HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA82-072DRAINAGE POLICY ANALYSIS
GREEN RIVER/EASTSIDE WATERSHED
APPENDIX C
Prepared for
HOLVICK deREGT KOERING
Prepared by
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS
1515 - 116th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
August 1982
BACKGROUND
In 1982, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built Howard Hanson Dam to
control river flows and prevent major areawide flooding of the Green River
Valley. Interior drainage problems in downstream subdrainage basins were
not resolved by Hanson Dam. Runoff from these downstream areas could not
drain into the Green River during high river flows and thousands of acres
of valley floor would flood under conditions of the 100-year flood. In
the early 1960' s, King County and the affected valley cities asked the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) to help solve the interior drainage problem.
The SCS proposed construction of a system of drainage channels that would
contain and convey flood waters to pump stations that could pump the
interior drainage into the Green River. In partial implementation of that
plan, the SCS built the Black River Pump Station plant in Renton in 1971
and the P-17 Pump Station plant in Tukwila in 1974. The primary objectives
of the project were to protect agricultural lands from flood damage and to
mitigate the increasing flood impacts from urbanization.
The operating plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
releasing flows from Hanson Dam utilized virtually the total safe
conveyance capacity of the Green River channel . Therefore, when plans for
pumping interior drainage to the river were proposed, it was recognized
that additional river channel capacity was needed. At the request of King
County, in 1968 the Corps of Engineers began a study of levee improvement
needs along the Green River between Auburn and Tukwila.
In 1968, King County and the sponsoring valley cities of Auburn, Kent,
Renton, and Tukwila signed an interlocal agreement creating the Green River
Basin Program to better coordinate local response to surface water problems
and provide leadership in carrying out responsibilities as local sponsors
of the federal projects in the valley. During the two and one-half decades
since establishment of the basin program, economic, political , and social
conditions have changed the land use priorities in the Green River Valley.
In response to these changes, local comprehensive land use plans and zoning
of the project area have been revised to permit development of virtually
the entire floodplain area north of Kent. As a result, the Eastside
Watershed, Westside Watershed, and Corps Levee Projects have each been
reformulated.
In March 1977, the SCS declared the Westside Project inactive from a
federal standpoint. In July 1982, the sponsoring local governments
withdrew from further study and analysis of the Eastside Project, and the
SCS indicated that federal funding for that project would be withdrawn.
The local governments, however, have agreed to support an interagency flood
emergency operating study that will include an agreement to establish the
criteria for an operating pump to pump interior drainage to the Green
River. Also, in 1982 the Corps of Engineers completed the levee evaluation
and determined that the magnitude of justifiable levee improvements
necessary to prevent the Green River from overtopping during a standard
project flood was not significant enough to warrant a federal project; so
the levee improvement project has been turned over to King County for any
further action.
EXISTING POLICIES
As a result of the City of Renton' s withdrawal from the Eastside Watershed
project (SCS/P-1 Project) , the City has proposed the following set of
interim flood management policies for the Eastside Watershed area (source:
David R. Clemens, letter to Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch, dated June 11,
1982) .
1. The City of. Renton adopts the P-1 Channel alignment from S.W. 43rd
Street northerly to the Black River Pump Station. The alignment and
flood storage capability shall be more precisely defined as a result of
a hydrologic analysis which will follow completion of the interagency
flood operating agreement presently in progress. (Ed. : The hydrologic
analysis is presumably the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]
Flood Insurance Study currently being updated. )
2. On the basis of the above-mentioned study, the City of Renton will
establish flood storage regulations consisting of two components:
1) relief from the existing required flood storage; and (2) on-site
retention of future runoff from newly developed properties. Although
no precise number has been established at this time, it would appear
that approximately two cubic feet of water storage would be required
for every one square foot of new property development on the valley
floor (those properties below elevation 25) .
3. The City of Renton will adopt regulations providing that a property
owner may determine whether to excavate the required flood storage area
on the site being developed or incrementally construct the P-1 system
commencing at the P-1 pump station and progressing southerly toward
S.W. 43rd. All spoils removal , utility relocations, and street
crossing requirements would be the responsibility of the proponent.
4. If a storm drainage utility is instituted on a citywide basis, the City
Council will consider providing a portion of the capital funding for
the storm drainage system for the valley area to provide for some of
the cost of wetland property acquisition and utility and street
crossings of the drainage channels. The drainage utility may also be
considered as the proper method for future funding of maintenance costs
for these facilities.
The .:ity of Kent also has flood control ordinances covering both floodplain
storage and on-site stormwater detention or retention. The City of Kent
requires compensating storage equal to 50 percent of any fill placed on the
floodway fringe below the elevation of the 100-year flood level . In
addi.:ion, the City requires on-site stormwater storage equal to 8-1/2
inches times the area of the site for all areas that drain to an interior
drainage pump station (six-day, 25-year storm) . Kent requires on-site
storage of a volume equal to the six-day, 100-year storm for the area to
the East of the West Valley Highway. The City' s stormwater control
ordinance requires on-site detention sufficient to attenuate the 25-year
post-development storm runoff to a flow rate equal to or below the 10-year
predevelopment flow rate.
A policy requiring that compensating storage equal in volume to any fill
placed on the floodplain below the level of the design flood is a widely
accepted method for handling development on floodplains.
A given flood elevation will be essentially unaffected by an equal exchange
of excavation and fill below that level , given that the storage provided is
connected to the floodway and is in the same general area as the fill .
However, due to the nature of most floodplain cut and fill exchanges the
floodplain elevation for flood flows greater or less than the design flow
are often affected significantly. Figure la gives a comparison of a
typical compensating storage exchange, and Figure lb shows the result of
the exchange upon the flood stage storage curve. In most cases, compen-
sating storage will lower flood stage elevations for flows less than the
design flow and raise the flood stage elevations for flows greater than the
design flow. Figure 3, to be discussed later in this report, is an example
of how compensating storage can affect flood elevations in the vicinity of
the Black River Pump Station.
The compensating storage policy works well in situations where the storage
provided is an enlargement of an existing drainage channel because it
generally enhances the conveyance capacity of the floodway. However,
storage that is not connected to the floodway by an adequate drainage
system is of limited or no value. Therefore, in situations where the site
of development is isolated hydraulically from the floodway, the developer
is faced with either acquiring right-of-way and constructing a drainage
conveyance system to connect to the floodway or purchasing the required
compensating storage from a property owner adjacent to the floodway.
Compensating storage for off-channel sites must be designed to drain to the
main channel under nonflood conditions and fill by surcharging under flood
conditions.
100-YEAR VLoo0 PLAT N
Ir. 111p gSTREAM J!1
ii;0;:;;:f„r:
t:: % FtnoFp vt..tta
t Lt_
Coe-tPeosiki JG
SrozA(,.e.
Vt.0 ac la.
Typica pvvnsa-I Sl-arage E,-c-h25444ge- E_xarnple_
f
1O-YLar flood plain EltvAioh
fa o.
3 G41'p Ar¢a of Ail Cnr deucloPmunf
W CefA fv,
co k/1
to
P4/,
0,,
J Arca oC excavation Cor S+arage.
A
Normal S Ttlrn Eltvakiovt
E /
Cross Se.4-Iona( Arca 30.—
S-4-orage_)
i=tcuaa lb.
Flood s{-a$e- Si-ora$e. Cgue_ Sore and A£4eir De,clopmt..a+ WA Compcosatin$ S-rsge
Land development usually results in an increase in both the volume and rate
of stormwater runoff from the predevelopment level . The objective of
stormwater detention facilities is to hold the post-development runoff rate
equal to the predevelopment rate by storing the excess stormwater until
such time that it can be released without exceeding the predevelopment
runoff rate. If the development site is located on the floodplain,
stormwater detention facilities generally are not applicable; therefore,
the policy of providing additional storage equal in volume to the increase
in stormwater runoff volume resulting from the development (for a given
design storm) is usually imposed in lieu of stormwater detention.
EXISTING FLOOD MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
Stormwater inundation of property in the Eastside Watershed can be caused
by at least three different sets of circumstances: (1) ponding due to high
water table and/or inadequate on-site drainage; (2) stream bank overtopping
due to inadequate stream channel capacity; and (3) the accumulation of
stormwater runoff (i .e. , storage) behind the Black River Pump Station as a
result of the difference between the stormwater inflow at the pump station
and the outflow pumped discharge of the station.
Stormwater ponding due to high water table and/or inadequate drainage is
generally an on-site problem and the concern of the individual property
owner. The corrective action is also generally the responsibility of the
affected individual property owners. However, stormwater inundation by
streambank overtopping or storm runoff storage is an off-site problem that
involves coordinated public effort and is the subject of this report.
The 1979 FEMA Flood Insurance Study of the Eastside Watershed appears to be
the commonly accepted authority for delineation of the floodplain and the
flood level profile for the Eastside drainage system (i .e. , Black River,
Springbrook Creek, Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, Panther Creek, et al ) . The
FEMA study, however, estimated only the then current flood conditions and
did not address future flood conditions. In order to obtain information
regarding current (1982) and future flood conditions, two valley property.
owners (Holvick deRegt Koering and the Al terra Corporation) located
immediately upstream of the pump station hired Entranco Engineers to update
the FEMA study data base and rerun the FEMA study hydrograph model of the
100-year storm event for both present and future land use conditions.
Recent (October 1981) topographic data was obtained from the Corps of
Engineers. Existing and planned future land use data was obtained from the
planning departments of the cities of Renton and Kent. Figure 2 shows
the resultant 100-year/24-hour storm hydrographs for present and
future land use. Both hydrographs represent conditions without the federal
project. They are presented here to show the impact of development on
flood flows in the Eastside Watershed and to illustrate the relationship
between pump station discharge and stormwater accumulation behind the pump
station.
The King County Department of Public Works has responsibility for the
operation of the Black River Pump Station and that agency has recently
reviewed the operating policy for the pump station in relation to the
findings of the Corps of Engineers levee study for the Green River. Not
withstanding that, in practice, the pump station operation is dictated by
actual river conditions as observed by a roving, on-site levee watch, the
Public Works Department has stated that a maximum pump discharge• of 400
cubic feet per second (cfs) when the Green River is at 12,000 cfs at Auburn
appears reasonable for planning purposes. The 400 cfs pumping scenario is
also the scenario used by the Corps of Engineers for its levee study.
Therefore this pumping scenario is used here to represent present pump
station operating policy.
An estimate of the volume of stormwater that will accumulate behind the
pump station during the 100-year storm event for any given pump operation
scenario can be obtained by subtracting the proposed pump station outflow
hydrograph from the station' s inflow hydrograph. A dashed line shown on
Figure 2 represents the maximum pumping rate of 400 cfs. The area
of the hydrograph above the dashed line represents the maximum volume of
1
2.0o0
1
Future land use hydrograph
I 5 o o
11
2 xtsk-i-ng. conditions hyd,cograph
tl
J 1000 --__- _p ___\ -_-----1_--
1000.ev.
g
I iU
SOCK
400 CFS
l
I ./.
1
0
0 24 48 2 96 120
TIME IN NOURS
a. 2 Rood hvdroora0) 34 Blatt Zvex ?nurn Skakion -Car ne
YiDO- e_ar S-orm . W nouk S.C.S. 1"- t"ro'1w .
stormwater that will accumulate behind the pump station at the 400 cfs
outflow pump rate. This volume is 970 acre-feet for existing land use and
1 ,800 acre-feet for future land use conditions.
Figure 3 is a flood stage elevation vs. storage capacity curve for the
Black River Pump Station. It gives the approximate elevation that
stormwater runoff will rise behind the pump station for any given volume of
stormwater accumulation. Figure 3 indicates that the flood water
elevations associated with the stormwater accumulation volumes derived
above. These elevations are 14.7 feet (NGVD) for existing conditions and
17.1 feet (NGVD) for future land use conditions. The 17.1-foot elevation
at the Black River Pump Station for future land use is based upon predicted
increases in stormwater runoff rates and volumes due to development but
assumes no change in the existing drainage channels and storage facilities.
The potential exists then to implement changes or programs that will reduce
the flood elevation level for future land use to an elevation lower than
17.1 feet. Some of the actions that will tend to reduce flood levels in
the watershed are: (1) the preservation of stormwater infiltration
capacity (e.g. , less intensive land use, planned unit development,
infiltration systems, etc. ); (2) an increase in the discharge rate at the
Black River (and possibly Kent) Pump Station; (3) an increase in flood
storage of the drainage network through channel improvements; and (4) the
use of regional or on-site stormwater retention/detention facilities. The
remainder of this report will discuss the latter three courses of action.
FLOOD MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The depth, extent, and duration of stormwater inundation in the vicinity of
the Black River Pump Station are sensitive to the discharge rate of the
pump station. This can be illustrated by observing the effect of
increasing the pump station maximum allowable discharge rate to 1 ,000 cfs.
This discharge rate is represented by a dotted line on Figure 2.
At this greater discharge rate, it is predicted that only 15 acre-feet of
stormwater would accumulate behind the pump station under present
25
20 Without Project
15
s I##
With Project
z
c 1 0
I
CO
03
5
Note: Storage-elevatiol curve for project
o condition assumes that excavation
u- below 15 ft. is used as fill between
15 ft. and 20 ft,
0~
r
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Storage Capacity (Acre—Feet)
Figure • 3
FLOOD STAGE ELEVATION
STORAGE CAPACITY CURVE BEHIND BLACK RIVER PUMP STATION
conditions. This volume is 955 acre-feet less than the accumulation
predi :ted at pump discharge of 400 cfs and can be easily stored in the
preset pump station forebay pond.
Under future land use conditions, the anticipated accumulation of
stornwater at a pump discharge rate of 1 ,000 cfs is 630 acre-feet, down
1,17C acre-feet from the accumulation volume at the 400 cfs discharge rate.
The Hood level elevations at the pump station associated with a 1,000 cfs
pump discharge are 4.0 feet (NGVD) for present conditions and 13.0 feet
NGVfi) for future land use.
The lownstream side of the pump station (i .e. , Green River channel ) is far
less sensitive to the increased pump discharge rate than the upstream side
i .e. , Springbrook Creek channel ) . During an April 1982 Green River Basin
Technical Advisory Committee meeting in Renton, the Corps of Engineers'
representative, reporting on the status of the Green River Levee project,
stated that at the 100-year flood level in the Green River (i .e. , 12,000
cfs at the Auburn gage) , each additional 100 cfs of pumped input to the
Green River from the Black River Pump Station would raise the river flood
elevation about one inch, or one-tenth of a foot. On the basis of this
information, a 600 cfs pump discharge increase at the Black River Pump
Station would raise the 100-year flood elevation of the Green River from
six to seven inches. The backwater effect of this pumping is estimated to
extend less than one-half mile upstream from the Black River confluence.
Using the Corps of Engineers' October 1981 topographic maps and the
10C-year and standard project flood profiles for the Green River, the levee
improvements required to accommodate a six-inch increase in the 100-year
flood profile of the Green River between I-405 and the Duwamish Waterway
were investigated. Based on maintaining one foot of freeboard above the
100-year flood profile, it was calculated that the improvements required to
in:rease the Green River channel capacity in the subject area to accommo-
date a 1,000-cfs discharge from the Black River Pump Station during the
103-year flood event would cost approximately $200,000. The levee
improvement project will benefit not only the Eastside Watershed by
increasing channel capacity but will also benefit the entire Green River
drainage system by correcting existing deficiencies in the levee system
between Tukwila and the Duwamish Waterway.
The magnitude of the estimated cost indicates that the cost of constructing
levee improvements to accommodate an increased pumped input from the
Eastside Watershed is far more cost effective than providing floodwater
storage on the upstream side of the pump station. It is recognized that
there are more factors that affect these two alternatives than those laid
out in this report; however, the information does indicate that an
attractive low-cost alternative to the federal P-1 Channel and that a
comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of the trade-off between storage and
pumping are warranted. The Surface Water Division of King County' s
Department of Public Works has indicated that it plans to investigate the
need and cost of levee improvements within the next few months, and the
Corps of Engineers has indicated that, if requested, it could provide the
County or the sponsoring sponsoring valley cities assistance in evaluating
the effect of different pumping input alternatives to the Green River.
Resolution of the levee improvement/increased pump allotment issue is basic
to the development of a rational floodplain management policy for the
Eastside Watershed.
As mentioned in an earlier section, some flooding is the result of the
inadequate conveyance capacity of some sections of the Eastside Watershed
drainage system. Adequate conveyance capacity is important to ensure that
the system can deliver flows to the pump station at least equal to the
planned discharge pumping rate of the pump station.
Stream flow routing data from the Entranco study was compared to the stream
cross section and profile data collected for the FEMA Flood Insurance Study
to estimate the adequacy of the existing drainage channels to accommodate
future floods within the channel banks. Figure 4 is a map which indicates
the locations where the channel appears to be inadequate to convey the
projected future 100-year flood flow.
BLACK TZ YEIZ PUMP STA.
i. ' ! .
0
I'
i ......... , 7, , . 07-0ED °, 0 /
1
1 I ., r o: O `) , 4.
Tukwila
r l Nr• ® t}
s
lir 1its, I a 1t
I
i 411,'
om,„\\ i
O O i sis
O 0ari O j
Y-i
O o
0•'
s
Li ' Oaf ; °° ,w
1
N Lin 1
I o 0 ° 0
I
rl s
LJ
nnII0
J
U 0 ij [i:
w N. ^o.um 91[1-113-11-
Igbi u xJ40,
o i
1 000 s
0
N.
I
r
N
w
i11-L 1 i
iii PM w
4:11/ / . ." " fa 1 1 r 13 = ... ._.
al1/411111111111.111.111141111116
1.
1.1%61
et ! i c-_-_-_-=
R I
ira i:i t
t.,
w N
1 MO O)
W.e
11'
1:J
1
w w. !
1 r 7 1n
tly L_.J u
w a 7..7
f
qrhITJ
0
ier
si t , i. ,
u 1 c,
4,
L)
VI
m w.
r,
i I 1 n
O u r I
A)
11 r--, _
i
KEY N _
A of Iw)ADE6 vA"T Kent CD.. 4t)O CNe.wPNEL COWVEYA C-C. I.
Cn.vAGLTY OR. rr LbOv
FLOW QESTRIGT O J
I
J n,.
4I 1 r
f
c«uQE. 4.
4' Inadeoiute. Conveyance eapac.t-y ay Road Flowyeaso r'.
Resi-rtci-tons in -Hie. Itt Klvr r f Eat sick. ,A( 1
VVaS 0.•
Green River "
Basin Program .,,,.,,.,,-:_.,
King County Drainage District No. 1 has a continuing program to maintain
and improve the capacity of the interior drainage system on the valley
floor of the Eastside Green River Watershed. The District is working to
alleviate channel conveyance deficiencies and improve existing channel
conditions as best they can within right-of-way constraints and budget
limitations. The benefits of channel improvement are twofold: they
not only provide improved hydraulic characteristics but, in many cases,
they provide increased channel storage capacity, thereby reducing the
volume of fugitive (i .e. , out of channel ) flood waters. The data developed
by the recent storm drainage studies initiated by Holvick deRegt Koering
could provide valuable information for indentifying and prioritizing needed
channel improvements to accommodate present and future flood conveyance
requirements. In addition to the District' s program of maintaining and
improving the watershed' s main drainage channels, the cities of Renton and
Kent have policies to upgrade drainage structures in road right-of-ways.
Still another consideration in developing a policy of stormwater management
for the Eastside Watershed is the effect of the time of travel of
stormwater flows upon the flood hydrograph. The Eastside project is
sensitive to the shape of the runoff hydrograph at the Black River Pump
Station. It is important to understand this sensitivity so that policies
adopted for the watershed do not conflict.
As stated earlier, the discharge from the Black River Pump Station is
limited by the rate of flow in the Green River. Under present operating
policy when the flow in the Green River at the Auburn gage is at 12,000
cfs, pump output from the Black River Pump Station is limited to 400 cfs.
and when the Green River is at flows less than 12,000 cfs (at Auburn) , the
Black River Pump Station may discharge at a greater rate. (Ed. : This rate
will vary depending upon the elevation of the Green River as observed by an
on-site levee patrol . )
The potential of a pumping discharge rate above 400 cfs when the Green
River is below 12,000 cfs is relevant because the estimated time of travel
for flow releases from Howard Hanson Dam to reach the confluence of the
Black River is 22 hours. Therefore, assuming that the Green River is below
flood stage at the time that the 100-year design storm hits the Eastside
Watershed, there will be an initial period of time, possibly up to 22
hours, depending upon other inflows (e.g. , Westside Watershed) , in which
the Black River Pump Station may pump at an essentially unlimited rate.
Under this particular assumption of prestorm conditions, it would be
advantageous to the project and would reduce the required flood water
storage behind the pump station to accelerate the arrival of runoff to the
pump station during the initial period of the storm (i .e. , the first 22
hours after the start of the storm) . It would appear advantageous then to
not require stormwater detention for drainage areas in the downstream
portion of the drainage basin, but instead promote rapid conveyance of
stormwater from these areas to the pump station. The rationale being that
if you can pump the water out of the basin and into the Green River
quickly, it makes room available for runoff generated farther upstream.
Conversely, stormwater accumulation behind the pump station and stream bank
overtopping can be reduced by detaining stormwater runoff for a period of
time sufficient so that its arrival at the pump station is after the
stormwater inflow rate has dropped below the pump station discharge rate.
Figure 2 shows that during the first 10 hours of the 100-year design storm,
the stormwater inflow at the pump station is below 400 cfs existing maximum
pump discharge rate arriving at the station; therefore, the pump station
discharge will dispatch the total stormwater inflow. During the next
30-hour period, the inflow rate exceeds the 400 cfs discharge rate and the
flow excess is retained in storage behind the pump station. Some 40 hours
after the start of the storm, the inflow rate falls again below the
allowable discharge rate and the pumps, continuing to discharge at a 400
cfs rate, begin to drawdown the storage volume that had accumulated during
the period of excess inflow.
In other words, it is only between the 10th and 40th hours of stormwater
runoff that inflow exceeds the allowable discharge. If it were possible to
reschedule the arrival of a portion of this excess inflow to the periods
either prior to the 10th hour or subsequent to the 40th hour, the volume of
accumulated storage and the resulting elevation rise of floodwaters will be
reduced. Figure 5 gives an example of how spreading the inflow hydrograph
at the pump station by accelerating early inflow and detaining later inflow
can reduce storage volume requirements.
The retention/detention of stormwater by means of regional and on-site
facilities is one method of spreading the hydrograph and rescheduling the
stormwater arrival until some later time period. These facilities could
serve to reduce accumulated stormwater if they held back until after the
40th hour, stormwater that would otherwise have arrived at the pump station
between the 10th and 40th hours.
The present stormwater drainage policies of Kent and Renton require that
on-site stormwater detention facilities be designed to attenuate the peak
of the 25-year storm event. These facilities are of little value in
attenuation of the 100-year storm runoff peak as most on-site facilities
are designed to "pass" a 100-year storm runoff peak.
The most effective and economical method to achieve control of 100-year
storm runoff peaks may be by construction of subbasin or regional
facilities located on the major feeder drainage channels to Springbrook and
Mill creeks.
It should be obvious that the retention/detention of runoff scheduled to
arrive during the initial 10 hours of the storm is counterproductive
because flow arriving at the pump station during the first 10-hour period
would be discharged immediately, whereas a portion of the flow arriving
after the 10th hour must go to storage. Likewise, retention/detention of
stormwater scheduled to arrive between the 10th and 40th hours must be
detained for a sufficient period of time to arrive at the pump station
VOLUME oc
t*:•:: ...:1:
1:\STD tZAG.E
r.:
IZEOuCTIol,..)
7
t A:7:
3
9
II
POMP STA-110N
s, 0 iS C.“A R G,E. RA-re
111 41
CI
U A
4
A VOLUME OF VOLUME OF
r)AccacizA-re.D DeTA 1 NX-D
CD q RAN ov ROW OFF
4
4\
Flq°Re, 5
CO UA LUTA-I-INC EFFECT OF 1:ZUK30 FP ACC.ELEZAT10t.) 4.4.)D D E.TEtJTIO I.)
OW THE RUIJOFF NY OROG.RAPVI AIJD THE FLOODWATER
STo R t..a E -Bet-110,3o THE 15 LAC-K '1:ZtvGR 3cT. 'PUM P STIN.TI 0 i...)
after the 40th hour (and at an aggregate rate not to exceed 400 cfs) .
Otherwise, the retention/detention is of little or no value in reducing
accumulated stormwater or flood elevation levels behind the pump station.
Stormwater detention facilities are generally justified on the argument
that the facility will hold back the increase in runoff rate due to
development, and control the runoff rate to a level equal to or below the
predevelopment runoff rate. The primary objective of these facilities is
to prevent any increase in off-site flooding and erosion as the result of
development by maintaining stormwater flows at predevelopment levels.
However, in a system, stormwater detention facilities can often fail to
achieve the desired objective because the controlled but untimely release
of detention storage from one facility may nullify the peak reduction in
the drainage basin. Figure 6 shows two hydrographs that illustrate the
situation described.
In order for the system of two detention facilities of Figure 6 to achieve
the objective of predevelopment stormwater flow rates, the release of the
upstream facility must be timed to not coincide with runoff from a facility
farther downstream such that the combined flows exceed predevelopment
flows. The same principle of timing the release of detained excess
stormwater so that the impact of the total system releases in the aggregate
do not exceed the predevelopment impact can be applied to the Green River
Eastside Watershed so that the flood level for future land use condition is
no higher than the flood level for existing conditions. This system of
operation requires no greater detention volume than presently required; it
involves only the timing of the stormwater release.
On the basis of the above discussion, it appears that the rising flood
elevation levels due to development in the Eastside Watershed could be
mitigated by a policy that encourages or requires stormwater storage and
detention with scheduled storage release for developments in all but the
lower portions of the watershed and channel improvements in the lower
portions.
j,
l
1- Th __
tN/
I A
BoslIN "T N.
1 -1DctEssiloi3 G.c4La J
COMBINED WYPROGRAPI
BEPoRE DCTe.JTtON
COMBINED 4NOR0GRAPL*
AMR tETE.ETION
I i5 INOIVIOU L 14YOROGRAPI4S
AFTER. OGTENTtOn)
POST DEVEWPMENT PEAKl
BE cRE DETElJnoN =I2
I t;' 1 PoST DEVELOPMENT
10 PEAK AF T8Z
44 OETt)3TLOW IO
FLAK AND DF[E 1TW.'1
B ASiN DESIGN OuTVLUAN
s
BASIN 6 IVOR0GRAP4I BASIN A NYD2O4• • •I4\
5 15010 20 25 30 35
1 FII,IKE 6
I THE EFFECT Oc TINrE•OF-TRAVEL OM "DETEWTIOP. FACILITI iZELEASE
i
i
The discussion of alternatives contained herein is certainly not
exhaustive, but it does provide valid, low-cost, and environmentally less
disruptive floodplain management options to the apparently defunct federal
P-1 Channel project.
BEGINNING
OF FILE
FILE TITLE
F, L
Ls•e.25c.up E
A-01/4c---L-
Landscape Guidelinesp
for
Par - .t
r
Renton, Washington
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARFNG EXAMINER
First City Equities JAN 1983
AM PM
7,8,9amiti2111213.415,E
6
EXHIBIT NO.
by ITEM INO. 492
RICHAFD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES
Planner/Landscape Architects/Urban Designers
1 .0 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES
The landscape consists of elements that give form to exterior spaces. Thus,the character of the landscape is created by elements such as streets andbuidingsetbacks, the variety and placement of elements such as signing,site lighting, walkways, and plant materials, and the arrangement of majorfunctionalelementssuchasprojectentrances, parking lots, buildings , ser-vicE areas, etc.
GivEn that project architecture and building sites within Earlington Parkwillmostlikelybeofvaryingtypesandsizes, landscaping as a design ele-ment will play the key role in creating and conveying the overall characterofEarlingtonParkasa "park-like" working environment. The purpose, then,of these Landscape Guidelines, is to provide design criteria which will helptoinsurethatEarlingtonParkachievesanimagethatisdistinctive, clearlyunderstandableandunified.
1 . 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EARLINGTON PARK LANDSCAPE CONCEPT
As a part of the Earlington Park master plan, a master landscape plan has beenconc?ived to organize, unify and create a distinctive character for the wholeofEirlingtonPark. The master landscape plan recognizes that Earlington Parkconsistsoftwoprominentzones, namely, the streetscape zone and the interiorzone, An understanding of the nature of these two zones is important to under-standing the landscape guidelines and their intent.
14040 , .vr...,. .,, )e.„.4...„ ". ,,,,v,..., .:,1
C ii,, ," 6.01414lo 114,5447,, - << < , -,r. ,
37. .
1 Ae.
0 t)
18,
1
i.ef„.4.,..
1.0
i
a
4.P..%- ..--4,-...
v4A-f
lry5r_TCAI'E. ZONE- IN 1 R OR ZON-
1 . 1 . 1 Streetscane Zone
The streetscape zone is the primary image setting zone and it includesallarterialandcollectorroads. All improvements within this corridor
Iill
will have the greatest degree of control . Attributes within this zone
14,
i nclude:
1 . The Landscape Easement - This easement begins at the back of the curbandextendsinwardforadistanceof30feetalongallarterialandcollectorroads. The first 13 feet minimum to 24 feet maximum aredesignatedasapublicparkway. This parkway includes a 5 foot walk-way/jogging trail . The remaining 6 feet minimum to 17 feet maximumshallbeatransitionzone, permitting Owner and Occupant site/land-scaping improvements. Common elements within the Landscape Easementincludewalkways, jogging trails, par course, planting, irrigation,street lighting, project signing and project entries.
r.je---
P
L MIN.
alt
AND occUPANT
1%r1_ ' "h
5'WALK
tik_ h
lir
r_.-=
W LAND s.W. e Mt
Gc
LAWN MAL GATP011.1 G PARKWAY T 1q-ANtTi NCB.
1 .1 . 2 Streetscape Zone Design Concept
The streetscape within Earlington Park will consist of a unified singleimage, namely: a single row of street trees planted approximately 5 feetfromthecurblineonalandscapedberm, on both sides of the street, except
on the west side only of Powell Avenue Southwest and on the east side onlyoftheproposedValleyParkway, and on the north side only of Southwest 7thAvenue, east of the Powell Avenue Southwest and Southwest 7th Avenue inter-section. Informal tree, shrub and groundcover plantings will occur behindthesinglerowofstreettrees.
3t :ro
sr..ovecim9.-4142'
jkt 't o Q1! I tv:,• .
14.) . '1:.:*111101111111.a@ lb 0 .
J. 7th AENuE.
in 4---AIP IP 0 0.91. • V/
i c . r..•Ur N>`O2MA L PLANT IN :
Individual project entries will punctuate these plantings providing high-lighted corporate identification.
The major Earlington Park entry monuments will be provided at three inter-
sections, namely: the intersection of Southwest Seventh Avenue and Powell
Avenue Southwest, Southwest Seventh Avenue and the proposed Valley Parkway,and Valley Parkway and future to Phase II , Tract A.
A jogging trail and parcourse will meander through the public parkway pro-
viding an added dimension to the overall Earlington Park streetscape scene.
2-
Sk1P4i -
5-
11/41k 1
it ,_ ;
eh ..
4 -D kloor
it
FW3LIG A}Z RAL OR
PA'KWAI' cof._L_ TofZ
1 . 1 .3 Interior Zone
The interior zone encompasses all exterior elements from the 30 foot Land-scape Easement to the building setbacks. This zone is subject to the needofeachOwnerandOccupantand, thus, is meant to have a greater degree offlexibilitythanthestreetscapezone. Common concerns within this zoneinclude: parking lot arrangements and landscaping, site lighting, regula-tory and directional signing, and service area screening.
FOP.:• 3
GtSADYIII "'
INT RIOR ZONE
1 .1 .1 Interior Zone Desi n Concept
It is intended that the interior zone of Earlington Park, consisting pri-marily of parking lot landscaping, be planted in geometrictoSection1 .2.5.c for plant types. ) Subtle light levels, restrained graphicsandscreeningofserviceareaswillallcontributetoreinforcingtheEarl-ington Park landscape design concept.
1 .2. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
1 .2. Assessment District Installation and Maintenance Agreement
1 . All landscape improvements within the public parkway will be installedbytheGrantor.
2. The Grantor has entered into a five year maintenance agreement to main-tain the public parkway. Landscape maintenance will be paid for throughAssessmentDistrictrevenues. Following the expiration of the five yearmaintenanceperiod, all maintenance will be assumed by the Owner and Occu-pant of individual development parcels and will be paid for through thecontinuationofanAssessmentDistrict.
3. The 30 foot Landscape Easement (public parkway and transition zone)landscaping and irrigation will be installed as a continuous linear
system. Demolition of this system at vehicular access points willbenecessaryduringtheprocessoftheaccessdriveinstallation.It is a responsibility of the Owner and Occupant to maintain the flow oftheirrigationsystemduringconstruction, and to re-establish theplanting, grading and final irrigation layout that has been altered.
PRIVEIk1A`r
MT KY
1'. . . I fi s pR
1
Q J f
s . • 11 L
R FAIRiGA
INiTiNcI I cl.C—{—
1 .2. 2 Maintenance of Unimproved Sites
1 . Sites that are not improved or built upon shall be maintained in acleanandneatappearancebytheOwnerandOccupant. Weeds, brush andtrashwillberemovedtwiceayear, once in the spring and once in thefall ,
or more often as required to maintain an high quality appearance.The Grantor and their representative have the right to perform the nec-essary maintenance and charge the individual Owner and Occupant as nec-essary.
1 .2..3 Landscape Coverage
1 . A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the area within the propertylinesofadevelopmentsiteshallbedevotedtolandscapematerialsunlessotherwiseapprovedinwritingbytheGrantor.
1 .2.i Street Frontage Zone Design Guidelines
1 .2.z .a Definition of Street Frontage Zone
1 . The street frontage zone is defined as that portion of the site whichfrontsontheLandscapeEasementand/or is visible from the street.
ILeNtegi.
NT
J r„ ,, ,,,fz
AR,
I1
I
1 .2.4.1 Specific Design Limitation within the Street fronta e Zone
1 . Grading: Finish grading for each site shall meet the existing gradeatthePublicParkwayboundary. Transition slope in this zone shallnotexceed4:1 .
2. Service Areas : Service areas within this zone are to be enclosed withsolidwallsandscreenedwiththeappropriatelandscapematerial . Seelandscapemateriallistfor "screening shrub" types.
3. Parking: All berms within the Landscape Easement zone shall be3feetminimumabovethesurfaceparkingelevationwithinthe streetfrontagezone.
TRANIsi-nokk ZON5 T ,(' % 'lf'4 MAX. s(.op
P.,/
NANGt5 15 i U1e5p r al
Z
e,..,..,,. ./...,treA cf)At, di `5.3
Q=
f A 2 1N
t ut t,tG GARTgIALTOTORIZ
PACK JAY
4. Screening Shrubs: The following shrubs, in combination with walls orfences, have been selected to aid in eye level screening of serviceareas. Planting areas shall be a minimum width of 4 feet. All plant-ing areas exceeding 4 feet shall also conform to these landscape guide-lines. The shrubs should be planted at a size to achieve a minimum
height of 5 feet within a 3 year period from the date of planting.
Plant Name Maximum Spacing Comments
Photinia fraseri 5' on center
Cotoneaster franchetii 4' " "
Cotoneaster lactea 4'
Viburnum tinus 4' " i.
Viburnum rhytidophyllum 4' " "
Mahonia aquifolium 3' " "
Vaccinium ovatum 3' " "
Prunus lusitanica 5' "
must be clippedArbuteusunedo4' " II
Pieris japonica 3' 1, 1,
Ligustrum japonicum 3' 'I "
Texanum'
Thuja occidentalis 22' " "
Buxus sempervirens 3. must be clippedRhododendronvarieties4'
1 .2.5 Parking Lot Landscape Requirements
1 .2.5.a Tree Planting Requirements
1 . Two (2) types of trees are identified for the parking lot planting.Refer to Section 1 .2.5.c Plant Material List. )
Type A: End of Parking Column Planting
Type B: Interior Parking Lot Planting
5
P „ANTI NCI AT P
PP 1Z4INGI Ga-U M N
Th'P 'A'
ea
O p-PkN-TIN4 AR -AT
1.1Ink IP
1-w/A
stop
n 45 P Gl
Type A: These trees shall be planted at the ends of parking columns.A single tree specie, with a minimum height of 12 feet
shall be planted throughout the Owner and Occupant' s entire
parking lot compound.
Type B: These trees shall be planted in the parking lot interior. A
single tree specie, with a minimum height of 8 feet
shall be planted every third stall . The tree specie may be
different in separated parking lots within the compound.
Trees must be planted in the immediate vicinity of parking
stalls; credit will not be given for perimeter edge tree
planting.
THRou&14OUT Th GoMPOVNQ.2
1D:
M r r
rs; 3 ;; KIN lot
Go M poP4'
B7ia INy10 -AN7 NCBIvaAlip ' S GI:.
hrlAN( VARY FROM
E
o-----fly LOT, #If 01 U2i 3.
2. Tree wells and planter areas within paved parking areas shall provideaminimum4footclearplantingspace.
3. Planting areas shall have a 6 inch curb on all sides.
ti PI11loom.
It% % isr
I h
i.„,..,,,„...
lpi
o' cop /WoURI)
r LAN I AR
L 5 b Parking and Pedestrian circulation
1 . Parking location and layout should facilitate easy and safe pedestriancirculation.
2. If the parking layout is more than one row deep, walking space with aminimumwidthof4feetbetweenstallsshouldbeprovidedatkeylocations.
I
All
iindlii all VIA-KWAY
r ,,r,,
as••
FOre i 11,:ilorralIPAgin1114orinpm.
51 iif
J`' ---- z A sL CR Lf
3. If parking lots exceed two rows in depth, the alignment of the aislesshouldbeinthedirectionofthepedestrianmovement.
40
r
H AO) /off ,Ns- It
1-fir Ir ,,j NO
T F6 1611C',ANl
aAmPoRS IN
op si 0g046ig—
p` ' LE . Z
ill
PA 1allWO0
2 AISLGS OR MORE
1 .2.5 c Parking Lot Plant Materials List
Tree species are to be selected from the following lists. If specialsoilorsiteconditionspreventtheuseoftherecommendedtrees , the
Owner and Occupant should recommend an alternative to the Design ReviewCommittee.
Tree Lists for Parking CoNounds
The following lists of trees have been selected to create a park-likeappearanceintheparkingcompound.
Type A Trees: End of Parking Column Planting
Plant Name Minimum Size Comments
Acer platanoides 12' htAcerrubrum12' ht
Limb to 6' minimum
Acer pseudoplatanus 12' ht
Limb to 6' minimum
Limb to 6' minimumLiquidambarstyraciflua12' ht Limb to 6' minimumTiliacordata12' ht Limb to 6' minimumLiriodendrontulipifera12' ht Limb to 6' minimumQuercuscoccinia12' ht Limb to 6' minimumQuercusborealis12' htFraxinuspennsylvanica12' ht
Limb to 6' minimum
lanceolata Limb to 6' minimum
Gleditsia triacanthos 12' ht Thornless varieties only,
Skyline' , '$hademaster'
Type B Trees: Interior Parking Lot Planting
Plant Name Minimum Size Comments
Magnolia grandiflora 8' ht Limb to 42' minimumStyraxjaponica8' ht
Pyrus calleryana 8' ht
Limb to 42 minimum
Crataegus lavallei Limb to 4z minimum
8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimumCrataegusphaenopyrum8' ht Limb to 42' minimumMallusfloribunda8' ht Limb to 42' minimumCercidiphyllumjaponicum8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimumPrunussargentii8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimumPrunusserrulata8' ht Limb to 42' minimumKwanzan'
Prunus subhirtella 8' ht Limb to 41/2' minimumAutumnalis'
1 .2.E Vehicular Access Drive Design Guidelines
1 .2.E .a Location Criteria
1 . Major access drives are to be located as described in Access andDriveLocationGuidelines.
Access drives for "right turn only" ingress and egress should belocatedbytheOwnerandOccupantaccordingtocitystandards.
f PAIR RpL
iZM W/4:1 MAX.Sc..
PR\vMIA`1'
j c____
1 .2.5.b Limited Use Area at Primary and Secondary Access Drives
1 . The "limited use area" is defined as the area extending 10 feetoneithersideofanaccessdriveandinthatareaofthefirst10feetextendingfromthecurblineofthepublicstreet.
N'LIMIT Uf Alt:
I I NO 0 €1 L11oN
0,-,-,, foil hi•
girri P ZMIT
j 111
All objects higher than 30 inches above the top of the curb attheaccessdrivecurbopening, including but not limited to, shrubs,trees, signs and earth berms shall be located outside of the limitedusearea.
1 .2.7 Guidelines for Interior Property Lines and Landscape Areas
1 .2.7 a Side and Rear Yard Requirements
A 5 foot minimum planting strip is to be provided continuously
along and adjacent to all interior property lines.
2 . All site drainage shall be directed away from the 5 foot zone.Drainage within the 5 foot zone may flow to an adjacent property.
3. A maximum slope of 2:1 is allowed within the 5 foot plantingzone. A 1 foot minimum flat transition shall be provided at
the top and bottom of all slopes within this zone.
OC
4. Where the two properties adjoin, there shall be a 10 foot minimum
zone created by the two 5 foot minimum required landscape plantingstripsoneachsideofapropertyline. All planting areas exceedingthe5footminimumshallalsoconformtotheselandscapeguidelines.
5. No walls or fences exceeding 30 inches in height shall be permittedwithinarequired5footminimumplantingzone. Walls or fences
separating adjoining parcels may be permitted when located at thepropertyline.
1 .2. 7.b Side and Rear Yard Landscape Requirements
I . Either shrub or tree planting shall be required in the 5 foot
zone. Where two properties adjoin, shrub plantings with groundcover
is required on one side of the property line and tree plantings with
groundcover is required on the other. The first Owner and Occupant to
receive plan approval shall be required to plant the required treeswithgroundcover. The second Owner and Occupant must then plant therequiredshrubswithgroundcover.
I INTERIOR F
0110.
taw. pF,A
G0\1IZ
sHRO gcvNrxo J
Ire
3
6 5'
1 .2.7.c Plant Material Requirements - Interior Property Lines
1 . Trees: Shall be located 4 feet from curb or 1 foot from the propertyline. The trees selected for interior property lines must be species
that have been used somewhere else on the Owner and Occupant's property.Refer to Section 1 .2.5.c Plant List.
2. Shrubs : Shall be located 3 feet from the property line or 2 feet fromthecurb, and planted with a maximum spacing .of 5 feet on center.
3. Groundcover: Shall be placed 24 inches on center maximum spacing,covering all ground surfaces. If the owner and Occupant selects lawn,as a groundcover, sod must be installed.
1 .2. 7.d Planting and Irrigation Details and Specifications
1 . All planting and irrigation details and specifications shall conformtoCityofRenton, Washington Design Standards and the highest standardsoftheAmericanAssociationofNurserymen, the American Landscape Con-tractors Association, and the irrigation industry.
2. It shall be the Owner and Occupant's responsibility to provide a 1 year
guarantee against all defects of materials and workmanship for all plant-ing and irrigation. The Owner and Occupant shall replace plants not innormal , healthy growing condition at the end of the guarantee period withsamespeciesandsize. The guarantee period shall begin when the OwnerandOccupant, and Grantor or their representative has accepted the workas100percentcomplete.
o--
1• J .
r - -"\
I 1 1
11 rwierli` 17-
M•••• ,
1 111 •i`+`7 ...•- •
f/.•:
t_-
1 .1/• •
v ww•.o'• ww•..•.•...
v.•,e.•o.•w.)
t,
1,•.. i
ht.
1.',
i f.)I::IJ; • •-1•.. if...p, • , ' + ' • . ...:t:.•_...' ti i...'I .• -y :-eti." 1 i a` ,• --- 4- • t'.l. •I(1. : .. • • /,+_ . • • . .11;:: • :1• • c•.i1 ' '•.. .,
1QQ• J 1
JJ4. . . . . t Y Sal h.Z4 •/1 ' .)
3.r
o P11A'c, l: • 7 tom-.•',.,;/.r;.. J•.. f.
1i. _ , ` few 76 / o .••1 t• a,f„r 1 1 t
a '
0- .-...-•-,-
t- 4T ./41
T 'C Yam.
1
57 : r! T-t` ;s T :i
iiit 7t 1-
r
s-Z\
s.
y 2., 4. . 1 ;• f J F f
T 41•4a tiI• 1:'
1
11
4.11\ ' .•.,.. ,.,,.....L'-Ct 1 Q Q
Tinto Trc.rnLlr puuT i}i• 1'
r..!iy. a 21. , -
4
16•4 chi. .
111041i .•
1• f. . 4:. ,.• f4.. ..• k• : ; ,.. .i:‘ - \ . .1. •••• N----,-.„ , ;;•,..c...----- •
6i i
4:i: • ..s .s,........iri-
1' I $ 1; t..: i''
F
7,1A.,t • ; •-:---r • .E,i rl f F.ARLING:
i
T.,:1,
1.
v!/
fl-NTON.ttiASHINC
ti t_' f L
Tif 1lL• 211._ - -Cif+1 ( / • afril S Ow ME RYt• vi) 4.r•-,...
t .- IWIST CST [O.nTI[7
aLT 7- ' r-
J +-
t+.'•.'• SCAT Tl[w4Y4••OtOr1
c_.: y,.:tom.
t 'T
1 - a•'-- f. ', S[Sr TI[,waY+Mi0r1
c.._
r: i.. ' s t`SI• -ulcwTrcrs•
I• i1 ::,( •.=j1.r= • 1 • ISA c44Ellu\ss
1
1. i (.,.,• 1
1"1-
11 Ii•f'
4.. ' -
1
r.sMro EOM
C.C.
1....!,,:•.%••;.
1.k.. 0;1'i -,%•tpl,r)I, ..
t , ,0.1 , o-.--
1
a
l :;. I' . I Is
3lock River L.nc` • •e ,r I I
c•knyiro c. Cott
TN
c+mp'reiver%:e•le1Plc,"1''1f r:~ ,•E..:
11`4tee1 $e.•\ 1i u."7.-.a.-
eZOne 6X)( 1ar
EXhIIBIT 1
Applicant Holvick, deRegt, Koerinq
File W.R-072-82
Project Name First City Equities Rezone
Property Location Bounded on West by proposed P-1 Chariel,
on south by Grady Way; on east by Powell Avenue S.W. ; and
on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
HEARING EXAMINER: Date January 11, 1983
Recommendation Approval.
Req./Rec. Date Received N/A Date Response
Appeal - Date Received N/A
Council Approval - Date
Ordinance 7) (Q Date. /j//0
Mylar to County for Recording
Mylar Recording #
Remarks: ffl
MAR 3 1iy83
t+{a,
OF R4,
0 THE CITY OF RENTONt$
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR MAXINE E.MOTOR,
90 CITY CLERK • (206) 235-25000,
9gTE0 ;SEPl„1
P
March 21, 1983
Loren Davis
1818 Westlake Ave. North
Suite 308
Seattle, WA 98109
Subject: C.i o-f -Rents ..,- Ordinance. No. 3716
HdK Rezone 072-82-
Dear Mr. Davis:
The Renton City Council at its regular meeting of March 14, 1983
has adopted Ordinance No. 3716 changing the zoning classification
of certain properties within the City of Renton from General
Classification District (G-1) to Manufacturing Park District (M-
P) (R 072-82) .
A copy of the above-referenced ordinance is enclosed.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF RENTON
Maxine E. Motor
City Clerk
MEM:db
Enclosures 1
cc: Hearing Examiner
MEMORANDUM OF CONCURRENCE
APPLICATION NO(S): Holvick deRegt, Koering (HdK),
Fir- £iy Equities (FCE) ,
R-072-82
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone 25.89 acres
of property from G-1 to i4-P for
office, research and development
and other office/warehouse
buildi ngs.
PRCPONENT: Located on the western 200 feet of
the Washington Technical Center
plat, defined as follows: Bounded
on the west by the proposed P-1
Channel , on the south by Grady
Way, on the east by Powell Avenue
S.W. and on the south and east by
S.W. 7th Street.
LEAD AGENCY: Buildi ng and Zoni ng Department.
Acting as the Responsible Official , the ERC has determined that the requested
modifications to the initial proposal reviewed under ECF-076-82 on December
15 1982, are within the scope of that original proposal and the environmental
de..ermination of non-significance is still valid conditioned upon the
exclusion from the rezone of the right-of-way for the Valley Parkway.
This decision was reached following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the
Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: David
Clemens, Roger Blaylock, Jeanette Samek, James Hanson, Jerry Lind, Richard
Hoighton, Robert Bergstrom, Ronald Nel son, Donald Persson and Ed Wooton.
I norporated by reference in the record of proceedings of the ERC on
ap)l i cati on R-072-82 are the following:
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets, prepared by:
Robert W. Thorpe, dated August, 1982.
2) Application( s) : Rezone (R-072-82)
SIGNATURES:
fto nafd . Nel son
Bui 1 di ng & Zoni ng Director
Richard C. Houghton
PLbli ks Director
1')
ta-vi d R 1 emens
Policy Development Director
Date circulated ; December 1, 1982 Comments due : December t , 1982
ENVIROMIWENTAL CHECKLIST REVIIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and develognent, and other office/
ware_e.use buildings-
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : Plat, clef i nerl as fnl l nws: Rntinded nn the west by the nrnpnsPrl P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east b;SITE AREA : 29_R9 acres BUILITING AREA (gross ) S w 70h gtreet
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life : L
6 ) Noise : L
7 ) Light & glare : L
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
1 west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics : lj
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
03Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by : Y itle : /i^9.,A;.J
Date : /z / c•/ 1
l l 12seLetl rt0 j3{
FORM: ERC-06 II -
V
Date circulated . Lecember 1, 1982 CommenL.s due : December t , 1982
E\IVIROMIE\ITAL CHECIKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of Property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse buildings-
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : Plat, defined as follows! Peninde1l on the west by the nrnp-sed P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east b Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east biSITEAREA : ?5R9 acres BUILDING AREA (gross ) s w 7{-h StrP4 .
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare : t
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset : 1.7
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS : ''
v io y-
2-0 ed4 GP
Pam/ c'Ca vive.l, 1 / pova
S are B
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information - ^„
Reviewed by :
1 )
litle :
J
Date : G/81--
l 2-S3
FORM: ERC-06
REI )N BUILDING & ZONING DE ITMENT
2
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deReg Koer;nci (HdKK) First City Fnuities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the astern 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R7
ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
l IFIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
n POLICE DEPARTMENT
n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P .M . ON r •Pm1- r 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 1 ,,;'/g7-=plc A (T/ /L &- /j&/
t IAPPRJVED0--4PPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
I ( NOT APPROVED
c/Z}.e_il to s //o-,S 571&_/4 Ci /•
963
DATE :z-
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHOR' ZE PRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
REI )N BUILDING & ZONING DE ITMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvicrk. egt• Koerinc (BdK) First City Entities (FCE)
PROJECT T I T L E : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M--P for office, research and develoranent, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the t by Powell _Ave, S.W, and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-22
DA. ENGINEERING DIVISION
1TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
l iPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
l ( BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
LIPOLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
r1OTHERS :_.
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P .M . ON n -P 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
El APPROVED SI-APPROVED WITH CO`NJJDITIONS l ( NOT APPROVED
300 De C %S 61 ,,,4Ye-t a"T ( C j I 5p6
DATE : / z,/4/5 2-
SIGNATURE OF f'-57HORIZED- REPRESENTATIVETOR
REVISION 5/1982
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING ss.
Cindy...$t.rupp being first duly sworn on
oath,deposes and says that..s.he is the ....Chi ef....cie 'k of PASTOR RICHARD MARTIN
THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times a 26201 180th S.E., Kent 631-4163
week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been f
for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to,
printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper First Baptist Church of Renton (A
published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it is
now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the OI 255 Hardie Ave.S.W. By Renton Shopping t
aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record Ai Lifting up the LORD JESUS CHRIST
Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior C I Ministering rn the HOLY SPIRIT
Court of the County in which it is published,to-wit,King County,WA Bringing love&joy to YOUR LIFE
ING Emphasizing the FULL GOSPEL
Washington.That the annexed is a Ordinaxic& .3.Z 1.6 pRl SUNDAY SCHEDULE WEEKDAY SCHE
CIT 9:15 Bible School Wed.7 Adult in
GE 10:30 Worship Service Bible study
TIC 6:30 Evening Vespers . Children&youth ses
MI
8 p.m.-Inner-healing
DI Child care provided for all above servict
as it was published in regular issues(and Pastor Robert Weigel,226-1970
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
ter L
let Fairwood
of Qiie consecutive issues,commencing on the 0, Assembly Of God
Ci 13120 S.E. 192nd, Renton
25.th day of March 19 8 3 ,and ending the
eC 226-7911
tpch SUNDAY
he 9:45 a.m.Sunday
day of 19 ,both dates he 11:00 a.m. Morning W
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- G( 6:00 p.m. Evening
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
ttnci(" '
t' eti- 'DNESDAYAapro
eionWHEREforchSange ofPer zone
P
r Famil
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.1.Q 0..,83.0hich classification of said proper rvided at all services
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the has been filed with the Fi Pearson 631-99
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent Building & Zoning Depart-
insertion. ment on or about November
E
5 1982,which petition was
r
1...duly referred to the Hearing
t
Examiner for investigation,Sv stud and public hearing, E.ted Methodist C
Chief Clerk and a public hearing having q Park Ave. N.
been held thereon o
4 RentonaboutJanuary4, 1983,andaidmatterhavingbeendulySubscribedandsworntobeforemethis2.5th day of the Hearing School 9:30 a.m.
Considered by Service 11:00 a.m.
Examiner and said zoningV. Stanovsky, PastorMarch19.8.8... r,,equest being to conformity
nwiththeCity's Comp
live Plan,as amended,and _Church 255-0211
lfo e City Council having duly ,me 271-0749
Notry Public i d for the State o Washington, Considered all matters relev-
residing ate, King County. ant thereto, and all parties
Fgderal_Way baving been heard appear-4ng in support thereof or inAppositionthereto, NOWPassedbytheLegislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June ZHEREFORE Methodist Chu
9th, 1955 THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE ClY OF RENTON, St. Renton—255-51
Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,HE CITY OR- ney, Pastor—228-4
adopted by the newspapers of the State.PAIN AS FOLLOWS:SECTION I:The following .h School and
s]jescribed property in the 'ication 9:15 a.m.
r aM
r£ity of Renton is hereby d Learnin CentezonedtoManufacturing30a.m.
g
park District
cMd-
P)
sub
VN#87 Revised 5/82 Qereinbelow spejesttothefindings, conclu Junior and SenicSonsanddecisionofthelethodistYouthC, miner dated
Renton City Council
March 14, 1983
Page Two
OLD BUSINESS continued
Community Community Services Committee Chairman Reed presented a report
Services concurring in the recommendation of the Parks Department to replace
Committee the quartz lighting system at Gianini Stadium with 1500 watt metal
Replacement halide lamps. This energy conservation measure will save
of Lighting approximately 63% of the required energy usage per year and will
System at be partially funded by a grant from Puget Power which pays for
Gianini 71 .80 of such conversions. The city' s share will be paid for out
Stadium of the Park Department 1983 budget, and payback on the converstion
is estimated at less than three years. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY
MATHEWS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES COMMITTEE. Councilman Trimm inquired if the project will
go out for bids. Parks Director Webley advised receipt by Puget
Power of one bid from Holmes Electric in the amount of $31 ,673.30
with the option available to request additional bids following
review of those specifications. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report
Committee recommending the following ordinances for second and final
readings:
Ordinance #3715 An ordinance was read providing for appropriation and transfer of HCD
Rainier Avenue funds in the amount of $10,000 for construction of Rainier Avenue
Corridor Eikeway Corridor Bikeway. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY ROCKHILL, ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance #3716 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property
HolvickdfRegt located on the western 200 feet of the Washington Technical Center
KeringrRczone_ plat bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 Channel , on the south
R-072-82 by Grady Way, on the east by Powell Avenue S.W. and on the south
and east by S.W. 7th Street from General Classification District
G-1 ) to Manufacturing Park District (M-P) for Holvick deRegt
Koering, applicant, File No. R-072-82. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED
BY HUGHES, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
First Reading Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report
recommending the following ordinance for first reading:
Union Avenue An ordinance was read appropriating funds for construction of a
Storm Dra n storm drain line in Union Avenue N. E. from N.E. 17th Street to
Line Honey Creek; project approved in 1982 Community Facilities
priority list but not accomplished due to insufficient funding.
MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO
COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report
recommending the following resolution for reading and adoption:
Resolution #2495 A resolution was read amending the 1983-1988 Six Year Transportation
1983-1988 Six Improvement Program. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL
Year Tram porta- ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Councilman Stredicke
tion Program felt the matter should have been referred to Transportation
Amendment Committee as standard procedure; and inquired regarding disposition
of 1st North Street project deleted from the Overlay List.
Voucher Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report
Approval recommending approval of Vouchers 49778 through 50074 in the amount
of $596,027.69, having received departmental certification that
merchandise and/or services have been received or rendered. Vouchers
49773 through 49777 and 50075 machine voided. Warrants include LID
314: $36.00; and LID 325: $21 ,320.00. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY
HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS. CARRIED.
NEW BUSIN_SS Receipt of a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration
Letter from advising allocation of $180,000 to the City of Renton for airport
FAA improvements was reported by Councilman Stredicke. MOVED BY
STREDICKE, SECONDED BY REED, LETTER FROM FAA BE REFERRED TO
AVIATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
March 14, 1983 Municipal Building
Monday, 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Barbara Shinpoch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and
called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order.
ROLL CALL OF THOMAS W. TRIMM, Council President; EARL CLYMER, ROBERT J . HUGHES,
COUNCIL MEMBERS RANDALL ROCKHILL, RICHARD M. STREDICKE, JOHN REED, NANCY L. MATHEWS.
CITY STAFF IN BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, Mayor; LAWRENCE J . WARREN, City Attorney; MAXINE
ATTENDANCE MOTOR, City Clerk; MICHAEL PARNESS, Administrative Assistant; FIRE CHIEF
RICHARD GEISSLER, BATTALION CHIEF JAMES MATTHEW, Fire Department;
ROGER BLAYLOCK, Zoning Administrator; JOHN WEBLEY, Parks Director.
MINUTE APPROVAL MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
MARCH 7, 1983 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
SPECIAL Battalion Chief James Matthew introduced the newest member of the
PRESENTATION Fire Department, a mechanical fire hydrant operated by remote control ,
Renton Fire donated by Renton Rotary Club for purposes of fire safety instruction
Department in schools , churches and other public and private institutions.
Demonstrates Rotary Club officers and members George Lewis, Bryant Parker, Don
Fire Prevention Morrison and Bob McBeth were introduced, and sincere gratitude was
Bureau Robot expressed on behalf of the Fire Department and city for the club ' s
generosity. The robot, yet unnamed, entertained the audience and
officials with the assistance of Camille Radcliffe, Fire Code
Inspector, and Ken Walls, Fire Inspector/ Investigator, operator of
the controls. The robot concluded the presentation by requesting
suggestions for an appropriate name be sent to the department.
CONSENT AGENDA The following items were adopted by one motion which follows the
items included:
McWilliams Land Use Hearing Examiner recommended approval of McWilliams nine-
Final Plat lot final plat, File No. FP-074-82, for property located on the
FP-074-82 east side of Union Avenue N.E. between N.E. 4th Street and N. E.
6th Street (extended) . Refer to Ways and Means Committee for
resolution.
McGrory Claim Claim for damages in the amount of $62.60 filed by Terence R. McGrory,
for Damages 16206-190th S.E. , Renton, for alleged improper automobile impoundment
CL-06-83 by Renton City Police on 2/25/83. Refer to City Attorney and
Insurance Carrier.
MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE Letters and petitions containing 93 signatures (26 Renton citizens)
Anti-Porno were presented supporting the city's action to prohibit showing
Support adult filmfare in downtown movie theatres.
OLD BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chairman Reed presented a report
Community concurring in the recommendation of the Parks Department to resolve
Services street tree problems in the downtown Central Business District.
Committee The recommendation includes removing eight trees in planters on
CBD Street 3rd Avenue; pruning four trees in sidewalks on 2nd Avenue which
Tree Project are blocking traffic lights; and removing London Plane trees from
Rainier to Burnett on 3rd Avenue, which are breaking sidewalks,
cracking buildings , clogging sewers and growing into lights and
signs, and replacing them with a different variety. The report
further recommended the Parks Department continue to work closely
with the Downtown Merchants Association and the Community Services
Committee on the matter. MOVED BY REED, SECONDED BY MATHEWS,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
COMMITTEE. John Webley, Parks Director, clarified that trees will
be removed or relocated because either they are impeding traffic
safety or were inappropriately located for the type of growth
anticipated. MOTION CARRIED.
WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCH 14, 1983
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinances for second
and final reading:
Appropriation of Funds for Rainier Avenue Corridor Bikeway
Hol v i ck deRegt Koer i ng Rezone (R-072-82)
The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following ordinances for first
reading:
Appropriating Funds for Construction of Storm Drain Line on Union Ave NE
The Ways and Means Committee recommends the following resolution for reading
and adoption :
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
VOUCHER APPROVAL
The Ways and Means Committee recommends approval of Vouchers No. 49778 through
No. 50074 in the amount of $596,027. 69.
Earl Clymer, Chairman
Richard Stredicke
Robert Hughes
Renton C i t,' Council
February 21 , 1983
Page Three
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works Department requested authorization to remove certain
continued traffic and pedestrian signals at the following locations to reduce
Removal of energy consumption, promote safety and develop a more efficient traffic
Traffic and system: signals at S. 2nd & Whitworth Ave. S. , S. 2nd & Morris Ave. S. ,
Pedestrian and S. 2nd & Mill Ave. S. ; pedestrian signals & crosswalk - east leg of
Signals N. 3rd & Williams, N. 3rd & Park, N. 3rd & Garden, N. 3rd & Factory;
west leg of N. 4th & Garden, N. 4th & Park and N. 4th & Williams. Refer
to Transportation Committee.
Holvick deRegt Land Use Hearing Examiner recommended approval of request for rezone,
Koering Re;:one R-072-82, Holvick deRegt Koering (First City Equities) for Washington
R-072-82 - Technical Center, from G-1 to M-P for property located on the western
200 feet of the plat near S.W. 7th Street and Powell Avenue S.W. Rcfer
to Ways and Means Committee.
Claim for Claim for damages in the amount of $107. 15 filed by Washington Natural
Damages - Gas Company for a broken 2-inch PE main at 19200-96th Avenue S. , allegedly
Washington damaged while City of Renton was installing storm drain on 11/3/82
Natural Ga CL-04-83) . Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Carrier.
MOVED BY TRIMM, SECONDED BY CLYMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Chuck Minietta, President, Renton Merchant Association,
Renton Western requested permission to close certain streets in downtown area during
Days Celebration annual Renton Western Days Celebration , July 29 and 30, 1983. MOVED BY
HUGHES, SECONDED BY ROCKHILL, REFER THIS MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION
FOR HANDLING. CARRIED.
OLD BUSINE;S Utilities Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report recommending
Utilities acceptance of the West Hill grant offer and agreement in the amount of
Committee 517,691 .00 and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the
West Hill rant agreement. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
Offer/Agreement RECOMMENDATION OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
West Hill Joint Utilities Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report recommending
Use Water agree- approval of the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Renton and
ment/ Water Water District No. 63 for water service on West Hill , and recommended
District 63 further that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the
agreement. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Joint Use Utilities Committee Chairman Mathews presented a report recommending
Agreement for acceptance of the Joint Use Agreement for sewer service between the
Sewer Service - City of Renton and the City of Kent on S.W. 43rd Street to six lots,
Renton/Kent and recommended further that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized
LID 311 to sign said agreement. MOVED BY MATHEWS, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. For the
record, Councilman Stredicke reported past inequities in water agreement
with City of Kent with Kent customers receiving lower rates than Renton
customers because bulk, industrial rates given to Kent are lower than
Renton residential rates. He questioned whether sewer matter has been
properly addressed. Chairman Mathews outlined proposed charges of one
and one-half times City of Renton rates. MOTION CARRIED.
LID 325 - Councilman Stredicke reiterated concerns regarding proposed LID 325 in
Valley General the vicinity of Valley General Hospital , noting participation for traffic
Hospital Prea improvements required of several large developments in the area. He
felt immediate solutions to foreseen problems are needed so the city is
prepared to begin the project.
Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented a report
Developmert recommending amendment to the Office Park Policy language as follows:
Committee 1 ) Section 4-718 - Public Zone P-1 ; 2) Section 4-720 - Office Park Zone
Office Park OP) ; and 3) Section 4-744 - Landscaping and Enforcement. The report
Policy Larguage/ further recommended approval by the City Council and referral to the
Zoning IsEues Ways and Means Committee for final action. MOVED BY ROCKHILL, SECONDED
BY REED, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
11
Renton City Council
February 28, 1983
Page Four
OLD BUSINESS continued
Planning and Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented a report
Development for information only that as a result of adoption of the Central Area
Committee Comprehensive Plan amendment by the City Council , the subject of a
N. Renton moratorium in North Renton has become moot ,
Moratorium
Planning and Development Committee Chairman Rockhill presented a report
Intent of for information only that the subject matter of platting laws will be
Platting Laws held in committee until staff and the City Attorney clarify the intent
of the Washington State Legislature when legislation regarding that
matter was passed.
Council Policy Letter from Mayor Shinpoch addressing parking requirements associated
regarding with issuance of building permits and need for establishment of Council
Parking policy for benefit of Building Department staff was discussed. MOVED BY
Requirements STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND REPORT BACK. CARRIED.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
Ways and Means Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending
Committee the following ordinance for second and final readings:
Ordinance #3712 An ordinance was read amending the city's Comprehensive Plan and maps
Central Renton and data in conjunction therewith relating to certain properties located
Comprehensive within the central area of the City of Renton. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED
Plan Amendment BY HUGHES, ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
First Reading Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending
the following ordinances for first reading:
Fund Transfer An ordinance was read providing for appropriation and transfer of
for Traffic funds in the amount of $490,000 for certain traffic improvement
Improvement projects including Funds 102, 103 and 104. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED
Projects BY HUGHES, THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK.
CARRIED. Attendance at Ways and Means Committee to discuss the
ordinance was requested of Traffic Engineer or his representative.
LID 322 - An ordinance was read modifying, approving and confirming the
Puget Drive S./ assessments and assessment roll of Local Improvement District 322,
Benson Road for improvement of Puget Drive South and Benson Road as provided
by Ordinance No. 3487, and levying and assessing a part of the cost
and expense thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of
land and other property shown on the roll . City Clerk explained
interest rate will be set upon sale of bonds, 10% denoted in ordinance
being maximum; and requested expeditious approval of ordinance since
interest currently being paid on interim financing. Discussion indicated
desire of Council to review ordinance with Finance Director at next
committee meeting. MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, THIS MATTER
BE REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ONE WEEK. CARRIED. Councilman
Stredicke restated his question regarding assessment to Jackson property,
noting response still requested.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending
the following resolution for reading and adoption:
Resolution #2494 A resolution was read adopting financial considerations in forming
LID Policy city Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) in the form of a policy.
MOVED BY CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Voucher Ways and Means Committee Chairman Clymer presented a report recommending
Approval approval of Vouchers 49585 through 49772 in the amount of $945,045.84
having received departmental certification that merchandise and/or
services have been received or rendered. Vouchers 49581 through 49584
machine voided. Warrants include LID 314: $387,382.74. MOVED BY
CLYMER, SECONDED BY HUGHES, COUNCIL CONCUR IN APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS. CARRIED.
MEMORANDUM
TO
City Clerk ' s Office -
DATE
3-21-83
Engineering Dept .
FROM
Rezone R-072-82 - HOlvick, deRegt , Koering- Wash. Tech. Center
SUBJECT
Per your request , attached please find the legal description for
the ordinance of the subject rezone , presented under Exhibit "A"
Parcels A and B )
An exhibit map showing the two parcels is included for your file .
ice
For Use By City Clerk's Office Only
A. I . # 14+
AGENDA ITEM
RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
a xxxa asasaxxex axasaaxacc
SUBMITTING
Dept./Div./Bd./Comm. Land Use Hearing Examiner For Agenda Of February 28, 1983
Meeting Date)
Staff Contact Sue Elliston
Name) Agenda Status:
SUBJECT: File No. R-072-82: Holvick, deRegt, Consent X
Public Hearing
Koerinq (First City Equities) G-1-M-P; Wash.
Correspondence
Poch_ Center Ordinance/Resolution x
Old Business
Exhibits: (Legal Descr. , Maps, Etc. )Attach
New Business
Study Session
A. Examiner's Report 1/11/83 Other
B. 0
C.
Approval :
Legal Dept. Yes No N/A X
COUNCIL ACTION RECOMMENDED: Council concur; Finance Dept. Yes_ No. N/A X
Other Clearance
Referral to Ways and Means Committee
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required $
Amount $ Appropriation- $
Budgeted Transfer Required
SUMMARY (Background information, prior action and effect of implementation)
Attach additional pages if necessary. )
The appeal period for the attached Examiner's Report and Recommendation expired on
January 25, 1983, and the matter is hereby forwarded to the City Council for review
and referral to the Ways and Means Committee for preparation of an ordinance.
PARTIES OF RECORD/INTERESTED CITIZENS TO BE CONTACTED:
See page 10 of the Examiner's Report.
SUBMIT THIS COPY TO CITY CLERK BY NOON ON THURSDAY WITH DOCUMENTATION.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
Scats of Washington)
County of King
Willis V. Roberts being first duly sworn, upon oath
disposes and states:
That on the 11th day of January 1983 , affiant
deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing
u decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the
parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
le&-ct:/ /r
Subscribed and sworn this 11th day of January 19 83
4—
ilNotarPublicinandfor e State of
Washington, residing atA! 42 )
Application, Petition or Case: R-072-82, Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc.
First City EquitiesThem1.nwtea contain a £Lo.t 06 the pantLea 06 necoad. )
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 3716
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON FROM
GENERAL CLASSIFICATION DISTRICT (G-1) TO
MANUFACTURING PARK DISTRICT (M-P) (R-072-82 - HdK)
WHEREAS under Chapter 7 , Title IV (Building Regulations)
of Ordinance No . 1623 known as the "Code of General Ordinances
of the City of Renton" , as amended , and the maps and reports
adopted in conjunction therewith , the property hereinbelow described
has heretofore been zoned as General Classification District
G-1) ; and
WHEREAS a proper petition for change of zone classification
of said property has been filed with the Building Thning
Department on or about November 15 1982 , which petition
was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation, study
and public hearing , and a public hearing having been held thereon
on or about January 4, 1933 , and said matter having been duly
considered by the Hearing Examiner and said zoning request being in
conformity with the City' s Comprehensive Plan, as amended , and the
City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto ,
and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or
in opposition thereto , NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I : The following described property in the City
of Renton is hereby rezoned to Manufacturing Park "Listrict (M-P)
as hereinbelow specified; subject to the findings , conclusions
and decision of the Hearing Examiner dated January 11 , 1983 ; the
Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps
of the Zoning Ordinance , as amended, to evidence said rezoning,
to-wit :
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part
hereof as if fully set forth herein
Property located on the western 200 feet of
the Washington Technical Center plat , defined
as follows : Bounded on the west by the proposed
P-1 Channel , on the south by Grady Way , on tie
east by Powell Avenue S .W. and on the south and
east by S .W. 7th Street) .
SECTION II : This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage , approval and five days after its publication .
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of March, 1983 .
Maxine Motor , City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of March, 1983 .
6Wagout) •
Barbara Y. 9 z npocit,0mayor
Approved as to form:
6,44_0,4„(
Lawrence J . Wa ren, City Attorney
Date of Publication : March 25 , 1983
EXHIBIT "A"
Rezone No. R-072-82 Holvick, deRegt , Koering
PAR :EL "A"
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 13 AND OF THE
NOFTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 24, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE
4 EAST, W . M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING WITHIN TRACT A
OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN
VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID
COINTY; BUT EXCLUDING THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ROAD EASEMENT FOR
THE FUTURE VALLEY PARKWAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COFMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT A; THENCE ON
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH
73' 21 '54" EAST 431 .52 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
46 . 45 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF THE FUTURE VALLEY PARKWAY
ANE THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°04 '30" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY MARGIN 193 .04 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT , OF A 660.00 FOOT RADIUS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE 253 .68 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. OF A
422.96 FOOT RADIUS; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
199.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22 °26 '02" WEST 283 .09 FEET TO A
POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS
NORTH 5 °24 '02" EAST 165 .04 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE 100.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH
60°31 ' 21 " EAST 194 . 17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22°26 '02" EAST
269 .05 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT,
OF A 132 .96 FOOT RADIUS; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
154 .65 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 89°04 '30"
EMT 217 .39 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT. THE RADIUS
POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 66°37 '42" EAST 431 .52 FEET SAID
POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A; THENCE
SOITHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 254.86 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BE( INNING.
EXHIBIT "A"
Rezone No .R-072-82 Holvick ,deRegt ,Koering
PAICEL "B"
THI,T PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 13 AND OF THE
NOf?THEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,
RAtGE 4 EAST, W. M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING WITHIN
TRI,CT B OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS RECORDED
IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY BUT EXCLUDING THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ROAD EASEMENT FOR
THE FUTURE VALLEY PARKWAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT B ; THENCE
NORTH 77 °27 '30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT B
A (' ISTANCE OF 80 .01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE FUTURE
VALLEY PARKWAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH
11 "34 ' 46" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 1349. 82 FEET TO A
CURVE TO THE LEFT OF A 580 .00 FOOT RADIUS; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE 622. 56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73 °04 '46" WEST
299.98 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF A 580 .00 FOOT RADIUS ;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 15 . 85 FEET TO A POINT ON A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH
65'11 ' 58" EAST 238 .52 FEET, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WESTERLY
LINE OF SAID TRACT B ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
245 .31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °44 '02" WEST 77 .87 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 88°15 ' 58" EAST 520 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °44 '02" WEST
20, 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°15 '58" WEST 7 .38 FEET TO A POINT ON
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH
18°09 '39" WEST 484 . 15 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
509 . 19 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 11 °34 '46"
EAST 311 .39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °25 ' 14" WEST 5 . 00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 11 °34 ' 46" EAST 1286 .92 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT B ; THENCE SOUTH 77 °27 '30" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
200.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
BUSH, HITCHINGS, INC., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
June 15, 1982
Richard C. Houghton
Public Work Director
Municipal Building
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: Washington Technical Center
Flood Storage and Storm Water Detention
Dear Dick:
In response to your letter of May 21 , we are in agreement with your
interpretation of the flood storage and detention volumes and the use
of the P-I Channel backwater pond by the Washington Technical
Center development.
Our immediate plans are to phase the construction of the storage pond
based on a need basis with the understanding that at no time will the
storage available be less than what currently exists.
Thank you for your timely response to this matter.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
t CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
Robert M. Roed
JAM ` io 83RMR/cls
AM PM
c.c. : Pat Snyder, HdK 8,9,1001i1211,213141516
Loren Davis, HdK
EXHIBIT NO.
ITEM NO. a 72- 600z .
04.4..0.)
CIVIL ENGINEERS/ LAND SURVEYORS
1K
4/616
OF I
O PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTo „z
DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631
miLL o
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RE T $J WASH, 98055
9gT O
o
k`
Ep SEP1
BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH L MAY 2 5 I
MAYOR g jSH••,_fi06-0 ylIINC. p3 ciliNGsMay21 , 1982
Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. , P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
Attention: Mr. Robert M. Roed
Subject: Washington Technical Center Flood Storage
and Storm Water Detention
Gentlemen:
In accordance with previous correspondenece and technical data
supplied by the firm of Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. , P.S. regard-
ing the proposal for the handling of storm drainage and storm water
storage as it relates to the Washington Technical Center, the City
of Renton assumes the following position:
The City agrees that the developer would be allowed, at his cost, to
relocate existing natural storage to an area that is to be dedicated
to the City for storm drainage purposes commonly known as the P-1
Channel backwater pond. The existing natural storage is that area
below the 100 year flood plain elevation. For purposes of preliminary
calculations, elevation 15.0 was used to determine the existing storage.
The natural storage available has been computed to be 108.4 Ac-ft. The
net result of the developer's proposal is that 108.4 Ac-ft. of usable
storage below elevation 15.0 will be available before and after devel-
opment. Also, an additional 5 Ac-ft. will be required for detention
purposes for a grand total of 113.4 Ac-ft. of available storage after
development.
Based upon the engineer' s computations, the development will displace
71 Ac-ft. of storage and will require 5 Ac-ft. of storm drainage deten-
tion. The existing area designated for the backwater pond has 16 Ac-ft.
of existing storage. After development, the usable storage available
in the pond area should be 92 Ac-ft.
These numbers are subject to revision based upon the true 100-year flood
plain elevation which is to be defined by the National Flood Insurance
Program and future refinement based upon the developer's ultimate devel-
opment plans. Also, the City agrees that this procedure can be accom-
plished in phases provided that, at no time, is the storage available
less than what currently exists.
Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. -2- May 21 , 1982
If this is not a true and fair interpretation of our understanding,
please advise.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Houghton
Public Works Director
DGM:j ft
cc: Loren Davis
BUSH, R(..) v & HITCHINGS, INc., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
March 17 , 1982
Mr. Don Monaghan
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Wa. 98055
Dear Don :
Pursuant to our meeting of March 15 , 1982 we are providing you
with our preliminary calculations and conclusions regarding the
existing and future flood storage capacities of Springbrook
Technical Center.
The existing flood storage capacity of Springbrook Technical
Center is :
Outside of 17 acre detention pond below elev . 15 ' 92 Ac-ft.
Inside of 17 acre detention pond below elev . 15 '
Total existing flood storage below elev . 15 ' 108 Ac-ft.
In order to satisfy the City of Renton ' s ordinances and design
criteria we are proposing to balance any fill placed on the
site below elevation 15 and additional runoff generated by the
development of the site by excavating an equal amount of soil
from the detention pond . The soil excavated from this area will
be excavated from the area indicated on exhibit A. Some of the
area indicated on exhibit A lies below elevation 15, and in
that portion only the actual excavated soil volume will be
considered in our calculation. Therefore the 16 acre feet below
elevation 15 that exists in the detention pond area will exist
in addition to the required excavation for the project. Also,
some of the area indicated on exhibit A lies above elevation
15, and in that portion only the portion of the excavation that
removes soil below elevation 15 will be included in our
calculation .
We are proposing to excavate the required volume from the
detention pond in phases. Each phase would remove approximately
15% of the volume estimated below . A detailed phasing plan will
be submitted with the final plat for Tracts A and B.
Don Monaghan
March 17 , 1982
Page 2
The estimated fill and detention requirements of Springbrook
Technical Center are :
Estimated fill below elev . 15 ' , Lots 1 -12 9 Ac-ft.
Estimated fill below elev . 15 ' , Tracts A 8 B 62 Ac. ft.
Estimated detention requirements due to
additional runoff 6=f•
Total estimated volume required to be
excavated from soils below elev . 15 in
detention pond area 76 Ac-ft.
The preceding figures are based on the design assumptions of
exhibit B and the City of Renton ' s existing 15 ' flood elevation
in the vicinity of the site. We are aware that the flood
elevations may change due to a study being completed by
F. E. M. A. at this time . Also the exact amount of fill and runoff
detention cannot be computed until site plans for Tract A and B
are completed. Exhibit C indicates the existing flood storage
belcw elevation 16 and the total estimated volume required to
be Excavated if the flood elevation was raised to elevation
16 ' . Exhibit C indicates that there is adequate volume
available in the 17 acre detention pond area to balance the
additional fill and runoff if the flood elevation was raised to
elevation 16 ' .
We therefore are requesting your approval of these engineering
design parameters as a solution to the relocation of the
existing flood storage capacity of Springbrook Technical Center
and for the development of additional flood storage capacity
for site runoff . Furthermore. we request that any further
detiiil studies be provided during the final platting process of
Tracts A and B . We would appreciate receiving at your earliest
convenience your concurrence of the above design parameters.
Thank you for continued input and interest in the engineering
solution to this issue.
Sinc:erely ,
Robert M. Roed
RMR,' l a t
t L'
r' \RDA9 6 W I/•tt•E I
w
1 t
Boundary of Storm Water ai 1-
Q•'`• .
E 1•
r ,
Detention Pond for 4 je
Entire Plat
tiallY4'
t.
t.•
i
rt, 1
S / P
r .
to
4G r• ao'
t at r# •
4..
1 nu'4G
fr. ' '''. • f Ei4, - Y
41 ' •
NATUICAL GO dDIT10N
le,40 640t4eilltitai'l'illidlikiiii74-"v e '.. .- .-. • . -
IA t ..: \
4..„-,
4E1
t .
1
Th_y. !.•„•...•. &..im.tit•\•w 1 •. V1/,,•1 g'
5'tf fA
a • • .a ••.•' .•aa 'a•a, .,1'J it
is >
Eia w 1
A'`
t -•. r \ d' •.s.lik 1
Z2, . -':. '• ••S'LA '.3,.
i i .. .
r\
1114iic ...; .„ •., •.
l• •41 Ma i N
a 2.1_P I•
u „ . * • a, r"," 4 .,., 4140o, 2 c
f I
Q •- / " '\
1o. : * -'1%., ••:, .,
i w
A
14 4,,Mr . E7j•--., .• • _':___
P" ..
r , ....
t_.... „ .-
ram f•
3 ,)
r _
i%_
4 4 ,,, ,
L. ...i e • •,. 1
EXHIBIT A i j I .
n_ I
M7 07 - M „.• .
v
u
1 . 110°l 166
SCALE : 1 —1 00 V I, , ) ( N.
a
4-
i --,-,--...
i.-, . -
NORTH duRLlNew+•. Noanet+ r..It,RwV
3
1 .
BUSH, h ) & HITCHINGS, P. S., Inc.
Don Monaghan
March 19 , 1982
Exhibit C
I . Flood Storage Elevation 16
A. Lots 1 -12
1 . Existing flood storage below elevation 16 = 20 Ac-ft.
2. Amount to be compensated if it is
estimated that development will
fill 90% of existing flood storage 18 Ac-ft.
B. Tracts A and B
1 . Existing flood storage below elevation 16 =127 Ac-ft.
2. Amount to be compensated if it is
estimated that development will
fill 75% of existing flood storage 95 Ac-ft.
C. Proposed Storage Pond for Entire Plat
1 . Volume of pond below elevation 16 and
within plat boundary as designed by
Soil Conservation Service 186 .4 Ac-ft.
2 . Available total estimated volume
required to be excavated from soils
below elevation 16 or existing ground
elevation in the detention pond for
the entire plat.
a. Lots 1 -12 18 Ac-ft.
b . Tracts A 8 B 95 Ac-ft.
c. Total storm detention
for project
118 Ac-ft. 118 Ac-ft.
D. Proposed Storage Pond for Lots 1 -12 only
1 . Total estimated volume required to be
excavated from soils below elevation
16 or existing ground elevation in the
detention pond for Lots 1 - 12 only
a . Replacement of existing
flood storage 18 Ac-ft.
b. Storm detention for Lots
1 -12 only ( 5/109 )x32
19 .5 Ac-ft .
BUSH, .. _ _D & HITCHINGS, P. S., Inc.
Don Monaghan
March 19 , 1982
Page 2
Exhibit C
2 . Volume of soli in storage pond above
elevation 16 and within pond boundary
shown on exhibit A is 0 .75 Ac-ft. (or
1 , 200 CY) . This volume is above the
flood level and is therefore not
considered in flood storage replacement
calculations. Further excavation will
then be done to provide the required
19 . 5 Ac-ft. listed above. The pond
boundary shown on exhibit A contains
approximately 7 .8 Ac. To remove 19 . 5 Ac-ft.
or 31 , 460 CY, in this area will require
an excavation with an average depth of
approximately 2 . 5 ft. This will bring
the pond bottom to an average
elevation of 13 .0 ft. This is assuming
an average elevation of existing
ground of 15 . 5 ' .
BUSH, ROLE & HITCHINGS, INC., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
Febrtary 12, 1982
R1chord C. Houghton
Director, Dept . of Public Works
City of Renton
200 Iii I I Avenue South
Renton, Wa . 98055
Subj'3ct : Washington Technical Center
Formerly Earlington Park )
Flood Storage
Dear Dick :
Encl )sed is our letter dated November 19, 1981 to First City
Equities describing the estimated natural flood storage
available and the on—site detention needed for the full
development of the Washington Technical Center.
The criteria used to calculate the amount of flood water
storage within the boundaries of the project was flood
elevation of 15 feet and the existing topography . For the
on—site storm water detention volume calculations we assumed a
100 year design storm, an allowable release rate of 0 . 2 cubic
feet per second per acre, and the site, except for the proposed
SCS storage pond, to be 85% building and paving with 15%
reserved for landscaping .
We would appreciate your written reply if you concur with our
storage and detention calculated estimates. Please contact me
if you desire more information .
Sincerely,
Robert M. Roed
RMR/ Iat
Encl .
cc : Loren Davis
Mike Selman , HdK
Barbara Moss, FCE
r-t‘ni cnir-ltro coc i t nnin ct io‘ivrIPG
Loren Davis
December 10, 1981
Page 2
Below elevation 15 : 172 acre-feet
Below elevation 16: 186 .4 acre-feet
Thes3 figures were calculated from the Soil Conservation
Service drawing received by us on March 10 , 1981 , and include
only the portions of the pond that are within the project plat
boundary. Additional storage volume exists in the SCS design
but is outside the plat boundary and so has not been Included
in these figures.
Eatl2a±aAsQtaLEtQnm D e t$nflQn_R2gulE2A f or Project :
The estimated total storm detention volume required for the
project Is 5 .0 acre-feet. This figure is based on a 100-year
design storm and an allowable release rate of 0 .2 cubic feet
per second per acre. The site, except for the proposed storage
pond, is assumed to be 85% building and paving, with 15%
landscaped area.
The quantities given in this letter are updated from the
figures previously given you and represent the best information
available to us at the present time.
I hope this letter provides you with the information you need .
If you have any questions please call .
Sincerely,
Glenn I . Clover, P. E.
GIC/ at
Enclosures
cc : Mike Selman, HdK
Pat McCullough, Entranco Engineers
BUSH, RGcv & HITCHINGS, INc., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
t`
b"
v
December 10, 1981
First City Equities
800-5th Avenue
Suite 4040
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attention : Loren Davis
Subject : Washington Technical Center ( Formerly Earlington Park )
Flood Storage and Storm Water Detention
BRH §81079G
Dear Loren :
This letter will provide you with information relative to the
flood storage and projected storm water detention requirements
for the Washington Technical Center site in Renton.
Flood S t o r a4 _ 1_NJafsit_al_ZQaQgt_agb y :
The existing topography of the project site contains the
follpwing amounts of natural flood storage :
Belo4 elevation 15: 108.4 acre-feet
Belo4 elevation 16 : 171 . 1 acre-feet
These figures include all the area within the project plat
bouniary except for the area marked "preserve in natural
condition" in lot 11 of the preliminary plat.
EnclDsed are two copies of the preliminary plat colored to show
the location of these areas. The maps are color-coded to show
the portions of the project where the existing ground is above
elevation 16, between elevation 15 and 16, and below elevation
15 .
F l oQ,i_a±QLaQ _Qf PrpgsLaasi StQLQgQ_Pond :
The flood storage available in the proposed storage pond in the
nortlwest portion of the site is equal to :
BUSH, RuED & HITCHINGS, INc., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
I (9
Y
NoN ember 19 , 1981
First City Equities
800-5th Avenue
Su to 4040
Seddttle, Washington 98104
At- n : Loren Davis
Suiject : Washington Technical Center BRH 81079G
Formerly Earlington Park )
Storage Pond Capacity
Deer Loren :
Per your request, we have computed the following volumes and
areas in connection with the existing on-site storage and the
proposed storage pond at the Washington Technical Center site .
We have used the Soil Conservation Services preliminary plan
wh ch we received from you on March 10 , 1981 , and the aerial
contour map of the site that the preliminary plat was drafted
on .
1 . Volume of natural storage within the project boundaries and
below elevation 15 : 102 acre-feet.
2. Volume of natural storage within the detention pond site and
below elevation 15: 10 acre-feet.
3 . Natural storage lost due to filling the site for buildings .
Estimate 50% of total natural storage within project less
natural storage within detention pond .
Natural storage lost : 46 acre-feet.
4 . Storage available in SCS pond within the 17 acres reserve
area and below elevation 15 : 168 acre-feet.
5 . Percent of 17 acre storage capacity required for the plat ' s
storage needs : 31 %
Flood storage : 46 acre- feet
Detention storage
51 .5 acre-feet
Loren Davis
November 19 , 1981
Page 2
6 . Area required for plat' s needs : 5.3 acres + .
7. Area remaining for use by others : 11 .7 acres + .
I h )pe this provides you with the information you need. Please
call if you have any questions.
Sin :erely,
Robert M. Roed
RMR/ I at
BUSH, HITCHINGS, INc., P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
November 5 , 1981
First City Equities
80('-5th Avenue
Su ' te 4040
Sentt I e, Washington 98104
At1 n : Loren Davis
Sut+ject : Earl ington Park
Storage Pond Capacity
BRH 81079G
Dent- Loren :
Per your request, we have computed the following volumes and
areas in connection with the existing on-site storage and the
proposed storage pond at the Earl ington Park site. We have used
tho Soil Conservation Services preliminary plan which we
received from you on March 10 , 1981 , and the aerial contour map
of the site that the preliminary plat was drafted on.
1 . Volume of natural storage within the project boundaries and
below elevation 15 : 102 acre-feet.
2. Same as #1 but below elevation 16 : 163 acre-feet.
3. Storage available in SCS pond within the 17 acres reserve
area and below elevation 15 : 168 acre-feet.
4. Percent of 17 acre storage capacity required for the plat' s
storage needs : 64%
Flood storage :102 acre-feet
Detention storage : 5.5 acre-feet
107 .5 acre-feet
5. Area required for plat' s needs : 10 .9 acres +
6. Area remaining for use by others : 6 . 1 acres +
I hope this provides you with the information you need. Please
ca I if you have any questions.
Siincerely,
G I unn I . Clover , P. E.
GIC/ lat
Wv61 14Gfile
BUSH, RC--) & HITCHINGS, INC.. P.S.
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Area 206 / 323-4144
0ctcber 9, 1981
First City Equities
800- 5th Avenue
Suite 4040
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attr : Loren Davis
Subject : Eariington Park
Flood Storage and Storm Detention
BRH 881079G
Dear Loren :
As you requested , we have computed volumes for existing flood
storage and future storm detention requirements . The quantities
are :
Ex.Lting flood storage
Below elevation 15 : 4, 450, 000 cubic feet '01-
1
Below elevation 16: 7 , 100 , 000 cubic feet lL-lo-g1
o t urc t. raolvt,
Future storm detention L
100 year storm : 237 , 000 cubic feet
The figures for existing flood storage were computed using
existing topography , and include all volume below the v cv+.
elevations shown except for (the public open space reserve a`{
the extreme north of the site and) the reserve for the old Black
River channel that connects to it from the east.
The storm detention figure is based on 80% of the site being
made impervious with paving or roofs, and an allowed release of
0 . 2 cubic feet per second per acre over a total area of 109. 4
acres .
I hope this gives you the information you need . If you have any
questions please call .
Sincerely ,
Glenn I . Clover , P. E .
GIC/ Iat
January 11 , 1983
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION.
APPLICANT: Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc. FILE NO.
R-072-82
LOCATION: Located on the western 200 feet of the Wash-
ington Technical Center plat, defined as
follows: Bounded on the west by the pro-
posed P-1 Channel , on the south by Grady
Way, on the east by Powell Avenue S.W. and
on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
SUMMAFY OF RECOMMENDATION: Building and Zoning Department
Recommendation: Approval .
Hearing Examiner Recommendation: Approval .
BUILDING & ZONING
DEPARTMENT REPORT: The Building and Zoning Department report
was received by the Examiner on December 21 ,
1982.
PUBLIC HEARING:After reviewing the Building and Zoning
Department report, examining available
information on file with the application and
field checking the property and surrounding
area, the Examiner conducted a public hear-
i ng on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on January 4, 1983, at 9:23 a.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the Building and Zoning
Depariment preliminary report, noting that the request was originally
submi i ted i n March, 1981 , at which time it was recommended for denial by
the E' ami ner. A completely revised application for rezone is being sub-
mittec for review. The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit #1 : Application file containing
Building and Zoning Depart-
ment report and other pert-
inent documents, along with
an addition - Memorandum of
Concurrence i ssued by the
city of Renton Environmental
Review Committee on December
15, 1982, in the environ-
mental determination of non-
significance conditioned upon
exclusion from the rezone of
the right-of-way for the Val -
ley Parkway
R-072-82 Page 2
Entered into the record by the Examiner was the following:
Exhibit #2: By reference: Application
file R-057-80, containing an
application by First City
Equities for rezone from "G,"
General Classification Dis-
trict, to M-P, Manufacturing
Park Di strict, and pertinent
documents.
Mr. Blaylock continued his presentation, entering the following into the
record:
Exhibit #3: Revised legal description
within Tracts A and B of
Washington Technical Center,
accompanied by a letter of
transmittal dated December
29, 1982, from Bush, Roed and
Hitchings, Inc. , land sur-
veyors.
Exhibit #4: Preliminary plat map desig-
nating specific area of
rezone in red.
Mr.. Blaylock noted that the acreage indicated in the Building and Zoning
Department report should be reduced to allow for city-owned areas to be
utilized for development of the Valley Parkway. Responding to the Exami-
ner, he advised that the two blue areas on the preliminary plat map indi-
cate areas dedicated to the city for flood runoff protection. It was
also noted that preliminary and final plats for Phase I of the develop-
ment have been completed and utilities installed. In addition, site plan
approval has been conducted on several of the parcels on the eastern
fringe of the proposed plat.
There was considerable discussion by Mr. Blaylock concerning provisions
for greenbelt mitigation in the general vicinity of the subject site.
Major industrial development since the first consideration of a rezone
request in this area was also described. Current city policy, which
requires that developers provide storm water capacity, was cited. At the
Examiner' s request, Mr. Blaylock pointed out the striped area on the plat
map, which indicates property designated for the P-1 Channel , and dis-
cussed the status of acqui si ti on.
Criteria which would support the rezone request were reviewed and dis-
cussed, and the Building and Zoning Department' s recommendation for
approval was noted.
Testimony from the applicant was requested by the Examiner. Responding
was:
Charles Blumenfeld
Bogle and Gates
Bank of California Center
Seattle, WA 98164
Mr. Blumenfeld, counsel for the applicant, clarified the staff report to
indicate that the property is now owned by First City Equities. Inasmuch
as the rezone request was jointly made by Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc.
and First City Equities, this change is not considered significant. Not-
ing city support of the request, he offered additional testimony and
background. A rendering of the site was displayed (for illustrative pur-
poses) and explained . It was pointed out that 73 acres east of this
site were rezoned from to "G" to M-P in 1979 and, at the city' s
R-072-82 Page 3
suggestion, these 25 additional acres were acquired in order that the
development might abut the Valley Parkway. Referencing the earlier
review of this rezone request and subsequent denial , Mr. Blumenfeld noted
main areas of concern - untimeliness, inconsistency with the Comprehen-
sive Plan, and flood potential - and indicated their belief that these
factors have been addressed and satisfied.
Mr. Blumenfeld continued his evaluation of present circumstances, indica-
ting the request is in the public interest, as it will not impact the
health, safety and welfare of the public. Referring to Section 4-704 of
the Zoning Code, which indicates the purpose of the "G" zone is to pro-
vide and protect suitable environments for low density, single family
re si dmti al use, he advised it is their opinion that a narrow strip of
land situated between M-P zoned land and a major thoroughfare would be
i napp •opri ate for this use. Advantages of M-P zoning to the developer
were Toted: It will permit high quality manufacturing park development
of Tracts A and B of Washington Technical Center, and it will provide for
more property on which to situate buildings to allow better access with
the Valley Parkway. In view of the applicant' s commitment to the city
concerning the Valley Parkway, it is felt they cannot realize full bene-
fit of the use of the Parkway unless the rezone is granted.
Mr. Blumenfeld then noted advantages to the city as the result of dedica-
tion if property for storm water detention and submitted into the record:
Exhibit #5: Copy of The Plat of Washing-
ton Technical Center with
dedication of property to
City of Renton for West Val -
ley Parkway and provisions
for storm water detention.
Citing compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, he submitted into
the record:
Exhibit #6: Copy of Shoreline Management
Substantial Development Per-
mit SM-90-81 issued to First
City Equities (and the appli-
cation), Department of Ecol-
ogy Flood Control Zone Per-
mit, and correspondence from
James C. Chatters of Central
Washington University Depart-
ment of Anthropology and
Museum of Man,
In support of the timel i ness of the request, Mr. Blumenfeld advi sed that
Phase I of the Plat is under construction at this time with many of the
utilities completed. Granting of the rezone will agree with the target
for cpmpletion of the final plat stage and occupancy of Phase I in
appro dmately two years. In addition, he referred the Examiner to
Conclusion #5 of his report and recommendation regarding the Alterra
rezone, which notes that much of the land in the ownership of Burlington
Northern is not available to private, independent developers:
Exhibit #7 By reference: Land Use Hear-
ing Examiner Report and
Recommendation to the Renton
City Council dated July 29,
1982, regarding rezone appli-
cation file R-129-80 by
Al terra Corporation.
R-072-82 Page 4
Continuing his summary i n support of the request, Mr. B1 umenfel d i ndi Ga-
ted their belief that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, including provisions for greenbelt dedication and on-site storage
for flood water and storm water runoff.
Referencing the areas in blue on Exhibit #4 - 4.25 acres of city-owned
property and 4.38 acres excluded for the Parkway, Mr. Blumenfeld noted
this leaves developable property at 17.26 acres and indicated their
belief that it would be more consistent from a planning standpoint to
rezone the entire area M-P. He submitted that M-P zoning currently
exists on the other 17 acres of city-owned property which is not included
in this rezone, and the result will be two squares of "G"-zoned property
in the middle of M-P zoning and a strip of "G" zoned area along the east
side of the Valley Parkway. The recommendation is therefore made, as it
will better provide for unforeseen future circumstances.
It was established by the Examiner that the new legal descriptions
excluded the two blue areas shown on Exhibit #4 and that the legal notice
for the public hearing included those properties. Mr. Blumenfeld advised
that the property description submitted with the application is for the
entire 25+ acres. He also expressed their belief that, under the prece-
dent established in Conclusion #8 of Exhibit #7, the Alterra rezone,
First City Equities should be granted 8.63 acres density credit for the
amount of property in this rezone which is not available for use because
of dedications or restrictions for development of the Valley Parkway.
Mr. Thorpe was then asked to comment.
The Examiner commented he would take the matter of the density credit
under advisement and noted that the dedication i s independent of the
rezone request.
He then recognized:
Robert Thorpe
815 Seattle Tower
Third and University
Seattle, WA 98101
Indicating that he was testifying as an "expert witness," Mr. Thorpe pro-
vided a brief hi story of the activities of his firm and noted his famil-
iarity with the city of Renton, both as a resident and professional . He
advised that their firm has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan (over a num-
ber of years) including the goals and policies for the subject area, the
Wetlands Study, and Street and Improvements Plan and has developed envi-
ronmental impact statements for First City Equities, Washington Technical
Center, and the Alterra Corporation for the area under consideration. He
provided testimony that the request meets all three of the findings iden-
tified in the earlier hearing: that it was not previously reviewed in an
area-wide rezone; that it is compatible with the Land Use Element and
Policies Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and that there have been sub-
stantial changes of circumstances.
The history of land use proceedings by the city in the area since 1965
was reviewed. There was considerable discussion concerning general com-
pliance of the proposed greenbelt dedication with greenbelt designations
in the Comprehensive Plan, and it was noted that further opportunity for
mitigation would be presented through site plan review. Referring to the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan established in 1965, 1976,
and 1981 , Mr. Thorpe indicated his belief that 95% of them have been met,
adding that those relating to industrial development, employment base,
and tax base have been met or exceeded. It was also noted that the
applicant has complied with Comprehensive Plans for the County and Puget
Sound Council of Governments. In addition, there is compliance with the
city' s Six-year Street Plan through participation in development of
R-072-82 Page 5
the P< rkway. Areas of significant change in land use, since the previous
rezon( application, were cited: development of Phase I of Washi ngton
Technical Center, approval of the Al terra rezone application, and the
chang( in status of the proposed P-1 Channel .
In surunary, he noted compliance with general planning principles; provi-
sion 'or site, open space, arterial and drainage planning (and Sections
4-3014 (A) and (B) ); timeliness for implementation of the Comprehensive
P1 an, Arteri al P1 an and Phase II of Earl i ngton Industrial Park; consi s-
tency with Fi ndi ngs 2, 3, and 4 of the Exami ner' s decision regarding the
Al terra rezone; and consistency with planning for the area by City,
Count:: and PSCOG during the past twenty years.
Mr. Thorpe also recommended a density transfer credit for the entire par-
cel consi stent with the Al terra decision.
The E;:ami ner called for further testimony i n support of the request.
Re spo idi ng was:
Loren Davi s
1818 Westlake Avenue North
Suite 308
Seattle, WA 98109
Havi ni arrived late, Mr. Davis was affirmed by the Exami ner. Mr. Davi s,
representing Holvick deRegt and Koering and First City Equities as Proj-
ect Minager, noted purchase of the subject site with the hope that it can
be rezoned and incorporated into the Washington Technical Center Park to
provide a more functional development. If not rezoned, it is felt the
island of "G" zoned property would be incompatible with the major arter-
ial to the west and the M-P zoned area to the east. A review of compli-
ance with conditions of approval by the Environmental Review Committee
relating to provisions for storm drainage, greenbelt preservation, ade-
quacy of transportation access, and adequacy of water and sewer utilities
was tien provided. Specifically, Mr. Davis advised of compliance with
speciil platting requirements, dedication of open space and storm water
detention areas, extension of existing storm sewer lines, preservation of
areas along Springbrook Creek and the Black River Channel , release of the
site from a designation of cultural significance by the Department of
Archaeology, extension of Powell Avenue to Grady Way, agreements with the
city to participate in signalization at the Grady Way/Powell Avenue and
Edwards Avenue/S.W. 7th Street intersections, and participation in the
construction of the Valley Parkway. In conclusion, he indicated that the
applicant has met and exceeded mitigating conditions imposed, believes
their design for the development exceeds that originally projected in the
envirormental impact statements, and feels the requested rezone is criti-
cal to retention of a high quality business park atmosphere.
For clarification, Mr. Blumenfeld advised that the letter from the State
Department of Archaeology relating to cultural significance is included
as ore of the attachments in Exhibit #6. He also submitted into the
record the fol l owi ng:
Exhibit #8: Rendering of proposed struc-
ture to be situated on sub-
ject site.
Exhibit #9: Landscape guidelines submit-
ted by First City Equities.
Exhibit #10: Exchange of correspondence
between Bush, Roed and Hitch-
ings, Inc. , and City of Ren-
ton Public Works Department
regarding the design proposal
for the handling of storm
drainage and storm water
storage.
R-072-82 Page 6
Providing further testimony in support of the application, was:
Gerald Rasmussen
6810 N.E. 130th Place
Kirkland, WA 98033
Testifying as a technical expert i n the area of surface and storm water
drainage, Mr. Rasmussen advised that he had authored the drainage policy
analysis prepared by ENTRANCO Engineering in August, 1982, i n support of
the applicant' s proposal . He stated that the applicant' s proposals con-
cerni ng storm water drainage into the P-1 drainage pond, compensating
storage for all fill below the FEMA 100-year flood elevation, and provi-
sions for storage for storm water runoff generated from the 100-year
storm on-site are consistent with city policies and with mitigating flood
damages that may occur i n a storm i n the Green River Basin. In response
to his offer to provide further information, the Examiner indicated that
the testimony submitted at this time is sufficient, but it may be neces-
sary to testify further at the time of site plan review.
The Examiner requested further testimony in support of the proposal . Mr.
B1 umenfel d indicated there i s no further testimony but offered i n sum-
mary: The rezone i s demonstrated to be i n the public interest, i s
timely, is consistent with the greenbelt designation of the Comprehensive
Plan, i s consi stent with the Shoreline Master Program, and provi des flood
water and storm water capacity. He concurred that the design aspects
relating to storm water detention and other planning aspects should be
deferred until subsequent proceedings further in the development.
The Examiner again called for testimony in support, but none was
offered.
He then requested testimony in opposition, or questions from any parties
in the audience, but received none.
Responding to the Examiner' s inquiry, if he wished to comment further,
Mr. Blaylock indicated agreement with the applicant' s presentation for
rezone except with regard to the requested density credit. He advised of
the city' s position concerning fi 1 i ng of the final plat. The dedication
to the city was for a specific purpose and, therefore, should not be con-
sidered for a density credit. With regard to the dedication for the
Parkway, the city' s position is that the question should have been
discussed at the prel i mi nary plat stage.
Responding to the Examiner' s invitation to comment, Mr. Blumenfeld indi-
cated a lack of knowl edge of this city policy at the time of initial
pl atti ng and their feel i ng that it is an appropri ate matter to bri ng up
at this point in the development. However, they will wait until the pre-
liminary plat stage of the second phase to resolve the issue, if that is
the direction of the Examiner.
As there were no further comments offered, the hearing regarding File No.
R-072-80 was closed by the Examiner at 10:38 a.m.
FINDINGS:
1 . The applicant, Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc„ filed a request for
approval of a reclassification of approximately 25.89 acres from
G-1 (General , single family residential ) to M-P (Manfacturing Park) .
2. The application file containing the application, SEPA (State Envi-
ronmental Policy Act) documentation, the Building and Zoning
Department Report, and other pertinent documents was entered into
the record as Exhibit #1 .
3. - Pursuant to the City of Renton' s Environmental Ordinance and SEPA,
RCW 43.21C, as amended, a memorandum of concurrence has been issued
for the subject site by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) .
R-072-82 Page 7
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments
affected by the impact of this proposal .
5. There was no opposition to the proposal .
6. The subject site is located generally east of the proposed P-1
channel and north of Grady Way S. The property i s a narrow strip
of land approximately 280 to 290 feet wide.
7. The site is relatively level but does slope downward from west to
east slightly. The site is subject to inundation during certain
flood periods.
8. The subject site was annexed into the city in April , 1959 by Ordi-
nance 1745 and was classified G at that time. A recategorization
of districts in 1982 modified the G classification to the current
G-1 . A request for reclassification to M-P was denied by the Hear-
ing Examiner i n April , 1981 . An appeal to the City Council brought
a remand to the Hearing Examiner. Subsequent to that action the
applicant initiated thi s new request for reclassification; again,
the applicant requested M-P zoning.
9. The applicant in the interim had dedicated to the city approxi-
mately 8.63 acres of property. Approximately 4.25 acres was for
flood control structures including channel and pondi ng areas and
approximately 4.38 acres was for the proposed Valley Parkway.
Staff had indicated this acreage would not have to be reclassified
to M-P since it is not to be developed.
10. The Alterra Rezone (File R-129-80) was a reclassification of prop-
erty generally north and east of the subject site. It has been
approved with dedication of land to permit preservation of unique
trees in an extensive greenbelt and construction of a ponding area
for the proposed flood control structures of the P-1 channel .
11 . The Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the area in which the
subject site is located as suitable for the development of manu-
facturing park. Portions of the area are also designated for
greenbelt, while the Arterial and Street Plan indicates that por-
tions of the Valley Parkway would be located at the western peri-
phery of the subject site.
12. The subject site i s part of a 1 arger parcel being developed by the
applicants as a manufacturing park. A final plat for portions of
the easterly property has been filed, and site plan approval for
the initial construction has been granted. Building permits for
those initial buildings have also been granted.
13. The areas east and north of the subject site are currently zoned
M-P. A large M-P district consisting of approximately 500 acres is
located south of I-405
Several commerical , 1 i ght industrial and manufacturing park di s-
tricts are located south and east of the subject site in addition
to those indicated above.
14. West of the subject site is the Metro treatment plant. East of the
site is the Washington Technical Center plat developed by the
applicant. East of that is the Earlington Industrial Park. Cor-
responding with the zoning districts i n the area are commercial ,
light industrial and office park uses.
15. A shoreline substantial development permit consistent with the
Shoreline Master Program has been issued for the subject site. The
Department of Ecol ogy has al so i ssued a permit for devel opment i n
the flood control zone.
R-072-82 Page 8
The applicant will provide on-site storm water storage. This stor-
age will be accommodated through development of the P-1 channel or
similar facility on portions of the property the applicant has
dedicated to the city.
16. The applicant has requested that the city offer density credit for
the land previously dedicated by the applicant from the subject
site. The land was dedicated for purposes of constructing the
flood control facility and for construction of the east lanes of
the Valley Parkway.
17. If the rezone is approved the subject site would be developed in
approximately two years as part of Phase II of the Washington Tech-
nical Center. Phase I, now being constructed to the east, is
expected to be occupied at that time.
18. The city has acquired approximately 98% of the P-1 Channel right-
of-way.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in
the public interest and wi11 not impair the public health, safety
and welfare in addition to compliance with at least one of the
three criteria listed in Section 4-3010, which provides in part
that:
a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-
wide rezone or land use analysis; or
b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new clas-
sification per the Comprehensive Plan; or
c. There has been material and substantial change in the cir-
cumstances in the area in which the subject site is located
since the 1 ast rezoning of the property or area.
The applicant has demonstrated at this time that the request
i s timely and, therefore, justified.
2. While the applicant has previously requested a reclassification of
the subject site the matter was presented about two years ago and
was not ultimately resolved. Therefore this request i s being
treated as the first consideration and as if no other land use
studies have been conducted on the subject site or area.
3. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates at least por-
tions of the site for manufacturing park purposes. The Arterial
and Street portion designates the area at the westerly fri nge of
the subject site for the Valley Parkway. Areas of the site are
also designated for open space and greenbelt.
The applicant has dedicated portions of the site for flood control
and these areas will serve as open space. Further, the areas north
and east of the site containing most of the unique vegetation have
been dedicated by the Alterra Corporation in its rezone for the
Black River Office Park.
Landscaping along the Valley Parkway may also serve to some extent
as greenbelt.
4. As previously indicated, the applicant has platted the property
immediately to the east of the subject site. Site plan approval
and building permits have been i ssued for portions of this easterly
property The property to the north has been reclassified to M-P in
the Al terra rezone.
R-072-82 Page 9
Property in the area has been dedicated for flood control , open
space and future roadway improvements in the area.
Development of adjacent properties along Grady Way and S.W. 7th
Street has continued.
5. The city has acquired approximately 98% of the right-of-way for the
P-1 Channel or equivalent facility in the area surrounding the sub-
ject site. Construction of some facility for flood protection on
these properties in the area will mitigate the potential damage of
flooding on the subject site. Such measures will also permit
development of the subject site without exacerbating the flood
potential of other sites.
6. The area immediately surrounding the subject site consists of
industrial uses which are generally incompatible with the current
single family zoning of the subject site. The G zoning i s a
holding category which i s appropriate until an application for
change in the public interest is requested. The request is
appropriate, and the G zoning of the subject site should be
modified.
7. Under the circumstances the request to reclassify the subject site
to M-P appears justified. Zoning in the area has changed; the
flood potential has changed (or is at least subject to change) ; and
open space and greenbelt have been preserved. Therefore, the City
Council should approve the reclassification of the subject site.
The entire site should be reclassified M-P for consistency,
although the portions utilized for roadway or flood control will
not be commercially developed.
8. The circumstances distinguish this case from the case presented in
the Alterra rezone on three counts. Therefore, the applicant
should not receive density credit for the approximately eight acres
of land previously dedicated to the city.
The land dedicated for the construction of the Valley Parkway is
equivalent to land developed as streets bordering any sizeable
development of property in the city. It is a requirement of
property improvement. It is subtracted from the total acreage.
The land dedicated for the flood channel was offered to mitigate
the potential impacts of development of the site on the flood
problems of both the site and surrounding areas. The property was
not dedicated to mitigate against the loss of unique specimen trees.
Finally, the dedication in Alterra was part of a formula worked out
by the applicant and the city to facilitate the rezoning of the
property and the preservation of unique trees on the site and was
in the form of a contract rezone. Similar circumstances were not
evident in this case.
RECOMMENDATION.
The City Council should approve the reclassification of the subject
site from G-1 to M-P as requested.
ORDERED THIS llth day of January, 1983.
Fred J. K man
Land Use ari ng Examiner
R-072-82 Page 10
TRANSMITTED THIS llth day of January, 1983, by Affidavit of Mailing
to the parties of record:
Charles Blumenfeld, Bogle and Gates, Bank of California
Center, Seattle, WA 98164
Robert Thorpe, 815 Seattle Tower, Third and University,
Seattle, WA 98101
Loren Davis, 1818 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 308, Seattle,
WA 98109
Gerald Rasmussen, 6810 N.E. 130th Place, Kirkland, WA 98033
TRANSMITTED THIS llth day of January, 1982, to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shi npoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
David Clemens, Policy Development Director
Members, Renton P1 anni ng Commission
Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City' s Code, request for recon-
sideration must be filed in writing on or before January 25, 1982. Any
aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on
erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the
prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner
within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner' s decision. This
request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appel-
lant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further
action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016,
which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying
a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies
of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance
Department, first floor of City Hall .
p I 1e
20 \ 1
ram
i : a IZ-i .
1
0
i - .,.. \-Rs \I
I
ag&rati4 , . .
74I/Atelkir,1"17' -
4P clZ
Ilk
bS RSlk1?
IRIP o 1
e
i •
M TR .
102; 1
z
1 o, . .1
k.' Gt1: ; ' • k.2 . 9 • /
I . \op 1
1LISPOSA L 1
s, .
A‘,
1
HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING, INC.
REZONE R-072-82
i
APPLIChNT HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING, INC. TOTAL AREA 25.89 Acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.W. 7th and 10 th Streets and future Valley Parkway
EXISTING ZONING G-1, General Zone
EXISTING USE Vacant
PROPOSLD USE Manufacturing park
COMPREIENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park & Greenbelt
COMMENTS
1
1
1 n 4.4,f
RECEIVEi) Comb p,o r-`
JuL3 01982
July 29, 1982
Avid de sit&MOO& OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL.
APPLICANT: Alterra Corporation FILE NO. R-129-80
LOCATION: North of S.W. 7th Street, east of the proposed P-1 Channel , south
of the old Chicago Milwaukee St . Paul Railroad right-of-way, and
west of the extension of Thomas Avenue S.W.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks a rezone of the subject site from G-1 to M-P
for future warehouse and office use.
SUMMARY OF Building & Zoning Department: Dismissal without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION:
Hearing Examiner: Approval subject to conditions and covenants .
BUILDING & ZONING The Building & Zoning Department report was received by the
DEPARTMENT REPORT: Examiner on June 8, 1982.
PUBLIC HEAI;ING: After reviewing the Building & Zoning Department report,
examining available information on file with the application,
and field checking the property and surrounding area, the
Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on June 15, 1982 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator, presented the Building & Zoning Department report,
and enterei the following exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #1 : Application File containing Building & Zoning
Department report, draft and final EISs , and
other pertinent documents
Exhibit #2: Conceptual Land Use Preservation Plan
Exhibit #3: Site Plan indicating ERC conditions
Aerial Photograph for subject area (illustrative purposes)
Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding uses located north of the subject site,
Mr. Blaylock advised that the railroad right-of-way and a vacant parcel are located to
the north, He also indicated that the dedication areas denoted in Sections L.4.b and c.
of the staff report should be corrected to 3.9 acres. Responding to the Examiner 's
inquiry regarding whether the Building & Zoning Department is recommending denial
rather then dismissal without prejudice of the matter, David Clemens , Policy Development
Director, stated that a recommendation of denial would have precluded reapplication of
the rezone within a period of one year. RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
The Examiner requested testimony by the applicant. Responding was: EXAMINER
Joel Haggard JAN 1 1983
1700 Daon Building
AM PM
720 Olive Way 7,S,9,10,11e1211 ii2e3e4i5,6
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Haggard, legal counsel for the applicant, advised that one of the applicant's expert
witnesses , Richard Carothers , landscape architect, was unable to attend the hearing due
to another commitment, and a continuance would be requested if warranted. Referencing
an appeal filed by Mr. Haggard on June 10, 1982 of certain conditions imposed by the
Environmental Review Committee, Mr. Haggard requested that Conditions No. 1 and 2 be
reviewed this date. The Examiner indicated that although the appeal had been received
prior to the scheduled hearing, there had been insufficient time to publish legal
notice of the appeal ; however , to expedite testimony for citizens in attendance as well
as the aplicant's expert witnesses , certain testimony regarding the rezone could be
incorporated into the record of the appeal when it is scheduled for hearing.
Mr. Haggord called his first witness. Responding was:
T r
Delton Bonds
XHIBI
P.O. Box 66101 T NO. ed7a-Z
Seattle, WA 98166
R-129-80 Page Two
Mr. Bonds , one of the owners of the property, indicated that purchase had been predicated
upon the Manufacturing Park designation of the subject site on the Comprehertsibte. Plan,and disregarding the current economy, the request for rezone had been submitted to
accommodate future needs in the community. He discussed development plans which have
been proposed and discussed with city staff which include measures for retention of
trees, limitation of gross size of buildings , elimination of western access to the site;
and donaticns for P-1 Channel and wildlife habitat.
Responding to staff comments in the report concerning a current surplus of ManufacturingParkzonedpropertyinthecity, Mr. Bonds advised that the majority of that property is
owned by a sole property owner who chooses not to develop at this time due to high
interest rates. Because a time frame of from two to two and one-half years is required
from commercement of a large development to completion, approval of the subject request
will allow proceeding with the project to provide additional space to meet needs which
will be evident in the near future. Mr. Bonds submitted a graph which denotes issuance
of industrial building permits in the City of Renton from 1975 through 1980 to illustrate
his point. The graph was entered into the record as follows :
Exhibit #4: Issuance of Industrial Building Permits
in City of Renton
Responding for the applicant was:
David Markley
Transpo Group
23-148th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98007
Mr. Markle) was affirmed by the Examiner, who accepted and entered his resume into the
record as follows:
Exhibit #5: Resume for David Markley
Mr. Markle , partner in the Transpo Group, an engineering and traffic consulting firm,
advised meeting with the Public Works Director and Traffic Engineer of the city to
discuss the: EIS for the subject proposal , and it was determined that the document should
address the overall traffic impacts of the range of possible developments , with an in-
depth traffic operational study required upon submission of a specific proposal to define
problem areas and provide mitigation measures. A letter from the Public Works Director
confirming this matter was submitted into the record as follows:
Exhibit #6: Letter from R. Houghton to David Clemens ,
dated August 7, 1981
Mr. Markle) described the process of comparison in determining that the revised proposal
falls within the limits of the original proposal in comparing square footage of building
areas of bcth proposals as well as total trip generation. Both ranges , he noted, fall
within the limits denoted in the EIS analysis. The revised site plan does not propose
a connecticn to Monster Road, and traffic would utilize the south or east accesses to
and from destinations. At the time specific building plans are developed, critical areas
to be specifically analyzed would be defined by 1-405 on the south, Sunset Boulevard S.W.
on the north, Rainier Avenue on the east and the West Valley Highway on the west.
Referencing Attachment D of the EIS, the Examiner asked Mr. Markley if he still believed
that even with mitigation measures denoted on the attachment, traffic flow in the area
will not be improved or maintained, and any new development will have adverse impacts .
Mr. Markley responded affirmatively. The Examiner inquired if, i:n Mr. Markley's opinion,
elimination of the westerly access to Monster Road would exacerbate traffic impacts in the
area more or less than stated in the draft EIS. Mr. Markley advised that although traffic
would be aggravated it would not be more so than predicted to occur in the final EIS. The
Examiner inquired if development other than office park would have a greater impact on
roads , noting that a warehouse use would have less employees , thereby reducing the number
of vehicles accessing the site. Mr. Markley agreed that a mix of uses would have varying
impacts. hr. Haggard asked Mr. Markley a series of questions regarding trips generated
from warehouse and office uses based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual . Mr. Markley
stated that 21 trips would be generated per 1 ,000 square feet of office space with six trips
per 1 ,000 square feet of warehouse space, and figures denoted in the EIS reflect 100% office
use for the maximum number of trips and 60% for the low figure. Mr. Clemens inquired
regarding Mr. Markley's definition of light warehousing in terms of rail-served projects .
Mr. Markley stated that non-rail use of six trips per 1 ,000 square feet had been denoted
in EIS figures , but rail-served use would decrease trips to five per 1 ,000. Mr. Haggard
inquired if Mr. Markley concurred in Mr. Blaylock's statement that approval of the rezone
itself will have no environmental impact but development that follows will have impact.
Mr. Markley concurred.
An explanation of the recommendation of the ERC to maintain a water surface elevation of
R-129-80 Page Three
17. 1 feet Has requested by Mr. Haggard. Mr. Clemens stated that the ERC had reviewed
all analyses and concluded that the appropriate level of flood safety applied to the
general vicinity of the site was a future condition for future development of the
drainage basin, and the 100 year flood surface elevation is 17. 1 feet with 400 cfs maximum.
As a result of that finding, the committee concurred in the requirements of the county that
flood storage to that elevation should be provided. Responding to Mr. Haggard 's request
that the hydrology expert from the ERC, Richard Houghton, Public Works Director, respond
to his questioning, the Examiner requested that since a full appeal hearing is not
currently being held, Mr. Haggard should not proceed with that line of questioning.
Although Mr . Haggard felt the questioning was relevant, he reserved further questions
for Mr. Houghton. The Examiner advised that Mr. Haggard may make his case as far as the
100 year flood storage elevation which is independent of the ERC condition.
Responding to Mr. Haggard's questioning regarding the appropriate time for evaluation of
impacts frcm a proposal , Mr. Clemens stated that SEPA suggests that those impacts should
be evaluated at the earliest possible stage, which in this case would be the time of
rezone review. Responding to further questioning by Mr. Haggard, Mr. Clemens acknowledged
that the City Council has made a determination that the land use of the property should
be manufacturing park, that when a manufacturing park is proposed for development, a
permit application will be made to the city, and review of the application will include
additional studies pertaining to flood control and traffic. Mr. Clemens also concurred
that FEMA reviews present conditions in establishing the 100 year flood plain elevation ,
and the sutject application is the first in which the city had based the 100 year flood
storage upcn a 17 foot elevation.
Following i recess from 10:24 a.m. to 10:38 a.m. , Mr. Haggard called his next witness.
Responding was:
Gerald Rasmussen
Senior Project Engineer
ENTRANCO
1515 116th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Mr. Rasmus. en reviewed his educational and professional background. Responding to Mr.
Haggard's questioning, he advised that the elevation for the 100 year flood plain in the
past has been 15 feet . It is FEMA's responsibility to review only the present elevation
of development and not future elevations , and the discharge rate of 23 hours or until die
Auburn guage reaches 12 ,000 cfs of unlimited pumping followed by 400 cfs discharge, a
condition reviewed and examined by several hydrologists , is the estimated travel time of
a release from Howard Hanson Dam to reach the Black River. Mr. Rasmussen also advised
that since 1962, the Auburn guage at the Green River has reached 12 ,000 cfs only once
1976) . Following review and description of a three page listing of annual peak discharges
of the Gre>n River by Mr. Rasmussen, the Examiner entered it into the record as follows :
Exhibit #7: Annual Peak Discharge of Green
River from 1936 to 1976
Mr. Rasmussen described the procedure utilized by King County in the operation of the
pump station for unlimited pumping for 22.5 hours and then 400 cfs discharge beyond
that period of time. In actual practice, when a storm is occurring in the area a
watch is maintained both by the county and the Corp of Engineers to allow operation of the
pump station on the basis of levee safety. Very frequently, the 12 ,000 cfs and the 400
cfs maximun can be exceeded if the levee so permits. The Examiner inquired regarding
specifics of the occurrence in 1976 when the Green River reached 12,000 cfs and whether
flood conditions were occurring upstream from the pumping station. Although Mr. Rasmussen
was uncertain of specifics , he stated that the 400 cfs limitation was not in existence
in 1976, but was a concession obtained from the Corp of Engineers in recent years .
Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry, Mr. Rasmussen indicated that unlimited discharge at
the pump station to the river is desired because storage inundates the land behind the
Black River pump station and reserve capacity is lost.
Respondinc to Mr. Haggard's question regarding the appropriateness of the King County
procedure for operation of the pump station, Mr. Rasmussen stated his opinion that it
is appropriate since it is based on actual occurrences in the field. He cited occurrence
of a heavy storm in October of 1981 , approaching 100 years ; however, due to prior dry
conditions in the area, the Green River was very low, it had unlimited pumping, and a
severe condition did not occur. He indicated that 400 cfs maximum discharge is a very
conservative limitation, and two factors , the intensity of the storm and the existing
condition! affect the pumping capacity, and the percentage of both of those factors
occurring simultaneously has a lesser frequency than a 100 year period.
Mr. Haggaid inquired if any of the operating scenarios, either full storage, limiting
discharge for all time, or operating in accordance with King County procedures of
unlimited pumping for 22 hours followed by 400 cfs maximum and levee watching were
R-129-80 Page Four
recommended specifically by Mr. Rasmussen in his report. Mr. Rasmussen indicated that
no selection had been made; however, the ERC had determined that none of the recommendations
would be followed. Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry regarding Mr. Rasmussen's
recommended scenario, Mr. Rasmussen advised his choice of the three would be the procedure
followed by King County, which would have a frequency of less than one percent or a return
greater than 100%.
Mr. Haggard asked Mr. Rasmussen to confirm that the one condition selected by the ERC
assumes future conditions ; however, the future FEMA study which prompted the ERC 's
recommendation for dismissal will not consider future conditions . Also, although the
ERC assumes that the P-1 Channel will not be constructed, the applicant has volunteered
a dedication of P-1 Channel property. Mr. Rasmussen confirmed Mr. Haggard's statements .
Responding to the Examiner's inquiry, Mr. Rasmussen described the differences which will
occur with 3r without the channel , noting that the channel will modify the hydrograph,
time water Flow, and expedite the water to the dam faster than would a meandering route,
and would have a benefit in confining the water within channel boundaries. Without the
channel , waters will overflow the banks and flood the lands adjacent to the river in Kent
and Orillia upstream from the Black River pump station.
Cross-examination and response then occurred between Mr. Haggard and Mr. Rasmussen regarding
the timing for providing compensating storage for the 100 year flood plain, and whether a
flood level requires specification at the rezone stage. It was determined that since no
development is occurring as a result of a change in zoning classification of the property,
the level far compensating storage should be established when development plans are
submitted. The Examiner inquired regarding computations of the holding capacity of
vegetation 3n site to retain water during a 100 year storm to allow determination of
whether removal of that vegetation would have an impact. Mr. Rasmussen felt the amount
would be minimal , particularly during the flood season, but vegetation would hold some
water during the growing season.
Cross-examination then occurred between Mr. Clemens and Mr. Rasmussen , and it was
determined that the significant information contained in Exhibit #7 is limited to data
collected after 1962 ; that dedication of P- 1 property by the applicnnts will not assure
that the P-1 Channel will be constructed; that other costs are associated with channel
construction besides the acquisition of property; and the Corp of Engineers within the
past six weeks has withdrawn its permission for downstream pump stations to pump into
the Green River, and as a result , the county is reevaluating its ability to discharge
into that river north of the Auburn guage, although the informal agreement had been
more of a privilege than a contractual right.
The Examiner inquired regarding the effect that water immediately pumped out to the Green
River instead of retained on site would have on ground water recharge, Springbrook Creek,
and the rest of the wetlands. Mr. Rasmussen advised that the pump station is operated
in such a manner that Springbrook Creek and other drainages in that area would not be
adversely affected other than during storm conditions. The Examiner inquired regarding
the effect on wetlands if no slow water recharge occurs from the 70 acre site if all water
on site is immediately discharged. Mr. Rasmussen stated that all water is not immediately
pumped out except during storm periods when water is emptied from the site to provide
available storage for replacement.
Referencing Section L.4.b. of the staff report which denotes a condition imposed by the
ERC to dedicate a 3.9 acre area in perpetuity for wildlife and natural vegetation
mitigation purposes , Mr. Haggard questioned Mr. Clemens regarding revisions in location
of the dedicated area denoted on Exhibits #2 and #3. After lengthy discussion, it was
determined that the specific item should be continued until the applicant's representative,
Mr. Richard Carothers , can attend to testify on his own behalf. Also responding on the
subject was :
Tom Gessford
814 E. Pike
Seattle, WA 98122
Mr. Gessford, landscape architect for Richard Carothers , described his role in preparation
of graphics for the subject proposal , explaining methods and rationale for revision of
exhibits fcllowing submission to the city. He also discussed field trips to the site
during which certain large trees were identified from a distance as satisfactory in
condition.
The Examiner requested testimony in support of the application. Responding was:
Loren Davis
1818 Westlake N. , Suite 308
Seattle, WA 98109
Mr. Davis , representative of Holvick deRegt Koering , adjacent property owner to the
south, advised working closely with the applicant for a period of time to resolve the
R-129-80 Page Five
flood hazard issue involving both sites. Due to constraints imposed on the P-1 Channel
to which the city is unable to respond , it was his opinion that construction of the P-1
Channel is unlikely. Therefore, in cooperation with ENTRANCO engineering firm, the city ,
and the applicant, an alternative has been developed to resolve the flood hazard issue
based on prDviding compensating storage for the 100 year flood elevation. He supported
the applicant's design criteria which are limited to current conditions in accordance
with expert testimony on the flood storage issue provided by the applicant 's representative.
Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry, Mr. Davis reviewed his civil engineering educational
and professional background.
The Examiner requested testimony in opposition to the proposal . Responding was :
Carol Stoner
19708 121st Avenue S.E.
Renton, WA 98055
Ms. Stoner 4as affirmed by the Examiner. She advised that she is speaking on behalf of
the Green River Study Group, which submitted a letter of response upon publication of the
draft EIS. Referencing the applicant' s revised site plan, she indicated concern that
large trees in the riparian forest, a unique habitat in the area, are not included in
the area designated for preservation. Referencing the Renton Wetlands Study , she noted
that the Black River Forest was the most highly rated habitat evaluated , and the study
recommended a preservation of at least 40 acres to keep the habitat intact . Ms . Stoner
recommended preservation of the area around the SCS forebay area to buffer the public
from birds and wildlife utilizing that area. She also indicated concern regarding the
effect of immediate discharge from the property on the water quality of the Green River,
noting that if the area becomes urbanized, urban pollution will become a factor.
The Examiner requested further testimony. Mr. Haggard requested a continuance for the
sole purpose of receiving testimony from Mr. Richard Carothers. The Examiner concurred
in the reqiest , and the hearing was continued for purposes of limited testimony to
July 13, 1S82 at 9:00 a.m. Time: 12: 15 p.m.
CONTINUATION:
The continued hearing was reopened on July 13, 1982 at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers
of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Roger Blay ock, Zoning Administrator, summarized the previous hearing, noting his wish
to reserve the opportunity for final recommendation at conclusion of testimony.
Joel Hagga -d, legal counsel for the applicant, advised submission of a supplemental
memorandum, which was received by the Examiner on July 12, 1982. The memorandum was
entered as follows:
Exhibit #8: Supplemental Memorandum, July 12, 1982
Also submitted in lieu of a previous landscape guideline submission was a revised version,
prepared bi Richard Carothers Associates. The Examiner entered the document along with an
additional submission into the record as follows :
Exhibit #9: Modified Landscape Plan
Exhibit #10: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Carol Stoner,
July 13, 1982, regarding Black River Forest
Mr. Haggard requested testimony by the applicant 's landscape architect. Responding was :
Richard Carothers
Richard Carothers Associates
814 E. Pike
Seattle, WA 98122
Mr. CarotFers briefly reviewed his educational and professional background, and entered
a resume into the record:
Exhibit #11 : Resume for Richard Carothers
A brief site evaluation chronology was presented by Mr. Carothers , who described broad
scale environmental conditions in existence on the property. He advised that the climax
riparian forest is at the end of its life span since it is no longer restoring itself with
revegetation of cottonwood, ash and alder trees . Responding to the Examiner's inquiry
regarding the ultimate result if the site is left in its natural state, Mr. Carothers
advised tiat only the alder will reseed itself. He described the change in hydrology on
the site since the early 1900's when the property was a back water of Lake Washington;
R-129-80 Page Six
however, a : the present time, most of the water on site is flood plain residual .
Addressing the matter of wildlife habitat , Mr. Carothers reviewed conditions which attract
wildlife, noting his opinion that the Black River Forest is a relatively poor habitatforbothbrdsandsmallmammalsexceptrodentssuchasmountainbeaverandrats , although
the fringe, of the site do provide habitat for birds . Evaluation of the site for
recreational purposes and a nature preserve had occurred; however, the wetland character
of the land precludes recreational use, and a nature preserve would not be suitable due
to brittle nature of cottonwoods in the climax forest and lack of potential for appropriate
vegetation to encourage that use.
Developmen potential had been evaluated, and a determination made that the site was
suitable for development due to several factors including surrounding existing M-P zoning ,designation in the Green River Comprehensive Plan, and previous rezoning of other site%
surrounding, the subject property to designations in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Carothcrs described the process of developing a site sensitive to both the preserve
area and development, and the original concept set aside approximately 28 acres or
approximately 40% of the property for preserve areas . However, following a compromise
reached wi :h the owner, a preserve area containing approximately 19 acres was agreed
upon, that area designated to remain in a relatively large single expanse, a concept
which alloyed maximum flexibility for development while still preserving the large area
adjacent to the P- 1 Channel area should it be constructed.
Responding to Mr. Haggard's inquiry regarding discrepancies in numbers on Exhibits #2 and
3 and whether Mr. Carothers has had an opportunity to review the location of large trees
and their size, Mr. Carothers advised that a survey had been performed since the last
hearing which confirms the numbers of large, specimen trees and their location on the
site. He submitted the survey which was entered into the record as follows :
Exhibit #12: Map of Tree Inventory in area of
concern and Revised Plan
Using a gr< en marking pen, Mr. Carothers designated on Exhibit #12 the redefinition of
boundaries of areas vegetated with large trees which should be preserved through development
amounting » just less than 20 acres in size. He noted that certain large trees located
in areas for development may be retained if determined feasible by a plant pathologist or
arborist, ty development of wells around the trees to maintain ground water for survival .
Mr. Clemen, asked Mr. Carothers to describe specific considerations in reducing his
original pioposal from 28 to 20 acres . Mr. Carothers advised that the reduction had
occurred through achieving a reasonable balance between areas of preserve and areas of
developmen . Discussion ensued between Mr. Clemens and Mr. Carothers regarding
preservation of the west end of the site and areas adjacent to railroad tracks which
contain re atively few trees . Mr. Carothers advised that as a result of the tree survey ,
boundaries were established to preserve large groupings of trees and show a debarkation
line between the preserve and proposed development. Following further discussion regarding
possible p ans to clear and thin the preserve zones and intersperse a variety of plant
materials n that area should trees die out as well as protection of small stands of trees
from preva ling winds , Mr. Carothers advised his recommendation for review of these
matters oy an arborist during site development.
Responding to Mr. Haggard's questioning, Mr. Carothers described the broad base landscape
guidelines for the project which will enhance the environmental quality of the development ,
and advised that corrections to Exhibit #9 to reflect modifications illustrated on
Exhibit #12 will be submitted later. He also noted that although the western end of the
subject site contains little vegetation, it is designated to be preserved because a
roadway cannot be constructed to that area due to its potential impact to the environmental
quality of the central preserve area and effect to water supply. Therefore, use of that
portion foi site development is not feasible. Mr. Haggard inquired which of the three
plans , Exh bit #2, #3 or #12 would reflect Mr. Carothers ' recommendation. Mr. Carothers
stated tha. #12 reflects his recommendation subject to conditions of the landscape
guidelines and subject to the tree well concept discussed above.
The Examincr noted that the name of the development, Black River Office Park, indicates
a proposed business use rather than manufacturing park, and he inquired why B-1 zoning
had not been requested. Mr. Haggard described the concept of providing warehousing along
the north boundary and constructing offices in the interior; however , the office concept
will be industrially related, and the requested zoning conforms to the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the subject site. Responding to the Examiner's comment that the
Comprehensive Plan is not a binding document, Mr. Haggard submitted RCW 35A.63.080 into
the record, which rules that although the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a basic source
of reference for future legislative and administrative action, it shall not be construed
as a regulation of property rights or land uses.
Based upon testimony previously heard, Mr. Blaylock modified the staff recommendation to
R-129-80 Page Seven
conform to specifics denoted on Exhibit #12 with the condition that specific areas
proposed to be dedicated to the SCS and City of Renton and all preserve areas will be
excluded from the rezone to M-P. Additionally , Exhibit #9 contains minimum design
criteria; therefore, site plan analysis and approval shall also be required prior to
development. Responding to the revised recommendation, Mr. Haggard requested a brief
recess to allow review of the proposal with his clients. The hearing was continued at
10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:33 a.m.
Responding to Mr. Blaylock's recommendation, Mr. Haggard indicated concern that 28% of
the total site would not be included in a calculation of development potential by
exclusion from the rezone request. He suggested instead that the entire site be rezoned
to M-P and a restriction placed on the title which states that areas designated in green
on Exhibit #12 should be preserved with two conditions : 1) that legal descriptions be
submitted for preserve boundaries ; and 2) that structures related to the functioning
processes cf flood storage or storm water control could be constructed in the areas
designated in green on Exhibit #12. He suggested that the dedication of the SCS area
to the city for the P- 1 Channel area could occur with a restriction in the transfer that
the area cculd be used for the benefit of the entire property for flood storage if the
P- 1 Channel project does not proceed. He summarized the applicant 's recommendations for
rezone of the entire site to M-P subject to all conditions contained in the applicant 's
letter of hay 25, 1982 except for No. 14 as modified by the letter of June 10, 1982;
subject to landscape guidelines in Exhibit #9 except as modified by Exhibit #12 and
supplemented with additional tree retention material ; and subject to conditions that a
non-buildirg restriction may be placed on all green ares identified on Exhibit #12 and
that the applicant deed to the City of Renton the area identified as SCS on Exhibit #12
subject to utilization by the applicant for flood control .
Mr. ClemenE concurred with the applicant's recommendations to the extent that the areas
designated CR or P or preserve area be dedicated as open space easements to the city
prior to acoption of the rezone with the underlying title to remain with the property
owner. Mr, Haggard indicated concern with legal implications if a non-building
restrictior is placed on the title that development potential has been lost for the 28%
of site acreage. Mr. Clemens felt that restrictive covenants do not work and become
confused over a period of time resulting in a loss of original intent, and preferred
dedication of an easement. Mr. Haggard asked if development rights for the dedication
areas could be reserved for transfer of the property subject to the applicant's Condition
No. 1 which establishes a maximum upper limit on the total development of the property.
Mr. Clemens; concurred. He also suggested that the testimony of the rezone hearing be
incorporated by reference into the appeal hearing to follow. The record was so entered
by the Examiner.
Responding to the Examiner 's request for additional time in which to publish a
recommenda :ion regarding the matter, Mr. Haggard waived the two week requirement. Since
there were no further comments offered, the hearing regarding File No. R-129-80 was
closed by :he Examiner at 10:50 a.m.
FINDINGS, CDNCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the
Examiner ncr makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1 . The applicant, Alterra Corporation, filed a request for approval of a reclassification
of approximately 71 acres of property from G-1 (General ; Single Family Residential ;
Minimurr lot size - 35,000 square feet) to M-P (Manufacturing Park) .
2. The application file containing the application, SEPA documentation, the Building
and Zoring Department report, and other pertinent documents was entered into the
record as Exhibit #1 .
3. Pursuart to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental
Policy Act of 1971 , RCW 43.21C, as amended, draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements were prepared for the subject proposal .
4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the
impact of this development.
5. The sutject site is located south of the Chicago-Milwaukee-St. Paul Railroad right-
of-way, generally north of the Black River Channel , and west of Thomas Avenue S.W.
extent ed) .
6. The sutject site was annexed into the city by Ordinance No. 1745 in April of 1959 at
which lime the current zoning classification was applied.
7. The sutject site is generally level although in the generally northwest area, fill
material has been incorporated into the site as part of the railroad right-of-way.
R- 129-80 Page Eight
The site slopes downward to the south very slightly.
The elevations of the site vary and some filling will be required to bring portions
of the site above the 100 year flood plain.
The 100 year flood level used by FEMA had been approximately 15 feet. The ERC
imposed a level of approximately 17 feet which was subsequently modified and will
be based on FEMA calculations . FEMA uses the current level of development to
calculate the flood elevation and does not forecast future development or its Impact,,
on flocd waters. As more property is developed there are more structures with the
potential to displace flood water. There is also a corresponding loss of permeability
by covering soils with buildings and asphalt paving which results in further loss of
water Folding capacity. The city requires on-site retention/detention of storm water.
The applicant 's expert indicated that a conservative range for the 100 year flood
would Le about 15.0 feet to 17.0 feet.
While the Army Corp of Engineers (Corp) presently permits pumping from the Black
River's tributaries into the Green River, they have indicated that this verbal
agreement is not binding and may be subject to modifications . During flood stage the
areas cf the Black's tributaries closest to the City would pump water into the Green
prior to the flood waters of the Green itself reaching the area of the pump station.
Approximately 22 hours of lead time is available for this operation.
8. The site contains about 40 acres of unique forest area consisting of wetlands and old
growth riparian forest. The water table is at or near the surface of portions of the
site during most of the year. The holding capacity of the site is high while the
erosion hazard is slight . The environmental impact statement prepared for the site
gives an extensive hydrological and vegetational analysis of the site.
The forest is one of the last remaining riparian forests in the Seattle area. The
trees consist of ash, willow, alder and cottonwood. The understory is very thick and
contairs blackberry bushes and grasses.
9. The sutject site is located immediately north of the proposed forebay for the flood
control channel (P-1 ) and portions of said channel are located within the boundaries
of the subject site. The applicant has consented to convey those portions of the
previously designed channel within its boundaries subject to credit for both flood
water storage capacity and land development acreage equivalencies .
The applicant would have to provide on-site retention of storm water which would
otherwise be displaced by development of the site. The dedication of land for the
channel would prevent development of that land, and thereby prevent displacement of
any storm water as to that land. The enlarging of the channel to greater widths and
depths would accommodate even greater amounts of water, which the applicant wants
credit for storing. This credit would then allow a certain amount of water displacement
from other portions of the subject site.
The hurdred year flood level is subject to further analysis by the Federal Emergency
Managenent Agency (FEMA) . The applicant agreed to provide compensating flood storage
capacity equivalent to the elevation determined by that agency. The amount of property
involved in the channel is approximately nine acres . The exact amount of property and
the boundaries would be ascertained subsequent to a survey.
10. The vecetation comprising the riparian forest provides wildlife habitat , and a unique
wetland environment. The forest also provides visual relief from the relatively flat
flood plain, and the greenbelt forest area also helps retain water and cool the water
by providing shade trees over the channel .
The wetlands cleanse the water of sediment by providing wetland treatment to storm
waters. The water current slows upon entry into the wetland area and sediments are
both deposited due to the change in speed and filtered by wetland vegetation.
Contaminants are also cleansed by the wetland treatment , a biophysical action which
allows breakdown of contaminants . The wetlands also act as a sponge retaining large
volumes of storm water and slowly releasing them after precipitation has ceased. The
wetlands store water from the wet periods and release them over the dryer summer months
providing a more or less continuous flow of water to the area and thereby retaining the
wetland environment year round.
11 . The areas of significant vegetation were in contention because of the definition of
significant." While either large trees or unique trees for the region, i .e. hardwoods ,
could cualify , the larger trees may actually be nearing the end of their lifespan.
Significant trees , either singly or in stands , have been identified under both criteria ,
size and/or type. The applicant has indicated that larger areas containing probably
about nine acres plus additional separate trees would be preserved per Exhibit #12.
R-129-80 Page Nine
The total preservation acreage, while not precise until legal descriptions and surveys
are comileted, would be approximately 11 acres . This would include the areas at the
extreme western end of the site which would be more open space in nature and less
forestej. The larger stand adjacent to the channel would withstand wind damage more
readily and there would be little or no alteration of their environment. The separate
isolate] stands may succumb to wind damage or development pressures. The applicant has
indicated that protective measures such as creating tree wells surrounding the trees
would be taken per the recommendation contained within Exhibit #12.
12. The applicant proposes developing in excess of 900,000 square feet of gross square
footage on the property depending on the parking requirements which may be associated
with one or more of the possible uses. The applicant indicated a maximum figure of
995,781 .5 square feet would be developed on the subject site.
13. The number of employees would be dependent upon and proportional to the square footage.
The estimate of the number of permanent employees would be approximately 4, 105. Many
of these employees would come from outside the city boundaries .
14. Again, the square footage and mix of uses would determine the number of vehicle trips
per day attracted to the subject site and generated by the development of the subject
site. the number of trips range from a low of approximately 9,070 trips to a high of
approxinately 34,030 trips. Peak hour trips would range from 1 ,250 to 3,970 trips for
the afternoon/evening rush hour.
The maj )r access to the subject site is to the south, through the Washington Technical
Plat, via Powell Avenue S.W. There is planned connection to the west via a bridge
across the P- 1 Channel to Monster Road. The Monster Road connection , if constructed,
will not be implemented until Phase II of the Washington Technical Park development
occurs.
Phase I traffic will , therefore, use the southern access via intersections which are
already functioning at capacity. The critical intersections are located between 1 -405
on the south and Sunset Boulevard S.W. on the north, and Rainier Avenue S. on the east
and the West Valley Highway on the west. While the EIS indicates that alternative
routes 4ould be used , in this area of the city there is only limited opportunity for
such route selection. Increased reliance upon alternative modes such as car pools and
van pools and Metro transit may hold some potential for alleviating the capacity
problems at the intersections .
The immediate impact will be adverse and probably cause a prolonged peak hour at many
of the intersections. The peak hour which is a term which reflects the peak period
and is lot confined to one single chronological hour , may well extend beyond an hour.
Such an increase will occur with the expanding development in the southwest quadrant
of the city.
South of the subject site and south of 1-405 is a large M-P zone which is part of
the Orillia Industrial Park of Burlington Northern. There are approximately 458 acres
of undeveloped M-P property. Burlington Northern is preserving this acreage for
potential rail users.
The M-P zoning of the Washington Technical Park consists of approximately 109 acres .
Developnent is just beginning on these lands. Other properties in the valley are
owned by individual companies and will be developed for their specific needs .
15. The subject site has about three miles of rail lines and would be capable of providing
rail service to tenants . Major access routes near the site are 1-405, the East and West
Valley Highways , and Rainier Avenue S.
16. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of manufacturing park uses.
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . The prcponent of a rezone must demonstrate the the request is in the public interest
and will not impair the public health, safety and welfare. In addition, the rezone
must comply with at least one of the three criteria listed in Section 4-3014 which
provides in part that:
a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area rezone or land
use analysis; or
b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the
Comprehensive Plan; or
R- 129-80 Page Ten
c. There has been material and substantial change in the circumstances in the area
in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or
area.
The applicant has demonstrated that the subject site should be reclassified to M-P
subject to the conditions indicated below.
2. The subject site abuts railroad right-of-way and would be imminently suitable for
rail-served warehousing.
3. The area in which the subject site is located has become a focal point for manufacturing
park uses , especially south and east of the subject site. The classification would be
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. While zccess to and from the subject site during peak hours may be difficult and
reclassifying the subject site will exacelhatr an Already IlaffI clluali1.11 ,
the site is ideally located with reference to major highway and arterial routes , such
as the East and West Valley Highways , 1-405 and Rainier and Lind Avenue during off
peak hours.
Alternative modes of transportation would be expected to accomplish some diminution
of traffic, and the eventual opening of a connection to Monster Road will permit
traffic to avoid the Grady Way/Rainier corridors .
5. While there is a question of the timeliness of the conversion of this property to M-P
in ligfrt of the more than 600 acres of land already zoned M-P south of the site which
has not been developed, much of that land is in the ownership of Burlington Northern
and is not available to other private, independent developers.
6. The agreement by the applicant to dedicate certain portions of the subject site for
both flood control and greenbelt will preserve portions of the riparian forest along
with wetland habitat. The applicant will also be able to make reasonable use of the
remainder of the subject site.
7. In order to maintain the natural and open space quality of the main preserve area
which is that area confined to the contiguous lands and includes the channel area and
the lards immediately adjacent to it as generally shown on Exhibit #12, the applicant
should dedicate those lands to the city to be used for greenbelt and open space. The
conveyance should include covenants which prohibit the development or placement of any
structures on those lands with the exception of flood control structures which may be
placed in and upon the lands generally defined as the P-1 Channel . The covenants
should also indicate that the donee has received development credit for the acreage
and the land must remain perpetually undeveloped.
The renaining preserve, that is , the small pockets of significant trees indicated
upon Exhibit #12 shall be protected by the execution of restrictive covenants requiring
the preservation by appropriate means which are indicated generally by the criteria
found in Exhibit #9 and subject to the approval of the city' s landscape architect with
the prcviso that approximately 5 square feet of land is necessary for each capiper
inch as indicated by testimony at the public hearing.
8. In order to secure to the applicant reasonable use of the entire property and preserve
the development benefit of the dedicated and restricted property identified above,
the applicant should receive pro rata credit for such acreage. Such credit should be
applied to the remaining acreage or to each lot created by a subsequent subdivision on
a pro rata basis . That is , the 51 or so remaining acres should be treated for
development purposes as 71 acres subject to the 995,781 . 5 square foot maximum and
other regulations of the city.
9. The applicant' s dedication of the areas designated for the P-1 Channel or counterpart
should be acknowledged and the applicant granted flood storage capacity credit to be
utilized upon the remaining acreage. This figure will have to be derived from
calculations based upon analysis by FEMA of the one hundred year flood level and further
calculations of the amount of credit which would be created by the dedication and
eventual construction of some form of flood control channel . The applicant 's
hydrologist indicated that hydrology is not an exact science and therefore the
calculations will approach a best estimate which should be based upon reasonable
engineering standards erring on the side of caution.
10. The elevation at which the property will have to be developed to ensure flood
proofirg will be determined by the FEMA studies , but until that information is
available the city and the applicant will lack any basis for determining the base
elevation for construction. Similarly, the land dedicated for the channel may not
provide the full measure of equivalent storage capacity to that lost by development
R-129-80 Page Eleven
on the ! ite, and this will also be determined by further analysis.
The app' icant will have to provide equivalent storage capacity to that lost to
development if such loss is greater than the capacity of the P-1 Channel acreage.
11 . The app icant should develop the land in accordance with the landscape concepts
submitted in Exhibit #9.
12. The app icant has presented landscape concept plans which, supplemented by the
dedication of open space and the provision of flood control acreage, appear to
benefit the public. Therefore, the City Council should approve the request which
is compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and reclassify
the prolerty to M-P.
RECOMMENDAT ON:
The City Council should reclassify the subject site from G-1 to M-P subject to the
execution o' an agreement implementing the conditions outlined in the above conclusions .
ORDERED THIS 29th day of July, 1982.
Fred J. K ;man
Land Use aring Examiner
TRANSMI' TED THIS 29th day of July, 1982 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties
of reco .d:
Joel Haggard, 1700 Daon Building, 720 Olive Way , Seattle
WA 98101
Delton Bonds , P.O. Box 66101 , Seattle, WA 98166
David Markley , Transpo Group, 23- 148th Ave. S.E. , Bellevue,
WA 98007
Gerald Rasmussen, ENTRANCO, 1515 116th Ave. N.E. , Bellevue,
WA 98004
Tom Gessford, 814 E. Pike, Seattle, WA 98122
Loren Davis , 1818 Westlake N. , Suite 308, Seattle, WA 98109
Carol Stoner, 19708 121st Ave. S.E. , Renton, WA 98055
Richard Carothers , 814 E. Pike, Seattle, WA 98122
TRANSMI -TED THIS 29th day of July, 1982 to the following:
Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
David Clemens , Policy Development Director
Members , Renton Planning Commission
Ron Nelson, Building & Zoning Director
Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator
Lawrence J . Warren, City Attorney
Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must
be filed in writing on or before August 12, 1982. Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact , error in
judgment , or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the
prior heariig may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)
days from the date of the Examiner 's decision. This request shall set forth the specific
errors relied upon by such appellant , and the Examiner may , after review of the record ,
take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal tb the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that
such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting
other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or
purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall .
7.N. 1
k\117. .ra i. ' _ .
3` I
I ,<<_,N a , a 2,r
r........:
r
II
4VP :. 144 dif,/U, aC
S . ' j E CI:r ",%I
I . 1 411111PAnteNW kg' ii";.10164q*ilek
1 r• T ID I • Ohl 4*
At 4 eintalz; ::! .
1
1i;;jl/,,*tag
iU,
iiii14
4 viZ 1,,.
4.
a.
A!,:
r
4
6 It klie 4gitilit
1. • V. t 4ii.,/,.
N• I Z IF-----
1 f• ...• . _!s . . .
REZONE: ALTERRA CORPORATION, File R-129-80
i
APPLICANT Alterra Corporation TOTAL AREA ±71 acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Via S.W. 7th and Powell Ave. S.W. extension
EXISTING ZONING G-1, General Classification District
EXISTING USE Reparian Forest
PROPOSED USE Future warehouse and office use.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park, Greenbelt
COMMENTS
or
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
PERMIT
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT :' ` ' •
APPLICATION: SM-90-61 APPLICANT: First City Equities
3818 Bank of California Center
PROPOSAL: Earlington Industrial Park
900 4th Avenue
Seattle, Wash. 98164
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
1. The issuance -of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971
shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal , state,
and other permit requirements.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any
condition hereof.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after
approval by the City of Renton Planning Department or until any review
proceedings initiated within this 30 day review period have been completed.
4. Pursuant to Section 14, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971 Extra Session, the
City of Renton has taken the following actions: RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
A. ( XXX ) APPROVAL HEARING EXAMINER
B. ( =Denial AM
JAN 1983
PM
7,R,9,10,11,12$1 o263,4,5,6
C. REASONS:
I. The proposal is consistent with the MP - Manufacturing Park
zoning of the subject site and the Comprehensive Plan designation
of Manufacturing Park.
2. The proposal complies with the City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program.
3. The proposal has been reviewed and approved with conditions by
the Land Use Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council as a
preliminary plat.
D. CONDITIONS:
1. Dedication to the public of legally defined location of the P-I
Channel of the Green River East Side Watershed Project.
2. Compliance with the following conditions imposed by the Renton
City Council :
ri
a. As part of the development of the Earlington Park project,. the
proponents shall :Z
I Plat Phase 2 into Tracts A and B during the first subdivision
process.
I Dedicate on the face of the plat that area required for permanent
right-of-way of the East Side Watershed Project. r _
Dedicate to the City of Renton as public open space and a
storm water detention area that portion of the site between
Springbrook Creek and Black River north of the extension of
the east segment of the northern property line (See attached
Exhibit A. )
I Preserve in a natural condition the first 1600 feet of the
old Black River channel and associated riparian vegetation
upstream of the confluence of Springbrook Creek and Black
River. (See attached Exhibit A. )
I Dedicate an easement for storm drainage along the north
property line from the northeast corner of the site to the
Black River channel . (See attached Exhibit A.)
bF •PEN ION
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SM-90-81
0 Direct all storm drainage from the site east of Spring-brook Creek to the upstream end of the old Black River
channel for the purpose of wetland treatment (as per
the Water Quality Impact Assessment).
t Extend the existing storm sewer line on the site (in
an appropriate size) northwestward to the upstream end
of the old Black River channel .
0 Preserve Springbrook Creek and Black River in their
natural condition and existing locations until such
time as the Environmental Review Committee determines
that relocation to conform to the East Side Watershed
Project is necessary.
IF Retain as open space that portion of the site determined
to have cultural significance by the Office of Public
Archaeology until such time as the Environmental Review
Committee determines that the Site is no longer needed
for archaelogical purposes.
b. Prior to the development of Phase 1 , the proponents shall :
0 Extend Powell Avenue to S.W. Gradey Way, with final
intersection location to be determined by the Public
Works Department.
0 Participate in the signalization of the intersection
of Powell Avenue and S.W. Grady Way by contributing
35% of the costs of this signalization.
0 Participate in the signalization of the intersection
of Edwards Avenue and S.W. 7th Street by contributing
20% of the costs of this signalization.
c. Prior to the development of Tract B, Phase 2, the proponents
shall :
0 Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) along the west side
of Tract B from S.W. 7th Street to S.W. Grady. Way.
0 Participate in the signalization of the intersection
of Valley Parkway and S.W. Grady Way.
d. Prior to the development of Tract A, Phase 2, the proponents
shall :
0. Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) from S.W. 7th Street
to Monster Road.
3. Submission of a new preliminary plat which is consitent with the
recommendation contained within the Hearing Examiner's Report,
dated April 28, 1981 , which shall include only those properties
zoned M-P and shall exclude those properties to be dedicated to
the public.
4. Installation of sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street.
5. Installation of such storm drainage controls and devices as may be
required to remove pollutants, contaminants and sediments before
water existing the site enters natural waters.
6. Provision of arterial collector streets to service the property
to the north of the subject site.
7. Compliance with all other requirements of the code and regulations
of the City of Renton.
2
o/
1/
j(‘
Td /rC le ens, Acting Planning Director Da e
t
s •
d 4!cNIc2
r -5
P
9
Avn
1 v
1
I
c
1
J
1
P
1
t
e
1
I I
1
i T
S°Lici
Eji[((([[lljjtll rtrcrrt ttc (r w,saQ 1Ont`of't
s.a;f•7 J 44A y
1
Af41•171'1'L400
1.
77 PERMIT NO. 1.-`
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT
Permission is granted under provisions of Chapter 86.16 RCW, this
24th
day of July 19
co _ FIRST CITY EQUITIES
rNam• of applic4nt)
900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3818, Seattle, Washington 98164
Add,efl)
to construct and maintain nderground utilities, roads, railroad and other improvements
Deseripikm of works)
per plans Imown as Earlington Park.
for the period 19 to• 19 or in perpetuity
13 '
in v Section 24
Township 23
N., Range
4 E.
1.Y.DA, and,'
in Section Township N., Range . Y.M.
on Green River Green
located within theNameatstreamorfloodplanatected) Flood Zone)
Flood Control Zone No. 2
Said works, structures, or improvements must be in accordance with
Application No. 1' ;735-2
and plans attached thereto on file with the Department of Ecology, which
incorporated by reference as terms of this permit.
The work herein authorized shall commence on or after the
24th Julyof19 $
and shall be completed on or before the
24th
day of July 19
82
or before such dates as ma\C-
specified by any extensions granted.
This permit is subject to the conditions printed on the reverse hereof and the i'cceptance by the permittee.
V114)-';t7C7 •
Regional Manager
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
cc: King County Surface Water Mgmt.
Renton Building Department
ECY
Rev. 11/79
u--,... ..u .. ..., .J.
l
tuTtr:'s permit is granted under aul y of Chapter 159, Session Laws of 18 (Chapter 86.16 RCW)
2. fro property rights are granted herein, nor does this permit absolve permittee from liability for any damage which ma'
he suffered to life or to property, public or private, by reason of works, structures and improvements authorized here
2. This permit does not obviate the necessity of obtaining other permits required by federal, state, or local law.
4. The permittee shall remove, at his own expense, all falseworks, structures and materials incident to the construction of
the %%ork herein authorized. Works and structures erected under permit covering a specific period of time shall be
removed by the permittee at his own expense upon the expiration of said period or at the expiration of any ex-
tens:on of time which may be granted.
5. _`^uld permittee fail to remove, at the proper time, materials, works and structures referred to under paragraph 4,
the director reserves the right to have it done at the expense of the permittee.
6. Any alteration of plans for works and structures made subsequent to the filing of an application or the issuance of
permit shall be subject to approval by the director.
7. The director shall be notified by the permittee of the completion of works under this permit in order that he maymakefinalinspectionandgivefinalapproval.
8. RC:`! '3n.1t3.100 provides that the exercise by the state regulatory powers shall not imply or create any liability for
y damages against the state, and the action taken by the department herein shall not imply or create any liabilityforanydamagesagainstthestate.
9. When necessary to provide for the proper maintenance or operation of the works, structures, or improvements as
authorized herein, the department may issue supplementary orders providing for such.
10. This permit is subject to further special conditions as follows :
A. The existing 100-year flood plain elevation according to the Housing Urban
Development Flood Insurance Study, City of Renton is 15.2 feet. This elevation
was interpolated between elevations 15.4 feet and 14.9 feet upstream and down-
stream of the proposed development. The finished floor or basetnent elevation
of all buildings must be at or above the existing flood plain elevation.
B. Additional improvements to this site will require a state flood control zone
permit.
11. This permit is accepted subject to provisions of law and regulations and conditions herein prescribed.
1 •
errryttee)
41\IL1'
1 CENTRAL WASir liNGTON LJNaVS SITY
Ellensburg, Washington 98926 Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX
A 6' DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND MUSEUM OF MAN
May 12, 1981
David Schuman
First City Equities
900 4th Avenue, Suite 3818
Seatttle, Washington 98164
RE: Status of archaeological excavations at the Earlington Industrial Park.
Site 45K159
Dear Mr. Schuman,
I am writing in response to your request of April 20, 1981 for my clearance of
archaeological site 45K159, located in the extreme northwest corner of the pro-
posed Earlington Industrial Park in Renton, Washington.
As I have mentioned to you and to your assistant, Barbara Moss, I am not legally
empowered to "clear" a site for construction, but can only give my professional
evaluation of the site' s significance. Having conducted extensive excavations
at the site in Spring 1980 and after preliminary analysis of the results of those
excavations, I am now in an excellent position to make such an evaluation.
The site is 10 meters (30 ft.) wide and extends roughly east-west for at least 60
meters (195 ft.) along a former levee of the Black River. During occupation of
the site and following its abandonment, the river has eroded away much of the
artifact-bearing deposits. Erosion has been so extensive that the deposits resem
a complex stream bed, being made up of numerous cross bedded layers and filled
channels. Interpretation of the site has therefore been extremely difficult and
would remain difficult regardless of how much earth was excavated.
We have obtained a very large collection of artifacts from the site and I can say
with some confidence that that collection is statistically representative of the
site' s contents. Although thousands of artifacts certainly remain in the site,
the probability is very high that they are the same kinds of objects we have alre
recovered.
We also took many samples of charred plant remains and have a large collection of
fish and mammal bone from the site. That collection, too, was taken in such a we
and is sufficiently large that I consider it to be representative of the site' s
contents.
David Schuman
May 12, 1981
page two
The remains of structures - buildings of some kind - are evident, but because of the
intense use of the site and damage done by the river it is and is likely to remain
impossible to determine any details of building construction.
In summary, it is my professional opinion that we have learned as much from 45K159
as can be learned. Subsequent excavations almost certainly would recover more of
the same kind of data that we already possess and would not be cost effective.
Incidentally, because the site is nearly four feet below the modern surface and is
so long and narrow, it is unlikely that construction on this spot will damage it.
Only if a deep basement were dug on this spot would the site be destroyed. Because
the kind of use you plan usually does not entail such construction, at least some
part of the site will certainly remain intact. Therefore, even if the site were
worth saving, which I believe it is not, its preservation would not require any
action on your part that is not already in your plans.
If you need any other information, feel free to contact me. Thank you for making it
possible to gather what useful data this site did contain.
Sincerely,
James C. Chatters
Assistant Professor
rTTY OF RENTON, WASHINGTO4
APPLICATIOJ
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. SM- PUBLICATION DATES
SEC. -TWP . -R . S13 & S24-23-4E
DATE RECEIVED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DATE APPROVED ZONING
DATE DENIED WATER BODY
APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 14 DELOW:
1. Name of applicant First City Equities
2. Mailing address 3818 Bank of California Bldg, 900 Fourth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone 624-9223
3: Applicant is : 109.31 acres - total industrial park. Proposed SDP
is on west edge of property.
Q Owner of 84.54 acres
Lessee
Contract purchaser of 24.77 acres - contiguous on west side
Other (specify)
4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant: Burlington
Northern RR - Contract Seller of 24.77 acres Telephone
5. General location of proposed project (give .street address if any orneareststreetandintersection) West of Earlington =ndustrial Park in
West Renton; bound by Powell Ave. S.W. on the east, Grady Way on the south, pro-
posed Valley Parkway and P-1 channel on the west and riparian forest on north.
6 . Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet)
See Site Plan/Legals - enclosed.
Area (acres or sq. ft. ) 109.31 entire site; only westerly portion is adjacent
to Springbrook Creek
7. Name of adjacent water area or wetlands : Springbrook Creek
8. Intended use of property: Manufacturing Park (offices, warehouse, and
light industry) , office near Springbrook Creek
9 . Generally describe the property and existing improvements :
Undeveloped; Earlington golf course occupies portion of site. See also
DEIS on project.
2 -
10 . A. Total construction cost and fair market value of proposed
project including additional developments contemplated but not
included in this application: Channel. realignment - unestimated to date - over
1,000 (Industrial Park- over $50 million) ; Utilities/roads in shoreline area - over
1,000.
B. Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested:
Channel - April 1981 Fall 1981
Begin Project - 3 phases - April 1981End 1986-1987?
11. Does this project require a shoreline location? Explain. No. Project
is separated from Springbrook Creek and Proposed P-1 Channel by proposed Valley
Parkway and P-1 Channel spoils storage areas and detention pond.
12. List any other permits for this project from state, federal , local
governmental agencies or the City of Renton for which you have applied
or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the
permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the application,
whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same,
and the number of the application or permit:
See DEIS for complete listing and discussion. All applications and permits
except zoning for 85 acres are pending and covered in the Earlineton Park
DEIS to be distributed in July 1980.
13 . Site and vicinity maps (Refer to application instructions) :
Attached.
14 . Additional informatinn: See DEIS.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
CITY OF RENTON
ss
I, David M. Schuman, Partner, First City Equities being duly
sworn, certify that I am the above-named applicant for a permit to
construct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements , answers, and information
are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
FIRST CI Y EQU)-T 'S
Signature)
David M. Schuman, Partner
Subscribed and sworn to me this /(2)`//7
day of KC
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing
at
City of Renton
Planning Dept.
2-73
P•
jjI 'e-(1 NI 0 0..INA371 I,s i
ICOUNTY
OLD
7-..
7..7-7-.Es.--_
C:7E-.
BLAcK RIVER CHANNE.4 ._-_---.=I F.--=.--i•
Ii--------,
7 gc
7_7-r-------"-------r,-.:,-- --__ _
7:--.-.:-::::-----,=_—='-fiff .7::=__..-1-F.--..,,_--;77;__=: .=
s=-'-
TI.cl
E- t...ARYrjolv
INDUSTRIAL
METRO
Cy C1DISPOSAL
7-___
r-7--
4
Tukwila
I u\n-, q
0 ,
1 7
Renton
5.7.....-P
1---- ---
C\
1"
rel
LONOACPES
r. MACE TRACK
2
INfa
VIC1N3TY
EJA72L.MIGT'ON PA,;:2SCALE1" = E3001di,So
INCJY-.ITE-3 R. IN. THORPE S. ASSOCIATES
1 ., .
1 ,
tir.
5,
70.i......,.....;.,
i.
4 , •••• •
3,,,..
75\
4;.+,4419-
474.
7,• ,,
1..., .
41 .
1.' ..
241.
1::::
t7:
1711;,.*..
s.. ....
ACEV:1 .
T7,. .,.r.
7''.
1,!„.-;:'..::;',,
neeR., ....
ji7. :.
k,
mil,,
t,._ . %..
stvi,.;%-.
4;.,,:;
atil,,
i;
Lit4.
4.
4 --
r. '
11.
11,,,:,...,,,.,
i.H.,:;'•:.4 ..,,
v,"..2:
4;
x.
tr."..
i.).
1.:',
I,
r;-;:: •-• ...
i• ••••:•••„., . , . .
Cl
1U21
1,-
9(\,..”-
r
al ; ;
I.
at ' . '''
A . • •
2
14..,,,,,-.% ,.:%. ”
L.'
t'\''',
I, '•
c/.
47,
11.
2.,.
A
t•
1.
4. ,..
4R --. •
ii ,. \ .. .,.),..,%,
1, '
r4-'. '
13
1;
1; '
7, ;
4
v.;-
41.
21,,;..
V.
c,.
4,,,,-,
lik.
litia,
Vgafr -..
7
j
k
r;-. - ,
t' ' -
4,-
4. ,
1.
1.•
dy-
4,.,
e.
1.,, • %, ,! ,
i1;.
A,
1 -•• ' •
r
J-
4.,., :-•• -
5
1/2•
4 "?.'
4V.'
4'
04
L
7.
i-
r.
f.'"-
i•-••"..
F= '''‘.•..-.‘.•
v‘'
I— '
0, -':'......
4
ix..;
11,::::
4,_ .,,,... ,...,
Y
l'
itt $'• '':
4..::
I"' .
Itrt;.
4tieVa.. :
a ''
s '
4".
i'
L'',
1
X
4
1.
4-
4 `•
c
Immi
5
t4',.*
a.,
c4
4.
k.
9
r' • '•,-. '
4.''.
I'‘'';''''.,. '
P -.
4 ,
f„.- ,^-
7.
7..--: -%-.
11.-
gzi.--.....,,' :,•.,
r.,.
r.:
77-..--;-.--
77'''',. .
i-....:
7.-...
t., ' '''''
V,....„..
2.., :. .-. .
Nrs0
1,
1a
1S
1
i ."'"?
4,
Xit (
tit.••••:-.??*..
Ai4..
feli
i
2j)
ir.
jkft:,.
Z;
44114-„!.. .
6163 .
i. • •.'''. ----'‘
i,..: . ..,,,,--
77-- ..
i,.. ..,,,„ ;„ ..
L91 - ,,,, .
j,,,,,,,,,, ,..
4„
c../
1„
1„„
r. , !....•
5:
1
t
t,,;,
1kw
i •
1.,-,,
1,.,.
4,, , ..
tq..)
t
r.
of-..
4,
4...
44144
fg,
k. •
P'
y
4:. '.
0
OCj
z4',...
i -..-
1-. ''
rtp..'.
1'?,.'..,','
c?-
3 ', , ! '.
14
tr,•
ia,
hlit4,,. , \ ' , . • ' ' ? ' -
46 ''
4,
1., .
44.
4.'
44'
17 -
f- .
100
r.
6-'
4.
11','- "
y"-'
4,,,,- $
4,'''-/,'
i ".)
I
I
1
kt,' '
N•
f•;• ‘• ;
c„
gr ..
t-'
li ..
f (..-.
7
iiwt ____._ ' : ''• • . -
i• \
1 ";,.' ',' ':'
l'
g1.
13...
e' '<
ftre,-
444 -
thiln"-
tlft. ..-„
ha:
43'
tv154,!:
1.-
g41; ,
4'
4,
4 -
1
CUI
I.
I-
I' .• • • ";"'...
b0
4
1,
1_
0
4).
t , .. ... ..., ',
ii , ,
d, . ,,
4.
etir-. .,:
t..
4ee'.. ....
11w$
31iit.
V.
t.:,-.',. •
tiv..,,,, -
T
t ,
1-.
gt
4„...,:
i:
k .
k,, }
4 .„ ,
1,
4 ,. .
1,:,\ ,
i '
1.,.
4 ..
44.
74.. ,
g1 .:
1 .,,
114 , • ,
4, , •
k
itNo
ck"
li,
1 '
a
oi4
4.
1.....
IN44 :
t,,.,.
14 .
rf:
1.1 •••,.
14
1
1, :
it•
Z
V.
i':=
c•
ii5'
0, !
A ,, , :
4•
Aalgt-:, •• ' . ‘,,,,,
1,. '
41.
At
r.,- , ‘ ';‘,
PI:
60P4-&-
r, •-- ', .
t:.
a ....
4..
4,, . -
2,
iii,
r2
I:, -,-. -.,. .......,. .\\,,... . ;...
r\.
i . , ,
I
I •,,,,,
k,,,
i, ,„,,,,,
IA, ,:..,, ,,,
1„,,,,-, . ,,,.,,, ,
i
4,
4,,,
I. ,:,•.„,
x,...., .,, ,,.
7;
4:
4,
2,,,,.„,. , . „,..,,,,
t
4
B.,
ft .. ..
sii.,
3.
1
it•
2 , .,,,,. ,
g1
ft,.
1 :
111-.
9 , • .
ivk'
rtfi ,
A,
T'
I -
i
iii
V....,,„;:•
1•
4:
ti ;
1,
ft.
71
CI) ' . '
r.
r
r•
J'
Itit' '''''
tii','"‘"•
OLzi'
N'•
11'•-• ..
31'11"
1;•
V..
riil .
1' "
4o.....
ma.
I
49 ;'&
14 ' /
4 ;
i'•"'"
4. : . ':"
L.: . • ',
i,-, - •,.
TiA,,,.,, ,.-
4,.
ok
0 ,.. ,
t, ,
i,
t ..
7::-,
7,:.-
i...„.
ri,...- ..,.„, .,,,. .
1
a
4t1 -
4,,,.,
y. .-'.
1,,,
4. •.--.,,,...
1, ,... .. , ,
A.,
vi :
a
i
i....
4. : •
c... ..,..,
i,.,
a
f. .. • , ..--
t..,- .
4 -,:,,, • ,,, .
i.,.
i.
1..
c.
t
v ,, ,..,..,./ .
1.:.,, , , . ,_ :
i,,, . :.,. . .., ,?..,,....:
Ak, ..
t‘
t..._. :
i .,
t,_
k..
v...
I--
f.•
a,',
0
6•
1 -
4,•,-, ••,-.."
4::
I.,..,
14 ,•,,
4 -
i -
1
rp,„ „,
9 . " ',,,
T; , ;,
I, , ,••_., , , . ,„, ,... ,
k,,,. .„
t _
A .
1 !
it. ,
1 ,
r,, _
41,
gi
11.
11
t
ct!, ',.. -• „.„
3: ::_-'' ' •:, '. ••','''
1 ' •
1 ' ' '' •
1- : '•.!
fri,,- ,.-
fe:
Ay .
f4. ,
4
rt
g '
Ai
f.,
i, (
1)
1,
01 ..
e , -
tit , ..:,
V $?,,,,,, ,-.) ,,,
ii,,
t. ,,,,,,.„
5
1, ....
1,...„ .
v
1,
4::.4;,,
1,; . ,,,,,,
1, ..:‘,, ,
r
7.
3: ,,
4:,...
1
F-.
1 ...,:-:
t•••
4.. \
1.,
7.;., ••,
4,
i::
2 . -,,,-,-,:..;.; ... .
p.' ,,-, .., .. ,,,,
L,
1„,,,‘...,
th-,;
1. , : ,
i,
T.."
4. .
4,
9,-,,
v,;!--
t- ,,.‘ ;
g,.--,-.:
ii,;
E:01:
44i,,,,,,‘•:
t..,;;
4:7:..,.::,
r-
J3 }..
kt—
r,
1,
i-
4i .
ei
4
I •
herh: .^,
k4. ,
i' ••
514,4 .. • ..„
alt.- . -..,
IT
q
1: ; -
4i.
f.-
is ''
I. ''" . '
I' .'''
z.
1% '„ "':
r•'
41,
r47'-•
g
L, • :
7,.„,
1,, •,:
5
t,:-• . , ..../- ,
l',.;
prI,,
s.. „,;
i, ,,,,.,
A •:.,
Ai,.• , -
1,
e24
00,
4.,,,; :,„,:
e •. ,
i,..,.„,,/
cr.:.
444
4f; *
C7)
14
istAll4i";* ':
41 ':.
la.' :,..
1110'
r2-
1 '
t3
4'
k4
i
o
A • -
a)
1,
4.
UVI
fklti
444:- -'.• !'
t/'
i
1 ':
I.-
t
pilt,
Nisa '
t. '
t.,
4
4"
0 . . '..;„..
t " !. ':, - , ' „
1,'' '
tO •
1:
7.-',, .,.
1,
t'' -
1=
e;,.
1-
42 . .
r"
I''''"'""—‘"
Tirati'.,
i,.,:, ...%
44, ---. . ,,:
411.1
At •.,
IP, ;
if,
p'""
4" ..
7," ,
c - ,
i . ,,,•
W
Li
gP. '
it
4. ''''
r_
i ,, . . •
r.
pir•••
1.
14?. . ,• . .....
n.
it.
ik,.,,,,,..
44.
A.
z ;•
i
o••
P...•'•
1+
47, ••,
1.
4
1.
0....,
7:' '.. ' '
Ct:
1 ..;
4 ''
l'
ti
IL '' .
1-
1 '.'''. '
ik'•'' :
kl ' ''''
4'•'•
f41'
4-)
r•
it
i.
1013rikt*
4C•''.
1•••
1PAI"''''''''.-•`
i• '
if+: ' :•'
40.
41.
6
p , ;
r4.'
44:, (
1
41t1 ••":
7: •
Cr:
fc••
Ft•
t'-
i '''
l `.
4 '
4"
4717. ,-
1
s'''''.". . *-- *
li '
i:
kl. :.
t$
1.
1.4 '
14---,
e
i
le!?
id,.....,
ft, ...,-,
N .
0,•
s.;!,..
r• '
1.„
41. . .,
1.
4.
t
i .:"
4'
3(' (
Ligt,
t.
4,:
4
i'
a
V, , ,,-.,':
r ? .,...
1,
i,
4 ,,
t,,,,
Iii,
i.„.
1, ,., '
lt, ,-,,, .:-. ,.
CU
0 .
1.
Liff43‘ •'
CV , ,/
irt• .,:\'
4••**::''' ,
rrei4
a ;
Lk
1
i '
r -, .
I.%.
1, .
1,.,
cr„.,,,,
i
i ,... .
4 :
1i..,
J
1 , ..
e. -.
atv .
44
6- ,,
it3.
1,.•-
4- ..
i. •
v, .
1 - '
i4.. :,
0
1‘. , .
4110? , ' ..•
t'
c. „„!•,,,,,
it
1
0
A.
il),:,:: ' ,,
er ._
li.
j4-§
1,
44;-....,
e-- --
t '
4,
T
A , . -
0. ,
fb, „
4 ...,.....-&-,
7 .--..• -
z-_,',' ••-
A
L: .--•,...,-',...,
it',
i
i
1'
4- , •
V :'
ly?
4,
1 •,,,--,
7 .::
Ii.
64%
1`..':
1
H ••;•,•
2: . ,.`
k% '
0''
Lzh:
gtg. -'--
1,
17-
r"
T.•••'::
4 ''.
4„, $
t14411.
7.
t ' ' . :
1
T.,..:
1“.:
1•
4el''
4•
1?
1-''„,
p .:
41 • •,
7,..
1''..
e•
14- ' '
1 ...,....,-
Ramon
It:. .... ,
1
I•
P.
X:' '!. . ..
i•
j „ "
147'
A •••
P‘
14,,-.,
y, •••'
rt." ,,:
f:.. -
0,
e-,
Yg' .• ''''',
i
I. ‘.;
to. ;''',•
t
I •
V
e
ir
I ?
i
tr.,.
7;• ', .
fi-,', ''
I
p .
i
0
I
4‘)
Sk,..,, ,,
I.
1!
illw
1,,-;;;' , ,
4'..'
41 „
Aitg,,, ,
01-• ''', , •;
i,,,,
I., , ,
0,,,
ae
i,
i ..
tiselel,„
4 .
17,,,
i, , :!:
4•
4.;, ;;,;.,.„
p: .; •
m•
s
iTapiod "
4-.4i,
A. '.:' ..„"
14- .:
L---
1,,,
1 .:.,
e,'....:;
k ..
y.,:
i
i''''
j‘
t
12,
3,
0..,..114'
q
t'' ' : ;
t. -.
41.-'
41*: -, -;,%
4"-'4 .
i:
r'!`
eNti. ':-.
40-..
171,
421,1
itliti.
1
tt44ci:1;
fiJA4",,,41,...,
r •
tn,
i •
in,
ii*
4„ •.
r •••••••
4t•
s,':;• • .-
r.
i• • .
c.. ••'' '(
41.... ' '
At•
T "
4•••••:•
41•
f•
r•
41.
4•
t
I ':
i0
C4-
111,„-
1.
44,. , '• ';'' • ','' ..-. "
4rIp' ,,‘ . '
4;
1 ',..;:
117,
1st,
A ''
J',
N ,, :,•.., ,
1,- ,
lirpir* ,.,
1-,
k .
1 „
g.,•..
i) --',
0,
175i
1,..
1
r4-
f„;..
4- ;
R,,,
g0t-
t.,, '
oi4; . ;
1:--,'/,.
rt,
4. •
1' '
f
V4'
4.
1i
t!
idly*. ..-
Y' ...
401`
1
r
it,
ir - ' '''
N• ..
T,
47.'-
f§.
W./
W."' ‘
r4_,,„,.
4-'
414; '
Sittyl $.. -,•'
rf,-,
t);•
I''''''..
i'
vliy41,,,,.-.
c.
5'''' . ., ,.'
1'','
of:: ..
c;.,
h,.•:;
Li ,
14,
4'....=, .
17,
ielli,
latl
1.
4i: ''.
V-
te-,/,.
44.
i.,..
LL'
k
ti
r ,
1,, •
rol .-,
4,. -
4
4,
44!,,..;,,, • ,
S.' '''
r,:
p
Ti$: ,
A
I, ,•:
rr.',.‘
y ,
i'
lzo•,.
e,''
4 •'•
ago.•
tir.
I.
r,
e• ,• ,
A... ,:, '
t ,,'". .,, , .,,
k.,, ;,,•. ..
4' ':.'''
4 , ,,,',.
0 .,„,,,,
I, ,,
T .,':, :,. . . -:.,,, , !.,, , ,,,, •
14, --* -; -.('--
1.
44 .-.,• , .•
il•
H
w
r.•-.‘
I'
M
i.
4,
14;,
i5-
i ,'-
4,,, . „,
1 .
7 ' '
A .. „.
4- ;,,,
t,
i ;
ri.,!•
Aii
t `,:,, .
a) '•,
q , •
vt,
it.
IttiSt%
l'.
P.: ':'' :,
IA1'
1;
114.:
4:
4).
1. :•-•;:
r
1•
1‘. :
31'..
1.
1r' ''':"
17''''-, :
14';''
4 '
lt-
eti '.
t.
7, '. ' - . ,• . - , •,
t.,
r41
4
le,
atz.,,,,! •-
k
1..,.,
k
i.:
c.) :
c.,'-
y
14
i ,,...,, ...,
Liz
L.
A.4,4:
4::::
r:'
F,t,,
5,,
XX„:
1";:
v•::',.,:.‘-,,
i1:
0..it:'',„,-;
44.:
er..4,•:',
z'
4.tiL14,
1; ,,.,.,.,,
P.:*,;?' :-'
0,11,....".:!-?,,,
fi4ti%is':;
11*
FH.
7-
1213-
441'.:•:
i,''
4:: .
4: .'
s:. '
4 '.': ' . \
A'::.- ,,.
ve°
111.,:;:;.2te;''
i51.
411''::.
ti,
9111131:
1111:4A1,
1:
7;,:
t..i!
tf,i
a,, ' ''' ',,
litirigi..
t.•...
L..
4 , .
k
4
V'
13'''‘
I;
Vk " ' • .
0 ''' {
Tr - .. -.
le: .
w.
f.; --
1
9ft ;.
43,;,:
i.
A
24
44440 .
7'
W .,.
la . -
cn
ibil.,
col-,,.
1.
1 ,. , ..., . •.... ..,
4 ,
e
4
k
rd
ei-
nro ,-.
51,•!:
iii,
L ,,
VL: '.
up . ! ,
v.
n.$ , ' '
ts
A144,
s4„, ,
ict„
4
f
h
4 ' .
4( ••••
4
Vill-
7'
f
iltP•
N • \ \ :,„. -,..,,,......, ,._,,,..., ._. • ,..) .,,,..- • .
I -
ft.
F- . ' ,--.,.
4 . •• .-..
o,-,
1.
f4i,
t
1 ,
i
A ; ' '
lir'
CI'
k ''.;-•• \
e4-§
tV',1.,.\,:1.,,i-1,..,.
1a.•1.''.•i^'.
t•i'7.,
0,;'
v3
7„.:4..4kb,..
i,-!,,'.-.
1':
e1,
t3,,
s.•
A-
V I
kI-.,.,_„;.
1.44-.,.
i.‘:::••
t
i•
t!,'„
4,'41-,
O1r•i1
A'.
4::,•4,
I,.i°.•Z.,,e1
4,:..f.'-„..
r,f::,'
4't„.
8.5.
Iq,'t..
t•,1„.iI1',,
1,.•k'I'"?.•
1I''
1',"':,.'
4','2'r)..
I..,,i..'''•
L,••0 t•,'.''•.;.',
4'.,jf,a;s4,P1e12r,.`.,.%i.,/i,i,"1.'...
II''
R4,',:-.
1.:i,,1$-...
ti.\".
r4.r":.''.,';.
I'1.,,.'
V.;I:
P.r:
j,Jfiv.;.-.''
r.'...',•.'
f,:t?,
j--r4.'I7•,
i. \
1'•,.-.,
i.
I.
0.4.,.'',.•.r.44-.t.,.,•34,-,A:sii,'f,
l•;
h,;:,P:',`!,'t•ir::<1'',o.1,•.
1
ts1I"gN'rt.-,
4.,
t,
e4f'Or,
4..',.''
iLr1'z.,-
l-,
1.:'v.•,.*.'4i4,"5:l4:.t-.''
14".4u^r,,.
V,•.e1tV,l4..'),.,t.\,
1
tLI.-.‘•
1,-.
J.r'4':i.
Cr 1,;:
i\;0t:
4j.t,\-.‘.0,•-.r,'.•‘,.:.14if4%.
r1•,i,?,"
v.,-:;
ljc,i.,-re„•,t,
iW:FrR.-•,
T,-
24-,1-,.,,.
P,1.r.,
h(.
4t.t1'!
t't:,',,
7 r1As4'
4;"3;:-
T7‘
r.-1g.K4.'.":*
Ik..„:r,
n 1:.ni,.
t•,:3,.,(,..
4.,,zt,,
p,
j-bngi'
31.
rt o,
eIAtir.=,g.,,
t;-?:
i.
1..y•..•-
11,.,y.4f...
E'..-:.I:.:
g.‘.„,J..-7„-'-..•.i.,;,.*..
1..-
7'.....-.-.,,,
r,1lt4.)-,,••
1J.,..,:-T47•_.,',-,•.
i-".,,,.,.,,.-
tr.-,...'..,:
i:,
i'
1t4„i"
p i-.t,.
1•,'.
4,'-.-
z
1A.1-0,.
s.•.:•#..•'
1".'
7'!
0 v'.".;.‘• -
4 .
e.
P.,„,'-•.
P
4,•,:',$.
sq . '
N .
1 •
4
i
i
i .
i ., .. ,,,,, ,.
1 ...., .. •
1:..
a.__..,.......,.,._.............-.-_
v1‘
1sOl .,,
I,
3•,,
f•\;,
4
ar7 , ,
r
x:
it .
e
s,
K* ,
2i ;:
r
iA;?
i !
it : ), \\:.
2 ::: "
f:
alI
cj
Acel?
t•
I'
41.. ''''•:',..
1'
7.. ^ ,
A •• ,--,...,..-
d-,
kral
4. , .•ti
z '
t '
Ll ',;:::-
I• .': ..''
I
tei ;`..
A'
t
I: -
41
i' •-
etc .
14
4
i.-',,'- '
J, ' ,',!;,
fi •,,,..
it, '-
11,
1,.,,,,,,,„..
i.,- - -
11141
lit.
7.
7',,!.,,:.:,
P,'. :'
47A ',
II' ' /"
I'.. %
1* ,',
x •,,
I
I
41, .'' :.•; :;!‘
11,;:, ,,'• '
4,;••:'., .
s'
i:
C''''
t .
It. '.,
L'''.
41,
1„
i',,
t,'''(')-
d1),, ,
1,: .:
I
II, .
7).'.;
v
i•,*.• '',...
t.:‘
14i;
I
V7 '''''' '%.
A.
1 '.).
1:',
tt•• +- -•,
r.
k•;
4 •••••
ti..• '•
N''.-
1.... ..
r. .
LT..:
J•
fail.:?..'''.
1'
17::.
I.:;:' • '• (.
44
i._:
i..'..••
t9.;-
A:
i••:‘. ...! ..!.
211••:. '
li /
I
ee.::,''''° .
41. '/
4..:
N:;•••••:
r,
IL:
111...
t, '',-' " .
1....."-
lit"
i•
411;)',-
4'.
01
f
ems r P ._ --•,., , fut.access.'fut.access
i -.,,'bps 1 1.PHAS£ Ife p.,
t
i ;_,1,
u r
f
f
di 1
S
C[L E
15 I
S F' \
FLU! cti r 1 a` c ---- /
II Lilq
f 7 a. 7! 'i 1 j I
L GH A EHOUS t1i0 7 I. s ~
y.:7
I 11
1
r3 1
i
4
I\
I
1 I
1 s PHASE 11 a a, : 1 EPISTINCI HEAVY WARE,glAING
11 o tract b
1 i
l HS VY WARM"idU51
li'
ni ,2, Li
4,11 1i:4_.
P 1
1
o
IL?0
e'
5 _ .
O° O
o o
T
0\01._ c,a' '' EARLINGTON PARK
J t RENTON. WAHHINOTON
o 7 n,+.
OF .4,sw9O... FWa•COMM
A.c.Mnar.MTEI.STAt[ aq
ut.K.!•S,OC,aR,VOSO 10.0G]).t • 203721A(a,.F.,(50 S.F.)
Marna,• 9,oMY4SS
1400
L_6 00SC • 2.110.010 S.F.(66.a6])c]n55 u]a:.•.-.‘Si:I - 2.110.000 s.:.(.a.u])
TEASE a;,L'.S A:Sr. 1a1,C00 S,F,(7.67A)
1Ma,Mtu•WAGE II?:,9J 1•:
A.AA
P4TUN,) 2aei0 S.F,15.69A)
sate$M.r<•w.Tr./A.,'.i[MSC. Sd9,000 s.f.(11.SU)
W". •
S•iM.,0•
11‘
EASE 2 ALA 2.031.312 S.F.(15.63A)
d.S1,E)S Pm( • 446.897 S.F.MU(10.26A)
156,412 S.F.617G.AC 35E COVERAGE
n....
IIGAT•APi,-O.SE- • 812.512 S.F.MU(18.55A)
165.6E0 S.F.M..X.AT ES:COVERAGE
i•EA7,0JLL4SE • 771.907 S.F.AL](1).726)
185,9'0 S.F.810G.Al 501 COVERAGE
PASE II v 1,362,000 S.F.(a2.75A)
TREES TO REMAIN - T?AC A ILA 1,015,1:q S.F. (24.7))
CIF::E=•:A • 786.3M S.F.MA(18.0SA)
275.900 S.F.[1:G.AI 10:C0VE0A6E 2 STORY
xsaESs xAa •
101.
218 S.F.AtA(6.66)
AREA TO BE REZONED101,211 S.F.BIOG.AT]St COVERAGE
TRACT8•.A • 801,509 S.F.AEA(18.41A)
KAI,•A%SO-SE • 400.905 S.F.AT SO'-COVEMGE
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
A • EAPLINGTEDNPARK
NORTH R. W. THO PE & ASSOCIATES
ale•16.1•011.1.11.6.... .............
r,..
1 4;i
z.--
2 nd ACCESS ACCESS
OFFICE PARK C.\
HT
FFI E .00r.f6. LI 4 HT WA OU i,„//WAR JO USING
31:E) 11---------\ \ BU
I:
SINESS\ ./.............--{
110S
I7
1_ aim 527 :4-o- kfl . .
ai•r._ __..._..>
S.___. ._ li.•_____s--...................
PA/RK I
SW.I.. logr
N................._
I ,
qii I
1111IillN.*.*.•,,,..,.......
It
I.• •TER RO.
L.........._.; I
I
EXISTING HEAVY WARE IOUSIF 0
HEAVY WARE! -
I
1USIN- t,1
DI 1 7411
ti •LiEXISTINODE
I
I k I
II 1
r
L,4.-,:
c.•_.•'!------33 v=ir
rALTERNATIVE no.I 4-7-4 0g .:' r L..._-(33,
f.„,,„,,,,,,,.._„4 t , • i !0000
1 . N\
iA 00
6 fel m
rkeN TON, w*e,-11.43,7e01.4..xi
c---
CI)m0•
7--7-77.7.=---7'-':-.* •— - -=77-- --
CI , 3
jui a1
I
C
0 2ndACCESS ACCESS71711°1111WARE US
ILE i LIGHT
I p S G c -\
OFFICE WAREHOUSING ''R10743 rig I
PARR C-7i k I1E
pAll ni 1— ,c:
1-i ( iiiii. ,EV,ZI 14,
O OFFICE ii
li i
i,
I Ile i.
MOM RRa L GHT
W•REH• ING f I
f
oW•REH°USING ;i EXI TIR9 MEAYY WARE • 9
1:
11 \tt,\AI
E n$XE
1
i1 \I
1:.1 ,
J 1 1
i'r ALTERNATIVE no,2 s-z-eo!
O y+BAR L ING-MI•1 PARK
f o r.NTorJ, Wp0MW01ON
J
l
vn,nn..".
a
I
I
ALTERNATIVE no. 2
EA UU GT EP P
NORTH R. W. TFIORPE & ASSOCIATES
1
2nd.ACCFSS ACCESS
OPEN SPACE Lic---1-EH* • IIIBUINEI:
1/3 site area-±32a) i I Z i L .I
B IN -5 ,
h
Rhf-
OFFICE`
1-)g
ir1
IONSTE' PO.Bi.
r-il .
U/`t-•tyT
r
j
II [xI time NEIVY WARI • -I
1 - 1I ; tII
LIEyna .IRI
I"
oa
1'I
IBNHS—., I.
t
hoV\\ - 1-=
1 4%! ALTERNATIVE no.3 ,-:-eo
i O° O00a EARL.INOTON PARK
nClw'Tow, WA,GMI.a oTOIJ
111/1
ALTERNATIVE no. 3
EAPLINGTON RAPK.
NORTH R. W. THORiPE & ASSOCIATES
i
1
K
r
41111Pi
ter?ie r
At
000 P i tr,"4#1•06"`.".1 t•
p
t`'
1 doO
I
5
ot.
o
y•
Nmft)
e ° °
b
e°°e
top
AO O
OQ UL O
l)
e " i"
i:
JU _`
O v
O\\*:\ .,
o
e vo
o
METRO DISPOSAL G
e
e.b f
l I„
01/ . Coniferous Evergreens -J.
1
1t11\ predominantly Douglas Fir
Deciduous ornamental trees -
0-
p,44
poop predominantly Cottonwood,
1
Lombardy, Poplar, and Hornbeam I
Riparian Forest -
1-405
Deciduous trees and
undergrowth adapted toJawetenvironment, i.e. ,
Willow, Cottonwood, Alder
I Scrub alder
3
L.,.?
EXISTING VEGETATION
APPROX. SCALE 1.
1= 6001 EAPLB N TC` PARK
NORTH MN THORPE AND ASSOCIATES
THE PLAT OF aWMHINGI!JN TECHNIc!AL CENTEF
S1/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.N1/2 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON
oEsnuuni. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON F P-09 6-S 114ATPORTIONOFNE $01114 Oe-•MLF Of SECTION 13, MD Or TOE mom)NE-.lit,MECTIEN74, DOT IN TOONSHI D NoTN, RA1o[ 4 EAST. N.M., [IN Mom.DUNINCTON,
1.4€
MIRED As TIUEAIT BUSH ROED C HITCHINGS, Inc., P.S.D[O.NNINO AT THE MOAT N(AtT ERLT COINER OF THE SOUTHERLY 40.00IIETOr ;AID SECTION 13 AL10 O(INO A POINT ON THE N01TN LINE OF EARL- 8 113009NORMMOUSY'1AL MN NO. I,A000101N6 TO THE PLAT R(COR0E0 IN VOLUART CERTIFICATE jZ/.J Z-01Or PL.ATI,PAGE TO,IN RING COUNTY,MASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 68'IS 00"WEST LIONS LAID NORTH LINE AND THE NORTH LINE Or EARLINOTON INDUSTAI•
N.
ISO. ARl No 2, ACCOIDINO 114E PLAT RECORDED IN NGLUI.IE S8 Or PLATE PAS(
I OMIT
D
RT1P'P THAT THIS RAT W E AltINOTON DARN
TISI
BASED
TOM
AN A2
N
OO,IN AIMS CCUITY WAST•NGTON, A DISTANCE OF 45I.43 FEET TO THE I.ORT/YFST MAVEY AND DfAD.YN,1 M OF ME SOUTH
ONE FI.
O or SECTION I3, oNsHIH12 24 NTH.CORNER OF SAID IARI.IIGTON INOUSTRIK NUM NO. 7; THENCE SOUL. 1.1/'7N NEST
MUSE I EAST, W.N., AND NE M(
tER
ESE-+NL F 0P SECT ION 7SI TON
COVE T124 IGERECALONGNENESTIINSOrSAIDENLIWTMINOUSTRIKPARKN0. 1 NO ITS SOUTHERLY THAT THE
EAST,
WILL W
THAT E Sri PAD MID&OC ARE
R CORNERS STAKED CORRECTLY'EXTENSIM, ILE 39 FEET TO NE SCUTHERE Y I IME Or SHE 100 FOOT RIDE HMINumPACIFICRAILWAYINN6lX.'.CATCH ;GATHER., INC.) WEIGHT-OF-RAY, THENCE 5Li11H
ST THE
4111)
AND THATI1 MATE
GOVERNING PLATTING.
RED PITH DE rFlptlulollS a THE77•27'304 WEST I_CND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 426.43 FEET TO A POINT 100 FEET STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Ii0Y E1RM ING PlAT111G.WESTERLY FROM 11HEN MEASURED AT 9IOR A'GLES TO) THE NESTEALT RIGHT-OF-SM
AVSLIY7CN
IIN OF AM EASFN CART FOR PERMANENT DITCH MID Tt 1MY CONSTRUCTION AS
1• eV•DESCRIBED IN INSTALMENTS RECORDED WIER 1I10 COUwTY AUDITOR'S FILE .U16ERS c'f5873)5 AND 770!790496, RE-RECORDED UIOER AUOITT711'S FILE NO. 73011804E0;
THu L.
T
H . $
431E1NaNORTHII'14.46•WEST, PMKIEL TIM SAID WESTER;RIGHT-OF-NAT LINE,TIFIGi[ p. 61f
31.17 FEET TO ME POINT OF aRYATURE OF A 500.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TD THELEFT' THENCE NO DNIESTER.T MEWO SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 536.69 FEET TO AtAPOINTOFTANGSVCTITHENCENORTH73'04'46.WEST 315.38 FEET TO A POINT COI THE Q•rp•rn•eSOJTHG4IIT- F-R AY LINE OF TIE AFOREMENTIONED EASEIOFT FOR PERIMNENT DITCH AND VI I.••TEMPORARY CONSTf7CT7Ml THENCE NMTN 69.0l'30•WEST PtOFG SAID SCUT) CERTIFICATES
RIO1T-OF-VAT LIAF 187.32 FEET TO SHE POINT OF CJSAATLRE OF A 422.96 FOOTRADIUS0115170MERIGHT; THENCE WESTERLY NW NORTHWESnELY KOHL SAID I HEREBY QRTIPY THAT ALL PROPERTY TAXES ME PAID, THATEASEMENT11041-C-HAT LICE MO CURVE AN ARC OISTANII OF 491.93 FEET ro A POINT 10 MIS
10 DC NapaCOLLECTIONSPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFIEDO TARGENCYI T1E411 ICHTN YI.26'02'WEST 282.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF C)*5AIU1E AU THIS OFF,O SCR
IFDA
NIT THAT KL SPECIALOFA477.46 FOOT RADIUS CURVE To THE LEFT, THEWS nORTIMESTERLY MEOW SAID
ASSESSMENTS, SO ,
DEDICATED,
ON
S
Cr 'lc PT:;PEITTT Et
til
EfC1RYEANANCOilIANCEOf305.25 FEET TO THE /IDRTV ESTT RE 1111E OF TRACT n, DR
HfRFIN LUHTA INEO, OEDIUnO, AS STREETS
f.. %
t (SEWN, MFi RENTON !MOREL ANDSI THENCE NORM 41.16'07' EAST MEOW SAID
PA MINASINFU CPI FOR OTHE IC USE, AFe EP
INIMIESTER.T I.I.if OF TRACT 21 A DISTANIS OF 316.18 FEET' THENCE Ica TH
MID FULL MIS l*GAY L73.36'01'EAST A.CMG THE NORM 1INE OF SAID TRACT 77 A DISTANCE Of 130.08
OF ye,Y1 196N 1
FEET; THENCE SC1 M 10.54'02' EAST K0M0 ME NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 27 A f
015TCE OF 354.12 FEET; THENCE NORM 72.37'57'EAST MEOWNESAIDNORTHLI OFF ICE Of TIE 001PTgQLE31AM
R36TWICE.93 FEET' TWICE NORTH 46.22'72' EAST KOK NOR THRTH LINE AND THE NORTH 1,/.LINE OF TRACT 11. SAID CID SUPPLEMENT IMPS RENT. 5H10RE1 AIDS 324.66 ESPY;Aim( sum sr EAST MEOW SAID WAN LINE 171.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH NI A
110.LLlf i- SNIMGI+
T•71'3P WEST A COG 114E EAST LINE Of SAID TRACT 24 A DISTANCE OF 367.32 PEETI
kI1L COU;PTY OONPIROIIER WC lER
11010E SOUTH 33'17'73• EAST KOEG SAID EAST LINE 154.51 FEET TO THE NORTH LINEOfTIESOUTH65CFEETOfSAIDSECTION131HENCESOUTH118.15'00'EAST BLOW
ISPECIALT CERTIFY THAT THEW ARE NO DEC IIlTY HEREIN
SPFCIK ASYSSMERR ONO AllSAIDNORTHLINE2161.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE Of SAID SECTION 13; THENCE fC71H ASSESSMENTS M MY OF
I
PROPERTY CONTAINED OEDI WED AS1.01'7T WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 610.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. STREETS OR ATOMS OR DN.'. wNI Ir,cl rr 1-m IN rl.r
DEDICATION
JIMMIQ DI CITY RENTON
Ma ALL TEN BY MESS PRESENTS. THAT WE, THE WRENS IGIEO, Or1ERS IN FEE snout APPROVALAL Ior11tLARD!REPENT RATTED, HEREBY INCITE MIS RAT AND or Nun To THE USE IC) 1rrUHTR.Pt Ir rC TEVER ALL STREETS,AVENUES.PUBLIC USE AREAS AND DRAINAO( DEPORTMENT OF ASSES51 7S ,/
PUUPOS(t • ON TM(
A
R0OSH TM 010THE USE
MAR( ALLHEREOF Poll PURLIC HIGHwAY
NECESSRY SLOPS FOR CUT;
E ' AMD TMIS V p11Y OF "••NAJANDFI I '. IDDS.LLS UrOI T14[ LOTS AND •LOCKS SHOWN OM THIS PLAT IN THE
SHOWN•
L EISOMAOLI •AADING OP ION[ LTR[[TE ANO •VENUES 1SHOWNTNIIIIH,
O,Ltb1 I l °R \ 1'
S&I0 '
Cit..1
N oiliest I MRE IF E MARE ET OUR HAIRS AND OFFICIAL MKS.
RI ml1EtY ASSESSOR DEPUTY ASSESSOR
C1 1`-,'•
2-•Q'
SEATTLE-R L10(YXIIFTY HEALTH AND SAl1ETAT1a OFrM RT1ABYICKa•RELT N ER1K,
vovole0 MD APPROVED Nl q jNY Of 1A.L.LDalWOWIACol^GMT ROM MIL C y
6---
f'
DCNMIII[DOEN ITS imR<aOR, MEALIN 6 SANITATION DEPT. OE RECTOR F-ti •
STATE Of Y/P.L/ND'J11
oIMDRTDIR'NG I •'
OEM; TNNR OF P{(1 IC IKONS
I 1IIS jE1 Y OF_L!ir.wNa, EXAMINED NO OPMMED 1OIS 2511AT or IJAAul SILL
VIA.L H
IML. REnI SLIT M7EAFLE DEFOR(IE
AG TO
1D ME NIA C TO RE TH
Y
a
t
11 FOR
4P1£G- TOOTING, AND IFDIMIA CGED IRE;SAID
15I( CORPORATION
TO
Et SCRID 1 N•lie/Mt1.E.1•L Wf TMII NEXT, AND AO(NOR.1(510 T1( SA10 I.S 1T(1MEM TO BE 114E O1;IECiDA •Y
WAIF pGIM[FA1 LFIFEMDTOILINTANTACTANp0*10 OF S11ID CORPORATION FOR DIEF1I
ILSES AND Ft/POSES DIEM IN NEXT IGNED, MO 04 OATH STATEDTHATNENANMUTIGNIZEDTOE110117ETHESAIDIN(TRUSENT ON HEARING E1ANn1EA, CITY OF IBIXTM 1 'NW, WE OOMOMI 1611.
EXAMIND MG AN'A010 MIS M." MY Or SURD} W
nREUU It HARD ND OFF MI el SEAL 1e MY MD YOUR FIRSTSPRY(MITTHI.
NM (_
4 IOTA.'"^^•^ IN A10 PO4 THE STATE COIL IRKD IT THE COUNCIL OF RE WON. r1AY1111TDU EH MIS,1L DAY
lM
Jww41(.a '1 o1EG ATys.1 Of- -... 1 BBS.
RECEIVED y'''- --= '° srul•t CLEW p Es IO or COUNCIL
1. ''C`i
CITY OF RENTON i
f
aNAS` we.0"
v
HEARING EXAMINER DECORDIMO CERTIFICATE
v i l l 1983
USED PM WOAD AT 771E REjX1E5T Of THE CITY COUNCIL THIS_RAYI . OW 14K-AT MINUTES PAST MO A[fD N MI"
AM '.,;::..
t PLATS, MLES RECORDS U(IN COLNT'.
PM R110 eoU1RA, WASHINGTON
71'•r i 1 1 i
Cy, IN V IS ROM OF IIEOOR05 AND 4 ELT RCN:
I
a
MOW LFERIMTD,OEHT OF wow
aim,
SHEET 1 OF 5
THE PLAT OF
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTEP
S1/2 SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
Ni/2 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.N.
CITY OF RENTON
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON tsc")°°92' /3.i/9/-/0
1 ,ITILITT.[A11M[M
le___ 4. 3Q ic utsrE.a' + '' J.r•
rime BUSH ROED C HITCHINGS. Inc.. P.S.
j ie),r wio—J
I,
G
L./aaw Kurlufr , 1 EARL‘Nb. PARK N
C LMLM[MT I I
I R1 AL 10
j • I r; I %NW,- A3. PAuE
w- ' '
1 THOMAS AVE. S.W.
WL10A0 [Af[M[MT 1 -
1.__`-
r aux roll.Mp 1Wap0yr ri- LIT 1a tY H0•I 10.
1 I o'Ui1l1Tr a WALK
1 A{[MEM fey
1
FWM JEWETT131 case mew TI ,, I AUO FYI MO.atl7064
1
1 I I II a. rrm. rn...
I I II 411•41,1101.1 MI Mil
T. ao•UTILITY I i.il I
rrr• rr
IC 1Aa[MEw. I II1 I
N.
I I f•- rr. T• ..r.. r• ..E•.J; 4 1 1 I I I 68'11'1114' MO SO r.... 110,111
W 1 1 ,I
1[•.
I I worm.* r. mom •..m IEr'N• ..r •It ....
iIF
y, i IR ( I^ I:
1
Z
V"V'tl• •.r r.. •.r fIr•.••r• r+.•. .••w. YAWdIi'
Ie
1 3
1, 1 1.
1 1 r r•r•r• MI JP .r... ar
Z
a i j I I I IMt 1 N 1Nv 1C!'} NO. 2
lii
t •
i II 2
I
II z 1N0 v5 Bgp P G'< 80
R , 1. k-11 I 1 N I
46/.3•'
Y 1 11
e'6.w.6] '5-.. I I 1
l I 10• pi 4 al'• fitL•0.99
1
I q'UTILI TY[
1 I. 1 Maa.M
L— _L_, 1 1' ' cwr 1 POWELL AVE. S.W.I11 `
1 r 1--
11i2LO<_-LM Y1'lIt -1-4-7-71,10•uTluTv a WALI116--11 8 • 1 IwscMEMTII911r° I,
to'unuTr a Y•Llx 1 1 1
1 III 1 1 Ni. CASEMENT
5 iliUTILITY I I.I (. p \p i LI 1.-11'
a[M[w.r°•° to 1 1I ` ` A\
II
I I
10 uilufr IL WALK 1 , r[ii I,lso.[wT 11
usr.•Ew/_
f i ,,. I I %• atols.s II I3o. I =1 I I
I
II
EneIrEMEsw T° i 1I iL I
r aaUn..1TT tuatara Ts—.—.I •`
MI i±ioE =1' . is I 1 _ ao 1.1\noAo c1as(••[wr 1' h
Ya'aLILpAp w .. . III 1 _—=---' ..
1 IrA[[M[M
M 1.1la1!•E .n,
r I li 1rlI,Laa' n ,• l H'UTILITY fl.IE MIEwT 1
o I I, w
iI I III I 4. lo•unury a wiL• 1.
I,
i CD! I it I_ a t IAILEMIwT I
Si 1 1 Id ies I I
I e 'ws?t ;I.? i
al0 1RA I,I„1 1 I11re .Ill•oE-1 c 1
1
I : ; Io
4.L.
v
c I I C --•ISEME 111s
JLDILI1
ASF t I1I
1-! l e i
aa! i ;` ,. • R '.2 N D stiPPLuniEwAL
MAPS-PEW SIOPEt N... . ET 2 OF 6
91c
THE PLAT OF
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER
S1/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.N1/2 SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.N.
CITY OF RENTON
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 1j°0' /ix. 98-0 i.-
ElBUSH ROEO c HITCHINGS. Inc.• .i.
I r
I.
I t I I 1 /
1illi \
III + 11i f
I
JL1l RrY71.R C!i 1 -_----
It, ', = _
i
L
L 0 1 % , 1 ,
J
I ( 21Yp-
1.--
p••..._..-_-----. — - .I.11
t •
I'j -AI, 1:,a.1:•
SUP• LEMEN TA.._ ---I I gs h
o I LANDS WATER EAYwENT Iv.
o AA NO.0.01111115
rtili 1
1,
y ,
jj
1
I •4.
1 I ;
1 o
1 ' II tQq
I
I II -
uO .ram w.
w YIPI. C Mib• •
1!'Y T I U tY (Ali MT I g' w r.r
A71 N. of 'I{.ol
eV de an el r. a=R C1 6,
s1
I I
M.•• M. •M • Y•
FTF o
o Tp p4R rii E,
n'>io'iwoiw Wei r «: :.
w CJ
1—
b'y fTE'RY CF( i,i / i
II
II
I(I
1,
y•...........i
sr•a M.
1
II
1
t
1 SHEET 9 OF
E10T9t I
THE PLAT OF
VWASH I NGTUN TECHNICAL CENTER
S1/2 SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
N1/2 SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.
CITY OF RENTON
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 13z113o09z5 /aa/yf.,lol,1
BUSH ROED C HITCHINGS, Inc.. P.S.
1 I
3
11}
1
I...Pan
y
Y
I
1 i
71:7—
ie"-
tlb'N•%,„..
I .
416•7. t .., aft • / 1/4/!'
I MC[ AID
ID YTILITT (ASIMINT y{
TO•M WR'1.{ I4/
L"I
II i 0<'
DETENTION BASIN PARCEL \ I (i t/+d
DEDICATED TO CITY FOR til
i STORM WATER DETENTION)
x\ RESERVING AN UNIDEFINED AREA FOR THE \
1 d
k{INNIN{or EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE LAND ENCOMPASSED BY
Ui1lITY EASEMENT 4,/iORAINA{E [AS[- \ 0 '-
J
E 1M[NTAI No. • =THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER FORsa+alsl CONTAINMENT OF STORM WA ER RUNOFF AND FLOOD
M /
wws rare WATER STORAGE UNTIL SAID DETENTION AND FLOOD i. ',SFrWATERSTORAGEISPROVIDEDFORTHESAIDPLAT.
AREA TO BE DEFINED AT THE TIME TRACTS Ad B ARE i a c
PLATTED INTO LOTS OR BFFCRE JULY 1,198f5. REMAINING A' •K
L`. Ig 1 AREA TO BE USED BY CITY OF RENTON FOR FLOOD
A"`'as'6 `• 1 'I' '
L' T1'
u1l• .1
1 WATER STORAGE, AS THEY SO CHOOSE.
Li1•607 `j s •
c\
1 N{9'OI'11\
I
111111.4•wql M{{
9 a:O•w
a• 1
Z> \
1 AS[M[NT TOO
i 111A IEN LINE.
A..NL.71o0olOKv
EY ` 14
1
FrI p'. I i
mai sI G 1111gyp, z
WATER LIqq[[AR7'<M ' I I
AHD/L(10.0•0601 ,/
AINA{E DITCH
N A. ••1/ [AMMdT A/-ID S4 SS4
Q ‘ j t• YTILITT (A{[M[MT S\\./\::),/,/
4/,I
I;
r
IV (
12'
I
i '//' i i
I13 , 1
1.
Iw•1••w•• II,AO
I1A•M'•••• I'... 1 ' \`
11•'A•I I.. . \ \
I I
sw a, w• w \1N.r N•r
SHEET 4 OF 6
107{C
THE PLAT OF
WASHINGTI, N TECHNICML CENTER
S1/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M.
N1/2 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ezuaooszs /is. pi-pY)
BUSH ROEO C HITCHINGS. Inc.. P.S.1 1
1.
t\-0(
I:
POWELL AVE. S.M. I I.. IfiW . i
i T 1
Yaw..m.OM MIND...• '
r'R I.it""—_A_.____
OUMp' •
1 `
I, 11
1 fi10 11 a!1
s
a 1
1 1 1I; 1
51.
1 __
11-2 01'V°
1E1• IT1UT7 (AQMENi•-1. I 7.1' UTILITY EASEMENT.''' (.
IA.RN0. 17149)1 91
s•
1,_I I I
I x YTILgy WEME)R 111 M1
r•
D' MIL•OAD
I--7. 11 1~e11
Q EASEMENT vs' VTIUTY EASEMENT lH .I. 1 I
1 11 1MIL.. .—L.. 1
t„' _.
S'_y 25 UTILITY EASEMENT l^ '2•
t
11 1 _.t
II
1
AU
fEWU [AtE MENT ''{ 1 1
rl -A--
AUD. TILE MO.17001D• ` ,11 1 11iWrLIN f.W.I/.,N.S WtEC.T1ELECT•IC TPAN3MIff1ON 1, 1I.A SEMf ENT OvE THE P
Kr,541iEc1.'t. Y4' 11Ip 1Q
II l 1 4
I r 2' WATE•LINE EAfEM(NT 1
ITS 1
AVO. TILE NO. 1759Y• 1 , i
1.
1
1 y WIrMIN TMlfi ARIA, III 1
jr-_—J u'vnurY EASEMENT re 1
w 60 7.3• EASEMENT /On ace A[ jR1A .
1
r MAINEAUD TILE MO. AtE.NE) 1 .A 1IIII
111u I Ap..\ .
yl
I.Z,Y _l,t_oo
ES (gpax
E 5TREFuiUR.r- •
12 A
07044
L•• Staler SWAMI
Wirer. Maly
i
1M e(
j. 1
S
or.c
E SHEET 6 OF 5
Bush, Roed & Hitchings, In '.S. E771 OF 7EQASEDilfQ,
Civil Engineers/Land Surve
2009 Minor Avenue East
SEAL TLE, WASHINGTON 98102
DATE /
zL///2
L/// Q
y4
JOB NO.
2 21a
206) 323-4144 TT04 ?e
TO l D7 l A Zky,
4 .7.014 rtz," ,aeJ. A7e7oee if :40 Adi'' /9
iJa5-i i ree iva/
Cewlei—.
WE ARE SENDING YOU '1 Attached Under separate cover via the following items:
1 ,
Slop drawings Prints Plans, 0 Sample Specifications
Copy of letter Change order goh , 1 0 tt
COPIES DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
2/4zy`az E 4c/ ce.e-s'cy ', 4974 re,vile w/;424
2- ' /l- zAd
m it.. p.C4 //allif2,y ,
d 0<hw -
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
For approval Approved as submitted El Resubmit copies for approval
For your use Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution
As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints
For review and comment 0
FOR BIDS DUE 19 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
kii
ii 0 tet l.,n
0 a b
vt
D E c 2 9 1982
i'* ' OF RENTON
Jr .; ' 1983
EXHIBIT . 3
PM T
8f9110u11Et11-2,c3141516
lf Imp O 7r.Z -
COPY TO ,rc1/JCt
SIGNED: A.'
7 e..e.s(
PRODUCTt103[enlea 1 in.,Gown,Man 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
BUSH, R( & HITCHINGS, P. S„ Inc.
CifY OF RENTON
iiIt
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER SEC 2 i91982
REZONE DESCRIPTION - TRACT A
THAT P)RTION OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 13 AND OF THE
NORTH )NE HALF OF SECTION 24, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE
4 EAST, W . M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING WITHIN TRACT A
OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN
VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY ; BUT EXCLUDING THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ROAD EASEMENT FOR
THE FUTURE VALLEY PARKWAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT A; THENCE ON
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH
73°21 ' 54" EAST 431 .52 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
46 .45 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF THE FUTURE VALLEY PARKWAY
AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH 89 °04 '30" WEST
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY MARGIN 193 .04 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT , OF A 660 .00 FOOT RADIUS ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE ?53 .68 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, OF A
422 .96 FOOT RADIUS ; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
199 . 49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22 °26 '02" WEST 283 .09 FEET TO A
POINT i)N A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS
NORTH 5 °24 ' 02" EAST 165 . 04 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE 100 .47 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH
60°31 ' 21 " EAST 194 . 17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 °26 '02" EAST
269 .05 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT,
OF A 152 .96 FOOT RADIUS ; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
154 . 65 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 89 °04 '30"
EAST 2 7 .39 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT. THE RADIUS
POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 66 °37 '42" EAST 431 .52 FEET SAID
POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 254 . 86 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEG INN ' NG .
DECEMBER 29, 1982
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER
BRH JOB # 82219 A
ROBERT M. ROED
P
RECEIVED
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
JAN `? 1983 EXHIBIT NO. 3
4AMPM
1718,9,10,11f12,1.2r3i4,5,6 ITEM NO. O
a
BUSH, RO Et HITCHINGS, P. S., Inc.
OW OF RENTON
6) 113 P. 19 TD
DEC Z 9 198?
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER
REZONE DESCRIPTION - TRACT B
THAT 'ORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 13 AND OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, BOTH IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,
RANGE 4 EAST, W . M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING WITHIN
TRACT B OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS RECORDED
IN VO_UME 122 OF PLATS , PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY BUT EXCLUDING THE AREA DESIGNATED AS ROAD EASEMENT FOR
THE FJTURE VALLEY PARKWAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMEVCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT B ; THENCE
NORTH 77 °27 '30" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT B
A DISTANCE OF 80 .01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE FUTURE
VALLEY PARKWAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; THENCE NORTH
11 °34 '46" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 1349 . 82 FEET TO A
CURVE TO THE LEFT OF A 580 .00 FOOT RADIUS; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE 622 .56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73 °04 '46" WEST
299 .98 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF A 580 .00 FOOT RADIUS ;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 15 . 85 FEET TO A POINT ON A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH
65 °11 ' 58" EAST 238 .52 FEET, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WESTERLY
LINE DF SAID TRACT B ; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
245 .31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °44 '02" WEST 77 .87 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 88 ° 15 ' 58" EAST 520 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °44 '02" WEST
20 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88° 15 '58" WEST 7 .38 FEET TO A POINT ON
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH
18°09 '39" WEST 484 . 15 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
509 . 19 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 11 °34 ' 46"
EAST 311 .39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °25 ' 14" WEST 5 . 00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 11 °34 ' 46" EAST 1286 .92 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT B ; THENCE SOUTH 77 °27 '30" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE
200 . 04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING .
DECEMBER 29, 1982
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER
RECEIVEb BRH JOB # 82219 A
CflY OF RENTON ROBERT M. ROED
HEARING EXAMINER
JAN4 1983
AM PM',
R,9,t0,11112 112131415 6 EXHIBIT NO. 3
A TErvi N O. o 7-7 --Z-
MEMORANDUM OF CONCURRENCE
APPLICATION NO(S) : Holvick deRegt, Koering (HdK),
First City Equities (FCE) ,
R-072-82.
DE::;CRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application to rezone 25.89 acres
of property from G-1 to M-P for
office, research and development
and other office/warehouse
bui l di ngs.
PROPONENT: Located on the western 200 feet of
the Washington Technical Center
plat, defined as follows: Bounded
on the west by the proposed P-i
Channel , on the south by Grady
Way, on the east by Powell Avenue
S.W. and on the south and east by
S.W. 7th Street.
LEAD AGENCY: Building and Zoning Department.
Acting as the Responsible Official , the ERC has determined that the requested
dtfica`tions to the initial proposal reviewed under ECF-076-82 on December
15, 1982, are within the scope of that original proposal and the environmental
etermination of non-significance is still valid conditioned upon the
exclusion from the rezone of the right-of-way for the Valley Parkway.
Th. s decision was reached following a presentation by Jerry Lind of the
Building and Zoning Department. Oral comments were accepted from: David
L,1emens, Roger Blaylock, Jeanette Samek, James Hanson, Jerry Lind, Richard
Houghton, Robert Bergstrom, Ronald Nel son, Donald Persson and Ed Wooton.
I rx orporated by reference in the record of proceedings of the ERC on
application R-072-82 are the following:
1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheets, prepared by:
Robert W. Thorpe, dated August, 1982.
2) Application( s) : Rezone (R-072-82)
SIGNATURES:
i a
rf) G' r t.',C_ 1?n
Ronald G. el so n
Bu.!1 di ng & Zoni ng Di rector
1:hard C. Houghton
Pulfl i ks Di rector
i
aiid R. emen`s
Policy Development Director
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT: HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING, INC.
FILE NUMBER: R-072-82
A. SUMMARY do PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant requests approval of a rezone from G-1, General Zone, District to
M-P, Manufacturing Park District for future development of an industrial park.
The 25.89 acres is that area lying between the Earling Golf Course (rezoned M-P by
Ordinance No. 3344) and the final alignment for the P-1 Channel.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc.
2. Applicant: Holvick, deRegt, Koering, Inc.
3. Location:
Vicinity Map Attached)A strip of land approximately 280
to 290 feet wide lying east of the
proposed P-1 Channel.
4. Legal Description:A detailed legal description is
available on file in the Renton
Building and Zoning Department.
5. Size of Property: 25.89 acres (portion applied for
rezone)
6. Access: Via S.W. 7th Street and S.W. 10th Street.
7. Existing Zoning: G-1, General Zone
8. Zoning in the Area: G-1, General Zone M-P,
Manufacturing Park.
9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Manufacturing Park.
10.Notification: The applicant was notified in
writing of the hearing date. Notice
was properly published in the Daily
Record Chronicle on December 23,
1982, and posted in three places on
or near the site as required by City
Ordinance on December 23, 1982.
C. HISTORY/BACKGROUND
The subject site was annexed into the City by Ordinance No. 1745 dated April 14,
1959. The current "G" zoning was applied at the time of annexation. A rezone
request, R-057-80 was considered in March, 1981, by the Land Use Hearing
Examiner, who recommended denial. The request was remanded to the Hearing
Examiner on December 14, 1981, by the City Council.
r
D. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1. Topography: The site slopes very slightly downward from east to west.
2. Soils: Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6-15% slopes (BeC). Permeability is
moderately rapid, runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate.
This soil is used for timber and pasture and for urban development.
Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py). Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is
slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a slight to severe
hazard depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is
used for row crops and pasture and for urban development. Tukwila muck
Tu). Permeability is moderate. There is a seasonal high water table at or
near the surface. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream
overflow is a severe hazard unless flood protection is provided. This soil is
used for row crops, pasture and urban development.
3. Vegetation: The site consists of blackberries and scrub vegetation.
4. Wildlife: Existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds
and small mammals.
5. Water: The drainage channel of the Black River runs through the northerly
portion of the site. Other than this, no standing water was observed on the
subject site.
6. Land Use: The subject site is undeveloped.
E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
The surrounding properties are in a transitional state from undeveloped to mixed
industrial, warehousing and commercial uses.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES
I. Water and Sewer: Twelve-inch water mains extend north-south on Powell
Avenue S.W. and east-west on S.W. 7th Street approximately 1,250 feet
east of the subject site. A ten-inch sanitary sewer runs north-south along
Powell Avenue S.W. and an eight-inch sanitary pipe extends east-west on
S.W. 7th Street approximately 600 feet east of the subject site.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per ordinance
requirements.
3. Transit: Not applicable.
4. Schools: Not applicable.
5. Recreation: Not applicable.
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
1. Section 4-700, G, General Zone.
2. Section 4-730, M-P, Manufacturing Park District.
H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL
CITY DOCUMENT:
1. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Reports, 1965, Objectives, Pages 17 and 18.
2. Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976.
3. Comprehensive Plan, Policy Statement, February 1981.
1.IMPACT ON THE NATURAL OR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT:
I. Natural Systems: Rezoning of the subject site will not have a direct impact
on the subject site. A detailed review of environmental impacts has been
presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
2. Population/Employment: See discussion in the EIS.
3. Schools: Not applicable.
4. Social: Not applicable.
5. Traffic: See discussion in the EIS.
J.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
The Environmental Review Committee has considered the information prepared in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement and specifically conditioned their
acceptance of the EIS based upon the applicant complying with certain mitigating
measures presented. (See staff report for preliminary plat).
K. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED:
1. City of Renton Building and Zoning Department.
2. City of Renton Design Engineering Division.
3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division.
4. City of Renton Utilities Engineering Division.
5. City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau.
6. City of Renton Parks & Recreation Department.
7. City of Renton Policy Development Department.
L. 1. The applicant proposes to rezone 25.89 acres of a 109.5 acre site located
west of Powell Avenue S.W. generally between Grady Way on the south and
the BN/Milwaukee Road railroad tracks on the north. The +10 acre portion
of the site immediately west of Powell Avenue S.W. was zoned M-P on
January 17, 1966. On August 13, 1979, an additional 73 acres was rezoned
to M-P. Subsequently, the actual location of the P-1 Channel, the western
boundary of the proposed industrial plat was determined. It was anticipated
that there was a portion of property in between the legal descriptions given
in 1966 and 1979 and what would be finally determined as the P-1
alignment. This rezone request accounts for that additional area.
2. The site is currently undeveloped. A small portion of it was used by the
Earlington Golf Course in the past. The subject site is part of Tracts A and
B of the Washington Technical Center.
3. The subject site was generally considered in the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 1965 and the update of the Policy Elements in 1981,
in addition to the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan of 1976. The
Planning Department records fail to indicate area-wide zoning review of
this site. The site, therefore, appears to conform to Section 4-3014(a).
4. The proposed rezone is consistent with the land use element of the City of
Renton's Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the following
goals of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan:
a. Promote high quality development that will enhance the image of
the City of Renton.
b. Enhance the tax base for the City of Renton so all the citizens of
the City of Renton are able to benefit.
c. Minimized noise, air and water pollutants; transportation
difficulties; glare, heat; vibration; and other detrimental effects.
d. Provide a high quality working environment for employees.
e. Provide a viable economical climate for industrial firms.
f. Promote diversified economic base.
And the following Valley objectives:
Land Use: Light industrial, office and warehouse uses and those
heavy industrial uses that can be made compatible with goals of the
Valley are the types of developmental land uses intended for the
Valley.
Therefore, the site appears to conform with Section 4-3014(B).
1
5. Since the adoption of the Green River Comprehensive Plan in 1976 and the
City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan in 1965, major developments have
occurred in the general vicinity of the site. These developments have been
primarily to the east and south of the subject site and include major office
buildings, light warehousing and light manufacturing uses. In general, the
entire Green River Valley area within the City of Renton has undergone
significant changes including the Orillia Industrial Park (north of S.W. 43rd)
and the Valley Industrial Park (south of S.W. 16th). Therefore, the subject
site appears to conform to the criteria of significant physical changes
happening within the general area as delineated by Section 4-3014(C).
6. An identical rezone request was heard by the Land Use Hearing Examiner
on March 31, 1981. The application's justification failed the issue of
timeliness. Specifically, that rezoning of the subject property was
inappropriate until the P-1 Channel was implimented and that "protection
of the area should not be foreclosed until the water course or courses are
actually in place". Since that time, the City has acquired title to 60% of
the land area for the P-1 Channel (Washington Technical Center and
METRO) and written commitments for dedication of most of the remaining
40% (Alterra Rezone and Brown/Moody Rezone). The actual method of
implimentation has not been determined. However, implimentation will
occur either as a joint effort of property owners and City or by each
property owner as they develop within the flood plain. This replacement of
flood storage area lost to development has become a policy of the
Environmental Review Committee on any development proposal in the flood
plain.
7. The ERC has specifically issued a Memorandum of Concurrance for the
subject proposal, with the condition that the right-of-way for the Valley
Parkway be excluded from the rezone.
8. The issue of application Comprehensive Plan "Greenbelt" designation has
been specifically defined and implimented for the general area. In
February 1981, the Wetlands Study was completed for the City of Renton.
It identified specific wetland areas. Eventhough, the City Council did not
adopt the Wetlands Study as an official document, it provided the
Environmental Review Committee with an accurate inventory of wetland
areas.
The Comprehensive Plan had suggested general areas to leave in open space
under the "Greenbelt" designation; the new inventory specified which of
those general areas were actually viable natural habitats that should be
preserved. This resulted in the preservation of a larger natural area in the
Alterra Rezone, R-029-80, than originally anticipated in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Application of a "Greenbelt" designation on the subject site appears
inappropriate when considering that the more productive natural
environment will be preserved to the north.
9. In summary, the proposal meets all of the rezone criteria plus the burden of
timeliness. Whether the flood water storage issue is addressed in
increments or as a total is irrelevant. The fact that it has been addressed
in important.
10.Department comments are attached for the Examiner's review.
M. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the Hearing Examiner
recommend approval of the proposed rezone, file R-072-82, from G-1 to M-P,
Manufacturing Park, to the City Council.
i..,
r' I
19 Ibele•
ti•
I
21\. %.% .• '?..,
T
I '
om" .•
1
t4 iIkipl- ••
tN'
ZOO
ilk
A .
01)
1411:)/
0111\-- ft,0
lik
C. / ' mM TR
VO 0 '1
7 4 0 .
ww , ....... .......-___. __. - .._-. .\-.
4.:1 444011.
D IS PO S AIL SI . 1
I A%
1lA
114"
a"..:
11b,„1-\. I
teri_:.
i'
HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING, INC.
REZONE R-072-82
APPLICANT HOLVICK, deREGT, KOERING, INC. TOTAL AREA 25.89 Acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS S.W. 7th and 10 th Streets and future Valley Parkway
EXISTING ZONING G-1, General Zone
EXISTING USE Vacant
PROPOSED USE Manufacturing park
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Manufacturing Park & Greenbelt
COMMENTS
s oar
1IO.
1 S
4. e= 9/7.47rJ9
Hd = 27"5r,'Sry
4. •z29'f. "
Zqo N
IV
H ^cA CIO C)S
Y N• 41= /3r.94 sh o fr' L'
9
4'
vN
z q
p
o \ 0/1/
GR o' er e
s'
2 4
L_____________ti a9+o-
r 9 ..E
Qs 122.9G S •
00
4_G 4. 38`' Z3 92 a7 —
No
I A6'•
N. 1.
e" lel. /S
w
il 2' sco' w
I4 . 6/30 c
h a a a.
z;11(‘)) 1
O I r S. 79 25 i4"k/
1 lb‘:3,0 0
tt
Iqm
Fl tl ti
I .
o,I
I :::; s‘
i:I
SGdLLr, / ,.9D
I
N
I
tZt -."..--- -F---BUSH, ROED 1, !:!+N!!!CS, INC. P.S. 1 1
B. R/ ---
CIVIL Ci GI:. i LAXC L'IEYORS
Zb'0.O.r ,S 77°Is'13 'w•
2003 A:.:'„; k,VE. EAST
SEATS L.. WA 98102 1
P3234144
P
L'
f
S •
ix/
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER G
25 ACRE REZONE
R-072-82
Pz 2 r PlAN
rREVIEWING DEPARTMENT VISION :
EJAPPROVED IAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
7 4' /I / 1/l5 4/-
r C / 5/_C Il/M(1 lc /A i!L! J /W 41.7(
1/elti, i/(27 74,die' )//a(/ r'
a d /-)* c/(/I/,l /
g 1 a.f DATE:
SIGN TUREOF DIR TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ,R66;
Ej APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS jJ NOT APPROVED
4//P7 DATE: Iz
SIGNATURE OF DIR OR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
APPROVED EAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
7
12,2 2 J DATE: 2 — '2-
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT VISION : irc7,
El'-APPROVED EI APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED
DATE:
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 6/1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 77/-/T Y
Ei APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
1 TIU1y aPE P/Al Sumo TO
4416 CO RS AGREEMENT • WATER
ICE COMERS AGREEMENT - SEWER No P%-)SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • WATER F< , P.04 ,/&9FT
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE - SEWER X€S XD. p4/d4 FT
nilf-
ly •SPtCIAI ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER No
PECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHI.RGE • SEWER AlP
APPROVED rATER PLAN I/ES
APPROVED SEDER PLAN yGS
APPROVED FIRE NTORANT LOCATINS
BT FIRE DEPT. YEs
FIRE FLOW ANALCSI Y
ea_DATE: fi-
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 6/1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : - 7i(
OAPPROVED ETAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Eli NOT APPROVED
72d4-10/-r1 'c 1//
s/9144L %SC
DATE : f //4
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORI ED REPRESENTATIVEof
REK—N BUILDING & ZONING DEI TMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick. deRegt. KQe ifc (HdK) First City amitiesies (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M--P for office research and develorxnent, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washing-ton Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the east by Powell Ave, S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R7
CI ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
n POLICE DEPARTMENT
tgPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON n -,,„ r- 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
n APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I INOT APPROVED
c/dre /)/9.waw/ /iii_57///elad 4,6/5i, /,
r)tft.eg e/n,s/s //71 A./A 57(
á2', / da / C 41,f/f L << ti i
11./ si ,- /.16 /4d , /> #
DATE
SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
REP"--N BUILDING & ZONING DEI TMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
EC F - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONEN1 : Holvicks deReq ,. Koerina (BdK) First City Euuities (FCE)
PROJECT 1 I T L E : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the east by Powell Ave, S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R2
Li ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
CIUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION
n FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
i IPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
ISLBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
11POLICE DEPARTMENT
n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
11OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5:00 P .M, ON 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 6;
APPROVED l ( APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
I ( NOT APPROVED
i;' l DATE : /Z
IGNATURE OF DIRE TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
RED'—"N BUILDING & ZONING DEI TMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick. deReat- Koerina (HdK) First City amities (FCE)
PROJECT 1 I T L E : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF D E S C R I P T I O N OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M•-P for office, research and develounent, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the east by Po l_1vee S.W, and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R2
LIENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
CJUTILITIES ENG . DIVISION
l I FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
IS(I.DARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
F-1 POLICE DEPARTMENT
n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
I ! OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON Tier.r,mh,,r 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
1APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
I ( NOT APPROVED
qi.--t l I re v DATE : 7 - c -
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR R AUT ORIZED REPRESS ATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
REfo N BUILDING & ZONING DE ITMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICAT:;ON NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick. deRe t, KQerina Mai First City Eglaities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the rust by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R2
CJENGINEERING DIVISION
1JTRA'FFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
I ] FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
I (
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n 3UILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
11POLICE DEPARTMENT
l iPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5: CO P .M. ON n Arnl,ar 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : ti7"-
R-APPRITvED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 11NOT APPROVED
e//
7
DATE :
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
RELY- N BUILDING & ZONING DE1 TMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick. deReat- Koerina am First City Ectui.ti.es (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property fran
G-1 to M-P for of fice research and develoanent, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady Way, on the east by Poweli Avet S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-R7
0 ENGINEERING DIVISION
1TRA`FFIC ENG . DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION
Ell FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
r-] POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON np.r. mhar 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 0774iTyj
El APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
Liitnurf Affle.ovAl SuesEci To j
Ark GOi S AGREEMENT • WATER
LAiE COMERS AGREEMENT • SEWER A/o i14i961-7-01A4-- zpiSYSTEMDEVELOPMENTCHARGE - WATER yrs D.04 /cv FT
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE • SEWER yES #D. 04./ FT
11)4-P-
y 'SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • WATER No
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA CHARGE • SEWER AiD
APPROVED PATER PLAN yg.0
APPROVED SEWER PLAN yes
APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT MATINS
BY FIRE DEPT. YES
FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS
24--DATE : -/ 8 d
e,
5_,
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REV6SION 5/1982
REIN BUILDING & ZONING DETMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick. deRegt. Koering (HdK) First City Ecuities (FOE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1. to M-P for office, research and develoranent, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION ; The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, de' ined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by,Crady Way, on the east by Powell Ave, S.W, and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 17-7-R7
El ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : _
L] UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
n POLICE DEPARTMENT
n POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5: 00 P .M. ON r - ,tPr 6. 19$2
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION ; f
APPROVED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS n NOT APPROVED
7r)-64/G7 j d G</7 yS Ur/e//c/
y/c(z/ S f//C'
lv Reit—'/,-' _ C' .vSfr4./C'l e .
I
DATE :
SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORI ED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1£32
RENT. BUILDING & ZONING DEPMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION NO(S) : REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt— Koerina (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property from
G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/warehouse buildings.
LOCATION : The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the washington Technical Center
Plat, defined as follows: Bounded on the west by the proposed P-1 channel, on the south
by Grady hay, on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east by S.W. 7th Street.
TO :
n PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 12-7-22
ENGINEERING DIVISION
n TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE :
n UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION
n FIRE DREVENTION BUREAU
n PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
n POLICE DEPARTMENT
I IPOLIC' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OTHERS :
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED
IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
BY 5 : 00 P . 1. ON 1-1 1-n r 6. 1982
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :
n APPRO ED n APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED
DATE :
SIGNATURE JF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
REVISION 5/1982
VilL 71e6
Date circulated : uecember 1, 1982 Comments due : December t , 1982
ENIVIR0NMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse build
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : Plat, def i nFer1 as fnl l nws t RniindPr1 on the west by the nrnpn.Pd P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east lw Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east b'
SITE AREA : 25_R9_ ar•rPs BUILDING AREA (gross ) c w 7.1.11 Strut.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : L/
3 ) Water & water courses : V
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset : uz
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities : V
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics : V
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
Recommendation : D I DOS More Information
3aReviewedby : Title : 7} /L/Ty c/6/n/,E"4',2//1/6
Date : 01-/ S
FORM: ERC-06
4 Z0/1.31,
Date circulated : ___ember 1, 1982 Commen,.J due : December t , 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse lluildi ngs_
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : plat. dcf 1 nrt1 as f011 nwc_ Pc-minded nn the west by f-he nrnpnserl P-1 channel
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east ]
SITE AREA : 25_R9 ar-rec f3l1ILUING AREA (gross ) S w_ 7th Rfrppt,
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life : Sc
5 ) Animal life :
6) Noise : x
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset : S<
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services : I k
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health : K
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
Recommendation : SI DOS More Information
Reviewed by : litle :
Date :
FORM: ERC-06
Date circulated : December 1, 1982 Comments due : December t, 1982
ENVIIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouseouse buildings,.
The proposed rezone is the western 200 foot of the Washington Tech. CenterLOCATION : Plat, dPf i npd as fol i ows! Fnirndcd on the west by the nropnsprl P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east byPowell Ave. S.W. and on the south and eastSITEAREA : 2 rr5_R9 ars BUILING AREA (gross )
b
s w 7th Street,
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes : V
4 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses : V
4 ) Plant life : Z
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
T
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment : 1//
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 .) Aesthetics :
19 ,) Recreation :
rcheology/history : ge.7 ;4 ,,
tEC 1 1.982
Recommendation : NSI J DOS More Information_
Reviewed by : - 1 it le : —i/e(, _ iss5'I6i---2_
Date : /42// //',%
I
FORM: ERC-06
v t
leiar0Datecirculated : December 1, 1982 Comments due : December t , 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
fan G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse buii l
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : plat, def i neri as fnl l nws! Rnnnrlea nn the west by the nrnpnsed P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east bsSITEAREA : 25_Rq ar•rPs BUILDING AREA (gross ) s w 7th Rfrpet,
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (% ) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts : J1/////J(d/1
View obstruction : j////J////g
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment : J‹
12 ) Number of Dwellings :l.
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts : 4.;‹)
14 ) Public services : I
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics : X
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
0I/1 //i e)//(flf /f(le -" 1., - ./7- I0
Recommendation : SI' OS More Information _
Reviewed by : C 7/ raLlitle :I,
Date : 7 //
4/1/
FORM: ERC-06
i
rxre...Regriaq
Date circulated : i., cember 1, 1982 Comments due : December 6 , 1982
ENVIRONMEINTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
fran G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse bii1
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. Center
LOCATION : plat, dpfinpii as fnl 1 nws: Rni,nded nn the west by t-hp nrnpnspd P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east biSITEAREA : 2S_Rq acrpc BUILDING AREA (gross ) R W_ 71-h Strpet
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
6iC.«,.
Recommendation : DNCSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by : ( 4)1 1itIe :
Date : /2. . 7 - yv
FORM: ERC-06
F0L
Date circulated : .,.cember 1 , 1982 Comment.5 due : December t , 1982
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIIEW SHEET
ECF - 076 - 82
APPLICATION No (s ) . REZONE (R-072-82)
PROPONENT : Holvick, deRegt Koering (HdK) First City Equities (FCE)
PROJECT TITLE : Washington Technical Center Rezone
Brief Description of Project : Application to rezone 25.89 acres of property
from G-1 to M-P for office, research and development, and other office/
warehouse buildings.
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington Tech. CenterLOCATION : plat, clefineii as follows! Prunde:1 on the west by the nrnp-sed P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Wy. , on the east by Powell Ave. S.W. and on the south and east bSITEAREA : 25_R9 aorPs BUILDING AREA (gross ) s w 7th Rtrart.
DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 14.72 %165,964 sq. ft.
IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE
INFO
1 ) Topographic changes :
2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality :
3 ) Water & water courses :
4 ) Plant life :
5 ) Animal life :
6 ) Noise :
7 ) Light & glare :
8 ) Land Use ; north :
east :
south :
west :
Land use conflicts :
View obstruction :
9 ) Natural resources :
10 ) Risk of upset :
11 ) Population/Employment :
12 ) Number of Dwellings :
13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) :
traffic impacts :
14 ) Public services :
15 ) Energy :
16 ) Utilities :
17 ) Human health :
18 ) Aesthetics :
19 ) Recreation :
20 ) Archeology/history :
COMMENTS :
Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information
Reviewed by : litle :
Date : / -^ 75 '2--
FORM: ERC-06
CITY OF RENTON
RE.7.ONE APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
LAND USE HEARING
APPLICATION NO. R U 72-$2.EXAMINER 'S ACTION
APPLICATION FEE $ IA)AI UF.19 APPEAL FILED
RECEIPT NO. CITY COUNCIL ACTION
FILING DATE ORDINANCE NO. AND DATE
HEARING DATE
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 :
1 . Name HOLVICK deREGT KOERING /FIRST CTTY EQJJTTTFS Phone (206) 284-9951
Address 1818 Westlake North, Suite 308, Seattle, WA 98109
3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on the Western 200' of the
Washington Technical Center Plat
between_Powell Avenue on the East and Monster Road on the West.
4. Square footage or acreage of property 25.89 acres.
5. Legal description of property (if more snace is required, attach a
separate sheet)
See attached legal description.
6 . Existing Zoning G• Zoning Requested M.P.
NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying
property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate
your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application
Procedure Sheet for specific requirements . ) Submit this form
in duplicate.
7. Proposed use of site development of a research and development/office/business park.
8. List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area.
See attached environmental checklist.
9. How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site?
The subject site will be developed immediately after the rezone has been granted and
the second phase of the Washington Technical Center plat is approved.
LO. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required.
Planning Dept.
1-77
A
AFFIDAVI T
I, Jack S. deRegt being duly sworn, declare that
I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
this 1st day of September 1982
Notary Public in and for the State of
iftltdngtan, residing at Sunnyvale, CA
of Notary Public) Signature o er)
1230 Oakmead Pkwy. , #210, Sunnyvale,
Address) CA 94086 Address)
MineIPIMneauauaaeoanuun1111M eMeeea1eaoa®e:=
OFFICIAL SEAL v
Allir-l"ti_., CAROL R. FROESE
i'r
cia _ NOTARY PUBLIC — CALIFORNIA City) State)
1•
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
1
1'''l'
Comm. Exp. June 13, 1986
intan !euuuoumauuan ummeluuuenaoaua
Telephone)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is- to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found to be tlx rough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the rules and regulations of the Renton Building & Zoning Depart-
ment governing the filing of such application.
Date Received 19 By:
Aeifton Building & Zoning Department
3-82
HINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER 25 A__
REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL OF LAND IN GOVERNMENT LOT 5, AND TRACT 27 , RENTON SHORELANOS
SECOND SUPPLEMENT , IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 , TOWNSHIP 23
NORTH , RANGE 4 EAST, W.M_ , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS
FOI.LCJWS :
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 ; THENCE SOUTH
87°2 !' ' 43" EAST ON AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE
OF 2312. 05 FEET TO A POINT : THENCE NORTH 22026' 02" WEST 501 . 13 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO
THE LEFT , HAVING A RADIUS OF 917. 46 FELT THROUGH AN ANGLE OF APPROXIMATLLj
7°3n' TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID TRACT 27 AND TRACT 26
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ON AND ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID TRACTS 27
AND 26 TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 627 . 46 FEET, HAVING THE
SAME CENTER OF A CIRCLE AS THE CURVE DESCRIBED FROM THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON AND ALONG SAID CURVE OF RADIUS 627 .46
FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 67°33' 58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 290. 00 FEVI
FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 67°33 ' 58" EAST 290.00 FEEL
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING ; EXCEPT PORTIONS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
PROPERTIES LYING WITHIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO . 1 DITCH.
THAT PORTION OF A TRACT IJ73 ZLE30400S E, EMORCt1PARTICULARLYINAN TDESCRIBED ASCOF:UEO
UNDER AUDITOR' S FILE NO.
FOLLOWS :
A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 , TOWNSHIP 23
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M.. , IN KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 5 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST , W_ M_ , IN KING COUNTY ,
WASHINGTON, BEING 290 FEET IN WIDTH LYING BETWEEN A LINE 150 FEET AND A
LINE 440 FEET r
CENTERLINE OF
RIGHTCHANNELANGLESANDNORTHEASTERLYTHEREFROMTO;
TFiE
FOLLOWING DDESCRIBED
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 , THENCE SOUTH
87°26 ' 48" EAST 1E126.61 FEET ON AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
TO A POINT ; THENCE NORTH 22°26 ' 02" WEST 296.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 22°26 ' 02" EAST 232.94 FEET ; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 572.96 FEET A
DISTANCE OF b HFEET ;O°55' 30"
CE
WEST1130`) 11 3THr
FEET
FEET FROM THE SOUTH QUARTER
POINT WHICH IS SOUTH
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 , AND THE END OF DESCRIPTION.
A TRACT OF LAND IN GOVERNMENT
COUN j
LOT
TY
OF SECTION
WASHINGTON, Lr10=tE
TOWNSHIPPARTICULARLNORTH,
RANGE 4 EAST , • ,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE WEST 600 FEET OF THE SOUTH 130 FEET OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, EXCEPT THE
NORTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 520 FEET.
A TRACT OF LAND IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP
NG 1
23
FEET75TMNORTH , RANGE 4 EAST , W_M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
WIDTH, LYING BETWEEN
ANGLE=S
LINE
TOITOE
FEET
F[]LLOWANDING DESCRIeED
FEETCENTERLINEMEASURED
NORTHERLY AT RIGHT
BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTH
00°55' 30" WEST 309. 113 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE SOUTH
39°04 ' 30" EAST 439.00 FEET TO A POINT ; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A
TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 159 . 15 FEET A DISTANCE OF
215.27 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 11° 34' 46" EAST 311.39 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS
THE END OF THE 175 FOOT WIDTH OF SAID TRACT; THENCE CONTINUING WITH A
TRACT OF LAND 180 FEET IN WIDTH, LYING BETWEEN A LINE 140 FEET AND A LIN
320 FEET WHEN MEASURED EASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIES
CENTERLINE:
THENCE SOUTH 11°34' 46" EAST 1299 FEET, MORE OR LESS , CONTINUING ON LAsr
ERLY
MARGINARGt OF
COURSE OFCNL LOFEBOURLINGTONCHANNEL
NORTHERN
POINT
INC. IFORMERLYHNORTHFFM
MaRGE N OF THE RIGHT—OF—WAY
PACIFIC RAILWAY :OMPANY ) .
S
3HINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER 25 A__ _
REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 LA`._, 1 ,i . , IN
KING COUNTY , WASHINGTON, DESCR IBE:U AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 24, WHICH IS SOUTH 0°55'30" WEST ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
159. 12 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN AN INSTRUMENT
RERECORDED UNDER .AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 73011l10400; THENCE SOEITII 89'0:1'30" EAST
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE '139. 00 FEET ; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A
TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 309. 15 FEET A DISTANCE OF
418. 1/I FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11°3414G" EAST 311 . 19 FEET; THENCE SOI;TII 7V'25' 14"
WEST 10. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11"31I'46" EAST 1289. 9 I FEET TO THE: SOUTHERLY
MARGIN OE THE RIGHT- OF- WAY OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC . ; THENCE SOUTH
77°25'43" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN 100. 02 FEET ; THENCE NORTH
11"34'4G" WEST 1351 .65 FEET ; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ON A TANGENT CURVE TO
THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET A ;)ISTANCE OF 536. G9 FEET ; THENCE
NORTH 73°04'46" WEST 504. 73 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 '0 I'30" WEST
FROM THE POINT OF LEGINNING ; THENCE SOE;T14 139°OLj'30" EAST 147.74 FELT
TO BEGINNING. (SAID PARCEL CONTAININC G. ) ACRES, MORE OR LESS. )
Q`Aeie vE,!'
14(y
f!
I -,
601
kl y0,
i
P ,P= 9r7.47
tid' 4 = 27p67›,..4-7."
e=6 z7.9J 4,
H
Z
29° N
C•~1..5-44-•12erv;
p N = .E4'= /34 9G i .O 0
r
o,L1 = ,6`Pr „ , b i
T
A-
29
S.
s I p p
611
r /h
ems - _ s' A8
sr
N
2
1,L____-5__,_".5.4. •90 tt
9 9
422.'6 I s4:1 --
y N 0
3 sow ce
sp6e' el_
K
Y Q- Soo' w
rVU .4 = 61'19O' c IYJIO
1.
4/(,!
1') 1 I
N
1 I
1- St_ s 7g 25/4"w
u
is,zi I s,00
I N
55
v MI ti
H 4
c M M
s,D/
0
SGdLt',
I
4
t
I
I
R
BUSH, RUED F: !:':;^;;!"!CS, INC. P.S.
B•
CIVIL ENCI::=E" /LA?:D SURVEYORS
280.05- .51 77`'Is'15''W.
A;.:'C; AVE. EAST
SEATi+ WA 98102
323-4144 p ¢L •
WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER ay. v ----
25 ACRE REZONE
PLO ?'" PLAN
I
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No.
Envircnmental Checklist No.
PROPOSED, date: FINAL , date:
Decla a" ifican n 0ecl. ration of Significance
Declaration of Non-Significance 0 Declaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.
The pLrpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether of not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required , or where
you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should
include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele-
vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their enviionmer.ta flak!, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Wa. hington for various types of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the
next ikuestion.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent HOLVICK deREGT KOERING (HdK) /FIRST CITY EQUITIES (FCE)
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
HdK) 1818 Westlake North, Suite 308 FCE) 800 5th Ave. , #4040
Seattle, WA 98109 Seattle, WA 98104
284-9951 624-9223
3. Date Checklist submitted
August 1982
4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton Planning, Department
5. Name of proposal , if applicable:
Washington Technical Ccnter Rezone
5. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its
size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature) :
See Attached Appendix "A"
2-
7. Locaticn of proposal (describe the physical settiisg of the proposal , as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal ) :
See Attached Appendix "A"
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal :
9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
federal , state and local --including rezones) :
See Attached Appendix "A"
10. Do you have any plans for future additions , expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes , explain:
See Attached Appendix "A"
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes , explain:
See Attached Appendix "A"
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
See Attached Appendix "A"
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1) Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Disruptions, displacements , compaction or over-
covering of the soil? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? X
YES- MAYBE AU—
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
VET— MAYBE N
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils ,
either on or cff the site? _ x
YES MAYBE NO
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or
changes in siltation , deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
YES MAYBE Wir
Explanation:
3-
2) Air. Will the proposal result in.
a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? X
E— MAYBE TT-
b) The creation of objectionable odors? X
YE3— MAYBE N-6—
c) Alteration of air movement , moisture or temperature ,
or any change in climate , either locally or
regionally? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: Spp Att.arhnd Appendix "A"
3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents , or the course of direction of
water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? x
YES MAYBE NO
b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or
the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x_
YES MAYBE NO
d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? x
YES MAYBE NO
e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration
surface water quality , including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
fE- MAYBE TU-
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X
YES MAYBE NO
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either
through direct additions or withdrawals , or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
YES MAYBE NO
h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection , or through the seepage of leachate ,
phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria ,
or other substances into the ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? X
YET- MAYBE TT-
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "C", ENTRANCO's DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
when available.
4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees , shrubs , grass , crops .
microflora and aquatic plants)? X
YES MAYBE NU—
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare or
endangered species of flora? X
NZ-
c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area , or
in• a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species? X
YES MAYBE ti-
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
YES MAYBE 3
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
4-
5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds , land animals including
reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms ,
insects or microfauna)? X
YES MATTE NO
b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
X
endangered species of fauna?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
X
YFS MAYBE NO
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?X
YES . MAYBE NO . .
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
glare? X
YES MAYBE NB
Explanation:
See Attached Appendix "A"
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the
X
present or planned land use of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
See Attached Appendix "A"
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals` or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X
Y- MAYBE
See Attached Appends•z "A"
Explanation:
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
X
Yr'r- MAYBE N
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
5-
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
X
create a demand for additional housing?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Cffec_s on existing parking `acili :i c'"-1'nd
for new parking? X
YES MAYBE NO
c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X.•_
YES MAYBE Nf
d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
YES— MAYBE NO
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
YES rX(BE NO
See Attached Appendix "B"
Explanation:
14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas :
a) Fire protection?
X
YES MAYBE NO
X
b) Police protection?
YES MAYBE NO
c) Schools?
X
YES MAYBE NO
d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
YES MAYBE NO
e) Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? X
YES MAYBE NO
f) Other governmental services?
X
YES MAYbE NO
Explanation:
See Attached Appendix "A"
15) Enema. Will the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X
YES MAYBE NO
b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require X
the development of new sources of energy?
YET- MAYBE 0—
Explanation:
See Attached Appendix "A"
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems , or alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
rr FATET NO
X
b) Communications systems?
WC— MAYBE NO
c) Water?
X
YES MAYBE NO
5-
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
Yam- MAYBE NO
e) Storm water drainage?
X
MAYBE WU-
f) Solid waste and disposal? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? X
YES MAYBE W
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? X
YES MAYBE NO
See Attached Appendix "A"
Explanation:
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
20) Archeological Historical . Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
X
site, structure, object or building?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: See Attached Appendix "A"
III. SIGNATURE
I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla-
ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willf c full disclo e on my part.
Proponent:a 46.4
2
signed
na a printtee
APPENDIX
A. Expanded Environmental Checklist
B. Transportation/Circulation Report
C. Hydrology Report
D. Archaeological Status Report
E. Flood Control Zone Permit
F. Shoreline Management Substantial
Development Permit
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
APPENDIX A
Resronses to Questions
Background
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal
The proponent is requesting a reclassification of 25.89 acres
from "G" (General Classification District) to "M-P" (Manufactur-
ing Park District). The subject parcel is included in the
109.31 acre Washington Technical Center Final Plat. The intent
is to use the property for Office , Research and Development ,
and other Office/Warehouse buildings. An access road would be
constructed along the western edge of the property. The total
gross square footage of the proposed buildings which fall in
part or in whole within the boundaries of the proposed rezone is
635,100 square feet. The total gross square footage of the
portions of the proposed buildings which fall within the bounda-
ries of the proposed rezone only is estimated at 165,964 square
feet. The land coverage of the proposed buildings which fall
only within the proposed rezone constitutes 14.72% of the total
proposal land area. Site development assumptions for the 25.89
acre parcel are as follows:
Site Development Assumptions
Total Acreage 25.89 Acres
Road 5.78 22.30X
Parking 3.88 14.98
Detention Pond 3.74 14.45
Buildings 3.81 14.72
Impermeable Surfaces 17.21 66.47
Permeable Surfaces 8.68 33 .53
Site assumptions are based on densities provided in the concep-
tual site plan, which straddles the rezone boundary. Those
buildings located within the Washington Technical Center Plat
which do not fall in whole or in part within the area proposed
for rezone are not calculated in the site development assump-
tions.
In order to retain a quality in development which would be
complementary to the natural site conditions, the applicant will
be imposing some development restrictions, including the follow-
ing:
a. A master landscape plan will be prepared to assure good
design practice and consistency throughout the site.
b. Retention of as many of the existing trees as possible
through sensitive site planning.
c. Minor modifications of building siting could occur based on
tree inventories provided by surveys.
d. Natural landscaped open spaces will be incorporated into the
developent.
e. The portion of the rezone site covered by buildings shall be
approximately 15%
f. The portion of the rezone site covered by impervious sur-
faces shall be approximately 67%.
g. All structures are to be architecturally designed to comple-
ment the existing environment of the area. Prior to con-
struction, all buildings must be approved by the Architec-
tural Control Committee.
h. Standards of performance for noise, smoke, odors, vibration,
glare, etc. will conform to the City of Renton Zoning Code
Section 4-730.040.
7. Location of the Proposal
The proposed rezone is the western 200 feet of the Washington
Technical Center Plat, defined as follows: The Preliminary Plat
is bounded on the west by the (formerly) proposed P-1 channel,
on the south by Grady Way, on the east by Powell Avenue S.W. and
on the south and east by S.W. 7th Avenue.
9. List all Permits, Licenses , etc.
o Zoning reclassification from G to MP
o Approval of the site development by Hearing Examiner
o Building and other development permits
10. Other Plans
Only as described above and delineated in conceptual site plan.
11. Other Plans Which May Effect the Proposal
Refer to Appendix C, ENTRANCO's Hydrology Analysis, regarding
proposed detention pond.
Two lanes of the proposed Valley Parkway, are required to be
constructed at the time Tract A is constructed. The road will
provide north-south access along the western boundary of the
subject site and will connect with Monster Road.
12. Other Applications that have been completed or are yet to be
filed.
Hydrology permits are attached. Final Plat has been approved.
I'.. Environmental Impacts
1 . Earth
a. Unstable Earth or Change in Geologic Substructures? No.
b. Disruptions, Displacements, Compaction, or Overcovering of
Soils? Yes. The majority of the site will be displaced,
compacted and/or covered. Fill will be required to elevate
buildings in order to meet floodproofing regulations.
c. Change in Topography? Yes. Filling or grading of roadbeds
and building sites will change the topography 1-1/2 to 2
feet .
d. Destruction, Covering, or Modification of any Unique Geo-
logic or Physical Features? No.
e. Increase in Wind or Water Erosion of Soil? Maybe. Erosion
created by surface water drainage will be controlled during
development with settling ponds, reseeding, use of hay
bails, etc. Wind Erosion is unlikely.
f. Modification of River Channel? No.
2. Air
a. Air Emissions? Yes. Construction vehicles and autos of
future employees will emit air pollutants. No unusual
emission risks are anticipated due to the proposed project.
b. Creation of Objectionable Odors? Maybe. Construction
materials such as asphalt and tar will be objectionable to
some people.
c. Change in Climate? No.
3 . Water
Refer to attached Appendix C, ENTRANCO's Hydrology Analysis,
when available.
a. Change in Currents or Course of Direction of Water Movement?
Yes.
b. Change in Absorption Rates, Drainage Patterns, or Rate and
Amount of Surface Water Runoff? Yes. (See Appendix C)
c. Alterations to Course or Flow of Flood Waters? No. (See
Appendix C)
d. Change in Amount of Surface Water? Yes. (See Appendix C)
e. Discharge into Surface Waters ? Yes. High water
temperatures of runoff during summer months could increase
temperatures in the Green River during this period.
However, discharge to the river following periods of
rainfall is less likely to occur during the Summer.
Increased surface runoff from the site may contain an
increased level of urban pollutants , especially during
construction.
f. Alteration of Direction or Rate of Flow of Ground Waters?
Maybe. A disruption and overcovering of the soil will
likely alter some ground water movements.
g. Change in Quantity of Ground Waters? Maybe. Increased
impermeable surfaces will reduce absorption.
h. Deterioration of Ground Water? Maybe. A minor risk result-
ing from pollutants within the storm runoff.
i. Reduction in Amount of Water for Public Water Supplies?
Maybe. Project development will increase the water demand.
However, water supply is adequate to serve the proposed
project.
4. Flora
a. Change in Diversity or Number of Species? Yes. Ornamental
vegetation, which typifies vegetation found on golf courses,.
will be replaced with vegetation which is yet undetermined.
b. Reduction of the Number of any Unique, Rare, or Endangered
Species? No. No unique or endangered species of flora have
been identified on the site.
c. Introduction of New Species? Yes. Post-development land-
scaping will likely introduce new species types to this
area.
d. Reduction of Agricultural Crop? No.
5. Fauna
a. Changes in Diversity or Numbers of Species? Yes. Develop-
ment of the site will alter and/or destroy some of the
existing habitat. The detention pond will create additional
habitat areas for water fowl and other bird life.
b. Reduction in Numbers of Unique, Rare, or Endangered Species?
No.
c. Introduction of New Species? No.
d. Deterioration of Existing Fish or Wildlife Habitat? Yes.
See section 5a above.
6. Noise
Will the Proposal Increase Existing Noise Levels? Yes. Duringandafterdevelopment, vehicular noise will generate detectable
noise levels. However, the noise levels along Interstate 405
and the railroad switching yard are in excess of the noise
levels likely to be generated in the subject property.
7. Light and Glare
Will the Proposal Produce New Light or Glare? Yes. Building,
street, and parking lights will be introduced to the area fol-
lowing development. The intensity of these new sources of light
should not exceed that of the surrounding vicinity.
8. Land Use
Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? Yes. the site is currently un-
developed. The Renton Comprehensive Plan classifies the site
for industrial use. The surrounding area includes existing or
planned industrial park uses and Metro Sewage Treatment Plant.
Due to the existing and proposed developments and Comprehensive
Plan, it is reasonable to assume the proposal is an acceptable
use of the site.
9. Natural Resources
a. Increase in Rate of Use of Natural Resources? No. Overall
consumption of natural resources will increase, but the rate
will be similar to that of surrounding uses.
b. Depletion of Non-renewable Natural Resource? Yes. Fossil
fuels will be consumed by construction vehicles and
occupants of the site. Construction materials such as tar
and asphalt will be used.
10. Risk of Upset
Does the Proposal Involve a Risk of an Explosion, or the Release
of Hazardous Substances? No.
11 . Population
Will the Proposal Alter the Location, Distribution, Density, or
Growth Rate of the Human Population of an Area? Maybe. Project
development will not produce a significant increase in the
area's population. However, some non-local employees may relo-
cate near the site.
12. Housing
Will the Proposal Affect Existing Housing, or Create a Demand
for Addition Housing? Maybe. It is likely most employees will
live within a 20 minute commuting distance, which could cause a
minimal increase in the local housing demand.
13 . Transportation/Circulation
a. Generation of Additional Vehicular Movement? Yes. Please
refer to Appendix B when available.
b. Effects on Existing Parking Facilities or Demand for New
Parking Facilities? Maybe. Please refer to Appendix B when
available.
c. Impact on Existing Transportation Systems? Yes. Please
refer to Appendix B when available.
d. Alterations to Present Patterns of Circulation or Movement
of People and/or Goods? No.
e. Alterations to Waterborne, Rail, or Air Traffic? No.
f. Increase in Traffic Hazards? Maybe. Please refer to
Appendix B when available.
14. Public Service
a. Fire? Yes. Cumulatively with other developments, fire
protection will be impacted by the proposed development.
b. Police? Yes. Cumlulatively with other developments, police
protection will be impacted by the proposes :2velopment.
c. Schools? No.
d. Parks? Maybe. The Green River Basin Program advocates
lineal parks along the drainageways in the valley. The
Earlington Golf Course will be replaced by Phase I of the
Earlington Park Development, therefore, rezone approval and
subsequent development of the subject site will not affect
the golf course's fate.
e. Maintenance? Maybe. Maintenance of roads may be required.
These costs will be paid through increased property taxes.
f. Other Governmental Services? No.
15. Energy
Will the Proposal Result in:
a. Use of Substantial Amounts of Fuel or Energy? No.
b. Demand Upon Existing Sources of Energy, or Require the
Development of New Sources of Energy? No.
16. Utilities
Will the Proposal Result in a Need for New Systems, or Altera-
tions to Utilities? Yes. All of the listed utility services
are available in the vicinity of the site. Development will
require that they be extended onto the property at the expense
of the proponent.
17. Human Health
Will the Proposal Result in the Creation of any Health Hazard or
Potential Health Hazard? No.
IS. Aesthetics
Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will it result in the creation of
an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Develop-
ment following the rezone would replace open space with an
office and business park.
19. Recreation
Will the Proposal Result in an Impact Upon the Quality or
Quantity of Existing Recreational Opportunities? No. Earling-
ton Golf Course will be replaced with Phase 1 regardless of this
proposed rezone.
20. Archaeological/Historical
Will the Proposal Result in an Alteration of a Significant
Archaeological or Historical Site, Structure, Object or Build-
ing? idaybe. The general vicinity was determined to have a high
potential to contain archeologically significant finds. The
University of Washington, Office of Public Archaeology, con-
ducted a cultural resources inventory of the entire 109.31 acre
property at the cost of the project developers. (See Earlington
Park EIS) The Survey included excavations of the most probable
archaeologically significant sites. The excavations uncovered
artifacts dating from 200 to 1000 years before present. Please
refer to Appendix D.
APPENDIX B
transportation Engineering& Planning Consultants UTRAKISPO
CrowSeptember14, 1982
jirR Uri k
uu NOV 15 1982
Mr. Loren Davis
Holvick deRegt Koering BUILDING/ZONING 1iEPT.Suite #308
1818 Westlake Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98109
SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for asking us to review the revised site plan for the Washington
Technical Center and comment on expected changes in traffic impacts oetween this
revised plan and the original site plan for the project which has been
commonly known as Earlington Park. As you requested , we made a comparisonofchangesinthetripgeneration, the character of traffic, and the effect
of those traffic volumes on the street network.
Summary
In summary, we find the daily trip generation with the Washington Technical
Center site plan would decrease from approximately 19,825 vehicle trips perday (vpd) to 14 ,230 vpd; a 28% decrease. The evening peak hour traffic
vclume will reduce from about 2,650 vehicle trips per hour (vph) to about
1 ,865 vph. This represents a 30o decrease from the original proposal .
The character or vehicle mix is also expected to change as the number of
heavy and medium-duty trucks declined due to the reduction in the amount
of light and heavy warehousing associated with the project. Almost as
significant as the reduction in trip generation, is the change in the
site plan that calls for a connection to Monster Road. It is expected
that this access could be used by as much as 15% to 25% of the dailyandpeakhourtrafficvolumes. While the level of service may not
change, the average delay at major intersections in the vicinity of
the project will definitely be reduced due to the decrease in passen-
ger vehicle trip generation, the lower number of heavy trucks , and
th? effect of traffic diverting onto the new access via Monster Road.
Trip Generation
The trip generation comparison was made using the same trip generation rates
applied in the traffic analysis for the Earlington Park project, so the re-
sults would be directly comparable. The significant reduction in trip gen-
erition can be attributed to two factors : the first is the reduction in
gross floor from approximately 1 ,981 ,330 square feet to 1 ,348,100 square
The TRANSPO Group, Inc. • 23-148th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98007 • (206) 641-3881
Mr. Loren Davis cMC9
September 14, 1982 S POPaceTwo
Crovp
feEt; and the second is the significant reduction in office space from
49C ,580 square feet to 146,900 square feet. Likewise, there is total
elimination of heavy warehousing and stand-alone light warehousing with
a conversion toward multi-tenant office/warehouse or business park type
development. While a substantial amount of the area vacated by the ware-
housing is replaced by higher intensity research and development uses ,
the increase in trip generation rate is more than offset by the signifi-
cart reductions in office and warehousing space.
Truck Traffic
As mentioned above, the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream is
expected to reduce significantly as a result of the decrease in heavy
and light warehousing activity. Under the Earlington Park proposal , it
is estimated that these uses would have generated between 2,450 and 4,290
truck trips per day. Under the Washington Technical Center site plan,
the number of heavy trucks would be expected to drop by 80% to 85% to
67E to 860 heavy truck trips per day because only a small portion of the
total development (i .e. , multi-tenant office/warehouse or business park)
is expected to serve as major truck distribution facilities. It should
be expected that the number of small and medium duty trucks would in-
crease due to the increase in multi-tenant office/warehouse (referred to
as business park on the attached tables) activity. Under the original
site plan, it was estimated that the business park would generate between
26C and 1 ,030 truck trips per day. Based on the Washington Technical
Certer program, these numbers would be expected to increase by approxi-
mately 5% to 10%, resulting in an increase of the number of small and
medium duty trucks generated by the multi-tenant office/warehouse users
to range between 280 and 1 ,115 truck trips per day. While there will
be an increase in the number of small and medium duty truck trips , this
is offset by the reduction in the number of heavy trucks. The decrease
in truck trips is estimated to range between 1 ,790 to 3,535 truck trips
per day, or a reduction in total truck trips of about 60%. As significant
as the actual number of percent reduction in truck trips is the elimination
of the slower heavy trucks. Each heavy truck is equivalent to approxi-
mately two to four passenger vehicles. Thus, reduction of 1 ,500 to 3,500
heavy truck trips could be translated to an equivalent reduction of 4,500
to 12,000 passenger vehicle trips.
Alternate Access
OnE of the more significant changes in the proposed Washington Technical
Certer site plan is the proposed connection to Monster Road. While this
change implies the need to make some improvements to Monster Road, the
Mr. Loren Davis 114
SeJtember 14, 1982 TRANSPOPaleThreet V"
ro\p
additional access results in a significant number of daily and evening peak
hour trips using this route as an alternate access to Grady Way and Sunset
Boulevard. As indicated above, this additional access could drain another
15% to 25% of the travel that would be confined to travel east and south
along Grady Way and Rainier Avenue. Under the Earlington Park site plan
it is expected that the majority of people using this route would be
employees, since the route is somewhat circuitous for the infrequent
vi ;itor, yet offers a very convenient alternate to the congestion that
is expected to exist along Rainier Avenue and Grady Way.
Bel:ause of the high volumes that already exist along the road system in
till! vicinity of the project, and because of the continued non-project
growth, the calculated levels of service are not expected to improve
any more than half of one level (i .e. , from D-E to 0) from those esti-
mated in the Earlington Park traffic analysis. The change in congestion
levels will be realized through reduction in delay at intersections. As
stated before, the reduction of heavy truck volumes (slower and more awk-
ward operating characteristics) may result in a noticeable decrease in
red as well as perceived delays.
In closing, we conclude that the Washington Technical Center is forecasted
to create noticeably less impact on the surrounding streets and transpor-
taion system as compared to the impacts precipitated from development
of the original Earlington Park project. I trust this letter responds
to your questions relating to changes in traffic impacts that result
from the proposed project. If you or the City of Renton have any ques-
tions regarding our findings and conclusions , I encourage you to call
me We have attached supporting tables summarizing the development
profile and trip generation for your review.
Si ncerely,
The TRANSPO Group, Inc.
David D. Markley
Pr' ncipal
DDM:jlk
Attachment
cc: Jon Potter, R.W. Thorpe & Associates
DEVELOPMENT PROFILE
Earlington Washington
Use Park Technical Center
Heavy Warehousing 774,940 SF 0
Light Warehousing 377,340 SF 0
Business Park 338,470 SF 366,400 SF
Office Park 490,580 SF 146,900 SF
Research & Development 0 439,000 SF
Research & Development
Campus 0 425,800 SF
TOTAL 1 ,981,330 SF 1 ,378,100 SF
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
WASHINGTON
USE TRIP GENERATION RATE EARLINGTON PARK TECHNICAL CENTER
DAILY PM PEAK DAILY PM PEAK DAILY PM PEAK
Heavy Warehousing 5 9 3,875 695
Light Warehousing 6 9 2,265 340
Business Park 10 1.3 3,385 440 3,365 475
Office Park 21 2.4 10,300 1,175 3,085 355
Research & Development 9 1.2 3,950 525
Research & Development Camput 9 1.2 3,830 510
TOTAL 19,825 2,650 14,230 1 ,865
1
Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trips per 1000 square feet.
APPENDIX D
s '
cite
1I
2,x
CENTRAL WASD- lNCTON UNIVERSITY
Ellensburg,Washington 98926 Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity/Title IX
t tr DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND MUSEUM OF MAN
Ci
May 12, 1981 S ( a t
Nov 15 1982
David Schuman NIG DEPT.
First City Equities 3UtLD
900 4th Avenue, Suite 3818
Seatttle, Washington 98164
RE: Status of archaeological excavations at the Earlington Industrial Park.
Site 45K159
Dear Mr. Schuman,
I am writing in response to your request of April 20, 1981 for my clearance of
archaeological site 45K159, located in the extreme northwest corner of the pro-
posed Earlington Industrial Park in Renton, Washington.
As I have mentioned to you and to your assistant, Barbara Moss, I am not legally
empowered to "clear" a site for construction, but can only give my professional
evaluation of the site's significance. Having conducted extensive excavations
at the site in Spring 1980 and after preliminary analysis of the results of those
excavations, I am now in an excellent position to make such an evaluation.
The site is 10 meters (30 ft.) wide and extends roughly east-west for at least 60
meters (195 ft.) along a former levee of the Black River. During occupation of
the site and following its abandonment, the river has eroded away much of the
artifact-bearing deposits. Erosion has been so extensive that the deposits resemble
a complex stream bed, being made up of numerous cross bedded layers and filled
channels. Interpretation of the site has therefore been extremely difficult and
would remain difficult regardless of how much earth was excavated.
We have obtained a very large collection of artifacts from the site and I can say
with some confidence that that collection is statistically representative of the
site's contents. Although thousands of artifacts certainly remain in the site,
the probability is very high that they are the same kinds of objects we have already
recovered.
We also took many samples of charred plant remains and have a large collection of
fish and mammal bone from the site. That collection, too, was taken in such a way
and is sufficiently large that I consider it to be representative of the site's
contents.
David Schuman
May 12, 1981
page two
The remains of structures - buildings of some kind - are evident, but because of the
intense use of the site and damage done by the river it is and is likely to remain
impossible to determine any details of building construction.
In summary, it is my professional opinion that we have learned as much from 45K159
as can be learned. Subsequent excavations almost certainly would recover more of
the same kind of data that we already possess and would not be cost effective.
Incidentally, because the site is nearly four feet below the modern surface and is
so long and narrow, it is unlikely that construction on this spot will damage it.
Only if a deep basement were dug on this spot would the site be destroyed. Because
the kind of use you plan usually does not entail such construction, at least some
part of the site will certainly remain intact. Therefore, even if the site were
worth saving, which I believe it is not, its preservation would not require any
action on your part that is not already in your plans.
If you need any other information, feel free to contact me. Thank you for making it
possible to gather what useful data this site did contain.
Sincgrely,
James C. Chatters
Assistant Professor
cL lif
rglofDcparhiient
l
of Esc ologti'
APPENDIX E PERMIT NO. 1 473`.
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE PERMIT
Permission is granted under provisions of Chapter 86.16 RCW, this 24th
day of July
19
81
to FIRST CITY EQUITIES
of applicant900FourthAvenue, Suite 3818, Seattle,
aWashingtonl
98164
Address)
to construct and maintain Underground utilities, roads, railroad and other improvements
Description of works)
er plans known as Earlington Park.
for the period 19SE;13
iO 19 or in perpetuity
in < Section 24 23Township N., Range 4 E.
W.M. and/or
in Section Township N.. Range_
W.M.
on Green River
yaT'neof stream or hood plain affected located within the
Green
Flood Contro Zone No. 2 TFlood one
Said works, structures, or improvements must be in accordance with theApplicationNo. 1_4 2
and plans attached thereto on file with the Department of Ecology, which are
incorporated by reference as terms of this permit.
The work herein authorized shall commence on or after the
2 't11
day of July 81
19andshallbe ,:ompleted on or before the 24th
dayof July 82
19 or before such dates as ma
specified by aly extensions granted.
This permit is subject to the conditions printed on the reverse hereof and the acceptance by the permittee.
Regional Manager
cc: King County Surface Water Mgmt. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Renton Building Department
ECY 054-6
Rev. 11/73
Aft Th ' permit is granted under authr.'- of Chapter 159, Session Laws of 193 hapter 86.16 RCW)
2. No property rights are granted hei nor does this permit absolve permittee from liability for any damage which maybesufferedtolifeortoproperty, public or private, by reason of works, structures and improvements authorized here)
3. This permit does not obviate the necessity of obtaining other permits required by federal, state, or local law.
4. Tha permittee shall remove, at his own expense, all falseworks, structures and materials incident to the construction ofthe %\ork herein authorized. Works and structures erected under permit covering a specific period of time shall beremovedbythepermitteeathisownexpenseupontheexpirationofsaidperiodorattheexpirationofanyex-tension of time which may be granted.
5.
permittee fail to remove, at the proper time, materials, works and structures referred to under paragraph 4,the director reserves the right to have it done at the expense of the permittee.
6. Any alteration of plans for works and structures made subsequent to the filing of an application or the issuance ofpermitshallbesubjecttoapprovalbythedirector.
7. The director shall be notified by the permittee of the completion of works under this permit in order that he maymatiafinalinspectionandgivefinalapproval.
8. RCW E6.16.100 provides that the exercise by the state regulatory powers shall not imply or create any liability foranydamagesagainstthestate, and the action taken by the department herein shall not imply or create any liabilityforanydamagesagainstthestate.
9. When necessary to provide for the proper maintenance or operation of the works, structures, or improvements asauthorizedherein, the department may issue supplementary orders providing for such.
10. This permit is subject to further special conditions as follows :
A. The ecisting 100-year flood plain elevation according to the Housing f, Urban
Development Flood Insurance Study, City of Renton is 15.2 feet. This elevation
was ilterpolated between elevations 15.4 feet and 14.9 feet upstream and down-
stream of the proposed development. The finished floor or basement elevation
of all buildings must be at or above the existing flood plain elevation.
B. Additional improvements to this site will require a state flood control zone
permit.
11. This permit is accepted subject to provisions of law and regulations and conditions herein prescribed.
mittee)
J R/
APPENDIX F
e
Oil 'Nee.V\ \\V `
4\:.
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
151 PNOv ERMIT
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT•
APPLICATION : SM-YO-61 APPLICANT: First City Equities
PROPOSAL: Earlington Industrial Park818 Bank of California Center
900 4th Avenue
Seattle, Wash. 98164
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions :
1. The i! suance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971shallnotreleasetheapplicantfromcompliancewithfederal , state,
and other permit requirements.
2. This hermit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline
Managment Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with anyconditionhereof.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after
approval by the City of Renton Planning Department or until any reviewproceedingsinitiatedwithinthis30dayreviewperiodhavebeencompleted.
4. Pursuant to Section 14, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971 Extra Session, the
City of Renton has taken the following actions:
A. ( XXX ) APPROVAL
B. ( °Denial
C. REASONS:
1. The proposal is consistent with the MP - Manufacturing Park
zoning of the subject site and the Comprehensive Plan designation
of Manufacturing Park.
2, The proposal complies with the City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program.
3. The proposal has been reviewed and approved with conditions by
the Land Use Nearing Examiner and the Renton City Council as a
preliminary plat.
D. CONDITIONS:
1. Dedication to the public of legally defined location of the P-1
Channel of the Green River East Side Watershed Project.
2. Compliance with the following conditions imposed by the RentonCityCouncil :
a. As part of the development of the Earlington Park project, the
proponents shall :
0 Plat Phase 2 into Tracts A and B during the first subdivision
process.
Dedicate on the face of the plat that area required for permanent
right-of-way of the East Side Watershed Project.
0 Dedicate to the City of Renton as public open space and a
storm water detention area that portion of the site between
Springbrook Creek and Black River north of the extension of
the east segment of the northern property line (See attached
Exhibit A. )
0 Preserve in a natural condition the first 1600 feet of the
old Black River channel and associated riparian vegetation
upstream of the confluence of Springbrook Creek and Black
River. (See attached Exhibit A. )
O Dedicate an easement for storm drainage along the north
property line from the northeast corner of the site to the
Black River channel . (See attached Exhibit A. )
C.IT;' OF .'?iNrON
SHCkEL1NE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANT;
DEVELOPMENT PEUMIT SM-90-81
I Direct all storm drainage from the site east of Spring-brook Creek to the upstream end of the old Black Riverchannelforthepurposeofwetlandtreatment (as pertheWaterQualityImpactAssessment).0' Extend the existing storm sewer line on the site (in
an appropriate size) northwestward to the upstream endoftheoldBlackRiverchannel .
Preserve Springbrook Creek and Black River in their
natural condition and existing locations until such
time as the Environmental Review Committee determines
that relocation to conform to the East Side Watershed
Project is necessary.
Retain as open space that portion of the site determined
to have cultural significance by the Office of PublicArchaeologyuntilsuchtimeastheEnvironmentalReview
Committee determines that the site is no longer neededforarchaelogicalpurposes.
t . Prior to the development of Phase 1 , the proponents shall:
Extend Powell Avenue to S.W. Gradey Way, with final
intersection location to be determined by the PublicWorksDepartment.
Participate in the signalization of the intersectionofPowellAvenueandS.W. Grady Way by contributing35% of the costs of this signalization.
0 Participate in the signalization of the intersection
of Edwards Avenue and S.W. 7th Street by contributing20% of the costs of this signalization.
c. Prior to the development of Tract B, Phase 2. the proponentsshall :
Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) along the west sideofTractBfromS.W. 7th Street to S.W. Grady. Way.
Participate in the signalization of the intersection
of Valley Parkway and S.W. Grady Way.
d. Prior to the development of Tract A, Phase 2, the proponentsshall :
I. Construct Valley Parkway (2 lanes) from S.W. 7th Street
to Monster Road.
3. Submission of a new preliminary plat which is consitent with the
recommendation contained within the Hearing Examineh's Report,
dated April 28, 1981 , which shall include only those properties
zoned M-P and shall exclude those properties to be dedicated to
the public.
4. Installation of sidewalks along S.W. 7th Street.
5. Installation of such storm drainage controls and devices as may berequiredtoremovepollutants, contaminants and sediments before
water existing the site enters natural waters.
6. Provision of arterial collector streets to service the property
to the north of the subject site.
7. Compliance with all other requirements of the code and regulations
of the City of Renton.
7‘
1/:
vid . Clemens. Acting Planning Director Da 6
I
r/
ry
k;..
1,1
e'. Co.fid/root 6',
Leta'flanbas%
T 11111 111/T7III1,•I
Y.".'------
e
V
0
N,
Trae7 q Phase 1
r•
tit I S• _+
1
Iet T.-1
D
1
1
P 1
1
1
n 1
r
Q 1
i
r 1
1
1
1
le.
G
Exhibit A
ENDING '
OF FILE
Fig TITLE