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
c: o 8 +' .-c: .!!1 (I) .~ 0::0 .... 0> o .S 0: :0,0: .. Ol oil: 'Ir-----._ .. ~- PIPER 'S BLUFF _. __ ... _--.. --......... PIPER'S BLUFF i • d:QJ ffi (\'» ffi '" '" = ~ ~ = N ffi (QJ Ii ~ j! g _ .. _ .. _._-_ .. --......... I , I I , ,I J x O ~ I I ~ ~ •• § .. ~ I I . II ! li ~ • I ~ ~ t 0 '~ ::> 0 ~-I ,,~ ~ I --~ o .. ::> 0 ~ ~ i l~ i ~~ i ~~ ~ i ~I ~@ ; , !-! ;; • I PIPER 'S BLUFF .. " n -;:'I..~ il ! ;i :' •• if ' i I r I I --_._---..... ~ ... PIPER'S BLUFF ! I s I I ! ~ -, ! I , ~ !~I !@ ~: iii i B 1! I , I • !)J ::lJ I 'I J , -f .p il '~ I hi • I ~ ... "1 ~ :-rpl 1':1 .-0 ::J Ii ~ i! g , i • ! I ----_ ........ - PIPER 'S BLUff t=J!OTJ 'L ____ ~___ , " " 'ILJ I )\ I j~ __ -_1Tn:_ -,_ ~ ~ DIIIOLL ~.... -- --4 rl 1IIIIIIn t :,\~ -I" \ ~ ~T\ i D -1111111 --(l""\ P~i i ~i"::: >-"f ~!_ _ _ n i H =)];.:::;:=rr=--r= ---'/ ~ ''''He ---:;% I J I 01 T IT ..... --11 ., I' Ii ·1 It '1 d@ II~ It II lfiiiJ ,,0 I !!l~ I ~ <:> n ~~~ ...... :t _ 0 • lfiiiJ '" c6- ~~~ i = :.0 0::0 I ~ -= <-(1) !~I !@ ! lfiiiJ "'"' iii -:;, I --.... , (QJ o 0 , !-I I OJ :;, I -'-~' --~,-.-.------ mq I I PIPER'S BLUFF ~I ~I ~I I (') ~' _._---_._. ! 1 I ---. ,: . , J ---- l~:a- ~, If-JIlL ~ _._-- i , ! I I 'iili ". :~ , , I' !I , • di ll L , )1 II' ,- , I , ~ i I I I ~ ! -' 1 """'" , r----- I~ -- I - - i -- ~ 1 - r-B-- liB- -, ~ Ir-->; r-- I r-iIio- r-- I ., i .l&- I~ - I -- I~ r- I . r-- I - ~- PIPER'S BLUFF l. ! ,.. .. -'. I l ~ I.~- I I II- I I I .-I ,~ q (,-i -~ .;;: I ..i.~ .. --I ~ I ~ I ,I $l I a 14 :!I!, I il Cli ~ "Ci t:: -,-L_ v '" ~ ) ':oj" '" l'1 - ~.~, !Ii i T !" r-- I r -j l - /1+11 -.,_. I I -!i-o:A., r A --• I J-!! " .L '~~~.e.i'~0!11 ' \ ~ 'iii Ili!j" r~ ':.r r ''l -J 1 - -.~ "'i ~ ~. Ifill It! I~~ 9 ~ , I • I I ·1 110 Ii IX: II II~ . li ~ ,I I:~ I ... _ .. _ ..... I 1-'"'---1-'" ~ If---~ ,. 1-'"'---1-:1 ~ I I PIPER'S BLUff Ir------. I ~ I I I I ~ I !ifiF! .. -. ~ .. ,l ~ I ~ I II I .P , <! I I I ... I t: .. I I ~ " ~ '" I I l'I I ~ f ~~·· r< PIPER'S BLUff _ ....... ~- PIPER'S BLUFF '~! IV ~r I~I I I e ~ ill ~~ 1!l 11 I ~ .' , • ! 2Qj m 0 0 M ~ m .", = "> ~ ~ :=: .-m ©J -.~,-------=- , i II" r ~ • • 'Ii Ii ~ ,'j ! I II. I .N II • " I II : .' I .1 I '~ 1:1 • ,I' I ~ h !II I'l " f ii' II i! II i I' II .1 I! p ! I !, I ..... 0 ::l ~ I IIi ; I ~i ~~ ......-...... - , I I l... ; :\ • z .I £@ ! , • • I ~- PIPER'S BLUFF ~ '" .. ~ ~ s; Cl I ~ t: .. ~ ~ '" /'1 II l" d0 ffi 0 «"?> n ~ ffi '" '" = ~ '" = N ffi (QJ _._ .. _--------....... • l!~ i I II I PIPER'S BLUFF I p " . I . t:l '" -~ f;! '" l'1 ill 1< ----_._-- rg D ~ jl I ,"I! 11111 ! I;'I! I '1'/ I ~ 1l,I!, 'j'l' 1, .. ,11. il h~ II' 'i~ Ii! ,','! Id HI; Ui!i .,',!!: .Ii" il I~ i ! II J I Iii ., JI ~I" 1,1 II 'I ! I ,; II! ! I l I :i,\.II',!iPh I ,. 'I I, , I" 1 11"1'" I ,i I.,' II' I I_I 1:11 1 1 I I ' I -' I Ii ,\,.lli' , il'l' Ii, ,,' I" I ' ,'i.1I dl1illlljl H+++H .. ,. u '1111;'" t-++++H !lIn~ II !Ii II. li~ il!f i ,! II I 11" ~!i II'! I~I I • ill I 11111'," I . i ilia ,II I 1:1 i ill I !I • ~ IIIIIIIII'CIIIII I! I " " 1111 ••••••• --~ ........ . I ' f-:-.!.!i 1IIIl!lllll ,I ~ I t M~-IIII',III'! ii II' ~ ~\~~ _.. 'I 111111' \' ! 'I z~ ~! i 'ill I o~ II 'I I. z ~ I~-I J ,; .... . .. h ! I: z III III i I Ii Ii I II III' lIn' ~ ~ .1 lid ! iii,' ; II I IlIl! ~ ~ II .' II '1 I! I i'!' I s I I Ii'" I! I N !! l'Iqiliilil\i;"'111 Ii illllii:iiHn~ I' !! 'In lI! II I I , ! II • ;1 I ! I PIPER'S BLUFF --_ .. __ ._ ......... PIPER'S BLUFF _ .. _- ! I I I I I I . ; I . ~ I I I I I _.. .. --_ ....... PIPER'S BLUFF II' f f J ... .... I I ,. .. ." •••• 1, ' I~ Ii .,.". :11 jlil h _If !JII 81' 'I ' "-:il'1 'q ",~ .. ,1'1 " ,j.... I!'" • ilij 1m • I -'I I, ml! \ i, I ". -/-1 .1 \! ... -----, ....• PIPER'S BLUFF i! I ~ !q~~ '! III , ~ ~ ~ " lie IIi I'~ ~ • '11,1· I Iii I CJ I ~ III ' ~ ,I I t:: !! : " I i< i I.~ • IU' I '" !'l ;0; h @ II! I II 'I !l r- ¥ I!~ t ~ .! .' II E d .' ~n II ; II ~=< I ~~ I I d dm I IfiiiJ -, «"2J ~ j IfiiiJ Ii ·0 = .... ~ :0 .(1) I~ .:1 tg .... ~~ 0 :I !~I £@ • !-i • I _ .. __ ._-_. ---, ...... ~ .. \ • I , -00 -~ '0 .... :::c (J) ·a o :l !~'l ~~ , !-I W • I PIPER'S BLUFF -.-""',~------, ........... I ' , , I' ! ' _, L !~I~@ • ,;lI , '-I • I -, I PIPER'S BLUFF I t:: I ~ !'l i5 .. a: 0 HE: 1/4 SE:CnON 10. TO'M/SH/P 23 H. RANGE 5 E:. w'AI .. .• -. '-1 --r-----.-' -'1 ----. I . r T-"I ·····,·tl ----. -.... ,]·-1 1_. -c · ..... I . -r-. . . '1F t----t---- --t--:-." 0 i '. -.--... -:-.--t-.. =O=--t---[ ____ t- --._----.. --'I---~' .. _ .. - .. - '" I; o' :1 r=:,.:.5i -_ ........ -_.-.... H foo/AAI A\£NL NE !~ --._- ............... --~--------_ .. -=:.~--.... -.--""-------,--_.-----------r~_ ~ .. ,_,,_ .. . (:;,:. __ ov. __ .... __ .... _. __ • ... _~~o:.-' _ .... __ .. ------ ~=---"': ~o:.:.. fA5'T HAlf OC HQP/t AH A\£ Nf !"Cpat STA, JOtO.1 Q6 m Un DJ<smoNQ CONSU."<GEHGME ... -----:===-~ - --L...J' '--------!' '=:'::f L.J T • ,_._". - --== .. 1-1-1 ..... --.. ··--.. -1--, '- --'-EEl. -=--, -.. ---.-........ -+01 - -- --'+RIV:'-- 1-_··.' ?ZOO m 1I+lZZ6~ty of Renton ' ·c· ST" 2Qt llI"CT Planning Oiv,'-' ~ MOO'" I.I..~I lID CITY Of ~ RE NTO N -...-..,..-_0.,.1 . PPER'S BlUfF PREUMINARY PlAT II(W) "2fOG~CA06S&ECOOHO£TAl.S , 1 1012 fR?~rc~ow~/Q) -" I I:: I ~ !I' ffi .. 0: NE 1/4 SECTION 10. TOKNSHIP 23 N. RANGE 5 E. lUI .. ----1---, . _ .. -.. -r-T---' 1 D--, --~l --'-r 1 I -.l~t--':.':.;~':::'-' I L _ -t---_ I --. -"--" -1 1 -::l-? ! _-L _-1. __ -'-1 1 I . I , ___ --i .-.-. I I W', ,-1 ---------",---.-]---,.---[ ~---1-...1 -I ! 'I ':::---L-~! 1 -.... ---.'I-j--1· i l -1-- 11 -j " !----i I '-_. . -. ___ .::.'!. i . , _... . .. . . -. ' . •...... I . ...._ • ....... .. ~ . .., -.. ., -.. , I I..... ... • . .,._ U~I_+ .. lm Lt-.Jl ~_c -,--Im_" i .. t ~"'¥:-l J_I ----" .' -. -. ~----·II. l"''' -J' 'f -'r -I -I ...1.._ ..... +-I-~~ -:-t~l~=-_'_i'-+~~'. -Il -~~ , ---I, ..--... " I I I .,. ., f --"""" _ __ II _ '_ ... _.-.. I -.-. ". 1 . I i _" ,_ ' .. I--t"--r~'~ "--I-=}t -. .1 --t--il_ rr --t-·--II' -' -1 --------JI-. _,_' _ ~:. .. 'I ~-"r--~1 L _'_ j I I I .1 _ . __ _. ! ~ 1 I ------. _ __ J '. •.. ---1 J I --. T .. i-'" i --r "A' I I --j------r---J R0j' 1-r I I l ~ --LJ "----J 4' .... ..,_ ill ,-............--:': •• ;::,i" - J) \.r~ L,. = ___ ov __ ..... -:.:::..~::------ fWAD -A-SU:PQN !fA 10+65. 6!l TQ ,6t46 91(9- II '!:'it... ___ ~ .~..Ii1P!rlli">o~""&5'" DAS"""'" t..~~ " IfDilR{~~:n '='!:..~ I ~ _ ... _ ... _---- ---,--1 110. - r __ _ --"=J'J ,-,"----,-- ......... ~-=-'"'::;.~ RQAD -A-gCm;w i[A lUlU,} m 2!tZf16R@ ..... -,. - .. 1-1-1....."" !m CITY OF ~ RENTON ,_._" -LJ "--.J '","",0_". -~"" -A NiD "6-0- City offlenton P/~~-' lIIn!s_,,-PREi.JiIIlm)W~T ROIoD PRaU NfJ CA06S SECTDI DETAU _n fR1~(f;~ow~© -----_ ...... PIPER'S BLUFF I , i --! --,_ J~ ! .t·l~ , jlil;' " , 'III" ___ Ii; ! ,---I , i I I I t::: I F==---r.~-----~~--~, --_._- I I • • I I I • I : L--'-__ '-' _~ •. __ !--'-. ____ -'-_~_ .. _.,-'-----.~.-... • !! II ·1 It '1 II II I I I I ! I • I PIPER'S BLUFf _ •. _._ .. _---_. -...... - i , , I , I .' • PIPER 'S BLUFF ,; ',-:----- ,I, ·, To Chip Vincent via email 8-28-13 Chip, . ot f\en\on C\\'l. Oivislon {'Ia-nnlng I\)\\ \ 1 1~\I. ~~©~~~~© Thanks for speaking with me last Friday about the evolving circumstances regarding the configuration of the Pipers Bluff Subdivision. I request you grant an administrative change to the preliminarily approved subdivision, allowing the removal of the currently designed alleys so that the subdivision would feature conventional streets with front loaded garage homes. Development regulations state that alleys are the preferred design in the R-8 zone. Since alleys are not required it seems an administrative modification could be allowed. I ask for this modification due to the hardship created by Puget Sound Energy's determination last week that the north side setbacks shown on the preliminarily ap'proved plat are insufficient for the safety of construction workers and future ~omeowners. Whereas the community was designed with a 10' front yard setback, ''PSE has now informed us that anything less than 25' from the existing poles or an additional 10' from the approved preliminary setback line is required, due to the proximity of the adjacent 115 KV transmission lines. As you can see in the attached emails PSE communicated that a 15 ' radial setback from the wires was sufficient and consistent with the setback shown on the preliminarily approved design. Subsequently PSE has determined and communicated that separation would leave workers and homeowners at risk as construction and maintenance would put individuals within that radius even though the structure was clear of it. Safety is a paramount concern, though one could advocate for the initial determination of the lesser setback that would be irresponsible, given the potential consequence of a line failure or arcing to someone on the roof. This additional 10' setback effectively moves the north row of 7 homes 10 feet further south into the lot. This locates the home we have designed to within 10' of a 16' alley, yielding a very small rear yard to accommodate families and pets and leaving insufficient room for parking on a drive apron. By eliminating the alley we could provide an additional 8' of yard and landscaping to the adjacent lots. Additionally a shorter distance to the alley makes vehicle access to the garage more difficult and inhibits the driver's view of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The driver's vehicle will enter the alley while the drivers view is blocked by the garage walls. All of these factors will make it difficult to compete with other offerings from competitors who offer conventional street loading and larger rear yards. I understand that tradeoffs may have been made to mitigate for the alley inclusion. We agree to review those issues and determine what other modifications would be appropriate in exchange for elimination of the alleys. " , The utilities as designed would require no change, the storm line planned for the alley may not yet have been installed however we can provide an easement for that and use it for yard drainage. Obviously the storm system will now have some excess capacity due to the reduction in pervious surfaces on site. Conventional front load driveways will reduce the need for on street parking due to the spaces available in the drive ways. Due to the increased setback from the lots adjacent the power lines there would also be room for a larger planting median adjacent the street. As I understand safety was one of the driving forces behind the desire for alleys in communities with densities of 8 per acre (our net density is 7 per acre). The reasoning is there would be less vehicle pedestrian conflict. However our observation has been that children do play in the alleys and given the cramped quarters there is significant conflict between children and vehicles in alleys. Esthetics is another concern, as a garage dominant streetscape is unattractive. We will commit to designs that minimize and mitigate the garage element so that it is not prominent, rather it is another element breaking up mass and creating a more interesting fayade (see attached concept). The view looking east into the community as one drives north or south on Hoquiam will feature the same number of garages regardless of alley or conventional loading, it will only look different to the residents living within the community. It appears that there was no public comment regarding the alley issue for this project. Given that there are no other communities in the vicinity designed or built with alleys, a conventional design is consistent with the neighborhood character. Conventional design will also reduce the amount of impervious surface within the community, hence reduce the amount of storm water to store and clean. Please grant an administrative modification allowing the elimination of the alleys. Sincerely, Charles Conner Conner Homes at Pipers Glenn LLC • Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 10415 -147" Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 December 9, 2013 CITY OF RENTON DEC 12 20 l '! RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: No SEPA Requirements for Mr. Beck's Short Plat and Piper's Bluff _/,J,(lt-fl..-o1b Dear Mr. Olbrechts: I live outside the city, but have dealt with it in the past. I would like to bring two issues to your attention. I do live within Renton's PAA. The first issue is Mr. Beck's property. This is located on NE 23'" and Nile. In 2008, this property was annexed into Renton (MacKay Annexation). I don't recall if there was a SEPA review or not. In 2009, the property owners asked the City to Rezone the property from R-l to R-4. This was eventually appealed to the City Council and they voted against the rezone. Mr. Steven Beck then put the property up for sale -but he has not been able to sell it. He asked the city if he can make lot line adjustments so that he . can get 3 - 1 acre parcels and put 1 house on each lot for a total of 3 houses. To me, this is a short plat action and there should be a SEPA action. However the Development Office doesn't want to make Mr. Beck go through the process. I asked Jennifer Henning about it and she said that because it is a lot-line adjustment, they don't have to do a SEPA review. You might want to look at the 2009 rezone document. As for Piper's Bluff, there is a concern that city "leaders" looked the other way when it came to retaining trees on site. Under "F. Tree Retention":, it states the following: The City received a comment letter expressing concern about tree retention on-site. There are a total of 211 trees located on site. Twenty-four of these are proposed to be retained (12 locate within the critical area and its buffer). The Applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on-site outside of critical areas, proposed rights of way and access easements. Of the 211 trees located on-site, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the removal of trees by planting new trees; The Applicant has proposed to retain only 12 of the 47 required trees." It takes years for the trees to get to the size that they were before being removed. To mitigate them with "sticks" isn't worth a thing. I am enclosing some pictures I took on December 11 of Piper's Bluff. The trees in the back are where lot 29/30 are located. (' Renton officials seem to be allergic to trees and don't make developers protect them. On Mr. Beck's property, there are some fir trees. Jennifer told me that they can be mitigated once the Building Permit is issued. Why does Washington State have laws protecting the environment if Renton officials don't want to adhere to them? Thank you, in advance, for any consideration of these matters. Enclosures Sincerely, Claudia Donnelly Concerned citizen • DEPARTMENT OF COM~vNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -~------ MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ APPROVAL D DENIAL EVALUATION FORM & DECISION A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner/Applicant: Project Location : Project Summary: Site Area: October 9, 2013 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Modification LUA12 -076, MOD Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Alan Boeker; Conner Homes; 846 108th Ave NE ; Bellevue, WA 98004 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE Preliminary Plat approval was received for the subdivision of the 5-a.cre parcel into 28 lots on November 20, 2012 . The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R -8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification . A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site in addition to a Class 4 stream . The proposal would result in a density of 7 .27 dulac. Access to the plat would be gained via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Internal access was proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28 . Primary access for proposed Lots 1- 17 would have been provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley . The applicant is requesting a modification in order to eliminate the originally proposed alley and widening of the proposed looped road. 217,371 square feet (4.99 acres) Project Location Map Modif/cation .2 City of Renton Department of Com. lity & Economic Development Ad. .strative Short Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, MOD.2 PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT MODIFICATION Report of October 9, 2013 Page 2 of 5 I B-EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Revised Plat Plan (dated 9/lD/2013) Exhibit 2: Hearing Examiner Decision (dated 11/20/2013) Exhibit 3: Minor Modification to an Approved Preliminary Plat (dated 7/24/2013) Exhibit 4: Conceptual Elevations C FINDINGS: 1. On November 20, 2013 the City's Hearing Examiner approved the 28-lot Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 2). 2. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. 3. Internal access was proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed lots 18-28. Primary access for proposed lots 1-17 would have been provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. 4. On July 24, 2013 a minor modification to the approved Preliminary Plat was approved in order to allow lots 8-10 to gain access from the internal public street, as opposed to the proposed alley, due to grades on the site. 5. The applicant, Conner Homes, is requesting changes to the approved Preliminary Plat in order to do the following: a. Remove Alley A and B and provide access to Lots 1-17 from the new internal loop road. b. Shift rear lot lines for proposed Lots 1-7 approximately one foot to the south and shift sde lot lines for proposed lots 8-10 in order to evenly space building pads on the lots to accommodate the 2S-foot setback from the PSE easement. c. Widen the internal loop road pavement width to 20 feet and eliminate fire truck pullouts. 6. 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 this report. 7. Lot Dimensions/lot layout: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 is 4,500 square feet for lots greater than 1 acre in size and 5,000 square feet for lots 1 acre or less in size. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. As proposed, all lots continue to meet the requirements for minimum width. 8. Road layout: The proposal was originally designed with an alley load system for proposed lots 1-17 which served more than half of the homes within the project. The road layout was designed with the assumption of a 1S-foot setback from an existing Puget Sound Energy utility easement along the northern border of the property. However, since the time of Preliminary Plat approval the applicant has been notified that a 2S-foot setback will be imposed from the Modification.2 City of Renton Department of Com. ,ity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT MODIFICATION Report of October 9, 2013 Ad. strative Short Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, MOD.2 Page 3 of 5 existing easement in order to reduce the risk of harm to PSE workers and/or homeowners of the plat. The applicant contends that the increased setback from the easement eliminates the ability of the northern lots to take access from the alley due to the limited depth of the lots and sight distance issues. While alleys are preferred in small-lot sub~ivisions to provide higher quality site planning that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots the applicant has provided conceptual elevations (Exhibit 4) for the single family-residential homes to be sited on the subject lots. The homes have been well designed to mitigate the impacts of density for the neighborhood and the surrounding community and provides a relationship between the proposed housing units and the and the road. Additionally, the applicant has increased the pavement width for the internal loop road in order to eliminate the need for fire truck pullouts. The elimination of the fire truck pullouts allow for a continuous 8-foot planter between sidewalk and street. For these reasons staff is supportive of the requested modification. 9. Landscaping: The applicant did not provide a conceptual landscape plan with the modification materials. In order to ensure compliance with landscaping and tree replacement requirements staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan complying with landscaping and tree replacement requirements of the Renton Municipal Code. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. i D. CONCLUSIONS: The following table contains an analysis of the criteria outlined in RMC 4-7-080M: Criteria Criteria Met There is no decreose the oggregote area of open sp,ace in the X subdivision by ten percent (10%) or mare. There is no increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond X the number previously approved. The proposal does not result in a violation of development X standards. The proposal does not relocate any roadway access point to an X exterior street from the plat. The applicant is not proposing the phasing of plat develapment. X The proposal does not increase significantly any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the plat on the community or surrounding X area. Modification.2 City of Renton Department of Com,..··nity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA. JDIFICATION Report of October 9. 2013 I E. DECISION: Ad,..'oistrative Short Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, MOO.2 Page 4 of 5 The. Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Modification, File No.LUA12-076, MOD is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan complying with landscaping and tree replacement requirements of the Renton Municipal Code. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: c.E. "Chip" Vincent, CEO Administrator F. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION: The administrative land use decision will become final ifthe decision is not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on October 23, 2013. An appeal of the decision(s) must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. 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 extension ofthe appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication Modification.2 City of Renton Department of Com,... "oity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA) ,DIFICATION Report of October 9, 2013 and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. result in the invalidation ofthe appeal by the Court. Modification.2 Ad,...'oistrative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAll-076, MOD.2 Page 5 of 5 Any violation of this doctrine could ~ ... ,--" ... ..,-~ ,- .... I- 1-1 r::o 1-1 ::t: >< w -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CITY OF RENTON NOV 262012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Piper's Bluff Plat Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) ) SUMMARY 16 The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 28 lot residential subdivision. The preliminary plat is approved with conditions. 17 18 TESTIMONY 19 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, City of Renton 20 21 Ms. Timmons described the project. The proposed plat is located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue NE. It is five acres located in the Residential Single Family (Comprehensive Plan Designation) and R-8 zoning' district. The Applicant initially requested a 30 lot subdivision with three tracts and a 22 density of 8 dwelling units per acre. The topography is rolling from the west to east with local areas of 15% slopes. There is a portion of a Category II wetland on site as well as the upper reach of Honey Creek, a Class IV creek. There are presently 211 trees on site. The City received public comment 24 letters related to stormwater treatment and requesting enhanced water quality standards. 23 25 The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on October 8,2012 with four mitigation measures. Ms. Timmons noted an administrative error in the Staff Report (Ex. 1) that 26 stated there were five MDNS conditions, rather than four. No appeals.to the MDNS were filed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - I R..: f"'eT A-VA! t....4 aLe: Vip 4# ~esT IEXIHI][IIUT 2 DEPARTMENT OF COr. "UNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT I:8J APPROVAL 0 DENIAL PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Modification LUA12-076, MOD Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Conner Homes Kim Hall 846 108th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential - 8 (R-8) dulac PROJECT LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval was received for the subdivision of the 5 acre parcel into 28 lots on November 20,2012. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion ofthe site in addition to a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. Access to the plat would be gained via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Internal access was proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would have been provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. The requested revisions are summarized below: . 1) The applicant is requesting proposed Lots 8-10 gain primary access from the proposed loop road (Road A) instead ofthe proposed alley. Staff Comments: TOllographically, the site can best be characterized as rolling with slopes that range from 2-15 percent with an overall topographic relief of approximately 60 feet. The applicant contends due to topography on site the alley access for Lots 8-10 would create 8-foot retaining walls along the streetscape. While the alleys are preferred in small-lot subdivisions to provide ~,-... --_ .. _'0. .. _0.--,---,-- that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and I i?~J2-r A-U4I~ uP"""" the applicant has provided a conceptual street elevation ~&U~r IEXHIBIT 3 p~_ / &>Ff ~ " . ,..-~[ , n·· -I It-. . ~ .. S. "-l- Milbrandt Architects -', ;1 + EXHIBIT 4 f'A-~e-/ b p -=r- PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT A 2-CAR FRONT LOAD PLAN -LOTS 1-7 September 3, 2013 Milbrandt Architects II II PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT B 2·CAR FRONT LOAD PLAN· LOTS 1·7 , ) September 3, 2013 < ... -M a. Q) IIJ N • o Q) z -o II) U b z .../ o . _ z ... < 0( .../ > Q. IIJ C ..J 0( LLI 0 b. .../ b. I- :J Z .../ 0 m ~ en It ~ < n: 0 IIJ • a. ('I) -a. .... .... « -"'C c:: C .... ..c Milbrandt Architects r 11 --I PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT B 3-CAR FRONT LOAD PLAN· LOTS 18·28 September 3, 2013 Milbrandt Architects r-+- [ II 1 PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT C 3-CAR FRONT LOAD PLAN -LOTS 18-28 September 3, 2013 Milbrandt Architects I II II II -I PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT A FRONT·LOAD TUCK UNDER PLAN· LOTS 8·10 September 3, 2013 Milbrandt Architects PIPER'S BLUFF ELEVATION CONCEPT B FRONT LOAD TUCK UNDER PLAN · LOTS 8·10 i - September 3, 2013 September 12, 2013 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton WA 98057 Re: Minor Plat Modification: Piper's Bluff Rocale, CONNER HOM E S RECEIVED SEP 16 Z013 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Thank you for agreeing to accept this application for a minor plat modification at the Piper's Bluff project. Background The project was designed and permitted in the R-8 zone using two alleys that serve more than half of the homes to be built. Conner Homes purchased the land and the approved plans from WestPac Development in April of this year. There is an easement along the northerly property line that is shown on the approved preliminary plat. The dimensions of this easement and any use restrictions were not clear from the surveyor the easement wording alone, so we relied on email correspondence between West Pac and PSE to plan homes along this northern edge. Those reliances included a representation from PSE that the setback to our homes from the power poles would need to be 15'. As we were finalizing the franchise utility plans, PSE had changed to another planner who then stated that the setback we were given earlier was an error and that the homes would have to respect a 25' separation from the poles. The original PSE planner was dismissed from the company. Zoning Development regulations (RMC 4-7-150 E. 5.) state that alleys are the preferred design in the R-8 zone. Since alleys are not required, this modification may be granted subject to showing that alley access is not feasible. Request We have asked for this modification due to the hardship created by Puget Sound Energy's most recent determination that the north side setbacks shown on the approved preliminary plat are insufficient for the safety of construction workers and future homeowners. Whereas the community was designed with a 10' front yard setback, PSE has now informed us that anything less than 25' from the existing poles or an additional 10' from the approved preliminary setback line is required, due to the proximity of the adjacent 115 KV transmission lines. As you can see in the attached emails PSE communicated that a 15'radial setback from the wires was sufficient and consistent with the setback shown on the preliminarily approved design. S4h 10SthAIC1HIl'NE \ Iklb'lIl',WAnOO4-11'.4-2SAS5.92HO I F+Pi'+fil.(l+26 CONNER HOM E 5 Subsequently PSE has determined and communicated that separation would leave workers and homeowners at risk as construction and maintenance would put individuals within that radius even though the structure was clear of it. Safety is a paramount concern to us. Though one could advocate for the initial determination of the lesser setback, we believe that would be irresponsible given the potential consequence of a line failure or arcing to someone on a roof of one of our homes. Justification The increased front setback from 10' to 25' for Lots 1-7 effectively pushes the future homes to the rear of the lot, eliminating the ability for these units to provide alley access with parking to the rear of the lot. 8y eliminating the alley, we are able to provide a 20' rear yard as required by the R-8 zoning, a 40' deep house footprint and a 25' front yard. Additionally, pushing the houses 15'further into the lot will create a shorter distance from the garage to the alley, making vehicle access to the garage more difficult. It will also inhibit the driver's view of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the alley. The driver's vehicle will enter the alley while the drivers view is blocked by the garage walls. Plan Modifications Although we have searched for viable alternatives, we have not been successful with any that provide the necessary design characteristics and reasonable home sizes, while accommodating this increased front setback. The following list summarizes our proposed changes: 1. Eliminate Alley 'A' and '8'. 2. Shift the rear lot line of Lots 1 through 7 approximately one foot southerly, and shift the side lot lines for Lots 8-10 southerly to evenly space the building pads as a result of the increased setback along Road A. 3. Eliminate the Fire Truck pullouts at Stations 13+00, 14+50, and 18+75. 4. Increase the roadway width from Station 10+40 to approximately Station 14+75 to be 20 feet from face of curb to face of curb. 5. Revise catch basin #l1A, lOA, and 9 to be approximately 10.17' left. This shift will accommodate the additional 2 foot roadway widening. 6. Extend the rear yard storm drainage from lots 4/14, westerly to lots 1/17 to capture the surface water runoff from the rear of Lots 11 through 17. These are all minimal changes that can be achieved in the normal course of construction. In addition, if it is acceptable to the city, we would like to offer to construct a small tot lot in the southeast corner of the project. It is illustrated on the attached landscape plans. As shown, it will have a low fence, no lighting or irrigation, and will not impact the number of mitigation tree plantings. Our marketing department will select a small play structure and a bench at a later date. X4h lOXth 1\\'l'lllll~ 1'\1: I B,~lll,\·tl<" \VA lJl'{{)04 I I'. 42S.4_JS.92HO I F. +2S.+62.0426 m Resulting Benefits CON N E R The finished esthetics of the new project is very ilh'/lBr'blnt to us. A garage dominant streetscape can be unattractive if not executed with care. We will commit to home designs that minimize and mitigate the garage element so that it is not prominent, rather it is another element breaking up mass and creating a more interesting fa~ade (see attached concept). The view looking east into the community as one drives north or south on Hoquiam will feature the same number of garages regardless of alley or conventional loading; it will only look different to the residents living within the community, and who will purchase with full knowledge of the lack of an alley. The proposed conventional design will reduce the amount of impervious surface within the community; hence, it will also reduce the amount of storm water to detain and clean. By using front load driveways we will reduce the need for on street parking due to the spaces available in the driveways. Due to the increased setback from the lots adjacent the power lines there will also be more room for a larger planting median adjacent to the street. Sincerely, Alan J. Boeker Chief Operating Officer X46 ]OXth ihCll\It':'\JE \ lkllvnw, WA 9HO()4 ! ]'. 425.4SS.9280 \ F. +2).4fl2.(l42(' RECEIPT EG00013408 BILLING CONTACT Kim Hall Conner Homes 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 REFERENCE NUMB ER FEE NAME LUA12-076 PLAN· Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 9/1612013 Prepared Bv; Rocale Timmons TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: September 12,2013 RECE\VEO SEP 161.0\3 f REt·no N C\'f'( °NG DiVISION PLANNI PAYMENT METHOD peck #2001 Fheck #2001 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $100.00 $3.00 $103.00 $103.00 Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COII.",lUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ APPROVAL 0 DENIAL PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat MOdificat~io~n~nNccrijilijgJ-"l cE LUA12-076, MOD Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner co~omes KiW' 846 108th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential - 8 (R-8) dulac PROJECT LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval was received for the subdivision of the 5 acre parcel into 28 lots on November 20, 2012. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site in addition to a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. Access to the plat would be gained via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Internal access was proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. 'Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would have been provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) The applicant is requesting proposed Lots 8-10 gain primary access from the proposed loop road (Road A) instead of the proposed alley. Staff Comments: Topographically, the site can best be characterized as rolling with slopes that range from 2-15 percent with an overall topographic relief of approximately 60 feet. The {. applicant contends due to topography on site the alley access for Lots 8-10 would create 8-foot V\ j~~ retaining walls along the streetscape. While the alleys are preferred in small-lot subdivisions to provide higher quality site planning that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots the applicant has provided a conceptual street elevation study demonstrating the DEPARTMENT OF COII. ..• IUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ~[i ----===--~. MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ APPROVAL D DENIAL PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Modification LUA12-076, MOD Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Conner Homes Kim Hall 846 108th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential - 8 (R-8) dulac PROJECT LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Preliminary Plat approval was received for the subdivision of the 5 acre parcel into 28 lots on November 20, 2012. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site in addition to a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. Access to the plat would be gained via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Internal access was proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would have been provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) The applicant is requesting proposed Lots 8-10 gain primary access from the proposed loop road (Road A) instead of the proposed alley. Staff Comments: Topographically, the site can best be characterized as rolling with slopes that range from 2-15 percent with an overall topographic relief of approximately 60 feet. The applicant contends due to topography on site the alley access for Lots 8-10 would create 8-foot retaining walls along the streetscape. While the alleys are preferred in small-lot subdivisions to provide higher quality site planning that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots the applicant has provided a conceptual street elevation study demonstrating the City of Renton Department of Com. ity and Economic Development Administrative Ji!ication Request Report & Decision PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT MODIFICATION LUA1Z-076, MOD Report of JulV 24, 2013 Page 2 of 3 unattractiveness of an 8-foot retaining wall along the streetscape of Lots 8-10_ Additionally, the applicant provided conceptual elevations for the single family-residential homes to be sited on the subject lots which have been well designed to mitigate the impacts of density for the neighborhood and the surrounding community and provides a better mutual relationship between housing units and the road in contrast to the alley/retaining wall approved proposal. For these reason staff is supportive of the requested modification_ Analysis of Request The following table contains an analysis of the criteria outlined in RMC 4-7-080M' Criteria Criteria Met There is no 10% or more decreose the aggregate area of open space in the X subdivision. There is no increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the X number previously approved_ The proposal does not result in a violation of development standards. X The proposal does not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior X street from the plat. The applicant is not proposing phasing of the plat development. X The proposal does not increase significantly any adverse impacts or X undesirable effects of the plat on the community or surrounding area. DECISION The proposal satisfies 6 of the 6 criteria listed in RMC 4-7-080M for approval of modifications. Therefore, the Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat minor modification, Project Number LUA12-076, MOD (as shown in Exhibit 1), is approved and subject to the following conditions of approval: L Prior to the application for the Final Plat, 3 full size copies and a 8 Y, x 11 inch reduction of a final plat plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager. 2. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of plat approval are still applicable to the development ofthe site in addition to mitigations measures issued as part of the SEPA. The applicant should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review may be required for future modifications to the plat plan. Date The decision to approve the modification(s) will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on August 7, 2013. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall-7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. City of Renton Department of Com ;ty and Economic Development Administrative ,ification Request Report & Oecision PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLATMOOIFICATION LUA12-076, MOD Report of July 24,2013 Page 3 of 3 If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project manager, Rocale Timmons, at 425.430.7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. cc: Parties of Record File No. LUA12-076 ---.. -- r-T-li I I I. I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ '. \ , , , , , lots 10 Front load Tuck-Under ~!.Lf.OL _____ _ lots 9 Front load Tuck-Under , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. '----~-~-~-- ',-- I .. I I ~ I ,~"'''' ... '""~ 'f-;T 1,9~Q. __ --+-~-- ~ '" .~ J~ ~ ~I SIDEWAlK 'i' eol STREET CURB tJ:r J.Q.A!' ___ I ~ PRELIMINARY LOT PLANS 1/16-_ I'-()" ~ --, I I I lot 8 I I Front load I I Tuck-Under I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .-I / L_ _/ LOTS 8, 9 & 10 July 1,2013 Rocale Timmons City of Renton Dear Rocale, CONNER HOM E 5 City of Renton . 9 Division platltlltl JD\. -'t Tilil WIt/2-o16 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2013 BUILDING DIVISION Thank you for considering our proposal for lots 8-10 of Pipers Bluff. The reason for this request is our concern for the overall appearance of the neighborhood if constructed according to the original plans, which included high retaining walls near the sidewalk on the east side of these lots. We are proposing a "tuck-under" front load design for each lot, which will bring the finished grades down to sidewalk level with a gentle driveway slope up to the garage. The front entry will split the difference between the garage level and the main level of the home. The result will be a more pleasant appearance for neighbors as they pass by. The rear of the homes will be nearly level with the alley at the main floor for walk out convenience. Please see the enclosed building footprints and street elevation study. These drawings are conceptual in nature but do utilize the elevation data from the approved site plans. Please call me with any questions or concerns. . Thank you, Kim Hall 425-646-4421 (Direct) 846 IOSth ihcllIll' NE I Bellente, \VA 9K004 I ]I. 425.45S.92S0 I F. +21).4(,2.0426 JQ) ffi «l) ffi = ~ ffi ©J ~ C r- ~ ~, = ~ ------------------------______ A!~t:Y.. _______ -u 0 ru --::J :t ::J 5"0 (0 - D :D ;:;" -cn ~ o· .. OJ 0 :J '--T- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ , \ , , , , , -- , I I I I I I I I Lots 10 I Lots 9 I I I Front load I Front Load I Tuck-Under I Tuck-Under I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FRct!T Y~_SIll'~QC_ r!iU9& __ I ---~ -1 I ~T YABll~~c!_ I -------~---J~ _!'!Q.AJ? ___ ..J ~ " '" , , "2 '- 0 SIDEWAlK , " , 10 STREET CURB PRELIMI NARY LOT PLANS 1/16".1'.()" ---------------------- -, I I I I Lot 8 I I Front load I Tuck-Under I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I , t------------- I , l_ _ ______ -----' LOTS 8, 9 & 10 ~ .... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ~ ..... oS ... , ... , .... oS'" , ... I Elevation A I Elevation B I , ~: ~i , ~i i' i: , , , ~I ~I iii , ~I 91 ~I iii Ii 'I 91 .' ~I ,I " ~I ~I 'I ~i 'I ~I ~, 'I I ;1 ~I I fl ;1 , I I , I I I , I , I I , I 1 1 I , I I I 1 I I I I , , I i/ , I , I , 1 I 1 I I , I I 1 I , I , , I , , I I I I I ; STREET ElEVATION STUDY LOTS 8, 9 & 10 )j16"_l'-o'" Piper's Bluff Single Family Renton, WA A Single Family Development Mil b ron d tAr ( hit e ( t Sf 2S~"' ..... ,,' _ ....... _ __"11'" _'. I n (of P 0 S 0 "kIe: ~/'"' •........ ,~.tM Conner Homes 311S-. "-0'" ~ ... Elevation A (flipped) ~ ..--- ~: ~I ,I gl "I I I I I I I I I "-I City Of Renton Planning Division JUL -2 lOU fRr~(C{?n\l. ..... Lots 8, 9 & 10 Street Elevation Study SE-1 RT 7.'.13 7 _1_1 3 ,..., RECEIPT EG00010162 BILLING CONTACT Kim Hall Conner Homes 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA12-076 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 7/212013 Prepared By: Rocale Timmons TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: July 02,2013 Olty of Renton Planning Division JUL - 2 Z013 PAYMENT METHOD AMOUNT PAID Fheck #2000 $100.00 pheck #2000 $3.00 SUB TOTAL $103.00 TOTAL $103.00 Page 1 of 1 I. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -.. ~ CITY OF RENTON NOV 262012 RECENED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Piper's Bluff Plat Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) II-------------------------~) SUMMARY 16 The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 28 lot residential subdivision. The preliminary plat is approved with conditions. 17 18 TESTIMONY 19 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, City of Renton 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Ms. Timmons described the project. The proposed plat is located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue NE. It is five acres located in the Residential Single Family (Comprehensive Plan Designation) and R-8 zoning district. The Applicant initially requested a 30 lot subdivision with three tracts and a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. The topography is rolling from the west to east with local areas of 15% slopes. There is a portion of a Category II wetland on site as well ~ lU~\ upper reach of Honey Creek, a Class IV creek. There are presently 211 trees on site. The City rec~ived public comment letters related to storm water treatment and requesting enhanced water qllalitylstlilldards. , The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on October 8, 2012 with four mitigation measures. Ms. Timmons noted an administrative error in the Staff Report (Ex. I) that stated there were five MDNS conditions, rather than four. No appeals to·the MDNS were filed. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant must retain the trees on proposed lots 29 and 30. The Applicant submitted a revised lot layout for 28 lots at a density of 7.27 dwelling units per acre. Lots are proposed to be 4,500-6,700 square feet. Twenty-four trees will be retained in the critical areas and their buffers. The Applicant submitted a landscape plan that included an eight foot landscaping strip in the right of way. The Staff Report conditions of approval require a ten foot on-site requirement as well as retention in the critical areas and buffers. Thirty seven trees are now proposed to be retained on site. The Applicant has proposed to retain 12 trees outside the critical areas tract and outside the required landscaping. The City's Environmental Review Committee offered to work with the Applicant if the required 211 new trees cannot be feasibly planted. In the initial application, the Applicant proposed to encroach into the 50 foot wetland buffer. The Applicant offered 660 square feet of enhancement and buffer creation as mitigation for the encroachment. Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant will likely forgo the encroachment in order to accommodate stormwater. The Applicant had initially proposed a stormwater vault but has since revised the application to show a stormwater pond. Ms. Timmons stated the Staff's recommended conditions of approval require the Applicant to submit a revised storm drainage report. Ms. Timmons reported the application does not meet sidewalk and landscaping standards. Staff has recommended conditions of approval that will require compliance with these codes. Ms. Timmons stated the present design has two pipe stem lots with driveways that are very close together. Staff recommends the driveways be consolidated to a joint driveway. Ms. Timmons stated emergency service access is adequate. The Applicant must show a Certificate of Water Availability. The Applicant must also modify the plans to show adequate room for a required sewer lift station. Ms. Timmons reported Staff found the application is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and the City's design standards. The application can meet all zoning requirements with conditions of approval. In response to the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated she could provide the Examiener with the code citation for the caliper that qualifies a tree for protection under the City's tree protection ordinance. Kavren Kittrick, Lead Construction Inspector, City of Renton Ms. Kittrick stated the City's adopted 2009 stormwater manual requires enhanced water quality treatment when there are critical areas. There are critical areas on this site. The City will not be requiring enhanced water quality treatment unless the revised application triggers these requirements. Buffer averaging will require enhanced water quality treatment. The Staff will pay attention to the thresholds and require enhanced water quality treatment if necessary. ';pRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 I Mr. Luay 10uveh, Applicant 2 Mr. 10uveh discussed the Staff's recommended conditions of approval. He noted Item #1 has already been corrected to four not five mitigation measures. Mr. 10uveh stated the Applicant agrees with 4 Items #2-4. With respect to Item #5, Mr. 10uveh stated the plat plans show the right cross section but mislabeled the distance. They will correct it. Mr. 10uveh stated the Applicant is fine with the shared driveway issue #6. Mr. 10uveh said with regard to Item #7, the plans are showing the outfall in the 6 wetland buffer, not in the wetland. The lift station will be given a larger area on the revised plans. They concur with this condition. Mr. 10uveh said, in general, the Applicant concurs with the 8 7 conditions of approval recommended by Staff. 3 5 8 There was no public comment or staff or Applicant rebuttal. 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 EXHIBITS Exhibits 2-12 listed on page 2 of the November 6,2012 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself (Ex. I), were admitted into evidence the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Westpac Development, LLC. Represented by Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on November 6, 2012 in 18 the City of Renton Council Chambers. 19 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and 20 Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 28 lots. The 21 project site is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. 22 23 24 25 26 Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Hoquiam A venue NE is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site as well as Honey Creek, a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a net density of 7.27 dulac. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18- 28. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 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 4. Adequacy of InfrastructurelPublic Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is located in the Water District 90 water service boundary. The Applicant must obtain a Certificate of Water Availability. There is an existing City of Renton 8-inch sewer main in NE 11 th Court. In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a manhole must be installed in Hoquiam Ave NE. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the manhole. The force main needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8-inch pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8-inch pipe, and the 8-inch pipe is then connected into a new manhole which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that manhole easterly to the existing manhole via gravity. This proposal is also located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with FJyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete we~ well with separate valve vault, and motor control arid telemetry contained within a small building. The control building must be large enough to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the lO-inch wet well and the 8-foot x 6-foot site for the emergency generator. The present plans do not allow adequate area for the lift station. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and associated imp.f!Jvements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 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 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention Staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, is required by the MONS for the project. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. C. Drainage. Drainage will be adequately addressed through the preparation of an updated drainage report that proposes storm drainage facilities that Staff have determined complies with the standards of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The site is located within the Cedar RiverlLake Washington watershed; more specifically it is located within the Honey Creek sub basin of the May Creek drainage basin. Site runoff currently travels northeasterly and enters into the Category 2 wetland located near the northeast property corner and then exits the wetland via the Class 4 stream also located on site. The stream conveys runoff northerly to an off site Category 2 wetland. This wetland extends north and flows through a culvert under Hoquiam Ave NE and encompasses the remainder of the quarter mile downstream. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated August 29, 2012. The report states that the runoff from the proposed project would be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to a detention vault in the northeast corner of the site. The vault would then discharge to the onsite stream. The storm vault is designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The provided storm report was acceptable for preliminary review. The Applicant has since submitted a revised lot layout proposing the use of a detention pond, instead of a vault. A comment letter was received by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 12) which raised concerns regarding the stormwater facility outlet being located within the wetland as opposed to its buffer. Additionally, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requested the Applicant be required to comply with the enhanced water quality standard as opposed to the basic water quality treatment standard in order to avoid causing impacts to salmon downstream. Historically, Staff have not recommended \ . increasing the water quality stand~d beyond what is required in the 2009 King County PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 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 Surface Water Design Manual from other projects unless the proposal was commercial or . was located along heavily traveled streets. Staff have recommended enhanced water quality standards when stormwater facilities sent outfall into critical areas. Staff testified that the project is already being conditioned to relocate the outfall out of the critical area and into the buffer. Staff further testified they will require enhanced water quality treatment in the event the revised plan triggers one of the enhanced water quality thresholds on the 2009 stormwater code. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised storm report, including the use of a storm pond and relocating the outfall to the wetland buffer, which will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. D. Parks/Open Space. The MDNS for the project requires the Applicant to pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee at the time of final plat recording. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R -8 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Access to the plat is proposed via two new curb cuts on Hoquiam Avenue NE. Hoquiam Avenue NE is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Street improvements along Hoquiam Ave NE need to be 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show the required improvements. A proposed loop road will run along the north boundary line. The northern portion of this road is proposed to be improved to a half-street improvement standard with the remainder of the street maintaining a 45 foot right of way. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26 feet of pavement, with an 8 foot planter strip, 5 foot sidewalk, and parking on one side only. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed 16-foot \yide alley. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being ,~. \ taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. ' PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 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 F. Lots 27 and 28 are proposed to be accessed via separate private driveways, located within abutting pipe stems, which would be spaced very close. Staff recommends a shared driveway for primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face of the Final Plat. The proposed plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City'S street system. A Transportation Impact Fee, per net new average daily trip attributed to the project, with credit given for the existing single-family residence, was recommended as part of the SEPA review. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the City's transportation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Conditions of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised street improvement plan for approval by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. This plan will demonstrate compliance with the City's half street improvement standards, compliance with the City's design standards for internal roads and a joint use driveway for Lots 27 and 28. Tree Retention. The City received a comment letter expressing concern about tree retention on-site. There are a total of 211 trees located on site. Twenty-four of these are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The Applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on site outside of critical areas, proposed rights of way and access easements. Of the 211 trees located on-site, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The Applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the removal of trees by planting new trees. The Applicant has proposed to retain only 12 of the 47 required trees. When the required number of protected trees, c~ot be retained, new trees, with a two- inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate is 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. As the Applicant proposes to retain only 12 of the required 47 trees, the Applicant must mitigate for 35 additional trees, or plant 420- caliper inches of trees on-site. The Applicant is proposing a total of 211 replacement trees of 2 caliper inches each, for a total of 422-caliper inches. Staff recommended as a SEPA mitigation measure that the applicant be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they Ca!1 best be used to save existing PRELIMINARY PLAT-7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mature trees on site and are the most suitable for large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The revised tree retention plan complies with the mitigation measure to eliminate Lots 29 and 30 in order to preserve mature vegetation on-site and provide an opportunity to plant replacement trees. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to work with the City's Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each replacement tree or an off-site location to plant the required number of replacement trees should the Applicant find that the provision of 211 on-site trees is infeasible. G. Landscaping. As proposed the conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the 10- foot wide on-site landscape requirement. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a lO-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots for approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. H. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. As discussed in Finding of Fact No.4, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure and is served by adequate public services. There is a Category II wetland and a Class IV stream on the subject property. The steepest slopes on the property are 15%, though these appear to be isolated. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with critical areas buffers and to provide a 16 mitigation plan for any critical areas or buffers affected by the final design of the plat. Another condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a new storm drainage plan that relocates the storm water facility outfall to within the wetland buffer rather than the critical area itself. No other adverse impacts are reasonably discernible from the record and there was no testimony against the project. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(8): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(G), this criterion is not satisfied with respect to landscaping requirements. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-8 zoning district as detailed by Staff at page 7 of the Staff Report, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As shown on the preliminary plat map, Ex. 2, each lot will access Hoquiam Avenue NE, Road A or a private alley. As noted in Findings of Fact No.5, there is a Category II and a Class IV creek on the property. The steepest slopes on the property are 15%, though these are isolated. The proposal protects the critical areas and their buffer through the creation of tracts. Additionally, two originally proposed lots have been converted into tracts for mature tree preservation. Consequently, the remaining developable site has physical characteristics suitable for development. As determined in the Finding of Fact No.4, and as conditioned, the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage, streets water and sewer. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conJormance with the general purposes , \ of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 20 5. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 21 22 23 24 25 26 in pages 6-7 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication oj any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according /0 City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6, The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to Hoquiam Avenue NE. RMC 4-7-120(8): The location oj all streets shall conform to any adopted plans Jor streets in the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 2 3 7. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any specific roads. Hoquiam Avenue NE will be improved to City road standards in the subject vicinity. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, 4 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-ol-way or for easements to the City for trail 5 purposes. 6 8. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: i. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the saftty and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate saftguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT -10 2 3 4 5 6 , ,. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 7 9. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No.4, and as conditioned, the land is suitable for 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 development. The property is not designated as a floodplain and there are no steep slopes on-site. As discussed in Finding of Fact No.5, there is a Class IV creek on-site. As proposed, and as conditioned, all critical areas will be protected. As discussed in Finding of Fact 4, there are 211 trees on-site. Of these, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The Applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the removal of trees by planting new trees. This project will be conditioned to comply with RMC 4-4-130(H)(l )(b lei) and/or to work with the City's Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each replacement tree or an off- site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 16 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 17 18 19 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 20 10. The MDNS requires the payment of Park and Recreation Impact fees. 21 22 23 24 25 RMC 4-7-1S0(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 1l. There are no existing streets to extend or connect to. 26 RMC 4-7-1S0(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT -11 1 12. As conditioned. 2 3 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 4 13. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. 5 6 7 8 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (l25~ are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 9 14. As discussed in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved 10 11 the street alignment as conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(E): 12 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-I6 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a ''flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the followingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 1 2 3 RC, R-I, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 5 possible. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15. No grid connections or linkages are feasible because there are no streets, sidewalks or trails to connect with. The proposed sidewalk extends along Hoquiam Avenue NE. The proposed internal street system connects to Hoquiam Avenue NE at two points. No cui de sacs are proposed. Alley access is provided to most lots, where feasible. RMC 4-7-1S0(F): All acijacent rights-ofway and new rights-ofway dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks' shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. As conditioned. \3 16. 14 RMC 4-7-1S0(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a foil-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. There are no further street extensions possible for the proposed subdivision. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved str,eet lines. 18. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street or road. 23 19. 24 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width reqUirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -\3 1 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 2 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 3 4 5 20. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-ofway line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of 6 the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 7 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 8 9 21. As shown in Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-ofway, except alleys, 10 shall have minimum radius offifieenfeet (15'). 11 22. As conditioned. 12 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all naturalfeatures such as large trees, 13 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 14 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 15 23. As discussed in Findings of Fact No.4 and 5 and Conclusion of Law 9, the wetland and critical areas have been protected and the proposal creates two tracts for mature tree retention along 16 with retention of significant trees, where feasible on-site. 17 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department 18 and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 19 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 20 development. 21 24. As conditioned. 22 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all 23 surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be 24 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 25 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water,qualityfeatures shall also be designed to 26 provide capacity for the new street pavingfor the plat. PRELIMINARYPLAT-14 I 2 25. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4c. 3 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 4 5 6 Department requirements. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 7 utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 8 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 9 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the 10 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 11 27. As conditioned. 12 13 14 15 16 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals andlor vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer andlor land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 17 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and'certify to the City that it is properly installed. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 1 2 3 4 5 6 C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 29. As conditioned. DECISION 7 The proposed preliminary plat is approved, subject to the following conditions: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. The Applicant shall comply with the five mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated October 8, 2012. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the two existing single family residences prior to Final Plat recording. 3. The Applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots. The final detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. 4. The Applicant shall submit a Final Mitigation Plan if impacts are proposed to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The Final Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat submittal. In any case the Applicant shall be required to place fencing and signage along the original or averaged wetland buffer. 5. The Applicant shall be required to submit a revised street improvement plan, depicting 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage of Hoquiam Ave NE. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 6. The Applicant shall be required to create a shared driveway for the primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face of the Final Plat. 7. The Applicant shall be required to revise the drainage plan to relocate the outfall to the wetland buffer. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8. The Applicant shall submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and associated improvements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction approval. 9. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 90. 10. The Applicant is required to retain 47 on-site trees outside of the critical areas, right of way or access areas. In the event the Applicant is unable to retain all 47 on-site trees, the Applicant shall replace each removed tree with a minimum of twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees, at 2 inch caliber minimum per tree, for each protected tree removed. Should the Applicant find that the provision of the required replacement trees on-site trees is infeasible, the Applicant shall work with the City's Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each r,!lplacement tree or an off-site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. DATpR this 20th day of November, 2012. j j! ~~ Nil I A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 0(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. R¥C 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-llO(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. 24 Affected property owners may request a change In valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 • Denis Law Mayor November 21; 2012 ' Nadeem Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. :10604 NE 38 th Place, #232~ CityO~ . ~ . L~rID. City,Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Kirkland, WA98033 , ,.' • • -.. .",., '," •• ' '0" Re: ,. Decisionfor Piper's Bluff ,Prelimi~arv Plat, lUA:12-076,i:CF, PP -Dear Mr. Khim: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated November 20,2012, in the above-referenced matter:' ' , ' If I can provide further information; pleasefeel free to contact me. Since'rely, Bonriie I. Walton City Clerk Ene.: Hearing Examiner's Decision , Cc: Hearin'g Examiner' larryWarren, City'Attorney, Rcicale Timmons,Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Curr~nt Planning Manager , Neil Watts, Developme'rit Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Stacy Tucker, DevelopmentServices Pa'rties:of Record (7) , 1055 South Grady w~Y. Renion, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-65) 0/ Fa~' (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov AIl31\'d-09-o08-~ WO)"1.J9N!"MMM "" .- Nadeem Khan DR Strong Consulting Eng. 10604 NE 38 th PI #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Bill Griffin 1S216 NE 26th Street Vancouver, WA 98684 Jane Isoler 5801 Soundview Drive, #258 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 T ",dn-dod p,loqaa 91 Jal~A9'J I ap uy.e wmpell 81 ~ z9Udsy lUClWa6Jelp ap sues V WestPac Development, LLC 7449 W. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Virginia Broyles 1166 Hoquiam Av NE Renton, WA 98059 Ed Sewell 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 V lI.1a6p3 dn..docl asodxa ~ Jadecl paa:l ! 01-aUII 6uole puag c:=:::J V y , , , e09t5 eA1l31\'d weqe6 al zaS!I!ln Jalad ~ sall,eJ sa»anb!l~ Phillip Gesner 5005 NE 13 th Place Renton, WA 98055 Claudia Donelly 10415 14ih Av SE Renton, WA 98059 v , , , e09~5 aleldwal fiiluM'IaSn slaqo, elaad '\S03 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Piper's Bluff Plat Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) --------------------------) SUMMARY 16 The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 28 lot residential subdivision. The preliminary 17 18 plat is approved with conditions. TESTIMONY 19 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, City of Renton 20 21 22 23 Ms. Timmons described the project. The proposed plat is located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue NE. It is five acres located in the Residential Single Family (Comprehensive Plan Designation) and R-8 zoning district. The Applicant initially requested a 30 lot subdivision with three .tracts and a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. The topography is rolling from the west to east with local areas of 15% slopes. There is a portion of a Category II wetland on site as well as the upper reach of Honey Creek, a Class IV creek. There are presently 211 trees on site. The City received public comment 24 letters related to storrnwater treatment and requesting enhanced water quality standards. 25 The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on October 8, 2012 with four mitigation measures. Ms. Timmons noted an administrative error in the Staff Report (Ex. 1) that stated there were five MDNS conditions, rather than four. No appeals to the MDNS were filed. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - I 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 Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant must retain the trees on proposed lots 29 and 30. The Applicant submitted a revised lot layout for 28 lots at a density of 7.27 dwelling units per acre. Lots are proposed to be 4,500-6,700 square feet. Twenty-four trees will be retained in the critical areas and their buffers. The Applicant submitted a landscape plan that included an eight foot landscaping strip in the right of way. The Staff Report conditions of approval require a ten foot on-site requirement as well as retention in the critical areas and buffers. Thirty seven trees are now proposed to be retained on site. The Applicant has proposed to retain 12 trees outside the critical areas tract and outside the required landscaping. The City's Environmental Review Committee offered to work with the Applicant if the required 211 new trees cannot be feasibly planted. In the initial application, the Applicant proposed to encroach into the 50 foot wetland buffer. The Applicant offered 660 square feet of enhancement and buffer creation as mitigation for the encroachment. Ms. Timmons stated the Applicant will likely forgo the encroachment in order to accommodate stormwater. The Applicant had initially proposed a stormwater vault but has since revised the application to show a stormwater pond. Ms. Timmons stated the Staffs recommended conditions of approval require the Applicant to submit a revised storm drainage report. Ms. Timmons reported the application does not meet sidewalk and landscaping standards. Staff has recommended conditions of approval that will require compliance with these codes. Ms. Timmons stated the present design has two pipe stem lots with driveways that are very close together. Staff recommends the driveways be consolidated to a joint driveway. Ms. Timmons stated emergency service access is adequate. The Applicant must show a Certificate of Water Availability. The Applicant must also modify the plans to show adequate room for a required sewer lift station. Ms. Timmons reported Staff found the application is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and the City's design standards. The application can meet all zOlllng requirements with conditions of approval. In response to the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated she could provide the Examiener with the code citation for the caliper that qualifies a tree for protection under the City's tree protection ordinance. Kavren Kittrick, Lead Construction Inspector, City of Renton Ms. Kittrick stated the City's adopted 2009 stormwater manual requires enhanced water quality treatment when there are critical areas. There are critical areas on this site. The City will not be requiring enhanced water quality treatment unless the revised application triggers these requirements. Buffer averaging will require enhanced water quality treatment. The Staff will pay attention to the thresholds and require enhanced water quality treatment if necessary. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mr. Luay Jouveh, Applicant Mr. Jouveh discussed the Staffs recommended conditions of approval. He noted Item #1 has already been corrected to four not five mitigation measures. Mr. Jouveh stated the Applicant agrees with Items #2-4. With respect to Item #5, Mr. louveh stated the plat plans show the right cross section but mislabeled the distance. They will correct it. Mr. louveh stated the Applicant is fine with the shared driveway issue #6. Mr. Jouveh said with regard to Item #7, the plans are showing the outfall in the wetland buffer, not in the wetland. The lift station will be given a larger area on the revised plans. They concur with this condition. Mr. Jouveh said, in general, the Applicant concurs with the 8 conditions of approval recommended by Staff. There was no public comment or staff or Applicant rebuttal. EXHIBITS Exhibits 2-12 listed on page 2 of the November 6,2012 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself (Ex. I), were admitted into evidence the public hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Westpac Development, LLC. Represented by Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on November 6,2012 in 18 ·the City of Renton Council Chambers. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Project Description. The Applicant IS requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEP A) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 28 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts. Hoquiam Avenue NE is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site as well as Honey Creek, a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a net density of 7.27 dulac. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18- 28. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 I 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 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is located in the Water District 90 water service boundary. The Applicant must obtain a Certificate of Water Availability. There is an existing City of Renton 8-inch sewer main in NE 11th Court. In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a manhole must be installed in Hoquiam Ave NE. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the manhole. The force main needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8-inch pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8-inch pipe, and the 8-inch pipe is then connected into a new manhole which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that manhole easterly to the existing manhole via gravity. This proposal is also located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required On this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. The control building must be large enough to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the I O-inch wet well and the 8-foot x 6-foot site for the emergency generator. The present plans do not allow adequate area for the lift station. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and associated improvements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -4 I B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention Staff indicate that sufficient 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 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, is required by the MDNS for the project. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. C. Drainage. Drainage will be adequately addressed through the preparation of an updated drainage report that proposes storm drainage facilities that Staff have determined complies with the standards of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The site is located within the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed; more specifically it is located within the Honey Creek sub basin of the May Creek drainage basin. Site runoff currently travels northeasterly and enters into the Category 2 wetland located near the northeast property corner and then exits the wetland via the Class 4 stream also located on site. The stream conveys runoff northerly to an offsite Category 2 wetland. This wetland extends north and flows through a culvert under Hoquiam Ave NE and encompasses the remainder of the quarter mile downstream. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated August 29, 2012. The report states that the runoff from the proposed project would be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to a detention vault in the northeast comer of the site. The vault would then discharge to the onsite stream. The storm vault is designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The provided storm report was acceptable for preliminary review. The Applicant has since submitted a revised lot layout proposing the use of a detention pond, instead of a vault. A comment letter was received by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 12) which raised concerns regarding the stormwater facility outlet being located within the wetland as opposed to its buffer. Additionally, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requested the Applicant be required to comply with the enhanced water quality standard as opposed to the basic water quality treatment standard in order to avoid causing impacts to salmon downstream. Historically, Staff have not recommended increasing the water quality standard beyond what is required in the 2009 King County PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 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 Surface Water Design Manual from other projects unless the proposal was commercial or was located along heavily traveled streets. Staff have recommended enhanced water quality standards when stormwater facilities sent outfall into critical areas. Staff testified that the project is already being conditioned to relocate the outfall out of the critical area and into the buffer. Staff further testified they will require enhanced water quality treatment in the event the revised plan triggers one of the enhanced water quality thresholds on the 2009 stormwater code. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised storm report, including the use of a storm pond and relocating the outfall to the wetland buffer, which will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. D. Parks/Open Space. The MDNS for the project requires the Applicant to pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee at the time of final plat recording. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-8 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Access to the plat is proposed via two new curb cuts on Hoquiam Avenue NE. Hoquiam Avenue NE is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Street improvements along Hoquiam Ave NE need to be 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show the required improvements. A proposed loop road will ruil along the north boundary line. The northern portion of this road is proposed to be improved to a half-street improvement standard with the remainder of the street maintaining a 45 foot right of way. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26 feet of pavement, with an 8 foot planter strip,S foot sidewalk, and parking on one side only. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 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 Lots 27 and 28 are proposed to be accessed via separate private driveways, located within abutting pipe stems, which would be spaced very close. Staff recommends a shared driveway for primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face ofthe Final Plat. The proposed plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. A Transportation Impact Fee, per net new average daily trip attributed to the project, with credit given for the existing single-family residence, was recommended as part of the SEPA review. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the City'S transportation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Conditions of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised street improvement plan for approval by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. This plan will demonstrate compliance with the City's half street improvement standards, compliance with the City's design standards for internal roads and a joint use driveway for Lots 27 and 28. F. Tree Retention. The City received a comment letter expressmg concern about tree retention on-site. There are a total of 211 trees located on site. Twenty-four of these are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The Applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on site outside of critical areas, proposed rights of way and access easements. Of the 211 trees located on-site, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The Applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the· removal of trees by planting new trees. The Applicant has proposed to retain only 12 of the 47 required trees. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two- inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate is 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. As the Applicant proposes to retain only 12 of the required 47 trees, the Applicant must mitigate for 35 additional trees, or plant 420- caliper inches of trees on-site. The Applicant is proposing a total of 211 replacement trees of 2 caliper inches each, for a total of 422-caliper inches. Staff recommended as a SEP A mitigation measure that the applicant be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save existing PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 \3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mature trees on site and are the most suitable for large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The revised tree retention plan complies with the mitigation measure to eliminate Lots 29 and 30 in order to preserve mature vegetation on-site and provide an opportunity to plant replacement trees. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to work with the City's Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each replacement tree or an off-site location to plant the required number of replacement trees should the Applicant find that the provision of211 on-site trees is infeasible. G. Landscaping. As proposed the conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the 10- foot wide on-site landscape requirement. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a I O-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots for approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. H. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. As discussed in Finding of Fact No.4, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure and is served by adequate public services. There is a Category II wetland and a Class IV stream on the subject property. The steepest slopes on the property are 15%, though these appear to be isolated. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with critical areas buffers and to provide a mitigation plan for any critical areas or buffers affected by the final design of the plat. Another condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a new storm drainage plan that relocates the stormwater facility outfall to within the wetland buffer rather than the critical area itself. No other adverse impacts are reasonably discernible from the record and there was no testimony against the project. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 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 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-7-080(8): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(G), this criterion is not satisfied with respect to landscaping requirements. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-8 zoning district as detailed by Staff at page 7 of the Staff ~eport, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As shown on the preliminary plat map, Ex. 2, each lot will access Hoquiam Avenue NE, Road A or a private alley. As noted in Findings of Fact No.5, there is a Category II and a Class IV creek on the property. The steepest slopes on the property are 15%, though these are isolated. The proposal protects the critical areas and their buffer through the creation of tracts. Additionally, two originally proposed lots have been converted into tracts for mature tree preservation. Consequently, the remaining developable site has physical characteristics suitable for development. As determined in the Finding of Fact No.4, and as conditioned, the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage, streets water and sewer. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 5. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in pages 6-7 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to Hoquiam Avenue NE. RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 I 7. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any appliCable street plan or grid 2 3 system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any specific roads. Hoquiam Avenue NE will be improved to City road standards in the subject vicinity. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, 4 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of way or for easements to the City for trail 5 purposes. 6 8. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the 7 8 9 10 II 12 J3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J J a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT -10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9. As discussed In Conclusion of Law No.4, and as conditioned, the land is suitable for development. The property is not designated as a floodplain and there are no steep slopes on-site. As discussed in Finding of Fact No.5, there is a Class IV creek on-site. As proposed, and as 9 conditioned, all critical areas will be protected. 10 I I 12 13 14 15 As discussed in Finding of Fact 4, there are 211 trees on-site. Of these, 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements because of their location in the critical area or proposed rights of way or access easements. 'The remaining 157 trees are subject to the 30% tree retention requirement. The Applicant must retain at least 47 trees on site or mitigate the removal of trees by planting new trees. This project will be conditioned to comply with RMC 4-4-130(H)(l)(b)(i) and/or to work with the City's Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each replacement tree or an off- site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 16 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 17 18 19 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 20 10. The MDNS requires the payment of Park and Recreation Impact fees. 21 22 23 24 25 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. II. There are no existing streets to extend or connect to. 26 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT -II As conditioned. 1 12. 2 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 3 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 4 13. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. 5 6 7 8 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 9 14. As discussed in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved 10 1 1 the street alignment as conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(E): 12 I. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where thefollowingfactors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 I 2 3 ) RC, R-I, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offiet or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 5 possible. 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 15. No grid connections or linkages are feasible because there are no streets, sidewalks or trails to connect with. The proposed sidewalk extends along Hoquiam Avenue NE. The proposed internal street system connects to Hoquiam Avenue NE at two points. No cuI de sacs are proposed. Alley access is provided to most lots, where feasible. RMC 4-7-1S0(F): All adjacent rights-o.f-way and new rights-ol-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or de/erred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Or his/her designee. As conditioned. 13 16. 14 RMC 4-7-1S0(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater. depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be 15 16 17 18 required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. There are no further street extensions possible for the proposed subdivision. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial 19 to curv~d street lines. 20 21 22 18. . As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements 0.( the street standards. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street or road. 23 19. 24 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 20. As previously detennined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-aI-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 21. As shown in Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-ol-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offijieenfeet (15'). 22. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. IS 23. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. 4 and 5 and Conclusion of Law 9, the wetland and 16 17 18 19 20 critical areas have been protected and the proposal creates two tracts for mature tree retention along with retention of significant trees, where feasible on-site. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. As conditioned. 21 24. 22 RMC 4-7-200(8): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 23 24 25 26 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. The proposal, as conditioned, provides for adequate drainage that is In confonnance with applicable City drainage standards as detennined in Finding of Fact No. 4c. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 7 utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 8 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be instal/ed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 9 approved prior 10 the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the 10 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 11 27. As conditioned. 12 13 14 15 16 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 17 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certifY to the City that it is properly installed. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 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 C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 29. As conditioned. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the five mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated October 8, 2012. 2. The Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the two existing single family residences prior to Final Plat recording. 3. The Applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots. The final detailed landsc~pe shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. 4. The Applicant shall submit a Final Mitigation Plan if impacts are proposed to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The Final Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat submittal. In any case the Applicant shall be required to place fencing and signage along the original or averaged wetland buffer. 5. The Applicant shall be required to submit a revised street improvement plan, depicting 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage of Hoquiam Ave NE. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 6. The Applicant shall be required to create a shared driveway for the primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face of the Final Plat. 7. The Applicant shall be required to revise the drainage plan to relocate the outfall to the wetland buffer. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 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 8. The Applicant shall submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and associated improvements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction approval. 9. The Applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 90. 10. The Applicant is required to retain 47 on-site trees outside of the critical areas, right of way or access areas. In the event the Applicant is unable to retain all 47 on-site trees, the Applicant shall replace each removed tree with a minimum of twelve (\ 2) caliper inches of new trees, at 2 inch caliber minimum per tree, for each protected tree removed. Should the Applicant find that the provision of the required replacement trees on-site trees is infeasible, the Applicant shall work with the City'S Parks Department in order to determine a fee in lieu for each replacement tree or an off-site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. DATED this 20th day of November, 2012. lsi Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11O(E)(9) provides that the final 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(0)(4). A new fourteen (\4) 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 Ha11-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change In valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 , CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: October 31, 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 . Project Name: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA-12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Rocale Timmons Acceptance Date: September 18, 2012 Applicant: WestPac Development, LLC Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Nadeem A. Khan, D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. PID Number: 1023059312, 1023059002, 1023059144, 1023059367 ERC Approval Date: October 8, 2012 ERC Appeal Date: October 26, 2012 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: November 6, 2012 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: I Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPAl Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Location: 1178 & 1166 Hoquiam Avenue NE !I Comments: I I CITY OF RENTON. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION . ' AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 30th day of October, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Nadeem A. Khan WestPac Development, LLC Phillip G. Genser Bill Griffin Virginia Broyles Claudia Donnelly (Signature of Sender): / STATE OF WASHINGTON Doted: 6ctofun 3D aOl2 / Representing Contact Owner/Applicant Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record Notary publl iI1aI1dior the State of Washington Notary (print): ___ ~H,-,.-",A",_--,G"'-7-'-[t!<=b",.y,,-___________ _ My appointmer.t expires: Au. ~ u. '".t a. '1, J. D,.0 '. "--,-_., Project Name: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Project'Nuniber: LUA12-076, ECF, PP -,-. Denis Law Mayor , October30,2012 Departm'ent of Community and Economic Development ,'C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator NadeemA.Khari ' , D. R, Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc: 10604 NE 38 th 'Place #232 Kirkland,WA 98033 SUBJECT: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP .,' Dear Mr. Khan: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended October 26, 2012· for the Eriviro~niental Review C~mmittee's (ERe), Determination of Non-Significance c Mitigated for the above-referenced project.,' ' ' ", No appeals were filed on the ERCdetermination therefore; this'decision isfinaJ. The appllcantrnust comply with all ERCMitigation Measu-res outlined ,in the, Report and' , Decis'ion dated October 8, 2012. ,Also, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been' scheduled for November 6, 2012, where additional' conditions, may ,be issued. The "applicant or representative{s) ofthe appliCant are required to be present. Enclosed isa copy of the Preliniiimy Report to the Hea'ririg Examiner for your review. ' , ., , , ' " If you have anyquestions,please feel free to contact meat (425)'430-7219 . • For the Environmental Revie~ Committee, ' "~~,"'".,",'" ", ,,'~oc~eTimmons' ~,',' Asso,ciate Planner ,,', ' . Enclosure . cc: WestPac Development, llC / Ow"ner{s) , . -. Phillip G~ Ge_sner, Bil1"Griffin, Virginia ~royles, Claudia Donnelly I Pi:Hty(ies).of Record 'Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov : .! DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING November 6, 2012 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM 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: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-076, ECF, PP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 28 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. The proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. HEX Agenda 11-6-12.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMI\. ~NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVelOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: Project Name : Owner: Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: November 6, 2012 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Westpac Development, LLC; 7449 Mercer Way; Mercer Island , WA 98040 Nadeem A. Khan; D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.; 10604 NE 38th Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033 LUA12 -076, ECF, PP Rocale Timmons; Associate Planner The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 28 lots . The project site is located within the Residential -8 (R -8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification . Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts , which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream . The proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE 217,371 square feet (4 .99 acres) Project Location Map HEX Reporf City of Renton Department of Con. lity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA T Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP Hearing Date November 6, 2012 lB. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 2: Zoning Map Exhibit 3: Original Preliminary Plat Plan (date stamped August 31, 2012) Exhibit 4: Revised Preliminary Plat Plan (date stamped October 23, 2012) Exhibit 5: Revised Landscape Plan (date stamped October 23,2012) Exhibit 6: Revised Tree Retention Plan (date stamped October 23, 2012) Exhibit 7: Aerial Photograph Exhibit 8: SEPA Determination Exhibit 9: DNS-M Advisory Notes Exhibit 10: Wetland Mitigation Plan Exhibit 11: Public Comment Letter: Donnelly Exhibit 12: Agency Comment Letter: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Westpac Development, LLC 7449 Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Residential-8 dulac (R-8) Residential Single Family (RSF) Page 2 of 12 4. Existing Site Use: Two single family residences to be removed. S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) Single Family Residential (Unincorporated King County) Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) Hazen High School (R-4 zone) Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which are proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. 217,371 square feet (4.99 acres) I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation HEX Report La nd Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5099 5100 5459 Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 7/05/09 City of Renton Department of Con. dty & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PlAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 3 of 12 I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: This site is located in the Water District 90 water service boundary. b. Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NE 11th Ct. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are existing storm drainage facilities in Hoquiam Ave NE. 2. Streets: There is currently a partially improved public right-of-way along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PlAN: 1. land Use Element: 2. Community Design Element: HEX Report City of Renton Department of Con lity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 4 of 12 I H. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant originally requested a preliminary plat in order to subdivide a 5 acre site into 30 single family lots and three tracts; drainage/sewer, critical areas, and access (Tracts A, S, and C). The proposal would have resulted in a density of 7.92 dulac (Exhibit 3). Z. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 31, 2012 and determined complete on September 18, 2012. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 3. The applicant submitted a revised lot layout, dated October 23, 2012 (Exhibit 4). The proposal reduces the number of lots from 30 to 28 lots in order to comply with the 1" Mitigation Measure of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) dated October 8,2012. One of the former lots was consolidated into the Storm Drainage Tract (Tract A) which would be used to site a drainage pond instead of the formerly proposed vault. The second lot is now proposed to be set aside as a tree preservation tract (Tract C). The originally proposed access tract would also be eliminated. 4. The revised proposal would result in a density of 7.27 dulac. 5. The proposed plat would be located on the north side of NE 12'h St just west of Aberdeen Ave NE. 6. The property is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential 8 (R-8) zoning classification. The RSF designation is intended for use as quality residential detached development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments. 7. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,674 square feet. 8. The site contains two existing single-family residences, which are proposed for removal. 9. The site is rectangular in shape. 10. The following table are proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-28' As Prollosed Lot Size Width Dellth As Lot Size Width Dellth Prollosed Lot 1 5,001 SF 60/eet BB/eet LotlS 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot2 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 16 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot3 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 17 5,169 SF 60/eet 90/eet Lot4 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 18 5,004 SF 60/eet BB/eet Lot5 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 19 4,502 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 6 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 20 4,501 SF 51.feet BB/eet Lot 7 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 21 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot8 4,946 SF 60/eet B5/eet Lot 22 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot9 4,551 SF 53/eet B5/eet Lot 23 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet LoUD 5,197 SF 65/eet B5/eet Lot 24 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 11 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot2S 4,500 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 12 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot 26 4,B11 SF 51/eet BB/eet Lot 13 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot 27 5.237 SF 50/eet 95/eet Lot 14 4,603 SF 51/eet 90/eet Lot2B 6,674 SF 50/eet 115/eet 11. Proposed Lots 1-17 would gain access via a proposed private alley. Access to Lots 18-28 are proposed to be accessed via a new internal road (Road 'A') via private driveways. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 5 of 12 12. Topographically, the site can best be characterized as rolling with slopes that range from 2-15 percent generally sloping from the west to the east. The steepest slope on the property is approximately 15 percent in isolated areas on site. Overall topographic relief is approximately 60 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted. The report states that there are no geotechnical conditions on site that would preclude the proposed development. 13. There are a total of 21l.trees located on site of which 24 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer) based on the revised layout (Exhibit 6). 14. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated August 15, 2012), identifying a portion of a wetland located on the subject site. Additionally, the upper reach of Honey Creek is located on the northeast corner of the site. According to the report Wetland A is classified as a Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are required to have a 50-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge. Honey Creek is mapped as a Class 4 stream with a required 35-foot buffer. 15. The applicant was originally proposing to encroach into the 50-foot wetland buffer approximately 6.5 feet for a total of 583 square feet. In order to compensate for the impacts stated above the applicant was proposing the creation of a wetland buffer in the amount of 616 square feet. 16. The revised conceptual landscape plan includes the installation of street trees within a proposed 8-foot planter along the frontage ofthe internal road (Road 'A') (Exhibit 5). Additional vegetation is proposed along the alley, within the Drainage Tract, Tree Preservation Tract and· along the rear of lots 18-28. Vegetation proposed includes: hedge maple, Oregon Ash, sargent cherry, chanticleer pear, and western cedar for a total of 211 trees. 17. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on October 8, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 8). The DNS-M included 4 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on October 12, 2012 and ended on October 26, 2012. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. 19. 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: HEX Report 1. The applicant shall be required to retain those trees located on proposed lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save several existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable to locate a large number of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The area located in Lots 29-30 would be required to be consolidated and placed into a Tree Preservation Tract. For those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat the applicant would be required to work with the City's Parks Department to determine a "fee in lieu" for each replacement tree that could not be planted on site or a suitable off-site location to plant the remainder of the required number of replacement trees. The revised Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and a representative of the City's Parks Department prior to construction permit approval. City of Renton Department of Con. lity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP Page 6 of 12 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 3. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton' Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 20. A comment letter was received by an interested party (Exhibit 11) with questions related to the number of trees to be removed on site and how the applicant would be able to comply with the tree retention requirements of the code. Concerns were also raised with regard to the preservation of mature vegetation on site. 21. A comment letter was received by Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 12) with comments related to the stormwater facility outlet being relocated to the wetland buffer and not directly in the wetland. Additionally, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requested the applicant be required to comply with the enhanced water quality standard as opposed to the basic water quality treatment standard. 22. 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 this report. l/. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if all conditions of approval are complied with: ./ Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 ta B.O dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family Neighborhoads. Policy LU-l4B. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in Single-family designations. Allow a reduction on lot size ./ to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but ta provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-lS2. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be ./ sufficient to allow private apen spoce, landscaping to pravide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. Objective CD-C. Prom ate reinvestment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods ./ through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill develapment, modificatian and alteration of older housing stock, and impravements to streets and sidewalks ta increose property values . ./ Policy CD-13. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established HEX Report J City of Renton Department of Corr. dty & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 7 of 12 neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and lor responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw an elements af existing development such as placement af structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Z. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The subject site is classified Residential-8 dulac (R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-110A provides development standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density: The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre. Staff Comment: After subtracting 47,719 square feet for proposed right-af-way dedications; ./ and 1,949 square feet far critical areas; the net square faatage of the site is 167,701 square feet {3.85 net acres}. The 281at proposal would arrive at a net density af 7.27 dwelling units per acre {28 lots I 3.85 acres = 7.27 dulac}, which falls within the permitted density range for the R-8 zane. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 is 4,500 square feet for lots greater than 1 acre in size and 5,000 square feet for lots 1 acre or less in size. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot ./ depth of 65 feet, is also required. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above, all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, depth, and width. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage; interior side yard is 5 feet; side yard along a street is 15 feet for. the primary structure and 20 feet for an attached garage; and the rear yard is 20 feet. Staff Comment: The setback requirements for the proposed lots would be verified at the time ./ af building permit review. The proposed lats appear to contain adequate area to provide all the required setback areas. The existing single family residences, which are proposed to be demolished, would not comply with the setback requirements af the zone. Therefore, staff recommends as a conditian af approval the applicant shall obtain a demolitian permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residences prior to Final Plat recording. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet and 2-stories. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed ./ building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-8 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 75 percent. Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Not Stoff Comment: As proposed the conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the 10- Compliant foot wide on-site landscape requirement. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of apprOVal, the applicant be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots. The final detailed landscape sholl be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two ./ vehicles. Staff. Comment: Sufficient area exist, on each lot, to occammodote off street parking for a HEX Report City of Renton Department of Con, lity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12·076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 8 of 12 minimum of two vehicles, 3. DESIGN STANDARDS: RMC 4·2·115 provides residential and open space standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following design standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Lot Configuration: One of the Following is required: Lot width variation of 10 feet minimum of one per four abutting street fronting lots, or Minimum of four lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference), or A front yard setback variation of at least five feet minimum for at least every four Not abutting street fronting lots. Compliant Staff Comment: The proposal does nat include variation in the lot sizes or width that would meet the first two criteria. The applicant will be required to provide a front yard setback variation of at least five feet for at least every four abutting street fronting lots. Alternatively, the plat could be revised to provide a lot width variation of 10 feet for one per four abutting street fronting lots or minimum of four lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference). 4. CRITICAL AREAS: The proposal is consistent with critical area regulations as stated in RMC 4·3·150: Not Compliant HEX Report The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated August 15, 2012), identifying a portion of a wetlond located on the subject site (see Exhibit 5). Additionally, the upper reach of Honey Creek is located on the northeost corner of the site. Wetland A is located along the east side of the site, and is heavily forested with a deciduous canopy. Vegetation in this wetland consists of an overstary of red alder with an understory comprised of vine maple, red·osier dogwood, salmonberry, and a substantial amount of Himalayan blackberry. According to the report Wetland A is classified as a Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are required to have a 50·foot buffer measured from the wetland edge. Honey Creek passes through the wetland at the northeast corner of the site. The stream is strongly influenced by storm water out/ails upstream as the flow of the channel was noted to increase during rain events. The stream buffer has been noted as being very healthy with large deciduous and coniferous tree species within a dense native understory. To the east and off site, this buffer has been impacted by clearing. Honey Creek is mapped as a Class 4 stream with a required 35·foot buffer. Although Honey Creek in non-fish bearing in this reach it is important to note that 10 mile downstream the stream does become fish bearing. Due to topography and the originally proposed storm facility the applicant was proposing to encroach into the 50·foot wetland buffer approximately 6.5 feet for a total of 583 square feet. A Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan was included in the Critical Areas Report. In order to compensate for the impacts stated above the applicant was proposing the creation of wetland buffer in the amount of 616 square feet. However, since the time of application the applicant has submitted a revised lot layout increasing the area dedicated to the storm drainage tract in order to construct a stormwater pond instead of the originally proposed vault. It is likely the applicant would forego the proposed buffer averaging as there is now adequate area to maintain the original buffer. The applicant will be required to comply with RMC 4·3·050 Critical Areas regulations to mitigate for any impocts permitted to the wetland buffer. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit 0 Final Mitigation Plan if impacts are proposed to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The Final Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta,utility construction permit City of Renton Department of Com. ity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 9 of 12 approval. In any case the applicant shall be required to place fencing and sign age along the original or averaged wetland buffer. 5. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements: Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130 states thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comment: There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 24 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on site that are not located within critical areas, proposed rights-of-way and access easements. Of the 211 trees located an site 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 47 trees on site. The applicant has proposed to retain 12 trees outside of the critical areas and their buffers (Exhibit 6). When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rote shall be 12-coliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Therefore a total of 420-caliper inches would be required to be replaced on site. The applicant is proposing a total of 211, 2 caliper inch replacement trees, for a total of 422-caliper inches, in order to meet the tree ./ retention/replacement requirement. The subdivision of land should be reviewed to ensure the protection of valuoble, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve trees and naturol vegetation. Land clearing and tree removal shall· be conducted to maximize the preservation of any tree in good health. Staff recommended as a SEPA mitigation measure that the applicant be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable for large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The revised tree retention plan complies with the mitigation measure to eliminate Lots 29 and 30 in order to preserve mature vegetation on site and provide an opportunity to plant replacement trees. The applicant should be required to continue to work with the City's Parks Departmentfor those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat in order to determine a fee in lieu of each replacement tree or an off- site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: ./ Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards . ./ Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, Not which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Street improvements Compliant along Hoquiam Ave NE need to be 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show the required improvements. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicont be required to submit a revised street improvement HEX Report City of Renton Department of Con. dty & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 10 of 12 plan, depicting 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage of Hoquiam Ave N. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. The northern portion of the loop road that borders the parcel to north would be improved to a half-street improvement standard with remainder of the street maintaining a 45 foot right of way. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26 feet of pavement, with an 8 foot planter strip, 5 foot sidewalk, and parking on one side only. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed 16-faat wide alley. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly fram the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-28. Lots 27 and 28 are praposed to be accessed via separate private driveways, located within abutting pipestems, which would be spaced very close. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to create a shared driveway for primary and sale access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently an the face of the Final Plat. The proposed plat is anticipated to generate additional traffiC on the City's street system. A Transportation Impact Fee, per net new average daily trip attributed to the project, with credit given for the existing single-family residence, was recommended as part of the SEPA review. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City's transportation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. ./ Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-8 on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development. 7. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBlC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicote that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant ./ provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single- family lot with credit given for the existing single-fomily residences, was recommended as part of the SEPA review, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the fallowing schools: Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single- ./ family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence with credit given for the existing residences. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: The site is located within the Cedar River / Lake Washington watershed; ./ more specifically is locoted within the Haney Creek sub basin of the May Creek drainage basin. Site runoff currently travels northeasterly and enters into the Category 2 wetland located near the northeast property corner and then exits the wetland via the Class 4 stream also located on site. The stream conveys runoff northerly to an offsite Category 2 wetland. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 11 of 12 Not Compliant HEX Report This wetland extends north and flows through a culvert under Hoquiam Ave NE and encompasses the remainder of the quarter mile downstream. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). The applicant submitted a Preliminary Droinage Report prepared by DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated August 29, 2012. The report states that the runoff from the proposed project would be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to a detention vault in the northeast corner of the site. The vault would then discharge to the onsite stream. The storm vault is designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. The provided storm report was acceptable for preliminary review. The applicant has since submitted a revised lot layout proposing the use of a detention pond, instead of a vault. The applicant will be required to submit a revised storm report, including the use of a storm pond, which will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. The comment letter received by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 12) raised cancerns regarding the storm water facility outlet being located within the wetland as opposed to its buffer. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to revise the drainage plan to relocate the aut fall to the wetland buffer. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and appraved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval Additionally, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requested the applicant be required to comply with the enhanced water quality standard as opposed to the basic water quality treatment standard in order to avoid causing impacts to salmon downstream. The City has not made such requests, to increase the water quality standard beyond what is required in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, of other prajects unless the proposal was commercial or possibly for heavily traveled streets of which this project is neither. Therefore the proposed standard is deemed appropriate. Water and Sanitary Sewer: This site is located in the Water District 90 water service boundary. A water availability certificate is required fram Water District 90. This site is located in the City of Renton sanitary sewer service boundary. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NE 11th Ct. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and sholl be sized appropriately to allow praper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full- size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vaUlt, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. The plans submitted do not show adequate room for the lift station; hence, the conceptual sewer utility plan is not approved. The area allocated for the lift station is too small to contain the control building to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the 10- inch wet well and the 8-foot x 6-foot site for the emergency generator. In addition to what is shown on the canceptual utility plan, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a MH installed eight feet deep in Hoquiam Ave NE. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the MH. The City of Renton Department of coAity & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plot Report & Decision LUA12-076, ECF, PP Hearing Date November 6, 2012 Page 12 of 12 force main needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8-inch pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8-inch pipe, and the 8-inch pipe is then connected into a new MH which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that MH easterly to the existing MH via gravity. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition, the applicant submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and aSSOciated impravements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction opprovo/. This proposal is also located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $2S0 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. I J. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat, as depicted in Exhibit 4, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the five mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated October 8, 2012. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the two existing single family residences prior to Final Plat recording. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a 10-foot wide on-site landscape strip for all lots. The final detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. 4. The applicant shall submit a Final Mitigation Plan if impacts are proposed to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The Final Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat submittal. In any case the applicant shall be required to place fencing and signage along the original or averaged wetland buffer. 5. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised street improvement plan, depicting 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage of Hoquiam Ave N. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 6. The applicant shall be required to create a shared driveway for the primary and sole access to Lots 27 and 28. An access easement shall be recorded concurrently on the face of the Final Plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to revise the drainage plan to relocate the outfall to the wetland buffer. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised detailed utility plan depicting adequate area for the proposed lift station and associated improvements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Plan Reviewer prior to utility construction approval. HEX Report ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 --~ ....... --__ 10 __ ----... ____ 01 ... __ -_._ ... ""'-_ ...... D6 -03 T23N RSE E 1/2 EXHIBIT 2 E6 _ _ T23N R5E E 112 SlID • 1 I • f i ! !. , I! • Ii If II I. 'II, tlhllllllqili II III ... : II lilliii I Ii t bI I ~jl: ,,! f I II! : " 1'1'" 1:111111'1 ~. n!III'ii! IIln , Ii!!! II I II ! ±1mB S,M3dld . ---------- I I , " " ii' II II' II iii III I i " j I ,UiHH!:qil 1.11 U II ... sill! I ! ! .11 II d II 1 1-r1l~~~~~-d I·: Ii II I . 1:1: I I I I r. d~"! I i I I iii! II IIIIIIIIII~! !!!~ 11'111 ~ Ilnl 1!!!l111! II "~i ~! '-Y'ol ! z !! 1 I i~ I II ~! " I Ii I !III~ I, II ,ltll n II IiV ! ,: 1"11 1m II ~ I I! • 11111 'I' I ;;;;;;;;; ; . ,,,until .:I • 'h----l • __ . ______ IN.iL lQJ -u ( -. '" . ::J .. 2 . ( ~: o · :c:' t iii' : o· ; ::J • : II I p: I I i I • I I I • ! I I I I • I • I I fil I j, I ! ! I I 1 ! ! • I I • I :;; I . i I -_ .... - I-a ' I ~ (t~ W' ~ 0 1. ! Z ------- U) I ~ r .... , £C .... l: >< w ! r: !, " II j i '~ I ~' I III I 1.1 Iii " II 'II '. ~ Ii; II' .~! lU :I! ~i I '" I !'I 'Ii ~ III ,HI i II 8 'if ~ I i ;" .1 • • r~ ~ i I )Q O '~ )( LI '~ f~, I.e ±1mB S.!I3dld -~ ......... -- I ---LUA12-076 Pipe r 's Bluff Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries [J ""'"' o City of Ronton il!Z_·, f~:;;: 'ssw .;o: a £ D ..... WJ 295 a 148 295 NAD_1983_HARN_StatePtane_washington_ North]IPS_4601 EXHIBIT 7 Fea' o Parce ls None Overlay Districts (2] AlAo MalA. o AulD Mal B [] ...--..... v_ t'J City Center SIgn ReolUtion Area IZl UrNn DesIgn Oisbid A (;J Urban Design DiltrIcI B [] Urt.n DuIgn C*1rid: C EI tkt.l Design Oialrid 0 o 1: 3,541 • u'"" ......... -output from an ,m.met mapp;ng site and II R -t I ICe only, Data layers that appear on this map mayor ,may n:ot be City of ell on..e. accurate, current. or othefWI5e reliable . ~ THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Finance &-IT Division DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD APPLICANT: Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing S acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 1166 and 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE 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 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 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: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department 'jt-V----- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department October 12, 2012 October 8, 2012 Date ?'/c(2;f/ Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services 10IS/I"2-c. g.\J \ Date !EXIHIIBIT 8 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & onomie Development Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI, { AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 strearT]. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 1166 and 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE 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 provided 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water 1. A water availability certificate is required from Water District 90. 2. Domestic service and fire service must be provided to serve the proposed development. 3. Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a minimum 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings, and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. EXHIBIl 9 Sanitary Sewer 1. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. 2. The plans submitted do not show adequate room for the lift station; hence, the conceptual sewer utility plan is not approved. The area allocated for the Lift Station is too small to contain the control building to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the 10' wet well and the 8'X6' site for the emergency generator. 3. In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan submitted with the application, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a MH installed eight feet deep in Hoquiam Ave NE. 4. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the MH. The force main needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8" pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8" pipe, and the 8" pipe is then connected into a new MH which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that MH easterly to the existing MH via gravity. 5. This proposal is located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. 6. Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees (SDC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Surface Water 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 3. All core and six special requirements are contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). 3. Storm report is acceptable for preliminary review. It will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. Transportation/Street 1. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting on the full frontage of the parcel being developed is required. ERe AdviSOry Notes Page 2 of 3. 2. Street improvements on Hoq n Ave need to be 36' face of curb to, . of curb, including gutter, 8' planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5' sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show this; hence, is not approved as submitted. 3. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26' of pavement, with an 8' planter strip,S' sidewalk, and parking on one side only. 4. Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15'). 5. Street lighting shall be required to be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The. internal street shall have decorative street lights and black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. 6. Street lighting on Hoquiam Ave NE needs to meet the average lighting levels, which is maintained illumination of 0.6, with a uniformity ratio to meet or exceed four to one (4:1). General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection, domestic water meter installations, and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. ERe Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 , -. Pipers BlujJ7#12-135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. August/5, 2012 Page 9 -' ..... - ~" • .r t'·:. .... ,-.~:~ . . ~~!!t ~ . jv. .,s,,; Io! U!' corner site. This encroachment would be into 6.S' of this buffer leaving a minimum of 43.S' of buffer on the north. Under RMC Chapter 4-3-0S0.M.6.f, the following criteria (in italics) must be used to utilize buffer averaging. Our response to each criteria follows; f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and EXHIBIT 10 Rocale Timmons City of Renton Development Offices 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 10415 -1471h Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 October 3, 2012 RE: Comments on Piper's Bluff Dear Ms. Timmons: City of Renton Planning Division OCT 0 5 2011 According to thee web site, my comments were due October 2. Today is October 3. I hope I will still be allowed to submit my comments. Renton has a Tree Ordinance -designed to keep the trees in the area. According to this developer, there are 211 trees on site. They only propose to keep 13 of them. That is only .06 of the trees. The developer is proposing to plant 185 trees to meet Renton's requirement The trees on that site have years to get to the size that they are now. What size trees does the developer propose to use as replacement trees? Will they be using "big trees -the size of the trees that are currently on site -or will they be little bitty trees that you normally see in Renton developments? Or will Renton allow them to do whatever they want? Thank you, in advance, for allowing these comments. Sincerely, C1fcuh~ DJ-n' / I Claudia Donnelly ~ Enclosure EXHIBIT 11 From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <1hedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Trees remaining in Renton Date: March 17, 2008 6:36:46 AM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: March 15,20082:33:35 PM PDT To: "Michael/Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Re: Trees remaining in Renton Hello Claudia, The revisions to the City's tree regulations became effective in September 2007. For projects subject to those regulations, a percentage. of trees must be retained. Here is the code section (RMC4-4-130H): "H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees -Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and Diseased Trees Excluded: Trees that are dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200, or are safety risks due to root, trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: i. RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. d. Utility Uses and Mineral Extraction Uses: Such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this Chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing Official. e. Replacement Requirements: i. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per subsection H1 ei of this Section. iii. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130H7d. f. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public rights-of-way, shall be excluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up." In recent years. and prior to this change in regulations, we were requiring 25% tree retention in residential areas, or replacement, generally at 2:1 with a minimum 2-inch caliper. A "protected tree" is considered to be a minimum of 6-inch caliper, as measured at 54 inches above grade. There are situations where extensive site grading requires that all trees be removed. In those cases planting of new trees is required. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@cI.renton.wa.us III Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> 03/12/08 10:45 AM Jennifer: I got a note this morning about some clear cutting next to Randy Corman's house. I thought --that in 2007 before the POP election, Renton decided on an ordinance that would "save trees" in developments. In the past few months, along NE 4th --a CAM WEST Development across from the QFC, there were alot of trees ---now there aren't any. Did Renton pass this "save a tree" in developments or not? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Rocale, Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, October 08,2012 12:49 PM Rocale Timmons RE: Piper's bluff preliminary plat, LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban watersheds. pdf Thank you again for sending the requested Critical Areas Report (dated Aug 15, 2012) and the Drainage Report (dated Aug 29, 2012) for the Piper's Bluff preliminary plat proposal. We have reviewed these documents and have some questions and comments as noted below: 1. The Critical Areas Report mitigation work proposed for the stormwater facility outlet which will be placed in the wetland. Unfortunately, the detailed mitigation plan was not attached (as indicated in the CAR) to our copy of this report. Therefore, we request a copy of the mitigation plan and may have additional comments. 2. Please note that the stormwater outfall should be located within the wetland buffer to allow for additional stormwater dissipation and avoid a direct discharge to the wetland or stream. 3. The project proposes to treat stormwater to meet the basic water quality treatment standard. Instead, we recommend that the project treat its stormwater to the enhanced water quality standard to remove additional oils and heavy metals from stormwater prior to discharge to the Honey Creek/May Creek system. The project needs to avoid adding oils and heavy metals to Honey Creek to avoid causing further adverse impacts to salmon in this stream. Please see the attached article for additional information. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, October 85, 2812 2:27 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: Piper's bluff preliminary plat, LUA12-876, ECF, PP, MOD, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) Okay great and no problem. I will be looking for your comments. I had to turn in a draft SEPA report today to our committee. But I can always include your comments especially if they are substantive and you get them to me by mid next week. Let me know if you have any questions and I hope you have a good weekend. Rocale T. -----Original Message----- EXHIBIT 12 OPEN e ACCESS Freely available online :~PLosone Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams Blake E. Feist", Eric R. Buhle" Paul Arnold 2 , Jay W. Davis', Nathaniel L. Scholz' 1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, 2 Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington, United States of America Citation: Feist BE, Buhle ER, Arnold P, Davis JW, Scholz NL (201 I) Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams. PloS ONE 6(8): e23424. doi:l0.1371/journal.pone'()023424 Editor: Howard Browman, Institute of Marine Research, Norway Received January 31, 2011; Accepted July 17, 2011; Published August 17,2011 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmined, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CCO public domain dedication. Funding: This work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -Coastal Storms Program; U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service -National Contaminants Program; City of Seattle (Seattle Public Utilities); and the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency -Region 10. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist . • E-mail: blakeJeist@noaa.gov Introduction In recent decades, human population growth and development have continued to increase along the coastal margins of North America [1]. The associated changes in land cover and human land lise have elevated land-based sources of pollution, and toxic stonnwater runoff in particular, to become one of the most important threats to the biological integrity of basins, lakes, estuaries, and nearshore marine environments [2]. In the United States, concerns related to non-point source pollution have gained momentum over the past decade (e.g., [3,4]). This has cubninated most recently in the designation of "water quality and sustainable practices on land" as one of nine National Priority Objectives for the newly established National Ocean Council, together with ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning, climate change and ocean acidification, and changing conditions in the Arctic l2J. For toxic nmoff, however, the connections bet\'ieen unsustainable practices on land and the decline of ecological resilience in aquatic habits remain poorly understood. In western North America, semeiparous anadromous salmonids (Oncorlrynchus spp.) typically migrate thousands of kilometers in their lifetime~. They hatch and rear in freshwater, migrate seaward to capitalize on the producti\'ity of the oceans to grow rapidly and reach sexual maturity, and then return to their natal streams to spawn and die. Certain salmonids, including pink (0. gorbuscha) and .,@.. PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. chum (0. keto) mi!:,rrate 10 the ocean relatively soon after hatching. Others, however, such as Chinook (0. tshauytscha), steelhead, (0. mykiss), sockeye (0. nerka), and coho (O. mutch) may spend one or more years in freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. Because of this extended freshwater residency, juveniles of these species are potentially more vulnerable to anthropogenic modifications of freshwater habitat quality [5]. In contrast to the high mortality experienced by juvenile salmonids, mortality at the adult spawner life stage is relatively low. Familiar natural causes of mortality include predation, disease [6,7,8,9], stranding (following high flows), elevated stream temperatures, and competition -e.g., in habitats with abundant salmon retums and limited spawning substrate. Various human activities such as recreational and commercial fishing, stream dewatering, and the placement of migration barriers can also increase salmon spawner mortality. In general, however, salmon spawner mortality has not been attributed to toxic chemical contaminants in stOnTIv.'ater runoff - a data gap that may be due, in part, to I) the relative rarity of salmon spawners in urban basins with poor water quality, and 2) the logistical difficulty of implementing toxicity studies on migratory, seawater-to-freshwa- ter transitional adults. The exceprion is a recently documented phenomenon of returning adult coho sahnon dying at high rates in urban and urbanizing streams in lowland Puget Sound region, which includes August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 the greater Seattle metropolitan area [10]. Coho return to small coastal stream networks to spawn each fall. Entry into freshwater is triggered by early autumn rainfall and rising stream flows. Since there had been extensive habitat de!:,'l1ldation and loss in these lowlands, many basins were targeted for stream restoration pr~jects in the 1990s. Subsequent surveys to evaluate project effectiveness discovered that many coho sahnon were dying in newly-accessible stream reaches before they were able to spawn - i.e., female carcasses were found in good condition (ocean bright colors) with skeins (membrane or sae that contains the eggs within the fish) filled with unspawncd eggs L10J.ln addition, affected coho from several different urban basins showed a similar progression of symptoms leading up 10 death, including disorientation, lethargy, loss of equilibrium, mouth gaping, and fin splaying. Systematic daily spawner surveys in recent years (2002-2009) have shown that adult mortality rates in urban streams are consistently high (relative 10 spawning coho salmon in more pristine areas), ranging from -25-90% of the lotal fall runs [I OJ. ;\10rtality rates of this magnitude likely have important negative consequences for maintaining viable coho populations [11]. Consistent with this, most coho mortalities observed over the past decade were spav,rllers that strayed (did not home to their natal stream reaches) into these restored urban freshwater habitats. The precise underlying cause of recurrent coho die-offs remains under investigation. An initial weight-of-evidence forensic study has systematically ruled out stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, poor overall spawner condition, tissue pathology (e.g., gill), pathogen prevalence or disease, and other factors commonJy associated with fish kills in freshwater habitats (Scholz et aI., unpublished data). These findings, together with the rapid onset of the syndrome, the nature of the symptoms (e.g., gaping and disequilibrium), and the consistent re-occurrence \ .. ::ithin and between urban basins over many years together point to toxic stormwater runoff from urban landscapes as the likely cause of coho spawner mortality. Urban runoff and stormwater-influenced combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contain an exceptionally complex mixture of chemical contaminants. Specifically, urban streams are receiving waters for runoff and discharges containing pesticides [12J, metals [13J, petroleum hydrocarbons [14J, plasticizers, flame-retardants, pharmaceuticals, and many other potentially toxic chemicals. The list of possible caus..-..J agents is therefore long. The above chemical complexity notwithstanding, there arc several reasons to suspect motor vehicles as sources of toxics that are killing returning coho. Vehicles deposit many compounds on road surfaces via exhaust emissions, leaking fluids, and the wearing of tires, brake pads and other friction materials [15.\. Emissions contain nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, benzene, formaldt!hyde, and a large number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Fluids, including antifreeze and motor oil, contain ethylene and propylene glycol and PAHs. Tire wear releases zinc, lead, and PAHs onto road surfaces 116), and brake pad wear is a major source of copper, zinc, nickel, and chromium [l6,17]. Collectively, these contaminants accumulate on streets and other impervious surfaces until they are mobilized by rainfall and transported to aquatic habitats via nmoff. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals such as copper are known to be toxic to fish, although acute lethality usually occurs at exposure concentrations that are higher (by orders of magnitude) than those typically detected in urban streams. It is likely that fall storm water pulses contain higher concentrations than winter and spring due to the potential buildup of contaminants during the relatively dry swnmer months. Although the adult die-off phenomenon has been observed in all Seattle-area urban streams where coho salmon occur, the overall .:~. PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 2 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams rate of mortality has varied among basins. In qualitative terms, a higher proportion ofretuming animals have survived to spawn in basins that have more open space (e.g., parks and woodlands). Conversely, mortality rates have been consistently higher in basins with proportionately greater "urban" land cover and land uses. This raises the possibility of a quantitative relationship between discrete basin characteristics and coho survival and spawning success. Such a relationship would be important for several reasons. First, if coho mortality is significantly correlated .... ith one or more land cover or land use variables, the latter could be used to identify unmonitored lowland basins where coho populations are at greatest risk. Second, it could provide a means to evaluate how future human population gro .... 1h and development might impaci wild coho populations in Pugel Sound (and elsewhere) that are currently healthy. Finally, it could narrow the list of potentially causative pollution sources in urban basins, thereby focusing future toxicological studies to identify the specific contaminants involved. In this study we performed a spatial analysis to identify landscape variables that correlate most closely with surveyed rates of coho spawner mortality across six different basins in Puget Sound. The variables included land use and land cover, tax parcel types, roadways, and impervious surfaces. \Ve then used the information from these correlations to generate spatially explicit predictions of recurrent spawner losses in unmonitored basins throughout the four most densely populated COUll ties in the greater Seattle metropolitan area. Materials and Methods Study Sites We characterized habitat conditions within the drainage basins from Slreams at six sites in the Puget Sound lowlands (Figure 1). We chose these sites because coho spawner mortality has been monitored at these locations for several years (2000-2009; [10)). The sites represent a wide range of anthropogenic alteration, from highly urbanized (e.g., Longfellow Creek) to relatively undisturbed (e.g., Fortson Creek). Fortson Creek is considered a non-urban site, whereas the other five sites are urban streams and have varying degrees of development. The urban streams have all been a focus of varying restoration project efforts aimed at enhancing habital quality for anadromous Pacific sahnon. With the exception of the relatively unaltered Fortson Creek site, all site basins had impervious surface proportions well above the levels (5-10%) commonly associated with the decline of biological integrity in streams 118,19J. Confirmed observation of the coho spawner mortality syndrome (see below) within a stream system was a key factor in study site selection. Importantly, natural production of coho in Seattle-area urban streams is very low. Not unexpectedJy, recent modeling has shown that local coho population abundance declines precipitous- ly at rates of spawner mortality documented for these drainages [ll]. The adult returns to these streams are lhus likely to be animals straying into sink or attractive nuisance habitats. Conversely, the syndrome has not been docwnented in streanlS where coho are relatively abundant -i.e., non·urban basins, as confirmed by a full season of daily stream surveys on Fortson Creek. Tberefore, to evaluate the phenomenon in relation to land cover, we were constrained to streams where coho arc affected, even if adult returns to these basins were low in certain years. Lastly, there is no evidence that the mortality syndrome is related to the origin of the spawners (i.e., hatchery vs. wild fish). For example, artificially propagated coho that return as adults to regional hatchery facilities in non·urban basins are unaffected. August 2011 [ Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 ·3 • , . - 'J _ .... -': Site basins Den •• ~ ... urban (>75%) U9ht~edlum urban (<75%) N A 10km Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Figure'. Six study sites where coho spawner mortality was monitored and landscape conditions were quantified. Main map depicts the Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area in Washington State, whkh is within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin of the Pacific Northwest, United States of America (USA). Inset map illustrates location of the study sites within Washington State and the location of Washington State within the USA For reference, red shading on main map represents the relative intensity of urbanization (light-medium and dense urban (23.24)). Drainage basins depicted in yellow shaded polygons represent the 10tal basin flowing into a given stream reach site. Key for site numbers: 1 = Des Moines; 2 :: Fauntleroy; 3 "" Fortson; 4 = Longfellow; 5 = Piper's; and, 6 = Thornton Creek. dOi:l0.1371 /journaLpone.OO23424 ,gOOl Study Subjects Coh o salmo n in this s tudy wtrt: aU within the Puge t Soundl Strait o f Georgia Evolutionaril y Significant Unit (£.S U). An fSU is ':@ ' PLoS ONE I www,plosone,org " ,.' 3 defin e d as a group of populatio ns that I) are su bs tantiall y reprodu ctively iso lat ed from co nspecifi c populatio ns and 2) coll ecti vel y represe nt an impona nt compone nt in th e evolutio n ary August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 legacy of the species [20]. Currently, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho are designated a "species of concern" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act [21]. Coho typically spawn in small Qower order) streams in the Puget Sound lowlands in late fall and early winter and their fry emerge from stream substrates from March to May. Fry reside in riverine habitats for 14-18 months, smolt, migrate to marine environments where they grow rapidly and mature (16-20 months), and finally 'mi1:,rrate to their natal basins where they spawn and die 122]. The adult spawners from the six study basins were both marked (adipose rm clipped) and unmarked, suggesting a mix of hatchery and wild origins. Coho Spawner Mortality We used existing monitoring data collected as part of daily and weekly spav.71er surveys in each of the six study locations [rable I). Data were collected during the fall spawning season from 2000- 2009 by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the Wild Fish Conservancy, and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). Streams were checked every few days in the early fall (usually the first or second week in October, depending on rainfall) until the first adult coho was observed. The streams were then surveyed daily for the duration of the fall run, until the last carcass was documented, typically in the first or second week of December. For several years, biologists working for the City of SeaHle (Wild Fish Conservancy) also surveyed many of the same urban streams for coho spawner mortality on a weekly basis. Side-by-side compar- isons of daily and weekly survey data (e.g., for Longfellow Creek in 2005 and 2007) revealed practically no loss of carcasses to scavengers. Accordingly, we included the weekly survey data in our analyses. The entirety of the available spav..'Iling habitat within a given urban dminage was surveyed for premalUre adult coho mortality. For some streams, including Longfellow Creek, mid-stream barriers to upstream migration confmed adults to the lower portions of the drainage. This made it possible, in the course of a few hours as part of a daily survey, to inspect all sections of the stream that I) had a gravel substrate suitable for redds (spawning "nests" built by females), and 2) were focal areas for rcpeated (year-to-year) redd building during successive spawner runs. Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams ~vlonitoring data were not collected at all sites for ail years (Table I). ;\.'lortality among returning coho was quantified only for females on the basis of egg retention -i.e., the number of partially spawned or unspawned femalc carcasses observed in streams over an entire spawning season. Notably, the total number of returning adults was low for some years and some basins (Table 1). Nevertheless, the aggrcgate spawner survey data used in this analysis are the most comprehensive currently available. Geospatial Datalayers We used existing geospatial datalaycrs as our source of potential predictor variablcs and as a proxy for habitat type and condition. The datalayers were generated by a variety of organizations for planning and anal)1ical purposes, making them suitable for running spatial analyses on habitat. They were also available over the entire spatial domain of Ollr predictive model. We used four geospatial datalayers: Land-covcr of the Greater Puget Sound Region [23,24]; imperviolls and impacted surfaces [25]; property type (compiled from King [26], Kitsap [27], Pierce [28] and Snohomish county t29] tax parcel databases), and roadways (Puget Sound Regional Council; PSRC [30]). The Land-cover of Puget Sound datalayer is the highest quality and most accurate depiction of land use and land cover in the Puget Sound lowlands. The datalaycr used 30 m gridded LAND- SAT TM imagery from 2002, which was extensively analyzed and corrected to produce an accurate (83% overall accuracy, [24]) depiction of land use and land cover conditions. To reduce the total number of potential predictor variables, wc only used the dense urban (>75%); light to medium urban «75%); and grass, crops and/or shrubs categories. We also combined the mixed and deciduous forest with the coniferous forest category and named it forests. The impervious and impacted surfaces datalayer was derived from a 2001 lANDSAT TI\.f image with 30 m pixels and an accuracy of 83-91% 125] .. This datalayer depicts high to completely impenneable surfaces such as building roofs; concrete or aspha1t roads and parking lots; concrete, asphalt or brick sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and malls; etc. One of the limitations of these two datalayers was that the pixel size of the source lANDSAT TM imagery is 30 m, so smaller 1. Coho spawner mortality proportion and cumulative number of female carcasses enumerated (in parentheses) by site i(e,OlumrlSj and year (rows). (-) indicates survey was not conducted for that year/site. hlonhw'." Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) dally surveys, all others were weekly and collected by Seanle Public Utilities (SPU) or the Wild Fish Conservancy [51,52). I "'on-,"b,n site. O.1371/journal.pone.OO23424.tOO 1 .~f!b.'. PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 4 August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 features, such as roads and precise land cover boundaries, were not adequately captured. In order to address this deficiency, we analyzed property t)pes and roadways, as they are represented as precise polyline and polygon delineations of the corresponding land cover variables. The boundaries in these geospatjal datalayers were derived from precise survey data from major metropolitan areas, collected over many years by King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The property types (parcels) datalayer was based on ground surveyed delineations of property, which are used for taxation purposes, with positional accuracy of +/ -12 ill or less [26,27,28,29]. The original number of parcel types described by each county was between 103 and 292. Using the descriptions in the documentation that accompanied the datalayers, we were able to place each of the original parcel types into one of the five following categories: apartments and condominiums; commercial; industrial; parks and open space; and, residential. The roadways datalayer was based on ground surveyed road and street centerlines. Each segment had a corresponding functional classification ryc##) code and width, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration lSI] Highway Performance Monitoring System, and the Puget Sound Regional Council [30J, respectively. We reduced the original nine functional classification types dov.'O to two categories: I} heavily used roads (rural minor collector ['J<'C08]; urban principal arterial -interstate [FC 11 J; urban principal anerial-other freeways and expressways [FCI2J; urban principal arterial -other [FCJ41; urban or rurdl minor arterial [FC16 or FC06]; urban collector [FCI7]); and, 2) urban or rural local access roads (FC09 or FC 19). We then calculated the total area (total length of given street centerline segment multiplied by its width) of each street functional cla .. sification for each corresponding site basin. Spatial Analyses We defmed the area of influence of the surrounding landscape for each site as the total area draining into that site (basin). Drainage basins for each site were generated using. the 'flowaccumulation' command in Ell\~ronmental Systems Research Institute (ESRl) ArcGIS (v. 9.S). \'\'e used a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 10m digital elevation model (DEM) as the underlying terrain for generating basins. We then intersected the corresponding basin boundary for each of the six sites with each of the geospatial datalayers and their associated categories using ArcGIS. We quantified each geospatial datalayer and its associated category in a given basin as tht: fraction or proportion of the total area of the basin occupied by that geospatial datalayer or category. Longfellow Creek stood apart from the other sites in terms of the accuracy of the flow accumulation model because an unknov.'O fraction of stonnwater runoff in this drainage is divened into the municipal sewer system. Therefore, the theoretical basin area, based on the terrain represented in the DEl\.1, was not as representative of the true basin area compared with the other five sites. Statistical Analyses We used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLJ\..n1s; [S2,S3]) to test the relationships between geospatial variables and coho spawner mortality. The response was binomial (observed number of female spawner mortalities each year, given the total number of female coho that returned to each site) and the models used a logit link function. All models included a random effect of site on the intercept, which accounts for nonindependence of the repeated samples taken at each site. ""e constructed a set of 139 candidate models by considering all combinations of the 12 .:~. PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 5 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams predictors taken one, two, three or four at a time, with the restriction that a model could include at most one predictor from each of the four geospatial datalayers (land cover, impenrious surfaces, .property types, and roadways). We also excluded combinations of predictors that had a pail'\vise Spearman rank correlation exceeding 0.9 in absolute value. The candidate set included an intercept-only model as a no-effect baseline against which we could assess the predictive po\ver of the geospatial variables. We fitt~d the models using the Laplace approximation to the marginal likelihood l32J in the Ime4 package in R [S4,35]. We then used Akaike's information criterion, corrected for sample size (AICJ to rank the strength of evidence for each candidate model based on the data. Akaike's infomlation criterion is a weight-of- evidence measure that reOects the balance between a model's goodness-of-fit to the data and its parsimony (i.e., number of parameters). Lower AICc values indicate greater support, and are reported as differences (tiAICJ relative to the best (smallest) value in the candidate set. We computed Akaike weights [36.1, which represent the relative support for each model, nonnalized so the weights sum to unity across the candidate set. We used these weights to compute model-averaged estimates and unconditional standard errors (SEs) for the flxed regression coefficients, and we quantified the relative importance of each predictor using variable weights (i.e., the summed Akaike weights of all models that included that predictor; [36]). These model averaging calculations were based on the 95%, confidence set of models (i.e., the top- ranked models whose clll1lulative Akaike weight is 0.95), after re- normalizing the weights. Mapping coho spawner mortality Using the fitted models, we built a map of predicted coho spawner mortality throughout the four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish) representing much of the Puget Sound lowlands, by applying the GLMM equations to geospatial data from unmonitored hasins. We used basins delineated in the National Hydrography Dataset Plus [S7] as tbe underlying mapping unit (300 ha mean, 466 ha SO) and intersected the NHDPlus datalayer with each of the geospatial dataL'l),ers used in the statistical analyses. Within the four-county region, we only made spav..'Iler mortality predictions in basins where coho salmon presence has been documented, based on current geospatial datalayers generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [381. We then calculated the proportion of each basin that was covered by the selected landscape feat un:. \\'e generated predicted values of the proportion of mortalities from each model in the 95% confidence set and then model-averaged these values using the normalized Akaike weights [36]. These predictions apply to the average basin in the Puget Sowld coho ESU with some given set of habitat conditions, in the sense that the random effect of site was set to zero. To be conservative in representing the precision of the predicted values, we divided the calculated rates of likely coho spawner mortality into three bins: < I 0%, 10-50%, and >50%. These break points were chosen somewhat arbitrarily to represent low, medium and high spawner mortality rates. Results \\'e found strong associations between land use and land cover attributes and rates of coho spawner mortality. Across the 95% confidence set of fitted models, three variables were particularly important for predicting mortality based on high variable weights: impervious surfaces, local roads, and commercial property type (Table 2 and Figure 2). There was substantial model selection August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Table 2. Ale weights, model averaged parameter estimates and unconditional confidence intervals for each variable, ranked by weight. Property type Parks & open space doi: 1 O.1371/journal.pone.OO23424. t002 uncertainty, reflected in a large 95% confidence set and large number of models with .1.AICc<2.0 (37 and 8 of 139 candidate models, respectively; Table 3). In addition, although we excluded highly multicollinear combinations of variables (I rl >0.9), many variables were still strongly correlated, resulting in WlStable parameter estimates and large unconditional SE estimates (Table 2). Nonetheless, predictive models that included land use and land cover attributes as predictors were clearly superior to the intercept-only model (.1AIC c = 20.4; Table 3), supporting the association of these variables v.rith coho mortality. While the multicollinearity among potential predictors made causal interpretation of the models difficult, it did not preclude predictions of where coho salmon are likely to be affected along an urbanization gradient. Not surprisingly, the highest predicted mortality rates were clustered around the major metropolitan areas of eastern Puget Sound, contained within Snohomish, King, Kitsap, and Pierce couIllies (Figure 3). In addition, there is a significantly sized area in Eastern Puget Sound that has consider.tble proportions of the variables Oocal roads, impervious surface and commercial parcels) most correlated w:ith substantial mortality rates. It is important to note that these predicted values have substantial associated uncertainty and should therefore be interpreted cautiously; however, it is reasonable to use them for assigning the break points for the low, medium, and high mortality rate categories represented on the map. Discussion Overall, we have used conventional tools in landscape ecology to shed light on an unusually complex ecotoxicological challenge. Our analyses strongly suggest that specific characteristics of basins in the Puget Sound lowlands are linked to the die-olTs of coho spawners that have been widely observed in recent years. Across basins, the strength of the association is greatest for impervious surfaces, local roads, and commercial property. We did not evaluate hydrologic or geomorphic basin characteristics as part of our analysis. Nevertheless, our findings support the hypothesis that coho are being killed by as-yet unidentified toxic chemical contaminants that originate from these types of surfaces .:@: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 6 0.0000 0.0000 and are transported to salmon spawning habitats via stormwater runoff. Our results extend a large body of scientific infonnation linking urbanization (broadly defined) and degraded water quality to a loss of biological integrity (sensu Karr [39]) and productivity in freshwater stream networks [J8,40,41]. Previous studies have generally related land use and land cover variables to macroin- vertebrate assemblages in streams [42], or to the relative abundance of salmon and other fish (e.g., [22,43,44]). The present analysis is novel because it relates basin characteristics directly to salmon health and survival, versus species presence or absence. :Moreover, it offers new insights on the water quality aspects of urban runoff. The focus of most salmon restoration projects is physical characteristics of spawning and rearing habitat 145.J. Most salmon specific restoration projects are deemed successful if they simply restore the physical habitat to a suitable state for a given species [46]. Our study suggests that suitable spawning and rearing habitat may not be supportive of coho salmon persistence when the surrounding landscape is urbanized. The linkages beMeen increased impervious coverage within a basin, increased stonn- water runoff, altered hydrologic processes, and ecological decline are well established (e.g., [18]). However, stormwater impacts encompass both physical and chemical drivers of decline, and it can be difficult to distinguish between these via in situ assessments because stream invertebrate communities integrate both stressor categories. Coho salmon spawners, by contrast, appear to be promising and specific sentinels for the degraded water quality aspect of urban runoff. Compared to macroinvertebrate sampling and taxa identification, the coho mortality syndrome is relatively easy and inexpensive for non-specialists to monitor in the form of digital video recordings of symptomatic ftsh, or the presence of unspa ..... TIed female carcasses in streams. Interestingly, the mortality syndrome appears to be specific to coho salmon. For example, there were temporally overlapping runs of coho and chum salmon (0. ata) in Piper's Creek in the fall of 2006. Whereas all of the adult coho succumbed to the mortality syndrome, the chum were unaffected, with nearly all surviving to spawn (130 of 135 spawned out female carcasses; Scholz et al., unpublished data). Consistent with this, the survey August 2011 I Volume 6 1 Issue 8 I e23424 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0:4 0.3 0.2 0:1 o Des Moines o Fauntleroy a Fortson .0 Longfellow ... Piper's Il Thornton o 8 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Q Ii> I 0 0 ,p A • • • O.O+-CI-__ ~-_-~--(O>--~---~"'---~ ,'" 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 ~0.6 ~. 0.5 o ::;; 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 • .0 • '. • .8 • Impervious 0.40 0.50 0 A B '" Ii /I 0 0 0 A O.O+-.D-~--...,.....,.o.._----,---_-~--_-~ 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14' 0.16 Commercial 1.0 0 A • 0.9 B A Ii /I 0 • • 0 0 0 • 0.8 9.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 • 0.2 8 0.1 0.0 c --_-~--.--~-_r~O~_-_-~r___o 0.00 0.01 0.02 0,03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Local roads Figure 2. Female coho spawner mortality as a function of the proportion of each of the top three predictors In a given site basin, at the six study sites. Individual points correspond to specific years for each site. Mortality expressed as proportion of all returning females that died in a given year. Solid circle = Des Moines; hollow circle = Fauntleroy; solid square= Fortson; hollow square = Longfellow; solid triangle = Piper's; hollow triangle=Thornton Creek. doi:l 0., 371/journal.pone.OO23424.g002 teams have not observed the characteristic symptoms (e.g., surface swimming, gaping) among other fish species that inhabit urban streams such as sticklebacks and cutthroat trout. Not only are coho unusual in this respect, the phenomenon appears to be restricted to the adult life stage. In the fall of 2003, surface flows from Longfellow Creek were diverted through streamside sheds :.~: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org 7 housing aquaria that contained individual juvenile coho from the NWFSC hatchery. The juveniles (n = 20) were maintained and observed daily throughout the fall spawner run. Overall juvenile survival was 100%, and the juveniles behaved nonnally, even on days when symptomatic adults were observed in the nearby stream (Scholz et aI., unpublished data). The underlying reasons August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 Table 3. Summary of the 95% confidence set (37 of a total of '39 candidate models) of candidate models used to generate map of mortality rates, showing intercepts, estimated coefficients, AAlec and WAKe. Intercept only model included at bottom for reference. Model Equation AAIC c WAICc "··,""";jli.w·,."····"··'w··"·"·",.·,,·,.,.···,,·,.·,,,,,,,,""",,,,·''''·U''''''''''·''·''''',"''''''''····", ~j.!!ifblff.i1jf,~;~.9~.l~:.??,{~)f,:!1..~!(~1,fJi~_frimnmli"l#m!lt:9.;~i,I!MM~3?Ha c+d+b -3.921S-10956(b)+48.75(c)-29.98(d) 0.046 0.0912 ~!*j~ifr'·Q;51+.11"1lb~:siq~i(ijl[l!!!l1III~iililt~ri!]fo:~775;~1 c+d+a -4,4921+12.61(a)+14.03(c)-7.54(d) 0.579 0.0698 ~m:';~~.~'tt:lI'!'lI~lf.mn~l!'fIlWI\r.!'!·!~iml mmmr!f;nr.~~'m ft9+il:!!!iji!fiUlit:t.i1.¥~!I+}:t3~(~Jt-~.23(c)4;3.62!2li~!lL1u;!!l~.Q;~=...mJ h+a+b -2.6065+ 15.89(a)+30.87{b)-2.38{h) 1.150 0.0525 ~bjffii,f;m!~:4:'66ig!;T637'ia¢t3si6ib}!:2.7ti[~)1mll~1fu,¥1li#,lffiiFfjs~!&loM73iJ! .,,, .. ,.,,otl1 k·.,,,_,.,~";",,,,,,, .. ,, ..... nw.''' .......... :uI''''''~ ill! ~ .... _lUO ........ _;:.liil d+a+b -4.7001+17.52(a)+43.83(bj+l.62(d) 1.576 0.0424 !'.'PI!llll!'ill'!1'lm'''~~'-'''''''''''::l'!'<(1Imllt'lil!I!lllIilIlll_'''''''"'.,!lm·".;:.,·,JI! ~ii1illtifu1';;,?~Jt~P(9.w.~,~ffi~~liillit~Jlliii~J)l77. c+d+i+b -3.0628-83.44(bj+S6.38(c)-4028{dj-7.82(ij 2.48S 0.0269 ~.~;Z;305i;;J~3{b1tJ9~Yrotj'M.smr::l~Eog c-t<f-t-k+b -3.9266-9452{bj+43.32{cj-2S.00{d)-1.60{k) 2.613 0.0253 tta~B~llit=?og:;(~3;ti3mHP$'~(j)w.a'f~·~ffif~~~a c+d+a+b -4.0864+3.99(aj-76.44(b)+38.23(c)-23.27(d) 2.88S 0.0221 L\dk.lir;t,t;4736a~15£i'il' , ..... .J.~f,~~J.(di:li'J.filiiq il!'cI#s:@I~:p~'iEilI c+d+e+b -3.9607-1oo.49{b)+46.40(c)-27.43(dj-554(e) 2.954 0.0213 ~.;a*r1i!$!~1?!ttn~?1~~:4§tdj~~,~".O:69(em9.2~I~Hu!IHi~:i8"o·l~ ...wllllllWilliI~· "WJw.tMWII ....... W'.lUill<illWUWl 1UllUm~ c+g+e+f -3.8534+12.93(cj-40.45(eJ+38.73(f)-0.18(g) 3.294 0.0180 Sg!j,j:iili$F2"i4i6l£iO,~(;)jS?~'1!~:~fij\l!iIi!l1fi32~:ilof'1D c+g+<Hf -4.6143+162S(a)+S.79{c)-13.4O(f)+4.06(g) 3.378 0.0172 r.4.J1!m:.fmjI[~rs~~~~!1H h+i+b 9.3911-153,97(bj-17,49(h)+ 15,89(i) 3,8S8 0.0136 ~_~27,4fWP.~_I~~i_~:EiI h+a 12S12+8.63(aj-6.13(h) 4.028 0.0124 r~~+b~lli1ltf!~:.sa:s7.t16.7;i (a}+3'4.2Sib}iii!i(c);;io.i5U) ~·rl:!/I~;i#9·mltri.Ol bit4 ~jj~--..,;,.,,; .... __ -...._ ................. !l.O~_,, ...... :.ill! h+k+b 5.8364-27.3S(b)-11.39(hj-5.97(k) 4.837 0.0083 ~~um:fu;eG'5~1'8:70i(fm55'3iiiiJ;·t13i3W'mi~.~S:~OO~ ... .:.<ui.I 1illWl""'Q"'''''' ·_"'''IW..:.ioWI>niliJ'''IWlliiillill~",<w~~..JIiI c+j-t-k+b -2.4511-52.30(b)+20.45(c)-13.34ij)-10.60(k) 4.937 0.0079 f_i¥#)~~JfiJH~1E1 c+e+b -4.4680-1.36(b)+1952(c)-52.48(e) 5.158 0.0071 rm.'t!m!!Jl~~'!ll1E~If<'~'!ll'~'t'''''llm!m!~mmrmro!1!llf1~mrr~ffOOm ~+!Fllliff~Hmr;;.1;(lntJ2i~(~)M:pia:(e).Bill"~~lP.Jfl1ii!l1lrullli.ili~;J,~.1!,al?,~Jlj h+e+b 8.1285-2052(bj-4S.07(e)-14.67(h) 5509 0.0059 """'-.mE"·""" ... '.'" "i,,· '11!!Jli1!I!!""")1'I'!t.'.,("","""".,,,,,,,,, ',,, c -t« MI. ';)!;!Yljffi!:;!'9426+ 1_33O(Q;iS~l_ (k) Iii mr.r':R4m;i.#!i'!'~'ri7il;5·~.:ijw, o,poSSi/!1 c+i+b -5.677S-141.73{b)+22.77(cj+1724[1) 5,821 0.0051 ~tktp!li.~r~j7oa~il2Mtb~.1'~'1ti{h~6:46oofff~li,JlmflW,iM:~:~?6AWlo'._~9illl """"",.Jii._ .• _ "' ............... .u-............... , ........ _.RO .... 0I1i.tiOi UUW...-. ............. ,..,;;ml h+a+f 0.4930+6.87(a)-+19.67(f)-5.22(h) 6.083 O.OO4S ~~l'fi4¥,~~},i{l~J,~i.(g~~:ifii91f::~~~:f\Wt)t~iJi;,q,#.;IE!lI Intercept N/A 20.428 0 only Model weights shown here are re-normalized for the set of 37 top·ranked models shown. a = commercial; b", local roads; c '" impervious; d '" dense urban; e= apartments and condominiums; f'" heavily used roads; 9 '" light to medium urban; h '" forest; i '" residential; j "'grass, crops and/or shrubs; and, k= industrial. doi:l0.1371/jou rnal.pone.OO23424.t003 for the syndrome's surprising uniqueness to adult coho are not yet known. Daily or weekly stream surveys are labor intensive, and for this reason only a subset of urban drainages in Puget Sound have been .:~. PLoS ONE I www.plosone,org . " 8 Ecotoxicolo9Y of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams monitored to date. The GIS-based mapping tool developed for this study can be used to focus future monitoring efforts on basins with a higher likelihood of coho die-offs based on land cover attributes. In addition to the basins we have identified within the range of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU, this approach could be extrapolated to other geographic areas where coho retum to spawn along a gradient of urban growth and development. This includes, for example, coho from the Lower Columbia River ESU, a threatened population segment with a spawner range encom- passing the greater metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon. Overall, future surveys will ground-truth initial model outputs and provide additional data that can be used to improve the predictive accuracy of the mapping tool. Our findings have two near-teml applications. First, they identify likely "hotspots" for coho spawner mortality throughout central Puget Sound. Given that recurring adult losses at a rate greater than approximately 10% are likely to substantially reduce local population abundances, the high mortality basins in Figure 3 (l0-50'}h and >50% predicted mortality categories) may represent sink habitats for the Pllget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU. This is an important consideration for coho recovery planning at the local, county, and regional scales. Second, our results indicate areas where toxic runoff could potentially undermine stream restoration efforts ~ specifically, strategies that improve physical and biological habitat conditions (flow, connectivity, channel complexity, ripar- ian function, etc.) as a means to boost coho population productivity. The potential influence of rainfall, including timing, frequency, and individual stann intensity, remains an area of active investigation, Throughout the years of streaIll surveys, it has been qualitatively evident that rainfall influences the mortality syndrome. For example, salmon that arrive and enter a stream during an extended dry interval (a week or more) often survive and then become symptomatic and die when it next rains (Scholz et aI., unpublished data). One of our aims in surveying Longfellow Creek (the stream with the most abundant overall returns) for more than a decade was to evaluate inler-annual variation in coho spawner mortality in relation to rainfall. However, a quantitative analysis has proven problematic due to highly variable rainfall patterns in combination with low adult returns in some years. It is clear, however, that the syndrome is not a simple first-flush phenomenon. In most years, both egg retaining and spawned out carcasses were observed across the 8- lO week fall run, irrespective of the number and size of rain events over that interval. Over the longer ternl, an approach similar to the one developed here could be used to forecast the likely impacts of future human population growth and development on Puget Sound coho populations that are currently healthy. For example, the expansion of local road networks is a core focus for urban grov.rth planning, and these projections could serve as a basis for evaluating how and where coho spawner mortality will increase under different growth management scenarios. This, in. turn, would inform strategies to reduce or mitigate toxic runoff in highly productive basins, in advance of expanding transportation infrastructure -i.e., prevention vs. costly retrofits to the built environment. Also, our modeling approach could be expanded to include the timing and intensity of rainfall as potential drivers for coho spawner mortality. Rainfall patterns may be a key detenninant ofstonnwaler quality, although more work in this area is needed. Climate change is expected to shift regional rainfall patterns, and it should be possible to explore how this will interact with changing land cover (urbanization) to influence stonnwater quality and toxic runoff to coho spawning habitats. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 -- ':i;j: PLoS ONE 1 www.plosone.org .. 9 EcotolCicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams • Sludy sl1e, P .... 1cted mortality N A 10km = August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Figure 3. Predictive map of modeled coho spawner mortality rates within the Puget Sound lowlands. Mortality rates are a function of the proportion of key landscape variables within a given basin. Green, yellow and red areas indicate basins with predicted rates of spawner mortality (as a percentage of total fall runs) of <10%, 10-50%, and >50%, respectively. Black dots denote locations of the six study sites that were the basis for this analysis. Thick dashed black line depicts the southern boundary of the coho salmon Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Basins that do not have documented presence of coho salmon (38) are not represented on the map, even if they have landscape conditions associated with coho spawner mortality. Key for site numbers: 1 = Des Moines; 2 = Fauntleroy; 3 = Fortson; 4 = longfellow; 5 = Piper's; and, 6 = Thornton Creek. doi:1 O. 1 371/journal.pone.0023424.g003 \Vhile not definitive, our results reinforce the parsimonious explanation that coho deaths are caused by one or more contaminants originating from motor vehicles. As noted earlier, this is important because it narrows the list of candidate taxies in complex urban landscapes. Future toxicological studies should focus on two ubiquitous urban runoff contaminant classes in particular. The first are metals in brake pads and other vehicle friction materials. Copper, zinc, and other metals are known to specifically target the fish gill, thereby disrupting respiration and osmoregulation [47]. The second, PAHs, [14,48,49] are taken up across the flSh gill, and can impair cardiac function and respiration [50). The symptoms displayed by alTected coho (surface swimming, gaping, loss of equilibrium, etc.) are consistent with a disruption of respiration, osmoregulation, or circulation, or some combination of these. Notably, PAHs and metals usually cause the above toxicological elTects at concentrations well above those typically detected in urban streams. However, the majority of conventional toxicology studies using salmonids focus on freshwater species (e.g., rainbow trout) or the freshwater life stages of juvenile anadromous species. There are practically no toxicity data for coho sahnon at the adult spawner stage. Many important osmoregulatory changes take References I. Weinstein MP, Baird RC, Conover DO, GrOS$ ),1, Keulanz j, et al. (2007) Managing eoastal resources in the 21st cl':ntury. Frontil':rs in Ecology and thl': Environml':nt 5: 43-48. 2. Imeragtncy Ocean Policy Task Force (2010) Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC: 111e White House Councit on Envrronmemal Quality. 96 p. 3. Pew Oceans Commission (2003) America's Li\ing Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Charitable Trusts. 166 p. 4. U.S. Commission on Orean Policy (2004) An Ocean Blueprim for the 21st Century: Final Report. V\'ashington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocr:an Policy. 676 p. 5. Spromberg JA, ),Ieador JP (2006) Relating chronic toxicity responses to population.IC\.·eI dfecu: A comparison of population·level paramtters for three salmon spl':eies as a function of low·level toxicity. Ecological Modelling 199: 240-252. 6. Raverty S, Kieser D, Bagshaw J, St-Hilaire S (2UOO) Renal infestation \\1th p~ minibiamUs ;n wild sockeye salmon from the Harrison and Adams rivers in British Columbia. Canadian VeterinaryJoumal41: 317-318. 7. St-Hilaire S, Boichuk M, Barnes D, Higgins ),1, Devlin R, et al. (2002) Epizootiology of Pan!ici!psulo. minihicomis in Fraser River sockeye salmon, Oruomytlc/ius nerkn (Walbaum).joumal ofFish Diseases 25: 107-120. B. Kocan R, tkrshbergtr P, "·,'inton j (2004) khthyophoniasis: An emerging disease of Chinook salmon in the Yukon River. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 16: 58-72. 9. Kecl'er ML, Taylor GA, Garlens DF, Gauthier GA, Pierce T),t, et al. (2010) Prespawn mortality in adult spring Chinook salmon outplanted above barrier dams. Ecology of Freshwater ti~h 19: 361-372. 10. McCarthy SG, Incardona,lP, ScJ'(lIL NL (2008) Coastal SlOrms, Toxic Runoff, and the Sustainable Conse .... ·ation of Fish and Fisheries. In: McLaughlin KD, ed. Mitigating Impacts of :\atural Hazards on FIShery F..cosy51ems. Beulesda, )'ID: American Fisheries Society. pp 7-27. II. Spromberg jA, Seholz i'.'L (201 I) Estimating Ule futun: decline of \\11d coho salmon lXlplulation due to premature spawner die-offs in urbanizing watersheds, of the Pacific !\orthwest. Int('grated Emironmemal Asser.sment Hlld Manage· mem;doi: 10.1 002lieam.219. 12. Hoffman RS, Capel PD, L.arson ~J (2000) Comparison of pt'.sticid/;$ in eight U.S. urban streams. F.nvironrm:mal Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 2249-2258. 13. TrefenrnaJer u.., Stein ED, Sehiff KC (2008) Watershed and land use-based sOurces of trace metals in urban storm wall':r. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27: 277-287. ~.@: PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 10 place during the transition rrom seawater prior to spawning, and these may render adult coho more vulnerable to metals and PAHs than freshwater-resident salmonids. Adding to this complexity is the possibility of interactive toxicity (e.g., synergism) among contaminant mixtures. Studies that experimentally reproduce the familiar symptomology and mortality in adult coho, under controlled exposure conditions ""~th environmentally realistic mixtures of metals and PAHs, will likely be necessary to definitively implicate motor vehicles. Acknowledgments \Ve thank John Williams and an anonymous reviewer for significantly improving previous drafts of this manuscript. Disclaimer: the findings, conclusions and "iews expressed herein are {hose of the authors and do not necessarily represent thme of the Kational Oceanic and Aunospheric Administration or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: BEFJWD Nl.5. Perfonned the experiments: BEF ERB PA. Analyzed the data: BEF ERB PA. Wrote the paper: REF ERR t\'LS. 14. Strin ED, TJefenmaler 11.., Schiff K (2006) Watershed·based sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban stonn water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25: 373-385. 15. Conko KM, Rice KC, Kennc-dy l\fM (2004) Atmospheric wet deposition of trace clements to a suburban environment, Res\On, Virginia, USA. Aunospheric Environment 38: 40254033. 16. Davis AI', Shokouhian ),1, ;'\'j SB (2001) l..oading estimates or lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific: sources. Chemosphere 44: 997-\009. 17. Bourcier DR, Hindin E (197\1) I...,,,d, iron, chromium and zinc in road nmoffat Pullman, Washington. Selenee or the ToUtI Environment 12: 205-215. 18. Booth DB, Jackson CR (1997) Urbanization or aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detcction, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Watu Resources Asso<:iation 33: t077-1090. 19. Cuffney TF, Brigbtbi!1 RA, May Jr, Waite IR (2010) Responses of benthic macminvertebrates to environmental changes associated \\~th urbanization in rune m~tropolitan areas. Ecological Applir..ations 20: 1384-1401. 20. Johnson 0, Waples R, '\'ainwrighl T, XeeJy K, Waknitz F, et al. (1994) StatuS Review for Oregon's Umpqua River Sea·Run Cutthroat Trout. Washington, DC: U.S. Dcparunem of ('...ommerce. 21. National Oceanic and Aonospheric Adminis\r3.tion (2004) Endangered and Threatened Species; Est.ablishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of COliC ern t.ist, Description of Factors for Identifying Species of Concern, and RC\.ision of Candidate Species List Under the Endangered 22. ·23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Species ACI Fedual Register. pp 19975--19979. Pess GR, MontgOmery DR, Sted EA, Bilby RE, Feist BE, et al. (2002) Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oruorlzynchus kisuulz) abundance, Snohomish River, V·lash., USA. Canadian journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Scir:nces 59: 613-(,2:-1. Alberti hi, Weeks R, Coe S (2004) Urban land-co'·er change analysis in Central Puget Sound. PhotogrammelriC Engineering and Remote Sensing 70: \043-1052. Alberti M, ""::eks R, Hepsintallj, Russell C, Cot': S, et al. (2004) Puge! Sound Regional Synthesis !-.Iodel: 20U2 Land-cover Analysis of the Greater Puget Sound Region. Seattle, VIlA: University of V·,'ashington. 26 p. Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, '\'ylie B, Coan M (2004) Development ofa 2001 i\ational J...andcover Dat.abase for the United States. Phol0grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70: 829-t140. King CoUnty (2000) King County Tax Parcels. CD-RO~f. Seanle, WA: King County. Kitsap County (2010) Land Infonnation System (US): Tax. Parcels. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 28. Pierce Couney (2008) Tax Parcels. Tacoma, ''VA: Pierce Couney Assessor- Tuasurer. 29. Snohomish County (2010) PaTcels Snohomish County Assessor. 30. Puget Sound Regional Council (2005) Road centerlines and widths. Available: hnp:!! .... ·ww.psrc.org. Accessed: 2005 Aug 16. 31. Federal Highway Administration (1989) Functional Classif..-;ation Guidelines U,S. Depamnem of Transportation. 34 p. 32. Balker BM, Brooks ME, Clark q, Gt:ange SW, PouJ.scn jR, et al. (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 127-135. 33. Gelman A, Hill j (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel! hierarchical modeh. Xew York, NY: Cambridge University Pre$.'!. 648 p. 34. Pinheiro .IC, Bates DM (2001) Mixed-effects models in Sand S-PLUS; Chambers], Eddy W, Hardle 'V, Sheather S, Ti"'rney 1.., cds. New York, NY: Springer Verlag. 528 p. 35. R Development Cort'. Tt'.am (2010) R: A Janguagt'. and environment for stati~tkal computing. 2.12.0 cd. Vienna, Austria: lbe R Dt'.velopmem Core Team. 36. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model s~lect:ion and multimodel inft:rencc: A pr.!ctical information theoretic approach. New York, ;"'Y: Springer-Verlag. 4B8 p. 37. U.s. En\~ronmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey (2005) National Hydrography DataSet Plus -NHDPlus. Available: http://www.horuon-systems. com!NHDPlus!HSC-v.1.hI7.php. Accessed: 2010 May 26. 38. Washington Depanmene ofFISh and ,,,rIldlife (2011) 1:24,000 Fish Distribution of Washington State: Washington Lakes and Rivers Information System (WJ..RIS)· flShdist. February 2011 ed Ol).mpia, 'VA: Washington Dcparun~nt of fish and Wildlife. 39. Karr JR (1991) Biological Imegril)~ A Long-Neglected AspI:-ct of Water Resource ManagemenL Ecological Applications I: 66-84. 40. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Molio C, et al. {2007} The impacl of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sulrbasins. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 345-361. 41. \""enger Sj, Roy AH, jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, Caner TL, et al. (2009) T w~nl)'-six key reKafch qu~stions in urban stream ecolog)~ an asst:ssment of the State of the science. Journal of the Nonh American Benthological Sociel)' 28: 1080-1098 . . '@' PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. ,.' 11 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams 42. Morky SA, Karr jR (2(02) Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. COnser .... ation Biology 16: 1498-1509. 43. Bilby RE., Mollot LA (2008) Effect of changing land use patterns on the distribution of coho salmon (Chuo"rtnclwr Ir:i.suIth) in the Pugel Sound region. Canadian joumal of FIsheries and Aquatic Sciencl'..s 65: 2138-2148. 44. Fci!;t BE, Sted EA, jensen OW, Sather D~TI (2010) Does the scale of our observational window affect our conclusions about correlations between ~ndangw~d salmon populations and their habitat? l...andscape Ecology 25: 727-743. 45. Committee on Protection and ~1anagemem of Pacific Nonh ..... est Anadromou5 Salmonids, National Research Council (1996) Habitat Management and Rehabilitation. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the PaciflC NorU' ..... esl. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp 204-225. 4fi. Katz SL, Barnas K, Hicks R, Cowenj,Jenkinson R (2007) Freshw.!tr.r H"bit"t ReSToration Actions in the Pacific Nonhwest: A Decade's Invesunent in Hahitat Improvement. Restoration Ecology 15: 494-505. 47. Niyogi S, Wood eM (2004) Biotic Ligand Model, a t'exible Tool for Developing Site-Specific Watu Quality Guidelines for Metals. En\~romnen1.a1 Sci~nrc & T~(hnology 38: Gl77--6192. 48, Hoffman 1;J, Latimcr,lS, Mills GL, Quinn,lG (1982) Perrol~um hydrc..-;arbons in urban ruuofffrom a commercial land use ar .. ...a.joumal 'Vater Pollution COn1rol Fed..:ration 54: 1517-1525. 49. Whipple W, HunterjV (1979) Petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff. journal uflhe American Water Resources Association 15: 1096-1105. 50. Claireaux G, Davoodi F (2010) Effect of c}"-p05ure to petroleum hydrocarbons upon ca:rdio-respiratory function in the common sole (Sow Sfllt4). Aquatic Toxicology 98: 113-119. S!. McMillan B (2007) The Spawning Survey J.·indings from Stank's lllomton, Piper's, Longfellow, Fauntleroy and Taylor Cr~eks, Sepu,'·mber 21, 2006 to january 24, 2007. Also including the cumulam·e spawning survey data from 1999-2006 and Des Moines Creek in 2003 and 2004. Sealtle, Washington, USA: Seattle Public Utilities. 52. Wild Filih Con!iCrvancy (2008) Spawning Survey Findings from Seattle's Thornton, Piper's, Longfellow, Fauntleroy and Taylor Creeu. Seattle, Washington, USA: Seattle Public Utilities. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 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 Ren.ton. Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of neral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months , .-.lor 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 October 12, 2012. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is . 'sum of.$101.50 .. /# )#£U mda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 12th day of October, 2012. ){a$e;;c.-s;~~n$;a; ;:::;;the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington , "~,,,\\\\ \II I I I 11\, ~~ 6· SHE::; II", ff <v~ ......... ,,'\.\\\\\1'\" ~A -"'1 f~ff~fi:J\ON E~.6).I;/~ II~ ~ ,,:$ o"'i AR J-'1''''''~ ~ ~ :; « ~~ <' (J)~ ~ ~ ~~o _. -~ ~ -:. ",0 ,. -z ~ z ~ I-. ~ ::: -~ ~ ""ua\.. = 0 E ~/I OI~JII', 4-19,'\~/ S ff ",';'" II ... ' ..:s. .: II -""., ,\,\\\\", ... ,,,,, ~'~ "" ~ o~ .. , ",'5 ,-<" 'II ,..~, :0..,,-' "~\\\\\\,,\ ... ,,, i'OOTICEOF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARI~G . RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Deter- mination of Non-Significance Mitigated for the following pro- ject under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat LUAI2-076. ECF, PP, MOD Location: 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE. Application for a 30-lot plat. The 5 ac site is zoned R-8. Access proposed via 2 curb cuts along Hoquiam Ave NE. A Category 2 wetland and Class 4 stream is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on Or before 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2012, together with the required fcc 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-IIO.B and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A public hearing is scheduled on November 6, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in front the Hearing Examiner, in the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, to consider the above application. If the Environmen- tal Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Reporter on October 12.2012. #690150. ~~ , . ,~,:.;;:" OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MmGATED (DNS·M) POSTIOTO Nann ItfTERESTEO PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROIECT NAME: Plpl~' BIIIff Pr.llmlnlry Pili PROJECT NUMBER: WAU..Q76, feF, pp, MOD LOCATION: 11&6 & 111' Hoquiam Av.nul HE DESCRIPnON: The appU",nt I, ,.qulnlne PrellmlNOry Plal app ...... 1 and ,""I.on"",nlll 1511',1.111""1.,,, lor It.. wbdlwl .... of In u1<tlna 5 acre poIn:lll_)O lou. Tho proJIKt sit. Is IDgI."G within , ... Resldentlal • I (lI.a) dwllllna \1I'IhS per acrII lonl", dHJ;tllcatlon. A<uss 10 tho pI.t b prapoH1l vii H""Iulartl A ... NE "II two "" .. <urto cull, whlc~ I. propos", to " Impt'OYtti OJ plrt of thl pili Improvemonts. A portl"" of • c.telory Z watland 10 localld on tho north.ll.I.,n porltDn of In. .IUI II well II • a .... lUOlm. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMlmE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED A010N DOES NOT HAVE" SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AppeIIl, of Ihl environm"n!.1 determlnaUolI must be fll~ In wnti"l 011 or bllDte $;00 p,m, on October 26, 20U, l"llthlr Wlllllhi .Iqul.ed fIt wllh: Hearllli Eomlner, Oly of hnlOn, 1055 S"ulh Grady W~y, Renlon, WA 98057, App"!1 10 Ihe Examiner II"! lovlrnad by City of RMC 4-B-110 .nd Info.m3tlon reprdlnllhllppeal p.O.I" mlV be obulned from the Rlnlon City O .. k', Offi.l, (4ZSj43D-6S1D. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HEll) BY THE R[tlTON HEARING tJ(AMINER AT HIS REGUlAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH flOOR Of CITY HALl, 1055 SOUTH GRADV WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 6, 2011 AT 1;00 PM TO CONSIDER THE PRHlMINA1\Y PLAT, 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 COMMUNrrY & ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT AT (425)430-7200, ' DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION, CERTIFICATION I, f: O{4-i r;; ~tv(~ , hereby certify that "'3 copies ofthe above document ",:,ere posted in ~ conspicuous places or nearby t_he#5:ibed property on Date: /!J/!.?/M2 Signed: _~ Q <?.J:? "'---, r -==- STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or'have satisfactory evidence that J;QCQ 0, Tl>qmoh,}: signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ';)0(2 Notary Public in ~d for the State of Washington Notary (print):_-,HC!...I:IA~. --lo([..,n .... akd'=L-_____ _ My appointment expires: __ ~A"'""'7~'f( .. (g"'-'}--::2;""-J9'-ti--'20=cl::.;3>----- CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 11th day of October, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies Nadeem A. Khan West Pac Development LLC Phillip G. Gesner Bill Griffin Virginia Broyles Claudia Donnelly (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON Dated: Qclt./rfII II, ;u;n I Representing See Attached Contact Owner/Applicant Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record Notary Pub c in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ llH ..... Ao:!..=.._ --"Cr'-!C...,ah""'-lt ... :f __________ _ My appointment expires: A L'" a <'\ IJ.-<I (.L.Si..-0<-l ( 0'-0 G Project Name: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD template· affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology ** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSOOT 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 SelVices 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"d 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 172"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 98104-3855 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 Southeenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRO-01 W 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: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD LOCATION: 1166 & 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-B) dweiling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which Is proposed to be Improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern porlton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. 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 October 26, 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 NOVEMBER 6, 2012 AT 1:00 PM TO CONSIDER THE PRElIMINARY PLAT. 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 PLEASE INClUDE THE PROJECT NUMBERWHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. Denis Law . Mayor October 11, 2012 Department ,,[Community and Economic Development . '. C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Nadee~ A .. Khan. D.R. St'rong Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604NE 38'hPlace#232 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: ENVIRONME~TAL THRESHOLD (SEPAl DETERMINATION' Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat, L9A12,076, ECF, PP, MOD . . Dear Mr. Khan: • , This letteriswritte~ onbehalfofthe Environmental Reviewco~mittee (ERC)toadvise . you that they have complet~d their review of the subject p~oject ~nd have issued a. ' , threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer. to the enClosed ERC Report and Decision, Parti, Section B'for a listof the Mitigation Measures .. ' Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00' p.m.~n October 26, 2012, together ,~ith the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City , of Renton, 1055 S~uth GradyWay, R(!ntori, wi. 98057,' Appeals to the' Examiner are,' . . governed byRMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding theappeal process may . , be obtained from the Renton CityClerk:s Office,(425) 430-6510. Also, apublic hearingwill be held by the RentonHearing Examiner in the'Council Chambers on the'seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, . . Washington, on November 6, 2012 at1:mi p.m. to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s) ofth~ applicant is r~quired to be present at the public " ,hearing: A copy. of the staff recommendation' will be mailed to youprior'to the hearing. 'If the Enviror,mentalDetermination is appealed, theappeal will be heard as part ofthis . public hearing., Theprecediriginformation will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable youto exerCise Your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to 'do so. If you . . have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430 c7219. Renton City. Hall • 1055 South Grady Way: • 'Renton, Washington ,98057 • rentcinwa.gov Nadeem A. Khan Page2of2. October 11, ~012 . . . For the EnvironmentalReviewCommittee; 1!:,~~ . ~~t~a.te Planner . Enclosure CC: .. W~stPac Development,.LLC / Owner(')·· ..' ." .' '. . .' Phillip·G. Gesner, Bill Griffin, Virginia.Broyles,-Claudia Donnelly / Party(ies)' of Record . . .' \ .: .. . ERG Determination Ltr DNSM .12-076.docx . .. ' ' . October 11, 2012 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on October 8,2012: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD 1166 & 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion ofa Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the.site as well as a Class 4 stream. Appeals ofthe environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 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 RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~~ Roc e Timmons Ass date Planner Renton oty Hall • 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Washington State Department uf Ecology Page 2 of 2 October 11, 2012 Enclosure 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 PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1166 and 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE The City of Renton Depa rtment of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save several existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable to locate a large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The area located in Lots 29-30 would be required to be consolidated and placed into a Tree Preservation Tract. For those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat the applicant would be required to work with the City's Parks Department to determine a "fee in lieu" for each replacement tree that could not be planted on site or a suitable off-site location to plant the -remainder of the required number of replacement trees. The revised Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and a representative of the City's Parks Department prior to construction permit approval. 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 3. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. ERe Mltigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing S acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 1166 and 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE 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 provided 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water 1. A water availability certificate is required from Water District 90. 2. Domestic service and fire service must be provided to serve the proposed development. 3. Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a minimum 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings, and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Sanitary Sewer 1. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. 2. The plans submitted do not show adequate room for the lift station; hence, the conceptual sewer utility plan is not approved. The area allocated for the Lift Station is too small to contain the control building to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the 10' wet well and the 8'X6' site for the emergency generator. 3. In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan submitted with the application, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a MH installed eight feet deep in Hoquiam Ave NE. . 4. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the MH. The force main needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8" pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8" pipe, and the 8" pipe is then connected into a new MH which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continUing from that MH easterly to the existing MH via gravity. 5. This proposal is located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. 6. Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees (SOC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Surface Water 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 3. All core and six special requirements are contained in" the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). 3. Storm report is acceptable for preliminary review. It will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. Transportation/Street 1. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting on the full frontage of the parcel being developed is required. ERe Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 2. Street improvements on Hoquiam Ave need to be 36' face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8' planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5' sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show this; hence, is not approved as submitted. 3. The proposed interna I street section needs to be designed to 26' of pavement, with an 8' planter strip,S' sidewalk, and parking on one side only. 4. Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 5. Street lighting shall be required to be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The internal street shall have decorative street lights and black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. 6. Street lighting on Hoquiam Ave NE needs to meet the average lighting levels, which is maintained· illumination of 0.6, with a uniformity ratio to meet or exceed four to one (4:1). General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection, domestic water meter installations, and storm connection will be required. . 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. ERe AdviSOry Notes Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD APPLICANT: Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. PROJECT LOCATION: 1166 and 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE 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 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 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: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department 'jL-V~--- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department October 12, 2012 October 8, 2012 Date Fire & Emergency Services 1018/1'2-C. z...\)\ . C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 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, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Monday, October 8, 2012 3:00 p.m. Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat WA12-076, ECF, PP (Timmons) Location: 1166 & 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE. Description: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. THE FOLLOWING UTEM IS CONSENT Parking Lot 20 (Dolbee) WA12-079, ECF Location: 660 Logan Avenue N. Description: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review for the construction of a new 567 stall parking lot located at 660 Logan Avenue N. The site is 4.97 acres in area and is zoned UC-N2. However, the project is subject to a Development Agreement which vests the applicant to the 2002 Industrial Heavy IH zoning and development standards. The parking lot would be accessed at two locations one off of N 6th Street the second off of Logan Avenue N. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CEO Director 0 D. Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator -Transportation N. Watts, Development Services Director· L. Warren, City Attorney 0 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal • J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Monoger: Owner: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summory: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: October 8, 2012 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Westpac Development, LLC; 7449 Mercer Way; Mercer Island, WA 98040 Nadeem A. Khan; D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.; 10604 NE 38th Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE and 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing S acre parcel into 30 lots. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. 217,371 square feet Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated IDNS-M). Project Location Mop ERe Report.doCK City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA T Report of October 8, 2012 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I BACKGROUND Environmental Review Committee Report LUAIZ-076, ECF, PP, MOO Page 2 019 The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing five-acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in Size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 squarefeet. The site is partially developed with two single family residences and associated sheds located near the southwestern corner of the site which are both proposed for removal prior to the recording of the plat. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which are proposed to be improved as part ofthe plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern portion of the site as well as a Class 4 stream. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accommodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements of the code. A comment letter was received by an interested party (Exhibit 6) with questions related to the number of trees to be removed on site and how they would be able to comply with the tree retention requirements of the code. Concerns were also raised with regard to the preservation of mature vegetation on site. 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. 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 1. The applicant shall be required to retain those trees located on proposed lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save several existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable to locate a large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The area located in lots 29-30 would be required to be consolidated and placed into a Tree Preservation Tract. For those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat the applicant would be ERC Report.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PIA T Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Report of October 8, 2012 Page 3 of 9 C. D. required to work with the City's Parks Department to determine a "fee in lieu" for each replacement tree that could not be planted on site or a suitable off-site location to plant the remainder of the required number of replacement trees. The revised Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and a representative of the City's Parks Department prior to construction permit approval. 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 3_ The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. 4_ The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as'determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map, Exhibit 2 Preliminary Plat Map Exhibit 3 Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 4 Aerial Photo Exhibit 5 Wetland Report (dated August 15, 2012) Exhibit 6 Public Comment Letter: Donnelly Exhibit 7 Tree Replacement and Landscaping Plan Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circuloted 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: 1. Earth Impacts: The site can best be characterized as rolling with slopes that range from 2-15 percent generally sloping from the west to the east. The steepest slope on the property is approximately 15 percent in isolated areas on site. Overall topographic relief is approximately 60 feet. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated August 9, 2012. The report states that there are no geotechnical conditions on site that would preclude the proposed development. The soils on site were classified as Fraser-age Subglacial till (Qvt) and Fraser-age Advance outwash (Qva). The applicant has stated approximately 15,500 cubic yards of material would be cut on site and approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site in order to accommodate building pads, street improvements, utilities, and the drainage vault. ERe Reportdocx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of October 8, 2012 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOO Page 4 019 Total impervious area is expected to not exceed 67 percent of the site. The applicant will be required to design a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements. Mitigation Mea~ures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated August lS, 2012). identifying a portion of a wetland located on the subject site (see Exhibit S). Additionally, the upper reach of Honey Creek is located on the northeast corner of the site. Wetland A is located along the east side of the site, and is heavily forested with a deciduous canopy. Vegetation in this wetland consists of an overstory of red alder with an understory comprised of vine maple, red-osier dogwood, salmonberry, and a substantial amount of Himalayn blackberry. According to the report Wetland A is classified as a Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are required to have a SO-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge. Honey Creek passes through the wetland at the northeast corner of the site. The stream is strongly influenced by stormwater outfalls upstream as the flow of the channel was noted to increase during rain events. The stream buffer has been noted as being very healthy with large deciduous and coniferous tree species within a dense native understory. To the east and off site, this buffer has been impacted by clearing. Honey Creek is mapped as a Class 4 stream with a required 3S-foot buffer. Although Honey Creek is a non-fish bearing in this reach it is important to note that X mile downstream the stream does become fish bearing. Due to topography and the proposed storm facility the applicant is proposing to encroach into SO- foot wetland buffer approximately 6.S feet for a total of S83 square feet. A Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan was included in the Critical Areas Report. In order to compensate for the impacts stated above the applicant is proposing the creation of wetland buffer in the amount of 616 square feet. The applicant will be required to comply with RMC 4-3-0S0 Critical Areas regulations to mitigate for any impacts permitted to the wetland buffer. Staff will be recommending approval of the buffer averaging proposal subject to conditions. In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its buffer the applicant will be required, as part of the Preliminary Plat approval, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Conditions associated with preliminary plat approval will likely include a review and approval of a final wetland mitigation plan, wetland signage and fencing, buffer enhancement, etc., as allowed per City Code. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable ERe Report.docx City 0/ Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAr Report of October 8, 2012 b. Storm Water Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlZ-076, ECF, PP, MOD Page 5 019 Impacts: The site is located within the Cedar River / Lake Washington watershed; more specifically is located within the Honey Creek sub basin of the May Creek drainage basin. Site runoff currently travels northeasterly and enters into the Category 2 wetland located near the northeast property corner and then exits the wetland via the Class 4 stream also located on site. The stream conveys runoff northerly to an offsite Category 2 wetland. This wetland extends north and flows through a culvert under Hoquiam Ave NE and encompasses the remainder of the quarter mile downstream. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by DR Strong consulting Engineers, Inc., dated August 29, 2012. The report states that the runoff from the proposed project would be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to a.detention vault in the northeast corner of the site. The vault would then discharge to the on site stream. The storm vault is designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. All core and six special requirements are contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). The provided storm report is acceptable for preliminary review. It will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Vegetation Impacts: Groundcover consists primarily of grass and small growth trees around the various structures on site. Groundcover on the northern and eastern portions of the site consists of a forested area of small to large growth trees. The area along the west side of the site includes immature red alder, big-leaf maple, old apple trees, cottonwood, dense thickets of blackberry hazelnut, salmonberry, and sword fern. The western end of the site appears to have been cleared at one time but has been re-vegetated within the last 20 years. The majority of the site is covered with a mixed forest with conifers as the main component of the overstory; Douglas firs being the dominant species with scattered big leaf maple and red alder. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is required to retain 30 percent ofthe trees located on site that are not located within critical areas, proposed rights-of-way and access easements. Of the 211 trees located on site 54 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 47 trees on site. The applicant has only proposed to retain one tree outside of the critical areas and their buffers (Exhibit 3). When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Therefore a total of 552-caliper inches would be required to be replaced on site. The applicant is proposing a total of 185, 3-caliper replacement trees, for a total of 555-caliper inches, in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirement. However, the proposed tree replacement plan depicts trees that are too closely spaced and it is clear that not all of the replacement trees could be accommodated on site as proposed (Exhibit 7). ERC Report.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of October 8, 2012 Environmental, Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Page 6 of 9 The subdivision of land should be reviewed to ensure the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve trees and natural vegetation. Land clearing and tree removal shall be conducted to maximize the preservation of any tree in good health. Several of the trees located on site are in good health and could be saved. The applicant has not met the burden to demonstrate that trees were retained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. In addition, the proposed number of replacement trees could not be accommodated on site as they mature. Therefore, staff is recommending as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save several existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable for large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The area located in Lots 29-30 would be required to be consolidated and placed in a tree preservation Tract. The tract is also recommended to be used as a site to accommodate replacement trees. For those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat the applicant would be required to work with the City's Parks Department to determine a fee in lieu of each replacement tree or an off-site location to plant the required number of replacement trees. The revised Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and a representative of the City's Parks Department prior to construction permit approval. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to retain those trees located on proposed Lots 29 and 30, as they can best be used to save several existing mature trees on site and are the most suitable to locate a large numbers of replacement trees that could not be accommodated throughout the remainder of the plat. The area located in Lots 29-30 would be required to be consolidated and placed into a Tree Preservation Tract. For those replacement trees that cannot be sited within the Tree Preservation Tract or within the remainder of the plat the applicant would be required to work with the City's Parks Department to determine a "fee in lieu" for each replacement tree that could not be planted on site or a suitable off-site location to plant the remainder of the required number of replacement trees. The revised Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and a representative of the City'S Parks Department prior to construction permit approval. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $530.76 per each new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single- family lot. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Parks and Recreation impact fee in the near future. Therefore the fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. ERe Report.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLAT Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Report of October 8, 2012 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3082, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement 5. Transportation Page 7 of 9 Impacts: Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Street improvements along Hoquiam Ave NE need to be 36 feet face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8 foot planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5 foot sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show the required improvements and will be required to be revised prior to construction permit approval as a condition of the Preliminary Plat approval. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. The northern portion of the loop road that borders the parcel to north would be improved to a half-street improvement standard with remainder ofthe street maintaining a 45 foot right of way. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26 feet of pavement, with an 8 foot planter strip, 5 foot sidewalk, and parking on one side only. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed 16-foot wide alley. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Transportation Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Transportation impact fees in the near future. Therefore the fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement. 6. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $488.00 per each new single-family lot with credit given for the existing Single-family lot. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Fire Impact Fee in the near future. The fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of Final Plat Recording. Nexus: Fire Impact Fee Resolution 2895, SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement. ERe Report.docx City 0/ Renton Department of Community & Economic Development PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA T Report of October 8, 2012 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments Environmental Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOO Page 8 of 9 The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this 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). 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 October 26, 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-i 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 nat 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water 1. A water availability certificate is required from Water District 90. 2. Domestic service and fire service must be provided to serve the proposed development. 3. Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a minimum 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings, and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Sanitarv Sewer 1. Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper-access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. 2. The plans submitted do not show adequate room for the lift station; hence, the conceptual sewer utility plan is not approved. The area allocated for the Lift Station is too small to contain the control building to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the 10' wet well and the 8'X6' site for the emergency generator. 3. In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan submitted with the application, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a MH installed eight feet deep in Hoquiam Ave NE. 4. The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the MH. The force main ERe Report.docx City 0/ Renton Department of Community & PIPER'S BLUFF PRELIMINARY PLA T )mic Development vironmental Review Committee Report LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD Report of October 8, 2012 Page 9 019 needs to be connected into a minimum 20 feet of 8" pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side of the 8" pipe, and the 8" pipe is then connected into a new MH which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that MH easterly to the existing MH via gravity. s. This proposal is located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. 6. Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees (SDC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Surface Water 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 3. All core and six special requirements are contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). 3. Storm report is acceptable for preliminary review. It will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. Transportation/Street 1. Installation of curb, gutter, Sidewalk, and street lighting on the full frontage of the parcel being developed is required. 2. Street improvements on Hoquiam Ave need to be 36' face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8' planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5' sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show this; hence, is not approved as submitted. 3. The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26' of pavement, with an 8' planter strip,S' sidewalk, and parking on one side only. 4. Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). s. Street lighting shall be required to be installed per City of Renton standards and speCifications. The internal street shall have decorative street lights and black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. 6. Street lighting on Hoquiam Ave NE needs to meet the average lighting levels, which is maintained illumination of 0.6, with a uniformity ratio to meet or exceed four to one (4:1). General Comments 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection, domestic water meter installations, and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. ERe Report.doC)( D6 -03 T23N R5E E 112 CA RM-F j RM-F --~ r I ---1 , , I , -I ,...--J l ~f R-4 ZONING MAP BOOK I R-4 E6 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 n._ ...... _ ... .... _ .. ___ ..." .... 10_ .. ... _---"' ... _-"",_io_flwOly..,,., __ EXHIBIT 1 _~ T23N R5E E 112 5310 RESIDENTIAl Q£J (RC) Resource Conset'ViJtlon ~ (R-l) R@Sldentlalldu/ac [B (R-4) Residential 4 dulac [!:!J (R..J) Residential 8 dulac I R~ I (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes ~ (R-lO) Residential 10 dulac tJH ~ I (R-14) Residential 14 dulac I RM-f"1 (RM-F) Residential Multi-Family lRfo1-r I (RM-n Residential Multi-family Traditional 111:101-01 (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center MIXED USE CENTERS ~ lev) Center VIllage luc-NlI (UC-Nl) Urban Center-North 1 ~ (UC-N2) Urban Center -North 2 @] (CD) Center Downtown COMMERCIAL ~ (COR) CommerciaVOffice/Resldential ~ (CA) Commercial Arterial ~ (CO) Commercial Office ~ (CN) Commercial Nelghborhood INDUSTRIAl o (Il) Industrlal -L1Sh' o (1M) Industrlal -Medium m (lH) Industrial-Heavy --Re nlo n Cit, Umlt.. --Adja.::enl Cll, Uml18 PAGE PAG E# INDEX • I II I ! f t .1 • 'ff ! Ii I II ,If If Ii I. I! • 1'1 ~IBHH!!III!i (Q) , :1 ! ,1 ... !lIl1lllulill II I1!1JJ I': Ii ~ 1-' ! I I I r. I = ! I!!l r I !l i • ! II @ ~ I1!1JJ II~II II' I ~ ! !!! II Ii II II g ,I Z I1!1JJ 1111111111111111 II II fQf: (! I. 1 ,I " Ii ~! I 1111 I. I!' I I' ,1 "111 1' o5! i~l~ ~ I ,I ~ Ji! lIlll" I . "!111m II I ' " I I! , i I I ;;;;;;;;; ; i ;aaOlbaB = • ...... _----- ±Jn1a S,Cl3dld ... "' -_. r--'1 -- .•. :f :~"i ~~. :: '," I ~ ,. ~ i" ~ p.!.L.L-I4l \.Y O ! z c: S c: Q) a::: -o ~ (3 ......... _------ ttl !:; CO 1-4 ::c >< w LUA 12-076 Pipers Bluff PP --] i -P'--I'. It • S===lALJ illay" A't:1 231 o 11 6 231 NAD _ , 983J"'iARN_ StatePian& _ Washington_ North_FIPS_ 4601 Fee' Information Tee RentonMapSup~ 10/0512012 EXHIBIT 4 output from an Internet mapping site and It appear 00 this map mayor may not be accurate, current , Of otherwise reliable. .n." ~I'" 1$ NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Jurisdiction Boundaries 0""'" o c" of Ronton o Parcels Over1ay Districts IZl _ .... . o _ .... . o EmploymenlAln Vfltlt!y t1 CIty Center Sign RegWtion Are, lZJ UrbWI Ottlign Diatrid A (;J UrbWI Delilln Diltrid 8 [) Urtan o..ign Diltrid c B l.IrtIwt Det.ign DIstrict 0 o 1: 2,776 City of Renton e Finane< & IT Division / /'-.. " -, . I ... ..: -"'7""1'" --1 ' r--.... I I .... -,I' '" ........ ' I Pipers BlujJ7#12-J35 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. -. , , , I ,':. :- " ,-, , J' _t'. i August 15, 2012 Page 9 -Lr,~ _ -l--·-- -0 • -t Above: Proposed buffer averaging of the 50' wetland buffer on th e northeast comer of the site . This encroachment would be into 6.5' of this buffer leaving a minimum of 43.5' of buffer on the north. Under RMC Chapter 4-3-050.M.6.f, the following criteria (in italics) must be used to utilize buffer averaging. Our response to each criteria follows; f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard weiland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant raquest, weiland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of /he following: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and EXHIBIT 5 Rocale Timmons City of Renton Development Offices 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 10415 -147 th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 October 3, 2012 RE: Comments on Piper's Bluff Dear Ms. Timmons: City of Renton Planning Division OCT 05 2012 According to thee web site, my comments were due October 2. Today is October 3. I hope I will still be allowed to submit my comments. Renton has a Tree Ordinance -designed to keep the trees in the area. According to this developer, there are 211 trees on site. They only propose to keep 13 of them. That is only .06 of the trees. The developer is proposing to plant 185 trees to meet Renton's requirement. The trees on that site have years to get to the size that they are now. What size trees does the developer propose to use as replacement trees? Will they be using "big trees -the size of the trees that are currently on site -or will they be little bitty trees that you normally see in Renton developments? Or will Renton allow them to do whatever they want? Thank you, in advance, for allowing these comments. Sincerely, U4.ul.,ltL Di-n Mi{;t- Claudia Donnelly Enclosure EXHIBIT 6 From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <1hedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Trees remaining in Renton Date: March 17, 2008 6:36:46 AM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: March 15,20082:33:35 PM PDT To: "Michael/Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Re: Trees remaining in Renton Hello Claudia, The revisions to the City's tree regulations became effective in September 2007. For projects subject to those regulations, a percentage. of trees must be retained. Here is the code section (RMC4-4-130H): "H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees -Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and Diseased Trees Excluded: Trees that are dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200, or are safety risks due to root, trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: i. RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. d. Utility Uses and Mineral Extraction Uses: Such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this Chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing Official. e. Replacement Requirements: i. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per subsection H 1 ei of this Section. iii. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130H7d. f. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public rights-ol-way, shall be excluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up." In recent years. and prior to this change in regulations, we were requiring 25% tree retention in residential areas, or replacement, generally at 2:1 with a minimum 2-inch caliper. A "protected tree" is considered to be a minimum of 6-inch caliper, as measured at 54 inches above grade. There are situations where extensive site grading requires that all trees be removed. In those cases planting of new trees is required. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us III Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> 03/12/0810:45 AM Jennifer: I got a note this morning about some ciear cutting next to Randy Corman's house. I thought --that in 2007 before the POP election, Renton decided on an ordinance that would "save trees" in developments. In the past few months, along NE 4th --a CAMWEST Development across from the QFC, there were alot of trees ---now there aren't any. Did Renton pass this "save a tree" in developments or not? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly • I . I i I ~ . iii ~ 1'( I I i I I III • ,! 5 : I ! • I • I . I ..... _------ " I- M a:a M X >< w Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Rocale, Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, October 08,201212:49 PM Rocale Timmons RE: Piper's bluff preliminary plat, LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) Landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban watersheds. pdf Thank you again for sending the requested Critical Areas Report (dated Aug 15,2012) and the Drainage Report (dated AUg 29, 2012) for the Piper's Bluff preliminary plat proposal. We have reviewed these documents and have some questions and comments as noted below: 1. The Critical Areas Report mitigation work proposed for the stormwater facility outlet which will be placed in the wetland. Unfortunately, the detailed mitigation plan was not attached (as indicated in the CAR) to our copy of this report. Therefore, we request a copy of the mitigation plan and may have additional comments. 2. Please note that the stormwater outfall should be located within the wetland buffer to allow for additional stormwater dissipation and avoid a direct discharge to the wetland or stream. 3. The project proposes to treat stormwater to meet the basic water quality treatment standard. Instead, we recommend that the project treat its stormwater to the enhanced water quality standard to remove additional oils and heavy metals from stormwater prior to discharge to the Honey Creek/May Creek system. The project needs to avoid adding oils and heavy metals to Honey Creek to avoid causing further adverse impacts to salmon in this stream. Please see the attached article for additional information. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, October as, 2a12 2:27 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: Piper's bluff preliminary plat, LUA12-a76, ECF, PP, MOO, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) Okay great and no problem. I will be looking for your comments. I had to turn in a draft SEPA report today to our committee. But I can always include your comments especially if they are substantive and you get them to me by mid next week. Let me know if you have any questions and I hope you have a good weekend. Rocale T. -----Original Message----- OPEN e ACCESS Freely available online '~plPsone landscape EcotoxDcOlogy of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams Blake E. Feist'*, Eric R. Buhle" Paul Arnold 2 , Jay W. Oavis2 , Nathaniel L. Scholz' 1 Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington, United States of America, 2 Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, lacey, Washington, United States of America, Citation: Feist BE. Buhle ERo Arnold P, Davis /W, Scholz Nl (lOll) landscape Ecotoxicology of Coho Salmon Spawner Mortality in Urban Streams. PloS ONE 6(8): e23424. doi:l0.1371/joumal.pone.OO23424 Editor: Howard Browman, Institute of Marine Research, Norway Received January 31, 2011; Accepted July 17, 2011; Published August 17,2011 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CCO public domain dedication. Funding: This work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -Coastal Storms Program; US. Fish and Wildlife Service -National Contaminants Program; City of Seattle (Seattle Public Utilities); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region 10. The funders had no role in study design. data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist . .. E·mail: blakeJeist@noaa.gov Introduction In recent decades, hlllTIan population growth and development have continued to increase along the coasral margins of North America [I]. The associated changes in land cover and human land use have elevated land-based sources of pollution, and toxic stonnwater runoff in particular, to become one of the most important threats to the biological integrity of basins, lakes, estuaries, and nearshore marine environments [2). In the United States, concerns related to non-point source pollution have gained momentum over the past decade (e.g., [3,4}). This has culminated most recently in the designation of "water quality and sustainable practices on land" as one of nine National Priority Objectives for the newly established National Ocean Council, together with ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning, climate change and ocean acidification, and changing conditions in the Arctic [2]. For toxic runoff, however, the connections between unsustainable practices on land and the decline of ecological resilience in aquatic habits remain poorly understood. In western North America, semelparous anadromous salmonids (Oruorl!Jnchus spp.) typically migrate thousands of kilometers in their lifetimes. They hatch and rear in freshwater, migrate seaward to capitalize on the productivity of the oceans to grow rapidly and reach sexual maturity, and then return to their natal streams to spawn and die. Certain sabnonids, including pink (0. gorbuscha) and '~@' PLoS ONE 1 www.plosone.org .. chum (0. ketn.) migrate to the ocean relatively soon after hatching. Others, however, such as Chinook (O. Islulzqlscha), steelhead, (0. mykiss), sockeye (0. n~ka), and coho (0. kisutch) may spend one or more years in freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. Because of this extended freshwater residency, juveniles of these species are potentially more vulnerable to anthropogenic modifications of freshwater habitat quality [5J. In contrast to the high mortality experienced by juvenile sahnonids, mortality at the adult spawner life stage is relatively low. Familiar natural causes of mortality include predation, disease {6,7,8,9), stranding (following high flows), elevated stream temperatures, and competition -e.g., in habitats with abundant salmon returns and limited spawning substrate. Various human activities such as recreational and conunercial fishing, stream dewatering, and the placement of migration barriers can also increase salmon spawner mortality. In general, however, salmon spawner mortality has not been attributed to toxic chemical contaminants in storrnwater runoff - a data gap that may be due, in part, to 1) the relative rarity of sahnon spawners in urban basins with poor water quality, and 2) the logistical difficulty of implementing toxicity studies on migratory, seawater-to-freshwa- ter transitional adults. The exception is a recently documented phenomenon of returning adult coho salmon dying at high rates in urban and urbanizing streams in lowland Puget Sound region, which includes August 2011 1 Volume 6 1 Issue 8 1 e23424 the greater Seattle metropolitan area [10). Coho retum to small coastal stream networks to spawn each fall. Entry into freshwater is triggered by early autumn rainfall arid rising stream flows. Since there had been extensive habitat degradation and loss in these lowlands, many basins were targeted for stream restoration projects in the 19905. Subsequent surveys to evaluate project effectiveness discovered that many coho salmon were dying jn newly-accessible stream reaches before they were able to spawn - i.e., female carcasses were found in good condition (ocean bright colors) with skeins (membrane or sac that contains the eggs within the fish) filled with unspawned eggs [10]. In addition, affected coho from several different urban basins showed a similar progression of symptoms leading up to death, including disorientation, lethargy, loss of equilibrium, mouth gaping, and fin splaying. Systematic daily spawner surveys in recent years (2002-2009) have shown that adult mortality rates in urban streams are consistently high (relative to spawning coho salmon in more pristine areas), ranging from -25-90% of the total fall runs [10]. Mortality rates of this magnitude likely have important negative consequences for maintaining viable coho populations [ll). Consistent with this, most coho mortalities observed. over the past decade were spawners that strayed (did not home to their natal stream reaches) into these restored urban freshwater habitats. The precise underlying cause of recurrent coho die-offs remains under investigation. An initial weight-of-evidence forensic study has systematically ruled out stream temperature, dissolved oxygen, poor overall spawner condition, tissue pathology (e.g., gill), pathogen prevalence or disease, and other factors commonly associated with fish kills in freshwater habitats (Scholz et aI., unpublished data). These fmdings, together with the rapid onset of the syndrome, the nature of the symptoms (e.g., gaping and disequilibrium), and the consistent re-occurrence within and between urban basins over many years together point to toxic stonnwater runoff from urban landscapes as the likely cause of coho spawner mortality. Urban runoff and stonnwater-influenced combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contain an exceptionally complex mixture of chemical contaminants. Specifically, urban streams are receiving waters for runoff and discharges containing pesticides [12], metals [13], petroleum hydrocarbons [14], plasticizers, flame-retardants, pharmaceuticals, and many other potentially toxic chemicals. The list of possible causal agents is therefore long. The above chemical complexity notwithstanding, there are several reasons to suspect motor vehicles as sources of taxies that are killing returning coho. Vehicles deposit many compounds on road surfaces via exhaust emissions, leaking fluids, and the wearing of tires, brake pads and other friction materials [15]. Emissions contain nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and a large number of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Fluids, including antifreeze and motor oil, contain ethylene and propylene glycol and PAHs. Tire wear releases zinc, lead, and PAHs onto road surfaces [16J, and brake pad wear is a major source of copper, zinc, nickel,and chromium [16,17]. Collectively, these contaminants accumulate on streets and other impervious surfaces until they are mobilized by rainfall and transported to aquatic habitats via runoff. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metals such as copper are known to be toxic to fish, although acute lethality usually occurs at exposure concentrations that are higher (by orders of magnitude) than those typically detected in urban streams. It is likely that fall stormwater pulses contain higher concentrations than winter and spring due to the potential buildup of contaminants during the relatively dry summer months. Although the adult die-off phenomenon has been observed in all Seattle-area urban streams where' coho salmon occur, the overall .:~. PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 2 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams rate of mortality has varied among basins. In qualitative terms, a higher propo.rtion of returning animals have survived to spawn in basins that have more open space (e.g., parks and woodlands). Conversely, mortality rates have been consistently higher in basins with proportionately greater "urban" land cover and land uses. This raises the possibility of a quantitative relationship between discrete basin characteristics and coho survival and spawning success. Such a relationship would be important for several reasons. First, if coho mortality is significantly correlated with one or more land cover or land use variables, the latter could be used to identify unmonitored lowland basins where coho populations are at greatest risk. Second, it could provide a means to evaluate how future human population growth and development might impact wild coho populations in Puget Sound (and elsewhere) that are currently healthy. Finally, i~ could narrow the list of potentially causative pollution sources in urban basins, thereby focusing future toxicological studies to identify the specific contaminants involved. In this study we perfonned a spatial analysis to identify landscape variables that correlate most closely with surveyed rates of coho spawner mortality across six different basins in Puget Sound. The variables included land use and land cover, tax parcel types, roadways, and impervious surfaces. We then used the information from these correlations to generate spatially explicit predictions of recurrent spawner losses in urunonitored basins throughout the four most densely populated counties in the greater Seattle metropolitan area. Materials and Methods Study Sites We characterized habitat conditions within the drainage basins from streams at six sites in the Puget Sound lowlands (Figure 1). We chose these sites because coho spawner mortality has been monitored at these locations for several years (2000-2009; [10]). The sites represent a wide range of anthropogenic alteration, from highly urbanized (e.g., Longfellow Creek) to relatively undisturbed (e.g., Fortson Creek). Fortson Creek is considered a non·urban site, whereas the other five sites are urban streams and have varying degrees of development. The urban streams have all been a focus of varying restoration project efforts aimed at enhancing habitat quality for anadromous Pacific salmon. With the exception of the relatively unaltered Fortson Creek site, all site basins had impervious surface proportions well above the levels (5-10%) commonly associated with the decline of biological integrity in streams [18,19J. Confirmed observation of the coho spawner mortality syndrome (see below) within a stream system was a key factor in study site selection. Importantly, natural production of coho in Seattle-area urban streams is very low. Not unexpectedly, recent modeling has shown that local coho population abundance declines precipitous· Iy at rates of spawner mortality documented for these drainages [11]. The adult returns to these streams are thus likely to be animals straying into sink or attractive nuisance habitats. Conversely, the syndrome has not been documented in streams where coho are relatively abundant -i.e., non·urban basins, as confirmed by a full season of daily stream surveys on Fortson Creek. Therefore, to evaluate the phenomenon in relation to land cover, we were constrained to streams where coho are affected, even if adult returns to these basins were low in certain years. Lastly, there is no evidence that the mortality syndrome is related to the origin of the spawners (i.e., hatchery vs. wild fish). For example, artificially propagated coho that return as adults to regional hatchery facilities in non-urban basins are unaffected. August 2011 1 Volume 6 1 Issue B 1 e23424 ---------------------------------------~--~----------- Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Strea ms WASHINGTON '.' .~ '.' ~.~ .. .. ~. . ... --............ ~ ....... ~"V 4 -f' r. ..... D Site basins -Dehse ' . urban (>75%) . ,;... ~ .. Ught-madlum urban (<75%) '. ~' N A 10km Figure 1. She s tudy sites where coho spawner mortality was monitored and landscape conditions were quantified. Main map depicts the Greater Seattle Metro~itan Area in Washington State. which is within the Puget SoundlGeorgia Basin of the Pacific: Northwest. United States of America (USA ). Inset map Hlusuates location of the study sites within Washington State and the location of Washington State with in the USA. For reference. red shading on main map represents the relative intensity of urbanization (Iight-medium and dense urban (23 .24]). Drainage basins dep icted in ye llow shaded polygons re present the total basin fl owing Into a given strea m reach site. Key for site numbers: 1 :::: Des Moines; 2 :::: Fauntleroy; 3 :::: Fortson; 4=longfeUow; S =Piper's; and. 6 :o::Thornton Creek. dol: 1 0.13 71/jouma1.pone.OO23424 .gOO 1 Study Subjects Coho salmon in this study were all within the Pu get Sound / Strait o f G eorgia Evolutio naril y Significant Unit (ES U). An ESU is ::~.: PloS ONE I www.p losone.o rg .. 3 deftned as a group of populations that 1) art: substantially reproductively isolated from conspecific populations and 2) collectively represent an important co mponent in the evo lutionary August 20 11 I Volume 6 I Iss ue 8 I e23424 legacy of the species [20]. Currently, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho are designated a "species of concern" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act [21]. Coho typically spawn in small Qower order) streams in the Puget Sound lowlands in late fall and early winter an~ their fry emerge from stream substrates from March to May. Fry reside in riverine habitats for 14-18 months, smolt, migrate to marine environments where they grow rapidly and mature (16-20 months), and fmally ·migrate to their natal basins where they spawn and die [22]. The adult spawners from the six study basins were both marked (adipose fm dipped) and unmarked, suggesting a mix of hatchery and wild origins. Coho Spawner Mortality We used existing monitoring data collected as part of daily and weekly spawner surveys in each of the six study locations (fable 1). Data were collected during the fall spawning season from 2000-• 2009 by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the Wild Fish Conservancy, and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC). Streams were checked every few days in the early fall (usually the first or second week in October, depending on rainfall) until the first adult coho was observed. The streams were then surveyed daily for the duration of the fall run, until the last carcass was docwnented, typically in the first or second week of December. For several years, biologists working for the City of Seattle (Wild Fish Conservancy) also surveyed many of the same urban streams for coho spawner mortality on a weekly basis. Side-by-side compar- isons of daily and weeldy survey data (e.g., for Longfellow Creek in 2005 and 2007) revealed practically no loss of carcasses to scavengers. Accordingly, we included the weeldy survey data in our analyses. The entirety of the available spawning habitat within a given urban drainage was surveyed for premature adult coho mortality. For some streams, including Longfellow Creek, mid-stream barriers to upstream migration confmed adults to the lower portions of the drainage. This made it possible, in the course of a few hours as part of a daily survey, to inspect all sections of the strearJ? that 1) had a gravel substrate suitable for redds (spawning "nests" built by femal~s), and 2) were focal areas for repeated (year-to-year) redd building during successive spawner runs. Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Monitoring data were not collected at all sites for all years (fable 1). Mortality among returning coho was quantified only for females on the basis of egg retention -i.e., the number ofpartia11y spawned or unspawned female carcasses observed in streams over an entire spawning season. Notably, the total number of returning adults was low for some years and some basins (fable 1). Nevertheless, the aggregate spawner survey data used in this analysis are the most comprehensive currently available. Geospatiai Dataiayers We used existing geospatial datalayers as our source of potential predictor variables and as a proxy for habitat type and condition. The datalayers were generated by a variety of organizations for planning and analytical purposes, making them suitable for running spatial analyses on habitat. They were also available over the entire spatial domain of our predictive model. We used four geospatial datalayers: Land-cover of the Greater Puget Sound Region [23,24); impervious and impacted surfaces (25); property type (compiled from King [26], Kitsap [27), Pierce (28] and Snohomish county (29] tax parcel databases), and roadways (Puget Sound Regional Council; PSRC [30]). The Land-cover of Puget Sound datalayer is the highest quality and most accurate depiction of land use and land cover in the Puget Sound lowlands. The datalayer used 30 m gridded lAND- SAT TM imagery from 2002, which was extensively analyzed and corrected to produce an accurate (83% overall accuracy, [24]) depiction of land use and land cover conditions. To reduce the total number of potential predictor variables, we only used the dense urban (>75%); light to medium urban «75%); and grass, crops and/or shrubs categories. We also combined the mixed and deciduous forest with the coniferous forest category and named it forests. The impervious and impacted surfaces datalayer was derived from a 2001 LANDSAT TM: image with 30 m pixels and an accuracy of 83-91 % [25].. This datalayer depicts high to completely imp.enneable surfaces such as building roofs; concrete or asphalt roads and parking lots; concrete, asphalt or brick sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and malIs; etc. . One of the limitations of these two datalayers was that the pixel size of the source LANDSAT TM imagery is 30 m, so smaller Table 1. Coho spawner mortality proportion and cumulative number of female carcasses enumerated (in parentheses) by site (columns) and year (rows). Des Moines Fauntleroy Fortson1 Lon9t'ellow Piper's Thornton ~g~~1~~~~1f~~ifu~~ii;~~2~~ji1~~~~~lf~i~~~~f~~~~~~:f1~~j~lJi::~).L~L~~~~r;f:~~~fJL~~~~~lli_~~~;EJj; 2001 0.22 (9) 0.61 (111) 0.70 (37) 0.82 (11) ~~I~i~::r~~~~f!:!"il:FJ~~~~~~~~'t~~~E1T:1ft~~J~r~~~~.t¥!)~.i:~I]~!t~J)Jrf~~~~@wI~~g:~l~J 2003 (0) 0.67 (18)-0.00 (1) 1.00 (2) ~~2ii~fo~1Wt1~~il}A:~j§lI1i~iif~~~J~~~~~~~~:r~A~(Wj~~~1~d~;t~i§i:,~~~~f:Z[4Q~'m£f&~t.~ 2005 O.7S (4) 0.72 (75)-0.75 (4) 0.50 (8) 2007 0.75 (4) 0.73 (41)-0.20 (5) 0.80 (5) 2009 0.78 (36)a A dash (-) indicates survey was not conducted for that year/site. -Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) daily surveys, all others were weekly and collected by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) or the Wild Fish Conservancy [51,52]. 'Non-urban site. doi: 1 0.1371/journal.pone.0023424.tOO 1 -:~ .. PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 4 August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 , features, such as roads and precise land cover boundaries, were not adequately captured. In order to address this deficiency, we analyzed property types and roadways, as they are represented as precise polyline and polygon delineations of the corresponding land cover variables. The boundaries in these geospatial datalayers were derived from precise survey data from major metropolitan areas, collected over many years by King, IGtsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The prop=:rty types (parcels) datalayer was based on ground surveyed delineations of property, which are used for taxation purposes, with positional accuracy of +/-12 m or less [26,27,28,29]. The original number of parcel types described by each county was between 103 and 292. Using the descriptions in the documentation that accompanied the datalayers, we were able to place each of the original parcel types into one of the five following categories: apartments and condominiums; commercial; industrial; parks and open space; and, residential. The roadways datalayer was based on ground surveyed road and street centerlines. Each segment had a corresponding functional classification (FC##) code and width, as defmed by the Federal Highway Administration (31J Highway Performance Monitoring System, and the Puget Sound Regional Council [30J, respectively. We reduced the original nine functional classification types down to two categories: 1) heavily used roads (rural minor collector [FC08); urban principal arterial -interstate [FCII]; urban principal arterial-other freeways and expressways [FCI2]; urban principal arterial -other [FCI4J; urban or rural minor arterial [FC 16 or FC06]; urban collector [FC 17]); and, 2) urban or rural local access roads (FC09 or FCI9). We then calculated the total area (total length of given street centerline segment multiplied by its width) of each street functional classification for each corresponding site basin. Spatial Analyses We defined the area of influence of the surrounding landscape for each site as the total area draining into that site (basin). Drainage basins for each site were generated using the 'flowaccumulation' command in Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS (v. 9.3). We used a United States Geological Swvey (USGS) 10 m digital elevation model (D£M) as the underlying terrain for generating basins. We then intersected the corresponding basin boundary for each of the six sites with each of the geospatial datalayers and their associated categories using ArcGIS. We quantified each geospatial datalayer and its associated category in a given basin as the fraction or proportion of the total area of the basin occupied by that geospatial datalayer or category. Longfellow Creek stood apart from the other sites in terms of the accuracy of the flow accumulation model because an unknown fraction of stonnwater runoff in this drainage is diverted into the municipal sewer system. Therefore, the theoretical basin area, based on the terrain represented in the OEM, was not as representative of the true basin area compared with the other five sites. Statistical Analyses We used generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs; [32,33J) to test the relationships between geospatial variables and coho spawner mortality. The response was binomial (obsetved number of female spawner mortalities each year, given the total number of female coho that returned to each site) and the models used a logit link function. All models included a random effect of site on the intercept, which accounts for nonindependence of the repeated samples taken at each site. We constructed a set of 139 candidate models by considering all combinations of the 12 -:~~ PloS ONE I www.plosone.org .. s Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams preclictors taken one, two, three or four at a time, with the restriction that a model could include at most one predictor from each of the four geospatial datalayers Qand cover, impervious surfaces, property types, and roadways). We also excluded combinations of predictors that had a pai:wise Spearman rank correlation exceeding 0.9 in absolute value. The candidate set included an intercept-only model as a no-etTect baseline against which we could assess the predictive power of the geospatial variables. We fitted the models using the Laplace approximation to the marginal likelihood [32J in the lme4 package in R (34,35]. We then used Akaike's infonnation criterion, corrected for sample size (AlC.:) to rank the strength of evidence for each candidate model based on the data. Akaike's information criterion is a weight-of- evidence measure that reflects the balance between a model's goodness-of-fit to the data and its parsimony (i.e., number of parameters). Lower Alec values indicate greater support, and are reported as differences (.dAlC.:) relative to the best (smallest) value in the candidate set. We computed Akaike weights [36J, which represent the relative support for each model, nonnalized so the weights sum to unity across the candidate set. We used these weights to compute model-averaged estimates and unconditional standard errors (SEs) for the fl)(ed regression coefficients, and we quantified the relative importance of each predictor using variable weights (i.e., the summed Akaike weights of all models that included that predictor; [36)). These model averaging calculations were based on the 95% confidence set of mode~ (i.e., the top- ranked models whose cumulative Akaike weight is 0.95), after re- nonnalizing the weights. Mapping coho spawner mortality Using the fitted models, we built a map of predicted coho spawner mortality throughout the four counties (King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish) representing much of the Puget Sound lowlands, by applying the GLMM: equations to geospatial data from unmonitored basins. We used basins delineated in the National Hydrography Dataset Plus [37) as the underlying mapping unit (300 ha mean, 466 ha SD) and intersected the NHDPlus datalayer with each of the geospatial datalayers used in the statistical analyses. Within the four-county region, we only made spawner mortality predictions in basins where coho salmon presence has been documented, based on current geospatial datalayers generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [38]. We then calculated the proportion of each basin that was covered by the selected landscape feature. We generated predicted values of the proportion of mortalities from each model in the 95% confidence set and then model-averaged these values using the nonnalized Akaike weights [36J. These predictions apply to the average basin in the Puget Sound coho ESU with some given set of habitat conditions, in the sense that the random effect of site was set to zero. To be conservative in representing the precision of the predicted values, we divided the calculated rates of likely coho spawner mortality into three bins: <10%, 10-50%, and >50%. These break points were chosen somewhat arbitrarily to represent low, medium and high spawner mortality rates. Results We found strong associations between land use and land cover attributes and rates of coho spawner mortality. Across the 95% confidence set of fitted models, three variables were particularly important for predicting mortality based on high variable weights: impervious surfaces, local roads, and commercial property type (Table 2 and Figure 2). There was substantial model selection August 201 1 I Volume 6 I Issue a I e23424 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Table 2. AIC weights, model averaged parameter estimates and unconditional confidence intervals for each variable, ranked by AIC c weight. Model ~~~F~~~~~~~~~;f.;.~~~~~J~~~~9c~~~~~j~¥~~~~~~~~if~~~~ Datalayer Variable weight coefficient SE ~§:~b~~¥k=ifu~40)ii~Pf&~I~~.ffi.f~?£:~Jl~~~7~~fi~$\~3~iL¥8.~~4?j<~~~1if~Th¥f@"F~i~:n?~l~}f~~t;7f.;{~tl~~ Roadways local roads 05647 -15.6199 683331 ~1f;;;~}{;:~f~~~rs.olW!~i~!r~.£~~~£~~:$f:lrt¥~?Zf0-1,l.o7~:~l:~:1;?l?a~Ji~~1Ejt~~~~~I¥I~~b~:t;x'§ land cover Dense utban 0.3865 -7.7776 16.1614 ~~tiPe~~;i~!lt~~~t;:~~~~~0.:~~~~;~~~{1t~~,ft~~~~~~~1t2i~~~~~S Roadways Heavily used roads 0.2019 5.3445 31.5073 ~~~J~~~r~~li~£~~~~@l·.~::~.§~~~~IkI~f:1f~~~i1I~1t1f~~E~]~~&~~~~~~~ land cover Ught to medium urban 0.1149 0.3250 2.9751 Property type Residential 0.0975 0.0738 16.8920 fi~Jr~%~JI~~~~~~i~~~r~~~~~¥jt@\~llt¥~~~ft~t~~M~~~~1ib~~1~ Property type Parks & open space doi: 1 0.1371 /joumal.pone'<Xl23424.tOO2 uncertainty, reflected in a large 95% confidence set and large number of models with LiAIC c <2.0 (37 and 8 of 139 candidate models, respectively; Table 3). In addition, although we excluded highly multicollinear combinations of variables (I rl >0.9). many variables were still strongly correlated, resulting in unstable parameter estimates and large unconditional SE estimates (Table 2). Nonetheless. predictive models that included land use and land cover attributes as predictors were clearly superior to the intercept·only model (LiAIC~ = 20.4; Table 3), supporting the association of these variables with coho mortality. While the multicollinearity among potential predictors made causal interpretation of the models difficult, it did not preclude predictions of when:: coho salmon are likely to be affected along an urbanization gradient. Not surprisingly, the highest predicted mortality rates were clustered around the major metropolitan areas of eastern Puget Sound, contained within Snohomish, King, Kitsap, and Pierce counties (Figure 3). In addition, there is a significantly sized area in Eastern Puget Sound that has considerable proportions of the variables Qocal roads, impervious surface and commercial parcels) most correlated with substantial mortality rates. It is important to note that these predicted values have substantial associated uncertainty and should therefore be interpreted cautiously; however, it is reasonable to use them for assigning the break points for the low, medium, and high mortality rate categories represented on the map. Discussion Overall, we have used conventional tools in landscape ecology to shed light on an unusually complex ecotoxicological challenge. Our analyses strongly suggest that specific characteristics of basins in the Puget Sound lowlands are linked to the die-offs of coho spawners that have been widely observed in recent years. . Across basins, the strength of the association is greatest for impervious surfaces, local roads, and commercial property. We did not evaluate hydrologic or geomorphic basin characteristics as part of our analysis. Nevertheless, our findings support the hypothesis that coho are being killed by as-yet unidentified toxic chemical contaminants that originate from these types of surfaces .~. PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org ' .... 6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 and are transported to salmon spawning habitats via stormwater runoff. Our results extend a large body of scientific information linking urbanization (broadly defined) and degraded water quality to a loss of biological integrity (sensu Karr [39]) and productivity in freshwater stream networks [18,40,41]. Previous studies have generally related land use and land cover variables to rnacrom- vertebrate assemblages in streams [42]. or to the relative abundance of salmon and other fish (e.g., [22,43,44]). The present analysis is novel because it relates basin characteristics directly to salmon health and survival, versus species presence or absence. Moreover, it offers new insights on the water quality aspects of urban runoff. The focus of most salmon restoration projects is physical characteristics of spawning and rearing habitat [45]. Most salmon specific restoration projects are deemed successful if they simply restore the physical habitat to a suitable state for a given species [46]. Our study suggests that suitable spawning and rearing habitat may not be supportive of coho salmon persistence when the surrounding landscape is urbanized. The linkages between increased impervious coverage within a basin, increased storm· water runoff, altered hydrologic processes, and ecological decline are well established (e.g., [IB]). However, stonnwater impacts encompass both physical and chemical drivers of decline, and it can be difficult to distinguish between these via in situ assessments because stream invertebrate communities integrate both stressor categories. Coho salmon spawners, by contrast, appear to be promising and specific sentinels for the degraded water quality aspect of urban runoff. Compared to macroinvertebrate sampling and taxa identification, the coho mortality syndrome is relatively easy and inexpensive for non.specialists to monitor in the form of digital video recordings of symptomatic fish, or the presence of unspawned female carcasses in streams. Interestingly, the mortality syndrome appears to be specific to coho salmon. For example, there were temporally overlapping runs of coho and chum salmon (0. keta) in Piper's Creek in the fall of 2006. Whereas all of the adult coho succumbed to the mortality syndrome, the chwn were unaffected, with nearly all surviving to spawn (I30 of 135 spawned out female carcasses; Scholz et al., unpublished data). Consistent with this, the survey August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 1.0 0.9 O.B 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 o Des Moines o Fauntleroy P. Fortson .0" longfEiliow ... p:iper's 1l Thornton ECOfoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams o o • 8 0.1 O.O+-'O--~~--~-,.,...--o--~~---~",---~ 0.00 1.0 0.9 O.B 0.7 :il' 0.6 ~ 0.5 o :;;. 0.4 0.3 0.2. 0.1 0.0 0.10 • .0 ,. ., • •. 8 • 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 .Imperv~ous 0 " B " Iii 1\, o 0 0 " 0.00 0.02: 0.04 0.06 O,OB 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 Commercial' 1.0 0 " • 0.9 B " O.B 0.7 0.6 Iii " 0 • • 0 0 0 • ,~,S 0.4 • 0.3 0.2 8 0.1 0.0 '. a ~ 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Local roads' Figure 2. Female coho spawner mortality as a function of the proportion of each of the top three predictors in a given site basin, at the six study sites. Individual points correspond to specific years for each site. Mortality expressed as proportion of all returning females that died in a given year. Solid circle = Des Moines; hollow circle = Fauntleroy; solid square = Fortson; hollow square"" Longfellow; solid triangle = Piper's; hollow triangle = Thornton Creek. doi:l 0.' 371/journal.pone.OO23424.g002 teams have not observed the characteristic symptoms· (e.g.; surface swimming, gaping) among other fish species that inhabit urban streams such as sticklebacks and cutthroat trout. Not only are coho unusual in this respect, the phenomenon appears to be restricted to the adult life stage. In the fall of 2003, surface flows from Longfellow Creek were diverted through streamside sheds .:~. PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 7 housing aquaria that contained individual juvenile coho from the NWFSC hatchery. The juveniles (n:;:; 20) were maintained and observed daily throughout the fall spawner run. Overall juvenile survival was 100%, and the juveniles behaved normally, even on days when symptomatic adults were observed in the nearby stream (Scholz et al., unpublished data). The underlying reasons August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 Table 3. Summary of the 95% confidence set (37 of a total of '39 candidate models) of candidate models used to generate map of mortality rates, showing intercepts, estimated coefficients, .6.AICc and WA1Cc.lntercept only model included at bottom for reference. Model Equation AAICc W".C;c f[b~~~:r~~.~l~L6(~iB;HE~j1S~~t~~~~.i~~::o.Q?~~~ c+d+b -3.921S-10956(b}+48.75(c)-29.98(d) 0.046 0.0912 -4.4921 + 12.61 (a)+ 14.03(c) -754(d) 0.579 0.0698 r~~2if.~;~~~~i,~!?JJ!>£~~I~~g~~~~jift;~~~~1..t:o~~1~ h+a+b -2.606S+15.89(a}+30.87(b)-238(h) 1.150 0.0525 f1~W.~~~~~~~l~?l~mIT~~~~~~~~~l~[~ d+a+b -4.7001 +17 .52(a}+43.83(b)+ 1.62(d) 1.576 0.0424 c+d+i+b -3.0628-83.44(b)+5638(c)-40.28(d)-7 .82~) 2.485 0.0269 gf.j:~fb~~~73055~;3Q72(br+i1~3(~)~'19~ii(ij:i:ro:6soj~;r2543i%o.o262;} ~..:.....=",,~~~:::.:;..",:,-'T~ .. ~ --;;:;:::...;;.o-:<;;t:;·c:';'''':'''''~''S'':~.<:::'''"'~::rJ""~:::~,~·.t",,,t .. :~ c+d+-k+b -3.9266-9452(b}+4332(c)-25.00(d)-1.60(k) 2.613 0.0253 ~th~~;r~~~rlf+j§;i~~);Tri~i?9;53~~~;+;~;2.:?~~~.:~23~~ c+d+a+b -4.0864+3.99(a)-76.44(b)+38.23(c)-23.27(d) 2.885 0.0221 =~iii.Pl·?,~~JBlt?~~~m~l1iiJgt~~flf9~~~l c+d+e+b -3.9607-1oo.49(b)+46.40(c)-27.43(dj-554(e) 2.954 0.0213 ~+eJi.~~~~~~t[~i~t~f~~~~!j1.~j~~'~~l c+g+e+f -3.8534+12.93(c}-40.45(e)+38.73(f)-0.18(g} 3.294 0.0180 ~mri~~,~~i~L~ff41.~!1~~~i~~ii~~~'itt~ c+g+a+f -4.6143+16.25(a)+5.79(cj-13.40(f)+4.06(g) 3.378 0.0172 ~:rdxt~9676~~97(df¥2~~:*·o.o;68~ ~~~=. -~-~ ____ ~" --_=-=. ~-V"~~~"' ____ "2"_' __ h+i+b 9.391'-153.97(b)-17.49(hj+15.89(i) 3.858 0.0136 ~~~"-""""~'~~'-""~V'-':t.~",~~~~~~,",¥",,",,'":.~~,~ ~1G;;3.2?_4.~1W~9:~(e11?·_38(f)<z? Jl_(l)j,3$~ii..'W;f.t?f:z~1J~~·0)3,~i1 h+a 1.2512+B.63(aj-6.13(h) 4.028 0.0124 ~F~~t~tt~~~I§~~~r<I~ff~tli"~E~?1~l:~:?i9f~~~~1!~J!9£ 5.8364-27.35(b)-1139(h)-5.97(k) 4.837 0.0083 ~~~~~1~~~!Tif~!~l1flt~J~~i~~?1~~~ c+j+-k+b -2.4511 -S230(b}+20.45(c)-13.340)-10.60(k) 4.937 0.0079 ~~~-;:7~13l~J~i~~~~mJJJ~~~~!1f.~~~i~ c+e+b -4.4680-1.36(bl+ 19.52(c)-S2.48(e) 5.158 0.0071 ~Ji'Jl~rt~i;;sr?W2~~i'f~~:P.(~~~~i~r~;f~~~:};1i8iiQ$b.~tl 8.1285 -2052(b)-45.07(e) -14.67(h) 5.509 0.0059 c+i+b -5.6775 -141.73(b)+22.77(c)+ 17 .24(1) 5.821 0.0051 fEtRwf;~~Et,~JI~JEf~1a::!~J~~~~~~?~£~ h+a+f 0.4930+6.87(a)+19.67(f)-5.22(h) 6.083 0.0045 ~5~~~B.r~~.~:f~lt1kt~~h.~~~~~~~~~~~ Intercept N/A 20.428 0 only Model weights shown here are re-normalized for the set of 37 top-ranked models shown. a =commercial; b = local roads; c =impervious; d = dense urban; e = apartments and condominiums; f = heavily used roads; g;: light to medium urban; h = forest; i = residential; j = grass, crops anc:\Jor shrubs; and, k= industrial. doi: 1 0.1371/journal.pone.OO23424.tOO3 for the syndrome's surprising uniqueness to adult coho are not yet known. Daily or weekly stream surveys are labor intensive, and for this reason only a subset of urban drainages in Puget Sound have been .~: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 8 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams monitored to date. The GIS-based mapping tool developed for this study can be used to focus future monitoring efforts on basins with a higher likelihood of coho die-offs based on land cover attributes. In addition to the basins we have identified within the range of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU, this approach could be extrapolated to other geographic ateas where coho return to spawn along a gradient of urban growth and development. This includes, for example, coho from the Lower Colwnbia River ESU, a threatened population segment with a spawner range encom- passing the greater metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon. Overall, future surveys will ground-truth initial model outputs and provide additional data that can be used to improve the predictive accuracy of the mapping tool. Our fmdings have two near-term applications. First, they identify likely "hotspots" for coho spawner mortality throughout central Puger Sound. Given that recurring adult losses at a rate greater than approximately 10% are likely to substantially reduce local population abundances, the high mortality basins in Figure 3 (lQ-50% and >50% predicted mortality categories) may represent sink habitats for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin ESU. This is an important consideration for coho recovery planning at the local, county, and regional scales. Second, our results indicate areas where toxic runoff could potentially undennine stream restoration efforts· specifically, strategies that improve physical and biological habitat conditions (flow, connectivity, channel complexity, ripar- ian function, etc.) as a means to boost coho population productivity. The potential influence of rainfall, including timing, frequency, and individual storm intensity, remains an area of active investigation. Throughout the years of stream surveys, it has been qualitatively evident that rainfall influences the mortality syndrome. For example, salmon that arrive and enter a stream during an extended dry interval (a week or more) often survive and then become symptomatic and die when it next rains (Scholz et al., unpublished data). One of our aims in surveying Longfellow Creek (the stream with the most abundant overall returns) for more than a decade was to evaluate inter·annual variation in coho spawner mortality in relation to rainfall. However, a quantitative analysis has proven problematic due to highly variable rainfall patterns in combination 'Nith low adult returns in some years. It is clear, however, that the syndrome is not a simple fIrst-flush phenomenon. In most years, both egg retaining and spawned out carcasses were observed across the 8- 10 week fall run, irrespective of the number and size of rain events over that interval. Over the longer term, an approach similar to the one developed here could be used to forecast the likely impacts of future human population growth and development on Puget Sound coho populations that are currently healthy. For example, the expansion of local road networks is a core focus for urban growth planning, and these projections could serve as a basis for evaluating how and where coho spawner mortality will increase under different growth management scenarios_ This, in tum, would inform strategies to reduce or mitigate toxic runoff in highly productive basins, in advance of expanding transportation infrastructure -i.e., prevention vs. costly retrofits to the built environment Also, our modeling approach could be expanded to include the timing and intensity of rainfall as potential drivers for coho spawner mortality. Rainfall patterns may be a key determinant of stormwater quality, although more work in this area is needed. Climate change is expected to shift regional rainfall patterns, and it should be possible to explore how this will interact with changing land cover (urbanization) to influence stonnwater quality and toxic runoff to coho spawning habitats. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 ,:~. PloS ONE I www,plosone,org " ." 9 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality In Urban Streams • Study .It •• ~ Predicted mortality < 0 N A 10km = August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I eB424 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams Figure 3. Predictive map of modeled coho spawner mortality rates within the Puget Sound lowlands. Mortality rates are a function of the proportion of key landscape variables within a given basin. Green, yellow and red areas indicate basins with predicted rates of spawner mortality (as a percentage of total fall runs) of <10%,10-50%, and >50%, respectively. Black dots denote locations of the six study sites that were the basis for this analysis. Thick dashed black line depicts the southern boundary of the coho salmon Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Basins that do not have documented presence of coho salmon [38] are not represented on the map, even if they have landscape conditions associated with coho spawner mortality. Key for site numbers: 1 = Des Moines; 2 -= Fauntleroy; 3 = Fortson; 4 = Longfellow; 5 = Piper's; and, 6 = Thornton Creek. dol:' o. 1 37'/journar.pone.00~3424.g003 While not definitive, our results reinforce the parsimonious explanation that coho deaths are caused by one or more contaminants originating from motor vehicles. As noted earlier, this is important because it narrows the list of candidate toxies in complex urban landscapes. Future toxicological studies should focus on two ubiquitous urban runoff contaminant classes in particular. The first are metals in brake pads and other vehicle friction materials. Copper, zinc, and other metals are known to specifically target the fish gill, thereby disrupting respiration and osmoregulation [47]. The second, PAHs, [14,48,49] are taken up across the fish gill, and can impair cardiac function and respiration [50]. The symptoms displayed by affected coho (surface swinuning, gaping, loss of equilibrium, etc.) are consistent with a dis~ption of respiration, osmoregulation, or circulation, or some combination of these. Notably, PAHs and metals usually cause the above toxicological effects at concentrations well above those typically detected in urban streams. However, the majority of conventional toxicology studies using salmonids focus on freshwater species (e.g., rainbow trout) or the freshwater life stages of juvenile anadromous species. There are practically no toxicity data for coho salmon at the adult spawner stage. Many important osmoregulatory changes take References I. Weirutein MP, Baird RC, Conover DO, Gross M, Keularu J, et al. (2007) Managing coastal reso= in the 21st century. Frontien in F..:::ology and the Environment 5: 43--48. 2. Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (20[0) Final R~ommendations of the Interagt:ncy Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC: The White House Council on Environmental Quality. 96 p. 3. Pew Oceans Commission (2003) Amuica's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, Virginia: Pew Charitable Trusts. 166 p. 4. U.S. Commission on O<:ean Policy (2004) An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Fmal Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 676 p. 5. Spromberg jA, Meador JP (2006) Relating chronic toxkity responses to population-level effeets: A comparison of population-level parameters for three salmon species as a function of low-level toxicity. Ecological Modelling 199: 240-252. 6. Raverty S, Kieser D, Bagshaw J, St-Hilaire S (2000) Renal infestation with PlJ1ViuJpsula minibicomis in wild sockeye salmon from the Harrison and Adams riven in British Columbia. Canadian Veterinary Journal 41: 317-316. 7. St-Hilaire S, Boichuk M, Bames 0, Higgim M, Devlin R, et al. (2002) Epizootiology of ParoiclJ/lSltla minihicomu in Fraser River sockeye salmon, OIIco,.,y..u:hw nm:a (Walbaurn). journal of FISh Diseases 25: 107-120. 8. Kocan R, Henhberger P, Winton J (2004) Ichthyophoniasis: An emerging d.iseoue of Chinook salmon in the Yukon River. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 16: 58-72. 9. Keefer ML, Taylor GA, Garletts DF, Gauthier GA, Pierce TM, et al. (2010) Prespawn mortality in adult spring Chinook salmon outplanted above barrier da.ms. Ecology of Freshwater Fuh 19: 361-372. 10. McCarthy SG, Incardona jP, Scholz NL (2008) Coastal Storms, Toxic Runolf, and the Sustainable Conservation ofFISh and FISheries. In: McLaughlin KD, ed. Mitigating Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishery Ecosystems. Bethesda, MD: American FlSheries Society. pp 7-27. 11. Spromberg JA, Scholz NL (2011) Estimating the futun:: decline of wild coho salmon poplulation due to premature spawner die-offs in urbanizing watenheds, of the PacifIC NonhwesL Integrated Environmental As:!CS$ment and Manage- ment;doi: 10.1002/ieam.219. 12. Hoffman RS, Capd PD, Lanon SJ (2000) Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19: 2249-2258. 13. Tiefentha.ler LL, Stein ED, Schiff KG (2008) Watenhed and land use-based sources of trace metals in urban storm water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27: 277-287 . . .-@.: PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org 10 place during the transition from seawater prior to spawning, and these may render adult coho more vulnerable to metals and PARs than freshwater-resident salmonids. Adding to this complexity is the possibility of interactive toxicity (e.g., synergism) among contaminant mixtures. Studies that experimentally reproduce the familiar symptomology and mortality in adult coho, under controlled exposure conditions with environmentally realistic mixtures of metals and PARs, will likely be necessary to definitively implicate motor vehicles. Acknowledgments We thank John Williams and an anonymous reviewer for significantly improv.ing previous drafts of this manuscript Disclaimer: the fmdin~, conclusions and views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeIVice. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: BEF JWD NLS. Performed the experiments: BEF ERB PA. Analyzed the data: BEF ERB PA. Wrote the paper: BEF ERE NLS. 14. Stein ED, Ttefenthaler LL, Schiff K (2006) Watershed-based sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban Slonn water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25: 373-38.5. 15. Conko KM, Rice KC, Kennedy MM (2004) Atmospheric wet deposition of !raCe elementlilO a suburban environment, Reston, Virginia, USA. Atmospheric Environment 38: 4025-4033. 16. Davis AP, Shokouhian M, Ni SB (2001) Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmiwn, and ~inc in urban runoff from specific: sources. Ghemosphen:: 44: 997-1009. 17. Bourcier DR, Hindin E (1979) Lead, iron, chromium and zinc in road runoff at Pullman, Washington. Science of the Total Environment 12: 205-215. 18. Booth DB, jack$on CR (1997) Urbanization of aquatic ~ystems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limifll of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 1077-1090. 19. Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA, May If, Waite IR (2010) Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to en\ironmental changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan area'!. Ecological Applications 20: 1384-1401. 20. Johnson 0, Waples R. Wainwright T, Neely 1<., Waknia F, et aI. (1994) StatuS Review for Oregon's Umpqua River Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. 21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004) Endangt:n::d and Threatened Species; Establishment of Species of Concem List, Addition of Specia to Species of Concern List, Desc:ription ofFa.cton for Identifying Species of Concern, and Revis.ion of Candidate Species List Under the Endangered 22. ·23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Species Act Federal Register. pp 19975-19979. Peu GR, Montgomery DR, Steel EI\, Bilby RE, Feist BE, et al. (2002) Landscape characteristics, land use, and eoho salmon (~ .\irut&h) abumiance, Snohonrish lliver, Wash., USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 613-623. Alberti M, Weeu R, Cae S (2004) Urban land-cover change analysis in Central Puget Sound. Photogranunetric Engineering and Remote $enring 70: 1043-1052. Alberti M, Weeks R, HepsintallJ, Russell C, Coe S, et al. (2004) Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model: 2002 Land-cover Analysis of the Greater Puget Sound Region. Seattle, WA Univemty of Washington. 26 p. Homer C, Huang G, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 200 1 National Landcover Database for the United Statt3. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70: 829-840. King County (2000) King County Tax P;m:cls. CD-ROM. Seattle, WA King County. Kitsap County (2010) Land Infonnation System (I.JS~ Tax Parcds. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 28. Pierce County (2008) Tax Parcels. Tacoma, WA: Pierce: County Assessor- Treasurer. 29. Snohomish County (2010) Parcels Snohomish County Assessor. 30. Puget Sound Regional Council (2005) Road centerlines and widths. Available: http://www.psrc.org.Ac=d: 2005 Aug 16. 31. Federal Highway Administration (1989) Functional Classifx;ation Guidelines U.S. Department ofTransponation. 34 p. 32. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark.C], Gcange SW, PoubenJR, et al. (2009) Generalized linear mixc:d modeh: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 127-135. 33. Gelman A, Hill ] (2007) Data analysis using regression and muitilevdl hierarchical models. New York. NY: Cambridge Univernty Press. 648 p. 34. Pinheiro ]e, Bates DM (2001) Mixed-dfecu modds in S and S-PLUS; Chambersj, Eddy W, Hardle W, Sheather S, Tierney L, eds. New York, NY: Springer Verlag. S28 p. 3S. R Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2.12.0 ed Vienna, All5tria: The R Development Core T~. 36. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodd inference: A practical infonnation theoretie approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 488p. 37. U.s. Environmental Protection ~ncy, U.S. Geological Survey (2OOS) National Hydrography Dataset Plus -NHDPlus. Available: hnp:llwww.horizon-$)'$lCIIl5. comlNHDPluslHSC-wthI7.php. Accessed: 2010 May 26. 38. Washlngton Department ofFISh and Wlldlife (2011) 1:24,000 FISh Distribution of Washington State: Wasrungton Lakes and Rivers Information System (WLRlS) -flShdist. February 2011 ed. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of FISh and WlldJife. 39. Karr jR (1991) Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management. Ecological Applications I: 66-84. 40. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K, Coburn B, Avolio C, et al. (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystemS: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-hasiru. Landscape and Urban P1anning 80: 345-361. 41. Wengtt Sj, Roy AH, Ja.cluon CR, Bernhardt ES, Caner TL, et al. (2009) Twenty-six key research questions in urban stream ecology: an asst':$SJllent of the State of the science. journal of the North American Iknthological Society 28: 1080-1098. '~@' PLoS ONE I www.plosone.org .. 11 Ecotoxicology of Salmon Mortality in Urban Streams 42. Morley SA, KarT jR (2002) Assessing and fcstOring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology 16: 1498-IS09. 43. Bilby RE, Mollot LA (2008) Effect of changing land use pattenlS on the distribution of coho salmon (Oncari!Ynchw kUu/.ch) in the Puget Sound region. CanaclianJoumal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 2138-2148. 44. Feist BE, Steel EA,jensen DW, Sather DND (2010) Does the scale of our observational window affect our conclusions about correlations between endangered salmon populations and their habitat? Landscape Ecology 2S: 727-743. 45. Committee on Protection and M~ment of Pacif..: Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, National Research Council (1996) Habitat Management and Rehabilitatioll. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. WashingtOn, DC: National Academy PreSil. pp 204-225. 46. Katz SL, Barnas K, Hicks R, Cowenj,jenlcinwn R (2007) Freshwater Habitat Restoration Actions in the Pacific Northwest: A Decade's Invesnnent in Habitat Improvement. Restoration Ecology 15: 494--505. 47. Niyogl S, Wood CM (2004) Biotic Ligand Model, a F1exlble Tool for Developing Site-SpeciflC Water Quality Guidelines for Metals. Environmental Sc;ence &. Technology 38: 6177-£192. 48. Holfman Ed, LatimerjS, Mills GL, QuinnjG (1982) Petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff from a commercial land use area..joumal Water PoUution Control Federation S4: ISI7-1525. 49. Whipple W, HunterJV (1979) Petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff.journal of me American Water Resources Association IS: 1096-1 lOS. 50. Claireaux G, Davoodi F (2010) Effect of exposure to petrOleum hydrocarbons upon eardio-respiratory function in the common $Ole (So/to solta). Aquatic Toxicology 98: 113-119. Sl. Md .... illan B (2007) The Spawning Survey Findings from Seattle's Thornton, Piper's, Longfdlow, Fauntleroy and Taylor Creeks, September 21, 2006 to january 24, 2007. Also including the cumulative spawning survey data from 1999-2006 and Des Moines Creek in 2003 and 2004. Seattle, Washington, USA: Seattle Public Utilitia. 52. Wild FISh Conservancy (2008) Spawning Survey Findings from Seame'l Thormon, Piper'" Longfellow, Fauntleroy and Taylor Creeks. Seattle, Washington, USA: Seattle Public Utilities. August 2011 I Volume 6 I Issue 8 I e23424 Denis law . Mayor -' , . October 5; 2012 Claudia Donnelly' '. 10415 -l<tth Ave 5E Renton, WA 98059 . Department,of C~mmuhity and Economic Development , 'CE,"Chip:'Viricent, Administrator " " ' " . SUBJECT: 'Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat, LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD .• Dear Mrs, Donnelly: Thank you for your comments and que'stions regarding the Piper's Bluff Pr~liminary Plat; dated October 3,,2012, Your letter has. been iriciudedin th.eoffidal project file, Your' comments ,will tie considered by the reviewing offiCial before making a deCision on this ..' ..' -, . " . . '. -, project, To answer y~urquestions, the applicantis,requiredtoret~in 30 percent of the trees .' ·Iocatedori site that 'are not Io.cated within critical areas', proposed rights-of-way arid' . accesseasements, Ofthe 211 treeslocated on site 54 trees would be exciudedfromthe ' tree ,retentio.n req~irements,Therefore, the applicant 'wQuldberequired to retain at least47 trees on site: The applica'nt lias only proposed to retain' one tree outside,of the critical areas and their buffers,' , : When the required numtierof prot~cted trees cannorbe retained, ne\'\/ trees,with a two-inch caliper or gre'lter, shall be planted:The replacement rate shall be li~caliper inches o(newtreestci replace each protecteijtre~ removed, The applicant.is proposing a tota'i of 185, 3-caliperJeplace'ment trees, for, a total of 555-caliper, inches, in'orderto : meet the tree retention/replacement requirements withinthe CitlsCode, . . Howel,ier, we share your concerns related to preservation of'mature vegetation on site, . Therefore,. staff has'recommendecfa rnitigation measure to the Environmental Review'" 'Comrnittee to require the' applicant to create a' Tree, Preservation Tract wherebY additional mature trees wo~ld be. retained arid a designated area is created for the planting of o.ther replacement trees .. The Environmental Review Committee will issue their decision within the next week, You have be~n added as a p'arty of record and will receive any determinations or decisions made 'by the City: . . " . " . . . Renton City Hall'.' "1?55 SC?ut~ <.?r~dy Way • :Rehto~, Washington ~80S7 ~ ·rentonwa.gov .. Hopefully thisaddres~esyciur questions. If you have any further questions regarding this project feel free to contact meat (425) 430-7219: Sincerely, ~~~ .' RJaleTimmcins ... ... ... . ... . Associate Planner ee: File LUA12-076, PP " ', . . . ... . ', ' " : Rocale Timmons City of Renton Development Offices 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 10415 -147'h Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 October 3, 2012 RE: Comments on Piper's Bluff Dear Ms. Timmons: City of Renton Planning Division OCT 0 5 2012 According to thee web site, my comments were due October 2. Today is October 3. I hope I will still be allowed to submit my comments. Renton has a Tree Ordinance -designed to keep the trees in the area. According to this developer, there are 211 trees on site. They only propose to keep 13 of them. That is only .06 of the trees. The developer is proposing to plant 185 trees to meet Renton's requirement. The trees on that site have years to get to the size that they are now. What size trees does the developer propose to use as replacement trees? Will they be using "big trees -the size of the trees that are currently on site -or will they be little bitty trees that you normally see in Renton developments? Or will Renton allow them to do whatever they want? Thank you, in advance, for allowing these comments. Sincerely, Enclosure • II From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> Subject: Trees remaining in Renton Date: March 17, 2008 6:36:46 AM PDT Begin forwarded message: From: "Jennifer Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: March 15,20082:33:35 PM PDT To: "Michael/Claudia Donnelly" <thedonnellys@oo.net> Subject: Re: Trees remaining in Renton Hello Claudia, The revisions to the City's tree regulations became effective in September 2007. For projects subject to those regulations, a percentage. of trees must be retained. Here is the code section (RMC4-4-130H): "H. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING PERMITS: 1. Protected Trees -Retention Required: Trees shall be retained as follows: a. Damaged and Diseased Trees Excluded: Trees that are dangerous as defined in RMC 4-11-200, or are safety risks due to root, trunk, or crown structure failure shall not be counted as protected trees. b. Residential: i. RC, R-1, R-4 and R-8 Zones: Thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. ii. R-10, R-14, RM-F, RM-T, RM-U and RMH: Ten percent (10%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential or institutional development. c. All Other Zones: Five percent (5%) of the trees located on the lot shall be considered protected and retained in commercial or industrial developments. d. Utility Uses and Mineral Extraction Uses: Such operations shall be exempt from the protected tree retention requirements of this Chapter if removal can be justified in writing and approved by the Reviewing Official. e. Replacement Requirements: i. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. ------------------.;~----.................... . ii. When a tree or tree cluster that is part of an approved tree retention plan cannot be retained, mitigation shall be required per subsection H 1 ei of this Section. iii. Unless replacement trees are being used as part of an enhancement project in a critical area or buffer, they shall not consist of any species listed in RMC 4-4-130H7d. f. Tree retention standards shall be applied to the net developable area. Land within critical areas and their buffers, as well as public rights-of-way, shall be excluded from the above calculation. If the number to be retained includes a fraction of a tree, any amount equal to or greater than one-half (1/2) tree shall be rounded up." In recent years. and prior to this change in regulations, we were requiring 25% tree retention in residential areas, or replacement, generally at 2:1 with a minimum 2-inch caliper. A "protected tree" is considered to be a minimum of 6-inch caliper, as measured at 54 inches above grade. There are situations where extensive site grading requires that all trees be removed. In those cases planting of new trees is required. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7286 (ph) jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us III Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.nel> 03/12/08 10:45 AM Jennifer: I got a note this morning about some clear cutting next to Randy Corman's house. I thought --that in 2007 before the POP election, Renton decided on an ordinance that would "save trees" in developments. In the past few months, along NE 4th --a CAMWEST Development across from the QFC, there were alot of trees ---now there aren't any. Did Renton pass this "save a tree" in developments or not? Thank you for any information you can provide. Claudia Donnelly DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM October 2, 2012 Rocale Timmons, Planner Arneta Henninger, Plan Review 44 Piper's Bluff Plat 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE Parcel #1023059367, -9002, -9144, -9312 LUA 12-076 I have completed a review for the above-referenced 30 lots with stream/wetland proposal, located on the east side of Hoquiam Ave NE, north of and in the vicinity of NE 11th Ct and south of Sunset, all in Sect. 10, Twp 23N Rng 5 E. The following comments are based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER: This site is located in the Water District 90 water service boundary. It is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. SANITARY SEWER: This site is located in the City of Renton sanitary sewer service boundary. There is an existing 8" sewer main in NE 11th Ct. See City of Renton sanitary sewer drawing #S-3088 for details. STORM: There are existing storm drainage facilities in Hoquiam Ave NE. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER: o A water availability certificate is required from Water District 90. o Domestic service and fire service must be provided to serve the proposed development. o Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a minimum 1,000 gpm for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings, and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Piper's Bluff Plat -LUA 12-076 Page 2 of 3 October 2, 2012 SANITARY SEWER: o Installation of a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards is required on this project. The station shall be located in either a tract or easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's maintenance equipment, including a full-size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE guidelines, and shall include potential full bUild-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small bUilding. o The plans submitted do not show adequate room for the lift station; hence, the conceptual sewer utility plan is not approved. The area allocated for the Lift Station is too small to contain the control building to house the motor control and the telemetry, as well as the 10' wet well and the 8'X6' site for the emergency generator. o In addition to what is shown on the conceptual utility plan submitted with the application, the gravity sewer main in the north road needs to extend westward, and a MH installed eight feet deep in Hoquiam Ave NE. o The force main sewer in Hoquiam Ave NE may not be connected directly into the MH. The force main needs to be connected into an 8" pipe, and there shall be 20 feet of 8" pipe. The force main is connected into the upstream side ofthe 8" pipe, and the 8" pipe is then connected into a new MH which shall be installed at the intersection of Hoquiam Ave NE and the road to the east continuing from that MH to the east to the exist. MH also via gravity. o This proposal is located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. o Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees (SDC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: o Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting on the full frontage of the parcel being developed is required. o Street improvements on Hoquiam Ave need to be 36' face of curb to face of curb, including gutter, 8' planter strip (which includes the curb), and a 5' sidewalk along the full frontage. The conceptual utility plan does not show this; hence, is not approved as submitted. o The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26' of pavement, with an 8' planter strip, 5' sidewalk, and parking on one side only. o Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). o Street lighting shall be required to be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The internal street shall have decorative street lights and black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. o Street lighting on Hoquiam Ave NE needs to meet the average lighting levels, which is maintained illumination of 0.6, with a uniformity ratio to meet or exceed four to one (4:1). H:\CEO\Planning\Current Planning\PROJECTS\12-076.Rocale\Plan Review Comments.docx Piper's Bluff Plat -lUA 12-076 Page 3 of 3 October 2,2012 o All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be underground. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording the plat. o Traffic mitigation fees of $20,097 shall be paid prior to recording the plat. STORM DRAINAGE: o A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application for the project. A drainage control plan designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual is required. Research shows this proposal to be in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). o The conceptual storm drainage plan needs to address how the roof runoff from the new lots will be handled. o Storm report is acceptable for preliminary review. It will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for a construction permit. o The Surface Water SDC fees are $1,012 per lot. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. GENERAL: o 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. o . All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. o 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. Th'ere may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PROJECTS\12-076.Rocale\Plan Review Comments.docx City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PlOY) ":p,PA/,'/.uJ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 DEVEL "n.. . !';",RVICES APPLICANT: WestPac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SEP 1 8 201? ~S~IT~E~A~R~EA~:~5~.0~0~a~c~re~s ________________________ -r~EX~IS~T~IN~G~B~L=D~G~A~R~EA~(~g~ro~sS~):~N~j~A~ ____ ~~~ • .-~.,,~ '~'WI~[) LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) NjA ' W -, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-S and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-af-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern pori ton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mojor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Enllironment Minor Major Information Imports Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Warer 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 lication with particular attenti n to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact eded to pr I ssess this proposal. Date 5#902 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Piper's Bluff PP Project Address: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE Contact Person: WestPac Development LLC Permit Number: LUA12-076 Project Description: 30 lot SFR Plat with two existing homes Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: X Residential o Retail DNon-retaii X ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition Calculation: (30 -2) x 9.57 = ADT 267.96 x $75.00 = $20,097 Transportation Mitigation Fee: $20,097 o Traffic Study o Other (210) SFR 9.57 trips/DU Calculated by: -'K.:..: . .;.:K:..:.itt::.r:.;:ic;.:.k ______________ Date: 9/24/2012 I Date of Payment: ______________________________________________________ __ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ' T~-lI Mi.::y) COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 , APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 APPLICANT: West Pac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons SEP 1 8 ZOll PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 5.00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) Nj A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing S acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,SOO square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 18S replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing 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-RELATED COMMENTS TJl.tF S/IeSr# r()2. j(3 ~'r'/J11)C)- 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 10-02-12;10:0SAM; . Denis Law ' Mayor ; 4252044465 # 1/ 2 1:6 ~ f30-7e b0 September 18, 2012 ·.Department ~f Community' and Economic Deveiop~ent c.E. 'Chip'Vincent,Administrator . Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School'DiStrict . 420 Park Avenue N· Renton;WA 98055 Subject: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat lUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Developmen((CED),has received· an application for a 3D-lot single-family subdivisian located at 1178 Hoquiam Avenu.eNE: Please. , see. the enclosed Notice of Application for. fuitherdetails. . In order' to process this application, CEO needs to. know ,Which Renton schools would be , attendecj. by children living in residences at the location indicated abo·ve. ' Please fill in the· ·appropria'te schools on the list below and return this letter to. my attention; City afRenton~ CED, . ,Planning Division, 1055 South· rady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by October,2, 2012. Elementary SChOOI:_""",~~_·=¥,""",::'::,,' -77' :..:t.:: . .". -'.' ___ ~_-"--~_~_-:-..,--__ Middle School: _-----JL/I.~&~~~f:2.'---..:.....c--....o...:-'--------,--....:........:. High School: -----A:!::!!:l~~:..----'----~-----..:'-'-~-----'-- . Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional studentS , estimatedto comefrom the proposed d.eveIOPrTien~? Yes* NO~. _: _-:- , Any Camments:_' _______ ,-__ -'-___ ~ ____ ..,_-------,.- Th'ank yau for providing'this important information: Ifyolfhave any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. , ~""~V:.d_.· ~ Rocle~~ .,' , 'As ociate pianner . ' EnClosure Renton Crty·tiall .• , OSS SQU,th Grady Way • Renton. Washington 98057 ~ rentonwa.~ov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M OR AND U M September 25, 2012 Rocale Timmons Bob Mac oni;-U; Pipers Bluff, LUA-12-076-PP Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced final plat submittal and have the following comments: The final plat document must be prepared under the direction of and stamped by a licensed "Professional Land Surveyor." Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-12-076- PP and LND-10-0496, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. h:lfile sysllnd -land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-l 0 -platsl0496(pipers bluft)\rv120920.doc Page 2 of3 09/25/2012 The lot addresses will be provided by the city after the initial final Plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name(s) on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note i!l! easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" block is signed by the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be h:lfile sysllnd -land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-IO -platsl0496(pipers bluft)lrv120nO.doc Page 3 of3 09/25/2012 given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be language regarding the conveyance of the Tracts (A, B & C) created by the plat; please check with the Stormwater Utility to see if they will require that the City be the owner of Tract 'A.' Please discuss with.the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. Include Native Growth Protection Area easement language as well. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting thevested property owner. h:\fiie sys\lnd -land subdivision & surveying records\lnd-1O -plats\0496(pipcrs blufl)\rv120920.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'PrDOf>.-ll ~Vl~"'-:J COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, P~, MODU DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 APPLICANT: WestPac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 5.00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N j A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for.the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is propOSing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impocts Impacts Necessary ,rth Hausinq aenral Health = Bes n~~ggg~eer B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS we. have reviewed this f!Ppficotion Wi~~rticulara!Yntion to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probabfe impact ~a~_ dditi . ormation\:eederttO!properlY ossess this proposal. \ \ . t, . q 1 "2--4 _ 20 \ -"2- Signature of Direct _or Authorized Representative Date ' City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~~ c... 'f').<>A} COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 APPLICANT: West Pac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE:~S Bluff prelimin~~') PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 5.00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) Nj A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requestin Preliminar Plat a roval and Environmental SEPA Review for the subdivision of an existing 5!!E.!:e parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; or an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 s~ feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are to be retained 12 located within the critical area and its buffer. The applicant is proposing a total of1l!2.- replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable ~P,oboble More Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major In/ormation Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Eanh Housing 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 DOD Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS Gvevt+ tv see 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 where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date • Terrence J. Flatley From: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Thursday, September 20,20121:29 PM Leslie A Betlach; Rocale Timmons To: Subject: Pipers Bluff Prelim Plat Development -Landscape Plan Review These are my comments for the subject development concerning the street trees and other landscaping being proposed. I am also printing this email and attaching it to the green file for inclusion. 1.) The landscape plan needs to be modified so that only one street tree is planted per lot/address unless a corner lot, then one tree every 60 feet should be planted if the lot length can accommodate a second tree. 2.) The landscape plan needs to be modified to utilize large maturing tree species. Trees proposed on the plan are all small maturing except for the Fraxinus latifolia (Orgeon ash). 3.) The landscape plan shows no overhead utility lines on Hoquiam Avenue NE; these should be shown on the landscape plan. Use only small-maturing street tree species where overhead wires exist at proposed tree sites (as well as on lots). 4.) Western redcedar planted near houses is not an appropriate selection when planted within 30 feet of a building; choose an alternate species when planting closer than 30 feet. 5.) Do not use Western redcedar or other evergreen species at intersections of streets, alleys or streets and alleys with driveways. 6.) Do not plant a street tree closer than 30 feet from a street light. 7.) Street tree plan -each street should contain different species of trees from the next street. 8.) Minimum tree spacing -small-maturing trees at 30 feet on-center; medium-maturing trees at 40 feet on-center; large-maturing trees -50 feet on-center. Terry Flatley Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager ISA Certified Arborist #PN-7272A City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 TFlatley@RentonWa.Gov 425-766-6187 -.,.------------J~q~~~! (ctrl-click to forestry web page) 1 • • City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PariL. ~ IP d COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 • APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 APPLICANT: West Pac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons (; 3: 0 ,r, ~ ~ rn m PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger -0 ;.:..: ~ ~ " !!! SITE AREA: 5,00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A <::> .!:ll !:i "-' in LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N / A = < 0 ;.;.; m SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Revif!W for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification, The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30, Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley, Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE, The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern pori ton of the site, The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacer:t to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 18S replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mojor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hou,ing Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 'ii'toric/C."ltu,"' T~E'~::~ B. PDLICY-RELA TED 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 here additional i ormation is needed to properly assess this proposal. rb-1111- Represe~~ Date FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 20, 2012 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit would be granted for the two existing homes to be removed. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways as proposed are acceptable. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1='i r-e.-COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 APPLICANT: WestPac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 5.00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NjA LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N j A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Environment farth Air Water Plonts Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Probable Minor Impacts B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Probable Mojor Impacts More In/ormation Necessary Element 0/ the Environment Housin Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Probable Minor Impacts Probable MoJor Impocts More Information Necessary 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 needed to properly assess this proposal . . C!.~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 2, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: SEPTEMBER 18, 20ll)EVELOPMENT SERVI APPLICANT: WestPac Development, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 5.00 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave NE via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed Lots 18-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and 8-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211 trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element 0/ the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mojor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals r.~ ~ Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources ;~'~nc. 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have revie ed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas 0/ probable impact or areas whe odditional in/ormati d to properly assess this proposal. , Date ES NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-MJ A M .. I .. Ap~lIall"" hI. bun mId Ind .<copled with lh. Olp.rtm,nl ofCornmunltv" [.onomic Ooy,lapm'" (aD! _ PI.nnlnl DIVision 01 tho tlty 01 Rlnlon. Tho lollowl", brlolly d •• "lbe. tho .ppllt.llon and tho "et .... ry PublicAPP'DYIII. DAn OF NOTlct Of APPUCATIOJ<l, Sept_m!>!, 18, 2012 lAND USE NUMJVI: LU.u2.o7~. tCF. PP, MOO PROJECT NAME: Plpe~1 Bluff P'tQmlnlry I'llt PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Ipplklnt 10 requullnl P"lImlnorr PI.llpproo.llnd Envl'onmentll (SEPAl Ro"lew for InO ."boivl.1on olin .. 1,\1011 5 Icr. plrooll"l" 30 loti lor the lulU'. construction of .Inglefamlly rulMncn Ind thru 10dlllo.,II,"o.; lor on OoeIU, dr, In. Ie. and I Nltl •• Growth protection r ... ment (NGP()_ Th. proJ"" .11< Is 10CIled within tho R .. ldlntl,l. a (R.II dwelll", unll. per ICTllonlnl d'~'llleotl,,", The propo..,d lou would ronle In • In from',SOO "' ..... fe.t In .... 10 6,303 "l"or. f.et. Acce .. lo the plat If propoSed vi. Hoqul.m ...... lOr vi. 11'/0 n .... curb cuts, whldI b propo""d 10 bllmpro.ed .. p.rt of tho plol Impro.lm.."ts. Inte,n.l.ete .. l. propo.ed.lo. nlW loop raId (Rood .... ) with plim.ry .ett" boq IIk.n dlteetly f'om II>e new Inle.NI ro.d fa. pro~d lDtS la·30. pnm.ry .etl" 10. ,""oposed loll 1.17 would bo proYIded .1. I propo",d .lIey. Acce" 10 'M plll ... ol!ld bt! tall 1·5 and 8.9 would b. pro.lded .1. "t.n.lon 01 Mon'e'"V A.e I •• nlu.lly con""ctln, to Nifl Ave HE. The .ppllc.nl I. ,equntlnll .I,eet mcdine.tlcn In order to .educ. Ihe rliht-of· .... v ... Idth clthe Intet,,"1 .o.d, A portion of I tal.,ory 2 wotl,nd I. locoted on the north""ern porlton of the .lIe. Th. Ipplleont I. propo.lnl buffer ."" .. glng, for the lland In orQ.r 10 .ceomodllo tho sto,m 0 .. 1"",0 Imp,o •• m.nt •• OJ".n' to the "ltlc.1 " ••. There lie • t"tol "f ~:l tr.~. loeoltd on .lte "f which 13 or' p,opo.ed to be ,otllnld (12 loeoled wl.lhln ,he Oflllc.I., .. and II. bulfe'). The Ipplleonl b p'opo.l", • lotol 01 la5 replo«ment "ee, In "rder to mee, the trle .. tenllonjrepllcemonl requlr.mlnU. PROJ(CT LOCATION: 1178 Hoqul.m ...... nu. Nf OPTIONA' OfTfRMINATION OF NON.SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATEC (ONS-M): ..... the t .. d ..... noy, the Oty 01 Renton h,. d I mined th.t .Ignlflc,nt envl,onmental Imp.cts .r. unll'elv to , •• ult from Ihe ~ropo •• d prgject. The,efo,e, .. :'~I\I.d und'" the RCW 41.21(.110, the Cltv of Renten I, u.lng Iho Optlon.1 DNS-M proc." 10 give notice Ih.I' DNS, ~ Ii likely t. bo lI.ued. Commenl periods for the proJ.ct Ind the propo •• d DNS·M Itt Inle&,~ .. d Int. I .Ingle ",mmont period. The,e will be "" comment peliod folio"",,, t.M I,,""nce of Ihe Thtl'hold Oelermln.lloo 01 Non· Si,nlfl<lnel'M~ta.tod IONS-MI . .I. 1.-dry ",pell period will loRo", lhe 1".lnee 01 t.M DNS-M. PERMIT APPUCA,TION DATE: NOTiCE OF c;oMPlETEAPPlICATION: APPUCANTIP~OJ,n CONl .... n PUSON: Plrmltsf~"Io .. RllJUO$tod: R,~u'OIld Studl." A"Iust 31, l012 September 15, 2011 N.de.m ..... Kh.n, D.R. $trgn, Con.ultin, En,ln"", In<.: 106M NE 38" Place nn: Kf,~llnd, WA980H En",,,,,,,,,lnl.t (SEPAl Ro.IIW, Prellmlno,., Pili Revlow, MOIIIIIc.tion levi ... ConotructlonPI.."its GI.technl,,1 Ind DlIln.,. Rlport. If you woulet Ute to be m.de. fllrIY of .e""rd ~ nceiYe further 'nform.lion on tltll propesed projeet, complete Inli form .net ,",UIl'lIO: CIty of RenIOn, CEO _ PI'nni", Division, l~S So. GI1I.V W.y, ~enlon, w .... ,80!>1. Nome/fill No.: PIpe,', 81uflPrellminory PIlt/LUAU-076, ECf, PP, MOO NAME: ____________________________________________________ __ MAiliNG AODRESS: TElEPHONE NO; I.oeotion ",hI" .ppUnti"" m.y b .... I._d: PUBUC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVlRVlEW: Zonl""Land U •• :. Envlronmonlll Docum.nts thll Ev.lultoth. Propo""d proj.ct: 1I ••• lopm.nl hlulotlons U,ed For Pro)lct MIII,otlon: Propond MIII,ollon M.a.u,e" D1rp.rtn. .mmunlty" [<..,...mlo D ••• lop""nt (ClDj-Pl.nnl". Olvl,lon, S!JItn Float Renlon City Hili, lOSS SOUlh Gr.dy WlY, RC",on, WA 98057 PubUc hwloo I. !.oWlyetv "bedll.d fpr Nonmb." 2QIl brlorr Ih. RSQ)oQ He'dn, ["min" In R.olgo Cgllnrl! Ch,mhw.t l:oo p.m. on Ihe 7th Ooorol the new Renlon alV H.II ~Ied 'llO~S ~u,h GfldV WaV. Tbi subject ,It. I, tle,l,n.ted R .. klenli.1 Sin,le f,mlly (lISf) on tho City of R,ntOD CompreMn,ivl tand U.I Map and Relldentl.I.! lR·!) dwelllnl unlli ~r Ie .. "n tho City, Zoolol M.p. <nvltonment.1 (SUAj Chec'llIl Tbi project ... m bo ,ubjett 10 11>0 City'l SErA ord""ocr, RMC 4·l·IIOA .nd other .ppllcoblo cOlI ... nd ,.,"tallon, a •• pproprillt. . The tollowlns MIIISlllen Men"tel Will likely be Impoltd on the ptope.ed project. The.e recommended MIIIII.lion M ••• ure •• ddre .. project Imp.CU nol c,", .. ed by .. I.llo,eodel.nd '"Iullllo", .. clltd .bove . ~ apr>/kon! will btl r.quhd tD P'1Y Ih. "pproptla,. rran.IIOIt"titJIJ Mil/gorion Ftt; l"h~ oppliconl ",III b. 'rqultrd /<I P'1Y Ih. apprgprlm. Po'" Mlligolioo F •• , Commenll on U,. .bo •• oppll"tlon mu.t b •• ubmlned In ... rllln, to Rocol. Tlmmon •. Anod.t. Planner, CED - Pl,nnlnl CI.lllon, 1055 South Gr •• v W'y, R.nton, WA nOH, by 5:0e PM on Octob., Z, 1011. Thl, m.n., I •• 1.0 t.nlltl .. ly "h.dulld tor • public hllrln, on Nov.miler " 2011, II 1:00 p.m., Coundi Ch&rnb ... , Se.enth Floor, Ruton CIty H.II. IOS5 ~"Ih GtldV W.V. Re""'n. If you It. Int.,ut.d in '!lendl", I .. nt.,l"," pl., .. conU" th~ PI.nnl", Dlvl,lon to fn.",e lhot Ih. IIt.rins " .. nol btlen ,eKheduled ot \4U) O().728l. If comments <lnnol be ,ubm~l.d In w'~I", by the dllelndlc.t,d ''''''''', you m.y 11111 .ppeor.t I" he.rinl·.nO ~re",nl your commlnto on Ihe prgpe>ll blfo,e Ihe H."lnl b.mlner. If vou h.v. quutlon •• boul Ihl. propo .. I, o. w"" 10 be m.d •• p.rly of .ecord and ,e"ivl addltlon.1 10form"lon by m,il, ple .. e (ont.ct 1M prgj.rt man.,er ..... nyon~ who submill written comments wlll.utom"ic,IIV betem •• port)' 01 reco,d and will be notifi.d cfany cecl,lon on Ihl' p,oject. CONTACT PERSON: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: rtlmmons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER fiLE IOENnFICATION CERTIFICATION I, !SOrA/£? /7~r-t tJ/7S , hereby certify that ~ copies ofthe above document were posted in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Signed:--tf~:;:>GI-,e;tG'--€G~L==-""'L="..R'""==,___-- STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that "Ro CQ Q., T;-m m.O'As signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 11 ,4 ~MJ,q Notary Public in ;; d for the State of Washington -.' CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 18th day of September, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: ------. . -Name .. ... . Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan See Attached Nadeem A. Khan Contact WestPac Development, llC Owner/Applicant 300' Surounding Property Owners -NOA only See attached ~'J mdu£A,v """"'-~"" ;." -I~ (Signature of Sender): -~~ "~ )U = ~. ~""&, . \ STATE OF WASHINGTON fg 8 _ '0 ) ss i 0 ~ ()! COUNTY OF KING ) \ \.... 0 ~"" • J , ~rt;~ ''''' , k,~ " h"~ ~""""O" ~",,,"h", ~"" M. ",,"', \., ... ~.,;J signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act f;~S purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: S0/2kmiM l~ dbi L Notary Public ialldfOi: the State of Washington Notary (print): ___ ~b_I_. A~.....lG"-L.!rpJ=d5.L... _________ _ My appointment expires: A "10 '1 ~ u--,-I 0<1 I ~O G ProJ~ctName: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD template -affidavit of selVice 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 ~esources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Oev. & 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 _l72,d 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 172'd Avenue 5E 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 2015. 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 ~ . . ABEL BRIAN+DEBORAH ADKINS BRADLEY J+MARIA THER BEL AIR & BRINEY 5312 NE 11TH CT 5210 NE 12TH ST 151 SLANDER ST STE C RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 SEATTLE, WA 98134 BLODGETT PATRICK BROOKEFIELD NORTH LLC BROOKFIELD DIV II HOA 5118 NE 12TH ST 9675 SE 36TH ST #105 PO BOX 731733 RENTON, WA 98057 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 PUYALLUP, WA 98373 BROYLES VIRGINIA BROYLES VIRGINIA M CONWELL MICHAEL G+CHARLOTT J 1166 HOQUIAM AVE NE 1166 HOQUIAM AVE NE 11027 142ND AVE SE RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR GESNER PHILLIP G GRIFFIN WILLIAM E OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 300 SW 7TH ST 5005 NE 13TH PL 15216 NE 26TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 VANCOUVER, WA 98684 HENDRICKSON FIR GROVE L L C JONES BRUCE C+ANITRA LAI KIMWAH RICKY+CHANG NAOM 502 8TH ST NE #33 5237 NE 11TH CT 5115 NE 11TH CT AUBURN, WA 98002 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 LUNA ERIKA CEDENO LUTA IOSIF+MARIA E MALANA-NUGUIT WELLA JOYCE 5231 NE 11TH CT 5121 NE 11TH CT 5305 NE 11TH CT RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 MARTIN DOUG MARTIN DOUGLAS M+JOAN M MENDOZA RAFAEL F+MARY J 1215 HOQUIAM AVE NE 11049142NDAVESE 14042 SE 112TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 MITCHELL AARON M+KASSANDRA MONCRIEF JIMMIE L+CHERYL L MOORE DOUGLAS M+CYNTHIA K 7912 129TH PL SE 1175 HARRINGTON PL NE #313 14432SE 112TH PL NEWCASTLE, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98056 MYERS SUSAN E NON IS DORTHY RIGG KYLEE 5103 NE 11TH CT 1228 HOQUIAM AVE NE 5127 NE 11TH CT RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98059 ROUSSO LEE H+CHIU LI-FENG SRIPATI CHANDRASEKHAR P+DUR SUCIU ELENA 5306 NE 11TH CT 2571 HALL JOHNSON RD APT 823 4224 NE 10TH PL RENTON, WA 98059 GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 RENTON, WA 98059 · TRAN THUAN+HOANG DUONG US BANK NA WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT LLC 277 GLENNWOOD CT SE 3815 S WEST TEMPLE 7449 W MERCER WAY RENTON. WA 98056 SALT LAKE CITY. UT 84115 MERCER ISLAND. WA 98040 WHORLEY GUY C+CHRISTINA M WON VANCE YAN JOHN K+KIM T CHI 14433SE 112TH PL 5109 NE 11TH CT 5201 NE 11TH CT RENTON. WA 98059 RENTON. WA 98059 RENTON. WA 98059 ZHANG LUCY W+HAN ZHANG SHELDON YA 2235 CENTRO E 5225 NE 11TH CT TIBURON. CA 94920 RENTON. WA 98059 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: September 18, 2012 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA12~076, EeF, PP, MOD PROJECT NAME: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPAl Review for the subdivision of an existing 5 acre parcel into 30 lots for the future construction of single family residences and three additional tracts; for an access, drainage, and a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-S) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would range in size from 4,500 square feet in area to 6,303 square feet. Access to the plat is proposed via Hoquiam Ave N(via two new curb cuts, which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via a new loop road (Road A) with primary access being taken directly from the new internal road for proposed lots 1S-30. Primary access for proposed Lots 1-17 would be provided via a proposed alley. Access to the plat would be Lots 1-5 and S-9 would be provided via extension of Monterey Ave eventually connecting to Nile Ave NE. The applicant is requesting a street modification in order to reduce the right-of-way width of the internal road. A portion of a Category 2 wetland is located on the northeastern poriton of the site. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging, for the wetland, in order to accomodate the storm drainage improvements adjacent to the critical area. There are a total of 211.trees located on site of which 13 are proposed to be retained (12 located within the critical area and its buffer). The applicant is proposing a total of 185 replacement trees in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirements. PROJECT LOCATION: 1178 Hoquiam Avenue NE 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 43.21(,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 fonowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M), A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of t~e DNS-M, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: August 31, 2012 September 18, 2012 Nadeem A. Khan, D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.; 10604 NE 38 th Place #232; Kirkland, WA 98033 Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review, Modification Review Construction Permits Geotechnical and Drainage Reports 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.: Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat/LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD NAME: ______________________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Locatlon where application may be reviewed: PU8l1C 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 (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 6.2012 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 1:00 p.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at lOSS South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Residential-8 {R-8) dwelling units per acre on the City's Zoning Map, Environmental {SEPAl Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110A 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 will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee, Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, CED - Planning Division, lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on October 2, 2012. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on November 6, 2012, at 1:00 p,m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If 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: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa,gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ~ Denis'~aw Mayor City l n~r'IR\~ ,~ ~ ~~~'~~j September 18,2012 Departmen~ of Community and Economic Developmen~ • ' 'c.eChip"Vincent, 1Idministrator' 'Nadeem A., Khan D~, R.Strong'Consulting Engineers, Inc , 10604 NE 38th Place #232 , Kirkiand, WA 98033' -', Subject: 'Notice of Complete Applicatio'n Piper's Bluff PreliminaryPlat, UJA12-076; ECF, Pi>, MOD Dear Mr. Khan: The'Planning Divisionofthe CiW of Renton has dete~mined that the suhjectapplication , is complete, according to submittal req~;rements and, therefore; ,is accepted for. review, It is tentatively scheduled for cO~Siderati'on by the Environmental Review Committee on ... Qctober 8, 2012. Prior to that ~evie;"', you will be!l~tified if any additi~~al information' is required to continue processing yo'ur application; " , , 'In ad~ition, this matter istentativ~ly s~heduled f~r a Public Hearing onNov~mber 6, ',' 2012 at 1:00 p,m" CO,uncil Chambe~s; Seventh Floor, Rent~ri City Hall, 1055 South Grady.: Way, Renton. Theappli~ant ~rrepresei-itai:iite(s) of the applicant 'are requiredto. be "present atthepublic hearing. A copy of the staff report will be 'mailed to y~u priorto the -' scheduled'hearing.' ' ,,' " ' , , . ' , , Pleasecontact ~e at (425) 430-7219 ifYOU~aVeanyqUesti()nS' cc: West~ac Devel,opment, lLC I Owner{s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • He~ton, Washington 98057 .. ,rentonwa,gov DenisLaw· Mayor September 18; 2012 .. . Nancy Rawls·· Department of Transportation Renton School·District . 420 Park Avenue N .Renton;WA 98055 Department·of Community and Economic Develop;"ent· . . CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator .. Subject: Piper's Bhiff Preliminary Plat LUA12-076, ECF, PP, MOD The City of Renton's Department.of Community and Eco·no·mic Develqpm~nt·(CED).has received ail application for a 30-lotsingle-family subdivision located at 1178 Hoquiam AveJ)ue NEPlease . seethe endosed Notice of Applica'tion forfurth~rdetails. . Ih order to process' this .application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attendeQ. by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the ·app;opria·ie scnools o~ the list belo"" and ret-urn this letter to my attention; City of Renton, CED, . Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Rent,;>n, Washington 98057 byOctober2; 2012. . ElementarySchool:_~ __ -;-~ ___ ~~-,---,---_____ "-~_~_-:--,.-__ _ Middle School: ~-:----,---,---'-----~--------:~~--c'--_---'- High School: ____ ~ ____ --'-_____ -'-~ __ ,._--'------'-- Will the schools you have indicated be a'bleio handle the impact of the additional students estimatedtocom'e from th~ proposed developmenti Yes No~. _. _. -----:_ Any comments:_--:_--'---'-__ ---,_-:-_____ ~ __ _' __ ---'------'-"--- Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions,regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219.· . Sincerely, ~ .. ~. '. . . '. . ....... ~ . Roc Ie TImmo . . . ... As ociate Pia nner ..., Enclosure . . , Renton CityH'ali • 1055 Sou,th ~radYWay • Re:nton,~aShington' 9805; . rentonwa.~ov Nadeem Khan From: Sent: Rocale Timmons [RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11 :09 AM To: Maher Joudi; Jennifer T. Henning r.i Chip Vincent; Nadeem Khan; Arneta J. Henninger; Luay Joudeh; Peter (wJJfePf Rent Cc: Subject: Terry@gwcco.biz Planning o ... On RE: Hazen Plat IVISlon image001.jpg; image002.jpg AUG 31 lOll Attachments: Hello Maher, ffBff},rt;ff},U After speaking with you today I understand your frustration with regard to your internal street design in the ~mOf clear direction on the dimensions of street improvements within the right-of-way. I have had the opportunity to speak to both Arneta and Chip we are encouraging you to apply for a modification, as part of your Preliminary Plat application, to allow for the construction of a limited residential access street even though you would likely be exceeding the number of trips allowed for this type of street. The following improvements are required for a Limited Residential Access street: Minimum Design Standards Limited Residential Access Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT 0-250 Right-of-Way (R-O-W) 1 lane -45' Sidewalks 5' bath sides Planting Strips' 8' between curb & walk both sides Curbs Curb both sides Parking lanes 6' one side' Paved Roadway Width, not including parking 1 lane -12' , 'Requirement: Either fire sprinklers shall be provided as approved by Fire & Emergency Services or a clear roadway area shall be provided for emergency vehicles midblock. All of the clear area must be 20 feet in width for vehicular movement with a minimum length of 50 feet and maximum length of 100 feet, so as to provide emergency access to homes within 150 feet. Along the clear area only, the planting strip would not be required and the clear area will be in place of the landscaping area. The difference in the foot (from 44 to 45 feet) is due to the 6-inch curbs that would be required on both sides which were not taken into consideration when the 44-foot requirement was being communicated. Unfortunately there is no way to modify the width of this type of street to 44-feet. I also want to make sure that you understand that while we are encouraging you to apply for the street modification it is still at the discretion of the Director as to whether or not it will be approved. Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Rocale T. From: Maher Joudi [mailto:maher.joudi@drstrong.comj Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:20 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning; Rocale Timmons Cc: Chip Vincent; Nadeem Khan; Arneta J. Henninger; Luay Joudeh; Peter O'Kane; Terry@gwcco.biz Subject: RE: Hazen Plat 1 TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Dill'isir,nI OCT ? ~ lUll 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. __ 211 __ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 __ 0 __ trees Trees in proposed public streets __ 37 __ trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts __ 5 __ trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 12 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. ___ 54 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. ___ 157 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. ____ 47 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 : 5. 12 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6. ____ 35 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ___ 420_inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. ____ ,2 __ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : per tree (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. ___ .210 trees 1. Measured at chest height. 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). -4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 44-130H7a \ 6. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. R: \20 12\0\ 12029\3 \DoclIments\Reports\Prc1 i minary\ T fce Retention W orkshcet -2 inch. doc 12/08 -. -'I ," DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Rentol Planning Division. OCT 2 nun co.: • City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1, Gross area of property: 1. _217,369_squarefeet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" Private access easements" Critical Areas' Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: __ 4,7719_square feet __ square feet __ 1 ,949 __ square feet 2. 49668 square feet 3. 167,701 square feet ---- 4. 3.85 acres --- 5. 28 unitsllots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. _7.27_ = dwelling units/acre 'Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded . •• Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R: \20 12\0\ 12029\3\Documents\Reports\Prcl i minnry\dens ity 12029. doc . I . 03/08 I , ,J fftz -tJ J. q n, .• 4 m:i&i't,·,J,M*j',@rijh¥¥ H,-"fillWi\#hMfiNi!Ji', City of Renton Of/i Planfling D,~nton LAND USE PERMIT IVISIOn AUG'31 lOll 1 MASTER APPlICATIOW@©ffi;>nnh~ , ." ·_,t.., ~ . ,. ,F "1-,,' . ~ --" , " . .. , """LU) PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: WestPac Development, LLC Piper's Bluff ADDRESS: 7449 W Mercer Way PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 1166 Hoquiam Avenue NE CITY: Mercer Island ZIP: 98040 Renton WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-770-6546 102305-9367, 102305-9312, 102305-9002, and 102305-9144 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Single Family Residential PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: Residential Single Family (RSF) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) Residential Sinale Familv (RSFl EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: R·8 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-8 SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME: Nadeem A. Khan 217,371 square feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): D. R. Strong Consulting DEDICATED: Engineers, Inc. 47,719 square feet ADDRESS: 10604 NE 38th Place, #232 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 2,695 square feet (Private Access Tract "C") PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98033 ACRE (if applicable) 8 du/acres TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 30 425-827-3063 nadeem.khan@drstrong.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 30 R:\20 12\O\12029\3\Documents\Rcports\Prcliminary\Land Usc Permit Master Application.doc - I - l\ PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N=~(.c~o~n=ti~nu=e~d~)· ______________ , NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: Two SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTiAl BUILDINGS Of applicabie}: . . .. 2.500 to 3 500 sQuare feet IS'rH'E SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE; Of applicable}: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): . o AQUIFIERPROTECTION AREA ONE None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable}: None 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq,fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): .. 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. It. ,None 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON. NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): . D. SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. , .None ,NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW 0 WETlANDS' 1,949 sq. It PROJECT Ofappiicable}: None ... LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .. (Attach legal description on separate sheetwiththe following infonnation included) SITUATE INTHE 1/4 QUARTER-OF SECTION _10_. TOWNSHIP_23_, RANGE _5_. IN THE CITY OF RENTON; KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON " AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) . Pete€--OI}{Av1e.. ,declare under penalty of pe~ury under th'1laws of the State of Washington that I am. (please check one} __ ' the ciJrrent owner of the property invqlved in this application or _V_, the authorized representative to act for a rporation (please attach proof of authorization)'and that.1he f()regoing st~t~t:n~nt.s and answers'herein cont' 'and ,the-inf tio herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knoWledge and belief. ~l~11. 'L- Date Signature of OwnerlRepresentative Oate STATE OF WASHINGTON) } 5S COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rfe ... 8. O!tboAlC signed, this instrument and a9Imowled~~ il I?,be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and ~urpose mentioned in t\lh\MMru.rifllllll "" (,f("~: ..... .cl(~ I,~ £7 r? l-. I $' <:)~ ••• ~\;'\On E;Pi.· .• ~~ ~ '6f..:!:::.~_2.J:JI2i ~ .. ~~ :p~ ... ~ -L~~~~~-,,'-'::;:~~~:::::::=:::..------ Dated • : ;... ~01ARY \,; ::: _0-: = ~ \. PUB\,'''' /~ § Notary (Print): Kt7<f<:<e.. L. vbc-/s",,.; ~ cP,;; ... ., ~to.~~$ 1:.,,-1'...-<,lr.: .. ~.:.~\~"lqi-apPOintment expires: II-CJI-2£)/5 j( "1111 OF W ,.,'1'\\"" ""11111111\\\ c:'UserS\S~ Isc.nh.am.\I?oeumcnts\Rusiness\CUR RENnBeltrlr mid Bririey\Renton\Bclair and Briney\Docs\land permit b&b.doc -2- P~~JECTINFORMAT~IO_N_~(IC~o~n~ti~ .. ~~~ed=t)~ ____________ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: TlAfb 4,15 VVlM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if apPlic~~b ~"fD:3 7~ 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 ~~~liCable): o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): I'i 0 N!?, 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if a pP IiCable):j10176 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): XfDtJb 0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): idol'iG 0 WETLANDS ~'144 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE Iii QUARTER OF SECTION~, TOWNSHIP 'L3 ,RANGE -S-, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) ~'feV\ d 01 t 0 'vi \" S ~V)S , declare under penalty of perjury under tly-Iaws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or ~ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. gin / Id I Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory ~vid~nce that i?> re \') d q I< ~\.j ~9 tlh3 signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in IIW~ , III' -{~H J,~ ...... I I III f<," •.••••.•• is' ~ -~ 17 )0/) ~II~.-?S$IO"-i~ ••• &\ -D-at-eJ.d~'-'--=---s-l/s'-i..,;:'.'-j:u'd'o.~OTA.9)-1·~~'::. ~: c:... :~ Notary tate of Washington Date ~·A~·§ , '::. ~ \ lIaLiC i ~ \ d'i \ \" ) f -hr. I (j ~ "A"'c5', .I.,.. ~ Notary (Print): ----"-uo __ e+~:1-,.:....: IV)'-----"\'--_S'----e.~ ________ _ ":..-f!"" • ••• 0 7-4,.,. •. •• "",0 II' "":::..-0,(" ••••••••• rt\fi> ..... ,t II --_,,}VAS~/~/III'" My appointment expires: _----"CO"--'-7L :....( 1.1.-_____________ _ ;'/.1/1/ C\Uscrs\Tcrry GWC\Dropbox\ WestPac\WcstPac Hazen\Land Use Permit Master Application -blunk.doc -2 - LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENT WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT, LLC A Member-Managed Limited Liability Company OPERATING AGREEMENT THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT is made and entered into effective July 21, 2011, by and among: Peter O'Kane, and Brenda Jurgens (collectively referred to in this agreement as the "Members"). SECTION 1 THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 1.1 Formation. Effective July 21, 2011, the Members form a limited liability company under the name WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT, LLC (the "Company") on the terms and conditions in this Operating Agreement (the "Agreement") and pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Act of the State of Washington (the "Act"). The Members agree to file with the appropriate agency within the State of Washington charged with processing and maintaining such records all documentation required for the formation of the Company. The rights and obligations of the . parties are as provided in the Act except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 1.2 Name. The business of the Company will be conducted under the name WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, or such other name upon which the Members may unanimously may agree. 1.3 Purpose. The purpose of the Company is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a Limited Liability Company may be formed within the State of Washington. 1.4 Office. The Company will maintain its principal business office within the State of Washington at the following address: 7449 W. Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. 1.5 Registered Agent. Peter O'Kane is the Company's initial registered agent in the State of Washington, and the registered office is 7449 W. Mercer Way, Mercer Island, W A 98040. . 1.6 Term. The term of the Company commences on WestPac Development, IIc, 2011 and shall continue perpetually unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement. 1.7 Names and Addresses of Members. The Members' names and addresses are attached as Schedule 1 to this Agreement. 1.8 Admission of Additional Members. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, no additional members may be admitted to the Company through issuance by the company of a new interest in the Company without the prior unanimous written consent of the Members. SECTION 2 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2.1 Initial Contributions. The Members initially shall contribute to the Company capital as described in Schedule 2 attached to this Agreement. 2.2 Additional Contributions. No Member shall be obligated to make any additional contribution to the Company's capita! without the prior unanimous written consent of the Members. 2.3 No Interest on Capital Contributions. Members are not entitled to interest or other compensation for or on account of their capita! contributions to the Company except to the extent, if any, expressly provided in this Agreement. SECTION 3 ALLOCATION OF PROFITS AND LOSSES; DISTRIBUTIONS 3.1 Profits/Losses. For financial accounting and tax purposes, the Company's net profits or net losses shall be determined on an annual basis and shall be allocated to the Members in proportion to each Member's relative capital interest in the Company as set forth in Schedule 2 as amended from time to time in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury Regulation 1.704-1. 3.2 Distributions. The Members shall determine and distribute available funds annually or at more frequent intervals as they see fit. Available funds, as referred to herein, shall mean the net cash of the Company available after appropriate provision for expenses and liabilities, as determined by the Managers. Distributions in liquidation of the Company or in liquidation of a Member's interest shall be made in accordance with the positive capita! account balances pursuant to U.S. Department of the Treasury Regulation 1.704.I(b)(2)(ii)(b)(2). To the extent a Member shall have a negative capita! account balance, there shall be a qualified income offset, as set forth in U.S. Department of the Treasury Regulation 1.704.1(b)(2)(ii)(d). 3.3 No Right to Demand Return o/Capital. No Member has any right to any return of capital or other distribution except as expressly provided in this Agreement. No Member has any drawing account in the Company. SECTION 4 INDEMNIFICATION The Company shall indemnify any person who was or is a party defendant or is threatened to be made a party defendant, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative (other than an action by or in the right of the Company) by reason of the fact that he is or was a Member of the Company, Manager, employee or agent of the Company, or is or was serving at the request of the Company, against expenses (including attorney's fees), judgments, fines, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred in connection with such action, suit or proceeding if the Members determine that he acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interest of the Company, and with respect to any criminal action proceeding, has no reasonable cause to believe his/her conduct was unlawful. The termination of any action, suit, or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of "no 10 Contendere" or its equivalent, shall not in itself create a presumption that the person did or did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in the best interest of the Company, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that his/her conduct was lawful SECTIONS POWERS AND DUTIES OF MANAGERS 5.1 Management of Company. 5.1.1 The Members, within the authority granted by the Act and the terms of this Agreement shall have the complete power and authority to manage and operate the Company and make all decisions affecting its business and affairs. 5.1.2 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all decisions and documents relating to the management and operation of the Company shall be made and executed by a Majority in Interest of the Members. 5.1.3 Third parties dealing with the Company shall be entitled to rely conclusively upon the power and authority of a Majority in Interest of the Members to manage and operate the business and affairs of the Company. 5.2 Decisions by Members. Whenever in this Agreement reference is made to the decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action of the Members, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, such decision, consent, approval, judgment, or action shall mean a Majority of the Members. ' 5.3 Withdrawal by a Member. A Member has no power to withdraw from the Company, except as otherwise provided in Section 8. 5.4 Designated Managing Member. The Members shall designate one Member to act at the "Managing Member". The initial Designated Managing Member shall be Peter O'Kane, but can be changed from time to time by a majority Interest of the Members. This Designated Managing Member will be entitled to rely conclusively upon the power and authority of a Majority in Interest of the Members to: a. Open, close, administer, make deposits to, make payments from, and otherwise manage one or more bank accounts on behalf of the Company. b. Borrow from lender(s) or others to fund the operations of the Company to pay for Enforcement Action, or other valid purposes, and to grant to such lender(s) a security interest in the Property or other assets of the Company pursuant to such terms and conditions as the Company deems reasonable or appropriate and execute any and all documents reasonable related thereto or associated therewith. c. Acquire or enter into contracts to acquire by the Company of any direct or indirect interest in real property or other assets. SECTION 6 SALARIES, REIMBURSEMENT, AND PAYMENT OF EXPENSES 6.1 Organization Expenses. All expenses incurred in connection with organization of the Company will be paid by the Company. 6.2 Salary. No salary will be paid to a Member for the performance of his or her duties under this Agreement unless the salary has been approved in writing by a Majority of the Members. 6.3 Legal and Accounting Services. The Company may obtain legal and accounting services to the extent reasonably necessary for the conduct oftbe Company's business. SECTION 7 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ACCOUNTING REPORTS, TAX RETURNS, FISCAL YEAR, BANKING 7.1 Method of Accounting. The Company will use the method of accounting previously determined by the Members for financial reporting and tax purposes. 7.2 Fiscal Year; Taxable Year. The fiscal year and the taxable year of the Company is the calendar year. 7.3 Capital Accounts. The Company will maintain a Capital Account for each Member on a cumulative basis in accordance with federal income tax accounting principles. 7.4 Banking. All funds of the Company will be deposited in a separate bank account or in an account or accounts of a savings and loan association in the name of the Company as determined by a Majority of the Members. Company funds will be invested or deposited with an institution, the accounts or deposits of which are insured or guaranteed by an agency of the United States government. SECTIONS TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST 8.1 Sale or Encumbrance Prohibited. Except as otherwise permitted in this Agreement, no Member may voluntarily or involuntarily transfer, sell, convey, encumber, pledge, assign, or otherwise dispose of (collectively, "Transfer") an interest in the Company without the prior written consent of a majority of the other nontransferring Members determined on a per capita basis. 8.2 Right of First Refusal. Notwithstanding Section 8.1, a Member may transfer all or any part of the Member's interest in the Company (the "Interest") as follows: 8.2.1 The Member desiring to transfer his or her Interest first must provide written notice (the "Notice") to the other Members, specifying the price and terms on which the Member is prepared to sell the Interest (the "Offer"). 8.2.2 For a period of 30 days after receipt of the Notice, the Members may acquire all, but not less than all, of the Interest at the price and under the terms specified in the Offer. If the other Members desiring to acquire the Interest cannot agree among themselves on the allocation of the Interest among them, the allocation will be proportional to the Ownership Interests of those Members desiring to acquire the Interest. 8.2.3 Closing ofthe sale of the Interest will occur as stated in the Offer; provided, however, that the closing will not be less than 45 days after expiration of the 30-day notice period. 8.2.4 If the other Members fail or refuse to notify the transferring Member of their desire to acquire all of the Interest proposed to be transferred within the 30-day period following receipt of the Notice, then the Members will be deemed to have waived their right to acquire the Interest on the terms described in the Offer, and the transferring Member may sell and convey the Interest consistent with the Offer to any other person or entity; provided, however, that notwithstanding anything in Section 8.2 to the contrary, should the sale to a third person be at a price or on terms that are more favorable to the purchaser than stated in the Offer, then the transferring Member must reoffer the sale of the Interest to the remaining Members at that other price or other terms; provided, further, that if the sale to a third person is not closed within six months after the expiration of the 30-day period describe above, then the provisions of Section 8.2 will again apply to the Interest proposed to be sold or conveyed. 8.2.5 Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of Section 8.2, should the sole remaining Member be entitled to and elect to acquire all the Interests of the other Members ofthe Company in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.2, the acquiring Member may assign the right to acquire the Interests to a spouse, lineal descendent, or an affiliated entity if the assignment is reasonably believed to be necessary to continue the existence of the Company as a limited liability company. 8.3 Substituted Parties. Any transfer in which the Transferee becomes a fully substituted Member is not permitted unless and until: (I) The transferor and assignee execute and deliver to the Company the documents and instruments of conveyance necessary or appropriate in the opinion of counsel to the Company to effect the transfer and to confirm the agreement of the permitted assignee to be bound by the provisions ofthis Agreement; and (2) The transferor furnishes to the Company an opinion of counsel, satisfactory to the Company, that the transfer will not cause the Company to terminate for federal income tax purposes or that any termination is not adverse to the Company or the other Members. 8.4 Death, Incompetency, or Bankruptcy of Member. On the death, adjudicated incompetence, or bankruptcy of a Member, unless the Company exercises its rights under Section 8.5, the successor in interest to the Member (whether an estate, bankruptcy trustee, or otherwise) will receive only the economic right to receive distributions whenever made by the Company and the Member's allocable share of taxable income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit (the "Economic Rights") unless and until a majority of the other Members determined on a per capita basis admit the transferee as a fully substituted Member in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.3. 8.4.1 Any transfer of Economic Rights pursuant to Section 8.4 will not include any right to participate in management of the Company, including any right to vote, consent to, and will not include any right to information on the Company or its operations or financial condition. Following any transfer of only the Economic Rights of a Member's Interest in the Company, the transferring Member's power and right to vote or consent to any matter submitted to the Members will be eliminated, and the Ownership Interests of the remaining Members, for purposes only of such votes, consents, and participation in management, will be proportionately increased until such time, if any, as the transferee of the Economic Rights becomes a fully substituted Member. 8.5 Death Buy Out. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision of Section 8, the Members covenant and agree that on the death of any Member, the Company, at its option, by providing written notice to the estate of the deceased Member within 180 days of the death of the Member, may purchase, acquire, and redeem the Interest of the deceased Member in the Company pursuant to the provision of Section 8.5. 8.5.1 The value of each Member's Interest in the Company will be determined on the date this Agreement is signed, and the value will be endorsed on Schedule 3 attached and made a part of this Agreement. The value of each Member's Interest will be redetermined unanimously by the Members annually, unless the Members unanimously decide to redetermine those values more frequently. The Members will use their best efforts to endorse those values on Schedule 3. The purchase price for a decedent Member's interest conclusively is the value last determined before the death of such Member; provided, however, that if the latest valuation is more than two years before the death of the deceased Member, the provisions of Section 8.5.2 will apply in determining the value of the Member's Interest in the Company. 8.5.2 If the Members have failed to value the deceased Member's Interest within the prior two- year period, the value of each Member's Interest in the Company on the date of death, in the first instance, will be determined by mutual agreement of the surviving Members and the personal representative of the estate of the deceased Member. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the value within 30 days after the appointment of the personal representative of the deceased Member, then the surviving Members and the personal representative each must select a qualified appraiser within the next succeeding 30 days. The appraisers so selected must attempt to determine the value of the Company Interest owned by the decedent at the time of death based solely on their appraisal of the total value of the Company's assets and the amount the decedent would have received had the assets of the Company been sold at that time for an amount equal to their fair market value and the proceeds (after payment of all Company obligations) were distributed in the manner contemplated in Section 8. The appraisal may not consider and discount for the sale of a minority Interest in the Company. In the event the appraisers cannot agree on the value within 30 days after being selected, the two appraisers must, within 30 -days, select a third appraiser. The value of the Interest of the decedent in the Company and the purchase price of it will be the average of the two appraisals nearest in amount to one another. That amount will be final and binding on all parties and their respective successors, assigns, and representatives. The costs and expenses of the third appraiser and any costs and expenses of the appraiser retained but not paid for by the estate of the deceased Member will be offset against the purchase price paid for the deceased Member's Interest in the Company. 8.5.3 Closing of the sale of the deceased Member's Interest in the Company will be held at the office of the Company on a date designated by the Company, not be later than 90 days after agreement with the personal representative of the deceased Member's estate on the fair market value of the deceased Member's Interest in the Company; provided, however, that if the purchase price are determined by appraisals as set forth in Section 8.5.2, the closing will be 30 days after the final appraisal and purchase price are determined. If no personal representative has been appointed within 60 days after the deceased Member's death, the surviving Members have the right to apply for and have a personal representative appointed. 8.5.4 At closing, the Company will pay the purchase price for the deceased Member's Interest in the Company. If the purchase price is less than $1,000.00, the purchase price will be paid in cash; if the purchase price is $1,000.00 or more, the purchase price will be paid as follows: (1) $1,000.00 in cash, bank cashier's check, or certified funds; (2) The balance of the purchase price by the Company executing and delivering its promissory note for the balance, with interest at the prime interest rate stated by primary banking institution utilized by the Company, its successors and assigns, at the time ofthe deceased Member's death. Interest will be payable monthly, with the principal sum being due and payable in three equal annual installments. The promissory note will be unsecured and will contain provisions that the principal sum may be paid in whole or in part at any time, without penalty. 8.5.5 At the closing, the deceased Member's estate or personal representative must assign to the Company all of the deceased Member's Interest in the Company free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, and, at the request of the Company, the estate or personal representative must execute all other instruments as may reasonably be necessary to vest in the Company all of the deceased Member's right, title, and interest in the Company and its assets. If either the Company or the deceased Member's estate or personal representative fails or refuses to execute any instrument required by this Agreement, the other party is hereby granted the irrevocable power of attorney which, it is agreed, is coupled with an interest, to execute and deliver on behalf of the failing or refusing party all instruments required to be executed and delivered by the failing or refusing party. 8.5.6 On completion of the purchase of the deceased Member's Interest in the Company, the Ownership Interests of the remaining Members will increase proportionately to their thfm existing Ownership Interests. SECTION 9 DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP OF THE COMPANY 9.1 Dissolution. The Company will be dissolved on the happening of any of the following events: 9.1.1 Sale, transfer, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the property of the Company; 9.1.2 The agreement of all of the Members; 9.1.3 By operation oflaw; or 9.1.4 The death, incompetence, expulsion, or bankruptcy of a Member, or the occurrence of any event that terminates the continued membership of a Member in the Company, unless there are then remaining at least the minimum number of Members required by law and all of the remaining Members, within 120 days after the date of the event, elect to continue the business of the Company. 9.2 Winding Up. On the dissolution of the Company (if the Company is not continued), the Members must take full account of the Company's assets and liabilities, and the assets will be liquidated as promptly as is consistent with obtaining their fair value, and the proceeds, to the extent sufficient to pay the Company's obligations with respect to the liquidation, will be applied and distributed, after any gain or loss realized in connection with the liquidation has been allocated in accordance with Section 3 of this Agreement, and the Members' Capital Accounts have been adjusted to reflect the allocation and all other transactions through the date of the distribution, in the following order: 9.2.1 To payment and discharge of the expenses of liquidation and of all the Company's debts and liabilities to persons or organizations other than Members; 9.2.2 To the payment and discharge of any Company debts and liabilities owed to Members; and 9.2.3 To Members in the amount of their respective adjusted Capital Account balances on the date of distribution; provided, however, that any thenDoutstanding Default Advances (with interest and costs of collection) first must be repaid from distributions otherwise allocable to the Defaulting Member pursuant to Section 9.203. SECTION 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 Amendments. Amendments to this Agreement may be proposed by any Member. A . proposed amendment will be adopted and become effective as an amendment only on the written approval of all of the Members. 10.2 Governing Law. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties under it are governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington (without regard to principles of conflicts of law). 1003 Entire Agreement; Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Members with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No agreements, understandings, restrictions, representations, or warranties exist between or among the members other than those in this Agreement or referred to or provided for in this Agreement. No modification or amendment of any provision of this Agreement will be binding on any Member unless in writing and signed by all the Members. \0.4 Attorney Fees. In the event of any suit or action to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement (or that is based on this Agreement), the prevailing party is entitled to recover, in addition to other costs, reasonable attorney fees in connection with the suit, action, or arbitration, and in any appeals. The determination of who is the prevailing party and the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be paid to the prevailing party will be decided by the court or courts, including any appellate courts, in which the matter is tried, heard, or decided. \0.5 Further Effect. The parties agree to execute other documents reasonably necessary to further effect and evidence the terms of this Agreement, as long as the terms and provisions of the other documents are fully consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 10.6 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be void or unenforceable, that term or provision will be severed from this Agreement, the balance of the Agreement will survive, and the balance of this Agreement will be reasonably construed to carry out the intent of the parties as evidenced by the terms of this Agreement. 10.7 Captions. The captions used in this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and will not be interpreted to enlarge, contract, or alter the terms and provisions of this Agreement. . H);sNollces, All notices required to be given by this Agreement.Wiiibein wri.i\ik'imd\~IIJ!e 'etreCtivewhenaCfuallydelivered or,i(Jnailed, when depositedascimifiedllliill;\~si1ige-,pi~d, 'directed to·'tht addresses first sho\Vnabove foteaCh Member .or t6 such otller"!!ddrCSSiis it Member may specify by 'ootice given in ,cotlrormanceWilhthese proVis.ipp,~;;tg:;;fii<e,((jtper . ·'Mem~s. . . ·"·~X)::f~;,:,·;~}/:,~:,;:~":::·~::-';'!:-·: ::. ~'-::' ,0:::t~'~"".:ri~I:" '.I :;'.:.' 1N,~~SWf:lBRE9F,t4eparties to.t4isAgreenierit ex~tti 1hi~,~:A:~¢fi! lis of .t4e.date.iIiIMeiu:~ aboveWrittetL . ...' ... MEMBERS: . , PeretO'Kane Printed!ryped Name .... . Breooa') ens· ... ", ~.' ., .. .... .": Listing ofMembers.Sehedulel LIMITED t.JABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGRE~ FORWESTPA¢DEVELOPtvfENT,Ll,C LISTING OF MEMBERS As of the 31 st day ofMilrch,:2011 ,the followiilgis-lilistofMembcirsoftheColllpany: NAME AQDRESS Peter·O'Kane7449 W~ MercetWay ~~~~--------------M~·.~~~····~··~Is~I~~-·~W~A~----~~----~- BrendaJUrgens 3108"' AvenueW ~~~~~--------------~~·r~~an~·~~~W~A~~------------------ Authorized by Membcir(s) ioproviile Member Listing asofihisilst ~,ofJuly,:iO II. Petef'O.'Karie PrintCdITYPedNi\Ille~ Brenda JUrgens PriritedffyPedNarne ,Listing of CapitaICoDtriJ)utiillls~Schedwe2. '. LIMrrEDL'iABILiTvcoMi>ANY'OPERATINOAGREEMENT F()R·\\!ESTPACDBVELOPMENT,·LLC .·CMITALCONTRlBUTIONS '.' .·PursuanttoARTICLE.2,theMembers'iiliii!llcontributi()n to the COIDJll\llY capital is stated.tribe $10.000. The deseri' tioiilind each iiidiVidllal'" rtioilOfiliisiJ1itial coritnbutioiiisasfollows:: . .... .... .... ......P '.' ' ... ' .............. ' ... P(). ..... . ....................•..................... NAME PeterO'Kane BreildaiUtgenS .' '. ,',' 'CO~I1@UTION ,$S;()OO S.JGNED AND AGRPEDthis 21stdilyrif July, 2Q1I. PeterO'Kane. PrintedlTypedName BreildaJurgens . PrintedlTyped NaIlIe Sf . % ()Wl:'I.~R,SI:lJP 50%' 50% : '. Llstingo(VaI#ti~D o(MeinberSJnte~t-$ehoow~.3 LIMlTEIlLIABILITY·C:OMPANY9PERATINGA(JRE:~1lliT FOR WESTPA.C.IlE~~¥Em:; L,L<:;: VAI;UATIQN. OF ¥E¥BE~JNTE~ST . ~uantt()A~'fICL~8,. tJjev..ruil~~felll:h Me,m.beJ:'s iptcttest iri the CQ!IIp~YisetlM~;as , follows: ' .,' NAME f~rO'~e Brenda: Jui'eriS ......... g .. , vAtuAtI()NEND()RsEMENr $5;000 $5;000 SIGNEDANDAGIffiEDthis 21stday,ofJUIy; 20i 1. Petei'O'l(iirie Prin~YJlC<lN.~¢ Btenda Jui8eriS . '". ,.: -, City of Renton lAND USE PERM~l MA~TER. APPlICAT~O~ , -... , PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Jimmie l. & Cheryl L. Moncrief PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: 1178 Hoquiam Ave NE. PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: CITY: 98059 Renton ZIP: 425-351-6806 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 102305-9312 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable) TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) https://webmaiLjohnlscon.com/exchangeJglovcrw/Inbox/Hazcn -Master Permit Application -all owners have to sign and have notarized .. a1UI_multipart_xF8FF _3_Land Usc Permit Master Application -bJank.docJC58EA28C-18CO-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAfB3/Land Use Permit Master Application -blank.doc?attach=\ - 1 -03111 PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(4c=o~nt=in~u=e=dL-) ____________ -. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: -4, S WI WI SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 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): o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): o FLOOD HAZARD AREA ___ sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): o GEOLOGIC HAZARD ___ sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if o HABITAT CONSERVATION ___ sq. fl. applicable): o SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES ___ sq. fl. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): o WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION __ , TOWNSHIP __ , RANGE __ , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Name/s) , 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 __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the· formation herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~ Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -4t!)) M ,"i.. L. 0\0,.,(.«.. ~ (. Ave CA ""j I L. MrnX.«.J .... (' signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Dated II lf/~~~~ " II-\VI. _ Notary I,ll ~() ":~iS:;,'o"" ---:::,. ,II ~~'o' ~-" "'~ ••• ~. fo",.,>e.-,--(Y\ 'S'''''" v .-to\-. ~ /CJ NO/: \'" ~ ., u'-+-{ ,,~. A"L' 0 ... ,,' . .,.,.. t!i'r-" "en! ,0 ......... fij! .... ::: $) I ~ -' ; u'~L "': o:AII'Il'appointment expires: __ -,_~-,--,-\:,;:~,,--___________ _ .... ~ ... ~ .... Ie l f httPS:/IWebmail.jOhnlscott.COml~1f''\Ilgtl~9:o1~.~~']\\\~aster Permit Application -all owners have to sign and have notarized.,EMIJ1_multiparU'F8PLY-lf!'aiUr~~~r Application. blank.doc/CS8EA28C·18C0-4a97·9AF2·036E93DDAFB3ILand Use Permit Master Application· blank.doc?attach=l --.... ~ A SH\~ 1,,1 ·3 • 03/11 "'""",,,,,,,,I/IIJJ I City of Renton lA lNl [D) llJJ 5) [E [p [E [R M ~ 1[' MA~l[E~ A[P[Pl~~A l~(Q)lNl PROPERTY OWNER(S) I PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Belair and Briney, a general partnership Piper's Bluff ADDRESS/5/ J La .ncl'e..e J3 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 1166 Hoquiam Avenue NE CITY: .J.eaTYcf ZIP: Renton WA 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: c:?.o & S cJ';)-9/ oS KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 102305-9002 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Residential EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: Residential Single Family (RSF) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) Residential Sinqle Family (RSF) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: R-8 CO NT ACT PERSON I PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-8 NAME: Nadeem A. Khan SITE AREA (in square feet): 95,382 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. DEDICATED: 47,719 square feet ADDRESS: 10604 NE 38 th Place, #232 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 2,695 square feet (Private Access Tract 'C") PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98033 ACRE (if applicable) 8 du/acres TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 30 overall 425-827-3063 nadeem.khan@drstrong.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 30 overall C:\Users\Stan lsenhatb\Documents\Business\CURREN1\Belair and Briney\Renton\Belair and Briney\Docs\Jand permit b&b.doc - I - I PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(4c~o~n~ti~n=ue~d~I) ______________ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: Two 4.'3 YVl WI SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2,500 to 3,500 square feet 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 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 None FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL 0 BUILDINGS TO.REMAIN(if applicable): GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl. None 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. fl. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. fl. None NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW 0 WETLANDS 1 949 sq. fl. PROJECT (if aoolicable): None LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE 1/4 __ QUARTER OF SECTION _1 0_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) ~o r e:, ... , declare under penalty of pe~ul)' 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 __ the authorized to act for a co oratio,n (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein •• ,.~ . 0 ,._ •• '0.' ~Y' ~"" '" .. "'" ,."" " ......... "",. /~.,..' J < /-z..--- -t"i;7~r2;V""z~~tl;~;..-<::...---ate Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactol)' evidence that -!::::CO,?,\;>"""c_,,:,"--'7-''-;'-{).'''''-' ".,r7-;"-::-_ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be@herlthe' uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. ; I Dated Notal)' (Print): -,-M.,-"~-"e..>.\"",, ...... e,,-,-\ _l?,,-,,-, _W.=.. .... e,4.5 ""o-,l""o,-"\.u"'-"'.~-,,l,-,, __ _ My appointment expires: _ 'ILl\'f(-,o",c..,¥6.J\Ll~"-_____________ _ -) I C:\Users\Stan Isenhath\Documents\Business\CURREN1\Belair and Briney\Renton\Belair and Briney\Docs\land permit b&b.doc ·2· " ." r;=======::l,_ =======-..l::==.========;-J I I City of Renton lA~[D) lUJ5)[E ~E~M~1r MA5)1r[ER A~[P)l~(cA 1r~(Q)~ PROPERTY OWNER(S) I PROJECT INFORMATION Virginia Broyles PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: 1166 Hoquiam Ave NE, ADDRESS: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: 98059 Renton ZIP: 425-255-5793 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 102305-9144 APPLICANT (if other than owner) I EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable) TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) https:!/wcbrnail.johnlscott.comJexchange/gJovcrwlInbox/Hazen -Master Permit Application -all owners have to sign and have notarized .. EMUI_ffiultipart_xF8FF _3_Land Use Pennit Master Application -hlank.doclC58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/Land Use Pennit Master Application -blank.doc?anach=l - I -03/11 P~ ,,)J ECT I NFORMA T,IO_N--'(_'co.::...n'-'-t:c:..:hc:..:'u"-'e:....:d:.L-) _______ -----, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 4.5 VVtYYl SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 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): D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. fl. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. fl. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. fl. applicable): 0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. fl. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 WETLANDS sq. fl. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION __ , TOWNSHIP __ , RANGE __ , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (plea check one) __ the curr wner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ?-it-I ;; Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that \)\ "'~'\ ~q..., ~'I'€:l'" \~ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hi@their frlll?and voluntary act for theu uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. ",\'\\\\1\1111 ~ ~ \. \ ~~ .... '" REID II111 ~ \"\ . ~~b d...D\,.(:) ~':'"EX~''''''' "ll )D ~~ 9 '..:~ Dated ::s = ~ ~~--..o~ 1!t~.;'", -:. NOta/YPUiic in and for the State of Washing on -".. =,:; ""R~ ~ -t-'l ;: 00 ff~ 0 _ % 0 ~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ ... ~ Z • (J :: I-# '" -;:. %~ -~';;;;'!'i (9 ;: Notary (Print): ,,~, ~, ~ 'I" PU,..., f ~ = Date l' III/ 1 O .. () ~-~ -\.> II .C'\ "", ~"".... ~ .::: ~ ..F-....\ \ \ \ I U"i": \\\\\\ .. ~ .db aPPointment expires: __ "","-->==:::C.---'::: '--'="-----''-'"1--\-_________ _ 1111/ -q.,.c Of 'l""~"" , III >,,>, https://wchmail.johnlscott.comlexchangelgloverw/ A~~~~~ -Master Pennit Application -all owncrs have to sign and have notarized .. EMUl_multipart_xF8FF _3_Land Use Pcnnit Master Application -blank.doc!C58EA28C-18CO-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3ILand Use Permit Master Application -blank.doc?attach=1 - 3 -03/11 PREAPPlICATION MEETING FOR. HAZEN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREA.PPLICATION 1166 HOQUIAM AVE NE CXTY Of IRIENTOINI Department of CommLJIII'1Iuty amI! IEcOIl'uomic Development PDal1lB"lling Dfivisfion Contact Information: Planner Rocale Timmons PRE12-054 July 12, 2012 Phone: 425.430.7219 Public Works Reviewer: Arneta Henninger Phone: 425.430.7298 Fire Prevention Reviewer:-DavePargas Phone: 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to·have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ---1~~Jlt~nle MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 3, 2012 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Hazen Preliminary Plat 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit would be granted for the two existing homes to be removed. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45- feet outside tuming radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 3D-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within ·150-feet of all pOints on the buildings. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM July 10, 2012 Rocale Timmons, Planner Arneta Henninger, Plan Revie1t1l Utility and Transportation Comments For: HAZEN PLAT PREAP 1166 HOQUIAM AVE NE PRE 12-054 Parcel 1023059367, -9002, -9144, -9312 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information-contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision- makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced 30 lots with stream /wetland proposal, located on the east side of Hoquiam Ave NE north of and in the vicinity of NE 11th Ct and south of Sunset Blvd all in Sect. 10, Twp 23N Rng 5 E. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant: WATER: o Thissite is not located in the City of Renton water service boundary; it is located in the Water District 90 area. A Certificate of Water Availability is required and shall be submitted prior to formal application. o This site is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. • The project will need to provide domestic and fire service to serve the proposed development. • Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). Ifthe dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be reqUired. lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. • All fire hydrants need to be brought up to current code if not existing. Hazen Plat PRE 12-054 Page 2 of 3 SANITARY SEWER: • This site is located in the City of Renton sanitary sewer service boundary. • There is an existing 8" sewer main in NE 11th Ct. See City of Renton sanitary sewer drawing #5-3088 for details. • This project wi" be required to Install a public owned sewage lift station to current city standards. The station shall be located iii either a Tract or Easement and shall be sized appropriately to allow proper access by the City's Maintenance Equipment, including a full- size vactor truck. The station shall be sized in accordance with DOE Guidelines, and shall include potential full build-out flows from within the entire basin that could drain to this station that is not currently served with public sewer. The station shall be designed with Flyght brand submersible pumps in an appropriately sized concrete wet well, with separate valve vault, and motor control and telemetry contained within a small building. • Plans need to indicate how sanitary sewer will be provided to each unit with an individual sewer service line. Per code, sanitary sewer needs to extend along the full frontage ofthe parcel being developed. • This proposal is located in the Honey Creek Special Assessment District (SAD 8611). These fees are $250 per connection and shall be paid at the time a construction permit is issued. • Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees (SOC) are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issl;l~J:!,_ . . "--- STREET IMPROVEMENTS: /,/'""') o The project shall be required to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, an~ street lighting On the full frontage of the parcel being developed. \, ".--~/ " o Street improvements on Hoquiam Ave need to be 36' face of curb toface"of curb including gutter,8' planter strip and 5' sidewalk along the full frontage. o The proposed internal street section needs to be designed to 26' of pavement, 8' planter strip with a 5' sidewalk and parking on one side only. o Per City of Renton code all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet. Street lighting shall be required to be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. For the internal street this shall be decorative street lights, black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. J-0 Street lighting on Hoquiam Ave NE needs to meet the lighting levels average maintained "illumination of 0.6 with a uniformity ratio to meet or exceed four to one (4:1). • All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be underground. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording the plat. o Traffic mitigation fees apply. These fees are approximately $750 per new lot. STORM DRAINAGE: • There are existing storm drainage facilities in Hoquiam Ave NE. D A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application for the project. A drainage control plan designed per the King County Surface Hazen Plat PRE 12-054 Page30f3 Water Manual 2009 is required_ Research shows this proposal to be in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions)_ • The conceptual storm drainage plan needs to address how the roof runoff from the new lots will be handled_ • The Surface Water SDC fees are $1,012 per lot_ These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued_ 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 Englneer_ • 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 will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12, 2012 . TO: Pre-Application File No. 12-054 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Hazen Preliminary Plat (1166 Hoquiam Ave NEl General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at the intersection of NE 12th St and Hoquiam Ave NE. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat for a 3D-lot subdivision of a 4.990-acre site located within the R-S zoning designation. The proposed lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes. Access to the site would be gained from Hoquiam Ave NE via a loop road. The site contains a Category 2 wetland and Class 4 stream. Current Use: The site is currently contains two single family residences proposed for demolition. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is located within the R-S zoning deSignation. The density range allowed in the R-B zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). The area of public and private streelS and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. It appears the net density of the site would be approximately 7.92 dulac which is within the density range for the R-8 zoning classification. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-8 standards" herein). Minimum lot Size. Width and Depth -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 is 4,500 square feet for parcels greater than 1 acre in size and 5,DOO square feet for lots 1 acre or less in size. i:\rtimmons\preapps\12 R 054 (r-8 hazen pp, wetlands, trees}.doc Hazen PP, PRE12-054 Page 2 of4 July 12, 2012 The total lot area of the subject site is more than 1 acre; therefore a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet is applicable to the proposed project, A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a rninimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The proposal appears to comply with the lot size, width and depth requirements of the zone. Building Standards -R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size and a maximum impervious surface 75%. Building height is restricted to 30 feet from existing grade. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet. The gross floor area must be less than that of the primary structure. Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. The proposal's compliance with the building standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located on all lots. Building Design Standards -All single family residences would be subject to the Residential Design Standards outlined in RMC 4-2-115. The proposal's compliance with the residential design standards would be verified at the time of building permit review for the new residences to be located on all lots. Please take not of the following standards One of the following is required: • lot width variation of 10 feet (10') minimum of one per four (4) abutting street-fronting lots, or • Minimum of four (4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400) gross square feet size difference) for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots, or • A front yard setback variation of at least five feet (5') minimum for at least every four (4) abutting street fronting lots. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet in front forthe attached garage, 20 feet in the rear,S feet on interior side yards, and 15 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements) for the primary structure and 20 feet on side yards along streets (including access easements) for the attached garage. The setbacks for the new residences would be reviewed at the time of building permit. Access/Parking: Access to site is proposed via a loop road extended from Hoquiam Ave NE. Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Alley: Alley access is the preferred access pattern. The applicant would be required to redesign the plat In order to provide an alley for the two-tier lots. All lots abutting the alley would be required to take occess off of the alley. The applicant is encouraged to request a street modification in order to eliminate the parking lane on the south side of Road A as a result of the required alley access. Driveways: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%, provided that driveways exceeding 8% are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance is required. landscaping -Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service 'areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious i:\rtimmons\preapps\12-{)S4 (r-8 hazen pp, wetlands, tree,l.doc Hazen PP, PRE12'OS4 Page30f4 Ju Iy 12, 2012 areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4·070) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the pre-application materials is required to be revised to include a 10-/oot wide on-site landscape strip on each lot. Significant Tree Retention: If significant trees (greater than 6·inch caliper) are proposed to be removed a tree iriventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. The applicant will be required to retain stands of trees an the perimeter of lots. Critical Areas: The project site appears to contain a Class 4 stream and a Category 2 wetland. The applicant is proposing wetland buffer averaging in order to accommodate the proposed drainage tract. A conceptual mitigation would be required to be submitted, as part of the formal land use process, demonstrating mitigation sequencing and showing a net increase in· the junction and value a/the wetland system. Secondary review a/the wetland report and/or mitigation plan may be required at the applicant's expense. All critical areas and buffers are required to be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review is required for projects nine lots or greater, or on sites that contain critical areas. Therefore SEPA would be required for the proposed subdivision. Permit Requirements: The proposed subdivision would require Preliminary Plat Approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review. All land use permits would be processed within an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. The Preliminary Plat Review application fee is $4,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,000. A 3% technology fee would also be assessed at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. Impact fees. which would replace mitigation fees, maY be adopted prior to construction. . Those fees are to be determined. The following are current fees: o A Fire Mitigation fee of $488.00 per new single family residence. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; and o A Parks Mltigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence. o A School District Impact Fee based on $6,392 per new single family residence. i:\rtimmons\preapps\12·054 (r-8 hazen pp, wetlands, trees}.doc · ., Hazen PP, PRE12-054 Page 4 of 4 July 12, 2012 A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Expiration: The preliminary plat approval is valid for seven years with a possible one-year extension. i:\rtimmons\preapps\12-QS4 (r-8 hazen pp, wetlands, trees).doc , D. R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS August 31,2012 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Piper's Bluff '1166 Hoquiam Ave NE Renton, Washington Modification Request' Background . DRS-Project No. 12029 , City Of Fl P1annin ,enton 9 D/It/Sion , AUG a ' 1 lOll fRl~(Q~U¥f~/t)) The Project is the subdivision of four existing parcels into, 30 single-family residential lots. Access to the Site is proposed via two new street intersections with Hoquiam Ave NE. ' The City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6-060 requires new subdivision street to be designed as residential access street with two-lanes, 53-foot right-of-way. Due to Site limitations the Project is proposing limited residential access streets with 1-lane, 45-foot right-of-way. Modification Requested This letter is an official request for ao urban design code modification .related to the right-of- way width for access streets to allow for the construction of a limited residential access street. Justification .The proposed development is' projected to generate 241 net new daily trips. The vehicular traffic from the Project would have two options for, ingress/egress into the subdivision, the proposed loop road "A" which intersects with Hoquiam Ave NE at two locations a~ shown on the attached map. Most likely, the Project daily trips will be split between two flew streets as traffic will be approached from north and south direction. The traffic for lots along the north property line will niost probably enters the Site from north as parking is proposed on the south side of the road facing east. The traffic for lots located in the middle' and along the south property line will approach the Site from south due to convenience of parking on that side. This will create overall less traffic circulation and volume. . The following elements will justify the modification further in detail; a. The proposed road system, as shown on the attached map meets Comprehensive plan land use designation requirements, b. The limited access streets will be in conformity with the intent and purpose of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6-060. c, The approved modification will meet and implement policies and objectives of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Elements Design Elements. d, The modification is proposing minimum adjustment to implement policies and objectives': 10604 N.E. 38 th Place Suite 232 Kirkland, WA9a033-3063 Phone: (425) 827-3063 . Fax: (425) 827-2423 Toll Free: (800) 962-1402 WNW.drstrong.com Engineers Surveyors Landscape Architects , August 31,2012 Page 2 cif 2 Piper's Bluff e. Due to the low traffic volume, it would appear that public safety would not be adversely affected with approval of this code modification. . f. The proposal will not be injurious to the other properties in the vicinity. There are only· three properties in the close vicinity which are adjacent to north property line. These properties will continue to gain full access through new access street along the north property line. . ' g. The approved modification conforms 'to' the intent and purpose of the Code 4-6-060. h. The proposed code modification has been justified and shown on the attached map. i. The approved modification will not adversely impact the other properties in the vicinity as explained above. j. The whole Project design meets ·the. minimum standards and guidelines in SUbsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations and per City of Renton subdivision process. k. The limited access street will be built per Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6-060. , A clear area of 20 feet in width for vehicular movement with a minimum length of 50 feet is provided at every 150 feet.to meet Fire Department requirements. I. As the Project overall road system will be built per code Section 4-6-060, there will no harmful effect on the nearby properties and the City as a whole. m. The deviation is allowed by code and will manifest high quality design. n. The Project will construct curb, gutter, planter strip and sidewalk on both sides of limited access streets as well as along the frontage on Hoquiam Avenue NE, which would improve pedestrian access and provide safe travel routes for the public. ' If you have any questions or concerns regarding these matters, please do not hesitate' to contact me. Sincerely yours, D 6-Con~ting Engineers Inc. L---?~~._a~~~~~ __ ----~~ uayR. udeh, P.E. President LRJ/nak R: \20 12\0\ 12029\3\Documents \Reports \P relimina ry\Mod ification From:Water District 90 4252774128 07/31/1" -14:28 #946 P. 001/001 August 29,2012 CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION REPORT PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIPER'S BLUFF City of Renton Planning Division AUG 3 1 Z012 Project No. 12029 The following is a report of expected construction dates and times, as well as proposed hauling/transportation routes, ESC measures and traffic control plan. Proposed Construction Dates: Hours and Days of Operation: forth by City ordinance Clearing, Grading, Utilities and Roads April-October 2013 Home Construction: October 2013-2014 Monday -Friday, Hours to meet guidelines set Proposed Hauling/Trans~ortation Routes: South on Hoquiam Avenue NE to NE 4th Street, East on 4t ,4th Street turns into NE 3rd Street. South on Sunset Boulevard N to Hwy 169 South (Maple Valley Road). ESC Measures: The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design elements as listed in SECTION VIII (PART A) of Drainage Report shall be imposed to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics during Site construction. Special hours: No special hours proposed for construction at this time. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: See attached CityOfR Plann' enton tng Division AUG 31 2012 1Ri~© DRS projec!ff.pSf~ CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIPER'S BLUFF PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary de- lays 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. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 10f23 Piper's BluffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton, Washington c· Ity of Rento Planning Division n AUG 81 1012 August 29, 2012 ff?i ~ rt; ~OW'~/Q) Project No. 12029 CITY OF RENTON PROJECT NARRATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIPER'S BLUFF The project is a proposed single-family residential development of 4.990 acres, known as Tax Parcels 102305-9367, 9312, 9002 into 30 single-family residential lots. The property is located approximately at 1166 Hoquiam Avenue NE in the City of Renton, Washington. All existing improvements will be demolished or removed during plat construction Project Contact Information: Developer: Engineer/Surveyor: Land Use Permits Required: -Preliminary Plat Approval -Final Plat Approval -Environmental Review Zoning and Density: WestPac Development 7449 W Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 770-6546 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10604 NE 38th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. -Grading Permit -Building Permit -Structural Vault Permit The property and adjacent properties are zoned R-S. Current use of Site and existing improvements: The Parcels are currently developed with two single-family residences, three out buildings and gravel driveway. All existing improvements shall be removed except existing power poles. Two existing power poles on Hoquiam Ave along Site frontage shall be relocated. All existing vegetation and trees shall be removed except an eight-inch deciduous tree near SW corner of the property and trees located in NGPA Tract "B" to be retained. Page 2 of2 Special Site features: There is a Category 2 Wetland and a Class 4 Stream located onsite near northeast property corner. Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Per the King County Soil Survey, onsite soil consists of AgC, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 6-15% and AgD, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with slopes ranging from 15-30%. Site runoff travels northeasterly enters into a Category 2 Wetland located near northeast property corner and then exits to north via a Class 4 Stream. Proposed Use of Property: The Project is the subdivision of four existing parcels zoned R8 (4.990 ac. total) into 30 single-family residential lots through the City of Renton's subdivision process. This will result in a density of 7.92 dwelling units per acre. Lot range from 4,500 s.f. to 8,118 s.f. with no lot sizes below the minimum 4,500 s.f. threshold set by the City. Access, Traffic, and Circulation: The project will locate its access roads as depicted on the attached plans. Access to the subdivision will be from Hoquiam Avenue NE via 45-foot right-of-ways. Access to the residential lots will be from 45-foot right-of-ways, a 33.5-foot right-of- way along the north property line, private access Tract "C" and two 16-feet wide alleys. Proposed Site Improvements: Half street improvements on Hoquiam Ave NE will provide 36 feet of pavement width from face of curb to face of curb and will install curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk and 8 foot planter strip on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue as per City requirements. An existing water main in Hoquiam Avenue will be tapped to serve the proposed residences. Sanitary Sewer is not available at Site frontage, therefore a sewer lift station will be provided to serve the future residences. One detention vault and a Stormfilter are proposed within Tract "A" to serve the subdivision. The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. Cut Materials: Approximately 15,511 c.y. of cut and 2,536 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net cut volume is approximately 15,511 c.y. All unwanted soils shall be exported to an approved drop-off site. Tree Inventory: Existing trees in Tract "8" (NGPA) and an eight-inch deciduous tree near SW corner of the property will be retained. The remainder of existing trees (157 trees) will be removed due to mass grading of the Site. Street trees will be installed along Hoquiam Ave and plat access roads as well as part of the lot landscaping where ever appropriate DENSITY WORKSHEET c· ltyOf Plan,), f:lentr 1f7,., O. • ... '" IViS ' , /017 4U63 11011 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. _217369_square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets·· Private access easements·· Critical Areas· Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: __ 47719_square feet __ 2695 __ square feet __ 1949 __ square feet 2. 52363 square feet 3. __ 165,006_square feet 4. _3.788 __ acres 5. 30 ___ units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. _7.92_ = dwelling units/acre ·Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded . •• Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:\20 12\0\ 12029\3\DoclIments\Reports\Prel im inary\dcns ity 12029 .doc - I - 03/08 n TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET AUG 3 11012 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. __ 211 __ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. __ O __ trees __ 37_trees __ 5 __ trees 12 trees ---- ___ 54 trees ___ 157 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re, R-1, R-4, or R-B 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. ____ 47 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 : 5. 1 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. ____ 46 trees (If line 6 is les5 than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ___ 552 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. ____ 3 __ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : per tree (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. ___ 184 trees 1. Measured at chest height. 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4~3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) . ... Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. R: \20 12\0\ 1202 9\3 \Documents\Reports \Prd imi nary\TreeRetent i on Worksheet. doc 12/08 August IS, 2012 Peter O'Kane WestPac Homes, LLC 7449 West Mercer Way Mercer Island , Washington 98040 27641 Covingtal WaySE#2 Covingtal WA <al42 RE: Pipers Bluff Plat -R evised City of Rento n Critical Areas Report & Supplemental Stream Study SWC Job#12-\35 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes jurisdictional wetlands and stre ams on the 5 acre propose d Pipers B luff Plat, located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue NE in the City of Renton, Washington (the "s ite "). Specifically, the site consists of a rectangu lar shaped group of four (4) abutting parcels in a portion ofthe NE Y. of Section 10 , Township 23 North, Range 5 Eas t of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. m .. I i t ~-NE2OII'&! ~ ~'9'.h81 I ....... ll IE 1:m.St c i IE Hlha I ~ NE1O!hPf I i S l ~ , S Hf • i HE '0111 Q II ~\ I iii ~ _,~"' .. , ,,~ SE. 1 i2th sc '" SITE 1i£1I2lh'i, I NE t1lt1C1 I I """'~ .. I 6e 1I4th I OlIVER .. ,IE 11"$1 HAZEN HIGH NIl: l~Pf SCHOOl. i I tIE 101/1 $I toE 'Of! 51 .," I l r l 0 $£1111111'11 Vic inity Map Inc. Pipers BlufJl#12-135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. August 15,2012 Page 2 The site consists offour Parcels including #1023059002, #9367, #9312 & #9144. Single family homes are present on two of the parcels along Hoquiam Avenue, and the remaining property besides the associated lawns and landscaping is undeveloped forested area, The site is proposed to be subdivided into 30 single-family residential Lots with associated roads, and infrastructure. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site on June 6, 2012. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2. 0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990), The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual/Regional Supplement all require the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season mayor may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas, Pipers BlujJ!#12-J35 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc . August 15,2012 Page 3 Following delineation of the wetland and stream on the site, the flags were surveyed by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (see attached survey). 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1 Existing Site Documentation Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was conducted. Re so urces reviewed included the NRCS Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory, and the City of Renton's Water Class map. 3.1.1 Soil Survey According to the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington (Snyder et al 1973), the entire site is mapped as co 'ntaining Alderwood gravelly loam soils (Map Units AgC & AgD). Alderwood soils are moderately-well drained soils formed in glacial till under conifers. Alderwood soils are not listed as a "hydric" soil according to the publication Hydric Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No.l491, 1991). However, Alderwood soils can contain small inclusions of poorly drained hyric soils such Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soil series. 3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory Pipers Bluff/#12-J35 Sewall WeIland Consulting. In c. Augllsl 15. 2012 Page 4 According to the National Wetlands Inventory there are no wetlands or streams located on or near the site. National Wetlands Inventory map 3.1.4 City of Renton Water Class Map According to the City of Renton Draft Water Class Map, the upper reach of Honey Creek is located on the northeast corner of the site. This stream is mapped as a Class 4 stream by the City (brown stream shading). Pipers Bluff/#12 -135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc . A "gust 15, 2012 Page 5 Above: City of Renton's Water Type Map 3.2 Field Observations 3.2.1 Uplands The site is located near the crest of a hill with the property sloping down to the east towards Honey Creek. As previously mentioned, several structures as well as associated lawn, driveway and landscaped area is located along the west side of the site. The area along the west side of the site includes immature red alder, big-leaf maple, old apple trees, cottonwood, dense thickets of blackberry, hazelnut, salmonberry and sword fern. The western end of the site appears to have been cleared at one time but has been re-vegetated within the last 20+ years. The majority of the site is covered with a mixed forest with conifers as the main component in the overstory. Douglas fir with several 4'- 5' dbh specimens are the dominant species in the overstory with scattered big leaf maple and red alder. Understory species include hazelnut, indian plum, elderberry, sword fern, salmonberry, and stinging nett.le. Soil pits excavated within the upland area of the site revealed soils with profiles similar to the mapped Alderwood series. 3.2.2 Wetlands Pipers BlujJl#12-1 35 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc, August 15,2012 Page 6 A single scrub-shrub, riparian wetland was identified and delineated along the northeast corner of the site. The western edge of the wetland was flagged with orangelblack flagging labeled AAI-AA2-AI-A7, and the east side with BI-B4. This narrow band of wetland borders Honey Creek which passes through its center flowing in a northerly direction. Vegetation in this wetland consists of small pacific willow, salmonberry, lady fern, skunk cabbage and manna grass. Soil pits excavated within the wetland revealed a sapric muck soil with a color of 10YR 211 which was saturated within 12" of the surface. Wetland A would be classified as.PSSIC (palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et al. 1979). According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050,M.I, Wetland A would be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined in the Code as fOllows; ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i. e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined infiuent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related jl)'siq(ll(llt~rati~rzSllcjl.as di~lrzgL(iJtc!zi!!gJ?T.q!zannel izqtion;J.l.rzr1!or According to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050,M.I ,"Wetland A" best meets this rating as a wetland with minimum evidence of human related physical alteration, but not meeting the criteria of a Category I or Category 3 wetland. Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge. 3.2.3 Streams As previously mentioned, Honey Creek passes through Wetland A and the northeast corner of the site, As required by Code, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the creek as flagged with whitelblue dot flagging labeled WI-W8 on the west side and EI-E4 Pipers BluJJ7#12-l35 Sewall Wetland Consulting, 1nc. Augustl5,2012 Page 7 on the east side. This is depicted on the attached D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Plat map. Honey Creek is a slow flowing mud and sand bottom stream as it flows northerly through the site. Trash, pallets and tires line the edge of the creek in this area, although otherwise, the stream appears relatively healthy with about 6" of flowing water across its channel. The stream is strongly influenced by stormwater outfalls upstream as flow in the channel was noted to quickly increase following a rain event. The stream buffer on the project site is very healthy and includes large deciduous and coniferous tree species with a dense native understory. To the east and off-site, this buffer has been impacted by clearing and use of the areas as lawn for single family homes to the east. Honey Creek is mapped as a Class 4 stream by the City of Renton. Class 4 streams are "non-salmonid bearing waters during years of normal rainfall and/or mapped on Figure 4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4". According to RMC Title IV Chapter 4.03.050.L.5.a, Class 4 streams have a 35' buffer measured from the OHWM of the creek. Although Honey Creek is a non-fish bearing water in this reach, approximately I;" mile downstream of the site this creek does become fish bearing. As a result this portion of the creek (and associated wetland) has an important function in providing a hydrologic source and attenuating low flow periods of year for the downstream fish bearing section. Wildlife use of the creek is limited to typical urban tolerant wildlife including deer, raccoon, coyote, 4.0 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES The wetland on-site was analyzed for function using the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands rating System for Western Washington. This system is typically utilized to classify wetlands, but the classification is function-based, scoring three main functions, I,) water quality, 2) hydrologic function, and 3) habitat functions. Wetland A -Wetland A was rated as a riparian wetland and scored a total of 52 points indicating a Category 2 wetland under this system which indicates moderate-high overall functional value. Its highest scoring function was for water quality which scored 20 points, and its hydrologic function was moderate at 18 points. Habitat value was generally low at 15 points due to the lack of unique habitat features, lack of a variety of plant communities, and the close proximity of development to its boundaries. 5.0 REGULATIONS Pipers Bluff/#12-135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. August 15,1012 Page 8 In addition to the wetland regulations previously described for wetlands and streams, certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE regulates all discharges into "waters of the United States" (wetlands) under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. Due to the increasing emphasis on Endangered Species Act compliance for all fills of Waters of the United State and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands or streams for this project. 6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is the construction of a 30 lot subdivision with associated access road, and storm water facility. Due to topography and the required storm water facility size, minor encroachment into the 50' buffer of Wetland A is proposed, /' I· Sl - . ' ~['f " I i'l" ~·~_-L_I -"7 -. .. t; -1 1'.... y;/ 1 I ........ N -.... '". 'I ' I Pipers Bluffl#1 2-1 35 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc . August 15,2012 Page 9 1."'--I.\-__ -'r ,,_ .1-'. \ ',~-, , \ \ ,. '. I " ,. ,-'. l.'-I ... "", " )"-" . ~~. n ~~I\ ,~. " •. ') "'~,, '4 ':',.' r ... - -I Above: Proposed buffer averaging of th e 50' wetland buffer on the northeasl corner of the site. This encroachment would be into 6.5' of this buffer leaving a minimum of43.5' of buffer on the north. Under RMC Chapter 4-3-050.M.6J, the following criteria (in italics) must be used to utilize buffer averaging. Our response to each criteria follows; f. Averaging of Buffer Width: Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Upon applicant request, wetland buffer width averaging may be allowed by the Department Administrator only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following .' i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and Pipers Bluffl#12-135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. August 15, 2012 Page 10 The wetland buffer in the area of the proposed reduction and addition are generally healthy, well vegetated areas which adaquately buffer the wetland and associated stream. The area near the reduction to the north is already cleared of trees as a power line passes through this area. A minor reduction in this area will not impact its function. ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland function and values; and As previously stated, the minor reduction of 6.5 feet will not impact or reduce the buffer function in this area. Vegetation is healthy and generally dense, and provides all the function at a slightly reeduced width as the full standard 50' buffer does. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and Thew proposed averaging will reduce the buffer by 583sf on the north, and add 616sf on the south for a net gain of 29sf. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25j wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and The buffer is being reduced 6.5' which is a 13% reduction to a minumum width of43.5' vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Buffer enhancement within this area is not needed as it is a well vegetated area covered with native trees, shrubs and herbaceous species. The outlet of the stormwater facility will also pass through the wetland. This is an exempt activity within the wetland buffer according to RMC Chapter 4-3-050.c' However, any area disturbed during installation of the outfall will be restored with native trees and shrubs. A detailed mitigation plan is attached to this report. Pipers BlufJ/#12-135 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. August 15, 2012 Page 1/ If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com , Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Data Sheets WADOE Rating Form Site Plan/survey REFERENCES Hazen/# 12-13 5 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. June 26, 2012 Page 12 Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79-31 , Washington, D. C. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64. Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson. 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons, Winter 1984, pg 9-15. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. City of Renton Municipal Code Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Pub I. No. 1491. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to BioI. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. -----.... ~ ------_.----- II I II I!!! ! ! 1111 i 111"1 1\ aI PI! I III II ,!il I II \ I I i :11 I 1'\ l' ! llll!! 11 ! !I !I i .. 'IIi I 1!1,11Inn!d II! t III HI II j! I ! I I I • ----------------- PIPER'S BLUFf , ' WETLAND DETERMINATION DArA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, a~d Coast Region Pq:>ey's 13turr . City/County: i~ .... Ao.'Vs.;'PHng Date~ ___ ~-l L- Applicant/OWner. ~~~:::";C"---;"...~-;"~~~--,-~,-,-,-,,...,-'-'-,.,--,,-,-'-~ Slate: ___ . sa,mpnng Point::· : v. r--. . ) .ln~~tligal~i'(S); ___ "".$."",~,-_&=::.....,JJ::;.=",,",-___ c..,-' S~ctl~n. To~nshlp. ~ari9~:·7--:-___ ~--".,_-'---___ -_""'" Lan.~r~r~ (~Ui_sjo~, le[ra~, e.tc.): __ ~ __ -'---~_~~~ ~o.~, relief (eo~cev~,.'Co~ve~.Ii!J:n~i: ~=-'"~ __ +-c SIO~~' (o/~): _,: :_. _._.~. S~bre~'~n (LR~); ,-': '". -:... ~._'-_-'--__ ~_~ lal;-~ ____ ...... __ long: : Datum: Co· __ -- Soil M~P U~it Na~~':' . N'WI di~sifi~ij~n:'-,---,,-~_,-___ _ ~~ clim~I;6' I hyJ~olodlC 06'n~i~cil\~ ollihe site lypi~1 for ,'hiS 'ti~e ~i y~an Yes _._. _ No 2, (If rio, expj'ain 1~' ke~aiJ(s.) . .... . . ~~e y~~e;~~io~ ~~:'SO!! _._ .. _ •. _" . ~r Hy~r~'ogy _. _~: Si·~iiifi'Can!IY·dl~I.~!.~ed? . . A!e ·~:~:r~al q;rcJ~s~r.~e~: p!eS~~I?: Yes: / No _. _._. ~ "A;~ V~ge!aljo~ _._._,:t?~~i _ .. _,_' or Hy~rOlogy ~ ~~.~Lirajly.prOble~aUC? (If ~~deq, ·~xplaJn"a.'1y':~~~~er~ 1~ ~em.arks.; SUMMARY bF FINDiNGS -Attach site map showing sampilng point loeatloris, tran~ec~, Important features, etc • ~y~ro~~~iic V~getati~n'"~r~~ent~ Hydric sail Present? w~iiarid::Hyd~~I;ogy 'Prese"~t? . Remarks:' ". . .. ,/' .. Ves ___ No __ ._._. v.s_.~ Ne;i- Yf!~ N~" .: . VEGETATION :.. Us~ scientific names of plants. T,~e Stratum (Plol size: ;-' '-c~""'-:-- 1. :·q;;~t.Jk~$ .¥~"p~J'k: Absolute DomInant hidlcator ~·~·'Slatus .~ _._. _._. f'~tv 2,_~~ __ ~ ____________ ~.~ 3,~. _'-'-___ ~-~-~-------- 4 . .:.,· _--'-'_---~----~ ~_~ ~_~ ~_~ ,. Total Ca:ver Ve. No Dominance Tost worksheet: N~~be'-:~f bomi~~'nt Sp~~ifis That Aro'OBL, FACW. orFAC: T~~i Nu~~~r o;oomlriant Sp~cleS ~~·~s ~I Slr~t.a: Percent ~r :Do~jna~i Species Thai Aie oeL, FACW, or FAC: ./ (A) 4 (B) (NB) Saollng/Shrub Stratum (Plot alze: c· ,-___ _ 1. [2"l.vJ .,J,,<~;.._ ··::·.·.i·· .. :.. . . 3JL.. ___ . _. rM.~. I-i;P:::I1I:'y=al;:.-:iri=c.:-I;:n:';d:::.x=w=o::;r~;:."h= •• :;t:C: --------\ 3.JL ___ ._. ·Ph':c. .. : TotalekCOvi:!~o( ,2. • ;Z;;'b¥J'W' / .. ,< .::, 3._~-,-~~ ____________ _ 4,,-· ~~~~~~ __ ~ ___ . _~~ ~_~ ~_~ 5.~-,--~~ __ ~ _____ . ~~ ___ _ = Tolal Cover ~ __ d W~ody Vine Sir~lum (~IClt alze: ____ _ 1 ~ '. <.' • 2,.~~~~-,-______ ~~. _._. ~. _~ .. ~._~ ___ .. _~.=tolal·Cover Remarks; " Multloly by' 9~L6pecie~ fAq.w !lMcle's -:-__ _ x2=_~_ >i3~.,..,~~~ __~ x 4 = -'-~~ FAG sp,eCies FACY sPe.cles UPL spe~~s _-,.--_~ x 5 • ~ __ ~ Column Tota.ls! _~~,-(A) Hydrophytl'c . Vegetl'.t.IO.n Proso'nl? . v., .. ~-,-_(B) No ,/"'" US .Army Cotps of Engi'nee~s Western Mountains, V~lIeys, a~d Coast -Interim V~rslon SOIL S,ampling P~int; . promo Do-scription: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indlcatoro(conflnn the absence'ot Indicators',) . Depth . ,. Mal~ix . " . R~dO~ features. .,. , . (iri¢he:s) Colorlmolst).' ~ .. :Colo((moistl "% ~ :ux'· texture. ·Remark.~· '. 3 Y . eI .,FF-' ____ ~'--c---,--;-,.,...,...~-'-~-'--" __ _ //,//l'/h.3L3 _. _ ... _ .c, •. _, .. _~~,-'-,-:-___ . _._. ~'5l.,. '-,---~~~-'-'-'--,--:-'-"'- ~~ ---'-'~~~ -. -' -... ~ -,,-:-~'~-,--.:-' ,. -ci' -'-.. -. -. -. -, .-.' -.-' --'--'c-~. ~~~-~..,..c.,.-,-'-- ~"'-".; -~~~--~ '--~-,-~: -'. -' .-.... -. -.--' '-",- --',~,-'--'-:-,-,---,----' -,--,--'--~' ~"-'--: -.- --"--~ -~~-'-"--,-~ '''';'-~'--~ ------ ~"'--:-,-~_,___,__,,-.':~ "-c-_,___,__'C'-: .. -,--' '"" -'--' -' -,-' -' .- ~ydrl~ Solll~dl~ators: (Appl,l~abl,e to ~II LIlRs; u'nleS~ o~~o,rWl~e n.oled., !ncl.catorS for Problematic_Hydric S.olls~~ ~ H!st9~91(Al)'. ';":"':,Sa~dYR~~~~'(S~):' .. ~ f~triM:ui:.k(:"-t,'~~·: .. _:" ~ t:llstiC.EPipe~o~ (A:?) : :,;' . 'Slrlppe'd "MatrIX (5&) . ~ Red Parent Malerial (TF2) =-.B.I~~k·ti.1stic (AS)" . ", ~ t~~ni¥'~u6~y ~~ry'~r~1 (F~) (ox.cept MLltA 1) -.:... Other ~~~PI~l.ri i~ R,em8~s) .i... 'Hydroge~ Sutlh;le (.1\4) ;....:..., : Loal11Y Gleyed Mat~ (F2) ,..:..... '~.ep'!~.ied Belov,iba.ik S~rfa~ (A 11) .....:. : Depleted Matri~. (F."3) ~ Thick Dark SurfaCe (A12) ~ 'Redox Dark Surface (Fa) ~ Sandy MU:C~ Mi~~;~l (~i" ~ 'Oepieted D~ik s!J"~ace, (Ft) . ~~n.dy Gleyed, Malrl)!, (64) . ~.e.do~ Oli)press.lons (F8) : )tnd'JeaiC?rs of hydrop~yllc vegel~tlO!,l·a.nd . w~iia~cI hyd.r()l~y must be p.res~nt. .. ' u,1'!1,esS·,dIS.lurbeq 9f probllf1!ma\lc, Re.strlctlye .La~er (If p~ef'!IJ;' No v/ . Remarks: .... HYDROLOGY W~t)an~ Hy~~ology !nc:llca.tors: PrimarY" Indicators (mlriimu~ of pne required' t:he~k eli thai spri;") Secondary lridjcBjors (2 Of mora required) ~ sJ~ace' V"al~~ (A1') . . _ W~I~'r~SI~j~~d l~~ves' (B9)'(~xc~Pt 'MlRA ~ 'Water~S~lne~ l~~ves '(B~) (MLRA·1. 2. ~ HIgh' W:ater ~a~l.e (A2) 1.'.~, 4.A. :and 48) 4A,'and 48) .....:... Saluration (A3)' _ Salt Crust (811) _ DraInage Pan.elTls (B10) ~. w.a~e~ Mar,ks (En) . ....:-Aqu.i:lUo i~y~i1ebrates (B1~) _ .. ol'y.s·e~s~n Wale', Table (e2) ~,Sedlment :O~poslts (82) _ Hyd~oge~ :Suifld~ o.do~·(C~) _ SahJrall~n Vl~lble art Aeriallmageiy (C9) ~ D~,l~ ~.~pq~n~· (~3) _ O)!;idize~ Rhlz9sphere15 al~rl9 Living' Roots «(;3) _ Ge.oft]orphlc p~~).lio.n (02) ~ '~igal,~~1 or ¢.ru,~t (~) _ Presenc~ oi: Reduced irori'(C4) _" Shaliow'AqUitard'(D3) -.::.. !'~n Dep~l1~ (8~) ~ Re'c~nlilori Re~uctlori, i~ Tilled SoIls (CO) . . ~ i=A9·Ne~lral Tesl'(05) '. ~ s~rt!!c:~ Soli Cracks (l36} . ~ S,lunted o~ Stressed' PiDnt~ (0'1) (LRR A) _ ,Ralse~ Ant Mou'n~s (06) (LRR A) ; =-Inundation Vls,lbie,~n:Aerlallmag~:ry (87) ._ qt~~r.(Expi~in:in Remar~s) _' Frosi~He~ve H~:m:~';ot:k~ (07) ·:Sp~.~~iy V~g~l~!.~d.F~ne~..v.e. su~ac~ (138) De.scrlpe Reeor.d.ed D.~~a· ,(stream gauge: t'fIon~~ring well, ae~al ~hOI6S, previous Inspections). II t1tvailablo: " .' .. Remarks: US Army Corps of EngIneers "YEislern ~ounlnlns, Valleys, and Coast-Inllilrirn Version ,WETLAND DETERMINATION DA1:AFoRM -Western ~ountajns,Vaileys, and Coast.Region pro~ec~5i~~: --,--,--~tI4".=.:...'-zA,,-../=-=-_~ __ .,..,--:-_,--:-_ cllvlCouniy: _.,...cizw::.;:=-cJ_.~_.:... . .-J:.... :.... ,.:...-__ ~ Sam~Jin~ Date: U. '"'1 .,. I 'i. . b~:z.· (wi-I-A) Ap'plieanVOwner: ---~-.----:;;;--'---..,,--'-n,--~--"c_,-'--:"':"'~--__ State: _--'-__ Sampling Point: In,vesllgalor(s): _-"--c-'J:.",. ::.~,,' ,-_-,~"-"c;"",,,-.. =JV\=O'-_. ---;-~~ Section. Township. Range::.... '-~'--,-___ ,-'-____ ~ __ _ L~ndl_~rm (hll~~!o'pe, le~f~C~' etc.): ~_-' ______ .,.,..= ~0aI1 ~eUef (~nC~'1e. ~nvex'. n'o~_e); ,-c-__ ~_--:-Slope (%): _ .. _" :._ Subregion (LRR)'_~~~","_,-,-,-__ ~~ lai, ___ ~~_,-.;-;, long: Datum: ..... ~_-': . sOliM'~puni(Name:.·, _ '" _ " " NWI'ci~~aihcallon:~ __ ~ __ ~ __ _ Ar~ ~Jimil~t;: I hY.dr~lo~l~ ccind;ri~~ on th~ 5~te ~i~~ ror i~~ t~~~ ~ry~ar~ y~~ _ .. _._, . '~~ "' ... ~ '(~f'no, _~XPI~~ ~n'Rein~rlq;~;' . / ·Ar~·V~~~ta,U9~.~ •. s~n _. _. _, or, Hydr~logy _. _ .. _. __ sJgnl~~~;rY,~i~~u,~e4? Ar~ -No-"lla1 C'r~u~.5~.nCE!'s· pre~ent? yes __ No __ . Are Vegetation _. __ , ~oil __ , or Hy~rolP9Y _. _ naturally probl~m~tlc? (If ne~de-a, e~plain' ~ny an~~(~ In Rema(k~.) SUMMARY OF FINDI~GS -Attach site mapshowingsainpilng point locations, transects, Importantfe.iuies, etc • . ..;-: ..... Yes . ··No .. ~::.~.;, .. ~: :>. :: Remarks: . ... Is Ih,) sa~p!c~d _Ar.~a ...11th-ike Wetland?' .yes.~ .. / No -VEGETATION Use scientific names of plants , . Absolute DomInant Indicator . DOf!1.1n·a.nce Test workSheet.: I[e§ Slral!.!!D (Plot 8j~e:·. ) :-·',,!.Cover ~ SlahJs . Nu~.ber·.of Dpminant Specles 1. ------Tha!.Are·08L, FAC.W. or FAC: '2.. IA) 2. -----------Tolaj ~umber 01 09!'111nant 3, _._---_._.-SpecIes ~ross ~11 .Slrata: <-18) 4. ------Percenl of Oomlnanl'specles __ ._._. _.; Total Cover' 'That Are OSL, F !"-CW, or FAC: ) "I,) INS) SapHnglShrub Stratum (Plot size: ) .1. )7,,1.";': ~.k];;;'.5 .:J.IL _. :_ f"Af::: Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. -----_._. ' ... .r2i§I.'dI.CO:V@!Qt· . Multie~ b~f' 3. ------OBL"~p~cl,e~ xi" 4. ------FA9w~p~ies '2' 5. FAC .~p~t;:le.~ '3_ ------.-------= Tolal Cover FA6u Spf:cl~s '4- Herb Slt'aium . (Plot size: ) UP~ sp~eles >5- 1. A 't!:!;i-', ..... . Pi;Z" .R-,.,~~ ~_._Fkc., Colul"flf"! Totals: II'.) 18) 2. ..' . . -----------pre~ale(1c_o I~~ex .. B!~" 3. ------_. _ .. __ .. _. ~ 4. -----------'Hydrop~ytlc_Veg~latlon Indlc~t~rs: •• -----------_ D~n:"Ijoance T~st Is >50% 6. . ~ .p(evaJel1~ lridex is :s3.0 t -----------._ M~rP~oioglcal ~daplalions I (Provide supporting 7. -_. ----_. --- &. d~ta!n Remarks or on !'I separate sheel) -----------_ wotland Non;Vascular Plants I 9. ------_' Pro~iematt~ HydrOphylicVegelallon' (E)tplal~) 10. ---. _._---.--~Indiealcir:s (,)f .hydric so.11 and we.1land hy~rology Olust 11. ------be p~e~.~~L. u.~)~.$~:~~tur~~d ~r pr.o~ler~~tic. _._. __ := T~tal Co~er W09:~.~ ~iO§ Siratum (Plol sIze: ) t. ... ------Hydroph:itic Yes' V No_. __ 2. ,. Vegetation' ------Pras~nt? .% Bare Ground In Herb ~tratulll ___ = Total Cover .Remarks: US Army Co~ps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, end C~ast -Interim Version SOIL s amplng p. I om: Profllo Description: (Doscrlbe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm tho absonce of Indicators.) Depth Mall!x Redo;!!; E~J!lu[!::s {Inches} Color (moist) % Color (moist) % . ...!Y.eL. .-b2.L Texture Re[larks ~ (pili'!.. ~II ---------6"'1IJ_·(..,... .... Jk It-t. f)'J" v) I " ---------j< --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ ------ 'Tvpe: C"Concentralion O=Depletlon, RM-=Reduced Matrix CS=ColJered or Coaled Sand Grains. 2LocaUon: PL-Pore Uning, M=Matrlx. Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Salls; ~oSOl(A1) _ Sandy Redox (85) _ 2 c:m ML.Jck (A10) _ HlsUc EpJpedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hlstic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Oi!rk Surface (ra) ~Ind!cators of hydrophyllc vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Minerai (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) weiland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrh, (S4) . Redox Depressions (Fe) unless disturbed or problematic . Restrictive Leyer (If present): Type: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soli Presont? Ve. ./ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: erlmsrllndlcatoUi: {m!nlmum of one rC;Qulred' checls all thHt EllmM §gcoDds:cllndicators (2 or more regulred) _ Surface Waler (A1) _ Water~Slalned leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water~Stajned leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, ~h WeIer T.ble (A2) 1,2,4A,and4B) 4A, and 49) aturatlon (AS) _ SaltCrust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) ~ Water Marl<B (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (e2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Seluration Visible on Aerial Imagery (e9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ OxIdized Rhlzospheres slong living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (O2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (94) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aqullard (03) _ Iron Deposits (95) ~ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solts (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soli Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ RaJsed Ant Mounds (06) (lRR A) _ Inundation VisJble on Aerial Imagery (S7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) Sparsely Vegetatad Concave Surface (88) Field Observalions: Surface Water Present? v' V" __ No __ Depth (inches): Water Table P(esel'lt? Yes~ No __ Deplh (inches): On Yes J Saluration Present? C2.'; "" Wetland Hydrology Present? No (Includes capillary fringe) Yes No D~pth (inches): Desc(lbe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aer\al photos, previOUS Inspections), If available: Remarks: US Army Corps of EngIneers Western Mountains, Valleys, Md Coast -Interim Version "'.IW ...... otflllSl>a __ WETLAND RATING JlDRM-WESTERN WASHINGTON ".mOR 2· ttpd,t.d Ju1ylOOlll0 ......... o< ..... y....J """,a",iItili'T ..... ., w". Upobt.d Oct 2001 with lb. nN WllFW dclin!lion> Corpriorlty hlbll:oll NIIIlI.~rwel!and(lfknown): /..V<-ti.J ..sIB' J-Jr.."z4,.J Dat.ohitavbit:..f...:" .... rz .. R.,.d by Q ~ TrnlnO!<l byEcQIQsi1 Yc,_NQ_ D.!Urlr~lnrns __ SEC: TWNSHi' RNOE: Mapofwetlllnd unit: FIgur,__ Estlmaled 51%8 __ Category I ~ Scon: :0-70 Category II "Scorco 51-69 CatcSOty m ~S"" ... 3()'SO Cnl'lIon' IV -Score <: 30 SUMMARY OF RATING s"" .... for Wiler Quality FIUIO/icnr S<:or<:: Cor Hydrolosi~ Funclicnll S~Dr~ ror Hnb!!lIt Function. TOTALnore!'or Function. Cntea;ory bll,ed on SPECIAL CHARACfEruSTICS ofweUnnd 1_ 11_ DOe! notApptJ'-- Finn] Category (chQoI.lh.~hllbest~ I;1Ilt&Ol)' rtvm ~bon) ~ ". •• n , ,:-; ,1" , . '.I.'" ; 1/ , , , J~~:;., lIit :I~e ------------------ Wei ............. """"' .. Docs tbe wetland unit beiDI: mted meet oy orthe (riterlll below? If)'ou anrwcr YES 10 any of lb. ~u.stion. bclowyou 1\ill need 10 prolcclll!c weiland ,.cordlnll to the n:aulatJons regard ina the opeeial Cba~cterlltiCS found in th~m>lland. ::,.~.~ ':'B!.~.c~\~ljtr1t"w~f~~.~s;~!lt"M"ay,N~d:Addltlci'DDI ~r'ot!~e~~n:. .YES . .' .:. d·Mldlllcln·to.ih roltthon ·ret:l)mm~ntleiUl)r In tllUll!O ., SP!. HOI 1111 w'llmJdlmll hIm documcnl,d '" 0 hablloll'" an)' F,d.ra{1y {/SI,d Thr'DI.ned or Endongtr.d I1rIlma/ or pllm! $podos (fIE spocloz)? Forthe purpo.ael orlhl' rating ryatcm, 'documentw' melns Ihe weiland lion the ;~;~~I.le Itlte orCed.rft! d.t.bn5c. SP2.Hol/l,. w.llandunll bun doclUllen/od /U habllllll",a't"Slnl' Ifs/.d Thr.IJUMd 01' EndllfllU.d IInlmal sp.ciu? For the purpclel oflhil ratins Iydem, "documented' mu.nlllll_O.nd lion the 'ppl1lpfilte ,tate dlllb~c. Note: Wetland' wilh 5t&1.c: ~Jt.d phnt .p.du m~ cite oriEedalC.te 0 INll1I'ralHeritl .Wetlandl I.e ]!1ofdltaform SP3. 1>0.1/11. _Iltmd IInll ",,,lam r",livUJuau o/Prlorlt)ll1' •• lu tul.d by tho II'DFIl'lor 1M s/al,? 5P4. /)OQ th. w.lland unlllt"", a IOCalllgn(flctmc. In odd/lion 10 II.Ifoncl/ons7 F(ltc~&Illplo, the W.Ulnd hll been Identified in the Shoreline Mister Prosram, IMCtillcai ArellOrdjnMc~, erln I local mlnlJemcn! plRn as having Ip.cllll]sn1flc.n~. To complete thll ani p(lcl pOhe data sheelwlI wUln«d 10 determille the UvdmWlwQrol!/c Class pOh, wetlqndbefng roIee/, .~W: r/ / ./ v' Thl hydroscomolphlo ~laniflClltiQn grDllJ1S wetlandllnlo tho» !hat (pnwon In slmllru Wllys. this .impllfl .. lhc quertiOnl ne.dtd to .~l bow well the \n,1and fbllCllons. The HydrogtOmDrphJc ClusoC. weiland con be: 6c!ermined using the by below. Seo p. 24 Col more detailed jllStruclionl on elwitylns wetlAnd .. V 1/ W.tt..d ..... «DomKr __ : ~~~IIi~~.i;on (lrW~IIIiDd ~D.itJ i~·~~t~·~ ~y!UIi!D~lIn: . If I_~e bYd!Ol~~:':rI{~~-o ~!i~ l'!. eiit~.:q'u~.II.orl ail .liOI ,ipP,If. i~;.tll •. :.I!#!§ 1I11)€,i/t~I';\':: ;;: ~ft~,yall. P!"'bably Ii~!~ ~ i!-~lhrl.!b.1TI.ul~p'!' ~_~1!ff~,!:".!.'_-:?I!'~,ea~ .. Jd!n!W",.~''1! ~>-'. '~~.I~~~:~~{e?~.~ .'1:~~~~?:~ .. r~~~I~(~~'~o.,~~!2.u~~.~ .. ~;r :.: :,'?; } .~ .. ;;{! ... ;.:;", ~;;, 1.~~.· ~vej~.I~ ,I:h~ cn. ~I~ unil ~11y~~n!roI;~'~ iid~, (i.e.~x~pi·~u~~ n:~~,;; -.. YES-!bewetlllldelmIsTIdRIFrJnge .' :.' lfyH, it the IIlinily or~. ~~r during period~ or lIIou.l·iow now bdo"W os ppt (pub Fer thousand)? . YJ!S-Fnsbll'aitr TId.1 FrInge NO _ SaI/W'.ltrTldll Fillip (ElNume) f!y",;r ",.ilan;icm, i.. c1<iuif;~" <IJ.i Fnsin..aiir Ti~t j;-;ingoUl; ti,~iJ/>II./or·Rivtiin, ,ntlamk Iflt /JSalll+'l1ltr Tidal_Frlngoll'l r<JtNuan full/tiln, Itllltuid. We!II.lIds IMI wcri caU';d c'luadllO In tho_fim and seeond edIl10nJ orlh. riling ~m .i.·ia!I(d :;;.'i . Walcr TidAl FrJnae In lilt HydrOgromorpbio ClWillcalloc\. E1tuan"no~daftds_RI ca/qlorind "';pI~.ty In 1M carll" tditiom, nd W. ,epilllll.xi u bc:inS kipt In thb . rC\'ill~. To !flIintain C<)lI$lsleooy belw«n' .dilloSQ, the term :"B$IIII-tiM~ \Yetland II kept Please oGle, howcw:r, WI the diarRtcd$tici 1b.1 ddine Category I,1lId n nluariol WeUands !;avo crn.lIJi:d (tee p. i'" .. 1. ThecntiRl 'oWtl'nci unii l;nal'rxI prcci~~ticn is tIr~Only.~ (>1IO%~~rw.ler_l<lil. Ottlllnd",ler lnd IUfface WllC1" IUOOt!" ani NOT IOlIrca ofW:!.I~r 10 tire unil, . . CO!!fEi2iCJ' :' YES -The w.:t1a;'<1 eI.n b .Fl-.I! . . If your wetl.nd CI/I be cLusifi~ ., R "Flits" !"Cil.rul, u· .. ,Ihe form f~f D~p~~nal ,."t1.~. . . 3. Don ihe~ni;re wetland ~~lllIiilb~lh cflll=-!ollo.~nll:ciileri~? .: :" ..... _Til< vesdl-Itd part_&flbc "'~Ilond b Gn the thol" cfa bodyofpamanmt DI"'" WIler (w1lhcul.O)' veSellllonon 1M IUlrue) .'least20 .cn:.(8Iu.) In./u: . ~ l~ .. i ;ro% of the cperi 'Mler .rca b duper ltun 6.6 n (2 111)7 : ~, . , Y-,=:S_ Tho wctI.~ c.l~, i~ ~.k.:trl.al!" (L.<.~trtal Frl . .,I") ~. ~ttheenlire ,Yell..,d unh med aU of the following crileria? . : --':'The, i>:cUaiul IHII Ii .top., (~I;' .. " ra_n ~. WI)' 8""""'a/), .. ' . -:. . ..:....:. The :-wIer now. through lhe ~tlQlld In one d(r.~t!.on (unldjregUol\J!) and u!uaJly CClme~ fRlm sccpl. It J.IlI-Y flow .~hs\lffll~, .. ,heelflow, or In .. ,wile withoul dilfillCll?'nk,II._.' . .,' , .... " . _The wirter leave! the wetll!l~."II~~u! be!nj-Impo!l~dedl NDTE:_ Sur/".e8 "'.D/tr dar, ;'Qt pend In thUf OO','qf "ellamb ,;reept "".".Ionnlfy ('r 1'r!r}t,lmnlf and~IIt1(fQ!,~ ~pr~uiars" 6,hlnJhw,mixkJ (d~"",ulorJ<I" Il1rlOlly . r;;~ d/am,lrr . .,1Jd 1m dum IjoiJ/dflp). . .. ~7 YRS-'~h.""tlandCla!liSSI"~. Wdbnd Il.otiog F~~ .:: ..... t<,,,:W .. binJlo.. . 3 ..... ;"n2 Up,btd..-ith IICI" "'OFW d~;ijo .. o.L "lI!01 WctbOd":''''.«lIWIIblf __ . 5. ~~ the cn~~~I~~ Unll In'tll m~ orlh, ~~1I0\\i~,eril~ria; .~ unll b in.. vaJley;oT .!i'-1lI chanr.cl, where II gets Inundated byovcrban.k . '. ftoq.dlnsfromlh'Htrelnioiilvir: .... ': . . ....:....,.rnrc oYerbinl: noOdinie:c:eursal.l~~t OIlFD.C~!"y tWo YellI.: '.,: .' NOn;:: 11rc ;{."Hnt IInl(citil 'CWI/.oI/lr d'1innforu IMt aT.llfI.J with "lItrnrhnr rJ" rlvv 1. N9~¥;tiUig~~~t:;;~::~. '" .... : : . '"11 Ihe cnlln: ~dud unit In ._tC>pogllphic deprcnion In which wal.r pcmds, or Is 11111111.4 10 the , '!'iree,; ~t como ~n\8 during !fit yeu. TId, ~!_ ~'D! lillY I?',!/~' If pru,.nl, 1,lIIghu I"~ I". . . Ine.,loro!tJ,.,utlanJ.· . . ._ . NO-gG 10 7 YES _ TMwclland,ctlll'!1 DtPllQlon11 7,ll;ii.. enti;" wcti.1d unillOC11tcd j~. '~el)" tial.~" Wilh 11(1 oby!ollSdiplowlon .nd 110 oYc.rb~k . noodlni. TbG imI, don not pond W1f.ee waler more than. few Innba The Ilnil .... nur 10 be m.lnltllll!d byhiah Sroundwal.rln lila ira. TM Wiu&nd.nay be ditched, bUI h .. no ob¥jo~ natunl outllL . . . ': . . NO''; SO 10 s YBS -Tho _~I.llid i:l~ iI Dep~lo~1 WoIbnUutln.Fo""; ......... W .. NnP" ~ "",,10 .. 2 Upd.Io<I .. !do now WDFW cIon.ltio ... o.L 20g, I differenl HOM i, .mall • . ' ~ ~~;~ ~r.;.1:~~:..'Il __ l'd_Ih!? ~10 rlm-lne l\'~n~ Ib_t till triP .. dimmt~ . '~,".ulQII"IIl' ... >JNI/"'Qr\l'.ttond PoInt.·. Dqn'.sronH"';'cr>lIl~ctwed1tld '. _ pcints"" II 4.proI1l0n. > loI .f .r ... 1 ~nt IIlJIw ,.tyg'o .... " .. rIol )Illoto Of fTOIJI-':'::" [)cl'!"nlaD.'p"O:ICftlbulrov.;r<lf.l"'e&or\\~'w!d. . ~ Nod.III .. "ClnI ....... ' . .., -... _.' ,,,11"0 R R 1.201uw:ter1_~~ of u.."".lIriOll lntblu.Ut.tlUU..w.:>tCmamrll"""",l>Ila/II): . T"'Qotlht\lbl>~,dl.uruorllle\'ll11 . .. ~ nu:icrd:fuhPIIJtte&orlb.~nk ::.' pOints-6 Ig .... ' LIIIarucd.berblW>1l' p{ln1!> 7IJ""" of\lllli poW'-6 u..a"udllcrb.-plalll> IfJ ..... Ql'lmil poinll-3 h....,""" T •• ~;;".,~t' •• ~:;'~ .. ;;;e;;;;_ .... ;; ...... ;; .. ".;;_".<~I~~:""~.~.":!.:'~"":...~ .• ~".:,.;"'::. -~':"",.l ""B' ~R;;.-f;;,;-;;= .. =;:::",,,,=-;;:::-::::::.::. :;Aid::. ~''':;:-::::. ~'~"::::'-:::: .. ~'''''';;::. =-~-1' 1,-0--1 R R ~ ~:=:h;;;W;:~:e ~·;:l!'t 1=:~7u::':!"~';::"~:~~ ~:!'XU .. ;cr f;;;p,SJ) comlnllnlo III. ,wolllDd tlltl WC!uld olh..,v!u reduc. _ quail!)' In I~ ltko.'m ""lUI '/I'.ttrdo""padlonl /\'om tb. ~tlon<!'N.(){~wM'~ oj,Iw/iJll<?NIII8N?rJ!rJotu ~vI,u IhI , ..... ·U ,iff'IJ'MtJIlu •. .( uml "'<Ui ~ f'D1I~""lJ c~mlnlfrl!lll ,.""'~, '~rI'".i.' /11,/ dIU' :'lnzl"""'·"'l.~uldqllal!6-~ •. "pp"'iWllO',. . R ~lZlnllnlho"'.dll)d_orwllhrnl'On, . . -Untreated rtDl1!lMl1r dl~,lr"'lo m:UI_"d ~ Tilled tldd. 'oi orChard. whhin j,o (cot of wctl."d .:..:. 'A Ik.ain or,CuI'Ir! di~Ii ... ,tlltil0 we~lIIId Ihol drain. de~lop~d are ... ~~bllUll." rum.,Hid.h. "".d" ar ~!'I/-t~t Ioulna ' -:' Ru!dCltlil, usb .. &reu, Belt.~ounu 1/'0 Wllhin 1$0 fI OrYi'ltlMd _ The rivor Or Iii-Urn ,1I"bd 10 Ih~ w.n~d hu .. COJl~I_bulln,basln lib_io h~ml/l oetlvl1.ic. h~vo_ robod loviol~ or ~h"tnl, toxic compoUnd. cr nub-I<n1S In lb. rive, w~t.r .• boYutan.d.nh Ibr\\lltuquallty -, muWplic! -_. ~ 't'ES lJer NO . mul~plJ.r b 1 ~-Wa~.r QUIlUty FunctlQD~ Multiply the _"core tr~m R 1 by R 2 "'. " AddsrQ,do/Q611l>M J ~ Cumm,nl, W<lhnd~u,;,F.':"'~""I:"'W .. ~ 7 "",Ion ~ tlfdd.d wkh ... IVCFW ~1InI.U-0cI. 200. . W~b""'~ •. ~r~..;b .. ~._ . .., R R R TOTAL _Jtyd,olope Function. Muldply the IC"'. frmnR 3 byR4 Addscorlto(abf~ ollp.l W.lblldlWO..I'onn __ ~\V .. hlj,""n, I ~ml.n_2 1Jpd,1J~~ .. ~~" WDPW .rOlII1o •• od. 2tI01 1~~: (3~IP.il/ ,,,. mUltiplier lit" . , . . .. "'0Ih0d Il>Ii... F ..... .: __ W.oth~ n _;0112 Up<!,,"" .. W. ...... WDFWdJtn!II .... o.l2001 plJ~1! ~3 pohit,-2 polDt~1 . polntS-O I lOti'. (tllf1irtnlplllcl,., C"nt>tlltvtThinl. po!n"-2· ~ ........ ,.200-1. W.tl •• ~ .. '!' .... I1...;.b .. _._ i· . . (~)@ , I , . W.U ... Jt.!Io.F .... _ .... t.noW .. hInrion. ]4 .... Ioa 2 Uplilod wiIh """ WDFW .dI~ill.~ 0.': 2001. . .. . Modernl4'" 2 Folnt. H2. Docs tbewdland IInll have the oppoTfllnl1y to prflvlde babltat rormallY _plcln? H2.11h1l1'w. ( •• ~p.IO) FII"IO_ Cht;>o .. 1M tlucrlpu"" (hat kll Fqw"'~I' fOmll/1Mt(bu§", ", ... ,Iand IIIIiI. 1M hili"'"" 'fO,l", crll.tltm lha, opplln /Q II. "",lam! If to k IImlln ,ho ""'n,. Sa '~f<>l" t/41!i1/QII '" """tlwurbfd." _ 100 m (330,., ~r~laH",,!yundllturb~ veaetoted om.~ rocky "'CS', arepoa WIler :>9S% of c!,oumfeJ.lneo. No ,truclU/oHto within the undlltlllbed pm orb"m,. ( .. laUnty undt.turbcdl1l» mollI. oo-Bt"I'dna:, no Iind.o;&pmc, ne,wly hUmOJI uso) PoInls_1i -100 m (JlO I'll ct.clallw:lyundl<turbod V<l&cllled....." rccq or .... ar open Wiler ,. !I(l% d""""r ........ Pclnll_4 -30 m (l70fl) ef,et.tlYl1]y I1IIdi.lU,bed ""J.Io.!ed arc .. , rocq ........ ar O!'"" _ >9S% ~1tcumfl:,e!\Co. Pol,U._4 -lCO m (JlOfl) ofl.lltlVClyurnllsru,bld vellotatcd arcu, rocky ar ... , e, open Wl/.r" 25% <lroumfl:rClll:o,. Polnt._3 _ SO m (l7OfI) ofnl,II •• lyPlUlisturbed W:&etmd I/U~ rocky ....... , or epe!! ,VIler r",,. '0% eI~u_o. PoIn .. _] It bufY<.r do .. IIGllIlIol lUI)" or ltur crUnlo .lInt _ No paved a"," (o>m:pl paved luib) 01 bulldln" MtIlln 25 m (BOfl) ofwollUld,. 95% cl,cumfl!retlc,," UKhIIO modcrnto ""Inll. or lawn, I/O OK. Polnl. _ 2 -rl~~:~:':~!:!~~~~~ ':;~wotl""d for>SOM ,Irc\lnlfotm ... ~ _ HcsVYV"IIl,lnbllrr ... Points_I -Veaetated buffers ar, <2m Mdo (6.611) for fIIORI !bill 9S% OUIO dr ..... rercn" (t.1-lin.d flo!d .. pI.'Il"~. blult bedrcckoKlcnd 10 clip efwe~""d Polnll_O. ? -l!QfferdOl'~10Imool ""Yoflh~ erilcrt. obevo. II.' R~oIo hOWl"fn bu"". Polnb_l H2.2 (mp. '1) H 2.1.111 tI1ol ... \II~ part efa rol.olivcly PDdiltwbcd IIIICI Wlbc"ok= "VCFIo.!ed tlXTidcr (either rip";." /lfupIUld) tIltl is tllCUI ! SO n ,l"Ide. hOI 'I lout 30% _ r;I/" Ihnrb .. toml 01 nlll"" uodblUrbcd Plllrle,1h11 connect.IQ C.lUori ... clbO\" WCIl6l\d, /If~ndlllU!bld uplllllClllha,"u .1 l.ul 210 lCIOIln liu? ("""",In ,Ip<lrlcn oartkbl, b"",l/y u"d iI'awl TIXIth,p<lvoJ"",ib, "'.COIlII,w,dbr-'Rb I" 'h.oarrldar~ . Yt;S"4plllnl. (golcHJ.J) 0-101<> 2.2 H 2.2.21s th. ,wdond port ct, retallvely uDdiJlUobcd IIId .... ltd "",!dar (e~hc:r riporil!1 /If upland) Ib.al b .t loul ,on wid ... h .. tJloa.;t 30% _ ..... flNU'" '" l"oI.,t. ond '""coQlllo orl\l ... l.., olher wcU."d. /If uDdllturbed uplOJl.u Iho.t are at 1."1 25 ocr ... In ,Izo? lOR • Lake.fringo "~tl.cd, Itll ""e, nathovoI" undi,turbc:d conidar .. 1n tho QUCIIian .bow? Yl:;S ·2 palnll flo ro H '.J) NO-R2.2J H2.2.l b1ho,wtl.nd: wlihin ~ ml (lkm) ohbraokb!t er ull ,nter .'!\Iory OR Wilhln~~~r"ld or puhlnl(>40 IlOfOt) OR WIIMy:, milO pter IhM 20 ""res? ./ NO _ n ""tnll I Total for P.& • ....1- W.tl.ondR.otinaFO""R"ntm.W,,!.lnJton Il ..... 1002 Updtt.d with n'" WDI'W doflllitlo .. Oo~ 2001 Wdlmd ......... _""" __ H 2.3 Wr qr .dl'9"0' 19 g!btt ndqdtv b.bj!9!:t Utlrwl byWllm (s", """ ruui CImlJ'lt1, tI.scrip/DIU of IVDFW plo,1iy /I"b/lrfts, ""lIlh. ~rnldu III ,oMel, (hey am bl/oum/, jll tiro PHS .tptlrr !m../J ..... r... Iff!. rerll!'I!Ip'r.t/4tMm I \Vhkh Dfella roItO"'"ll""lority hbi1$ .... withln 330n!100m) of tlto ,vetIand 1IIIlr? NOTE: ,111 to/III",nDltlt/Qtwf""'''I<I'''r.tanw~_J''''W ~1J'.n Slan.u: PIIre '" mbtod tII/ld1 ef I!J'CtI pier dlU1 0.4 ba (I .ore). ~lod1nl1l1,. Are .. """ CWrIdon: Arc .. oChllblto.tlbltan ~.tlvcly lmpo.iontle vorl"". 'p<cl., Ofn.llve fbh I\I1d wlldllf. fI~/1 dfJe,lpnonf r" WJ)FW PHS "porl 1'. J.57). ~;~,:~,";~Vr~ .. ~~::~~J;::'hO!:;:fC::%~';.:~i::~:~~'I~::~::k. """.t..., romt;"g 11lI"lri.llya-cd clMpYwith OC:Cldoul anall openicp; with .lIICUl20 1IO"""'"(lIr ....... "'p II cm(32 in)dbh ~.> 200)'<1 .... Dr •• O. fM.t". /'m;U1) S\&IIds wilh .... frII. dl""o"",,,,,,*din,S3 om (2 t In) 4bh; erown <:over mo)' b. I ... Ih.1 100%; cro"" ...... rm&)'b. 1 ... 1h11100%; doc&)" dcoOMn ... , ~um~" et.nlll'lo ond <I~enlll)'or I ..... dov."od matm'! II acneroll)' la. then \hot folll!d In old-JItOw1b; !O • 200 ~oon old ", ... 1 ern.. ea •• ld. cro.1. _0 ..... " .. 11110 001<: WoodllDll. Slond, ct pufO Mk II!" cd<.Ica.Ilhr ...... Iotlon •• ""OfO oanopy <ow .. ,. oftba ook aruponcnf Is Impof1:l!11 t"itll tluerll'tlDM ,,, fYDFW PHS ~:;:!; ~~ 1<\j'CC!"It 10 I'l.UIUC syst.nll with 110m", Wiler \hll <:ont.l"soelemeol, of -botb Iq~.U~ and l.rrolitr!.1 =)'Ilcml which mutu,lIy !nD.enoo o.eh olbcr. _ Wnt,ld. Prolrl ... Herb...,O"I, nen_torolted pLont cOIlnnunlUe. that ~ either lIb tIlo form ot. dry prllrie or • \>.~ pukio (full rlm,lp'/om In II'DFIY PBS rqxJrt 1' •. 161). _lnst .... = Th. ccmbintllon of "Ityslw. blol"llca~ IIItII chcmJ •• I pnl«,Jd end 1000dldODJ 1/111 InlOfllei 10 pvvId. IImc~OttII lit. hlI/ofy '"""lmnents for hnlRlm flsh ",d \1ildlltc resmJ/COi. _ N •• nll.To: Relotlwly undi$lUlbcd Rl!luhoro hlblt.". Tho .. Includo Co •• tal N •• rI"'o~ Open eoul N ..... bon, tnd Pugot Sound Nellllh"",.lfi,/l ,",reFlpll"", ofhahlt<lr, flM rho th/illln"" r( "'1./iW~ u..ailt",bU an'" WNW "Pm: pp. J67_J69.",d 61<nltl".l~ AI'J1C1UIU.(I. _ Cn." A nttu:ally occuninl mlty. recus, "l'Q1d, flll}'ll= .tlntOfeomt.nlod pIIIPlI' under lhe .. rth In loll~ rock, Ice. ar other ,..,Iog/col fOllflll.i<)tU and It loop •• ""p III """taln. humIn. _CIlfl"J: O""!er th"" '1.6 m (2' n) high IUId occurring below '000 ft. _Tal",,: Homo,moll.! .... u of~k J1Ibblo '""ainl In 1\!<l'~£O ltu 0.15 -2.0 m (03 • 6.S ttl. oompcICd efbuail, ""dhl!t, ..,,yor lOlimenllf)' roc:I:,lncludin& ripnp slid •• "nd min. wl;"p. Moy be ossodtted wtlll ,rill">. _Snap and Lo~l Trm oro ccndde!ed ""C.lt /hey Ir~ d .. d 0/ dytllJ .ad """Iblt .. moleol decay .h.mloriJtl~ to enabl. c.~11y .XOlYll1oMIICIby wJldUfIo. Priority Inl&~b.vo • diomc/o, atb,co,lhei&l!lof> 51 cm(2D in} I. wostem Woshln/lton ond ..... ,. 21" (6.' fI)ln height. PrIority IOgJ aro> 30 ~m (12 In} in dlllJl'loler l<t 1hc: loriat end, IlI!d > 6 m (10 II) ' ... . Ir .... dllllCl bu 3 ... ma .. piorll)'h&lIll1u_. pob," Ifwo~Md hu 2 prtcrityhlbll1l.-3 potnlt If"~I1",,d ~u I pt"llllitybabttd-l polnl Nellobl!all-0 poI"I' ~~::: ff:;,~:,~:,:,,"';,'~~r:..:a;.~:.~1:.n':::,~::~Q;~r.lmbIMI bur D-' nQI IIIC/uJotl'~ ,hJ~ -3 W,tla"~ JUlina Fornt ~ ",,,lorn W .. hlnston 16 "",,ion 2 lIpdol.d with n.w WDFW d.rlllilionJ OeL 2001 Auaw12004 Wo;tJand =c arIWlll1,,:I' __ H 2.4 Wct!m;d l.!!!ldgczpe (Chool~ rhl D1U' dm:rlption of the lanctsazpearound the wetland that bestfi~) (sup. U) There lite at least 3 crther wetillllds v.itbin % mile:. w ~ connections ~ them ItrC relativelyundistuIbed (light gruing between wetlands OK. lrS.is lake shore ""i:1b some boating, butGVlUlections should NOT bEl bisected bypaved roads.l:lili. fields, or-01her development. points .. S ~ ~lIIld isJ.ake..fringc on a lake with little disturhanceand Ihm are 3 other lake-fringe wclillllcb v.ithin %. mile points ... 5 There are at least 3 other '\\ttlands witbin~-.4 mile., BUT the conru:ctitns betw=i ~ disttnbed IJI The wetland islake-fringt on a 1m with disturbance md there are:3 olber lake-fringe wctIlIIld wi1hln ~miIe points - 3 Thc:rc iut least 1 ~and v.i1bin ~ nu1e. points .. 2 There.ere nowt.tl.&Ilds within % mile. points .. 0 H 2. TOTAL Score _ o~~ityfor providing habitat Add the scares om m.l.H2.2, m.s, m.4 TOTA[. for H 1 from page 14 TohdScore ror Habitat Ftmctions -add the points fOTH 1.H 2:andrecord the result on __ ._. 0.1 Wet1mdRztingFom-wmcmW.ulW!gto;m. 17 versio!l2 Upd3tcd "'ith new WDFW dd"llIitions Oct. 200tt Anprt2004 r. '5 I j I 1_-__ I (, -----IS- WetImdtmmcorll=bcr CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPEOAL CHAMCrERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. WetlaDd Type Check off any crltirirJ that t1pply to the wetland Circle the Category when the . auurrmrj4!e crltuia an met. . SC LO Estullrinewetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? -The ?ominant water regime is. tidal. -Vegetated. and -With 11 salinity grWer than 0.5 ppt YES -Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge. National Park. National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State park or Educational. Environmenta1, or Scientific Re9CIVC designated under WAC 332-30-1511 YES -Colo."", I NO IlO to sC 12 SC 12 III the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and mcet9 at least two ofthe following three conditions? YES -Category I NO -Category IT -The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking. ditching. filling,. ctlltivation, grazing, arn:I1m less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. Ifthc non-native Spardrw spp. are the only species that cover more than 1~1o of the wetland. then thewctland should be given a dual f1!.ting (IIII). The area ofSpartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native specie! would be a Category L Do not. bo"wcvcr. exclude the area ofSpartina in detennining the size threshold of 1 acre. -At least 'h ofthc landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grruzsland. -The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, deptt:Ssions with open water, or contiguoUS" freshwater wetlands. wetland RatiIIg Fmn-wertem WaWrIgtIln Itt ven:Hm 2 Updated with new WDFW dcfmitiOllll Cd. 2008 "" .... - Category - Cat I Cat. I Cflt..U Dual rating IJTI .. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Piper's Bluff 2. Name of applicant: WestPac Development, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: 7449 W Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 770-6546 Contact Person: Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10604 NE 38 Place, Suite 101 Kirkland WA 98033 425 827-3063 4. Date checklist prepared: August 29,2012 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will start upon the receipt of al\ required building and construction permits. This is estimated to occur in the spring of 2013 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this Proposal? If yes, explain. Construct 30 single-family residences. 10 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 2 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Critical Areas Report &Supplemental Stream Study: Sewall Wetland Consulting August 15, 2012. Geotechnical Report: Terra Associates, Inc., August 9,2012. Traffic Report: Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. July 30,2012 Level One Downstream Analysis: D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. August 29,2012 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 to our knowledge. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your Proposal, if known. SEPA Determination City of Renton Preliminary Subdivision Approval City of Renton Grading Permit City of Renton Final Subdivision Approval City of Renton Building Permit City of Renton Other Customary Construction Related Permits City of Renton 11. Give brief, complete description of your Proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your Proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). Subdivide approximately 4.990 acres into 30 single-family lots with a proposed net density of 7.92 du per acre. Access to the subdivision will be from Hoquiam Avenue NE. 4} 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 30[23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 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 is located in the NE Y. of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The Site is located at 1166 Hoquiam Avenue NE. <02012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 4 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General desc i tion of the site (circle one). Flat rolling steep slopes, mountainous 0 er. In general, the majority of the property has slopes of less than 40%. The predominant slope range is between 2 to 15%. Generally, the land slopes from west to east. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are some isolated areas with slopes nearing 15%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the Site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the Site as Alderwood Series, slopes 6-15% (AgC), gravelly sandy loam and slopes 15-30% (AgO), gravelly sandy loam. Additionally, see attached Geotechnical Report dated August 9,2012 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SErA Checklist Page 5 of23 Piper's BluffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton Washington e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will be to construct the subdivision roads, utilities and homes. Approximately 15,511 c.y. of cut and 2,536 c.y. of fill is computed for the Project. The net cut volume is approximately 15,511 c.y. The grading is intended to be balanced on site, however, there is a possibility of importing select fill material as well as exporting unwanted soils. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be a short-term increase in the potential for on-site erosion where soils are exposed during site preparation and construction; however, the Project will comply with all applicable erosion control measures, short term and long term. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 67% of the Site will be covered by impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented at the appropriate time. Erosion control measures may include the following: hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, stabilized construction entrance, and ro 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 6 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 70f23 Piper's BluffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton Washington 2. AIR 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, gen- erally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. Long-term impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt-driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 8 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 3. WATER a. Surface. i. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Onsite assessment has identified a Class 4 Stream and a Category 2 Wetland located near the northeast corner of the property. See wetland assessment report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting August 15, 2012. ii. 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. Structural Vault construction will be required within 200 feet of the Class 4 Stream and Category 2 Wetland located near northeast property corner of the Site. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 9 of23 Piper's B1uffPreJiminary Plat City of Renton Washington iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from sur- face water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None iv. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. v. Does the Proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. vi. 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, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general de- scription, purpose, and ap- proximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 10 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington ) development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater. ii. 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 chemi- cals .... ; 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. No waste material is proposed to . be discharged into the ground. The Site will be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water system. c. Water Runoff (including storm water). i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quanti- ties, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See attached Level One Downstream Analysis Report. ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed stormwater system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 11 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: -L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, vine maple, black cottonwood other: (birch, dogwood) -L evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: _x_ shrubs _x_ grass (orchard grass) pasture crop or grain -L wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: -L water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: -L other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 12 of23 Piper's BluffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton Washington Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Zoning Code. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known or documented within the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site. if any. None proposed at this time. 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, eagle, songbirds, other: crows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, small rodents, raccoon, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: None to our knowledge. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non-tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. 10 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 13 of23 Piper's BluffPreJiminary Plat City of Renton Washington d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 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. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the development. Any wood stoves incorporated into the new . residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 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 © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 14 of23 Piper's BIuffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton Washington occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. co 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page IS of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington b. Noise i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The primary source of off-site noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or as- sociated 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. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site develop- ment and residential construction. Construction will occur during the day-light hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use ofthe property by homeowners. iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 16 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are two single-family homes, three out buildings and gravel driveway on the site. The rest of the site appears undisturbed, as it is primary forested area. The current use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Undeveloped Hazen High School b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are two single-family homes, three out buildings and a gravel driveway on the Site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the above-mentioned structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-B. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Single Family (RSF) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 17 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. There is a Class 4 Stream with 35- foot buffer and Category 2 Wetland with 50-foot buffer located near the northeast property corner of the Site. Due to Site topography and storm detention facility design limitations, a minor encroachment into the 50' buffer of Wetland is proposed. The encroachment is 6.5' into the buffer. The Project is proposing a 43.5' averaged buffer and will mitigate encroachment by implementing the proposed mitigation plan. Additionally, See attached mitigation plan, wetland and supplemental stream/habitat report prepare by Sewall Wetland Consulting dated August 15, 2012. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 69 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (30 units x 2.3 persons per household = 69 individuals). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Approximately five people will be displaced as a result of demolishing the two (2) existing homes. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None at this time. I. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this site. Per the City Zoning Code, the © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 18 of23 Piper's BluffPreiiminary Plat City of Renton Washington development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 30 detached single-family residential homes. Homes will be priced with a market orientation to the middle- income level home buyer. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing." Two middle-income houses will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 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? The maximum building height will conform to City of Renton Standards. b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. The landscaping will be installed at 10 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 19 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. The light and glare will occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare from the project will not cause hazards or interfere with views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? The primary off-site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Street lighting, will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION r.o 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 20 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Kiwanis Park (Approximately 1.1 mile from the Site). b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Recreation space is proposed in proposed Tract "A". 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. None known. 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. There are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed 10 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 21 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the proposed project will be from Hoquiam Ave. NE. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest public transit stop is approximately 0.8 miles south from the intersection of Hoquiam Avenue NE and project south property line. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have garage and driveway parking spaces .. Each home will have a minimum of two-parking spaces per lot. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including drive- ways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Hoquiam Avenue NE will be improved per City of Renton road standards. New access roads and private access tract are required to serve the subdivision. 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. Per attached Traffic Report, the proposed project is expected to generate 241 net new daily and 28 PM peak hours. Peak hours will (:12012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 22 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington generally be 7 AM - 9 AM and 4 PM - 6 PM. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. N/A C> 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 23 of23 Piper's BluffPreliminury Plat City of Renton Washington 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, the proposal will result in an increase for those services typical of a residential development of this size and nature. The need for public services such as fire and police protection will be typical for a residential development of the size. School age children generated by this development will attend schools in Renton #403 School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. In addition to payment of annual property taxes by homeowners, the proponent will mitigate the direct impacts of the proposal through the City's traffic and school mitigation programs, if required. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Water District 90 Sewer: City of Renton Telephone: Verizon «} 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 24 of23 Piper's Bluff Preliminary Plat City of Renton Washington '. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead-agency is re- lying on them to make r~is10n. Signature: , P.E. DATE SUBMITTED: -1f-JA""i"$p)'\,(,-,,-2 ++--1J,,-,0,--, 2012. © 2012 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. SEPA Checklist Page 25 of23 Piper's 81uffPreliminary Plat City of Renton Washington King County Records and Elections Division Recorder's Office Department of Executive Services King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avel1Ue, Room 311 Seattle, WA 98104-2337 (206) 296-1570 (20G) 296-01 091DD (206) 205-8396 FAX Plat and Condominium Name Reservation Request Please NOTE: There is a $50.00 fee for this transaction Reservation Type: Ili PLAT o CONDOMINIUM Name Reserved: PIPER'S BLUFF Reserved by: WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT, LLC Contact: PETER O'KANE Telephone: 206-619-2992 Address: 7449 W. MERCER WAY City, State, Zip: MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 Section: 10 Township: 23 Range: _5_' _EA_S_T _______ _ Quarter: NE QTR OF NW QTR Quarter: OF NE QTR Tax Parcel Number: 102305 -9312. 102306-9002 ,1 "0"2::;3-';05::--"""3",2;;-.--;-,:::02"3"0;-5--;'~1-;-4:;-4 ------ Comments: Signed: ¥tor== This name reservation will expire one year from the date this request is filed with the KING COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, (Developer) If the condominium or plat has not been declared within this time, and reservation of this name is still desired, a new NAME RESERVATION REQUEST must be filed. The fee for Plat and Condo Name Reservations is $50.00 per KeO 2.12.120.0 FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY: Approved: Date Filed: Date Reservation Expires: Sent to Assessor's: _____ (Records) ______ ,(Assessor) ._---------- Aff~DAvrr (())f ~N§l AllA l~(())N Of [P>lUJlBl~(c ~Nf(())[RMA l~(())N §~GN City of Renton Planning Division 10.55 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) ) City of Renton Planning Division AUG :I 1 2012 ~ r e v0 a..-r V013.e Y\.S being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the \7 .' day of A\A wst , 2012-, I installed 1 public iN9 r;ation • sign(s) and)?lastic er box on the property located at 1I~ \'l;mUA!J!Ju\ A& N 16 ~, wI4: for the following project: , I I ?'11Qg r IS ~GPI- Prdject narne IJJ,e.?f]?o..~ J)evdcpfVten+, LLG Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requiremen of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code and the City's "Public Information Sign I lation" handout package. r . ature day of_-'-tf-'-___ " 20 l~ . H :\CED\Da ta \Fonns· T emplates\Se 1 f~ Help Han douts\Plann ing\pu bsign.doc - 3 -03/06/2009 ... I, .. , , , ',' 14" 1-1 -------96" ,.,"" .~ .. o.tM±)t , \ ill';. ! PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION T'....... , ype afAcllon; (Provided by Appllesnl) Proje.IN,me; (provided by Applicant) Site Address: (Provrdecl by Applicant) TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN 'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE o CONTACT CITY OF RENTON STAFF AT: Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renlon, Washington 96055 (425) 430-7200 --------------------I I I I I SITE MAP Laminatad : Installe<! by Applicant I L __ ~ ______________ ~J I r~s~~:ff:r"), ,-' ~:~~~~-l I City provided CASE I ! NonCE 1 appHcant o o i PUBLIC i Installed by I ; 8.5~:If. 14" L_ ...... M •• _._.. ... fl' I 0 " 0 PIQase reference the project number. If no , number is ltsted re(er~uce Ule name. Jri~talll'!r Tnstrllct"'!Or.:S: Please ensure the bottcm of the sign does not exceed 4'8" ftcn -the nr'cund. NOTES: Usc 4" x 4" x 12' POSTS Usc 4' x~' x 112" PLYWOOD Usc 111" x 3" GALV. LAG BOLTS, WlWASHcRS LETTERING: Use HELVETICA LETTERING, BLACK ON WHITE BACKGROUND. nTlE 3" ALL CAPS OTH~R 11/2" CAPS and 1" LOWER CASE . H:\CEO\Data\Fonns-TempJates\Self-Help Handouis\Planning\pubsign.doc " , .., ~ , ,. >< ... ~ .0, ~ -4 -03/06/2009, Printed: 08-31-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA 12-076 08/31/2012 02:43 PM Receipt Number: R1204035 Total Payment: 5,253.00 Payee: WESTPAC DEVELOPMENT LLC 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 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1111 103.00 Payment Check 1354 5,150.00 Account Balances Amount 153.00 1,000.00 4,000.00 100.00 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, Hobbyk, 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/EIS/Copies .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00