Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA99-049
334210,-0335,04 - TUNICM- PAULIMEAt 353535 ' 3008 LK ,WASM, BLVO .N: . RENTON WA '• 98056' . 334210.-,381003 GOETZ ' ROBERTA., 029999 ' 3204• MOUNTAINNIEW :AVEA. . RENTON WA 98055 I 334210-3840-07.. PETTIBONE, WELEWO 779999 3205 MT :VIEWAVE N, RENTOWNA 98056 334210-P-36551-D9 40 loumG_ GARY:F- - - 8N3836 : 3115 MOUNTAIWPIEWAVE• W RENTON- WA ' 98056 1k 334210-,3860-02. L1N0BEOLLOYELA:- . IN3864• 3111 -:MT :VIEWAVE. . RENTON WA . 98056. 3342103890406.' MILLERA3AUCEE+PANELVT . 659999 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW 'AVE -N RENTONWA . 98056.. 3342103905-7.09 BURR - ROBERTA RI178 . 3013 MOUNTAIWVIEW , AVE,N, RENTON WA: , 98055 . 334210,-3906-08 - SAVOUIDONALOA., H 680226- 3015: MOUNTAIN - VIEW4NE,-N_ RENTOWNA 98056 • 334210-3920-00 MORRISONYLVIA- 712615 . 1401, N .34TT RENTON. WA 98056 . 334210-3930703 FUN MGNICA 609999 3007- MOUNTAIWVIEWAYE ,W RENTON WA' 98056. weewrAtwittvivFwv*vitx*wievwFmcw15,m, vt.wo 2.rm SET . H BAIDUNUMBERt,. . ' Z1V — CUSTOMER NAME REITERS44ARINE- 33421040176.....07 ' STROMBERG, FAYE ' 800369 28700196TWAVE, S& KENT: WA . . 98042- 334218*027507,: .- FUJIKUSTEVEN- W. 781985 663L112TM ,AYE SE_ NEWCAST4E. WA . 98056 334210-0280-00- ' F0RDE—LEEPHILIP •LELJR*VAN889999 - 311.01.1 .WASHINGT0N: BLVDJW RENTON, WA . 98056 334210."0285785 .. • . • SECREST,VIRGiN1A -- 679899 3i061_AkEWASMINGTONALVD RENTON—WA ,98056 • 3342100380.99:' KINGEWR08ERtUY • 3N2002: 3014: LK , WASW8L1W' M RENTOWWV 98056. aAR- PEN c) OF21 T ,, a, • 17 - 7--'--- la: ,; , ,•,-,:' i1 i,1 y 45 5 w w 29- 24- 5 L E' 4, 31- 24- 5 RENTON:. a .'° 16.,--); F:•;; A:• • 1 ! '• — - ' t i; . . ' ,, '' if__ 1 a, 1, 1- e7,.:.,.. r4 _,', 9-• h.- - Fs.. s• •< 7.,. __ I '.. 4-, 5• T j. 0.., 3.' 4, 111._,,_ al_ _• •••• -•^- itio., i .- M u, 6',. . C.... ••.'.. 0 13. 5 Ac 1• IN, TCALL I C., . • , :,. 0 . , ., F^ - 77'-'-- .`, 7, - - 7`, r,;''' It `',-;', r.- r-' 72' in - r, t- ' -- - a • • ,- y r.: ae„..,....-.-..,. . 4.... A , . ,— ,? itr,., . — ....,... . _..„--.. . 0 c,,', ;!- ht I 229,, . K; Qs v . 1 N SS, ST ,-., • P. . fiq ',- El-, ' 4: 11 1 J. E:'.."'. EI c ' it D 7„ pc-..: ,--' d: In , j„ i ; I- 3 , i,`, , it ,, i,,,, „ x ;' 1,k, 14 -• 4g4i r. 1 1 ,. fil w ..,, D M CT. L.,,,.....• A !.... ,,, ; ' sr - ' ,' N 34, ---- g-- r••-••.—-••-•-••••-• i i . - 4- 62 • / ;' I 4-,, , L. q 0 • 1 ., ',..: .;.? 4,'''• 1-',_.: e.)_ Liy, c , J. .,,, 2c.„•. ,, •..... , .. 6 /( ri ' •, 1 r?..-'•: ';'-'''.' f' f.,..=', Z,..._. 111VT,., a. r. f. 1,--, 1;.. to,•-••• r ; ., 0: ci '- ', PI. ' •(. al' V 4C k r K' 7iN' si'. V./ CeI4')b r• J,: riAE-:0 06,.'-..,• 1, ' ',' 11M14--: r7,,-:-,2r-,- i:•A.5l-•.k-i_-, Lii: i-. 4•• izi, 5_-1.-, 11_ b, 4, 1—i leL•i'. ii3ilr.5:.., 1 i- 5igi.-.8_-.._-._, i-,0C=,- 4,,.`i. 1-:9:4'-n-Tt7•---.-e. 1g-,1'' 3,-,,.'-- eil f7i1T,:_ r-,-fi C i * u 3 sl I LtE- 4.QA•-.LL"ts=,' j,i',1;I N.1.,-ud4,.,.,-,,., e-j3,I':.1• ii•,I1"`, i'. 1,.'- i,i. .,:'.; 3'-,.R\'544:3" II';',"-•• k.. 43..- 0.1L2,_.' DI N7- 15 I 6' N at, N.-, 52., 11 i ' '•::-..',„ 1-' 7 , 1 I L_ IS 6 ('' - r. 1""., i'.. ' , •,, t.' c ,,, F m" P, T.:-. 1 ti,. ._- .--,-.• i•;,° i:_ 1‘, ',§ , , ..,,, , 44-:-- A. 5. 7` 1 liW$/ VL-_. •' 7 ,. 1 CL,..? t-.: 3 1 ,,-;',- t- Ff. 6- c ,.: q - , 11 F- i:;•:: 6 ‘*- 6, 6.•- 1 A' 1 ‘ i•,±, L1: 43 ti: ,- T- 14T.,•''-,:`-• Fl• 0• 1.•- d•. 1; An t41 - 0 Cil I c_. i ' ' , E,, L, ,,.., . V.' ' co,„., • ..... . t., ,...., T ,,,. 3,,,.,, rr - .,_._______ I-.._____-..-- xi,— _ 361.. i„. i. 1.-- _..,_,,.,,, ,,, _ L__ \ , 0* ii\,\, . ,.., •.%‘ F' . I! ':;- - c35'.:',,---; P--', 7 D -- 1', . 6' °° D. rt_ jWF:;-` 7,--:-‘ '- it - ' -‘ r-- 71. 1',. ....\'•• 4-'-•• 5. \\ , r," T. "•••- ... e. I''''..":= Essl," i3aii.''"'"''''---..... 0 I ' . 1: 4 :' 1:"' '' 7,‘ T \ .....;:. c.„. . 6i. ' 1[ 5i_ jit__ ci L i 1•____ • •-• _ 11-• 1. 4. 1&%_ • ,' ' 1 ' \• 41 ' 4z 1 .,,,, i• A• rv,- ,:.:”- •-, ', [ 7-- 1• - 51430, t• ,, , 66 1-_ 9... iJ. K1?., i‘:). •.. 6'. 2_ 4- 4_ CI .: fj...-. 1'_ ICI 1:- 3 •• -' i'•. u.- F . , ... 11___'_,,,_ 1,i1 . NI L' '''' ':!:; ar'. i.' r.-V- r.'" •- b--- -. e 7- J°. DN 9[ I ITE7'. 7'- IL D ---- 5.'. - [. 2 7- 62! 7_ 621' .'. . .---'..: 71 r..'- f-.•7-:'''- ' I i\-----,.-- a- n.. 1, 1s7=oc:_ sk- 21( W_ Alrju 1-='-'----- ie"------ --" r-' 2•,----.€•—.-- rE, o- T-'.‘- r a 0 CITY OF RENTON a xpcczc-c4.- Lc4I t, 7tu CO iPlanning/Buiding/PublicWorks unp *. l: 1055 South Grady Way - RentonWdshington 98055 r. 1 J•1'ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED MIN . rosT1 Steve Fujild 3114 Lake Washington Blvd,. Renton,WA 98056 (." I() v IF)- i ...It-04 •cr:--->,.-;,-----..A.miITOWRITERt,(6,: l +.: j •'.. ,-; - s I ADDRFSSEE v— UNKNOWN 5-•' 4i tie' e.sate5i.P:-.-.,,s-*5-2.nikliiiiiiiii,111111,1111:1111 bliiiiii-iiiiiililsilltradilliiillitlimi i. c CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor . Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Mayo;'1999 Allison Reiter Reiter's Marine Construction &Repair, Inc. P.O. Box 2113 Bothell,WA 98041-2113 SUBJECT: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK FILE NO. LUA-99-049, ECF,SM,V-H,V-H Dear Ms. Reiter. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)met today to consider the above-referenced . proposal. In light of the recent listing of chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act,the ERC had several questions regarding the proposal's impact to fish and wildlife habitat. The ERC decided to table their discussion of the proposed dock, pending the receipt of additional information needed to evaluate the project. In order to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal, a biological assessment prepared by an independent biologist will be required. The assessment will need to address impacts from both the proposed dock as well as the cumulative impacts of docks in the surrounding area to fish and wildlife habitat. The assessment should, at a minimum, satisfy any guidelines established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will also be required. Prior to rescheduling the project for the ERC and Hearing Examiner, a meeting between yourself,the City, and a representative of Fish and Wildlife will be necessary in order to evaluate the findings of the biological assessment. The meeting will also help to establish the likelihood of obtaining a Hydraulic Approval Permit(HPA)for the proposal. Your project will be placed °on hold" until the information requested above has been received. If you have any questions regarding the information requested or the review process for this proposal, please contact me at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Lesley Nishihira Assistant Planner cc: Lowell Anderson &Laurie Baker, Property Owners Jana Hanson, Development Services Director Jim Morgan, Party of Record Steve Fujiki, Party of Record Lloyd &Colleen Lindberg, Party of Record Bruce Miller, Party of Record H:IDIVISION.SIDE V ELOP.SERIDE V&PLAN.IMPROJEsCTS199-949.LNUldletr.dx 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 41P epoirirs,iErr'et4464,43, 43 4.,4.e.,q1.4itiessono A..,i .., t$ to CITY OF RENTON ral. f59,,,47''./.11055SouthGradyWay-Renton,Washington 98055 NOV 0 CO 0 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED S PB METER 7'. 715840) U.S. POSTAGE Jim Morgan 3103 Mountain View Ave N Renton,WA 98056 II.DELA VF.RABLE 2,130:.?. - zi DDRESSED A0i4 -k 7 04 1 r:litiOLE TO FORWARD :" cr) L p F URN TO SENDE.R I November 6,2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049.SV,ECF,SME LOCATION: 3107 Mountain View Ave N SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks SUMMARY OF ACTION:Development Services:Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 10,2000. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 17,2000 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 17,2000, at 9:00 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:• 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: Dock Details and West Elevation Exhibit No. 5: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 6: Details for Shoreline Restoration Exhibit No.7: Aerial photo Exhibit No. 8: Top View of Sandbar Navigation Route The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by LESLIE NISHIHIRA,Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. The subject site is accessed from the east and on the west has 60 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The site is located within the R-8 zoning designation and is currently developed with a single family home. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square-foot dock for use by the single family residence. The dock is Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 2 proposed at a length of 105 feet, and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas fir decking. The first 65 feet of the dock from the shoreline would have a width of six feet. The dock would then transition into a"dog leg" length of 8-1/2 feet with a width of eight feet, and would terminate with a 35-foot long section, also eight feet in width. Construction of the dock would require the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously failed pier. The construction of the dock would require the installation of twelve 4- inch coated steel piles set at 18 foot intervals. The subject site is designated as an Urban Environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted subject to specific development standards,those being a maximum length of 80 feet, a maximum width of eight feet,and a minimum five-foot setback from adjacent property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed that maximum 80 foot length by 25 feet,for a total dock length of 105 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request,the dock meets all other specified development standards of the City's Shoreline Master Program.. On September 12 of this year,the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)took potential impacts to wildlife and shoreline habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the project. This determination was followed by a two-week appeal period during which no appeals were filed. Representatives from various City departments have had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. These comments are included in the official file and have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. The applicant has requested a variance from a provision of the City's Shoreline Master Program which states, "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water, or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark,whichever is reached first." As previously stated,the applicant is seeking an increased dock length of 105 feet,which is 25 feet beyond the maximum 80 foot length permitted. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours at the subject site are such that at the required 80 foot length,water depths would be too shallow to safely moor a boat. The approval of the variance would allow the applicant to construct a dock to allow a sufficient water depth so that safe boat moorage is possible. Ms.Nishihira reviewed the Variance Decision Criteria that the Examiner must consider, and explained how the dock will meet these criteria. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours are such that a dock constructed at the 80 foot maximum length would preclude the ability to safely moor a boat The Examiner questioned whether a longer dock would need to be constructed if the applicant purchases a larger boat in the future, since the hardship seems to be based on the size of the boat. He also questioned whether the boat would be directly on the property line even though the pier has to be set back five feet from the property line. Ms.Nishihira stated that she could not speak to the applicant's intentions of purchasing a larger boat in the future. The regulations specify that only the dock itself maintain a five-foot setback from the property line. The reason for the "dog leg" transition is to keep the boat on the owner's side of the property line when docked. The applicant has provided a list of adjacent docks in the area. Of the seven docks listed,which range from 40 feet to 175 feet in length,four exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. The average length of the seven docks in the area is 112 feet,which exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. The proposed dock is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public access to the shoreline. The intent of the Shoreline Master Program is to allow for flexibility in dock design in order to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with the general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to the area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The hardship presented by the Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.:LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 3 applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. There are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC,the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest nor adversely affect public rights of navigation. Staff recommends approval of the requested Shoreline Variance for the Anderson/Baker residential dock and bulkhead. Elizabeth Petras, Waterfront Construction,205 NE Northlake Way, Seattle,WA 98105, reviewed the applicant's proposal and explained the reasons for the chosen design of the dock, including water depths in the area and safe moorage of the boat during winter storms. Guidelines set out by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as the National Marine Fishery Service have been followed in regard to dock widths as well as installation of prisms under the dock. The proposal includes a shoreline enhancement that will bring a number of native plants back into the area and work toward the environmental goal of a properly functioning condition of the shoreline ecology. Lowell Anderson, 3107 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056, stated that the dock has been designed to accommodate a boat up to 32 feet. A larger boat would require a larger pier in order safely moor the boat in terms of egress and ingress. However,the draft for larger boats doesn't change other than getting smaller. A 60- foot boat could still maintain a draft of six feet. Mr. Anderson stated that it is not his intent nor desire to have a boat larger than 32 feet moored in the location. Lloyd Lindburg, 3111 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056,stated that he lives next door to the Anderson property. He expressed concerns about the old fence line being used as the survey line. The survey line is four feet south of the fence. This four feet is included in his 65 feet of property. He feels that the length of the other docks in the area is not relevant, since the property is in a small cove area and one of the docks mentioned is a commercial dock that was made for hydroplane racing years ago. He further stated that the dock should not be allowed to go out farther than the existing piling that will be removed. All the docks in the area are of a reasonable length. A 105-foot dock will be an eyesore, and will impede the fisherman in the area. He stated that because the offset is not large enough,the access to his launching ramp will also be impeded. Ms.Nishihira responded by stating that the applicant has presented a 60-foot lot width and proposed work within his property lines. He is not showing any work to be proposed outside of that property line. He is not contending that the property line extends to the fence line. That is a civil matter that must be resolved outside of this proposal. The Examiner asked for clarification on whether the boat would extend across the property line when it is docked and intrude into the lot to the north. Ms.Petras responded that the property line would be very close when the boat is docked. The drawing was done based on a typical beam for a 32-foot sailboat. It was determined that the boat would be right on the property line,but not extend beyond it. The structure itself does adhere to the Renton guidelines concerning being at lest five feet away from the adjacent property line. The rules are for the structure,not for the boat itself. The Examiner advised Mr.Lindburg that property line disputes are outside the boundaries of this forum to decide, and suggested he seek guidance from an attorney. Mr.Anderson reviewed the aerial photograph the area showing the sandbar in relation to the existing docks and explained that is necessary to extend the dock in order to clear the sandbar safely. He understands that there is a property line dispute involving his property and Mr.Lindburg's. This is something that will need to be resolved. Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 4 If it is resolved so that the fence line becomes the new property line,he would like to have this project include the new property line. If it cannot be resolved,he will stop at the platted line and address the difference at a later time. Mr.Lindburg restated some of his concerns about the project. 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 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The applicants,Laurie Baker and Lowell Anderson,filed a request for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Variance from the Shoreline Management Act to construct a 105 foot long pier or dock into Lake Washington. 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, issued a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5.The subject site is located 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. 6.The subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The site is located west of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of NE 31th Street(as extended). 7.The subject site consists of a lot that contains uplands and submerged property below the surface of the lake. An existing home is located on the site. 8.The applicants propose constructing a 105 foot long,approximately 749 square foot pier. In addition, the applicants propose removing a concrete bulkhead and restoring natural contours and vegetation to the shoreline. 9.The construction will remove 16, 12-inch creosoted wood pilings from a previous pier. The new pier would be supported by 12,4-inch coated steel pilings. The new pier would extend directly out from the shore for approximately 68 feet,then jog slightly to the south approximately 14 feet and extend out into the lake another approximately 40 feet. The initial 68 feet of pier would be approximately 6 feet wide. The most distant 40 feet of pier would be approximately 8 feet wide. 10. The southward jog is intended to provide clearance for a boat to be moored along the north side of the pier and not intrude into the waters of the neighboring property to the north. 11. The dock would include prisms that would allow for light passage to the water underneath the dock. Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 5 12. The water depth in this area is shallow. There is sediment layer that runs in a northwesterly direction that creates the shallows. The code allows piers 80 feet long or until water depth is 12 feet deep, whichever comes first. At 80 feet water depth on the south side of the pier varies from approximately 4 feet 3 inches(Ordinary High Water Line- OHWL)to 2 feet,3 inches(Ordinary Low Water Line- OLWL)whereas there is between 9 feet, 5 inches and 7 feet, 5 inches of water depth on the north side. In order to achieve a navigable water depth of 12 feet and provide safe moorage for a longer sailboat, the applicant seeks the 105 foot, offset length proposed. 13. Other piers or docks in the area vary from between approximately 40 feet to 175 feet. Apparently,four in the area exceed the proposed 105 feet. Neighboring to the north is a pier and boathouse structure out over the lake. 14. This area along the lake is designated an urban shoreline environment. 15. The applicant has proposed a master development plan to control erosion and avoid disturbing the lake environment. This plan was reviewed and accepted by the ERC. 16. The applicants apparently have been involved in a dispute regarding the location of the property line between their parcel and the parcel to the north. The plans for the pier supposedly work to avoid intrusions into the disputed property. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The Variance provisions of the Shoreline Master Program permit a variance in certain circumstances. The criteria are that: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property,the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not by itself sufficient reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: a.Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof,that do not apply generally to other properties on the shoreline in the same vicinity. b.The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c.The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d.The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 6 e.The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it,the variance will be denied,but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971,and the provisions of this Master Program. 2.The depth of Lake Washington in this area is fairly shallow. It varies somewhat but can be as shallow as 2 to 4 feet or perhaps nearly 9 feet. This significantly limited the type of boat and size of boat that may be docked. At eighty feet from shore the water depth is limited and allowing a longer pier does permit reasonable use of boating privileges for lake side owners. This is a unique aspect of the area in which the subject site lies. 3.In order to make use of the water-side nature of the site and to allow use of even a moderate sized boat, a variance that permits a pier of greater than the usual 80 foot length is necessary. A longer pier is necessary in order to reach water that is 12 feet in depth. This fact explains the other longer piers in this and other areas along the shoreline. 4.There had been an older pier in this area. The new pier will allow the removal of more and larger support pilings with fewer narrow pilings. There are other piers and similar longer piers already serving homeowners along this section of the lake. Therefore, approval will not be unnecessarily detrimental to either the public welfare or other properties in this area. 5.The Master Program makes allowances for single family homes along the lakeshore. Homeownership on a lake encourages water use and piers would be considered normal accessory uses. The pier is in harmony with the purposes of the program. 6.The pier should have minimal impact although any structure built out into the lake has to have some impacts. The design should reduce them as much as possible. 7.In addition to the criteria noted above,the proposal must also satisfy the variance criteria contained in WAC 173-27-170.3, as follows: i.That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; iii. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; iv. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and, vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Laurie Baker&Lowell Andersoi. Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 7 8.It is nearly impossible to confirm that denying the variance would deprive the applicants of all reasonable use of the site, but it would deprive then of useful access to the lake for boating. 9.The existing depth off the shoreline is shallow, and this is unique to this area of the lakeshore. 10. The project is designed to present a narrow but useable dock width and to allow the passage of light through a prism system,thereby increasing the natural light that penetrates under the dock. The addition of one more dock along this portion of lakeshore will not create any untoward impacts on the shoreline environment. 11. As noted above,there are other docks along this portion of the shore and there are both longer and shorter docks to provide access to deeper water. 12. The approval of the variance should not create any detrimental impacts to the general public. 13. The pier will intrude into the lake but being one in an existing series,navigable shallow water craft already need to steer off the shoreline in this area. RECOMMENDATION: The Variance from the Shoreline Management Program is approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction conditions provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. ORDERED THIS 6th day of November, 2000. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXA R TRANSMI FI D THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the parties of record: Leslie Nishihira Lowell Anderson 1055 S Grady Way 3107 Mt.Vernon Ave N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 Elizabeth Petras Lloyd Lindburg Waterfront Construction 3111 Mt.Vernon Ave N 205 NE Northlake Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98105 Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 20,2000. 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 reasonablyavailable 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 110,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. j 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. City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock and Bulkhead Applicant/Address:Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson - 3107 Mountain View Avenue North • Renton,WA 98056 Owner/Address: Same as applicant, File Number:LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks. The proposal includes the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included is the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. Project Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North WHARF SIT •;'- - , c16 ; ` ` 2' . K •N N Y D h• 33RD SLIP O _ 7` / rid 16 Zs. CI awn 3.0 1 N.32ND I Ir 308 • 00• + Zi3, •I.• - S J rT Fr9 13 14 I5 16 17 T j o N.31ST cif III Z .. g70100,. C. oa e m;'' ;010- r 2= fa 9 - 3 N. 30TH D i.— 71 111101101 .111.31 1L Ia :4 ; Z/L a a a nlrca, Lt MIMES esa a ,r l, f 0 04L, 00_ ONJNOZ 111111tk4-moo- 3N4 1 i! 8 4.el \ i ii.- a 8-' rI Jp r isir8 .- ;1 I H1 il 1 84l 1033 ! , IF-0' j4 .t-16 li , I ' it: n A. i - I00 4'-d . 1 iil ! I i I '' n i•' 331 of I Iifier IElam l 1 I. i I + • '8—a I8- a ; 11 11 1 !j i nCfl'n A N l 1 I I I 18-0 59 . 11Mil 1 I u B-1 I 1 g omi *,ice3I1Ii ' l /1 - ' - 8 ! ?! 1'r 1 1m1' Lz1 . I 1 EMI il ai , IH IH I i ( ! , le 'oIgfç/au.u.r e0 t. r I• -I r I 0 y -7 I , , f 7- 1 tirp J -IcaMi. 4' if 1 1-,±,til . 4,. I n , I . -1 Waif i it I IT '., ii1 k - -- - - - I:. is i 7 ..:.S ; ri.' ,,, ;A o EXISTING PIER 1530 SO FT OF DOCK COVERAGE F.,11110110ilrinummilmilinin ,I'D L iQ., LINLILIING.LII6VD I li..4 I "„3111 MOUNT.VIEW AVE N So•1:: L,,„...v,-- , SO FT)I 1 iI... C14 I—0 NORTH FENCE umr PIRWWII SURVEY ITuAl RAATP /-WOOD'PICKET 1[NCI 393•if."'. I=LL.L19",,gt3"7-7-""--"---""—-"—-*---- 5'MIN 1---- --62.-6" •SS--J- 185.54 40. 1)I 1r• e. . ZIKIr .g .....ljj Ir .1:——8 PROPOSED PIER 1.560 SO Fl S 61.i.:76' Eil.S.TwEIN„Gww A.4* REMOVED -JOB SITE MC C LI3 3107,MOUNT VIEW AVE N Y • '.3' 60 1•LOT.11.940 SO FT)N. I 4.? 105 TEMPORARY SILT 2. 0.14.W.M. • i• 0.H.Vi.M. 21.85 AT T S; EXISTING CONCRETE !ji 412.85..i Ham 110 0 BULHEAD . 186.27' I N 89*-50.-57-E 0 z 3F SEAPLANE' ' R• E4X0I.STPINOGPLARill] DECK AND WALK 11.11i.:11-111111111111111111111.°7%.." II lUll v R . I ,.„ 1 1280 SO n OF DOCK COVERAGE.: GI '&' EXISTING PIER _ BOK-L1T-INTH CANOPY o•''' 0 MORGAN.LAURA • 3103.MOUNT.VIEW AVE N 990 SO iT) 61 --.._. 6:, I E"`"1• SITE PLAN 1 I 77-\: LL•_.SCALE: 1-A20" CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14"X 105"OvER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A OUTH.wiTH OVE TER COVERAGE6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO 8"ANDMAKINGAJOGTOTN;S TOTAL R wA OF 749 SO FT. C2).• . 4' "•7.;'.; 44.:4"...--.1. , ••.,•' . .KEY it, --- "• , . ! PROPOSED STRUCTURES 4 r....1--.,-, t • i EXISTING VEGETATION 70 BE REATOVED:RNING GLORY.BUTTERCUP. r:::4 i", BuLLRUSH.AND NO TO,RIS) 1.111.4.111.11T c..—.11401e4r/X'.• ' MO r_ 44 1/4 • K N NY D• .0'....-5-(/ ,: i.--. " R°., 1 .-,;-7,-,..„ ,.,i n,.. .1,J. ; • Z"'"•4 154 ''4 SLIP#.?..... A:FTSIATil 0 i 51:211 , L,..,....714.1 -4.'ir: 1 - & ' ..• i'l I' LEGAL DESCRIPTION i; a'. .P4. 32ND • I/4 SIC. SE 31-24N-05E ea! ttrf'• gio;W4'N(.11 TAXL01 II: 334210 3880 JOB f• iv . Am ,_ .t., i h:triivAI BLK A LOT 54-55 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN#1 &SH LDS ADJ MN 110°;;;Af* A4JANIT -loje5 mune. . C le M Fge,,:.,, .010°.'_.000:4141 fIGVAliiiii3'LI LAT: 47,-31.-IC 4. •.... °' 11111-. 41,ma T.v N. .30TH . LONG: 122*-1 V-38- 92* ij Alk e.,,,n t k. ',...r.jie'"4,,„._,„, A% w. ,.., 4 ir,—,o'cam, iliffc 9. 7i firSi 6o, —.—_,.. 1,- ,-,7,--rws . AN. 29"n4 I•nt. i* APli*Ir.4i.lk,l , 0 5. 4.,, 15; X gi,., ..e., VICINI-11' MAP r — -- 1 KEY I' EXISTING 10'3 CREOSOTEn 32'SAILBOAT TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED(16 TOTAL) m //////''' I PROPOSED A'SCN.BO COATED STEEL ElI PIUNG(12 TOTAL AT IB'S O/C) 6' oTLnn6' 2xf.PRESSURE TREATED I I glNORTH I I OF DECKING 5'MIN REFERENCE o NORTH UNE 0 n N M REFERENCE ILINE I ar .. 1/.J 8.0 I o O`PROPOSED A'SCH,BD O c iCOATEDSTEELPILINGI® BU.HLOHEAD we So6Za APPROXIMATE LOCATION d H PRISMS FOR OF SEWER LINE s; ERENCE LIGHT PENETRATION N E PLAN VIEW SCALE: 1/4-.I' SOUTH n REFERENCECONSTRUCTNEWPIER14'X 105.OVER-ALL LINE RPIERWILLCONSISTOFAG.MAINWALK,WIDENING 10 AN B'WALK AFTER A JOf.TO TILE 6DDI11, 1 32.SAILBOAT O gm I 32'SAILBOATI 32•SAILBOAT I I W i Q1E1 rPROPOSED PIER paimo V 11.1177,/ 0.H.W, ro)pI1.85' r 2G.DD' q C PLAKEBOTTOM WEST ELEVATION' 11W SCALE: 1/4'.1' 1 C g iVo : o o F b El.ti 7 P. a a2 i 105' 6 I,5 C to JOIST CAP PILING ili. 1 37'-6" I B NAILER--\ n I riaim A MIN GLU—LAM I I 6'1TfTf11- I1-I1I I l7T11 111lM11 1111-1-1j '' r- 1H+FH+H4+i=+H$II O.H.W.M. AT 1. 8IIII ° i A PROPOSED jy :;. Nil l II Il I II l l l l 11 o BULKHEAD B DETAIL VIEW i_APPROXIMATE LOCATION PRISMS FOR OF SEWER LINE D" LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER—ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY EXISTING 10"t CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL)80' PIER LIMIT. LINE OF KEEL DOCKED O.H.W. I AT 80' PIER 21.85' I 16'—6" I 7`/%`/%(///i• . \/ //// \%/////A- /• /••'` A ' '' ELEVATION VIEW A / J PROPOSED SECTION C-C1—=18't PILING ALL NEW PILING'"TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'f AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE O.H.W. I 21.85' 7'-2' O.L.W. 7/' ' '/%//%i\% I 777<\ j/ //j//j/j/j j///// //\//j//\j\\j\\j/\j\j\j\j\ \i / •\SCALE: 1"=1 6' PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER.I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. I SECTION D- D IN:LAKE WASHINGTON I AT:RENTON WA. NIM ! VE PLICA :LOWDERN 310NT VW A N RENA. 9056 GE:3 00 1 q 0 0 CITY OF RENTON e T.o ...-..g:..__._ 1055 South GradyWayRenton,Washington 98055g NOV1109 OC'0D 0NA0q ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED PB:IETER 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE Bruce Miller 3103 Mountain View Ave N Renton,WA 98056 ALIVF.RABLE s c l <.t _DRESSED bz i E TO FORWARD o D' ri, all TO SENDER a b`dd M t 1--'=+ iill£!!£!i£!I £!!I!£i!i!!£ £!. !{£!ti£££i: £1£ £!!?!!££11£ November 6,2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049.SV,ECF,SME LOCATION: 3107 Mountain View Ave N SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks SUMIVIARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 10,2000. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report,examining available information on file with the application,field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 17, 2000 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 17,2000, at 9:00 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: 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: Dock Details and West Elevation Exhibit No.5: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 6: Details for Shoreline Restoration Exhibit No.7: Aerial photo Exhibit No.8: Top View of Sandbar Navigation Route The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by LESLIE NISHIHIRA,Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. The subject site is accessed from the east and on the west has 60 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The site is located within the R-8 zoning designation and is currently developed with a single family home. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square-foot dock for use by the single family residence. The dock is Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 2 proposed at a length of 105 feet, and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas fir decking. The first 65 feet of the dock from the shoreline would have a width of six feet. The dock would then transition into a "dog leg" length of 8-1/2 feet with a width of eight feet, and would terminate with a 35-foot long section, also eight feet in width. Construction of the dock would require the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously failed pier. The construction of the dock would require the installation of twelve 4- inch coated steel piles set at 18 foot intervals. The subject site is designated as an Urban Environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted subject to specific development standards,those being a maximum length of 80 feet, a maximum width of eight feet,and a minimum five-foot setback from adjacent property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed that maximum 80 foot length by 25 feet,for a total dock length of 105 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request,the dock meets all other specified development standards of the City's Shoreline Master Program. On September 12 of this year,the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)took potential impacts to wildlife and shoreline habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the project. This determination was followed by a two-week appeal period during which no appeals were filed. Representatives from various City departments have had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. These comments are included in the official file and have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. The applicant has requested a variance from a provision of the City's Shoreline Master Program which states, "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water, or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark,whichever is reached first." As previously stated,the applicant is seeking an increased dock length of 105 feet,which is 25 feet beyond the maximum 80 foot length permitted. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours at the subject site are such that at the required 80 foot length,water depths would be too shallow to safely moor a boat. The approval of the variance would allow the applicant to construct a dock to allow a sufficient water depth so that safe boat moorage is possible. Ms.Nishihira reviewed the Variance Decision Criteria that the Examiner must consider, and explained how the dock will meet these criteria. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours are such that a dock constructed at the 80 foot maximum length would preclude the ability to safely moor a boat The Examiner questioned whether a longer dock would need to be constructed if the applicant purchases a larger boat in the future, since the hardship seems to be based on the size of the boat. He also questioned whether the boat would be directly on the property line even though the pier has to be set back five feet from the property line. Ms.Nishihira stated that she could not speak to the applicant's intentions of purchasing a larger boat in the future. The regulations specify that only the dock itself maintain a five-foot setback from the property line. The reason for the "dog leg"transition is to keep the boat on the owner's side of the property line when docked. The applicant has provided a list of adjacent docks in the area. Of the seven docks listed,which range from 40 feet to 175 feet in length,four exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. The average length of the seven docks in the area is 112 feet,which exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. The proposed dock is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public access to the shoreline. The intent of the Shoreline Master Program is to allow for flexibility in dock design in order to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with the general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to the area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The hardship presented by the Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 3 applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. There are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC,the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest nor adversely affect public rights of navigation. Staff recommends approval off the requested Shoreline Variance for the Anderson/Baker residential dock and bulkhead. Elizabeth Petras, Waterfront Construction,205 NE Northlake Way, Seattle,WA 98105,reviewed the applicant's proposal and explained the reasons for the chosen design of the dock, including water depths in the area and safe moorage of the boat during winter storms. Guidelines set out by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as the National Marine Fishery Service have been followed in regard to dock widths as well as installation of prisms under the dock. The proposal includes a shoreline enhancement that will bring a number of native plants back into the area and work toward the environmental goal of a properly functioning condition of the shoreline ecology. Lowell Anderson, 3107 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056, stated that the dock has been designed to accommodate a boat up to 32 feet. A larger boat would require a larger pier in order safely moor the boat in terms of egress and ingress. However,the draft for larger boats doesn't change other than getting smaller. A 60- foot boat could still maintain a draft of six feet. Mr.Anderson stated that it is not his intent nor desire to have a boat larger than 32 feet moored in the location. Lloyd Lindburg, 3111 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056, stated that he lives next door to the Anderson property. He expressed concerns about the old fence line being used-as the survey line. The survey line is four feet south of the fence. This four feet is included in his 65 feet of property. He feels that the length of the other docks in the area is not relevant, since the property is in a small cove area and one of the docks mentioned is a commercial dock that was made for hydroplane racing years ago. He further stated that the dock should not be allowed to go out farther than the existing piling that will be removed. All the docks in the area are of a reasonable length. A 105-foot dock will be an eyesore, and will impede the fisherman in the area. He stated that because the offset is not large enough,the access to his launching ramp will also be impeded. Ms.Nishihira responded by stating that the applicant has presented a 60-foot lot width and proposed work within his property lines. He is not showing any work to be proposed outside of that property line. He is not contending that the property line extends to the fence line. That is a civil matter that must be resolved outside of this proposal. The Examiner asked for clarification on whether the boat would extend across the property line when it is docked and intrude into the lot to the north. Ms.Petras responded that the property line would be very close when the boat is docked. The drawing was done based on a typical beam for a 32-foot sailboat. It was determined that the boat would be right on the property line,but not extend beyond it. The structure itself does adhere to the Renton guidelines concerning being at lest five feet away from the adjacent property line. The rules are for the structure,not for the boat itself. The Examiner advised Mr.Lindburg that property line disputes are outside the boundaries of this forum to decide, and suggested he seek guidance from an attorney. Mr.Anderson reviewed the aerial photograph the area showing the sandbar in relation to the existing docks and explained that is necessary to extend the dock in order to clear the sandbar safely. He understands that there is a property line dispute involving his property and Mr.Lindburg's. This is something that will need to be resolved. Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 4 If it is resolved so that the fence line becomes the new property line,he would like to have this project include the new property line. If it cannot be resolved,he will stop at the platted line and address the difference at a later time. Mr.Lindburg restated some of his concerns about the project. 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 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &RECOMMENDATION Havingreviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:g: FINDINGS: 1.The applicants,Laurie Baker and Lowell Anderson, filed a request for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Variance from the Shoreline Management Act to construct a 105 foot long pier or dock into Lake Washington. 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, issued a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5.The subject site is located 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. 6.The subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The site is located west of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of NE 31th Street(as extended). 7.The subject site consists of a lot that contains uplands and submerged property below the surface of the lake. An existing home is located on the site. 8.The applicants propose constructing a 105 foot long,approximately 749 square foot pier. In addition, the applicants propose removing a concrete bulkhead and restoring natural contours and vegetation to the shoreline. 9.The construction will remove 16, 12-inch creosoted wood pilings from a previous pier. The new pier would be supported by 12,4-inch coated steel pilings. The new pier would extend directly out from the shore for approximately 68 feet,then jog slightly to the south approximately 14 feet and extend out into the lake another approximately 40 feet. The initial 68 feet of pier would be approximately 6 feet wide. The most distant 40 feet of pier would be approximately 8 feet wide. 10. The southward jog is intended to provide clearance for a boat to be moored along the north side of the pier and not intrude into the waters of the neighboring property to the north. 11. The dock would include prisms that would allow for light passage to the water underneath the dock. Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 5 12. The water depth in this area is shallow. There is sediment layer that runs in a northwesterly direction that creates the shallows. The code allows piers 80 feet long or until water depth is 12 feet deep, whichever comes first. At 80 feet water depth on the south side of the pier varies from approximately 4 feet 3 inches(Ordinary High Water Line- OHWL)to 2 feet,3 inches(Ordinary Low Water Line- OLWL)whereas there is between 9 feet, 5 inches and 7 feet, 5 inches of water depth on the north side. In order to achieve a navigable water depth of 12 feet and provide safe moorage for a longer sailboat, the applicant seeks the 105 foot,offset length proposed. 13. Other piers or docks in the area vary from between approximately 40 feet to 175 feet. Apparently, four in the area exceed the proposed 105 feet. Neighboring to the north is a pier and boathouse structure out over the lake. 14. This area along the lake is designated an urban shoreline environment. 15. The applicant has proposed a master development plan to control erosion and avoid disturbing the lake environment. This plan was reviewed and accepted by the ERC. 16. The applicants apparently have been involved in a dispute regarding the location of the property line between their parcel and the parcel to the north. The plans for the pier supposedly work to avoid intrusions into the disputed property. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The Variance provisions of the Shoreline Master Program permit a variance in certain circumstances. The criteria are that: Upon proper application,a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property,the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties: The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is riot by itself sufficient reason for a variance.The Land Use Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: a.Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof,that do not apply generally to other properties on the shoreline in the same vicinity. b.The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c.The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d.The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. Laurie Baker&Lowell Andersoi, Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 6 e.The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it,the variance will be denied,but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. 2.The depth of Lake Washington in this area is fairly shallow. It varies somewhat but can be as shallow as 2 to 4 feet or perhaps nearly 9 feet. This significantly limited the type of boat and size of boat that may be docked. At eighty feet from shore the water depth is limited and allowing a longer pier does permit reasonable use of boating privileges for lake side owners. This is a unique aspect of the area in which the subject site lies. 3.In order to make use of the water-side nature of the site and to allow use of even a moderate sized boat, a variance that permits a pier of greater than the usual 80 foot length is necessary. A longer pier is necessary in order to reach water that is 12 feet in depth. This fact explains the other longer piers in this and other areas along the shoreline. 4.There had been an older pier in this area. The new pier will allow the removal of more and larger support pilings with fewer narrow pilings. There are other piers and similar longer piers already serving homeowners along this section of the lake. Therefore, approval will not be unnecessarily detrimental to either the public welfare or other properties in this area. 5.The Master Program makes allowances for single family homes along the lakeshore. Homeownership on a lake encourages water use and piers would be considered normal accessory uses. The pier is in harmony with the purposes of the program. 6.The pier should have minimal impact although any structure built out into the lake has to have some impacts. The design should reduce them as much as possible. 7.In addition to the criteria noted above,the proposal must also satisfy the variance criteria contained in WAC 173-27-170.3, as follows: i.That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size,or natural features and the application of the master program,and not, for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; iii. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; iv. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and, vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Laurie Baker&Lowell Andersoi, Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 7 8.It is nearly impossible to confirm that denying the variance would deprive the applicants of all reasonable use of the site,but it would deprive then of useful access to the lake for boating. 9.The existing depth off the shoreline is shallow, and this is unique to this area of the lakeshore. 10. The project is designed to present a narrow but useable dock width and to allow the passage of light through a prism system,thereby increasing the natural light that penetrates under the dock. The addition of one more dock along this portion of lakeshore will not create any untoward impacts on the shoreline environment. 11. As noted above,there are other docks along this portion of the shore and there are both longer and shorter docks to provide access to deeper water. 12. The approval of the variance should not create any detrimental impacts to the general public: 13. The pier will intrude into the lake but being one in an existing series,navigable shallow water craft already need to steer off the shoreline in this area. RECOMMENDATION: The Variance from the Shoreline Management Program is approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction conditions provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. ORDERED THIS 6th day of November,2000. FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXA ER TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the parties of record: Leslie Nishihira Lowell Anderson 1055 S Grady Way 3107 Mt.Vernon Ave N Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 Elizabeth Petras Lloyd Lindburg Waterfront Construction 3111 Mt.Vernon Ave N 205 NE Northlake Renton,WA 98056 Seattle,WA 98105 Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner. Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 20,2000. 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 110,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. City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock and Bulkhead Applicant/Address:Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue.North - Renton, WA..98056. .: Owner/Address: Same as applicant File Number:LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks. The proposal includes the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included is the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. Project Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North WHARF SIT •.-- ` T.,,,... f. ".:-. e- Ir, Let _ t' K NNYDa 33RDt.., •r.;.. A. 14_,„,,.;--< ., . //1 litimi SLIP O i4Y - /E TO 38 Q o ' N.32 N D - l S • E i- r o• , Fil . 13 14 15 16 17T t . 7•L N....., „,31ST r og ES TM 11 t Is le. 0 oa e m 4 o , : _ I . i 04 3, a N.30TH 4:- -.51.2 -... D Milliligovi ik" ‘. 141.--iWile ILL} 13 :4 ;•r n,u i 4 JI I 4 • St I i I AH1 l. -- l' 1 IMMIE s I IE - ni 1 I co ieauRfr) 34 -§4,---Rib 3ifith-mr-r Ally Aff gl IP N' 4 : i -I I I R C 51[ - FI1IEI 2 I---Ik-8iII>. biIg13 iII I J Is 'I 11130 i ' I I a- • n • I AV 2E11 . XI IR-8 I 1 N ti llQa I I 1 I I 111 I I RI- I. C.— CIIIGG711 I . R-8 114 1 13l ; I f ' -R 8 1`' dRI3i11 -—MIN-,'NJ, ii ° Lh1 Th-.o I cc II i WEN -' 1.1.6- ' i `__. cci 1 ' i104, ,it,_ R 8 11 l 1 Nkfr.:iIHRtU 8 el 1:iII. R.t§ : ail , ; j. N t Rfe ! 1 V ; 'cu _ Nair ill 241:ff-St:- 1-. 1.r lot ---F1 ,___ -.-,::.:-.2a_ ZONING 1''8°°C3 riairw 11 TUX' R KR F 1/2 EXISTING PIER 1530 SO FT or DOCK COVERAGE — t' 1-----.1111101111,1,,,Illoilliiiiiiiiiiiffiffino 0 ...LUG.•LI OYD 311 I MOUNT.VIEW AvE N 1r2060SOrT) Z 0 r'• CK Etil;,i7.: 1--c.D 39326 ,'.....,,-- Y/0012'INCKET,TENCE 8 ,±, NO1011 FT.NCE LINE:.PER WILIU SURvEY .._....._._3 m 05..-_16.-5/ L- I 3 5.INN r•-----67'—6- ce G I I ,.——XV'''. . j 6' EXISTING . 30'wILLOw • E1 FITITSr .2 Li I it•8.r.PROPOSED INER 6.17 TO BL 1.560 SO FT IjOBSITEcc14REMOVED . L.L.I 4b• 4 3107 MOUNT ViEW AvE N 4/45 60 LOT-11.940 SOFT)4 11.;' i p l. SEAPLANE • 1•1.... 11 TEMPORARY SOT FENCE-...11 ,i 0.11.w.M.21.85'AT EXISTING COeuNLCHREATDE r.: c\,. 7-i.....•`-PROP 186.27' EXISTING°— S'D°—' 71r2713-.".". '— N 89"-50.-JE 1:.. 40-POPLAR ' 117 W I 7. 2-11Z 0 z Pa.ECK AND WALK IIIIIII11111111111111111111 A 1280 SO Fl OF.DOCK COVERAGE 1 MORGAN,LAURA 6.1 , ecK—orr'iCH CANOPY 990 SO FT) t1; 3103 MOUNT.NEW AVE N 1 5EXISTINGPIER I I 4.z-1_-_- .:'• . .,, PROPOSED STRUCT—URES I E....4 SITE PLAN 1SCALE: 1-.201 CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'X 105'OVER-ALL. PIER NALL BE A 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO 81 AND -------\\., , '- MAKING A JOG 10 THC SOUTH.WITH TOTAL OVER WATER COVERAGE OF 749 SO FT. It' KEY 1::gr..... P..4.47- .•/I:"..., OLW 2 EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE i REMOVED: 4. 11 MORNING GLORY.BUTTERCUP. 1 .1'. -.., . 1c2, , /4•••= 1'.1 h.,...2 BuLLRUSH,AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) K Nwil' Aq6T. 04-0_,',Y.' =-.` -",• 33RO i,...,iliv:.4., ,,,• t SLIP 0 #77,7p,, MIN .'. - al .„ ,cr.,,,52 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 7.1 i1 k it 32ND I/O SEC, SE 31-2471-05E x-X. JOB ti .4'..",f• •iN4.,, 141 TAXL01 I: 334110 3880 S)(E ,. . Ps.i:., ,.. low •%.• ,-, BLK A LOT 54-55 HILLMANS OK WN GARDEN OF EDEN#1 &SN LOS ADJ rTi " " .1.1 ff--11' „..: 22444s3C F.., PL 3IST e_....41".'"-firaS .1 irVilliril i! 1.1 LO 1272LN‘Z 4.: ••••• '- m. nol _....„ : 4ama 3. N. "30711 . x . 6 ,.. vo."41,...*,,,irf.......; , • G‘ 23--. 0110i E N. 29477 - LI° 7i 1! .itz l 1 s. 1 7.31 P', ‘: r• . 4 VICINITY MAP . SCALE: 111.200.' 4, KEY R.SAILBOAt 0 TRELTEO PIILLES TOEBEOREMOVED(ID TOTAL)Im //` PROPOSED 4'SCH.EO COATED STEEL I _/ 105'PNNC(12 TOTAL AT IB'2 O/C) T g• qi PL3i-6•--.1 2K6 PRESSURE TREATED mWNORTH DE DECKINGREFERENCE LINE 0 I I 0 5'MIN K 0 NORTH ri In NORTH LINE Inmmomm 0 dr .1 A O 1 0 0 25• c, t,?javottEDAT PROPOSED 4'SCH.BO 0 I O BULKHEAD Z In 0 COATED STEEL PILING i APPROKATE LOCATION PRISMS FOR OF SEWIMER LINE QW =; ERENCC LIGHT PENETRATION NLINE PLAN VIEW o SCALE; 1/4'-I' SOUTH n' REFERENCECONSTRUCTNEWPIER14'K 105'OVER-ALL. LINE RPIERWILLCONSISTOFA6'MAINWALK,WIDENINGTOANB'WALK AFICR A JOG i0 DIE SDDTN, 32'SAILBOAT O 1 1 ki r611 32'SAILBOAT 32'SAILBOAT j wNiPROPOSEDPIER 6 Onon / UMW 7 ;— IL® D.H.W. rrO1.05' V G air:,,,,. b.L.w. 1\\ W ta 0 PLAKEBOTTOM a WEST ELEVATION p ; SCALE, 1/4.-I' f n b , G cc c i o u s EI `,1f a aa. la fAi a2 ik-105' 6' I . C la JOIST CAP PILING i--3--I I- B NAILER- I A o 5' MIN n I o — GLU-LAM I I I I I I 6'111T'>-1-I Tl I-(l T(T-lTl I I7 I I ( IIl I_LUIL I L 1 O.H.W.M. ATII' I o A PROPOSEDI.-.; 8' -ll l-1TfTITf11 I li 7-I IT -1- Ur 0 BULKHEADI DETAIL VIEW I B APPROXIMATE LOCATION PRISMS FOR OF SEWER LINE p LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY T o EXISTING 10"f CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL)80' PIER LIMIT'.LINE fATO.H.W. 80' PIER 21.85' I I 6 i i/i ,16'-6"I V\\,\ \\/\/\ /\i y \/>/"" ELEVATION VIEW/// ', y/ J PROPOSED SECTION C—CIPILING 18'± ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'± AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE O.H.W. I 21.85' f . . 7'-2" O.L.W. i\\i \i \i\\i\\/\\/\\'/\\/ //•//\\/\ \//• / j/// / //j/ /am/\/\///\/// s'/j,//./i,%/// i\\\\,\ ,\ . :.\\,,\/\/.\„ /.\//./ ,/,/! SCALE: 1"=16' PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER.I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. I. ' ' SECTION D— D IN:LAKE WASHINGTON I AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:B DATE:6-1 -00 Anderson & Baker - -- 3107 vV . 1 N . 22 March 1999 DOCK2BFC0 L0,1,2,5,6,7,10,15,16,17,19,22) II:4 Dock 1' 4- 158e/134"e)(107"/83) (72'718") (66712") (44"/20") •(38"/16")OLW Mark (20' ASL) \...(24"/er) V V V Z SeNorthfencelineperWebbsurvey - er 7 7—7,_______ _ _________ - i i - 7 7 . BH Ref. Point I 7 124.00-, I I 71,'" ek pre. 07', dir: ,o.t13 h' CO r.; 32L x 12B 05 ,,, ,, 7 , wl---" T i)29.69 e.. 01V 7 7: e• e,1 4" 7 4•• i Y,' 83.35 1 e..1 . II 3 filli 720_, 1 1.1:1'6vii no.," 1 T.,,:,,)7. v• 1-- / 38" 32" f 11" 1171 Legend: Scale 1 ." = ie.7 111 Old ipiling, water- depth n" at OHW7" Onu `vliter depth measured n" at OHW 7 est rr+ f i_OPV- -ar-i\ITCY, 7 Tick mark; m' from BH Ref Point DvEVSurveypin UOHW - Ordinary High Water (22' A SL) Neip OLW - ,Ordinary Low Water (20 ASL) 4ASL - Above Sea Level JBH - Bulk Head BH Ref! Point - Point distances measured from bulkhead L)12-;) n" at CHW/n" at OLW), e/est- estimated / f-• e, ADSPropertyLineSeaplaneRampDeck 130'! 1201 110' 1 1001 90' 1 80'7a! 60'1 .. 5E11 40' 30'I 20'i 101 00' Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair, Inc. for: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker Dock Project 3107 Mountain View Avenue NN4// Renton WA, Lake Washington 2-16-99 Scale: 1" = 40' 711 . 71111! 0 20 40 60 80 186' awl Property Line Z H.W.M. cu existing Bulkhead Lake Washington g I- 14.82 O amm-- 25.81'iL"...-- 45 75.22' 1—/ 928.5 Sq. Ft. Total 29.8'OHouse 83.37' — r I roll N if 185' awl Property Line px,K Go rt771-f . 5ffi 1 4. 14 141%,.... ' . ft. -. SC' 4W P ' oil ; ; . t , f ir # n 4, 44- AI tir . r P ' re rik. A* Nv — IN 9 Jr- 4, i;, , .... :. IP 1 , 401' . --/ 1 . $.•• ii.... 3 . ti a. .. if.‘._ rill i e, , -- 44_ . rY14. I willi en1 i i` lit ' r . A 1", 1 4 k. 4 l al Y S T l•' sty+ t' a.. tea i jIII I. y I r ik 4, 44e 1111111k4. , . 4 T y } ram.... 444:. ,j5 r1• . -? 111,, i ' 1 . 41 - I r f/ i 4 I, ..- •• 4 .• i s'- 1(t 1 1 i s' -','-l•" ';'" •: 46. : •'''' 1 4 7. . ‘ , ' 4 44 z 1 , -•• 4. r.,.,.,,fi,,,... tkp 46 ak. ';of i .!' t 1 f0- rill tr..1.. 0, ..# .... .., 4, *- ,ei? r II Vi ,iitt t A It!lel. .rt Viii...".- . . I likk. k......1,..xit . a. 4 ..*‘ edfri l'aft111 41e ;;, are - elf- 1410:IN , 11 ' i, • 4...7 it-,;,- 11 p7rJ' iit st lit: v. ript-44.. ... 161. IR. 7.) 1' i. II/#r'' 4'. 4 8'• '- -#4 4 '.. • 7low i, .- 114' i . .64$,.. 40, 4- esigor / lIcis-,, f.,f,, *Ar ...A r 'litany SSW' 4 44 . zi‘cc: i.' i'• I i tric, 40k.•st- , i 6 4 ,....,;,:, • .., •,0911. 4 T V '• *.'" '.. ' # f:.,. ..: '. i.*''' 4ft. Jr' 41 : ' '4tr :, ':,, , I It• • ' v r t •• • ix. # 4.!, 7 0 ,.' ! t 4, i' i .. : e Or-- - ' imp. .., .r1..• Ji .c P ' 1114-4 ,..1 1 3 -.aT.- 11:•. -'...1 i. 7, f•I. Sr, 4:... , i, _A iOr: , bilf ' ' 1 14;,, •k - . -t,. 41. 4400 •• 10,-+ S: f"'" 4".••-• • , k•`'-. 1-.' *; et , . t- t 1,44 r• TlIt 41/g, •• -, 14010. i r• - ... • '1,, .:; P•4' •,•'.. 4-/4g9P- • iii.....;:-,'. , -' ',.• 4•, illkik' s, - -: 7,.4.••iAr rj, 1t :', '.... • '.',*, - r•- A 4 s - ..., 4. p '. t . . S. '1 .••4' l',, r .„ Wt— 1 0.1•1°4'54440- . 4 ...1' ,.- 4:,,t, 1 , km.••••••• v 52 i . ------- 1 53 31 Mountain View Ave N .. 2, 2. . ercllaP.". I niellirAMIA 17;;E;01 wagmu flipmilitPiEt.. —r.. 54 lima..t.trii, I ....,,•,;_ 55 Deck ard Wak r 56 Seadare Rarnp ...: i,..., . 57 3103 Mountain Ave N ct3 4-12--------------_________ I:i . . .. rf sotto silo.. LA./410W Es.6 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING. OCTOBER 17, 2000 AGENDA COMMENCING AT.9:00 AM, COUNCIL.CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of.application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME:Anderson Baker Dock PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing the'construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single- family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline- enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx.275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock (105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. hexagenda City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock and Bulkhead Applicant/Address:Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Owner/Address: Same as applicant File Number:LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description:The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks. The proposal includes the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on 1 the Lake Washington shoreline. Included is the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. Project Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North ARV : •WHARF- SIT / "`, K Ni Ni Y D a h. 33RD g4 - - :. '1 * it t 1 SLIP L) JET-JE . .i . Qran 6 aal. u /N. . 32ND r, aw.. 1J ' 13 '1a 15 i6 17T TT7. Fi? , E i .4 s e al --)SEE 13 is is I!. ;j! C o:i e ni ':.._- 0 • \ t 21 30TH City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 2 of 6 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Owner of Record: Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton,WA 98056 2.Zoning Designation: Residential—8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) 3.Comprehensive Plan Residential Single Family(RSF) Land Use Designation: 4.Existing Site Use: Single family dwelling 5.Neighborhood Characteristics North: Single family residential East: Mountain View Avenue North, Single family residential South: Single family residential West: Lake Washington 6.Access: Mountain View Avenue North 7.Site Area: 10,800 square feet 8.Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: 990 sf Existing residence New Building Area: 749 sf Proposed dock Total Building Area: 1,739 sf C. HISTORICALBACKGROUND: Acton Land Use File No. Ordinance No.Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Annexation N/A 1804 12/08/59 D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) 2. Property Development Standards (RMC 4-4) a. Development Guidelines and Regulations—General (RMC 4-4-030) b. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations (RMC 4-4-130) 3. Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-9-190) E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: 1. Urban Environment(4-3-090.J) 2. Specific Use Regulations (4-3-090.L) 3. Piers and Docks (4-3-090.L.12) 4. Shoreline Variances and Conditional Uses (4-9-190.1) Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK 8 BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 3 of 6 G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. The dock is proposed at a length of 105 feet and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas-fir decking. The shoreward 65 feet of the pier would be 6 feet wide, leading to an 8.5-foot long, 8-foot wide intervening section, ending with a 35-foot long section of 8 feet in width. The construction of the dock would involve the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously existing failed pier. Twelve 4-inch coated steel piles, set at 18-foot intervals, would be driven to support the new dock. The project would include the installation of prisms in order to minimize shading in the area of the dock with the greatest amount of surface coverage. Equipment necessary for project construction would be brought to the site via barge, including a barge-mounted crane and vibratory pile driver. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. In addition to the placement of rocks, approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material and native plants would be installed. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark. The subject site is designated as an"urban"environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted within this designation provided there is no more than one pier per developed water front lot or ownership and the dock design complies with established specifications. These standards limit dock length to 80 feet,width to 8 feet, require a minimum setback of 5 feet from adjacent property lines, and allow no more than one pier extension at a maximum of 100 square feet in size. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a shoreline variance from section 4-3- 090.L.e.ii of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to exceed the maximum permitted dock length of 80 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request, the proposed residential dock and bulkhead comply with all pertinent shoreline development regulations. A Exemption Certificate from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be issued for the bulkhead portion of the project. In May of 1999, the proposal was brought before the Environmental Review Committee (ERC),where a decision was tabled pending the applicant's submittal of a Biological Assessment addressing the project's potential affect on critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. In response to this request, the applicant submitted a biological assessment and substantially revised the scale of the proposed dock by reducing overall size, length and width dimensions. The ERC took potential impacts to shoreline, wildlife, and habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the project. The shoreline variance decision is forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for approval or denial. The shoreline decision is deemed to be approved within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt by these agencies unless written communication is received indicating otherwise. Appeals of the shoreline variance decision must be filed to the Shoreline Hearings Board within 30 days of issuance. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA(RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 12, 2000, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS)for the proposal. The SEPA determination was followed by a two-week appeal period, which ended on October 2, 2000. No appeals to the threshold determination were filed. Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 4 of 6 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of the proposal, including the Biological Assessment provided by the applicant, did not reveal the need for additional mitigating measures above and beyond adopted code requirements, as well as beyond measures proposed by the applicant. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues from the proposed shoreline variance. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. H. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: 1. VARIANCE DECISION REQUESTED a. The applicant has requested a variance from section 4-3-090.L.e.ii of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations which states: "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark,whichever is reached first." b. The applicant wishes to construct a residential dock of 105 feet in length, which exceeds the maximum 80-foot length permitted by 25 feet. c. Lake bottom contours on the site are such that at the required 80-foot length, the shallow water depth would preclude the applicant's ability to safely moor a boat. d. The variance would allow the applicant to construct the dock to a point of sufficient water depth (e.g.,. 14 feet, 6 inches minimum)so that sufficient boat moorage is possible. 2. VARIANCE DECISION CRITERIA The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant variances in the administration of the Renton Shoreline Master Program upon making a determination in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist(RMC 4-9-190.1.4). a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The lake bottom within the immediate proximity of the site is such that water depths are fairly shallow and would preclude the use of an 80-foot dock. The applicant owns a 32-foot sailboat with a 6-foot draft and contends that an increased dock length is necessary in order to properly moor the boat. Water depths deepen in a northwesterly direction at the subject site. Based on the elevations provided by the applicant, at the required 80-foot dock length water depths of 4 feet, 3 inches (OHWL) and 2 feet, 3 inches (OLWL)would be available on the south side of the pier. Water depths of 9 feet, 5 inches (OHWL) and 7 feet, 5 inches (OLWL)would be available on the north side of the pier. These depths are such that the keel would submerge into the bottom of the lake, thereby eliminating the ability to safely moor a boat. In order to reasonably accommodate boat moorage, the applicant has proposed a dock with a"dog leg"design in order to utilize sufficient water depths at the nearest possible distances to the shoreline. A distance between 88 feet and 92 feet beyond the ordinary high water line would achieve the appropriate water depth necessary for the sailboat's keel. An additional 17 feet—for a total of 105 feet from the ordinary high water line—would be necessary to accommodate the length of the sailboat. At the proposed 105-foot length,water depths of 16 feet, 6 inches (OHWL)and 14 feet, 6 inches (OLWL)would be available and would provide adequate depths for boat moorage. However, the south side of the dock would still not be of sufficient depth to accommodate a sailboat with a 6-foot draft, providing water depths of only 8 feet, 9 inches (OHWL)and 6 feet, 9 inches (OLWL). Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 5 of 6 The applicant further contends that the proposed 105-foot dock length,with "dog leg"transition, is the only design that would allow for safe year round moorage. By utilizing the north side of the dock,the sailboat could be safely moored with 4 feet of water beneath the keel at the ordinary low water line. Less than 4 feet would not provide sufficient protection to keep the keel from hitting the lake bottom during winter storms. The requested dock length would provide sufficient water depth for safe boat moorage in both the summer and winter seasons. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The applicant has provided a list of other properties in the vicinity which currently enjoy the use of private residential docks. Of the 7 docks listed,which range from 40 feet to 175 feet in length, 4 exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. In addition, the average length of the seven docks in the area (112 feet)exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposed dock is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public access to the shoreline. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The dock length provision is worded such that dock design"may extend a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinaary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first." Although the strict interpretation of the provision would prohibit the construction of a dock beyond 80 feet even though water depths of less than 12 feet are present, the intent of the shoreline master program may have been to allow for flexibility in dock design in order to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with the general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved;if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to the area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)took into consideration potential impacts to shoreline,wildlife, and habitat and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the project. Furthermore,the applicant has taken substantial measures for mitigating potential impacts through proposed construction methods, shoreline restoration, and modifications to the dock design. Measures include the installation of small, 4-inch piles in order to minimize shading impacts,- as well as the placement of two prisms under the dogleg portion of the dock for increased light penetration beneath the structure. In addition, considerable effort has been given to the appropriate design of the restored shoreline in order to maximum benefits to critical habitat. As stated under the previous criterion,the approval of the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. f. The proposal must meet the variance criteria contained in the WAC 173-27-170.3, as follows: That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property, For the reasons stated under criterion"a"above, the strict application of the dimensional standards established by the City's Shoreline Master Program would preclude the reasonable use of the property for boat moorage. ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV, ECF,SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 6 of 6 The hardship presented by the applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. The shallow water depth for the subject site does not allow for the construction of a dock that would be capable of safely mooring a boat. Although shallow water depths may exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject shoreline area, these properties currently have existing docks at lengths in excess of that requested by the applicant(see criterion "b"). iii.That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Based on information provided by the applicant and as discussed under criterion"b", there are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC,the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. iv.That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; As previously stated,there are a number of surrounding property owners which currently enjoy the privilege of docks with lengths in excess of the maximum 80-foot length permitted by code. The applicant has substantially reduced the proposed dock length from a preferred design and has thus requested the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the moorage of a boat. The proposed pier would have less moorage and square footage than those enjoyed by neighbors and other property owners in the vicinity v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;and, The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest. vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. The approval of the variance would not adversely affect public rights of navigation. I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Shoreline Variance for the Baker/Anderson Residential Dock Bulkhead, Project File No. LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Shoreline Variance Approval: Two (2)years from the approval date, if construction has not commenced. Hexreport FOISTING PIER 1530 S0 FT OF DOCK COVERAGE r_.III II II IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII) Itn re 1A.•i I I LINUUT.ItG,LI UVU I 1• I r a3111MOUNT,VIEW AVE N I Z 0 I 1111 11111111111.1 B111111IIIIIIaC 2060 5O FT)I w -PO w 3 1 , K i0IIUAIRAMPWOODPICKETFENCE 8 Z NORTH FENCE UNC PER WCUU SMVCY_ • _- -I I _ 393]6'-`-_69'-50•=57-E_.__ _—_ _ I 3 5'MIN 67'-6" j- 8554I1: OW14 ,r ED PIER`, Op SITEOVEDU Y ;j 60 I 40'-6" Y i L01 I3107L1o940 50 FT)UNT VIEW N I N Z y IDS' L LJ I a 7 TEMPORARY SILT FENCE 4 lj V. PROPOSED D.H.W.M. • e•_ . 2'-]- w > sv O.H.W.M.21 BS-AT Z a EXISTING CONCRETE QQQ 1111:111111•I111In, ,,BULHEAD . iA IBfi.2]' _ i4 1BI[IIFIUI]IIIII FOISTING 4)2.B5 N 69'-50•-57•E O v= miT MO SEAPLANE R IIIIII II 40"POPLAR w _IIIII DECK AND WALKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I• I IIII X 11280 SO FT OF DOCK COVERAGE. d N I.n BOAC 3rT' TH CANOPY a 2O MORGAN.LAURA 990 50 FT) SEXISTINGPIER) 3103 MOUNT.MEW AVE N SITE PLAN I SCALE. I_=20' ICONSTRUCTNEWPIER1a'% 105.OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO B'AND MAKING A JOG TO THE SOUTH.WITH TOTAL OVER'WATER COVERAGE OF 749 SO FT. O e 24 —" —KEY Q n PROPOSED STRUCTURES 3LIA 67 --=1 ,' -^ y REMOVED:VEGETATION TO BE C a,..' 4': III: i ( MORNING GLORY,BUTTERCUP, I. I- r Y_J,. I f; BULLRUSH,AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) Q wWRY,{IT SLIP 9 % p 2 oGLp;, ;to I. LEGAL DESCRIPTION N. 32ND 1/4 SEC' SE 31-24N-05E m 11 ai TA%LOT J: 334210 3800 LOB !' I 1na-ix i BLK A LOT 54-55 HILLMANS LK WN S)(E GARDEN OF EDEN#1 8 SH LDS ADJ r: r4% , N. •3Y1s r0 4133 9 E(1D h GR LAT: 47'-31'-10• f. S .- of em,_ 1.: a N. 3Frrm LONG:12T-12--38- w s= W1 J zif,' 1 i aN. 29TH F R - qq Gov 1 L\11 t` a FJI : 23.01 wi: Iy,, zn WN bj VICINITY MAP W 0 SCALE: 1'-200' o o _n 6 6 5 KEY• 0 EXISTING 10'3 CREOSOTE32'SAILBOAT TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED(16 TOTAL) oF. 1. PROPOSED 1'SCH, BO COATED STEEL PILING(12 TOTAL AT IB O/C)105 6' a T— PL37-6' 2XG PRESSURE TREATED E ofNORTH7 OF DECKING 1(REFERENCE NORTH 7 LINE O I I O 5 MIN o,S 0 O REFERENCE rt N O LINE O @ O 6 r .g g I J 0 0 o o.H.w.u.AT zs' PROPOSED Q I11PROPOSED4'SCH.80 O BULKHEAD z I COATED STEEL PILING O5$ APPROXIMATE LOCATION z r°i PRISMS TOR NOT SEWER LINE z< REFERENCE LIGHT PENETRATION H oLINE SOUTH PLAN VIEW s= SCALE: 1/4'=1' SOUTH na REFERENCECONSTRUCTNEWPIER14'X 105'OVER-ALL. LINE o 0PIERWILLCONSISTOFA6•MAINWALK,WIDENINGTOAN8•WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. ommilm. .... r, IvjC 32'SAILBOAT C O •II 0 I ki'v 13 6 o 32'SAILBOAT l\32 SAILBOAT Q w II1fl [ PROPOSED PIER p. I 1 I O H.W. 1 771701 1.85' gzVr„ b.L.w.pIr.tD.DD' I'.7. \\:\ .,;>' \/ X.•/'‘ LAKE BOTTOM s a WEST ELEVATION o W oSCALE: 1/4'=1' c 40 o= o X SWoOo O g V 8 g J W u F.2 as g9411 , Sw\ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING s1w'r CITY OF RENTON r: }_t:.°, Alit; DEVELOPMF,r IANNINC CITY 7ON DEC 2 7 2000 I ''. "..Ix P=1:1= =S n XH v DEC ' 1 RECEIVED STATE OF WASHINGTON REC.. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 117`+ Northwest Regional Office, 3190 - 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 December . 1, 2000 I certify that I mailed a copy of this document to the persons and addresses listed thereon,postage prepaid,in a receptacle for United States mail in Bell ashington on Lesley Nis ihira z` 2000. Renton Pla ning/Building/Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way 62t Lv ?•a5 Renton W' 98055 - 3232 Laurie Bak-r and Lowell Anderson 3107 Mou tain View Ave. North Renton W 98056 Dear Ms. Nishihira,Ms. Baker and Mr. Anderson: Re: City of Renton Permit#LUA-99-049;SME,SV BA R,LAURIE; ANDERSON,LOWELL- Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development/Variance Permit 2000-NW-40043 The Depa 'ment of Ecology has reviewed the above referenced Shoreline Substantial Developm:nt/Variance permit to construct a 2729 square foot, 105 foot long, 8 foot wide dock for a sing!: family residence at 3107 Mountain View Avenue North within shoreline jurisdiction of Lake W:shington in the City of Renton. We concu that the proposal, as conditioned by the City of Renton, meets the intent of the master program a d the criteria set forth in WAC 173-27-150 for granting a Substantial Development Permit an. WAC 173-27-170 for granting a Variance Permit. The permit is hereby approved. This appro al is given pursuant to requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Other fede al, state, or local approvals may be required. Those devlopments and activities authorized by the subject permit may not begin until twenty- one (21) d ys from the transmittal date of this approval letter, or until conclusion of any review proceedin:, (appeal) initiated within the twenty-one day period. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if this permit is appealed. 4:tesio 18 to Lesley Nis ihira Laurie Bak r Lowell Anil erson December 01, 2000 Page 2 If you hay: any questions on the above action, please contact Marcia Geidel at (360)407-6322 Sincerely, Off.//444MA-1y‘(--"2 Jeannie Su erhays, Section Supervisor Shoreland and Environmental Assistance Program JS: MG:mL VARA.DOC Enclosure a THIS SEC ION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITI I NAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT. Ci of Re on PERMIT SDP and Variance#LUA-99-049-SME SV ISSUING AG CY) APPLIC• 1 : Laurie Baker and Lowell Anderson DEPART ENT OF ECOLOGY PERMIT#2000 -NW-40043 DATE RE 1 EIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT: June 16, 2000 APPROV I) X DENIED THIS CONDITIONAL USE_ / VARIANCE _x_ PERMIT IS APPROVED X / DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90.58 RCW. DEVELOP T SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIO S: As conditi ned by city. DATE 2/2 2000 i Jeannie Summerhays, SectionsorP CITY'O>r RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DMSION AI=P113A1/T OF SERVICE BY MAILING.: On the - day of Dec:e b _v - , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 511ove(iv\ Va-14-0-1/K-C-. documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing De f5 4 Cwt vvu,i 9eiikticut Wwell Aria i/scin i Urk- t1C- r 1,z a bed L Fertvu-S Ce sT1„ruc1161/N Signature of Sender) u -J(_ STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Z nAr a -k. S lQ d oDt signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act foMhe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. MAR Notary Publi n and for the State of shington NOTAFtY PUBLIC Notary (Print)STATE OF WASHINGTONiJGTCN My appointme s fpag MCHEFF COMMISSION! EXPIRES r MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03JUKE29, 2003 Project Name: ur1 iftvIct_evsovi [ Project Number: LUH , 99 DPI Lt 4 11/k NOTARY2.0OC CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT November 29, 2000 EXEMPTION FILE NO.: LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME PROJECT NAME: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock & Bulkhead OWNER/APPLICANT: Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson PROJECT MANAGER:Lesley Nishihira; (425)430-7270 PROPOSAL: The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. In addition to the placement of rocks, approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material and native plants would be installed. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark. Residential docks are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a variance in order to exceed the maximum length permitted by the City's Shoreline Master Program. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for dock component of the project is scheduled for the requested shoreline variance October 17, 2000. PROJECT LOCATION:3107 Mountain View Avenue North LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 54-55, Block A, Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden SEC-TWN-R: 31-24N-5E WATER BODY: Lake Washington e:Y WHARF SIT Mr `f i ,,... ^-F I K NNYDji I x L.: 7 6141 ie O . I- - -4 SLIP 30 - _ Ar ' — 47. . Ca T 1oa ' r Z • 5 ' ,,e s 'yP v S1T .Z 13•.Id 15 '6 f7 na rA jV_. . N. 31ST y.•bl:.. f i7 I a ijo1611 Zt T • I IJ IG IS Iw 1jj C a:1 e m; I Q 3 N.30TH sme 63 N... 1--T. cr. a. 7 6 ..-j An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project described for the following reason(s): X Normal maintenance of repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. 1. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. X Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A"normal protective" bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if it is constructed for the purpose of creating additional dry land. Additional construction requirements are found in WAC 173-27-040(2)(c). The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one): CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT X Policies of the Shoreline Management Act. The guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or adapted by the Department. X The Master Program. Ate Lt I(Ara 1/.3(100 Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT: 1. The City has a public sewer main in Lake Washington adjacent to this site. The main must be properly located and protected prior to the start of construction. The contractor is to notify the Renton Maintenance Division (425-235-2585) prior to starting work in the lake to schedule an on-site preconstruction meeting. Attachments: Site Plan Vicinity Map cc: Applicant File Department of Ecology Attorney General sme ONW SAT 1'EIKE 21 NS' POST ATTACH SILT r OI.BS'. N.W. FENCE TO TOP q CW POST k c ^\` Roc 6 O/C 126NCt7MLy Ld(2lvE Lo6PlX4 pJ5"(> 1"1 Meave. T2FdM 16.ve rL WWP°ST u u LANE j\/\/\ >////\//\//\ \//\ \/j j/j//j\//i 1 r 9 AKE 0 XK';617t6lacemorkprix.Las* BOTTOM 6'TO B' SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL hVOIP 41AAl22 L> SCALE: 1..3' INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. n ram f1.-J REMOVE SILT FENCE WHEN PROJECT IS 1[ M E5 t) T•t••AI L (TyPI) 8. COMPLETED. Z S$ w Fe4.lc-e L11JE z 4 suck TO1tdl'i j ' I ao 1 no(, Lt vE L 4s rI TA+ti1 1 IgoLl TO') II/ ICI% poop `,,1.,1 II ..rEA.' 11 40 - s-rep G3xJe-, KTIOCo GROub Al t?a W11110) 013 I H Po'YS6-4W1, O ME,4 40r.;. E1- a pr+'L6 tl-(K N.tA-ro I3e n L 'w co 3 V ® 1 10 STD D T I L Q gal kld ll c hFbRCLide. i\F o Fltxl w/1,w eJ n¢Fa TAM J' 7P'hock wt jl 11 T l c1 eC,,Eb QEA V a, r uvevt:L 4 i II Jew t2E6foR1p.5a0(ZE(.10-To bee Expx-,1 o Vt. ds ,44ovia :4 ; ttiPF'. e D TII-1 o-IwM-It,$ 1 Et werp Uo hL7 a¢Ir, weou lr, 1 e,PUCE%vl lIE 161 stblz Q ar•b¢ELt)•1 26a. r H 1 ti sb12LLlLlr, Dell,-w/PLa1TI $-& 4 rx-r.ecOc.t3uUtatav ez6cLpu, w lop of atlo b<Is-(t2G f,127 I2C2:,('I f p.)EXc- Id i E REkovgD 1G c I¢aLEI7 dt2F.?•( tA14 --- a y 1- • Lear: v461 nos ____51 t 'f¢ G4 ,AiM 1A .r. 4 v; 41 P2D236rD L6 5{-192t-IM 5-il-5 xd -I.6' t'9 o Xv, o W ism !t-*r irrzemi a orzrs-era-terr"1r-r1rl, ' s 7-nnIIIMENIEnrr a.— d 11111111111 ,i it. .. e IiA . \AIA441 ® _ r--- - - - -- - Mil r 1 -____ ._. -_ -__ _ _ — if: A144'11, w-it El immilli, mi BUN IOU 24 i g f=I' 114 I , . . 1,4- f 0A ff 4111115. simmir=1 . i_ _ _ IA 1 l 1 IN t RA It 4 .I lLJI lu'gi tKiLI1'L•gj J 2 h A Yif'? ' zii i'Y81`11 . 1. 'ti 1" N ainAr, A a1I'1ffiImiZI p x i L v11WI4 UIR11`IL1ill '!"'. Sty-. ' IG C1 I1t3r1 tit ' 'ICi'111111 NM i rdmTit= .^RUM 11u!11111U 111 IIMI a. 8 c r —. E3 IIGC]II 11IGzCIWf Lf2I WHhI 0.01,. 1FL€ In 1Zi! Ii!EI u1 cc t3Z 1i11t i u . ii ccl I 40 C2IIgQ7u Ii ati lei - CI _ C C• d 4 11.03 -e R11111l111A1InI1 1 nln l s l o l1, 1H1 - _ . N t ''1 13 R 8 ! 1 1 le R-1 N ;mom ri 7 su tibillielliiiiii 00 C3 aQ :""TO'°°`°' a 31 T24N R5E E 1/2 174S, CIT IC OF RENTON IL *vk:Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse'Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator December 6, 2000 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development PermitNariance for Baker/AndersonDock File No. LUA-99-049;SME,SV Gentlemen: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on November 30, 2000. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 430-7270 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 14/14) Lesley Nishihira Project Manager Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General Applicant chltr 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 OR7 Thie Hanger enntaine Sn%rnrvrlwri matnrial.9n%nnct rnncumwr CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME DATE RECEIVED: August 9, 2000 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: August 21, 2000 DATE APPROVED: November 6, 2000 TYPE OF ACTION(S): Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit X] Variance Permit ic FJ 10 EC cWHARFSIT ,-- :> .r . r ..,.. g, t . _ K NNYD Aln6,.. '..c., / 5, 74a SLIP O i ti iI . ItL'F,r N.32NDm T JOB • i sr -3,• 4.1'ti: i6/I • . S ITE 2 , e s F mom! 13 1.la 1. 16 nT 1/ .rat o • C01em •:.•. insi 1 to\ ! N*30THItiiiii0100120011! '/?6.3. ' 11 t9: 111 • I I G 1 ICIPa.;... y. Q. 113 "I'$1 I shsubdev City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 2 of 3 Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson PROJECT: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock & Bulkhead DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION:The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. The dock is proposed at a length of 105 feet and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas- fir decking. The shoreward 65 feet of the pier would be 6 feet wide, leading to an 8.5-foot long, 8-foot wide intervening section, ending with a 35-foot long section of 8 feet in width. The construction of the dock would involve the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles that remain from the previously existing failed pier. Twelve 4-inch coated steel piles, set at 18-foot intervals, would be driven to support the new dock. The project would include the installation of prisms in order to minimize shading in the area of the dock with the greatest amount of surface coverage. Equipment necessary for project construction would be brought to the site via barge, including a barge-mounted crane and vibratory pile driver. The subject site is designated as an "urban" environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted within this designation provided there is no more than one pier per developed water front lot or ownership and the dock design complies with established specifications. These standards limit dock length to 80 feet, width to 8 feet, require a minimum setback of 5 feet from adjacent property lines, and allow no more than one pier extension at a maximum of 100 square feet in size. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a shoreline variance from section 4-3-090.L.e.ii of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to exceed the maximum permitted dock length of 80 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request, the proposed residential dock and bulkhead comply with all pertinent shoreline development regulations. A Exemption Certificate from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be issued for the bulkhead portion of the project. In May of 1999, the proposal was brought before the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), where a decision was tabled pending the applicant's submittal of a Biological Assessment addressing the project's potential affect on critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. In response to this request, the applicant submitted a biological assessment and substantially revised the scale of the proposed dock by reducing overall size, length and width dimensions. The ERC took potential impacts to shoreline, wildlife, and habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the project. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 54-55, Block A, Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden SEC-TWNP-R:31-24N-5E WITHIN SHORELINES OF:Lake Washington APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4-3-090.J Urban Environment page 3-25 4-3-090.L Specific Use Regulations page 3-27 4-3-090.L.2 Piers and Docks page 3-32 4-9-190.1 Shoreline Variances and Conditional Uses page 9-54 shsubdev City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 3 of 3 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction conditions provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. 2.The public sewer main located in Lake Washington adjacent to this site shall be properly located and protected prior to the start of construction. The contractor is to notify the Renton Maintenance Division 425-235-2585) prior to starting work in the lake to schedule an on-site preconstruction meeting. 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. a2p--H II'10 - 61) Fred Kaufman, aring E Date THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: August 9, 2000 APPROVED:November 6, 2000 DENIED: N/A If Variance, Section(s)of the City's Shoreline Master Program being varied: RMC section 4-3-090.L.2.e.ii. This Variance permit is approved by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: Neil Watts, Director DATE Development Services Division cc: Attorney General's Office Applicant shsubdev CKISNNG PIER 1530 SO rT or DOCK COVERAGE _ I1I IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II o I U WI',I, 1 I IINUUI.ITG,11.VYU I1 " 3111 MOUNT,VIEW AVE N Z ,/ L;oriv,.ml unnlpll.. K 2060 so PT) LI iW O 1 0 Nfjli Nl SINGE lWL PUN WLUU SURV[Y RDA'RAMI• WOOD PICKET ICNCEi ......"— 1......... 1.7?.71§.''.. ". - . 5' T-' .( n S.MIN 67•-6' -•,,,}_ 185.54' AO' —Z Q 1:• I—--- 3 R io wiuow EXISTINGNOUSE R W e'F PROPO$CO PIER 6'LI 10 OC 1,560$O ft l p_ 14 REMOVED JOB SITE. •-,$-s- , Qla_i 40•-6'---, 31V7 MOUNT VIEW AVE N Q 'V,•/ 60 105' 1 1 + LOT 11.940 SO FT) I n A1 = ICMVORART SILT(CNCE, '\ Iy 1. I vy i`PROPOSED O.M.W.M, • wB_C• i•I`l'-t• O.H.W.M. 21.85'AI IE%IS11NG CONCRETE irk.• eDLHUo 1e6.77 — jISUPUNCRInCxISPNGA11.B5 N e9'-SO'-Ti'[ OAOPOPIM C g: DECK AND WALK 111111111111111111111111111 F k' I I X 1 1280 50 ri or DOCK COJERACC; h B0 iZ777'ItH CANOPY 0 MORGAN,LAVFA 990 50 ET) I EXISTING PIER 3103 MOUNT.NEW AVE N qr SITE PLAN I SCALE: I'.20' ICONSTRUCTNEWPIERIA'X . OVER-ALL PIER WILL BE R 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO B'AND ' MAKING A A JOG TO THE WITH OVERSOUIN, TOTAL O WATER COVERAGE Of 749 SO FT. rr KL I PROPOSED STRUCTURES Llwa SLIP _may ` _ y EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE Al I ' MORNING GLORY,BUTTERCUP, IV V ' f?, BULLRVSH,AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) KNNY6• ....4I';: _•,. S)RD SETT 0 i71 e.1• M1..r F` 'r:; LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q t=•• N. 32N0ci IOW O A SIC SE 310 38805E ham' 4 Hil` A''E' 1AKLOT O Si- 1 110ti' •GAK E LOT ENS HILLMAN$ WNAD511E % C1 R GARDEN Of EDEN I & SN LOS ADJ 3IST40OMw315T iG.ty I n col em sue,,. ur: Kr-n•-lo' Ch l • N. 30TN TONG' I27-13•-3e' a W 1{,+ AN. 2fTN zy ' Si iVICINITYMAPo SCALE: 1..200' E i R( I' 1= KEY l0 32'SAILBOAT d EXISTING 10-± CREOSOTETREATEDPILESTOBEREMOVED(IX TOTAL) s E 10$'PROPOSED 4-SCH. NG(12 TOTAL AT IRA 0/C)$iEfl 1. I SUE PR(SSVRC IRCAICD d D(O[CKING 6 mIdS.MIN oC NORTH REfERENCC111111111UNE e' d 1 E d j1110111IN I d WM AT 25 ED 110CIRHO PO11111COATEDSSTEELPILING SCH O d I O BULKHEAD t I So APPROXIMATE LOCATION o i aSOUTHPRISMSFOROf$CW[R LIN[ Z;NE RCNCC LIGHT P[NE(RATION PLAN VIEWo Up; SCALE: I/L'.I' SOUTH nCONSTRUCTNEWPIER11• X 10S'OVER-ALL.REFERENCE PIER WILL CONSIST O(A B'MAINWAI,K,WIOCNRJG LINE q RTOANe'WALK Af TER A JOG IO ill[ $OVIII, C]` 32'SAILBOAT O I l 1 32'SAILBOAT i 32'wLROT• 174 PROPOSED PIER I I 70 CI1 7 1 0 oHw OP1.es' 0 L.w. C77.' gJj.i i I/v/% //://\////' y d ILO ILLAKE BOTTOMWESTELEVATION SCALE: I/E'.Y u I a o , ti z d4 1 x to o 6 Un a2 r iZ i Z 105' 6' Ifs. C 1' JOIST CAP PILING i .B NAILER1__ __ _ 1 A ° 5' MIN GLU-LAM 1 4•_ allatinillillir 1 -• 6' II, I IIiiJiY J O.H.W.M. AT II. .c 8 I M o I A PROPOSED y;; III IIU'I.III Ii III i ° BULKHEAD L- 9' I B DETAIL VIEW i_APPROXIMATE LOCATIONPRISMSFOROFSEWERLINE t D LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. 1 KEY o EXISTING 10"f CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL)80' PIER LIMIT LINE OF KEEL DOCKED O.H.W. I AT 80' PIER 21.85' l I l._ ... O.L.W. .. i i / i/ i//i''/ // /\%/-/ 16'-6" 4, 1 / jj\j ',.j\\jjj\j\<„,/ A\-1 \\\ '/\/\//.<//.: // !'' ' c': \y/!/,/ %X , ELEVATION VIEW INGjPSECTION C—C18f ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18't ANDDRIVENAT10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE O.H.W. I 21.85' I r//\\- // /\/\/\// //\//\//\//\//\/\// /i%\%\%\ \\A \. SCALE: 1"=16'I ice/\/\21,`/\ /\\X\/\/\/\\/\\/\/`\/ /. / / PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER.I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD.1 SECTION D— D IN:LAKE WASHINGTONIAT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1 -00 O W SII r If WI 0 RS'POST ATTACH SILT O.H.W. FENCE TO TOP 41.e5' OF POST ROCK pt,1 `7112t5SM l dvEL 112ut-i z,6,v v 1. o" -..l C , POST WEIGHTS ANCHOR e S. X LAKES BOTTOM 51 j\/ j\/\/\/\ >/\/\//\//\ \//\// /i 1' 3 $ LAKE 0 7 CKT<iIDL'BOTTOM I 6'TO e' tsv`I` `1" 7( ',[' I.^xy',''71'`y'" 7 1`/ MAX G GNLyv/ VC. I-1 5 SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL SVoIP*5,4W I),IE zSCALE: 1"-0' INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE SILT FENCE MIEN PROJECT IS ST 2 EA M btb d.TAI L (-ryp) 8.COMPLETED. I o t2E_ F_2Amp FEs c.E LI I,JE k g BuLw 1-01 Y7 11 r`:: 01 o° LCdvE i0s'1IFICo PETati11616,%,,/d.l c=lot r.>/, ''. 6 r Pool'.- vim II .,r,,.L \11 AA. Tel' raze, ;, Vript G911kb l 2.1.6 iyS4 .w., SOIL ILt... o .i ' tiP _(- 4,4/I.,^ (/ 1 e, M NrL.,Pt-(FJK A-ro et MLR 2 I"" . ccr goyP3 I \, EXfb i I7UPW l'tEWE e.,ur1v 51 DET LIL a-, 1L11kt J IIL rs.' 11\.` 4 ro LUS-t W I e,5 I ii EMI F 51 O( KK TtM euLIZLV •P* P'Zack WtT1.11 T.1 cl ef,1,E D AQE,4 Q V a II RfBfoRrD I E i0 be-Eac ,ED I'+ ds si-Ionia hPEGD. L6tk7JF InEKTll-18, oI-IMtW -2.18 hL-j [$RIG c4 dz viscio I ye,/ FLOce.W/L1vviUE 1•46.fifh n 242¢ELIOE r2cr.E 44 4 . 1 B wEn I IIIv-. 1 Q_-• i® STe 3eDl L (- I '/a3 r' urxKT,talc,gLILIZd.AL7 e E6cEpU. 1n'fop of 6LID b<Is'(C2tX..l,122 12-Ce.k6C/P)EXCEPT id II, REkcvep, Ir.GIRGIED dt2EA( _ - LEAVE. r.Y14T Da-4'S .---1 25'i tD f 51-19M IM t -11-1%6' Wo W TUIFT----ljueD Le o s W ter,-T--- 111-A r r.:e-a ors ._1,Amrri main rear... it— ....,antr,-rasa vicam. a-. ' z T---Tr rFr+•1_rar*rs a 3 ti i-i- iii-i-i-i I-I—I-IIIII-I- I At.v 4lt F St R— 1,f Ait1114_ Mr.‘ 11 _rimil: i I -- III- -- I ill NI W RI gam 1 R__,Ei .F ,„1 ir Ailli le 1111411 'DI 1 ' I 1- 1 1-4- f Maksimitim. m• = 1__1;,mli , .jai -0 ,,, 35t,} tsIy R-6 --1 T 42 lt- 6 -R-11-is 1 447sT k. J R 15 I- . 'S P x IStt rt iz i iJbLI413V I n :iia IILUl g 1 ' R-B ' a+s s:' is l sir Po 0-8 MINI pi i - I11GG7ii ! R,Ei I i4 `. t 3t I i r I u, mi-011 l la I3u11 0l.h o cc 4 N 1 Irt.-1? " j-Lril'e r f I R 8 L I 4zpw ! 1R.8 8 --- 1 1, 1`,IIII 1. ate L I i L N 28th SrTi I C C \ R V r1R1-1 8 H i Z _ R-11 e._ 1:_: 1_ 11 8{r - cet.R-1 i ily--L-81; _ b Ni C34 aQ .T I L V1 ' 31 T24N R5E E 1/2 I t$ CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman CITY OF RENTONNovember30, 2000 NOV 3 0 2000 RECEIVEDLowellAndersonCITYCLERK'S OFFICE 3710 Mt.View Ave N Renton,WA 98056 RE: Baker/Anderson Dock LUA99-049,SM,V-H,ECF Dear Mr. Anderson: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the above referenced matter,which was issued on November 6,2000,was not appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore this matter is considered final by this office and the file on your application is being transmitted to the Development Services Division for further processing with the State. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Sandi Seeger, Development Services Marilyn Petersen,City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY )F RENTON AL Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman November 30, 2000 Lowell Anderson 3710 Mt.View Ave N Renton, WA 98056 RE: Baker/Anderson Dock LUA99-049,SM,V-H,ECF Dear Mr. Anderson: The Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the above referenced matter,which was issued on November 6, 2000,was not appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore this matter is considered final by this office and the file on your application is being transmitted to the Development Services Division for further processing with the State. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Sandi Seeger, Development Services Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-6515 R7 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King Joan Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 6th day of November ,2000, 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. Signature: g SUBSCRIO qlam SWORN to before me this Viz dayof N ev.v r 2000. 4340 O' :a z 4y o /c Q ' u ; Nota Public in and for the State of Washington, Qo p' ,, =%; residing at al'{''iC , therein. q STATE V' Application;Petition, or Case No.: Anderson/Baker Dock LUA-99-049,S V,ECF,S ME The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT November 6, 2000 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Laurie Baker&Lowell Anderson Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049.SV,ECF,SME LOCATION: 3107 Mountain View Ave N SUMMARY OF REQUEST:Applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 10,2000. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 17,2000 hearing. The legal record is'recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 17,2000,at 9:00 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: 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. Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Dock Details and West Elevation Exhibit No. 5: North and South Elevations Exhibit No.6: Details for Shoreline Restoration Exhibit NO. 7: Aerial photo Exhibit No.8: Top View of Sandbar Navigation Route The hearing o i ened with a presentation of the staff report by LESLIE NISHIHIRA,Project Manager, Development .ervices,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. The subject site is accessed from the east and on the west has 60 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. The site is located within the R-8 zoning designation and is currently developed with a single family home. The applicant is proposing the onstruction of a 749 square-foot dock for use by the single family residence. The dock is Laurie Baker Lowell Andersc,.. Anderson/Bak r Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LU 99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6, 000 Page 2 proposed at al ngth of 105 feet,and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas fir decking. The first 65 feet of the dock from the shoreline would have a width of six feet. The dock would then transition into a"dog leg" length of :-1/2 feet with a width of eight feet,and would terminate with a 35-foot long section,also eight feet in width. onstruction of the dock would require the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from t e previously failed pier. The construction of the dock would require the installation of twelve 4- inch coated st-el piles set at 18 foot intervals. The subject site is designated as an Urban Environment under the City's Shoreli - Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted subject to specific development s .ndards,those being a maximum length of 80 feet,a maximum width of eight feet,and a minimum five foot setback from adjacent property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to exceed that m. imum 80 foot length by 25 feet, for a total dock length of 105 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request,the dock meets all other specified development standards of the City's Shoreline Master Progr. ii . On September 12 of this year,the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)took potential impacts to wildlife and shoreline abitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the project. This s etermination was followed by a two-week appeal period during which no appeals were filed. Representatives from various City departments have had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The e comments are included in the official file and have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of thi• report. The applicant has requested a variance from a provision of the City's Shoreline Master Program whic states, "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water,or u til a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark,whichever is reached first." As previously stated,the app icant is seeking an increased dock length of 105 feet,which is 25 feet beyond the maximum 80 foot length pe itted. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours at the subject site are such that at the required 80 fo i t length,water depths would be too shallow to safely moor a boat. The approval of the variance would allow t e applicant to construct a dock to allow a sufficient water depth so that safe boat moorage is possible. Ms.Nishihira eviewed the Variance Decision Criteria that the Examiner must consider, and explained how the dock will mee'these criteria. The applicant contends that lake bottom contours are such that a dock constructed at the 80 foot aximum length would preclude the ability to safely moor a boat The Examine questioned whether a longer dock would need to be constructed if the applicant purchases a larger boat in t e future,since the hardship seems to be based on the size of the boat. He also questioned whether the boat would be directly on the property line even though the pier has to be set back five feet from the property line. Ms.Nishihira Stated that she could not speak to the applicant's intentions of purchasing a larger boat in the future. The regulations specify that only the dock itself maintain a five-foot setback from the property line. The reason for the 'dog leg"transition is to keep the boat on the owner's side of the property line when docked. The applicant fl as provided a list of adjacent docks in the area. Of the seven docks listed,which range from 40 feet to 175 fee, in length,four exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. The average length of the seven docks in the ar-a is 112 feet,which exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. The proposed dock is not anticipat-d to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicin ty. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public acce•s to the shoreline. The intent of the Shoreline Master Program is to allow for flexibility in dock design in orde to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with t e general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to he area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The hardship presented by the Laurie Baker&Lowell Andersc,.. Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 3 applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. There are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC,the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest nor adversely affect public rights of navigation. Staff recommends approval of the requested Shoreline Variance for the Anderson/Baker residential dock and bulkhead. Elizabeth Petras, Waterfront Construction,205 NE Northlake Way, Seattle,WA 98105,reviewed the applicant's proposal and explained the reasons for the chosen design of the dock,including water depths in the area and safe moorage of the boat during winter storms. Guidelines set out by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as we 1 as the National Marine Fishery Service have been followed in regard to dock widths as well as installation of prisms under the dock. The proposal includes a shoreline enhancement that will bring a number of native plants back into the area and work toward the environmental goal of a properly functioning condition of the shoreline ecology. Lowell Anderson, 3107 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056,stated that the dock has been designed to accommodate a boat up to 32 feet. A larger boat would require a larger pier in order safely moor the boat in terms of egress and ingress. However,the draft for larger boats doesn't change other than getting smaller. A 60- foot boat could still maintain a draft of six feet. Mr.Anderson stated that it is not his intent nor desire to have a boat larger than 32 feet moored in the location. Lloyd Lindburg, 3111 Mt.View Ave N,Renton,WA 98056,stated that he lives next door to the Anderson property. He expressed concerns about the old fence line being used as the survey line. The survey line is four feet south of the fence. This four feet is included in his 65 feet of property. He feels that the length of the other docks in the area is not relevant,since the property is in a small cove area and one of the docks mentioned is a commercial dock that was made for hydroplane racing years ago. He further stated that the dock should not be allowed to go out farther than the existing piling that will be removed. All the docks in the area are of a reasonable length. A 105-foot dock will be an eyesore, and will impede the fisherman in the area. He stated that because the offset is not large enough,the access to his launching ramp will also be impeded. Ms.Nishihira responded by stating that the applicant has presented a 60-foot lot width and proposed work within his property lines. He is not showing any work to be proposed outside of that property line. He is not contending that the property line extends to the fence line. That is a civil matter that must be resolved outside of this proposal. The Examiner asked for clarification on whether the boat would extend across the property line when it is docked and intrude into the lot to the north. Ms. Petras responded that the property line would be very close when the boat is docked. The drawing was done based on a typical beam for a 32-foot sailboat. It was determined that the boat would be right on the property line,but not extend beyond it. The structure itself does adhere to the Renton guidelines concerning being at lest five feet away from the adjacent property line. The rules are for the structure,not for the boat itself. The Examiner advised Mr. Lindburg that property line disputes are outside the boundaries of this forum to decide,and suggested he seek guidance from an attorney. Mr.Anderson reviewed the aerial photograph the area showing the sandbar in relation to the existing docks and explained that is necessary to extend the dock in order to clear the sandbar safely. He understands that there is a property line dispute involving his property and Mr.Lindburg's. This is something that will need to be resolved. Laurie Baker&Lowell Andersc.. Anderson/Baker Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA-99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2000 Page 4 If it is resolved so that the fence line becomes the new property line,he would like to have this project include the new property line. If it cannot be resolved,he will stop at the platted line and address the difference at a later time. Mr. Lindburg restated some of his concerns about the project. 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 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The applicants,Laurie Baker and Lowell Anderson, filed a request for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Variance from the Shoreline Management Act to construct a 105 foot long pier or dock into Lake Washington. 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, issued a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5.The subject site is located 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. 6.The subject site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The site is located west of Lake Washington Boulevard and north of NE 31th Street(as extended). 7.The subject site consists of a lot that contains uplands and submerged property below the surface of the lake. An existing home is located on the site. 8.The applicants propose constructing a 105 foot long,approximately 749 square foot pier. In addition, the applicants propose removing a concrete bulkhead and restoring natural contours and vegetation to the shoreline. 9.The construction will remove 16, 12-inch creosoted wood pilings from a previous pier. The new pier would be supported by 12,4-inch coated steel pilings. The new pier would extend directly out from the shore for approximately 68 feet,then jog slightly to the south approximately 14 feet and extend out into the lake another approximately 40 feet. The initial 68 feet of pier would be approximately 6 feet wide. The most distant 40 feet of pier would be approximately 8 feet wide. 10. The southward jog is intended to provide clearance for a boat to be moored along the north side of the pier and not intrude into the waters of the neighboring property to the north. 11. The dock would include prisms that would allow for light passage to the water underneath the dock. Laurie Baker Lowell Andersc,.. Anderson/Bak•r Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA 99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6, 000 Page 5 12. The w:ter depth in this area is shallow. There is sediment layer that runs in a northwesterly direction that cr ates the shallows. The code allows piers 80 feet long or until water depth is 12 feet deep, which ver comes first. At 80 feet water depth on the south side of the pier varies from approximately 4 feet 3 nches(Ordinary High Water Line- OHWL)to 2 feet,3 inches(Ordinary Low Water Line- OLW )whereas there is between 9 feet, 5 inches and 7 feet, 5 inches of water depth on the north side. In ord:r to achieve a navigable water depth of 12 feet and provide safe moorage for a longer sailboat, the ap licant seeks the 105 foot,offset length proposed. 13. Other biers or docks in the area vary from between approximately 40 feet to 175 feet. Apparently,four in the ea exceed the proposed 105 feet. Neighboring to the north is a pier and boathouse structure out overt e lake. 14. This . ea along the lake is designated an urban shoreline environment. 15. The a.plicant has proposed a master development plan to control erosion and avoid disturbing the lake enviro ent. This plan was reviewed and accepted by the ERC. 16. The a•plicants apparently have been involved in a dispute regarding the location of the property line betwe:n their parcel and the parcel to the north. The plans for the pier supposedly work to avoid intrusi a ns into the disputed property. CONCLUSI I NS: 1.The V: iance provisions of the Shoreline Master Program permit a variance in certain circumstances. The cr teria are that: Upon proper application,a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteri. established in the Renton Master Program where,owing to special conditions pertaining to the specif piece of property,the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Rento i Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that th- applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the M.ster Program is not by itself sufficient reason for a variance.The Land Use Hearing Examiner must nd each of the following: a.Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof,that do not apply generally to other properties on the shoreline in the same vicinity. b.The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. c.The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. d.The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. Laurie Baker . Lowell Andersc,.. Anderson/Bak,r Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA 99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2100 Page 6 e.The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it,the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971,and the provisions of this Master Program. 2.The d-i.th of Lake Washington in this area is fairly shallow. It varies somewhat but can be as shallow as 2 to 4 feet or perhaps nearly 9 feet. This significantly limited the type of boat and size of boat that may b; docked. At eighty feet from shore the water depth is limited and allowing a longer pier does permit reasonable use of boating privileges for lake side owners. This is a unique aspect of the area in which e subject site lies. 3.In ord:r to make use of the water-side nature of the site and to allow use of even a moderate sized boat, a vari. ce that permits a pier of greater than the usual 80 foot length is necessary. A longer pier is necess: in order to reach water that is 12 feet in depth. This fact explains the other longer piers in this and o l er areas along the shoreline. 4.There had been an older pier in this area. The new pier will allow the removal of more and larger support pilings with fewer narrow pilings. There are other piers and similar longer piers already serving home. ers along this section of the lake. Therefore, approval will not be unnecessarily detrimental to either he public welfare or other properties in this area. 5.The I. ter Program makes allowances for single family homes along the lakeshore. Homeownership on a 1. e encourages water use and piers would be considered normal accessory uses. The pier is in harmo y with the purposes of the program. 6.The pi-r should have minimal impact although any structure built out into the lake has to have some impac is. The design should reduce them as much as possible. 7.In add tion to the criteria noted above,the proposal must also satisfy the variance criteria contained in WAC 173-27-170.3,as follows: i.That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size,or natural features and the application of the master program,and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; iii. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; iv. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;and, vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Laurie Baker Lowell Andersc.. Anderson/Bak r Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA 99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6, 000 Page 7 8.It is n arly impossible to confirm that denying the variance would deprive the applicants of all reason ble use of the site,but it would deprive then of useful access to the lake for boating. 9.The e isting depth off the shoreline is shallow, and this is unique to this area of the lakeshore. 10. The project is designed to present a narrow but useable dock width and to allow the passage of light throug a prism system,thereby increasing the natural light that penetrates under the dock. The addition of one more dock along this portion of lakeshore will not create any untoward impacts on the shoreline enviro ent. 11. As no'-d above,there are other docks along this portion of the shore and there are both longer and shorte i docks to provide access to deeper water. 12. The a'proval of the variance should not create any detrimental impacts to the general public. 13. The pi-r will intrude into the lake but being one in an existing series,navigable shallow water craft alread need to steer off the shoreline in this area. RECOMME I ATION: The V: iance from the Shoreline Management Program is approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The a.plicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies and all construction condit ons provided in the application and modifications submitted to the City. ORDERED :I S 6th day of November, 2000. FRED J. KAUF HEARING EXA ER TRANSMI D THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the parties of record: Leslie Nishihi a Lowell Anderson 1055 S Grady ay 3107 Mt.Vernon Ave N Renton, WA •8055 Renton,WA 98056 Elizabeth Petr.s Lloyd Lindburg Waterfront Co struction 3111 Mt. Vernon Ave N 205 NE North ake Renton,WA 98056 Seattle, WA 9: 105 Laurie Baker Lowell Anders Anderson/Bak,r Residential Dock and Bulkhead File No.: LUA 99-049,SV,ECF,SME November 6,2100 Page 8 TRANSMITT I D THIS 6th day of November,2000 to the following: Mayor Jesse T; er Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members, Ren on Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fi e Marshal Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Lawrence J. . en, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities Syste Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County ournal Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director Pursuant to Tit e IV,Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writin on or s efore 5:00 ..m. November 20 2000. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is . ii biguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment, or the discovery of n,w evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a r- iew by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall s:t forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review o the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to e City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with t e City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this s rdinance 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 E ,aminer and members of the City Council. All communic•tions concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested part'-s to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. An 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 Appe. s to the City Council. WHARF SIT .- T•`r- ,• a•V, . i D I R ., 1 2 A. 33RD s. SLIP O -' iE-0: __I / . pro 17 Il ;e rz 3 1 t 1 m., N.32ND Z a 16 5 ,p SITE •/r __ 32 er - r; .14 I: 1E 177 Es?--------- • T--- - i ' - 0a 31STN.. . 1.a4:74 FPA, ET.:020 2 ell II e.w..,, 7- mipm :TTT • T 1! .[ I li. i rJJJ""y"""77"ihal Co e m:,: 1 L 4. 5 S:.a ' to 1 N.30TH It 9 E%15NNG NCR 1530 SD FT Of DOCK COVCRAGt III IIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL oIULINUUI.ItG,I.IVrU I I i 1. JIil MOUNT,VIEW AVC N J N 2060 S0 FT)I CK Y 0 I 1NNNI fINCE LINE PI It WLUU SURVEY NUAI RAMP WOOD PICKET 1ENCE— Z 9]7g:_-9' D"ST71BS.SA' —_ 10...--Z I t i S.MIN 67'-6" • ,-}- I ___ B 6///C%1571N0 81511 G W 3 iK B•[ r rROPOSED PiEI 6 4I 10 OC« OP. 1,560 50 Il IL____J r'' REMOVED JOB SITE Jo Q IJ_I O FAO-6•_J E 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N Y ,,., 60' 105' LOT II.940 SO FT)a I to LL1 b TEMPORARY SKI FENCE- - 111.: L;\r : ` PROPOSED O.Nw.TA E%ISTING CONCRETE ;J4. IB627' jBULNCAD EXISTING K12.85 N 89'-50'-_57'E p SEAPLANE R 40"POPLARIDCCKANDWALKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFt. I 1 X 11280 SO fl OF DOCK COVERAGE;PI O MORGAN.LAURA FT) 2W B01 'i1F7fH CANOPY ' W 990 50 EXISTING PIER 3103 MOUNT.NEW AVE N I _ I Q SITE PLAN ISCALE. I".20' CONSTRUCT NEW MEP IA'% 105'OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO 8'AND MAKING A JOG 10 THc SOV1N,WITH TOTAL OVER WATER COVERAGE Of 7.9 SO FT. C Wv #_.-tip KEY R rt. __ • PROPOSED STRICTURES 7-i- I ' A. N our C7 _l COSTING TO 8E zs ''. t MORNING GLORY. N-NATIVP. j 7', BULLRUSH,AND NON-NATNE IRIS) 4,41 k' . K NNY6. W:_9' 3LIr O J 7I/ t v Vie., 0 1.,` IEGA- DESCRIPTIONP. 10 tlo. , 312ND 1A%LOIL I. 334210 1218805E f.. Da At' BLK A LOT 54-S5 HUMANS LK WN S),E t 5:81 .Q • GARDEN OF CDEN i I A SH LDS ADO ft,z f" - M GAD it 7I T sJ1vlj i ,,'il IAr: Ar-31'-l0' Ca. Niii. _•, 0 N 3OTM LONG: 127-12'-38* r .L Y i Q Jf`' r:u S6 0 K 2f404,44M. iN 77 1j 4I ; 2J.Ol" 7, '1 fiV•-a VICINITY MAP 1 6 SCALE: 1•.200' 6' It;105' I,;-: C I, JOIST CAP PILING 37'-6' H_ B NAILER-ER o C 1 A 5 MIN GLU-LAM I T= i_ _ 6T 9 I J—I1 O.H.W.M. ATIInI11fiZiI o A PROPOSEDih° 8 II ao BULKHEAD ek DETAIL VIEW I APPROXIMATE LOCATIONfrr. PRISMS FOR B OF SEWER LINE f D LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY o EXISTING 10"t CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL) 80' PIER LIMIT LINE OF KEEL DOCKED I AT 80' PIERO.H.W. i 21.85' I O.L.W. 6' ELEVATION VIEW i\/'\\` I i PROPOSED PILING SECTION C—CI---18't ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18't AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE O.H.W. I 21.85' f 7'-2" O.L.W. 4\///i i i °°/ %/ -\\/\/\/\/ /\//\/ /\/\/\//\% /\/\/ / /\, SCALE: 1"=16' i /%\/%\f%_/%/%/%- \/ `/\/i\\jami\\,\\lam\- i\//\//. / PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. I SECTION D— D IN: LAKE WASHINGTON I AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1 -00 r City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock and Bulkhead Applicant/Address:Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Owner/Address: Same as applicant File Number:LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description:The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks. The proposal includes the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included is the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. Project Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North v WHARF SIT • -_ -- T ;Apt ' K NNYD / - 1' 33RD 1 i aaJ1 , N —95,r. /I/ 10 i r6 zi SLIP O -•aFr :1 is ii-Al fie/111 r'4)'r) rcI IL-. ,A-' . 1 N.32ND T JOB I I • . 1, . is` zoo • TE 1t AN d• ^ r_ 6 a if Z.f 21 o:..$ • T. 7- . c tL .7, .1 3 I'_ a N. 3IST II.ii. r° . 1 halt vidE00000105 _i Is rc 15 16 i 1104000.lifilbl .. 1 3 N. 30TH 0 D Variltailli i 11Tlik\01111171 • 9I 47' . vt d it 2.-..IAJ1015 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV, ECF,SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 2 of 6 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Owner of Record: Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton,WA 98056 2.Zoning Designation: Residential—8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) 3.Comprehensive Plan Residential Single Family(RSF) Land Use Designation: 4.Existing Site Use: Single family dwelling 5.Neighborhood Characteristics North: Single family residential East: Mountain View Avenue North, Single family residential South: Single family residential West: Lake Washington 6.Access: Mountain View Avenue North 7.Site Area: 10,800 square feet 8.Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: 990 sf Existing residence New Building Area: 749 sf Proposed dock Total Building Area: 1,739 sf C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No.Ordinance No.Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Annexation N/A 1804 12/08/59 D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) 2. Property Development Standards (RMC 4-4) a. Development Guidelines and Regulations—General (RMC 4-4-030) b. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations (RMC 4-4-130) 3. Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-9-190) E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: 1. Urban Environment(4-3-090.J) 2. Specific Use Regulations (4-3-090.L) 3. Piers and Docks (4-3-090.L.12) 4. Shoreline Variances and Conditional Uses (4-9-190.1) Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 3 of 6 G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. The dock is proposed at a length of 105 feet and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas-fir decking. The shoreward 65 feet of the pier would be 6 feet wide, leading to an 8.5-foot long, 8-foot wide intervening section, ending with a 35-foot long section of 8 feet in width. The construction of the dock would involve the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously existing failed pier. Twelve 4-inch coated steel piles, set at 18-foot intervals,would be driven to support the new dock. The project would include the installation of prisms in order to minimize shading in the area of the dock with the greatest amount of surface coverage. Equipment necessary for project construction would be brought to the site via barge, including a barge-mounted crane and vibratory pile driver. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. In addition to the placement of rocks, approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material and native plants would be installed. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark. The subject site is designated as an"urban"environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted within this designation provided there is no more than one pier per developed water front lot or ownership and the dock design complies with established specifications. These standards limit dock length to 80 feet, width to 8 feet, require a minimum setback of 5 feet from adjacent property lines, and allow no more than one pier extension at a maximum of 100 square feet in size. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a shoreline variance from section 4-3- 090.L.e.ii of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to exceed the maximum permitted dock length of 80 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request, the proposed residential dock and bulkhead comply with all pertinent shoreline development regulations. A Exemption Certificate from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be issued for the bulkhead portion of the project. In May of 1999, the proposal was brought before the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), where a decision was tabled pending the applicant's submittal of a Biological Assessment addressing the project's potential affect on critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. In response to this request, the applicant submitted a biological assessment and substantially revised the scale of the proposed dock by reducing overall size, length and width dimensions. The ERC took potential impacts to shoreline,wildlife, and habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the project. The shoreline variance decision is forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for approval or denial. The shoreline decision is deemed to be approved within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt by these agencies unless written communication is received indicating otherwise. Appeals of the shoreline variance decision must be filed to the Shoreline Hearings Board within 30 days of issuance. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA(RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 12, 2000, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS)for the proposal. The SEPA determination was followed by a two-week appeal period, which ended on October 2, 2000. No appeals to the threshold determination were filed. Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 4 of 6 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of the proposal, including the Biological Assessment provided by the applicant, did not reveal the need for additional mitigating measures above and beyond adopted code requirements, as well as beyond measures proposed by the applicant. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues from the proposed shoreline variance. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. H. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: 1. VARIANCE DECISION REQUESTED a. The applicant has requested a variance from section 4-3-090.L.e.ii of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations which states: "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark,whichever is reached first." b. The applicant wishes to construct a residential dock of 105 feet in length, which exceeds the maximum 80-foot length permitted by 25 feet. c. Lake bottom contours on the site are such that at the required 80-foot length, the shallow water depth would preclude the applicant's ability to safely moor a boat. d. The variance would allow the applicant to construct the dock to a point of sufficient water depth (e.g., 14 feet, 6 inches minimum)so that sufficient boat moorage is possible. 2. VARIANCE DECISION CRITERIA The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant variances in the administration of the Renton Shoreline Master Program upon making a determination in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist(RMC 4-9-190.1.4). a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The lake bottom within the immediate proximity of the site is such that water depths are fairly shallow and would preclude the use of an 80-foot dock. The applicant owns a 32-foot sailboat with a 6-foot draft and contends that an increased dock length is necessary in order to properly moor the boat. Water depths deepen in a northwesterly direction at the subject site. Based on the elevations provided by the applicant, at the required 80-foot dock length water depths of 4 feet, 3 inches (OHWL) and 2 feet, 3 inches (OLWL)would be available on the south side of the pier. Water depths of 9 feet, 5 inches (OHWL)and 7 feet, 5 inches (OLWL)would be available on the north side of the pier. These depths are such that the keel would submerge into the bottom of the lake, thereby eliminating the ability to safely moor a boat. In order to reasonably accommodate boat moorage, the applicant has proposed a dock with a"dog leg"design in order to utilize sufficient water depths at the nearest possible distances to the shoreline. A distance between 88 feet and 92 feet beyond the ordinary high water line would achieve the appropriate water depth necessary for the sailboat's keel. An additional 17 feet—for a total of 105 feet from the ordinary high water line—would be necessary to accommodate the length of the sailboat. At the proposed 105-foot length,water depths of 16 feet, 6 inches (OHWL)and 14 feet, 6 inches (OLWL)would be available and would provide adequate depths for boat moorage. However, the south side of the dock would still not be of sufficient depth to accommodate a sailboat with a 6-foot draft, providing water depths of only 8 feet, 9 inches (OHWL)and 6 feet, 9 inches (OLWL). Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 5 of 6 The applicant further contends that the proposed 105-foot dock length, with"dog leg"transition, is the only design that would allow for safe year round moorage. By utilizing the north side of the dock, the sailboat could be safely moored with 4 feet of water beneath the keel at the ordinary low water line. Less than 4 feet would not provide sufficient protection to keep the keel from hitting the lake bottom during winter storms. The requested dock length would provide sufficient water depth for safe boat moorage in both the summer and winter seasons. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The applicant has provided a list of other properties in the vicinity which currently enjoy the use of private residential docks. Of the 7 docks listed,which range from 40 feet to 175 feet in length, 4 exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. In addition, the average length of the seven docks in the area (112 feet)exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposed dock is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public access to the shoreline. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The dock length provision is worded such that dock design "may extend a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first." Although the strict interpretation of the provision would prohibit the construction of a dock beyond 80 feet even though water depths of less than 12 feet are present, the intent of the shoreline master program may have been to allow for flexibility in dock design in order to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with the general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved;if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to the area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)took into consideration potential impacts to shoreline,wildlife, and habitat and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the project. Furthermore, the applicant has taken substantial measures for mitigating potential impacts through proposed construction methods, shoreline restoration, and modifications to the dock design. Measures include the installation of small,4-inch piles in order to minimize shading impacts, as well as the placement of two prisms under the dogleg portion of the dock for increased light penetration beneath the structure. In addition, considerable effort has been given to the appropriate design of the restored shoreline in order to maximum benefits to critical habitat. As stated under the previous criterion, the approval of the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. f. The proposal must meet the variance criteria contained in the WAC 173-27-170.3, as follows: That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property, For the reasons stated under criterion"a"above, the strict application of the dimensional standards established by the City's Shoreline Master Program would preclude the reasonable use of the property for boat moorage. ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049,SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17,2000 Page 6 of 6 The hardship presented by the applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. The shallow water depth for the subject site does not allow for the construction of a dock that would be capable of safely mooring a boat. Although shallow water depths may exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject shoreline area,these properties currently have existing docks at lengths in excess of that requested by the applicant(see criterion "b"). iii.That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Based on information provided by the applicant and as discussed under criterion"b", there are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC, the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. iv.That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; As previously stated, there are a number of surrounding property owners which currently enjoy the privilege of docks with lengths in excess of the maximum 80-foot length permitted by code. The applicant has substantially reduced the proposed dock length from a preferred design and has thus requested the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the moorage of a boat. The proposed pier would have less moorage and square footage than those enjoyed by neighbors and other property owners in the vicinity v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;and, The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest. vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. The approval of the variance would not adversely affect public rights of navigation. I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Shoreline Variance for the Baker/Anderson Residential Dock Bulkhead, Project File No. LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Shoreline Variance Approval: Two (2)years from the approval date, if construction has not commenced. Hexreport EXISTING PIER 1530 SO E7 Of DOCK COVERAGE I Pt I I IIIII IIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 N 3.L Y 1 E\ fy1' I lJ LIN0I11.I1G,11(IY0 iII "I 31II MOUNT,SILO AVC NI m/ L_ 1 2060 SO Et)I r. K O C OZ ., m G'% 5'1 .... 5V . 0 i IIUAT RA41' W000 PICKET IENCE Aj Z n Z NORTH FENCE LINL PEE WEUU SURVEY_ - _ - - `—- G I _ 393.a` N 89' ,O'-5' I `—-`" ' I Q 5'MIN 67'-6' 185.51 m Z N jB 6' ExISIING Y E%ISIINGQ11 L O ___ J- 30' ROPOSEDPIER f& vnu10wC JOB SITEREMOVED Q EAJ 40'-6" y 3101 MOUNT VIEWAVE N 5/n 60 y LOT 11,910 SO fT) In 7.." 2. TEMPORARY SILT FENCE--,....../. ' L.\ til / `PROPOSED OH.W.M. • i'_i• Li 1 D.11,W.M. I165•AI S Z 0EKISIINGCONCRETE i• IB6.27' _ 2BVLM(AU 11BBIIIBIBIIIII1 ExISVNG 112.85 N 89'-50'-57"E SEAPLANE F IJ I' I AD'POPLAR uIlnnllllllllDECKANDWALKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII^: I I X , 1280 SO FT 0f DOCK COVERAGE: 1 LLyy, BOYi'14T"NH CANOPY E O MORGAN.UVFA 990 SO ET) EXISTING PIERJ 3103 MOUNT.VIEW AVE N I R SITE PLAN I ISCALE: I".20' CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'x 105 OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6 WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING 10 B'AND 1 MAKING A JOG TO THE SOUTH,WITH TOTAL OVER WATER COVERAGE OE 749 SO ET. O 1 4 :: Y KEY l t• _- •' ,d PROPOSED STRUCTURES 3. aT JN .. 1 xb11NG KG(tAION TO BE our (9 —•-jr + i RELOAD: 11MORNINGGLORY.BUTTERCUP. 4 tD-/ J -: z ,,. BULLRLISH,AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) r K NNNAAf IT /, a ... JJRO W I Y Ai.,b,i;' kllr;>In • SLIP o .! LEGAL DESCRIPTION I v ti eRC:, irM w1.'I. I A'IA-;i o M. T1 32ND I/1 SIC St 310 381105E Oe a1. • #441111LL•.`{Tra' 1AKLOT I 334210 3880 n ( 11LY?.,.,H GARDENHOT A LOT 54-55 111LLMANS LK WN to 511E YY YYY YYYMM'NN, Of CDCN 1 &$H LDS ADJ I(7 i ii Q..._._• e gl r ti` N. 31ST mi,12, ;!e.f. ls • 1 Y.:.i 2 l' U tot empE7F.••. l " . L. a N. 30TN LONG: 1zr-12'-3e- R `l D 1f W sf K 11, iK+ll102zs= N. tsTNittGDx "ste4.7.• 0" a` a, a VICINITY MAP ayx, .. SCALE: 1•.200. S g 0 u L' y_ KEY I d O EXISTING IO'2 CREOSOTE u 32' SAILBOAT TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED(16 TOTAL) PROPOSED 4' PILING(12 TOiALHAi 8'Sa0/C)TED SiEEI105' 6' o a T ..--RI o I I J)-6- 2X6 PRESSURE TREATED mWNORTH REFERENCE DECKING I O F LINE O S'MIN Z N 0 gi REFERENCE AisY{ LINE IMIlmili0 ID 0r ' go I o o J/ o 1 0 O.H.w.u.AT 25' PROPOSED O BULKHEADPROPOSED1'SCH. 80 OElSTEELPILING APPRIMAT, sg ea m LOCATOR o a PRISMS FOR Of SEWER LINE n i ii TH LIGHT PENETRATION Hi E SCALE: I/1".1' REHCE PLAN VIEW SOUTHS REFERENCE ^ CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'X 105'OVER-Alt LINECiPIERWILLCONSISTOFA6' MAINWALK.WIDENING TO AN 8'WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. m 32'SAILBOAT 17.4 O 0 32' SAILBOAT SAILBOAT b i 17 w Q O rPROPO5E0 PIER I ffiao r 95' V( D.t.W 8 1 2D.DD' H LAKE BOTTOM WEST ELEVATION a SCALE: 1/4'.I' u W t g o 6 ogcW o g L 1ia: i?105' 6 I, C to JOIST CAP PILING 37.-6" I I B NAILER I A o 5' MIN GLU-LAM u fir- m--- • •• ••---= 64illiiii.C1 C C.. .. 1BM it T o I O.H.W.M. AT tl. '„ 8' I 1 A PROPOSED 2i'' a;,. Igo II IIII N IllroBULKHEAD IB DETAIL VIEW ii o APPROXIMATE LOCATION PRISMS FOR OF SEWER LINE D LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY T o EXISTING 10"± CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL)80' PIER LIMIT LINE i OF KEEL DOCKED O.H.W. I AT 80' PIER 21.85' I I O.L.W. 1-1------ ----- ---- 17-7------ v,.. //,/,-/,<;,-.///:7 . 1- 1 6'-6'. I / \/ j \//\/./\\,;\\/\/\\i\\\\/\/,, /.\//.\//••-: i, i,i . 4 ,<• //\//\\//`///.\/.• //,\//i ' is `\r/ A\/'.\ ELEVATION VIEW i/\ /\\\ (PROPOSED L_18,t J PILING SECTION C—C . ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'± AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE O.H.W. 21.85' I 7'-2" 0.L.W.7/',,//////j\%/\ i\\/\\ \\/\ \\/ /// // //\/\//; //\\/%\%/j i \ \/\i\,\.`\ / SCALE: 1 "=16' i' I PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. I SECTION D—D IN:LAKE WASHINGTON I AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1 -00 i V 32'SAILBOAT X ''Il T AT HIGH WATER YB0'PIER LIMIT LINE O.N.W.G.AT 32'SAILBOAT I PROPOSED BULKHEAD AT LOW WATER 4 O.N.W.21.es PROPOSED W s NORTH ORTELELEVATIONLINE 1 SCALE: 1/4'-1' 9' ALL NCW PILING TO OE 1'%CH BO COATED STEEL SPANNING IB'AND MAN AI 10,000 LUS TO PRACTICAL RLEUS L. 1B' O 4-4 32'SAILBOAT AT HIGH wATER O.BULKH Al 60'PIER LIMIT LINE PROPOSED BULKHEAD W 3Y SAILBOAT AT LDw WATER 2t.BO.H.W.5' B 9. I O.L.W. 77:77..7,:, ''\ \,,, t/\/ f PROPOSEDPILIN Y l '\''\ '\\ I SOUTH ELEVATION IB' 26'FR0N-NORTHi'ROPERTt°i1NE SCALE: I/4' 1' i ALL NEW PILING TO BE A'SCH BO COATED STEEL SPANNING UrAND DRMN Al 10,000 LBS 70 PRACTICAL REFUSAL. O o S• I a 3 l 1 100cLT Lr SP r"tr,t e Ci WINTE= BOAT MOORAGE WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC. SEATTLE, WA PH. 206-548-9800 FACE: OF: DATE: Z/L a li.b 21 NV"G.L Lt WILMS nn mail .V.D OOQMT ob+ , VL MOZ Ti { p. i 121.-J. V 1-T-el I ' K t 8 I- - J ji ; M18;' N tIIi ; r tiTi *Wi WA — 8-1,- sisi ,41 T-[)•il ! H I !4 _ urzzliXIII !33 4 9 i , i ' 99 `-' I1I!A 3 8 I fl 1I - - L- ! i IIEIFIANa B iNC UA181- irNI ! I Ia- I dd' l a-a i I D' 18-S rays, --_--isrI c I e=d - 1 11 i a 1 1 lir " i „ 1 , ia rrir al___ ___ z 1 Id NI 4 i ffly :14_7 -- - --- H I r : , I I ; i ' 1 , en -- Imo- Iei`-i 2i-04414-6 fy/—, ._I-Il-I-I ef_H___.,0 L ,._§I ligot it, L..,‘ f,9 r. f _ - __ 1 III wiN311 um El i xi catarit in , ffin r 1 i I J- lz n .. _1 II/ iii :I1 p 'k_ -- I WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION, INC. WATERFRONT 205 NE NORTHLAKE WAY,SUITE 230 SEATTLE,WA 913105 April 2000P , TO: City of Renton FRO : Elizabeth Petras, Waterfront Construction, Inc. RE: Baker/Anderson Dock and Bulkhead LUA 99-049 The a Dove referenced project has been on hold with the City of Renton since May of 1999. Applications for Substantial Development, a Building Permit and the SEPA check ist were submitted in March of 1999. An HPA, #00-E4419-01, was received 11/29 99. I would like to make a pre-application meeting to re-open this process and disc 's the project. The p oject is to build a dock and remove the existing hard bulkhead and replace with a soft b khead. The bulkhead will be a soft, vegetative riparian restoration project (design drawi ii gs from Watershed Company are included). We are proposing a dock 105 feet in lengt . This length is necessary to provide sufficient water depth for mooring a boat with a six-is of draft. I have enclosed a water depth survey, completed by Mr. Anderson, showi g the corresponding water depths for various parts of his proposed 105' long dock. We 11 be applying for a variance on this length. The I dth of the proposed dock is negotiable. The walkway will be 6' wide with a conne,ting leg to a wider float. Mr. Anderson would like to seek a variance on the width for a 1 'wide float. The water depths around the dock make it impossible to moor a boat on the south side of the dock, therefore he would like to use the west side of the dock for additi I nal moorage. This would not be possible with an 8' wide dock. It is m, understanding that this project was on hold by the Environmental Review Co ittee awaiting a biological evaluation. This document has been completed and I've asked . Anderson to provide the City of Renton with one of the copies he received from Watershed Company. Seattle (206)546-9600 Toll Free (888)027-7784 Fax(208)548-1022 KENMORE i uY LAKE FOREST T4 0 ., M; PARK I4I ; 9, a i C?o f ? i•,+a'i 1 JUANITA E b ;3Bt11 ajrm 4 gjoi," a Vit N Ta I r 45 T k'`i+IKENNYDALE • a 36T'r tBEACHPARK J:)B t '4 H it SITE t ?3RB Pl ' ' I KIRKLAND N 33R£ ,; E ta ' 1 ST II1!.gTl aspIA.,,Il325i5fie, NE r NI a 3'T11: f' ST I MAY CREE 7, ‘wAyliti'7:-:- ,..ST 111,1.1.':-.:;.,,,,,-_I j Jan_ S4431: 'I 4' gNpi aTR r,.,. .,_ ytia 3 h i FN' ' lt;'' I- i' i!--°,,,.70)-,,:!A.:,... i'i_- i`_-'.,'.--0:—,:1,'.:-, t' t'-r—:,, ti 1, i1 j 3} fc 4 3 k•.....:... t. 1.•••....:.•1.•••'• I` LLs1ly -1itrff VICINI-Y MAP/NO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1/4 SEC: SE 31-24N-05E JOBTAXLOT #: 334210 3880 JOB BLK A LOT 54-55 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #1 & SH LDS ADJ RENTON VICINITY MAP/NO SCALE LAT: 47'-31'-10" LONG: 122'-12'-38" ADJACENT OWNERS: PROPOSED: CONSTRUCT NEW PIER.APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON CI LINDBERG, LLOYD REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. SITE ADD. 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 31 1 1 MOUNTA N VIEW AVE N PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE RENTON, WA. 98056 3 0 MbUNTARN VIEW AVE N MOORAGE & SHORELINE PROTECTION. MAIL ADD. P.O. BOX 78382 SEATTLE, WA. 98178 DATUM: C.O.E. 0,0' EST. 1919 PAGE: 1 OF 6 DATE: 4-10-00 EXISTING PIER ilk I 34.5 ± ` I11IIIII uu I w munaroroinimm LINDBERG, LLOYD I 1---65'-3"f 31 1 1 MOUNT VIEW AVE N 5 MTN N 89'-50'-57" E ii 105' JOB SITE PROPOSED O.H.W. 21.85' AT O.H.W. AT LINE 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N PIER EXISTING CONCRETE OF PROPOSED BULHEAD NATURAL BULKHEAD N 89'-50'-57" E I . R,. IIIII }} O-1)I1 W1 SeePlane RamPllllllll „ IIIIIIIlfflnRnflf(tlil MIIMI!!•,'•••I` Y,IiWY- i MORGAN, LAURA EXISTING PIER — 3103 MOUNT VIEW AVE N I PLAN VIEW CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 19' X 105' OVER—ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6' WIDE PIER WIDENING TO 12' AND MAKING A JOG TO THE SOUTH. DRAWING SCALE: 1"=50' PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT. VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE: 2 OF:6 DATE:4-10-00 EXISTING PIER IL 1I1111111111101iiiu iuu,1"I 34.5 ± 4 I i _- It:! I' fillmmummilimiiim LINDBERG, LLOYD 65' 3" 3111 MOUNT VIEW AVE N 5 MTN r N 89'-50'-57" E 19'e i 105' JOB SITE 5 PROPOSED O.H.W. 21.85' AT O.H.W. AT LINE 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N PIER EXISTING CONCRETE OF PROPOSED BULHEAD .!NATURAL BULKHEAD N 89'-50'-57" E Is:".:1...Ram llllllll'Mi111•ff1•111111Y1 i' I is—y MORGAN, LAURA EXISTING PIER 3103 MOUNT VIEW AVE N I i PLAN VIEW CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 19' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6' WIDE PIER WIDENING TO 12' AND MAKING A JOG TO THE SOUTH. DRAWING SCALE: 1"=50' PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT. VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE: 2 OF: 6 DATE:4-10-00 105' 28'-516" 69' 1 NAILERS JOIST CAP PILING GLU-LAMS-\ II iiiiiti i JL 16'I I III 1 9'I fi I II I_f 12, I I II III I_ I l P l l 611-816 i J U1111111111111 8'-96 I sDETAIL VIEW IJy 17'-3" 21'-18"CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 19' X 105' OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST PRISMS OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING TO A 12' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE FOR LIGHT SOUTH. PENNETRATION O.H.W. I r r 21.85' 14't PROPOSED 20'± PILING r\\\i\i\\i\\^s\\//\ /' LAKE BOTTOM ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: 1"=16'ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 20'f AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. IN:LAKE WASHINGTON AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:6 DATE:4-10-00 Anderson & Baker--3107 MV Dock t h July 12. 1999 DOCK2C.FCOLevels(8,1,2,1,5. 7,10.11.I5,16.17,19.28.23) A F T F 1( Except for shoreline restoration) 4- 4- 25' fie..-...To 8H Ref Point projection 168' 111' 108'72 1/ 11• /36' OLW blank (20 ASLI\ 21' North fence line per Webb survey Sewer I a 811 Ref. Point 16( +( O I11'7I'r -6' Y da L. ! -x i ea ice— ii/ II' I ' Ilk 4' ' -- 1 An i •1 OW 1 1,,. 7 7 13 / f ,I 0wtllow130b) m t Q/ x7?1E2 1e Idr CT 38' / / 31 © 3?' I I. 1f Legend: scale, viv - I. i^ Old piling, water depth n' at OHW O^ Water depth measured n' at OHW Tick mark, m' from BH Ref Point I Survey pin n' Depth measurments, at OHW I F—-- x Interpolation points at even foot depths IOHW - Ordinary High Water (22' ASL) OLW - Ordinary Low Water (20' ASL) ASL - Above Sea Level I I O Poplr(10 D) 18' / 1q 38' 35' BH - Bulk Head Sewer 11102' f r„ co /36. iBH Ref Point From which distances measure. jSPropertyLine Seaplane Ramp Deck 131.F 120 110 100 0+80' I 70' I 60' If 50' i 10 I 30 20_10'1 00 OHW OLW 24'OHW-- DLW 1 18• 36' q C depths at Intersection of contour end center line of south boat(0' dock end)--not shownB' 107 C/ rt 07• B depths et Intersection of contour end center line of south boat(12 dock end). 111•2A-_,. 168•y A depths at Intersection of contours and centerline of north boat. r evt c Di et_ S d nac Corrm3n structue +Conrnon joist structure 8Y erd sku;lue +8ft er 1 jest structure IR r survey r ____.'. Z C GluLarn EH Rel.Point f IN. I• if ais 18'g 18 0"0' e.a —rg-0 J 1 .KJ 1ITIT 1 u:, 1.LA8-0' 71,1--- 7i GULa 2 a Run GIuL3 n all the way rv;gh 1 1/- 14 0.! ,o- le le e1e 18 e' \\ 1 D 1 Glut arrl co IN.) m m D VI D3 VI a Aa un n Ccrrmcn structure +Common joist structure 12(1 end structure+ in end joist structure k. r Su'vey I C Glularn EH Ref.Point 1r-L-.-- 2E- ss 2 — a-o - —.b...."Ha 8. ------ - r8 F— - + o ti co q —g.d—. / s l.J I 4 yg Glif_arn17FIRix)GIUL?Jn all the way U rough 11 I DI518Ib 3'0'o 8.0' \..440---r OD m GILam I iv l9 uw v1 co R c A T 3 L Pci, 6 - g ' exd 3 m Commy:structure +Cornrron oisl structure + Common walkway 8ft enci SINCIure + Sfl end joist structure +8ft walk and R n f/ GluLam EN Ref Porn Y - NI, / d-0r re'a. rj•a r. fort re 1 J g____=_ —___= =.__=== - _ — - ____- ti 14 1 a s>•..= - ia a Ili UMW ' / s ,Ill 5 3 gad Run 3kl.arn all tt-e Wray through r 4-0 beI 1 3.p . 1. 8.0 De , r G' 1.Xb trtivVV, n I few AI le t 410 Weil s CC S W T Z a b - l 2 e IA 4 2 Cr- Ifn,c- Common structure +Common Kist structure +Ccmrnon wa'kvay 12(1 end structure+12tt end joist structure + eft enp vrakway 14-2 Su),Ey ZZ O GLLaT EH Rel.Point t l 4 J 8 8 18' T 1 Mom=OM MOM IIMID.. _ WNW MM.Ma a MN. N/ OMIMI _mg. imon• in m . _ _. == ma**Moo -_... 1.0 s C r__ mm•mow.... 5M Run Gilarn all Me way IhroupICCSC= = =O ' S CD rU GluLam c) 0 wr T m 6' 2X4 BLOCKING © 2X6 3'0/C MAX (16"0/C DECKING 3/4" GALV COMPRESSION FOR FOR 'CHOICE' OR RODS SPACED 6'-10' 0/C 3-1/8" X 18"TREX' DECKING) GLU-LAM BEAMTh*440wAll OthPidA Wadi AI r 2X8 JOIST NAILED TO Iv Ely-2X8 RIM JOIST W/ (5)ii 'ssyiiiiiiiiiiiir iL/ifiriiiiiiiiiriii//i//wiiiiiiiiiiiii//iii/iiii///7iriU/iiill/Z1Z//iiiiiriiiiiiiiiriii/ri_- ' V16d GALV NAILSLAGBOLTGLU-LAM TO STEEL CAP ASSEMBLY I 2-1/2" X 1/2" LAG BOLTS IN PRE- 7 IN\ O DRILLED HOLES STEEL CAP ASSEMBLY PILE CAP SADDLEWELDEDTOPILECAPSADDLE@.\_BOLTED TO 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL PILE J L_J 6' AND 8' WIDE GLU-LAM ALL HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. GLU-LAMS TO BE TREATED WITH COPPER-8-QUINOLINOLATE. DECKING TO BE DF TREATED WITH COPPER-8-QUINOLINOLATE. 2X4 BLOCKING TO BE TREATED WITH CHEMONITE (ACZA). JOIST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. SCALE: 1"=1' WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC. SEATTLE, WA PH. 206-548-9800 DRAWN. J. WHITE PAGE:4 OF: 6 DATE:4-10-00 1,---_:---t F-:Ei Li t-1 12Ei-IGN/5 ..xl -r.lt-IC,0 ‘.014_,I-7_7—v— igl ---(3- --Lr-AvE, ,,,<Ie.,--Fil,! 2E-FA011.-[6, wAt j00iierA0vi•N 1 q . s , t--,(1 ,----I--; , ,t.-- 1_ . I it ib 0 Z5[12 Lt6H --12. ( 1246,\IE,L— Th 112 ff..6v H i2A.v..`=.--_L- 111 II!,)i 74— oe 7 sT_ 7 _____Ecopoe--_,ED .6! so 0A& •fil 6D5-161-1 1 40%, wci .cA,` .b0 p()GiL:=.7 :'r-LI-Ige-7 A: A TO et- A/ VLEY ' X(..Z.V,S.--Flot-1 t7---__1777-1 1'64-1Ioaue t \ Ex7c.; i_;\ -7,Z7 I',4, 0,,E (. 24.7u1p. Ll.l, o-n-ae R,Or--5 AVolP 4 ) 9 b-1 I 149T:2-tti 1.i 1 P 4 ro E7 . Lux,1- kq7 1,6,v31-1 ,L,2,F .,F FP'fi__V4t'7 --)t TAILLilk0ff5-( -- I 4m(/ 1 10,tor dp,A. 4 E -1•40VE, n(r-friki& Mt t J Wr_:"C:4773-6° \/•111.1b0 V46.9111G0 AP\ 48&. 2 P liZ,F--- \ //Vi UE ML\t`7.,Ei0,0 - ,2c6V-47 0 0. EF ric.1447---) I 0 to* okiiis 0 PO0 1-46*\'17' I- 2; I 7---- VN\ 0 4a1-41-4E2 e-it of fp , 11-r_p 12a14(-7I \/-NS> le 1... . 7.. '..--'.. 0 ;r11% 4, Q *-4) ig) 2-TEE-":6,,N4 re'tr, aC:7a/5[. r--ILTE2 r6.27, E.4, gib 1"' 0;4r tr 94,iT.:7 7ET4I bInelecr, e.o.d6. 13uuLd .,6,p1 tro 4.r_c-E..41-1-- 2ecr.. c., vit.11.1114.1Kikiiz:At_iD 5<IGT 12.0c..Z,e-, TO .. of . h 1 , 1b - 2E-4110v• 5/7 t 0 ti)J 4 1-1,6,0 -7-r- if F;LA.12-1-1/G-i --/\ W 1/ r2cc-:e_. 3r- 1Le-46..V . n.)(14-1, rcl <K--1117 1-2E.e I A 22()9S tr7 L14.2t-, 1 720VH.-- -L-.-4i -F- ‘266 .- 1 ' :° f 1 Fk....L L71.19C_EL 11J 6E- (47-66 Lsizn-e--,;-Icen 494/5..I 3 1- 2 L L -\,, / 7111-1T EDU ld i I ' --•`" QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE CONDITION SYMBOL 2 Vine Maple Acer cirrinatum 3-4' bare root 2 5,L.CFILI., --10 -rap F 2-6?_ i<IP,) E"--)(6 iLi10RedOsierDogwoodGOMISstolonifera2-3' bare root 0 The Watershed CornpanyIL.,_,, . .aE.6.(e-za r/ti-\44 c I1PacificWillowSalixlasiandra3-6' bare root 0 Ir 1410 Market Street, P. O. Box 1180, Kirkland,WA 98033 • I 10 )<innickinnick 10 Oregon Iris Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 1 gal. container Ins tenax 1 gal. . container OCD ll IA 1.1 c.Z 7 Z '' I 1-717-416e-. r.f-:........ • i 425)-822-5242 G..,/7 t 10 Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus 6"plug Ja 4. 6„..- ......" .....---- 4-1,\---- --4.- 4,-- - - **--- `-------- k r--.:-----,\ i ...c. _ L....,_... ,_„, • - • ,---_. .1.....,,i ,„_ . - 425-481-5814 REITERS MARINE 793 P01 JUN 02 '99 06:49 Re ter's DEVELOPMENT P CANNING CITY OF RENTON Marine Construction and Repair 10101 Maln St., Suite B t'0. Box 2113 JUN 0 2 1999 Bothell,WA 98041-2113 RECEIVEDFAX425-481-5814 800-352-7664 June 2, 1999 City of Renton, Planning/Building Department Attn.: Leslie Nishihira 1055 South Grady Way Renton.WA 98055 SUBJECT: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK AND BULKHEAD FILE NO. LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, SME, V-H, V-H Dear Ms. Nishihira: This letter is to update you on the progress of this permit application. I am requesting that you put this application on "hold", only for a short time. I have spoken with Mr.Anderson and he is in the process of settinguptheBiologicalAssessment. This should take place within the next few weeks. The intention is to keep the project as one. There will be no portion of the current application withdrawn and reviewed separately. We intend to keep the bulkhead and the dock as one application, As soon as I learn more information, I will pass it along to you. Sincerely, att6.g0-71 F(2'L Allison Reiter Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair, Inc.•): . K,, ,, ` ,• Contractors LIG.:g ': s REITEMC04155 Experience• Reliability • Integrity • Quality • Guaranteed CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 25, 1999 Allison Reiter Reiter's Marine Construction & Repair, Inc. P.O. Box 2113 Bothell, WA 98041-2113 SUBJECT: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK& BULKHEAD FILE NO. LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, SME,V-H, V-H Dear Ms. Reiter: This letter is a follow up to my last correspondence dated May 14, 1999. In order to continue with your project on "hold",we will need a letter updating the file with the course of action you intend to take along with the related timeframes. Specifically, the letter should address the following: The status of the Biological Assessment requested May 4, 1999 by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). Once the assessment is received, the City will arrange a meeting between the applicant and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to discuss the study. Subsequently, the project will be rescheduled for the ERC. It is likely that the ERC will require a third party review of the assessment by a biologist chosen by the City at the applicant's expense. The portions of the proposal that are to be reviewed with the current land use application and those that are being withdrawn, if any. If both the bulkhead and the dock are to be reviewed concurrently under the current land use file,then the letter will need to address the proposed changes to the bulkhead design and include 12 copies of the revised plans. A written response is necessary in order to maintain the project's"hold"status. If a response is not received by June 8, 1999, the project will be considered inactive and will be withdrawn. Please call me at (425) 430-7270 with any questions. Sincerely, ZCV//t fi-P-5-)T7 Lesley Nishi ira Assistant Planner cc: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker, Property Owners Jana Hanson, Development Services Director H:DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\PROJECTS\99-049.LN\STATUS.DOC 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer c%' J CITY 'F RENTON liM1 ,Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Ma j 14, 1999 Alli son Reiter Re ter's Marine Construction & Repair, Inc. P.C.Q. Box 2113 Sot hell, WA 98041-2113 SU 3JECT: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK& BULKHEAD FILE NO. LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, SME, V-H, V-H De it Ms. Reiter: Tht:t purpose of this letter is to clarify issues raised after the Environmental Review Committee EFIC) requested further information for making its Threshold Determination for the subject prc posal. As mentioned in my previous letter, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon have been listed under the Ern iangered Species Act (ESA). Under ESA there are two categories for listings—"threatened" and "endangered." Chinook salmon are listed as"threatened." Although the state has not yet established the 4(d) rules for threatened Chinook salmon, the ERC is authorized to request additional information prior to issuing a Threshold Determination regardless of the category under which the species is listed. (Please refer to the attached RMC and WAC code sections.) Th'! ERC has requested a Biological Assessment in order to determine if a significant adverse en"rironmental impact may or may not result from the proposal. In order to proceed with the review of the bulkhead separately from the dock, a second land use application will be necessary. A written request withdrawing either the bulkhead or the dock from the current land use application will be needed for the file. This will allow the remaining item to prc ceed under the current file number and the withdrawn item to be processed separately when de:ired. A new and complete application for the withdrawn item will be required and the entire reN,iew process will be redone for that portion of the proposal. If ii is not feasible to proceed with the review of the two items together as currently proposed, I wo Jld recommend withdrawing the item that is less time critical. For example, if it is likely that the dock will take longer because of the required study, proceeding with the review of the bul chead under the current land use application will allow for that portion of the proposal to complete the review process regardless of the dock's status. Then, when the study is complete, a new application for the dock would be appropriate. PIE ase respond in writing when you have determined how you would like to proceed with this application. If you have any questions regarding this project, please call me at (425) 430-7270. Sir cerely, Le:;ley Nishihira As.;istant Planner cc: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker, Property Owners Jana Hanson, Development Services Director n:u7ivi5wN.suJI,v,LUY1 DD' outh urady ways- Kenton,"Washingto°n 98055 4-9-070B d. A covenant approved by the Board of ments deferred, amount of security or check Public Works shall contain language that deposited, time limit of security or check, stipulates the property owner will immedi-name of bonding company,and any other per- ately install the deferred improvements at tinent information. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) his or her expense upon a determination of the Board of Public Works that the im-13. Transfer of Responsibility:Whenever provements have become necessary. security has been accepted by the Board of Public Works,then no release of the owner or 10. Special Security Option for Short developer upon that security shall be granted • Plats:A restrictive covenant running with the unless a new party will be obligated to per- land, signed and properly recorded after City form the work as agreed in writing to be re- Attorney review,may be accepted as security sponsible under the security, and has if the covenant guarantees that the property provided security. In the instance where se- will join in any future limited improvement dis-curity would be provided by a condominium trict established to install the required im- owners association or property owners asso- provements in addition to the following ciation,then it shall be necessary for the own- conditions: ers association to have voted to assume the obligation before the City may accept the se- a. The restrictive covenant for deferrals curity, and a copy of the minutes of the own- occurs only for a single family develop- ers association duly certified shall be filed ment no larger than a short plat. along with the security. b. There are no similar improvements in 14. Board Approval Required Prior to the vicinity and there is no likelihood that Transfer of Responsibility: The City shall the improvements will be needed or re- not be required to permit a substitution of one quired in the next five (5) years. party for another on any security if the Board of Public Works, after full review, feels that c. There will be no detrimental effect on the new owner does not provide sufficient se- the public health, safety or welfare if the curity to the City that the improvements will improvements are not installed. be installed when required. d. There is little likelihood that the zon-15. Proceeding Against Security: The ing or land use on or adjacent to the site City reserves the right, in addition to all other will change to a higher classification and remedies available to it by law, to proceed development will occur within a five (5) against such security or other payment in lieu year period,thus increasing the likelihood thereof. In case of any suit or action to en- that the improvements will be needed. force any provisions of this code, the devel- oper shall pay the City all costs incidental to e. A covenant approved by the Board such litigation including reasonable attor- shall contain language that stipulates the ney's fees. The applicant shall enter into an property owner will immediately install agreement with the City requiring payment of the deferred improvements at his or her such attorney's fees. (Ord. 4521, 6-5-1995) expense upon a determination of the Board of Public Works that the improve- ments have become necessary. (Ord. 4-9-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4521, 6-5-1995) PROCEDURES: 11. Security Requirement Binding: The A. PURPOSE: (Reserved) requirement of the posting of any security therefor shall be binding on the applicant and B. APPLICABILITY: the applicant's heirs. successors and as- This part contains the basic requirements that ap- signs. (Ord. 3988. 4-28-1986) ply to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process and sets forth methods and procedures 12. Notification to Administrator: The which will insure that presently unquantified envi- Board of Public Works shall notify the Admin- ronmental amenities and values will be given ap- istrator in writing of the following:the improve- 9 - 11 4-9-070C propriate consideration in decision making along defined in this Section,whether or not such activ- with economic and technical considerations. To ities are considered to be ministerial in nature. the fullest extent possible, the City will utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will F. LEAD AGENCY AUTHORITY: insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in 1. Adoption by Reference: The City planning and in decision making which may have adopts the following sections by reference,as an impact on man's environment. The policies supplemented by WAC 173-806-050 and and goals set forth in this Section are supplemen-173-806-053 and this part: tary to those set forth in existing authorizations of the State and City. WAC 197-11-900 Purpose of this part. 1. Exemptions: (Reserved)197-11-902 Agency SEPA policies. 197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions. C. INTERPRETATION:197-11-920 Agencies with environmental To the fullest extent possible, the policies, regula- expertise. tions and laws of the State of Washington and of 197-11-922 Lead agency rules. the City shall be interpreted and administered in 197-11-924 Determining the lead agency. accordance with the policies set forth in this Title. 197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals. D. GENERAL STATE REQUIREMENTS— 197-11-928 Lead agency for public and pri- ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: vate proposals. The City of Renton adopts as its own the policies 197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects and objectives of the State Environmental Policy with one agency with jurisdic- Act of 1971,as amended(chapter 43.21 C RCW).tion. The City of Renton adopts the following sections 197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects of chapter 197-11 WAC by reference: requiring licenses from more than one agency, when one of WAC the agencies is a county/city. 197-11-040 Definitions. 197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects 197-11-050 Lead agency.requiring licenses from a local 197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process. agency, not a county/city, and 197-11-060 Content of environmental one or more state agencies. review. 197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during requiring licenses from more SEPA process. than one state agency. 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable infor- 197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific pro- mation.posals. 197-11-090 Supporting documents. 197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to 197-11-100 Information required of appli- a state agency. cants. 197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency sta- tus. E. AUTHORITY FOR THIS SECTION: 197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead The City of Renton adopts this Section under the agency duties. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency 43.21C.120, and the SEPA rules, WAC disputes. 197-11-904. This Section contains this City's 197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency sta- SEPA procedures and policies. The SEPA rules,tus. chapter 197-11 WAC, must be used in conjunc- tion with this Section. The City of Renton pos- 2. Determination of Lead Agency: The sesses the authority to deny or condition actions department within the City receiving an appli- in order to mitigate or prevent probable significant cation for or initiating a proposal that involves adverse environmental impacts. This authority a nonexempt action shall determine when the applies to all City activities including actions as City is the lead agency for that proposal un- der WAC 197-11-940 and 197-11-922 through 197-11-940; unless the lead agency 9 - 12 4-9-070K cation would serve no purpose if nonex- a. The City has technical information on empt action(s)were not approved; and a a question or questions that is unavail- department may withhold approval of ex- able to the private applicant; or empt actions that would lead to substan- tial financial expenditures by a private b. The applicant has provided inaccu- applicant when the expenditures would rate information on previous proposals or serve no purpose if nonexempt action(s) on proposals currently under consider- were not approved.ation. 7. Timing for Decisions Relating to Cate- 4. Checklist Preparation Process for City gorical Exemptions: Identification of cate- Proposals: For City proposals, the depart- gorical exempt actions shall occur within ten ment initiating the proposal shall complete 10) days of submission of an adequate and the environmental checklist for that proposal. complete application. 5. Optional Environmental Review Prior 8. Effect of Exemption: If a proposal is ex- to Preparation of Detailed Plans and Spec- empt, none of the procedural requirements of ifications: If the City's only action on a pro- this Section apply to the proposal. The City posal is a decision on a building permit or shall not require completion of an environ- other license that requires detailed project mental checklist for an exempt proposal. plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the Environmental Re- J. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: view Committee conduct an environmental review prior to submission of detailed plans 1. When Required: A completed environ- specification. A completed environmental mental checklist (or a copy), in the form pro-checklist shall be submitted along with the vided in WAC 197-11-960,shall be filed at the appropriate environmental fees.The Environ- same time as an application for a permit, Ii- mental Review Committee may require spe- cense, certificate, or other approval not spe-cific detailed information at any time. cifically exempted in this Section; except, a checklist is not needed if the Environmental K. THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review Committee and applicant agree an PROCESS: EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been This part contains rules for evaluating the impacts completed, or SEPA compliance has been of the proposals not requiring an environmental initiated by another agency. impact statement (EIS). 2. Use of Checklist to Determine Lead 1. Adoption by Reference: The City Agency and Threshold Determination: adopts the following sections by reference,as The department within the City receiving the supplemental in this part: application or initiating the action shall use the environmental checklist to determine the WAC lead agency. If the City is the lead agency,the 197-11-310 Threshold determination Environmental Review Committee shall use required. the environmental checklist for making the 197-11-315 Environmental checklist. threshold determination. 197-11-330 Threshold determination pro- cess. 3. Checklist Preparation Process for Pri-4197-11-335 Additional information. vate Proposals: For private proposals, the 197-11-340 Determination of nonsignifi- department within the City receiving the appli- canoe (DNS). cation will require the applicant to complete 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. the environmental checklist, providing assis- 197-11-355 Optional DNS process. (Ord. tance as necessary. The Environmental Re-4725, 5-18-1998) view Committee may require that it, and not 197-11-360 Determination of significance the private applicant, will complete all or part DS)/initiation of scoping. of the environmental checklist for a private 197-11-390 Effect of threshold determina- proposal, if either of the following occurs: tion. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) 9 - 15 Revised 1/99) SEPA Rules and the likelihood of occurrence, to the extent this information [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order can reasonably be developed. DE 83-39),§ 197-11-100,filed 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] 4) Agencies may rely upon applicants to provide information as allowed in WAC 197-11-100. WAC 197-11-158 GMA project review—Reliance on Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order existing plans, laws, and regulations. (1) In reviewing the DE 83-39), § 197-11-080,filed 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold determination,a GMA county/city may,at its option,determine WAC 197-11-090 Supporting documents. If an agency that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, prepares background or supporting analyses, studies, or and mitigation measures in the GMA county/city's technical reports, such material shall be considered part of the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, agency's record of compliance with SEPA, as long as the state,or federal laws or rules,provide adequate analysis of and preparation and circulation of such material complies with the mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental requirements in these rules for incorporation by reference and impacts of the project. the use of supporting documents. 2) In making the determination under subsection (1) of Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order this section,the GMA county/city shall: DE 83-39), § 197-11-090,filed 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] a) Review the environmental checklist and other information about the project; WAC 197-11-100 Information required of applicants. b) Identify the specific probable adverse environmental Further information may be required if the responsible official impacts of the project and determine whether the impacts have determines that the information initially supplied is not been: reasonably adequate to fulfill the purposes for which it is i) Identified in the comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or required. An applicant may, at any time, voluntarily submit applicable development regulations through the planning and information beyond that required under these rules. An agency environmental review process under chapter 36.70A RCW or is allowed to require information from an applicant in the this chapter,or in other local,state,or federal rules or laws;and following areas: ii) Adequately addressed in the comprehensive plan, 1) Environmental checklist. An applicant may be subarea plan, applicable development regulations, or other required to complete the environmental checklist in WAC 197- local,state,or federal rules or laws by: 11-960 in connection with filing an application(see WAC 197- A)Avoiding or otherwise mitigating the impacts;or 11-315). Additional information may be required at an B) The legislative body of the GMA county/city applicant's expens L but not until after initial agency review of designating as acceptable the impacts associated with certain the checklist(WAC 197-11-315 and 197-11-335). levels of service,land use designations,development standards, 2) Threshold determination. Any additional or other land use planning required or allowed by chapter information required by an agency after its initial review of the 36.70A RCW; checklist shall be limited to those elements on the checklist for c) Base or condition approval of the project on which the lead agency has determined that information compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures in the accessible to the agency is not reasonably sufficient to evaluate comprehensive plan, subarea plan, applicable development the environmental impacts of the proposal. The lead regulations,or other local,state,or federal rules or laws;and agency may require field investigations or research by the d) Place the following statement in the threshold applicant reasonably related to determining a proposal's determination if all of a projects impacts are addressed by other environmental impacts(WAC 197-11-335). An applicant may applicable laws and no conditions will be required under clarify or revise the checklist at any time prior to a threshold SEPA: "The lead agency has determined that the requirements determination. Revision of a checklist after a threshold for environmental analysis,protection,and mitigation measures determination is issued shall be made under WAC 197-11-340 have been adequately addressed in the development regulations or 197-11-360. and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, 3) Environmental impact statements. The responsible and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as official may require an applicant to provide relevant provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158. Our information that is not in the possession of the lead agency. agency will not require any additional mitigation measures - Although an agency may include additional analysis not under SEPA." required under SEPA in an EIS (WAC 197-11-440(8), 197-11- 3) Project specific impacts that have not been adequately 448(4) and 197-11-640), the agency shall not require the addressed as described in subsection (2) of this section might applicant to furnish such information, under these rules. An be probable significant adverse environmental impacts applicant shall not be required to provide information requested requiring additional environmental review. Examples of of a consulted agency until the agency has responded or the project specific impacts that may not have been adequately time allowed for the consulted agency's response has elapsed, addressed include,but are not limited to,impacts resulting from whichever is earlier. Preparation of an EIS by the applicant is changed conditions, impacts indicated by new information, in WAC 197-11-420. impacts not reasonably foreseeable in the GMA planning Ch.197-11 WAC—p.6] WAC(4/15/98) SEPA Rules c) Several marginal impacts when considered together WAC 197-11-340 Determination of non-significance may result in a significant adverse impact; DNS). (1) If the responsible official determines there will be d) For some proposals, it may be impossible to forecast no probable significant adverse environmental impacts from a the environmental impacts with precision, often because some proposal, the lead agency shall prepare and issue a variables cannot be predicted or values cannot be quantified. determination of nonsignificance (DNS) substantially in the e)A proposal may to a significant degree:form provided in WAC 197-11-970. If an agency adopts i) Adversely affect environmentally sensitive or special another environmental document in support of a threshold areas, such as loss or destruction of historic, scientific, and determination(Part Six),the notice of adoption(WAC 197-11- cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and 965)and the DNS shall be combined or attached to each other. scenic rivers,or wilderness; 2)When a DNS is issued for any of the proposals listed in ii) Adversely affect endangered or threatened species or (2)(a), the requirements in this subsection shall be met. The their habitat; requirements of this subsection do not apply to a DNS issued iii) Conflict with local, state, or federal laws or when the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 is used. requirements for the protection of the environment;and a) An agency shall not act upon a proposal for fourteen iv) Establish a precedent for future actions with days after the date of issuance of a DNS if the proposal significant effects, involves unique and unknown risks to the involves: environment,or may affect public health or safety. i)Another agency with jurisdiction; 4) If after following WAC 197-11-080 and 197-11-335 ii)Demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by the lead agency reasonably believes that a proposal may have a WAC 197-11-800(2)(f)or 197-11-880; significant adverse impact,an EIS is required. iii) Issuance of clearing or grading permits not exempted 5) A threshold determination shall not balance whether in Part Nine of these rules; the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse iv) A DNS under WAC 197-11-350 (2), (3) or 197-11- impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any 360(4);or probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the v)A GMA action. rules stated in this section. For example,proposals designed to b) The responsible official shall send the DNS and improve the environment, such as sewage treatment plants or environmental checklist to agencies with jurisdiction, the pollution control requirements, may also have significant department of ecology, and affected tribes, and each local adverse environmental impacts. agency or political subdivision whose public services would be Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) and RCW changed as a result of implementation of the proposal,and shall 43.21C.110. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-330, filed give notice under WAC 197-11-510. 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW c) Any person, affected tribe, or agency may submit 43.21C.110. 84-05-020(Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-330, filed comments to the lead agency within fourteen days of the date 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] of issuance of the DNS. d) The date of issue for the DNS is the date the DNS is WAC 197-11-335 Additional information. The lead sent to the department of ecology and agencies with jurisdiction agency shall make its threshold determination based upon and is made publicly available. information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental e) An agency with jurisdiction may assume lead agency impact of a proposal (WAC 197-11-055(2) and 197-11- status only within this fourteen-day period(WAC 197-11-948). 060(3)). The lead agency may take one or more of the f)The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based following actions if, after reviewing the checklist, the agency on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if concludes that there is insufficient information to make its the responsible official determines that significant adverse threshold determination: impacts are likely,withdraw the DNS or supporting documents. c)Require an applicant to submit more information on When a DNS is modified, the lead agency shall send the subjects in the checklist; modified DNS to agencies with jurisdiction. 2) Make its own further study, including physical 3)(a)The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: investigations on a proposed site; i) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the Proposal is likely to have significant3) Consult with other agencies,requesting information on adverse environmental ts; the proposal's potential impacts which lie within the other imp ii) There is significant new information indicating, or on, agencies' jurisdiction or expertise (agencies shall respond in a proposal's probable significant adverse environmentalaccordancewithWAC197-11-550);or 4) Decide that all or part of the action or its impacts are impacts;or not sufficiently definite to allow environmental analysis and iii) The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack commit to timely, subsequent environmental analysis, of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from the actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on theconsistentwithWAC197-11-055 through 197-11-070. proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or its Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order consultant at the expense of the applicant. DE 83-39),§ 197-11-335,filed 2/10/84,effective 4/4/84.] WAC(4/15/98) Ch.197-11 WAC—p. 15] CITY iF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Nay 4, 1999 Allison Reiter Reiter's Marine Construction & Repair, Inc. PO. Box 2113 Bothell,WA 98041-2113 SJBJECT: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK FILE NO. LUA-99-049, ECF,SM, V-H,V-H Dear Ms. Reiter. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met today to consider the above-referenced proposal. In light of the recent listing of chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act,the ERC had several questions regarding the proposal's impact to fish and wildlife habitat. The ERC decided to table their discussion of the proposed dock, pending the receipt of additional information needed to evaluate the project. In order to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal, a biological assessment prepared by an independent biologist will be required. The assessment will need to address impacts from both the proposed dock as well as the cumulative impacts of docks in the surrounding area to fish and wildlife habitat. The assessment should, at a minimum, satisfy any guidelines established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Coordination with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will also be required. Prior to rescheduling the project for the ERC and Hearing Examiner, a meeting between yourself,the City, and a representative of Fish and Wildlife will be necessary in order to evaluate the findings o' the biological assessment. The meeting will also help to establish the likelihood of obtaining a Hydraulic Approval Permit(HPA)for the proposal. Your project will be placed "on hold" until the information requested above has been received. If you have any questions regarding the information requested or the review process for this proposal, please contact me at (425) 430-7270. S lncerely, I z Lesley Nishihira Assistant Planner Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker, Property Owners Jana Hanson, Development Services Director Jim Morgan, Party of Record Steve Fujiki, Party of Record Lloyd & Colleen Lindberg, Party of Record Bruce Miller, Party of Record II\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\PROJECTS\99-049.LN\holdletrAoc 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 04/20/99 10:24 FAX uul April 19,1999 Reference:Baker/Anderson Dock and Bulkhead#LUA-99-049,SME,V-H,V-H.ECF Ms.Lesley Nishihira Project Manager,Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Dear Ms.Nishihira: I am writing to express concern about the proposed construction of the Baker/Anderson dock and bulkheadat3107MountainViewAvenueNorth. I understand that the structure proposed is a dock that is 124 feet longandupto12feetwide. I am informed that the City of Renton code only allows for docks that are 80 feet in length,and as such I am concerned that this structure,if approved,will be 50%longer than other docks in the immediate area. In the City's review of this application,I would like to request that the City of Renton consider the impact thatsuchastructuremighthaveonthesurroundingarea, and how this may affect residents living near this property. Questions that I respectfully ask the City of Renton to consider are these: How will such a structurebeused?Will multiple boats be docked at this location,or will one boat be docked at this location?Are there restrictions for the type of boats that can be docked here?Will the dock be used as an area of gathering? Will the length of the dock affect the ingress/egress of any existing structure? Will approval of such a variance precipitate applications for similar structures along our waterfront? Again, I would like to reiterate my worry about the development of such a structure along our waterfront. Iunderstandthatthismaybeunnecessary,but I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration of my concern about this matter. Sincerely, Steven H.Fujiki 3114 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NORTH RENTON. WA 98055 Vi at ism WAG, c1 q —D 4R, V yZ s — /30 — 300 O81, c GpMFlYoFN7-To:Leslie Nishihira PI A City of Renton 4pR RFNTON"/NG Development Services Division R '1055 S.Grady Way G1^ . 1999 Renton,Wa 98055 V^ From:Jim Morgan 3103 Mountain View Ave N Renton,Wa 98056 Subj:Variance for 3107 Mountain View Ave.N I will be the new owner of the property just to the south of 3107 Mountain View Av.N on April 29. I would like to express my concerns about the variance request to construct a 125 foot dock by our neighbors to the north. I do not want this approved due to the following reasons: It will be a hazard to navigation for our personal boat entering and leaving the our present dock. It will be a hazard to navigation for other boats traveling in the area. It is unnecessary,the water depth is acceptable at 80 ft which is about 5 ft deep. It will be unsightly reducing the property value. The subsequent boat moored there will block our view of Mercer Island. I am worried that they will rent out space for income purposes. Please take these concerns into account in making the decision to approve/disapprove the variance. Thank you, Jim Morgan 425)304-4580 2 1PINC,. f-( C2 N:7714ft" S T t:2- Th N 1 tk/ gq,090 STATP 161 oyblees' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office, 3190- 160th Ave S.E. • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 April 12, 1999 O CjTY OF RENTON 1NG Lesley Nishihira APR 1 P 1999 Development Services Division RECEIVED City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Nishihira: RE: Determination of Nonsignificance for Baker/Anderson Dock&Bulkhead LUA-99-049, SME,V-H,V-H, ECF Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the proposal by Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker to replace a bulkhead and build a new dock. We have reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments: Approval of a variance for an overwater structure (dock)requires that the project meet the variance criteria. Extraordinary circumstances must be shown. The applicant must demonstrate that all reasonable use of the property is precluded if the variance is not granted; that the hardship is due to topographical or physical constraints (e.g., lot size, steep slopes); that the design is compatible with other authorized uses in the area and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege; and that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief. The environmental checklist does not include information as to the physical constraint or natural feature that would require the applicant to construct a dock wider than 8 feet. Proposed variances should be reviewed carefully for cumulative impacts; WAC 173-27- 170(4) states, "In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area." Permitting longer and wider docks than what is allowed by Renton's Shoreline Master Program will impact a even greater amount of nearshore habitat used by migrating fish, including salmon. Once again, thank you for giving Ecology the opportunity to comment. If you have questions,please call me at(425) 649-7129. Sincerely, 4(.A.L' fre(2A- rAliceKelly Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. SEPA#9902015 b 0 D`• /T/ ( DEVELOPMENT PLANNING_/ CITY OF RENTON APR 1 2, 1999 NlS71-04-11R- 4_ _ __ RECEIVED Gd i/ 1-t mA,- FLODl2 12&NTON, w i ti'p55 9VG3.(-T'• cgq DPC-K. C o\4)"I 65' cr= \4 TE of\ri- A-ID.J0IN (NCs C7v1fNC-R,S V,, {vE s r-ha;/( 39 yRse r4ck. __ IS A-1 =PR_icAt-rrofq k 151_46(r-AvN r AJcf o To ocD-r of out T CDv N Iov 1 nos- . cat-y ,NF,,e:D U k E o rt A'PcTiAI/9 41DVER --s1enL 71,-41 L___/Cst --ri /NI E:).y I-/F n1Eic oRs T T-ftE uT 1 , W-1- IG f4- --7,1 C-oU1 T #1\q/AiSi7EID 7m, IN Agsvor9tv T3cLo4tD t. D. civ 1-11 iNfl Ca" riD-D o ivc) 3:A7nts gi jx)oW Docd 14n-() 7/71 Aist- 0Q1 11 1+1- Cc 0frPv r-V1/\ noA 70 too 77VT--, ivViQ9NO3V,VJ k9 W27 ivz t-2> c9Z brW/ 09 Cr3V-i-t-DCH- / / 9 INA 0 LL-VJ / tu3Ardoati 6661 6 T tiatbaN g0 A113ONINNV7d ir.King County Department of Assessment„ Parcel 334210 - 3860 Computer:HAYESM 04/12/1999 Tax Omit Appr Appr Appr Appr Land Imps Total Tax Levy Change Change Yr Yr Land Imps Total Imp Incr Val Val Val Val Reason Status Code Date Number Reason 1983 0 0 0 0 0 306,200 55,000 361,200 T 2100 12/11/1981 Revalue Change History Event Event Doc Type Date Person Status Id Char Update 03/18/1997 BJOH Tax Roll Acct Bill Omit Levy Appr Appr Appr Imps Tax Tax Tax Acct Nbr Type Year Year Code Land Imps Total Increase Land Imps Total Status Reason Status 334210386002 R 2000 0 2100 $427,000 $119,000 $546,000 0 $427,000 $119,000 $546,000 T A 334210386002 R 1999 0 2100 $427,000 $119,000 $546,000 0 $427,000 $119,000 $546,000 T A 334210386002 R 1998 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $415,000 $119,000 $534,000 T A 334210386002 R 1997 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $468,200 $100,000 $568,200 T A 334210386002 R 1996 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $468,200 $100,000 $568,200 T A 334210386002 R 1995 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $468,200 $100,000 $568,200 T A Appraisals Roll Land Imps Total Imps Appr Post Post RM Year Value Value Value Incr Method Reason Appr Date Status Date R 1999 $427,000 $119,000 $546,000 $0 Prev/Fac Revalue-Annlupdt 09/17/1998 Posted 09/17/1998 R 1998 $415,000 $119,000 $534,000 $0 Rcnld Revalue-Physinsp BJOH 03/18/1997 Posted 06/26/1997 R 1997 $468,200 $100,000 $568,200 $0 Prey Appr Revalue-Annlupdt 09/03/1996 Posted 09/03/1996 Estimates Value Building Roll Land Imps Total Calc Type Number Year Value Value Value Date TOTAL RCN 0 2000 $415,000 $156,000 $571,000 09/19/1998 TOTAL RCNLD 0 2000 $415,000 $126,000 $541,000 09/19/1998 BLDG RCN 1 2000 0 $126,000 $126,000 09/19/1998 ACCY RCN 1 2000 0 $30,000 $30,000 09/19/1998 BLDG RCNLD 1 2000 0 $99,000 $99,000 09/19/1998 ACCY RCNLD 1 2000 0 $27,000 $27,000 09/19/1998 TOTAL RCN 0 1999 $415,000 $155,000 $570,000 11/22/1997 TOTAL RCNLD 0 1999 $415,000 $125,000 $540,000 11/22/1997 BLDG RCN 1 1999 0 $125,000 $125,000 11/22/1997 ACCY RCN 1 1999 0 $30,000 $30,000 11/22/1997 BLDG RCNLD 1 1999 0 $98,000 $98,000 11/22/1997 ACCY RCNLD 1 1999 0 $27,000 $27,000 11/22/1997 TOTAL RCN 0 1998 $415,000 $147,000 $562,000 03/18/1997 TOTAL RCNLD 0 1998 $415,000 $119,000 $534,000 03/18/1997 BLDG RCN 1 1998 0 $118,000 $118,000 03/18/1997 ACCY RCN 1 1998 0 $29,000 $29,000 03/18/1997 BLDG RCNLD 1 1998 0 $93,000 $93,000 03/18/1997 ACCY RCNLD 1 1998 0 $26,000 $26,000 03/18/1997 King • Departmentof AsseCounty ssmentO Parcel 334210 - 3860 tputer •HAYESM 04/12/1999 Parcel Geo Area : Res Area : 063-003-0 Spec Area : Q-S-T-R : SE-31-24-5 Folio : 22836 Type : R Resp : R Levy : 2100 Block : A Lot : 51-52-53 Property Address : 3111 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV N RENTON 98055 Legal Desc : HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 1 51 LESS N 25 FT &ALL 52-53 & SH LDS ADJ TaxPayer Accounts Account Change 334210-3860-02 LINDBERG LLOYD A 3111 MT VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 1 N3864 Land HBU If Vacant : Multi-Family Dwelling HBU As Improved : Present Use Present Use : Duplex Traffic Volume : 0 Percent Unused : 0 Current Zoning : SF Zoning Date : 01/01/1900 Water System : Water District Sewer System : Public Lot SqFt : 12,220 Corner Lot : No Restrictive Size/Shape : No Base Land Val : 415,000 Land Val Date : 03/18/1997 Tax Year : 0 Road Access : Public Parking : Street Surface : Paved Land Viewss Mt Rainier : Sound : Olympics : Lake Washington : Excellent Cascades : Lake Sammamish : Territorial : Average Lake/River/Creek : Seattle : Other : Average Land Waterfront Location : Lake Wash Access Rights : No Bank : Low Proximity Influence : No Tide/Shore : Uplands With Tidelands/Shorelands Poor Quality : No Restricted : Footage : 65 Lot Depth Factor : 0 Land Nuisances/Problems Topography : Powerlines : No Traffic Noise : Other : No Airport : 0 Water Problems : No Trans. Concurrency : No Other : No Land Designations Historic Site : Current Use : (None) Nbr Bldg : 0 Dev. Rights Purchases : No Adj. to Golf Fairway : No Easements : No Adj. to Greenbelt : No Native Growth : No Other : No DNR Lease : No Deed Restriction : No cont on page 2 prill111111111111111111.11111111M.11- King County Department of Assessment Parcel 334210 - 3860 nputer:HAYESM 04/12/1999 Environmental Restrictions None ) Residential Building 1 Obsolescence : 0 Net Condition : 0 Completed : 0 Year Built : 1960 Year Renovated : 0 Additional Costs : 0 Heat Source : Electricity Heat System : Elec Bb 1st Floor Sq Ft. : 1250 Half Floor Sq Ft. : 0 2nd Floor Sq Ft. : 0 Upper Floor Sq Ft. : 0 Finished Basement Sq Ft. : 770 Total Living Sq Ft. : 2020 Unfinished Half Sq Ft. : 0 Unfinished Full Sq Ft. : 0 Total Basement Sq Ft. : 1250 Attached Garage Sq Ft. : 0 Basement Garage Sq Ft. : 0 Brick/Stone : 0 Stories : 1 Number of Living Units : 2 Deck Area : 0 Open Porch Sq Ft. : 0 Enclosed Porch Sq Ft. : 0 Fireplace Single Story : 0 Fireplace Multi Story : 1 Fireplace Free Standing : 0 Fireplace Additional : 1 Full Baths : 1 3/4 Baths : 2 1/2 Baths : 0 Bedrooms : 3 Building Condition : Good Building Grade : 7 Average Building Grade Var : 0 Basement Grade : 6 Low Average Daylight Basement : N View Utilization : N Address : 3111 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV N 98055 Accessories Prk:carport SqFt : 780 Grade : Eff Year : 1960 Net Condition : 0 Value : Date Valued : 1/1/1900 Description : Pv:concrete SqFt : 3,290 Grade : Eff Year : 0 Net Condition : 0 Value : Date Valued : 1/1/1900 Description : Misc Imp SgFt : Grade : Eff Year : 0 Net Condition : 0 Value : 7,500 Date Valued : 1/1/1900 Description : Value History for Acct 334210-3860-02 Tax Omit Appr Appr Appr Appr Land Imps Total Tax Levy Change Change Yr Yr Land Imps Total Imp Incr Val Val Val Val Reason Status Code Date Number Reason 1999 0 427,000 119,000 546,000 0 427,000 119,000 546,000 T 2100 09/17/1998 Revalue 1999 0 415,000 119,000 534,000 0 415,000 119,000 534,000 T 2100 04/18/1998 R470000 Extension 1998 0 0 0 0 0 415,000 119,00D 534,000 T 2100 06/26/1997 Revalue 1997 0 0 0 0 0 468,200 100,000 568,200 T 2100 09/03/1996 Revalue 1995 0 0 0 0 0 468,200 100,000 568,200 T 2100 11/01/1994 Revalue 1993 0 0 0 0 0 483,900 108,200 592,100 T 2100 05/01/1992 Revalue 1991 0 0 0 0 0 452,200 101,100 553,300 T 2100 08/17/1990 Revalue 1989 0 0 0 0 0 209,000 78,500 287,500 T 2100 03/25/1988 Revalue 1987 0 0 0 0 0 220,500 60,100 280,600 T 2100 08/05/1986 Revalue 1985 0 0 0 0 0 247,500 70,100 317,600 T 2100 03/22/1984 Revalue 1985 0 0 0 0 0 247,500 70,100 317,600 T 2100 03/09/1984 Maintenance 1983 0 0 0 0 0 234,000 55,000 289,000 T 2100 06/08/1983 023613 July Board Order 1983 0 0 0 0 0 216,000 33,000 249,000 T 2100 04/26/1983 022572 July Board Order cont. on page 3 Page 1 ' King County Department of Assessments Parcel 334210 - 3880 Computer:HAYESM 04/12/1999 Parcel Geo Area :Res Area : 063-003-0 Spec Area : Q-S-T-R : SE-31-24-5 Folio : 22836 Type : R Resp : R Levy : 2100 Block : A Lot : 54-55 Property Address : 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV N RENTON 98055 Legal Desc : HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 1 & SH LDS ADJ TaxPayer Accounts Account Change 334210-3880-08 I ANDERSON 0 LOWELL PO BOX 78382 SEATTLE WA 98178 651611 Land HBIIlf Vacant : Single Family HBU As Improved : Present Use Present Use : Single Family(Res Use/Zone) Traffic Volume : 0 Percent Unused : 0 Current Zoning : SF Zoning Date : 01/01/1900 Water System : Water District Sewer System : Public Lot SqFt : 11,940 Corner Lot : No Restrictive Size/Shape : No Base Land Val : 410,000 Land Val Date : 03/18/1997 Tax Year : 0 Road Access : Public Parking : Street Surface : Paved Land Views Mt Rainier : Sound : Olympics : Lake Washington : Excellent Cascades : Lake Sammamish : Territorial : Average Lake/River/Creek : Seattle : Other : Average Land Waterfront Location : Lake Wash Access Rights : No Bank : Low Proximity Influence : No Tide/Shore : Uplands With Tidelands/Shorelands Poor Quality : No Restricted : Footage : 60 Lot Depth Factor : 0 Land Nuisances/Problems Topography : Powerlines : No Traffic Noise : Other : No Airport : 0 Water Problems : No Trans. Concurrency : No Other : No Land Designations Historic Site : Current Use : (None) Nbr Bldg : 0 Dev. Rights Purchases : No Adj. to Golf Fairway : No Easements : No Adj. to Greenbelt : No Native Growth : No Other : No DNR Lease : No Deed Restriction : No cont on page 2 Page 2' King County Department of Assessments Parcel 334210 - 3880 Computer :HAYESM 04/12/1999 Environmental Restrictions None ) Residential Building 1 Obsolescence : 0 Net Condition : 0 Completed : 0 Year Built : 1939 Year Renovated : 0 Additional Costs : 0 Heat Source : Oil Heat System : Forced Air 1st Floor Sq Ft. : 970 Half Floor Sq Ft. : 190 2nd Floor Sq Ft. : 0 Upper Floor Sq Ft. : 0 Finished Basement Sq Ft. : 0 Total Living Sq Ft. : 1160 Unfinished Half Sq Ft. : 0 Unfinished Full Sq Ft. : 0 Total Basement Sq Ft. : 290 Attached Garage Sq Ft. : 400 Basement Garage Sq Ft. : 0 Brick/Stone : 0 Stories : 1.5 Number of Living Units : 1 Deck Area : 0 Open Porch Sq Ft. : 100 Enclosed Porch Sq Ft. : 0 Fireplace Single Story : 1 Fireplace Multi Story : 0 Fireplace Free Standing : 0 Fireplace Additional : 0 Full Baths : 1 3/4 Baths : 1 1/2 Baths : 0 Bedrooms : 3 Building Condition : Good Building Grade : 7 Average Building Grade Var : 0 Basement Grade : Daylight Basement : N View Utilization : N Address : 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV N 98055 Accessories None ) Sales History Excise Sale Sale Sale Tax#Date Price Instrument Reason 868250 03/20/1986 240,000 Warranty Deed None Value History for Acct 334210-3880-08 Tax Omit Appr Appr Appr Appr Land Imps Total Tax Levy Change Change Yr Yr Land Imps Total Imp Incr Val Val Val Val Reason Status Code Date Number Reason 1999 0 422,000 52,000 474,000 0 422,000 52,000 474,000 T 2100 09/17/1998 Revalue 1999 0 410,000 52,000 462,000 0 410,000 52,000 462,000 T 2100 04/18/1998 R470000 Extension 1998 0 0 0 0 0 410,000 52,000 462,000 T 2100 06/26/1997 Revalue 1997 0 0 0 0 0 462,700 50,200 512,900 T 2100 09/03/1996 Revalue 1995 0 0 0 0 0 462,700 50,200 512,900 T 2100 11/01/1994 Revalue 1993 0 0 0 0 0 461,500 61,100 522,600 T 2100 05/01/1992 Revalue 1991 0 0 0 0 0 431,300 57,100 488,400 T 2100 08/17/1990 Revalue 1989 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 42,500 242,500 T 2100 03/25/1988 Revalue 1987 0 0 0 0 0 211,500 27,500 239,000 T 2100 08/05/1986 Revalue 1985 0 0 0 0 0 235,200 33,300 268,500 T 2100 03/22/1984 Revalue 1985 0 0 0 0 0 235,200 33,300 268,500 T 2100 03/09/1984 Maintenance 1983 0 0 0 0 0 216,000 33,300 249,300 T 2100 06/02/1983 023572 July Board Order 1983 0 0 0 0 0 228,000 33,300 261,300 T 2100 04/11/1983 022008 July Board Order 1983 0 0 0 0 0 282,600 33,300 315,900 T 2100 12/11/1981 Revalue Permit History Permit Issue Permit Percent Number Type Date Value Status Complete B970689 Accessory, New 08/25/1998 10,000 Review 0 cont on page 3 Page 3 King County Department of Assessments Parcel 334210 - 3880 Computer : HAYESM 04/12/1999 Change History Event Event Doc Type Date Person Status Id Char Update 03/18/1997 BJOH Tax Roll Acct Bill Omit Levy Appr Appr Appr Imps Tax Tax Tax Acct Nbr Type Year Year Code Land Imps Total Increase Land Imps Total Status Reason Status 334210388008 R 2000 0 2100 $422,000 $52,000 $474,000 0 $422,000 $52,000 $474,000 T A 334210388008 R 1999 0 2100 $422,000 $52,000 $474,000 0 $422,000 $52,000 $474,000 T A 334210388008 R 1998 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $410,000 $52,000 $462,000 T A 334210388008 R 1997 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $462,700 $50,200 $512,900 T A 334210388008 R 1996 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $462,700 $50,200 $512,900 T A 334210388008 R 1995 0 2100 0 0 0 0 $462,700 $50,200 $512,900 T A Appraisals Roll Land Imps Total Imps Appr Post Post RM Year Value Value Value lncr Method Reason Appr Date Status Date R 1999 $422,000 $52,000 $474,000 $0 Prev/Fac Revalue-Annlupdt 09/17/1998 Posted 09/17/1998 R 1998 $410,000 $52,000 $462,000 $0 Emv Revalue-Physinsp BJOH 03/18/1997 Posted 06/26/1997 R 1997 $462,700 $50,200 $512,900 $0 Prev Appr Revalue-Annlupdt 09/03/1996 Posted 09/03/1996 Estimates Value Building Roll Land Imps Total Calc Type Number Year Value Value Value Date TOTAL RCN 0 2000 $410,000 $96,000 $506,000 09/19/1998 TOTAL RCNLD 0 2000 $410,000 $73,000 $483,000 09/19/1998 BLDG RCN 1 2000 0 $96,000 $96,000 09/19/1998 BLDG RCNLD 1 2000 0 $73,000 $73,000 09/19/1998 TOTAL RCN 0 1999 $410,000 $95,000 $505,000 11/22/1997 TOTAL RCNLD 0 1999 $410,000 $72,000 $482,000 11/22/1997 BLDG RCN 1 1999 0 $95,000 $95,000 11/22/1997 BLDG RCNLD 1 1999 0 $72,000 $72,000 11/22/1997 EMV 0 1998 $410,000 $52,000 $462,000 03/18/1997 TOTAL RCN 0 1998 $410,000 $90,000 $500,000 03/18/1997 TOTAL RCNLD 0 1998 $410,000 $69,000 $479,000 03/18/1997 BLDG RCN 1 1998 0 $90,000 $90,000 03/18/1997 ACCY RCN 1 1998 0 0 0 03/18/1997 BLDG RCNLD 1 1998 0 $69,000 $69,000 03/18/1997 ACCY RCNLD 1 1998 0 0 0 03/18/1997 C., Ov{ Development Regulations CD + Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Shoreline Master Program,Zoning Code,Public Work's Standards,and UBC. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Lesley Nishihira,Project Manager, NOTICE OF APPLICATION Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on April 20.1999.This matter Is also scheduled fora public hearing on June 01,1999,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City AND PRO F'OS E D DETERMINATION OF NON- Hall,1055 Seth Grady way,Renton.If you are interested In attending the heating,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be SIGNIFICANCE submitted in writing by the date Indicated above,you may still appear at the healing 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 end receive additional Information by mail,contact Ms.Nlshihira at(425)430-7270. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. DATE: APRIL 06,1999 CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA(425)430.7270 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-049,SME,V•H,V-H,ECF PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION 1 APPUCATION NAME: BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK a BULKHEAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 928 square foot dock and replace an existing bulkhead on the Lake Washington shoreline for use by an existing single family residence.The proposed dock is 124 feet long and 8 to 12 feet wide.The existing concrete bulkhead will be replaced with a rock seawall which will remain landward of the ordinary high water mark and will not exceed 3 feet in height.The proposal also requires Variance requests from the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program design criteria for single family docks in order to: 1)exceed the maximum permitted length of 80 feet;and 2)exceed the maximum permitted width of 8 feet.In addition to the Variances,the project requires a Shoreline Exemption Pemnh and Environmental Review. PROJECT LOCATION: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore,as poetic a ^^ permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is a$) 4 e. t likely to Issued.Comment periods in project and the proposed DNS are Integrated into a single comment period. i P r ( _ y;;r , P There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS).A 14 1 I day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS.455 W•ve''•r'.r. ' .'/ e.- t10 a .. 9''-r••i '}, .. I PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 29,1999 A' !llhJlI L,'a'V___o-`.ry a; 1- : l 1s.S.r 'ate Y NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: ' April 5,1999 r a6V.._4-. _' s e 5.,'v APPLICANT: Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair,Inc. r ip OWNER: Lowell Anderson&Laurie Baker,3107 Mountain View Ave.No.4 — 0' et8a{Iaii,1. f Permits/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review(ECF);Shoreline Exemption Permit(SME); v K jiq,1 y-tr Y L0_4YR , s. v J(I 9 ll , ) . Variances from the Shoreline Master Program(V-I) se' ;,1 ;.ip q ^• 61T- sa.iaip'' ert'..:. dab:Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits,Hydraulic Project Approval yry q s."_e e Requested Studies: None I'+a71t .KK-°• •,,r l A,pr,e r , - I, e Location where application may r 4t t'O M*•••1Oe a w A e 4 n lc \ be reviewed:Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, yi• \3 , 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 4 \ 5 J36. ' + d S'°.ar,, S.•,sr)1 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday.June 1,1999 before the Renton Hearing N \ .-% <, ' p Alt!,'"d t -R{. •:,•'_°;,_ Examiner In Renton Council Chambers.Hearin s m at 9:00 AM on the 71h L 'i esaaA` Wiftg — -9 beg floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project Is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 38.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) Include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development,infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the lime of notice.At a minimum. every NOA shall Include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: Residential Single Family Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known GEN1Mion DOC GE90MLOT.000 CERTIFICATION I, <" fit(peakVt , hereby certify that - copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on e V (0 t. r(1 Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public„in or the State of Washington residing in k , , on the ' ti. day of ji 2& I 9 g . d—4' cLL. MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 107k NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE DATE: APRIL 06,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-049,SME,V-H,V-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME BAKER/ANDERSON DOCK&BULKHEAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 928 square foot dock and replace an existing bulkhead on We Lake Washington shoreline for use by an existing single family residence. The proposed dock is 124 feet long and 6 to 12 feet wide. The existing concrete bulkhead will be replaced with a rock seawall which will remain landward of the ordinary high water mark and will not exceed 3 feet in height. The proposal also requires Variance requests fron i the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program design criteria for single family docks in order to: 1)exceed the maximum permitted length of 80 feet; and 2)exceed the maximum permitted width of 8 feet. In addition to the Variances,the p.oject requires a Shoreline Exemption Permit and Environmental Review. PROJECT LOCATIOI :3107 Mountain View Avenue North OPTIONAL DETERMI NATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that signifi:ant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the R( W 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Ccmment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. ti There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance(DNS). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:March 29, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: ' April 5, 1999 APPLICANT: Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair,Inc. OWNER: Lowell Anderson&Laurie Baker;3107 Mountain View Ave.No. t W Permits/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review(ECF);Shoreline Exemption Permit(SME); Variances from the Shoreline Master Program(V-H) Other Permits which nay be required: Building Permits,Hydraulic Project Approval Requested Studies: None Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday,June 1, 1999 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVE'2VIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use, level of development,infrastn cture,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, every NOA shall incke le a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulatic ns. Land Use: Residential Single Family Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known GENMALOT DOC Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Shoreline Master Program,Zoning Code,Public Work's Standards,and UBC. Comments on the abode application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager, Development Service: Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on April 20, 1999. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on June 01,1999,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grad/Way,Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division, (42 i)430-7282,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.Nishihira at(425)430-7270. Anyone who submits written comments will automE tically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON:LESLEY NISHIHIRA (425)430-7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I aloft tiL etaa,e:mv P.' . ' I ",ii Y ,.Q.7N OR Gi " [ i,:. 2 II, , 1a , t R ,..,• 1, JI tit t 455 W M41'-,4-5 I[f,I.i+, RENTO s F- lilt. r y I et:1:":‘1313"1:1:..._. v... s4.11V_I•14_ . -;;'7 , it t ' 7 .11...i.,:,7,-.T..,L,:, tf:50 .k i eA 7 z.M i. Ps 51A1 A o III' ,I III 1, : K NYd ,At i J A IIIE b 4i t Ti p f ' '. 3s1'f i1 N'.Iwd: rt . 4 iiq A, 'I to . 1 i.A ' r l c l q jjj YYY... i t e'- I 1 Fe.R-. J' y+) e , . 1 .: 144 n "-',..' r ktrele qPino.p.ii—TIZI. .14-1.2* : "...,--:,-1 ",.'. ..!4, 11-Its- =- tiis«wT.[. f f r-c Kim!,I co'nnr. CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: Eze;.L-6',4jI Y-r513Y1. APPLICATION NO: LOA• 99. 0491 SYM s V-M CCP The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 4-xcita4 NUMBER See. a o\NG 1 vo4 04-c° cL w GC\ IS* G° Attach additional sheets, if necessary) BATCH NUMBERS ZU COMMENTS CUSTOMER NAME REITERS MARINE 4 4 334210-0176-07 334210-0176-07 STROMBERG FAYE 800369 STROMBERG FAYE 800369 28700 196TH AVE SE 28700 196TH AVE SE KENT WA 98042 KENT WA 98042 334210-0275-07 334210-0275-07 FUJIKI STEVEN H 701905 FUJIKI STEVEN H 701905 6631 112TH AVE SE 6631 112TH AVE SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 NEWCASTLE WA 98056 334210-0280-00 334210-0280-00 FORDS LEE PHILIP LEE JR+VAN889999 FORDE LEE PHILIP LEE JR+VAN869999 3110 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N 3110 LK WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-0285-05 334210-0285-05 SECREST VIRGINIA 679999 SECREST VIRGINIA 679999 3106 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 3106 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-0380-09 334210-0380-09 KINGEN ROBERT J 3N2002 KINGEN ROBERT J 3NZ002 3014 LK WASH BLVD N 3014 LK WASH BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-0385-04 334210-0385-04 WHICH PAULINE M 353535 TOMICH PAULINE M 353535 3008 LK WASH BLVD N 3008 LK WASH BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3u10-03 334210-3810-03 GOETZ ROBERT L 029999 GOETZ ROBERT L 029999 3209 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3209 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334210-3840-07 334210-3840-07 PETTIBONE HELEN 0 779999 PETTIBONE HELEN 0 779999 3205 MT VIEW AVE N 3205 MT VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3855-09 334210-3855-09 YOUNG GARY F BN3836 YOUNG GARY F BN3836 3115 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3115 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3860-02 334210-3860-02 LINDBERG LLOYD A 1N3864 LINDBERG LLOYD A IN3864 3111 MT VIEW AVE N 3111 MT VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3890-06 334210-3890-06 MILLER BRUCE E+PAMELA J 659999 MILLER BRUCE E+PAMELA J 659999 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3905-09 334210-3905-09 BURR ROBERT H R1178 BURR ROBERT H R1178 3013 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3013 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 334210-3906-08 334210-3906-08 SAVUY DONALD L 680226 SAVOY DONALD L 660226 3015 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3015 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3920-00 334210-3920-00 MORRISON SYLVIA 712615 MORRISON SYLVIA 712615 1401 N 34TH ST 1401 N 34TH ST RENTUN WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 334210-3930-08 334210-3930-08 FIX M MONICA 609999 FIX M MONICA 609999 3007 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3007 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CITY uF RENTON OEM. iu. y ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanr er,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 6, 1999 Ms. Allison Reiter Reiter's Marine Construction & Repair, Inc. PO Box 2113 Bothell, WA 98041-2113 SUBJECT: Baker/Anderson Dock Project No. LUA-99-049,SME,V-H,ECF Dear Ms. Reiter: 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 May 4, 1999. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. The date of Tuesday, June 1, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA. 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. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, L./ Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: Lowell Anderson/Laurie Baker; owners AG.NILIN DU. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF DEVELOPMENT 5ERVICES DIVIStO LAND USE MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is n ore than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: a Ker /Anderson boa. uvle fisnn fur i IS - PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: BSI 01 Mo Lon-k- Lin V iet.i At en U.Q tv 3tu7 IJpun4-0,.n ivu 1 . KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: ZIP: Awn q 05tG 33U2A 0 3$$C TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Sc APPLICANT;(if,other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: etIc )frtt.Ck- 1 ic)CIL COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Opp,'-' 'r PLC^rTyOFRENTONd1NG CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING:MAR 2yis99i=5 TELEPHONE NUMBER: RECEIV D PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): 9NTA;T PERSON SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: A cn , 7ge COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: ge i}e is Mac,nt 0..edsOrtitAicri ar,d 2 i c, 41d-I , 'l) ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? P.C. 13ox R N 11 CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY P t1 RgOL' I -Z1(3 SENSITIVE AREA? cli n' ESL HONE NUMBER: V ` L li 0j)1 e • S To whom it may concern: I, O. Lowell Anderson, owner of the property at 3107 Mt. View Avenue North in Renton Lots 54 and 55, Block "A", C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 63, in King County Washington, together with second class shoreland adjoining; situated in the County of King, State of Washington.) authorize Allison Reiter of Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair to apply for a permit to rebuild the dock on our property. O. Lowell Anderson Signed and sealed before me this 1st day of October, 1997. 72_12.UV1/7_, Notary Public t/ et) OCT 0 .‘, c/c VE Uh C/jy• ANT p FRe'V pNNING To whom it may concern: Lo we U I ode-rsan I, Laurie L. Baker owneof property at 3107 Mt. View Avenue North in Renton Lots 54 and 55, Block "A", C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1, according to the Plat recorded in Vol. 11 of Plats, page 63, in King County Washington together with second class shoreland adjoining; situated in the County of King, State of Washington) authorize Allison Reiter of Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair to apply for a permit to rebuild the dock on our property. Laurie L Baker Signed and sealed before me this 30th day of September, 1997 Notary P(rilblic y De.ie w„/ efipeg/ Ft) OC. yr CNT 7/ 0. Lowell Anderson iryoFRftyoNN/NG State of Washington County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 0. Lowell Anderson is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: N 425-481-5814 REITERS MARINE 726 P02 FEB 26 '99 18:38 Construction Mitigation Description Proposed Construction Dates: June 16-July 16 (depends on how easily piles go in, could be longer) Hours of Operation: 7:30 AM to no later than dusk Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes:All materials will be brought in by water Measures to be implememted.... We will work only daylight hours and follow rules& regs Any specialty hours....None Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: We will not be affecting traffic, we are bringing materials in by water. t•IT Pt r;'JING D`v=LOPrREcm(of RENTON MAR 2 1999 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 1999 TO: File No. LUA-97-148, SME FROM: Lesley Nishihira,Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Environmental Review of Bulkhead The proposed bulkhead to be located at 3107 Mountain View Avenue North was issued a Shoreline Exemption from the City's Shoreline Master Program on October 3, 1997. Due to the bulkhead's size under 4 feet in height)a building permit was not required. Therefore, SEPA review was not conducted by the City. Subsequently,the applicant proposed to construct a dock on the shoreline of the subject property. SEPA review is required for the dock alone and is also necessary for the bulkhead when viewed as a combined project. SEPA Environmental Review for both aspects of the project,the dock and the bulkhead, will be conducted under the land use application for the dock. Please refer to file no. LUA-99-049, ECF,V- H, V-H, SME for more information. TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\Document2 Project Narrative for Baker Anderson Dock Project Name: Baker/Anderson dock Size of Dock:928.5 Square Feet Location of Site: Address: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton 98258 Tax#: 334210-3880 Legal Description:Lots 54 & 55 Block A, C.D. Hillmans Lake Washington Gardens of Eden Addition to Seattle No. 1 according to the plat recorded in volume II of plats, page 63, King County, Washington, together with second class shorelands adjoining; situated in county of King, state of Washington. Section 29, Township 24, Range 5 Zoning Designation:R-8 Current Use of Site:Single Family Residence Special site features: Located on Lake Washington Estimated construction cost: $21,500.00 We are proposing to construct a new dock. For a clear picture of the size of the dock please see the diagram. The piles will be untreated Douglas Fir. All other materials will be pressure treated cca .40 and .60. The decking will be Douglas Fir treated with QLL. Please see fact sheet on the decking. All hardware will be HDG. For this proposal we will be requesting a variance. The variance is for the length of the dock. This is due to extremely low water depth. The other variance is for the width of the dock. We are asking for 12' instead of the allowable 8'. This is for temporary boat and visitor boat moorage. For more information please see sheet labeled "Response to Variance Criteria". PTV N A(1) P120 P V kL. DEVELOPMENT PL . ' ` CITY OF RENTC;, MAR 2 RECEIVE; 1 Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair 10101 Main Street Suite B P.O.Box 2113 Bothell WA 98041-2113 Phone 425-485-0950 Fax 425-481-5814 October 03, 1997 To: City of Renton Development Services Division Municipal Building-3rd Fir 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 RE: Shoreline Exemption for Replacement of an Existing Bulkhead We are requesting a Shoreline Exemption Permit to replace an existing bulkhead. The current use of the site is a single family residence. The location of the proposal is 3107 Mountain View Road, Renton 98056. This is on Lake Washington. The existing shoreline is 60' and has an existing concrete bulkhead. We are proposing to replace the concrete bulkhead with a rock seawall. The seawall will not exceed 3' in height. There would be no view obstruction as a result of this project. The approximate cost of the project is$10,000.00. . These dates are approximate and depend on permit issuance. The basis for this request is that this proposal isnornance-of-an existing-structwe -- ,Zi- 67-q G01--Li -Cd-• Thankyou for your time. C ri Si c- et t C d4 Sincerely, J') Y 2 1 Y'v 4 Lci . ageom 711, Allison M. Reiter it?PcC/VET-, OCT 02 In 4797 t VELop City FRft ONiViNG CITY OF RENTON DEVELpPMENT SERVICES'DIU1SIpN PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. bEVELOPWENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 y 1999 RECEIVED Environ rental Checklist 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. 3 i0'l Moun}a,;n i+Lu; ti e 4.4liern rti A_ qu.)lo L9 T2q 'R= 5 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1.EARTH a.General description of the site (circle one) flat;rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Z cl 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. d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. c e.Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. ti/4 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. ti g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 463 cp xi moJety q 2%, 5 c(Aare LA- 0C doCt. h.Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: DOA- 1pikt CCJ.bI 3 Environmental Checklist 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. tQ0. 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. tJ I q c.Water Runoff(including storm water): 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. I A 2)Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. L 0 d.Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: /p. 4.PLANTS a.Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: K; deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b.What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? one, c.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Nd1e d.Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5 Environmental Checklist b.Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? on e , 004- 049 is cdott,. AT.) +h is co 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. ©c\, dur 1 t Lt o ns+c -iir1 1))ccMcxl t* Const-c n no i Ses , 3)Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: WO C ©,Ay during 6,ay1 hour-S. 8.LAND AND SHORELINE USE a.What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? S 2 dv 1`4-h u`.0..ker0--t- rlf ctaeSsorles b.Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. 00. c.Describe any structures on the site. Sc 2 d.Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? EX1•5 ,(1 -4)i les be 'p u.l l ed. e.What is the current zoning classification of the site? R_ f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g ev de fi-a / J;i'ig/ 1 tv g.If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Ortevvi h.Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. try n Yl t nnou e4Se UV t74)1- 011 Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 301- R 1s Cab\. ' t,\S --y caRoscu1. 7 Environmental Checklist c.What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? ‘,)pe. d.Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: tJ i 12. RECREATION a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Normal" Wp.ter oe* r2ue.0.Konc . o por}u-nisc.es. 13oo.A-irv43CiVc\ r‘J, Sw‘mM'‘cvq Skiu•-, eAC• b.Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO. Thnis `-ccY- o.sca WOv\d exOnar e. 21iCi5+ir- feCreca-cOnal lJ zS. c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: fJ cc) k.12, e.Ilh[Li\ 'ZX(5•1'1(1C\ 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- MAI KnaWie-dj ., b.Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Nen.o kc my Kno,,Skit c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 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. Mot_urvti \I 1 e ( e,nu_e_ Inc can b.Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? F 0 c.How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N j A. CITY Ci.e RENTON j 4r Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor March 17, 1999 MINT pOFC.<1 Allison Reiter RFNN TON;fiNC Reiter's Marine Construction & Repair, Inc.MAR 2,9 19ggP.O. Box 2113 Bothell, WA 98041-2113 C /v& Subject: Baker/Anderson Dock Application Dear Ms. Reiter: Thank you for your recent land use application for the Baker/Anderson Dock project. Before the City can accept the project for review, the following information will be required: 1. An original notarized signature is required on the Master Application form. 2.Fees in the amount of$1,750, plus $0.33 per mailing label, will be required. 3. Two sets of mailing labels for property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. We will also need a list of the surrounding property owners on the necessary form which also requires a notarized signature. 4. The variance justification will need to address the individual criteria listed in both the City's Shoreline Master Program and the State WACs (see attached). It would be best to organize the justifications in an outline format with responses to each criteria addressing dock length and dock width individually. 5. The justification submitted discusses existing docks in the vicinity which enjoy the length privilege you are requesting. Photographic documentation would help substantiate this claim and will also help demonstrate that there are no threats to safety from a dock of this length. 6. The elevations plan should be clearer. If possible, it should be placed on its own plan sheet with a scale and north arrow. The dock length and height should be dimensioned and the water depths should be indicated. It may also be useful to have a dashed line representing the 80 foot distance from the shoreline. 7. The Site Plan submitted does not appear to be consistent with the diagram of the dock provided on a separate plan (e.g., is the initial dock width 5 feet or 6 feet?). Also, the diagram of the dock should provide a scale. 8.Provide a scale for the contour map. At what intervals are the contour lines? What do the circles represent (both the lines and blank circles)? The plan is confusing so including a legend on the plan with this information may be useful. BAKER.DOC\ 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 6.! This.a.er contains 50%recycled material,20°6 post consumer 9.If there are substantial changes to any of the plans (site plan, elevation, diagram, and contour), new PMTs will also be required. At this time your project application has not been accepted. We will need the information listed above in order to formally accept and review the proposal. If you have any questions regarding these submittal requirements, please call me at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Z6 (//i..f.-)252— Lesley Nishihira Assistant Planner cc: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker, Property Owners Response to Variance Criteria We are requesting a variance on two issues. The first variance we are requesting is for the length of the docK. The second is for the width of the dock. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on the shorelines in the same vicinity. DOCK LENGTH: We are requesting to be allowed a 124' long dock. This is due to the extremely shallow water. At the allowable 80' of dock there is not enough water to safely moor a boat. At 80' on the north side of the property there is 107" of water. That depth is on very close to the property line. The dock is required to be 5' from the property line. On the south side of the dock at 80' there is approximately 44" of water. It is important to note that these water depths were taken in the summer months. In the winter the depths would be 83" and 20" respectively. In order to get to a safe depth of water it is necessary to go out 124'. Please see diagram of lake bottom for more detail. As you got to the north DOCK WIDTH: There are other docks in the immediate vicinity, which are as wide or wider than the dock we are proposing. ii The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property '-fight of the applicant possessed by the owners of the properties of the shorelines in the same vicinity. DOCK LENGTH:There are many docks in the same vicinity that exceeds the length we are requesting. Please see diagram for existing docks in the immediate area. DOCK WIDTH: Again there are docks in the immediate vicinity, which are as wide or wider than the width of the dock we are proposing. Please see diagram for existing docks in the immediate area. We are requesting to be allowed to have a 12' wide platform primarily for safety reasons. We consider 6' unsafe and 8' marginally so for the intended purposes: 1. Working on and around a boat(s), 2. Wheelchair access for a friend, 3. More stable mooring platform for a visiting boat moored on the west side when a boat is moored on the north side, and 4. Easier and safer access to the dock for swimmers on the south side. This 12' is the minimum width needed to accomplish these things safely - especially tying up a visiting boat. This is of particular concern when the wave acti ,f,It 'n boats passing to and from Coulon Park is severe. OpM ENT N1'pNDeNis_ R 2 1g99 REGE III The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. DOCK LENGTH AND WIDTH: The design of the dock is very compatible with existing docks in the immediate vicinity. In reality the proposed design does not protrude into the lake as far as existing neighboring docks to the south. Also, because of its location, specifically, being well shoreward of the inner harbor line and its relationship to Coleman Point, it poses no impact to navigation or public use of the lake. IV The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. DOCK LENGTH AND WIDTH In the summer of 1998 there was a dock constructed on the South side of Coleman Point that extends 175' for similar reasons. This hardship is by not created by something the Baker/Anderson's have done, it is a natural feature of the lake. We believe this design is the minimum necessary to afford relief. V The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shore ine Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. The design of the dock is very compatible with existing docks in the immediate vicinity. In reality the proposed design does not protrude into the lake as far as existing neighboring docks to the south. Also, because of its location, specifically, being well shoreward of the inner harbor line and its relationship to Coleman Point, it poses no impact to navigation or public use of the lake. VI The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. 3. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property. Due to water depth and the above information, we strongly believe this dock design is compatible to docks in the area, and by granting this variance you would not be granting a special privilege - only allowing the Baker/Anderson's the same uses as have been allowed in the immediate vicinity. b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2) b) through (f) of this section; and b. That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicants own actions. This hardship is by not created by something the Baker/Anderson's have done, it is a natural feature of the lake. Please see diagram of lake bottom. c. That the design of the project is compatible with other uses within the area and with used planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment We strongly believe this dock is compatible to docks in the area. The dock to the south includes a platform and seaplane ramp that is at least 20' wide (N-S). The dock to the North has a covered boathouse and is approximately 30' wide (N-S). There are also docks to the south, which exceed the 124' length we are requesting, for similar reasons. Please see diagram of docks in the immediate area. d. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. Granting of this variance would not be allowing the Baker/Anderson's a special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area"; rather it would be allowing them to enjoy the same privileges allowed to others in the immediate vicinity. Please see diagram of docks in the immediate vicinity. e. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief Given the water depth and what has been allowed in the past, we strongly believe this design is the minimum needed to afford relief. As shown, this dock is very compatible with docks in the immediate vicinity, if somewhat smaller than those in the area are. f. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. - c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shoreline will not be affected. Due to its location, specifically, being well shoreward of the inner harbor line and its relationship to Coleman Point, it poses no impact to navigation or public use of the lake. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Reiter's Marine Construction and Repair, Inc. for: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker Dock Project 3107 Mountain View Avenue N NRentonWA, Lake Washington 2-16-99 Scale: 1" = 40' lialM,111111111! 0 20 40 60 80 Z 1-" I 186'`•I"1 Property Line O.H.W.M. e, Existing Bulkhead Lake Washington 1f N a.sz to A:- 25.81 ' 1-0111 75.22' 928.5 Sq. Ft. Total House83.3"- 741__ 29.8' 1 1- 11-11 I "" 185' I Properti Line tLr-1flFFFF-H 124.00 25.81 4\G do rn 83.37 z_ 7 7_ . 0 Q ir; i i i i 29.80 0 O 1 L.r i i i . T KbO c.i 83.37 VPropertyLine e L L n C471' is-L DT P MA ° F F Nf`iNc f R `9 1999 el Raeustr NAME:E Laurie Baker / Lowell Anderson DATE. 1/25/99 Marine Construction DWG NAME: A:\Baker.tcw and Repair Inc. AQORESS: 3107 Mountain View Avenue N DRAWN BY: Mel Reiter 1-800-352-7664 PHONE: 206) 772-6284 REVISION: 2/2/99 P.O.BOX 2113 BOTHELL WA 98011-2113 LAKE: Lake Washington 1/99 Reiter's.Marine Construction and Repair for: JUL 1 6 tv6 Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker N 3107 Mountain View Avenue N REGEN.fmAD Renton Lake Washington r , tu'Site Plan C d 186.00 A a) A •« OHWM J q i 125.59 3 ii al Existing Concrete Bulkhead g19.00 - f to be removed c N M 25.00 15.00 r Proposed Seawallt 1— 11971 ao e. House 15.12 - 4:0'" , p,, p 185.00 6 -iA/VW/61 62A-rArk -12/YjalVic-,11 Y -1-Wie--K249,40t 4m*A44, _ _Q4431- vilD CP OkA'01),VANCL: -*kik 4_ A,k)-6.-- z. Q)n--1-4- l Scale: 1" = 32' Z-4 O Q NID.._1.9N1P.5V '\ E -' /'1 r 0 69'LL WMNO r-' 0 gaitA.A" - IIIP AI AmilleilrFA--- 4W-41V pAIV- / /wiraagra Ilf, A 40 V. 40 Ogillive r 0,4stittet.,...ohci.i gp 4", Nova 11-010 -#04YLIeve 0 w- -:tigifpkw Clii 41b1v3 4r, 4 ill1O1Ni _ 1 (v\. \ N u l t 0 lr\l L • 8664- V I la NOl gIA3Wd 3t a ON1NN 80' MA4-(f'`01`4 l 124' J t i 35l r 1.8?2.8 i 42'5.04' 5.74' Per-ilk Dock Height not to exceed 3' above O.H.W.M. illigallirM DliC,1YM,NTf'LA ,,r./,OF I tvro J"''G MAR 2 9 199910zvW4DRFC /VEp 80' MAx1fr%O I,E4(Carkt Ati3OW60 (21( WO o,124' 9142Ir,5.04 '' 1. 74 iIi I I o Dock Height not to exceed 3' above O.H.W.M. 111% 111116111 0 2o 3n 4D 011102 14 aci-to'42[ (0 DO C-S j 1`J v'iC(tQ e T'C 3011 Mtn View Ave 51• 32.5' 3103 Mtn. View Ave Roof 22.5' 20 Seaplane Ramp 22 5 iso 11 — 40• I-- 28• 3013 Min View Ave. 163' 98' 58• OkleSZ Op O c N RFj L4 qR Toti -t% R cG, 9 al-Pea N rry 3007 Mtn View Ave 3115 Mtn View Ave A Roof 85 ' 3111 Mtn View Ave 29.06 ' o 1 175 ' 65.27 ' 61 ' 3119 Mtn View Ave 24 ' L..0 37.78 ' 40 ' 12 ' l%11.60 ip24,30 40 VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 110 WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS. REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations, Survey, Drainage Control Plan 2 1/() JO E.,itt)5 sJ5J( Drainage Report 2 Elevations, Architectural 3 AND a i_ Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)a Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 L, lr , Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report 2AND3 Of; Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site Landscaping Plan, Conceptual4 i \ Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument), Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping 7 i",• /4; Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 Traffic Study 2 2 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 JO oy \otia Lvrvrfv vks • Wetlands Delineation Map4 Wetlands Planting Plan 4 r Wetlands Study 4 Pre-fr'F =r'tr/ii?'Y'JJ Alt' /9"-PP/CPth This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: Sf 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 2 ! r /r 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan.ing\waiver.xls City of Renton WA Reprinted: 03/29/99 16 :48 Receipt Receipt Number: R9901322 Amount: 1, 780 . 50 03/29/99 16 :48 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: REITERS-7944 Init: CRP Project #: LUA99-049 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 334210-3880 Site Address: 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV N Total Fees : 1, 780 .50 This Payment 1, 780 . 50 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 780 .50 Balance: 00 Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 1, 000 . 00 000 . 345 . 81. 00 . 0016 Shoreline Subst Dev f 250 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0019 Variance Fees 500 . 00 000 . 341. 60 . 00 . 0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 26 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 4 . 50 SLIP _ 3z iv'. p 4'.,./.:::!..._: 1_73_254:ji..\,/ . It MAL 1 I i i.:; I 36 I fat,lrtur r` vi-" S T \\ i 8G WHARF SIT i 111 1 A h. 33R0KNNY1i>>'EI wiiiil ; !N ite• scar.C // 7 95 /,gm SLIP ® -"AMMO- / to Is ,s 16 Io j J r Y 7f N. 32ND tillt ram- J: Z I J sag -iar •3,,z, _ S 1-C E // 0 I tr1 E,•, Frui , 13 to is 16 I7I 1 F? N. 31ST ii( r..-c szati 4-1‘' A 7 .' c 11‘,... . , Aillik- 0, lim i.z so 13 114 IS 10 i Codem;Aii- iii Q co q N`. 30TH1000 Illib. --..--. 4‹. 11110006.\ li f• O File.' 71 Z® 9 n - 7 6 A a/'7Z j ,2j 13 ,4 1 1' i A N.29TH I . GOV23IIPiitlig 2o ' to 1 POST ATTACH SILT 0 H W FENCE TO TOP 2185 OF POST rym ROCK 6f.i 5"(il 1 edix.vF. 12El.M6ED(oIaw .1, o p ; POST ANCHOR L. WEIGHTS® S 6-10 0/C g LAKEBOTTOM rj a g 0 r uKT, y117t.. 4r-f7h 1)z`4-5 1)BOTTOM 6'TO 8' q T T1l.Ey '—•• 15MAX SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL 4V0117 1A.,z.12 Li-1 SCALE. 1"=3' INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION REMOVE SILT FENCE WHEN PROJECT ISoCOMPLETEDTpMtbDtT1ILf"n'P1 ig m_ resrgv--rime LA a N12E1- I4 wsl-D-le 441IG r- '5P.E 61IL & - 604-n11Co GSINlilt-ICo Vd+1 I guo aEpp (o (F{I i 2'i 1T / ",oo 1 I WIEN '),„'.% 04,...„,. 1i.6 , ri I ui, 1?Grx,„ i : Soil.rift. ti FQOP' f YS er I R w , j,, nlzlcs a I (IJK al?tATo BC C:gO O o Y173 51 DEVI L a 11IkIfJLll k aw 1 ;;\.F Tot Fl w/l av AJ"noe 1-I TeM Uzu l. V'xk wm-ll k1 c124.,E, d¢ a uzaveL 45 ii Alt / PferokGD 19Kki - iD Pal=EK?iED 1'± dS elJowr.l tiP D' er ove. Inkrg 1Co of IWM 21 $ Lj 2 'aIG waouJ i e .l w/UvIol1E Me' 16JGK b /p4b¢eLItJE 2c cCvfi I II O w rand,atic.gul kdt.447 0i P dc ll. w-top of ALID bc141 r2ne!-IK TO Q Ix' t?L?1',(f`/p•) xG-ivi IL! bE RENovg7 If, GIaaLE10 dt2E06aC Pt x z LE61/B eg14'r I?LrXS = 04`'fQEE q=h.A-t-24 • 1— 2.5J' — o I rap L4askb IMf rf"5 -1:6' f w maul -x..44E151.n.,c betLik] 7 IL(TYP) 1 h 4 ' N Li 1..ry co..o..A.. .CTANce1L.AC .y OaERpR 2 VYn Maas Awe c anbn N' aca c. R...Doom. can.Wtod a 7S boo ma 1 ow..., S.lombri M,E.— o O j j I. Lama.. Aiao Naseon 10at =Mier pMJ.raarn IN AI... 1.K a..Ia u W 1.a1a.a4I .Ywtaalta f — I KEY EXISTING PILES CREOSOTEOTREATEDPILESTOBEREMOVED(16 TOTAL) a PROPOSED 4'SCH.80 COATED STEEL I$32.SAILBOAT4-I PILING(12 TOTAL AT 18't 0/C) m I POSE I 8 n 3 T I FLo a 2X6 PRESSURE TREATED Q 5'MIN 6 S 3T-6' DF DECKING I an NORTH NORTH RNFEERENCE O hs el LINE RENCE 0 0 4 Q J 1 p o a Ell 0 O.H W.M.AT 25' O PROPOSE 8' Q NO BULKHEAD PROPOSED 4'SCM.80 0 eCOATEDSTEELPILING APPROXIMATE LOCATION ES ;I OF SEWER UNE E fel ]G PRISMS FOR LIGHT PENETRATION SOUTH 3 S me REFERREFERENCE _UTH PLAN VIEW REFERENCE LINELINE o 0SCALE. 1/4'41' CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'X 105'OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6'MANWALK.WIDENING O TO AN 8'WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH.LS ca O. O 1 32'SAILBOAT V7 t C f32' SAILBOAT y t 32'SAILBOAT r^IPROPOSED PIER v,4 imait [ ninn Q'O 1FA— rILWAII! 0.H.W. V 5, 1.85' II 10411111. 7/ r' O.L.W. 20.00' 4•S / \\\\ \\\/N p2 LAKE BOTTOM s w,-- WEST ELEVATION 2 SCALE 1/4'-1' 0 32'SAILBOAT a w m 3 AT HIGH WATER 80'PIER LIMIT LINE L.; 0 H.W.M AT 32'SAILBOAT S 2 0 PROPOSED BULKHEAD AT LOW WATER i a OM.W218' t O.L.W. V\V /VV ViV\%VAj% AVAA V \ \' i // //\/ \\/\\j b._ s PILNGPROPOSED o .. p; VI /, //\ o NORTH ELEVATION 3$ ^p 5'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE O SCALE 1/4"=1' o ' ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4"SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 18' r`O 0 O L1 2432'SAILBOAT 0 H W M AT 80'PIER LIMIT LINE yy AT HIGH WATER PROPOSED BULKHEAD C4 C 32'SAILBOAT r E1 AT LOW WATER C/D O.H W h 21 85' V// C.)Cn i//PROPOSED o SOUTH ELEVATION PILING I 18' 25'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE SCALE: 1/4"=1' z _ w O ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4"SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'AND a DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL ozo i d o 0 0 g a a o z \\ MpT. A K E Il n q I` 1` wq L, LAKE WASHINGTON Z P ,,„ itt ' T I y iti Z= r'— :, r‘ t nriki 1i i y r 66\ 90,, ewe.:, . 8D . lit 11. 7+ i( 4r+ l ipaiitipt. k,. i1 Eptl w, h S9' s vo. s" G(• 1 4iV , 1 . 11* I III N P D: n" f • ' E 1 uy sm• yC A . ffi& Sri,m. 11. 131 t,, 1 I oa 1 OA I I FU m og N 1 S 2 I o m X ioi 1 f mA m t' F Z 4_ _ y o 1 1 IA I _ of o L I of I g_ I II R- I I oA 1 1 i 1 F F µ - I Y+=-- u i. l i 1 i x 4AOX N 9y ° om£? a l mo m F 1 I s 1m1 O FA L. Z O o A my- r P 1 z W la o R1D aF 9 g a I LIz O a m 1 xom0 aZo 6Df MO VIEW AVE N PROPOSED: CONSTRUCT NEW PIER JOB NAME: ANDERSON APPLICANT: LOWELL ANDERSON REPLACE FOR PRIVATE BULKHEADMOORA 1 WATERFRONT JOB ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS PURPOSE: PROVIDE AND SHORELINE PR./ TECTION. CONSTRUCTION INC. 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N P. OBOX 78382 R07OM, WA 9805E P. O BOX WA 98178 DATUM: C. O. E. 0. 0' EST. 1919 DATE. 7- 19- 00 SH 1 OP, 4 SEATTLE, WA. PH. 206- 548- 9800 09L5 case- 5 q Hp siagei ssaippy ®A213AV 334210 0176 334210 0275 334210 0280 ROGER STROMBERG STEVEN FUJIKI PHILIP LEE&VANESSA FORDE JR. 28700 196TH AVE SE 6631 112TH AVE SE 3110 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N KENT,WA 98042-5413 NEWCASTLE,WA 98056-1004 RENTON,WA 98056-2504 334210 0285 334210 0380 334210 0385 VIRGINIA SECREST ROBERT KINGEN PAULINE TOMICH 3106 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 3014 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 3008 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON,WA 98056-2504 RENTON,WA 98056-2505 RENTON,WA 98056-2505 334210 3810 334210 3840 334210 3855 ROBERT GOETZ STEPHEN&NANCY PORTER GARY YOUNG 3209 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3205 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3115 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA 98056-2512 RENTON,WA 98056-2512 RENTON,WA 98056-2514 334210 3860 334210 3890 LLOYD LINDBERG LAURA&JAMES MORGAN 3111 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA 98056-2514 RENTON,WA 98056-2514 334210 3895 334210 3905 334210 3906 WILLIAM STONEMAN ROBERT BURR DONALD SAVOY 3101 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3013 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3015 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA 98056-2514 RENTON,WA 98056-2516 RENTON,WA 98056-2516 334210 3920 334210 3930 SYLVIA MORRISON M MONICA FIX 1401 N 34TH ST 3007 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA 98056-1959 RENTON,WA 98056-2516 Wls1aagS p09LSaojaleidwa1esh aaA LIoows 0 © CITY OF RENTON y. 1, 4:;,.-%...- .r.... NA Planning/Building/Public Workscc of ' a " OCT05'00 j'ia>f = 0 .3Q5 '1055 South GradyWayRenton Washington 98055 r' c PB METER ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE N Mr. Steve Fujiki 3114 Lk. Washington Blvd. No. Renton WA 98056 I v.LEe-AAA '---..., ADDRESSED II c LE TO FORWARD i I Vid , TURN IL' 5 : 'r:rt J RUI{P 9885b tt , ll!! ; ; , ; ; jj ; ; ;; Ia. 1?-j!:./7+,_`.7 Ili;ii;iiiililiiiiiiiilifiiins iiiiliiliiiiliiiSiliili;i a ii p CITY OF RENTON W l Planning/Building/Public Works 4 ! r 4 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 N OCT 0 5'0 0 4,a i•'.1 0 3 Q 5 f tit n " ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 715 8r01En U.S. POSTAGE7158401 Mr. Jim Morgan 3103 Mt. View Ave. No. Renton WA 98056 is, r ..:u.J:t. r7-- 0 TO••WRITER\-- 4_ I ! ao b i E 4, 3, c..)s..,..,r.3.eljacs.,si:e z Iiiiiij1;1i:rolli1ii,i11:flil}l:lirl:l:llii,i 0 © CITY OF RENTON 40 1."%` _ . . owl Planning/Building/Public Worksii 3 r '4 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 CC OCT 0 5'0 0 sppoil - Q ,3 Q 5 PU P1ETEn ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 1158401 U.S. POSTAGE Mr. Bruce Miller 3103 Mt. View Ave. No. Renton WA oQnca MILL10:1 cit9O56dOi2 1699 20 10/11/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MILLER 283 WAIAMA WAY HAIKU HI 96708-5849 q1' i ij t RETURN TO jjS{ ENttDER ff tj j 3 ' sA4•.fi 2 flduittfi i t itilil:f:silmididli ddlit tiI:i31fiid fioNamimmum c: p CITY OF RF. NTONO7I54U1IPlanning/Building/Public Works. 03Q1055SouthGradyWay - Renton Washington 98055 PBADDRESSSERVICEREQUESTEDU.S. PosTar E 0 '. 15 00 PEESSITEE ICI SEA VL S1 Mr. Bruce Miller 3103 Mountain View Ave. No. Atenton WF OPfl MILL1O3 950563014 1699 21 09/19/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MILLER 283 WAIAMA WAY HAIKU HI 96708-5899 e ee ai j ii RElTURNj TO( ((SiiENyyDEjjR }} !! `( ` 1elo.Sir] '31 1773. Itk iilii`IIfl:fz{iIi'.iFIIIIiIIA Il I1III111IIlIfiltliAI .. _.11 c: 0 CITY OF RENTON all. Planning/Building/Public Works 1 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 SEP 14 0 0ci nat -t w Q 5 C1TM`j gBMBTEn ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 1158401 U.S. POSTAGE i9 15 08. ?MOM, FCII. SEA 81 St1 Mr. Jim Morgan 3103 Mountain View Avenue North Renton WA 98056 Otle TO V'/R iTERC.ci d3S E1 m ADDRESSEE jt OD 98156 iij tt ff{ ADDRESSEER O S N i!ii!I?!Iti1,:I,#.ii?iittli!i 411 it + i I j II y ill ` 1.. a•_•:." i!i!fi fi !I. i?ii.i.t iiiti!f!!iitli.. 4 p CITY OF RENTON NIA Planning/Building/Public Works RET& aNg 2 17% i% —_ s 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Fo '' 0 30 5 PRNI PB METER ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED I - j f 1 58401 U.S. POSTAGE rA/ v l Bruce Miller 3103 . iew Aven North Re n, WA 980 MILL103 980563007 1699 16 08/26/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MILLER 283 WAIAMA WAY HAIKU HI 96708-5899 SENDER 4 © CITY OF RENTON id,. 211 Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 0 AUG 2 2'O 0 pr_G e'=a — 0 .3 0 5 RSR F IRJ1 -tCLNSS SEA Val 0%12 ',. PB 8aoi U.S. POSTAGE ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 334210 0280 1 PHILIP LEE& VANESSA FORDE JR. 0\'\ 3110 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON, WA 98056-2504 AI C1LiVkR56LE us AS ADDRESSED •i"` 4 311''jli Sy U AABLE Ti FORWARD nK:..v d A `0 RETURN TO SENDLt3 s, MP 9$856 1 li y ! { i; j 1 1 } 1 Ek Ai r' •J iiiiii11t1i1111?'111111!Ii111i1111?Ii?ti!:FIiI1I11!iIilh1 I1i111, T3..J•1f •J.L•6 5 I Ii. I 'y.1" i'Y OF RENTON t Planning/Building/Public Works 3 joA '#--,A1 An220o a : 03051055SouthGradyWay - Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED P I F 1 RS I -C i) SE vie I fl$I I I PBMETEn 7158401 u.s. POSTAGE_ 0 '\ Jim Morgan 3103 Mt. View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 J iriYf.'(I tr, _ b,',.. 1Aune:2az 988S f1;1;; ;, ;II;;;; ; :, ;j;;;il;;:;i;;ii;:; ;i:i; ;;i;i;;;ii; K N N y D At,,.... . ,.. .2--. D.Drlu i, ' Ng LI, : ..NATi 'r, r., 1 - :5:2111 5-d au 4 ) • m SUP \-) .' Allebrii/ ..ridIFMR 7 N At." I CO N.32ND 3.03 • . J vied-xi 4 • 341P2 `21.i4 jell, • SI-tE iz 6 -t• ...'4F7t-rtirr' 1-14-721: .I 1 • 1 Prin ' 13"14 1: [6 Z : i• . 0 c 4t.tilElle N. Kg 3IST 41Lohorioggler2at-P7A 4„,„Z 512 SOMPim' leg. Ma is i4 ,5 H. 2 01 ern:, owl:soot- 3 '''' N. 30TH k- \11014/1111101.--Ti ...zEi 97, , 7 IT 10' I Z 13 .4 1 r ) 4. 21E1 1 c : A 11 elII* 7• • •• 1. A• .. 1 . ri. 0 . 'A N. 29TH V. 1114: 5(57r,nv 7:7-. • ... -_ at..It, CITY<OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING. On the (Z day of e o, e4' , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Reoovt to t1ealivl vAt zlocuments. This information was sent to: Name Representing LA1 Je-I v deisc-v, I-.u,vik_ -. L-11-tA k e-til P e "& ur1- f Co h.stvIkdio v) 5rte\It. 1Ajj i Lt I-Lcu ,i 11- Coll U.oci!Del Bvucf IVv,l LU, c_ 61(I s-k,ne v i) Signature of Sender) S Q.vi,'- 1 A,---- STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that q20.7,A t A k _ eve o v- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fot fhe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. D •, ., . . ._...... . .•,.• a Wei / - N!ARRiCy N KAMMCi E F Notary Public in nd for theState f Washi O on NOTARYTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON Notary (Print) JAARuyN KA)ACIiEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES My appointment pep JUNE 29, 2003 Project Name: 1n t o—k Doc 4- eu-1 kke-a c# Project Number: Ule9 - `19 • D49 , v - H , EZ, , 9v\ NOTARY2.DOC CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 2000 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items .'ill be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME:Anderson Baker Dock PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single- family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline- enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock 1105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. hexagerda City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2000 Project Name: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock and Bulkhead Applicant/Address:Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Owner/Address: Same as applicant File Number:LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description:The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance in order to exceed the maximum permitted length for residential docks. The proposal includes the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included is the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. Project Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North v WHARF SIT ;-- T6; / 1- •• t! K N N Y D A •'—• 33RD i i _ //; I i u ui kii T . F9$,r•c// l.:l SLIP O <•ia ill(.a is nl , (Q ii l..A- . / N.32ND 1\1 IN JOB • 3,m .. .. -®ui, .2 1 L • LiF 3 71 . is i< is e n 7 fsI ' - H R.: ' Z ec N. 3IST laT i Eels;;m A II. ems,.__ o k7 i Z 7M1 Amen 1 • — aIiiii3 ' N. 30TH Ws off— f. 3' 4-. - '' --. - D Militlilli 9a i t 1\ \ . Iz :J4 r:-. City of Renton P/B/PW Department rninary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 2 of 6 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1.Owner of Record: Laurie Baker& Lowell Anderson 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 2.Zoning Designation: Residential—8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) 3.Comprehensive Plan Residential Single Family(RSF) Land Use Designation: 4.Existing Site Use: Single family dwelling 5.Neighborhood Characteristics North: Single family residential East: Mountain View Avenue North, Single family residential South: Single family residential West: Lake Washington 6.Access: Mountain View Avenue North 7.Site Area: 10,800 square feet 8.Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: 990 sf Existing residence New Building Area: 749 sf Proposed dock Total Building Area: 1,739 sf C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No.Ordinance No.Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Annexation N/A 1804 12/08/59 D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090) 2. Property Development Standards (RMC 4-4) a. Development Guidelines and Regulations—General (RMC 4-4-030) b. Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations (RMC 4-4-130) 3. Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-9-190) E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM: 1. Urban Environment (4-3-090.J) 2. Specific Use Regulations (4-3-090.L) 3. Piers and Docks (4-3-090.L.12) 4. Shoreline Variances and Conditional Uses (4-9-190.1) Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department minary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 3 of 6 G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. The dock is proposed at a length of 105 feet and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas-fir decking. The shoreward 65 feet of the pier would be 6 feet wide, leading to an 8.5-foot long, 8-foot wide intervening section, ending with a 35-foot long section of 8 feet in width. The construction of the dock would involve the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously existing failed pier. Twelve 4-inch coated steel piles, set at 18-foot intervals, would be driven to support the new dock. The project would include the installation of prisms in order to minimize shading in the area of the dock with the greatest amount of surface coverage. Equipment necessary for project construction would be brought to the site via barge, including a barge-mounted crane and vibratory pile driver. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. In addition to the placement of rocks, approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material and native plants would be installed. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark. The subject site is designated as an "urban"environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Private single family piers and docks are permitted within this designation provided there is no more than one pier per developed water front lot or ownership and the dock design complies with established specifications. These standards limit dock length to 80 feet, width to 8 feet, require a minimum setback of 5 feet from adjacent property lines, and allow no more than one pier extension at a maximum of 100 square feet in size. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a shoreline variance from section 4-3- 090.L.e.ii of the City's Shoreline Master Program in order to exceed the maximum permitted dock length of 80 feet. With the exception of the subject variance request, the proposed residential dock and bulkhead comply with all pertinent shoreline development regulations. A Exemption Certificate from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be issued for the bulkhead portion of the project. In May of 1999, the proposal was brought before the Environmental Review Committee (ERC),where a decision was tabled pending the applicant's submittal of a Biological Assessment addressing the project's potential affect on critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. In response to this request, the applicant submitted a biological assessment and substantially revised the scale of the proposed dock by reducing overall size, length and width dimensions. The ERC took potential impacts to shoreline, wildlife, and habitat into consideration and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)for the project. The shoreline variance decision is forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office for approval or denial. The shoreline decision is deemed to be approved within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt by these agencies unless written communication is received indicating otherwise. Appeals of the shoreline variance decision must be filed to the Shoreline Hearings Board within 30 days of issuance. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA(RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 12, 2000, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS)for the proposal. The SEPA determination was followed by a two-week appeal period, which ended on October 2, 2000. No appeals to the threshold determination were filed. Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department r-i wminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK 8 BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 4 of 6 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of the proposal, including the Biological Assessment provided by the applicant, did not reveal the need for additional mitigating measures above and beyond adopted code requirements, as well as beyond measures proposed by the applicant. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues from the proposed shoreline variance. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. H. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: 1. VARIANCE DECISION REQUESTED a. The applicant has requested a variance from section 4-3-090.L.e.ii of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations which states: "The dock may extend to a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first." b. The applicant wishes to construct a residential dock of 105 feet in length, which exceeds the maximum 80-foot length permitted by 25 feet. c. Lake bottom contours on the site are such that at the required 80-foot length, the shallow water depth would preclude the applicant's ability to safely moor a boat. d. The variance would allow the applicant to construct the dock to a point of sufficient water depth (e.g., 14 feet, 6 inches minimum)so that sufficient boat moorage is possible. 2. VARIANCE DECISION CRITERIA The Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant variances in the administration of the Renton Shoreline Master Program upon making a determination in writing that the conditions specified below have been found to exist(RMC 4-9-190.1.4). a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The lake bottom within the immediate proximity of the site is such that water depths are fairly shallow and would preclude the use of an 80-foot dock. The applicant owns a 32-foot sailboat with a 6-foot draft and contends that an increased dock length is necessary in order to properly moor the boat. Water depths deepen in a northwesterly direction at the subject site. Based on the elevations provided by the applicant, at the required 80-foot dock length water depths of 4 feet, 3 inches (OHWL) and 2 feet, 3 inches (OLWL)would be available on the south side of the pier. Water depths of 9 feet, 5 inches (OHWL) and 7 feet, 5 inches (OLWL)would be available on the north side of the pier. These depths are such that the keel would submerge into the bottom of the lake, thereby eliminating the ability to safely moor a boat. In order to reasonably accommodate boat moorage, the applicant has proposed a dock with a"dog leg"design in order to utilize sufficient water depths at the nearest possible distances to the shoreline. A distance between 88 feet and 92 feet beyond the ordinary high water line would achieve the appropriate water depth necessary for the sailboat's keel. An additional 17 feet—for a total of 105 feet from the ordinary high water line—would be necessary to accommodate the length of the sailboat. At the proposed 105-foot length,water depths of 16 feet, 6 inches (OHWL)and 14 feet, 6 inches (OLWL)would be available and would provide adequate depths for boat moorage. However, the south side of the dock would still not be of sufficient depth to accommodate a sailboat with a 6-foot draft, providing water depths of only 8 feet, 9 inches (OHWL)and 6 feet, 9 inches (OLWL). Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department rreuminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV,ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 5 of 6 The applicant further contends that the proposed 105-foot dock length,with"dog leg"transition, is the only design that would allow for safe year round moorage. By utilizing the north side of the dock, the sailboat could be safely moored with 4 feet of water beneath the keel at the ordinary low water line. Less than 4 feet would not provide sufficient protection to keep the keel from hitting the lake bottom during winter storms. The requested dock length would provide sufficient water depth for safe boat moorage in both the summer and winter seasons. b. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shoreline in the same vicinity. The applicant has provided a list of other properties in the vicinity which currently enjoy the use of private residential docks. Of the 7 docks listed, which range from 40 feet to 175 feet in length, 4 exceed the maximum 80-foot length permitted. In addition, the average length of the seven docks in the area (112 feet)exceeds the 105-foot length proposed by the applicant. c. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposed dock is not anticipated to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shoreline in the same vicinity. The proposal would not result in the blocking of views and would not impede the availability of public access to the shoreline. d. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The dock length provision is worded such that dock design "may extend a maximum of 80 feet beyond the ordinary high water line into the water or until a depth of 12 feet below the mean low water mark, whichever is reached first." Although the strict interpretation of the provision would prohibit the construction of a dock beyond 80 feet even though water depths of less than 12 feet are present, the intent of the shoreline master program may have been to allow for flexibility in dock design in order to accommodate shallow water depths at unique sites. The approval of the variance would not conflict with the general purpose of the Shoreline Master Program. e. The public welfare and interest will be preserved;if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of this Master Program. The approval of the variance would not inflict harm to the area and would not infringe on public welfare and interest. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC)took into consideration potential impacts to shoreline, wildlife, and habitat and subsequently issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the project. Furthermore, the applicant has taken substantial measures for mitigating potential impacts through proposed construction methods, shoreline restoration, and modifications to the dock design. Measures include the installation of small, 4-inch piles in order to minimize shading impacts, as well as the placement of two prisms under the dogleg portion of the dock for increased light penetration beneath the structure. In addition, considerable effort has been given to the appropriate design of the restored shoreline in order to maximum benefits to critical habitat. As stated under the previous criterion, the approval of the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. f. The proposal must meet the variance criteria contained in the WAC 173-27-170.3, as follows: That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; For the reasons stated under criterion "a"above, the strict application of the dimensional standards established by the City's Shoreline Master Program would preclude the reasonable use of the property for boat moorage. ii.That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Hexreport City of Renton P/B/PW Department rreuminary Report to the Hearing Examiner BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD LUA-99-049, SV, ECF, SME PUBLIC HEARING DATE:OCTOBER 17, 2000 Page 6 of 6 The hardship presented by the applicant is directly related to natural features unique to the subject property. The shallow water depth for the subject site does not allow for the construction of a dock that would be capable of safely mooring a boat. Although shallow water depths may exist in the immediate vicinity of the subject shoreline area, these properties currently have existing docks at lengths in excess of that requested by the applicant(see criterion "b"). iii.That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Based on information provided by the applicant and as discussed under criterion "b", there are a number of existing docks in the immediate area which are substantially longer than the design proposed by the applicant. As determined by the ERC, the proposed dock and shoreline enhancement project would not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. iv.That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; As previously stated, there are a number of surrounding property owners which currently enjoy the privilege of docks with lengths in excess of the maximum 80-foot length permitted by code. The applicant has substantially reduced the proposed dock length from a preferred design and has thus requested the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the moorage of a boat. The proposed pier would have less moorage and square footage than those enjoyed by neighbors and other property owners in the vicinity v.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;and, The approval of the variance would not result in a detrimental effect to the public interest. vi.That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. The approval of the variance would not adversely affect public rights of navigation. I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Shoreline Variance for the Baker/Anderson Residential Dock Bulkhead, Project File No. LUA-99-049,SV, ECF, SME. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Shoreline Variance Approval: Two (2) years from the approval date, if construction has not commenced. Hexreoort EXISTING PIER ISJO SO FT OF DOCK COVERAGE I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUq,Illlllllllilllllllllll 1 o rcmull 5•.S't O UNDOLNG,LLOYD I I i•`` 1111 MOUNT,VIEW AVE N m RDII11111011I0111IDIIIBII IIII 2060 SO FT)I ui ;K Z e 1 I K of mF U'I NORTH F_ENCE LINE PER WEUB SURVEY T_ BOAT RAM`_ WOOD PICKET FENCE j u J — 393 7i @9' 0'-57 1-*--_ _„___ _ I R< 5'MIN a. 6T-6" •„ 185.51' Ab• ~—Z 3 r——— i J 6 EXISTINGITSWILLOW EEXIST • Etl A• LPe' PROPOSED PIER 6' TO BE 6 a 1.560 SO FT Q>IL----J JOB SITEREMOVED W 10'-b" y 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N 2 60• y LOT 1,,9a0 SO R) I'I V' S, Rn OS' 1 • W I TEMPORARY SILT FENCE Y• PROPOSED O.N.W.M. ie'-8" •'^•-2 S. O.H.W.M.21.85'AT Z NH EXISTING CONCRETE ONCRETE ••$ • 186.xr Z a< s EXISTING Al2.85 N 89'-50'-57'E SEAPLANE R i„ I0"POPW7 c' §i DECK AND WALKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIg I gW X I 1280 S0 fT OF DOCK COVERAGE _W n W BO T-1.TTIXX CANOPY 2 MORGAN,LAURAX 990 SO R) Q EXISTING PIER 3103 MOUNT.VIEW AVE N I O g I SITE PLAN I ISCALE: 1"=20' CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'X 105'OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO 8'AND O~ C MAKING A JOG TO THE SOUTH.WITH TOTAL OVER WATER COVERAGE OF 749 SO FT.L o v ==- I-KEY PROPOSED STRUCTURES t L SUP f/j - -- •t-' H••• EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE V i I REMOVED: Ir-s- I. MORNING GLORY,BUTTERCUP, tt!-_>` I'. `_ ''• BVLLRUSM,AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) 44 (Sa EEElHARTT - % I.'Y.; ElkKNNYD' ."" _ • " l3RD Q SLIP o k 'Fi;' R, *,# I, LEGAL DESCRIPTION m` N. 32ND 1/4 SEC SE 31-24N-O5E i_I,Eilit] TBLKAULOT I:T LOT 334210 H3 0 LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN/1 h SH LDS AEU f0QsoF' N. 3,ST r 7. ir.t'l ft4 H UT: 17-31'-10 W.,:,k . Colem i a tl LONG t22'-t2'-38' W a lJ iA ' N. 307N i i , 'N. 29711 5'iiNfs Q Gov.1,00 I iJu'+'• W '" d• ya,3 23.11 ,La3 f W' W 8r, oo Lamff.i , WVICINITYMAP SCALE: 1-.200' g g a 3 KEY X-I z a EXISTING 10't CREOSOTETREATEDPILESTOBEREMOVED(IN TOTAL) O - S 32'SAILBOAT I PROPOSED 1'SCN. BO COATED STEEL a PILING(12 TOTAL AT IB'2 O/C) z 105' I X cP 37• 6• 2%6 PRESSURE TREATED I mC DE DECKING I 0 5'MIN 8 n WNORTH I NORiN m LINE RENCE 0 RNFRENCE ( ]77 1 o J 0 I O O.H W.M AT 25raa PROPOSED e a I a BI/LKHEAO c a PROPOSED A"SCH. BO 0 COATED STEEL PILING APPROXIMATE LOCATION z m 0, 0 , 0 / IN\ OE SEWER UNE PRISMS FOR i n .z SOUTH LIGHT PENETRATION 0 REFERENCE PLAN VIEW sow, REFER S '^p LINE SCALE: I/4"-1' REFER o 0LINE CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'% 106.OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6'MAINWALK.WIDENING TO AN B'WALK AFTER A 30G TO THE SOUTH.E. 41 Vr`O 32 SAILBOAT CZ) ~ OOpf h O` 1 /- 32.SAILBOAT R32' SAILBOAT 11 PROPOSED PIER I r^ airman anian I a' W o W if /\/ </• <:/:\/,/\,2.//\/ /,/' ' TAKE BOTTOM WEST ELEVATION z SCALE: 1/4--1' 00 0 N It ' AI I Il. 105' C to JOIST CAP PILING 37'-6" I B NAILER I A ° f5' MIN GLU-LAM I I I I I III n Lo I I [ 0 6' jl 10 I O.H.W.M. AT S 8'o— 0 1 0 A PROPOSED I o BULKHEAD A 1 i B DETAIL VIEW i APPROXIMATE LOCATION PRISMS FOR OF SEWER LINE p LIGHT PENETRATION CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL.ii PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY T o EXISTING 10"± CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL)80' PIER LIMIT LINE iOF KEEL DOCKED O.H.W. I AT 80' PIER 21.85' I _I1 O.L.W.ILL v/. / //\/\/ y\;/\;\\,!\/\/, ELEVATION VIEW i\ ' j PROPOSED PILING SECTION C-C 18 ± ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'± ANDDRIVENAT10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER LIMIT LINE 0.H.W. 21.85' 1'-2" O.L.W. r-\`\\` , \7 \/ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \/\/ / /\/// i f\// /\\\/ / l/ //\7\\\//\///\\\\, ..\\//\/\/ /. /////\ SCALE: 1"=16' i. /` I PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD SECTION D- D IN:LAKE WASHINGTON AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 AGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1 -00 0 32'SAILBOAT J h a oW m; AT HIGH WATER 80'PIER LIMIT LINE J Q k O.H.W.M.AT 32'SAILBOAT I j i,, PROPOSED BUIKNEAD AT LOW WATER W a LI D.H . Y I O.L.W. PILING NORTH ELEVATION I Lli g ^. i 5'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE SCALE: 1/4%0' Q' ALL NEW PILING TO BE To SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'AND DRDTEN Al 10,000 LBS TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 18' 1''' , O I-1 32'SAILBOAT AT HIGH WATER O BULK AT. 80'PIER LIMIT LINE PROPOSED BULKHEAD 1 I 32'SAILBOAT r^ AT LOW WATER v l O.H. 85. W.' I I 2t O.L.W. A / \/ S \/\ /\ \ \ N\ .\ A A 4 is PILING SOUTH ELEVATION 3 L.----IB'- I 25'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINENE SCALE: 1/1•-`I' ALL NEW PILING TO BE A'SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS TO PRACTICAL REFUSALli. i i S 8 0a a r 3 oC ' Sc._ 16Ock_T it a Ste,, j4.1 r r pfr1 44 C Ca 1 sP Mr WINTER BOAT MOORAGE WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION INC. SEATTLE, WA PH. 206-548-9800 PAGE: OF: DATE: JN 4 . St 11 7 0 , _ fir. j II i .F I-IIc-II j i IIIrIEti ;i6r6e_ 4 2 Ir ii R—0 N 34k• T S N-- ibld 411 RI i .i L 1Sit - 1 R-SI N P01 3i ' . 1 1 Ibp- mir.p g A`N"` u R-8 11111 3 iild 1 I R- au! I ell r- L`ficom i R-8 I f ;- Ni(iii L ;RHEi 1 . i C C 1-401 TW EN i 1 W ' 1 R8._ 1 i I ! i 1 , 1 , , I 1 , L'_„i t f 8--- - 1_ i_1_ F+$ N t1 Sr 8 R7g I 1 P- 1 ! oar N 2 t S hi T4-8 o --- -_ _ d Q x1 C3 y 1•• ZONING 1® 31 T24N R5E E 1/2 CITY _IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,AdministratorJesseTanner,Mayor October 3, 2000 Elizabeth Petras Waterfront Construction, Inc. 205 NE Northlake Way, Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead LUA-99-049,SM,V-H,ECF"B" Dear Ms. Petras: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on October 17, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Variance. 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 you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Lesley Nishi . a Project Manager cc: Waterfront Construction Mr. Lowell Anderson/Owner Ms. Laurie Baker/Owner Parties of Record: Mr. Jim Morgan, Mr. Steve Fujiki, Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Lindberg, Mr. Bruce Miller, Mr. & Mrs. Bill Stoneman FINAL 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 itar .- r•"e, _ _ a ,,* CITY .JF RENTON e LL ; .Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 13, 2000 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 for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on September 12, 2000: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ANDERSON/BAKER DOCK LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V-H The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline-enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock (105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a variance in order to exceed the maximum length permitted by the City's Shoreline Master Program. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled for the requested shoreline variance October 17, 2000. Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, A , Lesley Nishihi Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers AGENCYLTR\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 e,l CITY _F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 13, 2000 Elizabeth Petras Waterfront Construction, Inc. 205 NE Northlake Way, Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead LUA-99-049,SM,V-H,ECF"B" Dear Ms. Petras: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on September 12, 2000, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance. The City of Renton ERC 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). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on October 17, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Variance. 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. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, 1 Lesley Nishihir Project Manager cc: Waterfront Construction Mr. Lowell Anderson/Owner Ms. Laurie Baker/Owner Parties of Record: Mr. Jim Morgan, Mr. Steve Fujiki, Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Lindberg, Mr. Bruce Miller, Mr. & Mrs. Bill Stoneman drsletter 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V-H APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker PROJECT NAME: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock & Bulkhead DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock (105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North 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. Building 1. Building permits are required. Plan Review—Wastewater 1. There is an existing force sewer main in Lake Washington west of this proposal,which must be protected during construction. Wastewater maintenance must be contacted at least 48-hours prior to any construction activity. Planning 1. The approval will allow construction activity only within the boundaries of the subject property. NO WORK shall be performed outside of the property lines unless the appropriate approvals have been obtained, including property owners and the City of Renton. Prior to the public hearing, the plans must be revised to clarify that the proposal does not include portions outside of the subject property. 2. The dock and the bulkhead will each require a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit to be issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. advisorynotes CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V-H APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker PROJECT NAME: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock & Bulkhead DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock (105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14)days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: September 18, 2000 DATE OF DECISION:September 12, 2000 SIGNATURES: 24 6 DepaZim r= ma , dmi istrat r DATE rtme' if PI ning/Building/Public Works 4A.,,I.,( ofdo Aim Shepherd,jinmr r DATE Community Services Department I_ 7, 7( 1'1 P4 Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief r D TE Renton Fire Departmen ercsignature CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,V-H APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker PROJECT NAME: Baker/Anderson Residential Dock & Bulkhead DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock (105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North 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. Building 1. Building permits are required. Plan Review—Wastewater 1. There is an existing force sewer main in Lake Washington west of this proposal, which must be protected during construction. Wastewater maintenance must be contacted at least 48-hours prior to any construction activity. Planning 1. The approval will allow construction activity only within the boundaries of the subject property. NO WORK shall be performed outside of the property lines unless the appropriate approvals have been obtained, including property owners and the City of Renton. Prior to the public hearing, the plans must be revised to clarify that the proposal does not include portions outside of the subject property. 2. The dock and the bulkhead will each require a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit to be issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. advisorynotes AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non- 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal ANDERSON BAKER DOCK newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six LUA-99-049,SM,V-H,ECF months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed andpublished in the Environmental review for construction of a private dock. Location: 3107 English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Mountain View Ave.No. Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King before 5:00 PM October 4, 2000. Appeals County. must be filed in writing together with the The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a verned byCityAea of Renton l the Municipal Code Section 4 8- 110. Additional information regarding the Anderson Baker Dock appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. as published on: 9/20/00 A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on October 17, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed 46.00, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Variance. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Legal Number 8206 Published in the South County Journal September 20,2000.8206 i/// l1/ Legal Clerk, South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 4t. , 2000 tt,,syl' .-`.fpgP I z; i;,c 1, ii..,,,,.... z,,,,,,n '' ". C.1. r,,,,-,-- P :,L ° Notary Public of the State of Washington Zp.•;4o+: residing in Renton r 6 ,` King County, Washington NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: ANDERSON/BAKER RESIDENTIAL DOCK&BULKHEAD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99.049,ECF,SM,V-H The applicant Is proposing the construction of a 749 square fool private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition,the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative.shoreline- enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx.275 square loot of soil and the installation of approx.350 square feel of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet),a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May,the project was tabled from the Environmental.Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal,the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However,the applicant is seeking approval of a variance in order to exceed the maximum length permitted by the City's Shoreline Master Program. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled for the requested shoreline variance October 17,2000. Location: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM October 2,2000. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall,October 17.2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed variance. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. WHARF SIT /._. n, • r •u A.,•, K N N Y D a 7v/. . .. g. 33R0 1, 31 a ESL SLIP 0A. it . Oal, AIM g4-rilfRi•f1.re-I jot m° ha711671 - 7"9.. 511E / WI p}.'-' AIM1111 I. E.s N. 31ST 50..—..... OMNI I OUIJA ipitelrimm U. 018g1,q>:— f4•N 30TH Q .e„' •r. \ la Ggv• -. :. - \,,..-x""71-2 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, i-wci ro a u,,,, hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 51/et - 14, .z v Signed: l - Z34.______._ ATTEST: Subcribed a om before me, a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing in c c4-rg-1,-‘, on the ?SS- day of 11r"? ='y:.. . . a&—IEFF 4_.STATE OF- IIVASHINGTON MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMIS: = +\I EXPIRES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-2943 JUNL . 200,3 STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE September 12, 2000 Project Name Baker/Anderson Residential Dock& Bulkhead Applicant Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker File Number LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, V-H Project Manager Lesley Nishihira Project Description The applicants, Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker, are proposing the construction of a 749 square foot dock for use by a single family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. Included with the proposal is the removal of an existing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with an enhanced vegetated shoreline. In May of 1999, the proposal was brought before the Environmental Review Committee, where a decision was tabled pending the applicant's submittal of a Biological Assessment addressing the proposal's affect on critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. In response to this request, the applicant has submitted a biological assessment and has substantially revised the proposal by reducing the overall size, length and width of the dock. (cont. on page 2) Project Location 3107 Mountain View Avenue North Exist. Bldg. Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf 749 sq ft dock Site Area 10,800 square feet Total Building Area gsf N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). NI 46 `+`s. / 1 F 1 • J F. Z; WHARF SIT •;-- `` . ,`, lU koKNNYD . •9'..., z' h. 33RD iA Cr ij/ J T J i —qs S i SLIP O -.• at- 6 : ill It° 13 ( 116 J1 far' •=I N.i co 32ND I` JOB A RA 91I, . 14 z r' S TE y 6 , 6 p 1. fsJ-- ----- `7: 13' id 15 ia fir ll F' - N. 31ST1_- - 1%7" + ,E g , Al I/• ami-- oaf ii: littu L, sin es r 13 i6 is to i g321At 3 -6 N. 30TH 7- \1470-i-00001 . .T"4: 7z...,, k.. ill c700111,1110I.11°1..ifil I 1 1111 ft.. '. j - „ .., D ii k. iliaL. f\/ 11 IJ:4 ` City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environme, ?eview Committee Staff Report BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCi 3ULKHEAD LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, V-H REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 Page 2 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION(CONT.) The dock is proposed at a length of 105 feet and would be constructed of pressure treated Douglas-fir decking. The shoreward 65 feet of the pier would be 6 feet wide, leading to a 8.5-foot long, 8-foot wide intervening section, ending with a 35-foot long section of 8 feet in width. The construction of the dock would involve the removal of sixteen 12-inch creosote piles which remain from the previously existing failed pier. Twelve 4-inch coated steel piles, set at 18-foot intervals, would be driven to support the new dock. The project would include the installation of prisms in order to minimize shading in the area of the dock with the greatest amount of surface coverage. Equipment necessary for project construction would be brought to the site via barge. Included is a barge-mounted crane and a vibratory pile driver. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. In addition to the placement of rocks, approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material and native plants would be installed. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark. Residential docks and bulkheads are typically exempt from the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. However, the applicant is seeking approval of a variance in order to exceed the maximum length permitted by the City's Shoreline Master Program. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is scheduled for the requested shoreline variance October 17, 2000. A portion of the existing bulkhead is located on the property abutting the north side of the subject site. Although the plans submitted currently indicate the bulkhead removal and shoreline restoration proposed extends beyond the subject property's boundaries, the applicant will be required to revise the plans prior to the public hearing in order to clarify the limits of the proposed activity. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF XX NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. XX Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period.Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES The analysis of the proposal, including the Biological Assessment provided by the applicant, does not reveal the need for additional mitigation above and beyond measures proposed by the applicant and adopted code requirements. 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. Building 1. Building permits are required. Plan Review—Wastewater 2. There is an existing force sewer main in Lake Washington west of this proposal, which must be protected during construction. Wastewater maintenance must be contacted at least 48-hours prior to any construction activity. Planning 1. The approval will allow construction activity only within the boundaries of the subject property. NO WORK shall be performed outside of the property lines unless the appropriate approvals have been obtained, including property owners and the City of Renton. Prior to the public hearing, the plans must be revised to clarify that the proposal does not include portions outside of the subject property. 2. The dock and the bulkhead will each require a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit to be issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ERCRPT City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environme eview Committee Staff Report BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOC ULKHEAD LUA-99-049, ECF, SM, V-H REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 Page 3 of 4 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.Water/Shoreline Impacts: At present, the shoreline of the site is developed with a concrete bulkhead across the entire property(60 feet in length). Currently, summer waves (primarily due to boat traffic) break over to top of the bulkhead, washing soils from behind the bulkhead into the lake. There are twelve existing creosote piles located waterward of the shoreline which remain from the former failed dock. The proposed shoreline enhancement would involve the removal of approximately 22 cubic yards of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation. Vegetation removal would include one 30-inch diameter non-native willow tree, as well as other small shrubs and groundcovers. Approximately 40 cubic yards of natural lakeshore material, including shoreline and streambed gravel, wading and accent rocks would be used for the creation of the new shoreline. Native plants would also be installed, including pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, vine maples, kinnikinnick and Oregon iris. The restored shoreline would meander landward from the current ordinary high water mark and would be planted with hardstem bulrush at and lakeward of the ordinary high water mark. The addition of plants and strategically placed rocks is anticipated provide necessary shoreline stabilization, as well as restore the riparian area for this portion of shoreline. Prior to the construction of the dock, sixteen 12-inch creosote piles would be removed with the use of a barge-mounted crane. The piles would be disposed of off-site in an approved upland location. Creosote has been proven to be toxic to marine life; therefore, the removal of the piles is anticipated to improve the water quality and habitat value in the area. Materials would be excavated with a barge-mounted crane equipped with a clamshell bucket, then stockpiled either on- site above the ordinary high water or on an offshore barge, prior to disposal at an approved off-site location. In order to control potential adverse impacts to the lake from the disturbance of sediments during project construction, the applicant has included the use of a sediment control curtain with the proposal. The curtain would be installed before construction activity is initiated and would be attached to stakes at intervals of 6 to 8 feet, with the bottom anchored by rocks placed every 6 to 10 feet. Lake Washington is a designated shoreline under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, the proposal is subject to the requirements of a shoreline substantial development permit. All shoreline permits are subject to review by the State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General. In addition, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)would be required for the project. Construction materials and methods, as well as construction times to non-critical periods, may be specified as conditions of approval for the HPA. The project itself is anticipated to improve habitat conditions along this portion of the shoreline. Temporary impacts to Lake Washington from the initial construction of the project would be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan as well as existing code requirements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 2.Habitat/Wildlife Impacts: Lake Washington shorelines near the site are known migration routes for many fish species, most notably Puget Sound chinook salmon which are listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has also designated coho salmon as candidates eligible for listing under ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has also designated bull trout as threatened. In addition, the project area is located within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) indexed sockeye salmon spawning area. The project site is included in the Pacific Recovery Region for the endangered bald eagle and is located approximately 0.9 miles from the nearest known bald eagle nest location. The applicant has submitted a Biological Assessment dated July 27, 2000 prepared by the Watershed Company which addresses the proposal's effect on the overall conditions of Lake Washington and the action area as indicated in the NMFS"Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effect of Proposed Action(s)on Relevant Indicators"for urban environments. According to the study, the effects of the proposed activities, consisting of dock construction, bulkhead removal, and shoreline restoration,would be restricted to a temporary increase in turbidity in close proximity to construction activity, to potential effects on fish passing underneath or in the vicinity of the proposed dock, and to potential effects of construction noise on nesting and foraging bald eagles. Although the property had a dock at one time, the study analyzed the potential impacts of the proposal as a new dock since the previous pier was not effectively part of the current baseline conditions. ERCRPT City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environme Review Committee Staff Report BAKER/ANDERSON RESIDENTIAL DOCK 3ULKHEAD LUA-99-049,ECF, SM, V-H REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 Page 4 of 4 The potential effects (direct and indirect)from the project on sensitive fish and wildlife species include: 1)the pier as cover for predators; 2)shading effects on juvenile prey; 3)temporary water quality impacts; 4) pile driving which may injure or disrupt the behavior and distribution; 5) general construction activities which may kill juveniles; and 6) removal of overhanging vegetation which could eliminate a potential source of cover and food for juveniles. The outcome of the proposal would be no net loss in habitat for juvenile chinook salmon, and other listed and unlisted fish and wildlife species, and an increase in the quality of shoreline habitat in the action area. Although the result of the dock as predator habitat is unavoidable with the project, decreases in primary productivity are expected to be insignificant. The impact of vegetation removal would be avoided by the proposed shoreline restoration and impacts from construction would be avoided with construction timing restrictions. The study concludes that the collective impacts to fish and wildlife species from the proposed project would not jeopardize coho salmon. Impacts may affect, not likely to adversely affect, bull trout and bald eagle species, and may affect, likely to adversely affect, chinook salmon. In addition, the proposal may affect, not likely to adversely affect, critical habitat for chinook salmon. Although the projection of future activities is speculative, cumulative impacts on sensitive fish and wildlife species and their habitats are not considered significant. The applicant would be required to receive a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit issued by the WDFW. In order to minimize potential adverse impacts, construction activity would not be permitted between November 1st and July 15th per the USFWS and WDFW policies regarding work within waterbodies containing bull trout and other sensitive fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not yet determined an allowable construction window for the protection of chinook salmon. Although the project is likely to result in unavoidable adverse impacts to chinook species (but not to critical chinook habitat), the denial of the proposal would deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners near and in the vicinity of the project site. In order to lessen the unavoidable adverse affect to the behavior of chinook salmon species from the proposed dock, the applicant has taken substantial measures for mitigating potential impacts through the proposed dock design, construction methods, and shoreline restoration. Measures include the installation of small, 4-inch piles in order to minimize shading impacts, as well as the placement of two prisms under the dogleg portion of the dock for increased light penetration beneath the structure. In addition, considerable effort has been given to the appropriate design of the restored shoreline in order to maximum benefits to critical habitat. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 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 Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 2, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ERCRPT EXISTING PIER 1530 50 FT OF DOCK COVERAGE _ IIIIIIIimii 111111111111111 lim I I NIIIIIIIIIillIIIIIIIIIIIIIL— w O UNDBCRG.LLOYD I a 3111 MOUNT.VIEW AVE N l III i h111111111111111061111111111 2060 SO FT)I u Z I T l K p Q tDF oi j s 13.1.t. Z I NORTH FENCE LINE PER WEBB SURVEY _ — — BUAI RAW, W000 PICKET FENCE S'j i I _I s n 5'MIN 1.- 67'-6" .' 185.54' Ae• Z Q I B' 6' EXISTING EXISTING • W rPROPOSED PIER 6.L-1 30-WILLOW 1.560HOUSE SO FT 5IBrL----JI REMOVEO TO BE JOB SITE IS-e •Jo Q hi O I J I 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N YQ 11h 60' 10'-6" i i LOT 11.940 50 FT) 17 4 a 105' i p Ill TEMPORARY SILT FENCE' i2 PROPOSED O.H,W.M. qe_e• ol y_Y u Il c n 0 N.W.M.21,85'AT o EXISTING CONCRETE 7,, • Z dp18627' —BUINEAD i; EXISTING AIZ.BS N 89'-50'-5]"E i=1SEAPLANE R I' I AO"POPLAR p DECK AND WALK pIIIjIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ii I I ,c 1 1780 SO FT OF DOCK COVCRIOC:W X0 1.3TT ITH CANOPY 2O MORGAN,(AURA 990 50 FT) IA 4EXISTINGPIER3103MOUNT.VIEW AVE N me I SITE PLAN SCALE. I-420' 1 CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14'X 105'OVER-ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6'WIDE WALKWAY WIDENING TO 8'AND I MAKING A JOG TO THf1 SOUTH.WITH TOTAL OVER WATER COVERAGE OF 749 SO FT. O 1 2vv KEY O A PROPOSED STRUCTURES I 3LIP C7 _- + - f/.•• EXISTING VEGETATION TO BE 4-1 CVO REMOVED: Jy I• I• i BVLLRUSH AND NON-NATIVE IRIS) y iV WHARF IT , i,X 33RD K N N Y C ,` ,-. , „i-r cn mew SLIP 0o `„ye lC1 i; 91111.15119.O 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION O;it ra' It 32ND 1/4 SEC SE 31-2AN-05E V I JDB i ``` ' ON.`'`r•• •TXXLO7 l: 534210 3880 1 11+GBLILAR A LOT 54-55 H3LMANS lK WNSITE LL fif SN GARDEN OF EDEN/1 &SH LDS AOJ h I,410 . .p F},...N 315T ems'. i.! Efflf,;, • .I 11' tI LAT: I7-31'-10" jC91em4 iii777 LONG' 127-12'-38" l a f1I ;' N. 30TN s k' -,--.0000'........loe'". "0,4 '10,4,1. fa 0 ' • 1 a i j 2 S _ Wm W hilt ton aW iJr N. zsTN 3 7.111 Gov \l1i '.d DJ * 23.11 u/ tial. a 5 Tuuapp aaiu VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"4200' iX P. 3- F. i r II' KEY I J TRREAT OSOTE0PILESOEBEREMOVED(16 TOTAL) PROPOSED SCN.0 COATED STEEL Is 32'SAILBOAT II PLRG(12 TOTAL AT IRA o/c) I$ I OS' rI 6' o: P g N ^; K mti 37'-6' 2X6 PRESSURE TREATED 0 5'MIN oOfDECKING NORTH I NORTH 7 REFERENCE O REFERENCE 3LINEA I O LINE O 6I I 0 O.H.w.M.AT 25' O PROPOSED 0 NO BULKHEAD 71PROPOSEDX'SCH.80 0 COATED STEEL PILING APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of SEWER LINE r cPRISMSFORL• LGHT PENETRATION I WJ S - FERENCF. _ PLAN VIEW REFERENCE 3 „ E SCALE: 1/4' 1' UNE q CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 11'X 105'OVER-ALL. PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6'MAINWALK,WIDENING r TO AN B'WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. 1• 32'SAILBOAT O IEO N I 32.wLeoAT 32'SAILBOAT 1 M ////'""1.y R. PROPOSED PIER i 1' OAR2'71111 V En il KS' I111Fr 111117./GLW. N N,i‹.• LAKE BOTTOM i F WEST ELEVATION w - • SCALE: 1/r-I' g r S3 32'SALBOAT 3 AT HIGH WATER 80'PER LIMIT LINE 4 k O H W.Y.AT 32.SAILBOAT I u H PROPOSED BULKHEAD AT LOW WATER 21.as' 41111, 5,8 NORTH ELEVATION I s 8= 5'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE mR mSCALE: 1/4'.1' AIL NI.W I•K.INC 10 AIL 4'SCII B0 COATS°SIELL''',PANNING IS'AND DRIVEN Al 10000 LDS TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 18' r;g 77 dh' O 32'SAILBOAT AT HIGH WATER O.H.W AI.AT r_ (y 80'PIER LIMIT LINE PROPOSED BULKHEAD rW 'Y 32.SAILBOAT K, AT LOW WATER l 1 (/) fr H.W, IIr --_ - --.21.85' PR P SED• W Y SOUTH ELEVATION g 18' I 25'FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE SCALE: 1/4".1' Z w o ALL NEW PILING 10 BE A'SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'AND ORNEN AT 10,000 LOS TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL.4 oo9.Wo N oa a a u 4 p H n. POST ATTACH SILTSRTFENCE7185'OM.W.FENCE TOP p 51.83'Or POSTT Si i b61.b2Ml y us24oE LOB'B 4. { p,lp. x / ANCHOR 1 -ri2c6-I ve 12r41 IVG/6,VL a'r, muPost WEIGHTS O C 6-10'0/L 3 S nN LANE jBOTTOM5 M' 9 LAKE 0 Mgr, yIDBOTTOM6'TO 8'MAK r I&/tKLiV!»I I I"VGp 1-i SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL VOID 4EWEI2 W SCALE 1'-3' INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CREMOvEOMPLETED T FENCE WHEN PROJECT IS ST p EL M Etb I) T.TI L (-ryP') o N Zm T r-TAM FES.IU LIJE w 12Eh4oJE eXIS I1-k,Gotk. ram—;' p'o — — Buu.geiso-ro-i.IK F,,,o- ,,,If .. Lr.'6—t-Na Tn•1 eer.0 II-1(n L4111 10') I J,:_10 oV PAP•' 111444r, \1' S K Sul b r11`11' Brim I. 21.6 c3$ I„, 5011,pll L I— co I ONW 1. lamtml-TE2 p-, 4 i O ,Fto JJIDAI , up ID l'ahae (- ,-u-10 3TE7 D ,I L a-. o 0 CG" 40 Yv3 n ALL bEe Reei5. T al kl l l l witi.44, i ii. re Fuxla w/Lnw l n¢F I TeM t uLeuV l I wrrl-II k1 cl ecl,Eb .k,p aaeveL as 1I view REBtoR 6 0 ZEl lty IV 6e EX a'iED 1'+ de, s1-Iow a sP 'D, ett cxKil-i(0 014V/ i-z;,$ F wi w- hl;Tt.2 rfctoic, wml 1 e •LACE wt VI LIE MapLE,Vga 1-A eI-I}••Ir. I ti bCATI rxK,7,loL1c.guLl<aray./ / rfi P 6C I L IU faQ o f AO)tD<I"T 2' ' TO 12Cekt i )EXGc r IJ i 6 RENovep 1L GI RC, FD 6I2E6.( EDIAk.I --- L . e_naT Drys ___*; 1%`I.-feet G •tit-1.114 II— St r7 LAvt S-bed-IMP nd-i-I'..6' 1,. a Ela U HOE i.lkt a -btil,(- p) W ,2 N 111=© - ter - I•sr'al UlI - 1 W srar 1,-- =me rnios mo r n,grir-.-ii rm r•1--+r R-r+r•1rar*sO•s E a i A. A N:!----- • 111 -II : Ii- - o CI , N774/St I . i T-- : R— f, T - - - - - __- 4, A huhAn , j MIN MOTH zi I u 1 4 1 III PA i__ _ / immoral..1.._`- i ,0-11-61---'31-71§11--14-b-5 i 44r II. .. 4. Ili,RPARMu2IrlirIJ — 15 S Ilit ili0. 1i11111MSI81 I14IILZ 1 -- '-R_ r 1 I CI 3 111 ' ICi 111II1 Sf 11 0 _ ' r zh ! R'8 N 132n d r' ammo ' tf f ! !9 I ' 18 l R: 8 ! + * UtkWeR1 .II0fcc lizi.t lei'Eilltill40 r- L a T jcc \itioiji i-lif i RI 71 i iiLill ithi I 11;4 - 1-- ii-R- :'--: N `i r I -;R R fi 8 i ' R-1---1 is* fR_1 2; -s . I _ —4.- - ___-_ i ILL f j- Q ZONING q Q° C 3 1 0- p`°"6 31 T24N R5E E 1/2 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Wc.__ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:c-C c7Va01/ok D 4\\Li\tCOMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 Water LightGlare 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 PoLA c y r 55(3 . Sz zt.2 1 C- P C Anrrn?Us_ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. C d12,E 01/40 Signature of Director or Authorized R resentative Date devapp Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Worxs ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: poIIc", COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson &Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 Water LightGlare 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 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' formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. F-08'-6?) Signature of Director or orized Representative Date devapp Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public WorKs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:// rwTY OF RENTON pl/L VkL„kic-, SE:VV(Le, COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/OO ten APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 IJI) 2000 APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson &Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 BUILDING DIVISION LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 LightGlare 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 ( of n pe!.kiot r •r C d7 oP 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 oposal. el • oe Signature of Director or A ized Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Rer.. .. Department of Planning/Building/Public IN—,— ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: vaik, COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 0 APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley NishihirE c = PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 Z C ,^ r) LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North m SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. m Z N < O g rn SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock fa Erse D an exnlfig single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the reMoval of the exigrrng failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The projeat will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 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 Civim- ` 'r 14,000 Feet AW Ce 0.i// B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 1.2Le rz-0 c /tt? C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS era 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 addition information is needed to •perly assess this proposal. 9,3 nrOSignatureofDirectororAuthoriz-• R-presentative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Ren.,... Department of Planning/Building/Public W, ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5 ce COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 CITY OF RENTOIN' rs r tV ' APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 AUG 2 2 2000 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North 16UILUl,IVLi DIVISION SITE AREA: 101800 s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 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 l i5 am Xlc,f' 1 fo ce 4PWtf/l mom i h ce 6 Ike- urGi t P OPosa nu( /u prortec1ed Afoul cQNSrtrucDiot _ 60457C tic 4INter,/apicc Scc7,oti 514 ate ti Cvri «(fed ct,r l / 48 U RBI To coNs7vcrctfci7 • 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. Z --'1/(1 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Rer Department of Planning/Building/Public Wv,na ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:ilakspoV1-010171 COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 CITY OF REN I O1J APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 r's-r.r-!osrn APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson& Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira 4( ; 2 2 2000 PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North ISUILU rvtu DIVISION SITE AREA: 101800 s.f.I BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May,the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 Water LighVGlare 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 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. eXo_ e) Signature of Director or Authorize Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Ren.... Department of Planning/Building/Public W,,,,,., ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ' Refill -- COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 c'rTY of- t?Crt'opo APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson & Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 1,;;. , i 1[U4 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 s.f. al V 1010N SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private dock for use by an existing single-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 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 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. CW I 024) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Ren..... Department of Planning/Building/Public W.,,.. ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -Hrecv-- \)—QVV1C-V\ COMMENTS DUE: 9/5/00 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-049,ECF,SM,ECF,V DATE CIRCULATED: 8/22/00 APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson &Laurie Baker PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley I,,ishihira -MINiuH,4an 1114 PROJECT TITLE: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead WORK ORDER NO: 78517 N0IN3 i 30/1110 LOCATION: 3107 Mt. View Avenue North n Z ,w SITE AREA: 10,800 s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 1,560 .. 1' SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 749 square foot private,1lock f us b,a - i 'Hy asingle-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition, the proposal includes Vie re v . of hek-1 i 1 gJ failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead. -h oiec U- removal of approx. 275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx. 350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet), a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May, the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional information. In addition to revising the proposal, the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. 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 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 V/1-- B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS A) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS too 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 ne=l•ed to property assess this proposal. Vola-APt,Sin ure of Director or Author -d R- resentatroe Date dev Rev.10/93 Ms. L-SLEY_Ir y-r-f T V ''4-FLooR, OEVCfry OF RENTON I N G bs s G-y y 0 z000 F` N 9 gOS-5 RECEIVED Ms. /\1 1 stt I-f I76cfet- 4\1 alVe"pf<F__.Dctcf I4/74tGI9- con/ MEntTs OvV/4 &...5" or vi/A-r-E.Fko,Ner c_74.cn/Ts 4-f-"v FOR /-40 LocAricy.i /5 ___Stif\i frNi z, cyv or S c)Di 1=7FzcsrES're f \/ I 71-1---cC_I C,I Qom! 1S NICl fFE/2 F/'.1< OnIEoOPi Et NA/T-F- A- Fi_E_E_c_, Rf.,.//&\i iJo-H- CDR suRve_i. is NoTT-i-E- AV\11=D rc-3 PF“)V - f'r A/E,JE i (Ey k'rri\C4-1-E.7 Ci__Et\RLy 1-\z:,\A/ -41\1 E_A/C106C-f-i- lEI•rr- c 3' ciAl Wif/c-f(- i s cxx s. DEVELOPMENT PLAI eR (CITY OF RENTO 2000 RECEIVED ou OvV/VEF 71-7\11c.)/ i 1: c3÷)--r 13c_DL)1LTRy, sri= i PE__ Vi1/4k- v/Q I C k' DiccfEcJ4"xct\ilD 0/•1 P3 VIA-Fre ut'wte_y F you foLEs //\/ rJoN. I 05- DocK 0011-4-FLRL_y racUR e5- iDsciKe sueLy 1: E=IvIA/1\13 V01-111--- A-4Thi 7x iN occop) r'r)AiroFW\ "r-c C rry C cr ANID cYrnEJN / 1\ 15N/ 1DiccK3. vo DEVELOPMENT kNNING oR 3 CITY OF RL ,ON SEP 0 2000 RECEIVED DO C 'hl l Q is `DER 1=1)r_c- U - F7 ON, 4t JN . ThE- MG f n a OM Fe-or T-f-E NEXT A c-; I- N 89'49'16'E ( N 6950'ST E) - J-39376' fCJ -_ Qse.. Ck' u a 3107 c ...r..m tom.a cvv or.rr a nPria u. a etrvoo dv w Far Keay+, 7 Prwari -26"N a vt6bdsr l,/' Pea*Or 04>W iflI. •ea4e 15 stele: r - 40 LirLf1N8949'5`L' (N 84 0'3T E ) 4 83 (C) ~ ., i'II'kff cs)8— Ste ems..a°a'y 0 20 40 60 60 4') /- ` , N 8 4916•E f N D490•ST E/ All EtortuT hn H»• V. 441 2R' 70.11e ( t, - w r N LEA j1) S 4 P ICJ w1 NLEA 7XXT71 y 9lo f 9oos N asrr W K*vro•E f 49.7.0'3T E 1 \ 1r f N 6 70'JP W)0.157' 777 7 gZ Z32- I N .. E1 I N Nr'(ffQ77C`TC) Notes' to 1 The retnmereartn toed hr rNr savoy war o Tom/GTS 3C To 5>drtmLegendIntl/runs fcr oowocy ord lreciatn or rnsaetrrmertf CYO dared c. Sell i7'to Pod w/ Ccp 8.2 The ears of e•a ry la nw savoy k the Sam, She of ny, d aw *women'', o MSw 1s230' I? i St. CmopartyrbtiorebyLia) Alamo. Carl AppalledoCanty, C motion t to he ocrrwr r Section traversebyodosed + and r belmeen the oared oo xre/e n+a.i.»rN is bask of boo-hg »ra. .rroblW,oOSe/ Copper Nall h Lead owners ter Wall savoys r h7 the Southeast Eating a Deearbed Meader Ltrr eu to Pod.ro ca Peeya a 229. Van* 32 or Savoys, a 74 and Varna 38 or ii Strvoogee r 13 or Foxe as I>fcrbed g irdll\ 00Q The error or ptjwy to ttYs 6-orrvtes wqs computed to be h eroeeu ofi uca' N nose ks•e r 1ev5C'3T E 1 3 The aa,ts or poetics, 2y Loh 34 ad 35 o survey orLotLoaorknCZAiedPramzV by JACK C3LB?A$SpLyA TES hCr ( EA ) y pa fk7a or Lott 3d and 'SluafiLtreorAbf30' Cols tShrrter...,r r oc+..a t t ' be Job. No, T3R A TNt cared ..kn Et (973 or./ hrlooted toqonwhethermelotsmereboofrdfromNormoforthelotbcvtkrydependentVILocartonallA/eoeiied A Paul hUbofrd n 2, Thee Abt a frorrr the weeroSh6et ! CvrrnWkanert tcr^sycy reviewed the me for no annoy with Korn were recovered ThuSGNat767! 29.72' Lotsl s wy, ord oarXtrpd weer) the prna used 7 Oyler, the h1rra °1 o sOm) Per FA Savoy s73C)p3 e of Me .EA tvrey are stored Lots .4 a 55 as 30 roof lots parallel to fro ire.4. The stale ma-anent medl r opusr haao ed h Me 1 Aesse *Iwy was recovered byEAastoMet mcrunent *as 1973 *Ivey. Tes tnaty from rby yyu b owner? scat s mar IrisdaetToyedditprroenl 'ewer *Worn nprovernerrts. 5 Perrino-qv of an ad fence nns c*rup prxtfon 55 flan 35 PcNatter* of the Scum property tie staked of Loll onncrere p ao oc.nadnwnt e+>< all wastr>kaorefi woe *flea* noted the .EA savoy.S(lY9y 01 6 At p orey the r beh+een Loh andhawd 56 ear recorded an ,A1y 3( 968o Ab 6'6f(43 The hsfrurrent woukf tcAte ?hotot the ,py lotlots34and55, E•oat 'A', C.O. Nrr.-r)'s Lake Wanh7ton Gorden or Edon tvo, l ems to accept tee oamrn property #tr all Platted 1973 all , stared 0000r p to 'to p 1 swear reoardvd h Vatmo I of Flora Ft pe 63 n king 7. The cave races for M East Orr of Loh 55 and 36 war ct LehG me :As-6l,,rr•Canty, aehrprrn barman or rho EtAKRR ?rooks ono me Sarthearr corner or Lotor 55 all aked by -.EAIlllobNa73ooa awre osamossurnamormsasimasiaassaussimasomui;- NMI Ole RECORDING CEF.TIFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I 70:::".""""11444. 5":„; filed for record this day of 1991 Th16 map correctly represents a surveythe QUNDARY SURVEY f s t0993 NE. 1261h Court - N+ by ms or under my diroctlan in conforrnbn rkv + *'/ Klrklend, Washington 9809ainbookofSurveysetPage_ ,et the fQTsueveytNa Phone: 392-d86e or 620-6663iwiththerequirementsoftheSurveyRnccrdil 1trequestofMY<ic el S. Webb _`- Act at the request of L. f3ok in _.arts ,1991. 4. vEr 1,......, t4' DIM. rf DAM JOB No e sager Su-T o ecorde WI 101 erti icate o. -63fl(i kero ecAunon. n AOR s S AmmigimingEBEEENINiUMIBIQ:ITYAPFRF.NTONIMINERENEfilliME:52:::15.ESIM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: Lowell Anderson Pier and Shoreline Enhancement APPLICATION NO: LUil• / • 641 The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Roger Stromberg 28700 196th Ave SE 334210 0176 Kent, WA 98042-5413 Philip Lee & Vanessa i3110 Lake Washington Blvd 334210 0280 Forde Renton, WA 98056-2504 Robert K.jngen 30124 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-2505 334210 0380 Robert Goetz 3209 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2512 334210 3810 Gary Young 3115 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2514 334210 3855 O Lowell Anderson P.O. Box 78382 Seattle, WA 98178-0382 334210 3880 William Stoneman 3101 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2514 334210 3895 Dr:. Donald Savoy 3015 Mountain View Ave N Renton, WA 98056-2516 334210 3906 AUG M Monica Fix 3007 Mountain View Ave N REC Renton, WA 98056-2516 334210 3930 Steven Fujiki 6631 112th Ave SE Newcastle, WA 98056-1004 334210 0275 Virginia Secrest 3106 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-2504 334210 0285 Pauline Tomich 3008 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-2505 334210 0385 Stephen and Nancy 3205 Mountain View Ave N Porter Renton, WA 98056-2512 334210 3840 Attach additional sheets, if necessary) 11111 Y S Development Regulations G'ti ,, Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Shoreline Master C 'Program,Zoning Code,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,and nIX-other applicable code and regulations as necessary. r /\ ii`el Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Biological Assessment dated July 27,NOTICE OF APPLICATION 2000 prepared by the Watershed Company. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Ms.Lesley Nishihira.Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on September 5,2000.This matter is also S G N I F I C A N C E- MITIGATED (DNS-M) scheduled for a public hearing on October 17.2000,a19:00 AM,Council Chambers.Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way.Renton.If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the dale 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 DATE: August 21,2000 receive additional Information by mall,please contact the project manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-049,SM,V-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA (425)430-7270 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing the construction of a.749 square loot private Bock for I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Iusebyanexistingsingle-family residence located on the Lake Washington shoreline. In addition,the proposal Includes the removal of the existing failing concrete bulkhead and its replacement with a vegetative,shoreline enhancing bulkhead. The project will involve the removal of approx.275 square foot of soil and the installation of approx.350 square feet of natural lakeshore material. Due to the proposed length of the dock(105 feet),a shoreline variance is necessary. Last May,the project was tabled from the Environmental Review Committee with a request for additional 4tr G,w L_N.",r, information.In addition to revising the proposal,the applicant has provided a biological assessment as requested. SLIP f 33 y ^ -ft.., I PROJECT LOCATION: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North J1.fi• DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED IONS-M:As the Lead Agency,the Cityof E OPTIONAL s J 3 y3. l o , I Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts am unlikely to result from the proposed project. 6-.•,. ac • • Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give WHARF SIT 1• x=L_`_ notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M am integrated into, ;: , e- 33R0 a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of K N N Y D A Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. polo r. _ /v I .rar,L. ., ,I'1 Y/iPERMITAPPLICATIONDATE: Revised application submitted August 9,2000. c/ Amami'• r arm ink•NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 21,2000 SLIP t,. y H 1- OWNER/APPLICANT: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker t,, r1 'AC g j ")^ N. 32ND3107MountainViewAvenueNorthm Renton,WA 98058 700 c i a Z''''T ,FJOBF'I! tl9 1 CONTACT: Elizabeth Pelras,Waterfront ConslmUion 51TC•% •Ort 2• DTI • 205 NE Northlake Way,Suite 230 Seattle,WA 98105 d":It& ii I If"lA I. .s IT Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Shoreline Variance,Shoreline f."---- i (p Substantial Development Permit t' ,, ,4 N. 31ST3-"r 1 . ac7^ :!a En' t to ppm..Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits i `L Requested Studies: Biological Assessment LI isueP''". { z „.. LII Location where application may 11 FI ' be reviewed:Planning/Building/PublicouthWorksDivision,Development Services Department, COf a m• /4 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 a 3 I. N. 30TH PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for October 17,2000 before the Renton Hearing rr D e Examiner in Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th r Y A f floor of the new Renton City Hall located al 1055 Grady Way South. 11 li Y 141CONSISTENCYOVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Single Family on the City's d Z' Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Residential-8 dwelling units per acre e R-8)on the City's Zoning Map.The existing residence,and the proposed dock 0' ^N. 29TH and bulkhead replacement,are consistent with these land use designations. v 2- ..! Environmental Documents that 23.00\fI 8' •,P ' Q. ME FI Evaluate the Proposed Project: Biological Assessment dated July 27,2000 prepared by the Watershed T_'' Company e I!_tit l l NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION CERTIFICATION I, In Vet f1c,,,,,,id , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on SUS 2-Z, bU Signed: / ,1th L ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing in e,-)J. on the I 1 (, day of 70.E 2 o . 1 MARILYN K ,MCHEFF 72? 2(QY) G / 1_ NOTARY PUBLIC U STATE OF WASHINGTONMARVKAMONEFFICOMMISSIONEXPIRES MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES'6-28031 JUNE 29, 2003 A —r — -•r _ - - - — CITY F RENTON L Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 21, 2000 Elizabeth Petras Waterfront Construction, Inc. 205 NE Northlake Way, Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98105 SUBJECT: Anderson Baker Dock and Bulkhead LUA-99-049,SM,V-H,ECF "B" Dear Ms. Petras: 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 September 12, 2000. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on October 17, 2000, at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance. The applicant or representative of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lesley Nishihp Project Manager cc: Property Owner/Parties of Record aooBtltr 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 i CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is rn re than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Anderson/Baker Dock and Shoreline Lowell Anderson and Laurie Bake Enhancement PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 3107 Mountain View Ave. North 3107 Mountain View Ave. North KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):CITY: ZIP: Renton 98056 334210-3880 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): SFR APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: Construct pier and beach enhancement COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RSF ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: R-8 DEVELOPMENT PI., NNING PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): CITY OF R`N-I ON CONTACT PERSON AUG O 9 27. SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): RECEty I`0NAME: 11 Elizabeth Petras, Permit Coordinator. 10, 800 Sq. Ft COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: Waterfront Construction Inc 68, 960. ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA?205 NE Northlake Way, Suite 230 No CITY: ZIP: Seattle 98105 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: Lake Washington vin) 94W-''1 D lb o Whom It May Concern: I, Laurie L. Baker and O. Lowell Anderson owners of property at 3107 Mt. View Avenue North, Renton, Parcel#334210 3880*, authorize Elizabeth Petras, of Waterfront Construction, Inc.,to act as our agent on permit applications for our proposed pier and shoreline enhancement project. Lots 54 and 55, Block"A", C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addtion to Seattle No. 1, according to the Play recorded in Vol. 11 of Plats, page 63, in King county Washington together with second class shoreland adjoining; situated in the County of King, State of Washington.) Laurie L Baker 0.Lowell Anderson Signed and sealed before me this, .-D day of 2000. Name -Notaiy Public Variance Request for Baker/Anderson Pier and Shoreline Enhancement Location of Site: Address: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North. Renton WA 9825 Tax # 334210-3880 Size: 11940 Sq. Ft c r P :ANNt`G' Zoning: R-8 DAL i ON Adjacent Properties: R-8 AUG o 9 2p00Currentuseofsite: Single family residence, 1450 sq. ft RECEIVEDSpecialsitefeatures: Site is located on Lake Washington Estimated cost of construction: $68,960 We propose to remove the existing failing concrete bulkhead and replace it with a vegetative shoreline enhancement bulkhead and build a 749 square foot private use pier. Please see designs for complete details.) The shoreward 65' of the pier would be 6' wide, leading to an 8.5' long, 8' wide, intervening section, leading to a 35' long and 8' wide section. The proposed pier will be 105' long pier and we are seeking a variance from Renton Shoreline Master Plan section 7.12.05, B.1.a, which limits single family piers to 80 feet beyond the ordinary high-water line. We are seeking this variance due to the bottom contours at the property, which preclude use of an 80' pier due to the shallow water. Mr. Anderson owns a 32' sailboat with a 6' draft, which he proposes to permanently dock on the northern side of the proposed pier. The boat would be moored such that the keel would be 88' to 92' out from the OHWM. This is the only area that would provide sufficient safe water depth in both the summer and winter. Moorage on the south side of the pier would be extremely limited, the water depths range from 7'2" at the end of the pier to less than 4' deep at the 80' pier limit line. All of these depths will be approximately two feet lower in the winter at OLW. An 80-foot pier would not be possible for this site, as there is insufficient water depth. On the north side of the pier, which has greater water depths, there would be only 6' of water at the waterward end of the sailboat keel. The water becomes shallow quickly, such that the front of the keel would go into the lake bottom. At OLW, there would be only 4' of water at the outer edge of the keel and the whole keel would be in the lake bottom. Please see attached drawing for complete diagram of bottom contours and water depths along the proposed pier. We are proposing the 105 foot length, with the "dog leg"transition, as this is the only design that allows for safe year round moorage. Utilizing the north side of the pier, Mr. Anderson will be able to moor his 32' boat safely, with 4' of water under the keel at OLW. Less water would not provide sufficient protection from hitting bottom in the winter storms. The length will allow the boat to be moored bow in only; a stern to mooring would not provide sufficient water depth. Additionally, the length is necessary to provide a safe mooring at OLW. Please see attached diagram for proposed safe winter boat moorage. Mr. Anderson's proposed pier is 749 sq. ft, which is significantly smaller than those on the adjacent properties; the pier to the north is 1,530-sq. ft, the pier to the south is 1280 sq. ft. Mr. Anderson is requesting a pier that is the minimal necessary to provide moorage for his one boat and occasional guests. The proposed pier will have less moorage and square footage than is enjoyed by his neighbors and other property owners in his neighborhood. Please see table below for pier size comparison. Issuance of the variance permit will not in any way be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to shoreline property in the same area. Address on Mt View Ave. Length (feet) Width (feet) Coverage (square feet) 3007 I 175 6 1050 3011 I 160 32 1319 3013 163 28 2144 3103 I 98 70 3107 Anderson, prop 105 1150 6 - 8 7493111I65381676 3115 85 I 29 1754 3119 J 40 24 568 Ave. Excl . Anderson ( 112 J 25 1380 Construction mitigation Description for Baker/Anderson Pier and Shoreline Enhancement Construction will begin as soon as permits are issued and within the construction windows set by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the US Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Shoreline reconstruction, including removal of existing bulkhead, will take one to two weeks and will be completed before work begins on the pier. Pier construction, including removing 16 existing creosote treated wood piles, will take approximately 2 weeks. Total time for completion of the project will be 3 to 4 weeks. Hours of operation are 7:00AM to 5:00PM weekdays. A barge or workboat will be brought to the site and used for transporting material to and from the shoreline. All material to be excavated will be removed using a barge-mounted crane and will be stored on the barge for disposal at an approved upland disposal site. The barge will bring the boulders, rocks and gravel necessary for the shoreline enhancement. A contracted landscape company will bring in the necessary plants over land. A sediment control curtain will be installed during removal of the bulkhead and work on the shoreline to prevent sediment travel into the lake. No work is planned for the weekends or late at night. A preliminary traffic control plan is not necessary since most of the material will come via barge and all plant material will be brought to the site in one trip. Project Narrative for Baker/Anderson Pier and Shoreline Enhancement Location of Site: Address: 3107 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton WA 9825 Tax# 334210-3880 Size: 11940 Sq. Ft Zoning: R-8 Adjacent Properties: R-8 Current use of site: Single family residence, 1450 sq. ft Special site features: Site is located on Lake Washington Estimated cost of construction: $68,960 We propose to remove the existing failing concrete bulkhead replace it with a soft vegetative, shoreline enhancement bulkhead and build a 749 square foot private use pier. Please see designs for complete details.) The shoreline enhancement will involve removing approximately 275 square feet of soil, concrete and non-native vegetation(including one willow, approximately 30"in diameter) and installing approximately 350 sq. feet of natural lakeshore material and native plants. Addition of plants and strategically placed rocks will provide necessary shoreline stabilization as well as restore the riparian area on this section of shoreline. The design, created by hydro-geologists and fisheries biologists, is designed to restore properly functioning ecological conditions for the Lake Washington shoreline. The project will help achieve the goals set out in the Endangered Species Act listing of chinook and other fish species; habitat restoration has been identified as a critical component in the recovery of threatened chinook salmon and other fish species that utilize the nearshore areas Lake Washington. Additionally we propose to build a 105' long pier. The shoreward 65' of the pier would be 6' wide, leading to a 8.5' long, 8' wide, intervening section, leading to a 35' long, 8' wide section that will be used for docking Mr. Anderson's 32' sailboat. Construction of the pier will involve removing sixteen creosote treated piles that remain from the previous pier. (Creosote has been proven to be toxic to marine life so that removal of these piles will improve the water quality and environment in this area.) Twelve coated steel piles will be driven to support the new pier and set at 18' intervals to minimize shading impacts. Use of small piles, set at least 18' apart, is the standard approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to minimize impact on threatened fish species, including chinook salmon. Also, as suggested by WDF&W, prisms will be installed to minimize shading in the area of the pier with the greatest amount of surface coverage. We are applying for a variance from the maximum pier length of 80 feet. We are seeking this variance due to the bottom contours at the property, which preclude use of an 80' pier due to the shallow water. Mr. Anderson owns a 32' sailboat with a 6' draft, which he proposes to permanently dock at the proposed pier. An 80-foot pier would have only 6' of water at the point where the keel begins. The water becomes shallow quickly, such that the front of the keel would go into the lake bottom. At OLW, there would be only 4' of water at the outer edge of the keel and the whole keel would be in the lake bottom. Please see attached drawing for complete diagram of bottom contours and water depths along the proposed pier. We are proposing the 105 foot length, with the "dog leg"transition, as this is the only design that allows for safe year round moorage. Utilizing the north side of the pier, Mr. Anderson will be able to moor his 32' boat safely, with 4' of water under the keel at OLW. Less water would not provide sufficient protection from hitting bottom in the winter storms. The length will allow the boat to be moored bow in only; a stern to mooring would not provide sufficient water depth. Additionally, the length is necessary to provide a safe mooring at OLW. Please see attached diagram for proposed safe winter boat moorage. Mr. Anderson's proposed pier is 749 sq. ft which significantly smaller than those on the adjacent properties; the pier to the north is 1,530-sq. ft, the pier to the south is 1280 sq. ft. Mr. Anderson is requesting a pier that is the minimal necessary to provide moorage. His pier will provide much less moorage than is enjoyed by his neighbors and other property owners in his neighborhood. Issuance of the variance permit will not in any way be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to shoreline property in the same area. w 6' 105'- IW C Io JOIST CAP PILING i i= I C 37'-6" I B NAILER A o 5' MIN GLU-LAM o ! o C - n d lilt II 1 11' IIIIaIII - II IIIII U I I I I I I 1161 I 116 I I 6 o.H.w.M. ATTF- I I II1dIII I I Io 1 0 A PROPOSED k/ 8' MI I I III I I I11I III I I I IE1I 0 0 0 BULKHEAD till I I I I III I III I I IL I B DETAIL VIEW 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION 1 OF SEWER LINEPRISMSFOR CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL.D LIGHT PENETRATION PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING D TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY 0 EXISTING 10"± CREOSOTE APPROXIMATE POSITION TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL) 80' PIER LIMIT LINE OF KEEL DOCKED I AT 80' PIER O.H.W. 121.85' 1 O.L.W. 6' 4/> //\ ELEVATION VIEW i///;// i\//\\i\ I (PROPOSED SECTION C—C 18'±1 PILING ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'± AND DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. 80' PIER I LIMIT LINE O.H.W. 21.85' I 2" O.L.W. J\/// / //// //////////% / % /A - //// / ,\ SCALE: 1"=16' PR0P0SED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. I I REPLACE EXISTING BULKHEAD. I SECTION D— D IN:LAKE WASHINGTON I AT:RENTON, WA. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNT VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98056 PAGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1 —00 3 , sue , I boa.-r r a e (. 1 WINTER BOAT MOORAGE WATERFRONT ssoCOTCT IrrLNS4WAPH. RU 06-54ION8- NC. 9800 I PAGE: OF: DATE: 1 KEY O TING IO-Et CREOSOTEYTREATEDPILES70BEREMOVED(16 TOTAL)32' SAILBOAT PROPOSED 4'SCH.80 COATED STEELIm //' PIUNG(12 TOTAL AT III'S 0/C) 6 I 3 w 37'-6' 2%6 PRESSURE TREATED NORTH OF DECKING I O1( 5'I IN REFERENCE u LINE 0 I NORTH b' O i--..REFERENCE g o 6. ogeg 0 aIap o Jr00 8 0I O PROPOSED T 260 PROPOSED 4'SCH.80 O I 0 BULKHEAD COATED STEEL PILING Li I 50 APPRO%IMATE LOCATION dP OF SEWER LINE 3 PRISMS FOR SOUTH LIGHT PENETRATION I^ oo REFERENCE _ PLANflAN VIEW gLINEPLASOUTH p SCALE: I/s'=1' REFERENCE m mLINEo0CONSTRUCTNEWPIER14' % 105'OVER-ALL PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK. WIDENING TO AN 8'WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. 32'SAILBOAT l ' O 17:4 CZ mO 32' saLBOAr 0.' 32'SAILBOAT W h Riii• iPROPOSEDPIER i rni [ 0/i7n tI O.H8. En I D.L.I 20.00 t '////</TW.g. a A A//j//, A\,,. ,\/ LAKE BOTTOM WEST ELEVATION W o SCALE: 1/4-=1' b ry pO C w5V 0O 0 O Su W 1 I i asW ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1.Name of proposed project, if applicable:Anderson/Baker Pier and shoreline enhancement 2.Name of applicant:O. Lowell Anderson 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 8225 S. '128`h St, Seattle, WA 98178; 206-772-6284. Contact Elizabeth Petras, Waterfront Construction, Inc. 206-548-9800 4.Date checklist prepared: July 25, 2000 5.Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): As soon as permits allow. 7.Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with the proposal? If yes, explain. No okF 8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 400 `71,7c)41.^/, A Biological Evaluation has been prepared and submitted to City of Renton. 0,9 NC 4:0 9.Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals C.4fFi of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None pending 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit, HPA from WDF&W, Building Permit, Shoreline Permit, DNS, Varience. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Existing failing concrete bulkhead will be removed and replaced by shoreline enhancement designed to stabilize shoreline and restore proper ecological function. Pier to be built will be 105' long with 6' wide walkway leading to 8' wide section. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to under- stand 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 1 Emissions typical of a construction job site, from barge and crane. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable 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. Lake Washington 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, removal of failing bulkhead at OHW and replacement with vegetative shoreline enhancement. A private pier is proposed which will extend over the water 105 ft. 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. None 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 floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. No 3 or are known to be on or near the Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds other: '- v"t vnc'. WL-e v 0.bt5 er5 Mamm. s: deer, bear, elk, b , other: Fis - -"ahrwri;t out, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is an indexed sockeye spawning area, sockeye are protected under WDF&W. Bull trout and chinook salmon, both listed as threatened on the Federal ESA, may be in the area although have not been observed). A bald eagle nest exists approximately .9 miles from the project site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Juvenile chinook and other fish species use the nearshore area of Lake Washington when migrating out to the ocean from their natal streams off the lake. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Proposed pier is narrow and minimal length possible to allow safe usage by property owner. Prisms have been added to decrease shading; each prism refracts approximately 40 sq feet of light under the pier. Vegetative shoreline enhancement has been designed to restore critical riparian area allow lake shore. Over hanging plants provide shade, thus keeping shallow waters cool for temperature sensitive salmon fry and fingerlings as well as providing sources of food for young chinook. 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. None 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: Not applicable 7.ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/a 5 i Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k:. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Proposed pier is significantly smaller than structures on adjacent properties, pier to the north is 1,530 sq. ft, pier to south is 1280 sq. ft, proposed pier is 749 sq ft. 9.HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. N/a b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. N/a c Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: n/a 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? Top of pier will rest approximately 18" over Lake Washington. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: n/a 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/a b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere 7 None d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How may vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None, work to be done from barge. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: n/a 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/a 16. UTILITIES a ircle utilitiie -.tl se sit= atural gascater,water, re use servic telephon:# _ septic s em, other. 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 vacinity which might be needed. None proposed C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relyin make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: C, 9 s. y/ U 4 I 11P (s,7.,41i wl”•'!tom" r V' 1 ICRir,. lwrn p1FW1 1 7s., rsL.i', dll°.i 1iR 111lf a D} MI 4/ l••• 1`EN .i`- _ . T``:,'• c0. Vot., 1•-'-P ry iel Italsa EA 7RlL A!'. 1 t' I i , l i L y t ii a. • llllldl _ Wilt. //'. / f . i err .` 6 (/' 4.1 r, .k r IIiQ` Y tili ekun p/ r kil c \, a t i iitn:_ r"t uglai r,4„.,'. ' f v. is re' t-. l _. " IA(illma ERia t f, tre( • . -' '.F 'e -I wn El 8 f aM;;-I 3 I : ` c`.10AtgLG w ll 1t{!`],j I Y>rss 97(!'e= Yliilii ,{. S : f '. i","']' rX, n ,\;1p, Y a, Ji71LN 1 Ir- i.ill ' mC Si-tt11 1 ITS Nr. / 115 of }_•j p} 61'1" .... ( ii 1 /W. .i.• 11I'.11 m i' I imii.+i . rp.. i... meni7l fit,,, f tilili E1R I If:ni.V.131111 %' P'3i ., • N:.1r-kivi f°tn i,'1 o I , III=1 .......n: 1,•e•.. J.+ _.-. UI.Y d Ss:r. ,+. }-, i 101 t ftini'nt ''ga r Irr--.- raa n a e1 r ° 391 inlaJnrii,Iu zESiral=.iiliE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 I . 1( :nrlirt®-r n. I innoo>+ i rr rr Vi 1 . 1 MUM.Ur ur - -4 PIER REPLACEMENT/ ii.-'°"""`s ' SHORELINE RESTORATIONIutaili-' ii°i+''—r- mats.;v Ii •?amial l 1 llrllu ei rc:y 1 itAitruWB 1`,a ' il ANDERSON PROPERTYq- tlitntil 1 i;the/r "tea. MIRPRI L a,a -."..—,. 1 1999-2-01393 27 July 2000 mimenEllllll9 , m_ii6ntto auhluullllilee e#- d NI kagiSnal, Fiii'A. wiii ii a Itj t' t y /,•r/ r r ,, t=oo I TRAI; 1 t s d \ 1 ,i `ti . rellhLnr ! y. `,U4(g~ / S 1 i", s7A PAtuc f . .g i r 11 1 1 R tl 2.--! /h ,asy\ -i`$-F4,. nr f : S. lam "--,- 0 J,', nr 1• ..-'ry Y 1 rG n} f mil N/ Dint -Af' `Z ) ' f r t, J 1.I1 ,. iuni 1, . 4_1 i Lliq ) f: - 1/ I' t ,._ `.. f ,s, ‘ Aiiariok.,,,... Pomr y ,•k 1 e.i 1 i d)td• l ! f sx i 1 er 1t , i l Fr 1I/1 a rti llq 1i et il j s I tRIa;. a•' 1, I - ,1 tf Ail JI-. a-...'. :t+. l."< l iflll t'Aizel f hI . 1?{a.'iiT Y 1 t P 1ddAlKo-JLsanl! pr i' r P";ZFi,. ..% 1 19 P ' if - i r r afi tills auanttn gi, _ J, al: y,mun tCkiRSYTI.6 p`ham" t ` e $ t ( 1 r I d I I 4.-".r# 1:1 • 1 11."911 A l,' 7/1,11 ,IttA 1, -.0ifi d 3d,... 1;4,7+.., --- to u•e i f l i di wta ..dr !°u9.rd:ijhater,,,rtiV4 it I a' N_ZOIi^i•c' h.r. ' i q ' i v s r tilt i-%91dsl..•...a N'til;{ Vk`',1r V 11 -tom ) —t ,_Im'. I I r: t syr n ,! t li id.,musna J , 'n i , k I(yinlla,: aq.,%, , , : ,, ,, 1 f.Ail a IJfxl I o I 3, iur' nli #>,I,v f d,Siu s. J ar J 4111 a'''• a• Fz .. tI I I 1 d ii,r txfa rx iii i' `'t/1, /),Ay'\r; ,' f,'.`1 ` 73_,,,_ i r .; 17 J l i,' i. i< .- i :;•r. ; c ,f .. 1 i irAlr i' Fy_i,I2- Pe lli u/ I I1f "}'t .rJ jq dr ,w,r b7 ie74 .6J l r cannaeach 0' i a ; Iir• \ e t x • 7 ere- Js uu,I, F 11 r ,r+ vR '•liti7 Tautlrc ` f`.'k'-`3 m g ! v' . s :N A, 01 7 I ftl .w. 3 r Y1 Y,& yltrol I 'n l't l f!^i ir sc ; jpet •i R19111d• ',nr1:W 1 `. i .d-; cam' ti d '.. \ ,,r: r ih lti< l 1,!:,,,i .. rb mom - I. J{ I,a lilt• g Ilit f 'f ,,,Rrr T'-- Vitt! ; .,"-,,j,.nEtilti I t tl,tn , (1 1 • r y o , rPt`lwsl f3: \ xiim 1444 go-± .,,,4i t rlP `vanuUpt . - ' Iitto.•+-.. _ l`'''4U, C . i,'fJ L' a 1,}'. 1._ . I j,,. t i' w eeVv--T u r 1 I 11 .9 Gs _-------NA, ,:a.' i!' l P ttal 1 7 tlllli; Ayt)"j ' 1k7 1 y lif• 11 2,61 . tl .,..' ''yr \'i Bcou •a to i,Ytlu_G OL1 jN iu.1t{ i( I/ 9 i i 1,1 i l`°.., l ,,riAil,I ice_-_atiI11., ' { 2 0 2 wM.,!sJj ,_;\•`t`, t. g1e:.. Silasi i li 1r- Agg""_•".•q aa S7 . 1 l rtJv ., O i i .."•`- we,T;' "ems f J aR. P ry t i a tt --\UIEJ 3! r- s S tau3 4t? r i 6. lea tom.. I{,;WI r 'C r]. rr_a;YQ 1 1' t.; i j 1 *, 1 ( `•, '..'' Loa z ien. iy' e1,,, • \ 7 t LUN!_- fit fig I' 1 ^' r 1 r,'y. e', I = tC r C` , _, III .',, ,,,,,. iLJ.t' ." izty ,, i 2 ,--.,,.,. s,,, Y i...o F \ j ..._,.. 1. px,ul 1Jam;.\ ,c r /3 i I ND ou.-.<' q 1 lilh . . _ ... III r'• , a i 1 I t I' -a I ' ' v\ S t• r9)r \,` Ip 'n,,`1Vs r r ', -'L . r, , 14 4, , s l ea 61 intl..CiN K{ialYR: tltllitel 4- 4.\ C w^r F as,,,,- IV5,?,,,,:c,-,-_ ,,111.lfiiiA® '. 1'c y, III:y,> . s 6 .' i i 1.. 7 r s•J 1tls t11a ilE1G1. ` fnl. r , i.\ _ Y d la`Iailllll<d.17 s / - ` 1 4111ir"q f y; in• 1t1 y ellegki. li 1 'r s J tl' Ptldrt .,_ LEI \l4 S` .eo. ri i'il'..r= - finaam..4-,_VV7R.g r.- L.LI. ,,,,,,. ....:14 v R ie.mc 6!!!dl II iozi.i I% r Nter./ i. i' l ot,Yi4 SfY11w'l A_ ll <t 1 "f j'`:ti o : i i i'.;`'.j i•''! I 1 l ihL.ft-•ICCLr as® -LBni Li:i a . ihm vm• l r` ' L.7C_7t taat_a l_ '. w-+. i. -rt DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species at the Proposed Pier Replacement and Shoreline Restoration Project on the Anderson Property Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Prepared on behalf of: Lowell Anderson and Laurie Baker 8225 South 128th Street Seattle, Washington 98178 206) 772-6284 Prepared by: The Watershed Company 1410 Market Street, P.O. Box 1180 Kirkland,Washington 98033-0918 425) 822-5242 Fax(425) 827-8136 watershed@watershedco.com http://www.watershedco.com 27 July 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.Project Description 1 2.Location 11 3.Listed Species 12 Federally Listed Fish 12 Federally Listed Wildlife 12 Additional State Listed Fish and Wildlife 14 4.Description of Project Area 14 Baseline Conditions 18 Sensitive Fish 19 Sensitive Wildlife 25 5.Species Information and Site Use 26 Chinook Salmon 26 Coho Salmon 29 Bull Trout 32 Bald Eagle 37 6.Species Impacts 40 Chinook Salmon 42 Coho Salmon 60 Bull Trout 63 Bald Eagle 65 7.Critical Habitat 67 Chinook Salmon 67 Coho Salmon 70 Bull Trout 70 Bald Eagle 70 8.Cumulative Impacts 71 9.Determination of Effect 71 References 72 Appendix A: Topographic Profile between Project Site and Nearest Bald Eagle Nest Appendix B: Operation/Maintenance Manual Appendix C: League for the Hard of Hearing Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Section 7, Endangered Species Act Applicant: Lowell Anderson Reference: 1999-2-01393 1.Project Description The applicant proposes to replace a failed pier (only piles remain), and enhance the shoreline at his residence on Lake Washington in Renton (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose for the proposed pier replacement is to provide permanent moorage for a 32-foot sailboat with 6-foot draft, and to provide safe, stable, temporary moorage for any visiting boats. The failed pier would be replaced with a 105-foot-long pier of varying width (Figure 3). Because of the controlled two-foot draw down of Lake Washington, the 105-foot length is required to reach safe moorage depth. The shoreward 61.5 feet would be 6 feet wide, the terminal 35 feet would be 8 feet wide, and an approximately 8.5-foot-long intervening dogleg" section would be 8 feet wide (as measured on the diagonal per City of Renton codes) (Figure 4). The over-water footprint of the proposed pier would be 749 square feet ft2). The purpose for the shoreline enhancement is to provide an aesthetically pleasing, natural shoreline ecosystem that would provide the same or better shoreline stabilization as the existing concrete bulkhead. In total, approximately 275 ft2 of soil, concrete, and non-native vegetation would be removed, and approximately 350 ft2 of relatively natural lakeshore, planted with native vegetation, would be installed. The contractor would float a construction barge and/or work boat to the site. The barge would contain the materials needed to construct the bulkhead and pier components of the project, and would store the materials removed from the project site. All pier work would be conducted from the barge, work boat, or on the pier itself; bulkhead replacement would be conducted using a barge-mounted crane and a shore-based trackhoe, which would be delivered to the beach by barge and placed on shore by crane. The barge or work boat would not be grounded on the substrate. Any construction debris would be stockpiled on the construction barge and disposed of off-site at an approved upland facility. Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPAs) issued by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) typically direct the contractor to take extreme care for the duration of the project to "ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the lake." All wood products used for this project would comply with the standards established by the Western Wood Preservers Institute in Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments." Bulkhead and pier projects are constructed separately by separate crews. Depending on crew availability, the bulkhead and pier components may be constructed concurrently or The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 1 Biological Assessment I S LF -'` , 46 P'a c9 r 7-44P-„, ik ,,, 4,:. 3v A"4 _ s3.,!: ' t £ tad--,0 f t IFS 6 b e. W f I f, r Figure 2- Aerial photo of the project area. The Watershed Company 990215.3July2000 Page 3 m 9 o CDsv o eD co 105' D O O JOIST CAP PILING o ni4 3 C 37'-6" i B NAILER 1 Aa .- Cl.. LL1 I I m • 'Ci GLU-LAM I a II1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HUM" s' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I A5-1 a 8' IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIILIIII 1J r kW APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOPRISMSFORB DETAIL VIEW I .OF SEWER LINE LIGHT PENETRATION CD C CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 15' X 105' OVER—ALL. PIER'WILL CONSIST CD• OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. c/ O CD b O b O N O.H.W. I Q- 21.85' I 1 CD i 14't r D I r\PROPOSED d r P., SCH 80 P LAKE BOTTOM PILING N V\\/x\r\ r\ 03 18't ELEVATIONLEVATION VIEW ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18't AND DpaDRIVENAT10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. coCD c0 O HI cTT V CD th 0 co U1 (W E CD Biological Assessment 2X4 BLOCKING ® 6,3.0/C MAX (16"0/C FOR 'CHOICE' OR 3/4" GALV COMPRESSIONTREX' DECKING) RODS SPACED 6'-10' 0/C2X6 DECKING 3-1/8" X 18" LAG BOLT GLU-CAP Da GLU-LAM BEAM TO STEEL CAP 2X8 JOIST NAILED TO ASSEMBLY \ 2X8 RIM JOIST W/ (5)C-16d GALV NAILS z>p 2-1/2" X 1/2" LAG BOLTS IN PRE-yet 0- DRILLED HOLES STEEL CAP ASSEMBLY PILE CAP SADDLEWELDEDTOPILE CAP SADDLE 0 BOLTED TO 4" SCH 80 COATED 0 STEEL PILE SECTION A—A ALL HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. GLU-LAMS TO BE TREATED WITH COPPER-B-QUINOLINOLATE. DECKING TO BE DF TREATED WITH COPPER-B-QUINOLINOLATE. 2X4 BLOCKING TO BE TREATED WITH CHEMONITE (ACZA). JOIST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL WELDING TO BE DONE BY WABO CERTIFIED WELDERS. 14' 6' 8' BEAM SUPPORT GLU-LAMS THRU 2X8 RIM JOIST _2X6 DECKING 2X4 BLOCKINGBRACKETBOLTEDFORMUTUAL SUPPORT 2X8 JOIST 3-1/8 X 18 GLU-LAM MODIFIED BEAM N. SUPPORT U BRACKET W6X15 CAP LOWER I BEAM EjPILE CONNECTION WELDED TO CAP L.d FOR INTEGRITY U SECTION B—B ALL HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. GLU-LAMS TO BE TREATED WITH COPPER-B-QUINOUNOLATE. DECKING TO BE DF TREATED WITH COPPER-8-QUINOUNOLATE. 2X4 BLOCKING TO BE TREATED WITH CHEMONITE (ACZA). JOIST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL WELDING TO BE DONE BY WABO CERTIFIED WELDERS. Figure 5. Cross-section views of the mainwalk and dogleg portions of the proposed pierpreparedbyWaterfrontConstruction, Inc.). The Watershed Company 990215.3July2000 Page 7 Biological Assessment 6. W aterward of the first shoreline rocks, two feet of gravel (ranging in size between 0.5 and 6 inches) would be added, tapering waterward at a 4:1 slope and extending approximately 10 feet. Approximately 40 cubic yards of gravel would be installed waterward of OHW. Landward of the shoreline rocks, two feet of soil would be placed to level the property above the restored shoreline. These numbers would be adjusted as necessary in the field by the supervising biologist. 7. Additionally, a simulated stream channel would be built on the south edge of the property to provide easier maintenance access to a sanitary sewer line that connects the house to an underwater sewer line that runs parallel to the shore approximately 15 feet from the existing bulkhead. The channel's "mouth" would be just upland of the proposed, new OHW. 8. The shoreline landward of OHW would be planted with native vegetation, including Pacific willow, vine maple, red-osier dogwood, kinnickinick, and Oregon iris (see Figure 7). Disturbed areas of the pre-existing lawn above the OHW would be replanted with turf seed. Hardstem bulrush would be planted at and lakeward of the OHW. Shoreline reconstruction should take approximately one week. Pier construction, including installation of deck material, should take between one and two weeks, which includes one day for removing old piles, and one day to drive the new piles. Construction would begin as soon as permits and scheduling will allow, but would not occur between 1 November and 15 July per the combined U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and WDFW policies regarding work in waterbodies containing bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and other sensitive fish. The proposed project is located in a WDFW indexed sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) spawning area, so the anticipated fish protection window applied by the EPA would prohibit construction between 1 November and 15 June. USFWS prohibits in-water construction between 1 April and 15 July for the protection of bull trout. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not yet determined an allowable construction window for protection of chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). Depending on project noise levels and the location of the nearest bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest, construction may be prohibited by USFWS from 1 January through 15 August for breeding and from 1 November to 1 April for winter foraging. The bald eagle may be de-listed in September 2000. Therefore, the analysis of potential impacts on sensitive fish was conducted independent of any applied bald eagle timing. restrictions. 2. Location The proposed project is on the shoreline of Lake Washington at 3107 Mountain View Avenue North, in Section 32, T25N, R5E, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Tax parcel number: 334210-3880 (see Figure 1). The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 11 Biological Assessment Table 1. Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Fish Species in the Lake Washington Watershed. Species Federal Status State ESU/DPS' Origin and Status Type Chinook salmon Threatened gCandidatePuget Sound ESU Native w/wildOncorhynchustshawytschaMarch1999 production Coho salmon Candidate None Puget Sound-Strait of Mixed w/wildOncorhynchuskisutchJuly1995GeorgiaESUproduction Bull trout Threatened None Coastal-Puget Sound Native w/wildSalvelinusconfluentusNovember1999DPSproduction ESU=Evolutionarily Significant Unit,the species definition used by the National Marine Fisheries ServiceDPS=Distinct Population Segment,the species definition used by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Table 2. Chinook and coho salmon use of the Lake Washington watershed. Juvenile rearing should be assumed wherever spawning or migrating occurs. Waterway Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Distance from Spawning Migrating Spawning Migrating Project (as crow flies)Lake Washington Improbable X' X'Not applicableLakeSammamish X,X'and/or tributaries X'X'Not applicable Sammamish River and/or tributaries X'X1 X'X' 16.3 miles north Denny Creek present)2 13.2 miles northThorntonCreekX' X'12.5 miles WNWJuanitaCreek present)2 12.8 miles northForbesCreek present)2 12.4 miles northMercerSlough/ X'X'Kelsey Creek X' 4.3 miles NNE Coal Creek X1 3.9 miles NNEMayCreekX'X'X' 0.7 mile NNECedarRiver X1 X1 X'X1 1.3 miles southand/or tributaries King County 1998 2 The Watershed Company 1998 (electrofishing established use by juveniles of uncertain origin, possibly immigrants orprogenyoflocalspawners) Table 3.Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Wildlife Species in the Project Area. Species Federal Status State Recovery Status Region Bald eagle Threatened-Proposed for Delisting Threatened PacificHaliaeetusleucocephalusJuly1999 The Watershed Company 990215.3July2000 Page 13 Biological Assessment Y , „ 41.... . r I i-11 t tl . I +'Hit, r' 4•2 E • F!'t. a 1 /. lit'' . •. ..46S . .1 it 4a . } i 71='—n 7. I \ ti, Figure 9a. View of the existing concrete bulkhead from the south. 113k l' y , 10 ' .+ ' r . t '` A - its/ i.r, ,i." .,,iiillit, , 0,,,,-.1 ,,,,it. -ii•-• -, ..„,. ,• )..,--434,,,i0.-y r ,'t , k1 ''1, f ii I 1 . ` j iM 1( rio......'-'..---- *-1: 7; 116j92.* al., '''...-- 11:*--'------..---,....., itt-:-----<-.......,‘,..., '•••-- 7-,... ' 4,,_____,... 7-: . , r4r,: gt:.1,..ti-•iii.zorxr.' 11.01 j. 0: 00, 0 jot.,-...,...:(,, , :. , ... .,....,...irr, ;fte4 ter;1 il .xr. a. 11:as",,,)#;:r• • -, ft •• Figure 9b. View of the mortared, small-rock bulkhead section at the south end of the property. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 15 Biological Assessment Shoreward of the bulkhead is a lawn area with a 25- to 30-inch-dbh, non-native weeping willow approximately halfway between the north and south property boundaries and about 3 feet inland from the bulkhead. Near the southern property boundary, approximately 9 feet from the bulkhead, is a 40-inch-dbh poplar. Underneath the poplar, holly and morning glory are abundant. Lakeward of the bulkhead, the substrate consists of sand and rounded gravel up to 2 inches in diameter, grading to primarily sand approximately 10 feet from the bulkhead. Near the bulkhead, the lake bottom slopes at about four percent at the south end of the property and about eight percent on the north end of the property. At a depth of about 3 feet (70 ft. from the bulkhead on the south end of the property and 30 ft. on the north end of the property), the slope increases, approaching 40 percent. At the north end of the property, the remains of the existing pier consist of 16 wooden piles (approximately 10 inches in diameter) starting at the bulkhead and extending 85 feet into the lake. Prior to failure, the existing pier was 85 feet long, and had a 708-ft2 footprint (Figure 10). Neighboring properties have similar bulkheads and lake bottom material. Virtually all of the properties on Coleman Point have piers, ranging in size from 568 ft2 to 2,144 ft2. The two adjacent properties to the north have piers with large covered boatslips. The adjacent property to the south has a pier and seaplane ramp. Aquatic vegetation was dominated by milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Milfoil appeared beginning approximately 25 feet from shore, and its density increased with distance from shore, becoming dense by 50 feet from shore. Dense mats of milfoil have been found to reduce the dissolved oxygen in the water below the mats, and in some cases have caused fish mortality (Frodge et al. 1995). The milfoil in the area is not so dense that it forms surface mats. Beyond 80 feet from shore at the north end of the property, milfoil density decreased with increasing depth. Observations of fish presence were made during the site visit. No salmonids were found. Schools of juvenile fish (<1 in. in length) were observed along the bulkhead and along a set of rails that extended from the bulkhead into the lake in shallow water. A 4-inch juvenile smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) was among the schools of small fish along the rails. No adult bass were observed at the site of the proposed pier or at either of the two adjacent piers to the north, which were in deep water (substrate not visible). Large bass were found utilizing each of the four piers to the south, and in the dense vegetation between the two closest piers to the south. Usually, a single large bass was found under each pier, but two smaller individuals (1 ft.) were found beneath one of the piers. Two common mergansers (Mergus merganser) were observed foraging around the adjacent pier to the north. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 17 Biological Assessment Baseline Conditions Sensitive Fish The baseline conditions that chinook and coho salmon, and bull trout presently face in Lake Washington result from considerable human alterations of the environment. The lowering of the lake that resulted from the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Hiram Chittenden locks (completed in 1916) and the concurrent elimination of the Black River and the diversion of the Cedar River into Lake Washington were the most monumental modifications. Lake Union was connected to Lake Washington via the Montlake Cut, and the former outlet to Lake Union was enlarged to form the Fremont Cut. Locating the locks near the western terminus of Salmon Bay converted the formerly saltwater inlet into a freshwater channel, eliminating over 7 km (4 mi.) of estuarine habitat. Lowering the lake and diverting the Cedar River affected both the fish populations and the condition of the habitat. Cedar River fish stocks were locally adapted to a riverine migration and an extensive estuary, instead of the current lengthy lacustrine migration and an abrupt entry from warm, fresh water into significantly colder, more saline conditions below the locks. Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish fish stocks, while accustomed to the lengthy lacustrine migration, were also adapted to an extensive estuary. The approximately 9-foot reduction in lake level eliminated much of the available shallow-water and freshwater marsh habitat, and decreased the length of the shoreline. Chrzastowski (1983) reports a loss of 15.3 km (9.5 miles) of shoreline, and an estimated loss of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of wetland resulting from the lowering of the lake. The regulation of the water level in Lake Washington by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has eliminated the annual flood-driven seasonal inundation of the shoreline that shaped the structure of the vegetation community. The previously hardstem bulrush- and willow-dominated community has been replaced by developed shorelines with landscaped yards. The loss of natural shoreline has reduced complex shoreline features such as overhanging and emergent vegetation, woody debris (especially fallen trees with branches and/or rootwads intact), and gravel/cobble beaches. Evermann and Meek 1897) noted in 1896 that "the shore of Lake Washington is not well adapted to collecting with a seine" due to the abundant submerged woody debris, and dense underbrush, small trees, and tule (hardstem bulrush) that fringed the shoreline. The loss of native shoreline vegetation and wetlands has also reduced allocthonous input of detritus and terrestrial insects. The woody debris, once abundant along the shoreline of Lake Washington in its historical condition has been replaced with structurally simple piers. A survey of 1991 aerial photos estimated that 4 percent of the shallow-water habitat within 30.5 m of the shore was covered by residential piers (ignoring coverage by commercial structures and The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 19 Biological Assessment channel instability. Increased erosion and catastrophic slope failure have also resulted from land use practices, altering the sediment load and substrate composition (greater percentage of fine particles) in many systems. Various combinations of these factors have affected most bull trout subpopulations. In the Lake Washington watershed, all of these factors are present. The remainder of this discussion describes the site-specific baseline conditions within the action area and within Lake Washington (where not discussed above), in terms of the following parameters as enumerated by the Urban Checklist (Table 4): 1) water quality, 2) habitat access, 3) shoreline upwelling/downwelling, 4) structural complexity (LWD, emergent vegetation), 5) substrate composition, 6) exotic species, and 7) shoreline condition. The final parameter, watershed conditions, was discussed above. "Action area" is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." Based on the analysis in Section 6 below, the effects of this project on sensitive fish would be realized only at the pier itself and within a 100-foot in-water radius of substrate-disturbing activities. No other areas would be affected directly or indirectly. 1. Water Quality: Water temperature was measured (18.0°C) at the site on 15 July 1999, and it was above the preferred temperature for chinook and coho salmon, and bull trout (see discussion below). Measurements from the closest Metro monitoring station, No. 0840, in Lake Washington east of Mercer Island (east Mercer channel), indicate that from 1995 through 1998 temperatures at a depth of 1 meter have generally exceeded 17°C from June to October (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/ waterres/lakes/site0840.htm). Temperatures in the relatively shallow nearshore waters of Coleman Point (project site) would be expected to exceed the temperatures measured at a depth of 1 meter in mid-water. As discussed in the "Species Description" section below, 17°C appears to be a critical temperature for the distribution of juvenile anadromous salmonids. The expectation is that shallow nearshore areas of Lake Washington would be inhospitable for bull trout and juvenile chinook and coho salmon during periods of high temperatures. Measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), also from Metro monitoring station 0840, indicate that from 1995 through 1998, DO never fell below 8 mg/L at 1 meter depth. DO levels below 4 mg/L are considered dangerous for salmonids. Thus, ambient DO levels consistently exceed the minimally acceptable levels for salmonids. However, DO concentrations below dense growths of milfoil (forming extensive surface mats) can be lethally low (Frodge et al. 1995). Surface mats of milfoil were not found at the project site. Since water depths increase quickly offshore from the project site, DO levels at the site should be similar to those measured at Metro monitoring station 0840, which are generally at or above acceptable levels for salmonids. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 21 Biological Assessment Present nutrient levels in Lake Washington do not represent a problem for ESA-listed salmonids. Transparency, as measured for 1995-1998 at Metro station 0840, varies seasonally, but is typically at or above 2 meters throughout the year, with one exception in April of 1996. Minimum readings typically occur in mid-spring. Transparency at the project site was in excess of 5 meters during the site visit on 19 July 1999, during fair weather. Turbidity was measured at 2.0 NTU. Other water quality concerns include chemical contaminants, pH, and fecal coliform levels. Lake Washington was on the U.S. EPA 1998 303(d) list for fecal coliform at fifteen sample locations and sediment bioassay at one location, near the mouth of May Creek (approximately 1 mile northeast of the project). Measures of pH at Metro station 0840 exceed typically 8 during spring and summer. Chemical contamination of the waters of Lake Washington consists primarily of hydrocarbon input from the urbanized watershed. Wakeham (1977) computed a hydrocarbon budget for Lake Washington and determined that the majority of the hydrocarbons were from stormwater runoff either directly to the lake or via rivers, while 85 percent of the hydrocarbon removal is via sedimentation. Wakeham (1977) indicated that the primary source of hydrocarbons in the urban runoff to Lake Washington is automotive, both oil and grease, and products of combustion (PAHs); outboard engine operation likely contributes a very small fraction of total input (less than 1%). PAHs are a common pyrolytic byproduct of all internal combustion engines and are now commonly found in most aquatic systems, near industrialized and urbanized centers Green and Trett 1989). Overall, relatively little is known about the impacts of PAHs on aquatic organisms. Evidence for immunosuppression resulting from exposure to PAHs was reported by Arkoosh et al. (1998), who determined that chinook smolts from urban estuaries Duwamish) exhibited a higher cumulative mortality after exposure to the marine pathogen Vibrio anguillarum than smolts from a non-urban estuary. Tissue examinations of the chinook smolts indicated that those from the urban estuary had been exposed to higher levels of PAHs and PCBs than smolts from the non-urban estuary (Arkoosh et al. 1998). Although not investigated specifically, it is possible that the accumulated PAHs in the sediments of Lake Washington may have an immunosuppressant effect on salmonids within the lake. Levels of sediment or water contamination in the action area are unknown. The area around the mouth of May Creek has been contaminated by industrial uses and spills, including a creosote spill Warner and Fresh 1999). 2. Habitat Access: There are no physical barriers (e.g., dams, hanging culverts) to fish passage in the body of Lake Washington. Review of pertinent literature failed to produce studies of the effects of piers on salmonid migrations in freshwater. Studies from estuarine and marine systems indicate that piers have the potential to disrupt The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 23 Biological Assessment would compromise the safe passage of juvenile salmonids through the area. Bull trout are not expected to be seeking cover along the shoreline while in the lake, and would most likely be of sufficient size to preclude predation by exotic species. However, some prey species of bull trout would be utilizing shoreline areas. Exotic aquatic macrophytes in Lake Washington that have demonstrated a negative affect on fish on occasion, are Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and fragrant white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) (Frodge et al. 1995). Reduced DO levels and consequent fish mortality has been observed within dense patches of either species (Frodge et al. 1995). Milfoil density within the action area was not so dense as to form surface mats. 7. Shoreline Condition: The shoreline gradient at the project site is approximately four to eight percent, but shallow water during summer would be interrupted by the existing bulkhead. The weeping willow may provide allocthonous inputs of terrestrial insects, although the lack of overhanging shrubby vegetation may limit input. There were no sources of recruitment for woody debris on the property. Juvenile salmonids primarily feed on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. Piers and piles provide the primary source of attachment for aquatic invertebrates that utilize wood. The abundant macrophytes likely have associated invertebrate populations. Benthic and epibenthic macroinvertebrates may provide an additional food source. Sensitive Wildlife The City of Mercer arborist (Gilles, pers. comm., 10 May 2000) was consulted to identify the nearest known bald eagle nest location. According to this source, the nearest bald eagle nest is located approximately 0.9 mile to the northwest' on Mercer Island. Lake Washington comprises the majority of the distance between the project site and the eagle nest. The nest tree is 17 feet lower than the top of a ridge between the project site and the nest tree (see Appendix A). Because of the vegetated ridge, it is unlikely that the bald eagle pair would have a direct view of the project site from the nest tree. Several covered boat moorages on properties just north of Anderson's property also partially block a view of the project site from the eagle nest location. As discussed under Section 5 below, there are several key structural elements necessary for use of an area by bald eagles: perch, roost and nest trees. No large trees that are presently suitable for bald eagle nesting, perching or roosting were noted at the Nest locations were marked on a USGS map of Mercer Island,using the map software TOPO!©Version 1.2.4, Copyright© 1998,Wildflower Productions,and the distance between the project site and the nearest nest was measured. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 25 Biological Assessment which is consistently met, of releasing 180,000 chinook smolts each May (Tetrick, pers. comm., 10 July 2000). The majority of chinook smolts leave Lake Washington in May and June (Fresh, pers. comm., 9 September 1999). A study by Reimers (1971) in Sixes River, Oregon, demonstrated that juvenile migration timing within the "ocean-type" designation occurs as a continuum rather than a discreet event. Evidence that most juvenile chinook begin entering the lake in early January and are leaving Lake Washington as smolts by early July, suggests that juvenile chinook in the lake are exhibiting a "type-2" life history (as per Reimers 1971). However, the WDFW Cedar River fry trap that has provided most of the data on migration timing is typically operational only through the end of June or early July. Sampling at the mouth of the Cedar River has found that small numbers of juvenile chinook continue entering Lake Washington as late as 29 July (Fresh, pers. comm., 9 September 1999). Outmigrating chinook smolts have been observed at the Ballard locks in late August Fresh, pers. comm., 7 June 2000). Yearling and older chinook (monthly mean fork lengths ranging from 256-323 mm) were captured in littoral gill nets (2-8 m deep) in all regions of Lake Washington from January through October in 1984-1985 (Beauchamp, Univ. of Washington, unpubl. data). Tabor and Chan (1996) captured two juvenile chinook yearlings (234 and 280 mm fork length) in south Lake Washington in March 1995. Although it is not known whether these yearlings reared in the lake or in a tributary, their large size is typical of lake-rearing fish. The appearance of small numbers of age-1+ and age-2+ chinook juveniles in Lake Washington provides additional evidence that extended freshwater rearing occurs in the Lake Washington system (Fresh, pers. comm., 9 September 1999). Haw and Buckley 1962) reported extended freshwater rearing of juvenile chinook in Lakes Washington and Sammamish, with age-I+, and -2+ smolts representing 21 percent and 12 percent respectively of sampled returning adults. The majority of age-0+ chinook juveniles in the Lake Washington watershed leave the lake by mid-summer; 66 percent of the returning adults sampled by Haw and Buckley (1962) had been age-0+ smolts. Reimers (1971) found relatively few juvenile fall chinook migrating as yearlings in Sixes River, Oregon, where yearling migrants represented only 3.1 percent of returning adults. Data from the Lake Washington Ecological Studies indicate that resident chinook up to adult size are in the lake at all times of the year; it is not clear whether these fish go to sea eventually or continue rearing in the lake until spawning (Warner, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). Diet and Distribution In Lake Washington, juvenile chinook are distributed along shorelines (Fresh, pers. comm., 18 November 1999). Sampling of both the limnetic and littoral zones of Lake Washington has shown that from early February through late May, young-of-the-year chinook occupy the littoral zone exclusively (Warner and Fresh 1999). They feed The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 27 Biological Assessment found in the littoral zone during summer. During 1984, chinook were captured throughout the summer in littoral gill nets (3-10 m deep) and in offshore vertical gill nets from mid-July to mid-August at depths of 12 to 18 meters, which corresponded with the thermocline (Beauchamp, Univ. of Washington, unpubl. data). Chinook smolts (and adults) are often found near the surface in water above 18°C (Warner, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). Behavioral thermoregulation by salmonids is common. Roper et al. (1994) suggested that high temperature (20°C) in the lower reaches of Jackson Creek, Oregon, caused the emigration of age-0+ chinook. Biro (1998) reported that some young-of-year brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis) in an Ontario lake remained in the littoral zone during periods of high water temperature (23-27°C), but they held and defended positions at cold groundwater seeps. Given the propensity for littoral foraging by juvenile chinook, and that summer temperatures in the littoral zone may be undesirable or potentially lethal, chinook may either leave Lake Washington in mid-summer, limit the timing of their activity, or limit their distribution to cooler areas of the lake. The energetic consequences of such avoidance behavior could reduce the growth rate of juvenile chinook, potentially reducing marine survival. Smolt size has been found to positively correlate with marine survival (Quinn and Peterson 1996). Observations of juvenile chinook in the littoral zone of Lake Washington decline in early to mid-July; this phenomenon could possibly be a behavioral response to high temperatures, but could also be due to smolts leaving the lake Fresh, pers. comm. 18 November 1999). An avoidance of the littoral zone by chinook during summer would segregate them from shore-based sampling efforts. Both returning adult and juvenile chinook in Lake Sammamish and Lake Union must also contend with anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion from July through October http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/thermo.htm). High temperatures in the epilimnion restrict chinook to depths below 5 to 10 meters, while anoxic conditions below depths of 15 to 20 meters prevent chinook use, thus concentrating them in the relatively narrow (5-10 m) metalimnion (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/ thermo.htm). These physical restrictions of chinook distribution limit juvenile foraging opportunities, and expose juvenile fish to predators occupying habitat in the metalimnion. In addition, these physical conditions are a stress to holding adults that could cause pre-spawning mortality and reduced egg survival for those adults that survive to spawn. Coho Salmon Coho salmon are found along the Pacific Coast from Monterey Bay in central California to Point Hope, Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). In Washington, coho salmon spawn in streams in the Columbia River Basin, Puget Sound, and coastal drainages (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). In the Lake Washington system, coho salmon stocks have been divided into the Lake Washington/Sammamish Tributary stock and the Cedar River stock The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 29 Biological Assessment mortality than coho from the same cohort released from the University of Washington hatchery (8 km from saltwater). Allen (1968) found that the fish migrating from the Issaquah Creek hatchery had an approximately 22 percent higher mortality rate than those from the University of Washington hatchery. McMahon and Holtby (1992) found that coho smolts in a river and estuary aggregated and sought cover near large woody debris, overhanging banks, and riparian vegetation. Moser et al. (1991) reported that progress of the smolt migration in the Chehalis River was saltatory, with periods of movement with the current interspersed with periods of holding in low-velocity areas that also provided cover. The distribution of juvenile coho salmon in Lakes Washington and Sammamish is poorly understood. There is evidence that juvenile coho are migrating and feeding along the Lake Washington shoreline (Fresh, pers. comm., 2 August 1999). Gill net sampling in all zones of Lake Washington by Bartoo (1972) indicated that coho juveniles were present during May, June, and July. Beauchamp (Univ. of Washington, unpubl. data) captured juvenile coho in all sampled littoral areas except during July and August. Beak Consultants Incorporated (1998) reported that peak smolt migration from the Sammamish River was April through mid-May, although their sampling ended in mid-June. Tabor and Chan (1996) found coho smolts in south Lake Washington from April to early June, with peak abundance in early May. Coho juveniles are relatively rare compared to chinook and sockeye juveniles (Walter, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). Temperature Water temperature affects the distribution of coho salmon in lakes and reservoirs. Bjornn and Reiser (1991) reported the preferred temperature for coho as 12 to 14°C, and that temperatures from 23 to 25°C could be lethal and were actively avoided by most salmonids. In a stocked Wisconsin lake and in a Washington reservoir, coho inhabited nearshore areas in the spring and fall, and moved below the thermocline into the metalimnion in the summer where temperatures remained below 17°C (Engel and Magnuson 1976; Hamilton et al. 1970). However, coho fry remained in the littoral zone throughout the summer in Margaret Lake in southeast Alaska, especially near the cooler tributary mouths (Bryant et al. 1996). Summer afternoon surface temperatures occasionally exceeded 18°C in Margaret Lake, but most coho were caught while beach seining at dawn and dusk when temperatures were lower, and at the mouths of cool tributaries (Wright, pers. comm., 13 August 1999). This preference for lower water temperatures may be a factor in selection of migration corridors, at least in the latter part of coho migration into and through Lakes Washington and Sammamish. Juvenile coho may avoid the high temperatures in the littoral zone during the summer, segregating themselves from shore-based sampling efforts. The late summer distribution of coho would also be restricted to the narrow metalimnion in Lake Sammamish, in a similar The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 31 Biological Assessment less than 10 spawning sites were found, and fry abundance was low in the Chester Morse Reservoir; however, the population in the reservoir was estimated at approximately 3,000 adults based on hydroacoustic surveys, and did not include estimates of juveniles in the tributaries (Seattle Public Utilities, unpubl. data). In the past 10 years, only two "native char" [either bull trout or Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma)] have been reported in Issaquah Creek and none have been reported in the Sammamish River (U.S. Federal Register, 1 November 1999; WDFW 1998). The USFWS is not certain that the latter subpopulation is "viable." There is no known spawning subpopulation resident in Lake Washington or Lake Sammamish. However, subadult and adult native char are occasionally found in the lakes (USFWS 1999). Two subadult native char (300-400 mm fork length) were captured in horizontal gill nets (3-10 m deep) off the Cedar River delta in March 1985, and an adult (635 mm fork length) in the same location in April 1985; a subadult native char (300 mm fork length) was also captured in August 1984 at a depth of 60 meters (Beauchamp, Univ. of Washington, unpubl. data). Other native char have been caught or observed in Lake Washington, as well as in the Cedar River, Lake Sammamish, Carey Creek (Issaquah Creek tributary), and at the Ballard Locks (KCDNR 2000). Life History Several life history forms of bull trout occur, and all may be present within the same population. Fish exhibiting the resident life history strategy are non-migratory, spending their entire lives within their spawning stream. Migratory life history strategies include fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous. Migratory bull trout reside as adults and subadults in larger rivers (fluvial), lakes or reservoirs (adfluvial), or marine waters (anadromous), and spawn and rear as juveniles in headwater tributaries. Due to differences in productivity between small headwater streams and larger rivers, lakes, and marine environments, resident fish are typically smaller than migratory fish. Resident fish seldom exceed 300 mm, while migratory forms can exceed 900 mm. Anadromous forms are common in Puget Sound drainages from the Snohomish River north (Kraemer in prep.). The majority of bull trout spawning occurs between late August and early November. Spawning migrations occur during the summer, but may start as early as April in some systems (Ratliff et al. 1996). In river systems of north Puget Sound, spawners typically arrive in holding areas near spawning grounds from several weeks, to up to four months before spawning (Kraemer in prep.). Characteristics of holding areas are: depth of at least one meter; cover in the form of turbulent water, undercut banks, woody debris, or overhanging vegetation; and cool temperatures, often provided by groundwater input. Spawning typically does not commence until stream temperatures drop to 8°C. In the North Puget Sound region, "the downstream limit of successful spawning is always upstream of the winter snow line (that elevation at which snow is present on the ground for much of the winter)" (WDFW 1999). In Montana, no spawning occurred in 15t order streams, only limited spawning by non-migratory bull trout occurred in 2nd order streams, The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 33 Biological Assessment the onset of piscivory. The timing of this migration varies between and within systems, and is not confined to spring. Like juveniles, adult and subadult bull trout are typically found only in streams with summer temperatures that do not exceed 15°C. Pools with groundwater seeps may function as thermal refuges where stream temperatures exceed 15°C. Adults and subadults select low-velocity habitats, typically large pools, with abundant cover and large substrate. The diet of adults and subadults in streams consists primarily of fish, including juvenile salmon and trout, and whitefish (Prosopium spp.). A diel habitat shift similar to that of juveniles has been observed in adults and subadults in streams. Non- spawning movements are generally associated with thermal requirements, either seeking warmer water in winter (non-coastal populations) or colder water in summer. The distribution of subadults and adults in lakes and reservoirs appears to be temperature mediated, with fish generally avoiding temperatures greater than 15°C, and preferring temperatures less than 10°C. Following stratification of lakes in the spring, bull trout are mostly found below the thermocline, and generally near the lake bottom. The diet of bull trout in lakes consists almost entirely of fish, and the species composition within the diet varies with the relative abundance of prey species in the lake. Cyprinids, catostomids, cottids, and salmonids [kokanee, cutthroat trout, smaller bull trout, whitefish] represent a substantial portion of the diet of lake-dwelling bull trout in various studies. The presence of warm-water prey species, such as yellow perch (Perca flavescens), in the diet of bull trout indicates that they either make occasional forays into warmer (17-20 °C) nearshore waters or exploit these prey during winter and spring. Bull trout have also been observed aggregating to take advantage of localized prey abundance such as concentrations of spawning prey fish. Anadromous Form The anadromous life history strategy in bull trout is not well understood. Historically, anadromous char were all considered Dolly Varden. The separation of Dolly Varden and bull trout into distinct species, and recent investigations of native char populations in Puget Sound, have suggested that Dolly Varden and bull trout in north Puget Sound are sympatric and equally anadromous. Anadromous bull trout spend two to three years in fresh water before migrating in the spring to the estuary or nearshore marine environment Kraemer in prep.). While in the marine environment, they feed on smaller fish such as surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious), Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and pink (O. gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon smolts, closely following the distribution of the prey fish (Kraemer in prep.). Subadults usually spend two summers in the marine environment before they mature (Kraemer in prep.). Anadromous bull trout return to fresh water to overwinter, and immature and non- The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 35 Biological Assessment would avoid temperatures above 15°C. High temperature avoidance would likely confine bull trout below the thermocline (> 15 m) from mid-June through mid-October, with some annual variation due to climatic differences. The presence of a large prey base in limnetic [e.g., sockeye salmon and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys)] and deep benthic (e.g., Neomysis mercedis and prickly sculpin [Cottus asper]) regions would reduce the need for summer forays into nearshore areas. Native char that were captured at the mouth of the Cedar River in March and April were eating spawning longfin smelt and outmigrating sockeye fry (Beauchamp, Univ. of Washington, unpubl. data). Bald Eagle Bald eagles are found throughout most of North America (Johnsgard 1990; Kaufman 1996). In general, migrant bald eagles breed in Alaska, Canada and parts of northeastern United States and then winter in central and western United States (Kaufman 1996; Rodrick and Milner 1991). Wintering birds may roost communally in groups of up to 400 in areas with high concentrations of food and low disturbance levels (Rodrick and Milner 1991; Anthony et al. 1982). In Washington, for example, communal roosts are located on the Skagit, Skykomish and Yakima rivers. There are no known communal roosts in the project area (Negri, pers. comm., 2 September 1999). Resident bald eagles remain year-round in areas where the waterways do not freeze in winter, such as along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, and Idaho and western Montana (Kaufman 1996). Resident bald eagles remain year-round in areas where the waterways do not freeze in winter, such as along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, and Idaho and western Montana (Kaufman 1996). In the project area, resident bald eagles breed close to Lake Washington shorelines. Until 1999, the pair constructed their nest in a Douglas-fir west of Clarke Beach Park. During a January 1999 storm, the nest was blown out of the tree and the eagle pair did not attempt to rebuild the nest. The tree structure was not damaged and the pair continued to perch and roost on that tree (Gilles, pers. comm., 21 September 1999; 10 May 2000). The bald eagle pair reconstructed the nest 0.9 mile west of the project site in a Douglas-fir on private property on a steep forested slope (Gilles, pers. comm., 10 May 2000). This bald eagle pair likely concentrates foraging activities in the southeast and southwest quarters of Lake Washington, including the immediate project area. Bald eagles feed primarily on fish through live capture or scavenging carrion such as spawned salmon (Johnsgard 1990). Bald eagles forage opportunistically. Parametrix, Inc. (1993) recorded piracy of fish by a bald eagle pair in Discovery Park from gulls and an otter, and captures of unwanted fish released by anglers. Another study in California Hunt et al. 1992) documented piracy of fish from osprey and great blue herons. In deep- water lacustrine environments, bald eagles feed on dead or surface-swimming fish; in shallow areas, such as coves or gravel bars, bald eagles hunt live fish from perches (Hunt The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 37 Biological Assessment roosting were noted at the applicant's property during the site visit conducted on 15 July 1999. No bald eagles were observed in the area during the site visit. All of the reviewed literature emphasizes the relationship between bald eagle habitat and water (e.g., Johnsgard 1990; Rodrick and Milner 1991; Kaufman 1996; Grubb 1980; Parson 1992; Hunt et al. 1992). Bald eagles are found throughout their range along ocean and other saltwater shores, and along freshwater lakes and rivers (Rodrick and Milner 1991; Kaufman 1996). The water association is probably a direct result of their diet on fish and waterfowl (Johnsgard 1990). Numerous studies have recorded nest distances from open water. In Alaska and Canada, separate studies found that most nests were 37 meters (120 ft.), 91 meters (300 ft.), and 49 meters (160 ft.) from a large body of water Parson 1992). Studies in western Washington had variable results. In one study, 92 percent of eagle nests were within 183 meters (600 ft.) of open water (Grubb 1980); a second study found that most nests were within 91 meters (300 ft.) of open water (Parson 1992). Local data for urban-dwelling bald eagles show that distances from a shoreline for successfully breeding pairs can be as high as 825 meters (2,707 ft.) in Discovery Park Parametrix, Inc. 1993). In addition to being close to water, one of several nest and perch tree selection criteria appears to be that the view and flight path from the tree to open water be unobstructed Parson 1992; Johnsgard 1990; Chandler et al. 1995). Such a location allows an eagle to find food easily (Chandler et al. 1995; Parson 1992), protect the nest and young, and define its territory boundaries (Parson 1992). It is generally agreed that bald eagles select nest trees based on structure not species (Grubb 1980; Rodrick and Milner 1991). In western Washington, Douglas-fir trees tend to have the required structure: tall, strong branches, broken tops, and some protective foliage above and surrounding the nest location (Grubb 1980; Rodrick and Milner 1991). Most nest trees are codominant with other large trees in heterogeneous stands (Grubb 1980). Suitable nest trees are also within range of other topped or dead trees, with limbs suitable for perching (Rodrick and Milner 1991). These elements are used for perches, roosts and defense posts (Rodrick and Milner 1991). As mentioned previously, a bald eagle was observed perching in several trees in the project area; one on the southwest corner of the applicant's property approximately 150 feet from the shoreline, and one on the adjacent property to the north. The observed bald eagle may be one of the pair nesting west of the project site. The effects of human disturbance on bald eagles have been examined in detail in the context of resource management (e.g., Chandler et al. 1995; Steidl and Anthony 1996; Grubb and. King 1991; Grubb 1980; Parson 1992). The majority of these studies, however, were conducted in relatively remote, forested environments along rivers and coastlines (Grubb 1980; Steidl and Anthony 1996; Grubb and King 1991). Few studies were found that specifically evaluated bald eagle ecology in more urban environments. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 39 Biological Assessment temporary increase in turbidity in close proximity to construction activity, to potential effects on fish passing underneath or in the vicinity of the proposed pier (discussed in greater detail below), and to potential effects of construction noise on nesting and foraging bald eagles. Any suspended sediment would quickly settle at the site. Landward of OHW (non-jurisdictional, but interrelated work), the proposed activity consists of some grading, tree removal, and installation of native plants and rock features. An interdependent or interrelated affect of this project is the moorage of a new, 32-foot- sailboat with a 6-foot draft. Although the property did at one time have a pier (the piles of which still remain), the effect of the proposed pier's over-water coverage will be considered as though it were a new pier, as the previous pier is not effectively part of the current baseline condition. The effects of the proposed project on the overall conditions of Lake Washington and the action area are indicated in the NMFS "Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators" as revised by NMFS for urban environments (see Table 4). There are two general classes of potential effects on sensitive fish and wildlife which could occur as a result of shoreline projects of this nature: direct effects from construction noise, turbidity) or the presence of new or replacement structures (piers, bulkheads, boats, boatlifts), and indirect effects from changes in characteristic uses of and activities on the property. The former effects class is discussed on a species-specific basis below. In general, uses of and activities on shoreline properties are associated in some way with recreation and general lake access. Recreation-related activities on the lake typically occur between June and October as a result of low air and water temperatures during the remainder of the year, and the timing of school vacations. Examples of such activities include watercraft fueling, boat use, and swimming. Fueling frequencies, and therefore risk of fuel spills, would be much higher during the summer months when juvenile salmonids are least likely to be in the project area. The applicant plans to moor a non-motorized sailboat at the site. Visiting motorized boats would refuel at nearby marinas; no transfer of fuel would occur at the site. Swimming is even more dependent on air and water temperatures than boating activities, but is typically less dependent on the presence of a pier and/or bulkhead. Again, swimming activities which could disturb salmonids would be most likely to occur during the summer months when juvenile salmonids are least likely to be in the project area. The applicant has indicated that swimming activities occur only during summer months by visiting family members. Property owners who enjoy swimming are more likely to access the.lake at the end of a pier, if present, than at the lake-shoreline interface. This may provide some physical separation of swimmers from salmonids migrating along the shoreline (depending on depth), in addition to the temporal separation provided by temperature barriers. The lake would likely be accessed at the site by either owner/guests The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 41 Biological Assessment Shorezone structures are expected to affect predation on ESA-listed salmonids by simplifying the shoreline (bulkheads eliminate shallow water, complex woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and complex substrate, and create energetically unfavorable shoreline conditions); providing foraging habitat (shade and overhead cover) for structurally-oriented ambush predators, specifically largemouth and smallmouth bass piers); and by extending the duration of predation by allowing visual predators to forage at night (piers with artificial lighting). Due to their life history strategies, largemouth and smallmouth bass are the predators most likely to benefit from shorezone structures; additional discussion of the ecology of largemouth and smallmouth bass is warranted, as well as a brief discussion of general predator-prey interactions. However, cutthroat trout are the primary predator of salmonids in the nearshore from February through June, and in the offshore for the rest of the year (Warner, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). The effects of shorezone structures on the efficiency of cutthroat predation on salmonids are unknown. It is likely that the loss of complex refuge habitat resulting from shorezone development would represent a disadvantage to juvenile salmonids in the presence of mobile predators such as cutthroat trout. There have been no specific studies on bass foraging on juvenile salmonids near piers, but much is known about bass foraging and habitat use in general. Bass Ecology Bass have been studied extensively throughout their range, including in Lakes Washington and Sammamish. Direct studies on the relationship between piers and other shorezone structures, and bass predation on salmonids are currently underway (Roger Tabor, USFWS; Kurt Fresh, WDFW; Rod Malcom and Eric Warner, Muckleshoot Tribal Fisheries). Conjecture about that relationship can be supported with information from other studies and personal communications from local scientists. Both largemouth and smallmouth bass demonstrate an affinity for structural elements, and both are piscivorous, preying on salmonids when available. Stein (1970) found that largemouth bass in Lake Washington preferred heavy log and brush cover to all other available habitat (including docks), and considered the lack of this habitat to be a limiting factor. Largemouth bass were often found under docks in early spring in Lake Washington (Stein 1970). One third of the largemouth bass in Lake Baldwin, Florida showed a significant preference for piers in the absence of aquatic vegetation (Colle et al. 1989). Largemouth bass preferred moderate to dense vegetation and silt or sand substrate in Lake Sammamish (Pflug 1981). Nests were constructed at depths from 0.6 to 1.5 meters, in vegetated areas with soft-sediment to gravel substrates, on moderate to steep slopes (Pflug 1981). Others have noted preferences for nest locations adjacent to a structural feature such as a rock, stump, or a slope (Heidinger 1975; Allan and Romero 1975), and locations that provide cover (Vogele and Rainwater 1975). In general, largemouth bass select soft substrates; cover in the form of logs, brush, aquatic vegetation, or other structures; and utilize a variety of prey-capture tactics. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 43 Biological Assessment Predator-prey Interactions For juvenile salmonids, the net loss in complex cover resulting from the replacement of natural shorelines with docks and bulkheads may be critical. Historically, the littoral zone of Lake Washington contained abundant aquatic and shoreline vegetation, and woody debris (Evermann and Meek 1897; Stein 1970). The lowering of the water level and substantial shoreline development have eliminated much of the shallow-water habitat available to juvenile salmon. Docks and piles may provide shallow-water cover for juvenile salmon, but they also provide cover for bass. Cooper and Crowder (1979) stated that "reducing structural complexity may remove prey refuges and subject the remaining prey to high risk until they are decimated." Docks, piles, and bulkheads are relatively simple structural elements compared with rootwads and trees with branches, and other forms of natural cover found along undisturbed shorelines. Sustainable predator-prey interactions in general require the existence of prey refuge to prevent the extermination of the prey organism. Numerous studies have reported increased use of complex cover (e.g., aquatic vegetation, woody debris, substrate interstices, and undercut banks) by prey fishes in the presence of predators, and reduced foraging efficiency of predators due to habitat complexity (e.g., Bugert and Bjornn 1991; Persson and Eklov 1995; Werner and Hall 1988; Tabor and Wurtsbaugh 1991; Wood and Hand 1985). Savino and Stein (1989) demonstrated that refuge is critical for prey fish survival; their study found that largemouth bass captured all prey fish that strayed from areas with aquatic vegetation into open water. Bass also eliminated all prey fish from pools that provided no refuge in a study by Schlosser (1987), while predator and prey were able to coexist in pools with complex cover. Hixon and Beets (1993) provided evidence of the value of complexity in a study of marine reef fish; prey fish were most abundant on reefs where refuge size closely matched the body size of the prey species, and where the number of refuge holes was not limiting. Lynch and Johnson (1989) showed similar results for juvenile bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) in fresh water. Gotceitas and Colgan (1989) found that prey fish in fresh water preferentially selected refuge habitat with greater complexity than was necessary to significantly reduce foraging success of predators. Helfman (1979) suggested that the utilization of small floating objects on bright days by prey fish was related to the visual advantage the prey fish gained by being shaded over a predator approaching from the brightly lit surrounding area. Shallow water functions as a refuge from predation for small fish, especially in the absence of complex habitat features such as woody debris or submerged vegetation. In Schlosser's' study (1987), bass eliminated prey fish from structurally simple pools either by direct consumption, or by forcing the prey fish into shallow-water habitats, thus subjecting prey fish to potentially decreased feeding opportunities. Bass predation also excluded grazing minnows from all but the shallow sections of pools in Oklahoma The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 45 Biological Assessment smelt, chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon (Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop 2000). The primary introduced fish species identified as potential predators in the Lake Washington system were: smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and yellow perch; other species include: brown bullhead, black crappie, white crappie, pumpkinseed, Atlantic salmon, bluegill, and warmouth (Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop 2000). The most important nearshore predator of sockeye fry in Lake Washington was identified as cutthroat trout less than 250 mm; other predators noted were juvenile coho salmon, and rainbow trout (Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop 2000). The most important limnetic predator of juvenile salmonids was identified as cutthroat trout over 250 mm, whose diet consists of approximately 50 percent salmonids (Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop 2000). Prickly sculpin larger than 125 mm were also identified as the most important benthic predator Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop 2000). Although the focus of the Lake Washington Sockeye Studies was on sockeye salmon, identified predators also prey on other juvenile salmonids, including chinook. The primary predator of juvenile chinook occupying the littoral zone from January through June, and the limnetic zone for the remainder of the year, would be cutthroat trout (Warner, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). A small proportion of northern pikeminnow, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass reside in nearshore regions during winter, but the majority move inshore in the spring as temperatures in nearshore areas warm (Bartoo 1972: Olney 1975; Coutant 1975). The distributions of these fishes overlap primarily with the peak out-migration of chinook through the littoral zone, whereas the overlap of cutthroat and chinook distributions is continuous. Sculpins are present in the littoral zone year-round and are known to eat chinook (Tabor et al. 1998). In mid-summer, temperatures in the littoral zone become undesirable for juvenile chinook and coho salmon, and the majority leave the lake or seek cooler temperatures away from the littoral zone, thus segregating themselves from littoral predators, but remaining vulnerable to cutthroat trout and potentially prickly sculpin. The magnitude of avian predation on salmonids in Lake Washington is unknown. Studies from other systems indicate that consumption rates can be substantial. Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis) consumed more than 31 percent of the spring plant of trout fry in a Utah reservoir over a two-week period, and nearly 33,000 larger subadult trout over eight months (Modde et al. 1996). Wood (1987a) estimated that common mergansers (Mergus merganser) consumed as much as 39 percent of the potential coho smolt production from the Big Qualicum River, BC. Suter (1995) estimated that cormorants (P. carbo) consumed from 5 to 22 percent of the annual standing crop of grayling (Thymallus thymallus) in two Swiss rivers. Salmonids comprised the major dietary component of both red-breasted mergansers (M. serrator) (Feltham 1990) and common mergansers (Wood 1987b) in their respective studies. Wood (1987b) stated that "mergansers rank among the largest (in terms of The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 47 Biological Assessment smallmouth bass in Lake Sammamish (Pflug 1981). Tabor et al. (2000) observed the opposite in the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Pflug (1981) proposed that bass exploitation of the seasonal abundance of outmigrating salmonids was responsible for the unusually high growth rate of bass in Lake Sammamish. An analogous situation exists in coastal Massachusetts lakes where exploitation of anadromous herring contributes to the production of"trophy" bass (Yako et al. 2000). Much of the bass predation on salmonids in the Lake Washington system corresponds with the out-migration of smolts in the spring and summer (Stein 1970; Pflug 1981; Pflug and Pauley 1984; Fayram and Sibley 2000; Tabor et al. 2000). This phenomenon has also been observed in the Columbia River (Gray and Rondorf 1986; Vigg et al. 1991; Poe et al. 1991; Zimmerman 1999). In the mid-Columbia River, ocean-type chinook fry were the only identified salmonids found in smallmouth bass stomachs by Tabor et al. (1993). The Columbia River studies indicated that salmonids were only seasonally abundant in bass diets, and that other fish species, crayfish, and other invertebrates provided the bulk of bass prey items. The Lake Washington Ship Canal may be an exception due to the tight bottleneck that it imposes on outmigrating salmon smolts. Preliminary evidence from a study by Tabor et al. (2000) indicates large populations of both largemouth and smallmouth bass in the Ship Canal coinciding with the outmigration of salmon smolts. Analysis of stomach contents indicated that age-0+ chinook were the predominant salmonid prey item, constituting approximately 50 percent of the diet of smallmouth bass; preliminary consumption rates for April — July 1999 were 0.3 smolts/stomach for smallmouth bass and 0.1 smolts/stomach for largemouth bass (Tabor et al. 2000). As discussed above, patterns of bass predation in the Lake Washington Ship Canal are similar to those in the Columbia River. Preliminary analysis of Ship Canal smallmouth bass stomach-contents from May through July 1999 found that salmonids represented approximately 60 percent of the diet of bass from 200 to 249 mm, and 50 percent of the diet in bass 250 mm and larger (Tabor et al. 2000). The large numbers of bass in the Ship Canal, and their high rates of consumption of salmon smolts (primarily chinook but also coho and sockeye), pose a substantial threat to chinook salmon migrating from the Lake Washington system; however, actual losses due to predation and the proportion of the smolt population these losses represent have not been computed yet (Tabor et al. 2000). Consumption estimates from limited preliminary sampling in 1997 by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe indicate that as many as 100,000 chinook smolts could have been consumed in a 90-day migration period (Warner, pers. comm., 7 July 2000). The distributional overlap of chinook with bass in the Lake Washington system is more prolonged than in the mid-Columbia River due to a temperature regime that favors bass. Water temperatures in Lake Washington typically exceed 10°C by mid-April, and 15°C by June (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/lakes/wash.htm). Thus, the peak of chinook outmigration from Lake Washington (June) corresponds with increasing bass activity and The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 49 Biological Assessment Malcom (pers. comm., 13 April 2000) corroborate the findings of Vogele and Rainwater 1975), who also found that smallmouth bass nests were not closely associated with sheltered habitat in Bull Shoals Reservoir. The majority of smallmouth bass nests were beside submerged stumps in gravel and rubble substrates, while largemouth bass nests were either under artificial brush shelters or adjacent to a submerged log, rock, or tree base (Vogele and Rainwater 1975). Additional evidence for a connection between bass and piers comes from unpublished data. WDFW personnel electrofishing for bass in 50 to 70 local (western Washington) lakes observed that bass were more often associated with natural structures such as brush piles, beaver lodges, and overhanging willows and, to a lesser degree, were found under docks or adjacent to piles, but empirical evidence to support these observations was not collected (Bonar, pers. comm., 13 June 2000). Qualitative observations by Bonar (pers. comm., 13 June 2000) suggest that structures concentrate bass in lakes where structure is limiting. One-third of the largemouth bass in Lake Baldwin, Florida showed a significant preference for piers in the absence of aquatic vegetation (Colle et al. 1989). These findings, when considered with existing knowledge of bass ecology, suggest that bass prefer natural cover for foraging, and preferentially site nests adjacent to structures, but bass utilize piers, piles, and other artificial structures for foraging and nesting in lieu of natural cover or structure. Piers and piles differ from natural cover/structure elements such as brush piles, primarily in their lack of structural complexity. This difference is critical for prey fish, which rely on structural complexity for survival in the presence of predators, particularly mobile predators such as cutthroat trout. In developed lakes, piers become the dominant structural features at the expense of natural complex structures such as woody debris and emergent vegetation. That bass and other predators gain an advantage over prey fish in structurally simple environments is substantiated by findings that bass (especially smallmouth bass) persist or thrive along developed shorelines, while other species decline (Brown 1998; Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992; Poe et al. 1986; Lange 1999). It is useful to ask what features of piers make them attractive to bass in the lacustrine environment. Male bass preferentially locate nests adjacent to structural features such as rocks or logs, apparently to reduce the perimeter that must be guarded or to provide visual isolation from nearby conspecifics (Heidinger 1975). Thus, for spawning bass, pier elements that protrude from the substrate (i.e., piles, boatlifts, etc.) may be attractive. The initial data suggests that this is the case for smallmouth bass (Malcom, pers. comm., 13 April 2000). The structure provided by piers and boatlifts may potentially increase spawning habitat and/or reproductive success of bass. It is less clear what pier features primarily attract foraging bass: shade, overhead structure independent of shade, vertical structural elements, or a combination of features. The The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 51 IBiological Assessment Ilength of the pier at varying angles throughout the year further reducing shade. The magnitude of the resulting shade reduction has not been quantified. IThe attraction of bass to dock piles over other elements of cover, such as shade from decking, has not been conclusively established. An exception is that bass often build Inests adjacent to a structural feature. The site has some of the characteristics of areas typically selected as nest sites by both species of bass. Bass attraction to narrow piles has not been investigated, but the attraction of spawning bass to structural elements in general has been established. The prevailing theory explaining the attraction of bass to piles for nest location is that male bass guarding a nest adjacent to a large object would have less area to guard. The expectation of the WDFW habitat biologist is that bass would be less likely to site a nest adjacent to a smaller-diameter pile than a larger-diameter pile. Indications from studies in Lake Sammamish are that the Idifferences in pile diameter between the proposed removed and installed piles would be meaningless to spawning smallmouth bass (Malcom, pers. comm., 13 April 2000). The implications for largemouth bass, which were not studied, are uncertain. Evidence from another system indicated that largemouth bass sought both structure and overhead cover for nest locations (Vogele and Rainwater 1975). The site of the Iproposed pier has fine substrates, both shallow and deep areas, a drop off, and moderate to dense vegetation, suiting largemouth bass preferences for a nest location. The installation of 12 narrow-gage steel piles in place of the existing 16 wood piles, would not increase bass attraction to the action area, and may reduce it. The removal of the concrete-block bulkhead and replacement with natural shoreline elements would provide critical refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids. The shallow- water habitat provided by the removal of the bulkhead would provide prey refuge. IHardstem bulrush would be planted along the shoreline, and large boulders would be utilized instead of a vertical concrete-block bulkhead. Both boulders and vegetation I can function as prey refuges for small fish. As discussed above, prey refuges are critical for the survival of prey species in the presence of predators. Juvenile chinook salmon are threatened by other predators besides bass. Thus, providing complex, shallow-water refuge habitat would benefit chinook salmon regardless of bass presence at the proposed pier. However, establishment of refuge habitat in one area does not eliminate the predation potential created in another area. Bass will exploit anystructural feature available to them. Therefore, bass mayutilizeP the proposed pier and boat despite efforts to reduce shading. Bass use of the proposed pier would likely exceed bass use of the existing structure (remaining piles). Assuming that bass may utilize the new pier occasionally, and that bass will prey upon juvenile chinook salmon when available, the proposed pier may affect, likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound chinook salmon. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 53 1 Biological Assessment overwater structures exceeded those measured at open water stations due to the reduction in surface light intensity. However, phytoplankton production/biomass ratios from outside stations exceeded those from under-pier stations from a depth of about 60 cm to the maximum depth measured. White (1975) suggested that, while narrow residential piers do not significantly reduce surface phytoplankton production, the reduction is inversely proportional to shading, as illustrated by the low production/biomass ratios observed under a residential pier with skirting, a boathouse, and an overwater apartment complex. White (1975) did not comment on the reduced production/biomass ratios of shaded sites at depth, compared to open-water control sites, nor did he measure periphyton or macrophyte abundance and production under and outside of overwater structures. The reduced light intensity observed under all overwater structures when compared with open-water control sites, resulted in reduced total water-column phytoplankton production/biomass ratios, and likely reduced periphyton and macrophyte production as well. Qualitative observations in Lake Washington indicate that most overwater structures reduce macrophyte growth, with the degree of reduction related to the width of the structure and its height off the water (Kohler, The Watershed Company, unpubl. pers. observation). Loflin (1995) reported that docks in two Florida marine locations produced distinct areas in their shadow that were nearly devoid of seagrass, that were significantly correlated with total dock surface area. Shading from docks also produced changes in seagrass species composition and reduced epiphitic loading on grass blades (Loflin 1995). The percent cover of epifauna on primary kelp blades was less under piers than on perimeter piles at a marine site in Portsea, Australia (Fletcher and Day 1983). Shaded piles in Sydney, Australia had different epibiotic assemblages than unshaded piles or adjacent rocky reefs (Glasby 1999a, 1999b). Epibiotic assemblages on unshaded piles were composed filamentous and foliose algae (primary producers), while communities on shaded piles were composed of filter feeders Glasby 1999b). At a Long Island Sound location, Iannuzzi et al. (1996) predicted that construction of an 800-slip marina would reduce macroalgal production by 17 percent, but that reduction would be compensated for by microalgal production on the hard attachment surfaces of the marina. The Long Island Sound site was a high-energy marine system with radical changes in energy, sediment composition, and turbidity expected to result from construction of the marina (Iannuzzi et al. 1996). The majority of the references from the preceding paragraph were studies of marine systems. Extrapolating their results to freshwater systems may not be appropriate. However, the responses of macro- and microalgae to reductions in light intensity resulting from overwater structures would be expected to be conserved among systems. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 55 Biological Assessment Bulkhead and shoreline enhancement work would be conducted landward of a sedimentation control curtain (see Figures 3 and 6). Extreme care would be taken by contractors to ensure that material, particularly silt-laden water does not enter the lake. Excess soils and material would be disposed of off-site at an approved upland location. c) A floating sedimentation control curtain shall be deployed and maintained in a functional manner to contain suspended sediments at the work site during construction. d) All construction debris shall be properly disposed of on land in such a manner that it cannot enter into the waterway or cause water quality degradation (Section 13, Rivers and Harbors Act). Construction is anticipated to take two to three weeks. Studies investigating the effects of construction-related turbidity on salmonids in a lacustrine environment have not been located. Turbidity is generally considered an undesirable condition for salmonids. However, turbidity can have both positive and negative consequences. Turbidity reduces predator avoidance behavior in salmonids (Gregory and Levings 1996; Gregory 1993), and reduces prey mortality rates by reducing the prey-encounter rates of predators (Ginetz and Larkin 1976; Gregory and Levings 1998; Beauchamp et al. 1999). While turbidity can provide a reduction in predation pressure for migrating juvenile chinook (Gregory and Levings 1998), the temporary and localized nature of the proposed sediment disturbance would not produce the natural, uniformly turbid conditions found in their study system (Harrison River, BC). Exposure to turbid water can result in lethal and sublethal affects on salmonids. Chinook and coho juveniles will emigrate from turbid water (Scrivener 1994; Murray and Rosenau 1989; Skeesick 1970; Sigler et al. 1984). Sigler et al. (1984) found that age 0+ coho and steelhead emigrated from areas of high turbidity, and those that did not emigrate grew more slowly. The study design of Sigler et al. (1984) exposed fish to turbid water for periods of from 14 to 31 days, and found that gill-tissue damage was only apparent after three to five days. However, even low turbidity levels can produce a variety of sublethal effects (i.e., reduced survival, reduced growth, reduced food conversion, reduced feeding, altered diet, stress, disease, avoidance, displacement, altered behavior [including predator avoidance behavior]) that could ultimately reduce the fitness of the individual (reviewed in Lloyd 1987). Further, even minor increases in turbidity in a clear lake can result in significant reductions in primary productivity both through reduction in light penetration and physical coverage of the benthos (Lloyd 1987). Contractors conforming to BMPs specified by WDFW utilize floating "sedimentation control curtains" to contain turbid water, allowing turbidity to settle before removing the curtain. Turbidity from an individual construction activity would not represent a permanent sediment source and would not The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 57 IBiological Assessment Irestriction is adequate to minimize the probability that juvenile chinook salmon would be in the action area during construction. Thus, pile driving for the proposed project Imay affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound chinook salmon. 5. General construction activities may kill juvenile chinook salmon. The potential to kill juvenile chinook salmon exists as long as they are present in the action area during construction. Construction activities could force juvenile chinook into deep water, increasing their exposure to predators. Salmonids often seek refuge in the substrate 1 during the day when winter water temperatures drop to 8°C or less. While concealed in the substrate, chinook could easily be crushed by activities that disturb the substrate. In order to minimize the impacts of construction activity on juvenile chinook salmon, the above timing restriction (no in-water construction from 1 November through 15 July) would be followed. This restriction is adequate to Iminimize the probability that juvenile chinook salmon would be in the action area during construction. Thus, construction activity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound chinook salmon. 6. Removal of overhanging vegetation could eliminate a potential source of cover and food (allocthonous input of terrestrial insects and detritus for foraging aquatic insects) for juvenile chinook salmon. The existing condition of the shoreline vegetation has limited value as overhead cover, fair value as a source of terrestrial insects, and high value as a source of detritus for aquatic invertebrates. The primary source of detritus and terrestrial insects is the single weeping willow. The vegetation removed during removal of the existing bulkhead would be primarily non-native. This non-native vegetation would be replaced with native shoreline species such as red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera), vine maple (Acer circinatum), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Oregon iris (Iris tenax), and hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus), in a naturally functioning shoreline (see Figure 7). The proximity of the proposed vegetation to the water would increase its value as overhead cover, and input of terrestrial insects and detritus would be maintained or increased. The hardstem bulrush would also provide complex prey refuge habitat and refuge from wave action for juvenile chinook salmon. Bulkheads could directly affect predation on juvenile salmonids by eliminating shallow-water refuge habitat or, indirectly, by the elimination of shoreline vegetation and in-water woody debris that generally accompanies bulkhead construction. The importance of shallow-water refuge habitat and complex habitat features to small fish has been discussed above. Juvenile fall chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers and (preliminary results suggest) Lake Washington have demonstrated a preference for shallow, low-angle shorelines, although the motivation for this observed preference has not been fully investigated (Key et al. 1994a and 1994b; Garland and Tiffan 1999; Tabor, pers. comm., 9 June 2000). Placing bulkheads The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 59 Biological Assessment action area to the detriment of juvenile coho. 4) Pile driving may disrupt the distribution and behavior of juvenile coho or injure juvenile coho. 5) General construction activities may kill juvenile coho salmon. 6) Removal of overhanging vegetation during bulkhead modification could eliminate a potential source of cover and food (allocthonous input of terrestrial insects and detritus for foraging aquatic insects) for juvenile coho salmon. 7) Replacing the existing bulkhead with a new vertical bulkhead could hinder the attainment of properly functioning indicators, specifically those indicators within the habitat elements" and "shoreline conditions" pathways (see Table 4). 1. The pier as cover for predators. The potential impacts of the pier on individual coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. However, unlike chinook salmon, impacts of the project on coho salmon are evaluated in terms of threats to the population of Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia coho salmon, instead of individual coho salmon. Thus, the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize coho salmon populations in the Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia ESU. 2. Shading effects on juvenile coho prey. The potential shading impacts of the pier and boat on the abundance of prey for coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Thus, the shading effects of the pier on the abundance of juvenile coho prey are not likely to jeopardize coho salmon populations in the Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia ESU. 3. Temporary water quality impacts. The potential impacts of temporary water-quality reductions associated with pile removal and driving on individual coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Therefore, temporary water-quality impacts associated with the proposed project are not likely to jeopardize coho salmon populations in the Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia ESU. 4. Pile driving. The impacts of pile driving on individual coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Thus, pile driving for the proposed project is not likely to jeopardize coho salmon populations in the Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia ESU. 5. General construction activities may kill juvenile coho salmon. The impacts of construction on individual coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Thus, construction activity is not likely to jeopardize Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia coho salmon. 6. Removal of overhanging vegetation and coverage of aquatic vegetation during construction could eliminate a potential source of cover and food for juvenile coho salmon. The impacts of the removal of overhanging vegetation on individual coho salmon are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Thus, vegetation removal The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 61 Biological Assessment terrestrial insects and detritus for foraging aquatic insects) for the species of fish preyed upon by bull trout. The following is a discussion of the potential impacts: 1. Shading effects on bull trout prey. The species of fish utilized as prey by bull trout feed upon the same organisms as juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Indeed juvenile chinook and coho salmon are utilized as prey by bull trout. Therefore, the potential shading impacts of the new pier and boat on the abundance of prey for bull trout are similar to those for chinook salmon above. Thus, the shading effects of the proposed pier project on the abundance of bull trout may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. 2. Temporary water quality impacts on bull trout prey species. Pile driving and shoreline improvement would produce temporary, localized sediment plumes within the action area that would dissipate following cessation of construction. In order to minimize construction impacts associated with increased turbidity during construction, the project would comply with the following timing restrictions and conditions: a) No in-water construction activity or pile driving may occur between October 31 and July 15. b) All pier construction shall be performed from a barge. The pier contractor shall stockpile construction debris on the walled construction barge pending off-site disposal. Bulkhead and shoreline enhancement work would be conducted landward of a sedimentation control curtain (see Figures 3 and 6). Extreme care would be taken by contractors to ensure that material, particularly silt-laden water does not enter the lake. Excess soils and material would be disposed of off-site at an approved upland location. c) A floating sedimentation control curtain shall be deployed and maintained in a functional manner to contain suspended sediments at the work site during construction. d) All construction debris shall be properly disposed of on land in such a manner that it cannot enter into the waterway or cause water quality degradation (Section 13, Rivers and Harbors Act). Information about the effects of temporarily increased turbidity levels on the non- salmonid prey species of bull trout in Lake Washington is lacking. However, turbidity increases of the magnitude expected as a result of the proposed activity would be insufficient to measurably diminish the abundance of potential prey species of bull The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 63 Biological Assessment Summary of Collective Impacts In this section, all of the potential impacts of the proposed project on bull trout will be considered collectively. The outcome of the proposed project would be no net loss in habitat for bull trout and other listed and unlisted fish and wildlife species and wildlife species, and an increase in the quality of shoreline habitat in the action area. All of the potential construction impacts were either avoided with a construction timing restriction, or found to not apply to this project because of site-specific or design considerations. Thus, the collective impact of the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. Bald Eagle The combined WDFW and USFWS timing restriction (1 November to 15 July) for protection of bull trout and sockeye salmon spawning encompasses the entire restriction typically imposed by USFWS for protection of bald eagle winter foraging (1 November to 1 April). Accordingly, there would be no potential impact to foraging bald eagles. Bald eagle habitat would not be destroyed by the project, nor would prey abundance be reduced. There may be minor impacts on a limited number of individual prey fish, but population sizes of any species would not be significantly reduced. Further, populations of wildlife species fed on by bald eagles, such as waterfowl, would not be affected. Given the available construction period and the bald eagle use level, the proposed project could have the following potential impact on the bald eagle: disturbance of breeding during construction. The following is a discussion of the potential impact. Presence of adult bald eagles on a nest is critical during the incubation, brooding and other rearing phases of the nesting season. Any disturbance that results in flushing or other response behaviors may lower reproductive success (Rodrick and Milner 1991) or result in direct mortality of eaglets. According to USFWS, pile driving and other loud activities can affect nesting bald eagles up to one mile away. Potential disturbance to nesting bald eagles as a result of implementation of the proposed project is restricted to temporary construction activities, specifically pile driving and jackhammer use. Pile installation using either a vibratory hammer or a drop hammer produces noise slightly above ambient levels. The drop hammer is the louder of the two methods, generating short-term, rhythmic sounds described as a "thud" (Sidebotham, pers. comm., 15 September 1999). The vibratory hammer is powered by a diesel generator which sounds like a bus; the hammer itself produces a "loud hum" (Ashley, pers. comm., 17 September 1999). Keith Landry (pers. comm., 25 February 2000) at Waterfront Construction Inc. provided a similar description of the vibratory driver. The operation/maintenance manual (American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. no date) The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 65 Biological Assessment According to Grubb and King (1991), "[H]uman activities that are distant, of short duration, out of sight, few in number, below, and quiet have the least impact." Several of these criteria apply to the proposed project: distant (0.9 mile), short duration (total pile driving noise would last approximately one day), few in number (only 12 piles driven), and out of sight. Although the specific construction activities are not "quiet," construction noise is adequately attenuated, as discussed above, by distance and topography to reach a typical ambient level at the nest. Further, eaglets become less subject to disturbance-related mortality as they mature (Parson 1992). Construction activities are not scheduled to begin until after 15 July and would be completed by 31 October; therefore, courtship, nest building, egg laying and incubation, brooding, and most other early-rearing activities would be complete before construction begins. As mentioned above, bald eagle young would likely have already fledged by the commencement of project construction. According to Muller (pers. comm., 28 September 1999), bald eagles in the Lake Washington area typically fledge in the first or second week of July. The pair likely has disturbance tolerances similar to the bald eagle pair in Discovery Park. Data was collected on the Discovery Park pair to determine if there were any impacts from a nearby construction project (Parametrix, Inc. 1993). According to that study, "The bald eagles in Discovery Park are remarkably tolerant of most human activities, and appear to be well habituated to their urban environment." The typical reaction to most disturbances, from helicopters to compaction equipment noise, was to observe or ignore the disturbance (Parametrix, Inc. 1993). The Discovery Park pair fledged an average of 1.7 eaglets per year since construction started in 1991. Brian Gilles (pers. comm., 14 September 1999) has observed bald eagles on Mercer Island for the past seven years. The bald eagles on the island have been exposed at close proximity to a variety of construction activities and, in all but one instance, did not exhibit any alarm behaviors Gilles, pers. comm., 14 September 1999). For the reasons discussed above, the proposed pier and shoreline restoration project may affect, not likely to adversely affect, the breeding activity or success of the bald eagle pair at the nearest known nest location. No equipment or timing restrictions are necessary beyond the timing prohibition already imposed by WDFW and USFWS for the protection of sensitive fish. 7. Critical Habitat Chinook Salmon Critical habitat designated for Puget Sound chinook salmon (U.S. Federal Register, 16 February 2000) includes all freshwater, estuarine, and marine areas and their riparian zones accessible to chinook. This designation of critical habitat includes the project area. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 67 Biological Assessment produce a temporary sediment plume that would dissipate following cessation of pile driving. A floating sedimentation control curtain would be deployed and maintained to reduce the sediment plume produced during removal of the existing bulkhead and shoreline excavation. No sustained increase in turbidity would occur as a result of this project. Thus, water quality would not be adversely modified or destroyed by the proposed project. The proposed project would not affect water quantity or temperature. Water velocity is not an issue at the site of this project. Therefore, water quantity, water temperature, and water velocity would not be destroyed or adversely modified as a result of the proposed project. Coverlshelter, Space, Food, and Safe Passage Conditions The need of juvenile chinook salmon for refuge habitat has been discussed above. The pier and associated piles lack the structural complexity to function as a complete prey refuge from predators. Additionally, the proposed pier may be utilized as habitat for foraging bass or other predators. If utilized by predators, the value of the proposed pier as escape cover for juvenile chinook salmon would be greatly reduced. Shading from the pier may reduce the existing moderate to dense macrophyte cover present in the area of the proposed pier. Macrophytes are a habitat feature selected by foraging largemouth bass, but they can also provide cover from predation for prey species and can provide complete refuge when dense. The features of the enhanced shoreline would increase the available refuge habitat for juvenile chinook salmon. Hardstem bulrush would provide complex refuge habitat. Interstitial spaces between substrate particles and boulders would also function as complex refuge habitat. Thus, cover/shelter for juvenile chinook salmon would not be adversely modified or destroyed by the proposed project. The proposed pier would not affect safe passage of migrating adult chinook salmon. Safe passage through the nearshore shallow-water area would be improved by the removal of the vertical bulkhead and replacement with native vegetation and rock. Safe passage of migrating juvenile chinook salmon may be affected by the proposed pier if predators occupy the structure. Juvenile chinook occupy the littoral zone and are closely associated with the shoreline while in Lake Washington, and that behavior may minimize their interaction with any bass that might utilize the deep water portion of the pier. However, the critical habitat in its entirety would not be compromised. Thus, safe passage conditions for juvenile chinook salmon would not be destroyed or adversely modified by the proposed project. The diet of juvenile chinook salmon consists primarily of aquatic and terrestrial insects. Aquatic insects can be found on macrophytes and submerged woody debris, on and within the substrate, within the water column, or on the water surface (i.e., Gerridea). The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 69 Biological Assessment 8. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts were assessed through the review of an aerial photo from 22 April 1996 (Figure 2) and a site visit. At present, the action area contains a vertical concrete- block bulkhead, piles from a previous pier, and a single-family residence. Except for the proposed project, the applicant has no future plans to alter the action area. The applicant and any future owners of the property who wish to conduct any activities subject to local, but not federal, regulation would comply with all applicable ordinances governing construction and soil disturbance near water. These regulations are anticipated to become increasingly restrictive to the benefit of sensitive fish and wildlife as a result of the recent listings of chinook salmon and bull trout, and the potential listing of coho salmon in the future. There are no significant wildlife habitats or special habitat elements present on the property that would be disturbed by any foreseeable activity. Waterward of the OHW in the action area, future activities include normal recreational use of the applicant's watercraft. Projection of activities on properties adjacent to the action area is speculative at best. All other properties in view appear to have been developed. No change in presently ongoing activities is expected. Cumulative impacts on sensitive fish and wildlife species and their habitats are not considered significant. 9. Determination of Effect The proposed pier project may affect, likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound chinook salmon, and is not likely to jeopardize Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia coho salmon. The proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect, Coastal Puget Sound bull or the bald eagle. The proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect, critical habitat of Puget Sound chinook salmon. Critical habitat has not been proposed for coho salmon, bull trout, or the bald eagle. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 71 Biological Assessment Bassett, C. E. 1994. Use and evaluation of fish habitat structures in lakes of the eastern United States by the USDA Forest Service. Bulletin of Marine Science 55: 1137-1148. Beak Consultants Incorporated. 1998. Final Lakepointe Technical Report on Natural Resources. Section 3.0 Fisheries. Prepared for Pioneer Towing, Kenmore, WA, April 1998. 108 p. Beauchamp, D. A. 1990. Seasonal and diel food habits of rainbow trout stocked in Lake Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 119: 475-482. Beauchamp, D. A., S. A. Vecht, and G. L. Thomas. 1992. Temporal, spatial, and size- related foraging of wild cutthroat trout in Lake Washington. Northwest Science 66: 149-159. Beauchamp, D. A., E. R. Byron, and W. A. Wurtsbaugh. 1994. Summer habitat use by littoral-zone fishes in Lake Tahoe and the effects of shoreline structures. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 14: 385-394. Beauchamp, D. A., C.M. Baldwin, J. L. Vogel, and C. P. Gubala. 1999. Estimating diel, depth-specific foraging with a visual encounter rate model for pelagic piscivores. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56(Supplement 1):128-139. Bendock, T. 1989. Lakeward movements of juvenile chinook salmon and recommendations for habitat management in the Kenai River, Alaska, 1986-1988. Fishery Manuscript Series No. 7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, AK. April 1989. Biro, P. A. 1998. Staying cool: behavioral thermoregulation during summer by young-of- year brook trout in a lake. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127:212-222. Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138. Bonar, Scott. Fisheries Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication, telephone conversations with Tom Kahler of The Watershed Company, 13 June 2000. Brennan-Dubbs, Nancy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal communication, telephone conversation with Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 18 November 1999. Brocksmith, R. 1999. Abundance, feeding ecology, and behavior of a native piscivore northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in Lake Washington. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. 82 p., plus appendices. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 73 Biological Assessment Coble, D. W. 1975. Smallmouth bass. Pages 21-33 in H. Clepper, ed. Black Bass Biology and Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. 534 p. Colle, D. E., R. L. Cailteux, and J. V. Shireman. 1989. Distribution of Florida largemouth bass in a lake after elimination of all submerged aquatic vegetation. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9:213-218. Collins, N. C., P. St. Onge, and V. Dodington. 1995. The importance to small fish of littoral fringe habitat (Z<0.2m) in unproductive lakes, and the impacts of shoreline development. Lake and Reservoir Management 11(2): 129. Cooper, W. E. and L. B. Crowder. 1979. Patterns of predation in simple and complex environments. Pages 257-267 in H. Clepper, ed. Predator-prey Systems in Fisheries Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. 504 p. Coutant, C. C. 1975. Responses of bass to natural and artificial temperature regimes. Pages 272-285 in H. Clepper, ed. Black Bass Biology and Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. 534 p. Danehy, R. J. and N. H. Ringler. 1991. Ecology of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) in the nearshore of Mexico Bay, Lake Ontario. Pages 66-72 in D. C. Jackson, ed. The First International Smallmouth Bass Symposium. 24-26 August 1989, Nashville, TN. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS. East, P., and P. Magnan. 1991. Some factors regulating piscivory of brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis, in lakes of the Laurentian Shield. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:1735-1743. Eggers, D. M. 1978. Limnetic feeding behavior of juvenile sockeye salmon in Lake Washington and predator avoidance. Limnology and Oceanography 23: 1114-1125. Eggers, D. M., N. W. Bartoo, N. A. Rickard, R. E. Nelson, R. C. Wissmar, R. L. Burgner, and A. H. Devol. 1978. The Lake Washington ecosystem: the perspective from the fish community production and forage base. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 35: 1553-1571. Engel, S. and J. J. Magnuson. 1976. Vertical and horizontal distribution of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and cisco (Coregonus artedii) in Pallette Lake, Wisconsin. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33: 2710-2715. 1971. Ecological interactions between coho salmon and native fishes in a small lake. Pages 14-20 in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Great Lakes Research, April 1971. International Association for Great Lakes Research. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 75 Biological Assessment Fresh, Kurt. Fisheries Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication, telephone conversations with Amy Myers and Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 7 July 1999, 2 August 1999, 9 September 1999, 18 November 1999, 28 March 2000, 4 May 2000, 11 May 2000, 7 June 2000, and with D. Beauchamp, University of Washington, no date. Frodge, J. D., D. A. Marino, G. B. Pauley, and G. L. Thomas. 1995. Mortality of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in densely vegetated littoral areas tested using in situ bioassay. Lake and Reserv. Manage. 11: 343-358. Garland, R. D., and K. F. Tiffan. 1999. Nearshore habitat use by subyearling fall chinook salmon in the Snake River. Pages 51-70 in Tiffan, K. F., D. W. Rondorf, W. P. Connor, and H. L. Burge, eds. Post-release attributes and survival of hatchery and natural fall chinook salmon in the Snake River, Annual Report 1998, to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. DOE/BP-21708-7. 203 pp. Gilles, Brian. Arborist, City of Mercer Island, Mercer Island, WA. Personal communication, telephone conversations with Amy Myers (The Watershed Company), 14 and 21 September 1999, and 10 May 2000. Ginetz, R. M., and P. A. Larkin. 1976. Factors affecting rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) predation on migrant fry of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33: 19-24. Glasby, T. M. 1999a. Differences between subtidal epibiota on pier pilings and rocky reefs at marinas in Sydney, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 48: 281- 290. 1999b. Effects of shading on subtidal epibiotic assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 234: 275-290 Gotceitas, V., and P. Colgan. 1989. Predator foraging success and habitat complexity: quantitative test of the threshold hypothesis. Oecologia 80: 158-166. Goyette, D., and K. M. Brooks. 1998. Creosote evaluation: phase II, Sooke Basin study — baseline to 535 days post construction 1995-1996. Regional Program Report PR98-04. December 1998. Prepared for: Creosote Evaluation Steering Committee by D. Goyette, Commercial and Chemicals Division, Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region, and K. M. Brooks, Aquatic Environmental Sciences, Port Townsend, WA. 484 p. Gray, G. A. and D. W. Rondorf. 1986. Predation on juvenile salmonids in Columbia Basin reservoirs. Pages 178-185 in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, eds. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 77 Biological Assessment Haw, F. and R. M. Buckley. 1962. Prolonged freshwater residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon. Wash. State Dep. Fish. 72'd Ann. Rep. Year 1962: 25-26. Healey, M. C. and U. Reinhardt. 1995. Predator avoidance in naïve and experienced juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 614-622. Heidinger, R. C. 1975. Life history and biology of largemouth bass. Pages 11-20 in H. Clepper, ed. Black Bass Biology and Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. 534 p. Helfman, G. S. 1979. Fish attraction to floating objects in lakes. Pages 49-57 in D. L. Johnson and R. A. Stein, eds. Response of fish to habitat structure in standing water. Special Publication 6, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MA, USA. 77 p. Hixon, M. A. and J. P. Beets. 1993. Predation, prey refuges, and the structure of coral- reef fish assemblages. Ecological Monographs 63: 77-101. Hobson, E. S. 1979. Interactions between piscivorous fishes and their prey. Pages 231- 242 in: H. Clepper, ed. Predator-prey Systems in Fisheries Management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. 504 p. Hunt, W. G., J. M. Jenkins, R. E. Jackman, C. G. Thelander, and A. T. Gerstell. 1992. Foraging ecology of bald eagles on a regulated river. J. Raptor Res. 26(4): 243-256. Iannuzzi, T. J., M. P. Weinstein, K. G. Sellner, and J. C. Barrett, 1996. Habitat disturbance and marina development: an assessment of ecological effects. 1. Changes in primary productivity due to dredging and marina construction. Estuaries 19(2A): 257-271. Irvine, J. R. and B. R. Ward. 1989. Patterns of timing and size of wild coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts migrating from the Keogh River watershed on northern Vancouver Island. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 1086-1094. Jennings, M. J., M. A. Bozek, G. R. Hatzenbeler, E. E. Emmons, and M. D. Staggs. 1999. Cumulative effects of incremental shoreline habitat modifications on fish assemblages in north temperate lakes. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19: 18-27. Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus) 1766. Pages 142-152 in: Hawks, eagles, & falcons of North America: Biology and natural history. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Kaufman, K. 1996. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Pages 120-121 in Lives of North American birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 675 p. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 79 Biological Assessment Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop, 2000. Progress review of studies on predation of sockeye salmon in the Lake Washington system. Syllabus presented at Lake Washington Sockeye Studies Interim Workshop, 2000, by US Fish and Wildlife Service, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, University of Washington, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, June 6, 2000, Mercer Island Community Center, Mercer Island, WA. 17 pp. Landry, Keith. Waterfront Construction, Inc. Personal communication, telephone conversation with Amy Myers (The Watershed Company), 25 February; 1 March 2000; and 22 March 2000. Lange, M. 1999. Abundance and diversity of fish in relation to littoral and shoreline features. M.S. Thesis. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 46 p. plus appendices. League for the Hard of Hearing. www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm. Noise levels in our environment fact sheet. 1 March 2000. Lister, D. B. and H. S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon in the big Qualicum River, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27: 1215-1224. Loflin, R. K. 1995. The effects of docks on seagrass beds in the Charlotte Harbor estuary. Florida Scientist 58: 198-205. Lorang, M. S., J. A. Stanford, F. R. Hauer, and J. H. Jourdonnais. 1993. Dissipative and reflective beaches in a large lake and the physical effects of lake level regulation. Ocean and Coastal Management 19: 263-287. Lynch, W. E. Jr., and D. L. Johnson. 1989. Influence of interstice size, shade, and predators on the use of artificial structures by bluegills. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9: 219-225. Mahovlich, Mike. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. Personal communication, written comment to Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 7 July 2000. Malcom, R. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Personal communication, telephone conversation with Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 22 November 1999; and 13 April 2000. McMahon, T. E. and L. B. Holtby. 1992. Behavior, habitat use, and movements of coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolts during seaward migration. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1478-1485. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 81 Biological Assessment Parson, W. 1992. Effects of bald eagle management plans and habitat alterations on nesting bald eagles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 24 p. Paxton, K. O., and F. Stevenson. 1979. Influence of artificial structures on angler harvest from Killdeer Reservoir, Ohio. Pages 70-76 in D. L. Johnson and R. A. Stein, eds. Response of fish to habitat structure in standing water. Special Publication 6, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MA, USA. 77 p. Persson L. and P. Eklov. 1995. Prey refuges affecting interactions between piscivorous perch and juvenile perch and roach. Ecology 76: 70-81. Pflug, D. E. 1981. Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) of Lake Sammamish: a study of their age and growth, food and feeding habits, population size, movement and homing tendencies, and comparative interactions with largemouth bass. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 80 p. Pflug, D. E. and G. B. Pauley. 1984. Biology of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) in Lake Sammamish, Washington. Northwest Science 58: 118-130. Poe, T. P., C. O. Hatcher, C. L. Brown, and D. W. Schlosser. 1986. Comparison of species composition and richness of fish assemblages in altered and unaltered littoral habitats. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 3: 525-536. Poe, T. P., H. C. Hansel, S. Vigg, D. E. Palmer, and L. A. Prendergast. 1991. Feeding of predaceous fishes on out-migrating juvenile salmonids in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120: 405-420. Pollard, W. R., G. F. Hartman, C. Groot, and P. Edgell. 1997. Field Identification of Coastal Juvenile Salmonids. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park, BC. Power, M. E., W. J. Matthews, and A. J. Stewart. 1985. Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction." Ecology 66(5): 1448-1456. Randall, R. G., C. K. Minns, V. W. Cairns, and J. E. Moore. 1996. The relationship between an index of fish production and submerged macrophytes and other habitat features at three littoral areas in the Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(Suppl. 1): 35-44. Ratliff, D. E., S. L. Thiesfeld, W. G. Weber, A. M. Stuart, M. D. Riehle, and D. V. Buchanan. 1996. Distribution, life history, abundance, harvest, habitat, and limiting factors of bull trout in Metolius River and Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon, 1983-94. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. September 1996. 44 p. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 83 Biological Assessment Sanborn, B., P. Callahan, G. Decker, C. Frissell, G. Watson, and T. Weaver. 1998. The relationship between land management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Prepared by The Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group for The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena Montana. 78 p. Savino, J. F. and R. A. Stein. 1989. Behavior of fish predators and their prey: habitat choice between open water and dense vegetation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 24: 287-293. Schlosser, I. J. 1987. The role of predation in age- and size-related habitat use by stream fishes. Ecology 68: 651-659. Scrivener, J. C., T. G. Brown, and B. C. Anderson. 1994. Juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) utilization of Hawks Creek, a small and nonnatal tributary of the upper Fraser River. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 1139-1146. Shirvell, C. S. 1990. Role of rootwads as juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) cover habitat under varying streamflows. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 852-861. Sigler, J. W., T. C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 142- 150. Skeesick, D. G. 1970. The fall immigration of juvenile coho salmon into a small tributary. Research Report of the Fish Commission of Oregon. Fish Commission of Oregon, Research Division, Newport, OR. Steidl, R.J. and R.G. Anthony. 1996. Responses of bald eagles to human activity during the summer in interior Alaska. Ecological Applications 6(2): 482-491. Stein, J. N. 1970. A study of the largemouth bass population in Lake Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 69 p. Stock, M. J., D. E. Schindler, and D. Houck. 2000. Long-term changes in predation rates by piscivorous fishes in response to the warming of Lake Union, WA. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual General Meeting, North Pacific International Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Mt. Vernon, Washington; 10-12 April 2000. Suter, W. 1995. The effect of predation by wintering cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo on grayling Thymallus thymallus and trout (Salmonidae) populations: two case studies from Swiss rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 29-46. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 85 Biological Assessment Volume 64, No. 128, 6 July 1999, proposed rule -Haliaeetus leucocephalus Volume 64, No. 210, 1 November 1999, final rule -Salvelinus confluentus Volume 65, No. 32, 16 February 2000, final rule— designated critical habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 p. Vigg, S., T. P. Poe, L. A. Prendergast, and H. C. Hansel. 1991. Rates of consumption of juvenile salmonids and alternative prey fish by northern squawfish, walleyes, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish in John Day Reservoir, Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120: 421-43 8. Vogele, L. E., and W. C. Rainwater. 1975. Use of brush shelters as cover by spawning black basses (Micropterus) in Bull Shoals Reservoir. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104: 264- 269. Wakeham, S. G. 1977. Hydrocarbon budgets for Lake Washington. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 952-957. Walter, Karen. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. Personal communication, written comment to Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 7 July 2000. Ward, D. L., A. A. Nigro, R. A. Fan, and C. J. Knutsen. 1994. Influence of waterway development on migrational characteristics of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 14: 362-371. Warner, E. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. Personal communication, written comments to Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 7 July 2000. Warner, E. and K. Fresh. 1999. Technical Review Draft: Lake Washington Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. March 25, 1999. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management, Olympia, WA. 141 P. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock inventory appendix: bull trout and Dolly Varden. 437 p. 1999a. Priority Habitats and Species database search results prepared for The Watershed Company, 21 September 1999. 1999b. Bull trout in the Snohomish River system. WDFW Management Brief, April 1999, Mill Creek, WA. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 87 Biological Assessment Wright, Brenda. Fisheries Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Aquatic/Land Interaction Program, Juneau, AK. Personal communication, telephone conversation with, and facsimile to Tom Kahler (The Watershed Company), 13 August 1999. Wydoski, R. S. and R. R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 220 p. Yako, L. A., M. E. Mather, and F. Juanes. 2000. Assessing the contribution of anadromous herring to largemouth bass growth. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129: 77-88. Zimmerman, M. P. 1999. Food habits of smallmouth bass, walleyes, and northern pikeminnow in the lower Columbia River Basin during outmigration of Juvenile anadromous salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128: 1036-1054. The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 Page 89 Biological Assessment Appendix A TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE BETWEEN PROJECT SITE AND NEAREST BALD EAGLE NEST The Watershed Company 990215.3 July 2000 150'- 125'- 100'- 75'- 50'- 25'- 4.4x 0 mi. 0.10 mi. 0.20 mi. 0.30 mi. 0.40 mi. 0.50 mi. 0.60 mi. 0.70 mi. 0.80 mi. 0.90 rr0:0.90 mi.,129' Gain:+122'-12'_+110' Printed from TOPO!©1999 Wildflower Product. rs(www.topo.com) Biological Assessment Appendix B OPERATION/MAINTENANCE MANUAL The W 3tershed Company July 2C 00 990215.3 OPERATION I MMAINTENANCE ANU_L APE / MODEL IBRATORY DRIVER WITH MODEL 330/S2S POWER UNIT 1r 7032 SOUTH 19ath•KENT.WA.98032-(253)872-0141 i FAX(253)872-8710 I{ ji NOISE LEVEL Of APE MODEL 280 POWER UNIT 4 iI i II i i 11 i I 1 i i I APE Model 280 i 1110'0 Maximum rpm I i O dB 0 80 feet 1 18 meters i i 84 dB 6 100 feet H33 meters 1 I I Note: Decibel level can be further reduced by operating at a lower engine rpm. The above chart is based on the power:lit at fail rpm. In mast cases,it Is not 1 necessary to run the engine at fuU rpm to drive or extract piles or when using the power unit for drilling operations. 1 1 1. fags A-24 Biological Assessment Appendix C LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING The Watershed Company 990215.3July2000 Noise Center: Decibel Levels 3/1/0 1:42 Ph Noise Center NOISE LEVELS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT FACT SHEET How Loud is Too Loud?Experts agree that continued exposure to noise above 85 dBA over time,will cause hearing loss.To know if a sound is loud enough to damage your ears,it is important to know both the loudness level(measured in decibels,dBA)and the length of exposure to the sound.In general,the louder the noise,the less time required before hearing loss will occur.According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(1998),the maximum exposure time at 85 dBA is 8 hours.At 110 dBA,the maximum exposure time is one minute and 29 seconds.If you must be exposed to noise,it is recommended that you limit the exposure time and/or wear hearing protection. Measure Up and Turn it Down:Decibel Levels Around Us The following are decibel levels of common noise sources around us. These are typical levels,however,actual noise levels may vary depending on the particular item. Remember noise levels above 85 dBA will harm hearing over time.Noise levels above 140dBA can cause damage to hearing after just one exposure. Points of Reference *measured in dBA or decibels 0 The softest sound a person can hear with normal hearing 10 normal breathing 20 whispering at 5 feet 30 soft whisper 50 rainfall 60 normal conversation 110 shouting in ear 120 thunder htto://www.lhh.oro/noise/decibel.htm Paae 1 of Noise Center: Decibel Levels 3/1/0 1:42 PI Home Work Recreation 50 refrigerator 40 quiet office,library 40 quiet residential area 50-60 electric toothbrush 50 large office 70 freeway traffic 50-75 washing machine 65-95 power lawn mower 85 heavy traffic,noisy restaurant 50-75 air conditioner 80 manual machine,tools 90 truck,shouted conversation 50-80 electric shaver 85 handsaw 95-110 motorcycle 55 coffee percolator 90 tractor 100 snowmobile 55-70 dishwasher 90- 115 subway 100 school dance,boom box 60 sewing machine 95 electric drill 110 disco 60-85 vacuum cleaner 100 factory machinery 110 busy video arcade 60-95 hair dryer 100 woodworking class 110 symphony concert 65-80 alarm clock 105 snow blower 110 car horn 70 TV audio 110 power saw 110-120 rock concert 70-80 coffee grinder 110 leafblower 112 personal cassette player on high 70-95 garbage disposal 120 chain saw,hammer on nail 117 football game(stadium) 75-85 flush toilet 120 pneumatic drills,heavy machine 120 band concert 80 pop-up toaster 120 jet plane(at ramp) 125 auto stereo(factory installed) 80 doorbell 120 ambulance siren 130 stock car races 80 ringing telephone 125 chain saw 143 bicycle horn 80 whistling kettle 130 jackhammer,power drill 150 firecracker 80-90 food mixer or processor 130 air raid 156 capgun 80-90 blender 130 percussion section at symphony 157 balloon pop 80-95 garbage disposal 140 airplane taking off 162 fireworks(at 3 feet) 110 baby crying 150 jet engine taking off 163 rifle 110 squeaky toy held close to the ear 150 artillery fire at 500 feet 166 handgun 135 noisy squeeze toys 180 rocket launching from pad 170 shotgun LEAGUE HOMEPAGE II Noise Center III EMail 1 Copyright 1996-1999 LEAGUE FOR THE HARD OF HEARING-Updated March 19,1999 nirp://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm Page 2 of 2 121-447:\i'S -..-'..x:e.--11-it-IC.0 -!-‘)1 , / fr= - _xi-di) cr -______LE, ,\414-1".'1 r-F-r-'` 1-111--& . 1 1 I ' ' it z ea Ca.toa y v v5_ '<--t3, .- i / ri, t ill 1111511 ° L° R''' . . . 7A-- I lan 12,4L.e7 N5tX_ 7 io L` IZG ' T,o 1 ; ou1IINA Bre 0 nX K 6 ID ESalRDE1-161-1.Il 1 v o 0 4 1-; VACY W.6.V,&1-I D p'r' l o C' 41b1 0 EX,---,tea 1. ve out-1D. 4/0I D 4 ' .12 f.(; of RS II \ kk r`9 l ' FIJAI-1 V4/ 1-A\i-A4 42EA r 'L '•./1.5t7 P' 777AIL c-rypi)1-is.rziL_Ii,_1 a avL 41, i IliI \ 1 b Ew 1?oRr. -off ,i .itim IP1 I D' liiti; -..9 ,/.A IP LE.1 1 E tXl 'I I i--1 rig '' • 1L a/ y„1EEv+ Cv 1,,11 U. ,„,_ 41, 4a,,2 or L c-fl v( LIE i` ,, EfXX#L•r7 I io 0 0 osb.„ S"LoGCS Th,"--:)<K7[11-& ( I tt r tom i g 1114\. , I Oxfam. A, ell SL-61C 1 WM& 44tif.':. 442,99- j o4*v e-2-7-2.nAMDE.baVEL W-P Vtr--447 a alfli iT 7 ?E ! L A f ,. Its i.1 k,tJ 1.11 liYis'1, 11 G. 3.ILILt-1=D• t -.; brL r bcIs-( 12G LS To •o j' 2 TEI 1.' 1i// '13 [E EX o 1'± bS --awt-i. • 1 fAv, i4 D ES ti -i bCl4-1': -r oOviM } i , 3 SI. r .. — A ill,-rr2 = 2ic r 1 7 Lk 2-- , f P2'\/U Tc `71 - =:o I en 2. c.E L I1- 126r,IG 1 2 bILff, ) JL -. PjLfl 2 5—& rilliT ‘76I-- Plj'u QUANTITY COMMON NAME _ BOTANICAL NAME SIZE CONDITION SYMBOL D 2 Vine Maple Acer circinatum 3-4' bare root e XG IIJ allit111410RedOsierDogwoodCornusstolonifera2-3' , bare root 0 1 The Watershed Company bare root GI 12 1410 Market Street, P. O. Box 1180, Kirkland,WA 980331PacificWillowSalixlasiandra3-6' 10 Kinnickinnick Arctostaph los uva urSi 1gal. container m Ct-\./M -21,5 I (-- 2'' ± 425) 822 5242Yvo 10 Oregon Iris Ins tenax 1 gal. container O i" 10 Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus 6"plug Lv / L 2v D.I..,.. .- I I (i ,; r, , , - 12 E0- M. I , pa..l_ A•s' 41-E5. 1 1 R1`D Julie. ?,,;c0