Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-075 . 5 1 BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Ms. Linda Baker Ms. Susan McClellan Ms. Suzanne Krom 1202 North 35th Street 22826- 105th Ave. SW 4715-1/2 - 36th Ave. SW Renton, WA 98056 Vashon, WA 98070 Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Mr. Jerry Holmes Mr. Gerry Adams Ms. Trudy Thomas 408 Index Place NE 8315 Lake City Way NE#919 2350 Eaglemount Road Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98115 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Tom Malphrus Mr. Ted Mallory Mr. Bruce Harpham 18713 - 102nd Avenue SE 7524 South 135th Street 2518 South 361st Street Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Federal Way, WA 98003-7171 Ms. Helen Ross Mr. Don Norman Ms. Cheryl White Seattle Audubon Society 1209 Washington Avenue Rainier Audubon Society 8050 - 35th Ave. NE New Orleans, LA 70130 PO Box 778 Seattle, WA 98115 Auburn, WA 98071 Mr. Range Bayer Dr. Dee Boersma Kate Stenberg PO Box 1467 Department of Zoology KC Wildlife Program Manager Newport, OR 97365 Box 351800 Univ. of Wash. 506 2nd Avenue, Suite 708 Seattle, WA 98195 Seattle, WA 98104-2311 Connie Troyer Bill Wilson and Paula Lazzarini Kathryn Dugaw 316 Earlington Avenue SW 3715 SW Barton Street 5834 NE 75th Street Renton, WA 9805 Seattle, WA 98126 Seattle, WA 98115 Michael Magee Y. York Margaret Milnes 415 Boren Avenue#27 8616 - 55th Avenue South 1610 Park Avenue, Bo. D-3 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98118 Bremerton, WA 98337 Lauralee Smith Len Elliott Laura E. Goodell 146 North 76th Street 2006 Riverview Drive NE 4001 SW Edmunds T. #302 Seattle, WA 98103 Auburn, WA 98002 Seattle, WA 98116 1 • BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Steven Hayes Joan and Carlos Cabreza Janice Wagner 13503 MLK Wy S, Apt A306 20516 NE 122 5711 Auburn Way South Seattle, WA 98178 Redmond, WA 98053 Auburn, WA 98092-7331 Harold A. Solberg Terri-Jo Empens Jayne Kurzeja 14512 NE 173rd Street Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Woodinville, WA 98072 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Tim McManus Ken Neerdink Linda Seagraves Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplance Group PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 37307 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Frank Crum William Combs Barbara Batiuk Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Don Nomura Jim Andrews David Stephens Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Walter Hoffner Carol Anne Engeland Mr. Donald Norman Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Norman Wildlife Consuulting PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 2112 NW 199th Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Shoreline, WA 98177 Mr. Paul Budlong Mr. Rob Butler(PhD) Mr. Theodore Muller 8644 - 32nd Ave. SW Canadian Wildlife Service Department of Fish &Wildlife Seattle, WA 98126 Pacific Wildlife Research centre 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard 5421 Robertson Road Mill Creek, WA 98012 Delta, B.C. V4K 3N2 Ms. Deney Johnson Ms. Shirley Willeiksen Ms. Gwen Warren 24824 SE 235th Place 1215 NW 203rd Street 3235 - 99th Avenue NE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Shoreline, WA 98177 Bellevue, WA 98004 2 • • • BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Mr. Doug Watson Janice &Anna Mayrhofer Phyllis &Jerry Walsh 7019-47th Avenue SW#1 12047 - 69th Avenue South 12038 - 78th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98136 Seattle, WA 98178 Seattle, WA 98178 Dalice Snider Alma Bennett Robert & Barbara Gramm 32920 - 181st Avenue SE PO Box 23336 5027 - 51st Ave. SW Auburn, WA 98092 Federal Way, WA 98093-0336 Seattle, WA 98136 Ms. Tana Mason Mr. Mike Sato Mr. Jeffrey Ducken 231 Williams Avenue North People for Puget Sound 218 "J" Street SE Renton, WA 98055 2112 NE Ravenna Boulevard Auburn, WA 98002 Seattle, WA 98105 Mr. Dennis Paulson Ms. Beth Wieman Mr. Brian Shelton, PE The University of Puget Sound 2038 NE 123rd Street City of Tukwila/Dept. ofPublic Works 1500 North Warner Seattle, WA 98125 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tacoma, WA 98416-0360 Tukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Chuck Lennox Anne D. Strode Joan Silling Conservation Committee 1000- 25th Avenue East 17012 - 32nd Avenue South Seattle Audubon Society Seattle, WA 98112 SeaTac, WA 98188 8050- 35th Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115-4814 Brian Gauger Steve Stratis Tom Pesek 8336 Mary Avenue NW 11416 Rainier Avenue South 5925 South Langston Road Seattle, WA 98117 Space#13 Tukwila, WA 98178 Seattle, WA 98178 Donald Norman Peggy Jordan David Kappel &Arlene Roth Norman Wildlife Consulting 11416 Rainier Avenue South #12 3725 SW Austin Street 2112 NW 199th Seattle, WA 98178 Seattle, WA 98126 Shoreline, WA 98177 Patricia Thompson Liane Newman Beverly Franklin Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 16715 - 32nd Place NE P.O. Box 685 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Renton, WA 98057 Mill Creek, WA 98012 3 i BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Mary Marsh Brian Lumsden Tom &Julie Boardman 7605 South 128th Street 25728 - 226th Place SE 17428 - 116th Avenue SE Seattle, WA 98178 Maple Valley, WA 98038 Renton, WA 98058 Ed Newbold Susan Nix 4972- 17th Avenue South 500 Monroe Avenue NE, #E-9 Seattle, WA 98108 Renton, WA 98056 4 C`Dhen - k YLv 114 I , ' i s* \ ER. c_y_ 1 [ MICE 00 -1 CHANNEL r•\ �caxwion� 1 eETENTTx BASH `1 E SPACE EXISTING STUMPS&TREES--I3 �' J FOR HABITAT �� r - J a unLay EASEMENT .ia c...:.aEXa+T SipM MAWLE --__ A 1 1 F[N N 1 TRASH ENCL. ,' •, . --------______ W U Q AREA TYP. � R [Nsnw lug ~ Cr O or v R[xmx /, _ - {_. , Cue CUT W H— RUT -- --ICIAr I* r I���x. amrn "T,Rtu.lMall CHAIN LINK / / �'-• , • 1 LOT 4 14 �I nOK MR. > > _ ler � � ti �iI I a r ( q � 0* �i i��:��j �j'/ E i t�� C.Cur 1 �¢ az f a i' �4 es.,I •ITY OF I1, 00 m m cc 0 � 6 G e34 is, / L 1 -ENTON I'� ,0,41 At. %,Q° (-. N (; /I O T SPACE /n EXISTING LANDSCAPE N g1 q :''✓ Y• I I (1 �{/ BUFFER PLANTED IN 1986 /7 i \'>\ /'��,. ry'S ./. Iii, 11 I`; `' '' �:pY / •'+>/ '17 �:% A i! "'✓* O. .,, `a EYA:, ) \1 11/ A RCHITECTURE / /.♦♦� , // •�'.VV�G5.h0° O. ✓y, \ 1 /^ ` \1.�� ( PLANNING / e;''_�� B' ♦ i \Yx ', ROSCEA KRc PRINCIPAL � 'J : ` Y ENK CHIN.PRINCIPAL / . -� � ,�\ �'' e P. �ii��\�J / \ ISJS•.RIAVESOURI RXrtP ♦♦� p /Ari``: •✓QFi ee s e ;� ; SEATTLE.WAs1NGTONTBIJ. e / ♦� /: .. ,may " / XAISe1eD OFAA seSoroe ��� ♦ ♦ •x, , W PICNIC AREA y///LOT l y•' e♦♦♦ 1'4% / �4&A .� '-4 L.-� ` / , roi ' ire, . . • ) I: 1 ` �! : A 404, COnMSefO BE _MII‘ NO DESCRIPTION DATE 1 ' e 4� ,4..o a e♦I;♦♦e� . K�_� ___-_-- REASON PUCA➢ON B-JO-98 1 �♦♦ ,♦♦ �/��y�c � �' � ` �` �•�-I � REN90N 1-07-98 I ��}!♦ ♦ °Y l TABULATION REASON 4-21-98 IIIU;`•:�`♦ I' 0A° e I. ./' 511E PUN RENEW' 5-05-98 1 SE! . �€ B }lv �. jy, , SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) t546,023 SF \ 4a4, Q,,,p r ` LOT 2 1� , Q ♦' ,•'' / TOTAL BUILDING AREA t148,834 SF !�l���A O ♦♦' ee� �T�"� ! BUILDING"A' t 22,010 SF r�n BUILDING'B' t 32,500 SF . _ ��ir "NW 1' _ mow_• ♦ BUILDING "C" t 32,500 SF \Alti �� ,-`tee 4'.. OO y`,♦ 1� ENrn"a BUILDING "D" t 32,890 SF \ � -iL��,,'�,��♦y� :i ,♦ l C/ DKR,scN BUILDING "E" _ �'�i CM CUT F.A.R. t.273 SIT ' •N E x Ex�.�� - ' ��64,.. �����I Fi�♦♦'1'4. / ��� �� PARKING 597 STALLS ���� ♦♦;r REGULAR- 9'X 20' 400 STALLS EMI.cue CRT r S ♦♦/ (INCL.2� OVERHANG) \ 1 1**"4♦ / A COMPACT- 8'-6"x 16' 179 STALLS T \� • ACCESSIBLE 18 STALLS �� r,�, ,e•w \ \\ �V. -`�/ /8 11°ETo�sE;Nc PARKING RATIO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF was An & ., \ \, y,\ y EMSyIG EMsny JOB NO.: Y8014 SHEET NO OF: 2 \ "�� \ s s1WR iRKE R stun grl,I NOWrH DATE: 84047 DRANTI: RAJ A-2 SITE PLAN 60' 1 cHEcx s \�` , •\ 2 , .. \ ".PENTON��.°n :n "."" I . '.b \ \ _ 3�881500 W 414.27 , ._mom a+�.n `... F s. ' COOx,..BY DOM C.�EFao.'..00"O°RENT.BY DEED MC..L..RECORD.�.TO NE a� ION..WO 't,sin'''' \ i Cr' [�outer) 0 0 ,r NW..o.o[ \\\\ m`"' Nolo w..4) E"g..,,r.aa..,, ' +� rr.4-, , .,..o,v.SOWIE IN m,a MIT.CORM a MC,STATE a m. ' • ' "F 4' —..— �'— _ �:!.3. .' L s--- "r \\ .,� r. OxA".rc i a - t.'4 ,�•Car.. N90.00 St' 2 .74 F m \ \ i ,[nr FLANANNO)WY TANGNATION T. PRELATE TO WES CONITANT. T.Ago om A �'"r"i!'�;Oa L,°• �.W �^� "'�—„r�, \ •o a W SOWN ORROM NENTS mum,OR o�.. RESOD.,AFTER s rz ARE ' PRo / MIN , '‹ram? r \ 1 r l2:m' l c'4 MM A. WRNSAND Caumrs TN....[. ..�..� i�J / e/f a.ryp mi9 •A:yr m1 •.. \\\ AY rz.t.n,,a 0 rower: ultra's �."oxo NO.:NM.R a S."A, ,w�NO / % •{�. i .d r m'•')ttA6�• -- 1 +� �r m�^s m�" [[ [[Ev,M.�- ,] i[,.wDum 1 r r F� ,ai (.J ,.EAmNT A.EF TN TERW.b ,tea ''' • q •, , .,,ris,O,. m.''� y„ ' ' ,>I• �j' u» eta PURPCNE STOW SEWER • • 2,02 REC..»o.2103„.. ...MON.PORTON OF OD NA. 61"w,O, ) „ .•. ,r_• " I� '... cs�:e ' �I��I Q�:„ ."" i Sa 1 zz 11,u AREA A/PECTECt PORTEN OF � � WA p 'f* •,,. (^ -- ,. ),,, I � Z 13'43'43" z W AS CONC.CR SOD / ., I ., �, a O"wN. R 490.00' /— ,�EASEMENT"o,K IONS AND C"O,O,z 1110.[.RECORDING NO:N00020002 .".n i .VI�. _ T = 58.99' _F "w�A A.o/.x / 1I e ,, c oo r' :�I °I. fr L = 117.41' d1 wi¢.omix.x._ow.m[ nnmx"o ixauo[s DISTANUTON TT. /,/ Ta• ,° f r ♦ ' ,lun'rdP . ,��`ix vAcp wr) _ E s. '{; '.,�.m / it a-.rm. `A I� II' {{ ""„,a .""°e O W S 11 AYmw,NO TM Ax.NUT.M nue / . -.,.• ,r M[' 1 1 f REC... Ple-IC ACCESS LASOPT • ,e s / 'a: �, N c�X 341a1$i OTHER r ANY.us¢.x.BY vu,a rim NSW..WON./CENTER.12.73 MOMS ANY.INCH WY EIE 0130.09E0 BY 11. • , ' ITTiI •CONON AREA I.I �+ °� ‘. • .TExO ff m� E`� ' ° r a 1 niii' m02• .-�". / ./ p \' / �eQ = 82 19'28 sy �1, . N. o q :,„oa",..„ER▪ 0.6 mac TONE"EFFECT OM..ow .�/.w„,..C.� 4 7A 1 ,: I 0= 61'50 5 " _ a fi 21.86 °� t {"i\'� c FLOM ME _ % .r...' R = 238 3' ° ' fir' '` ';r•' L =1 35.92 ; � t� t ! 1. Z 'LOCO__ wA..,..""A.o[m g: t.741...' T = 142. 6' ,,,/,',..,i;' r �; - \\.' . I ._,,,- ,( �` sr il e.t Ox.e�i A"r ow,rz.ACRES.N"r o I'O� °^L = 25,7. 4' " , >" "m. m. ,` o o ,\ *tr` 4, ■�� 1 1 $ LOSS IFOR NE FOAL LOC..OMNI CONTACT INC. m+oa„oi0 AREAS T. 1 \. a 1\.e, M4 .;?a ' a ,.„.L 1/5.16'irrw � . • �4 • 1 N",.STC. o N o lad p c.am".,a ur rcr an o<mna.DA 02 v, • � fr.,,,,,....fr✓e r Ca WINOS CC CC (n Q i1 PACES ONO,„°*ROM DATAAAR \ x.[w) 4 - a • M .aO-c«. a ..,.ACT>..FEET TO FOWL m CM DATA. • �"��•4L14 `56 I ' >a�� "C.))� ` `•�� ,,,• • I , ,i]IE.-C.NC.x:i 1 3 W \ �_� '�+-.�\�9�g�,�"1 sZT m'`t$y<A T.:':vdsCATON ENON MY AMR :(WON) + },d i/ '\ 'Y.. ,. .'(b•.w.) a U i= oR = 580.00 s" �_�� �� ""' .',: 7 s ',. NT EF,o•,>., > > Z di sts S T = 7.93' Ac u.2( , . '+lac .. 0.1 , r� :3.N-• . • w 0 4 a [ PROMOS L = 15.85 \ w Ni �4 r �RN: ( �._4 6pt12'11" ,^ � �Z`� pc = 41 g _• n.F..wn.p.O/*w,[.wo 1¢.].'€" a))OLE r s r �:� ,,,t /' R Ir..., 'r, TREE LEGEND N Cc Q 0 ' 'RO1.. WA GOO MINDS-NOR '.x ,v["w"A...i[mm"Axrr �•.) �, °'9N • S�II !`� .: '/'� ���, .� �mAuavma COT =ALDETTONNOOD 1° a ci a r.[ xvxz 0 ^•(rvw x.[.) .. _ / r m.Ax.a, POP = 0 ,/..off N°Oii' ,. \ '+' DEC DECIDUOUS S POPLAR f2 CONPOWN AWN.SOON NNW DRAM MANICAZ FpAo). m200'LLi Tu.am�zs Sm w"N Awu SD " iio t s ) uTa vw G�' w'u" CON = CONIFER as(rvw SE.) r` 3 M „O' 2004 E. q I/ ...rn :.) :(.,—..,"CATS' `� e w. � r . " ;0.MAJ JJMC OF nA...„.s...wn,.ar<.EFm VF ` °:[(r.w sTC) GRAPHIC SCALE mg TM no r `•�S I,., A = 2 2'28" �`�+ /o�� 1•-50' 3/24/97 Z a nan2,.00-r„ ,-.oO-N.CO ]•0 WON MOM /Y• R = 580.On u� i ) ,3 T = 120.86' , A[ .. 132 4 :., M„n)rz 97051.00 L = 238.30' \ , �. K «"°3.b1 s:) 1 " 1 ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING BY LI ,LIVIA HI-TEK ."- .1\ KBR8 r ROUND 50-100W HID,150W INCANDERMIT SITE AREA 1 , ' SirILLIOAN 114.2;.•••.;._..... -L TOTAL(LOTS 1-3) 3546.023 SF ,. - c=. •nomm•-..4••••••••••...74.....• 1 11? , I IL 1 ..W.=•=2.••VA••• n 9.4 niNg \ % i r , SAW"A" BULIMIC'EC 3 22.010 SF i 32.500 Sr A ,•4 t!..111010./100.3 231.7 ./ NIKItalja 73;1 ____INcriA,I.k,I '•. w- O, --II-A•Lir TK 75 ' i 1•orrss,r....1r7====.••••• BUILDING X' ±32,500 Si. 0 I am' .--.. • •":J ..-• ..?\ ‘ es . BUILDING'V ±32.1390 SF soworolfw . ...-yrs. I, _ . I • ,I.---==.--=-, i SAWING I' 1:9L.1 SF lik i• ;k1/1'1 NOM' • ir\ )):;:".''•'', I / 1,e1 ..... i 7 4 4 , 1 I 1 1,7.i A ' Elf ....or mu,. V&-9' 20' 497 STALLS --- „,.....,,,,.............. /.4' /7/ ---.6.V --r- 4 t , x x re its (..--'s„,-, l', -,K.',,iP.''..‘ LIGHTING BOLLARDS 8 cc5pArt 2:r 6.•111 179 STALLS .- •/I /.. ' / < 1.3)•-" N, • • OTT Or - ACCESSIBLE(13 REQ.) 10 STALLS ' ,-", 14,-r-)7,C4jrinal l' 7,.:-Ii17.4911. TOTAL 597 STALLS // ':'-' / 0 N, .44.4..44 .............44 fleelRAWEDIIION PARKING RASO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF / 4 / li 11 SJ ,r, • (). // / •%,,,, ....-.- ^ = k- 1 b. *---.\ _J CC ,ANTICrAPE AREA PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING(MN.5%) INTERIOR LANDSCAPING ±40,954 SF ±294,696 SF .. _e 4. ,,,,/ / / '';\ LOT 3 '.\ in-- -i m k / Pp 4*./ / .•_4,,,t,‘ c.•) .L.+ - z; + C I ..._ REOUIRED 10'FRONT YARD i 16.449 SF .57.a......;- .r. wom•wrsomAR•AN A25 1141111 imp,2%:ourr,ATARAEAREA 3 13.675 SF / 41,04 / / tk \'4 ..."•... ' • / / l'49;r„-s9 "11. '',--- 7 IV\\ ............., ....moos••••^2 CSCONCOuRsEs PARKING.MANEUVERING*WALKS i 201,654 SF V'' Vir / ' i/ ).1.0T 1 4. ,, TOTAL i 116,334 SF 4 317.988 SF A / 11'4. 1 .i ' CE 0 414 1. `.4*/ W W 0_0 .............., ......... / ,,4,; > - MEE / > - CC Z 81•34 A CC 0 I tie.:=.••••..... ""=;:::1 BUILDING HEIGHT 415.0 i.xiT.ordw,) I .1„t I 7:1 1t -- I I I = siDEFR0NTBniirSETBACK(N)SNE RD.) SA ''') 1 0 co ......... .1.I L-257 • -••-1 A * - 11--- cr cr 1 • , , , (;) GE, ot,..„\,.:: ,2-:,..825,14.-- I 0/••••,' , le/ 1,,\ \ r • JR A 440.03 L•; .....Y J.----- '„. --- 5 . -. m 1-.-70mos ,-_-- I \ -.. \ ' (4"b. i ris.%. ri -1 - . . ,.."-,,,,,,,,,,°*. &-8219 28 L.LO LAI -••••T1 OM 571T:iilLS. 71N 1111M11111 .....-s‘ \ riii:;/IN lietfliN iniffall NiIIIIME Iiiri, ,.. i Lof I ' R••25.00' UT5LYril. POrli11. EILL5AVINE M/1.5•1.1.. A I \ 2._T.-- \_4$ ‘A'A.=-J-1 E E z- :"-RAMM ..a.1111111 EIMAN ',4111MIN ' , /4 4/1 L-SEAL < 0 Et.--.1•111 *NOME :- ' , Mu:. MIMI a-01.34001 -'-.......,''. -11?:4•••---... -'. ' .1P-'• / •#' ' •OF TREES ON SITE ,...., - t71 ' • • 4/-11313 C.) 0 I- EL..._=, .a._..„ ,a._....„ .a.........„. LAS......t... T A 7.95. \ --'.... ''''"....._---.---°-„,..'''.\ '"" (11'i)';A, / // O OF TREES TO PRESERVE 4/-127 < <Z r OF TREES TO RELOCATE 0 N -'----'-' ,.-- ', It::7Z"./.'' / 1001 OD 03 CC Nir 1.:••OF TREES TO REMOVE 31 \ , . ,.„.....-",-....„ ''',..., / -,- A ci,„„--- r,-232225 •••••• \ ‘\‘`. ,,,/ / I N _ ,- L A 231312 , . NN / • NORTH LIGHT FIXTURES 9 TABULATION 8 TREE INVENTORY 100' 1 :11.10 SI . Irril 7 -1\ : 1330 SI AAA, Aw VI Sheet Description ARCHITECTURE 4. • 1401114.• IA ST ROYCE A BERG.PRiNORAL A-1 Project Data and PLANNING 4Ws. "4 . towlEl.- A-2 A-3 Slte Plan Floor Plan Bldg. A. REN Y.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL I.-CH AVE SOUTH.SLATES --••f• 'I‘•; •0 A-4 Elevations Bldg. A MAME WASHINGTON'S. 4,,..- --'1•CAL-••' ..,... ir'.I A .4 'UNSST ''''At54112111P (20315113-0030 FAA 593.07CS ‘ e A-5 Floor Plan Bldg. B.5 C .': . a> I 1 , 'I io"LETTERS IDENTIFICATION AREA W ' 41% ,, ‘___.41111,7,, '''''.4413., ......•''''HO A-0 Elevations B 8 C lt- r : (7-io'w.4 V-10"H.) a IHTM..1 1111111WIA A-7 Floor Plan Bldg. D ' I •vri I Tenant Identification 0000 Ookadal•Avenue le 1 t i niiiltipper 411111P47:64, A-8 A-9 A-10 Elevations Bldg. D Floor Plan Bldg. E Elevations Bldg. E 1 9 :o,., Aitu___-____ C-1 C-2 Site Survey Schematic Grading 8 Utilities NO DESCRIPTION DATE ,„,i,„,„..„,, 031):31=-_-_---.- .-____,---,o, Aw- SITE PLAN REMEW 5-05-98 L-1 Schematic Landscape Plan j1\'• TURW '' •Li V___.----___ 11 wIlltl '1 P',9 • L-2 Schematic Landscape Plan it 11-13. 10111N. ''v'. ''''''1•4.. '?.4. 4,,...'' '4.. olD L-3 Wetpond Landscaping Plan - ENTRY SIGN 1/4' 7 VICINITY NTS 4 INDEX 2 OVRIER BLACKMER-R9/ERTEK U_C 700 FIFTH AVE.,SUITE 6000 rpm SECO- SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98104 (206)624-9223 ‘'--- DEAN R.ERICKSON 11 irXM1. g I ARCHITECT LPN ARCIITECTS ANO PLANNERS 1535-4TH AVE S.,SurrE D PROJECT DATA It • w/scENE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98134 li R0(206ydE 583,-8E.8030 • w.- 11/1inti I itl 2 . CML BUSH,ROED&HITCHINGS -• 4. .1, r.". a_ -----4A--..--- 1i s1.11 PI ST 7 TB ENGINEER S(220E0A06T9T)LME3,I2N 3OW-RA7 S1AH3VI N5 ST POW- MMHG ARA BLI.NG 0 8. 0 C N S HL AGESO "WNG R- 14EG TEO. N 98012-3513 rATIORE't.:. LANDSCAPE LAUCHUN BETHUNE ASSOCIATES LAHLOWE P. 19428 66TH AVE.sourN,STE 0106 File:96042\SHT-I.DWG ,/, t KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-2123 V (425)451-8877 JOB NO.: 211042 SHEET NO OF: LAUCHUN R.BETHUNE DATE 243431 °. 06,644191 RAJ A-1 ,7,, SITE SECTION A-A 30' 5 CONSULTANTS 3 CHECK: e• / 14111810.12 422011242 w41rcsmPxm ` , \\ i NBB15'00'W I 1 N �m.vw u Of,vc,El a u.uw,w rz.ucu m+u.fag 4.27' w`wEwrcxwwwxtu g,• h 41-vraeo.x .12F. d\ 11t _ / • sH_ S_J My ' l �l' (/ yy FgSOUTHWEST A.SOUS..nx smn.amm TO I.PTV w .x,w.Y�..C...UDER ...x..m,..,..w a a� � o w.o t� fw.. PESTawxwa,wwmw��.�ammFarw I .Ra„w.rOEMREM..UK..w.w.x..,m,0.w RECORDS o \w.O,ax,r — � 0 � �w . , a zamAEw.�. w.a aw a. STA.a — _ ._I 0y,\ -~/ N9OEt ' I � � �-J f I aapp A. N. 1111E REPORT REFERENCE ,.svoz awWN a x.rmx.w � 7/- .\' lh � m' +� \ =2. PURPOSE � :. 0 =a SIM AS DESTRIBED TOWN� / I i I f _ ^A AMMO:IS w..wr .x. .a® 3 e ww.r, a .m ; •" iry \MAPS .6w a...o lill.mmx.x...O.. ,Fa. / ,1I i /y P, _ '.K li Q 161 a Zn ---4 x II a ,K m.. xMw 6 a I z/. a..a. / _m a �w IFD ON os ww / / � I I �// 'ti. .mvrt 00 MD COSMO.nmsw ELECTRIC%(7 _ .a / 4 I I ECTRIC ,. ,uw/a a g �'I L- 1741 `, �m a W'� iei� .E MERLIN»D INCLUDES RECORDING NO.:110.10052 / ,/ ra .W , oQWw�, I / 41. / l i I ..m�MO a a iI =s.ara wm ,�FQ 40 , , / I,° " Maartr .a. ..eo., \aO � w,,w e k \ _ §' uww rzau m . i 1 ,ry - 1aµ OUTM1 r.aw..w ,<s� A . ff li 03 RIGHTS OR 11 RECO RECO RECA 1 , r `';'"I' ,aa�x.rts „- Y r A. l .„0-,..• r. 1c / yc ` :tee I .o ccr o ' /j T' 1/ � ' .� zs.ao• w\ii 8 OFTBACITSMST // I / c l F - L 35.92' I ��r 1 MAY R m a¢ OF MST..mom.n I gg //'' I __ ow s APPEARS w S.W.Saw wawa.¢w.,F u.r.o.,m MAY I i roeI p 81 26• _ �i�>" _-�< y / � -�'nn�J i ,p p`' /j ,.t.r.---vu¢xa sw.zrmanr,r.,am.tF.w u'a / -'�� / / f f' I -x'uer. m E w,Sa n¢SST rca rvwo wnx AWN ra[ ( I �'R.r 23&SY / .F t -. SPELES SHOWN cart..10.1.2�SWAM FEET a mm AWN..WM a I ----- I I xf/I j s � \,----, R-480 . I I'i 3 • g -1 / l \ .,f l' / wAlfas e, Ili; SUBSTRUCTURES sin ' l\� I li / V. ,.s, .+ 1 \ > ,w ;'/ / lu'� .�S.'°i -9 B —DE0 a w,.o,,....FF.....'nory /n` ..CY.o"`s. ''�Fm'm` \1401C, \N 11 .c AV:4;7, 4' a i /l L. _'� �,1 �" f•^% mvw l ✓"" ��„ode.rAJ3•s .,.,vx H.'.waF 0 i • 11111 . rtaxrx Sum i _V I �� ��, �� Zi I �f' jam, I L_ �a�,I y ""iuo w nxa,w,m ' ;� ,ti ax S f / / / � o > aa�A�SHOWS R c m .,®n.wl \ / 41180 m .l V a+ `# ,, �'� � °.0 b b Or ,. .d • �-• . I,cam,' Q s raw,aa p=�913357' /— /� _ 'i /; +' uc+T". a S _ I d s.aAO,.«FEF,m MU.0m OW DAT. R-5Ao 00' ` ��, r 54dr` \ w roc l l d�/ / /, „8 - 4,, y : Im cwc: `.I _ a e. LLI _,`y` •a.,�\ Pse9:-fft F°"�'.rot_ ,a•ao a.•�F1� \ e>\ / r1�./� / y: �. x.,.:.lhw�..l U C L, `\ .` i ba ,/ Jim', .. x 0 aua'' 1 Cam{ O y i s~H /�'` �l 1 / (,( xwauH,.sHev.,wx.zxM j Z $S UMW 1; ...vK E'l �.r.._ /`�\a `, i>a� � / r• ;f! 1��• o_ J ,‘44 n'r�.x :a.l si , / 1r Q o pw.r, /.H.o.'.m.+..a.a .`mTM.H. 11.a.m,..ANfI wv,.`s c.pm x.F -� ,. `�y _ I✓-e 6® �' �•,.,xsa... a (.j p ,i.o0i.w:°611 x,',,�pau.\ w" �� . ' ./i / r.�w�a'wHaF\ 5 . �$� s �ew.wo-r. : HOS ;,om.°� og ESOgCe q ae,l: �.,' ;.,txr, � ��"' � ;or,..1.9<SF, �. Vf x f ,� .z arc sul GRAPHIC SCALE MAJ JJMe w m w.o�ir 6 vHuxm�wwH.RUa<Wa.a `• S•I/z \ : b s w.w uu«aF 4 1•-50' 3/24/97 - � nxi-`aa'a.mo-z,. ,.0o-u.-xs, �Y ,'Hi°z(w'cac x F)p o sox mow '" E ...MAN..•.al ,of rrr.1.. 97051.00 +�°cwOaK.x<l So C-1 U.\WW1\%WR-A DWG \ UM RN OM itili \ 7".. .... Iii • - ---- ------ \ \ .� r h 11 — — r,o, k 1 , / i ;.F ':,......4; ., „?.S•-• .4010:_,7\, .....''444,&, - • . ;'i,,/ ,, .\ ` e �� III �I J .67t , � 4 . , 4 I T n pixorm 1 y �'^ a'V° V .fre`', LOT 4 + r- I .4 , 0. ,,,i,,. ,,/ - , ..,,, ,/,,,. \ ‘341kA„ c41s N. , IA 3 je ,''* \ // ii ,4 ,' / , ifie' d ..... ...11:C1/41. ai\.\. \\I,, or, vim,^ • q3r4.--- i `• �. ,. AV 4 ' 0 ' , ,,,,04.444,.1/4 , ,, .::::A "4, Atef -... . \ , ,..,,, . . -,, ,,,, . , .•' \ mot IFGEND fl ���, i, .,„, x.'/ ''9 --,/.}„ "' I i. )`/\J aY}�..Q^� .- a '--1' . mai c�cvinax / ''•/ O 9 5 i /i /�:. ♦ k�h:i ��'< � � qy. i • V�� 4. - .e '' II� m.lain ucv mx / ' (' Si/ '1.•�'L`-j L� �}' '-• .JQi ' %;` 7 c�'\�p, i .1�.i� 1 .► ',' \! ' I 1. o CAT.OASIN sin iuxwc /,' , I FE -1/4 ;, L\Y�/ \ 1 pig }}. ♦O4. * I 1 • '/' r / 1.' /,4‘e dorrel..:,1:,ft 4.# i , i .te if '•••• i \;1,1, ,,,,...4 ,s,. Aor ,., .4",'/._\-.0 •\_ i \' ------,--2-----\o___t Ij, 444* "*--/I.,' :-_ i 'WA '-;•, -._ 1, 1 / L— 1 • 4/PAP ' . 1 %TR .,t,..4 -,-'1411 ''..""•.'--,-- NE • e ' - N ',,#7,-,:k .,er '-4; • - '1„4„..v*\ # k3 I — ,,,INlit: „0. t,...1,.. .. ' t 4‘ Att$41040 4Wr /4.4%, -.4-4 \ 74,r, Itt.,-,,A—griiiistkr...: ...,.41v re •......... ' Neltik \\>I 4 40 ,,,,,...... .,,,.._.<,.Ailopp ,`3bcP, ---Lar-2 \ s:.N At" or,- - Ao I IX;) - -— _- o. O\ \. �'" /�/ .4.-- ; SEAL -7 - _ ,+i 9` vT�!�'02., �i1 / I ..� „n+.. 1 97051.01 x \ wcaMR `K • l.�t`� � _•®! },,�}' >'� 46 e / \f,'•�a BUSH. ROED R HRCHINGS. INC. :trek .,, ,,,-, , W.; ".,E. ."\`'z � . '�fy.,}\.� .�. �- 1 ° :-� / OW. T.°LWM GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF RENTON Om '\\ tF It S� y,�,- i /O� m DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS `E w $ o SCHEMATIC GRADING & UTILITY PLAN A iw / n BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK .g t �, •�� _ / 8 DRAM PAe OAIE 5-01-98 IX v --\} o , , c., HEH .... 1. 50' A...A S -. - \\ i/ -X.:% TM.m. ., �. ., .� —�. � .�aT 1 .. 1 sd_ U:\9)0.51-0I\9]0515Oi.DWG C-2 • \ BH ''' ERx / — I aF 1, 1\' -I CHANNEL \ `att OG RENiOx °EIFNMH BASIN `•` ( OPEN)6PACE EXISTNG STUMPS k TREES I \ `\ —' `r..... I �S GOR HABITAT �/ J CC —__ _ (off J ¢ A I um",EASEMENT ____ I N NRk PRESERVE 5 I _---_— —_—————'— IE i W ( RASH RP" EASEMENT i A$EA TYP. \ L. Q Z T I ERVIURB � p O an a NmnraN _ ___ __ - 111 c`" LJ j d 0 aPns SPACE EnsrFacrREE uxEA \:‘,) Z 11 xaur mIEEER( /fir— N..arnMrEaAUESER r.RFINxvN `� ONCE e Q Q i i i 'o. ; i i ' it WENIE AREA > H 6 HT CHAIN LIN f%/ �* \A. EITYOF ` 1��, �'p ��Itw �4A e Gto$o4 'iii E E T '' n R. SPACE N Vi OFFICE iW EXISTING LANDSCAPE '� �,,� ��•. Owl�O `':''� 5h0 J i ' (1 LLIJJl BUGGER PLANTED IN 1986 A /�, Q e `�,,Q 'S p� 1�\ I A L. _ -- _f_ .._ s dW1 p p• �ojd ��j p� i ti/ '/�/,/ toot ,0,i � •.p ii '1 �\ I ',,/• ii \+-- p�54 ♦••� ,,Q,D�, D�`� �. \\ l-1 ``� ARCHITECTURE !ii, • •Vie.-• 0,„ • ,,, �, LOTS .e� tD \\ I ` ^` ` "�`i`v. EXISTING cc an0 PLANNING / •,, e ` , 1 ,t �., \\ y'� `� ROYGF .BERG.PR NC Pa. ,,I` ^`\ <, ,, ,� / T KEN CH N.PRINC Pn. / �� ?? / N ��ee. ,.._,"E �e� "" IaMi50.}BmDNx868o,O0 • PICNIC AREA /�F' //LOT� Pp e�,,,A�� �F�,,,, `9( J •n ,i� �/ /,A ' 11 L Ty .�0 5 �C, ., \• .J�P ,1 \I\ wra;uExr L. I t / ///4ry\o, • .;\�C,J ,,,,,e� ,e,,�\, rye • \/ deee�4ee ,��As•r� j . .. °n°xw°OB6 ro ':69: I .-�' ,` R� f`, �y• .,c REW.fB 0�,- �' `'✓},. .� s:�g1 No DESCRIPnaN DATE cy ee v� A /7 �� e, \eQ1i �,:if� --- - PRE-APPLICATION 8-30-97 • • II 1111116t O�, 5 I 1 � �.fpf''e,"�/ O 0� ••':N't �`, ' 1 :If PLAN RENEW S-OS-98 �� �Q:• ?c,4 ,,�`�` TABULATION RENSION 4-O7 98 S� �O {•:,�1, � 1 Zeoo J1\ .: eo / /{ RENSION {-T7-98 4A _`C `+F E, ;� �ti. �►,. "� \ V ISITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) t546,023 SF \ �\ ',e�l� �,,,pp': �:�' LOT 2 �,, ��Q��"` .; �, I, TOTAL BUILDING AREA t148,834 SF "�_ `ryAAIIQ�A O BUILDING A 3 22,010 SF i� ( BUILDING "8" ± 32,500 SF �, .> Exsmc BUILDING"C" ± 32,500 SF �, �j� EXmmNc I, NETTLE BUILDING"D" t 32,890 SF \ \ _ ��A�ti% , � O ��� /`•1' % BUILDING "E" t 28,934 SF �� ���Ie ���I i`°p� � - �% sot F.A.R. f.z�3 SITE PLAN ExmmN a d' �II � O/' COSTING cum art DM slcx sake �� , j / PARKING REGULAR - 9'x 20' 400 STALLS A ` / (INCL 2� OVERHANG) \ EzSnxG CUm CIA SW �\ •� 1v / A COMPACT-8'-6"x 16' 179 STALLS `` ���•` / ACCESIBLE /1 STALLS :", ,,,a �y I.N_ f \�\ �` / %/ g 10 [ SO 4.0 IA; iiiJOBNCW111 601 1 _-_ ■ — — - ■ + kit'I-U \it \ + _ � , * —r! 1::— Sli \\ LI 1‘, _ .6c, +. + I S �i:ut m , I i1 ++ **• I — 7 _: I r_ kr i #*+ A E. _. f+ = I __ µ ++* ,m iw= -/ =n I r 1Z i - r 1 1�#� :II - Elk i rr? it i NE F: t •+ + III = . LIMII ' . MN 1 lt;* ., it, • imi I * aimp ow roi \*' i .rThI�: 1 1L . _ \grL ie(�\ : w + �/ E . mm. _ai I m w\,4+,1,0y�,'w( + 1 �� �NM •�R "A�� *+ 77 • in - /- i i iT Syw,.. r j ++# ll11111110 0110/011/11111717 ,:+ t • , 1 i■i.iiii.:■:i:i..!fTflI $ø ptk tI . T.(-17:3• ,____: .-C1-.- 1111111 :i• l.,l'i ,„...•/w:/ ------- 11 i' ,` 1 - . I / , ,/j—) 1 ' I tee. i 1 • ii' . . / / (11— i • ,‹. ---v- .).< _.,...s„, / • JOB" 114104SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN uvtston+ DATE: 6/1/46 Lauchlin R.Bethune Associates • SCAM i",1,,:,, ALPER NORTHWEST a� � ..o..�.,.Arch, elE.. ,.tpann.,.Asu �A N DX ET: 146 Blackriver Corporate Park "a^A .wS.o-,m ,.am- t�n, e��',:� cTc n: �,a,D Renton Washington s.w.y.e.wrvv o-nv,v,a.n e 3 I Iv lel- ii.,7.4:.:tit.1.11.a,-....a...0.24C," ,k2,''''plsi: ..F. '1.Z1 "it , .!di.., ri . . 10111,1r e 1 , v\ n ......--,---- 40.01 ....,,,i'Vt, ,a„•4*•___ ,4,...... 11111.0411 ) • GVOPP ir. .I!t / '°i^0s1ir. ei;1€ ► �` Iv1.Ge .... I 8 alts : ';a�1� : ,�z ,e!��� - Alt 11111",.. I �� "•ir ' �°i ,%e trig � �i .:. , ,.. g ( ,%f� I . y -�Nn�'N , i�� a �'�`' '��:� +.. 1 ,,,0 ' .41 I/ 1._:1� .�Tl��l1 oeeoe oLa-a/li�-;.afnu sisdAt ! I1 ` p yr) a ii _.Ir � i 1 e9r 1 3 t .II � `�� \ 1iwlwrw,r.e°^o■A„":4 1.�� ` oc rIIfl ii:,04:--a,,,,..i. i 1 i ) 1 r. is i!' 1 Ili ►■ Isla clia 1r;: o. vOlo ...1, e o ! � �'.■■' MI ebl�illr'■ I L �\ilk i ' I m Ie�� �!�.}. �����t■e� d t III:I li (ti• _ 1. Nitio. � �;I [�; -3 i C'!fu o limy it ii �� "'i 1 N :!� \ i k il I 91\ 0 _:„,_=, i 11,, , EN . , 11, ,,,,„ ,P. s it mill _ /+ •`''•:ar°d'�•�r !►°►��ei� lit r' ■sii U� off:. co o . ' T` •i l 7 11111" Ilia ?P— ' q1111. , ��►� 7Ii ,,. ilki, 10. Iyr i c re i y s , 4 MI t \ ' li tle!ft ,,0�` I q � '■11,11'1 Q Q::Q/. 0� . 1 .' � � 'i'iaGGG: �f il::$• �6s, oft 'AS r: ���� � ., vi - i — =..Vey g ioir`aiioiu vor R it •j., I E- M ,, �\ F "' ' -.4414111F ° � L�_ rI' ill O, I, 1 , Illy O„,„ ,M.Z \ v eeaolmhel ---_ r ya nese J f '.. goo' \ s r' - ( .p1.140 4' \\i t 1,---4,r= , .. . r ``. ~ . C 1, = /. / - -" \ .4.N ,» i L , U 1 + I/ Ali f, r ti''; : : :' \L '", I. o 4a+l ' \„ter' r, \'1': . \ \ � ��' Lam+ 51 ' :,• \ y I •�. \ L\I \ A ,' C \ \ i err i \ sly \ r:� 1.10 so.. lillo-g SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISIONS 3h.6, Lauchlin R.Bethune Associates ,,.�,-0tr ALPER NORTHWEST �.v.A.Mn�.S ...a,v�.m.tiru ,G`'�; er■r: Blackriver Corporate Park ma Mod �Se.s..o-:« me1,e 1 nor, Renton Washington e 1 286-0 __. / /-0",„ 61'-0• 20'-0•• {' 180'-L - / METING TYP. n RI Ea 1 00 L/_J IM MENEMEN ""'�J 1 ri 1 Q U Y rat J a = LLI U F ) i I- SO r / L 1 WI > a cCC 9 - EC Z_ 1 1- 1- , r-—-_ I CC OS BIOTRICAL 000U-l-- I lr\I CC ' 0 Q L-1 I I 0Y YO LT_i J W I FUTURE pE6Tpo0Y CORE , IM 1 MI m J OC _. I I BOLDING ENTRYIOPT / wT ON CANOPY / I // ARCHITECTURE // and PLANNING I / Y.KEN A.BERG,PRINCIPAL / KEN c. S.PRINCIPAL 1535 AVENTH AVE SOUTH.SUITE D SEATTLE WASHINGTON 9013/ 1.15638030 FAB 583U708 .20'-0- ,,. 175'-0- ./5'-0 II I1 NO DESCRIPTION DOTE lJ DIE PLAN RENEW S-OS-98 J J - MN - - _ - - im a — BUILDING 'D' FLOOR PLAN ILI ES ). i 6V-0- 'I, File:96042\BLDG-0 DWG ,h / / Y6 NORTH JOB NO.: 042 SHEET NO OF: 8G 0 DATE 4.2 NAJ A-I DRAWN. pA,l BUILDING 'D' FLOOR PLAN 10' 1 CHECK. • 1. 00 L I I _ , K r -- lili 5 - , ,_—_,. s ® riff ® ® ® EI I1 1 II117.1917PENIHNEI 0oY a MAIN ENTRY— U V LLJ EAST ELEVATION M W <2 W a0 crz SN ELDED LIOHT TYP. TINTED GLASS r DRYV TNf i SHNOPY _TILT UP PAINTED ED CONCRETE COLLOREVALUELS O= Q �� I I T I ' / t J W LLI II CC CC z ENE P ® f � ' 1yEEEt ripI� .0 m � a Qz SOUTH ELEVATION I ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A BERG.PRINCIPAL_� - - V.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL I.-ATH AVE SOIAH.SUITE D sr ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® I ® ® ® ® ® P I - — - $EBiTIE.WABAINGTON'S.— 1333)3.34020A3 f se3mae MAIN ENTRY—./ 4. WEST ELEVATION NO DESCRIPTION DATE STE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 — — I_ . - _ - — /-I _ —.. _— _. ._ BUILDING 'D' ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION GO1/ELEV—D.DwG , Ei NO.. HOAG SHEET NO OF. I-xeRA, A-8 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 RAC 1 I I i 66-D' i i 80-0' 1 26-0' i N. ♦ 4 4 _ __ EP II . 00 17 0U QJ ¢ J a fl C w > _ CC 0= f U0 cc cc Q 0 cc ¢z Q U U1- Q <z II CO m¢ , 20.c i 129.-0. 15.-0", I — x:ss. ARCHITECTURE .- d PLANNING SII BIM G w/ON CANOPY fT mi ROYCE A.BRO.PRINCIPAL Y.KEN K.CHI,PRINCIPAL I I I SW-E,AVESSOUTH.SUITE I I .-8 wmcrp10708 J � I�IsaamwfAx seao�m 9813.4 LOCATIONSII sTho I\T' w I 1 I I r -I I--I- I —4 I rl I I I n u I I El I I 1 --, NO DESCRIPTION DAIS I SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-96 I r--1 I �1 I I I I I t- J J L _I 1 - L r 1 a — l. SPRINKLER RISER ROOF AICCESSOOM BUILDING 'E' _, FLOOR PLAN II LIGHTING rn. ,,S-0I 80-0 - - -- Y 20'-0• Y 135.-0. 1 -. - _. 240.-0 1. Flle:96042\BLDG-E.DWG �n NONTI JOB NO.: 16042 SHEET NO OF: DATE: 2-2846 IP m DRAWN: RAJ n_g a BUILDING 'E' FLOOR PLAN 10' 1 CHECK: BS I l--, l Y . Ti M ® ® ® ® i ® f .rffpEpl /�� UY W�SJ CC lur J Q MAIN ENTRY d WEST ELEVATION 0 - Lii- (off I- CC0 (RJLO L" ~ aZ ¢ TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS—, DRYVIT ACCENT--, ENTRANCE CANOPY TINTED GLASS ARM MOUNTED,— *TYPICAL NOTES CC 0= PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES BAND DRVVIT FINISH \ SHIELDED UGHT TYP. — — — V Q ` w w3 PEEiENEj 1 I Q CC Yo Q aZ I. ran Fo m¢ SOUTH ELEVATION ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING BERG.PRINCIPAL �REN K CHIN.PRINCIPAL E SONH.SURE D 13051583800 PAP 593-0700 111111111 ,, ,:,,.. ::: 110 1 ' ' ' -71 ri-— -1,,J __ .........mi;-' _-- j_— TERHPAI MIT „..,___. L., DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-9. —MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION I I L 1 - , '1 F —. -1 I 1 1 BUILDING 'E' ® ® ® I ® r ® il I I E IB E ® ® ® I ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION 960A2/ELDG-E DUG .,OY NO.. 98042 SHEET NO OF- CA-E I-13-07 DRAWN RAJ RHJ A-10 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK is *TYPICAL NOTES M BF ARIA MINTED TINTED(LASE TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS ORYVIT ACCENT SHIELDED UGNT TT►. PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES `BAND • LLI {/ . . — w QZ l; I > \\ T Tf ® p.i , � > oz_ I Uy r cr< W MAIN ENTRY--- -ENTRANCE CANOPY X LCE DRYVIT FINISH > > SOUTH ELEVATION .< Y Y O . 0 ¢z 0O m m¢ • iT— ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A.BERG,PRINCIPAL T.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL tI_— —— SEAS-E. ASMINGAVE H.ON NIIE D EEATRE.WASIIINGiON VBi31 IRONS63-B0]O FA%SE0-0703 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NO DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN REVIEW 5-05-98 C� L- =1- --. - - ..__-_ _ �J---._. _ - IL'--I - - I H I luau ! III li ''''I - ® ® ® I 'r ® BUILDING 'B' l I ELEVATIONS 1 l BUILDING 'C' SIMILAR NORTH ELEVATION FIIe.96CA2/E,Ev-BC_DAG ,/. CO NC- 95042 SCEE NC C'. DA-E_ 1-28-98 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 HECK RAJ A-6 _ is Eli o❑ RI C U Y 185.-0" Q J CC M —i a ARM MOUNTED, I W SHIELDED LIGHTING TYP. ^ I- H L IL W aC7 > ¢ CC o=\-, __.N.I _ irfC O cn CI, E cc cc a STAIR STAIR SPRINKLER RISER, W Li, LOCATION ELECTRICAL ROOM //��� > > �J ¢ ccZ Q Y YO Q Q QZ IOCI CO CO CC L J ao I - J �' ARC MITEC iURE — , and PLANNING ---I FUTURE RUTUROOM In ID ROYCE w BERG.PRiHCIPu 1 CORE E�l a Hw PRINCIPAL SEATTI I �ms- rE sourR.m�o WASHINGTON.1N 1 I:oelsa3eon E�x snraTm nI 1 1 I STAIR LOCATION I ELEVATOR LOCATION U L 1 11 .: DESCRIPTION DATE OPEN STE PUN RENEW 5-05-98 I ABOVE I I , 20'-0" 50'-0" L 45'-0' 50'-0" / 20'-0" Jr - BUILDING 'B' FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 'C' SIMILAR - r -ire.96042\BLDG-A.DWG t/' ' JOB NO.: 00042 SHEET NO OF: NORTH DATE: 2-22418 g BUILDING 'B' 1ST FLOOR PLAN 10' 1 CHECK: RAC �-� M _ .I ._, , , go O U� 1H. . -11111111- iEf 7Th i 0 Q J 2 J Q a WEST ELEVATION El = w U F- - ¢O JL w ~ 71NTED GLASS TILT w CONCRETE PANELS ARM MOUNTED, *TYPICAL YOTFY > - PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES1 SHIELDED LIGHT TAP. \ I 0 Z CC O UU �' 1 w w —_E■ F 0C m CO CC ENTRY ENTRY / ENTRY 11 SOUTH ELEVATION bn ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL Y.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL 1 / 1333•am ATE SOON.SUITED SEAME.wASNINGlON 9813.1 — . • - - 1206138113030 FAT 383u708 NO DESCRIPTION DATE EAST ELEVATION S E PLAN REVIEW 5-05-98 -- I BUILDING 'A' ` ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION File:96002 JOB NO.: S60A2 - . F DATE: 1-28 S A-4 F - - DRAWN: RAO N: J 0 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: Ef Co ES CC 0 U Q J EL P 240'-0' —IQ a / 30'-0" 2m'-o' / U W H w Q Z - 1 In- F cto w ~ )^L,�^ - a 0 4 4 4 cr Z � O= UU 1 EL ¢a r w w SPRINKLER RISER, 0 > 7 _ ELECTRICAL ROOM, ROOF ACCESS Z Q Y YO U U)— a � --I _1LEA CC m m¢ _J I r f l -T _I I m' I ESTROON FUTURE—H- I $ ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING J I ROYCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL v.K.K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL I.-AN AVE SO..SUITE L SEAM..WASHINGTON 98131 I206IS611m30 FA%s.Aa O8 a 1 / / C` = c DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 SNIEAURA MOU TED, O TYP. b , 60'-0" , 20'-0' � 20'-0' r 80'-0' + TU'-0• + • BUILDING 'A' FLOOR PLAN e:96042\BLDG-A.DWG 1n JOB NO.: 95042 SHEET N0 DE. n NORTH DATE: 2.23-US A A DRAWN: RAJ -3 E BUILDING 'A' FLOOR PLAN 10' 1 CHECK: J ! >'i a �. n, • ., I o•'�'•91•3- 3 zP,i I•' C sr -1,..CA aW 3., ," ® ,4,_ IR .., ---.;-,---,----.A.-......., 4'ICp T1,. :� 2 11 1 'r w°s GD i 1 sJv ail to l ki'� 4x °• a x,x, 'w _ *sr+rf a x1 Dx fillritialt 7x •,; � yca �Aq -sG 544� +I�y'�a�jew� I.- R4/TE 900 „I i + HART/N LUT .;a!z `N `,4 , N ,.I.,,,,,i :i.:l:i i> jam,, ..{�x. .��zy7o„,'�.]n,.,�Y,'L--.�'-� _ s .I .. N t•t Np.- y �Sl1,_4112/44 [' � T/I.S` '+� z''ti '/y�A, I 'Y- rr"�`" �`_ �"�' z I. Carl Mres� NE y'�' , "<. �f3.''�� /�Kalitift4164k � � �� -`+ I. 1 U= 4�t iliNali. -��g'' y6f 5 - r am ., . ,.., ... x.. �'� �...,,,�c 4111 � .�A� �.5 , ti,Y,fia . , , pirlififiti ,a 4'.,e ://,‘,..:t'swig, at .-.------L_.--iw,, ._.t.,......, {{''�J y '� M x.1 ifity . ...,„..— ,_______--_----__ _----:.:---,:---„,..„,. ,,..4, ,., i i 1 .i. 6 iP it ii \ '''''' "Ili. 1 d tG it, z'.w w! � 1 R I , �J `isw 1.';lift" i J`. L', ��,...i rat a irx , '� _,z./ CITY R NTON s u O EQ sw �. OO OF ETA Tw Lrz 9PEI�SPA6E +-— �J w ( ' `l� '� s ,n'� II Y]8M _ Got L<t3 0O, `�,,-��rrr��.. q7Pr 7 z .� 2 -. I9 WY�JF R�RON�j . .. 2t26 Acres { 'W\N N o 4 E ' n#9� 1 .TR. �� OPN SPACE 1 1 ... V' al, 'T 4v"'4 Jj�l'' A�qj 5``. •.' ''�- <o J z 7 25E � ,, 'v _ , � Z dk A•.�f t1l r Q J ¢ 445:if '4';'Ly ,6 Ati- .. C—m u..1 �� \� Px,1 DETENTNNI POND•-,_d027-1 i 1 OFFICE �A Trt ' w a z It v ��- "I i W C S.N'I N G T'OxN 4TxE C H N I C A L a xusx+ • 1 r='� -- .... _- __ / - _- ... �n. . p •• 1 W a O „ CITY OF RENTON PROPcn}ED VCR,/� + TECHNi CALI i C E N T E R+ _ y '�n- O Q / OFFICE ' I w w .V, / _ s,. >\ OPEN SPACE B .- -.A:S%'i ••,' > > N<ioS� //�J E *çT t1M LN I `.� N T �A J� ""�� .•'� � a`E.� la i I+ z '.ji( �' 1 1 11, L,y ill y¢+� ... -, rS�TE \,}• ` 1 0 3 tl a I --v_. < 11 a y 1 z a :� OFFICE. , I gq a - 6 M J "I EAR LI ON I URE and PLANNING 1 I, - Q ' r ' tl PLANNING tp \\\ IYETHO gACLITES 342QANN \%� _. T E C H N I A c it ' '2 o INDUSTRIAL — p \ \� i = �� o OFFICE I` L'M j` �1• x ` = r . F O R T I i % Ilik� h __ a PARK NO.I cJ D E N'T �\ � � _�! "%"`''.>"/ i 1 , ;/ II C E N 'IE R 1 S in J ..,si - ,.., 5.3 �� a 1_ '/�scJA rZ,..G ; _ - OFFICE - - ---,� - •• _ I -re pTN sT meg .:srzEPux RENEW 5-05-98 Atza\ \JEP ,s� ,,\ s,\ �1 HOTEL II 9 "" Sw. — -- : - ,z,'4In -\..- / ��\`,\ I t 1 11 I I sW w*N ii '■ �li11 gW ; i willaig �� dJ\\�\�� ::•::,.1-,,, � �.x „low' tm w'Cfllr. ::,, ' . `v �tis ..I., ', 1,'tl1 ,a;�i r,T,II'II „YNtNi ,,Wj •_ _.,, �r �" G :Ill!, •� ^e 11- 001 :'"o •• " NEIBORH000 H v 'Po _ \ 1 DETAIL MAPr ' • ` * ,. E f• ~ ❑h ..� LILfIrIIt n,.N.ld id r YvEp^UR-. - ... /1 ' 1 '• ''�gi/ M"'may MR,l"'WCC a a r. �, � �- BLACKRIVER TRACT 'B' // �,/ Qi'^ / .". r I e 96042/OEi MAP DNC�n �, TAT aa5 - "'"" NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP �/ 03 �. ' s^� as ♦A IE ,ST SCALE 1'=POOH NORTH �.+R1E� sou 91EEi NO OP A:`4/� '. - .'llntq .... o ..-10 '`' fl 7 .. ` .. '!'� a ; • >wN. TOM * BATCH NUMBER: ES COMMENTS *' CUSTOMER NAME LPN ARCHITECTS 't-P,i7- S(4< )tiYS't'Z,1,-'. 7S'YS!S'+'+:tftCt!-P,:rSit5” 132304-9087-01 132304-9089-09 RIVERTECH ASSC 'LTD PARTNERS561384 CITY OF RENTON 543919 PO BOX 41 ATTN: A/P EDMONDS WA V 98020 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 242304-9006-06 242304-9097-06 KING COUNTY 701724 KING COUNTY 701724 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 506 2ND AVE x708 M/S 7ST 506 2ND AVE _ 11708 M/S 7ST SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 98104 , 242304-9098-05 242304-9111-08 CITY OF RENTON 359999 KING COUNTY 701724 200 MILL: AVE S DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RENTON WA 98055 506 2ND AVE V708 M/S 7ST SEATTLE WA 98104 242304-9112-07 918800-0070-00 CITY OF RENTON 360558 L-0 RENTON INC . 770474 200 MILL AVE S 600 UNIVERSITY ST STE 2820 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98101 918800-0130-08 918800-0140-06 CITY OF RENTON 6D9700 BLACKNER ' J V' LLC PHASE III =672424 PO - BOX' 626 C/O MARTIN SMITH INC RENTON WA 98057 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE WA 98104 918800-0145-01 918800-0150-03 BLACKRIVER 800 672524 CITY OF RENTON ' 490013 C/O CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INC 200 MILL: AVE S 700 5TH AVE V2700 RENTON WAV 98055 SEATTLE WA 98104 .. r V 4 I o SRO \ / /:' e / I I `,. I �0 0,CHANNEL 11' `an a RaTOx I BJ arzxlwx BASYI `,` OPEN{SSPACE \ �/)� '1-�) -- I EXISTING STUUPS A TREES I 0 3 ' I J cc FOR HABITAT /�,P�� ���••/J/ ()}� �)r 1116 UTILITY EASEMENT INy'````r __�_. G J d A V x AM4 RRESERK 1 SIaN '- - ------ - G = W I GSM ENCI I mEE 1 OW a REx1Ox ~ r-c\\ I WR6NC I Cr ¢I- riCE OPEN SPACE .-.-. __--__-__-_ lafi I If C__ [nSTNG TiEF lAE A ,� \ > IZNA T•R OMNET 1 1\ -I I NA9TATBUT[R •IBYAN '/ \ O / AREA I', I Ex�SBxO ri / 1 FENCE CHAIN LIN A• / Q .•O D,v' / PICNIC NNEA - -- - -. I411 I �`i .��6, e, oa \�O'' �, .,',l, ..� ; LOT tj�ll Ens II 'I I 1 ifi �h pro •j�lpp " 'as. C.) AF �a. „1 r ) NE TON j BUFFER LANDSCAPE ¢ ,,� O �Q``";p ��'e. ti�,y`'� \•j� i�' i' (40' Ij,SPACE p °""` BUFFER PLANTED M 19B6 ,e ,p �, /� I_' L 11 4 (\•+') , ii• / ;',�/i+`�..QQ . � `,�`oe{S`` � �,,v.,•40,,�,,Dla:• , 11\l,1\1 `1y !!ITECTURE / ' ,'�� .‘,.� g�po LOT 34.01k, v� ExISxNG and PLANNING .S \;,...'.‹..: 1: o<N�E •I♦•\ \ ROYCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL / �!• ,, • ,i• �1,Oo , Vn••:L -- �'�•\�/ - Y Y.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL %;' „° /\ C •• �, p�� ee • o�w ; 1 3 T;LENW ONN OIIf1NI PICNIC AREA / !4 / ,,e /LOT to A '•. O',,,eQQ,,,, ,,,E�. , IA �� C�-.\`•'' .. 1N1 I Iseseo�of ** tite,o"'S / le \ ,.1 t •t' ,,,`"0``',/A0 40 '-'7• s 's I. .'4.• • o.1r. .4%e.,„ •o,f ** , I Ito �, „ ��, ... 4\`,,.'" < O^= ,`. � 'I _ NO DESCRIPTION GATE �O,�i'. IR , . ,1�/O P{� :+, p, J. vy e ;,`e�..�/•1 -` 8-30-97 REVISAaPAPl1CATON 4-0)-98 ,Q }'Cti,, '�,,, � /• y'�9 9 �{�'� e�� �' /j• - TABULATION REVISION h27-98 S� A V � n°l tie„ �p '�� •� r�� r SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) *546,023 SF SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-9e ,p4 0,,, , LOT 2 , �,� �,l, ...%/ '� I p ,,,LOT . 4� / , TOTAL BUILDING AREA t148,834 SF V �� .1�il�AA 0 ��� ���`' 1 I BUILDING "A" f 22,010 SF �---_ R.4���A, •0 �.��I� �y ��►,,/, "' BUILDING "B" f 32,500 SF BUILDING 'C" t 32,500 SF �A4�(,�- ��!!'.' �Q di i � �� eoBnWc sa..0 EOEM RRING BUILDING "D" t 32,890 SF \ !!!!•''�,R„'f� .0 r / s1./ «R sR„ BUILDING "E" t 28,934 SF f51P1G !S `� �/ FA.R. t.273 • °�"°"�°" SITE PLAN • \`_ 0,1a A �'� � ', +a i;�/ PARKING REGULAR- 9'x 20' 400 STALLS ERTNO CURB an . - ` j ` (NCL.2' OVERHANG1)6, COMPACT- 8-6" N. 179 STALLS ; e` `� !c \, N,. I� •A.1 1r Ew A ACCESSIBLE 18 STALLS rr+w m'tax `it. / IABhaIE PARKING RATIO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF ` 1 �YETROXERI \ 1c�l \ / Fa&9B012\SRE-BRJ.DWG ,/, • ` \ • .OT ``� / EnB1YK FAiSurvG p'� " JOB NO.: 00044 SHEET NO OF: )Biar aSM.fKE i S aF¢E N I 0 30 60 I i, DATE: 6-70.07 DRAWN: RAJ A-Z SITE PLAN 60'1 1 CHECK: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Ms. Linda Baker Ms. Susan McClellan Ms. Suzanne Krom 1202 North 35th Street 22826 - 105th Ave. SW 4715-1/2 - 36th Ave. SW Renton, WA 98056 Vashon, WA 98070 Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Mr. Jerry Holmes Mr. Gerry Adams Ms. Trudy Thomas 408 Index Place NE 8315 Lake City Way NE#919 2350 Eaglemount Road Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98115 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Tom Malthrus Mr. Ted Mallory Mr. Bruce Harpham 18713 - 102nd Avenue SE 7524 South 135th Street 2518 South 361st Street Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Federal Way, WA 98003-7171 Ms. Helen Ross Mr. Don Norman Ms. Cheryl White Seattle Audubon Society 1209 Washington Avenue Rainier Audubon Society 8050 - 35th Ave. NE New Orleans, LA 70130 PO Box 778 Seattle, WA 98115 Auburn, WA 98071 Mr. Range Bayer Dr. Dee Boersma PO Box 1467 Department of Zoology Newport, OR 97365 Box 351800 Univ. of Wash. Seattle, WA 98195 P-,UuNNE. \`t �m.Or PEN,ON °MOON 8A. 1 1 OPEN{SSPACE I 1 `\ \\•• �....- , . I Y ,✓�1`-n_. • 1 U I \ E'ST81C STUMPS Q TREES t L, y', 3 • I �^ J Q F HABITAT \\\.//\ ,'. J I UTILITY EASENENi I ----1__ d Cs? T -- ; ENCLYP 1 N ExiSV�. o _ ury Cr aEN'oN �t --- - _.-ip _. ---- - —i- s-i G � W a C~7 OPEN SPAR 1 1A .111 ��� ROUT M'E p/CAFR '�l ' T I CnSTNL I 0 x - it l ' )� I RaA [C 0¢ w ,y op. APEA FENCE CHAIN LIN ♦ 0�4• ,�� ` �\ 1 LOT 4 �� — I >`�- rr j.j 0`33' 9♦♦♦ .: .„„_.,�i� /,Il' <� 1 N.LO. 1�(I €'�a, Q Aa ��♦♦♦ �I�O� ,�CQ �. Goa ,,• 1 r IENTONI( E Pal m m¢ EXISTING LANDSCAPE i , -♦� �0�w�� ��►. `' ,2 ! i.10' SPACE r� li BUTTER PLANTED IN 198641p, 4. ♦♦�-;„• >\ `�Q,,,. '�A ; 3�M1• ,6 %:\ 1`' v 1 :�. l ems,^ifr :i I \ ( w♦^�"4" As♦♦\:•, ` i,c?- ♦Q' `0,,�, LOT 3.��.', �T' `\ 1 ````� uisnnc ARCHITEC iU RE / .� / ♦ ,. • Z - ♦♦ •:�:..., \� �.` OrrKE Rntl PLANNING / ;♦ ♦ems^�� 3'' • i::::%♦♦ ♦♦♦ ' ♦♦♦. \\ 'V� % / YOYCE A.CERG.PRINCWAL / 1 / �♦;" .. A,,Q ♦�'��,11�,T- ,,e@ •.,`/ 1 N I]oel.aJ-eon PA%dssoroe PICNIC AREA • / ♦ /L0T Li1� Q ♦♦ 4 �'�♦ ( :V ` ,j �-•^\ 7�, • n t: r'I •\< ' • � ,,�•�,, ♦ �., on pA000s ro eE ( � I _Q ♦♦ 'R� y.,•\ ,PC Euo�EO O�= '�. .. E:�jI ---------- NO DESCRIP110N DATE b, I t�. �� ,•••• i� ♦�: 1A�Qa -,... ----�- PRE-APPUCAnON 8-30-97 Q ♦ ,�i O J �, 6. 'NF: ♦` t 1 REVISION 4-07-98 I `�� •' ♦♦♦ '• pPSF ♦, - TABULATION �JJ•t �♦ d P 69� �,, �",�: • .••11 e�,♦� �' REN90N {-71-98 S E' P / ! SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) t546,023 SF gTE�N RENEW 5-05-98 1 8'• 40 EP a Js JF�S►.. . , 1 Os. L 0 T 2 1 e• I�ys- : ♦ 1/\,\ ``_Y4 SF l lid+AgatI S4\ I; \♦ �+'-:j , 1 BUTLDINGUILDING AREA ±148;030 SF �iwiSI �\ '\ dy?"Q ,���\ ,* 7. ����/ BUILDING"B" ± 32,500 SF " SF :::. ae �` .fi -�y 0 41. / �,� t BUILDING"D' 3 32,890 SF MN ,r:, --•,/"•••.., ♦ Us.sawA `aRivY \ �� /' BUILDING"E' t 28,934 SF V �� 1riAe ��� ':4 ♦♦♦ �zv• MEN SCR FAR. t.273 �- Aet. ,,� , '`40 4,- E��E�� PARKING 597 STALLS SITE PLAN \ °"'"'"" ` �� �\ ` ���� ` ♦��T REGULAR- 9'x 20• 400 STALLS fr, `NAM CYO wI ��� ♦♦ ` (INCL. 2'OVERHANG) �\ 4:=•-,: \qtrA COMPACT- 8'-6"x 16' 179 STALLS T �� ' PW re. ACCESSIBLE 18 STALLS s�►A�, , � \� �` �� uEaxr.+E PARKING RATIO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF * �: / \ rioluow \!� /, /\ File:960tI\SOE-8R].OWG ,n 8 `� �. \ \ Ni \,� / \ EaSnNG Ee1�'1 " 308 NO.: 08044 SWEET NO OF: n 3 S1oNrRnR 3 STORY RPiR I 10��UV M�TM DATE: 8.lfyy7 f. SITE PLAN 60' 1 cPHEcc< FINI A-2 SCHEMATIC PLANT MATERIAL LEGENDN40 �. ,..� �-p.e......mww,...q...w.,�r,...,e{!.... s ir# DECIDUOUS STITLET TREES-roper.NU a'o.. 4 I I X Mao.a . s of )) �p p ' `" • p �•' -; c.44"s ,,MI,a ny ;� „p1�4s�n!1r ,Y ,' _ • �/�1 .....,, owW R.r ,.,•.w-ps,ro1.[r�-.,.. M..0,',Tr ,rk [roa.,.,Kfin °""'"'.'"' m•..m,.,,.�..�.:�,w. !jUG"1 4...0 ),�•. •4113E . ...a.Ems. . // SECTION A SECTION B M,....w[w.:W..* • • Nv, .ti !. [ ..e,.........,I' J�I 'I'''' s. Niw ...,., ha / N j� � ...�.� a; ai '^ '*r,e a 1 is L Yam- G:iiSa .`w,er,a. G.I a Y{n•�y,!. ' •rf .� / /, rer. 7 mow. er b a o i mui, 1 P 1 �' •''/• p1 ' ,y IM10.1. SCHEMATIC NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL I FGF\I) 4 13 pwnh arl nsta� I�� -.. -«r�•�, oe�•�P"ES I M..:,rn..ui,<. w er. ~y ,""` MAW................... 14.4 . SECTION C SECTION D Pesch ,,,er rrr, r.Ib0.y.g9 uN )' 'z -C y, { 9 (F411 1/ja14i6'P�rf � . ° �! «ice,' W W a ....1 ill ' 14.Gs " �' ,.,.1;.:r.,;"-,::,177...7.... _ „< ,.I. 42, �[9:,� • r w ti a 9i�€ yy[r77L �.... /W. ?w� F ;1` w \ ' ce � ."�� V 3 I':' ..' T^'L C��..,..s..,.� I ICI ..b '�" Sa• t• ..w„[ery ypha '....°.. U 4 y DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFER PLANTING DETAIL SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL < W 1.1 PM xi., --- - — If* LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION NOTES er.mm. ON w,,.K I..a 0 O e —....,Ean.. ol am 1'`•-A.,f ,°^r�l, w.,TNT• w�aw.c[Tfs hew hut M . No..,.e neM NI m I qr m �_ n"r "r 1 P00,'r""°°" .. sa E. ..s..n..r a..r......,....�. ,...e Wublopu n a.. 3� —. It- SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL L-3 tititi i 1 .....],il..i. .4..,...".0,...•...... i-,.arc-a. .).4 ` j 1 1 I, ..„..-•. .N.•...,.;..,0. „7! 7i.,--7---71._„--.',, p iu:{ `oM gn. \q^l. .eA - 7 •1. m I ri I'o 'y r o < 4.::2_111M''' '44•11014,7.„,.....- „.:;:' (..-Y/„.. . ,\i -' a7..,'7-., ‘,7).--:.i. F_'‘_-_',':-::_.',;1-: i m 8 1 2 I,1 �P- 7 V g1iE \\ ^Oaf ! 1,- I .° - nu Now �I % , -0.410...."'. _.:,:. ♦ �0 yr ��A m 4�K!'d ..ra" INT.NAP .NET -.L.• BLACKRIVER TRACT 9' ...7.,-...:. /�P L ` _.. `' 4 . iq k-�Y NEIGHBORHOOD QETML YAP %4 © CITY OF RENTON -, 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 ' UCi 2 0'9 8 � ����� Z 1 0 1 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED r� • taunFrCn }Y_9 120d�6u U.S. POSTAGE TAcF Frank Crum RETURN TO SENDER —UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING __NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP —OTHER • • • , '"-"' "... ,..1-4' f _Fc„.....z., ,- , -...reilkorACC, • ,:; ),L-.--',.,g , ' ', * ,......., 'c • 1 cvoYpktf',croft V"- - - \-•,,17:`,":. , '' ..../ , ,, --, • , sPicE i- , sc. •• . ‘, Is 1 _, 1--•-• - 1_77 -,.'el.:-i 1.6'. • ••-. ••••,, •=- ', • gf .----•••••-_ ....--' .vrrrt T , .. pa•oe-rtainoNpotio-. •-•'1 `.1.11- '' -•• ::...sr •:„....•,.. CCCCC 1(4111,••••• ......Wm. . ?., CTECIIN CALTCENTE,I ' .OFFICE,. , CrIEF ,,. - ______.--,:, ._ woo.. ' • ..•=1/‹. ••:'":"' a••'\ :,• k • ,-41- • , 1.114.,i, • :.•,g • / . V.t . - • 10 .-.4.4.;-.4;: .. ..,...,-'4,7"..4_• ' -, : % " ' - ....._.__-. 'V'' '.11.:i.,......--....' ."' .':, --1---4.----- '7'' ,4*.•' - Cat) ; : . T ... . .! ,, +,0. ---4 •• . W A S • ..] ••- ''" ..-. :SITE - \ 1 000tr..E . _ . 4, , STR1 I 4....____.„_ __.,_,_144f ._I__ 44: ‘''ATECH % i ... 4, ' '‘r", .FFICE'N 'Vie) j . . I T I f^-N..4 i ... I , -.---, r -"•• s -, yA. • : ,•,.1..---•-•, I /; :,...„:,..,,.._ ...._-'-4::,.. f,!•I- . , , CE /11 ',ER_ .....; ..,` i • .., E - V \ ' t. HOTEL , \ , • soi .". '‘ :-'• ••••\''''S-k.:11C-\:1 <,— .----1.40 . , - -- ...: '',"3, \ '.:....""•,,V,;:3,Oft,' '''‘. •,j. ",. l• - ‘-`iN• s .".,,-.---,'•• •01, si•• .•••. ., ., , ••, - ON . '". '• 1".: 000 ow-,....:,,,,„•..- ---- - '"' 0111111 ' ----- ' oo "s„1, • -s:0001.71.ijoill -.7".-• _,:wgialt i i: • 01110 ..ilid 01 ialP 401111100411, 0 04 .• .., .e„60 • '•, 4.••'' ' • ...m.simill" F% p CITY OF RF,NTON ` f. --..�'• .,.- 4; ,; ,>s�..: 4. ,,, J =� 2(N) Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 � l ___. • in. 141 g, ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED [r�.}fS ', \ ( CJ Mi1Y;�a L 715034q U.s. PQSTn„* *iI C_i.Je G JOv- ' `�"; b a Ken Neerriink RETURN TO SEN ,DER UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING --NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP '` _ *tl` - . OTHER n ., z1. ,�. • rr 0 CITY OF RENTON reaell ; .�. �• -.. �,� 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 t''%''"o j OCT 2Q'98 • �▪ ' .4 0 .7 8 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED [y} " 7 U 1ETE;I U { 720426,: .S. POSTAGE Barbara Batiuk RETURN TO SENDER UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING _ NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP OTHER vinigniaaaagoinomaminsisik • 0 CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED OCT 2 0'9 8 " . ,� O .7 8 .. * 1 U NETER 720426u U.S. POSTAGE • • Ken Neerdink • RETURN TO SENDER _UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING — NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP OTHER t.. 4 • • • • • • • • 4% 0 CITY OF RENTON •-• 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 '- r $ darminatill JUL 0 9'9 8 ;'+'.41 - Q 7 8 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED + t�t1H4 71505* U.S. POSTAGE Jm Andrews RETURN TO SENDER —UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING —NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP -OTHER • CITY OF RENTON 1,.�. . .,�,►� J :LI (.7 a Hearing Examiner cc- .. SEP 1 0'9 a mod:i�A - 0 2 9 5 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 c =psrEID a, �' PBMEf 09 11 98 r• s o r/1 'i . • `�'�Tl��1 t Ken Neerdink RETURN TO SENDER -UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING -NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP _OTHER Coirlar"111Mlailiffar/R/MINir Thus paper contains 50%recycled paper,20%post-consumer ;; p CITY OF RENTON ���' E �� ' �2 ••u. Planning/Building/Public Works .Y P M `9 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 980\55 l J^ •- ,•, _- M _ ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED %s 0, _\\1/4.3\ ,' Frank Crum RETURN TO SENDER -UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING -NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP _OTHER I I 1 , o- or, b a - pEk.,, EIE m. 0U J cc 1Ix Q ��, J a WEST ELEVATION a== V w (o, I- CCo ~ INTER OWN f�M TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS"� ARM MOUNTED. •TYPICAL NOTES LL 0 PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUESt \ SHIELDED LIGHT TOP. \ CC CC 0 co 771_ - /�/ On) m alo ENTPV- ENTRY— ENTRY SOUTH ELEVATION ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A.EfRG.PRWaVAI Y.KEN X.CAN.FRRK Vnl __ —.- --- - SEATPt WASIMGTONNI)E I 1 I -_.- IaxlseTamo FAX sssmro A, , NO DESCIVP!ION DATE EAST ELEVATION SITE PLAN REVIEW 5-05-98 — - r - -- _ f- -- I BUILDING 'A' FEE ' rEE, ,Q _ E E N r E . , , ELEVATIONS I _ .f TDK�I 22410f' NORTH ELEVATION Tile:96042/ELEV-A.DWG ,n JOB NO.: N SHEET NO a: DATE: 1_55.91 G S N!DRAW: RA, A-4 e ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: axe 6 I I I 1 IN 'TYPICAL NOTES M of ARM MELDED TINTED GLASS TN.T UP CONCRETE PANELS DRYVIT ACCENT ` tINFlCED LIGHT TYP. I , PAINTED 3 COLD'VALUES SAND + ` 0 - U Y / 1: r-1 J CC A Q J a / I� a e Cl / C( a - I!—= W U H i -_ _ W Q Z _ -1- o p n n F— W aC7 y 41.1 ✓ . . CC Ox U 0 0 Cr CC MAIN ENTRY' --ENTRANCE CANOPY X W W DRYVIT FINISH > SOUTH ELEVATION 2 ¢Z QY YO II Q Q Z 00 m MI I IrEj Tr-7 - Z� I of � I. cl 17:::::i:;, ECTURE ANN I NG I ■ RG.PRINCnuIN.PRINCIPAL E SOUM.SUITE D HWGiO fA%W 0700 WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 090 NO DESCRIPTION SATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 S - f -- - L I I . N ® ® I ® ® f ® BUILDING 'B' ELEVATIONS - - BUILDING 'C' SIMILAR NORTH ELEVATION S +ze oe F. ELEVATIONS 110' 1 RAJ A-6 . 1 E I FIF inCIO l . -- - . J --LJ - i • J t lr ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® / ® ® ® ® ® ® - U CaVI J rcyc J Q a MAW ENTRY— C.) LJ.I EAST ELEVATION LIJF CCZ O pam w ac7 > CC z ARM MOUNTED. ,-TINTED OLA0S ENTRANCE CANOPY TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS Q QDNIELDED LIOMT:VP/ DRYVIT FINISH PAINTED S COLOR VALUESI UN t7 CC CC Z _ EPE ENEI J Iall ® ® ® ® ® ® _�` QY YQ SOUTH ELEVATION I ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A BERG.PRINCIPAL Y.KEN R.CHIN.PRINCIPAL I.•AIM AVE BOWIE SUM ® ® ® ® ® ® TIII HI _ S 120t.041501 wfwNGipH01L WW0 FAX ONEel]B D MAIN ENTRY—iv WEST ELEVATION No DESCRIPPON DATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-TO - 11_ r ® ® ® PEE ® ® ® 1 I BUILDING 'D' • ELEVATIONS , NORTH ELEVATION !* S 2,Vie fr e E2e:960V2/ELEV-D.DwG , O JOB NO.: 00012 SHEET NO OF. DATE: 142040A_8 DRANK: RAJAJ ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: il E2(P 5 BF e T �O ® ® ® ® I iI� ® ® ® �0 Y Q J G= rc J a MAIN ENTRY d WEST ELEVATION U w r Q cco RJUI w ~ a C7 ..- ELT Ir CONCRETE PANELS OIYVIT ACCENT ENTRANCE CANOPY TINTED GLASS ARM MOUNTED- *TYPICAL NOTES Z _,_— PANTIE E COLOR VULVA EAME� DRYVIT FINISH OHIEIDED UGHT TAP. (CS S r1 Mw w3 Q Y YO _ Q QZ ,0 „ , rn al iFoj itci SOUTH ELEVATION ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ROYCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL CHIN.PRINCIPAL �25- A.,M AVE SWIM.SUITE SEATTLE.WA51WRWON MN, 1206158.030 EAR 5530108 1--1 L- ,..____, P -.-ram I. I i 1 ------1:-IPPP ' PffiP __I ._177" 1 PEP ITIPIT11 a 46 - a o 1 .,), NO DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 -MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION Y—, , A , I f f il __.. - _ 1 1 --a — _ o BUILDING 'E' ® ® ® ® ® � 1 r ri `-- i fi- ± i1 ELEVATIONS Z$, 4yf5 NB:96042/BLDG-E.DWG in _ NORTH ELEVATION 000 NO.: 98042 SHEET NO DF: GATE: 1-13-8T DRAWN RAJ A-10 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 t /fix' r 6666411, 661, 1, bbhebeeeeeaaaeee • e4066661, 0000e0-444444444446666666666 & e _ 13 El .) --,, , N r f v` i 1 ' 1 __ a- . . _, . ,, , . . — -- cp __ . . ..._ -,,\ . , if ! , i r. i ... / n ..___2 4 Q _ 1y ---- ve. El \ �� _. -_0aAkesdale -A 3 '!• Naches Ave. SW - __\\. \ , , / ,- -- / 1-1 . Hi n__71 7 Powell Ave. SW . '�/ /'d H I �3 0 U' Z7 �7 H u H ' I ER 3 :5': t.,,,,,/ Thomas Ave. SW `n -1 ' I/� .:i Lza mond Ave. SWI\ \cn . -- : ------7;:i----:—.:- [ fEE;T::1j �'- v X. 3 Seneca `�,/i ::- , Ear11�:to - _00. Z/I 115. 351i N£z,L 61 - £0 er-- z/I d Cat x • • , _-. 2' .. 'I f,Ie•$I'�`u a`a1'i L r c 3). � , a. 'Wt. � - i,� ,-GIs �T .. ..�.. G-C,,.•`. , •.,,r.j `'•!33`` .' IF r fi 'r raj . d • e I -��", 'y t ^L' I ,rR�p °j �"' pi_ •�•�41_ , .1... T't?E f00 i R , YgRTIM L4 t �' :it/C f •,H '. T f i TMF f • + n i+ n 'v 060107 �� ,, r '/Ij �,. Ian. ; t a"; d, zurn a. a . M ; ` sue, t it ,-- A Vahs •4. ` A '• t �::-- 'tir .mac. r 9 I,„„.,,.. , . , , ss � �, ,off4 (, •z . .,,. _ .... _ , , •1 1 . . ,z •gig'M fliti.-:*-. a e 1-"f '"lio.4. ,,,,,,,... ,,>. ,,,, ,,,, _____, ____ r , , , -,...,,, Ns, r,..„,,,,,,,,,,,, •Orifip•m;": ry \ -b` lr� .:J '4A:I.L w,- p ja_. c. ld2 OPEN.PA + y7 ■ ✓ /\i r,.17 C•/y, 735 Mrn/ft:7--- Gw'1 Lff3 - p U ,,r 1Np-',r , �maf7� I' A 1!•,AF R�dTON Awn \• 'tN MOYE� Sr nt ?+i;iffy Tx� jA.. OPEia SPACE .� G `,7a `'4 E445, �T 5 '• 'i , \ j 3. — 15 w f' ,�. iu Q ! r ��{� ; \ P,,.1 DET6NTIONPOND., ,s'�`1 �t.'a 7 ` OFF E t •��*. __ /�f�'''�`0 ;„ w F-z g _� ' .',.T f.&.1.. •O "(M O T O N T N N I C A L . - _. .. __ _ ...a .._ �. `i'f a. C w 'N i, E - cwmm.mt � SOUL � / `�1e.�+.� ..• CITY OF RENTON f� C A L a E N T E R _ - , T E C H N i _ 6 Sh� OFFICE ` w w 3 ,y •\ OPEN SPACE - - - 1 \ // 3 F ..n.IIC <Q Y Z InXu c Y YO •• �� • . 1. c Jo N A r- _. 1 rs. Y•_ Z -- - 1170141 >'4 t �iI/ � 1 R i 8; -sr __-n.. _ _ �r al< <la r� t � { 00 CO m¢ / h E El. “:' pl., : • 1 irfli EA \ - �- ,,J- w A S 1 K O i T 0• 0 y' A� ": \ \�V OFFICE h I i i SI E 0. \ f OA^CNItE4= —" 1 e E PLA INNING iI • I; 1... ; fri E ct n etn,rcxr.. -_ :4.1 + muw.v;\\ r I•._~\'' I1 :` TROF�AC�ITIES , ,' T E C H'N I yi aa��, o } i o I INDUSTRIAL F 120056.030.1 ,a.34 �l i ...,. ^`�� •� ( „-�. t sy OFFICE yl LL•"",I �; x z - u17. F O R T i ` „ .. ✓ •o. z a PARK NO. D E N1 T \`" '' 1 11 C E N T E R a ? ` `i'l F\ Girl acr a feA rE" '1 * 4\—. OFFICE 't .f Sr No Manua DM \ / ,, ,i /'\ & \ 1 1 9rt rt.x f[H[f i-oS-Se `, �.,1s^ •� `\ ... '., 7 -` i�, HOTEL h Ow '� -it/ \`��� • t IOTN� /` r .I 121 % S;,,,\ •111',t �. �_�I otog ?!! "In! `j ,1p, I� 1' 5„ III /du Pol I . / ,'�y . v � ,;:•• ��f1•QC. . ' ' i 17 ��,r � b •3•�Dv � DETAOR FOOD �s' v ✓. \ �i �/ .,- 'AI• i, 1r•r C'" 4 G GIj! .Il„ f'° ,,mm" i_t' •,' • _ a1vER v ,+ �� n, 14111 e1 BLACKRIVER TRACT 'B' / \ /f t . a v \ oos - --_` DE I P, �az�ET-�AP.w�M �p jj ,,, _ NEIGHBORHOODTAIL MAP 64 � r f♦� ' '' '.- '. i�� 7 p J 4 SCALE 1' 200' NO OAK IRAJOB No “c[I a u fir', 'GaY.laq..,. \ •(� 7 ...... ..o.,•."?. ._ ,i�1 ! 7.�w•,a:� ;I 74. u 1••_•.ou September 1, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: The Black River Heronry is part of Renton. Residents of our area and visitors alike are there each year to see King County's largest heron colony. This habitat is priority habitat for a priority species. We can no longer say, 'let them go someplace else.' There aren't other places to go! We feel the Renton Environmental Review Committee erred in issuing a determination of non-significance. Alper Northwest had previously agreed to buffers and building restrictions during nesting periods. Why were these agreements cast aside? The citizens of this area feel this heronry is highly significant and have worked to protect it for years. I believe both appointed and elected officials should honor that commitment. Approving new plans which ignore the agreed upon conditions is a slap in the face. I would urge Alper Northwest to work closely with heron experts and concerned citizens to design a development that protects the heron. Such a development will be a winner for everyone concerned. Sincerely, • 4- Rita and Bernard Bailie 20607 101 st Ave. SE Kent, WA 98031 CITX JF RENTON WI 4 Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman September 10, 1998 Ms. Amy Kosterlitz 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 Mr. Tom Malphrus c/o Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Larry Warren Renton City Attorney 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Re: Land Use Hearing on Black River Corporate Park File No. LUA98-075,SA-H, SM Dear Ms. Kosterlitz, Mr. Malphrus and Mr. Warren: The land use hearing for Black River Corporate Park will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, in the Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager Parties of Record 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 SSAT�------------�,.e,--- --------. �-.,--- ------- • a t - - � CITY F RENTON fir'' -- ..it I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 28, 1998 Mr. Brian Shelton, P.E. City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite#100 Tukwila,WA, 98188 SUBJECT: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK(FILE NO. LUA-98-075, SA-H, SM, ECF) Dear Mr. Shelton: Thank you for your comment letter regarding the Black River Corporate Park proposal. Your letter arrived via facsimile at the end of final day of the comment/appeal period for the environmental threshold determination. You have requested that we provide copies of the existing traffic reports plus supplemental analysis of intersections specified in the letter. Renton did not require that a traffic study be prepared by the applicant. An EIS was prepared in 1991 for a substantially larger development on this site. Since we had previously considered traffic impacts for a more intensive development, and because the applicant has participated in a Local Improvement District via the payment of approximately $3 million, no additional studies or mitigation were required by the City. The proposal will be the subject of a public hearing on Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will include an appeal of the SEPA determination with regard to environmental impacts on wildlife. The site plan will also be considered during the public hearing. Should you wish to attend, the public hearing will be held in the Renton City Council Chambers, 7th Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Please feel free to contact me at (425)430-7286 if I can provide you with additional information regarding this development proposal. Sincerely,( 11tc\ N)N -eNtAil mu e enning Project Manager cc: Jana Huerter . Neil Watts File H:\DI VI SION.S\DE VELOP.S ER\DE V&PLAN.ING\PROJECTS\98-075\TK W LA.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 IMIPIPIIIPIIrgPllrr `'``Lt i ' ---._ _..-------- y : _ _--- �/Qw�� P P1 W 'liT 4 _ /6 55 /(r1( . _in, ,g1 "2-fr _ 7-' „i„f 4ile.to, c1/-i- -4 Affi.)z47//iii ,deA,,,./.71 04) 0 `Mc:/// i &,z-b_A ?�O 5s hie>4 2..1:12. j{littIttillimillintlintitimillliliithiiltnlismiAll Margaret A. Milnes Attorney at Law c, v � — 4 1610 Park Avenue,No.D-3 ''� . P M c 1 uSTHGI_____..,o__ Bremerton,Washington 98337 i ,CS-,.:S '.JCF HOG $0.32 LJ040UGn Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055. Si 0 S E.+21732 11,1„1„1,11,,,,I,L1,1,„1,1,„11„11,,,1,111,,,11,,,,1,1,1 ( \IN, ---p-INNA-71\ U \\I\ k-/\4 0 C-) - .... `1,-vr-Cqq-1..N1Sc '------------..1 \N-- Q LO`i; \NI M '''''S' I " •, , _ (_QI crrewvz _Iv . . , Misn / p CITY OF RENTON `E UM2` Planning/Building/Public Works c:`,/ PM m 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 1� JUL ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED r.. Ken Neerdink r Y x RETURN TO SENDER —UNABLE TO LOCATE AT BOEING -NEED CORRECT MAILSTOP -OTHER DEv&a-OPMENT PLANNING • CITY OF RENTON AUG 19 1998 August 18, 1998 RECEIVED Amy Kosterlitz Buck&Gordon Suite 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1097 Subject: Appeal of ERC Determination for Black River Corporate Park,Tract B, Phase VII Proposed Mitigation Measures In our effort to reach a settlement before the September 1, 1998 appeal hearing, we propose the following mitigation measures (see attached list and site plan). We have made every effort to consider your client's concerns while still maintaining a minimal amount of protection for the Black River Heron Colony. If your client is willing to accept these mitigation measures and is interested in reaching a settlement before the appeal hearing, please contact me as soon as possible so that we can work out the details. You can contact me at: Home: (425)277-8219 Work: (425)430-7313 Sincerely, Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton,WA 98055 cc: (cover letter only) Dean Erickson,Alper Northwest Fred J.Kaufman,Hearin¢Examiner Larry Warren,City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning,Project Manager MARQUESS & MARSH 7605 SOUTH 128TH ST. SEATTLE, WA 98178 AUG 1 b i 19B /6 Sete. 9P Pat Ails. / G;ficad / C,/Vl 1 (tcpi: `"i Jettem 7?cer. h3,47 kth'id ( 7,ef7;,) GO- La/u, vu a,h, vU i��G�/ Cf /lac - Lllte d4v-tirpi mix/e- kwiA, ,z6//tern, is % AVM ativwd fit)Po 1/A U17%W 1 /Y k ` 1 �� ovc ,,OA5A Ath, ltittcr-)1 C ap-)442 W14.14A- 4114- ,,/tft-- a " pot)04,4 OA eq2-04e/t-d-, /KA ✓f/al AA,cu 'Gore N. (, 14 q '•09.5,shiSr9i,/ ° ( 11414 , 7,1U DEVELOPMENT PLANNING August 7, 1998 CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 u 1998 Alper Northwest 700 5th Ave., Suite 6000 RECEIVED Seattle, WA 98104 - Attn: Dean Erickson Subject: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Letter to Larry Warren dated July 31, 1998 Dear Mr. Erickson: Enclosed, please find a copy of a letter that we sent to Larry Warren requesting that he contact you to determine if you are interested in discussing the issues surrounding the Black River Corporate Park Development. We believe that it is possible to come to an agreement that will accommodate both your concerns and our concerns regarding the development. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you or your representative to explore the possibility of reaching an agreement As you are aware,this matter is scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on September I, 1998. Time is of concern. If you are interested in discussing the possibility of reaching an agreement between our two parties, please contact me before August 17, 1998. Otherwise, we will assume that you are not interested. You can contact me directly at: Tom Malphrus 18713 10211d Ave. SE Renton, WA 98055 Phone: (425) 277-8219 Sincerely, irrY1/1 qki-1411-11J-A-4-AA-- Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton,WA 98056 cc: Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning,Project Manager Royce A. Berg, Architect DEVELOPMENT PLANNII CITY OF RENTON AUG 0 3 1998 July 31, 1998 RECEIVED Pat Newbold P; P14a 1.1A414 W• A4:41 4972 17th Ave. S, Seattle, WA. 98108 phone/fax 206-767-7169 Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 Grady Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Jana Huerter: I am writing to express my concern about the fate of the Black River Heronry and to ask that the City of Renton do everything within its power to protect these birds and to maintain the integrity of this beautiful urban riparian wildland. It's easy to see what happens when people take their long-legged wading birds for granted. Northern Europe used to have lots of big white and black storks nesting on church steeples, regularly bringing babies (well, maybe not. . . ) and generally improving everyone' s lifestyle. But the people of Europe took their long legged waders for granted and aggressively drained and built their wetlands. Now, if you want to see a stork in most parts of Northern Europe, you need a ticket to the local zoo. I fear that Northwesterners are taking their herons similarly for granted. This is a smart, handsome, huge and wonderful bird that we all love--but are we pushing and shoving it too hard? The City of Renton supplies many of us in South Seattle and other parts of King County with herons, and Renton deserves credit for taking some solid steps in the direction of protecting them. I for one will be deeply grateful and will stand in awe and appreciation of your city if the rest of the distance to full protection is achieved. Sincerely, 4/4.((2( Ed Newbold cc Suzanne Krom, Tom Malphrus Ed Newbold Wildlife Artist j�USA32 P.O. Box 94121 1 = � Seattle. WA 98124 Jam., yvev/ z_a...t are i&v,t cly ryie or ee4A/07,_ • w^Q�✓� �E'iYl� ce S / Q DEB-0 OF RN 1N* July 31, 1998 AUG 0 199a Larry Warren, City Attorney RECEIVED City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Letter from Hearing Examiner dated July 16, 1998 Dear Mr. Warren: In reference to the above mentioned letter,the Friends of the Black River feel that it may be possible to work out a settlement of the appeal issues. We ask that you contact the appropriate city staff and the developer to determine if they are willing to sit down and discuss the issues. if you have any questions please contact me at Work: 425-430-7313 Home 425-277-8219 Sincerely, 5!0--yr 9n414-21t1.4,..1.— Tom Malphrus do Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 • cc: Fred J. Kaufman,Hearing Examiner Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning,Project Manager DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 8 1998 David Kappel and Arlene Roth RECEIVED 3725 SW Austin St. Seattle,WA 98126 Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 Grady Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 July 20, 1998 Dear Ms. Huerter: This weekend we were very glad to have discovered two hidden jewels in your city. One is new, the water reclamation facility,the other we are told is threatened by development. The Black River heron colony area is one of the most beautiful surprises we have found in the entire Puget Sound area and we have lived here for over 11 years. We understand that the heron colony may be threatened by a new development. In particular is the question of how far from the colony will construction be allowed to take place. We urge you to ensure that the agreement signed by the city is followed to the letter, in particular that measurements be taken from the nearest nests to the construction site and not from the center of the colony. In any event we are glad to hear the City of Renton is committed to the protection of the heron colony and hopefully the surrendering wetland. The property owner of the tract in question is very fortunate if they are wise enough to take care to develop the site to complement and preserve the natural beauty of the area. This could be the perfect home for some environmentally conscious high-tech finn who would be willing to pay top dollar for the privilege of locating at such a beautiful and alive site--Wow, and it's only five minutes away from the airport,too! Sincerely, 61 /61-1-- ciiiiv I David Kappel and Arlene Roth 1! I July 14, 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager, Development Services Division City of Renton I visited the heronry in Renton and was impressed with the grandeur of these birds. There are very few heronries left in Seattle and the surrounding areas. I urge the city of Renton to do all in their power to save such a valuable commodity. Young children are spellbound when you show them these majestic birds. This bird is one of the few remaining tie-ins to prehistoric times. It is too easy to allow development to go ahead and too difficult to reverse the process. I think that developmment can take place, but stiff stipulations should be made in regards to building near the heronry. There should be at least a 600 foot buffer, as recommended by the heron experts. Building should be restricted to the time slot between January 15 and June 15, as this is the time when they are breeding and nesting their young. Other type of construction that is not disturbing to the herons can be performed at this time. We have a heronry that is smaller than Renton's, but still wonderful to observe. The herons flying overhead are an awsome sight to see. The parents forage for food for miles, and consequently belong to all of us. I do not appreciate that Renton will allow building on this site at the time when the herons are most vulnerable. Please be more reasonable toward this heronry and subjigate the developer to more stringent building practices. He can be allowed to use his land without disturbing the herons. If this cost is a little higher than without aggravating the herons, then it is worth it. I will be unable to attend the hearing as my husband is having a Laminectomy at this time. However I do want my voice to be heard. I am sending this E-mail to Suzanne Krom and she will see that it gets to the proper person. I would like to be a person of interest, and could you send me information on this project as it develops. — -- EMEOTI Thank You, sill I Liam Newman 16715 -32 Place N. E. CITY OF RENTON Lake Forest Park, WA. 981 HEARING EXAMINER 206-363-3431 ;T4 . DEVIMOPMENT PLANNING n CITY OF RENTON 4 INP" L 13 1998 STATE OF WASHINGTON RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 July 8, 1998 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue Renton, WA 98055 RE: BLACK RIVER GREAT BLUE HERON NESTING COLONY AND PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION BY ALPER NORTHWEST Dear Ms. Huerter: I have been informed by a group of citizens that the Black River Great Blue Heron nesting colony is being threatened by a proposed complex of buildings and parking lots approximately 500 feet from the nest trees. These citizens have been observing the colony for a number of years and are invested in the preservatoin of these birds, as is the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This letter is also in support of the letter dated July 1, 1998 from Ted Muller, WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist, regarding the protection of this great blue heron nesting colony. The great blue heron is listed by the WDFW as a Priority Species and is protected by state law. Because of the specialized nature of its nesting habitat, this species is experiencing a critical decline in suitable places to nest. According to the WDFW Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species, to prevent nesting habitat destruction and disturbance to nesting birds, a minimum buffer zone of 250-300 meters (820-980 feet) should be established from the periphery of the nesting colony. Additionally, surrounding feeding areas, usually wetlands, should be protected within a minimum radius of 4 kilometers(2.5 miles). Because this is a large, established and productive heron colony, its importance to the Puget Sound heron population is essential. Suitable alternate nest trees with associated wetlands are no longer available. We hope that, at the very least, the conditions referred to in Mr. Muller's letter will be honored, and that conditions will be arranged to protect this heron colony beyond 1999 and into perpetuity. Sinc y, Patricia A. Thompson, Wildlife Biologist cc. Ted Muller, WDFW Regional Habitat Biologist abeattle Auaubon DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTON�NG 5xiet JUL 0 8 1998 Washington Nonprofit Corporation RECEIVED ED July 6, 1998 Ms. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Corporate Park, Tract B Dear Ms. Huerter: Seattle Audubon Society takes a very special interest in the Great Blue Heron rookery (nesting colony) on the Black River. The Society has used and continues to use the site for field trips and group outings. Many of our members from all over the metropolitan area, including Renton residents, utilize the site for individual birding watching and wildlife observation. Because of the concern of many people in the 1980's, Seattle Audubon negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)with the City of Renton and the developer of the Black River Corporate Park regarding the development of this area and protection of the Great Blue Heron rookery. We trust that all parties will continue to abide by this MOA which is in force through this fall. A significant amount of public monies and private energy was invested in protecting the rookery. We hope that this will continue to be the case in light of the recent proposals for further development (Tract B--LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA- H, SM). We feel strongly that the following items need to be addressed before any action is taken by the City of Renton regarding this proposal. • Increase the size of the buffer between the rookery and the development A review of professional biological research has shown that buffers of nearly 1000 feet are recommended from the periphery of the colony to provide a suitable distance to prevent 8050-35th Avenue N.E. • Seattle,WA 98115-4814 • 206-523-4483 or 523-8243 ®Recycled Paper disturbance of nesting Great Blue Herons. Disturbance of these birds could lead to their abandonment of the rookery and a reduction of their population. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated the Great Blue Heron as a priority species and their habitat (such as the Black River rookery) as a priority habitat. Because of the significance of this rookery in King County(with 50 pairs one of the, possibly THE, largest colony in the county), it is imperative that the rookery be protected from disturbance. • Impose a Seasonal Construction Restriction During breeding season (January-June), construction activity restrictions should be imposed on the site to prevent human disturbance during a very sensitive time. Herons will abandon their nesting sites and/or their young when disturbed by human presence, activity and noise. Disturbances at rookeries during this time period have resulted in nests being abandoned and the young dying of heat exposure or predators. • Reduce Human Development Impacts Impacts from lighting of the adjacent site and mechanical noise from HVAC units should be minimized to prevent further disturbance of the rookery. Shielding of lights from adjacent buildings and parking lots to prevent spillover into the surrounding area should be required. HVAC should be placed on ground level away from the rookery (southeast side). • Enhancement of the Site To insure the continued presence and protection of this significant rookery, native plants should be used in landscaping the surrounding area. Additional native evergreen trees should be planted in the buffer zone. A mixture of deciduous tress and conifers (evergreens) will insure a more diverse habitat in the future. The Black River Great Blue Heron rookery is a wildlife legacy that can endure if the City of Renton has the forethought to protect its (the public's) investment. Wildlife viewing is a growing economic activity that the City of Renton can capitalize on (with safeguards) if it can continue to preserve this critical site We strongly urge the protection and enhancement of the Black River Great Blue Heron rookery. Sincerely, Chuck Lennox Chair, Conservation Committee 1/60%46 • CVV- e I Environment Envirc...._..lent Canada Canada DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Canadian Wildlife Service JUL 10 1998 Pacific Wildlife Research Centre RECEIVED 5421 Robertson Road Delta, B. C. V4K 3N2 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 USA FAX: 425-430-7300 6 July 1998 Dear Ms. Huerter: My colleague, Don Norman asked that I write to you regarding a colony of about 65 pairs of Great Blue Herons nesting in the Black River colony in Renton. I haven't visited the site but I would like to pass along some information to help with your decision. The advice is based on over a decade of research of this species in British Columbia. Much of this information appears in my book published last year by the University of British Columbia entitled The Great Blue Heron. Background: • the Great Blue Heron(Ardea herodias fannini) living in Puget Sound is a subspecies of about 9000 individuals whose range extends northward along the coast of British Columbia to southeast Alaska. About 4800 herons live in Puget Sound. • in Canada, the coastal subspecies is federally listed as `vulnerable' and provincially 4) listed as 'blue listed' because the number of nesting pairs is in slow decline; • heron populations are near extirpation on the Sunshine Coast(north of Vancouver) and appear in trouble on southern Vancouver Island; • the major threats are human disturbance near colonies and eagle predation in colonies; • most of the human disturbance is from new activities near colonies such as road and house construction, logging, and blasting; • the Black River colony supports about 65 pairs (130 individuals) of herons. A colony of this size in Canada would be likely be considered `nationally' significant in Birdlife International's `Important Bird Areas' program; 1IariaiIa �G''AD181O`f • the `Heron Stewardship Program' was established by the federal and provincial governments, and the Wild Bird Trust of BC to advise land owners about the protection of herons in Canada. Herons exhibit a range of sensitivity to human disturbance. Some herons take flight at the slightest provocation whereas others tolerate humans near the nests. Moreover, their sensitivity wanes as the nesting season progresses. The Black River colony is probably intermediate in their sensitivity to human activities. I have provided a list of guidelines for your interest that have been adopted by the Islands Trust in the Canadian Gulf Islands to protect a large heron colony. Not all of these guidelines are necessarily appropriate to the Black River colony. Given the importance of this colony, I urge precaution in the vicinity of the Black River heron colony. If you would like to hear more about our program,please call me at 604-940-4672. A copy of this letter has been mailed to you today. Guidelines: 1. Within a one kilometer radius of the colony • encourage land owners to minimize forest clearing to provide roosting sites and alternate nesting sites for new herons; • provide a 15 m buffer zone along seasonal and permanent streams,to minimize runoff into shoreline areas where herons forage; • allow normal activities to continue throughout the year but restrict novel loud activities such as blasting, logging,or road construction should from 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. 2. Within 300 meters of the colony • In addition to the above restrictions, building construction should be restricted to the period 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. Yours s' cerely, Rob But er(PhD) Head of Research and author of The Great Blue Heron July 6, 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning CITY OF RENTON Project Manager JUL 0 8 1998 Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Henning. I am writing in reference to project LUA-98-075,ECF, SA-H, SM/Black River Corporation to express my concern about the preservation of the great blue heron colony at the Black River Wetlands in Renton. I have lived in Renton for fourteen years and am most supportive of the renovation and development taking place in the downtown area. I appreciate the need for a healthy economic base and with that comes the need to develop the land. I have also over these past few years begun to understand the need for a healthy eco-system on our ability to sustain a livable environment. The fact that I can walk along the Cedar River every day and see heron has encouraged an interest in the important of the extraordinary wildlife I can enjoy just a short distance from my home. And with that interest has come a responsibility to seek a balance between growth and nature. It takes both to provide the citizens of this community and others with a quality of life that we too often take for granted and in some cases destroy. I would hope that you will reconsider the following issues concerning this project in order to protect both humans and herons: • Extend the buffer between the heron colony and the proposed development to at least 600 • Avoid external major construction between January 15 - June 15 to avoid abandonment of the colony. Other construction can take place during this time frame. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I know that we all want what is best for the citizens of Renton. It is in all of our best interests to protect the environment in which we live and prosper. I am confident that you will represent all interests fairly. Respectfully, Tana L. Mason 231 Williams Avenue N • Renton, WA 98055 • 425.271.7656 July 5, 1998 moilappmENTR pLANN ONNING lC[T1� JUL © 7 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager ECE�i, E Development Services Division • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 VIA FAX: (425)430-7300 RE: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park. Dear Ms. Henning: hP�)11ir In the summer of 1996,I had the pleasure of researching the Black River area for 1 r my book, "The Price of Taming A River: The Duwamish-Green Waterways in Decline"(The Mountaineers, 1997). It was heartening to find a wild "oasis" in the SOUND midst of the "Tukwilazation" that has occurred in the valley and to watch Great Blue Herons fishing for evening meals in the waning light. I learned that 37 herons were counted in the area and that the City of Renton had made a significant commitment to preserve the area as a wildlife refuge. 1402 Third Ave. Hence, it•was with considerable dismay that I learned that the City of Renton has issued a declaration of non-significance regarding a construction proposal on Suite 1200 property adjacent to the heron colony and has ignored building requirements. . previously developed for heron protection. Seattle, WA I request that the City of Renton use the best available science to determine a protective barrier and construction practices to ensure the minimum disturbance to the heron colony. A 1000-foot buffer as recommended by the state should be 98101 required and construction should not be allowed during the January•through June breeding season. I request that I be notified of all opportunities for public comment on this development permit and of the City of Renton's final determination. (206) 382-7007 , There are fewer and fewer wildlife refuges in our urbanized cities, and the City of • Renton has both the opportunity and the responsibility in this development permit to Fax 3 8 2-7 0 0 6 achieve a balance between the needs of Great Blue Herons and the plans of developers. Since herons do not write letters or attend public meetings,the City of Renton must speak and act on their behalf. I believe, given your past actions on their behalf,you will act accordingly and protect their breeding and rearing habitat. Thank you very much for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, 4414t(671— Mike Sato,Communications Director - 2112 NE Ravenna Blvd.. Seattle WA 98105 • ;1 6/30/98 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON 1000 25th. Avenue East J U L 0 7 1998 Seattle, WA. 98112 June 30, 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055 Proj: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park. Dear Ms. Henning: I am writing to you because I am concerned about the preservation of the great blue heron colony at the Black River Wetlands in Renton. The Black River colony has become the largest colony in King County. I am concerned that the development of the adjacent parcel of land will. encroach upon the colony and force the birds to abandon the site. Experts on blue herons do not believe that the 500 foot buffer zone is adequate protection of the colony. At minimum there should be a 600 foot buffer zone. Likewise, I am concerned that if you allow construction to occur during the heron breeding season that they surely will abandon the site. Heron experts say that the breeding is when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance. The City claims that any disruption to the colony due to heavy construction will be temporary. Six years is not a temporary construction window. I fear that we will loose a valuable natural resource to our country if this construction is allowed as planned. Construction should not be allowed during the January through June breeding season. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I believe you would do the area great justice if you thought first of our greatest natural resources to this area. Sincerely, ra//7/-1-0, j‘,/..te'n Anne D. Strode _ _ USA _ v. Anne D.Strode t;;' PM tc.¢ ..� — _ >t 1000 25th Ave.E - •►� — Seattle,WA 98112 I J t L , 0. Ins j je/1 /7/ 7 J U L 0 7 1998 2?'o, MG4t2EPIC. ' I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, �;1J /N � � • ID/ V NEIGH5ORNOODS• P AND STRATEGIC PLANNING go CD rC' . a f?.(244...&7„.., /449 _ 5/75Tr- 0ILA, �� , ps :I City of Tukwila John W. Rants,Mayor td Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst P. E. Director X fieeilld -,6,4ig DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON July 6, 1998 JUL 0 7 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Black River Corporate Park SEPA Comments (Application #LUA-98-075, ECF, SM-SA-H) Dear Ms. Huerter: The City of Tukwila has received the proposed determination of non-significance (mitigated), due to the size of the project and its proximity to the City of Tukwila, the City anticipates a substantial 1 number of new trips will be generated that will use City of Tukwila intersections. ti To assess the potential impact of this new development the City of Tukwila requests that a traffic analysis be performed for the following intersections located within the City of Tukwila that may be impacted by additional trips: 1. Grady Way/Interurban 2. Fort Dent Way/Interurban i 3. South 156th/West Valley Highway 4. South 158th/West Valley Highway 5. Strander Blvd./West Valley Highway 6. Southcenter Blvd./61 Ave. Please provide the City of Tukwila with two copies of the existing traffic reports plus a supplemental analysis of the above listed intersections. The City will use this information to determine if additional traffic mitigation is required for this project based on traffic impacts identified within the City of Tukwila. If significant impacts are identified, the City of Tukwila may request prorate share contribution. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite#100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone:(206)433-0179 • Fax(206)431-3665 Ms. Jana Huerter Page 2 July 6, 1998 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of non-significance. As we wish to provide timely comments on the project, please give me a call at (206) 433-0179, to advise how the City of Tukwila and City of Renton can coordinate traffic issues and mitigation. Sincerely, 6,ik 42.S440-1&, ki.av e; Brian Shelton, PE City Engineer BS:tkf cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer Development Ross Earnst, Public Works Director • • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON July 2, 1998 JUL 0 7 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning RECEIVED Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM/Black River Corporate Park Dear Ms. Henning I am writing this letter to express my sincerest concerns about the development in the Black River Corporate Park. As someone who values nature and the outdoors, it has been my privilege to observe the nesting of the Great Blue Herons in the park on many occasions. This opportunity is unique to Renton and the surrounding area, since there is very little habitat such as this left for these magnificent creatures. I would hate to see it destroyed by someone who, perhaps, does not understand its value. I am asking that the City of Renton reconsider maintaining an enlarged buffer zone, or similar area, between the development of the buildings and the heron colony. It is my understanding that you are allowing the developer to have only a 500-foot buffer, while even the state is recommending a 1,000-foot buffer. Since heron experts also call for a larger buffer, my questions is: "Why would you want to destroy the opportunity for the public to view these incredible birds, since the end result would be a loss of the colony?" Also, it is most critical that the major construction take place at times other than when the heron colony is in breeding season which occurs from January 15 to June 15. While I believe that the City of Renton would want these herons to return every year to nest, by allowing construction to take place so near to the nesting area you would almost assure that the heron retreat and never return. This would be such an unfortunate loss since habitats are shrinking for this very large bird throughout the valley. A good example of heron not returning to the nest is illustrated by the single tree that was left standing with a heron nest in the Tukwila area. No bird ever returned to the nest after construction began. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns about the survival of the heron colony. I would hope that a rethinking of the development would be in the best interests of all of us. Please call me at (206) 464-3981 if you would like to discuss this further. Sin erely, "—et-4A 5d—,1-1-1-ex-Ff Jo.n illing 012 32nd Avenue South SeaTac, WA 98188 Sisters Provide ►health System IP 520 Pike Street It P.O.Box 11038 Tel 206.464.3355 Seattle,Washington Fax 206.464.3038 98111-9038 cb7e, R �`la Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning JUL , d 7 1998 Project Manager OMIC DEVELOPMENT, Development Services Division ECON EIGHBOPHOODS. 3', J�-F.T ( P>A�1N!NG 200 Mill Avenue South A"r � r..: Renton, WA 98055 '3ie'a1".l1214r2-1 42- lithiliflillttiililiililiiillit lllllli'Illlllilltllliilllilllllllatff•'li l > r 1< : /& - 91 -073-,, ac/,, _/,' il/ --�-�) /9�P 6'&9C/r /G+,( Cd/Ci i3T.�Z" / ,A EVELOPMENT PLANNR CITY OF RENTON JUL 07 1998 2el :/ RECE IVED "ec,c;,ft () IA) /J.-40( e-4 Cc- C-cf>-742;0 Crr ./2f?ee . des/ �-� 4a-O cam- l a o 0 3) "2 .e-- -)zeoel C T �-- zee _ _DP— . w/s// 7 y � frj/ 4 ?nJy —976v79 July 5, 1998 DEVOPMENT PLAN CITY OF RENTON Thomas PesekNING 5925 S. Langston Rd. JUL 07 1998 Tukwila, WA 98178 RECEIVED Jana Huerter- Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Ms. Huerter, I am writing to you with regard to potential development adjoining the Black River conservatory, roughly at the intersection of SW 7th and Oaksdale. This is a site that needs to be preserved in the condition it is in, for the sake of the herons, and the other wildlife that share the property. It is a great tribute to the city of Renton that this area has been preserved up to this time,and would be a shame to allow the encroachment of a business park to drive the herons from their aviary, upsetting the balance of the preserve. I am fully aware of the pressures of population growth and demands to keep the city economically sound, however, other options need to be explored. Too often, developers are allowed to erase our valued greenspace in the name of progress. All I ask is that you take a quick stroll through the preserve, watch the herons, and enjoy the serenity of the area before allowing this development to continue on this particular site. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of my comments and the comments of others. Sincerely, Tom Pesek Donald Norman,Norman Wildlite Consulting lir(504)bbb-I J.l 1101 o vV.uorrvJ Liu.* I NORMAN Wildlife Consulting. DEI oF ,� 2112 NW 199th C17�.OF REN L Shoreline, WA 98177 (206) 542-1275 FAX # 542-1388 JUL 0 7998 donorman@aol.com ECE1VED Wildlife Toxicology and Assessment July 6, 1998 Jennifer Henning City of Renton Dept of Community Planning/Building/Public Works Renton, WA RE: File Number: LUA-098-075, SA-H, SM, ECF(Black River Corporate Park) In 1990, I commented on the proposed development near the Black River great blue heron colony, along with many other well known heron biologists, including Range Bayer from Oregon, John Kelsall, PhD (now deceased), L. Scott Forbes, PhD, and Dee Boersma, PhD, professor of Zoology at the University of Washington. That development was never completed. Now the same developer is proposing a similar project at the same location. I have been asked again to present information on the status of great blue herons at this colony, which has persisted at the site in the intervening eight years. I am taking the lead for comments by Range Bayer and Dee Boersma who have contributed to this process but will be unable to attend the hearing on July 14th. In summary, conditions at the site have not changed in the intervening years to allow any relaxation of the comments made in the EIS of 8 years ago. Since 1990, I have continued to work on the issue of mititgation of development in relation to herons. I have also worked under contract for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service collecting information on herons at Commencement Bay and Elliott Bay. I have provided assistance to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I wrote a management plan for the Maury Island heron colony. In reviewing the information provided by consultatns to Alper Northwest to the City of Renton dated November 25, 1997 and the June 16th, 1998 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, I wish to make the following comments and I am prepared to provide more detailed responses at the July 14th hearing. NWC Comments to Renton ERC 1 July 6, 1998 Donald Norman,Norman Wildlife Consulting zr(504)565-7938 VE7/6/98 04:09 PM L93/4 • The cottonwoods and poplars at the site do not provide screening at the critical nesting periods for the herons. The "Lombardy type" poplars are on the west side of the project, not providing a direct visual barrier to the heron colony, and it is not clear whether the twp large cottonwoods in the direct line of site to the colony will be impacted by the construction of the proposed wet pond. Examination of the distances used in calculating the distances from the buildings to the heron colony are incorrect. The distances stated appear to be in direct contradiction to the MOA which is still in effect between the developer and the City of Renton. The distance from the development should not be from the center of the colony, but from the closest nest to the proposed development. The distance from the edge of the colony to the closest major heavy equipment use is much closer than to the edges of the buildings, as the construction of the wet pond, though temporary, will be even closer to the colony. The visual vegetation barrier suggested by the ERC will not be present during the spring when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance, as the leaves on the cottonwoods will not be present, and a clear line of sight to the proposed development will be visible. The rescinding of limitations to limit heavy construction to periods outside of January to June 30th, in order to avoid disturbance to the heron colony, is also completely unaffected by the growth of the trees. At such close distances to the colony, the trees will not reduce construction noise. Noise created in the early spring will be within distances and noise levels known to cause heron colony abandonment, especially if the noise if sudden and unexpected by the herons. The distances to other existing noise disturbances suggested by the ERC as evidence that herons are "acclimated" to noise are not only outside known heron disturbance limits, but also have existed prior to the herons decision to nest in the area. Sudden construction noises will not be buffered by the vegetation to the extent that it will reduce disturbance of the herons. This is a serious breach of state guidelines. The information presented about the flight paths of the herons is not documented and appears to be biased in favor of showing that the herons "avoid" the proposed development area. I challenge the methodology, accuracy and precision of this data. It should also be noted that the flight path of the herons has little to do with abandonment of the colony due to disturbance, and is thus irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely noise and distance of the proposed development to the heron colony. The applicant and the ERC do not provide any evidence that noise from the HVAC systems will not provide an additional disturbance factor for the herons. The screening of the trees does not provide sufficient noise abatement. I have also reviewed the recent letters by Kate Stenberg and WDFW, and find their comments similar to the above concerns. I am also dismayed that the City of Renton has allowed this project to be split into into separate projects and that the City appears to have abandoned their past commitment to protect this site. The separation of the project into two components appears to be a attempt to avoid reasonable protection of the site by the developer. That the City purchased all of the surrounding lands at the site indicates a serious attempt to provide the residents of the City of NWC Comments to Renton ERC 2 July 6, 1998 Donald Norman,Norman Wildlife Consulting Ir(504)565-7938 1$17/6/98 04:10 PM L]4/4 Renton with a substantial example of wildlife and open space, while providing major flood protection. The ease of observing the herons is apparent each time I visit the site, with many local visitors commenting to me about their enjoyment of the herons. The proposed short platting of the original tract B further compromises all the good work and environmental protective measures that the city has made. The colony has survived at this site, which is contrary to many other great blue heron colonies in the region. The prognosis for herons is not good. With continued development in the Puget Sound Lowlands, particularly in agricultural, wetland, and open space areas that are preferred by herons, impacts on heron overwintering survivorship will be severe. Fifteen years ago, eagle harassment was non-existent; today every known heron colony has eagle predation, including the Black River colony. Unlike many other colonies that have been abandoned, the Black River colony has survived the eagle harassment and continues to be productive. This further emphasizes its regional significance. It has been shown that with proper buffers, control of the timing of development construction, and protection from direct disturbance, heron colonies can thrive in urban areas and provide an excellent tool for monitoring the health and quality of the urban Puget Sound Lowland ecosystem. The complete abandonment of the Auburn's Peasley Canyon heron colony last year makes the importance of the Black River colony even greater. There is strong public support for protecting this site. I have changed by schedule to be able to be present at the hearing only for the morning of the 14th. Dee Boersma will be Australia, and Range Bayer has previous work engagements. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 206-542-1275 if you require more information. I will provide more detailed written comments at the hearing which have reviewed by Dee Boersma and Range Bayer. Sincerely, Donald Norman NWC Comments to Renton ERC 3 July 6, 1998 Steve D.Stratis 11416Qauairr give.,S. Space#13 Seattle,Wq 98178 te.„4.1 .„ a6e,/i,-„e„ 2 c,u f% 9 C s'� FROM : SEATTLE UNITY CHURCH PHONE NO. : 206 622 5849 Jul. 03 1998 02:24AM '1 July 3, 1998 Ms Jennifer Toth Henning DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Project Manager CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South JUL 0 6 1998 Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED Dear Ms. Henning, I moved to the city of Renton just a year ago and read of the Black River heronry shortly after. It was my very good fortune to be able to observe the heron nests, the hatching of the young herons and their subsequent natural dispersal. As someone who worked at Wolf Haven in Tenino, WA. for several years as Education Outreach Co-ordinator, I cannot say enough about the importance of habitat preservation as THE single most valuable means by which species are both served and protected. I am told that the city of Renton has approved a proposal to construct 5 buildings on a property adjacent to the heron colony, determining that the proposed development will have a 'nonsignificant impact on the herons- I believe that there were heron protective building requirements developed for the same site seven years ago. Why are these building requirements being ignored now? I ask the city to request that the buffer between the development and the heron colony be enlarged to those recommended by heron experts or those recommended by the state_ ( A zone of 1000 feet, rather than the 500 feet currently proposed by the developers.) I ask that external major construction take place at times other than the heron breeding period of January 15 to June 15 when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance, as recommended by heron experts. Wendell Berry writes: "When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the night at the least sound in fear of what my life and my children's life may be, I go and lie down where the wood drake rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds. I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief. I come into the presence of still water. ... For a time I rest in the grace of the world,and am free." FROM : SEATTLE UNITY CHURCH PHONE NO. : 206 622 5849 Jul. 03 1998 02:25AM P2 I ask you to protect the Black River heronry, a small bit of earth where grace still prevails and one still feel free. T -nk ou P• •gy J• :an 07/06/98 MON 13:37 FAX '1001 In re: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM / Black River Corporate Park Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager a3i\I303?:3 Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton B661 0 0 lnr WA 98055. NO1N3l AO A LIO ONINNV1d 1Nit1d0-12/13Q "The Earth does not belong to Man—Man belongs to the Earth" - Chief Seattle Dear Ms. Henning: I am greatly disturbed that the City of Renton is apparently caving in to the temptations of financial pressure, and ignoring the treasure that is the Black River heron colony. I visit a viewpoint near the site whenever I can at lunchtime; it helps remind me that there is more to this life than the dollars-and-cents concerns that keep me cooped up in a nearby office building most of the day. Now, the people who own this parcel of land evidently feel that what the world needs is more office buildings. I can't blame them for wanting to make a living — after all, we all must -- but shouldn't we strive to be in harmony with nature as we do so? I implore you to follow the advice of the state of Washington in this manner, and enlarge the buffer between development activities and the heron colony to 1000 feet. As well, I urge you to restrict major construction during the heron breeding period of January 15 to June 15 when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance, as recommended by heron experts. Thank You. Sincerely, Brian K. Gauger (206) 789-9841 home (425) 393-4418 work 83342 rV\o..M kit rtw Sea ke , wW q$ tip 07/06/98 ION 16:31 FAX t001 , . ._ .._... ._.. ......... ._..... ...... ....... • .., I s.j I.'. 041, (_/ ILI (I',5 _ 7;4-L //./..c, , ,It.,-,,, , (/ Evott` if 1,4'lit/vv.-y7,_ 1,..I Pe Lrcio -r,t„,, it• \ E.g..,..- . 0 6 DEVELOuP:EN. CITY OF RTEPNLAT90:81•14114G I RECEIVE f• 0 1/11 : t -Al.A-R ,r(„1.7q-I-, .0 MA-„ A) h c'IcPc75— .; 1 — -) 01 5 _ I 4:41, .474,1/1 cv-e t..'.- -•(`-'(.- 0 ‘. e_j1.--Lin ‘...Pri71,14 1-11P 9 kuvv-t (, ., C. 6 6-.K• ---- I 0 ,_.t,ii,ut, caziffeh,fTrA„,m 1.,.. Ad,/ 0 ?1-0 0 c': c.i..A..,- / 1,ix-y. (0 744 :A/IAA_ ;!4_42-1.,717 C-Arf anli'd ‘ J. Ast R-47- -) 444,4_, _.) . ----- 1-IJLA 9--eP-6--i /0 e)-- 600 -- t A-14,- ,----- --)Jii e Afri / ) - 011....6,.„ , 0,..} 1(1,1— /17-1--I-1. AtAfi f 0 C._,Colyt/\-- •.....-., —ell ..2147,...,4.4_4„,_. _ i,::)_ : Q-/ c9/L'''- -- : Iii i 4..0 ,4 jr-e-t4-3 L HP-Itrp--; -/ 17/ - c/v.4.-C,O._P- .4-40 Pl-A-Af-e- 4-O-..-k.-- /2/2-6----r."--. / -c,71.- 1:Ar7A . '11,-1_d_ __p, al..--71, /a rez---r.c. / (A, 1e- 11 /7/, i4x, /6- -, /-4-00.c7 t!.44f4,'---f-1-1 7 - 0 . "4: 0_,P,-4.- _./0 E) fe r. S V d) .,, ti/vi / / si--5 17i1-6./ eRN .2,y-. 0e ---„,v,--- yrk7 10-9 --- • _io•-; if s —-‘ -43 Y r'--1-:)--V‘. (4 -2-) 4 _a/i Pi _ _---,___4_ ,u )....„._,a . , 4,-;,..d - ad )- ?IV (1 10- LI- / ' , --rdi. _g - (--7; 'V-g ,/ m -6:,49A.,--Ify .1-v. 0-7-yr, , - - •• 1-49-sejo cz/ -ley dy ii-7--- -- ,,,,,e__ ), ..__7_.7p,„...-7,1 _r/p_ p--t..• u ( - - ---,Jr' ;i4-;-w (4--/ .--l -) e-y...--- L. 7 a / • 6 / r 7 ri,- ' . -7 • -.) i _I.., _3. - ..... , i_toil"3 .w.lf-o-',,7 * -71_ ,---i-- a-177 (-op ,-----c,y) 0 i ci ‘ • 04-41; ---,-,- ), -0)------ti i);,,.-yk.„:,1,,y, r,,71_ r_.--- ‘.4,-;401, I,/ pip i (,{0/2L:d-a ti=4,1,--d -Yi c>-1 r)--v--072/ _ y-,k/. --(t-w-0 ' vt, - .-i _,D ---y --r-L,,V ()_,v-y jr.,.)-A..rz --,,,,,..6------,i14--ery ,Krzrw.A. ----471/ sv,z1/14 if\a-o c. .." 10 ........ ............ .. , zoo[A INd TC:9T NON 96/90/LO 07 06/98 13:26 FAX 253 756 3352 LIPS NAT SCIENCES 003 TheUniversityof Puget Sound 6 July 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNINn CITY OF RENTON Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager JUL 0 6 1998 Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Henning, This letter is in reference to Project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/ Black River Corporate Park, and to the possibility that the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the nearby Black River colony of Great Blue Herons. I am not an expert on Great Blue Herons per se and thus am not writing a lengthy letter,but I am a professional ornithologist who has lived in the Seattle area for over 30 years. I have taught ornithology classes, both in the university setting and to adults, for much of that time. Thus I feel qualified to recommend certain steps with regard to the Black River Great Blue Heron colony. As a large and conspicuous bird species, the Great Blue Heron is an appropriate symbol of wetlands all across North America. As such, we will know we are taking care of our wetlands if we can maintain healthy populations of this species. Great Blue Herons are not increasing in the Pacific Northwest. Although there is no precipitous decline, their relatively specialized nesting habitat, primarily tall riparian frees, continues to diminish in extent. Thus we must be concerned with threats to individual colonies, and this colony on the Black River is now thought to be the largest in King County. Thus it is of special value, and its loss through desertion would represent a serious environmental mishap. I recommend the city adhere to the minimum buffer of at least 600 feet between development and colony, as recommended by heron experts. These guidelines are set up with considerable thought and should be taken seriously_ A more conservative course of action would suggest that the 1000-foot buffer recommended by the state would be the safer alternative (but see below for a built-in procedure that would allow comparing these alternatives). James R_Slater Museum of Natural History 1500 North Warner r Txoma,Washington 98416-0360■(206)756-3356 07.,'06/98 13:26 FAX 253 756 3352 UPS NAT SCIENCES I 002 I also recommend that construction not be carried out while birds are present at the colony, typically from late winter to early summer. Long-lived birds such as herons are most sensitive when nesting. This is because, for birds that live 20-30 years and have many reproductive opportunities, it may be better long-term reproductive strategy for an individual to desert its nest to save its own life than to stay with the eggs or young and take the chance of being killed or injured. This could happen because of some disturbance that occurs at any time during the breeding effort. Such birds tend to be very protective of their own lives, whereas small birds that live only a few years are much more likely to attempt to protect a given clutch of eggs or brood of young, which may represent half or all of their total reproductive activity. I have two suggestions for the city, in addition to my previous recommendations. 1) Have construction begin at the most distant point of the site. This allows an experiment of sorts, in which you will be able to assess the effects of disturbance each year over the course of the project, as the construction moves closer. This could prove a very important experiment to be used in future planning of developments that impinge on heron colonies. This information is all too scarce, unfortunately, one of the reasons it is difficult to make hard-and-fast predictions when birds and development clash. 2) As part of the mitigation effort, the developers should construct a covered platform at or on one of the nearer buildings so that visitors to the site can view the heron colony. Possibly a window or set of windows in the nearest building would serve this function, with accompanying interpretive material. This would make it clear that the development was attempting to respect the colony. Sincerely, fretAr.-Lo--y? Dennis R. Paulson Director 07/06/98 13:26 FAX 253 756 3352 UPS NAT SCIENCES 001 ..,�,NN1 FAX COVER PACen o sENT°N JUL 0 b 1998NC UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND GEC\JED Thompson Hall RE 1500 North Warner Tacoma, WA 98416 FAX: (253) 756-3352 Date: ? f G (0. Time: 2 -wr Please deliver the following information to: Name: Nt5-Jeu u nce r 1--(ea u( Firm: qete(of tu-e4A.t cAritc ) V 6 itrIzi FAX No.: (425-- 50 - 73 °C This information is from: Name: _ Debi.utA pa.A.c (5.(nn Dept.: 5 (6,4---Pfr- MM/(, EAA Phone: 2 S - ?S(~ 7`t e Comments: Total number of pages sent, including cover page: DEVELOPMENT • NING CITY OF REN N JUL 0 6 19 July 1, 1998 RECEI CIF.: [� Refs LUA-98-075,ECF,SA H,SM/Bleck River Corporate Perk. Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division, City of Renton, Wa. Dear Ms. Henning; I em writing this letter to express my deep concern for the future of the Black River Heron Colony. My family and I are greet fens of these :magnificent birds and being able to come watch them in their natural habitat enriches our life in so many ways. For us it would be a terrible loss should the colony be driven out from noise and disturbance too close to their nesting and breeding area. I am asking two things be done to insure this will not happen: First, increase the buffer to the State recommended 1000 ft. Second, limit external construction noise to other times than the January 15 to June 15 nesting and breeding period. Thenkyou for being sensitive to the request of this citizen, end to the needs of the birds who cannot speak for themselves\ /. Very Oi cerely your , Shirley W' eiksen 1215 N.W Ord. Street Shoreline, We. 98177 2 06-542-5i 5 7 'DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 06 1998 RECEIVED Pr 1 c.;•c+ fri / Pc0itap.Mlv► 1 dit.►J.`.., ( �irI .1•0 . RF. LUA - 'lf! - 0'1 y'c -sift -11 , •s• a- Cd ror•a}e a r k a ( 6644 32 /¢a. . -6.L) . SeRl�tc t A 418(26 ZEE - by s3 199$ Ii ta. -}l..i 'Sine.{ • t'keels/ am }4.t \44 0"4-4- /•.•T- +L...r. I.00ri cry.•.• 44,, VT4w'1 I T.f. t4a.s1P.n Ca(0.4 A.� �a or'-' .•e T!�T��a+ c o.w 144r►.►c4,tie A r•. !l5 — 'It S Se. ♦4,1- L.s ro•.►t co.... �-4•s a l..t:r r"C-It • IAL. dos 4 �cld '�o �.5**•,p+ •d4.n rr+lht w �Z,.Ve Lsread•y diJaAA,rg.a^ cwv. lx 10:i 41A aPtw. —TT. I1AF0•nti NAde hINLAS••• L.) •i .184+uLI S. s C A} I t -a... ) + d p4a••9 / 4.1.e.e .-f.,.r GO.,..c ba+.cliJ• j- %...,I . 1Cte .w,.a a 04 -off- fkAtoctire t r a.^ oy& ate T +1..• Uary ... ate. La. •{�v. Wa 1na.,. L-F4 J .07/06/98 16:07 FAX 604 946 7022 ENV.CANADA PWRC DELTA BC fjj001/002 +1 Environment Environnement Canada Canada DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 6 1998 Canadian Wildlife Service Pacific Wildlife Research Centre RECEIVED 5421 Robertson Road Delta,B. C.V4K 3N2 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor Department of Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 USA FAX: 425-430-7300 6 July 1998 Dear Ms.Huerter: My colleague,Don Norman asked that I write to you regarding a colony of about 65 pairs of Great Blue Herons nesting in the Black River colony in Renton. I haven't visited the site but I would like to pass along some information to help with your decision. The advice is based on over a decade of research of this species in British Columbia.Much of this information appears in my book published last year by the University of British Columbia entitled The Great Blue Heron. Background: • the Great Blue Heron(Ardea herodias fannini)living in Puget Sound is a subspecies I ' } of about 9000 individuals whose range extends northward along the coast of British Columbia to southeast Alaska. About 4800 herons live in Puget Sound. • in Canada,the coastal subspecies is federally listed as `vulnerable' and provincially listed as 'blue listed' because the number of nesting pairs is in slow decline; • heron populations are near extirpation on the Sunshine Coast(north of Vancouver)and appear in trouble on southern Vancouver Island; • the major threats are human disturbance near colonies and eagle predation in colonies; • most of the human disturbance is from new activities near colonies such as road and house construction, logging, and blasting; • the Black River colony supports about 65 pairs(130 individuals) of herons. A colony of this size in Canada would be likely be considered `nationally' significant in Birdlife International's `Important Bird Areas' program; Canada !!°`J 07/06/98 16:07 FAX 604 946 7022 ENV.CANADA PWRC DELTA BC 0 002/ 02 • the`Heron Stewardship Program' was established by the federal and provincial governments,and the Wild Bird Trust of BC to advise land owners about the protection of herons in Canada. Herons exhibit a range of sensitivity to human disturbance. Some herons take flight at the slightest provocation whereas others tolerate humans near the nests.Moreover,their sensitivity wanes as the nesting season progresses. The Black River colony is probably intermediate in their sensitivity to human activities. I have provided a list of guidelines for your interest that have been adopted by the Islands Trust in the Canadian Gulf Islands to protect a large heron colony.Not all of these guidelines are necessarily appropriate to the Black River colony. Given the importance of this colony,I urge precaution in the vicinity of the Black River heron colony.If you would like to hear more about our program,please call me at 604-940-4672.A copy of this letter has been mailed to you today. Guidelines: �. Within a one kilometer radius of the colony • encourage landowners to minimize forest clearing to provide roosting sites and alternate nesting sites for new herons; • provide a 15 m buffer zone along seasonal and permanent streams,to minimize runoff into shoreline areas where herons forage; • allow normal activities to continue throughout the year but restrict novel loud activities such as blasting, logging, or road construction should from 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. 2. Within 300 meters of the colony • In addition to the above restrictions,building construction should be restricted to the period 1 August to 31 December when herons are not nesting. Yours s'.cerely, Rob But er (PhD) Head of Research and author of The Great Blue Heron Af' Q `f1tE C 9- ARE Do►JE, CDME cptIJ HE -Rod A R.tt . i N � ATT',c-Ac. a- RQ - -.c t-4Aron Co (on + 'bIfkc - r - 11s 15 oery IwtecAiAC `)a ho-e_ 74, ibcc, braes in5 -4- eleCfi1n5 june 5 uc r DENEY JOPNSON 24824 5E-235 L. r A �o,� •**s"� usn MAPLE VALLE*A.98038 (,�� .v �"' :*`3L rM ,o --�,... _.,.�..._ L% - ( _. ---. \\ •7 A - \Nkik p2 .i v- (Y13-s J(2n►1►�Se v- 10-'I1. kenn! 4 er Quef oPt"ai1` erv«es 1 ;v. Zoo 01Il ) A So • 1a- m-L lJJ -- ,8ctC,C II,I.,I„I,II,,,,I,I„IFIn,I,I,,,II„Ii,„I,IIIn„II„,;I,I,I Krm ,NN1 ° cay OF RE JkA,, 0 a 199a July 2, 1998 avv eD Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Series Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 RE: LUA-98-075, ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park Dear Project Manager: I want to encourage you,the City of Renton, and the developer of the Black River Corporate Park to give protection to the Black River Heron colony. This is a very unique site; I have visited the colony at least six times this Spring. All exterior construction work should be prohibited between January and July in order to protect this site. Surely you can be as forward thinking as the City of Kirkland; they had just one eagle's nest on a site on Yarrow Bay and would not allow a contractor of a $800,000+house to work from January to July. I call your site the Heron Condos—there are many more birds that need to be protected in Renton. All external major construction should be prohibited within 600 feet of these nests. I cannot attend the public hearing on July 14, 1998 as I will be out of town, but if the hearing is extended or re-scheduled would you please notify me. Sincerely, Sze" Gwen D. Warren 3235 99th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004-180 425-454-9677 Nimmomommenumummemonmemomm Gruen D. Warren `A L t 323.E - 99th Ave. NE ' P y --- .� Bellevue, WA 98004 c' P M 4 02 Jill is95 1 USA JENNIFER TOTH HENNNING • PROJECT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERIES DIVSION 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON WA 98055 2'13'y i�s1►s�ss�slissssis�isti�sssli�fllli��1�1'f�l��'sss�lsssssl'at .r DEVELOPMENT L �a';rnrE.�.�, GIJY OF RE 1 • e R. JUL 0 6 19 n F- STATE OF WASHINGTON PIECE, I DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE , 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 July 1, 1998 Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue Renton WA 98055 RE: GREAT BLUE HERON NESTING COLONY/ALPER NORTHWEST PROPOSAL Dear Ms. Heurter: The Washington.Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)has been informed that there is currently a proposal before your division to construct a building and parking lot(s) less than 500 feet from the "Black River Heron Nesting Colony." WDFW understands that a hearing is to be conducted on July 14 to decide on permitting this proposal. We request that this letter be made part of the record at said hearing. It was WDFW's understanding after the hearing of a former proposal (1991)that a negotiated agreement had been reached which was to protect this heronry (through 1999)by requiring certain conditions to be imposed on construction at this location. These conditions include: 1. Protection during the nesting period(February through July). A. No (outdoor)heavy construction during this time period-within 700 feet of the nearest nest tree. B. No pile driving during this time period(augered or otherwise). 2. No visible post-construction human disturbance within 600 feet(pedestrians or automobiles). 3. No harsh outdoor lighting. r,r 4. Non-reflective glass windows. 5. Fencing to prevent human and domestic animal encroachment into the herony.y, According to the information we have received,most of these conditions are being proposed to be ignored by this new development. In our expert opinion,this would be a grave mistake. This heronry has thrived under protection of these listed conditions. It has grown to be the largest heronry in King County - largely because it has most of the requisites for a colony such as this. The nest trees are large -because they are old; a good food supply exists in close proximity(Green River); and it has been Jana Huerter July 1, 1998 Page 2 marginally protected by the conditions previously mentioned. Large old-growth black cottonwood groves such as this are rare in the Puget Sound trough. Most of the landscape has been cleared and developed. If this colony is forced to relocate due to human disturbance, there is no other nesting habitat within many miles with these attributes that could accommodate a colony of this size. This colony has been very productive for the last several years. Probably due to the large number of birds in the colony,they have developed a very effective defensive strategy to protect their eggs and young from crow and eagle predation. We believe that if they are forced to relocate, the colony would be fragmented leading to a loss of this defensive capability and resumption of high predatory losses. WDFW asks that you give our comments serious consideration in this deliberation! Continued imposition of the protective measures will help to protect and sustain the state's valuable wildlife resources. Sincerely, a .5-(ttie,.. Theodore A. Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager cc: Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager, Renton Patricia Thompson 4 ' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division JUL 0 6 1998 200 Mills Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED Dear Ms. Toth-Henning, My letter is in reference to project # LUA-98-075 ECF,SA-H,SMBIack River Corporate Park; I have only recently discovered that little piece of heaven down on Oakesdale in Renton. The tiny piece of paradise in the middle of the busy hustle and bustle of the every day business world where the Great Blue Herons have for reasons beyond my imagination chosen to raise their young. And what a discovery! My children are entranced by the wildlife there, as am I. I have seen birds and ducks on the pond there, that I had never before in my 48 years observed. The children and I first discovered the Metro Water Gardens Park across the street. We like it very much and look forward to the continued growth of the young trees and plan which will, hopefully, invite more wildlife. But the area where the herons are nesting is wilder place and has such a special, untouched feeling about it, that it has become a pia"- we like to brag about, telling people how Renton has preserved some very special spac:,. I like to take my children there so that they will have those memories, as I do, of visitin wild places without travelling far from home. But, to be honest, I really love to go there without them so that I can enjoy the sounds of the many birds that frequent the area. ( I have even observed bald eagles there!) I know that there are plans for construction that will come very close to the heronry that has been such a joy to observe. It has been said (by those who have studied such things that the herons need a space of at least 600 yards in order to feel safe, yet I understand that the new construction will come within 500 yards of their nesting area. I know that there are many imaginitive architects and probably lots of ways I am completely naiive about to use space wisely and which maybe could even add that extra 100 yard buffer zone that is so important to keeping the herons in our area. I suppose it is really asking . lot for construction to be stopped during the months between January and June when th:' herons are breeding and raising young, but that would be the ideal. Some things are just more important than profit and loss when the big picture is taken into consideration. If the herons leave, they will most probably never return. We will have lost something that can never be retrieved. We still have the power to make the kinds of decisions we can b:: proud of when we watch our grandkids enjoying these wild places close to home. Sincerely, Janice Mayrhofer ea 12047 69th Ave. S. Black River Wet- Iancl s Dear Peopej You doK have break }fie we � �anc;�S c+ hc� �hC gnivnGdS korn . .If you rug n tke )Hb ' Fo t fhb c1him015' SU/ VIvC' PI Jove SeC' lh 61e, ) 5 :vt +ke ahc,) `here ;s hQ ' ci1 any PiPacesI-0 Ief �-� � n� why coo you n � � ru;n � e i n vcronvvl er1 From , Anna Li MGytio f er r /\,\ ti 101,) ATIE ,111 P. Please. 8orea - � � It'titttt'1tssl{�s'ttt��sti�t:sititttjt�ta,t�+stttIs1ttttt''ll 7,% j=' c-j�ir N z xr� • • S SW oo-e alddd amui4 MI ---�'� ea r z o OD Wd ^' ►r+`�Cy Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton,WA 98055 July 6, 1998 Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton,WA 98055 Subject: Black River Corporate Park Public Comment Period We have talked to several people who are concerned that their comments may not be received by the July 6,deadline because the Post Office was closed on Saturday,July 4,to honor the Fourth of July holiday. Please extend the comment period until 5:00 PM,July 8,to ensure that these comments are received within the deadline. Thank You. Tom Malphrus 18713 102"a Ave. SE Renton,WA 98055 0 z Z co o ga W az I--Ill MMINE 20 o 111, LO o W 0 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Phyllis and Jerry Walsh JUL 0 6 1998 12038 78th Ave, So RECEIVED Seattle, Washington 98178 Dear Ms. Toth Henning The City of Renton is lucky to have a Heron Colony, but luck must be honored and guarded or it will leave; the same is true of the Heron Colony. The colony is in danger from proposed development. To lessen the danger of possible abandonment of the colony these two steps should be taken: 1 . The 500-foot buffer between the colony and the proposed devleopment should be enlarged to at least 600-foot buffer. 2. External major construction should not take place when the Herons are most sensitive to disturbance - between January and the end of June. We must be very careful , ,Tien something wonderful is gone, we are left with nothing but memories and regrets. Sincerely Phyllis Walsh Jerry Walsh tet,t.33siic.if({itiiili?i(;iii(?;ifif:Iffj st sfI 11 f1?3y?T 1 1 z •"Asi\;:r-sik.,. ---i—V:' )\(-)`-' *1 ()----) -A-9 1\\\-6 \--?\---) -\1% 7\-1 5 '\,,\ -- US ` -3-) g ` cLQ -$b- 'Y\ _y1 7- • ç 908 b ?--- -' ' •_•.,2,s___..4...)---\:_\ • 0-S _-0--y.r.)--zo-C\-- V. 0 0-2, ''°- \---).`.\- , _,,a,0 _,_„,--- , ,.. ___,_, ,.._,,, ,,__ ,_ ___c____,,, .,,_.,._ , „, \. -.Ii-as ! c-Nt rt.?' c) • \,..1 - 41 7,LI ?;)0 _ . \ ,t , .1JL,yq, MT, 1 Dc--. M2, M.S. S�t-NNtStIZ T'OTt- Herio‘,J 6, ANIJ 1 Nt. clT•1 of f -NITa.N , Pc..`cl e R_Ec.oisIDF_2 yo.)2 (JESE(2-4-,\INt)-7101-' ow< NorJS61-iIFCAJcE RC6AKotNG THE (QL.Ac_K RIVER GoPo2A1E PARK7LUI) -011-0-757E.GF ,SA-W IA Np\i 6 LEPgNtrD of THE [3 Lsrs RNF=R FIERLN GQ.M J\( Tf•1r YJGH S Ev EKPt - H EwsP APER I).p,sic.LS -c- RKL‘crrz T-'s \( -R , AM v E(zy iy\x..t, R (.-AS'I:r_or\ER To This S11vR -lorJ, SPPolzr'vE. c)F , QOT' Ivor INvoLve_ , )N/ 71-It- or.sGo rN6 E -EoRTs ►0 P( ZS-RvE TiH(S vNIauE A.Nt wompEr JL St-7E. W\r+-I Ltrrt_F. USE.Fut_ •KNowr--E_D6E. OF Gove.p.Nr,\. i ANQIO , Pot_,cr'c S , I.'e\ NOT SvRC )1--I0 i aXAcrc_y , IS MAtC►N 6 THE F-INAt-. DECIS(t 00 1--(t5 M1);7-1' . 5---VE-t 1 5O ' L. you-L.- 1vo\D T.HE T yPE.. OC- CPA TkLPL_ i ..iNILf>1L__ REltiF t(-S RIT9-.1 To PvESA-(,,c Ar c; NI Lv i iZErIS E.vFR1 bAl P--E.GAI~DIN6 TEE PEPL Irpl i t111r-tt;. CovEKNNi-r.r. ( v,TE To T btE L.o►iT2AF; 1 1 L QC- -4 E-v F THE PE.OPt_.E. Itch.,' b itIS D tSi)N o Qe44p>,c. op -n-4E c_v,L( v 4 Oj- Acz_>~ Goob P-..Q(I, LE, 1 Goob t N T e-.,-r r'o r•-, s c) ho,N 6 JJ 1 T I S (�E-ST' Foie.. TN Eta 6 r?. G-v E.NJ ihi O E- J EL. o ses, , RoJ I►,- E-L'/ PO[`i y E b ASS rtThi t gA b i,u1/4-f" I ti T--t-.SE CI�Se5 J ,v r wAN1S ro pEv EL-OPt.. T - PITS PrS NoSLF ANO NPT-UIzAL AS t1NyT skNG wE fi( _)t\PNS E\1E>~ po, ANp AMo1' I A S ALt✓-Ar\ &fz(cPN NS ova GHAT NRTIO►JFct, SvAgoL, 1 fi,(tir BALD E. ,Gr , u J i '(-1-A , 1f`i THE w A y , AS () _)R 6 A-1E-Sr Succ ES S SVO R7 I N SPIV I+.1 v A SPEU>i5 FP.©rA Eci i iior'J 15 pZz._ 0 J is As-c oor r r-'IE 0Nc_ 7 1 OT+ 4 N ATv(ZJ'1 L .NE-►.ny THE-- 6P-E.Ar 13c.v C. HESo rJ HAS To w(_ ., ARour . f.- FS( DI%S uS , pt ccxugsE.. T('ZoNtc IN'T tT A N•-(Q,s p,$ rt-I A'r F\Zs r v I � I r' To Tit E COLA?Qv kAmS R i c--J i ii L\ F RSC\N R T i N CB , A► ';,:\i- �E.f,4,s Q A MAN/ 7 r N'E.S 11-1. 0 G t4 001" l H I .SF-- Sol . T_'v F A 1-S o R-5_.Pr D W"o T 1r(c E c t`EA T L OE 1--t aRo NJ , AN Le__.AF D Ag 007 1 iE ftISTO ..( of: THE. QLRtIC (ZNEr, LoLc), y , P IA s. P LLa-J r\E TU i RL 1=F-t_Y Su t--\tivN RA Z F �.J>\I A=r -a H iv F 0 , • o T�c E G0 or-. So 5P I e-S u F ht 5--RO rJ w, C. R LUC P1 L SP Ec • z Z t A I E J 92; LIJ OF Gc-.EAS" gLvE. HF-fzoN , IS UNIc E TO PJ6ET SouND AP I) z� :o . L-ow gP-t7tiSW GoLv tAg( A , p\NNwr-i e-t"�-.E_ Et,SE a ►Nt THIS th s Ltd a Coo►J T k N E- 1 S" Tt t e. c z r �1..Ls E t-t ERc),J 15 A r-(o( A r t,R � Y sit Rt o R V T ki'i F ()RE 77-E-AT D 1-b CO N\!Au Ni S I ( 1 T\J.,G S car o N l;. u, r EL Nlot T~1 Ar\KV_PcS r'\oS` UkSi r,.r4_,TrJE Q(R F � �u. Y AR Rci jNp, 0 PoPutp,rrw Esitt, - &s v (sip,y , r t_ ER Exisr Nfo Nivoc . THE QC,ACK I"z k R A-P t A,N F0 R E Sr L_O rJ r pt( J S THE HEI csr ;.c�1,G �l � IS ASS II‘Ac----r vJ�S'UAND l S) , C >„NSI �� , AN E-FFOP.T- To GON\PE-riSATE FAQ wE--TLP,,N I)S L3Sr TU OE.\JEI✓oPtn rNir , • IT- wntz.KE D. 1"5" ) N( R m r I c 1.1 io THE_ N C1 rQ S "SSE SITE iko HST> AN A r\ AZ 1 N (, A R(2Py e F l.N 1LDL-tFE AND , AS A POPjLPR WPr(,tcING /JoO tr\J6 P()sk-a 15 --1`1Jcy F--0 6`-{ TrtC C-IT 1 ZE NF.y oN R pp-(Lv prs 5 A N p t NEE-AID R.E..f4 LL`( -1\1.\0y'E Tod, IT- IS \l f NI c_f_ P LrA 6--E, \f•CX) , c t T i OF R.- 1 0 Ni , Np QoN F. • a N it-rE H E r-.1 C.oC v N L( , T r (C Foc-PrL, POINT' vJ t-(uL- Ti-I t N G , 1 S T{--r F t V I N 6 , N1(3.S G W 0 R 71-r G GCS N\n REQUt t-EME.N ) OF A SUcCESSFvt_ N S1IJG PRE I=or T�tESE MPGN I FtC. s S k )S RP•E r-Er rfi(e gr_A-L c (-I\J Er` sv7 F 's O R F-C o P D R..A RE T( a Y OF 5 o EASILY \J C rJ 6 Pr c.-Rg.c f_ c.oc_o Sv -S S 7 T H is Sire_ t-A A t T I-N E (..lA(Z G a S)" RNI) (Aosr t N.POzzrpcssfT color. .1 ► rJ l<1N 0 NT C.c�U `1 • THE HE.P-.or� 'S NP�E fvFr�l I►i\FNAiGED R\I O t D +mod E S A LD e--J 6L-4. PP--E_1 10 rv1 "ri--(RT uJ r P E.D o J i TN`E c..-o L.o►J y ) N THE PA-NT', 1-1-4P1- \iSr vs. • ANC SJ, Gc3QR: e THE GOOo.Ny I S Th1(Z r ENI F..f J, QL( J , I tJ R N\pv E L.1 w h To TEFL( aL,(_ Lo( c vtJ ENJ Tt-tE NISToR`f RN() \( 1)LU OF THIS StiE t)EVELbP►-, ErJT rt-(RT \iNIruc. �RO�cCt r VPDN �� �.(�1�'ICAL_ 1., 0 ZONC P-(2-,0 )t.3 THE <OL;),Jj S AROO °i' To APPT.oL(), . , P Ar S Oo N T o 1 T 1 Tr(E a o f REs\1 ro r..‘ sHOJ LD PCzou o F, ANC v Fgy PKv1Ec_fity C o(= . Wt-IPrT Ir HRS LP- E(�TED , K,ND HELP TD FL0.)p H, AT- T1-�� P-K fZ-I�J ECZ W 1 LrA N D S I T e , TO R SK TIC LD S5 O F MO S 1 c fz-E D I N j P4�tLCI-ASS PcSSe-T, L3}-1ErJ ALL Ti—(Ar I S TO [3C 6Ptts) F S Ft. yY L,(1� \E hAO( NON esSE.NTI(� �t=F1c sPPrc s S (QuirE vrJ, nrssAp.,y, AS" (I~ t gy LE.PST, Ir1PLo ,:cx To UDE. 6L( PrrQp Pvk1D IN SPtc2-x , N`(Tk6Fsror.1 GUIpe_t_wi j AS A62 �n Tv (3`( T(-(E CITY OF (7-- Ta, 1 N VAT , ND OUE GAN I-l^ALU-( fir' .y FOR- t►.A wr+Rf r I E o N S W I c.L-- Do . t T t F may A P poNI T'ti c S coLrJ1.31/41 tT wotiLT QE POS5I >31-E To HD -D To cOrj JINC Erv‘ THRT THE IN\PPe- \/ 1F5 IJE�E�h'�trJF� ';Nvr�lSlwF� tGANS'lt • ws . H-1z1s'� 'LQ-g6- csrr/-;dd 2:r3rttt N9tsiNtcJ sc wdO1 N Q 9 N VfNi1 S CJd 9 N iN Ng 1--t .31 N1`GC1 5�n1 Zarb d rn r c)2c-d S rz ���► c • DEVELOPMENT PLANNIlN CITY OF RENTON JUL 06 1998 RECEIVED July 1, 1998 Ms.Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms. Henning: I am an employee of The Boeing Company and work at the Black River Corporate Park 800 Oakesdale Av SW Renton WA 98055. The purpose of this letter is to express two concerns over the LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK project as it as regards the Blue Heron Colony. • The 500-foot buffer between the heron colony and the proposed development is not adequate and should be enlarged to at least 600 feet. • External major construction should not take place when the herons are most sensitive to disturbance-between January 15-June 15(other construction can take place during that time). Sincerely, Doug Watson 7019 47th Av SW#1 Seattle,Wa 98136 iW G * .: USA O S ec ) 0, 9 818b • M s. -Z-' Toz-P\-, K ?jk.,11,-„,„t, S _AAA)emu, 0-w'v R. G .) Ww 9 g o cs- SarMS/2.17?,2. Hill!hiltilivi1ii,:I,1,,ih1i„IletII I.III11,IItillIflfI From: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Dalice A. Snider CITY OF RENTON 32920 181st. Av. S.E. Auburn, WA 98092 JUL 0 6 1998 To: RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 June 30, 1998 Ms.Henning: I am concerned about a proposed development just south of the Black River Wetlands(Tract B)near a Great Blu Heron Colony. I value the protection of the Heron and a functioning habitat. If the development goes as planned I . concerned that there will not be a large enough buffer to make this Heron colony successful. I am also concerned th ti development timing may disturb the nesting cycle of this colony. Though South King County is experiencing rapid growth and development,I think we can do it wisely and with caution,using scientific information about the life cyc ; c the Heron so that humans and other wildlife can coexist. I value wildlife as part of the community,however urban i seems. Please consider the following: 1. The buffer for Great Blue Heron habitat should be increased from 500 to 600 feet as recommended by Heron Ex•. s 2. Please restrict heavy construction from taking place between January 15 and June 15 during this project. 3. This Wetland and Heron Colony is important to me as a community member. Though I do not live in the Rento i1 Limits I am a visitor to this natural resource. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. h. (1)(2, ,Z. 0. V2 Dalice A. Snider 'bailee Snider&John Cooper mm 32920 181st Ave.SE.,Auburn,WA 98092 • s. LTenni-Per- TatAi !-1es7n►r,c� (Deveto men+ Service5 s\ar' o�©O 1\1;l I q,.. 300 (2.ev,io W Q18O 5 5 ex.S ias-tea 11J„t„1,1l,,,,t,l„t,l,,,l,t, • Alma M. Bennett P.O. Box 23336 Federal Way,WA 98093-0336 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING July 3, 1998 CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 6 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning RECEIVED Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue south, Renton,WA 98055 Ref: LUA-98-075, ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE BANK Dear Ms.Henning; This letter is to express my deepest concern for the threatening by development of the Heron rookery of Renton's Black River herons. I was privileged to observe the colony in April of this year,along with 100's of interested observers. What upsets me is the willingness of cities such as Renton to go along with a buffer zone which will destroy the colony. Extensive studies have shown that the buffer zone should be enlarged to at least 600 feet. Construction activity should also be limited to a period outside the breeding season from January 15 to June 15th to save the nursery colony. Contrary to the developers statement,studies have also shown that in the majority of situations the herons have NOT RETURNED to their nests following the completion of the development. Please consider how fortunate we are to have such an extraordinary wildlife resource within a short distance of our homes to be able to share this marvel with our children,grandchildren and friends. I ask you to extend the buffer zone to the required 600 feet,and restrict development during the breeding and nesting period of January 15th through June 15t. Sincerely g‘' &I -727 Alma M. Bennett � . ..aoMA 4, sn3� v /� co N t, - / 3 J U L '------ C A Ms. Alma M.Bennett 7 /o 9 P P.O.Box 23336 v Nit Federal Way,WA 98093 >712-',./ . J,t2' riirc-rewil. Ave:d ,,4 i . /4 4,e_e.:e.,e,e;,,4 110 4ezt o r.„ caw &ice . _ ..... r . :.;/.424. Ilia itltllllilililtheellItiliitlllihitllitith'll King County DEVELOPMENT PLANNING , Department of Natural Resources - CITY OF RENTON Resource Lands Section 506 Second Avenue, Suite 708 JUL 0 2 1998 Seattle, WA 98104-2311 Phone (206) 205-0535 FAX 296-1473 RECEIVED July 1, 1998 Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Corporate Park, Tract`B" Dear Ms. Huerter: I wish to take this opportunity to reiterate some of my comments from June 12, 1998 regarding the proposed development of Black River Corporate Park, Tract"B" (LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM) and its impacts to the Black River Heron nesting colony. I feel very strongly that there should be a seasonal construction limit imposed on this site. Great blue herons in the Puget Sound region appear to be declining. Herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances near their nesting colonies in the spring. While the vegetated buffer between the project and the heron colony has grown up in recent years, the buffer is composed of deciduous trees. Deciduous trees do not provide buffer benefits early in the spring when the herons are beginning courtship, nest building and egg laying activities. Disturbances at cols-lies during this time have repeatedly resulted in nest abandonment and a loss of heron reproduction. The City of Renton has a significant investment of public funds in protecting the Black River heron rookery. To protect that public investment, there should be no construction between January 15th June 30th within 800 to 1000 feet of the rookery. Seasonal construction limits do not apply to interi r finish work. Many sites around Puget Sound are often too wet to work during this nesting season, and we find that contractors do not have a problem working around seasonal construction limits. To provide better year-round buffering of the heronry in the future, the project should also be required to plant additional evergreen trees in the buffer area. Landscaping and enhanced planting requirements are also typically required on projects of this sort and most contractors find them easy conditions to comply with. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the long term health of the Black River heron colony. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 206-296-7266 r via e-mail at kate.stenberg@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, Kate Stenberg, g:D. Wildlife Program Manager Dear Ms Toth Henning, We are concerned about the future of the Black River Heron Colony. It has come to our attention that there is a proposal to develop some land adjacent to the nesting site. Heron experts have determined that development in such close proximity, during the heron breeding season could drive these fabulous creatures from their homes, permanently. We would appreciate it if you consider the following compromise to save the herons. • Provide a buffer of at least 600 feet between the colony and the construction site. • Limit external major construction to some period after June 15th and before January 15. Other construction can take place during that time. Reference project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/ BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Thank you, Boeing employees at Black River Corporate Park 'M g $ -Ja E1-41 1VSAspotwo Ke h / lee rokLnk irvv6 5 4grave .I Az,c,cv..-/ Crurn FitesiS, l,; \Sp , E. G,A-351.� �er bcch t 141- 1-4:tr— Cot/At,' rn Ort\ChreL'k;5 I)lay i p A . STEf?N£N-S Uo,.r) 10 .,/ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 02 1998 RECEIVED -` 32 Boeing Commercial ane Group t E _ , 11 4 USA P.O.Box 3707 r�`"" Seattle,WA 98124-2207 -, E P• 4 • ,,1,t I jt4.; it y. BOE/A/G • (r5, Je nn fer --roill 14enn I n ) r 0 j P at rYla rtTA) • 1Devetopmeni J.AAviC'Jos. -D ; v, S1oyl o 00 i t 0 1.1-Ire 1'\ S o w -Re n--0-n , GO A a ci80 S 5-- Da`.m•J/'G%-:vL I hilt fibs I hilt ltlttit Itiiititttliti liti•itli It it lists t 1,I1I REV 5/92 FROM: MS -_ e L7u ( ,( I , ( refT Revd.-0in 1-- a -- qF^ D75^iFc S'Ll 'H) 5M B (6 7-1111-eArk_,3ortro ft\ rR 60,E 02 O Oki-A &a t4,) d cchlegeitzk. t r lA a LU-keel ate . v51,t)t- t2,L4t4eAktuf L-644— T-Le _en4.41/4-q64 cv14, c4-u-difr-- n/t_ ;1// Cci4e- .0A Y/ c,b-csx-€4-eyUc Ma7v-e_46( /5 err ( t.cr k.e/pc .A.,e,fruCc:t4)-e- " W 144,u,ef--/ 41,f/wt oS e� l�P, l.11a, 418r 1 G, DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 6 1998 RECEIVED . .. ••• . Mr. & Mrs. P-1--", Gramm \A LE -...,... *... USA ,. '.........,....,...-•"--... 'r-tt u -2.,. i, 5027 51st AVI ' ., ",-. - _) .............,' - it' --^- Seattle, WA __ _6 :-.:' P N', Y,D _ ....--...„....„,..... ‘, _._.„,„_ _„--- , -- __ , _,, . .x-i.• -3 , ,, • r t )14AAAetier--.j A , I Oa4 A 'A ar° W:CUL 614) ('. 5 7.) • Re VI*)Vii , IWI i tS % .iq r, 6116—i-c----, , s.c..)..s.s,„.74,4 ihiu,„....,„.......... .„....mniiii 14512 NE 173rd Street Woodinville, WA 98072 1 July, 1998 City of Renton Development Services Division 200 Mill Ave. South DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 2 1998 Attention: Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager RECEIVED Dear Ms. Henning: This letter is in reference to Project No. LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM/Black River Corporate Park. Regarding the large Heron Colony in the Black River area, I strongly request you consider a buffer greater than the present 500 feet allowed, and limit noisy external construction during the 15 January-15 June breeding season. Realistically, I question the need for another Corporate Business Park, but obviously that is not open to debate so the issue needs to focus on taking every precaution to protect the Herons and their nesting areas. I visited the subject area in May of this year and was very impressed with the natural state of the remains of the Black River, the various wetlands (including the man-made), and most of all with the Herons! I have seen Heron nesting areas before but never in such a large colony; it is truly a pleasure to observe the birds and their natural ease and adaptation within the Renton City Limits. It will be a significant loss to the City of ' Renton if the proposed development drives the Herons away. We have few opportunities left to protect such natural areas, particularly when they are so close and ; accessible for public enjoyment. As Project Manager, I encourage you to develop a partnership between the Developer and the Herons. It would be huge public-relations factor for the Developer if they not only respect the Herons but extend the buffer to the maximum (if possible well beyond the recommended 600 feet), and make every effort to not disturb the nesting site during the breeding season. Developers who establish good relations with environmental concerns (and organizations) posture themselves for future success in meeting ever-increasing environmental constraints (i.e., Ordnances, Endangered Species Act, etc.). Very Sincerely Yta-0-041.-elaz H4r9'CI A. PpI09rg f e Harold A. Solberg \ILt 4 , . 14512 NE 173rd St. ✓ "�° I- 11 wumk, Woodinville, WA 98072-9256 �_ M '-� - ..-• Iirk 1'!�m' , reviI � v if 396 SouUrernMagnolfa Ci r61 orc /e.Euro(.) ip-E 1 e7-0 Dl ci(s 70/J 417"N : Al S 7-o7W Nt�Ni NG 20, MI&L 4v&,d £oq 7�¢ R6-70723 fv, DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 02 1998 5/414,44Ad , RECEIVED - -ache:416-4a�9z v p- -' )Devd.71-0,tv-*.geSoPfree;-,---- * a(/eri-e-e.,7 Y� R� LuA ors, 59 -,v , /t1/���E 2� d),10 . (t ).t Sao � � � out `r� � �� � e 9 i I � I i I t . \ ‘ ,,, , , , , \ t''ti t i , 1 1\T1 ( : 9 • 1 1 i k \ 0\ ! ,\ , t `1 , ' ' ‘ ' , &I\k\ 1%, ‘‘ be ' i k‘ \(N -1 !,. .. , C4r\ r--1‘, „ • Iftc. r 4 , ( t‘r k :. 1 1,- *,,__ , ‘(: ?\' !, ,(‘‘‘ , . i 1-' •Z r A . \ ,, 1 .. ,., ,, • , , :. ,_ . . ,,,, .:\, , ,, ,,,, -:, tt ,, ,, 10 tc(s, q,\ ,,ItATI, , , .,,, , 1 %.' t 1‘ .,,, ,,, \ i ,k ) \ , r , , \,___ \ , ,, , 1 1 \ 1 \,0 . \ i* k \ / fi �, R • 1 j J r k. I r - \ c '1'(' . . 3 �e ab x2G�u _ IA, (A.dic�� G IdArle4-/ _~ Janice Wagner R�; �� "_, 2 �711 Auburn Way South /V 9 ii j� Auburn, WA 98092-7331 j ,g ... " .......... " •/ 's � . . - _ . ►r - --____ rz,41.1.44. ,-.../.5. la-e4 r • )2)evz.---J-e-r...po LVA - -Di% LCP, sA-14, e2od - J°1.1-4 SM1l'i a -E..-5.e.s II,i„{„I,li,,,,l,l,iI,I,,,fii,,,lll„I ,I Mr and Ms Steven B Hayes 13503 MLK Wy S Apt A306 Seattle WA 98178 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Ms Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager JUL 0 2 1998 Development Service Division 200 Mill Av S RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 Re: Black River Heron Colony Ms Henning, I was very upset to learn that dispite the efforts to secure a small protected area for the majestic great blue heron to breed, once again development threatens the natural order of life on earth. 1 hardly have words to express my condenation of this project. As longtime residents of this community, we are constantly amazed at the lack of concern of the environment. Renton ten years ago was a birdwatchers paradise, close to the city but but endowed with species of birds and small mammals. Most urban dwellers would have to drive over a hundred miles to observe. This was a very special community. I fully realize that some development is neccesary to house, employ, and enhance the community, but I am equally protective of other life forms rights to exist as well. It is imperative that we as a community have a balanced development plan, one that leaves our children some decisions for themselves. Every animal has the right to exist, not only humans. As I am sure you are aware, the great blue heron is a very shy animal, particularly at breeding time January 15 thru June 15. They must not be disturbed. Let us make a farsighted decision this time to preserve fc: r our community something very special. Again I ask that no development be allowed within 1,000 feet of tht.. heron colony. Consider the effects on our community in the future. Let us begin to co-exsist with nature and leave more than strip malls for our children to observe. I am for a wiser, more balanced development plan. 6ef; Lull - 98 -o 75 , EL-F--- 5A /; SM/ .PL.ACk /?I V R coR PoR,11 E PM J'< Iyes L SA32 /3 MLA W y5943D '� ,PPti1 `✓9eaff -- r „ lS S -I W k /78 — , oza.. .-:: MS Jennifer- /-h /9-e,,,,y--mo,- -- v lop mer)I Servire"' s pi tIs /or? 26)a Mi / l Ave S, Ren, WA 980 ii t 3scs s/Gis.?' hilt.tislillii�ul,IiifitFipliiiu llt uuhh„titl{Imit,u,lpith • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING = CITY OF RENTON July 1, 1998 JUL 0 2 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Henning: I am writing in regard to project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park. I have visited the area around the Black River Wetlands several times and consider it a special place. The remnant of the river and the wildlife that call the water and the surrounding land and vegetation their homes make it an oasis in a neighborhood of industrial and commercial activity. But the most valuable resource in the area is the heronry. These creatures have thrived only because concerned citizens and the city of Renton have worked together to protect them. Now I understand a developer has proposed the development of a parcel of land to the south of the heronry and that the city of Renton has determined that the proposed development will have a "nonsignificant"impact on the heronry. How can this be with the proposed 500 foot buffer, the allowance of major construction during the breeding and nesting season and in apparent disregard for heron-protective building requirements that were developed for the proposed building site several years ago? I oppose the project. However, if it is approved, I ask that the buffer be increased to at least 600 feet (preferably 1,000 feet) and that major construction take place at times other than the breeding period of January 15 to June 15. Both these recommendations rest on sound scientific advice from heron experts. We have few places like the Black River Wetlands. We have few places that herons can nest and thrive. Let the builder try someplace else, or, at the very least, construct his buildings in a manner that lets the company and the wildlife do their thing. Thank you very much for considering my views. Sincerely, ss I Len Elliott 2006 Riverview Drive NE Auburn, WA 98002 iikil!iIi!!i\/ J �� �Ji4�lii�i�FF�3lI Js*sleas, .r3i7 Uf'JS 41411‘..,/ or0-3/N9 "vaD-414`144W C)-7)01 f— tnr Vio -i, o o g b V'M 'rr 67\ r-) a.�_ y311y. c , Q1113 E July 1, 1998 Dear Ms. Toth Henning, I am writing to express my concern over the proposed construction project (LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM / Black River Corporate Park), which endangers the Black River Heron Colony. I discovered this wonderful resource this spring, and was amazed that such a peaceful oasis could co-exist in the midst of an industrial area. There is no reason why this colony can not continue to co-exist if a few concessions are made: 1) if construction could take place at times other than the critical breeding period from Jan. 15 - June 15; and 2) if the original recommendation of the state, that is, a 1000-foot buffer, or at the very least, a 600-foot buffer between the construction site and the heronry is maintained. I'm not anti-development...but if there is any way that this area can be developed while still observing enough sensitivity to the unique resources which have made this an ideal breeding spot for blue herons, we'd all be richer for it, not just the developers. Sincerely, Sthv DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 2 1998 RECEIVED LQ AivilM_ Pvv7rn N -76T st' *** USA Star' WR 98163 32 • MS JenrJ -tort^ 1ki r 4 e"j4-cj- Mo.Nlo`lt , OcU oW Se/ OLO DAli S" 1 L 0(1 Is/ ( /hit • Sovit WA ,goSS satyri.s/s.t-vz It,t„I„f,N,,,,iJ„i�f,a,I,!►„ti,�ii�„I,iil,,,il,,,,i,l,l DEVELOPMENT PLAN NTh Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning CITY OF RENTON Project Manager, Project Services Division 200 Mill Ave South JUL 0 2 1998 Renton, WA 98055 6/30/98 RECEIVED Re: Project LUA-98-075, ECF,SA-H,SM/Black River Corporate Park Dear Ms. Henning: There are very few projects among the flood of new development that we feel strongly enough to write about, but the Black River Corporate Park is one of them. The heron rookery in the Black River Wetlands is truly a unique area, and we need to do everything possible to see that it is protected, because once lost, it will be gone forever. Although we have now moved to Redmond, this area is still important to all of us. If a 600 foot buffer-or greater- is what experts recommend to protect the herons, and only 500 is currently allocated,then we need to squeeze out another 100 feet-or more if needed-to make that buffer adequate. If this is at the cost of a few additional parking spaces in the park, relocating or reducing size of a building, so be it. We need to preserve our remaining heron rookeries a lot more than we need yet another large office park. We understand that protective building requirements were set for the area seven years ago and they are now being ignored. Shame on you! Do your job, and don't make a mockery of the planning process! As a homeowner in King County, the County has seen fit to make approximately half of our five acres essentially"useless"by normal definition, by designating an area that bisects the property as a drainage/wetland and buffer. All this protects is a few frogs and associated species ...nothing as important as a heron rookery. Our land has essentially been"taken" and use of our land has been seriously curtailed by this designation. But we are happy to set this area aside, because it contributes to the health of the whole ecosystem. If we, and many other homeowners, are expected to do this, surely a business can scale back a bit if necessary to protect something so much more unique and valuable to all of us than my few frogs. Construction during the breeding season also needs to be curtailed. The project needs to be phased so that the heavy construction does not occur during January-June. Surely other things can be found for the contractor to do that are not so disruptive during that time of year, if it is scheduled carefully. Please do your duty and see that sufficient protection is provided to this colony. If we "experiment" with a smaller buffer and later learn it was too little,it will be too late at that point. This is worth doing right the first time. Sincerely, 1d0,1 Jo / Carlos abreza 20516 NE 122 Redmond, WA 98053 111.11.1111„,11„imr,1,1„1,1.,1 , 1,111 a ( /v •)t ,Zeoz.00„, ,-7X714•241 44t/6 - • ei • _ G7t7, 9./.50 v s`ri •4 Ti June 30, 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms Henning, We are writing to you in regards to Project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SMBLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK. As you are no doubt aware, this project is about a proposal to develop land in the vicinity of the great blue heron colony at the Black River Wetlands in Renton. The Black River Colony has been described as the largest great blue heron colony in King County having between 50 to 60 nests and the birthplace and rearing of 200 plus baby herons. In deciding to give approval to this project, the City of"Renton will be embarking on a course that will surely threaten the continued existence of this rookery. In a time of diminishing wetlands and all the promise that these lands hold, not only for herons but for all the wildlife that chose to make their home there and for ourselves as well, we are saddened and do not understand why this land cannot be preserved. If approval isgiven bythe cityfor construction of this project we would suggest PP gg that the following precautions be considered: (1) Major external construction should not occur during the mating and nesting of the adult herons and the hatching and rearing of the baby herons. This is a most sensitive time for them and takes place between the middle of January until the middle of June. (2) A buffer zone should be established between the colony and the proposed boundary of the development that should be no less than 600 feet. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns for the protection and preservation of these beautiful herons and the other wildlife that share these wetlands with them. Sincerer Bill Wilson and Paula Lazzarini 3715 SW Barton Street Seattle, WA 98126 5834 NE 75th Street Seattle WA, 98115 June 29, 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue south Renton, WA 98055 Project. L.UA-98-075, ECF, SA-H,Sm/Black River Corporate Park Dear Ms. Henning; I am very concerned about the proposed development adjacent to the Black River Wetlands containing the Black River heron colony. My concerns are as follows: 1. 500 feet is not an adequate buffer for the colony and should be expanded to minimum of 600 feet and preferably be at least 1000 feet. 2. Major construction should not take place from January 15 to June 15, the breeding season for the herons. The birds are most easily disturbed at this time and construction could cause them to abandon the site permanently . I have visited the site with friends who are residents of Renton and have helped at work party at the Black River Wetlands. This is a wonderful resource to have in a community and would be a serious loss if the herons abandoned the site because of th proposed construction. This access to wildlife near our homes is becoming more rare and should be preserved. Sincerely, yfrti Art/kV Kathryn Diagaw Laura E. Goodell, CLU, ChFC 4001 SW Edmunds St., #302 Seattle, WA 98116 DEVELOPMENT PLANNIN CITY OF RENTON June 28, 1998 JUL 0 2 1998 RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 RE: Project LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Ms. Henning, I write with great concern about the proposed development on a parcel of land in the City >f Renton that potentially threatens the Black River Wetlands. I appreciate your considerati n of my comments. I recognize that development is a necessary and quite acceptable consequence of humar habitation. However, in the Pacific Northwest we have always also carefully considered actions in light of their potential effect on animal and plant habitation. It is for that very reason that I moved to this area. I have lived in areas of rapid expansion and developme �t and have watched cities and communities take steps that they will most surely someday regret. The development of the eastern slope of the Rockies in Colorado comes to mind. Therefore, I must write to protest the afore-mentioned development, specifically citing twc major concerns. First, if we must proceed with the build, there should be a larger buffer allowed between the heron colony of the wetlands and the proposed cite - at least 600 fei 1. Secondly, so as not to disturb breeding, external major construction should not take place during the heron breeding season, Jan 15 - June 15. Please note my concerns and requests as you consider this development. I plan to attend the public hearing on July 14' at which time I will be happy to vocalize these concerns. We can build other buildings. We can find other ways to make money. We can even finc ways to be happy if we don't! But we will never be able to undo causing the loss of more Af our precious wildlife. Please consider other solutions. 1t1I1IIIl11„,„,i'ut„.f'...','„,1,'„I,,,„.ff'1i,,,,,," ZR_„._/ $„.E. ,S_5 (2a b 6y 1C -CL c- a7) ' 1--) 1 W 0 ^ ) f --0 1 ,INS000Hd01VUIS 3NaN`d M S 1 ( �, r/,/CJ :=,fdd0�3A3a OIWON003 \ 1 \ ZAii- WZ 01 d 8664 t 1nr 4J(Vcviz:ayz,) / c4 ) , " r sy) . ,, , , jae LAJA1;1 -.; F "---- ---------- (a66, 0 OE �_�� _ trF,P 7 g 'tiLrn = S GiTY S �O O 29 JUN Qo /9g8 t ( "fjtti'irt Ph-0e- -,(00),-0,-gth--- g . WA .01g055 :_ ,a-$6,+ PROJECT: LUA-98-075,EC ;A-H.SM • BLACK RIVER C.,__'ORATE PARK MS. JENNIFER TOTH HENNING 29 June PROJECT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT PLANN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CITYOFRENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 JUN 3 0 1998 TO THE CITY OF RENTON: RECEIVED I am writing to you regarding the Black River Heron Colony and impending plans for development. Although I live in Seattle I have volunteered to work on the Black River Project, clearing Scotch Broom and taking a custodial interest in that area. I first became involved after par- ticipating in a nature walk with about 50 other people. We came from all parts of King County and I was impressed by the parents vhn hron,ht their children to show them this extraordinary colony. At that time the Heron were still nesting, carrying twigs back and forth: "presenting" as they call it. I understand that the proposed developer doesn' t have to restrict activity outside of the January 15 to June 15 breeding season. I also understand that the existing Heron colony may only be allowed a 500-foot buffer. I can only say that I hope the City of Renton and the developer app- reciate the value of this existing colony and its delicate relationship to the environment around it -- and that some accomodation can be made that will respect this valuable natural resource. I am an educator and writer and feel that all life should be given its due; also that this Heron colony rather than a threat presents an opportunity for children and adults in the greater community to live in harmony not only with each other but also the natural world we are a part of. Respectfully, I am hoping that you see the reason and the reasons to allow this colony to exist alongside the human colony that will soon be living in the area. I 'm planning on attending the hearing ___ to add my voice to the Nernns . Yours, Michael Magee 116 C\lts'41. IMAM' S'Q(� ��{4 r� ' ,NIg29'98 '` ' '� v \ ���t/� L/g93 +-- . PR rem 3145523 US.POSTAGE \S. kN�114 rt- 101AA Q..us$ ' MP,N•1 VanVii'VVROT Sakb>ls p vaN ay) Io cO \\\U s o\-.11 Wth-- kiCl'oZS 11, sempt JIi BIRD WATCHING Herons nest in pairs , these fifty-somethings, monogamous, the males presenting their twigs while females keep the colonial nest in order in rookeries high in black Cottonwood trees, far above the rest of us training our sights in the funnels of telescopes, zeroing in to find them at home, unlike us -- we wait for word. Nearby, scaups, shovellers, Eurasian teals, mallards , Canada Geese glide by in shallows of wetland, content in their clucking while we, predatory as eagles keep them in our sights, to the high piping call from a red-tailed hawk. We are left to beat down the trail with our tripods , thumbing through bird books trying for a match. When we leave, straggling away in twos and threes, collegial but not wanting to stay together longer we drive away separately, no longer in our caravan, wondering who will speak up for this habitat, when the inevitable condos come encroachingly near. By then their young will have hatched, we adults will have deserted the season to the tune of the river. --Michael Magee I i I • DEY=LAJPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 3 0 1998 RECEIVED cit/i/z g7199g Jed 7.. 7241 /3 5/ 0/.1 fff/71 _ /11.5. Venzi47414&a.a2 __ 1:3-Aoje 410Wit°,- - neVe4/0.Z124Z74.5ed-- gi00 Alin A yea_ Peii /0/7 1,4 ge_zzaz4_ fe,L; 54-h; 544 led deft-C/0,414'W/ d9/ 77,671 5,/we . 77b-e .4 a/ • fiiye6. "").,0,7in ,vzi/i-- ,9, i4e 7he ,.;v4e) . 464 v/s. esv.9.& ZA9 deko% /9,,w/ 72 a'10 v e 4-1/1g , ie 55 74/ 7 ge I _4e1 71 -/' o./ 4'79/_; / fo/- .17 /e?67&? 744r/ al Ae.5 77 IA ' di', A 71.0 � ^ * .� . ~ ' h � � / � --- -- ' | � 7411 In Ile Pei Vzr | , ._W' / r 22826 105th Ave. S.W. Vashon, WA 98070 PMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON June 26, 1998 JUN 3 0 1993 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager RECEIVED Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Project No. LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM -Black River Corporate Park Dear Ms. Henning: In light of the previous litigation and settlement agreement (MOA)regarding the same piece of property and the same owners and architects, I was amazed to see that the ERC's current DNS-Mitigated includes NONE of the mitigation that was previously required except lighting restrictions. I find this situation distressing for several reasons. First, the 1991 settlement agreement was to run for eight years and should still be in effect. Granting a DNS-M for the revised proposal without including the previously determined mitigation requirements allows the developers to make an end run around the whole process of citizen participation. Second, the mitigation requirements in the MOA were based on testimony by heron experts. For example, the experts considered both distance and construction schedule requirements crucial for maintaining the colony. The new proposal allows buildings to be constructed closer to the heronry than in the previous plan, and the mitigation document does not limit the periods for pile-driving and heavy construction. The mitigation document should be amended to include these requirements and others from the MOA. At a minimum, the proposed 500-foot buffer should be enlarged to at least 600 feet, and major external construction should not take place between January 15 and June 15. Although some bushes have grown on the site during the past seven years, they would hardly shield the sights and sounds of major construction. No basis exists for eliminating these mitigation requirements. Finally, the manner of handling the approval exhibits disregard for citizen involvement. Not only were none of the previous mitigation requirements included, but the timing and scheduling of the hearing and appeal leave the citizens at a real disadvantage. Trying to track down the experts and other involved citizens during the summer months, and within / ♦ I a short time-frame at that, is exceptionally difficult. The citizens should not have to re- fight battles they've previously successfully fought regarding identical issues. I urge the ERC to reconsider its actions and amend the mitigation document to include all the mitigation requirements that were included in the previous settlement agreement. Sincerely, Q Susan McClellan • 11111 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUN 3 0 1998 RECEIVES Y York 8616 55th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 (206) 723-5791/(206) 723-8597 (FAX) yyork@juno.com June 26, 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Regarding: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Dear Ms. Henning, As you no doubt already know, many many people in the community are deeply committed to the preservation of the great blue heron rookery at the Black River Wetlands. This wildlife sanctuary in the midst of our urban bustle keeps us in touch with a nature that has been driven too far away from our daily lives. It was with the deepest sadness I learned that the great blue 1/ heron colony, as perilous as its existence has been, is now unde further threat by development. The developers proposed 500 foot /, buffer zone is greatly inadequate, but by providing the developet with unrestricted building limits, the Development Services Division is dooming the great blue heron colony. The birds simply will not stay, and we all know that if they leave, they will not come back. I urge you to find another site for development. This one is too sensitive, and the herons are too important to the community. Thank you. bye, MARGARET A. MILNES DEVELOPMENT PENTANNING O June 25, 1998 CITY OF RN JUN 3u 108 RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055. Re: Project LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM Black River Corporate Park Dear Ms. Hennings: Early this spring, my mother and I shared a wonderful experience. We visited the Black River Great Blue heron colony in your community. My mother, who is 77 and is mobility impaired but is none the less a great lover of nature, was thrilled at the sight of all the herons patiently awaiting the first egg. She was able to see this because, unlike most wilderness experiences, a wonderful and level trail wound along the bank of a pretty river. Following that trail, we forget for a moment that we were in the middle of a bustling city, and finding the heron colony was breathtaking for us both. These beautiful birds are such a resource for your community and the Puget Sound region. Now we understand that the colony is threatened with development encroaching within 500 feet of its boundaries. We also understand that experts are in agreement that a slight, 100 foot extension of the buffer zone would ensure survival of the colony, so long as heavy, outside construction did not occur during the breeding period between January 15 and June 15. Although I regularly support property owners who wish to design and construct structures on their property to their specifications and within their time frame, the timing and land buffers that are necessary to preservation of the colony seem to me a very modest accommodation in consideration of the great happiness and wonder this resource brings to citizens of the community and will bring to future residents of the business park. I would, hope the developer would incorporate reference to its efforts in support of the colony and the view of it tenants will have in its offering to tenants. It would certainly be a selling point to me. And, practically, who does heavy construction in the winter months anyway? 1610 PARK AVENUE,No.D-3, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON 98337 j (360)479-6445, FAx (360)479-6860 E-MAIL: nunfines@telebyte.com M , Jennifer Toth Hennings, Project Manager Development Services Division June 24, 1998 Page 2 In short, I am sincerely hopeful that you will work with the developer to achieve a redesign that will accommodate the colony as well as the developer's best use of space and time to preserve this exciting resource for the future. Very truly yours, 71a.1 Margaret A. Milnes 1 jI King County Wildlife Program DEV151-OPMENT Pl�1NN�NG 506 Second Avenue,Suite 708 CffY OF RENTON Seattle,WA 98104-2311 Phone (206)296-7266 FAX 296-1473 J u N )' June 12, 1998 RECEIVED Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Black River Tract"B" Development Proposal Dear Ms. Henning: Thank you for taking the time to meet with on June 1, 1998 about the proposed development of P p the Black River Tract"B" (LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A and LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM). I would like to take this opportunity to restate my comments at that meeting and to convey the thoughts of Rob Butler, Ph.D., Canadian Wildlife Service Biologist, concerning the great blue herons. The suggestions that follow should be considered in project design and in drafting mitigation requirements. King County has identified the great blue heron as a species of local significance in our Comprehensive Plan and we have passed regulations specific to the protection of heron rookeries in other parts of the County. The Black River rookery is one of the largest rookeries remaining in the region. Both King County and the City of Renton have shown that they are very concerned about protecting the nesting habitat for this species. The citizens of Renton have supported a considerable expenditure of public funds to acquire the land that surrounds the rookery. Development of Tract"B"has the potential to impact that investment. The great blue heron is a very sensitive species. The population in the greater Puget Sound area appears to be declining. The coastal herons that occur in King County apparently are also a non- migratory, subspecies of great blue heron, separate from the herons found in other parts of the continent. Canadian wildlife officials are investigating the need to potentially list this subspecies as threatened in the greater Puget Sound basin. In King County we have also observed declines in the number of herons. Many of these losses appear to be due to urbanization, habitat loss and disturbance. Jennifer Toth Henning June 12, 1998 Page 2 Buffers: I! An optimal buffer width for protection of the heron rookery would be 600 feet or larger. However, it should also be noted that the four and five story buildings proposed under the old project scenario would also have a significant impact on the rookery, as they would rise above the treeline. Rob Butler expressed the opinion that the slightly smaller buffer proposed here with one and two story buildings might have less impact than the taller buildings proposed earlier. However, it is difficult to predict exactly how a particular rookery will respond. The City of Renton has a significant investment in the current Black River rookery and prudent management of public funds should lead one to err on the side of caution and to keep the rookery buffers as large as possible. The habitat buffer area north of the stormwater detention facilities should be vegetated with dense plantings, including coniferous species that will both get very tall and provide screening throughout the winter months. The area of existing trees that will not be disturbed should also receive enhanced plantings of coniferous tree species that will eventually provide winter screening. Native plants should be used in all plantings. Noxious and invasive plant species such as ivy should be avoided on all parts of the project site. These species spread readily and could easily escape to impact the open spaces preserved by the City of Renton. The north, east and western edges of the parking lot should be fenced to prevent human intrusion in the open spaces, wetlands, and habitat buffer areas. Herons seem to be extremely sensitive to any sort of human activity near their nesting areas. Even something as simple as a few people walking near the nesting trees has caused nesting failure and abandonment of rookeries. Fencing would be a fairly simple technique to help insure protection of the public investment in the Black River herons. If the utility easement shown on the plan set following the northern perimeter of the property has not yet been built on,this would be a good time to relocate it further into the interior of the project area. Should access to this easement be required for new utilities or for maintenance, then there could be severe impacts to the vegetation that is currently buffering the rookery wil a potentially devastating effects on the rookery. Seasonal Construction Restrictions: As previously noted, great blue herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances of all sorts. There should be no construction during the nesting season within a larger buffer zone of about 1000 feet. The nesting season for these non-migratory birds is approximately January 15 through Jun: 30`h. Seasonal construction limits do not apply to interior finish work. • 411 Jennifer Toth Henning June 12, 1998 Page 3 Lighting Herons are very sensitive to light disturbance. All outdoor lighting should be focused and shielded to prevent light leakage into the buffer area. Outdoor lights on the north and west sides in particular should be of a lower intensity than might be allowed in other parts of the development. Some communities have been very successful in controlling light pollution. You f might wish to check with Pima County,AZ, for example, for details on the type of light shielding they require on new projects. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the long term health of the Black River heron rookery. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 206- 297-7266 or via e-mail at kate.stenberg(2 metrokc.gov. Sincerely, / Kate Stenberg, Ph.D. Wildlife Program Manager 1' : Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton,WA 98056 June 6, 1998 IDEVEIOPMENT SERVIC CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager ' Development Services Division JUN 10 1998 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Subject: LUA-98-074,ECF,SHPL-A/BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT I Reference: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Black River Tract B Short Plat. We are concerned with applicant's choice of boundaries for lots 1, 3 and 4. The development proposal submitted for this property (referenced above) indicates that the north end of the property is to remain a habitat buffer area. We feel that this buffer area should be included with lot 4 and not lots land 3 as currently proposed. Lot 4 includes wetlands 1 and 2, and the natural preserve area. It appears that lot 4 was created to protect sensitive areas. We feel that the habitat buffer area should be included with the other sensitive areas. We are concerned that if the habitat buffer area is allowed to remain in lots 1 and 3, then sometime in the future the buffer may be developed. In addition, it appears that lot 3 encroaches well within the 50-foot buffer of wetland 1. Again, we are concerned with how this may accommodate future development. We request that lot 4 be enlarged to include the habitat buffer area and a greater portion of the wetland 1 buffer. Thank You, �, �47'✓1 ��IY�/C vt,.""'_ Tom Malphrus / 18713 102"d Ave. SE Renton,WA 98055 1 i i fF Suzanne Krom, President Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW D LO of EP PLANNING Seattle, WA 98126-2715 CITY e-mail: szkrom@aol.com JUN 0 8 1998 June 5, 1998 -) Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Addendum to 6/4/98 letter re Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B, Phase VII, project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM Dear Ms Henning, This letter is written as an addendum to our June 4 letter, which you received from us yesterday via fax (the original is in the mail and should be delivered to you either today or tomorrow). We are concerned about the proposed short platting of Tract B (re Notice of Application, Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B Short Plat , project number LUA-98-074, ECF, SHPL-A). We ask the City to evaluate these two applications together. The proposal to short plat Tract B should be brought before and considered by the hearing examine at the same time he considers/ this application, and his decisions should apply to any future development of the property, including the short plats. The design of the short plats appears that it may increase the likelihood that any development would be forced to be closer to sensitive areas. The sensitive areas on this site include the great blue heron colony, heron foraging areas, and wetlands. If the short platting of Tract B is approved, we urge the City to ensure that the short plats are drawn so that they do not increase the likelihood that the development will be closer to the sensitive areas. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Page 1 of 2 6/5/98 Addendum to 6/4/98 letter from Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, Rainier Audubon Society, and Seattle Audubon Society re: Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B,Phase VII,project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM µ • Ste- -� - 111 Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation UZ,ON--\ Aolk_ \,--k Bruce Harpham, President, Rainier Audubon Society ..Q - Idie Ulsh, President, Seattle Audubon Society 1 Page 2 of 2 6/5/98 Addendum to 6/4/98 letter from Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, Rainier Audubon Society, and Seattle Audubon Society re: Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B,Phase VII, project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM Suzanne Krom, President DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation CITY OF RENTON 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW JUN 0 8 1998 Seattle, WA 98126-2715 email: szkrom@aol.com RECEIVED June 4, 1998 Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B, Phase VII, project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM Dear Ms Henning, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed development plan for the Black` River site, Tract B. This letter is in response to the May 19, 1998 Notice of Application for the project. Our comments are based on what we have been told by the City of Renton, which is that there are only two options: • Option 1: The original project as described in the "Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park , Tracts A, B and C" (hereinafter "MOA") that was finalized November 1991, OR • Option 2: The current project, referred to in the May 19 Notice of Application, which is a scaled back version of Option 1, but with a smaller buffer between the herons and the development. We commend the developer for choosing a smaller scale project. We ask that he build the project in accordance with the conditions set forth in the MOA, including but not limited to the scientifically based seasonal construction schedule. If these conditions are met, we feel that between the two options, the scaled back project is the better option for the herons, as it provides a higher likelihood that the herons and the project will be able to coexist. An additional note: In the intervening seven years since the MOA was finalized, we have learned that the great blue herons that live and breed at the Black River site are in fact a subspecies, Ardea herodias fannini, whose total population numbers approx. 2,400 pairs in Puget Sound (per Dr. Rob Butler, Canadian Wildlife Service, 604-940-4672. The • Page 2 of 3 6/4/98 letter: Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, Rainier Audubon Society, and Seattle Audubon Society re: Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B, Phase VII,project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM information is also included in his book, "The Great Blue Heron," pub. 1997). Dr. Butler also mentioned in a conversation with Suzanne Krom on May 12, 1998 that the status of the heron's habitat in British Columbia is officially identified as "Vulnerable." Because of this new information, we cannot agree to anything less than the conditions that are established in the MOA. In addition, it is important to note that this year represents the most successful year for the Black River herons in the history of the colony. With between 110-130 adult herons establishing 55-65 active nests, and with the current status of 3-4 young on every nest with the exception of two empty nests (per the latest census taken Sunday, May 31, 1998, by Suzanne Krom), the Black River great blue heron colony is now the largest great blue heron colony in King County (per Kate Stenberg, KC Natural Resources Department, in a conversation with Suzanne Krom May 22, 1998, based on 55-65 active nests). We have reviewed the plan and the potentially appealable issues are those that follow. If the City resolves these issues, then our primary concerns will be adequately addressed, which will save time for all parties involved. We offer the following comments: I. The MOA remains in effect. II. Page 13 of the MOA states that if the developer wishes to ... make a major adjustment to its revised project... then they must obtain written consent of the parties. We believe the most the recent proposal constitutes a major adjustment: Five buildings are proposed in the new plan, where four were proposed in the MOA. III. In addition, we believe that the following comments are reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the MOA: a. All parking located within 600 feet of the great blue heron colony on the north side of buildings A, B, and C should be relocated southerly so that the disturbance generated by parking is screened by the buildings. b. The roadway within 600 feet of the colony should be gated and used for fire/emergency access only. Ideally, the entire north road would be gated and restricted to fire/emergency vehicles only. c. No windows be used on the north side of building C if there is any level of reflection from the glass windows; instead, the north (northwest and northeast) sides of this building should have a solid wall, as described in the MOA. d. The wetpond should be designed as a moat to discourage pedestrian access within the buffer area. The construction of the wetpond should avoid all existing trees that provide significant screening. Page 3 of 3 6/4/98 letter: Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, Rainier Audubon Society,and Seattle Audubon Society re: Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B, Phase VII, project number LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM IV. In addition to the recommendations described above, we understand that all other requirements listed in the MOA are still in effect. V. As a reminder, the MOA states on Page 13 that all parties will negotiate in good faith. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Bruce Harpham, President, Rainier Audubon Society ��. 4_ \(313 c_ ws h Idie Ulsh, President, Seattle Audubon Society Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE ciry of REN oN Renton,WA98056 RECEIVED June 4, 1998 JUN - 5 1998 Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager BUILDING DIVISION Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Subject: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced application. The City of Renton has established a valuable urban wildlife preserve at the Black River site. This site is home to a diverse wildlife population most notably a large great blue heron colony. Migratory and resident waterfowl use this site as do deer and numerous other species. As urbanization continues through the Pacific Northwest,preserves such as this one become a lifeline for wildlife. The great blue heron colony at the Black River site has become an important nursery for great blue heron in south King County. This colony has grown to over 50 nesting pairs and is one of the larger colonies in King County. The significance of this colony even warranted a mention in the Wall Street Journal(May 8, 1998). On a recent field trip, over 250 people came to the Black River site to view the heron colony. Stories and photos of the colony have been published in the Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the South County Journal. Available nesting areas for great blue herons, particularly in King County, are vanishing. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has designated the great blue heron as a priority species and great blue heron breeding habitat as priority habitat because of the need for large colonies in large trees adjacent to wetland and estuarine areas. The great blue heron's requirement for breeding habitat makes their reproductive success more vulnerable, hence the designation (WDFW, 1996). Rapid urbanization, resulting in a reduction in heron breeding habitat areas,has made the Black River site ever more valuable to great blue herons. We have reviewed the proposed development plan and have many concerns. We request the following mitigation: 1. Enlarge the buffer between the heron colony and the proposed development. The buffer zone between the heron colony and the edge of the development is less than 500 feet. We believe that this buffer does not provide a suitable distance between the colony and the development and may put the colony and/or individual heron reproduction at risk. Herons may abandon this site and move to a site less suitable for reproduction activities. We believe that a more protective buffer between the colony and the proposed development is in order based on the following information: • The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends a buffer zone for great blue heron colonies of 820 to 980 feet from the periphery of the colony. (WDFW, 1996a) This recommendation is based on review of several studies of heron colonies (Bowman and Siderius 1984, Quebec 1986 in Kelsall 1989, Vos et al. 1985, Buckley and Buckley 1976, Pullin 1988, Short and Cooper 1985, and Parker 1980 as cited in WDFW, 1996). ■ In a letter to the City of Renton dated April 24, 1990, noted great blue heron expert John P. Kelsall, Ph.D., recommends a minimum buffer of 1000 feet for the protection of heron colonies(FEIS, 1991). • } • In a letter to the City of Renton dated May 18, 1990, great blue heron expert Range D. Bayer recommends a buffer of 800 — 1000 feet during the heron breeding season and a minimum buffer of 750 feet during the remainder of the year(FEIS, 1991). • In a letter to the City of Renton dated February 20, 1987,the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFW) recommends a site specific buffer of 660 feet for the Black River heron colony(FEIS, 1991). • King County code requires a 660-foot buffer between the Kenmore great blue heron colony and all future development (King County, 1993). A similar ordinance will be submitted to the King County Council for approval to cover all heron colonies in King County. This buffer requirement is based on a comprehensive review of literature and the USFW's recommendation for the Black River site. Based on the requirements and recommendations referenced above, we request that a buffer of at least 660 feet be required between the periphery of the great blue heron colony and the proposed development. 2. Restrict construction during the breeding season for great blue herons. Human disturbance is particularly detrimental to great blue herons during the breeding season. Heavy construction must not occur during this period. Based on historical information from those who have monitored this site,the breeding season starts in January when the herons start to choose their nest sites and extends through June,when most of the heron young have fledged. Construction and human activity during breeding, incubation, and rearing periods may result in reduced productivity due to disruption of the natural reproductive cycle, abandonment of nests and eggs, and/or inadequate attentiveness of parents due to disturbances. If parents have been disturbed from the nests during the egg incubation period, the eggs may cool or be subject to parasitation from crows and eagles. After hatching, parents must make repeated trips to bring food to the young. Any factor that keeps the parent from tending nest duties, including rebuilding the nest, turning the eggs, and feeding the young could have an impact on reproductive success. All heavy construction should be limited to a period outside of the January 15 through June 30 great blue heron breeding season. 3. Prohibit foot traffic on the colony side of development. Herons are sensitive to the presence of humans, particularly during the breeding season. Blackberry bushes, dense brush,trees and wetlands have prevented humans from approaching the heron colony via the development site. Construction of the proposed development will eliminate much of this natural barrier and allow humans to approach the colony. The colony side of the proposed development should be gated or in some other way constructed to prohibit human access to the heron colony from the developed site. 4. Require that external lighting have no impact on the heron colony or other wildlife. In order to protect the natural area surrounding the proposed development, all parking areas should be illuminated to no more than 1.5-foot candles at the perimeters, with no spill into the surrounding natural area. Shielding should be used to accomplish this requirement if necessary. The developer should submit to the City of Renton a detailed lighting analysis using photometric point by points to confirm this requirement. .I. . 5. Require noise from energy units be minimized. To prevent disturbance to the heron rookery, air conditioning, heat pumps and other energy units that produce noise while operating should not be placed on building rooftops. These units should be placed at ground level on the southeast side of each building. The developer should submit mechanical plans to the City of Renton confirming this requirement. 6. Require that only native plants be used in the perimeter landscaping. To preserve the integrity of the surrounding natural area, only native plants should be planted in the landscaped areas adjacent to Springbrook Creek,the habitat buffer area, and wetlands 1 and 2. Wherever practical, native plants should be planted in the interior landscaping to help reduce the project's visual impact on the surrounding area. Ivy should not be planted anywhere on the project site. Ivy is an aggressive non-native plant and should not be planted near open space areas,greenbelts or nature preserves. 7. Preserve the historic wooden bridge,the last vestige of the Black River. The wooden bridge across wetland I once spanned the Black River as it flowed through the City of Renton. This bridge should not be removed nor should the bridge be used or damaged during construction of the project.The bridge has historic value to the citizens of Renton. Preserve the Legacy Renton had the foresight to purchase large tracts of property at the Black River site to create a legacy for future generations. City, county, and community funds and effort to support the site have been substantial. This effort would not have occurred had not the herons established a colony at the site. The heron has proved to be a symbol and sentinel of this wild environment. Now the City of Renton has an opportunity to continue to preserve this legacy. Abandonment of the heron colony, due to poor land use decisions, is a cost that will be felt for generations. The City of Renton must not put this investment in jeopardy. Thank you Jerry I4JY Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton,WA 98056 References: WDFW, 1996. Priority Habitats and Species Lists. Habitat Program. WDFW, 1996b. Management Recommendations for Priority Species. Great Blue Heron. FEIS, 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement,Black River Corporate Park Tracts A and B. King County, 1993. King County Ordinance No. 12823. 1993. . 1g -015, ' A- 4 �.,. CITY C _ ' RENTON 1 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 29, 2001 Allen Wyttenback LPN Architects and Planners 3003 80th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Subject: Oakesdale Center Phase II at Blackriver Corporate Park File No. LUA98-110 and LUA98-075 Dear Allen: Thank you for your January 12th letter apprising us of the construction status for the Oakesdale Center, Blackriver Corporate Park. The remaining work as described in your letter appears to comply with the limitations , imposed by the Hearing Examiner's conditions of site approval for the project. The City appreciates your continued effort to minimize site disturbances during the last phase of the project construction. If you have any questions regarding the completion of this project development, please . feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Lesley Nishi Senior Planner cc: Jennifer Henning , '• 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer I Architecture and Planning, Inc, Royce A, Berg,Principal 3003 80th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-2915 (206) 230-6648 Fax (206) 230 January 12, 2001 Ms. Lesley Nishihira DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Development Services Division- Development/Planning cn 'nc RENTON City of Renton JAN 1 6 2000 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED RE: Construction after January 15, 2001 File Nos.: LUA98-110, ADD and LUA98-075, SA-H Oakesdale Center Phase II at Blackriver Corporate Park Renton, WA I Dear Lesley, The construction of Oakesdale Center, Phase II, is nearing completion. Per hearing examiner's conditions of site approval, all "major outdoor construction", defined by MOA as "preloading, grading, foundations, structural steel, installation of dryvit panels, roofing, and hardscape", has been completed prior to January 15, 2001. The work remaining for project completion includes painting exterior accent colors and entries, completion of landscape planting, interior finish work, and minor site clean-up. Substantial completion will be on or about the first week of March, weather permitting. As defined in the attached letter from the contractor, Foushee and Associates, the equipment required to complete the above tasks are small and quiet. As we have done throughout the construction of both Phase I and Phase II, the project team will continue to minimize site disturbances during this, the last phase of project construction. We thank the City of Renton for its help and assistance during the development of Oakesdale Center, Blackriver Corporate Park. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please (live our office a call Respectfully, Allen C. Wyttenbach Project Architect TRANSMITTED VIA FAX AND MAIL enclosures cc: Jennifer Toth Henning - Development Services Division, City of Renton Dean Erickson - TriMet Development LLC Ted Shultz - T.M. Shultz Associates Inc. John Hall- Foushee and Associates Royce Berg- LPN Architects and Planners GENERAL CONTRACTORS MII POUZHEE AND ASSOCIA TES,INC. 3260-118TH AVE.S.E. P.O.BOX 3767 BELLEVUE,WA 98009-3767 425/746-1000 www.loushee.com January 11, 2001 Allen Wyttenbach gitwLPN Architecture &Planning , � � 3003 80th Ave. SE L Mercer Island,WA 98040 jAN 1 2 201 Re: Oakesdale Center Phase II &Powell Ave. Bldg. LPG Architects & Marie Dear Allen: As we discussed at our on site construction meeting last,week, we have collected data on pieces of equipment that may be on the site past the January 15th 2001 date. This equipment will be required due to weather conditions, which have not allowed certain items if work to proceed at the previously anticipated rate. Although the overall project is on or ahead of schedule there are a few items of work, which have been impacted by weather. We have listed below and attached a copy equipment of the a ui ment that will be on site after the January 15th date. • Foushee &Associates: Forklift - Rubber tires, limited use on site for clean up of site and removal of waste materials. This lift will be used for moving new construction materials into the building. These materials will consist of interior finish materials. This piece of equipment will be used primarily on the south side of the buildings. • Lundeen Simonson Painting: Manlift -Rubber tires, used to final paint the accent colors which allows the lift to be turned off for extended periods of time while accent paint is being cut in. Majority of the work is on the south,east and west sides of the buildings which are the sides away from the native vegetation area. • TrueGreen Landcare: Tractor Loader -This small rubber tire front-end loader will be used by the landscaper to distribute trees around the site. The distribution of the remaining trees will be south of the new buildings, which should minimize any impact to the north of the buildings. The time frame for this installation will be limited. Seattle:206/621-8219 FAX:425/746-3737 CC01-FO-US-HA-C1580D G:VOBS\OO jobs\00-012-01\D.Architect Correspond\Letters\Jan 15 Itr.doc January 10, 2000 Allen Wyttenbach Page 2, The equipment listed above is the only equipment that will be used with the exception of . normal pickup trucks and an occasional delivery truck, which is similar to the normal and intended use of the property once the project is complete. We trust this information is useful to you and if you require any additional information please let us know Sincerely, • John Hall ; Project Manager JH:st cc: Dean Erickson Tri Met Development Ted Schultz Schultz and Associates Skip Steinback Foushee and Associates G:VOB$t00 Jobs\00.012.01\O.And itect Correspond\<,6ttersUan 15Itr.doc li - J HIN-1 VJ— U'VJ 1 1-5• i r F-UOSHEE AND ASSOCIATES 425 746 3737 P.04 '0 . tg7r: . .Vc-, , . 111111 SPECIFICATIONS . Engine I Oummina 4133.9 Dicael >o^ 'Ibrqua a wing 178 HP kW)84lb.ft.(250 Nm)�a 1200 RPM �,t �_ �, Lead retina,are in Cummin6 4BT3.9 Turbo Diesel (11.0 m) compliance with 110 HP(82 2500 RPM A3ME B6G.B•1897 (11/Min) 30 . arability requiremenrs for rough terrain • Torque rating 283 M.ft.(397 Nrn)a 1600 RPM (8,1 m) forklifts.Cab meets Transmission ABME 856.8.1692 Powershift,3-speed forward and reverse. r POPS requirements.(7,6 ml Axles and Brakes Full time planetary 4-wheel drive with wheel 20' A'! - . I end wet disc brakes. (8.1 m) = ; I' Boom 15' Telescopic 3-stage wtlded box section (�.8 m) 'construction using�strength low alloy stet . I® Replaceable high density wear pads,to limit (•ID' ' •r• friction,with wear indicators. 6' '� /—ro fir,_"-r Operating Specs r ,1/ + Max lift capacity 8000 lbs.(2720 kg,: (1''m) lrg(P e C Lift height 38'1"(11 m' Max teach below grade 3'3"(l,0 rr O FT Curb weight 18,786 lbs. 8628 ? 3'3° ^A Hydraulic oil capacity 38 gal.(144 liters) (•t.0 mj r Fuel tank capacity 24 gal.(81 liters) 22'8 s m- 10 Standard tires 13.0 x 24,12 ply ( 6 8 m 18'l (4 ) i2 (3.1 m) 8 Frame tilt to left or right 10° (5,5 m) (3,7 ml (2,4 ml Standard Equipment •TRAIC Atrsch system ■Automatic fork leveling system U Frame leveling H p ■Load holding valves on frame level, attachment tilt,rettend and lift cylinders r.Oscillating rear axle F B ■2-wheel,4-wheel and crab steering ■Hydraulically actuated wet disc brakes •Emergency brake with transmission 13zsoo 11 declutch krture •FOPS operator cab •Deluxe suspension seat with sere belt Dimensions ■Joystick controls A. Length less forks 211"(6369 min) •Horn and backup Juana tights B.Width 87"(2484 mm) I Gauges V�elechacalsytteem C. Height 100"(2640 mm) ■Lockable doors and covers D,Whetlbese 119"(2870 mm) •Engine block heater E. Ground clearance .18,6"(419 min) ■Rear view mirrors F. Tread 82"(2083 mm) 0. Turning clearance 18'8"(4,2 rn) Options H. Max reach from front tlte6 to ■Auxiliary hydraulics 24"(809 nun)load center 22'6"(6,8 rn) •Enclosed all weather cab ��. — D •Light package T-)nc-,)),\ ).-e_QC_ •— / 2 Attachments •Standard carriages: 48"(1,22 m), 60"(1,52 m)and 72"(1,83 m) ■±10°side tilt carriages: 48"(1,22 m), 60"(1,52 m)and 72"(1,89 m) •m46°swing carriages: 52-(1,32 m) and 72"(1,83 m) ��dlt. •48"(1,22 m ttaMasttbrio eigt):1 .r n a r t o,vi e ■ear(1,62 m)lumber forks .�.do, "0....o , ■48"(1,22 m)block forks 369 W. Western avenue wee srr=Rva 1101 sumac¢Main Tana araccftcAnoMs •12"(8,7 m)truss boom AS AM' 117114 0Or a+orrca �t a�aAHrr II Utility bunter and concrete bucket Parr tvasn0000n, WI 53074 USA. R1 262 284.557? Fat:(262 266-8931 '' C 't•ov1 a�wnaAD'etm0i AM;34 tY ■Wa1 card handler www ntk-internatiooei,eom } w mraoo ttaaw, eacrc ReadEDo0 1R�rctt.IED. aJ•Hydraulic earth auger 1 ri.174.1 vie cow'onus mi.,mRs+A4 far, UM tO,.,In U.B-A., JAN-09-2001 10:12 4252354735 57% P.01 1 - JHN-1U-2001 1S• 1( FOUSHEE AND ASSOCIATES 425 746 3737 P.05 13 UNDEEN S `r 7303 222nd St 8.E.,0202 IIIr,ONSOl• Inc. Woodinvitla,WA(425)402.8655 g8072 Wa M LUNDiS1 ON➢Z FAX(425)402-0556 on►CCU 12254a • January II, 2001 I OUSHE;E & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 3767 Bellevue WA 98009 423/746-1000 Pax: 746.3737 Attu: John/Nigel A;tn: Skip (on silo) 425- 35.7473 (job site fax) kF.:OAKE DALE CENTER As per United Rentals the decibles are 107 for the In on this project-see attached handwritten sheet. If we woJld have"summertime" weather we could have the lift ofithe job by February 2K. 2001. Because of the time of year we are doing the project(rain, fog. etc.)— I estimate having the lift can the job until March 31. 2001, Vaughn I.. Lundeen _. .. . -- ---- 4ZJ (LibS(S( I-'.Ub/Uu r r •rrrr✓viif, Arty. WA Rl+VNUl,31 unb rL 7303 222nd Street S.E., #20 IR/! I22549 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425)402-8555 • (425) 402-8558 — Fax r r • � le transmittal To: ,) , Fax: Attu; C?fi I/ Datst r • t� ( ._. . ....._..._._ From: pow*Ina,mar shed: Re: / yV on )1) CC: 0 Urgent 0 As Requested 0 For Your Information, 0 Please Repfy Notes/Comments: • If you do not receive aft the pages of this FAX, please call (425) 402-8555. Thank you. '+c_> 1'4 .3r ( r.U(/Uc Jerry 11scirEty 0 United. Rentals United MrttAb /^ <iG0 '52Np Awe,NE �rrt�nC tevA PIN ia:SJ C.^b7$4t • €[€f -('(A—L-. Aso r!'4. r1 ,y- r ��. �. h 5 /d 7 ccr\•M y F.,, / I z}•.i WOO do Ida TQOZ:sfl Ir.;! TRUGREEN LandCas Seattle Got�atrurr*oD T3 II i?0. RozG 13vrlen,WA 98166 Phone: (206) 246-0O66 Fax: (206)29,1.4631 January 9, 2001 Washington Contractoen License rillUGRLL00231. John Hall poushee& Associates PO Box 3767 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re; Oakcsdale II Dear John: Per your request, we are sending this letter to advise you that we will be using a Kubota 4.20 this next week on the above referenced site. This is pending your approval of additional work requested. This piece of equipment is needed to move trees into place. We have the following information on this piece of equipment: • Fuel Required.—Diesel • Rubber Tires • Decibel Level —Waiting for fax from factory. This machine is a 1999 model and complies with all current regulations and guidelines. Should you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, Ii TruGreen Land.Care 46/0/1(ea.. _ 13ii1 Drea, Project.Manager Landscape Construction Branch Attachment TOTAL P.1 Architecture and Planning,Ini • Royce A.Berg,Y.Ken K.Chin,Principals 1535 Fourth Ave.S.,Suite D Seattle,WA 98134 (206)583-8030 I ,,!206) 8 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING j May 25, 1999 CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 ; 1999 (Via Fax and Mail) Mr. Clint Morgan RECEIVED Project Manager City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 i RE: Fees i Oakesdale Center at Blackriver Corporate Park Building Permit Submittal #B990081, B990080, C990073 Dear Clint: 1i' On April 28, 1999, LPN Architects and Planners, sent you a letter requesting review and elimination of the Storm Water Development Connection Charge. Enclosed is a copy of that letter for your reference. This fee, $22,428.20, was noted in your permit plan review letter, dated April 12, 1999, and was included as part of the May 3, 1999 Plan Review package prepared by Mr. Craig Burnell, City of Renton. As of this date, this office has not been apprised of the status of our April 28 request. According to Jan Conklin, the City's review of the requested revisions to the permit documents is almost complete, with the building permit issuance targeted for this week. As this fee is substantial and must be paid before building permit is issued, the resolution of this item is very important. We have attached background data from the project's surveyor, Bush Roed and Hitchings, Inc. dated January 9, 1990, and the City of Renton dated May 21, 1982. Specifically, the plat (reduced copy enclosed) indicates a 17 acre detention basin dedicated to the City for storm detention for all of tracts A and B. Note tract A will not be developed which further reduces the total storage used by our client. Clint, in addition to the Storm Water Development Connection Charge, LPN's letter also addressed the conversation allowing the deletion of the area of the Native Growth Protection Easement from the gross square footage of the site. The deletion of this area, 29,878 SF (note that resubmitted plans reflect this larger area), from the gross site area, 546,023 SF, would result in a site area of 516,145 SF. As part of the City's requirements to obtain a building permit, the Water System Development Connection Charge and the Sewer System Development Connection Charge will have to be paid before permit issuance. Our understanding of the fees for these two items is as follows: • Water Fee - $58,324.39 ($0.113/SF of site area x 516,145 SF site area) • Sewer Fee - $40,259.31 ($0.078/SF of site area x 516,145 SF site area) The last item is the required payment of the Fire Mitigation Fee noted in the May 3, 1999, Plan Review package. Although no fee amount was noted, based upon the City of Renton's formula for this fee, the fee amount will be as follows: • Fire Mitigation Fee - $32,364.80 ($0.52/SF of gross construction x 62,240 SF area for Buildings D & E) Clint, your assistance throughout the development of the Oakesdale Center project has been most appreciated. Information on the status of the Storm Water Development Charge is needed to complete the required fee payments. In addition, please notify us immediately if our fee calculations are acceptable as the checks for the referenced fees are currently being prepared in anticipation of the issuance of the building permit. Re sect Kiwi _�1 �t�> 11�... • Allen Wyttenbach Project Architect LPN Architects & Planners, Inc. i Encl. cc: Jennifer Toth Henning - Senior Planner, City of Renton Dean Erickson - Alper Northwest Royce Berg - LPN Architects & Planners I. Ip LPN Architects and Planning, Inc.,Royce A. Berg, Principal,Y. Ken K.Chin,Principal, 1535 4th Ave.S.,Ste D,Seattle,WA 98134(206)583-'•:03 • Royce A.Berg;Y.Ken K.Chin Principals 1535 Fourth Ave S;Suite D Seattle WA 98134 (206)583-8030 Fax(206) April 28, 1999 • Clint Morgan Project Manager City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Oakesdale Center, Black River Corporate Park Building Permit Submittal#B990081, B990080, C990073 Dear Clint: Per our last conversation we talked about total elimination of all storm water fees with the exception of Public Works permit inspection/approval fees. Preliminary staff r. ports with the site approval process eliminated on site detention (as this client provided the for the P-1 basin) . but did not eliminate storm water charges. We are requesting clarification and elimination of those fees since we are not draining into city storm pipe systems but into the existing drainage swale and P-1 detention basin. We also believe this client's dedication of land for the P-1 detention basin and land for Oakesdale plus L.I.D.fees for Oakesdale Ave SW was to mitigate both storm water and traffic issues for this development. The amount of development actually being established is substantially less than projected in the mitigation process and the addition of this storm water fee has the client paying twice for the use and development rights. Per our conversation, the area requirement for the native growth protection easement and its formal recording can be subtracted from the gross S.F. of site area. We have expanded this easement area to the east property line of Lot 1, parallel with the north property line. Total area and buffer has increased. We have copied Jennifer Toth Henning, in planning with a sketch and a copy of this memo for her review. We are assuming that the plan check corrections are about ready to be picked up and would like to incorporate your answers and revisions requested above in the resubmittal process. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. pect ully, oyce A. Berg President LPN Architects & P nners via courier cc: Jennifer Toth Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton Dean Erickson, Alper NW EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA-98-074-SHPL) , RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9809109004 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE WEST 274 .74 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 20°23 ' 07" WEST 244 . 95 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53°46 ' 24" EAST 309. 14 FEET TO ALINE LYING PARALLEL WITH AND 46. 92 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID NORTH LINE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE EAST 110 . 69 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 46. 92 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 29, 878 SQUARE FEET (0. 686 ACRE) , MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. �ra .. ....•:...), ALPER N.W. , INC. +� A, OAKESDALE CENTER anti 0- fret WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L. S. �4 _• �c BRH JOB NO. 97051. 04 c: MAY 5, 1999 , r % 7-47 "-":G.ISTET0s, E7�'fR�.S 2/771 / / i P.O.Q. N WEST 714.74' LOT . 110.67 . . . _ r NGPE / EAST 60 30 0 an 3 //� SCALEIN R �� • / t 1"=60' ,pry ,� k' jeerc in.,11I / LOT 3 / . , 4 7 BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT �' ,' .• / LUA�8-O74-S�'PL ...i l', LOT 1 REC. NO 9809109004 ' kitgloitSa 5-49. EXHIBIT A-1 NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION sRH BUSH,ROED & I�fCCI-IINGS, INC. EASEMENT SKETCH �L�!A��& LAND(2SURVEYOR s OAKESDALE CENTER PROJECT SEATTLE,WA 98102-3513 PREPARED FOR: ALPER W.W. OM NO.9705104 5-s-c EXHIBIT B ' DESCRIPTION LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA--98-074-SHPL) RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9909 rO 9 4- , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TRACT B, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 , OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ALPER NORTHWEST ,,••••••••��•M•••- •�°' BLACKRIVER TRACT. B A'Hj• WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L.S. a��' OVw'�'SyLy �- BRH JOB NO. 97051. 03 • JULY 23, 1998 x t REVISED AUGUST 10 , 1998 S 317 IO • • BUSH, ROED& nl ICHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle,Washington 98102 Area 206/323-4144 Fax 206/323-7135 JAN 10 1991 January 9, 1990 LPN Architects& Planners Mr. Dean Erickson First City Washington 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Flood Storage & Detention Tracts A& B Blackriver Corporate Park Formerly known as Earlington Park& Washington Technical Center Dear Dean: The 1982 agreement between First City and the City of Renton (letter, City of Renton to BRH dated May 21, 1982) regarding compensating flood storage and detention for the Plat of Washington Technical Center was based on the following: 1. The Plat's 17 acre Detention Basin Parcel, dedicated by First City to City of Ren- ton, was available to the owners of the land encompassed within the Plat for con- tainment of storm water runoff and compensating flood storage. 2. Remaining portion of Basin may be used by the City for flood water storage as they so choose. 3. Agreement was made to assure that the Plat owners could use the Basin Parcel to excavate soils below elevation 15 feet (100 year flood plain) in the Basin Parcel for compensating flood storage and detention prior to the Soils Conservation Service constructing the backwater pond and P-1 Channel 4. With the P-1 Channel and backwater pond being built the plat could use up to a total of 92 ac-ft for compensating flood storage and detention. 5. The total storage available in the completed pond was to be 168 ac-ft. 6. The remaining 76 ac-ft (168-92) was storage available to the City for uses they so choose. The calculation of compensating flood storage and storm drainage detention was based on buildings, streets, driveways and parking lots occupying 85% of total platted area. Due to the environmental constraints placed on the platted land the amount of impervious sur- faces will total out well below the 1982 planned development density. CIVIL ENGINEERS/ LAND SURVEYORS Mr. Dean Erickson January 9, 1990 Page 2 The amount of compensating flood storage needed for Tract A and B is 4 ac-ft and amount of detention needed is 1 ac-ft. The amount of compensating flood storage and detention allowed as computed in 1982 was 92 ac-ft and 5.4 ac-ft respectively. The pro- jected development for Tracts A & B is 17.5 acres, the total plat development is 93 acres (109.4 times 85%). Tracts A& B could use up to 19% of the available flood storage which is 17 ac-ft but needs only 4 ac-ft. Allowable detention in Basin Parcel for Tracts A & B is 1 ac-ft while the amount needed for the detention is 1 ac-ft. I trust this information is what you needed. Any questions do not hesitate to call. Sincere Wj Robert t IN d PE RMR/cd cc: Royce Berg, LPN 6 01'n y OCT 19 '90 11:02 BUM 206 7135 ✓4IL 2/8 OF R4l� A �u o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT C.) ♦yQ z DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631 n MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RE • •, - 98055 le rED SEP�E BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH1Y MAYOR 8tts4 RG . `��A rr� Y 2] , 1982 �May 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 bythe firm of Bush, Roed 8 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 15.9 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. OCT 19 '90 11:03 BR&H 206 ; 7135 P.3/8 Bush, Roed 6 Hitchings, Inc. -2- May 21 , 1982 If this is not a true and fair interpretation of our understanding, please advise. Very truly yours, -4PL:ti • RichardylvY&— C. Houghton • Public Works Director DGM:jft cc: Loren Davis • OCT 19 '90 11=03 RRRH 206 7135 P.4/8 . - E //A�\ THE PLAT OF -- °�'" . 1 WNG1 3N TECHNICAL CENT S1/2 SECTION 13, TOWN SHIP 23 NORTF4, RANGE 4 EAST. W.H. N1/2 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. N.M. •• • CITY OF RENTON • KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON FP•49 6.6 1 . &ACT SWAM or T41E 9t1T1M 44(.4mir Of 0tTl4 It.WO Of 11'(IR3rTM'K-I.LI Of 1KT rO•24.WM it TOr TM t.23••Om.41A•.(4 CLOT. M.Is., (Ili Darr/, ••ITAsM1.RT414 01$AT u Y.I( s• (tu5s1 p0E0 t HITCH2NC 1(Nawy1 AT OK MOtTMl4LT(l.,r CCaMaf Cr r'ML tOM/IK4LT A'0.y S. j(t.. P. reel 0. SAID S4Ct M7M 13&APO.(IA.A VOID,Or 1M( AOMTM l•IIC CO CASK. S at '1..//2.- .•.1Ur aMOYstAM4. AC... cco.aw ,N.OK /(COA•1• .( C(1T1rICaTtdos or of-AM./AU.0..1 w COIMT..rAf MMIOro'1; t•K{! MOIM eel .o^44(sT AL OMA TA10*corm L.4 AM•rK .I4.11M pia{CO (ARUM•t0111 00.0.4111.•W. (Tart MO a_ASCO40.MA 1.'t PtJ•ACCo.O(o'A Kat.w( M CO.LAT(.40.44 RAIOI I'Olpy R.0TIAr 11MT 00 Pt AS it (G4.s r r.MA( IS 4tAAs, 1041P.M Is AMA( M.IM W.•• coUMTT WA41.+.410.,. A 0IfT•ba•/ 104.40 MT TO 114 10,11.1.4.0 14C(T A( 4.TK10t T 1•E 114 p,p, 0 a c0104 M,3, rOM7'l.l4 tOr1,t, Commit a 1a10(AK IIIGtcr $ JITAat Pr".D,I1 11 .c2 SWIM,'14'Ir P(ST 4AMOL 44(at,t.IL.A.p M I1Qf11.011.4v4.4 14.15a S1 SttTlOra�•. 4 Col..j4 taro. .LOMO 11E►4St tl.E Of 1Aa0 tAAI,rrD. IIiC1ii.IK PN.c 10.2 Ng ITS$CJ *y *P41 •tat.o..., THAT 1.E TOu11E1(to! 1AM43 Mtl 3•( s sums cT KAKO., CrIbr110M. tA14.21 PLC!10 14.4 I0J1K.ET I.DC OA IA( 100/mT 01ft.41M/• T'+C ss0Ocoa1as rtti H 1R me/ME LOr 0 p iq 1. I4 a•4 PICIIIC MIL.A!C.04 Ou.l To'AORMCaN. 4AC.1 RIMTi1-AATI 1MIACE 1.Wa4 IT M an 0 tsT ,MAT I OCA ►TALK am KO YIM 1.4 I•1GTK4rIs r ELT TT'77 3,'MST K04 HID SL11schy LIAC(24,41 FF(1 To a roust los/([T s7ITYTis Ia10 AC4LA1.Osf(OrOwl.c KATTM. •TST(A P1tyt 1$01 KA2p40 al AvonA•dtU TOT V(1KSTTICT R1WT•gt-VA4 L.Vf` LT tI C/w[AUIIMI/OR HNa,41T Otto.140 1041:4AA1 CLI'371uCt Kr AS K1Ctlico Or 11AT74•C11S KCofxO{loot AIMS CO..1T K01TCI1's FILL R.E(04 S.10�� G k•lT314 40 T201Afoa I4• K'A:0:40(0...CCR AUOIT011`S rat(•Q. T1a11A0M7t nW• L M,ECM 4i ♦ i 1r4O1I1 4b.1M 11'34'M'ICST, AAAALL(L teTM LA;!bU1Iaty cod -/4T LfM(. �,Kl�t O. •4A • T331.11 rut Tp 1K Polar Or O.*.A • •h,•.0 Or A 300.00 ton RAD W4 P1.•TE 1O 744 WTI t•[11f1.OT1.Mt3TCALt KOK aA10 4'a-MI NC Olstar.c[ SSf.{4'OCT A �•lf A/0111T 00 TNtOCT, A.00( scrn. 13'04'4A'MIT 11).34 MT TO A ro1sT OI 1.E .�srat54 E*1T-. r-•Ar t WC Or tr! Ma.CICrt1A•C0 tM•,.un/d 4pM.'I.par,i.TOI/(O Iwo • IErpOrm&coArrucyrort 1.10'CL 171t1/r'D4'30'KAT KOG SAID SarA4 a0T(nCY1u P T-0IiAT 1141 147.1T ITU TO VIE POW 04 C,.1TA1y1C Or A 422.4A raps• $LIC1V$CUM TO MC.TOMT1 1'o.Q ItS1URr 40 oclon•(S IS,LT KOC Salt I•Cltt4t 40 10.T 0.10 ALL TA.Act3 TAXI 7 C ALTO• T1.AZ 1131•Cx7 AIaT•04-Mar L.1C 00 OAK IN AOC oI2TAACI a /a1.T3 rt(T Po A 101st TKO ar�(1RUt a Ti407ptt $1.( 1110 r T4MO4)ICYa LAVE,II�D4 22•$4'01'MST 212.24 RET TO 1..E roof/Or t3Y1'A7Vq 10 silo ril,Q PM O, 421 A'0 1rw: Kt ,stall lir A wY1.M pan MOWS 01.YE TO 1(LEM 1.11Z E 14.Dr(ST[RT K01a;sA20 ASSL31•ex11. SO 01:04CAT, 0.t T Cl STOUTS FT37'[T1T1 FR t`'''' 4WC AM A'c Off1M(>:Or 301.T3►UT TO bE I•a•T"tST(ALt l•le CV,=ACT n 2•0 I•'Oifk Tom. K e.. M may. 1IIPtt•(xTK rwl*(trno(:a4J•OS1 1r'LS.Q MCATM 41•Ia'C7'(AST 4.00 SAN 41 AY IRA . rla QAR tC{q(, rp( a� `•. I>t7T71A(SIVILT t11[Of TRACT n A DIST4II.2 Or 314.1r!MI MAKE fOtoo M10 IM AU 7u1 7C� qLT 3T , , I. 17 04 Cf•LAsT ILC.0 of ie.*Lot OF 2410 TAAC1 IT A D13TAMCl d 130.A1 « ���.� l4t(r sErTl roc'f'S+T).WI-Oar LEST KC1s M term 11.E Or SAID TitIGT 27 A "TAX M lIE trir!!0]Dt ' . •ISTati Or 334.32 mil Nast rxrs 12'31 s/.EAST KoQ SAID,CAN STK • l,13FLT F , T1RQ' taRT1r M'22'2T'(AST K4 SAW/CMT11 LI'K 41O PK sOttY SW(CO 111ACT 24, SAID PO YM WI 0 RLrt01 arcatt4.Ct 12..µ tint 11 61 E3 • 54 oa 1)4 l3.1)23•C A41 K OC SA 10 14RTM L III(171.11 FEET'TMA ct MUx,m �,nL ! 1rr,'11GT Z1'71'32•.EST Kttc 1r4(AS!t•AE Of SAID DIACT 74 A•t5TAMCf Of 347.32►EE•rl - Aix,marry DOMAgLDt Ly1 . 10'CC TO/7H 37.77'234 LAST KCOC UP FAST L114 134.51 rtCT To he Loft..t.Ia( Al T1.E SanTM'/10 MT(f SAID sfcrt M 13) Noe(tartar OO'I3'ao'(ADC At01; - •SCIX L2Rtl.T TIMAT 1rAA1[AK taD OEllary-l T S co Alel leAit IMO ALL Me IKATA L1IK 2711.42 FUT TO Me VAT L1M(Of,AID UUC144 IS;1r'OCE•a=If Elu1J1 ,h•mo. s {Y IMr OI ., nowt 1fA(I.00RAII[s KAIQ7SA Ii 1'01'ZT`MLST KO.i SW O LW L IK A 11,4o PUT 10 MC Nun Mf Or•tE oar I•C glum 4a ar 91tE1 M O'...�•'..I....r w 1.641 w.... • • 1(11 OAT Ifa •.wSE 4 pot 4101104 srK XL Na•Y 1M(zt 041.11 11T. THAT AC, 111E IJCC1lSIG.(0 Orond If TQ SIMMS CO 1K LAd**CST PLATTTO.Kier!OEamC *is 5A1 b.D OCOICnC TO TM(USE Arfri4Mk.S .J 1.4 rut(Sr 1151(154 Kt STl((TS.AvCMMC1.►V.tlC VSa A14 3 A'IO DRAIMA•( IF•rA'll(1T Of ASSel TS • PVtw01C4` 4.10M TM(M P144 TM040 MAt((A LTLM M(C4$LA*Y 1LCI(i 10A CV1t Xrat 'd[_a'TK 11"e•}{i• ( • AMA PILLS V.OM tl.( (Ott AMO •LOCKS s..or.M Cog 1M14 PLAT ID (Ma •'M4IIIAL A(Aa011A.tS C(AOa*i CO 4144 (0A((11 AM0 AV ASV LMOI►M TNt►!P•'. ( !1 ..�.StG_f_ - ,�` M 111111.ESi 1 C Y 11(IWL n as 11IM0! [1YY A.v,a�. " Of.1vTT lift((yarr� . r • Ao3 cIrIC3lL SL1LL ra.�K{;T rarnl.i. • 1UITi[.RW OCUTTY1(AtM/r0 tMrtATWI0[M.tT�rt 110444•p A 4xMMrt1A QY(.i'ti.rly meIPA.rto T41r ..,1AT Of �Ay1L.t.y MIA. TrT1 114r4•w.*DUO a**Man%Wm sum d.4ia'. . tot X&lrelr'OW• �1 �L (1:TIRT IXT M Nrl IC MOM, i4~q M L1.r.�o►+ 1+(1,�t�py�LLr IM(�R� (>.RAa[1 Aso Arr•DT�M44r.�2-�1.T M J.,1.. . 1.••(. r• r1 • . TO K A+b. 70 K 1 1.H tt.af4+r 5 yrAty Or MQTIC 4N IV140$014, A OA IraM IA tpnO ,L110M. 04 CO.00 AT10aa 4fOt.$ el ''�.�M Tta(feru.,.IM STO fI . T.u•O , meITMM 0 t;(( occ.oIt00 40 5TI4�1f SAID 1•17A9 EKT 10 CE Tr[ 41E1 ala VPLTy ACT r. 0 a SAID On40O44T104 Pox Illit wfr(Q Id[f/AO a 00U3 7*4*11 I(a!IU.CO• 40 DM paw ITAttO ,MIT K OM 4J11011210 To Latium 10 1411 141$TRAKAT r( KAAT.I4 t,Ila'4-_A, OTT N ROOM Yak/Aiit C1it.atU{� 1041.IW OS Arrrplti MI$,J .tot It Ala FM. ' If 0414 l.Tf pow MC 14•f 4CI K K4 1K Mr MeKmP MR V iV1r _t Omar. • /� �v1' /� A(M Tar • - I.G... t N,i AT tn, • '. X. mr•••••-• rM w0 rat t Van CA h rK(1).1'CK Of r1E CA riN/C,d •1 rIM!At S4.4tu� 1.1a�at May J I SOM • �DAr1. T�a�. .r .HIV • -41:11 • 1. !j,ws •rf• • T Q17K •G 2 •• . s. r MG/l tIAS 41th1Ail a.( QATl/1GTt � • Pus Pr ammo or w moan ci mt Can 07i" It 1MIs-PAT Of �I4M.s1 *irons ALIT 40 0 4 04• M PALM �` 44.MATT. Paoli •Moroi roi Or R mr KU•►T. . •:• . tl.Is CAIJ(TT,I.A1...KTOM {' .•• IC•• Nrlllalt M 41(L01ps r.10 Q(LTIO•q • • . `EI ' • .. • • • i 4a•r'I A KrutiatPI.ixT(f M.AbP ( 1'IRi IT7lC .� SHEET 1 OF 5 OCT 19 'a0 11:04 ER&H 206 7135 P.5/8 • • 0• - . THE PLAT OF • .) WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTEF S1/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP. 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. N1/2 SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. M.M. ' CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON = Eu11ji00 /x1.19t-/4li it.n �� �``li_— N r _. arip.tftx,... .titi a fiat art �H ROW C HITCHINCS. Inc.. "Ai 51 rw� 'd i • •C INGT°NAR KO. j. 1 • ; 1 .. . I • 1 ill Il�L7�.�I 83, PAGE . k7 -� i-- • l V��• TAYE. S.K.i 11f • , • [ II �1 • "��K1scvi"L" "� ato•.a cam. ule..wr �+.0•Ia.0 M0.at3JOa• • I � i ° : • • • ►• • I I «', "' • •trr M'• -a • 1 3o Vtairr i. •• •WM•WI ••... • 1. d� 1111 ♦y• '� , • ✓.r.. r.r Wt. r.r \ 1(trE t Z • r•••.I r.r Kw Or.Pe �. p• • �,. ./ I•" • ..,•.M en AI M.M ••J. I� I • I •z • t•'M'r• MA. 1..•. r.n �y ♦7 w • w••••-• •••••• r... ,..r Irr ■ t. I I • •.-.. a..� ewe PO r..• 1 a. i // I! I 1; 1 . i I co • 1 •• i. i • • i Ii +a �' lNOvo�sea QaG� . 1 F•Ky' Mli I L.•4.1Y • ' KY VTIII h I t 1¢-� t i '�'+� '�� lt_M _L_J. t I i ,b;,»;o,;t POWELL AVE. S.M. : —, --I-) 1 .I. I j J ` - t w.J R 1 + k� i •�cx�,Tc t•cx h \ • i ,,I a I t ri r I a J.\ .--- bilk„ ! AS(&IN t 1 Vitf I% 15 11\ .t Ia , 7 7 try f . a es y I , • I 0\ I • • I IL, P—CC 111 , O 10rYrtir.l••ia • lrrt1\L4tO1trT 1>f • 1, t 4u.crr_7 I r. 1 1 4.I•'ala•ah 1�I ; I 1I° a.mak I .t '� I't \ • \ I. • 111 1 1 1! . r iis76—or l 1 to'�wl�ao•a �ar_cwr RI t r • IItil �h unutt�t.u►sar— w_j 7 ----- • • SI • i4.. I4•P • ;.• 1 tN • • 21 :J n.v+►..�r•so- .ac. Vire \I 1;!re6 • 2 \ l I y ,•. �) .. le[•so- a o rs�odc +� t t • j • t ROAD EAS , .r I1 _ T .0 ---- -- --• , ; - 1 . -----' . � F IkCI 5 ,yP Sttc'f�LC�s�tt'.l,L_ `f tiu h-RENvai SI OrlEI ..1` ET 2 OF 15 OCT 19+'90 11:05 BR&H 206 7135 •• P•6i8 THE PLAT OF . w.. WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTEF SI/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.N. N1/2 SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M. • . CITY OF RENTON -.--_ ..... KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 13M= /22. v.✓oA.= • • dt1SM AOE0 S. MITCHIN , Inc.. •.*. • N. • • II 'yy• �i 4 '9/) \ - ' 11 ' , - PI J, ,•j ii ri s. ....."` Iet 1/ 4t J/ f } a•` \ ` ` 1 13 •• 44 • 2ND / .t �t� l t^ T i1 `• \? r • 41/4 , . •- y K"IrralTr•ft+iwcMr Il - P . ::. . ... . .•. al r•-: 417 /(.1 . • • t 1 .• 1 I I. `4/ • 4 ;,4514 • �`• �U►"YTIL$T'f • •�wiL)I(*T 1 t �b• • • •••'rti'• r..r '. •J • ale WIN, -.• �� .•M. • •vw , r... ta~r a.. '. • i•r•.r —.r r.•. M 4.4 • 49 • �faAl \ I. j . r«v ...... •... • • • • •✓.rm. M.r r.w • M FTFti / , .'�-,�� , •"•r u wrwc»r W. • •'i••W•'ri. w _ a.. - ' i li 1 1 J - • • 0' •• • ! (E : . ;. • . fill _ 45, ` 1 l J i SHEET 3 OF OCT 19 •'90 11 f 0b ERE H 206 17135 •• P.7/8 - ~) THE PLAT OF - ^' WASHINGTUN TECHNICAL CENTEP S1/2 SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.H. • N1/2 SECTION 24. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. M.N. • CITY Of RENTON _ KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON ez1VVO)3 PA nyy o • { • • ;I ' �; • E . au PC€O HITCFtINEi . Inc.. P. • t . 1 t r •�, - - t •, I•;i • _ C� ,' . .. y $6 ,�4 ; • • I Y Lic • _• -t<t•T..ItT ams.lt•It • 7 • I Hf 1 ITOR•1 R I t•/fR • \ 14?INT ARC• E "`." • / �i/ ffil DETENTION BASIN / t �..r....1 ,t / ',.‘ `.... `, / Inpe�DoICATEED TO CITY PARCEL € !a rEORt{ WATER DETENTION) \� RESERVING AN UNIDEFINED AREA FOR tNE \ 141 • utlun [wttrrtaT o i U. ...ki EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE LAND £NCQi•tPA5SE0 8Y [10� •IM[Mt••..•R • • THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER FOR ..it i• CONTAINMENT OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AiiO FL • WATER STORAGE UNTIL SAID DETENTION AND FLOOD `��_,f Now wit i-�) •I•' WATER STORAGE IS PROVIDED FOR THE SAID PLAT. Y 4,• ' AREA 70 8E DEFINED AT THE' TIr•.1E TRACTS A6 13 ARE i j tjI - •• _. .I\ 4 PLATTED iNTO LOTS OR DEFC-RE JULY1•l98S. REFWNING � `:\ { AREA TO 8E USED BY CITY OF RENTON FOR FLOOD ••..or , i " • K • s WATER STORAGE,AS THEY SO CHOOSE: t .1��0� E do. �1 1 '� �' • �1. •• I / - . ��` •IPA • (......A.......„..",t, �\ �' 1 = i •r•TR•c � roR 1 /J.IKr T1{>aoar 4/ 1 . • . t f a. . •t• n \ + �\ wl••K O•1e11 1.f il a ` sY *btm7 Aram/ .::.:*1 J '�s - Q '( T \ -ti•rf1(/T! iauhKMTt ,• • • • / ,,c.:,....,i__, z„. :(iii-7_ N . •Waver* r.r i t ••tMY'•.•t ' O.r • �r i•• imam art• a—.-. afl..• Pi,. • •I. ' \ . .., v• • • % / SHEET A OF 5 I -'---OCT 19 '90 11:07 BR&H 206 3 7135 . P.8i8 '1 THE PLAT OF . . .) • V�ASH I NGTt�N TECHNIC,. L CENTEF S!/2 SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 44 EASY, W.H. N1/2 SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.H. • CITY OF RENTON • • KING,COUNTY. WASHINGTON 'r-�1300 /ss• I1-I+v y iar •' R • r• 'i.. ' r .. 1 • . esus8 n t ���Z $• Inc.. �'.1 • • . • f. i 1' f 4 4 . .� i. •• s • •--f_ _ ` -- --;p=1== _._� _ x • — . i 'i-_' ,•, 1i, 9 It! 10 �i , ,11 t\aA . : ifi 1 lid rt+uTT t�itart•rT • • 5 t • •. 7,s• arktT.usv.l,.,, ;c 10TLIT WC:NI :it�, • -. 1!!--j Ill —i3'YTiUt7 RAfIKNt• �7 ��;e.- t -.r iie Semi ifaigheeNT •-ktk-'-.4s 1 • • 7 �I i 4e«7 1i'sT faM t 1 ' ■ ors , s�+oae s.Tr ya, pI • tiS t1 *a r0:gtipo Alt f• wafts roc f'M[MT : • � it . r7 • r 1 t (L '� r wt-1 "` iii Ild LWOW IVA IC fill*Val 11‘S ' ‘• !V. Al —7-, . \ Cj .ell s a•ra:e/.twf eoe ad&a — I, S .• • . 1i\k • a•14:;.:, ..�•• • • • •t: • r' . • • • , , a ••P.-*•Y•. e we .• •; • . II tl ram. ; 1 . ,ii •1 MJ • • :I • • • SHEET S of 5 • 441071 C 1 _ . Architecture and Planning,Inc.-) �- Royce A.Berg,Y.Ken K.Chin,Principals 1535 Fourth Ave.S.,Suite D Seattle,WA 98134 (206)583-8030 Fax(206)583 MEMORANDUM VIA FAX AND MAIL TO: Bob Mac Onie DATE: May 5, 1999 Development Services Division City of Renton PROJECT: Oakesdale Center 1055 South Grady Way Blackriver Corporate Park Renton, WA 98055 PROJECT NO: 98041 RE: Address for Oakesdale Center Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B Per review of master plan and permit submittals, we are requesting address clarification and change for this project DEVELOPMENT PLANNII• 602 Oakesdale Ave SW - Bldg. A CITY OFRENTON 604 Oakesdale Ave SW - Bldg. B MAY 0 'i 1999 606 Oakesdale Ave SW - Bldg. C 600 Oakesdale Ave SW - Bldg. D RSCEIVEo 1300 SW 7th St. - Bldg. E Since visual and direct access to Lot 1 and Lot 2 for Buildings D, A, B and C is off Oakesdale, we prefer to address all four of those buildings off Oakesdale Ave. SW. We are finalizing permit revisions at this time and feel this would improve identity for all buildings and have enclosed building site plan with proposed address locations, plus original city correspondence for reference. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Respe tfully, Abe oy er. encl. cc: Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton Dean Erickson, Alper NW Bill Hickox, BRH ,o,i. sip ,i7 ° ant•im"t E a- , ' I ^`t'{ " L �* �;k -1 , ..71 - 4- r ` '''i': 74.1 T r`sty.: °7t st,'r ; y ° X,. % L 7r 1. `•7• ¢ ., i^� yIt:.'�-• Jw'i.a_' ,. 1 z'.. i,• �•i .rh. 3 `i-:} !i .,'A+, wXr ' 3 rf,'IlT._ A+ _- _ - _.- o �Vp I 4 7 V 17' df� t h't-i` y,rs, �.�L .:}a:. , . 7x v a t _ r „, ��y _, j;"1'# * Yr HAarAr SUFFER $i i 4"' 4Y Se.. R» }q �! 3i4'c I I.Int1, AREA '' V Jr f ,� ,C Y `�'•r. „at, I es tl 1 a t .I ,� Fi 7 ]J PEW AREA A ' ?•r 4 �Q ,,' 'e,; ;', ,o, . , b; `OPEN SPA..[t'µf I go- ,..4., .it ,fir Q,, ./ es. C.J. t'' a �� t 0 "%�� r._ma' t.7 r rf W s oa �:^h '}i 7 J 9 ,N _a•,• 7tJV, III i�- Y. 1 • }11101. '� t 2 �� ,e1i Igo 0, , , t' ', ". W L.V. /�� ` �. ° i a `7 ¢ � inn J +., . \\.:a •- 9 � ,;; = n 7 �1 Q• 4 s., �f wit Jj 2 �,V ,e 4 ".�, ,,'. >�i sw .�'��.3�.a^Sjk'�i 11 G Y N /��J Q d I PA` f �S` -41 ' ,i,� t il�q"`�rT 4, 'k'v v : V x - W it 4 . • GJ OD "•.,- , a 'd,,i L ...E ,1 a ~ cr 0 E r C r h ''� , I� rl Ph ! w. .- '�.I \"v ,�'� �+ -ee•l �4 ¢>W �z 7}�� � I!Ilfgu 9o'�Ulli ,.! ���®�0,,® ,��� I}1p•yo 7i u` }t i �� j3 P�cex ME -_tyri.,,�p�k .��:' • .� . /� QOO i �� !' }7p � 7 Cr Z C Z itl I�" P ` � t� '� J J J LLl �Uilu' tiff•�� , ,©/ ,�� IGI��,, js ��1 `;rla��� O ���J�Of 'I�,�1 �a \ O m< m rh . tit1/44 '$. �� e i 4 ,• �,i" '4'�M ` Ef' t III'II� ���® t�� t 1•- PA 4 , si O 5 ,�;. ` , I'�...• 0� - Pe N�recr�PE ,<y !£ ��1 J V oC)(;'' u II ��6 = t, i PIAHMItI ri fik �® ize4fr fi� / ;tom. �+ TOTAL BUILDING AREA +!- 149.250 SF �, ---- - -. I.,eisispp �a�� - :::''/ © \elder i,. ,� ,,� PARKING 587 STALLS \ _�� � ;/�� ,.O EJ ` ,f'a PARKING RATIO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF ` ��► 7:„20 ha, a .loin, O ��2. �.,a °ir SITE PLAN { P �, 41101,0 ``.I,���e ���,, _�� . �j,/• 0 20 4� 0 100 " ��oomr �n n 5 Ewn,,SICK ` \�- W\\ Niiii0tsy' • A� -i OAKESDALE CENTER N. `�. ; 8 �• ;i BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK SITE PLAN i RENTON,WASHINGTON SIGN t \\ ,/ c ALPER NORTHWEST,INC.,DEVELOPER , LPN ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING n.reeN/tm-m- . Jae MO.: SOW WET ea Or MME: 111.1114e t aMVN NM 01E0e s A.M rl2/_ r).rl i,v 1 D63237135 BUSH ROED & HITCHING F-832 T-330 P-004/004 JUL 01 '98 14:04 . 4.rA-CO 010 -n lr ,PV '-" '• 214 f * 123 "' ' 2 ! Tsig r.ill "V .— —• --.._ ; 1 .,. II iii WI 41 gliipli 1 I;i Z li• • .,1E ti`�� .t Ø ill r \ 4 /- il.J.! % . 0 ' a) -,,,...„. -tr...%„,, 1 Ill!Iii 11 0 14. v:i. "Myr li i lailli :1 v2- •/ Q� at 1 ,. 'lra �` -. 13 '4,, pi . i /1( --11/“;°'ill ' ,t, Xi, ‘'.:Lr-"1","tre.' lit i \ r 0 :,...r. , -.IA- . 2 I • PI I BBB E1 j 4 -.aill ��' •. l ; I _ g /r-i- --1-1Alf% - .6___--:L.--A-..,.. ' t ,b... .01,_ .. ,iss a..._i_11...,...1----1.,----;------4?-37,-;•.:•;:ir•• .4:si. i 1! \ ill ..,\ ‘ _ • z II vossr----. ..--r-r t—u-artiva ... 1 fii ,1 I.. i ------- m , I ; $ fie <S - r VD.'It. _ - i er i F. ! i lA 3 .!!!'q x 1 - 1.4,r1 5 5 . q. era 4 : 1 r- g- ? lip 1 ilii ! I • 1 11(11 " i i lig 111101;14i 4. i iiTiii ' li iii - . iig * i : i IN - g I lg.; igtvi 3 Post-if Fax Nate 7571 D° T ) 1 . z =NI .I kai 4 a �: . X To 67/ R J i A ...., i i :. N is fir 1"/ I:al r r a. PtwS6 A� Phone A/4�f 3ZS p 112 1 P If cir a FIIx M �� SR ar r �s r a0 'i g - it i i040 q25 42.112 �3 d = Filed for Record by and After Recording Return to: E Mr. Dean Erickson Vice President a Blackriver Holdings, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 ti NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT Grantor: Blackriver—Rivertech LLC 0 Grantee: The City of Renton Legal Description: Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, Blackriver Tract B Short .0 Plat, Recording No. 9809109004 oo Full Legal Description: See Exhibits A and B attached Assessor's Tax Parcel Nos.: H918800-0152-01, H918800-0143-03, H918800-0153-00 i.� CO CO THIS NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT (the "Easement") is made as of this 2g day of May, 1999 by Blackriver — Rivertech LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Grantor"). Recitals A. Grantor is the Owner of certain real property located in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "Easement Area"). B. Grantor is also the Owner of other adjacent property located in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto (the "Underlying Property"). C. Grantor wishes to create an easement over the Easement Area for the benefit of the public. -1- 4 Declaration NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor hereby declares as follows: 1. Easement Area. Grantor hereby grants and conveys a permanent, non-exclusive easement over the Easement Area for the benefit of the public (the "Native Growth Protection Easement"). 2. Use of Easement Area. The creation of the Native Growth Protection Easement conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the Easement Area. This interest shall be for the purpose of preserving native vegetation and protection of plant and animal habitat, except as further provided below. The Native Growth Protection Easement imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the Easement Area, enforceable on behalf of the public by the City of Renton, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the Easement Area; provided however, that the Owner of Underlying Property may install landscaping and may deposit "dead and down" material from the Underlying Property on the Easement Area in order to enhance wildlife habitat and the Owner of the Underlying Property may enter the Easement Area to construct and maintain a wetpond, and an outfall pipe. The right of entry granted herein shall apply to the agents,representatives and employees of the owner of the Underlying Property. 3. Running with the Land. This Easement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the owners of the Easement Area and the Underlying Property and O their heirs, successors and assigns. qtr LCD 4. Attorney Fees. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce or interpret the terms of this Easement shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in said action, including on appeal,whether or not suit is commenced. -2, \\BG 1\vOt 1\DATA\W P\ALPER\NGPE.Doc DECLARANT: Blackriver-Rivertech LLC a Washington limited liability company By: 00--45- Blackriver Holdings,Inc., a Washington corporation Dean Erickson Its: Vice President By: Bl ckriver oldings,Inc., a Washington corporation , Ken Bellamy Its:President STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • )ss. COUNTY OF KING441 ) 10 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Dean Erickson signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it in his capacity QO as the Vice President of Blackriver Holdings, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such G�2 corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of aci , 1999. �g °s"R5itl9B9S °9E�S G �, e`oOR C. 17; ,, �v F , ,on,;,+ ,;�� (S' afore) z. . 0,• — elea4nr h'iknp Cr)• PU"_jC _o= (Printed Name) ,•':sea j�: �� Notary Public in and for the Statefi Op j•-:.:\•,\:4 of Washington,residing at atr Z i s E 46�° My commission expires /I- /c1-0 r 3- \\BG I\vOLI WATA\W P\ALPER\NGPE.Doc l STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ken Bellamy signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it in his capacity as the President of Blackriver Holdings, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. .114 Dated this l day of , 1999. 111 ,,,000111$2/18,. l�v� ""�FOR .• " ;05s,�o ;r�F.P ( ignature) .o NOTARY elY PA/XJ.40 PV':._1C (Printed Name) •• sER 4‘a.� " Notary Public in and for the S t�t�e s' .�'' of Washington,residing at -yl�(' My commission expires t l- I'i I - I'I 0 G�2 43 �I '.i 4- \\BGl\vot1\DATA\WP\ALPER\NGPE.Doc it 2� EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA-98-074-SHPL) , RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9809109004 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE WEST 274 .74 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 20°23 ' 07" WEST 244 . 95 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53°46 ' 24" EAST 309 . 14 FEET TO A LINE LYING PARALLEL WITH AND 46 . 92 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID NORTH LINE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE EAST 110 . 69 FEET ALONG `SAID PARALLEL LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 46. 92 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 29 , 878 SQUARE FEET (0 . 686 ACRE) , MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. A. File g,, ALPER N.W. , INC. OAKESDALE CENTER tit'of k• ,�; �-�- ; WILLIAM A. HICKOX P.L. S. �r� '` BRH JOB NO. 97051. 04 1 `,/ L � ' MAY 5, 1999 •- REVISED MAY 27 , 1999 24737 C) Q f 11'%1L LAr'9 .XCPIRES 3/17/ rp S 17-99 )r P.OB. N WEST 274.74' °' g LOT 4 110.69' /— EAST 60 30 0 60 i — = — I SCALE IN FEET 1" = 60' �1 LOT 3 ` J N... �Q' ...�.�� `,�' , TRACT B SHORT PLAT (/ i LUA-98-074-SHPLo� r`' 24737 REC. NO. 9809109004 : C!- --- n \ 9 EY.FIRES 3/17/ I/ EXHIBIT A-1 l'� 4TIVE GROWTH PROTECTION BRH EASEMENT SKETCH BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS )AKESDALE CENTER PROJECT 2009 MINOR AVE. E. (206) 323-4144 SEATTLE, WA 98102-3513 PREPARED FOR: ALPER N.W. BRH JOB NO. 97051.04 5-5-99 EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA-98-074—SHPL) RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9809109004 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TRACT B, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDE IN VOLUME 122 , OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102 , RECORDS OF KIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.1 ALPER NORTHWEST 1�' A•HI�� BLACKRIVER TRACT B �titi, o4was�.j� Of % WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L. S. /A. =` _ 0.�� BRH JOB NO. 97051. 03 JULY 23 , 1998 'c ' � � REVISED AUGUST 10, 1998 : r,'! REVISED MAY 27 , 1999 o` ta7a7 1, EXPIRES 8/17/ 1Qger 5-Z7-12'! M 00 CIL O • CITY L _F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM DESor(OF REN MAyF; 19 `� To: Jennifer Toth Henning REG I' From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: May 18, 1999 Subject: Draft Native Growth Protection Easement — Blackriver Corporate Park (LUA-98-075, SA-H) I have reviewed the above-referenced document and the same is approved as to legal form. Lawrence J. amen LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:160.03. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425)255-8678 :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 05/05/99 10:11 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architects Z002 MAY-I''S-99 WED 08: 12 ALPER NW FAX NO. 206 3823 P, 02 rIA zua isZU 061., BUCK & GORDON LLF fi002 Filed for Record by and After Recording Return to: • Mr. Dean Erickson Vice Presidem BlackriverHoldins,Inc, 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEME NT Grantor: Blackrivcr-Rivertech LLC Grantee: The City of Renton Abbrev.Legal Description: (Complete legal description on page_ ) !. . THIS NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT (the "Easement") is made as of this day of May, 1999 by B1acbivrz-Rivertech LLC, a Washington limited liability company("Grantor"). Recitals A. Grantor is the owner of roperty located in the City of Renton, King County,Washington, legally desert m Ex it hereto (the"Fnsernmt Area"). B. Grantor is also the of other .••• •... King County, Washington, � arty loca:etl in the City of Renton, King County, legally described •• bit B, attached hereto (the "Underlying OwnC. Grantor wishes to create an easement over the Easement Area for the benefit of the public. • \\Ccl\voLMATA\WINAII,silANGPLiax ^1 • 9‘).1", 05./05/99 10:11 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architects 17j003 MAY-05-99 WED OB: 13 ALPER NW FAX NO. 206 3829 P. 03 —ei" io:oa nu. nu B26 06',,, BUCK & GORDON LLP (1 OO eclazatiou NOW,THEREFORE, Grantor hereby declares as follows: 1. AteA Grantor hereby grants and conveys a •3ermanent, non-exclusive easement over the Easement Area for the benefit of the public (the `Native Growth Protection Easement.''). 2. Use of E el:n= Area The creation of the Native Grc wth Pratectian Easement conveys to the pnbiic a beneficial interest in t}fe lend within the Easement t Area. This interest shall be for the purpose of preserving native vegetation and protection of plant tud animal habitat, except as further provided below. The Native Growth Prut .lion Eastmient imr uses upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the Easement Area, enforceable on btal of the public by the, City of Renton, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the Easement Area; provided however, that the Owner of Underlying Property may install landscaping. and may deposit "dead and down" material from the Underlying Property on tb. Easement area in order to enhance wildlife habitat and the Owner of the Underlying Property may entr./. the Easement Area to construct end maintain a wetpond, and an otztfall pipe.The right of entry granted herein shall apply to the agents,representatives and employees of the owner of the Underlying Property. 3. l gig wig thand,, This Easement shall nm with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the bet of the owners of the Easement Area and the Underlying Property and their heirs, successors and assigns. 4. Attorney Fees, The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce or interpret the terms of this Easement shall be crtled to recover its costs and reasorab]9 artorney fees incurred in said action,including on appeal,whether or not suit is commenced. .2. �`aciWOLa1.1:,ATA\wnAZSrnAtu avmc O 05./05/99 10:11 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architects [6 004 MAY-05-99 WED 08:13 ALPER NW FAX NO. 206 3829 P. 04 .eras ta:ob r'AX 206 826 06'ro BUCK & GORDON L.LP 2)004 DECLARANT; Blackriver.Rivertech LLC a'Washington limited liability company By: Blackriver Holdings,Inc., a Washington corporation Dean Erickson Its: Vice President By: BlacInivor Holdings,Inc., a Washington corporation Ken Bellamy Its:President .STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have sa6tory evidence that Dean Erickson signed this iustturnent, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrwnent and acknpwledged it-in his capacity as the Vice President of Blackriver Holdings, Inc. to be the free a:id vohmrary act of such corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of , 1999. (Signature) (Printed Name) Notary Public in and for tiv:State of Washington,residing at My commission expires _3. POlt 05/05/99 10:11 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architects Z005 MAY-05-99 WED 08: 13 ALPER NI, FAX N0, 206 382! P, 05 0o io;oa r'AA 206 628 06,4 SUCK & GORDON lip Zoos STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ken Balite ay signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to a tecute the instrument and acknowledged it in his capacity as the President of Blacgiver Holdings,Inc. to be the free and voluntary;tot of such corporation for the uses and purposes mcntioncd in the instrument Dated this day of , 1999. (Signature) (Printed Name) NotaryPublic in and for the State of Washington,residing at My commission expires mwvy�e�amver Auvm�cYEao�c -4- nw tP O — Ct..--).---- • • �9Q , e, cf, 2 , ` .�"` �. oq 7S { ---I \ .. 1 . . _ is • FF. rn N'6�a ,o O.\\\ ‘ . c°�� :I . I 4c...:'::Z=0:1...::,,.:,. ......:'.::.:::::.:::.::::::../.,,,--7;71.........:......;.:....:.. 0, r 14.64::V\‘ \ ?- 1- .-1 ,....?4::::.::: ::.,,,:,::.::::::.:.:.:::::.::...::%::.::.:.:.:,:.::.:_,...,;•::::;,::::...;::::::•.:::.:.. 1c)-i I \• \ 1 7♦ 1 • ,I d rrn I \ ` • o • • Yam• � ;•;.�• • • vI. / \\ I . ,.. \) - . \\, c:2 I Tr-/ , �0\ ®0 : i r� r 1 cn i I, II �\ W m i \\ soobo oo' 1 CI. ri Project: OAKESDALE CENTER Sheet: subject: NEW EASEMENT LOCATION ARCHITECTURE a a a PLANNING Project No.:98041 oote:04-20-99 By: RAJ ROYCE A.BERG,PRINCIPAL f� I',, •KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL Rev: 0•//t`(�-99 of: 1 SEA mEwASHINGTON9B 3i Rev: 04`28'99 12061563.6030 FAX 563-07D8 s� 900�1 s13aaTu3Jd Hd1 SOLO C8S 90Z XW3 ZT:OT 66/SO/SO Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 24 temporary noise as construction proceeds, but the developed site should not create much noise or impact. The two-story, approximately 30 foot tall buildings should not adversely impact surrounding uses. It is hoped that they will not impact the heron rookery, but that cannot be guaranteed. The existing landscaping and additional plantings proposed will eventually create a better buffer between the site and the rookery. It appears as if the applicant has proposed trash areas on both ends of the wetpond area. These areas during pickup can be particularly noisy and could adversely affect the heron. They should be relocated away from their current positions. 5. The proposal appears to be well designed. The mix of one and two-story buildings and the articulated facades should provide an interesting campus when viewed from nearby streets and from within the complex. The relatively low scale of the buildings should minimize the impacts of each building of the others in the complex. The buildings are reasonably spaced and arranged to afford openness and thle entry of light and air to the site. 6. The development should not adversely affect neighboring property values and development of the site will increase the tax base of the City. 7. The parking aisles, driveways and pedestrian pathways appear to provide both safe and efficient circulation to and from the site and within the site. 8. The site has adequate access to City utilities. The storm drainage system appears to be adequate anjl the applicant is entitled to use the storage capacity of the P-1 pond. Since the storm system cannot remove potentially harmful chemicals,the applicant should utilize best practices when using chemicals on the site, and should probably choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimi e the need to apply chemical agents. 9. Since the site is comprised of three separate legal lots,the applicant should execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned, all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. 10. In conclusion,the applicant has done a commendable job in attempting to satisfy a variety of competing demands made by its market needs,the City and environmental interests. It has designed a project which should be an asset to the community while minimizing its impacts on the unique aspects of the surrounding natural community. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1• The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed as a result of environmental review including the conditions imposed by the ERC and as a result of the SEPA appeal. 2. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement on Lot 1, at the north corner of the site, extending from the north edge of the wetpond north to and including the habitat buffer area. Disturbance of this area would be limited to the depositing of"dead and down"material from other portions of the site in order to enhance the wildlife habitat, or routine maintenance activity tick River Corporate Park `ppeal and Site Plan Hearings pile Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD • LUA98-075,SA-H • October 19, 1998 Page 25 for the wetpond. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded to run with the tit 1. Recording of the easement shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the building permits. Lot 3. The phases shall be altered as decided in the appeal process. 4. The applicant shall move the trash enclosures away from the wetpond/buffer area. 5. The applicant shall utilize best practices when using chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides on the site and shall choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimize the need to apply chemical agents. 6. The applicant shall provide assurances that the three separate legal lots have appropriate cross easements for parking and circulation. 7. This site plan supersedes the previous site plan. (This makes no conclusion about whether the prior site plan is or is not valid at this point.) The applicant shall have 30 days after this decision to opt for one or the other. 8. The applicant shall execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned, all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. ORDERED THIS 19th day of October, 1998. FRED J.KA MAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of October, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev. Administrator Parties of Record South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration writing on or before :00 p.m. November 2 �ooszny mutt hP pled in of Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, erragors of law or fact, elrror inat judgmenteved person feeng th the , or the the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11 , 1999 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Jennifer Toth Henningcyl1 SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park (LUA-98-075,SA-H) The applicant for the above-referenced project has submitted a Draft Native Growth Protection Easement in accordance with conditions required by the Hearing Examiner. Would you please review the attached Draft Easement language as to legal form? Thank you. cc: 1111 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 1999 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning FROM: Sonja J. Fesser ac3 SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park, Tract B Native Growth Protection Easement,Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced legal description and find that the legal is satisfactory, except that it does not note the pertinent section,township and range. See the attachment for that information. \\TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\H:\FJLE.SYS\LND\20\0230\RV990518.DOC -05-99 11:41AM FROM-BUSH ROED It HI TN INGS INC, 206-323-7135 T-738 P.02/03 F-685 DESCRIPTION NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA-98-074-SHPL) , RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9809109004 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE WEST 274 .74 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 20°23 ' 07" WEST 244 . 95 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 53°46 '24" EAST 309. 14 FEET TO A LINE LYING PARALLEL WITH AND 46. 92 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID NORTH LINE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES THERETO; THENCE EAST 110 . 69 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 46.92 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 29, 878 SQUARE FEET (0. 686 ACRE) , MORE OR LESS. QU J-41 Cr 5=pc4.1 15 ,-1Z7U>I-1�1-FI1=.23 U.lO- 1+4)TZ4/.1B :•. SITUATE IN THEACITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ALPER N.W. , INC. 11A A. OAKESDALE CENTER ti Cd WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L. S. a4- BRH JOB NO. 97051. 04 . MAY 5, 1999 J:10*A LSD • 5-5-99 CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11 , 1999 TO: Bob MacOnie FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park Tract B The applicant for the above-referenced project has submitted a Draft Native Growth Protection Easement in accordance with conditions required by the Hearing Examiner. Please review the attached legal description for accuracy. I have forwarded the Draft Easement language to the City Attorney for review. Thank you. J . 12l WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: 0 ca Blackriver Holdings,Inc. ti 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 - Attn: Dean R.Erickson _ Document Title: Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, andc" Reciprocal Easements in Declarant: Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. veal Grantee: Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. .. ti Legal Description: Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, Blackriver Tract B Short Plat, 73 Recording No. 9809109004 70 Full Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached Assessor's Tax Parcel Nos.: H918800-0143-03 , H918800-0152-01, H918800-0153-00 Reference Nos. of Related Documents: 9809100433 AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS Th is Amended and Restated Declaration (this "Declaration") is made as of Nam-( Z8 , 1999 by BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company("Declarant"). RECITALS: A. Declarant is the owner of the real property legally described in Exhibit A attached, which consists of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of City of Renton Short Plat No. LUA-98-074, (the "Property"). Declarant previously recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Reciprocal Easements affecting the Property, dated August 11, 1998, in the real property records of King County, Washington under Recording No. 9809100433 (the "Original Declaration"). This Declaration is intended to amend, supercede and replace the Original Declaration. From and after the date this Declaration is recorded in the real property records of King County, Washington, the Original Declaration will no longer be effective or binding on the Property. 1650\083.4/28/99 -1- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRI V ER B. Declarant desires to create certain easements in, to, over and across the Property to assure the proper and efficient development and operation of the Property, to create provisions for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Common Areas, the buildings and the other improvements now or hereafter existing on the Property, and to make certain other covenants and agreements as more specifically set forth in this Declaration. This Declaration is intended, inter alia, to provide for the coordinated design and development of all future improvements on the Property. AGREEMENT: Declarant hereby covenants, agrees and declares that all of the Property, and the buildings and other improvements now or hereafter constructed thereon, are and will be held, developed, used, sold, conveyed, leased and encumbered subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements, all of which shall be binding upon and benefit Declarant and all future owners of all or any interest in the Property, and their respective successors, legal representatives and assigns. All of the provisions of this Declaration shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title and interest in the Property or any part thereof. 1. Definitions. (a) Building. The term "Building" means any building, structure or other improvement now or hereafter constructed on the Property. LCD (b) Common Area. The term "Common Area" means the portions of the 40 Property now or hereafter set aside as sidewalks, roadways,parking areas, driveways and drive throughs, and all common utility lines, sewers, wet ponds and drainage facilities, and other LC� common systems serving the Property. (c) Improvements. The term "Improvements" means all buildings, parking or loading areas, roadways, walkways, curbs, gutters, storage areas, fences, walls, poles, signs, exterior lighting and lighting standards, exterior air conditioning equipment, the paint on all Buildings, landscaping, trees, shrubs, plazas, fountains, stairways, ramps, utility lines, pipes and conduits, and all other structures of any kind or appurtenances thereto located above or below ground within a Parcel, and any replacements, additions, repairs or alterations thereto of any kind whatsoever. (d) Mortgage. The term "Mortgage" means any recorded first mortgage or first deed of trust encumbering the fee interest of an Owner of a Parcel. 1650\083:4/28/99 -2- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER • (e) Mortgagee. The term "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee or beneficiary under a Mortgage, and if applicable, a fee owner or lessor or sublessor of any Parcel which is the subject of a lease under which any Owner becomes a lessee in a so called "sale and lease ;4 back" or"assignment and sublease back" transaction. (f) Owner. The term "Owner" means any person or entity holding fee title ownership in a Parcel. Whenever an Owner transfers fee title ownership of a Parcel to another person or entity, the transferring Owner shall be released and discharged from the obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration, and the new Owner shall be responsible for all such obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration and shall be bound by this Declaration. (g) Parcel. The term "Parcel" means each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Property. ti (h) Parking Area. The term "Parking Area" means those portions of the Common Area now or hereafter used for (i) vehicular ingress to and egress from the Property or any Parcel from adjacent public streets, (ii) vehicular movement in and about the Property, and (iii) the parking of motor vehicles, together with all parking improvements to the Common Area which are at any time erected thereon, including interior roadways, curbs and landscaping within or adjacent to such areas. 2. Use Restrictions. ime 114 (a) No Owner shall commit nor allow to be committed on its Parcel any act which disturbs the quiet enjoyment of any occupant of the Property, nor shall any Owner use or permit its Parcel or the Common Areas or any part thereof to be used for any purpose which is in violation of any applicable municipal, county, state or federal law, ordinance or C regulation, including without limitation laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the use, storage and disposal of hazardous or toxic wastes and materials. (b) Any Building hereafter constructed on a Parcel must be constructed within the building areas for such Parcel designated on the site plan for the Property approved by the City of Renton(the "Site Plan"). No Building constructed on a Parcel may exceed the total building area for such Building set forth on the Site Plan. 3. Reciprocal Easements for Parking and Ingress and Egress Over and Across Parking Areas. Each Owner, their tenants, and their respective guests and invitees, shall have (a) a nonexclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, over, across and through the Parking Areas, and (b) a nonexclusive easement for motor vehicle parking upon, over and across the Parking Areas. Such ingress and egress and parking rights shall be used in accordance with such reasonable regulations as the Owners may from time to time specify, including but not limited to, speed limits, weight limits and other requirements designed to 1650\083.4/28/99 -3- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER promote the safety of all vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, each Owner shall have the right to designate a reasonable number of the parking stalls on its Parcel as reserved for the tenants of the Building or Buildings on its Parcel. 4. Easements for Utilities. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements under, through and across the Common Area for the installation, maintenance, removal and replacement of water drainage systems or structures, water mains, sewers, water sprinkler system lines, telephones, electrical and communications conduits or systems, gas mains, and other utilities and service easements. All such utilities shall be installed and maintained below the ground level or surface of the Property, except where underground installation is inappropriate. The installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication line shall be done in a manner which complies with all applicable provisions of this Declaration, and the Owner undertaking the installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication;line shall cause the effected portion of the Common Area to be replaced or repaired to a condition at least as good as prior to the applicable work having been commenced, and such Owner must pay all costs associated with such work. 5. Drainage Easements. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements, under, through and across the Common Areas and the Parcels for reasonable drainage purposes. 6. Maintenance of Common Area. (a) Each party shall maintain the Common Area (other than the "Facility" to to (described below)) located on its Parcel in good condition and repair, clean, free of rubbish and .y� other hazards to persons using such area, properly lighted and landscaped. Each party shall pay its own costs and expenses with respect to repairing and maintaining the Common Area co (other than the "Facility" (described below)) located on its Parcel, except as otherwise provided Go 1.o in this Declaration. (b) Declarant anticipates that a wet pond will be located on one of the Parcels which will be part of the storm drainage and water quality system (the "Facility") ab serving the entire Property. The Owner of the Parcel on which the Facility (the "Facility Parcel") is located will be responsible for maintaining the Facility. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of all costs incurred by the Owner of the Facility Parcel in maintaining the Facility. For purposes of this subparagraph, an Owner's pro rata share of the costs incurred by the Owner of the Facility Parcel in maintaining the Facility shall be based on the ratio of the maximum building area allowed on its Parcel, as set forth on the Site Plan, to the total building area permitted on all of the Parcels, as set forth on the Site Plan. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of any costs incurred by the Owner of the Facility Parcel within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice from the Owner of the Facility Parcel of any costs so incurred, and such supporting information evidencing the costs incurred and work done as an Owner 1650\083:4/28/99 -4- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER may reasonably request. Any Owner who fails to make a payment to the Owner of the Facility Parcel pursuant to this subparagraph shall be deemed a "Defaulting Party" for purposes of Paragraph 8 below, and the Owner of the Facility Parcel shall have all of the rights of a "Nondefaulting Party" as set forth in Paragraph 8 below. 7. Indemnification. Each Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other Owner and their agents, employees, partners, tenants and invitees, from and against all claims, liabilities, causes of action, costs and expenses, arising from or out of any activity, work or thing done,permitted or suffered by the indemnifying party, its agents, guests, tenants, contractors or invitees, in or about the Property pursuant to this Declaration, including the cost of making any and all repairs necessary to the improvements to the Common Areas due to damage caused by the acts or omissions of the indemnifying party, its agents, guests, tenants, contractors or invitees. The foregoing indemnity shall include all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defenselof any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon. The foregoing indemnity specifically covers actions brought by the indemnifying party's own employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if losses, liabilities, damages, liens, costs and expenses so arising are caused by the concurrent negligence of Owners, or their respective employees, agents, invitees or licensees, the indemnifying party shall be obligated to indemnify the other party only to the extent of the indemnifying party's own negligence or that of its officers, agents, employees, tenants, guests or invitees. 8. Failure to Maintain. If an Owner fails to perform its maintenance or repair rag 14 obligations under this Declaration (a "Defaulting Party"), and such failure is not cured within L!' thirty (30) days after written notice from any other owner (the "Nondefaulting Party"), the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to perform such maintenance and repairs as it deems OO reasonably necessary at the cost and expense of the Defaulting Party; provided, G, notwithstanding the foregoing, if the failure by the Defaulting Party creates an emergency or perceived emergency (i.e., an eminent threat of danger to person or property), the 111 Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to immediately, without prior notice to the Defaulting Party, do such things as it deems reasonably necessary to remove the threat. Any costs or expenses incurred by the Nondefaulting Party pursuant to this paragraph shall be due and payable in full within ten (10) days after written demand on the Defaulting Party, together with interest from the date of demand until the date paid at a per annum interest rate of twelve percent (12%). The Nondefaulting Party shall be entitled to a lien on the Parcel owned by the Defaulting Party for any amount due and payable to the Nondefaulting Party which is not paid when due. Such lien shall be a continuing lien upon the Parcel of the Defaulting Party, and may be foreclosed in accordance with the statutory provisions regarding judicial foreclosure of mortgages in the State of Washington. Any such liens shall be subordinate to the lien of any present or future mortgage or deed of trust on a Parcel, which was made in good faith and for value, and which was recorded prior to the recordation of a lis pendens or other notice of foreclosure of the lien. The sale or transfer of any Parcel shall not effect the lien, but the sale 1650\083:4/28/99 -5- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRI V ER or transfer of any Parcel pursuant to judicial or non judicial foreclosure proceedings or by deed or other transfer in lieu of foreclosure shall extinguish the lien. 9. Construction of Buildings and Improvements. So long as Declarant is the Owner of a Parcel, any Building or other Improvement constructed on a Parcel must first be approved in writing by Declarant. All of the Buildings and other Improvements constructed on the Parcels shall be designed and constructed in accordance with similar design standards in order to promote coordinated appearances among the Buildings and other Improvements on the Parcels. If the Buildings and other Improvements on the Parcels are developed in phases, all subsequent phases shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. 10. Not a Public Dedication. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to be a dedication of any portion of the'property to the general public or for any public use. It is the intention of Declarant that the use of the Property be limited to and for the purposes herein expressed, always under the ownership and control of the Owners. The right of the public to make use of the Property is by permission and subject to control of the Owners. The Owners, by mutual agreement, may periodically restrict ingress to and egress from the Property to prevent a prescriptive public easement from arising by reason of continued public use,provided any such restriction shall be continued only for such duration as is required under applicable law to prevent the creation of any such prescriptive public easement. 11. Mortgagee Protection. 1.0 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, no lien created under this Declaration, nor any breach of this Declaration, nor the enforcement of any provision of this Declaration shall defeat or render invalid the rights of any Mortgagee under any Mortgage,made in good faith and for value. (b) A Mortgagee (or any other person or entity) acquiring title to a Parcel Cr: through foreclosure of a Mortgage, or by a transfer in lieu of foreclosure of a Mortgage, shall acquire title to the affected Parcel free and clear of any lien authorized by or arising out of the provisions of this Declaration, to the extent any such lien secures the payment of any assessment or charge due but unpaid prior to the final conclusion of any such proceeding or transfer, including the expiration date of any period of redemption unless a notice of the lien was properly recorded prior to the date the applicable Mortgage was recorded. After the foreclosure of a security interest in a Parcel, any unpaid assessment shall continue to exist and remain a personal obligation of the Owner against whose Parcel the same was levied. Any liens provided for in this Declaration shall be subordinate to the lien of any Mortgage. The sale or transfer of any Parcel or any interest therein shall not affect the liens provided for in this Declaration except as otherwise specifically provided for herein, and in the case of a transfer of a Parcel for the purpose of realizing upon a security interest, liens may arise 1650\083:4/28/99 -6- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER against such Parcel for any assessment or charge coming due after the date of the foreclosure. 12. Duration. The easements, restrictions and covenants set forth in this Declaration shall be perpetual, unless terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. The easements, restrictions and covenants of this Declaration shall not be affected in any manner by the doctrine of merger or otherwise if now or hereafter all of the Property is owned by the same person or entity. 13. Termination. The easements and covenants contained in this Declaration may be terminated by written agreement signed by all the Owners. 14. Covenants Running With Land. The easements, convents, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration shall be easements,covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be binding upon the present and future owners of all or any portion of the Property, and their respective successors and assigns. 15. Non-Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Declaration shall constitute a waiver of any other breach,whether of the same of any other covenant, condition or restriction. 16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a suit, arbitration or other action or legal rag 144 proceeding to enforce any provision of this Declaration or to collect any money due hereunder 1113 or to foreclose a lien, the unsuccessful party in such suit or action shall pay to the substantially prevailing party all costs and expenses, including title reports and all attorneys' fees that the substantially prevailing party has incurred in connection with the suit or action (including without limitation proceedings in bankruptcy court), in such amounts as the court may deem to be reasonable therein, and also including all costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with any appeal from the decision of a trial court or any intermediate appellate court. CZ 17. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements or provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other of the same, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. 18. Notices. All notices, demands or other communications ("Notices") required or otherwise given pursuant to this Declaration shall be in writing. Notices given by mail shall be sent postage prepaid by certified or registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed given three (3) business days after the date of mailing thereof, or on the date of actual receipt, if sooner. Notices shall be addressed to the last known address of the addressees. Notice to any Owner may be given at any Parcel owned by such Owner; provided, however, that an Owner may from time to time by Notice to the other Owners designate such other place 1650\083:4/28/99 -7- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER or places or individuals for the receipt of future Notices. If there is more than one Owner of a Parcel,Notice to any one such Owner shall be sufficient. 19. Applicable Law. This Declaration shall be construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Dated as of the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company By: BIACKRIVER HOLDINGS,INC., a Washington corporation By ' Its uc- Irel, ,,t- B rig 'Cr Its 1!� 00 C " 1650\083:4/28/99 -8- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRI V ER STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF K ) On this day of Maw , 1999,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared {6.4.rh $eQ OM and DZ.Gu1 Zvi Ck , known to me to be the rc cLu ) and 1JI`CU dire ul)f , respectively, of BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS, INC., a Washington corporation, the Manager of BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, the limited liability company that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company, for the purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stafed that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the person whose true signature appears on this document. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in the certificate above written. /7_4) `,��1y1101Gt:pge, ``�, OFI C. i? .A S' nature c . grall U �• Print Name 'Cr %�O>��ra 1;.';�r,; NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of a WAS % Washington,residing at My commission expires if ' (61"01 . �fp C 1650\083:4/28/99 -9- RES-DECLARATION ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER , EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENT N FILE NO. LUA-98-074-SHPL) RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 980910900 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TRACT ,, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 , OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102 , RECORDS OF KI "G COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORT :, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTO . "'—",, ALPER NORTHWEST 1‘14A-�`II�+ BLACKRIVER TRACT B ti-- Fwasii 4O % WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L. S. ^y 4., �Qof BRH JOB NO. 97051. 03 . s ' ,y JULY 23 , 1998 ': 'it , , '' REVISED AUGUST 10 , 1998 'a` :26 REVISED MAY 27, 1999 •. 8,17,, .1737 !/ „..... . . . S-Z7-gq IC \ .rd' a I . S V 1' ZC,� • WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Onlce of the City Clerk -. Renton City Hall • •1055.Soutfr Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 • Document Title: Declaration of Covenants,Restrictions, and Reciprocal Easements Declarant: Blackriver-Rivertech L.L.C. Grantee: Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. Legal Description: Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, Blackriver Tract B Short Plat, Recording No. 98'D 9/O 9(- o S/ O Full Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached O Assessor's Tax Parcel Nos.: H918800-0143-03 Gi Reference Nos. of Documents Released or Assigned: Not applicable Cr) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,RESTRICTIONS AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS This Declaration is made as of 44-' 5 // , 1998 by BLACKRIVER- RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company ("Declarant"). RECITALS: A. Declarant is the owner of the real property legally described in Exhibit A attached, which consists of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of City of Renton Short Plat No. LUA-98-074,-(the "Property"). B. Declarant desires to create certain easements in, to, over and across the Property to assure the proper and efficient development and operation of the Property, to create provisions for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Common Areas, the buildings and the other improvements now or hereafter existing on the Property, and to make certain other covenants and agreements as more specifically set forth in this Declaration. 1650\083:8/10/98 -1- DECLARATION.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER 0 A • AGREEMENT: Declarant hereby covenants, agrees and declares that all of the Property, and the buildings and other improvements now or hereafter constructed thereon, are and will be held, developed, used, sold, conveyed, leased and encumbered subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements, all of which shall be binding upon and benefit Declarant and all future owners of all or any interest in the Property, and their respective successors, legal representatives and assigns. All of the provisions of this Declaration shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title and interest in the Property or any part thereof. 1. Definitions. (a) Building. The term "Building" means any building, structure or other improvement now or hereafter constructed on the Property. C7 (b) Common Area. The term "Common Area" means the portions of the Property now or hereafter set aside as sidewalks, roadways, parking areas, driveways and drive throughs, and all common utility lines, sewers, wet ponds and drainage facilities, and other common systems serving the Property. O .. CC (c) Mortgage. The term "Mortgage" means any recorded first mortgage or 47) first deed of trust encumbering the fee interest of an Owner of a Parcel. (d) Mortgagee. The term "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee or beneficiary under a Mortgage, and if applicable, a fee owner or lessor or sublessor of any Parcel which is the subject of a lease under which any Owner becomes a lessee in a so called "sale and lease back" or "assignment and sublease back" transaction. (e) Owner. The term "Owner" means any person or entity holding fee title ownership in a Parcel. Whenever an Owner transfers fee title ownership of a Parcel to another person or entity, the transferring Owner shall be released and discharged from the obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration, and the new Owner shall be responsible for all such obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration and shall be bound by this Declaration. (f) Parcel. The term "Parcel" means each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Property. (g) Parking Area. The term "Parking Area" means those portions of the Common Area now or hereafter used for (i) vehicular ingress to and egress from the Property or any Parcel from adjacent public streets, (ii) vehicular movement in and about the Property, and (iii) the parking of motor vehicles, together with all parking improvements to the 1650\083.8/I0/93 -2- DECLARATION.3 ABASS E\ALPER\BLACKRI VER Common Area which are at any time erected thereon, including interior roadways, curbs and landscaping within or adjacent to such areas. 2. Use Restrictions. (a) No Owner shall commit nor allow to be committed on its Parcel any act which disturbs the quiet enjoyment of any occupant of the Property, nor shall any Owner use or permit its Parcel or the Common Areas or any part thereof to be used for any purpose which is in violation of any applicable municipal, county, state or federal law, ordinance or regulation, including without limitation laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the use, storage and disposal of hazardous or toxic wastes and materials. (b) Any Building hereafter constructed on a Parcel must be constructed C,,? within the building areas for such Parcel designated on the site plan for the Property M approved by the City of Renton (the "Site Plan"). No Building constructed on a Parcel may r? exceed the total building area for such Building set forth on the Site Plan. 3. Easement for Ingress and Egress Over and Across Common Areas. Each Owner, their tenants, and their respective guests and invitees, shall have (a) a nonexclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, over and across the Parking Areas, and (b) a nonexclusive easement for motor vehicle parking upon, over and across the Parking Areas. Such ingress and egress and parking rights shall be used in accordance with such reasonable regulations as the Owners may from time to time specify, including but not limited to, speed limits, weight limits and other requirements designed to promote the safety of all vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, each Owner shall have the right to designate a reasonable number of the parking stalls on its Parcel as reserved for the tenants of the Improvements on its Parcel. 4. Easements for Utilities. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements under, through and across the Common Area for the installation, maintenance, removal and replacement of water drainage systems or structures, water mains, sewers, water sprinkler system lines, telephones, electrical and communications conduits or systems, gas mains, and other utilities and service easements. All such utilities shall be installed and maintained below the ground level or surface of the Property, except where underground installation is inappropriate. The installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication line shall be done in a manner which complies with all applicable provisions of this Declaration, and the Owner undertaking the installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication line shall cause the effected portion of the Common Area to be replaced or repaired to a condition at least as good as prior to the applicable work having been commenced, and such Owner must pay all costs associated with such work. I650\083:8/10/98 -3- DECLARAT10N.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER 5. Drainage Easements. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements, under, through and across the Common Areas and the Parcels for reasonable drainage purposes. 6. Maintenance of Common Area. (a) Each party shall maintain the Common Area (other than the "Facility" (described below)) located on its Parcel in good condition and repair, clean, free of rubbish and other hazards to persons using such area, properly lighted and landscaped. Each party shall pay its own costs and expenses with respect to repairing and maintaining the Common Area (other than the "Facility" (described below)) located on its Parcel, except as otherwise provided in this Declaration. (b) Declarant anticipates that a wet pond will be located on one of the Parcels which will be part of the storm drainage and water quality system (the "Facility") serving the entire Property. The Owner of the Parcel on which the Facility (the "Facility Parcel") is located will be responsible for maintaining the Facility. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of all costs incurred by the Owner of the Facility Parcel in maintaining the 1,4 Facility. For purposes of this subparagraph, an Owner's pro rata share of the costs incurred by Othe Owner of the Facility Parcel in maintaining the Facility shall be based on the ratio of the CC maximum building area allowed on its Parcel, as set forth on the Site Plan, to the total building C) area permitted on all of the Parcels, as set forth on the Site Plan. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of any costs incurred by the Owner of the Facility Parcel within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice from the Owner of the Facility Parcel of any costs so incurred, and such supporting information evidencing the costs incurred and work done as an Owner may reasonably request. Any Owner who fails to make a payment to the Owner of the Facility Parcel pursuant to this subparagraph shall be deemed a "Defaulting Party" for purposes of Paragraph 8 below, and the Owner of the Facility Parcel shall have all of the rights of a "Nondefaulting Party" as set forth in Paragraph 8 below. 7. Indemnification. Each Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other Owner and their agents, employees, partners, tenants and invitees, from and against all claims, liabilities, causes of action, costs and expenses, arising from or out of any activity, work or thing done, permitted or suffered by the indemnifying party, its agents, guests,tenants, contractors or invitees, in or about the Property pursuant to this Declaration, including the cost of making any and all repairs necessary to the improvements to the Common Areas due to damage caused by the acts or omissions of the indemnifying party, its agents, guests, tenants, contractors or invitees. The foregoing indemnity shall include all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon. The foregoing indemnity specifically covers actions brought by the indemnifying party's own employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if losses, liabilities, damages, liens, costs and expenses so arising are caused by the concurrent negligence of Owners, or their respective employees, agents, invitees or licensees, the indemnifying party 1650\083:8/10/98 -4- DECLARATION.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER shall be obligated to indemnify the other party only to the extent of the indemnifying parry's own negligence or that of its officers, agents, employees,tenants, guests or invitees. 8. Failure to Maintain. If an Owner fails to perform its maintenance or repair obligations under this Declaration (a "Defaulting Party"), and such failure is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice from any other owner (the "Nondefaulting Party"), the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to perform such maintenance and repairs as it deems reasonably necessary at the cost and expense of the Defaulting Party; provided, notwithstanding the foregoing, if the failure by the Defaulting Party creates an emergency or perceived emergency (i.e., an eminent threat of danger to person or property), the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to immediately, without prior notice to the Defaulting Party, do such things as it deems reasonably necessary to remove the threat. Any costs or • expenses incurred by the Nondefaulting Party pursuant to this paragraph shall be due and payable in full within ten(10) days after written demand on the Defaulting Party, together with interest from the date of demand until the date paid at a per annum interest rate of twelve percent (12%). The Nondefaulting Party shall be entitled to a lien on the Parcel owned by the Defaulting Party for any amount due and payable to the Nondefaulting Party which is not paid when due. Such lien shall be a continuing lien upon the Parcel of the Defaulting Party, and may be foreclosed in accordance with the statutory provisions regarding judicial foreclosure of mortgages in the State of Washington. Any such liens shall be subordinate to the lien of any present or future mortgage or deed of trust on a Parcel, which was made in good faith and for value, and which was recorded prior to the recordation of a lis pendens or other notice of foreclosure of the lien. The sale or transfer of any Parcel shall not effect the lien, but the sale or transfer of any Parcel pursuant to judicial or non judicial foreclosure proceedings or by deed or other transfer in lieu of foreclosure shall extinguish the lien. 9. Construction of Buildings and Improvements. So long as Declarant is the Owner of a Parcel any Building or other improvement constructed on a Parcel must first be approved in writing by Declarant. 10. Not a Public Dedication. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be -deemed to be a dedication of any portion of the Property to the general public or for any public use. It is the intention of Declarant that the use of the Property be limited to and for the purposes herein expressed, always under the ownership and control of the Owners. The right of the public to make use of the Property is by permission and subject to control of the Owners. The Owners, by mutual agreement, may periodically restrict ingress to and egress from the Property to prevent a prescriptive public easement from arising by reason of continued public use,provided any such restriction shall be continued only for such duration as is required under applicable law to prevent the creation of any such prescriptive public easement. 1650\083:8/10/98 -5- DECLARAT10N.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER • 11. Mortgagee Protection. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, no lien created under this Declaration, nor any breach of this Declaration, nor the enforcement of any provision of this Declaration shall defeat or render invalid the rights of any Mortgagee under any Mortgage, made in good faith and for value. (b) A Mortgagee (or any other person or entity) acquiring title to a Parcel through foreclosure of a Mortgage, or by a transfer in lieu of foreclosure of a Mortgage, shall acquire title to the affected Parcel free and clear of any lien authorized by or arising out of the provisions of this Declaration, to the extent any such lien secures the payment of any assessment or charge due but unpaid prior to the final conclusion of any such proceeding or transfer, including the expiration date of any period of redemption unless a notice of the lien c"? was properly recorded prior to the date the applicable Mortgage was recorded. After the cn foreclosure of a security interest in a Parcel, any unpaid assessment shall continue to exist 0 a' and remain a personal obligation of the Owner against whose Parcel the same was levied. Any liens provided for in this Declaration shall be subordinate to the lien of any Mortgage. The sale or transfer of any Parcel or any interest therein shall not affect the liens provided C( for in this Declaration except as otherwise specifically provided for herein, and in the case of a transfer of a Parcel for the purpose of realizing upon a security interest, liens may arise C) against such Parcel for any assessment or charge coming due after the date of the foreclosure. 12. Duration. The easements, restrictions and covenants set forth in this Declaration shall be perpetual, unless terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. The easements, restrictions and covenants of this Declaration shall not be affected in any manner by the doctrine of merger or otherwise if now or hereafter all of the Property is owned by the same person or entity. 13. Termination. The easements and covenants contained in this Declaration may be terminated by written agreement signed by all the Owners. 14. -_Covenants Running With Land. The easements, convents, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration shall be easements, covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be binding upon the present and future owners of all or any portion of the Property, and their respective successors and assigns. 15. Non-Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Declaration shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, whether of the same of any other covenant, condition or restriction. 16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a suit, arbitration or other action or legal proceeding to enforce any provision of this Declaration or to collect any money due hereunder 1650\083:8/10/93 -6- DECLARATION.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRI V ER or to foreclose a lien, the unsuccessful party in such suit or action shall pay to the substantially prevailing party all costs and expenses, including title reports and all attorneys' fees that the substantially prevailing party has incurred in connection with the suit or action (including without limitation proceedings in bankruptcy court), in such amounts as the court may deem to be reasonable therein, and also including all costs, expenses and attorneys' fee s incurred in connection with any appeal from the decision of a trial court or any intermediate appellate court. 17. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements or provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other of the same, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. CID18. Notices. All notices,demands or other communications ("Notices")required or otherwise given pursuant to this Declaration shall be in writing. Notices given by mail shall be sent postage prepaid by certified or registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed given three (3) business days after the date of mailing thereof, or on the date of actual r4 receipt, if sooner. Notices shall be addressed to the last known address of the addressees. Notice to any Owner may be given at any Parcel owned by such Owner; provided, however, C that an Owner may from time to time by Notice to the other Owners designate such other place GD or places or individuals for the receipt of future Notices. If there is more than one Owner of a Parcel,Notice to any one such Owner shall be sufficient. 19. Applicable Law. This Declaration shall be construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Dated as of the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a �. Washington limited liability company By: BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS, INC., a - Washington orpootion By, -% .<,J Its /DF4/i By (l.U- Its DEAN R. ERICKSON vICE PRESIDENT 1650\083:8/10/93 -7- DECLARATION.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF C`‘&C, ) 441 On this 11 day of All1.1& , 1998,before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared 16,nru41 �'• P I I CL1.n,t j i and OWL k. erc.Ch Wir) , known to me to be the and VI.ct., ert,S i6kA.f , respectively, of BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS, INC., a Washington corporation, the Manager of BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, the limited liability company that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company, for the purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said ‘1' instrument. 11-1 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me Gand making this acknowledgment is the person whose true signature appears on this document. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in the certificate above written. • ji_Thtextr---- S gnature • :o NOTARY ' ; PUBLIC Print Name • 7), L�l-aea °:����� NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of 0WAST:,0` Washington, residing at kc.iU . My commission expires 11" ig - c;I . 1650\083:8/10/98 -8- DECLARATION.3 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKR1VER EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLACK RIVER TRACT B SHORT PLAT (CITY OF RENTON FILE NO. LUA-98-074-SHPL) RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9 D 9/ Q 9 o 0 411 , RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF TRACT B, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 , OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. rr Cn JO ALPER NORTHWEST ,p[. ?ql BLACKRIVER TRACT B 17) MA' HIC WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P.L. S. tip' w fi ram oc -'sNGyQI- BRH JOB NO. 97051. 03 1/4 JULY 23 , 1998 REVISED AUGUST 10, 1998 .w O � 4Q�24737 -S� i 1S `�'7sIER� f0 4L.L. EXP1R.S 3117/ 00 Ih •viiiii..I.r..N11: fr l fl-�8 • •r� .iJ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190 • 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008 j 52 • (425) 649-7000 December 1, 1998 0 ,off tiT oF�D 11 ‘4TO Dean Erickson Black River - Rivertech LLC C� 41,9 V' 700 5th Ave Suite 6000 i`j� Seattle WA 98104 O Dear Mr. Erickson: Re: City of Renton Permit# LUA-98-075SM BLACKRIVER- RIVERTECH LLC - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit # 1998-NW-10164 The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, to develop 1.5 acre office park with five tilt-up buildings totaling 148,834 square feet, 597 parking spaces and 18,000 cubic yards wetland fill, has been filed with this office by the City of Renton on November 18, 1998. The development authorized by the subject permit may NOT begin until the end of the 21-day appeal period, December 09, 1998. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. Other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to the subject permit. If this permit is NOT appealed, this letter constitutes the Department of Ecology's final notification of action on this permit. Sincerely, • r�i-- Alice Kelly, Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program AMK:amk SOP.DOC cc: Jana Huerter, City of Renton CITYOF RE,NTON: CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the ( 1 r�► day of V1 emoev- , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Slnore\tv‘e ?ev-w Wfi documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing k.e t- of E .oto c� WcttoYvldxi GehtV0.i Rta,y\ 1,Vtcsan {3Iac�.r�ver- verk-eiriA tipen 1-Pt1 IA‘,c3n ec e PtavtvntK (Signature of Sender) 52wndvc. K . Sec..%er• STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for fhb uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: !d 13 15 g Y / Notary�Public ih and for' the State of W hington Notary (Print) MARILYN� KAMCHEFF My appointment ex Tres: issstotttotREstgaise Project Name: �ad,..riVer' Cov?or-irC ?ark. Project Number: LUA . 9$ • 0'15 SW -+4 , svY , E - NOTARY.DOC „ ~ CITY kiF RENTON ea• Planning/Building/Public Works Department Greggimmerman P.E. Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor gg November 16, 1998 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave.SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Black River Corporate Park File No. LUA-98-075, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Permit Coordinator: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit I issued by the City of Renton on November 16, 1998. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-C Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 430-7286 if you have any questions or n, additional information. Sincerely, Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant BCSHLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM, ECF DATE RECEIVED: May 8, 1998 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 22, 1998 DATE APPROVED: October 19, 1998 DATE DENIED: Not Applicable TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Royce Berg (LPN Architects) PROJECT: Black River Corporate Park DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to develop a 12.53 acre site will5 buildings, totaling 148,834 s.f. Offices, commercial L e, business service, research and development, assembly ; id related activities are expected to occupy the concrete tilt ip structures. Three of the buildings would be one-story or 20 feet in height, and two of the structures would be two-sto as or 30 feet in height. Surface parking for 597 vehicle: is proposed. Access to the site would be via existing curb c its on Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The pro. ,ct would be phased over 6 years. Approximately 18,000 c.y. of structural fill would be deposited on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetla ,d, 0.07 acres in size, located on the southeast corner of 7e site would be filled, as permitted under City of Ren Dn wetland regulations. Sixteen percent (16%) or 2.04 acre! of the site would be retained as natural area and habitat buf !r. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rook ry are located to the north/northwest of the site. Propo. �d buildings and parking structures would be located a minimum of 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line or Springbrook Creek. A portion of a proposed wetpond we Id be approximately 90 feet from the ordinary high water le No buildings would be located within 500 feet of the clo. st tree in the heron rookery. BRCPSHRL.DOC y:o City of Renton P/B/PW Department noreline Substantial Development PNrmit Black River Corporate Park(LUA-98-075,SA-H, SM,ECF) Page I'of 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment"A" SEC-TWNP-R: Section 24-Township 23 North - Range 4 East WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Springbrook Creek APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 5.04 Urban Environment page 25 6.02.01 Environmental Effects- Pollution & Ecological page 26 Disruption 6.03.01 C Use Compatibility&Aesthetic Effects- Design page 26 Theme 6.06 Landscaping page 27 6.07 Unique and Fragile Areas page 27 7.05 Commercial Developments page 31 7.11.02 Private Parking page 35 7.18.04 Local Service Utilities, Specifications page 44 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures established by the City of Rent m's Environmental Review Committee, as revised by the Hearing Examiner in the Decision d}ited October 19, 1998 (see Attachment "B"). 2. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of Site Plan Approval as stated in the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated October 19, 1998 (see Attachment"C"). This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. 91-)ie �'�e� ., III/6 l qt Planning/pldi ublic Works Administrator Date BRCPSHRL.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development F rmit Black River Corporate Park(LUA-98-075, SA-H, SM,ECF) Page of 3 THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD 'E TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT 1 DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: If Conditional Use, Section of the City's Shoreline Master Program authorizing the use: If Variance, Section(s) of the City's Shoreline Master Program being varied: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 R W. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: Date Signature of Authorized Department Official cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review(Neil Watts) City of Renton, Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka) Applicant BRCPSHRL.DOC \ 4Y17. , , 7 ; . • \ _ ., 1./ L i s.::.,.... . . .... 1 •^,• � \`. b 1 0 c••sr;.c sn.rs.cats �I 3 1b A I. ff •�Ot•VW 1 L —1e <.rt..<. ass I > CC Z ti 4,.snu.—^7- f:/ - . ,CfC.'\a `r l 9.. ' LOT 4 I "nyc'.t, 0 FE EZ fl! ' . • t,/y .. r;1 �;.� N.Lc. �y j ,' cxi (1,2 / ��� �� rG AAA 1. 1 r.: 1Tv of m 7n 7= t , r 1 1 'ENTON r...e r `, I `�. y`.jP T= '� f 1 n0 SPACE a.<( w j��1 A t 1'v , , , G ry Hann/ 1(D w AIM*` /1 `p. �3'�j t'��V, , ' ry 1 `1 �, : N its �� J �L • 1 , �• I�_1f !� �' ^ a f }, $. } a,` tt \ `v ``-` V` zI. ARCHITECTURE .1/ ,. N • ''Q)`d 4 ,S /VVILOT$ v �` k ^` • (04 ono PLANNING y A }y . f , , \ \-'• 1, / I.cM a.0....C.K —*/ •• :4•1 / A.7, •,,,, % /LOT T > ••.,:,:"..,,,:::' ,� - PS /4 �' L'^.MAC ARCA—/—•.„•:• .1 vf 4,.t4y‘4:1/..le,:i t i e,;:A4S,,4\04:. , k,N°T.44/451AS • t ' �▪ `%`. -7 s .,....„,... . RS. Sj'�: il,a.\ ps �.? ��4 `•�0 Cs K`�""0fw" .' 0;A `'.6 i 1 • w aso..►s. o. 4.b. 1 "4 %, `,./¢. �..{i\ rf• J 1� !, ,it, `'4 y�.�.�. pl_yy aKM 1-70-tr I J�t•N 04' ��� rN•/ ego° '' : 2 , TOTAL OUIL04lG AREA�.::.:://////e////IIPp .. pS .V, MOM',t' i 32.500 sr BUILDING'0' : 32.500 SF ` � ��iee,�/6/0 4'1.4I p ee' S: y4• %• Mr Y..2 BUILDING-E' i 2E039 sr \ (-,,.1 _ I�ee "' ��j� p o _``e�`f .,t/ naNKa.1M F.A.R. t.2u SITE PLAN ' 'oat ��, \w 4/ PARKING 597 STALLS n,.Iw Cq�-q�`\' �itI, 0,,/ \ A REGULAR 2.OVERWWC) 4W STALLS 1.•KMM-� - K 2� ��� �, Co4PACT -8'-6-a 16 179 STALLS t\ `, I�.c�., ACCESSIBLE 18 STALLS _zas s•• / a „'�, ,,, PARKING ROO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF vr.r1.NN / tit i\ tic HMTSrt[-Mif1F r, L...., .. — \' / • tort 1 1.,rt I " JOU MI: N•42 aal,w P. .` \/ s,w..arm: 2,.•.•1rtI . sTr .w rwn/ ORM a-se••r D"' W A-2 • SITE PLAN 80' 1 c..co( • . CONCURRENCE DATE " /(r t ft NAME ATE CITY OF RENTON .l-Haniih " ti SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 fila-der "VI PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT �y• HN �� f oicrati SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT �� ot ��16 APPLICATION NO.: LUA-98-075, ECF, SA-H, SM, ECF DATE RECEIVED: May 8, 1998 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 22, 1998 DATE APPROVED: October 19, 1998 DATE DENIED: Not Applicable TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Royce Berg (LPN Architects) PROJECT: Black River Corporate Park DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes to develop a 12.53 acre site wit 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 s.f. Offices, commercial i ;e, business service, research and development, assembly nd related activities are expected to occupy the concrete til up structures. Three of the buildings would be one-story o 20 feet in height, and two of the structures would be two-sto es or 30 feet in height. Surface parking for 597 vehicle is proposed. Access to the site would be via existing curb ( its on Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The pro act would be phased over 6 years. Approximately 18,000 c.y. of structural fill would be deposited on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetlt 0.07 acres in size, located on the southeast corner of he site would be filled, as permitted under City of Rer on wetland regulations. Sixteen percent (16%) or 2.04 acre of the site would be retained as natural area and habitat but ar. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rook 'ry are located to the north/northwest of the site. Propo ed buildings and parking structures would be locatec a minimum of 100 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line or Springbrook Creek. A portion of a proposed wetpond we ild be approximately 90 feet from the ordinary high water ne No buildings would be located within 500 feet of the clo: !st tree in the heron rookery. BRCPSHRL.DOC HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT i AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 19th day of October ,1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. K 6-4.„ Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I -t day of 04• _, 1998. + 9' Notary Public • and for the State of Washington, residing at , herein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Black River Corporate Park- Appeal & Site Plan LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H,SM The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. • October 19, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Friends of the Black River Appeal of ERC's Determination for Black River Corporate Park File No.: LUA98-110,AAD APPLICANT: LPN Architects&Planners Black River Corporate Park,Tract B File No.: LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To develop 12.53 acre site with five buildings totaling 148,8:'4 square feet. SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Request additional mitigation measures be imposed by ERC PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examine- conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the September 1, 1998 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 1, 1998,at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Aerial photograph(appellant) proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Aerial photograph with concentric Exhibit No. 4: Overlay of old and new site plans circles Exhibit No.5: Cross-section Exhibit No. 6: 1986 Master Plan Exhibit No. 7: Memorandum of Agreement Exhibit No.8: 1998 Master Plan Exhibit No.9: Heron colony nest locations Exhibit No. 10: Aerial photograph dated 9/97 Exhibit No. 11: Island diagram Exhibit No. 12: Tree location map Exhibit No. 13: Dr. Raedeke Resume Exhibit No. 14: Great Blue Heron Assessment Exhibit No. 15: Carlson&McLean 1996 Study Exhibit No. 16: Colony life graph Exhibit No. 17: Five pages of photographs Exhibit No. 18: Photo of nests Black River Corporate Park - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 2 Parties present: Representing Friends of the Black River Jerry Holmes 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98055 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Representing Black River Corporate Park Amy Kosterlitz 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Jennifer Henning, Project Manager, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, stated that the site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City of Renton on an undeveloped 12.5 acre parcel. The site is surrounded by the King County Metro Regional Wastewater Treatment facility on the southwest, office buildings on the east, and permanent open space of approximately 120 acres to the north and northwest of the site. A portion of the open space consists of the City's flood control project. The proposal is for the development of five one and two-story structures totaling 148,834 square feet. There is a .07 acre Category 3 wetland located on the southeast portion of the site which would be filled in. Other wetland areas on site would be preserved. There is a heron rookery located on an island in the P-1 basin and in the riparian forest to the north of the site in the City's open space. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street, using existing curb cuts. Surface parking of approximately 600 stalls is provided. The buildings would be tilt-up concrete structures of 20 to 30 feet in height. There would be no drilling for their construction. Non-glare glass or tinted glass would be used. The lighting proposed on the site would be focused and directed to prevent spill-over onto adjacent sites. Minimum separation between the nearest building and the heron rookery is at least 540 feet. There is a wetpond being constructed for water quality purposes which would be within 500 feet of the heron rookery. A total of 31 trees would be cleared from the site. Split-rail fencing will be installed along the east boundary to define the wetland buffer edge. Chain link fencing will be installed along the wetpond area on the north portion of the site to prevent human intrusion. Extensive landscaping is also proposed. About 70 percent of the developed area and 58 percent of the total site would be covered with impervious surface. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 3 The ERC did not impose any additional setbacks or limit site construction to specific times of the year because the heron rookery is large and thriving. The land uses in the surrounding area include quarry blasting, concrete recycling, regional waste treatment plant,building construction, a railroad,vehicle traffic, and recreational trail Several previous environmental studies and mitigation measures were included in this project. Because of tl---is few mitigation measure were placed on the project. The tract for this project had a previous site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner in January 1992. A Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)was approved by the City of Renton,citizen and environmental groups, and the owner. The previously approved plan also included an adjacent tract which has since been purchase by the City of Renton as permanent open space. Discussion was held among the parties regarding the applicability of the prior Memorandum of Agreement. The Hearing Examiner concluded that he did not have the jurisdiction to determine its applicability and that the only thing under review at this time is the current site plan. The new site plan recognizes physical changes in the site over the last seven years and includes the maturing of trees that were planted earlier. The trees now range in height from 72 feet to 126 feet. Jerry Holmes spoke on behalf of appellants. He explained activities of appellants such as flora and fauna surveys, removal of non-invasive plant species,planting of native plants, installation of bird houses and conducting field trips. This heron colony is the largest in King County and several hundred people a year vie.v its activities. There is great concern over the impact of this proposal on the colony. He cited portions of the City's environmental ordinance relating to responsibility of the City. Appellants believe ERC should have required two additional mitigation measures for this project. First,to extend the buffer from the heron colon, to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The buffer should be measured from the nearest nest,not the center of the island. Second,that applicant should limit the time for all heavy construction on the entire project from June 15 to January 15. This limitation is necessary in order to protect the colony from serious disturbance during the heron breeding season. He cited other projects in King County which were placed under construction time limits in order to protect bird species. The State of Washington places similar restrictions 4:n developments near bald eagle nests. Mr. Holmes reviewed the environmental check list,visual assessment of the heron colony,the tree height screening report and the ERC staff report, and cited what appellants felt were flaws in those documents. Donald Norman,2112 NW 199th, Shoreline, Washington 98177, stated his credentials as a wildlife biologist. He first visited the subject site in 1988 and as recently as yesterday. He confirmed mitigation measures appellant is requesting, and stated it is standard practice to enforce timing restrictions. Indications are that herons arrive at the site as early as late December and the early January restriction is warranted. There are still herons just barely ready to fledge on the nest now, but the majority are but of the colony by the end of July. The issue of disturbance which is underlying the distance from the colony has been brought up in many other instances of development. Dr.Norman disagreed with the information presented by the ERC regarding item; such as visual flight patterns of the herons,the visual barrier in March from the site to the heron colony, majority of nesting from the island rather than in the riparian forest. He explained the relationship of existinlr, development and when herons move into an area, as opposed to when there is an existing colony and development then comes in. Black River Corporate Park • Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 4 He further responded that this colony is flourishing and appears to have been able to withstand large amounts of bald eagle predation which is devastating other colonies in the region. Because of that this colony may have larger regional significance than the other colonies in the area. In 1991 the colony was abandoned because of bald eagle predation but has since come back. People shooting herons and trees being harvested nearby have caused other colonies to be abandoned. Some species of trees are more susceptible to degradation over time by the herons and loss of trees may cause abandonment also. He also stated that the additional tree height from the early 1990's is not a significant factor as trees are expected to grow. The longevity of the existing Lombardy poplars is unknown, but they will probably need to be trimmed or come down to protect buildings in wind storms as they are not native trees. Dee Boersma, 311 S King Street, Seattle, Washington 98144, stated her credentials as a zoologist and ornithologist. Her main concern in this proceeding is conservation biology. Habitat is being lost as the last of the undeveloped land is being developed, particularly in urban areas. The studies that were done 5 to 7 years ago may not be relevant, and this particular area has actually become richer during that time and more important because of the losses. She stated that scientists cannot tell exactly how close one can go without losing the rookery. If the developers are convinced that there will be no harm to this colony, she suggested they bear the cost of restoring it, not the public. Kate Stenberg, King County Wildlife Program, 810 Third Avenue, #350, Seattle, Washington 98104, stated her credentials in wildlife management and land use planning. She explained that the herons are an interjurisdictional issue because although these herons live in Renton,they feed in habitats in King County and are enjoyed by King County residents. There are several large heronries which have disappeared in recent years and no corresponding increase in the existing rookeries. She discussed a Kenmore rookery regarding development limits and its nearby fire station, police station and park& ride lot noises. She stated that the herons moved in with the developments already in place, as opposed to development after a rookery is established. Seasonal construction limits are a standard practice in King County and they are in place mainly for noise disturbance. A City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policy states that the City shall identify unique and significant wildlife habitat as defined by Washington State Habitat& Species Project and ensure that buildings, roads and other features are located on less sensitive portions of the site. This policy refers to the priority species listing that the State of Washington has put together and the great blue heron is listed as a priority species. Robert Butler, 824 Ladimer Street,New Westminster,British Columbia B3L4W4, stated his credentials as a biologist and ornithologist. He explained that the great blue heron resides here in Puget Sound and western Washington and along the coast to the southern coast of Alaska, and it is estimated there are 9000 of this species. In Canada in 1997 this species was given federal jurisdiction as an endangered species,or a vulnerable species. It is based on the decline of the great blue heron in British Columbia, or an annual decline of 5%. Heron colonies have also disappeared in recent years. He cited instances where because of construction noises the colonies were abandoned. He further stated it is important to move the construction time level in order to minimize the uncertainty on the abandonment of the colony. Ted Mallory, 7524 S. 135th, Seattle, Washington, 98178, stated that he is located one mile north of the rookery and has a spotting scope in the window where he has watched herons on a daily basis for the past 10 years. He felt that construction timing should really not be a significant impact on developer as he has from July to . Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 5 January for six years to construct, and that the developer could develop the buildings farthest away first,with the closest buildings being built during the restricted construction time. Chris Peterson, 8050 35th Avenue NE, Seattle, Washington 98115,director of Seattle Audubon Society, cites: a large store in north Seattle which recently had been abandoned and which had been a lively area of woods ane wetlands. Now there is only a small,neglected wetland with a large empty store and parking lot. Questioned if that could happen at Black River Corporate Park,and that the land and the species it supports would end up paying the cost. The health of the land and the welfare of future generations of humans and animals who will live here should be considered. Helen Ross, 8050 35th Avenue NE, Seattle, Washington 98115, conservation coordinator for Seattle Audubon Society, was an original signer of MOA and it is their position that the terms of the MOA are still in effect ev;;n though the Hearing Examiner will not be ruling on the MOA as it relates to this application. She stated that setback distances and construction seasons still must be applied to this project. Ed Newbold,4972 17th Avenue S, Seattle,Washington 98108, stated that as a wildlife artist he receives man;, requests for herons in the landscape because it is such a signature bird in the northwest. He stated it makes sense to measure the distance from the closest nesting tree to the construction site. Larry Warren, appearing on behalf of the City of Renton,gave a history of the City's participation in the earl lox MOA and the City's interest in this area. He stated that SEPA is only one area of policy that the City has to consider. Development,tax and other policies must be balanced with SEPA. Based on all information given o it,the ERC then makes a determination. Further consideration must be given to the law as respects SEPA and what mitigation conditions can be imposed by the City. Amy Kosterlitz,attorney for applicant herein, stated that the applicant believes it has gone more than half wa' and more than City policies require in contributing open space and riparian habitat for the heron. Applicant believes that the best available science for protection of the heron rookery will demonstrate that the ERC's decision was correct. Also, ERC did not err in its decision based on the City's CP which has designated this area as an employment area. Applicant has also followed the policy that says"encourage the preservation and enlargement of existing habitat areas through development incentives". Royce Berg, LPN Architects, 1535 Fourth Avenue S, Suite D, Seattle,Washington 98134, applicant representative herein, described the site plan as proposed and compared it to earlier site plan to show changes in growth of vegetation and down-sizing of original project. Explained the timing and construction techniques required for the construction phases. Theresa Hanson, P.O. Box 7208,Tacoma, Washington 98407,testified on behalf of the applicant. As the natural resource ecologist for this project, she visited the site in early spring to look at screening between the rookery and the development site. In 1986 applicant planted hundreds of poplars and conifer trees. In addition there are naturally growing alder and black cottonwood trees on the site. Her review was completed in Mardi 1998 and was prior to trees leafing out so that herons were present and visible during nesting season. Stated that only visual corridor to the herons as you walk across site or along the existing sidewalk on southwestern boundary of site is a 30 foot gap in the trees. Returned to site in July and trees are no longer visible on Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 6 sidewalk or along visual corridor near building B because of tree growth. There will be additional trees planted in the wetpond areas for further visual buffering. Ken Raedeke, 5711 NE 63rd, Seattle, Washington 98115,testified on behalf of the applicant. He listed his credentials as a wildlife biologist. He described the regulatory status regarding great blue heron, stating that it is a protected non-game species in Washington and is also a priority habitat species under a criteria during its vulnerable breeding time. It is protected from hunting and any other forms of direct harm and it is illegal to knowingly destroy an active heron nest. Washington Department of Fish& Wildlife has no authority to regulate it in other than the specific protection of the animal. He described current status of heron in the Puget Sound region and in Canada. He stated that U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service recently reported that the number of confirmed nest sites for the great blue heron was 21 and two probable colonies and 63 additional probable colonies in King County. Much speculation as to why this number is increasing. Cited studies that it is not the width of the buffer as much as the conditions such as vegetative screening, and that the herons can habituate to disturbance and do well next to developments. Concluded that the 500 foot buffer was more than adequate, based on data presented. It is substantially the same that was previously agreed to and approved by the Department of Wildlife. The buffer is essentially what is there now and the colony is highly habituated to human disturbance. Regarding the construction time restriction, it has been observed that when an adequate buffer is provided,that limitation on construction time is not needed. Trudy Thomas. 2350 Eaglemont Road,Port Townsend, Washington 98368, one of the appellants herein, questioned Dr. Raedeke regarding the nest locations of this particular rookery and his monitoring of such. On cross-examination by Mr. Malphrus, Dr.Raedeke responded regarding the number of abandoned nests in Puget Sound and some of the reasons given for the abandonment. Suzanne Krom,4715-1/2 36th Avenue SW, Seattle, Washington 98126, a representative for Citizens for Renton Wildlife's Preservation, stated it is their position that the MOA still applies to this project. They further support the protections for the heron colony as previously testified to, specifically to impose the construction season limit from January 15 to July 31, and the buffer at 660 feet or as recommended by the experts. Ms. Krom further stated that she has been monitoring this colony closely for nine years and introduced a photograph taken of the main colony in March 1998 showing the density of nests. From her observation over the years, she believes 90 to 95 percent of the herons nest on the island,not in the riparian forest. Bruce Harpham, 2518 S 361st Street,Federal Way,Washington 98003, president of Rainier Audubon Society, stated that he is not a scientist,but a citizen activist concerned with future generations. He was frustrated that the City and applicant were joined together and that citizens were the adversaries. Also pointed out that the money spent on protecting these sites was not only from the City of Renton, but also from King County residents, making this a regional issue. - Dr. Butler reiterated appellants' position that the new noises from the construction should be phased such that it has little or no impact on the colony. The size and possible significance of the colony warrants timing and buffer constraints. • Black River Corporate Park • Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-1 10,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 7 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. Closing arguments were to be presented to the Examiner in written form by all parties. The hearing closed a 5:05 p.m. MINUTES: SITE PLAN The following minutes are a summary of the September 29, 1998 site plan hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, September 29, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the site plan: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood detail map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site plan Exhibit No.4: Landscape plan Exhibit No. 5: Zoning map Exhibit No.6: Elevation Drawing- Building A Exhibit No. 7: Elevation Drawing- Buildings B&C Exhibit No.8: Elevation Drawing- Building D Exhibit No. 9: Elevation Drawing- Building E The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING, Project Manager, Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The project site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City on a currently undeveloped 12.5 acre site which is comprised of three parcels, Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the former Tract B of the Black River Corporate Park. Surrounding the site is the King County Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant on the southwest, office buildings on the east,open space to the north,a portion of which is the P-1 detention pond for flood control. The site is zoned Commercial Office(CO)and is designated Employment Area Valley in the Comprehensive Plan(CP). The site is bounded by Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 7th Street and Naches Avenue. This proposal consists of five structures totaling 148,834 square feet constructed of tilt-up concrete panels with tinted glass. Three of the structures would be one story in height and two would be two stories. The ultimate use for these structures is intended to be commercial office,business service, research and development, assembly and related activities as allowed in the zone. Access to the site is from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. There are existing curb cuts from both streets. Perimeter surface parking is proposed for 597 vehicles. There are adequate public services and utilities to serve this site. ' f Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H -October 19, 1998 Page 8 The construction is scheduled to occur in three phases over a six-year period. The applicant is requesting a two year extension of the six-year phasing plan if they can show substantial progress and can show good cause. In the first two-year period a minimum of one building would be constructed. The second phase includes commencement of 3 of the 5 buildings. Phase three includes the six year period and all the buildings could be built. There is a 0.07 acre Category III wetland on the southeast portion which would be filled under the proposal. There are two Category II wetlands adjacent to the site which require buffering setbacks and fencing. There is a heron rookery located to the north/northwest of the site in the P-1 basin and riparian forest in the City of Renton open space. The northwest facade of designated Building C would be located approximately 540 feet from the nearest tree in the heron rookery. Building B in the north central portion of the site would be located approximately 605 feet, and the north corner of Building A would be located approximately 740 feet from the nearest tree in the rookery. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated. There were many mitigation measures inherent in the project. There has been much public comment on this project as well as a SEPA appeal filed and heard previously. A mitigation measure required by the ERC was lighting in the parking area is to be focused and directed to prevent glare or spill-over light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. This proposal meets the Employment Area Valley CP policies pertaining to public access to public areas and shorelines. There will be physical restrictions to the wetlands through split rail and chain link fencing, plantings and a wetpond system. Approximately 16 percent of this site would remain undeveloped and would be natural area habitat buffer. This proposal is compatible with the CP and zoning policies regarding office park development in this area. It meets the code setback requirements,as well as those for height and lot coverage, landscaping and pedestrian connections. The proposed 597 parking stalls is within the range required. Joint use parking is also achieved in this proposal. About 70 percent of the developable area of the site and 58 percent of the overall site would be covered with impervious surface. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to establish a native growth protection easement at the north corner of the site. This would extend from the north edge of the wetpond north to the property corner and would include the habitat buffer area. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to two conditions: (1)comply with ERC mitigation measures for fire mitigation fee and site lighting; and(2)establish a native growth protection easement extending from the north edge of the wetpond,north to and including the habitat buffer area. The only disturbance to be allowed in this area would be deposit of dead and downed material from other portions of the site to enhance the wildlife habitat,or any routine maintenance that is needed to access the wetpond. Amy Kosterlitz, Suite 902, Waterfront Place, 1011 Western Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98144, applicant attorney herein, expressed her concern that this hearing be limited only to the site plan and not ground already covered by the SEPA appeal hearing. She further stated that it is the applicant's intention, if this site plan is approved as proposed,to go with the current site plan approval rather than a prior site plan approval. Royce Berg, LPN Architects, 1535 4th Avenue S,#D, Seattle, Washington 98134, applicant architect, stated that CC&R's were recorded with the short plat for mutual access, egress, utility easements and maintenance of Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 9 the wetpond area. The buildings have been located on a fill area which came out of the excavated P-1 channel. All perimeter trees on the site will be left,with only those in the center being removed. The phasing of the buildings relates to marketability and at this point it is not possible to know when and which buildings will be first. The construction schedule is also difficult to anticipate,with the possibility that it may take from 10 to 2 months for total construction time. He further stated that they are proposing to take the outfall for the wetpond to the north because it goes into a drainage swale that runs east and west and ties up to other adjacent properties. Harold Hagenson, 2009 Minor Avenue East, Seattle, Washington 98102, civil engineer for applicant herein, described the wetpond and the overall drainage plan. The volume of the wetpond itself is about two and a hah times as large as required under the current drainage code. The wetpond will have generally about 3 to 5 feet 3f standing water in it throughout the year. The concept is that as water from the first flush storms,which typically carry the greatest loads of pollution,pass into the wetpond,the large volume of water acts as a settling pond so that the sediments and pollution generally will fall out in the bottom of the pond. There are also some very natural aquatic flora which will be planted around the perimeter of the pond which will reduce some of the other heavy metals that will be generated from the parking lot area. The discharge from the pond will be directly to the P-1 channel via a facility to the north. Detention is provided by means of compensation off-site. Lauchlin Bethune, 19428 66th Avenue S,#Q-106, Kent, Washington 98032, landscape architect for applicant herein, described the types of landscaping for the site. Ornamental landscape around the buildings will be done in traditional methods with irrigation and soil and maintained in traditional methods. Existing street trees alot g Oakesdale and 7th will be maintained. The remainder of the site perimeter will be environmentally constructed to include no mulches, no fertilizers and no pesticides, and thus no maintenance practices. Inside this perimeter there is about a 10 foot landscape buffer which will be densely planted with conifers, deciduou trees and thorny shrubs and trees. Around the wetpond there will be a cyclone fence to eliminate pedestrian traffic. The wetpond will be planted with native vegetation. Further dense landscaping will be placed along t!ie back northern part of the site to screen the rookery. The existing habitat debris piles that were left from the original land clearing will also remain. There was discussion regarding efforts to prevent fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides from entering the wetpond. It was generally agreed that there is no practical technology to remove pesticides and herbicides from the stream. Kate Stenberg, King County Wildlife Program, 810 Third Avenue,#350, Seattle, Washington 98104, stated that she supported the lower building heights, as well as the additional conifers to be planted. Regarding the shielded lighting, she suggested that the building lighting be included as well as the parking lots. She further stated that the fencing should be extended along the north,west and east sides of the site. The planned picnic areas should also be fenced to prevent people from extending into the open space and habitat areas. She also recommended that native plants be used as much as possible throughout the site. Estella Leopold, 5608 17th Avenue NE, Seattle, Washington 98105, gave her credentials as a botanist. She stated her concern that the buffer between Building C and Wetland 1 as planned at 30 feet is not sufficient ane: is not permitted by the Forest Practices Act. With this development there will be maintenance of formal landscapes with pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers, and the 30 foot buffer will not be sufficient to protect the wetland from pollution. She also pointed out that in the urban area of Greater Seattle this is the largest grove Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 10 of mature cottonwoods remaining. Big groves are needed because of the possible destruction by herons over the long term. (The preceding testimony by Ms. Leopold was given at the 9/1/98 appeal hearing, but was intended for the site plan portion of the proceedings.) The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:20 a.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & DECISION 1. The appellant, Friends of Black River, represented by Tom Malphrus, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS-M) issued for a proposed development located at the northwest corner of the City adjacent to a heron rookery. The DNS-M was issued for a Site Plan,the City's public review process for projects of a certain size. Friends of Black River(hereinafter appellant) is a group of individuals interested in preserving the riparian forest and its breeding, resident heron colony located on City-owned property north or northwest of the subject site. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner on July 6, 1998. The subject proposal was subjected to the City's ordinary SEPA review process. The City has a three-person body,the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)which serves as its "responsible official" for making environmental determinations. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued its original Determination of Significance- Mitigated for the project on June 16, 1998. During the review process the City determined that certain conditions should be imposed as mitigation. Those conditions are not at issue. Instead the appellants have challenged the DNS-M alleging that additional conditions are required to preserve the heron rookery adjacent to the subject site. 3. The hearing was originally scheduled for July 14, 1998 but the underlying applicant asked for additional time to respond to the appeal issues and assemble witnesses. 4. The underlying proposal,the Site Plan Approval Permit, would allow phased development of the applicant's site with five(5)buildings. The phases were not defined other than suggesting a certain number of buildings would be erected over the next eight years,but the order of construction remains undetermined. 5. The subject site is approximately 12.53 acres in area. The site is a generally level, irregularly shaped parcel. The applicant proposes erecting five buildings. Three buildings will be one story while the other two buildings would be two stories. There will be surface parking around the buildings for 597 parking stalls. 6. A wetpond system will be installed at the northwest corner of the site. It will be maintained only infrequently. The wetpond will be bound on the north or northwest by habitat buffer area. This buffer area will also continue around the north side of the site. Natural and planted vegetation is located along the western and northwest margin of the site. Some of these trees were planted in the last several years to screen the subject site from the heron rookery. These trees are predominantly deciduous trees and predominantly located on the western boundary of the site. The "line of trees" as it is identified in many contexts is a row of Lombardy poplars located along the westernmost boundary of the property. Conifers are located slightly east of it. • Black River Corporate Park • Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 11 7. The appellants are most concerned with the heron rookery which is located generally north of the subject site. The heron rookery is mainly concentrated in trees located north of Proposed Building B, .i building located in the center of the western portion of the subject site. It appears that the heron have concentrated nest building in a few of the trees located on an island in what is commonly called the P-l forebay pond. Other nests are located off the island in a riparian forest that arcs around the north side of the island stretching east to west. Most of the heron are concentrated on the island and in trees directly north of the island. 8. The appeal raises two issues. It states: "We believe the ERC in issuing its Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated should have required the following additional mitigation measures: The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The setback is necessary in order to decrease the risk of abandonment of the heron colony. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The applicant shall limit all heavy construction on the project to a period from June 15 to January 15. The limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during the heron-breeding season. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). 9. The appeal goes on: "The ERC addresses these measures in their staff report and determines that these mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the Black River Heron Colony. However,the ERC provides no scientific evidence to support their claim. We will provide expert testimony in support of these mitigation measures." 10. It would appear that the ERC based their decision on the existing vegetative screening and not any conclusive scientific evidence that they had before them. "In addition, vegetative screening that has been planted in the last several years has matured and creates a barrier between the location of the 20-to 30-foot high proposed buildings,preventing spill-over light from penetrating the rookery." "The heron rookery is surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest, and is separated from the site by a drainage channel,and dense tree cover including cottonwood, alder trees, and a row of Lombardy poplar(Populas nigra)trees. A Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting(March 1998) is provided as part of the project application. According to the report, sight lines from the proposed buildings to the heron rookery would be limited, and the rookery would be visible only from Building B,through a 30-foot wide 'gap' created by shorter trees. Proposed Building B would be two-stories in height(approximately 28 feet tall)and would be located directly in line and south of the heron rookery. The proposed structure would block views to the rookery from all of the other proposed buildings on Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 12 the site. Available views to the heron rookery from Building B are expected to be reduced each year over the next six years,as the shorter alder and cottonwood trees increase in height, and block the gap." "Establishing time periods for the use of heavy equipment for the entire site for outside of the time period from January 15th through June 30th is not supported. The MOA applying to the previous approved project established a specific construction zone (within a 700 foot radius of the heron rookery)and time period(January 15th through June 15th). Since the time the MOA was approved by all parties, site conditions have changed, substantial vegetation has been planted and has matured. This vegetation provides a significant visual and physical barrier benefiting the heronry. Vegetation provides for noise deflection and absorption. In addition,the ambient noise in the area of the project site includes industrial operations(Metro Treatment Plant), concrete recycling,truck and vehicular traffic, quarrying, railroad operation, construction of warehouses, bridges and road improvements. Additional noise impacts from construction of the proposal would be short-term in nature, and would not require mitigation. Only the construction of about one-half of the area of the wetponds and a small area(less than 500 square feet)of the circulation drive on the north side of Building C would occur within the 500-foot radius of the heronry. Existing and proposed natural vegetative buffers, dead and downed material(stumps, etc.), ornamental landscaping, and wetponds would preclude human intrusion into the heronry. No further mitigation would be required." 11. The City owns approximately 100 acres of open space north, east and west of the subject site. It acquired portions of the property by dedication from the applicant as well as by purchasing tracts from the applicant. Its most recent acquisition is of some wetland acreage north and east of the subject site. The applicant and City allege that this acreage was sold below cost but no evidence was submitted supporting this. The City suggests that the transfers should be considered as part of past mitigation. Some transfers did offset storm drainage detention requirements. 12. The heronry appears to have between 50 to 70 nesting pairs. It is considered the largest heronry in King County. 13. The heron engage in a behavior pattern that begins around the middle of January and ends the middle of July. This behavior includes courtship,mating, nest building,egg laying,hatching and fledging of the young. Time periods vary from year to year with the birds arriving earlier some years and fledging later in others. This year fledging was apparently still occurring in August. 14. The applicant proposes using auger cast pile installation to reduce the noise that might be associated with construction. The tilt-up construction is also relatively quiet. The construction period includes 3- month preload and surcharge to settle the soils for foundation work,then 7 to 9 months for construction. - 15. Buildings range from approximately 540 feet from the rookery to about 900 feet. The wetpond,the closest of the man-made features and construction alterations,would be just under 500 feet. 16. Approximately 31 trees would be cleared. Some woody construction debris would be placed north of the wetpond for habitat enhancement. . Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 13 17. Some of the activities that occur or have occurred in the area are blasting at a quarry northwest of the heronry,the Metro plant expansion, concrete recycling center northwest of the site,the construction of Naches Avenue,the operation of the railroad and the bird watchers visiting the trail. Most, if not all, of these sources are more than 1,000 feet from the heronry. 18. Both the appellants and the City with the applicant presented expert witnesses. The nature of the presentations differed but both sides demonstrated points that favored their respective positions. Heron flushed. Heron did not flush. Nests were abandoned,nests were not abandoned. Habitual loud noise, don't necessarily affect the birds. Noises that are out of the normal course of events affect the birds. The birds abandon eggs. The birds don't abandon nests further into the nesting season. The studies relied on by both parties show flushing varied in different studies. Different events did or did not cause flushing. Some nest sites have been abandoned. It appears that conclusions for the reasons for such abandonment fall on both natural abandonment and some form of adverse external force. The applicant's expert draws some conclusions about causes or casts doubt on supposed causes but there is no evidence of what did or did not cause some abandonment other than his stated theories. 19. The issue of whether the heron eventually or naturally destroy their nesting tree or trees and how soon it may occur is not relevant at this time. 20. A review of the number of heron colonies in King County which shows them increasing demonstrates the absolute change is small, although the number of heron might be increasing. The number of colonies increased in the last 10 years from approximately 7 colonies to 10 colonies, a change of 3. 21. The heron are classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a "priority species" du to their "vulnerable aggregations." This means that since they tend to nest together, any danger to a colony could mean a loss of a number of birds rather than just a nesting pair. 22. A review of the record bears out the fact that the ERC did not have evidence of the nature provided at the appeal hearing. The ERC had the applicant's application which included the Environmental Checklist, a Visual Assessment Heron Rookery(flight pattern study)and a Tree Height Screening Report(tree height study). Neither addresses any of the issues of heron sensitivity to disturbance. Nc particular evidence regarding heron behavior was submitted which supports the ERC's decision. The tree study indirectly deals with visual intrusions. 23. As noted,most of the evidence submitted at the hearing was not available when the ERC held its review. 24. The conclusions drawn that colonies successfully nested even after flushing don't demonstrate how they would react to repeated exposure to intrusions that caused flushing. It merely shows that flushing occurred,the distances it occurred. It does not say if flushing behaviors or noises continued, say for an entire construction season, day after day,that nesting would not be affected. 25. The scientists or experts most directly involved in heron studies and behavior appear to reach different conclusions than the applicant's expert who only peripherally studies bird or heron behaviors. His review was more of an analysis of past studies and making an assessment based on re-reading those studies and doing a risk assessment on the chance for the colony thriving. There is no way to tell if the literature review was thorough,but some reports of heron behavior were apparently omitted. In any event, as noted the science is still in its infancy and disparate conclusions are certainly possible. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 14 26. The following is an excerpt from the "Limitations" section of the applicant's expert's report: "The determination of ecological system classifications, functions,values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities." 27. There is a heron rookery in the vicinity of the Whidbey Island Naval Station where the heron apparently are not affected by the jet planes,but do flush when humans are moving or visible. The record does not establish if the herons adopted the site after the jet noises were established. 28. King County observes a window until July 31 for certain activities around the Kenmore heron rookery. 29. Construction windows are employed around eagle and redtail hawk nests and recently near an osprey nest. Similar construction windows are observed routinely for salmon spawning waters. 30. The ERC failed to note that heron are an indicator species and that the State has suggested guidelines including buffer distances and construction windows. 31. The one-day flight study conducted in 1997 is not representative of daily activity at the site but states that heron don't fly over Tract B. Other witnesses report the heron do fly over the tract. 32. Cottonwoods do not leaf out until early April and therefore do not provide a visual screen during the earlier phases of nesting. In March the heron were visible from the site even through the trees. The flight pattern is not necessarily relevant to their nesting or disturbance. Most of the nests are on the island and not well screened in the further removed riparian woods. A thin row of trees and those with no leaves provide little noise insulation. 33. The poplars at the southern end of the western property line vary between 72 and 81 feet tall. They are between 78 and 90 feet in the central western section and about 80 feet in the northern portion of the western section. Conifers exist east of these trees but they begin after a gap. There is a 30 foot gap in the tree buffer that provides a line of sight view from the island trees to the northwest corner of Building B and the southeast corner of Building A. Building B would block Building A if it were constructed first. This "tree height report" notes that trees are dynamic and both grow and fall. 34. The heron have been observed flushing or moving away when large groups of people are out on the trail observing them. The trail is over 500 feet away. The heron will establish their own "personal space" and flush if it appears violated. In some situations heron will set up a colony in an urban area in which disturbances already exist. They can become habituated to the existing "urban" noises and conditions. Because in the past this colony has not been pushed by close-in urban factors,their acclimatization during January through July is speculative. No one can assess their behavior with surety. It appears that reactions may be more a factor of the change in types of noise disturbances- new or novel noises to which they have not been accustomed which might cause the flushing behavior (bulldozers,etc.). 35. Some studies have shown that heron may not always abandon a colony site but their reproductive productivity has declined. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 15 36. Unlike applicant's expert, most of the other experts admitted no one knows how close activity could occur or what windows are necessary and what the reaction of the heron would be. This seems more realistic an assessment than a conclusion(based on risk assessment)that there is a 100%chance of the heronry thriving if there is a 450 foot buffer. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the ERC,the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is reversed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test i less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DN A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason as a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 27 ). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. II (2) Significance involves context and intensity. . .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. . . The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782) Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 16 6. It appears that the study of heron behavior is of relatively recent origin. A review of the record seems to demonstrate a certain lack of consistency on the part of the heron in their reaction to noises or disturbance at differing distances. But why should more be expected. They are birds, wildlife, and they don't necessarily react in ways which can be predicted. It is not as if one could sit down with them and discuss the proposed changes to their locale. One cannot suggest to them that unlike the eagle attacks, these changes in the nearby open space and fields and new noises and intrusions are not intended to be provocative or predatory. 7. It appears that in drafting the original MOA,the parties attempted to use the best science in regards to protecting the heronry from impacts. It also appears that the MOA was an attempt by the parties to reach a reasonable,balanced accord that would permit development while attempting with best guesses, to limit impacts to the heron. 8. It is not clear that the science has changed since the drafting of the MOA as that there seems to be one differing interpretation. We are still dealing with flighty birds and no one is entirely certain what ruffles their feathers. It would appear that during certain stages such as courtship they may not put up with the types of disturbances associated with construction. 9. As for the guiding science to use, there are established guidelines that apparently are used by the county, the state and federal governments. It also appears to be the standard used internationally. It was arrived at after a variety of studies. It was now challenged at this hearing as based on either flawed or anecdotal studies. The science may be wrong,but one hearing in the City of Renton cannot set aside what it seems that a consensus of experts have suggested is best. In any event the science that was good enough to solidify a meeting of the minds the last time(in the Memorandum of Agreement) is the science that seems appropriate this time,too. 10. Pains were taken to demonstrate that the City was not only attempting to protect the heron by purchasing the acreage almost surrounding the subject site, but also the unique riparian ecosystem. The land and trees would also serve to shelter the heron in the future if the island trees or other pressures forced them northward. But it appears the main thrust,effort and expenditure was directed at preserving the heron. In order to not thwart those efforts,taking some additional precautions would not be unreasonable. 11. For the ERC to totally ignore both seasonable constraints and buffer zones shows that they did not fully consider their actions. While experts may have reached differing conclusions or recommendations at the public hearing,the ERC was not privy to these scientific discussions and differences when they made their decision. The ERC made it based on a vegetative screening which does not buffer sound very effectively and one currently comprised mainly of deciduous trees which are bare for a good portion of the mating and early nesting period. The ERC also looked at the less intense development pattern now proposed. Less intense development does not avoid the construction disturbances and the loss of vegetative cover over approximately 13 acres immediately in the vicinity of the rookery. The ERC even referenced the MOA in declining to impose a construction window. The science in the MOA and record developed previously showed buffers and seasonal windows were appropriate. 12. The ERC decision was clearly erroneous given the record they had when they made their decision. State agencies,county agencies, federal and even Canadian agencies all appeared to have reasoned that both buffers and seasonal construction were not only appropriate science but necessary if the heron were to be protected in some measure. _ Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 17 13. After reviewing the record developed as a result of the appeal, one substantially more complete than existed during the ERC review,this office is left with a split decision. It would appear that while the buffers proposed may not be perfect(if perfection could even be defined in the face of uncertainty), they are or approach adequate. It appears that the current development does approximate the distances of the previously agreed to plan. 14. This office, however, is left with the firm conviction that not respecting a seasonal construction window is clearly erroneous. If anything,the appeal record reinforces the view that in order to best protect this public resource,the best guesses that science can make are to again observe the seasonal window. As noted a number of times, such windows are now a standard construction practice when working in environmentally sensitive locales. Such windows are observed all of the time when working in and around salmon spawning creeks and rivers. Such windows are observed in areas whe re osprey and redtailed hawks and eagles are nesting. 15. Not only are there construction windows observed for eagles, hawks and salmon, but the City and the applicant's predecessor in interest observed a construction window for just this colony of heron when the original site plan was adopted. As a matter of fact, such a window will be observed if the current plan is rejected by either the City or the applicant and if the prior plan is still valid, as that earlier plan would be bound, presumably, by the MOA(see below). 16. There seems to be some emphasis on the prior and even recent actions of the applicant to sell or dedicate land as possibly a measure of environmental mitigation. There is even passing reference that the City "agreed to give an unquantified credit for mitigation for a later development project." This appears to miss the point-what is the impact of this development. If the selling of land or the dedication of land does not prevent environmental impacts, it is not necessarily appropriate mitigation. Any discussion of loss of development potential of land that was sold or dedicated appears irrelevant The applicant sold land and realized a return and there is no evidence whether it gained, lost or came out neutral on such exchanges. The amount of land dedicated and purchased clearly is significant, but if the impacts of this current proposed development continue(such as noise of construction),then mitigation beyond the dedications are necessary. In arriving at the current proposal,additional lands generally at the northeast margin of the site were sold to the City. While again commendable,those lands are not really in a location to limit construction noises and visual disturbances to the rookery from most of the remaining site. The question again remains: what are the impacts of this proposal on the environment and did the ERC appropriately consider the impacts and impose appropriate mitigation. 17. As much as possible,this review was to be focused on the current proposal. It seems that all of the parties want to hearken back to the prior proposal. The ERC clearly compared the earlier proposal in deciding that this one had substantially diminished impacts. The applicant's closing argument notes that again and notes their witness testified to the substantial reduction. The fact is that some of the impacts might be reduced,but construction noise will still occur,albeit on smaller buildings but those noises will still occur. 18. The vegetative screen relied on by the ERC is mostly deciduous,meaning bare branches during the beginning of the courtship,mating period and early nesting period. The record states "vegetation provides for noise deflection and absorption" without demonstrating that fact. Studies have shown that vegetation, unless incredibly dense,has very limited noise attenuating characteristics. Leaves will be off the trees and the screening is of limited affect during the critical months. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 18 19. This office has reviewed the evidence presented. It finds that the distances proposed appear reasonable, but that intrusions should be limited during the period when the birds would tend to react, during the nesting,courtship, hatching and fledging periods. 20. The applicant's closing argument notes that the appellants'witnesses did not "undercut"the City's decision and the testimony of the applicant's witnesses. That can just as easily be turned around. The applicant's witnesses did not truly present any new evidence that would undercut the appellant's witnesses. While the burden was on the appellants,they provided sufficient evidence to meet that burden. The science was on their side. 21. The ERC's decision was clearly erroneous because they do nothing specific to protect the heron rookery. The steps are merely passive-accepting the existing screening and presuming or trusting completely in those measures. All of the literature shows the birds react in manners that humans so far cannot clearly pin down, but they do react to a variety of disturbances. Visual disturbances have flushed the birds. Construction activities appear to flush the birds. 22. The record shows that a variety of activities have occurred in the vicinity of the heronry, but since the construction of the pond itself, few such activities have been as close as those now proposed. Nor is there evidence when the heavier activities occurred;that is, did heavy construction and noises or visual activity occur during the critical periods in nesting and courtship. Might some of the heavy construction have occurred later in the dry season when much construction takes place to avoid the rainy and wet weather of the Pacific Northwest. The evidence showing activities close to other nesting areas also does not clearly disclose if the heron habituated to newer disturbances or arrived after some or most of the disturbance had occurred. 23. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. As indicated, the ERC did not have sufficient information to rule out the use of a construction window. That was clearly erroneous. The decision is therefore subject to modification by the Hearing Examiner who retains the powers of the underlying decision-maker. 24. What the appellants have shown is that the ERC took no particular actions to protect the herons from intrusive noises and unaccustomed activities. The ERC deferred to the existing, current conditions. There was nothing in the record they had before them that demonstrated such conditions would protect sensitive, easily disturbed heron. The prior MOA, a deliberately crafted agreement, shows the ERC, the City and the applicant knew heron were flighty. 25. This office heard from a number of experts. One a heron expert, another who did a thorough literature review. One concludes conservative action,the other no additional action. A thorough review of the record shows that"no additional protections" underestimates almost completely the fact that most of the studies show the birds do react to intrusions although not necessarily or only intense intrusions. 26. But there is also no arguing with the narrow choices the heron appear to have made. They seem to prefer the island tree or trees. Again,maybe this can best be understood by admitting humans don't understand heron "thinking." Scientists can't predict their reactions nor direct them to move north into the forest. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 20 DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is reversed and the following conditions imposed to mitigate the impacts of this development: 1. There shall be no outside heavy construction during the periods of January 15 through June 15, or the applicant can abide by conditions imposed which mirror those found in the MOA regarding construction periods. 2. The applicant shall phase its project by constructing Buildings D and E at the beginning of the project. The wetpond and supporting facilities may be coordinated with the early development. SITE PLAN FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Black River Corporate Park, Tract B,filed a request for approval of a Site Plan approval for a 5-building complex to house commercial,office, service and research, development and assembly uses. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentatioGi and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. An appeal of the DNS-M was filed by a group called Friends of Black River. That appeal was consolidated with the land use hearing for a combined hearing. The timing of the hearing was such that the appeal issues were heard on one day and the land use was heard about a month later at a second hearing. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located north of the junction of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. The site is west of Naches Avenue SW and east of the P-1 channel. The site is southeast of the P-1 detention pond. 6. The King County Sewage Treatment Plant(formerly Metro) is located southwest of the site across Oakesdale. A variety of office and industrial uses are located south and east of the site along the east side of Oakesdale and north and south of SW 7th Street. A City-owned open space preserve of approximately 100-plus acres is located north-northwest of the subject site and contains a remnant riparian forest and an active heron rookery. 7. The subject site as well as properties immediately west, south and east of the site are zoned CO (Commercial Office). Properties along Powell Avenue SW(east of the site)and east of Powell along SW 7th are zoned IM(Medium Industrial). The treatment plant is zoned P-1 (Public Use). City owned Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 19 27. No one has defined why they have stayed in the few island trees predominantly. Do they prefer the water view? Do they prefer the open space to see approaching danger? Do they just prefer those hardy older trees? Are they attracted by a scent of their past nesting use? Do they prefer the more open tree canopy of the older trees? It appears science does not know those answers. Just because the habitat of the riparian forest has been preserved and younger, less damaged trees exist back there does not mean the heron will immediately retreat there. The ERC believed that the change in plans and less intense development and the existing vegetative buffer eliminated any need for additional measures to protect the heron. The record does not bear that out. 28. The applicant argues that they have done enough and anything more is unreasonable in light of the record. The applicant's arguments only go so far. In discussing the various Comprehensive Plan policies they state on Page 13, first paragraph, "The development incentive here is minor by comparison-to allow a minimal amount of development on the last available tract of land in the original Blackriver ownership." Development is not halted by this decision or the imposition of a construction window. By allowing development but timing it,the applicant and hopefully,the appellants, can both achieve the various environmental and development policies of the City. It is the imposition of reasonable conditions "which strikes a balance between the City's environmental protection and economic development policies" (Applicants'close at Page 13). 29. By using a seasonal window,the applicant minimizes the probable impact of scaring the heron and develops its site. The applicant has already proposed a rather lengthy phasing of their project over eight years. It is a project which is not overwhelmingly large and could be accomplished in a much faster time frame. The current proposal which may be constructed over eight years, in fact, actually follows a previously approved site plan by the applicant or predecessor in interest that has been lying fallow for approximately eight years. Will the proposed construction timing limitation unreasonably thwart the applicant's plans? Clearly,working around the nesting season will limit the applicant's unfettered ability to do anything at any time. The limitation on major outdoor construction and not internal construction activities is not unreasonable. The condition seems both reasonable and achievable. 30. The decision of the ERC is modified. There should be a condition which limits the construction to a period that minimizes interference with the heron mating and nesting cycle between January 15 and June 15. The MOA provides a good frame of reference and should be used as a model for the fleshing out of the construction window and what is permitted. 31. In addition, in order to introduce new disturbances into the area in an orderly manner and to help habituate the heron to the coming changes,the applicant should phase its project by constructing Buildings D and E at the beginning of the project. The wetpond and supporting facilities may be coordinated with the early development. 32. This office understands that the applicant may have a valid site plan which might be more intense and less respectful toward the heronry,but it is a site plan that still includes the construction window and buffers as well as other environmental safeguards that were not raised by these appellants. (There is no determination by the City that the prior approved site plan is still viable.) If the applicant wishes to pursue that site plan,they appear to be constrained by the very time limits and distances they now object to. Clearly,the various parties agree that the older site plan is not better vis-a-vis the heronry, but conditions amicably agreed to by the parties,now objected to as inappropriate,would govern. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 21 property encompassing the P-1 pond forebay is zoned RC (P)(Resource Conservation- public ownership). 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with a series of separate actions over a course of approximately 18 years. See Ordinances 1745, 1764, 1928 and 4040. 10. The subject site is approximately 12.53 acres. The site is an irregularly, almost pentagon-shaped parcel. The site is generally level. The site is part of a recently short platted parcel that resulted in four lots. Lots 1,2 and 3 will be incorporated into the development. Lot 4 will be conveyed to the City. 11. The applicant proposes erecting five buildings. Three buildings will be one story or approximately 2U feet tall. Two buildings will be two stories or approximately 30 feet tall. There will be surface parki#tg around the buildings. 12. Building A will be a one-story,rectangular building located in the west corner of the site. It will contain approximately 22,010 square feet and will have an approximate footprint of 100 by 240 feet. It will generally be oriented in an east-west axis. 13. Building B will be northeast of Building A and be aligned with it. It will also be a rectangular, two- story building with approximately 32,500 square feet. Its footprint will be approximately 90 feet wid,. by 185 feet long. Buildings A and B will be located on underlying Lot 1. They will also be oriented n an east-west fashion. 14. Building C will be near the northern corner of the pentagon-shaped parcel. It will be oriented at approximately 90 degrees from Buildings A and B. It will be rectangular, also. It will be two-stories tall. It will contain approximately 32,500 square feet and appears to have the same footprint and overall design as Building B. Building C will be located on Lot 3. 15. Building D is located along the south boundary of the site along Oakesdale. It is a one-story, L-shaped building. The open angle of the "L" is aimed at Oakesdale. The northwest wing of the "L" will be aligned with Building A. The other wing will be aligned with the next building,Building E. The building will be approximately 32,890 square feet. The building will be approximately 190 feet wide and 286 feet long. The building is located on Lot 2. 16. Building E is located along the eastern portion of the property. It is another L-shaped, one-story building. Its open angle will be oriented to the northeast. It is somewhat smaller than Building D, containing approximately 28,934 square feet. It will be approximately 190 feet wide by 240 feet long. Building E will be located on Lot 3 with Building C. 17. All buildings will be concrete tilt-up construction. The applicant proposes light neutral colors with accent trim and various relief details along the top of the facade,building corners and with some articulations near the entries and corners. The windows will be tinted glass and non-reflective to avoid glare or impacts on the heron rookery and other native areas. The buildings will have flat roof lines. Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 22 18. The applicant proposes installing its wetpond system at the northwest corner of the site. It would be separated from the property line by a habitat buffer area. The system is designed to settle out particulates and take up any fertilizing or growth encouraging chemicals that wind up in the storm outfall. Trash enclosures would be located on both ends of the wetpond/buffer area. 19. Storm system water will be directed to the wetpond for water quality treatment. It is intended to treat water from possibly contaminated traffic surfaces and it can pick up fertilizers. The applicant proposes a system which will convey the treated water to the P-1 channel. The applicant received credit for dedicating land for the creation of the P-1 pond. The system cannot remove certain potentially harmful chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides which could enter the P-1 pond. 20. Parking will be located around the buildings on the interior of the site as well as along the perimeter of the site. In the vicinity of the wetpond/buffer area which is closest to the habitat area,parking will be located inward of the buffer area. The remaining parking will be located around each of the buildings and in a central location between Buildings A and B and Buildings D and E. Since each building will have landscaping along its respective facade,the parking will be set back from the buildings. 21. The proposal has two driveways. One driveway is located along SW 7th while the second is located along Oakesdale Avenue SW. Both driveways are located generally in the middle of the street frontage. Traffic circulation within the site will be handled by a perimeter roadway and interior circulation isles surrounding each building. Pedestrian paths will interconnect the buildings and connect to the public sidewalks. Since the subject site is three separate legal lots, cross easements for parking and circulation will be required. 22. The applicant will be providing parking for 597 vehicles which falls within the code allotted range of between 447 and 670 stalls. The applicant will be providing the 30%compact stalls allowed which is 179 stalls. 23. The proposal will generate between approximately 1,200 and 1,800 vehicle trips per day depending on how the project is viewed. As part of a larger interlinked office park or complex with other phases, lesser traffic is anticipated. Similarly,peak hour traffic would vary from between approximately 250 morning and evening trips to approximately 170 trips for the interlinked scenario. The applicant or predecessor in interest has contributed to the funding of Oakesdale and the ERC did not impose any additional transportation mitigation. 24. The site will be landscaped extensively. The wetpond is separated from the P-1 pond by a habitat buffer. Additional setbacks are observed along the north property line and the public open space. Staff has proposed creating a native growth protection easement for the north portion of Lot 1. The applicant will be providing the minimum 10 feet of landscaping along SW 7th and 15 feet instead of 10 feet along Oakesdale. Each of the buildings will be surrounded by perimeter landscaping. Courtyards will be prominent for the "L-shaped" buildings. Entries will also be defined by additional landscaping. Parking aisles will have landscaping. Landscaping and fencing will be used to keep people from straying into the heron buffer areas or into the wetland areas surrounding the site. The site will comply with the Soil Conservation Services'two-percent habitat landscaping. 25. The applicant will be filling a small, approximately 0.07 acre wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. A permit from the Army Corps will be needed. This office is not concerned with conditions the Army Corps may or may not impose on this proposal. They have separate jurisdiction. Any conditions imposed as a result of this review by the City will be imposed under City authority. Black River Corporate Park - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 24 temporary noise as construction proceeds, but the developed site should not create much noise or impact. The two-story,approximately 30 foot tall buildings should not adversely impact surrounding uses. It is hoped that they will not impact the heron rookery, but that cannot be guaranteed. The existing landscaping and additional plantings proposed will eventually create a better buffer between the site and the rookery. It appears as if the applicant has proposed trash areas on both ends of the wetpond area. These areas during pickup can be particularly noisy and could adversely affect the heron. They should be relocated away from their current positions. 5. The proposal appears to be well designed. The mix of one and two-story buildings and the articulated facades should provide an interesting campus when viewed from nearby streets and from within the complex. The relatively low scale of the buildings should minimize the impacts of each building on the others in the complex. The buildings are reasonably spaced and arranged to afford openness and the entry of light and air to the site. 6. The development should not adversely affect neighboring property values and development of the site will increase the tax base of the City. 7. The parking aisles, driveways and pedestrian pathways appear to provide both safe and efficient circulation to and from the site and within the site. 8. The site has adequate access to City utilities. The storm drainage system appears to be adequate and the applicant is entitled to use the storage capacity of the P-1 pond. Since the storm system cannot remove potentially harmful chemicals,the applicant should utilize best practices when using chemicals on the site, and should probably choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimize the need to apply chemical agents. 9. Since the site is comprised of three separate legal lots,the applicant should execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned, all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. 10. In conclusion,the applicant has done a commendable job in attempting to satisfy a variety of competing demands made by its market needs,the City and environmental interests. It has designed a project which should be an asset to the community while minimizing its impacts on the unique aspects of the surrounding natural community. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed as a result of environmental review including the conditions imposed by the ERC and as a result of the SEPA appeal. 2. The applicant shall be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement on Lot 1, at the north corner of the site,extending from the north edge of the wetpond north to and including the habitat buffer area. Disturbance of this area would be limited to the depositing of"dead and down"material from other portions of the site in order to enhance the wildlife habitat,or routine maintenance activity Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 23 26. The applicant proposed phasing the project as follows: Phase 1 is defined as the first two years of a six-year plan. During Phase 1 at least one building would be commenced. Phase 2 is defined as occurring during the first four years of the six-year plan. During Phase 2 at least three buildings would be commenced(possibly including the one building from Phase 1). Phase 3 would be the entire six- year plan. During Phase 3 the five proposed buildings would commence(including the three buildings from Phases 1 and 2). Phases 2 and 3 would follow Phase 1 but could commence concurrently with the previous phases. 27. The proposal includes approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill to be placed on the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed site plan subject to the conditions noted below satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The development of the site with an office park with one and two-story structures is compatible with the goal of increasing employment generating jobs. It provides landscaping and open space on the site to merge the site with the surrounding habitat. 3. The proposed footprints and maximum two-story buildings appear to comply with the Zoning Code's setbacks and height limitations. Building Code and Fire Code compliance will be determined with the submittal and review of a building permit application. 4. As proposed and mitigated by ERC and conditions imposed by the appeal process,the impacts on surrounding uses, including the open space and heron rookery should be minimized, although all impacts cannot be removed when empty property is developed. The impact of developing the subject site on other developed properties should be minimal. There will be additional traffic but staff indicates that the surrounding roads should be able to handle the additional traffic. There will be the Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H - October 19, 1998 Page 25 for the wetpond. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded to run with the title for Lot 1. Recording of the easement shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of the building permits. 3. The phases shall be altered as decided in the appeal process. 4. The applicant shall move the trash enclosures away from the wetpond/buffer area. 5. The applicant shall utilize best practices when using chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides or the site and shall choose native landscaping materials as much as possible to minimize the need to apply chemical agents. 6. The applicant shall provide assurances that the three separate legal lots have appropriate cross easements for parking and circulation. 7. This site plan supersedes the previous site plan. (This makes no conclusion about whether the prior site plan is or is not valid at this point.) The applicant shall have 30 days after this decision to opt for one or the other. 8. The applicant shall execute covenants that development of all three lots shall remain subject to similar design standards so that they remain a coordinated development. Further, if any one phase is developed as planned,all future development of the remaining parcels shall be bound by the design standards and appearance of the completed phases. ORDERED THIS 19th day of October, 1998. FRED J. KAIUMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of October, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal Parties of Record Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 2, 1998, Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 Black River Corporate Park Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-110,AAD LUA98-075,SA-H October 19, 1998 Page 26 request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, 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, Chapter 8, Section 16,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. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • PARTIES OF RECORD Linda Baker Cheryl White Jayne Kurzeja "Jerry Holmes Kate Stenberg Linda Seagraves Tom Malphrus Kathryn Dugaw Barbara Batiuk Helen Ross Margaret Milnes David Stephens Chris Peterson Laura E. Goodell Donald Norman Range Bayer Janice Wagner Theodore Muller Connie Troyer Harold Solberg Gwen Warren Michael Magee Tim McManus Phyllis&Jerry Walsh Lauralee Smith Frank Crum Robert&Barbara Gramm Steven Hayes Don Nomura Tana Mason Susan McClellan Walter Hoffner Dennis Paulson Gerry Adams Paul Budlong Mary Marsh Ted Mallory Deney Johnson Ed Newbold Don Norman Doug Watson Mike Sato Dee Boersma Dalice Snider Beth Wieman Estella Leopold Terri-Jo Empens Anne D. Strode Bill Wilson Ken Neerdink Steve Stratis Paula Lazzarini William Combs Peggy Jordan Y.York Jim Andrews Liane Newman Len Elliott Carol Anne Engeland Brian Lumsden Joan and Carlos Cabreza Rob Butler Susan Nix Suzanne Krom Shirley Willeiksen Jeffrey Ducken Trudy Thomas Janice&Anna Mayrhofer Brian Shelton Bruce Harpham Alma Bennett Joan Silling Tom Pesek David Kappell Arlene Roth Beverly Franklin Tom &Julie Boardman Patricia Thompson Brian Gauger Chuck Lennox Amy Kosterlitz Royce Berg Theresa Hanson Ken Raedeke Hal Hagenson Lauchlin Bethune . . _ ......,. - Gr...4, /0 pri.:7,4:4•.- •374.--,'".15-7,....7... 4, 42 . .._._ .... ... . .... ..•.,• •...,„Fs.:. pi,„.‘-cF,..i..*--4.e.cip...--. v At!, . io, iiii/0,,,,, .I t .-4 i 2,'''',. ."-•...p.- I Pl- $ -1 4 i i '; • .$20 • V .1 ... • ••••• . 1. :„..IM 5../ .. ' '.....<7.b.::11.......:..._.... 2 I p _ i I ,i 6.... a ---..z -1%1 .Lth,brit - : -- , ---;; • . •),•Le.• ,r.,,,e5,,, . ..•,..„,..„ ,„ .,...„1 ,L.,I,____L-J.,.....a,„,„. -a- ., . ' •• ' .'''' ': s . r 81•:-/..a."17 ,r -'4"•••,:i.f 1.'• u • •• - •'..,.. c.., 0.3.30T 900 .1.1 1 ' .'"4"N 1.4•09,4 1 S."••It• 3 ,C. •9 '• ' • '':Ars•-••••:•4/ •• 4•P . .• .... . 1 1 I j ...• t t i,,,p, . f"4',,,_ ,„(k, - :,, Pr, -------...„,-;...._•----. .., :. ,,.•11,• • 7 . ' .1.- . '•14 ::12:''-'1"--..i:. -`•- "i1.---?z"Ltrli • -,4. ' - ut. qioe„.., '••.„'.;''i -••••••••-......,:.-- 4.... :::::....1,F,' :0-, • . ,:,.4,4' •.1! ''',....'....7.7P.:' '''.. ‘` 3.'1::'".5'. . ":7-4i -......... ..,' ..'',1,4,-:-• ' f, . /pp ,... .„,4 ...-..--..-.--- . 1 i . • . _ --,... ... .-_ . A As ‘s •••• .. :"::2.1-131 --._ - • -.• • * -1.......„...-i---..1. r.I; „4, , .010 Jt• 9, • , 0 I 1. 3 S . .... 2 ' 3 • 2 I . . :I .0..•It••,i.0:1: ..4 .....r. ,7:47, .. .. --li-.7,./..c,,----47:4,.. ......„...,..._:.,,,,.---....„.•_ -..---- •,' • - •.- -- 3 fla 9. / •, .1....„ 1 ,,,..„,• .--, .._....,------..,-„--.-----,---.---.--.----- .....„„ .. ...... • ,... • ..,.. 4,,„ ; ,. _ - ,c7.. .„.....-„-___..„... ..,- - -......, \ .„. 4 e 11;e, I' •. , • . , . ,...410-?"r",--• i ... . • ..r • 1,v,L.:q. I GI- 1 to --li *rr•. '"'••\ • I u L •/ ,,...,: . • . • : ipEritaL.fa' ,..,..; , ...• 4,* it • .„.4„..r •.•.. * .•••',,,s..... • .&,.., 4("11. w ofr`t.' 4/ "••-,. • m.'":g•V \_,' ' ° ri•;?.. .-,. I. i \ • 4 1 ",... . I .....•'' CITY QF REkTON a ad) • • Ca • , ..... t."Aic 17 -.. - thics- .,., . a - .-: -1 a {K,4 * 4' •• : \ ..5-r.::-.1:'" '-/ -. . ****-, ..;..,E4- • .,4)..., ...i.,:o. 3- -.!... .-....-.1-E-4-n-l••----,-----OPEN,sPAdEV4----' --s• cbcd-,8.241--„,„:..27,.'1,,.v..i,....,.--wair,it.auk5b. .4'.' -. .:,, . 2 Gni I•13 11". ,5•,..,e7,. .:Ns _.,...1 •4'•. , i 5'3"4`.?..1.„..••••••••3 ""'.,, \„••••1-12123 Acres , it.9 . 6:7 c.:laif.,;- .-4rg-kh%.1's' .a z :,,,P. . ,' ,. .#1.;..,'"7- : '3, --Pi, '1,.1 -•'''';ICIrt OF REpTON M.41 e i,, tC•f4,46r /Jr., A' .."1:. .%P* •7 . „ •3.4•L 4'13'.Itk 0 V , A ,, :"',,,-.?.:,- \:, ". t. OPN SPACE •• : %2 •••• TS •••••••• :• ...io, . ....,., ..c_. 5 • „..,• '''../ . •,;:Xe` . .o.. • . ---- - .- . al' . • •• "., CC...i LL. ill•• 2St. o•••••" ' $ ,•'''' • . I •''••,.... . so,../ n•-...° ' '..• 'L• • •-•,... • ••• .•••••• i t • 1 I • 4 • 2 . .Ah...... • .,,y,%•.,:tit4 --tt--!•••• ' . P:111116F '....1' 0 ' • • 1"'X ui /A.A. 4, . .•• OFF CE 1. - "••,...-- 4..•y, .(. 1.7.4.614,.... ../A..il.'.4 0 ,.. • 11 I I .... •.., CC I- et 0 .1.:Zttt.....,„ . .1..•-•1.A.1'DETENTION PONir..... .• - ••- i I i.•:i'... ta o 1- ... • .- -.--------- 11..X4-- ..... . , a.0 _ t 'lire' ),...•"•te,---t• 'ilF-74.---.? - "S..? MAIEN.31109011 TCCHNICAL0".•••••••• 1 , ••••...••• ..... >I'Ed OCC-s'; -.4e•/';'•'''''.'- -t•I".•2.• i -----,..-e.. . . - . . M. • ti . 124•4'ter••::.'''..••:.... ''.-7"...'-•:"..'44". s_.......•••• . • •,..• .j....../•" . '.,'.2.;',/„.://,. IC I ! • CC cc cc.< , s 4.3$5:77:744.:4;7"-::"".‘ .I •• ."•24••:$• t:2.:., ...'•.."..7 './,' ••",.• 1•1 • I 11.T E C H N' C A L .4 C E N T E 02 i... ..,/ "-•",". • •ar- •• 122 111 > > f•-r4' " '''...-'::e--...2n!.f.."-.. * . am(".•i . .. -..• CITY OF RENTON \ •ROINAED%-,•• k • OFFICE ,i, , _,„,,,,,.,,J.,"' , ry 1 0 E E .....3. \• .. \ OPEN•SPACE : . ..•.'•'0' .'-.• A.i, :. , „.4 1 •• ,r1s.' ?.b .....i.019 0)- , s rt, i .. I.T3 . ..,••••s„.• ....I..0 i Z ••••••••ern if ,--, „ ---•• .-I 112 , . ' ';':••• \ ' Grel Lel I X ••i \ s ".... ..31 3 ...0.. ////•'• .71. • • '''.: 1313 as 0 CC .7.••i..... G30 kret ... ...,.... . . rrt I .. -- . . • .....: •'.k. \ Z q:••••:: .....-.4:_-, ., ..,_ ....:1.-.7..7.-F---\c"--N-,-- ,,, ‘,•5/...LLe ii ."11 ' I i: 140\ .,./. - --- 1 i• r\'‘'..\- 1 W A S I\ I"V-0 I T 0 -.. I an •• - .% ,..1 : . :.....•-•,,,, . ... - ,. 0• r, _____ to, AICCTUIE ,..• .......----1 SI E \ OFFICE A • 0 Ci . . •• il , 1 J 11 • -••••• . El t,,. mu ..-....r.-:' . 1 OWL PLANNING - . \ •.... . I '5\ NITI I I .. 31. .4.....0.4.100.1••• I •••.; I I i E:.... 0 STRI• • '.. ` s ...%• 1 ! '•%:. .... _ I i I. • • 1 V.• ./. ' • `i 1 INDUSTRIAL r METRO giACILITIES • filtAtigi ` .t.. TECHNIt7r •:..... ....sn...:................r.....r.:. •1 ; ___ • ,i,'•- •% . N. ' OFFICE ' •t'''' '11‘ ...., 1,.. . Z. • 1• . ?'•• . - • •trcX FORT.,.'.„.\.\\\\.. )‘-.1..'.',s-.'I,s:4'`\`'.:.......•'.../,:`....-"--1.2-'..l•.o rs•"-•N.O•.I - 7,--....--.---..:-/-..'"..•I••••''-•s f:1:.:.:..:":..:".".3.b•.---..-.. ."1---.!;4C3'it•''1."1,-1•.-'..-- ' ,'-'."1•'• OCF FICE-Ed. r n1t E . . ......N..O..........I...• 1 -3,'4.:1• .ow....2%3329V.44••1..i••d 2. i .11roLt 111.1 \ \1 E 1 . .. ...._.. . • ,..:. . ..--,,.....- ..,f.ft ,,,s,""rt''.... 1, t'.;..., ", 'f.• l:: r. . HOTEL tf '•,,...."%.1 0 ' , :. il 7. ... . s, ,............sr2.........i I I". , ii.00 7 If. ..'7"-•%,:..T. I' ,,%:•` ,.. , ,. , I is ; • , 1 _ .--- •"..,i ii..9.11/DN" '10101,1 . . :.........-- 30,;„ • „KO VO . • h % -...,t 4..4. . ..:•-.(:: (.. :ti 1.1 •El.„3:0,_...,c4:..\7e::\- ‘..`.7r..\\ '-`>-,.., ', .... ..";;;=••,.:. . 't''',. -.."--5:4: ' 6 se *A01-• .11 . 1... 'igi, 00 ) . 00-- - +, : • NEISORH000 DETAIL MAP%ttss,;•;;. . . /..... c,.'-- \ _ ,\sii ,,c, \ .... ,,.. 'Po .............••• •. !V \ ...•,'.\\.,,-1...5.5.'.,. '.•• .............. ..::::, .. r., idol' __,..4... 01.., All il: iftt jirtIli s:.1• 3i •ret•,,,p ,, , .,.4. , r i;•-• • / G,, ..... _.- - _ ir • . . ..-........°e• t.l. • y. ....," ,rup,„ . BLACKRIVER TRACT 'B' Elem.,. • i) ...9104,011-9.00.,• •• P.% ••••••••• .• eft''''' ' ..i,. / I O.ji , _.,,,•,%digi • • • NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP i • 1 , 1 .... .c - ---- R., -,. my ..331..•to •. Pi' :.-7:•-•1419P.---405 . - .. ._ -.---. __ a ••• .' 11 Apo. .......__-, - ••••.e .•••• SCALE I.•200' 0,...• ,".// •"/ 0 •. ,;..... too 'tt I /7----. ) -...........:,,...,,,,r:'''. , • . o;olti.,\ *; - •-:;:•'''....':•:',:-'-:::35=',;`''"-- .. .. $4:: • 't I 1 I L----\\\/"------ \ ' !fI w.4 / 1ron 1 1 r r.1 a+n �on V Ari1[w art.x.tAY1 `•••. f/lu vAa 6_ I U r.snw slows t PUS0 J y-` ) ` -, �•J RA NAOMI I . .. Q I opal+asrl t.r --__�_ 1 — a -- .Ati,t�[,[R R s t1, p..a I —-—- - — a- 'x w A 1 �mAs1CRCL In --- — w ~ t. ASt•Iw.— _ r \ t <z IRi > GC ---i•• �• --7-4•--- •� M.M lain w El2._ o[R YAKE L..—....--- --; we gat iK: \ Y I Z t 1 r1. Ir Q. 1 ^— ..su�tu*t. �, .t.• ` ' •' It (mime tml. O=' / r\ t 1 RHO weft .IMO Uy / 1j �; ii T ! /3� 1 ' t.'w. w3 �•[rK[ Lem uw---T� f 1 ��' '•�‘�' �� c,` C f�f 1 LOT 4 1......77....• I " w• 0 Q 2 l t ` � �✓J' I �t .� 1 N.LC. • ,c Y Y O 1:",-.‘oi.h,,.p./_ .V/ c� J J W E �7 ��, \ , \ + `�A TiR 1 t X tTY OF (CID m co cc i i.I 1 ENTON tmwe a Y�� j ,.>> y` 4` I r, 1' ( D0, SPACE cn`[ MORE urmsCLK • A '`' \. * .: 1 11 1' i r .OUTER RANTED w 1?R6 /,/�' / \ t �`V, f Is ARCHITECTURE aft �.f,' �� ,�!/" �4 , ', eLOTS3 41\` \s\\�I.„./^``` = rpµ and PLANNING \ 4 / , ..M C 0N.-CAN pout ARrA /LOT 1 • it . 0� G_ y c'' 1 Imo.•t{ -1 C 1 if/ 1 / *7064 , `.b e0 \ Lev >T.... 4 b' t."A `: 7.1 I :: ilifiii&*—/ / \'.1".?,,,..-A1.4. V. ' . ''lo\4k. ' 0,,‘ Iria ,if. ' .0,,‘, • I % 1 • lirill 1.1 1 MO ast,rRrs1 OAK I Ilikti\41'26.4h ',+�� ' '!S�% a,013 �"IIj "crfJ►v!/ • { glill#Xv /1�� r ?am1leIl�t w m•�l ��4 a r1 < P.1 `., �; I SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) 3516.Oi3 SF arc RAM Rrx s os w ', ' r , \ LOT 2 :; � ,,/ \' \_,�'� Q> (l Le'.‹,• .4. E> 6.\ \ • �♦ \� [ TOTAL BUILDING AREA 311B,E31 Si ' .: MOOR *.-t t O '.4' ! GUIDING A- : n.olo Sr •rills a �'/c O O '�� �. A. BUILDING Diric'c' i }i oo SF� \,c::� .`...\� toll. �.1 �/. dd ��.•, p J \• % / �I' tmM64f.. tlru BULDING b' i Ji,690 Sr v s�s41 .v I��4" O • a/•�e S0 4100 -/ BUILDING t' 3 iB,934 sr \ �MJ —•�� ��44ee:�'q .••°A!>� 0/ MHOOMM FAR :.2» SITE PLAN Vrc... alb•\ �7�,, �i os d' Cy PARKING 597 STALLS MALLET-9':20' 400 STALLS N. Mn 10 kC�� �\ �� INCL i OVER[uNC) \ vow ton M� �, ,� • A COMPACT -8.-6"R 16 179 STALLS \ �� �, iiifa� ACIB 18 STALLS •••ear.,,- a 1. 1•'Rc\ / L wicrt [ c;sstc ARKING RATIO 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF *` tl,.A.tl \\.• SLt \Kwe \ tAr ran NM7�9R-r1DF M \ \•\ / • tmK IRK 1 1/ "• AR!NU.: NN= Y111110 p. S. WO . .III... R011M OAK: RJ461 DRAIN! .w A-2 SITE PLAN 60'1 1 a.cm w . 02 Li —�'— --- -- - c o o jFqii [tilt' ffi - E EIN 1}.- se / IP I �_Icc CCJ a MAIN ENTRY ■ V Ill WEST ELEVATION (t1" oc[tu O • IL 216 • •TTNaL NOTES Q O— TILT CONCRETE PANEL] DRYVR ACCENT ENTRANCE CANOPY Toni DLAf! `N DM *m \ Nam� 0(n PASTED 3 COLOR VALUER YEL� RAND� DRTYIT PRIM \\\r\ L�-'i—__ —tom) -''-0- �, >• FC Fe Z - =1 I b. b :{c Y Y O ® ® ® ® ® ® . . r I. .YI .n .I .I' 1'•1(I L' E eito m mt. . 1 SOUTH ELEVATION I NgARCN11l"Algol AIANNINO wow A....rw.......#S • V.RLNN.• CNN...CIN ' M•twMMINKN UM WAIL 1....G.GN ISM I---, t G--1 0-- ND DEw:.u,. DAit ,.ti ' 511E nu,REM. l-05-f4 MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION -- BUILDING'E' ELEVATIONS • n.,..47 RLDe-l...D .e NORTH ELEVATION ,w�: ..Du wall NO J. DATE: w,tDT A—10 pRArac IUA_ ELEVATIONS 10' I 1 oca: 11 otner 21 Rough-in Wiring 27 Electric Service 41 Water Service 53 Plumbing Rough-In 54 Mechanical Rough-In 55 UFER Ground Observed 11/24/2004 AP ma 56 Under Floor 12/13/2004 CA SELECTR IVRS-Ri canc 99 ELECTRICAL FINAL 100 Final Wednesday, December 29,2004 8:29: t� ''� ` CITY F RENTON .rt Community Services Earl Clymer, Mayor Sam Chastain,Administrator G ;#.1 o-c eeri-on a.Ssesrne.rNfi o -P w: l;ce,. July 16, 1993 P�csenl' Wit- tine- (31ac.k R V�r Gt>e.:Fickna Prre-0(.. (tor pare. 'ro Alpe..c N W 1 =nG. Svbev.:fii-a1 : S E. pp knvtron►vl .en'fz.1 �Ine _%.t'st. se.i+ion 5 Ms. Susan Krom President Renton Citizens for Wildland Preservation 3640 Ashworth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 Subject: Black River Riparian Forest Dear Susan: Per your request, I am enclosing the avifauna, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and vegetation documentation that was prepared and submitted as part of the Metro Shoreline Improvement Fund Grant Application process. I revised some, but not all, of the figures per the conversation we had prior to this submittal. I did not feel comfortable reflecting increases in all of the species numbers we discussed, as I could not substantiate the increases per the documentation that the Renton Citizens for Wildlands Preservation and the Seattle Audubon Society provided. I did mention this to you and I also discussed these numbers with Gerry Adams as well. He indicated that there could be higher numbers, but if it is not documented, justification at a later date would be much more difficult. Because this information was incorporated into the Metro Grant Application, consisting of a four phase process, I did not want to jeopardize the success of this Grant. This may appear to be a conservative approach, but it will be less likely to cause doubt with in the granting agency. I am hopeful, however, that in future inventories higher numbers can be documented. I greatly appreciate you and your organization's time and effort in gathering and documenting this data. These grants would be impossible without your commitment. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2568 THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL 10%POST CONSUMER Ms. Susan Krom July 16, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-5549. Again, thank you. Very truly yours, Leslie A. Betlach Resource Coordinator LAB/dif Enclosures cc: Sam Chastain Bill Hutsinpiller krom2 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Specie: Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimat ) Wetland 12.7 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 20 Wetland 12.7 Double-Crested Phalacrocorax auntus 10 Cormorant _ Wetland 12.7 Canada Goose Branca canadensis 50 Wetland 12.7 Gadwall Anas strepera a 75/100 Wetland 12.7 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos a 50/40 Wetland 12.7 Northern Pintail Anas acuta 4 Wetland 12.7 American Wigeon Anas americana 50 Wetland 12.7 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 50 Wetland 12.7 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 12 Wetland 12.7 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 200+ Wetland 12.7 Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 5 Wetland 12.7 Canvasback Aythya valisineria 20 Wetland 12.7 Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 2 Wetland 12.7 Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 12 — Wetland 12.7 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 30 Wetland 12.7 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 13 Wetland 12.7 American Coot Fulica americana 40 Wetland 12.7 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias a 68/55 — Wetland 12.7 Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus 4 Wetland 12.7 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 20 Wetland 12.7 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 2 Wetland 12.7 Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 2 Wetland 12.7 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 2 Wetland 12.7 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 2 Wetland 12.7 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 2 Wetland 12.7 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 10 Wetland 12.7 European Starling Sturmus vulgaris 100+ Wetland 12.7 Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 4 Wetland 12.7 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 10 _ _ t a =Adults r y= Young/Off Sprir 1 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITA' Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Wetland 12.7 Red-winged Blackbird Agelius phoeniceus 20 Wetland 12.7 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10 Wetland 12.7 Scaup Sp. Aythya sp. 20 Wetland 12.7 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 5 Wetland 12.7 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 2 Wetland 12.7 N. Rough-winged Stelgidopteryx 10 Swallow serripennis Wetland 12.7 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 2 Riparian 14.2 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 20 Riparian 14.2 Double-Crested Phalacrocorax auritus 10 Cormorant Riparian 14.2 Canada Goose Branta canadensis 50 Riparian 14.2 Gadwall Anas strepera a 75/100 y Riparian 14.2 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos a 50/40 y Riparian 14.2 Northern Pintail Anas acuta 4 Riparian 14.2 American Wigeon Anas americana 50 Riparian 14.2 Wood Duck Aix sponsa 4 Riparian 14.2 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 50 Riparian 14.2 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 12 Riparian 14.2 Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 200+ , Riparian 14.2 Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera 5 Riparian 14.2 Canvasback Aythya valisineria 20 Riparian 14.2 Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 2 Riparian 14.2 Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 12 Riparian 14.2 Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 16 Riparian 14.2 Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 3 Riparian 14.2 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 30 Riparian 14.2 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 13 a =Adults ' y= Young/Off Spring 2 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Specie: Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimat ) Riparian 14.2 Common Merganser Mergus merganser 3 Riparian 14.2 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 4 Riparian 14.2 American Coot Fulica americana 40 Riparian 14.2 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias a 68/55 Riparian 14.2 Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus 4 Riparian 14.2 _ Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 2 Riparian 14.2 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 2 Riparian 14.2 Belted Kingfisher Cery/e alcyon 2 Riparian 14.2 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 10 Riparian 14.2 European Starling Sturmus vulgaris 100+ Riparian 14.2 N. Rough-Winged Hirundo rustica 10 Swallow _, Riparian 14.2 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 10 Riparian 14.2 Red-winged Blackbird Agelius phoeniceus 20 Riparian 14.2 Northern Oriole lcterus galbula bullockii 6 Riparian 14.2 Scaup sp. Aythya sp. 20 Riparian 14.2 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10 _ Riparian 14.2 Wood Duck Aix sponsa 4 Deciduous 6.7 Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 16 Deciduous 6.7 Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica 3 _ Deciduous 6.7 Common Merganser Mergus merganser 3 Deciduous 6.7 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 4 Deciduous 6.7 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias a 68/55 Deciduous 6.7 Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus 4 Deciduous 6.7 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 2 Deciduous 6.7 Ring-Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 Deciduous 6.7 California Quail Callipepla califomica a 4/6 y Deciduous 6.7 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 2 Deciduous 6.7 Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 1 a =Adults ' y = Young/Off Sprir. , 3 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Deciduous 6.7 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1 Deciduous 6.7 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 2 Deciduous 6.7 Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 1 Deciduous 6.7 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 2 Deciduous 6.7 American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 Deciduous 6.7 Barn Owl Tyto a/ba 2 Deciduous 6.7 Great Homed Owl Bobo virginianus 2 Deciduous 6.7 Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata 10 Deciduous 6.7 Rock Dove Columba livia 10 Deciduous 6.7 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 4 Deciduous 6.7 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 4 Deciduous 6.7 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 2 Deciduous 6.7 Olive-sided Flycatcher Cantopus borealis 2 Deciduous 6.7 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 4 Deciduous 6.7 Western Flycatcher Empidonax sp. 2 Deciduous 6.7 Vaux's Swift Chatetura vauxi 2 Deciduous 6.7 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 30 Deciduous 6.7 Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina 30 Deciduous 6.7 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 60 Deciduous 6.7 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 30 Deciduous 6.7 Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri 4 Deciduous 6.7 Black-capped Chickadee Parus africapil/us 20 Deciduous 6.7 Chestnut-backed Parus rufescens 20 Chickadee Deciduous 6.7 Bushtit Psaltriparus minimum 20 Deciduous 6.7 Red-breasted Nut Hatch Sitta canadensis 5 Deciduous 6.7 Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes 15 a =Adults 1' y= Young/Off Spring 4 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Deciduous 6.7 Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii 10 Deciduous 6.7 Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 15 Deciduous 6.7 Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satruapa 15 Deciduous 6.7 American Robin Turdus migratorius 20 Deciduous 6.7 Northern Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 2 Deciduous 6.7 European Starling Sturmus vulgaris 100+ _ Deciduous 6.7 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 20 Deciduous 6.7 Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni 4 Deciduous 6.7 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 4 Deciduous 6.7 Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 4 Deciduous 6.7 Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata 4 — Deciduous 6.7 Northern Oriole lcterus galbula bullockii 6 Deciduous 6.7 Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana 2 Deciduous 6.7 White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 15 Deciduous 6.7 Fox Sparrow Passerleea iliaca 8 Deciduous 6.7 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodic 15 — Deciduous 6.7 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus 15 sandwichensis Deciduous 6.7 Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 10 Deciduous 6.7 Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis 10 Deciduous 6.7 House Finch Carposacus Mexicanus 20 — Deciduous 6.7 American Goldfinch Carriuelis tristis 50 Deciduous 6.7 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10 — Deciduous 6.7 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 Deciduous 6.7 Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota 80 — Deciduous 6.7 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 4 Deciduous 6.7 Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus 15 melanocephalus _ a =Adults ' y= Young/Off Sprit 7 5 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITA". Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Meadow 23.2 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias a 68/55 y Meadow 23.2 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 20 Meadow 23.2 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 2 Meadow 23.2 Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri 2 Meadow 23.2 California Quail Callipepla califomica 10 Meadow 23.2 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 2 Meadow 23.2 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 2 Meadow 23.2 Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 1 Meadow 23.2 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1 Meadow 23.2 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 2 Meadow 23.2 Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 1 Meadow 23.2 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 2 leucocephalus Meadow 23.2 American Kestrel Falco sparverius 1 Meadow 23.2 Barn Owl Tyto alba 2 Meadow 23.2 Great Homed Owl Bobo virginianus 2 Meadow 23.2 Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata 10 Meadow 23.2 Rock Dove Columba livia 10 Meadow 23.2 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus 4 Meadow 23.2 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 30 Meadow 23.2 Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina 30 Meadow 23.2 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 60 Meadow 23.2 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 30 Meadow 23.2 Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelled 4 Meadow 23.2 American Robin Turdus migratorius 20 Meadow 23.2 Northern Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 2 Meadow 23.2 European Starling Stumus vulgaris 100+ Meadow 23.2 White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys 15 ti a =Adults y = Young/Off Spring 6 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Avifauna Habitat No. Per Amount Avifauna Species Specie! Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimat ) Meadow 23.2 Fox Sparrow Passerleea iliaca 8 Meadow 23.2 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 12 Meadow 23.2 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus 15 sandwichensis Meadow 23.2 Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 10 Meadow 23.2 House Finch Carposacus Mexicanus 25 Meadow 23.2 American Goldfinch Carduelis testis 50 Meadow 23.2 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 10 Meadow 23.2 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 5 Meadow 23.2 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 3 Meadow 23.2 Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrhonota 80 LB/dlf 93-262df IM a =Adults y= Young/Off Sprir 7 7 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Mammals Habitat No. Per Amount Mammal Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Wetland 12.7 Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 10 Wetland 12.7 Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris 2 Wetland 12.7 Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirei 2 Wetland 12.7 Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendi 25 Wetland 12.7 Silver-haired Bat Lasinycteris noctivagans * Wetland 12.7 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 20 Wetland 12.7 Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 6 Wetland 12.7 Beaver Castor canadensis 4 Wetland 12.7 Townsend Vole Microtus townsendi 15 Wetland 12.7 Oregon Vole Microtus oregoni 10 Wetland 12.7 Muskrat Ondatra zibethica 2 Wetland 12.7 Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 20 Wetland 12.7 Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 2 Wetland 12.7 Raccoon Procyon lotor 5 Wetland 12.7 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 3 Riparian 14.2 Common Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 4 Riparian 14.2 Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 10 Riparian 14.2 Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 10 Riparian 14.2 Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris 2 Riparian 14.2 Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirei * Riparian 14.2 Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsi 25 Riparian 14.2 Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 20 Riparian 14.2 California Myotis Myotis califomicus * Riparian 14.2 Beaver Castor canadensis 4 Riparian 14.2 Townsend Vole Microtus townsendi 15 Riparian 14.2 Muskrat Ondatra zibethica 2 4 * Quantity Unknown 1 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Mammals Habitat No. Per Amount Mammal Species Species Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (EstimatE ) _ Riparian 14.2 Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 2 Riparian 14.2 Raccoon Procyon lotor 5 — Deciduous 6.7 Common Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 4 — Deciduous 6.7 Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus 10 — Deciduous 6.7 Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsi 25 — Deciduous 6.7 Coast Mole Scapanus orarius 25 Deciduous 6.7 Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus 20 Deciduous 6.7 Yuma Myotis Myotis Yumanensis 5 — Deciduous 6.7 Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis * — Deciduous 6.7 Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans * Deciduous 6.7 California Myotis Myotis califomicus * Deciduous 6.7 Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans * — Deciduous 6.7 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 20 — Deciduous 6.7 Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus * — Deciduous 6.7 Western Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendi * Deciduous 6.7 Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 6 Deciduous 6.7 Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 15 — Deciduous 6.7 Beaver Castor canadensis 4 Deciduous 6.7 Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 40 Deciduous 6.7 Bushytail Woodrat Neotoma cinerea * Deciduous 6.7 Oregon Vole Microtus oregoni 10 Deciduous 6.7 Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 20 Deciduous 6.7 Black Rat Rattus rattus 5 Deciduous 6.7 House Mouse Mus musculus 20 Deciduous 6.7 Raccoon Procyon lotor 5 Deciduous 6.7 Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata 2 Deciduous 6.7 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 3 Deciduous 6.7 Coyote Canis latrans 10 * Quantity Unknown l 2 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Mammals Habitat No. Per Amount Mammal Species Species L Habitat Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate) Meadow 23.2 Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans 10 Meadow 23.2 Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendi 25 Meadow 23.2 Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis Meadow 23.2 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus 20 Meadow 23.2 Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus * Meadow 23.2 Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 15 Meadow 23.2 Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 40 Meadow 23.2 Bushytail Woodrat Neotoma cinerea * Meadow 23.2 Oregon Vole Microtus oregoni 10 Meadow 23.2 Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus 20 Meadow 23.2 Black Rat Rattus rattus 5 Meadow 23.2 House Mouse Mus muscu/us 20 Meadow 23.2 Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus 2 Meadow 23.2 Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata 2 Meadow 23.2 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis 3 Meadow 23.2 Coyote Canis latrans 10 93-261 df * Quantity Unknown 3 4.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Reptiles and Amphibians Habitat Reptiles/Amphibians No. Per Habitat Amount Species Species Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimate. SALAMANDERS: Wetland 12.7 Northwestern Ambystoma gracile 25 Salamander Wetland 12.7 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma 25 macrodactylum Wetland 12.7 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 30 Wetland 12.7 Red-backed Salamander Phethodon vehiculum Wetland 12.7 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzi 30 FROGS & TOADS: Wetland 12.7 Western Toad Bufo boreas Wetland 12.7 Pacific Tree Frog Hyla regilla 100 Wetland 12.7 Red-legged Frog Rana aurora 100 _ Wetland 12.7 Bullfrog Rana catesbiana 15 TURTLES: Wetland 12.7 Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 10 SNAKES: Wetland 12.7 Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 85 Wetland 12.7 Western Terrestrial Thamnophis elegans 30 Garter Snake _ Wetland 12.7 Northwestern Garter Thamnophis ordinoides 50 Snake Wetland 12.7 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 30 _ Wetland 12.7 Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum * Quantity Unknown 1 • A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Reptiles and Amphibians Habitat Reptiles/Amphibians No. Per Habitat Amount Species Species Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name _ Scientific Name (Estimate) FROGS & TOADS: Riparian 14.2 Pacific Tree Frog Hyla regilla 100 TURTLES: Riparian 14.2 Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 10 LIZARDS: Riparian 14.2 Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 30 Riparian 14.2 Northern Alligator Lizard Gerrhonotus coeruleus 30 SNAKES: Riparian 14.2 Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 85 Riparian 14.2 Western Terrestrial Thamnophis elegans 30 Garter Snake Riparian 14.2 Northwestern Garter Thamnophis ordinoides 50 Snake SALAMANDERS: Deciduous 6.7 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzi 30 FROGS & TOADS: Deciduous 6.7 Pacific Tree Frog Hyla regilla 100 Deciduous 6.7 Red-legged Frog Rana aurora 100 LIZARDS: Deciduous 6.7 Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis 30 Deciduous 6.7 Northern Alligator Lizard Gerrhonotus coeruleus 30 11 * Quantity Unknown 2 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Reptiles and Amphibians Habitat Reptiles/Amphibians No. Per Habitat Amount Species Specie; Type (e.g. Acres) Common Name Scientific Name (Estimat. ) SNAKES: Deciduous 6.7 Pacific Rubber Boa Charina bottae 10 Deciduous 6.7 Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis 85 Deciduous 6.7 Western Terrestrial Thamnophis elegans 30 Garter Snake _ Deciduous 6.7 Northwestern Garter Thamnophis ordinoides 50 Snake Deciduous 6.7 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 30 Deciduous 6.7 Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum * SALAMANDERS: Meadow 23.2 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa 30 Meadow 23.2 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzi 30 93-263df * Quantity Unknown 3 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Vegetation Common Name Scientific Name Tree/Saplings: Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Lombardy Poplar Populus italica Mountain-ash Sorbus aucuparia Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Red Alder Alnus rubra Weeping Willow Salix babilonica Shrubs: Bittersweet Nightshade Solanum dulcamera Douglas' Spirea Spiraea douglasii Himalayan Blackberry Rubus disco/or Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Red-Osier Dogwood Corpus stolonifera Rose Rose sp. Scot's Broom Cytisus scoparius Sumac Rhus glabra Tall Shining Oregon Grape Berberis aquifolium Vine Maple Acer circinatum Willow Salix spp. Grasses and Forbs: Bird's Foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus Bluegrass Poa spp. Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Colonial Bentgrass Agrostis tenuis Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Common Plantain Plantago major Common Cattail Typha latifolia 1 A.1.a. CRITERIA - HABITAT Vegetation Common Name Scientific Name Grasses and Forbs: (continued) Straw Colored Sedge Cyperus strigogsus Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens Curly Dock Rumex crispus Dandelion Taraxacum officianale English Plantain Plantago lanceolata Fireweed Epilobium angustifolia Horsetail Equisetum arvense Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratense Lady's Thumb Knotweed Polygonum persicaria Marsh Speedwell Veronica scuttellata Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola Red-Top Agrostis alba Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinaceae Russian Thistle Cirsium vulgare Small-Fruited Bulrush Scrpus microcarpus Soft Rush Juncus effusus Spike Rush Eleocharis palustris St. John's Wort Hypericum perforatum Sweet Clover Melilotus alba Tall Mannagrass Glyceria elata Tansy Tanacetum vulgare Timothy Phleum pratense Velvetgrass Holcus lanatus Watson's Willow Herb Epilobium watsonii White Clover Trifolium repens Yellow Flag Iris pseudacorus 2 From Trudy Davis To Fred Kaufman Date:9/25/98 Time:3:21:34 PM I ige 2 of 5 Y Friends of the Black River CITY OF RE September 25, 1998 IRO EX ki Final Comments on Closing Arguments Concerning the Appeal of Environmental Review Committee's Determination Decision for Black River Corporate Park, Tract B I. Overview Much information has been presented in the appeal hearing about the development of Tract B and heron colony that resides nearby. Four wildlife experts testified on behalf of the Friends of the Black River(FBR) about the physical conditions at the site and about the behavioral patterns of herons. All four of these experts volunteered their time to testify. All four of these wildlife biologists, including Dr. Robert Butler' who has specialized in the study of great blue herons and is a recognized international expert on great blue herons, agree that the current development plan is not a prudent plan in regard to protecting the heron colony. The Friends of the Black River have made a case that the City's Environmental Review Committee was errant in approving the proposed development plan. II. Background As mentioned by the city and the developer's representatives, a positive relationship has evolved over the years between the City of Renton and the developer. While the information about the relationship between the developer and the City is very positive, the Friends of the Black River do not believe it is relevant to our appeal. Furthermore, we think that special dispensation should not be extended to the developer at the expense of the heron colony which is an asset that is enjoyed by many residents (There are other means available to the City for such purposes). The heron colony at the Black River Riparian Forest is a thriving colony. Citizens of the city and surrounding community come to Renton to view these herons. They have been using a footpath on Tract A and have been doing so for many years. Citizen groups have donated innumerable hours to improve the habitat for the herons and to educate children, adults, and seniors about the importance of habitat. The City of Renton has expended considerable money and time to maintain this critical habitat. Money from King County has been used to obtain land in order to have an interurban wildlife area. (Very little habitat is available in King County where large nesting trees, water and protected grassy foraging occur together in close proximity). III. Reasons for the Appeal The FBR believe the heron colony located at the Black River is a valuable asset to the community and should be given consideration and adequate protection in any plan for the development of Tract B. The FBR concluded, after reviewing the development plan and 'Dr. Robert Butler has published several peer reviewed scientific articles and wrote the book titled"The Great Blue Heron",and wrote the entry on great blue herons for the books titled Birds of North America which is the several volume bible of bird enthusiasts. From:Trudy Davis To: Fred Kaufman Date:9/25/98 Time:3:21:34 PM ge 3 of 5 consulting with heron experts, that the heron colony was not being adequately protected and as a result could abandon this nesting site. The FBR contend that an inadequate buffer was included in the plan and that the plan was flawed because it did not contain a restriction on the timing for heavy construction activities. IV. Testimony Experts testifying on behalf of the FBR stated that in winter and early spring the proposed buffer area in the current plan, which consists primarily of deciduous trees (exhibit 12), will create only a marginal acoustical and visual screen. It is inadequate both in distance and in composition. The proposed buffer does not meet the distance criteria established by the State of Washington Department of Wildlife and King County. Additionally all of the experts (including Dr. Raedeke) agreed that the herons are most susceptible to disturbance during nest selection, mating activities, and egg incubation. This is the time of year that the proposed buffer will be least effective because the deciduous trees will not be in leaf. Therefore, a restriction on heavy construction is essential. V. Arguments 1. Effect of Disturbance from the Proposed Development There was much discussion about herons becoming accustomed to noise. The FBR have shown in exhibit# 3 that the only noise source in the vicinity that could generate the type and magnitude of noise that would be generated by the heavy construction activity on Tract B is the quarry which is approximately 2000 feet from the heron colony. The noise generated by the heavy construction activities on Tract B would be significantly closer to the herons and would be a new and therefore unaccustomed noise source. And, the noise from the construction activities on Tract B will be accompanied by people. Modern construction activities are to a great degree accomplished with bulldozers and cranes and other pieces of large equipment but there are also people. People shouting instructions to equipment operators and people operating chain saws and compactors and other similar types of equipment. All of the heron experts agreed that herons are shy creatures and are readily disturbed when approached by humans. There was some discussion about herons never getting accustomed to humans. The developer and the City pointed out that: 1) A path exists on Tract A and is used by people for heron viewing purposes and, 2) This path is approximately the same distance from the heron colony as will be the development and therefore the herons have become accustomed to people. This is an interesting and convenient argument. The FBR contend based on observation that the herons are keenly aware and wary of the human observers on the Tract A viewing path. It is important to point out that the human observers on Tract A have been visiting the site for years and the herons have perhaps become somewhat accustomed to people at that distance in that location. But to use this as evidence supporting an argument that the herons will not be disturbed by workers wielding chain saws on Tract B is spurious. 2. The Herons Prefer and Thrive in the Island Colony From:Trudy Davis To: Fred Kaufman Date:9/25/98 Time. 3.21:34 PM F age 4 of 5 It was pointed out by the City and the applicant that the heron nesting trees are mature and therefore will decline and die. The applicant attempted to make a case that the island colony of herons would be better off moving to the north across the P-1 pond into the riparian forest. This is a most convenient conclusion. The facts are these: • We do not know where the herons will move if they abandon their island home. They may move 500 hundred feet to the north or they may move 50 miles to the south. • Testimony by Suzanne Krom a long time observer at this site and exhibit#18 clearly show that the colony of herons has a preference for their island location not the northern portion of the riparian forest. If the colony does move into the forested area to the north their success is not guaranteed. Young herons fledge from the nest as somewhat awkward creatures and mortality does occur when young become tangled and injured by tree branches. Their current island location does provide the herons a more unencumbered flight path. • This appeal is focused on the present heron colony. The applicant's assertion that the nest trees on the island are dying cannot be rebutted. All living things die. But the question of when the trees will die is one that cannot be answered with great certainty and is not relevant to this appeal. At this time, the trees appear to be healthy. The appellants testimony has proven that the majority of the herons reside in the trees located on the island near Tract B. The fact that the herons reside there is evidence that it is their preferred nesting site in spite of the fact that the trees are mature in age or that the applicants expert conveniently thinks the herons would be better off moving to the north side of the P-1 pond. • Herons are wild creatures. Each colony functions in a certain manner as a result of their interactions to and with environmental stimuli. These creatures are sensitive to human encroachment and are, in spite of our best efforts to predict their behavior, somewhat unpredictable - and do not function based a risk analysis performed by Dr. Raedeke. 3. The Applicant Provided Inadequate Scientific Evidence to Support Their Plan Dr. Raedeke, the applicant's consultant, is an ungulate expert. Ungulate study is the study of the issues associated with the life cycle and management of large animals such as elk and deer. Dr. Raedeke's testimony raised many questions but unfortunately he took so much time to deliver his information that adequate time was not available to fully explore some of the inconsistencies. • The 'scientific information' in the Heron Assessment has not been peer reviewed which is a standard process in the scientific community. • His so-called 'extensive literature review'to support his report was a selective review of the literature used to support the position of the applicant. We base that claim on the fact that the bibliography did not contain 3 published papers from recognized herons experts dealing specifically with the issue of heron colonies and human disturbance. These 3 papers were included by the FBR in their supporting documents. From:Trudy Davis To: Fred Kaufman Date 9/25/98 Time: 3:21.34 PM 1 ige 5 of 5 • • Raedeke's claims that either heron colonies or heron number are increasing in the King County. This claim is not supported by the state and county agencies or by the data submitted in the report. His conclusion counters with the Canadian Wildlife Service decision to list the coastal great blue heron as a vulnerable species under their Endangered Species laws as reported by Dr. Butler. • Raedeke's testimony summarizing the position of the state wildlife biologist Ted Muller on the development of Tract B was a direct contradiction to what Mr. Muller wrote in the letter that was attached to our closing argument. • The explanations for heron colony abandonment in the Raedeke report are largely anecdotal. • The buffer distances around King County heron colonies listed in the Raedeke report contradict the distances in King County surveys of these colonies. VI. Conclusion In spite of the voluminous documents submitted by the applicant and their lengthy testimony, adequate precautions have not been afforded to the heron colony at the Black River Riparian Forest. The ERC was errant in its decision to approve the site plan based on conjecture about the effects of noise on the heron colony and conjecture about the adequacy of the buffer between the development and the colony. The Tree Height and Screening report was seriously flawed and does not take into account the fact that the deciduous buffer would be extremely marginal as either a visual or acoustical screen in the winter and early spring during the critical heron nesting and mating season. Four volunteer experts including a recognized international great blue heron expert have testified that the site plan does not provide adequate protection to the heron colony. This appeal should be upheld and the additional mitigation measures of enhancing the buffer and imposing a seasonal restriction on heavy construction activities should be imposed. From:Trudy Davis To: Fred Kaufman Date:9/25/98 Time:3:21:34 PM Page 1 of 5 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To : Fred Kaufman From : Trudy Davis Sent : 9/25/98 at 3:21:22 PM Pages : 5 (including Cover) Subject : RE: Appeal of ERC's Determination for Black River Corporate Park Tract B Friend's of the Black River Final Rebuttal and Closing Argument Ali :;tTY OF RENTON SEP 2 51998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE asalvEN U � SEP ? 4 1998 BUCK & � 902 WATERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 CISY RENTON (206)382-9540 • FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. SUSAN M.RIDGLEY PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR PROJECT MANAGER JOEL M.GORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP AMY L.KOSTERLITZ COMMUNITY RELATIONS KEITH E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER September 24, 1998 VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL II Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton,WA 98055 Re: Rebuttal Statement-Appeal of DNS for Blackriver-Rivertech LLC Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is to object to new information that we understand the Appellants, through Ms. Susan Krom, have attempted to present to the Hearing Examiner subsequent to the close of the DNS hearing. This new information apparently is an e-mail message from a permit manager in the Army Corps of Engineers stating her proposal to impose a building setback and construction season limitations as part of a nationwide permit for a miniscule (.04 acre)wetland fill (in the back parking lot adjacent to SW 7`h St.)which fill has no relationship whatsoever to the conditions the Corps is ostensibly trying to impose related to the heron rookery. We object to the introduction of new material prior to the close of the evidentiary hearing, and without the opportunity to cross- examine the Corps to determine what the basis of these limitations was. In fact, as explained as follows,we have discovered that the Corps relied on information provided by the opponents, and did not have the benefit of the information we provided to this Hearing Examiner. The Corps never consulted with us or with representatives of the City of Renton as required by their regulations, before deciding upon these proposed conditions. We have asked the Corps for and been granted an opportunity for reconsideration, and we will be meeting with them on Wednesday, September 30, as evidenced by the enclosed letter from the Corps Attorney, Ms. Ski Nelson. \\BGI\VOLT\DATA\WP\ALPER\L09248.ALK.DOc Mr. Fred Kaufman - 2- September 24, 1998 In addition, as the enclosed letter I recently sent to the Corps demonstrates, we believe that the Corp's attempt to impose building setback and construction limitations is well beyond the limited scope of their jurisdiction which is only to protect the wetland in question. Further the Corp's proposed limitations lack a nexus to wetland impacts, and lack a factual basis. In addition, there is significant doubt that a Corps permit is even required for the fill of this tiny wetland, which has no hydrological connection to regulated waters and does not meet the Corps regulatory criteria. We have now sent to the Corps some of the evidence from the DNS hearing for their consideration. We are concerned about the propriety of the Appellants' attempt to try to influence the Hearing Examiner based upon what appears to have been not a well-considered decision by another agency, and also concerned about the Corps attempt to try to invade the City's purview in the regulation of buildings outside of their legitimate role in the SEPA process. Based on the above, we respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner refuse to admit the evidence based upon the fact that it has been offered outside of the hearing process, that it is hearsay and not subject to cross-examination, and is being reconsidered. If the Examiner chooses to admit it,we ask that the attached letters to and from the Corps by us also be admitted. Very truly yours, BUCK&GORDON LLP 4tbit, . VOSCeA Amy L. sterlitz ALK:a Enclosures cc: Dean Erickson,Alper Northwest Royce Berg, LPN Theresa Henson, NRC Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Renton Planning Jana Huerter, Renton Planning \\BGI\vOLI\DATA\WP\ALPER\L09248ALK.DOC • T q ad' •, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY r M SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS +t P O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 99124-Z255 September 24, 1998 fYfS O t[NTION O/ Office of Counsel Subject: Blackriver-River Tech LLC; No. 98-4-01467 Amy L. Kosterlitz, Esq. Buck &.Gordon LLP 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-1097 Dear Ms. Kosterlitz: I am responding in part to your letter dated September 22, 1998, and our telephone conversations. In our conversation on September 22, 1998, you had indicated a concern regarding the conditions that had been attached to your Nationwide 18 permit. You had indicated that you were sending, and we have subsequently received, a report In your September 22, 1998 letter, you raised several concerns regarding the conditions that were attached to the Nationwide 18 permit. You questioned our authority over the wetlands, our authority to require conditions over non-wetlands, and whether the conditions were even warranted because you contend they lack a reasonable nexus to project impacts. You also asked that we suspend the permit while we review your information and make a decision regarding whether a modification of the conditions is warranted. We are reviewing the information you provided to determine whether modification of the conditions is warranted. We are also considering your request to suspend the permit during this review. In our conversation on September 24, 1998, it was agreed that we would have a meeting at Seattle District on September 30, 1998, at 10:AM to listen to your concerns and request for suspension. In your letter dated September 22, 1998, you also indicated that you believe that the applicant had not been consulted. As 1 indicated in our phone conversation on September 24. 1998, this is not as we see it. The proposed conditions were indeed coordinated with Theresa Henson in advance and she left a voice mail message with Tom Mueller on Wednesday, September 17, 1998, to discuss the proposed conditions. We had tried to contact the agents of the applicant on several occasions — including both Thursday and Friday of last week, September 18 and 19, 1998; however, our calls were not returned. Sincerely, /?,44 )/s2 .. C. Siri C. Nelson Deputy District Counsel SEe '9=; OS:39i=AM _x_L DI'=T ENG 3 *l.c�?.: �,c.�• PagP.2:' '2 . N Message 1110 � N� '• � 861Vr, Read Message 1 n Help 11111111.11111111 MIN AS A[TACH1( Areg, I. eU Back to Inbox MNMessage-Download From:"Morris, F Lori NWS" <F.Lori,Morris@NWS02.usace.army.m.i1>Add to Address Book To:mskrom.@yahoo.com'" <skrorn r@yahoo.com> �( 1 Subject:Black River Heron Rookery u Date:Tue, 22 Sep 1998 16:01:36 -0700 SEP 7 4 19� Suzanne: As per your request, I am writing to inform you that the 0.S. Arm Corps of CITY OF RENTON Engineers has issued a Nationwide Permit 18 for the Black River - i NEARING EXAMINE! RiverTech, L.L.C. project located at Oaksdale Avenue S.W. in Renton Washington. The permit authorizes the applicant to fill a 0.07 acre wetland on-site with the following conditions: a) No development, other than the wetpond, will take place within 660 feet of the nearest great blue heron nesting tree within the existing rookery; b) The buffer shall be planted with native condiverous trees to include, but not be limited to, Western red cedar, Sitka spruce, and Douglas fir to provide a more permanent and useful visual barrier for the great blue heron. This buffer shall remain untouched except for removal of dangerous snags. Any snags shall be replanted with the species listed above at the beginning of the next growing season; c) No construction activities may take place on-site from January 15 to July 31 of any year to protect breeding great blue heron and their young; d) The buildings on this site shall be no greater than two stories high to further protect great blue heron populations. We were unable to wait until the hearing examiner for Renton issued a decsion, but are confident his or her decision will be similar to the conditions above for the protection of the heron and the public interest. Please contact me (206) 764-6909 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, Lori Morris, Project Manager Application and Review Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .../wmailLetter.py?Py1=Tym&YY=32127&box=lnbox&message=141_2106902_40235_670_15 9/23/98 SEP 24 '98 08:_9AM C,fl r'T'�T EPIC MRTI To: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner(425-430-6544, fax) _ ` T'✓' 4 ,r °"m From: Suzanne Krom(206-684-3083,phone) Date: Sept. 23, 1998 CITY OF RENTON Subject: Black River Tract B proposed project HEARING EXAMINER I received this email from Lori Morris of the Regulatory Branch of the Army Corps. of Engineers. These are the conditions that are attached to their permit I faxed this to Jana Huerter,as well. BUCK & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98104-1097 (206)382.9540 • FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE WILLIAM H.BLOCK.PS. SUSAN M.RIDGLEY PETER L.BUCK BRENT CARSON OF COI NSF.L KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR PROJECT MANAGER JOEL M.GORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST.AICP AMY L KOSTERLITZ COMMUNITY RELATIONS KEITH E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER September 22, 1998 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Tom Mueller U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers P.O. Box 3755, Atm: Op-Rg Seattle, WA 98124 Re: Blackriver-RiverTech LLC; No. 98-4-01467 Dear Mr. Mueller: As we discussed on the phone, this is Blackriver-RiveTech LLC's formal request that you withdraw or suspend Permit No. 98-4-01467, dated September 18, as we believe that this permit was erronously issued based on several grounds, and must be modified. We are requesting that you reconsider and modify the permit based upon the arguments in this letter and the additional factual information enclosed. We request that in modifying this permit or in issuing a new permit, the Corps consult with the Applicant, as its regulations require. There are several reasons that we believe that the scope of the Corps' Nationwide Permit conditions a-d far exceeds the Corps authority. First, before imposing such conditions, the Corps was obligated under 33 C.F.R. § 330.5(d)(2) to hold informal consultations with our clients where our clients would be given an opportunity to furnish information "to satisfy the District Engineers concerns." If our client could not satisfy those concerns, the Corps was required "to determine whether special conditions to modify the [Nationwide Permit] authorization would be mutually agreeable." Here, the Applicant was not consulted about the conditions imposed, but rather was led to believe that there were no conditions that would be imposed.The only meeting the Corps had with our clients' representative,Theresa Henson, was a meeting on site where the Corps assured Ms. Henson that a permit would be issued under Nationwide Permit No. 18. Although Ms. Henson left several messages with the Corps in an effort to discuss the permit application, her calls were not returned, and the Corps simply issued the permit with unacceptable conditions, saying \\ac 1\VOL I\DATA\W P\ALPER\L09223.U.K.DCC Mr. Tom Mueller - 2 - September 22, 1998 they were unable to reach her last Friday when the thirty day time period ran. Far from consulting with our client as required in the above-cited regulations, the Corps frankly ignored our clients and pushed forward with conditioning our clients' permit based on extremely limited information. The Corps also never consulted with the City of Renton's SEPA officials who determined under SEPA not to impose the very conditions that the Corps is now trying to impose on its permit and the Corps never commented on the City's MDNS decision on this very subject. Second, the Corps lacks authority to impose conditions a-d of the permit in that these greatly exceed the jurisdiction of the Corps to condition this permit.As the Corps concedes, the permit conditions are imposed here on buildings which are outside of this miniscule wetland area to be filled and are completely unrelated to the impacts of the proposed wetland fill. The Corps has no authority to impose conditions based on perceived impacts to a heron rookery that is outside of the Corps' jurisdiction. Indeed, in the case of individual permits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Corps' environmental analysis is properly focussed on the specific area of its geographic jurisdiction rather than an entire proposed development. See, e.g., Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 871 F.2d 817, 823 (1989) (Corps appropriately reviewed only the impacts of golf course where wetland fill would be placed rather than impacts of entire resort). If such a review is not appropriate for an individual permit, it is certainly inappropriate for a Nationwide Permit. See 33 C.F.R. § 330.1 ("Nationwide permits . . . are designed to regulate with little, if any, delay or paperwork certain activities having minimal impacts."). Third, the Corps permit conditions ad lack a factual basis. The enclosed report and the summary of testimony in the briefs of Blackriver-Rivertech LLC and the City of Renton to the City's Hearing Examiner demonstrate that the Corps proposed conditions are not only beyond its jurisdiction but lacking a reasonable nexus to project impacts. If the Applicant had been consulted, this type of information could have been made available to you. Finally, the Applicant, believes that the Corps is not on firm ground in asserting jurisdiction over this wetland in the first instance. While the Applicant initially chose not to challenge the Corps' asserted jurisdiction to require a permit, as the Applicant reasonably believed the Corps would issue the permit, the Applicant will be reconsidering this based upon the outcome of the Corps reconsideration and consultation process. We believe that the proposed filling of this wetland is not subject to Corps' jurisdiction for the following reasons. Under United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 1997), the Corps must show that a defendant's activities in a wetland "substantially interfere" with interstate commerce before the Corps can constitutionally assert jurisdiction. See also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 1624 (1995). The Corps claims that the requisite commerce connection here is found based on the wetland's alleged historic adjacency to the Black River Channel. However, even the Corps must concede that the wetland is not currently connected to the Black River. Because there is no hydrologic connection between this wetland and a water of the United States, the filling of this wetland could not substantially \\BG1\VOLT\DATA\WP\ALPER\L09?'_9.LL.DX k i Mr. Tom Mueller -3 - September 22, 1998 interfere with interstate commerce. 1 This wetland is simply outside of the Corps' jurisdiction under the commerce clause. It is my clients hope that this matter can be resolved through a consultation and reconsideration process and that we will not be forced to resort to alternative remedies. Please let me know as soon as possible whether you agree to suspend or withdraw this permit pending consultation/reconsideration. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON 1(11 1Z... Amy L. terlitz Attorne for Blackriver-Rivertech LLC ALK:a Enclosures cc: Siri Nelson, Army Corps Dean Erickson, Alper NW Theresa Henson, Natural Resource Consulting Royce Berg, LPN Larry Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton I Any jurisdictional assertion by the Corps based on use of this wetland by migratory waterfowl is unsupportable. The courts have made clear that actual use by migratory waterfowl is necessary for commerce clause jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hoffman Homes, Inc. v. EPA, 999 F.2d 256, 262(7th Cir. 1993). Given the quality of the wetland at issue here, the Corps would be hard pressed to show that this wetland is actually used by migratory waterfowl. Furthermore, although the Ninth Circuit allowed an assertion of jurisdiction based on migratory waterfowl use in Leslie Salt v. United States, 896 F.2d 354(9th Cir. 1990), that decision was issued before the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lopez, which clarified that the "substantial interference" test was the proper test for determining whether an activity is regulated under the commerce clause. We believe Lopez will require the Ninth Circuit to reexamine its decision in Leslie Salt. \\Bc I\`OL t\DATA\W P\ALPER\L092:s.,uxooc SEP 2 11998 HaPAp ER 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 4' 6 7 8 In re:Appeal of Friends of Black River ) CLOSING ARGUMENT OF of MDNS for Blackriver Corporate Park ) APPLICANT BLACKRIVER- 9 Tract B (LUA 98-075, ECF, SM-SA H) ) RIVERTECH LLP 10 11 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 This case involves an appeal by the Friends of the Black River("Appellants") regarding th. City 14 of Renton Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") decision to issue a mitigated determinatir a of environmental non-significance ("MDNS") for the proposal of Blackriver-Rivertech LLP ("Applic nt") 15 for an office project on Tract B (Lots 1-3) of the Blackriver Corporate Park. The Hearing Exami, er allowed testimony by representatives of the Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, and the 16 Audubon Society to be included as part of Appellants case, thus hereinafter the testimony of the 17 groups will be included under the general heading of Appellants' evidence.' 18 This closing argument will respond to the closing argument of Appellants and demonstrd why Appellants have not carried their burden of proof of demonstrating that the ERC's decision 19 clearly erroneous. ZO II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 A. "Premitigation" of the Subject Proposal 22 3 This case involves Applicant's proposal for a development of five one and two story commercial buildings on the remaining 12.5 acres of the Blackriver Corporate Park("the subject 24 25 ' In fact, it appears that some of the experts who testified on behalf of the original Appellants were in fact tic experts of the Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation based upon the testimony of their representati\ , Ms. 26 Krom, that "our experts" supported her points. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 1 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLGSING4.ALK.Doc 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western:\ n u Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626.0675 Facsimile 1 proposal"). See, Exhibit 1, Project File, site plan. The subject proposal is located on Lots 1-3 of Tra,t B. 2 Applicant recently sold Lot 4 of Tract B, containing the historic Blackriver channel and its wetlai ids, to the City as permanent open space and additional wetland/wildlife habitat. 3 As testimony at the hearing demonstrated, the Applicant worked with the City for nearly .1 year 4 to come up with a proposal that would be structured to mitigate environmental impacts on the h,iron 5 colony and the wetlands. In doing so, the City and the Applicant used a prior 1992 site plan app•oval and a 1991 Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") regarding environmental mitigation as a guide in 6 helping to structure and "pre-mitigate" the subject proposal.2 The City staff testified that the reason the ERC did not need to impose multiple conditions on the MDNS was that the Applicant had 7 already incorporated most of the environmental mitigation into the project. This mitigation incl Ided 8 a significant downsizing of the project from the prior 1992 site plan approval and siting the prof( t in a location no closer to the heron colony than the previous development proposal in the MOA- 9 despite the fact that the subject proposal has significantly less acreage, building area and height, a d significantly more screening. See Exhibit 4, Overlay of old and new site plans. 10 11 Testimony indicated that the subject proposal no longer includes Tract A, which tract wa, much more open to the heron colony. Evidence also demonstrated that the subject project cont ns 12 70%less square footage than the previous site plan approval and less than half the number of pa ing spaces. The revised proposal has 1 and 2 story buildings whereas the prior approval contained 4 d 5 13 story buildings, and had a 4 story structured parking garage located closest to the island nest trees/` 14 Thus,Applicant's wildlife biologist, Dr. Kenneth Raedeke, testified that the subject proposal pro des a substantial reduction in the potential for impacts to the heron colony when compared to the 15 previously approved site plan. See Exhibit 14, Great Blue Heron Assessment by Raedeke and Associates Table 5, pp. 43-44 for a summary of the specific numerical differences between the 1992 site plan approval _old 16 the subject proposal. 17 The ERC had before it an EIS from the prior project, as well as a Visual Assessment rep() t by i8 Applicant's natural resource ecologist, Theresa Henson, demonstrating that the trees in the area lad grown such that the heron colony was not visible from the site, with the exception of a very narn w 19 corridor, even prior to tree leaf-out. See, Exhibit 1, Project file. The ERC also had a project that w; 20 "pre-mitigated" to include all of the relevant conditions of the prior MOA,with the exception o1 n additional construction season limitation. According to the City's testimony, the ERC took int( 21 account the fact of the project's downsizing, its significant visual screening, and the amount of to 11 habitat in the vicinity, and decided that the type of construction season limit imposed previously n 22 the MOA, and requested by Appellants here,was no longer required. 23 24 25 2 The MOA is contained in the Project File, Exhibit 1. The Hearing Examiner can take official notice of i c 26 1992 Site Plan Approval. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER RIVERTECH LLP - 2 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALx.DOC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western 1nue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile I B. Significant Wildlife Habitat Adjacent to Subject Proposal 2 The ERC's decision not to require a larger setback or construction season limits relied in )art 3 on the significant amount of wildlife habitat available to the heron colony. Evidence demonstrat d that the Applicant has dedicated and the City has purchased significant wildlife habitat and open 4 space in the immediate vicinity of the subject proposal. The history and acreage of the surround ig 5 wildlife habitat and open space was detailed in Applicant's environmental checklist and its attacl,..d Exhibit 2. See Exhibit 1, Project File. I As the City Attorney testified, the MOA contained purchase and sale agreements that all ' ed 7 the City to purchase significant tracts of wildlife habitat from the Applicant at below market rate 8 These purchases were the quid pro quo for allowing the development approved under the MOA— ich development was significantly larger than the subject proposal. These purchase and sale agreeme is 9 stated that the City would allow "mitigation credits" for development of the remaining property. t is relevant here that the City(and the citizens) gained the benefit of the wildlife habitat provided f ;by 10 the prior MOA's purchase agreements and yet the developer has not yet gotten any benefit of pr ct 11 approvals or mitigation credits allowing development. While the MOA does not apply to this n application, it is relevant background to the ERC's decision that the City had achieved the bene of 12 its prior bargain under the MOA,while the Applicant had not. 1 13 More specifically, since the time of the 1992 site plan approval, the City has purchased T ct 14 A, a portion of Tract B, and other portions of the original Blackriver master plan site, for a total increase of approximately 26 acres of additional permanent open space and wildlife habitat. See 15 Exhibits 6, 7 and 8. Exhibit 6 shows the total development proposed in the 1986 master plan for e Blackriver Corporate Park. Exhibit 7 shows the approximately 74 acres of permanent open spac nd 16 wildlife habitat that had been dedicated to or purchased by the City from the original developm t 17 area at the time of the MOA. Exhibit 8 shows that 26 additional acres of permanent open and dlife habitat have been purchased by the City since the MOA. This has resulted in a total of approxi tely 18 100 acres of open space and wildlife habitat adjacent to the subject proposal. Evidence from Dr. Raedeke indicated that this 100 acres is 10 times the amount of habitat area recommended by th 19 WDFW for herons. 20 C. Additional Screening Provided By Tree Growth 21 Testimony by Applicant's resource ecologist, Theresa Henson, and wildlife biologist, Dr. J, 22 Kenneth Raedeke, demonstrated that there are significant trees on Tract B that form a nearly 23 complete buffer between the project and the heron colony, including the island nest trees. Thes rees on Tract B,which were approximately 25 ft. in 1992, now range from 70-126 ft.with their great 24 height in the northwest part of the property which forms the buffer between the project and the island trees. It is notable that the 1992 site plan approval allowed buildings with heights of 57-70 ft. buffered 25 from the colony by only 25 ft. trees while the subject proposal has buildings with a maximum height of 26 30 ft buffered by 70-126 ft. trees. The comparison between the screening of the prior proposal ar d CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -3 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western*me Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 i (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 the subject proposal is very graphically demonstrated by Exhibit 5, Cross-section showing subject project and tree heights and prior project and tree heights. However, even if no comparison whatsoever were made to the prior site plan approval, Exhibit 5 demonstrates that the height of �e 3 trees,which tower over the buildings, make an ample visual screen for the buildings. r 4 Ms. Henson's testimony and her Visual Assessment dated March 30, 1998, demonstrate hat with the exception of a narrow 30 ft. corridor, the subject proposal was not visible from the hero 5 colony, including the island nest trees, even during the winter months when the trees did not ha 6 leaves. In addition, the narrow view corridor allowed only a view of one corner of one building. Testimony of Applicant's experts demonstrated that recent observations of the project site,with 1 ves 7 on the trees and additional tree growth this spring and summer, indicated no visibility of the col y 8 from the project site. This testimony was corroborated by a photograph showing the tree screeni at the site. See Exhibit 17, Plate 1. 9 A couple of Appellant's witnesses stated disagreement with Applicant's evidence on tree 10 screening. However, much of Appellants' complaint in their closing argument regarding Ms. 11 Henson's study seemed to revolve around the alleged inaccuracy of her information on heron f1i*'it paths rather than her observations of the vegetation. However, at most,Appellants created a dis to 12 of opinion regarding how much of a visual buffer the tree screening created from the island trees Appellants presented no photographic or visual evidence regarding the issue of inadequate tree 13 screening of the island nest trees, nor did they even attempt to address the issue of screening be en 14 the subject proposal and the heron nests in the riparian forest. 5 D. Status of Heron Colony 16 Testimony from all parties indicated that the heron colony is increasing both in the num r of 17 nests and birds, with an estimated 55-65 nests this year. There was some dispute between the pa "es about the exact number of nests located on the island trees as opposed to in the riparian forest. 1 18 However, the essential point supporting Applicant's position was undisputed-that thriving nests 'xist in the riparian forest as well as the island. Thus, whether or not a majority of the nests are locat on 19 the island or the riparian forest at this point in time,Appellant's characterization of the island n 20 trees as the "heron colony" and their sole focus on the distance from the island nests as the basis r their argument that there is an inadequate buffer, is misplaced. This is particularly true in light the 21 evidence presented by Dr. Raedeke, discussed in more detail below, that the island nest trees are deteriorating and that the future of the heron colony is in the younger, more protected trees of t 22 riparian forest. 23 III. EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING EFFECT OF SUBJECT PROPOSAL 24 ON HERON COLONY 25 A close examination of the evidence reveals that Appellants did not carry their burden of roof 26 in demonstrating that the ERC decision was without reasonable basis and clearly erroneous. In ct, CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -4 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\e[OStNc4.ALx.DOC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western nue Seattle,Washington 9810+1097 (206)382.9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile i 1 the report submitted by Dr. Raedeke (Great Blue Heron Assessment, Exhibit 14) and the testimony of Dr. 2 Raedeke amply demonstrated that the ERC's decision was supported by the best available science.3 Dr. Raedeke observed the heron colony prior to the hearing and at the time of the previous approval, 3 and did an extensive survey both of the other heron colonies in King County and of the literature on great blue herons in coming to his conclusions. 4 5 Dr. Raedeke testified that there is no support, based upon his observations, his expertise and the literature, for claiming that the project as designed should have a negative effect on the heron 6 colony. Dr. Raedeke was able to demonstrate that the subject proposal had adequate mitigation measures, in terms of buffer distance from the heron colony, and overall heron habitat, such that the 7 ERC's decision is supported by the best available science. 8 A. Adequacy of Evidence on Buffer Distance Size 9 With regard to the issue of the buffer distance, Dr. Raedeke demonstrated that the buffe 10 distance of the project from the heron colony was more than adequate. This distance is approxi 4tely 11 500 ft. from the nearest building in the subject proposal to a point close to the nearest island ne• trees' and a distance of approximately 900 ft. to the closest riparian forest nest tree.' The averag: 12 distance from the closest building on Tract B to all the nest trees on the island and the riparian est, as mapped by Jones and Stokes (1991) is 1072 ft.,with a range of 500 to 1,275 ft. See Exhibit 14, reat 13 Blue Heron Assessment, p. 13. Dr. Raedeke's conclusion that the buffer distance is adequate was b ed 14 on the fact that the subject project's buffer distance from the heron colony is consistent with buf r distances recommended in the literature for similar circumstances, particularly given the ample t e 15 screening between the project and the heron colony. Id. at pp. 4-6 16 Dr. Raedeke's report also carefully inventoried the other heron colonies in King County, nd 17 the distances between development and other human impacts and these colonies. Id. at Figures 1 . Dr. Raedeke was able to establish that all of these King County heron colonies, none of which h. '1 a 18 no-disturbance buffer greater than 450 ft.,were thriving. In fact, the average disturbance-free bu -r around the heron colonies in King County was shown to be 223 ft., with no correlation between 19 buffer width and the viability of the colony. Id. at p. 7. Dr. Raedeke was also able to establish th ugh 20 a risk analysis based upon this evidence that there was an 100%chance of the Blackriver colony thriving with a 450 ft. buffer distance. It is notable that several of the other heron colonies in Ki g 21 22 23 3 Dr. Raedeke's credentials are summarized in his resume, Exhibit 13. 4 Mr. Royce Berg, the project architect, demonstrated on the site plan where the 500-ft.was measured fro t and 24 demonstrated that it was a point near to but not at the closest nest tree on the island. Nonetheless, Exhi. 4 demonstrates that the distance between the closest proposed building and the island nest trees, however 25 measured, is no less than that approved by the 1992 site plan and the MOA. 5 Dr.Raedeke's report indicates that the distances between the subject proposal and the nests on the riparian 26 forest are 900 ft. or more. Exhibit 14, p. 16 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -5 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western A :rnue Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSINO4.ALK.DOC Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)6260675 Facsimile 1 County that are thriving do so with significantly less of a buffer distance than 500 ft. and without the 2 type of screening that the subject proposal has. Id. at Figure 6. 3 Dr. Raedeke's extensive review of the scientific literature on great blue herons also demonstrated that no causal, evidentiary link has been established between construction or 4 development activities, such as those posed by the subject proposal, and the lack of nesting succc: or 5 heron colony abandonment. Dr. Raedeke's review of the literature revealed a contrary conclusio - that there was no correlation between fledging success and the size of a buffer around the colony. Scc 6 Exhibit 14, Great Blue Heron Assessment, pp. 4-6; Exhibit 15, Carlson and McLean 1996 report. The Carlson and McLean study, cited by Dr. Raedeke, and submitted as Exhibit 15, also found that 1 er 7 nesting success was not correlated with mechanical disturbances, such as construction noise,but ther 8 with direct human disturbance. Id. Carlson and McLean concluded that the quality of the barri between human activities and a heron colony, such as fencing,water and screening, had more i act 9 on nesting success than the size of the buffer. Id. Dr. Raedeke pointed out that even Butler, one f Appellant's witnesses, in his 1997 book, concluded that large forest buffers may not be necessary 10 other means of minimizing human disturbance in the colony are available. Exhibit 14, p. 6. Dr. 11 Raedeke's report notes that both Butler and Carlson and McLean, find that effective types of bu rs include water barriers, fencing and vegetation,which are the types of barriers found in the subje 12 proposal. Id. 13 Dr. Raedeke also demonstrated that there was no scientific basis to conclude that there w s a 14 linkage between nest abandonment and construction activities occurring at a distance such as th. in the subject proposal. The Raedeke report states "It should be noted that there has not been a 15 documented case of heron nest colony abandonment in King County due to passive disturbance s,y residential activities and/or construction." Exhibit 14, p. 11. Rather, the anecdotal cases of nest 16 abandonment were either much closer to a heron colony(Mr.Ted Mueller of WDFW had two 17 anecdotal examples of abandonment within 100 ft. of construction activities,with possible involvement of eagle predation) or involved vandalism or human activity within the colony. Ot 18 common causes of colony abandonment were: predation, declines in food availability, colony-ca -d 19 damage to nesting trees, severe winters, and researchers banding birds. Exhibit 14, pp. 10-12. 20 Dr. Raedeke also demonstrated, based upon both the literature and the circumstances of e subject proposal, that the heron colony at Blackriver is well habituated to construction noise. D 21 Raedeke demonstrated that the heron colony here has thrived despite several sources of heavy 22 construction noise, including the construction of Naches Ave.within 450 ft. of the nearest ripar' nest and an open pedestrian trail on Tract A within 450 ft. of the nests in the riparian forest and 23 within 550 ft. of the island nests. Other sources of noise and activity have included the constru• ;on of the P-1 pond, the METRO treatment plant, Oakesdale Ave. and office buildings, frequent bla• l.ng 24 and heavy equipment activity at the Blackriver quarry, railroad activities, and vehicular traffic. Se 25 Exhibit 14, p. 14 for a detailed list of nearby construction activities and specific distances from the heron co ny. Dr. Raedeke also cited support in the scientific literature for the proposition that herons in urba 26 settings could become habituated to disturbance. Id at p. 7. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -6 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western nue Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC Seattle,Washington 981041097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 2 The Appellants were unable to demonstrate that the proposed buffer for the subject prop sal, approved by the ERC, was clearly erroneous. Appellants' experts' statements about inadequate b ffer 3 distance were shown to be either taken from circumstances very different from the Blackriver her ,n colony, or were not based upon documented data. In a couple instances, the Appellants' expert 4 testimony even supported Dr. Raedeke's opinion regarding the adequacy of the buffer. 5 Appellants' expert, Mr. Don Norman, did not present any scientific evidence of heron co ony 6 disturbance or abandonment that would undercut Dr. Raedeke's position on the adequacy of the buffer distance under the circumstances of the subject proposal. He only testified to his opinion that 7 construction activities could have detrimental effects on heron colonies. The study by Werschku that 8 he cited is distinguishable because it occurred in a relatively isolated forest environment rather th ,n an urban setting. In fact, Mr. Norman's evidence of heron colony disturbance in close proximity to 9 Whidbey Island airport actually supported Dr. Raedeke's theory that birds can become habituate,. to loud mechanical noises. Mr. Norman testified that at that heron colony, located near a runway, rue 10 birds had become very acclimated to the airplane noise but were disturbed when someone drove p 11 and got out of a vehicle. This supports Dr. Raedeke's opinion that herons are not disturbed by 1 d mechanical noise, particularly in circumstances such as Blackriver where they have been subjecte !to 12 numerous types of construction noise,yet they can be disturbed by the visual intrusion of huma movement at a close distance. 13 14 Appellants' expert, Dr. Rob Butler, also gave no scientific evidence that would undercut e adequacy of the buffer distances under the circumstances of the subject proposal. Dr. Butler test ed 15 that heron's numbers in Canada are decreasing; however, this appeared not to be relevant in lig 'of evidence that heron colonies in King County, and the United States in general,were increasing. his 16 testimony only highlighted the fact that Dr. Butler's testimony regarding Canadian heron coloni was 17 less relevant to the subject proposal than evidence regarding King County heron colonies. Dr. B ler's examples of heron colony disturbance in situations in Canada were distinguishable from the 18 circumstances of the subject proposal. Dr. Butler testified about a colony at Surrey, B.C. where rons allegedly abandoned a nest based upon the impacts of construction of a house. However, there ,s no 19 correlation between the distance at which construction occurred or the amount of screening or itat 20 available there or other circumstances which would make it predictive of results at the subject sit In fact, Dr. Butler gave some evidence that would support Dr. Raedeke's opinion that the subject , 21 proposal has an adequate buffer from the heron colony. Dr. Butler gave an example of a heron c lony at the Crofton Mill on Vancouver Island where herons were not impacted by the loud noise of 1 ging 22 trucks but would flush when cars stopped and people exited. On cross-examination, Dr. Butler 23 admitted that this flushing was likely due to the impact of the visual disturbance of the people fr the cars. Dr. Butler testified generally, and without scientific corroboration, that the City should e 24 conservative and impose more mitigation given the risk that construction activities could disturb heron colony. 25 26 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 7 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALx.DOC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western:\ ink Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 Appellant's expert Dr. Kate Stenberg also presented no scientific evidence that would sup cart 2 a conclusion that the buffer size for the proposal was inadequate. Dr. Stenberg maintained that t e heron numbers in King County were decreasing, despite the fact that she admitted that she did n t 3 conduct any actual surveys or base her opinion on existing surveys. Dr. Stenberg's opinion regale n.; the decline in heron numbers was in direct conflict with the information documented by Dr. 4 Raedeke's surveys,which showed the heron population in King County to be increasing. She ha no 5 evidence that disturbance of any kind within 500 ft. of a heron colony in King County had cause fledging failure or abandonment; instead she relied on anecdotal examples from Snohomish Cot' ,ty 6 where the exact circumstances were not clear. Finally, Dr. Stenberg cited the Kenmore heron col ny as the basis for her opinion that a larger buffer was required at the subject proposal. She maintai ed 7 that at Kenmore the park and ride was located at about 400 ft. from the heron colony. However, ooth 8 Dr. Raedeke's observations, and those of a report submitted by Appellants authored by T.Thom (see Appellants notebook of materials) indicate that the Kenmore colony is closer to development. The 7 9 Thomas report states that "The Kenmore colony is located within 150 ft. of a parking lot and 30( ft. from apartments." Dr. Raedeke also noted that the colony was approximately 100 ft. from the edge of 10 a police station parking lot and 230 ft. from the a park and ride lot. Dr. Stenberg could cite no 11 instance in King County where her recommended no-disturbance buffer distance of 660 ft. existe i. 1 7 Appellants' expert, Dee Boersma, testified that she thought the buffer was inadequate bu as uncertain of how close construction could occur to a heron colony without disturbance. She agr d 13 that the Blackriver heron colony was thriving. She noted generally that the major threats to hero 14 colonies in the region were loss of habitat due to urbanization and the threat of bald eagle preda ' n. She gave no scientific evidence or data to demonstrate the inadequacy of the buffer at the subjec ite. 15 In summary, none of Appellant's experts gave an example of heron colony disturbance or 16 abandonment in an urban situation such as the subject proposal, or where the heron colony was ell 17 buffered by screening. In fact, based upon the testimony of Dr. Raedeke and Appellant's experts one would have reason to believe that the greatest threat to the heron colony would be the open ped ian 18 trail on Tract A, at less than 660 ft. from the nearest trees in all portions of the heron colony. However,Appellant Jerry Holmes testified that he and "hundreds of people" had been on this to 1, 19 even during the winter and spring months when Appellants' claim the herons are most sensitive 20 disturbance. Other witnesses also testified to using the trail, individually and in groups. The type of human movement of people on the Tract A trail,without any screening, would appear to be the 21 type of human visual disturbance that herons are most sensitive to, according to Carlson and McClean, and even Mr. Norman and Dr. Butler's examples. Nonetheless, despite this significant and 22 repeated human disturbance at a distance of less than 660 ft., the Blackriver heron rookery, evei by 23 Appellants' accounts, is growing and thriving. 24 B. Lack of Necessity for Construction Season Limits 25 Appellants have also failed to carry their burden of proof to show that the ERC decision gas 26 clearly erroneous for failing to impose an additional area of construction season limits, in additi to CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -8 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLosING4.Ai x.DOC 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western nue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)6260675 Facsimile 1 the already existing buffer. Dr. Raedeke's report and testimony demonstrated that there are no 2 scientifically based studies of heron colony abandonment specifically due to construction disturl) cc (as opposed to vandalism, predation, etc.). See Exhibit 14, p. 17. Further, Dr. Raedeke's thorougl 3 search of the literature found no research that demonstrated the need for construction period limitations when an adequate buffer existed. Id, at p. 18. 4 5 In addition, Dr. Raedeke testified that while scientific data did not support construction season limits here, Appellants' suggested construction season limit period was also overly length Dr. 6 Raedeke's data indicated that the great blue herons were most sensitive to disturbance during th courtship, mating and hatching period, and that they were considerably less sensitive to disturba ce 7 after hatching occurred. Dr. Raedeke presented evidence that it was difficult to disrupt the hero s 8 after the hatching period. 9 Dr. Raedeke pointed out that even the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)recommended buffer is limited to activities within the buffer and does not include an 10 additional construction season limit such as that urged by Appellants. Id. Further, all of the evi nce 11 cited above to show that the subject proposal for Tract B is adequately buffered also serves to sho that an additional construction season limit is not required. This evidence has demonstrated th. the i2 heron colony is already buffered from the subject proposal by an adequate distance, by an ample i vegetative screen with trees,which are three times the height of the proposed buildings,by the P- 13 pond,by a wetpond, landscaping and by fencing. 14 Appellants rely on recommendations for construction season buffers in different circums nces 15 that the subject proposal. They also rely on the opinion of their experts,without scientific data support, that the heron colony would risk abandonment without an addition area of constructio 16 season buffer. However, this generalized testimony from Appellants' experts that they are concer ed 17 about risks does not suffice to carry Appellants' burden of proof to show that the ERC decision s clearly erroneous for lack of additional construction season limits. 18 Ms. Susan Krom in her testimony argued that the same construction season limits in the OA 19 should apply here. However, City staff explained the ERC's rationale for not imposing those li s to 20 the revised proposal. The City felt that the additional construction season limits of the MOA w: not necessary based upon the changed proposal and changes in background circumstances, inclu ng: 21 (1)the elimination of Tract A from the prior MOA proposal,which concentrated development e the better-screened Tract B; (2)the fact that the tree heights are now significantly higher such that th 22 heron colony is barely visible from the site; (3) the buildings are significantly lower than the tree 23 screening; and (4) the large amount of wildlife habitat in the vicinity has increased since the MO. based in part on provisions in the MOA itself. 24 25 26 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP -9 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western • nue Y:\W P\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626.0675 Facsimile • 1 C. Adequacy of Habitat 2 Finally, Dr. Raedeke demonstrated that the ERC decision regarding mitigation was reaso1 able 3 based upon the large amount of wildlife habitat available to the heron colony in the immediate v inity and the focus on preservation of the heronry through preservation of adequate habitat. The MO 4 and prior site plan approval were also based upon the idea that providing adequate overall habit was 5 more important than the application of rigid rules to a single group of nest trees. This habitat approach was approved of by the WDFW in the MOA(See MOA findings), and has also been ad() ted 6 by WDFW and federal agencies as the best way to protect wildlife species of special public interc< See Exhibit 14, p. 20. 7 8 As previously stated, the City, through required dedications and acquisitions, has ensure rile preservation of approximately 100 acres of wildlife habitat for the heron colony in the immediate, 9 vicinity of the project. The City has also had the applicant incorporate measures from the MOA ,to the project design to help protect that habitat, and to keep a significant buffer and fencing betwec;a 10 the project and the rookery. Dr. Raedeke testified that the habitat approach adopted by the ERC 11 made more sense than having an absolute buffer size from specific trees, and particularly from thy, island nest trees, which were the primary focus of the appeal. This is because past experience has 12 shown that nests in the island trees are vulnerable to predation and the colony can and did survi and thrive in the nearby, abundant riparian forest. Further, Dr. Raedeke gave evidence,both ve al 13 and photographic, that the island nest trees were past their prime, and vulnerable to storms as w.. ! as 14 decay, including as deterioration as a result of heron use. See Exhibits 14 and17. Dr. Raedeke's testimony supported the reasonableness of the ERC's decision that the project mitigation was 15 acceptable given the large amount of wildlife habitat and the likelihood that the future of the he n colony is in the younger trees of the riparian forest, which are better buffered and further from t 16 subject proposal. 17 The Appellants again did not carry their burden of proof that the mitigation conditions 18 imposed by the ERC,which took into account the availability of significant surrounding heron habitat,were clearly erroneous. Appellants did not give any scientifically-based evidence that the 19 amount of habitat in the vicinity of the heron proposal was not adequate for the heron colony, e n in 20 the unlikely and unproven event alleged by the Appellants, i.e. that disturbance of the birds by t development were to cause birds nesting on the island trees to move. Iri fact, other than the gen al 21 testimony of Appellants' expert, Dee Boersma, bemoaning the fact that heron habitat in the state''I generally is declining, the Appellants generally ignored the habitat issue altogether. In fact, the 1; er 22 from Theodore A. Muller of WDFW, dated July 1, 1998, submitted by Appellants in their noteb ,.k, 23 seems to ignore that there is some 100 acres of habitat nearby, as Mr. Muller states that"If this c• ony is forced to relocate due to human disturbance, there is no other nesting habitat within many mi s 24 with these attributes that could accommodate a colony of this size." It is particularly ironic that r. Muller would state that there is nowhere in the vicinity for the herons to relocate in light of the t 25 that the herons at Blackriver did actually relocate to and nest in the riparian forest habitat when , e 26 island nests were threatened by eagle predation. Mr. Muller's comments are also ironic in light the CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER RIVERTECH LLP - 10 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western • nue Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC Seattle,Washington 981041097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile I fact that that the existing adjacent 100 acres of habitat here exceeds the WDFW's habitat recommendation by ten-fold.6 3 In addition, there was no scientific evidence contradicting Dr. Raedeke's statements that iie future of the heronry was in the riparian forest. Even Appellants' expert, Mr. Norman, stated th; he 4 was "surprised" that the nest trees on the island were still standing. While Ms. Krom stated her 5 opinion that the birds appeared to like the island nesting site better, there was no scientific evide>ce to contradict the position that the island trees are old,vulnerable to predation and can be destro, 'd 6 over time by the heron nesting activity itself. 7 8 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT 9 A. Appellants Bear The Burden Of Proof To Demonstrate That The ERC's MDNS Decis ni Was Clearly Erroneous On The Issues Raised By The Appeal 10 11 1• Burden Of Proof 12 As the Hearing Examiner recognized, the ERC's decision is entitled to substantial weight nd the Appellants must carry the burden of proving that the decision was clearly erroneous. RCW 13 43.21C.090; Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 880, 613 P.2d 1164(1980). Under the cas aw 14 interpreting the clearly erroneous standard, the ERC decision must be affirmed unless the Exami er has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Hayden,supra; Pease Hill Comm ity 15 Group v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn.App. 800, 809, 816 P.2d 37 (1991). Even if the Examiner mi t have made a different decision than the ERC, he cannot reverse the ERC's decision if it is reaso bly 16 supported by the evidence. That is, the Examiner cannot substitute his judgement for that of th RC 17 with regard to the issues on appeal. Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69, 578 P.2d 13 (1978). 18 The Appellants closing argument misconstrues the burden of proof and asks "whether the 19 additional evidence presented by the applicant is adequate to support the City of Renton ERC's 20 decision." Because Appellants have misconstrued the burden of proof their conclusion that the 1.RC decision must be overturned is flawed. 21 2. Scope Of Appeal 22 23 Appellants raised only two very narrow issues to be decided by the Hearing Examiner: 24 6 Applicant here notes an objection to the September 9, 1998 letter from Mr.Ted Muller, as evidence 25 submitted subsequent to the close of the hearing, However, since we believe that Mr.Muller's letter doe of say anything new and confirms Mr. Raedeke's statement that Mr.Muller agreed to the buffer distance of 26 approx. 500 ft. as shown in the MOA,we do not choose to make a detailed response to the letter. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 11 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western nue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382.9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 1) Whether the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) erred in approving the proposed project based upon Appellant's claim that the but °r is 3 only 500 ft. from the heron colony and that the buffer distance should be 060 ft.; and 4 �I 2) Whether the ERC erred in not imposing a limitation on heavy constructs on the project to a period of June 15 to January 15. (i While Appellant presented evidence on a variety of issues related to heron behavior and yen 7 the accuracy of the checklist related to other species such as deer, this evidence is not relevant to ',ie 8 two specific issues before the Examiner on this appeal. Where evidence was presented on the issi e of the adequacy of the buffer from the heron colony and the construction season limitations,Appel ints 9 failed to carry their burden of proof that the ERC's decision on mitigation conditions was clearl\ erroneous, as demonstrated in detail above. Appellants' experts, despite their strong scientific 10 backgrounds and credentials, relied on anecdotal information and general concerns about risk, a d 11 did not present scientific data or evidence that would support the Appellant's requested addition setback or construction season limits. 12 B. Whether Appellants Have Met Their Burden Of Proof Must Be Judged In Light Of W at 13 SEPA Requires And What SEPA Does Not Require Of The ERC 14 1. SEPA Requires A Balancing of City Policies 15 In judging whether or not Appellants have met their burden of proof, it is important to 1(,3k at 16 what SEPA requires the City to do in issuing an environmental decision. "SEPA seeks to achieve 17 balance, restraint and control rather than to preclude all development whatsoever." Cougar Mout lain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 753, 765 P.2d 264(1988). Thus regulatory control mu•t be 18 balanced with fair treatment for landowners. Id. at 754. This balancing is achieved through the statutory and regulatory requirements that must be met before mitigation measures may be impo;ed. 19 Under SEPA, mitigation conditions may only be imposed based upon consideration of the polici s 20 identified in the SEPA ordinance as bases for substantive SEPA authority. Cougar Mountain Asso( ates, 111 Wn.2d at 752; RCW 43.21C.060; RMC 4-6-22(B)(5). Here the ERC properly considered an I 21 balanced all the City's relevant SEPA policies. 22 In its SEPA ordinance, the City has cited its Comprehensive Plan as a substantive SEPA olicy �3 to be used as a basis of mitigation. RMC 4-6-22(E). It is notable that other than its Comprehensive Plan, the City has not adopted any specific regulations regarding the preservation of heron habitat that 24 could be used as a basis of substantive SEPA authority regarding the issues in this appeal. The City's Comprehensive Plan contains a multitude of policies that must be considered by the ERC in making 25 its threshold determination and in imposing mitigation conditions. The Appellants have only cited 26 the policies of the SEPA ordinance itself. Appellants have ignored policies that do not suit their CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 12 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLGStNG4.ALK.DGC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western.1 iui Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626.0675 Facsimile 1 motives here. They have even ignored specific environmental protection policies in the 2 Comprehensive Plan such as Policy EN-52, which urges the City to protect habitat by giving development incentives. This is exactly what the City has consistently done with the Blackriver 3 resulting in the current wildlife habitat of over 100 acres. The development incentive here is mit )r by comparison-to allow a minimal amount of development on the last available tract of land in the 4 original Blackriver ownership. 5 The Appellants have also conveniently ignored the many Comprehensive Plan policies 6 incorporated by reference into SEPA which encourage reasonable economic development of this ite. General objectives and policies, applicable to the entire city, include expansion of the retail and e dice 7 base within the City(Objective ED-B); adoption of land use and zoning supportive of responsible 8 economic development(Policy ED-9); and designation of an adequate amount of land for retail/commercial uses based on site characteristics, market demand, community need and adeq cy 9 of facilities and services (Policy ED-11). Moreover, additional objectives and policies specifically encourage increased development in the Black River valley: 10 11 Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic 12 development of the City of Renton. 13 Policy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas 14 as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office and industrial uses. 15 Policy LU-212.3 Development Standards should promote an increased intensity and quality of development. 16 17 These policies support the ERC's MDNS decision,which strikes a reasonable balance between the City's environmental protection and economic development policies. As 18 Appellant would phrase it, the ERC's decision does require adequate mitigation "to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony" in 19 accordance with City policies. 20 2. SEPA Does Not Require the Mitigation of All Conceivable or Speculative 21 Environmental Impacts 22 Contrary to Appellant's assertions, SEPA does not require that every conceivable adverse 23 impact be mitigated such that there are no environmental impacts from a project. Cougar Mountain Associates, supra, 111 Wn.2d at 753-55; Maranatha.Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804, 24 801 P.2d 985 (1990) ("The law does not require that all adverse impacts be eliminated; if it did, no change in land use would ever be possible.") It is also important to recognize that SEPA does not 25 require the mitigation of impacts that are merely speculative. See WAC 197.11.782; RMC 4.6- 26 22(B)(1). CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 13 BUCK&GORDON LLP Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DOC 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western nue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 2 What SEPA requires is that mitigation measures be reasonable and capable of being accomplished, and that they be based upon impacts that are identified in environmental documc:,ts 3 on the project. RCW 43.21C.060. The Appellants have not demonstrated that their requested additional mitigation measures are reasonable and based upon identified environmental impacts. 4 5 C. Conclusion: Appellants Have Failed To Carry Their Burden Of Proof On The Appeal issues 6 Appellant's evidence did not suffice to carry their burden of demonstrating that the ER(' decision was clearly erroneous on either buffer distance or construction season limits. To the 7 contrary, the evidence presented by Applicant's experts amply demonstrated that ERC had a 8 reasonable scientific and policy basis for its MDNS decision. Applicants' evidence supported th( ERC decision by showing the following: (1) that the total amount of habitat available to the herd s is 9 adequate to accommodate their needs (indeed, is many times the amount recommended by the WDFW), and that City policy supports preservation of habitat through development incentives; i -) 10 that reliance on a habitat approach makes more sense as a strategy for heron colony protection tl n 11 the application of rigid buffer distances to particular trees, particularly the older nest trees on the island, which are vulnerable to predation, destruction by the elements, aging and deterioration fr m 12 heron usage; (3) that the existence of significant heron nests in the riparian forest, located furtl from the project site, ensures buffers larger than even the 660 ft. requested by applicant between he 13 project and many of the nests; (4) that the existence of a significant visual vegetative screen, with ther 14 protective barriers such as water and fencing, make the proposed setback distance adequate to p i )tect the heron colony, from the impacts of human activity and construction,without any additional l iffer 15 or construction season limits; (5) that there is strong evidence that the heron colony at Blackrivc: habituated to construction noise and no scientific basis to conclude that such noise would result 16 failure of nesting or abandonment. 17 For all of these reasons,Applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appea I 18 Respectfully submitted this lailk day of September, 1998. 19 BUCK& GORDON LLP 20 21 22 By A111L.1 L. ..) a i Amy L. sterlitz, WSBA#11710 Attorn: or Applicant 24 Blackriver-Rivertech LLP 25 26 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 14 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western • 'nue Y:\WP\ALPER\CLGSING4.ALK.DGC Seattle,Washington 98104.1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile , r 1 APPENDIX A 2 Exhibits - Black River Corporate Park Appeal Hearing 9/1/98 3 1. Project File/Appeal File 4 2. Aerial photograph(appellant) 5 6 3. Aerial photograph with concentric circles 7 4. Overlay of old and new site plans 8 5. Cross-section showing buildings and tree heights 9 6. 1986 Master Plan for development 10 7. Amount of open space at time of Memorandum Agreement 11 8. Amount of open space at time of 1998 proposal 12 9. Heron colony nest locations 13 10. Aerial photograph 9/97 14 11. Island diagram 15 12. Tree location map 16 17 13. Raedeke resume 18 14. Raedeke Great Blue Heron Assessment Report 19 15. Carlson&McLean 1996 Study 20 16. Colony life graph 21 17. Five pages of photographs (Dr. Raedeke) 22 18. Photo of nests (Krom) 23 24 25 26 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP - 15 BUCK&GORDON LLP • 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western A,:rnue Y:\WP\ALPER\CLOSING4.ALK.DGC Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 3 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 5 6 In re:Appeal of Friends of Black River ) CERTIFICATE OF MAILING j of MDNS for Blackriver Corporate Park ) AND DELIVERY VIA FACSIMIL I 7 Tract B (LUA 98-075, ECF, SM-SA H) ) 8 I, Christina Ware, an employee of Buck& Gordon, attorneys for Applicant Blackriver- 9 Rivertech LLP, do hereby certify that on the 17th day of September, 1998, I sent by facsimile and 10 deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage pre-paid, a copy of the CLOSING 11 ARGUMENT OF APPLICANT BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH LLP and a CERTIFICATE OF 12 MAILING in the above-entitled action addressed to the following individuals: 13 Mr. Fred Kaufman Mr. Tom Malphrus 14 Hearing Examiner Friends of Black River City of Renton 18713 102°a Avenue, S.E. 15 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 16 BUSINESS (425) 235-2500 BUSINESS: (425) 430-7313 17 FAX (425) 235-2513 FAX: (425) 430-7241 18 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren City Of Renton, City Attorney 19 100 South Second Street Renton,WA 98057 20 BUSINESS (425) 255-8678 21 FAX (425) 255-5474 22 DATED this 17th day of September, 1998. 23 BUCK& GORDON LLP 24 B y �� ►��� � A �ue 25 Christina M.Ware 26 CERTICATE OF MAILING- 1 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western nue Seattle,Washington 98104.1097 Y:\WP\ALPER\CERTIFICATE OF MAILING.DOC (206)382-9540 (206)6264675 Facsimile • 11111 SEP 1 71998 1 2 HEARING EXAMINER 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 7 Appeal of Environmental Determination by NO. LUA-98-110, AAD 8 ERC for Black River Corporate Park 9 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 10 11 12 13 I, ANNE SANTOS, an employee of Warren, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., 14 attorneys for the City of Renton, do hereby certify that on the 16th day of September, 15 1998, I deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage pre-paid, a copy of the 16 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON and a CERTIFICATE OF 17 MAILING in the above-entitled action addressed to the following individuals: 18 1. Mr. Tom Malphrus 2. Ms. Amy L. Kosterlitz 19 Friends of the Black River Buck& Gordon, L.L.P. 18713 102nd Avenue, S.E. 902 Waterfront Place 20 Renton, Washington 98055 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-1097 21 22 Respectfully submitted, �3 WARREN, BARBER, DEAN 24 &FONTES, P.S. 25 V, , 26 Anne Santos 27 3.25:21:as. 28 WARREN BARBED O RIGIN A DEAN 6 FONTES, PS. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)25. 5474 1 SEP 17 1998 _,,,, 2 CM'OF EXAMINER HEARING R 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 6 7 Appeal of Environmental Determination by NO. LUA-98-110, AAD 8 ERC for Black River Corporate Park 9 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY 10 OF RENTON 11 12 13 I. HISTORICAL FACTS 14 Twenty years ago this general area was a golf course. The property was sold and 15 development began. 16 As part of development this applicant or its predecessors has donated or sold the 17 18 following tracts of land to the City: 19 1. The P-1 forebay property. 20 2. The area generally known as the Riparian Forest. 21 3. The area generally known as the western part of Tract C, that is, the 22 western half of the property located between the forebay and the railroad tracks. 23 4. The western part of Tract A, that is, the property between the P-1 forebay 24 25 and Oakesdale Avenue. 26 5. The eastern portion of Tract C. 27 6. The eastern portion of Tract A. 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBEI Page 1 DEAN&FONTES, P S. ORIGINAL ATTORNEYS• LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(4251 255.8678 • FAX(425)258-5474 1 7. Parcel 4 of the short plat in which the subject property is located. 2 The first two transactions were donations. The rest of the transactions were 3 4 following negotiations at which the applicant sold property at what it believed was below 5 market rates. In each instance, as part of the negotiations, the City recognized that the 6 applicant was selling at what it believed was below market rates, partially to mitigate the 7 effects of later development on the herons. In each instance the City agreed to give an 8 unquantified credit for mitigation for a later development project. 9 Through the various donations and sales the City has acquired all of the property 10 11 in the Black River Riparian Forest and in the immediate vicinity of the island. These two 12 locations compromise the entirety of the heron colony. Correspondingly, the applicant 13 has lost the development potential of platted property within Tract C, previously 14 approved development potential on Tract A, and, in this application, has significantly 15 diminished the proposed development on Tract B. 16 The great blue heron has flourished in this area. The first reported herons were 17 noticed on the site in 1984, apparently as part of the work associated with the digging of 18 19 the P-1 forebay. The number of herons grew until 1992 when there was eagle predation, 20 and the herons apparently abandoned the rookery. The herons returned in 1993 with four 21 counted nests, and from that point the colony has grown to what is now estimated to be 22 60 nests. The herons have thrived in an area where there is an active quarry doing �3 blasting and heavy equipment movements, there is a nearby railroad, there is construction 24 for the Metro sewage treatment plant, there is current construction involved in the 25 26 replacement of the Monster Road bridge, and there is extensive traffic from I-405, S.W. 27 7th and Oakesdale Avenue. 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBED Page 2 DEAN 6 FONTES, RS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 II. ERC DECISION 2 In 1988 applicant's predecessor in interest applied to the City for site plan 3 4 approval for office buildings on Tracts A and B. The final revised site plans for Tracts A 5 and B were submitted in 1989. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was published 6 in 1991 and the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC), in May of 1991, 7 adopted mitigation measures applicable to the project. These mitigation conditions were 8 appealed by a number of environmental groups. Subsequently, there was a Memorandum 9 of Agreement entered into in November of 1991. 10 The applicant has chosen to submit a new application for a much less intense 11 12 development on this parcel of land and has patterned its application after the 13 Memorandum of Agreement, with one notable change. That change is the elimination of 14 a construction season. The ERC had its prior environmental work before it. The ERC 15 also had a report from 1998 by T. Henson which indicated that even in the non-leafing 16 portion of the year the existing vegetation had grown to such a height that there was only 17 a thirty foot wide gap, making only a portion of one building of the proposed Tract B 18 19 development visible from the heron tree island. The site was totally screened from the 20 Black River Riparian Forest. Provided with this information the ERC noted that the 21 applicant had self mitigated the project so that it was nearly identical to the Memorandum 22 of Agreement, with the sole exception of the construction season. Because of the growth �3 of an extensive vegetative barrier, and the lessened height and intensity of the 24 development, the ERC decided not to impose a construction season limitation. 25 26 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBED Page 3 DEAN&FONTES, P!S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255-5474 1 III. APPEAL BY FRIENDS OF BLACK RIVER 2 This appeal was subsequently filed in a timely manner by Friends of the Black 3 4 River. Friends of the Black River seek two additional mitigation measures: 5 1. An increased setback from the heroned tree island from approximately 500 6 feet to 660 feet. 7 2. A construction season limitation from January 15th to June 15th. 8 IV. EXPERT SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY 9 Because of the nature of the appeal, seeking specific distance setbacks and 10 specific yearly construction limitations, this case, of necessity, involves and largely turns 11 12 upon expert testimony. 13 Despite presenting four well credentialed and experienced experts, appellants 14 provided no scientific testimony upon which to base their requested mitigation measures. 15 For example, Don Norman did not directly testify about setbacks or construction seasons, 16 but did testify that it was not clear what impacts construction had on heron nesting. He 17 also testified that he was encouraged by the plantings and dedications and the extra tree 18 19 height. He was surprised that the cottonwood trees in which the herons were nesting on 20 the heron tree island were in such good shape, implying that these trees deteriorate over 21 time with extensive heron nesting. Mr. Norman further testified that the Whidbey Island 22 Air Base noise did not spook the herons nesting very nearby, while a car driving up and �3 its occupants alighting did spook the herons. 24 Dee B000rsma testified that she thought the barrier was inadequate but can't say 25 how close construction can come without disturbing the nests. She did note that the 26 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 4 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255•5474 colony has been growing and the habitat has become richer. She also testified that the 2 big change over time has been the increase in bald eagles and their predation. 3 4 Kate Stenberg of King Country testified about the county's policies. However, 5 she made several unsupported statements that call into question her objectivity and 6 indicates that she has not been using scientific methodology in arriving at her 7 conclusions. She asked that there be no disturbance until the end of July, and that 8 construction season limitations were extremely common and well accepted. However, 9 her examples were related to bald eagle and red tail hawk nests and not to heron nests. 10 11 She testified that rookeries were disappearing in King County but offered nothing more 2 than anecdotal evidence. She also stated in correspondence to the file dated July 1, 1998, 1 13 that herons are extremely sensitive to disturbances near their nesting colonies in spring. 14 At the appeal hearing she seemed to contradict her testimony indicating that the birds had 15 become habituated to loud noises, Park and Ride lots, and human intrusions. She did 16 testify that herons habituate themselves to certain noises in direct contradiction to her 17 written testimony. She then clearly stated her bias by indicating that the City and the 18 9 Examiner should err on the conservative side. At the same time she was unable to 1 20 explain why King County had not limited the operations of the nearby quarry. 21 Richard Butler testified that the issue was one of risk, that is, how close 22 construction activities could come to the heron rookery before disturbance. He indicated �3 that herons do adapt and asked for a conservative construction window. 24 In sum, the four experts testified about the general nature of the herons, the need 25 26 to be conservative, and provided anecdotal information about not only nesting 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 5 DEAN ETFONTES, PS. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON.WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255.8678 • FAX(425)255 5474 1 disturbance, but heron habituation. In total, the testimony provided little or no support 2 for the requested setback or construction season limitations. 3 4 The testimony of Ken Raedeke provided a substantial basis upon which the 5 Examiner could render his decision Dr. Raedeke's testimony was based upon an 6 extensive review of the literature on herons. In his report entitled "Great Blue Heron 7 Assessment", Exhibit 14 to this hearing, beginning at page 23, he listed seven pages of 8 literature which he reviewed in preparation of his report. His literature survey indicated 9 that the number of heron colonies, the number of heron nests, and the number of herons 10 11 have been growing in King County. See Figures 7, 8, and Table 2 of Exhibit 14. He 12 surveyed the causes of nest colony abandonment in King County. See Table 4 to Exhibit 13 14. The reasons for abandonment varied from eagle predation, herons being shot, site 14 vandalization, human disturbance and weather. There was no report of abandonment 15 directly linked to construction activity, although there was one anecdotal report of 16 construction within one hundred feet having led to a colony abandonment. 17 Pursuing the matter further, Dr. Raedeke surveyed the existing and thriving heron 18 19 colonies in King County. In Table 3 to Exhibit 14 he lists nine existing heron colonies, 20 all of which are increasing in size, with the exception of one colony in which the status is 21 unknown. The buffers to human activity, in all instances, is less than that proposed at 22 Black River. That result is also shown on Figure 9 to Exhibit 14. �3 Finally, Dr. Raedeke testified that extensive nesting by herons causes damage to 24 the trees in which they nest, particularly cottonwood trees. He noted the prior testimony 25 of Don Norman who indicated that he was surprised that the cottonwoods were in such 26 27 good shape despite extensive heron nesting, and noted that the trees were now showing 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 6 DEAN&FONTES, RS. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON.WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE 1425)255.8678 • FAX(4251 255.5474 1 some signs of deterioration due to the nesting. Dr. Raedeke noted that over time 2 extensive heron nesting in these trees would destroy the trees and the herons would have 3 4 to move on. He also noted that these trees were the most open to human disturbance and 5 to eagle predation. He suggested that the preservation of habitat in general was more 6 important than preserving a certain set of trees. He noted that the herons would abandon 7 the nesting trees on the island after a period of time, due to deterioration in the trees, 8 eagle predation, or unknown factors. However, if there were other available trees in the 9 area they would probably maintain their colony in that general area. Dr. Raedeke 10 11 testified from Exhibit 9 detailing the locations of heron nests showing that nests were 12 located not only on the heron tree island, but also back in the Black River Riparian 13 Forest. 14 Dr. Raedeke testified that while great blue herons were sensitive to disturbance 15 during the courtship and mating time of year, that they were considerably less subject to 16 disturbance after the eggs were hatched. In fact, there was evidence that the herons were 17 1$ difficult to disturb after their eggs hatched to the point where deliberate attempts to 19 disturb the birds were unsuccessful. Dr. Raedeke also emphasized that the literature did 20 not support a conclusion that the herons would be disturbed by mechanized noise, such as 21 construction activities, and even if they were, that the heron tree island was sufficiently 22 removed from this construction site to provide an adequate buffer. �3 Based upon the totality of the scientific evidence, there was nothing but anecdotal 24 support for the mitigation conditions proposed by the appellants. On the other hand, the 25 26 applicant provided significant scientific testimony to support the ERC conditions. 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 7 DEAN 6 >FONTES, S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OF*E BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)245-5474 1 V. THE LAW 2 The appeal is not from procedural SEPA, that is, from a decision to require or not 3 4 require an EIS. An EIS was prepared for this project previously and there have not been 5 enough changes in the general area to support a new EIS. This appeal is not from the 6 adequacy of the EIS. Therefore, the appeal is not procedural. Rather, the appeal goes to 7 the application of substantive SEPA to this particular project. Specifically, the appeal is 8 to the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC and the claim by the appellants that 9 additional mitigation measures should be applied. SEPA conditions are allowed only to 10 11 mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental 12 document such as an EIS. See RCW 43.21C.060. The mitigation measures may be 13 imposed upon an applicant only to the extent of the proposal's identified adverse impacts, 14 WAC 197-11-660(1)(d). The problem presented to the Examiner is that the appellants 15 argue that there will be a number of adverse impacts identified to the heron rookery, but 16 there has been no showing that the proposed construction of low-rise buildings, buffered 17 from the nearest heron nest by five hundred feet or more, and behind a site obscuring 18 19 natural vegetative barrier, will have any adverse impacts on the herons. Rather, the 20 scientific testimony presented to the Examiner is that the herons have become habituated 21 to a number of impacts. The record further shows that a number of heron rookeries in 22 King County are currently flourishing with lesser setbacks than proposed, and that �3 mechanized noise does not appear to disturb the herons unless it is in extremely close 24 proximity. Based upon this record, the ERC and the Examiner have no choice but to 25 26 uphold the decision of the ERC. 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 8 DEAN&FONTES, P S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(4251 255.8678 • FAX(425)255-5474 1 The Examiner's task, at hand, is to review the decision of the ERC and to uphold 2 it unless the Examiner finds that the decision was clearly erroneous, Hayden v. Port 3 4 Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 880 (1980), that is, that the Examiner is left with a definite 5 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation 6 Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274 (1976). In making 7 a decision the Examiner is required to give the decision of the ERC substantial weight. 8 Even if the scientific evidence presented by Dr. Raedeke had been contradicted or 9 disputed, it would be difficult for the Examiner to find that the ERC decision was clearly 10 erroneous. When scientific evidence remains unrebutted and supports the decision of the 11 12 ERC, the Examiner has no alternative but to sustain the decision of the ERC. 13 VI. DIRECT RESPONSE TO CLOSING ARGUMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE BLACK RIVER 14 In their closing argument Friends of the Black River ask three questions and 15 16 structure their brief around those three questions. The first question about the process 17 that the ERC used to arrive at its decision is procedural SEPA. There was no challenge to 18 the adequacy of the EIS prepared by the City, and so this issue is moot. The second issue 19 is perhaps the crux of this case, that is, did the ERC require adequate mitigation "to create 20 and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony?" 21 It must be recalled that the heron nest island does not exist in a vacuum. All of the 22 �3 property around it has been dedicated or sold at what the applicant believes is a reduced 24 price. The last remaining developable property has been screened, the development 25 downsized, and further property sold to the City at a reduced price. To require anything 26 further from the developer is to obviate the phrase "productive harmony." There will be 27 nothing productive about making the property undevelopable or unreasonably expensive 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBED, Page 9 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE 14251 255.8678 • FAX(425)295.5474 1 to develop. The last question about whether or not the additional evidence provided by 2 the applicant at the appeal hearing is adequate to support the ERC's decision 3 4 impermissibly seeks to shift the burden of proof to the applicant. The burden of proof is 5 upon the appellant. A question also points to the difficulty presented by this hearing. 6 The ERC had an EIS with follow-up reports upon which to base its decision. The 7 "additional evidence" was not available to the ERC. The ERC was not presented with an 8 argument that the EIS was inadequate, so did not believe it needed "additional evidence." 9 Indeed, the "additional evidence" presented by the appellant has been little more than the 10 anecdotal conclusory testimony presented at the hearing, and has provided little or no 11 12 reason for the ERC to have rendered a different decision. All of the information of 13 appellants was presented in one or the other of the numerous comment letters provided to 14 the ERC. The only "new evidence" is the studies and testimony performed by Dr. 15 Raedeke, and that testimony and evidence provides further support for the decision that 16 the ERC has made. 17 VII. CONCLUSION 18 19 The Examiner must keep in mind that SEPA is a policy amongst many that the 20 City must consider in making decisions. The City has economic development policies, 21 there are legal doctrines such as the takings doctrine, and a myriad of other policies and 22 laws. This appeal does not even focus on the natural environment but only on the herons �3 within that natural environment, and then the focus is on preserving a nesting area that, 24 according to the testimony, will be lost over a period of time. The correct focus would be 25 26 on protecting the general habitat for the herons and not a specific nesting site. That is 27 what the ERC decision has done. The ERC decision balances the many policies and 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 10 DEAN&FONTES, P S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)255.5474 1 provides a balance which includes preservation of heron habitat, and tries to strike a 2 balance between the rights of the property owner to develop and the protection of the 3 4 heron. The Examiner cannot find the ERC decision clearly erroneous based upon the 5 expert testimony that was before him. There is absolutely no proof that recognized 6 construction activity within 500 feet of heron nests will cause any damage to those heron 7 nests. Rather, the proof is that the birds have become habituated to noise, and in the 8 Puget Sound area there are established thriving colonies much closer to human activity 9 than that proposed in this development. Just because the applicant's predevelopment 10 11 mitigation has proven successful should not mean that further mitigation is necessary to 12 mitigate what has already been mitigated. This appeal should be denied. 13 DATED this 15th day of September, 1998. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 WARREN, BARBER, DEAN & 16 FONTES, P.S. 17 18 19 awrence J. Warren, BA#5853 Attorney for City of enton 20 3.25:14:as. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FINAL ARGUMENT OF THE CITY OF RENTON WARREN BARBER Page 11 DEAN&FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 PHONE(425)255-8678 • FAX(425)251 5474 CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 1 1998 September 11,1998 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mr.Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 998055 Subject: Appeal of Black River Corporate Park; Closing Argument Dear Mr. Kaufman, Attached is our closing argument for the appeal of the Black River Corporate Park. We've also attached a list of the exhibits numbered in what we believe is the correct order. We attached the list incase we have misunderstood the order of the exhibits and there is confusion as to which exhibits we refer to in our argument. We have also attached a letter from Ted Muller of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We are not attempting to enter his letter as new evidence. We've attached the letter as a reference for a point that we bring up in our argument. Sincerely 9 Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton,WA 98055 cc: Amy Kosterlitz Larry Warren CLOSING ARGUMENT Appeal of Black River Corporate Park Friends of the Black River SEPA states,"each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment." It is in this spirit that we have filed our appeal. We believe that the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony is an"unquantified environmental amenity" and as such qualifies for protection under SEPA. The significance of the colony is evident. Our expert's testimony and the applicant's testimony demonstrate that this is the largest Great Blue Heron colony in King County (exhibit 14 - Table 2). Our expert's testimony and the applicant's testimony demonstrate that Black River Heron Colony is increasing in number(exhibit 14-Table 2). As evidenced by the response the City received when soliciting public comment on this development, public concern for this colony is great. Even the City's own past efforts to protect the colony speak of its significance. The size of this colony, the ability of this colony to survive and flourish, and the concern and interest that this colony generates in the citizenry, all prove the value of this colony. As such, SEPA provides that the colony "be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations." We believe that the following questions must be asked of the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee's decision. We ask the Hearing Examiner to consider these questions. 1. Did the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC),"to the fullest extent possible,utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's environment?" (In this case the heron colony.) 2. Did the City of Renton ERC require adequate mitigation "to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony?" (In this case the development and the heron colony.) 3. Is the additional evidence provided by the applicant at the appeal hearing adequate to support the City of Renton ERC's decision? We believe that the answer to these three questions is no. We address each in order. i Quest on1 We believe that the science used by the ERC in reaching its decision was flawed. 1 I�I The ERC relied on science submitted by the applicant to make its decision. The bulk of that science was submitted in a document entitled, SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BLACKRIVER Corporate Park, RENTON, WASHINGTON, TRACT B, LOTS 1,2, & 3. This document included an Environmental Checklist, a report referred to as VISUAL ASSESSMENT HERON ROOKERY, and a report referred to as TREE HEIGHT SCREENING(exhibit 1). We testified that the Environmental Checklist was incomplete and did not adequately address the environmental sensitivity of the site. The authors had failed to mention that the great blue heron and their colonies are designated by the State of Washington as priority species and habitat. The authors discounted the value of the site to wildlife by omitting animals found on the site. We testified that VISUAL ASSESSMENT HERON ROOKERY was conducted over the course of a single day yet concluded that the heron do not fly over Tract B. Our members have seen the heron fly over Tract B on many occasions. The limited duration of the site visit did not provide for an adequate characterization of the heron's use of the site. The author advises that the observations may not be representative of activities at other times. We testified that TREE HEIGHT SCREENING describes the poplars as providing a screen between the colony and the development when in fact they do not. The poplars run in a thin strip in a north-south direction along the western boundary of the development. The heron colony is located northwest of the development. The poplar is a deciduous tree as are the Black Cottonwood and Alder which are found scattered between the colony and the proposed development (exhibit 12). These trees do not leaf out until mid-spring and therefore provide a minimal visual and acoustical buffer during the most sensitive period of the heron breeding season (exhibit 14 - Figure 10). In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Norman disagreed with the report and stated that he was able to view the heron colony from the development site in March. Dr. Stenberg in her testimony pointed out that the trees between the colony and proposed development are primarily deciduous and will provide little screening during the early portion of the heron breeding season. We also raised question with several claims made in the ERC Staff Report(exhibit I). The staff report did not provide a clear and compelling reason for not requiring construction timing restrictions. Construction timing restrictions are commonly applied by other jurisdictions to mitigate development during wildlife nesting and breeding seasons. The report mentions existing sources of noise near the heron colony such as Oakesdale Avenue, railroad tracks, the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant, and concrete recycling operations. We submitted an aerial map that shows the distances of these operations and the Tract B property line from the heron colony. (exhibit 3). Question 2 We believe that the mitigation required by the ERC is not adequate to provide conditions under which the proposed development and the Black River Heron Colony can exist in productive harmony. The only environmental mitigation required by the ERC is the requirement for control of outdoor lighting. This mitigation fails to take into account noise disturbance and daytime visual disturbance to the colony both during the construction of the development and later during occupancy of the development. Based on the testimony of our experts,we believe that additional mitigation is necessary. Mr. Norman testified to a study conducted on a heron colony located near a disturbed area (Werschkul study). The study found that nests located closest to the disturbance exhibited lower productivity and greater abandonment than those located further from the disturbance. In addition, Mr. Norman testified that he has viewed sites were disturbance has caused nest abandonment. He expressed concern that the construction of the wetpond for the proposed development will occur well within 500 feet of the heron colony. He also expressed concern that we have not been told which trees will be destroyed during construction of the wetpond. The trees in the wetpond area currently provide a minimal buffer between the heron colony and the proposed development. Mr. Norman stated that in his opinion, if construction occurs between January and July in the proposed project area,there will be disturbance to the heron colony. 2 Dr. Stenberg testified that the focus of her professional career has been to try to find ways to integrate wildlife with development,to find that balance point where we can all coexist. Dr. Stenberg stated that a seasonal construction limit is the key mitigation measure that is missing from the mitigation imposed by the ERC on this project. Dr. Stenberg testified that seasonal construction limits are imposed by other jurisdictions in an effort to balance the needs of development with the needs of wildlife. Dr. Stenberg pointed out the Kenmore colony in King County is protected by written policy and code. The county allows no development within 660 feet of the colony and no access within this buffer area from February to the end of July. The county placed these requirements on this colony in order to balance the needs of the colony with the needs of development in the area. Dr. Butler testified on the impacts of disturbances near heron colonies. He provided an example of a home that was constructed near a heron colony during the heron breeding season. When the builder would start to hammer or start up power equipment, the heron were observed to stand up on their nests. The herons eventually abandoned this colony. Question 3 We have concern with the evidence the applicant submitted at the hearing. In general, our experts agree that Dr. Raedeke's testimony was full of inconsistencies and drew conclusions that were not supported by his data. More specifically,we have the following concerns. In many cases,the applicant's evidence is dated. At the hearing we attempted to submit a wildlife survey dated 1993 as an exhibit. The City Attorney objected to the submittal based on grounds that the data was dated. The City Attorney's objection was upheld. Based on this precedence, we ask that the hearing examiner give due consideration when examining the applicant's evidence, including, but not limited to, exhibit 14-Figure 8, exhibit 14-Table 1 and exhibit 9. The applicant submitted evidence that attempted to compare this development proposal with one approved in 1991. All parties agree that the current development proposal is not subject to past agreements, including the MOA of 1991. As such, comparison to the development in the MOA should not be allowed. Based on this reasoning,we made a decision not to compare the mitigation measures that we are requesting with those required in the MOA. We ask that the Hearing Examiner give this due consideration when examining the applicant's evidence that compares the current development proposal with the one agreed to in the MOA. This includes, but is not limited to,exhibit 14—Table 5,exhibit 4 and exhibit 7. Based on our recent observations, the recent observations of our expert Mr. Norman (as testified) and the independent testimony and photograph submitted by Suzanne Krom (exhibit 18), we maintain that a significant majority of the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony resides on the island (heron island) and not in the riparian forest as claimed by the applicant. The applicant's evidence to support their claim is dated (exhibit 9). As such, we accept the measurement location as provided in exhibit 11. We agree that any measurements for the purpose of mitigation should be taken from this measurement point. The aerial photograph provided by the applicant is clearly enhanced(exhibit 10). The applicant's architect admitted under testimony that the photograph is enhanced. Our aerial photographs are not enhanced and more accurately reflect the conditions of the site(exhibit 2&exhibit 3). The applicant provided much evidence that is not relevant to this appeal. We will not address all of this evidence but wish to point out the following: • The possibility that heron nesting activity may eventually kill the nest trees is not relevant. Whether the heron nesting trees die in 10 years or 25 years has no bearing on how the proposed development will effect this heron colony. 3 rrdi • The possibility that the colony will move into the riparian forest if construction and occupancy of the proposed development disturbs the colony is not relevant. As pointed out in the testimony of Suzanne Krom, for reasons known only to the heron ,the heron have shown a strong preference for the trees in which the colony is currently located. In addition,we want to point out the following: • Dr. Raedeke stated in his testimony, " It would not surprise me at all if the project is built that these birds may move." • Dr. Raedeke also stated in his testimony that he met with Ted Muller of the Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) and that Mr. Muller agreed that a 500 foot buffer was fine, that they (WDFW) had no problem with the buffer width proposed for this development. We direct the Hearing Examiner's attention to the highlighted text on the attached letter from Ted Muller. We believe that the new evidence submitted by the applicant at the appeal hearing does not validate the City's claim that the ERC, to the fullest extent possible, utilized a systematic, interdisciplinary approach when making their decision which may have an impact on the Black River Heron Colony. In addition, we believe that the new evidence submitted by the applicant does not prove that the ERC's decision creates and maintains conditions under which the proposed development and the Black River Heron Colony can exist in productive harmony. Based on the testimony of our experts, we believe that additional mitigation measures are required to protect the heron colony. We ask the Hearing Examiner to impose the following two mitigation measures on the Black River Corporate Park development: • The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. • The applicant shall not perform heavy outdoor construction on the project during the period from January 15 to June 15. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this closing argument. 4 List of Exhibits As understood by Friends of the Black River Exhibit 1. File to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 2. 1996 aerial photograph Exhibit 3. 1996 aerial photograph with distance measurements Exhibit 4. Juxtaposition of old development proposal and new development proposal Exhibit 5. Cross section showing tree screening Exhibit 6. 1986 master plan showing build out Exhibit 7. MOA of 1991 Exhibit 8. 1998 Master Plan showing build out Exhibit 9. Heron nest locations Exhibit 10. 1997 aerial photograph Exhibit 11. Diagram of island survey Exhibit 12. Tract B tree location map Exhibit 13. Dr. Raedeke's resume Exhibit 14. Great Blue Heron Assessment Exhibit 15. Carlson&McLean 1996 study Exhibit 16. Colony life graph Exhibit 17. Photographs of the project site(5 pages) Exhibit 18. Photograph of nest trees mac,' rr 1 ,,,..„..!:,„,, it,''',.w. ,..... . , , 1 �-'‘,vasHIN T:J =TE. F "ENT OF F!SH AND WILDLIFE -. .. • _.,a. .,..s,^in� : C':: 37 1 X i2;;6; 335-1066 • September 9, 1998 Jerry Holmes 408 Index Place Northeast Renton, Washington 98056 RE: BLACK RIVER HERON COLONY. Dear Mr. Holmes; I'm sending this letter to you at the request of Ms. Trudy Thomas (she indicated that she would be out of town this week, and there was some urgency in receiving it). I spoke with Ms. Thomas last week about the meeting I had with the City of Renton representatives, the proponent of the development that is under consideration, and the consultant ( Ken Raedeke ). Ms. Thomas indicated to me that, at the hearing on this matter, Mr. Raedeke had stated that he had met with the state (me), and made the assertion that I had both agreed with a 550 feet buffer and with eliminating the construction work window. This is not the case! Rather, what I did say, the state recommended that the colony management plan that was agreed to in 1991 should remain in place, in its entirety, including the buffer that was agreed to and the timing that was agreed to. (As I recall, back in 1991 I had recommended a 660 feet buffer, but something less wa- decided on because of space limitations of the site. That may have been 500 or 550 feet). I also recounted that (in 1991) the herons had abandoned some of the nests that existed due to tree cutting that went on in January and early February. I pointed this out to indicate that herons, at this site, had reacted unfavorably to that disturbance. I also shared, with Mr. Raedeke. a list of other heronries, that I am personally familiar with, which had relocated (or partially relocated) due to human disturbance. A copy of that list is enclosed. • Page 2 I hope this information is useful to you, and thank you for the effort you all have put forward to help protect this nest site. Sincerely; Theodore A. Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager tarn. BUCK & DE CITY OF REN ONN,NG 902 WATERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98104-1097 AUG 2 8 1998 (206)382-9540 • FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM RECE�VE� SAMUEL W.PLAUCHt WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. SUSAN M.RIIX;LEY PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM • JAY I.DERR JOEL M.GORDONPROJECT PIANAGER BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP AMY L.KOSTERLITZ COMMUNITY RELATIONS KEITH E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER August 26, 1998 Mr. Tom Malphrus Friends of the Black River 18713 102nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of ERC Determination for Black River Corporate Park, Tract B, Phase VII Dear Mr. Malphrus: This letter is in response to your letter and proposal of additional mitigation measures to my client of August 18, 1998. As you know, my client has always been interested in pursuing a settlement with any concerned citizen or group. In that regard, copies of the project site plan and landscape plan were sent to the parties to the MOA last November and, at your request, our architect also sent you copies. Many of the types of measures you suggest have already been incorporated into the project. However, unfortunately, my client cannot agree to the additional mitigation measures suggested by your group because: they do not appear to be supported by the best available science (according to our wildlife expert);your proposal exceeds even what you previously asked for in your appeal statement; your proposal involves property not under my client's ownership and control; and the proposed measures are not economically feasible to implement. Nonetheless, we appreciate your attempt to work with my client toward potential settlement. Very truly yours, Amy . osterlitz cc: Dean Erickson, Alper NW Fred J. Kauffman, Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager \\BGI\VOL I\DATA\WP\ALPER\L08248-ALK.DOC • r Letter to Fred Kaufman, Hearing examiner,from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998 AUG 2 7 1998 Suzanne Krom, President Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation CITY OF RENTON 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW HEARING EXAMINER Seattle, WA 98126-2715 August 27, 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, fax: 425-430-6523 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Black River Corporate Park, Tract B.proposed development: Noncompliance with the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park, Tracks A, B, and C. Dear Mr. Kaufman, We are writing to you as signers of the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park, Tracks A, B, and C (MOA), which is binding until January 2000. We have demonstrated by a matrix where the proposed Black River development on Tract B is not in compliance with the MOA. For your reference, a copy of the MOA is enclosed. We have brought these inconsistencies to the attention to the applicant, who is represented by Royce Berg, of LPN Architecture and Planning, in a letter dated July 8, 1998. A copy of our letter to the applicant is enclosed. Mr. Berg responded via letter July 9, a copy of which is enclosed. In the applicant's letter,he seems to admit that the MOA applies, but acknowledges that the proposed project is not fully consistent with the MOA. Please note that there are two statements in Mr. Berg's attached letter that are inaccurate and require correction. 1. Mr. Berg stated that"the proposed project was also specifically provided to your organization in November/December of 1997 by the City with little direct input until last week." In fact, representatives from several citizens' environmental groups attended two meetings called by the City of Renton. Jana Huerter or Jennifer Henning contacted me (Suzanne Krom) in June 1997,telling me that she was calling on behalf of Larry Warren to ask if I was interested in meeting with her and Mr. Warren to help them identify reasons they might use to convince the developer to use a scaled-back alternative project on Tract B, instead of the original project described in the MOA. She told me to invite others who might like to be involved in this meeting, which I did. At the first meeting, Mr. Warren showed us a reduced copy of the site plan, similar to the one currently being considered,and said that the City wanted the developer(whom he would not'.lame because he said they would not be pleased if they know that he was meeting with us) to use the scaled-back project on Tract B. He asked us for suggestions that they (the City)might present to the developer to convince them to adopt the smaller project. Gerry Adams said that the changed wildlife conditions on the site, especially the increased number of herons and heron nests, would support scaling back the project. Mr. Warren responded very enthusiastically and positively to this suggestion.The citizens' representatives asked if we could take a closer look at the site plan, and we noticed that this site plan did not have a scale. We asked if a scale was available, or if a larger format of the site plan might be available that might include a scale and would be easier to read, and were told it was only a proposed project, so this was the only one available. We asked many questions about the proposed project, including what mitigation conditions would be associated with this project, what plans there were for surface water management and drainage,what wetland delineations this project was going to be based on, and what the I of 3 ebed`•s61# 1`•Wdt : l l 86iLZ/80 !6080 t'i;9 90E aN3IHHa0001'HlIWS`H3IS`S08l7M03 1:Aq was Letter to Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner, from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998 distance the proposed project would be from the heron colony. The site plan that we were shown proposed a project for Tract B that was to be a tech mix, primarily light industrial, with a two-story building height restriction. As mentioned earlier, the drawing was reduced in size and had no scale. Additionally, it had no details about drainage and surface waterri management, and Mr. Warren and Ms. Huerter/Henning said they were not able to provide these details. We asked them to contact us when they did have these critical pieces of information. They said they would do that. Mr. Warren and Ms. Huerter/Henning asked us what we thought of this site plan. We said that we were pleased that the project might be scaled back, but without additional information about scale, distance from the heron colony. drainage and surface water management plans,and mitigation conditions, we could not evaluate the project. Approximately four months later,Ms. Huerter contacted me to invite us to a second meeting, which took place in November. Mr. Warren did not attend the second meeting. We attended the meeting specifically with the understanding that we would be provided the information we had requested in the first meeting. Absolutely no new information was provided to us by '' the City in that second meeting. The site map still had no scale, and no information regarding what mitigation conditions would be associated with this project, what plans there were for surface water management and drainage, what wetland delineations this project was going to be based on, and what the distance the proposed project would be from the heron colony. We (the representatives from the citizens environmental groups) repeated our request to her-- that the City contact us when this information was available. She said she would. I contacted Ms. Huerter several times after the second meeting to check if the information was available, and was told it was not. At no time were we told by the City or anyone else that the alternative site plan represented a revised site plan, nor did Alper/First City (or anyone else)ask us for consent(written or otherwise) to a modification of the site plan in the MOA,as required in the MOA (page 13). Additionally,the MOA stipulates that any major revision to the site plan must be in the spirit and intent of the MOA (page 13). The current proposed project, while an improvement over the site plan in the MOA because of its reduced size, represents a major threat to the heron colony if it is constructed without appropriate construction season limits that are specific to this colony, as well the other mitigation conditions in the MOA. Alper/First City did not send representatives to either of these meetings. Nor did Alper/First City or the City of Renton ever provide us with the mitigation conditions or the basis for determining the distances from the heron colony, i.e., whether the measurements were based on the nearest nesting tree to the proposed development. It was only after receiving the June 16, 1998 Staff Report that we learned that current measurements were based on the center of the island where the heron colony is located, and not the nearest nesting tree to the proposed project. The MOA stipulates that the distances must be measured from the nearest heron tree in the colony to the construction. This could represent up to a 100-foot difference, meaning that the construction would occur far closer if conducted in the manner proposed in the June 16, 1998 ERC Staff Report. Additionally,even though the applicant states in his letter that the project is based on the conditions set forth in the MOA, it is clear that most of the conditions in the MOA were ignored. In negotiating the MOA,the citizens' groups compromised significantly on mitigation conditions,especially for buffers and constructions season limits. We made those compromises in order to achieve a settlement. However, we did build into the MOA contingency measures in the event the herons exhibited signs of stress if development encroached too closely. The conditions in the MOA represent the absolute minimum mitigation that may protect the heron colony. 2. The second inaccurate statement in Mr. Berg's July 9 letter is the following: "Buildings are located further away than the elevated four-story parking structure" (in the MOA). In fact, it is difficult to accurately compare the differences in distance between those in the ERC Staff 2of3 H 11/Z abec0960 YWlal`•Wvcl : ll 86/LZ/00 `•6080 t•e9 90Z oN3INda000'SH1IWS`HRIS`Sa8vM0 :Aq hies Letter to Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner, from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998. Report and the MOA because in the ERC Staff Report the measurements are based on the center of the island where the heron colony is located, and, as I stated earlier in this letter, all distances in the MOA are based on the nearest nesting tree to the construction. Based on an estimated 100-foot difference between the measurement approaches, the north edge of the parking lot in the current site plan is approximately 400 feet from the nearest nesting tree, and the wetpond and utility easement encroach even closer to the colony. Even if we don't know the exact distances, it is clear that major outdoor construction will • take place in extremely close proximity to the colony -- far closer than the 500-foot mark established in the MOA. In the MOA, the parking garage was 500 feet from the colony, as measured from the nearest nesting tree to the construction. No construction was planned closer to the colony than the garage. In the current proposed site plan, the parking lot ends at a 500-foot mark(based on measurements taken from the center of the island), but a wetpond and utility easement are to be constructed between the north edge of Tract B (closest point to the colony),far closer than the 500-feet mark from the heron colony established in the MOA. The north edge of the parking lot will be significantly closer than 500 feet if the distances continue to be based on measurements from taken from the center of the island on which the colony is located. We are bringing this to your attention because the MOA governs the development of this site until January 2000 and the City is a party to the MOA, and therefore the MOA should govern this proposal. Accordingly, we ask that at minimum, you establish conditions for this project that are consistent with the MOA. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildiands Preservation Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton ids Preservation. Bruce Harpham, President, Rainier Audubon Society LL Charles Lennox, Conservation Chair, Seattle Audubon Society • Attachments: • Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. • Royce Berg's July 9, 1998 response to July 8, 1998 letter • MOA (mailed copy only, not faxed) cc: Jana Huerter and Larry Warren, City of Renton, fax: 425-430-7300 Royce Berg, LPN Architects, fax: 206-583-0708 Tom Malphrus/Trudy Thomas Friends of Black River 3of 3 llie abed`•561#—g31a( rv9l: ll 86/Le/80 `•6080 PZ9 9oe oN3Iuda0008H1Irls'H3IS`SauvM03 ',q .uaS 7 • Ti . 0 ll J AUG 2 7 1991 Suzanne Krom, President '�.ti�' ( t{ "30 Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation CITY OF RENTON 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW HEARING EXAMINE Seattle, WA 98126-2715 July 8. 1998 Royce Berg LPN Architects & Planners 1535 Fourth Avenue South. Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 Fax: 206-583-0708 Phone: 206-583-8030 Subject: Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park,Tracks A, B. and C as it relates to the proposed development of Tract B. DearMr. Berg, I appreciate your returning my call of June 26. In our conversation you said that the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackrive.r Corporate Park, Tracks A, B, and C (MOA) remains in effect. I was reassured by that. and have been evaluating the ERC Staff Report with that in mind. The proposal as described in the ERC Staff Report does not appear to be in compliance with the MOA in ways that are described in the chart that starts on page 3 of this letter. I hope that I am in error of my reading of the current proposed project for Tract B, and that the conditions required in the MOA will be adhered to. Additionally, we have never received a request from you on behalf of the developer to approve a change of an explicit term of the MOA, nor to make a major adjustment to its revised project Furthermore, we do not approve any changes to the conditions (terms) set forth in the MOA. They were important then, and they are even more important now. The Black River heron colony has thrived under protection of the conditions in the MOA. and the result is exactly what the City of Renton intended and wanted to protect. The Black River colony has become very successful. and is now the largest colony in King County. Its size may well be the reason that this colony has successfully defended itself against the bald eagles and crows, according to Ted Muller, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW believes that if the herons are forced to relocate, the colony will be fragmented, leading to a loss in this defensive capability and resumption of high predatory losses. There is no other nesting habitat within many miles with the attributes of the Black River site that could accommodate a colony of this size. We do not oppose the project. We do oppose the relaxing/elimination of the conditions that the City of Renton agreed to in the MOA, which of course the developer, the City of Renton, and four environmental groups are parties to. As documented in the attached chart. there are several major areas where the proposal as described in the ERC Staff Report violates the MOA. Incidentally, our evaluation is ongoing and there may be additional items that will be provided at the hearing. We intend to enter this letter and your response as exhibits at the hearing. P ge 1 of 7. Revt es d uJuJ ly 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent nlIcompliance with MOA ll/t abrd0561# J1a(`UVV91: 11 86/LZ/90 `6080 re9 9oe oN3Id30000'sHlIns'H3IS`SadVMa3 A We would appreciate your response to this letter and the identified points of noncompliance in the attached chart no later than end of day Thursday,July 9, so that we can determine what position to take before the Hearing Examiner. Thank you. Sincerely, f 4 \Sit-013 Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Bruce Ha ham, President, Rainier udubon Society (��/L(S JL CO n.5 F v��F+ cum Seattle Audubon Society Attachment: Chart comparing MOA with ERC Staff Report cc: Jana Huerter, City of Renton, fax: 425-7300. telephone: 425-430-7218 Page 2 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom, regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. 14/9 abrd`•9614--wi Crivz t: ll 86/Leiso `•6090 VZ9 90Z aN3IHd0000WHlIWS`HRIS`SoHVMa3 :Aq luaS • • MOA Requirements for hack River ERC. Staff Report/Des' crip:tion of • inerori Colony ' Final Project Items' That Are in oit«comyliance`'VVith•. 1'4QA vital Number 22. Page 8: ...Great Blue Heron Noncompliance. Page 6 of the EkCgtaff 1.Zeport experts have recommended a setback of 660 — 1552 approves outdoor parking and two office feet from the colony... is appropriate, and while the structures within 600 feet, which is in Citizen Appellants have agreed to the location of noncomplicance with the MOA. improvements and the parking garage as shown on the Schematic Site Plans ..., which includes the location of a portion of the garage and improvements within 600 feet, they want to emphasize that no other private improvement shall be located in the 600-foot area except as provided in Section II.B and otherwise in this Agreement, and that no public improvements shall be located there unless and until the City has adopted a final Master Plan for that area. Landscaping. Subsection 3. Page 16. First City will r Not addressed. also landscape a 30-foot strip extension of this buffer on Tract B between the Buffer Area and the parking garage, exclusive of the fire lane area ("L.andscapc Extension"), which Landscape Extension is also shown shaded in gray on the Schematic Site Plan. The types and locations of plant materials to be provided in both the Landscape Area and the Landscape Extension shall be in substantial conformance with the landscape areas plan which is attached as Exhibit H and by this reference incorporated herein ("Landscape Areas Plan"). Landscaping. Subsection 3. Page 16. First City may - Not addressed. relocate certain existing trees on Tracts A and B to comply with the Landscape Areas Plan. Landscaping. Subsection I. Page 16. First City will Not addressed. comply with local,state and federal regulations regarding the use of chemicals in landscape maintenance, and will accommodate all suggestions of the Parties that First City determines arc economically and technically feasible regarding which herbicides and pesticides to use. Fence. Subsection 5. Page 18. First City shall install Page 1. Noncompliance: The fence described in a six-foot tall chain-link fence with earth tone- the MOA would provide a true barrier that colored slats in the areas described as follows... (the precludes human entry closer than 600 feet to the fence delineates the 600-foot mark along the heron colony. It also would help buffer the light north/northwest sides of Tract B, to preclude human from vehicle headlights in the parking lots. On intrusion closer to the heron colony, as shown as a page 2 of the ERC Staff Report, the applicant dotted line in Exhibit G of the MOA). proposes that a 4-foot high wood split rail fence be installed along the 25-foot wide portions of Page 3 of 7 Revised July 8. 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. tt/9 a bed`•56tti—Ya3lOf`•nvLl: tl 86/Le/BO `•6080 tZ9 90z oN3Itjd0000VHlIWS`HaIS`SauvM03 :Aq luaS Also.in Conditions-Regarding Traffic. Parking the 5(}-foot wide average width buffer to t1 Garage, and Parking Construction. Section F. on wetland No. I located on the northeast portion ,of page 29 ...the top level of the parking garage shall be the adjacent site (Lot 4 of Tract B). This will nrit open: however, the north wall of the garage will be meet the intent or the requirements of the MOA.. extended to a height of 48 inches from floor level. A reasonable number of potted plantings shall also be On page 6 of the Staff Report. the applicant placed on the top level of the parking garage to states that existing and proposed natural provide visual relief and reduce some incidental vegetative buffers,dead and down material headlight glare (included to show importance of (stumps etc.), ornamental landscaping, and reducing headlight glare.) wetponds preclude human intrusion into the heronry. This also will not meet the intent or requirements of the MOA. Many people attempt to get as close as they can to the heron colony. Some of them are quite determined to get as close as they can. The vegetative buffer will NOT deter the determined people from getting too close to the heron colony. If the applicant or his representatives argue that unfriendly vegetation will be planted and thus be an effective barrier, this vegetation provides little to no protection during the winter/spring months when deciduous vegetation is dormant. The purpose and intent of the fence described in the MOA was to prevent human intrusion within 600 feet of the heron colony. The purpose and intent of the 48-inch extension of north wall of the garage proposed in the original site plan was to help buffer the glare from car headlights. A properly designed fence will help accomplish both of these things. Headlight glare not addressed in ERC Staff Report.. Conditions Zegarding Construction Season Limits, Page 6. The first sentence in le Ekc Staff Monitoring, and Zones, pages 19 - 23. First City Report that addresses this issue is unclear in its shall observe seasonal limitations on major outdoor position, which reads (page 6), "Establishing construction within a 700-foot radius, measured time periods for the use of heavy equipment for from the nearest heron tree in the Heron Rookery, the entire site for outside of the time period from for the period beginning January 15 and ending on January 15th through June 30`" is not supported" June 15 ("Construction Season Limitations") of any However, the context of the remaining text leads given year to protect the nesting of herons at the us to believe that the ERC Staff Report is Heron Rookery. attempting to claim that no construction season limitations are necessary. Expert testimony Major outdoor construction is defined as during the hearing will show that this simply is "preloading, grading, foundations, structural steel, not true. installation of dryvit panels,roofing and hardscape. Additionally, the MOA specifies that the distances are measured from the nearest heron tree in the colony to the construction. According to the ERC Staff Report, "The 500-foot distance is measured from the center point of the island " Page 4 of 7 Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. ll/L abed!S6l#—ir (nveI: 11 86/LZ/BO `-6080 t'Z9 9oe ONRId3OOOO 'HlIWS`H3IS`SOFJVMO3 •Art 1uaS (page 6) This could represent up to a l(x)-toot difference, meaning that the construction could occur far closer if conducted in the manner proposed in the ERC Staff Report. than in the MOA. The distances should always be measured from the nearest heron tree in the heron colony to the construction project. as per the MOA. The ERC Staff Report states that additional noise impacts from construction of the proposed project would be short-term in nature. Si, to eight nesting seasons represents a significant impact on the heron population. This year there are between 55-65 nests at the Black River colony. Using 60 nests to estimate the impacts to the heron populations over six to eight years: 60 nests times a minimum average of 2* young per nest = 120 young this year alone, multiplied by 6 to 8 years of construction impacts =720— 960 potential young herons that would not fledge. Another important point is that after the construction is completed,there is no indication that the heron colony would quickly, if ever, regain its current size and viability, meaning that the impacts to the Black River herons resulting from a six to eight-year construction project of this kind could be significant, severe, and permanent_ The Black River heron colony provides a substantial proportion of the young heron population produced in. Snohomish. • King, Pierce Counties (central Puget Sound) *BR has more than 2 young per nest this year. Also. the ERC Staff Report states that "only the construction of about one half of the area of the wetponds and a small area(less than 500 square feet) of the circulation drive on the north side of Building C would occur within the 500-foot radius of the heronry." Heron experts contend that herons are disturbed by development within 660 — 1,552 feet (see recital 22 of the MOA). If the wetponds and other aspects of the project are constructed during the periods when the herons are acutely sensitive to disturbance (they arc always sensitive to human disturbance, but during the breeding season, they are acutely sensitive and require even greater setbacks than during the nonbreeding season), this further encroachment into the 600-foot limit specified in the MOA represents a great threat to the herons Page 5 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. 11/9 abEd`•c611t—YQi?al`•WV61 : 11 96/Lz/90 `•60B0 Ve9 90e ON3Idda000VH1IWS`H3IS`SGI VMO3 :A Any major outdoor construction activities wi i at least 700 feet of the heron colony (as measured from the nearest colony tree to the development) should occur after the young herons have fledged and left the Black River site. which normally occurs by late July. Tionitoring if 1:irst Lity Wants to Begin Construction ' Not addressed. Early. Section c. Page 20. If First City believes that the Herons have not returned to nest at the Heron Rookery by March 15 of any year. and wishes to begin construction prior to June 15 of that year, First City must monitor the Heron Rookery to produce corroborating evidence of the Heron's absence... If the Heron Expert determines that there are no Heron pairs engaged in Heron Nesting Activities for one week prior to and on March 15, then Major Outdoor Construction can occur within the Construction Limitations Zone after the completion of the one monitoring, but no sooner than March 16 of that year. Good Faith Efforts to Give Additional Limitation Not addressed. Period. Section d, Page 21. For any year in which the Construction Season Limitations are required, First City shall make a good faith effort to structure its construction schedule as is economically and technically feasible for the portion of the parking garage located within the Construction Limitation Zone such that First City minimizes Major Outdoor Construction in this area between the period from January 1 to January 15 and the period from June 15 to July 1 for that year. Monitoring If Citizen Appellants Desire Additional Not addressed. Protection Outside of Construction Limit Zone. Subsection e. Page 22. If the Citizen Appellants or the City believes that First City's Major Outdoor Construction activities outside of the Construction Limit Zone during the Construction Limitation Season are having adverse impacts on Heron Nesting Activities, they may engage a Heron Expert at their expense to conduct monitoring to determine whether the Herons are experiencing adverse impacts and whether this disruption is causally related to First City's Major Outdoor Construction activities.. Other Construction Limitations. Subsection 2. Page Not addressed. 23. First City shall use only auger-cast-in-place piling and shall not engage in any pile-driving in construction of any of the structures shown on the Schematic Site Plan. P-1 Pond Water Quality Management Plan. Not addressed. Subsection 3. Page 28. If the City implements a water quality management plan ("P-1 Plan") to reduce water quality impacts on the P-1 Pond, to be Page 6 of 7 Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. I1./6 abed`•56t#—Y f`•Wv6t : lL 86/LZ/80 `6080 t'Z9 90e GNBId30009'S'HIIWS`H3IS`SQaVM03 :Aq was paid for by all landowners who contribute run-off to the P-I Pond, First City shall contribute its proportionate share of the funding for the P-1 Plan Wetlands Mitigation. Subsection 4. Page 28. First Not addressed. City shall mitigate for the proposed filling of approximately 0.14 acres of wetlands with low functional values on Tracts A and B by creating an additional new or enhanced wetland area adjacent to the old Black River channel on Tract B. Wetlands Buffer. Subsection J. Page 29. Pirst City Appears to be satisfied by a 100-foot buffer of shall establish a buffer around the old Black River natural vegetation and landscaping that would be channel wetland on Tract B averaging 50 feet in provided along the P-1 Channel on the west width with no portion of the buffer to be less than 25 portion of the site. (per page 6 of the ERC Staff feet in width. Report. Site Lighting. Subsection 2. Page 31. first City shall Per page 3 of the ERC-Staff Report. Appears to use down light standards in its parking areas and be met as long as down lighting or lighting at other lighted site areas. least as shielded as down lighting is used. The City of Renton staff responsible for approving the lighting should verify with WDFW or other equivalent agency that the lighting that is used will have the minimum impacts to the herons and other wildlife living on and near the site. Other lighted areas not addressed. • Page 7 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. 11/o1. abec05614—W WINVO : 86/LZ/80 `•6080 t' 9 90Z aN3IddoOOo H.InS`H3IS`SauVM03 A /art 1111e.,*p,• .fl1,1 Heil i.diif1 I. , 1pn A Iiotci,Y.Kerr,K.t:hir 1.I'r;i Ir:011g 1535 rot ii11 Avo,S.,Suite D Se0111e.WA 93134 (2063rn3 nr.!3l7 Fox(2,W:11 SP ti r17e1 July 9, 1998 I M E 0 � Suzanne Krom u President AUG 2 7 ic: _., ] Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation 4715 1/2 36th Avenue SW CITY OF RENTO Seattle, WA 98126-2715 HEARING EXAMIN RE: Blackriver Corporate Park - Tract B Dear Suzanne° Thank you for your letters and specific comparison to the MOA. Per our conversations we did use the MQA to lay out this current proposal for the project. Buildings are located further away than the elevated four-story parking structure, a chain link fence and a wetpond separate the development from buffer area, a 100 ft. landscape buffer and landscape area is provided between P-1 and development, Tract A is eliminated, no buffer trees are relocated, the submittal referenced auger cast piles versus driven piles, a wood fence occurs at drainage easement which is also being conveyed to the City for additional habitat. It would appear from current and early correspondence from agencies, public, and associated groups that most do not fully understand the proposed project and relation to habitat areas and rookery. This proposed project was also specifically provided to your organization in November/December of 1997 by the City with little direct input until last week. A presentation will be made to the City Hearing Examiner to clarify and define issues of concern to all parties. Our client's intent has and continues to provide protection, habitat, and buffer for the Herons. 4.spectfully, a Royce A. Berg President LPN Architects and Planners via fax & mail (206/624-0809) cc: Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton Dean Erickson, Blackriver Rivertech L.L.C. Amy Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon L l/ l L abeci!s6l#—Yana `•WVOZ: l l 86/LZ/80 `•6080 t'Z9 90Z ON3Ia3OOODS'HIIWS`H3IS`SOLVM03 :Aq IuaS 4`, CITY ThF RENTON ... .. Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J. Kaufman • July 16, 1998 DEV-OPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Ms. Amy Kosterlitz J U L 17 1998 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Malphrus do Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Mr. Larry Warren Renton City Attorney 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination by ERC for Black River Corporate Park Appeal File No. LUA98-110,AAD Dear Ms. Kosterlitz, Mr. Malphrus& Mr. Warren: This office would like to take this opportunity to encourage, as it does in appeal matters,that the parties use the additional time the continuance of the matter has permitted to attempt to reach a settlement of the appeal issues. It would appear that the last time a similar appeal had been filed,the parties did reach a mutually acceptable solution demonstrated by the original Memorandum of Agreement. This office would encourage a similar attempt to reach an agreement of some or all of the issues raised by this appeal. Thank you for your considerations in this matter. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Henning, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)235-2593 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer n ,01 BUCKSi.. 902 WATERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 ra I yENTON (206)3829540 • FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. SUSAN M.RIDGLEY PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR PROJECT MANAGER JOEL M.GORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP AMY L.KOSTERLITZ COMMUNITY RELATIONS KEITH E.MOXON MARGARET E.POTTER July 10, 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton,WA 98055 Re: LUA 98.075, ECF, 5A HSM Blackriver Corporate Park Phase VII-DNS Appeal and Site Plan Hearings Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am writing on behalf of my client, Blackriver-Rivertech LLC to request a continuance of the DNS appeal hearing and site plan hearing scheduled for next Tuesday,July 14. This request is based upon the fact that new factual issues have been raised by comment letters on the DNS and the site plan which we just received and which require that we produce additional scientific information in response. There is no way that we can produce this additional scientific information in the couple days left before the hearing. In addition, we were not aware until this week that a DNS appeal had been filed and we need adequate time to respond to this appeal. To put this request in perspective, the applicant here has been prejudiced and "sandbagged"by the opposition's submittal of letters from agencies such as the Department of Wildlife and others at the eleventh hour before the hearing,with no opportunity to respond or to find out what type of information these letters were based upon. The City gave these opponents the site plan and solicited their comments as early as last November, yet we have not gotten these specific objections and information until the last days prior to the hearing. Under the circumstances, and as the party who will be prejudiced by the lack of a continuance,we respectfully request a continuance. Very truly yours, 6sft€A Amy L.(Igtosterlitz cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren \\BG1\vOLI\DATA\WP\ALPER\L07108.ALK.DOC A N O R T H W E S T DEVELOPMENT NG CITY OF RENTO July 7, 1998 JUL Of 1998, RECEiVE5 Mr. Robert L. Arthur Land Use Compliance Inspector Development Services Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Tract"B" Blackriver Corporate Park Dear Mr. Arthur: This is to advise you that we will be conducting additional geotechnical explorations on the referenced property beginning the week of July 13, 1998. This will be accomplished using a rubber-tired backhoe for test pit excavations. Equipment access to the property may disturb vegetation in some areas; however, no clearing or grubbing will occur and no work will be performed in the Historic Black River Channel. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 624-9223. Very truly yours, L ER NORTHWEST, INC. Dean R. Erickson Vice President DRE:er cc: Royce Berg Amy Kosterlitz Bo McFadden ALPER NORTHWEST, INC., 700 FIFTH AVENUE, STE. 6000, SEATTLE, WA 98104, PHONE (206) 624-9223, FAX (206) 38 752 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 14, 1998 TO: Black River Site Plan File LUA-98-075, SA,ECF,SM FROM: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Superviso SUBJECT: PHONE DISCUSSION WITH TED MULLER After receiving the letter from Ted Muller of the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife(received 7/6/97), I phoned Ted Muller to discuss his comments (7/7/98). I reminded Ted of the previously agreed to MOA which references agreements between himself,the applicant and the City. Ted said that he vaguely remembered the previous discussions that led to the MOA and requested copies of the MOA sent to him. Ted also stated that he was unfamiliar with the current project proposal and had based his comments on discussions with Susan Krom. I then spent time explaining the proposed project and previously approved site plan. I followed up by sending him a copy of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner, excerpts from the MOA, pmts of the current proposal and the previous site plan(sent 7/9/98). I also stated to Ted that it was my opinion that misinformation on the proposed project was being circulated by the public,he agreed that this was a possibility and would look forward to receiving the information from the City. Since sending the information to Ted Muller I have left approximately 4 phone messages requesting a meeting to discuss the project. So far I have been unsuccessful in getting a response from him. `I do not understand why they would Renton eve o ment could doom herons turn their back on all the good work they have done up to this point and Environmentalis tssay building would drive birds away a:ass as My etro sewer plant and a rock quarry, turn their back on the heron colony.' Biologists credit Renton city officials with SUZANNE KROM being conscientious about protecting its heron Founder,president of Citizens BY JANET BURKITT AND KEIKO MORRIS tomorrow. colony over the past several years. for Renton Midlands Preservation Seattle Times Eastside bureau A hearing is scheduled at 9 a.m. in City In 1991 city officials negotiated an agree- IN. RENTON — Once the biggest threat to Council Chambers at Renton City Hall,200 Mill ment with environmentalists and Alper North- great blue herons nesting in cottonwood trees Ave.S.,although staff members cautioned that west, then named First City, that required in Renton's Black River forest were the hawks the hearing might be postponed. certain building modifications and the addition land previously approved for development.And and bald eagles that fed on their eggs. Friends of the Black River is asking that of some 36 acres to the protected habitat. the company has set aside 371h acres of its land Now biologists and bird lovers say the major developers keep the complex at least 660 feet As part of the deal,the four environmental as buffer and wildlife habitat. threat facing the heron colony,probably the from the colony,rather than the 500 feet the organizations dropped their appeal against City officials think the new building plan, largest in the Puget Sound area,is a different city has required,and that they not be allowed Alper Northwest proposal to build three four- hammered out over the past year,reflects their animal entirely. to build from January to June, the birds' story buildings,two five-story buildings and a concern over the heron colony's survival. 'A five-building development that Alper breeding season. four-level parking garage 500 feet from the Officials say they're frustrated by the opposi- Northwest plans to put up over the next six "You're not going to have as many chicks,or heron colony. tion to the developer's new proposal,one they years could drive the dusky-blue birds away, you may not have any chicks (with) heavy The developers agreed to several condi- say is a far less intensive use of land than the says Tom Malphrous of Friends of the Black construction then,"Malphrous said."And the Lions,including no major outdoor construction plan approved in 1991. River,an organization supporting protection of herons may actually abandon the nests." within a 700-foot radius during the bird's Developers are now planning a complex 540 the area. Of the estimated 150 heron pairs nesting in nesting season and planting vegetation on the feet from the colony with about half the square "The site is a wildlife jewel, (and) the about nine sites throughout King County,56 edges of the property that borders the wildlife footage of office space and half the number of herons are the focus of it,"Malphrous said. make their home in a cluster of black cotton- habitat. But the company didn't think the parking spaces outlined in the previous plan, E The city's demands on the Seattle-based wood trees in the Black River Riparian Forest, market was right for the project at the time. said Jana Huerter, Renton's land-use-review developer are too lax,according to Friends of an 82-acre oasis among an urban and industrial Since then,Renton has purchased as perma- supervisor. the Black River,which is to appeal the city's swirl of activity in west Renton. Apartment nent open space about 62 acres from Alper environmental determination for the project buildings,busy roads and office buildings, as Northwest,thereby eliminating one parcel of PLEASE SEE Herons ON B 2 d 11°ICI VO ___ '_C: ,.. . ,,..„ . Delopment may doom herons, oups say a. .. ,,. HERONS 'It's very difficult to predict whether changes will have an vative," Penland said. "People wm s CONTINUED FROM B 1 point out that these birds are toler - ' impact,but sometimes it's best to be conservative.People will ing this all very well.But we dog • If approved by the city,a pair of point out that these birds are tolerating this all very well.But know ... what is the straw that l e' two-story buildings and three single- breaks the camel's back. When we ' ' .. k "`. story buildings will be erected on we don't know...what is the straw that breaks the camel's cross that invisible line, they're 121/acres.Several of the conditions back. When we cross that invisible line,they're gone.' gone." ' from the 1991 agreement have been Ken Bellamy,president of Alper carried over. But the provision re- • Northwest,says he's hoping that the /< ; striding construction during breed- STEPHEN PENLAND new building proposal won't be �/ ing season has not been incorporated Department ofFish and Witdlife's division manager of landscape planning stalled. ..- ' because,city officials say,the 1991 �� But if the company reaches an r 'J agreement does not apply to an impasse,it may be forced to go ahead entirelynew building proposal. with the the plan approved in 1991— ��' a complex with the three four-and Z "'t . Halting construction during the herons' Westin period has become Wildlands Preservation, said devel- is in Kenmore, where the county five-story office buildings and the l! � g Pe opens should have to adhere to the bars construction closer than 660 multilevel parking garage. less critical, Huerterme said, because •i f i „�-.f • trees lanted in the buffer zones have 1991 agreement"at the very least." feet from the birds.The state Depart- "It seems that we've spent many • / r` ,, , .-%{ 1s. P Other environmentalists also note ment of Fish and Wildlife's general years out there,and...all of these ;�> r'="� grown and.now shield the wildlife that the trees planted for buffer are guidelines recommend a 984-foot issues have been appropriately and „ ,- ,� �i habitat from the complex. deciduous, leaving an inadequate buffer zone. adequately addressed," Bellamy �' " >gk, 'rj �-'.., <f / `8r ,' One whole tract of land has been screen during the winter months. Depending on the vulnerability of said. ° 5`t, ,�*, �` ' �'. ` 'ot r: ,,,• L reserved from future development, a colony and the habitat,some closer '1fis : r d "� x,�,--. g"""` • and the multilevel garage,the struc- "I do not understand why they structures or trails are permissible, Janet Burkilt's phone message number is �:a r€ r y would turn their back on all the good said Ste hen Penland, the depart- 206-515-5689.Her e-mail address is tune closest to the heron colony,has work they have done u to this point P t P Po ment's division manager of landscape jbur-new@seatimes.com been scratched, decreasing the im- ,,40 �ti� 1 and turn their back on the heron rk , •-•,, „/ „ ,A,, pad from construction noise and colony,"Krum said. planning. I's ELLEN M.BANNER/THE SEATTI.E TIMES vibration,she said. - - "It's very difficult to. predict Keiko Morris'phone message number is A great blue heron leaves the nest in the Black River Riparian Forest, But Suzanne Krom,'founder and The only other colony approach- whether changes will have an impact, 206-464-3214.Her e-mail address is: an 82-acre oasis from urban activity in west Renton. president of Citizens for Renton ing the size of the Black River group but sometimes it's best to be conser- kmor-new@seatimes.com p, t r i, c„e,,,A,,,, , ,_, , , .. v I. ( �, ,,,, , eron • • , . :Citizens group s • ays plans violate deal to . protect nesting .birds By Claire Booth Journal Reporter RENTON A newly proposed office park does not follow an old agreement signed by developers and environmental groups in an 1 effort to protect a nearby heron colony. The city of Renton, which also signed the , . 1991 memorandum"of agreement, says the document does not apply to the new plan sub- mitted this spring for the•site near the Black River Riparian Forest. However, another party to the agreement, Citizens for Wildlands Preservation, insists it still is in effect.The new site plan would vio- late the agreement by bringing development too close to the herons and allowing con- struction during the birds'January-through- June nesting season,said Suzanne Krom,the group's president. "That's when they're acutely sensitive to disturbance," Krom said. .The plan submitted by developer Alper Northwest includes three one-story office buildings and two two-story buildings. The old site plan included one four-story building, two five-story buildings and a four-story park- ing garage, according to Jana Huerter, Renton's land use review supervisor. . "The memorandum of agreement does not apply to this project. The memorandum of agreement applied to the previous site pro- F • See HERON,A8 South County Journal site plan,and trees planted on the purpose,he said. want to work outside of our pro- Citizens for Renton Wildlands Heron property years ago are larger than While developing the site plan, tective work window,"Muller said. Preservation is not appealing the Continued from At when the agreement was signed, the conditions in the agreement He has seen two other heron city's environmental determina- Huerter said.Both will lessen the were taken into consideration, colonies abandoned within the tion because it still holds to the effect of development on the Bellamy added."We were pleased past six years because of nearby 1991 agreement,which prevents it ject,"Huerter said. "We have, of herons, said Ken Bellamy, presi- to see that they had scaled back construction,Muller said. from appealing,Krom said. course,referred to the MOA and dent of Alper Northwest. the project,"Krom said."But you " Friends of the Black River, the conditions placed in (it)as.a The point is that if that heron- "Just the downsizingof the can't scale it back and eliminate which formed in 1994,will appeal reference." ry is forced to abandon the site, development is very significant mit- the conditions.The conditions are there is no other site in King the determination at a hearing The only agreement condition igation to whatever impacts there critical to the colony." County that could accommodate concerning the develc ent that was not incorporated into the might be on the heron, "he said. The Black River heron colony those birds," application set for 9 am. day new site plan was the window he said. at City.Hall. that limited construction during Also beneficial to the heron is is the largest in King County,said The city's environmental review winter months,Huerter said. the large parcel of land owned by Ted Muller,regional habitat pro- says the steps Alper Northwest has "We feel that the city did not the city of Renton and used as gram manager for the state taken toprotecttheheronsaresat- look at information from experts "What we felt is that the con- open space and natural habitat, Department of Fish and Wildlife. isfactory. It will require only one on heron colonies when they struction window is not that crit- .Bellamy said. Over the years, Between 110,and 130 adult birds additional mitigatio:Lighting in the made the decision," said Trudy ical with this project,"she said. Alper Northwest has either donat- nest at the colony,Krom said. parking lot area must be focused to Thomas,a group board member. The proposed buildings are ed or sold land to the city for that "Our concern now is that they prevent glare on the colony. smaller than those in the original � CIT . OF RENTON 2Li.A'\ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 9, 1998 Ted Muller Regional Habitat Program Manager Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek,WA 98012 SUBJECT: BLACK RIVER TRACT "B" PROPOSED SITE PLAN Dear Ted: Thank you for your letter regarding the above referenced site plan. As I mentioned to you on the phone,there appears to be misinformation circulating with respect to the proposed development of Black River Tract `B". I feel that this is extremely unfortunate, since the applicant has worked diligently for the past year, along with the City of Renton,to come up with a site design that is less intensive and that incorporates the mitigating conditions that were imposed on the previous site plan. We have also made a considerable effort to involve concerned parties in the early stages of the site design, however we experienced very little participation and absolutely no response to conceptual site designs. Having said all of this, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the issues that you raised in your letter and I hope that the attached proposed site plan, previously approved site plan and excerpts from the recorded MOA provide additional information that will assist in your agency's review. I have also included a copy of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner which gives both the history and a description of the proposed project. Because of the City's significant investment in the acquisition of over 80 acres of open space and our commitment to protect the Heron rookery, it has been in the City's best interest to insure that Tract`B"is developed in a manner that is sensitive to the environment yet allows the developer to exercise his rights as a property owner. I believe that once you have reviewed the attached materials you will find that the proposed project not only accomplishes both of these goals but also incorporates the conditions that were imposed on the previously approved site plan. I hope that this letter and the attachments provide your agency with the necessary information. If you have any questions or require additional information,please call me at(425)430-7218. inc rely, a'Huerter and Use Review Supervisor C:\WINWORD\DOCUMENT\TED.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Sent by: BUCK & GORDON LLP 206 626 0675; 07/10/98 2:35PM;J #358;Page 1 / BUCK & 902 W A-EaFROMrr PIAcb•101 l W EsTeaN A 4Nul Ss.ArrLE,WASHINGTON 9810, 09; GORDONLLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626.67! ATTORNEYS AT I AW ALISON D RIRMINCiFIAM SAMUEL W.PLAUCHt WII:I-IAM H.BLOCK,P.S. SJSAN M.RIDCiLEI PF1ER L.BUCK j BRENTCARSON Oh Co sm JAY P.DERR KITTERIDGE OLD JOEL M.GORDON BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICI AMY L.KOS fERLIT7. QoMMUNm'RI_ist1loN: KEITH E.MUXUN MARGARF.T •E.rofYaF FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL July 10, 1998 To: Company: Telephone No.; Fax No.: Mr. Fred Kaufman City of Renton (425) 235.2500 (42.5) 235-2513 Ms. Jennifer Henning City of Renton (425) 23.5.2.500 (425) 430-7300 Mr. Lawrence J. Warren City Of Renton, City Attorney (425) 255-8678 (425) 255-5474 Ms. Jana Hurter Renton Planning Department (425) 235-2500 (42.5) 430-7300 From; Amy L. Kosterlitz Number of Pages: 2 (including this page) if you did not receive all copias,or if any are not legible, please Ball Kathy at(206).382.9540. Regarding: Blackriver Corporate Park N We are transmitting the following. Letter dated July 10, 1998 regarding DNS appeal hearing and site plan hearing. Comrnentc: Original to follow via regular mail. THIS FACSIMILE:IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PKIVII.FCiFI-) INFORMATION. IF THE READER UI-THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT TI IE ADDRESSEE., PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVE TI-ILS', COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY AT 206,382,9540 AND RETURN TINS FACSIMILE TO BUCK 5*GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL. THANK YOU. Sent by: BUCK & GORDON LLP 206 626 0675; 07/10/98 2:35PM;J #358;Page 2/ BUCK & LLP 902 WM'KRFRUNI h. 'F • loll WI ERN AVeNkIli GORDONl LLP 1hA'ITI.N.,WADI JI.L' t1N ) 26-1097 1 (?00182-9540 • Pm sn•uu:(206)626-0675 1 ATTORNEYS Al LAW AI.Itit 1N It.IliRMIN11 IAM ziAMUI;I.W.PLAI.:(1 It WII.I.IAM I I.:COCK,I'..S. ti1.ISAN M.mix}LLY I'IiTEIi I..IX X:K 1.'P(:,ri:Ng,tl. IiI(I.NT t'Airtt IN K ITTI'.R II x;h OLI II IAM LAY I'.I'ERR yµcukf+I'T INANAIILR IL 1Iil.M.I.71 WI X)N Ial(Anl.i'Y J.S.LIL)LIJ(IItiT,AI('I' AMy...Klhfl'.RI.ITZ r,JMMUNI Y MilATUINJ Klil'I I I H.M,1K(1N MAIO;AI:Rr E.r(T1-11i1( July 10, 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Re: LUA-9S.075, ECF, SA-HSM Plackriver Corporate Park Phase VII-DNS Appeal and Site Plan Hearings Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am writing on behalf of my client, Blackriver-Rivertech LW to request a continuance of the DNS appeal hearing and sire plan hearing scheduled for next Tuesday, July 14. This request is based upon the fact than new factual issues have been raised by comment letters on the DNS and the site plan which we just received and which require that we produce additional scientific information in response. There is no way that we can produce this additional scientific information in the couple days left before the hearing. In addition, we were not aware until this week that a DNS appeal had been filed and we need adequate time to respond to this appeal. To put this request in perspective, the applicant here has been prejudiced and "sandbagged" by the opposition's submittal of letters from agencies such as the Department of Wildlife and others at the eleventh hour before the hearing, with no opportunity to respond or to find out what type of information these letters were based upon. The City gave these opponents the site plan and solicited their comments as early as last November, yet we have nor gotten these specific objections and information until the last clays prior to t:he hearing. Under the circumstances, and as the party who will be prejudiced by the lack of a continuance, we respectfully request a continuance. Very truly yours, Amy$ 1Qftt4* osterlitz cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren \\14,+1\v;II.I\rA':'A\Wi'\AI.i'IG:V.07108.ti1,,a Kx „ 9 C IT. CIF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 10, 1998 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION BY ERC FOR BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK(FILE NO. LUA-98-110, AAD),AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK(LUA-98-075,ECF, SM, SA-H) Dear Party of Record: The Hearing Examiner's Office has received a request from the project applicant for a continuance of the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, 1998 at 9:00 am, in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington. Since notification of the public hearing date and time has already been issued via US Mail, the South County Journal, and posted notices at the site, the Public Hearing will be opened by Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will consider continuing the hearing to a later date. The applicant, or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. If any member of the public is prepared to testify at the public hearing on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, and would be inconvenienced by a continuance, then the Examiner will accept their testimony and questions at that time and enter it into the record. That date of the continued public hearing has not yet been determined but it appears that the next available hearing date would be in early September. li Please contact Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager, at (425)430-7286 for additional information. A:\HRGLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 07/06/98 MON 13:07 FAX 4252352513 RENTON-FINANCE -"Trr1( U JUL — 61998 Friends of the Black River 408 Index Place NE r} 144 t N Renton,WA 98056 i��ti,. . (425)226-0188 NOTICE OF APPEAL The Friends of the Black River appeal the environmental determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)for the Black River Corporate Park(Project No.LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM). We believe that the ERC decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it did not comply with the provisions included in, but not limited to, Section 2 of the Renton Environmental Ordinance(Chapter 6,Title 4 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton). We believe that the ERC in issuing its Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated should have required the following additional mitigation measures: • The applicant shall revise their site plan to show an increase in the setback distance from the Black River Great Blue Heron Colony to the development from 500 feet to 660 feet. The setback is necessary in order to decrease the risk of abandonment of the heron colony. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). • The applicant shall limit all heavy construction on the project to a period from June 15 to January 15. The limitation is necessary in order to protect the heron colony from serious disturbance during the heron-breeding season. Nexus: City of Renton Environmental Ordinance(Code Section 4-6). The ERC addresses these mitigation measures in their staff report and determines that these mitigation measures are not necessary to protect the Black River Heron Colony. However, the ERC provides no scientific evidence to support their claim. We will provide expert testimony in support of these mitigation measures. The ERC in its staff report refers to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to support its decision not to require certain mitigation measures.We believe that the MOA does not apply to this project and should not be referenced in support of, or opposition to, the project. We request that the Hearing Examiner make a determination as to whether the MOA may be referenced in matters regarding this project post-its Fax Note 7671 Date-1 mom , Co. Co./Dept S iiimmwomphone# 3 j Phone# Fax# 43(� 30� . CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING • On the °I day of ' , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the Uni. !d States, a sealed envelope containirig 1:1c.ecvk -4-o -N,,e 1}Cay%%N �ca��ntKeer t documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Ro cc. 13.e.v gtoacktr%vtr - R%vey:te.ctt P.o. R(0-{}a.C-he4 ems) (Signature of Sender) .• STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 4 1C1A.n,.. k Q Q,c— signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for 1.Me uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated90-4 I /y 61 �� �/d'�icr' I Notary Public in nd for the State of Wa hington Notary (Print) MARII YN KAMCHEFF My appointment e ce Project Name: le P0.V'k..Palau�.kr‘vcY' CorPniv�� Project Number: LUPt .qg. o15,SSA , Eif, Sin NOTARY.DOC ► . • ' AI BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Ms. Linda Baker Ms. Susan McClellan Ms. Suzanne Krom 1202 North 35th Street 22826 - 105th Ave. SW 4715-1/2 - 36th Ave. SW Renton, WA 98056 Vashon, WA 98070 Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Mr. Jerry Holmes Mr. Gerry Adams Ms. Trudy Thomas 408 Index Place NE 8315 Lake City Way NE#919 2350 Eaglemount Road Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98115 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mr. Tom Malphrus Mr. Ted Mallory Mr. Bruce Harpham 18713 - 102nd Avenue SE 7524 South 135th Street 2518 South 361st Street Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Federal Way, WA 98003-7 71 Ms. Helen Ross Mr. Don Norman Ms. Cheryl White Seattle Audubon Society 1209 Washington Avenue Rainier Audubon Society 8050- 35th Ave. NE New Orleans, LA 70130 PO Box 778 Seattle, WA 98115 Auburn, WA 98071 Mr. Range Bayer Dr. Dee Boersma Kate Stenberg PO Box 1467 Department of Zoology KC Wildlife Program Manac )r Newport, OR 97365 Box 351800 Univ. of Wash. 506 2nd Avenue, Suite 70E Seattle, WA 98195 Seattle, WA 98104-2311 Connie Troyer Bill Wilson and Paula Lazzarini Kathryn Dugaw 316 Earlington Avenue SW 3715 SW Barton Street 5834 NE 75th Street Renton, WA 9805 Seattle, WA 98126 Seattle, WA 98115 Michael Magee Y. York Margaret Milnes 415 Boren Avenue#27 8616- 55th Avenue South 1610 Park Avenue, Bo. D-3 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98118 Bremerton, WA 98337 Lauralee Smith Len Elliott Laura E. Goodell 146 North 76th Street 2006 Riverview Drive NE 4001 SW Edmunds T. #302 Seattle, WA 98103 Auburn, WA 98002 Seattle, WA 98116 1 BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Steven Hayes Joan and Carlos Cabreza Janice Wagner 13503 MLK Wy S, Apt A306 20516 NE 122 5711 Auburn Way South Seattle, WA 98178 Redmond, WA 98053 Auburn, WA 98092-7331 Harold A. Solberg Terri-Jo Empens Jayne Kurzeja 14512 NE 173rd Street Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplan C Woodinville, WA 98072 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Tim McManus Ken Neerdink Linda Seagraves Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplan PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 37307 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Frank Crum William Combs Barbara Batiuk Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplan C PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Don Nomura Jim Andrews David Stephens Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplan C PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Walter Hoffner Carol Anne Engeland Mr. Donald Norman Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Norman Wildlife Consuultin PO Box 3707 PO Box 3707 2112 NW 199th Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98124 Shoreline, WA 98177 Mr. Paul Budlong Mr. Rob Butler(PhD) Mr. Theodore Muller 8644- 32nd Ave. SW Canadian Wildlife Service Department of Fish &Wildli Seattle, WA 98126 Pacific Wildlife Research centre 16018 Mill Creek Boulevarc 5421 Robertson Road Mill Creek, WA 98012 Delta, B.C. V4K 3N2 Ms. Deney Johnson Ms. Shirley Willeiksen Ms. Gwen Warren 24824 SE 235th Place 1215 NW 203rd Street 3235 - 99th Avenue NE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Shoreline, WA 98177 Bellevue, WA 98004 2 • BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Mr. Doug Watson Janice &Anna Mayrhofer Phyllis &Jerry Walsh 7019-47th Avenue SW#1 12047- 69th Avenue South 12038 - 78th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98136 Seattle, WA 98178 Seattle, WA 98178 Dalice Snider Alma Bennett Robert & Barbara Gramm 32920- 181st Avenue SE PO Box 23336 5027- 51st Ave. SW Auburn, WA 98092 Federal Way, WA 98093-0336 Seattle, WA 98136 Ms. Tana Mason Mr. Mike Sato Mr. Jeffrey Ducken 231 Williams Avenue North People for Puget Sound 218 "J" Street SE Renton, WA 98055 2112 NE Ravenna Boulevar Auburn, WA 98002 Seattle, WA 98105 Mr. Dennis Paulson Ms. Beth Wieman Mr. Brian Shelton, PE The University of Puget Sound 2038 NE 123rd Street City of Tukwila/Dept. ofPut is Works 1500 North Warner Seattle, WA 98125 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Si to 100 Tacoma, WA 98416-0360 Tukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Chuck Lennox Anne D. Strode Joan Silling Conservation Committee 1000 -25th Avenue East 17012 - 32nd Avenue Sout Seattle Audubon Society Seattle, WA 98112 SeaTac, WA 98188 8050 - 35th Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115-4814 Brian Gauger Steve Stratis Tom Pesek 8336 Mary Avenue NW 11416 Rainier Avenue South 5925 South Langston Roac Seattle, WA 98117 Space#13 Tukwila, WA 98178 Seattle, WA 98178 Donald Norman Peggy Jordan Norman Wildlife Consulting 11416 Rainier Avenue South #12 2112 NW 199th Seattle, WA 98178 Shoreline, WA 98177 3 I • CITY OF RENrON EARIN XAMINE a AGENDA..-::..COMMENCING AT.:9:00'AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS,,SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING The applications) listed are,irl order of.:.application number only and not necessarily th e Order in whici they will be heard Items wilt be Called for hearing t a the discretion pfttie Hearing Examiner: 8:30 AM -Impound Hearing PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. Location: Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 7th Street. Document2 City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINE A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: July 14, 1998 Project Name: Black River Corporate Park, Tract B Applicant/ LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) Address.: 1535 4th Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 Owner/ Blackriver-Rivertech L.L.0 Address: do Alper Northwest (attn: Dean Erickson) 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 File Number: LUA-098-075, SA-H, SM, Project Manager: Jennifer Toth ECF Henning Project Description: Royce Berg, of LPN Architects, has applied on behalf of Blackriver-Rivertech, L( to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. The structures would be constructed of tilt-up concrete panels and tinted glass. Three the structures (A, D, and E) are proposed as one-story, or approximately 20-feet, height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-stories, or approximately 0- feet, in height. Proposed buildings would have the following gross floor area: Building A-- 22,010 s.f.; Building B -- 32,500 s.f.; Building C -- 32,500 s.f.; Bui lir D -- 32,890 s.f.; and Building E -- 28,934 s.f. Access is proposed from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided in lots ringing the sr Construction is scheduled to occur in three phases over a six-year period. A t‘ �- year extension of the six-year phasing plan for showing of substantial progress In good cause is also requested as part of the application. The proposal would in lu approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the to One Category 3 wetland, 0.07 acres in size, is located on the southeast portior of the project site, and would be filled under the proposal. Two Category 2 wetlar Is 0.25 acres in size and 0.16 acres in size, exist on a separate east of and abutti g project site (also known as Lot 4 of the Black River Tract B Short Plat File No. .0 98-074, SHPL-A,ECF). That parcel, including the two wetlands, is being acqui ed under a separate purchase agreement by the City of Renton, and would not be impacted or disturbed by the proposal. A heron rookery exists to the north/northwest of the site on an island in the P-1 detention basin and in wildlife habitat totaling approximately 82 acres of permane City open space and riparian forest. The site development project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial developmer permit. _ Project Location: Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street City of Renton P/BJPW Departmen. Preliminary Report to the Hearing!examiner BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Page 2 of 14 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Blackriver-Rivertech L.L.0 do Alper Northwest (attn: Dean Erickson) 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (CO) 3. Comprehensive Plan: Employment Area - Valley (EAV) Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use: vacant, undeveloped 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: City of Renton open space East: City of Renton open space under purchase agreement office, warehouse, industrial -- east of Naches Avenue SW South: office, regional wastewater treatment plant West: City of Renton open space 6. Access: via Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street 7. Site Area: 12.53 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: 0 s.f. New Building Area: 148,834 s.f Bldg. A: 22,010 s.f. Bldg. B: 32,500 s.f. Bldg. C: 32,500 s.f. Bldg. D: 32,890 s.f Bldg. E: 28,934 s.f. Total Building Area: 148,834 s.f. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan 4498 6-7-93 Zoning 4404 3-26-95 Annexation 1745 4-14-59 Annexation 1764 5-19-61 Annexation 1928 12-19-61 Annexation 4040 2-9-87 Black River Corporate LUA-88-071, SA, SM, Park,Phases VII& ECF VIII HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Preliminary Report to the Hearing Ka BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : 4, PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa! 3 Black River Corporate LUA-89-109, SA, SM, 1-92 Park, Tracts A and B ECF Black River Tract B LUA-98-074, SHPL-A, 7-6-98 Short Plat ECF D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: existing 12-inch water main in SW 7th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW Sewer: existing 8-inch sewer main in SW 7th (to Naches Avenue SW); existing 8-inch sewer main in Oakesdale Avenue SW (to the P-1 Channel, then turns south and runs along east side of channel). Surface Water/Storm Water: existing stormwater facilities in both SW 7th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW 2. Fire Protection: per City of Renton Fire Department 3. Transit: King County/Metro Transit serves the area with routes 912, 163, 240, 280 and 340 along South Grady Way 4. Schools: Not applicable to proposal 5. Recreation: Passive recreation includes City of Renton open space and trail system adjacent to subject property. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-31-16: Commercial Office (CO) Zone 2. Section 4-14: Parking and Loading Ordinance 3. Section 4-31-33: Site Plan Review 4. Section 4-32: Wetlands Management F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element (Section 1): Employment Area Valley (EAV) G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied on behalf of Blackriver- Rivertech, L.L.C. to develop a 2 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. The structures would be constructed of tilt Jr HEXRPT.DOC • City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa! 4 of 14 concrete panels and tinted glass. The painted concrete panels would feature architectural reveals Three of the structures (A, D, and E) are proposed as one-story, or approximately 20 feet, in heig1 . Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-stories, or approximately 30 feet, in height. The proposal Could result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Proposed buildings would have the following gross loor area: Building A -- 22,010 s.f.; Building B -- 32,500 s.f.; Building C -- 32,500 s.f.; Building D -- 32, 90 s.f.; and Building E -- 28,934 s.f. Access is proposed from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Surface parking for approxi lately 597 vehicles would be provided in lots ringing the site. Thirty percent (30%) of the parking stalls r )uld be for compact parking (8-1/2'wide x 16' long), with the remainder as standard stalls (9'wide x 2C long). Construction is scheduled to occur in three phases over a six-year period. A two-year extension c the six-year phasing plan for showing of substantial progress and good cause is also requested as par of the application. Phase 1 is defined as the first two years of the six-year plan. During Phase 1, at leas_ one building would be commenced. Phase 2 is defined as occurring during the first four years of the s :year plan. During Phase 2, at least three buildings would be commenced (possibly including the one b !ding from Phase 1). Phase 3 would be the entire six-year plan. During Phase 3 the five proposed buil ngs would commence (including the three buildings from Phases 1 and 2). Phases 2 and 3 would folic v Phase 1 but could commence concurrently with the previous phases. The proposal would include approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. The P-1 channel (also known as Springbrook Creek) and detention basin (the P-1 pond) are locatr i to the west and northwest of the site and flow into the Green River, approximately one mile west oft e site. A Category 3 wetland, 0.07 acres in size, is located on the southeast portion of the project site, an would be filled under the proposal. Two Category 2 wetlands, 0.25 acres in size and 0.16 acres in size, exist on a separate east of and abutting the project site (also known as Lot 4 of the Black River Tract B Short Plat File No. LUA-98-074, SHPL-A,ECF). That parcel, including the two wetlands, is being acquired under a separate purchase agreement by the City of Renton, and would not be impacted or disturbed by the proposal. The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high wood split rail fence with wetland signage to be installed along the 25-foot wide portions of the 50-foot wide average width buffer for the off-site Wetland No. 1 (located on the northeast portion of Lot 4 Tract B). A heron rookery exists to the north/northwest of the site on an island in the P-1 detention basin an in wildlife habitat totaling approximately 82 acres of permanent City open space and riparian forest. the site development project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. Tract B has a previously approved (January, 1992) site development plan. The plan was approved by the Hearing Examiner in January 1992, following the negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between citizen/environmental groups, the owner, and City of Renton. The approved plan proposed development on both Tracts A and B. Development of two four-story buildings was approved for Tract A. Each building would have had approximately 64,000 square feet of office (for a total of about 128,000 s.f. office). Tract A has since been preserved as permanent open space and will not be developed. Tract B was approved for 626,764 square feet of development and parking for 1,217 cars. One 4-story office building (78,350 square feet), and two 5-story office buildings (207,950 s.f.) were approved. Also, surface parking for over 300 vehicles, and a 4-story parking garage (340,464 s.f.), 57-feet h qh was approved. The Memorandum of Agreement was signed in November, 1991 between the City of Renton, al )licant, Seattle Audubon Society, Rainier Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Citizens for Renton V4 dlands Preservation, resulting in revisions to the initial plans, with conditions of development. The rearing Examiner approved the site plan (as described above) which reflected the conditions of the MOA. Previous environmental review for the site included the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Study for the overall Black River site (Earlington Park) which was issued in July 1980. The F rat EIS was issued in February, 1981. Mitigation included the dedication of land to the City of Renton )r: the construction of the P-1 channel and detention basin (17.5 acres); riparian forest wildlife habit t (20.0 acres); road improvements -- Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue, SW, Powell Avenue SN, and SW 7th Street (9.5 acres). Mitigation also included participation in Local Improvement District '332 in the amount of $3 million for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue SW, id SW HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen, Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : N, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa ?5 of 14 7th Street. Site specific development proposals for Tract B required an Environmental Impact Sti ement which was issued in March, 1991 (FEIS). Mitigation documents issued for the previous pi posed development of Tracts A and B were appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The appeals result& in the MOA described above and the subsequent site plan approval for Tracts A and B, by the earing Examiner, in January 1992. Staff have worked with the applicant for the past year on the design of a less intensive developr ent for Tract B which incorporates the mitigation measures and conditions of the Memorandum of Ago 3ment. The result is the subject application for Site Plan Review of a substantially smaller office park po ect for Tract B of the Black River Corporate Park. The design concept can best be described as a self-rr igated site plan, in that the mitigation imposed for the previous project has been incorporated into the ;ubject proposal. This is evidenced by the number of mitigation measures imposed on the project Dy the Environmental Review Committee. The new site plan recognizes physical changes in the existing conditions of the site, incluc ig the maturing of trees planted on Tracts A and B, which have resulted in the establishment of a phys al and visual separation between the proposed site development area and the heronry. Even during )eriods when trees are not in leaf, only a thirty-foot wide gap exists where the heronry is visible. A id, the visibility of the heronry will incrementally decrease over the next several years, as the trees con nue to grow and screen views between the site and the heron rookery. Only one of the proposed structL es, the two-story, approximate 30-foot high Building "B", would have a view the heronry, and only until tl trees fill in the gap. The proposal for Tract B is for less development (148,834 square feet and parking for 597 vehi es) on 12.53 acres. Previous approval represented 626,764 square feet of development and parking f( 1,217 cars on 15.7 acres. More than 3 acres, formerly part of Tract B, is being purchased by the City of Renton for permanent open space. Also, Tract A was purchased and is dedicated as open space. It is cl ar that while the project size has decreased, the amount of permanent open space and habitat a 3a has increased in the years following the MOA and approval of a substantially larger site plan prop sal for Tract B. Under the current site plan application, five structures would be built, all of which would be one- :o two- stories or approximately 20 to 30 feet in height. No buildings would be located within 500 feE of the heronry, all construction would be accomplished utilizing auger-cast piles and tilt-up building ,)anels. Parking would be provided in surface lots for 597 vehicles. And, approximately 3.4 acres that was formerly part of Tract B, is being segregated from the site under a separate short plat applicatio (LUA- 98-074,SHPL-A,ECF) to be preserved as permanent open space. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as an- ended), on June 16, 1998, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). The ERC subsequently met on June 23, 1998 and June 30, 1998 to reconsider the proposal based on issues contained in comment letters received during the combined comment period, ended July 6, 1998. No revisions were made to either the ERC's Environmental Threshold Determination or mitigation measures, as the result of the comment letters that were received. Additional comment letters were received after June 30, 1998, but none of the letters contained concerns beyond the issues discussed either during the June 16, 1998 meeting or subsequent meetings on June 23rd or June 30th. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The Environmental Review Committee issued the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated ith two mitigation measures that the applicant is required to comply with. The appeal period for the environmental determination ended on July 6, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. Several comment letters were r ceived and are contained in the project file. An appeal to the Environmental Threshold Determination wi ; filed on July 6, 1998. The appeal hearing on the Environmental Determination will be scheduled by th HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen. Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : N, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa 6 of 14 Hearing Examiner, and will need to be held prior to the opening of the public hearing on the Black liver Corporate Park Tract B Site Plan Review application. The ERC Mitigation Measures are as follows: 1. Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed 5 i as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuanc of building permits. The applicant intends to comply with this mitigation measure. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0. 2 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the iss lance of the building permit. The applicant intends to comply with this mitigation measure. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application matE ials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comm( its are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated ito the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the enc of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-31-33 (D.) of the City Municipal Code states that: "The Hearing Examiner < id City staff shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning consid rations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aime:i for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation." The stated purpose of the site plan review is to assure that the site plan is compatible with existing and potential uses and complies with plans, policies and regulations of the City. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site and with the surrounding area. Site plan review does not include design review, which addresses the aesthetic considerations of architectural style, exterior treatment and colors. The Site Plan Review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following: (5A) GENERAL CRITERIA: (1) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & PO ICIES The project site is designated Employment Area -Valley on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Sites with the EAV designation are intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, office and industrial uses. New development should be located and designed to achieve compatibility with adjacent uses. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen. Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : N, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa 7 of 14 Policy LU-163. Site design of developments should be encouraged to maximize public ac tess to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations contiguous to a river, lake, 'etland or stream, where such access will not jeopardize the environmental attributes of the area. The proposal recognizes Policy LU-163 by providing visual access to the shoreline and wi land areas abutting the site. Passive recreation opportunities would be available on site, for e) imple picnic tables near the wetlands on the east boundary of the site. However, the proposal v ,uld preclude physical access to the wetlands, and to the wildlife habitat areas north of the site thus meeting the intent of the policy to avoid jeopardizing environmental attributes of the area trough public access. Policy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place )r a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The proposal would introduce an office park development consistent with the Comprehen ve Plan Land Use designation and Zoning Code. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in pa Dimity to one another. The proposal would result in the development of an office park on a site appropriately des jnated and zoned and in close proximity to other compatible office park developments. Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in sit utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenitiE b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; ind c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. Policy LU-212.23 Site design for office uses should consider ways of improving transit rig ership through siting, locating of pedestrian amenities, walkways, parking, etc. The five proposed buildings would be located on three parcels. Parking and access would be shared among all of the site's tenants/occupants. Site access would be available from both SW 7th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Proposed pedestrian connections to both of the streets, would enable access to future transit opportunities. Vehicular circulation and location of access drives would enable on-site pick-up or drop-off for smaller transit equipment such as RUSH vans. Proposed commercial uses on the site have not been identified, however, the office buildings would be able to support small business uses or lunch facilities and the like, anc would be consistent with zoning and land use designations. Policy LU-212-20 When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close prc ;imity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility or mitigating any adverse impacts should be the responsibility of the new use. The proposal has inherent mitigation to buffer the office park from less intensive wildlife habitat, and wetlands. Setbacks, buffers, landscaping, fencing, and siting of structures and facilities away from less-intensive areas have been incorporated into the proposal to mitigate, buffer and provide transition from less intensive uses to the proposed site development. For example, split- rail fencing is proposed along the east boundary of the site to discourage access into the wetland area on the abutting site, and chain-link fencing is proposed to prevent access to the wetpond area and habitat on the north. The proposal is also greatly reduced in size in terms of building height and amount of development from the previously approved site plan. In fact, the proposal has been reduced by 477,930 square feet, (from 626,764 s.f. of building to 148,834 s.f. o` building. And, the amount of parking has been reduced from 1,217 parking stalls for the previous approval to 597 vehicles under the subject application. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen, Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : VI, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa 8 of 14 (2) CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The following requirements and development standards contained in Municipal Code Se Lion 4- 31-16: Commercial Office Zone (CO) of the Zoning Code [adopted June 1993 requirem€ is and development standards] are applicable to this proposal. The CO Zone was established to provide areas appropriate for professional, admini: rative, medical and business office and/or related uses. Office uses of various intensities are all wed in these areas to create an Employment Center. Development Standards: Site Plan Approval: All development projects within the CO Zone require Site Plan Approval. The applicant has submitted an application together with the required documents and processing fee. Setbacks: A minimum setback of 15 feet is required for structures less than 25 feet in height. For structures that are 25 feet to 80 feet in height a 20-foot setback is required. For st ictures over 80 feet in height a 30-foot setback is required. Proposed Buildings A, D, and E w uld be one-story or approximately 20 feet in height, requiring a setback of 15 feet from the street. Proposed Buildings B and C would be two stories or approximately 30 feet in height, requiring a minimum setback of 20 feet from the street. No rear or sideyard setbacks are required in the CO Zone. All of the proposed structures would meet the setback requirements of the CO Zone. Only Buildings A, D, and E would be located proximate to public streets. Buildings A wc:uld be setback approximately 80 feet from Oakesdale Avenue SW, Building D would be setback about 70 feet from Oakesdale and 87 feet from SW 7th Street. Proposed Building E would also be setback 87 feet from SW 7th Street. Height: The CO Zone limits heights to a maximum of 250 feet. The proposed structure . would range in height from one-story (Buildings A, D, and E) to two-stories (Buildings B and C). Lot Coverage: The CO Zone limits lot coverage for buildings to 65%. An increasf' in lot coverage can be accomplished through the Site Plan Approval process, provided that parking is provided within a building or parking garage. The applicant would comply with Code lot coverage requirements. Lot 1 would be developed with Buildings A and B resulting in 17% lot coverage (38,260 s.f. building footprint on 225,334 s.f. lot). Lot 2 would be developed with Building D, resulting in lot coverage of 31% (32,890 s.f. building footprint on 106,078 s.f. lot). Lot 3 would be developed with Buildings C and E, resulting in lot coverage of 21% (45,184 s.f. building footprints on 214,611 s.f. parcel.) Landscaping/Improvements: Lots abutting public streets are required to have a minimum landscaping strip of 10 feet except where reduced though the site plan review process. The proposal would provide minimum 10-foot landscaped setbacks from SW 7th Street, and minimum 15-foot landscaped setbacks from Oakesdale Avenue SW. Pedestrian Connection. The CO Zone requires a pedestrian connection from a public entrance to the street. The proposed site plan shows pedestrian connections from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street to the site, and around and between the buildings, leading to wilding entrances. Surface Mounted and Roof-Mounted Equipment. The CO Zone requires that all on-site surface mounted utility and mechanical equipment and all operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be screened from public view. The applicant's building elevation drawings do not show mechanical equipment or screening. The applicant would need to revise the drawings at the time submittals are made for building permits in order to meet Code requirements of the CO Zone for the screening of roof-top or surface-mounted equipment. Parking and Loading Ordinance. The proposal is Section 4-14, Parking and oading Ordinance. Office use requires a minimum of three (3) parking stalls for each 1,000 sqi fre feet HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmeni Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pa! 9 of 14 of gross floor area to a maximum of 4.5 parking stalls for each 1,000 square feet of gro s floor area. For the 148,834 square foot office development, the amount of parking required woulc range from 447 to 670 stalls. Up to 30% of these stalls could be compact spaces with dimensio s of 8- 1/2 feet wide by 16 feet long. The applicant is proposing a total of 597 parking stalls with 79, or 30%, as compact stalls. City Code encourages joint use parking, and even though three separate parcels wi ald be developed, the parking and access would be jointly shared by the different occupants on t e site. Wetlands Ordinance. The proposal is governed by Section 4-32, Wetlands Mana 'ement Ordinance. Hydrologically isolated Category Ill wetlands under 5,000 square feet in size 'ithin a property boundary are exempt from the provisions of the Wetlands Ordinance. The 0.07 acre wetland is small, isolated, and disturbed and was possibly created by uman- related fills and compaction of soils. It is exempt from regulation by the City of Renton. (3) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; Subject Site and Surrounding Uses. The majority of the land uses in the area imm diately surrounding the subject site is either open space, office, or industrial. When conside ng the impacts to the surrounding uses, the site plan review criteria focuses on impacts of p rposed structures with regard to: layout, orientation, scale (size, bulk, height, and intensity), rela onship to natural characteristics of a site to avoid overconcentration of structures, location of arking, and view impacts from existing buildings and future developable sites. In addition, cam us-like or park-like setting are encouraged through the proper screening of surface and roof-r Punted equipment and siting of garbage/recyclables areas. The site is irregularly shaped and is immediately surrounded by Renton open space (former Tract A) and the P-1 detention pond on the west. An approximate 3.4 acre parcel with wetland areas abuts the subject site on the east (Lot 4 of Black River Tract B Short Plat, under purchase agreement with the City of Renton). A large and thriving heron rookery is located on an island in the P-1 detention basin and in the riparian forest habitat abutting the site on the north. Existing one- to three-story office developments are located across Naches Avenue SW to the east, and one- to four-story offices and a hotel are located across SW 7th Street to the south. Oakesdale Avenue SW abuts the site on the southwest. Across Oakesdale is the King County/Metro regional wastewater treatment facility. Further beyond the boundaries of the site are industrial uses including concrete recycling and a quarry to the west and north, a hotel (present! under construction) and 1-405 to the south. Previous Project. The previous project approval would permit the construction of four structures on the site, one four-story and two five-story office buildings, and a four-story parking garage. The five-stories office building would be approximately 71 feet in height, the four-story office structure would be 56 feet in height. A four-story parking garage, 57-feet high, would be located on the north portion of the site, approximately 500 feet from the heronry. Development of two four-story buildings was also approved for Tract A, which would have resulted in approximately 128,000 square feet of office. Tract A has subsequently been acquired by the City of Renton as permanent open space. The parties to the Memorandum of Agreement for the approved development concurred with the Department of Wildlife's approval of a habitat-based approach to conservation of the wildlife resources with an effective buffer. This was a shift from the ERC mitigation document's focus on protection of a particular nesting site towards a habitat-based approach to protection of wildlife with a buffer between the project and the habitat. Current Proposal. The current proposal by the applicant represents a coordinated a proach with the City over the past year for a less-intensive development scenario for the sit . The HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, VI, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE.July 14, 1998 Pag 10 of 14 design concept incorporates elements of the Memorandum of Agreement for the f avious proposal as one way of responding to concerns for the protection of the heron rooker Site development of offices would decrease from 286,300 s.f. under the previous proposal to ' 8,834 s.f, a reduction of more than 50% from the previous office development. Also, the prc Piously proposed four-story parking garage (340,464 s.f.) would not be developed as part Df the proposal. The four proposed buildings would be one-story and two stories, or approxim ely 20 to 30 feet high, as compared with 56 to 71-foot high structures under the previous approv I. The amount of proposed parking would be reduced from 1,217 stalls to 597 stalls. And m iimum buffer distances between buildings and the heronry would be increased from 500 feet or the previous proposal to 540 feet for the current project. Furthermore, trees planted on boll Tracts A and B over the past several years have matured, increasing the visual and physical sei iration between Tract B and the heronry. As evidenced in the applicant's technical report t 'titled: "Tree Height and Screening Between Proposed Black River Corporate Park "Tract B" B ildings and the Heron Rookery in Renton, Washington"the heron rookery is screened from Tra t B by poplar and evergreen tree vegetation. Only a 30-foot visual gap exists between the rook ry and Tract B, and this gap would decrease over the next several years as the trees increase in 'eight. The heron rookery would only be visible from proposed Building B until the trees incr ase in height. The proposal also represents the efforts made by both the applicant and City of Re ton to acquire and preserve open space both abutting the site and in the vicinity of the project. Eighty- two (82) acres of land located immediately adjacent to the site has been dedicated )y the applicant (20 acres) or purchased by the City of Renton (62 acres) for permanent open Daces, riparian forest and wildlife habitat. This includes 8.54 acres of Tract A previously apprc ed for development. The concept reiterates the protection of wildlife habitat rather than a spec is tree or point of land on the site as agreed to in the MOA. A total of five one- to two-story buildings are proposed. Three of the buildings (A, B, anc C) are proposed for the north portion of the site and would be rectangular in shape. The of er two structures proposed for the south portion of the site would be L-shaped. The structures w uld be oriented on a northwest/southeast axis from SW 7th Street, and a southwest/northeast a> s from Oakesdale toward Naches Avenue SW. The structures would be located on the interio of the site, setback from both the surrounding streets and open space areas. The northwest fa ade of Building C would be located closest to the heronry, with a minimum separation of approx nately 540 feet from the heronry. The north corner of proposed Building B would be approximat ly 605 feet from the heronry. The north corner of Building A would be approximately 740 feet f tm the heronry. The current proposal addresses the potential for impacts to the surrounding sites, incluc ng the heronry, by incorporating setbacks, buffering, landscaping and by retaining natural areas on the site. Approximately 16% of the site would remain undeveloped as natural areas and iabitat buffer. Trees, stumps and other vegetation removed from the proposed development areas of site along with existing "dead and down material" would be placed in the proposed buffer area located in the north and northwest portions of the site as additional wildlife habitat. These materials in combination with proposed perimeter landscaping, and fencing installed on the south edge of the wetpond would deter intrusion by humans into the proposed buffer and natural areas. On the west portion of the site, a 30-foot buffer, including 10 feet of formal landscaped area and 20 feet of natural vegetation combined with 70-feet of City-owned property to provide a total of a 100-foot buffer of natural vegetation and landscaping along the P-1 channel. The proposal is superior to the previously approved project with regard to diminished imp cts on the surrounding habitat and open space areas. Lower scale of development, pr posed construction methods (auger-cast piles when needed, and concrete tilt-up panels), ex ensive existing buffer plantings, and proposed landscaping are intended to diminish potential imi acts to the heron rookery and riparian forest. It is for these reasons that the Environmental eview Committee decided not to impose additional setbacks or to limit site construction to pecific times of the year. The heronry is large and has thrived in this area, despite the land u: s and HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : vI, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE.'July 14, 1998 Pag 11 of 14 associated noise and vibration that occur in the surrounding area. This includes quarry t 3sting, concrete recycling, a regional wastewater treatment plant, building construction, r ilroad, Interstate freeway, and local road traffic, and a recreational trail. The heron have incre sed in numbers even though human activity is evident. As documented in several letters r 3eived commenting on the proposal, bird watchers, environmental organizations, and other ind 'iduals and groups regularly visit the area to observe the heron, even during those times t at are considered to be most sensitive to heron nesting and rearing of young. Proposed structures would be compatible with the architecture on surrounding sites witt regard to building height, size, bulk, and fenestration. While design review is not part of s e plan review, the applicant has disclosed that buildings would be painted tilt-up concrete wit tinted glass. The choice of color (neutral and earth-tone) and window tinting also ad resses agreements from the MOA for the previous project. Furthermore, proposed lighting )n the project site is proposed to avoid spill-over light impacts or glare to off-site areas. Th City's Environmental Review Committee also required that lighting be focused and directed t avoid any off-site glare from occurring. Landscaping. Extensive screening and landscaping is proposed for the project. The design concept would increase the separation between the riparian forest/rookery and the nortt corner of the site closest to the rookery. Visual and physical separation would consist of orn mental landscaping closest to the proposed buildings, fencing, wetpond, and buffer that include "dead and down debris" for wildlife habitat, and naturally occurring vegetation. Orn mental landscaping would be installed throughout the site to create a cohesive design consist it with the City's intent to promote the development of sites with a campus-like or park-like I. tout in appropriate zones. The site is zoned Commercial Office and each of the five structure would feature perimeter plantings of trees, shrubs, groundcover and lawn. Ornamental plants v )uld be installed closest to the buildings and in the parking areas to break-up the barren appear nce of large parking lots. The edges of the development would vary depending on the adj :ent or abutting land use. For those site edges nearest wetland or habitat areas, formal lar iscape design would blend with a native plant buffer. Street frontages would have a morH formal landscape character with the retention of existing street trees and lawn. Individual t iildings would have courtyards or planting which calls out building entrances. And, passive re reation areas, including seating areas and picnic tables, would be dispersed on the site. (4) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; The proposal would separate structures on the site from one another, yet achieve a cor patible and cohesive design through similar building heights, design, size, bulk, and integrated a;.proach to landscaping. Buildings would be oriented on a common access and would be separated with landscaping, parking and circulation aisles to prevent wind tunnel effects or excessive shading or bulk. Sensitive areas of the site would be preserved and protected by locating site wetpond, fencing, and landscaping on the north corner of the site to prevent human intrusion. Landscaped areas would be protected on site via the use of curbing or wheel stops. On-site recreation opportunities for employees would include passive uses such as seating picnic tables. The site would have impervious surface resulting from the development of buildings and surface parking, but would have natural areas reserved and extensive landscaping introduced. Approximately 70% of the developed area and 58% of the total site area would be covered with impervious surface. As discussed during environmental review, approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill would be imported to be utilized for site development. The northern corner of the site is considered to be the most environmentally sensitive a !a, due to the presence of the adjacent heron rookery and riparian forest. The site development oncept HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing xar BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : 4, PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Pag, 12 recognizes the sensitivity of this area by proposing only stormwater facilities, landscap g open space preserves in this area. In order to perpetuate the protection defined in the si p staff will recommend that the applicant be required to establish a Native Growth Pr( ec Easement at the north corner of the site extending from the north edge of the wetpond r rtt and including, the habitat buffer area. Disturbance of this area would be limited to the de )si of "dead and down" material from other portions of the site in order to enhance the vilr habitat. (5) CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The proposal would develop a vacant site that has been designated for commercial offi e Black River Corporate Park would be expected to not only conserve area-wide property ' 3Iu but to enhance those values. Existing development consists of similar office parks and no demand demonstrates that the proposal is timely. The site plan is much less intensive ha permitted by City Codes and policies and recognizes the applicant's commitment to proi )s( appropriate design for a site that is located in close proximity to sensitive wildlife ab Proposed landscaping would create a cohesive campus-like or park-like setting that wi transition from the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat to the office park use. (6) SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Automobiles and other vehicles would access the site from existing driveway approaches )n 7th Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. Drives are proposed with adequate separatic i f corner intersections so as not to interfere with traffic and turning movements occurring tr intersections. The SW 7th Street driveway would be located at least 320 feet from Oa s� Avenue SW and at least 220 feet from Naches Avenue SW. The Oakesdale Aven e driveway would be at least 310 feet from the intersection of Oakesdale and SW 7th Str Once on-site, vehicles would utilize two-way circulation aisles to access head-in 90 Iec surface parking lots. Parking would surround each of the proposed structures and would Is( located on the periphery of the site. Proposed 24-foot wide circulation aisles are consist, it Code requirements for two-way movement. Pedestrian circulation on the site we ild addressed through the provision of a pedestrian walkway network between buildings, al f f buildings entrances to parking areas and sidewalks on SW 7th Street and Oakesdale ve SW. No connection is proposed through the site to Naches Avenue SW to protect the int( lril the existing wetland system. Physical and visual barriers would discourage and prevent human intrusion from the offi e I into the on-site habitat areas. A combination of landscaping, fencing, wetpond and habits Ix would create a separation of approximately 500 feet between the development and tht ht rookery. (Note: the buffer would measure from 490 feet at the narrowest point in a ar circulation aisle on the north side of the property, to approximately 600 feet on the so th% portion of the wetpond.) No pedestrian paths are proposed within habitat areas on or adji ;er the site. (7) PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The proposal would feature low-rise office structures a maximum of 30 feet in height. The structures would be oriented on a northwest/southeast axis from SW 7th Street, an southwest/northeast axis from Oakesdale toward Naches Avenue SW. Separation of Buildinc and B would be approximately 25 to 30 feet. Courtyard plantings between the structures ar pedestrian path would reduce any wind tunnel effect that could occur between the two buildi The distance between Building B and Building C would be approximately 120 feet an w include vehicular circulation aisles, parking and landscaping. The minimum distance t tw Building C and Building E would be 90 feet, while the minimum distance between Building B HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing xaminer BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, : N, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 14, 1998 Fag 13 of 14 Building D would be 140 feet. The minimum distance between Building B and Building would be approximately 190 feet. Parking, circulation aisles, pedestrian paths, and landscapin would separate the structures from one another. The proposal would not result in excessive shade impacts from building heights as propof. .d. Air would circulate without being concentrated in a wind tunnel effect. The current proposa meets this Site Plan Review criteria and is superior to the previous proposal for the site which i cluded larger, taller structures. (8) MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHE LTHY CONDITIONS; The proposal would develop office uses on the site, incorporating a distinct separation c office from less intensive wildlife habitat and wetland areas (both on- and off-site). Inheren in the proposal is buffering in the form of setbacks, landscaping, wetpond, and fencing. V iicular access points from public streets would be located at roughly the mid-point of the sit along street frontages, but would be setback from wetland and habitat areas to reduce traff noise impacts that could occur as vehicles enter and leave the site. The structures and pi posed landscaping may reduce or deflect noise from the surrounding streets. Three trash enclosures are indicated on the site plan on the periphery of the parking I t, with accessibility from the vehicle circulation lane. An additional trash enclosure would be p )vided in the center of the site in proximity to Building A, B, D, and E. The location of the I cilities appears to meet the needs of both the office uses and the access requirements of thf waste management purveyors. Screening and landscaping is proposed for each of th trash enclosures. (9) AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODA1 THE PROPOSED USE; AND City utilities exist in surrounding public streets. Municipal services and facilities exist t serve the development as proposed. (10) PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. Development of the subject site would not result in deterioration or blight of the subject si The proposal provides for development and preservation of sensitive site areas. A cor .eptual landscape plan has been submitted for review that would result in a campus-like or r rk-like layout consistent with site plan review criteria. The site plan would result in the develop lent of the site in a manner that is envisioned in both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Cod of the City of Renton. Furthermore, the proposal would be less-intensive than the previously al )roved project. (58) SIGNAGE: Staff have not yet reviewed the applicant's sign plan for compliance with the Sign Code. This is typically accomplished at the time that sign permits and/or building permits are applied )r with specific tenants in mind. A conceptual sign layout has been provided as part of the site I an. A monument sign is indicated on Lot 3 at the corner of Naches Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Another monument sign is shown on Lot 1 at the corner of SW 7th Street. Internal sig age is HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heannc .xai BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075, SA-H, M PUBLIC HEARING DATE.July 14, 1998 Pal 14 being shown between Buildings A and D. Detailed review of signs would occur at the e applicant submits for sign permits. (5C) AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA): Prior to the issuance of any permit in an Aquifer Protection Area, a finding must be made *hat proposal will not impact the quantity or quality of water in the aquifer on a short-term basis la term basis, or cumulatively in conjunction with other existing or proposed uses. Not applicable. (5D) HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES: Not applicable. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Black River Corporate Park, Project File No. LUA-98-075, S k-F SM, ECF, including the extended period of approval, subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with t Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. (2) Native Growth Protection Easement. The applicant shall be required to establish a Nat ie Growth Protection Easement on Lot 1, at the north corner of the site, extending from the north ed! 3 c the wetpond north to and including the habitat buffer area. Disturbance of this area would be limit d • the depositing of"dead and down" material from other portions of the site in order to enhance the Iilc habitat, or routine maintenance activity for the wetpond. The Native Growth Protection Easement sh be recorded to run with the title for Lot 1. Recording of the easement shall be accomplished prior o issuance of the building permits. HEXRPT.DOC • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE • (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners(Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E)would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial,office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16%of the site(2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review,site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary tc mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must'be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: June 22,1998 DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 1998 SIGNATURES: i1 l�rl-E ��r� 6//0196 �. Gregg Zim aan,Ainisfrator DATE De artma t//of�Plannifig/Building/Public Works p f - /G --- t�' Sam Chastain,-Administrator DATE Community Services Lee >` '‘eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department . I DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site, The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed so as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit ' I • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review--Water 1. There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10"water main loop and additional hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. 2. Water System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Wastewater ,3. Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. 4. Sewer System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Stormwater 5. Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the King County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property development. 6. We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. 7. Stormwater System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Street Improvements Black River Corporate Park LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H Advisory Notes(Continued) • Page 2 of 2 8. The streets adjacent to this site are fully improved with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. 9. Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St. and participation by the applicant in LID#332 for approximately $3 million. Building Department 10. Soils Report Should address the potential for liquefaction. The 1997 Uniform Building Code goes into effect in July 1998. • Airport 11. The site is located in an area which should be minimally impacted by aircraft operations from the Renton airport. It is considered an area and use compatible with aviation operations from the airport. Fire Department 12. the preliminary fire flow is 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm)for proposed Building A; 3,000 gpm for proposed Building B; 2,500 gpm for proposed Buildings C, D, and E. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 13. Separate plans and permits are required for fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems installations in each building . 14. Applicant will need to provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on the site. 15. A fire mitigation fee equivalent to$0.52 per square foot of new construction would apply to the project. The fee is estimated to be $11,445.20 for proposed Building A, $16,900.00 for proposed Buildings B and C; $17,102.80 for proposed Building D; and $15,045.68 for proposed Building E. The fee , is due prior to the issuance of building permits. Police --Crime Prevention 16. Police estimate 77 calls for police service annually, based on the size of the proposal. 17. The applicant is advised to contact Audrey Moore in Renton Crime Prevention (425/235-2571)to discuss site and project security issues both during construction and operation of the project. 18. The area between proposed Buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and landscaping in this area will need to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians, extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users. Development Planning 19. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). 20. The site is included in the Valley area of the City, and the applicant is required to provide an additional 2%of the site area as natural landscaping, per the City's agreement with the Soil Conservation Service. These areas should not be dispersed throughout the site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2°/0 landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. Note: existing and proposed natural areas would satisfy this requirement. i CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: MAY 22, 1998 TO: JENNIFER HENNING FROM: NEIL WATTS AR SUBJECT: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK- LUA-98-075 SITE PLAN APPLICATION REVIEW We have reviewed the above listed project and have the following comments: WATER • There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10" water main loop and additional hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. SEWER • Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. DRAINAGE • Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the King County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property development. • We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside, 71 Te AY 22, 1998 PAGE 2 in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. STREET IMPROVEMENTS • The streets adjacent to this site are fullyimproved withpavement, curb,A gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. • Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for • the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St and participation by the applicant in LID #332 for approximately $3 million. City I-, rtenton Department of Planning/Building/F. Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: AIM ye, COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E)would be one story in height. Two of the build.ngs (B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Spriingbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires l ( environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. - t( A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS V, 1 Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation / Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet Estimate 77 police calls for service annually, based on the size of the project. Construction sites in Renton are constantly victimized by Commercial Burglary. Recommend that the applicant fence the site in with portable, chain-link fencing during construction, and use security lightii after business hours . All building materials and tools will need to be secured when not in use. Also recommend the use of private security patrols or off-duty police officers to monitor the site to help reduce the incidents of theft/vandalism and burglary that will occur. If a AXX)PXX(IMM ACWASWM portable trailer is used as an office during construction , it will need reinforced steel doors with auxiliary locks ,. and bars over any windows , to help discourage burglary. All office machinery and tools should be locked down and secured , and all model andsecurity numbers need to be kept record of in the event of theft. The five buildings on this site will all need to have alarm systems installed to help deter burglary. Recommend that every exterior door be solid-core, or reinforced glass , with heavy-duty dead-bolt locks. Security lighting needs to be in place over every door way, as well as in the parking lots . Businesses in this area of town report a high number of burglaries and g•XX;AAP�4MPAP kl is Autdo•-Theft and Thefts From Vehicles . The space between buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and the landscaping in this area will need to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians , extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. tt /lb 5-4--q r Srgnaiure of Director Authonzed Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • City.t Renton Department of Planning/Building/f u,,,ic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (DY1CAYUCk%QY1 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 t Y O_F RENToN APPLICANT: LPN Architects(Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING--,,, � PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 f r fit; LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUiL I.rtiv us V11 ,v14 BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E)would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics • Wafer Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health _ Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS • S R ( p (--) M Dn Pt= SS T I-t i t L (-702 L- i v F `� ` ►�c c-7 o s ti iJ r=F E 7` c `r I 9 S 8 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 fY ti O + a/if? + CITY OF RENTON 'eP 'NTC� FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1998 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal i, SUBJECT: Alper Northwest Project, SW 7th & Oakesdale Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 2250 GPM Bldg.A, 3000 GPM Bldg.B, 2500 GPM Bldgs. C,D & E ; which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of the each building. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for Sprinkler and fire alarm system installations in each building.. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 4. A fire mitigation fee of$11,445.20, for Bldg. A; $16,900.00, for Bldgs. B & C ; $17,102.80, for Bldg. D; $15,045.68 for Bldg. E; is required • based on $.52 a square foot for each building . . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. , ql 1 444444444444444444444444444444444444444 1-4 -1 ` -1 -ri-n-r-iitivLib \„r .:, \,\ Irv' 1=9 -. //7:3 %-' \\„ \ .. \ \ I --- . , \ .. . . /4/ ,.,-0::::-.:,_\\ . ,\ \ a. ,. _ _ _ _ ,. ..._ . , , „ . , , -- - .. -\--TOr . . _ ,_ : : -IN ,.„--- - , , z. ---) ___. 9, -..,, \-- .-- ...,... .. ,i : .. . , (-) p \ , „, ...._2 , . : ,,, .dale Ave: S . O -I . .--, ., t _ p tikes ;' _ - —, Naches Ave. SW \ ,�% j • E r 7 • ... , cp 7 . • "---1 --_.--- o Powell Ave. W Ti: . . . , . HEl 'v ,L • " ` H am, �-! + � ` • I - — -- - --- 1 �3 `r . . in _.) ,:)._ ____ , . : Thomas Ave. SW 1 ��3__ 0)."-::::::-/-f-60%;.--I.-.1-.1:: Za mond Ave. SW `" , , �--� • G' 1 �, Seneca . . - 01 if coif/ , 1,,,,Ii-x • Z/IAialN£Zs. 6I - £0 - -- .. Z/II 1 1 • 4.9 .' • '." 1.---1'--. * 1.1 .9.• "*....t41 7.';"--7-....--.'.....1.....„......._ 'I'V " .9 --...--•,- ' "7"1"1 721 1 "1 'idf.;''•$•l'W 14'1 I'll 1116'nOCri--; t 1-4.;teit t i, P ',.1 INi'44'04,',,4;:,:,. ,7 1 I 1 .F __..ii_.! I 1 ! ' •eii.. - iiiiiii:4404,at 1 if,- -- ''.4.-'44.11tai,"'''et-------- .. -1214- '--ili-- 1 '114", L .'...1 ,* - • X $0/14''''' _•-•7-ipff it',...."412114444 4 V4 4...,.0.41114;Q•199 1 1 --- -,L.,, ...„ .,.. _ , un,„ e.---1.; O• ifg4 "1'll A,,m.' ,,74:4; r ill/Pt '"14141 t^ "1°'.- '611.10111111iira- 16.4624'71 71-- .. ---Ic.mi.,„ I/4,.., 046.-7. .f*„r• ,..-.,,.,.,E--,;',.›P:.,•,-....-...._,its-`-'rts.....,,E_Ai77,...-':„..--;.....-r.AS7,- t le aro Alla ''t . ''' 44440:11927iril 411114444&141111- r- III&T.4"4 ,--.--- ilim -;;;`; . *tr..14 . •, • 41 Ill I ,';'; 4."44-„kwilif kagehirt .•, •i 6 I 7 I• 6 i 5 .1., 4 ... 3 '... 2 . I ,F,S'i'''' '''''''''r." ' ' s ,,4,07/./ .., r 0.'"",.„ /•'9,;•9/4 6°.+• .A f• :.-1 4r,i*1•;-4 f r4 i il4 . i ,. __ --------_ •-. ... ,•4 4 4 i. le ,holk_:-•,, __,------;, ------- __----- . •fflq111 i eirri,rki ii 4i:il;It'' 4 ,. „. ,.. ,...A, • ii , -..: - 't ,,,\ \ \ ,- , k 1 4 k, r., ,•••• 1 , 00 • * I " . t i,,„ , \ ; .EN-i" '7.,. ,4 ,.1 .* gif ,, ! .' ci: ..••-•- Fi,•---••-ikia.,,,,! *li, t i.i. . - EDI 5 LI II I.Odty,.., ,. ,Fi.:- •.99//tfie. ". if 1'''.'"'/''' -s.t.t4'i.;\ 7.9 4. -' :!•- • C. .____ . F'.- CITY F RENTON-- -- --- •t o''' • ..12‘kr" \,,,,,,, C22 k••••9' '41, •••,..,.' ''':OffN,V.' '..x4' 01 e ''''i.7/- 0 .7.-7-a(---- • 1'0 1 . , ''''' ' u3z:l , , , Off • ,414,4,- ii,4.,, ', ,0 y /7,4'\\...„....).„,299.- ' st, OP SPiCE ......„. ,.1 '•, """"" v40-.7, 7 .al.-7' /. Pit . ,sr ' „tic. x,, ---„, ' -//ioi• •/.°4/....•4 'sw,47/6. 1,4 , -.7 , '-'-'-%_i tx' /ilkt„ '( \ ' ''' fiZitw - ..." /le-• 1 -`, I-i u7 r„.2 Rai - --- Pet DETENTION POND"--,,, \ • .t T: I I ---'---'---'--------":_. -7,411.--:--------':4"'L 'Ir':-..'1::..:1./.4".41111r:`'-'''..t.."P'',",.. :1-:.?:"':'.4.L1 CC 1-- cc 0 M 01-- 4 LLIJ LU _-_-ire-Aiefoilap 10.-- W A 141114 0 T 0 N T E C 14 AP I C A 9 W0050 Wm 1 , - cc z . . ".'. i ..NIC i ' ?j . Gm• .r.,.....-.---- -----,....,_ 441., '- 1-asx..- • Az* ''''' / , 1 --..............-.7._:- 3 /...)0 ,_ ,.\.,-,F..7..--,stzzaccia4rmialte -1.•:'....e-.- - . - Cr- < 1- ' --,MONSTER . CITY OF TON r pRopAED6 1 OFFICE> CITECHN/ CALCENTE, .. „j1I-I ' .ENN w Lir REN r, > > ,''''..1 ,/ ',•:_:›1.4&' . OPEN SPACE ,) . ...,1\ nl.. r I ,• Mir Lz:"C le NC 0 , * *. '‘ 4 4 Z - "'"" •L ".' I um ,0*/,/' ‘ ' "--”---'-'-'-'''C.2''' 'Teti*•/i -•-•,''',- -- *Z." _m-•'IL*,..-t-,.1..m. 1 1:22 03 CO CC ;EN., 7:,..."...--11----...,..-1--,....-_-‘,.... , : 1 CI 1, 00...- . , cl \ % .: -=„., !„.. •----f. If \j_. ..-411 .. ,lit. . W A S IN- GTO-I:4 I ,44. ..,' '.. 1111 _, EAR.. Orl ' .t.'"it'." tl:g liArlpiplW 1. \ .:.;-„t_._____1____ '•:.. 1_ '---,,,,,,,,,, .. \I "'" - A , li '..' IL\ i .1 ' I " ..; , I I- . • , , ••,.. ‘ I % % '':, METR10 OACILITIES '".41.." \ 11,1 Itt T E c H N i,11•....-zzar ,, oz i ' .."•,..\1=1. \,,, --,7:---A 3.21Arns 420.15998030 4.440.0490 '9 ... / .I ta 1 -FS 9.11M 1.9 ,..,• " 4o E INDUSTRIAL Fir,-....._:.,3".. 4 • i. ‘ OFFICE Y' -- a i z z sa '';‘,..,,,,,V-7..‘ I o cc -n• PARK NO.I F 0 R T ' :‘• \ I '. '' '‘ ‘ J -.. ' .:. 9. 2 ' f......... • •0 41 ..4 : .4 0 • '''s --6i ' *'"' \ ('•••'''"•'1,1 ''' "6"4..."'.';;.:1/6"••`'.!..4 . 1 /' 1 -- R a o *- • nt z ...,• , --- N C E N IE R tn F.0 228.9904 DATE D E NI T / 11 '---::.-- "roll I ...\... s ,. -_,--, ..-....,_/_/m**P_ ....,--- _Te. OFFICE ;/ 4 ! pH/ 911 PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 `. • • -- • ''k,,% s'.Z.OrAcr -1:-.:---- 1.7-k7SA'".."' i ri-.. --- \ 6,I i , 5 6001 lipiroall1131° .., ,..• • .,,- \ %, . .41, --, ' e . ni .sr:,,,Iii 4ilaimisgoo gillim- s v, a . 5400° 00/111Prilvw01111".- ., ....,t. 1 _ . \, • ,, • , I - • -•:::•-s,„ ,,,,v --,--- -40 __..-,,,, t---":""- ` '.,1 la' f !O 1111 so' ‘. i. • s. ''...., 4 \ •,L- .4, ." ....., y..-.'---..e" IA ' *AY • NEIBORHOOD , „ ,- .. 9•49e 001;610, kt2-t IN r j5314"" DETAIL MAP of , i ,//i./ s • __iiii. • .,_ . - 1 . ,,',...• . ' • ,..„4, . . - •••< if \\.i. iiv.,• . \'' ...•,•N 1,. D. ' ,..1(jR• \ ' ‘ 101111 ' C''' ,, ml. . . . it FF..98012/DET-949019.F, BLACKRIVER TRACT IV ft•• .""*". - 4E1' • v , 0 /At, \ I / HWY-405-----:-`---------.-- NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP ex , . _E ...41, • .100 NO 99099 SHEET NO OF SCALE 1'•200' JUMTH DATE Oft '' ''...).,....('''''4!.1.-_-1.1:9,-. °111(7. (9, '8 CHECN ......4)9.?, • .9.1.1.1.4.?110 1 '— IIIIIIIPIIIIIIIMII ------- • l' // W / ,/ ) MI ,'/ rsrig MICE W P-I WWI. DEIENDON BASIN 0 Ne / "- \\ • cz:C _i ct \,\. \ C----.----,-k_ . . (Na....z...,..t.„..,..,-.1 \ \ 0_ EXISTING STUMPS&TREES I 1 .-,, _. ___2 G=. x w , 1 ____.......„7__ __,.- FOR HABiTAT 0 I- pRESERvE \ W <z A I le (:::222f.........UTIRILIDI EASEMENT . --------------- EMT. rir ,.„.1- CC 0 L,_ 0 I... 1 CuRB CUT [1.11-11 U-I > 2> 0 ) ExiSINC MEE LNE 6 =, CITY CO"RENTON ----t--4--- AR -' . . oCr wrZ IIPEN SKACE lir XAVA,,TZFER -4 . --Lf: ' `4 ‘ I\ . . —„„G r i cc cc i , NAIRTVIUDIR \ '‘ 1 ,4(C1- u j ju; C I//7 lealk, • >/ IIII > > •PICNIC AREA 0 E. Ei. < Ne 0 Lgic4 Inn r • 6'HT CHAN LINN , 0 I- FENCE ' k ',// 't\,),1<fr- S /4' \‘< ''' /11 ''' ' - • ir." PISMO <Z CURB Cut I _I —1 W En Cli Ca Cr • • " i _14/ f • ,.0 e540,...1:eN:,,,,. c.)„,,-44 1 is, ,„/ 4 ,,,0,-Essp,licE :. i_ •• ,,,•,.. , _ , „ , 1 _I .,„gr i ,z: 47.._"\\ no, -4io, 1.,,9'. 1,1• 1 11 V -L EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER PLANTED IN 1986 0 lip! /7/. 1`.,,‘ 444Stio• \.,22.,. -'''ir "ii\. ‘, b L.‘,... ,, 40 ARCHITECTURE ,st; ..7./1/ 0 14`'/P '•'2: '41‘4.''/Z, 44.:* Il.I . I \ s,....' r0112„ \ L t and PLANNING -1<, .' ..;.* 4'4 LOT 3 •• 70 \--,..1 ,...... '-* -t: '7;."<" / .11'• ? I', ` " 4, .,/,/ 0 ,. e/ [ ROYCE A BERG PIUNCIPAL Y.KEN K CNN.PRINCIPAL i ..' ./ / 44 1-' t', .. ISIS-AN AVE SOUNI.SUITE D SEATTLE WASNINOTONNI131 / X , ,R. 1 1 1 1 PONSB3-430.0 PAX swans / . ..' /.• • ,,,,r,‘8,<,...4. it/ .,. ,,,. ,. • .... , .,..,...... ., ,... ., , 2,,..„ ,.. ,, , , • •. / , •z / "b• \ 1# 411 , , , ------ , ,., ----, ,,..,... A [L_ _ _J :%.,••1,` .,..., " ii• •C• - S -i toz-- ... , PICNIC AREA • .0 / •. ; 14, , pill, 141.0.4°°S Ai /.....:::.:***11 ..4r/A• 8b. , A , „....„.. z s , ,q,, /....:•:::..... 'IWO ' Wqb.- "' \ 1 if' 0 /'T.C30.4,J::.' ,'.:N ' • 0 •t& • -, ' :. 0'.1.4 .41,y ‘ff,t: /I / ,-,.4?•.,.. .' ',... *v.,/'. - ,/,.- \ '. •,<> 4 2 , 41g\ . / *0" ' -:•••••••• .4(fr.7,''s'-'-' \' ‘ \\ ,.......‘\0 IS 161 sk - i:1 --- _____ NO DE SCRIP TION DIE PRE-APPUCAlION 8-30-97 ! 4:w. '•4, !..).' ' to:.:..\ If: .:„, -7 ,‘„oks -_- :-_-_04..,..--"mr _- REWSICH 4-07-DE Ili 1 111110' 1/4 ; ,,lei...4, it, ‘, ,4%,,...:4„.. . . 1......,...4>\•:,..iiiS*\,..,„. . . \ta T., ,i-7 i............,------i TABULATION REVISION 4-21-98 SITE PLAN REVEW 5-05-98 I ,,. ,..... # Ie.•\ - . slr.',, te 7 „ gra AREA(LOTS 1-3) TOTAL BUILDING AREA t546,023 SF ±148,834 SF ± 22,010 SF ' ,. ''''''K. ' row i '''.;.::i:„, LOT 2 ''''%•\.\4:4t* • Ntip- 4',,, ; ,,..„,„:::„4_,, ,„4 alt 1 if iiaLtE. „• .::::. '• '' •*% AEI, „ BUILDING"A'' BUILDING''B'' ± 32,500 SF BUILDING"C. ± 32,500 SF -_______:."..............-_ . Irififigis ---1'•:.-!• 11-, .,..‘/,..,-,!•!:ie 0 0' , , # , ExSTING i 32,890 SF ....-.41=-•=t. c• . BUILDING'Tr \Li:' --... ---- ,'--,. .............,.. ....................liga",,,,,,:.0681:-.: .--4r-"!'."ii.„.°,0,:\\ „V ., ,„,t,, ,',. /'• s , / 4 EXISTINC SOEKALA OFNCE BUILDING -E'' ± 28,934 SF, F.A.R. ±.273 SITE PLAN PARKING 597 STALLS \ REGULAR -,9'x 20' 400 STALLS (INCL. 2 OVERHANG) 179 STALLS \ MN SIGN COMPACT - 8'-6'.x 16' 18 STALLS \if A ACCESSIBLE ......"---------......„.... -,4.... ••••••,,',. 401,..-.N / ... 4.0 STALLS/1000 SF PARKING RATIO \END.CuRB CDT 41111111111111S.'" . 1."" File:96042\S111-8R3J34/0 in i J08 NO.1 011042 SNEET NO 04 ..94A0RN !ilir ./ • / • (MIND 2 fSTRY'CKTKE 1111 0 ,,, ,Ip. 11011T11 DATE: 44047 3 STORY WIC( DRAM' RAJ SITE PLAN 60' 1 cHEcx: '':... . I- - 1—, $ A A Be 11. cool es III ® li _ _I. ` � 0 J (X—i a WEST ELEVATION I• w Rio w 0(- TINTED GLASS TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS ARM MOUNTED.- 'MICA.NOTES > a'" PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES SHIELDED LIGHT TOP. CC 0 Z_ M I Uy Q I /-1J--- .____..._ ____ > > 1 �¢ ,c7Z __ + H . A.,\:„._____ E E ,: E El i t=. 1 lam, . , z 11 m mCC ENTRY) ENTRY ENTRY SOUTH ELEVATION I . ARCHITECTURE And PLANNING ROYCE A.I ERG.PRINCIPAL Y.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL C-.7 L—�_ C $ 1535•al AVE SCUM.Sun 1 r_, - 3EA11lE WARMGTON ye. ROUIS63 eD3D EAA snore I— Fri-- . s' U ��.-'.: „Ni _ NO DESORPTION DATE SHE HLAN REAR 5-05-96 EAST ELEVATION iiiiiit ® E ® BUILDING 'A' • . ELEVATIONS —I — Il ti'r� NORTH ELEVATION File:96042/ELEV-A TWO In JOB NO.: 55042 SHEET NO OF: ii DATE: 1-23-SS DRAWN: RAJ A A- ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK I II Y,.. rn1 I ARM MOUNTED TINTED GLASS r TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS DRYVIT ACCENT Sj 9NIElDED"MET TYP. / PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES BAND / U _ Q -1 CC ■ I-�-� (� ' EL , ill! ® ® ® ® ® hum"Io e , ® ® ii El1i000 = �_a U co / ENTRANCE CANOPY W W MAIN ENTRY—I DRYVIT FINISH Q%> > SOUTH ELEVATION Q Y Y O q Q ¢z 00 m ED CC N...Pgm= L i ITrT I 1 I ARCHITECTURE And PLANNING ROYCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL 1 1 I III I Y.RENKnE HAW PR UM0 I , OPAL 15 S•.iMASHNGTONR0Eo S.KEN..CHI NGTON9BIB1 (0OAINE541030 FAX 50T-0T A I _ EAST ELEVATION ELEVATION NO DESCRIPTION DATE SITE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 —• r—. I _I --1. I I I = I I I I - .i I BUILDING 'B' ® ® i)i ® ELEVATIONS ® ® �— - r- BUILDING 'C' -1 il SIMILAR NORTH ELEVATION Fie:90002/ELEV-BC.DWG , LOU NO.: 90042 SKEET NO OF. DATE: 1-28-BR A c DRAWN: RAJ A- 6 g ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: 91 00 _ _ 4 III r . ® PITI ® lummumi■■' ■ ■■�ii Im1: ® ® ® ® ® ® - 0J � � na. I MAIN ENTRY •_I W EAST ELEVATION L ¢z 0 � ¢ I- W a.0 > cc ARM MOUNTED, TINTED GLASS ENTRANCE CANOPY TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS ¢ Q x SHIELDED LIGHT TYP. ORYVIT FINISH PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES lug I U co CC CC _— --- J ♦ = MI n O 11. ¢ ¢z ® ® ® ® ® ® .. I 1 HI SOUTH ELEVATION I ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING ` _� (—J ROVCE A.BERG.PRINCIPAL �� Y.KEN K.CHIN.PRINCIPAL I -p �- ISM-KIN AVE SOWN.ELM D ® P MAME,wARRNGTON 991)K 1204159>B030FAK SNJ)OB ® ® ® ® ® ®_� 1 I � ® ® ® EPP ® ® ® r • MAIN ENTRY) • _ WEST ELEVATION NO DESCRIPTION SATE SUE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 _ 7m ...iimili ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ■■■ MN ��r BUILDING RD' ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION • File:96042/ELEV-D.DWG ,n '• �iA3 NO.. 95042 SHEET NO 0F. DATE: 1-28-98I A-8 DRAWN: RAJ ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: of - -- J - - XTr"t rM -1 a ILL-+��-. a `MAIN ENTRY Il— = W WEST ELEVATION Uill f- I- ¢O M1jW aC > ccz 'TYPICAL NOTES ¢ O— TILT UP CONCRETE PANELS DRYVR ACMARS ENTRANCE CANOPY TINTED GLASS-� gN SIDED LIRM ON?TYP. V PAINTED 3 COLOR VALUES WAND DRYVIT FINISH �2,w LO �i > > -CD-El ® ® ® ® ® ® l al m 0 CO CO CC Q Qz / SOUTH ELEVATION ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING itorcE n.BERG.PKWCWAI K.K.CAN.MJNCPAL - IEN Im-BRI AK IDIIIII.INIWO CAME MAJ N11A POW1B6160I0PARI61010E I I -E7- EPN iti [fi PNP NNP NEEll ...._,_ 771.1 �'. NO DESCRIPTION DATE \ STE PLAN RENEW 5-05-98 `MAIN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION 7 BUILDING 'E' ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® I ELEVATIONS lI File:96002/BLDG-E.DWG ,n NORTH ELEVATION JOB NO.: 90042 SHEET NO OF DATE: 141147 DRAWN: RAJA-10 ELEVATIONS 10' 1 CHECK: ,pc, „----,..--- 4 F-4. .,,-55•1..A . fI r awl, I. :1 , a / ..���.� +ram 1/ aa��mitI . �i+r�. / G=-- •704egei ' 4. z `��' ► is �"�" NIA, . • ���, i. n /�' t� /�'�i �1 d�d��� ,'t� -rrl 3T/Y i'.0 o\\ r �j ue'' i�� ..���• ~ts 'Pa �■IR #� ' 1a W% o � � � .�..\ t Ott,"g► s�_e.�� �� -Fi `V't�"r• air,a1 I+s 7' ai. ♦�+ ���`� (, i���� II . p —Iyr �� POI r� i. ' t444. ,I� I■ wl • \ '9�/ r 1 INpfi I_ yog- ,, Ifs 0 ''I , {�, '!I •`_qi �/ ■,.: II } o so 1 +/�� �li.' ') I �;� � •■•[�d ■■■ `■ 'j�am I is 1 d. %— eagle 6ee_eaoo ®� l >t! \ P :• .� )� �i!tr`.:L Milli I �i'j '+I I le . r, V� �■i, , ■I ; ill 7Arm CER �1 11■- :( _ t:_oJ �I £1i►il� %+�� tr r o Do- W s �'. I . M000 MA vr1 M.o e iil iff . + It.'" p: .....:-..,..mor,•tr,. Fr ' /j — ` I! Ill t•'v�t�•eoloas oosootna��� i ona?I' �, ,�A li L re aia ,�rr;;.o. eTiJ��^ r$ _I II a,� �a u) ro. ���rl is in �■■.::t��■1ki-17,' a` i �i1 -,I .�►f ...a ou m • v k ,�G Vim; of►a I I- w I ■■■■M I Q eta I, . 1191111II1!!11!'J Otr j"�1P!1 114:a' zl/�.4 6;� ,>'4 awl III; leersf!nn j � E��ii 'Ri}sa?.- ��a1 �4 _n�ws Cr S' 'I 4. la i , , aim. ,!4.11. ii Ill . 16,,,, .. i :. .r. rr9,.. PI[1r '°'• 'rem 4,1 :�. g#' —i, 1" +�L .tom lI!b' �JAiti�;J 1al �t �1':iii 4 1: � .�� I,,JJJ••. I11: ,i Pl. r � �•�"��� ;� M�i,r S.i `mot :::17i16141,'7.1-4: ` ,- tiiiiw \ I .j � �-r1 <4i 111111110011101 111111�. =4/111111111 -_ is \ii . 47.74t-,:11111t.' • 1 /i■.■■:404----4:::-4to �he1r rC-7iaGiGGfai�■■7A�. t'_ !. ;1.4 o �� cam, . .� den OQ . 'Op'oo..c .° . 'ot it it.: liht- .4>7,,,.,..s:/.4 —1,,i o..,,,.ta.v2.'.... oJkr f Iti �c 1 ....-, —'." /: ' r- : -•" : : . '' �-;4IIII IIwi —at 11:, ''' p IIII aj I. , \\ ` 1 dig 111a11.1 , 4 -041,-,dpsos.2,4,-,..,400.,i; , it CI) \ ___„, '''.),i to ,wen OOP'S SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISIONS own, 3/s/mt Lauchlin R.Bethune Associates ,�.. ia:3d�,o ALPER NORTHWEST an4rapewrM4eautEnNronnwraIPlannm,AS/d ill�' ws....,a..5 o-.. peen. ,s,>s1A.v �'��. w.w,1.44? Blackriver Corporate Park ....,Ma„ soon 2,, ,,,_,,,,,,,,,,,. 1 cr.BY:1,9,6. Renton Washington V . \f+.1.+ \ . irmall ....,;;; ‘107.1 +4. + 1111111111 \ \ ' OR • i 1 ilti \ • • I 7.-- a_ illi \ . 1, oc, • • • ,". .•,\ , •.4. kt. • ‘ • i 4. 1 . I 0 I E_p i 1 - •..... g .. L ›. - 1 I I I :\ I++ . 2 ' I w • en I I ', . k •. 1 i 0- - •cs 4 +'',. •..I. I + . X..PI 1 t ,,,11 It ++ • C mii. .'0 I I I ' + +:+ \ II mi &' ;. 1 ,um two z , \r+ •.• ‘• • E.. I. ‘ ...,. ERN cm" 0..... I' I .. , .,‘• . e. -.. .....] I 1 \ •++' \ 1# •. mat I am • -,,; •+ MI II I i MI NA, \ It •+. I NM 1 - k + P \ j M ..."411t, III'\,0+++% IMO 1 Lg. „ , al MI 7 3 I itlr,62 ii • + MI IIM a , lim . LO,11.:.„1,ek: 1‘ + % ....im . • + uil.I ' „ , ,, ,• .A...4 I ---II''V-tAt .- All F ,cr,' milt, as mi cr T•"" .mh7WILlig kVA IF .._00 oll Hi i] „wig/ im N—illiv#Itoilli +4. \ lir/ iiii E ...f , • • I wilmi, 4.i•4, IPk. . . I- 1 4410.‘ %" + ft/ Mil 1 'ff, 'I . \Fri4 dat4i6 •A; ' • .++ lir = '1, I / ft,14[11,.. ..,, 1„*.1 • • .•s. .., Ir./ m,aletro . . . ,. :.. i NA•„14.:,k,', :,-.-: Aiy I - ,,, F ,,, ,,,„„„ • • . • • ME 4 ' L ***jot • ... k .,. .. • • . ... E T 1 ..., .... i A MO-40.*4'a a\ • *-A-. `: ••• 4.... 41 Ifil/11'04S1, 74• • . . •\k\ • _11 E _4/ 4 • ' 14%-.0.ve, i- ,-. . i - , II' , ih=1,01+.4 _,..• . .14.af,H • , . • +. In 4 ,„,..-.--,-''' •. W • . . .. sk-,, -vePlii .,, . (,,,,, , \...... : / ) I FAMBIP7,... -14,:ffr • I • X IINAkv4,140 , ,,, A f, I t --''.+.0) AI V4- ilk .• 11111111111:1411104111/11111 - "1 44'1 I.. 11110 , i ---EiiiiiiIiiiiiini - Mil 4--0.AWIttritillij••-A.•' ; :*'.'d. '... 4Pi t Oil •• ' •-.. • t: Ay . :..iii:;;.. r '''' :3 GI) 1111 —VMM-1EiggMerAME, I, Jr 11111 ' 11 11?' 4 1 l'ii ;ff. ......- • ...r . -,140.0.-, •. .• iffil . / /.. '/-. . - _. 7to, .#A 11111111 1111 III' -o. I ' / ir I ... .i \- ii ,,,/i i i tr, , • m - i,•ir il 1 mit -\c/ / . ! . .\ \ • / I , ! . i -s. .....,,, , 1 ..4,..-4-,•••ri, ,••\,. / • 1 1 4'"--\.t'• •: •\ .\.. ' , / / , . • • '\ / \ . . • •....,.... /' /' / , . \. .c" •s• "'\-t.".\ /".'". •....../ \• V.'..7.4.`•'+-:.1_ / , lk / , \ .... ... ..... " • k.,_........ .• ,....._,, • . •..... . . . . Vc 1 ....., ' \. Ni..: •••V• •)( .......................... / ••••. / .••••,/' '14. • •II /..... / .....jv / . / ,/ ..... e, ( ••.„„.. • •••••, . /'' IONS 1•S•110.0 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN REVISIONS , DAM *gig, Lauchlin IL Bethune Associates •— I SC.12' 1..10.'"O' ALPER NORTHWEST • .- Landscape AnCleav d Envirownonual Planners,ASLA it.,4 ..... 4.0. Blackriver Corporate Park _ c.-..' L•46, Heaton Washington --. Glly cf, NRC NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING P.O. Box 7208 Tacoma, WA, 98407 (253) 756-0370 Fax: (253) 756-0155 June 15, 1998 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 RE: APPLICATION FOR SECTION 404 PERMIT FOR THE BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT IN RENTON, WASHINGTON Enclosed are the JARPA Application, and wetland delineation report for the Black River Corporate Park Development in Renton, Washington. Please review the enclosed documents and begin processing the application. Please call me when a project manager has been assigned to this project. The 0.07 acre wetland that is proposed to be filled is located at elevation 19.5 feet, based on I the new City of Renton datum. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps show the 100-year flood elevation at 15 feet. When this is adjusted for the new City datum, the 100-year flood elevation becomes 18.44 feet; therefore, the wetland is located 1.06 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Based on this information we believe that the wetland proposed to be filled is not associated with the P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) which the historic Black River Channel is now a part. If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 756-0370. Sincerely, NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist H-1008-02 • AGENCY USE ONLY Agency Reference #: Date Received: SEPA Lead Agency: Other: • —JARPA APPLICATION FORM - - for use in Washington State- PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLUE OR BLACK INK Based on the preceding chrrlrlist, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (duct all that apply) ,E' Local Government: for shoreline .Substantial Development 0 Conditional Use 0 Variance 0 Exemption; or ❑ Floodplain Management 0 Critical Areas Ordinance Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA ❑ Washington Department of Ecology Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permits . Corps Engineers for Section 404 or Section 10 permit(s) SECTION A-Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to also complete Section C (Signature Block) all permit applications. 1. Applicant pluck R;oer- - R*UerTe_c r N L. L.C, a Attn : 'Dean R . Fr;Lkse,n ,L% Mailing Address 700 Imo4.-c+k AUenue. I Su;+e. G000 Seo-AA1e_ WA , 9e Ic y Work Phone: (206) 24 - 9 'x 2 3 Home Phone: ( ) N. A . _ Fax Number: (206) 3 8 2 - 9 ri 5 o If an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete#2 &3. 2. Authorized Agent 1-he re s a He n s o n ,rJ R C. , Ro y C e j3 e ) L Q►J A rc 1,;+e Mailing Address `'.U, a o 1. r)0.08 15 3 5 Fo a ram, A e . S. 10 racorr1 .) WA . 98`I0') Se&*\-{e WA 9813 LI (206) sea3- 030 Work Phone: (253) 7 S '- o 3 70 Home Phone: (253) 7 5 - 5 I 5 Fax Number: (253) r)5 6 - O 15 3. Designation of Authorized Agent, if applicable: I hereby designate Tk e+^e S 4 µe rt 5 o n / R o 7 c e e rc to act as my agent in matters relat i to this application for permit(s). I understand that if a Federal permit is issued, I must sign the permit. e. tx` ,ccti� ��.1�5 IyL . fib ) li°t S ature of Applicant J''L(PGas Date 4. Relationship of applicant to property: Owner ❑ Purchaser ❑ Ins 0 Other ( _, 5. Name, address, and phone number of property owner(s), if other than applicant: Some Application Page of 5 6. Location where pitieerzd activity exists or will occur: Waterbody bit f-1 ck-r)\ 'e T INQ-s s t r{1 DNR Stream Type (if known) NJ)(4 • Street Address Air Corner-. o S4) ? St, Tributary of AJ/A , 1 oo.k s clo..\e A u e. S e..l n R e r o,1 Li,4, Legal Description: — City, County, State, Tap Code Tax Parcel No.: 9 I B$ 0 0 — 0143 'A Section Township Range SuiJ Sr t3 7. Describe the current use of the property, and structures existing on the property. If any portion of the proposed act it: is already completed on this property, indicate month and year of completion. The +-ofer� ;5 CLA.eren�J tAncle t,� ;-1-lA fores�e� area un� cler' ra.ss -c e\As . There no Si'r r-es on �l-I�.c tproee Is the property agricultural land? 0 Yes No Are you a USDA program participant? 0 Yes t'.4 No 8. Describe the proposed activity, and the activity's purpose. Include expected water quality and fish impacts, and pros tse actions to reduce the duration and severity of those impacts and provide proper protection for fish life. Complete pia s and specifications should be provided for all work waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark or Line, including t 'e of equipment to be used, and for all work if applying for a shoreline permit. If additional space is needed, please at ell a separate sheet. f The_ proposes is +0 p ►aye f ue o :ce_ b,.k,1\:nS o., A associ d-ec� �o,rlc, v� o� loi-s I +IArouc ‘-\ 3 . A 3, I434 S`..S . (0 . 0 c c A e p re 55:a Y1 IS p ro o S e d -0 e- C; \\ . lo� Contu,�n � h We+lams 0-SSoc;0,'kec :4-11 -1-I1 e h i s+-o c c B lack C h o.n n e l w:1 I b e *fie. p(-a f e_r�U od e c. of Reed-on , c.Jork , 1u ; 11 rip*- occur- W0.�erw.-r; I o f e o r ;re a r {-►:`�k ale t— rY►a r k -{- P- 1 C Preparation of drawings: See Appendix A - sample drawings and checklist for completing the drawings. One set f original or good quality reproducible drawings must be attached. NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to submit photographs of the project site, but these do not substitute for drawings. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIRE DRAWINGS ON 8-1/2 X 11 INCH SHEETS. Larger drawings may be required by other agencies. Application Page 2 9. Proposed Starting Date: S p r;n 3 1999 mated duration of activity: F..I I - I Imo Will the project be constructed in stages? Yes ❑ No COnS+ruL� �OY�- G F;11;nr of i..Je+10_n1 w,\\ rio4 b., ;✓\ s'Iac�es 10. Will any structures be placed: . a. waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark or Line for fresh or tidal waters? 0 Yes 1g No b. waterward of Mean High Water line in tidal waters? 0 Yes tg No 11. Will fill material (rock, fill, bulkhead, pilings or other material)be placed waterward • of Ordinary High Water Mark or line for fresh or tidal waters? ❑ Yes 1 No a. If"yes," in fresh water indicate volume in cubic yards: \ b. If"yes," in tidal waters, indicate volume in cubic yards waterward of the line of mean higher high water. — 12. Will material be placed in wrrlanris? Yes ❑ No If yes, impacted area: Cl, O 7 ( :r+ If yes: a. Has a delineation been completed? Yes 0 No (If yes, please submit with application.) b. Type and composition of fill material (e.g., sand, etc.): c I e a n a.Y\ c. Material source: 1 o c a\ d. List all soil series (type of soil)located at the project site, &indicate if they are on the county's list of hydric so s: Soils information can be obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS). W O o ; n ; \\e_ so I l S e r;e S , y e s t h2, S o i l ;s I s+, a.c o_ hjdr�'C Se,I , _ 13. Will proposed activity cause flooding or draining of ,,/ wetlands? 0 Yes E (No ff yes, impacted area: N/a . (; :n 14. Will excavation or dredging be required in water or wetlands? 0 Yes g No tf yes, volume: // (cubic yards) . a Composition of material removed: _ b. Disposal site for excavated material: _ c. Method of dredging: 15. List other applications,approvals, or certifications from other Federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction, 0icrharges, or other activities described in the application(i.e., preliminary plat approval, health distric approval, building permit, SEPA review, FERC license, Forest Practices Application, etc.) Also indicate whether w rk has been completed and indicate all existing work on drawings. Date of Date Comple Type of Approval Issuing Agency Identification No. Application Approved Yes or o SCPA Rto:e w 5hor4r PIS,,-t' ku,A - 98o7* 5-5- 99 T.)./Q.S. C-lO-?8 A D 5 e. A?FroJa\ 5tPA Ren'ron LuA - 96075 5-8- 9(el / /v 14?fl r,'s ;1,11;f e it)( v-;\A;�„ �e ern (Z rl SEPA Lead Agency: C o{ Re n'\-o r-) SEPA Decision Date: • Application Pag 3 • 16. Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? D Yes rg No If yes, explain: SECTION B -Use for Shoreline&Corps of Engineers permits only: 17. Total cost of Project. This means the fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, .c. F,'ll;n wet-lc r o.n c\eieJo men* ± $1 a , COr-700 , 0 — 18. Local government w/jurisdiction: C;1- o R.f n't-o>� — G o- Cowen Shoreline Environment designation: CA.r-b o.1.1 Zoning designation: o-g;. e 19. For corps permits, provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers of adjoining property owners, lessees, e C Qeni-on 20c M;11 AJe, S . RenAon wA , QSo55 — Rtuer� eel, Assoc. 4.rD., f,Q13ox L11 £dmoneAs 98a'Zo 31kckner T.V. (LC — 111ar Sm;4-ti , me I5 - 2 "`Ihat. , yoo) Se4-41e; wA , ei8 l o' — ki✓lc� Co, DNi. 506 - 2NIAre, Sit;4e 708) r1/S '7 SI , sea-4}1ewA efsaoy — Blackr;oer Soo % Cus)unta waILe{;tu,SNcj rioo- 544A.ie # Sro_it1t, k . 9glo`f PLEASE NOTE: Shoreline management compliance may require additional notice— consult your local governs SECTION C - Complete for any permit covered by this application 20. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. I hereby grant to the agencies to which this application is made, the right to enter the above-described pot tip to inspect the proposed or completed work. f5Ln-c v-►u - at-,r e+c.-r c µ L.t_.0 Signt, - <.� I , vl,c�. Ye a DEa r- Ju. +e. i,. , kg- of Applicant or Authorized Agent (REQUIRED) Date Signature of Landowner(REQUIRED if other than applicant) • Date This application must be signed by the applicant. If an authorized agent is to be designated, the applicant must also is at Item #3. 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States kno in falsifies, conceals,or covers up by any tick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statem representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent stag* ref entry, shall be fined not more than S10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. • Application Pap 41 DO NOT SEND FEDERAL PROCESSING FEE WITH APPLICATION • .A. Naane of me rusting a8oreinae Dcs be type of saeh as ,`au ,hgoon, .bog,swamp.flood Lang :$ yam. ,typeofi ,aach.asa on,eromon,high bank,'loa}bank,or Nil zaaterxal me6>as nand, ay, aaderas ad�yPe�of`bal ± a8,afaY). , r an �es� ra ec S� flr�1,n!e w f , Ioca. e c� oue B :In 35e eveottbatanyrof the> opa9e iaealdaage 3xa ws1[ =cxd a bezghtof.thizty-five;feet abase She av igegrade Ie,nz. • :::ihrfiame the appoumaze location of and an ba:iiit :den uI taus,eumng sad poeeamai,lbat'wer.have an o'bauncted new- �.:� . •I sppBntion3avolvess:eondmoml aac•� �sance,set•fcalh m,�i that portioa>of 36e:masoerpa+ogzsm wlorh pmvsdes thu :ae ptopoeediose may be a ooe& oeal Ise,or,as she case of vsrsnoc,• whach.•the varn�noe ss g _. sought: These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Aaron employers. For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agency from Appendix A. • • • • Application Pa; :5 of 5 VICINITY MAP • P-1 DETENTION e3 BASIN EMPIRE WAY . ti! - ... REND N • ' : SW 7T}-I ' • BLACKRZVER` CO 1\l`J1 L 1F r �' • 412 • SOUTHCE. TER ' o rn cr) N rn VALLEY A m GENERAL HOSPITAL NTS � f / .•----...........„ S 180TH 1 i ' . Legal Description Lots 1, 2 and 3 of DroDosed City of Renton Short Plat T recardinz: That portion of Tract B, Washington Technical Canter, as recorded in Volume 122 of Plats, pages 98 through 102, records of King County, Washing-ton, lying Northerly of Southwest 7th Street as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder' s No. 8702100643 , and Westerly of Neches Avenue Southwest as deeded to the city of Renton by deed filed under Recorder' s No. 8702100644 , records of said County. LATITUDE ±47.28'.12P LONGITUDE ±122'14'°24 11 Blackriver Corporate Park-Tract B April 29, 1998 r G104 NORTHERN qq�� 6up,�`N _i_i--3 t 3 1 ' ROAp G\-t•{ OPEN SPACE - HABITAT r-c'rf N PERK^PNE1 46.75 ACRES POPE ERMANENT CITY- 3.16 NACRESE HABITAT RIPARIAN . FOREST - HABITAT 20.0 ACRES O / 3 STORY $011 sj -) n QA DETENTION9 Q% - I %/� PUMP STATION 17 50 �s//1/ �.r _ tUrn��T1�f 7 STORY • ACRES i V """"" PERMANENT CITY OPEN SPACE - HABITAT SITE 2 STORY 12.27 ACRES 72.57 ACRES ..---------------Th 0 OAKS 5 M %: CC957 ACA sLF'4VF Sw� ������ V2 STORY H � ' z // %/i r 0 /II 3STO /�/ J CO METRO FACILITYEa LJ a x w 0 V 4 or ui • BLIACNRIVER , G Corporate Park • STORY ' sTo Y t x u RENTON, WASHINGTON �P.( O. D CAPPO'i aQ5 *°\141 ( NORTH NTS KEY MAP EXISTING CONnnT.IONS 1 •.n - ._ t _..v--t .L,.0 _^...RRI.vr7r r ..•... .1..7•i..••_u..• �\ .15 .1 •. „n '\ •a, l.n r yi•+.yp $ ..;. w n .�LLC."=• . \!^^ r era L • A �� 12 I/ ".xt '......... y r�•.� C i �_,,Aer„. ',-/ we.c\�y .. � J.'.•.,r LaN +. Q 1 ! i : ..*/ . .., -,c.2...— • ? ,-./r....... 4:-.. ••;jr,,..1, .,.., • LLI / . ;�-,�. -..` 17 •w up plc...rs..N. / . / •. a ! ..• .. •Y.:"`r+ • Nn -4�"• 1r. �[ Q EpT 11.6 .a•r..mvwr • / / II / •\ nw • .. / .•.I u1 N.W, 1J. : 'ills- °� • sa 4, LOT 3 r ' gyT.Ip .,,�..�In x . / /.... .I./ - *: 7-''' . 40....,....?„, ..,, T. '1.-kr-n• ... 1 Ii /'r i____/ y wr.vnM rc r.•nw . ,..1.54.S. / 4 r / r \ .-..::.\:. - 7 • 1 • 1/ J I � /W f Ay . ts .:ce" . .... ...• i / çL /' ! 1' I. •• • •''. • •yr•• .r•o7 n.fi r.sro- /.� -• fnR, It::: . 11M.7-1- 14"........ . •,‘.,.—„""„1*-3.3W.5r s,,'-r-'4%•,,,'-,-:''.'. .. .. -r.7:-..... ..,...',.." .. ,,,i i..I.V../...i Vii) . ct. C / f•f rw[W. 1 _ _ rat �2ff��•• J� •.1, O` V,,\ +'fi .40..Z. _ .o�� ,, I�/ i ••• 0\' ',\ . �TL._ ._ �` .�`c. , 4 ♦.s ." •►+v1 Y .�• .* ,• ', '`Li• ..........316......r........ rm f wee;( ) y �fti r• _�1`1 f .i S , _ - a' .• zo,�•,^, • �V . •. W' •+\ .l `e.M_ �\ • �� / 1 1!`�• >r -..yam ••`Y. •a• - \\��LLL�� Y�LL.r. \ • • .r.••••••O w^�'.-• ::wf..w '4A`�` •.. l.i ;Jr.I /,� /g b-......t .L;.0 - .. AKES�q .li e.c w .. _Sc• CZ • "v.W..<au •aai� n' 1w.r. VE ^ 1 �� 1 ,�./ tf �'Inr tr....) •u e L„ eA1MC • :AU LI. • J 1. ` '♦ ....v.— ....ate , . ' !ry •• `w`... �5=fir (=': _ i't ... •" " "• 1Jj�. +. I � ow �.� -"":.•� ..... _ ••emu ... ..../, NCR' DETAIL MAP 4 • •`il 1'I y ; �I ` '. _DOD CONTROL AND y �� Ll ES, REC. NO. 6607884 ' ?Q, " •ft.,1 r' L .. i \ 1L1 \•,r.i.„ -,;,1\ , . l l • ; +y • k i 1. w I 4.L .. .Y! ; .1 I'i ' % t t. •�' •t\•t ., r\ .D AREA I to \ \ A 4.++•r yo ' " t•'1 1 1 1't.1 LIGHT 1 \\\ \ • A: '\ \ 'A xis+•,+�c t k+\' 4. •l 4.i 'il l • I'll the , .1y^.,� *1''•` k A. ,� �� \\\ ',r 16 1\r_• N >o (? 1 ':�i / A �,. — 1s \rye I. 'tl �' ....// <-,%, / / O,. h 1 Tt, A t W'OF4K'/ AFJEA OF .` = r r� t ASIN'': AREA ryo• LIGHT 82'19 28 f • LAIC ��, Y`. ry" �`. ` 9e { R r �6ASIN M1 1 � �' �;o JB 25.00 M1' 1 AT�;r. y is "1 ;„ ^\,�� 1' .9 } +',1 L - 35.92' r .-i'' c ll. . ,:r •k•�,4 `ry1' ry eN ,,,� _,ti^,Z--- 'NI' 1 0 ,9. : .1, •i I EJB •I' ,•t`:s o•'' �a°ti / t� —_..._� \ 2 '. i r2 96° *�;,.J• • `b. TER ► \ M1 r M1� I o� °� A HO` 6 460.•0. ri r • 'i "4 M N kI • Y4•• • 7.' / CATCH BASTt( a°' • '�o �y r 01'� i;r RIM 19.29 ��" / `9 ..1.b, ho.i yo STORM ..o INV 16.3 EJ8 ;, / rt�+'t:k• 4 :ASIN RIM 19 zy / (8"PVC S.E.) "P• a(eV,'Ti • ':. ‘,ti\ • M1 %A• r a°M1� gip. . •/ �1} '' JB j / I l 0t`{"� 04. e hhc' r ••• I• CONCRETE ALK <I <1 i;' ry°' e�`'' �, ,t1 ,°+' • ' � h°' ST RM DRAIN MANHOLE l Cra t( `� RI 19.55 r : tr.," �,._ / J. "' ' '',.„• UGH i T INS 12.6 30"GONG. N.E. ✓r / 1� •oM1p �'`� t A' • UGH IN 12.7 (30"CONC. S.W. • °".,:- r f tyiWP ,� • CATCH BA IN AP • M1 o �° RIM 19.11 M1 o f �h�y r J`22 .<;•.1, l' INV 15.9 (�"PVC W.) j / • GJ / ,� • . f / / , G o / . Gits \ : / �• EGG: 1 •� oo�o O /�\ ii �J ,,›g'1// b. ‘i " r1t`;1°'e.''Jy� HYDRAN BENCH MARK "A" \ /j�� / �°�°'• :;1*` r� ° TOP CENTER BOLT OF FIRE \ / � 0. % �Hr ss w M1o• HYDRANT. ELEVATION 23.91 > t �°' +G.' ••. T W T • k 4 c.__ . 6� / /`lvV�' °;:'�"A' ,EJB / ,t•r `1. J f"'-'‘,/ <CP' ''' • e ; $ �►ELECTRIC // ",. , 0yh/L.f,c., +, �•• VAULT 4-0 a' • • , , M1 a1 •` ¢ •/y •� oM16yM1 / • /'1, o G•• TRANSFORMER .�' /h/ p°, —J • . "y / ,,1 M1C)*•'";TELEPHONE MANHOLE "` hoy RIM 21.03 0 Z5r co' 100' NORTH DETAIL SECTION • — EXI51'ING WriLAND 13UFr K AKEP1/4 PF0-p05 D 71 .1'-u P CONCRETE 1SLDG. LoC.kT -P 1�YO1,112 I f;/ law.c) �1 r .lam � I , Ni>; PRty. EXI5T1.N67 (agAPE NACNE5 AV SW —Wr 1LANP S - f31S4 5►' To 5E FILLED W/6iLACIAL I Is CU, `t D5. EXIS7(NC/ CCKA555 AND LOW 5NRU89 `{o 13 REMOVEQ ■� 0 10' 30' 50' • AUJACIENT PROPERTY OWNERS \ -''1/ 1 T O CITY OF RENTON . /' / e ATTN: A/P \ / / i is 200 MILL AVE S. / RENTON WA 98055 O 1%, up CO OKING COUNTY \` DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES N `am' • I506 2ND AVE ��7708 M/S 7ST 1 - SEATTLE WA 98104 - ._ • O I U Y I OBLACKRIVER 800 I ()� — - I I (�-I a C/O CUSHMAN do WAKEFIELD INC. 1 I 1 700 5TH AVE /2700 VI�T41dOIf /,ti.,„�K • ,,,,,,,.� I -------- - = w SEATTL£ WA 98104 raw GMin i TREES - TRASH 0w0.. -1 / U OBLACKNER J V LLC PHASE IIIC tt -•r,�y �i --------+ �. L 1 WI w pa0 C/O MARTIN SMITH INC . mA.a 1 �?t o IP',, I > cc z 615 2ND AVE STE400 «o aw♦.., , :,�,•a .-•: , OC p— SEATTLE WA 98104 1 "" .S"° � ;t Wi I oe.a ri C: A 0 N 7 'Y 1 P ana U RIVERTECH ASSC LTD PARTNERS • 1 1 �O � '` 'I 1 �< PO BOX 41 1 � �. c V1 BAND 2 I1 < b.c.., w w 41 EDMONDS WA 98020 aAN ua 1 F 1- '�` - ♦t. ♦♦�'CC :fib,y♦Ip` At ; »:.. I LOT 4 „t ill _ <Y Y O i vv ♦♦ `!!i' vi 1 LOT 4 ® U .. 1v * /-r --i ♦♦♦♦o/�� � .fib" ,,��i ,,:♦,., OM OS m m • it N ,..;41 •�i�,A . o;_, G„4g A 5 <" $111 DAYonoIa1a [uSOrq IAIOSC.a[ - �♦ Z p��p %',. a�ro ' �`, (1 °.. as v,„ wrru itAnRO w 1964•,/ / `♦♦♦♦♦O7♦♦♦♦♦�. ���bJOp,,I ti j �O- '=. ',t, ` i� ��� 4!!"/7 O / / :// e0 ,♦� a �I��C Ipat3v .0 I / . /i ,,..J , ',•• �`44 ,c� O���,LO 3:11. ''< D '1 `..- a�a v�LTANN�NG APPROX. HIGH • i ♦♦♦ r0. • ti��.♦34....♦♦♦ ti �� ♦om' alas WATEER LINE / ti. !\}�< 5. ♦♦ ♦., a� ;a.,a K / ;// `�♦�7.// N.-:-:ir ;� ♦♦�Q, ,'/-`,Q` / •v IA \e 1PwPoasrwa swam Q ` \In0,c AREA . ♦ / / ♦♦ /LOT ••i' v ! 04co, y '••;o e♦♦♦♦♦ ', a, , ear �,,,,\ i �r-00, f .••• �n ."°' \. ' ,‘ , c,.:-.-.0.. oi .t....,,„,,,..:.,,,s,sire 0 ‘ ., . ,' ft, , nur ,� , 110 OCSOBI001 DAR I tritt �pp\\$'4 I �♦♦ ♦ 7 4 ;p. t •';. •iJ '�I '•.a/ . y OVi ‘444• : �-- cwai a1S-x �`'� ,'fit.• ` w psA pj�1.. - >/av' I. WETLAND /3 3184 SF(.07 ACRES) �_�- ` 1::•• t!!!Ie\ OIIIp 't+ �•hr O OT 2 �`.\ ,,, pjp,,Y �`e�� ' s/, y / GLA ALCI D AREA TO BE TIL, t118 CU YDS D W/ �\ `` .••- gion-�-„ `-"t•.. O C. ))4 �� •t/ A EXISTNG GRASSES do LOW SHRUBS �`_` j PfEER. I C•,�Ri��4 O ♦v,9 '', ')2' / •' . TO BE REMOVED ta, M OM �� w._ `•v s f.4 44 O♦♦♦��9♦♦♦ • i/9.� SITE PLAN •\ >d !�\\�\ . 4 . ♦♦♦♦♦, / / PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Deno a,♦w alt- /V towel �. • I r / 0 30' 00' 120• .wrx nc Noowt-MIaO , ■ I n'f♦♦ i ` , X \. ♦ ORHi1 O O.aw i J00 NO.: NOq SSW NO Or. \ an a1( 3 SW f Pin aRR OATC: 0#0d/ p1Aw1: RAJ SITE PLAN I 1 1 040c: a � Ih ° :cJ tecture, � :. '#t r#f' .14W0 1ceA.Berg;Y,Ken K Chin ncipals`�I5 5 fourtti'Ave S.,Suite D Seattle,WA 98134;,(206)583-8030•Fax(206)•.�� February 27, 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Thomas F. Mueller MAR 16 1998 Chief, Regulatory Branch Department of the Army RECEIVED PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 RE: 96-4-02050 - Alper NW Blackriver Tract B Renton, Washington Dear Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter referencing preliminary reports on this project relating to wetland delineation. This specific wetland area referenced in the report by Natural Resource Consulting (NRC) related to a small emergent wetland and not the primary wetlands defined as the old Blackriver channel. Our consultant and the field report indicates certification is required by Army Corp Engineers on page 10. We are assuming the full report was not forwarded to you, as preliminary reports were distributed as a courtesy to local environmental groups by the City. Full submittal for Corp approval, City site plan approval and other required permits will occur prior to construction. We appreciate your notice and letter and will process all corps permits appropriately. espectfully, Royce A. Berg encl. cc: Jana Huerter, City of Renton Dean Erickson, Alper NW Theresa Henson, NRC htb-co-db 1t1U 1U;e4 RLl-IrK NW 1NU. t•HX NU. •LUb .ilialbe F. U" ,, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY c ... SEATTLE DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS C. I'•�" y' P.O.BOX 3755 %... ,,/ SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-3755 e• `9, •• .�'` REPLY TO ``14%.-- r ATTENTION OF FEB 2 3 1998 Regulatory Branch Alper Northwest Inc. 700 - 5' Street • Seattle, Washington 98104 Reference: 96-4-02050 Alper Northwest, Inc Gentlemen: • My staff has received a copy of information regarding your proposed project "Alper Northwest Black River Corporate Park, Tract B, Phase VII" . A paragraph in one of the document states that a wetland proposed to be filled would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and would require notification to the Corps 30 days after filling of the wetland occurred. This statement requires clarification. This statement appears to have been made by your consultant assuming that the wetland fill would qualify our Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26. Because of the close proximity to the Black River, the wetlands on this property are likely to be considered to be "below the headwaters" and as such would not qualify for NWP 26. Also, the wetland delineation must be verified by the Corps to ensure that the delineation is accurate. To ensure that appropriate Corps permits are obtained, you should send the wetland delineation, description of project impacts to wetlands, and a completed JARPA application (copy enclosed) to the Corps. I strongly recommend you contact our office in this manner before you proceed. The Corps makes the determination if a project meets the criteria of NWPs, not consultants If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Kristina Tong at (206) 764-6913. If you have questions regarding permit requirements, please contact Ms. Lori Morris at (206) 764-6909 of our Application Review Section. Sincerely, Thomas F. Mueller 77 Chief, Regulatory Branch Enclosure • -2- Copy Furnished: Mr. Royce Berg LPN Architects and Planners 1535 Fourth Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, Washington 96813 Jana Huerter City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 CITY:OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the lei day of Banc , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the Ur .e States, a sealed envelope containing eRC. d e ey on kvzatovtS documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) TSUA J& k • cr' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 5 4 AdA"Ct.,- ` = c. signed thi: instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for theL-tises and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: (o / 1' -72 (t. e _ Notary Public i nd for the State of Wash' ton Notary (Pritil RII VN KPL V VHEFF My appoin i p ON EXPIRES 6/4/99 Project Name: 140...ck pkue.r Coveova Park Project Number: LA). •18 015 , SPC - , SwM , EL f NOTARY.DOC /1 - • CITJF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Departmen Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 18, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on June 16, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK/LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that wou:d be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site(2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek)and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantia development permit. Location: Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 7th Street. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)- 235-2501. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, IrkfAAAAA3 Jenni—r '• b Henni • • ect Manag° cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCYLT_R DOCK 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 601 This nailer contains SU%recycled material 20%fast consumer 0---43 CITI )F RENTON al. � Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 18, 1998 Mr. Royce Berg LPN Architects& Planners 1535 Fourth Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park Project No. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM Dear Mr. Berg: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on June 16, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on July 14, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmea al -eview Committee, r � "Ain fifer a Wing Project Manager . cc: Black River-Rivertech L.L.C./Owners Parties of Record DNSMI TR nnc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 L? This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed so as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review --Water 1. There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10"water main loop and additional hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. 2. Water System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Wastewater 3. Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. 4. Sewer System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Stormwater 5. Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the King County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property development. 6. We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. 7. Stormwater System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review -Street Improvements Black River Corporate Park LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H Advisory Notes(Continued) Page 2 of 2 8. The streets adjacent to this site are fully improved with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. 9. Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St. and participation by the applicant in LID#332 for approximately $3 million. Building Department 10. Soils Report Should address the potential for liquefaction. The 1997 Uniform Building Code goes into effect in July 1998. Airport 11. The site is located in an area which should be minimally impacted by aircraft operations from the Renton airport. It is considered an area and use compatible with aviation operations from the airport. Fire Department 12. the preliminary fire flow is 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm)for proposed Building A; 3,000 gpm for proposed Building B; 2,500 gpm for proposed Buildings C, D, and E. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 13. Separate plans and permits are required for fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems installations in each building . 14. Applicant will need to provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on the site. 15. A fire mitigation fee equivalent to $0.52 per square foot of new construction would apply to the project. The fee is estimated to be $11,445.20 for proposed Building A, $16,900.00 for proposed Buildings B and C; $17,102.80 for proposed Building D; and $15,045.68 for proposed Building E. The fee is due prior to the issuance of building permits. Police --Crime Prevention 16. Police estimate 77 calls for police service annually, based on the size of the proposal. 17. The applicant is advised to contact Audrey Moore in Renton Crime Prevention (425/235-2571) to discuss site and project security issues both during construction and operation of the project. 18. The area between proposed Buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and landscaping in this area will need to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians, extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users. Development Planning 19. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). 20. The site is included in the Valley area of the City, and the applicant is required to provide an additional 2% of the site area as natural landscaping, per the City's agreement with the Soil Conservation Service. These areas should not be dispersed throughout the site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. Note: existing and proposed natural areas would satisfy this requirement. ryelincE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings,totaling 148.834 feel.Three of the structures(A,D.and E)would be one story in height.Two of the buildings(B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,831 square business service,research and development,assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be square feel o/floor area for commercial,office, on would 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would rbe placed be the site.over emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled.Access proposal worry and includeW 7th Street.Approximately 16%of the site(2.04 acres)would be retained asrnaturral areda/habitat buffer The P-1 Channel(Springbrook Creek)and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The projectrequires environmental review,site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6,1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,it Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original • will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to lake further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: J a Hoarier. thereination,then Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. If an the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the appeal of notified that the appeal is on hold request for reconsideration and the appellant w od,then the appellant/person th erson pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City willwnotify requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Commdlee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal.Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6,1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with.Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-116. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the old City Hall,Renton,Washington,200 Mill Avenue South,on July 14,1998 at 9.00 AM to consider site approval.. the Environ a termination ation is a I of this public h a ear will be heard as art 1 PI._motTLy. .�_,; _ . I Yam\ I lifp- �.. .�Z ,'.. .1Q ,-tit , t7 wit 17.t •;:G�^ _ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT( 430-7286. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITH0425�PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when ca ing for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, Sailav) YY11 nAl+1 , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on June �� ►�� • Signed: S cw\ct h ATTEST: Subcribed and worn before me, a Nortary Public,in and to the State of Washington residing it ') oar, , on the �e day of(t_44/._, /t 4� • • J ' MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 I .10 , r ' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings,totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures(A,D,and E)would be one story in height. Two of the buildings(B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service,research and development,assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16%of the site(2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review,site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6,1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-235-2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the old City Hall, Renton,Washington, 200 Mill Avenue South, on July 14, 1998, at 9:00 AM to consider site approval.. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. ti r- t w. �,,o v..R i J1_ J tF , yi' f"1,/ rw__ F ti: :----::-F-'117---J.' .-11 • -:"":74.'.;;::. ' 'kkjiln . : -"-: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7286. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON Kristina J. Thompson, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- the Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL Municipal Code. BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Environmental review for development of a 12.5 acre site with five buildings. a dailynewspaper seventimes a week. Said newspaper is a I al Proposal includes 18,000 cubic yards of published (7) structural fill. The P-1 Channel, newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Springbrook Creek, and a heron rookery prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language are located to the north of the site. Project shor- continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South Countyalso requires site plan approval and a permit. Y 9 eline substantial development permit. Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Location: Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 7th St. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County The 15 day comment and appeal period Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a end at 5:00 PM on July 6, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Black River Corporate Park Review Supervisor. Information on the pro- ject file and the mitigation measures as published on: 6/22/98 imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$60.34 Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 Legal Number 4817 ) Phone:o.( 5r ady 43017200ay, Rent W 5.eduurA5 s) pp eal P c are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor,Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.So., Renton,WA 98055. A Public Hearing will be held by the Legal Clerk, So th County Journal Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall,200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, Washington, on July 14, 1998, at Subscribed and sworn before me on this day f L�—E, 19 l 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. If the Environmental Determination is i I appealed,the appeal will be heard as part ``\���111111t11 ii i c�,r �^ t J�/ ( p invitedof this public hendaheg. blicInterested parties are NN��N r' FF//i, Publication Date: June 22, 1998 hearing. \,.•'si$Si0// // 'i V `�• if •'o``" F+A'*l��i Published in the South County Journal .'-• Notary Public of the State of Washington June 22, 1998.4817 t 0TA�y N:cI: residing in Renton _ --0— '•- • "'= King County, Washington c- •'•� FUe LIB �:' v S NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,ECF,SM,SA-H Environmental review for development of a 12.5 acre site with five buildings. Proposal includes 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill. The P-1 Channel, Springbrook Creek, and a heron rookery are located to the north of the site. Project also requires site plan approval and a shoreline substantial development permit. Location: Oakesdale Ave. SW and SW 7th St. The 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on July 6, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Phone: (425) 430-7200. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, WA 98055. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 200 Mill Ave. So., Renton, Washington, on July 14, 1998, at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: June 22, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE June 16, 1998 Project Name Black River Corporate Park Applicant LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) 1535 4th Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 File Number LUA-098-075, SA-H, SM, ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning u_4 �� . i/ CITYNQF RENTON �s u O o a S t ' , OPE►�SPACE , ©p A 2 .'t j J,l�•. ,,,. - :,1 tLot2 Gorl LOf3 N f�WNNONE M A '�F'(,ti I -ll5 A<rt \ 2126 Attu , F �C ` CITY OF RPJJTON� _� -,t t�G� SI� li Jr� `� .1 r OP�N SP/ E _ `: �� 2S! Ott` I.°-'_�-n �_ . , `^r.. r /Aia„,,, Yr w��`+� � - - "' �k ,� - i OFFICE .`"''... .,,`�f. Z`�1-L1 1 \.\ - Pol.DETENTION POND" �, \ • _ " - _. 1 ;;-. SM-fN G T O M T E C[N N I C•L N .4,. T - - -- ..,..; IP - Np .gym; �is ,r L =NEa, r_ fl, •ROPO E0 C I 'T E C H N C A LI'jC E N T E,R iEN .c ,. CITY OF RENFON I ♦♦� I'' OFFICE.,. _ OPEN-SPACE B \ ,, 4 a( D ..,•l_ IiI Aire I 1 `,. Jr E N i E ♦ 1 {'''� -..II J r 1 6 - ,.w ..,..\,... ,i:.' J / ; FE I' 14', .. r--- \. At.i W A S I-,i G T _ w 1 ^= MILE • OFFICE 1: I ' z . • I ! • �I I . . . �. In t ��• STRr 3 \ _-- „\ METRIO FkCUTIES r,/ `ha T E C H N I ..... s o! t %\ ••` r l °• OFFICE . 6 ¢ u4 E ♦\,, .``` ,.. I . u.o, riii,,-T _\ •d . f .�]1. N C C N 'IE R ---I N,'T j \` " r ''. i r�1 E OFFICE /,,� ;� \ f �1td, NOTEL I s r" �� cn IV . .a oT C•'=f 1 g,.9 10 \\s, .jf9 t•\lay\ r.'" V. r �/� t♦D,Wit • �IC�E ; V.v o ry;: jf;A � 4 s �� s4 — �f �.�.11111M .34 ,. 1 � _,.! � �brl PR a. \ 4. E 6r3L51 I ' Project Location Map ERST.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department i 9nmental Review Committee Staff h port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNEI6, 1998 Page2 (Jo Project Description Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied on behalf of Alper Northwest, LLC to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. The structures would be constructed of tilt-up concrete panels and tinted glass. The painted concrete panels would feature architectural reveals. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) are proposed as one-story, or approximately 20-feet, in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-stories, or approximately 30-feet, in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Proposed buildings would have the following gross floor area: Building A-- 22,010 s.f.; Building B -- 32,500 s.f.; Building C -- 32,500 s.f.; Building D -- 32,890 s.f.; and Building E --28,934 s.f. Access is proposed from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided in lots ringing the site. Construction is scheduled to occur in three phases over a six-year period. A two-year extension of the six-year phasing plan for showing of substantial progress and good cause is also requested as part of the application. Phase 1 is defined as the first two years of the six-year plan. During Phase 1, at least one building would be commenced. Phase 2 is defined as occurring during the first four years of the six- year plan. During Phase 2, at least three buildings would be commenced (possibly including the one building from Phase 1). Phase 3 would be the entire six-year plan. During Phase 3 the five proposed buildings would commence (including the three buildings from Phases 1 and 2). Phases 2 and 3 would follow Phase 1 but could commence concurrently with the previous phases. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. The P-1 channel (also known as Springbrook Creek) and detention basin (the P.1 pond) are located to the west and northwest of the site and flow into the Green River, approximately one mile west of the site. One Category 3 wetland, 0.07 acres in size, is located on the southeast portion of the project site, and would be filled under the proposal. Two Category 2 wetlands exist in the drainage easement areas located on a parcel abutting the project site on the east and northeast (proposed Lot 4 of the Black River Tract B Short Plat File No. LUA-98-074, SHPL-A, ECF). Those wetlands are approximately 0.25 acres in size (Wetland No. 1) and 0.16 acres in size (Wetland No. 2) and would be preserved as open space. The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high wood split rail fence with wetland signage to be installed along the 25-foot wide portions of the 50-foot wide average width buffer to the wetland (No. 1) located on the northeast portion of the adjacent site (Lot. 4 of Tract B). A heron rookery exists to the north/northwest of the site on an island in the P-1 detention basin immediately adjacent to approximately 79 acres of permanent City open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat. The site development project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. The site has a previously approved site development plan approved January 1992 that is still valid. The site plan was modified through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between citizen/environmental groups, the owner, and City of Renton. The approved plan proposed the construction of one 4-story building with 78,350 square feet for offices, and two 5-story buildings with a total of 207,950 s.f. of office. Also, a 4-story parking garage, 57-feet in height with parking for 898 vehicles was approved. The Memorandum of Agreement was signed in November 1991 between the City of Renton, applicant, Seattle Audobon Society, Rainier Audobon Society, Sierra Club, and Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation whereby appeals of the mitigation documents and FEIS for Tracts A and B were dropped in support of revisions to the proposed projects with conditions of development. The approved site plan (as described above) reflected the conditions of the MOA. ER CRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department onmental Review Committee Staff h port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16,1998 Page3 (10 Previous environmental review included the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Study for the overall Black River site (Earlington Park) which was issued in July 1980. The Final EIS was issued in February 1981. Mitigation included the dedication of land to the City of Renton for: the construction of the P-1 channel and detention basin (17.5 acres); riparian forest wildlife habitat (20.0 acres); road improvements-- Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue, SW, Powell Avenue SW, and SW 7th Street (9.5 acres). Mitigation also included participation in Local Improvement District#332 in the amount of$3 million for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue SW, and SW 7th Street. Site specific development proposals for Tract B required an Environmental Impact Statement which was issued in March 1991 (FEIS). Mitigation documents issued for the previous proposed development of Tracts A and B were appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The appeals resulted in the MOA described above and the subsequent site plan approval. Project Location Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Not Applicable Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf 148,834 s.f. as follows: Bldg. A: 22,01C s.f. Bldg. B: 32,50C s.f. Bldg. C: 32,50C s.f. Bldg. D: 32,89C s.f. Bldg. E: 28,934 s.f. Site Area 12.53 acres Total Building Area gsf 148,834 s.f. RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A..eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed so as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department onmental Review Committee Staff I port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM. ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16,1998 Page4 f 10 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review--Water 1. There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10"water main loop and additiona hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. 2. Water System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Wastewater 3. Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. 4. Sewer System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review -Stormwater 5. Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the Kirg County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black Rive• pump station for this property development. 6. We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. 7. Stormwater System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Street Improvements 8. The streets adjacent to this site are fully improved with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. 9. Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St. and participation by the applicant in LID#332 for approximately $3 million. Building Department 10. Soils Report Should address the potential for liquefaction. The 1997 Uniform Building Code goes into effect in July 1998. Airport 11. The site is located in an area which should be minimally impacted by aircraft operations from the Renton airport. It is considered an area and use compatible with aviation operations from the airport. Fire Department 12. the preliminary fire flow is 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for proposed Building A; 3,000 gpm for proposed Building B; 2,500 gpm for proposed Buildings C, D, and E. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 13. Separate plans and permits are required for fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems installations in each building . ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department I mmental Review Committee Staff R port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK L UA-98-075,SA-H,SM,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16,1998 Pages=(10 14. Applicant will need to provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on the site. 15. A fire mitigation fee equivalent to $0.52 per square foot of new construction would apply to the project. The fee is estimated to be $11,445.20 for proposed Building A, $16,900.00 for proposed Buildings B and C; $17,102.80 fo" proposed Building D; and $15,045.68 for proposed Building E. The fee is due prior to the issuance of building permits. Police --Crime Prevention 16. Police estimate 77 calls for police service annually, based on the size of the proposal. 17. The applicant is advised to contact Audrey Moore in Renton Crime Prevention (425/235-2571) to discuss s to and project security issues both during construction and operation of the project. 18. The area between proposed Buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and landscaping in this area will neilrl to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians, extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users. Development Planning 19. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). 20. The site is included in the Valley area of the City, and the applicant is required to provide an additional 2% of the site area as natural landscaping, per the City's agreement with the Soil Conservation Service. These areas should not be dispersed throughout the site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. Note: existing and proposed natural areas would satisfy this requirement. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Wildlife Habitat Impacts: The applicant's environmental checklist documents an existing heron rookery that is located to the north/northwest of the project site on an island in the P-1 detention basin, and immediately adjacent to the approximate 82 acres of City of Renton permanent open space, riparian forest, and wildlife habitat. The heronry was reported to appear to consist of several trees on an island in the P-1 Pond, and extend into trees located in the riparian forest north of the island. During the field observation, the consultants documented at least 29 nests within the heronry. Recent correspondence related to the project proposal was submitted by the Friends of the Black River (dated June 4, 1998) and stated that the heron colony has over 50 nesting pairs of great blue heron. The heron rookery is surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest, and is separated from the site by a drainage channel, and dense tree cover including cottonwood, alder trees, and a row of Lombardy poplar(Populas nigra)trees. A Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting (March 1998) is provided as part of the project application. According to the report, sight lines from the proposed buildings to the heron rookery would be limited, and the rookery would be visible only from Building B, through a 30-foot wide "gap" created by shorter trees. Proposed Building B would be two-stories in height (approximately 28 feet tall) and would be located directly in line and south of the heron rookery. The proposed structure would block views to the rookery from all of the other ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department onmental Review Committee Staff I•''port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK L UA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16,1998 Page6 (10 proposed buildings on the site. Available views to the heron rookery from Building B are expected to be reduced each year over the next six years, as the shorter alder and cottonwood trees increase in height, and block the gap. The applicant has proposed building setbacks, native and ornamental planting buffers, and natural undisturbed areas to preserve and enhance wildlife habitat. Site improvements, except for a portion of a proposed water quality control wetpond and approximately 500 square feet of a vehicle circulation drive, would be located outside of a 500-foot radius from the heron rookery. (The 500-foot distance is measured from the center point of the island, per telephone conversation with the applicant Monday, June 8, 1998). The wetpond would provide additional buffer and habitat and would provide a physical obstacle from human intrusion into the proposed buffer area. The applicant is setting aside approximately 16% of the immediate project site (2.04 acres) to remain as undeveloped natural areas and habitat buffer. Trees, stumps and other vegetation that would be removed from the proposed development areas of the site, along with existing "dead and down material", would be placed in the proposed buffer area located in the north and northwest portions of the site as additional wildlife habitat. In addition to these materials placed along the edge of the development areas, ornamental landscaping would be planted, and fencing would be installed along the south edge of the wetpond. A 100-foot buffer of natural vegetation and landscaping would be provided along the P-1 Channel on the west portion of the site. A comment letter, received from Friends of the Black River(June 4, 1998), requests seven mitigation measures, five of which are intended to protect the heronry. The five requested mitigation measures relating to the heronry are as follows: 1) A recommendation for a buffer zone (660 to 1,000 lineal feet) located between the heron colony and the edge of the development. 2) A recommendation to limit heavy construction to a period outside of January 15 through June 30, in order to avoid disturbance of the heron during breeding and fledging periods. 3) A recommendation to prohibit foot traffic on the colony side of development through the use of gates or other methods. 4) A recommendation to shield lighting in the parking areas, and to not exceed 1.5 foot candles at the perimeter of the parking areas. 5) A recommendation to mount external heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and pumps at ground level, rather than on rooftops, in order to decrease noise. Approximately 82 acres of land located immediately adjacent to Tract B of the Black River Corporate Park has been dedicated (20 acres) or sold (62 acres) to the City of Renton as permanent open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat, since the property owners acquired the Black River properties in 1979. The applicant has proposed a setback of 500 feet from the center of the island in the P-1 channel as a buffer for development. Approximately 500 square feet (or less) of a vehicle circulation aisle on the north side of Building C intrudes slightly into the 500-foot radius. In addition, proposed wetponds would be developed within 500 feet of the center point of the island. This does not differ substantially from the previously approved plan, where a fire lane encroached within the 500-foot radius. However, the presence of established vegetation, including poplars, alder and cottonwoods provides buffering between the site development area and the heronry. The proposed wetponds would also create a barrier to human intrusion into the heronry. Establishing time periods for the use of heavy equipment for the entire site for outside of the time period from January 15th through June 30th is not supported. The MOA applying to the previous approved project established a specific construction zone (within a 700-foot radius of the heron rookery) and time period (January 15th through June 15th). Since the time the MOA was approved by all parties, site conditions have changed, substantial vegetation has been planted and has matured. This vegetation provides a significant visual and physical barrier benefiting the heronry. Vegetation provides for noise deflection and absorption. In addition, the ambient noise in the area of the project site includes industrial operations (Metro Treatment Plant), concrete recycling, truck and vehicular traffic, quarrying, railroad operation, construction of warehouses, bridges and road improvements. Additional noise impacts from construction of the proposal would be short-term in nature, and would not require mitigation. Only the construction of about one-half of the area of the wetponds and a small area (less than 500 square feet) of the circulation drive on the north side of Building C would occur within the 500-foot radius of the heronry. Existing and proposed natural vegetative buffers, dead and downed material (stumps etc.), ornamental landscaping, and wetponds would preclude human intrusion into the heronry. No further mitigation would be required. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department I mmental Review Committee Staff It port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16,1998 Page7 r 10 The City reviews lighting plans as part of the Site Plan Review process. The suggestion for focused and directed lighting that does not result in glare to the sensitive areas of the site and off-site areas is warranted and will be recommended as a mitigation measure. The applicant's environmental checklist indicates that light distribution would be controlled on the site in developed areas. Screening of HVAC systems is a Code item and visual screening is required for roof-mounted equipment. These is not evidence that units mounted on one-to two-story structures would create a significant impact on the wildlife habitat. No further mitigation will be required. Again, noise would be screened by the established and maturing tree buffer located between the heronry and the proposed buildings. Issues regarding building height and design were discussed during the previous site plan and environmental application. The issues included buildings heights which were previously approved up to five stories. In fact, a four- story parking garage was approved at the edge of the 500-foot radius from the heronry. In the current project application, two of the proposed buildings would be two-stories or approximately 30 feet in height (Buildings B and C). The three other buildings (A, D, and E) would be one-story or approximately 20 feet in height. The concrete tilt-up panels would be painted with tones of brown, beige, off-white, blue, green or gray and windows would be tinted glass. Neither the height of the structures, the color of the buildings, or the windows would create an impact to the heron as earth tones and non-reflective tinted windows would be used. In addition, vegetative screening that has been planted in the last several years has matured and creates a barrier between the location of the 20- to 30-foot high proposed buildings, preventing spill-over light from penetrating the rookery. Mitigation Measures: Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed so as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (Code Section 4-6). 2. Earth Impacts: The proposal would result in the import of approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the development areas of the site. The applicant has proposed installation of erosion and sediment controls consistent with City Code. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control plans would need to be submitted, approved and installed prior to commencement of site construction activities. No further mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable. 3. Fire Department Impacts: The proposal would result in the addition new office construction in the City of Renton which would impact the City's emergency services. A Fire Mitigation Fee would apply to all new construction . The fee has been estimated to apply at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The fee would be due prior to the issuance of building permits. For proposed Building A the fee is estimated to be $11,445.20 ($0.52 x 22,010 s.f.). For Buildings B and C the fee is estimated to be $16,900.00 per building ($0.52 x 32,500 s.f.). For Building D the fee is estimated to be $17,102.80 ($0.52 x 32,890 s.f.). For Building E the fee is estimated to be $15,045.68 ($0.52 x 28,934 s.f.). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and Adopting Ordinance; SEPA Ordinance (Code Section 4-6). 4. Air Impacts: Construction activity would result in increased levels of airborne particulate (especially dust) potentially impacting air quality in the immediate area of the project site for short duration of time. Emissions from construction ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department i onmental Review Committee Staff h port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16, 1998 Page8 (10 equipment would have a minor impact on local air quality. Construction impacts would be short term in nature, and would be regulated through best management practices of the required Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan. These measures include such practices as spraying water to diminish dust impacts on windy or dry days Vehicular emissions are regulated by the State of Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are required. Nexus: Not applicable. 5. Wetlands Impacts: One wetland has been delineated on the east portion of the subject site. Two additional wetlands hav a been delineated on new Lot 4 of the Tract B Short Plat,just east of and abutting, the subject site. Wetland No. 1 is approximately 0.25 acres (10,839 square feet) in size and would be located on proposed Lot No. 4 of the Black River Tract B Short Plat (File No. LUA-98-074, SHPL-A, ECF). The wetland has Palustrine scrub-shrub/emergent, temporarily flooded wetland communities that would be classified as a high quality, Category 2 wetland. Wetland No. 2 is approximately 0.16 acres (7,053 s.f.) in size and would also be located on proposed Lot No. 4. Wetland N . 2 has Palustrine scrub-shrub/emergent, seasonally flooded wetland communities that would be classified as a high quality, Category 2 wetland. Wetlands No. 1 and 2 generally have moderate to high functions and values due to their structural diversity, proximity to a heron rookery, and natural preserve area, and connections to a storm water drainage system that discharges into the P-1 Channel. No disturbance would occur within Wetland Nos. 1 or 2 as a result of the development proposal. Both wetlands would be located on new Lot No. 4 which would be owned by the City of Renton as permanent open space. The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high wood split rail fence with wetland signage to be installed along the 25-foot wide portions of the 50-foot wide average width buffer to the wetland (No. 1) located on the northeast portion of the adjacent site (Lot. 4 of Tract B). Wetland No. 3 is approximately 0.07 acres (3,184 s.f.) in size and is located on the southeast east portion of the project site. Wetland No. 3 has a Palustrine emergent, saturated wetland community that would be classified as a Category 3 wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. The functions and values of Wetland No. 3 are generally low to moderate due to it being a small, isolated, depression of fill soils with only one plant community type. Wetland No. 3 would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City, because it is less than 5,000 s.f. in size. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are required. Nexus: Not applicable. 6. Transportation Impacts: The construction of 148,834 square feet of office development would be expected to generate approximately 1,800 new average weekday vehicular trips once the project is built-out. Peak-hour trips are expected to be 256 trips during the AM peak period and 246 trips during the PM peak period. The City typically requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee for development projects, based on a $75 per each new average weekday trip. However, the City has an agreement with the project owner, to require no further mitigation for transportation agreements, due to prior in-kind contributions. Prior dedication of 9.5 acres of land by the owner to the City has occurred for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW., Naches Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Furthermore, the applicant has participated in Local Improvement District#332 for approximately $3 million (as recognized by the Hearing Examiner in the prior Site Plan Approval for this site). Truck trips would increase as a result of site construction activity. The applicant intents to Therefore, no further mitigation will be required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are required. Nexus: Not applicable. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department 1 mmental Review Committee Staff h port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK L UA-98-075,SA-H,SM, ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE16, 1998 Page9 r10 7. Stormwater Impacts: Development of the site with four office buildings and surface parking areas would result in impervioL ; surface of 70% of the developed portion of the site, and 58% of the overall site. No on-site detention would be required for this proposal or future development projects per prior agreement between the property and City of Renton, due to the dedication by the applicant of 17.5 acres to the City of Renton for the P-1 channel and detention basin. Adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property ', development. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are required. Nexus: Not applicable. 8. Aesthetics Impacts: The proposal would result in the construction of five new buildings on an undeveloped site. The new buildings would provide 148,834 square feet of offices. Construction would consist of tilt-up concrete panels and tinted glass in mill-finish aluminum window frames. The concrete panels would be painted in complimentary co ors (brown, beige, off-white, blue, green or gray) and would feature architectural reveals for a unified pattern and visual relief. Three of the structures (A, D, and E)would be one story, or approximately 20-feet in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-stories, or approximately 30-feet in height. Previous discussions between the applicant/owner, interested citizens and environmental groups have been considered in the applicant's current proposal. Where a previously approved four-story parking garage was rea aired to have blank walls on the north side of the building closest to the heronry, the same mitigation would not be appropriate for any of the structures in this proposal. The buildings are considerably lower in height (one- and t.vo- story versus four-and five-story), would utilize an earth-tone color palette and tinted non-reflective windows for ne exterior surfaces. Most importantly, the extensive vegetation buffer which has established over the last six yes s represents an appropriate screen between the heronry and the proposed structures. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are required. Nexus: Not applicable. ,I E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee 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 time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department E nmental Review Committee Staff R port BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK LUA-98-075,SA-H,SM, '?CF REPORT AND DECISION OFJUNE 16, 1998 Pagel°, '10 Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examiner during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideration and the appellant will )e notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will notify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Committee's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to withdraw the appeal. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City ( I Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. ,d ERCRPT.DOC CITY OF RENTON . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H i APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners(Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building. totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E)would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be tw -story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial,office, business service, research and development, ssembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The xoposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in si ; on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16%of the te(2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are locatE to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the ern onment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measur s by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary ti mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Any aggrievE person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fac error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written ci nments. After review of the comments, if Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determina m, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within ti original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. If an appeal of the environmental determination is also filed with the Hearing Examir r during the same 15-day comment period, then the Environmental Review Committee will first take action on the request for reconsideratior and the appellant will be notified that the appeal is on hold pending the Committee's decision on the reconsideration request. The City will otify the appellant/person requesting reconsideration and parties of record and the Hearing Examiner of the Environmental Review Commit e's final determination. The appeal process will then be continued unless the appellant notifies the Hearing Examiner in writing that he wishes to wit iraw the appeal. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 6, 1998. Appeals must )filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, W 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal pro :ss may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: June 22,1998 DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 1998 SIGNATURES: 711/1 6 4 .?16 Gregg Zim rn aan,Ai" sfrator DATE Department//////of Plannt g/Building/Public Works / ‘* - /Z'-? r Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Community Services ,,e,—; ' Lee Vheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Proposed lighting in the parking lot areas should be focused and directed so as to prevent glare or spillover light impacts to the off-site wetlands and heronry. The applicant shall provide the Development Services Division project manager with a lighting plan showing the type of exterior lighting in the parking lots, and extent of illumination. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) • ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H APPLICANT: LPN Architects and Planners (Royce Berg) PROJECT NAME: Black River Corporate Park DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review --Water 1. There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10"water main loop and additional hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. 2. Water System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review -Wastewater 3. Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. 4. Sewer System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review-Stormwater 5. Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the King County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property development. 6. We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. 7. Stormwater System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. Plan Review -Street Improvements Ali Black River Corporate Park LUA-98-075,ECF,SM-SA-H Advisory Notes(Continued) Page 2 of 2 8. The streets adjacent to this site are fully improved with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. 9. Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St. and participation by the applicant in LID#332 for approximately $3 million. Building Department 10. Soils Report Should address the potential for liquefaction. The 1997 Uniform Building Code goes into effect in July 1998. • Airport 11. The site is located in an area which should be minimally impacted by aircraft operations from the • Renton airport. It is considered an area and use compatible with aviation operations from the airport. Fire Department 12. the preliminary fire flow is 2,250 gallons per minute (gpm)for proposed Building A; 3,000 gpm for proposed Building B; 2,500 gpm for proposed Buildings C, D, and E. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each building. 13. Separate plans and permits are required for fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems installations in each building . 14. Applicant will need to provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on the site. 15. A fire mitigation fee equivalent to $0.52 per square foot of new construction would apply to the project. The fee is estimated to be $11,445.20 for proposed Building A, $16,900.00 for proposed Buildings B and C; $17,102.80 for proposed Building D; and $15,045.68 for proposed Building E. The fee is due prior to the issuance of building permits. Police --Crime Prevention 16. Police estimate 77 calls for police service annually, based on the size of the proposal. 17. The applicant is advised to contact Audrey Moore in Renton Crime Prevention (425/235-2571) to discuss site and project security issues both during construction and operation of the project. 18. The area between proposed Buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and landscaping in this area will need to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians, extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users. Development Planning 19. The project site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). 20. The site is included in the Valley area of the City, and the applicant is required to provide an additional 2% of the site area as natural landscaping, per the City's agreement with the Soil Conservation Service. These areas should not be dispersed throughout the site, but should be aggregated in one portion of the property. Where possible, the required 2% landscaping for adjacent properties should be contiguous. Note: existing and proposed natural areas would satisfy this requirement. ! . . City 'enton Department of Planning/Building/F Works ''Fkhr ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW '&/1dT REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fire �Gv� ' %Q1 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 iir. 1Tr14 ��I�FrAT APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 2 1 ' APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENI ili1G 1 L _ PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the build tgs (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for comme :tal, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approxi lately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00( cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Spnngbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mon Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major In foe iatlon Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Neck sary Earth --- Housing Air --- Aesthetics --- Light/Glare --- Recreation LancUShoreline Use --- Utilities Animals --- Transportation Environmental Health --- Public Services Natural --_ Historic/CulturalNatural Resources Preservation A10,000 Feet irport Environment 14,000 Feet ND ' or �rh acX. /0ote . B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /04 • • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS '— See. (W;CI el emMINe14/5 We have revi wed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impa •or areas where additio al information is ded to properly assess this proposal. \,_ 5/a//,'" Signature/of Director or Authorized R resentative Date DEVAPP.943C Rev.10/93 City .,. .?en ton Department of Planning/Building/, . .,,c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH 'ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ECOYt ' cltV. COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the builc igs (B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for Comm( cial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approx lately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on thf southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mot Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Info nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec ;sary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS No SSu • • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable imps 'or areas wh e additional! needed to properly assess this proposal. ik4Th -5Iddiqt Signature Director or A thbrized Representative Date DEVAPP.DO \, Rev 10/93 (Y � O CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU �,NTo� MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1998 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal A 1 SUBJECT: Alper Northwest Project, SW 7th 85 Oakesdale Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 2250 GPM Bldg.A, 3000 GPM Bldg.B, 2500 GPM Bldgs. C,D 85 E ; which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and three additional hydrants within 300 feet of the each building. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for Sprinkler and fire alarm system installations in each building.. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 4. A fire mitigation fee of$11,445.20, for Bldg. A; $16,900.00, for Bldgs. B 85 C ; $17,102.80, for Bldg. D; $15,045.68 for Bldg. E; is required based on $.52 a square foot for each building . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cif; _. .?enton Department of Planning/Building/, __..:Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH, ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (D!(%SkYV(JhCA COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNIN CITyO G-RENTON - MAY s ..9�� PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 i LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A 11JiIt.obv..0 uIv BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building , totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the builc igs (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for comm( cial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approxi lately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00( cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mor Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Info nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec osary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS . • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS S E fp o H. U c_> L . /1- 1 n P. �= S S 7 I--t Pc DTL N T ,4 L (°f 1_ i F r t >\, . / 1 c�o iS / iJTv t=F E C. T' 1 (-) L't 19 9 8 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impa t or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 • City or rtenton Department of Planning/Building/Fuu„; Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH, ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Airport COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building , totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the build lgs (B and C)would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for comme cial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approxi 'iately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,001 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mor Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Info iation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec :sary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment �5 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet NO The site is in an area which should be minimally impacted by aircraft operations fro the Renton airport. It is considered an area and use compatible with aviation operation from the airport. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS None C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impa or areas where add''onal informal., is needed to propetiy assess this proposal. © �• .4, it, l75S Signatur of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. C Rev 10/93 _l. ' r YVii J , al 1 ] 1 ! 1 �� r V L J A r 11 .*' -i- - 1 sL --x - - . .0, .•., ,- - a 1!. U@YJDO r tot, ‘ 7.*- -;: ' Ski '. a•'It , K r P El t �1111I t M`n � r r 1 3Mil1 10 I ID#r 4ill I I i P PP).I I A . . ( k � J V 1\ LJ \ .. , rY ■ Ea N V 0-I iip. 1,„ illtit_ **"11,r,e4f.,49.).T-i - .. , T....‘ _ A , _ . ilpir...Inkam ' _-i s I 4 :1-0 4. -.N\ liP Ft . I - (il CI.u 1.11 Fr-a"'7iiii./4--' _,, -10.1,111-\ r .1,f' bF3-,,,Fgaljilia N \ ."..NL if ._ VIP 5'- Ev' '' / \I) k_. , -'1Lii.,Li[_-_,:, 'A " m 4 13ii _. ibiiii avail . i. . is - . , . . le, . ,ri",qiT 19 L( `10...... ., _r41*.": 11CINZ' N N .,,,,,, K._ F-Ti, ,,,,„ ,_. . . yt al I,ii,Ill i,9 hi;.1...\ -1 A.s.-......--- ' ic FM 10"V..14 fil.1"- -' 11\'' , . \ - 1 • ji ion & '''� n 11011 .. �• • � ClI g IIIIP 01 ri lissilrif-- .11„'.--__44,ftiompiNt- .,. I. 4. <i• ' ti)All° ®air '.� lilt! .�. �t, � �� • `\ � a ,-. /Wriit,fifj4EINNifjla 4 r.:, i %. dii s vii. , Ic_frittr,ji • iil 1- wi 1 C .se t- ,:Nib 41 riiqUit % • ti 1: 0:111Eh 4,1 ,, iip . : , II I, ,,,„„,,,, [IQ .� ,_. r 1 - li CIO • /rd.-- , Ia:, ` r1 \ __ JI rs �© ! iip_itfig_.1 itassia. 0.'"' ii ' .1,-..,---.f\ ..- - 'i is in iiiimE. 6 l( 'acE; lilt w' v rrc ____= _ _ ___ _____ _______ ���,, ,a� a I IVA - ' 1: ; • a '•'''' E_:33.7.7::-."-K:::. -::37::::::::::K:KaFgEEE:_•E3a-::::K:E-,_:::::E:::::___ i ti -Y1111 a. I . .:1\ler ' I bi- :_:_:_:__47:_:_:_:_::::_:_:_:_:__,.....:_:_:_:_:_:„1, -a h 4:-_:-:-:-:-:::-:-:-.:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-_-_-_-_-_-------------------- ,i.---::::::_,..:_x_x_-_:_:_:_:_:_::::::_:_:__A 1 11 i I (i.,,/, _--I=A---r....-a,,'l'•ik--7 -r i1-fig".-" I /' `', - _="======--===-====-=-==-===-_ ===_ ___=== _= ' )tea t T z -�® 1111' _ aT=11 City_. ..enton Department of Planning/Building/F Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'NAVr COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildinc totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buik ngs (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commi 'cial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approx nately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on thf southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Sprtngbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mo, Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Infc nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec ssary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Llght/Glaro Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Estimate 77 police calls for service annually, based on the size pf the project. Constriction sites in Renton are constantly victimized by Commercial Burglary. Recommend that the aFilicant fence the site in with portable, chain-link fencing during construction, and use securiir' lightir after business hours . All building materials and tools will need to be secured when not in use. Also recommend the use of private security patrols or off-duty police officers to monitc ^ the site to help reduce the incidents of theft/vandalism and burglary that will occur. If < AXXR4.40104017/00SOMXIM portable trailer is used as an office during construct-lc 1 , it will need reinforced steel doors with auxiliary locks , and bars over any windows , to he i discourage burglary. All office machinery and tools should be locked down and secured , and all model andsecuri-ty numbers need to be kept record of in the event of theft. The five buildings on this site will all need to have alarm systems installed to nelp deter burglary. Recommend that every exterior door be solid-core, or reinforced glass , gith heavy-duty dead-bolt locks . Security lighting needs to be in place over every door way as well as in the parking lots . Businesses in this area of town report a high number of burglaries and XS4XX4P1M- 7PggPMP Auto- Theft, and Thefts From Vehicles . The space between buildings A and B will need extra lighting, and the landscapin, in this area will need to be low to the ground. Since this is a narrow passageway for pedestrians , extra care needs to be taken with visibility, to enhance the personal safety of path users . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable imp, :t or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sygl azure of Director Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City .,. .Benton Department of Planning/Building/I ;Works r ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH =ET • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p�v�s COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 148,834 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00- cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on thi southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS •Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mo, Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Infc nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec ssary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet , i/lizu at/ll /vai ,,(zrnio-d-c74 7/alg- ACd--- - B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS >°C:a - 12cZ/-1,121X, aVte r2V0 • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS r•. / '3k _____ We have reviewed this application with •articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable imps t or areas r-- why-dditional information is neede• to properly assess this proposal. I 0 ���%I! //2 ---- Signatureiro Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: MAY 22, 1998 TO: JENNIFER HENNING FROM: NEIL WATTS AM‘/ SUBJECT: BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK- LUA-98-075 SITE PLAN APPLICATION REVIEW We have reviewed the above listed project and have the following comments: WATER • There are existing water mains within the adjacent streets which will provide adequate flow for domestic and fire protection purposes. The site development will require the construction of a 10" water main loop and additional hydrants through the site to meet fire flow requirements. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. SEWER • Sewer is available to the site. No main extensions will be required. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. DRAINAGE • Storm drainage improvements will be required with the development of the site, per the standards of the King County Surface Water Manual and water quality treatment. Per prior agreement with the City, no detention is required for development of this site, as adequate storage capacity is provided in the forebay of the Black River pump station for this property development. • We have reviewed the conceptual drainage report and drainage plan submitted with the application for the site development. The report and plan are satisfactory, exceeding the requirements of City Code for development of this parcel. Sufficient space has been set aside . MAY 22, 1998 PAGE 2 in the site plan for the proposed development for a wetpond necessary to satisfy the water quality requirements of the site development. • System Development Charges will be required for development of the site. A fee calculation sheet will be provided separately. STREET IMPROVEMENTS • The streets adjacent to this site are fully improved with pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and street drainage improvements. No additional street improvements are required. • Per prior agreement with the City, no transportation mitigation fee will be required for development of this site due to prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Ave SW, Naches Ave SW and SW 7th St and participation by the applicant in LID #332 for approximately $3 million. City,,. ,.enton Department of Planning/Building/F_._ ._ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH, ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:liAprh tCVI/ COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TATA ING =NYtxNIOIN PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th Street 2 2 1998 SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansiongrass)i41918,M�q��t. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 building totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the build igs (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commE ctal, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approxi lately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,001 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mor Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Info nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec ;sat), Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LlghVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ee. sect, c ft 1,41cn-1(, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impa t or areas where additional information is needed// to properly assess this proposal. A)d Mize 5/2 2/ 8 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 Citj, . .?eaton Department of Planning/Building/f__.._ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH ET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: muott OY}afiovL COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 rp, LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW& SW 7th StreetiirAir � O/y SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A ; �Cr BUILDING AREA(new expansion grossjl.j 8,834 sq.ft4Z98 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildf1, totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two of the builc n ' (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for comm( -cial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approx nately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on thi southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mo, Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Ink -nation Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Nec ssary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS r S-ee cepuvLde wtevt4O We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable imp t or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. A ,) ,",1 il2z. hb Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City ?enton Department of Planning/Building/I _....3 Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SH SET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: SIA,rf MCI VO.t r COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 03, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM DATE CIRCULATED: MAY 19, 1998 APPLICANT: LPN Architects (Royce Berg) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: Black River Corporate Park WORK ORDER NO: 78385 • LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW &SW 7th Street C/rt, SITE AREA: 12.53 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A OF AREh?pN BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,,834 sq.ft. 2/7 79 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre st 1aj$h 5 buildin , totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures (A, D, and E) would be one story in height. Two trf-tie bull. ngs (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for cbhaaic pal, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approx ffittely 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,00 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on thf southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review, site plan approval, and a shoreline substantial development permit. • A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS • Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Mor, Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS S e/Oa I t -,2 114e1,140 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable imps t or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ej- ( 9( 5/z�`� Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 06/11/98 14:49 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architecture 4001 ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING, INC. ROYCE A. BERG,A.I.A.,PRINCIPAL PHONE: (206)583-8030 Y. KEN K.CHIN, PRINCIP?,L FAX: (206)583-0708 1535 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH,SUITE D SEATTLE,WA 98134 FAX COVER SHEET TO: JENNIFER TOTH -IENNING DATE: 6-11-98 COMPANY: CITY OF RENTON PROJECT: BLACK RIVER TIME: PROJECT NO: 96042 FAX NUMBER: (425) 277-4455 NO. OF PAGES: 5 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WILL/WILL NOT BE SENT BY MAIL COPY OF BLASTING INFORMATION OCCURRING AT BLACK RIVER QUARRY. THESE ARE ALSO IN CITY RECORDS AS ADJACENT OWNER. F.Y.I. ON TYPES OF ACTIVITIES CURRENTLY OCCURING IN THIS AREA 0� c9 Ili )(1 '4 IR FROM: RO' BERG SENT BY: If you do not rr3ceive the indicated pages, please call (206) 583-8030. 06/11/98 14:49 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architecture 1A002 Storieway Rock & Recycling 1915 Maple Valley Highway Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (425) 226-1000 Fax: (425) 228-4924 MEMORANDUM MAY 2 9 1998 Date: May 20, 199E From: Stoneway RoA & Recycling To: Owners of Properties Lying Within a 1/2-Mile Radius.of Our Black River Quarry Property Subject: Notice of the Next Planned Blasting at the Black River Quarry Stoneway Rock & R ecyclin isthequarrying g q rry g operator of the Black River Quarry located at 6900 S. Beacon Coal Mine Road in the Renton area of unincorporated King County. The Quarry has been in operation since the 1940s and rock blasting has been conducted in the Quarry over the decades up through the most recent blasting, which was performed on July 7, 1997. Because of recent Ki ng County regulations, at the request of the Site Development Services Section of the Ki hg County Department of Development and Environmental Services we are sending conies of this notice to the record taxpayers of all parcels of real property lying within a 1/2-mile radius of our Black River Quarry Property. We hereby notify you that our blasting contractor, McCallum Rock Drilling, Inc., plans to conduct its next rock blasting at the Quarry on May 27, 1998 and May 29, 1998, between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. We also hereby notify you that additional blasts will also occur from time-to-time on ;,ubsequent dates. Should you have any questions regarding the blasting, please phone Mike Merlino at our office at (425) 226-10)0. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Ken Grubbs, Inspector, Site Development Services Section, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services D:\CF\20681001VOT CMPLVILASTINGIHALFMILE1NnTl^a nl l�IJ003 06/11/98 14:50 FAX 206 583 0708 LPG Architecture _ Sto neway Rock & Recycling 1915 Maple Valley Highway Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (425) 226-1000 Fax: (425) 228-4924 HAY 1 3 1991) MEMORANum Date: May 8, 1998 From: Stoneway Reck& Recycling To: Owners of Properties Lying Within a 1/2-Mile Radius of Our Black River Quarry Property Subject: Notice of the Next Planned Blasting at the Black River Quarry Stoneway Rock & Recycling is the quarrying operator of the BIack River Quarry located at 6900 S. Beacon Coal Mine Road in the Renton area of unincorporated King County. The Quarry has teen in operation since the 1940s and rock blasting has been conducted in the Quarry ov the decades up through the most recent blasting, which was performed on July 7, 1997. Because of recent King County regulations, at the request of the Site Development Services Section of the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services we are sending copies of this notice to the record taxpayers of all parcels of real property lying within a 1/2-mile radius of our Black River Quarry Property. We hereby notify you that our blasting contractor, McCallum Rock Drilling, Inc., plans to conduct its next rock blasting at the Qt.any on May 15, 1998 between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. We also hereby notify you that additional blasts will also occur from time-to- time on subsequent dates. Should you have any questions regarding the blasting, please phone Mike Merlino at our office at (425) 226-1000. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Ken Grubbs, Inspector, Site Development Services Section, King County Department of DeveIoprnent and Environmental Services D.\G\206E100 I UP'r-cMPL\ AsTrNG\HALrMILe\NOTIC B.DI 06/11/98 14:50 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architecture 41004 • Stoneway Rock & Recycling 1915 Maple Valley Highway APR 3 0 1S18 Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (425) 226-1000 Fax: (425) 228-4924 MEMORANDUM Date: April 29, 1998 From: Stoneway :Bock & Recycling To: Owners of Properties Lying Within a 1/2-Mile Radius of Our Black River Quarry Property Subject: Notice of the Next Planned Blasting at the Black River Quarry Stoneway Rock & Recycling is the quarrying operator of the Black River Quarry located at 6900 S. Beacon Coal Mine Road in the Renton area of unincorporated King County. The Quarry has been in operation since the 1940s and rock blasting has been conducted in the Quarry over the decades up through the most recent blasting, which was performed on July 7, 1997. Because of recent King County regulations, at the request of the Site Development Services Section of the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services we are sending copies of this notice to the record taxpayers of all parcels of real property lying within a [/2-mile radius of our Black River Quarry Property. We hereby notify you that our blasting contractor, McCallum Rock Drilling, Inc., plans to conduct its next'rock blasting at the. Quarry on May 6, 1998 and also on May 8, 1998 between the hours of 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. We also hereby notify you that additional blasts will also occur from time-to :ime on subsequent dates. Should you have any questions regarding the blasting, please phone Mike Merlino at our office at (425) 226-1000. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Ken Grubbs, Inspector, Site Development Services Section, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services D TS206610011APT-CMPL,BLASTING\HALFM I LE\NOTICE.D 1 06/11/98 14:50 FAX 206 583 0708 LPN Architecture Im005 Stoneway Rock & Recycling 1915 Maple Valley Highway Renton, Washington 98055 Phone: (425) 226-1000 Fax: (425) 228-4924 APR 8 1996 MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 1998 From: Stoneway Rock & Recycling To: Owners of Properties Lying Within a 1/2-Mile Radius of Our Black River Quarry Property Subject: Notice of the Next Planned Blasting at the Black River Quarry Stoneway Rock & Recycling is the quarrying operator of the Black River Quarry located at 6900 S. Beacon Coal Mine Road in the Renton area of unincorporated King County. The Quarry has been in operation since the 1940s and rock blasting has been conducted in the Quarry over the decades up through the most recent blasting, which was performed on July 7, 199:'. Because of recent ;(ing County regulations, at the request of the Site Development Services Section of the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services we are sending copies of this notice to the record taxpayers of all parcels of real property lying within a 1,2-mile radius of our Black River Quarry Property. We hereby notify you that our blasting contractor, McCalIum Rock Drilling, Inc., plans to conduct its next rock blasting at the Quarry on April 14, 1998 between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. We also hereby notify you that additional blasts will also occur from time-to- time on subsequent dates. If you wish to be put on a mailing list to be mailed notice of each date of future scheduled rock blasting at the Black River Quarry a few days in advance, please mail or Fax us a note at the address set forth at the top of this letter requesting to be put on the list. If we don't receive anything back from you, we will assume that you do not wish to placed on the list and you will not be sent any further notices. Should you have any questions regardingthe blasting, please phone Mike Merlino at our office at (425) 226-1000. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Ken Grubbs, Inspector, Site Development Services Section, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services I'_ofal R61\APT-CMPLkaI.AC'1INMIALFMII.Evo ricF DI %% © CITY OF RENTON =LL Planning/Building/Public Works --J Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 918 SLD_ gb3 . 86E EZ cc • CITY OF RENTON' CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the /01H day of MAY , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 1J01I0E OF APPUCA-11013 documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Mr. James Harris City of Kent Mr. Charles Wlttenberg City of Newcastle King Co. - Dev. & Env. Svcs. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers Seattle District Office Mr. Jack Pace City of TukWila Bob Fahl U.S. West : PPtR'(IES OF RED (Ppt AIYCIHEa I,Ist) (Signature of Sender) &mitt' L. ,fiona.. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that eeitAi,c,2 _ 7t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: `---2 716_.c. o-)D iceli2 \--' kt /',,-�Cjra Notary Publ and for the State of 1J fhington Notary (Print) AIA ii ybj vw Limiccc My appointment experes:i;i IRES 6/29/99 Project Name: Welt t1og scre Project Number: WA,g$.0I ECF, 5A-14,Sm NOTARY.DOC BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK PROJECT NO. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM PARTIES OF RECORD Ms. Linda Baker Ms. Susan McClellan Ms. Suzanne Krom 1202 North 35th Street 22826 - 105th Ave. SW 4715-1/2 - 36th Ave. SW Renton, WA 98056 Vashon, WA 98070 Seattle, WA 98126-2715 Mr. Jerry Holmes Mr. Gerry Adams Ms. Trudy Thomas 408 Index Place NE 8315 Lake City Way NE#919 2350 Eaglemount Road Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98115 Port Townsend, WA 9836E Mr. Tom Malthrus Mr. Ted Mallory Mr. Bruce Harpham 18713 - 102nd Avenue SE 7524 South 135th Street 2518 South 361st Street Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98178 Federal Way, WA 98003-7 71 Ms. Helen Ross Mr. Don Norman Ms. Cheryl White Seattle Audubon Society 1209 Washington Avenue Rainier Audubon Society 8050 - 35th Ave. NE New Orleans, LA 70130 PO Box 778 Seattle, WA 98115 Auburn, WA 98071 Mr. Range Bayer Dr. Dee Boersma PO Box 1467 Department of Zoology Newport, OR 97365 Box 351800 Univ. of Wash. Seattle, WA 98195 . • • • . . . . . l5•i`i'` .^S`T'P'^. S`Sc Sc Sc.c Sc is vyn .LAc isx)c..cac.cscx),i).cyvK)cmy);( XY,Ca,YX***);cMX)c*****T. ** .* BATCH NUMBER: ES COMMENT! * CUSTOMER NAME LPN HRt.HITECTS 4?”'•"1:"t=t,rY:Y I;<'?'ti't 'Y 9yt 1'rz S'+.r'.k yt t? ,M-e>.....S>.c *-1.',S-S”.<Tt..S:` <- -n `. -:�'..• :<. .`'L'��L ><._•�i 132304-9087-01 : 132304-9089-09 RIVERTECH ASSC `LTD PARTNER5561384 CITY OF RENTON 543919 PO BOX 41 ATTN: A/P EDMONDS WA, 98020 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 242304-9006-06 242304-9097-06 KING COUNTY 701724 KING COUNTY 701724 DEPT OF NATURAL, RESOURCES DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 506 2ND AVE 0708 M/S 7ST 506 2ND AVE . 0708 M/S 7ST SEATTLE WA 98104 SEATTLE WA 913104 ` 242304-9098-05 242304-9111-08 CITY OF RENTON 359999 KING COUNTY 70' 724 200 MILL AVE S . DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RENTON WA 98055 506 2ND AVE 0708 M/S 7ST SEATTLE WA 98104 242304-9112-07 918800-0070-00 CITY OF RENTON 360558 L-0 RENTON INC , • 770474 200 MILL AVE S 600 UNIVERSITY ST STE 282D RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 911101 918800-0130-08 918800-0140-06 CITY OF RENTON 609700 BLACKMER J V' LLC PHASE III -67424 PO _BOX' 626 C/O MARTIN SMITH INC RENTON WA 98057 615 2ND AVE STE 400 SEATTLE WA 98104 918800-0145-01 918800-0150-03 BLACKRIVER 800 672524 CITY OF RENTON ' 490013 C/O CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD INC 200 MILL AVE S 700 5TH AVE 02700 RENTON WA 9:055 SEATTLE WA 98104 c . CIT' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department 4=111u1 Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor May 19, 1998 Mr. Royce Berg LPN Architects & Planners 1535 Fourth Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park Project No. LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM Dear Mr. Berg: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on June 16, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 277-6186, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Je ifer Toth Henning Project Manager cc: Black River-Rivertech L.L.C./Owners ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 :; This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer C!) NOTICE OF APPLICATION • PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 19,1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM/BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK DESCRIPTION: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings,totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures(A,D,and E)would be one story In height. Two of the buildings(B and C)would be two-story In height. The proposal would result In 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial,office,business service,research and development,assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years.The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site.An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast comer of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site(2.04 acres)would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review,site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. • GENERAL LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Geotechnical Study;Wetland Report;Traffic Study;Visual Assessment PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) ,• Site Plan Approval(SA-H) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 MITI Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 06,1998.This matter is also scheduled fora public hearing on July 14.1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building, • 200 Mill Ave.South. If you are Interested In attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division, (425)277.5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)277.6186.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: May 08,1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MAY 19,1998 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: MAY 19,1998 T C:pi s - p r,,.-., k t , IT :/ ` ,_,. I GENNWLOT,DOC kd'' - _ liu IKlirI A-1Y� Tv:. .. I, i A1,N,ii f , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on / 'Z(( /9 J8v • Signed: fizzr__,1 ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in?go.-074-0,-) ,on the .11.- day of Y /5 V -----?'2161 -11- 711.,2v)/LAJA1(( MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 O(` Y O� AR• ..0 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: MAY 19, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-075,ECF,SA-H,SM / BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK DESCRIPTION: Royce Berg of LPN Architects has applied to develop a 12.53 acre site with 5 buildings,totaling 148,834 square feet. Three of the structures(A, D, and E)would be one story in height. Two of the buildings (B and C) would be two-story in height. The proposal would result in 148,834 square feet of floor area for commercial, office, business service, research and development, assembly and related activities. Surface parking for approximately 597 vehicles would be provided. Construction would be phased over 6 years. The proposal would include 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill that would be placed on the site. An emergent Category 3 wetland 0.07 acres in size on the southeast corner of the site would be filled. Access would be from Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) would be retained as natural area/habitat buffer. The P-1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) and a heron rookery are located to the north/northwest of the site. The project requires environmental review,site plan approval,and a shoreline substantial development permit. GENERAL LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW&SW 7th Street STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Geotechnical Study;Wetland Report;Traffic Study;Visual Assessment PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA-H) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Jennifer Toth Henning,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 06.1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on July 14.1998,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building, 200 Mill Ave.South. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division, (425)277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Ms.Henning at(425)277-6186. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically • become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: May 08, 1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MAY 19, 1998 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: MAY 19, 1998 ,, 1 ..- , N: „1'..1-.1....•,; •==.7: •,:zgyk-%,‘,..zi .,...A1, i...,i4,-.71-1.,;,.;_.,,L=4: ,.0,T, -" ,-A? ,60 a .., '''—'.-;.,-- '.;-- ' — --%.:1, ------'7— :.., � _•.. (11'1 i t h 't ;jam .• '• i'j i`,� `,•; '� •;` •. _ ;4) . _ J%•'" a� • 11.'`.te` i GENMALOT.DOC 4 ;` "^_' "c :;I� , ' -.. R�f1t.vU 1:1 Y, � •[Mgp0,p00 O.lµ YY ers SITE PLAN REVIEW O -.1M l{-rr' CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION SITE PLAN REVIEW OWNER(S); PROJECT INFORMATION (con ) Note: If there is more than one legal owner,please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: BLACKRIVER—RIVERTECH L.L.C. VACANT C/O ALPER NORTHWEST PROPOSED LAND USES: ADDRESS: 700 5TH AVE. , SUITE 6000 OFFICE CITY: ZIP: SEATTLE 98104 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY 206/624-9223 — DEAN ERICKSON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CONTACT PERSON/APPLICANT SAME NAME: LPN ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS/ROYCE A BERG EXISTING ZONING: ADDRESS: C.O. 1535 4TH AVE. S. , SUITE D PROPOSED ZONING: CITY: ZIP: SAME SEATTLE 98134 • SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): TELEPHONE NUMBER: ±546,026 SF (12.53 ACRES) 206/583-8030 LOTS 1 ,2, & 3 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT VALUE: $5, 500,000000 PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: BLACKRIVER "TRACT B" LOTS 1 ,2, & 3 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: NO OAKESDALE AVE SW AND SW 7TH STREET IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ADJACENT WETLAND 918800-0143 SITE PLAN REVIEW LEGAL DESCRI ON OF PROPERTY' (Attachsep a sheet if nedessary) SEE ATTACHED TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application: ypes that''apply==Clty;staff will determine fees _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _ TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ X_ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ap�fC>,-" _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER S FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT S BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: X SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 5:fil1", REVISION S AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP:< • I, (Print Name) IDLttII ‘ declare that I am (please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein c ntainegd�and he information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ) LACKRIV�R — RIVERTECH L.L.C. By: Blackriver Holdings, Inc., Its: Manager ```��tt C RO,,��� J ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me,� f �Qb�ii� i� S`{ �/ for th State ofV�GS residing at �`� '0i'• � � , on the �d �/:O`r NOTARY Sir;O (Name of Owner/Repr sentative) Mal 19 N r 13'; IIL,'U - (1) 1-• pueLIC o•Z� C �+ arx� t���-9 ti°•ham: (Signature of Owner/Representative) J. Pek.SRE..�9'•�a��`� (Signature of Notary Etiblic) , F S :(This sec ao � pleted by Crty Staff ) City File Number'. .S 'R SHPL CU LLA PP FP TP SP RUMP V AAD W SPUD >S SME :MHP BSP A CPA TOTAL SEES `$ -^�` TOTAL POSTAGE PRO IDED $ , REVISED 2/95 BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 (206)624-9223/FAX 382-9752 CONSENT OF DIRECTOR OF BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS, INC. Pursuant to RCW 23.B.08.210, the undersigned, constituting the sole Director of Blackriver Holdings, Inc., a Washington corporation (the "Corporation"), acting without a meeting in his capacity as Director, DO HEREBY CONSENT to the following corporate resolution and DO HEREBY CONSENT to the taking of the action therein set forth, said consent being given before the taking of said action. RESOLVED, that Kenneth V. Bellamy and Dean R. Erickson, the President and Vice President of Blackriver Holdings, Inc., as Member of Blackriver-Rivertech, L.L.C., are authorized to enter into, execute, affix the seal, deliver and acknowledge any and all agreements, contracts, assignments, transfers, easements, quit claim deeds, covenants, indentures, discharges, satisfactions, mortgages, guaranties, promissory notes, charges of real property and any ancillary necessary documents that arise with respect to Blackriver Corporate Park Tract B and the Rivertech Parcel. The execution of this Consent shall constitute a written waiver of any notice required by the Washington Business Corporation Act and this Corporation's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. DATED: May 13 , 1998 Kenneth V. Bellamy, Director r I ... . , ARCHITECTURE& PLA......JG, INC. C;i i Lt- 1-,`i,_ MAY 0 8 1388 ROYCE A. BERG,A.I.A., PRINCIPAL PHO Y. KEN K. CHIN, PRINCIPAL FAX: (206)583-0708 1535 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE D SEATTLE,WA 98134 TRANSMITTAL To: Jennifer Toth Henning Date: May 5, 1998 Senior Planning City of Renton Project: Blackriver- Tract B 200 Mill Ave., South Renton, WA 98055 Project No: 96042 Re: Site Plan Approval BlackRiver Tract B, Lots 1, 2, & 3 Description: *Bound Copy 1 Original - Master Application & Check application fees $3.003.84 Copy of Cost Breakdown 1 Set - Mailing Labels 2 Copies - Notorized list of surrounding property owners 3 Copies - Legal Documents (covenants & easements) 11 Copies -Neighborhood Detail Map 1"=200' * 11 Copies -Environmental Checklist & Exhibits 1-10: 1 - Project Description Narrative 2 - Chronological History 3 - Vicinity / Legal Description 4 - Key Map 5 - Wetland Delineation Report - NRC 6 - Wetpond Design Narrative - BRH 7 - Traffic Generation Report - Maclssac 8 - Visual Assessment - Heron - NRC 9 - Tree Height Screening - NRC 10 - Drainage Technical Report - BRH Blackriver-Tract B - Site Ap[ �I May 5, 1998 Page 2 of 2 11 Copies - Site Plan Approval Package - Plans, elevations & site Sheets A-2 to A-10 Schematic grading plan & Utilities plan - Sheet Cl Landscaping plans/Details - Sheets L1 - L3 Tree Inventory/Clearing Plan - Sheet A-1 1 PMT each - 8 1/2" x 11" Neighborhood Detail Map & Site Plan Approval Sheets Al - A10, Cl & C2 & L1 - L3. dated 5/5/98 1 Copy each - 8 1/2" x 11" Neighborhood Detail Map & Site Plan Approval Sheets 1 - 10, Cl, & L1 - L3 1 PMT - 4" x 6" Reduction Neighborhood Detail Map 1 each Colored Display Maps - Neighborhood Detail Map. Site Plan Landscape Plans & Building Elevations 1 Copy - Affidavit of Public Information Sign - to follow Remarks: Via: ❑ Sent per Your Request ® For Distribution ❑ Mail ® For Your Use/Reference LI For Your Records ❑ Courier ® For Review/Comment ❑ Other ® Hand Deliver ❑ For Your Signature ❑ Overnight UPS ❑ For Your Approval ❑ Hold for Pick Up By: o ce A. Berg CC: Dean Erickson, Alper Northwest • C I i 1.1` 1-.2 . .. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: my 0 Blackriver Holdings,Inc. 11 Cr 4-.: C 700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 6000 Seattle,WA 98104 Attn: Dean R. Erickson . • Document Title: Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Reciprocal Easements Declarant: Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. Grantee: Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. Legal Description: Abbreviated Legal Description: Full Legal Description: See Exhibit A attached Assessor's Tax Parcel Nos.: Reference Nos. of Documents Released or Assigned: Not applicable DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS This Declaration is made as of , 1998 by BLACKRIVER- RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company ("Declarant"). RECITALS: A. Declarant is the owner of the real property legally described in Exhibit A attached, which consists of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of City of Renton Short Plat No. (the-"Property"). B. Declarant desires to create certain easements in, to, over and across the Property to assure the proper and efficient development and operation of the Property, to create provisions for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Common Areas, the buildings and the other improvements now or hereafter existing on the Property, and to make certain other covenants and agreements as more specifically set forth in this Declaration. 1650\083:4/I/98 -1- DECLARATION.2 ABASSEIALPER\B LACKRIV ER AGREEMENT: Declarant hereby covenants, agrees and declares that all of the Property, and the buildings and other improvements now or hereafter constructed thereon, are and will be held, developed, used, sold, conveyed, leased and encumbered subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements, all of which shall be binding upon and benefit Declarant and all future owners of all or any interest in the Property, and their respective successors, legal representatives and assigns. All of the provisions of this Declaration shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title and interest in the Property or any part thereof. 1. Definitions. (a) Building. The term "Building" means any building, structure or other improvement now or hereafter constructed on the Property. (b) Common Area. The term "Common Area" means the portions of the Property now or hereafter set aside as sidewalks, roadways, parking areas, driveways and drive throughs, and all common utility lines, sewers, wet ponds and drainage facilities, and other common systems serving the Property. (c) Mortgage. The term "Mortgage" means any recorded first mortgage or first deed of trust encumbering the fee interest of an Owner of a Parcel. (d) Mortgagee. The term "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee or beneficiary under a Mortgage, and if applicable, a fee owner or lessor or sublessor of any Parcel which is the subject of a lease under which any Owner becomes a lessee in a so called "sale and lease back" or"assignment and sublease back" transaction. (e) Owner. The term "Owner" means any person or entity holding fee title ownership in a Parcel. Whenever an Owner transfers fee title ownership of a Parcel to another person or entity, the transferring Owner shall be released and discharged from the obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration, and the new Owner shall be responsible for all such obligations thereafter accruing under this Declaration and shall be bound by this Declaration. (f) Parcel. The term "Parcel" means each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Property. (g) Parking Area. The term "Parking Area" means those portions of the Common Area now or hereafter used for (i) vehicular ingress to and egress from the Property or any Parcel from adjacent public streets, (ii) vehicular movement in and about the Property, 16501083:4/1/98 -2- DECLARATION.2 ABASS EIALPERIB LACKRIV ER and (iii) the parkingof motor vehicles, together with all parkingimprovements to the g P Common Area which are at any time erected thereon, including interior roadways, curbs and landscaping within or adjacent to such areas. 2. Use Restrictions. (a) No Owner shall commit nor allow to be committed on its Parcel any act which disturbs the quiet enjoyment of any occupant of the Property, nor shall any Owner use or permit its Parcel or the Common Areas or any part thereof to be used for any purpose which is in violation of any applicable municipal, county, state or federal law, ordinance or regulation, including without limitation laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the use, storage and disposal of hazardous or toxic wastes and materials. (b) Any Building hereafter constructed on a Parcel must be constructed within the building areas for such Parcel designated on the site plan attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B (the "Site Plan"). No Building constructed on a Parcel may exceed the total building area for such Building set forth on the Site Plan. 3. Easement for Ingress and Egress Over and Across Common Areas. Each Owner, their tenants, and their respective guests and invitees, shall have (a) a nonexclusive easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, over and across the Parking Areas, and (b) a nonexclusive easement for motor vehicle parking upon, over and across the Parking Areas. Such ingress and egress and parking rights shall be used in accordance with such reasonable regulations as the Owners may from time to time specify, including but not limited to, speed limits, weight limits and other requirements designed to promote the safety of all vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, each Owner shall have the right to designate a reasonable number of the parking stalls on its Parcel as reserved for the tenants of the Improvements on its Parcel. 4. Easements for Utilities. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements under, through and across the Common Area for the installation, maintenance, removal and replacement of water drainage systems or structures, water mains, sewers, water sprinkler system lines, telephones, electrical and communications conduits or systems, gas mains, and other utilities and service easements. All such utilities shall be installed and maintained below the ground level or surface of the Property, except where underground installation is inappropriate. The installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication line shall be done in a manner which complies with all applicable provisions of this Declaration, and the Owner undertaking the installation, maintenance, removal or replacement of any utility or communication line shall cause the effected portion of the Common Area to be replaced or repaired to a condition at least as good as prior to the applicable work having been commenced, and such Owner must pay all costs associated.with such work. 1650\083:4/1/98 -3- DECLARATI .2 ABASSE\ALPER\B LACKRI VER 5. Drainage Easements. Each Owner shall have non-exclusive easements, under, through and across the Common Areas and the Parcels for reasonable drainage purposes. 6. Maintenance of Common Area. (a) Each party shall maintain the Common Area (other than the "Facility" (described below)) located on its Parcel in good condition and repair, clean, free of rubbish and other hazards to persons using such area, properly lighted and landscaped. Each party shall pay its own costs and expenses with respect to repairing and maintaining the Common Area (other than the "Facility" (described below)) located on its Parcel, except as otherwise provided in this Declaration. (b) The wet pond to be located on Lot 1 in the approximate location shown on the Site Plan is intended to be part of the storm drainage and water quality system (the "Facility") serving the entire Property. The Owner of Lot 1 shall be responsible for maintaining the Facility. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of all costs incurred by the Owner of Lot 1 in maintaining the Facility. For purposes of this subparagraph, an Owner's pro rata share of the costs incurred by the Owner of Lot 1 in maintaining the Facility shall be based on the ratio of the maximum building area allowed on its Parcel, as set forth on the Site Plan, to the total building area permitted on all of the Parcels, as set forth on the Site Plan. Each Owner shall pay its pro rata share of any costs incurred by the Owner of Lot 1 within fifteen (15) days after receiving written notice from the Owner of Lot 1 of any costs so incurred, and such supporting information evidencing the costs incurred and work done as an Owner may reasonably request. Any Owner who fails to make a payment to the Owner of Lot 1 pursuant to this subparagraph shall be deemed a "Defaulting Party" for purposes of Paragraph 8 below, and the Owner of Lot 1 shall have all of the rights of a "Nondefaulting Party" as set forth in Paragraph 8 below. 7. Indemnification. Each Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other Owner and their agents, employees, partners, tenants and invitees, from and against all claims, liabilities, causes of action, costs and expenses, arising from or out of any activity, work or thing done, permitted or suffered by the indemnifying party, its agents, guests, tenants, contractors or invitees, in or about the Property pursuant to this Declaration, including the cost of making any and all repairs necessary to the improvements to the Common Areas due to damage caused by the acts or omissions of the indemnifying party, its agents, guests, tenants, contractors or invitees. The foregoing indemnity shall include all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of any such claim or any action or proceeding brought thereon. The foregoing indemnity specifically covers actions brought by the indemnifying party's own employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if losses, liabilities, damages, liens, costs and expenses so arising are caused by the concurrent negligence of Owners, or their respective employees, agents, invitees or licensees, the indemnifying party 1650\083:4/1/98 -4- DECLARATION.2 ABASSE\ALPER\BLACKRIVER shall be obligated to indemnify the other party only to the extent of the indemnifying party's own negligence or that of its officers, agents, employees, tenants, guests or invitees. 8. Failure to Maintain. If an Owner fails to perform its maintenance or repair obligations under this Declaration (a "Defaulting Party"), and such failure is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice from any other owner (the "Nondefaulting Party"), the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to perform such maintenance and repairs as it deems reasonably necessary at the cost and expense of the Defaulting Party; provided, notwithstanding the foregoing, if the failure by the Defaulting Party creates an emergency or perceived emergency (i.e., an eminent threat of danger to person or property), the Nondefaulting Party shall have the right to immediately, without prior notice to the Defaulting Party, do such things as it deems reasonably necessary to remove the threat. Any costs or expenses incurred by the Nondefaulting Party pursuant to this paragraph shall be due and payable in full within ten(10) days after written demand on the Defaulting Party, together with interest from the date of demand until the date paid at a per annum interest rate of twelve percent(12%). The Nondefaulting Party shall be entitled to a lien on the Parcel owned by the Defaulting Party for any amount due and payable to the Nondefaulting Party which is not paid when due. Such lien shall be a continuing lien upon the Parcel of the Defaulting Party, and may be foreclosed in accordance with the statutory provisions regarding judicial foreclosure of mortgages in the State of Washington. Any such liens shall be subordinate to the lien of any present or future mortgage or deed of trust on a Parcel, which was made in good faith and for value, and which was recorded prior to the recordation of a lis pendens or other notice of foreclosure of the lien. The sale or transfer of any Parcel shall not effect the lien, but the sale or transfer of any Parcel pursuant to judicial or non judicial foreclosure proceedings or by deed or other transfer in lieu of foreclosure shall extinguish the lien. 9. Construction of Buildings and Improvements. So long as Declarant is the Owner of a Parcel any Building or other improvement constructed on a Parcel must first be approved in writing by Declarant. 10. Not a Public Dedication. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to be a dedication of any portion of the Property to the general public or for any public use. It is the intention of Declarant that the use of the Property be limited to and for the purposes herein expressed, always under the ownership and control of the Owners. The right of the public to make use of the Property is by permission and subject to control of the Owners. The Owners, by mutual agreement, may periodically restrict ingress to and egress from the Property to prevent a prescriptive public easement from arising by reason of continued public use, provided any such restriction shall be continued only for such duration as is required under applicable law to prevent the creation of any such prescriptive public easement. 1650\083:4/1/98 -5- DECLARAT1O1V.2 ABASSEIALPER\BLACKRIVER 11. Mortgagee Protection. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, no lien created under this Declaration, nor any breach of this Declaration, nor the enforcement of any provision of this Declaration shall defeat or render invalid the rights of any Mortgagee under any Mortgage,made in good faith and for value. (b) A Mortgagee (or any other person or entity) acquiring title to a Parcel through foreclosure of a Mortgage, or by a transfer in lieu of foreclosure of a Mortgage, shall acquire title to the affected Parcel free and clear of any lien authorized by or arising out of the provisions of this Declaration, to the extent any such lien secures the payment of any assessment or charge due but unpaid prior to the final conclusion of any such proceeding or transfer, including the expiration date of any period of redemption unless a notice of the lien was properly recorded prior to the date the applicable Mortgage was recorded. After the foreclosure of a security interest in a Parcel, any unpaid assessment shall continue to exist and remain a personal obligation of the Owner against whose Parcel the same was levied. Any liens provided for in this Declaration shall be subordinate to the lien of any Mortgage. The sale or transfer of any Parcel or any interest therein shall not affect the liens provided for in this Declaration except as otherwise specifically provided for herein, and in the case of a transfer of a Parcel for the purpose of realizing upon a security interest, liens may arise against such Parcel for any assessment or charge coming due after the date of the foreclosure. 12. Duration. The easements, restrictions and covenants set forth in this Declaration shall be perpetual, unless terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. The easements, restrictions and covenants of this Declaration shall not be affected in any manner by the doctrine of merger or otherwise if now or hereafter all of the Property is owned by the same person or entity. 13. Termination. The easements and covenants contained in this Declaration may be terminated by written agreement signed by all the Owners. 14. Covenants Running With Land. The easements, convents, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration shall be easements, covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be binding upon the present and future owners of all or any portion of the Property, and their respective successors and assigns. 15. Non-Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Declaration shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, whether of the same of any other covenant, condition or restriction. 16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of a suit, arbitration or other action or legal proceeding to enforce any provision of this Declaration or to collect any money due hereunder 1650\083:4/1/98 -6- DECLARATION.2 AB AS S E\AL P E R\B LA C KRI V E R or to foreclose a lien, the unsuccessful party in such suit or action shall pay to the substantially prevailing party all costs and expenses, including title reports and all attorneys' fees that the substantially prevailing party has incurred in connection with the suit or action (including without limitation proceedings in bankruptcy court), in such amounts as the court may deem to be reasonable therein, and also including all costs, expenses and attorneys' fee s incurred in connection with any appeal from the decision of a trial court or any intermediate appellate court 17. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements or provisions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other of the same, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. 18. Notices. All notices, demands or other communications ("Notices")required or otherwise given pursuant to this Declaration shall be in writing. Notices given by mail shall be sent postage prepaid by certified or registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed given three (3) business days after the date of mailing thereof, or on the date of actual receipt, if sooner. Notices shall be addressed to the last known address of the addressees. Notice to any Owner may be given at any Parcel owned by such Owner, provided, however, that an Owner may from time to time by Notice to the other Owners designate such other place or places or individuals for the receipt of future Notices. If there is more than one Owner of a Parcel,Notice to any one such Owner shall be sufficient. 19. Applicable Law. This Declaration shall be construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Dated as of the day and year first written above. GRANTOR: BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company By: BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS,INC., a Washington corporation By Its By Its 1650\083:4/1/98 -7- DECLARAT1O14.2 ABASS E\ALPER\B LACKRJV ER STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 1998,before me, the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared and , known to me to be the and , respectively, of BLACKRIVER HOLDINGS, INC., a Washington corporation, the Manager of BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, the limited liability company that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company, for the purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before me and making this acknowledgment is the person whose true signature appears on this document. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in the certificate above written. Signature Print Name NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at My commission expires 1650\083:4/I/98 -8- DECLARATION.2 ABASSE\ALPER\B LACKRIVER • •- r TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 14450 N.E. 29TH PLACE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 Prepared for: Transnation No . 866376 Customer Reference : ALPER NORTHWEST, INC Escrow No. Seller --- 700 5TH AVE #6000 Buy Borrower --- SEATTLE, WA 98104 / y.11?_h^` Attn: DEAN ERICKSON By '� /i For/service l on this order cal : (206) 4if-8$89/1-800-441-770�1 JOHN 1 JONES, DAVID P. CAMPBELL or"MARK 5 . NIKLASON (FAX # (2067 646-8593) SECOND COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1998 at 8 : 00 A.M. 1 . Policy or policies to be issued: Amount ALTA Owner' s Policy TO BE DETERMINED Premium (SEE NOTE 1) Tax Extended Policy Premium Tax Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED (SEE NOTE 2) 2 . . Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: BLACKRIVER-RIVERTECH L.L.C. , A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 3 . The land referred to in this commitment is described as follow- : THAT PORTION OF TRACT B OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF BOTH OAKESDALE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8702100643 , AND WESTERLY OF NACHES AVENUE SOUTHWEST AS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8702100644, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CIry MAY 0 •E� { Order No. 866376 SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENTS . Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS . Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior ts the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record th= estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment . B. Standard exceptions set forth in inside of back cover. C. Special exceptions : 1 . Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82 .45 and subsequent amendments thereto. As of the date herein, the tax rate for said property is . 0178 . 2 . General Taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty an. statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No . Year Billed Paid Balance 918800-0143-03 1998 $25, 216 . 35 $0 . 00 $25, 216 . 35 The levy code for the property herein described is 2110 for 1998 . 3 . Special Taxes (Drainage) , as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on Novembe , 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 918800-0143-03 1998 $163 . 01 $0 . 00 $163 . 01 4 . Conservation (CON) Service Charge, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Billed Paid Balance 918800-0143-03 1998 $5 . 00 $0 . 00 $5 . 00 Page 2 Order No. 86'376 5 . Liability for Surface Water Management (SWM) Service Charge, if any, which are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls . • 6 . ASSESSMENT: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $810, 142 . 01 INTEREST: 7 . 9, FROM: September 18 , 1988 ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS : 15 INSTALLMENTS PAID: 9 INSTALLMENTS DELINQUENT: 0 NEXT INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT: September 18 , 1998 LEVIED BY: City of Renton FOR: Street improvements L. I .D. NO. : 332 ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT NO. : 1-B NOTE: Said amounts are according to Resolution No. 3809, recorded under Recording No. 9105091392 . 7 . ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER . ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY Drainage District No. 1 or No. 10 . 8 . ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENT OR CHARGES, AND LIABILITY FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENTS OR CHARGES BY City of Renton. 9 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: Storm sewer AREA AFFECTED: Portion of old Black River (whic lies within 2nd Supplemental Map of Renton Shorelands) RECORDING NO. : 6607884 10 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: Underground electric transmission and/or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: Portions as described therein an includes other property RECORDING NO. : 8708100852 11 . AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: July 22, 1992 RECORDING NO. : 9207222432 REGARDING: Public access easement 12 . ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS, OR OTHER SERVITUDES, if any, disclosed by plat of Washington Technical Center. RIGHTS OR BENEFITS, IF ANY, WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDED DOCUMENT (S) ABOVE AFFECTING LAND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A. Page 3 Order No. 866376 13 . AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: July 23 , 1990 RECORDING NO. : 9007230853 REGARDING: Common area cost-sharing agreement for Blackriver Corporate Park (Phase III, IV-A, IV-B, V, VI, VII and VIII) 14 . Any restrictions on the use of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now, or has formerly been, covered by water. 15 . Unrecorded leaseholds, if any; rights of vendors and holders of security interests on personal property installed upon the land; and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 16 . Matters relating to questions of survey, rights of parties in possession, and unrecorded liens for labor or material . An ALTA "as-built" survey must be furnished to this Company which shows the location of all improvements and reveals all encroachments, driveways and easements which encumber the property. We will review the survey and make an inspection of the premises, and will report the results of both the review and the inspection by supplemental report . 17 . ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER, ELECTRICITY, OR GARBAGE COLLECTION OR DISPOSAL, OR OTHER UTILITIES UNLESS DISCLOSED AS AN EXISTING LIEN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS . NOTE 1 : The Company has been asked to issue an owner' s policy without disclosure of the liability amount . This commitment shall be effective only when the amount of the policy committed for has been inserted in Schedule A hereof . The forthcoming policy must be issued in an amount at least equal to the full value of the estate insured in accordance with our rating schedule on file in the office of the Washington State Insurance Commissioner. The Company may have further requirements if the undisclosed amount to be insured exceeds the current assessed valuation. NOTE 2 : Title will be vested in parties yet undisclosed. When title is vested, their title will be subject to matters of record against their names . NOTE 3 : Any conveyance or mortgage by Blackriver-Rivertech L.L. C. , a Washington limited liability company, a Limited Liability Company (LLC) , must be executed by all the members and their respective spouses, or evidence submitted that certain designated members or managers have been authorized to act fo the Limited Liability Company. Page 4 r - Order No . 866376 NOTE 4 : There may be Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Security interests filed with the Department of Licensing in Olympia affecting personal property, crops or agricultural facilities which are not covered by the policy to issue. NOTE 5 : The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65 . 04 . SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. PTN OF TRACT B WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER VOL 122 PAGES 98-102 END OF EXCEPTIONS Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. BW/amh ENCLOSURES : Sketch Vesting deed Page 5 Y.----- 4° / 1 7... 1 • �Q.♦may+~0. / tier J .b 1 8 1 i 7,:. -'0I ,° I I - • I,y.o ;I I p .4. t : G -gyp - .. . 2..s.• i•ty O i:: I a I •.t-..4. •Y, :a • 4.I JIC.)l DETENTION BASIN - .4.,.. ....f �_ >7` 'L- _. i Z�• 2 p • A CENTER Ic Ti CH ► glee 1' • WpSHiNGTO a a ,; ° . „ N .,,,,,fr. i. • .., ., s y` ` 0'S• .. TRACT 8 • v G �i Z`S • J .` .: i. +.��` - , . ,gyp • i•• . ... AD 271.-4 _ _ iJ a...._ us. 4ti• .. • 4 ... -: SIN I.--"".,,, ! Z ,/= f .n •Qi '•..s ) r 1 A.4,. �� \ ; 7 _ •Ns N - J,` P ,/ •'.li / r ••_+� \�♦�\• - . t( % .'.. y s+� 1 .AO•v-.v.' �. ac r \ \\ \ _ � , 1 , —,..'c \'. 11 I. TRACT 8 ,� I 1 g LOT z o 1 \ \ A rr., roe.° c/ ,1 r, \C ' \' \\ 4. ° 1 \\ This sketch is provided, without charge, for your information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not limited to, area, dimensions, easements, en- croachments, or location of boundaries. It is not a part of, nor does it modify, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The Company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related tol this sketch. References should be made to an accurate survey for further information. • COMMITMENT FOR ISSUED BY TITLE INSURANCE TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Transnation Transnation Title Insurance Company, an Arizona Corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified ih Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate • or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein,the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See reverse side of this cover and inside of back cover for printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsements and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations on the back of this cover. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. NOTE:THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST. TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ��uE Nsu,� 4�fr�j By: LL�? �NCOlI0R11�0 `;�� PresWent a4 �S(IT.I1,1111 j Attest: L'ri►Y`C/� /9 7yyy �v l/ f/ * gRII ,r Secretary • Commitment-WA Cover Form 1004-252 (3-93) j LTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN F CY 1990 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise t reason of: 1. (a)Any law,ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to building or zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting 3r relating to (i)tts occupancy,use;or enjoyment of the land;(ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(iii)a separation in owners a or a change in th dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part or(iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinar es or governments 'r;. regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affect g the land has bee ' •• recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 5M (b)Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance res ling from a violatio =1lr,. or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. -i 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding fruit coverage any taking wh i has nmured pric to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a)whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant : ,.' (b)not known to the Company,not rewrded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by se insured daiman prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or s `-• (e)resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest insured t this policy. 4. Unenforceabilrty of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy,or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner o' -le indebtedness,tt , comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage,or claim thereof,which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is bask upon usury or am consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured ler 3r,by reason of the ;;._ - operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency or similar creditors'rights laws. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10-17-92) and ;; z AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY(10-17-92) -,' -. The following matters are expressly excluded fiun the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise b reason of 1. (a)My law,ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to building and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations)restricting,regulating,prohibitini 3r relating to(i)thi rrwipancy,use,or enjoyment of the land;(ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(iii)a separation in owners r or a change in thi dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part or(iv)environmental protection,or the affect of any violation of these laws,ordinar as or governments regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affect f the land has beer recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.(b)Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof c a notice of a defect jien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting ttre land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding from coverage any taking whi 1 has occurred pno to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. r r.' 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a)created,suffered.assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b)not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to re insured daiman and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant hearame an insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no k• ;or damage to ttx ' insured claimant (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (e)resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant t d paid value for ttx estate or interest insured by this policy. w 4. Any claim,wh ch arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state solvency,or simila 4;:.... creditors'rights laws,that is based on: (a)the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (b)the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (i)to timely record the instrurrrerit of transfer,or (ii)of suds recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. s 4;, SCHEDULE B STANDARD EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - STANDARD COVERAC .. AND CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the iewrds of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on react property or by the public records;proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such prweedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession,or claiming to be in possession thereof. 3. Fasements,liens or encumbrances,or claims thereof,which are not shown try the public records. 4. Discrepancies,conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area,encroachments,or any other facts which a correct survey of the land would disclose,and which are not shown by the public records. 5. Any lien,or right to a lien,for labor,matenal,services or equipment,or for corrtnbutions to employee benefit plans,or liens under workmen's compensation acts,not dis'osed by the public records. 6. (a)Unpatented mining claims:(b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof,(c)Indian treaty or aboriginal rights,including,but not li rted to,easements or equitable servitudes;or,(d)water rights,claims or title to water,whether or not the matters excepted under(a),(b),(c)or(d)are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use,control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation;any prohibition or limitation on the use,occupancy or impr 'ement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly ha i been covered by water. 8. Any service,installation,connection,maintenance or construction charges for sewer,water,electricity or garbage collection or disposal,or other utilities unless disclosed< an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY- EXTENDED COVERAG 1.Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that evies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or otices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements.servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3.(a)Unpatented mining claims;(b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or a original rights, including,but not limited to,easements or equitable servitudes;or,(d)water rights,claims or title to water,whether or not the matters except( I under(a),(b), (c)or(d)are shown by the public records. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limita' in on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the at I or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 5.Any service,installation,connection,maintenance or construction charges for sewer,water,electricity,or garbage collection or disposal, other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. 1004-252A II ,1� CITY OF RENT '4 Ear ,. . Consu ; . . A- . MAY 0 3 f A' � , , Inc. EE��. .. ,' ! Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (206) 643-3780/Seattle (206) 464-1584 April 9 , 1979 E-884 First City Equities 3818 Bank of California Center 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Attention: Mr. David M. Schuman Subject: Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation Earlington Park Renton, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated February 21, 1979 , this report presents the results of our preliminary soil and foundation investigation of the subject property. The purpose of this study was to determine the subsurface conditions of the site to provide preliminary recommendations to aid in feasibility studies. The scope of our work includes recommenations for site development, foundation design, construction of roadways, and utilities. This study is being undertaken prior to preparation of a final site layout. Our study indicates that construction of the proposed industrial park at the site is feasible using conventional spread and continuous footings based on a structural fill mat following an appropriate preload program for heavy loaded structures. Depending upon location and design loads, it may be possible to not surcharge certain buildings . The following sections describe the investigation and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study concerns the development of an industrial park as shown schematically on the Site Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Use Study prepared by Lance Mueller and Associates dated . First City Equities E-884 April 9 , 1979 Page two December 21, 1978. We understand that this plan is tentative and may be subject to change. Southwest Seventh Avenue will be extended westerly into the site with another road extending north from S. W. 10th Street. No definite building plans have been considered at this time. Our recommendations are based on them being typical tilt-up concrete warehouses with normal struc- tural and floor loads. We suggest that each building location be evaluated by Earth Consultants, Inc. when plans are available to ascertain the validity of our preliminary recommendations and the scope of additional investigation, if necessary. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed between March 12 and 19, 1979 . Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling fourteen borings to a maximum depth of 33 feet below the existing grade at the locations shown on the Site Plan. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig with continuous flight, hollow stem augers which were used to advance the bore holes and provide hole support during sampling operations. In addition, a series of shallow percolation tests were conducted at the loca- tions shown on the Site Plan to evaluate the possibility of reducing storm water retention quantities. The results are pre- sented on Table A. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a field engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 2, Legend. Logs of each boring are presented on Plates 3 through 16. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were per- formed at selected intervals in accordance with ASTM Test Designa- tion D 1586. In addition, a 2. 42 inch I. D. ring sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed soil samples at selected depths. Blow counts for this sampler were correlated to the SPT values. Representative SPT and undisturbed ring samples were placed in moistureproof containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Grain size classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve and mechanical analyses and Atterberg limits on representative specimens. Field unit weight and moisture determinations were performed on all undisturbed rin I Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9, 1979 Page three samples, and moisture contents on all disturbed samples. Results of density and moisture determinations, together with classifica- tions are shown at the appropriate depth on the boring logs included in this report. The results of the sieve and hydrometer analyses are illustrated on Plates 17 , 18 and 19, Grain Size Analyses. Consolidation tests were run on three representative undisturbed ring soil samples to evaluate the compression charac- teristics of the site soils. In addition, the time readings were taken at selected points of loading to evaluate the time rate of settlement. The results of these tests are shown on Plate 20, Consolidation Test Data. SITE CONDITIONS 1 Surface The tee-shaped subject site which occupies about 85 acres is located in southwestern Renton on the old Black River Flood Plain. We also included in our study about 15 acres located between the west propery line and an old drainage channel. The S. W. 7th Avenue right-of-way extends through the northern third of the site with the S . E. 10th right-of-way forming the southern site boundary. Powell Avenue S. W. forms the southeast boundary and a drainage channel is along the west. The upper tee portion of the property extends from across the drainage channel to the west and to the northerly extension of Powell Avenue S . W. on the east. The Earlington Industrial Park is immediately east of the site and a Metro sewage treatment facility is on the west side. Undeveloped land is located north of the site. The site is presently the Earlington Golf Course. The south- eastern portion of the site along Powell Avenue S. W. is presently covered by a dense growth of brush and small trees. The rest of the site is covered by the fairways with scattered trees. A single-story prefabricated wood frame structure and several small sheds are located west of the present end of S. W. 7th Avenue. The topography across the site is gentle except for a drainage channel that is approximately 15 feet below adjacent ground. At the time of our investigation, several feet of water was flowing towards the pumping station northwest of the site. Water was also flowing from a 48-inch storm drain that daylights into what is apparently the old Black River Channel in the center of the site. This 48-inch line reportedly drains from the east in the vicinity Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9 , 1979 Page four of Rainier Avenue and runs west beneath S. W. 7th Avenue to the old channel. This old channel runs northerly to the northern property line then westerly along the northern property line to where it joins the drainage channel near the northwest corner of the site. This river channel formerly extended to Lake Washington and was referred to as the Black River. The river channel was abandoned earlier in this century following completion of the Lak= Washington Ship Canal. Earlier maps indicate that the western extension of the channel extended roughly along S. W. 7th Avenue towards Lake Washington. No visible topographic expression of the filled channel was noted. A water main extends across the site along the S. W. 7th Avenue alignment. There is an apparently abandoned 20-inch steel gas pipeline that extends diagonally across the site along a line as shown on the Site Plan. Subsurface Our borings revealed the site is immediately underlain by 13 ' to 23 feet of loose, silty sands, silts and soft to medium stiff clayey silts except in the southeast corner of the site which is underlain by up to 3 feet of a sandy fill material. The silty sands become more predominant towards the northwest corner of the site as found in Borings Nos. 6, 12 and 13. These surficial materials are underlain by medium dense to dense and very dense sands and gravels that were found to the depths explored by our borings. Boring No. 11 encountered 20 feet of interbedded loose to medium dense silty sands and gravels. We believe this boring was drilled in the filled in old Black River channel. These surficial soils are typical low velocity flood plain deposits normally encountered throughout the Duwamish - Kent Valley area. The sands and gravels encountered at depth may represent alluvial fan materials deposited by the Cedar River. Some of the loose surficial silts encountered in the borings adjacent to the drainage canal are spread dredge spoils from the excavation and earlier maintenance of the channel. Groundwater elevation varied from 5 to 10 feet below existing grades with the higher elevations noted in borings furthest from the drainage channels. Close to the drainage channels, this ground- water level corresponds closely to the water surface in the channel. Groundwater levels would fluctuate seasonally. Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9, 1979 Page five Tidal -variations in this area were eliminated with the con- struction of the pumping station located northwest of the site. We installed water observation wells in Borings Nos. 5, 9, 13 and 14 to monitor future water levels. We suggest that these wells be monitored on a regular basis to evaluate the fluctuation of the groundwater levels on a yearly basis. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Our investigation revealed the presence of 13 to 23 feet of compressible materials directly beneath the site. These soils, in their present state, are not capable of directly supporting the proposed buildings. Hence, we recommend that all buildings and pavement areas be placed on structural fill. Buildings located on the finer grained silts and clayey silts, and those with floor loads greater than 250 pounds per square foot may have to be preloaded with a surcharge fill. If not, total settlements on the order of 3 inches or more could be expected. We recommend that a detailed subsurface soil investigation be perform- ed for each building site to verify the recommendations presented in the following sections of this report and to determine the re- quirements for a surcharge program. The proposed roadways should also be supported on structural fill. We suggest that underground utilities be placed after the roadway has been cut or filled to final subgrade elevation. The installation of utilities should be delayed at least thirty days n fill areas to allow for settlements to be realized. The following sections present our recommendations in greate detail which are preliminary in nature and should be verified wit more detailed investigations when final plans are available. The e are being presented in such detail to provide sufficient informa- tion for feasibility studies. Footings All footings should bear on a minimum 2. 5-foot thick struc- tural fill mat placed in accordance with the site preparation section of this report. The structural fill mat should also extend a minimum of 2. 5 feet beyond the perimeter of all footings. Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9, 1979 Page six All exterior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Interior footings may be bottomed 12 inches below the top of slab. All footings may be designed for, an allowable bearing pressure of 2500 psf, dead plus live loads . Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. With the recommended surcharge program described in a later section of this report, we expect that the postconstruction settlements will be on the order of 1 to 1.5 inches, with differ- ential settlements of about 3/4 inch. These values are based on buildings with maximum loads on the order of 3 kips per lineal foot for continuous footings and 75 kips for column loads. Greater loads will have to be evaluated at a later date. Lateral Loads Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures acting against the foundations and by friction between the slab and the supporting subgrade. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 275 pounds per cubic foot. acting against the foundations . For friction between the slab and the subgrade, a coefficient of 0. 35 is recommended. Slab-on-Grade The building floor may be constructed as a slab-on-grade supported on a minimum of 18 inches of structural fill . This depth of fill is based on a floor slab live load of 250 psf. Higher loads may require an additional thickness of structural fill. The top 4 inches of slab subgrade should consist of free draining sand or gravel. Also, in any areas where floor wetness is undesir- able, the gravel should be covered with a waterproof membrane and 1 to 2 inches of clean sand that will protect the membrane during construction and aid in the curing of the concrete. Surcharge Program We anticipate that building areas may have to be preloaded with a fill surcharge prior to foundation construction. As stated previously, the need for a surcharge will depend upon building locations and floor design loads. For any building with a floor load greater than 250 psf, a surcharge program will be required. The soils in the northwestern section of the site appear to be generally granular in nature, and it may be possible to "float" lightly loaded structures on the structural fill mat in this area. We estimate at this time that you consider using a surcharge with at least 5 feet of fill in place for a minimum of 45 days. Please note that this surcharge fill is in addition to the struc- tural fill required to bring the site to grade, including dock high buildings.' Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9, 1979 Page seven The top of the surcharge fill should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond building perimeters . Surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that the material should have a total density of 120 pcf and be approved by the Soil Eng- ineer before use. However, if the surcharge fill material is to be used for raising the site grade in parking areas after completion of the surcharge program, it should meet the require- ments for structural fill. Site Preparation The entire site should be cleared of all debris, trees, large bushes and other deleterious matter. The fill may be placed directly on the grass cover of the golf course surface. In all areas that will receive buildings or pavements, the subgra• - should be proofrolled. This procedure should indicate the presen«e of any exceptionally loose or unstable pockets, which if present, should be overexcavated and replaced by structural fill or rock. Generally, about 2 to 3 feet of fill may be required to "bridge" any soft yielding soils . A filter cloth placed directly on the existing surface may also help to bridge unstable areas . All structural fill should be placed in 8 to 10-inch thick unco-npacted lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent rela- tive compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557-7-70 (Modified Procter) . The upper site soils are fine grained, and presently in a wet condition, thus will be extremely difficult to compact in their present state. We believe it will be extremely difficult to dry them sufficiently for proper compaction. If any of the grading is to be conducted in wet weather conditions, we recommend that granular materials containing less than 5 percent fines be used for structural fill . During dry weather, other granular materials may be used provided they can be properly compacted. To compensate for settlement that will occur during surcharg- ing, the lowest 1 foot of surcharge should also be compacted to the requirements for structural fill. Pavement Areas All parking and roadway areas should be underlain by a minimum of 1 foot of structural fill. Greater thicknesses may be necessary to "bridge" soft unstable areas. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density. Below that level a compactive effort of 90 percent would be adequate. The pavement section for lightly loaded traffic or parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt surfacing over 4 inches of crushed rock base or 3 inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) . Roadway pavement sections should consist, as a minimum, of the 1 foot structural fill subbase, 6 inches of crushed rock base, Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9, 1979 Page eight with 3 inches of A. C. surfacing. These sections should be veri- fied when road locations and grades are finalized. Heavier loaded traffic areas will require thicker sections . We will be glad to assist you in designing roadway pavement sections when the roadway locations have been finalized. The ATB for parking areas could be placed early in the construction sequence to provide a staging surface and allow for the final surface layer to be placed at any time, regardless of weather conditions . Drainage Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the building to direct surface runoff away from the buildings towards suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should not be permitted adjacent to the building. The results of our percola- tion tests indicate infiltration rates of 2 to 24 minutes per inch. We recommend using a preliminary design value of 15 minutes per inch. This value may be used for preliminary evaluation of the storm water design system. Additional percolation testing will be needed at the precise location and depth of storm water lines to verify this recommended value. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered" on the project site and utilized in our investigation are believed representative of the total area; however, soil conditions may vary in characteristics between boring locations. Since our investigation is based on the site materials ob- served, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are pro- fessional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accord- ance with current standards of practice and no warranty is express- ed or implied. Should encountered conditions or design parameter change, this firm should be contacted to assess the significance Of these changes to the proposed construction prior to proceeding. The following plates are included and complete this report: Table A Percolation Test Results Plate 1 Site Plan Plate 2 Legend Plates 3 through 16 Boring Logs Plates 17 and 18 Grain Size Analyses Plate 19 Consolidation Test Data Earth Consultants, Inc. First City Equities E-884 April 9 , 1979 Page nine We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarif- ication, please call. Respectfully submitted, EART NSU TS, INC. S. Q• WAsj ^ Charles . i ,�,0 c", H/4. Engineering Geologist CC N - o zZ¢\ 9 %.0 • 14691 P� `��� Robert S. Levinson, P. E. is 1" v Chief Engineer es_1ONAt ,,l CRL/RSL/dw 1 Earth Consultants, Inc. • i /------hI —� - ��- •FUTURE OFFICt �.- -�,,,_ ---- _�__ +..r�RA / PARK �• _0 \ PP Ks._;113:1_2 -6 lc ® j ----i , a ,B-7 i / I ty • 111. LEGEND Q £ EVENTH AVE - t '4*. ® Approximate Boring Location @��� �--�— ,�I• s 1 \. \ ' • i' B=5 � j _ I `� Approximate Location of Old B-14 - f River Channel 7 . EARL NG I Approximate Location of TON INDUSTRIAL Abandoned Steel Pipeline I PARK SITE PLAN •/\ I� 300 B-4 ; I ' 60 800 500 1 a • Q • NON RAIL BLDG , luif 11 h�u I NEW ROADS PHASE TWO W� I,QII SEATTLE 1 �1 f..0C ..,,,Ly RAIL BUILDING LARGE RAIL BLDG I 0, �` ✓ • crr.¢ u+r• PHASE ONE PHASE TWO 111111 I B-1 9 BELLEVUE . ` _q;it- r d • �t °•i T`.• Is RAIL BUILDING s. �Fa • _`�'-e ¢cos PHASE TIhO FUTURE DEVELOPMEN Id • _- I -.`�-SEA•TAC SITE • ' ._ - - • • 11 - .1 TOTAL LAND AREA 85.04 AC., VICINITY MAP TOTAL NE' LAND AREA 72.17 AC. Earth4)0 • 411 TR�COMA EST TOTAL BLDG AREA 1r257490 SF' Consultants LanLs Inc. W _ OEOTECNNICAL ENOINECNING•GEOLOGY Earl ington Park ;.✓':f - Renton, Washington - ._._ ___.._... _-_____—••_.. Proj.No. 884 Date Apr. •79 noteI .Ij . I MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTEk TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL _ : G�d••0 u1 WELL.-SRAD(D SRAv(LS, GRAVEL-SAND GRAVEL N •00 •�•O Gn IS X T U RE S. LITTLE OR MO FINES ANO CLEAN AVELS O•,;O. .O GRAVELLY (Urlle ID. a* 11••e) . :•. .•: :fi SOILS •.-•. •- .• G P POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- • • SAaO MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES •' ' COARSE •• x• l. .f. GRAINED GI SOILS I SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- *o�[ THAN 50% G r G f GM SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE FRAC- GRAVELS •ITH FINES 1`F OH RE TAIEVE 1•rr«MAX• e••.rel of G G 1 ON MO• SIEVE h+e•) 4ATEY GRAVEL], GRAv[L-SaNO- �, GC CIA! MIXTURES e e SW •ELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY • ° SAND eeOee • Sn SAMOS, LITTLE OR NO FINES ANO CLEAN SAND e • •o e • (I llrl• or I. free) .ee) :. •4 • SANDY SOILS • ►OORLY-SRAD(D SANDS, GRAVELLY MORE THAN SOX • -•I SP SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINS OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO • •� 200 SIEVE SIZE � SM 3ILT7 SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC- SAMOf WITH FINES • ..''• ..1 TION PASSING (•►In cl.1M ••••e•1 •1 • f l•u) / A NO • SIEVE SC CLAYEY SAND!, SAND-CLAY MIXTURE! rNgR4ANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE M L $AACG, ROCK 'LauR, SILTY OR CIATLT FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY r tSILTS •ITH #L1GNT PLASTICITY FINE LILTSIMORANIC CLAY! OF LO• TO MEDIUM GRAINED AND LIQUID OMIT CL PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, LESS THAN SO SOILS SAM07 CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY BeORGAMIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANG OR SILTY SOILS MORE THAN SO% SILTS /J IN OF MATERIAL IS AND LIQUID LIMIT / CH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN MO GREATER THAN 50 !CITY, FAT CLAYS 200 SIEVE SIZE CLAY! ' ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO NIGH // / OH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS 1 FLAT, MUM, •n UAW SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ��z . -e__ PT I WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS le •... --1 TOPSOIL Humus and Dutf Layer ••••••••••• Uncontrolled with FILL �•�•�•�•�•• Highly Variable Constituents ••••• MOTE. DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART THE DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT IS NECESSARY FOR A IRO►E• UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IN THE ATTACHED LOGS I 2"0.D.Split Spoon Sampler 1 Ring or Shelby Sample qp •P Sampler Pushed Earth • * Sample Not Recovered Consultants Inc. .17 Wa ter Level (date) Ts Torvane Reading LEGEND qu Penetrometer Readings , i Water Observation Well Proj.NO. E-884 Date Apr. '79 1 Plat! 2 E-884 TABLE A PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Test No. Percolation Rate *P-4 3 min/inch P-5 2 min/inch P-6 3.5 min/inch P-7 6 min/inch ' P-11 24 min/inch P-12 9 min/inch P-13 9 min/inch *Percolation tests were conducted adjacent to boring location and test number corresponds with boring numbers - i .e. P-4 adjacent to B-4. 1-- _'2--1 -1"' - - - ' Earth Consultants, Inc. I BORING NO. I ELEVATION (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn - CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) _-1 : ::'': : SM Brown , slightly silty SAND with gravel , - -:-:-' # :: SP moist, medium dense. (Fill ) _ 23 14 -; 32 21 _. 5 11 43 ':...'. 3/29/79 : :::: Blue silty SAND grading to sandy SILT _ . _ SM and SILT with clay to clayey SILT with _ I 7 44 ::::: ML fine roots , wet, loose to soft and .. very soft. 10 I -- 40 15 _:T.- �:: 16 12 j'• 20 = ' i:�:: . GP Blue, sandy GRAVEL to slightly silty :.._t: : : ::• SP gravelly SAND, wet, medium dense to ` :' SM dense and very dense. T 72 30 25 . . ..,::� 30 r••••••• .::4:ti:: - - -I— 50/6" 18 Boring terminated at 33.5 feet on 3/12/79. Water observation well installed. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consulta its r BORING NO. 2 ELEVATION (N) bry Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn Density CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (pcf) 1 ••'`' '`, SM Brown, slightly silty SAND, moist, — 1 SP loose. (Fill ) 5 9 3 50 3/15/7) IL 4 39 3 -- fT 10 if: ML Brown becoming blue SILT grading to 2 50 SM clayey SILT with some lenses of silty sand, wet, very soft to soft. 3 35 116 .1J.• —15 6 39 ,ti2;c -- 20 • ._L_ Brown, sandy GRAVEL, wet, medium 25 .•••.• GP • • dense becoming very dense. • • .•.i::i •••• • •• T 50/6" 7 Boring terminated at 28.5 feet on 3/12/79. • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 3 ELEVATION • N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn Den y pty CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (p f) 8 -- 4 29 Gray-blue sandy SILT grading to SILT 5 2 45 ML with clay and clayey SILT, wet, loose _ to soft and very soft. = I 2 43 10 LL = 37 H 3 43 PI = 6 i ) 15 54 SM Black, slightly silty SAND to silty _ 15 SP SAND with some wood fragments, wet, •ti� medium dense. 30 20 20 • •. rE • -•-• • Blue, sandy GRAVEL, wet, very r••▪ _•-` dense. 66 8 • Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/13/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultarts BORING NO. 4 ELEVATION • (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn Denns✓ pty CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (Pc`) 3 37 4 41 Brown becoming gray mottled and gray- - ML blue, clayey SILT, wet, soft to very — 5 soft. _ 0 48 4 5171 10 SM Gray-blue, silty fine SAND, wet to _ 11 30 }; saturated, medium dense. 15 , • �:�4;P.41 GP Blue, sandy GRAVEL, wet, dense. 47 8 .... . .... . _ .•. Boring terminated at 22 feet on 3/13/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 5 ELEVATION (N) GraphUS Soil Description Depth Sample Blow s/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) 1 ML Brown SILT to clayey SILT, wet, loose ` I 4 43 to very soft. _ _L 2 43 _ 5 I 2 43 4::, :t s I 3/19//79 - 1 -- 'i!ilit: - :1- `:`{,. • I 1 36 ftik #I# : Brown, silty fine SAND, wet, very - SM loose becoming black below 10 feet ::.: grading medium dense. 15 : . tt - ::FEI:`.� .:> - 12 28 . I . f :J - 20 ?t{:r:r: - :. rrr: t}..{•: AN i f ::.' I 25 28 :;+�f 25 r-•• ` • Black, sandy GRAVEL, wet, • • • GP very dense. _ —" • Boring terminated at 29 feet on 3/13/79. Water observation well installed. • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 6 ELEVATION (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn CS (ft. ) _ Ft. (%) 3 38 Brown becoming gray-blue SILT with - ML sand and clay, wet, loose to very 4 39 loose. - _ 5 2 50 :,:�1:.11:f 1 40 10 T ,. ., 2 37 ' Gray-blue, silty fine SAND, wet, - `•` SM very loose. - ## IL 3 42 1f [ 7. - 15 : . j •,,.f{11}tt}• :?}:{S:{{C _ , �:- SM Black, slightly silty SAND, - 10 29 =: :•:' SP wet, loose. - :::ie:::'=i•i 20 ` •- Blue, sandy GRAVEL, wet, GP +:!4 — � dense. 46 9 Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/14/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling. • • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants rN i AT c. 0 BORING NO. 7 • ELEVATION (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) NL Brown to gray SILT with sand and some - 6 -- organics, wet, loose. 7 35 . 5 GSM Brown, silty SAND with some wood - 3 40 fragments, wet, very loose. 2 37 .r. , % - 10 3 114 Brown to blue-gray SILT with sand and - ML clay to clayey SILT, wet, very loose - 3 70 to soft. 15 10 23 .;.: Blue, clean SAND with gravel to 20 gravelly SAND, wet, loose becoming very dense. - 53 12 Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/14/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling . Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultaz is BORING NO. 8 ELEVATION Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ ' Wn Den ity CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (P f) - 6 40 /fr . Mottled gray to brown and blue, inter- ., '" ML bedded clayey SILT, SILT and silty 5 SM SAND, wet, medium stiff to loose. 11 27 -- ':` ' - LL 36 1 - 5 40 PI 9 ::: • - E -L 10 7 45 - I 10 41 • .ctc ' 'A.q15 -. : :..: SM Blue-green becoming blue, slightly #! - Ir.::-f::.: SP silty SAND grading to sandy GRAVEL, GP dense becoming very dense. - I 47 8 - si . 20 • ::▪ 'a�' 7— 50/6" 7 Boring terminated at 23.5 feet on 3/14/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants , I A Tr IP BORING NO. 9 ELEVATION • Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn Density CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (Pcf) 6 40 2 41 ML Brown, clayey SILT to silty CLAY CL with some organics, wet, very soft — 5 1 43 to medium stiff. _ 7 36 8i -- qu = 1 tsf --10 / LL 42 3 39 PI = 16 82 15 4 97 / organic SILT layer at 18 feet •/ . �0 • 3/29/79 35 16 GP Blue, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND — SP with 2 inch layers of silty SAND, wet, 25 dense to very dense. -- 60 9 •.y. •-•.-. 30 • r 50/0" Boring terminated at 32 feet on 3/15/79. Water observation well installed. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 10 ELEVATION • US Depth Sample (N) Wn Densityry Soil Description P P Blows/ CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) (plcf) �� illl SM Brown to blue, silty SAND to sandy - 6 31 ML SILT, wet, loose to very loose. - ` 2 36 - 5 2 53 Blue-gray to mottled gray, clayey - 2 39 ML SILT, wet, very soft. _ 2 foot layer of loose sand at 10 feet 10 I I 7 29 89 6 inch organic silt layer at 13 feet _ 3 -- 15 1111111;j 10 29 SM Blue, slightly silty SAND, grading to sandy GRAVEL, wet, loose becoming 20 GP dense. - 40 9 1•• r r Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/15/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted. • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. II ELEVATION (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) :.,......: . 1 : _ : t.; •-• • k -, - - 11 10 •••:•. - 5 23 ,.... ...., ;:; ...i... ".•-•f, • - 5 •,:',:.:::ig 1":f _ 11 12 Brown becoming blue, silty to slightly silty SAND with some layers of sandy - II: 6 -- :: . • :-::::: GP GRAVEL with some woody debris, wet, - i:l.!.1...I.:•-• e to medium dense. 1 i:;::•-•-it: 10 T _ 5 37 ..,A::.:1::• :: g, i:i.IM • lip 6" layer of blue SILT with some - 9 64 organics 4t 14 feet •:.:•:.,::g.ii:.i: — 15 1 II: 20 36 1 ,'- -1-- 6 13 1-4.:-:},-:f : :1.1- *--i•-.4ti S: . - ... f A 20 •:s.::::.•?.i,..s.:-..f !:-..,/. GP Blue, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly _ ••••••••••••4 p. . '.111-. -... SP SAND, wet, dense. _ :i... .•. 55 8 Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/15/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling. • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 12 ELEVATION Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) ii i:ili-: :: 7 35 :: - 6 23 .1 : } ML Brown to brown-gray, sandy SILT to 5 (. SM silty fine SAND, wet, loose grading - II: 8 25 1-: to medium dense. _ 4 36 10 %..f _ T 9 37 i - II: 12 33 11- -..::-. _• :f{; 15 { 1:5! I 26 27 1tii20= SM Black, slightly silty, fine to - SP medium SAND, medium dense becoming - gravelly and very dense. I 11 25 25 =:: :; . - -- 50/5" 22 Boring terminated at 29 feet on 3/16/79. No distinct groundwater elevation noted at time of drilling. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 13 ELEVATION (N) GraphUS Soil Description Depth Sample Blow s/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) JYl fJ JJ 3 40 - 3 29 ML Brown to gray-orange, sandy SILT - # `; SM to silty fine SAND, wet, loose. 5 _ 5 21 I C i 7 27 Er: - {;; 10 8 29{_ I . -I- _ 13 29 Jti. 3/27/7 :t .:-Eti 15 ;1 .:.: SM Black, silty to slightly silty, fine #f} .�' •.' .AP to medium SAND, wet, medium dense. - = I 13 28 20 //Black, sandy GRAVEL, wet, 7:•GP dense. - T 52 7 Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/16/79. Water observation well installed. I • Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants BORING NO. 14 ELEVATION (N) Graph US Soil Description Depth Sample Blows/ Wn CS (ft. ) Ft. (%) SM Brown, silty fine SAND to sandy SILT, _ 3 33 ML wet, very loose. 0 46 5 0 87 — 2 -- 10 2 67 ML Blue, clayey SILT, wet, very soft. _3/29/79 3 70 —15 .. i 15 13 Blue, sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND, .._ 20 GP wet, medium dense becoming dense. ••• - • — 45 9 Boring terminated at 24 feet on 3/19/79. Water observation well installed. Driving Energy: 140 lb. Weight Dropping 30 inches W. 0. No. E-884 Earth Consultants SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ) SIZE Or OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER Or MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD 88 GRAIN 312p p p E IN MIA p 8 N V • PI N - .- ;.� NV N Si H N O O O O O O O O O 100— — — 0 m D \ \ m Z o �, . � m m L m rn 1 ro \ i'� 30 H z X z so •` ` `` 40 c, D co -< \ - • Cn _rn so 1 SO XI i CO -I 40 �.\ s i. 1 30 v� - 70 m z h tor -CO 0 ' _ ' I i_: . . I 1 ;. I 1` f00 8 $ 8 g R g o o a .+ ry - o '�N ^ PIN p 8 8 $ g g 8 rY r► o • 0 m GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS , c-$ W -1- COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM J FINE � COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES =' M CA) �� ors vv) = LEGEND BORING D(Eftt)H USCS DESCRIPTION NAT.W.C.% LL PL to S • --I. -C7 Un -S B-1 3 ML sandy SILT • u 21 • -° _ —. " — B-1 28 SM/SP slightly silty gravelly SAND 11 a B-3 1n MI rlavov C T I T A•Z 17 11 ir. v B-3 18 SM/SP slightly silty SAND 20 • SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS VIE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH,U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIIE IN MM " r . .. " : _ a.d > . g 8 g o 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 too- - 1 ` 0 ,N ‘ !0 t 10 i , -0 D X 1 N , 1. - \ m rn (.!) z - t n \ \ rn N -0 70 1- \ , -� 30 z fTl z \ N rn • , ),, w = - _ l -.1 - 30 � • 1 - tV 70 m _ - N \ _ so Z n . . - N O 0 10 ' -, so h CO.A 7: r. p O O O O O o e W . n n ^ o 40 . w " 7 g . n " gig . n fV fi w - o C • /I N - GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS O' . . . . . g g g g g g p O -s Ri --' = ---ICOBBLES COARSEGRAVEL SAND COARSE ] MEDIUM SAND j FINE - FINES y J. M LLB ct 1 i - , `•'' Licl) DEPTH NAT. o LL PL =. LEGEND BORING (ft) USCS DESCRIPTION 9' n DJ i s —.—.--- B-4 1 ML clayey SILT 37 ,-,- 7c- o 7 B-5 18 SM silty fine SAND 28 E S. —" — B-7 18 SP SAND with gravel 23 t, O0 - - - B-8 ' 9 1 ML clayey SILT 40 36 27 - SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM ,00N . V R N : - a. i " i . Id g $ 8 o 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8O T . i . !0 , ,0 D m \ \ \ 13m Z n - ' Do rn 20 N T ,o 1 ; \ \ -i ,O z fn z Z do D Co ‘.\ a) - . so m Cn m so \ x Cn I I . , N CO —+ .o , \ \ 60 -< 30 } �\\\\IN,...,........\ \ 70 \ _ _ - --a 120 - Bo o. Z A O 0 10 - ` f0 m I N co '1 I _ i: . . . , I :. J 71p__`.co too G /* - 8 O p O O O-O so r in N - O . • 01 a O • 8 N O 10 . �I N 0 o O + � I � m .4? - o 0 0 � 8 8 8 8 8 8 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 0 •1 "S COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES � I.1 EP in = O LEGEND BORING O(ftt)H USCS DESCRIPTION NAT.W.C.% LL PL -.1 =- W J. "v _.— . — 9 13 ML/CL clayey SILT to silty CLAY 39 42 26 co -sv •' 12 3 ML sandy SILT 23 -- NP a- iii 13 1 ML SILT with sand and clay 40 1:78 14 8 ML clayey SILT I 81 l J I e • CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA 2 ,\ 4 • 6 8 ' \ \ 10 -`_t— \ \ Z` \ zo 12 `� H `\ H 14 \ a o 0 16 ----___``' 18 2Q 22 .1 1 3 PRESSURE (tsf) LIQUID PLASTIC MOISTURE DRY KEY BORING DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION LIMIT LIMIT BEFORE AFTER DENSITY B-3 10 ML clayey SILT 37 31 43 35 76 B-8 9 ML clayey SILT 36 27 40 32 80 B-9 13 ML clayey SILT to silty CLAY 42 26 39 27 82 W.O. E-884 EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. DI ATC 9 t ,..•'77/1 ------/..a.., iil 8-13 `�` �1 \ 'FUTURE OFFICE ...______:__--:_______I -� .��•_ I v \\RR PARK . -et,� .. lir ..:_,„ �_ )8-7 g.... ?_ —• . .... __ B-I 1 �iIIIIIIII E LEGEND • t .,,,� ' W EVENTH AVE ® Approximate Boring LocationI @� ,i:` ` , 1 B-I4 Approximote Location of Old • River Channel 1 = = _ EARL'NGTON .INDUSTRIAL Approximate Location of Abandoned Steel Pipeline I PARK SITE PLAN • i'. B:."�\ 0 =00 300• '` 7 200 BOB-4;• ® t, t , ... 8_2 4 NON RAIL BLDG I NEW ROADS PHASE TWO 111, SEATTLE - ' 10 p 111111111"' woe. y j RAIL BUILDING LARGE RAIL BLDG ' D � -- c.rc u.r♦ I PHASE ONE PHASE TWO B;a` N�i BELLEVUE -v.- -.? rI.;i It RAIL BUILDING •- �Ra • •-,I..;.,•- 'i'E"^ �II PHASE TWO FUTURE DEVELOPMENM.• - _-SEA•TAC SITE - - - 1 • TOTAL LAND AREA 85.04 AC:I I - VICINITY MAP • TOTAL NE' LAND AREA 72.17 AC. • lLh T/tCONIA EST TOTAL BLDG AREA 1,257490 SF' C.Ot1lulta[!tf Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING it GEOLOGY Earl i ton Park ,i • Rentonr,9 Washington • _ ._ _._. __.____.._.:_ ________._.._.. Proj.No. 884 Date Apr. '79 Plote City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9802824 Amount: 3 , 003 . 84 05/08/98 12 : 02 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #1030 BLACKRIVER Init : LMN Project # : LUA98-075 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 3 , 003 . 84 This Payment 3 , 003 . 84 Total ALL Pmts : 3 , 003 . 84 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 2 , 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 3 . 84 . MAY 0 ,� ECE V'r_ Architecture and Planning, Inc40 Royce A.Berg,Y.Ken K.Chin,Principals 1535 Fourth Ave.S„Suite D Seattle,WA 98134 (206)583-8030 Fax(206)58 -0708 July 9, 1998 Suzanne Krom President Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation 4715 1/2 36th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126-2715 RE: Blackriver Corporate Park - Tract B Dear Suzanne: Thank you for your letters and specific comparison to the MOA. Per our conversations we did use the MOA to lay out this current proposal for the project. Buildings are located further away than the elevated four-story parking structure, a chain link fence and a wetpond separate the development from buffer area, a 100 ft. landscape buffer and landscape area is provided between P-1 and development, Tract A is eliminated, no buffer trees are relocated, the submittal referenced auger cast piles versus driven piles, a wood fence occurs at drainage easement which is also being conveyed to the City for additional habitat. It would appear from current and early correspondence from agencies, public, and associated groups that most do not fully understand the proposed project and relation to habitat areas and rookery. This proposed project was also specifically provided to your organization in November/December of 1997 by the City with little direct input until last week. A presentation will be made to the City Hearing Examiner to clarify and define issues of concern to all parties. Our client's intent has and continues to provide protection, habitat, and buffer for the Herons. spectfully, Royce A. Berg President LPN Architects and Planners via fax & mail (206/624-0809) cc: Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton Dean Erickson, Blackriver Rivertech L.L.C. Amy Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon MICROFILMED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT -regarding BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK tracts A, B, and C • :: CITY OF RENTON ...IL i • Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator — December 2, 1991 To all recipients of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Black River Corporate Park Phases VII and VIII. Since the issuance of the Black River Corporate Park Phase VII and VIII Final EIS (March 27, 1991) and the environmental mitigation document (May 27, 1991), a number of conditions on the site have changed. In response to these changes, an addendum to the FEIS has been issued and the mitigation document is hereby withdrawn and a new document substituted. As referenced in WAC 197-11-600 and 625,the addendum, prepared prior to the City making a decision on the proposal, adds analyses or information about the proposal but does not substantially change the • analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Renton, the applicant, Sierra Club, Seattle Audubon Society, Rainier Audubon Society, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation and the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, Sammamish Group, is included with this letter. The MOA functions as an addendum to the FEIS and as a Mitigation Document for impacts from the proposal. A public hearing covering environmental impacts of the project and mitigation for those impacts will be held on December 17, 1991 at 9:00 am. If you have any questions on the addendum or the public hearing please call Mary Lynne Myer at 235-2719. Sincerely yours, GYili i Donald K. Erickson,AICP Secretary to the ERC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 November 20, 1991 . MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK, TRACTS A, B AND C THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of November, 1991 by and between the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation ("the City") , First City Washington, Inc. , a Washington corporation ("First City") , the . Seattle Audubon Society ("Seattle Audubon") , a Washington non- profit corporation, and Rainier Audubon Society ("Rainier Audubon") , an unincorporated association of citizens, the Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation, an unincorporated association of citizens ("Renton Citizens") , and the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter, Sammamish Group ("Sierra Club") , a Washington non-profit corporation (all collectively, "the Parties") . I. RECITALS 1. WHEREAS the City is an optional municipal code city of the State of Washington pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A, with the authority to purchase and hold property, and to regulate development under its land use, shorelines, building and other codes and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") , and to manage the parks, streets, and other public facilities within its jurisdiction; and 2 . WHEREAS First City is the owner of the property which is a subject of this Agreement, to wit, Tracts A, B, and C of the - 1 - November 20, 1991 Blackriver Corporate Park, located in Renton, Washington ("Tracts A, B and C") , which Tracts A, B and C are respectively legally described on the attached Exhibits A, B and C, and by this reference incorporated herein; and 3 . WHEREAS Tracts A, B, and C are the final remaining phases of the Blackriver Corporate Park, an approximately 115 acre office park (exclusive of dedicated areas described below) , developed by First City; and 4 . WHEREAS under conditions of a 1979 rezone, Ordinance ' No. 3344 , and subdivision approvals which contemplated development of the Blackriver Corporate Park, including Tracts A and B, but excluding Tract C, First City dedicated to the City 17 . 5 acres for the establishment of a regional drainage detention facility known as the "P-1 Pond" and for associated wildlife habitat, First City dedicated to the City approximately 10 acres for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue and other nearby streets, and First City contributed approximately 3 million dollars to an LID for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue. Further, pursuant to a 1982 rezone of Tract C, Ordinance No. 3694 , which contemplated its development, First City' s predecessor in interest dedicated to the City 20 acres of riparian forest for permanent open space and wildlife habitat; and 5. WHEREAS in 1988 First City applied to the City of Renton for a site plan approval for office buildings on Tract B, - 2 - November 20, 1991 which site plan application was modified numerous times at the request of the City, including the addition of office buildings proposed for Tract A. Final revised site plans for Tracts A and B, submitted in 1989, formed the basis for the City's final environmental review, and those final site plans are attached hereto as Exhibits D1 and D2 and by this reference incorporated herein (these site plans and the proposed development depicted therein referred to together hereinafter as "the Project") ; and 6. WHEREAS the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for the Project was published in March 1991 and two Environmental Mitigation Documents, one for Tract A and one for Tract B, were issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee ("the ERC") in May, 1991 (together, "ERC Document") , which ERC Document contained mitigation conditions applicable to the Project; and 7 . WHEREAS First City, believing that the ERC Document contained overly restrictive and unnecessary environmental conditions not justified under the City' s SEPA authority, appealed the ERC Document to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner ("Hearing Examiner") ; and 8 . WHEREAS Seattle Audubon, Rainier Audubon, Renton Citizens and Sierra Club are groups that are interested in the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat in the City of Renton and elsewhere, and had concerns regarding the impacts of First City 's Project on wildlife and in particular a Great Blue heron - 3 - November 20, 1991 rookery located in large cottonwood trees on an island in the P-1 Pond, shown on Figure 1-3 of the FEIS, which figure is attached hereto as Exhibit E, and incorporated by this reference herein ("Heron Rookery") ; and 4 9. WHEREAS Seattle Audubon, Rainier Audubon, Renton Citizens and Sierra Club (collectively, "the Citizen Appellants") believing that the ERC Document did not contain measures sufficient for the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and in particular the Heron Rookery, and that the FEIS did not adequately analyze the Project' s environmental impacts, appealed the ERC Document and the adequacy of the FEIS to the Hearing Examiner; and 10. WHEREAS in late April, 1991, after the FEIS had issued, one or more bald eagles through attacks on the Heron Rookery, disrupted the Great Blue herons ' ("Herons") nesting in the Heron Rookery for that nesting season, caused some of the Herons to relocate their nests into the riparian forest area, and ultimately, through repeated attacks, by June 1991, caused the Herons to leave these new nests with no known young produced at the Heron Rookery and the riparian forest for the 1991 season; and 11. WHEREAS this predation by the eagles and the unknown consequences for subsequent nesting seasons caused uncertainty for the Parties regarding the appropriateness and feasibility of the ERC Document conditions which had been based on the - 4 - November 20, 1991 I assumption that the Herons would be continuing to nest in the particular location of the Heron Rookery; and 12 . WHEREAS in July, 1991, while the appeals were pending, the City concluded an agreement with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("Metro") , which resulted in the City obtaining significant funds for the purchase of wetlands and wildlife habitat in accordance with the terms of that Agreement ("Metro Money") ; and 13 . WHEREAS the City had already obtained some funding from the King County Open Space Bond fund and King County Conservation Futures program ("Open Space Funds") which funds were targeted for City acquisition of additional portions of the Blackriver riparian forest, which exist on portions of Tract C; and 14 . WHEREAS the City consulted representatives of the State Department of Wildlife ("Wildlife") regarding how to best achieve protection of the Herons given the current uncertainty regarding the Herons ' nesting locations, and how to protect the other wildlife in the P-1 Pond area, and Wildlife concurred that an effort to preserve the maximum amount of suitable habitat for the Herons and other wildlife was the preferable approach to an exclusive focus on particular nesting sites, and that a buffer between the proposed development and wildlife habitat, including the P-1 Pond, was also important; and 15. WHEREAS the Parties recognized that the changed circumstances including the uncertainty regarding the Heron - 5 - November 20, 1991 Rookery's future viability and the demonstrated mobility of the Herons to other parts of the P-1 Pond area due to predation, the ability for the City to purchase significant additional wildlife habitat due to the combination of the Metro Money and the Open O Space Funds, subject to coming to agreeable terms of purchase with First City, Wildlife's approval of a habitat-based approach $1 to conservation of wildlife resources with an effective buffer, all suggested a shift from the ERC Document' s exclusive focus on protection of a particular nesting site towards a habitat-based approach to protection of wildlife with a buffer between the Project and the habitat, and gave the Parties a basis to negotiate a resolution to the disputes; and 16. WHEREAS First City and the Citizen Appellants each believes that it would prevail in its positions and assertions regarding the above-described appeals and the City believes it would prevail in defense of the FEIS and ERC Document, and each 1 of the Parties believes it would prevail in any subsequent litigation regarding this matter, but at the same time has given '' due consideration to the changes in circumstances and new information outlined above, the unavoidable delays and hazards of these appeals and the expenses connected thereto, and has recognized the desirability of terminating the existing and future disputes on this subject without further expense and 1 litigation; and 1 - 6 - November 20, 1991 17. WHEREAS the City agrees to purchase a portion of Tract A that will encompass an area which soils testing and expert analysis has concluded contains soils with certain contamination exceeding standards under the State Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) , which contamination was caused by the City' s depositing of dredge spoils from the P-1 Pond expansion, and the City has agreed, based upon an indemnity agreement, to assume full responsibility as between the City and First City for this area and other areas where the City deposited dredge spoils and excavated soils, now and in the future; and 18 . WHEREAS the Parties wish to protect wildlife habitat and wetlands in the vicinity of the subject site and believe that this can be accomplished by the City' s purchase of a portion of Tract A, including the area described above, and the majority of Tract C, with an option for the City to purchase the remainder of Tract C, along with the imposition of revised environmental conditions on the Project; and 19 . WHEREAS the City is willing to purchase and First City is willing to sell the desired areas of Tracts A and C upon terms that are described in more detail in this Agreement and the Purchase and Sale Agreements and Option Agreement which are attachments hereto; and 20. WHEREAS, as part of this Agreement, the City has also agreed to continue to pursue acquisition of portions of the - 7 - November 20, 1991 hillside (which is not in First City's ownership) north of Tract C; and 21. WHEREAS based upon the changed circumstances described above, and new information regarding the ineffectiveness and infeasibility of certain ERC Document conditions, including but not limited to the requirements for berms, archaeological study of the contaminated area, orientation of buildings away from the Metro plant and modification of site plans based on monitoring, the City has agreed to replace and supersede the ERC document with the environmental mitigation conditions agreed to by the Parties as set forth in this Agreement; and 22 . WHEREAS the Citizen Appellants are extremely concerned that their Great Blue Heron experts have recommended that a setback of 660 feet to 1652 feet from the Heron Rookery shown on Exhibit E is appropriate, and while the Citizen Appellants have agreed to the location of improvements and the parking garage as shown on the Schematic Site Plans which are attached hereto as Exhibits F and G, which includes the location of a portion of the garage and improvements within 600 feet, they want to emphasize that no other private improvement shall be located in the 600- foot area except as provided in Section II.B and otherwise in this Agreement, and that no public improvements shall be located there unless and until the City has adopted a final Master Plan for that area; - 8 - November 20, 1991 23 . WHEREAS, First City is extremely concerned that its Great Blue Heron experts have recommended that any required setback should be no greater than 350 feet from the Heron Rookery but, nevertheless, in order to settle these disputes, First City has agreed to substantially conform to the building locations shown in the Schematic Site Plans; and 24 . WHEREAS the basis for the environmental conditions herein includes the City of Renton's Environmental Review Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, Green River Valley Plan, Comprehensive Parks Plan, Surface and Storm Water Drainage Ordinance, Mining, Excavating and Grading Ordinance, Shoreline Master Program, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Zoning Code and Site Plan Review Ordinance, City of Renton 1981 Wetlands Study and other applicable plans, studies and ordinances; and 25. WHEREAS First City and the Citizen Appellants are willing to drop their appeal:. of the ERC Document and the FEIS based on the terms and conditions hereof, and the City and Citizen Appellants agree to support and not to oppose other governmental approvals required for construction of the project such as the site plan, shorelines permit, and building permits for the Project, as further set forth in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION cf the mutual promises, covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration the legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Citizen Appellants, on behalf of - 9 - November 20, 1991 themselves, their officers, directors and current members, and First City and the City hereby agree as follows with the intent that each be legally bound: II. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION CONDITIONS A. Mitigation Conditions Controlling. 1. Mitigation Conditions Replace ERC Document and Are Final. The City agrees that the environmental mitigation conditions listed in this Section II of this Agreement ("Mitigation Conditions") will replace and supersede the ERC document and will constitute the environmental mitigation conditions for the Project. The City and First City agree that the Mitigation Conditions will fully mitigate all environmental .„1 impacts from the Project, and that no further mitigation is necessary or appropriate with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement. The Citizen Appellants believe that the Mitigation Conditions will likely mitigate all of the Project's environmental impacts and thus agree to their imposition as the Mitigation Conditions for the Project. The City Departments agree to recommend imposition of these Mitigation Conditions or impose these Mitigation Conditions. The City also agrees to impose no other mitigation conditions with respect to the subject matters addressed in the Mitigation Conditions, on all approvals 4 required for the construction and operation of the Project, except as provided in Section II.A. 2 below. - 10 - November 20, 1991 2. Relationship of Mitigation Conditions to Required Permits and Approvals. a. Other Permits and Approvals Required. The Parties recognize that in addition to the environmental approval embodied by the Mitigation Conditions, First City is required to obtain other permits and approvals, such as a site plan approval, shoreline permit and construction permits. In that regard, this Agreement recites in several ensuing Sections that more specific conditions will be imposed at the time of site plan approval and shoreline permit, with regard to the details of the Revised Project, such as requirements for the surface and stormwater drainage system, wetlands mitigation plan, transportation management plan, construction haul routes plan, and shoreline public access, which conditions are intended to be consistent with this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto which specifically address these matters. b. Additional Conditions to Be Consistent With Mitigation Conditions. The Parties desire to have as much certainty as possible regarding the conditions for the Revised Project and hereby state their intent that the conditions of the permits and approvals for the Revised Project will not conflict with, materially enlarge or modify the Mitigation Conditions herein. To that end, the City agrees that it will only impose additional conditions to the Mitigation Conditions on the Revised Project which do not conflict with, enlarge or modify the - 11 - November 20, 1991 Mitigation Conditions unless such conflict, enlargement or modification is explicitly mandated by a City ordinance in existence on the date of this Agreement other than the Environmental Review Ordinance, or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. The Parties also recognize that while they wish to bind themselves as much as possible, this Agreement cannot legally bind a future City Council and that it cannot bind quasi- judicial decisionmakers regarding permits and approvals for the Revised Project. Tf a condition which conflicts with, enlarges a ' or modifies the Mitigation Conditions is imposed on a site plan approval or shoreline permit for the Revised Project by the City staff, quasi-judicial decisionmakers or the courts, then First City may elect to terminate this Agreement, as further provided in Section VI.B below. 3 . Project to Substantially Comply With Mitigation Conditions. First City agrees that its applications for site plan approval, shoreline permit or other approvals required for the development of Tracts A and B pursuant to this Agreement, will be for a project that is revised to substantially conform to all of the Mitigation Conditions of this Agreement ("the Revised Project") ; provided that substantially conform means that First City may only make "minor adjustments" to its Revised Project, "minor adjustment" defined herein as any change that is less than a "major adjustment" as defined below ("Minor Adjustment") , which Minor Adjustments shall also be within the terms or the spirit - 12 - • November 20, 1991 and intent of this Agreement, without written consent of the Parties. 4. Modifications to Revised Project Require ii Agreement. If First City desires to change an explicit term of this Agreement or make a major adjustment to its Revised Project, which "major adjustment" is defined herein to be "a substantial change in the Schematic Site Plan design, or increase in the total building area over the square footage shown for Tracts A and B in Exhibits D1 and D2" (any such substantial change or major adjustment, hereinafter a "Modification") , First City must obtain written consent of the Parties to such Modification. The Parties agree that they have an obligation to entertain in good faith proposals from First City for a Modification and to promptly respond in writing to any reasonable proposal for a Modification within fifteen days from the date of receipt thereof which proposal meets the spirit and intent of this Agreement. If the Modification agreed to by the Parties requires an amended site plan approval or other new approvals, the Parties' obligations of support and non-opposition specified in Section III below shall apply to the Modification the same as to the Revised Project. If the Parties do not agree to the Modification, First City may, at its option, either pursue the Modification under new approvals, and the requirements of this Agreement including the Mitigation Conditions and the non- opposition requirements will not apply, or may enter into binding - 13 - November 20, 1991 Arbitration with the other Parties as follows. If First City so elects, the Parties may seek binding arbitration regarding the issue of whether the Modification is within the spirit and intent of this Agreement and hence, should be allowed. The arbitration shall be conducted by three arbitrators (the "Arbitrators") , to be chosen as follows: First City shall choose one Arbitrator, the Citizen Appellants shall choose the second Arbitrator, and the third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the first two Arbitrators. The City may elect to waive its procedures for major adjustment of a site plan and agree to be bound by the Arbitrator 's decision. The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally by the Parties taking part in the arbitration. B. Conditions Regarding Site Layout, Buffer, Landscaping, Fencing and Building Heights 1. Site layout. The Revised Project's site layout shall be in accordance with the schematic site plans ("Schematic Site Plans") for Tracts A and B, which are attached hereto as Exhibits F and G respectively, and which are incorporated by this reference herein. The locations and footprints of the buildings, the parking garage, the locations of surface parking, fire lanes, landscaping and fencing shall substantially conform to the Schematic Site Plans, as further detailed below. As shown on the Schematic Site Plans, the number of buildings on Tract A shall be limited to two and the number of buildings on Tract B shall be limited to three and a parking garage, unless and until a - 14 - November 20, 1991 Modification is approved pursuant to Section II.A.4. First City shall not locate any buildings in the area on Tract B shaded in black on the Schematic Site Plans (the "Natural Area") , but may put tree stump and natural vegetative materials ("Dead and Down Material") , and wetponds and biofiltration swales in this Natural II Area. Any required maintenance within the Natural Area will be done in a manner sensitive to the wildlife in the area. The Parties recognize that First City may be required to provide to the City an easement for a public access to the P-1 Pond as a requirement of shoreline permit approval, the location of which Public Access will be decided as part of a City Open Space/Wildlife Habitat Master Planning Process, which process shall allow for public input, and any improvements to the Public Access will he provided by and maintained by the City; provided, however, that such Public Access will not alter the Schematic Site Plans except in a very minor way not inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this Agreement which is that there be no public access in the Natural Area unless and until the City has adopted a final Master Plan for that area. First City shall . , install a gate at the most easterly end of the City ' s maintenance road adjacent to Tract A where it meets Oakesdale Avenue, and the City shall install a gate at the most westerly end of the City' s maintenance road near the western boundary of the portion of Tract A purchased by the City, which gate locations are shown on the Schematic Site Plan for Tract A. - 15 - November 20, 1991 2 . Buffer. On Tract B, and the portion of Tract A remaining in First City ownership after the City's purchase detailed in Section V below, there will be a landscaped and natural vegetation buffer, located in the area within 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the P-1 Pond/Springbrook Creek, which area is shown as a cross-hatched area on the Schematic Site Plans (this area known hereinafter as the "Buffer Area") . There shall be no development or activity in this Buffer Area except for the landscaping, fencing, irrigation and placement of Dead and Down Material, and any Public Access as described above (all collectively "Permitted Buffer Improvements") , and activities necessary to install, maintain and repair the Permitted Buffer Improvements. Approximately 60-70 feet of this buffer area is in City ownership, so First City will be providing approximately 30-40 feet of buffer area on its property, as shown on the Schematic Site Plans. 3 . Landscaping. First City will landscape approximately 30 feet of the Buffer Area within its ownership on Tracts A and B (this landscaped area on First City' s property known hereinafter as the "Landscape Area") , which Landscape Area is shown shaded in grey on the Schematic Site Plans. First City will also landscape a 30-foot strip extension of this buffer on Tract B between the Buffer Area and the parking garage, exclusive 11 of the fire lane area ("Landscape Extension") , which Landscape Extension is also shown shaded in grey on the Schematic Site - 16 - November 20, 1991 Plan. The types and locations of plant materials to be provided in both the Landscape Area and the Landscape Extension shall be in substantial conformance with the landscape areas plan which is attached as Exhibit H and by this reference incorporated herein ("Landscape Areas Plan") . First City may relocate certain existing trees on Tracts A and B to comply with the Landscape Areas Plan. As demonstrated by the Landscape Areas Plan, no berms are required. The plant materials in the Landscape Areas Plan shall be irrigated and those on the development side of the fence will be maintained by First City. First City will comply with local, state and federal regulations regarding the use of chemicals in landscape maintenance, and will accommodate all suggestions of the Parties that First City determines are economically and technically feasible regarding which herbicides and pesticides to use. First City will plant a hedge row comprised of one row of evergreen shrubs such as laurel, to be located on City property at the boundary between First City' s ownership on Tract A and the portion of Tract A purchased by the City under Section V below, as shown on the Schematic Site Plan. First City shall reserve an easement on the portion of Tract A sold to the City for planting and maintenance of the hedge row. All planting materials in the Landscape Areas and the hedge row shall be subject to replacement in accordance with the City's standard three year landscape bond. - 17 - November 20, 1991 4 . Modification of Landscape, Yard and Setback Requirements. The portion of Tract A to be sold to the City shall be considered a part of Tract A for the purpose of the City's application of zoning code and landscaping requirements. The City recognizes that unique landscaping and setback requirements have been imposed as part of this Agreement to deal 41 with the unique sensitivities of this site, which requirements do not meet the strict requirements of the City's zoning and landscape ordinances, but which meet the spirit and intent of those ordinances. The City therefore agrees to waive its III standard code landscaping, yard and setback requirements for the Revised Project to the extent that these requirements exceed or are inconsistent with the landscaping and setback requirements set forth in this Agreement,g or inconsistent with the Schematic Site Plans. 5. Fence. First City shall install a six-foot tall chain-link fence with earth tone-colored slats in the areas described as follows. 1 ws. On Tract A, the fence shall run from the western property boundary of the portion of Tract A First City retains after the City's acquisition and along the P-1 Pond to the northeast corner of Building B. On Tract B, the fence shall be located in the Landscape Extension, described in Section II.B. 3 above. These fence locations are shown on the Schematic Site Plans with a dashed line and the fence locations shown on the Schematic Site Plans shall control over the text of this - 18 - November 20, 1991 Agreement. The exact location of the fence relative to the plantings within a portion of the Landscape Area on Tract A and the Landscape Extension on Tract B is shown in more detail on the Landscape Areas Plan. 6. Building Height Limitations. First City will limit the height of the buildings on Tract B to five stories from finished grade, and will limit the height of the parking garage on Tract B to four stories from finished grade. First City will limit the height of the buildings on Tract A to four stories from finished grade. C. Conditions Regarding Construction Season Limits.Monitoring 1. Construction Season Limitations. First City shall observe seasonal limitations on certain construction activities in certain locations specified below for the period beginning January 15 and ending on June 15 ("Construction Season Limitations") of any given year to protect the nesting of Herons at the Heron Rookery shown on Exhibit E, subject to the follow conditions: a) Limitations Applicable Only to Major Outdoor Construction. The Construction Season Limitations shall apply only to "major outdoor construction" defined herein to mean "preloading, grading, foundations, structural steel, installation of dryvit panels, roofing and hardscape" ("Major Outdoor Construction") as distinguished from minor construction and - 19 - November 20, 1991 interior work defined herein to mean "rough-in mechanical and electrical, glazing installation, interior shell finish, and tenant improvements" ("Minor Construction and Interior Work") . Landscaping, which shall not include grading or the use of heavy equipment, will not constitute Major Outdoor Construction and may be installed at any time, and is not subject to the Construction Season Limitations. b) Limitations Applicable Only in Construction Limit Zone. The Construction Season Limitations shall only apply to Major Outdoor Construction conducted within a 700-foot radius of the Heron Rookery shown on Exhibit E, measured from the nearest heron tree in the Heron Rookery, and the location of this 700-foot radius is shown superimposed on the Schematic Site Plan on the attached Exhibit I ("Construction Limit Zone") . This means that the Construction Limit Zone encompasses only a portion of the sitework on Tract A and a portion of the sitework and a portion of the parking garage on Tract B, as shown on Exhibit I. c) Monitoring If First City Wants to Begin Construction Early. If First City believes that the Herons have not returned to nest at the Heron Rookery by March 15 of any year, and wishes to begin construction prior to June 15 of that year, First City must monitor the Heron Rookery to produce corroborating evidence of the Herons' absence. The monitoring must be conducted by a person with educational credentials and expertise in wildlife biology, and if possible, Heron behavior - 20 - November 20, 1991 (such person to be known as a "Heron Expert") from a list of persons that shall be agreed upon by the Parties within 90 days of execution of this Agreement. The Heron Expert must monitor the Heron Rookery daily for at least one week prior to and again on March 15 to determine whether any pairs of Herons at the Heron Rookery are actively engaged in continuous nest building, nesting, hatching or fledging activities ("Heron Nesting Activities") . If the Heron Expert determines that there are no Heron pairs engaged in Heron Nesting Activities for one week prior to and on March 15, then Major Outdoor Construction can occur within the Construction Limitation Zone after the completion of the one week monitoring, but no sooner than March 16 of that year. d) Good Faith Efforts to Give Additional Limitation Period. For any year in which the Construction Season Limitations are required, First City shall make a good faith effort to structure its construction schedule as is economically and technically feasible for the portion of the parking garage located within the Construction Limitation Zone such that First City minimizes Major Outdoor Construction in this area between the period from January 1 to January 15 and the period from June 15 to July 1 for that year ("Additional Limitation Period") . First City agrees to share its construction schedule for the parking garage with the representatives of the Citizen Appellants designated to receive notices in Section VI below, or their - 21 - November 20, 1991 successors, and in good faith to accommodate all suggestions which First City determines are economically and technically feasible regarding minimizing construction impacts on Heron Nesting Activities during the Additional Limitation Period. e) Monitoring If Citizen Appellants Desire Additional Protection Outside of Construction Limit Zone. If the Citizen Appellants or the City believes that First City's Major Outdoor Construction activities outside of the Construction Limit Zone during the Construction Limitation Season are having adverse impacts on Heron Nesting Activities, they may engage a Heron Expert at their expense to conduct monitoring to determine whether the Herons are experiencing adverse impacts and whether this disruption is causally related to First City' s Major Outdoor Construction activities. The Heron Expert shall present any evidence of adverse impacts and the causal relationship to First City, which evidence can be confirmed or contested at First City's option by a second Heron Expert, chosen by First City. If the Citizen Appellants ' or the City' s Heron Expert and First City' s Heron Expert agree that monitoring shows adverse impacts to the Herons that are causally related to First City' s Major Outdoor Construction activities, these Experts shall make a joint recommendation for institution of construction protective measures to reduce Major Outdoor Construction Impacts, including but not limited to screening of construction and additional noise buffers ("Construction Protective Measures") . If the two Heron - 22 - November 20, 1991 Experts cannot agree, the issue will be submitted to a third Heron Expert chosen by the first two Heron Experts, the cost of such Heron Expert to be shared equally by First City and the Party who engaged the first Heron Expert, who will decide whether or not adverse impacts exist, whether there is a causal relationship and if so, will recommend Construction Protective Measures. If it is determined by the Heron Expert(s) as set forth above that adverse impacts on the Herons are being caused by First City' s Major Outdoor Construction activities, First City will in good faith institute those Construction Protective Measures that First City determines are economically and technically feasible to accommodate the joint recommendation of the two Heron Experts, or if there is disagreement, the recommendation of the third Heron Expert. The Parties understand that time is of the essence and will make best efforts to expedite the actions contemplated by this section. 2 . Other Construction Limitations. First City shall use only auger-cast-in-place piling and shall not engage in any pile-driving in construction of any of the structures shown on the Schematic Site Plan. First City will comply with the City's noise ordinance and other construction noise limitation conditions routinely applied by the City to all projects, which conditions shall be imposed as a part of the site plan approval . •- 23 - November 20, 1991 D. Conditions Regarding Extended Site Plan Approval, Phasing, Site Plan Approval Submittal, Vesting 1. Extended Site Plan Approval. The City shall recommend that the Hearing Examiner grant an eight year extended site plan approval for the Revised Project, with one potential two-year extension (for a total of ten years) , and the City shall recommend no conditions and take no actions inconsistent with this extended site plan approval. 2 . Phasing of Extended Site Plan. In accordance with the City's site plan ordinance, the eight year site plan approval. for the Revised Project shall contain a proposed phasing as follows, with the understanding that the number of buildings listed for each phase can be constructed on either Tract A or B and that all time periods are to be measured from the date of final site plan approval: Phase I -- at least one building shall be commenced in the first three years; Phase II -- at least three buildings shall have commenced in the first six years; Phase III -- at least five buildings shall have commenced in the eight years; provided, however, that if any of the Phases cannot be commenced in the time periods set forth above, the Hearing Examiner shall, within thirty days of First City' s written request and based upon a showing of good cause for delay, including circumstances such as lack of available financing, tenants or other market conditions, ("Good Cause") grant an extension of the time for commencement of that phase as - 24 - November 20, 1991 necessary, but not beyond the eight year period; provided, however, that one two-year extension of the eight year extended site plan approval shall be granted within thirty days of First City' s written request therefor if, in the discretion of the Hearing Examiner, substantial progress has been shown and there is Good Cause for such extension. The parking garage may be constructed at any time within the extended site plan period. The Hearing Examiner' s determination with regard to extension of the phases or extension of the site plan period as set forth above shall be appealable to the City Council within 15 days of the Hearing Examiner' s decision regarding the requested extension. 3 . No Additional Phasing Requirements. Other than the phasing requirements of the extended site plan approval in Section II.D. 2 , the Construction Season Limitations in Section II . 0 and the requirement to substantially comply with the Schematic Site Plans (Revised Project) as specified in Section A. 3 , there shall be no other restrictions regarding when and where the buildings and parking garage on Tracts A and B are constructed. 4 . Requirements for Site Plan Application. The application for site plan approval shall consist only of a site plan as specified by the City' s site plan ordinance, schematic building elevations, landscape plan, schematic grading, drainage and utilities plan, and schematic wetlands mitigation plan. - 25 - November 20, 1991 Detailed planting plans, architectural and engineering plans, construction haul route plan and other similar plans of this specificity and detail will not be required until the time of construction permit application. A Transportation Management Plan as further set forth below must be submitted at the time of building permit application for each building, and approved by the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits for each building. 5. Vesting. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the City agrees that the Revised Project shall be vested to those zoning, shorelines, wetlands, parking, site plan and other land use ordinances in effect at the date of this Agreement, and that the Revised Project will not be subject to the requirements of any new ordinances not in effect on the date of this Agreement. The City will use its best efforts to ensure the vesting of the Revised Project, including but not limited to, broadly interpreting its vesting protection for extended site plan approvals, and ensuring that "vesting grace" is provided for the Revised Project in new ordinances which address wetlands, wildlife habitat, parking or other subjects which could impose requirements additional to or conflicting with the Mitigation Measures in this Agreement. The City recognizes that the shoreline permits for this project may expire prior to the commencement of construction of all of the buildings anticipated for the Revised Project under the extended site plan approval, - 26 - November 20, 1991 and the City agrees that these shoreline permits for the Revised Project shall be re-issued as necessary for the life of the extended site plan approval, despite any changes in the shoreline program, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. This vesting does not apply if the approved site plan expires nor is it binding on the courts or the Shorelines Hearings Board. E. Conditions Regarding Drainage and Water Quantity. 1. Drainage to be Accommodated by P-1 Pond. The City recognizes, based upon prior agreements with First City and upon drainage calculations which show sufficient capacity, that the P- 1 Pond is sufficient to handle the quantity of surface and storm water run-off anticipated from the Revised Project. The City therefore agrees that there will be no requirements placed on the Revised Project inconsistent witL the agreement that run-off from the Revised Project will enter the P-1 Pond without detention. 2 . Compliance with City Stormwater Ordinance. First City shall design and operate the surface and storm water run-off system for the Revised Project in compliance with the City' s Surface and Stormwater Drainage ordinance in effect at the date of this Agreement, including the use of wet ponds and biofiltration swales, and any required downstream analyses, as provided in that ordinance. Review and approval of First City' s schematic drainage plan will occur at site plan approval, but this approval shall not contain any conditions which impose - 27 - November 20, 1991 requirements which exceed or are inconsistent with this Agreement. 3 . P-1 Pond Water Quality Management Plan. If the City implements a water quality management plan ("P-i Plan") to reduce water quality impacts on the P-1 Pond, to be paid for by all landowners who contribute run-off to the P-1 Pond, First City shall contribute its proportionate share of the funding for the P-1 Plan so long as all other owners contribute their proportionate share of the funding; provided, however that First . 0, City retains the ability to challenge the City' s allocation of costs to First City under the P-1 Plan. The City may provide for reasonable classifications, rate reductions and exemptions without violating this section, as long as these are rationally based and not fundamentally unfair. 4 . Wetlands Mitigation. First City shall mitigate for the proposed filling of approximately 0. 14 acres of wetlands with low functional values on Tracts A and B by creating an additional new or enhanced wetland area adjacent to the old Black River channel on Tract B. A schematic wetlands mitigation plan, containing the elements set forth in Exhibit M attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein shall be submitted to the City as part of the site plan approval. Site plan approval of the wetland mitigation plan shall not contain any conditions which impose requirements which exceed or are inconsistent with this Agreement. - 28 - November 20, 1991 5. Wetlands Buffer. First City shall establish a buffer around the old Black River channel wetland on Tract B averaging 50 feet in width with no portion of the buffer to be less than 25 feet in width. F. Conditions Regarding Traffic. Parking Garage and Parking Construction 1. Traffic Mitigation Fee Credit. There shall be no traffic mitigation fees required of First City for the Revised Project. 2. Transportation Management Plan. First City will be required to submit a Transportation Management Plan ("TMP") for the Revised Project at the time of building permit applications which TMP shall contain the elements and goals listed in Exhibit J, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The TMP must be approved by the City's Development Services Division in accordance with the elements and goals set forth in Exhibit J prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of the buildings in the Revised Project. The City may not impose TMP requirements for the Revised Project which exceed or are inconsistent with those set forth in Exhibit J, and the City agrees to expeditiously review the TMP. 3 . Construction Haul Routes Plan. Prior to commencing construction, First City shall have a haul routes plan for controlling construction transportation impacts approved by the City. First City will cooperate with reasonable City efforts - 29 - November 20, 1991 to coordinate construction haul routes with other projects under construction at the same time in the immediate vicinity. First City agrees to ensure that truck and wheel washing be accomplished on site before each haul trip. First City also agrees that it will limit hauling hours for large construction vehicles in accordance with applicable City standards. 4 . Parking Garage. The parking garage shall be constructed in compliance with applicable City standards. The north wall of the lower three levels of the parking garage shall be a. solid blank wall. The top level of the garage shall be open; however, the north wall of the garage will be extended to a height of 48 inches from floor level. A reasonable number of potted plantings shall also be placed on the top level of the parking garage to provide visual relief and reduce some incidental headlight glare, provided that parking requirements can still be met. The City shall permit First City to locate temporary parking for Tract B on Tract A during the construction of the surface parking and the construction of the parking garage. 5. Construction Area Demarcation. During construction of the buildings and parking garage on Tract B, First City will be required to demarcate in a highly visible manner the boundaries of construction. - 30 - November 20, 1991 G. Miscellaneous Architectural Issues. Light and Glare. Building Colors, Archaeological Issues, Cumulative Impacts, Contamination Issue 1. Architectural Issues. The buildings in the Revised Project will be located substantially as indicated on the Schematic Site Plans. The colors of the building skins shall be subdued colors, including colors such as browns, tans, off- whites, greens, grays, and blues. The windows shall be glass with a non-reflective coating. No window hoods will be required. There will be no other design requirements regarding the buildings. 2 . Site Lighting. First City shall use down light standards in its parking areas and other lighted site areas. 3 . Archaeological Survey. The archaeological survey already conducted for the site will satisfy requirements to quantify the Revised Project's archaeological impacts and no further archaeological survey is required for the Revised Project. The portion of Tract A which has not been subject to an archaeological survey, is substantially the portion being sold to the City pursuant to Section V below, and thus, the need for any additional archeological survey is eliminated. 4 . Contaminated Area. There shall be no requirements such as use or construction limitations or signage requirements imposed by the City to address the issue of contamination under MTCA or other laws, as the contaminated portion of Tract A is being sold to the City pursuant to Section V below. - 31 - November 20, 1991 III. AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT REVISED PROJECT, NON-OPPOSITION A. First City Withdrawal of Appeal. First City agrees to withdraw its appeal of the ERC Document upon execution of this Agreement, as further provided in Section VI.F below. B. City Obligations 1. Mitigation Conditions Final Exercise of City SEPA Authority. The City agrees that the Mitigation Conditions replace and supersede the ERC Document and that the Mitigation Conditions are the final exercise of its SEPA authority for the Revised Project. The City will not assert continuing SEPA authority to request or impose SEPA conditions additional to or inconsistent with the Mitigation Conditions at the site plan approval, the shoreline permit, the building permit, or in any subsequent permitting process for the Revised Project, nor will the City bring any SEPA challenge regarding the Revised Project; provided, however, that this Agreement cannot bind quasi-judicial decisionmakers and that new SEPA authority may be asserted by the City if First City makes a Modification to its Revised Project as defined in Section II.A. 4 above, if that Modification requires new SEPA review. 2 . City Support of Approvals for Revised Project. The City Administration agrees that it will support the Revised Project. The City Administration agrees that City staff will recommend approval of a site plan application for the Revised - 32 - i November 20, 1991 Project to the Hearing Examiner and if appealed, will support the site plan approval before the City Council. City staff will also approve a shoreline permit for the Revised Project, in accordance with this Agreement and the requirements of its Shoreline Master Program, and support this shoreline permit in any appeals to the Hearing Examiner or Shorelines Hearings Board. The City further agrees that it will not recommend imposition of additional requirements with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement, which requirements exceed or are inconsistent with the Mitigation Conditions, on any City permits or approvals required for the construction or operation of the Revised Project, except as provided in Section II.A. 2 above. 3 . City Support of Approvals with Third Parties. The City agrees not to encourage or assist other individuals or entities to oppose, appeal or otherwise delay the site plan approval, shoreline permit, building permit or other permits required for construction or operation of the Revised Project. 4 . Expeditious Processing of Approvals. The City agrees to use its best efforts to expeditiously process the site plan approval, shoreline permit, building permit and other permits and approvals required for the construction or operation of the Revised Project. More specifically, when First City submits a complete site plan application package, the City will use all practicable means to have a site plan approval recommendation ready within six weeks of that submittal. The - 33 - November 20, 1991 City also agrees to use best efforts to expeditiously process building permit applications in order that First City can meet the Construction Season Limitations in Section II.0 above, if applicable. C. Citizen Appellant Obligations 1. Withdrawal of Appeals. The Citizen Appellants agree to withdraw their appeal of the ERC Document, and to withdraw their appeal of the FEIS, upon execution of this Agreement as further provided in Stoction VI.F below. 2 . Non-Opposition to Governmental Approvals; Agreement to Forego Further Appeals. The Citizen Appellants agree on behalf of their associations, their officers, directors, current members in their capacity as members, and successors that they will bring no further challenges to the Revised Project based on SEPA, and that they will not oppose First City' s application for site plan approvals, shoreline permits, building permits, and any other existing or future governmental approvals including, but not limited to, permits or licenses or any other governmental actions (all collectively, "Governmental Approvals") which First City has sought or in the future may seek for construction or operation of the Revised Project. The Citizen Appellants ' agreement not to oppose Governmental Approvals includes non-opposition before the approval-granting authority and non-opposition through administrative appeal or litigation. The sole exception to this non-opposition requirement is that the - 34 - November 20, 1991 Citizen Appellants retain the right, should the Hearing Examiner deny the final two year extension of the site plan approval based on a finding of no Good Cause, to support the Hearing Examiner's denial. The Citizen Appellants also agree on behalf of their associations, their officers, directors, current members in their capacity as members, and successors, not to take any other actions which might have the effect of stopping or delaying construction of the Revised Project or increasing the cost of the Revised Project. The Citizen Appellants do not waive their right to insist that the Revised Project be constructed in conformance with the Mitigation Conditions and with consistent conditions attached to other Governmental Approvals, subject to Section II.A. 4 above on Modifications to the Revised Project. The Citizen Appellants agree that neither they, nor their officers, directors, current members in their capacity as members, or successors will in any way assist, aid or cooperate with other persons or entities who oppose the Revised Project or who contemplate opposing the Revised Project in any of the manners described in this paragraph. 3 . Best Efforts to Avoid Third Party Opposition. The Citizen Appellants, their officers, directors, current members in their capacity as members, associate members, and successors agree to use their best efforts to support the Revised Project and to persuade any individuals or groups not bound by this Agreement to support the site plan approval, shoreline permit, - 35 - November 20, 1991 building permits and other Governmental Approvals for the Revised Project and to use best efforts to dissuade any such individuals or groups from bringing administrative appeals or litigation to challenge such Governmental Approvals for the Revised Project. 4 . Non-Opposition, Support Applicable to Agreed Modifications of Project. If the Parties approve a Modification as set forth in Section II.A.4 above, the non-opposition and support obligations set forth in this paragraph shall also apply to the Modification of the Revised Project. IV. CITY PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF TRACT A The City agrees to purchase and First City agrees to sell a portion of Tract A of the Blackriver Corporate Park ("the City Tract A Property") under the terms and conditions set forth in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement for a Portion of Tract A and its attachments ("the Tract A Purchase Agreement") which is attached hereto as Exhibit N and by this reference incorporated herein. The City Tract A property is depicted on Attachment A and is legally described on Attachment B to the Tract A Purchase Agreement. Closing of the City ' s purchase of City Tract A shall be contingent upon First City obtaining an acceptable final site plan approval and shoreline permit for the Revised Project which contingency may be waived by First City, all as further provided in Section VI.B below. - 36 - November 20, 1991 V. CITY PURCHASE OF PORTIONS OF TRACT C 1"I A. Purchase of the City Tract C Property. The City agrees to purchase, and First City agrees to sell to the City, Lots 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and a portion of Lot 6 of Tract C of the Blackriver Corporate Park ("the City Tract C Property") under the terms and conditions set forth in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement for a Portion of Tract C, including its attachments ("the Tract C Purchase Agreement") , which is attached hereto as Exhibit 0 and by this reference incorporated herein. The City Tract C Property is depicted on Attachment A and legally described on Attachment C of the Tract C Purchase Agreement. f{ Closing of the City' s purchase of the City Tract C Property is contingent upon First City's obtaining an acceptable final site plan approval and shoreline permit for the Revised Project, which contingency may be waived by First City, all as further provided in Section VI.B below. B. Purchase of Tract C Option Property. i1 First City agrees to grant the City a two year option to purchase the portion of Tract C remaining after the purchase of the City Tract C Property, to wit, Lot 3 , Lot 4 and the remainder of Lot 6 of Tract C ("the Tract C Option Property") under the terms and conditions set forth in the Option Agreement including its attachments, which are attached hereto as Exhibit P and by this reference incorporated herein. The Option Agreement is it - 37 - November 20, 1991 contingent upon the closing of the City's purchase of the City Tract C Property, as provided therein. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Entire Agreement Included; Modification This Agreement and the attached exhibits contain the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall not be modified or amended in any way except in writing signed by the duly authorized representatives of the Parties or their successors in interest. Modifications of the portions of this Agreement which address the Revised Project are dealt with more specifically in Section II .A. 4 above. B. Contingent Nature of this Agreement In the event that First City is unable to obtain an acceptable site plan approval or shoreline permit which First City deems to be consistent with this Agreement for construction of the Revised Project, or if there are any appeals or litigation of First City' s site plan approval or shoreline permit, then at the option of First City, this Agreement shall terminate, the Purchase and Sale Agreements and Option Agreements shall be null and void, and the Parties shall be returned to their original positions prior to the Agreement. The closing of the Purchase and Sale Agreements and Option Agreement attached hereto is contingent on First City's obtaining an acceptable final site plan approval and final shoreline permit for the Revised Project, - 38 - November 20, 1991 which contingency may be waived by First City at its sole option. C. Dispute Resolution The Parties to this Agreement agree to in good faith attempt to resolve among themselves disputes which may arise under this Agreement prior to resorting to litigation. D. Enforcement The Parties agree that the remedies at law for any breach of the agreements contained herein would be inadequate and in the event of a breach of this Agreement, the aggrieved Party shall be entitled to equitable relief including injunctive relief. While First City may also seek damages for any such breach against the City, First City and the Citizen Appellants agree that their only remedy against each other is injunctive relief; provided, however, that this does not waive First City' s or the Citizens Appellants ' right to seek and enforce an injunction bond. E. Agreement to Bind Successors This Agreement is intended to be and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the Parties and upon any and all purchasers of the real property which is a subject of this Agreement. The benefits and burdens upon the Parties created by this Agreement shall be and create a covenant upon and shall run with and be appurtenant to the real property which is a subject of this Agreement. - 39 - November 20, 1991 F. Stipulated Dismissal of Hearing Examiner Appeals Upon execution of this Agreement, the Parties agree to execute and file with the Hearing Examiner the stipulated dismissal of appeals ("Stipulated Dismissal") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit K and by this reference incorporated herein. The Parties agree that they shall sign, deliver and file the Stipulated Dismissal the same working day as the execution of this Agreement or within one working day thereafter. 4 G. Joint Press Release The Parties agree that upon execution of this Agreement, they will jointly issue a press release in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated herein by this reference. The Parties agree not to comment to the press in a manner that would call this Agreement into question and agree that for as long as any provision of this Agreement remains in force that each shall work to maintain as positive a public attitude towards each other as possible. H. Manner of Giving No':ice Any notice or other communication of any sort required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if personally delivered or mailed by certified mail as follows: If to Seattle Audubon or Rainier Audubon: Mr. Gerry Adams 28803 N.E. Big Rock Road Duvall, WA 98019 - 40 - November 20, 1991 with a copy to: Seattle Audubon Society c/o John Lundin 8028 - 35th Avenue N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 • If to Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation or Sierra Club: Ms. Susan Krom 3640 Ashworth North Seattle, WA 98103 If to City of Renton: Mayor, City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 with a copy to: Mr. Larry Warren City Attorney 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 If to First City: Mr. Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 with a copy to: Ms. Amy L. Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 I . Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. - 41 - November 20, 1991 J. Effect of Recitals, Headings The recitals set forth in Section I above are a material part of this Agreement and are fully incorporated in its terms. The headings and subheadings contained in this Agreement are solely for the convenience of the parties. The headings and subheadings are not part of this Agreement and are not to be used in construing this Agreement. K. Legal Descriptions First City retains the right to modify the legal descriptions of Tracts A, B and C to reflect the correct legal descriptions for these Tracts, and to insert any necessary corrections into Exhibits A, B and C without the necessity for additional signatures. L. Severability In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall, for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the Parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications or supplements of or to this Agreement or such other actions as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the Parties as reflected herein. The other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. - 42 - November 13, 1991 Parties as reflected herein. The other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. M. Authority to Bind The signatories hereto represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations or corporations. EXECUTED this : day of Lvet.A , 1991. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation By ( (off Earl Clymer Mayor ATTEST: City Cl APPROVED NS TO FORM: By -fit/ 1/`-- ty Attorney FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a Washington corporation By Its By Its - 42 - November 13, 1991 Parties as reflected herein. The other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. M. Authority to Bind The signatories hereto represent and warrant that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations or corporations. EXECUTED this day of 4>16vvl'L^'' , 1991. CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation By Earl Clymer Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By City Attorney FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a . Washington corporation BY 6X/ XiEX :--- , fiE`i h4ET H V. BEL LAMY - Its £E::w.la_?'" fr By ` ��C9� Its DEAN R. ERICKSON VICE PRESIDENT - 42 - I ill ' November 20, 1991 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, a Washington non-profit corporation By C`/'` �./� A Its P(2 CS c D ivy RAINIER AUDUBON SOCIETY, an unincorporated association of citizens By <� Its A4e i t+r9� c CD {.•.`w77_. . CITIZENS FOR RENTON WILDLANDS PRESERVATION, an unincorporated association of citizens BY Itsb1 `\' SIERRA CLUB CASCADE CHAPTER, a Washington non-profit corporation By k-c -1/N Its aC l -J - 44 - November 13 , 1991 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of .12/0..c4,w4,-(A- , 1991, before me personally appeared KENNETH BELLAMY of the corporation that Executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. - Noary Public in and for the. State of , residing ate My C ission Expires: 51 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING On this pLV day of `�� ; 1991, before me personally appeared GERRY AMS, President of the Seattle Audubon Society and authorized agent of Rainier Audubon Society, that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said non-profit corporation and unincorporated association of citizens, respectively, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument of said non-profit corporation and unincorporated association of citizens. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and ar first above written. • o y Pu lic in and for th S to of1 . kfL4 / , residing at . My Co ssion Expires: 77/ --9Y - 45 - i November 13, 1991 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this /CJ , day of , 1991, before me personally appeared EARL C YMER, MAYOR of the municipal corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said municipal corporation. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. d-"") Notary P 'c in and for the State of L-J,(j >aj. , residing at My Commission Expires: //Q _ . 9? STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of / /ib , 1991, before me personally appeared DEAN ERICKSON of the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. 110 No Pu lic in and for the tate of , residing at �� 7Y) . y Co ssion Expires: - 44 - November 20, 1991 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 1991, before me personally appeared SUSAN OM, President of Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation and authorized agent of Cascade Chapter Sierra Club that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said unincorporated association of citizens and non- profit corporation and, respectively, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument of said non-profit corporation and unincorporated association of citizens. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. Not Public in and for the St e of 5%/4 �6YI , residing at My Comm' ssion Expires: 47 - November 20, 1991 EXHIBITS TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Exhibit A - Tract A Legal Description B - Tract B Legal Description C - Tract C Legal Description Dl/D2 - Original site plans E - FEIS Figures 1-3 showing Heron Rookery F - Tract A Schematic Site Plan G - Tract B Schematic Site Plan H - Landscape Areas Plan I - Construction Limit Zone J - Transportation Management Plan Goals and Elements K - Stipulated Dismissal L - Press Release M - Wetlands Mitigation Plan Elements N - Real Estate Purchase & Sale Agreement for a Portion of Tract A and Attachments O - Real Estate Purchase & Sale Agreement for a Portion of Tract C and Attachments P - Option Agreement and Attachments FC175011A11191.AL.K - 48 - I EXHIBIT A BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION — TRACT A THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24 , SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, DE— SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 TO 102 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH— WESTERLY LINE AND ON A CURVE OF WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS , NORTH 55°39 ' 29" EAST 422 . 96 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 87 . 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°26'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 263.09 FEET TO A LINE DESIGNATED "PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUNDARY" ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP, SHEET 1 OF 3 , ENTITLED "LAND RIGHTS WORK MAP, P-1 CHANNEL, EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WPP, CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;" THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND ON A CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°24 '02" EAST 165.04 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 112.06 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44°18 ' 11" WEST 172.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE AND SAID LINE 133.74 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE 367.02 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WHICH IS 1271.76 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 133.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 70°46' 34" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH— EASTERLY LINE 13 .95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 922 .73 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°32 ' 43" AN ARC LENGTH OF 89 . 305 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY THEREON; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 65°13 ' 51" EAST 778 . 46 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 422.96 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 110.02 FEET TO BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH TRACT A OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARC CONTAINS 525 , 535 SQUARE FEET OR 12 . 0646 ACRES. M4R I c, t`, rj' e. FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. *. ca ' STEVEN A. HITCHINGS, P.L.S. • "-' O a NOVEMBER 6, 1991 .t) 22333 �.4 JOB NO. 91400 SUR 53—B 'i NAL 1-P1� EXPIRES 1,r27/Cj Z ; EXHIBIT B BUSh..00ED8;HITCHINGS. Ir+c. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT B • • That Portion of Tract 13, Washington Technical Center, as recorded in Volume 122 of Plats, Pages 98 through 102, records of King County, Washington, lying Northerly of Southwest 7th Street as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100643, and Westerly of Naches Avenue Southwest as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100644, records of said County. 1 i� First City BRH Job Nos. 86230 t, 86083 April 28, 1987 et//ALH/Sure. 17, 86230 0%L.H1 TC, w :Cntirl;topt". A"STEREO etw { At (Atm • It 1 it EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO �CT C BUSH HOED & HITCHINGS, INC. NEW PARCEL I: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,099.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 418.89 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE WITH A RADIUS OF 1005.37 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 38°15'05" EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 346.30 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°29'03" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 912.08 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE NORTH 89°10'25" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 81.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.0000 ACRES. %IX /323 o y/-/a FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. APRIL 19, 1988 ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS BRH JOB NO. 86114.04 SURV. 20A 4(1 fit% HI TCy7 tQQ�� t WAS G'U,1 ' z£T! ' çrt`p o 1 • ^;i tO,sif4F, r`t"S;• ' SJQ ii t � -AL Lr.ri9 1 LS/ • BUSH. ..OED & HITCHINGS. INC. NEW PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COFL`IENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1099.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 526.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 30.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°42'49" EAST 218.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°15'00" EAST 350.00 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 1°45'00" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1°45'00" WEST 400.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.000 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. mod, Tex Ad. /3 Z1vy-1'o 87 FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. APRIL 19, 1988 ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS BRH JOB NO. 86114.04 Pf SURV. 2Q 111. 1\iik L.HI ic �r O� w�„ C1 r 4. `n/' /// 2 a \• AFC/S T E4 '� �.U�%It . `°11 4. � NEW PARCEL 3 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1099.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 400.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST 350.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 71°42'49" WEST 218.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 109.81 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°22'34" WEST 174.45 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 67°05'58" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 174.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39°14' 15" EAST 453. 11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1165.09 FEET , THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39° 14 ' 15" WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 267.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37°35'03". EAST 308.70 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1005.37 FEET A DISTANCE- OF 248.54 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 1°45'00" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1°45'00" WEST 18.89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TRACT: THAT PORTION OF CHARLES BROWNELL'S. DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, AND OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS, 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY OF TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 73.50 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH O1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41 A DISTANCE OF 950.58 FEET TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 15°22'32" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790.19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 789.44 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°12'39" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°35'11" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,580.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 437.40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°42'39" TO A POINT • OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 41°17 '50" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 428.64 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73.32 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°48'04" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°29'46" EAST HAVINQ A RADIUS OF 676.58 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93. 64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°55'47" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 50°34'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 248.50 FEET TO' A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°25'33" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 696.89 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.09 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°17'45" TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 43°49'09" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 173.83 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46°10'51" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,030.00 FEET, NEW PARCEL 3 - PAGE 2 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°48'32" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 43°22' 19" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,853.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.75 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°01'18' TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 37°21'O1" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 186.51 FEET THROUGH A ' CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°00'49" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°20'12" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 193.93 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°42'20" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°37'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,738.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°40'54" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 27°56'58" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,768.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.45 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18'06" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE f0 THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 21°38'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 8603.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 204 .54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°21'44" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 20°17'08" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,922.10 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 178.79 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°19'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14°57'22" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2814.93 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°25'19" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01°32'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,165.09 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1,097.05 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53°57 '00" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 37°35'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 308.70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 52°24'57" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,005.37 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45.82 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°36'41", TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS ; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 40°11 '44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 49°48' 16" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,829.78 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 309.67 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°41'48"; THENCE NORTH 49°53'32" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 167.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 40°06'28" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,102.46 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 807. 11 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°56'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH O1°50' 18" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,799. 19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°32' 14" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: f, NEW PARCEL 3 - PAGE 3 COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED MAIN TRACT 174.47 ,, FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE THEREOF AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 71°22'34" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 144.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 60.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°22'34" EAST 157 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 4! ., FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. Q� N.MAY 3, 1989 0A BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Z HRH JOB NO. 86114.04/05 �• ; ..Ae ;4SURV. 20A F. CPTES- �-:� 2e,v 7-zi- Sc) a C BUSI4. ..OED & HITCHINGS. INc. NEW PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND TRACT 25, RENTON SHORELANDS 2ND SUPPLEMENTAL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1 ,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 140.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°22'34" WEST 413.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31°14'05" WEST 358.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°09'SO" EAST 71.33 FEET; THENCE EAST 114.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68.91 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE SOUTH 88°15'00" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 454.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.8319 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. �o X A/o. /3Z3o yo8y . FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. APRIL 19, 1988 ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS BRH JOB NO. 86114.04 SURV. 20A w ; � � z O , $ c. `Js eh,fill it BUSH. .COED & HITCHINGS. INc. NEW PARCEL 5: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 2080.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68.91 FEET; THENCE WEST 114.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°09'50" WEST 71.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31°14'05" EAST 358.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 42°06'08" WEST 215.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80°04'48" WEST 232.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°O1'00" WEST 40.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°59'00" WEST 133.03 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 111.56 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 197.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°15'00" WEST 67.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31°32'22" WEST 71.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81°11'35" WEST 47.50 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 52°42'12" EAST; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 1359.12 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 71°22'34" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 71°22'34" WEST 239.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.3831 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE NORTH 71°22'34" EAST ALONG AN EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE THEREOF 144.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 60.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°22'34" WEST 157 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO BEGINNING, ALSO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. ' ��:' /J2,0 9oyd ' P ` ''1 0` .A ` ' FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. �+ f:_ APRIL 19, 1988 . f �' o ,ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS 1. = ?* 'BRH JOB NO. 86114.04 'r p 4 SURV. 20A f� c�3b .J 6 NEW PARCEL 6 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH—SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13, A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26, A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26, A DISTANCE OF 73.51 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH O1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 498. 15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81°11'35" EAST 119.19 FEET TO A POINT ON CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 52°42' 12" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 538.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID CURVE 646.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39°14'15" EAST 453. 11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,165.09 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°14' 15" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 829.08 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,814.93 FEET A DISTANCE OF 79.20 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 1°24 '04" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1°24'04" WEST 365.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TRACT: THAT PORTION OF CHARLES BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, AND OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER. AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH—SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS, 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY OF TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 73.50 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH O1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41 A DISTANCE OF 950.58 FEET TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AS DEPICTED ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8312229001, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 15°22'32" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790.19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 789.44 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°12'39" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°35'11" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,580.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 437.40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°42'39" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 41°17 ' 50" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 428.64 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73. 32 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°48'04" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINEaON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°29'46" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 676. 58 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93.64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°55'47" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 50°34 '27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 248.50 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°25'33" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 696.89 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.09 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°17'45" TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT—OF—WAY; THENCE NORTH 43°49'09" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 'A DISTANCE OF 173.83 FEET TO A POINT OF ( , NEW PARCEL 6 PAGE 2 CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46°10'51" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,030.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°48'32" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 43°22' 19" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,853.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194 .75 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°01'18' TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 37°21'O1" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 186.51 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°00'49" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°20'12" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 193.93 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°42'20" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°37'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,738.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°40'54" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 27°56'58" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,768.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.45 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18'06" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 21°38' 52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 8603.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 204 .54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°21'44" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 20°17'08" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,922.10 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 178.79 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°19'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14°57'22" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2814.93 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°25'19" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01°32'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,165.09 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1,097.05 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53°57'00" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 37°35'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 308.70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 52°24'57" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,005.37 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45 .82 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF H 02°36'41" TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 40°11'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 49°48' 16" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,829.78 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 309.67 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°41'48"; THENCE NORTH 49°53'32" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 167.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 40°06'28" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,102.46 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 807.11 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°56'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO Tq LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH O1°50' 18" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790. 19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659. 24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°32' 14" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: C NEW PARCEL 6 - PAGE 3 COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2 ,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916 . 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. ote ��� N H,?JJ Co. 7-;,z A/a. /3 z 3 o'-y17/Z �� E A' \f, J, f �,� r: 0% • IRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. +�',� . , O : •Y 3, 1989 S E. • •CKRIVER CORPORATE PARK . $RH JOB NO. 86114.04/05 :Ii F �O .9 �IURV. 20A •F GIS7ER �a`,, i j.3,1 {C L1K0 SJ .n.rN F,�' =1-3` i < < NEW PARCEL 7: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13, A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 72°37 '52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26, A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26, A DISTANCE OF 73.51 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NUMBER 41; THENCE NORTH O1°24 '04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 498.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 509.58 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE AND ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,814.93 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14°57'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 580.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°24 '04" WEST 365.48 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 650.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 5°14'26" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 538.45 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 81°11 '35" EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 81°11'35' WEST 119. 19 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TRACT: THAT PORTION OF CHARLES BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, AND OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS, 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY OF TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 73.50 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH 01°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41 A DISTANCE OF 950.58 FEET TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AS DEPICTED ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8312229001, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 15°22'32" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790.19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 789.44 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°12'39" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°35' 11" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,580.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 437.40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL 'ANGLE OF 09°42'39" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 41°17 '50" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 428.64 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73. 32 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°48'04" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°29'46" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 676. 58 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93. 64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°55'47" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 50°34'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 248.50 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°25'33" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 696.89 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.09 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°17'45" TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 'RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 43°49'09" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 173.83 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46°10'51" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,030.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°48' 32" TO A POINT NEW PARCEL 7 - PAGE 2 OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT , THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 43°22' 19" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,853. 00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194 .75 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°01' 18' TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 37°21'O1" EAST • HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 186.51 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01°00'49" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°20' 12" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 193.93 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°42'20" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°37'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,738.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°40'54" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 27°56'58" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,768.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.45 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18'06" TO A POINT !' OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE !. RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 21°38'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF • 8603.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 204.54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°21'44" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 20°17'08" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,922.10 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 178.79 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°19'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14°57'22" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2814.93 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°25'19" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH O1°32'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,165.09 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1,097.05 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53°57'00" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 37°35'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 308.70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 52°24'57" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,005. 37 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45.82 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°36'41" TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 40°11 '44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF ' WHICH BEARS SOUTH 49°48' 16" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,829.78 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 309.67 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°41'48"; THENCE NORTH 49°53'32" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 167.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 40°06'28" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,102.46 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 807.11 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°56'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01°50' 18" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790. 19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°32' 14" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: C C NEW PARCEL 7 - PAGE 3 COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2 ,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. �,fi,,---; 6. %,� A . /J2,p y' - yoz (4,1 �R1 HI y/.-_ /4,tcY�� 0' WA.• i I C�'r FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. �`, �,. ' MAY 3, 1989 C cj •. V• BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK N 2 \ BRH JOB NO. 86114.04/05 . .� . ~ 4 0 SURV. 20A tt -gr rG TER- ,,yam"4' _ I ivirAt UPNO S fir 1., _ 3 %-x1fi/1f 1 (- NEW PARCEL 8 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION TO CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, RECORDS OF SAID KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND OF C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884 .84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 382.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 73.51 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID C.E. BROWNELL'S LAND DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 498.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 81°11'35" WEST 26.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°15'00" WEST 92.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°29'30" WEST 143.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74°44'00 WEST 84 .85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60°16 '00" WEST 67.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°16'00" EAST 97.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68°06'46" WEST 110.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°16'00" WEST 140.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19°41'48" EAST 80.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°41'48" - EAST 240.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 26°45' 10" WEST 154.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1768.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 26°45'10" EAST; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 157.52 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 8603.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 204.54 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,922.10 FEET A DISTANCE OF 178.79 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE SOUTH 1°24'04" WEST 509.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT LYING EAST OF SAID C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41: THAT PORTION OF CHARLES BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, AND OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26 OF RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS , 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 382.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY OF TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 73.50 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE NORTH O1°24 '04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41 A DISTANCE OF 950.58 FEET TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AS DEPICTED ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8312229001, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 15°22'32" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,790.19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 789.44 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°12'39" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENQE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°35' 11" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,580.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 437 .40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°42 '39" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT , THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 41°17 ' 50" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 428.64 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 73. 32 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°48'04" TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 31°29'46" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 676 . 58 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 93 .64 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°55'47" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG (- NEW PARCEL 8 - PAGE 2 SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 50°34'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 248.50 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°25'33" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 696.89 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.09 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°17'45" TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 43°49'09" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 173.83 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46°10'51" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,030.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°48'32" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 43°22' 19" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,853.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.75 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°O1' 18' TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 37°21'01" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 186.51 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°00'49" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°20'12". EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 193.93 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°42'20" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 29°37'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,738.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°40'54" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 27°56'58" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,768.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 194.45 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°18'06" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 21°38'52" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 8603.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 204.54 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF O1°21'44" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 20°17'08" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,922.10 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 178.79 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°19'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID CHARLES BROWNELL DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 41; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 14°57'22" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2814.93 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.42 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°25' 19" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH O1°32'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,165.09 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1,097.05 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 53°57 ' 00" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 37°35'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 308.70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 52°24'57" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,005. 37 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45.82 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02°36'41" TO A LINE 35 FEET SOUTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE EXISTING MOST SOUTHERLY TRACK OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 40°11'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 126.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 49°48'16" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,829.78 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 309.67 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°41'48"; THENCE NORTH 49°5332" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE A DISTANCE OF 167.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 40°06'28" WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,102.46 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 807.11 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41°56'46" TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01°50' 18" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 2 ,790. 19 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 659.24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°32' 14" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. . NEW PARCEL 8 - PAGE 3 TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; • THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. ri�..r / /A A4. IkFIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. f,�`' /j`4 ��� MAY 3, 1989 i$ tir O $LACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK 4 Z RH JOB NO. 86114.04/05 !jt ijl0 c 4 ‘SURV. 20A Igo F F, 1 N0,0 NAL LAND fi a MAY 08 '91 07:52 BR&H 206 323 7135 P.2/3 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS. INC. NEW PARCEL 9 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION TO CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, RECORDS OF SAID KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND OF C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 382.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 73.51 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAMS NO. 41; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 498.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81°11'35" WEST 26.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°15'00" WEST 92.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°29'30" WEST 143. 18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74°44'00 WEST 84.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60°16'00" WEST 67.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°16'00" EAST 97.35 FEET; THENCE' SOUTH 68°06 '46" WEST .110.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 68°06'46" WEST 265.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 195.01 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 267.83; THENCE NORTH 78°41'24 WEST 117.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST 200.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 10,543.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°50'42" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SOUTHERLY LINE 93.53 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,657.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 193.93 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 6,738.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 197.76 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,768.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 36.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26°45'10" EAST 154.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°41 '48" WEST 240.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19°41'48" WEST 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°16 '00" EAST 140.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.3332 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.1{. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE • NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45'00" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19' 12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS lii OF 2, 745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 , 916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. / 7 r,,,,is'� CO. Ta X P4?✓ e 3)' f2D - D//8 • ti •?� "/. `OF FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. / ral EV. MAY 4, 1988 ;/ ' • THUR L. HITCHINGS ��1 ,% _ RH JOB NO. 86114.04 ,' - 1 �q 0tSURV. 20A `., Fc/STEM a" 1 ,I sa iGIIAt CF1:D Ifs BUSF-C .OED & HITCHINGS, INC. NEW PARCEL 10 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION TO CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, RECORDS OF SAID KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH E WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND OF C.E. BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1958; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 382.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST 354.53 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 73°56'O1" WEST 130.08 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 41°16'07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF-SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 316. 18 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF A TRACT OF LAND DEEDED TO KING CP'JNTY AND DESCRIBED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 6607786, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 627.46 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°41'39" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND NORTH BOUNDARY 373.11 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST 582.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 10543.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 36°50'42" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 92.98 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1 ,853.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 194.75 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 43°22'19" EAST 4,030.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2°48'32", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 197.57 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 43°49'09" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN 271.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,571.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7°32'02", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 206.57 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER WHICH BEARS NORTH 38°38'49" WEST 727.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°55'35", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 214.77 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE, THE CENTER WHICH BEARS NORTH 21°43'14" WEST 1 ,055.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°24'08", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 209.95 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 10°19'06" WEST 696.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN • AND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°44'25", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 45.43 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE CHARLES MONSTER COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 34°19 ' 34" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN 43.56 FEET TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT DEEDED TO KING COUNTY AND DESCRIBED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 6607786 THENCE NORTH 74°13' 19" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 443.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59°53'47" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 377.52 FEET; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 280.69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 627.46 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND NORTH BOUNDARY 61 . 59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.0046 ACRES, TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • BUSC 2OED & HITCHINGS, INc. NEW PARCEL 10 - PAGE 2 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 650.00 FEET THEREOF, SAID NORTH LINE BEING ALSO THE NORTH LINE OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, {' PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 1,626.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1°45100" EAST 225.00 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS {. OF 853.34 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 209.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°19'12" WEST 325.81 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 803.66 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,745.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 1 ,916. 19 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. ° /aX- /5/°- 377,10 --O/i �� FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. �i `/; REV. MAY 4, 1988 vI ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS Y lr_ BRH JOB NO. 86114.04 a • BUST-1, JED & HITCHINGS. INc. REMAINDER THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN; AND THAT PORTION OF JUNCTION ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; TOGETHER WITH VACATED STREETS ADJOINING WHICH WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW; AND OF CHARLES BROWNELL'S DONATION CLAIM NO. 41 AND OF THAT PORTION OF TRACTS 25 AND 26, RENTON SHORELANDS 2ND SUPPLEMENTAL, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 ; THENCE NORTH 00°58'28" EAST ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH CENTERLINE THEREOF 884.84 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 26, RENTON SHORELANDS SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS 1958 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST 382.60 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE NORTH 70°54'02" WEST 354.53 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINTIN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 73°56'O1" WEST 130.08 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26; THENCE SOUTH 41°16 ' 07" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 26 A DISTANCE OF 316.18 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF A TRACT OF LAND DEEDED TO KING COUNTY AND DESCRIBED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 6607786, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 627.46 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°41'39" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND NORTH BOUNDARY 373.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°24'04" EAST 381.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78°41 '24" EAST 117.64 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 195.01 FEET A DISTANCE OF 267.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68°06'46" EAST 375.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°16'00" WEST 97.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60°16'00" EAST 67.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74°44'00" EAST 84.85 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°29'30" EAST 143.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°15'00" EAST 92.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81°11 '35" EAST 193.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 31°32'22" EAST 71.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°15'00" EAST 67.68 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 160.00 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 86°34'52" EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 197.73 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 111.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 77°59'00" EAST 133.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°01 '00" EAST 40.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80°04'48" EAST 232.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°06'08" EAST 215.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31°14'05" WEST 358.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°09'50" . EAST 71 .33 FEET; THENCE EAST 114.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68.91 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACTS 25 AND 26; THENCE NORTH 88°15'00" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 180.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°07 ' 25" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 154.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27°21 '32" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 387.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°17'25" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 171.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°22'22" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 324.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72°37'52" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 76.33 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Co ,7�x 4 0. 3779 o//6 �. . /FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. ; iv di REV. MAY 18, 1988 • • :J ARTHUR L. HITCHINGS :,.r / BAH JOB NO. 86114.04 .. • 't • •'��•' - :,� SURV. 20A .o.. fa wr SEAT. • /' • '`n! TABULATION • g `^�'• u� i7j Site Arta ± 525,530 S.F. 1\ ` ;I. Building Area = 183,582 S.F. /J Footprint ± 83,582 S.F. , QrOaa Coverage _ 34.9% • g nr...°tact( 1/ Site Coverage = 12.1% ruN.e..ty ,ii I or Parking ▪ 791 Sidle ."`!- • ratio • 1/232 S.F. ICI s.....D.1.. MUTT 1/AP 1'=200' P•1 Charnel .:�••_• _ —rvs...r �A \ / awu .k.____.„,‘ 3r 1y / eta .... " /N� C \ t • tT-dy``? � 1� r1=� a 14 1/ % 1\S. \ \ .......3:: 7i......A ,11.4.7. 1\,:to.cos sr. A" • �• Y /1. / ///'/' m.--....-.7 ''."'-) / i +`moo `t. // • b/ \ ` NW. . ., 4� \ t 1a . Zillk 1 141 e •:.....4,......,,,,:::71 /.. 'on.rt.n I » \ i TRACT A ''-�_ I t R ' \J WIAI;•t$ BLACKRIVER '""''"ff4( CORPORATE PARK ( RT1n0.1 tCatRtON ill i iiw� w rtt$T CM DtVtLORatti:I CORP. �� ,:tK PHASE VIII EXHIBIT D-1 1a-31-91 ao...at-Oa.•••=• ._______>, ,a/ ji )1 ty ,..,__„„ , ii ,, . .. / . , , , ::: g I • o•1••4•0,rar ir""'^I" VICWITY MAP iti: \ tiptiromesv.• ...... / y \\ _d, -- ,!.H•off, Q' , 's„ \i' \ t ' ,1\ • I ri a '1• = 41:,YJaaa1 Ol r:1•!i \ • f// NL/ 1 • 7 •IIs I� 00: . ------ \ •. :/ -r/ .- -.1- ! j 1 I-.-' I - --••• .' 041 41%11 . :'r--. ',A il-p, • VI ti!di' �� • If ,`� t;; '�\ ��' u� lJ� '� ,: •�rj (S ,�6 - 1 1 •1�I.+ ,, 'V, 1;, i fie• %/ t t j:4.1 t4"/ ..k. •-• kl •il •:"•••.:•• .•\ N), ‘‘,\ :I • ....• I\s.s.L._,..j.,—.-.2....., /4•••,•-t,_ ' I „, /t I , � mo = ` y/ `� •,, \ cT.�' is .. I �. � .. .• a F r y, ; • � 'A`• - q % • — � • . o ♦ ITt ` — __ , •�,--•fi=::"; . . � � 7_7 •r s SR*Aria _660,161SF:` `�;i. ` \\`C•\ %•.��+ /.' �;�: ® f� BLACKR[VER Building Area c2e6.300 SP. -�'``, 'yti.• �� f ,:f tt '" CORPORATE PARK Groat Cover•g• =411% `• `- ,• r ti� �' w.*•^i i , -rsJ Sit*Coverage e11.6% (hc4des Garage) I • a7 " RENTON WASHINGTON Parking :1196 Slate sF110 SF. ;.,.',;�:•`_ `•`•--; . ,' ' �r '=1'%,' FIRST CITY DEVELOPMENTS CORP. ar• e WOO Structure Parked) «.a:.:::'>.. rr 1 '�'=s�f .mr c..,,,.,t t , TRACT B EXHIBIT D-2 10-31-91 0 • %----r.7 s... R''''''. AX, '.. ....1'fi'llf•''.••:.lit dift."". .1r.• .I- . . •.t' '-•-• At ' an:14. ,:e•411-s - •--. 0ti DEI ....•t. • ...,' .7--1'' ,. ' -pex-• • ••larFit ...r7`101(: .41.4''114.1,141 le* ..,..4 i •. -,...,.,!I 0 4,,..* ..,....?,E.4-.:.. . , ...,. V, . • •• at .).• • ..14-.,. ..!.,4••!,; x .. tS,• t.o.. • •--ar- .0). ' li:14N, .0:,l'ii ".:-E 11 .ilir...t.1••••411/•.:'rt.,' • . I '• ..t. 41:k ...s 1.. '•- '16' ''t.N.,:".• ...1 ,...1,1,4, e.• • 3E. 0 >,, .11.• • !''',4) •. ir'"t` on?...t - . • ; . -isi. 1 C.1).*1.....t.ts!,,,.,4 S• 4 1:1c ..C2 —I •.-4 14 • •'"4•:'''4 • . ••3 . . 4.An •••• 4;': C2 4-) a) .• • ) '', .1...,..••••Al,., .14, . .3.-./.. .0y0 re e. ,,,, .• .;., '''''' ''''. Pi' 41 ••-4.--A ..:"3 .•.....4 !..1.4$3,--4.,..:. ',..:.,,. \\N:".• Wiz °: c) i I--1 CZ -Y 8 - - ...i .,'. • — .0atA,;r • ..*:* ''- ••' ;-''.!1' ',r,e- ••••.• ' • 4.... b;,•1;-; ,...?.." -114a.-,fc• ••' -I... ..:.,, ..:.!,. • 14.,:kir _n 1. .•,..4, - * r. 1., . \. 1/4.•, vi .!!,•:••11 . - ' `-' 0- 0.0.!..1.....rr 1 1kt•t•v.,4 s • .. .r • .1..4 v....qv/v.:4;A, ..,.;,.. ' .:41'. '" '- .\• • . 0 t., \1(tr•Ali.)....4i4,.`, , ., ',"` •.,t '—1, •% • (..)%f-tlf...,v C-.'••••• • '. ..• ittt, 41 . fitt.•.0. •: --- • ....... • ' VI V. ......., ...4%' dep,.,t..., ..,•iiq . . . I..A'.. ; ,,,,..„t „s);,fi, 1 ..•..... •„,. . 1.1 ..-... 1.j• ''11•;!41,. ' '••1 " .3 • . '4::' '' • 4.. < 1•13/' .• . 1,..), ,...."•i• r,t••••'4. .. ',5 • •• '..!Vix• Vil, ; ' : ' . .••••• . •'''') 0 1••• ›.• Vr4• •• •••••S.t...-A. /..,0,1.., .1 , i. ..., -• .i f., 44 1. Iv 4 , ••- '•' ., ..,.h,11. 4•10•1.. *.1,44,,.•41.1, itstr i,..4 .1. • .1.• .1 ....ief',!if: ki, ;•. .-E*; , •• .i._ •.. 4'.' / .41•1 'IN!,- ' 1...'`..V4 1, '•"".vb. 1.1.41f- •Ji :rx• 4.•' 174, `;',: alor.- •'•'*.• ..... se. 7; 0.r..• c 1 V.-4...---, -t,i,4. •' * •11.! . ' 1 -4.-mte3, ' yx -:• • ,.vc2::- • * ..,•ei 7-,' ,:..t ,F, i _ -...16iit, .•...t,.1,....,•,. ••:4..r .,t,,,,.,.e a, , .2%,,, itc % •.. ,, , ..1 c cj c •V ,.' •••. •.i..1...•1).•.44,5• . .•:'. . ( 2. •;., " c ' , do . • .,..,• - •I ,,,''''.,•• ,..i.:-.)-f itovxv • •.- ii. •i• - • 't Vi• . ,.1.1 ri ..,...- , ..;• kti•A.:*,..! 0 c* 4., , 40 ....,.., ... : . .e,...,... .,„.„,..,.. ..., . O.'....•• I, • .:'. 4; ' . is, . . . ....;•;•' . ek• ,A,, • • .7 ...4 135 .. 1,7; ••::.,.- 2,.---.-%..ia-V! .si'',',' ;.I p:. •'',..• I... , ,,,';',i14 '.4.. .j...., S„, ,vir 1 I g V'' '''.• ' • ' • 1-. ... I •.1'q. . 14'' 41:Pt-- • sq.\• .-•toi. ;1,7, •••,,r- •,tAKAit ...„.4:4. E,..4 . . , . .. ,,• • ,•,,,,,, 5.1„SS, ri. • , ,41.\ 1 .'I'.' '..;;•..;,•?:•',.... '' •-•••".. .,,,_.,.,. i.s rjr.'St I 1••:s •- tt I qt. r:1 , • . •k;•• 10) .11 s.. :'•57.- -1•4 •' , • •• ‘•iteR; ;10„V c .4 . , ... •' .1 • thr:,,, , ai•- ki•' --trf s • •,..W. • ' TC(I • f•, • • \:,3 /..1 . ..,;• . .0,,,,•11,, 4 44 t, .• •1, 11,0; •.1•4ty :P.I., 44 •) 4:;, 4 I 1- 21 '%...e'l • -4,li..1 V.. ' "(- ••••• 't ' -• -•• XS s% r•'.AscZ .74 '4•• ..,... 4,•,,,', ,'.12.•4,, • ,r,4". a •• •1.11 N. 1..; • rt,.. 4.3 ‘,071' 0 ••: -. ;. ••: • Co 4,), .1 • CD i. •... , L.. ,.. •.., r ., "›.1.V.. . t n t.c • •.0, ' 'ttit.4tvi;,,e t. ••., .:1, 1;,1,•:1•43,at‘y 1,24 t .1", .. ,.. ,ti.,.....4 A 4,T &,-;,7 i ,i di ,, Li: ri;1•,./.•• . ill i .kt. r ......:1•••rW ,.tiri, ,''• ••!!'. l't i4 •e A •,,,,.. . 7, i , I. ./ J ,1,1..,ii4•,...4.,..1.1;;..c.-..: .. ..,.:-,4.,.,...• 4 41,._ . • tn...s Zip ---• T.Z.,'' 0 -.1v..' ok.;,';•-1.111,....,;i3q ‘..--..4.Z. '•-1:• ,.'. I4 .12 • ' , -' ' •aPeigNei.•• , 1 :•%;• ' ;. • . / •'riV.. -- 44 '' .•l'/Or... .-'.41 .-1 ki..19.;!• . .. 1 '"'•• „i" ,. • '. t 'et•A•<••• •. ,',...1 a; ....,..,41{:. ,0,....• r .... 1. / Ai' xi .. • • ... . ..• •..• . •• .44•%• ' 4' ir -• • -- • AI.: 2••.-13•4....3 1.. 1 `•-•..$.1••.' ii.,..,41 - •••;,..•• '1r -4, •r•f ' •••• s • ••!z' '4\fr,• i .--- .i.,• . • ,... !+ 4 g„ci.i.: 4.4, , .1 A 4C.4. ••• ...-.•. • .,•• .4 ..7-,•.....7:- : . ,..).,,,•$., .i t, ,4si . . ..-• • •, ' ' ...4--ZAA. • ()'•vet - .:••• • ••-.•„..,-;•re-,:•-.:........:-..1•:s•.,_.••- - . . * . ,;4-14*•'•-. \tr• V.4..7 • 4' '(:;;;•,'',•4•',.•••T."C••f.;.::•.%•.*F., .',P,-•'.74.:.. ••-7 It . rA-.-.. Itict13;'. . I,,) "::.4.-t34,i,••ii•';',.... .•(•-•••;f:Iiii'l'i•:,.1.ti•i,•••:•••.!')?Y•atkieg •,-.. • .!1,,tt,C. ( t..' 4,,,„i.,6,,,--t-i-N oi.). ,•,-,- fe: -t.,;•, .,.,. ,•-•If. - . • '.fig4,,,,;. r „. -- !T.,- y • ...... ,. 0,,rt,. 1,1.. . ., !.. ..,.• • • , .. ift/4)..-Au,,‘ tie. . ... a r; 4?' i,!•1::..i,.4•;. 4," ,,isi.,' 'ii,I I. ,.. . , ,. ,,,,rociir :1.:.1.•::•elst_ACti . •.W ...et,'% ..a..j.:, ;/''••-e. 1 '4411vhf,tri.,.,...4>i,4• ti ;it•Al: -'I. ' . I?•'1:•'' Z7,175 t- '. .ilf 'i.ili;7•PP :- .,e4-•&„: "..;,..iVemaifirrc wjf.'irlig,:kt • ;r•-'1: •••• 'i• :ill!,e a a r.4.• A ' .i..t.,;14YAr r.....1 i ,CV .;,:"..,;.'.94:4:21. , .A r•itm:,,,,-) ,- i ... . 1,hr litifv.d., tio-kr!" .1.4.,-IM.`,...C." 4" '6": '').‘ ;•zt.::;',:tT1-..,i iiiV.;,,C.T..).;'•ft:' •i ; -*' ,!'11 - I,4 +I.., .. .,t• I •..k.. rl.,Iritt;....,;••:-.., •er..t. t ;,1 s. ;' , 47 ,. .11.45,. .,1-44,ite. .iiitt, *4',:.-9;)e I •• '.•21.1;ti, .f.,‘ , ••41?-1, ' • // 1 :,-.1q- py . "go. .•!Nti,.,..---41 .„. ,,;.• ..0'.. • : rt, '14•• ' 44 n' 1.4' •!4:,• "At. , • ( : I „;,,. t... X-s. .ii.li ;'t..: ' \.:A.\ll'Illrii. lEA i' •F ..Vq:C!1'la'CAI's' ' ei‘!P'• ' •4) '.•.3.•?4•1 ! .•0•' . '''li-i'T'''•,f I.,.'.' .1 'XI'1;. i • '..; "1";k. .1.•4 .,,' ,•'. / / r ;11''4. • 4, • .*1 • ti (6... 4. , t 1 !Xi . . ., A b. ••• •• ., Vi • kiVi ? ' • ' 1t••••• • '1-1-1:41..•s•\- .:L•71.Vigv •I.r.i., , tial b' $.1,1••,firel .t.topi-!,.,,,..n?,(44.4L1:, LI ,.,e • :•,..' ,i-L••:'; ,I.itl A. •1'It;?../i,,'.......1.. ' 4:11 ,' ''"-14. if ‘...v.1- 4.4 caff: .'....ff..., T;7,.*Vt'. .'„ '.2511,,.. iflig[fi-4414N•41,14''' li't•' .• ^.'sil,•til : i$C,INt 1.1 '.t'''‘ ' itv• 1.1K., • '''7;•':::Ch, 4 s'''''I'''':t t 1'7 l'' I."....;i:v;.4:''''./... i. ' tr.:: if• , Ir6;', ., •• 'all'cs eil 'qc. i It.1 C r•.' 7.1. - 15q.' :••• 1 " .. :1•', • t_ ; • .4 I ‘ • -^)4, • • • .00.7,5. 4 .• ‘;.1, .04 i . ;'• .4 IL p,' -:, ' •Ak. •' •:'.'• , '- stl i 7 11`4';',',../...:,,,t,•' '' i. ;fr.. :ego_ ., . . • i. , • .:, I.... ,.....,t : .. ..r. ., ' ..".-4... 1-1:7ZA i . • 4 it, .., • , • A 4./7.- • ,:•10 •, e • ;ft; ''t A..hH..:•:'S... 1,„, ,A.74 Ai •:•,,,s 4••,•:..1,, :t.:•re ' .'•tr -' ;. 1' %I 1 0. .•:-1.5i . *•'‘ ;21411.61 •i'44‘,.Nii •••4,••./••.A110. ••• .;••t:-. L.'. '' ..r.'• -. . 4-` • : '•Mt-n• •• ,' '••• P•rl, tit, :It ' ,. -' ••4-74 . 3,!.•••••/' 1;74' i' e .'.... '•:' ,k' -14.-ns‘i;..;,::::x•I;NA ''' •••..x...414s.: td..4:.)•-(...„t• .:-, .. ,, c_411PA•1 t: . • . ..I •.. .. • • •iNti)( ...14:1•4• •.!...li...."••1.re'....• (07.••14!.11;''-' tea 1,-'Os ," '••,I.1 ' • •„.,:;•Ie14v si?.'i•.,.;:si....).....,.•-.i.1...•:•.q'•l,:•.i.);,F:•,-' f•.2!•z*•.,. 1e ,4 v1-•••-• A - 114.•4f t t , r(i4't.. /t..-.4.•41:4 ti,3..,,...-... .g•.gf..4/.i;,•`a•,0'ti,i,f..',o,T7ti7it, i Al,k A •••!-• .. • i ••riv,. ..-••••. %-•• ....' -•••44w..4•11f •..:../:;.:.,•': */ ....,1'.... it, ar.- twk. i t 4•.1 •....flion••Is i..,,. •••••••-i-•.7/ -' ' eri` .... -' lti..' ?.r . .! 11;4. .. .• • ..,-- 1 A.-, ;f•,? /• i;;'„V.:1'A, 1 $i V ii.t9 4 : 1:. . s ' ' • tr...m.4 r_.• 4/...,. .. it... .....i ..ti I '- :.!.. -:.-4,5!-4--AP.6,,`rio.. A'..4.;', - • ...'• . " s.it . • '9 I' ...lig411411:1•. SI 4:;'; . ? : . 3-:,• / .... . „...,.. , „..,,„• 'is.I . ,vi liwl.e.A. •--• i ,t• 01‘,./pf,'•-•,..107,-.1 ,, ',/ , 1.....t.4. • . , .4.0... . .• .1.? 11 4"--,,' t,.. p'-v-,;.. t.-,c• ...,. • — •••• • . I :..e• ';'',•:/:,/,1" • 'I\Nr •.7 41.y....1.1 .fii. • Zi,4 ' N, 'f!..,trit on• • f• ' li • i •,,,,•„ i,t f t -,-.if,:• 1 j, ' :.7, ;• . '•• .'47.r.' • .....,str#1 t•.' '‘. ••••'• ' ll ' • '•','.v:.1•'-•.';; ...e. i jeli:,, r .:z .•:1)f. 4-i_. 1... ;i•• i•Ar.t•:.. ' • •-.1 • -lirii.st,rere?..).4 't•(..r... r•••0,. i=1.,•,...,./.,:,;:4:.• ,, • .t 10- 1 '••!!;• -!ii•Ifitf,-) .. . r.,.!.?1,..,•,4;, .- ,„. rf ..,,,,,,„ • r _4 ••••\:e.../•.`V.Ve. V. i''th i••• ' '4' •••:•41 • • 1 !..1 • ..•4;•••.41.ersj ..e..4. '4' • 'i•IFe..',11;,,itt. ll —1,4 •/ :. . a •..1••.% . • 'l'I'.:: OA AO*1!! i!... ••s!pe•e`e,.tkt ,i')1. 1'0' '''• . , '• /J.,1. . , •1 •.;•g•t . .•.. • •i -,..........,-1. . • ..... •.• 4-' •• ;"' ,4, • ,,,, f , t.&t. • f ow 1 ..f . .,:. ..' •,g(1 42, k.:24•.:(i..4. 11; ' 1 Li .. 4,,,,!:if i'••••"W S. 'Al.% ....,"( . •':,. . 1.;•?'' ,X,:g-1,',...14i .'41.? iT 17; 4.•:104n • . ''-',N. L'.. ; ..il•r:•.:?-A . . . -• 16:41;•.....'11' . • . . . . f ••••• ;L.\ \ 'if.ril•.•.',.. -4.!.•,,y,,. ,.:.-/..114illittii.! •• . — t I i. 14:•:•64'.. •,,, .. . , 1 •3'! ; • .• . . XII-0•G• .1:I:MO •.!•• • •• .; • •• -I i I..•i • • • • • • . • •1111 El III IV P?1 IV Pi tol Pi is vii 1,4 Igi 1111 1101 iii lill INN Mili • • irc&� CD' F_vc LA-Y)o-Pt oB AREA (-Not,NTT-E c\I P,C, . • p..1 poo ONO oY off jii.;..-. - • . . 0. '',40,10542:11:411:41* . ;1,',.:45p1.11°:-/g! * : . y1 , . 1:4 71;0, ♦ a d '�l� / i /t : .,; • s ,, \kk - . ,, -.1-r 1> '1.5.7.1.. IN • • - BaDPEQX( . ...vi , iii elf i‘...,._c_.-.,,,,._::.25.,, ;69.,...7.°:..Sis . vi, 4,,,, -14A ,..,..;.., ,.... ..... ge ,. ;#4 ...,,„ ..„1, • '45 : ' ‹``. . i.: ,0 • e . .. ..lip /DO SCHEMATIC SITE '4(-- _ ...> PLAN TRACT A S • V11 N rli BLACKRIVERO. rMO T-��J CORPORATE PARK VNTv F. ASI \WV t. PHASE VIII. �„---,r, • ,• - 111-.C.rr e EXHIBIT F 10-31-91 • I rn 12A{- 4\12.EA �. # r r ctg. I NE pcc / CIRCOLN1100 .` .,I WICs� .A.... lio - •"> . 4 / 7....piL 3 :� • �` _lp` 'fin/ - ' Ii ��: `.. . C::4111;""'.) " . 0:g :.::,f::.:CIE It" -.1) ,..„.. . .. . v., iti wt. : .14.&,iy;44 , ve. ..00,& \to ,,,ii. 01 A I. , Lkkpscp&E _ . . .44 -E>tfF-Itot\J k cd 4- '. Fr 1 t ••T 111*-." 40E' k ip i y-,;( r tr4t.. 00. or ..., a • • .Lig.„ o.p.a • e - I o. •[,ANDSCA Pe AREA ,,;� ♦�~ i.40 %t .. \ .?‘' ":0%.;/ ' 1 1 ,P i Et P .4.4..1\0° . ore'rolifitit ... I. -4.'TY ° I. , l‘ 01° , 40 (.\\* .„ _ . i„. SCHEMATIC SITE • w�` ��f; .'•-•,v •;�''' / y�• PLAN TRACT B ,.►- • •ir.z.__- -iss. ,BLACKRIVER ��� .5" 10 _ CORPORATE PARK - S• FENTOd „WASY.:HGTO:{ ,_� �v ..�. FIRST CITY ._N DEVELOP TS COP.?. s,11•111MIS • z EXHIBIT G 10-31-91 40' Evergreen Hedge, after 5-7 years • 30' - Deciduous Tree,after 5-7 years 6 ft.fence w/slats• see exhibits for _ Conifer Tree, after 5-7 years 20' Locations_— ` IA ri I IF 740 R ap , • 10 Bark Mulch height of shrubs, conifer, & deciduous tree at time of planting(shaded) 6'Tail Personi1.4116.S6110'— automatic irrigation� ` topof varies parking lot ;jlit.4..ki-Ir� ��- • aslope (varies) • 3c,5,z_, A; +• �%,ir•+ +`"'e.' • w+"" u4 �Wi•. w existing plantings 5'to 40'tali SECTION . ., 100'to Ordinary High �"" pond area Water Line tN 30'Landsca a-r 6 Aivariesl ,I LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE 0 Red Alder(Alnus rubra) /Mountain Ash(Sorbus aucuparia) i ' 8' >I. 16' I 12' to 15'in height @±20'o.c. 0 Lombardil Poplar(Populus nigra 'Italica') I. 0 Vine Maple(Acer circinatum) - spread of shrub, conifer, & 0 Big Leaf Maple(Acer macrophylium) parking lot - I deciduous tree at time of planting _j__ & curb � .., .� i Bark Mulch —� - r• .�.� , Y CONIFER TREE 0 Grand Fir(Abies grand's) . 0 6'to 8'in height @±12'O.C. m Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menzlesii) 6 ft. fence w/slats— ::f.� A Western Red Cedar(Thula plicata) see exhibits for �' spread of shrub, conifer, & locations :` , 10, deciduous tree after 5-7 years curb line ::,:.. ®: .. i; t EVERGREEN HEDGE 0 English Laurel(Prunus laurocerasus) ;:; T 24" to 30"in height @±5'O.C. 0 Strawberry Madrone(Arbutus unedo) a. automatic irrigation �: U"- I 0 Wax Myrtle (Myrica californica) e :,7.;, I understory of hydroseed �::::• A. erosion control grasses 40'Lineal Section ..... (';:;.... .. top of slope • TRACTS A & B ks 0' 10' ' 20' 30' typical �`" • (varies) ' • `• ` First City Washington,Inc. Bethune 0 1 - - BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK i section Phase VII & ViII LANDSCAPE AREAS PLAN PLAN VIEW Bark II'of Wiid HydroseedllowerMix Gra Existingsses N W86041/NW89017 10-4-91 Revised 10-31-91 EXHIBIT H 1- • • CONSTRUCTION SEASON ZONE • Ls _r u •r• l 11- "Th .::*".i, ' 7.7k\ yi et f. .."' ' .f..i . I-- `• ;k' i • rJ,4:94 /-ens, 4;1,` ` 9,.6 e ! , , i f£�tii't�16.,, 8 f. mo / ` x . • lP • 1' 1IN ijiai ,, .,,,,. .)0, . , r--- ,• .,. „. .A rid IL -op- 0 0,,,s6e< ---- ... • I� yam. • sw TRACT.A & B. CONSTRUCTION SEASON LIMITS ZONE . 7-N %WV BLACKRIVER 11-----%-t.,',,.1. CORPORATE PARK-" Ti �,�Mi MST CITY ClYttGPutr.:$COM. EXHIBIT I o iI'� PHASE VIII 10-31-91 EXHIBIT J TMP--PROCESS, GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 1. Process. In order to reduce peak hour traffic from the Revised Project proposed for Tracts A and B of the Blackriver Corporate Park, First City shall prepare and implement a Transportation Management Program (TMP) . First City shall submit the TMP to the City's Development Services Division (DSD) at the time of building permit application(s) for the building(s) in the Revised Project. The DSD shall approve the TMP by the time occupancy permits are sought by First City for any of the buildings. DSD's approval of the TMP shall be in accordance with the goal and implementation measures set forth below, and DSD shall not impose additional goals or implementation measures beyond those set forth herein. In its evaluation of how the TMP meets the standards set forth herein the DSD may consult with Metro's Transportation Section. 2 . Goal. The goal of the TMP is to reduce employee single- occupant vehicle (SOV) trips made for home-work commuting purposes by 10 percent from the default values that can be calculated using trip generation methods described for general office buildings in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th Edition, Land use category 710; see also adjustment procedures described on page 8) . 3 . Implementation Measures. The TMP shall contain the following Implementation Measures: a. Agreement to appoint a Transportation Coordinator to promote and coordinate the use of public transportation and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) . b. Agreement to display site-appropriate transit and ridesharing information in prominent public locations. c. Agreement to implement a program to provide a free one-month transit pass at the time of each new tenant occupancy in the building(s) to all new employees who desire such a transit pass. The passes should be for a maximum requirement of peak hour, two zones. d. Agreement to implement a parking management program which provides free preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles. e. Agreement to request tenants to promote an alternative work hour program in order to reduce peak hour trips. 4 . Monitoring. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the TMP, the applicant shall develop a monitoring program which will be submitted and approved as part of the TMP. The monitoring program shall include measures such as traffic counts and/or employee surveys to determine whether the ten percent (10%) SOV reduction goal set forth above is being met. The monitoring shall be conducted two years after the date of building occupancy, or after the building reaches 90% occupancy, whichever comes later, and shall be submitted to the DSD for review. 5. Additional Measures. In the event that the targeted ten percent (10%) SOV reduction goal set forth above is not achieved by such time that the monitoring program is conducted, additional incentives for HOV participation shall be implemented (e.g. establishment of a vanpool program, subsidy of vanpool vehicle leases from Metro Tran"sit, a guaranteed ride home program for registered vanpool users) . The effectiveness of these measures shall be monitored at the end of one year and if these measures are not increasing the HOV participation they shall be modified to increase their effectiveness. If, at the end of one additional, year, these measures still have not increased HOV participation, they shall be discontinued. If the monitoring shows that these measures are increasing HOV participation, they shall be continued so long as they are increasing HOV participation, until the SOV reduction goal set forth above is achieved. FC175011M10221.ALK • 1 2 EXHIBIT K 3 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER • 5 OF THE CITY OF RENTON 6 FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. ) ) 7 Appellant, ) HEARING EXAMINER NO. 8 and ) STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 9 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, ) DISMISSAL RAINIER AUDUBON SOCIETY, ) 10 CITIZENS FOR RENTON'S ) • WILDLANDC PRESERVATION, ) 11 SIERRA CLUB CASCADE CHAPTER ) ) 12 Appellants, ) 13 v. ) 14 CITY OF RENTON ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 WHEREAS the SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, RAINIER AUDUBON 18 SOCIETY, CITIZENS FOR RENTON WILDLANDS PRESERVATION, and SIERRA 19 CLUB CASCADE CHAPTER (collectively the "Citizen Appellants") , 20 FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. ("First City") , and Respondent City 21 of Renton, each believe respectively that they are entitled to a 22 decision in their favor upon the merits, but at the same time 23 having given due consideration to the unavoidable delays and 24 hazards of the appeals before the Hearing Examiner, the expenses 25 connected thereto, and the best interest of all the parties, and 26 recognizing the desirability that the above-captioned appeal be 27 terminated without further litigation or expense to Appellants 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 1 BUCK &GORDON 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206) 382-9540 4 1 2 and Respondent; and 3 ) IWHEREAS the parties have agreed to a Memorandum Agreement 4 settling these appeals which has been attached to this 5 Stipulation and which contains the environmental mitigation and 6 other conditions applicable to the proposed development of the 7 subject site. 8 NOW THEREFORE the parties hereby move the Hearing Examiner 9 for an Order dismissing this action and remanding the matter to 10 the City of Renton' s Administration for processing of a site plan 11 for approval in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum 12 Agreement. 13 DATED this day of , 1991. 14 FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. 15 16 By 17 Its 18 By . 19 Its 20 CITY OF RENTON 21 22 By 23 Its 24 SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY and RAINIER AUDUBON SOCIETY 25 26 By 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 2 BUCK &GORDON 902 Wacerfronc Place♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seaale,Washington 98104-1097 (206) 382-9540 1 2 CITIZENS FOR RENTON WILDLANDS 3 PRESERVATION 4 By 5 SIERRA CLUB CASCADE CHAPTER 6 7 By 8 ORDER 9 THIS MATTER having been considered on the attached 10 Stipulation of the parties; . 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the 12 City of Renton for processing of a site plan approval in 13 accordance with the .terms of the Memorandum Agreement. 14 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be dismissed 15 without cost to any party. 16 DONE at Renton, Washington this day of 17 1991. 18 RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ! • 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 3 BUCK &GORDON 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206) 382.9540 1 2 Presented by: 3 4 5 Lawrence Warren Attorney for Respondent 6 Approved as to Form; Notice 7 of Presentation Waived: 8 9 Amy L. Kosterlitz • 10 Attorney for Appellant First City Washington 11 12 Susan Krom 13 Appellant Citizens for Renton's Wildlands Preservation and Sierra 14 Club Cascade Chapter 15 16 Gerry Adams 17 Appellant Seattle and Rainier Audubon Societies 18 19 FC175011FxHIBITALK 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 4 BUCK &GORDON 902 Wat‘tfl,mt Place ♦ 1011 Western . venue Seattle,Washington 98104.1097 (205) 382-9540 EXHIBIT L PRESS RELEASE Today the City of Renton, representatives of Citizens for Renton's Wildlands Preservation, the Seattle and Rainier Audubon Societies, the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, and First City Washington, Inc. announced that they have settled their disputes surrounding the office development proposed for the Blackriver Corporate Park area. Accordingly, the Parties have dismissed their appeals before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. As part of the Agreement, the City will use monies from the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) targeted for open space and wetlands acquisition, and from King County's Open Space program, in addition to City funds, to purchase from First City approximately 36 acres of riparian forest, wetlands and wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the proposed development. When added • to the land already dedicated for the Blackriver riparian forest and wetlands, this makes for a total of approximately 74 acres of open space and wildlife habitat, one of the largest "urban preserves" in the area. The parties have also agreed to several new environmental mitigation measures for the project which are calculated to protect wildlife habitat, and in particular the Great Blue Herons that have historically nested in the vicinity of the site. Earl Clymer, City of Renton mayor, said: "This agreement represents a win-win scenario for all parties involved. It will allow the City to proceed with its longstanding goal of .I preservation of additional portions of the Blackriver riparian forest, wetlands and wildlife habitat, as well as to resolve these disputes. The citizens groups involved in this agreement as well as the property owner are both to be given a lot of credit for making this happen. " Susan Krom, spokeswoman for Citizens for Renton's Wildlands Preservation, said "We have worked long and hard to ensure that there would be adequate protection for the important wildlife habitat in the Blackriver riparian forest area and we are delighted to have been able to reach our goal. " Gerry Adams concurred on behalf of the Seattle Audubon Society. Ken Bellamy, spokesman for First City Washington said: "We are pleased to be able to resolve this dispute on a basis that is protective of the environment and yet allows reasonable development of the site. First City has worked hard to protect the sensitive features of this site. " FC175011M10281.ALK EXHIBIT M ELEMENTS OF WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN 1. Mitigation Plan Goals a. Compensate for placement of fill material in 0. 14 acres of wetlands, comprised of three small isolated wetlands located on Tracts A and B. b. Compensation is to be achieved by creating 0. 21 acres of new wetlands on Tract B (a replacement ratio of 1. 5 to 1, as recommended by Ecology) contiguous with a wetland which is a remnant of the old Blackriver Channel (the "Wetland") , which Wetland is to be preserved. c. The new wetland will enlarge the Wetland and improve the structural and vegetative diversity in that wetland. d. The wetland mitigation plan will maintain an adequate water supply to the Wetland and allow establishment of the new wetland. e. The wetland mitigation will comply with the requirement for an average 50 foot buffer with a minimum of 25 feet. 2 . Wetlands Mitigation Plan Elements The following elements will be included in the wetlands mitigation plan: a) Baseline information b) Environmental Goals (above) c) Work Plan d) Performance Standards e) Monitoring Program f) Contingency Plan g) Performance Bond FC175011A10291.ALIC November 20, 1991 EXHIBIT N REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF TRACT A THIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (the "Purchase Agreement") is between FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a Washington corporation ("Seller") and the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation ("Purchaser") , and is made for the purpose of purchase and sale of the following described real property. In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter made, the parties agree as follows: 1. Relationship to Memorandum Agreement. The purchase and sale described herein is an element of that certain Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park Tracts A, B and C dated November 20, 1991 (the "Memorandum Agreement") between the parties hereto (the "Parties") and other parties. It is the intent of the Parties that this Purchase Agreement shall implement in part the terms of the Memorandum Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of this Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum Agreement, the terms and provisions of the Memorandum Agreement shall govern. This Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution of this Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum Agreement r by all the parties thereto. In no event shall this Purchase li Agreement become effective absent acceptance and execution of the it Memorandum Agreement by all parties thereto. --- 1 - I November 20, 1991 2 . Description of Property. Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell unto Purchaser, a portion of the real property commonly known as Tract A of Blackriver Corporate Park, in King County, Washington, and referred to in this Purchase Agreement as the "City Tract A Property, " depicted in Attachment Al and legally described in Attachment B1, both attached hereto and incorporated herein. First City reserves a ten foot easement over a portion of the City Tract A Property for , installation and maintenance of landscaping, which easement area is depicted on Attachment A2 and legally described in Attachment B2 . Purchaser hereby authorizes the insertion over its signature of the correct legal description of the above designated property if unavailable at the time of signing, or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete. 3 . purchase Price. The purchase price is One Million Four Hundred Sixty-one Thousand Six Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($1, 461, 600. 00) , payable as follows: 3 . 1 The amount of One Million Two Hundred Ninety-four 0 Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-two and No/100 Dollars ($1,294, 272 . 00) in cash to be paid at time of closing. 3 . 2 The amount of One Hundred Sixty-seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-eight and No/100 Dollars ($167, 328.00) by Purchaser executing a promissory note (in the form attached as Attachment C) secured by a Deed of Trust (in the form as attached - 2 - November 20, 1991 s Attachment D) on the City Tract A Property and providing for quarterly interest payments at the rate of eleven percent (11%) per annum in the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred One and 52/100 Dollars ($4,601.52) . The principal balance shall bear interest from date of closing. The first payment shall be due three months from date of closing. The note shall be due and payable in full one year after the date of closing, and may be prepaid at any time without penalty. 3.3 As additional consideration for the sale, Purchaser shall at closing: (a) Reimburse Seller in cash for Seller's costs as of the date of this Agreement occasioned by Purchaser's depositing contaminated and potentially contaminated soils on Tracts A and B, which Tracts A and B are legally described in Attachments E and F hereto, and incorporated herein, in the amount of One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($113 , 000) ; (b) Pay directly or reimburse Seller for the costs of surveying the boundary and landscape easement of the City Tract A Property, and preparing the legal descriptions therefor; and (c) Provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to Seller of a completed lot boundary adjustment between City Tract A Property and the remaining portion of Tract A not being purchased hereunder; (d) Assume Seller's obligations regarding LID No. 332 as segregated pursuant to City of Renton Resolution 2809, and as - 3 - November 20, 1991 further allocated on a per square foot basis to the City Tract A Property, the principal balance in the approximate amount of One Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars (0170,000.00) , the final figure to be determined as of the date of closing, and provide documentation reasonably satisfactory to Seller confirming the City's assumption and/or any required LID segregation. (e) Execute an indemnification in the form attached hereto as Attachment G, indemnifying Seller with regard to the remaining portion of Tract A not being purchased hereunder, and with regard to Tract B. (The indemnity covering the City Tract A Property appears in Section 11 below. ) 4. Title. Title to the City Tract A Property shall be 4 free of encumbrances or defects except LID No. 332, which shall be assumed by Purchaser at closing, the landscape easement legally described in Attachment B2 to be recorded at closing, a Memorandum of the Memorandum Agreement and other encumbrances, restrictions and reservations of record approved by Purchaser as provided below. Seller agrees to furnish to Purchaser a standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance, such policy to be effective on the date of closing and such policy to be issued by Transamerica Title Insurance Company. As soon as reasonably possible following the opening of escrow, but not later than ten 10 days followingthe last( ) y patty's execution of this Agreement, Seller shall furnish to Purchaser a Preliminary Commitment (the "Commitment") on the City Tract A Property, together with copies - 4 - November 20, 1991 of any exceptions set forth in the Commitment. Purchaser shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the Commitment within which to notify Seller in writing of Purchaser's objection to any exception shown in the Commitment; provided, however, that rights reserved in Federal Patents or State Deeds, building or use restrictions general to the district, existing easements not inconsistent with the intended use of the restricted parcels, and building or zoning regulations or provisions shall not be deemed exceptions. Seller shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of Purchaser's objections to determine whether or not to cure such objections. If Seller declines to cure any of the exceptions objected to, Purchaser may either (i) elect to declare this Purchase Agreement void, or (ii) consummate the transaction in the same manner as if there had been no title objections. In the event Purchaser does not provide written notice of objections within the time period provided, Purchaser will be deemed to have accepted the condition of title as set forth in the Commitment. In the event Seller does not provide written notice to Purchaser that Seller declines or is unable to cure any of Purchaser's objections within the time period provided, Seller will be deemed to have agreed to cure such objections. Seller shall have until closing to cure any objections which it has agreed to cure. Seller and Purchaser shall split any cancellation fee for the Commitment, such fee not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) . - 5 - November 20, 1991 5. Conveyance. Transfer of Seller's interest in the City Tract A Property shall be by Special Warranty Deed subject to the encumbrances more particularly described in paragraph 4 above, and also subject to the indemnification and release more particularly set forth in paragraph 11 below. 6. prorations. Taxes and the annual assessment for LID No. 332 for the current year shall be prorated as of the date of closing. Purchaser shall assume and be obligated to pay the balance remaining on the allocated portion of LID No. 332 , as provided in Section 3 .3. 7. Condition to Closing. The obligations of the Seller under this Purchase Agreement are conditioned upon Seller's receipt of a site plan approval and shoreline permit for the remaining portion of Tract A and Tract B, on terms and conditions reasonably acceptable to Seller, in conformance with the Mitigation Conditions and other provisions of the Memorandum Agreement, all as more particularly set forth in the Memorandum Agreement, including appropriate density credits, landscaping, yard and setback waivers. This condition may be waived by Seller in its sole discretion and any such waiver shall be in writing. 8. Closing. This purchase shall be closed in the Seattle office of Transamerica Title Insurance Company (the "Closing Agent") , within 30 days after satisfaction or waiver of the it condition specified in Section 7 above, but in any event not '. later than two years from date of this Purchase Agreement, which - 6 - November 20, 1991 shall be the termination date. The Parties will deposit in escrow with the Closing Agent all instruments and moneys necessary to complete this purchase in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. The premium for the standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance shall be paid by Seller. The escrow fee shall be paid one-half (1/2) each by the Parties. Purchaser shall pay recording fees and all costs and expenses normally attributable to the Purchaser. As this sale is to a municipal corporation, no real estate excise tax shall be assessed. 9. Possession. Seller shall deliver possession of the City Tract A Property to Purchaser on date of closing. 10. Condition of Property. The Purchaser has inspected the City Tract A Property and agrees to accept the City Tract A Property in its present condition. The Parties acknowledge that, as more particularly set forth in the Memorandum Agreement, a portion of the City Tract A Property is contaminated with hazardous substances. Purchaser agrees to accept the City Tract A Property "As Is", notwithstanding the presence of hazardous substances, and agrees to assume as between the Parties all costs, liability and risks which may arise to either Party from said hazardous substances. Purchaser agrees and acknowledges that Seller makes no representations or warranties with respect to the physical condition of the City Tract A Property, and that - 7 - November 20, 1991 the City Tract A Property is subject to the indemnity and release set forth below. 11. Indemnity and Release. Purchaser agrees to release Seller from and to indemnify, defend and hold Seller harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses (including, g, without limitation, attorneys' and consultants' fees, but without waiver of the duty to hold harmless) arising from or out of the entryof Purchaser, includingtheentry past of the Purchaser, its employees, contractors or agents onto the City Tract A Property or the placing of dredge spoils, excavated soils and fill material thereon by Purchaser, its employees, contractors or agents (such entry and activities hereinafter "Purchaser's Filling") , including but not limited to costs of investigation and remediation of soils or groundwater contamination caused by Purchaser's Filling, negotiating with agencies, and defense of lawsuits occasioned by Purchaser's Filling brought by agencies or third parties, and payment of fines and penalties occasioned by Purchaser's Filling, and will pay all Seller's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in enforcing this duty to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless. The indemnity set forth in this paragraph shall survive closing. 12 . Default. If either Party defaults in its contractual performance herein, the non-defaulting Party may seek specific performance (or mandamus) pursuant to the terms of this - 8 - November 20, 1991 Agreement, damages, rescission or injunction. Purchaser is purchasing the City Tract A Property in its proprietary capacity and not its governmental capacity and therefore, sovereign immunity does not apply to the enforcement of this Purchase Agreement or the Memorandum Agreement. The non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attorneys fees in the event counsel is retained as a result of such default. A default under the terms of this Purchase Agreement shall be deemed a default under the terms of the Memorandum Agreement, and in such event the non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to all remedies provided by the Memorandum Agreement in addition to the remedies provided hereunder. 13. Miscellaneous. There are no verbal or other agreements which modify or affect this Purchase Agreement, other than the Memorandum Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Purchase Agreement. Purchaser has not consulted with, nor discovered the City Tract A Property through the use of a realtor or other agent and there are no finders fees or commissions due upon this transaction. Facsimile transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission, shall be the same as transmission of an original. At the request of either Party, or the Closing Agent, the Parties will confirm facsimile transmitted signatures by signing an original document. Notices given under this Purchase Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally with written receipt therefor sent via facsimile transmission or sent 9 - i November 20, 1991 by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: Seller: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 With copy to: Amy L. Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle, WA 98104 Purchaser: Mayor, City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 With copy to: Lawrence Warren City Attorney 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 14. Residency of Seller. Seller warrants to Escrow Agent that if Seller is an individual, Seller is not a non-resident alien for purposes of U.S. income taxation or if Seller is a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate, Seller is not a foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate. 15. Assignment. This Purchase Agreement is not assignable by Purchaser or Seller without the express written consent of the other Party to this Agreement, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. 16. Governing Law. This Purchase Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under and shall be governed and - 10 - Fi November 20, 1991 enforced in all respects according to the laws of the State of Washington. 17. Oral Agreements and Representations. There are no oral or other agreements, including but not limited to any representations or warranties, which modify or affect this Purchase Agreement. Seller shall not be bound by, nor liable for, any warranties or other representations made by any other person, partnership, corporation or other entity unless such representations are set forth in a written instrument duly executed by Seller. 18. Enforcement. Either Party's failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance by the other Party of any provision of this Purchase Agreement or to exercise any right under this Purchase Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of such Party's right to assert or rely upon any such provision in any other instance, which provision shall remain in full force and effect. 19. Binding Nature. All rights and obligations arising out of this Purchase Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors, heirs, assigns, tenants, administrators, executors, and marital communities, if any, of the Parties to this Purchase Agreement. This Purchase Agreement shall not bind either Party unless it has been properly authorized, executed and delivered by Purchaser and Seller. - 11 - November 20, 1991 20. Captions. The captions and section headings of this Purchase Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit or expand the meaning of any section. 21. Invalidity. If any provision of this Purchase Agreement shall be held invalid, void, or illegal, it shall in no way effect, impair or invalidate any of the other provisions of this Purchase Agreement. 22. Warranty and Renresentation of Authority. Seller and Purchaser each represent to the other that the person or persons signing this Purchase Agreement have authority to execute the same and to bind the Parties to this Purchase Agreement; and that it has obtained all consents, permissions, and approvals related to entry into this Purchase Agreement, its obligations under this Purchase Agreement or under any covenant, agreement, encumbrance, law, or regulation applicable to the Parties to this Purchase Agreement. 23 . Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which shall include signatures forwarded by telecopy which shall be treated as originals for all purposes. All executed counterparts shall constitute one agreement, binding on all of the Parties, notwithstanding that all the Parties have not signed the original or the same counterpart. Any such counterpart shall be admissible into evidence as an original against the person who executed that counterpart. - 12 - 1 I November 20, 1991 SELLER: PURCHASER: L, FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , THE CITY OF RENTON, a a Washin ton corporation mun al corporation By: , /, By: I KO4l V.B �aur Ear Cl er Mayor By: _ • Dated: 'AN, . ��� Its: DEAN R. ERICKSON APPRO D AS TO FORM: VICt msioEIYT Dated: L/��/A&ti/AA- , lqq, City Attorney ATTEST: ed)1 s City Cle - 13 - .I November 20, 1991 ATTACHMENTS Al - Graphic depiction of the City Tract A A2 - Graphic depiction of Landscape Easement Area Bl - Legal description of City Tract A B2 - Legal description of Landscape Easement Area C - Form of promissory note D - Form of Deed of Trust E - Legal description of Tract A (prior to City purchase F - Legal description of Tract B G - Indemnification for remainder of Tract A and Tract i B FC175011M'11201.a&k I I I. — 14 — i " Mrs OM* WM•.NM IP • . M 1° • 0 .,'".:.-- ".................. ....\\\\\\ I.1 Chemei ....... ' .4".8s6N •ww••I Mtn a PSte O .. !�,1 `ti1sRi4 VC1�'•1!!1••tIOd.�h "�'•'��rrlM („� e .#? ` ;,+:..".}ti>ti„:}+#k #: q v 15:; <.Q ts�'°""`;Ne.... s,, y. SIN •�yM`� • 't I' •:':M::••:::::,:::::,24:pm,,V .. . .:*: ::*.;, •?...4I4Ok`•i:i.:,..:::ii!*.ii::::-. ...:*::i::*i::„ a' <�+„r • .4. ,:ii$:2::•s#: ii;sy, :r:{ :::E• : : ' #2:.3. '.;4.. •��''••• :. �zt.\A\,i 2 S!.<,' ::k;:?i:: Z?!;.4 ,'.My,,;' * i jy . %`ti`•f. r-r :i :ii: ;,•<.ti4iO:�.: ''.vi, .# • \?c < '�h`. ' :.isi":•:i•y.1,::? •r.?;: ,c;: ;..5 .., i,„,../{r i,...... 1 4" . ::•�•i,S. \ • i �.r: :::{:•.::.:::is Xr::fa s• i.{.: C{r., ge, ri ff '•. I H S t }::;: .A ' n<• 2;£;2:S:;i ,.\::vss}•i; r }s cs4`':. S f'{!f i r< ;'•"'.?�,Ua j 7 < ,,. 1 rG 9 .2 s7 i • :c{i2% ',y ;` :<::::•.<.•:>'::'•if;: �3 f ;:y.::'{` `.0..:XS i•Fa : $::. %• H H ? 2•r; :•.:•: sr >••j?..•<•. • f$ a. s., , rti••' a. \ H O H. r : £ems �u .. . : :•: , :` sf '' : • • . : • > > i :. #;.<: a _ : ;>. H x 0-1 r1 t-I , H ;f. f �� 71 9 '` o z I • I/,--- -. %*,,,,.. • •'142gat'll _az....=ALL TRACT A -• _ i ti t I. 1 - - C� t "<iiilti e,11 BLACI<RIVER 2f CORPORATE PARK dib ! , r%•�: Mlt Mt?M:t•vt1.11 t:V. {.? f HAS!VPI 11.8.91 l .. .:., 1 367.02 e =44 �a �� '�. �. R : 172.96 �11 O Ls 133.74 �6�,i6 Z A: 5'32 '43" , „ R: 922 .73 CITY b=38'a4 09 --N-- �• L: 89. 305 PARCEL L=112 ..�06 �1Y, N A:34'52'41' + law • � � • : 165.04 \O \ = �� �n �, .- L: 100.4 7 v �i 0 S`�®l�s is j p9 • .O 10'LANDSCAPE Q'cP N i� xl iv. 1 C O je___ EASEMENT r 'q<1/ LS. i Q S / . -N 89"30'04"E 21 4.53 �- �'' ` A : 13.5 0'3 6. C� •..0 O R= 1003.00 H v A: 59°43'39" b L: 2 4 2.3 3 a N I R: 5 5.00 - 'I 1/ 4a/, 4 C .1 Nei. ti L: 57.33 'Vef 'a. I 4'°4A:11''54'29" vi R: 42 2.96 1271.76 ( S Lo 57.41 4 .c, o SOUTH LINE OFSECTION 13 ________ _ A s 14064'06' R :422. 96 H d POINT OF BEGINNING L : 1 10,00 't r'' ( REMAINING PARCEL) H ' a • r- %V a H H ^ ci I� a z O H NW l J I iays..-.1�NNHtrI AI I r7 ne STTt!' 'Q UN �Ss-4s44 •�' �3 z JOB 91400 1 1- 6-1991 NM ' Al. ' ' ATTACHMENT B-1 BUSH. ROED & HITCHINGS. INC. TO EXHIBIT N • LEGAL DESCRIPTION - CITY TRACT A PROPERTY THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. ; KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE HOST WESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT A, PLAT OF WASH— INGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 TO 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID WESTERLY CORNER BEING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID "TRACT A" WITH A LINE DESIGNATED "PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUND— ARY" ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP, SHEET 1 OF 3, ENTITLE "LAND RIGHTS WORK MAP, p-1 CHANNEL, EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WPP, CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHING— TON;" THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND ON A CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°24'02" EAST 165.04 FEET A DISTANCE OF 112.06 • FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE cuRVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS Sc)UTH 44°18 '11" WEST 172.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE AND SAID LINE 133.74 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE 367.02 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WHICH IS 1,271.76 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 133.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 70°46'34" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 13.95 r'EET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ALONG SAID. NORTHEASTERLY LINE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 922.73 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°32 '43" AN ARC LENGTH OF 89.305 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY THEREON; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 65°13 ' 51" EAST 286.795 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT I CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°30 ' 13" WEST A DISTANCE OF 55. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°43 '39" AN ARC LENGTH OF 57 . 33 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 24 °46 ' 09" EAST 15.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 °30 ' 04" EAST 214 .53 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1003.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°50'35" AN ARC LENGTH OF 242.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29°28 ' 39" WEST 207.28 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID "TRACT A" OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER; THENCE SOUTH 60°3 _'21" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE 86.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT THEREON, HAVING A RADIUS OF 165.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY AND WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34°52 '41" AN ARC LENGTH OF 100.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CON NS 162,400 SQUARE FEET OR 3.7282 ACRES. . .. :j:aC r• c L, .;�°0. RST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. -' a STEVEN A. HITCHINGS, P.L.S. . �' NOVEMBER 6, 1991 (REVISED) �,w3 JOB NO. 91400/SUR 53—B �: Z�r .`y�F� ATTACHMENT B-2 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. TO EXHIBIT N LEGAL DESCRIPTION — 10 ' WIDE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT CITY TRACT A PROPERTY THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, �LYINGSHIP WITHIN II 10.00 FEET ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTER LY MARGIN OF° OAKESDALE AVENUE WHICH LI ES NORTH 65 13 '51" WEST 491. 66 FEET FROM INTERSECTION OF SAID MARGIN WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT A" OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON N TECHNICAL CENTER, PER e., VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 1. 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°30 '13" WEST 55.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59°43'39", AN ARC LENGTH OF 57.33 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 24°46'09" EAST 15.70 FEET; I'I THENCE NORTH 89°30'04" EAST 214.53 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1003.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°50'35" AN ARC LENGTH OF 242.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29°28 '39" WEST 207.28 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID "TRACT A" OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID DESCRIBED LINE. w tipFIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. F'�C1;?.0 „ .' 1,474 title STEVEN A. HITCHINGS, P.L.S. �_ '• . NOVEMBER 6, 1991 • •a ` JOB NO. 91400/SUR 53-B es,CORES 1/27/ciL ' • ATTACHMENT C TO EXHIBIT N PROMISSORY NOTE $167 , 328. 00 November , 1991 Renton, Washington FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a Washington corporation, at its principal office located in the City of Seattle, Washington, or • at such other place as any holder hereof may designate, the sum of One Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight and no/100s Dollars ($167,328.00) in lawful money of the United States, together with interest thereon from the date hereof until maturity zn LI at the rate of eleven percent (11.0%) per annu . After maturity, it • or upon default, -the rate of interest shall be eighteen percent (18. 0%) per annum. Interest in the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred One and 52/100s Dollars ($4, 601. 52) shall be payable quarterly, one such payment of interest to become due three months after the date of this Promissory Note, on and every three months thereafter, until maturity. The principal and accrued and unpaid interest shall be due and payable one year from the date of this Promissory Note, on If default be made in compliance with any term, covenant or condition of the instrument securing this Promissory Note or in the payment of any installment when due under this Promissory Note, then, or at any time thereafter, at the option of the legal holder of this Promissory Note, the whole of the principal sum then remaining unpaid, together with all interest accrued thereon, shall become immediately due and payable without notice, and the lien given to secure its payment may be foreclosed. Failure to exercise this option, or any other right the holder may, in such event be entitled to, shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise such option or any other right in the event of any subsequent default. If this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or is collected through the Probate Court, • the Bankruptcy Court or through other legal proceedings, the • undersigned promises to pay a reasonable attorney's fee, whether or not suit is commenced. The undersigned waives demand, protest and notice of demand, protest and nonpayment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, the undersigned shall have no personal liability for payment of the indebtedness evidenced hereby or for performance of the covenants set forth in this Promissory Note or in the Deed of Trust securing payment of this Promissory Note. The holder agrees not to assert or claim a deficiency or other personal judgment against the undersigned, but rather to look solely to the property encumbered • by the Deed of Trust for payment of any such indebtedness or for performance of any such covenants. The foregoing shall not be deemed or construed to be a release of the indebtedness evidenced hereby to in any way impair, limit or otherwise affect this Promissory Note or the Deed of Trust, or prevent the holder fromnaming the undersigned as a defendant in any action to enforce any remedy for a default, so long as no personal or deficiency judgment is sought or entered therein against the undersigned for payment of the indebtedness or performance of the covenants contained herein. All of the covenants, provisions and conditions herein contained are made on behalf of, and shall apply to and bind the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto, jointly and severally. This Promissory Note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, at any time prior to maturity, without penalty. This Promissory Note is secured by a Deed of Trust of even date in favor of the holder hereof affecting real property in King County, Washington. THE CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation By: Its: FC175011011201.ADB ATTACHMENT D TO EXHIBIT N Transamerica Title Insurance Co HIS SPACE PROVIDED FOR RECORDER'S USE. ifrA Service o/ Tranaam.rica Corporation • Filed for Record at Request of Name y..L,...Ko.aterli.tz Buck & Gordon Address 1011.3 ztern.Auentle,..S:zite..9.G2 City and State..Se.ttle.,...W1.....9810.4 . Deed of Trust (For Use in the State of Washington Only) • THIS DEED OF TRUST,made this day of , 19.9.1 , between THE CITY OF RENTQN, a municipal cgrporatrion ,GRANTOR, whose address is 200 Mill Avenue Southz Renton, Washington 98055 , TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, TRUSTEE, whose address is' 1200 Sixth Avenue,Seattle, Washington,and .FI&ST..CITX.WASHLNGTLIII,...IRC,....a, • Washingtan..carpo tion ,BENEFICIARY, whose address is....7.G0..Fi.fth..Avenue.,...Sui.te..600.O.,...Sea.ttlea..WA....9.8..Q4 , WITNESSETH: Grantor hereby bargains, sells and conveys to Trustee in Trust,with power of sale, the • following described real property in King County,Washington: See Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. which real property is not used principally for agricultural or farming purposest together with all the ten- ements, hereditaments, and appurtenances now or hereafter thereunto belonging or in any wise apper- taining,and the rents,issues and profits thereof. This deed is for the purpose of securing performance of each agreement of grantor herein contained, and payment of the sum of..Chle...Hundxed..S..ixty::S2.yen..T1cUSdnd...ThTPc Hundr��l1 J n 1eight and No/100 `�i0 ATa b .67. 328..00.) with interest,in accordance with the terms of a promissory note of even date herewith, payable to Bene- ficiary or order, and made by Grantor, and all renewals, modifications and extensions thereof, and also such further sums as may be advanced or loaned by Beneficiary to Grantor,or any of their successors or assigns, together with interest thereon at such rate as shill be agreed upon. To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, Grantor covenants and agrees: 1. To keep the property in good condition and repair; to permit no waste thereof; to complete any budding, structure or improvement being built or about to he built thereon; to restore promptly any building, structure or improvement thereon which may be damaged or destroyed; and to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting the property. 1 • 2. To pay before delinquent all lawful taxes and assessments upon the property; to keep the property free and clear of all other charges, liens or encumbrances impairing the security of this Deed of Trust. 3. To keep all buildings now or hereafter erected on the property described herein continuously insured against loss by fire or other hazards in an amount not less than the total debt secured by this Deed of Trust. All policies shall be held by the Beneficiary, and be in such companies as the Beneficiary may approve and have loss payable first to the Beneficiary,as its interest may appear,and then to the Grantor.The amount collected under any insurance policy may be applied upon any indebtedness hereby secured in such order as the Beneficiary shall determine. Such application by the Beneficiary shall not cause discontinuance of any proceedings to foreclose this Deed of Trust.In the event of foreclosure,all rights of the Grantor in insurance policies then in force shall pass to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. 4. To defend any action or proceeding to pay all costs and expenses,includin cost of�titla arch and attorney'sect the t afees reof in r la reahe sonable ablhts ore amountwers ,In Beneficiary on or pro- ceeding,and in any suit brought by Beneficiary to foreclose this Deed of Trust. 6. To pay all costa,fees and expenses in connection with this Deed of Trust, including the expenses of the Trustee incurred in en- forcing the obligation secured hereby and Trustee's and attorney's feel actually incurred,as provided by statute. 6. Should o ldrGrantor r ntor fall to abote pay when Belane any a taxes,assessments,Insurance premiums, lions, encumbrances or other charges against uota secured hereby,shall be added to and become may pay arttle of the debtpd securedhe i amount tie Deed f 7 interest at the rule set forth u1 lhu • IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1, In the event any portion of the property is taken or damaged in an eminent domain proceeding, the entire amount of the award or such portion as may be necessary to fully satisfy the obligation secured hereby,shall be paid to Beneficiary to be applied to said obligation. 2. By accepting payment of any sum secured hereby after Its due date,Beneficiary does not waive Its right to require prompt pay. meet when due of all other sums so secured or to declare default for failure to so pay. 3, The Trustee shall reconvey all or any part of the property covered by this Deed of Trust to the person entitled thereto,on written request of the Grantor and the Beneficiary,or upon satisfaction of the obligation secured and written request for reconveyance made by the Beneficiary or the person entitled thereto. 4. Upon default by Grantor In the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or In the performance of any agreement contained herein,all sums secured hereby shall immediately become due and payable at the option of the Beneficiary.In such event and upon written request of Beneficiary.Trustee shall sell the trust property, In accordance with the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Wash• iegton,at public auction to the highest bidder.Any parson except Trustee may bid at Trustee's sale.Trustee shall apply the proceeds of the sale as follows: (1) to the expense of the sale,Including a reasonable Trustee's fee and attorney's fee; (2) to the obligation secured by this Deed of Trust; (3) the surplus,if any,shell be distributed to the persons entitled thereto. b. Trustee shall deliver to the purchaser at the sale its deed,without warranty,which shall convey to the purchaser the interest in the property which Grantor had or had the power to convey at the time of his execution of this Deed of Trust,and such as lie may have untuired thereafter.Trustee's deed shall recite the facts showing that the sale was conducted in compliance with all the re- quirements of law and of this Deed of Trust, which recital shall bo prima facia evidence of such compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchaser and encumbrancers for value. 6. The power of sale conferred by this Deed of Trust and by the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington is not an exclusive remedy;Beneficiary may cause this Deed of Trust to be foreclosed as a mortgage. 7. In the event of the death,incapacity,disability or resignation of Trustee, Beneficiarymay and upon the recordingof such appointmentiappoint DeedIn writingo Trusta successor escor trustee, in the mortgage records of the county in which this of is recorded, the successor trustee shall be vested with all powers of the original trust so.The trustee is not obligated to notify any party hereto of pending gala under any other Dead of Trust or of any action or proceeding in which Grantor,Trustee or Beneficiary shall boa party unless such action or proceeding Is brought by the Trustee. 8. This Deed of Trust applies to,Inures to the benefit of,and Is binding not only on the parties hereto,but on their heirs,devisees, legatees, administrators, executors and assigns. The term Beneficiary shall mean the holder and owner of the note secured hereby, whether or not named as Beneficiary herein. By: Its; STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF l U. 1 U. COUNTY OF 1) On this day personally appeared before one On this day of ,19 before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Wash- ington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally appeared to me known to be the individual described ..._.."""......"'•-'.._.-....^•._.._.._........—............•—•-..._.._.. In and _. .._.._.............._ who executed the within and foregoing instrument and... ..... -_..__ .._...... .._.. .._......_. and acknowledged that to me known to be the President and Secretary, signal the ume respectively of as free and voluntary act and deed, the corporation that executed the foregoing for the uses and purposesg ng instrument,and, and acknowledged corpor- ation,therein mentioned, the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said torpor- ation,for the uses end purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that GIVEN under my hand and official seal this affixed to execute the said Instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness i mess my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first day of , 19 above Notary Public in and for the State of Wash- Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ington, residing at residing at. REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE Do not record. To be used only when note has been paid. TO: TRUSTEE. • The underslped is the le,gal owner and holder of the note and all other indebtedness secured by the within Deed of Trust.Said note, together with all other sndehtedness secured by said Deed of Trust,has been fully paid and satisfied;and you aro hereby re• quested and directed,on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of said Deed of Trust,to cancel said note above mentioned,and all other evidences of indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust delivered to you herewith,together with the said Deed of Trust,and to reconvey,without warranty,to the parties designated by tho terms of said Dood of Trust,all the estate now held by you thereunder. Dated 18......._... • I • • STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that THE CITY OF RENTON signed this instrument, and on oath stated that • he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of , 1991. • Notary Public in and for the State of , residing at • My commission expires: • • ATTACHMENT E BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC TO EXHIBIT N LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT A THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, DE- SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 TO 102 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH- WESTERLY LINE AND ON A CURVE OF WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 55°39 ' 29" EAST 422 . 96 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 87. 91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22°26'02" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 263.09 FEET TO A LINE DESIGNATED "PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUNDARY" ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP, SHEET 1 OF 3 , ENTITLED "LAND RIGHTS WORK MAP, P-1 CHANNEL, EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WPP, CITY OF RETON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;" THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND ON A CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°24 '02" EAST 165.04 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 112.06 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44°18 '11" WEST 172.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE AND SAID LINE 133.74 FEET; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID LINE 367.02 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WHICH IS 1271.76 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 133.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF OAKESDALE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 70°46'34" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH- EASTERLY LINE 13.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 922 .73 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°32 ' 43" AN ARC LENGTH OF 89. 305 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY THEREON; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 65°13 '51" EAST 778 . 46 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RP.DIUS OF 422.96 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 110.02 FEET TO BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH TRACT A OF THE PLAT OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARC CONTAINS 525 , 535 SQUARE FEET OR 12. 0646 ACRES. !""'""" "'- 6- ' • � ,l" , y�. ' 1: FIRST CITY WASHINGTON INC ' ii �► 7/ , STEVEN A. HITCHINGS, P.L.S. -; ' . NOVEMBER 6, 1991 `�a��?� 2... o�,,� JOB NO. 91400/SUR 53-B 1 EXPIRES i/27/ Z_ i i . . • ATTACHMENT F ©USK..cOEDIicHITCHINGS c tn TO EXHIBIT N • LEGAL DESCRIPTION - TRACT B That Portion of Tract D, Washington Technical Center, as recorded in Volume 122 of Plats, Pages 98 through 102, records of King • County, Washington, lying Northerly of Southwest 7th Street as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100643, and Westerly of Naches Avenue Southwest as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100644, records of said County. First City HRH Job Nos. 86230 & 86083 April 28, 1987 LH/Surv. 17, 86230 ��r� 8�fs: A o� • 0400 / lT£PFo1� • ATTACHMENT G TO EXHIBIT N INDEMNITY AGREEMENT This Indemnity Agreement made this �yOL-- day of November, 1991 by and between the City of Renton ("the City") and First City Washington, Inc. ("First City") . 1I RECITALS pI A. WHEREAS, the City deposited dredge spoils, excavated soils and fill material on Tracts A and B of the Blackriver Corporate Park ("Tracts A and B") ; and B. WHEREAS, the City has agreed in previous indemnity agreements to accept responsibility as between itself and the owner of Tracts A and B for any claims, causes of action, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses arising' out of the City's filling activities; and C. WHEREAS, the City is purchasing a portion of Tract A known as the "City Tract A Property" which the Parties acknowledge may contain contamination exceeding standards established by the state Model Toxics Control Act; and D. WHEREAS, the City Tract A Property contains the only • contamination or potential contamination identified by the Parties to date which is in violation of any ordinances, statutes, laws or other regulations. However, the City is willing to indemnify and hold First City harmless in the event additional contamination is discovered on the portion of Tract A which First City will own after the City's purchase of the City Tract A Property (the "Tract A Remainder") or on Tract B. The Tract A Remainder is more particularly described in Appendix A, and Tract B is more particularly described in Appendix B, which Appendices are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. NOW THEREFORE, as partial consideration for purchase of the City Tract A Property, and for other good and valuable conside ration, the legal sufficiency of which acknowledged, the Parties hereby agrees as follows: 1. Indemnification. The City agrees to release First City and to indemnify, defend and hold First City harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses (including without limitation attorneys ' and consultants ' fees, but without waiver of the duty to hold harmless) arising out of or from the entry of the City, including the past entry of the City, its employees, contractors or agents onto the Tract A Remainder or Tract B, or the City's, its employees, contractors or agents placing of dredge spoils, excavated soils and fill material thereon (hereinafter, such entry and activities known as "the City's t Filling") , including but not limited to costs of investigation and remediation of soils or groundwater contamination caused by the City's Filling, negotiating with agencies, and defense of lawsuits caused by the City's Filling, brought by agencies or third parties, and payment of fines and penalties occasioned by the City's Filling and will pay all First City's costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in enforcing this • duty to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless. 2 . Covenants Run With the Land.The benefits conferred hereby, and the obligations imposed hereunder, shall operate as covenants running land. the la d. II 3. Successors and Assigns. The City shall not assign its obligations hereunder. The rights and obligations of First City shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon its successors and assigns and the mortgagees of First City and its successors and assigns. 4. Attorney Fees. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce or interpret the terms of this Indemnification Agreement shall be entitled to recover its court costs, consulting fees and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in said action, whether or not suit is commenced. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. FIRST CITY WASHINGTON,INC. , a Washington corporation _eV// //' BY: /f /7 tr �, B Its: : �,�Y • • Its: DEAN R. RICKS N VICE PRESIDENT CITY OF RENTON By: (� * `� '� '\N\. t\ Earl Clymer ;' Mayor ATTEST: Wje ty Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 19 , before me it personally appeared and of the corporation that executed the within II and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the �I uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that II he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of , residing at My Commission Expires: 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this hd day of .W )U , 19g1 , before me ;personally appeared Q n�y1� ;+ 44\(?Q,) andand • tiDA_ 0_9).),_01\0Tu � rq, f thm nicipal' corporation that executed the within and_fdegoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said municipal corporation. In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. \( , Not Pub c and or t4e State of , residing at Q>� ,D My Comm ssion Expires: 1 \ 14c cc-) FC175011A11141.ALK - 4 - • APPENDIX A TO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, Itic. Lt1AL DESCRIPTxcm (•EMAINDER PARCEL) BI+ACKRIVER CORPORAT. PARK - PHASE VIII THAT PORTION OF Thin SOUTHWEST OU—TER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , KING OUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, OF SECTION 24 SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, DE- SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE QF SAID SECTION • 13 WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY-LINE 0: TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 1. 2 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 TO 102, RECORDS OP SAID COUNTY; THENCE ORTEWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH- WESTERLY LINE AND ON A CURVE OF WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 55°39129" EAST 422. 96 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 87.91 FEET; THENCE NORTE. 22°26t02" WEST ALONG1 SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE 263.09 FEET TO A LINE DESIGNATED "PE?2MA1ENT EASEMENT BOUNDARY" ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL C NSERVATION SERVICE MAP, SH1:ET 1 OF 3, ENTITLED "LAND RIGHTS WOR�C MAP, P-1 CHANNEL, EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WP?, CITY OF RENTON, 4ING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;" THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND ON A CURVE, HE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTa3 5°24'02" EAST 165.04 FEET, DISTANCE OF 112.06 FEET TO A POINT OF RENT RSE CURVE, THE RAD US POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44°18111't WEST 172.96 FEET; THEN E ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE AND SAID LINE 133.74 FEET; THENCE WES ALONG SAID LINE 367.02 FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH FROM A INT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WHICH IS 1271.76 FEE' EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 133.36 PEE TO THE. NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF OAKFSDALE AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 7 °46'34" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH-- EASTERLY LINE 13.95 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 922 .73 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CqRVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°32 '43" AN ARC LENGTH OF 89. 306 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY THEREON; THENCE CONTINt?ING ALONG AID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 65°13 '51" EAST 778. 46 FEET TO T E SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A, WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CE ER; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND ON CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 422.96 FEET, A DISTANCE 'OF 110. 02 FEET TO BEGINNING. TOGETHER HTTH TRACT A OF THE PLAT ,OF WASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 22 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 THROUGH 102, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. , EXCEPT THAT PORTION DRSCR..IBED AS OLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CC1RNHR OF TRACT A, PLAT OF WASH- INGTON TECHNICAL CENTER AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 122 OF PLATS, PAGES 98 TO 102, RECORDS OF KING CO UN Y, WASHINGTON, SAID WESTERLY CORNER BEING AT THE INTERSECTIO OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID "TRACT A" WITH A, LINE DESIGN TED "PERMANENT EASEMENT BOUND- ARY" ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUI.FURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP, SHEET 1 OP 3, ENTITLE "F,AND !RIGHTS WORK MAP, P-1 CHANNEL, 1I1 I I GUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WPP, CITY 0 RENTON, RING COUNTY, WASHING- TON;' THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND N A CURVE, THE RADIOS POINT OF WHICH BF,A,RL NORTH 5°24 '02" EAST 1 5.04 FEET A DISTANCE OF 112.06 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERS: CURVE, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS • SOUTH 44°18'11" WEST 172.96 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE AND SAID LINE 133.74 FEET; THEN E WEST ALONG SAID LINE 367.02 • FEET TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH .FROM A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 WHICH IS 1,27 1T.7 6 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 13 E.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE Off' OXKESDALE AVENUE; THENCE OUTH 70°46'34" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 13.95 FEET TO , BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE • TO THE RIGHT, ALONG SAID NORTHEA TERLY LINE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 922.73 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF . 5°.32 '43". AN ARC LENGTH OF' 89.30 FEET TO EA POINT OF TANGENCY THEREON; THENCE CONTINTJXNG.ALONG D NORTHEASTERLY 2 ROIN SOUTH 65°1.3 '51" EAST 286.795 FEET TO E BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RA IUS POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 5°30'13" WEST A DISTANCE OF 55. 0 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENT AL ANGLE OF 59°43 '39" AN ARC LENGTH OF 57 . 33 FEET TO A POI T OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 24°46'09" EAST 15. 70 FEET; THEM E NORTH 89°30 '04" EAST 214.53 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1003.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13.50'35" AN ARC LENGTH OF 242.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29°28139" WEST 207. 28 FEE' TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID "MOT A" OF TIE PLAT OF WAS$INGTrON TECHNICAL CENTER; THENCE SOUTH 60°31'21" WEST ALONG SAID N RT'XKESTERLY LINE 86.76 FEET TO TEE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE ;TO THE RIGHT THEREON, HAVING A RADIUS OF 165.04 FEET; THENCE SOuTHroESTERLY AND WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OP 34°52 '41" AN ARC LENGTH OF /00.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ROVE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTA711S 363, 135 SQUARE FEET OR 8.3364 .• • ACRE S. rj N• HI e.,..c„--,1„.\ 1.4,7„) .: ST- CITY WASHINGTON, INC. '!� r:•:�'' J TEVEN A. HITCHINGS, P.L.S. •E'It:;:; q NOVEMBER 6, 1991 r + 4 333 At OB NO. 91400/SUR 53-B lam" S I/'27/$2. APPENDIX B E3USh..(OED f*HUtCHINGS, • TO INDI4NITY AGREEMENT That Portion of Tract D, Washington Technical in Volume 122 of plats g Center, as recorded County, Washington, lying Northerly of Southwest 7th Stre tias deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100643, and Westerly of Neches Avenue Southwest as deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder's No. 8702100644, records of said County. First City ERR Job Nos. 86230 4 86083 April 28, 1987 1L 8..C/IS.e/ ALH/Surv. 17, 86230 �Rl MT, r • vd /� z � 4 Z November 20, 1991 EXHIBIT 0 REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR A PORTION OF TRACT C THIS REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (the "Purchase Agreement") is between FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a Washington corporation ("Seller") and the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation ("Purchaser") , and is made for the purpo:;e of purchase and sale of the following described real property. In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter made, the parties agree as follows: 1. Relationship to Memorandum Agreement. The purchase and sale described herein is an element of that certain Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park Tracts A, B and C dated November 20, 1991 (the "Memorandum Agreement") between the parties hereto (the "Parties") and other parties. It is the intent of the Parties that this Purchase Agreement shall implement in part the terms of the Memorandum Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the teims and provisions of this Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum Agreement, the terms and provisions of the Memorandum Agreement shall govern. This Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution of this Purchase Agreement and the Memorandum Agreement by all the parties thereto. In no event shall this Purchase Agreement become effective absent acceptance and execution of the Memorandum Agreement by all parties thereto. 1 November 20, 1991 2. Dcscp .on of Property. Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell unto Purchaser, the real property commonly known as Lots 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and a portion of Lot 6 of Tract C of B1ackriver Corporate Park, in King County, Washington, and referred to in this Purchase Agreement as the "City Tract C Property, " which property is depicted in Attachment A and legally described in Attachment B, both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein. Purchaser hereby authorizes the insertion over its signature of the correct legal description of the above designated property if unavailable at the time of signing, or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete. 3 . Purchase Price. The purchase price is Two Million Five Hundred One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-eight and No/100 Dollars ($2,501,228. 00) , payable in cash at closing. 3 . 1 As additional consideration for the sale, Purchaser shall at closing: (a) Pay directly or reimburse Seller for the costs of surveying the boundary of a portion of Lot 6 of the City Tract C Property, and preparing the legal descriptions therefor. (b) Provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to Seller of a completed lot boundary adjustment between a portion of Lot 6 of City Tract C Property and the remaining portion of Lot 6 of Tract C not being purchased hereunder. 2 November 20, 1991 3 .2 As further consideration for the sale, Purchaser shall within a period of ten years from the date of execution of this Agreement: (a) Grant Seller the opportunity for mitigation credits to mitigate for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space and other sensitive areas which impacts may be occasioned by the development of the portion of Tract C remaining in Seller's ownership or, with Purchaser's approval, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld, impacts of other development located in a three mile radius of the City Tract C property ("Mitigation Credits") , and those rights of entry or easements that are necessary for Seller to utilize such • Mitigation Credits on the portion of the City Tract C property purchased with funds obtained by the City from the King County Open Space Program ("City Tract C - Open Space Area") . (b) Grant Seller Mitigation Credits and those rights of entry or easements that are necessary for Seller to utilize such Mitigation Credits on the portion of Tract C purchased with funds obtained by the City from the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("City Tract C - Metro Area") , to the extent such opportunity for Mitigation Credits remains after Metro has used its rights to mitigate or disclose plans to utilize its rights to mitigate under that certain Agreement between Metro and Purchaser dated July 1991. November 20, 1991 (c) Agree to in good faith consider and promptly respond to any reasonable proposals by Seller for the granting of easements as necessary for utilities, landscaping, access and other requirements on the City Tract C Property, and for credit for the City Tract C Property regarding satisfaction of setback, yard, landscape and other zoning code requirements on the portion of Tract C remaining after Purchaser's purchase of the City Tract C Property, in recognition that the remainder is a small, unusually shaped area with environmental sensitivities which may make a standard development difficult. Purchaser's obligation to grant Mitigation Credits, easements and zoning code waivers as more particularly set forth in this Section 3.2 shall survive closing. 4 . Title. Title to the City Tract C Property shall be free of encumbrances or defects except the right to Mitigation Credits and easements as specified above and those exceptions approved by Purchaser as provided below. Seller agrees to furnish to Purchaser a Standard Coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance, such policy to be effective on the date of closing and such policy to be issued by Transamerica Title Insurance Company. As soon as reasonably possible following the opening of escrow, but not later than ten (10) days following the last Party's execution of this Agreement, Seller shall furnish to Purchaser a Preliminary Commitment (the "Commitment") on the City Tract C Property, together with copies of any exceptions set forth in the 4 November 20, 1991 Commitment. Purchaser shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the Commitment within which to notify Seller in writing of Purchaser's disapproval of any exception shown in the Commitment;, provided, however, that rights reserved in Federal Patents or State Deeds, building or use restrictions general to the district, existing easements not inconsistent with the intended use of the restricted parcels, and building or zoning regulations or provisions shall not be deemed exceptions. Seller shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of Purchaser's objections to determine whether or not to cure such exceptions. If Seller declines or is unable to cure any of the exceptions objected to from the Policy of Title Insurance to be issued, Purchaser may either (i) elect to declare this Purchase Agreement void, or (ii) consummate the transaction in the same manner as if there had been no title objections. In the event Purchaser does not provide written notice of objections within the time period provided, Purchaser will be deemed to have accepted the condition. of title as set forth in the Commitment. In the event Seller does not provide written notice to Purchaser that Seller declines or is unable to cure any of Purchaser's objections within the time period provided, Seller will be deemed to have agreed to cure such objections. Seller shall have until closing to cure any objections which it has agreed to cure. Seller and Purchaser shall split any cancellation fee for the Commitment, such fee not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100. 00) . 5 November 20, 1991 5. .Conve ance. Transfer of Seller's interest in the City 1 Tract C Property shall be by Statutory Warranty Deed, subject to the encumbrances more particularly described in paragraph 4 above, and also subject to the indemnification and release more particularly set forth in paragraph 11 below. 6. ?rorations. Taxes for the current year shall be prorated as of the date of closing. 7. Condition to Closing. The obligations of the Seller under this Purchase Agreement are conditioned upon Seller's r' receipt of a site plan approval and shoreline permit for the remaining portion of Tract A and Tract B, on terms and conditions reasonably acceptable to Seller, in conformance with the Mitigation Conditions and other provisions of the Memorandum Agreement. This condition may be waived by Seller in its sole discretion and any such waiver shall be in writing. 8. Closing. This purchase shall be closed in the Seattle MI office of Transamerica Title Insurance Company (the "Closing Agent") , within 30 days after satisfaction or waiver of the condition specified in Section 7 above, but in any event not later than two years from date of this Purchase Agreement, which shall be the termination date. The Parties will deposit in it • escrow with the Closing Agent all instruments and moneys necessary to complete this purchase in accordance with this Purchase Agreement. The premium for the standard coverage Owners' Policy of Title Insurance shall be paid by Seller. The 6 m November 20, 1991 escrow fee shall be paid one-half (1/2) each by the Parties. Purchaser shall pay recording fees and all other costs and expenses normally borne by Purchaser. As this sale is to a municipal corporation, no real estate excise tax shall be assessed. 9. Possession. Seller shall deliver possession of the City Tract C Property to Purchaser on date of closing. 10. Condition of Property. The Purchaser has inspected the City Tract C Property and agrees to accept the City Tract C Property "As Is" in its present condition. Purchaser agrees and acknowledges that Seller makes no representations or warranties with respect to the physical condition of the City Tract C Property, and that the City Tract C Property is subject to the indemnity and release set forth below. 11. Indemnity and Release. Purchaser agrees to release Seller from and to indemnify, defend and hold Seller harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, demands, losses, liabilities, costs, damages and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys ' and consultants ' fees, but without waiver of the duty to hold harmless) arising from or out of the entry of Purchaser, including the past entry of the Purchaser, its employees, contractors or agents onto the City Tract C Property or the placing of dredge spoils, excavated soils and fill material thereon, by Purchaser, its employees, contractors or agents (such entry and activities hereinafter "Purchaser's - 7 - November 20, 1991 Filling") including but not limited to costs of investigation and remediation of soils or groundwater contamination caused by Purchaser's filling, negotiating with agencies, and defense of lawsuits, occasioned by Purchaser's Filling, brought by agencies or third parties, and payment of fines and penalties occasioned by Purchaser's Filling and will pay all Seller's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in enforcing this duty to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless. The indemnity set forth in this paragraph shall survive closing. 12 . Default. If either Party defaults in its contractual performance herein, the non-defaulting Party may seek specific performance (or mandamus) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, damages, rescission or injunction. Purchaser is purchasing the City Tract C Property in its proprietary capacity not its governmental capacity and therefor sovereign immunity does not apply to the enforcement of this Purchase Agreement or the Memorandum Agreement. The non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees in the event counsel is retained as a result of such default. A default under the terms of this Purchase Agreement shall be deemed a default under the terms of the Memorandum Agreement, and in such event the non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to all remedies provided by the Memorandum Agreement in addition to the remedies provided hereunder. C November 20, 1991 • 13 . Miscellaneous. There are no verbal or other agreements which modify or affect this Purchase Agreement, other than the Memorandum Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Purchase Agreement. Purchaser has not consulted with, nor discovered the City Tract C Property through the use of a realtor or other agent and there are no finders fees or commissions due upon this transaction. Facsimile transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission, shall be the same as transmission of an original. At the request of either Party, or the Closing Agent, the Parties will confirm facsimile transmitted signatures by signing an original document. Notices given under this Purchase Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally with written receipt therefor sent via facsimile transmission or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: Seller: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 With copy to: Amy L. Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon 1013_ Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle, WA 98104 Purchaser: Mayor, City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 - 9 - November 20, 1991 With copy to: Lawrence Warren City Attorney 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 14 . Jesidency of Seller. Seller warrants to Escrow Agent that if Seller is an individual, Seller is not a non-resident alien for purposes of U.S. income taxation or if Seller is a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate, Seller is not a foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate. 15. Assignment. This Purchase Agreement is not assignable by Purchaser or Seller without the express written consent of the other Party to this Agreement, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. 16. Governing Law. This Purchase Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under and shall he governed and enforced in all respects according to the laws of the State of Washington. 17. Oral Agreements and Representations. There are no oral or other agreements, including but not limited to any representations or warranties, which modify or affect this Purchase Agreement. Seller shall not be bound by, nor liable for, any warranties or other representations made by any other person, partnership, corporation or other entity unless such representations are set forth in a written instrument duly executed by Seller. - 10 -- November 20, 1991 18. Enforcement. Either Party's failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance by the other Party of any provision of this Purchase Agreement or to exercise any right under this • Purchase Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of such Party's right to assert or rely upon any such provision in any other instance, which provision shall remain in full force and effect. 19. Binding Nature. All rights and obligations arising out of this Purchase Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors, heirs, assigns, tenants, administrators, executors, and marital communities, if any, of the Parties to this Purchase Agreement. This Purchase Agreement shall not bind either Party unless it has been properly authorized, executed and delivered by Purchaser and Seller. 20. Captions. The captions and section headings of this Purchase Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit or expand the meaning of any section. 21. Invalidity. If any provision of this Purchase Agreement shall be held invalid, void, or illegal, it shall in no way effect, impair or invalidate any of the other provisions of this Purchase Agreement. 22 . Warranty and Representation of Authority. Seller and Purchaser each represent to the other that the person or persons signing this Purchase Agreement have authority to execute the same and to bind the Parties to this Purchase Agreement; and that 11 - November 20, 1991 it has obtained all consents, permissions, and approvals related to entry into this Purchase Agreement, its obligations under this ' Purchase Agreement or under any covenant, agreement, encumbrance, law, or regulation applicable to the Parties to this Purchase Agreement. 23 . Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which shall include signatures forwarded by telecopy which shall be treated as originals for all purposes. All executed counterparts shall constitute one agreemer:,:, binding • on all of the Parties, notwithstanding that all the Parties have not signed the original or the same counterpart. Any such counterpart shall be admissible into evidence as an original against the person who executed that counterpart. SELLER: PURCHASER: FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , THE •CITY OF RENTON, a a Washington corporation muniapa co oration By: //i Kai ET DPIAni Earl Cly mer I s o:. Mayor 1 By: �C�'C �2 Dated: i '�` DEAN R. ERICKSOPJ Its: APPROVED AS TO FORM: VICE PRiSiDLNT ) Dated: ( /' / City Attorney' ATTEST: '7 1),ty Cle - 12 - November 20, 19911 ATTACHMENTS A - Graphic depiction of City Tract C B - Legal description of City Tract C FC1750141O11081.ALK - 13 - City Tract C Property ► .4' ,-' �\ i , �; Eat. el, ••ss.., tifi . , 9 : . 1...fRz..A. '..,15:',P.:.,....4.".:.:. ',7 ti..r.,1 tirk. 'ilip ..i.e.crai 3 C �' T • . s4;. ! .rt ^f•t....17-Lb' r sit �•' /��l r• .-1 > +i �Eiri. f 9Y r•�!:F.. 14X4 r If tLi is{ e/�fi:' / // .14' p.. , i ,r♦ St��r v L�. .'t .7 r . 7r ti Lri S!d/��� t1 ..n' y �ir 1i. •a .� ...4.pry! 4. ...=L} I. •l 1% .., .r ! //%%j'; . s ti .tAl.': r • ..•,, 4.y^1 pi,it'.i.•T4 . 4.r`#ij lj`� •!,e. w i sj'..4.4• //i�/ /4•.+{I i ♦� :T7 .^a * • �,._ ,.y. .. r�i 1� •,'.r1tY.J 1- '/�i// r�'`Je 4 x n L�Y'4 %Ci;% <:f:< ?:y.: .r��.Sv•� r,;'YA!k::35%'• /.• �!►+ y�f/�/�a� Y�'/ ' ij�+ I,1 : Si'v..'%v < :'rs')'6'f.J.•ii:ei��I y1• 'r .:%r,�:'Vii•;.:. �.%�/,,A• �:%.:,// ►'� 3 { b ,:.•ititi,%,! .4 rr r n.,:r r/y��i 4•0:d.r//� �r`it+ •.�yA n .r'.,,•- %',•::i:.:�:a /{y. „{i, , </ /r. /. rr���r�f.;0. 1 4 W [T1 /..r..::i;•;;:: ;.. • "'4'•r•:%y/� .%./ .;.%r:iirr. r{ �ilG. •" I� r/,{.. .. r yin r�•.5:� •1► ."y z • .Yri•.:>•.••r • r'�:n�...::•'f::i_rn:.:.:.' rr/.•�.r%%irrri/' 0 > rrl r•C TRACT C . 17N ., ;, BLACKRIVER "'1""'h114l` CORPORATE PARK ; (I I ..... 5 'Nit M.�r�ewmwr,rl(MI. 11.8-91 ANT- —r— t3 To EX«4-ts r 0 be s--4-t C C Pa'-Pr{ November 20, 1991 EXHIBIT P OPTION AGREEMENT THIS OPTION AGREEMENT (the "Option Agreement") is made this • day of November, 1991 by and between FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , a Washington corporation ("Optionor") and the CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation ("Optionee") . In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter made, the parties agree as follows: 1. Relationship to Memorandum Agreement. This Option Agreement is an element of that certain Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park Tracts A, B and C dated November 20, 1991 (the "Memorandum Agreement") between the parties hereto (the "Parties") and other parties. It is the intent of the Parties that this Option Agreement shall implement in part the teiius of the Memorandum Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and provisions of this Option Agreement and the Memorandum Agreement, the terms and provisions of the Memorandum Agreement shall govern. This Option Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution of this Option Agreement, the Purchase Agreement for a Portion of Tract C ("City Tract C Property") between the Optionor and Optionee, and the Memorandum Agreement by all the parties thereto. In no event shall this Option Agreement become effective absent acceptance, execution, and closing of the Purchase Agreement for the City Tract C Property, unless First City shall otherwise determine in 1 November 20, 1991 its sole discretion, and execution of the Memorandum Agreement by all parties thereto. 2. Description of Property. Optionor hereby grants to Optionee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option Agreement, an exclusive option ("the Option") to purchase Lot 3 , Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 6 (the portion remaining after the Optionee's purchase of the City Tract C Property) of the property commonly known as Tract C of Blackriver Corporate Park, in King County, Washington, and referred to in this Option Agreement as the "Tract C Option Property, " which property is depicted in Attachment A and legally described in Attachment B, both attached hereto and incorporated herein. Purchaser hereby authorizes the insertion over its signature of the correct legal description of the above-designated property if unavailable at the time of signing or to correct the legal description previously entered if erroneous or incomplete. 3 . Terms and Conditions. Optionee may purchase all or a portion of the Tract C Option Property, subject to the following conditions: 3 . 1 Option Period. The period within which the Option may be exercised (the "Option Period") shall run for two years from the date of mutual execution of this Option Agreement. 3 .2 Exercise of Option. In the event Optionee elects to exercise the Option, Optionee shall, within the term of the Option Period, exercise this Option by sending written notice of - 2 - November 20, 1991 its intention to Optionor. Concurrent with the notice to Optionor, Optionee shall send notice of exercise of the Option to the escrow agent at Transamerica Title Insurance Company ("Escrow Agent") , in Seattle, Washington. 3 . 3 Purchase of a Portion. In the event Optionee elects to purchase only a portion of the Tract C Option Property, Optionor's notice under Section 3. 2 above shall contain a description of the portion of the Tract C Option Property it desires to purchase; provided, however, that such portion purchased shall consist of first, the remaining portion of Lot 6, next, Lot 4 (or a portion thereof) , and last, Lot 3 (or a portion thereof) . 3 .4 Optionor Right of Approval. If Optionee elects to purchase only a portion of the Tract C Option Property, Optionor shall have the right to approve or disapprove Optionee's proposed purchase based upon Optionor's determination in its sole discretion as to whether the proposed purchase leaves Optionor with sufficient property to utilize in a viable development. Such approval or disapproval will be given by Optionor in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Optionee ' s written proposal, unless delayed by Optionee 's response under Section 3 . 5 below. 3 .5 Optionee Consideration of Easements and Zoning Waivers. To assist Optionor in a determination of whether sufficient property remains for a viable development, Optionee will in good faith consider and promptly respond to any reasonable proposal by 3 November 20, 1991 • Optionor for the granting of easements as necessary for utilities, landscaping, access and other requirements on the portion of the Tract C Option Property purchased by Optionee and for credit for the portion of the Tract C Option Property purchased by Optionee regarding satisfaction of setback, yard, landscape or other zoning code requirements on the property remaining after the Optionee's purchase based upon the hardship created by Optionee's proposed purchase of only a portion of the • Tract C Option Property. 3 . 6 Optionor_ 's Pursuit of Development Approvals. During the Option Period, Optionor may take actions and incur costs in pursuing development of the Tract C Option Property. 4 . Purchase Price. The purchase price is as follows: 4. 1 The purchase price for the Tract C Option Property shall be $6. 00 per square foot if the Option is exercised during the first year of the Option Pericd. 4 . 2 The purchase price for the Tract C Option Property shall be $6 . 60 per square foot if the option is exercised in the second year of the Option Period. 4 . 3 As additional consideration for the sale, Optionee shall at closing: (a) Reimburse Optionor for its reasonable costs and expenses, if any, for pursuing development of the Tract C Option Property during the second year of the Option Period, including but not limited to architectural and engineering fees, consultant -- 4 - i . November 20, 1991 fees, permit and application fees and reasonable attorneys fees. Such costs shall not include carrying costs of the Tract C Option Property such as general real property taxes, interest on loans and other financing charges. (b) If Optionee purchases only a portion of the Tract C Option Property, pay directly or reimburse Optionor for the costs of surveying the boundary of the portion purchased, and preparing the legal descriptions therefor including any easements; and (c) If Optionee purchases only a portion of the Tract C Option Property, provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to Optionor of a completed lot boundary adjustment between the portion of the Tract C Option Property purchased and the remaining portion of Tract C Option Property not being purchased hereunder. 4 .4 If Optionee purchases only a portion of the Tract C Option Property, as further consideration for the Option, Optionee shall within a period of ten years from the date of Optionee's exercise of its Option: (a) Grant Optionor the opportunity for mitigation credits to mitigate for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space and other sensitive areas which may be occasioned by. the development of the portion of the Tract C Option Property remaining after Optionee's purchase ("Mitigation Credits") and those rights of entry and easements that are necessary for November 20, 1991 Optionor to utilize such Mitigation Credits, on the portion of the Tract C Option Property purchased hereunder. (b) Grant Optionor easements as necessary for utilities, landscaping, access and other requirements, and grant credit regarding zoning code requirements, such as yard, setback and landscape requirements that were determined allowable by Optionee pursuant to Section 3 .5 above. (c) If the Optionee proposes to purchase property under this Option Agreement with monies granted to Optionee conditioned on the opportunity for wetlands credit, those mitigation credits shall be considered to take priority over the mitigation rights of Optionor set forth above Optionee's obligations to grant Mitigation Credits, easements and zoning code waivers set forth herein shall survive closing. 5. Failure to Exercise. 5. 1 If Optionee fails to timely exercise this Option as required under Section 3 , or if Optionee terminates this Option at any time by written notice, this Option shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. 5. 2 Concurrent with execution of this Option Agreement, Optionee shall deliver to the Escrow Agent an executed and acknowledged Notice of Termination of Option in the form attached to this Option Agreement as Attachment C. Should the Option expire or be otherwise terminated, upon demand by Optionor, - 6 - November 20, 1991 Escrow Agent shall record the Notice of Termination of Option with the King County Recorder to clear title to the Tract C Option Property. Escrow Agent shall have no liability to any Party for recording the Notice of Termination of Option upon Optioner's instructions. 6. Establishment of Closing Escrow. Immediately following mutual execution of this Option Agreement, the Parties will establish a closing escrow with Escrow Agent. Should Optionee elect to exercise the Option and Optionor accepts Optionee's proposed purchase, then within ninety (90) days from the date of acceptance, at a time and date mutually agreed to by the Parties (the "Closing Date") , Optionee shall pay the consideration specified in Section 4, which shall include the Purchase Price and reimbursement for development costs. On the Closing Date, Optionor shall deliver to the Escrow Agent a Statutory Warranty Deed, together with all other documents necessary to convey title to Optionee, and an affidavit certifying that Optionor is not a foreign corporation. 7. Title. Title to the Tract C Option Property shall be free of encumbrances or defects except the agreements for mitigation credits set forth above, a Memorandum of the Memorandum Agreement and other encumbrances, restrictions and reservations of record approved by Optionee as provided below. Optionor agrees to furnish to Optionee a standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance, such policy to be effective on 7 November 20, 1991 the date of closing and such policy to be issued by Transamerica Title Insurance Company. As soon as reasonably possible following the opening of escrow, but not later than ten (10) days following the Optionor's approval of Optionee's exercise of the option, Optionor shall furnish to Optionee a Preliminary Commitment (the "Commitment") on the Tract C Option Property, together with copies of any exceptions set forth in the Commitment. Optionee shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the Commitment within which to notify Optionor in writing of • Optionee's objection to any exception shown in the Commitment; provided, however, that rights reserved in Federal Patents or State Deeds, building or use restrictions general to the district, existing easements not inconsistent with the intended use of the restricted parcels, and building or zoning regulations or provisions shall not be deemed exceptions. Optionor shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of Optionee's objections to determine whether or not to cure such objections. If Optionor declines to cure any of the exceptions objected to, Optionee may either (i) elect to declare this Option Agreement void, or (ii) consummate the transaction in the same manner as if there had been no title objections. In the event Optionee does not provide written notice of objections within the time period provided, Optionee will be deemed to have accepted the condition of title as set forth in the Commitment. In the event Optionor does not provide written notice to Optionee that Optionor 8 November 20, 1991 declines or is unable to cure any of Optionee's objections within the time period provided, Optionor will be deemed to have agreed to cure such objections. Optionor shall have until closing to cure any objections which it has agreed to cure. Optionor and Optionee shall split any cancellation fee for the Commitment. 8. Condition of Property. Optionee has inspected the Tract C Option Property and agrees to accept the Tract C Option Property in its present condition, "As Is. " Optionee agrees and acknowledges that Optionor makes no representations or warranties with respect to the physical condition of the Tract C Option Property, or with respect to the presence of any environmentally hazardous substances on or under the Tract C Option Property. 9. Prorations. Taxes for the current year shall be prorated as of the date of closing. 10. Closing. This purchase shall be closed in the Seattle office of Transamerica Title Insurance Company (the "Closing Agent") . The Parties shall deposit in escrow with the Closing Agent all instruments and moneys necessary to complete this purchase in accordance with this Option Agreement. The premium for the standard coverage Owner's Policy of Title Insurance shall be paid by Optionor. The escrow fee shall be paid one-half (1/2) each by the Parties. Optionee shall pay recording fees and all costs and expenses normally borne by Purchaser. As this sale hereunder is to a municipal corporation, no real estate excise tax shall be assessed. 9 - November 20, 1991 11. Possession. Optionor shall deliver possession of the Tract C Option Property or portion thereof which has been agreed by the Parties pursuant to this Option to Optionee on date of closing. 12. Default. If either Party defaults in its contractual performance herein, the non-defaulting party may seek specific performance (or mandamus) pursuant to the terms of this Option Agreement, damages, rescission or injunction. Optionee is entering into this Option Agreement in its proprietary capacity and not its governmental capacity and therefore sovereign immunity does not apply to the enforcement of this Option Agreement or the Memorandum Agreement. The non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attorneys' fees in the event counsel is retained as a result of such default. A default under the terms of this Option Agreement shall be deemed a default under the terms of the Memorandum Agreement, and in such event the non-defaulting Party shall be entitled to all remedies . provided by the Memorandum Agreement in addition to the remedies provided hereunder. 13 . Notices. All notices required or permitted under this Option Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally with written receipt therefor, sent via facsimile transmission or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following: - 10 - November 20, 1991 Optionor: Dean Erickson First City Washington, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, WA 98104 With copy to: Amy L. Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle, WA 98104 Optionee: Mayor, City of Renton . 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • With copy to: Lawrence Warren City Attorney • . 100 South Second Street Post Office Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 14. Miscellaneous. There are no verbal or other agreements which modify or affect this Option Agreement, other than the Memorandum Agreement and Purchase Agreement for the City Tract C Property. Time is of the essence of this Option Agreement. Optionee has not consulted with, nor discovered the Tract C Option Property through the use of a realtor or other agent and there are no finders fees or commissions due upon closing this transaction. Facsimile transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission, shall be the same as transmission of an original. At the request of either party, of the Escrow Agent, the Parties will confirm facsimile transmitted signatures by signing an original document. 15. Assignment. This Option Agreement is not assignable by il xP or Optionee Optionor without the express written consent of the P P - 11 .„ November 20, 1991 other Party to this Option Agreement, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 16. Governing Law. This Option Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under and shall be governed and enforced in all respects according to the laws of the State of Washington. 17 . Oral Agreements and Representations. There are no oral or other agreements, including but not limited to any representations or warranties, which modify or affect this Option Agreement. Optionor shall not be bound by, nor liable for, any warranties or other representations made by any other person, partnership, corporation or other entity unless such representations are set forth in a written instrument duly executed by Optionor. 18 . Enforcement. Either Party's failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance by the other party of any provision of this Option Agreement or to exercise any right under this Option Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to any extent of such party' s right to assert or rely upon any such provision in any other instance, which provision shall remain in 111 full force an effect. 19. Binding Nature. All rights and obligations arising out of this Option Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective successors, heirs, assigns, tenants, administrators, executors, and marital communities, if any of the - 12 - November 20, 1991 parties to this Option Agreement. This Option Agreement shall not bind either Party unless it has been properly authorized, executed and delivered by Optionee and Optionor. 20. Captions. The captions and section headings of this Option Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed to limit or expand the meaning of any section. 21. Invalidity. If any provision of this Option Agreement shall be held invalid, void, or illegal, it shall in no way effect, impair or invalidate any of the other provisions of this Option Agreement. 22 . Warranty and Representation of Authority. Optionor and Optionee each represent to the other that the person or persons signing this Option Agreement have authority to execute the same and to bind the Parties to this Option Agreement; and that it has obtained all consents, permissions, and approvals related to entry into this Option Agreement, its obligations under this Option Agreement or under any covenant, agreement, encumbrance, law, or regulation applicable to the Parties to this Option Agreement. 23 . Counterparts. This Option Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which shall include signatures forwarded by telecopy which shall be treated as originals for all purposes. Al]. executed counterparts shall constitute one agreement, binding on all of the parties, notwithstanding that all the parties have not signed the original or the same counterpart. Any such November 20, 1991 counterpart shall be admissible into evidence as an original against the person who executed that counterpart. OPTIONOR: OPTIONEE: FIRST CITY WASHINGTON, INC. , THE CITY OF RENTON, a a Washing on corporation municipal corporation c By: / ,: By: r„ , KEf4 - ^ .BE1 .r. Earr'''Clymer r,0r.347 May By: L � Dated: \,\.n, � `.C1,0\\ Its: DEAN R. ERICKSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: VICE PRESIDENT • Dated: -t City Attorney' ATTEST: City Cl I - 14 - November 20, 1991 ATTACHMENTS A -- Graphic depiction of Tract C Option Property n -- Legal description of Tract C Option Property C - Notice of Termination of Option FC175011AP11201.ALK - 15 - TRACT C OPTION PROPERTY ^‘" t • . 31±i§1 :t.. I.!:tAiitp,f49.41'1 1..(00.. • ,'",.;. 7: ,.. 1,41ty' ,s rits,..1. tei.1ik t...i.../..'.,s16.1w. 'kif-xs.4...:f.'4:,-t.,O,2o4:.r:.._A.i eta-1,• . =' eg%. .i- I'rii; t,, • .r. 3 t,1h4 ,..„ a . 4t41.4 i 7t i9 04 yt ro ti•^ •IlttiS 11 J..t '..r+ f' r, + S • 'rJl: •+•tv: ...,'.2..4...:....,:./1 1.,11;e.'.1X.:%f::..ty,:::I:.X-".:--1-•.:"':,::.t:..::1.6.t.9......i•..:...•4. y ,SLR . 1,4 y o f f t t• 1 ,J . /ir•':. ° n :- ,(' Tpc' S•'..t'f 'r J i ,i, i Z S f r r ..t ♦ /./. .AO `Vt XPt/HO J ,p r ', •i,.i.J•L,:F ...r ;!...! ;:';.i.5••••-•�:i5,,lln.•r,,'y r 1ff•:!1 /rj/r• *r 'L7 CTl •V�` !f •,Ott• ...'i, •!l. .N..�' }w›••r.� i .• til• . 44� ��',l, 4 1 H 1'. .ti;'' ..;!�tj.;... . • :Yi�7•.r '.• 3.1 ?,::•r, r ...l.,r •,L1\• .fG/•' � !rr•Y {C�••'r:t:{{r::i i•.,.• : 4' r.;i:1 ?:r�i::.;. r, /%/l r:.�'/•l; '/ii`►?'�1 O ..'.:'•' ..ir..,l,r,.:i. 4t. ::;!:•:.i:•:•:{<•::;�f�ir Yrfif lNi.:::iri�r/{:y:;'.F:. �..�� is•r.r rr.:'.:. •.. .::::;:••::•i'::., .••'4';:•;..,... .•'• ::.:::...;.r. .r.:.:::ri r.``,,. .�vf...,r,:j.i�{:• ..l 1 ::fi.. :•rrr ..rN,•l..,Yw.•.1.1:� 1 i::!•:'i.•i:::; i:::::•::i:<i• •.r/,•:'lr.r:..• .r.�:l.•/,•ri::rr. 'rU ro VI :U H TRACT C BLACKMER 1-7N 11....."".,.: ""'"'" *, CORPORATE PARK ••i" "5M M : r.W IfM•....::a a PHASE VTI 11-8.91 • j .. Lid O 7 o Lid 7 • +Q 1C141•4 Y ,d • • ATTACHNINT C TO =MT V NOTXCE 01 T*[INAT ON OW OPTION The City of Renton ("Optioneee hereby gives notice that the option granted to. it by Firet City "'aehington, Inc. ("optionor") dated November 21, 1991, a memorand , „ of which was record€d , 19 , undar ing County Recorder's File No. , Fo the real eetata dertcribad on Appendix A attached hereto, records of Xing aunty, Washington, situated in King County, Washington was not ,xeroisssed by Optional and Optionee neither has nor asserts an interest to said real estate or any claim against the Optionor. In witnaas whereof, Optionee h s caused this instrument to be executed this day of , 19 • OPTIONEE: City of Renton STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RING ) On this day of , 1991, before ma personally appeaxad the municipal corporation that axecIZted the wiiin and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said ilstrumant to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said muni ipal corporation, for the use and purposes therein mentioned and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said inst.unent and that the Beal affixed is the official seal of aai municipal corporation. In Witness %Qhersof I have here nto sat my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Pub\.ic In and for the State of , residing at . My Commisslon E:tpireas: 1'C17Jd l 1Ai1 311AIX ti E00iz0©d 6ES'ON NOGNO) 'R NflfP qc:cT T,/T7.'T T January 14, 1992 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: First City Washington, BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK File No.: SA-109-89 LOCATION: North of SW 7th, Fast of Oakesdale & West of Naches SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is seeking site plan approval to develop Black River Corporate Park, Phases VII/VIII. Two tracts (portions of Tract A and the entire acreage of Tract B) are planned for development with an office park complex to be located on a 24.03 acre portion of a currently vacant 27.76 acre site. Each of these two tracts is planned to be developed with office buildings, open and/or structured parking, employee recreation areas, interior and boundary landscaping, fencing, and landscaping which separates the site from the abutting wildlife habitat. The applicant is also seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Routine Vegetation Management Permit and a Special Permit may be requested for site preparation. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval with Conditions PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on December 10, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division 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: MINUTES The hearing was opened on December 17, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Color Diagram of Tracts A, B & C Exhibit #3 - Small Schematic of Tract A • First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 _ Page 2 Exhibit #4 - Tract A Elevations Exhibit #5 - Small Schematic of Tract B Exhibit #6 - Tract B Phase II, 4-Story BLDG E Exhibit #7 - 5 Story BLDG D Exhibit #8 - BLDG F Exhibit #9 - Garage Exhibit #10a & #10b - Large Site Plan & Landscape Plan Tract A Exhibit #1la & #11b - Large Site Plan & Landscape Plan Tract B Exhibit #12 - Vegetation Management Plan (2 sheets) Exhibit #13 - Fill and Grade Plans A & B Exhibit #14a,b, & c - Traffic & Parking Estimates and December 16, 1991, letter to Dean Erickson The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by the City Attorney, LAWRENCE J. WARREN, 100 S 2nd Street, Renton, WA 98057, who noted that he was representing the Planning Department Staff in reviewing the report because of his work on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Mitigation Document was appealed by citizen environmental groups as well as the applicant and Mr. Warren had conducted a series of meetings to come to agreement, which resulted in an MOA that modified the original ERC Mitigation document. Mr. Warren paused to express appreciation to the people and agencies who had worked on creating the MOA, including the Departments of Wildlife and of Ecology, Gerry Adams, Susan Krom, Amy Kosterlitz and Dean Erickson. He then noted that the primary mover for the change in the MOA was a change in focus from strictly protecting the rookery area at the Black River site to also focusing on creating and protecting habitat on Tract C. The goal was to give the herons as much choice as possible, plus preserve the other wildlife species on the site. To accomplish that end, the city of Renton had purchased the great majority of Tract C with an option to purchase, at a predetermined price, the three remaining lots and an option to purchase part of Tract A as a staging area for access to the shoreline. Mr, Warren noted that there were some toxic materials that had been dredged by the city out of the P- 1 forebay and placed on the site and which were under a Hold Harmless Agreement granted by the city to the property owner. The level of toxics in that area tested very low with "capping" a probable method of handling. Ironically, the major threat was seen to be from percolation of the toxic materials back into the P-i forebay from whence they came. Mr. Warren continued, saying that the garage and some of the buildings had been moved to shield the herons, making use of the natural trees. Shoreline access is provided by a city-owned 70-foot-wide boundary around the western part of the exterior of Tract A, and a similar amount down Tract Band Tract C. The extent of the public access to the shoreline would be limited to some degree, depending upon the heron nesting. The applicant had complied with the Shoreline Management Act, environmental issues and shoreline issues. In response to the Examiner's question, Mr. Royce Berg First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 3 pointed out the high-water line on Tracts A and B. Mr. Warren stated that the applications were for approval of the site plan, issuance of permits for shoreline development, and fill and grade. Fill and grade activity was expected to be at a minimum since the site was essentially flat and fill would be needed only as individual building pads were prepared. The Examiner stated that the ordinance required specific detailed drawings for special permits such as fill and grade, saying they seemed to be absent from his file, and schematic or illustrative drawings didn't seem to meet that requirement. Mr. Warren stated the applicant could produce the detailed fill and grade plans, but to continue, he pointed out that one of the different aspects of the proposal was the phasing, suggested for a period of eight to ten years. Initially, the applicant had applied for development on one tract and staff suggested that the other tract be included so the entire project, which amounted to a total of five buildings and a parking garage, could be dealt with at one time. The Examiner interjected that the present or future Examiner would not necessarily grant the future extensions which the MOA seemed to require. Mr. Warren noted that there was no intent to require any extension or tie the hands of the Examiner or the City Council. The applicant would have to make an application, show good faith and progress, and the environmental groups also would have the opportunity to comment. He said that the site plan conformed with city requirements, was permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, and was generally consistent with existing and proposed land uses on the surrounding developable areas. The intent of the landscaping in this project would be to create a 100 foot, dense natural landscape barrier between the office buildings and the shoreline. The Examiner said the heron seemed to loaf on some of the flats and muddy soils on the south side of the pond, abutting Tract A and questioned if that was being protected. Mr. Warren stated there would not be absolute protection, but there would be a better chance for the birds to loaf and f- 'd in an undisturbed fashion, since there was an elevation differential and the buildings had been .ed back. The biofiltration swales and wetponds were pushed outward toward the water to provide an additional buffer and the city had purchased the western part of Tract A and all of the adjoining portion of Tract C to provide substantial protection. The Examiner questioned about the landscaping requirements being modified or waived. He wondered how an MOA can modify ordinance requirements of city code. Mr. Warren said that, in general, the.city ordinance permitted phasing. To which the Examiner answered that the ordinance required clearly delineated phasing and he felt that this wasn't the case. Mr, Warren noted that the focus on the phasing was to require continuous construction rather than which building had to be built when. He said the applicant felt it was more advantageous to let the market drive which parcel was to be developed first, as long as there was continuity. The Examiner asked about the buildings being shifted and how much leeway there was, and in what areas the landscaping did not meet code. Mr. Warren answered that there was minimal leeway in shifting the buildings at all unless there was some minor shift due to a fire access issue or overriding health/safety issues. He said that the landscaping had not been checked out absolutely against the code. In preparing the MOA, Mr, Warren said his concern had been minor deviations such as the requirement of the applicant to put some of the landscaping on the city's purchased portion of Tract A, to which the city agreed. There was also a requirement for hydroseeding as erosion protection if the building did not proceed in a timely manner. He described the planned landscaping. The Examiner asked about compensating storage of stormwater, and Mr, Warren stated that when the P-1 forebay was built the applicant dedicated 17.5 acres to the city for the purpose of building the forebay and there was an agreement that the P-1 forebay would be considered compensating storage for this particular location. For stormwater management, detention and retention, there was the P-1 pond, biofiltration swales, and wetponds on the prow of Tract A. Three small wetlands on the property would be filled with 450 c""hic yards of material and an enhanced new wetland created on the northeast corner of Tract B. re would be no negative impact on area property values. • Mr, Warren continued, stating that the original plans showed that there would be 6,125 vehicle trips to the area, but that number should be diminished because there was now one less planned building on First City Washington, black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 4 Tract A. The applicant had met its traffic burden by dedicating land for Oakesdale Avenue and had built more than their share of Oakesdale, through the LID. The Examiner asked how traffic would affect the intersections of Rainier and 7th, Oakesdale and Grady, and Monster Road and Sunset Boulevard and whether there was an elevator in the parking garage. Heads nodded yes. Mr. Warren stated that the applicant had reduced the parking allotted on the property. The area shown on Exhibit #10 near the pond and P-I channel was an existing maintenance access road, to which there was access from the area which the city is to purchase. The applicant had dedicated an easement at that end of the access road off of Oakesdale which the city would develop, and the applicant would dedicate further easements to the city as necessary. The site had adequate public shoreline access which would have to be limited during the presence of the birds, as the city tries to balance public access with wildlife needs. The birds are to be further shielded by landscaping and fencing. Approximately 18,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed on Tract A and 35,000 cubic yards on Tract B between the buildings and the parking garage. The Examiner again asked for a more orderly filling plan for the site so that there were no random loads of fill dropped haphazardly in 24 acres of land. He asked that the applicant address that more clearly. He also asked why, if the applicant was building above the flood plain, the city had to be held harmless. Mr. Warren noted that it had long been standard practice by the city to obtain a Hold Harmless Agreement. AMY KOSTERLITZ, Buck and Gordon, 902 Waterfront Place, 1011 Western Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, representing the applicant, First City Washington, began by briefly thanking everyone involved in the process including Mary Lynne Myer, Lenora Blauman, Larry Warren, and her client, whom she • felt had come a long way in terms of accommodation, and citizen appellants, Susan Krom and Gerry Adams. The Examiner said the only problem that he had with the MOA was that staff was supposed to be very supportive of this application and if someone had left a stone unturned, staff seemed to be bound in having to support the application. Ms. Kosterlitz stated they tried to recognize that. With regard to the phasing, there could be a two-year extension to the eight-year site plan approval if substantial progress had been made, if there was good cause for such extension, and if so granted by the Hearing Examiner. As long as the applicant addressed the city's concerns such as that holes not be left in the ground and that erosion be controlled, that should not make any difference. The applicant would undertake the wetlands enhancement at the time of the fill, so there would be no piecemealing. Addressing the Examiner's concern about potential change in building locations, Ms. Kosterlitz stated that building footprints and the Iocations were set. Minor adjustments could be made, but major adjustments would have to be agreed to by the city and the Examiner. ROYCE BERG, LPN Architects, 1127 Pine Street, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98101, clarified locations of the wetland areas on the Exhibits, and pointed out the landscape areas in excess of code requirements. He also noted that the finished floor of each building was above flood plain. Not above the flood plain, the three wetponds and biofiltration swale would drain back into the P-1 channel. The high and low areas where delineated, and he pointed out how fire department requirements for turning radius could be accommodated without relocation of buildings. A routine vegetation management plan was submitted, finding no significant trees on Tract A. Tract B had 287 existing trees, and of the 35 to be removed, none were in the perimeter, nor adjacent to the wetlands, nor in the buffer zone. All the property adjacent to Tracts A and B is designated as urban shoreline, with the only natural shoreline occurring north of the pond, about the middle of the riparian forest. The Examiner asked whether the shoreline status of the site had been approved by the Department of Ecology. Mr, Warren said that the natural area stops on Tract C, and if the P-1 channel extended forward through Tract C, that would be the approximate break point between the natural and urban zones. Mr, Berg pointed out the pedestrian links and recreation areas. The Examiner asked if there was a potential for reducing the number of parking stalls below that required by code. Mr. Berg replied that the reduction that staff had come up with now was a matter of policy. On Tract B, those parking stalls would come out of-the garage. The parking stalls on Tract A would be reduced at the far outlying areas nearest to the rookery. First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 • January 14, 1992 Page 5 On the parking issue, Amy Kosterlitz stated that 544 parking slots on Tract A and 1,217 on Tract B did reflect the parking reduction, since original parking figures were higher. JIM MacISAAC, The Transpo Group, 14335 NE 24th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98007, explained the source of the numbers used for trip generation, noting that 5,180 was the number filed in the EIS and subsequently, had been down-sized to 4,670 trips per day. Each phase of the buildings would operate as an office cluster. Staff chose to use the 'office park" designation, which is defined as office use plus having support retail, restaurant, and health club facilities to create more of a total environment. Those kinds of activities would draw more traffic to the site, other than just employee use, but he said it was his understanding that those kinds of activities would not occur on this project. If office park were the correct choice, then approximately 700 more trips per day would have to be added. He felt that a general-office designation might be more correct and would generate lower figures. He also noted the numbers in the staff report didn't reflect the way the buildings would be built, but rather treated them as though they were five separate buildings scattered around the city. Mr, Maclsaac noted the date on the letter, Exhibit #14c should be shown as December 16th, not October 2nd. Asked about the impact on the intersections, he replied that earlier phases of the Black River Corporate Park were going on during the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) study. The study done on Grady Way showed it would accommodate build-out of all these areas. The earlier study assumed that the intersections would bear the increased traffic, and there should be 25-30 percent less trips now than what was first studied. The Examiner asked about peak hours. Mr. Maclsaac noted that 10-12 r-rcent of the daily traffic would occur in the p.m. peak hours and between 8-9 percent in the a.m. k hours. )3OB O'CONNELL, Bush Roed Hitchings, 2009 Minor Avenue E, Seattle, WA 98133, commented on one portion-of the staff report concerning some of the peak-hour computations, noting that the report showed Phase VIII as having 363,136 square feet instead of the 525,536 square feet shown in the previous proposal. The building to the west of the site was dropped from the plans, which accounted for the difference in the square footage. The Examiner asked about compensating storage and whether fill on the site would displace water beyond what the P-1 channel could handle. Mr. O'Connell answered no, stating that information on compensating volume requirements was contained in a letter submitted to Staff in 1987. The Examiner asked if the storm drainage plan would recharge the enhanced wetlands or would most of that water be released into the P-1 channel. Mr. O'Connell commented that in Phase VIII, or Tract A, they were not concerned with recharging or supporting wetlands and the water would be discharged directly into the P-1 channel. On Phase VII, Tract B, the drainage had been split so that the portion that would naturally discharge into the P-I channel would be going that direction, but the majority of the drainage would discharge to the east to create and support the wetlands. The Examiner questioned whether these plans met the drainage requirements of the city. Mr. O'Connell answered yes, and stated that on both sites the roof drainage would be split to achieve better water-quality treatment. However, the applicant had not actually submitted for a fill and grade permit on either site, but had prepared a conceptual grading and utility plan. In answer to the Examiner's question about flood plain elevation, Mr. O'Connell stated that the 100 year flood plain elevation was shown as 15 feet. The applicant had calculations which were available concerning the stormw•ater quality facilities for the site. Regarding low-level contamination, The Examiner asked if there was any problem with the westerly portion of Tract A affecting inhabited portions of Tract A. Mr. O'Connell noted that the drainage flow was from south to north, so that should be away from all the developed areas of the site. LAVID MARTIN, Transportation Systems, regarding level of service calculations on.a number of... • intersections, said all of the traffic generation for the development was covered in the-traffic study. - • done by Transpo in 1988. Based on those projections, a list of improvements was generated and money C First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 6 was to be collected as development occurs. In the next year or two a signal is planned for the intersection at Sunset and Monster. The Examiner asked about side streets and problems with left and right turns across 7th, and wondered if the driveways were sufficient. Mr. Martin stated that a number of those intersections were mentioned in the report and those projects would be programmed as money was collected from developers, but were not programmed at this point. Based on what he knew of traffic there, driveways should not be a problem. Mr, Warren interjected that the TBD was drafted with the intent that people would make a fair share of contributions to the necessary improvements on each of the intersections that they might affect. Calculations had shown, based on the number of trips generated by the project, that the applicant had made sufficient monetary contribution. The Examiner asked whether it was possible that Oakesdale was overbuilt to the detriment of some of the adjacent streets. Mr, Warren answered that he believed Oakesdale would become a major carrier/distributor line in that area of the city. SON STRAKA, Stormwater and Utility Division, regarding compensatory storage and detention, stated that the area for the P-1 pond was dedicated to the city for flood storage as part of the plat of Washington Technical Center, and that included use by these parcels under discussion. The requirements were waived because of that detention, but the applicant would still have to comply with water-quality requirements, including wetponds and biofiltration swales. The Examiner asked about the storage capacity in the pond. Mr, Straka stated that they had predicted 92 acre feet of storage would be required, and the forebay contained 213 acre feet. Because of the changes in conditions and . because the build up was not to the magnitude as previously envisioned, there was excess capacity which the city was using for flood storage and in the operation of the Black River Pump Station. TERESA McLEAN, 7004 S 130th, Seattle, WA 98178, a resident of the area, commented on the parking in Tract A which had been moved from the south side to surround the buildings. She realized the number of spaces had been reduced, but wanted to know why the location of the parking was changed. Regarding the height of the buildings and the height of the parking garage, she questioned if any of the construction would be underground. About enhancing wetlands, she understood that some small wetlands would be eliminated, but wondered if there would still be the same amount of wetlands and she wanted to know how "man" enhanced wetlands. She also asked who would occupy the buildings. She understood that a certain number of parking spaces had been allocated for carpool parking and wanted to know if Renton had an ordinance about the number of carpool parking spaces required as a percentage out of the total area. The Examiner stated that in the MOA there was a • wetland enhancement plan which talked about expanding the wetlands. • Ms. Kosterlitz stated that the parking on Tract A was moved in response to environmental and citizen groups concerns about having the buildings that close to the wildlife habitat and relocation was part of the negotiation in the MOA. There was also a drop in elevation from seven to five stories in the buildings, in response to concern about bird kills. She said the tenants would be general-office-type tenants, similar to other tenants already there. With regard to carpool spaces, the Transportation Management Plan required for this project contained a goal of 10 percent reduction in single- occupancy trips. Mr. Warren interjected that the goal applied to any employer of over 100 employees. BQB DENMAN, Jones & Stokes Associates, 2820 Northrup Way, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004, reviewed which wetlands would be filled and where the enhanced wetland would be located, noting that .14 acres total area would be filled and the plan was to create .21 acres of wetland (a 1 1/2 to 1 ratio), creating both emergent and scrub-shrub type wetlands habitat on the east side of Tract B. He noted, this would be creation not enhancement, in that workers would be removing old fill from an area that once was wetland, placing topsoil, and replanting in an effort to create wetlands with a higher functional value in terms of their hydrologic/biologic importance than the ones being filled. He acknowledged that some created wetlands had failed and the primary reason had been inadequate • • c First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 7 knowledge of the hydrology of the area. Since the hydrology already existed in this site, the native hydrology that used to occur in that wetland would be restored. Ms. Kosterlitz commented that a five story building is 71 feet high, and a four story building is approximately 57 feet high. GERRY ADAMS, Seattle Audubon Society, 28803 NE Big Rock Road, Duvall, WA 9e019 stated that the MOA was the result of a settlement of many of the issues that the Audubon Society and other special interest groups had relating to the project, to the impact on wildlife in general, and to the Great Blue Herons. Since it was a settlement it required a considerable amount of compromise, for example, as a result of negotiating a settlement for this project, the city of Renton was involved in acquisition of - . an adjacent parcel directly north of Tract C, and an overall part of the habitat area. With the cooperation of the city, the citizens, and the applicant, he hoped that enough input had come from all sides to have addressed all the issues. • SUSAN KROM, representing the Citizens for Renton Wildlife Preservation, 3640 Ashworth Avenue N, Seattle, WA 98103, commented on the capacity of the P-1 pond. She had visited the site after the heavy rains and noted the water level was within two inches of the maintenance road, so it didn't appear to her as though there was a lot of excess capacity. Regarding traffic, she stated that she works across the street from the site and uses that area extensively. She had waited up to five minutes to make a left turn on SW 7th, and she felt traffic volume was substantial. She also noted that she counted 20 herons at the site on Thursday, December 12th. She suggested that the landscaping should the type that would provide year-round protection and visual screening, windows should be non- ieflective glass that cannot be easily seen into by wildlife, and that the project should be done as much as possible in one phase to avoid prolonged disruption of the wildlife. The Examiner stated that there hadn'tbeen very much discussion regarding the herons, and he .supposed everyone had assumed that the Audubon Society had done their best to protect the birds at this point, and the Examiner had not gone into it extensively because he felt that the MOA had covered that. There were some monitoring questions that weren't really discussed, and about which there still might be a question. He asked if there were any buildings east of Naches. Mr, Berg answered that there was one building east of Naches and another proposed which was now delayed by concerns from citizen groups. The Examiner said that building did not seem to have had any effect on the herons, as they seemed to be coming back. Mr. Berg stated that it did not have any affect. When this three story building was constructed, auger cast pilings were used to avoid pounding and auger cast pilings were also proposed for this project. In addition, telephone poles and netting were used to screen the work from the birds. Ms. Kosterlitz noted that the applicant had contributed more than its fair share on traffic mitigation. Regarding drainage, there was agreement to use the P-1 channel and actual calculations on runoff showed more than adequate capacity. The MOA set out the monitoring of the impact on the herons of building construction. She stated that she felt her clients had complied with all the requirements and asked for approval. The Examiner asked for an additional two weeks to get his decision out due to the holidays and planned vacation time, to which there was no objection. __.e Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:48 A.M. First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, First City Washington, filed a request for approval of a site plan, together with requests for a grade and fill permit and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for two parcels of property totaling approximately 24 acres. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, determined that an EIS was required for the proposal and one was prepared. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by alI departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject sites are located on both banks of the P-1 channel directly north of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. 6. Tract A, the western parcel is an irregularly shaped parcel with the P-1 channel and the convex curve of the forebay for the east and north boundary. A portion of the parcel that will be sold to the city forms the northwest and western boundaries. The southern boundary is formed by the gentle curve of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. The portion of Tract A that will not be sold to the . city is approximately 363,136 square feet or approximately 8.34 acres. The portion to be sold to the city totals approximately 3.73 acres. 7. Tract B, the eastern, pentagonally shaped parcel is bounded on the east by Naches Avenue S.W. and on the southeast by S.W. 7th Street. Oakesdale actually forms its southwest boundary. The P-1 channel and forebay form its western boundary while a drainage feature forms its northern boundary. This parcel is approximately 686,762 square feet or approximately 15.77 acres. (The scales used to draw the major exhibits for Tracts A and B, Exhibits 10 and 11, are different and make visual comparisons and references inaccurate. In Exhibit 10 the scale is 1 inch = 40 feet, whereas in Exhibit 11, 1 inch = 50 feet.) 8. In reaching its SEPA determination, the city settled two appeals concerning the adequacy of the EIS prepared for the project and the appropriateness of mitigation measures that were imposed. The appellants included the applicant contesting the mitigation measures imposed by the city and various environmental groups contesting both the mitigation measures and the adequacy of the final Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental groups were mainly concerned about the impacts of the proposal on a Heron rookery located adjacent to the property and on the loss of the unique riparian environment located immediately north of the subject site. The settlement resulted in a Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter MOA) entered into by the city and the various appellants. The MOA sets forth certain conditions for development of the site, attempts to provide additional flexibility for development while preserving amenities on or adjacent to the site, and spells out various rights and obligations under the agreement. It does not abrogate existing land use regulations. I c_ First City Washington, black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 9 9. A description of Tract C, another parcel owned by the applicant north of the two subject parcels and north of the forebay, should be included to round out the discussion of the MOA. It is a crescent shaped parcel on the north side of the forebay. The city proposes purchasing approximately 32.5 acres of the approximately 46.75 acre parcel to serve as wildlife habitat and open space preserve. Options exist for the city to purchase the remainder of the parcel. While it is not part of the immediate application, it was included in discussions and settlement to encompass all of the property surrounding or including the Black River riparian forest ecosystem and to resolve many of the interrelated issues in a uniform and unified fashion. 10. While references will be made to heron and a heron rookery in some of these findings, the active heron colony•that was located north of the site for a number of years was disturbed last year during the nesting season by predation from an eagle or eagles. The various parties have hesitated to speculate on the long-term consequences of that disturbance on future patterns and success of the heronry. There was an attempt by the heron to move north into the more • protective forest canopy but how much success that effort had has also not been established. Heron have still been seen in the area in the recent past and continue to at least visit the general vicinity of the forebay pond. Therefore, any reference to the heron or rookery is based on past patterns and locations. While a considerable effort has been made by the various parties to protect the heronry, the effort was also aimed at protecting and preserving the general riparian environment. 11. The applicant proposes developing Phases VII and VIII (7 and 8) of the Black River Corporate Park. Tract A would contain two office buildings and open parking. Tract B would contain three office buildings, a parking garage and surface parking. 12. The proposed office buildings on Tract A would each be four stories in height and each would contain 64,000 square feet of office space. The buildings would each be 57 feet tall. The buildings are irregularly shaped 7-sided buildings. While the buildings are not rectangular, their rough footprints would be about 82 feet wide (east-west) by 195 feet long. The articulated facades will face each other and flank a plaza-like landscaped area that provides seating and courtyard amenities. The buildings will be slightly offset from one another, somewhat skewing the symmetry and adding to the visual interest. The open or surface parking will surround the buildings in all directions. The applicant proposed parking for 571 vehicles, while the city requires 544 parking stalls. The applicant has agreed to meet the city requirements. 13. Incorporated in the perimeter landscaping will be storm drainage wetponds to treat runoff from the surface parking areas. These wetponds will be located along the northern lobe of the site. Landscaping areas will be incorporated into the immediate envelope in which the two buildings will be set. As indicated, a landscaped area is located between the two buildings. The perimeter landscaping varies in width with the deepest buffer along the north margin of the site, the area nearest the forebay and heron rookery area. The city owns a 70-foot-wide uplands area between the subject site and the forebay. This area contains a maintenance road and additional landscaping features. The landscaping will also be incorporated into the parking aisles, breaking up the asphalt expanses. The site plan does not provide the required landscaping along the "L" shaped property line in the northwest corner of Tract A. There is no landscaping proposed adjacent to the parking stalls in this area. Instead, the applicant proposes utilizing the landscaping and buffer provided by city property in this vicinity. • t First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 10 14. As indicated, the city is acquiring the westernmost portion of Tract A where some contaminated dredge spoils were deposited with the construction of the forebay pond. The applicant and the city have proposed utilizing some of this city owned (or to be owned) property as part of the required landscaping for the project. (MOA Page 18 Section 4). The ordinances in question do not appear to permit such an arrangement. 15. On Tract B, the applicant pp proposes poses three office buildings with differing footprints. Building E, proposed for the southwesternmost corner of the site, will be four stories high and contain 78,350 square feet of space. It will be approximately 220 feet long and vary in width from approximately 55 feet to 110 feet. Its eastern facade will be the most intricate, stepping in and out, while the western facade will be straight. 16. Building D will be in the south central portion of the site. It will be five stories tall and approximately 71 feet high. It will contain 91,550 square feet. It varies in width from approximately 85 feet to 115 feet. It will be approximately 200 feet long. Its eastern facade will be the most complex, widening as it steps to the north. Fifteen foot indents will be notched from the northwest and southeast corners of the facade and, along with the eastern facade's major articulations, will provide a break in the apparent bulk of the building. 17. Building F, like Building D, will be five stories and 71 feet tall. It will contain 116,400 square feet. It will be about 220 feet wide (east-west) and vary from 75 to 150 feet in length. Its major feature will be the articulations along its southwestern facade. 18. A four story, 57 foot high parking garage will be located in the north central area of Tract B. The garage will be 328 feet deep (north-south) by 262 feet wide. The garage's footprint will be rectangular. The applicant proposes a closed north facade to minimize any intrusions into the preserve area or the heron habitat. The garage will be served by an elevator. The Police Department is concerned about garage security and has suggested that the stairwells be open to view, that emergency telephones be available on each level, and that a security system be installed. At its closest side, it will be approximately 60 feet from the site's north property line. The parking garage will accommodate approximately 900 vehicles. The site will also provide 459 surface parking stalls for a total of 1,359 stalls, whereas only 1,217 stalls are required by code. This would provide an excess of 142 parking stalls. The surface parking will be located around the various buildings in the south two-thirds of the site. The applicant will reduce the number of stalls to meet code requirements. 19. Buildings on Tract A and the parking garage on Tract B were relocated to move either taller structures or more intense uses away from the buffer areas and heron. Similarly, the low scale open parking was considered preferable to office buildings near the pond adjacent to Tract A. The blank wall of the garage was considered less intrusive than office building windows and the comings and goings of hundreds of employees. 20. Landscaping, or at least open space, will be a major component of the development on Tract B. Approximately 37 percent of Tract B will be undeveloped and left as open space and natural areas. The eastern quarter of the site will consist of wetland components, landscaping and natural preserve areas. The north margin and north third of the west margin will also be natural preserve. These setbacks are intended to provide buffers from the forebay pond and to preserve wetlands that are either located on the site or will be enlarged or enhanced. The applicant also proposes a dense hedge of evergreens to provide screening around the natural area. This would be offset from some of the other plantings proposed in the area to provide an effective screen and minimize unnecessary intrusions into the habitat areas. c E First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 11 21. Larger landscaped areas will be located around the Tract B office buildings and, particularly, along the west side of Building E, which is adjacent to the P-1 Channel, along the west and south sides of Building D, and along the south side of Building F. A landscaped walkway and small plaza will separate the parking garage from Buildings D and F. Landscaping will also break up the parking areas and aisles. 22. The project was originally estimated to generate approximately 6,125 average daily vehicle trips at completion. One building has been eliminated from the proposal and others reduced in scale. The applicant and staff have based their respective calculations on slightly differing methodologies that base the outcomes on whether the uses are classified as office park, general office, or campus type development. In addition, the numbers found in the reference manuals have been changed in the recent edition. The estimate of traffic varies from about 5,000 to about 5,200 vehicle trips per day. In general, approximately 10 to 15 percent of the total vehicles trips can be expected during the peak-hour commutes. In any event, staff and the applicant agree that the applicant has provided sufficient funding to accommodate the anticipated traffic that will be generated by this proposal at build-out. These traffic estimates were contemplated when calculating the transportation improvements for this area. 23. Tract A will be served by two driveways located along Oakesdale. The interior aisle arrangement offers reasonable access and turning space. Similarly, Tract B has two driveways. One of the driveways is located along Oakesdale, while the other is located on 7th. A small parking area and driveway are located along Naches, along the east side of the complex. 24. In addition to the already funded improvements, the applicant is devising a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to monitor and manage traffic reduction programs for the complex. In addition, staff has recommended that the complement of parking be reduced to that required by code to further discourage traffic by making less parking available. ?5. The site is located within the 100 Year Flood Elevation. All site improvements and finished floor elevations will be above the flood level to prevent damage to property. The city has requested a Hold Harmless Agreement from the applicant in the event that the buildings are not properly located out of harm's way during a flood event. )6. Drainage will either enter the P-1 channel or drainage swales and the Black River channel. Staff has indicated that storm water control will meet the adopted standards of the city. Staff indicated that there is also sufficient capacity to handle storm water in both the P-I channel and the Black River channel. During storm events any water displaced by filling the site will be handled by the P-I channel. Staff indicated that the applicant is entitled to credit for dedicating approximately 17 acres of property for the forebay. This credit is sufficient to compensate for any storm water displacement that occurs as a result of adding more fill to the site. At build-out, the project would be expected to generate approximately 92 acre feet of water, whereas the forebay has capacity for approximately 213 acre feet of water. Under the city's adopted storm water regulations, the applicant will be required to do the required downstream analysis, although there is some discussion in the MOA of an exemption from onsite detention. The applicant proposes filling approximately 0.14 acres of wetlands on Tracts A and B to accommodate the building envelopes. These areas have been analyzed and have low functional values in terms of wetland characteristics. Two of these sites are located on Tract A. One is located centrally along the south margin of the site. The other is located centrally along the east First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 12 margin of the site. The third wetland is located on Tract B, just south of the south end of the. Black River drainage channel. These are relatively shallow and generally resgltect from...: differential settlement of imported fill materials. To compensate for filling these areas, the applicant will create approximately 0.21 of new or enhanced wetlands. This will be done by dredging portions of the Black River Channel located at the eastern edge of Tract B to deepen the wetland and enhance its wetland characteristics. The enhancement entails adding depth for water quality purposes and planting wetland plant species. While wetland creation and enhancement is a relatively new technique, the enlarging/enhancement of existing wetlands generally meets with more success. Wetland plant species already established can expand their territory in enlarged wetland areas more easily than if they were just introduced to a newly created simple pond. A berm or dike that divides a portion of the old Black River channel from the main body will be removed in order to facilitate water flow in the entire channel area. The effort will be bonded and monitored. 28. The issue of shoreline access is somewhat complicated by a number of factors including mixed ownership, incomplete city studies for open space, trail links and habitat in this area, and the reclusive nature of the heron. In the vicinity of Tract A, the city owns the 70 feet immediately adjacent to the P-I pond and actually has a maintenance road just up from the pond. The city controls a similar 60 foot wide buffer along the west edge of Tract B. The city is working on its Open Space and Wildlife Master Plan but has not completed its proposal for access to this area. Finally, one of the major aims of the parties has been to design a project that minimized its intrusiveness as much as possible and to control access to limit disturbance of the heron rookery. Heron are particularly sensitive to human intrusion during nesting periods and the object of much of the design was to move buildings and heavy use aspects of the project further from the heronry. 29. The applicant proposes phasing .the complex over eight to ten years and has requested that any approval be so conditioned. The MOA has authorized this ten-year time frame while trying to assure compliance with building code provisions and limitations. City regulations limit site plans to two years unless additional time is provided under a phased build-out. While the Site Plan Ordinance permits phasing, it requires "clearly defined phases and specific time limits for each phase. If the time limits of a particular phase are not satisfied, then site plan approval for • that phase and subsequent phases shall expire. The Hearing examiner shall also determine if such a phased project will be eligible for any extensions of time limits? (Section 4-3I-33(J) While the MOA spells out a required progression, it does not indicate where development will occur. It does not specify whether development will begin on Tract A or Tract B or bounce between them. 30. The applicant proposes importing fill materials to the two sites in order to prepare the site for development. The materials will raise the site to allow finished floors and structural improvements to be located above the 15 foot, 100 year flood elevation. Approximately 18,000 cubic yards of material will be imported for Tract A and approximately 35,000 cubic yards will be imported for Tract B. Of this total approximately 450 cubic yards will be used to fill the low-quality wetlands (discussed elsewhere in these findings). 31. The importation of clean fill will require approximately 525 truck trips for Tract A and approximately 851 truck trips, if 20 cubic yards are moved per trip. Haul routes and hours of operation were not described but are usually subject to city approval to minimize impacts on either residential zones or rush-hour routes. • C C • First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 2.41. January 14, 1992 Page 13 32. The applicant has indicated that filling will proceed over a period of years to correspond with the development. The applicant has not described any particular phasing. Staff has recommended that hydroseeding follow any fill that is not built on within that same construction season in order to prevent erosion and dust. 33. Staff has indicated that the technical plans submitted by the applicant for the grade and fill . permit comply with city codes. A written certification will be required to assure compliance with ordinance requirements. All fill activity that might result in erosion or degradation of water quality is governed by the same requirements as storm water discharge. 34. All grading and filling is subject to conditions outlined in the MOA with particular reference to limitations that restrict major activities during certain times of the year. 35. The MOA permits the applicant to make minor modifications to the site plan and staff has indicated that some buildings may be shifted in minor ways to accommodate such things as fire access. 36. There are no significant trees on Tract A. Approximately 35 trees will be removed from Tract B out of approximately 287 trees. These trees will be removed to permit development of building pads and associated parking structures. 37. The areas within two hundred (200) feet of the various water bodies in this location are governed by the Shoreline Master Program since these water bodies have been designated as having state-wide significance by the Department of Ecology. The shoreline designation of the area is divided, with the Black River corridor designated as natural and the Springbrook Creek designated urban. CONCLUSIONS Site Plan . 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 14 The proposed use appears to satisfy these and other particulars of the ordinance, although a number of aspects remain vague and these issues will require refinement. 2. The staff report seems to indicate that the site plan submitted is merely schematic and "typically more detailed architectural, landscaping, and engineering plans will be submitted with building permit applications.... vesting has occurred with the signing of the MOA ....[andj based upon those stipulations, the analysis and measures proposed herein (except those required by Code) shall not restrict the appearance, siting, construction or operation of this development." This is contrary to the way other applications have been handled. Vesting prior to the review of the application at a public hearing is not possible even with the parenthetical exception. Site plan review is supposed to review the horizontal and vertical placement of buildings, the spacing between buildings, and effective design and landscaping plans. Although assurances were provided at the hearing that only minor modifications might occur, this review would be wholly unnecessary if the plans can be altered in any significant fashion. Therefore, this review is based upon the submitted plans and they will not be considered merely schematic or conceptual for this purpose. Since this review will result in approval of the site plan, it is the site plan submitted by the applicant that shall govern future development and not some potentially modified site plan that is not even in evidence. This approval is based on ordinary interpretation of the ordinance. Minor modifications as described by Ordinance may be permitted but any other change will, as usual, require appropriate review. 3. Through the MOA, the applicant and the city have attempted to build in a flexibility that normally does not exist in the site plan approval process. In the area of timing, the codes require more than a brief reference to market conditions as the determinant of phasing. The Ordinance requires specific phasing of any project that will be approved for an extended time limit. In a complex of this size there would normally be no problem approving additional time, although other projects of like complexity have been completed in less than the 10 years the applicant has requested. The problem is that the applicant has presented absolutely no time table of any kind other than buildout in an eight to ten year time frame. That is unacceptable. The initial two year time limit was mandated to screen out speculative projects and to provide certainty for the city that property would be developed in accordance with a current Comprehensive Plan. Either a project is built in two years or its vesting lapses, at which point its continued currency can than be reanalyzed against any changed circumstances. While extensions are permitted under reasonable circumstances, such extensions are tied to specific phases. In other words, are buildings on Tract A going to be constructed and started within 1 year or will the ones on Tract B be started within two years? It's inappropriate to Ieave all of this to some vague time frame that provides little or no certainty but vests in the applicant the current environmental, zoning and comprehensive planning regulations for up to ten years. 4. The applicant's preference for a market-driven approach to development as opposed to the "clearly defined" phases required by the Ordinance is inappropriate given the plain terms of the ordinance. If the proposal is not completely speculative then the applicant must have some idea of tenants who need buildings of the size and scale now proposed. In that case, detailed phasing information seems a necessary prerequisite to any kind of planning. The city does not want partially filled sites and partially graded sites sitting unused and unsightly for extended periods of time. Phasing is absolutely necessary to avoid such consequences and to effectuate good planning. It was a similar absence of planning and appropriate oversight that resulted in the depositing of contaminated dredge spoils on portions of the subject site and on Tract C, and resulted in the improper filling of portions of Tract C in violation of rezone restrictions. First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 15 5. Additional scrutiny was applied to these parcels when the initial fill permit was applied for a number of years ago, because the applicant wanted to fill the site in piecemeal or even a random pattern. Without additional information about phasing, we might revisit the rejected piecemeal approach that would permit a fill and grade operation that continued for five to eight years and where soils are deposited at random locations and in one or two inch increments. Such actions would result in a continually disturbed and unfinished appearance. This cannot be tolerated. In fact, both the grade and fill ordinance and the site plan ordinance require detailed phasing schedules and strict time limits. 6. The applicant's concerns and desires for flexibility are understandable, but the ordinance does not provide for the latitude requested by the applicant nor the latitude granted by the MOA. The continual disruption and unfinished-looking property is not acceptable. A settlement of an administrative appeal does not provide a legal framework for setting aside any ordinance requirements. Such a result could lead to inconsistent application of mandated code provisions based upon the separate agreements of the various parties. If the code provisions are to be varied, a specific amendment or modification of those provisions by the City Council seems a necessary prerequisite. That way, code provisions affect everyone equally. 7. In a similar fashion, there seems to be no latitude that would permit deviating from the required landscaping provisions of city code. The specific area in question is the "L" shaped property line in the northwest corner of Tract A. There is no question that the applicant has proposed sufficient, and in some cases quite generous, landscaping, particularly for Tract B, but this does not negate the requirements found in the code. There is no landscaping proposed adjacent to the parking stalls in this area. Instead, the applicant proposes utilizing the landscaping and buffer provided by city property in this vicinity. If a similar project were going in next to a city park, there would be no question that the landscaping required by code would be required of adjacent development. 8. The project must comply with all codes and ordinances of the city and there does not appear to be any method of waiving provisions of the code by agreement of parties, even as the result of a contested appeal. If such modification or waiver were possible by mere agreement (as opposed to amending an ordinance outright) could the parties, as an example, waive the height limits of a particular zone or even the limits on what is a permitted use in a particular zoning district? Can the city and any applicant agree to modify the normal requirements found in the Zoning Code and permit a taller building than otherwise permitted as a tradeoff for other compromises? Can the city permit a duplex in a single family zone in a similar tradeoff? Certainly not. While these may be dramatic examples, height and permitted use are no more or less mandated than landscaping setbacks or detailed phasing of extended projects. The applicant will have to comply with the normal code requirements unless the code is specifically modified. 9. Since it seems certain that a more concrete proposal must have generated the original application, the current uncertainty does not appear justified. Therefore, the applicant will have to submit a detailed phasing plan within two months of this decision. . 10. With those preliminary matters aside, it appears that on the whole the project serves the public use and interest. The proposed office use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the site for office park uses. The subject proposal is more park-like than many of the complexes that have been developed in this area. The property sits at .the edge of the P-1 forebay pond and straddles the P-1 channel. The open space afforded by these amenities comports quite well with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The applicant will also be preserving and enhancing certain of the open space characteristics of the subject site, ( First City Washington, thdck River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 16 particularly on Tract B which will also have an expansive buffer on its eastern edge where wetland preservation and enhancement will occur. The combination of city efforts and the applicant's efforts will reflect quite well on the finished product. The city's open space in this location will enhance the value of the applicant's project. 11. In addition to being compatible with the official map and accompanying text suggesting this site for an office park, the preservation of open space and wetlands by the applicant is also compatible with those elements of the Comprehensive Plan governing open space elements, wildlife habitat and landscaping. The applicant has taken great pains to avoid intrusions along their northern property line which might disturb the rookery. While obviously not avoiding all development, the plan appears to be sensitive to the unique environment found immediately north of the site, 12. Tract B concentrates the more intense uses away from the natural areas. While the garage is quite large, it was decided that with a closed north facade, it would be less intrusive than occupied buildings with windows, upper level lights and people. Similarly, the decision to place surface parking, a relatively noisy activity, on the north side of Tract A was favored over office buildings, since vehicles present a much less formidable obstacle and visual barrier than would an office building. The occupied surface parking area is less than one story in height whereas the four story office buildings would be over fifty feet tall and again, there will be no windows, or upper level lights and there will be less people. 13. An analysis of a project's compliance with building code and fire code provisions does not generally occur under site plan review. Detailed review occurs with building permit application. 14. The•project should blend well with surrounding development. The buildings south and east of the project are similarly sized and landscaped. The development should not adversely affect property values and, with the exception of increasing traffic in the area, the project should be an acceptable neighbor. 15. The development of the subject proposal will alter the appearance and intensity of uses as is expected of any development. The site and most of its soils have already been disturbed and its wetlands modified by earlier development patterns. The proposed plan preserves unique characteristics of the site and protects surrounding property in a reasonable manner. The landscaping proposed along with the setbacks, buffer the unique natural areas both north of the site and along both sides of the stream corridor. The plans accommodate the unique wildlife habitat that has survived or flourished, at least until the eagle predations, by Iocating and scaling buildings in a manner which presents the least intrusive features to the north. 16. The buildings present differing heights, thereby providing variety in scale, while the articulated facades reduce the apparent bulk of the buildings. (As an aside: the idea that the proposed plans that are the subject of this review are merely schematic and are nominally binding would make it impossible to make any determination as to this project's compatibility and would render this review irrelevant.) Not only do the articulations and facets provide meaningful relief from the large bulk of the buildings but these details furnish an opportunity to introduce landscaped nooks and additional visual interest. 17. The plans provide adequate parking, although the excess parking, by encouraging additional vehicular use, could counter any reductions achieved by the transportation management plans. Therefore, the allotted parking should not exceed that required by code. Besides encouraging additional traffic, excess parking usurps open space and reduces landscaping. The ERC, unlike c c First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 17 the way it has treated other projects in this area, has not required the applicant to set aside or place in reserve additional parking until the need for it is demonstrated. While the complex is being developed, parking between the sites will be shared or parking may be provided on the adjoining lot as long as sufficient parking is provided and city approval is granted. 18. Circulation patterns on the plans appear reasonable. The flow is generally circular around the buildings. The applicant has limited access to the street system to two major driveways for each complex thereby limiting interference with the arterial streets adjacent to the complex. There are pedestrian links through the parking areas to the buildings, between the buildings, and to the public streets. 19. Besides the peripheral landscaping along the site's boundaries, the applicant has proposed landscaping within the surface parking areas including between aisles and at island ends. The buildings are set off in their own respective landscaped envelopes. 20. The site will be served by the city's water and sewer systems. Staff has reported that adequate capacity exists to provide service to the subject site. The applicant will be required to comply with all storm water requirements, including those for water quality and treatment and for a downstream analysis. Once again, the MOA cannot be substituted for ordinance requirements and depending upon the outcome of downstream analysis, the applicant cannot be exempt from normal code-mandated detention, save any compensation offset required by prior dedications of land for the forebay. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 21. As discussed above, the office complex proposed by the applicant is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's map element which designates the area for office use and appears to comply with most aspects of the Zoning Code. The project also generally respects the natural areas north of the site and the creek-side environment which runs between Tracts A and B. Extensive buffers and'wetland enhancement will aid in this preservation. 22. The proposal meets or will meet all required riparian setbacks from the pond, channel, and wetlands. The applicant has set aside extensive areas on Tract B for preservation of wetland and upland habitat. Similar, although smaller, set asides have been made on Tract A. 23. The discussion above indicates that there are some uncertainties regarding access to the shoreline adjacent to the site due to the location of the rookery north of the pond and the preliminary nature of the city's planning efforts. Nonetheless, public access to the shorelines is a primary aspect of the Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a specific easement to provide access to the shoreline areas adjacent to both Tracts A and B at this time. If further study negates the need or appropriateness of these easements due to the proximity of the heron rookery or other wildlife they can be vacated or modified as appropriate. The applicant should provide pedestrian easements through the site in the vicinity of the westernmost driveway and near the northeast corner of Building B on Tract A, and west of Building E and near the northeast corner of the parking garage on Tract B. Special Permit for Fill and Grade 24. The proposed fill and grade appears to serve the public use and interest. Once.it has been determined that the site is suitable for development, fill materials will be necessary to bring the • First City Washington, 13PaeK River Corporate Park . SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 18 grade of the site above the 100 year flood level. The applicant will be importing material, approximately 18,000 cubic yards for Tract A and about twice as much, or approximately 35,000 cubic yards for Tract B. Three wetlands with low functional values as wetlands will be filled. The material will be spread over the approximately 24 acres the sites encompass as necessary to provide for elevated building pads. In addition, some limited excavation will occur to permit wetland enhancement along the eastern edge of Tract B. 2.5. The total estimated truck trips, approximately 1,400 trips, will be spread out over a couple of years or more. Staff was not concerned about these trips although staff will monitor and control haul routes and hours as necessary to limit interference with rush-hour traffic or other contingencies. 26. Since a substantial portion of the work will be near the pond and channel, erosion control will be required. The permit and annual license will have to comply with all surface and storm water regulations of the city to ensure water quality and quantities do not exceed city limits. 27. Again, it will be necessary for the applicant to more clearly delineate the phases of operation. It is inappropriate to continually dump materials on the site. Not only would that lead to a lengthy period of unsightly conditions, but it would extend, unnecessarily, the city's need to monitor haul routes for dirt and monitor water-quality issues related to erosion and dust control. In addition, the applicant will be required to hydroseed any portions of the site that will not be developed prior to the beginning of the wet season to minimize erosion of newly filled areas. 28. In conclusion, there is much to recommend the project and that is why it is approved. But there are also a couple of issues that need resolution in a more definitive manner, namely the timing of development on the site and compliance with all ordinances of the city. Once those matters are corrected, the project should be an asset to the city and, hopefully, the occupants of this proposal and residents of the city will continue to enjoy the unique wildlife that cohabit the area. • DECISION 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed schedule of phasing for both the grade and fill activities and the office building construction within two months of the date of this decision. 2. The applicant shall comply with all landscaping provisions of city code. 3. The applicant shall comply with all provisions required by the MOA of November 20, 1991. 4. The applicant shall, in order to address impacts to the natural environment, enhance existing wetlands and provide all wetland plantings in accordance with its wetlands enhancement plan. Enhancement shall occur in conjunction with and at the time of wetland filling. 5. The applicant shall comply with its wetlands enhancement plan. All reporting under this plan is to be made available to the Development Services Section. 6. The applicant shall, in order to ensure that site development and project operation do not unduly impact the off-site wildlife habitat, provide city's Development Services Division with copies of each and all reports concerning heron activity which are prepared pursuant to the MOA for First City and the Citizens Appellants. C C First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 • January 14, 1992 Page 19 7. The applicant (and its heirs and assignees) shall, in order to mitigate on-site and off-site impacts, maintain responsibility for replacement of all relocated and introduced landscaping on Tract B exterior of the laurel hedge within the landscape area or the landscape extension as the terms are determined in the MOA; this assignment of responsibility shall be confirmed through provision by the applicant (and its heirs and assignees) of a landscaping surety device to protect wetland plantings and landscaping exterior to the laurel hedge within the landscape area or the landscape extension as the terms are determined in MOA equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the value of those plantings. This surety device is to be implemented, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, at the time of the issuance of the construction permit to continue in force and effect until five years for wetlands plantings and three years for all other plantings exterior of the laurel hedges, following the completion of all improvements approved in conjunction with this permit application. 8. The applicant (and its heirs and assignees) shall, in order to mitigate on-site and off-site impacts, maintain responsibility for protection, maintenance and care of all relocated and introduced landscaping on Tract B interior of the laurel hedge, and all relocated and introduced vegetation on Tract A interior of the laurel hedge; this assignment of responsibility shall be confirmed through provision by the applicant (and its heirs and assignees) of a landscaping surety device to protect interior upland and street boundary upland plantings, equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the value of those plantings. This surety device is to be implemented, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, with the issuance of the construction permit and to continue in force and effect for three years following the completion of all improvements for each phase approved in conjunction with this permit application. 9. The applicant shall, in order to ensure the continuing integrity of this site and neighboring properties during the site preparation, provide a plan with the following components: a) an erosion control element; b) an agreement that a certified soils engineer (selected by the applicant, with city approval, and funded by the applicant, or its heirs or assignees) will make inspections of the site at reasonable intervals during all filling activities; will provide copies of all reports made to the city; and will immediately report emergencies to the city, c) an element to ensure that hydroseeding of any portion of the subject property that is disturbed is completed in the event that there is to be any significant delay between preparation and construction of structures. 10. The applicant shall, in order to ensure the continuing integrity of this site and neighboring properties, provide an agreement to hold the city harmless in the event that flooding occurs on the site because applicant has failed to construct its finished floor elevations and site improvements above the flood plain, this agreement is to be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any site preparation permit. 11. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate on-site recreation impacts (as based upon 4-31-33D.1.i of the Site Plan Review Ordinance): i) of the Site Plan Review Ordinance): i) provide passive recreation centers such as picnic tables and benches as shown on the schematic site plan as approved by the Parks Department; and ii) install showers within office. 17 The applicant shall revise the parking plan to provide a maximum of 544 parking spaces on Tract A and 1217 parking spaces on Tract B. The plan shall be approved by the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Tract B. • First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 20 13. The applicant shall, in order to comply with the Parking and Loading Ordinance, obtain • approval of off-site parking plans for Tract A and/or Tract B from the Development Services Division, in advance of designation and implementation of the off-site parking area to ensure that service to Tract B employees does not unduly remove required parking for employees on Tract A. 14. The applicant shall, in order to comply with the Site Plan Review Ordinance 4-31-33D.I.f, improve the safety and efficiency of on-site circulation by marking on the site plans the pedestrian circulation paths linking structures to parking areas, recreation areas and the public right-of-way. The location and dimensions of those linkages will be confirmed prior to the issuance of construction permits, in keeping with the MOA requirement (Section II.D.4.) that specific site plan features be established at that time. 15. The applicant shall, in order to comply with the intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, 4- 31-33.D.1.i, to reduce emergency service calls to the site and to increase efficiency during service calls, incorporate the following features into the parking garage: i) open stair wells with transparent glazing material on each Ievel; ii) emergency telephones on each level; and iii) a reasonably priced and efficient security system which enables the garage to be closed and locked, in keeping with the MOA (Section lI.D.4.), specific design plans for these improvements will be reviewed and approved with the construction permit. ORDERED THIS 14th day of January, 1992. \c+5, FRED J. KA o' • N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMI I LED THIS 14th day of January, 1992 to the parties of record: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • David Martin, Transportation Systems Ron Straka, Stormwater & Utility Division Amy Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon 902 Waterfront PL 1011 Western AVE Seattle, WA 98104 Royce Berg LPN Architects 1127 Pine St, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 Jim Macrsaac The Transpo Group 14335 NE 24th St, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 21 Bob O'Connell . . Bush Roed Hitchings • 2009 Minor AVE E Seattle, WA 98133 Teresa McLean 7004 S 130th Seattle, WA 98178 Bob Denman Jones & Stokes Assoc. 2820 Northrup Way, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Gerry Adams Seattle Audubon Society 28803 NE Big Rock Road Duvall, WA 98019 Susan Krom • Citizens for Renton Wildlife Preservation 3640 Ashworth AVE N Seattle, WA 98103 TRANSMITTED THIS 14th day of January, 1992 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal Ronald Nelson, Building Director Lawrence J. Warren, City'Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News Utilities System Division Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. January 28, 1992. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, 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, Chapter 8, Section 16, 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. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. . First City Washington, Black River Corporate Park SA-109-89 January 14, 1992 Page 22 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. t-,.,._ ;'•vim of •'L^• I 0�• �•-ac:ra=...--�._�� C l. .al r.saw.. i t.A:CSCAPE AREA Ii BUFFER Pc�a • `\-_ —� P•I Chantlol •f OOs • 1• •• -, a^,b \ U I .,...______ ----c— — — — ---....'"" --._, ,--r'<, \," NI''' • .".sr.,0.1'.11- . ..,!....‘''''-64**Irair,i4Sioa*".. —u ftkit.+.4:2., : '\. ' . --i-' ...(11. \ ..•.. ...••mow ` ‘/ ,. . , •• "W - V to i n' � �\_\ .� » � � fi •era •r+•' .71:' 1 f 11 •••• Ar .... . . ,„,,,,, ..,.. Z . s"L /c7 • Jt4 14/1 Od ''. • '..1 ,i.,Hbitt4 . ..:74filfftke.,"6„.4tk.apritl..4 ,A.5. c 1:: ...,...-7.--,......... .„„„, 'to', / ‘ -'71.1111.---....,,0844,,4:,,,,...- ts, ..„ Rip' .... 7t,... tie/ ,,,,,t,,,,. ....... ......, ti..."34, vr. latA4-4 %1111.110:1•Sli Ai , , i .- �,� ow I - • 1 ( . ( u 4- PLANT w.mau LZCCM '! �'1'^�i='"Ri;t,.. i 1•.j!'' I I4" TiR‘Ac 1 •r.fl, .,v1-�{} .l,y,,., �kA \tom �� -;..'.4ir •�� `� -"'��� _— 0 i....1 n•-«.1.�wfva( -t.v,wt .R:7 LX4 .v�..wZ•.....•xor Y.•,ir,.�•ds,w.•(....•+t i..,v.*, ��L�. • }1! P• i p /A� r�/p Lt`' ............................ I —FN . ��R1-l.t-[�R - .�� n...u..r.`. bw.'w`1'� ti•.<.,u...... .....c Aa ".J l..rt .. \- _. a _IANOSC/'Fi PLAN • CORPORATE PARK °'. **.-� �.,+'•'+ i.•..*.M►r w'F•/ IH✓.•ra/ •�or+1 r�1.� aaMtoae, MAa+lw0lo► ~"• 1•.•.r A•vrS r•"r rt.A.v. ,AAA ►IM•I •+w•.�•f awYw Ii1•. z !r� . uw ♦ wu.+f Arw• ,TM,� / w.rh "y+' «r w,• M - fuaTutrwAfloM;wc. (� h"1 W!•. Nr !. -+.w�,,. .,.s, �^�..+.. ,fir J.� °..at........�...wi.v{"`y� ► �ar--.r 1• •A .•t�✓f w•..A e,•t.�. erPHASE VIIItssza.u.r,..a.e....!, w.v..•.i,•��,•�, rl.o Ws+.f "w,r.+ t. '°""'. 7t 7: al) •}/....,"rw t t'w.r'.r ,!17›. .1•0 •P•, KON I••d. �.. .,t......•. e.,•... .-::::---7:7 1 1 1 I_I l l l I.1 l 1_I I l l , ' I. I I ( 1 [. 1 1,!l l 1 I .. I� 11 11 J l I ] I T 1 1 ( 1 I III f 1 � ra d I 1 -oar NI 111iIlllllkl )� ( 17[IIIU r_= t t • , v, t . hi , 4 , I WEST-ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION East Elevation Bldg C sim. _______' Mechanicale �- — —Exterior Insulating Spandrel Pane i irVislon Glass 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ' 11 1 I tJ_I I.rl 1 1- Z _ I LI,L -1-WL1U111 [A 1111,1111=UU) 111JIiiiltiii, f1 1 1 j. ,UJ_IJ.>,�.li i�.l 1 ' t� ..'� aii iii� am ..4•fa1 --. 'EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION West Elevation Bldg C Sim. TRACT 'A' :.w. .-• • �LACC RIVE CORPORATE PARK Phase VIII �'®• ram \ ®e:�; . First City Washington, Inc, •• 4 Story (BLDG. B Office bldg C sim.) 89017 Scale: l"=40' 10-31•s, , IW t.•V...f4N ,.. . / , .9 Tl `.ti••.[O•.•••.e07 ` I1 II. j'i1l R. , v-t o'r,w i \\`+ \`••_'••r.—•• i f..•vf+l•� { MONUMENT SIGN I CO\\ ,........, a) / V(. (L7 _ i -a... --. .S, .N...: ...;. i."-:-.0- . .,Y, I i• • . . wmetwrer 7 4•-• CO • 1:I.. p / rAN%s.-..%.:: \. ---...... ,;./r .Nies 'I I i i I. ` l t Ub Cr ,. •1 . , ' te` \ I • • ' • • I UK.*.i •e .t` por.. : a)• _, / ` �l•y to. ?.• �� .vriii. ® ��• G 1r :fej l,'4.1 . . ) I I� ;•/: VICINITY MAP • o Y tl l ` trU 'w.vtvw 1• I :� 1!1 1. V u) t ; 1 i tfr',•' •1•..w I ' .1 '� •�,� • 19 ' ' ', U Q • I 1 J r I 1 II4111� " �a ♦ �� i. I I, i 1 ?.« /� ` J n i w. ^r•1• ' i i.i// I ' cden\\\ • P. •— I ,/ / ips 1 t< I •1�A j� i'I I i ,�:'•f J ` • ?" �r •- '' Q o►vi� t!,i• 1, • f 02/ • •rI ,,/i) I r4Jc / •`''/�� f • \+• 'rw� 1 ••, 1� {11 1 • YF 1. x;; //• • Ai •.• „• y ,`ft... I r i \� I -v/. +'1 w..i/,1. •1. , / t f� . •', �o .•s, ; `'`... .. 1 11 1 t i , ,r . f / t i• VI .1 •i I s' 1 i a,, SITE t' • , l• t , 1 11 i1.a.ct !I I • 1 7 Jp t,• • If O'0!1pL Imo` ,��1 l/l, t - �p 'i 1 i '_ :f l t . t 4 ►7tl F ��� j 11 O��/ tr't.t�bL+'. Ili ..L,.•••.,��. ,�Vj� • • :`. t p>•�•6 fro 1 „/r'.Yrf�Yt •.. •`� ! ':' •r•K.I•.+1 1 r 1 -x ) i%i • {l'- N �•�'�+•ZlV� yt ' t� —• _ «a°`.r-_T a..• a►*64 ., • . -...,. no ff i ' : t t �.1 � �n ',,I7►� s t � , ,�,,j `` • •1 > a o • �'l• .0 VICINITY MAP • O L..� ��� «_ ..... • r. .(fp .• . . a•..:. .. - S- �.:,; •op„,. a. le:. n •G� ~ .:r!"" fir.• 'w't7rr.�.'r.1i..-:?4.'ti..y '.�.s.a...... v. , Nil 0 '��r f 1 . 04/44 p Carr.Car w..., ♦,•...:.1'••... I" ',f` •e l.,,4 •' \ 1 , • Orh1. t.• �,p, /,,,,"• ,Cara!,.. y±a„....-...-ta.,�... •�. I j•Y.y. `•� !,j •. ,�• 11'\ +� ti'i' ir! -`:o..•,.rY TRACT % '- TABU-AMU ��.. -`�-.:� ,.'.., 4 • �• . 4- BLAC KR I V E R I[ / - \ SR. Area /653,762 S'.F..c`w. :\,� ` 1... �;V. • ..:..•• ma's,' V \(Suildin9Area 22a6.3oOS.F � ;:•�: �- ! ,•, 4�% CORPORATE PARK SITE PLAN ` " a./% ' -�" wr;Se n�171I IIENTON WASHINGTON • SR.Covenpe 2 35(loot L s/2I t .nye) ` �'� ? ^ •'^•'" 1'1I15T CI1 Y UL'VL'LOI'Mt H I,:CUI11'. I Perking 21311 rla.a(11211 Sl.)1 j�+ /«• ., I1pdw uen pa. �� u• ♦w �• `. II',� • _____,. '0.• illbdk i, 1,1R6 ROOKER V I./I RIPANIES7 PRESERVE •" rA:.g.,.‘v r.4.10,0d• T� sit:•' 44W "i Wth1.ti ' titt_...e. %-.4-411011 ... ..,. ..: . 4404,4•:.". • S4iPei .• 1 • Aiiti. • • • VACANT • •/•.,. � 11 OFFICE _ / t _ • • , 4..• r- lc-. .31.-60. ... .----:lisi,Ainit. loll,' .. ....... :. . :-.,.. .. .. _,I1 eedi." ..„...e.. . . .. ,cr,..,..i.ofteimir .. ..‘ ,,,. • .i ,.4; .,:-.,'".,• .-N IV 111410...• 111P.:. .• VP inotiglyffialkir- :FP2a0r4"--- •104.1 a a.- •,.• .• "I, •V Vtoorre . if /Var,....„ •14 4.r4 di P•1 DETENTION POND i.. ✓l i, 1:� 1 �t�i •sue •' v wil I°! �• �. -� - •". ., . a• s ft,i .1fiti .., . . .4 4 Aii!..b . *A.,. 411'\ \f,$) . . .. , ..., 40 1 ),.. .. ,... obs. ..r. . vie . •\,.. ie..- r L":- --Iril ' W • ",./.1. ..,• • -,,..11•• :‘''‘4:1.‘" '‘‘.....%‘ ' .'\''.51.•- ' . it' • : 7 1 / le' .-- . li• 4-$) ' I'illirii7. .•-..., fr.%0" .... •••, - . .......k.::- • \ . ,... • '11 �' •f+ ;j...:.,y.. i .4...., 5 Tv • Iy I 4! �# OFFICE Ni,....4. r.ri. PROPOSED jj /CsTi ,�,�;(!P #/4 ►� • c, r e 'I �� OFFICE tail 0;e� J, Sul �` -h , i • I ; a C �i��~ .. �� le U s . t GA•t I, �. 11''..". 1/. • p. ".00orf"" . II tt .-1111 ( •••' •' 1 '— ‘24.I: '. ..:.4:11: .41811: -....r....,0,,.*:::.:11r1..4,;. el. :1,,,1:::4P'...:'. rt tt �% a I ✓ eL le •% PS ol. . Iw • . ,>v4 . ra;_. b4Q i .:, '41" ,,,...m.• ire - •••• -, -I,is ptat..'• I ; „ .7:. i '4-IP;i ... e AO pr. o I , • .Irab . • ��.•t :� f — •• �. - •►i, + OFFICE . fir• .. P. 't•..._ � _ _._ �. '-� ,,YN / r.• • L w,Rvn cr were �� . ! ��/ (� [OFFICE �� I . NI A 5tf )p Lk i I �� • 1 '• .' l I 1..•.....•••• •••a•-••••••••A•uf•C• s .--'• 176.' / •,- I / •r.... C.:Yft•-...1.2.4/ -----/s• ..... ; 1.....•-.A.,•••••• ••"/ F. / I 1 tk , ;1 .S.• . .I -4.1T-1 ....... .1\ \ I 1... •• • \ I I .PUNT s•tATT.fg.AL LEGEND al• /....-• /•-•1 Cnanne4 A , `.. s;:,,, ' (.::,D CD 1.....o.ort 1.•••....) . : I 0.• 4>•14•443an Pond •., % .. ! :0 •••••44.4.,•••-4••;Nor 4. ••••1••%,4.44I•••••rgo.I.erf...e...N1 14‘,V • ••"".". •-.Zar'":art:: :-........--......-... e? I ......../%0......-40..4 .........-...... .... ....r .i 61.•••••• I ••. ;64 Y . I ! ----,,....., C.)• 0 0.0.1.44 ••1••••r TOO •••••••••• ..../ yr••••••••• ....1 •••,•44 ..- -/ .S7( ;j4,...---- ---;•• ••••IP. .e. .....,,. ..: ...,„.4. .:....,I 1 -;.: ...._:.2 ,, 4 j.0% ....Q h------ •• 0 ..../.......44........"roe IN+.•••••,,,,,-0.4..1'•••••••4 1•"4....•• . ; ••••• CO (I .'' . N •••:L.- ... - ,4;, ... .•\ ----r-ar . • I i ' .. 0 •••••••Y t II.tr ==';'..." .t"":.P•AZ.":.•..C.T.'...1,Mgr.A/.. ..T1., ..,.) r• ••••4-•*"...-77.7 .1 .r 11 - . 7' Ir. 1 . P•I J.T I Ji ;•• -•sss • \- ....-..-•7 ,t ... --77 , A • . , . 3 , r• . It. ......•••••••.s.~r,-0117:7,1•1:leo 4•••••,0.1-•••••••1.e.i."Avi L.... t_ . • p. .11 \ \•,-L"..),40:..'t " .. ' : ,-,• Ak, fo" l• Idil 0 6 , ..,i , ... 4-- -h.:. • .. •N c,.:13 la..........V..4,41:444114.1 •••••••:.•4.4.04.,44.•4•••4•.... C•••••• \ •••'‘• 1,i, ......d I • • .••. XVIII...01°11-°. 4,7 .....,(... / NI/ ':‘ .. " I.. , - ..............• , ..,..., 10..~..n.NV••••• 1,..../se...i„, rr,...1••••••••••-.......,=*''''441 ' t 0 CC ..., % • %.• , , .,.. . • I- I. t .:. i„71\•••••••1"*"`","< •• . ...'„Ar"..., % \ V 0.9 • • - I. • ''• 3 1.... ...../ \\.*\ .. • ..•••1 ‘ . "re, \ ‘ it. • ; 4 . -. ...-1, 1 I 1 1=.11.6.0 WY;•liv...4.1,•••••••1.*•.444 J....,14./7.-9.-, 111•00•4•••,14.-.I 14.••..a.••• I'OP•1.V••.• i a.) \• % k 1 ,f, • ...-•P'''. 0 .....,_ erip.;••. 4101411 .!. . • 1""7711‘....el,wow., 0.sv.•••••••••rf..I no-..1 1 nri......-V.4. • ,,,\, v, ' e‘n ‘‘ . VI\ 10 ;IL •ife..4 . ': ,esik. k •I i q --- , i › > \ „. \ ,,,.;. •. _.... • ..,.., ... witii •: ..:.:.„..:;:„.t., • %de, • . .o... • *-11.4I; 4.,.....•Y f..••••••••44.441 •14.•4 4•••••01. ......,.....••• P77/74,....-•........ ....•- - •-• ..... t • ..‘ 1, \ 7/.*'' /I / ---• IL, Vi.bfr,:- 7---/ I,' ,:z • ,. )..,.. Ar.o.....1 IL,447 wet Z .X , ,• . , ; , /. r..„ ,..../..,....,...,. .. % •. . , . (...) 0 , , . • , , . 0 TAT, 141 I •\..: ° ' 'A:.. •1 .0 11.71.,,,t 0-••••••• 111.......gra "Fp..4,4••••••••••4,e.....1-. 'Or. or CZ < :. w+ . /, ....•I 7 1. . ,.. to.v..... Or III -;1% 'A Y • ... • ' • J.• 1 _ - x ; • • i.; . „it'. ':: -Alifilm-ite -$, , Y \11.0 Vi IV i I :' ::. • • 1 1 ,•64...........,, ••••••• 0.4444.144,- Fre,: it CO a, ; .1 ••4 p...•••••• ,.., ' r"1.' %pilditlitilk 4% I I f• i '.../,.. "..- ' '1 ,....cr..g.1.1.4; I, 1.4 O.= wv....,.... 1........,....- ' , , , :0 ii,r." ' !ow) /,‘: .....././ tirr4 •A- i ,., •I , I •, • ..11. \ / , ./. .44 e 0. --_,- '1,' '' Vqj 1110, •.; 1.1'1, V•r^•••••-''''' ,'" ............... K...............f--,...,....., '..,-......,• • • • i. , , 1•14•.•••1 6.4.-1 • NO....4C••-••( 1.' ""'••••044"."'G'141••••‘• 113.4.••••••• V s....4;0.-0 0.....opnv. 4.•••••••••••••• • FV•s., *Ire* ••••••-••••••••• •••••••••••••••••1.• coVe....• .01.,.....ept... ...-.... ....1.1...-..... . .... . ,,.t/....." .•./' . cit. 1.1 T . . . e' I ; .t. .4.0......., .fi .‘ ; • \ /. • Y. 4 • a •• ••••• le: ‘'‘.,44. ' if. • P.P.N1 ‘03 4114,. 4.;• .0 -.••••1:... Oleill 0. ' 4 • . ' i 14 .44414 4t41••••404•144 4.40411.4f--•-•••-•01•41,1•••••••4...4e-if.....1• r Pr; "CO " ""'" t•--e .....'...-1 :•. . ..II.,i, ,'"/ ;.... ,.. , ,--4\ g• .1..... •.••O. .0 10 . ,a...,...•.'S. kt ,\ • 1 i. A /7 • 1 ,/. /.• 1... 4 '``;. 1:1..., /.... al .'Moro oft'-..... -..... s'N, 1,1, \ • pr.') • . .• 0 . b •1.411?••-••••31110.... • . • i slit.. . , 4 *;•• Or %MOO.. , ••••••. ,' • / 11.:*: i. . • t 0.,,". es'Areseli ;::7;01.1 'Piet' -‘01;*;.• . • 4* tia ------ 1 . i . •...V..1 Alf A.s AN," .war ....r.o. _ .. ..... 6 0 `10 A kil)61 41% 1 t ., r ::-..........2.7 .. .,. r ;re IC04' :•,••• •• ./I ' i / •,1••/ ,, i. 1P.-611114411. ' b .. l'. • VOP... • • I i. ', \ .41 -...-..............-.---.I • . 1,3' ......• VA'S. V' . \e's, 1/ Ok '/I • 's ---- • • • .il• i ' •"1 i • : -1. -Iv ... .,1,•••:''''''''.. .., %,,,,,Na . %k Is * 1 .% • .-• . . -- .......-. -•-•••• , MD ••••1••••••• • ,Alb 4.• II 4.4%. • i••• •,.._'• •40.016 •e( ......, --...-.1....,., ,. .4...,,,......, ....... ........ 0....-g....0 , •., "r't:1 -- 11 ! ; 1 ,.V ' 1.1.-z 4 ,i, _ . . .....,-- .-„,... „„ . . .. . . ......, ...01,-.• ...-,.--. "owl 1,VIIII •.:•••••• • -4 .-.'"..1 - `'•"" t ; i1o.sils .0%40....f., • . •,,..-.4..,-7.*7.rt.-.-..:1•. . ........•4,-0,4. gz ...............---....; I. /,: -1 ''.. •.'Irk , I 11......1. VIC 0.t,.• . 11.03410.:11,tigit401011,1 IA...1 Irm.‘ -•-r...7,.."--4-34=1:...... ..1/--".17.----..3--1:75.7-7 -..2.---.-:'-- . -;". • A"' ist,//se 1^!•,•-•1,-e-,•-r, I ', '.1: ,• 1, EY salloh4....-,a gy pia lit'. ..•1 Itt,. 14VANIONIVIS eel . :.; ......, .......•••:',..•••-•••.. 6.•••••• ,.,,,16 rrn..":.....7=::::-7,--. illir ft.' it 0. 4) tP.;?••-f-..'•' .,•',,.' „::----' ;LT-- 0 fe l' ,..,,,,,,,,•_ --- - `--/,\V, '1,•0 „It if Iii& °V, ts'..0 4lita\ . We"-IbL04 :=1.---- i•N•:).- '. =la."'••=r 414 ..... •-.. "-::-.1.,,,,,,..... ../ '''\' . ‘A. % sore; ..lbOt 41144..1 bt••• I- yo-••. 4 isistrio . .:ittiv•-.• :s'>--:?.,...4„. .--c------,.- 4%st isyhr-46%. 1 • „etz 43,:s....14:- ,,, . ,-....--,-- --• - - • 1 ......7.441;___--ilo.._attiz ,. ':eits...igaikao. 1 . it.: ..--pwc. t. , c":1,4,40. .,." % -;---'7-:,••:-T;'^' .77,;:--7:-•---4-- - .1"-..k. dleVe•••/..." ..all• "...IWO ni r If ' .... .41.4. 'VI° .' ..• .1>.• ........... • I ....,..,••-•___;................ ........i .,,.**/ ASI-11,4•,..4: toskopirwa ;if• eV,. N V: / .7 ........ I ‘\ \ :1-----.S"--;:., Wig:14.. II% • 4.44,, Norb,,, . • LANDSCAPE AREA IN ElvF-Fril 1- . , "`"**,1674--- iii '. N. *.V se01*.z 0°4 it•pd /* ./.•:..... 'i' •o ....°'•4,,,,,,,,, , Nock,,,-- fir...... 41 hp ga ''',..; 3.1;•. 410 0 / ......:1/4«......4 zr.:4•:'.....C....:.=.7- Pr's•••-.... 4/4,4. •S' Will'i.b••14#4.e ' •iIPIP% • .. -4: .... • /., ....,,,....... i ...,.. .. ..... --.__ tw1/4 ttievv.., 4,;41... ,, •,-• / ' on O..,T••••• I .1...s . / 4.4.• . ....,••• ,f, •Plor• Aiii,s, or /•* TR,A c-r 15 •••-..-•, NitPitip, .10. ,a,A.t. 4. ,.•/ I s.s .'i"....'.. • .s.::...•)' I .. 41g.., . 261F: •ir / / \. '••••••.s...,••..;.:;47".:..','•''c''.'7....."'-*1•4...•,,•-,,'..,.. '.::•:4,,1 ,s's s<.t s•,,.:r•`,:,.‘..-‘.s:•1':.:.s1.z:,4 4.,C....,....4-:.-7 41.7)\14:1A•'7 C*,:111.....6.:;9:*:.:.7".4‘:u/I•I.40.1'.,.‘ .'..•:*•I1t..:7.4.4.L>..1 .'..4...7.'.7...r. , ..... • P-=A••• ...•..r.=••!1.P.'L•S rnR PO-RATF DAlN DK W• xN. BLACKRIVER• • ENTON yASHGTON LANDSCAPE • , . , i / FIRST CITY DEVELOPmEnsconp\ . - PiIo t o 1,1 .--- • • --Tinted Vision and Spandrel Glass Mechanical Screen . T lc �•--1_-..1 ---.1 _ . J i '1 Y.o.p. 4 • — *lad rf Ti I l 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 r1 11.1 1"1 11 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 • . 1u311 1B 'kyr{. ]Ill 1 1 I I L_i t L i i 1 f l rrc rt 1 ii i r 1 1 1 • 'r I 1111111 RIM 1.11 < ���' 17 tit I11 ► I ❑ 1I111 I ( Ili 11U I • _�? 444;ie4 1 ...,aff __ '-efi 4 :.-r • '•i 111111111111111L11 ! I ( ( 1l1 ( (I 1 j._L , NORTH ELEVATION. , WEST ELEVATION . • /-Exterior Insulating Spandrel Panels • •_```••••••.. r:---- -- "— -• . • ••, ' • 1 r II I ( 1 A t d 1 I I I I t■/i//u/u�1ll11 ,i ■l i 11 1 1` • , ITCH1i till I .1 :11lIiiiii1,111 •• _ ( , /- I' 11 Lvov ■.vi/u.//Ilti/vl ' ' 1i) -If1IIF IfiT I1I11I ( i 1n 1: I1 1 ni ]uiiurl! Ii L_ :•wies • t'• d i i i 1 1 I I.- I igia1i. }' �; SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION • . TRACT IlB11 . . {_:;' 4 =" BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Phase V- • �•L•---ta sew.•L��� _" Y•i..:: First CityWashington, Inc. ,21. ° 10-31-91 ' '`` +r'°'°'° r , Office Pi vaUons-_(BLDG. '�p1�) N\Na30qi Scale: 1"=l0' 1-30-'91 ' • Ewa - .� Li-Tilt))_. l' .,1 1 ii 11 111 w- r. I"iiiii ' iilliliiltl f (InIIIII , oIirlii.- E 11IIIiIi1 1, Ii niFrii I. rO111i11� ti lllli11111I I ii 1I 1111 1 Milli rl4Illilllllii, 1i'\d' � ...' EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION i . Typical , Mechanical Sc • rlor InsuPEttlg-Spandeal-Qa Tinted Vision Glass r • l I l 1 l l NI I 11 I_1 I 1 I 1 I Hi III I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 i 1 • , 1i1111111I11 (IIIiI11LI1111111111IILIIIMII 111J ILUILall ,11LiII1III1IIIIII1IIIIII1 I AI I Ill [ Ii1 ( I1lIilIllilIIII [ 1i1111111I [ IIIIill l ! II ? I1iii111111 WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION • 1 TRACT "B" • `Aiitinr: BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Phase VII :4 +'..•s . --- ® 19 c _irst ri+\/ hi Was rl gt4nr lrac _ 1031•�lt ^-—..--n• 4 .Story Office Elevations (BLDG. °E") NWasoai s��I�: °-�o' 1-30-'01 • Tinted Vision and Spandrel Glass Mechanical Screen Typical . '-_- 1 I I -�n�� T o. I II ! II I! I1I11TIlIi11 I, IJIIIIII111 _. rlIlI11tI11111 i' .��p �' f l i ITI I I I l 11l 1 1 ' i L1 :_.III 't-'=m-n•TTrr I 1 iiliiiisPiumlanNII..1,/iagiliillu I III I t I l I i [ I 1 1] I l I I 1 1 1 1 rl ll l l`I ��I NMI':'! ��'I/l J � c =lC:�I�itilik_ ~tee _o I F1 111 11 1 111 1 1 1 l I)'U I I I I I L I I l 111 i1 ,, , v e IIaum■milluninil mil r1"1/ 440 • IIIIIIIIiIIII IIIIL[I11IIIII, 1 `.•: i 1( 11111 ;II ' NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION • /17.- Exterior Insulating Spandrel Panels —;-: - ' i ' ' It"±I i 1 I 1li� ► : ' 111 I 11I1 11 l 1 1 I �— I . 11 G 1, 1 I ' 'MINII i 1 I 1 1 1 l i l ! I l 11� 1 rL 1'l ( I 1 IrTj ��`'`-- �,{, 1I ° ritilillaillyil' IL II , 1 . c---\• 1il1111nnLrIniuun .,a.,/d Inrnan�: :->t� - -- tiii��inwl a go I °� ld, ..-' ..' !•�1�v III• dki 111 iI is III 1 n m um • iiP I M UUUMMM==� ! 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l 1 11 1 I lII SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION • • TRACT IlB" ¶ jjr BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK Phase VI] . .4 ;').4 M` First City Washington, Inc. `"'"A71:: 5 Story Office Elevations (BLDG. "F") ju-,- 9 °�^� s•-% NW813041 Scale: l"=�10' 1-30-'9 -- _ - —_ - • I v»v c WEST ELE . ..�///f/�Tinted Glass I crc-t anels .. , - , Ili:lilt:au- ' I kie r •.4.,,,.,.,,,,.a1 ®.,, �I{�I f l Y NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION .10 E2m7R1 ffgga •;':.?'". iL! 1Y^1.--=;-'4.11.. ..-.;''..4.'...1“;$fl.aoso• = :::;;;;; t:IIIIMIN,MMI I*/ EAST ELEVATION TRACT IIBII tl•, BLA.CKRIVER. CORPORATE PARK phase VII 14 ° ... - 'first City Wnrnchinatnn Inc, 4^ 10.31.91 r '2 . 4 Story Garage Elevations NW88041 Scale: 1„=40' SITE PLAN APPROVAL BLACKRIVER Corporate Park RENTON, WASHINGTON TRACT B LOTS 1, 2, & 3 '� :"- APR 2 9 1990 SITE PLAN APPROVAL BLACKRIVER Corporate Park RENTON, WASHINGTON TRACT B LOTS 1, 2, & 3 SITE PLAN APPROVAL INDEX SEPA, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - NARRATIVE AND CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION EXHIBIT 2 CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY EXHIBIT 3 VICINITY MAP - LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 4 KEY MAP EXHIBIT 5 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT- NRC EXHIBIT 6 WETPOND DESIGN NARRATIVE - BRH EXHIBIT 7 TRAFFIC UPDATE SUMMARY-MacISSAC EXHIBIT 8 VISUAL ASSESSMENT HERON ROOKERY- NF EXHIBIT 9 TREE HEIGHT SCREENING - NRC EXHIBIT 10 DRAINAGE TECHNICAL REPORT- BRH DE VEL OFL.EN T 'r L . ,,.3 CITY OF RENTCI i MAY 08 1Ri RECEIVE CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencii s to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impa t Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on ti e quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and t e agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it c n be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the m••st precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cas s, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the of 3d to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your propo al, write "do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unneces my delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landrr irk designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental agencies an assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a perio of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe Sur proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask yo to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there ma be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "doe! not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (par D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the referenc s in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "props ;al," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Site Plan Approval Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat# Tract B, Blackriver Corporate Park Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 7th Street Renton, Washington 2. Name of applicant: LPN Architects & Planners 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact persons: Blackriver - Rivertech L.L.C. Royce A. Berg c/o Alper Northwest, Inc. LPN Architects & Planners 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 1535 4th Ave. S., Suite D Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98134 206/624-9223 206/583-8030 Contact: Dean R. Erickson Contact: Royce A. Berg 4. Date checklist prepared: April, 29 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton - Building &Zoning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): A 6 year extended site plan approval is requested with the possibility of one 2 year extension. Phase I construction of at least one building is proposed to commence in the Spring of 1998. See Phasing Plan in attached Exhibit 1. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. See the Chronological History of Blackriver Corporate Park that includes major events, studies, reports and approvals as well as current information concerning this proposal attached as Exhibit 2. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. City of Renton short plat approval subdividing Tract B into four lots (Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4). 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1 Site plan approval, shoreline substantial development approval, hydraulic project approval, routine vegetation management permit, grade and fill permit, building permits, and tenant improvement permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Development of five buildings (3 one story and 2 two story) totalling approximately 148,834 square feet of commercial space for permitted uses including the following: professional, administrative and business offices; business services; research and development; assembly and related activities. Developed site area would be approximately 456,994 square feet representing 84% of the total site area of 546,023 square feet. See Project Description in attached Exhibit 1. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat # and is commonly known as Tract B of Blackriver Corporate Park located north of Interstate 405 and bounded by Oakesdale Avenue SW to the south/southwest, the P-1 channel and detention basin and permanent City open space and wildlife habitat to the west, riparian forest and permanent City open space and wildlife habitat to the north, permanent City open space and wildlife habitat (following closing of the City's purchase of Lot 4 proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) and Naches Avenue SW to the east, and SW 7th Street to the south/southeast. See Vicinity Map and Legal Description attached as Exhibit 3. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other A general description of the site is flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The topography is generally flat in the proposed development areas of the site. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty sand over soft to medium stiff silts. 2 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filing or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 18,000 cubic yards of structural fill would be placed on the development areas of the site. The source of the fill material is unknown at this time. Portions of the site were previously filled by the City in its deposit of excavated soils from the P-1 channel and detention basin. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Site erosion, if any, should be minimal with the implementation of proper erosion control practices during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The impervious surface area of the completed project would be approximately 317,988 square feet representing 70% of the developed site area and 58% of the total site area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion and sediment controls will be designed in accordance with City regulations. Hydroseeding of exposed soils during phased construction would be implemented to reduce or control erosion. See Phasing Plan in attached Exhibit 1. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction activity would have temporary impacts on air quality including emissions from construction equipment, increased suspended particulates (dust and smoke) during grading activities, and odors from asphalt paving for brief periods during the construction of parking areas. When the project is completed, there would be normal carbon monoxide emissions generated from automobile traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Watering and/or hydroseeding of exposed soils during the construction period would be implemented to limit the emission of 3 suspended particulates and dust into the air. See Phasing Plan in attached Exhibit 1. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The P-1 channel (a.k.a. Springbrook Creek) and detention basin (a.k.a. P-1 Pond) are located to the west and northwest of the site and flow (are pumped or released) into the Green River approximately one mile west of the site. Wetlands exist in the drainage easement areas on Lot 4 (under contract for purchase by the City) of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# located to the east and northeast of the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attached available plans. Except for a drainage outfall into the P-1 channel from the proposed water quality control pond (wetpond), no work would occur in the described waters. Other work within the urban shoreline would occur within property boundaries which are beyond the water lines of the channel. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 0.07 acres (3,187 square feet) of emergent Category 3 wetland located in the southeast corner of the site is proposed to be filled. Due to its size (less than 5,000 square feet), this wetland is exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City under its Wetland Management Ordinance. See Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting dated April 1997 attached as Exhibit 5. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Although the site appears on FEMA maps, existing elevations are above the flood plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No 4 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served ( if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water would be collected in a system of closed storm lines and conveyed to an enhanced water quality control pond (wetpond). After processing, the water would be discharged via a drainage outfall into the P-1 channel. See Storm Drainage and Water Quality in attached Exhibit 1 and Wetpond Design Narrative prepared by Bush, Roed & Hitchings dated January 1998 attached as Exhibit 6. On-site detention is not required per prior agreement and dedication by the applicant of 17.5 acres to the City for the P-1 channel and detention basin (as recognized by City Staff and the Hearing Examiner in the prior Site Plan Approval for this site). 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? It so, generally describe. Oil from automobile traffic and chemicals from landscape maintenance could potentially enter ground or surface waters unless appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. The proposal includes mitigation designed to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to ground and surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Some minor potential would exist for pollutants to enter the natural surface waters. Possible sources of pollutants would be surface water runoff from roads and parking areas, and normal fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used in landscape maintenance. The proposal includes the following mitigation measures: During Construction: • Per City requirements, a temporary erosion and sedimentatior control plan (TESCP) would be implemented to minimize erosior and sedimentation in on-site and downstream drainages durinc construction. 5 • To the maximum extent possible, runoff from the construction of roads and parking areas would be conveyed to the water quality control pond before drainage offsite. • The installation, maintenance and performance of construction mitigation would be inspected regularly. Inspection frequency would be determined by rainfall and inspector routine. Following Construction: • A permanent storm water control system consistent with City requirements. • Water quality treatment utilizing an enhanced wetpond. • Compliance with local, state and federal regulations regarding the use of chemicals in landscape maintenance. 4. PLANTS11 a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other- cottonwood, poplar, willow X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: reed canary grass, soft rush, blackberries - in the emergent wetland discussed in Section 3.a. above. Water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grasses and cottonwood, poplar and other deciduous trees would be removed from the proposed development areas of the site and placed in the proposed habitat buffer area (northwest portion of the site) along with existing "dead and down material" as additional wildlife habitat. No perimeter trees would be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The existing buffer of native vegetation and landscape (trees) planted by the applicant along the P-1 channel and detention basin in 1986 is substantial and would be preserved. See Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting dated March 1998 attached as Exhibit 9. Native trees, shrubs and ground cover would be installed in landscaping at the perimeter of the proposed development areas of the site. See Buffer and Landscape in attached Exhibit 1. 6 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: (see next page) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ducks Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other rodents, raccoons, rabbits, coyotes Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other none A Heron Rookery exists to the north/northwest of the site on an island in the P-1 detention basin immediately adjacent to approximately 82 acres of permanent City open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat. See Key Map attached as Exhibit 4 and Heron Observation Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting dated June 1997 attached as Exhibit 8. The Heron Rookery, surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest, is separated from the site both physically and visually by a drainage channel, forest and row of Lombardy poplars. From the proposed development areas of the site, the Heron Rookery would only be visible from one building, Building B, through a narrow corridor created by a thirty-foot "gap" of shorter trees. Located directly in line with this visual corridor to the Heron Rookery, this two story building would block the view to the Heron Rookery from all other buildings on the site. Given the growth rate of the shorter cottonwood and alder trees creating the "gap", the Heron Rookery will be totally screen from the site within six years. See Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting dated March 1998 attached as Exhibit 9. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Setbacks, buffers, landscaping, and natural areas are the major on- site components of the proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, including the Heron Rookery located to the north/northwest of the site. See Tree Height and Screening Report prepared by Natural Resource Consulting dated March 1998 attached as Exhibit 9. Site improvements, except for a portion of the proposed water quality control pond (wetpond), would be located outside of a 500' radius from the Heron Rookery. The wetpond would provide additional buffer and habitat, and also serve to inhibit unnecessary human intrusions into the proposed buffer area. Approximately 16% of the site (2.04 acres) is proposed to remain undeveloped as natural areas and habitat buffer. Trees, stumps and other vegetation removed from the proposed development areas of the site along with existing "dead and down material" would be placed in the proposed buffer area located in the north and 7 northwest portions of the site as additional wildlife habitat. These materials together with the perimeter landscape plantings at the edge of the development areas and the fencing installed along the south edge of the water quality control pond (wetpond) would also serve to inhibit unnecessary human intrusions into the proposed buffer and natural areas. The west portion of the site would include 30' of buffer and landscape area which in addition to the 70' of City- owned property would provide a 100' buffer of natural vegetation and landscaping along the P-1 channel at the development areas of the site. As noted in Section 5.a above, approximately 82 acres of land located immediately adjacent to the site has also been dedicated (20 acres) or sold (62 acres) by the applicant to the City for preservation as permanent City open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat, including 8.54 acres of Tract A previously approved for development. As partial consideration for its purchase of the land, which terms in large part were approved in the Memorandum of Agreement (see the Chronological History attached as Exhibit 2), the City agreed (1) to grant mitigation credits for impacts to wetlands, wildlife, wildlife habitat, open space, and other sensitive areas occasioned by the development of all or portions of Tracts A, B or C (or other developments within a 3 mile radius), (2) to count the area of Lot 4 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# for purposes of satisfying City Code requirements for the development of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (and to grant a perpetual easement in, under and across Lot 4 for the purpose of satisfying any lot coverage, setback, open space, buffer, habitat, landscaping or other development requirements for Lots 1, 2 and 3, and (3) to support reasonable development proposals for Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3) and the Rivertech parcel. Tracts A and C are now permanent City open space and wildlife habitat, with all mitigation credits transferred to Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3) and the Rivertech parcel. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas would be used for heating and cooling. Electricity would be used for lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Buildings will be designed per Washington State Energy Code requirements. 8 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing traffic on Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue SW, and SW 7th Street. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Temporary noise would occur during construction resulting primarily from truck traffic on streets that access the site and from construction equipment on-site. Construction activities would normally occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Noise following construction of the project would be that resulting from automobile traffic and normal business activities. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Compliance with applicable City noise regulations. Numerous sources of noise already exist in the immediate area, including Interstate 405, Burlington Northern Railroad, quarry operations, recycling operations, and the construction of road and bridge improvements. Compared to the on-going noise generated from these sources, impacts associated with the proposed project would be negligible. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently undeveloped with existing streets and curb cuts. Office facilities exist to the east, northeast, and south. Metro facilities, the P-1 channel and permanent City open space and wildlife habitat exist to the west. The P-1 detention basin, riparian forest and permanent City open space and wildlife habitat exist to the north. Permanent City open space and wildlife habitat (following closing of the City's purchase of Lot 4 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) will also exist to the east 't and northeast. See Key Map attached as Exhibit 4. 9 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. Most recent use of the site was as a golf course. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C.O. (Commercial Office zone) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? E.A.V. (Employment Area Valley) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. None, other than the wetlands discussed in Section 3.a.(3) above. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 627 people would work at the completed project; however, the project will likely be constructed and occupied in phases. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed project is compatible with the office park designation for the site in the Comprehensive Plan. The one and two story buildings would be constructed of building materials and be of a scale consistent with existing commercial developments in the area. The proposed natural areas, buffers, landscaping, and building locations would preserve the characteristics of the site while creating a highly desirable business environment in a park-like setting. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units are proposed. 10 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be eliminated. The site is currently undeveloped. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Building heights would be approximately 30 feet for the two story buildings and 20 feet for the one story buildings, plus HVAC equipment. The principal exterior building materials would be painted concrete and tinted glass. See Project Description in attached Exhibit 1. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. See Section 8.1. above. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? fi Parking area and building lighting would produce limited light during night-time hours. Neither source would be expected to produce glare on or off of the site. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Control of light distribution on the site in developed areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? A jogging path with activity stations was constructed by the applicant along Oakesdale Avenue SW with prior developments in Blackriver Corporate Park. Permanent City open space and wildlife 11 preservation areas totalling approximately 82 acres with trails and observation points (existing and planned) are located immediately to the west, north, and east (following closing of the City's purchase of Lot 4 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Passive recreation centers with picnic tables and benches would be provided on the site. See Section 12.a. above for other existing facilities and opportunities in the immediate area. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. Indian artifacts were found and documented in 1981 on other sites located to the northeast. No artifacts were found on this site. See 13.c. below. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaelogical, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Per prior agreement, no archaelogical survey is required due to funding by the applicant of the $50,000 archaelogical dig previously conducted on this and other sites in Blackriver Corporate Park by the University of Washington (referenced in previous Environmental Impact Statements). 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street currently serve the site. Existing curb cuts on these streets would be utilized by the proposed project. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is currently served by public transit on SW 7th Street, Powell Avenue SW, and SW Grady Way. 12 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many woulc the project eliminate? Approximately 597 parking spaces would be provided in the completed project. No existing parking spaces would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existinc roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 1,800 vehicle trips per day (average weekday) would be generated by the completed project, with 256 trips and 246 trips, respectively, during the a.m. and p.m. peak commuter hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Per prior agreement, no transportation mitigation is required due to the prior dedication of 9.5 acres by the applicant to the City for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue SW and SW 7th Street and participation by the applicant in LID #332 for approximately $3 million (as recognized by City Staff and the Hearing Examiner in the prior Site Plan Approval for this site). See also the update to the Traffic Analysis prepared by James W. MacIsaac, P.E. dated January 1998 attached as Exhibit 7. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES 1.1 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project could result in an increased need for fire and police protection to the extent increased protection is warranted by its design and occupancy. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Reasonable mitigation fees might be collected to reduce any direct impacts on fire protection services. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, other- storm detention . 13 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer, water, natural gas, electricity, and telephone are all available on-site or in the abutting streets. C. 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 declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. LPN Architec & Planners Proponent:: By: Name Printed: Royce A. Berg, A.I.A. Date: April 29, 1998 14 Exhibit 1 Environmental Checklist Site Plan Application Lots 1,2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat# Blackriver Corporate Park-Tract B April 29, 1998 Project Description The proposed project is a development of five buildings (3 one story and 2 two story) totalling approximately 148,834 square feet of commercial space for permitted uses including the following: professional, administrative and business offices; business services; research and development; assembly and related activities. The buildings would be constructed of tilt-up concrete panels and tinted glass in mill-finish aluminum window frames. The concrete panels would be painted in complimentary colors (tones of brown, beige, off-white, blue, green or gray) and feature architectural reveals that together provide unifying patterns and enhanced visual interest. Building heights would be approximately 30 feet for the two story buildings and 20 feet for the one story buildings, plus _ HVAC equipment. Approximately 597 parking spaces would be provided in the completed project. The existing curb cuts, sidewalks and frontage landscaping along Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street would be utilized. The total area of the site is 546,023 square feet (12.63 acres). The development area of the proposed project would be approximately 456,994 square feet (10.49 acres) representing 84% of the total site area. Building floor area (FAR).would represent approximately 27% the total site area and 33% of the development site area. Phasing Plan A six-year extended site plan approval is requested with the possibility of one two-year extension. Construction of the buildings could be phased as follows: Phase I - at least one building commenced in the first two years; Phase II - at least three buildings commenced in the first four years; Phase III - five buildings commenced in six years; with the possibility for an extension of time for the commencement of building construction under each phase for good cause, including circumstances such as lack of available financing, tenants or other market conditions, but not beyond six years. One two year extension of the six- 1 year extended site plan approval could also be granted upon a showing of substantial progress and good cause. 1 1 Site clearing, grading and the placement of fill material could occur in advance of building construction. However, if construction is delayed for any significant period of time, any exposed areas of the site would then be hydroseeded or otherwise protected to control erosion and reduce dust emissions into the air. Pre-loading of building pads for the construction of subsequent E buildings could also occur, and if removal or distribution of the pre-load to other development ' areas of the site is delayed for any significant period of time, the pre-load would likewise be I hydroseeded or protected. The water quality control pond (wetpond) would be installed as part of the first building phase. Parking, including required access lanes, would be provided for each building as it is constructed, and could be temporarily located on the pad for a subsequent building. However, at no time would the parking available on the site be less than that required and permitted for the building(s) completed and occupied. Landscaping related to the buildings would be installed as each building is constructed, including landscaping at the perimeter of the development areas of the site adjacent to that building. Storm Drainage and Water Quality Storm water runoff from impervious surface areas subject to automobile traffic would be collected in a system of closed storm lines and conveyed to an enhanced water quality control pond (wetpond) located along the west/northwest perimeter of the development areas of the site. The proposed wetpond would exceed minimum design requirements by the City and King County Storm Drainage Manual for total volume, length-to-width ratio, mean velocity and detention time, thereby producing a significantly higher water quality than that required. After processing, the water would be discharged via a drainage outfall into the P-1 channel. See Wetland Design Narrative prepared by Bush, Roed & Hitchings dated January 1998 attached to the Environmental Checklist as Exhibit 6. A 4' high wood split rail fence with wetland signage would be installed along the 25' wide portions of the 50' average width buffer to Wetland #1 located on Lot 4 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# to the east of the site. Buffer and Landscape 11' Landscaping would be installed around the proposed buildings and in parking areas, and would IIinclude lawns, conifers, deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. Native trees, shrubs and ground cover, including thorny varieties of indigenous shrubs, would be installed in landscaping at the perimeter of the development areas of the site. The perimeter landscaping would vary in width from 6'-8' and provide a vegetated buffer between the development area and proposed natural areas of the site. The perimeter landscape plantings would provide habitat and shelter fcr wildlife, and would also inhibit unnecessary human intrusions into the natural areas. Exhibit 2 Environmental Checklist Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat# I Blackriver Corporate Park- Tract B April 29, 1998 fi Chronological History Blackriver Corporate Park Renton, Washington The following provides a chronological history of the major events, studies, reports and approvals concerning the applicant and its development of Blackriver Corporate Park, a 153 acre master planned business park located north of Interstate of 405 in Renton, Washington. Since 1979, the applicant has changed its name from First City to Alper Northwest to Blackriver- Rivertech L.L.C. The name of the park has also changed since 1979 being formerly known as Earlington Park and Valley 405 Business Center. 1. Purchase of the property by First City in 1979 from Burlington Northern Railroad. Portions of the property had been used as a golf course. Zoning was G - General. 2. Rezone of the property to MP - Manufacturing Park by the Hearing Examiner under conditions of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). a. Draft EIS for Earlington Park(July 1980). b. Final EIS for Earlington Park( February 1981). Mitigation included: 1. Dedication of 17.5 acres of the property to the City of Renton for construction of the P-1 channel and detention basin. 2. Dedication of 20.0 acres of the property to the City of Renton for riparian forest wildlife habitat. 3. Dedication of 9.5 acres of the property to the City of Renton for the construction of road improvements (Oakesdale Avenue SW, Naches Avenue SW, Powell Avenue SW, and SW 7th Street). 4. Participation in LID #332 for $3 million for the construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW,Naches Avenue SW, and SW 7th Street. 5. Granting of drainage easements to the City of Renton for drainage swales from Powell Avenue SW to the P-1 detention basin. 6. Granting of a right of entry to the City of Renton for the placement of dredge spoils and excavated soils from construction of the P-1 channel and detention basin on to portions of the property. 7. Granting of temporary access easements to Metro facilities through portions of the property. 8. Traffic analysis by The Transpo Group (December 1980). 1 9. Relocation of storm drainage from SW 7`h Street into Naches Avenue SW per direction from the City of Renton(Public Works). 10. Archeological dig ($50,000) by the University of Washington on portions of the property. 11. Approval to fill the majority of the old Black River channel. 3. Issuance of Shoreline permits by the City of Renton and Department of Ecology authorizing excavation of the P-1 channel and detention basin 1983. 4. Excavation of the P-1 channel and detention basin by.the Soil Conservation Service on the 17.5 acres of land dedicated by First City (June 1984). 5. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (August 1984) for the development and construction of Phase I of Blackriver Corporate Park (3 one story office buildings totalling 45,786 square feet completed in 1985). 6. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (August 1985) for the development and construction of Phase II of Blackriver Corporate Park (1 three story office building totalling 48,300 square feet completed in 1986). 7. Update to the traffic analysis for Earlington Park, now Valley 405 Business Center, by The Transpo Group (August 1985). 8. Supplement to the updated traffic analysis for Valley 405 Business Center by The Transpo Group (September 1985). 9. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (December 1985) for the development and construction of Phase III of Blackriver Corporate Park (4 one story office/flex buildings totalling 70,036 square feet completed in 1987). 10. Traffic analysis for Blackriver Technology Center (now the permanent City "Tract C" open space and wildlife habitat) by The Transpo Group (June 1986). 11. Construction of Naches Avenue SW and relocation of storm drainage from SW 7m Street completed in 1987. 12. Rezone of the property to OP - Office Park by the City of Renton(October 1986). 13. Site plan submittal for a seven story office building on Phase VIII ("Tract A"). Application later withdrawn(May 1987). 14. Issuance of a grade and fill permit for Tract A and Phase VII ("Tract B") through appeal decision by the City Council (September 1987) 2 15. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (October 1987) for the development and construction of Phases IV-A and IV-B of Blackriver Corporate Park (2 three story office buildings totalling 149,830 square feet completed in 1989 and 1990). 16. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (October 1987) for the development and construction of Phase V of Blackriver Corporate Park (2 one story office/flex buildings totalling 50,546 square feet completed in 1989). 17. Construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street with funding through LID #332. First City participation is $3 million. Construction required:a shoreline permit and occurred during the heron nesting season(May 1988). 18. Site plan submittal for a seven story office building on Tract B. Proposed project is declared environmentally significant and scoping process defines issues to be incorporated into the EIS which is to include both Tract A and Tract B (August 1988). seven storybuildings 19. Modification submittal for the proposed on Tract B relocating building from the perimeter of the P-1 detention basin to interior portions of the site in accordance with City of Renton staff and consultant recommendations (August 1989). 20. Site plan submittal for 2 one story office/flex buildings on property acquired from Burlington Northern west of Tract A. Environmental Review Committee determination that the proposed project should also be considered part of Tract A even though it was purchased separately from Earlington Park. Application was withdrawn, and the proposed project was included as part of the EIS in process (September 1989). 21. Modification submittal for 1 one story building and 2 four story buildings on Tract A. (October 1989). 22. Final EIS for Tract A and Tract B of Blackriver Corporate Park(March 1991). 23. Update to the traffic analysis for Valley 405 Business Center, now Blackriver Corporate Park, by The Transpo Group establishing that prior land dedications and participation in LID #332 offset any traffic impact mitigation for Phase VI with additional credits due for future phases of development(April 1991). 24. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (April 1991) for the development and construction of Phase VI of Blackriver Corporate Park (1 four story office building totalling 71,057 square feet). Land was subsequently sold and a 110 room hotel constructed in 1998. 25. Eagle attacks on the Heron Rookery cause herons to relocate and ultimately leave nests with no young produced in the 1991 nesting season (April - June 1991). Attacks occur after issuance of the FEIS. 26. Mitigation documents for the proposed projects on Tract A and Tract B are issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee and appealed by First City to the Hearing Examiner(May 1991). 3 it 27. Mitigation documents and adequacy of the FEIS for Tract A and Tract B are appealed to the Hearing Examiner by the Seattle Audobon Society, Rainier Audobon Society, Sierra Club and Citizens For Renton Wildlands Preservation(May 1991). 28. Site characterization study for Tract A and Tract B by Hart Crowser(June 1991). 29. Issuance of fill permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill .14 acres of isolated wetlands on Tract A and Tract B (September 1991). 30. Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Renton, First City, Seattle Audobon Society, Rainier Audobon Society, Sierra Club and Citizens For Renton Wildlands Preservation whereby appeals of the mitigation documents and FEIS for Tract A and Tract B are dropped in support of revisions to the proposed projects with conditions for development (November 1991). 31. Site plan approval from the Hearing Examiner (January 1992) for the development and construction of Tract A and Tract B of Blackriver Corporate Park (2 four story office buildings totalling 128,000 square, and 3 four and five story buildings totalling 286,300 square feet with a four story parking garage). 32. Phasing plan approval from the City Attorney in accordance with the conditions of site plan approval for Tract A and Tract B (March 1992). of shoreline permits by the City of Renton and Department of Ecology authorizing 33. Issuance construction on Tract A and Tract B (April 1992). 34. Shoreline access easements granted by First City to the City of Renton on Tract A and d Tract B (June 1992). 35. Sale of 3.73 acres of Tract A to the City of Renton implementing in part the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (May 1992). Property sold becomes permanent City of Renton open space and wildlife habitat. 36. Hydraulic project approvals by the Department of Fisheries for construction of the outfall structures from the storm drainage systems for Tract A and Tract B into the P-1 channel and detention basin(July 1992). 37. Sale of 32.55 acres of Tract C to the City of Renton implementing in part the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (May 1992). As partial consideration for its purchase of the property, which terms were approved by the parties to the Memorandum of Agreement, the City agreed (a) to grant mitigation credits for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space, and other sensitive areas occasioned by the development of all or any part of Tracts A, B, or C (or other developments within a 3 mile radius) and (b) to, in good faith, consider requests for the granting of easements necessary for the development of the remainder of Tract C. Property sold becomes permanent City of Renton open space and wildlife habitat. 4 38. Sale of 14.20 acres of Tract C to the City of Renton implementing in part the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement. Property sold becomes permanent City of Renton open space and wildlife habitat. 39. Sale of 8.54 acres of Tract A to the City of Renton as permanent City open space and wildlife habitat (September 1996). As partial consideration for its purchase of the property, the City agreed (a) to support reasonable development proposals for Tract B and the Rivertech parcel, (b) to grant utility easements across the Tract A and Tract C properties owned by the City as may be necessary for the development of Tract B and the Rivertech parcel (subject to certain restrictions), and (c) to transfer mitigation credits from Tract A to Tract B and the Rivertech parcel(or to other developments within a 3 mile radius) to mitigate development impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, open space and other sensitive areas. 40. Wetland delineation report by Natural Resource Consulting for Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) (April 1998). 41. Topographic, significant tree and wetland survey by Bush Roed and Hitchings for Tract (April 1997). 42. Heron observation report by Natural Resource Consulting (June 1997). . 43. Revised conceptual development plans for Tract B by LPN Architects and Planners with updated environmental information submitted to the City of Renton for distribution to the Seattle Audobon Society, Rainier Audobon Society, Sierra Club, Friends of Black River, and Citizens For Renton Wildlands Preservation(November 1997). 44. Preapplication meeting with the City of Renton for Tract B (December 1997). 45. Update to the traffic analysis for Phase VII (Tract B) and Phase VIII of Blackriver Corporate Park by James W. MacIsaac, P.E. (January 1998). 46. Wetpond design narrative for Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat # ) by Bush, Roed&Hitchings (January 1998). 47. Geotechnical engineering study for Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) by Geoengineers (February 1998). 48. Tree height and screening report by Natural Resource Consulting(March 1998). 49. Sale of 3.2 acres of Tract B (Lot 4 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) to the City of Renton. Property to become permanent City open space and wildlife habitat. As partial consideration for its purchase of the property, the City agreed to (a) support and expedite the approval of Short Plat# creating Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, (b) count the area of Lot 4 for purposes of satisfying City code requirements for the development of Lots 1, 2 and 3, (c) grant a perpetual easement in, under and across Lot 4 for the purpose of satisfying any lot coverage, setback, open space, buffer, habitat, landscaping or other development requirements for Lots 1, 2 and 3, and (d) support reasonable development 5 proposals for Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the Rivertech parcel, (e) grant utility easements across Lo 4 as may be necessary or desirable for development of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the Rivertech parcel in locations which do not unreasonably interfere with the City's use of said property, and (f) gr at mitigation credits for open space, habitat and sensitive areas purposes to mitigate impacts if any, to wetlands, wildlife, wildlife habitat, open space and other sensitive areas which may )e occasioned by the development of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the Rivertech parcel (or to of er developments within a 3 mile radius). 50. Short plat submittal (May 1998) for subdivision of Tract B into four lots (Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4) 51. Site plan submittal (May 1998) for the development and construction of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# of Blackriver Corporate Park (3 one story and 2 two story buildings totalling 148,834 square feet). 6 Exhibit 3 Environmental Checklist Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat # Blac}oriver Corporate Park - Tract B April 29, 1998 VICINITY MAP ;PG,5:fp EMPiAE WAY / 41, cil - R@JTON BLACKRIVER` I CORPORATE .:Sa 'w� PARK�y r jARK r 4U v cn El SOUTHCENTER C m cn 7C m N >' VALLEY / - A F-- r ^ GENERAL HOSPITAL I / Iyolk Legal Description Lots 1, 2 and 3 of pLurosed City of Renton Short Plat # recardinc; That portion of Tract B, Washington Technical Canter, as recorded in Volume 122 of Plats, pages 98 through 102, records of Kihl- County, Washington, lying Northerly of Southwest 7th Street a* deeded to the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder' s No. 8702100643 , and Westerly of Neches Avenue Southwest as deeded t the City of Renton by deed filed under Recorder' s No. 8702100644 records of said County. 1 EXHIBIT 4 Environmental Checklist Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plot# Blackriver Corporate Park-Tract B April 29, 1998 BVa\-\\\IG. NORTHERN Rq/4ROgO N� 0-0 OPEN SPACE 4 6.7HABITAT 5 ACRES PERMANENT CITY OPEN-SPACE HABITAT p�PMPN 3.16 ACRES RIPARIAN FOREST - HABITAT --„. 20.0 ACRES /// 3 STORY O W //I O 1 � T Q9% _ 0 DETENTION 6 - - u). PUMP STATION 17.50 50 16/N W1 Elm 1 STORY ACRES I �� I Q ��/� < ; PERMANENT CITY OPEN SPACE - HABITAT / SITE , z 2 STORY 12.27 ACRES 12.53 ACRES / E . • W ' . .,.\Ar M IVv/ Q /. o OAKS L_ /' g j 4 %_ 9-51 At"SLE AVE S ' - - _ `/' .``Z 2 STORY C/, W z a O 3 STOR� J / J (J) METRO FACILITY p W r'� / p ' LL ul TA 6 i 0 %//. z BLACKRIVTER . 35TORY Corporate Park i 4 STORY u RENTON, WASHINGTON - �P� v G O.. PPO,t \PO 01°- NORTH KEY MAP EXHIBIT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SITE PLAN APPLICATION H-1008-02 LOTS 1 , 2 AND 3 OF PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT # BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK - TRACT B APRIL 29, 1998 WETLAND DELINEATION Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Proposed Short Plat Black River Corporate Park - Tract B Renton, Washington APRIL 1998 Blackriver - Rivertech, L.L.C. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, Washington 98104 NRCNATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98407 (253) 756-0370 FAX: (253) 756-0155 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The findings and conclusions presented in this report are based on an interpretation of information currently available to Natural Resource Consulting. This summary is for introductory purposes and should be used only with the full text of this report. This wetland delineation was based on the On-Site Determination Method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual(1987). The wetland boundaries were reviewed to assure that they were consistent with the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Based on the information derived through site reconnaissance and readily available documents one wetland was identified on the site. This wetland is approximately 0.07 acres (3,184 square feet)in size and generally has low to moderate functions and values due to it being a small, isolated, depression on fill soils with only one plant community type. The wetland has a Palustrine emergent, saturated wetland community that would be classified as a Category 3 Wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. Using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance the wetland would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City of Renton because it is less than 5,000 square feet in size. However, this wetland would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)and if filled would require notification to the Corps 30 days after filling the wetland. Pre-notification to the Corps prior to filling the wetland is recommended. i H-1008-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of Services 1 1.2 Site Location and Description 1 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW 2 2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map 2 2.2 City of Renton Wetland Inventory 2 2.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area 2 3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3 3.1 Site Conditions During Site Visit 3 3.2 Topography 3 3.3 Fauna 3 3.4 Vegetation 4 3.5 Soils 4 3.6 Hydrology 4 4.0 WETLAND AREA 4 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 5 5.1 Biologic Functions 5 5.2 Hydrologic Functions 6 6.0 WETLAND REGULATION 6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 8.0 CLOSURE 7 REFERENCES 8 ii H-1008-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Vegetation Species Identified On the Site LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Site Map 3 Soil Conservation Service Map LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND FIELD SHEETS APPENDIX C MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION SHEETS I iii H-1008-02 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT LOTS 1,2,AND 3 OF PROPOSED SHORT PLAT AT THE BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK- TRACT B RENTON,WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Natural Resource Consulting has completed a wetland delineation for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed short plat located on the northeast corner of Southwest 7th Street and Oaksdale Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington(Figure 1). This work was performed to assist in site planning related to development of the three lots with five office buildings. 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this study was limited to the following tasks: Review of federal and local regulations pertaining to the wetland identified on the subject site. The review was used to classify the on-site wetland. A visual assessment to observe existing site conditions and to identify and flag the wetlands located on the site. This was accomplished using field procedures consistent with the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) (Appendix A). The wetland boundaries were reviewed for consistency with the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). A review of documents readily available, including local wetland inventory maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps, and the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area. Assessment of the identified wetland to help determine the overall functions and values of the wetland. A report documenting the process, findings, and conclusions for this project. 1.2 Site Location and Description The site contains approximately 12.53 acres of undeveloped land. It is located on the northeast corner of SW 7th Street and Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, Washington(Figure 1). The property 1 H-1008-02 is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The site is bounded along the north by a drainage channel, along the east by undeveloped land containing the old Black River channel and its associated wetlands, along the southeast by SW 7th Street, along the southwest by Oaksdale Avenue SW, and along the west by the P-1 Channel. The site contains a Palustrine emergent, saturated wetland community that would be classified as a Category 3 Wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size(Figure 2). Using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance the wetland would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City of Renton because it is less than 5,000 square feet in size. However, this wetland would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and if filled would require notification to the Corps 30 days after filling the wetland. Pre-notification to the Corps prior to filling the wetland is recommended. 2.0 DOCUMENT REVIEW 2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map of the Renton, Washington Quadrangle, 1:24,000 scale (1988), does not identify wetlands on this site. 2.2 City of Renton Wetland Inventory The City of Renton Wetland Inventory(1992) does not identify wetlands on the subject property. The nearest wetland to the subject property is Wetland W-5b located northeast of the subject property. Wetland W-5b is a remnant of the old Black River channel. 2.3 Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area The U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey(SCS) of the King County Area, Washington (1973), was reviewed to determine the general nature of soils on the subject site. The site is mapped as containing Woodinville silt loam(Figure 3). The following soils information was taken from the SCS 1973 publication. The Woodinville series is a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium, typically found in stream bottoms. Typically, the soil is a gray silt loam, silty clay loam, and layers of peaty muck to a 2 H-1008-02 depth of 38 inches. Often found in this unit is as much as 15 percent Puget soils, and 10 percent Snohomish, Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg and Nooksack soils. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. Woodinville silt loam is listed by the Washington State and King County SCS as hydric (wetland) soil. 3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3.1 Site Conditions During Site Visit On March 2nd, 1997, Ms. Theresa Henson with Natural Resource Consulting visited the subject site to delineate and evaluate the wetland. The wetland boundaries were observed again on March 6th, 1997, to confirm the wetland conditions after a major rainfall and flood event. The site visit included a visual observation of the subject site and surrounding area. Vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions on the site appear to be relatively stable. One wetland approximately 0.07 acres(3,184 square feet) in size was located on the property. The wetland boundary would be the same if delineated using the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual(1997). The wetland is a small, isolated area located on top of old fill material. The functions and values of the wetland were evaluated using a Modified Reppert Wetland Values Evaluation form(Appendix C). 3.2 Topography Based on topographic data provided by Bush, Roed&Hitchings, Inc., topographic relief on the site ranges from approximately 17 feet near the northwest boundary of the site to 23 feet in the southeast portion of the site. 3.3 Fauna Several species of songbirds were observed on the site. Evidence of various animal species on the site was also noted. Rabbit pellets and coyote scat were observed throughout the site. No plant or animal species, listed federally or by the state as threatened or endangered, were observed on the site. A Great Blue Heron rookery is located northwest of the sites northern boundary. 3 H-1008-02 3.4 Vegetation Four representative data plots were established to document plant species and dominance of vegetation on the subject property(Figure 2). The vegetative species composition varied from an upland black cottonwood forest along the western property boundary and in the northeastern portion of the site to upland grassy fields with blackberries to emergent vegetation dominated by weedy grass in the wetland. Data forms detailing observations for vegetation are included in Appendix B. 3.5 Soils During the site reconnaissance, soil conditions, including color, texture, and relative moisture content, were observed and recorded at the four data points on the subject site. The indicators used to identify hydric soils can be found in Appendix A. Soil types observed on the site ranged from sands to silt barns to silty clay foams in the uplands, and gravelly sandy loam fills in the wetland. Much of the upland portion of the site has been filled in the past. Field sheets detailing observations for soils are included in Appendix B. 3.6 Hydrology Hydrologic conditions, including saturated soils, as well as indicators of wetland hydrology as defined by the 1987 Manual, were observed with one of the four data points (Appendix A). Generally the site contains saturated soils near the edges of the wetland and shallow ponded water throughout the rest of the wetland. Groundwater in the upland portions of the site ranges from 8 to 12 feet below the ground surface. A storm water drainage ditch flowing from east to west, towards the P-1 Channel, is located along the northern property boundary. Field reconnaissance of the site was conducted during the wet time of the year following a period of heavy rain and field checked again after a major rainfall and flood event. For this reason, the water table is not expected to rise much higher than the observed level. Areas in which the data points did not indicate wetland hydrology were classified as upland areas. 4.0 WETLAND AREA Based on the use of the triple-parameter approach defined within the 1987 Manual, one wetland 4 H-1008-02 was identified on the subject property. Vegetation species were identified and classified with a Wetland Indicator Status (WIS), soil conditions were identified and labeled, and observations of hydrologic conditions were made at four representative data points on the site. The wetland was classified as such because all three wetland parameters were present. The wetland is a Palustrine emergent, saturated wetland community that would be classified as a Category 3 Wetland, less than 5,000 square feet in size. The wetland is 0.07 acres (3,184 square feet) in size. Using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance Wetland 3 would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City of Renton because it is less than 5,000 square feet in size. However, this wetland would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The dominant vegetation within this wetland includes reed canarygrass, soft rush, and several grass species. The upland edges of the wetland contains Himalayan blackberries, and alder saplings. Soils within this wetland were observed to be dense gravelly sandy loam fills that were mottled. The wetland contained ponded water between one to six inches deep during both the March 2'"', and March 6th site visits. Water appears to be from rainfall ponding on the dense fill soils. The water appears to flow north out of the wetland via a shallow swale. The water enters a small depression approximately 20 feet to the north and appears to infiltrate into the sandy loam soils located in this area. 5.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Modified Reppert Wetland Values Evaluation forms were completed for the project. The general biologic and hydrologic functions of the wetlands are described below. 5.1 Biologic Functions The wetland has low biologic functions. The general habitat of the wetland contains an isolated, emergent plant community that contains invasive and weedy vegetation species. The wetland lacks special habitat features such as snags, downed logs, and banks with cover. 5 H-1008-02 5.2 Hydrologic Functions The wetland provides low to moderate hydrologic functions. In general the wetland is a small, isolated depression on dense fill. This wetland appears to retain runoff from a very limited surrounding area, and contains emergent vegetation that is dense enough to provide water purification functions. 6.0 WETLAND REGULATION The wetland would be classified as a Low Quality, Category 3 Wetland exempt from regulation using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance. The wetland is less than 5,000 square feet in size, isolated, and disturbed and possibly created by human-related fills and compaction of soils. Using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance the wetland would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City of Renton because it is less than 5,000 square feet in size. However, this wetland would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and if filled would require notification to the Corps 30 days after filling the wetland. Pre-notification to the Corps prior to filling the wetland is recommended. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the Corps' 1987 Manual, vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions necessary for an area to be considered wetland were found in one area on the site. The wetland boundary would be the same if delineated using the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual(1997). The wetland is approximately 0.07 acres(3,184 square feet) in size. The wetland has a Palustrine emergent wetland community that would be classified as a Category 3 Wetland less than 5,000 square feet in size. Using the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance Wetland 3 would be exempt from regulation as a wetland by the City of Renton because it is less than 5,000 square feet in size. However, this wetland would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and if filled would require notification to the Corps 30 days after filling the wetland. Pre-notification to the Corps prior to filling the wetland is recommended. 6 H-1008-02 8.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Wetland boundaries identified by Natural Resource Consulting are considered preliminary until the flagged wetland boundaries are validated by the Corps and/or the local jurisdictional agency. Validation of the wetland boundaries by the regulating agency(s) provides a certification, usually written, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agency(s)until a specific date or until the regulation are modified. Only the regulating agency(s) can provide this certification. Since wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected;therefore, wetland delineations cannot remain valid for an indefinite period of time. The Corps typically recognizes the validity of wetland delineations for a period of five years after completion. Development activities on a site five years after the completion of this wetland delineation report may require revision of the wetland delineation. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist H1008.02.RPT 7 H-1008-02 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C.Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FSW/OSB-79/31. Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Jones& Stokes, Inc., 1991, Wetland Report as an Attachment to the Black River Corporate Park Conceptual Mitigation Plan, October 31' . Munsell Soil Color Chart, 1994, Rev. ed.: Baltimore, Maryland, Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). Renton, 1992, Ordinance No. 4346, Chapter 32 Wetland Management, Renton, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Beyers, 1979, Wetland Values Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluations: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973, Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988, National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton, Quadrangle, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Publication #96-94. 8 H-1008-02 TABLE 1 VEGETATION SPECIES IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE TREES Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Red Alder Alnus rubra Willow Spp. Salix spp. SHRUBS Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum Douglas Spiraea Spiraea douglasii Elderberry, red Sambucus racemosa Himalayan Blackberry Rubus discolor Indian Plum Oemleria cerasiformis Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Scot's Broom Cytisus scoparuis Sword Fern Polystichum munitum Western Crabapple Pyrus fusca HERBS Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Rush Spp. Juncus spp. Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Note: This listing represents the major plant species identified. There may be other species present on within the subject site that are not listed. H-1008-02 x 4 13314D ., 132No 2N0 W S G 4 �'SF 135TH It x '' ORA -r ifitati-r 1 40 filr trill*p,x4 139TH g0TN lRD \ l • MONSTER �1 Z7y O a1LE SITE 17TH ro \ to w l w 1 U) \ JJ \ W t49 . \ a0 r 1pTH GCv` 2 r1 TH IST ��G Irr.01101111WW______,: ova \ �I�' 16 .. 153R0 ` `i� _ o d, c „.„. �.� •' 19TH N Biack River Phase V11. Lots 1. 2. ane 3 A Renton, Washington Approximate Scale 1 inch to 4800 feet VICINITY MAP April 1998 H-10)8-02 Note: Map adapted from The Thomas Guide, 1995. Natural Resource Consulting FRI. 1 Psxssmau,Management and Regulatory Permnung S ♦1.62 •13. yJ9 J :fit `c,.,i •cu '.7r r116 ],] • •eM I • ♦6.36 t• •{.1 is W6 k' •'1 A 3:1S MA ° •• •6.36 6 113D1 ♦. 3216 12O2 •. •.2683 • •6.•° U Z N _g^3 3217 36C2 0} P+ 3 • ^ ,515.3 • ♦6.3• ISC (n 'S: ,7ta CAS Iry Z 5. �61 • •,3a6 6•X. LLC = N ,5.1 (.) O `j H Z Q u ,Sy = —1 •6.>t :e]t s.S + VI — •12.6 •213 p u v .6e/ Lif W J Q=v, 3 �•a: = tsy•' :re a •. •t,• N U ` P •3:.n O h7 • • •e-1 •133 46 u gicT .. �2a» f 2f-7 /4 •6 / i4, \ I'iii — I li 37. •!3" .ii.2 //4" ) \ . I . \ +S73,i�222 •i 11 / y. \, .37: c 1316 I , „tU : c / `6• f.7. fir' :- 3 Al �'tl �i •'s D 1 U 3I +. r 7 �,ie,oa 'U •`� ICI-'Y 1222 Jc' �JCr'�-; i'ri' rs ew 2n3 1 r 0l i .i.3 •6.32 I 1.. t I• • K L.n.JyC♦ ffl�tY, 1236 . ' 2i7 .f , i/G6 �{— 7,i =S of — •310 •3:2 •36 •317 USS 1 ` cy act[ ', ; O LJ 0 1 i I 621 II11.3 21062 a••no3 sew . ±Q73 116E I I W .. .... ....•blip •R'.e�#+-33'S7'.r�yi6 �k ai ' I < N < LJ Li 0"437•»W "• „ • 1 = ♦ w3213 +�a i Z 0 > � v 8 Lots 1.2.and 3 of Proposed Short Plat for the Y', 6 2-6, \ i I D Z . Z I Black River Corporate Park-Tract B Fi •} ♦:.;s I `� cc -1- Renton,Washington \ = a N J ` \` • a -� Y *\ ; j � Q SITE MAP ;;. .� \ o `� n§; May 1998 H-1008-02 ""N ♦ Data Points (added by NRC). c. 5 y e 376ia� en.3)gri .,6.7, ° 3311 ,\ I I• IaAJ JJuc 1 Z Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 2 �Co�API-RC SCALE �'\ , ',; _ .,. J 66 3 8 Ana Managc neat and Regulatory Permitting It a].• , » I' 50' 3/26/S i cF •0413tw7Qr) 97051.00 — +'731313u.. SO It —y+ •1147 166 •K:° 3-N. �• 1 1 •,1._ • " :: : -rar , .1 Li ,. _.„ _ • . '4W -% 1 ---1) ....,,,,%., .....,,,,, ,. Ilt, ,.1,,,,, . , num hi,,,, ,,,, ,,),,, ...Nielt,. -<, 1-: - - -..- a • 1:4= , n ,,,,:1 y .7... 410 \i.v..-4,; ' MIP: „=., .. .4. . ,i8M * * VtiVii A filt :T_IIWIIM1 . „, ,011.- VT,nt 'V giiiiin IF 4.-----; _. :-f:.-- -1- -14111 . 13:C .911, 0; '' * - -II*S all ball 1 iimw, ...it-4,1.qm,, it" _....„.,. . '.-... T. .0,4_6fir. :ase,ttr , MirinID,II ge i4lo ,i. • Park r• •i r' <_�_ ^J�f � . \a° `� Yip' ,!-- -- 1411F/"Nil....411**/ 1.:•;r1,4,111111111!!!IiivAtilli . 711..111k. :70 . % IN • +Ltai_l t r i . ix. f �ilrl�i•i: , Gotl�(curse 1 \q1jZS., ,' Vat/ likii. !4I : • I •, Sew OR r,,c ��" '� ? • ' — ..„..c1,S,Dis•• _ ...0iiiipiiiiii11111111_ 1__ .:1 -11014_ 4.7;ifjohji.... Ma '•:':. 7 AgC$ ;�: • Substai 04 7: I 6. iniroirtl- . 104,1 Ili , . . r, „i, ....,.....„ _-_._,...,.., •_..______ F .16- ----- -e..- 'ig, ! gti\ ...,, I ni,.... ...k.......... _= Pu ® / _. .. „ „. I Pi! : i --Ak , , .._.._ _. 4....., 4... _ ___.. • . ., s,„,,,, . _ , tJ r . • \ \I - Rice--- ,..:�., ' .�� ...• N.BeC 1 --- •, ter. ` 6 ' Wo scD , r .'.. r ,T ._„. ..-' �� U r ,te r.., .: •:' .AB V -. _ �' t`: i Track • ~ r •/�� 1 DY _ . _-i•�`'_--fi^ -- \ — -- Orr i'. — — a-7 J.& —\-- -----.- >. t---- - N Lots 1, 2,and 3 of Proposed Short Plat for he A Black River Corporate Park-Tract B Renton,Washington Approximate Scale 1 inch to 2,000 feet SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MAP May 1998 H-1 2 Note: Soil Conservation Service Map for the Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 3 King County Area(1973). ^ end RegulatoryPenniturrg APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY H-1008-0 APPENDIX A WETLAND DELINEATION METHODS The triple parameter approach of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) was used to delineate the extent of wetlands on the site. Under this methodology, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are each evaluated to determine the presence or absence of wetlands. Based on the use of this method, an area is considered to be a wetland if each of the following are met: (1) dominant hydrophytic vegetation is present in the area, (2) the soils in the area are hydric, and (3) the necessary hydrologic conditions within the area are met. The Routine On- Site Determination Method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, were used for the evaluation of triple parameter criteria for this project. This methodology was selected because differences in vegetation types were easily observed, aiding in the identification of areas likely to meet the hydrology and soils criteria of the triple parameter approach. Wetland boundaries were determined by conducting a walking inspection of the property. As part of this inspection, species of vegetation, soil conditions, and hydrologic conditions were noted at several data plots to more accurately determine the boundaries of on-site wetlands. Wetland Vegetation Hydrophytic plants are plants specially adapted for saturated and/or anaerobic conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has assigned an indicator status to many plant species that is based upon the estimated probability of the species existing under wetland conditions. Plants are categorized as Obligate (OBL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), Facultative (FAC), Facultative Upland (FACU), and Upland (UPL). Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered to be adapted to saturated and/or anaerobic (i.e., wetland) conditions and are referred to as hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix B). Trees and shrubs within a 30-foot radius and herbs within a 5-foot radius of each data plot were identified and noted. The approximate percentage of cover for each of the different plant species occurring within the tree, shrub, and herb strata was determined. Dominant plant A-1 H-1008-02 species are considered to be those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of abundance, exceed 50 percent of the areal cover for each vegetative stratum. Any additional species individually representing 20 percent or greater of the total areal cover for each vegetative stratum are also considered dominant. The indicator status of the dominant plant species within each of the vegetative strata are used to determine the presence of hydrophytic vegetation near each data plot. A data plot was considered to have hydrophytic vegetation if greater than 50 percent of the dominant plant species within the area had an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. Hydric Soils Hydric soils are defined as those soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. As a result of anaerobic conditions, hydric soils exhibit characteristics directly observable in the field, including high organic matter content, greenish or bluish grey color (gley formation), accumulation of sulfidic material, spots of orange or yellow color (mottling), and dark soil colors (low chromas). Throughout a large portion of the area delineated as wetland, identification of hydric soils was aided through observation of surface hydrologic characteristics and indicators of wetland hydrology (i.e., drainage patterns). The areal extent of hydric soils was defined through dir- soil observation within several data plots placed both inside and outside the wetland. Soil observations were completed within soil data plots dug with a shovel to a depth of at least 16 inches below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were examined for the presence of hydric indicators. Soil organic content was estimated visually and textually. The presence of sulfidic material was determined by the presence of sulfide gases (i.e., a "rotten egg" odor). Soil colors were recorded after being determined through use of the three aspects of color in the Munsell Soil Color Chart: hue, value and chroma (e.g., a soil designated as 1OYR 6/2 has a hue of 10YR, a value of 6, a chroma of 2, and a soil color name of light brownish gray). A soil chroma of two in combination with soil mottling or a soil chroma of one without soil mottling typically indicates a hydric soil. A-2 H-1008-0 Wetland Hydrology Hydrologic conditions identifying wetland characteristics occur during those periods when the soils are inundated permanently or periodically, or the soil is continuously saturated to the surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically adapted for life in periodically anaerobic conditions. Research has indicated that duration of soil saturation and inundation during the growing season is more influential on the plant community than the frequency of soil saturation and inundation during the growing season. For the purposes of this wetland delineation, the wetland hydrology criterion was considered to be satisfied if it appeared that wetland hydrology was present for at least 5 to 12 percent (12 to 29 days) of the growing season. The growing season begins when the soil reaches a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the zone of root penetration. The hydrology was evaluated by direct visual observation of surface inundation or soil saturation within 16 inches below the existing ground surface in data plots. According the 1987 Manual, "for soil saturation to impact vegetation, it must occur within a major portion of the root zone (usually within 12 inches of the surface) of the prevalent vegetation." Therefore, if saturated soils or indicators were observed within 12 inches of the surface, positive indicators of wetland hydrology were noted. The area near each data plot was also examined for indicators of wetland hydrology. These indicators include dried water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. It was not possible to observe conditions during the entire growing season. Areas where positive indicators of hydrology were noted were assumed to contain wetland hydrology. A-3 H-1008-0, APPENDIX B DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND FIELD DATA FORMS H-1008-02 APPENDIX B DEFINITION OF PLANT INDICATOR STATUS AND DATA FORMS Indicator Category Definitions OBL Obligate Wetland. Occurs almost always (estimated probability>99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. FACW Facultative Wetland. Usually occurs in wetlands(estimated probability 67-99%), but occasionally found in uplands. FAC Facultative. Equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands (estimated probability 34-66%). FACU Facultative Upland. Usually occurs in uplands(estimated probability 67- 99%), but is occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1- 33%). UPL Obligate Upland. Occurs in wetlands in other regions (as defined in the National List of Scientific Plant Names), but occurs almost always (estimated probability>99%)under natural conditions in uplands in the ' region specified. 9' NI No Indicator. These species have not been given an indicator status. They are assumed to be upland. Source: National List of Plants That Occur In Wetlands:Northwest(Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). 89 pp. H-1008-02 Data Point: I of 1_ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION _ Project/Site: a 1 K c k f`:.'e r QS e U Li Date: 3—9. —97 . Applicant/Owner: A- i p e r- +L3 t-j City: reC/1 ri _. Investigator: T C CI Job#: 14— 1 o v& --01 County: K.i'r1 Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes f State: i.cJ�4 Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes ei • (If needed, explain on reverse.) J VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator 1.Q ha l4 r is- a r,.And , I-, 20 P.il_«J I. 2. f/o icuc 3 t D Pt3C 2. 3. J',Arte(AS e{445-‘4s H 20 PgCt° 3. t hu.< r b s b 20 P►4 C 4. j„... 5. 5. ,e- i 6. 7. 7. , 8. • 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC(except FAC-). *-Dominant species. /Q D i Cowardin Classification: ?K 1 usE + ''t-(- e mule n1-- Remarks: HYDROLOGY 4, Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _Stream,Lake,or Tide Gage ,g Aerial Photograph x Inundated —'bJ ' _Other L Saturated in Upper 12 Inches _ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks _ Water Lines _ Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water. 0 (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: 5- (in.) Local Soil Survey Data i. 1 Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: / 'i n r, - 2 7vvidPc" c,�>: �c Data Point: I of_ i SOILS Map Unit Name: W 00 ci � ✓t U I '� Drainage Class: Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Rhizospheres.etc. 2 5 Y 3// rLe,OR._ S l / o rvl 2 — /8 1 oyl?3/Q rxe,..„1 f 5,'1 CD a.. t41j coiw 2- 3"ry c , Hydric Soil Indicators: _ HistosoI _ Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer _ Sulfidic Odor ` Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List % Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other(Explain in Remarks) 1 Remarks: F,.1 t WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric Soils Present? ( No Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? 00 No Remarks: 2-97/DATA.FRMrFRH-tfi Data Point: '.Z of DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: 3Iackrryr r` Ph use v,t- Date: 3 -2 -cri Applicant/Owner: A i pe r t,J City: 2 e'Vw A Investigator: T2H Job#: 1 -1 w 8-o I County: K i vt State: w%} Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes •• Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes o (If needed, explain on reverse,) VEGETATION r = Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %Cover Indicato 1. 2ubuS d :sec/or sh g0 Fri-cL&. 1. 2. I 1nk c hi.bra, S k /0 FF-L 2. 3. _ _ 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC(except FAC-). *-Dominant species. 50 7z-, Cowardin Classification: u ' - Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators jig r14 _Stream.Lake,or Tide Gage 4 Aerial Photograph Inundated Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available Water Marks Water Lines Sediment Deposits Field Observations: /`i v yt 3� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Local Soil Survey Data _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Data Point: 3 of L DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: a r- P h tS e - Date: 3 -2- 9 7 Applicant/Owner: 4 e i- is w City: R e nto.\ Investigator: Job#: 1+ - (cog_ `�1 County: k f+ �.) State: w Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes C�e1 Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes l (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION �v Dominant Plant Species Stratum % Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 'Ye Cover Iatical r 1. P t k s 4•,•nA. }-1- 0 Ff < W 1. 2.Ace r Mat rsf .ylu« 2 Q Mk_L . 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC(except FAC-). *-Dominant species. .4Oe;74, Cowardin Classification: (A? lo,.ncX,. _1 Remarks: HYDROLOGY Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators Aient _Stream,Jake,or Tide Gage - ,Aerial Photograph Inundated _Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks _ Water Lines ND � Sediment Deposits Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) ` Local Soil Survey Data Other(Explain in Remarks) f� 3--(a -- '2 Nc Remarks: 1 Data Point: 3 of t SOILS Map Unit Name: ii_)n o \� i vt v\ \1€- Drainage Class: Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No -J Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) fMunsell Moist) (MlinSell Moist) Qttnndance[C ?Wag Ithizokres etc. o - Z 5 i 3! I �10,� `—"r 5 /7- �o« n-t 2- )S /a-i 3/3 1430►t2 5 rmue.1 1 Sandy lam f � Hydric Soil Indicators: - Histosol Concretions His-tic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION _ _ _ _ _ 4, i_. _ _ _ _- _ ,__. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1I ' Hydric Soils Present? Yes . Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Y No T Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes "• Remarks: 2-97,DATA.FRM!TRH-trtr Data Point of '/ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION Project/Site: 2 la c k r: r 1 5 e.VZ Date: .3 -0 -y 7 Applicant/Owner: A 14z r- rJw City: /e it-Ic.s Investigator: T .-1+ to s #• t- -!ooL) w) County: k ` ._State: -LA Have vegetation, soils, or hydrology been disturbed: Yes O' Is the area a potential Problem Area: Yes I' . y (If needed, explain on reverse.) _ VEGETATION Dominant Plant Soeciet SIC= %Cover Irtdi ator Dominant Plant Species 5tratuni %Cover Indicat c 1. Act.r iv),,,,,,,: _ 0 FR'-u- 1. 2. iot,.l.<s Tncka:.rixc T 3 C FP L 2. 3 4,,, ,...S racemcsti. 5h 20 , Fite-- 3. 4. 4. S. S. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC(except FAC-). •-Dominant species. 3 312o Cowardin Classification: lA 1 a Ao1 Remarks: HYDROLOGY x Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators ij 0A Stream, Lake,or Tide Gage lAerial Photograph Inundated ; __..Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches i — No Recorded Data Available Water Marks s Water Lines ii 1� 7 Sediment Deposits i Field Observations: 1� Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Oxidized Root Channels in Upper Depth of Surface Water: i (in.) 12 Inches Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in-) Water-Stained Leaves Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) t I real Soil Survey Data II ± Other(Explain in Remarks) Remarks: r I Data Point: y of # SOILS Map Unit Name: Li) ,00ct + '1 t I 1 e Drainage Class: Field Observations Taxonomy(Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No) Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, finches) (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Atinida iNif niracl Rhizospheres,etc. o --3 /0 I Q. q-1 J rJc2AL_ — 5 ; \# I D 0_rv‘ 3 -t 8 to -t 3)3 /V vitt_ �— S. 1 `v m wt Hydric Soil Indicators: l-NOYL t. Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Probable Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer Organic Streaking Listed on Local Hydric Sods List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List Gieyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other(Explain in Remarks) 1 Remarks: 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 010 Hydric Soils Present? Yes CV" Is this Data Point Within a Wetland? Yd.--I No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I Remarks: 2-97/DATAFRM/rRH-trh F APPENDIX C MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION SHEET H-1008-02 i APPENDIX C MODIFIED REPPERT WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION Values Basis For Evaluation 1. Natural Biologic Function Low A. Food Chain Support Low i. Net Primary low Disturbed, invasive, weedy Production vegetation ii. Mode of Transport low Isolated wetland iii. Food Chain Support low Low diversity of vertebrate animals B. General Habitat Low No diversity within the plant community C. Special Habitat Low No downed logs, snags, or banks with cover 2. Aquatic Study Areas, Mod Near local heron rookery, and Sanctuaries, Refuge natural preserve area 3. Hydrologic Support Function Low A. Hydrologic Periodicity Low Isolated wetland B. Elevation in Basin Low Flooding is isolated, no direct inlet or outlet for flood water 4. Shoreline Protection N/A No shoreline 5. Storage of Storm and Flood Low Water A. Flood Storage Factor Low Total wetland is < 5 acres in size B. Flood Retardation Factor Low < 10% of wetland vegetative cover is woody trees and shrubs I C -1 H-1008-02 6. Natural Groundwater Low Total wetland is a small isolated Recharge depression 7. Water Purification Mod A. Wetland Type Moderate i. Hydroperiod low Intermittently flooded system, not associated with a lake, river or estuary ii. Vegetative Density high Wetland vegetative cover is > 80% B. Areal & Waste Loading Low Relationship i. Total Wetland low Total wetland is < 10 acres in size ii. Proportion of Water to low <40% of wetland is covered with Wetland water iii. Proportion of Runoff moderate Between 25 and 50% of localize Retained in Wetland surface water runoff is retained in the wetland for no more than a 2 year event C. Location Factor Moderate/ High • i. Frost-free Days high >250 days ii. Location Related to moderate Wetland adjacent to non-point Pollution Sources sources such as roads 8. Cultural Values (Economics, Low Isolated pocket of wetland located Aesthetics, Recreational, on fill near recreational trail and Archeological Sites. sidewalks C -2 H-1008-02 Exhibit 6 Environmental Checklist Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat# Blackriver Corporate Park- Tract B April 29, 1998 Bush,Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Wetpond Design Narrative Blackriver Corporate Park-Tract B January 30, 1998 Wetponds are water quality facilities designed to treat the first flush of storm water runoff from impervious surface areas subject to vehicular traffic. Treating the first flush of storm water runoff is important because it contains the highest concentration of pollutants and sediments. The more frequent smaller duration rain storms wash pollutants and sediments from the parking lot surfaces. As the storm duration increases,the storm water runoff becomes progressively cleaner. Studies have shown storm water ponds can produce a significant water quality improvement. The ponds reduce the energy of the storm water flow, allowing heavy metals, suspended solids, lead, Biological Oxygen Demand, hydrocarbons and phosphates to settle. The most important feature for promoting the pollutant removal is maximum detention time of the ponded urban runoff. Vegetated pond slopes producing biofiltration and biologic activity within the standing pool of water are also important water quality enhancing features. The King County Storm Drainage Manual, as adopted by City of Renton, specifies the minimum requirements for wetpond design. Recognizing the first flush concept, the manual defines the water quality storm event as one third of the 2-year/24 hour precipitation. According to the manual, this approximately equals to the mean annual storm event. Storm water runoff flows greater than the water quality storm must bypass the wetpond. This limits the velocity and volume of storm water discharged into the wetpond. The minimum pond volume is equal to the total volume of the water quality storm calculated using the unit hydrograph method. A standing pool of water with a minimum 3-foot depth and surface area equal to 1% of the tributary area is required. The pond length-to-width ratio must be at least three to one. These are the wetpond design guidelines established to assure water quality standards are met. The proposed design for the Tract B (Lots 1, 2 and 3 of proposed City of Renton Short Plat# ) wetpond exceeds all of the minimum requirements. Assuming a fully developed site, the required wetpond volume is 12,747 cubic feet. Volume provided in the wetpond is 31,628 cubic feet, or 148% more than required. The length-to-width ratio is 8.1:1, or 170% more than required. Mean velocity for water flowing through the pond is 0.015 feet per second, far less than that required by the minimum design standard. Therefore, the proposed design will produce a significantly higher water quality than required by City of Renton minimum standards. A high flow bypass will discharge storm water flow greater than the water quality storm into the P-1 channel. The initial storm water runoff will be conveyed to the wetpond and the bypassed storm water is considered clean. Bypassing the high flow storm water runoff assures maximum detention time for the wetpond. t.Xn1D11= i Environmental Che k1 i st Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Short Plat # Blackr±ver Corporate Park - Tract B April 29, 1998 Jaa es W . InatcZsaa. c , P . M . 381 - 129th Place NE ** Bellevue, WA 98005 ** Phone/Fax (425) 454-6307 E-mail: JimMacIsaac@email.msn.com DATE: January 21, 1998 TO: Dean Erickson/Royce Berg FROM: Jim MacIsaac_ /A SUBJECT: Black River Corporate Park—Phase VII & VIII Revised Traffic This memo addresses traffic generation estimates for the revised Phases VI, VII and VIII propos als for the Black River Corporate Park. Phase VI was sold out of the control of Alper Northwes changed from 71,057sf of general office to a 110-room extended stay hotel, the change approve(. by the City, and it is under construction. Phase VII has been downsized from 286,300sf general office to 148,834sf general office; and Phase VIII (128,000sf general office) has been eliminates Summaries of the formerly approved and mitigated plan and the currently proposed buildout pla . are shown in the attached tables. Approved Project at Buildout The upper table on the attachment shows traffic estimates for the currently approved and miti- gated plan for Black River Corporate Park, as per the November 20, 1991 "Memorandum of Agreement" and the January 22, 1992 Report and Decision of the Renton Hearing Examiner. The office project has developed as a series of general office buildings. It has not taken on the characteristics of an "office park", which is defined in the I 1 h Trip Generation documents as "containing office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants, and service stations". There is discussion in the records of traffic generation esti- mates for the project if classified as an office park. Therefore, the alternate buildout traffic estimates for an office park are shown also at the bottom of the table. "In any event, staff and the applicant agree that the applicant has provided sufficient funding to accommodate the anticipated traffic that will be generated by this proposal at buildout. These traffic estimates were contemplated when calculating the transportation improvements for this area." (Finding 22, page 11, of the January 22, 1992 Report and Decision of the Hearing Exam iner). Revised Project Buildout Proposal The lower table on the attachment provides revised traffic estimates for project buildout as nov proposed. including the hotel project that is now separately owned and approved. The signifi- cantly downsized project would result in significant decreases in traffic generation and impacts as compared to the previously approved and mitigated project. Therefore, there appears to be no need for any additional traffic analyses or mitigation measures. James W.vlaclsaac-22/12/98 \jwmgPhaseVll.doc Dean Erickson/Royce Berg January 21, 1998 Page 2 SEPA Checklist for Phase VII The lower table on the attachment also shows the traffic generation estimates that should be in- cluded in the SEPA Checklist for Phase VII. Total traffic generation for Phase VII as a "freestanding"office project is estimated at 1,800 vehicle trips per day (average weekday), and 256 trips and 246 trips respectively during the AM and PM commuter peak hours of the week- day. When including Phase VII as part of the greater Black River Corporate Park project, its net traffic impacts on the public street system outside the Corporate Park would be 1,140 AWDT, and 172 trips and 167 trips respectively during the AM and PM peak hours. James W.Macisaac-2/12/98 \jwm\PhaseVll.doc II Black River Corporate Park-Trip Generation (Approved&Mitigated Plan)1 Phase Land Use Quantity(gst) AWOT AM Peak Hour PM Peek Hour Phase Cum Phase' Cum3 Phase2 Cum3 Phase2 Cum3 III General Office 70.036 70.036 1.072 1,072 145 145 143 143 IV-A General Office 74.915 144.951 1,128 1.858 153 . 255 150 244 IV-B General Office 74,915 219.866 1,128 2.546 153 352 150 332 V General Office 50.546 270,412 838 2,977 112 414 112 387 VI General Office 71,057 341,469 1,084 3,551 146 496 144 459 vIi General Office 286,300 627,769 3,108 5,627 432 796 404 720 VIII General Office 128.000 755,769 1,691 6,475 231 920 223 $25 Total-Office 755,769 10,049 6,475 1,372 920 1,326 825 Totals-General Office 755,759 6,475 920 825 Alt Estimate as'Office Park' 755,769 7,860 1,215 980 'Based on TO Generation-5th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers,1991. 2 Reflects by phase g(s)as a freestanding project j 3 Reflects total net psinia..ting streets outside the office park as a whole:the differences between phase total and net cumulative traps represent trips internal to the overall office park. I 1 1 - 1 Black River Corporate Park-Trip Generation (Current Plan Proposal)4 1 Phase Land Use Quantity(gsf) AWDT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour i. Phase Cum Phase2 Cum' Phase' Cum3 Phase2 Cum3 III General Office 70,036 70.036 1.010 1,010 140 140 158 158 IV-A General Office 74,915 144.951 1.063 1,765 148 251 163 242 IV-B General Office 74.915 219.866 1,063 2,430 148 349 163 326 V General Office 50.546 270,412 786 2,850 108 412 136 382 I VII General Office 148,834 419.246 1,800 3,990 256 584 246 549 VII Net Increase 148.834 1,140 172 167 1 VIII Eliminated Subtotal Office 419,246 5.722 3,990 800 584 866 549 VI Haters 110 Rms 61,545 800 64 68 1 Totals-Gen Office+Hotel 480,791 4,790 648 617 Change from Approved Project (274.978) (1,685) (272) (208) 1 Alt Estimate as'Office Park" 480,791 5,420 815 690 `Based on Trip Generation-6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. I s Now under separate ownership and development from Black River Corporate Park. I I I I I .. �' Environmental checklist s t Site Plan Application Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City o Renton Start Plat # Bla kriver Corporate Park - Tract B 11 C 1 2 1 NATURAL RESO iCE9 CON9S98 ULTING P.O. Box 72( Tacoma. WA. 984( (206)756-03" June 2, 1997 Alper Northwest, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Dean Erickson RE: VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF GREAT BLUE HERONS IN THE RIPARIAN FOREST NORTH OF THE BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK"TRACT B" PROPERTY IN RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the presence and activities observed during a one day field study in and near the heronry located in the riparian forest northwest of the Black River Corporate Park"Tract B"Property (the Property) located on the northeast corner of Southwest 7th and Oaksdale Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington(Figure 1). 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this studywas limited to the following tasks: ► One day of field work from dawn to dusk to visually observe and document activities in and near the heronry. ► A database request for records and files that are available through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ► A report documenting the process, and observations for this project. 1.2 Site Location and Description The Property is located on the northeast corner of Southwest 7th and Oaksdale Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington. The heronry is located northwest of the Property in large cottonwood trees on an island separated from the Property by the P-1 Pond, and extends into the forested area north of the island. The heronry is surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest. A drainage channel, forest and row of Lombardy poplars separate the heronry both physically and visually 1 H-1014-01 from the Property. Several surrounding tracts of land for open space and wildlife habitat are owned by the City of Renton (Figure 1). 2.0 FISH AND WILDLIFE DATABASE REVIEW A review of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife database was requested. The database review revealed that the heronry was first noted in 1985. Nest counts completed between 1986 and 1996 revealed the following: 1986, 7 nests were present; 1987, 9 nests were present; 1988, 22 nests were present; 1989, 24 nests were present; 1990, 30 to 37 nests were present; 1991, 25 to 34 nests were present; and 1996 greater than 37 nests and greater than 17 juvenile herons were present. Nest counts were provided to the database manager by Fish and Wildlife habitat biologists, and local Audubon Society members. 3.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3.1 Method On May 14, 1997, the Property was accessed at dawn (5:30 am) to determine where the heronry was located and to determine the best locations for viewing the heronry. A walking assessment o the area was conducted beginning on Oaksdale Avenue Southwest where it crosses the P-1 Channel, along the northern boundary of the Property, north along Naches Avenue Southwest an( onto a dirt road at the end of Naches Avenue Southwest, and finally along a dirt road that runs from the north end of the trail located west of the P-1 Pond to the P-1 pump station. Four locations provided the best view corridors to the heronry. Station 1 is located on the bridge that crosses the P-1 Channel on Oaksdale Avenue Southwest. Station 2 is located just north of the Property along a drainage channel. Station 3 is located on the dirt road that extends north of the end of Naches Avenue Southwest. Station 4 is located on the dirt road leading to the pump station. Figure 1 shows the location of the viewing stations. A station was not selected on the Property because the heronry is not visible from the Property at ground level. Stations 2 and 3 had limited views of the heronry and observations were made from these locations for approximately one-hour each. Station 1 has a view of the southwestern exposure of the heronry and heron flight paths in most directions. Station 4 has the best view of the heronry and heron flight paths. Nest counts, conditions in and near the heronry, and activities and flight paths of the heron were recorded from each of these locations. Observations were completed at dusk (8:30 pm). 3.2 Observations The heronry appears to consist of several trees on an island in the P-1 Pond, and extends into trees located in the riparian forest north of the island. The nest sites in the northern forest were visible only from Station 3. Activity including herons flying into and out of this area was visible from Stations 1 and 4. H-1014-01 At least twenty-nine nests were observed within the heronry. Additional nests may be present but were not visible because visibility of nests was limited by leaves, light conditions during the time of viewing, and viewing station locations. Some nests could have been counted more than once due to the variable observation angles. The number of birds observed in the heronry is limited by many variables; therefore, an actual count of birds is not provided in this report. Documentation of the number of birds flying into and out of the heronry, and their flight paths were recorded (see the table below and Figure 1). There were three major flight paths that the birds were observed to take as they left and returned to the heronry on the day of the study. Path 1 was to the northeast toward the Cedar River and Lake Washington. Path 2 was to the west down the P-1 Pond toward the Green River. Path 3 was to the southwest up the P-1 Channel. Path 3 consists of two sub-paths, one that follows the actual waterway and the second that includes herons flying over the northwest corner of the Property. The number of birds and their flight paths were recorded at Stations 1 and 4 from late morning (10 am) to early evening (8:30 pm). Herons were also observed to fly down into the P-1 Pond and surrounding channels, and back into the nests. The herons were also observed bringing sticks and twigs to the nest sites. TABLE HERON MOVEMENT ON SPECIFIC PATHS May 14, 1997 Incoming Herons Outgoing Herons Total Herons Path 1 11 12 23 Path 2 12 8 20 Path3a 9 6 15 Path 3b 3 2 5 Totals 35 28 A pair of red tail hawks was observed to be roosting in the trees where the herons are nesting_ Throughout the day, the herons did not appear to be disturbed by the presence of the red tail hawks. A bald eagle was observed flying over the heronry at approximately 9:15 am. The eagle made two passes over the heronry. The herons and the red tail hawk were very disturbed by the presence of the bald eagle. The herons and the hawk took flight to chase the eagle, and the herons guarded the top of the trees after the eagle left the area. 3 H-1014-01 �� 4.0 CLOSURE This report represents a reconnaissance level study to identify the presence and activities observe( during a one day field study in and near the heronry. Conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us and made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Natural systems such as animal populations are dynamic. Changes in species, presence, location and activities may change depending on the time of year and may be influenced by other factors not addressed in this report. Conditions not known at the time that this report was prepared may influence the findings of this report. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 756-0370. Sincerely, NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING i-/LA2/7_ g - Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist i 4 H-1014-01 11, i i f 8N RAOAO fO r./ IUARRY •% RENTON OPEN SPACE 1 *3 ?PS� gk• .;. .;�;,4► HERONRY b .;:•' •. • RIPARIAN FOREST .". e. kt• Z. T. ; • e 0910 grghli .• '"•- :::..... ti•" /'�• 1._; 0a.• -:t' !``'`i_•y:_13.3 �•�.iir\• 1 / � :2 a b a it �.,• - •'`;`'I" �1� � �. . .� �; r ...c �•� •-: 1, 114 1 > .��•-s-rim .- •: � .. ' P-1 C}IAI,N L �/ .• j: �1.� �2 11. . • tip • Y' '-r- ._ "•�_'-�.&?-1 M OFFICE • - (-- RENTON ` 4a _• -— �'�`�. OPEN SPACE -3 ' PATH 3A. r... 1.,,-.t' PROPERTY 5c .a �^.." WAREHOUSE ri�--' - }`' ri 0 NOUSTRIAL • p .� ` l ::. ��r" OFFICE 0 METRO o 40. �_ '-. - t.. .I ~� `i ic. ..., C. V eli E] ...-. OAKESDALE AVE SW '��. -••' OFFICE •,r� '-•' ® METRO PLANT vim► �_`} t .•11.1 b 1 l—i� N I'' • .it .. •�x� Lrr�J :VrJ+• , 'vat N Heron Study Renton. Washington Approximate Scale 1 inch to 400 feet A SITE MAP June 1997 H-10. -01 ♦ Viewing Stations Flight Paths Natural Resource Consulting FIG 1 Aneaenettt,\tanagemen[and Regulatory Pemmnmg J Environmental Checklist st Site Plan Application - c-,1Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Proposed City of Renton Slza.t Plat #r1� Blackriver P t B 1 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTITNG April 29, 1998 P.O. Box 7: i8 Tacoma. WA, 98. i7 (253) 756-03 '0 ,I March 30, 1998 Alper Northwest, Inc. • 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6000 Seattle, Washington 98104 ,• Attn: Dean Erickson RE: TREE HEIGHT AND SCREENING BETWEEN PROPOSED BLACK RIVER CORPORATE PARK "TRACT B" BUILDINGS AND I"HE HERON ROOKERY IN RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the existing tree height and screening between the Black River Corporate . Park"Tract B" proposed buildings and the great blue heron rookery (heronry) located north of the property. The Black River Corporate Park"Tract B"Property (the Property) is located on the northeast corner of Southwest 7t° Street and Oaksdale Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington(Figure 1). In the mid 1980's, a row of Lombardy poplars and evergreen trees were planted to screen future development on the Property from the heronry. Five buildings(Building A through E) are currently proposed to be constructed on the Property. Buildings A, D, and E are one-story structures that will be approximately 18 feet tall_ Buildings B, and C are two-story structures that will be approximately 28 feet tail (Figure 1). 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this study was limited to the following tasks: ► A survey using the Advantage Laser Range Finder to document tree height along the northwestern property boundary in relationship to the heron rookery. ► A letter report documenting the process, observations and conclusions for this project. 1.2 Site Location and Description The Property is located on the northeast corner of Southwest 7th Street and Oaksdale Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington. The heronry is located northwest of the Property in large 1 H-1027-0 cottonwood trees on an island separated from the Property by the P-I Pond, and also extends intc trees in the riparian forest north of the island_ The heronry is surrounded by a second growth deciduous forest A drainage channel, forest and row of Lombardy poplars separate the heronry both physically and visually (except in one area) from the Property (Figure 1). 2 0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 2.1 Method On March 3, 1998, an Ecologist with Natural Resource Consulting visited the Property to measure the height of the planted poplar and evergreen trees and the overall vegetative screen between the Property and the heromy. Tree heights were surveyed using the Advantage Laser Range Finder. The range finder distance measurements are accurate to 0.5 feet, and pitch measurements are accurate to one degree. The information gathered with the range finder was then used in mathematical formulas to determine the tree height rounded to one-foot measurements. 2-2 Observations The heronry consists of several large cottonwood trees on an island separated from the Property by the P-1 Pond, and extends into trees in the riparian forest north of the island Vegetation that screens the heronry from the Property includes the planted poplars and evergreen trees, and natural vegetation dominated by black cottonwood, and red alder. Trees on the Property did not have leaves at the time of this survey. Poplars in the southern end of the western property boundary are 72 to 81 feet tall, in the central portion of the western property boundary are 78 to 90 feet tall, and in the northern portion of the western property boundary are 78 to 80 feet tall_ The conifers were planted east of the poplar trees and are 30 to 36 feet tall. At the end of the row of planted poplars is a thirty-foot gap in the trees before the naturally growing trees begin. This gap contains shrub vegetation, six 56-foot tall cottonwood trees, and seven 30-foot tall alder trees. The naturally growing trees beyond the gap are 91 to 126 feet tall. Nests in the heronry are 70 to 80 feet up in the trees, relative to the Property elevation. From the proposed development areas of the Property, the heronry is only visible between the thing-foot gap in the trees. Bearings were recorded from known points on the Property to determine where the visual corridor is located. Figure 1 shows this narrow visual corridor to the if heronry. 2 H-1027-01 !�� - I! 3.0 CONCLUSIONS The heronry is only visible from the proposed development between the thirty-foot gap in the trees. Given that Building B is proposed to be approximately 28 feet tall, and is in direct line I' with the visual corridor to the heronry, it has been concluded that the heronry will only be visible from Building B. Building B will block the view to the heronry from all other buildings on the Property. An October 1991, tree survey indicated that the poplar tree height ranged from 20 to 34 feet tall, I and the deciduous trees north of the gap were between 40 and 70 feet tall. The poplars now range from 72 to 90 feet tall, and the deciduous trees north of the gap range from 91 to 126 feet tall. This shows an overall growth rate of 7 to 8 feet per year. Given the growth rate of 7 feet per year, the 56-foot tall cottonwoods and 30-foot tall alders located within the gap should totall) screen the heronry in the next six years. Native trees such as alder, cottonwood, cedar, pine, or fir could be planted in the gap to create additional layers of tree vegetation for screening the heronry over time. 4.0 CLOSURE (!! " This report represents a reconnuccance level study to determine if the heronry is visible from 1 locations where buildings are proposed to be constructed on the Property. Conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available. No warranty, expressed or implied., is made. Natural systems including trees and vegetative screens are dynamic. Changes in tree species, presence, and density may change depending on the time of year and storms that may blow down vegetation and may be influenced by other factors not addressed in this report. If you have any questions please call me at (253) 756-0370. Sincerely, NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist 3 H-1027-01 .....„.1 I 1 1 worm ow Deciduous 91'to 126' Homo;sn s s Tins- - « NABRAO anammi ,A coo soma I _ Poplar 78'to 80' I manis oo H r Ht. 01*a&N( _ FENCE 4 1 jr .. Poplar 78'to 90 � ; S•aiQ 1tMA'D N MI - — ,6 . „, 4./ ,,,- 4,i/ii • r , / . w;# , 111"1a on& /' �- '170 M� / / *N. Roic AREA /' M1,6 �', Poplar 72'to 8 t'/ ;/' �, c24 I i / , .# --fit+. A 12.53 Acres k� k�_ 1 � ��-__ Tree Height Screening Black River - Corporate Park Tract'B" • Renton. Washington scoots DIM FIGURE 1: SITE MAP caw cum cur— N. `"-• March 1998 H-1027-01 , 1 Natural Resource Consulting psseslmon.Management and Regulatory Permlauta SITE PLAN I 1 1 EXHIBIT 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SITE PLAN APPLICATION LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT # - BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK - TRACT B APRIL 29, 1998 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DRAINAGE FOR BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK TRACT B LOCATED AT OAKSDALE AVENUE & SW 7TH STREET FOR BLACKRIVER - RIVERTECH L.L.C. BY BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 S. Hf±.0 BRH JOB NO. 97051.01 ��w° 47c�� r ri(gI 1998 ~, 414) DATE: MARCH 1, 1998 MAY % 1 1993 °10NAL LPN Architects & Planners L EXPIRES 11/15/ 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Overview 3 H. Preliminary Conditions Summary III. Off-site Analysis C0 IV. Retention/Detention Analysis Design S BLACKIIVEt CORPORATE PARK BUSt Now s FfruN3s PAIrch Z 1998 \ 7 ` ZONE : NOTE MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL S LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH.RAN GE • 4 EAST AND TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE S EAST _ KING 12111_NT`c' i L'NINC.)RPOR..-kTED \RE.-kS :.., :301)71 a , - / .p?Re '�', .• a %•-,- '`.sip,. y . 114N K _>,IP r G 1 Y • (^ \---- —.. . „ . , • : y , ZONE X r' . � �=��. ZONE AE ZONE / µ. a?; L If k .i t 11 -� 1� 1r ti _ G .a. --_ . i.ar, 1 <Y y 'ttYr y CRUM �f t'.i'�S " "' J 1 L t y! O . .0 ,liir 5\ . i LIT\ OF RENT �N O It'i .. . • tJEW 12'Et.1'ro,N p' 1t,M :a;?,... : `v• `F13'. ZONE X I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Blackriver Corporate Park, Tract B, is a 15.7 acre site located north of the intersection of Oaksdale Avenue Southwest and Southwest 7th Street. The site is located between the P-1 Channel and Naches Avenue Southwest. Blackriver-Rivertech L.L.C. is proposing the construction of five new buildings on the property. The buildings have footprints that range in size from 16,250 to 32,890 square feet. The surrounding streets are fully developed and utility stubs are available at the property lines. A regional storm water facility is located directly north of the site. All storm water detention and compensatory storage volume have been provided within the regional storm water facility for this property. According to City as-built records, sanitary sewer has been stubbed to the site at the intersection of Naches Avenue and SW 7th Street. The elevation of the sewer stub, adjusted for the new City of Datum is 10.8. Preliminary design layout for the sewer system for the site indicates the existing stub has adequate depth to gravity serve the buildings. There is a 12-inch water main in Oaksdale Avenue and SW 7th Street and a 16-inch main within Naches Avenue. A 10-inch water main will be looped through the site for fire and domestic water service. Preliminary fire flow calculations by the City indicate the required fire flow is 6,500 gpm and that a 10-inch loop will be adequate. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the 100-year flood elevation in this area is 15.0. When this is adjusted for the new City datum, the 100-year flood elevation becomes 18.44. All grades shown on the design documents are based on the new City datum. The area to be developed is flat and typically is at elevation 20. New building finish floor elevations range between 20.3 and 21.2. Therefore, the new building finish floor elevations will be higher than the minimum one foot above 100-year flood requirements. Storm water runoff from the site will be conveyed to a wetpond for water quality treatment. As noted earlier, storm water detention has already been provided for this property within the regional facility. The wetpond has been sized to treat all storm water runoff from the site. The limits of impervious surface area are defined by the outer limits of the parking lot. Total area defined by the parking lot is 9.28 acres. Within the parking lot there is approximately 1.98 acres of interior landscape area. Based on the site plan the required wetpond volume is 12,747 cubic feet. The wetpond design shown on the Schematic Grading and Utility Plan provides approximately 31,628 cubic feet of storage between elevation 8 and 12. The wetpond has been oversized to eliminate the need for biofiltration swales. This is an accepted practice within the City. The over sizing will produce a higher water quality treatment than a design from the minimum swale and wetpond combination requirements. 'i, (t9- II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY The site is covered by tall grasses, brush, blackberries and trees. An abandoned section of the old Black River channel is located in the eastern quarter of the site. The abandon river bottom is approximately eight feet below the grades on the proposed developed area. There are no distinct storm water drainage channels flowing into or out of the area to be developed. Three wetlands have been delineated within the property. The two largest are located within the abandon river channel and will not be disturbed by the development. The smallest wetland is located within the proposed parking area for Building E and will be filled. All surrounding roads are fully developed. All necessary utilities for the proposed development have been stubbed to the site. Preliminary research indicates there are no known capacity issues with any of the utilities stubbed to the site. DUD mots f ,,,,,,,\ DMISII) ,...23 /. / / ''. .•e"Is.\\NN'N'''.........s. '''''1..._________ c. irn' ♦, II ��� III rs� 1,P ` 07 MD WO 3,, S rt / ,� � I. � "Zeil.ot �::, :v v♦ � . -- - A.40'4, \ .. /. � � e a � ;.� egib„ �� \ 4'14''°''.../ '; . 1' -4 , t\ /..ck y y\\ %4:s.:: fie=" 11 •/,• gSW eeeeee e\. -. `. •.aiQ`�G' `y' •*""..:.. g",,j,c/\u'm1.f4#::. ‘'-:.:...:..:::-:::y7.„n., .:::4..'*\,c.,'.C'.\,/.',7..,.';,.', •o• -Ij� eie e �♦ ip , ,s eh" 9 i A A4''. / i \ CP' •••• # ‘ ..!:.#0/. 1, sawr..*I",* • ....*;.• ." '•''° . ' 4.,..:•Or ::.% \il '\ 40 :o ei eel ���ce. " �e♦ if. kii;..:,,' i .t.r4 Ato;. 4s 4:* \ 4;,#;r , / • •• 111110 1)00",. '.› .4_ 7is :::::: ' 1 14> / NA, \V.4*.. - '\ ,/,kik. .4 11 ..* • 0 • .... " ,t, (,.::•74.,,i " Nook* 1.• ft,, au:tams., )ro 1 i ,e Pi ♦♦4 ,," i"r I) ♦ ye �'q 1e e �� 4.4 r II 4Al'jc) .VIES ' �M101 a YLfB MINN t U L m j. • ew Atli" sriDYaKsn �r �" ,3 1M)1Er3 A11)LLn y ro • 9 I� __ 11110,ON a51 s.r l SIX. _ • 1.„.._.,..„) r e i WEIS J rbr /�l ]wSl6d rWrY Mt%IPION ..�,..,.M. • ...a. b III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Storm water runoff from the proposed development will be conveyed to a wetpond. From th wetpond, storm water will be conveyed to the P-1 Channel. The manhole downstream from th wetpond will have a flap gate to prevent backwater from the P-1 Channel from entering the wetponc Storm water discharge from the development will occur before peak flows for the P-1 Channel fa the various design events. Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts from this development. i I i i I I i E III MIt MO$ was larch z WOO • ICI )6- CD�J‘D O J� l''' I r .1 ' ... ,,. .,. ....,.- .oars: r+w . ...a • ,.n . •in ia-• ri..14 S .ri ,sic ,.. .' \r •,.1 •4..7" .1 .ow..".' , j�j!'',• I w, W�N ,yM'wr :*:"...\.:1;').1o."1.1 : :o" g i PARK.' ll :,.., • ��on o-03,r '.°tc�} :. 'n 'uvro BLACKIIIVIRI: ,� " •!. •4.�� - '.>v. • J) i• I• `` N— va /) ' •':`Lo ���. im" eR•'+ • 0 I I •w •S:+4R ,•r `,.L, I ,.* / ,} • l R {�•' •:r. •'-, �43, r��. 44' h�' v1�eCGk. off or Q .""T« • • / ,- - l^I �• �,�. •. -TM LOT 3 : " .,,.,' a/ ;, � . i; 1; 2.. / /,.. 1 / atil•-.-,'i.f,1 ,...,,, • -!..1-,„, 11 ei.,_ -__--.- /M1p- r unn is .,ry.,pm ..n.e r .• ` , 11 st ...i:• .,v:,,,, ... "nu. \ \ \ _�,; ��°` �/ L T 1 q " •�.. � . Vi . .. 51 a,.I , p.e, .'25• 7� �, • ••..� I i� r:irC,— Tin 1,• , • ' •••;•• • t I \ •V r cF' .t1 ; . . i ..-. y\ '• may'�•, - ,r"! ter. .. '\u 2102 • \ q\ _+~ Tarp r ,',•,{„ ^ •I.,1 '-a %'• *,•If.• /V J' (•C 1. , ..RaG�1.,ypq•• r�,1 \ .. ..\ ,.G) / ,,,ie..\ 4 •lf(. ....•Coot.11 t /�'I J` •L. .1Y \ .M.. • • • . • \.�•^.\1v:'�.c is e' `—+4�\ ;dt:e.:_\ • .. � /%.yI',�' ,\•..c .,. Lt w'..•nc.c, ••�.,� �4 5.� �44 �I :.: _N 4 `mil ... •yU . \'•�•. \ " �4.. .\, . .`_ BSc.. 1.�'1► R^ :;L: . J ,i/ •riE ..a= .ai r. = \ \ •y,,...'" S I�;' . •gym \.\ \. \ -', .Z.1 ..r.,......n. ,a. , :o- j— y OM NOM Apo t tie 0 IV. RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Storm water detention is not required for this project. The wetpond sizing calculations are based on the following: Area defined by outer parking limits 9.28 acres Impervious area including roof 7.30 acres Pervious area for interior landscape 1.98 acres CN impervious 98 CN pervious 82 Tc 15.6 minutes aWo arwc ill File ►Input Hydrograph Storage Discharge LPoo1 Proj : ALPE• iiiii.M.:: [■] Input Basin Data Basin ID: B1 !!::::.:• Description. . :WATER QUALITY STORM ;,;;;:::;.: --Area-- -CN-- ---TC--- Rain Type Method ':: :: RV Perv. . : 1 . 980 82 .00 15 .600 PTC TYPE1A1VI SBUHIVI Precip Peak Fact Imperv: 7 .300 98 . 00 15 . 600 IT 0 . 67 484 . 0 Base Q Duration Hyd Time Int : 10 . 0 Abstract Coeff : 0 .20 0 . 00 24 . 0 Summary Values jil Ge� Pr� Ok Peak Time: 8 .000 hr Peak Flow: 0 .71 cfs Ne� Compute otal Vol : 12747 cf 0 .293 acft Del Ins help: Enter 8 char Basin ID 1? Qu l e'D t e'rPoi.1D voL u yvl 6 = 11Z1 14-1 c Werm,i4D Cksupm 1"=40' 0 1, : w: 3oo:37 ■aM g.t ; I L:v1 ? empep • a 9 i b : G3SF r 9' 3 3 Vo,9�c.5_, = o . o 5 F '� T�+WI. 3 10.23.14 ) 1 AREA r \ ) N ` rim t* I I' 9 • r---- ' \° ' '1 ',1 ' 1 PI 1 r4c> R4 -2) 0 4 *),A .i ) 1 I it/. ----- , / / ,/ * i•2. /\4 1 . 41ILS 9e r. YIAE,prAIM 601111-t iNlr( 0 •••4•••••miosiis ELEV. AREA (SF) VOL. ( ELEV. SUM OF VOL. 8.00 3682.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 r 1E301To M 10.00 8107.30 2.00 11502.41 11502.41 12.00 12155.10 2.00 20126.26 31628.66 t S l(o fJ t'"cgQ Sus 14.00 18260.80 2.00 30209.52 61838.19 ec',u b % ), l % \'M PvQv (o u5 . '7, 3ax4-3, 56,o u o,o/ = SZt55F &EL V lZ 2, F7-L- -v�t 5zoem VoLuME _ 12 , -74"7c..F 3 , 3 It L; ►AI c(37) :l LEM nW Ill FT (4(4257 645 E) P2ovl tiED; /, 12 t i 55, t o 5F EGEV lZ =7 3 .'7S T/ME5 &a-AM-7Z Td Al 2, 3 I/ (o25, , 6F '' 2 , LIS rrwie6 4ern 3 , 0, 1 - l L:w 2 , -r rat E 5 7744AI D 1 s AACI-ITECTURAL LIGHTING BY EJTI-C1VIA HI-TEK I I1 l\- --���`• r _L K BR8 r ROUND 50 100W AID.160W INCANDESCFRT WC AfTF( `,B1` ---• \-�_ IOTA(LOTS 1-3) 25N.0B3 Sf I.1' L s- 1 I•) 6Lmf@Fi Ir�ae�Isr. ♦9w_ 1A lti--_-ZS [11 NAOTNG 54. td . _ ....r fEASNO�• t 32.500 Y A /• r r 1 -• 4... .▪ -v r- t WRONG C f]B.SW Sr Y •�•� . :11/n''Nri �, „• Q if t 3BA90 Y / • JTOTAL t IiS3I Y / Tr: .....// ▪ : / / 1'1:ti1 Vroa-9'.10' Ap STALLS / f.}l ` 1 lY u'U'd "";'�'-.•`• (NU:'oyT9'rNc), � .j/ / T I� ti .som� LIGHTING BOLLARDS 8 (WPAI-6- 119 STARS /.- < p+ r;t .10.o -Ina KCESSALE TT KO) TB SUMS TAO IA 597 STALLS / r< r l l 1 i (t s ti. li U _ - MoORAW-EDIION v nG MTq .0 sT.VIS/100o Y / •• / `1 -i cr "r N`pl`ARA WIG Lol WOSCIYINC Mx sx) :w 9s+Y :// / LOT E 1 t1 < w_�-. NIEMOR LANDSCAPING i 394.696 Y /✓ ];• / / tl W % KOUAND 10'FRONT TAW t 16,119 SF 7( r >\�'1 _ a. -..- _ �m'ryT� ax wan.r AREA 2 le.ars Y i / / ,ss> t s 1. /• 'i+„:-.\ U F • ""'�-" �+ [1 .5 TOTAL 2 365.nt SF �:/ \ �� t I W Z ..-... VW F-' II yprRnws NOR • ;• •.- / :�rl t 1 �'• ! �'I M CC O ar--.rr+� (AWLUA19ETT PARKING.NNIEWERING a TALKS 2 30165.SF Y'.--, f yaq •n 1 e„rI W O H _ ROOT MU f 116.S8A SF • LDT 1 . N3� • WI a.C7 � TOTAL 2 311966 SF / / / /1'+i `` • � �I - - CC DIME } �,/•..srl6' v 3� CC ¢2 -"-• DUIIDR.0 NEENr per HT IeIE I I a.1s. !. 1a 1 I I V y r.r ••••'••' ERDNT BWOMG$(EiCR (BO' - -_ t1? SOE BULDNG SETEPT `NDNC 0'D.) .:TT I L.Ml Ii \-r ,r- ,• .1fiPX 1 ,/ I�� Ii l. ¢ (Z a .gun.-. _..__. - ---- I 11'S.Etf, t 1 f_) T- 1=f t;�i-� No.00'f-- i • ' - TN_J W w • \�■■ =-u 0=�1■ Bill ■■ 1 LOT \ R�'� .N■ - 111■ i av,aU B.S I•. .i\■■• 'L--.,, T-0 a' ]>�J Cr Z • .i:i I Gitvn■ o U asw■■ ■2'tUU. \ '00 - . //Aj L-0,er Y YO 3.'Aft /E/l6`1■ :'1■■ �111'fl■■ l.'I■■. N�YrL7■■ o_e911■ "/.�■ %uN l.0 ' L, R '"D'� -0+ / 10/TREES ON SITE .I-xt C0 0 ZSEWN .��a N _. ' • \ ` \ l7 -III / / . •a TREES TOM ALIVE ..-ill J J z IS 115' \\\�a aa wblri= ,j� / •a TREES TO R[LocATE o m CO Q —. --__ =`.- `-.- r`-� ILI l-,]e] \ ���- It•. 7.10' ` j ;f•a TREES TO REMOVE SI .�-.- \ \ T N.fr // Nir LIGHT FIXTURES 9 TABULATION 6 TREE INVENTORY 100' 1 7 160 I f'as R 1 100 II ... mg m' �t line D.90oj.BdI ARCHITECTURE "lit. and PLANNING '3' A-1 Project Data Y,Q��y �.14�` o, ay TA r} °ft 4 "• ®s s sr A-2 911e Plan T..n A 0 0 Vc M • '7S" M. �1,, p••N , wry • ®s s sr" A-3 Floor Plan Bldg. A. 1LWWJ Aw1aR'a UAW • .1" 1�• - �o A-/ El.vitIone Bldg. A MM.110" '°r'eEiaia 9�' t 1 .w i - A-d Floor Plan Bldp. B C ..; ..) yy • �� 61.ea R w..�® A-6 ENrltlonn B&C AM:....C'-'' •/'...' T - 10'LITTERS IMNIOICA710N AREA r I.e\ -••.w. MM. 1 ti a R •A; A-t Floor Plan Bldg. D tilt\ NM' - ^'11 A A-d Elevation.Bldg. D A�I� I Tenant �` lrt r A-pFloor Plan Bldg. E IIG�i IdeOtiticatl0nn " E `` '�9A-10Elwatlon.Bldp. E 1 �� I {, sr+ V ..IC-1 81te SurveyNO OE5(AV71(l1 DAZE 0000 oe2sea.A..nr. i . I � C-2 9cMmatk Oradlnp 6 Ut■tl.e ` -__�� � 9TE PUN REEES 5-05-96 ..••""' - a./�--�-1 r l•i 8cAemeNc Landeoap.Plen. TU WIj ,. wN 19 L-2 BcMNatle Landscape Plan ' — . aro L-9 W.tpond Landscaping Plan ENTRY SIGN 1/4' 7 VICINITY NTS 4 INDEX 2 21IE-R BLACKMER-MERTEIf LLC 700 F•TN AN.SUN WOO YANLL INSMIC'I(N 96104 1110011 MyOp- (206)6N-9223 OLVI R.EACKSON MCMEtt LIN MCMRCIS NO TUNERS I 1535-aN NE S..9.N o PROJECT DATA �I D w%0fsn1'�[[NAWic I (206)SEATILL 11030 t6130 •"i �'- ll f[ ROME A RW 1. 15 t EN VELA BUSH 1MED I. LDS ,.,'% �f. SEATIIF.NASNIGTON 9E0I2-3513 n'n en M. 95-TH 91RDNG 6 B C- P*SAC.NG- ,Bo L J ... ld 1HTA 1Vl NREtN5011 I.-.Own efru.NA n rR'.- rrwlrC Au- 1 PI05.1 N 11109CAPE WOE./taMle ASSOCMNS FM 960AB\SN T-1 DOG �n Ian PM at SWM,STE 0la o Kr PER EDIT. E1CTON 9W S 32-2*23 JOB NO.. .0e1 SKET NO OF 1 1A9 (475)951-I677 • WOE/1 R.RENCK ) 3 DDATE 1 M_! A ' --ION t $- -OOMMIET*NTS -I el \ all CI'i I IsC... \on a tdwx CUT. .°.vx 1 as v c1 IL_ f•I$IWG SiuuvS k rx[F5—I- L y 1 0 le I RR HABITAT ` .` UIUI•(MUM I .+[sEx•(�—�`I rct ----,--L -----'--—-—-—-—I-— U F A I mkv(EBa I — W <Z _[gT1 rw. m.a rtxlw // L ' 141150- 4r .a. ___ __L_ ___.'-� ) (vSwc [11♦ r 0:Z_ I «.■ul vFn + N C Ili' I I vpli I II Hcw ARE. I 1 > > rtiK['ENIYN E .i•c OO 4, .� l 4" ' LOT 4 1, .,«c ¢ Z _ i t�/ �y�n � i F 'ITY OF ppp wig m cow i G�+4 1 1, 1 ENTON O . 1�. s+.;P 1 1 - (I 40+ SPACEMING a,a WEER PLANTED LANDSCAPE 1986 r •• "4,%*„ .`' . S Q Ic\ II / "'� �� �0'" / \ '1.Iq .III•,.. i i ,' �/ cif � lc+ :L S. %` I RE on P ` to cf' "`I '�',� LOT•3 4 1 1\ •.1 [mnc a n tl PI IET1.1......1,1 IIN G WASHOIGTOHITITNI / Offiat � I, S� :J:" ,, Y \` Y��. .[MtC1N,•,: ; `\- J;" / 1.1 1TWILL AKfa■D. 061416.14010 MA SOW. INCTPC MEA ��' /LOT 1 ���.. 6G, V •+ :•%1 :r+ . xD.Kxl 1 f voo 44.r. „4.ii,,, \ 4, s,,V ji . :.y .k., /;.:,,,,, it....., t.,:::.!. y \., 1p • 0..., go 10 • • is • ' .I I � @:. Q,. . .rc, COTp°°9'10• O •O A '' NO DESCRIPTION DATE o w I �_��� ,�� a t:►` �wa° �` !�'11 — -- Ta■ 11-30-9E BMW/ 4-07-98 E10 Z. :. ' � � '�! ` 40 cp•C `.4" :ION' I. t ,,4 1 r -- TABUI ATION Rom.' Ib I •��1••`� ,� I .� .� �I I�_ w ?. .... sin rEr IIE.c■ y or AA to,\:j' !• C ,,tie �,A �' ' 1 /• SITE AREA(LOTS 1-3) t546,023 SF 1 (� .v t• p , ♦ t 1 r • s� �,,,p LOT Y ��,,��� o1��� ;:.� ,,✓� TOTAL BUILDING AREA t14a.e}4 SF �1t��1�,�jI # ilk ' : O •i�•i\/s~ Awl,�� / v�� BUILDING I 4 32,010 SF BUILDING• t }2.500 SF ����A� • ••O O ,A �\ .� ' BUILDING ' } }2 890 SFmxsBUILDIT. •BUILDIG • t 28,934 SF \ `�T�41/0 . GT �� /VT/ S�.• trn■w F.A.R. 4.273 \ " \\`Qeetl�I,. , ,,,, •,,•�� •4%/ n■IISD[■w PARKING 597 STALLS SITE PLAN tam o ` 4M'�,/\ '� di' A b1� REGULAR - 9' t 20' 400 STALLS AEf S �, �` ��,, ��� (INCL. 2' OVERHANG). MAK OM OAT `� ` - , / A COMPACT - 8-6• [ 16 118 STALLS ••1 ACCESSIBLE 18 STALLS • �'114.Z -�, / I „omen PARKING RATIO / -- w r 4.0 STALLS 1000 SF L `KR\ \ \ `�I� N ... , • [v54t l707,70f snc 1 1 " JOB NO.: MU SKIT NO Q. / r va.ana :spa.ana ' I .1. �i wrn D[rE: 84•49 \ _ A-2 t 8 N 7 o- , I i§1 fl r--T—�7 I I I I _I— 4 I g $ c. g Bo 0 1 L L r Cr ,..9 4 g erg; iE '.../ a 0 M L ioo.-o• I • 5. rc o o O v R i74 an 7°z API -00 ^> �= BLACKRIVER - RIVERTECH L.L.0 z y g '_� BLACKRIVER CORPORATE PARK D v �� RENTON, WASHINGTON � - � 6s� z„ G) $ 3 gi.x cam Q i e II F • ca 0U Y Ott J ir — J a a WEST ELEVATION U W (ndnXn¢ CCo TINTED GLASS— ELT U►CONCRETE PANELS AM MOUNTED, YTVPICAL NOTES U > ¢Z PANTED E COLOR VALUES MUM NIW17 M. - CC O= U N a r ` CC Xw w3 ___ _________ _ __ - _______ rir_\ _. !\. �Y Y O �\ i` U UZ A i �y� / 1u�+1 FA m� ENTRY - ENTRY— / ENTRY---/1 SOUTH ELEVATION I ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING rorC!A.mKA MSNCDM ♦.FEN C CNM.PREUCIPM I SM.DN AK fONN IS D I.. WATTLE V.ASINGIONpoAIwSND IM fUDRIS _ __ € 1 111 NO OESCRIPRDN DATE 91[MAR KEYED 3-OS-93 EAST ELEVATION c---� ^ -- - -- -CI- i ' -. ______ BUILDING 'A' I NI H ® ® ® ® • ® ® ® ® ® ® ELEVATIONS ILNORTH ELEVATION File 9NOY2/ELEv-A.DTw '^ JOB NO D90[E I NO OE F 1 ISNEET ELEVATIONS 10' 1 cnECN R.A' nZ I r s 111 U ICIKS'-0` ...I OE ARM MOUNTED, = Ill SHIELDED LIGHTING TIP. U I"' I > aU CC Z 0= IRIRW W LOCA LOCA ELECTRICA ROO > LOCATION LOCATION ELECTRICAL R0011 Y BC —I < <z LULA CO O]Q m r^ r _I m ARCHITECTURE l i and PLANNING -T FUTUREI rorce A.TRro.rncru I I CORE IIf. marSOON iuno I MAMA WAR-.GIOP.gad. IRWIRl1MOP.3.0701 n I n L —\ V I LJ STAIR _. _ _ _ X J LOCA OR OCATNMI IOCATIELEVATON OPEN SHE NO �x�RISES 6-05`9B ABOVE I l I } 4 — u Eti i L-3 / 20.-0' I5'-0' 1 L 70'.0" , BUILDING 'B' FLOOR PLAN BUILDING 'C' SIMILAR Pali FY@ 96042\BIDC-A DWG in .MJO NO.: DIME 'AEU NO a< g 110R711 DATE: R•!HE — DRAWN: RAJ A-5 s l BI,�ILDILIG 'a' 1ST FLOOR PLAN 10' 1 CHEM I E f 'TYPICAL NOTES al ■ ARIA MOUNTED TINTED GLASS TE.T IIP COMCPETE PANELS DIIYVIT ACCENT a SHIELDED LIGHT TYP. PANITED S COLOIL VALUES ENID `- U V CST W2I I I I III e = W U ® ® ® ® ® 7 /_ ® ® f ® ® ` I Crx O �"'� -ENTRANCE CANOPY w w MAIN ENTRY \- DRYVIT FINISH SOUTH ELEVATION Z Y YO F- -A Q 6Z M m mQ L -� �T` REI 0 o o I ARCHITECTURE Cs and PLANNING ..— -- MISS Ai �CASING.�_ _- - - ..NIL CNK Mord. I I - -- IISM1.M Aril M11SOUKL D SEAM,.M K'N SEAARRYI NTIST I I Ep p IySSD EAA�saaaA WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION NO DESCNWIIpN DATE Silt PLAN REGFN 5-05-98 III .° ■11■■1■ CA1E1 II =. ■1111.■ 4 ■II - _ BUILDING 'IV ■ ELEVATIONS m• , ® C ® ® 'II II ® ® I ® ' ��� BUILDING 'C' mum SIMILAR NORTH ELEVATION EL. 96042/ELEV-RC DWG JOH No.. NNE 1YIEEI NO Of. i ELEVATIONS 10' 1 , !CHECK 8 I I i i /'-0•/ EI.-0' y 71Y-0• II0'-0• I EXTERIOR WAITING M. IP I l �.1. En IF Lf J IMRNELES MIER ROOF ACCESS U Y J CC J d Vw L w F- L /1 (¢ CC0 ./ L J W d 1- cc r r 1 r — r _ICr p= 6EOnfCIL NOON—1-- I J I I 10. i °En I--7 I I Er I y i I i > >; I I� I T--- 0¢ ¢z I L 1 Y YO I I PRUNE minima < Q z come • - CO• m CC I I / L=] t a I MINIM / / / / ARCHITECTURE / and PLANNING / / SOTCEA NW MMCru / T.ant.OM.MSCIPAA / SLAMS vEALimG1006 MU (70E1><TSOTO IAA Y.. 20'-0" 0 175'-0• -•_� NO DESCINPOON (AIL Nit PLAN KINN S-OS-S r J S II 1 I BUILDING 'D' FLOOR PLAN 1 • 1 Fie 960A2\BLDG-DO<G "I J. Nara JUNENO.I E.14-64 SHEET NO OF c BUILDING 'D' FLOOR PLAN I10' I 1 CHECK .A A ? i MIR -I II Cn J Q MAIN EMMY J/ d ll--. = W U ,- EAST ELEVATION ¢ ¢ZZ WI III ~ ¢Z A1111 ROOMIER.LIGHT TM. ORVVIT MIBI PANTED 3 COLON VALUES ¢ 0= co { _ � W ill X ¢ CCQ Z III i n■:�I _ a . «z SOUTH ELEVATION I C HITECTURE and PLANNING I QDWN1.. w .I .YAM BITTER— WEST ELEVATION ND cescRPION DAIS SITE PLAN IEUTE■ 5-05-9T BUILDING 'D' ELEVATION S NORTH ELEVATION P9[.96042/ELEV-D DWG •n t £0 NO.. NW SITU DO Of DA IE. i-DI-N i A-8 8 ELEVATIONS 110' 1 1 J !CHECK T I r ° M • 1 • CM . 0 t Y • J CC . J a lug-. a g= v w I- criC 1— a O WI w ~ C > ac. _ IX 0= aQ ¢a w w3 0¢ 2z . Y YO __11 Q QZ m m¢ ``\ EIMlMl� ARC NIIEC IU RE t Q and PLANNING VP OP CANOPY ���M`T' pVCf A.YHi.hwCIPw I ♦.uM CCM..MCM.Y 13.1.,wAvf UTAK URI) • b wank wwWL16r f.% PO IAAfuolo FUTU11E KEFIIODY LOCATI0NU I I I I nl 1 I 0 1 r u 1 I L 1 1 1 1 r---I P J 1 1 NO DE SCNp11011 DALE I 1 1 9R PINT REv[■ 5-06-F6 1 1 1 V^I 1 1 J J L 1 l L r l U — .ICT C a RIE I, NOP ACN�ooII BUILDING 'E' t FLOOR PLAN; I I • IFBgE LJ`-3 • TI, INIIENIW UP.G . _.- 240.- fAf 960A7\6LDG-E.DWG �ONTh II A.0 NO.. NNE 01EE1 MO(A BUILDING V* FLOOR PLAN DO' 1 1 , Cr4« w r WI all T 1� . , -- DI Nr [ti . NITIN II- 1� J CC YAM ENTRY '—" J a WEST ELEVATION C.) W w dc7z¢ TV V argon PA11fLR WIRT RCCMT BITMMC/E:YAT "WED RUu ARY r01MTE0,-'-- 'TYPICAL NOTES ¢ _ PLAIT®7 COL VA41E� �AIIC� RRTVIT PMI01 PHIf1DER UOLL TYI. V ✓ NNE ® ® ® .l 1 ... 11< az elm m¢ SOUTH ELEVATION I ARCHITECTURE and PLANNING moms A BUG.EEMCJN •.[M R.Cs1.EtlCIH Iau•al••E foa.ono Want w.o.410H9•I4 I176I3EaE030 FAX SV 0NA I- / ® ® ® N ® ® ® ® ® �� _ '" . , ® ® ® ® ® ® __ MO DESCRIPTION OAIE SITE PUR REWII S-OS-RI YARN ENTRY EAST ELEVATION , - -----, _ ICI o BUILDING re_ ENE ® r l__. ! I I I I I N E N ® P ® ELEVATIONS �E 1 NORTH ELEVATION f,. %OA2/B D0-E DWG ,n Aff N0. WM Y. lT MO Of OAT1' E-"T ORAWI NAJ A. 0 ELEVATIONS Do.L 1 CHUN msa.-ens.\1st.\n - r I. - t • ..—, w'•e. . MO' q� \ or mx..w' .v�o.`.`..TA.`. ai •Ilea.. s=I • T",• s• 00 10L6- I M / q=� �i.a.o♦`{..... .9, ,R "r i(q MOM. m .,M...;.� 0 8. /U.c/c AA-.� 3,vx O.wvao r.M �..... .�'/r°f cn��<. J/1 b .'.,,.," .....s -VV. A R'� e .� 1, :"s WA �A.m. J "kr AT se, .I.o DM Cl '��s'/ 1�.•r.. ."•`a`v , �r ........a t` a.'."e,�.,:\ 1`�".�'.o"�.,..�e.>,emu oo y...ae.v.:b•�..oT...„00 ~ (1 k • r...y,,se./.... �� N; � '!•' me •r';< ••V '••.>..,�y ` . C .LST9' ��;' � "1+�.�'•_i1 .NV-r _ ,�, / • .. • �•«:: .. ._ ifJ'G�q V •e u.m•...M id WA aI:: Aa�sty �� i _ • \ .. .,.... _ wr�, . . ^"VT.'",MINI Sia • • m O �0 .fi.• ' 1 • . n : ' tt I'.'\ ` o ..m. m.n wMTn,v®M 11 t ,.. 'i .`, .� •'• �', «tom-Y •4=/`. • 4. ♦ P 4- / I. .M.a. 1 msy° e • it" •' r , ,•‘.s•— mot. • %ems` ;" i / ' • .3 d e f i `AlC�y t• ' SX • •• i`• •--`4=_ // • :• / ' / % ;, ,:.v....,.,.....i....uv�o.▪o. �..a1 6 .wf i r .w AOYz Y •' •,J�i // / .vs.,,ems,= 1 p 1 q JEALLI _ ♦ / 6 i Ili / pan Imo.. r r .t 11 `•1 e,3 „. ,.`�,tr o ° • /e ♦'• '/' a I J, o.•M.. , 1_,- 110 v1.7 \ 8 `tom' ~'1^'\ .'il • / • / . j* 1. ,/ o IM AM osa....▪• Z•. m.: • 1. 4 Px 1 1 / / • �� OM IS ATI MOM. 1 PI 110/001 mamma ammo moonset norm,. ..[MITI-V 1 / /, F: = — I i '' w vT:v"9 ( JY_,` i/i' i l °°...mw.°`..�o`+,""o s.'ma. �"">o.'".. M fs, V/Mal In r •• / 1 I..'- --I, j 1E_�`Pvas I ; _A_ `` t. _ rc _�a000allr fir',: 1t ••' .......7 •eI , cr::./# ' fame •i ,caws .. sMwrl ' - ,..----\ r .♦ 1 f , • ' t i \--T\ s `,.„,_ \ ,_ • , ..... __L._ --1- . 1. ! 7____--7_____, I a -\ ......� _ I T - _ _ If R__ .0 • r•_ it r` 1 / 1 n.� AMC, ` 1: ;� \`, 4. .r-'' ' I I ! 7► oki: 1 • i ' / / , "it; ♦°` ,.' ♦'` f(--•..; LOT•, �/ cillikX\ � ` r :11j rl ILLQ • ,i/CP' //// is AP;44404 Nt#„. (4„414,,, „/ ,. .. Iv 4,4.. i _ ‘‘,..,0 \ ,. • , ,, I,/ ,,,,,-•w'lie, 1 ,..Ncipt s\ i' 1, i,, L I • .'r , / r�, ((("7••,, ,,M10-_.. ,. .. LOTS r , \ ; . M. ,ii,:'� ,,- c� / _a ny \ • . / ;' ,• . ,iWy\•,-‘,.,°.-1 4s/.", • / L / r , y�• / J� j'> i�I:! •� .riC �. `f y E :. ♦ ;\ � r a�-l 11 r, MM.nw.a.w.e. ' ./ i 1.p'L4 LOT 1 '..... 7�f ' ♦<• S•�C. { f �t' *•�'.� '' . • / i,J !, 'i.• 10 /,`i N / 1"Of04 f '1.**.'. **.'. �`7 _- ry— \,.• O , On' ate.•,'''. ' 1• ( , _- 1 _/ • . 1�� ..ter,., igi , .•. T, ' .�♦�. � ///`'/ ♦♦ \ �.r OA Pam / .�� 1 itst , 1 .. 41t t4.A4 OOP alF*4-: 1/4.Cii,occl., 'N.Willik if \b" - \,;,1:-.- ,,,t%) dr' ,o . ` , 00" ..__;_,,_,___:______ Ail&,b1.\A;t: A or .\ ‘V‘ Iir, ,.'ller",,tier Ow f• ' N'F'154? LOT 2: '‘'‘N \'„sr";./ \‘‘, ./Al%:_%__ INY,/ 000 -. \i a 4 414191.. ' 4(c ;'<) ,00 • \) > './ 4 '40, Y / 1 r I sGS INC.i �r.�.n*Ex — �� 0W _4/ ' �C, ,/i ice: BUSH. ROED t HrtCHtNO3. IN _ j �� I. V ,. "�� aw mocnls•LAW swncrws 4, �` '^+tt `` \' •�\+ ' r i, 44/ ' , GRAPHIC SCALE CITY OF RENTON •`� si, ` - N . ,. ,///'i "' ,� oc.wwr.rtNT d .wlic WORMS • ........ l.1!-E _ �- i /1 I / 'n SCHEMATIC GRADING k UTILITY PLAN 1 ....n A u f ' TRACT B BLACKRITR CORPOR TE PARK o ..�,„a �-. `` HEN .... I." 1 /yea ...... - *mg 5-01-9. ....I Wit PAO . -2 i is11i.. -- �� \ ee.9 ,ny,. MWF11 Nir 1,40 1r. _- A-ikrr n1�'gy. ^� y r -\__ ,ad v......, p • _1 . -./ • my •• •, wig + .e.aosseaa ssroraeeoeeese`aoe:a.eeo.;�iiii•J U +�. v«..�... 11A--, - r w e*1� , ��I` allit, ' p..° .��i _ sill oo- 1miieo.so irei eoA:oeaNgto_oa.u. isOe. ,�,'TD ', • ,) ` \ \ \ / J/ . ,,/ q le / oe�mieeoe'seess y °`Igf�vR'a�.c�{ , s 1/odwe�,,trip., .+Jtf..4 ' + tb /A r.r)` > f 4 - __ — _Ae'•n.p `\ \ Diu V:°p:. �/ _ •IllLO11Y(:w Vq�'�'Z -y+7,t./r,,.1.,h�f +I�� ,‘,// ( t� __ �IllLHriGIL__.- . _poi I ty a ? ;<\ 'r\VP. 17-- _�. ..r.¢ _ el 141-1141TWA10.1.1granag7 ":14411 3! M bM ' 'fp -__� � _ (1,11-10 $ , ►ss 4 ',?-t17. _ *; Nit11,llMv"... 1iA �S r 1. lYi letw.""r ` +♦ Ir(,•IIl ■ Ky� �.1 Yam„Yew•. � mw! . ` ue• ! p; rf '."` i i••s°r•v,r!_, '. � ` [ _'�� d ��i��� P:; ��� � 4 �e�.= � :.1. .: i + � I111 III tit l \\r,�e I ,.1I.I Har`�wf- S' iRy {yAoND'^ � . \1 a�iF.a'/wq •—11 'A�'W'MS 11 } I."eCi ll�/V/i :' \ \ �N �' '1 ' �/ *✓<„AH�A►•'-' r6 �oC�t'_�i . l n,l u � ` f L E.' Jw - - •i ' '4. . • i pi �• ��°A4`e-o'�a :��` � 4�•��w.wO:Cnl�t�!�'� �dr•o��d, ,v���Vva 4:• 9" �... t�"• ;/- \ ./ 1 �' •� :,,d oyP-` %11 I ,� .�''tIfI v ,o '3 �'I �% F �p" f; \C. . . . Ill r !II Irti �►. �, .,�4Pi-.ate �.�,t... lI'i , ..�diV�uiii ' Air- �4/4 --A /Mr I i 11; * --�� • is 5' \t � I�� \ r f'"+�,""; �1 ��$�i / ] r '�II�: i f ��, ` `�o� vim/• mot- / /'// �• !i � "" �l / ,r' / / ° fl i _ !ram �� ‘1100� o. . • \` �` e.• ` \�� HMI n.Nr.D _ 1�i •���a•iai.,,i�a.cvpia �.�,. ��h ��,®./ ��, . c`\ 4 . . ' —I �'$ i ihm t1;;� fir e. .t:: ./ 9 \ `4 \� r� ! a!b 1 11,E ,. . . ,.f F\ -, j`'t.14 r•vi•rri iiv J [ ►__ -__ I _.___...._DUILDINGE•• ,P*.\\ \‘'',A \-'4•Aiiiiimiti 51,1,11 .f 'j" y Atl \ • \\--N,,,‘ .... u Is, • , ....it- .`rr ��_ /'�. - ill- eir1 '; :1 elf= IA �:' ''�' \ a �s \ k.\•��c\ =w Z. �� II ��;;� , om; :+. pcgla . ..1 \ \ � / V Z-. 17 - v ..., , „mil \ '�yy111\\\ ���� �r,• - ' �e' III —YI,� bk•1/`MrMf _d; '•o`, 1s;' \Mi I/W�1Vi Q. +/ Jj QI in ♦' .- . 1 Al OP•- .- + 'f� lYi.•ofnlo' • .7, • __ 1 ,- - . , w SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN .. \�r _ _ ' ' ' , i,.a • t0gi, V i 1 L11— - - - T.- ID .. -1‘.0.0 _ \.........--- ..,, s I.�' r `f` A€ ! 110 .r—VI ! yam * / Q 3 t G \ ) 1\ I 1+11Tf-FOR►lAM(A7tR1A1IFf;EM.cF'F SIIFIT I-7 � , rr�.� L-1 I SW 7TH ST. '' i • -------------- -f---- _ l ) i: _, L •. ,. I ‘ . . •.--- _ , I . I I II M • a I :I I ' ,, ,, ._ . .... ..... Wm... ........... i MOE • 1 , .... .. ..•.•„€._,...c...) • • =te , l• PH d .... .1.. . 1 •:• - \ i ',, i I i . • ... ,., • ..., •. .:. 4119r It ,, . , 0 f gi 6 • . s,s, V. 11 ,. • _6 \ •4,,i. .•-.,+ 4AIIL ir. •. - , • 110,• ••., go. I . • . ."0 \ , - ..."" .•+ .0. ' .,:,LIW0 40; .•toe* '• • • . •(% A . . 2'C"..., , tic 1 11 • 'woo A...IP • f • •., • ..• \ .. • . • APPROXIMATE NIGH WATER Mt at.... , • •••,.. . ... \ ........• ......- — -- -...... •• • . • \ • . •. • • . • AL , ...•••• • : • * • • 1011 ,-;•." nr...:96.glb/kIRB., a1,,,s, • \, . ••••••••••*:.•-A4k...P`'•'°**,-;•ov-s-- "--ks.. ..7:-.4,-7--- ir,,--- ---—_-ksill;„. • --, - • . .••..• ......_. ... c.,,,ik\vp,- --,...,,,,zer...t.:4, 1 eAttrklyurzw.),.. •. , , • •• :•4,•..„----- • .. 4,...,4,, 1:.10"0.0:*...„,...._..,:.. :.„...........e....c7..... „....,,_.,..11:. I I.' . • ''N, N \ / / '\ • • . .•• ••... ..... • ,----5 gag& di/110 •..04:41 ho 4f iN__,....T imiot.sw,T.kmr...%41, Au.... • N ..-,,e,fir • ‘ . • __.----;- jaw-. .a•At..e,--N,..Ar—Ar:fwg i'itivr.04 r$.._,./-, .16 itefetw4se,, 4 4‘.-.OB. • '. .,Nit \,,....ton'.4-11e•4J• • _-- .4- eirp•-.....,,O.A 4E,4,i; _.,„,„....t..,• ..6111.11 '101.J111ka.. .4.-de&VAIOW-‘47.01.00 _ __,_,,.. ..,-;&"-'7•0110:4 *.1"*.., Pi ,.ljdili • • *41114i.:,`„ \ CA •...;•••• ,...:"41044".-:--- . * .:-•4101 JJKIAL~..'NI,. - , ••,44NABLAIOLDT.B.JOB LIC74,004.45,DG-:.•:IS:NP.erF.J.DROLAIDep-a•mA.67,1•./ .•••ti..” • -,ipw4 , e.... • .-- ..--,---r.--,.."."4 4---- '-•AF-&falai,:.••7,ri_. - -.4.---.,6-t,-,.',,4.4-—"-, ito-•----,....--• n-,,,,I,A.. ...,...7,01. ..4.. .Zis, _ ...-)r, • \ \ S W 1 .4100111"111641jV-V;411141' . 4 '• 116"11-'_0"1111F"Plie _ II_ :461.2411111F iiii L IT_ 71 _ es ,,,. _... ..._•••,*,•14 ... = E . ....._e‘,{ woo f1.0114a,-AK - --_ 11.14,s, 11-1:162i.14—...... \ 1''• „......• __•-•,_.1„„„0.( r.paw. 01-1.1.x.'Ir'• '7'4' "" ---;:'''—' \ o fx I • • 111 • 1 1 -11:„.4 I 1'1\ AM& to • N. \ , - - ..7------ ------ , ii77-1-------- - t 0 ..... •...ml NI ——71— •\ # e ININIM = \ ss, '', i i ,..... , --I- • , IRN•ii mi . 111111111 1 1 fal u I fl.• Is --- EIE imi • . ; .....- Ei )\ •=4 ca i . .....--• BUILDING A BUILDING• I= ' I ‘s( • / .1t , i . —1 • , •a I 1 . Ell I.NMI CIA . i • I• " / MI= "*" BUILDROGC imp _ • , s., d •••••. 1--- MIMI FE- i I [—II r -li• i= ----io---r -- --Th—r--L--f— MI s.../•1 s' ^1 / ____ ..j jig- I. _ _ Mr atma iiii •.1-.•_(s. _ _T.1.:s•,/'' /'11' t 1 li 4 ......,:-) - • __ II 0 I — SC..AH.'E 1.4M....,.'A,..TI C4 LALilNDiSClLA1i4P1.tIE..4.itPL4/Atk N0'...t i l _NO114T•E.FOR PL-AN.T M-AT1ER1IA1LLI_EI GE-1-DE1_MI E1E--T-L-1.3 .iiiIi13lI ' - .400 1•Jr Ba r 4, 13:1 .,. ,•,/ •A it) .f/ Itf1;':.•,-::."1.:,‘:.,`•::.,,/•:::.,•,::••.i:;.•4".:,.e`;._.:, • il' , / a Mw 21Ili .,,• 4-.-.—\ ---.--: : : : : ;‘.), , •• ,., -.'••••!A , -- , � f� SCHEMATIC PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND rY'' I • t ....r.a........ ir`w. tit I i�, • t t �y 1 ; Marna rum••�M: " 1 g K . . `....•wr.•...�. ' SECTION A SECTION B �..... 147.4 tn. a....r.....MK.....r.y�•...... .....cn......w•u....,..• ...... ..a...+........... 3 Jf. :.r.:.w.....w. c�, d F .1,• ...J�.•r I .; z /1r..''_ti.,, At SCHEMATIC NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND �: • a. ...—r 0r Z.�'•••...= ..•...... SECTION C SECTION D ......600..,�..-"..... ICH OS I V ....�....r"..".-,. Z� inr'ra ,l_ .rr.....r.._._ 3 W • r,f '• ...•r.. p CJ - K�„�.� _v � i ,: 0 -I .-_.� ":. ;I l w fir_,. L. .• tj Pala DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFER PLANTING DETAIL SPLIT RAIL FENCE DETAIL W .. ^ xr+ HS, LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION NOTES ra Dw m L .•.......rr..rrrr...rr...r+•Yr.r.. .FU a y,..rJ�....W.............r....r•...•.. r . w s...r..r....rrr...wow.....w.n�.T...... n. ..... • ..�1...r....•...•....r•.............r..........r. ye,. N.. 0 . .�.............r..r•..• • a..m2....r..•1.r..•.r..•.r♦....r...r..•,.r I w VW1 ..� 1 I/..M•.i.a'T' 0 Q 0 —mow ••..Y.....••...M...... ..SOM .�....rr.r..r w•r.r•r•........Mod I.r W..•�.... . _Avey...•..w..... ..r.1...••.....•..•.•S5 • •• r' . ' • .r..........rY•.•..,r•...�•..1...r.........••rr - . 'a .. ..4 _� ..� •.1.T+4.•/Iwal I ,'• CM ♦ IA.wHr..1.....r..rTw•✓..•.. f;.M SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL ,.. ..r. L-3 j) IIfl1 � Letter to Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner,from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998 AUG • 11998 Suzanne Krom, President Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation WY OF RENTON 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW H RING EXAMINER Seattle, WA 98126-2715 August 27, 1998 Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner, fax: 425-430-6523 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Black River Corporate Park, Tract B, proposed development: Noncompliance with the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park, Tracks A, B, and C. Dear Mr. Kaufman, We are writing to you as signers of the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park, Tracks A, B, and C (MOA), which is binding until January 2000. We have demonstrated by a matrix where the proposed Black River development on Tract B is not in compliance with the MOA. For your reference, a copy of the MOA is enclosed. We have brought these inconsistencies to the attention to the applicant, who is represented by Royce Berg, of LPN Architecture and Planning, in a letter dated July 8, 1998. A copy of our letter to the applicant is enclosed. Mr. Berg responded via letter July 9, a copy of which is enclosed. In the applicant's letter, he seems to admit that the MOA applies, but acknowledges that the proposed project is not fully consistent with the MOA. Please note that there are two statements in Mr. Berg's attached letter that are inaccurate and require correction. 1. Mr. Berg stated that"the proposed project was also specifically provided to your organization in November/December of 1997 by the City with little direct input until last week." In fact, representatives from several citizens' environmental groups attended two meetings called by the City of Renton. Jana Huerter or Jennifer Henning contacted me (Suzanne Krom) in June 1997,telling me that she was calling on behalf of Larry Warren to ask if I was interested in meeting with her and Mr. Warren to help them identify reasons they might use to convince the developer to use a scaled-back alternative project on Tract B, instead of the original project described in the MOA. She told me to invite others who might like to be involved in this meeting, which I did. At the first meeting, Mr. Warren showed us a reduced copy of the site plan, similar to the one currently being considered, and said that the City wanted the developer(whom he would not name because he said they would not be pleased if they know that he was meeting with us)to use the scaled-back project on Tract B. He asked ), us for suggestions that they(the City) might present to the developer to convince them to adopt the smaller project. Gerry Adams said that the changed wildlife conditions on the site, especially the increased number of herons and heron nests, would support scaling back the project. Mr. Warren responded very enthusiastically and positively to this suggestion. The citizens' representatives asked if we could take a closer look at the site plan, and we noticed that this site plan did not have a scale. We asked if a scale was available, or if a larger format of the site plan might be available that might include a scale and would be easier to read, and were told it was only a proposed project, so this was the only one available. We asked many questions about the proposed project, including what mitigation conditions would be associated with this project,what plans there were for surface water management and drainage, what wetland delineations this project was going to be based on, and what the 1of 3 Letter to Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner,from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998 distance the proposed project would be from the heron colony. The site plan that we were shown proposed a project for Tract B that was to be a tech mix,primarily light industrial, with a two-story building height restriction. As mentioned earlier, the drawing was reduced in size and had no scale. Additionally, it had no details about drainage and surface water management, and Mr. Warren and Ms. Huerter/Henning said they were not able to provide these details. We asked them to contact us when they did have these critical pieces of information. They said they would do that. Mr. Warren and Ms. Huerter/Henning asked us what we thought of this site plan. We said that we were pleased that the project might be scaled back, but without additional information about scale, distance from the heron colony, drainage and surface water management plans, and mitigation conditions, we could not evaluate the project. Approximately four months later, Ms. Huerter contacted me to invite us to a second meeting, which took place in November. Mr. Warren did not attend the second meeting. We attended the meeting specifically with the understanding that we would be provided the information we had requested in the first meeting. Absolutely no new information was provided to us by the City in that second meeting. The site map still had no scale, and no information regarding what mitigation conditions would be associated with this project, what plans there were for surface water management and drainage,what wetland delineations this project was going to be based on, and what the distance the proposed project would be from the heron colony. We (the representatives from the citizens environmental groups)repeated our request to her-- that the City contact us when this information was available. She said she would. I contacted Ms. Huerter several times after the second meeting to check if the information was available, and was told it was not. At no time were we told by the City or anyone else that the alternative site plan represented a revised site plan, nor did Alper/First City (or anyone else) ask us for consent(written or otherwise)to a modification of the site plan in the MOA, as required in the MOA(page 13). Additionally, the MOA stipulates that any major revision to the site plan must be in the spirit and intent of the MOA (page 13). The current proposed project, while an improvement over the site plan in the MOA because of its reduced size, represents a major threat to the heron colony if it is constructed without appropriate construction season limits that are specific to this colony, as well the other mitigation conditions in the MOA. Alper/First City did not send representatives to either of these meetings.Nor did Alper/First City or the City of Renton ever provide us with the mitigation conditions or the basis for determining the distances from the heron colony, i.e., whether the measurements were based on the nearest nesting tree to the proposed development. It was only after receiving the June 16, 1998 Staff Report that we learned that current measurements were based on the center of the island where the heron colony is located, and not the nearest nesting tree to the proposed project. The MOA stipulates that the distances must be measured from the nearest heron tree in the colony to the construction. This could represent up to a 100-foot difference, meaning that the construction would occur far closer if conducted in the manner proposed in the June 16, 1998 ERC Staff Report. Additionally, even though the applicant states in his letter that the project is based on the conditions set forth in the MOA, it is clear that most of the conditions in the MOA were ignored. In negotiating the MOA, the citizens' groups compromised significantly on mitigation conditions, especially for buffers and constructions season limits. We made those compromises in order to achieve a settlement. However, we did build into the MOA contingency measures in the event the herons exhibited signs of stress if development encroached too closely. The conditions in the MOA represent the absolute minimum mitigation that may protect the heron colony. 2. The second inaccurate statement in Mr. Berg's July 9 letter is the following: `Buildings are located further away than the elevated four-story parking structure" (in the MOA). In fact, it is difficult to accurately compare the differences in distance between those in the ERC Staff 2of 3 Letter to Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner,from Suzanne Krom,et al. August 27, 1998 Report and the MOA because in the ERC Staff Report the measurements are based on the center of the island where the heron colony is located, and, as I stated earlier in this letter, all distances in the MOA are based on the nearest nesting tree to the construction. Based on an estimated 100-foot difference between the measurement approaches,the north edge of the parking lot in the current site plan is approximately 400 feet from the nearest nesting tree, and the wetpond and utility easement encroach even closer to the colony. Even if we don't know the exact distances, it is clear that major outdoor construction will take place in extremely close proximity to the colony -- far closer than the 500-foot mark established in the MOA. In the MOA, the parking garage was 500 feet from the colony, as measured from the nearest nesting tree to the construction. No construction was planned closer to the colony than the garage. In the current proposed site plan, the parking lot ends at a 500-foot mark(based on measurements taken from the center of the island), but a wetpond and utility easement are to be constructed between the north edge of Tract B (closest point to the colony),far closer than the 500-feet mark from the heron colony established in the MOA. The north edge of the parking lot will be significantly closer than 500 feet if the distances continue to be based on measurements from taken from the center of the island on which the colony is located. We are bringing this to your attention because the MOA governs the development of this site until January 2000 and the City is a party to the MOA, and therefore the MOA should govern this proposal. Accordingly, we ask that at minimum, you establish conditions for this project that are consistent with the MOA. Sincerely, Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation GLA Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton ids Preservation Bruce Harpham, President, Rainier Audubon Society Charles Lennox, Conservation Chair, Seattle Audubon Society Attachments: • Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. • Royce Berg's July 9, 1998 response to July 8, 1998 letter • MOA (mailed copy only, not faxed) cc: Jana Huerter and Larry Warren, City of Renton, fax: 425-430-7300 Royce Berg, LPN Architects, fax: 206-583-0708 Tom Malphrus/Trudy Thomas Friends of Black River 3of 3 it Suzanne Krom, President (off Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation 4715 1/2 - 36th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126-2715 July 8. 1998 Royce Berg LPN Architects &Planners 1535 Fourth Avenue South, Suite D Seattle, WA 98134 Fax: 206-583-0708 Phone: 206-583-8030 Subject: Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park,Tracks A, B, and C as itf relates to the proposed development of Tract B. Dear Mr. Berg, I appreciate your returning my call of June 26. In our conversation you said that the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Blackriver Corporate Park, Tracks A,B, and C (MOA) remains in effect. I was reassured by that, and have been evaluating the ERC Staff Report with that in mind. The proposal as described in the ERC Staff Report does not appear to be in compliance with the MOA in ways that are described in the chart that starts on page 3 of this letter. I hope that I am in error of my reading of the current proposed project for Tract B, and that the conditions required in the MOA will be adhered to. Additionally, we have never received a request from you on behalf of the developer to approve a change of an explicit term of the MOA, nor to make a major adjustment to its revised project. Furthermore, we do not approve any changes to the conditions (terms) set forth in the MOA. They were important then, and they are even more important now. The Black River heron colony has thrived under protection of the conditions in the MOA, and the result is exactly what the City of Renton intended and wanted to protect. The Black River colony has become very successful, and is now the largest colony in King County. Its size may well be the reason that this colony has successfully defended itself against the bald eagles and crows, according to Ted Muller, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW believes that if the herons are forced to relocate, the colony will be fragmented, leading to a loss in this defensive capability and resumption of high predatory losses. There is no other nesting habitat within many miles with the attributes of the Black River site that could accommodate a colony of this size. We do not oppose the project. We do oppose the relaxing/elimination of the conditions that the City of Renton agreed to in the MOA, which of course the developer, the City of Renton, and four environmental groups are parties to. As documented in the attached chart, there are several major areas where the proposal as described in the ERC Staff Report violates the MOA. Incidentally, our evaluation is ongoing and there may be additional items that will be provided at the hearing. We intend to enter this letter and your response as exhibits at the hearing. Ali P ge 1 of 7. Revised Ju 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent no ompliance with MOA. i i i i We would appreciate your response to this letter and the identified points of noncompliance in the attached chart no later than end of day Thursday, July 9, so that we can determine what position to take before the Hearing Examiner. Thank you. Sincerely, 0 712,4 ru \SF-4 Y\ Suzanne Krom, President, Citizens for Renton Wildlands Preservation Gerry Adams, Citizens for Renton ildlands Preservation Bruce Ha ham, President, Rainier Audubon Society tY Lea- Lc� ' Cs4�'tF-�� av�+ asp lJ/�Du Seattle Audubon Society I Attachment: Chart comparing MOA with ERC Staff Report cc: Jana Huerter, City of Renton, fax: 425-7300, telephone: 425-430-7218 it ' 1 I Page 2 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. i I� i MOA Requirements for Black River ERC Staff Report/Description c ' Heron Colony Final Project Items That Are in Non-compliance With MOA Recital Number 22. Page 8: ...Great Blue Heron Noncompliance. Page 6 of the ERC Staff Report experts have recommended a setback of 660— 1552 approves outdoor parking and two office feet from the colony... is appropriate, and while the structures within 600 feet, which is in Citizen Appellants have agreed to the location of noncomplicance with the MOA. improvements and the parking garage as shown on the Schematic Site Plans ..., which includes the location of a portion of the garage and improvements within 6(X) feet, they want to emphasize that no other private improvement shall be located in the 600-foot area except as provided in Section II.B and otherwise in this Agreement, and that no public improvements shall be located there unless and until the City has adopted a final Master Plan for that area. Landscaping. Subsection 3. Page 16. First City will Not addressed. also landscape a 30-foot strip extension of this buffer on Tract B between the Buffer Area and the parking garage, exclusive of the fire lane area ("Landscape Extension"), which Landscape Extension is also shown shaded in gray on the Schematic Site Plan. The types and locations of plant materials to be provided in both the Landscape Area and the Landscape Extension shall be in substantial conformance with the landscape areas plan which is attached as Exhibit H and by this reference incorporated herein ("Landscape Areas Plan"). Landscaping. Subsection 3. Page 16. First City may Not addressed. relocate certain existing trees on Tracts A and B to comply with the Landscape Areas Plan. Landscaping. Subsection 3. Page 16. First City will Not addressed. comply with local, state and federal regulations regarding the use of chemicals in landscape maintenance, and will accommodate all suggestions of the Parties that First City determines are economically and technically feasible regarding which herbicides and pesticides to use. Fence. Subsection 5. Page 18. First City shall install Page 2. Noncompliance: The fence described it a six-foot tall chain-link fence with earth tone- the MOA would provide a true barrier that colored slats in the areas described as follows... (the precludes human entry closer than 600 feet to ti fence delineates the 600-foot mark along the heron colony. It also would help buffer the ligh north/northwest sides of Tract B, to preclude human from vehicle headlights in the parking lots. On intrusion closer to the heron colony, as shown as a page 2 of the ERC Staff Report, the applicant dotted line in Exhibit G of the MOA). proposes that a 4-foot high wood split rail fence he installed along the 25-foot wide portions of Page 3 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. i i Also, in Conditions Regarding Traffic, Parking the 50-foot wide average width buffer to the Garage. and Parking Construction. Section F. on wetland No. 1 located on the northeast portion of page 29 ...the top level of the parking garage shall be the adjacent site (Lot 4 of Tract B). This will not open: however, the north wall of the garage will be meet the intent or the requirements of the MOA.. extended to a height of 48 inches from floor level. A reasonable number of potted plantings shall also be On page 6 of the Staff Report, the applicant placed on the top level of the parking garage to states that existing and proposed natural provide visual relief and reduce some incidental vegetative buffers, dead and down material headlight glare (included to show importance of (stumps etc.), ornamental landscaping, and reducing headlight glare.) wetponds preclude human intrusion into the heronry. This also will not meet the intent or requirements of the MOA. Many people attempt to get as close as they can to the heron colony. Some of them are quite determined to get as close as they can.The vegetative buffer will NOT deter the determined people from getting too close to the heron colony. If the applicant or his representatives argue that unfriendly vegetation will be planted and thus be an effective barrier, this vegetation provides little to no protection during the winter/spring months when deciduous vegetation is dormant. The purpose and intent of the fence described in the MOA was to prevent human intrusion within 600 feet of the heron colony. The purpose and intent of the 48-inch extension of north wall of the garage proposed in the original site plan was to help buffer the glare from car headlights. A properly designed fence will help accomplish both of these things. Headlight glare not addressed in ERC Staff Report.. Conditions Regarding Construction Season Limits, Page 6. The first sentence in the ERC Staff Monitoring, and Zones, pages 19 - 23. First City Report that addresses this issue is unclear in its shall observe seasonal limitations on major outdoor position, which reads (page 6), "Establishing construction within a 700-foot radius, measured time periods for the use of heavy equipment for from the nearest heron tree in the Heron Rookery, the entire site for outside of the time period from for the period beginning January 15 and ending on January 15th through June 30`h is not supported" June 15 ("Construction Season Limitations") of any However, the context of the remaining text leads given year to protect the nesting of herons at the us to believe that the ERC Staff Report is Heron Rookery. attempting to claim that no construction season limitations are necessary. Expert testimony Major outdoor construction is defined as during the hearing will show that this simply is "preloading, grading, foundations, structural steel, not true. installation of dryvit panels,roofing and hardscape. Additionally, the MOA specifies that the distances are measured from the nearest heron tree in the colony to the construction. According to the ERC Staff Report, "The 500-foot distance is measured from the center point of the island." Page 4 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. (page 6) This could represent up to a 1(Xl-fool difference, meaning that the construction could occur far closer if conducted in the manner proposed in the ERC Staff Report, than in the MOA. The distances should always be measured from the nearest heron tree in the heron colony to the construction project, as per the MOA. The ERC Staff Report states that additional noise impacts from construction of the proposed project would be short-term in nature. Six to eight nesting seasons represents a significant impact on the heron population. This year there are between 55-65 nests at the Black River colony. Using 60 nests to estimate the impacts to the heron populations over six to eight years: 60 nests times a minimum average of 2* young per nest= 120 young this year alone, multiplied by 6 to 8 years of construction impacts =720—960 potential young herons that would not fledge. Another important point is that after the construction is completed, there is no indication that the heron colony would quickly, if ever, regain its current size and viability, meaning that the impacts to the Black River herons resulting from a six to eight-year construction project of this kind could be significant, severe, and permanent. The Black River heron colony provides a substantial proportion of the young heron population produced in. Snohomish. King, Pierce Counties (central Puget Sound). *BR has more than 2 young per nest this year. Also, the ERC Staff Report states that"only the construction of about one-half of the area of the wetponds and a small area(less than 500 square feet) of the circulation drive on the north side of Building C would occur within the 500-foot radius of the heronry." Heron experts contend that herons are disturbed by development within 660— 1,552 feet (see recital 22 of the MOA). If the wetponds and other aspects of the project are constructed during the periods when the herons are acutely sensitive to disturbance (they are always sensitive to human disturbance, but during the breeding season, they are acutely sensitive and require even greater setbacks than during the nonbreeding season), this further encroachment into the 600-foot limit specified in the MOA represents a great threat to the herons. Page 5 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. Any major outdoor construction activities wit•in at least 700 feet of the heron colony (as measured from the nearest colony tree to the development) should occur after the young herons have fledged and left the Black River site. which normally occurs by late July. Monitoring if First City Wants to Begin Construction Not addressed. Early. Section c. Page 20. If First City believes that the Herons have not returned to nest at the Heron Rookery by March 15 of any year, and wishes to begin construction prior to June 15 of that year, First City must monitor the Heron Rookery to produce corroborating evidence of the Heron's absence... If the Heron Expert determines that there are no Heron pairs engaged in Heron Nesting Activities for one week prior to and on March 15, then Major Outdoor Construction can occur within the Construction Limitations Zone after the completion of the one monitoring, but no sooner than March 16 of that year. Good Faith Efforts to Give Additional Limitation Not addressed. Period. Section d. Page 21. For any year in which the Construction Season Limitations are required, First City shall make a good faith effort to structure its construction schedule as is economically and technically feasible for the portion of the parking garage located within the Construction Limitation Zone such that First City minimizes Major Outdoor Construction in this area between the period from January 1 to January 15 and the period from June 15 to July 1 for that year. Monitoring If Citizen Appellants Desire Additional Not addressed. Protection Outside of Construction Limit Zone. Subsection e. Page 22. If the Citizen Appellants or the City believes that First City's Major Outdoor Construction activities outside of the Construction Limit Zone during the Construction Limitation Season are having adverse impacts on Heron Nesting Activities, they may engage a Heron Expert at their expense to conduct monitoring to determine whether the Herons are experiencing adverse impacts and whether this disruption is causally related to First City's Major Outdoor Construction activities.. Other Construction Limitations. Subsection 2. Page Not addressed. 23. First City shall use only auger-cast-in-place piling and shall not engage in any pile-driving in construction of any of the structures shown on the Schematic Site Plan. P-1 Pond Water Quality Management Plan. Not addressed. Subsection 3. Page 28. If the City implements a water quality management plan ("P-1 Plan") to reduce water quality impacts on the P-1 Pond, to be Page 6 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. paid for by all landowners who contribute run-off to i the P-1 Pond, First City shall contribute its proportionate share of the funding for the P-1 Plan Wetlands Mitigation. Subsection 4. Page 28. First Not addressed. City shall mitigate for the proposed filling of approximately 0.14 acres of wetlands with low functional values on Tracts A and B by creating an additional new or enhanced wetland area adjacent to the old Black River channel on Tract B. Wetlands Buffer. Subsection 5. Page 29. First City Appears to be satisfied by a 100-foot buffer a shall establish a buffer around the old Black River natural vegetation and landscaping that would he channel wetland on Tract B averaging 50 feet in provided along the P-1 Channel on the west width with no portion of the buffer to be less than 25 portion of the site. (per page 6 of the ERC St: ff feet in width. Report.) Site Lighting. Subsection 2. Page 31. First City shall Per page 3 of the ERC Staff Report. Appears o use down light standards in its parking areas and be met as long as down lighting or lighting at other lighted site areas. least as shielded as down lighting is used. Th City of Renton staff responsible for approvin the lighting should verify with WDFW or oth r equivalent agency that the lighting that is usec will have the minimum impacts to the herons nd other wildlife living on and near the site. Other lighted areas not addressed. I Page 7 of 7. Revised July 8, 1998 letter to Royce Berg from Suzanne Krom. regarding apparent noncompliance with MOA. ;1 GREAT BLUE HERON ASSESSMENT 5A-C6 6-45 Black River Heron Colony Renton, Washington August 27, 1998 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. Report To: Mr. Dean Erickson Blackriver Rivertech, L.L.C. 700 - 5th Avenue Suite 6000 Seattle,Washington 98104 Title: Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Renton, Washington Project Number: 98044-001 Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC. ' 5711 Northeast 63rd Street Seattle, Washington 98115 (206) 525-8122 Date: August 27, 1998 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rc St. Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122 Principals: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Dorothy A. Milligan Raedeke, M.S. Wildlife Biologist Author: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D. Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA Project Personnel: Nichola K. Elston, B.S. Project Administrator 11 RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC 5711 Northeast 63rc St. Seattle, WA 98115 (296) 52:4 8122 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON 2 2.1 Regulatory Status of Great Blue Herons 2 2.2 Regional Status of the Great Blue Heron Population 2 2.3 Heron Population Status in King County 3 2.4 Studies of Heron Response to Disturbance 4 2.5 Review of Status of Regional Heron Colonies 7 2.6 Studies of Nest Colony Abandonment 9 3.0 IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PLAN 13 3.1 Current Site Plan Proposal 13 3.2 History and Status of the Black River Colony 13 3.3 Black River Heron Colony Buffers 15 3.4 Construction Season Limitations 17 4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION 20 5.0 LIMITATIONS 22 6.0 LITERATURE REVIEWED 23 FIGURES AND TABLES 30 111 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a technical review of the status of the Black River great blue heron colony (located in the City of Renton north/northwest of Blackriver Corporate Park in approximately 100 acres of permanent City open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat), and the potential impacts to the herons associated with the current development proposal for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Tract B short plat. The review can be divided into three principal sections. The first section is a review of the status and relevant biology of the great blue heron. The second section is an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the great blue herons and heron colony, and the proposed mitigation measures for project development. The final section is a review of the more comprehensive Black River habitat-based approach to the management and preservation of wildlife resources. , Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 2 2.0 REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON 2.1 REGULATORY STATUS OF GREAT BLUE HERONS The great blue heron is a protected non-game species, and has been classified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a Priority Species under the Criterion 2 for species with vulnerable aggregations. In the case of the great blue heron, they are considered to be vulnerable due to their inclination to aggregate for breeding purposes (WDFW 1996). It should be noted that this classification is not based on documented population declines, but rather the heron's vulnerability due to the aggregated nature of their nest sites. I! As a priority non-game species, the great blue heron is protected from hunting and any other form of direct harm. It is also illegal to destroy an active heron nest. The WDFW has prepared recommended guidelines for management of the habitat priority species; however, these are recommendations only, and are not regulatory in nature. "The recommendations are intended for site-specific discussions with landowners to encourage retention and enhancement of suitable wildlife habitat. A management prescription may provide more or less habitat than what the recommendations indicate" (WDFW 1991). 2.2 REGIONAL STATUS OF THE GREAT BLUE HERON POPULATION While historically there is thought to have been a decline in heron populations starting with European settlement through the early 1900s, evidence in more recent times shows that the number of breeding great blue herons in the region is increasing. Calamkbokidis et al. (1985) compared available historical data with total nest counts conducted in 1984 in eight of the major great blue heron colonies in western Washington (Table 1), and concluded that there was "no evidence that these heronries were experiencing significant declines in nest numbers over time" (page 97), and further that the "numbers of nesting herons at Samish Island, Dumas Bay, Nisqually, and Totten Inlet have apparently increased over time, while nest numbers at Auburn and Long Island sites have fluctuated, but appear to be stable or possibly increasing" (page 97). Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 3 Their data, presented in Table 1, actually shows a three-fold increase in the number of heron nests in the colonies that they intensively censused as part of their study. Norman (1995) reviewed the status of over 100 heron colonies in Puget Sound area and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest there was a decline in heron numbers. In his review of the Christmas Bird Count data, he concluded (Norman 1995 and 1991) that there has been an increase in heron numbers over the past 25 years. The regional observations of Calamkbokidis et al. (1985) are consistent with population trends in great blue heron recorded across North America. Graham et al. (1996) reported a 98 percent increase in the number of active colonies and a 55 percent increase in the number of heron pairs from 1976-81 to 1986-91 as part of an intensive inventory of 1,613 heron colonies in the mid-west. Citing the results of others (e.g., 150 percent increase noted by Brechtel 1981; a 100 percent increase by Martin & Lester 1990, and an undefined increase by McCrimmon 1982), these authors concluded that "this species appears to have healthy growing populations in North America" (page 44). Butler (1997) documented a similar increase in great blue heron numbers in the major nesting colonies in British Columbia(see Figure 16, page 127 in Butler 1997) from about 25 nests in 1968 to over 650 nests in 1992. 2.3 HERON POPULATION STATUS IN KING COUNTY The heron population within the urban lands of King County is also increasing in numbers, following the general trends in North America reported by the authors cited above. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and King County do not routinely monitor great blue heron nest colonies. Hence, we complied information on the heron nest colonies from a variety of sources and intensive monitoring surveys conducted by the author(Stabins and Raedeke 1992) and in 1998 (Table 2 and Figures 1 through 5). Based on these data, we note the following population trends: • the number of active nesting colonies has increased from a low of three in 1983 to about 11 by 1998 • the number of active nests increased from about 40-50 in 1983 to over 180 in 1990, and an estimated 240 by 1998 • based on the most recent data, all colonies that we inventoried are showing increases in number of nests (the number of active nests has increased from about 12-15 per colony to over 22 per colony) Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 4 • while some colonies have been abandoned, they appear to have been re- established in nearby locations in subsequent years (e.g., Spencer Property to Redmond Town Center 3 miles south). It should be noted that these are minimum heron numbers, as other small heron nest colonies are also known to exist (e.g., two nests on the Montlake fill near the University's Urban Horticulture Center). Smith et al. (1997) mapped 21 confirmed heron nest sites, 2 additional probable nest sites, and 63 additional possible nest sites in King County. Based on this data, the nesting heron population in the urban regions of King County has increased approximately 500 to 600 percent since 1983 and 40 percent since 1990. There is some speculation that the elimination of DDT from common use, and as a result, from the aquatic ecosystems, has contributed to the recovery of the great blue heron and other species such as the bald eagle (see Calambokidis et al. 1985). DDT has been implicated as a cause of egg-shell thinning in these birds that feed on aquatic prey. Egg- shell thinning results in a decline in fledging success, as egg break before hatching. 2.4 STUDIES OF HERON RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE There have been five reported field research studies on heron response to disturbance and the effect of buffers on the rookeries. Three of the studies deal with observed flushing distances (Taylor et al. 1982, Vos et al. 1985, and Parker 1980), one deals with observed nest distributions in relation to disturbance (Wershkul et al. 1976), and one (Carlson and McLean 1996) examines the effect of buffers of varied sizes on nesting colony productivity. Flushing Studies The flushing studies were all similar in design. The authors subjected a heron nesting colony to disturbance, generally humans walking or motoring within different distances of the colony, and the herons' reactions were observed and noted. The minimal distance at which the birds flushed from the nest was then considered to be the minimum recommended buffer. Taylor et al. (1982) noted the response by herons in a nesting colony to different types of human disturbance at varying distances. Herons, they found, did not flush in response to mechanized farming within 20 meters (66 feet) if the farmers did not get off the tractor, to helicopters within 69 meters (227 feet), to human activities within 85 meters (280 feet), and to deliberate vegetation destruction within 150 meters (495 feet). A buffer of 175 meters (577 feet) was recommended as no entry zone for human activity. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 5 Vos et al. (1985) recommended a buffer of 150 meters (492 feet), which was their greatest observed flushing distance plus 50 meters for safety. They hypothesized that, !' while flushing from the nest is not in itself an impact on the heron, flushing could reduce fledgling production due to heat stress, increased vulnerability to predation, and increased 1. energy expenditure of adults. There are several difficulties in using flushing studies for the consideration of buffers in general, and for the Black River colony in specific. First, Orr and Sudia (1960) conducted replicated field experiments of flushing distances in great blue herons, and found that flushing distances varied from 13 to 166 yards, and concluded that "it seemed doubtful that flight distance had any promise as a quantitative basis for the study of behavior of the Great Blue Heron if these observations were a valid representation of the fixed limits for the species" (page 198). Second, Longley (1960) discussed difficulties of interpreting flushing distances relative to the behavioral patterns of the herons studied. He noted that there are differences between herons that are habituated to people and those that are not. Herons that are habituated to people are likely to flush at shorter distances (e.g. you can approach them more readily), as they are accustomed to human activities, especially mechanical activities, as opposed to humans on foot (Butler 1997, Carlson and McLean 1996). Third, the flushing studies have recorded only flushing behavior, and have not measured the actual impact, if any, of flushing on herons. That is, none of the studies noted impacts on nesting success as a result of their study (e.g., no reduction in the number of young fledged or an increase in predation as a result of adults flushed from the nests). Hence, one cannot determine the impact of flushing on the heron colonies or fledging rates. Fourth, none of the flushing studies documented any abandonment of a nesting colony or any negative impact on breeding. In all cases, the colonies were successful nesters even with the flushing of the herons from the nests. These studies recommended disturbance- free buffers during the nesting season to avoid nesting impacts even though no impacts were noted to have resulted from flushing. Finally, due to the non-replicated study design, no cause and effect relationship could be established between flushing and activity near the nest. The exception is the Orr and Sudia(1960) study which included replications, but found that there was too great a variation to draw any conclusions. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 d' 6 Logging Disturbance A study of nest distribution in relation to logging disturbance dealt with the impacts of timber harvesting on heron colonies in Oregon (Wershkul et al. 1976). In their study, they noted a lower percentage of active nests in the disturbed colony, and noted that active nests were farther from logging disturbances than inactive nests. However, conclusions cannot readily be drawn from their data, as even they note: "..we realize that fledging rate should have been measured at more disturbed sites..." (Werschkul et al. 1976:662). They had only one disturbed site and, while the fledgling rate for the disturbed site (2.20 per nest) was lower than the average for the undisturbed sites, it was within the range observed for the undisturbed sites (2.18 to 2.58 per nest). Again, it is difficult to draw inferences from a study with sample size limited to one nesting colony in the disturbed category. Response to Human and Mechanized Disturbance The most comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of human disturbance on great blue heron nesting colonies was conducted by Carlson and McLean (1996). They calculated �I fledging success for 19 nests with a variety of associated human disturbance and buffer conditions (from no buffer to 800 meters [2,640 feet]). Disturbance at each colony was classified as to the type of disturbance (e.g., humans on foot or mechanical activity), and ranked by degree of severity and frequency of disturbance. No correlation was determined to exist between fledging success and the size of a buffer around the colony; that is, the size of the buffer zone has no significant effect on the fledging success of the colony. They did find that colonies with frequent foot traffic in the actual colonies had lower nesting success than did colonies with no disturbance or colonies with mechanical disturbances (e.g., farming, vehicle traffic, trains, etc.). They noted that barriers such as water and fences that isolate the colony from human access increased the fledging success rate of the colony. It is significant to note that mechanical disturbance, such as construction noise, was not found to be a disturbance that affected nesting success. These results are consistent with the observations of Taylor et al. (1982) who noted that mechanized farming within 20 meters (66 feet) of the nest did not result in flushing. Based on the results of Carlson and McLean (1996) cited above, Butler (1997) concluded that large forest buffers (e.g. 250 meters [825 feet]) may not be necessary if other means of minimizing human disturbance in the colony are available. Butler(1997) and Carlson and McLean (1996) note the effective types of buffers include water barriers and vegetation such as is found on the Black River site. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 7 2.5 REVIEW OF STATUS OF REGIONAL HERON COLONIES The status of the urban rookeries in King County is summarized in Table 2, including the rookeries that have been identified as abandoned. Based on visits to these nest sites, we have developed cross-sections of the nesting colonies (Figures 1 to 5), and an assessment of their buffer conditions (Table 3 and Figure 6) As noted above, this review shows that the actual number of heron nests in King County has increased six-fold since 1983 (from 40 to about 240 nests in 1998). There has also been a steady increase in the number of heron nest colonies since 1983 (Figures 7 and 8). The status of these King County heronries and their relationship to disturbance is summarized in Table 3. The average disturbance-free buffer around the heron colonies in King County is 223 feet (67.6 meters), with no correlation between buffer width and the viability of the colony. An unpublished study of 19 urban heronries in western Washington (Jensen et al. 1990) showed the average distance of the heronries from human disturbance was 245 feet(74.5 meters), with a steady increase in the number of heron nests in these colonies. The results are also consistent with the findings of Carlson and McLean (1996), who found no correlation between buffer width and the success of the colony as measured by the production of viable fledglings. Buffers and Local Heronries The conditions that support local heron colonies are most indicative of the needs of these birds, while studies of herons from other areas under distinctly different conditions responding to different types of disturbance have less applicability. For example, Werschkul et al. (1976) studied the relationship of herons in relatively isolated forests and forest management practices in Oregon; Parker (1980) studied the responses of herons to recreational activities in riparian forests in Montana; Taylor et al. #� (1982) noted the responses of herons to recreational use in a park area with a habitat of mixed forest and agricultural uses. The results of these studies may not be relevant to potential disturbance associated with an urban office park screened by a substantial vegetative buffer. The relationship between existing heron colonies and development demonstrates the tolerance of these birds in urban areas. Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991), Jensen et al. (1990), Butler (1997), Carlson and McLean (1996) and others have shown that heron nesting colonies do tolerate urban disturbances, and indeed have increased in numbers within short distances of disturbance. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 8 Interpretation of such information, however, is often controversial. For example, Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991) found active, increasing colonies within 50 feet of an occupied residence. One could conclude that great blue herons can and do tolerate such a relationship. While this approach is arguable, a more conservative approach would be to use the sample of local rookeries as a sample of colonies within a "population" of colonies, and base conclusions on this sample in a statistical manner. We have converted data from Table 3 into a risk-assessment model, based on cumulative frequency analysis of buffer distances around heron colonies (Figure 9). The graph shows that over half of the heron colonies in King County have buffer distances of 200 feet (61 meters) or less, while all colonies have substantial human disturbance within 450 feet (136 meters). Based on this cumulative frequency analysis of the distance of heron colonies in King County from disturbance, one can determine the probability of a given heron colony tolerating disturbance. For example, with a 200-foot buffer, 50 percent of the colonies found adequate habitat, and at 450 feet, 100 percent of the colonies found adequate habitat. Using this analysis, we would predict that with a 450-foot buffer, one would have virtually a 100 percent chance of maintaining a viable nesting colony. In the Jensen et al. (1990) study cited earlier, the average distance to residential and commercial buildings for 19 rookeries in the Puget Sound areas was 245 feet (74.5 meters). These results are quite similar to those calculated in the present analysis. Viability of Local Heronries Bayer (1991, comment letter to the City of Renton) questioned the relevancy of a buffer analysis based on local heron colonies. He felt that none of the local colonies could be considered viable, as they were below the theoretical minimum number of fledgling per nest needed for a viable colony. He gave 2.33 (or 2.11 - 2.53) fledglings per nest as the minimum number required. There are several ways to demonstrate that his concern is unfounded. First, regardless of the theoretical threshold number calculated for other areas, the majority of the heronries in the Puget Sound area are increasing in number of nests and the number of heronries is also increasing. This would suggest that if the productivity in these heronries is below the theoretical minimum required for growth, then the calculated theoretical minimum is incorrect, or does not apply to local conditions. For example, the Black River colony had only 2.25 young/per nest in 1990 and was increasing at an annual rate of 32 percent until destroyed by eagles in 1991. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 9 Second, there are numerous studies of viable colonies below the value listed by Bayer (see Pratt and Winkler 1985: 2.20 for a 13-year study; Collazo 1981, Idaho study: 2.20; English 1978: 1.96). Based on their long-term studies of great blue heron nesting colonies, Pratt and Winkler(1985) dispute the "viability estimates" of Bayer, Henny, and others. They also note the wide range of annual variation in productivity, which would suggest that any conclusions based on a single year would have little validity. Third, this viability estimate may be based on migratory heron populations, which would need to produce a much higher number of young per year to compensate for mortality of young during dispersal and migration. Krebs (1974) and Pratt(1970) concluded that starvation (mainly of fledged young) was the major cause of mortality in herons, and this would be greatest in migratory birds. Fourth, Simpson (1984) concluded that the number of young is not a reliable indicator of the status of the colony; a more important parameter is the number of pairs with fledglings, as the number of chicks relates to food source more than nesting situation. Simpson (1984) specifically noted that the number of young produced in any one year was not a key factor in colony viability Bayer (1991, comment letter to City of Renton) also suggested that the increase in the number of birds in these rookeries was due to an influx of birds from other areas. He implies that these rookeries could continue to increase even though they were not viable, based on his opinion that the habitat conditions were sub-marginal. It is not clear, however, where these additional birds would come from. Bayer(1991, comment letter) believes they come from abandoned colonies. But, based on current data, growth in the number of heron nests in the active colonies exceeds the number of nests in all abandoned colonies (increase of 98 nests, versus a maximum of 40 nests lost in abandoned colonies). At the same time, there has been a consistent increase in the number of active heronries in the region since the early 1980s. 2.6 STUDIES OF NEST COLONY ABANDONMENT There is no doubt that certain kinds of disturbance during the early nesting season can cause abandonment or nesting failure in great blue heron colonies. What is unclear is the degree and type of disturbance that is required to cause abandonment. WDFW (1991) noted that: "Colonies exist at the same location for many years, but some herons may naturally relocate their colonies in response to increased predation on eggs and young by mammals or other birds, or declines in food availability (Simpson et al. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 10 1986). Heronries built in spruce or Douglas-fir trees may damage the host tree over time, which may also influence colony relocation (Julin 1986)". Intentional Disturbance There have been several intentional attempts to force abandonment of heron colonies reported. Hall (1986) reports on efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with state and local agencies, to disperse a mixed colony of herons and egrets. As he noted, "Heron-egret rookeries, not unlike large concentrations of roosting blackbird (Icteridae), can create social economic and health problems whenever a rookery is established..." (Hall 1986, page 3). He reports that "the birds successfully nested and reared young for two successive years despite repeated, costly, ineffective dispersal attempts by residents with assistance of representatives of state, county and local agencies." (Hall 1986:3). Successful dispersal in 1983 was achieved using 500 pounds of pyrotechnics (shellcrackers and cannons) and a pole-mounted 200 watt broadcast alarm unit. Harassment was spaced out over a three- week period before the start of incubation, primarily in the morning and evening, with supplement intervals of alarms and pyrotechnic blasts during the day. The dispersal operation required 170 man-hours of effort. After dispersal, many of the nesting trees in the colony were deliberately removed to prevent recolonization of the nesting colony. However, some birds returned to the area of the colony in 1985 and successfully reared young. Dusi (1979) reported on his experiences with intentional disruption of breeding colonies. He noted that "in inducing a colony to move, action should be taken during the first nest- building and egg-laying stages...Once nestlings are present, do not try to move the colony unless you plan to kill most of the adults." He documents several attempts to force abandonment of colonies by herons and egrets. Unintentional Abandonment Most other reports of heron colony abandonment are based on observations after some new development or disturbance occurs near the colony. However, in the cases reviewed, no cause-and-effect relationships have been established between colony abandonment and the particular development or disturbance. Many authors also note that colonies are often abandoned for no apparent reason (Washington Department of Wildlife 1991, Kelsall 1979, Simpson 1984, Findhlot 1984, Butler 1997, and others). In one of the most comprehensive studies of the dynamics of nest colonies, Graham et al. (1996) studied the fate of 1,614 colonies and found that 48 percent of the colonies inventoried at the start of their study were abandoned, while 67 percent of the colonies present at the end of their study had become established since the start of their study. The ;'' Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 i 11 1i i 4 average longevity of a heron colony in their study area was 9.0 years (SE=0.41, N = 749). • It may be that the actual cause of abandonment is coincidental to development or disturbance. For example, Pratt and Winkler(1985) note that many predators on heron colonies are nocturnal (great horned owls and raccoons) and are rarely observed. Such predation could be coincidental to adjacent development or disturbance, and be the real cause of abandonment. Murphy (1988) described habitat conditions in heron colonies in King County, and noted that 6 of the 13 colonies had been abandoned(see Table 4 for a description of her conclusions and observations of the authors). Contrary to the popular opinion that the abandonment of these colonies was due to housing or commercial developments, development does not seem to have played a significant role, if any, in any of these abandonments. Rather, the abandonments were caused by vandalism to the nests, human activities within the colony or directly under nests in the colony. In more recent cases, eagle predation and the destruction or loss of nest trees were the primary causes of abandonment. Also, the colonies that were abandoned were all very small (4 to 8 nests), with the exception of the Crystal Lake colony (22 nests) and the temporary abandonment of the Black River colony (39 nests) due to extensive bald eagle predation over a sustained period. Murphy (1988) also reported the Pigeon Point nesting colony to have been abandoned as a result of construction activities, when in actuality, it had relocated. Jones and Stokes Inc. (1991) reported that local residents observed the colony in the area continuously is during the entire period described by Murphy. Mr. Ted Muller of the WDFW (1998, personal communication) reported partial abandonment of the Kiwanis Ravine colony in 1991 following railroad repair activities within 95 feet of the colony. He also noted on the abandonment of a single heron nest on Whidby Island when a road was constructed within 75 feet of the nest. However, in both cases other factors, such as eagle predation, that had also been reported by local residents, p especially at the Kiwanis Ravine colony, were not evaluated or studied. It should be noted that there has not been a documented case of heron nest colony abandonment in King County due to passive disturbance by residential activities and/or construction. All cases of colony abandonment have resulted from sustained and persistent attacks by bald eagles and/or direct disturbance by humans in or near the colonies and/or shooting of the herons in the colony. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 12 As noted above, nesting colony abandonment is a common occurrence most likely resulting from: • predation (Simpson 1974, WDW 1991, Dusi and Dusi 1968, Pratt 1970, Mark 1976, Vermeer 1973, Forbes 1989, Butler 1997), as noted in the Black River colony • declines in food availability (Simpson 1984, Butler 1997) • colony-caused damage to nesting trees (Julin 1986, Wiese 1978, Butler 1997) • "severe winters" (Krebs 1974) 1 • researchers banding birds in the nests (Simpson 1984) Any of these factors could occur coincidentally with non-critical disturbance, such as development and building construction, and yet be unnoticed at the time. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 13 3.0 IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PLAN 3.1 CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSAL The current development proposal for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Tract B short plat is for five one- and two-story commercial buildings (20 and 30 feet tall respectively). The buildings would be constructed using tilt-up concrete panels. Approximately 600 surface parking spaces would be provided; there would be no multi-story parking garage. An approximate minimum 500-foot (152 meter) buffer between the heron nests on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin and the development would be provided. The average distance from the closest building on Tract B to all the nest trees on the island and in the riparian forest mapped by Jones and Stokes (1991) is 1072 feet (325 meters), with a range of 500 to 1,275 feet. From the original boundaries of the Blackriver Corporate Park, a total of approximately 100 acres of land located immediately adjacent to the proposed development tract has been dedicated or sold to the City of Renton as permanent open space, riparian forest and wildlife habitat, including Tract A, which was previously approved by the City of Renton for development under the 1991 MOA. The current development proposal with significantly less building area and height provides a substantial reduction in the potential for impacts to the heron colony when compared to the previously approved site plan (see Table 5 for a summary). As noted by Butler(pers. comm. to Ms. Kate Stenberg cited in her letter dated June 12, 1998), the current site plan might have less impact than the taller buildings previously proposed. His comments were however, based on incorrect information stating that the buffer in the current plan was smaller than the previous plan, when, in fact, it is slightly larger. 3.2 HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE BLACK RIVER COLONY The Black River great blue heron nest colony was described by Jones and Stokes (1989 and 1991) as part of the DEIS for the project. A brief summary of their report follows, with special notations of colony status since 1991. The Black River nesting colony was first observed as three nests in large cottonwood trees in 1984, at the time of construction of the P-1 Detention Basin (Van Wormer 1989). Van Wormer (1989) reported 25 nests in the three large cottonwoods on the island created in the P-1 Detention Basin during the 1989 nesting period. By 1991, the number of nests increased to 45 located in 12 different trees on the island and in the riparian forest (Jones and Stokes 1991), when the colony was ultimately fully abandoned, including the riparian forest area, due to continued attacks by bald eagles. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. )' August 27, 1998 14 Since the eagle attacks in 1991, the colony has recovered, and in 1998 between 55 and 65 nests have been reported (Krom 1998, comment letter to City of Renton). Nests have been observed in the three large cottonwoods on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin, and scattered throughout the riparian forest. The riparian forest trees were preferred as re- nesting sites in 1991 as they provided greater cover and protection from attacks by the bald eagles. Currently, the majority of the nests are located in the riparian forest (e.g. 26 on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin, and 30 to 39 in the riparian forest). The colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbance since it was first occupied before construction of the P-1 Detention Basin. As reported by Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989), the colony was active when the P-1 Detention Basin was constructed within 15 meters (50 feet) of the nest trees. The Basin was constructed from April to September, 1984, including much of the nesting period. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989) report that in 1987, a large part of the riparian forest between the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the P-1 Detention Basin was cleared and partially filled. Logging activity took place from February to mid-March, within 60.6 meters (200 feet) of the colony during the period of mating and nest site selection and building. Van Wormer (1989) reported 8 nests in the colony at that time. Since 1987, the colony has been subjected to a variety of disturbances, many during the nesting season, including: • construction of the METRO wastewater treatment plant within 450 meters (1,500 feet) of the nests in the riparian forest • construction of Oaksdale Avenue S.W. within 303 meters (1,000 feet) of the island nest and within 162 meters (800 feet) of nests in the riparian forest' • construction of Naches Avenue S.W. within 136 meters (450 feet) of the closest riparian nest and within 212 meters (700 feet) of the island nests • continued routine activities of the railroad within 167 meters (550 feet) of the northernmost nests in the riparian forest • frequent blasting and heavy equipment activity in the Black River quarry within 333 meters (1,100 feet) of the westernmost nests in the riparian forest • construction of the office building and parking lots at the northern end of Naches Avenue S.W. within 212 meters (700 feet) of the closest nest in the riparian forest k' and within 272 meters (900 feet) of the island nests • clearing of debris and brush fields along the railroad tracks within 90 meters (300 feet) of the closest riparian nests in 1998 • an open pedestrian trail on Tract A within 136 meters (450 feet) of the nests in the riparian forest and within 167 meters (550 feet) of the nests on the island Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 15 • on-going vehicular traffic on Oaksdale and Naches Avenues S.W. As noted by Butler (1998, comment letter to City of Renton), these herons are likely to be acclimated to human disturbance. They have established their nests in an area with extensive on-going human disturbance, but with physical barriers that largely deter the types of direct visual disturbance caused by humans entering the colony and noted by many authors to be the principal cause of colony abandonment (see Carlson and McLean 1996). 3.3 BLACK RIVER HERON COLONY BUFFERS Existing Buffer Conditions In the original DEIS (Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989), recommended buffers from the buildings were 600 feet (182 meters) on Tract A, and 400 feet (121 meters) on Tract B (the tract currently proposed for development). All buffers in the original proposal were measured from the nests on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin where the main colony was located at that time. The smaller buffer recommended for Tract B was due to the vegetative screening provided on the Tract, whereas Tract A lacked screening vegetation and development on Tract A would be clearly visible to the nests in the riparian forest and on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin. Jones and Stokes, Inc. (1989) noted that the presence of the vegetation planted in 1986 as part of the then-proposed mitigation reduced the buffer width that would be needed to protect the nests from disturbance on Tract B. The DEIS further recommended a reduction in the seasonal construction zone to 400 feet once the average vegetation height in the buffer reached 25 feet (Jones and Stokes 1991). Trees now greatly exceed that threshold of 25 feet, as they range from 72 to 126 feet in height (Henson 1998). While the final EIS, responding to expressed concerns, recommended a 600 foot (182 meter) buffer, a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer (measured from the island nests) was subsequently agreed upon by the City and the environmental groups in the 1991 MOA for both Tract A and Tract B. A reduction in the recommended buffer was warranted, it was agreed, by the availability of significant additional adjacent open space and habitat. The WDW approved of this habitat-based approach. The current development proposal again includes a 500 foot (152 meter) buffer measured from the most northerly of the proposed buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin (as in the 1991 MOA). The buffers to the majority of the nest sites of the main colony are actually much greater, as the more recent nests have Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 16 become established in the riparian forest west and north of the island are located at distances of 900 feet (272 meters) or more from the proposed buildings. The closest disturbance to the nests would be the highly visible and non-regulated pedestrian trail on Tract A(which is not part of the proposed development), which is about 550 feet (167 meters from the island nest colony, and within 450 feet (136 meters) of several of the nests in the riparian forest. Several individuals that commented on the current development proposal have requested a 1,000-foot (303-meter) disturbance-free zone around the nests. However, it should be noted that existing developments and active roads are already within this zone (see discussion above on disturbance): • Naches Avenue S.W. to the east of the site is located within 700 feet of the nests on the island and within 450 feet of the closest nest tree in the riparian forest • the three-story office building at the end of Naches Ave. S.W. is within 900 feet of the island nests and within 700 feet of the closest nest tree in the riparian forest, and the associated parking lot is between the building and the nest trees • Oaksdale Avenue S.W. is located about 800 feet south and within clear view of the nests in the riparian forest • the pedestrian trail in Tract A is within 550 feet of the nest trees on the island and within 450 feet of the nearest nest trees in the riparian forest Since the original 1991 site plan was approved, vegetation in the buffer area has grown to the point that the heron colony is largely screened from Tract B, even in the early mating and nest building period before spring-greenup. Henson (1998) assessed the vegetation in the buffer area on Tract B, and found that the colony was entirely screened from view in Tract B, with the exception of a narrow thirty-foot gap between shorter trees. Her survey was conducted on March 3 before the trees had leafed out in the spring. Several researchers have noted that vegetative screening reduces the need for a more extensive buffer between development and heron colonies (Parker 1980, Taylor et al. • 1982, Kelsall et al. 1984, Simpson 1984). Schirato (WDW) (1991) recommended a 175- foot buffer with a 100 percent screen for a heron colony adjacent to a proposed housing development on the Kitsap Peninsula. Butler(1997) concluded that vegetative screening is an important part of an effective buffer, and further noted the results of Carlson and McLean (1996), who found that a physical barrier such as fencing or water was more important than buffer width. The current development proposal incorporates both (fencing and wetpond) at the development's north perimeter, as well as the placement of "dead and down" material, and would decrease impacts on the colony by eliminating human intrusions (currently uncontrolled) into the proposed buffer area. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 ii 1 17 Adequacy of Proposed Buffers Our assessment of the adequacy of the proposed buffers for the Black River colony is based on regional observations of heron nesting colonies with response to local conditions and existing site conditions. Local observations are the most appropriate for determining the best indicator of the range of environmental conditions that are conducive to maintaining viable great blue heron colonies in this area. The proposed 500-foot buffer between the most northerly of the proposed buildings on Tract B and the nearest nests on the island (a proposed 1,072-foot average buffer between the buildings and nest trees in the riparian forest) should be adequate for the following reasons: �I ii • the width of the buffer to the nests on the island is substantially the same as in the prior site plan approval and MOA, while the current plan is less intrusive on the colony (see Table 5) • the proposed buffer provides substantially greater vegetative screening than in 1991 due to tree growth in the intervening years (see Henson 1998 describing the existing vegetation and her observation that there is only a 30-foot wide gap between shorter trees where the colony was visible from Tract B in the spring before leaf-out) • the buffer width is greater than those recommendations made by biologists basing their recommendations on actual field research (see Table 6) • the buffer distance is greater than the actual buffers around any of the existing colonies in King County • the Black River colony is very habituated to human disturbance • the proposed 500-foot buffer from the proposed development to the island nest trees is greater than the existing buffer to other existing sources of disturbance (e.g., distance from existing the Tract A public pedestrian trail) • because the majority of the nests are now in the riparian forest rather than on the island, the actual buffer distance, taking the full rookery into account is greater than even the MOA required, and the majority of the nests are also protected by riparian forest vegetation 3.4 CONSTRUCTION SEASON LIMITATIONS Justification for Construction Limitations Scientifically based studies of heron colony abandonment due specifically to human disturbance (as opposed to vandalism as noted by Parker 1980, Murphy 1986 and the Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 18 present authors) are generally lacking. However, studies and observations which demonstrate that heron colonies can co-exist with frequent non-severe disturbance and human activities are much more common in the literature (see the review for the Black River EIS in Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1991, WDFW 1991, Webb and Forbes 1982, and Carlson and McLean 1996,Butler 1997). WDW (1991) noted that "colonies located in close proximity to existing human activities can tolerate more disturbance compared to colonies in undisturbed areas (Simpson 1984, Webb and Forbes 1982, Bowman and Siderius 1984)" No research exists that demonstrates the need for construction period limitations when an adequate buffer is provided. The researchers that made buffer recommendation (see Table 6) did not recommend an additional construction limitation zone. The exception is Parker(1980), whose actual permanent buffer recommendation was only 25 meters (82 feet), surrounded by a larger seasonal buffer. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Dunn 1986), in their comment letter to the City of Renton regarding the prior site plan, did not propose restrictions on activities outside of the buffer. WDFW (1991) published recommendations also are limited to activities within the buffer, and do not include a construction limitation outside of the buffer. Periods of Heron Nesting Vulnerability to Disturbance As stated above, we find no scientific basis for construction season limits at this colony. However, if construction season limits were warranted, they would no be for a period exceeding approximately February 1 to April 15. The period of nest building and mating through hatching, from February 1 to April 15, is when herons, if affected, would be most vulnerable to disturbance (see Figure 10). This period is based on the following: • WDFW (1991) noted that "...herons are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the breeding cycle ... herons are less tolerant of disturbance during the pre-nesting courtship period and egg laying, becoming progressively less likely to abandon nests after the young have hatched (Kelsall 1989, Bowman and Siderius 1984)" • Hall (1986) noted the difficulty in dispersing a heron colony once nesting had begun, and concluded that "the nesting-parental instinct is too strong if undertaken when eggs or fledglings are present in a rookery" • Dusi (1979) noted that once young are in the nest, it is almost impossible to force them to abandon the colony, unless most of the adults are killed • Taylor et al. (1982) noted that approximately six weeks into the breeding cycle (e.g., one to two weeks after the start of egg laying and incubation), human Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 19 activity directly under the nests did not cause anything more than observation by the herons • there are no verified cases of heron nest colony abandonment in King County as a result of disturbance 500 feet (152 meters) from the colony, while there are numerous examples of herons tolerating substantial disturbance close to the nests (e.g., within 50 and 100 feet as noted in Table 3) The examples of abandonment in the region cited by Ted Muller(e.g., construction activity within 100 feet) are not relevant to this colony with minimum buffers 500 feet. Recommendations Regarding Construction Limitations Based on the observed existing conditions around the Black River colony and the available scientific literature, we do not consider a limitation of construction on the site necessary if the buffer incorporated in the current development proposal (500 feet to the nearest island nest tree and an average of 1,072 feet to the nearest trees in the riparian forest) is maintained. This recommendation is based on the following observations: • the current development proposal includes smaller buildings that would be screened by mature vegetation that has grown significantly since the MOA and prior site plan approval • there will be reduced construction noise with "tilt-up" construction techniques • the nests in the colony are more dispersed and many are located further from Tract B • the herons are very acclimated to existing noise and disturbance • there is no evidence that construction noise is threatening for herons in King County • the existing conditions include similar noise and activity in close proximity to the colony • Carlson and McLean (1996) and others noted that mechanical activities did not affect heron colony productivity • the large amount of available habitat (100 acres) If construction limitations are deemed necessary to protect the nesting colony, then the public access pedestrian trail on Tract A should also be closed, and all human activity within the same radius as the construction limitation zone on Tract B should be restricted. This would include bird-watching tours, and other human recreational activities. Butler (1997), Carlson and McLean (1996) and others have noted that human presence has a greater potential to impact nesting colonies than does mechanical activity. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 20 4.0. HABITAT APPROACH TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION The 1991 MOA was based on a habitat approach that provides for consideration of the - ---------- overall needs of the herons and other wildlife rather than the application of rigid rules applied to a single group of nest trees. This approach has been adopted by the WDFW and federal agencies as the best way to protect wildlife of special public interest (e.g., bald eagle nest sites and spotted owls). The federal government's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act allows for modification of spotted owl habitat, including nest sites, if other protections are provided on a landscape basis. For example, in a recent HCP for the central Cascades, the landowner was allowed to harvest known spotted owl nesting habitat in exchange for providing other areas of late-successional reserves and dispersal habitat for owls between other nest sites. This habitat approach is considered to provide increased protection for the owl over the long term. The state has adopted a similar program, called the Landowner Landscape Plan. The habitat approach previously adopted for Black River includes the following design elements: • a 500-foot buffer from the most northerly of the proposed buildings to the nearest of the nest trees on the island in the P-1 Detention Basin • retained vegetation within the buffer for screening of the development (no longer including Tract A) • location of the proposed fencing and wetpond to inhibit human intrusion into the buffer area • a riparian forest separated from development by the P-1 Detention Basin • elimination of development proposals for 62 acres of land around the riparian forest sold by the property owner to the City of Renton as permanent open space and wildlife habitat • an expanded riparian forest providing alternative nest sites and an area of younger trees for new nests that will continue to be available over time as the trees on the island die or blow down • the placement of"dead and down" woody material in the buffer zone for habitat for a variety of wildlife These actions augment the habitat already provided by the City of Renton and the property owner for the herons, including: Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 21 • dedication of 17.5 acres of land to the City of Renton for construction of the P-1 Detention Basin • planting of vegetative screening along the margins of the P-1 Channel and Detention Basin • dedication of 20.0 acres of land to the City of Renton for riparian forest wildlife habitat • sale of 62.2 acres of land to the City of Renton for permanent open space and wildlife habitat The proposed habitat conditions within the entire site after development of the current pi proposal for Tract B is completed will greatly exceed the minimum habitat recommendations for heron nest colonies by WDFW (1991). In their habitat management guidelines, they recommend a minimum 10-acre stand of large trees buffered from disturbance. The combined 100 acres of riparian forest and retained forest stands, detention basin, open space, and buffers greatly exceeds this habitat recommendation. In addition, the habitat approach makes more sense than having an absolute buffer from specific trees, such as those on the island. Past experience has shown that nests in these trees are vulnerable to predation and the colony can and did survive and thrive in the nearby, abundant riparian forest. Norman (1995) noted that the recent increase in bald eagle numbers makes it difficult for herons to locate their colonies away from eagles, and that bald eagle predation was a primary disturbance factor in the region. Further, the island nest trees are beyond their prime age (see Plate 1) and vulnerable to storms as well as decay. As noted by Julin (1986 and Butler 1987) herons use can kill the nest trees. Thus, the future of the heronry is in the larger habitat areas provided in the younger riparian forest that is located even further from the proposed development on Tract B. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 22 5.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Blackriver Rivertech, L.L.0 and their consultants. No other person or agency may rely on the information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission. The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different conclusions. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such agency determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any detailed site planning or construction activities. We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the information provided by the project proponents and their consultants, together with information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 23 6.0 LITERATURE REVIEWED Anderson, J.. 1978. Protection and management of wading birds. National Audubon Society. Wading Birds 7:99-103. Bailey, V., and M. Terman. 1983. A comparative study of a great blue heron colony in Chase County, Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 86:81-88. Bayer, R. D., and E. McMahon. 1981. Colony sizes and hatching synchrony on great blue herons in coastal Oregon. Murrelet 62(3):73-79. Beak Consultants Inc. 1987. A review of wetland and heron related issues in the Marine Drive Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Report to Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Portland, OR. 23 pp. Bechtel, S. 1981. The white pelican, double-crested cormorant and great blue heron in Alberta. Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Div., Edmonton, Alberta. Bjorklund, R. 1975. On the death of a midwestern heronry. Wilson Bulletin 87(2):284- 287. Blus, L.J., and C. Henny. 1981. Suspected great blue heron population decline after a severe winter in the Columbia Basin. Murrelet 62(1):16-18. Bowman, I., and J. Siderius. 1984. Management guidelines for the protection of heroneries in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto. Buckley, P., and F. Buckley. 1976. Guidelines for the protection and management of colonially nesting waterbirds. USDI National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston. 52 pp. Burger, J. 1982. An overview of proximate factors affecting reproductive success in colonial birds: concluding remarks and summary of panel discussion. Colonial Waterbirds 5:58-65. Butler, R. 1997. The great blue heron. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Calambokidis,J., S. Speich, J. Peard, G. Steiger,J. Cubbage, D. Fry, and L. Lowenstine. 1985. Biology of Puget Sound marine mammals and marine birds: Population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA tech. Memo. NOS. OMA 18. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 24 Callazo, J. 1981. Some aspects of the breeding ecology of the great blue heron sat Heyburn State Park. Northwest Science. 55(4):293-297. Carlson, B., and E. McLean. 1996. Buffer zone and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in great blue herons,Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):124-127. Custer, T., R. Osborn, and W. Stout. 1980. Distribution, species abundance, and nest- site use of Atlantic Coast colonies of herons and their allies. The Auk 97:591- 600. Drapeau, P., R. McNeil, and J. Burton. Influences de derangement humain et de l'activite du Cormoran a aigrettes, Phalarcrocorax auritus, sur la reproduction du grand heron,Ardea herodias, aux iles de Madeleine. Canadian Field-Naturalist 98:219- 222. Dunn, E., D. Hussell, and J. Siderius. 1985. Status of the great blue heron,Ardea herodias, in Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99(1):62-70. Dusi, J. 1979. Heron colony effects on man. Colonial Waterbirds 3:143-144. Dusi, J., and R. Dusi. 1968. Ecological factors contributing to nest failure in a heron colony. Wilson Bull. 80:458-466. English, S. 1978. Distribution and ecology of great blue heron colonies on the Willamette River, Oregon. Wading Birds 7:235-244. Ervin, K. 1991. Bald eagle menaces herons' nests. Seattle Times, Seattle, WA. Findholt, S. 1984. Status and distribution of herons, ibises, and related species in Wyoming. Colonial Waterbirds 7:55-62. Forbes, L. 1987. Predation on adult great blue herons: is it important. Colonial Waterbirds 10(1):120-122. Forbes, L. 1989. Coloniality in herons: Lack's predation hypothesis reconsidered. Colonial Waterbirds 16:53-58. Forbes, L., K. Simpson, J. Kelsall, and D. Flook. 1985. Reproductive success of great blue herons in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63(5):1110-1113. Gibbs, J., S. Woodward, M. Hunter, and A. Hutchinson. 1987. Determinants of great blue heron colony distribution in coastal Maine. Auk 104:38-47. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 25 Giles, L., and D. Marshall. 1954. A large heron and egret colony on the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, Nevada. Auk 71:322-325. Governement du Quebec. 1986. Modalities dIntervesntion en Milieu Forestier. No. Pub. 3214. Graham, K., B. Collier, M. Bradstreet, and B. Collins. 1996. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) populations in Ontario: data from and insights on the use of volunteers. Colonial Waterbirds 19(1):39-44. Gray, P., J. Grier, G. Hamilton, and P. Edwards. 1980. Great blue heron colonies in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 94(2):182-184. Hall, D. 1986. Dispersal of a heron-egret rookery. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 2:3-6. Henson, T. 1998. Three height and screening between proposed Black River Corporate Park "Tract B" Building and the heron rookery in Renton, Washington. Report to Alper Northwest. Natural Resource Consultants, Tacoma, Washington. Henny, C., and M. Bethers. 1971. Population ecology of the great blue heron with special reference to western Oregon. Canadian Field-Naturalist 85(3):205-209. rl Henny, C., and J. Kurtz. 1978. Great blue herons respond to nesting habitat loss. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(1):35-37. Jensen, K., K. Wilson, and C. Hensley. 1990. The relationship of great blue herons colony success to distance from development and the effects of screening on that relationship. Unpublished report. 16 pp. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1989. Black River Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B. Life history and effects of human disturbance on great blue heron rookeries. City of Renton. Jones and Stokes, Inc. 1991. Status of Black River great blue heron colony as of July 9, 1991. Letter to City of Renton. ii Julin, K. 1986. Decline of second-growth Douglas-fir in relation to great blue heron nesting. Northwest Science. 60:201-205. Kelsall, J. and K. Simpson. 1979. A three year study of the great blue heron in southwestern British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds 3:69-74. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 26 Kelsall, J. 1989. The great blue herons of Point Roberts: History, biology, and management. Pt. Roberts Heron Preservation Committee, Unpub. rept. 31 pp. Koonz, W., and P. Rakowski. 1985. Status of colonial waterbirds nesting in southern Manitoba. Canadian Field Naturalist 99:19-29. Krebs, J. 1978. Colonial nesting in birds, with special reference to the Ciconiiformes. Wading Birds 7:299-311. Krebs, J. 1974. Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food resources in the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Behavior 51:99-134. Longley, W. 1960. Comment on the flight distance of great blue heron. Wilson Bulletin 72:289. Markham, B. and S. Brechtel. 1978. Status and management of three colonial waterbird species in Alberta. Colonial Waterbirds 2:55-64. Martin, R. and G. Lester. 1990. Atlas of wading bird and seabird nesting colonies in Louisiana 1990. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Special Pub. No. 3. McAloney, K. 1973. The breeding biology of the great blue heron on Tobacco Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87:137-140. McCrrimmon, D. 1982. Populations of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in New York State from 1964 to 1981. Colonial Waterbirds 5:87-95. McMillan, A. 1985. Great blue herons can serve as biological indicators. Coastal Currents 10(6):6. Mark, D. 1976. An inventory of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colonies in British Columbia. Northwest Science 50:32-41. McCrimmon, D. Jr. 1982. Populations of the great blue heron (Ardea herodius) in New York State from 1964 to 1981. Colonial Waterbirds 5:87-95. Moseley, E. 1936. Blue heron colonies in northern Ohio. The Wilson Bull. 63:3-11. Murphy, M. 1988. Status of great blue heron colonies in King County, Washington. Western Birds 12:215-217. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 27 Norman, D. 1991. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in great blue herons from western Washington. Masters thesis,Western Washington Univ., Bellingham, WA. 248 pp. i Norman, D. 1995. The status of great blue herons in Puget Sound: population dynamics and recruitment hypothesis. Pages 638-646 In Puget Sound Research "95 Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Ogden, J. 1978. Recent population trends of colonial wading birds on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast plains. Wading birds 7:137-153. On, H., and T. Sudia. 1960. Flight distance in great blue heron. Wilson Bull. 72:198 Parker, J. 1980. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) in northwest Montana: nesting habitat use and the effects of human disturbance. MS thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 82 pp. Penland, S. 1987. Letter to City of Renton. Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Dated January 30, 1987. 2 pp. Pratt, H. 1970. Breeding biology of great blue herons and common egrets in central California. The Condor 72:407-416. Pratt, H.,, and D. Winkler. 1985. Clutch size, timing of laying, and reproductive success in a colony of great blue herons and great egrets. The Auk 102:49-63. Quinney, T. 1983. Comparison of great blue heron (Ardea herodias) reproduction at Boot Island and other Nova Scotia colonies. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97(3):275- 278. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Hearing Examiner. Dated October 4, 1990. 3 P. Schirato, G. 1990. Letter to Kitsap County Planning Dept., Dated July 11, 1990. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Aberdeen, WA. 2 pp. Shipe, S., and W. Scott. 1981. The great blue heron in King County, Washington. Nongame Program, Washington Game Department, Seattle, WA. 33 pp. Short, H., and R. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability Index models: Great blue heron. Bio. Rept. 82(10.99), USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service,Wash. D.C. 23 pp. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 28 Simpson, K. 1984. Factors affecting reproduction in great blue herons (Ardea herodias). MSc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Simpson, K., J. Smith, and J. Kelsall. 1987. Correlates and consequences of coloniality in great blue herons. Can. J. Zool. 65:572-577. Speich, S. 1986. Colonial waterbirds. pp. 387-405 In. Cooperider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Service Center, Denver, Co. 858 pp. Smith, M., P. Mattacks, Jr., K. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding birds of Washington State. Vol. 4 in Cassidy, K., C. Grue, M. Smith, and K. Dvornich (eds.)Washington Gap Analysis. Seattle Audubon Society Pubs. in Zoology No. 1., Seattle. 538 pp. Stabins, H., and K. Raedeke. 1992. Status of great blue heron nesting colonies in King County, Washington. Northwest Science 66(2):126. Stern, J., and R. Feins. 1991. Use of Christmas Bird Count data for monitoring marine bird populations. Pages 400-413 In Proceedings Puget Sound Research '91. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. Sullivan, J., and S. Payne. 1988. Aspects of history and nesting mortality at a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colony, Quentico Provincial Park, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(2):237-241. Taylor, T., M. Reshkin, and K. Brock. 1982. Recreation land use adjacent to an active heron rookery: a management study. Proc. Indiana Academy of Sciences 91:226- I 236. F Thompson, D. 1977. Decline in populations of colonial waterbirds within the upper floodplain of the Mississippi River. Colonial Waterbirds 1:26-37. Thompson, T. 1994. Avondale/Spencer heron colony and "Park 95" development. Letter dated Feb. 9, 1994 to Raedeke Associates, Inc. Washington Dept. Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA. Terres, J. 1980. Heron family. pp. 495, 499 In The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York, NY. Van Wormer, R. 1988. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 29 Van Wormer, R. 1989. Technical report on recommended setbacks of great blue heron rookery. Independent Ecological Services, Olympia. 10 pp. Vermeer, K. 1973. Great blue heron and double-crested cormorant colonies in the Prairie Provinces. Canadian Field Naturalist 87:427-432. Vos, D., R. Ryder, and W. Graul. 1985. Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1989. DRAFT Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. 3 pp. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Management Recommendations for Priority Species: Great Blue Herons. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Priority Habitats and Species List. Habitat Program, Olympia, WA. Webb, S., and S. Forbes. 1981. Colony establishment in an urban site by great blue herons. Murrelet 63:91-92. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, and M. Leitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. The Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. Werschkul, D., E. McMahon, M. Leitschuh, S. English, C. Skibinski, and G. Williamson. 1977. Observations of the reproductive ecology of the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) in Western Oregon. The Murrelet 58:7-12. Wiese, J. 1978. Heron nest site selection and its ecological effects. Wading Birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 7:27-34. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 FIGURES AND TABLES Ii 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 120 d 220'EDGE.OE __ _ _ _ - __ - - 27S'EDGE OF_ __ _ _ _ - -- -- -- - -• -- -- -- -- DEV LO ENT DEVELOPMENT 100 -. -- - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ _ - -- _ A tif4.• -1 - - REDMOND TOWN CENTER 80 0 _ -- -- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - — _ — _ _ — __ _ __ .�—yc�J'� �� HERON NESTS REDMOND _a. — — — . �/ �`_ ALDER LEAF HERON NE5T5 v MAPLE CANOPY 30'1)1 EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT 100'EDGE OF t DEYELOPMENTD Figure 1. _mom . . - - . • . -_ co_F r i-31'WIC4-1.iti.}Ce - --- (F-CeifitfOr- :.7=-7_*-7 1=Lparli=:elja7- Warta} IA WI -="ipS.K.4-crpri-=-T-i-rr- -L_STPTICNO.TiEdifzu - ... FIX*Egf --;TuBLI-t-LIV,CZ-Ectiti.--WR)=-7.------ .--- _-__i:ESPc.Efi;ggill • ,.,,,,:), _. ...„, 7...__:._:__,,,,,...,:_yi.c..:________ : --... ,„4- -...„--:„._ -„...,-• . , 1 r --ix . 1 Lrti j 1 1 ki 1 4; : _ . i . ____.. KEN'AO2E- . -_-_,,,,.._- ••••----- ' 1 Figure 2. ---_-_—., _ a 140- __ ,.. e-i-cilIGEEFAILYI=PC-510 . ES Hou Y )--e.:171.1E5 -STRes-1-- ,L7 *II Figure 3. _ _ _ - AM= la- _ 14C-Ral IZOCKERY 1414PW __ LJIA ITE:27.iCCRZT-11GWO:g....!S? ----=xteruc• - _ — - -IcERIVEEL - , Iffogi—m`r reNVO\I Figure 4. . . • ---- Figure 5. Buffers for King County Heronries ,; 500 - 'p 450 - i 400 - a 350 300 — c, 250 — CY 200 - O 150 - 100 _ O I I I 1 f f I I !® i ,�,t �� ot� �� o ''S �9t 4 �, 4 Heronries Figure 6. Buffer widths for King County heron colonies. Great Blue Heron Nest Colonies - King County 12 10 s g 0 U 4; 11 ,W" 1i","i"iiiiiiiii cle 6 IlIllIllIllUl 4 IllIllIlIllIll 0 1 {- .>_ 1 , k. 1 � I 7 , , , I 1 I 1 1 , i N M N 00 ON O N M '� lil VD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O\ 01 01 01 CS O1 01 01 01 a\ 01 O1 ON OS O1 O\ O\ O\ O1 as O\ ON CN 01 ON ON Year Figure 7. Number of great blue heron nest colonies in King County, 1982-1998. II Great Blue Heron Nests - King County 300 250 CA l II z 200 150 z 100 50 is ° 4 N M oo ON O ^- N I— o0 oo oo oo oo 00 00 oo 0o O\ O\ ON O\ O\ O\ ON O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ Q\ O\ ON O\ ON O\ ON ON O\ ON O ON O\ O� Year ® Estimate Figure 8. Number of great blue heron nests in King County colonies, 1982-1998. it 100 l g 90 - 80 - C u 70 - t, a; 60 - .� 50 - 40 30 - U 20 - , 10 - ,:. 0 0-50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Distance to Disturbance Figure 9. Cumulative frequency of distance to disturbance for King County heron colonies in 1998. Figure 10. Generalized activity patterns for great blue herons at the Black River colony. Shaded area indicates the period when herons are most vulnerable to disturbance. Jan I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Heron Activities' Arrive at colony ---XXXXX?CXX Nest Building/mating ----XXXX Egg laying(peak March 1) ---XXX)UQCX Incubation(25-29 days) ----XXXX Hatching(peak April 1) ---XXXXXXXXXXXXX Rearing in nest(8-9 weeks) ----XXXXX Fledging(peak June 1) --MOO( Colony abandoned(by July 15) Herons present in pond Heron activities are based on field observations by Van Wormer(1989), Jones and Stokes (1989, 1991), and the authors. 39 Table 1. Comparison of heron colony nest counts in Western Washington from Calambokidis et al. (1985). First Count 1984 Date of First Count Samish Island >50 334 1925 March Point nd >42 No previous data West Seattle nd 16 Since 1940's Dumas Bay 5 46 1978 Peasley Canyon 0 14 First nests in 1968 Nisqually 0 53 First observed in 1977 I Totten Inlet 30 75 1978 Long Island 125 128 1981 Total nests 210 692 Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 40 Table 2. Summary of the number of status of heron nest colonies in King County since 1981. Heron Colonies 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Bear Creek 3 Black Diamond 8 I Black River 4 a 7 22 24 29 35 37 0 4 14 a >37 a 56-65 Cedarbrook 17 A A A 4 A a Crystal Lake 22 I Discovery Bay 2 2 2 u Dumas Bay 24 a 30 46 a 29 29 29 a 20 23 25 35 a a I A 2 Kiwanis Ravine 8 8 12 11 8 a a a 18 Kenmore 24 25 26 28 28 A 35 A 35 Lake Sammamish Park 7 14 21 29 29 a 34 30 17 31 a a 37 a A Mercer Slough 1 2 6 a 9 14 a 17 a >9 North Beach—Shilshoe 5 a a Peasley Canyon 15 18 10 14 a 11 11 11 a 27 30 a 28 a a 30 25 32 Phantom Lake 5 3 0 I Pigeon Point a a a 16 a 16 a A A 3 3 16 20 19 a A a a Redmond Town Center 9 21 Seahurst Co. Park 4 I Spencer Property 6 7 17 15 A A 4 I Weowna Co. Park 4 0 3 I Yarrow Bay 2 6 6 6 A 12 15 A I Key: a=assumed active A=confirmed active I=confirmed inactive Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 41 Table 3. Summary of status and habitat conditions for urban King County heronries. Nest Colony Status' Buffer condition2 Black River increasing 450 feet to pedestrian path and Naches Avenue Dumas Bay unknown 150 feet to house Kenmore increasing 100 feet to parking lot Kiwanis Park increasing 55 feet to house Lake Sammamish increasing 200 feet to boating area Mercer Slough increasing 375 feet to building Peasley Canyon increasing 275 feet to Park & Ride Pigeon Point unknown 300 feet to warehouse Redmond Towncenter increasing 10 feet to trailer / to bar 1 Based on last five years 2 Distance to nearest residential or commercial building, or other major human disturbance Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 42 Table 4. Case study of heron nest colony abandonment in King County, Washington, from Murphy 1988 and direct observations. Nest Colony Description and Comments Black Diamond' Last recorded in 1981 with 8 nests. Recorded problems with herons being shot and site vandalized. Crystal Lake' Last recorded in 1981 with 22 nests, 220 meters to disturbance, but area heavily used by local residents. Murphy (1988) reports road through area. Phantom Lake' Last recorded 1986 with 3 nests (5 maximum in 1985), Murphy (1988) reports cattail cutting, harassment by crows and high winds as cause of abandonment. Seahurst Parkl Last recorded in 1981 with 4 nests, first reported in 1978. WDW (1981) report problems with park use affecting herons. Weowna Park' Last recorded in 1988 with 3, maximum 4 in 1981, 5-7 years old in 1981. Problems noted with trails in park, and park recreational use. 1 km from Lake Sammamish colony. Yarrow Bay2 Colony was abandoned in 1992 after eagle predation and nest tree blow-down (PHS note). May have moved to Mercer Slough. Bear Creek2 Colony was abandoned in 1996 after neighbors were reported to have shot at birds in the colony. May have moved to Redmond Town Center. Black River2 Colony was temporarily abandoned in 1991 after sustained bald eagle predation. Birds moved to Cedarbrook Creek for one year. Mercer Slough2 Colony moved to different trees in early 1990's due to deterioration and death of nest tree. Murray Island2 Colony was recently largely abandoned as a result of individuals shooting the birds in the colony (pers. comm. Kate Stenberg). Based on Murphy (1988). 2 Based on observations by the authors. Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 43 Table 5. Summary comparison of the site plan conditions under the previously approved site plan and the currently proposed site plan relative to heron colony protection. Previously Approved Plan Current Plan Development area Tract A developed with 2 four- Tract A in City-owned open story buildings space Tract B developed with 4 four- Tract B developed with 5 one- and five-story buildings and two-story buildings Building area Tracts A and B - 754,764 Tract B - 148,834 square feet square feet Building heights 57' and 71' high 20' and 30' high Parking Spaces 1,761 parking spaces, including 597 surface parking spaces a four-story garage Surrounding open 74 acres 100 acres space and habitat Buffer along the P-1 100' buffer 100' buffer Channel Buffer from the 500' buffer 500' buffer island colony Buffer tree heights - 20' to 70' high 72' to 126' high prior plantings Dead and down Placement in the buffer area Placement in the buffer area material Wetpond Southeast corner of the Northwest corner of the development at the intersection development inhibiting access of 7th and Naches into the buffer area Fencing 6' fence along the north 6' fence along the north development boundary development boundary Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 44 Table 5. Continued. Previously Approved Plan Current Plan Construction noise Auger cast-in-place (no driven Conventional spread footings piles) pile supported and auger cast-in-place (no foundations, steel and concrete driven piles) pile supported erection, elevated P-T slabs, foundations, concrete tilt-up dryvit panels walls. • Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. ', August 27, 1998 45 Table 6. Buffer recommendations and basis for recommendations. Source/Type Buffers (in feet) Comments Research/Direct Observations: Taylor et al. 1982 577 Observations of flushing Vos et al. 1985 492 Systematic observations of flushing distance over water Parker 1980 82 Observations of flushing Literature Review: WDW 1991 management 820-980 Guidelines for forest land Schirato (WDW) 1990 175 Comments on Heron Cove Jones & Stokes Inc. 1990 250 North Miller Bay colony WDW 1989 75 Relies on Parker 1980 Shipe & Scott 1981 656 Werschkul et al. 1976 Personal Professional Opinion: Kelsall 1990 1000 Professional opinion Bayer 1990 800-1000 Professional opinion Unknown Basis: Koonz and Rakowski 1985 3,300 Markam and Brechtel 1978 1,650 Forbes et al. 1985 1,642 Quebec 1986 660 Forest management guidelines Dunn 1987 660 Penland 1986 660 Cites department policies Penland 1987 500 Reference to Pigeon Point Mathiesen and Richards 1978 330 Kitsap County 1991 350 City of Seattle 1986 200 Anderson 1978 165 Thompson (WDW) 1994 250 Assessment of the Black River Heron Colony Raedeke Associates, Inc. August 27, 1998 q