HARRY 1235 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 322405904903 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY 505 5TH AVE S #900 SEATTLE WA 98104 322405910702 GOULD RAYMOND L VENA CANDACE 1426 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 322405904101 PALKA ADAM 808 N 33RD ST RENTON WA 98056 322405908102 ROB-CLARISSA PARTNERSHIP LL PO BOX 402 FALL CITY WA 98024 322405904309 ROB-CLARISSA PARTNERSHIP LL PO BOX 402 FALL CITY WA 98024 051850069009 ZARRO LAURA A 1225 N 41ST PL RENTON WA 98056 051850063002 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 051850065007 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 051850064000 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 334270054607 RICHTER GARY H JR 3940 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 051850075006 REID LEONARD FREDERICK+PATR 1217 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 322405910603 NGUYEN ANDREW+VlLAY LATSAMY 1438 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 322405905405 HAUER ALFRED H 1330 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 322405901008 ROB-CLARISSA PARTNERSHIP LL PO BOX 402 FALL CITY WA 98024 051850070007 BOLIBOL KAREN S+VILLAMOR 1231 N 41ST PL RENTON WA 98056 322405910900 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057 051850074009 LELAND PAUL+TERRI 1223 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 051850067003 MOSS GARY LEE+KATHLEEN MARl 1213 N 41ST PL RENTON WA 98056 322405910801 TRAVIS HUGH LEE IV 1420 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98055 322405903806 DIEU RANDY+JULIE 1312 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 322405906205 HUTTON H DOUGLAS 1432 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334270054003 LOPEZ CHRISTOPHER+JENNIFER 3932 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 051850066005 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 322405900505 PORT OF SEATTLE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PO BOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 051850073001 BRUSHABER ERIC C+MAGGARD MI 1229 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 051850068001 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 334270053708 ADKINS DOROTHY 1417 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: May 21, 2012 LAND USE NUMBER: lUA12-037, ECF, SM, $MV PROJECT NAME: May Creek Trail PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of a 0.27 mile long trail along May Creek. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Shoreline yariance from RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.(f){1) to construct the trail at 6 feet in width instead of the required 4-foot width in a wetland buffer. The site is located at 4008 Meadow Avenue N and is zoned Residential 8 (R-S) units per acre. The site is approximately 3.09 acres in size and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The subject segment of May Creek is located in the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Designation. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard and would meander throughout the project site, one view area would be provided for an overlook to May Creek. Two access points are proposed to the north to provide a connection to the future development on the site to the north. In addition to the 6 foot wide trial, two benches, two Interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split rail fence and a litter receptacle are proposed along the trail. The project would avoid removal of an trees and preserve native plants. The applicant provided a Biological Assessment, Critical Areas Report, and a Technical Information Assessment with the application. Furthermore a mitigation and a restoration plan is included with the proposal. Any cut would be balanced to eliminate any impacts to the flood zone. PROJECT LOCATION: 4008 Meadow Avenue N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (ONS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/RevIew Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: May 9, 2012 May 21, 2012 Todd Black, City of Renton; 1055 5 Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057; Eml: tblack@rentonwa.gov Environmental (SEPAl RevIew, Shoreline Substantial Development Review, Shoreline Variance Review Construction and Sign Permits Technical Information Report, Critical Areas Report, and Biological Assessment 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 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: May Creek TraiI/LUA12-037, ECF, SM, SMV NAME: ______________________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 980S7 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 10. 2012 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 10:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South G'rady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Residential-8 dwelling units per acre (R-B) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPAl Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-9-070, RMC 4-9- 190, RMC 4-3-050 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant shall comply with the recommenqations included in the Critical Areas Report prepared by David Evans and Associates, dated April 2012. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Biological Assessment, prepared by David Evans and Associates, dated April 2012. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Vanessa Oolbee, Senior Planner, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on June 5, 2012. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on July 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City HaU, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Jf you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430~7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430·7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov ~ PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Denis Law Mayor May 22,2012 Todd Black City of Renton Community Services 1055 S Grady Way . Renton, WA 98057 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application May Creek Trail, LUA12"037, ECF, SM, SMV Dear Mr. Black: . The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on June 18, 2012. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on July 10, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at . the public hearing. Acopy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior planner Renton City Hall· 1055 South GradyWay • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ~UA rz-o~7 City of Renton c· II],O( . P1af7f7i lient lAND USE PERMIT At4 f7[JDiI/fSio~n Y'9 MAS)uER APPlICA1IOlfE~, lOll ,~. ; ..... u I PROPERTY OWNER(S) I PROJECT INFORMATI()~ City of Renton PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: May Creek Trail 1055 S. Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: 4260 Lake Washington Boulevard North Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 322405-9109 I APPLICANT (if other than owner) I EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): Park EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: Residential 8 (R-8) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: Residential 8 (R-8) I CONTACT PERSON I PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Todd Black SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME: 134,531 sf SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): DEDICATED: 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: 0 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable) 0 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 0 425-430-6571 tblack@gmaiLcom NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 H:\PARKS\Capital Project Coordinator\Projects A-Z\MAY CREEK TRAll\ENVIRONMENTAL FOR TRAll\Master Application.doc . 1- I P~~JECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(lc~o~n~tI=,.=~e~d=I) ______________ -. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $ 191,650.00 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 X FLOOD HAZARD AREA 111,725 sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable):. 0 X GEOLOGIC HAZARD 134,531 sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): 0 o SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES 'i ZS L.~ NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 X WETLANDS 786 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE __ 1 __ QUARTER OF SECTION _32_, TOWNSHIP _24N, RANGE _5E_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Todd P. Black, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _X_ 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. Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -;;-:g~k-I::illOJ~~~:::::'-_::--,,- signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/th 'r free and voluntary act for th uses and purpose mentioned in the instru~JlA(';R""" .~ COUNTY OF KING "II,\~~ ___ --.:.~O;: Date S -'t-I"\ lj",~.··"':i;.\ON 1;-\-';;'·.:1 ~ - - -£l ~ ()"T ,MY ~" -""''''=r--~~-+--'\--+':'---------- Dated ~ i 0 ~O "'! N~ry ublic in a for the State of " : (,) 0'"" • ...:3 : s ". r":<: S ~ ~ \ pua\...\'v l 0 ~ .' {". () ,(\'" \."',;:··· •• "~27_~····~tary(print):A ,~(. '\. D'IDr' ~{.~OF·W·~"'~~I'\ I d I''-J \"'v'ILf ................ .I'"..I'NiYId~pojntment expires: l"\ CT nv H:\PARKS\Capital Project Coordinator\Projects A~Z\MAY CREEK TRAtL\ENVIRONMENTAl FOR TRAll\Master Application.doc -2- I PLANNING DIVISION WAIVl . OF SUBMITTAL RE.QUI. ":MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS City of Fl . . P1ann· ento n IngD· . IVis· Ion This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review PROJECT NAME: Mav C reef: jXco! DATE: 6/ Iy II~ 3. Building 4. Planning H:\CED\Oata\Forms-Templates\Self·Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs,xls 06109 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVEr )F SUBMITTAL REQUIRr lENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease 3 of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: Me!t. evee t j1a i I DATE: (¥IUJ/11 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Temptates\Self-HeJp Handouts\Plannlng\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: COPIES: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. April 19,2012 City of Renton Attn: Todd Black MEMORANDUM Parks Planning and Natural Resources 1055 South Grady Way P.O. Box 90012 Renton, W A 98057-3232 Scott Swarts PROJECT NARRATIVE RENTOOOOOO IS -May Creek Trail file c· 'lyo, Plan. Ilent. 9"'9 D-.s" The City of Renton is proposing to construct a section of trail adjacent to May Creek that includes crossing shoreline jurisdiction, buffer of a Category III wetland, and a portion of the flood hazard zone. The site address is 4260 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington 98065, and is further identified as Parcel Number 3224059109. This parcel is situated on the north side of May Creek, west of Interstate 405 (1-405), between 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard North. The entire parcel covers approximately 3.09 acres and abuts approximately 900 linear feet of May Creek. The parcel is undeveloped land zoned Residential 8 (R-8). Zoning to the south is also R-8, but changes to Commercial OfficelResidential (COR) immediately north of the project site on vacant land designated for the Hawks Landing Hotel. The City of Renton is in the process of implementing The Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan reflects the desire to create an interconnected trail network to accommodate both recreational and commuting uses for pedestrians and cyclists. This effort includes a pedestrian greenway trail along May Creek, with a connection to Lake Washington and Honey Creek. The Master Plan identified the May Creek Trail as a high priority, which, when completed, would include a 6-mile-Iong trail between Lake Washington and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. This specific project is a critical step toward implementing the goals outlined in the Master Plan. The May Creek Trail Project (Project) is defined as the construction of a pedestrian trail, and implementation of a mitigation/restoration plan within shoreline jurisdiction and flood hazard area of May Creek and buffer of a small (786 square feet) Category III wetland (Wetland A). The Project would construct a 6-foot-wide by 0.27-mile-long trail composed of permeable materials (bark atop a gravel base). The trail footprint covers approximately 0.20 acre. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement as compensation for 0.20 acre of trail development. Enhancement areas have been segmented into a Base Area (0.98 acre) and Additive Alternate No.1 (0.35 acre). The mitigation plan has been separated into two distinct sections or parts to provide flexibility in managing construction costs. The minimum area that will be planted is defined as the 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue Washington 98005·3518 Phone: 425.519.6500 Facsimile: 425.519.5361 Renton, WA 98057'3232 April 19,2012 Page 2 Base Area. If bid costs are as estimated, both the Base Area and Additive Alternate No. 1 will be planted. In summary, the goal is to plant both areas, but if construction costs are higher than anticipated the area to be planted will be limited to the Base Area. The resulting mitigation ratio of the Base Area would be 4.8:1, but increases to 6.S:1 when the Additive Alternate No. I is included. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek. The trail around the wetland has been located primarily in the outer SO percent of its 7S-foot-wide buffer, except in the southern portion by the stream where a beach access point is proposed. The trail ranges from o to 70 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek, but is typically 30 to 40 plus feet away. The closest point to the OHWM is the beach access point, followed by the overlook pull-out that is approximately 17 feet from the OHWM. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard immediately north of the existing road bridge crossing over May Creek. The trail would meander throughout the project site. One view area that overlooks May Creek, as well as an access point to a gravel bar are included. The trail includes two access points to the north that will eventually connect to Hawks Landing. The trail loops around the on-site wetland within the eastern portion of the parcel. The trail will eventually be expanded further to the east of T-40S. Two benches, two interpretive signs, a trail head sign, a low split-rail fence at the pull-out, and a litter receptacle will be installed. There are no additional parking, structures, or other features associated with this project. No in-water or over-water work is proposed. The majority of the trail will be constructed on grade. Although some minor cut and fill will be required, the neat-line quantities will be balanced within the flood hazard area, resulting in no net fill. The trail has been designed to avoid existing trees, as well as the few patches of native shrubs present on- site. Vegetation to be removed is composed primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), but other non-native species such as Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspida/um) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) will be cleared and grubbed during construction and mitigation-related activities. A few native species are present within the footprint of the proposed trail, consisting primarily of isolated sword ferns (Polys/ichum munitum) and salmonberry (Rubus spec/abi/is). Native species within the trail footprint will be removed during construction and replanted within the mitigation area. Other isolated native plants within the mitigation area will be flagged prior to clearing and grubbing, so they are not impacted. The restoration/mitigation plan (Plan) will convert degraded riparian habitat dominated by non-native invasive species into a corridor of native trees and shrubs designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The Plan has included restoration-related recommendations outlined in the May Creek Basin Action Plan such as increasing the abundance of conifer trees. The Plan also includes restoring the degraded Category III wetland and a portion of its buffer, which is currently dominated by Himalayan blackberry. Based on the trail alignment, design, and mitigation, the project would not result in a loss of ecological function. Once the mitigation plantings become established and mature, a measurable increase in wildlife function will result from implementation of the proposed project. The estimate to construct this project ranges from $IS6,217 (Base Bid) to $191,6S1 (Base Bid plus Additive Alternate No.1). Initials: sasw File Name: P;\r\RENTOOOOOOI 5\0600lNFO\Final Project Narrative.docx Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi Vanessa, Todd Black Tuesday, May 08,20123:17 PM Vanessa Dolbee May Creek Trail Permit -Additional Info Follow up Flagged City of Renton Planning Division MAY -9 lUlL Here's the additional information that you requested after our permit meeting today. This is information beyond what was provided by our consultant, David Evans & Associates. o The project will remove 250 cubic yards (cy) of soil, and import 230 cy of approved material. o The existing soil type, according to the USDA NRCS mapped soils is Norma sandy loam. o No offsite improvements are proposed as a part of this project. o Parks is currently coordinating with the landowner of the property to the north for a construction easement. We expect to have this easement in the next month. o Dust control will be by an available water source with hose and water at the project entrance off of Lake Washington Boulevard North. o The hauling route will head north on Lake Washington Boulevard North to Exit 7 on Interstate 1-405, approximately one quarter mile away. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Todd Todd Black, ASLA Capital Project Coordinator Park Planning and Natural Resources 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Direct: 425-430-6571 tblack@rentonwa.gov 1 .' COMMUNITY SERVICES ~®~@11iI ~.' :. DEPARTMENT ,...-~~l!.~ ~ p'tyOfb M E M 0 RAN 0 U M ~i'lf}f}if}[} ;;el1tol1 1v/SiOf} ------------------------------------------------------~~~~yu-~---- May 8, 2012 91011 DATE: TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: /lfJ/~ Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED ~©~#~ Leslie Betlach, Director, Parks Planning and Natural Resource'lf:/l)) Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator May Creek Trail Shoreline Variance -RMC4-9-1901.4 The Renton Parks Planning and Natural Resources Division (Parks) requests a variance to increase the width ofthe proposed May Creek Trail through a wetland buffer. Shoreline Master Program Regulations RMC 4-3-090c.2.D Subsection ix (f) allows trails in the wetland buffer if four feet in width with pervious surface or boardwalk. Parks is proposing a six foot wide pedestrian trail with pervious bark mulch surface through the outer 50% of the wetland buffer. The proposed May Creek Trail will traverse the city property on the north side of May Creek, from Lake Washington Boulevard North in an easterly direction, towards Interstate 1-405. Approximately 200 yards in from Lake Washington Boulevard North, the proposed six foot wide trail will cross a Category III wetland buffer. The trail stays primarily in the outer 50% of the buffer and circles back to the main trail and returns to Lake Washington Boulevard North. The city is providing mitigation for this trail project by removing 1.5 acres of invasive plants, and replanting with native trees and shrubs. The variance permit has exceptional conditions applying to the subject property, and do nat apply to other properties on shorelines in the some vicinity. The May Creek Trail is a unique and exceptional ongoing development between the cities of Renton and Newcastle, and King County. The trail will eventually provide continuous access along May Creek from Lake Washington to Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. This proposed trail, close to urban development, will be very popular. A proposed condominium and hotel development immediately to the north and connecting with the May Creek Trail will have two six foot wide trail sections. An existing trail from the mouth of the creek to Lake Washington Boulevard North is six feet in width. The May Creek Trail will be ADA accessible, and in this urban setting, providing a six foot width will allow for a more comfortable passing width than a four foot wide trail, which would likely require a pedestrian to step into the restored habitat and potentially damage new native plants as they pass other visitors. .. Vanessa Dolbee Page 2 of 2 May 8,2012 The variance permit is necessary Jor the preservation and enjoyment oj a substantiol property right oj the applicant possessed by the owners oj other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. Providing a greater trail width within the wetland buffer will be necessary for the public's enjoyment of open space along May Creek. The trail is a portion of the proposed May Creek Greenway system, which will preserve and enhance a natural setting by planting native trees and shrubs along a salmonid bearing stream. A narrower trail width through the buffer would create a bottleneck on what will be a popular streamside trail in an urban setting. This variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property along the shorelines in the same vicinity. In contrast, leaving the trail width at the mandated four foot width would be materially detrimental to the public welfare due to the expected volume of visitors. A four foot wide trail will allow for two people to walk side by side, while a six foot trail width will allow for three people, say two in one direction and one in the opposite direction. Creating a wider trail will allow for the restored habitat landscape to flourish without being trampled upon as visitors walk off of a narrow trail to pass each other, unless they are in single file. The variance gronted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent oj the Shoreline Master Program. A greater trail width will provide the public with a comfortable walking access toan enhanced landscape buffer and to a salmonid bearing stream. It will also better protect the landscape of the May Creek Greenway by allowing visitors to comfortably traverse this area without stepping off the trail. The public welfare and interest will be preserved, Providing a variance to increase the trail width from four feet to six feet within the wetland buffer will match the width of the adjoining trail across Lake Washington Boulevard, and will provide for a comfortable width in an urban forest setting. The restored landscape habitat with native trees and shrubs will provide a forested landscape that will benefit native wildlife and migrating salmon and trout, including the endangered Chinook salmon. \ . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: April 19, 2012 Todd Black • a .. 0 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC. MEMORANDUM Parks Planning and Natural Resources 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Karen Comings, P.E. May Creek Trail -Flood Hazard Area RENTOOOOOOl5 -May Creek Trail COPIES: file INTRODUCTION The City of Renton proposes the May Creek Trail Project that will construct a new trail segment between Lake Washington Boulevard North and Interstate {I)-405 (see Exhibit 1). The proposed trail will cross a portion of the special flood hazard area inundated by May Creek's 100-year floodplain. This memorandum investigates and documents anticipated effects within the May Creek flood hazard area with the intention of addressing requirements stipulated within the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located within the City of Renton, Washington (Section 32, Township 24 north, Range 05 east, W.M.). The site address is 4260 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington 98065, and is further identified as Parcel Number 3224059109. This parcel covers approximately 3.09 acres and abuts approximately 925 linear feet of May Creek. The parcel is undeveloped and situated on the north side of May Creek. The site. is in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8: Cedar-Sammamish Basin. More specifically, the project site is within the May Creek Watershed, 6th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 171100120302, while the approximate latitude and longitude is 47.52881 by -122.19966. The City of Renton's designated flood hazard' area for May Creek covers a large portion of the project site. The City's flood hazard area differs from the effective flood insurance rate map (FIRM) regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency -Department of Homeland Security (FEMA-DHS). Both of these boundaries are shown on Exbibit 1 relative to the project site. This memorandum adheres to the flood hazard boundary as the boundary applied to the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC), as well as being the more conservative of the two areas. The majority of the proposed trail will be constructed within the flood hazard area. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue Washington 98005-3518 Phone: 425.5t 9.6500 Facsimile: 425.519.5361 Todd Black April 19,2012 Page 2 PROPOSED PROJECT • Entry to the proposed trail will be from Lake Washington Boulevard North. The trail crosses roughly through the middle of the property, following the north side of May Creek with a varying distance from the ordinary high water of roughly 20 to 60 feet. At the east side of the property, the trail ends in a tum-around loop. The design also provides two branch points for future access from the property to the north and several places where May Creek can be seen, as well as one site where the creek can be accessed by pedestrians. The trail will be constructed of wood chips on a crushed gravel base. The majority of the trail will be constructed on grade. Some minor cut and fill may be required for construction; however, the cut and fill neat-line quantities will be balanced within the flood hazard area for no net fill. No buildings will be constructed as part of this project; however, the site will include two benches; two interpretive signs; a trailhead sign; a trash receptacle; and a low, split rail fence at one viewing area. REGULA TORY REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton is the floodplain manager for this area. Flood h!lZard areas are regulated within the City's Critical Areas Regulations, Section 4-3-050 of the RMC. In addition, flood hazard data must be provided as part of the City of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (permit) application. The permit requires four specific points of information regarding floodplains. These points are addressed below: o Elevation above mean sea level of the lowest jloor (including basement) of all structures. No structures will be constructed as part of this project. o Elevation above mean sea level to which any structure has been jloodproofed. No structures will be constructed as part of this project. o Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the jloodproojing methods criteria in RMC 4-3-050 have been met. The trail surface will be a layer of fir bark per the City's request. Inspection and maintenance of the trail is recommended following any high water event. o Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. The adjacent watercourse, May Creek, will not be altered by this project. CONCLUSION The City of Renton's May Creek Trail Project will not adversely impact the May Creek flood hazard area nor the FEMA 100-year floodplain. No fill will be added and no buildings will be constructed within the flood hazard area. Attachments/Enclosures: Exhibit 1 Initials: KJCO File Name: P:\r\RENTOOOOOOI5\0600INFOIFloodplain Memo\Floodplain Memorandum_2012-04-16.docx ! Source.: City of May Creek Trail Flood Hazard Area Legend -May Creek Tra il --Streams D Flood Hazard Area _ FEMA Floodplain Property Boundari es N + o 40 80 120 160 ---- - F .. t May Creek Trail RENTO0000015 Exhibit 1 31112012 " DAVID EVANS _A •• OCIATIES _. PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI&1o f tJ. City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 'Qllnlng 0' , "un IVlsio n MAY -9 Z(l1Z PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: , fflJ~rt;~Urf, The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl. Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governm'lf:f/J agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. ' Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. - 1 - 06/09 P:\r\RENT0000001S\o600lNFO\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist· May Creek TraiLdoc ( A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: May Creek Trail 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton Park Planning & Natural Resources 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: City of Renton Park Planning & Natural Resources Attn: Todd Black lOSS S. Grady Way Renton, W A 9S057 4. Date checklist prepared: April IS, 2012 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): SummerIFa1l2012 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, this is a segment of a larger trail network that will be constructed as additional access and funding become available. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. o Critical Areas Report o Mitigation Plan o FEMA Biological Assessment 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. -2-06/09 P;\r\RENT00000015\0600INFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc '.' o Shoreline Substantial Development. o Shoreline Variance (for trail width in wetland buffer). o Land Use Permit. o Grading Permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The City of Renton is in the process of implementing The Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan reflects the desire to create an interconnected trail network to accommodate both recreational and commuting uses for pedestrians and cyclists. This effort includes a pedestrian greenway trail along May Creek, with a connection to Lake Washington and Honey Creek. The Master Plan identified the May Creek Trail as a high priority, which, when completed, would include a 6-mile-Iong trail between Lake Washington and Cougar Mountain Regional Wildland Park. This specific project is a critical step toward implementing the goals outlined in the Master Plan. The May Creek Trail Project (Project) is defined as the construction of a pedestrian trail, and implementation of a mitigation/restoration plan within shoreline jurisdiction and flood hazard area of May Creek and buffer of a small (786 square feet) Category III wetland (Wetland A). The Project would construct a 6-foot-wide by 0.27-mile-Iong trail composed of permeable materials (bark atop a gravel base). The trail footprint covers approximately 0.20 acre. The mitigation plan includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement as compensation for 0.20 acre of trail development. Enhancement areas have been segmented into a Base Area (0.98 acre) and Additive Alternate No. I (0.35 acre). The mitigation plan has been separated into two distinct sections or parts to provide flexibility in managing construction costs. The minimum area that will be planted is defined as the Base Area. If bid costs are as estimated, both the Base Area and Additive Alternate No. I will be planted. In summary, the goal is to plant both areas, but if construction costs are higher than anticipated the area to be planted will be limited to the Base Area. The resulting mitigation ratio of the Base Area would be 4.8: I, but increases to 6.5:1 when the Additive Alternate No.1 is included. All mitigation activities are proposed within the riparian zone of May Creek: The trail around the wetland has been located primarily in the outer 50 percent of its 75-foot-wide buffer, except in the southern portion by the stream where a beach access point is proposed. The trail ranges from 0 to 70 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek, but is typically 30 to 40 plus feet away. The closest point to the OHWM is the beach access point, followed by the overlook pull-out that is approximately 17 feet from the OHWM. The trail head would be located on Lake Washington Boulevard immediately north of its crossing over May Creek and would tie into an existing concrete sidewalk. The trail would meander throughout the project site. One view area that overlooks May Creek, as well as an access point to a gravel bar is provided. The trail includes two access points to'the north that will eventually connect to a planned development known as Hawks Landing. The trail loops around the on-site wetland within the eastern portion of the parcel. The trail will eventually be expanded further to the east of 1-405. Two benches, two interpretive signs, a trailhead sign, a low split-rail fence at the pull-out, and a litter receptacle will also be installed. No additional parking, structures, or other features are associated with this project. No in-water or over-water work is proposed. The majority of the trail - 3 - 06/09 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600INFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc r will be constructed on grade. Although some minor cut and fill will be required, the neat-line quantities will be balanced within the flood hazard area, resulting in no net fill. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is located within the City of Renton, Washington (Section 32, Township 24 north, Range 05 east, W.M.). The site address is 4260 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington 98065, and is further identified as Parcel Number 3224059109. This parcel is located on the north side of May Creek, west side of Interstate 405 (1-405), between 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard North. The entire parcel covers approximately 3.09 acres. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); M rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Five percent based on trail alignment profiles. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Sandy soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The majority of the trail will be constructed on grade. Although some minor cut and fill will be required, the neat-line quantities will be balanced within the flood hazard area, resulting in no net fill. The trail itself will be composed of bark atop a gravel base. The source will be based on contractor selection and is unknown at present. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, but measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate potential erosion. -4-06/09 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600JNFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 0.20 percent. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR The project includes measures designed to reduce potential impacts to May Creek resulting from construction of the trail and associated mitigation-related activities .. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plan has been prepared and will be implemented and monitored during construction. The TESC plan includes the use of several best management practices (BMPs) such as clear plastic covering, compost sock, dust control, filter fabric silt fence, high visibility fence, mulch and/or matting, permanent seeding and planting, and preserving natural vegetation. The project also includes a stormwater pollution prevention plan that requires implementing 12 elements. The elements are outlined below. Element # 1: Preserve VegetationlMark Clearing Limits. Element #2: Establish Construction Access. Element #3: Control Flow Rates. Element #4: Install Sediment Controls. Element #5: Stabilize Soils. Element #6: Protect Slopes. Element #7: Protect Drain Inlets. Element #8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets. Element #9: Control Pollutants. Element #10: Control Dewatering. Element # 11: Maintain BMPs. Element #12: Manage the Project. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Limited to construction vehicles and equipment. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 3. WATER -5-06/09 P:\r\RENT0000001S\0600INFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trai1.doc r a. Surface Water: 1} Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. o May Creek, which flows into Lake Washington. o Wetland A, which is isolated. 2} Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No in or over water work is proposed. However, work within 200 feet of May Creek and the buffer of Wetland A will occur. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a lOO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2} Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Not Applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): ·6· P:\r\RENT00000015\OBOOlNFO\sEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc 06/09 :( 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Not Applicable. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The project includes measures designed to reduce potential impacts to May Creek resulting from construction of the trail and associated mitigation-related activities. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan has been prepared and will be implemented and monitored during construction. The TESC plan includes the use of several best management practices (BMPs) such as clear plastic covering, compost sock, dust control, filter fabric silt fence, high visibility fence, mulch and/or matting, permanent seeding and planting, and preserving natural vegetation. The project also includes a stormwater pollution prevention plan that requires implementing 12 elements. 4.' PLANTS a. Check or circle types of ve etation found on the site: __ deciduous tree: a e, rna Ie aspen, ~ __ evergreen tree: fir, eda pine, other _X_ shrubs _X_ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain _. _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrUSh, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _X_ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 0.20 acre of vegetation will be cleared for construction of the trail, and a maximum of 1.33 acres for mitigation/restoration. Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, and reed canarygrass are the dominant species to be cleared. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plants are documented in project vicinity. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The location of the trail has been situated to avoid existing trees and native vegetation. All trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and all ·7-06/09 P;\r\RENT00000015\0600INFQ\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist· May Creek Trail.doc patches of native vegetation were surveyed. Once the survey was completed, the trail was aligned to avoid existing trees and patches of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.98 acre (Base Area) or maximum of 1.33 acres (Base Area plus Additive Alternative) of Himalayan blackberry, Japanese knotweed, and reed canarygrass will be removed and replaced with native species as part of the mitigation/restoration plan. The mitigation plan includes installing a minimum of 320 trees (max 539), 1,324 shrubs (max 1,808), 390 willow live stakes, and 146 ground cover species, most of which will be in close proximity to May Creek. The mitigation plan includes restoration-related recommendations outlined in the .May Creek Basin Action Plan such as increasing the abundance of conifer trees. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk heron ea Ie son bird other ___ ---,,.--.,--,_ Mammals: dee bear elk, beaver, other raccoon, squirrel. vole, mice, rat. etc. Fish: bass, almon ~ herring, shellfish, other: sculpins, pea mouth, largescale suckers. b. List any threatened or' endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon and steel head trout have been reported to occasionally utilize May Creek. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Implementation of the mitigatiOn/restoration plan, which includes removing non- native invasive species and replacing them with native species. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not Applicable. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. ·8· 06/09 P:\t\RENT0000001S\o600INFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe special emergency services.that might be required. Not Applicable. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not Applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 1-405 is located immediately east of the project site. No other significant sources of noise currently exist to the west, north, or south of the project site. Future development to the north of the project site is planned. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from construction will be minor and temporary. It is anticipated that construction can be accomplished within one month, with work occurring Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None proposed. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site is vacant, generally forested, with an understory dominated by non- native invasive species. It appears the site was historically cleared and graded. The site to the north is an abandoned lumber yard. The project site is confined by 1-405 -9-06/09 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600INFO\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc r to the east and Lake Washington Boulevard to the west. May Creek defines the southern edge of the project site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None present. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not Applicable. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Residential 8 (R-8). f. What is the current comprehensive plan deSignation of the site? Residential Single Family. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Conservancy. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, due to the presence of May Creek, floodplain, and wetland. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not Applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Zero. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Review by City planners. -10-06/09 P;\r\RENT00000015\0600INFO\sEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable -zero. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not Applicable -zero. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable -zero. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. No structures proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not Applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None at present. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. • 11 • 06/09 P:\r\RENT0000001S\0600INFQ\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? A trail to Lake Washington is located to the west of the project site, and bike lanes are along Lake Washington Boulevard North. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No, the proposed project will enhance existing and future recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None.' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Lake Washington Boulevard North is the primary access road to the project site, b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No -unknown. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. " '2 " 06109 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600INFO\sEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek Trail.doc ( d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. lS. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. No utilities are currently hooked up to the site, although they are potentially available along Lake Washington Boulevard North. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The only utility that is planned to be used is water. Water would be used for purposes of irrigation during the initial few years of plant establishment. -13 -06109 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600INFo\SEPA\Final SEPA checklist -May Creek TraiLdoc • C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: 1(::hJl;,R~. ~ elk-- l 70 OJ) (2 e,1A-c.6:.-Name Printed: Date: s· 8·\'2..- -14 • 06/09 P:\r\RENT00000015\0600INFO\$EPA\Final SEPA checklist· May Creek Trail.doc J . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: COPIES: April 18,2012 Todd Black City of Renton DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES 'NC. MEMORANDUM Parks Planning and Natural Resources I 055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Scott Swarts Construction Mitigatiou Description RENTOOOOOO 15 -May Creek Trail file PROJECT SUMMARY Cityef Planning ~enton IVlsion MAY -9 lUll fffl ~ ((;~Urf~!tJJ The May Creek Trail Project would construct a 6-foot-wide by 0.27-mile-long trail composed of permeable materials (bark atop a gravel base). The trail footprint covers approximately 0.20 acres. The project includes a maximum of 1.33 acres of stream buffer, wetland buffer, and wetland enhancement as compensation for 0.20 acres of trail development. Enhancement areas have been segmented into a Base Area (0.98 acres) and Additive Alternate No. I (0.35 acres). The mitigation plan has been separated into two distinct sections or parts to provide flexibility in managing construction costs. The minimum area that will be planted is defined as the Base Area. If bid costs are as estimated, both the Base Area and Additive Alternate No.1 will be planted. In summary, the goal is to plant both areas, but if construction costs are higher than anticipated the area to be planted will be limited to the Base Area. Although the overall project area may vary from 1.18 to 1.53 acres, the construction process will be similar. Construction access will be from the north within the adjacent parcel. CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Site Access: Site access will be from the adjoining parcel to the north of the project area. The City of Renton has obtained an easement from the Port Quendall Company to utilize the adjoining parcel, now known as Hawks Landing, for temporary ingress, egress, and staging as needed to construct the May Creek Trail Project. Construction equipment and materials will access the Hawks Landing staging area from Lake Washington Boulevard North. Access to the project area will be from Trail 3 as outlined on Sheet C3. Project Timing: The proposed construction dates are from September 10 through October 19, 2012. Hours of operation would be from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays. 415 118th Avenue SE Bellevue Washington 98005-3518 Phone: 425.519.6500 Facsimile: 425.519.5361 Todd Black April 18,2012 Page 2 Construction Process: The construction process has been defined within the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and is detailed on Sheet C6 (TESC Notes). This process involves 12 steps that must be implemented prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. The 12 steps include: Element # I: Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits Element #2: Establish Construction Access Element #3: Control Flow Rates Element #4: Install Sediment Controls Element #5: Stabilize Soils Element #6: Protect Slopes Element #7: Protect Drain Inlets Element #8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets Element #9: Control Pollutants Element # 1 0: Control Dewatering Element #11: Maintain BMPs Element #12: Manage the Project The Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control drawings indicate where and how all erosion and control best management practices are to be installed. These measures have been designed to minimize dust, erosion, and potential impacts to adjoining critical areas and the public. No special hours of operation are proposed for construction or hauling. The use of a crane is not anticipated. The inclusion of a preliminary traffic control plan is not presented due to the availability of a staging area off of public right-of-way. However, the contractor may be required to submit a right-of- way use application to the City of Renton to use city roads to transport equipment, supplies, and debris to and from the site. Initials: SASW File Name: P;\r\RENTOOOOOO1 S\0600INFO\Construction Mitigation Description\Construction Mitigation Description.docx Printed: 05-09-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Perm it#: LUA 12-037 05/09/2012 01 :54 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 5,150.00 Payee: Interfund Transfer Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment rOT rOT 5,150.00 Account Balances Amount 150.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/waivers 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone ,5018 000.000000,007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000,000000.007,345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hbbbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000,007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000,000000.007,345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000,000000,002,341 Booklets/ErS/Copies 5941 000,000000.007,341 Maps (Taxable) 5998 000.000000,000.231 Tax .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 .00 ,00 R1202110 FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM c· . ,...~ty Of Rento -------'--------------------------F. 'h,a"""ning o' '. n DATE: May 9, 2012 IVISlon TO: Casaundra Commodore, Finance & Infonnation Services MAY -9 l/iii FROM: SUBJECT: Department Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator (x-6571) Re: INTERFUND TRANSFER REQUEST Instructions: Please note that failure to provide all digits will result in processing delays. All Signatures and correct documentation must be included. Please prepare the following inter·fund transfer: D epartment Ch ar2e d Account Number Project, function, task, sub-task Description 316.332020.020.594.76.61.000 May Creek Trail Permits SEP A En vironmental Review 316.332020.020.594.76.61.000 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 316.332020.020.594.76.61.000 Shoreline Variance 316.332020.020.594.76.61.000 3% Technology Surcharge . *Charged Department AnthonzatlOn* APPROYALSIGNATURE: 'lk..dd-uLci ~2 Printed Name Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Date CREDIT' Account Number Project, function, task, sub-task Description 000.000000.007.345.81.00.007 May Creek Trail Permits SEPA Environmental Review 000.000000.007.345.81.00.016 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 000.000000.007.345.81.00.016 Shoreline Variance Total 503.000000.004.322.10.00.011 3% Technology Surcharge Total Amount $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 $5,150.00 Amount $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 $5,150.00 Reason: To complete SEPA Environmental Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Shoreline Variance for May Creek Trail (Hawks Landing Grant Fund) plus the 3% Technology Surcharge Fee. Note: Documentation to support this transfer request must be attached and all signatures are required. Cash Transfer FonnlFinancelbh Revised 01109 Sources : City of Renton GIS May Creek Trail Flood Hazard Area Legend --May Creek Trail Streams 1/ //1 Flood Hazard Area FEMA Floodplain Property Boundaries N o 80 120 --160 Feet --- May Creek Trail RENT00000015 Exhibit 1 31112012 DAVID EVANS A"'DASSOCIATES 'NC . This map was created by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) for {CLIENT NAME} AcctJracy and currency depend upon the source data at the time it is acquired. DEA makes no representation or warranty as to the correctness of the information depicted on this map. It is intended for limited to betwee n DEA and its client and is not suitable for survey, construction, or other uses or for other projects . It is strictly , " "C X E .~ ro C. "8 .2 "-, x W .. ~ ro '" iii S1 0 "-z 8 "' 0 0; 8 0 0 8 >-z w ~ ;.: